Orison Swett Marden - "An Iron Will"

Amelia Simmons - "American Cookery"

Hermannus Angelkot - "Vechter"

Giles Jacob - "Tractus de Hermaphrodites"

Clenched fists and AK-47s
Moreover Technologies - Premier purveyor of real-time news and RSS feeds from across the Web

Decoding the Heavens: Solving the Mystery of the World's First Computer by Jo Marchant review
Ad -

The Natural History of Unicorns by Chris Lavers review
IF THE devil has the best tunes, radicals make the best posters. In Lebanon the propaganda posters of Hizbullah and its allies are a heady mix of bright colour, simple logos and distinctively Arab calligraphy and portraits. The government commissioned

A / B / C / D / E / F / G / H / I / J / K / L / M / N / O / P / R / S / T / U / V / W / Y / Z

The Works Of The Right Honourable Edmund Burke, Vol. IX. (of 12) written by Edmund Burke

E >> Edmund Burke >> The Works Of The Right Honourable Edmund Burke, Vol. IX. (of 12)




That the said Warren Hastings did, in his minutes of the 13th of
February, 1778, himself support that opinion, in the comparison to be
made between Mr. Thomson's proposals, of undertaking the same service
for 60,000 rupees a year for nine years, and the terms of Mr. Frazer's
contracts: preferring the latter, because these were "to effect a
complete repair, which could hardly be concluded in one season, and the
subsequent expense would be but trifling."

Notwithstanding which, the said Warren Hastings urged and prevailed upon
the Council to allow in the first year the full amount proposed by Mr.
Kinlock in his estimate of the necessary repairs, and did burden the
Company with what he must have deemed to be, for the greater part, an
unnecessary expense of 80,000 rupees per annum for four years.

That the permission granted to Mr. Frazer to make dobunds, or new and
additional embankments in aid of the old ones, whenever he should judge
them necessary, at the charge of government, (the said charge to be
verified by the oath of the said Frazer, without any voucher,) was a
power very much to be suspected, and very improper to be intrusted to a
contractor who had already covenanted to keep the old pools in perfect
repair, and to construct new ones wherever the old pools had been
broken down and washed away, or where the course of the rivers might
have rendered new ones necessary, in consideration of the great sums
stipulated to be paid to him by the government.

That the grant of the foregoing contracts, and the permission afterwards
annexed to the second of the said grants, become much more reprehensible
from a consideration of the circumstances of the person to whom such a
grant was made.

That the due performance of the service required local knowledge and
experience, which the said Archibald Frazer, being an officer in the
Supreme Court of Justice, could not have possessed.




XII.--CONTRACTS FOR OPIUM.


That it appears that the opium produced in Bengal and Bahar is a
considerable and lucrative article in the export trade of those
provinces; that the whole produce has been for many years monopolized
either by individuals or by the government; that the Court of Directors
of the East India Company, in consideration of the hardship imposed on
the native owners and cultivators of the lands, who were deprived of
their natural right of dealing with many competitors, and compelled to
sell the produce of their labor to a single monopolist, did authorize
the Governor-General and Council to give up that commodity as an article
of commerce.

That, while the said commodity continued to be a monopoly for the
benefit of government, and managed by a contractor, the contracts for
providing it were subject to the Company's fundamental regulation,
namely, to be put up to auction, and disposed of to the best bidder; and
that the Company particularly ordered that the commodity, when provided,
should be consigned to the Board of Trade, who were directed to dispose
thereof by public auction.

That in May, 1777, the said Warren Hastings granted to John Mackenzie a
contract for the provision of opium, to continue three years, and
without advertising for proposals. That this transaction was condemned
by the Court of Directors, notwithstanding a clause had been inserted in
that contract by which it was left open to the Court of Directors to
annul the same at the expiration of the first or second year.

That, about the end of the year 1780, the said Warren Hastings, in
contradiction to the order above mentioned, did take away the sale of
the opium from the Board of Trade, though he disclaimed, at the same
time, _any intention of implying a censure on their management_.

That in March, 1781, the said Warren Hastings did grant to Stephen
Sulivan, son of Lawrence Sulivan, Chairman of the Court of Directors of
the East India Company, a contract for the provision of opium, without
advertising for proposals, and without even receiving any written
proposals from him, the said Sulivan; that he granted this contract for
four years, and at the request of the said Sulivan did omit that clause
which was inserted in the preceding contract, and by which it was
rendered liable to be determined by orders from the Company: the said
Warren Hastings declaring, contrary to truth, that such clause was now
unnecessary, as the Directors _had approved_ the contract.

That the said Sulivan had been but a few months in Bengal when the above
contract was given to him; that he was a stranger to the country, and to
all the local commerce thereof, and therefore unqualified for the
management of such a concern; and that the said Sulivan, instead of
executing the contract himself, did, shortly after obtaining the same,
assign it over to John Benn and others, and in consideration of such
assignment did receive from the said Benn a great sum of money.

That from the preceding facts, as well as from sundry other
circumstances of restrictions taken off (particularly by abolishing the
office of inspector into the quality of the opium) and of beneficial
clauses introduced, it appears that the said Warren Hastings gave this
contract to the said Stephen Sulivan in contradiction to the orders of
the Court of Directors, and without any regard to the interests of the
India Company, for the sole purpose of creating an instant fortune for
the said Sulivan at the expense of the India Company, without any claim
of service or pretence of merit on his part, and without any apparent
motive whatever, except that of securing or rewarding the attachment and
support of his father, Lawrence Sulivan, a person of great authority and
influence in the direction of the Company's affairs, and notoriously
attached to and connected with the said Warren Hastings.

That the said Stephen Sulivan neither possessed nor pretended to possess
any skill in the business of his contract; that he exerted no industry,
nor showed or could show any exactness, in the performance of it, since
he immediately sold the contract for a sum of money to another person,
(for the sole purpose of which sale it must be presumed the same was
given,) by which person another profit was to be made; and by that
person the same was again sold to a third, by whom a third profit was to
be made.

That the said Warren Hastings, at the very time when he engaged the
Company in a contract for engrossing the whole of the opium produced in
Bengal and Bahar in the ensuing four years on terms of such exorbitant
profit to the contractor, affirmed, that "there was little prospect of
selling the opium in Bengal at a reasonable price, and that it was but
natural to suppose that the price of opium _would fall, from the demand
being lessened_"; that in a letter dated the 5th of May, 1781, he
informed the Directors, "that, owing to the indifferent state of the
markets last season to the Eastward, and the very enhanced rates of
insurance which the war had occasioned, they had not been able to
dispose of the opium of the present year to so great an advantage as
they expected, and that more than one half of it remained still in their
warehouses." That the said Warren Hastings was guilty of a manifest
breach of trust to his constituents and his employers in monopolizing,
for their pretended use, an article of commerce for which he declared
_no purchasers had offered, and that there was little prospect of any
offering, and the price of which_, he said, _it was but natural to
suppose would fall_.

That the said Warren Hastings, having, by his own act, loaded the
Company with a commodity for which, either in the ordinary and regular
course of public auction, or even by private contract, there was, as he
affirmed, no sale, did, under pretence of finding a market for the same,
engage the Company in an enterprise of great and certain expense,
subject to a manifest risk, and full of disgrace to the East India
Company, not only in their political character, as a great sovereign
power in India, but in their commercial character, as an eminent and
respectable body of merchants; and that the execution of this enterprise
was accompanied with sundry other engagements with other persons, in all
of which the Company's interest was constantly sacrificed to that of
individuals favored by the said Warren Hastings.

That the said Warren Hastings first engaged in a scheme to export one
thousand four hundred and sixty chests of opium, on the Company's
account, on board a ship belonging to Cudbert Thornhill, half of which
was to be disposed of in a coasting voyage, and the remainder in Canton.
That, besides the freight and commission payable to the said Thornhill
on this adventure, twelve pieces of cannon belonging to the Company were
lent for arming the ship; though his original proposal was, that the
ship should be armed at his expense. That this part of the adventure,
depending for its success on a prudent and fortunate management of
various sales and resales in the course of a circuitous voyage, and
being exposed to such risk both of sea and enemy that all private
traders had declined to be concerned in it, was particularly unfit for a
great trading company, and could not be undertaken on their account with
any rational prospect of advantage.

That the said Warren Hastings soon after engaged in another scheme for
exporting two thousand chests of opium directly to China on the
Company's account, and for that purpose accepted of an offer made by
Henry Watson, the Company's chief engineer, to convey the same in a
vessel of his own, and to deliver it to the Company's supra-cargoes.
That, after the offer of the said Henry Watson had been accepted, a
letter from him was produced at the board, in which he declared that he
was unable to equip the ship with a proper number of cannon, and
requested that he might be furnished with thirty-six guns from the
Company's stores at Madras; with which request the board complied.

That it appears that George Williamson, the Company's auctioneer at
Calcutta, having complained that by this mode of exporting the opium,
which used to be sold by public auction, he lost his commission as
auctioneer, the board allowed him to draw a commission of one per cent
on all the opium which had been or was to be exported. That it appears
that the contractor for opium (whose proper duties and emoluments as
contractor ended with the delivery of the opium) was also allowed to
draw a commission on the opium then shipping on the Company's account;
but for what reason, or on what pretence, does not appear.

That the said Warren Hastings, in order to pay the said Stephen Sulivan
in advance for the opium furnished or to be furnished by him in the
first year of his contract, did borrow the sum of twenty lacs of rupees
at eight per cent, or two hundred thousand pounds sterling, to be repaid
by drafts to be drawn on the Company by their supra-cargoes in China,
provided the opium consigned to them should arrive safe; but that, if
the adventure failed, whether by the loss of the ships or otherwise, the
subscribers to the above loan were to be repaid their capital and
interest out of the Company's treasury in Bengal.

That the said Warren Hastings, having in this manner purchased a
commodity for which he said there was no sale, and paid for it with
money which he was obliged to borrow at a high interest, was still more
criminal in his attempt, or pretended plan, to introduce it
clandestinely into China. That the importation of opium into China is
forbidden by the Chinese government; that the opium, on seizure, is
burnt, the vessel that imports it confiscated, and the Chinese in whose
possession it may be found for sale punished with death.

That the Governor-General and Council were well aware of the existence
of these prohibitions and penalties, and did therefore inform the
supra-cargoes in China, that the ship belonging to the said Henry Watson
would enter the river at China as an armed ship, _and would not be
reported as bearing a cargo of opium, that being a contraband trade_.

That, of the above two ships, the first, belonging to Cudbert Thornhill,
was taken by the French; and that the second, arriving in China, did
occasion much embarrassment and distress to the Company's supra-cargoes
there, who had not been previously consulted on the formation of the
plan, and were exposed to great difficulty and hazard in the execution
of their part of it. That the ship was delayed, at a demurrage of an
hundred dollars a day, for upwards of three months, waiting in vain for
a better market. The factory estimate the _loss_ to the Company,
including port charges, demurrage, and factory charges allowed the
captain, at sixty-nine thousand nine hundred and ninety-three dollars,
or about twenty thousand pounds sterling.

That the Company's factory at China, after stating the foregoing facts
to the Court of Directors, conclude with the following general
observation thereon. "On a review of these circumstances, with the
extravagant and unusual terms of the freight, demurrage, factory
charges, &c., &c., we cannot help being of opinion that private
considerations have been suffered to interfere too much for any benefit
that may have been intended to the Honorable Company. We hope for the
Honorable Court's approbation of our conduct in this affair. The novelty
and nature of the consignments have been the source of much trouble and
anxiety, and, though we wished to have had it in our power to do more,
we may truly say we have exceeded our expectations."

That every part of this transaction, from the monopoly with which it
commenced, to the contraband dealing with which it concluded, criminates
the said Warren Hastings with wilful disobedience of orders and a
continued breach of trust; that every step taken in it was attended with
heavy loss to the Company, and with a sacrifice of their interest to
that of individuals; and that, if finally a profit had resulted to the
Company from such a transaction, no profit attending it could compensate
for the probable risk to which their trade in China was thereby exposed,
or for the certain dishonor and consequent distrust which the East India
Company must incur in the eyes of the Chinese government by being
engaged in a low, clandestine traffic, prohibited by the laws of the
country.




XIII.--APPOINTMENT OF R.J. SULIVAN.


That in the month of February, 1781, Mr. Richard Joseph Sulivan,
Secretary to the Select Committee at Fort St. George, applied to them
for leave to proceed to Calcutta _on his private affairs_. That, being
the confidential secretary to the Select Committee at Fort St. George,
and consequently possessed of all the views and secrets of the Company,
as far as they related to that government, he went privately into the
service of the Nabob of Arcot, and, under the pretence of proceeding to
Calcutta on his private business, undertook a commission from the said
Nabob to the Governor-General and Council, to negotiate with them in
favor of certain projects of the said Nabob which had been reprobated by
the Company.

That the said Sulivan was soon after appointed back again by the said
Warren Hastings to the office of Resident at the Durbar of the said
Nabob of Arcot. That it was a high crime and misdemeanor in the said
Hastings to encourage so dangerous an example in the Company's service,
and to interfere unnecessarily with the government of Madras in the
discharge of the duties peculiarly ascribed to them by the practice and
orders of the Company, for the purpose of appointing to a great and
confidential situation a man who had so recently committed a breach of
trust to his employers.

That the Court of Directors, in their letter to Bengal, dated the 12th
of July, 1782, and received there on the 18th of February, 1783, did
_condemn and revoke_ the said appointment. That the said Directors, in
theirs to Fort St. George, dated the 28th of August, 1782, and received
there the 31st of January, 1783, did highly condemn the conduct of the
said Sulivan, and, in order to deter their servants from practices of
the same kind, _did dismiss him from their service_.

That the said Hastings, knowing that the said Sulivan's appointment had
been condemned and revoked by the Court of Directors, and pretending
that on the 15th of March, 1783, he did not know that the said Sulivan
was _dismissed_ from the Company's service, though that fact was known
at Madras on the 31st of the preceding January, did recommend the said
Sulivan to be ambassador at the court of Nizam Ali Khan, Subahdar of the
Deccan, in defiance of the authority and orders of the Court of
Directors.

That, even admitting, what is highly improbable, that the _dismission_
of the said Sulivan from the service of the said Company was not known
at Calcutta in forty-three days from Madras, the last-mentioned
nomination of the said Sulivan was made at least in contempt of the
censure already expressed by the Court of Directors at his former
appointment to the Durbar of the Nabob of Arcot, and which was certainly
known to the said Hastings.




XIV.--RANNA OF GOHUD.


That on the 2d of December, 1779, the Governor-General and Council of
Fort William, at the special recommendation and instance of Warren
Hastings, Esquire, then Governor-General, and contrary to the declared
opinion and protest of three of the members of the Council, viz., Philip
Francis and Edward Wheler, Esquires, who were present, and of Sir Eyre
Coote, who was absent, (by whose absence the casting voice of the said
Warren Hastings, Esquire, prevailed,) did conclude a treaty of perpetual
friendship and alliance, offensive and defensive, with a Hindoo prince,
called the Ranna of Gohud, for the express purpose of using the forces
of the said Ranna in opposition to the Mahrattas.

That, among other articles, it was stipulated with the said Ranna by the
said Warren Hastings, "that, whenever peace should be concluded between
the Company and the Mahratta state, the Maha Rajah should be included as
a party in the treaty which should be made for that purpose, and his
present possessions, together with the fort of Gualior, which of old
belonged to the family of the Maha Rajah, if it should be then in his
possession, and such countries as he should have acquired in the course
of war, and which it should then be stipulated to leave in his hands,
should be guarantied to him by such treaty."

That, in the late war against the Mahrattas, the said Ranna of Gohud did
actually join the British army under the command of Colonel Muir with
two battalions of infantry and twelve hundred cavalry, and did then
serve in person against the Mahrattas, thereby affording material
assistance, and rendering essential service to the Company.

That, in conformity to the above-mentioned treaty, in the fourth article
of the treaty of peace concluded on the 13th of October, 1781, between
Colonel Muir, on the part of the English Company, and Mahdajee Sindia,
the Mahratta general, the said Ranna of Gohud was expressly included.

That, notwithstanding the said express provision and agreement, Mahdajee
Sindia proceeded to attack the forts and lay waste the territories of
the said Ranna, and did undertake and prosecute a war against him for
the space of two years, in the course of which the Ranna and his family
were reduced to extreme distress, and in the end he was deprived of his
forts, and the whole not only of his acquired possessions, but of his
original dominions, so specially guarantied to him by the British
government in both the above-mentioned treaties.

That the said Warren Hastings was duly and regularly informed of the
progress of the war against the Ranna, and of every event thereof;
notwithstanding which, he not only neglected in any manner to interfere
therein in favor of the said Ranna, or to use any endeavors to prevent
the infraction of the treaty, but gave considerable countenance and
encouragement to Mahdajee Sindia in his violation of it, both by the
residence of the British minister in the Mahratta camp, and by the
approbation shown by the said Warren Hastings to the promises made by
his agent of observing the strictest neutrality, notwithstanding he was
in justice bound, and stood pledged by the most solemn and sacred
engagements, to protect and preserve the said Ranna from those enemies,
whose resentment he had provoked only by his adherence to the interests
of the British nation.

That, in the only attempt made to sound the disposition of Mahdajee
Sindia relative to a pacification between him and the Ranna of Gohud, on
the 14th of May, 1783, Mr. Anderson, in obedience to the orders he had
received, did clearly and explicitly declare to Bhow Bucksey, the
minister of Mahdajee Sindia, the sentiments of the said Warren Hastings
in the words following: "That it was so far from your [the said
Hastings's] meaning to intercede in his [the said Ranna's] favor, that I
only desired him to sound Sindia's sentiments, and, in case he was
desirous of peace, to mention what I had said; but if he seemed to
prefer carrying on the war, I begged that he would not mention a
syllable of what had passed, but let the matter drop entirely."

That it afterwards appeared, in a minute of the said Hastings in Council
at Fort William, on the 22d of September, 1783, that he promised, at the
instance of a member of the Council, to write to Lieutenant James
Anderson in favor of the Ranna of Gohud, and lay his letter before the
board.

That, nevertheless, the said Hastings, professing _not to recollect_ his
said promise, _did neglect to write a formal letter to Lieutenant
Anderson in favor of the said Ranna of Gohud_, and that the private
letter, the extract of which the said Hastings did lay before the board
on the 21st of October, 1783, so far from directing any effectual
interference in favor of the said Ranna, or commanding his agent, the
said James Anderson, to interpose the mediation of the British
government to procure "_honorable terms_" for the said Ranna, or even
"_safety to his person and family_," contains the bitterest invectives
against him, and is expressive of the satisfaction which the said
Hastings acknowledges himself to have enjoyed in the distresses of the
said Ranna, the ally of the Company.

That the measures therein recommended appear rather to have been
designed to satisfy Mahdajee Sindia, and to justify the conduct of the
British government in not having taken a more active and a more hostile
part against the said Ranna, than an intercession on his behalf.

That, though no consideration of good faith or observance of treaties
could induce the said Hastings to incur the hazard of any hostile
exertion of the British force for the defence or the relief of the
allies of the Company, yet in the said private letter he directed,
that, in case his mediation should be accepted, it should be made _a
specific condition_, that, _if the said Ranna should take advantage of
Sindia's absence to renew his hostilities, we ought, in that case, on
requisition, to invade the dominions of the Ranna_.

That no beneficial effects could have been procured to the said Ranna by
an offer of mediation delayed till Sindia no longer wanted "_our
assistance to crush so fallen an enemy_," at the same time that no
reason was given to Sindia to apprehend the danger of drawing upon
himself the resentment of the British government by a disregard of their
proposal and the destruction of their ally.

That it was a gross and scandalous mockery in the said Hastings to defer
an application to obtain honorable terms for the Ranna, and safety for
his person and family, till he had been deprived of his principal fort,
in defence of which his uncle lost his life, and on the capture of
which, his wife, to avoid the dishonor consequent upon falling into the
hands of her enemies, _had destroyed herself by an explosion of
gunpowder_.

That, however, it does not appear that any offer of mediation was ever
actually made, or any influence exerted, either for the safety of the
Ranna's person and family or in mitigation of the _rigorous intentions_
supposed by Lieutenant Anderson[4] to have been entertained against him
by Mahdajee Sindia after his surrender.

That the said Hastings, in the instructions[5] given by him to Mr. David
Anderson for his conduct in negotiating the treaty of peace with the
Mahrattas, expressed his determination to desert the Ranna of Gohud in
the following words. "You will of course be attentive to any engagements
subsisting between us and other powers, in settling the terms of peace
and alliance with the Mahrattas. I except from this the Ranna of
Gohud.... Leave him to settle his own affairs with the Mahrattas."

That the said Anderson appears very assiduously to have sought for
grounds to justify the execution of this part of his instructions, to
which, however, he was at all events obliged to conform.

That, even after his application for that purpose to the Mahrattas,
whose testimony was much to be suspected, because it was their interest
to accuse and their determined object to destroy the said Ranna, no
satisfactory proof was obtained of his defection from the engagements he
had entered into with the Company.