Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T00:20:35.205Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Nobkissen Versus Hastings’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 December 2009

P. J. Marshall
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the sixth Article of Impeachment brought against him by the House of Commons, Warren Hastings was accused of disobeying the Regulating Act of 1773 and the orders of the Court of Directors of the East India Company by accepting presents from various Indians. These presents included a sum of three lakhs of sicca rupees, or £37,500, described as a loan from Maharaja Nabakrishna, or ‘Nobkissen’ as he was usually known to his European contemporaries. Both the prosecution and the defence agreed that Hastings had originally borrowed the three lakhs, subsequently keeping them and using them to repay money which he claimed was owed to him by the East India Company. The prosecution maintained that Hastings had ‘fraudulently’ extracted the loan and that he had ‘corruptly and illegally’ retained it as a present, inventing the pretext that the Company owed him money. Hastings replied that Nobkissen had converted the loan into a present of his own free will, and that he had accepted it on the Company's behalf and had used it to repay money genuinely spent on its service in the past. His version convinced a majority of those members of the House of Lords who took part in the verdict at the end of the trial, and he was acquitted by 20 votes to 5 on that particular section of the Presents Article. The episode did not, however, end with the Impeachment. Nobkissen filed a Bill against Hastings in the Court of Chancery for the return of his money, and, although he was unsuccessful, much new evidence was disclosed which would have had an important bearing on the Impeachment. The purpose of this article is to review Hastings's relations with Nobkissen in the light of this new material. It may still be possible to accept the peers' verdict that Hastings had acted neither ‘fraudulently’ nor ‘illegally and corruptly’, but before this verdict can be accepted, very much more will have to be taken into account than was discussed at the Impeachment.

Type
Articles
Information
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , June 1964 , pp. 382 - 396
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies 1964

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Since the name ‘Nobkissen’ has been used in nearly all works on the period published in England, I have decided to retain it throughout this article.

2 Journals of the House of Commons, XLII, 682Google Scholar.

3 The principal source for this material is the records of the Court of Chancery in the Public Record Office, consisting of pleadings and depositions in classes C 12 and C 13, decrees and orders class C 33, ‘Town’ depositions C 24/2026, and Registrar's Minute Book C 37/2511. There is also some valuable correspondence between Hastings and his solicitor, Richard Shawe, in the Hastings papers in the British Museum, particularly Add. MS 29202. I am grateful to Earl Fitzwilliam and the Trustees of the Wentworth-Woodhouse Estate for permission to use the Burke MSS in the Sheffield City Library.

4 There is a life of him by Ghose, N. N., Memoirs of Maharaja Nubkissen Bahadur, Calcutta, 1901Google Scholar.

5 This statement was made by Lord Thurlow—presumably on the authority of Hastings himself (Woodfall, W., An impartial account of the debates that occur in the two Houses of Parliament…, London, 1795, II, ‘Supplement’, p. 141)Google Scholar.

6 Khān, Ghulām Ḥusain, Siyar al-muta'akhkhirīn, trans. ‘Kfota Manus’, Calcutta, 1926, II, 237–8Google Scholar, translator's note.

7 Nobkissen to Clive, 26 March 1772, India Office Library, Clive MSS, box 63.

8 C 12/2185/10.

9 Sutherland, L. S., ‘New evidence on the Nandakuma trial’, English Historical Review, LXII, 3, 1957, 462–3Google Scholar.

10 D. Killican to G. Graham, 23 April 1778, H.M. General Register House, Edinburgh, Kinross House MSS 2061/14.

11 Minutes of the evidence taken at the trial of Warren Hastings…, London, 1788–1794, III, 1120–49Google Scholar.

12 ibid., III, 1149.

13 ibid., VI, 2752.

14 Woodfall, , An impartial account of the debates, 1795, II, ‘Supplement’, pp. 136–41Google Scholar.

15 C 12/1334/33; also Journals of the House of Commons, XXXVIII, 539Google Scholar.

16 The English Reports, London, II, 1901, 276Google Scholar; XCVI, 1909, 579–81 and 621–3.

17 Nobkissen v. Sumner, C 12/2181/22.

18 See Stables's reply, 19 August 1788, C 12/2185/10. Stables (d. 1795) had been a member of the Supreme Council since 1782.

19 Nobkissen wrote to Moore, 5 March 1788, Sheffield City Library, WWM, Bk 9b. Moore (1753–1828) was closely associated with the Managers of Hastings's Impeachment.

20 Dunkin to Hastings, 26 March 1791, Add. MS 29172, fol. 266; see also Roy Radachandra Sen [to Moore], n.d., WWM, Bk 9b.

21 C 12/684/17.

22 C 12/697/13.

23 C 12/647/29, C 12/2423/17, and his answer to Hastings's Cross-bill C 12/2185/10.

24 C 13/501.

25 C 12/647/29, C 12/659/22, C 12/2423/17, C 12/674/21, C 12/681/28, and his Cross-bill C12/2185/10.

26 Add. MS 29202, fol. 260.

27 In his examination, Larkins succeeded in evading all questions about the date of the loan (Minutes of the evidence, VI, 2750–1).

28 See copy of the bond, C 24/2026.

29 Thompson's and Major Scott's depositions, ibid.

30 Add. MS 29202, fol. 245. In 1802 Hastings's agent in India could find no one who was able or willing to authenticate Nobkissen's handwriting (W. Jackson to R. and R. Shawe, 16 February 1802, Add. MS 29178, fol. 250).

31 Add. MS 29202, fol. 261.

32 ibid., fols. 245–6.

33 Add. MS 39878, fol. 28.

34 Minutes of the evidence, VI, 2752.

35 Add. MS 39878, fol. 28.

36 See his letter of 31 August 1786, Add. MS 29170, fol. 175.

37 C 33/527, p. 1107.

38 C 13/501.

39 Copy of the shorthand writer's minutes of the judgment, Add. MS 29202, fols. 325–40; printed in Beveridge, H., The trial of Maharaja Nandalcumar: a narrative of a judicial murder, Calcutta, 1886, 392–400Google Scholar. See also the brief report in The English Reports, XXXII, 1903, 791–3Google Scholar.

40 A Fraser to J. N. Tayler, 17 August 1804, Beveridge, , op. cit., 401Google Scholar.

41 Lord Chancellor's Petition Book, C 28/32, p. 134.

42 R. Shawe to Hastings, 3 July 1806, Add. MS 29181, fol. 220.

43 India Office Library, Court Minutes, vol. 109A, p. 664, and vol. 115, p. 385.

44 See Burke's speech, 5 May 1789, and Fox's, 21 May 1794 (Bond, E.A. (ed.), Speeches of the Managers and counsel in the trial of Warren Hastings, London, 1859–1861, II, 155Google Scholar; IV, 236–42).

45 Minutes of the evidence, VI, 2773.

46 Bond, , Speeches of the Managers and counsel, III, 645Google Scholar.

47 Wheler (d. 1784) had been a member of the Supreme Council since December 1777. At this time, he usually supported Francis against Hastings, but he was to some extent bound by the ‘truce’ arranged between Francis and Hastings in February.

48 India Office Library, B[engal] R[evenue] C[onsultations], Range 50, vol. 25, pp. 1143–50. Nobkissen produced bonds for sicca rupees 934,727 with interest at 12%.

49 Grant, James, ‘An historical and comparative analysis of the finances of Bengal’, Fifth Report from the Select Committee of the House of Commons…1812, ed. Firminger, W. K., Calcutta, 1917, II, 407Google Scholar.

50 See India Office Library, Factory Records, Burdwan, vols. 13 and 14.

51 BRC, 26 January 1781, Range 50, vol. 30, pp. 515–22.

52 BRC, 23 August 1782, Range 50, vol. 41, pp. 227–32.

53 S. Charters to D. Anderson, 22 June 1782, Add. MS 45425, fol. 195. The Raja's bonds were officially returned to him on 17 June 1784 (BRC, Range 50, vol. 52, pp. 469–70 and 473).

54 To Anderson, 22 June 1782 and 25 July 1782, Add. MS 45425, fols. 195 and 201.

55 ibid., fols. 195–6.

56 BRC, 26 January 1781, Range 50, vol. 30, p. 516.

57 G. Vansittart to R. Palk, 27 March 1775, Bodleian, dep. b. 97, pp. 77–8.

58 W. Jackson to R, and R. Shawe, 16 February 1802, Add. MS 29178, fol. 250.

59 C 12/2185/10. See also Hastings's comments, Add. MS 29202, fol. 249.

60 Macpherson (c. 1746–1821) had succeeded to the Supreme Council in 1781, after a varied career in India. He was to be Hastings's temporary successor in 1785.

61 Thompson to Hastings, 4 August 1785, Add. MS 29168, fol. 393.

62 Stables to Nobkissen, 19 August 1788, C 12/2185/10.

63 Thompson to Hastings, 25 February 1785, Add. MS 29168, fol. 119. Ganga Govind Singh had been diwan to the Committee of Revenue since 1781. On Hastings's departure, his enemies succeeded in bringing charges against him for which he was permanently suspended from office.

64 The Act was silent on this point, but it did state that if a present accepted by an individual was detected, it should be ‘deemed and construed to have been received, … to and for the sole use’ of the Company (13 Geo. 3, c. 63, sec. 26).

65 Copy of the accounts, Add. MS 29092, fols. 163–7.

66 William Wright's deposition, C 24/2026. The purpose of this deposition is made clear in Shawe's letter to Hastings, 4 March 1802, Add. MS 29178, fol 10.

67 Parkes, J. and Merivale, H., Memoirs of Sir Philip Francis…, London, 1867, II, 59Google Scholar.

68 Add. MS 29089.

69 ibid., fol. 11.

70 Major Scott to Mrs. Hastings, 25 July 1783, Add. MS 29160, fol. 146.

71 Hastings's remittances are listed in his attorneys' accounts, Add. MS 29226.

72 Add. MS 29228, fols. 246–7.

73 ibid., fols. 495–6.

74 Minutes of the evidence, III, 1121.

75 ibid., III, 1112.

76 Major Scott to Hastings, 12 July 1784, Add. MS 29164, fol. 489.

77 List of Hastings's property on 31 January 1786, Add. MS 29229, fols. 379–80.