ELPHINSTONE'S "BRITISH POWER IN THE EAST." , To tell the truth
about this book at once, it will be read because its subject is always fascinating, and because its author was a singularly fair-minded man, whose character was an adequate guarantee of his accuracy, rather than for any positively fresh light it throws on the great duel between France and England for supremacy in India. It would be unfair to say of this volume that it is Orme et prceterea nihil ; for while, like Macaulay, Mr. Elphinstone puts great faith in that invaluable and dull historian, he has looked carefully into the history of India for himself; he has verified assertions, if he has not made discoveries. To show precisely how Mr. Elphinstone describes events, we shall quote two different accounts of the same occur- rence—the death of the author of the Black-Hole massacre, after the Battle of Plassey—and then give his own. Here, in the first place, is what Macaulay says :—" Surajah Dowlah was taken a few days after his flight, and was brought before Meer Jaffier. There he flung himself on the ground in convul- sions of fear, and with tears and loud cries, implored the mercy which he had never shown. Meer Jaffier hesitated ; but his son Meeran, a youth of seventeen, who in feebleness of brain and savageness of nature greatly resembled the wretched captive, was implacable. Snrajah Dowlah was led into a secret chamber, to which in a short time the ministers of death were sent. In this act the English bore no part; and Meer Jaffier understood so much of their feelings that he thought it neces- sary to apologise to them for having avenged them on their most malignant enemy." One would naturally infer from this, that Meer Jaffier was a consenting party to the death of Surajah Dowlah, or at least that Macaulay believed him to be this. Take, again, the account given of the incident in Mr. Talboys Wheeler's Short History of India :—" Ten days after the battle of Plaesey, Suraj-nd-daula was taken prisoner, and cruelly murdered in the palace at Murshedabad. Other members or partisans of the family, male and female, were put to death in like manner. Mir Jafir threw all the blame upon his son." One must draw the same inference from Mr. Wheeler's narrative as from Macaulay's, though with more hesitation. Finally, here is what is said by Mr. Elphinstone, after carefully reading and balancing the available authorities, including the author of Seir ul Mutakherin :—" Surkj-n-Daula arrived at Murshidabad on the night of July 2nd, and was carried into the presence of the new Nabob. He prostrated himself before his former servant, and begged, with tears and prayers, for life alone. Mir Di& hesitated, and desired that he might be kept in confine- ment; but his son Miran, a violent and unprincipled youth, ordered him of his own authority to be put to death in his prison. The particulars were not known to the English till many months later, and it is still uncertain whether Miran really acted without his father's knowledge. Such, however, was Mir Jfifir's assertion, and on it rested his apology to Clive." Here Mr. Elphinstone leaves the matter precisely as it ought to be, •• Him of the British Power in the Bost. By the late Hoo. Moontateara Elphinetone. Edited by Sir Edward Oolebrooke, Bark London: John Murray. 1887.
—that is to say, "clouded with a doubt." Sir Edward Cole. brooke, who edits this somewhat fragmentary volume, testifies to Mr. Elphinstone's diffidence in publishing his incomplete history of India. "Had it not been," he says, "for the advice of Lord Jeffrey, whom he consulted about publishing the first volume, it is probable it would never have appeared. This distrust assumed the form of despair when he read the brilliant essays, or rather lives, of Clive and Hastings by Macaulay, to whose estimate of the character and career of these great men he rendered warm testimony in his journals. At length, after many doubts of being able to throw any new light on the history of Hastings, or of producing a narrative which would supersede the work of Mill, he threw aside the task for ever." It is to be regretted that Mr. Elphinstone succumbed in this way to despair. The volume which Sir Edward Colebrooke has prepared for the press, may, like everything of Mr. Elphinstone's, read a little like a first- class minute prepared by a first-class Government official. But it merited publication, and it will repay reading. "I have no expectation," he wrote, in what would appear to have been intended as a preface to this volume, and before he abandoned his larger enterprise," that the following pages will be attractive. My hope is that they may be useful." This unpretentious hope is amply justified.
Sir Edward Colebrooke has discharged his duties as Mr. Elphinstone's editor with great and commendable care. He has completed this volume, which he undertook to see through the press, by adding a final chapter. In it he gives an account of the second and final struggle between the French and the English in India, in which Sir Eyre Coote played a part not much inferior to that of Clive in the first ; and the unfortunate, blundering, yet brilliant and brave Lally, played a part very much inferior to that of Dupleix. In other parts of this book, Sir Edward Colebrooke supplements Mr. Elphinstone's text with footnotes containing fresh information, the materials for which have accumulated since Mr. Elphinstone wrote. The early chapters, in which the efforts of the Portuguese and other nations to obtain a footing in India, and the struggles of the East India Company, are detailed, are rendered exceptionally valuable by these editorial notes. The collapse of the Portuguese power, which began so brilliantly in India—Mr. Elphinstone says of it, *" The most powerful nations of Europe might envy the twenty years of the reign of Don Emanuel comprised between the voyage of Vasco da Goma and the death of Albuquerque"—has especially attracted the attention of Sir Edward Colebrooke, and he has carefully gone into all the authorities on the subject, such as Correa, Faris de Souza, and Miekle, the translator of the Lusiad, as to the causes of that decline. There seems to be no question as to the chief of these being the cruelty and plunder that followed in the wake of the Portuguese conquests. For some time the King of Portugal was the sole trader with Portuguese India. The Royal revenue amounted to 1,000,000 crowns, of which 330,000 were drawn from customs, 200,000 from small tributary States, and the remainder from shares of prizes and miscellaneous sources ; bat according to Faris de Souza, the revenue should have been double, but it was reduced by the thefts of officers. "The commanders of all the forts "—here we are brought in touch with the true source of the decline of the Portuguese power—" realised large sums from their private trade, and the Viceroy drew a salary of 18,000 crowns, besides what he derived from the disposal of places, which were all sold; but they made much more by their trade." Again,—" All other officers have great salaries, besides their lawful profits and their more considerable frauds, though their salaries are enough to make them honest ; but avarice knows no bounds." The Portuguese Empire in India was, in fact, ruined by the plundering or nabob Spirit, which would have ruined the British Empire also had it not been exorcised by the energy and courage of Clive at a critical moment. It is difficult for any one now to be so impressed with Olive's moderation as he himself was. But he had at least a soul above "the kinchin lay" of ordinary nabob peculation.
The more we read the story of the struggle for supremacy in India between France and England, the more are we convinced that the victory of England was, both in the higher and in the commonplace sense of the word, Providential. The France that was behind the French settlements in India, that crushed the heart of Dupleix, and condemned Lally to an ignominious death, was, indeed, in a less healthy state than the England that backed up the East India Company, and that declined unduly to punish. or even to censure Clive. Yet one cannot help wondering and doubting what would have happened if the Napoleonic military genius of Clive had not appeared on the scene at the proper moment, and if, say, Lawrence and Watson had been left to struggle as best they could with Bossy and Dupleix. For it is not possible to read the pages of Mr. Elphinatone, supplemented by those of Sir Edward Colebrooke, without coming to the con- clusion that Bossy never had full justice done him by fortune, if not by his countrymen. He prospered in almost all his enterprises—diplomatic rather than military though these were —and it is at least credible that if in the final agony at Pondi- cherry he had been in Lally's place, instead of being his lieu- tenant, the luck of France might have turned even at the eleventh hour. As for Dupleix, Mr. Elphinstone brings into stronger relief than does even Macaulay his energy, resource- fulness, and inability to believe himself beaten, while not making too much of his timidity or of his theatricality, which, besides being essentially French, may have aided him in his dealings with Asiatics. It should never be forgotten that the early successes of Dupleix were more brilliant than those of Clive himself. Of that extraordinary man Mr. Elphinstone speaks in the judicial language which was to be expected of him. He says (we quote from some notes which Sir Edward
Colebrooke has incorporated in his preface) Though Clive had a natural sense of honour, his independent and even reck- less character made him indifferent to the opinions of others, and regardless of form and propriety. The society in which he lived in India was not likely to promote refinement ; the agitated scene in which he was soon engaged, the eager- ness for success, the calamities and disgrace attendant on failure, left little time for reflection or hesitation. The practice of the natives, the example of the French, and the maxims current among his brother-officers, led him to rate boldness and vigour far above scrupulous correctness, and the result was a high sense of honour with little delicacy of sentiment. He could sacrifice his life to his duty, but not his interest to his moderation." It is in this spirit that one should think of Olive's conduct in forgiug the name of Admiral Watson to the sham treaty with Meer Jaffier before the advance against Surajah Dowlah, with a view to circumventing his treacherous Bengalee ally, Omichund. Macaulay " blushes " at having to record the fact ; Mr. Wheeler says that the sham treaty "will stain the memory of Clive until the end of time ;" and from the standpoint of morals, his action is indefensible. Yet it is only fair to ask why the conduct of Admiral Watson should be held up to praise, and that of Clive to execration ? The Admiral objected only to signing the sham treaty himself. He had no objection to another signing it. So at least Clive believed and said when giving his evidence before a Committee of the House of Commons in 1772, and Mr. Wheeler says, without hesitation, " Clive added the name of Watson to the sham treaty with the all knowledge of the Admiral." It is manifest, also, from the account given by Mr. Elphinstone, cautious and detailed though that is, that he believes the same thing. Admiral Watson's soul, therefore, committed forgery, though his pen did not ; Clive committed the forgery with both soul and pen, and to the end of his life contended that he had acted rightly. Is the casuistry of the ostrich so very mach to be preferred to the casuistry of the eagle ?
Previous page
