"Honorable Sir and Sirs,—The day before yesterday I encamped near Allahabad, where the Vizier did me the honor of a visit; and yesterday morning, in my way hither, I returned it, and was received by his Excellency with every mark of respect and distinction. This morning he called here, and we had some general conversation, which principally turned upon the subject of his attachment to the English, and his readiness to show the sincerity of it upon all occasions. It is to be wished we had employed the influence which such favorable sentiments must have given us more to the benefit of the country and ourselves; but I fear the distresses which evidently appear on the face of the one, and the failure of the revenues to the other, are not to be wholly ascribed to the Vizier's mismanagement."
This is the testimony of Mr. Hastings's own pensioner, Sir Eyre Coote, respecting the known state of the country during the time of this horrible usurpation, which Sir Eyre Coote mentions under the soft name of our influence. But there could be but one voice upon the subject, and that your Lordships shall now hear from Mr. Hastings himself. We refer your Lordships to the Minute of the Governor-General's Consultation, Fort William, 21st May, 1781: he is here giving his reasons for going into the upper provinces.
"The province of Oude having fallen into a state of great disorder and confusion, its resources being in an extraordinary degree diminished, and the Nabob Asoph ul Dowlah having earnestly entreated the presence of the Governor-General, and declared, that, unless some effectual measures are taken for his relief, he must be under the necessity of leaving his country, and coming down to Calcutta, to present his situation to this government,—the Governor-General therefore proposes, with the concurrence of Mr. Wheler, to visit the province of Oude as speedily as the affairs of the Presidency will admit, in hopes that, from a minute and personal observation of the circumstances of that country, the system of management which has been adopted, and the characters and conduct of the persons employed, he may possibly be able to concert and establish some plan by which the province of Oude may in time be restored to its former state of affluence, good order, and prosperity."
Your Lordships have now the whole chain of the evidence complete, with regard to the state of the country, up to the period of Mr. Hastings's journey into the country. You see that Mr. Hastings himself admits it to have been formerly in a most flourishing, orderly, and prosperous state. Its condition in 1781 he describes to you in words than which no enemy of his can use stronger, in order to paint the state in which it then was. In this state he found it, when he went up in the year 1781; and he left it, with regard to any substantial regulation that was executed or could be executed, in the state in which he found it,—after having increased every one of those grievances which he pretended to redress, and taken from it all the little resources that remained in it.
We now come to a subsequent period, at which time the state of the country is thus described by Mr. Bristow, on the 12th December, 1782.
"Despotism is the principle upon which every measure is founded, and the people in the interior parts of the country are ruled at the discretion of the aumil or foujdar for the time being. They exercise, within the limits of their jurisdiction, the powers of life and death, and decisions in civil and other cases, in the same extent as the sovereign at the capital. The forms prescribed by the ancient institutions of the Mogul empire are unattended to, and the will of the provincial magistrate is the sole law of the people. The total relaxation of the Vizier's authority, his inattention and dislike to business, leave the aumils in possession of this dangerous power, unawed, uncontrolled by any apprehension of retrospection, or the interference of justice. I can hardly quote an instance, since the Vizier's accession to the musnud, of an aumil having been punished for oppression, though the complaints of the people and the state of the country are notorious proofs of the violences daily committed: it is even become unsafe for travellers to pass, except in large bodies; murders, thefts, and other enormities shocking to humanity, are committed in open day."
In another paragraph of the same letter, he says,—
"Such has been the system of this government, that the oppressions have generally originated with the aumils. They have been rarely selected for their abilities or integrity, but from favor, or the means to advance a large sum upon being appointed to their office. The aumil enters upon his trust ruined in reputation and fortune; and unless he accomplishes his engagements, which is seldom the case, disgrace and punishment follow. Though the balance of revenue may be rigorously demanded of him, it has not been usual to institute any inquiry for oppression. The zemindars, thus left at the mercy of the aumils, are often driven to rebellion. The weak are obliged to submit to his exactions, or fly the country; and the aumil, unable to reduce the more powerful, is compelled to enter into a disgraceful compromise. Every zemindar looks to his fort for protection, and the country is crowded with them: Almas Ali Khân asserts there are not less than seven hundred in his districts. Hence it has become a general custom to seize the brother, son, or some near relation or dependant of the different zemindars, as hostages for the security of the revenue: a great aumil will sometimes have three or four hundred of these hostages, whom he is obliged to confine in places of security. A few men like Almas Ali Khân and Coja Ain ul Din have, from their regularity in the performance of pecuniary engagements, rendered themselves useful to the Vizier. A strict scrutiny into his affairs was at all times irksome to his Excellency, and none of the ministers or officers about his person possessing the active, persevering spirit requisite to conduct the detail of engagements for a number of small farms, it became convenient to receive a large sum from a great farmer without trouble or deficiency. This system was followed by the most pernicious consequences; these men were above all control, they exacted their own terms, and the districts they farmed were most cruelly oppressed. The revenue of Rohilcund is reduced above a third, and Almas Ali Khân's administration is well known to have been extremely violent."
We will next read to your Lordships an extract from Captain Edwards's evidence.
"Q. Had you any opportunity of observing the general face of the country in the time of Sujah Dowlah?—A. I had.—Q. Did you remark any difference in the general state of the country at that time and the period when you made your latter observation?—did you observe any difference between the condition of the country at that time, that of Sujah Dowlah in the year 1774, and the latter period you have mentioned?—A. I did,—a very material difference.—Q. In what respect?—A. In the general aspect that the country bore, and the cultivation of the country,—that it was infinitely better cultivated in 1774 than it was in 1783.—Q. You said you had no opportunity of observing the face of the country till you was appointed aide-de-camp to the Nabob?—A. No,—except by marching and countermarching. I marched in the year 1774 through the Nabob Sujah ul Dowlah's provinces into Rohilcund.—Q. Had you those opportunities from the time of your going there in 1774?—A. I had; but not so much as I had after being appointed aide-de-camp to the Vizier, because I was always before in a subordinate situation: I marched in a direct line before, with the troops; but afterwards, when I was aide-de-camp to his Excellency, I was my own master, and made frequent excursions into the different parts of the country.—Q. Had you an opportunity of observing the difference in the general happiness and disposition of the people?—A. I had.—Q. Did you observe a difference in that respect also between your first coming and the year 1783?—A. Yes, a very sensible difference: in Sujah ul Dowlah's time the country was in a very flourishing state, in merchandise, cultivation, and every article of commerce, and the people then seemed to be very happy under his government, which latterly was not the case; because the country in reality appeared in the year 1774 in a flourishing state, and in the year 1783 it appeared comparatively forlorn and desolate.—Q. Was the court of Asoph ul Dowlah, when you left India, equal in point of splendor to what it was in the time of Sujah ul Dowlah?—A. By no means: it was not equally splendid, but far inferior.—Q. Were the dependants and officers belonging to the court paid in the same punctual manner?—A. No: I really cannot say whether they were paid more regularly in Sujah Dowlah's time, only they appeared more wealthy and more able to live in a splendid style in his time than they ever have done since his death."