Speech in the House of Commons on India (1772)

Robert Clive (1725–1774) was born into an English minor gentry family. Apprenticed as a “writer” (clerk) in the British East India Company, he arrived in India in 1744, in the midst of the War of the Austrian Succession. The conflict offered opportunities for bold and ambitious men like Clive, and his bravery won him a commission in the company’s army. In 1757 he defeated an Indian army at the Battle of Plassey, and in 1765 received as a gift from the Mughal emperor the province of Bengal, one of the richest and most populous in India. Clive was thus responsible for transforming the East India Company from a trading entity into a governmental one that directly ruled Indian territory. In the following passage from his writings, Clive defended himself against charges of greed and corruption. As you read it, pay particular attention to the way in which Clive used the alleged moral failings of the Indians to justify his own actions.

Indostan [India] was always an absolute despotic government. The inhabitants, especially of Bengal, in inferior stations, are servile, mean [poor], submissive, and humble. In superior stations, they are luxurious, effeminate, tyrannical, treacherous, venal, cruel. The country of Bengal is called, by way of distinction, the paradise of the earth. It not only abounds with the necessaries of life to such a degree, as to furnish a great part of India with its superfluity, but it abounds in very curious and valuable manufactures, sufficient not only for its own use, but for the use of the whole globe. The silver of the west and the gold of the east have for many years been pouring into that country, and goods only have been sent out in return. This has added to the luxury and extravagance of Bengal.

From time immemorial it has been the custom of that country, for an inferior never to come into the presence of a superior without a present. It begins at the nabob,1 and ends at the lowest man that has an inferior. The nabob has told me, that the small presents he received amounted to £300,000 a year; and I can believe him; because I know that I might have received as much during my last government. The Company’s servants have ever been accustomed to receive presents. Even before we took part in the country troubles, when our possessions were very confined and limited, the governor and others used to receive presents; and I will take upon me to assert, that there has not been an officer commanding his Majesty’s fleet; nor an officer commanding his Majesty’s army; not a governor, not a member of council, not any other person, civil or military, in such a station as to have connection with the country government, who has not received presents. With regard to Bengal, there they flow in abundance indeed. Let the House figure to itself a country consisting of 15 millions of inhabitants, a revenue of four millions sterling, and a trade in proportion. By progressive steps the Company have become sovereigns of that empire. Can it be supposed that their servants will refrain from advantages so obviously resulting from their situation? The Company’s servants, however, have not been the authors of those acts of violence and oppression, of which it is the fashion to accuse them. Such crimes are committed by the natives of the country acting as their agents and for the most part without their knowledge. . . . Let us for a moment consider the nature of the education of a young man who goes to India. The advantages arising from the Company’s service are now very generally known; and the great object of every man is to get his son appointed a writer to Bengal; which is usually at the age of 16. His parents and relations represent to him how certain he is of making a fortune; that my lord such a one, and my lord such a one, acquired so much money in such a time; and Mr. such a one, and Mr. such a one, so much in such a time. Thus are their principles corrupted at their very setting out, and as they generally go a good many together, they inflame one another’s expectations to such a degree, in the course of the voyage, that they fix upon a period for their return2 before their arrival.

Let us now take a view of one of these writers arrived in Bengal, and not worth a groat.3 As soon as he lands, a banyan,4 worth perhaps £100,000 desires he may have the honor of serving this young gentleman, at 4s. 6d.5 per month. The Company has provided chambers for him, but they are not good enough: the banyan finds better. The young man takes a walk about the town, he observes that other writers, arrived only a year before him, live in splendid apartments or have houses of their own, ride upon fine prancing Arabian horses, and in palanqueens6 and chaises; that they keep seraglios,7 make entertainments, and treat with champagne and claret. When he returns he tells the banyan what he has observed. The banyan assures him he may soon arrive at the same good fortune; he furnishes him with money; he is then at his mercy. The advantages of the banyan advance with the rank of his master, who in acquiring one fortune generally spends three. But this is not the worst of it: he is in a state of dependence under the banyan, who commits acts of violence and oppression, as his interest prompts him to, under the pretended sanction and authority of the Company’s servant. Hence, Sir, arises the clamor against the English gentlemen in India. But look at them in a retired situation, when returned to England, when they are no longer nabobs and sovereigns of the east: see if there be any thing tyrannical in their disposition towards their inferiors: see if they are not good and humane masters: Are they not charitable? Are they not benevolent? Are they not generous? Are they not hospitable? If they are, thus far, not contemptible members of society, and if in all their dealings between man and man, their conduct is strictly honorable: if, in short, there has not yet been one character found amongst them sufficiently flagitious8 for Mr. Foote9 to exhibit on the theatre in the Haymarket, may we not conclude, that if they have erred, it has been because they were men, placed in situations subject to little or no control?

From “Speech Given in the House of Commons, March 30, 1772,” in The Parliamentary History of England from the Earliest Period to the Year 1803, vol. 17 (London: T. C. Hansard, 1806–1820), pp. 354-357.