‘Nobkissen Versus Hastings’

Abstract

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.