Three Frenchmen in Bengal: The Commercial Ruin of the French Settlements in 1757Hill, Samuel Charles
History
Three Frenchmen in Bengal: The Commercial Ruin of the French Settlements in 1757
Hill, Samuel Charles
Bengal (India) -- History; Courtin, Jacques Ignace, active 18th century; French -- India; Law, John, 1719-; Renault, Pierre
It may be here pointed out that, not only did the Nawab not insist
on the destruction of the French and Dutch fortifications, but he
did not destroy the fortifications of Calcutta. This proves that if
the English had shown the humility and readiness to contribute which
he desired, he would have left them in peace at the first, or, after
the capture of Calcutta, have permitted them to resettle there
without farther disturbance. In short, the real necessity of making
the European nations respect his authority, instead of guiding him
in a settled course, merely provided a pretext for satisfying his
greed. This is the opinion, not only of the French and English who
were at Murshidabad when the troubles began, but of the English
officials who went there later on and made careful inquiries amongst
all classes of people in order to ascertain the real reason of
Siraj-ud-daula's attack upon the English.
His avarice was to prove the Nawab's ruin.
"Siraj-ud-daula was one of the richest Nawabs that had
ever reigned. Without mentioning his revenues, of which
he gave no account at the Court of Delhi, he possessed
immense wealth, both in gold and silver coin, and in jewels
and precious stones, which had been left by the preceding
three Nawabs. In spite of this he thought only of increasing
his wealth. If any extraordinary expense had to be met
he ordered contributions, and levied them with extreme
rigour. Having never known himself what it was to want
money, he supposed that, in due proportion, money was as
common with other people as with himself, and that the
Europeans especially were inexhaustible. His violence
towards them was partly due to this. In fact, from his
behaviour, one would have said his object was to ruin everybody.
He spared no one, not even his relatives, from whom
he took all the pensions and all the offices which they
had held in the time of Aliverdi Khan. Was it possible for
such a man to keep his throne? Those who did not know
him intimately, when they saw him victorious over his
enemies and confirmed as Nawab by a _firman_[78]from the
Great Mogul, were forced to suppose that there was in his
character some great virtue which balanced his vices and
counteracted their effects. However, this young giddy-pate
had no talent for government except that of making himself
feared, and, at the same time, passed for the most cowardly
of men. At first he had shown some regard for the officers of
the army, because, until he was recognized as Nawab, he felt
his need of them. He had even shown generosity, but this
quality, which was quite opposed to his real character, soon disappeared,
to make place for violence and greed, which decided
against him all those who had favoured his accession in the
hope that he would behave discreetly when he became Nawab."
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account