The Rule of Law against the Rule of Greed: Edmund Burke against the East India Company

Abstract

At the end of the 18th century Bengal suddenly came under the rule of the East India Company. The former trading company had become the sovereign, first, of a country the size of France, and eventually of the whole Indian subcontinent. The Company was not controlled by any positive law, be it Indian, British or international. As a consequence, the Company’s individual and corporate greed reigned supreme, with the most dire consequences for the native Indian population. The Indian question aroused the interest of Edmund Burke. He saw in India a metaphor for his native Ireland and was suspicious of the corruption of British politics by the money and influence that the Company’s men had gained in India. He therefore made it the aim of his life to fight the Company’s unrestrained avarice by fostering an impeachment trial against Warren Hastings, the first Governor General of Bengal. In order to get Hastings convicted it was necessary to show that he had infringed the law. But which law should Hastings’ judges apply? He resorted to Natural Law and Roman Law. Thence he took the maxim »Eundem negotiatorem et dominum«, that is to say, commerce which aims at profit, and government which aims at the welfare of the population, are irreconcilable. Though after many years Hastings was acquitted, Burke contributed by this trial to civilising British rule in India. Burke’s stance has recently been criticised by the post-colonial school: He should have pleaded for the British to quit India rather than improving their rule and thereby prolonging its existence.