Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Asian History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Asian History Asian History Forum - China, Japan, Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand, and the Asia-Pacific Region


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 12th, 2013, 10:24 PM   #1
Citizen
 
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 30
Lord Macaulay- Documented Saga of Fraudulence


A servant of Lord Macaulay (believed to be a procurer of young underage native girls for the pleasure of His Excellency) was once caught and thrashed by the girl's'parents. They wanted him (or indirectly Lord Macaulay) to be tried and convicted. Even though the little girl had been raped and murdered and even though enough evidence to convict the servant was available, Lord Macaulay ensured that the criminal servant got away scot free and the poor protesting parents were put in Jail.

Macaulay admits that Magistrates were bribed (and otherwise pressurised), Macaulay admits that false witnesses were created and an army Colonel was influenced. However, Macaulay does not admit that the Indians experienced British "Fairplay and sense of Justice at its finest". The acquittal of the guilty and the persecution of the accused.


Google evidence :

txt_letters_margaret


Macaulay's own words --

On the evening before my departure my bungalow was besieged by a mob of blackguards. The native judge whose business it is to try cases of this kind, under the control of the English authorities, came with them. After a most prodigious quantity of jabbering of which I could not understand one word, I called the judge, who spoke tolerable English, into my room, and learned from him the nature of the case. I was, and still am, in utter doubt as to the truth of the charge. I have a very poor opinion of my man's morals, and a very poor opinion also of the veracity of the accusers. It was however so very inconvenient for me, at setting out on a journey of four hundred miles through countries of which I did not know the language, to be deprived of my servant, that I offered to settle the business at my own expense. This would, under ordinary circumstances, have been easy enough. For the Hindoos of the lower castes have no delicacy on these subjects. The husband would gladly have taken a few rupees and walked away. But the persecutors of my servant interfered, and insisted that he should be brought to trial, in order that they might have the pleasure of smearing him with filth, beating kettles before him, carrying him round the town on an ass with his face to the tail, and giving him a good flogging. As I found that the matter could not be accommodated, I begged the judge to try the cause instantly. He would gladly have done so. But the rabble insisted that the trial could not take place for some days. I argued the matter with them very mildly. I told them that judge, parties, witnesses, were all present, --that there could be no reason for not deciding the matter immediately, --that I must go the next day, --and that if my servant was detained, he would lose his situation, which would be very hard upon him if, on investigation, he appeared to be innocent.
They were obstinate. They returned no answer to my reasons, but threatened the judge, and repeated that my servant should not be tried for three days, and that he should be imprisoned in the meantime. I now saw that their object was to deprive him of his bread, whether he turned out to be guilty or innocent. I saw also that the gentle and reasoning tone of my expostulations made them impudent. They are in truth a race so much accustomed to be trampled on by the strong, that they always consider humanity as a sign of weakness. The judge told me that he never heard any gentleman speak such sweet words to the people in his life. But I was now at the end of my sweet words. My blood was beginning to boil at the undisguised display of rancorous hatred and shameless injustice. I sat down and wrote a line to the Commandant of the station, under whose control the administration of justice is placed. I begged him to give orders that the case might be tried that very evening. He instantly sent the necessary directions. The court assembled; and continued all night in violent contention. At last the judge pronounced my servant not guilty. I did not then know, what I learned some days after, that this respectable magistrate received twenty rupees as a bribe on the occasion.
The beaten party were furious, as you may imagine. The husband would gladly have taken the money which he had refused the day before. But I would not give him a farthing. The rascals who had raised the whole disturbance were furious at being disappointed of their revenge. I had no notion however that they would have gone to such lengths as they did go.
My servant was to set out at eleven in the morning. I was to follow at two. We had made this arrangement in order that he might arrive before me at the bungalow where I was to sleep, and might make everything ready. His palanquin had scarcely left the door when I heard a noise. I looked out. And I saw that the gang of blackguards who had pestered me the day before had attacked him, pulled him out, torn off his turban, stripped him almost naked, and were, as it seemed, about to pull him to pieces. I snatched up a sword-stick, and ran into the middle of them. It was all that I could do to force my way to him: and really, for a moment, I thought my own person in danger as well as his. But this was a mistake. Even in their rage, they retained a great respect for my race and station. I supported the poor wretch in my arms. For, like most of his countrymen, he is a chicken-hearted fellow, and was almost fainting away. They surrounded us storming, and shaking their fists, and would not suffer me to replace him in his palanquin. But my honest barber, a fine old soldier in the Company's army, and a great admirer of me, as soon as he saw me in this scrape, ran to the Governor General's and soon returned with some police officers. I ordered the bearers to turn round, and to proceed instantly to the house of Colonel Crewe, the Commandant.
I was not long detained here. Nothing can be well imagined more expeditious than the administration of justice in this country when the judge is a Colonel and the plaintiff a Councillor. I told my story in three words. In three minutes the rioters were marched off to prison, and my servant with a sepoy to guard him was fairly on his road and out of danger. Though he is, I fear, a very worthless fellow, he seemed deeply affected by my exertions in his defence. He cried, prostrated himself on the ground, and put his turban into my hands. I had and have great doubts about his innocence on this occasion.

Kindly notice how Macaulay talks of the aggrieved party as the "rabble".

An insight into the ugly mindset of a xenophobe.
birder is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 13th, 2013, 03:31 AM   #2

Linschoten's Avatar
nonpareil
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Wessex
Posts: 12,916
Blog Entries: 11

Here is the entire passage from Macaulay's letter to his sister; I will leave it readers to make up their own minds about the matter. As to the utterly unfounded charge that this servant procured underage girls for Macaulay...

"[Calcutta, October 3, 1834:] I told you that my servant Peter died after I had been on the hills about a month. He was succeeded by a man from Bangalore-- a Christian-- such a Christian as the missionaries make in this part of the world, --that is to say a man who superadds drunkenness to the other vices of the natives.... My servant had been persecuted most unmercifully by the servants of some other gentlemen on the hills for his religion. At last they contrived to excite against him, --whether justly or unjustly I am quite unable to say, --the jealousy of one of Lord William's under-cooks. We had accordingly a most glorious tragicomedy-- the part of black Othello by the cook aforesaid, --Desdemona by an ugly impudent Pariah girl, his wife....

On the evening before my departure my bungalow was besieged by a mob of blackguards. The native judge whose business it is to try cases of this kind, under the control of the English authorities, came with them. After a most prodigious quantity of jabbering of which I could not understand one word, I called the judge, who spoke tolerable English, into my room, and learned from him the nature of the case. I was, and still am, in utter doubt as to the truth of the charge. I have a very poor opinion of my man's morals, and a very poor opinion also of the veracity of the accusers. It was however so very inconvenient for me, at setting out on a journey of four hundred miles through countries of which I did not know the language, to be deprived of my servant, that I offered to settle the business at my own expense. This would, under ordinary circumstances, have been easy enough. For the Hindoos of the lower castes have no delicacy on these subjects. The husband would gladly have taken a few rupees and walked away. But the persecutors of my servant interfered, and insisted that he should be brought to trial, in order that they might have the pleasure of smearing him with filth, beating kettles before him, carrying him round the town on an ass with his face to the tail, and giving him a good flogging. As I found that the matter could not be accommodated, I begged the judge to try the cause instantly. He would gladly have done so. But the rabble insisted that the trial could not take place for some days. I argued the matter with them very mildly. I told them that judge, parties, witnesses, were all present, --that there could be no reason for not deciding the matter immediately, --that I must go the next day, --and that if my servant was detained, he would lose his situation, which would be very hard upon him if, on investigation, he appeared to be innocent.

They were obstinate. They returned no answer to my reasons, but threatened the judge, and repeated that my servant should not be tried for three days, and that he should be imprisoned in the meantime. I now saw that their object was to deprive him of his bread, whether he turned out to be guilty or innocent. I saw also that the gentle and reasoning tone of my expostulations made them impudent. They are in truth a race so much accustomed to be trampled on by the strong, that they always consider humanity as a sign of weakness. The judge told me that he never heard any gentleman speak such sweet words to the people in his life. But I was now at the end of my sweet words. My blood was beginning to boil at the undisguised display of rancorous hatred and shameless injustice. I sat down and wrote a line to the Commandant of the station, under whose control the administration of justice is placed. I begged him to give orders that the case might be tried that very evening. He instantly sent the necessary directions. The court assembled; and continued all night in violent contention. At last the judge pronounced my servant not guilty. I did not then know, what I learned some days after, that this respectable magistrate received twenty rupees as a bribe on the occasion.

The beaten party were furious, as you may imagine. The husband would gladly have taken the money which he had refused the day before. But I would not give him a farthing. The rascals who had raised the whole disturbance were furious at being disappointed of their revenge. I had no notion however that they would have gone to such lengths as they did go.

My servant was to set out at eleven in the morning. I was to follow at two. We had made this arrangement in order that he might arrive before me at the bungalow where I was to sleep, and might make everything ready. His palanquin had scarcely left the door when I heard a noise. I looked out. And I saw that the gang of blackguards who had pestered me the day before had attacked him, pulled him out, torn off his turban, stripped him almost naked, and were, as it seemed, about to pull him to pieces. I snatched up a sword-stick, and ran into the middle of them. It was all that I could do to force my way to him: and really, for a moment, I thought my own person in danger as well as his. But this was a mistake. Even in their rage, they retained a great respect for my race and station. I supported the poor wretch in my arms. For, like most of his countrymen, he is a chicken-hearted fellow, and was almost fainting away. They surrounded us storming, and shaking their fists, and would not suffer me to replace him in his palanquin. But my honest barber, a fine old soldier in the Company's army, and a great admirer of me, as soon as he saw me in this scrape, ran to the Governor General's and soon returned with some police officers. I ordered the bearers to turn round, and to proceed instantly to the house of Colonel Crewe, the Commandant.

I was not long detained here. Nothing can be well imagined more expeditious than the administration of justice in this country when the judge is a Colonel and the plaintiff a Councillor. I told my story in three words. In three minutes the rioters were marched off to prison, and my servant with a sepoy to guard him was fairly on his road and out of danger. Though he is, I fear, a very worthless fellow, he seemed deeply affected by my exertions in his defence. He cried, prostrated himself on the ground, and put his turban into my hands. I had and have great doubts about his innocence on this occasion. But I am sure that the persecution which he underwent was prompted by religious malignity, and that the last attack on him, after he had been legally acquitted, was a gross and intolerable outrage. I did not then know that the judg had been corrupted: and even if I had known it, such is that state of Indian morality that there would have been nothing uncommon or disgraceful in the transaction.... Lord William and all the party were surprised and indignant at the outrage which had taken place. It is very seldom that such a thing happens in this country when an European functionary of high rank is concerned. But the rabble of Ootacamund is remarkable for profligacy, ferocity, and impudence.... "
Linschoten is offline  
Old January 13th, 2013, 04:10 AM   #3
Citizen
 
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 30

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linschoten View Post
Here is the entire passage from Macaulay's letter to his sister; I will leave it readers to make up their own minds about the matter. As to the utterly unfounded charge that this servant procured underage girls for Macaulay...
A simple reading establishes that :

1. Macaulay's servant was guilty.
2. Macaulay wanted him freed.
3. The magistrate was bribed to pronounce the servant not guilty.
4. The poor girl's parents wanted justice for their daughter. They were willing to face Macaulay's wrath in the matter.
5. This is the Victor's version of History. Since Indian's were not permitted to operate printing presses there is no Indian version available. In any case, analyses by Indian Historians are debunked by the "superior" British historians and not accepted at all.
6. In three words Macaulay explained the case. ""Set him free" could have been the only three words.
7. The false witnesses and the army colonel , all managed to ensure that the girl's parent's were put in jail within three minutes. British justice at its fastest and finest.

The victim's family is put in jail. The judge is bribed (and threatened by Macaulay himself) to deliver a not guilty verdict.

But Linschoten is not convinced. He cannot prove any of the above assertions to be false .. since they are all recorded in Macaulay's own hand. Otherwise he would have not believed these either.

Linschoten wants cast iron evidence (not evidence that would stand up in a normal court of law) but video tapes, thumb impressions and recorded statements alongwith DNA samples of the victim, before he might even start considering a case against Macaulay.

My dear Linschoten, I have access to exactly the same material as you. Can you not see that a horrendous crime was committed in this case for which a weak Indian family was willing to stand up to Lord Macaulay.

Believe this much. It is documented. It is admitted. It is true. Show some intellectual honesty.

Regarding the servant being a procurer of underage girls for Macaulay.. please feel free to disbelieve it. I never asserted it to be the truth because I personally believe it might be an exaggeration too. But I would not want to dismiss it outright because there has to be some reason for the girl's family to take such a strong step.

Thanks and regards.

Last edited by birder; January 13th, 2013 at 04:32 AM.
birder is offline  
Old January 13th, 2013, 05:26 AM   #4

Linschoten's Avatar
nonpareil
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Wessex
Posts: 12,916
Blog Entries: 11

Quote:
1. Macaulay's servant was guilty.
2. Macaulay wanted him freed.
3. The magistrate was bribed to pronounce the servant not guilty.
4. The poor girl's parents wanted justice for their daughter. They were willing to face Macaulay's wrath in the matter.
5. This is the Victor's version of History. Since Indian's were not permitted to operate printing presses there is no Indian version available. In any case, analyses by Indian Historians are debunked by the "superior" British historians and not accepted at all.
6. In three words Macaulay explained the case. ""Set him free" could have been the only three words.
7. The false witnesses and the army colonel , all managed to ensure that the girl's parent's were put in jail within three minutes. British justice at its fastest and finest.
1. We have no way of telling whether he was guilty or not. Macaulay himself said that there were considerations that pointed in both directions:
"I was, and still am, in utter doubt as to the truth of the charge. I have a very poor opinion of my man's morals, and a very poor opinion also of the veracity of the accusers."

2. Macaulay offered to make a financial settlement, but when this was refused, he accepted that the matter should come to trial; the only way in which he interfered was in insisting that there should be no delay in the trial.

3. The judge was not bribed by Macaulay, but by someone else, and Macaulay only discovered about it later: "I did not then know, what I learned some days after, that this respectable magistrate received twenty rupees as a bribe on the occasion." It is clear from the tone of his remark that he was disgusted by the behaviour of 'this respectable magistrate', as he sarcastically refers to him. There was a trial and Macaulay would plainly have accepted a guilty verdict if that had been the judge's decision. What he didn't want was a delay so that the servant "would lose his situation, which would be very hard upon him if, on investigation, he appeared to be innocent." Note that Macaulay does not prejudge the finding of the court, 'if' he appeared to be innocent when the matter was investigated.

4. Macaulay did not prevent the servant from being tried.

5. References to 'victor's version's of history' seem entirely out of place here. We merely have a straightforward account of the episode in a private letter by Macaulay. Otherwise we would never have heard of it.

6. 'Three words' is a colloquialism which shouldn't be taken literally. At this point the issue was not whether the servant should be set free, he had already been acquitted by the court (though as a result of bribery, as Macaulay subsequently learned). The point is that the servant was subsequently assaulted by the aggrieved parties, so that Macaulay had to come to his rescue, and came under threat from the hostile crowd, which would not allow him to take the servant away.

7. The rioters were marched off to prison, and those who had been under threat from them were rescued. We don't know if the girl's parents were involved in the attack on the servant. Since the servant had been acquitted by the court, Macaulay's actions on this occasion were entirely proper, and he indeed showed some courage in rescuing him from a hostile crowd.

On a further point, there is no indication whatever that the judge was threatened by Macaulay, or he interfered in the trial (beyond insisting that there should be no delay, on reasonable grounds).

If anyone else is following this story, I would just ask them to read the entire account by Macaulay which I posted above, and consider whether he can be fairly accused of having behaved wrongly.
Linschoten is offline  
Old January 13th, 2013, 05:36 AM   #5

Lawnmowerman's Avatar
Cutting your grass
 
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 9,739
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by birder View Post
A simple reading establishes that :

1. Macaulay's servant was guilty.
2. Macaulay wanted him freed.
3. The magistrate was bribed to pronounce the servant not guilty.
4. The poor girl's parents wanted justice for their daughter. They were willing to face Macaulay's wrath in the matter.
5. This is the Victor's version of History. Since Indian's were not permitted to operate printing presses there is no Indian version available. In any case, analyses by Indian Historians are debunked by the "superior" British historians and not accepted at all.
6. In three words Macaulay explained the case. ""Set him free" could have been the only three words.
7. The false witnesses and the army colonel , all managed to ensure that the girl's parent's were put in jail within three minutes. British justice at its fastest and finest.

The victim's family is put in jail. The judge is bribed (and threatened by Macaulay himself) to deliver a not guilty verdict.

But Linschoten is not convinced. He cannot prove any of the above assertions to be false .. since they are all recorded in Macaulay's own hand. Otherwise he would have not believed these either.

Linschoten wants cast iron evidence (not evidence that would stand up in a normal court of law) but video tapes, thumb impressions and recorded statements alongwith DNA samples of the victim, before he might even start considering a case against Macaulay.

My dear Linschoten, I have access to exactly the same material as you. Can you not see that a horrendous crime was committed in this case for which a weak Indian family was willing to stand up to Lord Macaulay.

Believe this much. It is documented. It is admitted. It is true. Show some intellectual honesty.

Regarding the servant being a procurer of underage girls for Macaulay.. please feel free to disbelieve it. I never asserted it to be the truth because I personally believe it might be an exaggeration too. But I would not want to dismiss it outright because there has to be some reason for the girl's family to take such a strong step.

Thanks and regards.

And a Troll is born

Click the image to open in full size.
Lawnmowerman is offline  
Old January 13th, 2013, 06:20 AM   #6
Citizen
 
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 30

Macaulay knew the man was guilty and offered to bribe the girl’s parents. Once this failed he tried to prevail upon the judge to conduct a night trial on Friday and declare the servant not guilty. He did not want to wait till the third day of Monday when evil manipulations might have been hampered. He first impressed upon the judge to conduct a speedy trial so that he (Macaulay) could leave with his servant on a tour. Nothing less was acceptable to Macaulay. To most people this would appear as a clear directive to the judge to render a not guilty verdict. Could a puisne judge have stood up to Macaulay? If the servant was indeed innocent, then why did the trial last for such a long time? The whole night in violent contention?

The three words, three minutes and three witnesses that landed the victim girl’s parents in prison are also accurately recorded by Macaulay in his own hand. Linschoten finds this perfectly normal.



"

Kindly see the following extracted from Macaulay’s narrative above :



Regarding the servant:
1. I have a very poor opinion of my man's morals
2. I had and have great doubts about his innocence on this occasion.



Regarding Macaulay’s attempt to bribe the girl’s parents:
1. I offered to settle the business at my own expense.



Regarding Macaulay’s pressurizing the judge to try the case instantly (at night) without the defense lawyer(who was available on Monday) and in most unusual circumstances.
1. As I found that the matter could not be accommodated, I begged the judge to try the cause instantly



Macaulay told the judge what to do (let the servant accompany Macaulay on the trip):
1. I told them that judge, parties, witnesses, were all present, --that there could be no reason for not deciding the matter immediately, --that I must go the next day, --and that if my servant was detained, he would lose his situation, which would be very hard upon him if, on investigation, he appeared to be innocent.



The girl’s parents were portrayed as the villains. Macaulay did not want his servant in jail even for the weekend.
1. They were obstinate. They returned no answer to my reasons, but threatened the judge, and repeated that my servant should not be tried for three days, and that he should be imprisoned in the meantime.




Macaulay was as xenophobic as other Britishers of that time
1. My blood was beginning to boil at the undisguised display of rancorous hatred and shameless injustice.
After all they had lost only a daughter. What rights did they have..? Macaulay's fair British blood had every reason to boil.



Linschoten believes the servant was innocent..but
1. The violently contentious trial continued all night.
2. The judge was sent “advice” by the British Commandant.
3. The judge also had to be “bribed” by persons close to Macaulay and his servant. The bribe amount was huge (Twenty rupees is two hundred grams of silver—two year wages for the servant in those days).

I sat down and wrote a line to the Commandant of the station, under whose control the administration of justice is placed. I begged him to give orders that the case might be tried that very evening. He instantly sent the necessary directions. The court assembled; and continued all night in violent contention. At last the judge pronounced my servant not guilty. I did not then know, what I learned some days after, that this respectable magistrate received twenty rupees as a bribe on the occasion.



And see how quickly the girl’s parents were sent to Jail. All by Macaulay and his Herculoean effort in securing the correct British form of justice for his servant.

I ordered the bearers to turn round, and to proceed instantly to the house of Colonel Crewe, the Commandant.

I was not long detained here. Nothing can be well imagined more expeditious than the administration of justice in this country when the judge is a Colonel and the plaintiff a Councillor. I told my story in three words. In three minutes the rioters were marched off to prison, and my servant with a sepoy to guard him was fairly on his road and out of danger.


And the matter ended to the entire satisfaction of all concerned except for the hapless girl, now dead and the grieving parents now in Jail.


Also, this from Linshcoten's own observations (totally incorrect and indefensible) :

1. there is no indication whatever that the judge was threatened by Macaulay, or he interfered in the trial (beyond insisting that there should be no delay, on reasonable grounds).--Linschoten

We know that Macaulay called the judge to his chambers in the evening to insist on a night trial. He made the Commandant write to the judge to ensure this. And he tried to buy the girl's father, may be the judge too. And Linschoten continues to believe that MAcaulay did not attempt to influence the trial.!!! Very strange.

2. Macaulay's actions on this occasion were entirely proper--Linschoten

Only Linschoten can believe this.

Linschoten and others of his ilk will not make any attempt to understand the chicanery involved. In fact they would demand strict proof of even the slightest wrongdoing on the part of Macaulay or his valiant servant. Simply because they are convinced of his innocence even before the “trial”. Just like Macaulay was convinced of the need to establish his own servant’s “Innocence”. When even such obvious truths as stare at you are ignored, then perhaps you need to do a major rethink regarding in your nomenclature as a “historian”.


Thanks and regards.

Last edited by birder; January 13th, 2013 at 06:29 AM.
birder is offline  
Old January 13th, 2013, 06:31 AM   #7

Belisarius's Avatar
Dominus Historiae
 
Joined: Jun 2006
From: U.K.
Posts: 10,312

Closed pending review
Belisarius is offline  
Closed Thread

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
documented, fraudulence, lord, macaulay, saga



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lord Macaulay’s address to the British Parliament in 2 February, 1835. Lord Keviv Asian History 65 January 13th, 2013 05:37 AM
History's greatest documented hoaxes Carl J. Weber General History 164 December 13th, 2012 03:57 PM
The Saga of Biorn markdienekes History in Films and on Television 0 March 3rd, 2011 04:58 AM
Saga of the wildwest-1865 U.S. cannelidis1 American History 1 April 17th, 2008 10:05 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.