Accountable Imperial Rule
Can an empire claim sovereignty while treating distant subjects as instruments of revenue? Burke makes the answer turn on whether authority accepts accountability, with justice and political legitimacy at stake.
In 1788, Burke treated Warren Hastings's conduct in Bengal as a test of whether imperial power could escape the rules it imposed on others. Against the Company's claim to govern through discretion and necessity, he assembled evidence of corruption, administrative abuse, and damaged political legitimacy. Sovereignty, on this account, carries obligations: authority must answer to representation, justice, and public scrutiny. Impeachment therefore became more than a judgment on one official; it challenged an empire's right to separate power from accountability.
- governance
- corruption
- accountability
- sovereignty
- justice
- authority
- evidence
- transparency
- legitimacy
- representation
- political ethics
- administration
Enter a dialogue
- You dared anyone to find one text in the Koran that permits arbitrary rule. Why did you answer Hastings with India's own law, not only England's?
- A Brahmin who loses caste is cast out, and his wife and children disown him. Why did this belief, in your view, arm tyranny with extra weapons?
- You impeached Hastings 'in the name of human nature itself'. Who can stand as the victim when a whole people has no voice in an English court?
- Hastings committed his crimes after lawful authority had reproved him. Why does defying a reprimand deepen guilt beyond the act itself?
- Whoever puts his own will in place of law is 'an enemy to God'. Is arbitrary power a sin as well as a crime?