of no other.  It follows that whatever rewards he receives for his services ought to be given either by his own government, or with the full knowledge and approbation of his own government.  This rule ought to be strictly maintained even with respect to the merest bauble, with respect to a cross, a medal, or a yard of coloured riband.  But how can any government be well served, if those who command its forces are at liberty, without its permission, without its privity, to accept princely fortunes from its allies?  It is idle to say that there was then no Act of Parliament prohibiting the practice of taking presents from Asiatic sovereigns.  It is not on the Act which was passed at a later period for the purpose of preventing any such taking of presents, but on grounds which were valid before that Act was passed, on grounds of common law and common sense, that we arraign the conduct of Clive.  There is no Act that we know of, prohibiting the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs from being in the pay of continental powers, but it is not the less true that a Secretary who should receive a secret pension from France would grossly violate his duty, and would deserve severe punishment.  Sir John Malcolm compares the conduct of Clive with that of the Duke of Wellington.  Suppose,—­ and we beg pardon for putting such a supposition even for the sake of argument,—­that the Duke of Wellington had, after the campaign of 1815, and while he commanded the army of occupation in France, privately accepted two hundred thousand pounds from Lewis the Eighteenth, as a mark of gratitude for the great services which his Grace had rendered to the House of Bourbon; what would be thought of such a transaction?  Yet the statute-book no more forbids the taking of presents in Europe now than it forbade the taking of presents in Asia then.

At the same time, it must be admitted that, in Clive’s case, there were many extenuating circumstances.  He considered himself as the general, not of the Crown, but of the Company.  The Company had, by implication at least, authorised its agents to enrich themselves by means of the liberality of the native princes, and by other means still more objectionable.  It was hardly to be expected that the servant should entertain strict notions of his duty than were entertained by his masters.  Though Clive did not distinctly acquaint his employers with what had taken place and request their sanction, he did not, on the other hand, by studied concealment, show that he was conscious of having done wrong.  On the contrary, he avowed with the greatest openness that the Nabob’s bounty had raised him to affluence.  Lastly, though we think that he ought not in such a way to have taken anything, we must admit that he deserves praise for having taken so little.  He accepted twenty lacs of rupees.  It would have cost him only a word to make the twenty forty.  It was a very easy exercise of virtue to declaim in England against Clive’s rapacity; but not one in a hundred of his accusers would have shown so much self-command in the treasury of Moorshedabad.