ve
been greater still could Clive have remained longer at his post.' It
was impossible he could remain. In December, 1766, his weakness was
so great as to disable him from writing. He required rest, and as we
have seen he embarked for England at the close of the month
following, to find there, alas! no rest, but, on the contrary, the
bitterest, the most persistent, the most unscrupulous enemies; their
attacks prompted by the corrupt officials whom he had driven from the
posts they had abused, and who were able, nevertheless, to enlist in
their vile {193}persecution statesmen of great renown holding high
office under the Crown.

It is a pitiful tale, this persecution of a man who had rendered the
most magnificent services to his country. The one blot minute
investigation had been able to find in his career was the treatment
of Aminchand. But Aminchand was a blackmailer who had threatened to
betray a state-secret of enormous importance unless he were paid a
sum out of all proportion to the services he rendered. Such a man
deserves no commiseration. His treachery, if Clive had refused to
subscribe to his terms, would have involved the death of thousands,
and might have driven the English out of Bengal. Clive fought him
with the same Asiatic weapon Aminchand had levelled against himself,
and beat him. That his action was wrong in morals, unworthy of his
lofty nature, is unquestionable. But it is not so certain that, under
similar pressure, in circumstances so critical, those who most
bitterly denounced him would have acted otherwise. Some writers have
averred, and until recently it has been accepted, that the deceit
drove Aminchand to madness. But inquiry has dissipated this fiction.
He was, it is true, startled into insensibility by the discovery of
the fact that he had been imposed upon, but, after visiting the
shrine of a famous saint in Malwa, he returned to his business in
Calcutta and prospered till his death. As to the other part of the
same transaction, the signing of the name of Admiral Watson, Clive
stated on oath, in his evidence {194}before the House of Commons,
that although the admiral had refused to sign the document, he had,
to the best of his belief, permitted Mr. Lushington to affix his
name; and certainly amongst those who benefited by the transaction
was Admiral Watson himself, who, after the triumph of the
conspirators, claimed even more than he received. But it was on these
two points that the miscre