THE
CRAWFORD
CASE-1880
A.
T. Crawford, I.C.S.,
was, in the seventies and eighties of the last century, a very
prominent
and influential officer of the Government of Bombay. He had held
high
posts such as that of the Municipal Commissioner, and also of Revenue
Commissioner
of a Division; and at one time in his career, his prestige was so high
that
he was regarded as only next to the Governor in power and influence.
The
Crawford Markets in Bombay are a monument to his energy and
administrative
capacity as Municipal Commissioner. Later in his career,
his
conduct, both official and private, gave rise to all sorts of
scandals.
Grave charges of corruption were levelled against him; and the then
Governor
of Bombay, Lord Reay, took a very serious, indeed a very severe, view
of
his conduct; with the result that the Government of Bombay
ordered
his prosecution before a magistrate on the charges preferred against
him.
But that idea was subsequently dropped; and Crawford was tried before a
special
Commission, presided over by Mr. Justice Wilson of the Calcutta High
Court.
The inquiry opened in 1880; and the Commission held 67 public sittings,
and
a large number of witnesses were examined. Ultimately
Crawford
was found not guilty of bribery and corruption; or of borrowing moneys
from
his official subordinates. Inverarity appeared for Crawford
throughout;
and I remember Inverarity telling me, that he appeared for Crawford
during
this very lengthy inquiry, without charging any fees, and sacrificing
his
income at the Bar. He said that he did so, only out of his
friendship
for Crawford's brother Leslie Crawford, who was a well-known solicitor,
the
head of the firm of Crawford, Brown, Bayley & Co. In
Inverarity's
opinion the Commission's conclusion was right. Crawford was
not
guilty of either bribery or corruption. He was only
careless;
and the villain of the piece was a personal clerk of his, who made him
sign
all sorts of papers which Crawford signed blindly and
recklessly.
The Governor, Lord Reay, however, was not satisfied with the report of
the
Commission. The Government claimed that, under Act XXVII of
1850,
they were entitled to review the report; and they made a representation
to
the Secretary of State, who ordered the removal of Crawford's name from
the
list of Civil servants.
As
a sequel to the
Inquiry, a very difficult question arose, which placed the Government
of
Bombay in an extremely awkward situation. It seems that
during
the pendency of the inquiry before the Commission, the Government had
authorised
the offer of complete indemnity to all such witnesses as would come
forward
and give evidence to prove that they had given illegal gratification to
Crawford.
These witnesses included, among others, various subordinate judicial
officers,
who, according to their evidence, had in effect purchased their posts
by
bribery. They were, of course, all covered by the Government
indemnity.
But Lord Cross, the Secretary of State, took a very serious view
of
the position. According to him, it would not be proper and
conducive
to good government, to allow persons who had purchased, on their own
admission,
judicial offices, to retain their posts. It would be highly
prejudicial
to the administration of law and order. He accordingly
issued
instructions that "the general rule must be that those who had
given
bribe must be deprived of their offices." The Bombay
Government
found themselves on the horns of a dilemma. On the one
hand,
they were bound in honour to fulfil the indemnity which they had given
to
the officials. On the other, there was the order of the
Secretary
of State, requiring these witnesses to vacate their offices as being
unfit,
from the standpoint of public expediency and morality, to hold the
offices
any longer. Ultimately, the Governor-General issued a
modified
Act of indemnity. It protected the officers from
prosecution;
but they were ordered to send in their resignations; and some monetary
compensation
was provided for them.
The
truth of the matter
appears to be that Lord Reay, who was a puritan, was scandalized by the
lavish
living of Crawford, his extravagant and ostentatious hospitality, and
his
reckless borrowings from all and sundry. The Governor was
determined
to make an example of Crawford; and Crawford's undoing was entirely due
to
his mode of living, scarcely in keeping with the dignity and decorum
expected
of a high government official; and also to the machinations of the
rascally
clerk, who had acquired a tremendous influence over him. It
was
clear that some of Crawford's subordinates had obtained their jobs
through
the agency of this clerk. Money had passed; but it was
conclusively
shown before the Commission, that it had all been pocketed by the wily
intermediary;
and not a single rupee had gone into Crawford's own pocket.
This
was Inverarity's honest and considered opinion, long after Crawford had
passed
into obscurity and oblivion; and was only remembered in Bombay, if at
all,
as a picturesque and flamboyant personality in the official history of
Bombay.
Crawford's case was in actual life a near parallel to the case of the
solicitor
Wickfield in "David Copperfield ", and his villainous clerk Uriah
Heep-"
Heap of infamy"-as Mr. Micawber, who ultimately exposed his rascality
and
saved his master Wickfield from the brink of ruin, called him.
* * *
* *
|