463 
 
 A2P2, 
 
 1783 
 
 The : of q - Citizen 
 on India Affair* 3
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 AT LOS ANGELES
 
 THE 
 
 LETTERS 
 
 O F 
 
 A CITIZEN 
 
 O N 
 
 INDIA AFFAIRS. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 Printed by GILBERT AND PLUMMER, CREE-CHVRC; 
 LANE, LEADENHALL-STREBT. 1783.
 
 PREFACE, 
 
 WHEN I wrotPthe following Letters, I 
 had not the moft diftant id *a of col- 
 lecting them together; but lome of my friends 
 at the London Tavern and the Queen's- 
 Arms, have allured me that they have been 
 favorably received by the public, and have 
 therefore advifed me to publifli them. This 
 I do, in juft4 to my friend the Proprietor, 
 whofe fcntiments on India Affairs, as contain- 
 
 ied in Ibrae of the letters, may perhaps afford 
 information to thofe, who may have been 
 rnifled by the insinuations in the Ninth and 
 Tenth Reports. 
 
 A I was 
 
 354758
 
 PREFACE, 
 
 j I was alfo induced to collect thefe letters 
 
 together, from having feen the Ninth Rer 
 port advertifed for fale, and earneftly recom- 
 mended to all captains of (hips and others,, 
 who were defirous that their friends in India, 
 (hould be thoroughly and authentically in- 
 formed of the ftate of the Company's Affairs, 
 I do think it the duty of every honeft man, 
 to detect and expofe, as far as in his power, 
 fhe falfities contained in that grofs libel, 
 which was printed fome time ago as a pam- 
 phlet, and is ftill publickly fold under the 
 title of " the Ninth Report of the Select Com- 
 mittee," and has been repeatedly advertifed 
 as containing an account of the Hon. Warren 
 Haftings, Efq. 
 
 A CITIZEN. 
 
 Broad-Street, 
 Sept. 10, 1783.
 
 L E T T E R S, &c. 
 
 LETTER I.- 
 Mr. EDITOR, 
 
 I HAVE lately read two letters, addrefTed 
 to Mr. Burke, by a Major John Scott, 
 and I find, upon enquiry, that this perfon is 
 the agent of Mr. Haftings ; and that Mr. 
 Haft ings has hitherto baffled every attempt 
 made by Parliament, by Minifters, and by 
 the Court of Directors, to remove him from 
 the government of Bengal. I muft confefs to 
 you, Mr. Editor, that I looked up to Mr. 
 Burke, for many years, as to a fuperior being. 
 His eloquence, his learning, his philan- 
 thropy, and his difmtercftednefs, were unqxief- 
 nonable with a great majority of the nation, 
 as well as with myfclf, His conduct in office 
 
 Uft
 
 ( 4 ) 
 
 laft year, was not, however, quite nporr a par 
 with his former profeflions, and the eagcrnefs 
 with which he has purfued his own intereft, 
 and the intereft of his relations, fince the me- 
 morable and difgraceful coalition took place, 
 has induced me to believe that Mr. Burke is at 
 leaft as frail a mortal as myfelf. 
 
 I know nothing of Mr. Haftings, and I 
 believed Mr. Burke was actuated by the 
 pureft motives, in oppofing that gentleman, 
 He reprefented him as the author of the Ma- 
 ratta war ; the caufe of the invafion of the 
 Carnatic , and, of all the fubfequent miferies 
 and diftrefles, to which that unhappy country 
 has fo long been fubject. I was prefent too, 
 in the gallery of the Houfe of Commons, 
 when he fo folemnly pledged himfelf to God, 
 the Houfe of Commons, and his country, to 
 prove Mr, Baftings a moft notorious delin- 
 quent ; and when he laid the world would be 
 aftonimed at a Report he was foon to bring 
 forwards. I was fo much affected, Mr.Editor, 
 with Mr. Burke's eloquent declamation, that 
 I really wondered how any fet of men could 
 be fo mad as to protect, for a moment, fuch a 
 (hocking character as this Mr' Haftings ap- 
 peared
 
 pcared to be. I watched with impatience the 
 publication of Mr. Burke's Report , 1 read it 
 with attention, but without finding proof of 
 Mr. Mattings' delinquency, though, to be 
 fure, it did appear to me that he had carried 
 the power of patronage to an unwarrantable 
 extent, in one inftance, as Mr. Burke ftated it. 
 The appendix I had not then an opportunity 
 of feeing, as it was not published. 
 
 When this Mr. Scott's letters came out, I 
 fent immediately to Sewell's for the pam- 
 phlet ; I read them, and I muft declare to 
 you, Mr. Editor, if what Major Scott ad- 
 vances is founded in truth, he has moft com- 
 pletely exculpated Mr. Haflings ; but if he 
 has mifreprefented any circumft?.nce, I hope 
 he will be punifhed with the utmuft fcverity 
 of the law. One point I can vouch for, that 
 his quotations from the Appendix, which I 
 have lately read, are very exact ; and I wi(h, 
 Mr. Editor, the conduct of his Majcfty's mi- 
 nifters would, ac all times, bear fo fevere a 
 fcruiiny as the conduct of Mr. Haftings has 
 done, particularly in the article of the expen- 
 diture of public money. 
 
 I really
 
 ( 6 ) 
 
 I really conceived, Mr. Editor, that Mr; 
 Haftings had fent Mr. Scott to England, with 
 a view of fecuring him in the pofleffion of 
 the government of Bengal, by management, a 
 word of extenfive fignification ; but I find* 
 upon enquiry, that Mr. Haftings has in- 
 variably prefled for a decifion, without ex- 
 prefling much folicitude as to what it may be ; 
 and that Mr, Scott's fole object has been to 
 defend the character of Mr. Haftings from 
 the ungenerous attacks of men, who are eager- 
 ly waiting for appointments to the Supreme" 
 Council of India. I find too, upon enquiry, 
 Mr. Editor^ that fuch is the opinion Mr. 
 Haftings's conftituents have of his abilities, 
 integrity, and honor, (and the Proprietors of 
 India Stock are as independent men as any 
 in this kingdom) that although the late mi- 
 nifters were againft him ; although the Rock- 
 ingham party, (formerly his firmed friends) 
 and thirteen Directors, including the Chair- 
 man and his Deputy, were againft him, yet 
 their united and ftrenuous endeavours, aided 
 by Treafury letters, could only produce 
 feventy-five votes, out of five hundred and 
 four, for his difmifikm ; four hundred and 
 twenty-eight voting for his continuance. A 
 
 majority
 
 ( 7 ) V 
 
 majority fo confiderable in his favor, muft 
 necefiarily have had great weight, and will, I 
 dare fay, induce every Member of the Honfe 
 of Commons to examine and judge for himklf 
 in future -, and not, as I am afraid was the 
 cafe laft year, depend upon the judgment, 
 the integrity, and the impartiality of Mr. 
 Edmund Burke. Let me again obferve to 
 you, Mr. Editor, that if Major Scott has 
 dared to mifreprefent a fingle circumftance in 
 his letters, he ought to be profecuted with the 
 utmoft feverity of the law ; if he has not, 
 what reparation can the author of the Ninth 
 Report make, for wantonly traducing the 
 character of an abfent man ? 
 
 Sroad-Jfreef, 
 Julj 29,1783. 
 
 A CITIZEN.
 
 LETTER IL 
 
 Mr. EDITOR, 
 
 1 THANK you for your fpeedy infertion of 
 my letter of the 2pth ult. and I feel fo 
 well pleafed with being in print, for the firft 
 time thefe fifty years, that I may perhaps 
 trouble you in future. I allure you, Mr. 
 Editor, my attention has been very {Irongly 
 drawn to the Ninth Report of the Select Com- 
 mittee. Our Parliamentary orators have re- 
 prefented Eaft Indians as little better than 
 Devils upon earth, and I expected to find 
 fome proofs of the delinquency of the man Mr. 
 Burke defcribes, as the firft and moft notorious 
 of thefe plunderers : I mean Mr. Haftings. 
 There is but one accufation againft him in the 
 Ninth Report, which appeared to bear hard 
 upon him ; and that is what I hinted at in my 
 laft letter, giving a contract to the fon of Mr. 
 Sulivan, the .late Chairman of the Court of 
 
 Dire.c-
 
 ( 9 ) 
 
 tors, upon improper terms. To be fure, Mr. 
 Editor, if this could have been proved, it 
 would have funk Mr. Haftings in the opinion 
 of every honeft man ; but, to my furprizje 
 and fatisfaction, I find this tran faction fo fully 
 explained, fo completely juHified from, au- 
 thentic records (unlefs the Appendix deceives 
 me) that every honed man on our fide- Tem- 
 ple Bar, will pronounce Mr. Haftings excul- 
 pated from the charge of wafting the public 
 money for private purpofes. 
 
 I have a very great refpect, Mr. Editor, 
 for our moft excellent Conftitution. But I 
 do think it a misfortune, that it (hould be 
 ftrictly conftitutional for a Committee of the 
 Houfe of Commons to reprefent a man in 
 high office, as a very bafe and unworthy cha- 
 racter, and then to let the matter drop alto- 
 gether; for in this Ninth Report it is ob- 
 fcrved, " That the Committee do not bring 
 '* charges, though their Reports may furnifli 
 ' matter for charges." And further, "That 
 " they are not obliged to report all they hear 
 " or know upon ;i fubject." " That it is at 
 ** the dilcrctinn of the party accuied, to re- 
 " ply, or not,, hereafter." Why, what a 
 B doctrine
 
 doctrine is this, Mr. Editor ? What honeft 
 man, in future, can deep in peace in his bed, 
 who has had any transactions with the public ? 
 He may be abufed and fcandalized, his cha- 
 racter may be attacked, to anfwer a private 
 purpofe, as was really, the cafe with Mr. Su- 
 livan and Sir William James , and, after all, 
 a Secretary of State may get up in the Houfe, 
 .and fay, the determination of his innocence 
 ~ muft be poftponed to a future day ; by thefc 
 means leaving the malicious part of mankind 
 to draw conclufions of the guik of gentlemen 
 who were ready and eager to prove their in- 
 nocence. Now in the cafe of Mr. Mailings, 
 to be fure, any man who reads the Ninth Re- 
 port, will think him guilty : but let the fame 
 . man read the Appendix, and Mr. Scott's let- 
 ters, and he will pronounce, as I do, that 
 . Mr. Haftings has been bafely, and fcanda- 
 4 . loufly treated. 
 
 I have feen, Mr. Editor, in feveral of your 
 . papers, and indeed in other papers too, an 
 account of the appointment of one William 
 Burke, Efqj to the office of Receiver of the 
 Balances due from the Company to the Crown 
 in India. You have been fo accurate as to 
 
 ftatc
 
 C ii ) 
 
 itate the different orders that were ifiued from 
 hence, and the periods at which they were 
 iflued. Still, however, this affair appeared 
 to me fo extraordinary, that I could not give 
 credit to it. That a man, who like Mr. 
 Edmund Burke, had talked for many years 
 of the necefiity of public oeconomy , who 
 had even attacked the Civil Lift j who inter- 
 fered in the domeftic arrangements of our 
 moft gracious Sovereign, God blefs him ' 
 who had brought in a bill to aboli(h fuirdry 
 offices, by which very many worthy families 
 are reduced to beggary and want : That fuch 
 a man, Mr. Editor, mould have created an 
 ufelefs office for his coufin, juft to pet three 
 thoufand pounds a year into his pocket, and 
 to take fo much from the ftate, was, to me, 
 abfolutely incredible ! I fpoke to a brother 
 citizen yefterday, a very honeft, worthy man, 
 who is in the Direction. I afked him if it 
 was true, that William Burke, Efq; was ap- 
 pointed Mr. Edmund Burke's Deputy in 
 India ; and if it was true that no fuch ap- 
 pointment did exifl, in the time of that pro- 
 fufe Minifter, Lord North, as Mr. Burke for- 
 merly defcribed him? He told me, " It ccr- 
 " tainly is To ; no fuch appointment didexift 
 
 * in
 
 /\ 
 
 * c in Lord North's time. I have examined 
 " the Records of the Company, and I find 
 " that William Burke, Efq; was appointed, by 
 " the Lords of the Treafury, Deputy to 
 " Edmund Burke, Efq\ at the recommendation 
 " of the faid Edmund Burke, Efq; and that 
 " this appointment was notified to us by 
 " Ricbard Burke, Ej\\ a few days before the 
 *' death of the Marquis of Rockingham \ and 
 " I can further tell yon, my friend, that the 
 *' appointment is worfe than ufelefs it is 
 " mifchievous." -Really, Mr. Editor, I can 
 find no inftance like this, of a wafle of public 
 money for private purpofes, by Mr. Haftings f 
 
 Mreael'JIreet, 
 Aug. i, 1783, 
 
 A CITIZEN,
 
 ( >3 ) 
 
 LETTER III. 
 
 Mr. EDITOR. 
 
 A Serious and attentive perufal of fome 
 late publications, excited my curiofity 
 in a very great degree, to be fully informed 
 of the conduct of our great men towards Mr. 
 Haftings. Amongft us old fafhioned folks 
 in the city, he is a man, whofe extraordinary 
 and perferering character has attracted our 
 particular attention. All people allow him 
 to be a defpifer of money. I never heard 
 of him foliciting a Peerage, or even the title 
 of a Baronet of Great-Britain frorri any Mini- 
 fter. He has neither family nor parliamentary 
 intereft, nor has his agent Mr.Scott, attempt- 
 ed to force himfdf into the Lower Houfe, 
 that he may meet Mr. Burke upon equal 
 terms. Our city oracles fay, that Mr. Haft- 
 ings poficfil-s very great abilities, with un- 
 common application to bufinefsj and my 
 
 worthy
 
 worthy friend the Director, tells me, that 
 even his enemies in the India-Houfe, allow 
 him to be a found politician, an able ftatef- 
 man, and a fkilful financier. He added, even 
 the croakers, who would perfuade us all was 
 loft, have held down their heads abafhed and 
 afhamed, fince we received the accounts of 
 our late fucceffes, and the Marrata peace. I 
 lately alked a friend of mine, who has four 
 votes, and great intereft in the Proprietary, 
 what would have been the confluence had 
 Mr. Haftings been recalled in 1782? We 
 fhould have loft India, he replied , a new 
 Governor could not have raifed the fupplies, 
 and our negociations with the Marratas muft 
 have been fufpended. -As you wim to be ac- 
 quainted with our politics in Leadenhall- 
 ftreet, I will give you a fliort hiftory of them. 
 When Lord North laid violent hands upon 
 theCompany, in 1773, Mr. Haftings was the 
 Governor of Bengal ; it was thought pru- 
 dent to continue him, but two Gentlemen 
 powerfully connected, were fent out in the 
 Council, and upon the breaking oyt of the 
 difputes in Bengal, Lord North and his 
 friends determined to remove Mr. Haftings ; 
 they procured a majority of one vote 
 
 amongft 
 
 A
 
 C '5 ) 
 
 amongft the Directors, feveral of whom en- 
 joyed Government contracts, to fecond their 
 views-, but the Proprietors overfet the at- 
 tempts of the Miniftry, and in this virtuous 
 ftruggle, were even aflifted by the Duke of 
 Richmond, and all the good men of the 
 Rockingham party, who ufed to fay in thofe 
 days, that the Eaft-India Company ought not 
 to be managed by John Robinfon. You and 
 I, my friend, have lived to fee ftrange altera- 
 tions. The two powerful men, General Cla- 
 vering and Colonel Monfon died ; then it 
 was that Lord North (hewed a defire to fup- 
 port Mr. Haftings , and tho' he had taken 
 much pains to remove him, in 1776, yet in 
 1780, and 1781, he was the very man who 
 propofed him to be continued at the head of 
 the Government. See, my friend, how mat- 
 ters are carried on in this filly country ; for 
 though Mr. Haftings had committed no 
 crime, yet his former friends, the Rocking- 
 hams, deferced him the moment Lord North 
 took him up ! Thus matters went on till 
 March, 1782. You remember with what ad- 
 vantages the Rockingham people then came 
 in, and in how high a light many of us in 
 
 the
 
 the city held Edmund Burke, the panegyriit 
 of that party. We were tired of the Ameri- 
 can war; we heard of nothing but defeats in 
 all quarters. Many of our friends were fo 
 far impofed upon, and led away by the in- 
 flammatory fpeeches of Mr. Fox and Mr. 
 Burke, that we believed Lord North to be 
 the moft extravagant, abandoned, and- flagiti- 
 ous Minifter that this country had. ever been 
 curfed with. To be fure in thofe days, we 
 never thought thefe three men could kiis and 
 be friends in, lefs than a year ; fo ignorant 
 
 we citizens are of high life! We gave 
 
 the new men credit for every thing they did, 
 and every thing they faid ; even Lord Rod^ 
 ney's recal and Mr. Burke's attack upon 
 him, did not excite the popular refentment; 
 what then could the friends of Mr. Haftings 
 expect ? An abfent man ; no family or par- 
 liamentary intereft ; the falary of his office 
 twenty-five thoufahd pounds a year; a prot- 
 pcdt opening of further removals ; for Mr. 
 Haftings once difpofedof, Mr. Hornby, Mr. 
 Wheler, and Mr.Macpherfon would loon have 
 followed : The falaries of thefe Gentlemen 
 amounting to fixty one thoufand pounds a 
 year, independent of the great power and 
 
 patronage
 
 patronage annexed to their offices. Think 
 my friend, what a temptation to the many 
 needy dependents of our great men, who 
 were themfelves, moft of them, at leaft, in 
 the greateft diftrefs, and in debt to every one 
 that would truft them ! Such a profpect was, 
 indeed, enough to allure almoft every gambler 
 at Brooks's, to the ftandard of the Minifter. 
 Two Committees fitting, the virtuous Ed* 
 mund Burkej and the immaculate General 
 Richard Smith, the leading members of one 
 of them. Popular prejudices ftrong; what 
 then had the Miniftry to fear ? Victory wa* 
 fecure i they had only to fix the mode of at- 
 tack. To be fure there were fome members 
 of the cabinet, to their eternal honor be it 
 fpoken, who thought the long and faithful 
 fervices of Mr. Haftings, his fpirit, and de- 
 cifion during the war, his relief of the Car- 
 natic, and his wonderful exertions in every 
 part, deferved a better return than a difgrace- 
 ful and ignominious removal , but they were 
 borne down by the weight of the Rockingham 
 party, and compelled to fubmit. The teme- 
 rity and prefumption of Mr. Haftings's ene- 
 mies did, what his great merits woulcl not 
 otherwife have enabled him to do : it l^him 
 C to
 
 ( 18 ) 
 
 to fave India, The Minifters ordered the 
 Directors to do, what the Proprietors in the 
 end would not permit them to perform. If a 
 Bill had been produced in May, 1782, Mr. 
 Burke and 'his friends might have hurried it 
 through 'in a month ; but they had fo com- 
 pletely filenced Lord North, who fcarcely ap- 
 peared, except in defence of Mr. Rigby, that 
 they did not conceive any body of men would 
 be hardy enough to difpute their pleafure, 
 when it came forth in the form of a vote of 
 the Houfe of Commons. When this vote 
 
 ^ did pafs, though the fate of India depended 
 tapon the wifdom of it, there were, fewer 
 Members prefent, as our Epfom friend tells 
 me, than generally attend a common Turn- 
 pike Bill. Mr. Johnftone told them then, 
 that the vote would be nugatory if the Com- 
 pany differed from the Houfe in opinion, as 
 
 - to the merits of M?. Haftings j but Mr. Fox, 
 and Mr. Burke, in the height of their power 
 and popularly, treated this wholeibme hint 
 with difregard. " Who dare difpute a vote 
 "of this Houfe r'" was the laconic reply, 
 and the minifterial fiat was fent to the India 
 Houie, >here thirteen Directors, including 
 the' Chairs, were obedient to the mandate.. But 
 
 now
 
 now was the time, my friend, for Mr. Fox 
 and Mr. Burke to find, that they were not 
 quite fo powerful on this fide Temple-bar as 
 at Weftminfter. The independent Proprietors 
 who owed Mr. Haftings prote&ion and 
 fupport, in return for long fervice, tried fi- 
 delity, and found integrity, in difficult and 
 tempting fituation?, were, determined to judge 
 for themfelves. The refult you know, and in 
 your next letter afk Mr. Fox, Mr. Burke, 
 and the thirteen Dire&ors of their party, 
 if they do not think the Proprietors perform- 
 ed good fervice to their country and theEaftv 
 India Company, when they preferved Mr, 
 Haftings in the government of Bengal. 
 
 Thefe, Mr. Editor, are my neighbour's fen- 
 timents, and his words, as nearly as I can re- 
 collect them. You (hall have my opinion in 
 another letter. 
 
 Broad ftreety 
 
 ?-4 1783- 
 
 A CITIZEN.
 
 LETTER IV. 
 
 MR. EDITOR, 
 
 IN reading Mr. Scott's preface to his letters, 
 I was a good deal flruck, by the account 
 fce has given of Mr. Burke's moving for 
 papers of fo old a date as 1776, to be laid be- 
 fore the Houfe of Commons, with a view of 
 making the world fuppofe that Mr. Hafting$ 
 had about that time been guilty of fome act 
 of delinquency, or at leaft that a difcovery 
 of former mifdeeds had then been made. We 
 all of us know, Mr. Editor, how fturdily 
 Mr. Burke ftood up in the Houfe of Com- 
 mons, in defence of two men, whom four 
 great lawyers had thought proper objects of a 
 public profecution, and whom the late mu 
 niftry had folemnly difmifled from their of- 
 fices. The reafons afiigned by Mr. Burke, 
 for reftoring them to their ftations were " be- 
 caufe delinquency had not been proved a- 
 
 gainft
 
 { 21 ) 
 
 gainft them," and " that it would be hard to 
 punifh men unconvicted of any crimes:*' 
 Now, Mr. Editor, it was natural for me to 
 enquire particularly what grounds Mr. Burke 
 had for fuppofing Mr. Haftings to be a de- 
 linquent, nay, for affcrting that he was one ? 
 Either thefe grounds muft be very ftrong, I 
 faid to myfelf, or Mr. Burke muft be a very 
 bad man for in one inftance hereftores men 
 to refponfible offices, againft whom there 
 were theftrongeft iufpicions of inal practices, 
 and in another cafe, he pofitively pronounces 
 a Gentleman in high office, a notorious de- 
 linqiunt, previous to his even calling for the 
 proofs. Indeed, Mr. Editor, the proofs ought 
 to be very ftrong to juftify Mr. Burke, in 
 ufing fuch language. Mr. Scott has already 
 detected the fallc ftatement of the opinion of 
 the feveral lawyers who were confulted, and 
 he has proved from their own words, that in- 
 ftead of advifmg a profefution, as the Ninth 
 Report dates, they actually did the very re- 
 verie. In looking over the appendix, I was 
 much ftruck with the opinion of John Smith 
 of Drapers Hall, the Company's Solicitor, 
 a fhrewd, fenfible, long-headed man ; and if 
 he, Mr. Editor, gave fuch an opinion in j 776, 
 
 as
 
 ( 22 ) 
 
 as I now copy from the Appendix to the 
 Ninth Report, No. ur, A. what, I afk 
 you, and through your means I defire to afic 
 Mr. Burke, can any Member of Parliament 
 make of theie charges in the Autumn or 
 Winter of 1783 ? 
 
 " Upon the whole of this evidence, I can* 
 
 " not bring myfelf to think, that there is 
 
 " fufficient ground for the Company to com- 
 
 *' mence a fuit againil Mr, Haftings, for re- 
 
 " covery of thofe fums to which my obferr 
 
 " vations are confined , I mean all the fums 
 
 " dated, except the lack and an half upon 
 
 " which the opinion >of counfel has betn 
 
 " taken. The proof is exceedingly con- 
 
 *.' fufed j but when I confider the eagernefs 
 
 " the majority of the council have fhewn to 
 
 46 eftablifh thofe charges ; the extraordinary 
 
 " nuafures..tfay put-fad for the purpofe-, the 
 
 " very eafy mode of proving the facts if 
 
 lt true j the very (lender proof (if anyj y that 
 
 " is given, the obfervation arifing upon the 
 
 " face of the proof, and the flat contra- 
 
 " diftion of Muny Begum-, thefe various 
 
 " circumftances, on my mind, amount al- 
 
 " jnoft to an abfclute conviflion, that the (lory 
 
 " cannct
 
 " cannot le true. If the fact had been true, 
 " the perfons mentioned by Nundcomar, as 
 " thofe through vvhofe hands the firft four 
 *' articles were paid, "might have been ex- 
 *' amined, and they muft have proved the 
 " fads j but it does not appear, that any one 
 ** of them was called upon, although moft 
 " of them were rcfident in Calcutta. This 
 ** proof would have been eafy and certain ; 
 " if any thing had been given for procuring 
 " the Naibmip for Goordais, he muft have 
 <c known it ; but he was not afked a queftion 
 " upon that fubjecl: : The only witnefles 
 ct that attempt any proof are Nundcomar, 
 " and his fon in-law Goordafs. As toNund- 
 " comar, if his bad character was not too 
 " well eftablimed, not to deferve credit, the 
 " manner in which he tells this ftory would 
 " deftroy his credit. In the outfet, he avows 
 *' making thofe charges againft Mr. Haftings, 
 " only becauie he frared complaints would 
 " be made againft himfelf, and becaufe he 
 44 was angry at Mr. Haftings mewing difre- 
 " fped: to him, and favour to others. He 
 " ftates the money all to hare been paid 
 *' in Auguft, September, October, and No- 
 *' vember 1772 , but the letter produced by 
 
 " him
 
 " him, in confirmation of this ftory, is not 
 pretended to be received till 1773, long 
 ** after the payments are pretended to be 
 " made ; yet the letter imports the requeft of 
 " a loan, to make a payment of One Hundred 
 " Thoufand Rupees. If Nundcomar had 
 " either paid or engaged to pay fuch large 
 " fums for Muny Begum, no doubt in the 
 " letter, he is fuppofed to have written to her, 
 " he would have informed her of it. I can* 
 " not help thinking that this letter was forg- 
 * ed." 
 
 Here, Mr. Editor, I have given you John 
 Smith's opinion. The fentiments of the 
 counfellors were equally honorable for Mr. 
 Haftings. The matter dropped ; yet at this 
 diftance of time, Mr, Burke revives it. In- 
 deed, indeed, Mr. Editor, thefe are fhame- 
 ful proceedings. Is this to be one of the 
 blefied effects of the coalition, that Lord 
 North mail aflift Mr, Burke in the perfecu- 
 tion of fo great a character as Mr. Haftings ? 
 I cannot think fo favorably of Lord North's 
 conduft as Mr. Scott does; but I venture to 
 prophecy, Mr. Editor, that Edmund Burke 
 will be as unfuccefsful in attacking the cha- 
 racter
 
 ( 2 5 ) 
 
 racier and honeft fame of Mr. Haftings, as 
 he was in defending the men whom he re- 
 ttored ibme time ago to their offices. 
 
 When I fee fuch fcandalous doings going 
 forward, I cannot forbear fpeaking out. If I 
 go to 'Change, to the London Tavern, or 
 the Queen's Arms, I meet nothing but long 
 faces : that we are a ruined nation all men 
 agree, and if Lord North, by his meafures, 
 has not brought us to this fad pafs, Mr. Fox 
 and Mr. Burke, by their oppofuion, have done 
 it. Who would have thought, Mr. Editor, 
 that after fuch bitter enmity, thefe men could 
 have joined, for no other purpofe than to 
 mare amongft themfelves, and their depend- 
 ants, the little that is left ! Here we fee 
 Lord North with places for himfelf, his fons, 
 coufins, and others, to a great amount. Then 
 again we behold Mr. Burke with pLces of 
 old (landing, or newly created, in the pol- 
 feflion of himfelf, his fon, brother, and con- 
 fins, to the enormous amount, as I have feen 
 in print, of 25,500!. a year. Then again 
 Mr. Fox with his connections at the Treafury, 
 Admiralty, &:c. Thus dividing the patron- 
 age of England amongft them, and not con- 
 D tented
 
 ( 26 ) 
 
 tented with that, we have ken Mr. Burke 
 attacking in a fhameful manner, (as every 
 man in the city allows, even the few friends 
 that are left to Edmund Burke allow it) a 
 man, who amidft all the ftruggle for places 
 and power in this abandoned country, has 
 proceeded in a fpirited and honorable dif- 
 charge of his duty, and has had the glory to 
 fave India before he knew of the peace in 
 Europe : That Mr. Burke from intereft, 
 paflion, envy, and difappointment, fhould be- 
 have as he has done, it is hot to be wonder- 
 ed at ; but that Lord North fhould adl: the 
 part of Noll Bluff to this Sir Jofeph, is in- 
 deed moft extraordinary ! 
 
 A CITIZEN. 
 
 Broad-Jireet, 6tb Auguft 1783. 
 
 LETTER
 
 LETTER V. 
 
 MR. EDITOR, 
 
 I Dined yefterday with a friend in Surry, 
 who has a feat in parliament, and in his 
 parlour window lay the loth report of the 
 Seleft Committee. What the duce !" ex- 
 cUimed I " soother report from that in- 
 " duflrious, impartial, and indefatigable bo- 
 " dy !"" Yes," replied the Member, " and 
 * a very fevcre one too."^-" I think quite 
 '* the contrary," faid my friend, the Pro- 
 prietor, who was prefent : " I have read 
 it with attention, but can find nothing in 
 it to the difadvantage of Mr. Haftings : it 
 will doubtlcfs be completely anfwered ; 
 but as I have fome little knowledge of 
 India matters, picked up by a conftant at- 
 tendance at General Courts, reading all 
 India pamphlets, and having, for a Bengal 
 
 cor-
 
 eorrefpondent, a very intelligent young man, 
 my nephew William-, I could not read the 
 Tenth Report without putting the reflections, 
 that occurred at the time, upon paper, and 
 they are at the fervice of my friend the Citi- 
 ' zen, if he chufes to make them the fubject 
 
 of his two next letters." To be lure, 
 
 Mr. Editor, I readily accepted his offer, and 
 I hope the following account will be as ac- 
 ceptable to your numerous readers, as, I con- 
 fefs to you, it was to me. 
 
 * Mr. Haftings has faid, and the truth 
 
 * of the obfervation will ftrike every man who 
 
 * attentively reads the Tench Report, That 
 
 * there is no proportion which the wit of 
 
 * man can devife, which the wit of man can- 
 ' not find plaufible, and perhaps even juft 
 
 * caufe of cenfure, by a falle and partial re- 
 e view of it ; and I, of all men, may be al r 
 ' lowed to dread this treatment, after having 
 
 * invariably experienced it in every inftance 
 ' of my public life.' 
 
 The Tenth Report is in fact the fpcecli 
 made by General Richard Smith, at a Court 
 pf Proprietors, on the 24th of October laft, 
 
 enlarged
 
 enlarged and improved. I remember the 
 General told us then, that though we would 
 not hear him, he would take care to be heard 
 iri another place - t and I was prcfent whtn he 
 made his complaint in Parliament, that he 
 was interrupted by clamour by the Proprie- 
 tors, though unluckily he forgot to ftate tha.t 
 he was heard for upwards of an hour with 
 great attention ; it is true, the Court would 
 not patiently attend to a fecond Philippic 
 from him, on the fame day. The Report 
 ftates what the General then faid, that" Mr. 
 Haftings went up to Benares, with a view of 
 getting fifty lacks of rupees, for the Com- 
 pany, from Cheyt Sing , but being difap- 
 pointed, he perfuaded the Vizier to feize the 
 treafures of his mother, for the Company's 
 fcrvice, under the pretence of his having le- 
 vied troops for Cheyt Sing at the time of his 
 revolt, through her eunuchs, Jewar Ally 
 Cawn, and Bchar Ally Cawn. The General 
 lud'crouQy compa-ed thefe men, and their 
 efforts, to Pachierotti and Tenducci, exciting 
 
 a revolt in London This is the outline 
 
 of General Richard Smith's fpeech on that 
 day of triumph for Mr. Haftings, and 'it is 
 the outline of the Tenth Report too. In the 
 
 Re-
 
 ( 30 ) 
 
 Report, as in the fpeech, there are many artful 
 appeals to the paflions and prejudices of the 
 moment ; but the fufpedled compiler of it has 
 at laft- talked himfelf out of all credit. In- 
 deed his profeflions and his adYions are proved 
 to have been fo far at variance, that men will, 
 in future, examine for themfelves, and not 
 take for matter of fa<5t, the fublime rapfodies 
 oftheperfon who protected two public de- 
 faulters, and profecuted Lord Rodney and 
 Mr. Haftings , who from being the calum- 
 niator, is become the panygerift of Lord 
 North, and who earneftly recommending 
 ceconomy when out of place, was the perfon 
 to folicit the eftablilhment of a fmecure 
 office, when in place, for the emolument of 
 a near relation. The people of England 
 having, by fad misfortune, recovered their 
 fober fenfes, and feeing how miferably they 
 were disappointed when they trufted to the 
 
 flowery profeflions of Mr. Burke - y . 
 
 perhaps the following plain narration 
 of authentic fads may now be oppofed, 
 with fuccefs, to the fplendid mifreprefenta- 
 tions contained in the Tenth Report. I 
 find, by my nephew William's letters, that 
 the late Vizier died in the month of 
 
 January,
 
 ( 3' ) 
 
 January, 1775, and that he w asfuppofed 
 to leave behind him above two million 
 flerling, in fpecie and jewels, befides other 
 
 valuable effects. Thefe, as is the cuf- 
 
 tom" of the Eaft, were lodged for fecurity in 
 the Zenana, or womens apartments; and by 
 that means fell into the hands of the Begum, 
 the wife of the Vizier. When Affolph ul 
 Dowlah fucceeded his father, he found a 
 large army greatly in arrears, clamorous, and 
 mutinous for want of pay, and he himfclf de- 
 prived of his father's treafures, which of right 
 belonged to him, was unable to fatisfy their 
 juft demands. The prefenoe of the Englilh 
 army faved his life more than once. Fre- 
 quent applicatibns were made to the old 
 woman, the mother of Aflblph ul Dowlah, 
 for his father's treafures, but without fuccefs. 
 In October, 1775, Mr. John Briftow went to 
 Fyzabad,and he writes to the Supreme Coun- 
 cil, Appendix, No. i " that in explaining 
 " particularly to the Begum, in writing, 
 ** how impoffible it was for the Nabob to 
 " conduct his government without further 
 " afiiftance. I further infinuated to her, that 
 " the treafures fhe poflefled, were the trea~ 
 " fares oftbeJlatCt as Ihe had not fucceedett 
 
 " to
 
 ( 32 ) 
 
 " to them by any legal right , and that they 
 *' had been hoarded up to provide again} ati 
 " emergency." 
 
 After fome negotiation, the old woman' 1 
 confented to pay thirty lacks of rupees, on 
 condition Mr. Briftow would engage, on the: 
 part of the Company, that no further de- 
 mands fhould be made upon hen This he 
 was obliged to confent to, without waiting for 
 inftru6tions from the Supreme Council ; and 
 they approved the meafure, fince it was abfo- 
 
 lutely necefiary. There were feveral dif- 
 
 putes between the Begum's Eunuchs and the 
 Vizier's Minifter, relative to the nature of the 
 effects which were paid in part of the thirty 
 lacks ; and the Begum herlelf wrote a very 
 violent letter to Mr. Haftings, on part of 
 which Mr. Francis makes the- following ob- 
 iervation, " I cannot conceive me (the Be- 
 " gum) has the leaft right to interfere in the 
 " Nabob's government. In a country where 
 " women are not allowed a free agency, in 
 *' the mod trifling domeftic affairs, it feems 
 " extraordinary that this lady mould prefunie 
 " to talk of appointing Minifters, and go- 
 " verning kingdoms. Upon the whole, I 
 
 " io'ok
 
 ( 33 > 
 
 ** look upon the letter as not of her writing, 
 " who probably cannot read, but as the com- 
 '* pofition of fome of her fervants j perhaps 
 44 of the Eunuch who brings it." 
 
 The Begum's complaints were fent to Mr. 
 Briftow, and his obfervations upon them will 
 perhaps throw as much light upon the real 
 character of the Begum, and her Eunuchs, as 
 the committee's reflections on Lieutenant Co- 
 lonel Harpur's evidence, who quitted Bengal 
 ten years ago, and before the death of Sujah 
 Dowlah, which event made the Eunuchs of 
 confequence in Oude. 
 
 Mr. Briflow fays, " In making this com- 
 " plaint, the Begum forgets the improper 
 44 conduit of her own fervants, who have hi- 
 ** therto preferved a fetal independence of tb& 
 44 Nabob's authority, beat the officers of his go- 
 *' vernment, and refufed obedience to his Pere- 
 
 44 wannabs. The Begum's Eunuchs did 
 
 44 induftrioufly fpread reports of Murteza 
 ** Gawn's ill intention?, to break into the 
 4 * Zenana, and feize all the effects and money 
 44 that could be found, The Begum had 
 44 great intcrcft in the late Vizier's time. 
 E " On
 
 ( J4 > 
 
 " On the Nabob's accefiion, he at once placed 
 " the fole management in the hands of Mur- 
 " teza Cawn, which difgufted both her and 
 <{ her adherents, particularly tbeir Eunuchs ^ 
 " who have tbeir views in keeping tie wealth in 
 ** the Begum's poffeffion. The principal, B.ihar 
 " Ally Cawn enjoys her entire confidence" Mr. 
 Briftow fends the Supreme Council, with thefe 
 remarks, a letter from the Begum to him, 
 which concludes thus, " Caufe the 56 lacks 
 '* to be reftored to me ; do not you then take 
 " any part in the affair, and then let Aflblph 
 '* ul Dowla, and Murteza Cawn, in whatever 
 " manner they are able^ take fums of money from 
 " me. They will then fee the confequenees" 
 
 You (hall have the remainder of my 
 friend's remarks, Mr. Editor, in another 
 letter. 
 
 Eroaet-ftreet, 
 Aug. 10, 1783 
 
 A CITIZEN,
 
 I 
 
 LETTER VI. 
 
 Mr. EDITOR, 
 
 Now fend you the remainder of my friend 
 the Proprietor's account. 
 
 *' The agreement between the Vizier and 
 his mother, to which Mr. Briftow, on the 
 part of the Company, was guarantee, was ex- 
 ecuted on the 1 5th of October, 1775, but it 
 was not until the 7th of July, 1776, that fhc 
 paid the balance, or gave alignments, anc) 
 then the Vizier was obliged to fubmit to a 
 confiderable deduction from the fum fpeci- 
 fied in the original treaty. And Mr. Briftow 
 obfcrved to the fupreme Council, " the Be- 
 " gum can make no great claim on the Com- 
 " pany for protection, wbenjhe berfelf has in- 
 " fringed the conditions of the treaty, of 'which 
 " they were the guarantees."' In the lame let- 
 ter,
 
 tcr, dated 3d of January, 1776, Mr. Briftow 
 fays, " How far fhe (the Begum) may be 
 " better affected to the Englifh than the Na- 
 " bob, I leave to the confideration of the 
 " Honorable Board, from the following fact. 
 " On the conclufion of the treaty between 
 *' the Company and the Nabob, the Begum 
 ** blamed his Excellency very highly, and 
 " infilled on his not ceding Benares, offering 
 * c of berfelf a fum of money in lieu of it."? 
 Mr. Briftow writes to the Begum in reply to 
 a letter of complaint from her. " With re- 
 <>' fpect to your Highnefs jaghiers, the Nabob 
 " agrees to one method, which is, that you 
 " give them up entirely, and inltead thereof 
 " receive a monthly flipend, through the 
 * l channel of any perlon you chooic to fix on; 
 ^ for the Nabob obferved to me, that t-n-o 
 ' rulers were too much for one country. By 
 " this propofal, the Nabob is defirous of pro- 
 *' moting your Highnefs' quiec, tranquiliity, 
 " and fatjsfaftion. The Nabob fays that in. 
 " this cafe you will have no vexation, and 
 * will conftantly receive your ftipend with- 
 f put trouble."
 
 ( 37 ) 
 
 This extract proves that the Idea of re. 
 fuming the Begum's jaghier was entertained "V 
 
 as early as 1776 by the Vizier, and not, ( as is 
 iiifmuated in the report, mentioned to him 
 for the firft time in 1781, by Mr. Haftings. 
 
 The Vizier however could not procure his 
 mother's content, to accept an annual fum 
 in lieu of her jaghier, and her Eunuchs were 
 in poffcfilon of very great power and influ- / 
 
 ence, till the time of Cheyt Sing's revolt. Her 
 activity in his behalf, is proved beyond the 
 pofTsbility of a doubt Her difaffVclion, and 
 the intrigues of her Eunuchs were equally 
 well proved. Was not Mr. Haftings, under 
 fuch circumftances, ftricllyjuftifiable in with- 
 drawing our guarantee, and by that means 
 enabling the Vizier topoflefs himfelf of thofe 
 ' treafures which were his undoubted right, 
 and which were to be applied to the prefllng 
 exigencies of the Eaft-India Company? 
 However pathetically Mr. Edmund Burke 
 ci.ay talk or theie matters, his pretended hu- 
 manity will no longer deceive in the City ; 
 and my nephew, William, allured me in one 
 pf his Lift letters, that we owe the preferva- 
 
 tion
 
 tion of India, to the confiderable fum of fe~ 
 ven hundred thoufand pounds, which we re- 
 ceived from the Vizier in February 17821 
 that he could not have paid this money, ex- 
 cept from the hoarded treafures of his de- 
 ceafed father, and thofe ought to have been 
 in his po/Teflion many years ago, fince the 
 Begum, had not the fmalleft right to retain' 
 
 them. This is the true ftate of a tranf- 
 
 a&ion, which the ingenuity of the compiler 
 of the tenth report, has turned and twifted fo 
 as to bewilder a man of common undcrftand- 
 ing. An old lady immured by cuftom in a 
 feraglio for life, was permitted by us, to re- 
 tain a large treafure, the property of her 
 fon; me employs this money, and her exten- 
 five influence, in oppofition to the Britifh 
 government She is compelled in confe- 
 quence to relinquifh the treafure -\no further 
 violence is offered, nor are her Eunuchs ill 
 treated, though well deferving an exemplary 
 punifhment. Leaft the term Eunuch mould 
 infpire my worthy fellow citizens with the 
 idea of a poor, miferable, fqueaking, Italian 
 ballad finger, I will copy an account of a 
 difturbance excited by an Eunuch in Oude,
 
 ( 39 ) i 
 
 as it was fent to me by my nephew Wil- 
 liam, in 1776. 
 
 Cojee Bufiaun a complete Eunuch, was the 
 favorite general of Sujah Dowlah, and very 
 well known to General Smith and Sir Robert 
 Barker. His influence at the court of Oude 
 was confiderably leflened by the death of 
 Snjah Dowlah, though he was continued by 
 his fuccefibr at the head of a large body 
 of his forces, He was jealous of Murteza 
 Cawn, the favorite minifter of Afiblph ul 
 Dowlah, and was fuppofcd to have entered 
 into engagements with Saudut Ally and the 
 Begum, for the depofuion of the Nabob, and 
 the deftruclion of his minifter. In Decem- 
 ber, 1775, Cojee Bufiaun, according to a pre- 
 concerted plan, invited the minifter, Murteza 
 Cawn, to an etertainment with feveral of his 
 principal friends. The Company drank hard, 
 the dancing girls were called in, and, after a 
 little time, Murteza Cawn, the prime mini- 
 fter, was carried in a liate of intoxication in- 
 to another room, and there inhumanly mur- 
 dered. After perpetrating this mocking act, 
 Cojee Bafiaun, with his fword drawn, rumed 
 into the prefence of the Vizier, and was ad- 
 vancing /\
 
 vancing towards his perfon, either to fei&s 
 him, or to put him to death. Bufiaun had 
 drank hard himfelf, and betrayed fuch ilrong 
 marks of confufion in his countenance, that 
 the Vizier with great pretence of mind called 
 out " Will no one rid me of this traitor?" 
 twenty fwords were drawn, and in an inftant 
 Cojee Buflaun was cut to pieces. Saudut 
 Ally fled with a few of his confidential at- 
 tendants, nor were the parties concerned in 
 the plot ever difcoveredj fo far is clear, 
 Murteza Cawn, the Vizier's prime miniiter 
 was murdered by the Eunuch, Cojee Buflaun, 
 who was himfelf put to death by the Vizier's 
 attendants. I relate this 'fact to prove that 
 Eunuchs in India are bold, intriguing, and 
 enterprifing men, nor was it right in General 
 Smith to attempt to miflead us, by compar- 
 ing them -to Pachioretti and Tenducci; he 
 knew better, though fome of us perhaps did 
 not. 
 
 In the tenth report there are fome remarks 
 upon a tranfa&ion, which I thought could 
 not be related to the difcredit of Mr. Haft- 
 ings. He received a prefcnt of ten lacks of 
 rupees from the Vizier and his mjnifters, and 
 
 told
 
 told the Company of it. He received other 
 ptefcnts, to the amount: of nine lacks more, 
 making in all one hundred ?.nd ninety thpu- 
 /and pounds fterling. This large fum he has 
 paid into the Company's treafury. He does 
 not even touch a farthing of the intereft of 
 it, inftead of retaining the principal, which 
 would have enabled him to vye with the 
 gan; biers at Brooks'*, to be ranked as a com- 
 panion for princes of the blood royal of 
 France, and to have procured himfelf and a 
 few or, his ji'icnd.*., fears in a certain afTembly, 
 lit the ;;rx/ general ckciion, by bribery. The 
 compiler of the tenth report has had wit and 
 ingenuity enough to find out that " when 
 " thefe fa<5ls become known in India, it is to 
 " be feared that 'the fervjnts of the Company 
 " will be .incline^! to le-flen their reverence 
 et and rcfjjcdt to thofe acls of parliament 
 <c which were -made to reihain them in-pur- 
 tc fuit of wealth; and that they will be apt 
 " to reconcile to their own min.ds, any devia- 
 " tion from a ftri(5l obedienqe, by quoting 
 " the example of the Governor-General, as 
 " a rule by which they may guide their own 
 " concl.ua: ! " 
 
 F I con-
 
 ( 4* ) 
 
 I conceive it impoflible that a tranfactioa 
 fo honorable to Mr. Haftings in every point 
 of view, can operate to the difad vantage of 
 the ftate, unlefs indeed, the fervants of the 
 Company feeing that a man who has ferved 
 faithfully and honeftly for above three and 
 thirty years, and when he has every reafon to 
 believe hisfcrviceis drawing towards a clofe, 
 candidly declares that he has received pre- 
 fents to the amount of one hundred and ninety 
 thoufand pounds, and accounts to the public 
 treafury for every milling of the principal 
 and intereftj if fuch a man, inftead of receiv- 
 ing from his conftituents a part of this fum ? 
 a life intereft in a part of it, or even the moft 
 trifling mark of approbation, mail have the, 
 mortification to be abufed for fo fingular an 
 acl: of difmtereflednefs and integrity , if this 
 tranfadion mall be mifreprefented without 
 doors, and be the iubjed: of a parliamentary 
 Report ; if that Report fhall be prefented to 
 the Houfe of Commons by a man who ferved 
 in Bengal four years and feven months only, 
 in a ftation inferior to Mr. Haftings, but who 
 was permitted By the Court of Directors to 
 Detain a prefent to the amount of thirty-fix 
 
 thoufand
 
 ( 43 ) 
 
 thoufand pounds, although he actually made 
 the Company pay for all the prefents he 
 made in his public character, to the amount 
 of above fixteen thoufand pounds, and re- 
 tained in his own hands thofe he received in 
 return ; if, I fay, the fervants of the Com- 
 pany obferve, how unequally rewards, and 
 commendations are conferred upon different 
 men, as the fpirit of party, rather than that 
 of juftice prevails; then, and then only, can, 
 this honorable act of the Governor-General 
 operate to the difadvantage of the ftate, by in- 
 ducing theCompany's fervants in India to be- 
 lieve, that no rectitude of conduct can fcreen 
 them from the malignant invectives of par- 
 ty malice, patriotic fpleen, and interefted 
 mifreprefentation." 
 
 Thefe, Mr. Editor, are my friend's remarks, 
 I will give you my homely fentiments in 
 another Letter. 
 
 SroaJ-Jlreet, Augujl u, 1783. 
 
 A CITIZEN.
 
 44- 
 
 LETTER Vlf. 
 
 Mr. EDITOR, 
 
 MY good friend and neigh boiir, th'e 
 Proprietor, called upon me la'ft night, 
 with fome further remarks upon the Tenth 
 Report, which I now tranfcribe, not doubt- 
 ing but that you and your Readers will be 
 amufed and inftruded by them. 
 
 ** I cannot help noticing a very curious af- 
 fertion contained in the Tenth Report: 
 " That the decifion of the Court of Direc- 
 tors, as to the ten kcks of Rupees given by 
 the Vizier and his Minifter to Mr. Haftings 
 was very unjuft." It appears to me that 
 thefe five or fix virtuous Reporters (not pof- 
 lefiing among them a milling of property in 
 India-flock) would perfuade the Court of Di- 
 rectors to return this money, becaufe they re- 
 prefent the Vizier to be a vaflal of the Com- 
 pany's
 
 ( 45 ) 
 
 pony's. Surely neither the Chairman, Sir- 
 Henry Fletcher, nor any of the Directors, will 
 permit one or two men behind the curtain to 
 manage the affairs of the Eaft-India Com- 
 piny. .If any perfon fhould propose, either 
 in a Court of Directors, or in a Committee 
 of Correfpondence, to fend orders to the 
 Governor-General and Council, to pay back 
 thefe ten lacks of 'Rupees to the Vizier, we 
 Should be at no lofs to guefs from what quar- 
 ter that perfon, bringing forward fuch a pro- 
 pofition, was adviied and diiected; but 
 {"houlcl a Jingle Director adopt the ideas of 
 the Select Comm'itte, after having given or- 
 ders Tevefal mbn;hs ago upon the fubject, 
 which were highly proper (becanfe they do 
 not preclude Vhe Eaft-India Company from 
 rewarding hereafter the important fervices cf 
 Mr. Haftings) I hope there will be firmncfs 
 enough in "a majority of the Directors to re- 
 fill the propofition. If -we are to adopt this 
 wild idea of Mr. Burke, let us aft cov.frftent- 
 ly. That gentleman's humanity is fo fub- 
 fervient to his party views, that from him 
 partial juftice cnly can be expected : but fet 
 me afk General Richard Smith, if the Em-- 
 peror Shaw Allum, the Kin<2 of theworid, 
 
 was
 
 ( 46 ) 
 
 was not a vaffal of theCompany, and as poof 
 as any king upon earth, when the General ac- 
 cepted prefents from him ? Why not require 
 x the General to return them all ? I believe the 
 eafh would be very acceptable to his Ma- 
 jefty, for my nephew William, writes me, 
 that from the time he quitted the Englifh, 
 he has fuffered the greateft diftrefs. Why 
 not order the Company to pay his arrears of 
 V tribute, for we have fome patriots amongft us, 
 
 who fay we had no right to withhold it ? 
 Why not pay back to the poor diftreffed 
 unhappy Nabob of Arcot, fome of the mo- 
 ney that the Company has taken from him ? 
 and why not call upon many Englifh gentle- 
 men to refund the prefents they have received 
 from him ? Let us, for God's fake, be a- 
 mufed with no more of thefe rapfodies 5 
 Mr. Haftings is not a man to make ufe of 
 unfair means to procure prefents to himfelf 5 
 he has too much fpirit, and too grezt a difre- 
 gard for money to obtain it by improper 
 means; if the Company thinks proper to 
 retain every milling of the money received, 
 amounting to 190,000^. for their own ufe, 
 let them do it; they have a right to it; but 
 let not the ingenuity of Edmund Burke per- 
 
 fuade
 
 ( 47 ) 
 
 fuade the Chairman or any other Direflor of 
 his party, that we ihall be di!L T raced, if we 
 do not pay to the Vizier and his Minifter, the 
 .ten lacks of Rupees which they gave to iMr, 
 Haft ings in September, 1781. I believe there 
 is not a more diftrefTed Prince in India, than 
 the Raja of Tanjore j why not call upon the N/ 
 family of the Burkes to refund all than they 
 have received from him ? and, to complete 
 with equity, this fyftem of reformation, let 
 us fend tranfports from this country, let us 
 embark every Englifhman in India, and let 
 us in future appear there in the character of 
 traders only. If we are not already fick of 
 the Utopian fchemes cf Edmund Burke, let 
 us give the world a fure proof of our moder- 
 ation. Having loft America, let us abandon 
 India. I remember the time when General ^ 
 Richard Smith poflefled a very large pro- 
 perty in India-ftock, and when he wifhed to 
 be thought the protector of the rights of the 
 Eaft-India Company. He has now fold out 
 even his fingle vote, has declared we are not 
 folvent, and has exerted himii-1: by every 
 pofilble means in his power, both in and out 
 of Parliament, to remove Mr. Haftings. /^ 
 
 Surely
 
 C 48 ) 
 
 Surely, neither Mr. Fox, or any other Mir 
 nifter will think of defiring the Directors to 
 employ a perfon in future, who has been fp 
 hoftile to us." 
 / 
 
 Here, Mr. Editor, I have given you my 
 friend's account at length. I am a blunt 
 citizen, but in my opinion it is very curious 
 that the Select Committee mould fix upon 
 Mr. Haftjngs's preients as the only .ones that 
 ought to be returned. To be fure, Mr. 
 Editor, it is very generous of Mr. Bur^e and 
 General Smith, to difpofe of other people's 
 money as they do, I wifli I. could fee them 
 give up a little of their own with all my 
 heart : a plain man like me muft wonder 
 how this money bufmefs can be a proper ob- 
 ject of enquiry for a Committee inftrudted to 
 enquire into the ft ate of the judicature in Bengal* 
 and how the BritiJhpoJJ'effions in India may be 
 beft governed." The Court of Proprietors 
 are much obliged to thefe gentlemen for their 
 laudable zeal, and I hope, in return, they 
 will appoint William Burke, Efq-, the Tan- 
 jore agent, a Supreme Counfellor -, and Ge- 
 neral Smith, to the government of Bombay.
 
 ( 49 ) 
 
 As you may not hear from me again for a 
 month or two, Mr. Editor, I cannot avoid 
 copying, for the edification of your readers, a 
 few lines from a very extraordinary book juft 
 publiftied, entitled, The Life of Mr. Fox, 
 " But the public was peculiarly charmed an4 
 <c flruck with admiration, by the generous 
 * c and difmterefted patriotifm of Mr. Burke, 
 " &c. &c. &c." I will not forfeit you by a 
 longer extract, but I wifh to know if Ed- 
 mund Burke*s coalition with Lord North, 
 andfecuring to himfelf and his family 25,500!. 
 a year, are proofs either of difmtereftednefs or 
 patriotifm ? If by the Public, the writer 
 means the Citizens of London, or the People 
 of England, I believe, Mr. Editor, they deerri 
 all Patriots in the Miniftry, men of words and 
 not of deeds, having been fo grofsly dupecj 
 and deceived by the very beft of them. 
 
 Broaa-ftreet, 
 Aug. 18, 1783. 
 
 A CJTIZEN.
 
 7
 
 University of California 
 
 SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1388 
 
 Return this material to the library 
 
 from which it was borrowed. 
 
 NV01
 
 3 1158 01047 9870 
 
 000 0177162