463 
 
 A2P2 
 1784 
 
 >eches in the House 
 of Commons on the Original 'test 
 India Bill and on the Amended 
 Bill 
 
 By 
 Philip Francis
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 AT LOS ANGELES
 
 TWO SPEECHES 
 
 I H THE 
 
 HOUSE OF COMMONS 
 
 O N 
 
 THE ORIGINAL EAST-INDIA BILL 
 
 AND ON 
 
 THE AMENDED BILL, 
 
 O K 
 
 THE 1 6 th AND 26 th OF J U L Y, 1784, 
 
 a Y 
 
 PHILIP FRANCIS, Es c^ 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 Printed for J . DEBRETT, oppofite Burlington Houfc, Piccadilly.
 
 -He* 
 
 A -/ 
 
 / - 
 
 HOUSE OF COMMONS. 
 
 FRIDAY, JULY 16, 1784. 
 
 " A H E order of the day being read, for the 
 ' Houfe to refolve itfelf into a Committee of 
 " the whole Houfe, upon the Bill for the better 
 *' regulation and management of the affairs of the 
 " Eaft- India Company, and of the Britilh pof- 
 (f feffions in India, and for eftabliihing a Court of 
 " Judicature for the more fpeedy and effectual 
 " trial of perfons accufed of offences committed 
 " in the Eaft Indies ; the Speaker put the queftion, 
 kf jhould now leave the chair f n 
 
 Mr. FRANCIS. 
 
 Mr. SPEAKER, 
 
 I am forry that I muft be obliged to oppofe 
 
 your leaving the chair. My opinion of the bill 
 
 will not allow me to confent to its going to a 
 
 Committee | for I not only think it materially de- 
 
 B fedtive
 
 fect'ive in the detail, but liable to fundamental 
 and eflential objections. Particular provifions might 
 be added, improved, or omitted ; but objections, 
 that go to the foundation and effence of the bill, 
 are not to be removed by any alterations, that would 
 not make it compleatly a new one. I have atten- 
 tively confidered the fubject; and I mean, if the 
 Houfe will permit me, to fubmit to you my opinion 
 of it, more at large than I Ihould venture to do 
 any other. I mean to examine the principles as 
 well as the provifions of the bill ; a taflc, I fear, 
 not to be performed without a long and a tedious 
 difcuilion. To me the talk is particularly heavy, 
 but I am bound to undertake it by many obliga- 
 tions. The labour we are engaged in does not 
 offer me the fame hopes, which it may have fug- 
 gefled to others : I am not encouraged to engage 
 * in it by a fanguine expectation of fuccefs. I very 
 v much fear, that the object of our prefent delibera- 
 tion is dead. You have neglected it too long. 
 You have fuffered it to fall into a Hate of ruin from 
 which, I fear, no remedy within the reach of human 
 A wifdom can recover it. But a great authority, un- 
 der which I had the honour and good fortune to be 
 bred, has taught me, that duty may furvive hope. 
 On this principle alone, I am ftill ready to take 
 my fhare in the duty, though I cannot partake in 
 any hope of its fuccefs. 
 
 The views and principles of the bill may natu- 
 rally and properly be divided into three diftinct ge- 
 neral heads. Firft, the new arrangement and dif- 
 
 tribution
 
 [ 3 3 
 
 tribution of power at home, with all its probable 
 effects and influence on our domeftic government. 
 On this part of the fubject I lhall confine myfelf 
 ftrictly to the fact, which I think will be eafily 
 eftablifhed, that there is a compleat and abfolute 
 transfer of the whole power and patronage of the 
 Eaft-India Company into the hands of the Crown. 
 Of the effects of this transfer of power, of its pro- 
 bable influence on our own Government, and of 
 the danger with which it may threaten the Confti- 
 tution of England, I do not mean to offer an 
 opinion. If thofe topics have not already been fuf- 
 ficiently difcufled, they properly belong to the de- 
 partment, and ihould be referved for the employ- 
 ment of the greatelt abilities in this country. A 
 right honourable gentleman near me will do juftice 
 to the fubject. 
 
 The fecond division of the bill includes the ar- 
 rangements and regulations intended for the Go- 
 vernments abroad ; and on this I lhall hope to be 
 permitted to enlarge. Without pretending to fu- 
 perior qualifications, or prefuming to dictate to the 
 wifdom of the Houfe, I am perfuaded you will 
 liften to information, which only profeffes to be de- 
 rived from experience. 
 
 The third divilion regards the new plan of cri- 
 minal judicature propofed to be introduced into 
 England, for trying offences committed in India. 
 On this laft point my opinion will not be delivered 
 in many words, but the words that I make ufe of 
 jhall be the jCtrongefl; I can find. 
 
 E 2 Sir,
 
 [ 4 3 
 
 Sir, There are two preliminary obfervations, which 
 arife on a general view of the bill, and which I wifh 
 the Houfe to carry along with them, through the 
 difcuffion of all the parts of it. Firft, that the 
 whole bill on the face of it is remedial ; that it is 
 a remedy of a new and violent nature, neceflary 
 perhaps, but neceffary only on the fuppofition of 
 fome great and inveterate diforders, both at home 
 and abroad, which, though conftantly implied, are 
 no where dated. 
 
 Secondly, Sir, admitting fuch diforders to exift, 
 I think it will appear, through the whole plan of 
 the bill, that the remedy applied is in every inftance 
 directly th6 reverfe of what the diforder requires. 
 With refpect to the Governments abroad, the ac- 
 knowledged grievance is, that the powers, hitherto 
 intruded, have been groflly and notoriously abufed. 
 But you will find that, in the contemplation of this 
 "bill, the true and natural remedy for an abufe of 
 power is to increafe it. With refpect to the Com- 
 pany's Government at home, the conftant complaint 
 of the Directors has been, that their power over 
 their fervants was too feeble to enforce obedience, that 
 their authority was difregarded, and their orders 
 avowedly and conftantly difobeyed. You have facts 
 in abundance, reported to you by your Committees, 
 to fatisfy the Houfe that thefe complaints of the 
 Directors are perfectly well founded. Now, Sir, 
 in the contemplation of this bill, the remedy for 
 difobedience of orders is to ftrengthen the power 
 that difobeys; and whea infulted authority calls for 
 
 fupport,
 
 [ 5 3 
 
 fupport, either, in effect to reduce it to nothing, 
 or, what is ftill worfe, to fuffer it to exift and to 
 make it contemptible. The pretended power, left 
 in the hands of the Directors, is a mockery of the 
 degraded ftate of thofe unfortunate gentlemen. It 
 is worfe than ufelefs ; for fince, in fact, they arc 
 only to be the channel of the operations of a fuperior 
 power, you diminifti even that power, which un- 
 queftionably the bill propofes to eftablilh, and ex- 
 pofe it to mare in the contempt attached to the 
 medium, through which it is to aft. In thefe ob- 
 fervations I mean only to ftate the general refult 
 and impreffion of the bill, without immediately re- 
 ferring to the fpecific evidence, from which they are 
 deduced. The fhorteft and cleareft way to eftablifli 
 the truth of them is to enter at once into the detail 
 of the bill, and to follow it as it goes. 
 
 Sir, the very outfet of the bill is effentially de- 
 fective. When an act of legiflative power is applied 
 to the total alteration of an exifting Government, 
 it muft of neceffity be fuppofed that fuch Govern- 
 ment is either radically corrupt, or unfaithfully ad- 
 miniftered. No man, I prefume, will difpute that 
 fuch is the fad: in the general government of the 
 Eaft-India Company's affairs. The prefent bill,/^ 
 through every part of it, fuppofes what it no where 
 avows, that nothing lefs than a vigorous interpofition 
 of the Legislature can fave the object. For aught 
 that appears in the preamble of this act, where the 
 general grounds of it fhould naturally be fet forth, 
 the territorial poffeffions, for whofe better govern- 
 ment
 
 [ 6 ] 
 
 ment we are going to provide, may be perfectly 
 well governed at prefent. For want of this eflential 
 preliminary, the whole body of the bill is in ef- 
 fect a conclufion without premifes, a remedy without 
 3 difeafe, a penalty without a crime. The omiffion 
 6f fuch a preamble to fuch a bill as this will appear 
 extraordinary as well as improper, to thofe who re- 
 collect with how much force and energy the Chan- 
 cellor of the Exchequer, in opening the plan and 
 principles of the bill, infifted on the magnitude of 
 thofe crimes and abufes, which demanded and juf- 
 tified a proportionate effort of power to punifh or 
 correct them. He was not very referved in his de- 
 fcription of the offenders, or of their offences, but 
 painted them both in the blackelt colours. It is 
 much to be regretted, that the fubftance, at leaft, 
 of his opinion of Indian delinquency mould be no 
 where recorded for the benefit of his friends. 
 
 The new Board of Commiflioners for the affairs 
 of India is to confift of certain Members of His 
 Majefty's Privy Council, and they are to be inverted 
 with the fuperintendence and control over all the 
 British territorial pofleffions in the Eaft Indies, and 
 ever the affairs of the United Company of Merchants 
 trading thereto. The powers, conveyed by the latter 
 part of this claufe, evidently and exprefily include 
 the Company's commerce. The affairs of a Com- 
 pany of Merchants trading to India can only be 
 commercial. Let the Court of Directors look to it. 
 I am perfectly aware, that in a fubfequent claufe it 
 is provided, that if the Commiffioners fend any or- 
 ders
 
 C 7 ] 
 
 ders to the Court of Directors, which, in their opi- 
 nion, fliall relate to points not connected with the 
 territorial government or revenues, they may apply 
 to the King in Council for redrefs ; that is, if 
 they are diffatisfled with the judgement of His Ma- 
 jelly's Minifters at one Board, they may appeal to 
 His Majefty's Minifters at another. The power 
 given is unlimited. The appeal againft the exer- 
 cife of it is nugatory. 
 
 The Court of Directors are to be governed and 
 bound by the orders they receive from the Com- 
 miflioners ; and are not to fend difpatches of any 
 kind to India, without their previous approbation. 
 
 The Commiffioners may fend their own orders 
 originally to the Directors, who are obliged to in- 
 fert fuch orders in xtheir difpatches, purfuant to the 
 tenor thereof; that is, in the fame words. 
 
 If the Commiffioners ihould be of opinion that 
 the cafe requires fecrecy, they may fend their own 
 orders directly to the Governments in India, with- 
 out any communication with the Court of Directors, 
 who are not to be trufted even with the knowledge 
 of meafures, in which the moft effential interefts, 
 the fafety, and, perhaps, the eziftence of the India 
 Company may be involved. In the fame claufe, 
 the Commiflioners may not only fend their orders to 
 the Governments abroad without the knowledge of 
 the Directors, but, what is much more extraordi- 
 nary, and much more alarming, they may fend fe- 
 cret inflections to the Commanders in Chief in In- 
 dia, independent of the Civil Government on thc^ 
 
 fpov
 
 [ 8 3 
 
 fpot. If there be no miflake in the conflruction of 
 this-claufe ; if it be ferioufly intended to give this 
 power to the Miniflers of the Crown, there is no 
 daufe in the bill that more urgently demands the 
 attention of the Houfe. By another claufe, the no- 
 mination and appointment of all the Commanders 
 in Chief in India, and of perfons to fucceed to the 
 command in cafe of vacancy, are directly vetted in 
 the Crown ; and thefe officers are required to obey 
 whatever orders they receive from the King's Mi- 
 niflers, not only independent of the Directors at 
 home, but of the Civil Government of the Prefi- 
 dency to which they belong. I {late the facts as 
 I find them, and mall leave them without comment 
 to the judgement of the Houfe. 
 
 The general patronage of the Company is pro- 
 fefledly left with the Court of Directors, but with 
 exceptions and reftridtions which really reduce it to 
 nothing. The Commanders in Chief and their im- 
 mediate fucceffors, at all the Prefidencies, are to be 
 under the immediate appointment of the Crown. 
 By this provifion the military is feparated from the 
 civil power of the Company's government. The 
 Court of Directors, who pay the army, and whofe 
 general authority over it is apparently continued, 
 can neither appoint, nor remove the perfons who 
 command it. 
 
 With refpect to the offices of Governor General, 
 Prelidents, and Members of the feveral Councils in 
 India, the Directors, it is true, may nominate and 
 appoint : but it ^eferves to be considered, that they
 
 t 9 3 
 
 who appoint are not permitted to remove ; that 
 power is exclufively vefted in the Crown ; and even 
 the pretended power of appointing to thefe offices is 
 ineffectual. Their nomination is to be fubject to his 
 Majefty's approbation. If the King difapp roves, 
 the Directors muft proceed to another nomination ; 
 and fo on, toties quoties, until perfons fhall be ap- 
 pointed who Jball Iff approved by His Majefty. This 
 is the way, in which the patronage of all the princi- 
 pal offices in India is difpofed of. All other promo- 
 tions, civil and military, are to be made according 
 to feniority of appointment in a regular progreffive 
 fucceflion ; and the Directors are prohibited from 
 fending out any new fefvants, civil or military, un-i 
 til certain eftablifhments lhall be completed, and 
 then, only to fill up the vacancies that may happen 
 therein. I do not mean to blame thefe laft regula- 
 tions : but, if all the preceding exceptions and li- 
 mitations are combined, it is evident, that no real 
 patronage will be left with the Directors, or, at the 
 utmoft, a patronage to operate upon trifles. Not fo 
 the powers given to the Commiffioners. In every 
 department of the Company's affairs, their diredt 
 authority, or their indirect influence, is real and ef- 
 fective. On the real principles of this bill, whether 
 acknowledged or not, the Court of Directors oughi 
 to be abolifhed. To leave a fliadow of power after* 
 the fubflance of it is gone, is to eftablifti a contra- 
 diction, which can only do mifchief. Whenever 
 the conftitution of any government is eflentially al- 
 tered, the forms ihould not be allowed to furvive 
 P the
 
 the efTence. Under the flicker of thefe 
 things will be done, or duties will be neglected, for 
 which no man will be refponfible. No defpotifm 
 was ever fo fevere as that, which exifted in the form 
 of a republic. In whatever degree the powers re- 
 ferved to the Directors are effective, they can only 
 be productive of mifchievous effects. They can 
 only clalh with, and retard the operations of the fu- 
 perior Board, and furnifh them both with pretences 
 for accufing each other of whatever may happen 
 amifs. 
 
 Now, Sir, I fubmit it to the Houfe, to deter- 
 mine whether my firft propofition be not fufficiently 
 eftablimed, that in every fenfe. in which power can 
 be fufpicious, in which power can be mifchievous 
 to the thing fubject to it, or dangerous to objects 
 not immediately connected with it, there is by this 
 bill a complete and abfolute transfer of power from. 
 the India Company to the Crown. / conlider it 
 only as it affects the Government of India, and fhall 
 purfue the remaining claufes in the order in which 
 they ftand. 
 
 I have already taken the liberty of obferving to 
 the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the bill 
 makes no provifion for the fituation of a Comman- 
 der in Chief of all the Company's forces in India. 
 The office exifts, though it be not actually filled 
 up, and it ought to be provided for. That officer 
 has always had a feat in the Supreme Council ; of 
 courfe, there muft be a miftake in the feventeenth 
 claufe, which gives voice and precedence in Council 
 
 to
 
 c . j 
 
 to the Commander in Chief of the Prefidency of 
 Fort William, as if he had a feat there, which, in 
 fad:, he never had. The miftake mult be cor- 
 retted. 
 
 From the terms of the nineteenth clanfe, I con- 
 clude that Lord Macartney is to be removed from 
 the Government of Fort St. George ; that is, that 
 he is to be 1 "facrificed to the views and refentments 
 of the Government of Bengal. I have not the ho- 
 nour of knowing Lord Macartney, nor have I a 
 connection with him of any kind : but, in order to 
 be convinced that the noble Lord has done his duty, 
 it is fufficient for me to know who the perfons are, 
 and what the combination is, that are united againft 
 him. By a different courfe of conduct, their enmity 
 is not to be incurred. The moment I knew the 
 fad:, I drew the conclufion I forefaw the confe- 
 quence, and foretold it to his friends : This man is 
 doing his duty, and ajfuredly he'll l>e recalled for if. 
 Comparing this claufe with another that relates to 
 Fort William, the Houfe will obferve, that in Ben- 
 gal, which is the feat of power, and where, if mif- 
 chief has been done in India, the fource of it muft 
 ex'ift, there is to be no change of hands ; but, in the 
 fubordinate fettlements, there is to be an univerfal 
 fweep. 
 
 The wifdom and neceffity of the thirtieth claufe, 
 by which the General Court of Proprietors are re- 
 ftrained from interfering with any aft, order, refolu- 
 //<?;;, matter, or proceeding of the Court of Dlrettors, 
 will, in this Houfe at lealt, be generally acknow- 
 C 2 Icdged.
 
 . I ? 3 
 
 ledged. All parties, I believe, are agreed on the 
 neceflity of putting an end to the cabals of that af- 
 fembly. Every bill, from every quarter, that ha* 
 hitherto been propofed for the better regulation 
 of the Company's affairs, makes fpecial provifion 
 for this favourite object. I therefore give the claufe 
 my entire and hearty approbation. At the fame 
 time, Sir, I cannot help obferving, that the prin- 
 cipk and object of this provifion is not to be recon- 
 ciled to the language, or rather to the cry, by which 
 a bill that patted the Houfe of Commons laft year 
 was run down, and the honourable perfon who 
 moved it, for a moment difpoflerTed of his popu- 
 larity, and driven from his (lation. If the rights 
 conveyed by an exclufive charter be- in their nature 
 facred, they can no more be invaded in part, than 
 they can be wholly refumed. If the charter itfelf 
 be facred, it ought to be inviolable ; or, if any part 
 of it be more effentially facred than the reft, it muft 
 be that, which fecures to the Proprietors the con- 
 trol and direction of their own affairs. In this re- 
 fpecl;, the prefent bill adopts the very fame princi- 
 pie, by which a much better was defeated. It af- 
 fumes a difcretion, where, on the profeffed princi- 
 ples of thofe who defend it, there fhould be none. 
 It takes or leaves juft as much of the Company's 
 charter, as fuits the purpofes of the prefent Admi- 
 niftration. 
 
 The objecl: of the thirty-fecond claufe is proper. 
 The fubordinate Prefidencies fhould either be de- 
 pendent on the fuperintendence and control of the 
 
 Go-
 
 [ 3 > 
 
 Governor General and Council in all cafes, or to* 
 tally exempt from it. We know by experience, 
 that an attempt to fubjed: them to a partial control 
 is not likely to fucceed. We know that it has hi* 
 therto produced no good effedu On the other hand, 
 it is evidently abfurd and hazardous, that the mem- 
 bers of one {late, and the parts of one fyftem, ihould 
 not be united under one power, whenever they are 
 to adt, and not move together under a fingle direc- 
 tion. There is no alternative, - therefore, but tfr 
 eftablifh a general authority at Fort William, and 
 to infift on a general fubmiffion to it : but, at the 
 fame time, let care be taken to unite the powers, 
 and ftrengthen the authority at home in the fame 
 proportion. 
 
 The thirty-third claufe is fo very incorrect and 
 obfcure, that, I confefs, I mould be glad to fee it 
 translated into common fenfe. It is faid, that the 
 rules, ordinances, and regulations, which the Go- 
 vernor General and Council are empowered to iiTue, 
 (hall extend to all rules, ordinances, and regulations 
 made by the faid Governor General and Council, 
 If this be not pofitively nonfenfe, it is, at leafl, an 
 extraordinary way of removing all former qvejl'ions 
 and doubts upon the fubjedt. Whoever drew up 
 the claufe evidently knew nothing of the matter. 
 So far from explaining the queftions, or removing 
 the doubts to which he alludes, he does not even 
 know what they were, nor what they referred to* 
 The only queftion that ever arofe in Bengal, con- 
 cerning the power granted by the adt of 1773 to the 
 
 Governor
 
 Governor General and Council, to make rules and 
 ordinances for the fettlement of Fort William,, was, 
 to what things, to what fubjeft matter) and not to 
 what perfons or places, the power extended ; and 
 this, indeed, is a doubt which it would be proper 
 to clear up. If it be intended to give a general le- 
 giflative power, the terms you make ufe of mu ft be 
 jnuch more comprehenfive and much more explicit. 
 The thirty-feventh claufe declares, that to purfue 
 fchemes of conqueft, and ex ten/ton of dominion in India, 
 are meafures repugnant to the wijh, the honour, and 
 policy of this nation. Sir, I wifh to fee a proposition 
 fo full of truth and wifdom, not only acknowledged, 
 / but enforced. In this moft eflential view, the plan 
 of the bill is moft eflentially defective. It alludes 
 to facts and offences which are not ftated, and to 
 criminals whom, fo far from attempting to punim, 
 it does not even venture to defcribe. If fuch facts 
 and criminals do not exift, the whole bill is a fu- 
 perfluity built upon a falfehood. It fuppofes ima- 
 ginary diforders, for the imaginary merit of correct- 
 ing them. But if they really exift, it is in vain to 
 expect that they will be checked or prevented by 
 the empty threats of a Legiflature, that contents it- 
 felf with piling up laws upon laws, and regulations 
 on regulations -- of a Legiflature, that never has 
 hitherto been obeyed, yet always looks forward to 
 future obedience. Reward and punimment are the 
 right and left hand of Government. It is the office 
 of the head to frame and denounce the law, but it 
 is the hand that muft enforce it. In another point 
 
 of
 
 C '5 ] 
 
 of view r the bill is unjuft as well as impotent. It 
 makes no diftin&ion between thofe perfons, who have 
 uniformly ated on the principles you approve, and 
 others, who have uniformly acted on the principles 
 you condemn. In not ftating any to be innocent, it 
 fuppofes all to be guilty. Now, Sir, I ftiall do what 
 the mover of the bill has not had courage to do. I 
 attach refponiibility to power, and I affirm, that, at 
 the end of the year 1777, the whole political power 
 of the Britifh empire in India, nominally vefled in the 
 Governor General and Council, was really and fub- 
 Jftantially veiled in Mr. Haftings. If Mr. Haftings, 
 fup ported by one Member of the Supreme Council 
 againft the other two, be not exclusively refponfible 
 for the war which was undertaken at that period, 
 for the avowed purpofe of conqueit and exteniion of 
 dominion, which carried defolation with it wherever 
 it extended, and which has ended in the ruin of the 
 Eaft-India Company ? it is fit that Parliament and 
 the nation ihould know, nay, it is the duty of Par- 
 liament to inquire, who was the author of the war, 
 and who is to be anfwerable for it. Facts, it will 
 be faid, may be very differently reprefented, and 
 varioufly accounted for, efpecially at fo great a dif- 
 tance as from India to England. Sir, I well know 
 the facility, with which facts at fuch a diftance may 
 be ftated to advantage. But principles formally de- 
 clared, and deliberately avowed, are not to be dif- 
 guifed or retracted. They fland for public judge- 
 ment, and they demand it. If the Houfe have any 
 doubt about the fad, let them look to the acknow- 
 ledged
 
 C i 3 
 
 ledged principles of the perfoh, to whorft the fad fo 
 imputed. Does Mr. Haftings himfelf deny., that 
 conqueft and extent of dominion were his object in 
 the purfuit of the Maratta war ? No, Sir ; he avowi 
 it. Let him anfwer for himfelf. I will not run the 
 rifque of doing him an injuftice. 
 
 " If the Britifh arms and influence have fuffered 
 M a fevere check in the Weftern world, it is the* 
 * more incumbent on thofe who are charged with 
 ' the interefts of Great Britain in the Eaft, to exert 
 ft themfelves for the retrieval of the national lofs ; 
 * c that we have the means in our power ; and that, 
 ** with fuch fuperior advantages as we poflefs over 
 ** every power which can oppofe us, we jbould not 
 " aft merely on the defenfive *." 
 
 In fhefe explicit words you have all the policy 
 and .all the juftice of the Maratta war : If we have 
 fuffered Iqffes in the Weft, let us repair them in th* 
 Eaft ; whertver we are powerful, it is our bufinefs to 
 attack. Surely, Sir, if no other evidence exifled, 
 it would not be very unreafonable to prefume, that 
 Mr. Haftings's meafures have been formed on the 
 principles he profefles. 
 
 I am ready to admit that the claufe in queftion 
 does all that can be done, by mere legiilative prohi- 
 bition, to put a flop to fuch meafures in future. 
 Yet I very much fear that the general rule will be 
 defeated by the exception that attends it. The 
 Governor General and Council are not to make war, 
 or to commence hoftilities againft any of the coun- 
 
 > * Confiiltatiou of *j<} June, 1778. 
 
 try
 
 C ? 3 
 
 try powers, unlefsfuch powers Jball be aftually m&king 
 preparations for the commencement of bofti titles againft 
 us or our allies. I beg leave to affure the Houfe, ^ 
 that whenever the Governor General and Council 
 are difpofed to make war upon their neighbours j 
 they can at all times fabricate a cafe to fuit their 
 purpofe, and fend home a mafs of incontrovertible 
 evidence to fupport it. The exception in the next ' 
 claufe, by which a fimilar latitude is given to Fort 
 St. George and Bombay, is not fo dangerous, be- 
 caufe thofe Preiidencies are nearer to a power that 
 may control them. They cannot make war, if the 
 Governor General and Council be ferioufly deter- 
 mined againft it. But again I tell you, that one 
 example is worth a hundred laws, 
 
 I am not very converfant with the affairs of the >/ 
 coaft of Coromandel, and therefore fliall offer but 
 fmgle obfervation on the feveral claufes that relate 
 to the liquidation of the debts due to Britilh fub- 
 je&s from the Nabob of Arcot, the Rajah of Tan- 
 jore, and any other of the native protected princes 
 in India. The labour of inquiring into and liqui- 
 dating thefe debts, which the bill impofes on the 
 Governor General and Council, in addition to their 
 own immediate duties, will be very heavy, and, I 
 believe, equally ufelefs. They may adjuft the ac- 
 count ; but I have no conception how the debts are 
 to be paid out of an exhaufted revenue, and a min- 
 ed country. I believe it to be impoffible, unlefs a 
 preference is to be given to the private debts before 
 D thofe
 
 C ' 3 
 
 thaie of the .Company, which, I prefume, is not 
 intended. 
 
 The final fettlement of the prefent indeterminate 
 rights .and poifeffions of the Nabob of Arcot and 
 the Rajah of Tanjore, with refpect to each other, 
 is a juft, a neceflary, and an attainable object* The 
 principles, on which the .fettlement is to be made, 
 appear to me to be the boft that could be adopted. 
 But I moft ftrongly object to, and proteft againft 
 the idea of leaving the execution of the meafure ta 
 the Governor Generad and Council. The power, 
 whiidh predominates in that Government, is noto- 
 rioufly partial to the Nabob of Arcot, and ihoftile 
 to the Rajah of Tanjore. The tribunal, to which 
 you refer the parties, is prejudiced in favour of the 
 ftronger of the two, and, if its intentions were 
 ever fo upright, ihould not be touted with the 
 power of judging between them, Meiriber is it ne> 
 eeffary, Tliere is no queftion of right between the 
 contending parties, which may not be decided a$ 
 properly and as erTe&uatty in England as it can be 
 in ^Bengal, The Co^rt of Dir>etftor-s have all -.tl*e 
 materials before them ; they may determine the 
 j&oints in difpute, and fend tiieir orders directly to 
 the President and Council of Fort ; St, George, to 
 carry their decifion into efTe&r If they cay do it, 
 they ought to do it. 
 
 On a firnUar principle of reafon and juftice, I ob* 
 jeA -,to the mode adopted in the next claufe, for the 
 profeffed purpofe of reinftating certain Rajahs, Ze- 
 fnindars, Polygars, and other landholders, who 
 
 have
 
 C 19 ] 
 
 foave been difpoffeffed of their lands. The claims 
 &f the parties are to be referred to the refpedtive 
 Prefidencies, who are to inquire info, and determine 
 upon them : that is, if injuftice has been done, the 
 perfons, who have done it, are to repair it at their 
 difcretion. Is there any colour of propriety, is 
 there any prudence in fuch a delegation of power ? 
 .or do you think it wo.uld be effectual '? For exam- 
 ple, do you believe that any orders from the Court 
 of Directors, or even from the higheft power ia 
 this country, could engage Mr. Haftings to liflen 
 to the claims of the Raja-k of Benares ? Can he be 
 reafonably deemed an impartial judge of fuch 
 claims ? He has told the Directors *, that " if 
 " they ftiould proceed to order the restoration of 
 " Rajah Cheyt Sing, and, if the Council Jhould re^ 
 4t fohe to execute the order, he would inftantly give 
 " up his ftation and the fervice." He fuppofes it 
 will be a queftion in the Council, whether the order 
 .of the Directors {hall be executed or not ; and he 
 fa-irly apprifes thera of his own refolution to oppofe 
 it. For my own part, I am perfuaded that he would 
 hazard his- life rather than fubtnit to carry the order 
 k?to execution himfelf. Yet, if ever there was a 
 cafe that called upon the national honour and huma- 
 nity for juftice and protection, affuredly it is that of 
 the Rajah of Benares. 
 
 The next claufe is material indeed. The wellr 
 being, if not the exiftence of the natives of al.i 
 
 * aoth March, 1783. 
 
 JD 2 your
 
 C 2 3 
 
 your Eaftern Dominions, depends on a firm eftablifh- 
 ment of that principle of taxation, which appears to 
 be the object of the claufe. Ever fince I have 
 known any thing of the fubject, or had an oppor- 
 tunity of offering an opinion about it, it has been, 
 the labour and effort of my life to inculcate and 
 cftablifti the truth of this propofition thai the. tri- 
 bute, rent, fervice, or payment to be paid by tkefevtral 
 landholders, of whatever denomination, Jhould be fixe<% 
 and unalterable. The profefled object of this claufe 
 is the real object, and refult of every conclufion, that 
 my underftanding is capable of deducing from ex- 
 perience and reflection. The means, taken to accom- 
 plifh it, are the very worft that could be thought of* 
 After twenty years pofleffion of the Dewanny, after 
 twenty years collection of the revenues, the fixation 
 of the rents is (till to be a queflion for future invef- 
 tigation. Good God! Sir, are thefe inquifitions 
 into the property of our Indian fubj efts -are thefe 
 fcrutinies into the value of their eftates never to 
 have an end ! Are the natives of India never to have 
 a quietus under an Englifh Government ! In the 
 year 1784 you order the Governments abroad to de- 
 vi fe fuch methods asjhall to them feem moft fitting and 
 convenient to ejlablijk a fixed find unalterable tribute ! 
 The language held by the Directors, feven years 
 ago, on a fimilar occafion, is wifer and more hu- 
 mane than yours, and ought to be a lefTon to you. 
 In July, 1777, fpeaking of a new mode of inquifi- 
 tion propofed and eflablifhed by Mr. Haftings, they 
 faid, " In the prefent flate of the bufinefs, our fur- 
 
 " prife
 
 [ 1 
 
 f* prife and concern were great on finding, by our 
 f c Governor General's minute of the firft of No- 
 '* vember, 1776, that, after more than feven years 
 " inveiligation, information is ftill fo incomplete, 
 ? e as to render another innovation, ftill more extra- 
 *t ordinary than any of the former, abfolutely ne- 
 " ceflary to the formation of a new fettlement." 
 
 But the prefent courfe, it feems, is taken, in or- 
 der to prevent any corrupt or opprejfive practices. 
 Sir, the Court of Directors are in pofTeffion of an- 
 nual accounts of the revenues of Bengal fmce the 
 year 1766. They have an account before them of 
 the demand, receipt, and balance of every refpec- 
 tive year. In ihort, Sir, they poffefs every poffible 
 light and information on the fubject, which the 
 Government of Bengal ought to look for, or would 
 be able to obtain. They may take the collections 
 of any one year for a ftandard, or, what is much 
 better, they may take an average of the collections 
 of feveral years, and determine at once, and for 
 ever, what all the principal diftricts ftiall invariably 
 pay. Perhaps it may be neceffary, though I do not 
 think it will, to leave fome parts of the minuter 
 distribution to the power upon the fpot. The lefs 
 you leave to it the better. The, only danger of the 
 mode I propofe, or of any mode of fixation that 
 can be propofed, is this that, take what period or 
 what average you will, confidering the daily and 
 rapid decline of the country, the amount of reve- 
 nue, fo taken, will prove too much. The ftatc of 
 the country, and of the people, calls as loudly for 
 
 abate-
 
 C 3 
 
 y' nbatjrfient, as the neceffities of the Company call for 
 increafe of revenue. 
 
 This, Sir, is' the true way to prevent corrupt or 
 opprejive practices. If you refer it to the fervants 
 abroad to devife the methods, and then to tranfmit 
 their proceedings and determination to the Court of 
 Directors for their final orders and directions : in 
 the firft place, the delay of itfelf is a new, or, ra-. 
 ther, a continued a<9: of oppreffion to the natives ; 
 but what is much worfe, your meafures are oppofed 
 ta your experience : you unneceiTarily give powers, 
 which you know, or ought to know, have been con- 
 ftantly abufed, One example, if there were no 
 other, ought to deter you from replacing a fimilar 
 
 \J truft in fimilar hands, I have a right to aflert, 
 though not from my own knowledge, that the five* 
 years fettl-ement of the revenues of Bengal, made 
 in the year 1772, was fold by the Committee of 
 Circuit. The fa<fl is notorious in India ; but it is 
 on the authority of the Court of Directors that I 
 affirm it to be true. In their ktter of the 4th of 
 March, 1778, they ordered the Governor General 
 and Council forthwith to commence a prosecution In the 
 Supreme Court of Judicature againft the perfons wko 
 cempofed the Committee of Circuit) or their repre-. 
 N fentatives*. 
 
 I do not doubt that the fubfequent claufe, for fe- 
 curing the penfions allotted to fome of the Zemin- 
 
 * This letter is figned by the prefcnt Chairman and Deputy 
 Chairman of. the Court of Directors, Mr. Smith and Mr. Dweynes. 
 
 dars
 
 C *3 ] 
 
 dars in lieu of their lands, was drawn up with a be- 
 nevolent intention ; but I believe the fad: it refers 
 to is mifunderftood. The rft and leading effort o 
 national juftice ihould be to reinftate the proprie- 
 tors, of every denomination, in the pofleffion of 
 their property. The very meafure, that forced thefe 
 penfions on the Zemindars, was an act of the moii 
 defpotic oppreffion. The rents demanded of them, 
 for this very purpofe, were fo high, that, rather 
 than be anfwerable for fums which they knew their 
 lands could not afford, they accepted of penfions, 
 and furrendered the pofleffion and management of 
 their eftates to ftrangers, to farmers, to adventurers, 
 to the banyans of the Piefident and Council of Fort 
 William. Is it other-wife to be believed, that any 
 man in his fenfes would give up his landed eft ate for 
 a penfion, to be held at the pleafure of an arbitrary 
 Government ? Do juftice to thefe people, and 
 tfeere will be no foundation for this claufe. 
 
 It is proper and neceflary that the Court of Di- 
 rectors (hou4d be reftrained from fending any -new 
 fervant, civil or military, to India, until the efla- 
 blifhments are fixed ; and, when they are fixed, it 
 is equally proper that the Directors mould be re- 
 ftrained from fending out writers, cadets, or others, 
 beyond the number neceflary to fill up vacancies as 
 they happen. The fervice is overloaded with ufe- 
 icfs fcrvants : they are a burthen to the Government, 
 and they conftitute a tax of tjie worft fort upos the 
 country. 
 
 Thej*
 
 C *4 1 
 
 There feems to be no occafion fdr a law to con- 
 firm an exiftmg rule of the Company's fervice. It 
 is, and always has been, eftabljfhed, that promo- 
 tions fhould be made according to feniority. The 
 latitude given in the exception is perfectly unnecef- 
 fary, as well as incorrectly worded*. The Go- 
 vernments abroad are ready enough to find urgent 
 vccafion to deviate from the general rule. The vote in 
 Council is the very act of deviation, not the me- 
 dium through which they fee caufe for it. 
 
 The next claufe may properly be combined with 
 another, which flands at a diftance from it ; I mean- 
 to confider the fixty-feventh and eighty-ninth claufes- 
 together. By the former no perfon, beyond a cer- 
 tain age, is to be fent to India as a cadet or writer ; 
 but no reafon for the limitation is affigned. By the 
 latter, no perfon whatfoever, who lhall have been 
 employed, in any capacity whatfoever, in the Eaft 
 Indies, fhall be capable of being appointed to any. 
 ftation or office in India, after he, having returned 
 to this kingdom, fhall have refided at home a cer- 
 tain time, unlefs it be proved that fuch refidence 
 was neceflary for his health : fo that the worft man 
 in the fervice is capable of being reinflated, provi- 
 ded he refigned it on account of his health ; whereas 
 an able and meritorious fervant, who may have been 
 obliged to come to England, and to refide here 
 longer than the limited period, for the mofl urgent 
 
 * The terms of the exception are, ' unlefs any of the (aid Go- 
 ' Vernments and Prefidencies lhall, on any very urgent occafion, by 
 " a vote in Council, fee caufcto deviate from the faid general rule."' 
 
 and
 
 C *5 3 
 
 and juftifiable reafons, though not for ill health, is 
 utterly prohibited from returning to a fervice, to 
 which he may have devoted his life, and for which 
 he may have relinquimed all other profpedts and 
 purfuits. I fee no reafon for the diftin&ion. There 
 is no pofitive merit in ficknefs, though it has a na- 
 tural claim to indulgence. One would think that 
 the executive power of the Company, if the Court 
 of Directors are equal to any of their duties, 
 might fafely be trufled with fuch details as thefe. 
 It is not an object that apparently requires the 
 interpofition of the Legiflature : but if it did, 
 the proper and ufeful regulation would be, not ab- 
 folutely to prohibit abfentees from returning to the 
 fervice, but to prevent their gaining rank in their 
 abfence over thofe, who continued to do their duty 
 on the fpot. Whoever flayed in England, beyond 
 the limit of a reafonable leave of abfence, mould 
 return precifely to the rank he held when he left 
 India. 
 
 Taking the operation of the two claufes together, 
 the refult feems to be, that, in the firft inftance, no 
 man, who mail have acquired knowledge or expe- 
 rience in England, mail be permitted to go India ; 
 and that no man, who may have acquired know- 
 ledge and experience in India, mall be permitted to 
 return, unlefs his faculties have been fufficiently 
 impaired by his infirmities, to qualify him for re- 
 fuming the duties of his flation. The favourite 
 idea feems to be, that youth and inexperience ihould 
 govern Bengal. An old maxim of policy attaches 
 E experience
 
 [ 26 1 
 
 experience to years, and wifdom to experience ; and 
 though I know there is a brilliant exception to this 
 maxim, I vvifli it to be left where it ftands a bril- 
 liant exception to a general principle, and not,, that 
 the exception fhould be converted into a rule. 
 
 Nothing can be objected to the principle and 
 purpofe of that claufe, which makes all offences 
 committed by Britilh fubjects in every other part 
 of India, or under pretence of the order of any native 
 protected Prince, amenable to the fame laws, and 
 liable to the fame penalties, as if they had been com- 
 mitted within the territories direftly fubject to the Bri- 
 tljh Government. At the fame time, there will be a 
 legal difficulty in. the proceeding, which gentlemen 
 of the profemon would do well to confider. The 
 procefs of our courts of juftice does not run beyond 
 the limits of our own provinces ; fo that, although 
 the party accufed may be in your power, the wit- 
 nefles neceffary to convict or acquit him cannot, in 
 any regular courfe of proceeding, be compelled to 
 appear. If this difficulty be not provided for, there 
 can be no trial of the offences in queilion. 
 
 On the fubjecl: of prefents, my opinion, perhaps, 
 may be thought particular. Forms and appearances, 
 I know, are againft it. Undoubtedly the Governor 
 General and Council, the Judges, and any others 
 who have great eftablifhed falaries, mould derive 
 no other advantage from their flation. With refpcct 
 to them, the prohibition of prefents is proper ; but 
 it ought to be complete. I can arTure the Houfe, 
 that the exception in favour of prefents of cere- 
 mony
 
 [ 27 3 
 
 mony on folemn occajions, is founded on ideas which I 
 know to be fallacious. The acceptance of ceremo- 
 nial prefents is no way neceffary for fupporting the 
 dignity of men in power, nor has the refufal of them' 
 ever, given offence. General -Clavering, Colonel 
 Monfon, and I, conftantly refufed them. We told 
 the natives, it was againft the law of England, the 
 very law by which we were appointed, and they 
 were fatisfied. Mr. Haltings declared, that he 
 ihould continue to receive mtzzers, and carry them 
 to the Company's account. Our other honourable 
 colleague, who is now a Member of the Houie, en- 
 tirely approved of the honourable Prefident's conduct in 
 the receipt of complimentary nuzzers : but he did not 
 equally approve of accounting for them to the Com- 
 pany. His words are ; f{ I might here make a ten- 
 " der to the Public of the trivial nuzzers, to the 
 " acceptance of which my ftation has impelled me. 
 " But what is proper for the Governor General, 
 " would in mg, I apprehend, appear rather in the 
 <f light of .a confequential, infignificant difplay of 
 " rigidnefs in excefs !" In Mr. Haftings's letters 
 you have feen fome fplendid examples of the fub- 
 lime. The honourable gentleman, whofe words I 
 have juft repeated, fucceeds better in the profound. 
 It is his forte. Thefe trivial prefents accumulate 
 very faft. If I had laid myfelf out for the receipt 
 of them, I have no doubt, that while I was in 
 Bengal I might have realifed eight or nine thoufand 
 pounds from this petty fource of profit. To men 
 in high ftation, the prohibition Ihould be abfolute. 
 2 n
 
 C *8 ]. 
 
 Iii all flations, it ihould be highly penal to receive 
 money for corrupt purpofes, or to extort it. In 
 the ordinary tranfaction of bufinefs, I am inclined 
 to think that prefents are not dangerous, and I know 
 that .they are ufeful. The Government of Bengal, 
 through all its gradations, is a Government of favour, 
 not of juflice. Nothing would ever be done for 
 the natives, if they did not gratify the perfons who 
 forwarded their affairs. Whenever there fliall be a 
 Government of flrict juflice in Bengal, and when- 
 ever provifion fliall be made for the various offices 
 under it, proportioned to their refpective rank and 
 power, you may totally abolifh prcfents. Till then, 
 you neither can, nor ought to do it till then, the 
 oaths you prefcribe to the collectors of the revenue 
 will bind none but men of honour. Men of a dif- 
 ferent character will either totally disregard the pro- 
 hibition, or fatisfy their fcruples, if they have any, 
 by accommodating the exception to all cafes, or 
 all cafes to the exception. For the .purpofe of re- 
 ceiving prefents of ceremony, all occafions will be 
 found fufficiently folemn. 
 
 By the lixty-ninth claufe, the whole gift or pre- 
 fent is to be forfeited to the King by the feven- 
 tiethj the court of juftice may order the gift to be 
 reftorcd to the party who gave it. Can the fame 
 prefent, fuppoling it were a diamond, be forfeited 
 to the Crown and reftored to the owner ; or is it 
 meant that the offender mall forfeit double the value 
 in every inftance ? The two claufes feern to me 
 to contradict one another. 
 
 The,
 
 [ *9 1 
 
 The feventy-firft makes an exception in favour of 
 counfellors at law, phyficians, furgeons, or chap- 
 lains ; but it takes no notice of attornies, who are 
 much more in the receipt of fees than any of .the 
 others. 
 
 With refpect to tke wilful difobeying, or the wil- 
 fully omitting to execute the Company's orders, if there 
 be no material inflances of the difobedience alluded 
 to, the law that propofes to punifh it hereafter is fu- 
 perfluous and unjufl. The Legiflature interpofes be- 
 fore it is called upon : it fuppofes offences, which 
 are not flated, and, by fuppofmg them to exift ge- 
 nerally, it confounds the innocent with the guilty. 
 If they do exift, to a degree, that warrants and de- 
 mands the interpoiition of the Legiflature, they 
 ought to be punifhed as well as forbidden ; at leaft 
 the offenders ought to be removed from their places. 
 When the laws prohibit on one fide, and perfect im- 
 punity encourages on the other, is it reafonable to 
 expedt that the prohibition mould be regarded ? 
 The minds of men will be. determined by what you 
 do, not by what you fay ; and the more you threaten, 
 the more you will be defpifed. 
 
 The two next claufes give a moft exorbitant 
 and formidable power to the Governor General and 
 Council, and to the fubordinate Prefidencies ; even 
 to Bencoolen / All perfons fufpeRed of carrying on 
 any illicit -commerce or correfpondence with any body, 
 may be feized, impriibned, and detained in cuftody 
 by the Governor's warrant, until the Governor and 
 Council ihall think fit to bring them to trial, or fend 
 
 them
 
 C 30 ] 
 
 them to England. No fact is Hated, or even allu- 
 ded to, that rr^ight require the delegation of fo dan- 
 gerous a truft. I declare, that while I was in India, 
 there never was an inftance fit to be named as the 
 foundation of fuch a law as this ; nor have I heard' 
 of any fince. Correfpondence with the enemies of 
 the State is high treafon ; and trcafon may be pu- 
 niihed without a new law. But what do you mean 
 by illicit commerce? What tranfaction is there in 
 life which an arbitrary Government may not inter- 
 pret into an illicit commerce? Do you mean to deny 
 the parties the benefit of the Habeas Corpus ? Do 
 you mean to leave it to the difcretion of the Go- 
 vernor and Council at what time the party fhall be 
 tried, or to their option whether he fliall be tried on 
 the fpot, or fent a prifoner to England ? No, Sir ; 
 I know perfectly well what is meant. The liberty 
 of every individual in India is to be held at the 
 mercy of the Governor General. The claufe has 
 no real object, but to increafe his perfonal power, 
 and to make it irrefiftible. 
 
 I have now gone through the fecond divifion of 
 the bill. Before I proceed to the third, I have 
 an appeal to make to the honour and to the juftice 
 of the Houfe. It is of a nature fo perfonal, that 
 it will probaby excite their curiofity ; but it is alfo 
 connected with the public fervice. It has a natu- 
 ral and a neceffary relation to the general object of 
 the prefent bill, and therefore deferves their atten- 
 tion. It concerns the fervice of the public in fu- 
 ture, that the character of men, who have faith- 
 fully
 
 fully and honourably difcharged the duties of a 
 high ftation, fliould be protected from reproach. 
 The infults, offered to the memory of fuch men, 
 contribute to deter others from following their ex- 
 ample, are injurious to the community, and ought 
 to be refented with univerfal indignation. It is 
 not of myfelf I (peak ; that fpirit of preemption 
 does not belong to me. I am proud of the fortune, 
 that connected my name and united my labours 
 with thofe of Clavering and Monfon, and it is all 
 the diftinction I pretend to. 
 
 When I fought to obtain a feat in the Houfe of 
 Cpmmons, it was not merely for th,e honour pf fit- 
 ting here, nor for any delight I take in your de- 
 bates. With refpect to, India affairs, my firft view 
 was, not to ferve England or the India Company; 
 but the natives of India if I could. To them I am 
 bound by every obligation of juftice, gratitude, and 
 companion. From them I received the (alary,, which 
 gave me a fortune. But, even if the fervice of Eng- 
 land had been my only object, this is the courfe I 
 fhould have taken to purfue it. I will not appeal 
 to your virtues, or fuppofe that you have any. If 
 you have common fenfe, if, as interefted men, you 
 underftand your own intereit, you will treat the 
 creatures, fubject to your power, with lenity and 
 juftice. If wealth be your object, you will protect 
 the induftry, you will nurfe and cheriih the eftate, 
 by which you expect to be enriched. 
 
 My fecond reafon for obtaining a feat, in Parlia- 
 ment was to have an opportunity of explaining my 
 
 own
 
 C 3* ] 
 
 <ywn conduct, if it fliould be queftioned, or df- 
 fending it, if it fliould bt attacked. The laft, and 
 not the leaft urgent reafon was, that I might be 
 ready to defend the ehara&er of my colleagues, 
 not againft fpecific charges, which I am fure wil! 
 never be produced ; but againft the language of 
 calumny, which endeavours to afperfe, without 
 daring to accufe. It is well known that a grofs and 
 public infult has been offered to the memory of 
 General Clavering and Colonel Monfon, by a per- 
 fon of high rank in this country. I was happy 
 when I heard, that my name was included in it with 
 theirs. So highly do I refpect the character of 
 thofe men, that I deem it an honour to lhare in 
 the injuftice it has fuffered. It is in compliance 
 with the forms of the Houfe, and not to fhelter 
 Riyfelf, or out of tendernefs to the party, that- I 
 forbear to name him. I mean to dcfcribe him fo 
 exactly, that he cannot be miflaken. He declared 
 in his place in a great afiembly, and in the courfe of 
 a grave deliberation, " that it would have been 
 " happy for this country, if General Clavering, 
 " Colonel Monfon, and Mr. Francis, had been 
 \ *' drowned in their paffage to India." If this 
 poor and fpiteful invedtive had been uttered by a 
 man of no confequence or repute, by any light, 
 trifling, inconfiderate perfon, by a Lord of the 
 Bedchamber for example, or any of the other filken 
 iBarons of modern days, I fhould have heard it with 
 ndifference. But when it is feriouily urged and deli- 
 berately infilled on by a grave Lord of Parliament 
 
 by
 
 [ 33 J 
 
 by a Judge, by a man of ability and eminence in 
 his profeffion, whofe perfonal difpofition is ferious, 
 who carries gravity to fternefs, and flernefs to fe- 
 rocity, it cannot be received with indifference, or 
 anfwered without refentment. Such a man will be 
 thought to have inquired before he pronounced. 
 From bis mouth, a reproach is a fentence, an invec- 
 tive is a judgement. The accidents of life, and 
 not any original diftin&ion that I know of, have 
 placed him too high, and me at too great a diltance 
 from him, to admit of any other anfwer from me, 
 than a public defiance, for General Clavering, for 
 Colonel Monfon, and for myfelf. This is not a 
 party queftion, nor ihould it be left to fo feeble an 
 advocate as I am to fupport it. The friends and 
 fellow foldiers of General Clavering and Colonel 
 Monfon will affi-ft me in defending their memory. 
 I demand and expedt the fupport of every man of 
 honour in this Houfe, and in the kingdom. What 
 character is fafe, if flander be permitted to attack 
 the reputation of two of the molt honourable and 
 -virtuous men that ever were employed, or ever pe- 
 rilhed in the fervice of their country ? I know 
 that the authority of this man is not without 
 weight; but I have an inilnkely higher authority 
 to oppofe to it. I had the happinefs of hearing .the 
 merits of General Clavering and Colonel Monfon 
 acknowledged and applauded in terms, to which I 
 am not at liberty to do more than to allude. They 
 were rapid and expreffive. I mull n^t venture to 
 repeat leaft I ihould do them injuflice, or violate 
 F the
 
 C 34 ] 
 
 the forms of refpeft, where effentially I owe and 
 feel the moft. But I am fufficiently underflood. 
 The generous fenfations, that animate the Royal 
 mind, are eafily diftinguiftied from thofe, which 
 rankle in the heart of that perfon, who is fuppofed 
 to be the keeper of the Royal confcience. 
 
 The third divifion of the bill includes the inili- 
 tution of a new judicature, avowedly repugnant to 
 all the principles of the criminal jurifprudence of 
 this country, and of which there is no example, but 
 the Star Chamber, in the hiflory of England. My 
 furprife and difappointment, when I heard this part 
 of the bill recommended and infilled on by the 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer, are not to be cxpref- 
 fed. Yet I might have been in fome degree pre- 
 pared for the event. This is not the firfl inftance, 
 in which I have obferved that the right honourable 
 gentleman is never more urgent, is never more elo- 
 quent in eftablifhing the truth of a general propo- 
 (ition, or in exalting the virtues of a general princi- 
 ple, than at the moment he is going to introduce an 
 exception to it. No man, who heard him, can 
 have forgotten, how earneilly and how vehemently 
 he recommended it to the Houfe, not to let their 
 anxiety for the better government of India, how- 
 ever laudable, engage them to do any thing incon- 
 liftent with the fecurity of our own domeflic efta- 
 bliihment, or that might diredtly or indirectly in- 
 trench on our own conflitution. From this general 
 Caution, he proceeded to a warm and animated pa- 
 negyric of the trial by jury. I declare moft fo- 
 
 lemnly
 
 [ 35 3 
 
 lemnly that I thought he was going to new model 
 the Supreme Court of Judicature at Calcutta, and 
 to reflore the Britilh fubjects in India to their birth- 
 right, of which they were deprived by the charter 
 of that Court, for no good purpofe that I can dif- 
 cover, but certainly without any good effect. When 
 the right honourable gentleman had thus eftablifh- 
 ed his premifes, by an appeal to conftitutional to- 
 pics, which always gain upon an Englifh audience, 
 he turned Ihort to a conclufion, which I imagine 
 muft have difappointed and aftonifhed every man, 
 who was not immediately in the fecret " That the 
 " bed general rules were fubject to exceptions, that 
 " neceffity created a law of its own, and that fuch 
 " a neceffity exifted at prefent. That the punifh- 
 " ment of Indian delinquents could not be obtain- 
 " ed by proceedings in Parliament, nor by profe- 
 " cution in the courts of common law, -of courfe 
 " that there was no alternative, but to create a fpe- 
 " cial judicature, with fummary proceedings, and 
 " without the intervention of a Jury, for the trial of 
 " offences committed in India." In the firft place, 
 Sir, I deny the fuppofition, on which the inference 
 is founded. I have no doubt that delinquency of 
 every kind may be effectually tried and punilhed by 
 the judicatures that exift. But if I thought other- 
 wife, if I were perfe&ly convinced that Indian 
 delinquents could no way be puniftied but by a vio- 
 lent innovation in the criminal law of the kingdom, 
 I would not purchafe their puniihment at fo ruinous 
 an expence. I would not, for the fake of that ob- 
 F ^ jeft,
 
 [ 3 3 
 
 jedt, though I think it important, confent to a breach 
 of any kind in the principal barrier of the freedom 
 of England. When the precedent is eflablifhed, I 
 know not what farther innovations may be gradually 
 grafted upon it, or how rapidly it may advance to 
 the deftru&ion of thofe principles, which it begins 
 with invading. We are not yet however reduced to 
 that coniideration. Let us try whether, in effect, 
 the -right honourable gentleman is warranted in af- 
 firming that there is no alternative. If there be, 
 the principles we both profefs oblige him to prefer 
 it. I am but little of a lawyer, and I am very de- 
 lirous to be inftructed. If I fhould be miilaken in 
 my fadts, fome of the learned gentlemen oppofite to 
 me will have the goodnefs to corredt me. 
 
 Suppofmg it to be admitted, that taking the law 
 as it now ftands, the formality of pleading, and the 
 difficulty of afcertaining, according to the find: 
 rules of evidence, fadits which have arifen beyond 
 fea, are fuch as will create a failure of juflice, it 
 does not follow, that it is at all neceffary to deprive 
 perfons accufed of offences in India of trial by Jury. 
 The Court of King's Bench has already the power 
 of trying mifdemeanors committed in India, under 
 the i3th of Geo. III. cap. 63. with tbe afijlance of 
 a Jury. If the forms of pleading and the rules of 
 evidence {land in the way of juftice, let the law be 
 altered : with rcfpect to fpecial pleading and evi- 
 dence, let the King's Bench be governed by the 
 fame rules that are laid down to govern the prac- 
 tice of this new Court ; and then it will be as com- 
 petent
 
 [ 37 1 
 
 pctent as this can be, to take cognizance of, and 
 punifti offences committed in India, and Hill the par* 
 ty accufed will, in every inftance, have the privi- 
 lege of being tried by his peers. When the act of 
 1774 was made, it was thought necelfary to alter 
 the law with regard to evidence : and it was accord- 
 ingly enacted, that depofitions, taken under a com- 
 miffion in India, ihould be admitted as evidence in 
 the King's Bench ; but trial by jury ilill remained. 
 The Legiflature did nothing to affect that mode of 
 trial. Before that ad:, a mifdemeanor committed 
 in India could not have been tried upon an informa- 
 tion in the King's Bench, fo that here was a new 
 jurifdiction given to that Court ; its jurifdiction 
 was at leaft extended to offences in India, which 
 Were before not cognizable in that Court, either by 
 information or indictment. At common law, trea- 
 foris committed out of the realm were not punifh- 
 able in England. To remedy this defect, various 
 acts were made in the reign of Henry VIII. : but 
 even iri the arbitrary reign of that Monarch, no at- 
 tempt was made to deprive the fubject of trial by 
 jury. At common law, murders committed in fo- 
 reign parts could not be inquired into in England ; 
 but by the 33d Henry VIII. cap. 23. they might be 
 inquired of, and tried by the King's fpecial commif- 
 fion in England. By that act a new tribunal was 
 erected ; but ftill no attempt was made to abolifti 
 trial by jury. Even in that commijion court, the 
 party had the privilege of being tried by his peers. 
 If it be true, that a new fpecies of criminality makes 
 
 . a new
 
 a new courfe of proceeding unavoidable, the ground 
 of the diftmction muft be fairly and clearly efta- 
 blilhed. The anfwer I expect muft not be techni- 
 cal, but plain enough to fatisfy the underftanding 
 of men, who are not learned. When the common 
 intereft is at flake, the common fenie of the nation 
 ihould be confulted. 
 
 A word or two more on the general fituation of 
 the country, and I have done. We have it from 
 the authority of a noble Lord *, or rather of a no- 
 ble convert, whofe opinions very properly bend to 
 his experience, that, at a former period, he had 
 oppofed the prefent Adminiflration, becaufe he dif- 
 approved of the courfes, by which they had pof- 
 feffed themfelves of power ; that the cafe was now 
 completely altered ; that the fenfe of the nation had 
 been unanimously declared, and that the united 
 voice of the nation could not be refifted ; that the 
 Minifter had now come into power, at the front door 
 of the Houfe, and on thejhoulders of the People. I dp 
 not mean to difpute the truth of thefe propofitions, 
 much lefs the propriety of any change of opinion, 
 that may be founded upon them. Take the fact as 
 it is ftated, and compare it with the confequences, 
 which it has immediately produced. Wherever 
 ienfation exifts, the comparifon will be felt ; and, if 
 men are ftill capable of reflection, it will force them 
 to reflect. The very firft act of this popular Ad- 
 minifcration, of a Minifter, who comes into power 
 gn thejhoulders of the People, attacks the Democracy 
 
 * Lord Delaval, 
 
 of
 
 C 39 3 
 
 of the country, and annihilates the firfl of all the 
 popular powers of the Conftitution. The decifion 
 of the queflion upon the Weftminfter election, how- 
 ever it may be turned, or in whatever colours it may 
 be drefled, carries you finally and inevitably to this 
 conclufion ; that the People of Great Britain may 
 be governed by laws, to which they have not con- 
 fented, and may be taxed by a Houfe of Commons, 
 in which they are not reprefented. If this be the 
 fad of Weftminfter to-day, why not of London to- 
 morrow, of Middlefex the next ? On the face of 
 the precedent, I fee nothing to confine it. 
 
 The fecond meafure of this popular Adminiftra- 
 tion attacks the trial by jury, and threatens to abo- 
 liih it. Such are the inftant operations of that very 
 power, which pretends to be derived from the confi- 
 dence of the People. But if the People of Eng- 
 land are not mad as well as blind, if they have not 
 loft their understanding as well as their feelings, they 
 will foon fee how unwifely they have beftowed their 
 confidence, and repent of their delufion, when re- 
 pentance is too late. 
 
 HOUSE
 
 C 40 1 
 
 HOUSE OF COMMONS, 
 
 MONDAY, July 27, 1784. 
 
 ' 1 H E order of the day being read, for taking 
 * c into further confideration the Report from the 
 " Committee of the whole Houfe, to whom the 
 te Bill for the better regulation and management of 
 (( the affairs of the Eaft-India Company, and of the 
 " Britifh poffeflions in India, and for eltablifhing a 
 tc Court of Judicature for the more fpeedy and 
 " effectual trial of perfons accufed of offences in 
 " the Eafl Indies, was .committed." 
 
 Mr. . FRANCIS. 
 
 Mr. SPEAKER, 
 
 My objections to the bill, as it now flands, are in 
 fome refpe&s changed; but they are very little di- 
 minilhed. It is not to be denied, that the bill has 
 been materially altered, and, in fome inftances, im- 
 proved in the Committee. Inftead of profefTmg 
 candour, which too often is affectation, I ihall 
 
 fpeak
 
 [ 4' ] 
 
 fpeak of the prefent merits of the bill, with fin- 
 cerity. I allow that fcveral claufes have been 
 prudently corrected, and others very properly 
 omitted ; but I do not mean to admit, that parti* 
 cular improvements, grafted on falfe principles, 
 can effentially mend the rheafure. It is pomble 
 that a thing, which is wrong in one extreme, may be 
 equally wrong in another. In acknowledging the 
 improvements that have been made, I hope at leafl 
 to eflablilh a claim to credit, when I return to my 
 objections. 
 
 No orders are now to be fent to India by the 
 Commiflioners without the knowledge of the Di- 
 rectors, or to the Commanders in Chief in India, 
 without the knowledge of the refpective Prefiden- 
 cies. Orders of every kind are now to be conveyed 
 through the proper conftitutional channels. While 
 you fuffer the Court of Directors to exift, their au- 
 thority belongs to the conftitution of the Company. 
 To pafs by the firil is to deftroy the fecond. The 
 abfurdity of that idea is acknowledged and corrected. 
 The claufes, by which the appointment of the feve- 
 ral Commanders in Chief, and of perfons to fucceed 
 to the command in cafe of vacancy, was to be given 
 to His Majefty, are omitted. Undoubtedly, nothing 
 could be more extravagant than the idea of feparating 
 the military from the civil power of the Company's 
 Government. The alteration was indifpenfably ne- 
 ceflary. At the fame time, I have no conception how 
 it can poffibly be reconciled to a political principle, 
 which a right honourable gentleman, in opening the 
 G riginal
 
 original plan of the bill, laid down as fundamental. 
 jHe urged and infifted on the truth of this propofi- 
 tion, and afferted it to be inherent in the Kngliih 
 conftitution, that the armies of any one State, how- 
 ever they might be divided, or wherever they might 
 be employed, belonged to the department of the 
 executive power, and that therefore the appointment 
 to the feveral commands of the Company's forces 
 fkould unqueftionably be veiled in the Crown. He 
 had then forgotten, what he poffibly may fince have 
 recollected, that the Court of Directors are in fact 
 the executive power of the State in queftion. But 
 I need not eombat a proportion, which he himielf 
 has fo completely abandoned. The right honoura- 
 ble gentleman, I fee, is not obflinately tenacious of 
 his principles, or his complaifance to his friends muft 
 be unbounded. 
 
 The feveral claufes in the original bill, which re- 
 late to the private debts of the Nabob of Arcot 
 and the Rajah of Tanjore ; the reipeclive claims 
 or undetermined rights and pretcnfions of thole 
 princes; the reinftatement of difpofferTed Rajahs, 
 Zemindars, and other landholders ; the fixation of 
 the rents or tributes to be paid in future ; the re- 
 duction of expences, and the final limitation of cfta- 
 bjiihrnents, offices, and emoluments ; are all com- 
 pletely relinquifhed, ! will not prefume to fay, in 
 compliance with my opinion, but a good deal in 
 conformity to it. The principle I recommended 
 feems to be generally adopted, that whatever can be 
 done, immediately by the Directors at home, fliould 
 
 not
 
 [ 43 ] 
 
 not be referred to the fervants abroad. Yet I am 
 forry to fee that, in this general fweep, the very belt 
 claufc of the firfl bill is included. I mean the one 
 marked 58, by which it was provided " that it 
 " fhould not be lawful for the Governor General 
 " and Council of Fort William, or the Governor 
 " and Council of any of the other Presidencies, or 
 " any fervant or agent of the faid United Com- 
 " pany, of what defcription or denomination foever, 
 " to alter fuch tribute, rent, fervice, or payment 
 (C as the faid Court of Directors Ihould have finally 
 " confirmed, upon any pretence whatfoever, or to 
 " exact from or impofe upon any native Prince, dr 
 " his heirs, or perfons claiming under them, any 
 " greater or different tribute, rent, fervice, or pay- 
 " ment, than fuch as ihould have been confirmed 
 " by the Court of Direftors." 
 
 I moft earneftly recommend it to the right ho- 
 nourable gentleman to reinftate this claufe, or to 
 revive the fpirit of it, in terms accommodated to 
 the new principle which appears to be affumcd. 
 The tribute once fixed, I would not leave it in the 
 power even of the Directors to alter it. 
 
 The claufe, reflecting prefents, is properly 
 amended. Wherever the prohibition is right, it 
 ought to Hand without exception. Admitting that 
 prefents were really and purely ceremonial, in my 
 mind they degrade the dignity of a high flat ion 
 inftead of exalting it. What in fact, and even in 
 appearance, can be more difgraceful, than fofr a 
 Britiih Governor to hold out his hand to receive a 
 G 2 few
 
 C 44 ] 
 
 few gold niohrs or rupees from every native, who 
 comes to viiit him, and frequently from perfons, 
 who are unable to afford it. The true dignity of 
 power is to be acceflible to its fubjects, without ex- 
 pecting them to pay for it. With refpect to the 
 fubordinate ranks of the fervice, I ft ill have my 
 doubts. I am perfectly fatisfied, that in the pre- 
 fent ftate of the fervice, no law can prevent the 
 practice, and I am not fure that you ought to at- 
 tempt it. I have no expectation that fuch a direct 
 provifion will ever be made for the Company's fer- 
 vants, as will even afford them a fubfiflence ; much 
 lefs an exceeding, out of which an independence 
 can be gradually accumulated, by any efforts of 
 oeconomy. People in England have no idea of the 
 expence of living in Bengal. There is no fuch 
 thing as commerce. The few, who have engaged 
 in enterprifes of internal induftry, have either to- 
 tally failed, or been obliged to abandon them : 
 and the falaries, given by the Company, below the 
 Board of Trade and the Colonels of Brigades, are 
 very inconfiderable. Yet no man Ihould be cut off 
 from the hopes of a reafonable and moderate inde- 
 pendence, in proportion to his ftation. Human 
 inftitutions Ihould confult human nature. 
 
 I believe, Sir, I have now taken notice of every 
 material amendment, that ' deferves commendation. 
 The other branches of the fubject are more nume- 
 rous and productive. 
 
 In comparing the prefent bill with the firft, there- 
 is one general preliminary obfervation to be made 
 
 upon
 
 C 45 J 
 
 upon them both ; that the two bills draw t .vo con- 
 clufions equally falfe, though perfe&ly different, 
 from one and the fame falfe principle of policy. 
 The principle, common to them both, is, that, 
 where power is really wanted, where power ought 
 to be flrengthened, the fureft way to ftrengthen it 
 will be to divide it. On this foundation, the firft 
 bill, inftead of uniting the executive powers of the 
 Company in any one Board, divided them between 
 the Commiflioners and the Directors, with fo great a 
 preponderance in favour of the former, that the 
 latter in reality were reduced to nothing and ought 
 to have been abolimed. On the fame foundation, 
 the prefent bill continues to divide a power, which 
 ought to be united, but diflributes it differently. The 
 Crown and the Commiflioners furrender almoft eve- 
 ry thing they had taken, and the Directors are re- 
 invefled with a power, which evidently fuppofes 
 them fit to be highly trufled. But the truft, as it 
 {lands, is incompatible with the control. The firft 
 bill, placing no confidence in the Directors, diverted 
 them of all power. The amended bill continues 
 a check, in which the fame want of confidence is 
 implied, yet reflores them to a power, which ought 
 never to be given to men who are diflrufled. 
 With refped: to the governments abroad, the means 
 taken to accomplim the profeffed objeft of both the 
 bills are nearly the fame. In : order to make the 
 power at home more capable of governing, they 
 divide it. But, in order to make the power in In- 
 dia more governable, they ftrengthen and unite it. 
 
 This
 
 [ 46 ] 
 
 This is the fenfe, in which the old maxim, divide 
 et imperil, is now undcrftood. This is the way, in 
 which ancient maxims of policy are interpreted and 
 applied by modern politicians. 
 
 The amended bill reduces the Prefidency of Fort 
 William to a Governor General and three Coun- 
 iellors, for the immediate purpofe, cxprtfsly avow- 
 ed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of giving 
 effect to the calling voice, in order to incrcale and 
 ftrengthen the power of the Governor General. 
 This, I believe, is the firft example of fuch a ufc 
 and application of the effed: of a calling voice. In 
 all deliberative councils and affcmblies whatever, 
 the true and natural principle of dccifion is by a real 
 majority of votes. But numbers, who debate, may 
 difagree ; and, if the whole number happens to be 
 even, they may poffibly divide into equal parts. In 
 that cafe only, the operation of the cafting voice is 
 made ufe of to create a fictitious majority, not for 
 the purpofe of giving power, but merely to obtain 
 a decifion. Hitherto the cafting voice has been 
 confidered as a neceflary provifion againft a poflible 
 inconvenience. The prefent bill creates the incon- 
 venience, not merely for the purpofe of correcting 
 ft, but to convey a power, which, if proper to be 
 given at all, ought to be given by a direct courfe, 
 and fecured againft accidents. On the principle of 
 the claufes in queflion, the Governor General ought 
 to be a diftinct perfon, and veiled with powers in- 
 dependent of the Council. As long as a Council 
 of four is full,, the whole power, that belongs to it, 
 
 will
 
 C 47 ] 
 
 will certainly veft in the Prefident, provided he has 
 (kill enough to fecure the blind and devoted fupport 
 of any one of" the other three ; and this, I know, 
 may be done. But, fuppofe his complaifant friend 
 fhoujd die or depart, and the other two fhould con- 
 tinue obilinate ; the declared objed: of 'the bill is 
 defeated. The Preiident is reduced to a ftate, in- 
 which he can do nothing but perplex or embarrafs 
 the others, and in that ilate he mull remain, until - 
 his intereil and influence at home fhall have accom- 
 plifhed another appointment. A year and a half at 
 lead muft elapfe, before his nc\v colleague can come 
 to his affiftance.< If therefore the power be proper, 
 the bill Ihould take care to provide for its being held 
 and exercifed without interruption. Sir, I am not 
 fuppofmg imaginary cafes. The oppofition to Mr. 
 Railings has not been confined to General Clavering, 
 Colonel Monibn, and myielf. His prefent col- 
 leagues, Mr. Wheler, Mr. Macpheribn, and Mr. 
 Stables, have exactly the fame opinion, that we had, 
 of him and of his meafures. Their oppofition is as 
 vigorous as tkev can make it, and, I believe, more 
 deeply relented by Mr. Railings, than ours. From 
 OHT oppofition, however it might diftrefs him, he 
 felt no degradation. Of his prefent colleagues I 
 know he has written- home to this effect, that he 
 Ihould have quitted the Government long ago, if he 
 could have ventured to leave it in fucb hands as 
 theirs ! 
 
 Rut perhaps it may be fufpcctcd that the Chan- 
 cellor of the Exchequer, in forming this arrange- 
 ment,
 
 C 48 ] 
 
 mcnt, has been guided by experience, and that he 
 has facts of importance to appeal to in fupport of it. 
 I will tell the Houfe how the fads fland, and 
 leave it to their judgement to compare them with 
 the arrangement. Some of the Directors are pre- 
 fent, and I call upon them to fupport me if I am 
 right, or to contradict me if I am wrong. 
 
 Before the death of Colonel Monfon, the Council 
 confifted of five perfon/s. I do not mean at prefent 
 to inquire into the refpective merits of the two par- 
 ties, into which it was divided, or to exalt one at the 
 cxpence of the other. For the immediate purpofe 
 of the prefent argument, it is fufficient for me to 
 fay, what every man in India and in the direction 
 knows to be true, that, while the Government of 
 Bengal was in the hands of five peribns, the Com- 
 pany's affairs were prudently conducted, and prof- 
 pered accordingly. The fyflem, laid down in their 
 general inftructions, was obferved ; their orders 
 \yere obeyed ; their debts were difcharged ; 
 their treafury was filled ; and great investments 
 were provided by favings out of the revenue. Above 
 all the reft, we fxed our attention to the prefervation 
 of peace throughout India. We maintained it our- 
 felves, and, when it was violated by the Prefidency 
 of Bombay, we reflored it by a direct interpofition 
 of the authority of our Government. When the 
 death of Colonel Monfon had reduced the Council 
 to four, which it feems is now the favourite number, 
 the mifchiefs, which have fince defolated India and 
 ruined the India Company, began to operate. The 
 
 fecond
 
 t 49 3 
 
 fecond war with the Marattas was planned at Bombay 
 the moment they heard of the death of General 
 Clavering, and received, embraced, and promoted 
 by the Governor General and Council, the moment 
 the plan was communicated to us. In lefs than five 
 months after the death of General Clavering, the 
 refolution was taken at Fort William to break the 
 definitive treaty of peace concluded but a year be- 
 fore at Poorttndur, and to fend an army acrofs India 
 to invade the Pefoiua's dominions. The General's 
 place was foon fupplied by Mr. Wheler, fo that, 
 from Colonel Monfon's death in Odtober 1776, to 
 the arrival of Sir Eyre Coote in March 1779, the 
 Council confifted of four perfons, excepting an in- 
 terval bf three or four months, in which I ftood 
 alone againft Mr. Haftings and Mr. Harwell ; and in 
 that period, I affirm that all the mifchiefs, with 
 which you are now opprefled, took their birth, and 
 grew into effects, which by this time, I fear, are 
 not to be retrieved. Your treafuries are empty ; 
 your debts are infupportable ; your inveftment, 
 when you have any, is paid for by bills on the Com- 
 pany, and two thirds of India have been laid wafte. 
 With thefe fadts before you, is it poffible for the 
 Legiflature to reject the number, under which the 
 Company's affairs were wifely and happily conduc- 
 ted m India, and voluntarily prefer that, under 
 which every thing has been done, which this very 
 law profeffes to condemn, and moft ftrongly pro- 
 hibits ? 
 
 H By
 
 [ 5 ] 
 
 By the feVenteenth and eighteenth claufes of the 
 amended bill, the fituation of a Commander in Chief 
 of all the Company's forces in India isjiow provi- 
 ded for. At laft it has been difcovered, that fuch 
 an office exifts. I have no objection to the voice 
 and precedence given him in the Supreme Council, 
 or at the fubordinate Councils of Fort St. George 
 and Bombay, when he mall happen to be at either 
 of them. - But I flrongly object to the fituation, 
 in which his arrival there will place the refpective 
 Commanders in Chief at thofe two Prefkiencies. 
 He not only fuperfedes them in rank, but reduces 
 them to filence. During his flay, they are only to 
 have a feat, but no voice, in the Council. The 
 Houfe will obferve that this is a civil office, not a 
 military command ; but, even on the flricteft mili- 
 tary ideas, the provifion is abfurd. The arrival of 
 a fuperior officer difpofTeffes the inferior, but does 
 not annihilate him ; he ftill continues fecond in 
 command, with a real and effective, though not with 
 an equal authority. For what reafon he is inftant- 
 ly to be converted into a mute, I cannot conceive. 
 Naturally he ought to be better informed than a 
 flranger concerning the affairs of the Prefidency, 
 where he has commanded. But the object of the 
 claufe is to filence the perfon, who, having the beft 
 information, ought to be fpecially confulted. It 
 ought to be confidered too, whether gentlemen of 
 high rank in the army, whether a general officer in 
 the King's fervice, who may happen to command 
 upon the coaft, be likeiy to fubmit to this fort of 
 
 treatment,
 
 E 5' ] 
 
 treatment, or how far it may wound the honourable 
 feelings and fpirit of the profeffion ? 
 
 Sir, I fhall leave the remaining regulations of the 
 bill to other gentlemen, who I believe have confi- 
 dered them with proper attention, and go at once 
 to that article, which, I confeis, is to me more im- 
 portant than all the reft. I mean the new judica- 
 ture, which the bill introduces into the criminal 
 law of this country. I perceive that, in the appre- 
 henfion of fome gentlemen, this part of the bill has 
 been considerably corrected and improved by the 
 amendments made in the Committee, and that fome 
 gentlemen, who objected to it at firft, are now fatis- 
 fied. I am truly forry for it ; becaufe I wilh that 
 the principle of every meafure, which I deem to be 
 dangerous to the constitution, Ihould appear at once 
 to the public view, undifguifed, in its real lhape, 
 and in the colours that belong to it. 'They deceive 
 themfelves groflly who imagine that that, which is 
 effentially wrong, can ever be formally right. It 
 cannot be corrected or improved, becaufe the defect 
 is in the eflence, not in the form. And why fhould 
 you lay afide the trial by jury in the cafe of Indian 
 delinquents? I have yet heard no one affirmative 
 reafon afiigned for it. Is it fufpected that a Jury 
 will not do juftice ? You have no ground for the 
 fufpicion ; on the contrary, in the only cafe in point, 
 in the only cafe of Indian delinquency that has been 
 profecuted in a court of common law, the Jury did 
 their duty. I do not mean to enter into the merits of 
 the profecution of Mr. Stratton and Mr. Brooke for 
 H 2 dif.
 
 [ v 3 
 
 difpofiefling and imprifoning Lord Pigot ; it is fuf 
 ficient for my prefent purpofe to fay, that the pub- 
 lic in general thought that thofe perfons deferved to 
 be feverely puniflied, and expected that they would 
 be fo. Why were they not ? The Jury did their part 
 in finding them guilty. If they were not fufficiently 
 puniflied, it was the fault of the Bench. Now, ob- 
 ferve the confequence : You lay afide the Jury, who, 
 in the only inftance in point, did every thing that 
 depended on them to bring the criminals to condign 
 puniihment, and you think you are fure of juftice, 
 in uniting the incompatible offices of Judge and 
 Jury in the fame perfons, who, the only time they 
 were tried, have totally difappointed the public ex- 
 pectation of public juftice. But all reafon and ar- 
 gument are ufelefs againft power. If a Britifli Houfe 
 of Commons can, on any terms, confent, in any in* 
 fiance, to abolifh the trial by Jury, and if the peo- 
 ple at large are infenfible of the danger of fuch a 
 precedent, individuals, who have done their duty, 
 muft fubmit to their fliare in the mifchief, which 
 they could not prevent. I fear the temper and cha- 
 racter of the nation are changed. Though I am not 
 an old man, I can remember a time, when an attempt 
 of this nature would have thrown the whole king- 
 dom into a flame. Had it been made when a great 
 man*, who is now no more, had a feat in this Houfe, 
 he would have ftarted from the bed of ficknefs, he 
 would have folicited fome friendly hand to depofit 
 
 * he late Earl of Chatham. 
 
 him
 
 [ 53 3 
 
 him on this floor, and from this flation, with a mo- 
 narch's voice, would have called the kingdom to 
 arms to oppofe it. But he is dead, and has left 
 nothing in this world, that reiembles him. He is 
 dead, and the fenfe, and honour, and character, 
 and underftanding of the nation are dead with him. 
 But it feems there is a necejfity, that fuperfedes all 
 objections. Juftice muft be done, and criminals 
 muft be punifhed. Sir, it requires fome fortitude ; 
 it requires patience, long exercifed, to endure fo 
 grofs a mockery. The bill, that threatens future 
 punifhment to future crimes, gives you a fpecial 
 earneft of its fincerity, in flickering every offence, 
 and protecting every offender who has hitherto 
 exifted, or who does exift at this hour. The pre- 
 fent law opens its bofom to receive them, and 
 there they are fafe : nay, it carries its precaution 
 farther ; it provides for the fecurity of crimes in 
 effe, that are actually unfinimed, and allows a fuf- 
 ficient time, in which they may be compleated. 
 When thefe honourable fervices are accomplifhed, 
 ftrict Juftice is then to take her feat. From that 
 moment we are never to fee any thing but her fword. 
 When the whole harveft has been plundered, when 
 the field itfelf has been trampled into duft, you 
 denounce racks and gibbets to the petty larceny, 
 that hereafter may glean a few ears of corn. I 
 have done my part to the utmoft of my little judge- 
 ment and ability. From thofe, to whom more has 
 been given, more will be expected. What I have 
 faid will not be ufelefs, if it fuggefts the materials 
 
 of
 
 [ 54 3 
 
 of reflexion to others,, and furnifhes employment 
 for greater abilities. 
 
 The other regulations of the bill may be thought 
 to reqWe immediate difpatch. If they arc proper 
 to be executed at all, they cannot be gprried too foon 
 into effedt. But no argument of that kind can be 
 applied to the claufes, that regard the Judicature. 
 The bill, on the face of it, expreffes no particular 
 hurry to punifh any body. For what poflible rea- 
 fon then, mould this part of the bill be fo urgently 
 prefTed forward to keep pace with the reft ? The 
 prefent Adminiftration, we are told, poflefles the 
 confidence, and are at all times ready to appeal to 
 the judgement of the People. Let us fee whether 
 they are ready to adt up to their profeffions. Sure- 
 ly, Sir, there never can be an occaiion more proper 
 for an appeal to the fenfe of the nation, than when 
 Government is going to introduce a new mode of 
 trial into the law of this land, which, in the firft 
 uiftance, deprives a part of the people of their com- 
 mon right, and which, on fimilar pretences, may 
 be extended to the whole kingdom. If the nation 
 acquiefces, you lofe nothing by the delay. If not, 
 you are bound by your principles to relinquifh the 
 attempt. 
 
 Allow me a word at parting to an honourable *, 
 and a learned -f- gentleman : to one of whom I am 
 much indebted, and to the other, fpecially engaged. 
 The honourable gentleman affures the Houfe, that 
 
 * Major John Scott, member for Weftloo. 
 
 J- Henry Dundas, Efq. member for Edinburghfiiire,
 
 [ 55 ] 
 
 He is not the reprefentative of Mr. Haflings, though 
 a confiderable part of his life be employed in attack- 
 ing, defending, and refenting for that gentleman. 
 I obierve it to his credit, that, although he^ is not a 
 principal iruthefe qucftions, he takes part in them 
 withnoleisaAvity and zeal, than if the caufe were 
 directly and effcntially his own. Between the ho- 
 nourable gentleman and me there is not, nor ever has 
 been, any perfonal fubjecl: of offence. In one fenfe 
 therefore, I may be permitted to confider him as 
 the reprefentative of Mr. Haftings, iince every man 
 of honour is properly the reprefentative of an ab- 
 fent friend. This, I prefume, was the principle, on 
 which the honourable gentleman muft have adted, 
 when he very lately created an opportunity of reci- 
 ting to the Houfe fome tedious paflages from a let- 
 ter of ten years {landing, which, pronouncing it to 
 be extremely dull, he naturally, and I cannot fay 
 unwarrantably, concluded to be mine. But his ea- 
 gernefs to punifh the guilty, made him forget that 
 the Houfe was innocent. The honourable gentle- 
 man had no mercy upon either. Not confining 
 himfelf to my fuppofed writings, he thought it a 
 good opportunity to produce fome ferious charges 
 againft my conduct. To thefe laft, my anfwer 
 upon the inftant, I believe was thought fufficient. 
 My own feelings aflured me, that I carried the fenfe 
 of the Houfe along with me. To his aflertion, 
 that we went to India pre-determined to declare war 
 with Mr. Haftings at the moment of our arrival, I 
 faid, that the moment of our arrival gave us an 
 
 infight
 
 C 56 j 
 
 infight into his conduA, which made it impotfi- 
 blo for us, as honeft men, to unite with him. 
 Contrary to all his own repeated declarations and 
 profeffions refpecting a pacific fyftem, we found 
 the Company's army engaged by him in the extir- 
 pation of the Rohilla nation, with who:n we had 
 ''lately been in alliance, and with whom the Englifh 
 had no quarrel whatever, for the fole and acknow 
 ledged purpofe of gaining a fum of money. We 
 found he had fold the extirpation of a whole 
 people, who had never offended us, for forcy 
 lacks of rupees ; not a rupee of which had 
 been paid, though the fervice was compleated. 
 We found a third part of the whole military force 
 of Bengal had marched to places, fo remote from 
 our own territory, that none of the ordinary maps 
 of Hindoftan went far enough north to include their 
 fituation, I fubmit to judgement, whether thefe 
 fadts. alone did not oblige us to alter our opinion, 
 not only of Mr. Haftings's political conduct, 'but of 
 his perfonal character. The prejudices we carried 
 with us to India were paffionately and almoft ab- 
 jfurdly in his favour. I need not enter farther into 
 the merits of a queftion, on which every tribunal, 
 that was competent to examine it, has formally pro- 
 nounced condemnation againft him. On the 28th 
 of November, 1775, the Court of Directors unani- 
 moufly refolved, " That the agreement made with 
 " Sujah Dowlah, and the then Governor, (Mr. 
 " Haftings) for the hire of a part of the Compa- 
 *' ny's troops for the reduction of the Rohilla COUI-H 
 
 " try,
 
 C 57 1 
 
 <e try, and the fubfequent fteps taken for the car- 
 (e r y" m g on tnat war > were founded on wrong poli- 
 " cy, were contrary to the general orders of the 
 " Company, for keeping the troops within the 
 " bounds of the provinces, and for not extending 
 " their conquefts ; and were alfo contrary to thofe 
 " general principles of jujlice^ which the Company 
 " wifh fliould be fupported." 
 
 Even his fpecial friends the Proprietors, on this 
 occafion concurred with the Directors* Except that 
 he had interefl enough in that quarter to get the re- 
 ference to juftice omitted, the whole body of the 
 Proprietors, und voce, condemned him. On the 
 6th of December, 1775, they refolved unanimoufly, 
 (< That notwithftanding this Court hath the higheft 
 (c opinion of the fervices and integrity of Warren 
 (c Haflings, Efq. and cannot admit a fufpicion of 
 " corrupt motives operating on his conduct with- 
 " out proof; yet they are of opinion, with their 
 " Court of Directors, that the agreement made 
 " with Sujah Dowlah for the hire of a part of the 
 <f Company's troops for the reduction of the Ro- 
 " hilla country, and the fubfequent fteps taken for 
 fe carrying on that war, were founded on wrong 
 " policy, were contrary to the general orders of the 
 " Company frequently repeated, for keeping their 
 " troops within the bounds of the provinces, and 
 " for not extending their territories ; and were alfo 
 " contrary to thofe general principles, which the 
 " Company wilh Ihould be fupported." 
 
 I The
 
 C 58 3 
 
 The honourable gentleman was then pleafed to 
 charge me with having oppofed General Clavering 
 on a particular occafion, but with fo much appa- 
 rent reluctance, and in terms of fo much doubt and 
 apprehenfion, as evidently betrayed the dependence 
 of my fitnation. A difference of opinion feems a 
 ftrange proof of dependance. He concluded how- 
 ever that I was bound by fome fecret inflructions to 
 follow the dictates of General Clavering, and that, 
 when I refufed to be guided by him, I hazarded my 
 employment. This, indeed, if it were true, would be 
 a ferious charge not only againft me, but againft Ge- 
 neral Clavering himfelf, whofe memory the honour- 
 able gentleman profefTes to refpedt, and againft the 
 noble Lord * in the blue ribband, by whom alone 
 fuch inftrudtions could have been given. The ho- 
 nourable gentleman, however, has in fome degree an- 
 fwered his own charge. Forgetting every thing that 
 he had faid of my fuppofed dependence on my col- 
 leagues, he almoft in the fame breath affured the 
 Hbufe, that, with refpect to General Clavering and 
 Colonel Monfon, I was primus inter paref, and that 
 being at the head of a majority, I had in effect the 
 whole government in my hands. If that be true, 
 my colleagues were no more than cyphers at my 
 difpofal. But in reality, the charge and the defence 
 are equally trifling. I differed with General Cla- 
 vering, not once but often, as the honourable gen- 
 tleman will find, if he will look over our proceed- 
 
 * Lord North. 
 
 ings.
 
 C S9 ] 
 
 ings. Men of real honour, though generally united, 
 and adlng together on the fame general principles, 
 will often difagree, and when they difagree, will be 
 ready to declare it. Men of a different character, 
 uniting on a different principle, will never difagree 
 in particulars, as long as their general engagement 
 to each other fubfifts. It is perfectly true that I 
 felt and exprefled the utmoft anxiety at differing 
 from General Clavering on a queftion of impor- 
 tance ; but not for the reafon fufpected by the ho- 
 nourable gentleman. I dreaded the construction, 
 which ignorance and malignity would be ready 
 enough to give to my concurring with Mr. Haf- 
 tings. I knew my foliation. When I oppofed him, 
 it was faction. When I concurred with him, it 
 was corruption. The honourable gentleman, how- 
 ever, has omitted a material part of the flory. He 
 has inadvertently neglected to inform the Houfe 
 that the Court of Directors, in their letter of the 
 ^th of February 1777, intlrcly agreed with me on the 
 point in queftion. 
 
 The honourable gentleman fays that we mould 
 have acted wifely for the public fervice, if, inftead 
 of looking back to the errors of former times, we 
 had drawn a veil over every thing that was paft, and 
 directed our efforts to future improvement. Sir, I 
 am not of that opinion. I have no idea that fuch a 
 plan would have been practicable, and I am fure it 
 would have been unjuft. Injuftice is not valid be- 
 caufe it has been done. We could not abfolutely 
 fliut our ears to complaints. We could not fay, 
 I 2 that
 
 that no man, who had been injured, mould ever be 
 redrefTed, The Supreme Court of Judicature look- 
 ed very far back indeed, when it was their object to 
 make an example, and to hold it out to the natives. 
 But if the contrary had been true ; if the honou- 
 rable gentleman's abflract opinion were ever judi- 
 cious, he forgets that we had no choice. He 
 forgets that the Court of Directors prefcribed to us 
 the very conduct we obferved, and applauded us 
 highly for purfuing it. 
 
 The only point, on which I could not inftant- 
 ly recollect enough of the fubject to give the 
 honourable gentleman an immediate anfwer, re- 
 garded 'the reprefentation, which he fays, I drew 
 up in December 1774, of the condition of Bengal 
 at that time. He charges me with a wild exag- 
 geration in faying, that Bengal, even then, was 
 reduced to the hazard of beggary and ruin. Sir, a 
 mere queflion of perfonal debate between the ho- 
 nourable gentleman and me, would be of too little 
 moment, even to ourfelves, to be obtruded on the 
 Houfe, if it did not lead to information imme- 
 diately connected with the general fubject-matter of 
 our prefent deliberation. You are going to make 
 a law for the better government of Bengal. It 
 is therefore proper you Ihould inquire, what the 
 flate of Bengal was ten years ago, when the Legif- 
 lature firft interpofed for the fame purpofe. The 
 Houfe Ihould next endeavour to poffefs itfelf of the 
 .events, which have happened in the interval, and 
 
 then
 
 [ 6i ] 
 
 then you will be able to determine, what is proba- 
 bly the actual Hate of the object, concerning which 
 you are going to exercife your legislative power. 
 
 The Houfe, I imagine, will hear with furprife, 
 that the firft intimation I received of the diftrefs of 
 the Government of Fort William, was in a private 
 converfation with Mr. Haftings himfelf. On evi- 
 dence of this kind, I certainly mould think it im- 
 proper to infift, if it had not concurred with many 
 recorded declarations made by Mr. Haftings to the 
 fame effect. The fundamental argument conftantly 
 ufed by him in defence of the Rohilla war, was, the 
 diftrefs of the Company's affairs both at home and 
 abroad. In his minute of the 3d December, 1774, 
 he fays, 
 
 " All our advices, both public and private, re- 
 " prefented the diftrefles of the Company at home, 
 " as extreme. At the fame time, fuch was the 
 " ftate of affairs in this Government, that for many 
 " years paft, the income of the year was found in- 
 " adequate to its expence, to defray which, a hea- 
 *' vy bond debt, amounting at one time to a hun- 
 " dred and twenty-five lacks of rupees, had accu- 
 " mulated. By allowing the Vizier the military 
 * s aid, which he required, a faving of near one 
 " third of our military expences would be effected 
 " during the period of fuch a fervice, and the fti- 
 es pulation of forty lacks would afford an ample 
 " fupply to our treafury, and to the currency of the 
 ef country." 
 
 On
 
 C 6 2 ] 
 
 On this declaration, our firft obfervation was, that 
 urgent diftrefs was implied in the violent nature of the 
 remedy. 
 
 The maxims of policy invented by Mr. Mailings 
 to fupport the fad:, accommodate themfelves per- 
 fectly to the motives on which he acted. 
 
 30/7? Nov. 1774. 
 
 <( If the internal refources of a flate fail it, or 
 '* are not equal to its occalional wants, whence can 
 " it obtain immediate relief, but from external 
 " means?" 
 
 30 tb Nov. 1774. 
 
 " I mall be always ready to profefs, that I do 
 " reckon the probable acquifition of wealth among 
 " my reafons for taking up arms againft my neigh- 
 " hours." 
 
 Obferve, Sir, that one of Mr. Haftings's motives 
 for taking up arms againfl his neighbours, not againft 
 his enemies, is plainly and explicitly to get porTeffion 
 of their wealth. 
 
 With refpect to the actual diftrefs of the Govern- 
 ment and country of Bengal, I defire nothing to be 
 believed on my own affertion. On the i 7th of Oc- 
 tober, 1774, a day or two before our arrival at Cal- 
 cutta, Mr. Haftings and his Council drew up a let- 
 ter to the Court of Directors in defence of the Ro- 
 hilla war, which they principally refled on " the 
 " acquifition of forty lacks of rupees to the Com- 
 " pany, and of fo much fpecie added to the ex- 
 currency of thefe provinces :" not a rupee 
 
 of
 
 C 63 3 
 
 of which , however, was received until fome time 
 after our arrival. 
 
 With refpedt to the internal {late of the provinces, 
 I prefume that the evidence of the late Mr. Samuel 
 Middleton, one of the oldeft and moft experienced 
 of the Company's fervants in Bengal, will be al- 
 lowed to be conclufive. If it were not, I could 
 fupport it by a mafs of other evidence of equal au- 
 thority. In his letter of the 5th of February 1775, 
 near five months after our arrival, he fays, " When 
 ff a very considerable portion, fuppofed even a third 
 " of the whole inhabitants, had perifhed, the re- 
 " maining two thirds were obliged to pay for the 
 " lands now left without cultivators. The country 
 " has languished ever iince, and the evil continues 
 f{ enhancing every day." Now, Sir, I think it will 
 be admitted, that no defcription of national or po- 
 litical diftrefs can eafily be exaggerated, which is 
 founded on evidence and authorities fuch as thefe. 
 But has any thing happened, fince that time, to im- 
 prove the ftate of the country ? Excepting the 
 fhort interval, in which General Clavering's prin- 
 ciples and authority prevailed, have you heard of 
 any thing but war in all parts of India ? But the 
 oppreffion and rebellion of Princes fubject to your 
 power ? Mutinies among the native troops for 
 want of pay ? Extraction of fpecie from Bengal 
 for the fupport of the other Prefidencies, the enor- 
 mous amount of which is flated as the merit of Mr. 
 Haftings ?- Inveflments bought with paper and 
 Naughts on the Directors, and debts accumulating 
 
 without
 
 C 4 3 
 
 without end ? Put the fa&s together, and then the 
 Houfe will be able to determine, whether the la- 
 bour they have at lafl undertaken of correcting fo 
 many diforders, and recovering our Indian poflef- 
 fcffions from fo many diftrefles, be a taik of common 
 magnitude, or likely to be accomplilhed by common 
 men ? 
 
 Now, Sir, having difmified the ferious part of 
 the honourable gentleman's charge, I hope he will 
 allow me to make a few obfervations on the manner 
 and time, in which it was produced. Suppofing him 
 for a moment to be the reprefentative of Mr. Haf- 
 tings, and to feel for that gentleman as fenfibly as 
 he could do for himfelf, I beg leave to obferve to 
 him, that his feverity to me is not juftified on any 
 principle of retaliation. I never fought for Mr. 
 Haftings's letters. The honourable gentleman him- 
 felf brought them before the Houfe, and trium- 
 phantly referred the contents of them to an atten- 
 tive examination. But, if it had been otherwife, I 
 cannot admit, that an inoffenfive pleafantry, which 
 wounds no man, and fometimes enlivens the gravity 
 of debate, is equitably retorted by a ferious de- 
 liberate attack upon the moral conduct or character 
 of an opponent. It is not likely that I Ihould ever 
 have occafion to make a fimilar reflection on that 
 of the honourable gentleman. His actions are too 
 ; ~ii guarded, and my difpofition to him is too ami- 
 cable, to allow me to fuppofe the probability of fuch 
 a cafe. Admitting it neverthelefs to happen, I cer- 
 tainly mould not follow the example he has fet me. 
 
 I would
 
 C 5 3 . 
 
 I would not endeavour to take him by furprife. I 
 fliould not expedt him to carry letters or tranfac- 
 tions of ten years (landing, correctly in his me- 
 mory. If I thought myfelf obliged to bring a 
 charge of any kind againft him, I fhould think my- 
 felf much more bound, in honour and in juftice, to 
 give him previous notice of my intention, and warn 
 him to prepare for his defence. 
 
 I am now to reply to the learned gentleman op- 
 pofite to me, and with that I ihall conclude. A 
 challenge from him undoubtedly does me honour, 
 for it fuppofes, in bis mind at leaft, an idea, which 
 does not exift in mine, and could not have occurred 
 to any other, that, on the fubject in queftion, there 
 is fome approach to equality from me to him. Not 
 being converfant in the forms of the Houfe, I did 
 not know, until fome fome hours later in the fame 
 evening, that 1 was at liberty to write down the 
 words of gentlemen, uttered perhaps haftily in de- 
 bate *, for the purpofe of anfwering them at a fu- 
 ture occafion, In a day or two after, I endeavour- 
 ed to recoiled: the learned gentleman's words, and I 
 believe I have taken them very exactly. If not, I 
 hope he will do me the favour to correct them. 
 He faid, " That gentlemen had talked in a loofe 
 *' general way of difobedience of orders, without 
 " coming to particulars ; that if they would point 
 " out inftances, he mould know where to grapple 
 
 * Mr. Dundas had quoted words of Mr. Fox, which he faid he 
 had taken down two years ago. 
 
 K " with
 
 [ 66 1 
 
 " with them. With refpeft to the Maratta war, 
 " he affirmed that Mr. Haftings was not guilty of 
 " difobedience of orders ; that the Directors 
 <f themfelves were to blame, in forming and en- 
 f< couraging a plan of conqueft on the Malabar 
 " coaft, and that Mr. Haftings, in commencing 
 " and purfuing the Maratta war, had not difobey- 
 " ed orders, but had conformed to the views of 
 " the Directors. That Mr. Haftings neverthelefs 
 " was greatly to blame for violating the treaty of 
 " Poorunder. On the truth of thefe aflertions, 
 " the learned gentleman challenged me, and de- 
 " clared himfelf ready to meet me at any time and 
 " on any ground *." 
 
 I muft confefs, Sir, that this language, efpecial- 
 ly from the learned gentleman, appeared to me 
 very extraordinary. I hardly ever heard any thing 
 with greater furprife. He has employed himfelf, 
 near two years together, with infinite induftry and 
 toil, in an inquiry into the abufes that prevail in the 
 India Company's fervice. He has published the 
 refult of his laborious inveftigations in many folio 
 volumes, which, I verily believe, no man in the 
 kingdom has read but myfelf. The prefent bill, 
 of which the learned gentleman is prochein ami^, if 
 not parent, fuppofes wilful difobedience in every de- 
 partment of the fervice ; the conftant Complaint 
 
 
 * Mr. Dundas affented to the exaftnefs of this recital of his words. 
 f A term ufed in law for him, who is the next friend, or next 
 of kin to a child in his. nonage. 
 
 Cf
 
 C 67 ] 
 
 of the Directors has been that their orders are not 
 obeyed ; and finally the right honourable gentle- 
 man, who propofes the bill, particularly urged and 
 infifted on the neceflity of conquering a fpirit of re- 
 fiftance, univerfally prevailing among the Compa- 
 ny's fervants in India. On any other prefumption, 
 the claufe would be fuperfluous. In the face of all 
 this evidence arid authority, the learned gentleman 
 gravely aflures the Houfe, that there have been no 
 examples of difobedience, or that the inftances, if 
 any, have not been material. He calls upon his 
 opponents to come to particulars, and then he lhall 
 know where to grapple with them. Sir, I will not 
 weary the Houfe with a multitude of quotations 
 from the Company's records. They are filled with 
 the very proofs and examples, which the learned 
 gentleman calls for. Setting afide orders indifferent 
 to the fervants abroad, and which of courfe they 
 had no motive to difobey, and fetting afide orders, 
 which were capable of being converted to fome pur- 
 pofe of their own, for thefe they have obeyed 
 not only with exactnefs but oftentation, I affirm 
 that, fo far from its being difficult to find inftances 
 of difobedience, the difficulty would be to point 
 out an order of the Directors, that ever was regard- 
 ed. The India Company little know, in what fort 
 of eftimation their Directors are held in India. But 
 it is proper I fhould encounter the learned gentle- 
 man on his own ground. Let him afk the Direc- 
 tors, what they think of the following examples. 
 They are not mere facts, for which excufes or pre- 
 K 2 tences
 
 C 68 3 
 
 tences might be invented, but formal acts of difo- 
 bedience, deliberately avowed and defended on 
 principle. 
 
 The firil is the well-known cafe of Mr. John 
 Briftow, who had been recalled by Mr. Haltings 
 from his ftation at Lucknow, without any charge 
 whatever againft his conduct, and whom the Direc- 
 tors repeatedly ordered to be re-inilated. Your Se- 
 lect Committee * have reported to you, in what 
 manner thofe orders were regarded. The general 
 ground taken and avowed by Mr. Hailiags was, that 
 the orders in queftion invaded his prerogative, and 
 he (hould be degraded by obeying them. 
 
 The fecond is the cafe of Mr. Francis Fowke, 
 which has alfo been fully reported to you by your 
 Sele<5t Committee. This gentleman was recalled 
 from Benares by Mr. Haftings, who declared 
 that there was no charge nor tlw flight eft imputation 
 of a charge againft bim. The Directors repeatedly 
 ordered him to be re-inftated, but to no purpofe. In 
 their letter of the 2/th of May, 1779, they fay, 
 " We have read, with aftonifhraent, your formal 
 " refolution, to fufpend the execution of our orders 
 ** relative to Mr. Francis Fowke ; your proceed- 
 <f ings at large are now before us; we lhall take 
 " fuch meafures as appear neceffary for preferving 
 " the authority of the Court of Directors, and for 
 " preventing luch inftances of direct and wilful dif- 
 " ofadience in our fervants in time to come." On 
 
 * Ninth Report, page 56. 
 
 this
 
 [ 69 I 
 
 this occafion, the principle maintained by Mr. Bar- 
 well was, that " he muft decline an acquiefcence 
 " in any order, which had a tendency to bring the 
 " Government into difrepute." 
 
 If the learned gentleman fays, that thefe are in- 
 fiances of no great moment, I ihall leave him to 
 fettle that queftion with the Directors. Inflead of 
 combating his opinion, I fliall take the liberty of 
 aiking him, whether he feriouily means to refer it 
 to the Company's fervants to determine, whether 
 the orders they receive are material or not. If he 
 does, I can venture to affure him, that the latitude 
 he allows is fufficient to anfwer all their purpofes, 
 and that they are not fo unreafonable, as to defire 
 any greater. 
 
 The bufmefs of contracts alone has opened a wide 
 and fertile field of difobedience. The fundamental 
 principle laid down by the Company was, that all 
 contracts ihould be annual ; that the Government 
 fliould advertife for propofals, and always give a 
 preference to the loweft bidders. Thefe rules, I 
 prefume, would be deemed unexceptionable, if they 
 did not limit the patronage of men in power in In- 
 dia, or the profits of their friends. Mr. Haftings 
 and Mr. Barwell gave all the contracts, to perfons 
 of their own choice, on their own terms, for five 
 years inilead of one, and without advertifing for 
 propofals. I beg the learned gentleman will attend 
 to what the Directors themfelves have faid upon the 
 fubject. In their letter of the 23d of December, 
 1778, among many other obfervations, they fay, 
 
 Par.
 
 [ 7 J 
 
 Par. 59. " This wafle of our property cannot be 
 " permitted. You -f- have disregarded our autho- 
 " rity, and difobeyed our orders, in not taking the 
 " loweft offers." 
 
 77. " In order to prevent the Company's money 
 " from being thus given away in future, we poli- 
 " tivelf dired," &c. &c. 
 
 99. " With thefe materials before you, the quef- 
 " tion is put, whether the contractor's terms, or 
 " the propofals of Mr. Johnfon, lhall be accepted : 
 " Mr. Francis, in ftricl: conformity with the Com- 
 " pany's orders, and according to eftablifhed ufage, 
 " was of opinion, that the contract Ihould be ad- 
 (f vertifed. Mr. Barwell thought the prefent con- 
 tf tradlor had, the preceding year, by making low 
 " propofals (to ufe his own phrafe) ejected Mr. 
 <e Johnfon, in hopes of obtaining future indulgence, 
 f and therefore he could not hefitate to give his 
 " vote for Mr. Johnfon.'* 
 
 100. " However ftrange Mr. Harwell's motive, 
 ' fc for giving his vote for Mr. Johnfon, may appear 
 
 " to us, we mufl confefs, the Governor General's 
 " reafons for concurring therein were ftill more 
 " extraordinary. His words are, / difapprove of 
 <( publifoing for propofals ; this contract is reduced too 
 (e low already, and will require a vigilant attention to 
 (C it on the part of the commanding officer of the corps 
 " of the army, that it will be duly performed ; to 
 " which he adds, that according to the beft informa~ 
 
 f Mr. Haftings and Mr. Barwell. 
 
 " tion
 
 C 71 ] 
 
 " tlon he had been able to obtain, little profit would 
 <( be made by the contractor, if he did his duty" 
 
 101. " But although the Governor General has 
 <c thought proper to exprefs fo direct and pointed a 
 " difapprobation of the mode adopted and pofitive- 
 <( ly enjoined by the Company, for conducing fo 
 " great a branch of their affairs, as that of the army 
 " contract, we neverthelefs adhere to the propriety 
 " of the Court's orders/' &c. 
 
 If this part of the fubject fhould be thought to 
 require any farther proof or explanation, the Re- 
 cords of the India Houfe will furniih it in abun- 
 dance. If the learned gentleman be flill duTatisfied, 
 if he ftill has any paffion for combat, I fhall leave 
 him to grapple with the Court of Directors. 
 
 I do not perfedly underftand the learned gentle- 
 man, when he fays, in the fame breath, that Mr. 
 Haftings is not anfwerable for the fecond Maratta 
 war, though he was greatly to blame for violating the 
 treaty of Poorundur. The breach of the treaty and 
 the war are one and the fame ad:. When he broke 
 the treaty, he created the war. But it feems, he 
 did it in compliance with inftructions from the 
 Court of Directors. Had that been the fad:, it 
 would have redounded to the credit of Mr. Haf* 
 tings, if, in that inflance, he had treated their or- 
 ders with the fame difregard, which he did in every 
 other. He would then have had the real merit of 
 fupporting the permanent fundamental principles, 
 the wife pacific policy of the India Company againft 
 an incidental order from a fluctuating Direction. 
 
 But
 
 C i* 3 
 
 But it is not fo. Sir, I am not a profefled advocate 
 of the Court of Directors, and they are very well 
 able to defend themfelves. In this inftance, how- 
 ever, it is but juftice to them to fay, that they have 
 not been juftly accufed. Firfl of all, let us confider 
 what the Company's acknowledged fyftem is. If I 
 am not very ill informed, the learned gentleman 
 himfelf has heretofore declared, that their written 
 inftructions would compofe a perfect code of poli- 
 tical wifdom. 
 
 In the very firft article of their general inftruc- 
 tions to Bengal, dated the zpth of March, 1774, 
 they fay, " We direct, that you fix your attention 
 * to the prefervation of peace throughout India, 
 c< and to the fecurlty of the poffemons and revenues 
 " of the Company." 
 
 In their letter of the i5th of December, 1775, 
 they fay, 
 
 Par. 4. " We difapprove all fuch diftant ex- 
 " peditions, as may eventually carry our forces to 
 " any fituation, too remote to admit of their fafe 
 cc and fpeedy return to the protection of our pro- 
 * vinces, in cafes of emergency." 
 
 5. " We alfo utterly difapprove and condemn of- 
 <c fenfive wars ; diflinguilhing, however, between 
 " offeniive meafures unneceffarily undertaken with 
 " a view to pecuniary advantages, and thofe, which 
 " the prefervation of our honour, or the protection 
 " or fafety of our poffeffions, may render abfolutely 
 " neceffiry." 
 
 6, The
 
 [ 73 ] 
 
 6. '* The attention paid by the majority * to the 
 " tenor and fpirit of our orders on this fubject, is 
 " highly agreeable to us ; and it is our moft pofi- 
 " tive diredion, that no deviation from thofe or- 
 " ders be permitted, but upon the mod urgent and 
 " abfolute neceffity ; as that alone can juftify a de- 
 " parture from them ; for the profped of any ad- 
 " vantages, however alluring, can in no wife be 
 " adequate to the pernicious confequences which 
 <f muft refult from examples of difobedience to our 
 " orders." 
 
 7. " The fentiments exprefled by the majority \ t 
 " in the thirty-fixth paragraph of their addrefs, 
 " coincide exadly with our own ; their determina- 
 (e tion to endeavour to maintain peace in India, and 
 te vigoroufly to defend our pofleffions and allies, 
 " cannot be too much applauded : we therefore 
 te flridtly enjoin every member of our Council, to 
 " concur heartily in fuch meafures as may be ne- 
 " cefTary for accomplilhing thefe defirable pur- 
 " pofes." 
 
 8. " We have already, in our letter of the 3d of 
 <f . March, 1775, exprefled our extreme concern, in 
 " finding that our arms had been employed in con- 
 c quering the Rohilla country for Sujah Dowlah, 
 " and difapproved the meafure ; and we have no 
 " reafon to alter our fentiments refpeding that 
 tranfadion." 
 
 * Clavering, Monfon, and Francii. 
 f Ditto. 
 
 L In
 
 [ 74 ] 
 
 In their general inftructlons to the-Commiflioncrs 
 appointed in the year 1769, they fay, " In all your 
 " treaties with the country powers you are to take 
 " care, that they be fo framed, as neither imme- 
 " diately nor eventually to engage the Company in 
 " any difputes between thofe powers." 
 
 Thefe documents, out of a multitude, are fuffi- 
 cient to eftablifh the general views and principles 
 of the Court of Directors. With refpct to the par- 
 ticular point in queftion, it happens that they gave 
 a particular injunction. In a letter of the 4th of 
 July, 1777, they fay, " Though the treaty (of 
 " Poorundur) is not, on the whole, fo agreeable to 
 " us, as we could wifli, ft ill we are refolved ftrict- 
 " ly to adhere to it on our parts." If the Direc- 
 tors could have been mad enough to fend out or- 
 ders to fet afide thofe, which I have recited to the 
 Houfe, deprivation of power would be but a fmall 
 portion of the punilhment their conduct would de- 
 ferve. 
 
 A word or two of perfonal application to the 
 learned gentleman, and I have done. I have ob- 
 ferved with concern, that his mind is not fo perfect- 
 ly free, as it ought to be, from uneafy fentations. 
 He is confcious that, amidft contending parties, he 
 has done his duty impartially ; that, in fpeaking 
 of Mr. Haftings, his language had been exactly ba- 
 lanced between condemnation and applaufe ; that 
 he never faid that Mr. Haftings was either a very 
 good man or a very bad man ; meaning, as we all 
 do, the political principles of the governor, not the 
 
 moral
 
 C 75. 3 
 
 moral character of the man ; and that having pur- 
 fued this middle^ even courfe, without the fmallelt 
 inclination to either fide, he had not had the good 
 fortune to fatisfy any body. This indeed is too 
 often the lot of moderate men in violent times, But 
 I have great pleafure in being able to allure the 
 learned gentleman, that bis lot is directly the re- 
 verfe of what he thinks it. Inftead of pleafmg no- 
 body, he has had the wifdom to obferve a conduct, 
 by which every individual of every party has been 
 gratified in his turn. I lhall contribute to the pub- 
 lic fervice, if I can affift in relieving him from this 
 ill-founded apprehenfiom He cannot be difturbed 
 in his application to bufinefs, without injury to the 
 publici To remove one half of his apprehensions 
 I need only read to him fome of his own refolutions 
 regarding Mr. Haftings, which I dare fay he has 
 totally forgotten* 
 
 (e Extracts from tie Refolutions of tie Comnlittee of 
 " Secrecy, l%th May, 1782. 
 
 Refolvedj 18. " That the refolution of the ma- 
 " jority of the Supreme Council, on the 2d of 
 " February, 1778, which, by the death of Colo- 
 <c nel Monfon, was now decided by the calling 
 u voice of the Governor General, had a ftrong ten- 
 *' dency to a renewal of the Maratta war." 
 
 35. " That the inflrudtions and powers given 
 
 " to Colonel Goddard by the Supreme Council, on 
 
 La the
 
 C 76 3 
 
 " the 5th of April, 1779, fixed on them, from that 
 " time, the chief direction and refponfibility of 
 " the war with the Marattas." 
 
 39. " That it muft be reckoned among, the many 
 " additional mifchiefs, which have arifen. chiefly 
 " from this improvident war with the Marattas to 
 " the Company's affairs, that the military force of 
 " the Carnatic had been weakened by rcinforce- 
 " ments fent to the Malabar coaft ; that the 
 " Bengal Government have been under the ne- 
 " ceffity of fupporting on their confines the army 
 " of a power, confederated, however involuntarily, 
 " againft them ; that they have been obliged to fue 
 l( for the mediation of the fame power, (the Rajab 
 " of Birar) have fubmittcd to a rcfufal, and pur- 
 " chafed at leaft an uncertain, becaufc apparently 
 " an unauthorifed treaty, on moft extravagant and 
 " dijlionourable conditions, with his fon, Rajah Chim- 
 tf najee ; and finally, that, being burthened with 
 c< the expences of a variety of diflant expeditions, 
 te while their allies are in diftrcfs, and their tribu- 
 " taries under opprcffion, there is alfo an alarming 
 " deficiency in their own rcfources of revenue and 
 " commerce, by the accumulation of their debt, 
 " and the reduction of their investment." 
 
 40. " That the attempt made by the Govern- 
 " ment General in the month of January, 1781, 
 " to form an engagement of alliance, offenfive and 
 " defenlive, with the Dutch Eaft-India Company, 
 "- by the means^ and upon the terms Hated in the 
 
 " proceedings
 
 C 77 3 
 
 " proceedings of their Council, was unwarranted, 
 " impolitic, extravagant, and unjuft." 
 
 42. " That the Government of Bengal had been 
 " previoufly in poffeffion of a letter from the Duan 
 66 of the Rajah of Berar, containing overtures for 
 " mediation for peace and alliance with the Pejbiva ; 
 " and that this material information was wholly 
 " fupprefled by them in their difpatches to the 
 " Court of Directors, but a copy of it was fent 
 " by the fame conveyance to the private agent of 
 " Mr. Haftings ; and that, in thus neglecting to 
 " make immediate communication to the Court of 
 " Directors of fuch important intelligence, the Go- 
 " vernment General appear to have failed in an 
 " efiential part of their duty." 
 
 Refolved, That Warren Haftings, Efq. Go- 
 " vernor General in Bengal, and William Hornby, 
 <( Efq. Prefident of the Council at Bombay, have- 
 (f ing, in fundry inftances, acted in a manner re- 
 ff pugn&nt lo the honour and policy of this nation, and 
 (f thereby brought great calamities on India, and enor- 
 " mous expences on the EaJl-India Company, it is the 
 " duty of the Directors of the faid Company to 
 " purfue all legal and effectual means for the re- 
 " moval of the faid Governor General and Prefi- 
 " dent from their faid offices, and to recal them to 
 " Great Britain." 
 
 This, Sir, I conceive, is not the language of a 
 man very much undecided in his opinion, or who 
 hejitates between the extremes of cenfure and ap- 
 probation.
 
 t /3 ] 
 
 probation. If it be, I fhould be glad to know, in 
 what terms the learned gentleman would exprefs 
 himfelf, when he ferioufly intended to condemn. 
 I can truly allure him that I am not acquainted 
 with any man, ib hoftile to Mr. Huttings, as not to 
 be contented with this clefcription of his conduct. 
 So peremptory and decided is the condemnation ex- 
 preiFed in thefe Refolutions, that feveral of my 
 friends in India concluded they had been drawn up 
 by me. Knowing nothing of the jftate of men and 
 things in this country, they drew their conclufion 
 from the knowledge they had of my opinions, and 
 from that very character of decifion, which is 
 ftamped on the face of the Refolutions, and which 
 the learned gentleman thinks it prudent to difclainl4 
 The fondnefs and applaufe, with which he has lately 
 fpoken of Mr. Haftings, have compleatly reconciled 
 him to that gentleman's friends. All parties now 
 have been fatisfied in fuccemon ; and in this fenfe, 
 I confefs the learned gentleman has been impartial. 
 His cenfure and applaufe are diitributcd with an 
 equal hand, and fo the account is balanced. 
 I told my Indian friends, in return to their let- 
 ters, that I indeed had no concern in the matter ; 
 but that the bufinefs was happily undertaken by A 
 man of great induftry, of eminent ability, and un- 
 exampled perfeverance, who, I was fure, would 
 carry it through. Of his induftry and abilityj my 
 opinion is the fame ; but I am forced to acknow- 
 ledge, that perfeverance, fuch as his, is not without 
 
 example.
 
 r 79 ] 
 
 example. Other men are obliged to employ their 
 talents in one line, and diredt their efforts to one ob- 
 jet ; 'and, even with this limitation, it is well if 
 they fucceed. The learned gentleman's abilities 
 are not fp narrowly confined. He carries the appli- 
 cation of them to every extreme, and equally iuc- 
 ceeds in exerting them in every direction. 
 
 A 1* P E N-
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 No. I. 
 
 1 N the conrfe of the debate on the 1 6th of July, 
 it was infilled by a learned gentleman, in defence 
 of the new Judicature, that the erection of fome 
 new tribunal was neceflary, for that Juries would be 
 found unequal to the taik of trying mifdemeanors 
 committed in India. In fupport of this pofition, he 
 contended that the trials of offences within the pur- 
 view of this bill would probably be of great length ; 
 that many might laft more than a week ; and that 
 fome might laft even more than a month. He then 
 proceeded to obferve, that common Jurymen were 
 not fit to have fuch caufes brought before them. 
 With regard to the probable length of the trials, it 
 is fcarcely poffible that trials fhould be fpun out to 
 fuch a length, as he feemed to apprehend, even in 
 this new Court, though in fome refpedts it feems 
 calculated for the purpofes of delay. When any 
 teflimony is to be brought from India, a mandamus 
 muft iffue from the King's Bench, and the de- 
 
 pofitions,
 
 [ 8, ] 
 
 petitions, taken by virtue of it, muft be tranf- 
 mitted to England, before even the commiffion can 
 iffue from the Court of Chancery for holding the 
 Court. All the teftimony, that is to come from 
 abroad, muft be colle&ed, even before the Court 
 is in exiftence. What reafon then is there to fear 
 that, when the foreign evidence is to be thus pre- 
 pared, trials would in general be of long conti- 
 nuance ? If they fhould, it would be owing, not to 
 difficulties in the procuring or examination of evi- 
 dence, but to the power given to the Commiflioners 
 to adjourn from time to time, as they ihall think fit ; 
 a power which would indeed, in all probability, be 
 productive of the greateft delays in the adminiftra- 
 tion of juftice- But it may be afked, why a Jury is 
 not as competent to try a mifdemeanor committed in 
 India, as one committed in England ; and why a 
 greater time ihould be neceflary for the trial of the 
 former than of the latter ? The affirmative refts on 
 an affertion, which, {landing without argument, 
 need only be denied. No man can be tried, even 
 under the provifionsof this bill, on an accumulated 
 or general charge. The information or indictment 
 muft be for fome fpecific offence or offences, to 
 which the party is to plead, and upon which iflue 
 muft be joined. If there be any teftimony in India, 
 it is to be tranfmitted under a mandamus to England. 
 After all this preparation then, (a preparation which 
 is prefcribed by the bill) a mifdemeanor committed 
 in India may be tried by a Jury with as little diffi- 
 culty, and in as little time, as one committed in 
 J| England.
 
 C s* 3 
 
 - England. The learned gentleman's doftrine is of 
 the mod dangerous tendency : it leads to the abo- 
 lition. of trial by Jury. All the arguments, which 
 have been ufed to fhew the inconvenience and im- 
 propriety of this mode of trial in cafes of offences 
 committed abroad, might with equal force be urged 
 againft the propriety of it in cafes of offences com- 
 mitted in England ; and very probably we mall foon 
 have them introduced for that purpofe. 
 
 Let it be admitted, for the fake of argument, 
 that the invefligation of Indian mifdemeanors will 
 probably take up a long time, and that common 
 Juries are not fit to have fuch caufes brought before 
 them ; flill it does not follow that there is any 
 neceffity for abolifhing trial by Jury. All Indian 
 mifdemeanors might be tried by fpecial Juries, and 
 this would obviate the faftidious objection, on which 
 ib much flrefs has been laid. Special Juries are not 
 " chofen out of the mafs of mankind," but out of 
 the principal freeholders of the county. Men as 
 little fubjedt to bias, " as little likely to go into 
 " common ale-houfes, and enter into porter-club 
 (e converfations upon the evidence before them," 
 and as little liable to be mifled, as the members of 
 either Houfe of Parliament. 
 
 As for the length of the trials, let the inveftiga* 
 tion be ever fo long, a Jury is competent to it. 
 With deference to learned authority, there is no 
 reafon to admit that " his going into his box, and 
 ^ remaining there locked up till he has given his 
 " verdict, is an effential charadteriftic of a Jury- 
 
 " man.
 
 [ 83 ] 
 
 " man." It is eflential that, after the Jury leave 
 the bar, they lhall not fpeak with the parties or 
 their agents ; and that they lhall receive no frefh 
 evidence : and it is common, in order to prevent 
 intemperance, or caufelefs delay, to keep them 
 without meat, drink, fire, or candle ; but I affirm 
 that this is not effential : the law fays, that, by 
 permiffion of the Judge, they may be allowed fire, 
 candle, and refrefhments. That permiffion would 
 always be given, when the length and nature of the 
 teftimony might render much deliberation neceiTary, 
 and thus the Jury would have it in their power, 
 without any material inconvenience to themfelves, 
 to give full confideration to every part of the bufi- 
 nefs before them. 
 
 No. II. 
 
 Minute of Richard Barwell, Efq. recorded in Conful- 
 tation of jtb of November, 1774, and referred to 
 in Page 27. 
 
 <( I entirely approve of the Honourable the Pre- 
 " iident's conduct in the receipt of complimentary 
 " nuzzers. 
 
 " The prejudices of the natives of Hindoftan, 
 " bigoted to their ancient cuftoms, make it abfo- 
 f( lutely impojjible to avoid deviating in this particu- 
 " lar from the words of the Ad: of Parliament ! 
 " The fpirit of the a& is not, however, by this 
 M 2 " feeming
 
 C 4 - ] 
 
 " feeming deviation, departed from, but regarded 
 " with an attention, which foews the mqft fcrupulous 
 " refpeft to the rejirittions of the Legijlafurc ! Nuz- 
 " zers are not made to the man, but to the flation 
 " he fills, and are very different in their nature 
 " from gratuitous rewards, or the gifts, denomi- 
 tf nated prefents ; I therefore cannot but equally 
 " honour the principle, while I admire the juftnefs 
 " of the motive, on which orEcial nuzzers, or 
 (c compliments are accepted by the Governor Gene- 
 " ral. I fee their acceptance in a light of the 
 " greateft propriety, perfectly confident with the 
 " ideas of the Company,- and regardful of what 
 " they have invariably recommended, attention to 
 " the particular prejudices, manners, and difpoil- 
 " tions of the natives ! 
 
 " The Governor General has thought proper to 
 " fubmit the nuzzers, made to his ftation, to the 
 " Court of Directors, to be appropriated agree- 
 " ably to their pleafure. Small as the obied: is to 
 " the Company and to the nation, it gives dignity 
 " to his character as guardian of the public inte- 
 " reds, and obviates all mifreprefentation of the 
 " principle and the motive, which has induced 
 " him to a compliance with the rooted prejudices 
 (< and manners of the Afiatics. My experience, 
 " from a long refidence in this country, convinces 
 " me of the real necejjity there is of reflecting 
 " ufages in immaterial points, and which, difre- 
 " garded, would be followed by impreffions re- 
 " fulting from a condud repugnant to Afiatic 
 
 * e notions
 
 [ 85 ] 
 
 Cf notions of propriety and deference. I might 
 " here make a tender to the Public of the trivial 
 " nuzzers, to the acceptance of which my flation 
 " has impelled me ; but what is proper in the Go- 
 " vernor General, would in me, I apprehend, ap- 
 " pear rather in the light of a confequential infignif- 
 <c cant difplay of rigidnefs in excefs ! ! The amount 
 " of my complimentary nuzzers of a gold mohur, 
 " and five rupees, from the period of my arrival at 
 " the Prefidency, exceeds not the fum of two hun- 
 " dred and fifty rupees, exclufive of a compliment 
 " from the Nabob of Arcot of a few pieces of 
 " cloth, the produce of his country, and two 
 " fhauls, a compliment more than returned by 
 " myfelf in the manufactures of Bengal, to the 
 " amount of three thoufand Sicca rupees. 
 
 (Signed) " RICHARD BARWELL." 
 
 No. III. 
 
 Extraft of the General Inftruftions, given by the Court 
 of D:reftors to the Governor General and Council of 
 Fort William, dated the 2$tt> of March, 1774, and 
 confirmed by a General Court of Proprietors* 
 
 35. "WE diredt, that you immediately caufe? 
 " the ftrifteft inquiry to be made into all op- 
 " preffions, which may have been committed, ei- 
 " ther againft the natives or Europeans, and into 
 
 "all
 
 [ 86 ] 
 
 se all abufes that may have prevailed in the colleo 
 " tion of the revenues, or any part of the civil go- 
 " vernment of the Prefidency ; and that you com- 
 " municate to us all information, which you may 
 " be able to obtain relative thereto, or to any diffi- 
 " pation or embezzlement of the Company's mo- 
 " ney." 
 
 Extraff of a General Letter from the Court of Direc- 
 tors to the Governor General and Council, dated the 
 $th of April y 1776. 
 
 Par. 27. " HAVING inveftigated the charges 
 " exhibited againft fome of the members of our 
 " late Adminiftration, we have come to the follow- 
 t( ing refolutions : 
 
 Refolved, " That it appears that the conduct of 
 " the late Prelident * and Council of Fort William 
 S( in Bengal, in fuffering Cantoo-Baboo, the prefent 
 (C Governor General's Banyan, to hold farms in dif- 
 " ferent Purgunnahs to a large amount, or to be 
 " fecurity for fuch farms, contrary to the tenor and 
 " fpirit of the feventeenth regulation of the Com- 
 " mittee of Revenue at Fort William, of the i4th 
 " of May, 1772, and afterwards relinquifhing that 
 (< fecurity without fatisfadtion made to the Com- 
 " pany, was highly improper, and has been at- 
 " tended with confiderable lofs to the Company. 
 
 * Mr. Haftings. 
 
 Refolved,
 
 [ 87 ] 
 
 Refolved, " That it appears that a confiderable 
 " fum of money has been given by one of the 
 (C Company's tenants, for holding the fait farms of 
 " Selimabad and Duccann-Savagepore, in the dif- 
 " trid: of Dacca, over and above the engagement 
 " forthofe farms to the Company, contrary to the 
 " letter and fpirit of the eleventh regulation of the 
 " Committee of Revenue, of the i4th of May, 
 " 1772; and that Mr. Harwell has acknowledged 
 t( having charged the faid tenant, for his own ufe, 
 " and the other gentlemen of the Factory, with 
 " the amount of 125,500 rupees, for permitting 
 " him to hold the faid farms." 
 
 28. " Since paffing the above refolutions, the 
 " Northumberland's Purfer is arrived with your 
 " advices ; and our concern is much increafed on 
 " finding tnat improper influence, and interference 
 " of our fervants in the revenue branch, has been 
 " much more general than we had been led to hope 
 {( was the cafe ; and that in the immediate views of 
 " private gain, the Company's intereft has been 
 " greatly negle&ed." 
 
 30. " The powers and instructions veiled in, and 
 " given to General Clavering and the other gentle- 
 " men, were fuch as fully authorifed them in every 
 " inquiry that feems to have been their objecl: ; 
 " and we highly commend the indefatigable ajfidulty 
 tc that evidently appears in their laborious refearckes, 
 " and their zeal for the intereft of the Company and the 
 t( welfare of individuals, as well natives as Ruro- 
 " -heans" 
 
 peans 
 
 Extraft
 
 [ 88 3 
 
 Extraft of a General Lstter from the Court of Direc- 
 tors to the Governor General and Council, dated the 
 of November, 1777. 
 
 39. "WE find that the farm of Sylhet was 
 " granted by the Committee of Circuit; that the 
 " Company's advances to the farmers of Sylhet, of 
 " 33>o rupees for elephants, was received by one 
 ee of the members of that Committee. It has, how- 
 " ever, fince appeared, that the other oflenfible 
 " farmers, or perfons named in the Committee's 
 " fettlement, NEVER EXISTED; and that the 
 " Company's Refident at Sylhet, was the real far- 
 ** mer, under fftitious names" 
 
 No. IV. 
 
 The thirty -third claufe of the original bill, 
 which Mr. Francis defired might be translated into 
 common fenfe, is omitted in the amended bill. No 
 ftill in language could tranflate it. Vide page 13. 
 
 No. V. 
 
 The eighteenth refolution of the Committee of 
 Secrecy, of which Mr. Dundas, then Lord Advo- 
 cate of Scotland, was Chairman, is guilty of an 
 anachronifm, in which the aflertion of a falfe fact
 
 is involved. It aflcrts that, "in February, 1778, 
 " the refolution of the majority of the Supreme 
 " Council, by ike death of Colonel Monfon, was now 
 " decided by the cafting voice of the Governor 
 " General." It was not the death of Colonel 
 Monfon, which gave Mr. Haflings the cafting 
 voice in February, 1778. He died about the end 
 of September, 1776. It was the death of Sir John 
 Clavering, in Auguft, 1777, which gave Mr. Haf- 
 tings a majority at the period in queftion. If the 
 General had been alive in February, 1778, he, Mr. 
 Francis, and Mr. Wheler, would have formed a 
 majority againft Mr. Haftings and Mr. Harwell, and 
 prevented the Maratta war. The refolution, by 
 fuppofing General Clavering to be alive, transfers to 
 him, becaufe he is dead, the merit of the refiftance, 
 made in Council to that meafure, and keeps the ef- 
 forts of Mr. Francis to prevent a rupture with the 
 Marattas, compleatly out of fight. 
 
 THE EN D.
 
 27 88
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
 Los Angeles 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 
 Form L9-40m-7,'56(C790s4)444