No More Learning

And therefore the resolutions moved
and voted in Council by the said Warren Hastings,
declaring the. offices of General Clavering to be vacant, were not only illegal, inasmuch as the said
Warren Hastings had no authority to warrant such a
declaration, even on the supposition of the acts of
General Clavering being contrary to law, but the said
resolutions were further highly culpable and criminal,
inasmuch as the said acts done by General Clavering,
which were made the pretence of that proceeding,
were strictly regular and legal.
That the refusal of the said Warren Hastings to
ratify the said resignation, and his disavowal of the
said Lauchlan Macleane, his agent, is not justified by
anything contained in his said letter to the Court of
Directors, dated on the 15th of August, 1777, -- the
said Warren Hastings nowhere directly and positively
asserting that the said Lauchlan Macleane was not
his agent, and had not both full and general powers,
and -even particular instructions for this very act,
although the said Warren Hastings uses many indirect and circuitous, but insufficient and inapplicable, insinuations to that effect. And the said letter does, on the contrary, contain a clear and express
avowal that the said Lauchlan Macleane was his confidential agent, and that in that capacity he acted
througllout, and particularly in this special matter,
? ? ? ? AGAINST WARREN HASTINGS. 57
with zeal and fidelity. And the said letter does further admit in effect the instructions produced by the
said Lauchlan Macleane, Esquire, confirmed by Mr.
Vansittart and Mr. Stewart, and relied on and confided in by the Court of Directors, by which the said Lauchlan Macleane appeared to be specially empowered to declare the said resignation, the words of
the said instruction being as follows: " That he [Mr.
Hastings] will not continue in the government of Bengal, unless certain conditions therein specified can
be obtained"; and the words of the said letter being
as follows: "' What I myself know with certainty, or
can recollect at this distance of time, concerning the
powers and instructions which were given to Messieurs Macleane and Graham, when they undertook
to be my agents in England, I will circumstantially
relate. I am in possession of two papers which were
presented to those gentlemen at the time of their
departure from Bengal, one of which comprises four
short propositions which I required as the conditions of
my being confirmed in this government. " And although
the said Warren Hastings does here artfully somewhat change the words of his written instructions
(and which having inl his possession he: might as
easily have given verbatim) to other words which
may appear less explicit, yet they are in fact capable
of only the same meaning: for, as, at the time of giving the said instructions to his agents, he was in full possession of his office, he could want no confirmation
therein except his own; and, in such circumstances,
"' to require certain things, as the conditions of his being confirmed in his government," is tantamount to a declaration "that he will not continue in his government, unless those conditions can be obtained. " And
? ? ? ? 58 ARTICLES OF CHARGE
the said attempt at prevarication can serve its. author
the less, as either both sentences have one and the. same meaning, or, if their meaning be different, the
original instructions in his own handwriting, or, in
other words, the thing itself, must be preferred as
evidence of its contents to a loose statement of its
purport, founded, perhaps, on a loose recollection of
it at a great distance of time.
That the said refusal of Warren Hastings, Esquire,
was a breach of faith with the Court of Directors and
his Majesty's ministers in Englanld; as the said resignation was not merely a voluntary offer without any
consideration, and therefore subject to be recalled or
retracted at the pleasure of the said Warren Hastings, but ought rather to be considered as having
been the result of a negotiation carried on between
Mr. Macleane for the benefit of Warren Hastings,
Esquire, on the one hand, and by the Court of Directors for the interests of the Company on the other:
which view of the transaction will appear the more
probable, when it is considered that at the time of the
said resignation a strict inquiry had been carrying on
by the Court of Directors into the conduct of the said
Warren Hastings, and the solicitor. and counsel to the
Company, and other eminent counsel, had given it as
*their opinions, on cases stated to them, that there
were grounds for suing the said Warren Hastings
in the courts of law and equity, and that the Company would be entitled to recover in the said suits
against Warren Hastings, Esquire, several very largesums of money taken by him in his office of Governor-General, contrary to law, and in breach of his covenants, and of his duty to the Company and the public; and the Court of Directors had also come to
? ? ? ? AGAINST WARREN HASTINGS. 59
various severe resolutions of censure against the said
Warren Hastings, and amongst others to a resolution
to recall the said Warren Hastings, and remove him
from his office of Governor-General, to answer for
sundry great crimes and delinquencies by him committed in his said office. And on these accounts it
appears probable that the said resignration was tendered and accepted as a consideration for some beneficial concessions made in consequence thereof to the said Warren Hastings in his said dangerous and desperate condition.
And the said refusal was also an act of great disrespect to the Court of Directors and to his Majesty,
and, by rendering abortive their said measures, solemnly and deliberately taken, and ratified and confirmed by his Majesty, tended to bring the authority
of the Court of Directors and of his Majesty into contempt.
And the said refusal was an injury to General
Clavering.
And was also, or might have been, a great injury
to Edward Wheler, Esquire.
And was an act of signal treachery to Lauchlan
Macleane, Esquire, as also to Mr. Vansittart and Mr.
Stewart, whose honors and veracity were thereby
brought into question, doubt, and suspicion.
And the said refusal was prejudicial to the affairs of
the servants of the Company in India, by shaking the
confidence to be placed in their agents by those persons
with whom it might be for their interests to negotiate
on any matter of importance, and by thus subjecting
the communication of persons abroad with those at
home to difficulties not known before.
? ? ? ? 60 ARTICLES OF CHARGE
X. -SURGEON-GENERAL'S CONTRACT.
THAT the said Warren Hastings, in the year 1777,
did grant to the Surgeon-General a contract for three
years, for defraying every kind of hospital and medicinal expense, - not only in breach of the general
orders of the Court of Directors with respect to the
duration of contracts, but in direct opposition to a. particular order of the Court of Directors, of the 30th
of March, 1774, when they directed " that the Surgeon
should not be permitted to enjoy any emolument arising from his being concerned in dieting the patients,
and that the occupations of surgeon and contractor
should be forthwith separated. " That the said contract was in itself highly improper, and inconsistent
with the good of the service; as it afforded the greatest temptation to abuse, and established a pecuniary
interest in the Surgeon-General, contrary to the dtlties
of his station and profession.
XI. - CONTRACTS FOR POOLBUNDY REPAIRS.
THAT the Governor-General and Council at Fort
William did, on the motion and recommendation of
Warren Hastings, Esquire, enter into a contract with
Archibald Frazer, Esquire, on the 16th of April, 1778,
for the repairs of the pools and banks in the province
of Burdwan, for two years, at the rate of 120,000 sicca
rupees for the first year, and 80,000 rupees for the
second year.
That on the 19th of December, 1778, the said Warren Hastings did further persuade the Supreme Council to prolong the term of the above contract with
? ? ? ? AGAINST WARREN HASTINGS. 61
Archibald Frazer for the space of three years more on
the same conditions, namely, the payment of 80,000
sicca rupees for each year: to which was added a
permission to Mr. Frazer to make dobunds, or special
repairs, whenever he should judge them necessary, at
the charge of government.
That the said contracts, both in the manner of their
acceptance by the Supreme Council, without having
previously advertised for proposals, and in the extent
of their duration, were made in direct violation of the
special orders of the Court of Directors.
That, so far from any advantage having been obtained for the Company in the terms of these contracts, in consideration of the length of time for which they
were to continue, the expense of government upon
this article was increased by these engagements to a
very great amount.
That it appears that this contract had been held for
some years before by the Rajah of Burdwan at the rate
of 25,000 rupees per annum.
That the superintendent of poolbundy repairs, after
an accurate and diligent survey of the bunds and
pools, and the Provincial Council of Burdwan, upon
the best information they could procure, had delivered
it as their opinion to the Governor-General and Council, before the said agreement was entered into, that, after the heavy expense stated in Mr. Kinlock's estimate, viz. , 119,405 sicca rupees, if disbursed as they recommended, the charge in future seasons would be
greatly reduced, and, after one thorough and effectual
repair, they conceived a small annual expense would be
sufficient to keep the bunds up and prevent their going to
decay.
Thatj whatever extraordinary and unusual damages
? ? ? ? 62 ARTICLES OF CHARGE
the pools and bunds might have sustained, either from
the neglect of the Rajah's officers, or from the violence
of the then late rains, and the torrents thereby occasioned, to justify the expense of the first year, yet, as they were all considered and included in the estimate
for that year, there could be no pretence for allowing
and continuing so large and burdensome a payment
as 80,000 rupees per annum for the four succeeding
years.
That the said Warren Hastings did, in his minutes
of the 13th of February, 1778, himself support that
opinion, in the comparison to be made between Mr.
Thomson's proposals, of undertaking the samne service
for 60,000 rupees a year for nine years, and the terms
of AMr. Frazer's contracts: preferring the latter, because these were " to effect a complete repair, which could hardly be concluded in one season, and the subsequent expense would be but trifling. " Notwithstanding which, the said Warren Hastings
urged and prevailed upon the Council to allow in the
first year the full amount proposed by Mr. Kinlock in
his estimate of the necessary repairs, and did burden
the Company with what he must have deemed to be,
for the greater part, an unnecessary expense of 80,000
rupees per annum for four years.
That the permission granted to Mr. Frazer to make
dobunds, or new and additional embankments in aid
of the old ones, whenever he should judge them
necessary, at the charge of government, (the said
charge to be verified by the oath of the said Frazer,
without any voucher,) was a power very much to be
suspected, and very improper to be intrusted to a
contractor who had already covenanted to keep the
old pools in perfect repair, and to construct iew ones
? ? ? ? AGAINST WARREN HASTINGS. 63
wherever the old pools had been broken down and
washed away, or where the course of the rivers might
have rendered new ones necessary, in consideration
of the great sums stipulated to be paid to him by the
government.
That the grant of the foregoing contracts, and the
permission afterwards annexed to the second of the
said grants, become much more reprehensible from a
consideration of the circumstances of the person to
whom such a grant was made.
That the due performance of the service required
local knowledge and experience, which the said Archibald Frazer, being an officer in the Supreme Court of Justice, could not have possessed.
XII. -CONTRACTS FOR OPIUM.
THAT it appears that the opium produced in Bengal
and Bahar is a considerable and lucrative article in
the export trade of those provinces; that the whole
produce has been for many years monopolized either
by individuals or by the government; that the Court
of Directors of the East India Company, in considera-.
tion of the hardship imposed on the native owners
and cultivators of the lands, who were deprived of
their natural right of dealing with many competitors,
and compelled to sell the produce of their labor to a
single monopolist, did authorize the Governor-General
and Council to give up that commodity as an article
of commerce.
That, while the said commodity continued to be a
monopoly for the benefit of government, and managed
by a contractor, the contracts for providing it were
? ? ? ? 64 ARTICLES OF CHARGE
subject to the Company's fundamental regulation,
namely, to be put up to auction, and disposed of to the
best bidder;. and that the Company particularly ordered that the commodity, when provided, should be consigned to the Board of Trade, who were directed
to dispose thereof by public auction.
That in May, 1777, the said Warren Hastings
granted to John. Mackenzie a contract for the provision of opium, to continue three years, and without advertising for proposals. That this transaction was
condemned by the Court of Directors, notwithstanding
a clause had been inserted in that contract by which
it was left open to the Court of Directors to annul the
same at the expiration of the first or second year.
That, about the end of the year 1780, the said Warren Hastings, in contradiction to the order above mentioned, did take away the sale of the opium from
the Board of Trade, though he disclaimed, at the
same time, any intention of implying a censure on their
management. 'That in March, 1781, the said Warren Hastings
did grant to Stephen Sulivan, son of Lawrence Sulivan, Chairman of the Court of Directors of the East India Company, a contract for the provision of opium,
without advertising for proposals, and without even
receiving any written proposals from him, the said
Sulivan; that he granted this contract for four years,
and at the request of the said Sulivan did omit that
clause which was inserted in the preceding contract,
and by which it was rendered liable to be determined
by orders from the Company: the said Warren Hastings declaring, contrary to truth, that such clause was now unnecessary, as the Directors had approved the
contract.
? ? ? ? AGAINST WARREN HASTINGS. 65
That the said Sulivan had been but a few months
in Bengal when the above contract was given to him;
that he was a stranger to the country, and to all the
local commerce thereof, and therefore unqualified for
the management of such a concern; and that the
said Sulivan, instead of executing the contract himself, did, shortly after obtaining the same, assign it
over to John Benn and others, and in consideration
of such assignment did receive from the said Benn a
great sum of money.
That from the preceding facts, as well as from
sundry other circumstances of restrictions taken off
(particularly by abolishing the office of inspector into
the quality of the opium) and of beneficial clauses
introduced, it appears that the said Warren Hastings
gave this contract to the said Stephen Sulivan in contradiction to the orders of the Court of Directors, and
without any regard to the interests of the India
Company, for the sole purpose of creating an instant
fortune for the said Sulivan at the expense of the
India Company, without any claim of service or pretence of merit on his part, and without any apparent
motive whatever, except that of securing or rewarding the attachment and support of his father, Lawrence Sulivan, a person of great authority and influence in the direction of the Company's affairs, and notoriously attached to and connected with'the said
Warren Hastings.
That the said Stephen Sulivan neither possessed;
nor pretended to possess any skill in the business of
his contract; that he exerted no industry, nor showed
or could show any exactness, in the performance of it,.
since he immediately sold the contract for a sum of
money to another person, (for the sole purpose of
VOL. IX. 5
? ? ? ? 66 ARTICLES OF CHARGE
which sale it must be presumed the same was given,)
by which person another profit was to be made; and
by that person the same was again sold to a third, by
whom a third profit was to be made.
That the said Warren Hastings, at the very time
when he engaged the Company in a contract for engrossing the whole of the opium produced in Bengal and Bahar in the ensuing four years on terms of such exorbitant profit to the contractor, affirmed, that
"there was little prospect of selling the opium in
Bengal at a reasonable price, and that it was but
natural to suppose that the price of opium wouldfall,
from the demand being lessened"; that in a lettei
dated the 5th of May, 1781, he informed the Direc
tors, "that, owing to the indifferent state of th(
~markets last season to the Eastward, and the ver.
enhanced rates of insurance which the war had occa
sioned, they had not been able to dispose of the opium
of the present year to so great an advantage as they
expected, and that more than one half of it remained
still in their warehouses. " That the said Warren
Hastings was guilty of a manifest breach of trust to
his constituents and his employers in monopolizing,
for their pretended use, an article of commerce for
which he declared no purchasers had offered, and that
there was little prospect of any offering, and the price of
which, he said, it was but natural to suppose would fall.
That the said Warren Hastings, having, by his
own act, loaded the Company with a commodity for
which, either in the ordinary and regular course of
public auction, or even by private contract, there was,
as he affirmed, no sale, did, under pretence of finding a market for the same, engage the Company in
all enterprise of great and certain expense, subject to
? ? ? ? AGAINST WARREN HASTINGS. 67
a manifest risk, and full of disgrace to the East India
Company, not only in their political character, as a
great sovereign power in India, but in their commercial character, as an eminent and respectable body of
merchants; and that the execution of this enterprise
was accompanied with sundry other engagements
with other persons, in all of which the Company's
interest was constantly sacrificed to that of individuals favored by the said Warren Hastings.
That the said Warren Hastings first engaged in a
scheme to export one thousand four hundred and
sixty chests of opium, on the Company's account, on
board a ship belonging to Cudbert Thornhill, half of
wllicll was to be disposed of in a coasting voyage, and
the remainder in Canton. That,- besides the freight
and commission payable to the said Thornhill on -this
adventure, twelve pieces of cannon belonging to the
Company were lent for arming the ship; though his
original proposal was, that the ship should be armed
at his expense. That this part of the adventure,
depending for its success on a prudent and fortuuate management of various sales and resales in the
course of a circuitous voyage, and being exposed to
such risk both of sea and enemy that all private traders had declined to be concerned in it, was particularly unfit for a great trading company, and could not be undertaken on their account with any rational
prospect of advantage.
That the said Warren Hastings soon after engaged
in another scheme for exporting two thousand chests
of opium directly to China on the Company's account, and for that purpose accepted of an offer made
by Henry Watson, the Company's chief engineer, to
convey the same in a vessel of his own, and to deliver
? ? ? ? 68 ARTICLES OF CHARGE
it to the Company's supra-cargoes. That, after the
offer of the said Henry Watson had been accepted, a
letter from him was produced at the board, in which
he declared that he was unable to equip the ship with
a proper number of cannon, and requested that he
might be furnished with thirty-six guns from the
Company's stores at Madras; with which request the
board complied.
That it appears that George Williamson, the Company's auctioneer at Calcutta, having complained that. by this mode of exporting the opium, which used to be sold by public auction, he lost his commission
as auctioneer, the board allowed him to draw a commission of one per cent on all the opium which had
been or was to be exported. That it appears that
the contractor for opium (whose proper duties and
emoluments as contractor ended with the delivery of
thee opium) was also allowed to draw a commission
on the opium then shipping on the Company's account; but for what reason, or on what pretence,
does not appear.
That the said Warren Hastings, in order to pay
the said Stephen Sulivan in advance for the opium
furnished or to be furnished by him in the first year
of his contract, did borrow the sum of twenty lacs of
rupees at eight per cent, or two hundred thousand
pounds sterling, to be repaid by drafts to be drawn
on the Company by their supra-cargoes in China, provided the opium consigned to them should arrive
safe; but that, if the adventure failed, whether by
the loss of the ships or otherwise, the subscribers to
the above loan were to be repaid their capital and
interest out of the Company's treasury in Bengal.
That the said Warren Hastings, having in this
? ? ? ? AGAINST WARREN HASTINGS. 69
manner purchased a commodity for which he said
there was no sale, and paid for it with money which
he was obliged to borrow at a high interest, was
still more criminal in his attempt, or pretended plan,
to introduce it clandestinely into China. That the
importation of opium into China is forbidden by the
Chinese government; that the opium, on seizure, is
burnt, the vessel that imports it confiscated, and the
Chinese in whose possession it may be found for sale
punished with death.
That the Governor-General and Council were well
aware of the existence of these prohibitions and penalties,. and did therefore inform the supra-cargoes in
China, that the ship belonging to the said Henry
Watson would enter the river at China as an armed
ship, and would not be reported as bearing a cargo of
opium, that being a contraband trade.
That, of the above two ships, the first, belonging to
Cudbert Thornhill, was taken by the French; and
that the second, arriving in China, did occasion much
embarrassment and distress to the Company's supracargoes there, who had not been previously consulted
on the formation of the plan, and were exposed to
great difficulty and hazard in the execution of their
part of it. That the ship was delayed, at a demurrage of an hundred dollars a day, for upwards of
three months, waiting in vain for a better market.
The factory estimate the loss to the Company, including port charges, demurrage, and factory charges
allowed the captain, at sixty-nine thousand nine hundred and ninety-three dollars, or about twenty thousand pounds sterling. That the Company's factory at China, after stating
the foregoing facts to the Court of Directors, conclude
? ? ? ? 70 ARTICLES OF CHARGE
with the following general observation thereon. "On
a review of these circumstances, with the extravagant and unusual terms of the freight, demurrage, factory charges, &c. , &c. , we cannot help being of
opinion that private considerations have been suffered to interfere too much for any benefit that may have been intended to the Honorable Company.
We hope for the Honorable Court's approbation of
our conduct in this affair. The novelty and nature
of the consignments have been the source of much
trouble and anxiety, and, though we wished to have
had it in our power to do more, we may truly say
we have exceeded our expectations. "
That every part of this transaction, from the monopoly with which it commenced, to the contraband dealing with which it concluded, criminates the said
Warren Hastings with wilful disobedience of orders
and a continued breach of trust; that every step taken
in it was attended with heavy loss to the Company,
and with a sacrifice of their interest to that of individuals; and that, if finally a profit had resulted to the Company from such a transaction, no profit attending
it could compensate for the probable risk to which
their trade in China was thereby exposed, or for the
certain dishonor and consequent distrust which the
East India Company must incur in the eyes of the
Chinese government by being engaged in a low, clandestine traffic, prohibited by the laws of the country. XIII. -APPOINTMENT OF R. J. SULIVAN.
THAT ill the month of February, 1781, Mr. Richard
Joseph Sulivan, Secretary to the Select Committee
? ? ? ? AGAINST WARREN HASTINGS. 71
at Fort St. George, applied to them for leave to proceed to Calcutta on his private affairs. That, being
the confidential secretary to the Select Committee at
Fort St. George, and consequently possessed of all the
views and secrets of the Company, as far as they related to that government, he went privately into the service of the Nabob of Arcot, and, under the pretence
of proceeding to Calcutta on his private business, undertook a commission from the said Nabob to the Governor-General and Council, to negotiate with them
in favor of certain projects of the said Nabob which
had been reprobated by the Company.
That the said Sulivan was soon after appointed
back again by the said Warren Hastings to the office
of Resident at the Durbar of the said Nabob of Arcot.
That it was a high crime and misdemeanor in the
said Hastings to encourage so dangerous an example
in the Company's service, and to interfere unnecessarily with the government of Madras in the discharge of the duties peculiarly ascribed to them by the practice and orders of the Company, for the purpose of appointing to a great and confidential situation a man
who had so recently committed a breach of trust to
his employers.
That the Court of Directors, in their letter to Bengal, dated the 12th of July, 1782, and received there
on the 18th of February, 1783, did condemn and revoke
the said appointment. That the said Directors, in
theirs to Fort St. George, dated the 28th of August,
1782, and received there the 31st of January, 1783,
did highly condemn the conduct of the- said Sulivan,
and, in order to deter their servants from practices
of the same kind, did dismiss him from their service.
Thlat the said Hastings, knowing that the said Suli
? ? ? ? 72 ARTICLES OF CHARGE
van's appointment had been condemned and revoked
by the Court of Directors, and pretending that on the
15th of March, 1783, he did not know that the said
Sulivan was dismissed from the Company's service,
though that fact was known at Madras on the 31st of
the preceding January, did recommend the said Sulivan to be ambassador at the court of Nizam Ali Khan, Subahdar of the Deccanll, in defiance of the authority
and orders of the Court of Directors.
That, even admitting, what is highly improbable,
that the dismission of the said Sulivan from the service of the said Company was not known at Calcutta in forty-three days from Madras, the last-mentioned
nomination of the said Sulivan was made at least
in contempt of the censure already expressed by the
Court of Directors at his former appointment to the
Durbar of the Nabob of Arcot, and which was certainly known to the said Hastings.
XIV. - RANNA OF GOHUD.
THAT on the 2d of December, 1779, the GovernorGeneral and Council of Fort William, at the special recommendation and instance of Warren Hastings,
Esquire, then Governor-General, and contrary to the
declared opinion and protest of three of the members
of the Council, viz. , Philip Francis and Edward Whleler, Esquires, who were present, and of Sir Eyre Coote, who was absent, (by whose absence the casting voice
of the said Warren Hastings, Esquire, prevailed,) did
conclude a treaty of perpetual friendship and alliance,
offensive and defensive, with a Hindo6 prince, called
the Ranna of Gohud, for the express purpose of using
? ? ? ? AGAXINST WA. RREN HASTINGS. 73
the forces of tlie said Ranna in opposition to the Mahrattas.
That, among. other articles, it was stipulated with
the said Ranna -by the said Warren Hastings, " that,
whenever peace should be concluded between the Company and the Mahratta state, the Maha Rajah should be included as a:party in the treaty which should be
made for that purpose, and his present possessions,
together with the fort of Gualior, which of old belonged to the family of the Maha Rajah, if it should be
then in his possession, and such countries as he should
have acquired in the course of war, and which it
should then be stipulated to leave in his hands, should
be guarantied to him by such treaty. "
That, in the late war against the Mahrattas, the said
Ranna of Gohud did actually join the British army
under-the command of Colonel Muir with two battalions of infantry and twelve hundred cavalry, and did then serve in person against the Mahrattas, thereby
affording material assistance, and rendering essential
service to the Company.
That, in conformity to the above-mentioned treaty,
in the fourth article of the treaty of peace concluded
on the 13th of October, 1781, between Colonel Muir,
on the part of the English Company, and Mahdajee
Sindia, the Mahratta general, the said Ranna of Gohud was expressly included.
That, notwithstanding the said express provision
and agreement, Mahdajee Sindia proceeded to attack
the forts and lay waste the territories of the said Ranna,
and did undertake and prosecute a war against him
for the space of two years, in the course of which the
Ranna and his family were reduced to extreme distress,
and in tlie end he was deprived of his forts, and the
? ? ? ?
74 ARTICLES OF CHARGE
whole not only of his acquired possessions, but of his
original dominions, so specially guarantied to him by
the British government in both the above-mentioned
treaties.
That the said Warren Hastings was duly and regularly informed of the progress of the war against the Ranna, and of every event thereof; notwithstanding
which, he not only neglected in any manner to interfere therein in favor of the said Ranna, or to use ally endeavors to prevent the infraction of the treaty, but
gave considerable countenance and encouragement to
Mahdajee Sindia in his violation of it, both by the
residence of the British minister in the Mahratta camp,
and by the approbation shown by the said Warren
Hastings to the promises made by his agent of observing the strictest neutrality, notwithstanding he was in justice bound, and stood pledged by the most solemn
and sacred engagements, to protect and preserve the
said Ranna fiom those enemies, whose resentment he
had provoked only by his adherence to the interests
of the British nation.
That, in the only. attempt made to sound the disposition of Mahdajee Sindia relative to a pacification between him and the Ranna of Gohud, on the 14th
of May, 1783, Mr. Anderson, in obedience to the
orders he had received, did clearly and explicitly
declare to Bhow Bucksey, the nminister of Mahdajee
Sindia, the sentiments of the said Warren HIastings
in the words following: "That it was so far from
your [the said Hastings's] meaning to intercede in his
[the said Ranna's] favor, that I only desired him to
sound Sindia's sentiments, and, in case he was desirous of peace, to mention what I had said; but if he seemed to prefer carrying on the war, I begged that
? ? ? ? AGAINST WARREN HASTINGS. 75
he would not mention a syllable of what had passed,
but let the matter drop entirely. "
That it afterwards appeared, in a minute of the said
Hastings in Council at Fort William, on the 22d of
September, 1783, that he promised, at the instance of
a member of the Council, to write to Lieutenant James
Anderson in favor of the Ranna of Gohud, and lay
his letter before the board.
That, nevertheless, the said Hastings, professing
not to recollect his said promise,. did neglect to write
a formal letter to Lieutenant Anderson in favor of the
said Ranna of Gohud, and that the private letter, the
extract of which the said Hastings did lay before the
board on the 21st of October, 1783, so far from directing any effectual interference in. favor of the said
Ranna, or commanding his agent, the said James
Anderson, to interpose the mediation of the British
government to procure " honorable terms" for the
said Ranna, or even "safety to his person andfamily,"
contains the bitterest invectives against him, and is
expressive of the satisfaction which the said Hastings
acknowledges himself to have enjoyed in the distresses
of the said Ranna, the ally of the Company.
That the measures therein recommended appear
rather to have been designed to satisfy Mahdajee Sindia, and to justify the' conduct of the British government in not having taken a more active and a more hostile part against the said Ranna, than an intercession on his behalf.
That, though no consideration of good faith or observance of treaties could induce the said Hastings to
incur the hazard of any hostile exertion of the British
force for the defence or the relief of the allies of the
Company, yet in the said private letter he directed,
? ? ? ? 76 ARTICLES OF CHARGE
that, in case his mediation should be accepted, it
should be made a specific condition, that, if the said
Banna should take advantage of Sindia's absence to
renew his hostilities, we ought, in that case, on requisition, to invade the dominions of the Ranna.
That no beneficial effects could have been procured
to the said Ranna by an offer of mediation delayed
till Sindia no longer wanted " our assistance to crush
so fallen an enemy," at the same time that no reason
was given to Sindia to apprehend the danger of
drawing upon himself the resentment of the British
government by a disregard of their proposal and the
destruction of their ally.
That it was a gross and scandalous mockery in the
said Hastings to defer an application to obtain honorable terms for the Ranna, and safety for his person and family, till he had been deprived of his principal
fort, in defence of which his uncle lost his life, and
on the capture of which, his wife, to avoid the dishonor consequent upon falling into the hands of her enemies, had destroyed herself by an explosion of gunpowder.
That, however, it does not appear that any offer of
mediation was ever actually made, or any influence.
exerted, either for the safety of the Ranna's person
and family or in mitigation of the rigorous intentions
supposed by Lieutenant Anderson to have been entertained against him by Mahdajee Sindia after his surrender.
That the said Hastings, in the instructionst given
by him to Mr. David Anderson for his conduct in
negotiating the treaty of peace with the Mahrattas,
expressed his determination to desert the Ranna of
* 29 February, 1784. t Dated,. Benares, 4th of November, 1781.
? ? ? ? AGAINST WARREN HASTINGS. 77
Gohud in the following words. ' You will of course
be attentive to any engagements subsisting between
us and other powers, in settling the terms of peace
and alliance with the Mahrattas. I except from this
the Ranna of Gohud. . . . . . Leave him to settle his
own affairs with the Mahrattas. "
That the said Anderson appears very assiduously to
have sought for grounds to justify the execution of
this part of his instructions, to which, however, he
was at all events obliged to conform.
That, even after his application for that purpose to
the Mahrattas, whose testimony was much to be suspected, because it was their interest to accuse and their
determined object to destroy the said Ranna, no satisfactory proof was obtained of his defection from the
engagements he had entered into with the Company.
That, moreover, if all the charges which have been
pretended against the Ranna, and have been alleged
by the said Hastings in justification of his conduct,
had been well founded and proved to be true, the
subject-matter of those accusations and the proofs by
which they were to be supported were known to Colonel Muir before the conclusion of the treaty he entered into with Mahdajee Sindia; and therefore, whatever suspicions may have been entertained or whatever degree of criminality may have been proved against the said Ranna previous to the said treaty,
from the time he was so provided for and included in
the said treaty he was fully and justly entitled to the
security stipulated for him by the Company, and had
a right to demand and receive the protection of the
British government.
That these considerations were urged by Mr. Anderson to the said Warren Hastings, in his letter of
? ? ? ? 78 ARTICLES OF CHARGE
the 24th of June, 1781, and were enforced by this
additional argument, -" tllat, in point of policy, I
believe, it ought not to be our wish that the Mahrattas should ever recover the fortress of Gualior. It
forms an important barrier to our own possessions.
In the hands of the Ranna it can be of no prejudice
to us; and notwithstanding the present prospect of a
permanent:peace betwixt us and the Mahrattas, it
seems highly expedient that there should always remain some strong barrier to separate us, on this side
of India, from that warlike and powerful nation. "
That the said Warren Hastings was highly culpable
in abandoning the said Ranna to the fury of his enemies, thereby forfeiting the honor and injuring the
credit of the British nation in India, notwithstandingthe said Hastings was -fifully convinced, and had professed, -"that the most sacred observance of treaties, justice, and good faith were necessary to the existence
of the national interests in that country," and though
the said Hastings has complained of the insufficiency
of the laws of this kingdom. to enforce this doctrine
" by the punishment of persons in the possession of
power, who may be impelled by the provocation of
ambition, avarice,- or vengeance, stronger than the
restrictions of integrity and honor, to the violation of
this just and wise maxim. "
That the said Hastings, in thus departing from
these his own principles, with a full and just sense
of the guilt he would thereby incur, and in sacrificing the allies of this country "to the provocations of
ambition, avarice, or vengeance," in violation of the
national faith and justice, did commit a gross and
wilful breach of his duty, and was thereby guilty
of an high crime and misdemeanor.
? ? ? ? AGAINST WARREN HASTINGS. 79
XV. REVENUES
PART I.
THAT the property of the lands of Bengal is, according to the laws and customs of that country, an inheritable property, and that it is, with few exceptions, vested in certain natives, called zemindars, or landholders, under whom other natives, called talookdars and ryots, hold certain subordinate rights of property or occupancy in the said lands. That the
said natives are Hindoos, and that their rights and
privileges are grounded upon the possession of regular
grants, a long series of family succession, and fair
purchase. That it appears that Bengal has been under the dominion of the Mogul, and subject to a AMahomnedan government, for above two hundred years. That, while the Mogul government was in its vigor,
the property of zemindars was held sacred, and that, either by voluntary grant from the said Mogul or
by composition with him, the native Hindoos were left in the free, quiet, and undisturbed possession
of their lands, on the single condition of paying a
fixed, certain, and unalterable revenue, or quit-rent,
to the Mogul government. That this revenue, or
quit-rent, was called the aussil jumma, or original
ground-rent, of the provinces, and was not increased
from the time when it was first settled in 1573 to
1740, when the regular and effective Mogul'governmnent ended. That, from that time to 1765, invasions, usurpations, and various revolutions took place in the
government of Bengal, in consequence of which the
country was considerably reduced and impoverished,
when the East India Company received from the
? ? ? ? 80 ARTICLES OF CHARGE
present Mogul emperor, Shah Allum, a grant of the
dewanny, or collection of the revenues. That about
tile year 1770 the provinces of Bengal and Bahar
were visited with a dreadful famine and mortality, by
which at least one third of the inhabitants perished.
That Warren Hastings, Esquire, has declared, "that
he had always heard the loss of inhabitants reckoned
at a third, and in many places near one half of the
whole, and that he knew not by what means such a
loss could be recruited in four or five years, and believed it impossible. " That, nevertheless, the revenue was violently kept up to its former standard,that is, in the two years immediately preceding the appointment of the said Warren Hastings to the government of Fort William, -in consequence of which
the remaining two thirds of the inhabitants were obliged
to pay for the lands now left without cultivation; and
that from the year 1770 to the year 1775 the country
had languished, and the evil continued enhancing every
day. That the said Warren Hastings, in a fetter
to the Secret Committee of the Court of Directors,
dated 1st September, 1772, declared, " that the lands
had suffered unheard-of depopulation by the famine
and mortality of 1769; that the collections, violently
kept up to theirformer standard, had added to the distress of the country, and threatened a general decay
of the revenue, unless immediate remedies were applied to prevent it. " That. the said Warren Hastings
has declared, "that, by intrusting the collections to
the hereditary zemindars, the people would be treated
with more tenderness, the rents more improved, and
cultivation more likely to be encouraged; that they
have a perpetual interest in the country; that their
inheritance cannot be removed; that they are the
? ? ? ? AGAINST WARREN HASTINGS. 81
proprietors; that the lands are their estates, and their
inheritance; that, from a long continuance of the
lands in their families, it is to be concluded they
have riveted anl authority in the district, acquired an
ascendency over the minds of the ryots, and ingratiated their afftctions; that, from continuing the lands under the management of those who have a natural and
perpetual interest in their prosperity, solid advantages uight be expected to accrue; that the zemindar would be less liable to failure or deficiencies than
the. farmer, from the perpetual interest which the former hath in the country, and because his inheritance
cannot be removed, and it would be improbable that
he should risk the loss of it by eloping from his district, which is too frequently practised by a farmer
when he is hard-pressed for the payment of his balances, and as frequently predetermined when he receives his farm. " That, notwithstanding all the preceding declarations made by the said Warren Hastings of the loss of one third of the inhabitants and general decline of the country, he did, immediately
after his appointment to the government, in-the year
1772, make an arbitrary settlement of the revenues
for five years at a higher rate than had ever been
received before, and with a progressive and accumulating increase on each of the four last years of the
said settlement.
That, notwithstanding the right of property and
inheritance, repeatedly acknowledged by the said
Warren Hastings to be in the zemindars and other
native landholders, and notwithstanding he had declared " that the security of private property is the
greatest encouragement to industry, on which the
wealth of every state depends," the said Warren Hast:
VOL. IX. 6
? ? ? ? 82 ARTICLES OF CHARGE
ings, nevertheless, ill direct violation of those acknowledged rights and principles, did universally let the
lands of Bengal in farm for five years, - thereby
destroying all the rights of private property of the
zemindars, - thereby delivering the management of
their estates to farmers, and transferring by a most
arbitrary and unjust act of power the whole landed
property of Bengal from the owners to strangers.
That, to accomplish this iniquitous purpose, he, the
said Warren Hastings, did put the lands of Bengal up
to a pretended public auction, and invited all persons
to make proposals for farming the same, thereby encouraging strangers to bid against the proprietors, -- in
consequence of which, not only the said proprietors
were ousted of the possession and management of
their estates, but a great part of the lands fell into
the hands of the banians, or principal black servants
*of British subjects connected with and protected by
the government; and that the said Warren Hastings
himself has since declared, that by this way the lands
too generally fell into the hands of desperate or knavish adventurers.
Warren Hastings did establish certain fundamental
regulations in Council, to be observed in executing
the same. t That among these regulations it was
specially and strictly ordered, that no farm should
exceed the annual amount of one lac of rupees, and
" that no peshcar, banian, or other servant, of whatever denomination, of the collector, or relation or dependant of any such servant, should be allowed to farm lands, nor directly or indirectly to hold a concern in
* Revenue Consultation, 28th January, 1775.
t Revenue Board, 14th May, 1772.
That, before the measure hereinbefore described was carried into execittion, the said
? ? ? ? AGAINST WARREN HASTINGS. 83
any farm, nor to be security for any farmer. " That,
in direct violation of these his own regulations, and
in breach of the public trust reposed in him, and sufficiently declared by the manifest duty of his station,
if it had not been expressed and enforced by any positive institution, he, the' said Warren Hastings, did permit and suffer his own banian or principal black steward, named Cafntoo Baboo, to,hold farms in different purgunnahs, or districts, or to be security for farms,
to the amount of thirteen lac of rupees (130,0001.
or upwards) per annum; and that, after enjoying the
whole of those farms for two years, he was permitted
by the said Warren Hastings to relinquish two of
them. That on the subject of the farms held by
Cantoo Baboo the said Warren Hastings has made the
following declaration. "Many of his farms were taken without my knowledge, and almost all against my
advice. I had no right to use compulsion or authority; nor could I with justice exclude him, because he
was my servant, from a liberty allowed to all other
persons in the country. The farms which he quitted
he quitted by my advice, because I thought that he
might engage himself beyond his abilities, and be
involved in disputes, which I did not choose to have
come before me as judge of them. " e That the said
declaration contains sundry false and contradictory
assertions: that, if almost all the said farms were
taken against his advice, it cannot be true that many
of them were taken without his knowledge; that,
whether Cantoo Baboo had been his servant or not,
the said Warren Hastings was bound by his own regulations to prevent his holding any farms to a greater
amount than one lac of rupees per annum, and that
* Address to the Court of Directors, 25th March, 1775.
? ? ? ? 84 ARTICLES OF CHARGE
the said Cantoo Baboo, being the servant of the Governor-General, was excluded by the said regulations
~from holding any farms whatever; that, if (as the Directors observe) it was thought dangerous to permit
the banian of a collector to be concerned in farms, the
same or stronger objections would always lie against
the Governor's banian being so concerned; that the
said Warren Hastings had a right, and was bound by
his duty, to prevent his servant from holding the same;
that, in advising the said Cantoo Baboo to relinquish
some. of the said farms, for which he was actually
engaged, he has acknowledged an influence over his
servant, and has used that influence for a purpose
inconsistent with his duty to the India Company,
namely, to deprive them of the security of the said
Cantoo Baboo's engagement for farms which on trial
he had found not beneficial, or not likely to continue
beneficial, to himself; and that, if it was improper
that he, the said Warren Hastings, should be the judge
*of any disputes in which his servant might be involved
on account of his farms, that reason ought to have
obliged him to prevent his servant from being engaged
-in any farms whatever, or to have advised his said
servant to'relinquish the remainder of his farms, as
well as those which the said Warren Hastings affirms
he quitted by his advice. That on the subject of the
said charge the Court of Directors of the East India
Company have come to the following resolution:
" Resolved, That it appears that the conduct of the
late President and Council of Fort William in Bengal,
in suffering Cantoo Baboo, the present Governor-General's banian, to hold farms in different purgunnahs to:a large amount, or to be security for such farms, contrary to the tenor and spirit of the 17th regulation of
? ? ? ? AGAINST WARREN HASTINGS. 85
the Committee of Revenue at Fort William, of the
14th May, 1772, and afterwards relinquishing that
security without satisfaction made to the Company;
was highly improper, and has been attended with
considerable loss to the Company"; and that in the
whole of this transaction the said Warren Hastings
has been guilty of gross collusion with his servant,
and manifest breach of trust to his employers.
That, whereas it was acknowledged by the said
Warren Hastings, that the country, in the years 1770
and 1771, had suffered great depopulation and decay,
and that the collections of those years, having been
violently kept up to their former standard, had added
to the distress of the country, the settlement of the
revenues made by him for five years, commencing the
1st May, 1772, instead of offering any abatement or
relief to the inhabitants who had survived the famine,
held out to the East India Company a promise of great
increase of revenue, to be exacted from the country
by the means hereinbefore described. That this settlement was not realized, but fell considerably short; even in the first of the five years, when the demand
was the lightest; and that on the whole of the five
years the real collections fell short of the settlement
to the enormous amount of two millions and a half
sterling, and upwards. That such a settlement, if it
had been or could have been rigorously exacted fr~om
a country already so distressed, and from a population
so impaired, that, in the belief of the said Warren
Hastings, it was impossible such loss could be recruited
in four or five years, would have been in fact, what it
appeared to be in form, an act of the most cruel and
tyrannical oppression; but that the real use made of
that unjust demand upon the natives of Bengal was,
? ? ? ? 86 ARTICLES OF CHARGE
to oblige them to compound privately with the persons who formed the settlement, and who threatened
to enforce it. That the enormous balances and remissions on that settlement arose from a general collusion
between the farmers and collectors, and from a general peculation and embezzlement of the revenues, by
which the East India Company was grossly imposed
on, in the first instance, by a promised increase of revenue, and defrauded, in the second, not only by the
failure of that increase, but by the revenues falling
short of what they were in the two years preceding
the said settlement to a great amount. That the said
Warren Hastings, being then at the head of the government of Bengal, was a party to all the said imposition, fraud, peculation, and embezzlement, and is principally and specially answerable for the same; and that, whereas sundry proofs of the said peculation
and embezzlement were brought before the Court of
Directors, the said Directors (in a letter dated the 4th
of March, 1778, and signed by William Devaynes and
Natha. niel Smith, Esquires, now Chairman and Deputy-Chairman of the said Court, and members of this
House) did declare, that, " although it was rather their
wish to prevent future evils than to enter into a severe retrospection of past abuses, yet, as in some of the
cases then before them they conceived there had been
flagrant corruption, and in others great oppressions
committed on the native inhabitants, they thought it
unjust to suffer the delinquents to pass wholly unpunished, and therefore they directed the GovernorGeneral and Council forthwith to commence a prosecution against the persons who composed the Committee of Circuit, and their -representatives, and against all
other proper parties"; but that the prosecutions so
? ? ? ? AGAINST WARREN HASTINGS. 87
ordered by the Court of Directors in the year 1778
have never been brought to trial; and that the said
Warren Hastings did, on the 23d of December, 1783,
propose and carry it in Council, that orders should be
given for withdrawing the said prosecutions, - declaring, that he was clearly of opinion that there was no
ground to maintain them, and that they would only
be productive of expense to the Company and unmerited
vexation to the parties.
REVENUES.
PART II.
THAT the said Warren Hastings has on sundry
occasions declared his deliberate opinion generally
against all innovations, and particularly in the collection and management of the revenues of Bengal:
that "he was well aware of the expense and inconvenience which ever attends innovations of all kinds, on
their first institution; * that innovations are always
attended with difficulties and inconveniences, and innovations in the revenue with a suspension of the
collections; fy - that the continual variations in the
mode of collecting the revenue, and the continual
usurpation on the rights of the people, have fixed
in the minds of the ryots a rooted distrust of the ordinances of government. "t That the Court of Directors have repeatedly declared their apprehensions " that a sudden transition from one mode to another,
in the investigation and collection of their revenue,
might have alarmed the inhabitants, lessened their
confidence in the Company's proceedings, and been
attended with other evils. "~
* 3d November, 1772. t 24th October, 1774. t 22d April, 1775.
~ 5th February, 1777; 4th July, 1777.
? ? ? ? 88 ARTICLES OF CHARGE
That the said Warren Hastings, immediately after
his appointment to the government of Fort William,
in April, 1772, did abolish the office of Naib Dewan,
or native collector of the revenues, then existing;
that he did at the same time appoint a committee of
the board to go on a circuit through the provinces,
and to form a settlement of the revenues for five
years; that he did then appoint sundry of the Company's servants to have the management of the collections, viz. , one in each district, under the title of Collector; that he did then abolish the General Board
of Revenue or Council at Moorshedabad, for the following reasons: "That, while the controlling and
executive part of the revenue and the correspondence
with the collectors was carried on by a council at
Moorshedabad, the members of the administration at
Calcutta had no opportunity of acquiring that thorough and comprehensive knowledge which could only
result from practical experience; that the orders of the
Court of Directors, which established a new system,
which enjoined many new regulations and inquiries,
could not properly be delegated to a subordinate
council, and it became absolutely necessary that the
business of the revenue should be conducted under the
immediate observation and direction of the board. " --
That in November, 1773, the said Warren Hastings
abolished the office of Collector, and transferred the
collection and management of the revenues to several councils of revenue, commonly called Provincial
Councils. That on the 24th of October, 1774, the said
Warren Hastings earnestly offered his advice (to the
Governor-General and Council, then newly appointed
by act of Parliament) for the continuation of the said
* 3d November, 1772.
? ? ? ? AGAINST WARREN HASTINGS. 89. system of Provincial Councils in all its parts. That
the said Warren Hastings did, on the 22d of April,
1775, transmit to the Directors a formal plan for the
future settlement of the revenues, and did therein declare, that, "with respect to the mode of managing the collection of the revenue and the administration
of justice, none occurred to him so good as the system which was already established of Provincial Councils. " That on the 18th of January, 1776, the said Warren Hastings did transmit to the Court of Directors a plan for the better administration of justice,
that in this plan the establishment of the said Provincial Councils was specially provided for and confirmed, and that Warren Hastings did recommend it to the Directors to obtain the sanction of Parliament
for a confirmation of the said plan. That on the 30th
of April, 1776, the said Warren Hastings did transmit
to the Court of Directors the draft or scheme of an
act of Parliament for the better administration of justice in the provinces, in which the said establishment of Provincial Councils is again specially included, and
special jurisdiction assigned to the said Councils.
That the Court of Directors, in a letter dated 5th of
February, 1777, did give the following instruction to
the Governor-General and Council, a majority of
whom, viz. , Sir John Clavering, Colonel Monson, and
Mr. Francis, had disapproved of the plan of Provincial
Councils: " If you are fully convinced that the establishment of Provincial Councils has not answered nor is not capable of answering the purposes intended by
such institutions, we hereby direct you to form a new
plan for the collection of the revenues, and to transmit the same to us for our consideration. " - That the said Warren Hastings, in contradiction to his own.
? ? ? ? 90 ARTICLES OF CHARGE
sentiments repeatedly declared, and to his own advice repeatedly and deliberately given, and in defiance
of the orders of the Directors, to whom he transmitted
no previous communication whatever of his intention
to abolish the said Provincial Councils, did, in the
beginning of the year 1781, again change the whole
system of the collections of the public revenue of Bengal, as also the administration of civil and criminal
justice throughout the provinces. That the said Warren Hastings, in a letter dated 5th of May, 1781,
advising the Court of Directors of the said changes,
has falsely affirmed, " that the plan of superintending
and collecting the public revenue of the provinces
through the agency of Provincial Councils had been
instituted for the temporary and declared purpose of
introducing another more permanent mode by an easy
and gradual change"; that, on the contrary, the said
Warren Hastings, from the year 1773 to the year
1781, has constantly and uniformly insisted on the
wisdom of that institution, and on the necessity of
never departing from it; that he has in that time
repeatedly advised that the said institution should be
confirmed in perpetuity by an act of Parliament; that
the said total dissolution of the Provincial Councils
was not introduced by any easy and gradual change,
nor by any gradations whatever, but was sudden and
unprepared, and instantly accomplished by a single
act of power; and that the said Warren Hastings, in
the place of the said Councils, has substituted a Committee of Revenue, consisting of four covenanted servants, on principles opposite to those which he had. himself professed, and with exclusive powers, tending
to deprive the members of the Supreme Council of a
-due knowledge of and inspection into the management
? ? ? ? AGAINST WARREN HASTINGS. 91
of the territorial revenues, specially and unalienably
vested by the legislature in the Governor-General
and Council, and to vest the same solely and entirely
in the said Warren Hastings. That the reasons assigned by the said Warren Hastings for constituting
the said Committee of Revenue are incompatible with
those which he professed when he abolished the subordinate Council of Revenue at MoQrshedabad: that
he has invested the said Committee in the fullest manner with all the powers and authority of the GovernorGeneral and Gouncil; that he has thereby contracted
the whole power and office of the Provincial Councils
into a small compass, and vested the same in four persons appointed by himself; that he has thereby taken the general transaction and cognizance of revenue business out of the Supreme Council; that the said
Committee are empowered to conduct the current
business of the revenue department'without reference to the Supreme Council, and only report to the
board such extraordinary occurrences, claims, and proposals as may require the special orders of the board;
that even the instruction to report to the board in
extraordinary cases is - nugatory and fallacious, being
accompanied with limitations which make it impossible for the said board to decide on any question~
whatsoever: since it is expressly provided by the
said Warren Hastings, that, if the members of the Committee differ in opinion, it is not expected that every dissentient opinion should be recorded; consequently the Supreme Council, on any reference to their board,
can see nothing but the resolutions or reasons of
the majority of the Committee, without the arguments on which the dissentient opinions might be
founded: and since it is also expressly provided by
? ? ? ? 92 ARTICLES OF CHARGE
the said Warren Hastings, that the determination of
the majority of the Committee should not therefore be
stayed, unless it should be so agreed by the majority, -
tfa. t is, that, notwithstanding the reference to the
Supreme Council, the measure shall be executed
without waiting for their decision.
That the said Warren Hastings has delivered his
opinion, with many arguments to support the same,
in favor of long leases of the lands, in preference to
annual settlements: that he has particularly declared,
"that the farmer who holds his farm for one year
only, having no interest, in the next, takes what he can
with the hand of rigor, which, even in the execution
of legal claims, is often equivalent to violence; he is
under the necessity of being rigid, and even cruel,
for what is left in arrear after the expiration of his
power is at best a doubtful debt, if ever recoverable;
he will be tempted to exceed the bounds of right, and
to augment his income by irregular exactions, and
by racking the tenants, for which pretences will not
De wanting, where the farms pass annually from one
hand to another; that the discouragements which the
tenants feel from being transferred every year to new
landlords are a great objection to such short leases;
that they contribute to injure the cultivation and
dispeople the lands; that, on the contrary, from long
farms the farmer acquires a permanent interest in his
lands; he will, for his own sake, lay out money in
assisting his tenants in improving lands already cultivated, and in clearing and cultivating waste lands. " * That, nevertheless, the said Warren Hastings, having
left it tb the discretion of the Committee of Revenue,
appointed by him in 1781, to fix the time for which
* 14th May, 1772.
? ? ? ? AuAiNST WARREN HASTINGS. 93
the ensuing settlement should be made, and the said
Committee having declared, that, with respect to the
period of the leases in general, it appeared to the Committee that to limit them to one year would be the best period, he, the said Warren Hastings, approved of that limitation, in manifest contradiction to all his own
arguments, professions, and declarations concerning
the fatal consequences of annual leases of the lands;
that in so doing the said Warren Hastings did not
hold himself bound or restrained by the orders of the
Court of Directors, but acted upon his own discretion; and that he has, for partial and interested purposes, exercised that discretion in particular instances
against his own general settlement for one year, by
granting perpetual leases of farms and zemindaries to
persons specially favored by him, and particularly by
granting a perpetual lease of the zemindary of Bifharbund to his servant Cantoo Baboo on very low terms.
That in all the preceding transactions the said Warren Hastings did act contrary to his duty as Governor
of Fort William, contrary to the orders of his employers, and contrary to his own declared sense of expediency, consistency, and justice, and thereby did
harass and afflict the inhabitants of the provinces
with perpetual changes in the system and execution
of the government placed over them, and with continued innovations and exactions, against the rights of
the said inhabitants, -- thereby destroying all securi
ty to private property, and all confidence in the good
faith, principles, and justice of the British government. And that the said Warren Hastings, having
substituted his own instruments to be the managers
and collectors of the public revenue, in the manner
hereinbefore mentioned, did act in manifest breach
? ? ? ? 94 ARTICLES OF CHARGE
and defiance of an act of the 13th of his present Majesty, by which the ordering and management and government of all the territorial revenues in the kingdoms of Bengal, Bahar, and Orissa were vested' in the
Governor-General and Council, without any power
of delegating the said trust and duty to any other
persons; and that, by such unlawful delegation of
the powers of the Council to a subordinate board
appointed by himself, he, the said Warren Hastings,
did in effect unite and vest in his own person the
ordering,. government, and management of all the
said territorial revenues; and that for the said illegal
act he, the said Warren Hastings, is solely answerable,
the same having been proposed and resolved in Council when the Governor-General and Council consisted
but of two persons present, - namely, the said Warren Hastings, and the late Edward Wheler, Esquire,
and when consequently the Governor-General, by virtue of the casting voice, possessed the whole power
of the government. That, in all.