No More Learning

? AGAINST WARREN HASTINGS. 7
the roads to wait the arrival of the Company's ships,
especially in tempestuous weather, and that they
should be in a constant condition to keep the sea;
whereas it is manifestly the interest of the contractor,
in the first instance, to equip the said vessels as scantily as possible, and afterwards to expose them as little as possible to any service in which the stores to be replaced by him might be lost or consumed. And,
finally, that in June, 1779, the said contract was
prolonged to the said master attendant, by the said
Warren Hastings, for the further period of two years
from the expiration of the first, without advertising
for proposals. - That it does not appear that any of
the preceding contracts have been annulled, or the
charges attending any of them abated, or that the
Court of Directors have ever taken any measures to
compel the said Warren Hastings to indemnify the
Company, or to make good any part of the loss incurred by the said contracts.
That in the year 1777 the said Warren Hastings
did recommend and appoint John Belli, at that time
his private secretary, to be agent for supplying the
garrison of Fort William with victualling stores;
that the stores were to be purchased with money advanced by the Company, and that the said agent was
to be allowed a commission or percentage for his risk
and trouble; that, in order to ascertain what sum
would be a reasonable compensation for the agent, the
Governor-General and Council agreed to consult some
of the principal merchants of Calcutta; that the merchants so consulted reported their opinion, that twenty per cent on the prime cost of the stores would be
a reasonable compensation to the agent; that, nevertheless, the said Warren Hastings, supported by the
? ? ? ? ARTICLES OF CHARGE
vote and concurrence of Richard Barwell, then -a member of the Supreme Council, did propose and carry it, that thirty per cent per annum should be allowed upon all stores to be provided by the agent. That the
said Warren Hastings professed that "he preferred
an agency to a contract for this service, because, if it
were performed by contract, it must then be advertised, and the world would know what provision was made for the defence of. the fort": as if its being
publicly known that the fort was well provided for defence were likely to encourage an enemy to attack
it. That in August, 1779, in defiance of the principle
laid down by himself for preferring an agency to a
contract, the said Warren Hastings did propose and
carry it, that the agency should be converted into a
contract, to be granted to the said John Belli, without
advertising for proposals, and fixed for the term of
five years, -- " pretending that he had received frequent remonstrances from the said agent concerning the heavy losses and inconveniences to which he was
subjected by the indefinite terms of his agency," notwithstanding it appeared by evidence produced at the board, that, on a supply of about 37,0001. , he had already drawn a commission of 22,0001. and upwards. That the said Warren Hastings pledged himself, that,
if required by the Court of Directors, the profits arising
from the agency should be paid into the Company's
treasury, and appropriated as the Court should direct.
That the Court of Directors, as soon as they were
advised of the first appointment of the said agency,
declared that they considered the commission of
twenty per cent as an ample compensation to the
agent, and did positively order, that, according to the
engagement of the said Warren Hastings, "the coin
? ? ? ? AGAINST WARREN HASTINGS. 9
mission paid or to be paid to the said agent should be
reduced to twenty pounds per cent. " That the:said
John Belli did positively refuse to refund any part of
the profits he had received, or to submit to a diminution of those which he was still to receive; and that
the said Warren Hastings has never made good his
own voluntary and solemn engagement to the Court
of Directors hereinabove mentioned: and as his failure to perform the said engagement is a breach of faith
to the Company, so his performance of such engagement,- if he had performed it, and even his offering to
pledge himself for the agent, in the first instance,
ought to be taken as presumptive evidence of a connection between the said Warren Hastings and the
said agent, his private secretary, which ought not to
exist between a Governor acting in behalf of the Company and a contractor making terms with such Governor for the execution of a public service. That, before the. expiration of the contract hereinbefore mentioned for supplying the army with draught
and carriage bullocks, granted by the said Warren
Hastings to Ernest Alexander Johnson for three years,
the said Warren Hastings did propose and carry it in
Council, that a new contract should be made on a
new plan, and that an offer thereof should be made to
Richard Johnson, brother and executor of the said
contractor, without advertising for proposals, for the
term of five years; that this offer was voluntarily acceptd'by the said Richard Johnson, who at the same
time d3sired and obtained that the new contracts
should be made out. in. the name of Charles Croftes,
the Company's accountant and sub-treasurer at Fort
William; that the said Charles Croftes offered the
said Richard Johnson as one of his securities for tl-le
? ? ? ? 10 ARTICLES OF CHARGE
performance of the said contract, who was accepted
as such by the said Warren Hastings; and that, at
the request of the said contractor, the contract for
victualling the Europeans serving at the Presidency
was added to and united with that for furnishing bullocks, and fixed for the same period. That this extension of the periods of the said contracts was not compensated by a diminution in the charge to be
incurred by the Company on that account, as it
ought to have been, but, on the contrary, the charge
was immoderately increased by the new contracts,
insomuch that it was proved by statements and computations produced at the board, that the increase on
the victualling contract would in five years amount
to 40,0001. , and that the increase on the bullock contract in the same period would amount to above
400,0001. That, when this and many other weighty
objections against the terms of the said contracts
were urged in Council to the said Warren Hastings,
he declared that he should deliver a reply thereto; but
it does not appear that he did ever deliver such reply, or ever enter into a justification of any part of
his conduct in this transaction. - That the act of
Parliament of 1773, by which the first Governor-General and Council were appointed, did expressly limit
the duration of their office to the term of five years,
which expired in October, 1779, and that the several
contracts hereinbefore mentioned were granted in
September, 1779, and were made to continue five
years after the expiration of the government by which
they were granted. That by this anticipation the discretion and judgment of the succeeding government
respecting the subject-matter of such contracts was
taken away, and any correction or improvement there
? ? ? ? AGAINST WARREN HASTINGS. 11
in rendered impracticable. That the said Warren
Hastings might have been justified by the rules and
practice or by the necessity of the public service in
binding the government by engagements to endure
one year after the expiration of his own office; but
on no principles could he be justified in extending
such engagements beyond the term of one year, much
less on the principles he has avowed, namely, " that it
was only an act of common justice in him to secure
every man connected with him, as far as he legally
could, from the apprehension of future oppression. "
That the oppression to which such apprehension, if
real, must allude, could only consist in and arise out
of the obedience which he feared a future government might pay to the orders of the Court of Directors, by making all contracts annual, and advertising
for proposals publicly and indifferently from all persons whatever, by which it might happen that such
beneficial contracts would not be constantly held by
men connected with him, the said Warren Hastings.
That this declaration, made by the said Warren Hastings, combined with all the circumstances belonging
to these transactions, leaves no room to doubt, that, in
disobeying the Company's orders, and betraying the
trust reposed in him as guardian of the Company's
property, his object was to purchase the attachment
of a number of individuals, and to form a party capable of supporting and protecting him in return.
That, with the same view, and on the same principles, it appears that excessive salaries and emoluments, at the East India Company's charge and expense, have been lavished by the said Warren Hastings to sundry individuals, contrary to the general principles of his duty, and in direct contradiction to
? ? ? ? `1t2 ARTICLES OF CHARGE
the positive orders of the Court of Directors: partic
ularly, that, whereas by a resolution of the Court of
Proprietors of the East India Company, and by an in
struction of the Court of Directors, it was provided
and expressly ordered that there should be paid to
the late Sir John Clavering " the sum of six thousand pounds sterling per annum in full for his services
as commander-in-chief, in lieu of travelling charges
and of all other advantages and emoluments whatever," and whereas the Court of Directors positively
ordered that the late " Sir Eyre Coote should receive
the same pay as commander-in-chief of their forces
in India as was received by Lieutenant-General Sir
John Clavering," the said Warren Hastings, nevertheless, within a very short time after Sir Eyre
Coote's arrival in Bengal, did propose and carry it
in Council, that a new establishment should bhe created for Sir Eyre Coote, by which an increase of expense would be incurred by the India Company to
the amount of eighteen thousand pounds a year and
upwards, exclusive of and in addition to his salary
of ten thousand pounds a year, provided for him by
act of Parliament as a member of the Supreme
Council, and exclusive of and in addition to his salary of six thousand pounds a year as commander-illchief, appointed for him by the Company, and expressly fixed to that amount. That the disobedience and breach of trust of which
the said Warren Hastings was guilty in this transaction is highly aggravated by the following circumstances connected with it. That from the death of
Sir John Clavering to the arrival of Sir' Eyre Coote in
Bengal the provisional command of the army had devolved to and been vested in Brigadier-General Giles
? ? ? ? AGAINST WARREN HASTINGS. 13
Stibbert, the eldest officer on that establishment.
That in this capacity, and, as the said Warren Hastings has declared, "standing no way distinguished
from the other officers in the army, but by his accidental succession to the first place on the list," he,
the said Giles Stibbert, had, by the recommendation
and procurement of the said Warren Hastings, received and enjoyed a salary, and other allowances, to
the amount of 13,8541. 12s. per annum. That Sir
Eyre Coote, soon after his arrival, represented to the
board that a considerable part of those allowances,
amounting to 8,2201. 10s. per annum, ought to devolve to himself, as commander-in-chief of the Company's forces in India, and, stating that the said Giles; Stibbert could no longer be considered as commander-in-chief under. the Presidency of Fort William,
made a formal demand of the same. That the said
Warren Hastings, instead of reducing the allowances
of the said Giles Stibbert to the establishment at
which they stood during General Clavering's command, and for the continuance of which after Sir
Eyre Coote's arrival there could be no pretence, colltinued the allowances of 13,8541. 12s. per annum to
the said Giles Stibbert, and at the same time, ill or'der to appease and satisfy the demand of the said Si l'
Eyre Coote, did create for him that new establis! lment, hereinbefore specified, of eighteen thovtsalld
pounds per annum, - insomuch that, instead of the
allowance of six thousand pounds a year, in lieu of
travelling charges, and of all emoluments and allowances whatsoever, to which the pay and allowances of
commander-in-chief were expressly limited by the
united act of the legislative and executive powers of:
the Company, the annual charge to be borne by the
? ? ? ? 14 ARTICLES OF CHARGE
Company on that account was increased by the said
Warren Hastings to the enormous sum of thirty-eight
thousand two hundred anld seventeen pounds tell
shillings sterling.
That on the 1st of November, 1779, the said Warren'Hastings did move and carry it in Council, "' that
the Resident at the Vizier's court should be furnished with an account of all the extra allowances and charges of the commander-in-chief when in the field,
with orders to add the same to the debit of the Vizier's. account, as a part of his general subsidy, - the charge to commence from the day on which the general shall pass the Caramnassa, and to continue till his return to the same line. " That this additional
expense imposed by the said Warren Hastings on the
Vizier was unjust in itself, and a breach of treaty
with that prince: the specific amount of the subsidy
to be paid by him having been fixed by a treaty, to
which no addition could justly be made, but at the
previous requisition of the Vizier. That the Court
of Directors, ill their letter of the 18th of October,
1780, did condemn and prohibit the continuation of
the allowances above mentioned to Sir Eyre Coote in
the following words: " These allowances appear to us
in a light so very extraordinary, and so repugnant to
the spirit of a resolution of the General Court of Proprietors respecting the allowance made to General Clavering, that we positively direct that they be discontinued immediately, and no part thereof paid after the receipt of this letter. " That on the 27th of April,
1781, the Governor-General and Council, in obedience
to the orders of the Directors, did signify the same to
the Commissary-General, as an instruction to him that
the extraordinary allowances to Sir Eyre Coote should
? ? ? ? AGAINST WARREN HASTINGS. 15
be discontinued, and no part thereof paid after that day.
That it appears, nevertheless, that the said extra allowances (amounting to above twenty thousand pounds sterling a year) were continued to be charged to the
Vizier, and paid to Sir Eyre Coote, in defiance of the
orders of the Court of Directors, in defiance of the
consequent resolution of the Governor-General and
Council, and in contradiction to the terms of the original motion made by the said Warren Hastings for adding those allowances to the debit of the Vizier,
viz. , " that they should continue till Sir Eyre Coote's
return to the Caramnassa. " That Sir Eyre Coote
arrived at Calcutta about the end of August, 1780,
and must have crossed the Caramnassa, in his return
from Oude, some weeks before, when the charge on
the Vizier, if at any time proper, ought to have
ceased. That it appears that the said allowances were
continued to be charged against the Vizier and paid
to Sir Eyre Coote for three years after, even while he
was serving in the Carnatic, and that this was done
by the sole authority and private command of the
said Warren Hastings.
That the East India Company having thought proper to create the office of Advocate-General in Bengal,
and to appoint Sir John Day to that office, it was
resolved by a General Court of Proprietors that a
salary of three thousand pounds a year should be allowed to the said Sir John Day, in full consideration
of all demands and allowances whatsoever for his services to the Company at the Presidency of Eort William. That the said Warren Hastings, nevertheless, shortly
after Sir John Day's arrival in Bengal, did increase
the said Sir John Day's salary and allowances to six
thousand pounds a year, in direct disobedience of the
? ? ? ? 16 ARTICLES OF CHARGE
resolution of the Court of Proprietors, and of the order of the Court of Directors. That the Directors,
as soon as they were informed of this proceeding,
declared, " that they held themselves bound by the resolution of the General Court, and that they could not
allow it to be disregarded by the Company's servants
in India," and ordered that the increased allowances should be forthwith discontinued. That the said
Warren- Hastings, after having first thought it necessary, in obedience to the orders of the Court of Directors, to stop the extraordinary allowance which he had granted to Sir John Day, did afterwards resolve that
the allowance which had been struck off should be repaid to him, upon his signing an obligation to refund
the amount which he might receive, in case the Directors should confirm their former orders, already twice
given. That in this transaction the said Warren
Hastings trifled with the authority of the Company,
eluded the repeated orders of the Directors, and exposed the Company to the risk and uncertainty of recovering, at a distant period, and perhaps by a process of law, a sum of money which they had positively ordered him not to pay.
That in the latter part of the year 1776, by the
death of Colonel Monson, the whole power of the government of Fort William devolved to the Governor
and one member of the Council; and that from that
time the Governor-General and Council have generally consisted of an even number of persons, in consequence of which the -casting voice of the said Warren Hastings has usually prevailed in the decision of all
questions. That-about the end of the year 1776 the
whole civil establishment of the said government did
not exceed 205,3991. per annum; that in the year
? ? ? ? AGAINST WARREN HASTINGS. 17
1783 the said civil establishment had been increased
to the enormous annual sum of 927,9451. That such
increase in. the civil establishment could not have taken place, if the said Warren Hastings, who was at the head of the government, with the power annexed to
the casting voice; had not actively promoted the said
increase, which he had power to prevent, and which
it was his duty to have prevented. That by such im
moderate waste of the property of his employers, and
by such scandalous breach of his fidelity to them, it
was the intention of the said Warren Hastings to gain
and secure the attachment and support of a multitude
of individuals, by whose united interest, influence, andl
intrigues he hoped to be protected against any future
inquiry into his conduct. That it was of itself high.
ly criminal in the said Warren Hastings to have so
wasted the property of the East India Company, and
that the purpose to be obtained by such waste was a
great aggravation of that crime.
* That among the various instances of profusion by
which the civil establishment of Fort William was
increased to the enormous annual sum hereinbefore
mentioned, it appears that a Salt Office was created,
of six commissioners, whose annual emoluments were:
as follows, viz. :President, or Comptroller, per annum ~ 18,480
? 1st member. . . . . . .
2d do. . . . . . . . . 11,480 3d do.
4th do. . . . . . . . . . 6,257 5th do. . . . . . . . . 10,307 ~ 72,807
VOL. IX. 2
13,100
13,183
? ? ? 18 ARTICLES OF CHARGE
That a Board of Revenue was created by the said
Warren Hastings, consisting of five commissioners,
whose annual emoluments were as follows, viz. :1st member, per annum. . . . ~ 10,950
2d do. . . . 9,100
3d do. . . . . . . . . . 9,100
4th do. . 9,100
5th do. . . 9,100
~ 47,350
That David Anderson, Esquire, first member of
the said board, did not execute the duties, though he
received the emoluments of the said office: having
acted, for the greatest part of the time, as ambassador to Mahdajee Sindia, with a further salary of 4,2801. a year, making in all 15,2301. a year.
That the said Warren Hastings did create an office
of Agent-Victualler to the garrison of Fort William,
whose profits, on an average of three years, were
15,9701. per annum. That this agency was held by
the Postmaster-General, who in that capacity received
2,2001. a year from the Company, and who was actually no higher than a writer in the service. That the person who held these lucrative offices, viz. , John
Belli, was private secretary to the said Warren Hastings.
That the said Warren Hastings created a nominal
office of Resident at Goa, where the Company never
had a Resident, nor business of any kind to transact,
and gave the said nominal office to a person who was
not a covenanted servant of the Company, with an
allowance of 4,2801. a year.
That these instances are proofs of a criminal pro
? ? ? ? AGAINST WARREN HASTINGS. 19
fusion and high breach of trust to the India Company
in the said Warren Hastings, under whose government, and by means of whose special power, derived
from the effect of his casting voice, all the said waste
and profusion did take place.
That at the end of the year 1780, when, as the
Court of Directors affirm, the Company were in the utmost distress for money, and almost every department in
arrear, and when it appears that there was a- great
scarcity and urgent want of grain at Fort St. George,
the said Warren Hastings did accept of a proposal
made to him by James Peter Auriol, then Secretary
to the Council, to supply the Presidency of Fort. St.
George with rice and other articles, and did appoint
the said Auriol to be the agent for supplying all the
other Presidencies with those articles; that the said
Warren Hastings declared that the intention of the
appointment " was most likely to be fulfilled by a liberal consideration of it," and therefore allowed the
said Auriol a commission of fifteen per cent on the
whole of his disbursements, thereby rendering it the
direct interest of the said Auriol to make his disbursements as great as possible; that the chance of
capture by tlie enemy, or danger of the sea, was to be
at the risk of the India Company, and not of the said
Auriol; that the said Warren Hastings declared personally to the said Auriol, "that this post was intended as a reward for his long and faithful services. " That the President and Council of Bombay did remonstrate against what they called the enormous
amount of the charges of the rice with which they
were supplied, which they state to be nine rupees a
bag at Calcutta, when they themselves could have
contracted for its delivery at Bombay, free of all risk
? ? ? ? 20 ARTICLES OF CHARGE
and charges, at five rupees and three sixteenths per
bag; and that even at Madras, where the distress:and
demand was greatest, the supplies of grain by private
traders, charged to the Company, were nineteen per
cent cheaper than that supplied by the said Auriol,
exclusive of the risk of the sea and of capture by the
enemy.
That it is stated by the Court of Directors,
that the agent's commission on a supply of a single
year (the said commission being not only charged on
the prime cost of the rice, but also onl the freight
and all other charges) would amount to pounds sterling 26,873, and by the said Auriol himself is admitted to amount to 18,2921. That William Larkins, the Accountant-General at Fort William, having been
ordered to examine the accounts of the said agent,
did report to the Governor-General and Council, that
he found them to be correct in the additions and calculations; and that then the said Larkins adds the
following declaration: "The agent being upon honor
with respect to the sums charged in his accounts for
the cost of the articles supplied, I did not think. myself authorized to require any voucher of the sums
charged for the demurrage of sloops, either as to the
time of detention or the rate of the charge, or of those
for the articles lost in going down the river; and on
that ground I thought myself equally bound to admit
the sums acknowledged as received for the sales of
goods returned, without requiring vouchers of the
rates at which they were sold. " That in this transaction the said Warren Hastings has been guilty of a
high breach of trust and duty, in the unnecessary expenditure of the Company's money, and in subjecting
the Company to a profusion of expense, at all times
wholly unjustifiable, but particularly at the time when
? ? ? ? AGAINST WARREN HASTINGS. 21
that expense was incurred. That the said Warren
Hastings was guilty of breach of orders, as well as
breach of trust, in not advertising generally for proposals; in not contracting indifferently for the supplies with such merchants as might offer to furnish them
on the lowest terms; in giving an enormous commission to an agent, and that commission not confined to the prime cost of the articles, but to be computed on
the whole of his charges; in accepting of the honor of
the said agent as a sufficient voucher for the cost of
the articles supplied, and for all charges whatever on.
which his commission was to be computed; and finally, in giving a lucrative agency for the supply of a distressed and starving province as a reward to a Secretary of State, whose labors in that capacity ought to have been rewarded by an avowed public salary,.
and not otherwise. That, after the first year of the
said agency was expired, the said Warren Hastings.
did agree, that, for the future, the commission to be
drawn by the said agent should be reduced to five
per cent, which the Governor-General and Council;
then declared to be the customary amount drawn by
merchants; but that even in this reduction of the
commission the said Warren Hastings was guilty of
a deception, and did not in fact reduce the commission from fifteen to five per cent, having immediately after resolved that he, the agent, should be allowed
the current interest of Calcutta upon all his drafts
on the Treasury from the day of their dates, until
they should be completely liquidated; that the legal
interest of money in Bengal is twelve per cent per
annum, and the current interest from eight to ten
per cent.
? ? ? ? 22 ARTICLES OF CHARGE
VIII. - PRESENTS.
THAT, before the appointment of the GovernorGeneral and Council of Fort William by act of
Parliament, the allowances made by the East India
Company to the Presidents of that government were
abundantly sufficient; and that the said Presidents
in general, and the said Warren Hastings particularly, was restrained by a specific covenant and indenture, which he entered into with the Company, from accepting any gifts, rewards, or gratuities whatsoever, on any account or pretence whatsoever. That
in the Regulating Act passed in the year 1773,
which appointed the said Warren Hastings, Esquire,
Governor-General of Fort William in Bengal, a salary of twenty-five thousand pounds a year was established for him, to which the Court of Directors added, "that he should enjoy their principal houses,
with the plate and furniture, both in town and country, rent-free. " That the same law which created
the office and provided the salary of the said Warren
Hastings did expressly, and in the clearest and most
comprehensive terms that could be devised, prohibit
him from receiving any present, gift, or donation, in
any manner or on any account whatsoever; and that
the said Warren Hastings perfectly understood the
meaning, and acknowledged the binding force of
this prohibition, before he accepted of the office to
Which it was annexed: he knew, and had declared,
that the prohibition was positive and decisive; that it
admitted neither of refinement or misconstruction; and
that in his opinion an opposition would be to incur the
penalty.
That, notwithstanding the covenants and engage
? ? ? ? AGAINST WARREN HASTINGS. 23
ments above mentioned, it appears in the recorded
proceedings of the Governor-Genieral and Council
of Fort William, that sundry charges have been
brought against the said Warren Hastings for gifts
or. presents corruptly taken by him before the promulgation of the act of 1773 in India, and that these
charges were produced at the Council Board ill the
presence of the said Warren Hastings. That, in'March, 1775, the late Rajah Nundcomar, a native
Hindoo, of the highest caste in his religion, and of
the highest rank in society, by the offices which he
had held under the country government, did lay before the Council an account of various sums of money paid by him to the said Warren Hastings, amounting to forty thousand pounds and upwards, for offices and employments corruptly disposed of by the said
Warren Hastings, and did offer and engage to prove
and establish the same by sufficient evidence. That
this account is stated with a minute particularity and
precision; the date of each payment, down to that of
small sums, is specified; the various coins in which
such payments were severally made are distinguished;
and the different persons through whose hands the
money passed into those of the said Warren Hastings
are named. That such particularity on the face of
such a charge, supposing it false, is favorable to the
party wrongfully accused, and exposes the accuser
to an instant and easy detection: for, though, as the
said Warren Hastings himself has observed on another occasion, "papers may be forged, and evidences may appear in numbers to attest them, yet it
must always be an easy matter to detect the falsity
of any forged paper produced by examining the witnesses separately, and subjecting them to a subse
? ? ? ? 24 ARTICLES OF CHARGE
quent cross-examination, in which case, if false, they
will not be able to persevere in one regular, consistent
story"; whereas, if no advantage be taken of such
particularity in the charge to detect the falsehood
thereof, and if no attempt to disprove it, and no d. efence whatever be made, a presumption justly and reasonably arises in favor of the truth of such charge.
That the said Warren Hastings, instead of offering
anything in his defence, declared that he would not
suffer Nundcomar to appear before the board as his
accuser; that he attempted. to indict his said accuser
for a conspiracy, in which he failed; and that the
said Rajah Nundcomar was soon after, and while his
charge against the said Warren Hastings was depending before the Council, indicted upon an English. penal statute, which does not extend even to Scotland,* before the Supreme Court of Judicature, for an offence said to have been committed several years
before, and not capital by the laws of India, and was
condemned and executed. That the evidence of this
man, not having been encountered at the time wheln
it might and ought to have been by the said Warren
Hastings, remains justly in force against him, and is
not abated by the capital punishment of the said
Nundcomar, but rather confirmed by the time and
circumstances in which the accuser of the said Warren Hastings suffered death. That one of the offices for which a part of the money above mentioned is
stated to have been paid to the said Warren Hastings
was given by him to Munny Begum, the widow of
the late Mir Jaffier, Nabob of Bengal, whose son, by
another woman, holds that title at present. Tllat
the said Warren Hastings had been instructed by the
* 2d year of George II.
? ? ? ? AGANS3T WARREN HASTINGS. 25
Court of Directors of the East India Company to appoint "a minister to transact the political affairs of
the government, and to select for that purpose some
person well qualified for the affairs of government, to
be the. minister and guardian of the Nabob's minority. " That for these offices, and for the execution of
the several duties belonging to them, the said Warren Hastings selected and appointed the said Munny Begum, a woman evidently unqualified for and incapable of such offices, and restrained from acting in such capacities by her necessary seclusion from the
world and retirement in a seraglio. That, a considerable deficiency or embezzlement appearing in this woman's account of the young Nabob's stipend, she
voluntarily declared, by a writing under her seal,
that she had given fifteen thousand pounds to the
said Warren Hastings for an entertainment, - which
declaration corresponds with and confirms that part
of the charge produced by Rajah Nundcomar to
which it relates. That neither this nor any other
part of the said charge has b-ron at any time directly denied or disputed by the said Warren Hastings, though made to his face, and though he was repeatedly accused by his colleagues, who were appointed by Parliament at the same time with himself, of peculation of every sort. That, instead of promoting a strict inquiry into his conduct for the clearance of his innocence and honor, he did repeatedly endeavor to elude and stifle all inquiry by attempting to dissolve the
meetings of the Council at which such charges were
produced, and by other means, and has not since
taken any steps to disprove or refute the same.
That the said Warren Hastings, so long ago as September, 1775, assured the Court of Directors, "that
? ? ? ? 26 ARTICLES OF CHARGE
it was his fixed determination most fully and liberally to explain every circumstance of his conduct
on the points on which he had been injuriously arraigned, and to afford them the clearest conviction
of his own integrity, and of the propriety of his motives for declining a present defence of it"; and having never since given to the Court of Directors any explanation whatever, much less the full and liberal
explanation he had promised so repeatedly, has thereby abandoned even that late and protracted defence
which he himself must have thought necessary to be
made at some time or other, and which he would be
thought to have deferred to a period more suitable
and convenient than that in which the facts were recent, and the impression of these and other charges
of the same nature against him was fresh and unimpaired in the minds of men.
That on the 30th of March, 1775, a member of the
Council produced and laid before the board a petition from Mir Zein Abul Deen, (formerly farmer of
a district, and who had been in creditable stations,)
setting forth, that Klian Jehan Khan, then Phousdar
of Hoogly, had obtained that office from the said
Warren Hastings, with a salary of seventy-two thousand sicca rupees a year, and that the said Phousdar
had given a receipt of bribe to the patron of the city,
meaning Warren Hastings, to pay him annually thirty-six thousand rupees a year, and also to his banian,
Cantoo Baboo, four thousand rupees a year, out of
the salary above mentioned. That by the thirty-fifth
article of the instructions given to the Governor-General and Council, they are directed " immediately to
cause the strictest inquiry to be made into all oppressiolls which might have been committed either
? ? ? ? AGAINST WARREN HASTINGS. 27
against the natives or Europeans, and into all abuses
that might have prevailed in the collection of the revenues, or any part of the civil government of the
Presidency, and to communicate to the Directors all
information which they might be able to obtain relative thereto, or to -any dissipation or embezzlement
of the Company's money. " That the above petition
and instruction having been read in Council, it was
moved that the petitioner should be ordered to attend
the next day to make good his charge. That the
said Warren Hastings declared, "that it appeared to
him to be the purpose of the majority to make him
the sole object of their personal attacks; that they
had taken their line, and might pursue it; that he
should have other remarks to make upon this transaction, but, as they would be equally applicable to
many others which in the course of this business were
likely to be brought before the board, he should say
no more on the subject ";- and he objected to the
motion. That by the preceding declaration the said
Warren Hastings did admit that many other charges
were likely to be brought against him, and that such
charges would be of a similar nature to the first, viz. ,
a corrupt bargaining for the disposal of a great office,
since he declared that his remarks on that transaction would be equally applicable to the rest; and
that, by objecting to the motion for the personal attendance of the accuser, he resisted and disobeyed
the Company's instructions, and did, as far as depended on his power, endeavor to obstruct and prevent all inquiry into the charge. That in so doing he failed in his duty to the Company, he disobeyed
their express orders, and did leave the charge against
himself without a reply, and even without a denial,
? ? ? ? 28 ARTICLES OF CHARGE
and with that unavoidable presumption against his
innocence which lies against every person accused
who not only refuses to plead, but, as far as his vote
goes, endeavors to prevent an examination of the
charge, and to stifle all inquiry into the truth of it.
That, the motion having been nevertheless carried,
the said Warren Hastings did, on the day following,
declare, " that he could not sit to be confronted with
such accusers, nor suffer a judicial inquiry into his
conduct at the board of which he was president, and
declared the meeting of the board dissolved. " That
the board continued to sit and examine witnesses,
servants of the Phousdar, on oath and written evidence, being letters under the hand and seal of the
Phousdar, all directly tending to prove the charge:
viz. , that, out of the salary of seventy-two thousand
rupees a year paid by the Company, the said Phousdar received but thirty-two thousand, and that the remainder was received by the said Warren Hastings and his banian. That the Phousdar,. though repeatedly ordered to attend the board, did, under various pretences, decline attending, until the 19th of
May, when, the letters stated be his, that is, under
his hand and seal, being shown to him, it was proposed by a member of the board that he should be
asked whether he had any objection to swear to the
truth of such answers as he might make to the questions proposed by the board; that the said Warren
Hastings objected to his being put to his oath; that
the question was nevertheless put to him, in consequence of a resolution of the board; that he first
declined to swear, under pretence that it was a matter of serious consequence to his character to take an
oathl, and, when it was finally left to his option, he
? ? ? ? AGAINST WARREN HASTINGS. 29
declared, "Mean people might swear, but that his
character would not allow him,- that he could not
swear, and had rather subject himself to a loss. "
That the evidence in support:of: the charge, being on
oath, was in this manner left uncontradicted. That
it was admitted by the said Warren Hastings, that
neither Mussulmen or iindoos are forbidden by the
precepts of their religion to swear; that it is not true,
as the said Warren Hastings asserted, that it was repugnant to the manners either of Hindoos or Mussulmen; and that, if, under such pretences, the natives were to be exempted from taking an oath,
when examined by the Governor and Council, all the'inquiries pointed out to them by the Company's in-:struction-s might stop or be defeated. That no valid
reason was or could be assigned why the said Phous-. dar should not be examined on oath; that the charge
was not against himself; and that, if any questions
had been put to him, tending to make him accuse:himself, he might have declined to answer them. :That, if he could have safely sworn to the innocence
of the:said Warren -Hastings, from whom he received
his employment, he was bound in gratitude as well. as: justice to the said Warren Hastings to have con-:sented to be examined on oath; that, not having,done so, and having been supported and abetted in,his refusal by the said Warren Hastings himself, whose character and honor were immediately at
stake, the whole of the evidence for the truth of the,charge remains unanswered, and in full force against
the said Warren Hastings, who onil this occasion recurred to the declaration he had before made to the
Directors, viz. , " that he would most fully and liberally explain every circumstance of his conduct,"
? ? ? ? 30 ARTICLES OF CHARGE
but has never since that time given the Directors
any explanation whatsoever of his said conduct.
And finally, that, when the Court of Directors, in
January, 1776, referred the question (concerning the
legality of the power assumed and repeatedly exercised by the said Warren Hastings, of dissolving the
Council at- his pleasure) to the late Charles Sayer,
then standing counsel of the East India Company,
the said Charles Sayer declared his opinion in favor
of the power, but concerning the use and exercise of
it in the cases stated did declare his opinion in the
following words: " I believe he, Warren Hastings, is
the first governor that ever dissolved a council inquiring into his behavior, when he was innocent. "
Before he could summon three councils, and dissolve
them, he had time fully to consider what would be
the result of such conduct, to convince everybody beyond a doubt of his conscious guilt. - That, by a resolution of a majority of the Council, constituting a lawful act of the Governor-General and Council, the
said Khan Jehan Khan was dismissed from the office
of Phousdar of Hoogly for a contempt of the authority of the board; that, within a few weeks after
the death of the late Colonel Monson, the number
of the Council being then even, and all questions
being then determined by the Governor-General's
casting voice, the said Warren Hastings did move
and carry it in Council, that the said Khan Jehan
Khan should be restored to his office; and that restoration, not having been preceded, accompanied, or
followed by any explanation or defence whatsoever,
or even by a denial of the specific and circumnstantial charge of collusion with the said KIhan Jehan
Khan, has confirmed the truth of the said charge.
? ? ? ? AGAINST WARREN HASTINGS. 31
That, besides the sums charged to have been paid
to the said Warren Hastings by the said Nunldcomar
and Munny Begum and Khfan Jehan Khan, and besides the sum of one hundred and ten thousand
pounds already mentioned to have been accepted
without hesitation by him, as a present on the -part
of the Nabob of Oude and that of his ministers, the
circumstances of which have been particularly reported to the House of Commons, it appears by the confession of the said Warren Hastings, that he has at
different times since the promulgation of the act of
1773, received various other sums, contrary to the
express prohibition of the said act, and his own declared sense. of the evident intent and obligation thereof. - That in the month of June, 1780, the said Warren Hastings made to the Council what he called" a
very unusual tender, by offering to exonerate the
Company from the expense of a particular measure,
and to take it upon himself; declaring that he had already deposited two lacs of rupees [or twenty-three
thousand pounds] in the hands of the Company's
sub-treasurer for that service. " That in a subsequent letter, dated the 29th of November, 1780, he
informed the Court of Directors, -that "' this money,
by whatever means it came into their possession, was
not his own "; but he did not then, nor has he at any
time since, made known to the Court. of Directors
from whom or on what account he received that money, as it was his duty to have done in the first instance, and notwithstanding the said Directors signified to him their expectation that he should communicate to them " immediate information of the channel by which this money came into'his possession,
with a complete illustration of the cause or causes of
? ? ? ? 32 ARTICLES OF CHARGE
so extraordinary an event. " But, from evidence examined in England, it has been discovered that this money was received by the said Warren Hastings
from Cheyt Sing, the Rajah of Benares, who was soon
after dispossessed of all his property and driven from
his country and government by the said Warren Hastings. That, notwithstanding the declaration made by the said Warren Hastings, that he had actually
deposited the sum above mentioned in the hands of
the Company's sub-treasurer for their service, it does
not appear that " ally entry whatsoever of that or any
other payment by the Governor-General was made in
the Treasury accounts at or about the time," nor is
there any trace in the Company's books of its being
actually paid into their treasury. It appears, then,
by the confession of the said Warren Hastings, that
this money was received by him; but it does not appear that he has converted it to the property and use of the Company.
That in a letter from the said Warren Hastings to
the said Court of Directors, dated the 22d of May,
1782, but not dispatched, as it might and ought to
have been, at that time, but detained and kept back
by the said Warren Hastings till the 16th of December following, he has confessed the receipt of various other sums, amounting (with that which he accepted
from the Nabob of Oude) to nearly two hundred
thousand pounds, which sums he affirmed had been
converted to the Company's property through his
means, but without discovering from whom or on
what account he received the same. That, instead
of converting this money to the Company's property,
as he affirmed he had done, it appears that he had lent
the greater part of it to the Company upon bonds
? ? ? ? AGAINST WARREN HASTINGS. 33
bearing interest, which bonds were demanded and received by him, and, for aught that yet appears, have
never been given up or cancelled. That for another
considerable part of the above-mentioned sum he has
taken credit to himself, as for a deposit of his own
property, and therefore demandable by him out of the
Company's treasury at his discretion. That all sums
so lent or deposited are not alienated from the person
who lends or deposits the same; consequently, that
the declaration made by the said Warren Hastings,
that he had converted the whole of these sums to the
Company's property, was not true. Nor would such
a transfer, if it had really been made, have justified
the said Warren iHastings in originally receiving the,
money, which, being in the first instance contrary to
law, could not be rendered legal by any subsequent
disposition or application thereof; much less would it
have justified the said Warren Hastings in delaying
to make a discovery of these transactions to the Court
of Directors until he had heard of the inquiries then
begun and proceeding in Parliament, in finally making a discovery, such as it is, in terms the most intricate, obscure, and contradictory. That, instead of that full and clear explanation of his conduct which
the Court of Directors demanded, and which the said
Warren Hastings was bound to give them, he has
contented himself with telling the said Directors, that,
" if this matter was to be exposed to the view of the
public, his reasons for acting as he had done might
furnish a variety of conjectures to which it would be
of little use to reply; that he either chose to conceal,
the first receipts from public curiosity by receiving:
bonds for the amount, or possibly acted without any
studied design which his memory could at that dis --
VOL. IX. 3
? ? ? ? 34. ARTICLES OF CHARGE
tance of time verify; and that he could have concealed
them from their eye and that of the public forever. "
That the discovery, as far as it goes, establishes the
guilt of the said Warren Hastings in taking money
against law, but does not warrant a conclusion that
he has discovered all that he may have taken; that,
on the contrary, such discovery, not being made in
proper time, and when made being imperfect, perplexed, and wholly unsatisfactory, leads to a just and reasonable presumption that other facts of the same
nature have been concealed, since those which he has
confessed might have been forever, and that this
partial confession was either extorted from the said
Warren Hastings by the dread of detection, or made
with a view of removing suspicion, and preventing
any further inquiry into his conduct.
That the said Warren Hastings, in a letter to the
Court of Directors dated 21st of February, 1784, has
confessed his having privately received another sum
of money, the amount of which he has not declared,
but which, from the application he says he has made
of it, could not be less than thirty-four thousand
pounds sterling. That he has not informed the Directors from whom he received this money, at what time, nor on what account; but, on the contrary, has
attempted to justify the receipt of it, which was illegal,
by the application of it, which was unauthorized and
unwarraintable, and which, if admitted as a reason for
receiving money privately, would constitute a precedent of the most dangerous nature to the Company's service. That, in attempting to justify the receipt
and application of the said money, he has endeavored
to establish principles of conduct in a Governor which
tend to subvert all order and regularity in the con
? ? ? ? AGAINST WARREN HASTINGS. 35
duct of public business, to encourage and facilitate
fraud and corruption in all offices of pecuniary trust,
and to defeat all inquiry into the misconduct of any
person in whom pecuniary trust is reposed. - That the
said Warren Hastings, in his letter above mentioned,
has made a declaration to the Court of Directors in
the following terms: "Having had occasion to disburse from my own cash many sums, which, though required to enable me to execute the duties of my
station, I have hitherto omitted to enter in my public
accounts, and my own fortune being unequal to so
heavy a charge, I have resolved to reimburse myself
in a mode the most suitable to the situation of your
affairs, by charging the same in my Durbar accounts
of the present year, and crediting them by a sum privately received, and appropriated to your service in the same manner with other sums received on account
of the Honorable Company, and already carried to
their account. " That at the time of writing this letter the said Warren Hastings had been in possession
of the government of Fort William about twelve years,
with a clear salary, or avowed emoluments, at no time
less than twenty-five thousand pounds sterling a year,
exclusive of which all the principal expenses of his
residence were paid for by the Company. That, if the
services mentioned by him were required to enable
him to execute the duties of his station, he ought not
to have omitted to enter them iil his public accounts
at the times when the expenses were incurred. That,
if it was true, as he affirms, that, when he first engaged in these expenses, he had no intention to carry them to the account of the Company, there was no
subsequent change in his situation which could justify
his departing from that intention. That, if his own
? ? ? ? 36 ARTICLES OF CHARGE
fortune in the year 1784 was unequal to so heavy a
charge, the state of his fortune at any earlier period
must have been still more unequal to so heavy a
charge. That the fact so asserted by the said Warren Hastings leads directly to an inference palpably
false and absurd, viz. , that, the longer a GovernorGeneral holds that lucrative office, the poorer he must become. That neither would the assertion, if it were
true, nor the inference, if it were admitted, justify
the conduct avowed by the said Warren Hastings in
resolving to reimburse himself out of the Company's
property without their consent or knowledge. - Tliat
the account transmitted in this letter is styled by himself an aggregate of a contingent account of twelve years; that all contingent accounts should be submitted to
those who ought to have an official control over them,
at annual or other shorter periods, in order that the
expense already incurred may be checked. and examined, and similar expenses, if disapproved of, may be prohibited in time; that, after a very long period is
elapsed, all check and control over such expenses is
impracticable, and, if it were practicable in the present instance, would be completely useless, since the
said Warren Hastings, without waiting for the consent of the Directors, did resolve to reimburse himself.
That the conduct of the said Warren Hastings, in
withholding these accounts for twelve years together,
and then resolving to reimburse himself without the
consent of his employers, has been fraudulent in the
first instance, and in the second amounts to a denial and mockery of the authority placed over him by
law. ; and that he has thereby set a dangerous example to his successors, and to every man in trust or
office under him. -That the mode in which he has
? ? ? ? AGAINST WARREN HASTINGS. 37
reimbursed himself is a crime of a much higher order,
and greatly aggravates whatever was already criminal
in the other parts of this transaction. That the said
Warren Hastings, in declaring that he should reimburse himself by crediting the Company by a sum
privately received, has acknowledged himself guilty
of an illegal act in receiving money privately. That
he has suppressed or withheld every particular which
could throw any light on a conduct so suspicious in
a Governor as the private receipt of money. That
the general confession of the private receipt of a
large sum in gross, in which no circumstance of
time, place, occasion, or person, nor even the amount,
is specified, tends to cover or protect any act of the
same nature (as far as a general confession can protect such acts) which may be detected hereafter, and
which in fact may not make part of the gross sum so
confessed, and that it tends to perplex and defeat all
inquiry into such practices. -- That the said Warren
Hastings, in stating to the Directors that he has resolved to reimburse himself in a mode the most suitable to the situation of their affairs, viz. , by receiving
money privately against law, has stated a presumption highly injurious to the integrity of the said Directors, viz. , that they will not object to, or even inquire into, any extraordinary expenses incurred and charged by their Governors in India, provided such
expenses are reimbursed by money privately and illegally received. That he has not explained what that
situation of their affairs was or could be to which so
dangerous and corrupt a principle was or might be
applied. -- That no evidence has been produced to
prove that it was true, nor any ground of argument
stated to show that it might be credible, that any na
? ? ? ? 38 ARTICLES OF CHARGE
tive of India had voluntarily and gratuitously given
money privately to the said Warren Hastings, that is,
without some prospect of a benefit in return, or some
dread of his resentment, if he refused. That it is not
a thing to be believed, that any native would give
large sums privately to a Governor, which he refused
to give or lend publicly to government, unless it were
to derive some adequate secret advantage from the
favor, or to avoid some mischief from the enmity of
such Governor. -That the late confessions made by
the said Warren Hastings of money received against
law are no proof that he did not originally intend to
appropriate the same to his own use, such confessions
having been made at a suspicious moment, when,
and not before, he was apprised of the inquiries commenced in the House of Commons, and when a dread of the consequence of those inquiries might act upon
his mind. That such confessions, from the obscure,
intricate, and contradictory manner in which they
are made, imply guilt in the said Warren Hastings,
as far as they go; that they do not furnish any color
of reason to conclude that he has confessed all the
money which he may have corruptly received; but
that, on the contrary, they warrant a just and reasonable presumption, that, in discovering some part of the bribes he had received, he hoped to lull suspicion,
and thereby conceal and secure the rest.
That the Court of Directors, when the former accounts of these transactions came before them, did
show an evident disposition not to censure the said
Warren Hastings, but to give the- most favorable
construction to his conduct; that, nevertheless, they
found themselves obliged " to confess that the statement of those transactions appeared to them in many
? ? ? ? AGAINST WARREN HASTINGS. 39
parts so unintelligible, that they felt themselves under
the necessity of calling on the Governor-General for
an explanation, agreeably to his promise voluntarily
made to them. "
That their letter, containing this requisition, was
received in Bengal in the month of August, 1784,
and that the said Warren Hastings did not embark
for England until the 2d of February, 1785, but
made no reply to that letter before his departure,
owing, as he has since said, to a variety of other more
important occupations. That, under pretence of such
occupations, he neglected to transmit to the Court
of Directors a copy of a paper which, he says, contained the only account he ever kept of the transaction. That such a paper, or a copy of it, might have been transmitted without interrupting other important occupations, if any could be more important
than that of giving a clear and satisfactory answer
to the requisition of the Directors. That since his
arrival in England he has written a letter to the
chairman of that court, professedly in answer to
their letter above mentioned, but in fact giving no
explanation or satisfaction whatsoever on the points
which they had declared to be unintelligible. That
the terms of his letter are ambiguous and obscure,
such as a guilty man might have recourse to in order
to cover his guilt, but such as no innocent man, from
whom nothing was required but to clear his innocence by giving plain answers to plain questions,
could possibly have made use of. That in his letter
of the 11th of July, 1785, he says, " that he has been
kindly apprised that the information required as above
was yet expected from him: that the submission which
his respect would have enjoined him to pay to the
? ? ? ? 40 ARTICLES OF CHARGE
command imposed on him was lost to his recollectiQn,
perhaps from the stronger impression which the first
and distant perusal of it had left on his mind that it
was rather intended as a reprehension for something
which had given offence in his report of the original
transaction than as expressive of any want of a further elucidation Vf it. " *
That the said Warren Hastings, in affecting to
doubt whether the information expressly required of
him by his employers was expected or not, has endeavored to justify a criminal delay and evasion in
giving it. That, considering the importance of the
subject, and the recent date of the command, it is not
possible that it could be lost to his recollection; much
less is it possible that he could have understood the
specific demand of an answer to specific questions to
be intended only as a reprehension for a former offence, viz. , the offence of withholding from the Directors that very explanation which he ought to have given in the first instance. That the said Warren
Hastings, in his answer to the said questions, cautiously avoids affirming or denying anything in clear,
positive terms, and professes to recollect nothing with
absolute certainty.