, and that the increase on the bullock
contract
in the same period would amount to above
400,0001.
400,0001.
Edmund Burke
Depending on the nature of subsequent use that is made, additional rights may need to be obtained independently of anything we can address.
? ? ? THE
WORKS
OF
THE RIGHT HONORABLEEDMUND BURKE. THIRD EDITION.
VOL. IX.
BOSTON:
LITTLE, BROWN, AND COMPANY.
1 869.
? ? ? ? CONTENTS OF- VOL. IX.
PAGs
ARTICLES OF CHARGE OF HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS
AGAINST WARREN HASTINGS, ESQUIRE, LATE GOVERNORGENERAL OF BENGAL: PRESENTED TO THE HOUSE OF Cozi3fONS IN APRIL AND MAY, 1786. - ARTICLES VII. - XXII. ART. VII. CONTRACTS. 3
VIII. PRESENTS. . . . . . 22
IX. RESIGNATION OF THE OFFICE OF GOVERNORGENERAL. . . 42
X. SURGEON-GENERAL'S CONTRACT. ~
XI. CONTRACTS FOR POOLBUNDY REPAIRS
XII. CONTRACTS FOR OPIUM. . . -63
XIII. APPOINTMENT OF R. J. SULIVAN
XIV. RANNA OF GOHUD. . . . . . 72
XV. REVENUES. . PART I.
PART II. . . 87
XVI. MISDEMEANORS IN OUDE. . . .
XVII. MAHOMED REZA KHAiN. . .
XVIII. THE MOGUL DELIVERED UP TO THE MAHRATTAS. . 202'
XIX. LIBEL ON THE COURT OF DIRECTORS 2. 28
XX. MAHRATTA WAR AND PEAC. . . 238
XXI. CORRESPONDENCE. . . 266
XXII. FYZOOLA KHAN.
PART I. RIGHTS OF FYZOOLA KHiN, ETC. , BEFORE THE TREATY OF LALL-DANG. . 268
79
95 179
60
60
70
? ? ? ? iv CONTENTS.
PAGB
PART II. RIGHTS OF FYZOOLA KHXN UNDER THE
TREATY OF LALL-DANG. 275
PART III. GUARANTY OF THE TREATY OF LALLDANG. . 278 PART' IV. THANKS OF THE BOARD TO FYZOOLA
KHN. . . . . . 286
PART V. DEMAND OF FIVE THOUSAND HORSE 287
PART VI. TREATY OF CHUNAR. . 296
PART VII. CONSEQUENCES OF THE TREATY OF CHUNAR. . 302
PART VIII. PECUNIARY COMMUTATION OF THE STIPULATED AID. 306
PART IX. FULL VINDICATION OF FYZOOLA KHaN
BY MAJOR PALMER AND MR. HASTINGS. . 313
APPENDIX TO THE EIGHTH AND SIXTEENTH CHARGES 319 SPEECHES IN THE IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS, ESQUIRE, LATE GOVERNOR-GENERAL OF BENGAL. SPEECH IN OPENING THE IMPEACHMENT.
FIRST DAY: FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1788. . 329
SECOND DAY: SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 16. 396
? ? ? ? ARTICLES OF CHARGE
OF
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS AGAINST
WARREN HASTINGS, ESQUIRE,
LATE GOVERNOR-GENERAL OF BENGAL' PRESENTED TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IN APRIL AND MAY, 1786.
ARTICLES VII. - XXII.
VOL. IX. I
? ? ? ? ARTICLES OF CHARGE
AGAINST
WARREN HASTINGS, ESQ. ,
LATE GOVERNOR-GENERAL OF BENGAL. (CONTINUED. )
VII. - CONTRACTS.
THAT the Court of Directors of the East India
Company had laid down the following fundamental rules for the conduct of such of the Company's business in Bengal as could be performed by contract,
and had repeatedly and strictly ordered the Governor
and Council of Fort William to observe those rules,
viz. : That all contracts should be publicly advertised, and the most reasonable proposals accepted;
that the contracts of provisions, and for furnishing
draught and carriage bullocks for the army, should
be annual; and that they should not fail to advertise
for and receive proposals for those contracts every
year.
That the said Warren Hastings, in direct disobedience to the said positive orders, and, as the Directors themselves say, by a most deliberate breach of his duty,
did, in September, 1777, accept of proposals offered
by Ernest Alexander Johnson for providing draught
and -carriage bullocks, and for victualling the Europeans, without advertising for proposals, as he was expressly commanded to do, and extended the contract for three years, which was positively ordered to
? ? ? ? 4 ARTICLES OF CHARGE
be annual, --and, notwithstanding that extension of
the period, which ought at least to have been compensated by some advantage to the Company in the conditions, did conclude the said contract upon terms
less advantageous than the preceding contract, and therefore not on the lowest terms procurable. That the said
Warren Hastings, in defiance of the judgment and
lawful orders of his superiors, which in this case left
him no option, declared, that he disapproved of publishing for proposals, and that the contract was reduced too
low already: thereby avowing himself the advocate of
the contractor, against whom, as representative of the
Company, and guardian of their interests, he properly was party, and preferring the advantage of the
contractor to those of his own constituents and employers. That the Court of Directors of the East India Company, having carefully considered the circumstances and tendency of this transaction, condemned it in the: strongest terms, declaring, that they would
not permit the contract to be continued, and that, "if
the contractor should think himself aggrieved, and
take measures. in consequence by which the Company became involved in loss or damage, they should
certainly hold the majority of the Council responsible for such loss or damage, and proceed against
them accordingly. " -That the said Warren Hastings, in defiance of orders, which the Directors say
were plain and unequivocal, did, in January, 1777,
receive from George Templer a proposal essentially
different from the advertisement published by the
Governor-General and Council for receiving proposals
for feeding the Company's elephants, and did accept
thereof, not only without having recourse to the proper
means for ascertaining whether the said proposal was
? ? ? ? AGAINST WARREN HASTINGS. 5
the lowest that would be offered, but with another
actually before the board nearly thirty per cent lower
than that made by the said George Templer, to whom
the said Warren Hastings granted a contract, in the
terms proposed by the said Templer, for three years,
and did afterwards extend the same to five years, with
new and distinct conditions, accepted by the said Warren Hastings, without advertising for fresh proposals,
by which the Company were very considerable losers:
on all which the Court of Directors declared, " that
this waste of their property could not be permitted;
that he, the said Warren Hastings, had disregarded
their authority, and disobeyed their orders, in not taking the, lowest offers"; and they ordered that the contract for elephants should be annulled: and the said
Directors further declared, that, "if the contractor
should recover damages of the Company for breach
of engagement, they were. determined, in such case,
to institute a suit at law against those members of the
board who had presumed, in direct breach of their orders, to prefer the interest of an individual to that
of the Company. " -That the said Warren Hastings
did, in the year 1777, conclude with F- - Forde
a contract for an armed vessel for the pilotage of the
Chittagong river, and for the defence of the coast
and river against the incursions of robbers, for the
term of five years, in further disobedience of the
Company's orders respecting the mode and duration
of contracts, and with a considerable increase of expense to the Company. That the farming out the defence of a. country to a contractor, -being wholly unprecedented, and evidently absurd, could have no real object but to enrich the contractor at the Company's
expense: since either the service was not dangerous.
? ? ? ? 6 ARTICLES OF CHARGE
and then the establishment was totally unnecessary,
or, if it was a dangerous service, it was evidently the
interest of the contractor to avoid such danger, and
not to hazard the loss of his ship or men, which must
be replaced at his own expense, and therefore that ain
active and faithful discharge of the contractor's duty
was incompatible with his interest. -- That the said
Warren Hastings, in further defiance of the Company's orders, and in breach of the established rule
of their service, did, in the year 1777, conclude a
contract with the master and deputy master attendant
of the Company's marine or pilot service, for supplying the said marine with naval stores, and executing
the said service for the term of two years, and without advertising for proposals. That the use and expenditure of such stores and the direction of the pilot vessels are under the management and at the disposition of the master attendant by virtue of his office;
that he is officially the proper and regular check upon
the person who furnishes the stores, and bound by his
duty to take care that all contracts for furnishing
such stores are duly and faithfully executed. That
the said Warren Hastings, by uniting the supply and
the check in the same hands, did not only disobey
the Company's specific orders, and violate the fundamental rules and practice of the service, but did overset the only just and rational principle on which this and every other service of a similar nature ought to
be conducted, and did not only subject the Company's
interest, in point of expense, to fraud and collusion,
but did thereby expose the navigation of the Bengal
river to manifest hazard and distress: considering
that it is the duty of thle master attendant to take
care that the pilot vessels are constantly stationed iii
? ? ? ? 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
?
? ? ? THE
WORKS
OF
THE RIGHT HONORABLEEDMUND BURKE. THIRD EDITION.
VOL. IX.
BOSTON:
LITTLE, BROWN, AND COMPANY.
1 869.
? ? ? ? CONTENTS OF- VOL. IX.
PAGs
ARTICLES OF CHARGE OF HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS
AGAINST WARREN HASTINGS, ESQUIRE, LATE GOVERNORGENERAL OF BENGAL: PRESENTED TO THE HOUSE OF Cozi3fONS IN APRIL AND MAY, 1786. - ARTICLES VII. - XXII. ART. VII. CONTRACTS. 3
VIII. PRESENTS. . . . . . 22
IX. RESIGNATION OF THE OFFICE OF GOVERNORGENERAL. . . 42
X. SURGEON-GENERAL'S CONTRACT. ~
XI. CONTRACTS FOR POOLBUNDY REPAIRS
XII. CONTRACTS FOR OPIUM. . . -63
XIII. APPOINTMENT OF R. J. SULIVAN
XIV. RANNA OF GOHUD. . . . . . 72
XV. REVENUES. . PART I.
PART II. . . 87
XVI. MISDEMEANORS IN OUDE. . . .
XVII. MAHOMED REZA KHAiN. . .
XVIII. THE MOGUL DELIVERED UP TO THE MAHRATTAS. . 202'
XIX. LIBEL ON THE COURT OF DIRECTORS 2. 28
XX. MAHRATTA WAR AND PEAC. . . 238
XXI. CORRESPONDENCE. . . 266
XXII. FYZOOLA KHAN.
PART I. RIGHTS OF FYZOOLA KHiN, ETC. , BEFORE THE TREATY OF LALL-DANG. . 268
79
95 179
60
60
70
? ? ? ? iv CONTENTS.
PAGB
PART II. RIGHTS OF FYZOOLA KHXN UNDER THE
TREATY OF LALL-DANG. 275
PART III. GUARANTY OF THE TREATY OF LALLDANG. . 278 PART' IV. THANKS OF THE BOARD TO FYZOOLA
KHN. . . . . . 286
PART V. DEMAND OF FIVE THOUSAND HORSE 287
PART VI. TREATY OF CHUNAR. . 296
PART VII. CONSEQUENCES OF THE TREATY OF CHUNAR. . 302
PART VIII. PECUNIARY COMMUTATION OF THE STIPULATED AID. 306
PART IX. FULL VINDICATION OF FYZOOLA KHaN
BY MAJOR PALMER AND MR. HASTINGS. . 313
APPENDIX TO THE EIGHTH AND SIXTEENTH CHARGES 319 SPEECHES IN THE IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS, ESQUIRE, LATE GOVERNOR-GENERAL OF BENGAL. SPEECH IN OPENING THE IMPEACHMENT.
FIRST DAY: FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1788. . 329
SECOND DAY: SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 16. 396
? ? ? ? ARTICLES OF CHARGE
OF
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS AGAINST
WARREN HASTINGS, ESQUIRE,
LATE GOVERNOR-GENERAL OF BENGAL' PRESENTED TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IN APRIL AND MAY, 1786.
ARTICLES VII. - XXII.
VOL. IX. I
? ? ? ? ARTICLES OF CHARGE
AGAINST
WARREN HASTINGS, ESQ. ,
LATE GOVERNOR-GENERAL OF BENGAL. (CONTINUED. )
VII. - CONTRACTS.
THAT the Court of Directors of the East India
Company had laid down the following fundamental rules for the conduct of such of the Company's business in Bengal as could be performed by contract,
and had repeatedly and strictly ordered the Governor
and Council of Fort William to observe those rules,
viz. : That all contracts should be publicly advertised, and the most reasonable proposals accepted;
that the contracts of provisions, and for furnishing
draught and carriage bullocks for the army, should
be annual; and that they should not fail to advertise
for and receive proposals for those contracts every
year.
That the said Warren Hastings, in direct disobedience to the said positive orders, and, as the Directors themselves say, by a most deliberate breach of his duty,
did, in September, 1777, accept of proposals offered
by Ernest Alexander Johnson for providing draught
and -carriage bullocks, and for victualling the Europeans, without advertising for proposals, as he was expressly commanded to do, and extended the contract for three years, which was positively ordered to
? ? ? ? 4 ARTICLES OF CHARGE
be annual, --and, notwithstanding that extension of
the period, which ought at least to have been compensated by some advantage to the Company in the conditions, did conclude the said contract upon terms
less advantageous than the preceding contract, and therefore not on the lowest terms procurable. That the said
Warren Hastings, in defiance of the judgment and
lawful orders of his superiors, which in this case left
him no option, declared, that he disapproved of publishing for proposals, and that the contract was reduced too
low already: thereby avowing himself the advocate of
the contractor, against whom, as representative of the
Company, and guardian of their interests, he properly was party, and preferring the advantage of the
contractor to those of his own constituents and employers. That the Court of Directors of the East India Company, having carefully considered the circumstances and tendency of this transaction, condemned it in the: strongest terms, declaring, that they would
not permit the contract to be continued, and that, "if
the contractor should think himself aggrieved, and
take measures. in consequence by which the Company became involved in loss or damage, they should
certainly hold the majority of the Council responsible for such loss or damage, and proceed against
them accordingly. " -That the said Warren Hastings, in defiance of orders, which the Directors say
were plain and unequivocal, did, in January, 1777,
receive from George Templer a proposal essentially
different from the advertisement published by the
Governor-General and Council for receiving proposals
for feeding the Company's elephants, and did accept
thereof, not only without having recourse to the proper
means for ascertaining whether the said proposal was
? ? ? ? AGAINST WARREN HASTINGS. 5
the lowest that would be offered, but with another
actually before the board nearly thirty per cent lower
than that made by the said George Templer, to whom
the said Warren Hastings granted a contract, in the
terms proposed by the said Templer, for three years,
and did afterwards extend the same to five years, with
new and distinct conditions, accepted by the said Warren Hastings, without advertising for fresh proposals,
by which the Company were very considerable losers:
on all which the Court of Directors declared, " that
this waste of their property could not be permitted;
that he, the said Warren Hastings, had disregarded
their authority, and disobeyed their orders, in not taking the, lowest offers"; and they ordered that the contract for elephants should be annulled: and the said
Directors further declared, that, "if the contractor
should recover damages of the Company for breach
of engagement, they were. determined, in such case,
to institute a suit at law against those members of the
board who had presumed, in direct breach of their orders, to prefer the interest of an individual to that
of the Company. " -That the said Warren Hastings
did, in the year 1777, conclude with F- - Forde
a contract for an armed vessel for the pilotage of the
Chittagong river, and for the defence of the coast
and river against the incursions of robbers, for the
term of five years, in further disobedience of the
Company's orders respecting the mode and duration
of contracts, and with a considerable increase of expense to the Company. That the farming out the defence of a. country to a contractor, -being wholly unprecedented, and evidently absurd, could have no real object but to enrich the contractor at the Company's
expense: since either the service was not dangerous.
? ? ? ? 6 ARTICLES OF CHARGE
and then the establishment was totally unnecessary,
or, if it was a dangerous service, it was evidently the
interest of the contractor to avoid such danger, and
not to hazard the loss of his ship or men, which must
be replaced at his own expense, and therefore that ain
active and faithful discharge of the contractor's duty
was incompatible with his interest. -- That the said
Warren Hastings, in further defiance of the Company's orders, and in breach of the established rule
of their service, did, in the year 1777, conclude a
contract with the master and deputy master attendant
of the Company's marine or pilot service, for supplying the said marine with naval stores, and executing
the said service for the term of two years, and without advertising for proposals. That the use and expenditure of such stores and the direction of the pilot vessels are under the management and at the disposition of the master attendant by virtue of his office;
that he is officially the proper and regular check upon
the person who furnishes the stores, and bound by his
duty to take care that all contracts for furnishing
such stores are duly and faithfully executed. That
the said Warren Hastings, by uniting the supply and
the check in the same hands, did not only disobey
the Company's specific orders, and violate the fundamental rules and practice of the service, but did overset the only just and rational principle on which this and every other service of a similar nature ought to
be conducted, and did not only subject the Company's
interest, in point of expense, to fraud and collusion,
but did thereby expose the navigation of the Bengal
river to manifest hazard and distress: considering
that it is the duty of thle master attendant to take
care that the pilot vessels are constantly stationed iii
? ? ? ? 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
?
