No More Learning

. . . . . . . . 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. That he has not, even now, informed the Directors of the name of any one person
from whom any part of the money in question was
received, nor what was the motive of any one person
for giving the same. That he has, indeed, declared,
that his motive for lending to the Company, or depositing in their treasury in his own name, money which
he has in other places declared to be their property, was to avoid ostentation, and that lending the
* See his letter of the 11th of July, 1785, at the end of the
Charges.
? ? ? ? AGAINST WARREN HASTINGS. 41
money was the least liable to reflection; yet, when he
has stated these and other conjectural motives for his
own conduct, he declares he will not affirm, though
he is firmly persuaded, that those were his sentiments on
the occasion. That of one thing only the said Warren
Hastings declares he is certain, viz. , 1" that it was his
design originally to have concealed the receipt of all the
sums, except the second, even from the knowledge of
the Court of Directors, but that, when fortune threw
a sum in his way of a magnitude which could not
be concealed, and the peculiar delicacy of his situation
at the time in which he received it made him more
circumspect of appearances, he chose to apprise his
employers of it. " That the said Warren Hastings
informs the Directors, that he had indorsed the
bonds taken by him for money belonging to the
Company, and lent by him to the Company, in order
to guard against their becoming a claim on the Company, as part of his estate, in the event of his death; but he has not affirmed, nor does it anywhere appear, that he has surrendered the said bonds, as he ought to have done. That the said Warren Hastings, in affirming that he had not time to answer the questions put to him by the Directors, while he was
in Bengal, -- in not bringing with him to England
the documents necessary to enable him to answer
those questions, or in pretending that he has not
brought them, -in referring the Directors back again
to Bengal for those documents, and for any further
information on a subject on which he has given them
no information,- and particularly in referring them
back to a person in Bengal for a paper which he says
contained the only account he ever kept of the transaction, while he himself professes to doubt whether
? ? ? ? 42 ARTICLES OF CHARGE
that paper be still in being, whether it be in the hands
of that person, or whether that person can recollect
anything distinctly concerning it, - has been guilty of
gross evasions, and of palpable prevarication and deceit, as well as of contumacy and disobedience to the
lawful orders of the Court of Directors, and thereby
confirmed all the former evidence of his having constantly used the influence of his station for the most
scandalous, illegal, and corrupt purposes.
IX. -- RESIGNATION OF THE OFFICE OF GOVERNORGENERAL.
THAT Warren Hastings having by his agent, Lauchlan Macleane, Esquire, on the 10th day of October, in
the year 1776, " signified to the Court of Directors
his desire to resign his office of Governor-General of
Bengal, and requested their nomination of a successor to the vacancy which would be thereby occasioned in the Supreme Council," the Court of Directors did thereupon desire the said Lauchlan Macleane "to inform them of the authority under which he
acted in a point of such very great importance";
and the said Lauchlan Macleane "signifying thereupon his readiness to give the court every possible satisfaction on that subject, but the powers with
which he was intrusted by the papers in his custody
being mixed with other matters of a nature extremely
confidential, he would submit the same to the inspection of any three of the members of the court," the
said Court of Directors empowered the Chairman,
Deputy Chairman, and Richard Becher, Esquire, to
inspect the authorities, powers, and directions with
? ? ? ? AGAINST WARREN HASTINGS. 43
which Mr. Macleane was furnished by Mr. Hastings to
make the. propositions contained in his letter of the
10th October, 1776, and to report their opinion thereon. And the said committee did accordingly, on the
23d of the said month, report, " that, having conferred with Mr. Macleane on the subject of his letter
presented to the court the 11th instant, they found,
that, from the purport of Mr. Hastings's instructions,
contained in a paper in his own handwriting given
to Mr. Macleane, and produced by him to them, Mr.
Hastings declared he would not continue in the government of Bengal, unless certain conditions therein specified could be obtained, of which they saw no probability; and Mr. George Vansittart had declared
to them, that he was present when these instructions
were given to Mr. Macleane, and when Mr. Hastings
empowered Mr. Macleane to declare his resignation
to the said court; that Mr. Stewart had likewise confirmed to them, that Mr. Hastings declared to him,
that he had given directions to the above purpose by
Mr. Macleane. "
And the Court of Directors, having received from
the said report due satisfaction respecting the authority vested in the said Lauchlan Macleane to propose
the said resignation of the office of Governor-General
of Bengal, did unanimously resolve to accept the
same, and did also, under powers vested in the said
court by the act of the 13th year of his present
Majesty, "nominate and appoint Edward Wheler,
Esquire, to succeed to the office in the Council of
Fort William in Bengal which will become vacant by
the said resignation, if such nomination shall be approved by his Majesty": which nomination and appointment was afterwards in due form approved and confirmed by his Majesty.
? ? ? ? 44 ARTICLES OF CHARGE
That the Court of Directors did, by a postscript
to their general letter, dated 25th October, 1776, acquaint the Governor-General and Council at Calcutta
of their acceptance of the said resignation, of their
appointment of Edward Wheler, Esquire, to fill the
said vacancy, and of his Majesty's approbation of the
said appointment, together with the grounds of their
said proceedings; and did transmit to the said Governor-General and Council copies of the said instruments of appointment and confirmation. That tlie said dispatches from the Court of Directors were received at Calcutta, and were read in
Council on the 19th day of June, in the year 1777;
and that Warren Hastings, Esquire, having taken no
steps to yield the government to his successor, General Clavering, and having observed a profound silence
on the subject of the said dispatches, he, the said
General Clavering, did, on the next day, being the
20th of June, by a letter addressed to the said Warren Hastings, require him to surrender the keys of
Fort William, and of the Company's treasuries; but
the said Warren Hastings did positively refuse to
comply with the said requisition, "denying that his
office was vacated, and declaring his resolution to
assert and maintain his authority by every legal
means. "
That the said General Clavering, conceiving that
the office of Governor-General was vacated by the
arrival of the said dispatches, which acquainted the
Council-General of the resignation of the said Warren Hastings and the appointment of the said Edward
Wheler, Esquire, and that he, the said General Clavering, had in consequence thereof legally succeeded
under the provisions of the act of the 13th year of Ihis
? ? ? ? AGAINST WARREN HASTINGS. 45
present Majesty's reign, to the said office of GovernorGeneral, become vacant in the manner aforesaid, did,
in virtue thereof, issue in his own name summonses to Richard Barwell, Esquire, and Philip Francis,
Esquire, members of the Council, to attend the same,
and in the presence of the said Philip Francis, Esquire, who obeyed the said summons, did take the
oaths as Governor-General, and did sit and preside in
Council as Governor-General, and prepared several
acts and resolutions in the said capacity of GovernorGeneral, and did, amongst other things, prepare a
proclamation to be made of his said succession to the
government, and of its commencing from the date of
the said proclamation, but did not carry any of the
acts or resolutions so prepared into execution.
The said Warren Hastings did, notwithstanding
thereof, and in pursuance of his resolution to assert
and maintain his authority, illegally and unjustifiably
summon the Council to meet in another department,
and did sit and preside therein, apart from the said
General Clavering and his Council, and, in conjunction
with Richard Barwell, Esquire, who concurred therein, issued sundry orders and did sundry acts of government belonging to the office of Governor-General, and, amongst others, did order several letters to be
written in the name of the Governor-General and
Council, and did subscribe the same, to the commandant of the garrison of Fort William, and to the
commanding officer at Barrackpore, and to the commanding officers at the other stations, and also to the
provincial councils and collectors in the provinces, enjoining them severally " to obey no orders excepting
such as should be signed by the said Warren Hastings, or a majority of his Council. "
? ? ? ? 46 ARTICLES OF CHARGE
That thle said Warren Hastings did, by the said proceedings, which were contrary both to law and to
good faith, constitute a double government, thereby
destroying and annihilating all government whatever;
and, by his said orders to the military officers, did
prepare for open resistance by arms, exposing thereby
the settlement, and all the inhabitants, subjects of or
dependent on the British government, whether native
or European, not only to political distractions, but to
the horrors of civil war; and did, by exposing the
divisions and weakness of the supreme government,
and thereby loosening the obedience of the provinces,
shake the whole foundation of British authority, and
imminently endanger the existence of the British nation in India.
That the said evils were averted only by the moderation of the said General Clavering and Philip
Francis, Esquire, in consenting to a reference, and
submitting to the decision of the judges of the Supreme Court of Judicature, although they entertained
no doubts themselves on the legality of their proceedings and the validity of General Clavering's instant right to the chair, and although they were not in any
way bound by law to consult the said judges, who had
no legal or judicial authority therein in virtue of their
offices or as a court of justice, but were consulted, and
interposed their advice, only as individuals, by the
voluntary reference of the parties in the said dispute.
And the said Warren Hastings, by his declaration,
entered in Minutes of Council, "that it was his determination to abide by the opinion of the judges," and
by the measures he had previously taken as aforesaid
to enforce the same by arms, did risk all the dangerous consequences above mentioned: which must have
? ? ? ? AGAINST WARREN HASTINGS. 47
taken place, if the said General Clavering and Philip
Francis, Esquire, had not been more tender of the
public interests, and less tenacious of their own
rights, and had persisted in their claim, as they were
by law entitled to do, the extra-judicial interposition of the judges notwithstanding; and from which claim they receded only from their desire to preserve
the peace of the settlement, and to prevent the mischiefs which the illegal resistance of the said Warren Hastings would otherwise infallibly have occasioned.
That, after the said judges had delivered their
opinion, " that the place and office of Governor-General of this Presidency had not yet been vacated by Warren Hastings, and that the actual assumption of
the government by the member of the Council next
in succession to Mr. Hastings, in consequence of any
deduction which could be made from the papers
communicated to them, would be absolutely illegal,"
and after the said General Clavering and Philip
Francis, Esquire, had signified to the said Warren
Hastings, by a letter dated the 21st of June, " their
intention to acquiesce in the said opinion of the
judges," and when the differences in the Supreme
Council were by these means composed, and the calamities consequent thereon were avoided, the said Warren Hastings and Richard Barwell, Esquires, did
once more endanger the public peace and security by
other illegal, unwarrantable, and unprovoked acts of
violence: having omitted to summon either the said
General Clavering or the said Philip Francis, Esquire, to Council; and having, in a Council held
thus privately and clandestinely and contrary to law,
on the 22d day of June, come to the following resolutions, viz.
? ? ? ? 48 ARTICLES OF CHARGE
"Resolved, That, by the said acts, orders, and
declarations of Lieutenant-General John Clavering,
recited in the foregoing papers," (meaning the proceedings of General Clavering in his separate Council on the 20th of June,) " he has actually usurped and assumed and taken possession of the place and
office of Governor-General of the Presidency of Fort
WTilliam in Bengal, granted by the act of the 13th of
his present Majesty to Warren Hastings, Esquire.
" Resolved, That Lieutenant-General John Clavering has thereby relinquished, resigned, surrendered,
and vacated the office of Senior Counsellor of Fort
William in Bengal.
"Resolved, That Lieutenant-General John Clavering has thereby relinquished, resigned, surrendered,
and vacated his place of Commander-in-Chief of the
Company's forces in India.
" Resolved, That Richard Barwell, Esquire, by virtue of the said act of Parliament, and by the death
of the Honorable George Monson, Esquire,\is promoted to the office of Senior Counsellor of the Presidency of Fort William in Bengal, in consequence of the said relinquishment, resignation, surrender, and
vacation of General Clavering.
" Resolved, That the office of Commander-in-Chief
of the Company's forces in India, by the relinquishment, resignation, surrender, and vacation of General Clavering, and by the death of the Honorable George Monson, Esquire, does no longer exist.
"Resolved, That, for the preservation of the legality of our proceedings, Lieutenant-General John
Clavering be not in future summoned or admitted as
a member of the Governor-General and Council. "
And the said Warren Hastings and Richard Bar
? ? ? ? AGAINST WARREN HASTINGS. 49
well, Esquire, did again sit in Council on the next
day, being the 23d of June, without summoning
either General Clavering or Philip Francis, Esquire,
and did come to several other resolutions, and make
several orders, contrary to law or justice, and inconsistent with the tranquillity and the security of the settlement: that is to say,, they ordered their secretary'" to notify to General Clavering that the board nad declared his offices of Senior Counsellor and
Commander-in-Chief to be vacant, and to furnish him
with a copy of these proceedings, containing the
grounds of the board for the aforesaid declaration. "
And they ordered extracts of the said proceedings;
"to be issued in general orders, with letters to all;
the provincial councils and military stations, directing
them to publish the same in general orders"; hnd
they resolved, " that all military returns be made to
the Governor-General and Council in their military
department, until a commander-in-chief shall be appointed by the Company. "
That on the day following, that is to say, on the
24th of June, the said Warren Hastings did again
omit to summon General Clavering to Council, and
did again, together with Richard Barwell, Esquire,
who concurred therein, adhere to and confirm the
said illegal resolutions come to on the two former
days, declaring " that they could not be retracted
but by the present authority of the law or by future
orders from home," and aggravating the guilt of the
said unjustifiable acts by declaring, as the said Tarren Hastings did, " that they were not the precipitate effects of an instant and passionate impulse, but the
fruits of long and most temperate deliberations, of
inevitable necessity, of the strictest sense of public;
VOL. IX. 4
? ? ? ? 50 ARTICLES OF CHARGE
duty, and of a conviction equal in its impression on
his mind to absolute certainty. "
That the said Warren Hastings was the less excusable in this obstinate adherence to his former unjust proceedings, as the said declarations were made in
answer to a motion made by Philip Francis, Esquire,
for the reversal of the said proceedings, and to a
minute introducing the said motion, in which Mr.
Francis set forth in a clear and forcible manner, and
in terms with which the Court of Directors have since
declared their entire concurrence, both the extreme
danger and the illegality and invalidity of the said
proceedings of Warren Hastings and Richard Barwell, Esquire, concluding the said minute by the. following conciliatory declaration: " And that this
salutary motion may not be impeded by any idea or
suspicion that General Clavering may do any act
inconsistent with the acquiescence which both he and
I have avowed in the decision of the judges, I will
undertake to answer for him in this respect, or that,
if he should depart from the true spirit and meaning
of that acquiescence, I will not be a -party with him in
such proceedings. "
That the said Warren Hastings could not plead.
ignorance of the law in excuse for the said illegal acts,
as it appears from the proceedings of the four preceding days that he was well acquainted with the tenure by which the members of the Council held their offices under the act of the 13th of his present Majesty, and had stated the same as a ground for retaining his
own office, contrary to an express declaration of the
Court of Directors and an instrument under the signmanual of his Majesty; and the judges of the Supreme Court, in their reasons for their decision in his favor,
? ? ? ? AGAINST WARREN HASTINGS. 51
had stated the provisions in the said act,* so far as
they related to the matter in dispute, from which it
appeared that there were but four grounds on which
the office of any member of the Council could be
vacated, -- namely, death, removal, resignation, or
promotion. And as the act confined the power of
removal to " his Majesty, his heirs and successors,
upon representation made by the Court of Directors
of the said United Company for the time being," and
conferred no such power on the Governor-General, or
a majority of the Council, to remove, on any ground
or for any cause whatever, one of their colleagues, -
so, granting the claim of General Clavering to the
chair, and his acts done in furtherance thereof, to
have been illegal, and criminal in whatever degree,
yet it did not furnish to the rest of the Council any
ground to remove him from his office of Counsellor
under the provisions of the said act; and there could
therefore remain only his resignation or promotion, as
a possible means of vacating his said office. But with
regard to the promotion of General Clavering to the
office of Governor-General, although he claimed it
himself, yet, as Mr. Hastings did not admit it, and as
in fact it was even receded from by General Clavering,
it could not be considered, at least by Mr. Hastings,
as a valid ground for vacating his office of Senior
Counsellor, since the act requires for that purpose,
not a rejected claim, but an actual and effectual promotion; and General Clavering's office of Counsellor could no more be vacated by such a naked claim,
unsupported and disallowed, than the seat of a. member of the House of Commons could be vacated, and a new writ issued to supply the vacancy, by his' claim' 13 Geo. III. c. 63, ~ 10.
? ? ? ? '52 ARTICLES OF CHARGE
to the office of Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds,
when his Majesty has refused to appoint him to the
said office. And with regard to resignation, although
the said Warren Hastings, as a color to his. illegal
resolutions, had affectedly introduced the word " resigned" amongst those of" relinquished, surrendered,
anid vacated," yet he well knew that General Clavering had made no offer nor declaration of his resignation of his offices of Senior Counsellor and Commander-in-Chief, and that. he did not claim the office of Governor-General on the ground of any such resignation made by himself, but on the ground of a
resignation made by the said Warren Hastings, which
resignation the said Warren Hastings did not admit;
and the use of the term resigned on that occasion was
therefore a manifest and wilful'misconstruction and
misapplication of the words of the act of his present
Majesty. And such misinterpretation and false extension of the term of resignation was the more indecent
in the said Warren Hastings, as he was at the same
moment disavowing and refusing to give effect to his
own clear and express resignation, according to the
true intent and meaning of the word as used in the
said act, made by his agent, duly authorized and instructed by himself so to do, to an authority competent to receive and accept the same.
That, although the said Warren Hastings did afterwards recede from the said illegal measures, in compliance with the opinion and advice of the judges
again interposed, and did thereby avoid the guilt of
such further acts and the blame of such further evils
as must have been consequent on a persistence therein, yet he was nevertheless still guilty of the illegal
acts above described; and the same are great crimes
and misdemeanors.
? ? ? ? AGAINST WARREN -HASTINGS. 53
1'hat, although the judges did decide that the of-'
fice of Governor-General, held by the said Warren
Hastings, was not ipso facto and instanter vacated by
the arrival of the said dispatches and documents transmitted by the Court of Directors, and did consider the
said consequences of the resignation as awaiting some
future act or event for its complete and effectual operation, yet the said judges did not declare any opinion on the ultimate invalidity of the said acts of Lauchlan Macleane, Esquire, as not being binding
on his principal, Warren Hastings, Esquire; nor did
they declare any opinion that the obligation of the
said resignation was not from the beginning conclusive and effectual, although its operation was, from
the necessity of the case, on account of the distance
between England and India, to take place only in
future,- or that the said resignation made by Lauchlan Macleane, Esquire, was only an offer or proposal
of a resignation to be made at some future and indefinite period, or a mere intimation of the desire of
Warren Hastings, Esquire, to resign at some future
and indefinite period, and that the said resignation,
notwithstanding the acceptance thereof by the Court
of Directors, and the regular appointment and confirmation of a successor, was still to remain optional
in. the said Warren Hastings, to be ratified or departed from at his future choice or pleasure; nor did the
said judges pronounce, nor do any of their reasonings
which accompanied their decision tend to establish it
as their opinion, that even the time for ratifying and
completing the said transaction was to be at the sole
discretion of the said Warren Hastings; but they
only delivered their opinion as aforesaid, that his said
office " has not yet been vacated, and [therefore] that
? ? ? ? 54 ARTICLES OF CHARGE
the actual assumption of the government by tile member of the Council next in succession was [in the actual circumstances, and rebus sic stantibus] illegal. " That the said Warren Hastings does nowhere himself contend that the said resignation was not absolute, but optional, according to the true meaning and understanding of the parties in England, and so far
as the acts of Lauchlan Macleane, Esquire, and the
Court of Directors, were binding on him; but, on the
contrary, he grounds his refusal to complete the same,
not on any interpretation of the words inll which the
said resignation, and the other instruments aforesaid,
were conceived, but rather on a disavowal (not direct,
indeed, but implied) of his said'agent, and of the
powers under which the said agent had claimed te
act in his behalf. Neither did the said Warren Hastings ground his said refusal on any objection to the
particular day or period or circumstances in which
the requisition of General Clavering was made, nor
accompany the said refusal with any qualification in
that respect, or with any intimation that he would at
any future or more convenient season comply with
the same,' although such an intimation might probably have induced General Clavering to waive an instant and immediate claim to the chair, and might therefore have prevented the distractions which happened, and the greater evils which impended, in consequence of the said claim of General Clavering, and the said refusal of Warren Hastings, Esquire; but
the said Warren Hastings did, on the contrary, express his said refusal in such general and unqualified
terms as intimated an intention to resist absolutely
and altogether, both then and at any future time, the
said requisition of General Clavering. And the sub
? ? ? ? AGAINST WARREN HASTINGS.