he, when he had vakeels in every part of the Mahratta empire and in the country of Sujah Dowlah; when he had in most of those courts English ambassadors and native spies; did he either from ambassadors or spies receive any thing like authentick intelligence upon this subject? While he was at Benares he had in his hands Beneram Pundit, the vakeel of the Rajah of Berar, his own confidential friend; a person whom he took out of the service of his master, and to whom he gave a jaghire in this very zemindary of Benares. This man so attached to Mr. Hastings, so knowing in all the transactions of India, neither accused Cheit Sing of rebellious intentions, or furnished Mr. Hastings with one single proof that any conspiracy with any foreign power existed.

In this absence of evidence, my Lords, let us have recourse to probability. Is it to be believed that the Zemindar of Benares, a person whom Mr. Hastings describes as being of a timid, weak, irresolute, and feeble nature, should venture to make war alone with the whole power of the Company in India; aided by all the powers which Great Britain could bring to the protection of its Indian empire? Could that poor man, in his comparatively small district, possibly have formed such an intention, without giving Mr. Hastings access to the knowledge of the fact, I 2

from

frombone or other of the numerous corres pondents which he had in that country?

As to the Rajah's supposed intrigues with the Nabob of Oude, this man was an actual prisoner of Mr. Hastings, and nothing else; a mere vassal, as he says himself, in effect and substance, though not in name. Can any one believe or think, that Mr. Hastings would not have received from the English resident, or from some one of that tribe of English gentlemen and English military collectors, who were placed in that country in the exercise of the most arbitrary powers, some intelligence, which he could trust, if any rebellious designs had really existed previous to the rebellion, which did actually break out upon his arresting Cheit Sing?

There was an ancient Roman lawyer, of great fame in the history of Roman jurisprudence, whom they called Cui Bono, from his having first introduced into juridical proceedings the argument-what end or object could the party have had in the act with which he is accused? Surely it may be here asked, why should Cheit Sing wish to rebel, who held on easy and moderate terms (for such I admit they were) a very considerable territory with every attribute of royalty attached? The tribute was paid for protection, which he had a right to claim, and which he actually received. What reason under

Heaven could he have to go and seek another master; to place himself under the protection of Sujah Dowlah, in whose hands Mr. Hastings tells you, in so many direct and plain words, that neither the Rajah's property, his honour, or his life, could be safe? Was he to seek refuge with the Mahrattas, who, though Gentoos like himself, had reduced every nation which they subdued, except those who were originally of their own empire, to a severe servitude? Can any one believe, that he wished either for the one or the other of these charges; or, that he was desirous to quit the happy independent situ.. ation in which he stood under the protection of the British empire, from any loose, wild, impro bable notion of mending his condition? My Lords, it is impossible. There is not one particle of evidence, not one word of this charge on record, prior to the publication of Mr. Hastings's narrative; and all the presumptive evidence in the world would scarcely be sufficient to prove the fact, because it is almost impossible that it should be true..

But, my Lords, although Mr. Hastings swore to the truth of this charge, when he came before the House of Commons, yet in his narrative he thus fairly and candidly avowed, that he enter tained no such opinion at the time;" Every "step," says he, " which I had taken before "that

13

"that fatal moment, namely the flight of Cheit

Sing, is an incontrovertible proof that I had "formed no design of seizing upon the Rajah's "treasures or of deposing him. And certainly " at the time when I did form the design of "making the punishment, that his former ill "conduct deserved, subservient to the exi"gencies of the state, by a large fine, I did not "believe him guilty of that premeditated pro

ject for driving the English out of India, with "which I afterwards charged him." Thus then he declares upon oath, that the Rajah's contumacy was the ground of his suspecting him of rebellion, and yet when he comes to make his defence before the House of Commons, he simply and candidly declares, that long after these alleged acts of contumacy had taken place, he did not believe him to be guilty of any such thing as rebellion, and that the fine imposed upon him was for another reason and another purpose.

In page 28 of your printed minutes, he thus declares the purpose for which the fine was im posed. "I can answer only to this formidable "dilemma, that so long as I conceived Cheit "Sing's misconduct and contumacy to have "me rather than the Company for its object, at "least to be merely the effect of pernicious ad"vice or misguided folly, without any formal

"

design of openly resisting our authority or disclaiming our sovereignty; I looked upon "a considerable fine as sufficient both for his "immediate punishment and for binding him "to future good behaviour."

Here, my Lords, the secret comes out. He declares it was not for a rebellion or a suspicion of rebellion that he resolved, over and above all his exorbitant demands, to take from the Rajah 500,0001. (a good stout sum to be taken from a tributary power), that it was not for misconduct of this kind that he took this sum, but for personal ill behaviour towards himself. I must again beg your Lordships to note that he then considered the Rajah's contumacy as having for its object not the Company, but Warren Hastings, and that he afterwards declared publickly to the House of Commons ;-and now before your Lordships, he declares finally and conclusively, that he did believe Cheit Sing to have had the criminal intention imputed to him.

"So long," says he, " as I conceive Cheit Sing's misconduct and contumacy to have "me" (in italics as he ordered it to be printed) " rather than the Company, for its object, so

long I was satisfied with a fine. I therefore "entertained no serious thoughts of expelling "him or proceeding otherwise to violence; but "when he and his people broke out into the "most

I 4