« PreviousContinue »
objections to the want of a fund for defraying the extra expenses of Colonel Camac's detachment. On my return to the office, I wrote down the substance of what Mr. Hastings had said to me, and requested Mr. James Miller, my deputy, to seal it up with his own seal, and write upon it, that he had then done so at my request. He was no further informed of my motive for this, than merely that it contained the substance of a conversation, which had passed between me and another gentleman, which, in case that conversation should bereafter become the subject of inquiry, I wished to be able to adduce the memorandum then made of it, in corroboration of my own testimony; and although that paper has remained unopened to this hour, and notwithstanding that I kept no memorandum whatever of the substance thereof, yet, as I bave wrote this representation under the most scrupulous adherence to what I conceived to be truth, should it ever become necessary to refer to this paper, I am confident that it will not be found to differ materially from the substance of this representation.”
I forgot to mention, that besides these two bonds, which Mr. Hastings declared to be the company's, and one bond his own, that he slipped, into the place of the bond of his own, a much better; namely, a bond of November, which he never mentioned to the company till the 22d of May; and this bond for current rupees one lack, seventy-four thousand, or sicca rupees 1,50,000, was taken for the payment stated in the paper No. 1, to have been made to Mr. Croftes on the 11th Augun 1187, which corresponds to the 23d of November 1780. This is the Nuddea money, and this is all that you know of it; you know that this money, for which he had taken this other bond from the company, was not his own neither, but bribes taken from the other provinces.
I am ashamed to be troublesome to your lordships in this dry affair, but the detection of fraud requires a good deal of patience and assiduity, and we cannot wander into any thing, that can relieve the mind ; if it was in my power to do it, I would do it. I wish however to call your lordships' attention to this last bribe, before I quit these bonds. Such
is the confusion, so complicated, so intricate are these bribe accounts, that there is always something left behind, glean never so much from the paragraphs of Mr. Hastings and Mr. Larkins. I could not bring them to account, says Mr. Larkins. They were received before the 1st and 2d of October. Why does not the running treasury account give an account of them ? The committee of the House of Commons examined, whether the running treasury account had any such account of sums deposited: no such thing; they are said by Mr. Hastings to be deposited in June ; they were not deposited in October, nor any account of them given till the January following. “ These bonds (says he) I could not enter them as regular money to be entered on the company's account, or in any publick way, until I had an order of the governour-general and council.”
But why had not you an order of the governour-general and council ? We are not calling on you, Mr. Larkins, for an account of your conduct : we are calling upon Mr. Hastings for an account of his conduct, and which he refers to you to explain. Why did not Mr. Hastings order you to carry them to the publick account, “because (says he) there was no other way.” Every one, who knows any thing of a treasury or publick banking-place, knows, that if any person brings money as belonging to the publick, that the publick accomptant is bound, no doubt, to receive it, and enter it as such : 6 but (says he) I could not do it until the account could be settled, as between debtor and creditor: I did not do it till I could put on one side durbar charges, secret service, to such an amount ; and balance that again with bonds to Mr. Hastings :" that is, he could not make an entry regu. larly in the company's books until Mr. Hastings had enabled him to commit one of the grossest frauds and violation of a publick trust, that ever was committed, by ordering that money of the company's to be considered as bis own, and a bond to be taken as a security for it from the company, as if it was his own.
But to proceed with this deposit. What is the substance of Mr. Larkins's explanation of it? The substance of this explanation is, that here was a bribe received by Mr. Has
tings from Cheit Sing, guarded with such scrupulous secrecy, that it was not carried to the house of Mr. Croftes, who was to receive it finally, but to the house of Mr. Larkins, as a less suspected place; and that it was conveyed in various sums, no two people ever returning twice with the various payments, which made up that sum of 23,0001. or thereabouts. Now, do you want an instance of prevarication, and trickery in an account? If any person should inquire whether 23,0001. had been paid by Cheit Sing to Mr. Hastings, there was not any one man living, or any person concerned in the transaction, except Mr. Larkins, who received it, that could give an account of how much he received, or who brought it. As no two people are ever his confidants in the same transaction in Mr. Hastings's accounts, so bere no two people are permitted to have any share whatever in bringing the several fragments, that make up this sum. This bribe, you might imagine, would have been entered by Mr. Larkins to some publick account, at least to the fraudulent account of Mr. Hastings. No such thing, it was never entered, till the November following. It was not entered, till Mr. Francis had left Calcutta. All these corrupt transactions were carried on privately by Mr. Hastings alone, without any signification to his colleagues of his carrying on this patriotick traffick, as he called it. Your lordships will also consider both the person, who employs such a fraudulent accomptant, and bis ideas of his duty in his office. These are matters for your lordships' grave determination ; but I appeal to you, upon the face of these accounts, whether you ever saw any thing so gross; and whether any man could be daring enough to attempt to impose upon the credulity of the weakest of mankind, much more to impose upon such a court as this, such accounts as these are.
If the company had a mind to inquire what is become of all the debts due to them, and where is the cabooleat, he refers them to Gunga Govin Sing. Give us (say they) an account of this balance, that remains in your hands; I know (says he) of no balance. Why, is there not a cabooleat; where is it; what are the date and circumstances of it ? There is no such cabooleat existing. This is the case even where you have the name of the person through whose hands the money passed. But suppose the inquiry went to the payments of the Patna cabooleat ; Here (they say) we find half the money due ; out of forty thousand pounds there is only twenty thousand received ; give us some account of it. Who is to give an account of it ? Here, there is no mention made of the name of the person, who had the cabooleat : whom can they call upon ? Mr. Hastings does not remember; Mr. Larkins does not tell; they can learn nothing about it. If the directors had a disposition, and were honest enough to the proprietors and the nation, to inquire into it ; there is not a hint given, by either of those persons, who received the Nuddea, who received the Patna, who received the Dinagepore peshcush.
But, in what court can a suit be instituted, and against whom, for the recovery of this balance of 40,0001. out of 95,0001. ? I wish your lordships to examine strictly this account, to examine strictly every part, both of the account itself, and Mr. Larkins's explanation : compare them together, and divine, if you can, what remedy the company could have for their loss. Can your lordships believe, that this can be any other than a systematical, deliberate fraud, grossly conducted ? I will not allow Mr. Hastings to be the man, he represents himself to be ; he was supposed to be a man of parts : I will only suppose him to be a man of mere common
Are these the accounts we should expect from such a man ? And yet he and Mr. Larkins are to be magnified to heaven for great financiers ; and this is to be called bookkeeping. This is the Bengal account saved so miraculously on the 22d of May.
Next comes the Persian account. You have heard of a present, to which it refers. It has been already stated, but it must be a good deal farther explained. Mr. Larkins states, that this account was taken from a paper, of which three lines, and only three lines, were read to him by a Persian moonshee ; and it is not pretended, that this was the whole of it. The three lines read are as follows.-“ From the nabob (meaning the nabob of Oude) to the governourgeneral, six lacks, 60,0001. : From Hussein Reza Khân and VOL. VII.
Hyder Beg Khân to ditto, three lacks, 30,000l. ; and ditto to Mrs. Hastings, one lack, 10,0001.”
Here, I say, are the three lines, that were read by a Persian moonshee. Is he a man, you can call to account for these particulars ? No; he is an anonymous moonshee : his name is not so much as mentioned by Mr. Larkins, nor hinted at by Mr. Hastings; and you find these sums, which Mr. Hastings mentions, as a sum in gross given to himself, are not so. They were given by three persons; one six lacks, was given by the nabob to the governour : another of three lacks more by Hussein Reza Khân; and a third, one lack, by both of them clubbing, as a present to Mrs. Has+ tings. This is the first discovery, that appears, of Mrs. Hastings having been concerned in receiving presents for the governour-general and others, in addition to Gunga Govin Sing, Cantoo Baboo, and Mr. Crostes. Now, if this money was not received for the company, is it proper and right to take it from Mrs. Hastings ? : Is there honour and justice in taking from a lady a gratuitous present made to her? Yet Mr. Hastings says, he has applied it all to the company's service. He has done ill, in suffering it to be received at all, if she has not justly and properly received it. Whether in fact she ever received this money at all, she not being upon the spot, as I can find, at the time, (though to be sure, a present might be sent her) I neither affirm nor deny, farther than that as Mr. Larkins
a sum of 10,0001. from these ministers to Mrs. Hastings. Whether she ever received any other money than this, I also neither affirm nor deny. But, in whatever
But, in whatever manner Mrs. Hastings received this, or any other money, I must say, in this grave place in which I stand, that if the wives of governours-general, the wives of presidents of Council, the wives of the principal officers of the India company, through all the various departments, can receive presents, there is an end of the covenants, there is an end of the act of parliament, there is an end to every power of restraint. Let a man be but married, and if his wife may take presents, that moment the acts of parliament, the covenants, and all the rest expire ! There is something too in the manners of the East, that makes this