These letters were not considered as sufficient evideneg against the nabob, or otherwise it would have been unne cessary to examine witnesses on the occasion; neither did the evidence of Ally Rhezzi at all prove that the nabob was hostile to the British; on the contrary, it shewed that the most decided enmity subsisted between him and Tippoo. It was therefore monstrous to say that there was any thing in these proofs, as they were called, to af❤ fect the nabob. He then commented at length on the instructions given to the commissioners appointed to ex amine the witnesses, and contended, from the parts he read, that they were intended to intimidate them to give such evidence as would be agreeable to the company, upon whom they were entirely dependant. Such witnesses would not have been received in this country, and he was glad to see his learned friend (the solicitor general) taking notes of what he said, as, being accustomed to the justice of Britain, he would doubtless be prepared to shew that equal justice had been distributed in India. This exa mination must have been either judicial, in which case the accused person ought to have been heard in his de fence, or it must have been for the purpose of publishing to the world a justification of the future measures adopted in consequence of it. If the latter, it was more than ever incumbent on the commissioners to be careful that no grounds of doubt should be left. But what was the case ? The examinations, though taken in the Persic language, were put down in English, and the reason assigned for this was, that from the first question put to Ally Rhezzi, the examination, it was found, would not take the turn expected. Thus, when every thing turned on the construction of an ambiguous sentence, and whether certain words were meant as compliments, or had some concealed meaning, instead of writing down these words, the com missioners exercised their discretion, and translated them into another language: Both the witnesses examined fully exculpated the nahob. The evidence of Ally Rhezzi went to nothing, and that of Gholaum Ally Khan was reported by the commissioners to be full of contradictions. But what was the construction put on these › examinations by lord Wellesley? He would not give up his favourite hypothesis against the nabob of the Car natic, but he said, because these witnesses will give no material evidence, they must have a knowledge of some

479 1 atrocious fact, which not even our assurances of personal forgiveness, and even reward, will induce them to dis close.' He would venture to say, that such a construc tion as this was unrivalled in the annal, of injustice. The collection of the judicial atrocities, of the darkest times, compiled by Voltaire, did not contain such a tact. Although it was known to the witnesses that the more atrocious their discoveries were, the more agreeable it would be to those on whom they depended, yet, with all the promises and threats held out in the instructions before their eyes, they did not confirm a single suspicion enter tained of the connection between Omdut ul Omrah and Tippoo sultan. There were other witnesses examined, but because their testimony did not establish any fact consonant to the wishes of the governor-general, no notice was taken of the facts they communicated. The learned gentleman now turned his attention to the cypher, and commented on the very great improbability of any such mode of correspondence being adopted in a communication on indifferent subjects, if even it had been intended as the vehicle for secret matters. It was monstrous and ridiculous to say, that there was any thing mysterious in this, where all the mystery consisted in calling Tippoo "the pillar of the faithful," the English," the new comers," and Wallajah, the wellwisher of mankind." By the same rule Gibbon's History might be called a cypher, when the attributes of persons were assigned to them as names, as Virgil's being called "the poet," and Claudius" the emperor." If such serious and melancholy consequences had not followed from such proceedings, they would have been more worthy of ridicule than serious discussion, and might, instead of having resembled a tragedy of Racine, have had the appearance of a foolish tale. When the enquiry was first instituted, the object was said to be, to guard against the power and treachery of Omdut ul Omrah; but from his death happening in the interim, the same design was executed against a child who could have no power, nor be supposed disaffected towards the British. Before these measures could be justified, it ought to be prove!, that the son was a party with the father (if he was guilty) instead of having recourse to that monstrous proposition, which was laid down to the unfortunate Ally Hussein, namely, that Omdut ul Omrah having acted in such a

manner as to become a public enemy, he, his child, by inheritance, entered into the condition of his father. But this curious and unfounded principle of national law did not enter into the conception of the parties, till occasion called on them for some such apology. If Ally Hussein would have consented to become the "proper instru ment" of the governor general, it would never have been heard of, nor would those delicate hints of his not being the son of Omdut ul Omrah have been circulated. Azeem nl Dowlah, now said to be the legal heir, would have been left to the poverty and obscurity from which he was elevated to the musnud. Twenty-four hours were given for the unfortunate prince to determine on the acceptance of the terms offered him by the company. This was called a treaty, but it was not so: it might be a cession, or a suṛrender, but could not be called a treaty, where one of the contracting parties gave up independance, and indeed every thing he possessed. The prince, young as he was, determined not to disgrace the memory of his father, he rejected the proposal and if there was a heart in the house, not entirely devoid of humanity, they must feel in the most acute manner, when he read the narrative, giving an account of his noble behaviour. Here the honourable gentleman read the description of the conduct of prince Ally Hussein, as transmitted by lord Clive. It had been often observed, that there was but a short interval between the deposition from the throne, and the grave; it was verifed in this case. He did not mean to say that violencé was used, only that so it happened. The defenders of the measure said it was good for humanity and for the inhabitants of the Carnatic, to have an European substituted for a native government. If this was true, it ought to have been done openly, and by force, and not by having recourse to base arts, false pretences, and a mockery of justice. He hoped some of the ministers would now break silence, and give a satisfactory statement of an af fair which seemed so horrible to those who agreed with him. He could wish the statesmen among them to defend its policy, and bis learned friend (the solicitor gene ral) to shew that it was not a perversion of justice. How 'could they reconcile it to their consciences, to give silent votes on what so deeply concerned the character of that empire of which they were chosen the directors? For this was not a vote on the conduct of marquis Wellesley, but

on the fame of the British government. It was to declare if the acts of government in India were consistent with British justice, and to give an example to all future governors in India. It was either to tell them that we were de termined to be just, or that the house would sanction and approve of seizing the dominions of our allies, from whom we had of old received protection, and of violating every principle of justice and humanity.

Lord Castlereagh observed, that from the manner in which this question was discussed, it might be supposed that it was only in its commencement; but he would ask gentlemen whether they could so soon forget that the house had already come to a grave decision upon it. The house had resolved, by a great majority, that there was no ground whatever for the most material part of the charges relative to the Carnatic question, and negatived the motions containing such charges. The house was then in the singular situation of being called on to give redress in a transaction, of which it had already by its.. vote expressed its approbation. No question had ever met with a more marked decision on the part of parliament than the present, if he was to take the sense of parliament from numbers. The learned gentleman who spoke last observed, that ministers had taken no part in this discussion. That was not precisely the fact; but if they took so small a part, it did not arise from any want of conviction as to the opinion they entertained on the subject. For his own part, he entertained great doubts whether the speech of the learned gentleman would produce any good. Did he think any public utility could arise from the house of commons reversing the decision it had come to? and if he did, ought he not to blush at the idea of his friends not having brought the question forward before this time? Did he think that the house could so far forget its character as to reverse a decision it had so lately made? If this was the opinion of the honourable baronet, he ought to more than blush that no -effort had been made before this time to call the attention of parliament to a transaction which had occurred so many years ago. If his object was to blacken the character of the British parliament throughout Europe, and to shake the faith of the country by this posthumous effort of his faculties, never were faculties less usefully VOL. III-1808.

3Q

directed. He could not see any reason or practical utility that could have induced him to pursue this course; unless it was to establish a maxim, which had already been held forth in that house, that every man who went out to India discarded all ideas of public virtue from his mind. He could not suppose a greater injustice than to hold forth a notion that individuals of high rank and character, and placed in high situations, would so far forget every thing due to themselves and their country, as to abandon the principles by which they had acted all their lives before. The house was now examining a transaction which took place in 1801. Five years ago a charge was made against the individuals concerned in that transaction. Their character was not to be trifled with, their innocence was to be presumed until the contrary was proved. For years the question remained asleep, until the honourable baronet took it up; and would he now contend or suppose that persons were not to be found in that house who would have pressed this subject long before, if it was of that quality which some gentlemen supposed? Would the right honourable gentleman opposite (Mr. Sheridan) have suffered this subject to be at rest for four years if he thought he could have made out a case? That right honourable gentleman said, on a former day, that he did not wish to interrupt the harmony which prevailed in the government which the supported. Did he mean then to impute to that government such gross negligence, and such an abandonment of all the principles of justice, as to suppose they would have passed over without notice this transaction, were it so nefarious a one as it was described to be? Would the right honourable gentleman have sacrificed such a question as this to the convenience of a party? Was it likely that he, who had taken so distinguished a part in almost all other questions where there were imputations of gross injustice against individuals, would have committed such an abandonment of his public duty as not to come forward and vindicate the national character? He was not disposed to rest this question on any thing like personal authority, but he was justified in supposing, that had it been such as was lately described, it would have been brought forward by others long before this time. He had, however, much better evidence, namely, that which was contained in the papers themselves. To go into a detail of these papers