Star.
London, England, 1820-01-13 00:00:00

.

. .

A.:‘.,

•~,,

• there could be a difference of opinion upon the ques,-
Con before therm Ile since understood that an
amendment 'was to he proposed ; he should therefore
reserve !liras& for any observations which might be
urged against the motion. He had only to add, that
he never seconded a motion on which his heart and
feelicip,s went more decidedly with his vote than they
did upon this oecasion—( .Ipplort.se).
M... S. Dixox hoped that there would not be a
second opinion as to the vote to be given on this oc-
casion. But he hoped he would not be considered a
word-catcher, if he observed that he objected to the'.
words last testimony." It should appear from this
as it the Court had previously conferred various tes-s,
tiinonials of its favour upon Mr. Hastings. He
thought it would he better to say .‘ as a testimony"
or " as a lasting testimony," &c.
Nlr.lluou entered his protest against the proceed-
in.; of the Court, as being irregular, and totally in
of p-sition to the By-laws, which said that the Court
of Directors should lay before the Court the docu-
r.ents upon which they founded their Resolution.—
It was but justice that the Proprietors 4hould have
an equal ground with the Directors upon which to
give their vote.
Mi. R. JACK SON moved, that the Resolutions of the
Court, on the Sth May, 1776, on the 29th May, 1782,
on the 2'2d October, 1782, and on the 25th May,
1814, should be read. They were read accordingly.
The first Resolution was in substance, that Warren
Hastings and R. Barlow, having acted improperly
in their several offices, should be removed. The
next Resolution contained also a Resolution of the
House of Commons, in which it was stated, that
Warren Haaings and Hornby, having acted to
the injury of the interests of the Company, ought to
be removed from their offices. The third Resolution
statedr that the Court having ordered its servants not
to extend their dominion, or incur new debts, and
this order having been violated, new wars entered
into, and new debts contracted, which were danger-
ous to the safety of the Company's Possessions in
India, it was necessary to remove Warren Hastings
from the Government of India. The Resolution of
May, 1814, was, that a sum of 1:4,G00 per annum,
which had been granted to Warren Hastings, but
which had expired in 1813, be further continued to
him during his natural life ; upon which an Amend-
ment was moved, that the new grant should be
£5,000 per annum, with a sum of £19,000, being
the difference between the pension enjoyed by Mr.
Hastings for the last 19 years, and that now pro-
posed; and farther, that a Marble Statue be erected
to him in that Court. This Amendment was nega-
tived, and the original motion for a pension of £4,000
was put and carried.
The Resolutions having been read,
Mr. JACKSON said, the Honourable Director (Mr.
Robinson) had rightly supposed that an Amendment
would be moved. He himself intended to move it.
He never remembered having been placed in a more
painful situation than that in which he then stood.—
He had been balancing whether it would not have
been better to absent himself-from this discussion, or,
if he attended, to do so without voting ? bet his duty
prevailed, and, however unpopular his conduct might
be deemed, he was determined to fulfil that duty,
which he owed equally to himself and his fallow Pro-
prietors. In considering the question before them,
he was bound to admit that the character of Mr.
Hastings consisted of much light, but it had also
many shades. It was, therefore, the duty of the
Court to inquire which predominated ? But how
could this be done, when the necessary documents
were not before them ? The present motion called
upon them to perform an awful duty. It called
upon them to erect a statue to, and thereby point out
Mr. Hastings to future Governors, and to an admir-
ing world, as a pure and upright example of inte-
grity and virtue. But how would this accord with
the votes of censure, of condemnation, which had
been passed upon Mr. Hastings at several previous
Courts? It would give them an appearance of
great vacillation and indecibion, which would be
very unworthy of them. At one time there would
appear a censure, at another time an approbation
of the same individual, the circumstances under
which both were passed being decidedly the same.—
Besides, it would be paying a sorry compliment to
the House of Commons, upon whose good will to
them the welfare of the Company so mainly depend-
ed.—Were they aware of the consequences of voting
in opposition to a Resolution of the House of Com-
mons ? On. a former occasion they voted in a similar
manner ; they opposed themselves to the will of Go-
vernment, and the dissatisfaction at such vote was
forcibly expressed in a letter from the then Secretary.
of State. This was in the year 178:I. The Secretary
of State, on that occasion, using the name of .his
Majesty, notified his intention of commanding that
all the papers of the Company should be laid before
the house in the next Session. The consequence was,
that, in 1781, the proudest privilege of the Company,
that of having a voice in the choice of a Governor,
was taken from them for ever. The worthy Proprie-
wr proceeded into a detail of the conduct of Warren
Hastings, while in India. He admitted, that, on ,
many occasions, he had acted in a manner to deserve
the praise and gratitude of the Company. But he
condemned his invasion of the Rohilla country, at
the instigation of Sirjah Dowlah, who was to pay 40
lams of rupees (£400,000), for the assistance of the
British troops. The Honourable Gentleman entered
at length into the cruelties committed •by Sujah
Dowlah, in the Rohilla country. Colonel Cham-
pion, who commanded the British forces, after
having in vain applied to this savage Chief to ab-
stain from such cruelties, applied to the Gvwernor,
bat was answered, that it was always desirable to in-
terfere in the cause of humanity, but that in this case
nothing could be done without risking the sum pro-
-11.i..e.1 by Sujah Dowlah, when the business was over.
Shortly after this, the Council, Messrs. Monson,
1-raucis, and Clavei ing, resigned; but they went out
v. nth clean hands. Indeed it was impossible that any
charge could be made against 'them. After a few
ob,ervations on the reasons which Warren Hastings
st...igned for his conduct qu this occasion, Mr. Jackson
:adverted to the execution of Nundcornar, the Minis-
ter of Meer Jaireir, whose death Wright, he observed,
Lave at least been delayed by Mr. Hastings, until
smug further inquiry was made ; and the more par•
titularly so, its it was the opinion of Sir It. Cham-
bers, riiie-of the Judges, that the punishment of the
crime of forge' of which Ntuidcomar was ac-