On the 4th of March, 1778, the directors appear to have resumed the subject. In their letter of that date they instructed the governor and council forthwith to commence a prosecution, in the supreme court of judicature, against the persons who composed the committee of circuit, or their representatives, and also against Mr. Barwell, in order to recover, for the use of the Company, the amount of all advantages acquired by them from their several engagements in salt contracts and farms. Adverting, however, to the declaration made by Mr. Barwell, that he would account to the court of directors for the last shilling he had received, and abide implicitly by their judgment, they thought it probable, that, on being acquainted with their peremptory orders for commencing a prosecution, he might be desirous of paying his share of profits into the Company's treasury; and they pointed out a precaution to be used in accepting such a tender on his part.

On this part of the transaction your committee observe, that the court of directors appear blamable in having delayed till February, 1777, to take any measure in consequence of advices so interesting and important, and on a matter concerning which they had made so strong a declaration; considering, that, early in April, 1776, they say, "they had investigated the charges, and had then come to certain resolutions concerning them." But their delaying to send out positive orders for commencing a prosecution against the parties concerned till March, 1778, cannot be accounted for. In the former letter they promise, if they should find it necessary, to return the original covenants of such of their servants as had been any ways concerned in the undue receipt of money, in order to enable the governor-general and council to recover the same by suits in the supreme court. But your committee do not find, that the covenants were ever transmitted to Bengal. To whatever cause these instances of neglect and delay may be attributed, they could not fail to create an opinion in Bengal, that the court of directors were not heartily intent upon the execution of their own orders, and to discourage those members of government, who were disposed to undertake so invidious a duty.

In consequence of these delays, even their first orders did

not arrive in Bengal until some time after the death of Colonel Monson, when the whole power of the board had devolved to Mr. Hastings and Mr. Barwell. When they sent, what they call their positive orders, in March, 1778, they had long been apprized of the death of Colonel Monson, and must have been perfectly certain of the effect which that event would have on the subsequent measures and proceedings of the governor-general and council. Their opinion of the principles of those gentlemen appears in their letter of the 28th of November, 1777, wherein they say, "they cannot but express their concern, that the power of granting away their property in perpetuity should have devolved upon such persons.

But the conduct of the court of directors appears to be open to objections of a nature still more serious and importsnt. A recovery of the amount of Mr. Barwell's profits seems to be the only purpose, which they even professed to have in view. But your committee are of opinion, that to preserve the reputation and dignity of the government of Bengal was a much more important object, and ought to have been their first consideration. The prosecution was not the pursuit of mean and subordinate persons, who might, with safety to the public interest, remain in their seats during such an inquiry into their conduct. It appears very doubtful, whether, if there were grounds for such a prosecuon, a proceeding in Great Britain were not more politic han one in Bengal. Such a prosecution ought not to have een ordered by the directors, but upon grounds that would ave fully authorized the recall of the gentleman in queson. This prosecution, supposing it to have been seriously ndertaken, and to have succeeded, must have tended to eaken the government, and to degrade it in the eyes of all dia. On the other hand, to intrust a man, armed as he as with all the powers of his station, and indeed of the overnment, with the conduct of a prosecution against himf, was altogether inconsistent and absurd. The same tter in which they give these orders, exhibits an example, ich sets the inconsistency of their conduct in a stronger ht, because the case is somewhat of a similar nature, but initely less pressing in its circumstances. Observing, at the board of trade had commenced a prosecution against

and

Mr. William Barton, a member of that board, for various acts of peculation committed by him, they say, "We must be of opinion, that, as prosecutions are actually carrying on against him by our board of trade, he is, during such prosecution at least, an improper person to hold a seat at that board; therefore we direct, that he be suspended from the Company's service until our further pleasure concerning him be known."-The principle laid down in this instruction, even before their own opinion concerning Mr. Barton's case was declared, and merely on the prosecution of others, serves to render their conduct not very accountable in the case of Mr. Barwell. Mr. Barton was in a subordinate situation, and his remaining or not remaining in it was of little or no moment to the prosecution. Mr. Barton was but one of seven; whereas Mr. Barwell was one of four, and, with the governor-general, was in effect the supreme council.

In the present state of power and patronage in India, and during the relations, which are permitted to subsist between the judges, the prosecuting officers, and the council-general, your committee is very doubtful, whether the mode of prosecuting the highest members in the Bengal government, before a court at Calcutta, could have been, almost in any case, advisable.

It is possible, that particular persons, in high judicial and political situations, may, by force of an unusual strain of virtue, be placed far above the influence of those circumstances, which in ordinary cases are known to make an impression on the human mind. But your committee, sensible that laws and public proceedings ought to be made for general situations, and not for personal dispositions, are not inclined to have any confidence in the effect of criminal proceedings, where no means are provided for preventing a mutual connexion by dependencies, agencies, and employments, between the parties who are to prosecute and to judge, and those who are to be prosecuted and to be tried.

Your committee, in a former report, have stated the consequences which they apprehended from the dependency of the judges on the governor-general and council of Bengal: and the House has entered into their ideas upon this subject. Since that time it appears, that Sir Elijah Impey has accepted of the guardianship of Mr. Barwell's children, and

was the trustee for his affairs. There is no law to prevent this sort of connexion; and it is possible, that it might not at all affect the mind of that judge, or (upon his account) indirectly influence the conduct of his brethren; but it must forcibly affect the minds of those, who have matter of complaint against government, and whose cause the court of directors appear to espouse, in a country where the authority of the court of directors has seldom been exerted but to be despised; where the operation of laws is but very imperfectly understood; but where men are acute, sagacious, and even suspicious of the effect of all personal connexions. Their suspicions, though perhaps not rightly applied to every individual, will induce them to take indications from the situations and connexions of the prosecuting parties, as well as of the judges. It cannot fail to be observed, that Mr. Naylor, the Company's attorney, lived in Mr. Barwell's house; the late Mr. Bogle, the Company's commissioner of law suits, owed his place to the patronage of Mr. Hastings and Mr. Barwell, by whom the office was created for him; and Sir John Day, the Company's advocate, who arrived in Bengal in February, 1779, had not been four months in Calcutta, when Mr. Hastings, Mr. Barwell, and Sir Eyre Coote, doubled his salary, contrary to the opinion of Mr. Francis and Mr. Wheler.

If the directors are known to devolve the whole cognizance of the offences charged on their servants, so highly situated, pon the supreme court, an excuse will be furnished, if already it has not been furnished, to the directors for declining the use of their own proper political power and authority in examining into and animadverting on the conduct of their servants. Their true character, as strict masters and vigilant governors, will merge in that of prosecutors. Their force and energy will evaporate in tedious and intricate processes; in law suits, which can never end, and which are to be carried on by the very dependents of those who are under prosecuion. On their part, these servants will decline giving atisfaction to their masters, because they are already befre another tribunal; and thus, by shifting responsibility from hand to hand, a confederacy to defeat the whole spirit of the law, and to remove all real restraints on their actions, May be in time formed between the servants, directors, pro

secutors, and court. Of this great danger your committee will take further notice in another place.

No notice whatever appears to have been taken of the Company's orders in Bengal till the 11th of January, 1779, when Mr. Barwell moved, that the claim made upon him by the court of directors should be submitted to the Company's lawyers, and that they should be perfectly instructed to prosecute upon it. In his minute of that date he says, "that the state of his health had long since rendered it necessary for him to return to Europe."

Your committee observe, that he continued in Bengal another year. He says, "that he had hitherto waited for the arrival of Sir John Day, the Company's advocate; but as the season was now far advanced, he wished to bring the trial speedily to issue."

He

In this minute he retracts his original engagement to submit himself to the judgment of the court of directors, “and to account to them for the last shilling he had received." says, "that no merit had been given him for the offer; that a most unjustifiable advantage had been attempted to be made of it, by first declining it, and descending to abuse, and then giving orders upon it as if it had been rejected, when called upon by him in the person of his agent to bring home the charge of delinquency."

Mr. Barwell's reflections on the proceedings of the court of directors are not altogether clearly expressed; nor does it appear distinctly to what facts he alludes. He asserts that a most unjustifiable advantage had been attempted to be made of his offer. The fact is, the court of directors have nowhere declined accepting it; on the contrary, they caution the governor-general and council about the manner of receiving the tender of the money, which they expect him to make. They say nothing of any call made on them by Mr. Barwell's agent in England; nor does it appear to your committee, that they "have descended to abuse." They have a right, and it is their duty, to express, in distinct and appropriate terms, their sense of all blamable conduct in their servants.

So far as may be collected from the evidence of the Company's records, Mr. Barwell's assertions do not appear well supported; but even if they were more plausible, your committee apprehend, that he could not be discharged from his