His Lordship was again called in, Shortly after you had taken charge of the government, did you not appoint the late Mr.Cherry, resident at Lucknow ?— I appointed Mr. Cherry, I do not recollect the time exactly. In consequence of some interference on the part of Mr. Cherry in the nabob's affairs, did not the nabob, in the year 1796, address you very forcibly to have him removed?-I remember that Mr. Cherry was removed, but I do not remember the cause of it; it was for some conduct offensive to the nabob in which he had exceeded his authority; that is placed on the records of the company, which will shew the grounds of Mr. Cherry's removal. Was it not Mr. Lumsden who succeeded him ?-Mr. Lumsden succeeded Mr.Cherry; I would wish to say, with respect to Mr.Cherry, who is now no more, that, though I removed him, I always entertained the highest opinion of his abilities and integrity. Would your lordship have considered yourself justified in continuing a resident after a very forcible expression on the part of the vizier, that the resident had incurred his displeasure ?-I hardly know how to answer that question. [Withdrew. After some time his Lordship was If the nabob had made a forcible representation against the resident for what the nabob conceived to be improper interference, would your lordship have conceived yourself justified in continuing the resident after such expression, that the resident had incurred his displeasure ?-I will endeavour to answer that question as satisfactorily as I can. If the nabob had made a forcible representation to me on the subject of improper interference on the part of the resident, I should have considered the grounds of the representation, and I might either, according to the nature of the interference, have reprimanded the resident for his improper interference, or have recalled him; it would have depended very much on the circumstances of the case; in point of fact, with respect to Mr. Cherry, he was removed because his conduct had been offensive to the nabob, though I do not recollect the mode; and I do not know, whether it was in consequence of a re presentation or remonstrance of the nabob, or on my own judgment of the case; I would wish to say, however, it is probable that I might, in answer to the nabob's representation, if I had not thought the grounds of it sufficiently strong, have once corresponded with the nabob on the subject, before I finally determined either one way or the other. Does your lordship not remember that a very short period before Hussein Reza Khan and Tickait Roy, ministers of the nabob, were dispossessed of their functions by the nabob?-I think they were, though I cannot speak as to the date; but I know that they were dismissed by the nabob. Has your lordship no recollection of Mr Cherry's having been instructed to advise the nabob to re-instate those ministers in their employments?--I do not recollect any such order; if any such order was given it will appear on the records. I again repeat, it is eight years since I left India; that that country has engaged very little part of my attention since; that I have scarcely looked into any of the voluminous papers which have been printed by order of the house, indeed, no farther than into these num bers, one and two, which I have looked into, that I might be able to assist my recollection to give the information the house might require; that will account for my not recollecting many circumstances which may have happened. Was not it about the mouth of September, 1797, that the nabob Aseph ul Dowlah died?-It was about that time. Was he not succeeded on the musnud by his reputed son vizier Ali ?—Yes, he succeeded immediately. At what time did your lordship conceive it necessary to leave Calcutta a second time to visit Lucknow ?—I believe I can refer to a memorandum ;I arrived at Lucknow about the latter end of 1797. Was not the object of your lordship to secure the succession to the person who had the best right to it ?—I would wish to refer to the memoranda I have here; I can refer the house, and I would wish to refer the house, to the document which explains my intentions to go to Lucknow; I think it is a minute which is recorded in the consultations at Calcutta on the 17th of November, 1797. Was To the amount of twelve lacks of rupees?-I think to the amount of twelve lacs of rupees. Was not that one of your reasons to enquire into the person entitled to the succession? That certainly was not the direct object; I think I stated to the council On your journey to Lucknow, and that I only wished that I might not be during your stay there, did not your lordprecluded from what had passed from con-ship understand that vizier Ali, Waris Ali, sidering the circumstances of the succession, if circumstances should force it upon me; I believe that was what I stated at the time, and which will appear from a minute which I recorded on the proceedings of the Bengal government, subsequent to the 17th of November, 1797. Does your lordship mean to say that was not one of the objects of your journey to Lucknow ?-To the best of my recollection it was not a direct object, but I wish to refer to the documents which explains the object as I have stated them at the time, which gave much more satisfactory information than any which I can possibly give from any recollection. Was not your lordship satisfied, after the most thorough examination, that Saadut Ali was the lawful successor of the late vizier-I certainly was satisfied. Izett Ali, and others of his adherents, had taken away a very considerable quantity of jewels, money, and other valuables from the deposits of Asoph ud Dowlah ?-I have no distinct recollection upon that subject; but I certainly do recollect complaints, either on my way to Lucknow, or afterwards, that jewels or property, to a considerable amount, were taken away either by vizier Ali, or by his orders, or by the people in charge of them. Does your lordship not remember, after you quitted Lucknow, vizier Ali made an excursion to Hyder Ghur, and carried away a considerable quantity of arms? I recollect hearing that he went back from Hyder Ghur, and I think also that I heard that he had gone to the jewel office, and taken some jewels out. Did any doubt remain on your lordship's mind, after the most minute investigation ?-None at all. Did not Saadut Ali prefer a claim to the musnud almost immediately after the death of Asoph ul Dowlab?—He did. Did you or not understand, that if the claim was rejected it was his intention to proceed to England ?-Certainly not, I have no recollection of having ever so understood it; to the best of my recollection he did not even press his claim. Did your lordship not think that the reputation of the company had suffered by the elevation of the vizier Ali?-I certainly did think so. Did you not also think that justice and right, as well as the opinion of the people of Oude, and the reputation of the company, required the elevation of Saadut Ali?-The principal ground in my apprehension was justice; there were other arguments which were accessary to it, but his elevation was founded on the justice of his claim. Did not your lordship in fact, after vizier Ali was deposed, recover back some of those jewels yourself, and deli ver them back to Saadut Ali?—I believe that I recovered but a very small amount; I know that I spoke to Saadut Ali on the subject, and rather recommended him not to press the restitution of them from vizier Ali: there were some articles on which he seemed to place a considerable value, probably of no great value in themselves, which I did get back, but to no considerable amount. Had your lordship any doubt as to the right of Saadut Ali to recover back property so stolen ?-I do not recollect that I ever considered a question of right; I rather think that in point of right he was intitled to them; but considering that vizier Ali had been four months nearly upon the musnud, and considering his former situation, I thought it would be hard to deprive him entirely of the jewels: while he was upon the musnud, he might have disposed them as he pleased. Do you not remember that Saadut Ali Were not the expenses, which at- represented to you very forcibly, that tended this measure, paid by Sadut Ali other persons about the palace had also emvery soon after his accession ?-They bezzled, a considerable quantity of jewels? were charged to Saadut Ali, no doubt they-It may have been so, but I do not rewere pia by him: there were very considerable expenses incurred, from the necessity of having a very large number of troops in the vicinity of Lucknow, and those expenses Saadut Ali paid. collect it. Did your lordship not give him, either verbally or in writing, authority to search for and discover any treasures or property which which might have been embezzled by persons who had the charge of the late vizier's effects?-I do not recollect that I gave any such authority; I should have thought it would have been useless, for that he himself had a right to discover any property which had been embezzled. Did your lordship not give him an assurance that he should meet with no opposition from the British government in recovering such jewels, species, or other valuables as had been conveyed away, purloined, or stolen after the death of the late vizier?—I do not recollect any such assurance whatever; I do not mean to say it was not so, but simply that I do not recollect it. Your lordship will not take upon you to say you did not give it ?-No, I will not say I did not, but only that I do not recollect it. Are you not aware, my lord, that the late vizier had one of the richest and most splendid collections of jewels, specie, clocks, watches, and every other such kind of property in the palaces?-He certainly had a very large collection, but of the amount of them I am no judge whatever. During your visit at Lucknow, did you not see immense quantities of valuables of every kind, belonging to the late vizier, publicly exhibited in the Innah Kannah, and several other places ?-The nabob had a particular place, which I once went to see, which contained a great number of valuable articles, clocks with jewels, and a number of other articles, but I do not remember ever seeing any particular jewels of the nabob, further than those I saw in the dress. Does not your lordship conceive that clocks with jewels, and such other articles, must have been extremely valuable ? They might have been valuable, but I am no judge of the value; they were clocks such as I have seen in this country, set with jewels. I knew that the Innah Kannah was supposed to contain articles of this kind to a considerable value, but I cannot say to what value. Were they not perfectly exposed, and not in the possession of men of great respectability ?-I do not recollect in whose possession they were. Do you not suppose, that after the nabob's death it was very easy for the darogahs, and persons entrusted with the care of those palaces, to secrete or purloin many of these valuables ?-To a certain extent they might; but I suppose there was a list of all those articles, and that there were accounts kept of all those articles, and that a comparison of them with the accounts would have shewn what were lost, if there had been any body to examine them. In July, 1801, when a new arrangement was about to be made between the company and the vizier, the vizier requestof your lordship's successor, the mar quis Wellesley, that if any person had obtained, or should obtain by breach of trust or other means, possession of specie or property belonging to the sircar, no one should obstruct the taking it backConsidering what has been just stated, should you have considered the request improper, or as opening a door for plundering the Begums, Almas, and others at Lucknow-I can only say that without reference to the last part of the question, if the vizier had made such a proposition to me, that the government should not obstruct him in recovering his lawful property, I certainly could have made no objection. Among other plans for settling the affairs of Oudeat the time vizier Ali's right of succession was disputed, was it not suggested that the civil and military administration of Oude should be placed under the control of the East India company? I believe there was a question of that kind state and discussed, upon presumption of vizier Ali's being a minor; and I believe it is stated in a minute which I hefore mentioned, and which is recorded in the proceedings of the Bengal government, of the 17th of November, 1797, that is all 1 recollect on the subject. Was not that question discussed at Bebypore ?--I do not recollect that that question was discussed at Bebypore; I was referring to a previous proposition, that was stated, I think, and discussed by me before I left Calcutta. Previous to placing Saadut Ali on the musnud, 1 had considered the different modes of the resolution I thought it necessary to adopt, I believe at Juanpore. The different modes by which the influence of the company in Oude could be supported, and possibly the question now stated, may have formed part of the consideration. Was not sir Alured Clarke present at all the consultations on this subject ?--sir Alured Clarke was at Lucknow during all the time I was there, and was fully acquainted with all the transactions in which I was engaged. I believe that I have in my hand an answer to the question question I was asked just now. Before my final determination was adopted, I had resolved on the mode of giving effect to the resolution which I communicated to the board, that the influence of the company should be maintained in Oude, and two modes only occurred in effecting it By placing the control over vizier Ali in the hands of the begum, or by placing the administration of affairs directly under the control of the company. Had not your lordship many great and forcible objections to the placing the administration of affairs under the control of the East India company ?—I will an swer that question by reading an extract of my minute, which I think an answer to it: "To the latter, that is to the placing the administration of affairs directly under the control of the company, the objections were many and great; the principal of which, in my opinion, was the serious effect it would have had upon our character for political forbearance and sincerity throughout Hindostan; at all events, it would only have lasted during the minority of vizier Ali.” Did you not conclude an agreement with Saadut Ali, at Benares, before his accession to the musnud ?-No agreement was concluded. When the probability of placing Saadut Ali on the musnud first occurred, he was at Benares and I at Lucknow; there could be no direct communication between us: I transmitted a paper containing various stipulations to him for his rejection or acceptance; that was returned to me, and I think every article accepted by Saadut Ali. Did not that paper contain a condition for assigning a tract of country to the company, proportionate to any deficiency in payment of the stipulated subsidy ?-I have not seen that paper since I left India, Deither have I it in my possession, but I conclude it contained a stipulation, to that effect, because I see it referred to in a minute I recorded on the 5th of March, 1798; a reference to the paper would at once determine whether it contained that stipulation or not. This condition, when your lordship came to make the treaty of Lucknow, you rejected, did you not ?-I did reject it, for reasons stated in that minute. Your lordship rejected it on very mature consideration?-I certainly did reject it on mature consideration. Was not one of your motives for rejecting it, the extreme aversion manifested by the nabob to such a cession ?—I be lieve not, I do not believe that I had any discussion with the nabob whatever on that article. I can speak with certainty that the alterations which were admitted in the treaty afterwards concluded, were not suggested by the nabob, but the result of discussions between myself and the for mer minister. Was not one of the reasons the universal unpopularity of such a measure? -I have stated the extreme unpopularity attending the exaction as a motive with me for the relinquishment of it. Was not another reason the general apprehension which would be excited by it?-That also is stated by me as a reason at the time. What were those apprehensions?— Without reference to the article I can hardly state what they were; I mentioned before I have not seen that paper since I left India: it seems to contain a condition assigning a tract of country to the company in proportion to any deficiency in payment of the stipulated subsi dy, which was suggested by the terms of the treaties between the company and the nabob of Arcot and rajah of Tanjore; I think by the terms of those treaties the assignment of the country was only to take place upon the failure in the payment of the stipulations of the nabob, and in that case I suppose the apprehensions to which I allude here, that if we had once got it into our possession we should have kept it; I cannot speak with certainty as to that, but I think it probable. Did you not think that if the assignment took place it would be attended with difficulties and embarrassments which would have rendered the apparent advantages in a great measure nugatory ?-The assignment in the mode proposed in my opinion would, but I cannot speak with certainty as to the mode in which that assignment was proposed, for I only speak from a minute which refers to it. Did you not perceive also, that it would have required not only the appointment of civil officers, but the assistance of a military force to carry it into effect?That appeared to me to be the case at the time. and embarrassments that would have rendered the apparent advantage of the stipulation in a great measure nugatory; that it would have required not only the appointment of civil officers, but the assistance of a military force to carry it into effect; and that, although it should ultimately furnish the security proposed by it, the assignment would not provide for the timely payment of the subsidy. The extreme unpopularity attending the exaction was a further motive with me for the relinquishment of it, as well as the apprehensions which would have been generally excited by the publication of it: these were the motives which induced me to relinquish that stipulation at the time. In lieu of this condition, did it not occur to your lordship to require a mortgage on the Docab, as a security for the payment of the subsidy ?-As a matter of consideration it did occur. Was not even this qualified measure liable to similar and even greater objections than the other?-I have stated that measure to be liable to similar and greater objections. Did you not in fact deem these two modes of security inadequate to the purpose, and improper?-1 certainly relinquished them because I deemed them improper, for the reasons which I have stated in this minute. Of course you did not intend to resort to either of them for security in case of failure?-In case of failure the nature of the security would have been a question, and it certainly was left open to the company to demand such security as they would deem satisfactory; I speak now of the construction of the treaty. Had not your lordship in contemplation some other means to secure the payment of the kists?-If security is spoken of, I know but three modes of security, either the responsibility of the shroffs, or bankers of Lucknow, or an assignment of territory, or a mortgage of territory; I recollect no other mode of security. Were your opinions and views upon these subjects known to the vizier Saadut Ali?--I do not recollect whether they were or were not, having discussed the conditions with his former minister; how far his former minister communicated to him those discussions, I cannot take upon me to say. When your lordship concluded the treaty of Lucknow with the vizier in 1798, were not you of opinion he would find considerable difficulty in fulfilling bis pe cuniary engagements with the company for the first year, and perhaps longer?-I have stated my opinion that such would be the case. As your lordship made the treaty with him under the impression that he would find difficulty in fulfilling his engagements, could you in justice have intended to demand the security stipulated by the treaty, provided you had discovered a disposition on the part of the nabob to make good his engagements as far as he was able?—I think not; if the nabob had failed in the payment of the stipulations, I should have endea-, voured to have ascertained the cause of his failure; if that failure had proceeded from circumstances which he could not control, I should certainly have thought a reasonable forbearance due to him in demanding it if from inattention, neglect, or im provident management, I certainly should have remonstrated with him, and admonished him of the consequences of his persisting in that conduct. Did not the council at Bengal, and the court of directors, agree in your opinion respecting the difficulties which the nabob would have to encounter in making his payments?--I cannnot speak to that, because I left India within five or six days after my return to Calcutta from Lucknow; I think I left it on the 6th of March, and the minute explanatory of the treaty was recorded on the 5th. Did not your lordship find that the council were of opinion he would feel considerable difficulty the first year?— All the council knew on the subject was from that minute I recorded on the 5th of March, in which, I believe, that opinion is given. Was not one of the grounds upon which your lordship formed this opinion respecting the nabob, the extravagance and prodigality of his two immediate predecessors, and the abuses consequent thereof in the affairs of Oude ?-I sup pose, in general, the revenues of the vizier to be in a very considerable state of embarrassment; under the management of Asoph ul Dowlah they were extremely mismanaged; it would require some time before an efficient administra tion was introduced, and, probably, at first, from those causes, the nabob .. would find a considerable difficulty in making good his payments, which were heavier than those of his predecessors, increased to the amount of twenty lacs, besides other expenses he had incurred during the year. Does |