They had not become more so on that Occasion?-I do not know whether, in the conversations which might have occurred, he did not use more disagreeable manners at one time than another; I dare say he might.

Have not you frequently been at breakfast with his highness the vizier in the presence of colonel Scott, both before and after the treaty ?-I have.

Generally after breakfast, did not the nabob and the resident retire to a private conference?-Yes.

Very recently after that did not the nabob shut himself completely up, and almost refuse to see any body?-Those were conversations which took place at the palace, nearly two miles from where we lived, and, except from the reports of the news-writers, I cannot say.

From the news-writers, have you not ascertained that the nabob shut himself up immediately after those interviews, and refused almost to see any part of his own family?—I have heard that mentioned two or three times, but do not know how far it is to be depended on.

Are you able to state on what ground, the nabob refused the interference of Mr. Treves?-I think the inference to be drawn is, that he was satisfied with the situation he was in.

Do you yourself, standing before this house, venture to say, that you believe that the nabob was satisfied with that treaty; that is, so far as that he was better pleased than if he had been left in full possession of his own country, subject only to the payment of the subsidy of seventy-six lacs?-I conceive that is a question which the humanity of the house has already indulged me with not answering.

[Withdrew.

GEORGE JOHNSTONE, Esq. a member, again examined. For how many years did you reside in the dominions of Oude?-From the beginning of the year 1794 to the end of the year 1796.

Were murders, and other atrocious crimes, very frequent in the capital during that period? Not in the capital, but occasionally travellers were robbed and were murdered in the interior parts of the country.

Were those very frequent in your time? I do not feel myself exactly Competent to say whether they were or

Khan, I believe, after that transaction, retired to his government, and afterwards, upon his death, Sufta Jung, who had married his daughter, was enabled to obtain possession of it, partly by the acquiescence of the Mogul, and partly through his own power, and, in consequence, from him it succeeded to Sujah ul Dowlah, his son.

Have you not taken pains to ascertain the rise of that family, and to furnish it to a literary man ten years ago?—I furnished him with the means of obtaining information, but I do not think I entered myself particularly on the subject, or the circumstances would be more present in my recollection. I think what I did was to endeavour to trace the relations between Saadut Khan and Sufta Jung; Sufta Jung came from Persia after Saadut was established; I think I traced that there had been some family relation in Persia.

Was not the family very ancient and very respectable?-I believe it was very respectable, but in no great splendour in Persia, or he would not have travelled to Hindostan.

Were you ever in any other Mohammedan government besides that of Oude? -No, I never was.

M'Gregor, that other measures were in contemplation?-I cannot charge my memory that I did, if I did it was mere conversation or conjecture.

Did not you understand that British troops were to be scattered over Oude in lieu of those disbanded belonging to the vizier ?-Yes, I understood that British troops were to be stationed in many places then occupied by the vizier's troops.

What was Sir James's opinion of that measure, and state his objections as fully and as particularly as you can ?-I hardly know how to answer that question so generally; I recollect hearing Sir James express his disapprobation of the troops being divided into small bodies, and quartered in towns; he preferred their being kept in cantonments, and in as large bodies as possible.

Did he not think that scattering the troops over so large a service, and dividing them into small bodies, would tend almost to the entire destruction of discipline in the army ?-I fancy that was his opinion, and that of most of the officers, that the troops being dispersed in small bodies, and mixed particularly in large towns, must militate against their discipline.

Did he not believe that the establishing small bodies of troops in the Pergunnahs, under young officers, was liable to the greatest possible objections ?-I conceive that I have answered that question in the former, that he would conceive that liable to objection.

Did he not imagine that, from the high state of discipline to which he had brought the field army, it would become pretty similar to the army about to be disbanded under the nabob vizier ?I cannot answer for Sir James Craig's sentiments so far as that; I cannot say to what degree he might disapprove of the placing of troops in small bodies.

Did you never hear Sir James Craig say, that he was afraid that the army, if divided into small bodies, and put into the Pergunnahs, was very likely to become little better than the army about to be disbanded?-I cannot say that; I recollect his saying he was afraid it would injure the discipline of the army if it was divided into towns.

Did not Sir James Craig communicate his opinion fully to government and to colonel William Scott? I believe, in general, he did.

Was Sir James's advice followed en the occasion, so far as you know?—I do not possess information to enable me to answer that question.

Were the opinions, such as you have stated of Sir James Craig, the opinions also of every military officer of rank and consequence in the king's and company's army?-I believe it was the opinion of military men, that the dividing the troops into small bodies, in large towns, would injure their discipline very much.

When Sir James took charge of the field army, did he not think their discipline very much relaxed? I think the discipline of the field army was very much improved under his command.

What measures did he take to improve the general state of the Bengal army then in the field-Those usually prescribed and followed by the army; chiefly greater attention to discipline, and particularly exercising the battalions in as large bodies as possible, and obliging all the officers to attend.

Towards the close of the year 1800, were not the cantonments of Cawnpore, the great military station, left almost without troops?-I do not recollect the exact period, I recollect its being left, at one time, with very little more than one battalion of Sepoys; there were European troops besides.

Do you not recollect it was very shortly before Sir James Craig went to Calcutta? -At that time, I think, there were two battalions of Sepoys.

State, as nearly as you can remember, what was Sir James Craig's opinion of leaving the large cantonment of Cawnpore with so few troops?—I really do not possess the information.

Did not Sir James Craig imagine, and communicate to you, that to make defence against, or to attack, Zemaun Shah, it was necessary to have the army in centrical situations, and in large bodies; and that nothing tended so much to improve the army, and to keep up its discipline, as the junction of the troops belonging to the great field stations of Cawnpore and Futtyghur?-I know that it was Sir James Craig's opinion that the troops in the field should be kept in large cantons, and those as centrical with the easiest communications with each other as possible.

Look at the ninth article of the treaty, and read it; what does that article purport

66

port to be?-That, "If, for the better protection and defence of the domi"nions of the nabob, Saadut Ali Khan, "it should be deemed advisable to "change the present stations of the troops at Cawnpore and Futtyghur, "the nabob, Saadut Ali Khan, con"sents thereto, and that the troops shall "be stationed in such places as may be judged most advisable and convenient; " and that he will defray the expense "attending their removal, and making "cantonments for the troops."

66

Considering that article that you have just now read, the possession of Alahabad, Cawnpore, Futtyghur, Anopshire, and the agreement on the part of the vizier to allow the cantonment to be changed at his own expense at any period, do you think the British influence in Oude was sufficiently established in a military point of view, either for the repelling of foreign invasion or quelling internal commotions ?-1 really am not master of that subject, it had been occupied for a series of years before in that way, and I suppose was thought sufficient; I do not know what advantages were proposed in the changing the stations of the troops; if the nabob's troops were to be disbanded, I suppose some troops were to be substituted in their place.

Looking to the treaty of 1798, and the facility of changing the situations of the troops to any place, at any period, at the nabob's expense, do you not think that the British influence was sufficient in Oude for the quelling internal insurrection, or repelling invasion ? I think the situation of the troops must have been found sufficient from their having been kept so long; I do not know what were the views proposed in changing the situation of the troops.

With the power of sending the troops into Anopshire, who were stationed at Cawnpore, Futtyghur, and Allabad, and changing those for others on the border of the nabob's country, do you not think that sufficient facility was given for the defence of Oude, by repelling foreign invasion, and quelling internal commotions ?-I really do not conceive myself competent to answer that question; I think the only points then deemed necessary to be occupied were those alluded to, and a depôt of grain at a place called Sandy.

Those were the only points consi

dered necessary at that time to defend the country against Zemaun Shah ?—They were the only points then occupied; 1 will not say that if there had been a greater body of troops, more points might not have been occupied.

Were you at Lucknow with Sir James Craig, when Saadut Ali was placed on the throne ?—I was.

Were you at the solemnity of placing him on the Musnud ?-I attended the retinue, I was not very close to his person; I was present.

Sir James assisted on the occasion? I believe he did, I followed him there.

Do you know generally the arrangements then formed?-No, I do not.

Did you not know, or at least understand generally, that the nabob was to have complete control over his hereditatary dominions, his household affairs, his troops, and his subjects, by the treaty of 1798?-1 conceive he was ; I understood, with some trifling alterations, he succeeded to the Musnud on the terms his brother Asoph ul Dowlah held it.

Did you not make considerable progress in Eastern languages, and were you not in the habit frequently of conversing with many respectable inhabitants of Cawnpore and Lucknow ?-I was able to converse with them.

What was your opinion, knowing as you did the stipulations of the treaty of 1798, and the opinion of such natives as you had conversed with relative to the subsequent transactions in Oude, that led to the disbanding of the army, and the cession of the country?-I must confess my ignorance with respect both to the treaty and the circumstances; I spoke very little with the natives on the subject; I considered my situation, as a staff officer of Sir James Craig, to preclude me from doing so.

Did you not visit Lucknow some time towards the close of the year 1802, and visit the court of his highness ?—I did.

You saw him several times during that visit, did you not ?-Twice or thrice.

You visited the court upon your arrival and departure?—I did on my arrival, but not on my departure; I saw him at major Ousely's at dinner.

three times I saw him on that occasion.

As far as you recollect, do you not think that towards the close of 1802, the nabob was exceedingly changed in his person and in his dress?-Very much. State as particularly as you can, what struck you at that time ?-There was a greater degree of indolence and slovenliness, and that he was much broke in his person; he did not look near so well as he had done some years before.

Was not he much disfigured by having suffered his beard to grow, and by the disuse of a regular turban ?-He appeared more slovenly owing to suffer ing his beard to grow, and he did not appear so well.

From the manners of Hindostan, do you not know that it is a mark of great dejection having put off the dress turban? -I have understood, that by the cusin India, neglecting their dress and not shaving, it a mark of mourning.

At the time you first saw the nabob, was not he a man who paid uncommon attention to the elegance of his dress; and was not he richly adorned with jewels when he appeared in public? Yes, I think so, the difference certainly struck me when I saw him.

At that time he wore a dress turban ? -I have seen him very richly dressed when he appeared in public.

The latter period when you saw him, he appeared otherwise?-Yes, the difference struck me.

When you first saw him he used to wear a dress turban, but at the latter period he did not wear one at all ?-When I saw him some years before he was much better dressed, he appeared to be dressed with more attention, and was better in his looks than when I saw him last.

Did he wear a state turban when you saw him last ?-No, he did not.

Have you not heard many respectable natives, as well as Europeans, say, that the nabob had forsworn the use of a turban, and his habit of shaving, in consequence of the injustice and oppression exercised towards him ? I cannot say that I recollect having heard that.

To what do you attribute, and to what did the natives in general, and the inhabitants in general, attribute that very great change from the time you had seen him two years before I have heard that he was dissatisfied, and that it

was in consequence of his dissatisfaction he neglected his dress.

That was such a report as you would have heard in town?-I know nothing further than reports of that kind.

During the several times you vi sited the court at Lucknow, from the period of 1798, to 1802, what was the general opinion as to the nabob's sen. timents concerning colonel Scott, and what were your own regarding the nabob's sentiments concerning colonel Scott P-With respect to myself, I can safely say, I had no ground on which I could found a well-grounded opinion; with regard to report in the town, I have heard that the nabob disliked colonel Scott very much.

Were more troops sent into Oude in 1798, 1799, and 1800, than were necessary and expedient to guard against the intended descent of Zemaun Shah ?I think, against the threatened descent of Zemaun Shah, the force was by no means more than adequate.

Did not Zemaun Shah return from India in 1800 ?- Our accounts were very vague; I do not feel at all certain of the information which we received.

Was there not information received of it previous to the time?-We had certain accounts that he had given up the intention of invading India before we left Anopshire.

When was he defeated by his brother? I cannot recollect.

Was that known in July, or August, 1800?-I do not recollect.

Did any military movements take place after the month of May, 1799, with a view to any apprehensions of the invasion of Zemaun Shah ?—I cannot perfectly be certain with respect to the month, it was not till near Christmas, 1799 that the army assembled at Anophire.

When did the army return into cantonments ?-I will not be sure as to the time, but I think it was immediately when we heard of the intelligence of Mr.Cherry having been assassinated; the camp then broke up from Anopshire.

Was that about the month of November, 1799 ?-I think it was later than that.

In the course of the year 1800, were any particular military arrangements adopted with a view to guard against the apprehended invasion of Zemaun Shah?

-I con