very fufpicious contradiction on the face of the proceedings. The. commiffioners report, that a witnefs, whofe depofition is engroffed, has faid fomething, which the depofition itself proves he has not faid. It is altogether impoffible to juftify or apologize for fuch shameful irregularity on an occafion of fuch importance; nor will any one venture to contend, that the mere affertion of the commiffioners, that fuch evidence was given, can ever be received, when the record of the whole evidence is produced, and demonftrates the contrary.

From the manner in which this moft imperfect inquiry was conducted, we have no other information with regard to it than what is contained in the report of the two individuals felected for making the inveftigation. If they were guilty of any error or partiality, it can fcarcely be expected that they should record it; and yet, from the tenor of their own report, it appears to us to be manifeft, that they are chargeable with grofs irregularities and omiffions, by which the caufe of the Nabob may have been incalculably injured. From that report it appears that feveral important witneffes were examined, whofe depofitions they have not recorded; that feveral were not put on oath; and that, throughout the examination, they afked leading queftions, and did not fcruple to threaten the witneffes with the difpleafure of the government.

The Commissioners say, that they examined Goolam Ally Meer Suddoor, the Dewan Purneah, and the Moonshy Hubbeeb Olla; but, as their testimony did not establish any fact, they thought it unnecessary to record it.' It might have been unnecessary for the purpose of convicting the Nabob, and yet very essential for establishing his innocency. Their very ignorance of particular facts, might have been a strong proof that they did not exist.

They are ready, they next observe, to swear to the accuracy of the translation. But what does this import, when they neglect to administer an oath to the witnesses themselves? To swear that a witness deposed so and so, when the witness himself was not on oath, cannot supply that omission. Considering the importance of the inquiry, and the delicacy of the subject altogether, all the witnesses certainly ought to have been examined on oath. The difficulty of ascertaining the truth from Indian witnesses, under any circumstances, is known to every one; but without an appeal to their religion, it is never expected.

It would be endless to specify the leading questions which are asked throughout the whole inquiry. The menaces that are resorted to, are equally abundant. Goolam Ally, for instance, is told, that the inconsistencies and absurdities of his explana

tion have established a belief that he is endeavouring to conceal the true meaning, which it remains for him either to remove, or to be answerable on his responsibility to the Company.' And, indeed, the threat of displeasure is repeatedly held out to both witnesses during the inquiry.

It might, no doubt, be proper to warn the witness, at the commencement of his general evidence, of the penalties to be incurred from perjury; but it certainly was highly improper to connect that warning with the answers he had given to any particular question; as the effect of it must naturally be, to give a bias to his further examination on that point.-Quid est, quæso, says Cicero, judicium corrumpere si hoc non est? Testes, præsertim timidos homines et afflictos, non solum auctoritate deterrere, sed etiam consulari metu, et prætorum potestate? (Cic. in Ver. Act. Prim. 10.)

These Ettle specimens may suffice to show, with what degree of caution and accuracy the business was conducted by the Commissioners. We are concerned to say, that the proceedings of the Governor General appear to have been at least equally objectionable, and that there is evidence to establish that the ultimate decision of the Court of Directors, was influenced in a great degree by certain assertions made rashly, and, as it appears, without any evidence, by that illustrious person. The gross in-, justice of dethroning the grandson for the antiquated delinquen cies of the grandfather, would probably have held the hands of our Indian avengers, if his immediate predecessor had not been himself involved in the same accusations, and charged in particular with having maintained a treasonable correspondence with, Tippoo Sultan after his father's decere. Lord Wellesley, in his letter to the Secret Committee, of 9. June 1800, declares that he is satisfied of the truth of this charge; and the Committee, without seeing any evidence in support of it, approve of the assump-. tion of his dominions, on the strength of this asseveration. We apprehend it to be quite clear, that the asseveration was made, without any sort of evidence, and, we will be permitted to add, contrary to all probability.

The old Nabob died in 1795; and the Sultan, agreeable to the custom of the country, sent, by two Vakeels, a message of ceremony and condolence. These Vakcels were entrusted with no message beyond this; and were persons (as the Commissioners themselves say) of too mean a rank to have been so entrusted. Their arrival was regularly reported by the Nabob to the Governor, and copies of the correspondence even sent by the Nabob to the then Governor and Governor General, Such are the whole of the admitted facts, as to the only communication which is proved to have taken place between the Sultan and the young Nabob, after the death of his father. The

Hh3

letter

letter of the Governor General to the Secret Committee, is as follows,

My defpatch in Council to your Honourable Committee, dated the 23d of April laft, will have brought under your view, various important documents relative to a perfidious and dangerous correfpondence which fubfifted betwixt Tippoo Sultan, and the Nabobs Wallajah and Omdut ul Omrah. The propofed examination announced in that defpatch, has fince taken place, but not to the extent, or exactly in the manner I de. fired. It was found that fome persons proposed to be examined were dead, or placed beyond the immediate reach of the Commiffioners. Notwithstanding the infufficiency of the examination, and the grofs prevarication and manifeft falfehoods of fome of thofe examined, evi dence has appeared to fatisfy my judgement, that an intrigue, of a na ture hoftile to the British interefts, had been carried on between Tippoa Sultan, Wallajab, and Omdut ul Omrah. It is alfo incontrovertibly ef tablished, that Omdut ul Omrah employed, or framed with a view to employ, in his correfpondence with the late Tippoo Sultan, the cypher, a copy of which has been already tranfmitted to your Honourable Com mittee. It appears that Omdul ul Omrah carried on fuch a correspondence with Tippoo Sultan, fubfequently to the death of the Nabob Wallajah:"" The Commissioners again in their report say, (p. 23.)

The two vakeels, Goolam Ally Khan and Ally Rezza Khan appear to have fallen under the displeasure of Tippoo Sultan in a fhort t time after their return from Madras, and never to have been readmitted to his confidence. We have therefore been unable to trace, through their means, the progrefs of the fecret communications of Omdut ul Omrah ; but there is no reafon to believe they were not revived after the confinement of Goolam Ally Khan ! '

This, it will be observed, is considerably weaker than the assertion in the close of Lord Wellesley's letter. But, with submission to both these authorities, it appears to us to be quite manifest, that they proceed equally on a perversion of the rules. of evidence; and that it is a little unjust, as well as absolutely. illegal, to condemn a person who is not allowed to prove his innocence, merely because his accusers see no reason to believe that he was not guilty!' This statement alone demonstrates, that there is no shadow of evidence to support this charge against the young Nabob: but we humbly conceive, that when the matter is fully considered, it will be found to have been made against evidence.

A letter (No. 20.) appears to have been addressed by Omdut ul Omrah to Goolam Ally, subsequent to the death of the old Nabob. This letter is admitted to contain nothing material; and it is accounted for in this way. On the return of Ally Rezza and Goolam Ally to Seringa patam, they were forbid the presence by the Sultan, and confined to their own houses. The

reason

reason of this was (as report says), a suspicion on the part of the Sultan, that they were carrying on some intrigue at Madras pre-... f judicial to his interests, with the Nabob; and in order to discoot ver the extent of it, Tippoo addressed a letter to the Omdut, in the name of Goolam Ally, and signed with his seal. The letters in answer, is the one alluded to. But this, surely, cannot be said ob to have been carrying on a treasonable correspondence with the d Omdut. On the contrary, it affords the strongest evidence that y no such correspondence existed. It evinces that the Sultan placed no reliance on the dispositions of the Nabob towards him. Andes à this observation is justified by the declarations of Purneah and b another witness, who had the best opportunities of knowing, that

3

no affair of moment had been agitated between Tippoo Sultan g and the Nabob Omdut ul Omrah, since the release of the host-b ages; and they invariably concur in ascribing to Tippoo Sultan a rooted contempt and distrust of Omdut ul Omrah, and his whole family. (Com. Rep. p. 30.) Nay, the commissioners themselves affirm, that they are satisfied, from the concurrent testimony of the witnesses last alluded to, that the embassy was merely a matter of form on the death of the Nabob Wallajah.

Thus, then, stands the fact as to a secret correspondence hav ing taken place betwixt the Omdut and Tippoo, after the death of Wallajah. No letters can be traced; the only persons ever sent to Madras were not likely to have been entrusted with a semit cret negotiation. The principal servants of Tippoo agree that no negotiation took place; and they ascribe to their master sentir... ments inconsistent with any thing of the kind. How then can the Governor-General's assertion be supported, that such a correspondence was actually carried on? There is certainly no evidence for it whatever; and every presumption is against it.

The Governor-General's report, however, it may be easily sup posed, was likely to make a very strong impression on the authorities at home. In the vast mass of papers sent from India, every article cannot be minutely examined. It would be endless to discuss over again every thing that had been investigated in In-12 dia; and therefore, the authorities in Europe must suppose that .. their servants abroad will do that which it is their duty to do.

To what extent this principle was acted upon on the prefent momentous occafion, will appear from the letter of the Secret Committee of 4th December 1800, in anfwer to the defpatch 3 already recited from Lord Wellesley. After repeating, almost literally, the fubftance of that defpatch, the Committee goes on

Of the degree of criminality on the part of Omdut ul Omrah, fubRantiated by the late examination, we are unable to judge; the examination not having been yet tranfmitted to us. But, as the Governor

Hh 4.

General

1

General Has declared himself fetisfied by the oral evidence which has been colleted effecting Omdur ul Omrah, that a due regard for the Com pany's fafety renders it indifpenfably neceffary, that fome more certain pledges of his fidelity fhould be obtained than we now poffels, que have no behtation in expreffing our entire approbation of his Lordfkip's intention to demand from the Nabob the additional fecurity required; of the nature of which, and of the fubfequent arrangements, we feel no fmall degree of folicitude to be advifed. The, proceedings which have hitherto been reported to us upon this important fubject, we entirely approve.'

Here then, we find, that the Nabob was ultimately condemned by the government at home, upon a report of the GovernorGeneral, in which report, one of the leading and main facts was without a fhadow of evidence to fupport it, and in contradiction to every prefumption, and every principle of probability.

III. We should now make a few remarks on the palpable injuftice and impolicy of punishing the fon for the alleged delinquencies of a father who died before being convicted of any offence. The right to punish a foreign fovereign for treafonable practices fif fuch they can be called), cannot certainly be quite fo ftrong as our right to punish one of our own fubjects for the fame crime. But even by our own law, when the accufed has paid the great debt of nature before conviction, his refponsibility to the parent flate is fuppofed to have terminated alfo; nor are the children required to pay the fuilerance of forfeiture for their father's delinquency. Nor is it of finall advantage to the heir, that the death of the anceftor, before conviction, difcharges all proceedings and forfeitures. He can then be attainted only by act of Parliament.' (Confiderations on the Law of Forfeiture, p. 97.)

Even by the law of England, therefore, fuch a forfeiture would have been unwarrantable; but no abfurdity can poflibly be greater than to judge of this cafe by fach principles. Our law of for

feiture arof out of our domeftic habits and manners. The attachment which parents feel for their family, was found to be the beft tie for fecuring the duty of the former to the ftate, by hazarding the forfeiture of the latter whenever that duty was infringed. It was fitted of old to tl.e genius of this brave people, who, defpifing their own lives, were only to be moved by a generous regar to their pofterity.' But is it equally adapted to the manners of a Mahometan court, where (as one of their poets affirms) the father loves his grandchildren the best, becaufe in then he fees the enemies of his enemy :'--an idea which mult fhock every European mind, but which is neverthelets perfectly defcriptive of their fate of fociety?"

It seems also to have been forgotten, that the reason why the

property