some beneficial concessions made in consequence thereof to the said Warren Hastings in his said dangerous and desperate condition.

And the said refusal was also an act of great disrespect to the court of directors, and to his Majesty; and by rendering abortive their said measures, solemnly and deliberately taken, and ratified and confirmed by his Majesty, tended to bring the authority of the court of directors, and of his Majesty, into contempt.

And the said refusal was an injury to General Clavering. And was also, or might have been, a great injury to Edward Wheler, Esquire.

And was an act of signal treachery to Lauchlin Macleane, Esq., as also to Mr. Vansittart and Mr. Stewart, whose honours and veracity were thereby brought into question, doubt, and suspicion.

And the said refusal was prejudicial to the affairs of the servants of the Company in India, by shaking the confidence to be placed in their agents by those persons, with whom it might be for their interest to negotiate on any matter of importance, and by thus subjecting the communication of persons abroad with those at home to difficulties not known before.

X. SURGEON-GENERAL'S CONTRACT.

THAT the said Warren Hastings, in the year 1777, did grant to the surgeon-general a contract for three years, for defraying every kind of hospital and medicine expense-not only in breach of the general orders of the court of directors with respect to the duration of contracts, but in direct opposition to a particular order of the court of directors, of the 30th of March, 1774, when they directed, "that the surgeon should not be permitted to enjoy any emolument arising from his being concerned in dieting the patients; and that the occupations of surgeon and contractor should be forthwith separated."-That the said contract was in itself highly improper, and inconsistent with the good of the service; as it afforded the greatest temptation to abuse, and established a pecuniary interest in the surgeon-general, contrary to the duties of his station and profession.

XI. CONTRACTS FOR POOLBUNDY REPAIRS.

THAT the governor-general and council at Fort William did, on the motion and recommendation of Warren Hastings, Esquire, enter into a contract with Archibald Frazer, Esquire, on the 16th of April, 1778, for the repairs of the pools and banks in the province of Burdwan, for two years, at the rate of 120,000 sicca rupees for the first year, and 80,000 rupees for the second year.

That on the 19th of December, 1778, the said Warren Hastings did further persuade the supreme council, to prolong the term of the above contract with Archibald Frazer for the space of three years more on the same conditions; namely, the payment of 80,000 sicca rupees for each year. To which was added a permission to Mr. Frazer to make dobunds, or special repairs, whenever he should judge them necessary, at the charge of government.

That the said contracts, both in the manner of their acceptance by the supreme council, without having previously advertised for proposals, and in the extent of their duration, were made in direct violation of the special orders of the court of directors.

That so far from any advantage having been obtained for the Company in the terms of these contracts, in consideration of the length of time for which they were to continue, the expense of government upon this article was increased by these engagements to a very great amount.

That it appears, that this contract had been held for some years before by the Rajah of Burdwan, at the rate of 25,000 rupees per annum.

That the superintendent of Poolbundy repairs, after an accurate and diligent survey of the bunds and pools, and the provincial council of Burdwan, upon the best information they could procure, had delivered it as their opinion to the governor-general and council, before the said agreement was entered into, that after the heavy expense, (stated in Mr. Kinlock's estimate, viz. 119,405 sicca rupees,) if disbursed as they recommended, the charge in future seasons would be greatly reduced, and after one thorough and effectual repair,

they conceived a small annual expense would be sufficient to keep the bunds up and prevent their going to decay.

That whatever extraordinary and unusual damages the pools and bunds might have sustained, either from the neglect of the Rajah's officers, or from the violence of the then late rains, and the torrents thereby occasioned, to justify the expense of the first year, yet as they were all considered and included in the estimate for that year, there could be no pretence for allowing and continuing so large and burthensome a payment as 80,000 rupees per annum for the four succeeding years.

That the said Warren Hastings did, in his minutes of the 13th of February, 1778, himself support that opinion, in the comparison to be made between Mr. Thomson's proposals of undertaking the same service for 60,000 rupees a year, for nine years, and the terms of Mr. Frazer's contracts; preferring the latter, because these were "to effect a complete repair, which could hardly be concluded in one season, and the subsequent expense would be but trifling."

Notwithstanding which the said Warren Hastings urged and prevailed upon the council to allow in the first year the full amount proposed by Mr. Kinlock in his estimate of the necessary repairs, and did burthen the Company with what he must have deemed to be, for the greater part, an unnecessary expense of 80,000 rupees per annum for four

years.

That the permission granted to Mr. Frazer to make dobunds, or new and additional embankments in aid of the old ones, whenever he should judge them necessary, at the charge of government, (the said charge to be verified by the oath of the said Frazer, without any voucher,) was a power very much to be suspected, and very improper to be intrusted to a contractor, who had already covenanted to keep the old pools in perfect repair, and to construct new wherever the old pools had been broken down and washed away, or where the course of the rivers might have rendered new ones necessary, in consideration of the great sums stipulated to be paid to him by the government.

ones

That the grant of the foregoing contracts, and the permission afterwards annexed to the second of the said grants, become much more reprehensible from a consideration of

the circumstances of the person to whom such a grant was made.

That the due performance of the service required local knowledge and experience, which the said Archibald Frazer, being an officer in the supreme court of justice, could not have possessed.

XII. CONTRACTS FOR OPIUM.

THAT it appears, that the opium produced in Bengal and Bahar is a considerable and lucrative article in the export trade of those provinces; that the whole produce has been for many years monopolized either by individuals or by the government; that the court of directors of the East-India Company, in consideration of the hardship imposed on the native owners and cultivators of the lands, who were deprived of their natural right of dealing with many competitors, and compelled to sell the produce of their labour to a single monopolist, did authorize the governor-general and council to give up that commodity as an article of commerce.

That while the said commodity continued to be a monopoly for the benefit of government, and managed by a contractor, the contracts for providing it were subject to the Company's fundamental regulation, namely, to be put up to auction, and disposed of to the best bidder; and that the Company particularly ordered, that the commodity when provided should be consigned to the board of trade, who were directed to dispose thereof by public auction.

That in May, 1777, the said Warren Hastings granted to John Mackenzie a contract for the provision of opium, to continue three years, and without advertising for proposals: that this transaction was condemned by the court of directors, notwithstanding a clause had been inserted in that contract, by which it was left open to the court of directors to annul the same at the expiration of the first or second year.

That about the end of the year 1780, the said Warren Hastings, in contradiction to the order above mentioned, did take away the sale of the opium from the board of trade,

VOL. IV.

2 D

though he disclaimed, at the same time, any intention of implying a censure on their management.

That in March, 1781, the said Warren Hastings did grant to Stephen Sullivan, son of Lawrence Sullivan, chairman of the court of directors of the East-India Company, a contract for the provision of opium, without advertising for proposals, and without even receiving any written proposals from him the said Sullivan; that he granted this contract for four years, and at the request of the said Sullivan did omit that clause, which was inserted in the preceding contract, and by which it was rendered liable to be determined by orders from the Company; the said Warren Hastings declaring, contrary to truth, that such clause was now unnecessary, as the directors had approved the contract.

That the said Sullivan had been but a few months in Bengal when the above contract was given to him; that he was a stranger to the country, and to all the local commerce thereof, and therefore unqualified for the management of such a concern; and that the said Sullivan, instead of executing the contract himself, did, shortly after obtaining the same, assign it over to John Benn, and others; and in consideration of such assignment did receive from the said Benn a great sum of money.

That from the preceding facts, as well as from sundry other circumstances of restrictions taken off, (particularly by abolishing the office of inspector into the quality of the opium,) and of beneficial clauses introduced, it appears that the said Warren Hastings gave this contract to the said Stephen Sullivan in contradiction to the orders of the court of directors, and without any regard to the interests of the India Company, for the sole purpose of creating an instant fortune for the said Sullivan at the expense of the India Company, without any claim of service or pretence of merit on his part, and without any apparent motive whatever, except that of securing or rewarding the attachment and support of his father, Lawrence Sullivan, a person of great authority and influence in the direction of the Company's affairs, and notoriously attached to and connected with the said Warren Hastings.

That the said Stephen Sullivan neither possessed, nor pretended to possess, any skill in the business of his contract;