Rohillas, the two parties.-2dly. I knew there would be no treaty unless I did witnefs it; the Rohillas not having faith enough in the Vizier, to take his fignature only.

Did not the Vizier charge the, Rohillas with an infraction of that treaty

He did.

In what did that infraction confift? In not paying the £.400,000l. Do you, from your knowledge of the circumstances, think there was no other way for the Vizier to recover the £400,000l. but by a conquest of the country of the Rohillas, and extirminating

them from that country?

I am not a judge of that queftion, becaufe I left India the latter end of the year 1773: and I know not what demands were made by the Nabob Sujah Dowlah, previous to his engaging in that war.

Whether the Vizier Sujah Dowlah, was competent to the conqueft of that country, and the extirmination of that people, without the aid of the English

arms?

In what fituation and character was you there?

As Commander in chief of the Forces. 'Did Mr. Haftings confer with you on the articles and provifions of that treaty during the time that it was in a train of negotiation?

There were feveral vifits of civility which passed between Mr. Haftings and me during that time; and in converfation among other things, Mr. Haftings informed me of fome part of the conference he had with Sujah Dowlah, relative to his commiffion; but I understood it merely as converfation-I certainly fhould not have received it as official information, becaufe, by being excluded from a deputation on political concerns from the Board to the Nabob Sujah Dowlah, I found my character as Commander in Chief confiderably degraded in the opinion of the Cour powers.

Had it been ufual to negotiate treaties of great importance with the country .princes without any official communication with the Commander in Chief?

believe not; becaufe in the treaty of Allahabad, made by Lord Clive with Su

jah Dowlah in 1765, General Carnac was included in that commiffion.

Did you ever make any complaint, directly, or indirectly, to Mr. Haftings, on the fubject of that exclufion?

I did, and laid before the Council Board a minute as foon as I came to Cal.

cutta.

Did Mr. Haftings give any intimation to you officially, or in private, whilft you were at Benares, that he had concluded a fecret, unwritten agreement with the Vizier Sujah Dowlah, for the extirpation of the people called Rohillas ?

In private, Mr. Haftings communicated to me, that the Nabob propofed marching his army, and that of the Company, against the Rohillas, and wifhed that I would command that army.

Did Mr. Haftings inform you that he had confented to that propofal, and bound the Company's faith to it?

At this diftance of time, now thirteen years, I cannot recollect every circumftance which Mr. Haftings faid to me on that fubject; but I think it implied fomething of that kind, by his wifhing that I would command the ariny.

Did Mr. Haftings make this as a propofal to you, or only a part of a conver fation?

Only part of a converfation.

Then you did not recollect that Mr. Haftings told you politively that he had agreed to the propofal?

I do not recollect it fufficiently to affirm it to the Committee.

Whether the Rohillas were included in the line of defence formed, or intended to be formed against the Mahrat. tas, in 1772?

If the question means that the treaty with the Nabob and Vizier formed that line of defence-it certainly did.

Were the Mahrattas in fact prevented from invading the Rohillas by any acts of Sujah Dowlah, or by his protection of that country?

No.

Were the Rohillas ever at war, or at hoftility with the English before 1773 ? I never heard that they were?

Had the Rohillas ever done an injury of any kind, direct or indirect, to the English?

I never heard that they did. Whether the Mahrattas were not prevented from poffeffing themselves of the Rohula country by the British troops, joined with thote of Sujah Dowlah >

The Mahrattas were driven and expell

ed

ed from the Rohilla country by the British troops, and thofe of the Vizier.

What grounds had you for writing, in your letter to the Calcutta Council, dated the 6th of April 1773." It is well “known that neither promises nor oaths "have been able to bind this treacherous fect of people, (speaking of the "Rohillas) to their engagements?

It was very evident that oaths did not bind them, by their evafion to pay the forty lacks, as agreed to with Sujah Dowlah-and their general character was, that of a treacherous fect of people.

Whilft you was with Sujah Dowlah, was any demand made by him on the Rohillas, for the payment of the forty lacks? Frequently, demands by the Nabob and reprefentations from myself.

Did they pay the money in confequence of thofe demands and reprefentations? I dont know that they did.

Did not you depute Captain Gabriel Harper to Hafiz Rhamet, the Rohilla Chief, in may 1772, previous to the treaty entered into with Sujah Dowlah and the Rohillas ?

I did, at the Vizier's particular and earneft request.

Did not Hafiz Rhamet meet you and Sujah Dowlah in confequence?

He Did.

Did not Hafiz Rhamet declare that he looked on Sujah Dowlah and the English

as one?

I do not exactly recollect that expreffion-He had great faith in the English, and his vifit to the Vizier was in confequence of that faith.

Whether any compulfion was used by you, or any other English gentleman, to induce Hafiz Rhamet to fign the treaty ? None.

Did not you, fome time on or about the 24th of March 1773, fend a propofition from Sujah Dowlah to the Council in Calcutta?

I am not certain as to the particular date of that letter; but I wrote to the Board, "that the Nabob offered fifty "lacks of rupees (upon a failure of the "Rohillas to the engagement) to put him "in poffeffion of that part of the Rohilla "country, commonly called Hafiz Rha"met's."

Did not Sujah Dowlah and the English punctually perform every part of their engagements with the Rohillas, notwithfanding the evasions of that Chief? and, did not you, after the Completion of the fervice, and the retreat of the Mahrattas,

inclofe a treaty to the Council of Calcutta for the purpofe of fhewing to them how literally it had been performed?

The fervice was completely performed; I believe I enclosed a treaty fometime before that, as foon as it was executed.

Do not you recollect that you enclosed a fecond copy of the treaty, and accompa nied it with words to this effect: "That you enclofed it, to fhew how literally it had been performed, notwithstanding the evafion of the Chiefs?".

I think it very probable I did; but at this diftance of time I do not recollect that letter.

Did not you mention to the Board at Calcutta, in feveral letters written in the courfe of that fervice, previous to our junction with the Rohillas, your suspicion of the conduct they meant to purfue?

I mentioned feveral times the duplicity of their conduct that they were carrying on conferences both with the Mahrattas and Sujah Dowlah.

Did not the army under your command, after having forded the Ganges, and recroffed it again into the Rohilla country on the eastern fide, remain in camp, in the neighbourhood of Ram Ghaut, till the Rohillas were freed from all danger of future invafion?

We did.

Did not you, when the British army returned, after having completely effected the fervice on which they were fent, remain a few days behind the army, for the profeffed purpose of inducing Hafiz Rhamet to comply with his engagements ? I did.

Do not you believe that fuch payment might have been obtained by an amicable interpofition of the English Governor with the Rohillas ?

I do not think it could, without the appearance of compulfion.

In what year were the Mahrattas driven out of the Rohilla country, by the united power of the English and the Vizier ? In the year 1773, I think.

Had the Mahrattas overrun the Rohilla country in 1773?

No-the British arms prevented them. If the British arms prevented them from overrunning the country, how could they be driven out?

They were within the Rohilla country, and did not overrun it.

How far had they advanced into the Rohilla country?

They had advanced as far as Azapour; but it must be obferved, that their depre

dations

dations were confined chiefly to the towns on the banks of the Ganges.

Were they driven out by the British forces only?

By the terror of the British arms only, because the Vizier was confiderably in the

rear.

Did the Rohillas affign any reason, and what, in juftification of their not paying the money?

The Rohillas faid, it was true we had driven out the Mahrattas froin their country, and faved them; but they might return the next year, when our joint forces were not in the Rohilla country to defend them; that we had done little, intimating, that we had not deftroyed the Mahratta armies.

Were the Rohillas confidered as a free and independent nation, competent to make treaties with other ftates?

They were independent.

What was the repuced character of Sujah Dowlah?

It is very difficult for me to draw the character of Sujah Dowlah:-He was, like other Indoftaners, not obferving much faith, when it was his intereft to do otherwife.

When the British army drove the Mahrattas out of the Rohilla country, was not the expence of the British army, defrayed in part by Sujah Dowlah?

In part it was.

You have faid that Mr. Haftings mentioned to you, during, the conference at Benares in September 1773, that Sujah Dowlah had propofed an expedition against the Rohillas, did you ever hear why that propofal was not carried into effect?

I quitted India a few months after the propofal, and never heard why it was not carried into effe&t?

Have you never heard that it was laid afide at the request of Sujah Dowlah, pending the negociation at Benares?

I have heard fo from the reports of the tranfictions of the Board.

You have spoken of the Rohillas as a fe&t-were they cultivators of the foil of the Rohilla country?

They were not ;-The Hindoos compofe the greatest part of the people of India-a very large proportion-they compofe the husbandmen, mechanics, and lower order of people.

Were not the Rohillas merely posfesors of the civil and military power.

I believe they were.

pofed to expel, exterminate, or extirpate the cultivators of the foil and the mecha, nics; or was it not merely intended to remove the Rohillas from the country called the Rohilla country?

I am very fure it never was intended to expel the cultivators of the country, but lo remove the governors of it.

You have stated that the conferences at Benares were not officially communicated to you; had not Mr. Haftings at that time a feparate commiflion from the Council to negotiate with Sujah Dowlah? I believe he had.

Do you not know that the Mahometan Rohillas did poffefs Jaghires or affignments upon land, or other citates in lands, in that country?

They poffeffed the whole land, and collected the revenues.

Whether they did not refemble, as near as the local circumstances of the country admit, the nobility and landed gentlemen of this country?

I do not know how to draw the parallel. Were they not the fame nation or des scription of men, with whom a former treaty was made by Sujah Dowlah! They were.

Were they not the fame nation from whom the payment of the fum of money was expected?

ringly avows the folicited aid of the English. Is it poffible we can believe, that the refpectable gentleman here tra⚫duced, could have been privy to fo horrid a purpose? Could he have fo intirely overcome the feelings of humanity? could he have been fo loft to every fenfe of honour, as to proftitute the English troops, and to ftain the glory of the Britifh name, by fubfcribing to a precon⚫ certed massacre:-What is not his Ex⚫cellency capable of advancing?'

And then the witnefs was afked; Did you write a letter to the Governor General and Council, dated the 30th of January 1775, containing thofe paragraphs?

To the best of my remembrance I did. Who did you mean by the words, refpectable Gentleman ?

Mr. Haftings.

[Then the following Extracts of the fame Letter were read to the fame Witnefs, viz.

• THE moment he arrived at Biffoulee, however, they were put into rigorous ⚫ confinement, denied accefs to their families, robbed of their property, and themselves and their women treated not only with difhonour and indignity, but " even with cruelty.

The unhappy chiefs preferred fre8 quent complaints to me in the most moving terms, and fent the Nabob's original letters to prove how much he had deceived them.

"He has deprived us of our country, of our riches, and even of our honour;

and, not fatisfied with that, he is going · to fend his prifoners to Fyzabad. We defire no country, no riches, no houfes : But at Biloulee are the tombs of our ⚫ ancestors; near them, under fome fhade, we beg permiffion to spend the remainder of our days at Faquiers. Relying on the Vizier's promifes, we remained in this country, otherwife we fhould have fled, as the other chiefs did, and have preferved our characters and ho· nours: Thefe he has taken away with our effects; and how he has difhonoured us, is known to all."

It was this deceitful conduct, this inhuman treatment, that filled the minds of all the fugitive Chiefs with fuch a • diftruft and deteftation of the Nabob. And although my reprefentations of the diftreffes of the family of Hafiz, were ungraciously received, and, I am forry

to fay, gave me but little encourage. ment to plead the caufe of the unhappy, yet I regret exceedingly, that I have fo long fuppreffed my inclinations of endeavouring to alleviate the misfortunes of the much-injured Chiefs to whom thefe tetters were addreffed, and who, as well as the family of Hafiz, I have good reafon to believe are even now ftinted of the neceffaries of life; and when I was on the way down, I received the affecting accounts of the death of twenty-five of those-illfated prifon. ners fince their arrival at Allahabad, for 'want of fuftenance.'

Then the Witness was afked; Did you write a representation to the effect of the paragraphs now read to you! To the best of my remembrance I did.

Having made thefe reprefentations to Mr. Haftings, did you receive any, and what, anfwer to them.

I beg to obferve to the Committee, that near twelve years have elapfed fince that period; in the courfe of which time, not one year has paffed in which I have not been confined to my bed eight months; in confequence of which, I find my memory much weakened, and I have it not in my power to answer to facts: I therefore defire the indulgence of the Committee to refer to the correfpondence which paffed between the Board, Mr. Hastings, and myself, for fuch circumstances as I cannot immediately recollect.

Do you recollect having at any time written to Mr. Haflings, to this effect: "That you was apprehenfive of having "given difpleafure by a too free commu"nication of your fentiments on the fub"ject of Sujah Dowlaw's conduct, in the "matter referred to in the former part "of this your examination.

I believe there is fuch a letter in the correfpondence.

Was you ever authorized or impowerd by Mr. Haftings, to interpofe with the Vizier to put a stop to fuch proceedings of his as you objected to?

I think I was.

How did you interpofe?

By frequent reprefentations to the Vi

zier.