that “he believed he might depend upon his fidelity, and his exact and literal obedience.”  Mr. Scott, who is authorized to defend Mr. Hastings, supported the same principles before your Committee by a comparison that avowedly reduces the Court of Directors to the state of a party against their servants.  He declared, that, in his opinion, “it would be just as absurd to deprive him of the power of nominating his ambassador at Benares as it would be to force on the ministry of this country an ambassador from the opposition.”  Such is the opinion entertained in Bengal, and that but too effectually realized, of the relation between the principal servants of the Company and the Court of Directors.

So far the reparation, in point of honor, to Mr. Fowke was complete.  The reparation in point of interest your Committee do not find to have been equally satisfactory; but they do find it to be of the most extraordinary nature, and of the most mischievous example.  Mr. Fowke had been deprived of a place of rank and honor,—­the place of a public Vackeel, or representative.  The recompense provided for him is a succession to a contract.  Mr. Hastings moved, that, on the expiration of Colonel Morgan’s contract, he should be appointed agent to all the boats employed for the military service of that establishment, with a commission of fifteen per cent on all disbursements in that office,—­permitting Mr. Fowke, at the same time, to draw his allowance of an hundred pounds a month, as Resident, until the expiration of the contract, and for three months after.

Mr. Hastings is himself struck, as every one must be, with so extraordinary a proceeding, the principle of which, he observes, “is liable to one material objection.”  That one is material indeed; for, no limit being laid down for the expense in which the percentage is to arise, it is the direct interest of the person employed to make his department as expensive as possible.  To this Mr. Hastings answers, that “he is convinced by experience it will be better performed”; and yet he immediately after subjoins, “This defect can only be corrected by the probity of the person intrusted with so important a charge; and I am willing to have it understood, as a proof of the confidence I repose in Mr. Fowke, that I have proposed his appointment, in opposition to a general principle, to a trust so constituted.”

In the beginning of this very Minute of Consultation, Mr. Hastings removes Mr. Fowke from the Residency of Benares because “he cannot give him his confidence”; and yet, before the pen is out of his hand, he violates one of the soundest general principles in the whole system of dealing, in order to give a proof of the confidence he reposes in that gentleman.  This apparent gross contradiction is to be reconciled but by one way,—­which is, that confidence with Mr. Hastings comes and goes with his opposition to