That the King Shah Allum received for some years the annual tribute of twenty-six lac of rupees above mentioned, and was entitled to continue to receive it by virtue of an engagement deliberately, and for an adequate consideration, entered into with him by the Company’s servants, and approved of and ratified by the Company themselves;—­that this engagement was absolute and unconditional, and did neither express nor suppose any case in which the said King should forfeit or the Company should have a right to resume the tribute;—­that, nevertheless, the said Warren Hastings and his Council, immediately after selling the King’s country to Sujah Dowlah, resolved to withhold, and actually withheld, the payment of the said tribute, of which the King Shah Allum has never since received any part;—­that this resolution of the Council is not justified even by themselves on principles of right and justice, but by arguments of policy and convenience, by which the best founded claims of right and justice may at all times be set aside and defeated.  “They judged it highly impolitic and unsafe to answer the drafts of the King, until they were satisfied of his amicable intentions, and those of his new allies.”  But neither had they any reason to question the King’s amicable intentions, nor was he pledged to answer for those of the Mahrattas; his trusting to the good faith of that people, and relying on their assistance to reinstate him in the possession of his capital, might have been imprudent and impolitic, but these measures, however ruinous to himself, indicated no enmity to the English, nor were they productive of any effects injurious to the English interests.  And it is plain that the said Warren Hastings and his Council were perfectly aware that their motives or pretences for withholding the tribute were too weak to justify their conduct, having principally insisted on the reduced state of their treasury, which, as they said, rendered it impracticable to comply with those payments.  The right of a creditor does not depend on the circumstances of the debtor:  on the contrary, the plea of inability includes a virtual acknowledgment of the debt; since, if the creditor’s right were denied, the plea would be superfluous.

That the East India Company, having on their part violated the engagements and renounced the conditions on which they received and have hitherto held and enjoyed the duanne of Bengal, Bahar, and Orissa from the King Shah Allum, have thereby forfeited all right and title to the said duanne arising from the said grant, and that it is free and open to the said King to resume such grant, and to transfer it to any other prince or state;—­that, notwithstanding any distress or weakness to which he may be actually reduced, his lawful authority, as sovereign of the Mogul Empire, is still acknowledged in India, and that his grant of the duanne would sufficiently authorize and materially assist any prince or state that might attempt to dispossess