IV.  That the second principle assumed by the said Warren Hastings, as ground for voluntarily abandoning the protection of those whom he had before undertaken to relieve, on the sole strength of his own authority, and in full confidence of the lawful foundation thereof, and for delivering over the persons so taken into protection, under false names and pretended descriptions, to known oppression, asserting that the reputation of the Company was saved by removing this apparent participation, when the new as well as the old arrangements were truly and substantially acts of the British government, was disingenuous, deceitful, and used to cover unjustifiable designs:  since the said Warren Hastings well knew that all oppressions exercised by the Nabob of Oude were solely, and in this instance particularly, upheld by British force, and were imputed to this nation; and because he himself, in not more than three days after the execution of this treaty, and in virtue thereof, did direct the British Resident at Oude, in orders to which he required his most implicit obedience, “that the ministers [the Nabob of Oude’s ministers] are to choose all aumils and collectors of revenue with your concurrence.”  And the dishonor to the Company, in thus deceitfully concurring in oppression, which they were able and were bound to prevent, is much aggravated by the said Warren Hastings’s receiving from the person to whose oppression he had delivered the said prince, as a private gift or donation to himself and for his own use, a sum of money amounting to one hundred thousand pounds and upwards, which might give just ground of suspicion that the said gift from the oppressor to the person surrendering the person injured to his mercy might have had some share in the said criminal transaction.

V. That the said Warren Hastings did (in the paper justifying the said surrender of the prince put by himself under the protection of the East India Company) assert, “that it was a fact, that the Nabob Muzuffer Jung [the Nabob of Furruckabad] is equally urgent with the Nabob Vizier for the removal of a Resident,” without producing, as he ought to have done, any document to prove his improbable assertion, namely, his assertion that the oppressed prince did apply to his known enemy and oppressor, the Nabob of Oude, (who, if he would, was not able to relieve him against the will of the English government,) rather than to that English government, which he must have conceived to be more impartial, to which he had made his former complaint, and which was alone able to relieve him.

VI.  That the said Warren Hastings, in the said writing, did further convey an insinuation of an ambiguous, but, on any construction, of a suspicious and dangerous import, viz.:  “It is a fact, that Mr. Shee’s [the Resident’s] authority over the territory of Furruckabad is in itself as much subversive of that [of the lawful rulers] as that of the Vizier’s aumil [collector] ever