was, and is the more oppressive as the power from whence it is derived is greater.”  The said assertion proceeds upon a supposition of the illegality both of the Nabob’s and the Company’s government; all consideration of the title to authority being, therefore, on that supposition, put out of the question, and the whole turning only upon the exercise of authority, the said Hastings’s suggestion, that the oppression of government must be in proportion to its power, is the result of a false and dangerous principle, and such as it is criminal for any person intrusted with the lives and fortunes of men to entertain, much more, publicly to profess as a rule of action, as the same hath a direct tendency to make the new and powerful government of this kingdom in India dreadful to the natives and odious to the world.  But if the said Warren Hastings did mean thereby indirectly to insinuate that oppressions had been actually exercised under the British authority, he was bound to inquire into these oppressions, and to animadvert on the person guilty of the same, if proof thereof could be had,—­and the more, as the authority was given by himself, and the person exercising it was by himself also named.  And the said Warren Hastings did on another occasion assert that “whether they were well or ill-founded he never had an opportunity to ascertain.”  But it is not true that the said Hastings did or could want such opportunity:  the fact being, that the said Warren Hastings did never cause any inquiry to be made into any supposed abuses during the said Residency, but did give a pension of fifteen hundred pounds a year to the said late Resident as a compensation to him for an injury received, and did afterwards promote the Resident, as a faithful servant of the Company, (and nothing appears to show him otherwise,) to a judicial office of high trust,—­thereby taking away all credit from any grounds asserted or insinuated by the said Hastings for delivering the said Nabob of Furruckabad to the hand of a known enemy and oppressor, who had already, contrary to repeated treaties, deprived him of a large part of his territories.

VII.  That, on the said Warren Hastings’s representation of the transaction aforesaid to the Court of Directors, they did heavily and justly censure the said Warren Hastings for the same, and did convey their censure to him, recommending relief to the suffering prince, but without any order for sending a new Resident:  being, as it may be supposed, prevented from taking that step by the faith of the treaty made at Chunar.

VIII.  That all the oppressions foreseen by him, the said Warren Hastings, when he made the article aforesaid in the treaty of Chunar, did actually happen:  for, immediately on the removal of the British Resident, the country of Furruckabad was subjected to the discretion of a certain native manager of revenue, called Almas Ali Khan, who did impoverish and oppress the country and insult the prince, and did deprive him of all subsistence from his own estates,—­taking from him even his gardens and the tombs of his ancestors, and the funds for maintaining the same.