In consequence of these delays, even their first orders did not arrive in Bengal until some time after the death of Colonel Monson, when the whole power of the board had devolved to Mr. Hastings and Mr. Barwell.  When they sent what they call their positive orders, in March, 1778, they had long been apprised of the death of Colonel Monson, and must have been perfectly certain of the effect which that event would have on the subsequent measures and proceedings of the Governor-General and Council.  Their opinion of the principles of those gentlemen appears in their letter of the 28th of November, 1777, wherein they say “they cannot but express their concern that the power of granting away their property in perpetuity should have devolved upon such persons.”

But the conduct of the Court of Directors appears to be open to objections of a nature still more serious and important.  A recovery of the amount of Mr. Barwell’s profits seems to be the only purpose which they even professed to have in view.  But your Committee are of opinion that to preserve the reputation and dignity of the government of Bengal was a much more important object, and ought to have been their first consideration.  The prosecution was not the pursuit of mean and subordinate persons, who might with safety to the public interest remain in their seats during such an inquiry into their conduct.  It appears very doubtful, whether, if there were grounds for such a prosecution, a proceeding in Great Britain were not more politic than one in Bengal.  Such a prosecution ought not to have been ordered by the Directors, but upon grounds that would have fully authorized the recall of the gentleman in question.  This prosecution, supposing it to have been seriously undertaken, and to have succeeded, must have tended to weaken the government, and to degrade it in the eyes of all India.  On the other hand, to intrust a man, armed as he was with all the powers of his station, and indeed of the government, with the conduct of a prosecution against himself, was altogether inconsistent and absurd.  The same letter in which they give these orders exhibits an example which sets the inconsistency of their conduct in a stronger light, because the case is somewhat of a similar nature, but infinitely less pressing in its circumstances.  Observing that the Board of Trade had commenced a prosecution against Mr. William Barton, a member of that board, for various acts of peculation committed by him, they say, “We must be of opinion, that, as prosecutions are actually carrying on against him by our Board of Trade, he is, during such prosecution at least, an improper person to hold a seat at that board; and therefore we direct that he be suspended from the Company’s service until our further pleasure concerning him be known.”  The principle laid down in this instruction, even before their own opinion concerning Mr. Barton’s case was declared, and merely on the prosecution of others, serves to render their conduct not very accountable in the case of Mr. Barwell.  Mr. Barton was in a subordinate situation, and his remaining or not remaining in it was of little or no moment to the prosecution.  Mr. Barton was but one of seven; whereas Mr. Barwell was one of four, and, with the Governor-General, was in effect the Supreme Council.