Let us suppose his Majesty to have been pleased to appoint any one to an office in the gift of the crown, what should we think of the person whose business it was to execute the King’s commands, if he should say to the person appointed, when he claimed his office, “You shall not have it, you assume to be my superior, and you disgrace and dishonor me”?  Good God! my Lords, where was this language learned? in what country, and in what barbarous nation of Hottentots was this jargon picked up?  For there is no Eastern court that I ever heard of (and I believe I have been as conversant with the manners and customs of the East as most persons whose business has not directly led them into that country) where such conduct would have been tolerated.  A bashaw, if he should be ordered by the Grand Seignior to invest another with his office, puts the letter upon his head, and obedience immediately follows.

But the obedience of a barbarous magistrate should not be compared to the obedience which a British subject owes to the laws of his country.  Mr. Hastings receives an order which he should have instantly obeyed.  He is reminded of this by the person who suffers from his disobedience; and this proves that person to be possessed of too independent a spirit.  Ay, my Lords, here is the grievance;—­no man can dare show in India an independent spirit.  It is this, and not his having shown such a contempt of their authority, not his having shown himself so wretched an advocate for his own cause and so had a negotiator for his own interest, that makes him unfit to be trusted with the guardianship of their honor, the execution of their measures, and to be their confidential manager and negotiator with the princes of India.

But, my Lords, what is this want of skill which Mr. Bristow has shown in negotiating his own affairs?  Mr. Hastings will inform us.  “He should have pocketed the letter of the Court of Directors; he should never have made the least mention of it.  He should have come to my banian, Cantoo Baboo; he should have offered him a bribe upon the occasion.  That would have been the way to succeed with me, who am a public-spirited taker of bribes and nuzzers.  But this base fool, this man, who is but a vile negotiator for his own interest, has dared to accept the patronage of the Court of Directors.  He should have secured the protection of Cantoo Baboo, their more efficient rival.  This would have been the skilful mode of doing the business.”  But this man, it seems, had not only shown himself an unskilful negotiator, he had likewise afforded evidence of his want of integrity.  And what is this evidence?  His having “enabled himself to become the principal in such a competition.”  That is to say, he had, by his meritorious conduct in the service of his masters, the Directors, obtained their approbation and favor.  Mr. Hastings then contemptuously adds, “And for the test of his abilities, I appeal to the letter which he has dared to write to the board, and which I am ashamed to say we have suffered.”  Whatever that letter may be, I will venture to say there is not a word or syllable in it that tastes of such insolence and arbitrariness with regard to the servants of the Company, his fellow-servants, of such audacious rebellion with regard to the laws of his country, as are contained in this minute of Mr. Hastings.