question I was asked just now. Before my final determination was adopted, I hau resolved on the mode of giving effect to the resolution which I communicated to the board, that the influence of the company should be maintained in Oude, and two modes only occurred in effecting itBy placing the control over vizier Ali in the hands of the begum, or by placing the administration of affairs directly under the control of the company.

Had not your lordship many great and forcible objections to the placing the administration of affairs under the control of the East India company ?--I will answer that question by reading an extract of my minute, which I think an answer to it: "To the latter, that is to the placing the administration of affairs directly under the control of the company, the objections were many and great; the principal of which, in my opinion, was the serious effect it would have had upon our character for political forbearance and sincerity throughout Hindostan; at all events, it would only have listed during the minority of vizier Ali."

Did you not conclude an agreement with Saadut Ali, at Benares, before his accession to the musnud ?-No agreement was concluded. When the probability of placing Saadut Ali on the musnud first occurred, he was at Benares and I at Lucknow; there could be no direct communication between us: I transmitted a paper containing various stipulations to him for his rejection or acceptance; that was returned to me, and I think every article accepted by Saadut Ali.

Did not that paper contain a condition for assigning a tract of country to the company, proportionate to any deficiency in payment of the stipulated subsidy ?-I have not seen that paper since I left India, neither have I it in my possession, but I conclude it contained a stipulation to that effect, because I see it referred to in a minute I recorded on the 5th of March, 1798;-a reference to the paper would at once determine whether it contained that stipulation or not.

This condition, when your lordship came to make the treaty of Lucknow, you rejected, did you not ?-I did reject it, for reasons stated in that minute.

Your lordship rejected it on very mature consideration?—I certainly did reject it on mature consideration.

Was not one of your motives for rejecting it, the extreme aversion manifested by the nabob to such a cession ?-1 be

lieve not, I do not believe that I had any discussion with the nabob whatever on that article. I can speak with certainty that the alterations which were admitted in the treaty afterwards concluded, were not suggested by the nabob, but the result of discussions between myself and the former minister.

Was not one of the reasons the universal unpopularity of such a measure? -I have stated the extreme unpopularity attending the exaction as a motive with me for the relinquishment of it.

Was not another reason the general apprehension which would be excited by it?-That also is stated by me as a reason at the time.

What were those apprehensions?Without reference to the article I can hardly state what they were; I mentioned before I have not seen that paper since I left India: it seems to contain a condition assigning a tract of country to the company in proportion to any deficiency in payment of the stipulated subsi dy, which was suggested by the terms of the treaties between the company and the nabob of Arcot and rajah of Tanjore; I think by the terms of those treaties the assignment of the country was only to take place upon the failure in the payment of the stipulations of the nabob, and in that case I suppose the apprehensions to which I allude here, that if we had once got it into our possession we should have kept it; I cannot speak with certainty as to that, but I think it probable.

Did you not think that if the assignment took place it would be attended with difficulties and embarrassments which would have rendered the apparent advantages in a great measure nugatory ?-The assignment in the mode proposed in my opinion would, but I cannot speak with certainty as to the mode in which that assignment was proposed, for I only speak from a minute which refers to it.

Did you not perceive also, that it would have required not only the appointment of civil officers, but the assistance of a military force to carry it into effect?That appeared to me to be the case at the

time.

Did not the certain expense and probable bloodshed which would consequently ensue, appear great objections in your lordship's mind to the project?—I have stated the objections in the minute to which I have already referred, that the execution of the stipulation for the assignment would be attended with difficulties

and

and embarrassments that would have rendered the apparent advantage of the stipulation in a great measure nugatory; that it would have required not only the appointment of civil officers, but the assistance of a military force to carry it into effect; and that, although it should ultimately furnish the security proposed by it, the assignment would not provide for the timely payment of the subsidy. The extreme unpopularity attending the exaction was a further motive with me for the relinquishment of it, as well as the apprehensions which would have been generally excited by the publication of it: these were the motives which induced me to relinquish that stipulation at the time.

In lieu of this condition, did it not occur to your lordship to require a mortgage on the Doo3b, as a security for the payment of the subsidy ?-As a matter of consideration it did occur.

Was not even this qualified measure liable to similar and even greater objections than the other?-I have stated that measure to be liable to similar and greater objections.

Did you not in fact deem these two modes of security inadequate to the purpose, and improper?-1 certainly relinquished them because I deemed them improper, for the reasons which I have stated in this minute.

Of course you did not intend to resort to either of them for security in case of failure?-In case of failure the nature of the security would have been a question, and it certainly was teft open to the coinpany to demand such security as they would deem satisfactory; I speak now of the construction of the treaty.

Had not your lordship in contemplation some other means to secure the payment of the kists?-If security is spoken of, I know but three modes of security, either the responsibility of the shroffs, or bankers of Lucknow, or an assignment of territory, or a mortgage of territory; I recollect no other mode of security.

Were your opinions and views upon these subjects known to the vizier Saadut Ali?-I do not recollect whether they were or were not, having discussed the conditions with his former minister; how far his former minister communicated to him those discussions, I cannot take upon me to say.

When your lordship concluded the treaty of Lucknow with the vizier in 1798, were not you of opinion he would find considerable difficulty in fulfilling his pe

cuniary engagements with the company for the first year, and perhaps longer?—I have stated my opinion that such would be the case.

As your lordship made the treaty with him under the impression that he would find difficulty in fulfilling his engagements, could you in justice have intended to demand the security stipulated by the treaty, provided you had discovered a disposition on the part of the nabob to make good his engagements as far as he was able?-I think not; if the nabob had failed in the payment of the stipulations, I should have endeavoured to have ascertained the cause of his failure; if that failure had proceeded from circumstances which he could not control, I should certainly have thought a reasonable forbearance due to him in demanding it: if from inattention, neglect, or improvident management, I certainly should have remonstrated with him, and admonished him of the consequences of his persisting in that couduct.

Did not the council at Bengal, and the court of directors, agree in your opinion respecting the difficulties which the nabob would have to encounter in making his payments?--I cannot speak to that, because I left india within five or six days after my return to Calcutta from Lucknow; I think I left it on the 6th of March, and the minute explanatory of the treaty was recorded on the 5th.

Did not your lordship had that the council were of opinion he would feet considerable difficulty the first year?-All the council knew on the subject was from that minute I recorded on the 5th of March, in which, I believe, that op nion is given.

Was not one of the grounds upon which your lordship formed this opinion respecting the nabob, the extravagance and prodigality of his two immediate predecessors, and the abuses consequent thereof in the affairs of Oude ?—I suppose, in general, the revenues of the vizier to be in a very considerable state of einbarrassinent; under the manage ment of Asoph ul Dowlah they were exuemely mismanaged; it would require some time before an efficient administration was introduced, and, probably, at hist, from those causes, the nabub would find a considerable difficulty in making good his payments, which were heavier than those of his predecessor», increased to the amount of twenty lacs, besides other expenses he had incurred during the year.

Dues

Does your lordship know the exact state of his property at the time he ascended the rusnud P-If I ever heard it, which not recollect, I certainly have totally forgotten it

Was not another reason, that induced your lordship to form this opinion, the difficulty occasioned by his paying twelve lacs of rupees, amounting to 144,000l. for the expenses of establishing him upon the mushud ?--I considered all the expenses to which he was liable, and which he had incurred, as contributing to the difficulty.

Did your lordship know the annual amount of the jumma of the nabob's country at the time you formed the treaty of Lucknow in 1798 ?—I cannot speak to the amount at that period; but I have a memorandum, stating the amount of it for the year 1202, Fussullee, which, I believe, corresponds with from September 1796 to September 1797, and from that memorandum I can state what the revenue was.

Have the goodness to state the same.I will state it in pounds, as more familiar. Taking ten rupees to a pound, the esti mated revenues were 2.671,469/. from that a considerable deduction was to be made for the payment of stationary troops in the different districts, known by the name of Motayene, being 965.920l. that leaves a result of 1,705,5494; the expenses, including the subsidy of fifty lacs, 1,338.968. leaving a balance of 426,581/;-that is not to be understood quite clear; supposing the nabob not to be in debt, that would have been nearly the surplus of his annual revenues, on a comparison of his receipt with his expenditure; but there were several other sums, interest of debts, and others, which would lower that sum considerably.

What do you suppose might have been the amount of the disbursements of the nabob, the first year after that treaty, including the arrears due to the company, such debts as he would have to pay, the twelve lacs paid for his elevation, the presents, allowances, &c. which he would have to make upon that occasion; the charges of his household, his civil and military establishments, the company's subsidy; in short, what do you suppose would be, as far as your lordship can form a calculation, the gross amount of all the nabob, or the state of Oude, would have to pay during the first year?-I never did form any cal

culation of what the amount would be; and I know not how to form a calculation, for his disbursements might differ very materially from those of his predecessors; I think he was a man liable to make very great retrenchments from the expenses of his predecessors.

Are you not of opinion, that, for the first year, the disbursements would considerably exceed the receipts?-1 certainly was of opinion, that, for the first year, the nabob would find a great difficulty in making the payments to the company; and I state my reasonsthe disordered state of his revenues, and the expenses he had incurred on his exaltation to the musnud.

Unless the nabob reduced his establishments, are you not clearly of opinion he would find a great difficulty in making the payments for the first year?-Certainly, I think so, without some reduction of his expenses.

Even if the reforms, which were advised by the marquis Cornwallis and yourself, had been introduced, would not the nabob still have had to pay quite as much as he could possibly afford?— The reforms recommended, by the marquis Cornwallis and myself, were recommended to the nabob Asoph ul Dowlah; I certainly think with a good administration he might, with perfect ease, have paid the stipulations to the company, and that his embarrassments arose entirely from the mal-administration of his country.

You mean the mal-administration of Asoph ul Dowlah? Your question had a reference to the reforms recommended by lord Cornwallis and myself, which were to Asoph ul Dowlah; my answer, of course, had reference to the

same.

Were you not of opinion, that the revenues of the nabob could not, or, at least, ought not, to be increased greatly ?-I do not know that I formed any opinion of the time, but I thought that some improvement might almost immediately take place; it probably would be some time before such a system of administration could be introduced as would produce any considerable increase.

Is your lordship of opinion that, by any reform introduced, the revenues of the nabob could have been considerably increased during the first year ?-Proba bly not materially during the first year;

I think

Has your lordship no recollection of his stating seventy-six to be too great an increase from fifty-five and a half?-I do not mean to say it did not take place, but I have no recollection of it.

In the end, however, did not Sir Alured Clarke highly approve of the arrangements proposed, and ultimately carried into effect, by your lordship?-I have no reason to doubt Sir Alured Clarke's approbation.

Did he not state verbally to your lordship his high-approval of the measures adopted by your lordship, at Oude, several times, previous to your lordship's departure from Calcutta, for Europe, in the beginning of 1798?-I do not recollect whether Sir Alured Clarke was in Calcutta at the time I left India; after my return from Oude, I think, I was not above six days in Calcutta before I left it.

When your lordship left India, did not the council at Bengal, and the court of directors also, approve of your lordship's arrangements with respect to Oude?I certainly hoped that the court of directors would approve of it, and I have no doubt but that the council approve of it.

From the time that you succeeded to the government of Bengal, to the death of Asoph ul Dowlah, were not the monthly kists generally in arrear? The monthly kists were frequently in

arrear.

Did your lordship not understand that the resident had great difficulty in obtaining the payment of the subsidy, even when it was only fifty lacs a year? The resident frequently had considerable difficulty in obtaining the payment of the subsidy, but I cannot say that it was owing to any deficiency in the country.

Early in 1797, your lordship has stated that you prevailed upon the late vizier to augment the subsidy by five and a half lacs? Yes, or to an amount not exceed ing that.

Did not the nabob state his inability to pay any increase in the subsidy, and his extreme distress in consequence of the payments made to his European creditors, the preceding year, from the priprivate treasury of Oude?—I do not recollect that he ever did state that, I think he agreed to that proposition with little difficulty, that he did not make any considerable opposition to that proposition.

Does your lordship remember whether he made any?-The nabob certainly did make objections at the time, but he did not persevere in them.

What were those objections?—I cannot recollect; I have stated in the report of my transactions at Lucknow, that he did make objections, but that those objections were not urged with the same obstinacy as in the other points.

Did not your lordship represent to him that as the company had undertaken his complete defence, his large military establishment would be useless; and that your lordship considered yourself well entitled, on the part of the company, to demand that increase ?- I recollect stating to him that the company were to defend his territories, and that the company had largely increased their military establishment, and upon those grounds, at the particular recommendation of the court of directors, I recommended to him to pay for those two regiments.

Was it not under impressions of this kind that the vizier was at last prevailed upon to consent to the increase of five and a half lacs of rupees?- The vizier, I suppose, must have yielded to the arguments I stated to him; I have assigned an additional reason here, that his objections were not urged with the same obstinacy as in the other points, from an idea, perhaps, that his acquiescence in this instance might induce me to relax in others.

In stipulating to defend the dominions of the nabob against all enemies, by the treaty of 1798, did you not mean that the defence was to be complete?-Certainly.

This defence your lordship agreed to afford, did you not, for the sum of seventy-six lacs of rupees annually?—Eventually liable to increase.

What proportion does your lordship imagine seventy-six lacs of rupees bore in 1798, to the whole expenses of the Bengal army ?- I have not the least recollection of that, nor have I any data to enable me to form the calculation.

In undertaking the defence of Oude against all enemies, had you not in contemplation the possibility of some external attacks, and of some internal rebellions?-The protection granted to the vizier by the company, extended both to external attacks, and internal commotions.

At the time your lordship made this calculation, that seventy-six lacs of ru

pees