greatest credit to the nabob, the manner in which he rejected every proposition of Mr. Tieves to subvert the treaty, which shewed the nabob in the most favourable light in the strict adherence to his engagements; they were motives merely of a private nature between Mr. Treves and ine: That now Mr. Treves

had acknowledged the facts, I still felt a reluctance to answer questions which might inculpated Mr. Treves, and be a disadvantage to him in the situation he was in the company's ser vice; and acting up to the principles I had, I sent the answers to those questions to Mr. Treves, that, if he considered me as acting dishonourably in answering those questions, he might give them in, and he did give them

10.

Did not this come on the part of government, and was it not answered by you to government, though sent through M. Treves in the first instance? The first communication from Mr. Edmonstone was not on the part of government, but with subjects of multifarious and private nature; several letters had passed to and from Mr. Edmonstone before the list of interrogatories came, and they did not come till Mr. Treves had made his confession at Calcutta.

Did not those interrogatories come, or were they not supposed to come, under the authority of marquis Wellesley? Certainly.

Did not those interrogatories go to the point of Mr. Treves ?-Most unquesonably they were the interrogatories respecting Mr. Treves's propositions to the nabob, and his answer, and the same interrogatories were sent to the rabob.

You then collected this information from the enquiries of Mr. Edinonstone on the part of governinent ?-First of all from the private letters of Mr. Edmonstone; I knew the circumstances two or three months before the interrogatories were sent to me from Mr. Edmonstone, by private communications

to me.

Were not the answers containing that matter, in consequence of those interrogatories, sent in a public letter to Mr. Prendergast, from the governor-general? In a private letter.

Was not there a public letter in that to be delivered to the governor-gene

ral? No, there was a letter to Mr. Edmonstone; none to the governor general.

Was not it a public letter to Mr. Edmonstone ?-The answer to the interrogatories was.

Are you not perfectly aware that the accusation against Mr. Treves was notorious in Calcutta to Sir George Barlow, and every one in Calcutta?-I have heard since I left Lucknow, when I came to Bengal, and afterwards on my return here, that Mr. Treves after acknowledging the fact, (indeed, I have seen his letters, shewing contrition for the offence he had been guilty of,) and threw himself on the humanity of marquis Wellesley. Marquis Wellesley, on motives I believe of strict humanity, and finding that the nabob had behaved so very well on the occasion, having apprehensions that Mr. Treves's character would suffer from the communication, and not seeing any evils that had resulted from it, did not record the correspondence which occurred between Mr. Edinonstone and me, and of course did not make it a public do

cument.

Was not the letter inclosed to Mr. Prendergast publickly inclosed to Mr. Edmonstone as an official document ?It was.

During the period you were in Calcutta, 1803, previous to the time I * was going to Europe, was not this circumstance of Mr. Treves publie conversation in every company at Calcutta ?— I have not the least doubt of it, because Mr. Treves, after he had confessed it, could have no objection to tell it to his friends.

Was not it known to Sir George Barlow, and almost every person in Calcutta ?-I do not know that it was known to sit George Barlow, but it was pretty generally known.

Was not it the general order at Lucknow, that no person should communicate with the nabob, except by the permisson of the resident? Invariably, since I have been at Lucknow.

It was an old standing order of the resident?—Yes, one which we were obliged to subscribe on first going to Lucknow, in a book, in which the duties of the resident, and the persons residing there, were stated.

State to the committee the nature of the

1

the transaction between Mr. Treves and the nabob, which has been alluded to?To the best of my recollection, it was an offer on the part of Mr. Treves, that if the nabob felt himself aggrieved by the treaty of 1801, he was then going to England, and if he would make him his agent, he would make a stir, and use what influence and patronage he had, towards subverting that treaty, which the nabob rejected in toto.

Do not you know that Mr. Treves and the nabob had several private conversations, at which you were not present? -I certainly believe that he had not any conversation at which I was not present, as he made it a ground of self- raise to colonel Scott on leaving Lucknow, on leaving India, that he had never been in the presence of the nabob but with me; he lived in my house.

Have you no knowledge of a letter of Mr Treves, after the accusation was made in Calcutta, being shewn to you, in which he stated particularly, that he had been present at interviews at which you were not present ?-I have no recollection of the letter alluded to; I know that Mr. Tieves denied any knowledge whatever of communication with the nabob, and denied in toto that which he afterwards fully confessed.

Do you recollect that general order you have spoken of being enforced, except at particular times?-Very often on myself.

By whom?-By colonel Scott.

Only in the time of colonel Scott?In the time of Mr. Lumsden, I never dared to write a letter, or go to the nabob, but through the resident, and not only myself, but every English gentleman at Lucknow; it was universally known, that whoever wrote a letter to the nabob, wishing redress from the nabob for any injuries received, or on any other subject, it must be communicated through the resident, who brought the answer back; or if you wished to see the nabob, you must first of all write a note to the resident to ask his consent, which sometimes he granted, and sometimes he did not.

As his aid-de-camp, were not you admitted As his aid-de-camp, there was no kind of prohibition, and I corresponded very often to the extent of fifty letters in a day.

Have you ever looked into the writers en their law?-A little.

Have you ever heard of a book called Hediya?-I have.

Do you know that there is a whole chapter upon that subject?--The Heriva is not for the cast of which the nabob is one; the court is of the cast of the of which there is no book now in existence. Mr. Bailey is now composing one; but there are many distinctions in the casts of the Mussulmen.

Is there no liquor made from grapes, not fermented, boiled down to a certain quantity?—I always understood that the prohibition amounted to any liquors fer

mented.

It has been said that it was generally understood in India, that the journey of the nabob, that you mentioned, was intended for the purpose of making an application to the king in parliament; did you understand that to have been the inintention of the nabob?—No, I never understood any such thing.

No English gentlemen resident at Lucknow communicated with the nabob by conversation, or by letter, but with the express permission of the resident; but when you became the aid-de-camp to the nabob, you had frequent communication, till, on suspicions by colo.nel Scott, you were not permitted?No, I was not aid-de-camp ull after the treaty, and then I had constant inter

They had not become more so on that occasion?-I do not know whether, in the conversations which might have occurred, he did not use more disagreeable manners at one time than another; I dare say he might.

Have not you frequently been at breakfast with his highness the vizier in the presence of colonel Scott, both before and after the treaty ?-I have.

Generally after breakfast, did not the nabob and the resident retire to a private conference?-Yes.

Very recently after that did not the nabob shut himself completely up, and almost refuse to see any body?-Those were conversations which took place at the palace, nearly two miles from where we lived, and, except from the reports of the news-writers, I cannot say.

From the news-writers, have you not ascertained that the nabob shut himself up immediately after those interviews, and refused almost to see any part of his own family?—I have heard that mentioned two or three times, but do not know how far it is to be depended on.

Are you able to state on what ground the nabob refused the interference of Mr. Treves?-I think the inference to be drawn is, that he was satisfied with the situation he was in.

Do you yourself, standing before this house, venture to say, that you believe that the nabob was satisfied with that treaty; that is, so far as that he was better pleased than if he had been left in full possession of his own country, subject only to the payment of the subsidy of seventy-six lacs?--I conceive that is a question which the humanity of the house has already indulged me with not answering.

[Withdrew.

GEORGE JOHNSTONE, Esq. a member, again examined. For how many years did you reside in the dominions of Oude?-From the beginning of the year 1791 to the end of the year 1796.

Were murders, and other atrocious crimes, very frequent in the capital during that period? Not in the capital, but occasionally travellers were robbed and were murdered in the interior parts of the country.

Were those very frequent in your time? I do not feel myself exactly competent to say whether they were or

were not frequent; but to this I desire to give the most decided testimony, that they were not more frequent than in any other Mohammedan government throughout India.

Was there any rebellion against the nabob, or his government, during the whole period you were in Oude?— No.

Do you know that it was ever necessary to call in any British force, during all that time, to subdue any of the powerful Zemindars, or Rajahs, in the Doab, or towards the Mahratta frontier? No, on no occasion.

From your situation, must you not have known if any such British force had been called in to reduce any such refractory Zemindars? I believe I must have known it; and, I believe, no such circumstance took place.

Must not an application for troops have come through the resident?—That is the form in which it is made.

When Almas, or any of the great Aumils, went to enforce the collections, was not the contest generally of a very bloodless nature?-Unless now and then, when it became necessary to destroy a fort; I believe otherwise, that blood was very seldom shed.

Will you have the goodness to state the mode generally pursued by the Aumils to secure the payment of the revenues, and how the affair generally terminated?-When a Zemindar had a sufficient number of retainers to oppose himself to the Aumil, it generally terminated in a compromise, the Aumil finding it more for his interest to take what he could from the Zemindar, than the expense of money, and the loss of time that would be employed in reducing him to terms that bore a more accurate proportion to the value of his territorial possession.

Was not the late vizier, Asoph ul Dowlah, uncommonly beloved throughout the country?-I believe the people felt a considerable degree of attachment to the family, by which they had been governed upwards of seventy years, but otherwise I should not say he was particularly beloved; he was certainly not a cruel sovereign, but, perhaps, he was not respected in the highest degree.

Was not he exceedingly liberal, and very charitable - He possessed both those virtues.

State

State the origin, as near as you can, of the nabob's family?- The circum stances are not so immediately present to my mind, that I can venture to state them with that degree of accuracy I could wish; but, I think, a person named Saadut Khan was vizier to the king, Mahmoud Shah, and he was intrusted also with the government of Oude upon the destruction of the Mogul power, which took place in consequence of the invasion of Nadir Shah.

Saadut

Khan, I believe, after that transaction, retired to his government, and afterwards, upon his death, Sufta Jung, who had married his daughter, was enabled to obtain possession of it, partly by the acquiescence of the Mogul, and partly through his own power, and, in consequence, from him it succeeded to Sujah ul Dowlah, his son.

Have you not takes pains to ascertain the rise of that family, and to furnish it to a literary man ten years ago?-I furnished him with the means of obtaining information, but I do not think I entered myself particularly on the subject, or the circumstances would be more present in my recollection. I think what I did was to endeavour to trace the relations between Saadut Khan and Sufta Jung; Sufta Jung came from Persia after Saadut was established; I think I traced that there had been some family relation in Persia.

Was not the family very ancient and very respectable ?-I believe it was very respectable, but in no great splendour in Persia, or he would not have travelled to Hindostan.

Were you ever in any other Mohammedan government besides that of Oude? -No, I never was.

Were not you private secretary to him at the same time ?-No, I was not.

Were you not in the entire confidence of Sir James Craig ?—I believe I possessed the general's confidence, from being selected to be his aid-de-camp.

Do you not know that, in 1800, it was determined, by the Bengal government, to reduce the army of the nabob vizier ?—I know that a proportion of the nabob's troops were reduced about that time.

Was the determination to reduce the nabob's army communicated to general Sir James Craig ?-I should suppose it was, I do not know perfectly; but from the measures taken I should conceive it

was.

Do you know by whom, and at what period, such communication was made to him?-No, I do not.

Did not Sir James Craig, very early in 1800, go over to Lucknow, for the sake of consulting with colonel William Scott on the subject ?—I cannot recollect the exact time he went over, he went over very often, and, I believe, at one time, for the sake of consulting with colonel Scott upon the subject.

Who accompanied Sir James upon that occasion ?-I believe captain M'Gregor and myself attended him.

Can you state what passed at Lucknow during the consultations Sir James had ? -I never was present at any consultations between Sir James Craig and the resident.

Did Sir James, or captain M'Gregor, subsequently communicate to you what had passed P-No, I do not believe capM'Gregor was ever present.

Do you not know, and was not it generally believed, that the army was to be disbanded, whether the nabob consent; i or not? I really never had any information that would warrant my lorining that opinion on the subject; I und stood that a proportion of the army was to be disbanded, but I never heard from any authority, whether is was with the nabob's acquicscence or not; indeed, I have heard it was with his acquies

cence.

Did you ever understand from Sir James Craig, or any other person, that the disbanding of the army was only the prelude to some other measures ?-No, I never did.

You never understood, from captain
McGregor,

M'Gregor, that other measures were in contemplation ?—I cannot charge my memory that I did, if I did it was mere conversation or conjecture.

Did not you understand that British troops were to be scattered over Oude in lieu of those disbanded belonging to the vizier ?-Yes, I understood that British troops were to be stationed in many places then occupied by the vizier's troops.

What was Sir James's opinion of that measure, and state his objections as fully and as particularly as you can ?-I hardly know how to answer that question so generally; I recollect hearing Sir James express his disapprobation of the troops being divided into small bodies, and quartered in towns; he preferred their being kept in cantonments, and in as large bodies as possible.

Did he not think that scattering the troops over so large a service, and dividing them into small bodies, would tend almost to the entire destruction of discipline in the army?-I fancy that was his opinion, and that of most of the officers, that the troops being dispersed in small bodies, and mixed particularly in large towns, must militate against their discipline.

Did he not believe that the establishing small bodies of troops on the Pergunnahs, under young officers, was liable to the greatest possible objections?—I conceive that I have answered that question in the former, that he would conceive that liable to objection.

Did he not imagine that, from the high state of discipline to which he had brought the field army, it would become pretty similar to the army about to be disbanded under the nabob vizier?— I cannot answer for Sir James Craig's sentiments so far as that; I cannot say to what degree he might disapprove of the placing of troops in small bodies.

Did you never hear Sir James Craig say, that he was afraid that the army, if divided into small bodies, and put into the Pergunnahs, was very likely to be come intle better than the army about to be disbanded ?--I cannot say that; I re*** collect his saying he was afraid it would injure the discipline of the army if it was divided into towns.

Did not Sir James Craig communicate his opinion fully to government and to colonel William Scott? I believe, in general, he did.

Was Sir James's advice followed on the occasion, so far as you know ?--I do not possess information to enable me to answer that question.

Were the opinions, such as you have stated of Sir James Craig, the opinions also of every military officer of rank and consequence in the king's and company's army?--I believe it was the opinion of military men, that the dividing the troops into small bodies, in large towns, would injure their discipline very much.

When Sir James took charge of the field army, did he not think their discipline very much relaxed? I think the discipline of the field army was very much improved under his command.

What measures did he take to improve the general state of the Bengal army then in the field?-Those usually prescribed and followed by the army; chiefly greater attention to discipline, and particularly exercising the battalions in as large bodмS as possible, and obliging all the officers to

attend.

Towards the close of the year 1800, were not the cantonments of Cawnpore, › the great military station, left almost without troops?-1 do not recollect the. exact period, I recollect its being left, at one time, with very little more than one battalion of Sepoys; there were European troops besides.

Do you not recollect it was very shortly, before Sir James Craig went to Calcutta? -At that time, I think, there were two battalions of Sepoys.

State, as nearly as you can remember, what was Sir James Craig's opinion of leaving the large cantonment of Cawnpore with so few troops ?—I really do Lot possess the information,

Did not Sir James Craig imagine, and communicate to you, that to make a defence against, or to attack, Zemaun Shah, it was necessary to have the army in centrical situations, and in large bo dies; and that nothing tended so much to improve the army, and to keep up its discipline, as the junction of the troops belonging to the great field stations of Cawnpore and Futtyghur?-I know that it was Sir James Craig's opinion that the troops in the field should be kept in large cantons, and those as centrical with the casiest communications with each other as possible.

Look at the ninth article of the treaty, and read it; what does that article purport