.An \ddress... to Luke Scraf- 
 
 ton, "sq; in Reply to his ^am- 
 
 phlet, Intitled, Observations 
 
 . Vansittart's Narrative 
 
 By 
 John Zephaniah Holwell, '^sq.
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 AT LOS ANGELES
 
 A N 
 
 ADDRESS 
 
 FROM 
 
 JOHN ZEJ?HANIAH HOLWELL, 
 
 T o 
 LUKE S C R A F T O N, Efq; 
 
 In reply to his Pamphlet, intitled, 
 
 OBSERVATIONS 
 
 O N 
 
 Mr. VANSITTART's NARRATIVE. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 Printed for T. B E c KET and P. A. D E H ON D T, near 
 Surry-Street, in the Strand. MDCCLXVII. 
 
 [PRICE ONE SHILLING.]
 
 H(*T 
 
 VV3 
 
 To LUKE SCRAFTON, Efcj; 
 
 BEENHAM HOUSED BERKS, 
 SIR! January i4th, 1767. 
 
 T CONFE-SS my obligation to you for your 
 letter, without date, received yefterday, and 
 
 accompanied by a printed pamphlet, entitled, 
 
 " Obfervations on Mr. VANSITTART'S Narrative,'* 
 o of which you avow yourfelf the author. Sorry I 
 
 am that this fingular production of yours did nof 
 S come to my hands {boner j for if it had, be afTured/ 
 ^ Sir, you fliould not fo long have rmpofed on the 
 
 C3 
 
 world, nor on the circle of your own acquaintance, 
 
 without incurring the juit chaftifement of my pen, 
 
 in return for the many flagrant calumnies, and 
 
 injurious infinuationsr it contains againft me. In 
 
 | all probability, you are pluming yourfelf with the 
 
 "x thoughts that its poifonots effects have already 
 
 5 anfwered your worft purpofes, and wrought fufE- 
 
 ciently upon th^ minds of others, before an op- 
 
 B pbrturutV 
 
 354632
 
 [ 2 J 
 
 portunity was given me of replying to k. 
 Herein you may be miftaken -, for thinking people 
 are too confiderate to determine on one fide of the 
 queftion, without giving a candid hearing to the 
 other. 
 
 I fhall not follow the unfair example you have 
 fct me, of picking out fitch paffages only of my 
 Memorial and letters as feem to make beft for your 
 purpofe : the Public fhall have your whole Epiftle 
 to me verbatim before them ; while I take the 
 liberty of commenting firfl upon it, and afterwards 
 of refuting the mifreprefentations and falfehoods 
 eomained in the pamphlet itfelf. 
 
 Letter from. Mr. S C R A F T O N to< 
 Mr. H O L W E L L. 
 
 SIR! 
 
 " Although I am not the author of the OB- 
 c: SERVER, to which you have replied, I am of the 
 " accompanying Pamphlet, which never was pu- 
 " bliftied, nor defigned to be circulated, had not 
 " Mr. VANSITTART thought fit to take upon him 
 '* the character of head of a party, in oppo- 
 
 " fition-
 
 I 3 ] 
 
 *' fition to the prefent Directors: his activity in 
 " that character, and fome circumftances which 
 " happened in April laft, made it neceffary, for 
 " my own juftification among the circle of my own 
 " acquaintance, to make fome obfervations on 
 cc Mr. VANSITTART'S publication -, this led me 
 " to difprove your Memorial, which my particu- 
 < lar connection with Lord CLIVE enabled me to 
 " do. 
 
 " When yau fent me one of your Historical 
 " Events, I then wrote you, that I reprefcnted 
 " your Memorial as falfe, or mifreprefented, in 
 " every inftance ; as alfo your Account of the 
 " revenues, which has been productive of much 
 " mifchief to the Company, and is fo totally falfe, 
 " that befides the grofs fum of eleven crore, be- 
 " ing eight and a half crore more than the real 
 " fact , the items it is compofed of are ridicu- 
 <c loufly falfe. You rate the city of DACCA at two 
 
 " crore. The whole province, city included, 
 
 " is but twenty- five laacks the cuftoms of the 
 
 " city, I dare fay, do not pafs 40,000 rupees. . As 
 
 " you have thought fit to publilh thofe things to 
 
 B 2 " the
 
 [ 4 ] 
 
 ** the world, you muft take the confequence of 
 P having gone on fucji wrong informations. 
 
 ? l lam, Sir, &c. 
 
 *< CORNER of UPPER-BROOK. - 
 
 ** STREET, GROSVENQR-SQUARE." 
 
 T < 
 
 I cannot avoid looking upon the firft paragraph 
 of your ktter as an aukward apology, flowing from 
 confcious fhame for your unprovoked attacks op 
 the veracity of my Publications. What thofe 
 circumftances were, which made it neceffary for 
 your own juftification to infult Mr. VANSITT.ART, 
 I am an utter ftranger to : but where was the necef- 
 fity, I afk, of wounding that gentleman through 
 my fides ? and in fuch a virulent manner too, that 
 your pamphlet would much more confidently bear 
 the title of An envenomed Inveffiv? agaixft Mr. 
 J-JLQLWELL'J Ccnduft and Government, than that which 
 j$ prefixed to it i and can you think, Sir, that the 
 Public is fo mqrt-fighted as not to fee through 
 your weak plea of necefiity for difproving my Me- 
 porial ? Alas ! Sir, the caufe which ftirred ypur
 
 [ 5 ] 
 
 gall againft me is too recent to be already forgot j 
 and the fptte and premeditated malice which creeps 
 through the whole of your performance, ftrongly 
 mark the motives that dictated it, as I will manir 
 feft when it comes under my particular confide- 
 ration : therefore you mould have been more 
 careful that you Hood upon good ground before 
 you began the aifault, although fupported by your 
 boafted particular connexion with Lord CLIVE. 
 
 I come now to your fecond paragraph ; the 
 whole of which is a rude undigested attack upon 
 my Eftimate of the real yalue of the BENGALI. 
 Provinces. Whether you are, or are not, the 
 author of the EAST INDIA OBSERVER, N 6. and 
 7. it is now pretty plain that paper has been 
 broached under your weft fignificant aufpices, 
 and that you have fupplied the author with his 
 fcandalous anecdotes and materials ; becaufe the 
 fame charges are laid againft me in that paper, 
 N 6. and nearly in the fame words as they fland 
 in your pamphlet : and in N 7. about the 
 time that you was penning your fecond paragraph 
 to me, the Anonymous Author, in reply to my 
 AST INDIA OBSERVER Extraordinary, although 
 foreign to his fabjec"t, aims a ftroke at my eftimate 
 
 of
 
 [ 6 ] 
 
 of the revenues to the fame purport as yours. 
 But that hireling is beneath my further notice : 
 and had I received the fmalleft intimation that 
 fuch a pamphlet as yours had been exifting and 
 circulated, that Tool would never have been the 
 obiecl: of my Pen. Miftake me not, Sir, nor 
 draw a conclufion from thence, that I think you 
 an object more worthy of it : the vindication of 
 my own character, from your now avowed afper- 
 fions, obliges me to wipe them off. But to pro- 
 ceed with your fecond paragraph. 
 
 I well remember, Sir, that on the firft publica- 
 tion of my HISTORICAL EVENTS, I had the honour 
 of ycnr fuperficial remarks on my eftimates, and 
 a menace, that you intended to publifh a refuta- 
 tion of them and my Memorial, and of every 
 thing elfe that I had publifhed in my Vindication. 
 You well remember too, how I treated that 
 menace ; and told you, if you had wifdom, you 
 would let it alone : which, it feems, you had not. 
 On hearing you had reprefented to the Court of 
 Pireftors my Eftimates of the real value of the BEN- 
 GALL Provinces as utterly falfe and without founda- 
 tion, I was neceffitated to explain myfelf, and fupport 
 
 my
 
 E 7 1 
 
 my afiertions in a letter to the Court of Directors 
 from Bath , which letter I pubiifhed as a Supple- 
 ment to the lecond edition of the firft pare of my 
 HISTORICAL EVENTS, a fteplfhould not haveuken, 
 had the Court of Directors had the civiliry to ac- 
 knowledge the receipt of it : to that letter I beg 
 leave to refer the candid Public ; and although it 
 does not fuit with your purpofe to underftand me, 
 it will be very obvious to the world, that my cal- 
 culations arofe not from the amount of what was, 
 or had been a&iiaily and openly brought to ac- 
 count, but from the real produce and annual va- 
 lue of the lands and revenues of the provinces, 
 which are funk, embezzled, and diffipated in va- 
 rious fhapes, and are not brought to the credit of 
 the government at alL By analogous reafoning 
 on fa6ts lying before the Court of Directors, I 
 founded my affertion, that the BENGALL Pro- 
 vinces would, on a ftrict general fcrutiny and re- 
 form in the rents and revenues, and a new, al- 
 though favourable meafure merit of the lands, pro- 
 duce annually rather above than under eleven* 
 
 Khorore. Mr. Johnfton's fenfible and fpirited 
 
 letter to the Proprietors, affords the ftrongeft fup- 
 port to my analogous resigning ;, for by that 
 
 Gentle-
 
 [ 8 ] 
 
 Gentleman's indefatigable labours it 
 (page 9. of his letter) that in the diftrict of 
 BURDWAN only there were 412,491 acres of land 
 lopt from the farms, to the annual value of 
 
 1 16,727 /. That my afiertion of eleven khorore 
 
 could bear no allufion to the known public reve- 
 nues as rated upon the Emperor's books, but on 
 the contrary to the actual produce and intrinfic 
 value of the provinces, on a general reform, is 
 obvious from the conftant tenor and bent of my 
 arguments ; for when I have occafionally men- 
 tioned the {landing revenues, I have rather under- 
 valued than over-rated them, particularly page 
 51 of INDIA Tracts, publimed February 1764, by 
 BECKET, where (in my Addrefs to f the Proprie^ 
 tors) urging my reafons againft the commander in 
 chief of the troops having a vote in the com- 
 mittee or council, I conclude the paragraph in 
 the following words: " There will ever be one 
 " fet of political views in the cabinet, and another 
 ** in the camp ; and this muft inevitably be the 
 *' cafe ; had it not been fo, you would, in the 
 *' month of May or June, 1760, have been your- 
 " felves SUBAS of BENGALL, and now in pofief- 
 " fion of between' two' And'tbrte millions ftcrling ptr 
 i " annum*
 
 [ 9 1 
 
 " annum." Here I fpoke without any retrofpect 
 to the knowledge and conviction I then had of 
 the intrinfic worth of the country. Lord CLIVF, 
 in his letter to the Proprietors, publifhed the fame 
 year, exceeds me by a million fterling , for his 
 Lordfhip (page 16.) fpeaking of SURAJUD Dow- % 
 
 LA, fays, " His death foon followed, and 
 
 " MEER JAFFIER was in a few days in pofieffion 
 * c of the government, and of a revenue of three 
 
 " millions and a half fterling." Mr. Johnfton 
 
 exceeds his Lordfhip (page 16 of his letter 
 before referred to:) fpeaking of the treaty 
 with the young NABOB, fuccefibr to MHIR JAF- 
 FIER, he fays, " There remained with him, after 
 " the feveral allowances to be ftipulated in favour 
 " of the company, ,a revenue of about two and 
 " a half millions fterling." To this fum, tf we 
 add the monthly allowance of five lack, to be 
 paid by the NABOB in lieu of troops, amounting 
 annually to 812,000, the revenues of BURDC- 
 MAAN, CHITTYGONG, andMiDNAPORE, ceded by 
 COSSIM ALY KHAN, eftimated, the loweft, at 
 600,000 /. the twenty-four Purgunnahs, ceded by 
 C JAFFIER
 
 JAFFIER KHAN, eftimated at 1 00,000 /. and Lord 
 CLIVE'S Jaggier (being the rents only of the 24 
 Purgunnahs) at 30,000!. and the ZEMINDAARY 
 of CALCUTTA at 16,000 1. we lhall find the dated 
 public revenues of the provinces amount to 
 4,058,0007. Ste rling 'per annum, which I believe is 
 neareft the truth. I advance thefe inftances in 
 proof of my afiertion, that I rather under-rated 
 than over-valued the dated public revenues 
 of the provinces ; and in proof alfo that when I 
 pronounced the annual value of them to be 1 1 
 Khorore, I could neither mean nor allude to thofe 
 (collefted upon the prefcnt mode) but what they 
 would with a moral certainty produce upon an eafy 
 detection of immenfe frauds, when the country was 
 under a BRITISH government. On this pofition 
 alone I flaked my credit and veracity, and would as 
 readily ftake my head as a forfeiture on the iflue, 
 if ever my plan of a general fcrutiny and reform 
 throughout the provinces is carried into , faithful 
 execution. Regarding what you fay of DACCA, it 
 is a known fadt that the frauds and diffipations in 
 2 the
 
 the lands and revenues of that diftrift are more 
 notorious than in any other part of the pro- 
 vinces. 
 
 You are pleafed to allege, Sir, " that my ac- 
 " count of the revenues has been productive of 
 " much mifchief to the Company :" in the name 
 of common fenfe, what mifchief could accrue to the 
 Company from having their eyes opened, that they 
 might view in profpect the real value of the pro* 
 mifed land they were entitled to pofiefs ? 
 
 Thus much I have thought necefiary to fay in 
 anfwer to your letter. I mail now proceed to your 
 pamphlet, avoiding, as much as I can, a repetition 
 of the pleas urged in my defence againft the ano- 
 nymous author of the EAST INDIA Obferver, NS 
 6, in my EAST INDIA Obferver extraordinary, 
 publiftied the 28th December laft, which I intreat 
 the public will do me the honor of keeping in their 
 
 view. 
 
 C 2 The
 
 The mean incenfe offered to Lord CLIVE in the 
 firft pages of your " Obfervations on Mr. VAN- 
 " SITTART'S Narrative," mould have drawn no 
 animadverlion from me, had you not laboured to 
 exalt his Lordfhip's character at the expence of 
 truth -, if by bis fucceffbr you meant me. Page 6 
 of your pamphlet, you are pleafed to fay (in de- 
 fence of a charge laid againft his Lordfhip by Mr. 
 VANSJTTART) " it did not enter into Lord CLIVE'S 
 '* computation, that his fuccejjor mould run up the 
 " expence to almoft double that fum ; nor could 
 ' he who had defeated the army of SURAJAH 
 " DOWLA with three thoufind men, conceive the 
 " ENGLISH mould ever keep up an army of fifteen 
 " thoufand !*' Let it in the firft place be remem- 
 bered, that howfoever happy in its confequences 
 ihe defeat at PLASSE.Y proved to individual fuffer- 
 crs, the means by which it was obtained fhould 
 rather be forgot, nor mould you blazon that defeat 
 with the femblance of a military aft of prowefs, 
 which was folely owing to thetreafon and treachery 
 
 t*
 
 of ROYDULLOB and MHIR JAFFIER, two of Su- 
 RAJAH DOWLA'S generals, the higheft in office, as 
 well as in the confidence of their matter ; thus be- 
 trayed, no glory would have been reflected on our 
 arms, had the defeat been atchieved with one fourth 
 of the men then under Lord CLIVE'S command. 
 His Lordfhip's eftabliilied character of a brave 
 -officer ftands not in need of any falfe luftre to be 
 caft upon it j nor will you, I believe, Sir, receive 
 
 his thanks for this wanton folly of your pen. 
 
 Reipecting your unwarranted infmuation againft 
 bisfucce/or in the above quotation, it was incum- 
 bent on you to have examined the general returns 
 of the troops regularly tranfmitted to the court of 
 Directors, and by comparing the general return de- 
 livered to me the pth of February, 1760, with fub- 
 fequent ones, you would have feen there was no 
 augmentation of the troops worth notice during the 
 term of my government, nor of expence neither, 
 beyond what the exigences of the then very com- 
 plicated nature of the fervice required. 
 
 In
 
 c H i 
 
 In page 8th of your pamphlet, you are pleafed 
 to draw a conclufion in the following words : 
 " Hence arofe the diftrefies of the SUBAH, and the 
 " Company , the provinces afilgned to the Com- 
 
 " pany became the feat of war." Now, Sir, 
 
 you could have no motive for this conclufion, but 
 the very obvious unworthy one of catling an odium 
 on the conduct of Colonel CAILLAI/DJ the then 
 commander in chief of the troops, which you with- 
 out any juft foundation had been labouring at in 
 your two preceding paragraphs, page 7. That the 
 enemy was not puriued after the action of SEER- 
 POOR, on the 23d February, 1760) was an accufa- 
 tion from which Colonel CAILLAUD moft clearly 
 exculpated himfelf. His purfuit could have an- 
 fwered no falutary end without cavalry, which was 
 abfolutely refufed him by the young NABOB, al- 
 though folicited for that purpofe, in the moft pref- 
 fmg terms. In place of that, or of immediately 
 joining our forces, he fhut himfelf in PATNA, until 
 the 29th of February, on pretence of curing wounds 
 
 which
 
 [ 15 I 
 
 which a boy of ten years old would have been 
 
 afliamed to own as fuch. The SHAW ZADAH 
 
 did not make his appearance in the B/RDWAN 
 country before the 1 5th or 1 6th of March, whereas 
 Colonel CLIVE could hardly have cleared the BEN- 
 GAL river, before SUBUT and his MAHARATTORS 
 had pofTefTed themfelves of MIDNAPOOR and other 
 parts of the fkirts of the BUR D WAN -, fo that in 
 fa6b it was at this time that the lands affigned to the 
 company firft became the feat of war, at lead in all 
 its effects ; for fuch was the confufion, that a ftop 
 
 was put to all commerce on the bare alarm of Su- 
 BUT'S advance. Thefe deftruftive confequences 
 might have been eafily prevented, had the SOUBAH 
 exerted the fmallefl degree of courage, or hearkened 
 to my prefiing inftances to him on that occafion ; 
 for inftead of ordering his troops (joined to a ftrong 
 detachment of ours) under the command of his fon 
 in law COSSIM ALI KHAN, to march to the fouth- 
 ward, and drive SUBUT out of the country, his pu- 
 fillanimous fears prompted him to direclr their 
 
 march
 
 inarch to CUTWAH and the city,} by which unfor- 
 tunate meafure the BURDWAN country was aban- 
 doned and left a prey to SU^UT and his MAHA- 
 RATTORS, to the irreparable difgrace of the Sou- 
 BAH'S government, and damage of the Company. 
 But this was not the only ill confequence which fol- 
 lowed that meafure j for SUBUT gained ftrength 
 and footing daily in the country, and afterwards, 
 by a junction with the BIERBOHEEN RAJAH, faci- 
 litated the SHAW ZADDAH'S entrance into BURDO- 
 MAAN : whereas, had SUBUT been vigoroufly op- 
 pofed in the beginning, and driven back, that dif- 
 tricl: would have been freed from troubles j the re- 
 ceipts of our TUNKA'S would have been uninter- 
 rupted, and the SHAW ZADDA would have had no 
 encouragement to have made that fudden march to 
 the fouthward, as we were afterwards well informed 
 his chief incitement to that ftep, was the diverfion 
 which would be made in his favour by the MAHA- 
 RATTORS. On the whole, Sir, I have made it 
 clearly appear, that the diftrefies of the SOUBAH and 
 
 the
 
 [ 7 J 
 
 the Company had their rife in BURDWAN, above 
 a month earlier than the period you afllgn for 
 them, and from a very different caufe, to wit, the 
 daftardly conduct only of your hero MHIR JAF- 
 FIER -, and, I repeat it, you could have had no mo- 
 tive for the conclufion before quoted, but that un- 
 worthy one of throwing a reflection on Colonel 
 CAILLAUD'S conduct, 
 
 I come now, Sir, to your formal attack upon 
 myfelf and government, beginning at page the 8th 
 of your pamphlet ; how well you have acquitted 
 yourfelf. in the execution, and how much to your 
 credit, will appear in the fequel to the circle of your 
 own acquaintance and the public* 
 
 You begin your afiault in the words following, 
 " Throughout the whole of Mr. HOLWELL'S go- 
 " vernment, we may trace the defign of a revo- 
 * Union upon a bare examination, of what he 
 " thought fit to publifh." In proof of this afler- 
 tion, you quote part of my letter to Colonel 
 CAILLAUD of the i ith of March 1760, and afcrap 
 D of
 
 of mine of the 2 ift of the fame month to Mr. 
 HASTINGS. The firft of thefe quotations flatly 
 contradicts your aflertion ; for there, I fay, " we 
 " muft however fupport him and his government 
 " as long as we poffibly can, without involving 
 " ourfelves and our employers in his ruin j" if this 
 implied a defigned revolution, words have no 
 meaning. I wrote to Mr. HASTINGS in the 
 fame ftrain, 'tis true ; but had you been either can- 
 did or juft in your quotations or reflections, you 
 would have given the public the laft paragraph of 
 Colonel CAILLAUD'S letter to me, of the 2;th of 
 February, to which mine was a reply, as well a$ 
 thofe parts of mine which introduced the lines you 
 difingenuoufly quote, and alfo the fentence im- 
 mediately preceding that which you recite from 
 my letter to Mr. HASTINGS. From thefe it would 
 have glaringly appeared, that inevitable ruin mufl 
 attend the SUBAH and his government, without a 
 change and reform in his conduct and politics, 
 which we had no reafon to hope : and therefore I 
 mould have been little worthy the charge I then 
 poflefied, had I fuffered my employers and the 
 country to be involved in his ruin ; and this necef- 
 fary and juft precaution you are pleafed to conftrue 
 into a premeditated defign of a revolution, a charge 
 4 which
 
 [ 19 I 
 
 which nothing but your own little malicious genius 
 could poffibly have fuggefted to my prejudice : 
 for the paffage, if difcuffed with candor and fau> 
 nefs, rather makes my conduct meritorious, than 
 
 liable to cenfure. You clofe page the 8th with 
 
 faying, " and in the fame letter he accufes the 
 " SUB AH of engaging in a feparate correfpondence 
 " with the SHAZADA." And at the foot of the page 
 you add a falfe note of reference to miflead the 
 public, and fend them a wild goofe chace that you 
 might more fecurely efcape detection. Your 
 note fays, " Vide HOLWELL'S Vindication, pub- 
 " lifhed by BECKET in 1760 ;" whereas thecorre- 
 Ipondence you make your quotations and remarks 
 from, was publifhed by BECKET in 1764, under 
 the title of India Trafls, by Mr. HOLWELL and 
 his friends j and the Vindication which your fpuri- 
 ous note refers to (publifhed likewife in 1764) was 
 purely a defence of his character, (againft an ano- 
 nymous pamphlet put forth under the title of 
 " Reflections on the prefent Hate of our EAST IN- 
 " DIA affairs,") in which you knew there was not 
 a fyllable contained of the correfpondence with 
 Colonel CAILLAUD or Mr. HASTINGS, wfrich ]s 
 
 now the fubject of your remarks. Blulh there- - 
 
 fore, Sir, at a procedure fo unworthy. 
 
 D 2 But
 
 ?o 
 
 But once more to take up the thread of your 
 pamphlet, which opens a frefh charge againft me, 
 and intimates my having falfely accufed the Su BAH 
 of a feparate correfpondence with the SHAW 
 ZADDA; this you lay as a corroborating proof of 
 my deftgnmg a revolution. 
 
 In fupport of this charge you quote (page 9.) 
 my inftruclions to Captain* SPEARS ; and, lower, 
 you fay, I " come nearer to the point." In my 
 letter to Col. CAILLAUD of the 7th of April, part 
 of which you alfo quote, (erroneoufly, or more 
 likely intentionally, giving it a place in page 3 1 of 
 my correfpondence, inftead of page 28.) and at 
 the clofe of your quotation, page 10. you make the 
 following profound remark. " This proves that 
 " Mr. HOLVVELL was carrying on a correfpon- 
 " dence with the SHAW ZADDA at the very time 
 <c our forces were acting againft: him in the field ; 
 " at the very time he is imputing it as a crime to 
 " the SUBAH, that he is engaged in the like cor- 
 ' refpondence; his own correfpondence he ac- 
 " knowledges; but that of the SUBAH is attended 
 " with no fuch proof: for the following is an ex- 
 ' tract of the anfwer from Colonel CAILLAUD," 
 dated 15 April 1760, from DIGNAGUR. - Pray, 
 
 Sir,
 
 [ 21 ] 
 
 Sir, how does this prove Mr. HOLWELL'S corre- 
 fpondence with the SHAW ZADDA ? He did not 
 write himfclf to COMGAAR KHAN ; he employed 
 an emiflary to him , if I thought I had fufficient 
 grounds for giving credit to the intelligence given 
 me of the Su PAH'S arzjee to the Prince, was it 
 not a duty ftriftly incumbent on my truft and fta- 
 tion to trace out the fafi^? And had you not moft 
 unfairly fupprefled the two laft paragraphs of my 
 letter of the yth of April to Colonel CAILLAUDJ 
 (notwnhftanding they immediately followed your 
 quotation) my juft caufes for not doubting of my 
 information, would have appeared moft manifeft. 
 But this would have made againft your infinua- 
 tions.-~-The paragraphs I allude to are as follow. 
 *' I inclofe you copy of a letter fent the OLD NA~ 
 " BOB by the Colonel, which I dictated to the 
 " MOONSHEE by his order a few days before his 
 " departure, on his being informed the NABOB 
 " intended fending a meflenger and petition to the 
 Prince." 
 
 " Whether this" (meaning the copy of the Su- 
 BAH*S arzjee) " is a real copy or not, I will not 
 " fay, though I firmly believe it true; that an 
 " arzjee has been fent is allowed, but if it con- 
 
 " tained
 
 [ 3 
 
 cs tained not matter detracting or injurious to us, 
 " why was it fent without being communicated to 
 " you by MHIRAN, or to HASTINGS by the 
 NABOB?" 
 
 In my letter to Colonel CAILLAUD of the pth 
 of April 1760, (page 30. of the id edition of 
 INDIA TRACTS, publifhe^l by BECKET, 1764,) I 
 conclude with telling him, " I have returned no 
 44 anfwer to the prince's phirmaund^ but have re- 
 " plied to COMGAAR'S letter, and intimated to 
 " him that I put no faith in copies, but that if 
 " he would fend me the SUBAH'S original arzjee y 
 " I mail then be able to form a judgment." 
 This, Sir, if your intentions had been fair, you 
 wou^d have referred the public to, as well as have 
 recited the purport of my letter to COMGAAR 
 KHAN, as tranfmitted to the fame gentleman, un- 
 der date the 24th of April 1 760, when you was 
 remarking from that very letter on fuch parts as 
 you thought made for your purpofe of detraction, 
 which, fmce you have omitted, I muft lay before 
 the public as it ftarids ; p. 35. of INDIA TRACTS, 
 (id edition) " That I had received the phirmaund, 
 " and pitied the Prince's unhappy fituation, and 
 u misfortunes of his royal houfe ; that he (CoM- 
 
 " GAAR
 
 * c GAAR KHAN) was no ftranger to the ties and 
 " obligations, which bound us to fupport MHIR. 
 ** JAFFIER ALI KHAN and his government; that 
 * copies amounted to no proof, but that if his 
 * e original arzdafht was fent me by the prince, 
 ** I mould then know what judgment to form 
 of it." 
 
 The extract of Colonel CAILLAUD'S anfwer of 
 the 1 5th of April (which you recite to invalidate 
 the proof of the SUBAH'S correfpondence with the 
 Prince, from the fentiments of Mr. HASTINGS) 
 is equally difingenuous with all the reft of your quo- 
 tations and remarks j or you would have fet forth 
 (or at leafl referred the public to) my arguments 
 in refutation of thofe fentiments in my letter to 
 Mr. Haftings of the 2Qth of April 1760, (p. 34.) 
 and even the circumftances of my mefiengers be- 
 ing plundered at SEARPOOR of their returning dif- 
 patches from the Prince, as mentioned in my letter 
 to Colonel CAILLAUD of the 24th of April, which 
 you allude to, page 1 1 , were to me a flrong cor- 
 roborating proof that the SUBAH'S arzjee to the 
 Prince was a truth, and no forgery, as pretended -, 
 but fuppofmg the whole of what you call my cor- 
 refpondence with the Prince was minutely known 
 
 to
 
 to the SifBAH, he could not, from the nature of 
 it, have any caufe or foundation for even furmif- 
 Ing, much lefs " being convinced that a revolution 
 w was then intended," (as you advance, page 12.) 
 unlefs from the felf-conviction of his own perfidy, 
 and apprehenfion of it's being diicovered.. On 
 the whole, Sir, I do aver, that nothing but a deep 
 and premeditated malevolence like yours, could 
 have given the turn to this tranfaction that you 
 have done ; a tranfaclion that bears not the leaft 
 femblance of my engaging in any correfpondence 
 with the SHAW ZADDA, that tended in any fhape 
 to injure the SUBAH or his government, (but the 
 very reverfe) or that fpoke my defign of a revolution, 
 which this charge is impotently brought forth to 
 fupport; my intelligence originally was from a 
 quarter I could not fufpect of deceiving me. My 
 duty to my employers, to myfelf, to the country, 
 the perilous fuuation of our troops, and of our 
 affairs in general, if fuch a wicked negotiation had 
 taken effect, were all caufes fufficiently alarm- 
 ing to flimnlate my enquiry into the truth of it ; 
 and this enquiry was profecuted with all the deli* 
 cacy refpecting the SUBAH'S character, that the 
 nature of the thing could pofiibly admit of. 
 
 From
 
 t *5 I 
 
 From Colonel CAILLAUD'S 2d paragraph of his 
 letter to me of the 1 5th of April, (you took care, 
 Sir, only to quote the firft) it appeared to me that 
 the SUB AH and his fon had at that time a double 
 game to play, either to make their peace with the 
 prince and facrifiee us, or by treachery to get their 
 lawful fovereign into their hands and murder him ; 
 I have a voucher by me that fully proves the 
 latter ; then why mould we have the leaft doubc 
 of his being capable of perpetrating the former ? 
 " One COMDARRY, duan to COMGAAR KHAN, 
 engaged by letter to the SUB AH to put the Prince 
 into his hands or cut him off, if the NABOB would 
 agree to give hirri a lack of rupees, and the com- 
 rnand of COMGAAR KHAN'S country; thefe propo- 
 fals being agreed to, they were tranfmitted to COM- 
 DARRY under the hands and feals of the two NA- 
 BOBS, the 1 6th of April 1760, at night, from 
 the camp atDiGNAGORE, when the two armies 
 were not far diftant from each other." This ne- 
 gotiation needs no comment -As I had an early 
 
 conviction of the badnefs of the SUBAH'S heart, it 
 was the duty of my poft ever to be upon my guard 
 againft him, and therefore it was, that I thought 
 it neceflary to give the precautionary inftructions 
 to Captain SPEARS, which you recite, page 9. as 
 evidence of my defigmd revolution. 
 
 E Yow
 
 You are pleafed to fay in page 12. " Mr. HOL- 
 " WELL puts the queftion more plainly to Mr. 
 " CAILLAUD." If you mean any thing by put- 
 ting the queftion, I fuppofe it is the queftion of a 
 revolution, although in truth the quotation you 
 make from my letter of the 24th of May, con- 
 tains no quellion at all, but ftates matters of fact 
 only ; and with your ufual difingenuity, you fink 
 the clofe of my preceding paragraph, by which it 
 would exprefsly appear, that in the quotation you 
 make o&Jingly mine, I was not only tranfmitting to 
 the Colonel my own fentiments, but the dictates 
 of the fecret Committee it is from thence evi- 
 dent it fuited your genius and intention better 
 to calumniate me alone : But fmce in your quo- 
 tation, page 12. you have thought proper to flop 
 in the middle of my paragraph, I will take it up 
 
 where you break off. " The more we fee of 
 
 " this government, the more is verified your own 
 ' juft obfervation at your firft knowledge of it, 
 " that it is rotten to the cere ; what then can be ex- 
 " pected from a fyftem rotten to the wry heart 
 
 of it? In every fenfe ruin mud attend the 
 
 " family, in Ipite of our efforts to fave them, and 
 
 " we mull as aflu redly be partakers in a lefs or 
 
 '* greater degree thereof ; to fay nothing of our 
 
 3 " drawing
 
 " drawing our fwords in fupport of fuch a fyftem, 
 " againft the legal, though unfortunate, Prince 
 " of the country, from whom every advantage 
 " and emolument we can wim for the Company, 
 
 " is tendered to us without limitation." - 
 
 Thefe, Sir, you kaow were the fentiments of the 
 Committee as well as my own -, therefore, why did 
 
 you give them to the public ai fingly mine ? 
 
 Here I confefs our defign and wi(h for the firft 
 time was to diveft this family of the government, 
 as the fupporting them longer became utterly in- 
 compatible with the well-being of the Company 
 and the country, as fumciendy appears from the 
 deep diftrefies of both, fet forth without the fmalleft 
 exaggeration. 
 
 Pages 13 and 14 of your pamphlet you make 
 a long quotation from Colonel CAILLAUD'S anfwer 
 (to mine of the 24th of May) which you think 
 moft exactly makes for your purpofe, becaufe it 
 contains the Colonel's reafons, and diffent to our 
 making a revolution in favour of any other perfon; 
 from a bare glance on thelaft quotation, from 
 my letter of the 24th of May, and the Colonel's 
 anfwer, it is moil evident he mifunderflood (I will 
 not fay designedly) the meaning and intentions of 
 E 2 the
 
 the felect committee, as there is not a word in the 
 letter he was anfwering, that bore the leaft intima- 
 tion of our having a wilh to transfer the Subahfhip 
 
 to any other perfon in the provinces. Had the 
 
 fpirit of honor and candor poflefled you, (of which 
 you give me caufe to fay you have not a grain) 
 you would have given the public my explanation 
 of this matter, as it ftands in my reply to the Co- 
 lonel, under date i4th June 1760, (page 51. 
 INDIA TRACTS) which is as follows, 
 
 " Had it ever been my wifh or intention to 
 ** have taken our fupport from the prefent NA- 
 ** BOB, and transfer it to any other, your arguments 
 " in that cafe would have all the weight with me 
 " they fo greatly merit -, but I think on the repre- 
 *' fentations in mine to you, and the copy of mine 
 " to Mr. AMYATT, you will fee that was not my 
 ** aim, for I concur minutely with your objections 
 " to fuch a ftep, and am very clear we mould not 
 " mend our fituatlon by a revolution in favour of 
 " any other, who would, as you truly obferve, 
 " prove as bad as the prefent, and probably worfe ; 
 " but my views for the Company went much 
 * higher. That the country will never be in a 
 ** fettled peaceful ftate, whilft this family is at the 
 
 hea4
 
 " head of it, is a pofition I lay down as inconteft- 
 * l able, and that until the country enjoys that 
 " ftate, the Company's affairs mull be daily ap- 
 ** preaching to certain ruin; I therefore judge we 
 * e could never be poffefTed of a more favourable 
 " opportunity to carry into execution what muft 
 " be done, I plainly fee, one time or other, (if 
 " the Company have ever a fecure footing in the 
 *' provinces) to wit, take this country into their 
 " own hands, limiting ourfelves to the province 
 " of Bengal only, or extending our views to thofe 
 " of BAHAAR and ORIXA, as on future debate 
 " might be thought molt eligible. The fituation 
 " of the Prince at prefent is fuch, that I am fure 
 " he would readily and heartily hearken to any 
 " overture from us, and without hefitation grant a 
 ' phirmaund, appointing the Company perpetual 
 " SUBAHS of the province i his two phirmaunds 
 " to me, as I before advifed you, offered a carte 
 " blanche for the Company, and I dare fay that 
 
 " to you was of the fame tenor." In a note to 
 
 page 10, you fay the Colonel denied his having 
 received any Phirmaund from the Prince : where 
 he denies this I know not ; I can only aver, fo he 
 advifed the feieA Committee, and promifed to 
 fend them a copy, which he never did} and it is 
 
 molt
 
 [ 30 ] 
 
 moffc improbable that I fhould refer to it, as I have 
 done in my reply of the i4th of June, if no 
 fuch advice had been lent. Although it was my 
 fmcere opinion that there was a neceility for diveft- 
 jng this family of the government, yet it is plain 
 I was not of opinion that they mould be abandon- 
 ed, how little foever they merited confideration ; 
 for in my laft mentioned letter, page 53, I medi- 
 tate a ftipulation, that MHIR JAFFIER and his fon 
 mould be preferred to feme confiderable fofts under 
 the Prince, in cafe we entered into a 'treaty with 
 him for the Subahdary of the provinces. All that 
 I think necefiary to add touching your long quota- 
 tion from Colonel CAILLAUD'S anfwer, is to refer 
 the public to the whole of my reply of the i4th 
 of June, and my remarks on the Colonel's letter, 
 (page 50 and 51 of INDIA TRACTS.) 
 
 Page 14 of your pamphlet, you are pleafed to 
 fay, with as little truth as manners, " July i, 
 " Mr. HOLWELL invents a new calumny againft the 
 * c SUB AH ft ill more improbable than any, viz, 
 * that he is negotiating for twenty-five thoufand 
 MORATTORS to enter his country." To clear 
 myfelf from this bafe afperfion, (which merits a 
 bar/her name) and to expofe your talent at flander, 
 
 muft
 
 [ 3 
 
 rriuft employ more lines than I at prefent wifh, 
 (could it be avoided) becaufe I am impatient to 
 come to your bungling duTedtion of my Memorial. 
 
 About the middle of June I firft received advice 
 from Mr. HASTINGS, the Company's Refident at 
 MORADBAAG, of a prevailing report, that the Su- 
 BAH was negotiating a treaty with the MAHARAT- 
 TORS, and on the 21 ft of the fame month I re- 
 ceived a letter from the above-mentioned gentle- 
 man, in which was the following paragraph. 
 
 ** The NABOB feems much elated by this victory, 
 a (over CUDDEIM HOSSEYN KHAN) but more fo by 
 " the late advices from DEHLI, which mention 
 <e that the ABDALLEE is obliged to retreat before 
 " the VIZIR, who has gained fome confiderable 
 " advantages over him : the- particulars have not 
 " come to my knowledge, but the NABO^ has 
 " received a letter from the VIZIR to this .purpofe, 
 " and has had the news confirmed to him. The 
 " VIZIR'S letter, I am told,, the NABOB has an- 
 " fwered, and requefled that 25 or 30,000 MAH- 
 <c RATTORS may be fent to his afliftance, in order 
 " to drive out the SHAW ZADD A ; and at the fame 
 " time MAUSALOODOE MHAMUT KHAN, and the 
 " two MAHRATTOR VAKILS have received their 
 
 " difmif-
 
 t 3* ] 
 
 " difmifTion, the firft to remain at CUTTACK'* 
 < e the latter to proceed to SITANAGUR, to forward 
 ' by their prefence this motion of the NABOB'S.'* 
 
 1 had but juft received this intelligence from 
 
 our refident, when a mefiage was fent me from 
 ROY DOOLUB, that he defired leave to pay me a 
 yifit; he came and brought RAJARAM HARKA- 
 RAH with him. The purpofe of this vifit was to 
 communicate feveral letters they had received the 
 preceding night from their agents at the SUBAH'S 
 Court, all relative to the flep the SUB AH had 
 taken of foliciting a body of MAHARATTOR troops 
 from the VIZIR, and the particular treaty he was 
 entering into with the MAHARATTORS in confe- 
 quence of his requefl to the VIZIR. Thefe in- 
 formations I laid before the members of the feleft 
 committee, and it was refolved that they mould 
 be tranfmitted to the abfent members, Meffrs. 
 AMVATT and CAILLAUD, the firft time I had oc- 
 cafiorTto addrefs them-, but that Mr. HASTINGS 
 fliould be wrote to immediately, which I did, in 
 the terms following. 
 
 June 30, 1760. 
 
 *' The NABOB'S whole conductput together leaves 
 " us little room to doubt the truth of your infor- 
 
 " ma-
 
 C 33 ] 
 
 " mation, (touching the MAHARATTOR treaty) his 
 44 fecreting from us his allies, (who at this very 
 " juncture are faving his throat from being cut) 
 44 a treaty of fuch importance to us, and his coun- 
 44 try, pretty plainly fhews his aim and refolu- 
 44 tion of being independant of us at any rate; 
 44 his fcheme of being fo by means of his friends 
 44 the Dutch, he finds there can be no firm 
 44 reliance on, but rather than not carry his point, 
 44 he will throw himfelf into th hands of a race 
 44 of people, to whom his country, government, 
 
 44 and family will in the end fall a facrifice. 
 
 44 Unlefs independence be his ruling motive to 
 44 this infatuated meafure, the world mnft be 
 44 at a lofs to divine what motive he can be fway- 
 44 ed by : the pretence of calling in 25 or 
 44 30,000 MAHARATTORS to drive the SHAW 
 44 ZADDA out of the country, is the mod bare- 
 44 faced one imaginable, and he might as well 
 44 openly declare his fecrec councils tend to 
 44 drive us out, as loon as he thinks he has the 
 44 power.'* 
 
 44 If the treaty with the MAHARATTORS has 
 
 44 any real foundation, it has proceeded, on one 
 
 44 hand, from the art and influence of MAUSAU- 
 
 F
 
 [ 34 ] 
 
 M LOODEE MAHMUT KHAN-, and on the other, 
 " from the weaknefs, cowardice, and fears of the 
 ** NABOB, which are ever kept awake by the ver- 
 " min about him, who inculcate, without ceaf- 
 " ing, that he has every thing to fear from us 
 " only ; however, be this as it may, it is highly 
 *' incumbent on you to get, if poflible, at the 
 " bottom of this treaty with the MAHARATTORS, 
 *< and give me, without bis of time, the moft au- 
 '* thentic evidence of the truth of it, which you 
 
 f< can pofiibly obtain : For 1 conceive our 
 
 *' very being depends upon fapping the founda- 
 " tion of this union, and upon preventing, or 
 *' overturning every fuperflructure that can be 
 " raifed from it. Was the NABOB'S aim at inde- 
 ? 6 pendence only, I thihk its confequence could 
 " not much affect us ; but if once thofe locufls 
 <c are introduced, and gain a footing, adieu to 
 * 6 the currency of trade, and then, what be- 
 " comes of the 'Company and Colony ? I am, 
 " &c." An occafion offered to tranfmit the 
 particulars to Mr. AMYATT the ift July, and 
 
 to the Colonel the gd, referring him to Mr. 
 
 AMVATT'S of the ift. Prior to the di r patch of 
 
 Mr. AMYATT'S, I had intelligence that the Su- 
 BAH had dropped his projected treaty, on hear- 
 ts
 
 [ 35 ] 
 
 Ing that I was informed of it, and the fupprefliori 
 of every overture towards it had been fo effectual, 
 that Mr. HASTINGS fubfequently wrote, " He 
 " could not finu-fufficient grounds for the treaty ;" 
 but the felicitation to the VIZIR remained incon- 
 teftable. What opinion the Public may form 
 of the transaction itfelf, is at this time of day im- 
 material ; it is fufficient for me, that I have ftated 
 known fafts, which prove, that when you char- 
 ged me with " inwnting this as a calumny upon 
 44 the SUBAH," you was guilty of a bafe afper- 
 fion, which a Gentleman ought to blufh at. 
 
 I come now, Sir, to your attack upon my Me- 
 morial, page 15, of your pamphlet, which you 
 have been pleafed, more than once, to ftigma- 
 tife, as either " falfe or mifreprefented in every in- 
 " Jinnee" with what regard to truth will prefently 
 appear. 
 
 The firft charge in my Memorial againft the 
 SUBAH is^ ," his attempt to evade the terms of 
 u the treaty :" (what impreflion of my Memorial 
 you have copied from, I know not ; but by falfe 
 pointing, and leaving out the monofyllable and t 
 you have made fhift to make me fpeak flat non- 
 F 2 fenfe
 
 t 36 ] 
 
 frnfe in part of my fecond paragraph. Your 
 
 quotation runs thus: " The conditions of the 
 
 " treaty could not be obtained from the SUB AH, 
 " without, in a manner, being extorted from him 
 ; by a thoufand miffs and evafions -, &c." where- 
 as, the impreflion before me (Ind. Tr. p. 8.) 
 runs thus: ct The conditions of the treaty could 
 " not be obtained from the SUBAH, without, in 
 " a manner, being extorted from him , and by a 
 " thoufand Ihifts and evafions, &c." 
 
 Your remark on this charge allows it in fact ; 
 for you fay, " that the SUBAH would willingly 
 " have evaded the payment of a million fterling." 
 Was this a proof of his honefty, even to wifh to 
 evade a condition of the treaty he had moft fo- 
 lemnly concluded ? You add, " he faithfully com- 
 " plied with his treaty ;" when ? You anfwer 
 
 yourfelf, when he found Colonel Clive's fpirit 
 
 was not to be trifled with, nor impofed upon ; fo 
 that you are forced to acknowlege, that one of my 
 injiances, at leaft, is neither falfe nor mifreprefented : 
 but to fiiow, Sir, that your own recital bears 
 harder upon your friend JAFFIER than mine, you 
 will pleafe to revert to your production before me, 
 p. 3 and 4, where you fay, " ROYDULLUB was 
 
 a GEN-
 
 { 37 3 
 
 tc a GENTOO or native INDIAN, who had been 
 *' in high employment under SURAJAH DOWLA, 
 " and was the only one in the fee ret of MEER 
 " JAFFIER'S engagements to us, and in confe- 
 " quence thereof, made very high terms with 
 *' his mafter, demanding for himfelf and his bro- 
 " thers all the higheft offices of the flate." And a 
 very natural confequence it was, and what one trai- 
 tor might expect from another. Don't you know, 
 Sir, that ROYDULLUB was not the only one in the 
 fecret ? Don't you alfo know that there was one 
 more in the fecret, /W^OMYCHUND, whofe treat- 
 ment, on that occalion, caufed the deprivation of his 
 fenfes and death ? I beg leave to flep over the para- 
 graph of your own importance (p. 3.) and proceed 
 to the next, where you own, that " the SUBAH'S 
 " firft object was, how to delay or evade the pay- 
 " ment of the fums ftipulated by treaty for the 
 " Company, half of which was paid, and the re- 
 " mainder to be difcharged in the courfe of three 
 " years. In this important circumftance, ROY- 
 " DULLUB manifefted fo evident a partiality to the 
 " Company, as, together with the exorbitant 
 cc power lodged in his hands, from the many em- 
 " ployments, civil and military, with which he 
 " and his family were intrufted, gave rife to a jea- 
 
 " loufy 

 
 t 38 } 
 
 " Joufy which foon produced a crifis, &c." A 
 crifis indeed ! for we (hatched him and his family 
 out of the hands of your monfter, juft as the 
 
 fword was at their throats. Have I any where 
 
 exhibited fo deteftable a picture of your hero as 
 you yourfelf have in that paragraph ? The delay 
 or evafion of the payment (the mod preffing and 
 effcntial article of the treaty) you fay, was hisfirft 
 objefi. 
 
 The offices poflefied by ROYDULLUB, he enjoyed 
 too by treaty, as being a partaker in the SUBAH'S 
 treafon againft his matter, and it ought to have 
 been fcrnpuloufly obferved (for traitors and rogues 
 have a law to themfelves;) but no fconer did ROY- 
 DULLUB manifeft a partiality for the Company, than 
 
 he was to be taken off. Plow prevalent is truth ! 
 
 How came you, Sir, in this Jingle inflame, fponta- 
 neoufly and unawares, to fuffer it to drop from 
 your pen ? 
 
 Your next attack is on the 3^ and 4th para- 
 graphs of my Memorial, where I afTert, " the 
 " officers of the revenues became our implacable 
 * enemies on account of the Tunkas (or affign- 
 " ment of the Lands) and that confequently a 
 
 party
 
 [ 39 ] 
 
 * { party was raifed.at the DURBAR, headed by 
 *' MHIRAN the SUBAH'S fon, and RAJAH RAAGEE 
 
 *- BULLOB, &c." To the firft part of my af- 
 
 fertions, ^our remark, p. 16, fays, " This is 
 *' without the leaft foundation." To the latter 
 part you aver, tf This is fo very far from being 
 " true, that this RAJABULLOB did, about this 
 *' time, propofe to Colonel Clive the depofing 
 c< MEER JAFFIER in favour of SURAJAH Dow- 
 *' LA'S brother." That the propofal was made, I 
 will not conteft , becaufe I know the man who pro- 
 poled it was capable of acting any double parr, 
 however villainous ; but pray, how does this prove 
 {hat my aflertion againft him and MHJRAN was 
 
 far from true? Here, Sir, you was not aware, 
 
 that at the time you think you are pointing your 
 envenom'd fhafts againft me only, you are charg- 
 ing your friend and patron, Colonel Clive, and 
 his whole BENGAL Council of the year 1760, as 
 well as the whole Court of Directors of the year 
 1764, with uttering and circulating the groffeft 
 falmoods. The preamble of the Memorial tranf- 
 mitted to the Court of Directors by Governor Clive 
 and Council, of the difpute with the Dutch at the 
 Jatter end of the ytar 1759, Hand in nearly the 
 
 words following : " About this time twelve 
 
 2 * : months
 
 [ 40 ] 
 
 4t months (about October or November 1758) 
 " a prevailing 'party at the NIZAM JAFFIER. ALI 
 ".KHAN'S DURBAR, headed by MHIRAN bis fon, 
 " had prejudiced him to look with an evil and 
 " jealous eye on the power and influence of the 
 " ENGLISH in the provinces, and taught him to 
 " think and look upon himfelf as a cypher, bear- 
 ' ing the name of SUB AH only! From fubfe- 
 " quent concurring circumilances, it muft have 
 *' been at that period, and from this caufe, that a 
 ** private negotiation was fet on foot between the 
 " NIZAM and the DUTCH -, that the latter mould 
 " bring a military force into the provinces to join 
 " the former, and balance our power and fway. 
 e The DUTCH, ftimulated by envy, &c." The 
 Company's printed Memorial to the King, figned 
 gd February, 1762, after fpecifying the eftablim- 
 ment of the SUBAH, takes up the matter and 
 fenfe of the fore-recited preamble, but in other 
 words,' as follows (p. 9.) 
 
 " After all this, and when the peace of the 
 " country was re-eftab!i(hed, and the NIZAM 
 " quietly fettled in that ftation, fom6 of the Dutch 
 " faflory, (for we do not mean to impute to all, 
 " what we believe many difapproved) envying 
 
 " die
 
 " the reputation and influence of the ENGLISH 
 " at the NIZAM'S Court, and hoping to find their 
 " private account, in reviving the confiifion from 
 " which thofe provinces had been fo happily ex- 
 " tricated, officiated with others of the like difpqfi- 
 " tion^ members of the NIZAM'S Durbar^ andparti- 
 *' cularly with COJA WAZEED, a confiderable mer- 
 " chant, whofe enmity to the ENGLISH will 
 " hereafter be accounted for, endeavoured to 
 " prejudice the NIZAM and his fon, to look with 
 t; an evil and jealous eye on the ENGLISH, infmuat- 
 " ing that be was a cypher ', bearing the name of 
 " SUB AH only* and that the ENGLISH were aim- 
 " ing to be SUBAHS of the country, in breach of 
 " their treaty with him." 
 
 " Thefe infmuations, groundlefs as they were* 
 " (fince had the ENGLISH the defign imputed to 
 " them, what hindered them from carrying it 
 " into execution, inftead of fupporting the NIZAM 
 " in raifing himfelf to that dignity ?) had at length, 
 " being often repeated, fo much effect, that they 
 " inclined him to lifteh to their propofals; one 
 " of which was, that the DUTCH were to bring 
 ' v - into the province a military force to join bis 9 and 
 ** curb a power, which was reprefented as fo dan- 
 G
 
 [ 42 ] 
 
 " gerous. In confequence of this prfoate negctia- 
 " tion, we have reafon to believe difpatches were 
 " forwarded from CHINSURA to BATAVIA, about 
 ** the latter end of the year 1758, which pro- 
 -*< duced the armament in queftion." 
 
 (I have made, you fee, my quotations from the 
 two Memorials extend beyond the prefent matter, 
 to avoid the necefiity of quoting from them again, 
 when I come to one of your fublequent remarks.) 
 
 When the 3d and 4th paragraphs of my Me- 
 morial are compared by the circle of your own ac- 
 quaintance p , and the Public, with that from Go- 
 vernor CLIVE and his Council, and that prefented 
 by the Court of Directors, in the Name of the 
 Company, to the King, where, Sir, will you hid$ 
 yourfelf from mame ? What, Sir ! let your arrows 
 fly from the dark Ihades of ignorance and malice, 
 and wound and arraign the veracity of your belt 
 friends ! Lord CLIVE ! and many of the refpect* 
 able members of the prefent Court of Direfiors, 
 who put their hands to the Memorial to the 
 King-, and for whom you are now an avowed 
 champion ! 
 
 You
 
 [ 43 3 
 
 You next attempt, p. 16 and 17, to invalidate 
 my charge againft the SUBAH for aflaffinating of 
 COJA HADDEE and COSSIM ALI KHAN in 1758, 
 and other officers known to be attached to the 
 intereft of the ENGLISH ; (here let it be remem- 
 bered, that thefe are the only afTaffinations that I 
 produced in my Memorial) to refute thefe, or n- 
 ther to apologize for them, you fay, p. 16, in 
 your Remarks," The men here faid to be put 
 " to death for their attachment to us, had no 
 < 4 fort of connection with us;" not immediately, 
 I grant , but their attachment to our intereft was 
 known and avowed : caufe enough, witnefs ROY^- 
 
 DULLUB. Your iirft apology for the SUBAH'S 
 
 murder of the firft named of thefe officers is, 
 that " a month or two before his death, he en- 
 " gaged in a project to introduce the FRENCH 
 " by the means of one MUSTAPHA, &c." This 
 feems calculated, not only to extenuate the mur- 
 der, but appears to be introduced chiefly to af- 
 ford matter of fiander againft Mr. VANSITTART, 
 who, you fay, " employed this MUSTAPHA as 
 tc his agent for his inland trade ;" for immediately 
 after, you contradict your firft apology, and fay, 
 " The real caufe of the SUBA'S difpleafure was, 
 < 6 that they, with eleven others, fet their hands 
 G 2 "to
 
 [ 44 ] 
 
 ** to a paper mutually to fupport each other," 
 (againft the known tyranny and~cruelty of the fa- 
 ther and fon, I fuppofe, if any fuch compact 
 pr aflbciation did really exift-,) although it was 
 known to the world thefe were only pretences; 
 the true caufes of their death were the SUBAH'S 
 jealoufy of their declared attachment to us, and 
 a greedy thirft after their pofiefiions : the fame 
 might juflly have been faid regarding the mur- 
 ders of ABDEL ONAB KHAN, and YAR MAHO- 
 MET, which I Ihonld have particularized in my 
 Memorial, if it had been my intention to in- 
 Bame Mr. VANSITTART againft the SUBAH'S and 
 MH IRAN'S crimes, as thefe murders were rather 
 
 more atrocious and cruel than the others. The 
 
 former was way-laid, and aflaflinated by the Su- 
 P.AH'S order, on the ROM N AH, on pretence of a 
 
 confpiracy in March 1760. The latter was cut 
 
 to pieces in the prcfence of MHIRAN, in April 
 3760, becaufe he had been a favourite of SURA- 
 JUD DOWLA, and was fuppofsd to have large pof- 
 fefllons. 
 
 Page 17' of your remarks, after having dif- 
 ingenuoufly feparated my 5th paragraph, and 
 brought down pare of it to the bottom of your 
 
 page,
 
 [ 45 ] 
 
 page, you begin a new paragraph, which alters 
 my fenfe ; you imply an afiertion for me which 
 I never meant, and then profoundly fay, " This 
 " is void of all truth ; GOLOMSHAW was no re- 
 " lation of the SUBAH'S; they were both offi- 
 " cers in his fervice, and revolted to the SHAW 
 
 " ZADDA." When my paragraph is connected 
 
 together, it runs thus : " To this purpofe (of in- 
 " dependence) COJA HAD DEE, and COSSIM ALI 
 " KHAN ift and 2d BUXY, were aflaflinated in No- 
 " vember and December 1 758, after many attempts 
 *' on the perfons of RHEIM KHAN, and GOLAM 
 " SHAW his uncle and brother; they were ob- 
 " liged to feek an afylum with the SHAW ZADDA." 
 Whofe uncle and brother could I poflibly mean ? 
 COSSIM ALI KHAN was the lad perfon named ; 
 and therefore, if you had not defignedly mangled 
 my paragraph, it muft plainly read, RHEIM KHAN 
 was uncle to COSSIM ALI, and GOLAM SHAW was 
 his brother; for I know as well as you that he 
 
 was np relation to the SUBAH. Fy ! Sir, thefe 
 
 are little arts unworthy a man. 
 
 In your remark upon my anertion, " tbat'Ro-y- 
 " DULLOE and bis four brothers were profcribed" you 
 give me and the public a very ftriking proof of 
 
 the
 
 [ 46 ] 
 
 the regard you have for truth $ people that de- 
 light in ftory-telling, they lay, ought to have good 
 memories. Page 18, of your Remarks^ you fay, 
 " This profcriptipn was nothing ;;wr^thandifmiffing 
 " them from their employments, and they are 
 * 6 all alive at this time," Pleafe, Sir, to retura 
 back to the 4th page of this correct and authentic 
 piece of yours, and fee what words follow your 
 crijisi " And the Sv UAH'S forces were on the point 
 " of attacking him (ROYDULLOB) when we finding 
 " the SUB AH could not be reconciled to him con- 
 " formable to our agreement, took him under 
 " our protection, and fent him to CALCUTTA. 'W 
 Here it is evident from your own words, that 
 had we not moft critically ftept in, ROYDULLUB 
 and his brothers would have been difmijjed from 
 
 their employments with a vengeance ! Why, Sir, 
 
 would you thus wantonly provoke me to the ne- 
 cefTity of expofing you ? 
 
 Your next remark (page 18) regards OMHIR 
 BEG KHAN : " This man (you fay) quitted the 
 *' country becaufe he had no confidence in any one 
 " but Lord CLIVE," in contradiction to my af- 
 fertion, that nothing could have preferred him (for 
 his moft remarkable attachment to the Englifh) but 
 
 his
 
 [ 47 1 
 
 his engaging his word to quit the kingdom. This 
 I know, that Governor CLIVE was, for fome days 
 before OMHIR BEG KHAN'S arrival in CALCUTTA, 
 in hourly expectation of hearing that he was cut off 
 by MHIR AN. To the reafon for his fafety given in 
 my memorial, I believe I might have added the 
 SOUBAH'S dread of Colonel CLIVE'S fevere reient- 
 ment; for the Colonel highly regarded OMHIR BEG, 
 as did every man in the fettlement who had any 
 knowledge of him : I attended the governor on a 
 vifit to him a few days before he embarked i he 
 was then in a miferable ftate of health, and molt 
 pathetically lamented the necefllty he was reduced 
 to, and that he was not permitted quietly to em- 
 brace a death that was inevitable from the nature of 
 his difeafe. 
 
 I come now, Sir, (page 18 and 19) to your la- 
 boured apology for the Sou BAH, againft my charge 
 of his " introducing by fecret negociation the 
 " Dutch armament:" but why mould I arrogate 
 fo much to myfelf as to call it my charge ? it is the 
 charge of Governor CLIVE and his council ; it is 
 the charge of the court of Directors of the year 
 1764, founded on the honour, faith, and veracity 
 of Governor CLIVE and his council, who muft be 
 deemed the only, and competent judges of the 
 4 tranfection.
 
 [ 48 ] 
 
 tranfaction. You fay, at the beginning of your 
 
 apology, " That the whole of this' charge amounts 
 " to no more than a fufpicion, &c." Is it pofiible 
 to believe that Governor CLIVE and his council 
 would exhibit a charge of this nature on fufpicion 
 only ? or that the Company, in their memorial to 
 the King, would have taken it up upon no better 
 evidence ? Does not Mr. BISDOM'S letter to the 
 SUB AH (Appendix, N 6. page 55.) exprefsly fay, 
 " We fent for thefaid army in confequence of your di- 
 " reftions-" let me add Lord CLIVE'S confirmation 
 of the company's memorial in his Lordfhip's own 
 words; (Appendix, N 13. page 71.) " This 
 " is to certify, that 1 have carefully perufed the an-. 
 *' nexed memorial of the ENGLISH EAST INDIA 
 " Company to his Majefty, and do fofannfy declare, 
 " that fuch of the fafts therein mentioned as I was 
 c< any ways concerned in, are truly ftated, and that 
 " I verily believe the reft to be fo. 
 
 " CLIVE." 
 
 Here I might repeat the unanfwerable argu- 
 ments I had occafion to publilh before, in defence 
 of this charge againft the SUBAH, but fhall con- 
 tent myfelf with refering to them only (page 102. 
 
 of Ind. Tr.) The whole of your apology 
 
 , . (founded
 
 t 49 J 
 
 (founded on the conjectural motives that led the 
 SUB AH to introduce another EUROPEAN force tof 
 oppofe ours, that he might preferve the balance of 
 power in his own hands) any one but yourfelf 
 would furely blufh to own ; could he " have ex- 
 " preffed a defire" of this kind, without a flagrant 
 breach of the treaty fubfifting between us ? but hd 
 riot only expreffed^ but carried his defire into execu- 
 tion. ^ You fay, (page 19.) " that when the 
 * c DUTCH armament did arrive, he aided the molt 
 " honourable part imaginable.** You chufe not 
 to account for this change, therefore I will, and 
 ta"ke the words of the Company's memorial to the 1 
 King (page 9.) After fpeaking of the advance of 
 the SHAW Z ADD A with a numerous army early in 
 the year 1759, it goes on, " whereupon Governor 
 " CLIVE, not regarding, though well apprifed of 
 " the ingratitude with which the NIZAM was half 
 " inclined to return the obligations conferred on 
 " him, readily marched to PATNA in his defence, 
 u to which he owed his deliverance from a danger 
 " that rriuft otTierwife have overwhelmed him. 
 <d This was fuch an mftance of fidelity and attach- 
 " ment on the part of the ENGLISH, as made him 
 * much ajhamed of having liftened to any infmua- 
 " tions to the contrary." Here, Sir, for the firft 
 H time,
 
 f 50 ] 
 
 time 3 I will make a concefiion to y.ou ; that there 
 was a manifeft change in the mind of the SUBAH 
 between the period he ftipulated for the introduc- 
 tion of the DUTCH armament, and that of their 
 arrival, I will mod readily acknowledge. Con- 
 fcious ingratitude ftared him in the face.! Ven- 
 geance for breach of his folemn treaty with us, 
 hung over him ! and I dare fay,, he would have 
 given half his S.ubafnip could he have recalled 
 the engagements he had entered into the preceding 
 year : that was impofiible , ib he had nothing left 
 for it, but to temporife between the two powers, 
 and deceive them both if he could. 
 
 You add at the clofe of your remark (page 19.) 
 that " when the DUTCH commenced hoftilities, hs 
 " fent his fon with a body of forces to join us ; " 
 but you know, Sir, they never. did join us, and you 
 know the reafon why they did nor, but that you 
 ch ufe to fupprefs: This reafon is manifeiled in 
 Governor CLIVE'S and his council's memorial, in 
 nearly the following terms j " On this event (the 
 ** DUTCH commencing hoftilities) we concluded 
 " with the greateft probability, that the DUTCH 
 " had received intelligence of a rupture between* 
 " them and us in EUROPE, or that they were jure 
 
 " of
 
 [ 51 ] 
 
 " of the NIZAM'J joining them, or of his ftanding 
 " muter at haft , and baling tie utmcjl rcafcn to fuf- 
 " peel the NIZAM'J whole conduft^ Governor CLIVE 
 " advifed him of the ac~h of violence the DUTCH 
 " had committed below, adding, that as they had 
 " commenced actual war againft us, he Ihould 
 " judge the quarrel now fubfifted between them 
 C{ and us only, deiiring he would defift from fend- 
 " ing his fon or any part of his army to our affifl- 
 *' ance." Thus in is clear, Governor CLIVE 
 thought that neither the NIZAM, nor his fon, nor 
 his troops, were at that critical juncture to be 
 trufted ; and thefe were likevvife the ientiments of 
 his whole council. 
 
 Page 20 contains only one remark of fulfome 
 adulation, the merit of which (if there is any merit 
 in it) is not your own j " Lord CLIVK'S rule of con- 
 " duel: was, a rigid regard to all engagements." This 
 profound anecdote, is obvioufly advanced as a con- 
 trad to my conduct, and arofe from the following 
 fhort paragraph of my memorial, INDIA TRACTS, 
 page 10. 
 
 " The Prince more than once wrote to the Co- 
 
 " lonel, offering any terms for the Company and 
 
 * 4 himfelf, on conditions the ENGLISH would quit 
 
 H 2 thfc
 
 [ 5* 1 
 
 " thcSuBAH, and join his arms ; bu{ the Colone 
 " chinking it incompatible with our alliance^ gave 
 " the Prince no encouragement." Here I might 
 very juftly have added, that it was alfo incompatible 
 with the recent very high obligations the Colonel 
 lay under to the SUBAH'S generofity, otherwife his 
 conduct appears unaccountable that he did not de- 
 pofe the SUB AH after the campaign in 1759, upon 
 the full conviction he owns he had of his treachery 
 and breach of the treaty in the negotiation for the 
 DUTCH armament. 
 
 I have now followed you, Sir, through all your 
 dirt and rubbifh, to your hft formal attack, where 
 you refume the refutation of my charge of the afiafil- 
 natipns, fupported, as you think, by the foreign auxi- 
 liary force of Lord OLIVE'S letter and certificate of 
 fomeof thofe people being Hill alive: however, the 
 murders of COJAH HADDEF, COSSJM ALI KHAN ? 
 ABDEL OHAB KHAN, and YAR MAHOMET, as well 
 as the intended afiafli nation of ROYDULLUB, are 
 flill uncontefted j thefe continue fufficient vouchers 
 of the SUEAH'S and his fon's cruelties, and there 
 is no certificare of the firil named four being 
 
 alive pretended as yet. Let us fee, upon a 
 
 fair difcuffion, how far your foreign aid will 
 afifecl: us : jn order to which, I will beg leave 
 to tranfcribe the part of his Lordfhip's letter 
 
 which
 
 [ 53 ] 
 
 ivhich you have given us, page 23. " I de- 
 " fire it may be known, for the honour of JAFFIEB^ 
 ALI KHAN, that the murders afcribed to him in 
 Mr. HOLWELL'S memorial^ are cruel afperfiom^ and 
 void of all truth, for they are all now living, except 
 the tlvo lafti who were put to death by MHIRAN, 
 unknown to his father." If this letter is genuine, 
 {of which, in compliment to his Lordfhip, I ccn- 
 fefs fome doubt) it is at leaft fomething difficult to 
 be underflood, although the general tendency of it 
 is plain enough ; but what does his Lordfliip mean 
 when he excepts the two loft put to death by MHI- 
 RAN? Mr. HOLWELL'S memorial contains but a 
 charge of two murders jirft and laft, and thofe you 
 have murdered as well as I, and affigned the pre- 
 tended caufes for their being put to death -, or does 
 his Lordfhip mean ABDEL OHAB KHAN and YAR 
 MAHOMET? If fo, between you both you have 
 authenticated my lilt of four afTafTi nations : or per- 
 haps he means the two laft qf my lift, following Mr. 
 HASTINGS'S letter to me, of the 2ift June, (Ind. 
 Tr. zd Ed. page 41.) if fo, we have two more 
 to add to the affaffination-account authenticated. 
 In truth, as his Lordfhip's very ill founded attack 
 on my character is confined folely to my memorial^ I 
 am utterly at a lofs to comprehend him ; but you, 
 Sir, I can perfectly comprehend, and plainly fee 
 you will ftick at nothing to fatiate your little ma- 
 2 lice.
 
 [ 54 ] 
 
 lice. In your remarks, page 22. you think proper, 
 to give the laft two or three lines of Mr. H AS- 
 TIN cs's letter jnft mentioned, and fupprefs all the 
 foregoing parts as well as my ihort letter that oc- 
 cafioned that reply, becaufe you plainly faw they 
 both contained matter tending to my j unification, 
 and flattered yourfelf they might not be adverted 
 to by the, public ; this obliges me to tranfcribe 
 them here. 
 
 . To MR. WARREN HASTINGS, 
 
 "SIR, 13 June, 1760. 
 
 " By exprefs y eft er day from DACCA we have ad^ 
 c vice, that the SUB AH had taken off ALIVERDY'S 
 
 c and SHAW AMET KHAN'S BEGUMS. He fent 
 
 " a JEMMAUTDAAR and 100 horfe, with orders 
 * c tojESSuRAUT KHAN (then NABOB of DACCA) 
 * c to carry this bloody fcheme into execution, with 
 ' feparate orders to the JEMMAUTDAAR, in cafe 
 JESSUR AUT KHAN refufed obedience : he refufed 
 " acting any part in the tragedy, and left it to the 
 ** other, who carried them out by night about two 
 " miles above the city in a boat, tied weights to 
 '* their legs, and throwed them overboard : they 
 " ftruggled for fome time, and held by the gun- 
 ** wal of the boat, but by ftrokes on their heads 
 
 " with
 
 [ 55 ] 
 
 " with latties (ftaves) and cutting their hands, they 
 " funk. Thefe are the acts of the tyger we ar$ 
 " fupporting and fighting for. I am, Sir, &c." 
 
 To this letter Mr. HASTINGS returned the fol- 
 lowing anfwer, dated MORADBOUGH, 2iftjune, 
 1760, fix days at lead after the receipt of mine. 
 
 SIR, 
 
 " The relation tranfmitted to me, in your letter 
 " of the i ^th, of the murder of the two BEGUMS, 
 " filled me with horror and aftonimment i but how 
 " were thofe fenfations increafed, when I was told 
 " that not only the two wretched fufferers abovemex- 
 " tionedy but the whole, family, to the number of nine 
 " perfons, had undergone the fame fate. I will not 
 " mention their names until I have undoubted 
 "proofs of the truth of my intelligence, which I 
 " wilh (though I cannot expect it) I may find not 
 " fo bad at laft as is rtprefented to me. How this 
 *.' circumflance efcaped my knowledge, I know 
 44 not j it was not indeed an event to be learned 
 " from inquiry ; and poffibly the infamy of the 
 " fad might have made mv friends who were in 
 " the fecret neglecl: to fpeak to me on a fubjecl, 
 ** which, from our particular connections with the 
 
 " NABOB,
 
 [ 56 ] 
 
 " NABOB, and his intire dependence on our power, 
 " could not but refieR dijhbnour on the ENGLISH name t 
 " I have hitherto been generally an advocate for the 
 " NABOB, whofe extcrfwns and oppreffons, I irrr 
 <c puted to the neceflity of the times, and Want 
 " of oeconomy in his revenues ; but if, &c/> 
 The fpirited, juft, and pathetic conclufion of the 
 paragraph, you have already given. I fet forth, 
 page 41. before referred to, that " The advices fent 
 " from DACCA, touching thefe murders, were dif- 
 *' patched immediately on the rumour of the deed, 
 " and from thence, as ufual, imperfect ; fubfequent 
 "' advices brought the true ftate of the execution 
 " as follows : 
 
 <{ GOSSETA BEGUM, widow of SHAW AMET 
 * JUNG f 
 
 " EMN T A BEGUM, mother to SURAJAH DOWLA, 
 '.' 'and widow to GEYNDE AMET : 
 
 * MORAD DOWLA KHAN, the fon of PATSHA 
 4t KOOLY KHAN, adopted fon of SHAW AMET 
 " JUNG : 
 
 " LUTSEN NESSA BEGUM, widow of SURAJAH 
 " DOWLA ; 
 
 *' Her infant daughter, by SURAJAH DOWLA." 
 
 The
 
 [ 57 ] 
 
 The advices from DACCA faid, thefe perifhec! 
 With about twenty of their women. Mr. VAN- 
 SI TTART'S intelligence fays, about feventy. Mn 
 HASTINGS'S information fays, nine perfons, being 
 the whole of the family, without Jpecifying the 
 number of the inferior women ; but all accounts 
 agreed, that ALIVERDI'S BEGUM efcaped the maf- 
 facre of her whole family. 
 
 Whether this charge laid again'ft the SUBAH be 
 true or falfe, I Have made it fufficiently manifeft 
 it came, from DACCA by exprefs from our gentle- 
 men there refident, on the very fcene of action 
 the words of my letter to Mr. HASTINGS minutely 
 correfponded: with the terms of the exprefs, with- 
 out the leaft exaggeration ; the fubfequent advices 
 rom DACCA corifirme'd their former intelligence, 1 
 and forwarded particulars. Mr. HASTINGS replies 
 fix days after the receipt of mine ; and upon en- 
 quiry is informed, the number of the family mur- 
 dered exceeds the DACCA advices :~If my vera- 
 city is doubted, regarding the exprefs from DAC- 
 CA, I appeal to WILLIAM ^ACQUIRE, Efqj then 
 a member of the Select Committee, and to CUL- 
 LING SMITH, Efq; then fecretary to the Seled 
 Committee, both now in ENGLAND, to declare 
 whether thofe advices did, or did not arrive front
 
 about the time* and to the purpofe which 
 J have alleged. Indeed die ranked of my ene- 
 mies would hardly believe I coujd be fo weak, as 
 well as wicked, to tell Mr. HASTINGS, then in the 
 public fituation of the Company** Reftdent, That 
 " By exprefs yefterday from DACCA, we have ad- 
 " vice, &c" if no fuch exprefs and advice had 
 heeri received. 
 
 On the whole I fay, that fuppofing the charge 
 againft the SUBAH " t ruel afperfions, and void of all 
 ' truth? they were no afperfions of mine ; as his 
 Lordfhip would have found, had he (as in equity 
 and honour bound, before he made fo free with 
 any Gentleman's character) traced this charge to 
 its rife.- I allow his Lordfhip has powerful and 
 interefting motives for defending " the honour of JAF* 
 " FIER ALY KHAN ; n but motives of another kind, 
 motives of impartial juftice, mould have checked 
 his zeal hi the prefent inftance : for as the fact 
 ftands, in place of my having afperfed the Str-; 
 BAH, his Lordfhip has, without any real caufe or 
 foundation, loaded me with a cruel afperfion^ void 
 of all truth, if (as I faid before) the paragraph 
 you give the Public from his Lordfhip's letter be 
 genuine. 
 
 - I have
 
 [ 59 1 
 
 I 'have hitherto proceeded on the fuppofition 
 that this charge againft the SOUBAH is falfe, but I 
 will now beg leave to lay before the Public my 
 reafons for ftill believing it true. In the firft place, 
 k can hardly be conceived, that a charge fhould 
 be fo minutely and circumftantially laid by gentle- 
 men on the fpot, without foundation. Secondly, 
 the charge (heavy and cruel as it was, if not true) 
 was never contradicted, during my flay in INDIA, 
 by any advices from DACCA or elfewhere; nor 
 lince, that I have heard, until very lateJy. 
 Thirdly, For that I find Lord CLIVE founds hjs 
 judgment and cenfure upon the addrefs to him of 
 the loth December, 1765, and the lift annexed 
 to it, page 24 and 25 of your pamphlet ; neither 
 of which invalidates the charge, but only fhews 
 his Lordfhip was deceived by here and there the 
 fimilarity of names : but one in the lift corre- 
 fponds with the names tranfmitted from DACCA, 
 viz. MORAUD UL DOWLA, who call's himfelf the 
 fon of JEER AM UL DOWLA ; whereas the MORAP 
 DOWLA, mentioned in the DACCA exprefs, was 
 inconteftably the fon of PATSHA KOOLE-E KHAN. 
 Neither the addrefs or lift make any mention of 
 GOSSETA BEGUM, widow of SHAW AMET JUNG; 
 nor of EMN'A BEGUM, the mother of SURAJAH 
 DQWLA. The widow of ALIVERDY may be liv-
 
 [ 60 ] 
 
 i 
 
 ing, me is faid to have efcaped the flaughter. ' 
 The wife and daughter of SURAJAH DOWLA have 
 a place in the addrefs, by the name of Snook A 
 BOLL A CAWN ; whereas the DACCA advices calf 
 her LUTSEN NESSA BEGUM : SURAJAH DOWLA 
 probably had two wives and two daughters, which 
 reconciles the difference. The real faft appears to- 
 be this, that almoft all the lift of prifohers re- 
 leafed by his Lordfhip are the family of SUJAH 
 DOWLA and SIRFERAZ KHAN, who we all kn6w 
 were imprifoned many years at DACCA, and not 
 the family of ALIVERDY KHAN, charged by the 
 advices to have been cutoff by JAFFIER KHAN, 
 in June 1760^ but be they one of other, or 
 partly each, and be the charge againft the Su- 
 BAH true or falfe, it affefts not me in any fhape, 
 as I have demonftrably proved. 
 
 Here I muft remark, that although you fet out 
 with impeaching my whole Memorial of falfehood 
 or mifreprefentaiion in every injlance, yet you think 
 proper to drop it before you have gone through 
 one third-, for this I believe you had very co- 
 gent reafons. The remainder of it you make 
 Ihort work with; and being determined to clofe 
 with as little good breeding as you began, you 
 
 fay.
 
 t 6' 3, 
 
 ay, page 26. " The reft of this Memorial needs 
 I' no comment; but here I fhall obferve, that 
 P moft of what Mr. HOLWELL has publifhed, is 
 " entitled to equal credit with this Memorial." 
 That you intended me no compliment in this con- 
 clufion, is pretty plain ; but you inadvertently pay 
 me the higheft you could pofiibly devife : for as I 
 Juve generally, in my Anfwer to the EAST INDIA 
 OBSERVER, N q 6. and minutely here, detected, ex- 
 pofed, and refuted, beyond the reach of cavil, all 
 your ihameful fuperficial attacks and infmuations 
 againft my Memorial, I will not doubt, but from 
 the candor of the Public, and even from the circle 
 'of your own acquaintance^ I mall be entitled to an 
 equal degree of credit regarding my other publi- 
 cations ; I defire it only in proportion as I have fup- 
 ported (in every inftance) my veracity in that of my 
 Memorial. 
 
 I now, Sir, take my leave of you aflfuring 
 
 you moft faithfully, that be your provocations in 
 future what they will, I mall never more think 
 you worth my notice,' in tbis way, at leaft. 
 
 J. Z. HOLWELL. 
 
 BEENMAMjioU-SS,' 1 -: 
 
 BERKS, 24th Jan. 1767.
 
 Lately publifhed, the Second Edition, revifed* 
 and corrected with Additions. 
 
 INDIA TRACTS: 
 
 J3y Mr. HOLWELL and Friends. 
 CONTAINING, 
 
 I. An Addrefs to the Proprietors of Eaft India 
 Stock ; fetting forth, the unavoidable Necefflty, 
 and real Motives for the Revolution in Bengal., 
 1760. 
 
 II. A Refutation of a Letter from certain Gentle- 
 men of the Council at Bengal, to the Honour- 
 able the fecret Committee. 
 
 III. Important Facis regarding the Eaft-India Comr 
 pany's Affairs in Bengal, from the Years 1752 to 
 1760, with Copies of feveral very interefting 
 Letters. 
 
 IV. A Narrative of the deplorable Deaths, of the 
 Engli/Jo Gentlemen who were fuffocated in the 
 Black-Hole in Pert William, at Calcutta, June 1 756. 
 
 V. A Defence of Mr. Vanfittarf* Conduct, illuf- 
 trated with a Frontifpiece, reprefenting the Mo- 
 nument creeled at Calcutta, in Memory of the. 
 Sufferers in the Black-Hole Prifon. 
 
 Alfo by the fame Author, 
 
 INTERESTING HISTORICAL EVENTS, relative to 
 the Provinces of Bengal and Jndojtan. Two parts, 
 with Cuts. 
 
 Printed for T. BECKET and P. A. DE HONDT, 
 near Surry-Street> in the Strand.

 
 27 35
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
 Los Angeles 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 
 1968 
 
 Form L9-32m-8,'58(5876s4)444