UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 AT LOS ANGELES
 
 REFUTATION, 
 
 '. 
 
 [Price One Shilling and Sixpence.]
 
 A 
 
 REF UTATION 
 
 Of a Pamphlet, entitled, 
 
 The Anfwer of PHILIP FRANCIS, Efq. 
 
 T O T H E t 
 
 Charges exhibited againft him, General CL AVERING, and 
 Colonel MONSON, by Sir ELIJAH IMPEY, Knt. 
 
 When at the Bar of the Houfe of Commons, on his Defence to the 
 Nundcomar Charge. 
 
 TO WHICH is ADDED, 
 
 A Facsimile Copy of the Petition of NUNDCOMAR, 
 
 Burnt as a Libel by the Hands of the common Hangman, 
 in Confequence of a Motion of Mr. FRANCIS : 
 
 With the Proceedings relative to it in Council at 
 CALCUTTA. 
 
 C. BS* <Si'r E#M*fv 5-Y 
 
 LONDON: 
 PRINTED FOR JOHN STOCK 
 
 Oppoiite Burlington Houfe, Piccadilly, 
 
 MDCCLXXXVII I.
 
 TO make any publication pending judi- 
 cial proceedings, that may influence 
 the minds of thofe who are to decide on them, 
 or of the community at large, be it favourable 
 or adverfe to the party accufed, is certainly 
 cenfurable; but in an higher degree, when cal- 
 culated to prejudice the perfon under accufa- 
 tion. It was hoped that a ftop would have 
 been put to fuch outrages on juftice by the 
 public profe'cution ordered by the Hbufe of 
 Commons, yet a pamphlet has fmce appeared 
 of the fame nature, calling itfelf a Speech of 
 Mr. Francis, delivered on the 2jkh of Febru- 
 ary, 1788. From the folemnity of the intrd^ 
 ducl:Jori the public would be induced to believe 
 it to be genuine, but it is well known that 
 gentleman has difavowed it. Had he not, the 
 futility of the reafonihg, the falfehood of the 
 aflertions, arid its not fulfilling the promife 
 of difclofing fuch jcenes of iniquity , Us would 
 dftonijh and flock the 1'toufe, to which Mr"* 
 rancis had irioft folemnly pledged himfelf\ 
 gave it internal marks of fpurioufnefs, which 
 . B proved 
 
 354603
 
 [ 4 ] 
 
 proved it had no right to boaft of being his 
 legitimate offspring j but as the production, 
 frivolous as it is, does not want malice, it is 
 due to juftice to detect its faliity for the pur- 
 pofe of obviating, its effects. 
 
 It calls that part of Sir Elijah Impey's 
 fpeech, which is fuppofed to have given of- 
 fence, a Charge brought againft General Cla- 
 vering, Colonel Monfon, and Mr. Francis ; 
 and then proceeds to ftate what that charge 
 was, laying the fault on Sir Elijah Impey in 
 not having reduced his fpeech to writing, if it 
 is not ftated fairly. In one particular, it is 
 not only ftated unfairly, but falfely : he did 
 not mention the fecret minutes of the Council, 
 which were in contradiction to their public 
 acts, as being made before and after the exe- 
 cution of Nundcomar; in fact, none exifted 
 before. The fair way of ilating the cafe would 
 have been, to have given the proceedings of 
 the Council on the i4th and i6th of Auguft, 
 '775> at ^ ar e > together with 'the paper which 
 was the fubject of them \ and then the minutes 
 which were aflerted to be contradictory to the 
 public acts being thus confronted with them, 
 every reader might on infpedtion determine, 
 whether fuch contradictions did exift, without 
 attending to arguments neceffarily perplexing, 
 when the materials, on which they are ground- 
 ed, are withheld. Here are thofe proceed- 
 ings : 
 
 Extratt
 
 [ 5 ] 
 
 Extraft of Bengal Secret Confutations, the i^th Aii* 
 guj} y 1775. 
 
 GENERAL CLAVERING I beg leave to 
 inform the Board, that, on the 4th of this month, 
 a perfon came to my houfe, who called himfelf a 
 fervant of Nundcomar, who fent in an open paper 
 to me j as I imagined that the paper might contain 
 fome requeft that I fhould take feme fteps to inter- 
 cede for him, and being refolved not to make any 
 application whatever in his favour, I left the paper 
 on my table until the 6th, which was the day after 
 his execution, when I ordered it to be tranflated by 
 my interpreter. As it appears to me that this pa- 
 per contains feveral circumftances which it may be 
 proper for the Court of Directors, and his Majefty's 
 Minifters, to be acquainted with, I have brought it 
 with me here, and defire that the Board will inftru6t 
 me what I have to do with it : the title of it is, 
 <c A Reprefentation from Maha Rajah Nundcomar 
 * to the General and Gentlemen of Council." 
 
 " Mr. Francis As the General informs the 
 Board, that the paper contains feveral circum- 
 ftances which he thinks it may be proper for the 
 Court of Directors, and his Majefty's Minifters, tp 
 be acquainted with, I would requeft that he lay it 
 before the Board, 
 
 cc Mr. Barwell I really do not underftand the 
 tendency of this queftion, or by what authority the 
 General thinks he may keep back or bring before 
 the Board a paper addreffed to them, or how this 
 
 addrefs
 
 [ 6 ] 
 
 addrefs came to be tranflated for the particular in- 
 formation of the General before it was prefented 
 here. If the General thinks himfelf authorized to 
 fupprefs a paper addrefled to the Gentlemen of 
 Council, he is the only judge of that authority; 
 for ; iy part, I confefs myfelf to be equally aftb- 
 nifhed at the myfterious air with which this paper is 
 brought before us, and the manner in which it 
 came to the General's pofleffion, as likewife at the 
 particular explanation of every part of it before it 
 I was brought to the Board. If the General has a 
 y particular commiflion to retain this paper from the 
 knowledge of thofe to whom it is addrefied, he 
 alone is the proper judge how he ought to act: 
 when the paper comes before me I lhall judge 
 of it. 
 
 ^ General Clavering" If Mr. Harwell will be 
 pleafed to recur to the introduction of my minute, 
 he will obferve that I mentioned having put the 
 papier into the hands of my Perfian tranflator; 
 consequently could not know the contents of it, or 
 to whom it was addrefled, till it was tranflated. J 
 brought it with me to the Council the firft day 
 ' I which they met, after I knew its contents j but the 
 | Boajd not having gone that day into the fecret de- 
 partment, I did not think it proper at that time to 
 introduce it. "Nobody can be anfwerable for the 
 papers they may receive. All that I can fay is, 
 thatr this paper had the feal and fignature of Rajah 
 Itfundcomar to it ; and I bring it to the Board juft in 
 ihe form I received it, that is to fay, open. 
 
 f f Colonel Monfon As this paper is faid to con- 
 b&vI6b# '">*
 
 f 7 ] 
 
 tain circumftances with which the Court of Direc- 
 tors, and his Majefty's Ministers, fhoukl be ac- 
 quainted, I think the General fhould lay it before 
 tjie Board, 
 
 " The Governor General I do not underfland 
 riiis myftery : If there can be a doubt whether the 
 Paper be not already before the Board, by the terms 
 of the General's firft minute upon it, I do myfelf 
 infift that it be produced, if it be only to give me X 
 an opportunity of knowing the contents of an ad- 
 drefs to the Superior Council of India, excluding 
 the firft member in the title of ir, and conferring 
 that title on General Clavering j and I give it as 
 my opinion, that it ought to be produced. ^ 
 
 " General Clavering I am forry to obferve, that 
 the Governor General fliould have miftaken the 
 title of this addrefs to the Board, by calling it art 
 adclrefs to me as Governor General, when the title 
 of ir had been fo recently mentioned, by my faying 
 it was addrefTed to the General and the Gentlemen 
 of Council : which, in my opinion, does not ex- 
 prefs, either by words or by inference, that ever 
 that title is fuch as the Governor General has men- 
 tioned. At all events, I am no more anfwerable 
 for the title of the paper than I am for its contents. 
 
 ?* The Governor General I did not fay that the 
 addrefs gave the General the title of Governor Ge- 
 neral, but meant only to imply that it conferred 
 that title on him, by mentioning him particularly, 
 ^nd the reft of the Council collectively. 
 
 f Refolved,
 
 [ 8- ] 
 
 " Refolved, That the paper delivered by the 
 fervant of Nundcomar to General Clavering be 
 produced and read. 
 
 " The General is accordingly requefted to 
 produce it, and it is read. 
 
 idViMsn- 
 
 N. B. This paper is ordered to be ex- 
 punged from the Records, by a refo- 
 lution of the Board taken at the fubfe- 
 quent confultation on the frxteenth in- 
 ftant. 
 
 JZxfrafl of Bengal Secret Conjugations ', the i6tb 
 Augufl, 1775. 
 
 " T H E Perfian tranflator fends in a corrected 
 tranflation of the petition of the late Maha Rajah 
 Nundcomar, delivered in by General Clavering, 
 and entered in confultation the I4th inftant; in 
 which the Board remark, that the addrefs is made 
 in the ufual form to the Governor General and 
 Council, and not as was underftood from the firft 
 tranflation of it laid before the Board. 
 
 " The Governor General moves, That, as this 
 petition contains expreffions reflecting upon the 
 characters of the Chief Juftice and Judges of the 
 Supreme Court, a copy of it may be fent to them. 
 
 <f Mr. Francis I think that our fending a copy 
 of the Rajah Nundcomar's addrefs to this Board to 
 the Chief Juftice and the Judges would be giving 
 it much more weight than it deferves. I confider 
 the infmuations contained in it againft them, as 
 wholly unfupported and of a libellous nature ; and, 
 
 if
 
 t 9 ] 
 
 if I am not irregular in this place, I would move, 
 that orders fhould be given to the Sheriff 1 to caufe 
 the original to be burned publicly by the hands of 
 the common hangman. 
 
 et Mr. Barwell I have no objections to the pa- 
 per being burned by the hands of the common hang- 
 man ; but I would deliver it to the Judges, agree- 
 able to the Governor's propofition. 
 
 " Colonel Monfon -I differ with Mr. Barwell in 
 opinion. I think this Board cannot communicate 
 the letter to the Judges ; if they did, I think they 
 might be liable to a profecution for a libel. The 
 paper I deem to have a libellous tendency, and the 
 aflertions contained in it are unfupported. I agree 
 with Mr. Francis in opinion, that the paper fhould 
 be burned, under the infpection of the Sheriff, by 
 the hands of the common hangman. 
 
 tf General Clavering >I totally difapprove of 
 fending to the Judges the paper, agreeably to the 
 Governor General's propofition, becaufe I think it 
 might make the Members of the Board who fent it 
 liable to a profecution ; and therefore agree with 
 Mr. Francis, that it fhould be delivered to the She- 
 riff, to be burned by the hands of the common 
 hangman. 
 
 " The Governor General I fhould have no ob- 
 jection to any act which fhould publifh to the world 
 the fenfe wliich this Board entertain of the paper in 
 queftion ; but it does not appear to me that fuch an 
 effect will be produced by Mr. Francis's motion. 
 The inhabitants of this fettlement form but a very 
 : fmall
 
 r 10 3 
 
 fmall part of that collective body commonly under-* 
 flood by that expreffion of The World. The pe- 
 tition itfelf (lands upon our records, through which 
 it will find its way to the Court of Directors, to his 
 Majefty's Minifters, and in all probability will be- 
 come public to the whole people of Britain. I dd 
 not, however, object to the motion of its being 
 burnt* 
 
 " The Board do not agree to the Governor Ge- 
 neral's motion for fending a copy of the addrefs of 
 Maha kajaK Nundcomar to the Judges ; but Re- 
 fblve, That orders be fent to the Sheriffs, with the 
 original tetter, to caufe it to be burned publicly, by 
 the hands of the common hangman, in a proper 
 place for that purpofe, on Monday next, declaring 
 it to be a libel. 
 
 Mr. Francis I beg leave to obferve, that by the 
 fame channel through which the Court of Directors', 
 ^z&^-aad. his Majefty's Minifters, or the nation, might be 
 informed of the contents of the paper in queftion, 
 they muft alfo be informed of the reception it had 
 met with, and the fentence pafied upon it by this 
 Board j I therefore hope, by its being deftroyed in 
 dOthe manner propofed, will be fufficient to clear the 
 characters of the Judges, fo far as they appear to 
 be attacked in that paper; and, to prevent any pofli- 
 bility of the imputations indirectly thrown on the 
 Judges from extending beyond this Board, I move, 
 That the entry of the addrefs from Rajah Nundco- 
 mar, entered on our 'proceedings of Monday laft, 
 V u be expunged. 
 
 " Agreed, That it be expunged accordingly, and 
 that the tranflations be deftroyed." 
 
 Here 
 
 an: ;*>^{ caw , t
 
 Here is a fac fimile copy of the paper 
 which had been the fubject of thofe proceed- 
 ings : 
 
 
 
 [The original tranflation is printed in the common type ; 
 the words printed in Italics are inferted in the original, 
 in die hand-writing of Mr. Haftings.] 
 
 To the Governor General and Council. 
 
 WITHIN thefe three foubahs of Bengal, 
 
 . 
 
 yVfriii*. have 
 
 OrUTa, and Bahar, the manner in which I lived 
 
 A A. 
 
 * Something ^^ "' credit tubicb I baw poffeffej. ^. 
 
 it loanttnv . , _ T -.-. 
 
 teretotM-ynd the ,.cbara&eF-. and reputation- 1 tnjoy ror- 
 
 plete the 
 
 /*/' all 
 
 merly, the Nazims of thefe foubahs upon my good 
 A 
 
 afforded attention and aid to my good name 
 
 hamabiftowed foma Mnfidnnrinn. mH.rpgirdj and 
 
 prefence of the 
 
 from the king of Hindoflan I hivr -a munfib of 
 
 beginning 
 
 five thoufand, and from the tft of the company's 
 
 adminifiration in confederation of 
 
 governmenr lacking npmn my good wiihes to the 
 
 had the direttion of the affairs of' 
 
 king, the gentlemen who "'" ;rt '*jfQ"^ r hpr<> , onr> 
 
 this place, and at this time the 
 
 rhf* pr^ir.ni; governor, Mr. HaftingSj who is at the 
 
 
 head
 
 [ I2 J 
 
 did bold and do bold ms In 
 
 head of affairs, refpefted -me y and do-refpeft 
 
 did oc-eafid*- any lofs to or 
 
 I was- never difloyal to the ftate, nor committed 
 
 of proceed from me. 
 
 a^oppreflion wpea- the Ryots. For the fault of 
 
 -*f>tja^ A 
 
 at this time a " . /- , 
 
 jujl >* fmall degw 
 
 reprefenting ieffi^ fa<fts which Ijuft made known. 
 
 tberdteft. relief 
 
 for the intereft of the king, and weia*e of the 
 
 / in a (mall degree 1 made known 
 
 people, many Engliih gentlemen have become my 
 enemies; and, having no other means to conceal 
 
 9f.dt.ki*tfi. my 
 
 their own actions, deeming it highly 'politick for 
 
 deftrultmnvf-tke-utmoft expediency revived 
 
 themielves to 'make on end* of me. An old affair 
 
 formerly been 
 
 of Mohun Purfaud's g which has/ repeatedly -beea 
 
 found to be 
 
 declared falfe ; and the governor, knowing Mohim 
 Purfaud to be a notorious liar, tQrned Mm' trat'of 
 
 1firhoHfeTJ|t rfroy'iitivo now -revivcdj and>gfafttig 
 
 becoming his aiders and abettort and 
 
 him ihcii aid uiiJ ufullauiu, and iulning . with 
 
 A nni titwti UAU uiiu uttiiLUtiwvy !... j^n....^ - 
 
 Lord
 
 I 13 1 
 
 Lord Impey, ;and the other juftices,, have Jried 
 me by the Englifh laws, which are contrary to the 
 cuftoms of this country, in which there was never 
 any fuch adminiftration of juftice before ; and taking 
 the evidence of my enemies in proof of my crime, 
 have condemned- me to death. But, by my death, 
 the king's juftice will let the a&ions of no perfon 
 remain concealed ; and now that the hour of death 
 approaches, I fhall not, for the fake of this world, 
 
 '109CJ 
 
 be regardlefs of the next, but reprefent the truth to 
 the gentlemen of the council. The forgery of 
 
 the bond, of which 1 am accufed, never pro- 
 
 - 
 ceeded from me. Many principal people of this 
 
 country, who were acquainted with my honefty, 
 frequently requefted of the judges to fufpend my ex- 
 ecution till the k ing's pleafure Ihould be known, but 
 this they refufed, and unjuftly take away my life. 
 For God fake, gentlemen of the council, you who 
 are juft, and whofe words are truth, let me not un- 
 C 2 dergo
 
 [ H 3 
 
 dergo this injury, but wait the king's pleafure-. If I 
 am unjuftly put to death, I will, with my family^ 
 demand juftice in the next life. They put me to 
 death out of enmity, and from partiality to the gen- 
 tlemen who have betrayed their truft ; and, in this 
 cafe, the thread of life being cut, I, in my laft mo- 
 ment, again requeft, that you, gentlemen, will write 
 
 my cafe particularly to the juft king of England. I 
 
 iff* 
 fuffer, but my innocence will certainly be made 
 
 fcnown to him. 
 
 f Ir.lSrreO 3d1 1C 
 
 *li ; -'^H' rnoV' 
 
 -a& rsg,g, ii.rjti^). ;> ,., f 
 
 Thefe are copied from the evidence now be- 
 fore the Houfe of Commons. The reafonings 
 of Sir Elijah trnpey on this fubjedt are as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 " IT is not confident with the high character which 
 
 General Clavering has left behind him, that if he, in 
 
 his confcience, thought there were circumftances in 
 
 the cafe of Nundcomar, which ought to render 
 
 him a proper object for mercy, he Ihould have taken 
 
 the refolution of not recommending him to mer- 
 
 / y ; much Jefs that he ihould defeat the petition 
 
 V of the unhappy convict by retaining it until it 
 
 could be of no poffible ufe to him j and what 
 
 makes
 
 [ '5 ] 
 
 'makes this observation ftronger is, that the paper 
 was no private addrefs to him only, but was an ad- 
 drefs to the Board at large, whofe fenfe he would not 
 Juffer to be taken on the propriety of recommending 
 him to mercy. 
 
 <c And furely I do not go too far, when I aflerr, 
 that, had the paper been produced to the Board be- 
 fore the execution of the criminal, both humanity 
 and duty required, 'if the Council believed the fads 
 alledged in that petition to be true, that they ihould 
 have ufed all lawful, I had almoft faid, unlawful 
 means, to procure a refpite of his fentence, inftead of 
 throwing an additional load of infamy on the memory 
 of that unhappy man, for making this laft effort for 
 his life, buoyed up, as it appears in evidence he 
 had been, to exped: his enlargement, from the influ- 
 ence of the General and Colonel Monfon, even to 
 the day before his execution, when he wrote this 
 very petition, and fent it to the General to be de- 
 livered to the Council for that purpofe. 
 
 <( Yet the General was at firft inclined to think 
 that this paper contained matter proper for the in- 
 formation of the Directors, and his Majefty's Mi- 
 nifters, for, on the I4th of Auguft, he introduced 
 it tor that purpofe ; but, on reflection, and better 
 information, like a man of honor, he retracted his 
 opinion, and confidered it as a libel. 
 
 " Mr. Monfon and Mr. Francis never thought it 
 fit to be communicated to the Directors or the King's 
 Minifters, and General Clavering joined with Mr. 
 Monfon in holding it of fo dangerous a tendency, 
 that he feared even a communication of it to the 
 
 judges
 
 [ 16 ] 
 
 ^judges might be deemed a criminal publication of 
 it. 
 
 " Mr. Francis thought it would be giving it mere 
 weight than it deferred, if it wasjent to the judge 's, as 
 heconfideredtheinftnuations contained in it againft them 
 as WHO LL.T unfupported^ and of a libellous nature. 
 If that notoriety of the guilt of the judges exifted then, 
 or that convuftion in confequence of it, which is laid 
 in the firft Article ; if that notoriety and that convic- 
 tion extended to the majority of the Council, how was 
 the paper unfupported then ? And if unfupported 
 then, what new matter has arifen to fupport it now ? 
 What makes that a juft accufation now, which 
 was libellous then ? The member who moved that 
 it Ihould be burnt by the common hangman, add- 
 ed that by the fame channel which conveyed it to 
 England, information would be given of the recep- 
 tion it met with, and the fentence pafled upon it 5 
 and concluded by HOPING, that its being deflroyed 
 in the manner propofed, will befufficient to clear the 
 characters of the judges, and to prevent the POS- 
 SIBILITY of the imputations, indirectly thrown on 
 the judges, from extending BEYOND THAT BOARD. 
 
 <( That thefe were the real, and not oftenfible rea- 
 fons held out on public grounds, to fupport appear- 
 ances, and to avoid flinging a ftain on public juf- 
 tice, though they might privately think ill of the 
 conduct of the judges, appears by thefe fentiments 
 being declared in a fecret department ; fo that the 
 refolution could not fix a public ftain to be noted 
 in Calcutta. 
 
 " That the paper itfelf Ihould furvive, is hardly 
 
 more
 
 [ 17 ] 
 
 more providential for me, than that the gentleman 
 who moved for the condemnation of it, and who ex- 
 preffed his hopes that it would prevent any fojfibility 
 that the imputations indiredtly thrown out again ft the 
 judges could extend beyond that Board> is the fur- 
 viving member of that majority. 
 
 " From him, who, to prevent its extend ing beyond 
 that Board, had with fo much follicitude procured 
 the paper to be expunged from the proceedings, I 
 hope I may be thought to have fome claim to ex- 
 ped: that thefe imputations will not be encouraged 
 in England ; ihould, neverthelefs, fuch imputations 
 have been fuggefted by any member or members of 
 the Council, (and, I am forry to fay, that their fe- 
 cret minutes fhew that there have,) I am in the judg- 
 ment of the Houfe, whether it would not be a pre- 
 cedent of dangerous tendency to admit fecret com- 
 munications, and private informations in evidence, 
 from any perfons whomfoever, to difavow and con- 
 tradid: their own folemn, official, unanimous ads, 
 entered on public records ; on records required by 
 ad: of parliament to be tranfmitted to his Majefly's 
 Minifiers, as authentic information, both of their 
 ads and their reafons for their acts. 
 
 " I neither affume, nor pretend to any right to en- 
 quire into the propriety of obliterating any matter 
 from records of fo high a nature, which has been 
 thought of fufticient importance to be entered upon 
 them , but as the arguments refuting this paper re- 
 main on thofe records, and matter of the fame im- 
 port with -that paper has found its way beyond that 
 Board, and has extended to England, and even got 
 into the reports of your Committees, 1 may be in- 
 dulged
 
 dulged in complaining (without giving offence) of 
 the efFe6t of that tendernefs to the characters of the 
 judges, which would not permit that paper to re- 
 main on the proceedings. Had it remained, the Di- 
 rectors and his Majefty's Minifters would have feen 
 what were the particular topics which had been cen 
 fured, and been thereby enabled to judge of the can- 
 dour and propriety of reviving and propagating, by 
 fecret minutes, the very fame accufations which they 
 had publicly condemned as a libel. Had it remain- 
 ed on the record, thofe reprefentations could never 
 have been made." 
 
 Thefe are extracted from a very accurate note 
 of his fpeech taken at the time. 
 
 The fecret minutes complained of and af- 
 ferted to be contradictory to thofe proceedings 
 are dated 21 March and 24 April 1775, 15 
 September 1775, 21 November 1775, and 21 
 March 1776. Taking them as there fet out, 
 whether they are or are not contradictory to 
 thefe proceedings, is the only queitiori. Theie 
 are the minutes- as there fet out : 
 
 r*>^*j * f*i 1 iFfc M r f 
 
 , : .ft$Lmute of Mr. FRANCIS. 
 
 Jfril**, '775- 
 
 <{ I beg leave to obferve, that a profecution for 
 a confpiracy is now inftituted, or is intended to be 
 inflituted, againft Maha Rajah Nundcomar, and 
 others ; the tendency of which feems to me to be 
 to prevent, or deter him from proceeding in mak- 
 ing good thofe difcoveries which he has laid before 
 
 the
 
 [ '9 ] 
 
 the Board ; and I cannot but think that the Faft- 
 India Company, and confequently this Board, have 
 a very great concern in every Hep taken in that 
 profecution, whether it be actually begun, or in- 
 tended." 
 
 &xtraftof a Minute of CLAVERING, MONSON, and 
 FRANCIS. 
 
 Sept. 15, 1775. 
 
 f c After the death of Nundiicomar, the Go- 
 vernor, we believe, is well allured that no man, 
 who regards his fafety, will venture to ftand forth 
 as his accufer. 
 
 " On a fubjecl: of this delicate nature, it becomes 
 us to leave every honed man to his own reflection. 
 It ought to be made known, run/ever, to the 
 Englifh nation, that the forgery, of which the 
 Rajah was accufed, muft have been .committed fe- 
 veral years ; that in the interim he had been pro- 
 tected and employed by Mr. Haftings ; that his fon 
 was appointed to one of the firft offices in the Na- 
 bob's houihold, with a falary of one lack of ru- 
 pees ; that the accufation, which ended in his de- 
 itrudlion, was not produced till he came forward, 
 and brought a fpecifick charge againft the Go- 
 vernor-General, of corruption in his office." 
 
 Ditto, dated Nov. 21, 1775. 
 
 " It feems probable, fuch embezzlements may 
 
 have been univerially pradifed. in the prefentcir- 
 
 cumftance, it will be difficult, if not impracticable, 
 
 20 obtain aired proofs of the fads. The terror 
 
 D imprefled
 
 imprcfTcd or* the .minds of the natives, by the ex- 
 ecution of Maha Rajah Nunducomar, is not to 
 be effaced ; for though he faffered for the crime of 
 forgery, yet the natives conceive he was executed 
 for having dared to prefer complaints againft the 
 Governor General. 
 
 " This idea, however deftitute of foundation, is 
 prevalent^ amongft the natives, and will naturally 
 deter them from making dilcoveries, which may 
 be attended with the fame fatal confequences to 
 
 themfelves. 
 
 
 
 * c Punifhment is ufually intended as an example, 
 to prevent the commiffion of crimes ; in this irr- 
 ilance, we fear, it has ferved to prevent the dif- 
 
 covery of them.** 
 
 rflfflfte * & ; nqhtq nt ' 
 
 Ditto , March a i , 1776. 
 
 < e Some of the fads, with which he (Mr. Haf- 
 tings) has been perfonally charged, have been 
 proved. The prefumptive evidence, in fupport of 
 the reft, will, we apprehend, Infe none of its force, 
 by the precipitate removal of Maha Rajah Nundu- 
 comar," 
 
 ViKC 310 
 
 ExtraR of a Minute of Mr. FRANCIS. 
 
 March 21, 1775. 
 
 ,2JO,j2ji, ^Q'ot'C,(AS 1 R rL9frf-t rt**A-* . 
 
 " The Governor General, who had long ex- 
 pedted the appearance of fuch a letter, and was ap- 
 t>rifed of the contents of it, made no objection, 
 however, to its being received and read at the 
 Board. When the man, who advances a fpecific 
 charge, Declares himfclf ready to come forward 
 
 and
 
 [ 21 ] 
 
 and fupport it, and to hazard the Confluences lof 
 failing in his proofs, it may flill be prefumed that 
 the charge is falfe , but it does not partake of the 
 nature of a libel. A libeller advances charges, 
 which he does not in the end, or is unable to maki 
 good : when called upon to appear and produce 
 his evidence, he ihelters himfelf, fometimes in ths 
 obfcurity, fometimes in the fuperiority of his fitu- 
 ation, and leaves the accufation without an accufer, 
 to operate as far as k can, in the opinions of men, 
 againft the honour and reputation of the party ac- 
 cufed. Rajah Nunducomar is not an obfcure per- 
 ibn in the country, nor do^s he in this inftance adt 
 the part of a libeller. He is himfelf of very high 
 rank ; he publickly accufes the Governor General 
 of mifconducl: in his office, and defires to be heard 
 in perfon in fupport of his charge." 
 
 It had been alTumed as a ground of proof "v 
 to eftablifh the fir/ft charge againft Sir Elijah 
 Jmpey, that the majority of theCouncil in Bengal 
 Vvere of opinion, that the Judges had been 
 guilty of notorious injuftice in the cafe of 
 Nundcomar ; to prove that they were of a 
 contrary opinion, and for that purpofe only, 
 the confutations and papers were introduced; 
 to that purpofe onfy the reafonings are di* ^ 
 reeled. Whether this be a wanton attack, X 
 or whether the cafe be fuch that an attack 
 can be the only defence, they who have read 
 the evidence produced in fupport of the firft 
 article, even without the aid of Sir Elijah 
 Impey's fpeech, are enabled to determine. 
 D 2 Mr.
 
 Mr. Francis is made to fay, in fpeaking of 
 what is called bis defence, " That defence and 
 accufation in that particular cafe may be infe- 
 parable." It is precifely tl veiy cafe with 
 refpecl: to this part of Sir Elijah Impey's de- 
 fence : they are fo intimately united, that the 
 imputable matter, which is coniidercd as the 
 attack, cannot be fupprefled, if the written do- 
 cuments of the Council are /imply read ; it 
 arifes folelyand immediately from a comparifon 
 of the proceedings with the fubfequent mi- 
 nutes, by neceffaryconfequence,without the af-* 
 fiftance of argument. If the imputation is to 
 be kept back, the defence muft be deferted. 
 It is not true, that it is fo in the particular cafe 
 of Mr. Francis : all he has to do is, to mew 
 that the minutes do not contradict the pro- 
 ceedings. Having done that, his defence is 
 complete without making any attack ; and, 
 unlefs he mews that, he fails; his illiberal in- 
 vectives can furniih no argument to that point. 
 
 JStfwi&flW 
 
 The ingenuity of the pamphleteer affifts him 
 , to exonerate himfelf from.flie imputation, firfr, 
 
 * by an attempt to impeach the authenticity of 
 the paper produced ; zdly, by reconciling the 
 fentence pafled on the paper as a libel with the 
 minutes aflerted to be in direct oppofition to 
 fuch an idea; and, 3dly, by difavowing that its 
 being a libel was the true motive for the acts 
 of the Council, and fubiKtuting feafons for 
 diern 'of a totally different nature. It will b^ 
 
 A< no
 
 [ 23 ] 
 
 no difficult tafk to eftablifh the authenticity 
 of the paper from the evidence contained in 
 the pamphlet, and much more eafy to prove, 
 that it is morally impoffible that the fubfti- 
 tuted reafons have been truly afiigned. 
 
 By the fac fimile copy of the paper it will 
 appear, that the parts corrected in the hand- 
 writing of Mr. HafHngs are not fo obliterated 
 in the original as not to be legible, by which 
 all pombility of fufpicion that the fenfe is al- 
 tered mufl be done away ; yet the following 
 captious obfervations could not be retrained : 
 "Mr. Mailings even altered the tranflation of 
 it in many parts with his own hand ; who will 
 fay that a paper fo altered, and fo produced, 
 deferves any credit?" In another place, ' Of 
 the authenticity you can have no proof." With 
 all this apparent inclination he does not ven- 
 ture to deny the authenticity. It would have 
 been authenticated on its production, had not 
 the prefent fituation of Mr. Haftings rendered 
 it indelicate to have called him as a witnefs be- 
 fore the Houfe ; but had its authenticity been 
 daringly denied, Mr. Haftings, who kept him- 
 felf in readinefs, would voluntarily have at^ 
 tended. 
 
 After this feeble attempt to invalidate it, 
 Mr. Francis is made to fpeak thus : " The 
 " original paper, I have no doubt, contained 
 
 " in-
 
 J: 
 
 ' infinuations againft the Judges," No one 
 who reads the proceedings could doubt that 
 what they were is material to be known. The 
 nature of his argument forces him to admit 
 what they were: he is made to lay, " It 
 charged the Judges with having murdered 
 c Nundcomar for accufmg Mr. Haflings, or 
 to that effect." 
 
 
 If it was to that effect, whether the fpecific 
 paper produced be authentic or not, is become 
 immaterial ; for every confequence follows 
 with equal force from the petition, which is 
 admitted : but the authenticity of the identi- 
 cal paper is unwarily admitted in the furprize 
 and confufion that the unexpected appearance 
 of it occafioned. He fays, "I never had a 
 ** doubt that all the tranflations of it were 
 " deflroyed, till Sir Elijah Impey produced 
 ** a copy of it at the bar of the houfe." Sir 
 Elijah Impey did, therefore, produce a copy 
 
 Of it. 
 
 j 
 
 The condemnation of the libel, in order to 
 reconcile it with the minutes, is endeavoured 
 to be accounted for, " becaufe it came with- 
 " out a refponfible accufer, without a witnefs 
 " to fnpport it, the fabrication of a man 
 " publickly executed for a crime, and confe- 
 * f quently no longer capable of proving his 
 " allegation ; that being the cafe, it was 
 
 " what
 
 t what he called a libel, and nothing elfe: 
 " he called it fo then, he calls it fo ftill, 
 " though he was not then, nor is now con- 
 f< vinced that the fub fiance of it is untrue." 
 No law book furnimed this definition of a 
 libel. Does that which is lawful and true be- 
 come falfe and libellous by defect of proof ? 
 Can he who thinks, who knows it to be true, 
 condemn it as a libel ? If they did not think, 
 if they did not know it to be true, the majo- 
 rity of the Council mould not have adopted 
 it in their minutes. The argument, that it 
 cannot be fupported now, if it could not be 
 fupported at the time of its being laid before 
 the Council, is fo forcibly put in the reafoning 
 of Sir Elijah above cited, that no further ob- 
 fervation on it is neceflary. 
 
 But he gives another reafon why he was 
 juftified in calling it a libel. " it included all 
 *' the Judges, concerning two of whom (Mr, 
 ~" Juftice Hyde, and Sir Robert Chambers) 
 * f they never had any fufpicion of corrupt mo- 
 " tives, and concerning another of whom 
 ** (Mr. Juftice le Maitre) they had then no 
 " ground of fufpicion, except his intimacy 
 " with Sir Elijah Impey, his acting on all oc- 
 s< cations 'as his inflrument, and the notorious 
 " violence of his deportment: they, therefore, 
 <f treated it "as a libel againft a whole Court of 
 " Juftice ought to he treated," 
 
 *
 
 It was then a libel, becaufe it imputed guilt 
 to all the Judges collectively, and did not dif- 
 tinguifh them from Sir Elijah Impey, to whom 
 alone the whole guilt was to be imputed. 
 Every publication, therefore, which attributes 
 the guilt to them collectively, and not to Sir 
 Elijah Impey, is a libel. This is faid to be 
 " no new diftinction by Mr. Francis, no after - 
 " thought, no ex poll facto vindication." 
 
 The queflion, as flated for Mr. Francis, is 
 put thus : " The queftion is, whether by thole 
 '* declarations (the declarations at the time of 
 " condemning the paper), he contradict many 
 " others, in which he has charged the profe- 
 " cution .and execution of Nundcomar on 
 " Sir Elijah Impey, as a political meafure of 
 " the moil atrocious kind ?" 
 
 By this mutt be underftood the many decla - 
 rations in which he has charged this on Sir 
 Elijah fmgly; for it is admitted by him, that 
 to make that charge on all the Judges collec- 
 tively is a libel. 
 
 To fupport this pofition, feveral minutes 
 are produced. This is faid to be his (Mr. 
 Francis's) defence againfl the charge, as it af- 
 focts the Council collectively. 
 
 The minutes cited for this purpofe are from 
 
 the
 
 the fecret confultations of thefe dates, March 2 T , 
 1775, April 24, 1775, September 15, 1775, 
 November 21, 1775* March 21, 1776. 
 Thole of the 21 ft of March, 1775, and 24th 
 of April, 1775? caft no imputation whatever 
 on the Court or Sir Elijah Impey they are, 
 indeed, before any proceedings were commen- 
 ced againft Nundcomar : the other minutes 
 are directed againft the whole court, againft the 
 judges collectively; not one of them difcri- 
 minates the conduct of Sir Elijah Impey from 
 that of the other judges by the moft diftant 
 allulion; not one of them has the leaft ten- 
 dency to exculpate any of the judges. Thefe, 
 therefore, by the admiffion of Mr. Francis 
 himfelf, are libels. The writing of thofe mi- 
 nutes is abfolutely irreconcileable with the 
 idea of condemning Nundcomar 's petition as 
 a libel, becaufe it included all the judges, for 
 the minutes themfelves equally include them 
 all: thefe muft be libels, if that was, and 
 they ought to be treated (to ufe Mr. Francis's 
 words) " as a libel againft a whole court of 
 juftice ought to be treated." It does not yet 
 appear to be true from any thing that has been 
 faid or publifhed, that Mr. Francis ever did 
 charge Sir Elijah Impey fmgly; it at prefent, 
 therefore, carries every fufpicion of being what 
 it is denied to be, " a new diftinclion, an after- 
 thought, an ex poft facto vindication," 
 
 E Can
 
 r 28 j 
 
 Can Mr. Francis fay, that before this paper 
 was predated at the bar of the Houfe of Com- 
 mons, he had eVer revealed the contents of it 
 to his moft confidential friends ? Can he fay, 
 that he ever before made this defence ? The 
 manner in which the attention of the public 
 has been called to this fubject makes it now 
 highly incumbent on him to produce one mi- 
 nute, one declaration at leaft, in which he has 
 charged Sir Elijah Impeyy^T/)', as * s afferted, 
 with " this political meafure of the moft 
 atrocious kind." It is the act of a friend to ad- 
 vife him to do it j his friends and the public 
 expect it. He is in time yet to urge it again ft 
 Sir Elijah Impey -, no decifion has yet pail on 
 the firft article. He would not have afferted it, 
 if he could -not do it, and he will not fhrink 
 
 from it. Let him produce one. 
 \?t\ 
 
 It will be an extraordinary cafe, indeed, if 
 one judge was able to execute fo atrocious a 
 meafure, two of the other judges being admit- 
 ted to be under no fufpicion of corrupt motives, 
 and the third only fufpected from being inti- 
 mate with the corrupt judge, from acting as 
 his inftrument on all occalions, and from the 
 
 notorious violence of his temper. 
 
 F 
 
 The latter are bold affertions againft a 
 judge who is no more, and not to be expected 
 from the mouth of him who profeiTes to be 
 
 fo
 
 [ 29 ] 
 
 ib tender of the fame of his deceafed friends, 
 from the man who had claimed favor and in- 
 dulgence to one of them, " as due to a perfon 
 " of high character, to a perfon who is not 
 " here, who is not only abfent, but dead, and 
 " who died in the fervice of his country." 
 To this indulgence, and on the fame account, 
 Mr. Juftice le Maitre was equally entitled 
 with that gentleman, for whom it was claimed : 
 this wanton and indecent attack might fure 
 have been fpared againft a man anfwering to 
 the fame defcription. Mr. Juftice le Maitre 
 left behind him a widow, a fon, daughters, re- 
 lations and friends, who may feel as keenly for 
 an injury done to his memory, though perhaps 
 not with the fame public orientation, as Mr. 
 Francis may for that of the perfons with 
 whom he has been connected. His living in 
 a particular intimacy with Sir Elijah Impey 
 has been pofitively and pointedly negatived be- 
 fore the Committee by one witnefs : his clerk 
 was alfo before them, and might have been 
 examined to the fame point; he could have 
 informed them with whom the midnight facial 
 hours of that gentleman were fpent. What 
 is meant by the dark innuendo, where it is 
 faid, " Of him we had then no other ground 
 " of fuipicion," is not explained; the friends 
 of Mr. Juflice le Maitre have a right to an ex- 
 planation of it. 
 
 E 2 Mr.
 
 [ 3 1 
 
 Mr. Juftice le Maitre was fo far from being 
 the inftrument of Sir Elijah Impey, that his 
 opinions with regard to the jurifdiction of the 
 Supreme Court differed materially from thofe 
 of Sir Elijah : he was an honefl and a warm 
 man ; he was not contented with oppofing Sir 
 Elijah Impey on the bench, which he thought 
 his duty required, but protefted againft his 
 conduct in a public letter. That he openly 
 oppofed Sir Elijah Impey in many inftances, 
 in which the Eaft India Company and the 
 Council were materially concerned, and that the 
 opinion of Sir Elijah was in thofe cafes prevalent 
 by virtue of the carting voice given to him as 
 the Chief Juftice, (being aided by Sir Robert 
 Chambers only,) muft be within the know- 
 
 ledge of Mr. Francis : will he fpy, he did not 
 know this to be the cafe, when a mandamus 
 was applied for to reftore Mr. Stewart to the 
 office of Secretary to the Council, in the action 
 
 - brought by Cummaul O'Deen againft the Cal- 
 cutta Committee, and in the inftance of the 
 rule formed by the Court to fupport the right 
 f the Company to detain prifoners on account 
 of revenue ? If he does remember thofe op- 
 poiitions by Mr. Juftice le Maitre, ought he 
 to have been made to fay that Mr. Juftice le 
 Maitre aSled on all occaftom as the inftrument 
 
 of Sir Elijah Impey. 
 
 . 
 
 But Mr. Francis's character is treated with 
 
 ftill 
 
 3th
 
 greater freedom by this author, who 
 makes him declare with the moffc complete 
 fang froid, " That he did not heiitate to de- 
 clare in the moft explicit manner, that the 
 private motive of his flanding fo forward as he 
 did, for the destruction of the copy and tranf- 
 lations of the petition, fent by Nundcomar 
 previous to his execution to General Clavering, 
 was not the public one affigned." Does he 
 efteem it a trifling matter to put falfe reafons 
 on a record, which the Parliament has required 
 to be laid before the king's minifters, as offi- 
 cial authentic intelligence of the acts of the 
 Council, and the fpecial reafons of thofe acts ? 
 After fuch an avowal, who is to diftinguifli 
 on the public records of the Company, what 
 are his true reafons, from thofe, which he may 
 afterwards, " in the mofl folemn and explicit 
 manner," " on his honor," and " on his 
 oath," " not hefitate," when prefTed, " to 
 declare not his true reafons," " but that he 
 was really actuated by fome private motive?" 
 What a door does this open againft him? 
 What private motives of ambition and ven- 
 geance, after fuch a declaration, had it been, 
 advanced by himfelf, might not thofe, who 
 are not inclined to think well of him, ailign 
 for many public acts, of which he has himfelf, 
 perhaps, given the true and honeft reafons ? 
 
 Let us now fuppofe the reafons afligned on 
 
 the
 
 t 32 ] 
 
 the record to have been only oftenfible ; let 
 them be expunged, and every memorial of them 
 be deftroyed; let the true operative motive be 
 fubftituted in their place. " It was his fear for 
 the fafety of General Clavering, Colonel Mon- 
 Ibn and he obferving that the judges had gone 
 all lengths, that they had dipped their hands in 
 blood for a political purpofe, and that they 
 might again proceed on the fame principle." 
 This was a reafon totally incompatible with 
 that affigned for condemning the paper as a 
 libel : this was an unequivocal accufation of 
 all the judges collectively, and of the whole 
 Court, not of Sir Elijah Impey feparately. The 
 judges, not Sir Elijah Impey, had gone all 
 lengths, for they, not Sir Elijah Impey only, 
 had dipped their hands in blood for a political 
 purpofe, and the fear was, that they, not he 
 only, might again proceed on the fame princi- 
 ple, and commit another legal murder on the per- 
 ion of General Clavering. What is become of 
 their want of fufpicion of Sir Robert Chambers 
 and Mr. Juflice Hyde now ? Was all this fear for 
 the fafety of General Clavering on account of 
 Sir Elijah Impey alone ? Mr. Juilice le Mai- 
 tre was then fufpected only from his intimacy 
 with Sir Elijah Impey : was it thought, that 
 he was fo much an instrument of Sir Elijah, 
 as to have aided him in inflicting a capital pu- 
 nimment on the General ? And for what? For 
 what was eileemed publifhing of a libel. 
 
 " What
 
 [ 33 .] 
 
 ** What he (General Clavering) had done was 
 '" in truth a moft ram and inconfideratfe 
 " action, namely, the bringing the petition at 
 "all before the Board ; the man was dead and 
 " General Clavering made himfelf the pub- 
 " lifher of the libel-, he put himfelf in the 
 " power of his enemies, who infallibly would 
 " ruin him." This, let it operate as it may, 
 Mr. Francis declares, " on his honor, and that 
 " he fhall, if neceflary, on his oath, was a 
 " ftrong concurrent motive with Colonel 
 " Monfon and him for getting the paper de- 
 " ftroyed." In the fame page it is laid to be, 
 not the concurrent, but " the fole motive." 
 
 Had this been the reafon on record, would 
 even the names of General Clavering and Co- 
 lonel Monfon, (fo continually infilled on by 
 Mr. Francis as props to his reputation,) added 
 to his own name, have procured credit to it 
 from one man in England, let him be ever fo 
 much addicted to party ? It "was impaffible 
 that they mould be ignorant, that the publi- 
 cation of a libel, the fuppoied offence for which 
 it was feared the judges would again go all 
 lengths, and would again dip their hands in 
 blood for a political pur :oie, could by no 
 {trained contraction of any law be made a ca- 
 pital offence. Did they fear, that the General 
 might be committed " to the common gaol 
 of Calcutta, fo miferable and fo horrid a place, 
 
 that
 
 [ 34 ] 
 
 that the bare commitment to it was equal to 
 death ?" They muft have known that in Eng- 
 land it was a bailable offence. They knew the 
 fpecial protection which the charter gave them; 
 '* that the perfon or perfons of the Governor 
 General or any of the Council mall not, nor 
 fhall any of them refpectively, be fubject or lia- 
 ble to be arrefted or imprifoned upon any 
 action, fuit, or proceeding in the faid Court, ex- 
 cept in cafes of treafon or felony; nor mail the 
 faid Court be competent to hear, try, or deter- 
 mine any indictment or information againfl the 
 iaid Governor General or any of the faid Coun- 
 cil for the time being for any offence, not being 
 treafon or felony, which the faid Governor 
 General or any of the faid Council mall or may 
 be charged with having committed in Bengal, 
 Bahar, and Oriffa, any thing herein contained 
 to the contrary notwithftanding." Was it 
 expected to be believed that the majority of the 
 Council, with the whole executive power in 
 their hands, would be fo tame and fubmiffive 
 to aCourtof Juftice, as to fuffer the General to 
 be punimed in any manner enormous and out- 
 rageous ? Could fears arifing from the expec- 
 tation of fuch impoffi ble acts be affigned on the 
 record as cauies for condemning the paper and 
 deftroying the memorial of it ? If fuch caufes 
 entered on record would not have gained credit, 
 they furely do not come with greater authority 
 from the oral teftimony of Mr. Francis alone, 
 
 even
 
 'I 35 1 
 
 even with the addition of his oath, and of bis 
 honor y to fanctify them: no man's oath can 
 be received in any Court of Juftice to falfify a 
 record, much lefs to fallify his own acl: recorded 
 folemnly by himfelf. What would have been 
 the indignation of the majority of the Council, 
 if Sir Elijah Impey had attempted to falfify 
 their reafons folemnly entered on record? Let 
 us hear, what they themfelves fay on a fimilar 
 occafion in a minute of the i5th September, 
 1775 : " ^ s to t ^ ie difmiffionof Mr. Playdell, 
 we have affigned our reafons, and dilclaim any 
 right in Mr. Haftings to attribute our conduct 
 to other motives." What right has Mr. Fran- 
 cis to attribute their condutl to other motives 
 than what they have ajjigned ; and to throw 
 fo grofs an imputation on the memory of his 
 deceafed friends, as that of having recorded 
 themfelves liars? Can common fenfe endure 
 that his teilimony mould be received to prove, 
 that the panic operating on the minds of 
 him and Colonel Monlbn had force fuffi- 
 cient to induce them to condemn a paper as a 
 libel, which in their confciences they then 
 thought true, and ' : Which Mr. Francis ftill 
 thinks true, and to add a ftigma to the memory 
 of a man, whom they knew to be fallely con- 
 demned to death, becaufe he had juftly remon- 
 ftrated againii the iniquity of his fen ten ce ? 
 
 Was this a caufe that could produce fuch 
 F effefts?
 
 r *{> T l| ^ 
 
 effects ? Was this a fear, qui cadcre poteft in vi- 
 rum conftantem? Theaffigningoffuchafearas 
 a motive, had thofe gentlemen been alive, might 
 have been the caufe of more real danger to 
 Mr. Francis, than the fuppofed publication of 
 the libel could have been to the General. 
 Would either of thofe gentlemen have borne, 
 that fuch a defence mould be fet up for him 
 with impunity? Would that brave man, 
 whom Mr. Francis reprefents as dying in the 
 fervice of his country, " not in an honorable 
 but an odious fervice, not in the field of battle, 
 where his gallant mind would have led him, 
 but in an odious unprofitable conteft," would 
 he have fuffered himfelf to be protected from 
 fuch a danger in fuch a manner ? Would the 
 Colonel have borne to hear fuch a concurrent 
 motive afligned to himfelf? Would he have 
 thought it honorable to the General to have 
 falfified the record for his protection againft 
 fuch a fictitious danger ? - If their fears were 
 fo predominant on the i 6th of Auguft as to 
 produce thefe extravagant effects, how came 
 they fo far diffipated, that the fame perfons 
 mould, on the 1 5th of September following, 
 adopt in their own name what through fear 
 only they had condemned in the petition of the 
 convict? If it was dangerous on the i6th 
 of Auguft, why was it lefs fo on the i5th of 
 September ? Their fears-in Auguft were, that 
 they were betrayed .by a member of their 
 
 Council
 
 [ 37 3 
 
 Council to Sir Elijah; had that fufpicion 
 ceafed in September ? 
 
 An argument is. attempted to prove that the 
 minutes and the reafonings on the proceed- 
 ings are not contradictory, becaufe it would be 
 an aft of folly, if they were fo, to enter them 
 on the fame record. The pamphlet fays, 
 " At firft light it is not very likely, that they, 
 or any men, not abfolutely idiots, mould enter 
 fuch contradictions on the fame record, and 
 place themfelves in a point of view before the 
 Directors, which muft utterly annihilate their 
 confidence in them." 
 
 Had it been true that the entries on the re- 
 cord were fuch as to Jhew the contradictions, 
 the abfurdity of fo doing would not have ren- 
 dered them lefs contradictory; but, in fact, 
 there was no time when they bad entered that 
 on the record which made any contradiction. 
 
 Before the condemnation of the paper, there 
 had been no imputation caft on the Court by 
 any minutes of the Council; the paper, there- 
 fore, itfelf, and the reafons for condemning it 
 and exculpating the judges, when entered on 
 the record, encountered nothing that was con- 
 tradictory to them. At the time when the 
 minutes, which revive the charges in the con- 
 demned paper, were entered, the paper itfelf, 
 F 2 and 

 
 [ 38 ] 
 
 and all the translations, were deftroyed, and the 
 reafons thereby rendered unintelligible ; there 
 were ftill no contradictions entered on the re- 
 cord; it was not till Sir Elijah Impey, by re- 
 ftoring the paper to its place, had mewn that 
 the fubjed: matter condemned was the very 
 fame matter which had been mjifled on in the 
 fubfequent minutes, that the contradictions 
 made their firjl appearance. 
 
 On the proceedings transmitted to the India 
 Houfe, and in the printed abftradts from them, 
 no contradiction appears at the prefent time ; 
 the Council were not in the ftate of idiocy 
 fuppofed in the pamphlet. Had the paper all 
 along flood on the record, had it been publim- 
 ed in thofe abftracts, fo that the King's Minif- 
 ters-and the public could have compared what 
 had been condemned with what was fuble- 
 quently inimuated, the obiervation made for 
 Mr--- Francis would have been true, but whe- 
 ther to the full extent of the fentence parTed 
 on the majority of the Council by the pamph- 
 let, viz. ** that they would be placed before 
 the Directors in that point of view which 
 inuft have utterly annihilated their confidence 
 in them," is not for an individual to determine: 
 but mould that be the true point of view, the 
 confequences would be of greater extent; for 
 the fame caufe, which goes. to the annihi- 
 lation of the confidence of the Directors, ex- 
 tends
 
 [ 39 ] 
 
 tends to the annihilation of the confidence of 
 the King's Minifters, and of every man of com- 
 mon honor and probity throughout the whole 
 nation. 
 
 Either the reafons which were entered at 
 the time mufl be true, and the contradictions 
 confequently admitted, or fome reafon not re- 
 pugnant to common fenfe, and at the fame 
 time confident with the minutes, mufl be af- 
 figned for entering them, expunging the paper, 
 and deftroying all the tranilations : if no other /^ 
 is afligned, let this fland till a better is pro- 
 duced, to which only it ought to give way $ 
 let it be fuppofed, till fome better reafon makes 
 its .appearance, that it was in the contem- 
 plation of the gentlemen at fome future time,^^ 
 to advance the very lame ideas which they 
 had condemned in the paper, not as a charge 
 which they knew they could not fupport, but 
 as infinuations, which, being fent fecretly, they 
 knew could not be refuted : it certainly then 
 became an act of prudence, which would fug- 
 gefl itfelf to a man of much lefs quicknefs of 
 parts than Mr. Francis, to deflroy every me- 
 morial of the paper, that it might not rife in 
 j udgment againfl them, and condemn them to 
 that point of view in which it .has been truly 
 fiid none but idiots would place themfelves. 
 Though the pamphlet deferves not the leaft 
 credit in any other part, yet the fullefl aflent 
 
 mufl
 
 [ 4 ] 
 
 muft be given to it where it makes this de 
 claration in the name of Mr. Francis, " That 
 he never had a doubt but all the tranflations 
 of it were deftroyed, until Sir Elijah Impey 
 produced a copy of it at the bar of the Houle." 
 He certainly, notwithstanding his fufpicions of 
 being betrayed, had no doubt but all the tranf- 
 lations were deilroyed ; it was in full confi- 
 dence that they were, that he ventured to en- 
 ter the minutes in the record : had the paper 
 remained, thofe minutes would never have ex- 
 ifted: he was not apprehenfive of being placed 
 *'.in that point of view" which the prudent 
 meafure of expunging the paper, and deftroy- 
 ing the tranfiations, if completely executed, 
 Would have removed to an infinite diftance. 
 
 But it may be naturally aiked, Why thofe 
 reafons were at all put on the confultations ? 
 To which the anfwer is not difficult : it was, 
 perhaps, nearly as difagreeable to Mr. Francis 
 to be compelled " to bear teftimony to the 
 good conduct, or to make declarations in favor 
 of Sir Elijah Impey," as " to be compelled to 
 anfwer" for fo doing; but it was not optional. 
 " What General Clavering did was in truth a 
 moil ram and inconfiderate action, namely, the 
 bringing the petition at all before the Board." 
 Whether it was the duty of the General to 
 bring before the Board a petition directed for- 
 mally, as this was, to the Board, this is not 
 
 the 
 
 sii balu,! a* 
 
 jib
 
 [ 41 ] 
 
 the place to difcufs. Had it at any rate been 
 fupprefled, thole declarations in favor of the 
 judges would have been avoided; as it was 
 brought before the Board, it muft be difpofed 
 of: this compelled him to fpeak the truth ; 
 for in oppofition to the knowledge and fenfe of 
 all the communities which compofe the peo- 
 ple of Calcutta, publickly and unanimoufly 
 declared, they could not, as was firft propofed 
 by General Clavering, adopt the charges con- 
 tained in the paper and tranfmit them as mat- 
 ter fit for the information of the Directors and 
 his Majefty's Minifters : had they done an act 
 of fuch notorious injustice, they muft have 
 fubjected themielves to execration on the fpot, 
 and refutation from the concurrent tefHmony 
 of the whole fettlernent, where the iniquity 
 of the action would have been known to be 
 outrageous. 
 
 The Council in the end did what juftice 
 required; they treated it as a libel, and entered 
 true reafons for their Ib treating it as well as 
 for expunging it and deftroying all memorials 
 of it. If the queftion be put, Why did they 
 afterwards enter minutes in the fame record 
 contradictory to thofe reafons ? In the anfwer 
 which is attempted, that moil difficult of all 
 talks has been- boldly undertaken, namely, the 
 reconciliation of abfolute contradictions. This, 
 as all fuch undertakings mufl do, has failed in 
 
 the
 
 t 42 ] 
 
 the execution. From the ability of him, who 
 chofe fuch ground, it is fair to conclude that 
 no better could be taken. 
 
 It might be afked, What was the real caufe 
 for fuch anxiety that the contents of the paper 
 fhould not be known ? Why, when it was 
 burnt by the hands of the common hangman, 
 it fhould be fealed up ? The effect of the exe- 
 cution of the fentence was thereby deftroyed ; 
 the publick neither knew who was the au- 
 thor againft whom it was a libel, or why it 
 was cenfurable. Many other queilions might 
 be afked not eafy to be fairly refolved. If, as 
 
 V they wrote on the 1 5th of September, 1775, 
 there was fuch criminal matter as ought to be 
 
 A made known to the Englifh nation, was it 
 proper that it mould be made known by the 
 inquifitorial channel of a fecret minute ? Why 
 was it not made known by open, bold accu- 
 fation ? Why was it put in the form of inli- 
 nuation, and not of a direct charge. 
 
 ' 
 
 Why were the Judges to be arraigned and 
 condemned by the public in England, when 
 they were abfent. and ignorant that any charge 
 was preferred againft them ? Did they wifh 
 them to be condemned unheard ? Did they 
 fear that giving them an opportunity to make 
 their defence, would render it certain that they 
 would prove their innocence? But though 
 
 his
 
 [ 43 1 
 
 his affertions are not fufficient to reconcile con- 
 tradictions, the author will reconcile them 
 from the evidence brought by Sir Elijah Im- 
 pey himfelf ; for " it fhall be proved beyond 
 a doubt, that he himfelf never had, before 
 his defence at the bar of the Houfe, put 
 that conftruction on the aft of burning the pe- 
 tition, which he has lately endeavoured to fix 
 upon it." This evidence is a letter written to 
 the Secretary of State in January, 1776, com- 
 plaining- of the minutes of the majority in 
 Council : he does not make this ad: of the 
 Council part of his defence ; and his not doing 
 fo " warrants a concluiion the moft irrefifti- 
 ble, that he had not the moft diftant idea, that 
 their acl on which he now infifts could bear 
 the conduction which he now puts upon it," 
 
 Was he then in pofTeffion of the paper? He 
 had it not till long after the transaction itfelf, 
 for it appears that he applied for it to the 
 Council on the a8th of Auguft; the letter of 
 the Council refuting it was of the i ith of Sep- 
 tember': when Mr. HaiUngs delivered it, is 
 uncertain. As there can be no doubt that it 
 would have been material to mention it in that 
 letter, it would be natural to. conclude from 
 his omitting it, that Sir Elijah was then igno- 
 rant of its contents, unlefs he had figacity 
 enough to forefee that a ftill better- ufe might 
 be made of it by waiting till thofe, who then 
 G ' ' dwlt
 
 [ 44 ] 
 
 dealt in insinuations only, might become bold 
 enough to convert them into a publick charge. 
 
 But granting the argument in its fullefl ex- 
 tent, admitting that Sir Elijah was in pofleflion 
 of the paper, and did not think the proceedings 
 would bear that conftruclion which he now 
 puts upon them at the bar ; admit it to have 
 occurred then to him for the firft time. Here 
 js the paper, here are the proceedings ; do they 
 or do they not warrant the conflruction now 
 put upon them ? Can any other be put on 
 them ? It is faid,. ' that was his time, if ever, 
 to avail himfejf of their evidence againft them- 
 felves." By having flipt that opportunity, 
 he cannot have injured a defence founded on 
 immutable reafon. If the reafoning was true 
 then, it is true now, and muft for ever remain 
 4p , Neither the dulnefs, folly, or remiflhefs 
 of Sir Elijah can ever make it other wife. It 
 cannot be argued that Mr. Francis did not con- 
 demn the paper as a libel, that he did not pro- 
 pofe the expunging it and the deftroying of all 
 the tranflations of it, that he did not profefs 
 to hope it would not prejudice the judges, and 
 that it would not find its way beyond the li- 
 jnits of the Board ; it cannot be argued, that, 
 after all this, he did not join in the minutes ; all 
 thefe fads cannot be denied, becaufe Sir Elijah 
 Impey wrote the letter of the 2oth January, 
 17763 without mentioning them. Thefe fa&s 
 *> jgattj muft
 
 [ 45 ] 
 
 muft remain, and by them the conftru&oft 
 is warranted. 
 
 There is one afTertion of a ferious nature* 
 indeed, if it has truth and found reafoning for 
 its foundation. It is afferted that the paper 
 " muft have been obtained by means the moft 
 unjuftifiable:"- " by means which prove that 
 they (the Council) were betrayed to Sir Elijah 
 Impey by one of the members of their Board;" 
 ** which prove to demonstration a collufion 
 and confederacy between him and Mr. Haf- 
 tings from the beginning," This is " con- 
 ceived to be convincing to every candid 'man ." 
 
 Before the communication of this paper 
 is admitted to be damning proof, let us- fee 
 what was communicated, and what was the > 
 occafion of the communication. The majo- 
 rity of the Council had, by grofs infinuation 
 on their fecret minutes, accufed both Mr. 
 Mailings and the judges of a combination to 
 take away the life of his accufer, and thus to 
 defeat accufations which had been brought 
 againft him. If Mr. Haftings had not been 
 joined in the fame charge, ought he, as a 
 man of honor, to have refrained from inform- 
 ing Sir Elijah and the judges of that unjuft 
 attack ? Which was the dishonorable part 
 of the bufmefs, the making thefe infinuations, 
 as far as they refpected the judges, matter of 
 G 2 their
 
 [ 46 ] 
 
 their fecret cohfultations, and by that mean* 
 tranfmitting them to England, or the com- 
 municating them to the judges for the pur- 
 pofe of their repelling the injury ? Mr. 
 Haftings being in poffefTion of this paper, 
 which was a complete refutation by the 
 Council themfelVes of the infinuations by 
 jhem thus difpatched to Europe', would Mr, 
 Haftings have done more than common juf- 
 tice by putting it into the hands of one of the 
 judges ? But Mr. Haftings hknfelf was per- 
 
 I fonally interested in the vindication of the 
 judges. He was charged as a confederate 
 with them ; he was become a joint defend- 
 ant j it was neceffary to him that the defence 
 ihould be joint ; they could not be guilty 
 without his being involved in the fame crime; 
 the act which enabled the judges to defend 
 themfelves, was, as done by Mr. Haftings, 
 
 ^Jjin the nature of felf-defence That was the 
 caufe of the communication of the paper; 
 and the >aper itfelf was put into Sir Elijah 
 Impey's hands, as much for the purpofe of 
 .defending himfelf, as for the defence of Sir 
 Elijah artd the other judges. The Council 
 were betrayed to Sir Elijah Impey, becaule 
 Mr. Haftings put it in the power of the judges 
 to defeat their fecret attack, becaufe he did 
 not confederate and confpire with thofe who 
 accufed, to difarm the judges from making a 
 defence as neceflary to his own fafety and ho- 
 nor,
 
 [ 47 ] 
 
 nor, as it was to that of the judges. This 
 was the criminal intercourfej this was the 
 inflance in which they fufpe&ed themfelves 
 to be betrayed. This intercourse, this 
 communication, did not exift till thefe mi- 
 nutes made it neceflary for the mutual de- 
 fence of all the parties who had been calum- 
 niated; no fuch communication was ever car- 
 ried on but on that occafion : no fuch had 
 been at the time the paper was condemned ; 
 it is an ex poll fafto vindication that fuggefls 
 it. 
 
 The point of honor, on this fubjed, is car- 
 ried for Mr. Francis to a mod extravagant 
 pitch ; thefe are the words that are given him 
 in fpeaking of the communication of the pa- 
 per : " Even if there had been no oath, Mr. 
 Mailings was bound by his own agreement ; 
 in my breaft I hold fuch an agreement to be 
 equally binding as an oath." If there had 
 been fuch agreement, was it not virtually, was 
 it not .completely cancelled, when the very 
 matter which was condemned in the paper, 
 had been made matter of accufation againfl 
 Mr. Haftings. Had not the majority of the 
 Council equally agreed that the paper mould 
 be confidered as a libel ? Had not Mr. Francis 
 (who firft denominated it fo more fpecifically) 
 agreed to efteem it fo? Was not he, who had 
 been the firfl mover in deflroying all memo- 
 
 riab
 
 t 48 ] 
 
 rials of it, more particularly bound in honor, 
 if not by his oath, after he thought all me- 
 morials actually deftroyed, not to have fet up 
 that matter, which he had agreed with the 
 Council to confider as falfe and libellous, as 
 a true accufation againfl Mr. Mailings r Who 
 was guilty of the firfl breach of faith, if Mr. 
 Haftings can be fuppofed to have been ever 
 bound by an agreement ? Was it binding on 
 one fide and not on the other ? Could any 
 point of honor oblige him to fubmit to the 
 confequence of fo foul an accufation, without 
 making ufe of the means of defence which 
 were in his own hands ? It would have been 
 a mofl refined flroke of policy to have cajoled 
 Mr. Haflings into fuch an agreement, and 
 fuch a construction of the point of honor. 
 
 With regard to the refufal to apply to the 
 judges for a refpite, it is only neceflary to ob- 
 ferve, that all the applications of the Coun- 
 cil which met with any oppofition from the 
 Court, were acts of direct interference with 
 the province of the judges, and pending the 
 proceedings before the trial. 
 
 They could riot poffibly be confidered as 
 reafons for not laying fuch a cafe before the 
 judges as they might think reafonable caufe 
 to refpite the fentence. The Court appears 
 very properly to have refilled the receiving 
 
 letters
 
 [ 49 1 
 
 letters and meflages concerning matters in fuit 
 before the Court ; it did not therefore follow, 
 that applications, private or public, might not 
 be made to the judges, collectively or indivi- 
 dually, for the purpofe of a recommendation 
 to mercy. The pamphleteer has been guilty 
 of a mod .grofs mifreprefentation, by applying 
 an anfwer of the Court to a fubjed: different 
 from that to which it was given : 
 
 " On the 27 th of June we fent to the Judges 
 an application from the Nabob of Bengal, in fa- 
 vour of Nundcomar; to which the following is 
 the. anfwer of the Judges fent by mefiage, June 
 ~5> 1775- 
 
 " That the Court is of opinion, that all claims of 
 individuals ought to be made directly to the Court 
 by the individuals, and not by the authority of the 
 Governor General and Council. 
 
 tc That it is contrary to the principles of the 
 Englifh conftitution, for any perfon or perfons to 
 addrefs a Courr. of Juftice by letters miflive, con- ' 
 cerning any matter pending before fuch Court, and 
 that the higher the ftation of the perfon or perfons 
 fo addreiTing, the aft is the more unconstitutional." 
 
 That anfwer was not given,- as is ftated 
 in the pamphlet, to any application made in 
 favor of Nundcomar ; it was a frivolous claim 
 to the right of an ambarTador, to which Lord 
 Afhburton, as appeared by Sir Elijah Impey's 
 
 defence,
 
 f 50 ] 
 
 defence, properly blames the judges for having 
 paid too much attention. 
 
 No application was made in favor of Nund- 
 comar by the Council after his conviction 
 the former applications were never affigned 
 as reafons for not making them by any of the 
 Council. 
 
 Had a wanton attack been made on the me- 
 mory of General Clavering and Colonel Mon- 
 fon, it would have been mean, illiberal, and 
 unmanly*; but Sir Elijah Impey was under no 
 fuch perfonal obligations to thofe gentlemen, 
 that he mould give up a material part of his 
 defence to an accufation, which might affect 
 his fortune, fame, and liberty while living, as 
 well as his memory, and the happinefs of his 
 pofterity after his death, left the confequence 
 of that defence might not be to the honor of 
 their memory. The foppery of gallantry in that 
 part of the pamphlet which treats of the ladies' 
 conduct to the prifoner, would be ill adopted 
 by a judge pleading for every thing that is dear. 
 No reflection was flung out againft the ladies : 
 if their conduct was improper, it is not to be 
 afcribed to them, but to thofe who ufed or 
 iuffered their names to be ufed for the purpo- 
 fes of faction. The probability is, that the la- 
 dies were ftrangers to the meiTages fent in 
 their names. Had General Clavering been, as 
 
 the
 
 [ 5' ] 
 
 the pamphleteer fays he was, " particularly fear- 
 ful of the imputation of fupporting or encou- 
 raging the accufer of Mr. Raftings, ^ he 
 would himfelf have refrained from the vifit 
 which he made to Nundcomar whilft under 
 accufation, and would not, have permitted his 
 fecretari.es and aid-de-camps to attend him in 
 gaol. 
 
 No man has a right to call Sir Elijah Impey's 
 veracity in queflion, becaufe a member of the 
 Houfe of Commons has thought fit to prefer 
 articles againft him . Before fuch an accufation, 
 furely, fome ground mould have been laid for 
 it. Such an attack was feparable from"' the de- 
 fence fet up. Had Sir Elijah given public rea- 
 fons for a proceeding on record, which he after- 
 wards clifavowed to be his true reafons, and had 
 attributed his conducl to any other private 
 motive, he would have no right to complain 
 that the truth of any of his affertions mould be 
 publickly denied: till that or fome other juft 
 caufe of fufpicion be afcertained, he will do 
 right tp treat the attack and the attacker with 
 the filent fcorn they merit. 
 
 Mr. Francis is jfuppofed to have profelTed 
 a neutrality during the profecution of Sir Eli- 
 jah Impey. That he has proferTed this, is not 
 doubted ; but that he has not kept it, has been, 
 vifible to thofe who have attended to his be- 
 Jiaviour while it has been proceeding. 
 
 H Sir
 
 [ 5* 3 
 
 Sir Elijah maypofliblyhaveno reafon to wiih 
 that he had preferved his neutrality. He is 
 moft probably under no apprehenfions of him 
 as an informer, for his fund of intelligence 
 muft have been long ago exhausted. The zeal 
 and activity of a profeSed enemy fatiating his 
 vengeance as a profecutor, ever ads on a ge- 
 nerous people in favour of the party profecuted. 
 This Mr. Francis has already experienced. 
 In neither of thefe characters can he be dreaded. 
 
 Mr. Francis, who muft be acquainted with 
 the temper of his own heart, has more than 
 once declared, that, on account of his difpofi- 
 tion to Sir Elijah Impey, " he never would 
 fit in judgment on him, nor ever give a judicial 
 vote in any caufe in which Sir Elijah might 
 be a party, unlefs he could fafely give it for 
 him." Paffions do not argue logically or 
 make metaphyfical distinctions -, they do not 
 diftinguim accurately the , cafes that are fa- 
 vourable or unfavourable to thofe againft whom 
 they have been excited. After that declara- 
 tion, notwithstanding the qualification annex- 
 ed to it, he is moil certainly to be dreaded by 
 Sir Elijah Impey, mould he ever become his 
 judge. There is another character, in which 
 he may, for the fame reafon, be feared, that of 
 a witnefs. If neithpr of thefe characters be af- 
 fumed, his friendship or enmity mull be mat- 
 ter of Indifference. 
 
 It
 
 [ 53 1 
 
 It is not Sir Elijah Impey who has marked 
 him as an enemy ; he has by his public de- 
 clarations marked himfelf as the enemy of Sir 
 Elijah, who only gives credit to thofe decla- 
 rations, in after ting that he is fo. From the 
 picture of his own heart, delineated by the 
 pencil of Mr. Francis himfelf, when he made, 
 them, Sir Elijah Impey's mult be deformed 
 indeed, if it jjoes not appear to advantage, 
 when placed, as Mr. Francis delires it mould 
 be, in oppolition to his. Let Mr. Francis 
 really defifl from aiTuming the character of a 
 judge, or a witnefs, and there is no reafon that 
 Sir Elijah Impey mould not treat his " eternal 
 hoftility" with everlafting contempt. 
 
 POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 SHOULD Mr. Francis aflume the character 
 of a witnefs, whether he be a 'volunteer or no muft 
 be left to the feelings of mankind : his fituation 
 with the profecutor can leave no doubt, that if he 
 be difmclined to be examined, he will not be called: 
 Ihould he in any circumftances go beyond what he 
 calls his defence, as far as they extend at leaft, he 
 muft be a volunteer. It may be predicted, without 
 extraordinary forefight, that, in the cafe of his be- 
 coming a witnefs, he will not ftrictly adhere to that 
 qualification which he has annexed to the cafe of 
 his becoming a judge, or giving a judicial vote in 
 any caufe respecting Sir Elijah Impey, viz. " ex- 
 cept he can fafely do it in his favor." The per- 
 
 fon
 
 [ 54 ] 
 
 fon who gives teftimony, which he profefles to be 
 in the nature of a defence, ought to be fure that 
 he cannot be prejudiced by felf-intereft or enmity. 
 Putting what he calls his defence into writing, and 
 challenging Sir Elijah' to do the fame with the 
 charge, may appear magnanimous j but it is, in 
 fact, merely a flimfy art to captivate the public 
 and enfnare Sir Elijah. Sir Elijah Impey has 
 made no charge againft him ; he mentions acts 
 done by Mr. Francis only tojuftify himfelf: there 
 is no charge againlt Mr. Francis but what be pleafes 
 fo to interpret; he ftands Jelf-accujed. There are 
 articles formally exhibited againft Sir. Elijah. In 
 what caufe, before whom, and to inflict what pu- 
 'nifhment can that which Mr. Francis writes be 
 tortured into evidence againft himjelf? 
 
 May it not be his objecb to procure fomething 
 under the hand of Sir Elijah, which by glories and 
 conftructions may be turned againft him? Why 
 elfe that anxiety to get his defence delivered in at 
 the bar of the Houfe ? Why thofe obfervations to 
 prejudice him for not doing it ? W hy fhould that 
 which was done by the defire of Mr. Haftings, be 
 nfed as a compulfory precedent for the conduct of 
 Sir Elijah ? He was heard by bim/gfi', he might 
 have been heard by his counfel : was it ever thought 
 juft, that inft.ru6r.ions given to counfel Ihould be 
 called for, to be ufed as evidence againft the party 
 defended ? If they were called for, could any ftric- 
 tures be with juftice -made to the prejudice of his 
 client for not delivering them ? What difference 
 is there whether the materials were in the hands of 
 Sir Elijah or his counfel ? The evidence he was 
 ready to produce. 
 
 FINIS.
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT LOS ANGELES 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below 
 
 JAN 1 4 1352 
 
 13521 
 OWfl* 
 
 JUN l 
 6 
 
 Form L-D 
 aOm-1,' 41(1122) 
 
 C 
 
 AT 
 LOS 
 
 IJBRABY
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONA 
 
 A 000000126 3
 
 *