HISTORY OF EUROPE. 
“troul, who had refused to send it, 
and had compelled the directors to 
sign a paper directly the reverse of 
itin all respects. But thongh it 
was admitted to be improper for 
‘the accusers of lord Wellesley to 
‘stand behind the directors of the 
East India company, and use the 
authority of that body as the ground 
of their charges against him, it was 
-ebviously impossible, if the dispatch 
were laid before the house, that it 
should not operate to his prejudice ; 
and, therefore, the production of it 
was objected to by Mr. Fox and the 
master of the rolls, who on this occa- 
‘Sion agreed in opinion, as a flagrant 
_act of injustice. ltappeared, indeed, 
from next day’s debate, that, had 
this paper been granted, it would 
have been used, without seruple, 
againstlord Wellesley, as a founda- 
tion for the firstarticle of charge, 
tashly and inconsiderately brought 
forward on that day by Mr. Paull, 
without a tittle of evidence or a 
single document to support it. 
This ill-judged precipitate mea- 
‘sure, after ten months employed in 
moving for papers on Oude, bhurt- 
pore, Surat, Furruckabad and other 
subjects connected with his intended 
impeachment, is a melancholy sam- 
ple of Mr. Paull’s management of his 
cause throughout. It was on this 
‘occasion, that he was saved from the 
mortification of seeing his motion 
fall to the ground for want of a se- 
conder, by the interference of sir 
William Geary. A debate follow- 
‘ed on the course to be taken by the 
house, in the extraordinary situa- 
tion, in which it was placed, of be- 
ing called uponte entertain a criminal 
‘charge, without a particle of evi- 
1103 
dence in support of it. Mr. Paull 
at length withdrew his motion for 
taking the charge into considera. 
tion: and, next day, (April 23rd), 
the order for printing it, which had 
becn inadvertently passed, was dis- 
charged on the motion of Mr, Sheri- 
dan. Various attempts were after- 
wards made by Mr, Paull, to have 
this charge printed by order of the 
house ; but, though the principal 
objection to it was removed by 
the production of evidence, the 
friends of lord Wellesley contrived 
to defeat all his motions for that 
purpose, Thisarticle related chiefly 
to acts of extravagance and profu- 
sion in the expenditure of public 
money, charged to have been com- 
mitted by lord Wellesley during his 
administration of India. 
The Onde charge, which was 
next brought forward, was laid on 
the table of the house of commons 
on the 28th of May, read and order- 
ed to be printed. This tharge re. 
cited numberless acts of tyranny, 
oppression, fraud, hypocrisy and 
illegal violence practised against 
the Nabob Vizier of Oude by or- 
der of lord Wellesley, in consequence 
of which that prince was compelled 
to cede, by treaty, * one half of his 
dominions to the East India come 
pany, and to submit his administra. 
tion of the other half to the con. 
troul of their servants. It js: re- 
markable, that immediately after 
this charge had been read, there 
was found a member in the house, 
who’ gravely rose and urged, that 
there was no law in India but the 
sword, and that Indian princes were 
not entitled to the benefit of thdse 
rules of justice, which are binding 
* Dated at Lucknow, November 10th, 1804. 
14 among 
