tly instructed to
prosecute upon it_. In his minute of that date he says, "_that the state
of his health had long since rendered it necessary for him to return to
Europe_."

Your Committee observe that he continued in Bengal another year. He
says, "that he had hitherto waited for the arrival of Sir John Day, the
Company's advocate; but as the season was now far advanced, he wished to
bring the trial speedily to issue."

In this minute he retracts his original engagement to submit himself to
the judgment of the Court of Directors, "and to account to them for the
last shilling he had received": he says, "that no merit had been given
him for the offer; that a most unjustifiable advantage had been
attempted to be made of it, by first declining it and _descending to
abuse_, and then giving orders upon it as if it had been rejected, when
called upon by him in the person of his agent to bring home the charge
of delinquency."

Mr. Barwell's reflections on the proceedings of the Court of Directors
are not altogether clearly expressed; nor does it appear distinctly to
what facts he alludes. He asserts that a most unjustifiable advantage
had been attempted to be made of his offer. The fact is, the Court of
Directors have nowhere declined accepting it; on the contrary, they
caution the Governor-General and Council about the manner of receiving
the tender of the money which they expect him to make. They say nothing
of any call made on them by Mr. Barwell's agent in England; nor does it
appear to your Committee that they "have descended to abuse." They have
a right, and it is their duty, to express, in distinct and appropriated
terms, their sense of all blamable conduct in their servants.

So far as may be collected from the evidence of the Company's records,
Mr. Barwell's assertions do not appear well supported; but even if they
were more plausible, your Committee apprehend that he could not be
discharged from his solemn recorded promise to abide by the judgment of
the Court of Directors. Their judgment was declared by their resolution
to prosecute, which it depended upon himself to satisfy by making good
his engagement. To excuse his not complying with the Company's claims,
he says, "_that his compliance would be urged as a confession of
delinquency, and to proceed from conviction of his having usurped on the
rights of the Company_." Considerations of this nature might properly
have induced Mr. Barwell to stand upon his right i