Solicitor-General and Mr. Dunning, (now the Lords Thurlow, Loughborough,
and Ashburton,) together with Mr. Adair (now Recorder of London). None
of them gave a positive opinion against the grounds of the prosecution.
The Attorney-General doubted on _the prudence_ of the proceedings, and
censured (as it well deserved) the ill statement of the case. Three of
them, Mr. Wedderburn, Mr. Dunning, and Mr. Adair, were clear in favor of
the prosecution. No prosecution, however, was had, and the Directors
contented themselves with censuring and admonishing Mr. Hastings.

With regard to the Supreme Council, the members who chose (for it was
choice only) to attend to the orders which were issued from the
languishing authority of the Directors continued to receive unprofitable
applauses and no support. Their correspondence was always filled with
complaints, the justice of which was always admitted by the Court of
Directors; but this admission of the existence of the evil showed only
the impotence of those who were to administer the remedy. The authority
of the Court of Directors, resisted with success in so capital an
instance as that of the resignation, was not likely to be respected in
any other. What influence it really had on the conduct of the Company's
servants may be collected from the facts that followed it.

The disobedience of Mr. Hastings has of late not only become uniform and
systematical in practice, but has been in principle, also, supported by
him, and by Mr. Barwell, late a member of the Supreme Council in Bengal,
and now a member of this House.

In the Consultation of the 20th of July, 1778, Mr. Barwell gives it as
his solemn and deliberate opinion, that, "while Mr. Hastings is in the
government, the respect and dignity of his station should be supported.
In these sentiments, I must decline an acquiescence in _any_ order which
has a _tendency_ to bring the government into disrepute. As the Company
have the means and power of forming their own administration in India,
they may at pleasure place whom they please at the head; but in my
opinion they are not authorized to treat a person in that post with
_indignity_."

By treating them with indignity (in the particular cases wherein they
have declined obedience to orders) they must mean those orders which
imply a censure on any part of their conduct, a reversal of any of their
proceedings, or, as Mr. Barwell expresses himself in words very
significant, in any orders