that have a _tendency_ to bring _their_
government into _disrepute_. The amplitude of this latter description,
reserving to them the judgment of any orders which have so much as that
_tendency_, puts them in possession of a complete independence, an
independence including a despotic authority over the subordinates and
the country. The very means taken by the Directors for enforcing their
authority becomes, on this principle, a cause of further disobedience.
It is observable, that their principles of disobedience do not refer to
any local consideration, overlooked by the Directors, which might
supersede their orders, or to any change of circumstances, which might
render another course advisable, or even perhaps necessary,--but it
relates solely to their own interior feelings in matters relative to
themselves, and their opinion of their own dignity and reputation. It is
plain that they have wholly forgotten who they are, and what the nature
of their office is. Mr. Hastings and Mr. Barwell are servants of the
Company, and as such, by the duty inherent in that relation, as well as
by their special covenants, were obliged to yield obedience to the
orders of their masters. They have, as far as they were able, cancelled
all the bonds of this relation, and all the sanctions of these
covenants.

But in thus throwing off the authority of the Court of Directors, Mr.
Hastings and Mr. Barwell have thrown off the authority of the whole
legislative power of Great Britain; for, by the Regulating Act of the
thirteenth of his Majesty, they are expressly "directed and required to
pay due obedience to _all_ such orders as they shall receive from the
Court of Directors of the said United Company." Such is the declaration
of the law. But Mr. Barwell declares that he declines obedience to _any_
orders which he shall interpret to be indignities on a Governor-General.
To the clear injunctions of the legislature Mr. Hastings and Mr. Barwell
have thought proper to oppose their pretended reputation and dignity; as
if the chief honor of public ministers in every situation was not to
yield a cheerful obedience to the laws of their country. Your Committee,
to render evident to this House the general nature and tendency of this
pretended dignity, and to illustrate the real principles upon which they
appear to have acted, think it necessary to make observations on three
or four of the cases, already reported, of marked disobedience to
particular and sp