was therefore impelled by every
motive which ought to influence a man of sense by no means to disturb
the order which he had last established.

Of this, however, he took no care; but he was not so inattentive to the
satisfaction of the sufferers, either in point of honor or of interest.
This was most strongly marked in the case of Mr. Fowke. His reparation
to that gentleman, in point of honor, is as full as possible. Mr.
Hastings "declared, that he approved his character and his conduct in
office, and believed that he might _depend_ upon _his exact and literal
obedience and fidelity_ in the execution of the functions annexed to
it." Such is the character of the man whom Mr. Hastings a second time
removed from the office to which he told the Court of Directors, in his
letter of the 3rd of March, 1780, he had appointed him in conformity to
their orders. On the 14th of January, 1781, he again finds it an
indispensable obligation in him to exercise powers "_inherent_ in the
constitution of his government." On this principle he claimed "the right
of nominating the agent of his own choice to the Residence of Benares;
that it is a representative situation: that, speaking for myself
_alone_, it may be _sufficient_ to say, that Mr. Francis Fowke is not
_my_ agent; _that I cannot give him my confidence_; that, while he
continues at Benares, he stands as a screen between the Rajah and this
government, instead of an instrument of control; that the Rajah himself,
and every chief in Hindostan, will regard it as the pledge and
foundation of his independence." Here Mr. Hastings has got back to his
old principles, where he takes post as on strong ground. This he
declares "to be his objection to Mr. Fowke, and that it is insuperable."
The very line before this paragraph he writes of this person, to whom he
_could_ not give his _confidence_, that "he believed he might _depend_
upon _his fidelity_, and his exact and literal obedience." Mr. Scott,
who is authorized to defend Mr. Hastings, supported the same principles
before your Committee by a comparison that avowedly reduces the Court of
Directors to the state of a party against their servants. He declared,
that, in his opinion, "it would be just as _absurd_ to _deprive him_ of
the power of nominating his ambassador at Benares as it would be to
force on _the ministry_ of this country an ambassador from _the
opposition_." Such is the opinion entertained in Bengal, and that but
too effectu