This letter appears to have been
received by Mr. Hastings and Mr. Barwell very loftily. Mr. Hastings
said, "that such applications were irregular; that they are not
accountable to Mr. Fowke for their resolution respecting him. The
reasons for suspending the execution of the orders of the Court of
Directors contain _no charge, nor the slightest imputation of a charge_,
against Mr. Fowke; _but I see no reason why the board should condescend
to tell him so_." Accordingly, the proposition of Mr. Francis and Mr.
Wheler, to inform Mr. Fowke "that they had no reason to be dissatisfied
with his conduct," on the previous question was rejected.
By this resolution Mr. Hastings and Mr. Barwell discovered another
principle, and no less dangerous than the first: namely, that persons
deriving a valuable interest under the Company's orders, so far from
being heard in favor of their right, are not so much as to be informed
of the grounds on which they are deprived of it.
The arrival soon after of Sir Eyre Coote giving another opportunity of
trial, the question for obedience to the Company's orders was again[13]
brought on by Mr.
Pages:
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285