It did not relieve the Company from the _expense_ of defending the
country; since the revenues thereof far exceeded the subsidy to be paid
by Sujah Dowlah, and these revenues justly belonged to the Company as
long as the country continued under their protection, and would have
answered the expense of defending it. Finally, that the sum of fifty lac
of rupees, stipulated with the said Sujah Dowlah, was inadequate to the
value of the country, the annual revenues of which were stated at
twenty-five lac of rupees, which General Sir Robert Barker, then
commander-in-chief of the Company's forces, affirms _was certain, and
too generally known to admit of a doubt_.
That the King Shah Allum received for some years the annual tribute of
twenty-six lac of rupees above mentioned, and was entitled to continue
to receive it by virtue of an engagement deliberately, and for an
adequate consideration, entered into with him by the Company's servants,
and approved of and ratified by the Company themselves;--that this
engagement was absolute and unconditional, and did neither express nor
suppose any case in which the said King should forfeit or the Company
should have a right to resume the tribute;--that, nevertheless, the said
Warren Hastings and his Council, immediately after selling the King's
country to Sujah Dowlah, resolved to withhold, and actually withheld,
the payment of the said tribute, of which the King Shah Allum has never
since received any part;--that this resolution of the Council is not
justified even by themselves on principles of right and justice, but by
arguments of policy and convenience, by which the best founded claims
of right and justice may at all times be set aside and defeated.
Pages:
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477