Major Gilpin's evidence leaves not even the shadow of a pretence for this charge. He had the Begums and their eunuchs under his custody for a full year; he was strictly ordered to watch them and to guard them, and during all that time he lived at Fyzabad. He was the man who commanded the troops; who had all the witnesses in his power; who had daily access to all parties at Fyzabad; and who moreover was a person attached to Mr. Hastings in the strongest manner.

Your Lordships will now be pleased to hear read to you this part of Major Gilpin's evidence: -"Had you any opportunity of knowing the character of the Begums, and whether they were disaffected to our government?-A. I had a very good opportunity of knowing, from the circumstance of my having commanded so long there; the elder Begum, it was generally understood, (and I have reason to believe,) was disaffected to our government; and my sentiments of her conduct stand recorded in my correspondence to the court of Lucknow to that effect; but with respect to the Bow Begum, I acquit her entirely of any disaffection to our government, so far as comes to my knowledge; appearances were for some time against her, but on cool deliberate inquiry, I found there was no ground for supposing her guilty of any rebellious principles,

ciples, at the time of Cheit Sing's rebellion. Q. Whether that, according to your belief, is not your present opinion?—A. I think I have answered that very fully, that it was upon those very principles that I did form an opinion of her innocence; how far they are justifiable or right, I will not take upon me to say upon oath; there was no one circumstance that came to my knowledge, during my residence at Fyzabad or my residence in India, that I would wish to withhold from your Lordships. Q. You state here, upon cool deliberate inquiry; what was that cool deliberate inquiry ?-A. That cool deliberate inquiry was the conversations I had with the ministers and the people of Fyzabad, and the letters from herself expressing her innocence; and it appeared to me from those letters, that she really was our friend and ally."

The same witness goes on afterwards to say: -"Q. I understood you to say, that originally the report prevailed with respect to both the Begums, but that you was induced to alter that opinion with respect to the younger Begum, in consequence of Mr. Gordon's letters and the intelligence of some of her ministers and other persons; were not those other persons in the interest of the younger Begum?-A. In general the town of Fyzabad were in her interest. Q. In what sense do you mean generally in her interest;

were the persons you conversed with merely those who were in her service and household, or the inhabitants of Fyzabad in general?— A. Both; I held conversations with both her own body servants and the inhabitants of the city. [A little lower down, in the same page.] What do you mean by the word rebellion as applied to the Begums; in what sense do you use it? A. In raising troops and in other acts of rebellion, in the common acceptation of the word. Q. Against whom?-A. Against the Nabob's government and the British government jointly; but I beg to know the particular time and circumstance the question alludes to. Q. I understand you to have said, you understood the elder Begum was in a constant state of rebellion; in what sense do you use the word rebellion ; did you say the elder Begum was in a constant state of rebellion?-A. I always understood her to be disaffected to the English government; it might not be a proper expression of mine, the word rebellion. Q. Do you know of any act by the elder Begum against the Vizier?-A. I cannot state any. Q. Do you know of any act which you call rebellion, committed by the elder Begum against the Company?-A. I do not know of any particular circumstance, only it was generally supposed that she was disaffected to the Company. Q. What acts of disaffection

or

or hostility towards the English do you allude to, when you speak of the conversation of the world at the time?-A. I have answered that question as fully as I can, that it was nothing but conversation, that I knew of no particular act or deed myself.

This man, then declares, as your Lordships have heard, that upon cool, deliberate inquiry made at Fyzabad from all the inhabitants, he did not believe in the existence of any rebellion. That as to the Bow Begum, the grandmother, who was a person that could only be charged with it in a secondary degree, and as conspiring with the other, he says, he knows no facts against her; except that at the battle of Buxar, in the year 1764, she had used some odd expressions concerning the English, who were then at war with her son Sujah Dowlah. This was long before we had any empire or pretence to empire in that part of India; therefore the expression of a rebellion, which he had used with regard to her, was he acknowledged improper; and that he only meant he had formed some opinion of her disaffection to the English.

As to the Begum, he positively acquits her of any rebellion. If he therefore did not know it, who was an active officer in the very centre of the alleged rebellion, and who was in possession

of all the persons from whom information was to be got, who had the eunuchs in prison, and might have charged them with this rebellion, and might have examined and cross-examined them at his pleasure; if this man new nothing about it, your Lordships will judge of the false hood of this wicked rumour, spread about from hand to hand, and which was circulated

persons who at the same time have declared that they never heard of it before Sir Elijah Impey went up into the country, the messenger of Mr. Hastings's orders, to seize the treasures of the Begum's, and commissioned to procure evidence, in justification of that violence and robbery.

I now go to another part of this evidence. There is a person they call Hoolas Roi. A man in the employment of the Resident, Mr. Middleton. The gentlemen who are counsel for the Prisoner have exclaimed,- O! he was nothing but a news writer. What! do you take any notice of him? Your Lordships would imagine that the man whom they treat in this manner, and whose negative evidence they think fit to despise, was no better than the writers of those scandalous paragraphs which are published in our daily papers, to misrepresent the proceedings of this Court to the publick. But who in fact is this Hoolas Roi whom they represent, for the convenience of the day, to be nothing but a news writer ?