There is no evidence of any particulars being mentioned to the writer who made out the bond, though it contains very special matter, except by one witness: all agree that no directions were given in the room before the people came from Maha Rajah Nundocomar to Bollakey Doss's; and all the witnesses, except one, deny any specific directions being given after. It is possible, he might have spoken to the Mour before his coming into the room, which the other witnesses at this distance of time might have forgot.

Though there are some variations in their evidence at the time of the execution, that is not at all extraordinary; what is most striking is, the very accurate memories which they preserve as to some circumstances, and their total forgetfulness as to others.

The most remarkable instance of their memory is the knowledge of the seals, which some of them swear to positively, only from having seen them three or four times on the fingers of the owners, from which (though the seals must be reversed when applied to paper, and though ́some of them do not understand Persian, and consequently not the characters engraved on the seal) they swear positively to their being able to know the impressions; and it is true, for they do point out to whom the impression of each particular seal on the bond does belong. Kissen Juan Doss, who must have seen Bollakey Doss's seal oftener than any of the witnesses, does not take upon him to remember the impression; and on being told the other witnesses did, he said, they had excellent memo. ries; he was not blessed with such.

They are likewise uniformly accurate in describing the order in which the witnesses sealed and signed.

I shall make no observation on the variances of the witnesses to the execution; for, except in two instances, one of the witnesses, who remembered the sum in the bond, from its being explained in a language he did not understand, the other, Sheekear Mahomed, is the only witness that spoke with precision as to the sum. You heard him deliver his evidence, and will form your own judgment on that and on his whole evidence, in which he affirms and denies the same thing in the same breath.

As to the other, it was suggested, that the same words expressed the same sums in Moors and Persian, which drew on an enquiry; and we had the Persian and Moor words for the sums mentioned delivered in evidence; you will see how far you think they agree or disagree.

Nor shall I observe on the manner in which the witnesses on either side gave their testimony. You saw and remarked them. The jury having the opportunity to make their observations on the conduct of the witnesses, and of hearing the questions put as circumstances arise, is the great part of the benefit of a vivá Voce examination,

The defence does not attempt to prove either the deposit or the loss of jewels. And, indeed, Kissen Juan Doss, on whose evidence I shall hereafter observe, says, That he never heard ' of such a loss; had it happened, he must 'have heard it; and a thousand people must 'bave known it,' He speaks of the loss of jewels to a trifling amount, but those belonged to another person. This, as I said before, is a suspicious circumstance. But if the jewels were actually deposited, of which there is no evidence, except what I am going to take notice of, the Kursa Nama: though they were not lost, Bollakey Doss might have told Maha Rajah Nundocomar that they were; and the Maha Rajah might give credit to Bollakey Doss; or might chuse rather to take a bond than enquire further into the matter. It might possibly have been a fraud on Maha Rajah Nundocomar.

Meer Assud's evidence may be very material. He produces a paper, purporting to be a receipt given by Bollakey Doss to him, for valuable effects of Cossim Alli, delivered by the witness to Bollakey Doss, which had the seal of Bollakey Doss to it. The impression you will examine; you will find it to be the same as is on the bond. This was for the purpose of proving the correspondence of the impression of the seal on this receipt, with the seal on the bond; and by that means to prove, that the seal to the bond was the identical seal of Bol lakey Doss, not one that was forged. This transaction was said by the witness to be when Bullakey Doss was with the army at Durghotty. It seems clear beyond doubt, from the date of the receipt, from the place the army was then in, and from the circumstances that both Cossim Alli and Bollakey Doss were in at the time the receipt bears date, that the receipt could not have been given by Bollakey Doss, and that the whole is a fiction.

it

A very striking observation arises from this: may account for the witnesses remembering the seals so accurately. Tage Roy says, He is in possession of Matheb Roy's seal. The seal of Comaul O Deen is proved to have been in the possession of Maha Rajah Nundocomar; and the person who fabricated this receipt must have had that seal which made the im pression on the bond and the receipt. If the witnesses by any means have seen those seals, it is no longer surprising that they should be well acquainted with the impressions. This is a strong observation; but it is but an observation; I would have you consider it deliberately and maturely before you adopt it.

Kissen Juan Doss delivered all his evidence, till this morning, with such simplicity, and with such an air of candour and truth, that I gave full assent to every thing he said; and I am extremely chagrined that there has arisen any cause to suspect any part of his evidence. He mentioned a paper, which he calls a Kursa Nama, in which the whole of this transaction was wrote, and which was acknowledged and signed by Bollakey Doss. Though the entry

It is for you to determine how far he really stands in awe of Mohun Persaud, and what the effects of that intimidation was when he delivered bis evidence.

It is strange, as the witness was so often examined, and so particularly to this Kursa Nama, that Maha Rajah Nuudocomar never | before suggested this matter to his counsel.

made in the book after the death of Bollakey Doss, by order of Pudmohua Doss, and purporting to be in the lifetime of Bollakey Doss, carried marks of suspicion with it; yet, I own, Kissen Juan Doss had so completely gained my confidence, that I gave implicit credit to him. Many attempts were made to establish it in evidence, which failed of legal proof; but as I thought so well of Kissen Juan Doss, and as it would have been extremely hard, if such a paper bad existed, that the prisoner should be deprived of the benefit of it, I said (having first asked the consent of my brethren,) that, though it was not strictly evidence, I would leave it to you to give such weight to it as you thought it deserved. I still leave it to you; and if you believe that such a paper ever existed, it would be the highest injustice not to acquit the prisoner.

Attempts were made to bring this to the knowledge of Mohun Persaud; and if it did exist, and was in the knowledge of Mohun Persaud, this prosecution is most horrid and diabolical. Mohun Persaud is guilty of a crime, in my apprehension, of a nature more horrid than

murder.

comar's.

When he is examined to the reason of his not having told it before, all that simplicity, all that air of truth and candour, which we had remarked in him, instantly vanished; his looks were cast down, his tongue faultered, he prevaricates, he contradicts himself, he did not seem the same man. He did not tell, because he was not asked.' He did not mention it to Maha Rajah Nundocomar in his letter, because he was afraid of Mohun Persaud. • He did not mention, because he did not recol'lect it.' 'He did not deliver it in evidence, because afraid of Mohun Persaud.' Mohun Persaud is a great man. He was not afraid to write the letter. He did not shew the letter to Mobun Persaud: why should he be afraid to insert this circumstance? If he now stands in so much fear of Mohun Persaud as not to mention this in his evidence, was he so much afraid of him when he voluntarily and directly confronted him as to the army books?

All this fear arises from no recent threat: it is in consequence of a conversation at the distance of some years.

VOL. XX.

If this latter part of Kissen Juan's evidence is true, he must be either guilty of perjury or very strong prevarication in his former evidence. Being asked as to Mohun Persaud and Gungabissen's knowledge of the entry made from the Kursa Nama? He says, 'I cannot say that Mohun Persaud and Gungabissen knew of it, at the time of the entry; they 'knew of it afterwards. How can I tell when they knew of if first? They must have known it from the papers in the Dewanny Andaulet; 'they were all called for there. I should tell, ' if I knew Gungabissen or Mohun Persaud 'knew of the entry.'

He must have known it was more material to prove that they knew of the Kursa Nama itself, in which the particulars of the account which formed the sum in the entry were wrote, and which Bollakey Doss had signed. But he presently afterwards positively says, That Mohun Persand and Gungabissen were not acquainted with the accounts.

In another part of his evidence, he says to Pudmohun Doss, Make my mind easy about 'the bond we are now paying,' or (for there was a doubt in the interpretation) which we have paid.'

The time that this explanation was made at Maha Rajah Nundocomar's is not ascertained; but it must have been before the payment of the bond; for afterwards it could be of no use. If then Kissen Juan Doss had before seen this Kursa Nama, and explained it to Mohun Per saud, why did he demand that his mind should be made easy about the bond? and how was it made easy, only by the production of a paper that he had seen before.

I am much hurt, to be obliged to make these observations on the evidence of a man that I entertained so good an opinion of. I must desire you to recollect, with regard to this observation, and every one that 1 submit to you, that you are to make no farther use of them, than as they coincide with your opinions and observations; and when they do not, you should reject them; for it is you, not I, that are to decide upon the evidence.

Attempts were made, by means of Monohun and other witnesses, to impeach Mohun Persaud, by particular facts, of attempts to suborn, and by general character. You must judge how far they have succeeded. They totally failed in the same attempts, as to Commaul O'Dien.

It is to be observed, likewise, that no person has been called to impeach the witnesses brought by the defendant.

There are many observations to be made in favour of the prisoner; and I am sure your 3 Z

you determine, that it is supported by perjury, and that of an aggravated kind, as it attempts to fix perjury and subornation of perjury on the prosecutor and his witnesses.

You will again and again consider the character of the prosecutor and his witnesses, the distance of the prosecution from the time the offence is supposed to be committed, the proof and nature of the confessions said to be made by the prisoner, his rank and fortune. These are all reasons to prevent your giving a hasty and precipitate belief to the charge brought against him; but, if you believe the facts sworn against him to be true, they cannot alter the

nature of the facts themselves. Your sense of justice, and your own feelings, will not allow you to convict the prisoner, unless your consciences are fully satisfied beyond all doubt of his guilt. If they are not, you will bring in that verdict, which, from the dictates of humanity, you will be inclined to give; but, should your consciences be thoroughly convinced of his being guilty, no consideration, I am sure, will prevail on you not to give a verdict according to your oaths.

The Jury retired for about an hour; and brought in their verdict, Guilty.

By way of Introduction to the Report of the Trials of Joseph Fowke and others, was published the following Account of certain Preliminary Measures. It is in itself not uninteresting.

DEPOSITIONS
CONCERNING

A CONSPIRACY AGAINST WARREN
HASTINGS, Esq.

Calcutta, April 20, 1775. ON the 19th instant, about nine in the morning, Comaul O Deen Alli Cawn, the farmer of Hedgelee, came to Mr. Hastings, with a complaint against Mr. Joseph Fowke, for having extorted from him, by violence, accusations against Mr. Hastings and other persons. The particulars of his story will be related at large in his deposition. He said, he had that instant made his escape from the hands of Fowke and Nundocomar. His jamma was torn, his face pale, and he was, or appeared to be, out of breath. Mr. Hastings told him, he could afford him no redress; and referred him to the Chief Justice. He went. The Chief Justice having heard the complaint, summoned the other judges to meet him in the evening; and

* See the preceding Case.

late that night Mr. Hastings received the following Letter from them:

“The Hon. Warren Hastings, esq. "Sir; a charge having been exhibited, upon oath, before us, against Joseph and Francis Fowke, Maha Rajah Nundocomar, and Rada Churn, for a conspiracy against you and others; we have summoned the parties to appear tomorrow, at 10 o'clock in the forenoon, at the house of sir Elijah Impey, where we must require your attendance.-We are, Sir, your most obedient humble servants, E. IMPEY, ROBERT CHAMBERS, S. C. LEMAISTRE, JOHN HYDE."

"Calcutta, April 19, 1775."

The same intimation was sent, in the same form, to Mr. Barwell, Mr. Vansittart, Maha Rajah, Rajebullub, and Cantoo Baboo.

The next morning Mr. Hastings attended, as did the other persons named in the letter.

The persons examined as evidence on the charge, were Comaul O Dien, his Moonsby, Mathew Miranda and Timothy Pereira, two writers of Mr. Fowke, Akermannu a Gentoo, and a Moonshy, both servants of Mr. Fowke, and Yar Mahomed, a well-known servant of Nundocomar. The examination lasted till eleven at night,

It will be necessary, before we proceed, to remind the reader of a representation which was made to Mr. Hastings by Comaul O Deen, of the like attempt made by Mr. Fowke in December last, to extort accusations from him; and which was laid before the board on the 13th of that month. In the course of the late