ated in his office of Resident as
Post-master of Benares. In the same letter they assert their rights in
a tone of becoming firmness, and declare, that "on no account we can
permit our orders to be disobeyed or our authority disregarded."

It was now to be seen which of the parties was to give way. The orders
were clear and precise, and enforced by a strong declaration of the
resolution of the Court to make itself obeyed. Mr. Hastings fairly
joined issue upon this point with his masters, and, having disobeyed the
general instructions of the Company, determined to pay no obedience to
their special order.

On the 21st July, 1778, he moved, and succeeded in his proposition, that
the execution of these orders should be suspended. The reason he
assigned for this suspension lets in great light upon the true character
of all these proceedings: "That his consent to the recall of Mr. Graham
would be adequate to his own resignation of the service, as it would
inflict such a wound on _his authority and influence_ that he could not
maintain it."

If that had been his opinion, he ought to have resigned, and not
disobeyed: because it was not necessary that he should hold his office;
but it was necessary, that, whilst he hold it, he should obey his
superiors, and submit to the law. Much more truly was his conduct a
virtual resignation of his lawful office, and at the same time an
usurpation of a situation which did not belong to him, to hold a
subordinate office, and to refuse to act according to its duties. Had
his authority been self-originated, it would have been wounded by his
submission; but in this case the true nature of his authority was
affirmed, not injured, by his obedience, because it was a power derived
from others, and, by its essence, to be executed according to their
directions.

In this determined disobedience he was supported by Mr. Barwell, who on
that occasion delivered the dangerous doctrine to which your Committee
have lately adverted. Mr. Fowke, who had a most material interest in
this determination, applied by letter to be informed concerning it. An
answer was sent, acquainting him coldly, and without any reason
assigned, of what had been resolved relative to his office. This
communication was soon followed by another letter from Mr. Fowke, with
great submission and remarkable decency asserting his right to his
office under the authority of the Court of Directors, and for solid
reasons, grounded on the Com