It was not twenty lacs of rupees, but thirty, that Omichund expected; for he was promised five per cent. upon the whole amount, independent of what was specified in the fictitious treaty. He had stipulated with a sword, or rather a dagger, in his hand, that he should receive this great sum, though his unpaid losses did not exceed two lacs. The distinct ground upon which he demanded the remainder was, his power to extort it: the very extent of the sum proved the extortion. If he had succeeded in his object, this subordinate agent would have received much more than double the amount of the sum fixed to be divided between the Governor, Military Commander, Select Committee, and Members of Council; and his share of the Nabob's donations would have been equal to two thirds of what had been stipulated as the reward of the services of the whole army and navy. There is another view of this question to be taken, to which the circumstances of the moment gave great importance. The recently established influence and power of the English, compelled them to confide their public, as well as private, concerns, to native associates and agents: and, with reference to the ruling passions of the Hindus, we may affirm, that an example more likely to be detrimental to their future interests could not have occurred than a successful issue of the treachery of Omichund. These considerations, however, relate only to the policy or impolicy of complying with his demand. We have now to examine the mode that was adopted to defeat its object; and here, it must be admitted, that of all modes by which his machinations could be defeated, a fictitious treaty appears the most seriously objectionable; but the alternative of complying with his demand, or of framing such a treaty, was forced upon the Committee of Calcutta. Omichund demanded that document as the condition of refraining from his threatened communication to the Nabob. No verbal promise could satisfy a person who was conscious of having broken every tie with those by whom he had been trusted. He demanded, therefore, what he thought the most sacred of all pledges that could be given; and it was obvious, that they must either comply with his request, deceive him with a false treaty, or vitiate the real one by the insertion of an article not meant to be performed. It is here to be remarked, that Omichund was no party to the treaty. That treaty was contracted between the Committee at Calcutta and Meer Jaffier; and both these parties were agreeing to the fictitious treaty, which was prepared for the sole purpose of being shown to Omichund, to lull him into security till the hour of danger from his hostility was past. This distinction is important: for, though it does not clear the parties concerned of deliberate deceit towards an individual, it removes all imputation of their having brought a stain on the good faith of the State, by the substitution, to the party with whom they treated, of a false for a real engagement.