SECOND DAY; SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 16 396 ARTICLES OF CHARGE OF HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS AGAINST WARREN HASTINGS, ESQUIRE, LATE GOVERNOR-GENERAL OF BENGAL: PRESENTED TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IN APRIL AND MAY, 1786. ARTICLES VII.-XXII. VII.--CONTRACTS. That the Court of Directors of the East India Company had laid down the following fundamental rules for the conduct of such of the Company's business in Bengal as could be performed by contract, and had repeatedly and strictly ordered the Governor and Council of Port William to observe those rules, viz.: That all contracts should be publicly advertised, and the most reasonable proposals accepted; that the contracts of provisions, and for furnishing draught and carriage bullocks for the army, should be _annual_; and that they should not fail to advertise for and receive proposals for those contracts _every year_. That the said Warren Hastings, in direct disobedience to the said positive orders, and, as the Directors themselves say, _by a most deliberate breach of his duty_, did, in September, 1777, accept of proposals offered by Ernest Alexander Johnson for providing draught and carriage bullocks, and for victualling the Europeans, without advertising for proposals, as he was expressly commanded to do, and extended the contract for _three years_, which was positively ordered to be _annual_,--and, notwithstanding that extension of the period, which ought at least to have been compensated by some advantage to the Company in the conditions, did conclude the said contract _upon terms less advantageous than the preceding contract, and therefore not on the lowest terms procurable_. That the said Warren Hastings, in defiance of the judgment and lawful orders of his superiors, which in this case left him no option, declared, that _he disapproved of publishing for proposals, and that the contract was reduced too low already_: thereby avowing himself the advocate of the contractor, against whom, as representative of the Company, and guardian of their interests, he properly was party, and preferring the advantage of the contractor to those of his own constituents and employers. That the Court of Directors of the East India Company, having carefully considered the circumstances and tendency of this transaction, condemned it in the strongest terms, declaring, that they would _not permit_ the contract to be continued, and that, "if the contractor should think himself aggrieved, and take measures in consequence by which the Company became involved in loss or damage, they should certainly hold the majority of the Council responsible for such loss or damage, and proceed against them accordingly."--That the said Warren Hastings, in defiance of orders, which the Directors say were _plain and unequivocal_, did, in January, 1777, receive from George Templer a proposal essentially different from the advertisement published by the Governor-General and Council for