and, brilliant as the result of his policy had been, it did not escape censure from the court of directors, by whom the extension of territory was denounced. In his answer to the address of the inhabitants of Calcutta, presented to him on his return to that city, Hastings gave an elaborate explanation of his policy, and declared that 'in our original plan there was not the expectation or the wish of adding a rood to the dominions of the Honourable Company' (Asiatic Journal, 1819, vii. 174-83). In 1818 he was made a G.C.H. and a G.C.B. A vote of thanks for his services was passed by the general court of the East India Company on 3 Feb. 1819, and in the same year a grant of 60,000l. was made by the company for the purchase of an estate to be held by trustees for the benefit of Hastings, his wife and issue. A vote of thanks was also passed to him in both houses of parliament in March 1819 (Parl. Debates, xxxix. 760–9, 865–94). During the last years of his governor-generalship Hastings devoted himself to the civil and financial duties of the administration with great ability and industry. In spite of the hostility of the directors he supported many useful measures for the education of the natives, and encouraged the freedom of the press. He did his best also to remove all oppressive laws, and to raise the tone of the government officials. In 1819 he secured the cession of Singapoor, and in 1822 sent a mission to the king of Siam in the hope of establishing commercial intercourse with that country. Moreover, notwithstanding the expenses of the two wars in which he had been engaged, the financial results of his administration were more satisfactory than had been the case with any of his predecessors.
Unfortunately, by an order in council, dated 23 July 1810, the governor-general had suspended the provisions of the act (37 Geo. III c. 142), which prohibited loans to native princes by British subjects, in favour of the banking house of William Palmer & Co., giving them power to do 'all acts within the territories of the nizam which are prohibited by the said act of parliament,' provided that they communicated the nature and object of their transactions, whenever they were required to do so. In 1820, after much difference of opinion in the council, permission was granted to the same house for the negotiation of a loan of sixty lakhs of rupees, which the nizam's minister declared to be required for the legitimate purposes of discharging the arrears due to the public establishment, paying off the incumbrances due to the native bankers, and for making advances to the ryots. Soon after this permission had been given, orders were received from the court of directors, expressing their strong disapproval of the whole of these transactions, and directing the annulment of the exemption which had been granted to the firm. Metcalfe, who had been appointed resident at Hyderabad in November 1820, discovered that a large portion of the loan had been misapplied, and came to the conclusion that the existence of such a powerful trading company was dangerous to the administration of government. The loan was paid off by the resident, and all the dealings of the firm were declared illegal.
Hastings had imprudently avowed an interest in the prosperity of the house of Palmer & Co. in a letter to Sir William Rumbold, who had married his ward, and was one of the partners of the firm. In consequence of this the motives of Hastings were mistrusted by the directors, and, justly indignant at their suspicions, he sent in his resignation in 1821. In March 1822 Canning was appointed his successor, and in the following May the court of directors passed a vote of thanks to Hastings for his zeal and ability. Hastings left India on 1 Jan. 1823, and was succeeded by Lord Amherst, Canning having given up the post in consequence of Lord Londonderry's death. Owing to the embarrassment, of his affairs, Hastings accepted the post of governor and commander-in-chief of Malta, to which he was appointed on 22 March 1824. In the same month Douglas Kinnaird brought forward a proposal in the general court of proprietors for taking into consideration Hastings's services as governor-general of India. An amendment, calling for all the papers connected with his administration, was, however, carried, and the compilation and printing of the documents occupied a twelvemonth. At length, after a long debate on the Hyderabad papers in February and March 1825, Kinnaird's resolution, that the papers contained nothing which tended 'to affect in the slightest degree the personal character or integrity of the late governor-general,' was defeated, and the chairman's amendment, that though there was 'no ground for imputing corrupt motives to the late governor-general,' yet at the same time the court felt 'called upon to record its approval of the political despatches to the Bengal government under dates 24 May 1820, 28 Nov. 1821, 9 April 1823, 21 Jan. 1824,' was carried by a majority of 209. These despatches contained several charges against Hastings, and among others that of having lent the company's credit to the transactions at Hyderabad, not for the benefit of the nizam, but for the sole benefit of Palmer & Co., with having stu-
