paramount power protected the minor states, and the minor states compensated for the protection by contributions of money and men. Among the feudatories of Bengal none was more protected, or paid less for his protection, than Rája Chait Singh, zemindár of Benares. A demand was made upon him for a war-contribution of five lakhs of rupees. The rája failed to comply, nor did he send the two thousand horsemen called for at a later moment at the instance of General Coote.
While matters were in this condition about the middle of 1780, a very important change took place. Barwell, whose support in council was necessary to Hastings's supremacy, became anxious to return to England. Francis was accordingly asked to agree to ‘pair’ with him, and agreed not to oppose the governor-general in the conduct of the Mahratta war. Barwell on this went home. After he was gone, Hastings proposed to send a mission to the court of Delhi, and to check Mahratta preponderance by action in Hindustan. To this Francis objected, alleging that his agreement had been misconstrued, and related only to operations pending in the Deccan when the agreement was made. Hastings, tired of being hampered, determined to risk his life in removing the obstruction. He provoked Francis, so as to make a duel necessary. They met at Alipore, a southern suburb of Calcutta, at 6 a.m. on 17 Aug. 1780. Deliberately choosing a place full of light, and making the seconds measure the shortest distance they could be induced to adopt, Hastings received his adversary's fire, which he instantly returned with such effect that Francis fell dangerously wounded. Had Francis been killed, Hastings must have been tried for murder. Had Hastings fallen, Francis would, at least till another man could come out from home, or say for eighteen months, have had all the powers and patronage of governor-general. As it was, the baffled man had to go back to England with a wounded body, and a mind full of revenge.
On being left supreme in council, Hastings pressed his demands on the Rája Chait Singh, founding them on the cession of the sovereignty of Benares to the company by the nawáb of Oudh, to whom it had pertained, and on cogent military reasons. In July 1781 he proceeded to Benares to enforce his orders, but the rája resisted, some of Hastings's sepoys were cut up in the street, and he himself had to make his retreat to the neighbouring fort of Chunár. Chait Singh called on the mother of the nawáb of Oudh, with whom he had an understanding, to send men to his aid, and broke into open revolt. But his revolt was soon quelled. At one time indeed his forces were within a few miles of Chunár; but they effected nothing, and before the end of September they had been routed and their leader had fallen back on his last stronghold. Here he was captured on 10 Nov. 1781, his treasure being distributed among the company's troops. Chait Singh was deposed, and his zemindári bestowed upon his nephew (see Narrative, Roorkee, 1853).
The nawáb-vazir was in debt to the company, and Hastings, while yet at Chunár, proposed an interview on the subject. The nawáb came to see him there, and doubtless the conversation included some mention of the support which the nawáb's mother had given to Chait Singh. The nawáb declared that he could not meet his engagements to the company; his mother and his grandmother had appropriated a large estate in land; they had also converted to their own use a large accumulation of treasure left by the late nawáb. These acts of spoliation had been sanctioned by the majority of the Calcutta council. It was now proposed, whether by the nawáb or by Hastings has never been determined, that partly to raise money and partly by way of punishment, the fiefs should be resumed, and the treasure applied to the exigencies of the Oudh state agreeably to the law of Islám. The dowagers replied with shrill refusal, on which the nawáb surrounded their house with a guard, put some of their servants into light irons, and, by a duress which has been much exaggerated, enforced his demand. Hastings had returned to Calcutta, but he intimated his disapproval of all severity as soon as the resident reported what had been done. This was the great case of the ‘robbery of the Oudh begums,’ which, indeed, was no robbery at all. But Hastings is not altogether free of responsibility for anything that may have been done amiss in this matter. The land and money which were taken from the dowagers had been held by them for some time, although perhaps without any legal right; their possession, too, had been guaranteed by the British government, though against the opinion of the out-voted governor. From the conditions of the case Hastings must have been aware that the dowagers and their men would not disgorge without resistance. He was, however, ill-served by the resident, an official who had been forced upon him and in whom he never confided (for an impartial account of these transactions see Wilson, note to Mill, bk. v. c. viii).
During that year (1782) Hastings had been severely taken to task by the court of directors
