John Morrison as his envoy to England, to treat for the transfer of Bengal from the Company to the Crown. To pay Sháh Alam any part of his tribute would be tantamount to enriching the Maráthás, whose tool and accomplice he had now become. 'His desertion of us, and union with our enemies,' wrote Hastings to Sulivan, 'leave us without a pretence to throw away more of the Company's property upon him, especially while the claims of our Sovereign are withheld for it.' To prevent all further misunderstanding, Hastings informed Sháh Alam that he must look for no more tribute from Bengal. This step was heartily applauded by the Court of Directors, who had themselves suggested it, some years before, as a proper penalty for any attempt on the Emperor's part to 'fling himself into the hands of the Maráthás, or any other power.'
Hastings owns that this transaction was regarded 'in the most criminal light' by many persons both in India and at home. But the blame, if any, rests chiefly with the Court of Directors, as Mill himself, no friend of Hastings, has pointed out. It must moreover be borne in mind that the Emperor's own conduct had given Hastings ample grounds for withholding the tribute promised by the treaty of 1765. Hastings had good cause for looking on Sháh Alam as a willing and dangerous tool in the hands of his new patrons. In surrendering to these the provinces which Clive's bounty had bestowed upon him, the Emperor himself had virtually annulled the contract
