governor who makes nothing but money his object there can be nothing of
this. There are here none of those specious delusions that look like
virtues, to veil either the governed or the governor. If you look at Mr.
Hastings's merits, as he calls them, what are they? Did he improve the
internal state of the government by great reforms? No such thing. Or by
a wise and incorrupt administration of justice? No. Has he enlarged the
boundary of our government? No: there are but too strong proofs of his
lessening it. But his pretensions to merit are, that he squeezed more
money out of the inhabitants of the country than other persons could
have done,--money got by oppression, violence, extortion from the poor,
or the heavy hand of power upon the rich and great.

These are his merits. What we charge as his demerits are all of the same
nature; for, though there is undoubtedly oppression, breach of faith,
cruelty, perfidy, charged upon him, yet the great ruling principle of
the whole, and that from which you can never have an act free, is
money,--it is the vice of base avarice, which never is, nor ever appears
even to the prejudices of mankind to be, anything like a virtue. Our
desire of acquiring sovereignty in India undoubtedly originated first in
ideas of safety and necessity; its next step was a step of ambition.
That ambition, as generally happens in conquest, was followed by gains
of money; but afterwards there was no mixture at all; it was, during Mr.
Hastings's time, altogether a business of money. If he has extirpated a
nation, I will not say whether properly or improperly, it is because
(says he) you have all the benefit of conquest without expense; you have
got a large sum of money from the people, and you may leave them to be
governed by whom and as they will. This is directly contrary to the
principles of conquerors. If he has at any time taken any money from the
dependencies of the Company, he does not pretend that it was obtained
from their zeal and affection to our cause, or that it made their