696 APPENDIX A. makes a great display of force ; he poses as the pure and upright man who is incapable of " searching out mean and sordid causes for the great results of history." He then marshals his witnesses, men some of them of distinction in their time ; the only men whose evidence could throw any light on the subject; and then, when he finds that their evidence tells against his theory, and establishes beyond a doubt the statement that La Bourdonnais did negotiate for and accept a bribe for the ransom of Madras, he asks the reader to disbelieve them because " they were really on their own defence." They were not on their own defence more than a member of Council of the present day would be who might be asked to narrate certain transactions in which, by virtue of his office, he had taken a prominent part. Who but Mr. Morse and Mr. Monson could have revealed the negotiations between themselves and La Bourdonnais ? It is conceivable why their evidence is very disappointing to Sir George Bird wood, for it proves my contention ; therefore he can find no other method of getting rid of it than by summarily putting the witnesses out of court. But, I would ask, is that fair argument ? I am wrong to call it argument at all ; it is the resource of a mind driven to its last shift to avoid a palpable issue. The then late Governor of Madras and his senior member of Council, state that La Bourdonnais insisted on negotiating for and accepting a bribe (vide Folio 3, 4, and 21, quoted by Sir George Bird wood), they formed the committee to which the negotiation was intrusted; and their statement is practically confirmed by the men to whom they applied to raise the money (vide Folio 10.) Their colleague, Mr. Fowke, although a stranger himself to the transaction, expresses " his belief that the money was paid." So much for the facts of the case. But Sir George Birdwood, fight- ing against conviction, states that after a trial of over three years in France La Bourdonnais was acquitted of this very charge. He was acquitted simply because the evidence on which he now stands con- demned had not then been taken. La Bourdonnais captured Madras and negotiated for the ransom in 1746 ; he was tried in France in 1748-51 ; the date of the case in which the evidence regarding him is recorded in England is 1752. Who can doubt but that if that evidence had been in existence during 1748-51, and had been produced before the court which tried La Bourdonnais in France, he would have been condemned ? There is no getting away from that evidence. And here I would call attention to the fact that it entirely satisfied the distin- guished judge who first brought it to my notice, and who subsequently became Chief Justice of the High Court of Madras. But I have not yet done with Sir George Birdwood. Beaten at all points, and forced at last to admit that La Bourdonnais may have
