| Description | He has received many letters, but his father's deserves a separate answer, querying the phrase that William has not met reproof. He has been told that he was wrong, but he simply exceeded his executive powers in attempting to protect a village from harm. His other error was to give a 'pettish' explanation of his actions. If reproof meant more than this William was probably referring to his being 'plucked' at examinations, which angered him at first. From his last letter, his father will know that Mr Hedger [the indigo planter] has not given over the contest, being bent on getting William out of the district, and hoping for an Indian deputy magistrate instead. He has again appealed to the Nizamat Adalat court, citing [Arthur] Pigou's offer to have William's remarks on his report. Hedger has attributed Herschel's comments to personal ill-will, but Pigou disallows this, and William in his defence has only touched on points of law, denying any such motive. He was bound to interfere in a case where villagers were imprisoned in secret for almost three months and prosecute those concerned. Pigou has objected in that his actions were not in correct form, since he issued warrants based on the statements of prisioners and the summons was therefore illegal. William has argued that the crimes were such that no complaint was needed and that he was at liberty to pursue anyone who did such things, on the basis of good information. He continues to describe arguments, noting that [William] Waterfield thinks his defence is approved of in Berhampore, so that William believes there will be no serious consequences. He is grateful to be called now, as last January or February he would have written a defence which would have ruined himself, but he has made progress in the last eighteen months. He ruminates on the nature of his job, and the difference between philosophy and 'dunces' in running the world. |