User talk:2A00:23C6:1180:5B00:646B:A4D1:C79F:D117

The article on Nuncomar is inaccurate in several respects:

1. Warren Hastings did not overule the Council. He said that it was not an appropriate forum in which to try him for Nuncomar's accusations since he was head of the Council and could not be head of a body that was trying him - but neither could he resign the post of Governor on the basis of a false accusation. He suggested that the correct place to try him was a court of law. He then 'suspended' the Council.

2. Warren Hastings did not initiate proceedings against Nuncomar. The prosecution was instigated by Mohun Persaud who was a victim of the alleged forgery and there is no evidence to assume that Hastings was involved, and good reason (for Hastings' own advantage) to assume that he did not.

3. Nothing in the trial suggests that Impey was biased against Nuncomar. Indeed Impey would have recommended a verdict of 'not guilty' in his summing up had not Nuncomar's defence recalled one of their most crucial witnesses, Kissan Juan Doos, and Kissan then contradicted his former testimony on certain important points thus negating his value as a witness.

4. It should be remembered that Impey defended himself successfully against his impeachment. and that Mcauley's diatribe against Warren Hastings is nowadays considered 'wholly unjust'.