In this statement of the case every thing is put out of its true place. Mr. Hastings was not charged with receiving a lack and a half of rupees from Munny Begum, the guardian of the Nabob, for she was not then his guardian; but he was charged with receiving a lack and a half of rupees for removing the Nabob's own mother, who was his natural guardian, and substituting this step-mother, who was a prostitute, in her place; whereas here it supposes he found her a guardian, and that she had made him a present, which alters the whole nature of the case. The case, in the recital of the charge, sets out with what every one of your Lordships knows now not to be the truth of the fact, nor the thing, that in itself implies the criminality: he ought to have stated that in the beginning of the business. The suppressions in the recital are amazing he states an inquiry having been made by the Supreme Council of Bengal respecting the conduct of the members of the last administration. That inquiry was made in consequence of the charge, and not the charge brought forwards, as they would have it believed, in consequence of the inquiry. There is no mention, that that inquiry had been expressly ordered by the Court of Directors; but it is stated, as though it was a voluntary inquiry. Now there is always something doubtful in voluntary

luntary inquiries with regard to the people concerned. He then supposes upon this inquiry that to be the charge, which is not the charge at all. The crime, as I have stated, consisted of two distinct parts, but both inferring the same corruption: the first, two lack of rupees taken expressly for the nomination of this woman to this place, and the other, one lack and a half of rupees, in effect for the same purpose, but under the name and colour of an entertainment. The drawer of the case finding, that in the one case, namely, the two lack of rupees, the evidence was more weak, but that no justification could be set up; finding in the other, the lack and an half of rupees, the proof strong, and not to be resisted, but that some justification was to be found for it, lays aside the charge of the two lack totally; and the evidence belonging to it, which was considered as rather weak, is applied to the other charge of a lack and a half, the proof of which upon its own evidence was irresistible.

My speech, I hope, your Lordships consider as only pointing out to your attention these particulars., Your Lordships will see it exemplified throughout the whole, that when there is evidence, (for some evidence is brought) that does belong to the lack and a half, it is entirely passed by, the most material circumstances are

weakened,

weakened, the whole strength and force of them taken away. Every one knows how true it is of evidence, juncta juvant: but here every thing is broken and smashed to pieces, and nothing but disorder appears through the whole. For your Lordships will observe, that the proof, that belongs to one thing, is put as belonging to another, and the proof of the other brought in a weak and imperfect manner in the rear of the first, and with every kind of observation to rebut and weaken it; and when this evidence is produced, which appears inapplicable almost in all the parts, in many doubtful, confused, and perplexed, and in some even contradictory, which it will be, when the evidence to one thing is brought to apply and bear upon another: good hopes were entertained in consequence, that that would happen, which in part did happen, namely, that the counsel distracted and confused, and finding no satisfaction in the case, could not advise a prosecution.

But what is still more material and weighty, many particulars are suppressed in this case, and still more in the report; and turning from the case to the proceedings of the persons, who are supposed to have the management of the inquiry, they bring forward, as an appendix to this case, Mr. Hastings's own invectives and charge against these persons at the very same

time, that they suppress and do not bring forward, either in the charge or upon the report, what the other party have said in their own justification. The consequence of this management was, that a body of evidence, which would have made this case the clearest in the world, and which I hope we shall make to appear so to your Lordships, was rendered for the most part inapplicable, and the whole puzzled and confused: I say, for the most part, for some parts did apply, but miserably applied, to the case. From their own state of the case they would have it inferred, that the fault was not in their way of representing it, but in the infirmity, confusion, and disorder of the proofs themselves; but this, I trust, we shall satisfy you is by no means the case. I rest, however, upon the proof of partiality in this business, of the imposition upon the counsel, whether designed or not, and of the bias given by adding an appendix with Mr. Hastings's own remarks upon the case, without giving the reasons of the other parties for their conduct. Now, if there was nothing else than the fallacious recital, and afterwards the suppression, I believe any rational and sober man would see perfect, good, and sufficient ground for laying aside any authority, that can be derived from the opinions of persons, though of the first character: (and, I

am

am sure, no man living does more homage to their learning, impartiality, and understanding, than I do :) first, because the statement of the case has thrown the whole into confusion; and secondly, as to the matter, added as an appendix, which gives the representation of the delinquent, and omits the representation of his prosecutors, it is observed very properly and very wisely by one of the great men, before whom this evidence was laid, that "The evidence, as "it is here stated, is still more defective, if the

66

appendix is adopted by the Directors, and "meant to make a part of the case. For that "throws discredit upon all the information so "collected." Certainly it does; for if the delinquent party, who is to be prosecuted, be heard with his own representation of the case, and that of his prosecutors be suppressed, he is master both of the lawyers, and of the mind of mankind.

My Lords, I have here attempted to point out the extreme inconsistencies and defects of this proceeding; and I wish your Lordships to consider, with respect to these proceedings of the India House in their prosecutions, that it is in the power of some of their officers to make statements in the manner, that I have described, then to obtain the names of great lawyers, and

under