Here I come upon the principle which I wish most strongly to mark to your Lordships:  I mean collusive trials and collusive acquittals.  When this matter came to be examined, according to the orders of the Court, which was on the 4th of October, 1762, the Council consisted of Peter Maguire, Warren Hastings, and Hugh Watts.  Mr. Hastings had by this time accomplished the business of Resident with the Nabob, and had taken the seat to which his seniority entitled him in Council.  Here a difficulty arose in limine.  Mr. Hastings was represented to have acted as interpreter in this business; he was therefore himself an object of the inquisition; he was doubtful as evidence; he was disqualified as a judge.  It likewise appeared that there might be some objection to others whose evidence was wanting, but who were themselves concerned in the guilt.  Mr. Lushington’s evidence would be useful, but there were two circumstances rather unlucky.  First, he had put the seal to the instrument of murder; and, secondly, and what was most material, he had made an affidavit at Patna, whilst the affair was green and recent, that he had done so; and in the same affidavit had deposed that Warren Hastings was interpreter in that transaction.  Here were difficulties both on him and Mr. Hastings.  The question was, how to get Mr. Hastings, the interpreter, out of his interpretation, and to put him upon the seat of judgment.  It was effected, however, and the manner in which it was effected was something curious.  Mr. Lushington, who by this time was got completely over, himself tells you that in conferences with Major Calliaud, and by arguments and reasons by him delivered, he was persuaded to unsay his swearing, and to declare that he believed that the affidavit which he made at Patna, and while the transaction was recent or nearly recent, must be a mistake:  that he believed (what is amazing indeed for any belief) that not Mr. Hastings, but he himself, interpreted.  Mr. Lushington completely loses his own memory, and he accepts an offered, a given memory, a memory supplied to him by a party in the transaction.  By this operation all difficulties are removed:  Mr. Hastings is at once put into the capacity of a judge.  He is declared by Mr. Lushington not to have been an interpreter in the transaction.  After this, Mr. Hastings is himself examined.  Your Lordships will look at the transaction at your leisure, and I think you will consider it as a pattern for inquiries of this kind.  Mr. Hastings is examined:  he does not recollect.  His memory also fails on a business in which it is not easy to suppose a man could be doubtful,—­whether he was present or not:  he thinks he was not there,—­for that, if he had been there, and acted as interpreter, he could not have forgot it.