These are circumstances that leave no doubt of the grossest and most flagrant corruption.  But was there no application made to Mr. Hastings upon that occasion?  The Nabob’s uncle, whom Mr. Hastings declares to be a man of no dangerous ambition, no alarming parts, no one quality that could possibly exclude him from that situation, makes an application to Mr. Hastings for that place, and was by Mr. Hastings rejected.  The reason he gives for his rejection is, because he cannot put any man in it without danger to the Company, who had ordered him to put a man into it.  One would imagine the trust to be placed in him was such as enabled him to overturn the Company in a moment.  Now the situation in which the Nabob’s uncle, Yeteram ul Dowlah, would have been placed was this:  he would have had no troops, he would have had no treasury, he would have had no collections of revenue, nothing, in short, that could have made him dangerous, but he would have been an absolute pensioner and dependant upon the Company, though in high office; and the least attempt to disturb the Company, instead of increasing, would have been subversive of his own power.  If Mr. Hastings should still insist that there might be danger from the appointment of a man, we shall prove that he was of opinion that there could be no danger from any one,—­that the Nabob himself was a mere shadow, a cipher, and was kept there only to soften the English government in the eyes and opinion of the natives.

My Lords, I will detail these circumstances no further, but will bring some collateral proofs to show that Mr. Hastings was at that very time conscious of the wicked and corrupt act he was doing.  For, besides this foolish principle of policy, which he gives as a reason for defying the orders of the Company, and for insulting the country, that had never before seen a woman in that situation, and his declaration to the Company, that their government cannot be supported by private justice, (a favorite maxim, which he holds upon all occasions,) besides these reasons which he gave for his politic injustice, he gives the following.  The Company had ordered that 30,000_l._ should be given to the person appointed.  He knew that the Company could never dream of giving this woman 30,000_l._ a year, and he makes use of that circumstance to justify him in putting her in that place:  for he says, the Company, in the distressed state of its affairs, could never mean to give 30,000_l._ a year for the office which they order to be filled; and accordingly, upon principles of economy, as well as upon principles of prudence, he sees there could be no occasion for giving this salary, and that it will be saved to the Company.  But no sooner had he given her the appointment than that appointment became a ground for giving her that money.  The moment he had appointed her, he overturns the very principle upon which he had appointed her, and gives the 30,000_l._ to her, and the officers under her, saving not one shilling to