And never had it a greater loss.  There is the concluding funeral oration made by his masters, upon a strict, though by no means partial, view of his conduct.  My Lords, here is the man who is the great accuser of Mr. Hastings, as he says.  What is he? a slight man, a man of mean situation, a man of mean talents, a man of mean character?  No:  of the highest character.  Was he a person whose conduct was disapproved by their common superiors?  No:  it was approved when living, and ratified when dead.  This was the man, a man equal to him in every respect, upon the supposed evil motives of whom alone was founded the sole justification of Mr. Hastings.

But be it, then, that Sir John Clavering, Colonel Monson, and Mr. Francis were all of them the evil-minded persons that he describes them to be, and that from dislike to them, from a kind of manly resentment, if you please, against such persons, an hatred against malicious proceedings, and a defiance of them, he did not think proper, as he states, to make his defence during that period of time, and while oppressed by that combination,—­yet, when he got rid of the two former persons, and when Mr. Francis was nothing, when the whole majority was in his hand, and he was in full power, there was a large, open, full field for inquiry; and he was bound to re-institute that inquiry, and to clear his character before his judges and before his masters.  Mr. Hastings says, “No:  they have threatened me with a prosecution, and I reserve myself for a court of justice.”

Mr. Hastings has now at length taken a ground, as you will see from all his writings, which makes all explanation of his conduct in this business absolutely impossible.  For, in the first place, he says, “As a prosecution is meditated against me, I will say nothing in explanation of my conduct, because I might disclose my defence, and by that means do myself a prejudice.”  On the other hand, when the prosecution is dropped, as we all know it was dropped in this case, then he has a direct contrary reason, but it serves him just as well:  “Why, as no prosecution is intended, no defence need be made.”  So that, whether a prosecution is intended or a prosecution dropped, there is always cause why Mr. Hastings should not give the Court of Directors the least satisfaction concerning his conduct, notwithstanding, as we shall prove, he has reiteratedly promised, and promised it in the most ample and liberal manner.  But let us see if there be any presumption in his favor to rebut the presumption which he knew was irresistible, and which, by making no defence for his conduct, and stopping the inquiry, must necessarily lie upon him.  He reserves his defence, but he promises both defence and explanation.