He states in the case the covenants and the salary of Mr. Hastings, and his emoluments, very fairly.  I do not object to any part of that.  He then proceeds to state very partially the business upon which the Committee of Circuit went, and without opening whose conduct we cannot fully bring before you this charge of bribery.  He then states, “that, an inquiry having been made by the present Supreme Council of Bengal respecting the conduct of the members of the last administration, several charges have been made, stating moneys very improperly received by Mr. Hastings during the time of the late administration:  amongst these is one of his having received 150,000 rupees of Munny Begum, the guardian of the Nabob, who is an infant.”

In this statement of the case everything is put out of its true place.  Mr. Hastings was not charged with receiving a lac 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 lac 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 forward, 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 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 lac of rupees taken expressly for the nomination of this woman to this place; and the other, one lac and a half of rupees, in effect for the same purpose, but under the name and color of an entertainment.  The drawer of the case, finding that in the one case, namely, the two lac of rupees, the evidence was more weak, but that no justification could be set up,—­finding in the other, the lac and a 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 lac totally; and the evidence belonging to it, which was considered as rather weak, is applied to the other charge of a lac and a half, the proof of which upon its own evidence was irresistible.