The first thing I would remark on this (and I believe your Lordships have rather gone before me in the remark) is, that Mr. Hastings came down to Calcutta on the 5th of February; that then, or a few days after, he calls to him his confidential and faithful friend, (not his official secretary, for he trusted none of his regular secretaries with these transactions,)—­he calls him to help him to make out his accounts during his absence.  You would imagine that at that time he trusted this man with his account.  No such thing:  he goes on with the accountant-general, accounting with him for money expended, without ever explaining to that accountant-general how that money came into his hands.  Here, then, we have the accountant making out the account, and the person accounting.  The accountant does not in any manner make an objection, and say, “Here you are giving me an account by which it appears that you have expended money, but you have not told me where you received it:  how shall I make out a fair account of debtor and creditor between you and the Company?” He does no such thing.  There lies a suspicion in his breast that Mr. Hastings must have taken some money in some irregular way, or he could not have made those payments.  Mr. Larkins begins to suspect him.  “Where did you lose this bodkin?” said one lady to another, upon a certain occasion.  “Pray, Madam, where did you find it?” Mr. Hastings, at the very moment of his life when confidence was required, even when making up his accounts with his accountant, never told him one word of the matter.  You see he had no confidence in Mr. Larkins.  This makes out one of the propositions I want to impress upon your Lordships’ minds, that no one man did he let into every part of his transactions:  a material circumstance, which will help to lead your Lordships’ judgment in forming your opinion upon many parts of this cause.

You see that Mr. Larkins suspected him.  Probably in consequence of those suspicions, or from some other cause, he at last told him, upon the 22d of May, 1782, (but why at that time, rather than at any other time, does not appear; and this we shall find very difficult to be accounted for,)—­he told him that he had received a bribe from the Nabob of Oude, of 100,000_l._ He informs him of this on the 22d of May, which, when the accounts were making up, he conceals from him.  And he communicates to him the rough draught of his letter to the Court of Directors, informing them that this business was not transacted by any known secretary of the Company, nor with the intervention of any interpreter of the Company, nor passed through any official channel whatever, but through a gentleman much in his confidence, his military secretary; and, as if receiving bribes, and receiving letters concerning them, and carrying on correspondence relative to them, was a part of military duty, the rough draught of this letter was in the hands of this military secretary.  Upon the communication of the letter, it rushes all