With respect to the four lacs of rupees, he gets Sir John D’Oyly, in the narrative that he makes before the House of Commons, positively to deny in the strongest manner, and he says the Nabob would give oath of it, that the Nabob never gave a commission to any one to make such an offer.  That such an offer was made had been long published and long in print, with the remarks such as I have made upon it in the Ninth Report of the Select Committee; that the Committee had so done was well known to Mr. Hastings and Sir John D’Oyly; not one word on the part of Mr. Hastings, not one word on the part of Sir John D’Oyly was said to contradict it, until the appearance of the latter before the House of Commons.  But, my Lords, there is something much more serious in this transaction.  It is this,—­that the evidence produced by Mr. Hastings is the evidence of witnesses who are mere phantoms; they are persons who could not, under Mr. Hastings’s government, eat a bit of bread but upon his own terms, and they are brought forward to give such evidence as may answer his purposes.

You would naturally have imagined, that, in the House of Commons, where clouds of witnesses had been before produced by the friends and agents of Mr. Hastings, he would then have brought forward Sir John to contradict this reported offer; but not a word from Sir John D’Oyly.  At last he is examined before the Committee of Managers.  He refuses to answer.  Why?  Because his answers might criminate himself.  My Lords, every answer that most of them have been required to make they are sensible they cannot make without danger of criminating themselves, being all involved in the crimes of the prisoner.  He has corrupted and ruined the whole service; there is not one of them that dares appear and give a fair and full answer in any case, as you have seen in Mr. Middleton, and many others at your bar.  “I will not answer this question,” they say, “because it tends to criminate myself.”  How comes it that the Company’s servants are not able to give evidence in the affairs of Mr. Hastings, without its tending to criminate themselves?

Well,—­Sir John D’Oyly is in England,—­why is he not called now?  I have not the honor of being intimately acquainted with him, but he is a man of a reputable and honorable family.  Why is he not called by Mr. Hastings to verify the assertion, and why do they suffer this black record to stand before your Lordships to be urged by us, and to press it as we do against him?  If he knows that Sir John D’Oyly can acquit him of this part of our accusation, he would certainly bring him as a witness to your bar; but he knows he cannot.  When, therefore, I see upon your records that Sir John D’Oyly and Mr. Hastings received such an offer for the redemption of the Nabob’s affairs out of their hands, I conclude, first, that at the time of this offer the Nabob had not the disposal of his own affairs,—­and, secondly, that those who had the disposal of them