upon such a cause.  In these orations you will find almost every instance of rapacity and peculation which we charge upon Mr. Hastings.  Undoubtedly, many Roman and English governors have received corrupt gifts and bribes, under various pretences.  But in the cause before your Lordships there is one species of disgrace, in the conduct of the party accused, which I defy you to find in Verres, or in the whole tribe of Roman peculators, in any governor-general, proconsul, or viceroy.  I desire you to consider it not included in any other class of crimes, but as a species apart by itself.  It is an individual, a single case; but it is like the phoenix,—­it makes a class or species by itself:  I mean the business of Nobkissin.  The money taken from him was not money pretended to be received in lieu of entertainment; it was not money taken from a farmer-general of revenue, out of an idea that his profits were unreasonable, and greater than government ought to allow; it was not a donation from a great man, as an act of his bounty.  No, it was a sum of money taken from a private individual,—­or rather, as has been proved to you by Mr. Larkins, his own book-keeper, money borrowed, for which he had engaged to give his bond.  That he had actually deposited his bond for this money Mr. Larkins has proved to you,—­and that the bond was carried to Nobkissin’s credit, in his account with the government.  But Mr. Hastings, when he was called upon for the money, withdraws the bond; he will not pay the money; he refused to pay it upon the applications made to him both in India and here at home; and he now comes to your Lordships and says, “I borrowed this money, I intended to give my bond for it, as has been proved before you; but I must have it for my own use.”  We have heard of governors being everything that is bad and wicked; but a governor putting himself in the situation of a common cheat, of a common swindler, never was, I believe, heard of since the creation of the world to this day.  This does not taste of the common oppressions of power; this does not taste of the common abuses of office; but it in no way differs from one of those base swindling cases that come to be tried and heavily punished in the King’s Bench every day.  This is neither more nor less than a plain, barefaced cheat.

Now, my Lords, let us see how it is justified.  To justify openly and directly a cheat, to justify a fraud upon an individual, is reserved for our times.  But, good Heavens, what a justification have we here!  Oh, my Lords, consider into what a state Indian corruption has brought us in this country, when any person can be found to come to the bar of the House of Lords and say, “I did cheat, I did defraud; I did promise, and gave my bond; I have now withdrawn it, but I will account for it to you as to a gang of robbers concerned with me in the transaction.  I confess I robbed this man; but I have acted as trustee for the gang.  Observe what I have done for the gang.  Come forward,