The three propositions which had been carried by Colonel Burgoyne, on the 10th of May, though plainly, and by direct inference, affecting, and even aimed at, Lord Clive, had, however, been couched in loose general terms. Certain principles being given, and the existence of some abuses not disputed, certain consequences inevitably followed. The House was sensible, from the Reports, and from other sources, that great enormities had been committed in India; and, desirous to show its disapprobation and censure, willingly suffered itself to be led to acquiesce in these resolutions. But when, leaving generalities, Colonel Burgoyne called upon them to mark an individual as being concerned in, and indeed as the guilty leader in these offences, the ground was changed. They were brought back from generalities to special facts and to individuals, and found the necessity of proceeding cautiously in their conclusions. The generous feelings which in the one case had combated in favour of the motions, were now silent, or even enlisted on the side of the accused. A careful and cautious examination of facts and of character was necessary; and inquiry showed that the evidence was loose and defective, for the most part _exparte_, and often depending on circumstances of time, country, or situation that changed its nature. The man attacked was one of the most illustrious of his age, who by his exalted talents had raised himself, early in life, to the highest rank in his nation; whose gallant deeds in the field of battle every Englishman had admired and gloried in; who had retrieved the falling fortunes of his country, and, by his military achievements and his political talents, had added to its dominion a large empire, one of the richest in the world, which that country had not thrown from her with disdain, as gained by illegal or unjustifiable means, but cherished as one of her noblest possessions, the richest jewel in the British crown; that wealth which he had gained, he had enjoyed with honour and dignity, unchallenged for sixteen years, though now it was to be wrenched from him by the application of rules which had no existence in the country in which it was acquired. Doubts began to arise, whether a grand injustice was not about to be inflicted by England on one of the greatest and noblest of her sons: the circumstances of personal excitement under which the evidence had been collected could not be overlooked; and the more carefully the application of that evidence was made to the case, on the principles of general justice and universal policy, the more did it appear that there was a danger of making the British Parliament the instrument of flagrant injustice and ingratitude.