That the said Warren Hastings did recommend to the Council, for a remedy of the disorders and calamities which had arisen from his own acts, dispositions, and appointments, that the administrator aforesaid should be instantly removed from his office,--attributing the aforesaid "irregularities, _and many others, solely_ to him," although, on his own representation, it does appear that he was the sole cause of the irregularities therein described. Neither does it appear that the administrator, so by the said Hastings nominated and removed, was properly charged and called to answer for the said recited irregularities, or for the _many others_ not recited, but _attributed solely_ to him; nor has any plea or excuse from him been transmitted to the board, or to the Court of Directors; but he was, at the instance of the said Hastings, deprived of his said office, contrary to the principles of natural justice, in a violent and arbitrary manner; which proceeding, combined with the example made of his predecessor, must necessarily leave to the person who should succeed to the said office no distinct principle upon which he might act with safety. But in comparing the consequences of the two delinquencies charged, the failure of the payment of the revenues (from whatever cause it may arise) is more likely to be avoided than any severe course towards the inhabitants: as the former fault was, besides the deprivation of office, attended with two imprisonments, with a menace of death, and an actual death, in disgrace, poverty, and insolvency; whereas the latter, namely, the oppression, and thereby the total ruin, of the country, charged on the second administrator, was only followed by loss of office,--although, he, the said Warren Hastings, did farther assert (but with what truth does not appear) that the collection of the last administrator had fallen much short of the revenue of the province.