My Lords, if _we_ of the House of Commons were to desire and to compel the East India Company, or to address the crown, to remove, according to their several situations and several capacities, every creature that had been put into office by Mr. Hastings, because we could otherwise make no inquiry into his conduct, should we not be justified by his own example in insisting upon the removal of every creature of the reigning power before we could inquire into his conduct? We have not done that, though we feel, as he felt, great disadvantages in proceeding in the inquiry while every situation in Bengal is notoriously held by his creatures,--always excepting the first of all, but which we could show is nothing under such circumstances. Then what do I infer from this,--from his obedience to the orders of the Company, carried so much beyond necessity, and prosecuted with so much rigor,--from the inquiry being suspended for so long a time,--from every person in office being removed from his situation,--from all these precautions being used as prefatory to the inquiry, when he himself says, that, after he had used all these means, he found not the least benefit and advantage from them? The use I mean to make of this is, to let your Lordships see the great probability and presumption that Mr. Hastings, finding himself in the very selfsame situation that had occurred the year before, when Nundcomar was sold to Mahomed Reza Khan, of selling Mahomed Reza Khan to Nundcomar, made a corrupt use of it, and that, as Mahomed Reza Khan was not treated with severity for his crimes, so neither was he acquitted for his innocence. The Company had given Mr. Hastings severe orders, and very severely had he executed them. The Company gave him no orders not to institute a present inquiry; but he, under pretence of business, neglected that inquiry, and suffered this man to languish in prison to the utter ruin of his fortune.