Mr. Hastings has now at length taken a ground, as you will see from all his writings, which makes all explanation of his conduct in this business absolutely impossible. For, in the first place, he says, "As a prosecution is meditated against me, I will say nothing in explanation of my conduct, because I might disclose my defence, and by that means do myself a prejudice." On the other hand, when the prosecution is dropped, as we all know it was dropped in this case, then he has a direct contrary reason, but it serves him just as well: "Why, as no prosecution is intended, no defence need be made." So that, whether a prosecution is intended or a prosecution dropped, there is always cause why Mr. Hastings should not give the Court of Directors the least satisfaction concerning his conduct, notwithstanding, as we shall prove, he has reiteratedly promised, and promised it in the most ample and liberal manner. But let us see if there be any presumption in his favor to rebut the presumption which he knew was irresistible, and which, by making no defence for his conduct, and stopping the inquiry, must necessarily lie upon him. He reserves his defence, but he promises both defence and explanation. Your Lordships will remark that there is nowhere a clear and positive denial of the fact. Promising a defence, I will admit, does not directly and _ex vi termini_ suppose that a man may not deny the fact, because it is just compatible with the defence; but it does by no means exclude the admission of the fact, because the admission of the fact may be attended with a justification: but when a man says that he will explain his conduct with regard to a fact, then he admits that fact, because there can be no explanation of a fact which has no existence. Therefore Mr. Hastings admits the fact by promising an explanation, and he shows he has no explanation nor justification to give by never having given it. Goaded, provoked, and called upon for it, in the manner I have mentioned, he chooses to have a feast of disgrace, (if I may say so,) to have a riot of infamy, served up to him day by day for a course of years, in every species of reproach that could be given by his colleagues, and by the Court of Directors, "from whom," he says, "I received nothing but opprobrious and disgraceful epithets," and he says "that his predecessors possessed more of their confidence than he had." Yet for years he lay down in that sty of disgrace, fattening in it, feeding upon that offal of disgrace and excrement, upon everything that could be disgustful to the human mind, rather than deny the fact and put himself upon a civil justification. Infamy was never incurred for nothing. We know very well what was said formerly:-- "Populus me sibilat; at mihi plaudo Ipse domi, simul ac nummos contemplor in arca."