One of the objects of Mr. Larkins's letter is to illustrate the bonds. He says, "The two first stated sums" (namely, Dinagepore and Patna, in the paper marked No. 1, I suppose, for he seems to explain it to be such) "are sums for a part of which Mr. Hastings took two bonds: viz., No. 1539, dated 1st October, 1780, and No. 1540, dated 2d October, 1780, each for the sum of current rupees 1,16,000, or sicca rupees one lac. The remainder of that amount was carried to the credit of the head, _Four per Cent Remittance Loan:_ Mr. Hastings having taken a bond for it, (No. 89,) which has been since completely liquidated, conformable to the law." But before I proceed with the bonds, I will beg leave to recall to your Lordships' recollection that Mr. Larkins states in his letter that these sums were received in November. How does this agree with another state of the transaction given by Mr. Hastings, namely, that the time of his taking the bonds was the 1st and 2d of October? Mr. Larkins, therefore, who has thought proper to say that the money was received in the month of November, has here given as extraordinary an instance either of fraudulent accuracy or shameful official inaccuracy as was ever perhaps discovered. The first sums are asserted to be paid to Mr. Croftes on the 18th and 19th of Asin, 1187. The month of Asin corresponds with the month of September and part of October, and not with November; and it is the more extraordinary that Mr. Larkins should mistake this, because he is in an office which requires monthly payments, and consequently great monthly exactness, and a continual transfer from one month to another: we cannot suppose any accountant in England can be more accurately acquainted with the succession of months than Mr. Larkins must have been with the comparative state of Bengal and English months. How are we to account for this gross inaccuracy? If you have a poet, if you have a politician, if you have a moralist inaccurate, you know that these are cases which, from the narrow bounds of our weak faculties, do not perhaps admit of accuracy. But what is an inaccurate _accountant_ good for? "Silly man, that dost not know thy own silly trade!" was once well said: but the trade here is not silly. You do not even praise an accountant for being accurate, because you have thousands of them; but you justly blame a public accountant who is guilty of a gross inaccuracy. But what end could his being inaccurate answer? Why not name October as well as November? I know no reason for it; but here is certainly a gross mistake: and from the nature of the thing, it is hardly possible to suppose it to be a mere mistake. But take it that it is a mistake, and to have nothing of fraud, but mere carelessness; this, in a man valued by Mr. Hastings for being very punctilious and accurate, is extraordinary.