"And the said Warren Hastings further says, that on the 29th of January, 1784, after the recall of the said Bristow, he, the said Bristow, did transmit to the Governor-General and Council two letters, one dated 28th of December, 1783, the other 7th of January, 1784, purporting to be written by the said Nabob Bahadur, addressed to him, the said Bristow, to the effect in the said article stated; and the said Warren Hastings admits, that, when at Lucknow, he did not institute any inquiry into the supposed transaction in the said 17th article stated, or make any order concerning the said Bahadur, and he denies that it was his duty so to do." Here is the name of this Nabob from a list of the jaghiredars stated by Mr. Purling, page 485 printed Minutes. Amongst the names of jaghiredars, the times when granted, and the amount of the jaghires, there occurs that of the Nabob Bahadur, with a grant of a jaghire of the amount of 20,000 rupees. [The _Lord Chancellor_ here remarked, that what had been just read was matter of the 17th article of the charge and parts of the answer to it, and that, upon looking back to the former proceedings, it has escaped his attention, if any matter contained in the 17th article had been made matter of the charge; that it therefore seemed to him that it could not be brought in upon a reply, not having been made matter of the charge originally. _Mr. Burke._ My Lords, I have to say to this, that I believe you have heard these facts made matter of charge by the House of Commons, that I conceive they have been admitted by the prisoner, and that the Commons have nothing to do with the proofs of anything in their charge which is fully and in terms admitted. The proofs which they have produced to your Lordships were upon matters which were contested; but here the facts are admitted in the fullest manner. We neither have abandoned them, intended to abandon them, or ever shall abandon them; we have made them, as a charge, upon record; the answers to them have been recorded, which answers are complete admissions of every fact in the charge. _Lord Chancellor._ I do not make myself understood. The objection is not that there has not been evidence given upon the 17th article, but at the close of the case on the part of the Managers for the House of Commons no mention having been made of the matter contained in the 17th article, that therefore, although it may all have been admitted by the answer to be true, yet in justice, if from that answer you ground the charge, it is necessary the defendant should be heard upon it.