not
once but repeatedly, for his services. He proceeded then to expose
the interested and revengeful motives of the clique which had
instigated the attack, not sparing even those in high places who,
from various causes, had allowed themselves to sanction it. Turning
from that point, he asked prominent attention to the fact that the
India Office, now his accuser, had almost forced him to proceed for
the second time to Bengal, and had expressed a deep regret that his
health had not allowed him to stay there longer. 'After certificates
such as these,' he added, 'am I to be brought here like a criminal,
and the very best parts of my conduct construed into crimes against
the State?' Stating then that the resolution, if carried, would
reduce him to depend on his paternal inheritance of 500 pounds per
annum, he continued: 'But on this I am content to live; and perhaps I
shall find more real content of mind and happiness than in the
trembling affluence of an unsettled fortune. But, Sir, I must make
one more observation. If the definition of the hon. gentleman
(Colonel Burgoyne) and of this House, that the State, as expressed in
these resolutions, is, _quoad hoc_, the Company, then, Sir, every
farthing I enjoy is granted to me. But to be called upon, after
sixteen years have elapsed, to account for my conduct in this manner,
and after an uninterrupted enjoyment of my {208}property, to be
questioned, and considered as obtaining it unwarrantably, is hard
indeed; it is a treatment I should not think the British Senate
capable of. But if such should be the case, I have a conscious
innocence within me that tells me my conduct is irreproachable.
_Frangas non flectes._[6] My enemies may take from me what I have;
they may, as they think, make me poor, but I shall be happy. I mean
not this as my defence, though I have done for the present. My
defence will be heard at that bar, but before I sit down I have one
request to make to this House: that when they come to decide upon my
honour, they will not forget their own.'

[Footnote 6: 'You may break, but you shall not bend, me.']

The debate was adjourned, and in the few days following some
witnesses gave evidence at the bar of the House. Lord Clive's
evidence, given before the Select Committee, was also read there. In
the debate that followed, Mr. Stanley proposed to omit the words
inculpating the honour of Clive. Mr. Fuller seconded this amendment,
going even further, and striking out