r
of the Committee of Circuit, for which business he was, like other
members of the Committee of Circuit, amply paid, in addition to his
emoluments as Governor, which amounted to about 30,000_l._ a year. Not
satisfied with those emoluments, and without incurring new known expense
of any kind or sort, he was paid for the extra expenses of his journey,
as appears in your minutes, like other members of the Committee of
Circuit. In fact, he was on no visit there at all. He was merely
executing his duty in the settlement of the revenue, as a member of the
Committee of Circuit. I do not mean to praise the Committee of Circuit
in anyway: God forbid I should!--for we know that it was a committee of
robbers. He was there as one of that committee, which I am pretty well
justified in describing as I have done, because the Court of Directors,
together with the Board of Control, did, in the year 1786, declare that
the five years' settlement (which originated in that committee) was a
thing bought and sold: your Lordships may read it whenever you please,
in the 80th paragraph of their letter.

Your Lordships are now fully in possession of all the facts upon which
we charge the prisoner with peculation, by extorting or receiving large
sums of money, upon pretence of visits, or in compensation of
entertainments. I appeal to your Lordships' consciences for a serious
and impartial consideration of our charge. This is a business not to be
hurried over in the mass, as amongst the acts of a great man, who may
have his little errors among his great services; no, you cannot, as a
judicial body, huddle all this into a hotchpotch, and decide upon it in
a heap. You will have to ask yourselves,--Is this justifiable by his
covenant? Is this justifiable by law? Is this justifiable, under the
circumstances of the case, by an enlarged discretion? Is it to be
justified under any principles of humanity? Would it be justifiable by
local customs, if such were applicable to the case in question? and even
if it were, is it a practice fit for an English Governor-General to
follow?

I dwell the longer upon this, because the fact is avowed; the whole is
an issue of law between us,--whether a Governor-General, in such a case,
ought to take such money; and therefore, before I finally dismiss it, I
beg leave to restate it briefly once more for your Lordships'
consideration.

First I wish to leave fixed in your Lordships' minds, what is distinctly
fixed, and s