fraudulent, is where a person
makes a show of giving when in reality he does not give. This imposition
is criminal more or less according to the circumstances. But if the
money received to furnish such a pretended gift is taken from any third
person without right to take it, a new guilt, and guilt of a much worse
quality and description, is incurred. The Governor-General, in order to
keep clear of ostentation, on the 29th of November, 1780, declares, that
the sum of money which he offered on the 26th of the preceding June as
his own was not his own, and that he had no right to it. Clearing
himself of vanity, he convicts himself of deceit, and of injustice.

The other object of this brief apology was to clear himself of _corrupt
influence_. Of all ostentation he stands completely acquitted in the
month of November, however he might have been faulty in that respect in
the month of June; but with regard to the other part of the apprehended
charge, namely, _corrupt influence_, he gives no satisfactory solution.
A great sum of money "not his own,"--money to which "he had no
right,"--money which came into his possession "by whatever means":--if
this be not money obtained by corrupt influence, or by something worse,
that is, by violence or terror, it will be difficult to fix upon
circumstances which can furnish a presumption of unjustifiable use of
power and influence in the acquisition of profit. The last part of the
apology, that he had converted this money ("which he had no right to
receive") to the Company's use, so far as your Committee can discover,
_does nowhere appear_. He speaks, in the Minute of the 26th of June, as
having _then_ actually deposited it for the Company's service; in the
letter of November he says that he converted it to the Company's
property: but there is no trace in the Company's books of its being ever
brought to their credit in the expenditure for any specific service,
even if any such entry and expenditure could justify him in taking money
which he had by his own confession, "no right to receive."

The Directors appear to have been deceived by this representation, and
in their letter of January, 1782,[18] consider the money as actually
paid into their Treasury. Even under their error concerning the
application of the money, they appear rather alarmed than satisfied
with the brief apology of the Governor-General. They consider the whole
proceeding as _extraordinary and mysterious_. They, however, d