r than make a general
massacre of every person presumed to be under his influence, we would
leave some of his crimes unproved. He did avow and declare, that, unless
he turned all these persons out of their offices, he could never hope to
come at the truth of any charges against Mahomed Reza Khan, against whom
no specific charge had been made. Yet, upon loose and general charges,
did he seize upon this man, confine him in this manner, and every person
who derived any place or authority from him, high or low, was turned
out. Mr. Hastings had in the Company's orders something to justify him
in rigor, but he had likewise a prudential power over that rigor; and he
not only treated this man in the manner described, but every human
creature connected with him, as if they had been all guilty, without any
charge whatever against them. These are his reasons for taking this
extraordinary step.

"I pretend not to enter into the views of others. My own were these.
Mahomed Reza Khan's influence still prevailed generally throughout the
country. In the Nabob's household, and at the capital, it was scarce
affected by his present disgrace. His favor was still courted, and his
anger dreaded. Who, under such discouragements, would give information
or evidence against him? His agents and creatures filled every office of
the nizamut and dewanny. How was the truth of his conduct to be
investigated by these? It would be superfluous to add other arguments to
show the necessity of prefacing the inquiry by breaking his influence,
removing his dependants, and putting the direction of all the affairs
which had been committed to his care into the hands of the most powerful
or active of his enemies."

My Lords, if _we_ of the House of Commons were to desire and to compel
the East India Company, or to address the crown, to remove, according to
their several situations and several capacities, every creature that had
been put into office by Mr. Hastings, because we could otherwise make no
inquiry into his conduct, should we not be justified by his own example
in insisting upon the removal of every creature of the reigning power
before we could inquire into his conduct? We have not done that, though
we feel, as he felt, great disadvantages in proceeding in the inquiry
while every situation in Bengal is notoriously held by his
creatures,--always excepting the first of all, but which we could show
is nothing under such circumstances. Then what do I infer