e amazing.
He states an inquiry having been made by the Supreme Council of Bengal
respecting the conduct of the members of the last administration. That
inquiry was made in consequence of the charge, and not the charge
brought forward, as they would have it believed, in consequence of the
inquiry. There is no mention that that inquiry had been expressly
ordered by the Court of Directors; but it is stated as though it was a
voluntary inquiry. Now there is always something doubtful in voluntary
inquiries with regard to the people concerned. He then supposes, upon
this inquiry, that to be the charge which is not the charge at all. The
crime, as I have stated, consisted of two distinct parts, but both
inferring the same corruption: the first, two lac of rupees taken
expressly for the nomination of this woman to this place; and the other,
one lac and a half of rupees, in effect for the same purpose, but under
the name and color of an entertainment. The drawer of the case, finding
that in the one case, namely, the two lac of rupees, the evidence was
more weak, but that no justification could be set up,--finding in the
other, the lac and a half of rupees, the proof strong and not to be
resisted, but that some justification was to be found for it, lays aside
the charge of the two lac totally; and the evidence belonging to it,
which was considered as rather weak, is applied to the other charge of a
lac and a half, the proof of which upon its own evidence was
irresistible.

My speech I hope your Lordships consider as only pointing out to your
attention these particulars. Your Lordships will see it exemplified
throughout the whole, that, when there is evidence (for some evidence is
brought) that does belong to the lac and a half, it is entirely passed
by, the most material circumstances are weakened, the whole strength and
force of them taken away. Every one knows how true it is of evidence,
_juncta juvant_: but here everything is broken and smashed to pieces,
and nothing but disorder appears through the whole. For your Lordships
will observe that the proof that belongs to one thing is put as
belonging to another, and the proof of the other brought in a weak and
imperfect manner in the rear of the first, and with every kind of
observation to rebut and weaken it; and when this evidence is produced,
which appears inapplicable almost in all the parts, in many doubtful,
confused, and perplexed, and in some even contradictory, (which i