other source[1].' It is from passages like this, which abound in James Mill's History, that we learn how much of gross unfairness may be covered by an air and tone of severe impartiality.
It was late in the afternoon when Hastings and Barwell withdrew from the stormy debate. Monson and Francis at once voted Clavering into the empty chair, and Nanda-Kumár was summoned before the mock Council. He produced a letter from the Manni Begam, in which Hastings figured as the receiver of presents from that lady at the hands of Nanda-Kumár himself. The signature was found to differ widely from that of a letter sent by her a few days back to Sir John D'Oyly of the Secretariat. The seal, however, appeared to be the Begam's own. A message to Hastings failed to bring him back; and the triumvirate, in spite of his absence, the lateness of the hour, and the lack of real proof, hastened to pass their judgment on the case. They found Hastings guilty of taking presents from the Begam to the value of £35,000; and they ordered him to repay that sum forthwith into the public treasury[2].
The Governor-General refused to obey any order issued by a Court whose right to try such cases he utterly disowned. The letter itself he pronounced a palpable forgery, a fact which the Begam herself ere long attested. Meanwhile, fresh charges were laid before the Council by the Rání of Bardwán, by an emissary from the young Nawáb of Bengal, and by
