f
record of office and verbal testimony mutually supporting and
illustrating each other.

The House will observe that the receipt of the money is indirectly
admitted by one of the Governor's own questions to Munny Begum.

If the money was not received, it would have been absurd to ask _on what
account it was given_. Both the question and the answer relate to some
established usage, the appeal to which might possibly be used to justify
the acceptance of the money, if it was accepted, but would be
superfluous, and no way applicable to the charge, if the money was never
given.

On this point your Committee will only add, that, in all the controversy
between Mr. Hastings and the majority of the Council, he _nowhere denies
the receipt of this money_. In his letter to the Court of Directors of
the 31st of July, 1775, he says that the Begum was compelled by the ill
treatment of one of her servants, which he calls _a species of torture_,
to deliver the paper to Mr. Goring; but he nowhere affirms that the
contents of the paper were false.

On this conduct the majority remark, "We confess it appears very
extraordinary that Mr. Hastings should employ so much time and labor to
show that the discoveries against him have been obtained by improper
means, but that he should take no step whatsoever _to invalidate the
truth of them_. He does not deny the receipt of the money: the Begum's
answers to the questions put to her at his own desire make it impossible
that he should deny it. It seems, he has formed some plan of defence
against this and similar charges, which he thinks will avail him in a
court of justice, and which it would be imprudent in him to anticipate
at this time. If he has not received the money, we see no reason for
such a guarded and cautious method of proceeding. An innocent man would
take a shorter and easier course. He would voluntarily exculpate
himself by his oath."

Your Committee entertain doubts whether the refusal to exculpate by oath
can be used as a circumstance to infer any presumption of guilt. But
where the charge is direct, specific, circumstantial, supported by
papers and verbal testimony, made before his lawful superiors, to whom
he was accountable, by persons competent to charge, if innocent, he was
obliged at least to oppose to it a clear and formal denial of the fact,
and to make a demand for inquiry. But if he does not deny the fact, and
eludes inquiry, just presumptions will be raised against