nt as he pleased in his journey
to Benares, and who consequently must have had some trust reposed in
him, was the wickedest of men, next to those I have mentioned,--always
giving the first rank to Gunga Govind Sing, _primus inter pares_, the
second to Debi Sing, the third to Cantoo Baboo: this man is fit to be
one next on a par with them. Mr. Larkins, when he comes to explain this
article, says, "I believe it is for a part of the Dinagepore peshcush,
which would reduce the balance to about 5,000_l._": but he does not
pretend to know what it is given for; he gives several guesses at it;
"but," he says, "as I do not know, I shall not pretend to give more than
my conjecture upon it." He is in the right; because we shall prove
Nundulol never did have any thing to do with the Dinagepore peshcush.
These are very extraordinary proceedings. It is my business simply to
state them to your Lordships now; we will give them in afterwards in
evidence, and I will leave that evidence to be confirmed and fortified
by further observations.

One of the objects of Mr. Larkins's letter is to illustrate the bonds.
He says, "The two first stated sums" (namely, Dinagepore and Patna, in
the paper marked No. 1, I suppose, for he seems to explain it to be
such) "are sums for a part of which Mr. Hastings took two bonds: viz.,
No. 1539, dated 1st October, 1780, and No. 1540, dated 2d October, 1780,
each for the sum of current rupees 1,16,000, or sicca rupees one lac.
The remainder of that amount was carried to the credit of the head,
_Four per Cent Remittance Loan:_ Mr. Hastings having taken a bond for
it, (No. 89,) which has been since completely liquidated, conformable to
the law." But before I proceed with the bonds, I will beg leave to
recall to your Lordships' recollection that Mr. Larkins states in his
letter that these sums were received in November. How does this agree
with another state of the transaction given by Mr. Hastings, namely,
that the time of his taking the bonds was the 1st and 2d of October? Mr.
Larkins, therefore, who has thought proper to say that the money was
received in the month of November, has here given as extraordinary an
instance either of fraudulent accuracy or shameful official inaccuracy
as was ever perhaps discovered. The first sums are asserted to be paid
to Mr. Croftes on the 18th and 19th of Asin, 1187. The month of Asin
corresponds with the month of September and part of October, and not
with November; and it