Mr.Hastings was represented to have acted as interpreter in this business; he was therefore himself an object of the inquisition; he was doubtful as evidence; he was disqualified as a judge.

It likewise appeared that there might be some objection to others whose evidence was wanting, but who were themselves concerned in the guilt.

Mr.Lushington's evidence would be useful, but there were two circumstances rather unlucky.

First, he had put the seal to the instrument of murder; and, secondly, and what was most material, he had made an affidavit at Patna, whilst the affair was green and recent, that he had done so; and in the same affidavit had deposed that Warren Hastings was interpreter in that transaction.

Here were difficulties both on him and Mr.Hastings.The question was, how to get Mr.Hastings, the interpreter, out of his interpretation, and to put him upon the seat of judgment.