submission which his respect would have enjoined him to pay to the
command imposed on him _was lost to his recollection_, perhaps from the
stronger impression which the first and distant perusal of it had left
on his mind that it was rather intended as a reprehension for something
which had given offence in his report of the original transaction than
as expressive of any want of a further elucidation of it."[2]

That the said Warren Hastings, in affecting to doubt whether the
information expressly required of him by his employers was expected or
not, has endeavored to justify a criminal delay and evasion in giving
it. That, considering the importance of the subject, and the recent date
of the command, it is not possible _that it could be lost to his
recollection_; much less is it possible that he could have understood
the specific demand of an answer to specific questions to be intended
only as a reprehension for a former offence, viz., the offence of
withholding from the Directors that very explanation which he ought to
have given in the first instance. That the said Warren Hastings, in his
answer to the said questions, cautiously avoids affirming or denying
anything in clear, positive terms, and professes to recollect nothing
with absolute certainty. That he has not, even now, informed the
Directors of the name of any one person from whom any part of the money
in question was received, nor what was the motive of any one person for
giving the same. That he has, indeed, declared, that his motive for
lending to the Company, or depositing in their treasury in his own name,
money which he has in other places declared to be their property, was to
avoid ostentation, and that _lending_ the money was _the least liable
to reflection_; yet, when he has stated these and other conjectural
motives for his own conduct, he declares _he will not affirm, though he
is firmly persuaded, that those were his sentiments on the occasion_.
That of one thing only the said Warren Hastings declares he is