UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 AT LOS ANGELES
 
 TRIAL 
 
 OF 
 
 WARREN HASTINGS, ESQ. 
 
 COMPLETE 
 
 FROM FEBRUARY 1788, TO JUNE ^^> 
 WITH A 
 
 PREFACE, 
 
 CONTAINING THE 
 
 HISTORY OF THE ORIGIN OF THE IMPEACHMENT, 
 
 A LIST OF THE CHANGES 
 
 l.N 
 
 THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, 
 
 PENDING THE TRIAL, 
 AND THE 
 
 DEBATE IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, 
 
 ON THE 
 
 MOTION OF THANKS TO THE MANAGERS. 
 
 Journals of the House of Commons, 2&A February 1701-2. " Resolved, 
 11 That it is the undoubted Right of every Subjeft of England, under 
 " any Accusation, either by Impeachment or otherwise, to be brought 
 " to A speedy Trial, in order to be acquitted or'condetnned. 1 ' 
 
 V O L. II. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 PRINTED FOR J. OWEN, N l68, PICCADILLY. 
 
 *794
 
 '/73.3 
 
 ^ 
 333) 
 
 EIGHTY-SECOND DAY, May 15. 
 
 BEFORE the Court assembled, it was generally 
 rumoured, that his Majesty's Ministers had re- 
 ceived an account of the capture of Seringapatam, 
 and the defeat of Tippoo. Amidst the joy and 
 satisfaction which this intelligence gave, we be- 
 lieve that every man beheld the scene now acting 
 in Westminster Hall with regret where they saw 
 the man to whom great Britain owes all that she 
 possesses, and all that she hereafter looks forward 
 to enjoy in Indostan, suffering ur.der a six years 
 prosecution, 'which no common mortal could have 
 endured the man who laid the foundation of those 
 alliances, and procured those resources, which 
 have enabled Lord Cornwallis to do all that he 
 has done against the tyrant who has oppressed 
 our countrymen in India. The eulogium which 
 Mr. Pitt and Mr. Dundas has so often pronounced 
 upon his exertions, when all Ir:dia and all Europe 
 were combined against him, were generally ad- 
 mitted to be well merited; and we beiieve there 
 were few present in the Court who did not re- 
 member an observation made some time ago, 
 " That some of the gentlemen who conduct the 
 
 present
 
 ( 331 } 
 
 present prosecution, have never once been right, 
 even by accident, in their assertions and opinions 
 relative to India." 
 
 Major Osborne was called, and continued 
 nearly two hours under a cross-examination by 
 Mr. Burke, the design and drift of which, to 
 common capacities, was totally lost; since not 
 one question appeared to be rcK vant to the 
 business of Benares, or to an/ other point that 
 can have a reference to Mr. Hastings : but this 
 sort of examination was much more amusing to 
 the auditors than reading documents. 
 
 Major Osborne was extremely clear and col- 
 lected, and closed his evidence by a reply to t\\o 
 very important questions proposed to him by a 
 noble Lord:- The first, Whether there ever 
 appeared any thing in the conduct of Mr. Has- 
 tings to Cheyt Sing that indicated malice towards 
 the latter?" The answer, Certainly not." The 
 next question was, Whether the conduct of Mr. 
 Hastings indicated partiality towards him ?" The 
 answer, CertainlyMr. Hastings was partial 
 to Cheyt Sing, and it was his universal chai\.rk-r 
 to all the natives, as was very well known to all 
 who had been in India." 
 
 Mr. Markham was then called, and his exami.. 
 nation continued from three until five; during 
 which time he went through a great variety of 
 most interesting and important particulars, each 
 
 dire&ly
 
 ( 335 ) 
 
 direftly contracting some one of the positive 
 assertions in the article. He spoke of the dis- 
 obedience of Cheyt Sing; the bad police of his 
 country ; the forbearance of Mr. Hastings, and 
 ultimately of the desperate resistance made by his 
 troops, regular forces not in rabble or populace, 
 as stated in the article. 
 
 At this point, the examination closed. 
 
 EIGHTY-THIRD DAY, May 19. 
 
 THE Court met about twenty minutes before 
 two. The counsel of Mr. Hastings went through 
 their examination of Mr. Markham. That gen- 
 tleman delivered his- evidence with a perspicuity 
 and candour which did equal credit to his jiead 
 and heart. In speaking of Ally Ibrahim Cawn, 
 (a man whom Mr. Burke had mentioned with 
 every circumstance of opprobium, in some of his 
 printed vspeeches, and as a man whose appoint- 
 ment to the office of the chief magistrate of Be- 
 nares had occasioned general disgust) Mr. Mark- 
 ham said, perhaps he was as well calculated to fill 
 that high office, as any chief justice in any coun- 
 try : that his appointment had given universal 
 satisfaction, and he believed that the police of 
 no city upon earth was so well regulated as Be- 
 nares,
 
 f 336 ) 
 
 nares, from the time that officer was appointed, 
 u: ' this day, for he still filled the office: That 
 Mr. Hastings had abolished oppressive exaclions; 
 and that his arrangements had tended to the en- 
 couragement of pilgrims to resort to Benares, 
 from all parts of ladostan; and to the general 
 happiness of the people. There were very many 
 other important points in his evidence, each tend- 
 ing totally to cut up the article as presented by 
 the House of Commons. 
 
 He finished about half an hour past three, 
 when, to the astonishment of all persons (Lords, 
 Commons, Managers, and spedators) Mr. Burke 
 got up, and said, he was not ready for the cross- 
 examination; that he was himself exhausted; that 
 he supposed the witness was fatigued too, and he 
 wished the Lords to adjourn. There was instantly 
 a cry of Go on Go onnot without some marks 
 of surprize and indignation in the galleries. Mr. 
 Burke hesitated, and then said, if the Lords /- 
 sisted upon it, he would proceedand then he put 
 a question to Mr. Markham. 
 
 The Earl of Derby was sitting close to the 
 Managers box, and went from thence to the table, 
 and spoke to the Lord Chancellor, who desired 
 Mr. Law to proceed, with written evidence, if he 
 had any. 
 
 Mr. Dallas said all was given in, except one 
 paper.-Mr. Law stated the substance of that 
 
 paper,
 
 ( 337 ) 
 
 paper, and called Mr. Wright to substantiate it, 
 who was not present. 
 
 The Lord Chancellor then said, he did not 
 see how the Court could proceed, with the civi- 
 lity due to the Managers, if they were not ready. 
 Mr. Burke made no reply, and a motion was 
 made to adjourn. To this Mr. Burke submitted, 
 and the business ended. 
 
 EIGHTY-FOURTH DAY, May 22. 
 
 INFINITE ingenuity bas been used by senators, 
 lawyers, and even one General, to discover the 
 improprieties of Mr. Hastings's conducl; but, it 
 should be recollected, that in one month a very 
 considerable province was in general rebellion, 
 that Cheyt Sing's success was great and rapid at 
 the onset of the rebellion, and that in the next 
 month the province was restored to peace and 
 tranquillity; that it has continued in that state 
 ever since, with an increase of two hundred thou- 
 sand pounds a year to the annual profit of the 
 Company. 
 
 The gentleman pitched upon to cross-examine 
 
 Mr. Markham, was John Anstruther, Esquire ; 
 
 z and
 
 ( 338) 
 
 and here an additional proof is afforded us of the 
 astonishing versatility of British politicians. 
 
 This case of Benares promises to last almost 
 the iife of man ; nearly ten years ago it was just 
 as well known as it. is now. At that time the 
 conduct of Air. Hastings, at Benares, was at- 
 tacked by the Kings Ministers, and their friends 
 in Leadenhall-street, and most powerfully, ably, 
 and successfully defended by Mr. Anstruther; who 
 displayed almost as much oriental learning in his. 
 defence, as Mr. Pitt did a few years after in the 
 House of Commons, but as the fashion of the 
 world passeth away more in politics than in 
 morals, Mr. Anstruther cannot allow Mr. Has- 
 tings to hay- been right m any respeft at Be- 
 nares; and accordingly he kept Mr. Markham at 
 the bar, under a cross-examination of three hours 
 and a half. 
 
 Mr. Anstruther put a great variety of questions 
 to Mr. Markham relative to the conversation 
 which -parsed beiweeu Cheyt Sing and Mr. Has- 
 tings, at oaxar. Mr. Markliam's answers were very 
 I explicit; but at la^t he discovered that the Ma- 
 jnager had taken his ideas of this conversation 
 jfro.n a forged paper, which had been circu- 
 lated m India some ten years ago, under the 
 fdise name of Che> t Sings manifesto. Mr. Marly- 
 ham treated thi, p^cr with much contempt, an(J 
 
 positively
 
 ( 339 ) 
 
 positively declared his own conviftion, that it 
 was a forgery. Such we understand to be the 
 opinion of every gentleman, in any degree con- 
 versant in the affairs of India. Mr. Markham, 
 however, gave it a death's blow. 
 
 Soon after five, the Court broke up; and here 
 we must lament the premature adjournment of 
 the former day; for not one question put by 
 Mr. Anstruther had a connection with the exa- 
 mination of Mr. Markham in chief; consequently 
 an hour and a half was aBually lest: for, why are 
 twenty Managers appointed by Parliament, and 
 those Managers allowed, -at a great expence, five 
 counsel, and two solicitors? We suppose, that 
 justice may not be delayed; yet the Court did 
 adjourn on Wednesday last, because 'Mr. Burke 
 said he was exhausted ; and to-day, not Mr. Burke, 
 but Mr. Anstruther, was the cross-examiner. 
 
 EIGHTY-FIFTH DAY, May 23. 
 
 From the difficulty of making a House of Com- 
 mons this day, the Court did not assemble until a 
 quarter before two o'clock; and the whole day 
 was consumed in the cross-examination of Mr. 
 Markham. There is a sort of anecdote in the 
 polite circles relative to this cross-examination, 
 z 2 which
 
 ( 340 ) 
 
 which may not be uninteresting to the renerality 
 of our readers. 
 
 In an earlier period of Mr. Burke's life, h6 
 was exceedingly intimate with the Archbishop of 
 York, who, as we are told, is godfather to his son. 
 When people in general were- shocked and dis- 
 gusted at the premature adjournment of Wed- 
 nesday last, it was said that Mr. Burke, in con- 
 sideration of the footing on which he had been 
 for many years with ti e Archbishop, did not 
 chuse to cross-examine Mr. Markham ; and ac- 
 cordingly, Mr. Anstruther undertook the office. 
 We are inclined to believe that this was a con- 
 temptible idle report, because those who saw Mr. 
 Markham at the bar the first day, must have been 
 convinced, that any species of cross-examination 
 which either ingenuity or malevolence (if male- 
 volence could have been presumed; had dictated, 
 would in the end have tended to the honour, and 
 not to the disgrace of that gentleman. 
 
 Again we disbelieve this report, because though 
 Mr. Burke did not examine Mr. Markham on 
 this day, he was at the elbow of Mr. Anstruther, 
 and was his adviser throughout the whole exami- 
 nation. 
 
 It happened this day Mr. Anstruther was en- 
 gaged; the cross-examination for the first hour 
 therefore fell upon Mr. Burke. We do not chuse 
 to enter into particulars, but we appeal to the 
 
 common
 
 ( 341 ) 
 
 common sense of mankind, to determine, whether, 
 in the two whole days consumed in the cross-exa- 
 mination, any one point was made, which tended 
 in the slightest degree to support the article as 
 voted by the last House of Commons. On the 
 contrary, every answer served still more strongly 
 to shew the merit of I^r. Hastings, and to place 
 the firmness and integrity of Mr. Markham in 
 the strongest possible point of view. To detail 
 the questions would be tedious and uninteresting: 
 to detect the blunders of those who put the ques- 
 tions, would be to expose the people of Great 
 Britain, in whose names they were put. 
 
 We wish here to speak of the impression made 
 upon men of common understandings. The Ma- 
 nagers and their counsel are all able men ; of 
 course, they mean that this cross-examination 
 should answer some great end ; -but we confess 
 ourselves to be too stupid to discover it. 
 
 The Court broke up at half past five, and we 
 understand that Lord Rawdon complained of the 
 mode in which Mr. Burke had addressed him, 
 and declared his intention of desiring a confe- 
 rence with the House of Commons, if such a 
 circumstance should again occur. 
 
 The Court adjourned. 
 
 z 3 EIGHTY-
 
 ( 342 ) 
 
 EIGHTY-SIXTH DAY, May 30, 
 
 AT two o'clock, this day, the Commons wero 
 enabled to form a House, by the assistance prin- 
 cipally of gentlemen who had been pleased to 
 attend, on the pressing and earnest solicitation of 
 Mr. Hastings himself. 
 
 We wish, once more, to call the fair and can- 
 did attention of every Englishman to the circum- 
 stances of this cause. 
 
 In the first year, 1788, the Managers, twenty 
 in number, attended in a body; a House was 
 always formed by twelve o'clock, generally ear- 
 lier, and the Court sat from that time until five, 
 and sometimes later; it sat also thirty five days in 
 that year. 
 
 At present, in the year 1792, it is with the 
 utmost difficulty a House can be made before 
 two, and though we are now in the last day of 
 May, the Court has only sat in this year sixteen 
 days, but in fat not a third the number <5f hours 
 that it sat in the first year. Two, three, or four 
 dressed Managers are all that attend very few 
 of the Commons-and of the Lords, originally 
 
 one
 
 ( 343 ) 
 
 bne hundred and eighty-six, there are n.ow not 
 more than from thirty to forty. 
 
 These circumstances are not detailed with a 
 View of casting blame upon any of the parties^ 
 because what is passed cannot be remedied, but 
 it will not appear extraordinary, that Mr. Has- 
 tings, subjecl to a trial of indefinite length, should 
 take every possible means for bringing the trial 
 - in this year to a close. Some officers have been 
 detained in England to give evidence others are 
 come up from distant parts of the kingdom and 
 the universal voice of mankind deprecates this 
 protracted cause, as the mo.st fatal stab that could 
 be given to public justice and national honour. 
 Mr. Hastings undoubtedly has nicjiy reasons for 
 solid and heart-felt satisfaction under so long a 
 trial. 
 
 The King's Ministers, and Parliament, his pro- 
 secutors, have adopted all his systems, and are 
 now receiving the fruits of what the articles deem 
 his crimes. The countries which he governed 
 Continue to produce the same revenues. U pay 
 the same obedience, and enjoy the same laws as 
 "when he was in Bengal. 
 
 Not a ship arrives from India without bringing 
 some gentleman of character, who proclaims it 
 aloud, that the natives in India, of all ranks, sects, 
 and descriptions, unite in expressing their asto- 
 nishment on hearing that Mr. Hastings is under a 
 z 4 pro-
 
 ( 344 ) 
 
 prosecution for desolating their country, for 
 cruelty, injustice, and corruption. Our cnvn 
 countrymen are equally astonished; and unversed 
 in the mazes of British politics, cannot possibly 
 conceive how those afts shall be highly merito- 
 rious in Mr. Dundas, which are the subjects of 
 censure in Mr. Hastings. 
 
 Mr. Markham was again called to the bar, 
 and his cross examination was compleatly fmi.shcd 
 on this day, but attended with some peculiar 
 circumstances. 
 
 Before he replied to Mr. Burke's first question, 
 he informed the Lords, that a few minutes before 
 the Court assembled, he had received a letter 
 from Mr. Burke, informing him that Mr. Mark- 
 ham had written to his father, the Archbishop of 
 York, above ten years before. It appeared, that 
 in consequence of the very close intimacy and 
 friendship which had subsisted between the Arch- 
 bishop and Mr. Burke in former times, his Grace 
 had, upon the receipt of this letter from his son, 
 given it to Mr. Burke at Court in the year 1782, 
 immediately after the receipt of it ; that Mr. Burke 
 had 'kept it ever since that time, and returned 
 it to Mr. Markam with a, polite note just before 
 they went into Court yesterday. 
 
 Mr. Markham, with the openness and sincerity 
 
 which ever marks a man of real charaQer and 
 
 honour, and has nothing to conceal, begged that 
 
 1 his
 
 (345) 
 
 his letter to his father might be read. It was 
 read, and in every point of any importance agreed 
 exattly with the evidence that he had given, though 
 it was singular enough that Mr. Burke had cross- 
 examined him for two days, just as a man would 
 have done who had studied the letter to the Ai ch- 
 bishop, which letter Mr. Burke had never seen, as 
 he assured the Court, from July, 1782, until he 
 found it, in May, 1792, by accident. 
 
 Mr. Markham went through a very long cross- 
 examination, the longest, perhaps,' ever known or ( 
 heard of; but each answer served to fix his for- 
 mer testimony the more strongly, and to confirm 
 every assertion made by Mr. Pitt, in his speech 
 upon this article in the House of Commons. 
 
 The close of his examination was singular and 
 striking, and appeared to affetl the Court and 
 the auditors, as much as it did Mr. Markham 
 himself. He was asked if there was any part of 
 Mr. Hastings's conduct to Cheyt Sing that ap- 
 peared to him as resulting from vindictive, ma- 
 licious, or interested motives ? He replied, that 
 he had known Mr. Hastings for many years, 
 most intimately, and was convinced, that in no 
 part of his public conduct was he biassed by 
 vindictive, malicious, or interested motives; that 
 he was convinced he had ever made the public 
 good, and the honour and advantage of his 
 country, his first object; that of himself or his 
 
 own
 
 own interest, he never bestowed a thought : and 
 with a voice scarcely audible, (probably from the 
 reflection that such a man should have been so 
 treated by a combination of parties against him)* 
 laying his hand upon his heart at the time, he 
 added, " I am convinced, my Lords, he is the 
 " most virtuous man of the age in which he 
 " lives." 
 
 After this evidence Mr. Burke, with evident 
 marks in his countenance of a man who felt that 
 Mr. Markham was believed by every gentleman 
 present, proceeded to a few questions, none of 
 them of any consequence, and then Mr. Mark- 
 ham was dismissed having sustained his charac- 
 ter as a gentleman, a man of honour, and infor- 
 mation, through three long days of cross ques- 
 tions, in which many points were enforced by 
 Mr. Burke's cross-examination, which were not 
 stated with such force in the examination in 
 charge. 
 
 The Court, at half past five, adjourned. 
 
 EIGHTY*
 
 ( 347 5 
 EIGHTY-SEVENTH DAY, June 6. 
 
 THE Court met this day at half-past one o'clock, 
 having been detained some time in the expecta- 
 tion that a few Managers might arrive. Mr. 
 Burke was the only one present when the House 
 was made ; and the particular and earnest appli- 
 cation of Mr. Hastings to individual gentlemen, 
 procured a House about one o'clock. 
 
 Four gentlemen were examined, viz. Lieutenant 
 Birrell, Colonel Blair, Charles Greene, Esq. and 
 Lieutenant Wade. The evidence of these gen- 
 tlemen was decisive as to several points of the 
 utmost moment in the two important articles, Be- 
 nares and the Begum. 
 
 They all stated the delinquency of Cheyt Sing, 
 his state of preparation, and his apparent determi- 
 nation to assert his independence at the first fa- 
 vourable moment. 
 
 These gentlemen also spoke of the assistance 
 afforded to Cheyt Sing, by the Begum, as a mat- 
 ter of which no doubt was ever entertained in 
 India; that they believed it then, and believed it 
 now. 
 
 Mr.
 
 ( 348 ) . 
 
 Mr. Birrell and Mr. Wade spoke 
 taken prisoners at Patiete, who declared they were 
 sent from Fyzabad by the Begum. 
 
 They also spoke of the universal estimation in 
 which Mr. Hastings's character was held through- 
 out India, by natives and Europeans, both before 
 and since this prosecution commenced. In short, 
 the pointed evidence of these gentlemen, the ge- 
 neral voice of India, the improved and improving 
 state of Bengal, as exemplified in Mr. Dundas's 
 Budget, furnish such a mass of strong evidence 
 on the side of Mr.. Hastings, that \\ith ail our re- 
 spect for the last Parliament, we cannot but wondi r, 
 how such a volume of unsupported criminatory al- 
 legations should have appeared on their Journals. 
 
 At half after five, Mr. Wade withdrew from the 
 bar ; and just as the Court was about to rise, 
 
 Mr. Hastings earnestly entreated their Lord- 
 ships' attention for a few minutes ; and as the mat- 
 ter he had to state, appeared to him to be ex- 
 tremely important, he begged to address them 
 from his notes; which the Lords readily agreed 
 to, and then he spoke as follows : 
 
 " I have, already, upon former occasions, ven- 
 tured to state to your Lordships the hardships 
 which I sustained by the unexampled length of 
 this trial, even in the more early periods of it. 
 I mean not now to repeat them; nor will it be 
 
 necessary
 
 ( 349 ) 
 
 necessary to sr-ew to your Lordships, how much 
 they must b^ all aggravated by their subsequent 
 extension. I merely allude to them for the pur- 
 pose, and for that only, of bespeaking your par- 
 don for the liberty I now take, in praying your 
 Lordships to allow me as much time as you can 
 afford during this session to hear the remainder 
 of my defence. I should not so anxiously press 
 this upon your Lordships, were I not assured 
 that your Lordships have no longer any call for 
 your attention to matters of greater importance, if 
 any matter can exceed in its importance the course 
 of a criminal trial protracted to such a length of 
 years as mine has been. 
 
 " For my defence on the article now in evi- 
 dence before your Lordships, my counsel will 
 desire only to call two more witnesses, selected 
 from the survivors of a much larger number, 
 whom we forbear to call, from a respecl to your 
 Lordships time, and a consideration of the un- 
 certainty of my life, or theirs, enduring to the end 
 of a more complete refutation of the charge which 
 the Commons have preferred against me. The 
 examination, in chief of these witnesses (for I can- 
 not limit the time of the cross-examination, or 
 answer for that which may be' <ost by in rrup- 
 tions will not take up the compass of two, or, at 
 most three hours. 
 
 " Two
 
 (350) 
 
 " Two more articles will then remain. On 
 one only will it be necessary to call any parole 
 evidence ; and for that only three witnesses ; one, 
 a gentleman of very infirm health, who was settled 
 with his family hi the south of France, but came 
 to 1 England in the first year of this long trial, and 
 has remained here to this time, in yearly expec- 
 tation of giving his evidence at your Lordships' 
 bar. 
 
 " Among the gentlemen whom I hope to be 
 allowed to produce in evidence to the articles 
 now under examination, there is one, who having 
 given his attendance through a considerable part 
 of the first year, when it became evident that he 
 could not be called till the next, informed me 
 that his means of subsistence, though not his pa- 
 tience, were exhausted; and' requested me to dis- 
 pense with his evidence, that he might return to 
 his service in India. I without hesitation, cheer- 
 fully consented. That gentleman accordingly 
 went to India, served with credit. two campa gns 
 under Lord Cornwallis, is again returned to Eng, 
 land, and again in attendance to give his evidence 
 in my defence. Your Lordships will not be sur- 
 piized, if I should feel a more than common 
 anxiety not to lose a witness whom I have reco- 
 vered in so singular a manner, from so many ob- 
 stacles which threatened to deprive me of the be- 
 nefit
 
 (351 ) 
 
 nefit of his testimony, nor to lose so impressive a 
 memorial of the extraordinary charaBer of this 
 impeachment. 
 
 " It is hard, with so near a prospeft of a close, 
 tto see it vanish into darkness , and another year, 
 or perhaps other yea<s, if I should live to see 
 them, destined for the continuation of this trial. 
 
 " Let me beseech your Lordships to recolleft, 
 that more than five years are already past since I 
 first appeared at your Lordships bar; and I am 
 sure, that if any one of the noble Lords who were 
 then living, and saw me there, had been told (if 
 human wisdom, which is the result of experience, 
 could have suggested such a conclusion) that 
 more than five years must pass, ere I could ob- 
 tain a judgment, he would have pronounced it 
 against the course of nature to expect it, and have 
 resented the supposition, as an unmerited reflec- 
 tion on the justice and dignity of this great king' 
 dom. 
 
 " In the first year, which was the year 1788, 
 the Court which your Lordships now compose, 
 sat thirty-five days, generally assembling at twelve 
 o'clock, sometimes earlier, and sitting until frve, 
 jand occasionally later. This year, your Lord- 
 ships have sat within a week of the same period 
 of time, only sixteen days, and have seldom been 
 able to open the Court much earlier than t\v'o 
 p'clock. I should be as ungrateful as unreason- 
 able
 
 (35* ) 
 
 able, if I could insinuate that these delays wrre 
 in any respecl imputable to your Lordships; nei- 
 ther is it my wish to impute blame to any : it is 
 the efFe.cl, and not the cause of which I com- 
 plain. Yet, my Lords, if I might be allowed to 
 expostulate with those, whose zeal (animating 
 them to exertions, and to a perseverance, of 
 which even in that body there arc few examples) 
 brought me to the situation in which I now stand, 
 I might plead, and surely without offence, that 
 the rights and interest of the people of this king- 
 dom, and the honour of its Crown, which were 
 the great inducements stated by the Commons of 
 Great Britain, for calling together its highest 
 Court of Judicature to sit in trial ypon me, are 
 at least as much concerned in their using the same 
 exertions to promote the course of that trial, and 
 to bring it to an issue. 
 
 " My respe6l forbids me to say more on the 
 subject, nor should I have said so much, but to 
 make it evident to your Lordships, that, whatever 
 causes of delay have occurred, or may in future 
 occur, in the course of this trial (if it can be sup- 
 posed that I would willingly be instrumental to 
 my own wrong) neither have been, nor shall be, 
 in anywise imputable to me : in proof of this, I 
 may allude to, but need not specify, the many 
 constitutional, and even personal means, to which 
 I have had recourse, to accelerate the progress of 
 the trial, and remove every obstruction to it. 
 
 That
 
 ( 353 ) 
 
 " That I might not again urge a request to 
 your Lordships, which it might not be in your 
 Lordships power to grant, I have' profited by the 
 error which I have been told I committed in the 
 petition which I last year presented to your Lord- 
 ships, and have addressed an humble petition to 
 his Majesty, praying that he would be graciously 
 pleased to permit your Lordships to continue to 
 sit till the close of the trial. 
 
 " I rely with a perfect confidence on his M a ~ 
 jesty's gracious disposition to grant my prayer; 
 and in that case I 'do assure your Lordships, that 
 every possible means shall be used by me, and 
 by the gentlemen whom you have given me for 
 my counsel, to bring my defence to a speedy 
 conclusion. 
 
 44 If, which I relunftantly suppose, it shall be 
 deemed unreasonable, or for causes which can- 
 not fall within the scope of my limited compre- 
 hension, improper, I do most humbly and ear- 
 nestly .entreat your Lordships, in that case, that 
 you will afford me as many days as may be neces- 
 sary to bring the present article to a close, and to 
 alljw my counseji to sum up the evidence while it 
 is yet recent in your Lordships' recollection."^ 
 
 A A EIGHTY^
 
 ( 354 ) 
 
 EIGHTY-EIGHTH DAY, June 7, 
 
 THE Court met this day, at twenty minutes 
 after one, and immediately proceeded to the exa- 
 mination of Lieutenant Grey, an officer in his 
 Majesty's service, who gave a very clear and sa- 
 tisfaBory evidence in favour of Mr. Hastings. 
 He said, he was an officer in the Chasseurs, at 
 the time of the insurreBion of Cheyt Sing. He 
 spoke of his disaffeaion of the state of his pre- 
 paration, and fully confirmed every material point 
 in the evidence of Captain Wade, on the pre- 
 ceding day. He stated the assistance afforded to 
 Cheyt Sing by the Begum, as a matter of uni- 
 versal notoriety, never, as he believed, doubted 
 at the time, nor since : that he remained in the 
 country many years after Mr. Hastings's depar- 
 ture, and could safely swear, that there never was 
 a man more universally esteemed and beloved by 
 the natives than Mr. Hastings was : that the af- 
 feftion the officers of the army felt for him, 
 might be known by their letter to him, signed by 
 many hundred officers, on his quitting the coun- 
 try, when it was impossible they could have been 
 actuated by interested motives. A very long 
 
 cross-
 
 (355 ) 
 
 cross-examination was continued by Mr. Burke^ 
 in which every answer only tended to fix more 
 strongly the evidence given in chief. 
 
 Colonel Popham then was called to the bar> 
 and in a very distinct and impressive manner he 
 stated the military force of Cheyt Sing, far dif- 
 ferent from what was necessary for him as a 
 Zemindar. His state of preparation, the general 
 opinion of his disaffe&ion, the operations of the 
 war, and the restoration of general tranquillity. 
 
 He spoke most pointedly and fully to the share 
 the Begum had in the rebellion ; that independent 
 of its being a faft, of which no officer in his camp 
 ever entertained a doubt, he had himself con- 
 versed with a wounded Nugeeb, whom he saw in 
 the town of Pateita, after the storm of that place. 
 That the man declared he was one of the corps 
 entertained by the Begum that he had received 
 two rupees in advance had arrived two days in 
 Cheyt Sing's army and had received two wounds 
 that the Colonel sent him to the hospital, where 
 he was cured, and then discharged that he made 
 no report of this to Mr. Hastings, because the facl 
 was so universally talked of, and in his opinion so 
 clear, as to render any communication totally un- 
 necessary. In fad, that no person could doubt 
 of the disaffeaion of the Begum That he had 
 been a great number of years in Indiathat Mr. 
 Hastings was beloved and revered by the people 
 of India was better calculated to govern them 
 A A 2 than
 
 than any man he knew, and the man of all others 
 whom he would, wish to serve under. 
 
 The Colonel underwent a very long, and a 
 most tedious cross-examination by Mr. Burke, 
 chiefly from letters and papers, both printed, 
 which Mr. Burke had before him. 
 
 Mr. Law once or twice interrupted Mr. Burke; 
 but finding the interruption to lead only to 
 speeches, he declared, that he would not ob- 
 jea to any thing, of any kind, the Manager could 
 say. The Chancellor's patience appeared at 
 length to he exhausted, and he said the sort of 
 line taken by Mr. Burke might prolong the trial 
 to eternity. Earl Stanhope also objec\ed, and said, 
 that such proceedings were insufferable. 
 
 About five, Colonel Popham was released, and 
 then Captain Symes was called. This gentleman 
 is also an officer in his Majesty's service, and was 
 Aid-de-Camp to General Musgrave during the 
 present war. He was the officer mentioned 
 by Mr. Hastings, who had gone to India since 
 this trial began, and, after very ative service in 
 India, was now returned, to mark to future ages 
 the peculiar character of this impeachment. 
 
 He stated, that he went through Cheyt Sing's 
 country, the beginning of 1781, and was very 
 ill treated, and insulted that the report of his 
 disaffection was then general. That he was with 
 the army at Cawnporc when Cheyt Sing rebelled 
 that it was the universal report in the camp, 
 
 that
 
 ( 357 ) 
 
 that the Begum was disaffected, and had offered 
 military aid to Cheyt Sing that nothing he had 
 heard to the time of his leaving India last January 
 tended to make him disbelieve the rjport ; but, 
 on the contrary, much to fix it, as perfectly true. 
 That he had heard the opening of this trial before 
 he went last to India; that the trial was a subject 
 of general notoriety, and that, so far from effect- 
 ing a change of opinion as to Mr. Hastings, ad- 
 dresses, as he heard in India, were sent from all 
 ranks of people in his favour : that he believed 
 there never had been a man in a high station so 
 universally esteemed and beloved as Mr. Has- 
 tings, and that the same opinions prevailed down 
 to January 1792, when he left India. That he 
 had conversed with several persons of the highest 
 rank in that country, who all entertained the 
 same opinions of him ; and that his prosecution 
 in England had not in any degree lessened the 
 attachment of the people of India. 
 
 Mr. Burke did not chuse to ask Captain Symes 
 one single question ; but said, with a pleasantry 
 which was very ill received by. all who heard him 
 that he left Mr. Hastings to enjoy the full ef- 
 fect of the bounty of Providence, in having pre- 
 served Captain Symes to give evidence in his 
 favour. 
 
 Some documents were then read the charge 
 closed and Mr. Dallas gave notice, that he 
 should sum up on the next sitting day. 
 
 A A 3 EIGHTY-
 
 (358) 
 EIGHTY-NINTH DAY, June ip. 
 
 MR. DALLAS began his summary of the 
 evidence, at half-past one this day. From a 
 speech, which for clearness of arrangement, flu- 
 ency and elegance of language, and soundness of 
 argument throughout, has never been excelled ; 
 it is difficult to seleft particular passages, without 
 doing injustice to Mr. Dallas, by omitting others. 
 The Benares cause being so very well known, 
 Mr. Dallas passed slightly over all the immaterial 
 allegations, proving, however, by a reference to 
 evidence, that each was false, unfounded, and 
 unsupported by any testimony of any kind. He 
 was pointedly severe on the Managers, for their 
 mode of drawing out and supporting their article ; 
 pointing out a variety of evidence introduced by 
 the counsel of Mr. Hastings, which must have 
 been perused by the Managers' counsel, and 
 which, upon every principle of honour and jus- 
 ce, they ought not to have suppressed. He de- 
 clined, he said, the task of following Mr. Burke 
 through a long dissertation upon arbitrary power- 
 but he laid it down as an incontrovertible fad, 
 power, whether in the hands of one man, in 
 
 a few,
 
 ( 359 ) 
 
 a few, or in many persons, was still a trust, for 
 the benefit of the governed ; and, if abused, the 
 man or men who so abused it ought to be pu- 
 nished. 
 
 Upon this fair and manly ground, it wa$ his 
 pride and his glory to say, he wished the cause of 
 his client to stand, and he was sure of a decision 
 in his favour. Had he employed the great and 
 extraordinary powers vested in him for thirteen 
 years by Great Britain, to promote the happiness 
 of the people whom he governed, and for the 
 honour and advantage of his native country ? 
 Facls of the most public notoriety, and the ap- 
 plauding voice of mankind, declared that he had 
 done both. As to the particular charge before 
 their Lordships, it must turn upon two points: 
 the first, as to the right of the Company to make 
 any demands upon Cheyt Sing beyond his an- 
 nual rent; the second, whether Mr. Hastings, in 
 making and enforcing the demands, was actuated 
 by malice? He might, indeed, in one moment, 
 make that sort of defence for his client, which he 
 defied any power on earth to overturn. The 
 demand was publicly made by Mr. Hastings and 
 his counsel, transmitted by him- to the Directors 
 in 1778, by the Directors to his Majesty's Mi- 
 nisters ; and those Ministers and th Legislature, 
 had in 1781, for a fourth time, re-appointed Mr. 
 Castings Governor General of Bengal, and for 
 A A 4 ten
 
 ten years. If a crime there was, all these parties, 
 Direaors, Ministers, Parliament, and the people 
 ?f Great Britain, in whose name -Mr. Hastings 
 was at the bar, were accessaries to tie injustice, 
 and had received all the advantages of it. He 
 might well ask them, with what semblance of jus- 
 tice they could come at the end of fifteen years, 
 and call upon Mr. Hastings to answer for his 
 condiia to Cheyt Sing? He would, however, 
 scorn to have recourse to this mode of defence. 
 The honour of Mr. Hastings, and the honour of 
 Great Britain, required that he should meet the 
 charge boldly and fully, and he would shew the 
 world that it was hastily, inconsidc rately, and un- 
 justly made, and had no foundation whatever to 
 rest upon. 
 
 Mr. Dallas, then, by a variety of evidence, 
 
 proved, that Gheyt Sing was a subjca, and owed 
 
 Company every duty due from a subjca to 
 
 bis Sovereign. He proved from history, at dif- 
 
 rent periods of the Mogul empire, that Zemin- 
 
 dars mvariaWy afforded military assistance in war. 
 
 He exposed, in very severe terms, the flimsr, 
 
 nutilatcd,and garbled evidence given by the Ma- 
 
 ^agers, in order to shew, that in ,775 Mr . H as- 
 
 '"g engaged to make no demands of any kind 
 
 upon Cheyt Sing, beyond his annual rent He 
 
 wondered how a charge so grange could have 
 
 *n made, and, looking round to the Managers, 
 
 asked,
 
 asked, who could have drawn up such an article ? 
 He proved, incontrovertibly, that every settle- 
 ment made with Cheyt Sing, applied to his annual 
 rent only, and that he was not released from any 
 one of those duties due from subjecl to sove- 
 reign; that he had taken an oath of fealty and 
 allegiance on his investiture, and was proclaimed 
 throughout the Zemindary of Benares, as the sub- 
 je& of the Company. 
 
 Having fixed the right incontrovertibly, and 
 having exposed the unfairness of the article, in 
 taking a partial expression of one of Mr. Has- 
 tings's minutes, for the express purpose of fixing 
 a sense upon it, totally different from the real 
 meaning, had the sentence been taken together, 
 he said, that, for the sake of argument, he would | 
 make a concession, most wild and extravagant in : 
 itself: he would suppose it had been proved, that 
 Mr. Hastings had no right to demand military aid 
 from Cheyt Sing, still the Managers would not 
 advance one step, unless they could prove that 
 malice, which they had so boldy charged. 
 
 The state received and enjoyed the benefit of 
 the annual subsidies, and had, in truth, given 
 them their approbation, when the Legislature re- 
 appointed Mr. Hastings, in 1781, to be Gover- 
 nor General. It remained then to examine what 
 ground there was for this extraordinary charge 
 of malice. 
 
 After
 
 (36*) 
 
 After using all the industry in his power, he 
 found its origin to be a solitary passage in Mr. 
 Hastings's narrative, who mentions, that on Ge- 
 neral Clavering's supposed accession to the Chair 
 in Bengal, Cheyt Sing deputed a Vakeel to com- 
 pliment him. This aft of the Rajah's excited 
 such mortal and deadly hate in the mind of Mr. 
 Hastings, that, from that moment, he determined 
 to ruin the Rajah. Such is the idea, monstrous 
 and incredible, undoubtedly, and supported by 
 evidence well worthy such a charge. The event 
 happened in June 1777. No trace of enmity is 
 discovered, until the 9th of July 1778, more than 
 a compleat year after the offence, and then, to be 
 sure it breaks out in a very curious manner. 
 
 It was in evidence before their Lordships, that 
 his Majesty's Ambassador at the Court of f ranee 
 (Lord Stormont) had in June 1777 transmitted 
 to Mr. Hastings an account of a design formed 
 by the French Ministry, to attack the British 
 possessions in India. In July 1778, an account 
 arrived in Bengal, that war was actually declared 
 between France and England Every man knew 
 that war with Spain must follow, and we had then 
 been three years engaged in an unsuccessful war 
 with America. What was Mr. Hastings to do in 
 Bengal ? Could he expecl an union of two great 
 powers in India, in his favour against France, with 
 whom it was known they were then closely in aU 
 
 liancc ?
 
 (363) 
 
 liance ? Could he expect, that instead of receiving 
 those returns of wealth from India, which were 
 to uphold a sinking country, Great Britain would 
 pour her treasures with a liberal hand into the lap 
 of Bengal? Could he believe, that overmatched 
 AS she was in Europe, in America, and in the West 
 Indies, Great Britain could afford to send ten 
 British regiments, and a fleet, to India? He cer- 
 tainly could not ; he must depend upon his own 
 resources ; he did depend upon them, and he suc- 
 ceeded, against the most powerful combination 
 ever formed for the overthrow of an empire. 
 
 He entreated their Lordships to consider what 
 Mr. Hastings did ; and whether the imagination 
 .of man, or the malignity of man's nature, could 
 have been supposed capable of so perverting his 
 acts, until that perversion appeared in the name 
 of the Commons of Great Britain. On the first 
 news of the war, he proposed to increase the army 
 the Council unanimously approved the measure; 
 to capture all the French settlements in Bengal, 
 and all their ships the Council agreed; to re- 
 commend to Madras, instantly to commence the 
 siege of Pondicherry the Council agreed ; to fit 
 out a naval force, to reinforce Sir Edward Vernon, 
 the British Commodore the Council agreed. 
 Yet are these acts of the greatest public merit, 
 involving in them very great personal responsi- 
 bility, supposed all to be done with a view to 
 Jiarrass, oppress, and finally, to ruin Cheyt Sing; 
 
 because
 
 (3^4 ) 
 
 because he was. on the same day, called upon to 
 contribute his share to the additional cxpencc 
 that these measures would bring upon .the public. 
 Their Lordships would see, he said, that all these 
 steps were taken upon an idea that Bengal might 
 have been invaded, and with the public belief in 
 all the Council, that France would make, in the 
 course of the war, (as in fact she did) great efforts 
 to recover her lost consequence in India. He 
 then begged their Lordships to consider, how a 
 charge so wild and strange was supported. 
 
 The motion for calling upon Cheyt Sing is 
 made, as all the others were, on the same day, by 
 Mr. Hastings. Mr. Francis says he acquiesces, 
 but thinks Cheyt Sing. should be told, that the 
 demand will only be continued while the war lasts. 
 Mr. Hastings jays, he means so; and adds, that 
 as there seemed to be some difference of opinion, 
 c* to the rigkt 9 -he \\ishes to leave the decision on 
 that point to their superiors; stating his own opi- 
 nion, which was, -that we were precluded by no 
 engagements from calling on Cheyt Sing for ex- 
 traordinary aic's on extraordinary emergencies. 
 Mr. Dallas was as convincing as eloquent in this 
 part of ti.is speech. 
 
 He said.it was impossible that Mr. Hastings or 
 Mr. Francis could have been actuated by malice 
 in their condud to Cheyt Sing; but notwithstand- 
 ing the Managers had attributed to Mr. Francis 
 1 . every
 
 (365 ) 
 
 every virtue under Heaven, and had made him 
 more an angel than a man, ( he must allow, that the 
 charge of malice applied, with infinitely more force, 
 to Mr. Francis than to Mr. Hastings. The latter 
 makes a demand, and states, that he has a right to 
 make it: the former, with doubts in his mind, as 
 to the right, agrees with Mr. Hastings, without even 
 expressing his doubts, for the information of his 
 superiors ; but Mr. Hastings, to whom he had 
 mentioned them in conversation, fairly brings the 
 subjeft forward, and, as there was a doubt as to 
 the right, leaves his superiors to decide. Is there 
 any thing like malice in this proceeding ? or, if 
 such a charge would apply at all, it must be to 
 Mr. Francis, and not to Mr. Hastings. But, said 
 Mr. Dallas, it applies to neither. 
 
 In the same manly, intelligible, and common- 
 sense style of argument, Mr. Dallas continued, 
 having displayed a complete knowledge of his 
 subject, and a perfect acquaintance with the laws 
 and constitution of India. He often turned round 
 to the Managers' box few were present. Mr. 
 Burke, who went away at one tim'e, s >metimes 
 coloured, and looked grave at other times ; he 
 had that sort of smile upon his countenance which 
 is not to be described, but which struck all who 
 saw him. The lawyers of the people, Messrs. 
 Douglas, Pigot, Burke, and Lawrence, (to whom 
 we suppose Mr. Burke alluded, when he said 
 
 Superjlua
 
 ( 366 } 
 
 Super flua non noccnt") were also present* when 
 Mr. Dallas so emphatically asked, who could have 
 drawn up the article so incorrectly and unfairly. 
 At a quarter past five, Mr. Dallas closed. 
 
 NINETIETH DAY, June 11. 
 
 THIS day the Court assembled at half-past one, 
 and Mr. Dallas proceeded with the same fluency 
 and clearnesss as before, to remark upon the 
 charge and the evidence, from the point where 
 he left off, down to Mr. Hastings's departure from 
 Calcutta, in July 1781. 
 
 The first striking passage was, where he came 
 to answer that pa'rt of the charge which alledges 
 that Mr. Hastings under pretence of a war, of 
 which he had received no authentic intelligence, 
 called upon Cheyt Sing for military aid, but really 
 with a view to harrass, oppress, and, finally, to 
 ruin him. He bestowed upon this charge the epi- 
 thets futile, frivolous, and absurd. He stated in 
 the clearest manner, the intelligence that Mr. 
 Hastings had received from Lord Stormont, that 
 war was likely soon to happen, and also of the 
 measures France would pursue until it should 
 break out. He paid Lord Stormont the highest 
 
 compliments
 
 (367 ) 
 
 compliments for his zeal in the service of his 
 country, which induced him to communicate this 
 important information to Mr. Hastings, though he 
 had no authority from his own Court so to do. 
 He next stated the communication from Mr. Bald- 
 wyn at Cairo, that war had actually been declared 
 between France and England, and he emphati- 
 cally asked their Lordships, what would Mr. Has- 
 tings have merited, had he paid no sort of atten- 
 tion to this communication? Undoubtedly he 
 would have merited the severest censures from 
 his country ; and what was his return for a con- 
 duft so much the reverse ? The Commons of 
 Great Britain had brought him to their Lordships* 
 bar, because, despising all personal consequences, 
 he had afted upon the authority of Lord Stormont 
 and Mr. Baldwyn, and had looked upon war to 
 be actually declared, though .he had received no 
 official advice of the faft. A charge like this, 
 Mr. Dallas said, was unworthy the dignity, the 
 justice, or the common-sense of a great nation, 
 and would operate in all future times as a dread- 
 ful lesson to Generals, Admirals, and Governors, 
 who were entrusted by Great Britain with the 
 care of her interests in the distant quarters of the 
 globe. 
 
 Having exposed the absurdity of the article in 
 this view of it, he next took it up most ingeniously 
 in another. Under the pretence of a war in Eu- 
 rope,
 
 (368) 
 
 rope, Mr. Hastings had not only made every de- 
 fensive preparation in Bengal, of which the de- 
 mand upon Cheyt Sing was a part, but he had 
 also taken all the French settlements, and all the 
 French ships i*h Bengal. Yet this at an aft 
 against the law of nations was not charged at all ; 
 but if there was any foundation for the article, all 
 these measures he took merely to -furnish a ground 
 for harrassing, oppressing, and finally, ruining 
 Cheyt Sing. 
 
 Mr. Dallas next proceeded to consider the va- 
 rious circumstances that attended the several de- 
 mands made upon Cheyt Sing for military aid. 
 He went through the part which Mr. Francis 
 had in each of these transactions He proved 
 most clearly, that he was a party in every trans- 
 action ; yet, strange to tell, he had heard a Ma- 
 nager lament it as a great public misfortune, that 
 Mr. Francis was not a Manager on this impeach- 
 ment. Mr. Dallas pushed this argument to the 
 conviction of every gentleman present. He went 
 very fully into the distressed state of India at the 
 commencement of the late war, and we believe 
 he left no doubts in the breast of any one who 
 heard him, of the sole objed Mr. Hastings had 
 in view namely, the preservation of the British 
 empire in India, against the most powerful com- 
 bination ever formed against it. 
 
 After
 
 (369) 
 
 After having gone through all this part of his 
 subject most completely and satisfactorily, he next 
 came to consider the conduct of Cheyt Sing, in 
 efusing to obey the orders of the government of 
 Bengal. He exposed the falsehood of all his ex- 
 cuses, and established the right of the Company to 
 make the several demands, by the most convincing 
 arguments. He proved, by the evidence, the ac- 
 tual design formed by Cheyt Sing, to seize the 
 first favourable opportunity to render himself in- 
 dependent; and, at a quarter after four, being a 
 good deal exhausted, he prayed leave to close for 
 the day, saying, that he would conclude all he had 
 to offer to their Lordships on the next meeting 
 of the Court. 
 
 The Lords adjourned accordingly. 
 
 NINETY-FIRST DAY, June 12. 
 
 MR. DALLAS began, by exposing in very 
 strong and almost indignant language, the in- 
 justice of making that a charge against Mr. Has- 
 tings, of which the Court of Directors, the King's 
 Ministers, and former Parliaments, had approved; 
 but the charge having been made, he never would 
 fly from it; and he proved, by reference to evi- 
 dence, that every part of the charge was futile, 
 ridiculous, and absurd. 
 
 B s He 
 
 358039
 
 ( 37 ) 
 
 He next came to a subjeft, which he touched 
 with an ability that must command universal 
 approbation, while he preserved throughout the 
 language of a gentleman, and the deference due 
 to the person whom his Majesty has placed in the 
 first situation in the country we mean the fun- 
 damental difference between Mr. Pitt and Mr. 
 Fox, on the only points on which the merit or 
 demerit of Mr. Hastings's conduct to Cheyt Sing 
 must turn. 
 
 He paid Mr. Fox the highest compliments; 
 declared that he looked upon him as the ablest 
 debater this country ever possessed ; and as a 
 man, who scorning any appeal, but to the rea- 
 son and good sense of his auditors, had fairly and 
 openly put this charge upon its true ground. He 
 had opened it in the last Parliament : he had held 
 this plain and intelligible language, that Mr. Has- 
 tings was under such engagements to Cheyt Sing ; 
 that under no possible circumstances, could he 
 demand more of him, than his annual rent ; con- 
 pequently every extra demand was a crime ; and 
 an intention to punish Cheyt Sing, for not imme, 
 diately obeying these demands, was an aggrava- 
 tion of that crime. 
 
 AH Mr. Fox's eloquence, could not, as he him, 
 *elf confessed to their Lordships (and that alone 
 entitled Mr. Dallas, as "he said, to go into thil 
 jubjea at all), induce another right honourable 
 gentleman (described by Mr. Fox as^a person 
 
 of
 
 (371 ) 
 
 of the first abilities, and the first integrity) to 
 concur with him. 
 
 That gentleman (Mr. Pitt) had strenuously- 
 contended, that Mr. Hastings had an undoubted 
 right to demand extra aids from Cheyt Sing, in 
 war that the Rajah was criminal in disobeying; 
 that his disobedience merited punishment, but that 
 Mr. Hastings had gone beyond the proper line, 
 and therein the crime consisted. After stating 
 the singular, unprecedented hardships of Mr. 
 Hastings's case, he said it was impossible to 
 prove that to be criminal, to which Mr. Pitt 
 objected, namely, the intention to impose a 
 fine. 
 
 All this part Mr. Dallas argued most ably, and 
 to the conviction of every man who heard him ; 
 and concluded by observing, that whatever Mr. 
 Pitt's opinion might be, the Commons of Great 
 Britain had charged it as a crime, that Mr. Has- 
 tings called upon Cheyt Sing to contribute to the 
 expences of the war; and therefore, as was his 
 duty, he had fully, and he hoped completely, 
 refuted the charge. 
 
 He next went into a clear detail of Mr. Mark- 
 ham's evidence, which totally destroyed every 
 allegation in the articles. Of Mr. Markham he 
 spoke, as of a man whose character was far above 
 his praise, who had stood a cross examination of 
 four days from one of the most indefatigable 
 examiners upon earth, and that every reply had 
 B B 2 only
 
 (37" ) 
 
 only served the more strongly to fix his former 
 testimony. 
 
 He then mentioned that singular circumstance of 
 the letter found by Mr. Burke on a Sunday, after 
 having been in his possession ten years, and sent to 
 Mr. Mai kham, just as he was going into Westmin- 
 ster Hall. He noticed the wonderful agreement be- 
 tween all the material facts in that letter, and the 
 evidence given by Mr. Markham ; though the 
 one was written when the subjects were fresh in 
 his memory, and the other given at the distance 
 often years. It was an event most fortunate for 
 the honour both of Mr. Markham and Mr. Has- 
 tings. He particularly remarked upon an ex- 
 pression in Mr. Burke's letter to Mr. Markham, 
 that the facts he had stated, differed very little 
 from those he had heard from other channels ; 
 and after this confession, Mr. Dallas said, he was 
 indeed astonished how the charge of malice could 
 have been preferred against Mr. Hastings. 
 
 After a most critical examination of Mr. Mark- 
 ham's, Colonel Popham's, and Mr. Burrell's evi- 
 dence, and applying each to the total destruaion 
 of every allegation in the article, appealing as he 
 did to the reason and common sense of the 
 Court, and of all the auditors, Mr. Dallas came 
 to his close, which contained some points that 
 will be remembered as long as Great Britain is a 
 , nation; for so long will the eighteenth century 
 
 te
 
 ( 373 ) 
 
 be celebrated for an impeachment, unexampled 
 in the annals of the world. 
 
 He observed, that those whom the Commons 
 employed, had expressed no concern for the Bri- 
 tish blood that was spilt at the massacre at Be- 
 nares, nor for the general order issued by Cheyt 
 Sing, to put all the Englishmen to death, as well as 
 their dependants, wherever they could be found ; 
 but that Cheyt Sing was the object of compassion 
 and commisseration. 
 
 Wishing, as he did, he said, to meet the Ma- 
 nagers boldly and in front, he would admit, that 
 there had been a consistency in their conduff, 
 which he looked for in vain from other quarters. 
 
 They had asserted, and they had attempted to 
 prove that Mr. Hastings had no right whatever 
 to demand any military aid from Cheyt Sing. 
 The Managers afted for the Commons, and the 
 Commons were the representatives of the people 
 of Great Britain. 
 
 Here then he would consider what that Bri- 
 tish justice was, which an honourable Manager 
 had so eloquently described. From British jus- 
 tice it might be expected, that she would first 
 relieve the oppressed^ and then proceed to punish 
 the oppressor. Was this the case ? Was Cheyt 
 Sing seated on the throne of his ancestors, as it 
 was called by the Managers, or was he at this 
 lime a wanderer upon the face of the earth ? 
 
 B B 3 It
 
 (374) 
 
 It was charged as a crime against Mr. Hastings 
 strange, absurd, futile, and ridiculous indeed 
 was the charge that after Cheyt Sings expulsion, 
 he had raised the revenue of Benares from two 
 hundred and thirty thousand pounds to four hun- 
 dred thousand pounds a year. Could it be be- 
 lieved possible, that a House of Commons, who 
 had made such a charge, had for ten years con- 
 curred in receiving that additional revenue for 
 the public ? There was not a step he could stir, 
 he said, without finding the subject involved in 
 the grossest absurdity. 
 
 In a most animated and captivating stile, he 
 went through this line of argument, never de- 
 parting from that respefl due from him to the 
 House of Commons, but leaving an impression 
 upon the minds of all who heard him, of the 
 unexampled injustice and cruelty with which Mr. 
 Hastings had been treated, that time cannot 
 efface. 
 
 He contrasted in a most happy stile the dif- 
 ferent treatment that Cheyt Sing and Mr. Has- 
 tings had experienced ; the former, who in cold 
 blood had murdered our officers and soldiers; 
 who had notoriously been guilty of every crime 
 of which Mr. Hastings had charged him was an 
 objet of pity to the Managers, who wept over 
 his hard fate, but suffered him to wander over 
 
 the
 
 ( 375 ) 
 
 the face of the globe, and quietly accepted for 
 the public the additional revenue arising from 
 his expulsion : Mr. Hastings was brought to the 
 bar of a Court of Justice, kept there for years, 
 for having expelled Cheyt Sing. 
 
 Having pushed this in a style of argument 
 which could not be answered, he spoke more 
 generally of the wildness and absurdity of the 
 accusation against Mr. Hastings. If it could be 
 supposed, he said, that the character of any man 
 could be fixed, Mr. Hastings's was established 
 when the Benares revolution happened. The 
 Commons of Great Britain had imputed motives 
 to him contrary to the universal tenor of his life. 
 No man was better known than Mr. Hastings, 
 and what had resulted from his prosecution ? 
 His friends in England gathered round him, and 
 all India rose up in his favour. Could this have 
 happened, if there had been a shadow of truth 
 in an assertion of one of the Managers, " that Ben- 
 " gal felt relieved from a burthen under which she 
 " had long groaned when he left India"? The as- 
 sertion was wild and foolish. His cause, Mr. 
 Dallas said, was the cause of truth and common 
 sense. He chearfully submitted the honour of 
 Mr. Hastings to their Lordships decision, and 
 what was more, the honour and character of the 
 British nation. 
 
 * B 4 This
 
 This is indeed a very faint and imperfect ac- 
 count of a few heads of Mr. Dallas's speech. 
 We but echo the voice of the auditors, when we 
 say, he far excelled Mr. Sheridan, and left Mr. 
 Burke at a great distance behind him. This, 
 however, may be owing in some degree to the 
 subject, which gave him great advantages. He 
 never stepped an inch beyond his evidence. He 
 made no appeal but to the good sense of his 
 audience, and in the sublimest part of the whole, 
 when he exposed, in the most gentlemanly lan- 
 guage, the mortal stab that British justice had 
 received, by the mode in which this prosecution, 
 was conducted, he said not one word which the 
 House of Commons could controvert, or at which 
 they could fairly take offence. 
 
 The Court was unusually crouded, and there 
 was that feeling on the whole, resulting from 
 reason convinced not that burst of theatrical ap- 
 plause which followed upon the close of Mr. 
 Sheridan's speech, when men were pleased with 
 splendid passages, which might have been applied 
 with much more propriety to tales of chivalry in 
 the middle ages, than to any one transaction in 
 which Mr. Hastings bore a part. 
 
 In one passage, Mr. Dallas was most eloquent, 
 when he commented upon a private letter, written, 
 by Mr. Hastings to Colonel Popham, recom- 
 mending every kindness and attention to Cheyt 
 
 Sing.
 
 ( 377 ) 
 
 Sing. This he compared to the Manager's 
 speeches, delivered in a full Court, carefully 
 revised, in order to be transmitted to posterity, 
 and drew the parallel between the ostentatious 
 display of humanity in a parliamentary oration, 
 and the silent exercise of that quality in Mr. 
 Hastings. 
 
 The Court adjourned until the second Tues- 
 day in the next session of parliament. 
 
 SIXTH
 
 (378) 
 
 SIXTH YEAR, 1793. 
 
 NINETY-SECOND DAY, February 25. 
 
 THIS day the trial of Mr. Hastings was recom- 
 menced, being the sixth year of the proceeding* 
 in Westminster Hall, and the seventh of the im- 
 peachment. 
 
 Mr. Law opened the case, and complained in 
 terms of great force and feeling, of the hard and 
 unexampled sufferings of his client ; and he ex- 
 pressed his hopes and his wishes, that this might 
 be the last, as it was the first instance of the ex- 
 tension of a criminal trial beyond the probable 
 duration of the life of man. 
 
 Mr. Law then proceeded to remark upon the 
 several allegations in the article of the Princess of 
 Oude; and with very great ability and apparent 
 knowledge of his subject, refuted them as he went 
 along, observing the instances in which the alle- 
 gations were utterly unsupported by evidence of 
 any kind, and justifying in other points what Mr. 
 Hastings had done, and avowed. 
 
 This
 
 (379 ) 
 
 This cause is already so well known, that, in 
 the present momentous and important situation 
 of public affairs, a long detail is unnecessary. 
 Mr. Law stated, what the whole world knows 
 to be true, the critical and dangerous state of 
 India in the last war; when it was actually pre- 
 served by the adoption of those very measures 
 for which Mr. Hastings has been so long im- 
 peached. He justified him completely from the 
 charges of cruelty or severity, and he stated va- 
 rious instances of the Begum's disaffection. 
 
 At five o'clock the Court adjourned. 
 
 NINETY-THIRD DAY, February 18. 
 
 THE Court on this day was fuller than on the 
 preceding, though- few of the prosecutors appeared. 
 Mr. Law proceeded in his opening of the defence 
 on the Begum article ; and in very forcible lan- 
 guage, and with his matter admirably arranged, 
 went through the remainder of the article. He 
 pointed out, that in almost every instance, the 
 charges were refuted by the evidence called by 
 the Managers themselves ; and in a most pointed 
 manner, alluded to the unjustifiable means re- 
 sorted to by the Managers in examining their 
 
 wit-
 
 witnesses. Amidst an infinite variety* of matter, 
 highly interesting. to Mr. Hastings to have ex- 
 plained to the Court, which is to pronounce judg- 
 ment upon him, he stated some that came home 
 to the feelings and common-sense of every man 
 in England. In the Benares article it had been stated 
 by the House of Commons, that Mr. Hastings 
 did certain acts under the pretence of a war. On 
 so wild an allegation, Mr. Law commented \\ith 
 great force: he asked, if that was a pretended -war, 
 which all India knew to be true ? which this coun- 
 try, to its cost, knew to be true; since she had 
 expended above a hundred millions in it, and lost 
 half her foreign dominions; in which, in India 
 alone, she was successful under Mr. Hastings? 
 In like manner he was accused, on this article, of 
 taking from the Begum five hundred and fifty 
 thousand pounds, in order to pay a pretended debt, 
 due from the Vizier to the Company. Could such 
 a charge be endured for a moment ? Was it a 
 fretcndtd debt? Why then had not the House of 
 Commons ordered it to be paid back again years 
 and years ago ? But the fad was, that it was a 
 real, a fair, and a just debt; acknowledged to be 
 so by all parties, and paid as such. But it were 
 an endlt-ss task, to enumerate all the absurd and 
 contradictory accusations that had been preferred 
 against Mr. Hastings. Some years ago, on a wry 
 memorable occasion, it was admitted, ihat this *is 
 
 a iair
 
 a fair debt ; but the recovery of it was stated to 
 be impossible ; and a great leading chara&er (Mr. 
 Fox) struck it out of the public accounts as des- 
 perate. Hence the persecuted situation to which 
 his client had so long been subjea. He had fal- 
 sified every prediction of his enemies as to India. 
 He had preserved it in war; he had lefc it in peace; 
 he had improved its resources : he had proved, 
 that those who pretended to some knowledge of 
 that country, knew nothing about it. These were 
 crimes not to be forgiven : he had fallen a vidim 
 and a martyr to the zeal, ability, and success, with 
 which he had served his country. 
 
 Mr. Law then went rapidly through all that re- 
 mained, and in a most admirable close, recapitu- 
 lated the acknowledged services of Mr. Hastings; 
 and added, that upon this, as on every other part 
 of his case, he rested on the cool impartiality and 
 Steady justice of his enlightened judges. 
 
 The Court adjourned at four o'clock. 
 
 MNETY-
 
 (382) 
 NINETY-FOURTH DAY, February 19. 
 
 THIS day was entirely spent in reading. The 
 only remarkable circumstance was, that the name 
 of Mr. Hastings seemed to operate as a charm in 
 bringing about a temporary coalition between Mr. 
 Burke and Mr. Sheridan the latter, though in a 
 great-coat, and unpowdered, coming to the assist- 
 ance of Mr. Burke, on a point of order and form, 
 relative to evidence. This took up some time; 
 and Mr. Burke had almost called his associate, 
 " My Honourable Friend ; M but, correcting him- 
 self, j,aid, " My Honourable Fellow Manager." 
 
 The Court adjourned at five o'clock. 
 
 NINETY-FIFTH DAY, February 26. 
 
 THE Court met at half past one. Captain Cor- 
 don was called by the Counsel of Mr. Hasting* 
 immediately. In one hour, or less, the examina- 
 tion was finished. 
 
 Mr. Burke began his counter-process, and con- 
 tinued it until near four, when Mr. Sheridan made 
 
 hia
 
 (383) 
 
 his appearance. The evidence was full, clear, and 
 distinct, applying most exactly to every point; 
 and if Captain Gordon had not been settled in 
 the South of France when the charge passed the 
 Commons, and of course incapable of giving his 
 evidence, there is some reason to think, sixty 
 thousand pounds might have been saved to the 
 nation, and a trial of every man's patience for six 
 years. 
 
 About four o'clock, Mr. Burke said that he had 
 finished with Captain Gordon for the present, but 
 that he would call him again on the next d ly the 
 Court met. Mr. Law instantly arose, and said 
 he claimed as a right^ what the laws of his coun- 
 try entitled him to expeft, that the Managers 
 should Jinish their cross-examination, before they 
 called another witness. 
 
 Mr. Burke, Mr. Adam, and the Patriot Mr. 
 Taylor, opposed this. Mr. I aw, confiding in 
 the justice of his objcftion, and in the honour of 
 the Court, persisted, but without fimhcr loss of 
 time, by urging arguments in support of an inde- 
 lible truth.. The Chancellor said, that if the 
 counsel persisted, they had a right to do so; 
 but that the Managers might consume the remain- 
 ing time of the Court, by questions, aixl so have 
 the privilege of pursuing their cross-examination 
 on the next day. 
 
 Upon
 
 (3*4) 
 
 Upon this, Lord Stanhope arose, and expressed 
 bis surprize at what had fallen from the learned 
 Lord ; adding, that he could not susped the Ma- 
 nagers to be capable of so scandalous a proceed- 
 ing, as to ask frivolous questions for the sake 
 of continuing an examination to the following 
 
 day. 
 
 Mr. Burke, misunderstanding what was said, 
 accused Lord Stanhope of attacking the Commons^ 
 by pronouncing their conduct to be scandalous. 
 Lord Stanhope replied, by re-stating what he had 
 said. 
 
 Mr. Burke and Mr. Adam began to re-argue 
 the point; but the Lords, with one voicc^ desired 
 them to go on, which they did, and finished with 
 Captain Gordon. 
 
 Captain Williams was then called up j and, as 
 his examination was likely to be long, the Court 
 adjourned. 
 
 NINETY-SIXTH DAY, February 27. 
 
 CAPTAIN WILLIAMS, on the assembly of the 
 Court, was called again to the bar, and the coun- 
 sel were proceeding with all possible dispatch 
 
 in
 
 c $ K 
 
 in his examination; when first, Mr. Burke, and 
 next, Mr. Sheridan, made observations as to the 
 re -hearing of his evidence. They argued, and re- 
 argued on the subject, until the Chancellor at last 
 observed, that they had better permit the counsel 
 to proceed. They took his Lordship's advice for 
 a few minutes, and then again interrupted, and 
 began an examination of their own. Some pro- 
 gress was madej and Captain Williams gave clear 
 and pointed answers to such questions as were 
 put to him by the Counsel, the Managers, and 
 the Lords. The substance of his evidence went 
 to prove the hostile acts of the Begum. Mr* 
 Sheridan, contrary to all former practice, broke 
 in upon the examination in chief. Objections 
 were made, and the day nealy spent, when Mr. 
 Hastings, with marks of agitation, mixed with 
 something of impatience, rose, and addressed the 
 Court. He began by professing the sincerest re- 
 spect for his judges, and he trusted to their sense 
 of honour, and their love of justice, to excuse the 
 irregularity he was about to commit. He, ob- 
 served, that an intimation had been given to hiirij 
 that this was the last day the Court were to meet 
 prior to the circuits. If therefore, that intention, 
 supposing their Lordships to have formed it, was 
 to be changed, it must be by an application made 
 before the rising of the Court. He called to 
 their Lordships' recollection the unprecedented, 
 c c dangerous)
 
 (386 ) 
 
 dangerous, and alarming length of the trial; that 
 lie was now in the sixth year of his appearance at 
 their bar, and the eighth from the commencement 
 of the process in the House of Commons; that 
 no man's life could fairly be estimated to last so 
 long, particularly a man at his age; that he had 
 entertained a hope of its being the universal wish 
 to bring the trial to a close in this session. By 
 a close, he meant a conclusion of the process on 
 both sides, and the judgment of the Court. To 
 any other he never would consent, and therefore 
 it was that he was anxious for a judgment, while 
 he had a chance of living until it should take 
 place. 
 
 Mr. Hastings next mentioned the steps he had 
 taken to get an attendance his petition to his 
 Majesty; and he professed that he had hopes, 
 from what was lately done in the House of Com- 
 mons, which met the universal approbation of the 
 country (alluding to Major Maitland's motion) : 
 all these hopes were now vanished ; and he threw 
 himself upon their Lordships, of whom he never 
 had thought or spoken, but with the utmost re- 
 sped and confidence. 
 
 His present prayer, he said, was, that the House 
 would sit day by day, in order to finish the present 
 charge before the circuits. His reason was, that 
 several gentlemen, for whom he had a very sin- 
 cere respedand affcaion, had attended year after 
 
 yea*
 
 (387 ) 
 
 year in vain, but were now assembled in the ful- 
 lest confidence, that their evidence would imme- 
 diately be taken. 
 
 Some came from very distant countries. One 
 gentleman, Major Lumsdaine, from the North of 
 Scotland ; another officer, Colonel Duff, who was 
 waiting to do justice to his character, had attu- 
 ally been in the Hall, the second year of the 
 trial ; had returned to India; had served with very 
 distinguished reputation in the war; came home a 
 few months ago, on the restoration of peace, and 
 was now ready to embark again. Could it be 
 expected, that even private regard should induce 
 this officer to neglect his publie duty ? Another 
 gentleman, who had been waiting year after year, 
 whose name had been meniioned yesterday, was 
 Mr. John Pendred Scott; that gentleman pre- 
 paring to come over from Ireland, to give his 
 evidence, died about ten days ago.- With such 
 examples before him, Mr. Hastings said, he- 
 implored, he entreated their Lordships to afford , 
 him at least an opportunity of closing his evi- j 
 dence on this charge before the circuits, and 
 to take such steps as should insure a compleat 
 close and judgment in the course of this ses- 
 sion. Mr. Hastings said much more. His speech 
 was not preconcerted, but made with infinite force 
 and effea. 
 
 e c 2 Mr,
 
 Mr. Burke declared, that it was the Commons' 
 wish to expedite the trial, as much as that of Mr. 
 Hastings. 
 
 Mr. Sheridan got up to speak, when the ad- 
 journment was moved. 
 
 NINETY-SEVENTH DAY, February 28. 
 
 MR. BURKE having declared the earnest anxi- 
 ety of the Commons to finish this trial, and also 
 that they were always in their place, we wish with 
 great deference and resped to notice these asser- 
 tions. In the first place, the Managers have been 
 so far from being in their places, few of them have 
 assisted for the three last years, even to make a 
 House, Major Maitland has publicly affirmed, 
 that it was made last year, in the trial days, by the 
 exertions of Mr. Hastings himself. A love of 
 justice may induce the Managers to finish the 
 trial ; but the personal inconvenience which they 
 suffer, is of no moment; they may attend, or not, 
 as they likeand though there was some demur, 
 when only three thousand pounds were expended, 
 sixty thousand pounds have since been paid with- 
 out difficulty. As to the Counsel employed by 
 the Managers, no gentlemen can be more at their 
 
 ease.
 
 ( 389 ) 
 
 case. Mr. Burke, Mr. Pigot, and Mr. Douglas, 
 received one thousand and thirty guineas each, 
 merely for attending in Westminster Hall, but 
 without its breaking in upon any of their business. 
 The Managers themselves being both pleaders and 
 examiners of witnesses, nothing can be more com- 
 fortable than the situation of all the parties em- 
 ployed by the public. But far different is the 
 case on the other side : Mr. Hastings appears 
 in the humiliating situation of a defendant, with 
 bended knee, as Major Maitland well' observed, 
 year after year. His counsel, all men of eminence 
 in their profession, must be most diligently and 
 unceasingly employed in this cause, to the evident 
 abandonment of much more business. The result 
 is, that neither Mr. Hastings nor his counsel can 
 have a wish but for. a speedy close ; while, on the 
 other side, all parties are at their ease. 
 
 This day was productive of extraordinary events. 
 The Lords assembled at twelve; but there was no 
 House of Commons. After some time the Ma- 
 nagers attended, and then Captain Williams was 
 called to the bar, and examined at great length, by 
 Mr. Burke. The Lords retired at twenty minutes 
 past two, to receive his Majesty. Lord Stanhope, as 
 we understand, lamented that the present Chancellor 
 did not follow the example of the last, in nmiself 
 .putting the questions to the witness, as it would 
 prevent such rubbish from appearing on their 
 c c 3 Journals;
 
 Journals ; and he lamented, in very strong terms, 
 'fhc intolerable delay on the trial. 
 
 At four o'clock, the Lords returned to the 
 Hall, and the examination of Captain Williams 
 continued till half-past five ; when Mr. Sheridan 
 rose, and said he had a proposition to make tq 
 the counsel, 'which, if assented to might shorten 
 the proceedings. He observed, that however 
 his public duty led him to support the charges 
 against Mr. Hastings, yet he must freely confess, 
 that that gentleman had the fullest right to com- 
 plain, in the strong terms he had done, of the in- 
 tolerable injury which he had sustained by the un- 
 constitutional duration of the trial. Nor was this 
 all ; the country, he was free to confess, would be 
 Completely disgraced in the eyes of all Europe, 
 and there never would be a future impeachment. 
 Having put this very strongly, and apparently 
 much to the surprize of Mr. Burke, he proceeded 
 to his proposition, which was at once rejected by 
 the Counsel, and tolerably strongly remarked 
 upon by the Chancellor. When this conversa- 
 tion ended, \t was near six o'clock, and the Court 
 adjourned. 
 
 - 
 
 NINETY*
 
 39 1 ) 
 
 NINETY-EIGHTH DAY, March i. 
 
 To understand the drift of the evidence given 
 this day, and to elucidate the cross-examination, 
 it will be necessary to state some circumstances 
 that occurred in the last Parliament. Amidst a 
 very large mass of matter, framed into articles by 
 the late House, and abandoned by them, there 
 was a charge, that Captain Williams, or some 
 British officer, had caused Rajah Mustapha Cavrn 
 to be put to death ; and the same charge calls 
 this execution a cruel and atrocious murder. Cap- 
 tain Williams petitioned the House, either to 
 bring a direcl charge against him, or to give him 
 some satisfaction for so foul an injury. By an 
 appeal to the journals of the House, it will ap- 
 pear, that this article was voted without the 
 Members having had an opportunity of looking 
 into it. Captain Williams could obtain no sort 
 of satisfaction, and he represented the very pe- 
 culiar hardship of his situation in a series of let- 
 ters, addressed to Mr. Francis, who had taken an 
 aftive part in this business. Here the matter 
 rested, but Captain Williams had the pleasure 
 .to hear his Majesty's Attorney General express 
 c c 3 in
 
 ( 392 ) 
 
 in the House his sincere concern, that he, as a 
 Member, should appear to call that " a cruel and 
 atrocious murder," of which he never had heard 
 one word. 
 
 To this business of Mustapha Cavvn, Mr. Burke 
 examined Captain Williams, who shewed all the 
 eagerness an innocent man could do, to wipe off 
 the foul reproach which the last Parliament had 
 cast uron him ; and it appeared by his evidence, 
 that when he relieved Major Lumsdaine, early in 
 1781, in the command of Gorricpore, a man 
 of the name of Mustapha Cawn, was delivered 
 over to him a prisoner, and under sentence of 
 death ; that he received a positive order from his 
 commanding officer, Colonel Hannay, to carry 
 this sentence into execution, which he did ; ancl 
 he stated, that the man had for many years been 
 a frce-booter and a rebel ; and that in the pe- 
 rilous situation in which he was, he found it 
 absolutely necessary to obey the orders which 
 tic had received. 
 
 The whole day was expended by Mr. Burke 
 and Mr. Sheridan, in questions and cross-ques- 
 tions upon this point, and relative to a letter 
 which Captain Williams had found amongst some 
 papers. In the midst of all this examination, it 
 came out very clearly, that Captain Williams 
 bad received information, which left him no rea- 
 iQO to doubt of the intrigues of the Begum; and 
 
 thai
 
 ( 393 ) 
 
 that no man in India ever entertained a doubt 
 upon the subject. 
 
 At half past five, the Court adjourned. 
 
 NINETY-NINTH DAY, March 2. 
 
 THE business on this day commenced by the 
 Lord Chancellor's stating, that the House, ob- 
 serving the unfortunate delays which had oc- 
 curred by the Managers interrupting the exami- 
 nation of Mr. Hastings's witnesses, and by obser- 
 vations, had determined, that in future, until the 
 examination in chief was finished, the cross-exa- 
 mination should not begin ; and that no remarks 
 should be made, which were in their nature ob- 
 servations on the effe6l of evidence. The same 
 rule was to be observed by the defendant's 
 counsel. 
 
 Mr. Burke made a speech, in order to express 
 his submission, and declared, that so extremely 
 anxious were the Commons for a very speedy 
 close to this unprecedented trial, that if the de- 
 fendant's counsel wished it, and their Lordships 
 chose so to determine, they we're ready to go on 
 during the circuits. 
 
 As soon as Mr. Burke sat down, Mr. Dallas 
 called Lieutenant Shuldhanij who ; in reply to the 
 
 several
 
 ( 394 ) 
 
 several "questions put to him, said, that he had 
 been ten years in India, and returned about two 
 years; that at the time of Cheyt Sing's insur- 
 reftion he was in Major Macpherson's regiment 
 at Cawnpore ; that it was then currently reported, 
 and universally believed, that the Begums were 
 hostile to the British government, and had af- 
 forded military aid to Chcyt Sing; that he had 
 not then a shadow of doubt as to the truth of 
 those reports, nor has he now ; that he remained 
 in India nine years after the event, and he could 
 safely swear that no one circumstance had come 
 to his knowledge, which led him to doubt it, nor 
 was it doubted by any one person of any descrip- 
 tion in India with whom he had ever conversed, 
 and he had conversed with great numbers of na- 
 tives, as well as his brother officers, on the sub- 
 ject. That if any one were asked to bring strift 
 legal proof of the existence of a design some time 
 ago, to overturn this happy constitution, he might 
 not be able to do it, yet the fatl was of such no- 
 toriety, that associations had been formed through- 
 out the kingdom, to counteract the design. That 
 the battalion to which he belonged marched from 
 Lucknow to Fyzabad, and that the eunuchs Jewar 
 and Bahar Allly Cawn, were under their charge ; 
 that he had often seen and conversed with them ; 
 that they were attended by a great number of 
 their men servants, and sustained no hardships of 
 
 any
 
 ( 395 ) 
 
 kind, and complained of none ; that in order 
 to induce them to pay the balance of the sum 
 they had agreed to pay, they had been for a short 
 time in irons ; that he was present when a smith 
 was taking the irons from one of them, and that 
 fhey were very little heavier than the gold or 
 silver ornaments which the women of that coun- 
 try wear round their ancles. He was cross- 
 examined by Mr. Burke and Mr. Sheridan, and 
 gave his answers in the clearest terms. Mr. She- 
 ridan asked, why there should be a necessity for 
 a smith to take off the irons, if they were so 
 pxtremely slight? To which Mr. Shuldham neatly 
 replied, that unless they had been rivetted, slight 
 as they were, they would themselves have taken 
 them off. 
 
 Mr/ Sheridan asked if it was not known in 
 India that Mr. Hastings had been many years 
 impeached on this article ? Mr. Shuldham said, 
 it certainly was universally known in India. This 
 led Mr. Dallas to ask, if the circumstance of being 
 impeached had hurt the character of Mr. Has- 
 tings in India ? To this he replied, that when 
 he spoke of Mr. Hastings, he spoke of a man 
 with whom he was not personally acquainted; 
 that he spoke from no sense of personal favours 
 received, since none had been conferred; that 
 he could say, with the utmost confidence, there 
 jiever had been a man whose charader stood 
 
 higher
 
 (396) 
 
 higher than that of Mr. Hastings; that as Go- 
 vernor there never was a man more able, nor, as 
 a private charader, more amiable ; and that this 
 was the general opinion of India, both amongst 
 the natives and his own countrymen, and that it 
 was not at all shaken by the impeachment. 
 
 The next evidence called was Colonel Duff. 
 This officer said he had been in India about 
 thirty years; that he had returned to England 
 since the commencement of this trial, stayed a 
 short time, went back, commanded the artillery 
 under Lord Cornwallis in the late war, and ar- 
 rived again in England two months ago; that he 
 was in India during the insurrection of Cluyt 
 Sing; that the disaffection and hostility of the 
 Begums was a facl at that time universally be- 
 lieved; that he himself had then no doubt of it, 
 nor has one circumstance that he has since heard 
 led him to doubt it, nor does he believe any man 
 in India ever did doubt it; that in the years 
 1781 and 1782, the Company's situation in India 
 was most dangerous and alarming, much more so 
 than at any other period before or since; that 
 the troops were many months in arrears, and that 
 the most strenuous exertions were necessary to 
 preserve India to Great Britain. 
 
 With respea to the bullock contraa, Colonel 
 Duff deposed, that this was a service on which 
 the success of every operation in War depended ; 
 
 that
 
 ( 397 ) 
 
 v 
 
 that good bullocks never could be procured by 
 an annual contract given to the lowest bidder; 
 that under Mr. Crofte's contract, the bullocks 
 were excellent, the regulations highly proper, and 
 rigidly enforced; that six thousand seven hun- 
 dred bullocks were' by no means too large a 
 number; that so far from one driver being too 
 much for every two bullocks, he thought there 
 should be two to every three bullocks ; that with 
 regard to Mr. Hastings, though he thought Mr. 
 Hastings had in his public character done him 
 no favour, but rather the contrary on one oc- 
 casion yet that circumstance should not prevent 
 him from doing justice. He had many years ago 
 concurred with some hundreds of his brother 
 officers in transmitting to Mr. Hastings the sense 
 that the army entertained of his great merits and 
 public services ; that he knew the opinion of 
 India to.be very highly in favour of Mr. Has- 
 tings, and that nothing which had happened during 
 this trial had changed that opinion; but quite the 
 reverse ; that no man stood higher in the general 
 estimation, or had performed more important ser- 
 vices; that the people of India, Europeans and 
 natives, looked upon Mr. Hastings to be a very 
 great and a very injured man ; and, added Colonel 
 Duff, this is my opinion too. 
 
 In the cross-examination Colonel Duff was 
 very pointed. Mr. Sheridan asked him. to what 
 
 mismanage-
 
 (398) 
 
 mismanagement it was owing, that the army had 
 been so much in arrears in 1781 and 1782 ? The 
 Colonel replied, to no mismanagement at all, but 
 owing to the very large suras sent by Mr. Has- 
 tings to support the war in the Carnatic, and on 
 the Malabar Coast. He was asked, when he 
 heard of the disaffeaion of the Begums ? He said, 
 as soon after the revolt of Cheyt Sing as the news 
 could arriveand that he heard it repeatedly since, 
 and had not a shadow of doubt in his mind on the 
 subjca. In reply to Mr. Burkes questions, he 
 said, that the bullock contracl met the warm ap- 
 probation of Sir Eyre Coote, the commander in 
 chief in India, and of General Stibbert, the pro* 
 vincial commander in chief. 
 
 Major Lumsdaine was next called, and gave 
 the same pointed evidence as to the existence of 
 the Begum's disaffeaion, which he said was a faa 
 universally believed in India, and never doubted 
 but in England. He said, that nothing could be 
 so alarming as the state of the British empire in 
 India at the close of 1781, and in the first 
 months of 1782; that it was his firm opinion the 
 existence of our Indian dominion depended at 
 that time on the life of Mr. Hastings; that the 
 army with which he was aaing was six and seven 
 months in arrears; that he is confident the army 
 must have been disbanded, without some assis- 
 tance, in a very short time, their distresses were 
 
 arrived
 
 ( 399 ) 
 
 arrived at so great a height; and that the brigade 
 under the command of Colonel Sir J. Gumming 
 could not move for want of pay ; that in February 
 1782, they were relieved by the Vizier, having 
 paid the Company a large sum of money, which, 
 as he understood, was a part of his father's trea- 
 sures, that he had taken from the Begum at Fyza- 
 bad; that without such a seasonable supply, the 
 most ruinous effeas would have followed; that 
 he had served in India until the close of Mr. 
 Hastings's administration; that no man ever stood 
 higher in the opinion either of the natives or of 
 his own countrymen, or was more esteemed ei- 
 ther as a public or a private charader. He said 
 Mustapha Cawn, the man whose death was termed 
 by the late House a cruel and atrocious murder, 
 was sent a prisoner to him in May 1780, by or- 
 der of the Nabob, and under sentence of death; 
 that he received very stria direaions for the 
 guard of his person, and when he delivered over 
 the command to Captain Williams in 1781, he 
 reported Mustapha Cawn as a prisoner under 
 sentence of death. 
 
 The cross-examination by Mr. Burke lasted 
 above two hours, on points, apparently at least, 
 foreign from any charge against Mr. Hastings, 
 and the Lords seeing no prosped of a close, 
 Idjourned to the x 2th of April. 
 
 HUNDREDTH
 
 (400 ) 
 
 HUNDREDTH DAY, April 12. 
 
 THE Court assembled, this. day, at one o'clock. 
 The cross-examination of one gentleman, (Major 
 Lumsdaine), \vas finished about half past two, 
 Mr. Burke being the only Manager who asked 
 a question ; and, to men of common conception, 
 there was not one single point on the cross- 
 examination which could, under any possible 
 construction, apply to the case of Mr. Hastings. 
 
 Mr. Wombwell was the other gentleman called. 
 Mr. Dallas asked him a very few questions, and 
 his answers confirmed the evidence of many 
 other respectable witnesses, as to the universal 
 belief that obtained in India, of the disaffection 
 of the Begums, and also of the general respect 
 and affetlion which all ranks of people felt for 
 Mr. Hastings. 
 
 Mr. Burke kept Mr. Wombwell two hours on 
 a cross-examination as to salaries or pensions, 
 that he had paid to English gentlemen in Oude, 
 from the Nabob's treasury ; and though Mr. 
 Wombwell twenty times told him, that all his 
 accounts were public, and at the India House ^ 
 that he never had paid one rupee privately ; that 
 
 he
 
 h* knew nothing of any money having been pri- 
 vately paid, either as a pension to a person in his 
 own name, or for the use of that person, under 
 some other 'name, yet question succeeded question* 
 until the patience of every human being present 
 appeared to be entirely exhausted ; and Mr. 
 Wombwell himself, with some degree of impa- 
 tience, said, he was ashamed to say he could not 
 recollecl to whom he had paid money, but that 
 he had paid none which was not regularly entered 
 in the accounts at the India House, to which he 
 again and again referred Mr. Burke. 
 
 Many of the Lords shewed strong signs of im- 
 patience, and the Archbishop of York declared, 
 with a very strong and pointed emphasis, that the 
 conduct of Mr. Burke was illiberal. To this re- 
 mark no reply was made; and Mr. Wombweli 
 being discharged, at half past five the Court ad- 
 journed. 
 
 9 
 
 HUNDRE-D-AND-FIRST DAY, April 18. 
 
 THE Court met at two, when Mr. Auriol was. 
 
 called, and gave a very full and distinct evidence 
 
 in favor of the general measures of Mr. Hastings's 
 
 government. Mr. Plumer particularly tailed the 
 
 D D attention
 
 C 42 ) 
 
 attention of the "Lords to one purpose for which 
 he had brought Mr. Auriol before them. Mr. 
 Adam and Mr. Sheridan had adduced evidence to 
 foew, that Mr. Hastings had dated a letter on the 
 gth of November 1781, vhich contained the first 
 information of the rebellion of the Begums ; no 
 such letter appeared in the consultations until Ja- 
 nuary 1782, consequently Mr. Hastings had put a 
 false date, to that letter, and this was Mr. She- 
 ridan's strongest argument to prove his guilt. 
 Mr. Auriol swore, that the letter in question was 
 received in due course; that Sir John Macpkerson 
 took it from the Council table ; that he repeatedly 
 applied to Sir John for it, in order to enter it upon 
 the Records, and to fend it to England by the 
 Swallow in December that Sir John in reply 
 said, it was not necessary to send it by the Swallow, 
 and in January a second copy came down with Mr. 
 Hastings's narrative, fo that it became unnessary to 
 get the original letter from Sir John Macpherson. 
 This evidence effectually cleared Mr. Hasting* 
 from the strongest imputation that had been 
 thrown on his character during the trial. 
 
 HUNDRED-AND-SECOND DAY, April 20. 
 THE Court on this day completed all the evi- 
 dence on the Begum charge. The day was spent 
 in producing a great number of letters, extracts 
 from many of which had been read by the Ma- 
 nagers
 
 ( 403 ) 
 
 uagers, and the remainder was now given, that 
 the Lords might have the subje6l complete and 
 ungarbled before them. 
 
 Mr. Plumer very neatly opened the evidence 
 he was offering, and observed upon the strange 
 and unfounded assertion of the Managers, as it 
 was entered on the minutes of evidence. He 
 observed, that they had stated, that after the 
 month of September, 1781, no state necessity 
 existed in India Mr. Plumer said, he would 
 produce evidence to prove, that for two years 
 subsequent to this period, the distress was of the 
 most serious nature; that Madras and Bombay,! 
 receiving no pecuniary assistance from England, 
 as they had done in the late war, depended en- '] 
 tirely on Bengal, and owed their preservation 
 solely to the exertions of Mr. Hastings. Mr. 
 Plumer then produced authentic documents, which 
 completely justified his assertions. He next of- 
 fered to the Court a minute written by Sir John 
 Shore, on Jaghire tenures. 
 
 To this evidence, Mr. Burjce objected. 
 
 Mr. Plumer replied, by saying, that in every 
 point of view it was unobjectionable evidence, Sir 
 John Shore being a man well versed in the laws 
 and customs of India, and sele&ed by the King's 
 Ministers and the Court of Directors to fill the 
 high office of Governor General of Bengal. 
 
 j> D 2 Mr.
 
 (404 ) 
 
 Mr. Burke said, that the Commons had no- 
 thing to do with Sir John Shore's appointment, 
 but that the Managers knew that he was im- 
 plicated in the crimes charged upon the prisoner 
 at the bar, under whom he had for many y<.<u\ 
 managed the revenues of Bengal ; that the Ma- 
 nagers had arraigned his conduft; that he had 
 written part of Mr. Hastings's defence, and that 
 he knew nothing of his knowledge of the consti. 
 tution of India; that as to his being appointed 
 Governor General of Bengal, so had Mr. Has- 
 tings, four several times, by the Legislature, 
 though the Commons had .since thought it right 
 to impeach him.- No answer was given. 
 
 The Chancellor said the evidence was proper, 
 and it was read accordingly. 
 
 Soon after five, Mr. Plumer finished all the 
 evidence on the Begum charge. 
 
 HUNDRED-AND-THIRD DAY, April 20. 
 
 MR. PLUMER on this day began to sum up the 
 evidence on the Begum charge, which he did as far 
 as he went, in a majiner that tended to clear up 
 every doubt that had been thrown on the subjed. 
 
 He
 
 ( 405 ) 
 
 He began by reminding the Lords, that nearly 
 eight years were elapsed since the charge was first 
 brought forward. He quoted those strong, forci- 
 ble, and, as they now appear, those strange ex- 
 pressions of Mr. Sheridan, describing Mr. Has- 
 tings as the most cruel, faithless, tyrannical, and 
 corrupt man, that any age, or any nation, had 
 produced. After remarking upon the great re- 
 sponsibility which Mr. Sheridan had incurred, 
 by his assertions, it should be his humble pro- 
 vince, he said, to examine whether fatts or evi- 
 dence would in any degree justify such language. 
 He said, that if ever man's general character could 
 be known, Mr. Hastings's must be ; that the un- 
 precedented, and alarming length of this trial, had 
 enabled the Managers to obtain every informa- 
 tion of every kind from India; that they were 
 themselves men of the highest talents, and infinite 
 industry ; that they were assisted by able and la- 
 borious counsel ; that they represented the whole 
 people of Great Britain, in whose name, and for 
 whom they prosecuted. Added to this, it was 
 well known, that truth was strengthened in its 
 opera-ion in the hutnan mind by time. But 
 would there be a man now found hardy enough 
 to subscribe to that character which one of the 
 Managers had given of Mr. Hastings? He 
 would venture to answer, No, n:t one. Their 
 Lordships well knew the opinion, and the voice 
 D D 3 of
 
 ( 406 ) 
 
 of India. The proceedings daily held on the 
 state of the East India Company sufficiently 
 shewed the sense entertained at home of the ad- 
 vantages resulting from the long administration 
 of the gentleman now under trial before their 
 Lordships. 
 
 Mr. Firmer then went into a minute scrutiny 
 of the evidence. A question, he said, had been 
 put by their Lordships to the Managers six years 
 ago, as to the tenure by which the Begums held 
 their Jaghires; to which one of the Managers, 
 without any hesitation, replied, that the Begums, 
 and their Ministers, always contended they were 
 for life. 
 
 Mr. Plumer said, he never could suppose that 
 the Managen, or their counsel, intended to de- 
 ceive their Lordships ; that he himself believed 
 they spoke truth; but, after a most accurate 
 search, he could not find that they had at any 
 one time so contended. But, not satisfied with 
 this, he had called the proper officer from the 
 Jnclia House, who had expressly searched the 
 records, and who deposed, upon oath, that he 
 could not find one single instance, in which either 
 the Begums, or their Ministers, contended that 
 they were for life. In a most feeling manner 
 Mr. Plumer then called to the recollection of 
 their Lordships the treatment which Mr. Has- 
 tings had received from the Managers. Though 
 
 the
 
 the multiplicity of business that he had to transact 
 was well known, yet if in the perusal of hundreds 
 of volumes of important matter, a mistake of the 
 most trivial nature was found to have been com- 
 mitted by him, no allowance was made False, 
 jalse, false, \yas repeated, and he was compelled, 
 day after day, month after month, and year after 
 year, to hear the foulest invectives uttered, be- 
 cause he had made, on some occasions, the most 
 inconsiderable and unimportant mistakes, by gen- 
 tlemen who had roundly asserted, in a Court of 
 Justice, that certain declarations always were 
 made, which, upon the fullest investigation, were, 
 as it now appeared, never made at all. 
 
 Here Mr. Plumer said, he would leave this 
 subject to the reflection of the Managers them- 
 selves. 
 
 The next point was, as to the nature of Jaghire 
 tenures in general, which, he contended, had been 
 totally mistaken by the Managers. After quoting 
 several passages in the evidence, he laid par- 
 ticular stress on the opinion of Sir John Shore, 
 formed from a very full consideration of the 
 subjeft, which he had taken up by the express 
 orders of the Court of Directors, arid the Board 
 of Controul. 
 
 To this evidence, he said, Mr. Burke had 
 
 objecled in that ingenious mode, which never 
 
 failed him, when he wished to make an impres- 
 
 D D 4 sion
 
 ( 4 o8) 
 
 sion against any person at any time. He had de- 
 scribed Sir John Shore as the fabricator of Mr. 
 Hastings's defence, and the accomplice of his 
 crime. 
 
 Here Mr. Plumer most happily exposed the 
 futility of such objections. A charge, he said, 
 had been brought against Mr. Hastings, for form- 
 ing a plan for collecting the revenues of Bengal. 
 That plan, as well as all the plans by which the 
 Company were to be benefited, and the public 
 to receive half a million a year, continued, with 
 very little variation, to the present moment. 
 Sir John Shore having been so long employed 
 in the revenues under Mr. Hastings, was thought 
 the properest person to make some observations 
 on that particular charge. But then, said Mr. 
 Burke, he was the accomplice of Mr. Hastings. 
 The fat was, that Sir John Shore's skill and 
 ability in the revenue line had induced Ministers 
 twice to call him from his retreat in England : 
 the first time, to go out as an associate to Lord 
 Cornwallis, and now as the successor to that noble 
 Marquis. So that this accomplice of Mr. Hastings 
 was seletkd and solicited to fill the first office in 
 the British empire. Possessing, as Sir John Shore 
 did, the highest character for ability, integrity, 
 and honour, distinguished by the gracious fa- 
 vour of his Sovereign, who had conferred the 
 rank of iteronet upon him, and enjoying the 
 * good
 
 ( 409 ) 
 
 good opinion of his confidential Ministers, he 
 trusted that no observation of the sort made by- 
 Mr. Burke would in any degree impeach the 
 credit of his evidence, important as it was to 
 this point, and to another, namely, the gene- 
 ral estimation in which Mr. Hastings's name 
 and character were held, amongst the natives of 
 India. 
 
 Mr. Plumer proceeded with very great pre- 
 cision, and appealing often to the evidence ad- 
 duced by the Managers themselves, sometimes 
 to the elucidating evidence which he had himself 
 called, he cleared the ground as he went, and 
 proved, that the allegations in the articles were 
 founded on the grossest ignorance of the man- 
 ners and customs of India, and a complete mis- 
 representation of the right of the Begum to any 
 treasures left by Sujah Dowlah, prior to that 
 treaty to which the English were the guarantees 
 in 1775. 
 
 On the next day, when he meant to close, he 
 said, he trusted he should prove to their Lord- 
 ships, that the right which the Begum enjoyed 
 under our guarantee, was wholly done away by 
 her conduct during the revolt of Cheyt Sing ; 
 and, as to the idea of distress sustained by her, 
 it rested only on the imagination of the Managers, 
 since it was a certain fat, that she was left in 
 
 posses-
 
 ( 4-0) 
 
 possession of above one million sterling, 
 after the seizure in 1781. 
 
 The Court was very full of company ; and from 
 twenty to thirty Lords were present. 
 
 The Court adjourned. 
 
 r 
 
 HUNDRED-AND-FOURTH DAY, May 2. 
 
 THE Court did not assemble this day until 
 half-past two o'elock, which prevented Mr. Plu- 
 iner from going completely through his summary 
 of the evidence, being obliged, as he was, to takq 
 some time in refuting and exposing the assertions 
 made by Mr. Sheridan, in the course of his long 
 speech in the prosecution on this charge. 
 
 Mr. Plumer opened, by calling to the particu- 
 lar recollection of the Lords the position laid 
 down by the Managers ; namely, that tkis was a 
 plot invented by Mr. Hastings, for the purpose of 
 ruining the Begums, who, so far from having been 
 hostile to the British nation, were really friendly 
 who could have no motive whatever for enter- 
 taining the designs imputed to them; that to sup- 
 pose them to have entertained such designs, was to 
 suppose them weak, foolish, and absurd, and con- 
 sequently the whole was an afterthought of Mr v 
 
 Hastings,
 
 Hastings, adopted when his attempt to procure 
 money from Cheyt Sing had failed. This asser- 
 tion, the most extraordinary ever made by man, 
 and which is the more serious, because it is really 
 made in the name of all the people of Great Britain, 
 Mr. Plumer proved, by direB and positive evi- 
 dence, to be totally void of foundation. He might 
 rest his proofs, he said, upon the evidence adduced 
 by the Manager himself, who had entered, as part 
 of his case, a variety of affidavits, all stating im- 
 portant information as to the hostile afts of the 
 Begums in the month of September 1781. Ex- 
 grafts from these Mr. Plumer read, and seemed to 
 carry with him the fullest conviction of his audi- 
 tors. But if to these was added the evidence of- 
 fered by the counsel on the defence, then Mr. She- 
 ridan, to make out his proposition, must prove, 
 that a great number of very respectable witnesses 
 had been guilty of the foulest perjury ever attri- 
 buted to man. 
 
 Mr. Plumer here read a number of letters writ- 
 ten by Colonel Hannay, in September 1781. la 
 these he mentions positively, that the Begums took 
 an aftive part in favour of Cheyt Sing. He men- 
 tions being credibly informed, that a body of 
 troops had marched from Fyzabad, to reinforce 
 Cheyt Sing, in September 1781. 
 
 Mr. Plumer read next the evidence of Captain 
 Wade, Captain Burrell, Captain Grey, and Colo- 
 nel
 
 nel Popham. These gentlemen all swore, that at 
 the aftion of Pateeta, some of these troops were 
 wounded and taken prisoners ; that they had con- 
 versed with them, and had been expressly told by 
 them, that they were entertained by the Begum's 
 orders, who sent them to Cheyt Sing, where they 
 had arrived the day before, having each received 
 two rupees advance for their services before they 
 left Fyzabad; that what they stated in their evi- 
 dence was matter of public conversation in camp, 
 and of universal notoriety; that Mr. Hastings 
 must have heard it, and, as Colonel Popham 
 deposed, had repeatedly talked of the Begum's 
 disaffection in the month of September. Colonel 
 Blair also swore to the notoriety of the fal ; that 
 in India no doubt ever was entertained of the truth 
 of it; nor had he, or any of the other gentlemen, 
 ever heard a doubt of it until they came to Eng- 
 land, where alone a doubt had existed. 
 
 He next adverted to the strong evidence of 
 Captain Williams and Captain Gordon, and to the 
 pointed affidavit of Major Macdonald, who, being 
 in India, could not be examined at their Lord- 
 ships' bar; not contented with these evidences, 
 they had called gentlemen of great respectability, 
 who had lately returned from India. Colonel 
 Duff, an officer of very high rank, who had not 
 arrived from India above three months, had so- 
 lemnly sworn, that he heard of the hostile as 
 
 of
 
 ( 413 ) 
 
 of the Begums at the time they happened ; that he 
 was sure the faft of their disaffection was never 
 doubted in India. 
 
 To oppose to the strongest possible evidence 
 that the nature of the case would admit of, nothing 
 had been offered nothing could be offered, but a 
 bold unfounded assertion of Mr. Sheridan, that 
 Mr. Hastings invented this tale above two months 
 after all the fads -were known, to which so many 
 gentlemen had positively sworn; and his observa- 
 tion, that it would be so weak, absurd, and foolish, 
 in the Begums to think of resisting the English, 
 that it could not be credited for a moment. 
 
 Mr. Plumer said, that it was not his business 
 to prove, that all men always afted with prudence 
 and propriety. He had stated fatts which were 
 indisputable, and proved the falsehood of the 
 charge. But he confessed that one of the Ma- 
 nagers had, upon being hard pressed, recourse 
 to an argument of a very singular nature. He 
 said, that the Commons were obliged to go into 
 the enemy s camp for witnesses, and therefore were 
 entitled to indulgence; a declaration in the highest 
 degree honourable to Mr. Hastings, while it shewed 
 to what distress his accusers were driven. 
 
 The voice of India was undoubtedly on the side 
 of Mr. Hastings. Even the Begums themselves 
 remained silent and quiet spectators of this cause. 
 No one information of any kind had been received 
 
 from
 
 from the natives of India, that tended to support 
 & single assertion made by a single Manager. The 
 Tyrant, the Oppressor, the Captain General of 
 Iniquity, as Mr. Hastings had so often been called, 
 was the object of the love and veneration of the 
 people of India. His countrymen joined as one 
 man 9 in repelling the unjust attack that had been 
 made upon jiim. Except, therefore, the Managers 
 could persuade their Lordships, that more know- 
 ledge of India was contained in tha: box, than 
 those possessed who had spent the best part of 
 their lives in India; or except they could shew, 
 that gentlemen of the most irreproachable charac- 
 ters had perjured themselves, they had no ground 
 to stand upon. 
 
 The leading Manager in this cause (Mr. Sheri- 
 dan) would not believe a syllable as to the exist- 
 ence of a flat here, to undermine the Constitu- 
 tion. It was a mere aristocratical trick; but In- 
 dia was the true centre of all plots, and Mr. Has- 
 tings the inventor of them. 
 
 After exposing the inconsistency and artifice 
 displayed in the prosecution of this article, Mr. 
 Plumer said there were but two points more to 
 touch upon, but those he was afraid would take up 
 more time than the Lords could give him to-day ; 
 but that he would go through them at the next 
 pitting. 
 
 The
 
 (415) 
 
 The Lords shewed an unremitting attention^ 
 and appeared to feel as the audience did, in the 
 detection of the many misrepresentations. 
 
 HUNDRED -AND-FIFTH DAY, May 6. 
 
 MR. PLUMER began by thanking their Lord- 
 ships for their patient attention. He said, that 
 what remained to be discussed was rather appen- 
 dant matter, than important as charge; yet it con- 
 cerned the. honour of Mr. Hastings tnat it should 
 be completely refuted. 
 
 The first absurdity he would point out, was this* 
 That in one part of the article, Mr. Hastings was 
 accused of compelling the Nabob to seize the trea- 
 sures and the jaghires: In another, that the Na- 
 bob bribed Mr. Hastings, to allow him, the Nabob, 
 to do those ads. Another strange and absurd as- 
 sertion of the Manager (Mr. Sheridan) was, that 
 whatever the necessity might have been, previous 
 to the igth of September 1781, no necessity 
 existed subsequent to that period, on which the 
 measures of seizing the treasures could be de- 
 fended. 
 
 Mr. Pkimer, in the strongest terms, expressed 
 his astonishment either at the gross ignorance, OF 
 -2V the
 
 the artful misrepresentation of the Manager. There 
 was not a boy, he said, in India or in England, 
 who pretended to the slightest knowledge of the 
 History of India, who did not know that the dis- 
 tress of the Company's affairs was considerably 
 increased after 1781. To put this matter out of 
 all doubt, Mr. Plumcr read a variety of extrafts 
 from the Letters from Madras and Bombay, ex- 
 pressing the warmest acknowledgments to Mr. 
 Hastings, for the great relief which he had afforded 
 them, stating their increased distress from the con- 
 tinuance of the war, and their sole reliance on Mr. 
 Hastings for their future support. Mr. Plumer 
 put this so strong as to convince his hearers, that 
 if the Manager was not ignorant, he was something 
 worse. 
 
 He next exposed their gross ignorance, or mis- 
 representation, of the whole history of Oudc, 
 " But thank God," said Mr. Plumer, " the hour 
 " of delusion is gone by. Their Lordships had 
 now before them the whole history of that coun- 
 try, by which it was evident, that from the Na- 
 bob's accession in 1775, down to 1781, he expe- 
 rienced the greatest distress, owing to two causes; 
 the one, because his mother withheld from him 
 the treasures of the state the other, as the Mar- 
 quis Cornwallis has since said, " to the character 
 of the Prince," whom he describes as careless, in- 
 attentive
 
 ( 417 ) 
 
 attentive to business, swayed by favourites, and 
 exceedingly expensive. But such were the con- 
 sequences of the Treaty of Chunar, that from 
 Oude, a country, affirmed by Mr. Francis, in No- 
 vember 1781, to be ruined beyond redemption, a 
 country from which Mr. Fox would not receive a 
 balance of seven hundred and ninety thousand 
 pounds, due to the Company in November 1783; 
 yet, Mr. Plumer repeated, such were the conse- 
 quences of Mr. Hastings's exactions, that between 
 1781, and 1785, as appeared in evidence^ the sum 
 of four millions two hundred thousand founds had 
 been received. This was one great resource, he 
 said, which carried us successfully through a war, 
 in which Great Britain could not, as she had done 
 in the latter war, afford Mr. Hastings the assistance' 
 of a shilling. After exposing the folly of the accu- 
 sation in this instance, he proceeded to the bribes, 
 in which he pointed out the contradictions be- 
 tween the evidence and the charge. 
 
 Mr. Plumer next proceeded to prove from evi.. 
 dence, that Mr. Sheridan might just as well have 
 charged Mr. Hastings with being the author of 
 the dreadful massacres in Paris, on the first and ! 
 second of September, as of the distresses of the 
 Khord Mahal, in 1782. He pointed out the gross_ 
 inconsistency and falsehood of the charge, and 
 laid open such a scene of villainy and fraud, in the 
 mode of wording the article, as ought to cover 
 
 those 

 
 (418 ) 
 
 those who drew it up with perpetual infamy, prd- 
 vided Mr. Plumer quoted fairly, but which, on 
 the other hand, ought to ruin his own character, if 
 his statement was not correct. 
 
 With infinite ability Mr. Plumer next exposed 
 the incorrigible prejudices of the Managers, 
 who had opened and fummed up the evidence on 
 this charge One of them, Mr. Adam, had boldly 
 affirmed that Mr. Hastings, by putting a false date 
 to a letter, had written a lyc-~ and Mr. Sheridan 
 had first assumed as afaft, that a false date was put 
 to the letter; and had then concluded, that it was 
 a proof the most convincing that could be offered of 
 the guilt of the defendant. Mr. Auriol had proved 
 that the letter was written and dispatched on the day 
 of its date, but that Sir John M'Pherfon had taken 
 it from the Council Board. This circumflance 
 the Manager might have known both from Sir 
 John and Mr. Auriol in the year 1788, if their 
 anxiety to discover truth, had equalled their eager- 
 ness to condemn. 
 
 He next proved, that the DireBors had sent no 
 orders for an enquiry iato the faft of the Begum's 
 rebellion ; and it being now five o'clock, and a 
 great number of members of the House of Com- 
 mons, with Mr. Dundas, coming down, he took 
 the opportunity of placing the inconsistency, ab- 
 surdity, and injustice of the Impeachment, in 
 terms so strong, that he excited the attention of
 
 ( 419 ) 
 
 all his auditors. He said, that Great Britain was 
 a nation famed for her regard to justice through- 
 out the world ; but the nation and Mr. Hastings 
 were both upon their trial, and that both must rise 
 or fall together. Their Lordships had in proof 
 before them, what India thought of this long per- 
 secution. Twelve years had elapsed since Cheyt 
 Sing was expelled from Benares, and since the 
 Begums were deprived of a part of Sujah Dow* 
 lah's treasures. The nation had enjoyed the bene- 
 fits of both it had taken the money, and exposed 
 them by Impeachment. There was no end of the 
 absurdity and injustice of Great Britain, provided 
 the articles against Mr. Hastings were founded in 
 truth. But, thank God, the honour of the country 
 was in no danger; a six years trial had had no 
 other effeft than this, to shew to the whole world 
 the gross ignorance of those who first set the pro- 
 secution on foot to call forth the testimony of 
 all India in favour of the accused, and to induce 
 the prosecutors reluctantly to confess, that in all 
 their ideas as to India, they had been mistaken. 
 Mr. Plumer put this in every possible point of 
 view, and left this impression strong in the minds 
 of those who were prejudiced against Mr. Hastings 
 (if any such there be) that the nation participated 
 jn any infamy which might attach upon him; but 
 he again and again repeated, that he was confident 
 tfce j udgment of their Lordships would vindicate 
 e E a the
 
 the honour of the nation, and of Mr. HastingSj 
 both embarked in a common cause. 
 
 HUNDRED-AND-SIXTH DAY, May 9. 
 
 THE Court did not assemble on this day until 
 a quarter before three o'clock; to this late hour is 
 the meeting now commenced, though during the 
 prosecution the Court generally met at twlvi-, 
 and always before one, when the Commons could 
 make a House in time. 
 
 Mr. Dallas immediately rose, and arrested the 
 attention of the Court for two hours and a half, 
 by one of the first speeches ever uttered in a pub- 
 lic assembly never once deviating from the sub- 
 jeft before him, nor venturing to make one single 
 assertion which he did not prove, either by evi- 
 dence already adduced by the Managers, or by 
 documents which he read, and proposed to enter 
 hereafter. 
 
 He reminded their Lordships, that he was now 
 about to answer a charge or charges, which had 
 employed two -whole years in the prosecution, and 
 upon which the Managers had spoke seven days 
 in the opening and the close. The charge was a 
 corrupt receipt of money and in return for such 
 
 receipt,
 
 (4*1 ) 
 
 receipt, the forming such arrangements for the 
 colle&ion of the revenues* as brought oppression* 
 ruin, and destruction on the natives of Bengal. 
 To every part of this charge, Mr. Dallas said he 
 would give that full and complete answer, which 
 should satisfy the mind of every free and candid 
 man. After placing the previous matter in the 
 clearest point of view, he proceeded to examine 
 the several allegations in the article j and he en- 
 treated their Lordships to go along with him in 
 examining the immense extent of the charge made 
 by the Commons of Great Britain, and the poverty 
 of the proof by which the charge was supported. 
 No man would say, that time enough had not been 
 given to procure evidence of the guilt of Mr. 
 Hastings, if he had been guilty. No man would 
 say, that talents and perseverance were wanting; 
 for he was as ready as any man to do justice to 
 the abilities and, to the industry uf those who were 
 opposed to him, as any gentleman could possibly 
 be -. yet, though armed as they were with all the 
 fower and authority of the country, he was ready 
 to meet them boldly in front, and to shew, that 
 from the first allegation to the last, their charge 
 was utterly unfounded. 
 
 Mr. Dallas then stated, that they set out, by as- 
 serting as a/a#, what a very little attention to the 
 Company's Records would have prpved to be to- 
 tally unfounded; namely, that Mr. Hastings had 
 E E 3 succeeded
 
 ( 422 ) 
 
 succeeded to the Government of Bengal in 1772^ 
 determined to aft corruptly, and therefore he had 
 neglected to take that oath^ which all his predeces- 
 sors had taken. The falsehood, and the baseness 
 of this allegation, Mr. Dallas exposed in the most 
 clear and convincing manner; not by oratory^ 
 but by a reference to original documents, whichj 
 if they were/or^, must destroy his reputation for , 
 ever, but which, if true> leaves it as a point to be 
 settled between the Managers and the Counsel and 
 Solicitors of Great Britain, on whom the infamy 
 of such scandalous neglecl ought to rest. Six 
 years, and sixty thousand pounds, wasted in the 
 name of the public, upon points which common in- 
 dustry would have prevented from having been 
 agitated at all, fixes indelible disgrace somewhere; 
 and Mr. Fox, who was present, appeared to feel 
 for the situation he had been brought into. Such 
 are the advantages of a public trial, that the in- 
 Jamy, as Mr. Burke truly said, must rest some- 
 where. 
 
 The next point in Mr. Dallas's speech, was the 
 discovery and detection of such a mass of misrepre- 
 sentation and abandoned profligacy, as never yet 
 occurred in a public proceeding. Here he could 
 not be mistaken, for he read faithful extracts from 
 Mr. Burke s speeches, and compared them with the 
 evidence that Mr. Burke produced. 
 
 From
 
 from the speech it appeared, that Mr. Burke 
 Represented Mr. Hastings not only as the most 
 corrupt, but as the most cruel and unprincipled of 
 human beings. The date of all this corruption 
 was supposed to be in the year 1772. As there 
 was nothing like evidence to justify such wild ex- 
 pressions, Mr. Dallas said, it would be right to 
 Consider what Mr. Hastings had been up to that 
 period. In the most chaste and modest language, 
 he proceeded to state, that in 1749 Mr. Hastings 
 Vent a writer to Bengal; that, after filling the 
 highest situations there, that of Governor exceptcd) 
 after having been concerned in all the Luportaiit 
 events which happened between 1749 and 1765, 
 he returned in that year to England; tnat in 1769, 
 he was appointed second in Council at Madras, 
 and was removed, and succeeded to the Govcrn- 
 ment of Bengal in April 1772. That much cla- 
 mour had been raised in England, on account of 
 the fortunes acquired in Bengal, and the various 
 changes that had taken [Jace between 1756 and 
 1765; that accounts had been published of the 
 several sums gained by individuals in that period, 
 but that amongst their names, that of Mr. Has- 
 tings was not to be found. That this circumstance, 
 and the highest opinion entertained of his abili- 
 ties by Lord North, induced him to propose, in 
 1773s tliat Mr. Hastings should be appointed Go- 
 E E 4 vernor
 
 ( 424 ) 
 
 vernor General of Bengal for five years, by the 
 Legislature of Great Britain. 
 
 These circumstances, Mr. Dallas said, he did 
 not mention as-a set-off against any proved f aft; 
 but the Managers had proved no fatts; it was 
 therefore fair to oppose to the monstrous absur- 
 dities which they had ventured to utter, what was 
 the established character of Mr. Hastings, up to 
 1772 ; and he would put it to any candid or ho*- 
 nourable man to determine, whether, upon such 
 flimsy reasonings as the Managers had offered, 
 their Lordships would be induced to think, that} 
 in one moment, Mr. Hastings should assume a cha- 
 racter totally new ? for to such an absurd extent 
 did the charge go. 
 
 Mr. Dallas then proceeded to state the unex- 
 ampled cruelty, the baseness, with which Mr. 
 Hastings had been treated. He examined, and 
 refuted, point by point, the allegations of the 
 charge, as far as he went. He quoted several 
 parts of Mr. Burke's speech, and sifted the evi- 
 dence in support of it. He accused him of a 
 most unwarrantable mis-statement of fads of 
 taking the beginning and the close of the sentence 
 of letters, with a view of totally perverting the 
 sense of making assertions, that so far from hav- 
 ing a shadow of foundation in fal, were contra- 
 dicted by his own evidence; and, in short, of 
 those acts which disgrace the Commons of Great 
 
 Britain,
 
 (4*5) 
 
 Britain, provided Mr. Dallas is well-founded) and 
 he repeatedly pledged his charatter, well aware, as 
 he said he was, of the sacredness of the pledgC| 
 for the truth of all he had advanced. 
 At five o'clock the Court adjourned* 
 
 HUNDRED-AND-SEVENTH DAY, May 16, 
 
 Ax two o'clock on this day the Court assem- 
 bled, when Mr. Dallas proceeded in opening those 
 articles whidh had employed the Managers two 
 complete years. He apologized to the Lords for 
 the time that he was taking up, but he entreated 
 them to consider, that the part of the charge in 
 which he was then proceeding, was a direft accu- 
 sation of the receipt of a sum of money for an 
 appointment to an office ; and though he had 
 proved^ that this appointment was not only proper, 
 but the best that could have been made, yet he 
 was very ready to allow, that if Mr. Hastings 
 had taken money for making it, the propriety of 
 the appointment would in no degree lessen the 
 corruptness of the a6l. He then stated the evi- 
 dence as adduced by the Managers themselves, 
 from which it clearly appeared, and was allowed 
 by Colonel Monson, one of the Supreme Council 
 epposed to Mr. Hastings, that it was an invariable 
 
 custom
 
 (4*6) 
 
 custom at the Courts of Eastern Princes, to allovf 
 * specific sum in Heii of table expences. Such 
 sum all the predecessors of Mr. Hastings had re- 
 received while at Moorshedabad. Such sum the 
 Nabob received when in Calcutta; and he af- 
 firmed, that to call this receipt a corrupt receipt 
 for an appointment to office, was wild and absurd 
 in the highest degree, since the receipt had no 
 sort of connection with Munny Begum's appoint- 
 ment. 
 
 After clearing this matter completely, he called 
 the attention of the Lords most particularly to the 
 period of time when the transaction happened, in 
 order to shew the justice and gratitude of the latt 
 House of Commons (which Mr. Burke had 50?;, 
 Called a House elcfted by a corrupt Indian interest. ) 
 The transaction happened in 1772, now twenty-one 
 years ago. Since that period, Mr. Hastings had 
 four several times been appointed Governor Go* 
 neral of Bengal, by the Legislature of Great Bri- 
 tain. It could not be said, that time had thrown 
 any new light upon this subject, to authorize a 
 departure from every principle of justice ; because 
 the fact was, that every circumstance was as well 
 known in 1775, as at this hour. Yet those who 
 How supported this Impeachment, were then the 
 friends of Mr. Hastings. Every effort was made 
 by the Minister of that day 1775) to remove him 
 from his otnce. That Minister, when the danger 
 
 fretted.
 
 pressed, when Great Britain was sinking in Eu- 
 rope, Africa, and America, had three several 
 times, with the unanimous concurrence of the 
 Legislature, re-appointed Mr. Hastings Governor 
 General of Bengal, and Mr. Hastings had pre- 
 served India to Great Britain. The credit of so 
 preserving it was given to him by those who voted 
 for his prosecution ; yet such -was the gratitude of 
 the Commons of Great Britain, that sixteen years 
 after this transaction of Munny Begum, and sub* 
 sequent to four Parliamentary appointments, they 
 had made it the subject of a criminal charge; and 
 now, twenty-one years after it happened, was he, 
 Mr. Dallas, defending Mr. Hastings from that 
 accusation. 
 
 Mr. Dallas said, that, after having completely 
 refuted the charge, he could with propriety expose 
 the baseness and ingratitude of it. He next ex- 
 posed a great number of most wicked and auda- 
 cious misrepresentations in the charge, and in the 
 evidence j some not having, as he said, a shadow 
 of foundation in truth ; some so marked, that Cha* 
 rity itself could not impute them to hurry or mis* 
 take, but evidently resulting from design. He 
 pointed particularly at Mr. Burke here; and he 
 read a quotation from his speech, in which Mr. 
 Burke gave his character of Nundcomar. This 
 Mr. Dallas finely commented upon, and, in return, 
 described what really Nundcomar aw, so as to 
 
 convey
 
 convey to every person, that he meant to describe 
 another great man under his description of Nund- 
 comar. 
 
 Having effectually done away all the early part 
 of the charge, he next came to consider those pre- 
 sents, the receipt of which Mr. Hastings avowed, 
 and for which there was no evidence of any kind* 
 but the declaration of Mr. Hastings himself. He 
 said, that if he could have the good fortune to 
 convey to their Lordships that distinct idea which 
 he had formed, he was sure that he should clear 
 up every circumstance, and convince their Lord- 
 ships, that when Mr. Hastings thought the British 
 empire in India at stake, no thought for himself 
 ever occurred to him. He then went completely 
 through the present of Cheyt Sing, and made it 
 clear, even from the Managers' evidence, that 
 there was not a shadow of a ground to suppose^ 
 that Mr. Hastings ever intended to appropriate 
 that money to his own use, and he entered into 
 a full discussion of the Aft of 1773, in order to 
 prove, that the laws never meant to preclude the 
 receipt of money for the public. 
 
 After a number of very pertinent observations, 
 the Court adjourned at a quarter after five o'clock. 
 
 HUNDRED-
 
 429 
 
 HUNDRED-AND-EIGHTH DAY, May 17. 
 
 THE Court on this day assembled soon after 
 two. o'clock. Mr. Dallas immediately proceeded 
 in his summary, and desired their Lordships 
 would have the goodness always to bear in mind, 
 that upon this case of the avowed presents^ as the 
 Managers termed them, there was no evidence of 
 any kind except what Mr. Hastings had himself 
 furnished ; and that no doubt did exist but that 
 every rupee received by Mr. Hastings, as a pre- 
 sent, was expended in the public service. 
 
 Having already shewn, that the two lacks of 
 rupees received from Cheyt Sing's Buxey were 
 publicly applied, he would now take up the sums 
 for which bonds had been granted to Mr. Has- 
 tings in the years 1780 and 1781. He proved, 
 most satisfactorily, from a reference to dates and 
 circumstances, that Mr. Hastings never could 
 iiave had the most distant idea of applying any 
 part of this money to its own use. 
 
 He next took up the present of one hundred 
 thousand pounds sterling from the Nabob of 
 Oude and his Ministers, and proved, that every 
 rupee of this present also was applied to the 
 
 public
 
 ( 430 ) 
 
 public service, at a time when our very existence 
 depended on the realization of every rupee that 
 could be procured. 
 
 After having very fully gone into this transac- 
 tion, and effectually repelled the insinuation of 
 the Managers, that Mr. Hastings had instructed 
 Major Scott either to avow or conceal the re- 
 ceipt of this present, as parties might be at the 
 time, Mr. Dallas most eloquently stated the ser- 
 vices performed by the appropriation of these 
 several sums to the public. He then went into 
 a full consideration of the letters of Mi*. Hastings 
 and Mr. Larkins, and desired to put it seriously 
 to the honour of every noble Lord present, whe- 
 ther a man, who, from all the proceedings before 
 them, never had a thought but for preserving 
 the great and important empire committed to his 
 charge, should have practised those mean and 
 contemptible arts which he must have done, if 
 any part of this accusation was founded in 
 truth. 
 At five, the Court adjourned. 
 
 HUNDRED^
 
 (430 
 
 KUNDREP~4ND-NINTH DAY, May 24, 
 
 MR. DALLAS on this day closed his opening 
 of the presents, and the revenue articles. If he 
 astonished his auditors upon former occasions, 
 he excited in their breasts on this day every sen- 
 timent of admiration of his talents, and convic- 
 tion of the justice of his cause. The remaining 
 points, he said, were, a present received from 
 Rajah Nobkessin, and applied to the payment of 
 certain public expences incurred by Mr. Has- 
 tings; and a present of one hundred thousand 
 pounds offered by the Nabob of Oude, but not 
 accepted. He stated, in the most clear manner, 
 the circumstances of the first transaction, and 
 proved, that the expences incurred and charged 
 (o the Company were equally charged by Lord 
 Cornwailis as they had been by the predecessors 
 of Mr. Hastings. As to the next charge, he knew 
 pot how to treat it seriously, because all the evi- 
 dence adduced by the Managers proved the facts 
 to be directly the reverse of those described in the 
 charge. The only remaining article then was, 
 the revenue-^a charge most important indeed, 
 
 if
 
 (43*) 
 
 if it were true in any of its parts, since it ac- 
 cused Mr. Hastings of overturning all the esta- 
 blishments of the country, of violating private 
 property, and of oppressing and destroying the 
 natives of Bengal. The Managers, however, had 
 abandoned all the material parts of the article, 
 and had confined themselves to three points : the 
 sending Aumeens to the provinces, abolishing the 
 Provincial Councils, and establishing a Com- 
 mittee of Revenue in February 1781. 
 
 A very few words, he trusted, would be suffi- 
 cient to do away every evidence that had been 
 offered on these points and as to the first, he had 
 lo shew their Lordships, the most monstrous ab- 
 surdity that ever disgraced a proceeding offered 
 to a Court of Justice. The criminality in ap- 
 pointing Aumeens, was stated in the charge to 
 consist of the dangerous powers granted by their 
 instructions, which gave them liberty to treat with 
 oppression and cruelty every native who should 
 presume to disobey their arbitrary orders. Yet, 
 strange to tell, these instructions were not to be 
 found in evidence, though they were the very 
 ground of the charge ; after exposing, as it de- 
 served, this scandalous negleft in those who have 
 been so liberally paid by the public, Mr. Dallas 
 said, that neither the instructions, which he would 
 produce, nor any one document could in any, 
 the slightest degree, justify the allegations in the 
 charge. 
 
 As
 
 ( 433 ) 
 
 As to the abolition of th6 Provincial Councils, 
 he proved that all men of all descriptions ap- 
 proved the abolition, and the subsequent ap- 
 pointment of the Committee of Revenue. He 
 then took the same ground that Mr. Pitt had 
 taken in the House of Commons, who voted 
 against this monstrous charge in to the most 
 monstrous, by Mr. Fox's account, of all the 
 charges namely, that it was in the highest de- 
 gree absurd to impute criminality to difference 
 of opinion. After being most eloquent and con- 
 vincing on this subject, he called the attention 
 of the Court to the evidence of Mr. Anderson^ 
 Sir John Shore, the public accounts, and the 
 known state of Bengal; and he put it in so 
 forcible a manner, that Mr. Burke and his coun- 
 sel hung down their heads, apparently with shame 
 and remorse. 
 
 He read the allegations in the charge, one by one, 
 as they were put to Sir John Shore, in the shape 
 of questions. He read his answers, which proved 
 that each allegation was false. He put it most 
 forcibly to the Lords, to decide which they would 
 believe the Managers, who had no local know- 
 ledge, or Sir John Shore ? The Managers said, 
 that Mr. Hastings had plundered, oppressed, and I 
 destroyed the people of Bengal. 
 
 Sir John Shore swore, that during the whole 
 
 period of Mr. Hastings's administration, Bengal 
 
 had improved in agriculture and population, and 
 
 f F that
 
 (434) 
 
 that the people were happier than under their 
 native governments. But, said Mr. Dallas, I 
 am aware of the answer that will be given, be- 
 cause it has already been said your Lordships 
 are not to believe Sir John Shore upon his oath, , 
 because he is an accomplice in the crime* of Mr. 
 Hastings. Strange inconsistency ! whimsical ca- 
 price of fortune ! The accomplice of the crimes 
 of Mr. Hastings, was called forth from his re- 
 treatsolicited to accept of the highest office 
 which this country could bestow Lord of a 
 mighty empire, with millions of men submissive 
 to his authority. But if he was the accomplice 
 of Mr. Hastings's crimes, why does not Mr. 
 Burke move to recal him? Why does he not 
 impeach him ? Why does he stop here ? Society 
 in pain and pleasure is grateful let the bar be 
 taken down, and add to the list of delinquents 
 the whole Court of Direaors, and his Majesty's 
 Ministers, to whom the right honourable gentle- 
 man had insinuated the impropriety of Sir John | 
 Shore's appointment. 
 
 If he were content merely to defend Mr. Has- 
 tings from the charge, he should now close ; but 
 he demanded much more. His client stood be- j 
 fore their Lordships as the most injured man that 
 any age or any nation had produced. His ser- j 
 vices were great, important, and acknowledged, 
 
 and
 
 (435 ) 
 
 and the judgment of their Lordships would, he 
 was confident, establish his fame to the latest 
 posterity. Ask Sir John Shore what all India 
 thought of him ? Sir John Shore had been asked, 
 and answered the question fully. It was for the 
 Managers only to run counter to evidence, and 
 to the common sense of mankind, and their Lord- 
 ships must believe them to be mistaken, to use no 
 harsher phrase, or they must believe ever)' evi- 
 dence perjured, and the whole -word to be misled. 
 
 After a most eloquent close, Mr. Dallas sat 
 down, and Mr. Hastings begged to detain their 
 Lordships for a few minutes, and that he might 
 not from hurry or confusion be mistaken in a 
 point of great importance, he begged to read 
 from a paper what he had to offer, which he did 
 as follows : 
 
 My Lords, 
 
 " I venture to solicit the attention of your 
 Lordships, to the situation in which this trial at 
 present stands. 
 
 " I hope, for your Lordships' indulgence, in 
 requesting to be allowed such farther time, in 
 the course of each day's sitting, as may enable 
 me to bring the remainder of my defence, if 
 no interruptions intervene, within the probable 
 period of three days. 
 
 F F a I hope,
 
 ( 436 ) 
 
 " I hope, by the means of such indulgence, to 
 conclude my evidence, on the article now under 
 consideration, within the compass of one day. 
 
 * 6 I am informed that the observations of m\ 
 counsel upon it, will only occupy another day ; 
 and the gentleman on my right hand (Mr. Law) 
 is willing to wave any observations that the de- 
 fence may be the sooner closed In that case, 
 one day will be sufficient for this article. The 
 abridged evidence with which I mean to trouble 
 your Lordships, on the only remaining article, 
 that of " Contracts," may be comprized within 
 the space of one day more; I am willing to forego 
 the benefit of a more detailed defence, in order 
 to enable the Managers for the Commons full)- to 
 conclude their reply within the course of the pre- 
 sent session an expectation which, I trust I do 
 not unreasonably entertain, in this advanced 
 period of a trial that has been so many years 
 depending. I am well aware of the disadvantages 
 to which I subjeft my defence on this article, by 
 leaving the evidence unstated and unapplied to 
 make out its own efTed; and it is with reluaance 
 that I deprive myself of the benefit of those ta- 
 lents which have been so ably displayed on the 
 former parts of my defence : for it is to those 
 talents, aided by the zeal and cordial affeaion 
 which have animated them to their best exertions, 
 that I am now indebted for the hope and assu- 
 rance
 
 (437 ) 
 
 ranee I confidently entertain, that though / should. 
 not live to receive the sanction of your Lordships 
 acquittal, my name, at least, shall not descend 
 blasted with infamy to posterity; but be recorded 
 with those of the many other vidims of false opi- 
 nion, some of higher worth, none of better in- 
 tentions, who have done service to the states 
 which employed them, and been requited with un- 
 thankfulness and persecution. 
 
 " My Lords, I consider the resolution which I 
 have taken as a sacrifice, and I make it with the 
 greater chearfulness, as it may, and must in some 
 degree, prove no less an accommodation to your 
 Lordships' time, than the means (if your Lord- 
 ships shall so permit it) of obtaining my own 
 deliverance from a state of suspence, which is 
 become almost insupportable" 
 
 Mr. Burke made some remarks on Mr. Has- 
 tings's attack, as he called it, upon the Commons of 
 Great Britain, and talked of the influence of his 
 fortune and connections, apparently in a very 
 confused stile but said Mr. Hastings must judge 
 as to the wisdom of making his defence long or 
 short. 
 
 F F 3 HUNDRED-
 
 (438) 
 HUNDRED-AND-TENTH DAY, May 25. 
 
 THE Lords met this day before eleven o'clock, 
 and sat until half past past five. 
 
 The first part of the morning was taken up in 
 reading a short variety of papers, stated by the 
 counsel as necessary, to complete evidence which 
 the managers had mutilated and garbled. 
 
 Mr. Auriol was then called, and examined as 
 to the oaths taken by Mr. Hastings, when he sue- 
 ceeded to the government of Bengal in 1772. 
 He said he was pretty certain, that he had seen 
 Mr. Hastings's name subscribed to these oaths, in 
 a book kept by himself as secretary, and left in 
 his office to his successor just as he received it 
 from his predecessor. 
 
 As to (he restrictive oath proposed by Lord 
 Clive in 1766, taken by himself, and by his sue, 
 cessor, Mr. Verelst, in the Town-hall of Calcutta, \ 
 before all the inhabitants, that was a totally dif- 
 ferent oath, and had become obsolete before Mr, 
 Auriol's arrival, and had not been taken by Mr. 
 Carder the predecessor of Mr. Hastings. This 
 w.as ctfso proved by Mr. Hudson, fully fixing 
 
 upon
 
 ( 439 ) 
 
 upon the Managers, or their counsel, the charges 
 preferred against them by Mr. Dallas, of the most 
 atrocious, and wicked deception. 
 
 Mr. Burke cross-examined Mr. Auriol for 
 nearly two hours complete, asking him an in- 
 finite variety of questions, apparently of little 
 consequence, but to which he received the clear- 
 est answers. To one involved and complicated 
 question, Mr. Auriol replied, by desiring it might 
 be divided, and then he would answer it, which 
 he did; upon which Mr. Burke made some re- 
 fleaion, so very offensive, that the Archbishop of 
 York started up with much feeling, and said it 
 was impossible for him silently to listen to the 
 illiberal condud of the Manager; that he ex- 
 amined the witness as if he were examining, not 
 a gentleman, but a pick-pocket ; that the illi- 
 hrality and the inhumanity of the Managers in 
 the course of this long trial, could not be ex- 
 ceeded by Marat and Roberspierre, had the con- 
 dud of the trial been committed to them. 
 
 Mr. Burke seemed much confounded, but said, 
 in reply, that he had not heard one -word of what 
 had been spoken, and that he should atl as if he 
 had not. He then pursued his examination; 
 and, in the course of it, Lord Stanhope, Lord 
 Moreton, and Lord Somers, expressed their be- 
 lief that the trial never could come to a close, if 
 a gentleman was to be examined so long upon the 
 r F 4 rumour
 
 ( 440 ) 
 
 rumour of rumours. Mr. Burke then began to ta)^ 
 about the Begums, but was called to order ; and, 
 about half past four, the counsel closed their evi- 
 dence on the sixth, seventh, and fourteenth ar- 
 ticles taking five days only, for what had occupied 
 the Managers thirty-Jour on the prosecution. 
 
 Mr. Plwmer then observed, that, agreeably to 
 Mr. Hastings's engagement of yesterday, they 
 should not sum up, nor expend any time in 
 opening the only remaining charge, the contracts, 
 but proceed dircftly to the evidence. The first 
 was the opium contract ; and here he should sup, 
 ply what, in candour and justice, the Managers 
 ought not to have left deficient. He said, the 
 evidence he should produce would prove : 
 
 First, That until the government of Mr. Has- 
 tings, opium was no branch of revenue to the 
 Company, but a monopoly in the hands of indi* 
 viduals. 
 
 Second, That Mr. Hastings took it from those 
 individuals, and made it a productive article of 
 revenue for the Company. 
 
 Third, That in 1775, it was put up to public 
 contract, and the contract given to the lowest oi' 
 fifteen bidders, that is, to the man who oli 
 the best terms for the Company. 
 
 Fourth, That in 1777 it was given to Mr. Mac r 
 kenzie/or three years, on the same terms that the 
 lowest bidder had it in 1775. 
 
 Fifth,
 
 (441 ) 
 
 Fifth, Which the Managers had tolaUy sunl, 
 That in the year 1780 it was granted to Mr. 
 Mackenzie for one year longer, by Mr. Francis, 
 Mr, Wheeler, and Mr. Hastings the two first 
 being a majority of the Board, This omission 
 was the more unpardonable, because the jett of 
 the charge against Mr. Hastings was his negleft 
 of the Company's orders, who in December 1778 
 disapproved of the grant of the contract to Mr. 
 Mackenzie in 1777, because it had not been ad- 
 vertized.-^-Now, as this letter arrived in Bengal 
 in 1779, and the contract was again given to Mr. 
 Mackenzie in 1780, when the disapprobation was 
 fresh in the recollection of Mr. Francis and Mr. 
 Hastings, it was partial and unfair to sink thin 
 transaction^ and to go on to the grant to Mr. 
 Sullivan in 1781, who had it precisely on the 
 same terms with Mr, Mackenzie. 
 
 Sixth, He should give a minute of Mr. Francis, 
 in which he said he thought, and he thought truly, 
 that it would be bad policy to give the opium 
 contract on too low terms to any contractor, for 
 very valid reasons, and which undoubtedly in- 
 duced the Board not to think this a contract, 
 which every adventurer in India might specu- 
 late upon. 
 
 Seventh, He should examine a gentleman who 
 had been one of the council at Patna, and accord- 
 jngly Mr. Law was called to the bar, who said, 
 
 that
 
 (442 } 
 
 that from the time he came into the service in 
 1765, until 1773, opium was a monopoly for the 
 advantage of the Company's servants at Patna; 
 that they bought it at two hundred Sicca rupees 
 a chest, and generally sold it from four hundred 
 and fifty to five hundred rupees a chest; that Mr. 
 Hastings took it from them and gave it to the 
 Company. 
 
 It appeared, that from 1775 to 1785, the con- 
 tmft price was one hundred and ninety rupees a 
 chest, for a large quantity as large as was in most 
 years procured, and an advance of fifty rupees 
 a chest upon all manufactured beyond that quan- 
 tity. 
 
 Mr. Plumer then gave in all his evidence to 
 substantiate these fafts, which it did most com- 
 pletely, and then the Court adjourned. 
 
 Mr. Fox came into the Manager's box soon 
 after the Archbishop of York had spoke, but did 
 not stay long. 
 
 Mr. Michael Angelo Taylor was the only Ma- 
 nager who supported Mr. Burke, though he had 
 \ declared, some time ago, that he would no more 
 \ be seen in the box with him. The Lords seemed 
 as if their patience was nearly exhausted, but we 
 hope and trust, thai a very few days more, will 
 end this tedious enquiry. 
 
 Mr. Law in the course of the day gave in a 
 very material and important piece of evidence. 
 
 The
 
 ( 443 ) 
 
 The Managers had in the year 1790, called Mr. 
 Wright from the India House, to prove the. amount 
 of Mr. Hastings's fortune by a statement of the 
 remittances made in his name. These, in bills, and 
 in diamonds turned out to be two hundred and 
 thirty-eight thousand pounds, from which the in- 
 ference drawn by the Managers was that that 
 \vas his fortune. Mr. Law therefore called Mr. 
 Woodman, who in conjunction with Mr. Francis 
 Sykes, and a Mr. Waller, were his attornies in. 
 England. Mr. Woodman swore, that above eighty 
 thousand pounds of this money never came into their 
 hands, but was indorsed over to other persons; 
 that bills were drawn upon them for other sums, 
 which they paid away ; and that the state of Mr, 
 Hastings's fortune, from 1778 down to 1786, 
 when it was finally delivered over to him, wa$ 
 from seventy-three to sixty -five thousand pounds; 
 the particulars being each year respectively stated; 
 that he never knew, nor did he believe that Mr. 
 Hastings ever employed any other persons in 
 money transactions, nor did he believe, that he 
 ever remitted money, except to the three gen- 
 tlemen who had the management of his affairs. 
 Mr. Burke did not chuse to put any question to 
 Mr. Woodman. 
 
 HUNDRED-
 
 ( 444 ) 
 
 HVXDRLD-AND-ELEVENTHDAY, May 27, 
 
 TH E Court met this day soon after eleven, when 
 Mr. Pluiner proceeded to complete his evidence 
 on the opium contract; and he proved the great 
 addition to the public revenues, which resulted 
 from Mr. Hastings's having made opium a branch 
 of revenue for the Company, in 1773. He proved 
 also, that the plan of sending opium to China \vas 
 a very wise plan for the year it took place in ; 
 but that in faft it was not the plan of Mr. Has- 
 tings, but a scheme adopted by Mr. Wheeler, on 
 the recommendation of a very ingenious and in- 
 dustrious officer, Colonel Watson. 
 
 He then proceeded to the bullock contract, a 
 subjeft which had been much expatiated upon, 
 by men grossly and foolishly ignorant ; and he 
 proved the following fats by evidence. 
 
 First, That so far from its being true, as the 
 charge affirmed, that Mr. Hastings, in the year 
 17 79, abolished a contract, without any complaii t 
 from the army of its inefficacy the truth was, th; t 
 complaints of the. most serious nature had ba n 
 transmitted from several corps of the army, to the 
 Commander in Chief, and by him to Mr. Has- 
 tings. 
 
 Second,
 
 (445 ) 
 
 Second, That no possible remedy, for so dange- 
 rous an evil, could be applied, unless by giving 
 a contracl on such terms as should insure a faith- 
 ful discharge of so important a service. 
 
 Third, That upon this principle. Sir Eyre Coote 
 recommended in July 1779; anc ^ tne Board agreed 
 to that contracl, which is the subje6t of the pre- 
 sent charge. 
 
 Fourth, That by the evidence of Colonel Duff, 
 and by various authentic documents, it appeared, 
 that the contracl; was not improvident, either as 
 to terms or numbers. 
 
 Fifth, That when it was converted into an 
 agency, the same checks and regulations were 
 kept up. 
 
 Sixth, That the experience of the last -war fully 
 evinced the necessity of attending most diligently 
 to this, the most important branch of military ser* 
 vice. 
 
 The next contracl was that of Mr. Auriol, or, 
 .more properly speaking, the agency for supplying 
 the Carnatic with provisions, in the last general 
 war. This agency Mr. Pitt most strenuously de- 
 fended, giving the highest praise both to Mr. Has- 
 tings and Mr. Auriol, for having saved a whole 
 people from perishing by famine, and that too on 
 the most economical plan ; but Mr. Burke beat Mr. 
 Pitt in a division on this charge, in the House of 
 Commons, that is dead and gone) and this day 
 
 Mr.
 
 (446) 
 
 Mr. Hastings answered to the charge, of having 
 saved a nation, and he did it most completely through 
 Mr. Dallas. 
 
 So much time was expended in the examina- 
 tion of Mr. Auriol, and in arguments, and in an 
 adjournment to the Chamber of Parliament, that 
 at six o'clock Mr. Dallas said they should take an 
 hour and a half, or two hours more ; in conse- 
 quence of which the Court adjourned. 
 
 HUNDRED-AND-TWELFTH DAY, May 28. 
 
 ON this day the case of Mr. Hastings was to- 
 tally closed. The Lords met at half-past two, and, 
 in a very short time, Mr. Dallas put in the whole 
 of the evidence necessary to elucidate Mr. Bclli's 
 agency : that agency which Mr. Pitt defended most 
 strenuously in the House of Commons. After 
 having finished, Mr. Law desired to introduce 
 the several testimonials which had been sent from 
 India in favour of Mr. Hastings, by the Marquis 
 Cornwallis, as the best reply that could be given 
 to that sort of general abuse which had been so 
 plentifully heaped upon Mr. Hastings. 
 
 To this Mr. Burke made some sort of objec- 
 tion; but on Mr. Law reading to him a quotation 
 from his own speech) in which he stood pledged, 
 
 himself
 
 (447) 
 
 himself to introduce this evidence, it passed, as 
 also the addresses to Mr. Hastings, from the civil 
 servants of the Company, and from the offi- 
 cers of the army, and also the unanimous thanks 
 of the Court of Dire6lors and Proprietors, ap- 
 proved by Mr. Dundas, Mr. (now Lord) Grenville, 
 Lord Walsingham, and Lord Mulgrave, the mem- 
 bers of the Board of Controul, for his long, faith- 
 ful, and able services, and with this mass of evidence 
 to rebut the charge of having oppressed, ruined, 
 and destroyed the natives of India, of having mate- 
 rially ajfetted the interests of the Company, and dis- 
 graced and degraded the British name and charac- 
 ter, did the counsel of Mr. Hastings conclude. 
 
 Mr. Hastings, when all the evidence was closed, 
 addressed the Court to the following effect : 
 
 MY LORDS, 
 
 My evidence is now brought to its close. 
 
 Sufficient has, I trust, been already done for 
 every immediate purpose of necessary justifica- 
 tion ; and it is not, my Lords, from any apprehen- 
 sion which I entertain, lest any defects of this kind 
 should exist, or from a vain opinion that they 
 could be supplied by me, that I present myself 
 once more to your Lordships' attention. No, my 
 Lords, I leave the proof which I have offered to 
 its just and effective operation, without any degree 
 of doubtful anxiety for the issue. But, my Lords, 
 
 I rise
 
 (418) 
 
 I rise for a purpose, which no external testimony 1 
 tan adequately supply, to convey to your Lord- 
 ships' minds a satisfaction which honourable minds 
 may possibly expeft, and which the solemn asse- 
 verations of a man, impressed With a due sense of 
 the sacred obligations of religion and honour, can 
 alone adequately convey. 
 
 I know that the aftual motives of human con- 
 duel: are often dark and mysterious, and sometimes 
 inscrutable. As far as the subject is capable of 
 further ascertainment, and the truth can be sealed 
 by a still more solemn attestation, it is a duty 
 \vhich innocence owes to itself to afford it. 
 
 In the presence, therefore, of that Being from 
 whom no secrets are hid, I do, upon a full review 
 and scrutiny of my past life, unequivocally and 
 conscientiously declare, that, in the administration 
 of that trust of Government, which was during 
 so many years confided to me, I did, in no in- 
 stance, intentionally sacrifice the interest of my 
 country to any private views of my own personal 
 advantage; that, according to my best skill and 
 judgment, I invariably promoted the essential in- 
 terests of my employers, the happiness and pros- 
 perity of the people committed to my charge, and 
 the welfare and honour of my country, and at no 
 time with more entire devotion of mind and pur- 
 pose to these objeds, than, during that period, in 
 which my accusers have endeavoured to represent 
 
 me
 
 ( 449 ) 
 
 jne as occupied and engrossed by the base pur- 
 suit of -low, sordid, and interdicted emolument. 
 
 It may be expected of me to say something in 
 addition to what you have heard from Mr. Wood- 
 man, respecting the actual state and extent of my 
 fortune. 
 
 He has proved the total amount of my remit- 
 tances from India, during the period of my Go- 
 vernment; and that the balance of my fortune, 
 when last adjusted, shortly after my return to 
 England in 1785, amounted to little more than 
 ^ sixty-five thousand pounds. 
 
 I protest, in the name of Almighty God, that I 
 made no remittances to England during that pe- 
 riod, which were not made to him, and my other 
 attornies joined in trust with him; that I had no 
 other persons in England or Europe, in trust of my 
 pecuniary concerns ; and that his account of those 
 remittances is accurately true, according to my 
 best means of knowledge and belief upon the sub- 
 ject; and that, including those remittances, I at 
 no time possessed a fortune which exceeded, at 
 its most extended amount, the sum of one hun- 
 dred thousand pounds; and in this calculation I 
 would be understood to comprehend every kind 
 and description of property whatsoever. That, 
 at the period of my return to England, my fortune 
 did not exceed the balance already mentioned to 
 hatve been then in the hands of my attornies, by 
 c c more
 
 ( 450 } 
 
 more than the sum oFtwenty-five thousand pounds ; 
 amounting, on the largest calculation, to an aggre- 
 gate sum of between eighty and ninety thousand 
 pounds; and all the property which I possess 
 stands pledged at the present moment For the dis- 
 charge oF such debts as I have contracted since 
 the commencement oF this long depending trial. 
 
 These are the enormous Fruits oF thirteen years 
 oF imputed rapacity and peculation, and oF up- 
 wards oF thirty years oF aftive and important ser- 
 vice!!! 
 
 My Lords, I know not how I can more Fully 
 and explicitly disavow every purpose oF appro- 
 priating to my own benefit any oF the various 
 sums received, and applied by me to the Compa- 
 ny's service in moments oF extreme peril and exi- 
 gency, than in the very terms in which I expres- 
 sed such disavowal at your Lordships' bar, in the 
 month oFJune 1791. I again repeat, that "I so- 
 lemnly, and with a pure conscience, affirm, that I 
 never did harbour such a thought For a single 
 instant." 
 
 IF, in addition to the prooF upon your Lord- 
 ships* table, oF the justice and necessity oF the 
 measures which are the subjects oF the two first ar- 
 ticles oF the charge, it can be required oF me, by 
 an aft oF solemn and sacred attestation on my 
 part, to vouch the truth oF my defence in these 
 particulars, and to vindicate my character From 
 
 the
 
 the unfounded charge of malice alledged to have 
 been entertained by me against the immediate ob- 
 jefts of those measures, I once more call God to 
 witness, that no motive of personal twnity-) no 
 views of personal advantage to myself, or others, 
 induced the adoption, on my part, of any of those 
 measures, for which I am at this day criminally 
 questioned; but that, in every instance, I acled 
 under the immediate and urgent sense of public 
 duty, in obedience to the irresistible demands of 
 public safety, and to vindicate the just rights of 
 the empire committed to my care against those 
 who, in a moment of its greatest peril, were en- 
 gaged in hostile confederacy to destroy it, 
 
 I have no doubts, but that upon a fair review 
 of all the existing circumstances, and the means 
 of information then before me, no lavish or im- 
 proper expenditure of public money will be found 
 to have taken place in respecl to the contracts 
 formed during my administration. 
 
 For the prudence and success of the regulations 
 adopted and pursued in respeci to the controul 
 and management of the public revenue, I trust I 
 may be allowed to appeal to the flourishing con- 
 dition which the Company's provinces enjoyed 
 during the period of my government, and which 
 has been, from the continued operation of the 
 same cause, in a course of progressive improve- 
 ment to the present hour. 
 
 G c 2 I know
 
 (45*) 
 
 I know that your Lordships will, in your own en-, 
 lightened and impartial wisdom, justly estimate the 
 difficulties by which I was surrounded, during a 
 long and arduous period of public service ; that 
 you will allow for all the embarrassments arising 
 from the long counteraction of my associates in 
 the government; for errors resulting from the 
 honest imperfection of my own judgment, from 
 occasional deference to the counsels of others^ and 
 from the varying sense of expediency which at 
 different periods governed my own. 
 
 Your Lordships well know, that the imperious 
 exigencies of public affairs often present to the 
 servants of the state no alternative but the painful 
 choice of contending evils. 
 
 The transcendent and peremptory daty of my 
 situation, was to devise and to procure the neces- 
 sary means of public safety. Feeling, as I dic|, 
 the exigencies of the government as my own, 
 and every pressure upon them resting with equal 
 weight upon my mind; besieged, as at some 
 times I was, by the hourly and clamorous impor- 
 tunities of every department of the military ser- 
 vice; goaded at others with the cries of our then 
 famished settlements on the coast of Coromandel 
 should I have deserved well, I do not say of 
 my country, but of the common cause of suffering 
 humanity, if I had punctiliously stood aloof from 
 those means of supply, which gratitude or expecta- 
 tion
 
 ( 453 ) 
 
 lion enabled me to appropriate to the instant re- 
 lief of such distresses ? 
 
 The whole tenor-and conduft of my public life 
 is now, my Lords, before you : it has undergone 
 a scrutiny of such extent and severity, as can find 
 no parallel in former times, and, I trust, will, in 
 many of the peculiar circumstances which have 
 characterized and distinguished this trial, leave no 
 example to the future. 
 
 My Lords, I have now performed the most so- 
 lemn duty of my life, and with this I close my de- 
 fence. 
 
 I may now, I trust, assuredly consider my self as 
 arrived at the threshold of my deliverance ; at that 
 period, when no delay or procrastination can pre- 
 vent thfr speedy and final termination of the pro- 
 ceedings now depending before your Lordships. 
 
 After such recent and acceptable proof on the 
 part of your Lordships, of your earnest disposition 
 to accelerate the conclusion of this trial, it would 
 betray an unwarranted and unbecoming distrust of 
 your justice, to offer any request to your Lord- 
 ships on this subject, had I not other causes of 
 apprehension. At this momentous and awful crisis, 
 ignorant of what may be in the minds of others, 
 I am compelled to obviate every possible, even 
 though improbable, danger. 
 
 In the short address which I made to your Lord- 
 $hips on Friday last, I stated, that I should wave 
 
 the
 
 (454 ) 
 
 the observations of my counsel on the evidence 
 of the article then before the Court, and both the 
 opening and application of the evidence on the 
 next; and that I made these sacrifices, well aware 
 of their importance, for the express purpose of 
 affording ample time to my prosecutors, during 
 what remained of the probable term of this ses- 
 sion, to make their reply. 
 
 If the Managers for the Commons-had been 
 equally desirous of accelerating the close of this 
 trial, and I had a right to suppose that they were 
 so, from their repeated declarations to that cffeft, 
 what I had said might have been construed an otter 
 of mutual accommodation; but, my Lords, it was 
 received with resentment, and answered with re- 
 proach, and worse insinuation. 
 
 What other conclusion can I put upon this con- 
 duel, but that which is conveyed to my ears from 
 every quarter ; that they mean to endeavour to 
 prevail on your Lordships to adjourn over this 
 trial to its seventh year, that one more may be given 
 them to prepare their replies. I do not know that 
 this is their intention; but I may be allowed to 
 suppose it; and though impressed with the firmest 
 confidence of the just and favourable disposition 
 of your Lordships, I cannot but dread the event 
 of a question in which my rights may be at issue, 
 with such opponents as the Managers of this pro- 
 secution, speaking in the name of the House of 
 
 Com-
 
 ( 455 ) 
 
 Commons, and of all the Commons of Great Bri- 
 tain. 
 
 To meet such an attempt, if made, I humbly 
 offer to your Lordships the "following arguments 
 most anxiously recommending them to your con- 
 sideration. 
 
 In an address to a Court of British Peers, I 
 cannot offend by pleading the rights which I pos- 
 sess as a British subjearights, which are assured 
 to me in common with all my fellow-subjects of 
 this realm, by the pledges of ancient charters, and 
 the sanaion of an oath, the most solemn that can 
 be tendered, or taken by man. My Lords, I claim 
 the performance of that sacred promise, in all its 
 implied obligations, that justice be administered to 
 me, and that it be administered now. 
 
 In the long period of another year, I may be 
 numbered with those of my Noble Judges whom 
 I have, with sorrow, seen drop off year after year, 
 and in aggravation of the loss which I have sus- 
 tained by their deaths, I may thus lose the judg- 
 ment of their survivors by my own. 
 
 To the precepts and sanctions of the law, I join 
 the rights which are derived from the practice 
 of it. 
 
 In the other courts of this kingdom their cri- 
 minal process is limited in its duration, by express 
 and positive regulations. 
 
 On this High Co x urt, charged with other various 
 H H and
 
 C 456 ) 
 
 and important duties, the wisdom of our ancestors 
 has imposed no restraint, but the rule of honour j 
 and to that honour I make this, my last, appeal ; 
 humbly praying, that if in the course of this hard, 
 and long extended trial, I have conduced myself 
 with the most patient and respe&ful submission, 
 and borne all the aggravating circumstances of 
 it with a tranquillity of mind, which nothing but 
 a consciousness of integrity, and an equal re- 
 liance on your ultimate justice could have sup- 
 ported, I may obtain from your Lordships 
 this only grace, that your Lordships will or- 
 der the trial, now past its legal process, to con- 
 tinue to its final conclusion during the present 
 session. 
 
 After Mr. Hastings had finished, both Mr. Fox 
 and Mr. Burke remarked upon the very great 
 freedom which he had taken with the Managers, 
 and solemnly denied that they had the least wish 
 for a further delay of this most enormously 
 long trial ; and that no part of the delay could 
 fairly be attributed to them. Mr. Fox felt the 
 charge so strongly, that he said he should ap- 
 peal to fads, to shew that the Managers were 
 not to blame; so that we may hope that it will 
 not be deemed libellous, if a friend to the freedom 
 of the press should meet Mr. Fox openly and 
 fairly on this ground. 
 
 SEVENTH
 
 ( 457 ) 
 
 SEVENTH YEAR, 1794. 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FIRST 
 DAY*, February 13. 
 
 THE Court being assembled this day at half 
 past twelve o'clock, Lord Kenyon sitting for the 
 Lord Chancellor, as he was indisposed ; after 
 the customary formalities, Mr. Law rose, and 
 said, that in the hope of bringing this tedious 
 trial to a close in the last year, Mr. Hastings had 
 very much shortened his defence, but he had been 
 disappointed, and that the trial had been adjourn- 
 ed over to this year, even before the Managers 
 had commenced their reply. Whatever reason 
 he had had at the time to complain of the delay, 
 it was in one respeft highly fortunate to him, as 
 it had enabled him to have the benefit of the evi- 
 dence of the noble Marquis, who was so lately 
 returned from Bengal, after ating with so much 
 tredit to himself, and so much advantage to the 
 public in the situation which Mr. Hastings had so 
 
 * We begin this year with the just day, because that day is 
 marked on the tickets. The Court was appointed for some days, 
 when it did net meet, or if it did meet, wheu no business was done. 
 
 H H a long
 
 ( 458 ) 
 
 so long held. But, as he understood his Lord- 
 ship would not be able to attend in his place for 
 some days, he now laid in his claim to examine 
 him as soon as he had taken his seat in the 
 House. 
 
 Mr. Grey said, that without admitting what the 
 learned counsel had contended for, a right in the 
 defendant to examine the Marquis Cornwallis, he 
 was very ready to declare that the Managers 
 would give their assent to the examination of his 
 Lordship, and they would go further, however 
 favourable the noble Marquis's evidence might 
 be, he could only speak to the general character 
 which the defendant bore in India, and to the 
 general success of his measures, but there was 
 another gentleman, Mr. Larkins, who had for 
 many years been confidentially employed by Mr. 
 Hastings, and they had no objection to his being 
 called also. 
 
 Mr. Law rose again, and said that he disclaim- 
 ed every idea of receiving as an indulgence the 
 evidence of Lord Cornwallis, that the Managers 
 not having commenced their reply, and it being 
 known that Mr. Hastings closed his defence last 
 year in the manner he had done, was with a hope 
 of bringing in that year this intolerably tedious 
 trial to a close, he claimed it as a right to examine 
 the noble Marquis, whose testimony he conceived 
 
 would
 
 ( 459 ) 
 
 would be extremely importan ; but with his evi- 
 dence Mr. Hastings would close his case. 
 
 Mr. Grey declined opening the reply until 
 Lord Cornwallis had been examined, and the 
 Court adjourned to Wednesday the igth inftant, 
 and afterwards to Tuesday the 25th. 
 
 OtfE HUNDRED AND TWENTY- SECOND 
 DAY, February 25. 
 
 The Court met this day at half past one, when 
 the Lord Chancellor informed the Managers that 
 Mr. Hastings, owing to the continued indisposi- 
 tion of the Marquis Cornwallis, had waved the 
 privilege of calling his Lordship. The Managers 
 would therefore proceed in their reply. 
 
 Mr. Grey immediately rose, and said, that as 
 they had already consented to the calling of Lord 
 Cornwallis, so they were willing still to allow Mr. 
 Hastings the benefit of that examination, if his 
 Lordship should be well enough to be examined 
 before the Managers had completed their reply. 
 Mr. Grey said they had also offered another 
 evidence, Mr. Larkins, whom Mr. Hastings'* 
 counsel might call, if they pleased. That this 
 H H 3 gentleman
 
 gentleman was in India during the whole of Mr 
 Hastings's administration, whereas Lord Corn- 
 wallis could only speak as to the general efikft of 
 his measures, and his general character throughout 
 the country. 
 
 Mr. Law, in reply to Mr. Grey, said, that he 
 disclaimed every idea of receiving from the 
 Managers any indulgence as to the intended exa- 
 mination of the Marquis Cornwallis. TIMI as 
 soon as his client had heard of the arrival of ilat 
 noble person in England, he had expressed aoi 
 anxious wish to have the benefit of his evidence 
 on many most essential and important points. 
 That with the hope of obtaining it, their Lord- 
 ships had made two adjournments of the Court 
 a favor from their Lordships which Mr. Hastings 
 would ever hold in grateful remembrance; but 
 as, from the precarious state of Lord Cornwallis's 
 health, it was uncertain at what period he would 
 be enabled to attend in the Court, Mr. Hastings 
 was reduced to the painful necessity of a protrac- 
 tion to an eighth year of a trial which was now 
 in its seventh year, or of giving up the advantage 
 which he was confident he would receive from 
 the testimony of the noble Marquis. In this 
 situation, the anxiety of Mr. Hastings to bring 
 this long depending trial to a close, and his con- 
 fidence that he had already laid ample testimony 
 before their Lordships, as to the important ad- 
 vantage*
 
 ( 4 6i ) 
 
 vantages derived by the public from his success- 
 ful exertions in India, and his evidence on every 
 material head of the accusation that had been 
 preferred against him by a fortR^r House of Com- 
 mons, had induced him now to declare that his 
 evidence was closed : That he did so with pain, 
 he confessed; but he did not do it while a hope 
 remained that the state of Lord Cornwallis's 
 health would allow him to appear at any definite 
 period, so as to allow of time sufficient to close 
 the trial in this year. 
 
 Mr. Grey then proceeded to state that as Mr. 
 Law did not mean to accept their offer of calling 
 Mr. Larkins, the Managers would do it in the 
 course of their evidence in the reply. He then 
 read some documents, and proposed to call Mr. 
 Francis. That gentleman accordingly entered 
 the box, and Mr. Grey said, that as the council 
 had affirmed that Mr. Francis had approved of the 
 extra demand made upon Cheyt Sing, they would 
 shew that in conversation at the Council he had 
 mentioned his disapprobation of that measure. 
 The question was, therefore, put to Mr. Francis 
 whether any thing had passed in debate on the 
 subject on the gth of July, 1778 and whether 
 he had approved of that measure ? 
 
 To this question Mr. Law pointedly objected, 
 
 as leading in its consequences to another seven 
 
 H B 4 years
 
 years trial. That if the Managers were compe- 
 tent now to give evidence, which they might have 
 given seven years ago, the life of man would not 
 be of length cngaigh for the close of this trial. 
 The law of evidence, he said, was so clear that 
 no doubt could remain on the subject. 
 
 Mr. Fox and Mr. Grey replied, and contended, 
 that as the council had laid a stress on Mr. Fran- 
 cis's consent to the demands that were made on 
 Cheyt Sing, they had a right to shew the nature 
 of the debate that took place when the demand 
 was made. Mr. Fox said, he lamented as much 
 any man could do the enormous length of this 
 trial, but he affirmed that the fault lay neither 
 with the House of Commons nor the Managers. 
 
 To this speech, Mr. Plumer made a full and 
 most able reply. He denied that, under any pos- 
 sible circumstances, the Managers could be eiu 
 titled to examine Mr. Francis. 
 
 The evidence adduced was brought by the 
 Managers themselves. 
 
 Mr. Plumer went through the different years, 
 and referred to the pages in the evidence ; by 
 which it appeared, that when the war broke 
 out Mr. Hastings proposed, on the gth of July, 
 1778, to call on Cheyt Sing to contribute his 
 proportion to the expence of it. That Mr. 
 Francis agreed, though he expressed some doubts 
 
 as
 
 as to the right. That Mr. Hastings was convinced 
 of his having the right, inherent in every state, to 
 call upon the subjects in cases of emergency to 
 contribute to the defence of the state: but that 
 if the right was not clear the Company would 
 determine it. That in the next year, 1779. Mr. 
 Francis agreed to the demand without any reser- 
 vation. That in the next year, 1780, he also 
 agreed; that he further agreed, to demand the 
 assistance of a corps of cavalry from Cheyt Sing, 
 for the service of the war. That Cheyt Sing 
 Jaaving demurred to the payment of the subsidy in 
 1780, Mr. Hastings proposed to fine him for his 
 disobedience. 
 
 To this Mr. Francis also agreed, though pro- 
 fessing a hope that the threat would be sufficient. 
 All these fatts, said Mr. Plumer, were given by 
 the Managers themselves in evidence, and surely 
 the counsel had a right to avail themselves of them 
 in argument ; nor had they stopped there, they 
 hoped they had stated what had a considerable 
 effecl; on their Lordships and the public, and they 
 saw where it pinched the Managers. Mr. Hast- 
 ings was prosecuted for measures in which Mr. 
 Francis had concurred, which neither the Direc- 
 tors nor the King's Miniflers had disapproved, of 
 which the public had received the benefit, and do 
 still receive in the receipt of an additional reve- 
 pue of two hundred thousand pounds a-ycar. 
 
 On
 
 (464) 
 
 On all these grounds, Mr. Plumer deniH that 
 there was any thing like a reason to justify the 
 demand of the Managers, and that if it were not 
 resisted, the trial would be perpetual. 
 
 Mr. Grey again expressed his anxious wish for 
 a very early end to so tedious a tiial that the 
 public expefted, and the Managers anxiously 
 wished it. Some time was spent in framing the 
 question, and just as it was about to be put 
 
 Mr. Burke rose, though he said there was no 
 necessity for him to rise, his respeftable fellow 
 Manager having said all that was necessary, but 
 as he had seen, by the arguments of this day, 
 the use that had been made of the word acqui- 
 escence, he rose to declare that he did not acqui- 
 esce in any of the arguments used by Mr. 
 Hastings's counsel, nor in any of the rules of law 
 they had adduced: as to rules of law and evidence, 
 he did not know what they meant : he and his 
 friends had searched for them in vain ; that the 
 character that properly belonged to a Member of 
 the House of Commons was that of a plain, igno- 
 rant layman; that it was true something had been 
 written on the Law of Evidence, but very gene- 
 ral, very abstract, and comprised in so small a 
 compass, that a parrot that he had known might 
 get them by rote in one half hour, and repeat them 
 in five minutes. These rules, such as they were, 
 
 might
 
 might serve for rules to the Courts below, but 
 vere not to shackle the House of Commons, nor 
 that High Court, who in their great national 
 prosecutions claimed a right to obtain by whatever 
 means they could acquire it, an entirety of their 
 evidence. Unlearned laymen, as they were, they 
 could produce, in support of their right to exa- 
 mine Mr. Francis, precedents from trials by Im- 
 peachment. 
 
 Mr, Burke continued to speak for a consider- 
 able time to the same effeft. 
 
 After some further discussion, the Lords ad- 
 journed, put the question to the Judges, and 
 meet again on Thursday. 
 
 The most remarkable circumstance of the day 
 was, the declaration of Mr. Fox, that the delay 
 which he allowed to be most grievous, was not 
 the fault of the House of Commons, nor of the 
 Managers. 
 
 Of delay, no man accuses the present House 
 of Commons but that the delay in this article 
 was occasioned by the last House of Commons, 
 is a faft that cannot admit of a doubt; because it 
 is well known that to this hour no man knows 
 wh it the opinion of the last House was upon this 
 very article. Mr. Grey has invariably argued, 
 that the crime of Mr. Hastings was in demanding 
 a subsidy from Cheyt Sing, "which he had no right 
 
 to
 
 f 466 ) 
 
 to demand; and he deduces all the subsequent 
 afts from this original crime. Here Mr. Grey 
 speaks intelligibly at least Mr. Pitt has invari- 
 ably affirmed that Mr. Hastings had a right to 
 make that demand; that Cheyt Sing was criminal 
 in resisting it; that he deserved punishment; 
 but that Mr. Hastings's crime was in pro- 
 posing to fine Cheyt Sing in the sum of 
 fifty lacks of rupees, a fine beyond the offence. 
 Now is there any one man in this kingdom 
 who will agree with Mr. Fox, that it was not a 
 fault in the last House of Commons, to send so 
 material an article to the House of Lords without 
 coming to a specific vote on the various allega- 
 tions in it? The probability is, that if Mr. Pitt's 
 avowed opinion had ever been put into the form 
 of a question, he would have left the Managers 
 in a minority, and then the Benares article could 
 not have taken three days to try. The nation 
 vould have saved the many thousand pounds that 
 the prosecution of this article has cost them, and 
 the trial might have been over long ago. The 
 fads we state are of universal notoriety, and as 
 often as they occur to honourable men, must 
 strike them with astonishment. They were fully 
 detailed by the counsel of Mr. Hastings, one of 
 whom said, with great propriety, that if Mr. 
 Hastings were guilty, the bar that inclosed him 
 
 should
 
 should be taken down, and the space enlarged so 
 as to take in the Court of Dire&ors, the Board 
 of Controul, the King's Ministers, and Parlia- 
 ment itself, \vhich had taken all that Mr. Hast- 
 ings had acquired, and had loudly boasted of the 
 value of the acquisition. Whatever delay may 
 now be occasioned by settling the principle on 
 which evidence can be produced in reply, we 
 trust it will have the effe6t when the rule is estab- 
 lished, of bringing to a very speedy close, a trial, 
 the end of which all parties seem anxiously to 
 look for. The Managers complain of the delay 
 Mr. Hastings remonstrates and the Treasury, 
 alarmed at the enormity of the demands made 
 upon it for the expences of this trial, has lately 
 sent the Solicitor's bills to two Masters in Chan- 
 cery, and one of the Clerks of the House of 
 Commons to be examined. We may venture to 
 say that one hundred thousand pounds will not 
 defray all the expence that the nation has been 
 put to by the trial. Surely, then, it is time to 
 bring it to a close, even if no consideration were 
 due to a man who has received the thanks of his 
 constituents, with the complete approbation of the 
 King's Minifters, for his long, faithful, and im- 
 portant services, and of whose merits there is 
 hardly a dissenting opinion. 
 
 ONE
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-THIRD 
 DAY t February 27, 
 
 The Court assembled this morning at half past 
 one, when the Lord Chancellor informed the 
 Managers that the question proposed to Mr. 
 Francis could not be put. Upon this, Mn Burke 
 immediately rose, and made a very long and vio- 
 lent speech, in which he lamented that the Mana- 
 ge*^ were ignorant of the principles on which so 
 precipitate a determination was founded. That 
 his respeft to the Court forbad him to think what 
 he otherwise would, namely, that to allow them 
 to put the firft question and to refuse the second, 
 was a fraud and a cheat. That many calumnies 
 had been spread abroad, accusing the Managers 
 of being the cause of delay by their repeated at- 
 tempts to introduce improper evidence, but that 
 these and all other calumnies should be cleared 
 up, and his character, and that of his fellow 
 Managers should go down pure to posterity. 
 
 After continuing for some time, he was called 
 to order by the arl of Radnor, who begged the 
 
 learned
 
 (469 ) 
 
 learned Lord on the woolsack to stop so irregular 
 a proceeding, and that the trial might be allowed 
 to proceed. Mr. Burke replied, that any thing 
 he could do with regularity he would not do irre- 
 gularly, He then referred to the printed trials 
 of the Earl of Stafford, in the reign of Charles 
 the First of Lord Viscount Stafford, in the reign 
 of Charles the Second and of the Earl of Maccles>- 
 field, in the reign of George the First. He said, 
 that in all these trials the Managers for the Com- 
 mons contended that they had a right to ftrengthen 
 their case in reply, by supplemental proof, and 
 that, in faft, no rules by which inferior Courts 
 were bound ever had, or ever ought to bind the 
 Lords and Commons, and in a trial by impeach- 
 ment the Court had no guide, but its own 
 difcretion*. Mr. Burke then called Mr. Francis, 
 
 and 
 
 * It is to the honour of the Lords, that they reprobate by their 
 practice, this dangerous do&rine. " To leave it in the breast of the 
 Judge (says Mr. Fearne) to relax, or supersede general restrictions 
 and rules, whenever he shall think particular cases not within 
 the reason of them, may, perhaps, by some be thought a more im- 
 portant absurdity, and a matter of greater mischief in its tendency 
 and consequences, than that which is intended to be obviated by it j 
 for this is in fact, making the discretion of the Judge, the only law 
 in such cases an error, which our forefathers seem to have been 
 illiberally studious to keep clear of For their creed seems to have 
 been, what I have read, expressed in so much energy of terms, by a 
 great Judge even of these times. The discretion of a Judge is the 
 
 law
 
 f 470 ) 
 
 and asked him whether it was in his power, at any 
 time during his refidence at Bengal, to put an end 
 to the demand of subsidy made upon Cheyt Sing 
 during war? To this question Mr. Law objected, 
 and with much feeling faid, he would not add ta 
 a delay which was intolerable, by offerng a single 
 argument, to shew that consistent wiih law and 
 justice, no such question could be put in this 
 stage of the trial. 
 
 Mr. Fox, Mr. Burke, and Mr. Grey defended 
 the propriety of this question, by repeating at very 
 great length the arguments they had urged before, 
 and Mr. Burke again affirming that no rules were 
 to bind the House of Commons; but that under 
 the title of supplemental proof, they had a right 
 to ftrengthen their original case. He denied the 
 soundness of the doclrine supported on the last 
 day by the Counsel of Mr. Hastings, and added, 
 that such a doftrine would be a complete cover 
 *lut. Much more was urged, and Earl Stanhope 
 twice attempted to shorten the discussion, though 
 in vain. 
 
 law of Tyrants 5 it is always unknown , it is d.fferent in different 
 men } it is casual, and depends upon constitution, temper, and 
 passion ; in the best, it is oftentimes caprice } in the worst, it is every 
 vice, folly, and passion, to which human nature is liable." 
 
 Vide Fcarne on Contingent Remainders, p. 4 t 8 and 429, 3 d edit, 
 and Lord Camden's Argument in Doe v. Kerwy, Batter, c Gcorw 
 III. 1675. 
 
 * The
 
 ( 469 ) 
 
 The Lord Chancellor applied to Mr. Law again, 
 to know if he had any observations to make ? who 
 answered, that he had none ; that this queftion came 
 completely within the rules already laid down by 
 their Lordships, and that this day, like the last, 
 had been lifelessly wasted; that he owed too 
 much to his client, and to their Lordships, to 
 offer a single argument in reply to all that had been 
 asserted. 
 
 After this question was put, and when the 
 Lords were about to adjourn to the Chamber 
 of Parliament, Mr. Hastings rose, and said, he 
 earnestly intreated their Lordships to address a 
 few words to them ; that he had put his thoughts 
 on paper just as he was coming down to-day, and 
 had made a small addition, in consequence of what 
 he had heard on this day. Leave being .very 
 readily granted, Mr. Hastings addressed the Lords 
 as follows: 
 
 " In the Petition which a noble Lord (Lord 
 Hawkefbury) had the goodness to present to your 
 Lordships for me on Monday last, I informed 
 your Lordships that I should forego the benefit 
 -which I had hoped to derive from the testimony 
 of Marquis Cornwallis, whose ill state of health 
 might probably difable him from attending to 
 deliver it, without the loss of so much time that 
 might involve me in the peril of seeing my trial 
 i i adjourned
 
 (47) 
 
 adjourned over to another year; and I prayed your 
 Lordships therefore to order that the trial should 
 proceed, and with that degree of acceleration 
 and dispatch which a due regard to the general 
 rights of justice, and the sufferings of an indivi- 
 dual, now in the seventh year of his trial, might 
 induce your Lordships to adopt. 
 
 " The immediate cause of my troubling your 
 Lordships with that Address was a report convey- 
 ed to me, that your Lordships had been pleased, 
 in consideration of the noble Marquis's illness, 
 to adjourn the trial, which stood ibr Monday last, 
 to the following day, for the purpose of allowing 
 me to make my option in the mean time, and to 
 signify it to your Lordships, either that the pro- 
 ceedings in the trial should be stopped until the 
 noble Marquis's health should be sufficiently re- 
 stored to enable him to attend in his place, or that 
 it should proceed without it. 
 
 " My Lords, if this information had been given 
 to me on grounds of certain authority, J should 
 not trouble your Lordships at this time, but rely 
 with implicit confidence on such a pledge as it 
 would be criminal to distrust; since it is impossi- 
 ble to admit, for an instant, the suppsition that 
 your Lordships would offer me an alternative 
 which included so great a sacrifice, with- 
 out
 
 (47* ) 
 
 t>ut the most absolute determination to fulfil the 
 condition of it. 
 
 " But, my Lords, I neither know the terms 
 on which that declaration of your Lordships was 
 made, nor with certainty do I know that it was 
 made at all; and when I see the time so very 
 near in which it has been annually customary for 
 your Lordships to adjourn the trial for many 
 weeks, to allow for the absence of the Judges on 
 their circuits, I cannot but feel the greatest alarm 
 lest the same obstruction should be given to the 
 trial even in this period of it, when the evidence 
 on the part of the prosecution, and that of the 
 defence, have been finally and declaredly closed, 
 and almost a whole year elapsed, since the close 
 of the latter. 
 
 " My Lords, I beg leave to remind you of the 
 great sacrifices which I have made to cut off all 
 possible cause of delay ; that I put my defence on 
 two charges almost wholly to issue on the evidence 
 adduced by my prosecutors, and I gave up the 
 pleadings of my able advocates on both. Thi* 
 year, it is known to your Lordships with what 
 earnestness and anxiety my Counsel solicited your 
 Lordship's permission to call upon the House of 
 Commons for his evidence, and that I have de- 
 parted from the whole tenor of my conduci, by 
 being myself the mover of delay to obtain it. Of 
 11* these
 
 ( 47* ) 
 
 these delays, and these only, I am the cause, and 
 I thank your Lordships for admitting them. My 
 appeal to the noble Marquis was not made on 
 slight grounds. When I first notified to him my 
 intention of calling for his evidence, I had never 
 had any communication with him respecting the 
 subject. But I knew what was the truth, and I 
 was confident he would declare it. I knew his 
 heart and mind I knew myself, and I therefore 
 knew with the most absolute certainty what his 
 testimony would be. 
 
 Yet I have made this great sacrifice added to 
 the past And surely, my Lords, I am not un- 
 reasonable in exacting this only requital, that 
 my trial may suffer no further delay. 
 
 ' I do therefore most earnestly supplicate your 
 Lordships to grant me the indulgence of a con- 
 tinuation of your proceedings in this Court, with- 
 out any adjournment for the Circuits, or any other 
 delays than such as the business of Parliament 
 may render unavoidable, and that you will have 
 the goodness to afford me such an assurance of 
 it, as shall immediately quiet my mind from its 
 present apprehensions. 
 
 "My Lords, do not think this request presump- 
 tous, nor that it proceeds from an impertinent 
 curiosity. 
 
 My
 
 (473 ) 
 
 My Lords, it has more ufgent motives, and 
 pardon me if I once more repeat, as my plea for 
 making it, that I arm now in the seventh year of 
 my prosecution in this Court, which has never 
 before suffered any trial, even of the most cri- 
 minal nature, except in the times of originating 
 disorder and rebellion, to exceed the period of 
 twenty-two days. That as I have been already 
 subjected to a prosecution which has now endured 
 six years, I may not (if I may trust to my under- 
 standing of all that I have heard this day) be the 
 continued subject of k, during six years more." 
 
 As soon as Mr. Hastings sat down Mr. Burke 
 rose, and said., that Mr. Hastings had merely 
 repeated what he had said five years before; that 
 the delay was not imputable to the Managers, but 
 to the Counsel of Mr. Hastings, who had objected 
 to evidence, and .that in this instance Mr. Hast- 
 ings allowed himself to be the author of the delay. 
 It was very true that the Prisoner had been six 
 years before the Court, but he had no right to 
 complain on that account had they not been em- 
 ployed in considering his Crimes? Crimes that 
 he had been committing for fourteen years ? 
 
 Mr. Burke proceeded for some time longer in 
 
 a similar strain, when Mr. Hastings rose, a,nd 
 
 with a look in which indignation and contempt 
 
 were strongly mixed, he said, " True, it is, my 
 
 j i 3 Lords
 
 (474 ) 
 
 Lords, as the Manager has said, thaj I did com, 
 plain five years ago, when my trial was on the 
 point of being adjourned, as it had then lasted 
 longer than any other trial in this Court. I re- 
 peated my complaint in every succeeding year, 
 because every year was an aggravation of the 
 hardship which I suffered. I complained of it, 
 my Lords, as an abuse of justice, and I repeat, 
 my Lords, that it was an abuse of justice, come 
 from whom it may; but is it, my Lords, any ar- 
 gument, that, because I have suffered a prosecu- 
 tion of six years, I should endure it six years 
 longer?" 
 
 To this speech, Mr. Fox replied, that he most 
 anxiously joined with Mr. Hastings, in entreat- 
 ing the Lords to proceed with all possible expe- 
 dition to the close of the trial. 
 
 The Court adjourned, and meet again on Sa- 
 turday. 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY- FOURTH 
 DAY. March i. 
 
 FOURTH DAY OF THIS YEAR. 
 
 THE Court met this morning ten minutes be- 
 fore two. The delay was occasioned, as we were 
 
 informed.
 
 (475 ) 
 
 informed, by the time taken up by the Lord 
 Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, in deliver- 
 ing the unanimous opinion of the Judges, on the 
 last question referred to them, and by a most 
 excellent and constitutional speech of the Lord 
 Chancellor, who laid down with the utmost clear- 
 ness and perspicuity the Law of Evidence, in 
 reply, in criminal cases. His Lordship went at 
 large into the several precedents quoted by Mr. 
 'Burke, and by reference to these cases, proved 
 that they did not in any manner sustain the argu- 
 ments offered by the manager. On the contrary, 
 that in each instance the managers on those trials, 
 had merely claimed what the Law allowed, aright 
 to support their own witnesses, whose credibility 
 had been impeached, and the right to reply to new 
 matter offered by the several noble prisoners, 
 whose cases were quoted. His Lordship con- 
 cluded by moving, that the managers be inform- 
 ed, that it was not competent to them to put the 
 proposed question to Mr. Francis. On their 
 Lordships assembling in Westminster Hall, the 
 Chancellor declared this opinion. Mr. Burke 
 said, that though the Commons submitted, they 
 did not acquiesce in the determination of their 
 Lordships. 
 
 Mr. Grey seemed to be desirous of adhering 
 
 very fairly to the rule laid down. He said, that 
 
 114 he
 
 he offered with some doubt a piece of evidence, 
 which he thought material. The managers had, 
 by mistake, given in a triplicate of a letter, in- 
 stead of the original ; that to this triplicate the 
 names of Mr. Hastings, Mr. Francis, and Mr. 
 Wheeler were signed; that as the two latter 
 formed a majority, the Counsel had argued that 
 they had it in their power to revoke the demand 
 of subsidy, had they thought it an improper one; 
 but in truth and fal, the name of Mr. Barwell 
 was signed to the original letter ; of course, if 
 the fad were cleared up, the argument of the 
 Counsel would fall to the ground. 
 
 The Chancellor said, that this evidence was 
 clearly inadmissible, and against the rules laid 
 down by the Court; first, as tending to support 
 their own evidence, and next, as it was not to 
 rebut evidence, but argument. Mr. Law, how- 
 ever, removed the difficulty, by saying he had 
 not the least objection to the managers correcting 
 their own mistake. 
 
 This important point of evidence being settled, 
 Mr. Grey said, that he would next propose to 
 insert a Report of Mr. Duncan, the Resident at 
 Benares, in 1788. The Counsel had cross-exa,. 
 mined one of the manager's witnesses, who stated 
 that the four hundred thousand pounds a-year, 
 ike rent settled by Mr. Hastings, had been fully 
 
 paid,
 
 I 477 ) 
 
 paid, and that the country continued in a very 
 flourishing state, well cultivated, and well peopled, 
 during the whole of Mr. Hastings's administra- 
 tion, and for two years after Mr. Markham had 
 given similar evidence. The Counsel had also 
 entered a Letter from Mr. Duncan, dated ia 
 1790, who stated that the country was then very 
 flourishing, and paid the full rent which Mr. 
 Hastings had settled. The managers, therefore, 
 proposed to read another letter from Mr. Dun- 
 can, dated in 1788, by which it would appear, 
 that at that time parts of the country had fallen 
 into decay, and were recovered by the exertions 
 of Mr. Duncan. This evidence was admitted. 
 and Mr. Burke chose to read detached extracts 
 from it, with a view of shewing, that Mr. Duncan 
 had been told, that certain parts of the Province 
 of Benares had been badly cultivated since the 
 expulsion of Cheyt Sing; and that above one 
 lack of Rupees of additional Revenue had been 
 imposed upon the Province by the present Rajah. 
 To save time, Mr. Law was content that this 
 report, which is of great length, should be en- 
 tered as read; but to this, Mr. Burke objected, 
 saying, that he wished to select certain passages, 
 because if they were ^then read, their Lordships 
 must hear them ; whereas if they were only entered 
 on the minutes, they never might read them at 
 2 all.
 
 aH. A sentiment more extraordinary, undoubt- 
 edly, than is to be found, even in all the works 
 of Thomas Paine. Mr. Burke has been the pro- 
 fessed champion of the Aristocracy of Great- 
 Britain ; but in this single sentence he has 
 said more to degrade it, in the opinion of 
 the world, than any democratic writer could 
 possibly do. We are confident, however, that 
 every tittle of the evidence will be carefully read, 
 and maturely weighed by every noble Lord, who 
 commits his conscience and his honour to the 
 issue, in this important cause. 
 
 Mr. Grey next proposed to read a letter from 
 Mr. Hastings to Lord Macartney, dated in July, 
 1781. It was not very easy to comprehend the 
 drift of Mr. Grey in producing this evidence. 
 He said that it was to shew that there were other 
 modes by which the distresses of the Carnatic 
 might be relieved in 1781, better than by extort- 
 ing money from Cheyt Sing. Theextracl proved, 
 that in the opinion of Mr. Hastings, the Madras 
 Government had a6led wrong in not compelling 
 the Rajah of Tangore to contribute largely to the 
 support of the War in which the Sovereign 
 State was engaged, and he advised Lord Macart- 
 ney to furnish military stores and provisions, in 
 future, to the utmost extent that the country 
 could afford. Mr. Grey next wanted to prove, 
 
 that
 
 ( 479 ) 
 
 that the Directors disapproved this advice. The 
 latter evidence was rejected. 
 
 The last piece of evidence was so singular in 
 its nature, and gave rise to so very animated a 
 discussion, that we shall open it a little more at 
 large than Mr. Grey did. 
 
 The account of Cheyt Sing's expulsion arrived 
 in England in the early days of the Rockingham 
 administration. It is well known that that minis- 
 try were anxious to seize any pretence to recal 
 Mr. Hastings from Bengal a seleft committee, 
 pf which Mr. Burke was the real leader, made a 
 special report to the House of Commons on that 
 revolution. Cheyt Sing was elevated to the rank 
 of a Prince, and his expulsion was one of the 
 grounds stated for the recal of Mr. Hastings in 
 Parliament. Mr. Gregory and Sir Henry Flet- 
 cher were at that time the Chairman and Deputy 
 and were afterwards nominated Commissioners 
 under Mr. Fox's India Bill. Though these con- 
 sistent gentlemen had known that Mr. Hastings, 
 for three successive years had ordered Cheyt 
 Sing to contribute 50,0x30!. a-year to the support 
 of the War, and had never once disapproved of 
 the subsidy, yet when the Rockingham adminis- 
 tration took up the matter in Parliament, they 
 passed a variety of Resolutions, condemning the 
 conduft of Mr. Hastings. These Resolutions 
 
 were
 
 ( 480 ) 
 
 were violently opposed by many of the Directors, 
 and ultimately carried by very small majorities. 
 The Resolutions arrived at Bengal in February 
 1783, and appeared to Mr. Hastings to be so 
 dangerous in their tendency, that he wrote on 
 the 23d of March 1783, a very strong, and possi- 
 bly, in some points, an intemperate remonstrance 
 from a public servant to his Masters. It may be 
 said in excuse for Mr. Hastings, that he supposed, 
 as any man would do who had then read the 
 Resolutions, that it was intended to follow them 
 by an order for restoring Cheyt Sing. 
 
 This letter arrived in England in the month of 
 September 1783, when Mr. Fox and Mr. Burke 
 were in office with the Coalition Ministry. 
 
 Sir Henry Fletcher, and the Deputy, ordered 
 a gentleman in the India House to prepare obser- 
 vations upon this letter, which being approved by 
 a majority of the Court of Directors, were pub- 
 lished for the use of the Proprietors, in order to 
 justify the Court from the suppossed imputations 
 thrown upon them by their servant Mr. Hastings. 
 These Observations were published on the day. 
 or near it, that Mr. Fox moved for leave to bring 
 in his India Bill, and were highly extolled by Mr. 
 Burke in the speech that he made in support of 
 that Bill. 
 
 Mr.
 
 Mr. Grey to the utter astonishment of every 
 man who is at all conversant with the subject, 
 offered these Observations as evidence on the 
 following ground; He said, that when Mr. 
 Hastings arrived in England, in 1785, the Direc- 
 tors had returned him their thanks for his long, 
 faithful, and able services. That these thanka 
 were in evidence, and therefore the managers 
 wished to enter the Observations, in order to 
 prove, that however the Directors might generally 
 approve the conduftof Mr. Hastings, they disap- 
 proved of it in this instance. 
 
 The Counsel declared that the evidence -was 
 utterly inadmissible. They opposed the intro- 
 duction of it, because it was a mere Party Pam- 
 phlet, published for Party Principles, -when the 
 great body of the Proprietors were aftive in sup- 
 port of Mr. Hastings; and the gentleman who 
 produced it, was afting in concert with those 
 who wished to annihilate the East India Company. 
 That it was neither more nor less than a defama- 
 tory libel, for which those who published it might 
 have been liable to prosecution. 
 
 Mr. Burke took fire at this expression : talked 
 wildly of prostituted Criminals, and prostituted 
 audacity; with many other very intemperate ex- 
 pressions, which excited a general murmur of 
 disapprobation 1 in the Court. 
 
 While
 
 ( 483 ) 
 
 While Mr. Burke was yet on hU legs, 
 
 The Marquis Townshend spoke to order, H< 
 said, that such expressions were highly improper j 
 and such language was not to be endured. It re- 
 mained yet to be proved whether Mr. Hastings 
 was a criminal or not; that to apply such an 
 epithet to a gentleman under trial was contrary to 
 the principle and the practice of the Law of Eng- 
 land, which presumed every man to be innocent 
 until he was legally pronounced to be guilty. 
 
 Mr. Burke rose again, and said, that he did 
 not know the noble Lord who had called him to 
 order. He then persisted in affirming, that the 
 managers had a right to enter the observations, 
 as containing the sentiments of the Court of 
 Directors. 
 
 Mr. Hastings rose, and begged to inform their 
 Lordships, that the observations which the mana- 
 gers wished to introduce had never been tran- 
 smitted to him; that they appeared to be writu-n 
 not for the purpose of condemning him, but of 
 justifying the Directors; that he could venture 
 to assure their Lordships it was the first and only 
 instance of an appeal made by the Directors to 
 the public, relative to their conduct to one of 
 their own servants. Such observations as these 
 he was confident their Lordships would not admit 
 in their minutes. He begged to remind their 
 3 Lordships,
 
 Lordships, that he had been thirteen years at the 
 head of the Government of Bengal. In so long 
 a period many of his acts had been disapproved, 
 as undoubtedly they must be ; but no argument 
 could fairly be urged against him, on account of 
 these partial censures, since, on his return to 
 England, when he conceived that he had entirely 
 closed his public life, he had received the unani- 
 mous thanks of the Court of Directors, which 
 certainly obliterated all partial censures. 
 
 Mr. Burke rose as soon as Mr. Hastings had 
 concluded, and, in a speech replete with violence 
 and invective, contended, that those observations 
 were proper to be received, because they were 
 an answer to a letter which the prisoner had dared 
 to write to the Directors his masters, and to print 
 and publish in Calcutta. 
 
 Mr. Hastings, with spirit and dignity, instantly 
 rose, and said, " My Lords, I affirm that the 
 assertion which your Lordships have just heard 
 from the manager is false I never did print or 
 publish any letter in Calcutta that I wrote to the 
 Court of Directors. I knew my duty better. 
 This assertion is a libel; it is of a piece with 
 every thing that I have heard uttered since the 
 commencement of this trial, by that authorised, 
 licensed (and after a long pause, he added, turn- 
 ing
 
 (484) 
 
 ing to Mr. Burke with infinite contempt in his 
 countenance) <c manager!" 
 
 Mr. Burke continued to affirm, that Mr. Hast- 
 ings had printed and published the letter in Cal- 
 cutta. Mr. Hastings loudly called out him, it was 
 not true and the Counsel said to Mr. Burke, 
 No! No! 
 
 When this altercation was over, Mr. Fox 
 contended, that the observations were evidence 
 in the view they offered them, and as to the 
 allusion which the learned Counsel had made 
 to the Bill, which he brought in many years ago, 
 which the Commons passed, and the Lords threw 
 out, he earnestly wished Mr. Law would diftin- 
 guish by the name of his Bill as often as he spoke 
 of it. As to the secret History of " The Obser- 
 vations" he had nothing to do with it. What he 
 wanted to enter was, an Ad of the Court of 
 Diredors, by which it appeared they disapproved 
 of the conduft of Mr. Hastings at Benares. 
 
 The managers persisting in their right to put 
 the question, the Lords rose, Mr. Hastings hav- 
 ing prtviously entreated them to proceed until his 
 trial was closed, as the delay was more than he 
 could bear. Mr. Fox expressed his readiness to 
 go on, and Mr. Burke said, that Mr. Hastings 
 bad so often complained of delay, that it wa.i 
 absolutely necessary for the Commons to prove 
 
 to
 
 to the world that they were not the authors of 
 the delay. That in the year 1789 Mr. Haltings 
 had made fimilar complaints ; that they meant to 
 examine the matter of his Petition* delivered at 
 that time, and to falsify every assertion in it. 
 
 The 
 
 '* * That your Petitioner was permitted by the Honourable 
 f Houfe of Commons to appear before their bar, on the 24th of 
 April, 1786, to anfwer to certain charges which had been pre- 
 ' ferred againft him in that Honourable Houfe. That your Peti- 
 tioner, on the i^ih of May, 1787, was impeached by the Ho- 
 nourable Houfe of Commons of Great Britain, at the bar of your 
 " Lord/hips' Houfe, of High Criires and Mifdemeanors That 
 " your Lordmips were pleafed to grant your Petitioner a Copy of 
 *' the Articles of Impeachment, with leave to anfwer the fame. 
 " That on the a 5th of November, 1787, in the following Seflion 
 " of Parliament, your Petitioner, according to your Lordship's 
 order, did deliver in his anfwer to the faid Articles, and the i3th 
 " of February, 1788, was appointed for the commencement of 
 his trial, and it was accordingly commenced and continued by 
 various adjournments, to the i5th of June of the fame year. 
 That your Petitioner conceived an abundant confolation, when 
 he faw himfelf brought before a Court, which was held in 
 eftimation the moft juft, as it was the moft refpeftable, from the 
 high titles and dignities, and the noble characters of the Mem- 
 bers compofing it : and imprefled at this time in an equal degree 
 with the fame fentiments, and afluring himfelf, that your Lord- 
 fhips will favourably receive any reprefentation which he may 
 conceive himfelf under the neceflity of making to your Lordfhips, 
 of the hardfliips which he has fuftained and may yet have caufe 
 to apprehend, from the peculiar circumftances of the prefent trial, 
 he humbly prefumes, in this ftage of it, to ftate the fame to your 
 Lordfnips, and to pray for f\jch redrefs and relief in the future 
 procefs of it, as your Lordfliips' wifdom may be able to devifr, 
 and your juftice prefcribe. 
 
 K K /.nl
 
 ( 4 86) 
 
 The Lords retired, and it was determined that 
 it was not competent to the Managers to read the 
 observations. But it being then near five, and 
 
 .h. 
 
 " Ami your Petitioner humbly begs leave to obfeive, that one 
 " year has clapfed fince the commencement of h's trial ; and, in 
 " that interval, ftven noble Lords, his Judges, have yielded to the 
 " courfe of nature; fome of the peifons, whole evidence was re- '? 
 " quired for his defence, have returned to their duty in India, anJ 
 " many of thofe who remain are detained, to the injury of their 
 " fortunes and profpefts, and to fome lofs of the fervice to which 
 * they belong. That your Petitioner profefles no means of indem- $ 
 ' nifying them for their detention, nor docs he prefume to eftimate 
 " his own right at fo high a price, as to exaft from any man that 
 " he fliould devote the prime fi.Mlon < f his 1 f e to inaction. That I 
 " of fuch of the witnrilcs whofe conveniences may permit it, 
 ' or whofe inclination may prompt thtm to remain, many mud, !>y 1 
 " death, or the variable accidents of life, be taken fro.n him be- 
 " fore the time of his defence. That his health, which a Jong ic- I 
 " lidence in an ungenial climate had impaired, has been precluded I 
 " from receiving the only remedy which a foreign air could afford 
 " for its reftorution, and the only palliative which a ft.ite of cafe 
 *' could afford it at home ; his fortune waited in the cxpenccs una- 
 " voidably incident to fo heavy a profrcution, and his }- i Ton thnilt 
 " out from its place in common focicty ; with other fuffcrings which, 
 " though moft lenfibly felt by him, may not be fpecificd in an ad- 
 " drefs to your Lordftups. 
 
 " And your Petitioner beys leave humbly to obfcrve to your 
 " Lordfliips, that although the profecution has yet been clofed upon 
 " two articles only of his impeachment, twenty articles were pic- 
 " ferred again ft him by the Honourable Houfe of Commons, that 
 " thefe comprijed in effect all the material tranfaflions, civil f 
 " political, military, revenue, and financial of a Government 
 " / thirteen years ; that a confidtrable portion of his time was a 
 *' period of great difficulty t danger and embarraJJ'ment, to ei'erv 
 
 " dependent}
 
 ( 487 ) 
 
 the Lords conceiving it to be absolutely impossi- 
 ble to go on without the Judges, adjourned the 
 Court to Monday, the yth of April. 
 
 It 
 
 " dependency of the Britijb Empire, and more particularly to the 
 " extenfive territories which were under ibe aflual government 
 " of your petitioner, or 'which depends upon his exertions for 
 " fubfiftence and relief-, that your petitioner was therefore under 
 " the neceffity, through his Counfel and Solicitors, of colkaing 
 " and collating, from the voluminous records of the Eaft India 
 Company, the whole biftory of his public life, in order to form 
 " a complete defence to every allegation which the Honourable 
 " Houfc of Commons has preferred againfthim ; for your Petitioner 
 >< had no% when your Lordfhips were pleafed to grant him a copy 
 " of the articles, neither has he now, any means of knowing 
 " whether any, or what articles, if any, were meant to be aban- 
 " doned by the Honourable Houfe of Commons. That it was not 
 " poifible for your Petitioner to be prepared with the necelTary ma- 
 " tej-ials for fuch a defence, without incurring a very heavy and 
 f intolerable expence, the fums which have been actually paid, 
 and for which your Petitioner Jlands indebted, amounting, ac-' 
 " cording to the moft accurate eftiraate which he could procure from 
 * the beft authority, to upwards of thirty thouj and pounds. That 
 ** this is a fubjeft of great and fcrious alarm to your Pelitioner, 
 * who, in the in.Icfiaite prcfpea before him, fees h'imfelf, in dan- 
 " ger of wanting the means of defence, and even of fubfillence, 
 mould his life, which is not yet probable, be continued to thfc 
 '< dole of a trial, in which fo fmdll a progrefs has yet been made, 
 unlcfs your Lordihips' wifdom mail enable you to afford /our 
 ' Petitioner that relief which he humbiy iblicits, an 1 confidently 
 " hopes to receive : that.your Petitioner, with ail fincerity of hem, 
 < craves leave to aflureyour Lordfhips that he does not prefu.ue to 
 " ftatehisfenfe of the hard/hips to which he has been, and is fub- 
 jefted by the paft events of the trial, as matters of complaint, 
 l< being fully perfuaded that they were unavoidably incident to the 
 K K 2 < peculiar
 
 ( 488 ) 
 
 It is with much pleasure fre hear Mr. Burke* 
 pledge himself to examine fully into the charge 
 of delay, \vhich Mr. Hastings so often makes, 
 and makes with so much juftice : we trust that he 
 will allow the discussion to be fully gone into. 
 He will be pleased to recollect, that he arraigned 
 Mr. Hastings in the name of all the people of 
 Great Britain, as far back as the month of May, 
 1787. That, independent of four eminent Law- 
 yers, Sir Gilbert Elliot, Mr. Anstruther, Mr. 
 Adam, and Mr. Michael Angelo Taylor, he mov- 
 ed for two Solicitors, and he employed originally 
 fix Counsel, viz. Sir William Scott, Dr. Law- 
 rence, Mr. Pigot, Mr. Mansfield, Mr. Douglas, 
 and his own brother, Mr. Richard Burke. 
 
 " peculiar nature of fuch a trial, and to the peculiar cbaracJer ar.d 
 circumflancfs of the charge lubicb iuat the Jubjefl of it. That 
 " he has ftated them with no other motive or view than to obtain 
 " from your Lordfliips a deliverance from the dreadful chance of his 
 " character being tranfmitted on the records of your Lordftiips high 
 " and auguft Court, blafted ivitb unrefuted criminations, and an 
 " acceleration of the time in which he may he enabled to make 
 " his innocence, his integrity, and (may he be permitted in all hu- 
 " mility to add) bit deferts apparent to. your Lordftiips. 
 
 " Your Petitioner therefore mod humbly prays, that your 
 
 " Lordfliips will be pleafcd to order that the trial may pro. 
 
 " ceed, according to your Lordfhips order upon the laft ad- 
 
 " journment, and that it may be continued to its clofe, (if 
 
 " it be pofllble) without interruption. 
 
 3</. feb. WARREN HASTINGS." 
 
 *7 8 9' *r~. 
 
 Mr.
 
 Mr. Mansfield, we believe, returned his retain- 
 ing fee ; Sir Wm. Scott retired after the firft year ; 
 Mr. Douglas continued until he got a much bet- 
 ter thing in Ireland, a few weeks ago ; and Mr. 
 Richard Burke, to the time of his decease: Mr. 
 Pigot and Dr. Lawrence are still employed, and 
 are each day drawn up in the rear of the mana- 
 gers. Does Mr. Burke suppose the public has 
 forgot the enormous amount of his Solicitor's 
 Bill ? Does he suppose that his saying that the 
 Commons are unlearned Laymen will fatisfy the 
 world that there is to be no end to queftions on 
 evidence, which to common conceptions admit 
 of no doubt? Mr. Pigot is a man of eminence 
 in his profession. Has he advised the managers 
 to offer the evidence they have lately offered; or 
 have the managers afted without advice ? When 
 Mr. Pitt demurred at paying the first three thou- 
 sand pounds for Counsel, he doubted whether 
 they were really necessary. Every time he looks 
 at the account now, what must he think of it ? 
 These and many, very many other points must 
 be agitated when the subject comes forward. 
 Mr. Burke complains of being calumniated. 
 How, or by whom has he been calumniated ? 
 Does he suppose that people will not talk of so 
 extraordinary a case as this, where a man, ac- 
 knowledged by every man living, except those in 
 K K 3 the
 
 ( 49 ) 
 
 the Managers Box, to have performed great and 
 important services, is kept for seven years on his 
 trial the Public enjoying, and the Minister 
 loudly boasting of the value of the fruits of his 
 supposed crimes? The subjeft is indeed impor- 
 tant, and will, we hope, be taken up with the at- 
 tention that so important a subject deserves. 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FIFTH 
 DAY. April 7. 
 
 THE Court met this day, after the adjourn- 
 ment for the Circuits, at two o'clock, when the 
 Lord Chancellor informed the Managers, that the 
 evidence which they had proposed to give on the 
 last day, was inadmissible. 
 
 Upon this, Mr. Burke rose, and said, that tho' 
 they might offer other reasons in addition to those 
 which they had before offered, to induce their 
 Lordships to consent to the admission of it, yet 
 they would acquiesce in the decision ; and he de- 
 clared, that all the evidence in reply upon the 
 Benares Article was closed. 
 
 As Mr. Sheridan was rising to speak, Mr. 
 Plumer begged to be heard for a very few mo. 
 ments. He said, that when their Lordships ad- 
 journed last, the state of the health of the Noble 
 
 Marquis^
 
 Marquis Cornwallis, was such as to render it ex- 
 tremely doubtful at what period he would be en- 
 abled to give his attendance in Westminster Hall ; 
 that Mr. Hastings, from the anxiety he had in- 
 variably displayed to bring this intolerably tedious 
 trial to a close, had informed their Lordships that 
 he should forego the testimony of the Noble 
 Marquis ; but the adjournment of their Lord- 
 ships was attended with this good effect: Lord 
 Cornwallis, he was happy to say, was now re- 
 stored to health, and as the Managers had ex- 
 pressed their concurrence to the Noble Marquis's 
 examination at any period prior to the close of 
 their own evidence, he hoped the Court would 
 permit Mr. Hastings to call Lord Cornwallis on 
 the first day that their Lordships should sit. 
 
 Mr. Sheridan said, that the Managers had ex- 
 pressed their willingness to give Mr. Hastings the 
 benefit of Lord Cornwallis's testimony, and 
 therefore they should make no objections. He 
 then repeated what had before been said as to Mr. 
 Larkins, whom they would alfo allow Mr. Hast- 
 ings to call, if he chose. 
 
 Mr. Plumer said, he did not intend to call any 
 further evidence than Lord Cornwallis, and if 
 the Managers introduced further evidence, they 
 would of course state the grounds on which they 
 were entitled to call it, in reply. 
 
 K K. 4 After
 
 ( 492 ) 
 
 After this point was settled, Mr. Sheridan com- 
 menced his evidence in reply, upon the Begum 
 Article. A conversation, rather than an argu- 
 ment, was continued between Mr. Sheridan and 
 Mr. Burke, on the one side, and Mr. Dallas and 
 Mr. Plumer, on the other, for two hours, relative 
 to the evidence which Mr. Sheridan produced, 
 and which in all instances was admitted. We do 
 not enter into any detail of this evidence, becaufe 
 not a line of it applied to the points on which the 
 charge rests, but was, as it was stated by Mr. 
 Sheridan, merely intended to fill up chasms which 
 were left in the evidence, by the Counsel having 
 followed the mode recommended him by Mr. She- 
 ridan himfelf, namely, that each party mould enter 
 such .parts of letters and documents as each relied 
 on, 'to make good their case. They were all of 
 no consequence ; some related to events which 
 happened so far back as the years 1775 and 
 1776. 
 
 At half after four, Mr. Sheridan said that he 
 had completed all ihc evidence which he meant 
 to offer in reply on the Second Article. It was 
 then agreed that the Marquis Cornwallis should 
 be examined on Wednesday Mr. Burke adding, 
 that he did expecl Mr. Hastings would have pro- 
 posed to examine Mr. Larkins, but that the Ma- 
 nagers certainly would do it. 
 
 Th e
 
 ( 493 ) 
 
 The Court after this conversation adjourned 
 until Wednesday (to-morrow.) 
 
 We think we can now venture to congratulate 
 the country, the Lords, and Mr. Hastings, on the 
 approaching end of this Trial. The Managers 
 have closed their evidence in reply to two Ar- 
 ticles. Two only remain the Presents and 
 the Contracts. From our knowledge of the 
 case, we do not see how the evidence in reply on 
 these Articles can take up more than one day. 
 All then that remains is the speeches of the Ma- 
 nagers in summing up ; and when it is considered 
 that the Managers spoke twenty-two days- in the 
 prosecution, and that the Reply is confined to 
 certain points, we anxiously look forward to a 
 speedy close of this unprecedented Trial a Trial 
 that has now lasted Seven Years, and which has 
 cost the Nation more money than would pay for 
 ever the Pensions settled on the posterity of Lord 
 Chatham and Lord Rodney, for important pub- 
 lic services. 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-SIXTH 
 DAY. April 9. 
 
 The impatience of all the world to hear the tes- 
 timony of the Marquis Cornwallis, was such, that 
 
 the
 
 ( 494 ) 
 
 the Court was completely filled by twelve o'clock, 
 and when the Lords met at two, the Houfe of 
 Commons appeared in numbers equal to those 
 who attended in the brilliant days of the year 1788. 
 It is necessary to remind our readers, that the 
 Impeachment which was voted seven years ago, 
 was grounded upon strong declarations made by 
 Mr. Burke, that under Mr. Hastings the most 
 flourifhing countries had became desolate ; that 
 he was a man hated and dettsted through all India ; 
 that he was a Captain General of Iniquity, at 
 whose departure, the country felt relieved from a 
 weight under which it had long groaned, with a 
 variety of expressions of a similar nature. After 
 having given evidences as to the flourishing and 
 improved state of the resources of Bengal, during 
 the administration of Mr. Hastings, and of the ge- 
 neral esteem and regard in which he was held by 
 the natives, it was earnestly wished that to the 
 opinion of Sir John Shore, the present Governor 
 General of Bengal, the opinion of the Marquis 
 Cornwallis, who had so honourably filled that im- 
 portant office for many years, might be added. 
 
 The Noble Marquis was this day examined, and 
 having stated the time of his departure from Eng- 
 land, his knowledge of the accusation which was 
 then preferred by Mr. Burke, and the date of his 
 Arrival in Bengal, the following questions in sub- 
 stance
 
 ( 495 ) 
 
 stance were put to the Marquis, to which he gave 
 the following answers : 
 
 Q. Whether it was known in India when Lord 
 Cornwallis arrived there, and during the six years 
 his Lordship governed Bengal, that he was then 
 under accusation and trial ? 
 
 A. It was certainly very well known and ge- 
 nerally. 
 
 Q. Whether it was not competent to any na- 
 tives of India to prefer complaints to his Lord- 
 ship and to the Council againft Mr. Hastings ? 
 
 A. Certainly, they might at any time. 
 
 Q. Whether in facl any one such complaint 
 was made ? 
 
 A. None No perfonal complaint against Mr. 
 Hastings. 
 
 Q. In what estimation was the character of Mr. 
 Hastings amongst the natives of India. 
 
 A. He believed Mr. Hastings was much esteem- 
 ed and respe&ed by the inhabitants in general. 
 
 His Lordship then, in answer to more question* 
 put to him, said, that he believed it was the cus~ 
 torn of the Mogul Government to call upon their 
 Zemindars to furnish military assistance in war; 
 that the disaffection of the Begums at the time of 
 "the rebellion of Cheyt Sing, was a facl; of general 
 report ; that no steps had been taken, either for 
 the restoration of Cheyt Sing, or to restore to the 
 
 Begum
 
 ( 496 ) 
 
 Begum the money that was taken from her in 1782. 
 that he do^s not believe, nor dkl he ever hear, that 
 the Begum was at any time reduced to a state of 
 pecuniary distress, in confequcnce of taking fifty 
 lacks of rupees from her in 1782 ; that his Lord- 
 ship never heard in India, nor did he believe, that 
 the British name and charaBer suffered in any de- 
 gree by the expulsion of Cheyt Sing, or by the 
 measure taken against the Begum. That he 
 hoped, and believed, the inhabitants under the Bri- 
 tish Government were much happier, and their 
 property better proteded, than under any of the 
 Native Governmnts. 
 
 There was a general and a marked Buz of plea- 
 sure and satisfaaion expressed by the auditors, 
 when the Marquis Cornwallis stated, that Mr. Ha- 
 stings was much esteemed and respeded by the na. 
 lives of India. 
 
 Mr. Burke began the cross-examination by ask- 
 ing Lord Cornwallis, if he had read the Articles 
 of Impeachment. His Lordship said, he had ; 
 but after the lapse of so many years, he could not 
 recollea the particular points in it. That as he 
 looked forward, he never made it his business to 
 enquire as to the truth of the reports concerning 
 the Begum's taking an aBive part against us dur- 
 ing the revolt of Cheyt Sing that he had never 
 called on any Zemindars for military aid though 
 1 he
 
 ( 497 ) 
 
 he was not sure whether the Madras Government 
 had not called on the Zemindars of the Northern 
 Circars, and the Polygars. 
 
 Mr. Burke asked his Lordship whether it was 
 from the natives or from Englifh Gentlemen, that ; 
 he had heard that Mr. Hastings was much esteem- ' 
 ed and respected ?~ 
 
 Lord Cornwallis replied, that as he did not 
 speak the language, it certainly was delivered to 
 him by English Gentlemen, in his conversation 
 with different inhabitants of India. 
 
 Mr. Burke then read passages from letters and 
 minutes of Lord Cornwallis, in which he faid, that 
 mischievous consequences had resulted from the 
 mode of letting the lands annually, and that the 
 Zemindars were in general in a state of poverty, 
 which, though partly owing to their own indo- 
 lence and extravagance, was in a great degree to be 
 attributed to the system of making the settlements 
 annual. 
 
 Lord Cornwallis said he recollected these let- 
 ters, but, upon a question from Mr. Plumer, said, 
 that he carried out the first orders which enabled 
 the Government of Bengal to make a settlement 
 for ten years, and ultimately to render that settle- 
 ment perpetual. 
 
 Mr. Burke asked his Lordfhip whether he had 
 heard of various sums of money said to have been 
 received by Mr. Hastings ? 
 
 Lord
 
 Lord Cornwallis said he had that he knew 
 nothing of it, nor of a balance stated to remain n 
 the hands of Gunga Gavend Sing. 
 
 Mr.Burke then asked his Lordship if Mr. Dun- 
 can was a gentleman of character ? 
 
 Lord Cornwallis spoke very highly of him, and 
 in the strongest terms of Sir John Shore, whom 
 Mr. Burke had formerly described as the accom- 
 plice in the crimes of Mr. Hastings. 
 
 Two very strong concluding questions were 
 put by Lord Hawke, whether the confederacy 
 framed by the Native Powers in India, and assist- 
 ed by the French in the last general war, did not 
 require the utmost exertions on the part of Mr. 
 Hastings to counteract it ? 
 
 His Lordship answered, it certainly did. 
 
 Lord Cornwallis was asked, whether, by success- 
 fully counteracting those designs, and preserving 
 the British empire entire, Mr. Hastings had not 
 rendered essential services to his Country ? 
 
 His Lordship replied, undoubtedly he had. 
 
 Here this important examination was closed, 
 which we think we may venture to say, has put 
 the seal upon the character of Mr. Hastings, since 
 it fr iucrs to atoms when combined with the for- 
 mer testimony, the very foundation on which the 
 original accusation rested ; for how has Mr. Has- 
 tings been described? As a man hated, detested, and 
 
 abhorred.
 
 ( 499 ) 
 
 abhorred, except by the creatures whose fortunes 
 he had made. 
 
 We had forgot one very singular circumstance : 
 Lord Cornwallis had appointed Capt. Kirkpatrick 
 to be Ambassador at the Court of Madagee, India, 
 in 1787. This Gentleman had written a letter to 
 the Marquis, in Council, in which he stated that 
 the Mahrattas, had so little confidence in our for- 
 mer moderation, that even our then conducl would 
 not have the effect of perfuading them, that we 
 might not, in future, wish to extend our domi- 
 nion. 
 
 Lord Cornwallis was asked as to this point. 
 He faid, that might be Capt. Kirkpatrick' s opi- 
 nion and on being pressed by Mr. Grey, he 
 said, he did not know how he could give any other 
 anfwer. This opinion of Mr. Kirkpatrick was 
 given in evidence seven years ago, to prove the 
 opinion of the Princes of India, as to the moder- 
 ation and good faith of the British Government. 
 
 Mr. Burke, on Lord Cornwallis stating so 
 strongly the services of Mr. Hastings, in counter- 
 acting the designs of our enemies in the last general 
 war, asked Lord Cornwallis, whether he was ac- 
 quainted with the caufe of the late Mahratta war? 
 The Chancellor faid that the question could not 
 with propriety be put. Mr. Burke said it might, 
 at least by any Lord, and Lord Stanhope said, that 
 3 he
 
 (- 
 
 he would put it, to prevent further argument. 
 Lord Cornwallis answered, that their Lordships 
 all knew just as much of the fnatter as he did. 
 
 After this a long argument took place on thd 
 propriety of calling Mr. Larkins. The Counsel 
 insisting upon it, that no period of time in the life 
 of man could close the Trial, if the kw of the 
 land was not attended to. 
 
 Mr. Burke, though Lord Cornwallis had just fat 
 down, faid, that Mr. Hastings had never shewn 
 compassion to man, woman, or infant ! ! ! otherwife 
 he Ihould pity the situation in which he stood, re- 
 jecting evidence that he never expressed a wish to 
 have. 
 
 Mr. Plumer and Mr. Dallas were clear, deci- 
 sive, and firm. They left the matter entirely to 
 the Lords, to be determined as they chose. 
 
 The Court was adjourned to Monday, and the 
 question referred to the Judges Whether Mr. 
 Larkins mould be examined in the prefent stage 
 of the Trial? 
 
 Lord Cornwallis had sai<J, in reply to a queftion 
 from Mr. Plumer, that hehcped and believed the 
 natives under the Britifh Government were much 
 happier and their property better protected 
 than under the Princes of the country. Sir John 
 Shore, the present Governor General of Bengal, 
 
 had
 
 had givea exactly the fame evidence in 1790, 
 with this addition, which his residence in Bengal 
 throughout the whole of the administration of 
 Mr. Hastings enabled him to do, namely, culture, 
 population, and commerce, in Bengal, under the 
 Britifh Administration, and that property was more 
 secure, and the people happier, under our govern- 
 ment, than under the Government of their own 
 Sovereigns. ' This," said Sir John Shore, ".I 
 speak with all the confidence conviftion infpires." 
 Mr. Burke's invariable assertion has been, that 
 Bengal was eminently flourishing under its na- 
 tive Sovereigns, but that it had fallen to decay 
 under the British Government. 
 
 In his cross-examination, therefore, he read 
 extracts from minutes and letters of the Marquis 
 Cornwallis, in which his Lordlhip, in the Wrongest 
 terms, recommended the adoption of that fystem 
 which has now taken place, namely, letting the 
 lands for ever, at a rent that is not to be altered, 
 and he describes, in very strong terms, the mis- 
 chievous consequences which had resulted from 
 the system of letting the lands annually. The mfs- 
 chievous confequences of that system were alfo 
 pointed out by Mr. Hastings, in the year 1780. 
 In one letter, Lord Cornwallis affirmed, that one 
 consequence of that system was, that a third of 
 the lands were waste. Sir John Shore in reply to 
 & L thirf
 
 ( 50* ) 
 
 this minute, very strenuously contended, that u,c 
 country had considerably improved under our 
 Government, and that during the period of it, 
 much waste land had been brought into culti- 
 vation. 
 
 Mr. Plumer, to rebut Mr. Burke's cross-exa- 
 mination, asked Lord Cormvallis's opinion of Sir 
 John Shore, and received an answer, that his Lord- 
 ship had the highest opinion of his abilities and his 
 honour. 
 
 The next point was, the disgrace which the 
 condufcl of Mr. Hastings had brought upon the 
 British characler. It was asserted in the Articles, 
 and was by Mr. Burke and the Managers, affirmed, 
 that the characler of Great Britain in India was 
 disgraced and degraded, by the expulsion of Cheyt 
 Sing, and the confiscation of the Begum's trea- 
 sure's. Lord Cornwallis, very explicitly an- 
 
 swe'red, that he did not believe, nor did he ever 
 hear the British characler had suffered in the opi- 
 nion of the Princes of India, by either of those 
 
 a Q s . On this head, Mr. Burke referred to a 
 
 piece of evidence given by the Managers in 1788, 
 for the purpose of shewing the opinion the Princes 
 of India entertained of the moderation and good 
 faith of the British Government. It was an 
 extracl from a letter written to the Marquis Corn- 
 ivaljis, from Captain Kirkpatrick, the Ambassador 
 
 to
 
 ( 503 ) 
 
 to the Court of Madrid Sinidia Lord Cornwallis 
 
 faid, it appeared to be Capt. Kirkpatrick's opi- 
 nion, and the question being repeated, his Lord- 
 ship said he did not see how he could give any 
 other answer. 
 
 Of the several sums of money received by Mr. 
 Hastings as presents, and carried to the Compa- 
 ny's account, Lord Cornwallis could say nothing 
 J in reply to Mr. Burke No complaints, as his 
 Lordship observed, had been made, he thought 
 it his business to look forward, and to improve 
 the country all he could ; and here we cannot avoid 
 joining our tribute of applause to that of the ge- 
 neral voice. 
 
 After this evidence is added to the important 
 . testimony which had been given before on the 
 ! same points, we think we may congratulate the 
 country on the decision of the great and leading 
 feature of the Impeachment. We think we may 
 venture to say, that the charaBer of Great Britain ' 
 ; stands high in India; that Mr. Hastings, who has 
 been described as the most depraved of mankind, 
 will stand high in the opinion of the world, and 
 that the Empire which we have obtained in Asia, 
 ,has been so managed, that our Government has* 
 been esteemed a blessing, and not a curse to the 
 people. 
 
 i L 2 ONE
 
 ( 504 1 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-SE- 
 VENTH DAY. April 15. 
 
 THE Court did not meet this morning until 
 two o'clock, and well indeed might Mr. Hastings 
 exclaim against the evils of an eternal Trial. 
 The Chancellor informed the Managers and the 
 Counsel, that the question which the former pro- 
 posed could not he put. 
 
 After this notification, Mr. Burke desired Mr. 
 Larkins might again be called ; and after one or 
 two trifling questions, he proposed one similar to 
 that which had been requested by the Lords. 
 
 Mr. Plumer upon this rose and said, that the 
 question fell under the head of objedion, the va- 
 lidity of which had already been established by 
 their Lordships' decision ; and added, " But per- 
 haps, my Lords, I may be able to save your Lord- 
 ships, and the Managers, from all further trouble 
 on this fubjecV' 
 
 When the objection was taken to the evidence 
 of Mr. Larkins, it was in the confident hope that 
 no doubt could prevail any where respecting the 
 real, and the only reason for making it, consider- 
 ing the past proceedings of the Trial, and the pre- 
 sent stage of it. But, my Lords, so much ha$ 
 
 been
 
 ( 505) 
 
 been said, so often repeated, and so industriously 
 circulated, respecting the nature of Mr. Larkins's 
 testimony, if it were adduced, and of the motives 
 operating upon the mind of Mr. Hastings in re. 
 sistingit, that any longer to forbear bringing these 
 bold assertions to that test which has hitherto, and 
 invariably proved so fatal to every accusation 
 against Mr. Hastings, namely, the test of proof, 
 would be to afford some colour for the aspersions 
 cast upon the Gentleman at your Bar, as if he 
 shrunk from this enquiry, because he dreaded the 
 result of it. 
 
 Under these circumstances, Mr. Hastings can- 
 not for a moment hesitate what part he ought to 
 take. 
 
 Anxious as he is, for the close of this long 
 Trial, but still more anxious for the vindication 
 of his honour and charaBer, from every possible 
 suspicion that can be thrown upon it, Mr. Hast- 
 ings confidently hopes that thejustice'and huma- 
 nity of your Lordships will prevent this or any 
 other proceeding from having the effea of carry, 
 ing over the final termination of this proceeding 
 to another year and in that hope, Mr. Hastings 
 consents to wave his objeaion to the testimony 
 of Mr. Larkins, and to allow to the prosecutors 
 all the full scope of examination to which they 
 would have been entitled at any period of the 
 Trial. 
 
 L t 3 After
 
 After this full permission granted to Mr. Burke, 
 it was expected that he would have proceeded to 
 expose that system of fraud, iniquity, swindling, 
 thieving, cheating, &c. which he declared was to 
 be fully proved, if he could but examine Mr. 
 Larkins. This was far from being the case. He 
 began by acknowledging, that any mischief which 
 might accrue to Mr. Hastings from the examina- 
 tion of Mr. Larkins, must be less than the im- 
 pression which would be made by not examining 
 him at all, and then three quarters of an hour 
 were expended, by Mr. Burke repeating over 
 and over again, at least twenty times, that the 
 Commons had a right to examine Mr. Larkins, 
 under a precedent, established in 1641, on the 
 Trial of Lord Stratford, the ancestor of the late 
 Marquis of Rockingham. After all the arguments 
 of N r. Burke, he at last yielded up the point to 
 the Lords, and then proceeded to examine Mr. 
 Larkins, who gave answers the most clear and 
 direft, but not one of which tended to establish 
 any assertion that Mr. Burke had made. As the 
 examination is not closed, we shall forbear to 
 state the particulars until the day the Court me, is 
 again. 
 
 At half past five the Court was about to rise, 
 when Mr. Hastings begged to say a few words. 
 He conjured their Lordships to consider the state 
 
 of 

 
 of the Trial, and the season of the year. lie 
 had been much alarmed on this day by a report 
 which it would be improper in him to state to 
 their Lordships, (meaning the report of an early 
 prorogation.) He therefore did earnestly pray 
 their Lordships to take some steps to satisfy him 
 that his Trial was to close, and that judgment 
 would be given in this the seventh year of it. His 
 future condua would be regulated by what their 
 Lordships should say. He meant no disresped 
 ' to them, but human patience could not sustain 
 this eternal Trial. By the delays of this day he 
 saw what he was to exped, and therefore he 
 moft earnestly prayed their Lordships to give him 
 some assurance, that his Trial would be finished 
 in this year. 
 
 The Court after this Address adjourned, and 
 resolved to sit again on .Wednesday. 
 
 A Committee is appointed to report the causes 
 i; of the delay on the trial of Mr. Hastings. What 
 the nature of this report will be, we do not pre- 
 sume to conje&urc; but that the continuation of 
 ;. this trial the slow progress that is made on it 
 |the enormous expence attending it the injuftice 
 Fdone to the individual and all the circumstances 
 Ipf the case, are such as make it to be the most, 
 flagrant abuse of justice ever known in a civilized] 
 ^country,, is beyond all question. In that send, ' 
 L L 4 mem
 
 
 ment ail agree with Mr. Hastings. Where the 
 fault may be, if there is a fault any where, we are 
 not competent to determine. 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND T\VENTY- EIGHT II 
 DAY. April 16. 
 
 If doubts had remained in the breast of any 
 human being, as to one cause of the delay on the 
 Trial of Mr. Hastings, we think they must have 
 been removed completely, by the extraordinary 
 transactions of this day, on which the Court sat 
 from two o'clock until half past six ; and the 
 greatest part of the time consumed by Mr. Burke, 
 in going over and over again the very same points 
 that he had over and over again enquired into on 
 the last day of the meeting. To give the questions 
 which were then and now put, and the clear, col- 
 lected, and impartial answers of Mr. Larkins.would 
 take up too much room. We (hall therefore con- 
 tent ourselves by a short statement of the case, and 
 of the points proved on the examination, in chief, 
 by Mr. Burke. 
 
 Mr Burke commenced a speech on the evidence 
 given by Mr. Larkins yesterday. He was inter- 
 rupted by Mr. Law, who said it was extremely ir- 
 regular
 
 ( 59 ) 
 
 tegular to observe, in the midst of an examina- 
 tion on the evidence of a witness. 
 
 The Chancellor said, that what Mr. Burke was 
 about was perfeftly regular and proper, on which 
 Mr. Law gave up his objection, and then Mr. Burke 
 proceeded on the nature of the evidence given 
 yesterday. That Mr. Hastings had invariably de- 
 clared, that Mr. Larkins Vas privy to every pro- 
 cess of the business of taking money privately, 
 and applying it to the public service ; whereas it 
 appeared that he knew nothing of any of the trans- 
 aftions prior to May 1782 that he knew nothing 
 ofthecaborleatsor obligations for money, nor of 
 the bond. Mr. Hastings called out, that he never 
 had stated the fads in the manner Mr. Burke 
 mentioned. 
 
 Mr. Burke fired at this interruption, and at a 
 remark of the Counsel. He said the Commons 
 were beyond all controul, and that the Counsel, it 
 - they persisted to remark on his proceedings, must 
 be kept in order, or the Managers must take the 
 instructions of the House of Commons. 
 
 As there seems to be some strange confusion or 
 misunderstanding of this subjeft, we shall state it 
 as it appears upon evidence, and we (hall give 
 the heads of Mr. Larkins's examination in another 
 day. 
 
 On
 
 ( 5"> J 
 
 On the 22d of May 1782, Mr. Hastings sent 4 
 letter to the Diretlors, informing them that h, 
 had received one hundred and ninety thousand 
 pounds sterling, privately, which he had carried 10 
 the Compapy's account, *nd that he had received 
 these sums at the time the Company very much 
 Canted them, and that the whole had been applied 
 to the public service. 
 
 That if the Diredors wished for further infor- 
 mation he was ready to answer upon honour or 
 upon oath to any questions that should be put to 
 him. The Diredors, in reply to this letter, d 
 to know at what periods the several sums were re- 
 ceived. 
 
 This letter Mr. Hastings answered from Chel 
 tenham, and said, that if they required further in 
 formation, Mr. Larkins would give it to them - 
 who, he believed, possessed the only copy of the 
 paper he ever possessed. Mr. Hastings wrote to 
 Mr. Lark.ns, who sent the account hon.c, which 
 has occasioned so much enquiry. 
 
 It appears upon the evidence,- that of this one 
 hundred and ninety thousand pounds, one hun- 
 dred and fif t y. five thousand is SQ emered thc 
 
 Public Accounts at the time, as to leave it out 
 of all doubt, that it was really and truly Public 
 Money. 
 
 But
 
 But as Bonds were taken in the name of Mr. 
 Hastings, for 35,000!. in Nov. 1780, and in Jan. 
 1 781, and as those bonds were not indorsed until 
 the 29th of May, 1782, the argument has been, that 
 in that period Mr. Hastings meant to keep to 
 himfelf that 35,000!. 
 
 Mr. Hastings, from a most thorough conviction 
 in his own mind, that Mr. Larkins knew the Bonds 
 not to have been his property in 1781 ; and fur- 
 ther being convinced that a declaration upon each 
 Bond, declaring it not to be his property, was 
 written in July 1781, desired Mr. Larkins to trans- 
 mit the Bonds to the Company, in order, by their 
 appearance, to verify his assertion. 
 
 Mr. Larkins made a public application to Lord 
 Cornwallis, desiring that these Bonds might be 
 sent to the Company. He said, he made this ap- 
 plication at the desire of Mr. Hastings, transmit- 
 ted to him by Major Scott. The Bonds arrived, 
 and, instead of bearing date in July 1781, the de- 
 claration at the back of each is dated on the 2gth 
 of May 1782. Here then, is the whole case, in 
 which so much time has been spent. Mr. Has- 
 tings eagerly furnished the evidence, to prove his 
 own mistake, a strong proof, however, that he 
 thought he was correct. 
 
 The next point is the Paper transmitted to the 
 Directors, at the express desire of Mr. Hastings, 
 from an anxiety to give the fullest answers to the 
 
 ques-
 
 ) 
 
 questions put to him, as to the period when the 
 several sums were received. 
 
 This account was immediately sent by Mr. Lar- 
 kins to the Directors ; it arrived in April 1787, 
 and the following facts appear from it : 
 
 i st. That two lacks of rupees were paid by 
 Gunga Gavind Sing into the Treasury, from Di- 
 nagopore ; and that a balance of one lack remain- 
 ed in the hands of Gunga Gavind Sing. 
 
 zd. That two lacks were received from Patna, 
 and paid into the Treafury, as public money. 
 
 3rf. That one lack and a half was received from 
 Nuddca, and paid into the Treasury. 
 
 For the first and the last sums, bonds were ta- 
 ken in the name of Mr. Hastings, whose private 
 property they appeared to be, until he voluntarily 
 declared that thefe bonds were not his property, 
 and that he had no right nor title to them. If 
 therefore the changes were to be rung upon this 
 subjea for seven years longer, until One Hundred 
 Thousand Pounds more are expended, we must 
 still come back to the same point. That of the 
 money received by Gunga Gavind Sing, he has 
 not accounted for one lack ; and that Mr. Lar- 
 kins does not recollca his being informed that 
 the three bonds given to Mr. Mailings in 1781 
 were for money the property of the Company 
 prior to the 22dMay 1782. 
 
 These
 
 ( 5*3 ) 
 
 These are the only two points that Mr. Lar- 
 kins' evidence or his letter have a reference to at 
 all, though he has been examined so many hours 
 in two days. 
 
 It is very material for those who feel an interest 
 in this, as the most remarkable cause that ever was 
 undertaken in a civilized country, to notice, that 
 when the Counsel opposed the examination of Mr. 
 Larkins, Mr. Burke boldly said, that if he were 
 called, the Commons would prove by his teftimony 
 a system of swindling, cheating, thieving, &c. Sec. 
 Mr. Burke on this day changed his tone, and now 
 merely professed to prove that Mr. Larkins was 
 not privy to the receipt of thirty-five thousand 
 pounds, out of one hundred and thirty thousand 
 pounds, so easy as Mr. Hastings had supposed 
 him to be acquainted with it. This point, and the 
 information's to the jewels supposed to be given 
 to Mr. Wheler, are the only two circumstances 
 which this great examination has produced. 
 
 To one of the questions put by Mr. Burke, Mr. 
 Law objected in a very pointed manner, as being 
 merely a repetition of what had been so often ask- 
 ed before. Mr. Burke, in reply said, that the 
 Counsel objected becaufe the answer would dam- 
 nify their Client ; that they already had expe- 
 rience enough on this trial, to know, that any at- 
 tempt to controul the Managers, only tended to 
 
 waste
 
 ( 5'4 ) 
 
 waste time on Speeches; for that the Manager?, 
 would have their way. 
 
 Mr. Law,with great feeling, and with much con- 
 tempt of the remark, said, that their Lordship* 
 knew he had no motive whatever, but to endea- 
 vour, by confining the Managers to some sort of 
 rule, to bring this Trial to a closeMn this year. 
 
 Mr. Hastings, when Mr. Law sat down, rose, 
 and said, he wished to be heard for a few mo- 
 ments To the question then put by the Mana- 
 gers, or to any question of any kind that they 
 might put in future, neither he nor his Counsel 
 would object, provided their Lordships would sit, 
 and close the Trial this year. Surely, as an Eng- 
 lishman, and claiming the Rights of a British Sub- 
 ject, this was not too much for him to a.sk. If 
 their Lordships would only sit on this day and to- 
 morrow, to finish this evidence ; and if they would 
 afterwarcjs sit to finifh this Trial, now in the 
 Seventh Year of it, in this Session, the Manager 
 had his full permission to say what he pleased, and 
 to ask what questions he pleased, no one would 
 interrupt him. 
 
 Mr. Hastings then, in a style of natural elo- 
 quence which no studied speech could equal, said, 
 as nearly as we can recolleft, as follows : "My 
 Lords, I beg leave shortly to call to your recol- 
 lection the sacrifices which I have made, merely to 
 
 get
 
 ( 5'5 ) 
 
 gt this eternal trial to an end. In the year 1791, 
 now three years ago, I offered to wave my de- 
 fence altogether, provided this Court would go to 
 judgement on the case made by my Prosecutors. 
 This was not agreed to. In the last year, 1793, 
 the last Session, I gave up the advantage of the 
 observations of my Counsel, in the evidence on 
 one of the Articles, and waved both the opening 
 and closing speeches of my Counsel on another 
 Article, in order to leave time to the Managers to 
 close their reply in the last session. Though three 
 and twenty days were left to them for this pur- 
 pose, they desired to postpone the reply to this 
 session. Thus I lost the benefit of the observa- 
 tions of my learned Friends, and was deprived ot" 
 the purpose for which alone I gave them up. In 
 this session, for the first time on this trial, I was 
 the cause of delay. I wished to avail myself ot 
 the advantage of Lord Cornwallis' testimony. 
 His unexpccled illness occasioned two adjourn- 
 ments of the Court; but when I found that it. 
 would be uncertain at what period the Noble Mar - 
 quis would be well enough to attend, I even waved 
 the benefit of his testimony, that the trial might be 
 accelerated. The desire of the Managers to intro- 
 duce evidence which your Lordships would not 
 admit, occasioned the adjournment for the Cir- 
 cuits -, and in that period Lord Cornwallis re- 
 covered.
 
 ( 5'6 ) 
 
 covered. This was the only instance in which I 
 delayed the Trial for a single moment. 
 
 " The Managers then wished to call Mr. Lar- 
 kins. My Counsel obje&ed, merely to avoid fur* 
 thcr delay. To them I trusted the conduft of my 
 cause I never instructed them to objeft to the 
 calling of Mr. Larkins. They wished, as I do, 
 that in some period of the life of man this cause 
 should be brought to a close. Was it to be ex^. 
 pefted, my Lords, after having made so many sa- 
 crifices for the acceleration of this Trial, that I 
 should consent to continue it to an indefinite pe- 
 riod, to accommodate the Managers But when I 
 heard him declare, that if Mr. Larkins was called, 
 such a scene of fraud, deception, and iniquity 
 would be discovered, that I should wish for moun- 
 tains to cover me, (I think this was one of the 
 strange expressions) I earnestly intreated my learn- 
 ed Friend (Mr. Plumer) who sat next to me, to 
 allow him at once to be called ; he thought the 
 expressions of less consequence, and your Lord- 
 ships determined that he could not be examined ; 
 but my Counsel concurred with me in opinion, 
 that the best way to counteract the insinuations of 
 the Managers, was to consent to Mr. Larkins' 
 appearance. He has now been two days before 
 your Lordships, you have heard his testimony, and 
 you see how much of the time has been wasted, 
 
 by
 
 I By repealing the same questions to him so often 
 over. I say, my Lords, that I will objed to no 
 question that can be put, but surely I do not ask 
 too much in return, when I request that you will 
 suto-day and to-morrow, to close this examina- 
 tion, so that a sufficient time may remain in this 
 Session to bring this trial to a close that is all I 
 am anxious about, and that secured neither I nor 
 my Counsel will interrupt the Manager in any 
 thing that he may say, however irregular it may 
 be." 
 
 This speech had a visible efFeSon all who heard 
 it. Mr. Burke had begun a reply, but was desir- 
 ed to proceed with his evidence, which he did, 
 twice saying he had done, and twice rallying* 
 again, but going back precisely to the questions 
 
 that he had put on the last day the Court met. 
 
 At length Mr. Burke said he had done, and then 
 
 Mr. Dallas began his cross-examination ; the 
 material answer to his question was, that every 
 Rupee received hy Mr. Hastings had been ex- 
 pended in the public service. All the Lords being 
 gcftie, except five or six, the Marquis of Townshend 
 Amoved to adjourn. 
 
 The Court meets again on the 2 4 tb, the first 
 
 day after the Easter adjournment, when, as we 
 
 hear, the Lords determine to sit every da"y until 
 
 this Trial i, closed. We think it extraordinary 
 
 M M that,
 
 that, in a civilized country, a criminal Trial should 
 have lasted seven years, at an expence to the na- 
 tion of one hundred thousand pounds, and, to the 
 individual, of a larger sum than ever was imposed 
 upon any individual as a fine, except in the reign 
 of Charles the Second. 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND TIVENTY-NINTH 
 DAY. April 24. 
 
 THE Court did not meet this day until the 
 usual hour of two, when Mr. Dallas immediately 
 proceeded in his cross-examination of Mr. Lark- 
 ins, by which it appeared, that upon the bonds 
 for three and a half lacks of rupees taken by Mr. 
 Hastings in his own name, he never had received 
 one rupee of interest. It further appeared, that 
 though Mr. Larkins did not recolleQ being fully 
 acquainted until the 22d of May, 1782, that these 
 bonds were not the property of Mr. Hastings, 
 but of the East-India Company, yet he thinks 
 from circumstances, that he must have had some 
 intimation upon the subject from Mr. Hastings, 
 prior to that period, because the bonds were dated, 
 two of them, ift and 2d of October, 1780, and 
 the third on the 2$d of November 1780, of course 
 one year's interest would become due upon them 
 
 in
 
 (519) 
 
 in Oaober and November 1781. As Mr. Has- 
 tings was at that time up the country, and as Mr. 
 Larkins had the charge of these bonds, he thought 
 he could not have negleded to receive the interest 
 upon them, unless he had received some directions 
 on that head from Mr. Hastings. That no interest 
 ever was received upon them, and that they never 
 were entered upon the books of Mr. Hastings 
 as his private property he was certain ; but he 
 cannot swear positively to being fully acquainted 
 with the transadion relative to these bonds prior 
 to the 22d of May, 1782. In like manner the 
 present received from Sadanund, the Buxey of 
 Cheyt Sing, ftood upon the Company's books as 
 the property of Mr. Hastings; but it was em- 
 ployed in the public service, and Mr. Hastings 
 lever made use of one rupee of it. That while 
 these bonds, and this deposit, appeared apparently 
 > belong to Mr.. Hastings, he was under the ne- 
 cessity of borrowing money on his own private 
 account from individuals, that necessity being 
 created bv the readiness always shewn by Mr. 
 Hastings assist those who wanted his assistance." 
 that for the money so borrowed, he was obliged 
 to pay an interest of 1O or 1 2 per cent, per annum, 
 Which he would not have done had he conceived 
 the three bonds in question, or the deposit, to be 
 his own property. That Mr. Hastings was a man 
 M M 2 known 

 
 ( 5 20 ) 
 
 known to be perfeaiy careless as to the ft ate of 
 his own private fortune, and that it was with the 
 greatest difficulty he (Mr. Larkins) could get Mr. 
 Hastings to devote an hour to the consideration 
 of the state of his private affairs, so very inatten- 
 tive was he to every thing that concerned him- 
 . self. 
 
 Mr. Larkins said, that he believed he had the 
 entire management of every thing that had a rela- 
 tion to the private fortune of Mr. Hastings. 
 That during the thirteen years in which Mr. Hast- 
 ings was at the head of the government of India, 
 he verily believed, that in no one instance, and 
 he had full opportunities of making the observa- 
 tion, had Mr. Hastings done any one aft, cither 
 with an immediate or a remote view to his own 
 personal advantage ; on the contrary, his known 
 and fixed character was the very opposite to that 
 which had been imputed to him, namely, of a man 
 venal, corrupt, and oppressive, who, in all his 
 atls, looked only to the accumulation of exorbi- 
 tant wealth the allegation in the charge preferred 
 by the late House of Commons. 
 
 Mr. Dallas closed his examination, by asking 
 Mr. Larkins, if he was the Accountant General 
 at the time when Lord Cornwallis described him 
 as a man, whose knowledge, abilities, and ac- 
 knowledged integrity, entitled every thing that 
 
 came
 
 (5" ) 
 
 came from him to the fullest consideration ? 
 apologizing for the mode in which he put the 
 question. 
 
 Mr. Larkins answered, that he was. He asked 
 him one question more, which was, Whether he 
 was obliged to Mr. Hastings for the honourable 
 station which he had so long filled in the Com- 
 pany's service ? He replied, that he was not ; that 
 he entered into the Accountant's Office as the 
 youngest assistant, that he rose regularly in the 
 same office, till he came to be the head of it, in 
 which he was confirmed by the Directors, and did 
 not deem himself at all obligated to Mr. Hastings 
 
 V for his situation. This examination was completely 
 finished in half an hour, when Mr. Burke began 
 a cross-examination, which lasted until twenty 
 minutes after five, and Mr. Burke convincing 
 every person who heard him, that there was one 
 cause of the duration of this trial, which the Ma- 
 nagers had omitted to mention in their report 
 
 He began by asking Mr. Larkins whether he had 
 communicated with the Counsel of Mr. Hastings ? 
 To which he replied, that he had ; that he avowed 
 himself to be the friend of Mr. Hastings ; but 
 friend as he was to him, he was what he had de- 
 
 " scribed himself to Mr. Burke to be, magis arnica 
 -uentas t and therefore, without any consideration 
 how it might affel Mr. Hastings, he was ready 
 
 M M 3 tO
 
 to answer any question that could be put to him. 
 This he had said to Mr. Burke, in the committee 
 of managers, and this he now repeated. Mr. 
 Burke then went through a very long examination, 
 treading over and over again the same ground 
 that he had gone through before, and drawing 
 from Mr. Larkins. a more complete confirmation 
 of his former testimony, namely, that he the wit- 
 ness was convinced of the purity of Mr. Hastings's 
 intentions, of his perfect indifference to every 
 personal consideration, and of his invariable at- 
 tention to the welfare of the East India Company. 
 It appeared also on his re-examination, that the 
 letter written by Mr. Larkins to the Company, 
 on which so many comments were made, was not 
 in consequence of any application from the Com- 
 pany to him, but at the requisition of Mr. Hast- 
 ings ; that he had every reason to believe the in- 
 formation which he had given was full and com- 
 plete, because the Company never had called upon 
 him for an explanation on any one of thofe points 
 which now were said to have been so imperfectly 
 stated. Mr. Burke rang the changes again and 
 again upon the subject; and in one of the replies 
 pf Mr. Larkins, he observed ' that the witness 
 must not attempt to give so impudent an answer. 
 
 At last the Lords began to grow impatient ; 
 and on Mr. BurHe asking the witness to speak 
 
 from
 
 ( 5 2 3 ) 
 
 from memory to the contents of written papers, 
 Lord Hawke and Lord Stanhope, both remon- 
 strated. At this time there were not above thir- 
 teen Lords present in the Court. Mr. Burke 
 took fire, and after many personal allusions to 
 the learning of the Lords, which appeared igno- 
 rance to ignorant men, he repeated the following 
 lines : 
 
 " Turpe est difficiles, habere nugas, 
 " Et stultus labor est ineptiarum." 
 
 which may be truly translated, " You bafe fel- 
 lows treat trifles as of importance, and like fools, 
 you boggle at mere nonsense." How the ad- 
 mirers of Martial have translated this passage we 
 do not know. 
 
 Mr. Burke continued the examination for two 
 hours and a half, each answer bringing the points 
 more clearly forward in favour of Mr. Hastings, 
 as to those particular traits in his character which 
 those who know him have described as the dis- 
 tinguifhing features in it. At last Mr. Burke 
 touched again upon the balance of the lack of 
 rupees, which was said to be left in the hands of 
 Gunga Gavind Sing, and which he pretended to 
 have given in jewels to Mr. Wheler. Mr. Burke 
 asked Mr. Larkins if he had had any conversation 
 on this subj eel with Mr. Hastings since his arrival 
 M M 4 in
 
 (5*4 ) 
 
 in England? He said he had, and since he had 
 been examined by the Managers That when he 
 mentioned the circumstances to Mr. Hastings, he 
 told him that he had not the slightest recollection 
 of it, and could not think it possible he should 
 have said so ; but on Mr. Larkins telling him that 
 the fact, though happening so many years ago, 
 was so strongly imprinted in his memory that he 
 should be ready to swear to it before the Lords, 
 Mr. Hastings replied to him, " Then, Larkins, it 
 must be so." 
 
 At length, after repeating again and again the 
 questions which he had asked on the examination 
 in chief, and going through all the bonds and all 
 the presents, and asking whether Mr. Hastings 
 might not have received larger sums, of which 
 Mr. Larkins knew nothing? to which the answer 
 was, he did not know what he might have receiv- 
 ed, but that he did not believe he had received 
 any other sums and asking Mr. Larkins from 
 whom Mr. Hastings had borrowed \aiious sums 
 and whether he had repaid those sums ? To which 
 the most satisfactory answers were given Mr. 
 Burke said he had done, and Mr. Dallas saying 
 he had no further questions to ask, Mr. Larkins 
 withdrew, after undergoing an examination of 
 two very long days, in which he acquitted him- 
 self highly to his own honour, and to that of Mi . 
 
 Hastings'^
 
 ( 525 ) 
 
 Hastings's chara&er, in the fullest and the most 
 complete manner ; for it will be recollected, that 
 at the time it v/as a matter of doubt, whether, ac- 
 cording to the Law of the Land, Mr. Larkins 
 could be called. Mr. Burke affirmed unequivo- 
 cally, that if that witness were examined, he would 
 expose such a system of thieving, cheating, swind- 
 ling, and robbery, that Mr. Hastings would wish 
 for mountains to cover him, and that if he (Mr. 
 Hastings) had ever shewn compassion to man, 
 woman, or infant, Mr. Burke would pity him for 
 objecting to the examination of Mr. Larkins. 
 What is the result? As far as the evidence of a 
 man can go, whom we may describe as covered 
 over with the eulogiums of General Clavering, 
 Colonel Monson, and Mr. Francis, Mr. Hastings, 
 Sir John Macpherson, the Marquis Cornwallis 
 and the Court of Directors, that evidence is most 
 decidedly in favour of Mr. Hastings. He de- 
 scribes him as a man wholly regardless of his own 
 interest, and whose mind was occupied by an at- 
 tention to the interest of his constituents. 
 
 We trust we may now conclude the evidence 
 upon this long and most expensive cause, as 
 closed. That the Nation will cease to be called 
 upon for thousands after thousands, in support of 
 a prosecution of which every man is heartily sick. 
 PO we want to know the result of the measures 
 
 of
 
 (5*6) 
 
 of Mr. Hastings ? Look at the amount of the re- 
 sources Three millions sterling a year when he 
 came to the Government Five millions two hun- 
 dred thoufand pounds when he left it Five milli- 
 ons five hundred thoufand pounds now. Do we 
 want to know the character of Mr. Haftings, and 
 the refpeft in which his name is held in India? 
 Look at the evidence of the Marquis Cornwallis, 
 Col. Blair, Col. Duff, Col. Popham, and of every 
 gentleman who was examined. Look at the tes- 
 timonials transmitted by the natives of India the 
 addresses of the inhabitants of Calcutta the 
 Officers of the army, and the thanks of the Di- 
 reclors and Proprietors approved by the King's 
 Miniflers, for his long, faithful, and able fervices. 
 If we are told in reply, that his fervices were ac- 
 cidental, but that his objeft was as ftated by the last 
 Houfe of Commons, to acquire exorbitant wealth. 
 Let us ask which one fa6l through the whole 
 trial supports fuch a charge, and whether the 
 evidence of Mr. Larkins does not totally do it 
 away? After going through fuch an ordeal, Mr. 
 Hastings may reft in security, his character is be- 
 yond the reach of fate, for the world will always 
 remember that Mr. Hastings was not arraigned for 
 petty crimes, but that he was charged with every 
 atrocity that can disgrace and degrade human 
 
 nature.
 
 (5*7 ) 
 
 nature. In the end, we trust it will appear, that 
 Magna est veritas, et prevalent, a quotation at least 
 as apt as Mr. Burke's, from Martial. 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTIETH DAY. 
 April 25. 
 
 THE Court did not meet this day until twenty 
 minutes after two, although the Lord Chancellor 
 was down by half past one. It was hoped and 
 expecled that the Managers would have proceeded 
 to deliver in what remained of their written evi- 
 dence, and to make their speeches in reply, that 
 the public and the defendant might see an end to 
 this protracled and everlasting Trial; but, to the 
 astonishment of every one, Mr. Burke began by 
 saying, that he was going to open a new head of 
 evidence, in order to convici Mr. Hastings of 
 fraud, robbery, swindling, cheating, and forgery : 
 That it was the more necessary to do so, because 
 Mr. Larkins had attempted to palliate these crimes, 
 by stating that Mr. Hastings was negligent, in- 
 attentive, and laboured under a total want of 
 memory. 
 
 Mr. Law endeavoured, but in vain, to confine 
 Mn Burke within reasonable bounds, but finding 
 
 that
 
 ( 5*8 ) 
 
 that each interruption only led to further di<; 
 ons, he suffered him to proceed as he pleased, 
 and, in a speech of one hour and eight minute*, 
 Mr. Burke went into the explanation of the most 
 singular evidence that ever was offered to be pro- 
 duced in a Court of Justice. It \\ill tend to 
 clear this case to our readers, perhaps, if we state 
 what the cause was originally, and compare it with 
 the grounds now taken. 
 
 When the nation, eight sessions ago, agreed 
 with its representatives to impeach Mr. Hastings, 
 it was upon the idea, that through his measures 
 the welfare of the natives of India had been ma- 
 terially affecled, the revenues of the East India 
 Company greatly diminished, and the British cha- 
 rafter disgraced and degraded in the opinion of 
 the whole world. No such opinions being fashion- 
 able at present, a new ground was taken, and it 
 was said that if Mr. Larkins could but be ex- 
 amined, Mr. Hastings would appear in his true 
 colours, and so apparent would be his guilt, that 
 he would wish for mountains to cover him. Mr. 
 Larkins has been examined fully and completely, 
 and he is now out of fashion with Mr. Burke. 
 
 The hero of this day is Rajah Nobkissen, whom 
 Mr. Burke described as a Jew, a Banyan, and an 
 Usurer that they had to produce from a man of 
 this description, an allegation against Mr. Hast- 
 ings,
 
 (5*9) 
 
 ings, which must be true, because Mr. Hastings 
 had refused to answer it. 
 
 Mr. Burke then went through the case as it 
 appeared on his own evidence: that Mr. Hast- 
 ings had borrowed three lacks of rupees from 
 Nobkissen, which he had afterwards given to 
 the Company, Nobkissen having desired Mr. 
 Hastings to accept it ; that Nobkissen had since 
 applied to have this money again, finding that 
 Mr. Hastings had not taken it to himself, but 
 given it to the Company ; and in the course of 
 his speech, he pitied the unfortunate situation of 
 this banyan and usurer so much, that all the suf- 
 fering millions in India, were for the time for- 
 gotten. Mr. Burke contended, that the bill filed 
 in the name of Nobkissen on this subjecl ought to 
 be received as evidence, in order to introduce 
 the answer given by Mr. Hastings, which was, 
 that as an impeachment upon this very subject was 
 depending, he declined giving any answer at all 
 to the bill filed against him. Mr. Burke argued 
 that the declining to give an answer was a con- 
 fession of guilt. 
 
 Mr. Law very fully answered the argument of 
 Mr. Burke. He said, that the Manager's argu- 
 ments tended to make a trial perpetual; that there 
 must be some period for closing proceedings, but 
 
 that
 
 ( 530 ) 
 
 that in no stage of the trial could the evidence 
 now offered be admissible. 
 
 Mr, Fox and Mr. Angelo Taylor contended 
 for its admissibility, and were most fully and ably 
 replied to by Mr. Law, Mr. Plumer and Mr. 
 Dallas. The latter Gentleman said, broadly, that 
 he believed Nobkissen was induced to enter his 
 bill four years after the commencement of the 
 Impeachment, by the efforts of those who were 
 friendly to the Impeachment ; and he said that 
 under no possible circumstance could the evidence 
 be at mitted. 
 
 Mr. Law and Mr. Plumer reprobated the pre- 
 cedent of Lord Stafford's trial, that it happened 
 almost at the commencement of a rebellion, when 
 the Court and the Judges were panic struck, but 
 that in better times no such doctrines as were fup- 
 ported in 1642 would be admitted. 
 
 Mr. Burke began his reply, by complaining of 
 the length of the speeches of the Counsel, though 
 their four speeches lasted one hour and seven 
 minutes, and Mr. Burke spoke, in his first speech, 
 one hour and eight minutes. He then proceeded, 
 in the strongest language, and with the utmost 
 vehemence of manner, to contend for the admissi- 
 bility of the evidence that he had offered. He 
 said that he was addressing a body of Nobles, and 
 he hoped they would ad like Nobles, and not as 
 
 thieves
 
 (531 ) 
 
 thieves in a night cellar ; that he could not sus- 
 pect them of so foul a thing as to rejeft the evi- 
 dence that he offered ; that the Law of Parlia- 
 ment was distincl from the Law of the Land ; that 
 the Judges had no right to guide the Lords, and 
 he trusted they would at all times follow the ex- 
 ample of the Judges who were in office during' 
 the Trial of Lord Strafford. He closed at six 
 o'clock, and the Lords adjourned, when, as we 
 are informed, it was instantly determined that 
 the evidence offered by Mr. Burke was inad- 
 missible. 
 
 It is impossible to consider the singular pro- 
 ceedings of this day without reflecting very seri- 
 ously on the state of this Impeachment. Either 
 Mr. Burke consults his Lawyers, or he does not. 
 If he does, what is their advice worth ? They re- 
 ceive an enormous sum from the public, and they 
 are always in the wrong ; for we do not find that 
 there is either debate, difference of opinion, or 
 protest on any question of law which the Lords 
 determine. If he does not consult them, why 
 are they paid ? It is well known that Mr. Burke's 
 brother lived very comfortably for six years on 
 the proceeds arising from this Impeachment ; and 
 the whole expence would pay and feed the 
 Prussian Army for two months of the present 
 campaign. 
 
 Again
 
 Again it is to be considered, that Mr. Burke 
 himself does not ad in this case as a mere indi- 
 vidual. When he declared, in the last Parlia- 
 ment, that Mr. Pitt and Mr. Dundas had, in one 
 single instance, been guihy of an aft of greater 
 iniquity and corruption than had been committed 
 by Nero, in the most heroic times of Roman ini- 
 quity ; he only exposed himself, unless he estab- 
 lished the truth of his assertion by proof. When 
 Mr. Burke shocked every Gentleman who was a 
 Member of the last Parliament,, by the manner in 
 which he spoke of his Majesty, at a time when 
 every loyal subjea offered prayers to Heaven for 
 his health, he spoke merely as an individual: but 
 far different is the case at present. He is now the 
 Representative of the Commons, who represent 
 the People of Great Britain. He spends a hun- 
 dred pounds of their money every day the Court 
 meets. Every evidence that he offers, is the wit- 
 ness of the People. Either he takes no advice, 
 or he has very bad advice. Day after day, month 
 after month, and year after year, the trial is 
 dragged on yet the fafts on which the Impeach- 
 ment was first grounded were true or they were 
 false ; all the great points are passed by, and so 
 little remains that we hope and trust the Lords 
 willl take some steps to conclude a trial which, 
 by its length, is become a grievance of a most 
 
 alarming
 
 ( 533 ) 
 
 alarming nature. Little disposed as we are to 
 agree with Mr. Burke in general, we fully concur 
 with him in opinion, that let this trial end when it 
 will, or how it will, infamy must fall fome- 
 where." 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY-FIRST 
 DAY. May i. 
 
 Lord Kenyon sat this day for the Chancellor, 
 and the Court met before two o'clock, when his 
 Lordship informed the Managers, that the evi- 
 dence last offered was inadmissible. Mr. Burke, 
 as usual, said the Commons submitted, though 
 they did not acquiesce, and lamented the incon- 
 veniences which the cause of the Commons sus- 
 tained by the decision. 
 
 Mr. Burke then said he had some important 
 evidence to offer, which he was confident was 
 open to no sort of objeaion, and it was neceflary 
 'for him shortly to open the nature of it. He 
 said, that Mr. Hastings in his defence had stated 
 that the various sums of money which the Com- 
 mons had in faft charged him with receiving, were 
 really taken by him, and applied to the public 
 N N service
 
 (534) 
 
 service in times of great difficulty and distress, 
 and he had given in a very great variety of evi- 
 dence to prove the distressed state of the Com- 
 pany's affairs in the years 1779* 1780, 1781, 
 1782, and 1783. He had also given evidence to 
 prove the great confederacy which was formed 
 against the British Empire in India at those periods, 
 and he loudly boasted of having preserved the 
 British Empire entire in India, while her domini- 
 ons were lost to her in America. Mr. Burke 
 said, the Commons very readily admitted the dis- 
 tresses of the Company to be as great as Mr. Has- 
 tings stated them to be ; but it then became neces- 
 sary, by way of rebutting the defence made by 
 Mr. Hastings, to go into the origin, progress, and . 
 termination of the Maratta War, in order to prove, 
 that Mr. Hastings was the author of that war, 
 which produced the confederacy against us, and 
 excited France to use her utmost efforts for over- | 
 turning the British Empire in India. He conten. 
 ded, that as the defence of Mr. Hastings was new 
 matter, the Commons had a right to rebut it by 
 newmattpr; and in this view they offered it, not 
 stating the Maratta War to be criminal, but that 
 Mr. Hastings was the author of the fiistressei 
 which were brought upon the Company by that 
 war. He therefore proposed to begin with the 
 proceedings of the Governor and Council of 
 ' 3 Bombay ?
 
 ( 535 ) 
 
 Bombay, in 1775, and so to go through the series 
 of measures pursued relative to the Marattas until 
 1783, a body of documents that would fill at the 
 least Seven Folio Volumes, and which could not 
 be gone through in Seven Years. Mr. Fox sup- 
 ported Mr. Burke, but very feebly. No other 
 Manager spoke. 
 
 Mr. Law, with great force, contended that in 
 no possible shape could this evidence be pro- 
 ducedThat there was no point which had been 
 more disputed, than who was, or who was not 
 the author of the Marattawar. It was plain that 
 the late House of Commons did not believe Mr. 
 Hastings to be the author of the war, because' 
 Mr. Burke had originally presented a charge, ac- 
 cusing Mr. Hastings as the author of it. That 
 nothing was ever done upon that charge; Mr 
 Hastings boldly denied it, but claimed all the' 
 merit of reftoring peace to India. How was the 
 fad as applied to the evidence ? The Managers 
 had entered a letter from Mr. Hastings, in which 
 he said that he left Calcutta in July 17 8i, im- 
 pressed with a belief that strong measures were 
 necessary to prevent the Company from sinking 
 under the accumulated difficulties that surrounded 
 them. The Managers had also entered a letter 
 from Sir Eyre Coote, dated in September 1781, 
 in order to prove that at that time no State ne- 
 N w 2 cessity
 
 (536) 
 
 cessity existed. To rebut this evidence, Mr. 
 Law said the Counsel had given a variety of evi- 
 dence to prove the actual state of distress at 
 Madras, Bombay, and Bengal, in 1780, and the 
 subsequent years and now the Managers meant 
 to repel it, by going into the history of the rise, 
 progress, and termination of the Maratta war, a 
 proceeding which he was confident their Lordships 
 would not entertain for a moment. 
 
 Mr. Burke replied at very great length, and 
 with very great violence, going over the same 
 ground again, 
 
 Mr. Law, in reply, said, it would be an in- 
 suit to their Lordships, and treachery to Mr. 
 Hastings, were he to waste a moment in further 
 observations on what had been said by the Ma- 
 nagers. 
 
 Mr. Burke upon this grew exceedingly angry; 
 and after much violent language, he said, that he 
 rejoiced there were some persons amongst the 
 audience of the day (the Turkish Ambassador 
 and his suite were present) who did not understand 
 English, as the chicane practised in this Court was 
 of such a nature, that it would disgrace the pro- 
 ceedings of a Turkish Divan or words very like 
 it. 
 
 Lord Kenyon and several other Lords called 
 to Order, 
 
 Mr-
 
 ( 537 ) 
 
 Mr. Burke was visibly agitated* and qualified 
 what he had said with an if. 
 
 The Bishop of Rochester repeated the words as 
 he understood them and that was, as a reflection 
 upon the Court. 
 
 The Short-hand Writer was referred to; but 
 Mr. Burke said, that Mr. Gurney could not read 
 his own Short-hand Notes. 
 
 Lord Carnarvon got up and said, he did not 
 conceive Mr. Burke mea'nt to refleft upon the 
 Court ; and at last the Lords retired, to determine, 
 whether it was competent to the Commons to go 
 into the origin, progress, and termination of the 
 Maratta war, in order to prove that Mr. Hastings 
 was the author of that war, and could not there- 
 fore plead the distresses and dangers of the Com- 
 pany as an excuse for receiving money privately, 
 and carrying it to the public service, such diffi- 
 culties being occasioned by that war, of which 
 they charged Mr. Hastings to be the Author. 
 The Court adjourned. 
 
 *!,<,'-<: . 
 
 WE HUNDRED AND THIRTY-SECOND 
 DAY. May 7. 
 
 WE have endeavoured through the whole of 
 long and tedious cause to present our readers 
 N N 3 witfy
 
 (538) 
 
 with a fair and impartial statement of the pro- 
 ceedings of each day ; we shall preserve the same 
 spirit of truth, giving the abstract of this day's 
 events, which, blessed be God, is the last of the 
 Trial, the speeches of the Managers exempted a 
 circumstance so important, 'that we congratulate 
 the Lords, the Commons, the Country, and Mr. 
 Hastings, on its having taken place. 
 
 Lord Kenyon (when the Court assembled on 
 this day) informed the Managers, that the evi- 
 dence they had offered could not be admitted. 
 Our readers will recoiled that this evidence did, 
 in faft, comprise the origin, progress, and termi- 
 nation of the Maratta war, including in it a period 
 of eight years, from 1775, to 1783, and filling at 
 the least six folio volumes of printed evidence. 
 
 Mr. Burke observed, that as the Court did not 
 state the grounds on which they rejected the evi- 
 dence, and as the Counsel had offered no argu- 
 ment, except that the admission of it would occa- 
 sion delay, the Commons were utterly at a loss to 
 know why it was refused. Mr. Burke then said 
 that this complaint of delay had been echoed from 
 one end of the kingdom to the other ; that the 
 Managers were libelled, and their motives misre- 
 presented. He then asked what one reason under 
 Heaven the Managers could have for wishing to 
 protrad this Trial, in which they had now been 
 
 engaged
 
 
 ( 539 ) 
 
 engaged above eight years, -arid he himself an In- 
 dian enquirer above fifteen years ; that those who 
 were grown old, naturally wished for repose, and 
 the young to enjoy the pleasures of youth. The 
 prisoner was personally known to none of them, 
 to him they Could have no enmity he interfered 
 not in their polisical pursuits it was therefore 
 impossible for any man^ with any degree of justice, 
 to accuse them of delay. Here Mr. Hastings 
 started up, and said he did dire&ly accuse the 
 Manager of delay; that every word he was now 
 uttering was irrelevant to the cause. He was pro- 
 ceeding further, when Lord Kenyon desired Mr. 
 Burke to proceed, and to go on with the evi- 
 dence to which he supposed his remarks were pre- 
 liminary. 
 
 Mr. Burke then took a Newspaper from his 
 pocket, and said, that the same complaints which 
 Mr. Hastings made^ he had met with in a paper 
 of this morning. After stating much more to the 
 same purpose, Mr. Burke proceeded to read the 
 paper, but was interrupted by Lord Kenyon, who 
 said, the Court could not receive any complaint 
 unless the Manager was prepared to support it by 
 legal evidence. That it was not the duty of the 
 Court to take notice of any matters which were 
 not brought regularly before them. That he 
 knew nothing of any Libels that had been pub- 
 N N 4 lished,
 
 (540 ) 
 
 lished, none of them having come under his in- 
 spection. 
 
 Mr. Burke again proceeded to state, in very 
 strong terms, the unwarrantable liberties taken 
 with the Managers and the Court in the reflecli- 
 ons cast upon them. He was successively inter- 
 rupted by Lord Caernarvon, Lord Thurlow, and 
 Lord Somers, who entreated the Manager to pro- 
 ceed with his evidence. 
 
 Lord Thurlow said, that no complaint could be 
 considered in the Court, unless from some cir- 
 cumstances immediately occurring. That the 
 Managers had it in their power to complain to 
 the House of Commons, who might either pro- 
 ceed themselves or by message to the Lords. 
 
 Lord Somers expressed his hope that the time 
 of the Court would no longer be consumed by 
 matter foreign to the cause. That the Lords 
 would take care of their own privileges. 
 
 Mr. Burke then insisted that they were an in- 
 tegral part of the Court, and he then read a long 
 protest against the decisions of the Court, and 
 denied that the Commons were to be looked upon 
 as common prosecutors. 
 
 The Lords declined to receive the protest. 
 
 Mr. Burke strongly declared that the Commons 
 were not the authors of the delay, and that it must 
 test with the Court or Mr. Hastings. 
 
 The
 
 The Earl of Coventry said, that as the Hon. 
 Manager had taken infinite pains, and in a speech 
 of considerable length, to prove that he neither 
 \vished for nor was the cause of delay, he trusted 
 he would immediately produce his evidence, in 
 order to convince the Court still more of the jus- 
 tice of his remarks. 
 
 This debate was ended about a quarter after 
 three, when Mr. Fox and Mr. Taylor proceeded 
 to deliver the evidence in reply, in the charge of 
 presents and contra&s. 
 
 After Mr. Taylor had concluded his evidence 
 in reply on the contract charge, it was supposed 
 that the whole business was over, but Mr. Burke 
 said he had a new head of evidence to go through; 
 that Mr. Hastings had entered a variety of testi- 
 monials from all ranks of people in India, ex- 
 pressing their fullest approbation of his conduc\ 
 and the sincerest affection for his person that 
 these testimonials were transmitted by Lord Corn- 
 wallis to the Company., and while the Commons 
 of Great Britain were prosecuting Mr. Hastings 
 in the name of the people of India, for practising 
 every species of oppression upon them, that very 
 people were telling the Commons that they were 
 ignorant, uninformed, and deceived; he proposed, 
 therefore, to enter Mr. Barlow's report of the 
 Commerce of Benares, some letters from the 
 
 Nabob
 
 (542 ) 
 
 Nabob Vizier and his Ministers, and some peti- 
 tions from the Raja of Dinagapore and his Coun- 
 sel. To save time, the Counsel said they ad- 
 mitted them all. 
 
 The last documents not being ready, Lord 
 Kenyon said, that the Court had no blame to lay 
 upon the Managers, yet they did think their Agents 
 very reprehensible for not having the evidence 
 at hand ; and as it was understood all the evidence 
 was to be closed on this day, the Court hoped there 
 would be no longer delay, since it must be the 
 wish of all parties to close this long depending 
 Trial in this Session of Parliament. 
 
 Mr. Burke, with infinite solemnity in his man- 
 ner, said to their Lordships" As I have taken 
 " the lead in this cause, it may be supposed that 
 " I am better informed than my Fellow Mana- 
 " gers, of the nature and tendency of the evi- 
 ' dence which is offered that which I now mean 
 to produce; and I call God to witness to the 
 truth of what I assert, is of a nature so impor- 
 " tant, that your Lordships cannot conscientiously 
 go to judgement, unless it is before you ; it is 
 indeed of more consequence than any evidence 
 ' yet before you." At length the Books came, 
 and Mr. Burke said, that one of the testimonials 
 came from the Raja of Dinagapore, and his Mi- 
 lusters. He, therefore, proposed to rebut it by 
 
 giving
 
 ( 545 ) 
 
 giving in the report of Mr. Paterson, on the cru- 
 elties supposed to have been exercised on some 
 inhabitants of Rungpore and Edracpore, in 0>e 
 years 1781, and 1782. 
 
 Mr. Law objeded to this evidence as utterly 
 inadmissible. He reminded the Lords that this 
 was a tale which he had pressed the Manager 
 years ago to bring forward as a charge, in a shape 
 in which it might be answered ; the Manager de- 
 clined to do so ; and he trusted their Lordships 
 would not admit four folio volumes on the Mi- 
 nutes, to which the Defendant could not now 
 reply. Mr. Burke disclaimed every idea of 
 bringing the matter forward in this form, as a 
 criminal charge against Mr. Hastings ; but the 
 Raja of Dinagapore, and his Ministers, having 
 stated the happiness every one enjoyed under the 
 Adminiftration of Mr. Hastings, they meant to 
 shew the miseries which the people sustained, and 
 which induced Mr. Hastings himself to order an 
 investigation of the conduct of Deby Sing, in the 
 year 1782. Mr. Fox supported Mr. Burke. 
 Lord Stanhope, Lord Walsingham, and Lord 
 Kenyon spoke, and it being clearly the sense of 
 the Court that the evidence was inadmissible, Mr. 
 Burke at length gave it up. 
 
 But as this story has been once more, and we 
 believe now for the last time, alluded to, we owe 
 
 it
 
 ( 544 ) 
 
 it in justice to Mr. Hastings to call the attehtioft 
 of our Readers to it. In 1788, in the third day 
 of Mr. Burke's first Speech, he introduced this 
 story, as applicable to the cause of Mr. Hastings. 
 He detailed a variety of horrid cruelties, supposed 
 to have been committed by, or by the orders of 
 Deby Sing, and he said he would bring the charge 
 home to Mr. Hastings. Lord Thurlow, who was 
 then Lord Chancellor, said in the House of Lords, 
 that the charges preferred by the Commons sunk 
 to utter insignificance, when compared with this 
 matter introduced by Mr. Burke in his opening 
 speech, and that Mr. Burke would be a calumniator 
 if he did not bring it forward in such a shape, as 
 would enable Mr. Hastings to reply to it. 
 
 In 1789, Mr. Hastings prayed the Commons 
 to introduce this matter in the form of an Article, 
 or to give him satisfaaion for the injury he sus- 
 tained. 
 
 The Commons did not comply with his re- 
 quest. 
 
 In 1790, the Managers offered tp introduce 
 this report of Mr. Patterson, in order to shew 
 what enormities might be committed without 
 coming to the knowledge of an English Gentle- 
 
 The Counsel rejeQed the evidence thus colla- 
 terally introduced ; but said, that if preferred as a 
 
 charge
 
 ( 545 ) 
 
 charge they were ready and eager to refute it. 
 The Lords voted, that it was inadmissible. 
 
 In *79i, Mr. Hastings complained loudly of 
 the injury he sustained by the introduction of sp 
 atrocious a calumny, as this tale of Deby Sing 
 was. He stated what was stri&ly true, that in no 
 possible view could he be implicated in such 
 charges as were proved against Deby Sing, since 
 he had been most anxious to deleft them, and to 
 punish the men if found guilty : that the cause did 
 not come to a conclusion in his Government, but 
 in the Administration of Lord CornwaUis, when 
 it fully appeared, that the guilt of Deby Sing was 
 trifling in a comparison with the magnitude of the 
 accusation, and .that the most dreadful of these 
 cruelties, which Mr. Burke detailed with so much 
 effect in Westminster-Hall in 1788, never were 
 committed at all. Mr. Burke had it in his power 
 at any time, to lay before the Commons the grounds 
 on which he imputed criminality to Mr. Hastings 
 on this subject; but this he declined to do, and 
 the whole tale has been buried in oblivion to this 
 day, when Mr. Burke endeavoured to get it on 
 the minutes of the trial ; not as a charge against 
 Mr. Hastings not with the hope of obtaining re- 
 dress for the people of India, but in order to 
 prove that the testimonials transmitted by Lord 
 CornwaUis from Dinagapore, in 1789, could not 
 
 be
 
 ( 546 ) 
 
 be true, because great enormities which Mr. 
 Hastings was most anxious to deleft and to punish, 
 were said to have been committed there in 
 1782. 
 
 The evidence being rejected, and the Managers 
 declaring that they had totally closed their evi- 
 dence, Mr. Law concluded the day by the Fol- 
 lowing energetic address to the Court : 
 
 The evidence on the part of the prosecution 
 being now fully closed, we might avail ourselves 
 *' of your Lordships indulgence in this stage of the 
 * proceedings, to observe at large upon the evi- 
 n dence adduced in reply, during the course of 
 ** the present Sessions of Parliament. But my Lords, 
 * in pursuance of the same purpose which induced 
 us in the last Sessions to forego a similar advan- 
 ' tage, and to submit our evidence on one article of 
 C charge, the Contracts, to your Lordships consi- 
 deration, unaccompanied by any prefatory or 
 concluding comments whatsover, and to leave 
 * the evidence on another article, that of Presents, 
 ** unenforced by such concluding observations, as 
 " in other circumstances, we might have been dis- 
 " posed to offer 
 
 " In pursuance of that same purpose of accelera- 
 * tion and dispatch, which dictated our conduct in 
 the instance I have alluded to, and with a view to 
 ** the nearer and mo re immediate termination of this 
 
 "long
 
 (547 ) 
 
 '< long depending trial, we again relinquish an ad- 
 " vantage which can only be purchased at the in- 
 tolerable price of further protm&ion and delay. 
 " All the attempts made in the present Session, to 
 *' support the case of the prosecution, have ended 
 *' in producing an effect dire&ly contrary. We 
 " confidently trust, that the strong and important 
 " conclusions in favour of the defendant, which re- 
 " suit from the invaluable oral testimony lately 
 " given at your Lordships' Bar, cannot either have 
 " escaped your Lordships' penetration, or fail to 
 " have their due effe6l hereafter upon your Lord- 
 " ships' judgement. 
 
 *t After returning to your Lordships our humble 
 " but grateful acknowledgements for the invariable 
 " patience" and condescension with which our zea- 
 " lous but imperfect endeavours to discharge our 
 " bounden duty towards our client, have been at 
 " all times honoured during the cour*e of so many 
 <( years, it only remains for us, in the name and on 
 " the behalf of Mr. Hastings to implore, that so 
 " much of continued time may be yet allotted to 
 " this trial in the course of the present Sessions, as 
 " may be sufficient to bring it to an entire and ulti- 
 c{ mate conclusion. To that moment Mr. Hastings 
 " looks forward with impatient but fearless expec- 
 " tation being as he is equally assured of his own 
 5* innocence, and your Lordships' justice." 
 
 ONE
 
 (548 ) 
 
 0J\T HUNDRED AND THIRTY-THIRD 
 DAY. May 8. 
 
 Mr. Grey, on this day summed up, in part, the 
 evidence in reply, on the Benares article. Before 
 we go into the particulars of his speech, we fhall 
 recall to our readers' attention the circumstances 
 under which this most singular of all transactions 
 came to be preferred as a high crime against Mr. 
 Hastings. 
 
 In 1786, Mr. Fox, who opened the charge in 
 the House of Commons, argued, that Mr. Hast- 
 ings had no right to demand military aid from 
 Cheyt Sing, and that therefore all the a&s which 
 followed, and were consequent of it, were cri- 
 minal. That the objeft of Mr. Hastings was to 
 ruin Cheyt Sing, and that he was aftuated against 
 him by malice. In this opinion a large party fol- 
 lowed Mr. Fox. 
 
 Mr. Pitt argued that Mr. Hastings had a right 
 to tax Cheyt Sing, and that as all the afts which 
 followed were justified by that right, they were 
 not criminal. That there was not a shadow of 
 evidence on which Mr. Hastings could be charged 
 
 with
 
 
 ( 549 ) 
 
 with malice; but, said Mr. Pitt, Mr. Hastings 
 was criminal in intending to commit an aft which 
 he did not commit; that is, to impose a fine of 
 forty or fifty lacks of rupees upon Cheyt Sing for 
 his contumacy. In this opinion too, Mr. Pitt 
 was followed by a large party. 
 
 The resolution put to the vote was, that in the 
 Benares Charge there was matter for crimination, 
 and it was carried 119 against 79. 
 
 But though Mr. Pitt and his friends, on the 
 one side, and Mr. Fox and his supporters on 
 the other, thought Mr. Hastings was criminal, 
 they fundamentally disagreed as to the point of 
 criminality. 
 
 But seventy nine Members voted that there 
 was no criminal matter in the charge. These, 
 therefore, must have agreed with Mr. Pitt that 
 Mr. Hastings had a right to tax Cheyt Sing, and 
 with Mr. Fox, that it was not a crime in Mr. 
 Hastings to intend to levy the fine, which, whether 
 enormous or not, he did not levy. These seventy- 
 nine Members formed a third party. 
 
 Now let us see how the case would have stood 
 had the opinion of the House been taken seriatim 
 on each allegation. 
 
 It cannot be known how many Members joined 
 
 in opinion respectively with Mr. Pitt and Mr. 
 
 Fox; but as the number was 119, it will be fair 
 
 oo to
 
 (550) 
 
 to state them as equal that is, 60 on one side, and 
 60 on the other. We will suppose the question 
 first to have been put by Mr. Fox, on the crimi. 
 nality of demanding a war subsidy from Cheyt 
 Sing. Mr. Pitt and his Partizans would have 
 voted that it was not criminal but meritorious; 
 and to their number 60, the number of the third 
 party, which is 79, being added, would have 
 made 139 against 60, for rejecting the -question. 
 
 If after this, the question of the criminality 
 of the intention of finding had been put by Mr. 
 Pitt, this too would in like manner have been 
 rejected by 139 against 60, and the charge thus 
 wholly dismissed ; whereas, by blending two dif- 
 ferent propositions in one question, the charge 
 was carried by the union of two parties, enter- 
 taining sentiments diametrically opposite in the 
 same question. 
 
 The charge so voted in 1786, and reduced to 
 the form of an article in 1787, was supported by 
 the Managers in 1788, answered in 1792, and 
 now in this year 1794, and on this day Mr. Grey 
 replied to the evidence of the Counsel. 
 
 Mr. Grey took up a considerable time in reply- 
 ing to a charge brought against the Managers, of 
 wilfully garbling and misrepresenting fafts, both 
 in the mode in which the article was drawn, and 
 in the mode in which the Managers supported it. 
 
 He
 
 ( 551 ) 
 
 He said the charge was serious , heavy, and that 
 it was a charge against the House of Commons, 
 -whose Representatives they were. He then went 
 through the different instances, with what success 
 we do not presume to say, but a short relation of 
 the main fact may help the public judgment. 
 
 In January 1775, Sujah Dovvlah died. Mr. 
 Hastings contended, that the Treaties subsisting 
 between the States of Oude and Bengal did not 
 Cease by the death of the Sovereign of Oude. 
 The majority, Messrs. Clavering, Monson, and 
 Francis, voted, That they did cease and that they 
 had a right to conclude a new Treaty, exacling 
 the best terms they could for the Company. Being 
 but voted, Mr. Hastings made a new proposition, 
 which was, that Cheyt Sing should be made a 
 Sovereign, subject only to the payment of a cer- 
 tain sum, half of which Bengal was to receive, 
 and half the Sovereign of Oude. This proposi- 
 tion was also negatived. 
 
 Now, the charge brought against the Mana- 
 gers is this that they applied the reasons offered 
 by Mr. Hastings, to support a proposition that 
 was negatived, to a proposition afterwards made, 
 and which was accepted. The question is very 
 simple : Upon what principle could the Managers 
 feason in support of Rights, which Chcyt Sing 
 really possessed ? Not surely from any arguments 
 002 urged
 
 ( 552 ) 
 
 urged by Mr. Hastings to induce the majority t<j 
 confer Sovereign Rights upon him, which they 
 would not confer, but from the aBual Rights con- 
 ferred upon him by Treaty, not from any resolu- 
 tion they found in February, as to what should 
 form an article in a Treaty not then executed, 
 but from what was really contained in the Treaty 
 itself when executed. We then come^at last to 
 this simple point Was, or was not Cheyt Sing 
 bound to afford Military assistance to his Sovereign 
 the Company, in war? and Mr. Grey put it upon 
 this issue a point we again say (and lament it as 
 a very great misfortune), that the Commons, to 
 this hour, never did come to a specific vote 
 upon. 
 
 Mr. Grey put this question upon its true ground, 
 and he contended that Mr. Hastings had no right, 
 under existing engagements, to demand a subsidy 
 from Cheyt Sing in war. He very candidly ad- 
 mitted that Mr. Hastings had fairly refuted one 
 allegation in the charge, that is, that he acled un- 
 der the pretence of a war. Mr. Hastings having 
 fully proved that he had received such information 
 from Lord Stormont, (now Earl of Mansfield) 
 as made it his duty to provide against the evils 
 which might result from a war, to which Europe 
 owed all the evils that it now experienced, and 
 the greater with which she is threatened meaning 
 
 the
 
 ( 553 ) 
 
 the American war, in which the late Monarch of 
 France had the folly to take a part. 
 
 The remainder of Mr. Grey's speech was em- 
 ployed in the defence of Mr. Francis's conduct, 
 in the course of which, he stated one faft, that 
 totally exculpates Mr. Hastings even upon Mr. 
 Grey's principles. It was this : That when Mr. 
 Hastings, in 1778, proposed to call on Cheyt Sing 
 for a war subsidy, Mr. Francis expressed a doubt 
 as to our right to make such a demand, though he 
 acquiesced in its being made. That Mr. Hastings 
 expressed his firm conviction of the right, adding 
 that we were precluded by no engagements from 
 increasing the power inherited in every State, of 
 calling in all its subje&s for extraordinary aids in 
 times of extraordinary emergencies ; but as Mr. 
 Francis had doubts, he proposed to leave the 
 Question of Right to be determined by the Court 
 of Directors. We arc at a loss to know how abi- 
 lities, eloquence, or quibble, can get the better 
 of this fal. Mr. Hastings afting under a dele- 
 gated authority, acis according to his judgment. 
 Jf he acted wrong the Directors were to set him 
 right, which they could have done in one year. 
 They received the benefit of the exaction ; but 
 we forbear to push this observation further, until 
 we hear what Mr. Grey says, on Mr. Pitt's full 
 acquiescence in Mr. Hastings's opinion of the 
 003 right.
 
 (554 ) 
 
 right, and until we hear what he says, of this natiori 
 having benefited to the amount of six millions 
 sterling by the expulsion of Cheyt Sing, and their 
 renewing the Charter of the Company for twenty 
 years, taking to itself two hundred thousand pound! 
 a year from Benares, which is, in Mr. Guy's 
 doctrine, a direct robbery. 
 
 Mr. Grey, as a fuir and candid man, will not 
 place the supposed occurrence of the House of 
 Commons, in opposition to positive facts. He 
 knows that this House never did give an opinion 
 as to the right of taxing Cheyt Sing, and that 
 that question never was specifically voted by the 
 last Parliament. 
 
 At twenty minutes after three, Mr. Grey begged 
 to retire, be.ng ill and fatigued; at his ck'sirc the 
 Court adjourned to Monday. 
 
 We are sorry that of twenty Managers, no one 
 was ready to proceed, though the Commons this 
 year sent a message to the Lords, to inform them 
 that they were ready to proceed day by day if their 
 Lordships thought proper. 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY- FOURTH 
 DAY. May 12. 
 
 THE Court met on this day before half past 
 twelve o'clock, being very thinly attended, though 
 
 the
 
 ( 555 ) 
 
 tlie auditors were numerous, when Mr. Grey im- 
 mediately proceeded to close his summary evi- 
 dence in reply on the first Article. He began by 
 repeating the substance of his last speech, and 
 very fairly admitted that the point of Right to 
 demand assistance from Cheyt Sing in war, was 
 the main point on which the innocence or guilt of 
 Mr. Hastings must turn. He lamented that he 
 could not be more amusing, but he said that the 
 subject, though dry, was of the utmost impor- 
 tance. 
 
 Mr. Grey's speech, for the first hour, was chiefly 
 a defence of the consistency of Mr. Francis, in 
 which we say with deference that Mr. Grey com- 
 pletely failed Not that it is of the least conse- 
 quence in the decision of this cause, for we fully 
 subscribe to the justice of a remark made by Mr. 
 Grey, that to fix on the House of Commons the 
 justice of the charge -of inconsistency in not im- 
 peaching Mr. Francis, would by no means ex- 
 culpate Mr. Hastings. 
 
 The plain and simple faft, stripped of oratory 
 on both sides, is this 
 
 That in July 1778, Mr. Hastings proposed to 
 call upon Cheyt Sing to maintain three battalions 
 of Sepoys during the war, of which they had then 
 received intelligence. 
 
 004 That
 
 (556) 
 
 That Mr. Francis concurred in the demand, 
 though he expressed doubts as to the right. 
 
 That Mr. Hastings most clearly expressed his 
 opinion as to that right; the Company, as Sove- 
 reigns, not being precluded by any existing en- 
 gagements, from exercising the right inherent in 
 all States, to call upon their subjefts for extraor- 
 dinary aids, in times of extraordinary emergency, 
 and that Mr. Hastings expressly referred the 
 question of right to be settled by the Court of 
 Directors. 
 
 That on Cheyt Sing demurring to pay the 
 Subsidy, Mr. Francis again expressed his double 
 as to the right, and Mr. Hastings again expressed 
 his clear conviction of the Company possessing 
 the right. 
 
 In 1779, Mr. Hastings again proposed, that 
 Cheyt Sing should pay five Lacks for that year, 
 and that Mr. Francis concurred; but on Cheyt 
 Sing demurring, Mr. Francis again expressed his 
 doubts as to the right, and his opinion that Cheyt 
 Sing had not the ability to oppose the compulsory 
 measures which Mr. Hastings proposed to adopt. 
 
 Thatih 1780, Mr. Hastings again proposed to 
 call upon Cheyt Sing for his subsidy. That Mr. 
 Francis concurred ; and on the usual delays being 
 made, Mr. Francis also concurred in a proposition 
 for marching troops to compel the payment ; and 
 
 in
 
 ( 557 ) 
 
 in a preposition for exacting a, fine of one Lack 
 of Rupees for his contumacy, the words of Mr. 
 Francis were " I acquiesce, though I hope the 
 * 6 threat will be sufficient." These are the Fa6ls 
 stripped of all ornament, and the world will draw 
 their own conclusions. 
 
 After going through these points, Mr. Grey 
 came to a further demand of cavalry, which 
 Cheyt Sing was required to ftirnish. He admitted 
 that Mr. Francis did concur in this demand ; but 
 he said, that finding opposition ineffe&ual, Mr. 
 Francis was was then nearly about to quit Bengal, 
 and did, in faft, embark for Europe the month 
 after the demand was made. Mr. Grey, in the 
 fullest manner made that admission which the late 
 House of Commons never would admit, namely, 
 that rhe distress of the Company's affairs in No- 
 vember 1780, was to the full as great as the Coun- 
 cil of Mr. Hastings had stated it to be. Mr. 
 Grey imputed to Mr. Hastings the demand of 
 cavalry from Cheyt Sing. The faft is as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 At the close of September, 1780, the Supreme 
 Council of Bengal received advice of the defeat 
 of Col. Baillie in the Carnatic, the retreat of Sir 
 Jie&or Munro to Madras, and the expectation of 
 a French armament. 
 
 In
 
 In addition to this intelligence, 30,000 Ma- 
 ratta Horse were on the borders of Bengal, near 
 Midnapore, and another body of Marattas was 
 expefted to invade Bahar. In this perilous state, 
 Mr. Hastings proposed to send ample assistance 
 to the Carnatic, and he requested Sir Eyre Coote 
 himself to take the command of the army on the 
 coast. He also requested Sir Eyre Cootc, prior 
 to his departure, to give the Supreme Council his 
 ideas of the best mode of defending Bengal against 
 the dangers that surrounded it. Sir Eyre Coote 
 did so, and he proposed, as one measure, to form 
 a camp in Bahar, to be composed of certain bat- 
 talions, and as many cavalry as could be procured 
 from Cheyt Sing. The Board (Mr. Francis con- 
 curring) requested Mr. Hastings to write to Cheyt 
 Sing for Cavalry. Such is the origin of the de- 
 mand for Cavalry, which Mr. Hastings is charged 
 with having made, in order to harrass, oppress, 
 and ruin Cheyt Sing. 
 
 After this, Mr. Grey came to the period of 
 Mr. Hastings going to Benares, in July 1781 ; 
 and here he made a pointed reference to the state 
 of home Politics at this moment. He said Mr. 
 Hastings went to Benares, intending to exaft Five 
 Hundred Thousand Pounds from Cheyt Sing, 
 for his delinquencies, in aid of the Company's 
 distresses. He reminded their Lordships, that 
 
 this
 
 (559) 
 
 this nation was engaged at this moment in a war 
 of the utmost difficulty and danger a war which 
 l.ad brought great distress upon the country ; and 
 they had the melancholy prospeft of that distress 
 increasing considerably before they should meet 
 again to give their judgment on this important 
 cause. Suppose one of his Majesty's Ministers 
 \vas to propose, if Mr. Hastings should be con- 
 victed, that a large fine should be exaBed from 
 him, in order to ease the people of the burthens 
 brought upon them by this necessary war. God 
 forbid, said Mr. Grey, that such should be the 
 law of this country. He wished their Lordships 
 would reject so monstrous a doclrine. He said 
 he fully concurred with the Counsel, that if the 
 piain and principal aft were proper in Mr. Hast- 
 'ings, he meant exacting a War Subsidy, and if 
 Cheyt Sing had been guilty of the contumacy with 
 which he was charged, then the proposed fine of 
 Five Hundred Thousand Pounds was not enor- 
 mous; on the contrary, the expulsion of Cheyt 
 Sing was a proper measure. 
 
 Mr. Grey, after commenting on the evidence, 
 adverted to the remarks of the Counsel on the 
 difference of opinion subsisting in the late House, 
 as to the point of criminality in this charge. He 
 did not think it quite decent in the Counsel to 
 allude to it, but since they had, he would notice 
 
 it.
 
 (5<5o) 
 
 it. It was pcrfeaiy true, that a Gentleman of ' 
 great influence, and whose talents he admired, - 
 though he differed from him in politics, had givea 
 it as his clear and decided opinion, that Mr. Hast- 
 ings was warranted in making the demands he did 
 on Chcyt Sing an opinion to which neither he 
 (Mr. Grey) nor those who conducted this Impeach- 
 ment could subscribe to; but that Mr. Pitt thought 
 it criminal to intend to impose so large a fine upon 
 him, 
 
 Mr. Grey did not pursue this to any conclu- 
 fion; either he should not have alluded to this . 
 difference of opinion at all, or he ought to have 
 stated all the points of difference. 
 
 Mr. Pitt not only most fully stated the right 
 vhich Mr. Hastings had to make these several de- 
 mands that are stated to be criminal in his articles; 
 but that the prevarication and contumacy of Cheyt 
 Sing was such, as justly to subject him to punish- 
 ment. The offence of Mr. Hastings, in Mr. Pitt's 
 idea > was the enormous amount of the intended 
 fine. The complaint of Mr. Hastings is, and it 
 js the first and great cause of the duration of the 
 Trial that the sense of the late House never was 
 taken on the separate allegations in the Article. 
 Mr. Pitt also stated his clear opinion, that there 
 vras no evidence to warrant the conclusion, tha t 
 Mr. Hastings was actuated by malice, yet h? is 
 
 charged,
 
 charged with doing all that he did from malicious 
 motives. Take away the charge of malice, and 
 allow the right to demand a subsidy what then 
 becomes of Mr. Fox, and the Managers ? 
 
 Mr. Grey at the close contended, that if the 
 Lords adopted the opinion of the Managers, Mr. 
 Hastings would merit a severe punishment. IF 
 they adopted the opinion of Mr. Pitt, he would 
 deserve some punishment, because, though no 
 fine had in fa6i been imposed, it was clear Mr. 
 Hastings intended to impose one. He ran cur- 
 sorily over the remaining part of the observations 
 of the Counsel, and made no remarks on Mr. 
 Dallas's conclusion on the nature of British 
 justice. 
 
 The fact, however, is, that Cheyt Sing had been 
 now expelled nearly thirteen years ; in that period, 
 the Nation has received six millions sterling, every 
 shilling of which is a robbery and plunder from 
 Cheyt Sing, if he were unjustly expelled, and 
 the nation has consented to receive from Benares, 
 for twenty years to come, two hundred thousand 
 pounds a year more than they have a right to re- 
 ceive, provided his expulsion was unjust. 
 
 Mr. Grey concluded his summary by taking a 
 ground totally different from that on which the 
 charge was originally entertained, Mr. Grey seem- 
 ed to feel the weakness of his case. It was first 
 
 brought
 
 (56* ) 
 
 brought on and first argued in a manly way- 
 Tnat Mr. Hastings had made dc.nands contr iry to 
 treaty That his motive for making the demand 
 was ma'ice, and his object to rain Cheyt Sin.;.- 
 At the close, Mr. Grey allowed that Mr. Pitt jus- 
 tified the right to make the demands, and scouted 
 the charge of malice. But Mr. Grey contended, 
 that if the Lords should concur with Mr. Pitt, 
 still the proposed punishment exceeded the actual 
 offence. Is there then an Englishman who will 
 not lament, that at the close of the seventh year 
 of a trial, it shou'd be a matter of doubt whether 
 the Commons, who voted to impeach Mr. Hast- 
 ings, diJ vote upon the narrow ground Mr. Pitt 
 put the matter, or upon the broad ground on 
 which the Managers originally put it. Such is the 
 consequence of voting charges in a lump, and we 
 trust it will operate as an example in all future 
 impeachments. 
 
 The ground of the Benares charge is malice, 
 and the various demands made by Mr. Hastings 
 on Cheyt Sing, were stated to be made with a 
 view of harrassing, oppressing, and finally ruining 
 him, in order to gratify the malice that Mr. Hast- 
 ings had conceived. The proof of the malice 
 Mr. Grey said, though not clear, was fairly to be 
 
 inferred from the circumstance of Mr. Hastings 
 
 
 
 having stated in his Narrative and Defence, that 
 
 it
 
 
 it was highly indecent, and presumptuous in Cheyt 
 Sing so far to interfere in the unfortunate political 
 dispute of Bengal, as to send a Vakeel' to con- 
 gratulate General Clavering on his supposed ac- 
 cession to the Government of Bengal, at the time 
 he attempted to seize it by violence. Mr. Pitt 
 had treated such a proof with the utmost derision 
 and contempt when it was offered to justify the 
 charge in the House of Commons. 
 
 Another proof that Mr. Hastings was actuated 
 by malice was this : that no demands had been 
 made on the Zemindars of Bengal. It has already 
 been stated, in reply to this observation, that 
 the lands of Bengal were let, either at their utmost 
 value, or which is the same, at an amouut which 
 was supposed to be the utmost the lands would 
 yield. 
 
 But the supposition, the most extraordinary in 
 Mr. Grey's Speech was, that if Mr. Hastings 
 should be convicted, one of the King's Ministers, 
 on Mr. Hastings's principles, might propose to 
 ease the burthens of the people, by imposing a 
 large fine upon him. Let us bring this argument 
 to the test of common sense : Suppose, as Mr. 
 Grey did, that the Lords were to take up Mr. 
 Pitt's idea, and to think that Mr. Hastings, by the 
 Constitution of India, had a right to call upon 
 
 Cheyt
 
 f 564 ) 
 
 Cheyt Sing for extraordinary aids in time of ex- 
 traordinary emergencies. Suppose them to rcjeft, 
 as absurd and impossible, (as Mr. Pitt did), the 
 charge of malice, which is, in faft, the foundation 
 of the whole. Suppose them to think (as Mr. 
 Pitt professed to do) that the conduft of Cheyt 
 Sing was in the highest degree contumacious, and 
 merited severe punishment, and suppose them to 
 be of opinion, that the proposed fine of fifty 
 lacks did exceed the aftual offence, then the ques- 
 tion would be, whether upon the principles of 
 Mr. Hastings, one of the King's Ministers could 
 propose to relieve the public exigencies of this 
 country, by imposing a large fine upon him. 
 
 Mr. Hastings, in July 1781, was surrounded 
 with difficulties ; he could not do as Mr. Pitt does . 
 he could not borrow as many millions as he want- 
 ed, and tax posterity with the interest of the debt. 
 He had, in faft, borrowed as much money as he 
 could get, before July 1781, and the Carnatic, 
 and Bombay, looked to him for the pay and sub- 
 sistence of their armies. 
 
 Under such circumstances he intended to levy 
 a fine of forty or fifty lacks of rupees, from a man 
 who had been guilty of various als of contumacy 
 and disobedience, and to employ that money in 
 relief of the pressing exigencies of the state over 
 
 which
 
 (565 ) 
 
 \vhich Mr. Hastings presided. He believed, and 
 he thought right, that this sum did not exceed a 
 third of the money in Cheyt Sing's possession. 
 In pursuance of his plan, Cheyt Sing was put . 
 under an arrest. He was rescued, flew to arms, 
 was victorious in the first instance, but in a month 
 totally expelled from his Zemindary, carrying 
 with him the principal part of his treasures. A 
 new settlement was formed, by which the State 
 gained an additional revenue of two hundred 
 thousand pounds a year, which it has received 
 from 1781, to this time, a period of nearly thirteen 
 years. 
 
 Were the King's Minister to take up Mr. Grey's 
 idea, we know not how it could apply to the case 
 before us ; Mr. Hastings intended merely to take 
 four or five hundred thousand pounds from Cheyt 
 Sing, a powerful and disaffecled subject, but to 
 leave him the remainder of his wealth, and the 
 \indisturbed possession of his Zemindary. His 
 expulsion was the consequence of his resistance ; 
 and the State acquired an addition of 200,000!. a 
 year, which, with principal and interest, added 
 to the money taken at Bidjygur, makes about six 
 millions sterling. If it were an enormous oppres- 
 sion to propose to take 4 or 500,000!. from Cheyt 
 Sing, surely his expulsion is a greater act of vio- 
 lence, and calls loudly for redress. 
 
 p p Mark
 
 (566) 
 
 Mark then what would be the consequence! 
 The nation has spent One Hundred Thousand 
 Pounds on this Trial : That money is lost and 
 gone for ever. But even a part of it could not 
 be recovered under the shape of a fine from Mr. 
 Hastings, without the firmest conviction in the 
 mind of every honest man, that Cheyt Sing 
 ought instantly to be restored to Benares, and to 
 receive from this country every rupee that has 
 been unjustly taken from him. In this manner 
 the Managers have invariably argued, and they 
 have spoke the language of justice and common 
 sense. The same Minister, therefore, who car- 
 ries to the Exchequer the fine of Mr. Hastings, 
 must drain the Exchequer of thirty-four milli- 
 ons, seven hundred and ten thousand pounds ; 
 for of that sum has Great Britain robbed India, 
 through the agency of Mr. Hastings, provided 
 there be truth in the language of the Gentlemen 
 who have conducted the Impeachment. We think 
 Mr. Grey argues fairly and seldom widely ; but 
 we have stated this instance, in order to shew that 
 the ablest men will sometimes push an argument 
 too far, 
 
 ON
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY-FIFTH 
 DAY. May 15. 
 
 Mr. Sheridan performed his . promise to the 
 Lords, and finished what he had to offer in two 
 hours and forty minutes. His speech was replete 
 wit with and humour. The argumentative parts 
 of his speech took up very little time, but he 
 replied at considerable length to the animadver- 
 sion of the Counsel of Mr. Hastings, on Mr. 
 Sheridan's former speech. He justified himself 
 from a very severe charge brought against him by 
 Mr. Law, of having asked Mr. Middleton a ques- 
 tion, and misleading him in his answer, by a paper 
 that he put into his hand. He said it was the late 
 Earl Camden who had asked the question which 
 Mr. Law had supposed to come from the Ma- 
 nager. 
 
 He contended, that not one piece of evidence 
 produced by the Managers had been disproved 
 during the defence. He said, that much time 
 had been taken by Counsel in their speeches, in 
 order to prove points which he conceived of very 
 p p 2 little
 
 (568) 
 
 little importance to the cause. He ran very cur- 
 sorily through the evidence, and said, though 
 it was very true that the belief of the disaffection 
 of the Begum obtained very generallry through- 
 out India, it was rather a proof of the success of 
 Mr. Hastings's scheme, than any thing else. That 
 it was exceedingly improbable the Begum should 
 be concerned in rebellion, and sai4 that the 
 evidence of two Nujeebs being taken in arms 
 at Pateeta, did not weigh in his mind. That 
 in this stage of the business he should think 
 all warm and intemperate expressions highly im- 
 proper, and therefore should abstain from using 
 them. 
 
 In conclusion, Mr. Sheridan said, that the 
 Counsel had endeavoured to deter their Lord- 
 ships from finding a verdiQ against Mr. Hastings, 
 by stating, that Six Hundred Thousand Pounds 
 had been taken from him for the public service 
 at a moment of great public exigency: that it 
 had all been employed in the public service, antf 
 that the Nation, knowing of the transaction a few 
 months after it had taken place, had full oppor- 
 tunity of redressing the wrong nearly twelve years 
 ago. That it was impossible to vote that Mr. 
 Hastings had afted wrong, unless they were pre- 
 pared to do full and completejustice to those who 
 bad been injured, 
 
 Mr.
 
 (5*9) 
 
 Mr. Sheridan said, he joined issue with the 
 Counsel he fulty concurred with them : but such 
 was his idea of the justice of their Lordships, 
 that he was convinced they never would be de- 
 terred from doing justice from a dread of the con- 
 sequences CEconomical as the House of Com- 
 mons was, he never could believe that they Would 
 deny justice to the people of India, because jus- 
 tice could not be done to them, without calling 
 upon the people of England fora very heavy pay- 
 ment. For his own part, convinced as he was, 
 that on this article Mr. Hastings was guilty of 
 having taken from the Begum a large sum of mo- 
 ney for the public, on a charge of rebellion, which 
 was ill-founded, he was ready to avow, that it 
 would be impossible to declare Mr. Hastings guil- 
 ty, without giving to the Begum compleat restitu- 
 tion of all that had been taken from her, principal 
 and interest. It was stated to amount to two 
 millions sterling. 
 
 The Counsel had assumed, that the Benares 
 Charge also was totally disproved ; but they 
 argued in the same manner, that if it were not 
 disproved the Nation was bound to restore to 
 Cheyt Sing, to call him from his present miserable 
 situation, whether in a Maratta or a Mysore Camp, 
 to pay back to him the Millions which had been 
 brought into the Exchequer by his expulsion, and 
 p p 3 to
 
 (57) 
 
 to place him precisely in the state in which he 
 stood when he was driven from Benares thirteen 
 years ago. He would go further every person 
 injured by the afcls of Mr. Hastings had a right to 
 full retribution, or there was no justice in the pro- 
 secution of the Commons ; but he hoped their 
 Lordships would not be deterred from their duty 
 by such considerations. The Commons were not 
 prosecuting for personal purposes. No. It was 
 to do justice to India; and to suppose that if it 
 should appear the people of India were injured, 
 this nation would merely stop at condemning the 
 man who had injured them, while the nation re- 
 ceived the advantages arising from his injustice, 
 was a libel upon the country. Mr. Sheridan pur- 
 sued this line of argument with infinite ability for 
 some time, and concluded by thanking their Lord- 
 ships for their indulgence, and by lamenting the 
 length of this Trial, as a most heavy grievance, 
 though he said he would not enter now into the 
 cause of its protraction. 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY-SIXTH 
 DAY. M<yi 7 . 
 
 Mr. Fox began soon after one, by stating that 
 it was his duty, however harsh it may be, to en- 
 force,
 
 force, in the last stage of it, that charge which he 
 had summed up many years ago. He proceeded 
 to divide the subject of presents into two periods : 
 the first, the sums alledged to have been received 
 in 1772. 
 
 Mr. Fox, in considering this subject, said, that 
 when Mr. Hastings removed Mahomed Reza 
 Cawn, 1772, by order of the Court of Directors, 
 the charge of the Commons was, that Mr. Hastings 
 had virtually appointed Muny Begum to the office 
 which Mahomed Reza Cawn had held; which 
 appointment was, the entire government of Bengal, 
 and the entire conduct and management of its 
 finances. 
 
 Mr. Dallas had contended, that Mr. Hastings 
 had done no such thing. On the contrary, Mr. 
 Hastings had totally abolished the office which 
 Mahomed Reza Cawn held ; that he had taken 
 upon himself and his Council the entire manage- 
 ment of the revenues which Mahomed Reza Cawn 
 had controlled; and that in fa ft and truth, Muny 
 Begum had no power, except in the household of 
 the Nabob. This is a faft so clear, that no child 
 who has been in India can dispute it. 
 
 Mr. Fox then said, that Muny Begum was the 
 Step-mother of the Nabob, and therefore not so 
 proper for the Guardianship as the Nabob's Mo- 
 ther, Mr. Fox, in this part of his argument, to- 
 p p 4 tally
 
 (57* ) 
 
 tally abandoned the assertion of the Commons, 
 which was, in faft, that the Government, of Ben- 
 gal was delivered up to Muny Begum by Mr. 
 Hastings. 
 
 After a long argument, Mr. Fox came to the 
 real point of the charge, which was, that Mr. 
 Castings made the appointment for money ; Mr. 
 Hastings admitted that one Lack and a half of 
 Rupees had been received for entertainment, 
 which sum the Manager contended was a bribe 
 received by Mr. Hastings for an appointment to 
 an important office. 
 
 Mr. Fox spent a considerable time in going 
 into presumptions, as to the other sums charged 
 to have been received ; but at last the whole turns 
 upon this sum of one and a half lack of rupees, 
 which Mr. Hastings confessed to have received* 
 
 and which he never did deny having received. 
 
 Most fortunately, for the honour of Mr. Has- 
 tings, and for the cause of justice, Mr. Fox had 
 the candour to bring forward a decisive piece of 
 evidence in reply, which Mr. Hastings's Counsel 
 had most anxiously wished to produce ; but it was 
 not discovered while the defence was depending. 
 It totally cuts up the whole argument of the bribe 
 from Muny Begum. 
 
 Mr. Fox called Mr. Wright, the Auditor of 
 India Accounts, and asked him : 
 
 O. From
 
 ( 573 ) 
 
 Q. " From the time of Meer Jaffier to the ac- 
 " cession of Mr. Hastings, do there appear any 
 " allowances for the expences of an English Go- 
 " vernor on the accounts of the Company ? 
 
 A. " Not in the accounts of the Company - 
 
 " The book I have before me is called the Trea- 
 " sury Accounts with the Nizamut. There is an 
 " entry in the Belah Establishment for the month 
 " of Suffa Sun, yth of the reign under the head 
 " of Morta Prucka. Paid charges of entertain- 
 " ing Lord Clive, 23,000 rupees. For the month 
 " of Suffa Sun, 8th of the reign. By the Hon. 
 " Harry Verelst paid him for his daily charges 
 " 2000 rupees a day, 96,000 rupees. These are 
 " all the entries prior to the accession of Mr. 
 " Hastings, for the expences of that kind." 
 
 Here, then, is proof positive that Mr. Hastings 
 did precisely what Mr. Verelst (described by Mr. 
 Burke as one of the honestest men in the world) 
 and Lord Clive had done before him. As long as 
 Mr. Hastings was at Moorshedabad in 1772, he 
 received, as Mr. Verelst had done in 1769, 2000 
 rupees a day, agreeably to established practices. 
 It is self-evident, therefore, that whether Mr. 
 Hastings had appointed Muny Begum, or the Na- 
 bob's Mother, or any other person, to be guar- 
 dian of the Nabob, he would equally have re- 
 ceived 2000 rupees a day, as long as he remained 
 
 at
 
 (574 ) 
 
 at Moorshedabad. It could not, therefore, be a 
 bribe for an appointment to office ; and to the ho- 
 nour of Mr. Fox be it said, that his justice in- 
 duced him to make this point clear to the whole 
 world by his evidence. Upon all the other sums 
 charged to have been received, not one shadow 
 of evidence was adduced; and, indeed, Mr. Fox, 
 in 1790, gave up the whole, except the lack and 
 a half; and he has now put this transaction in so 
 fair and so clear a light, that malice herself can na 
 longer misrepresent it, 
 
 Mr. Fox argued on the presumption of Mr. 
 Hastings having been guilty, because upon the 
 death of General Clavering and Colonel Monson, 
 he re-appointed Muny Begum to that office, from 
 which that Gentleman, and Mr. Francis had re- 
 moved her. He recapitulated his argument, and 
 proved very fully, that while Mr. Hastings was at 
 Moorshedabad. in 1772, he had received from the 
 Treasury of the Nizam, 2000 rupees a day for 
 entertainment, in the same manner that Lord 
 CHve and Mr. Verelst had done; of the bribes 
 there was no proof, and they rest upon certain 
 papers, which were submitted to the inspection 
 of the Company's Lawyers in 1776, who pro- 
 nounced upon them, that the charges could not 
 be true. 
 
 Having concluded this part of his case, Mr. 
 Fox said he should now come to those presents 
 
 which
 
 ( 575 ) 
 
 Mr. Hastings had received, subsequent 
 to the Aft of Parliament, the receipt of which 
 he publicly avowed, as well as his application of 
 them to the public service. He contended that 
 to receive presents after the Acl of 1773, was 
 against law, and that Mr. Hastings must of course 
 be found guilty, though he received them with 
 the purest intentions, but that he should proceed 
 to state the circumstances under which they had 
 been taken, and the presumption that parts of 
 them at least were intended, at the time they were 
 taken, to increase the private fortune of Mr. 
 Hastings, though he afterwards changed that in- 
 tention. Mr. Fox said, that Mr. Dallas by mis- 
 quoting the words in a clause of the Acl of 1773, 
 had materially changed the sense of the passage, 
 he supposed that was accident, and not design ; but 
 if the clause had been truly quoted, Mr. Fox 
 affirmed that it could not bear the sense put upon 
 it by Mr. Dallas. 
 
 As this was a subject of some length, if it was 
 agreeable to their Lordships, he would break off 
 here. 
 
 As the Court was rising, Mr. Hastings most 
 earnestly implored the Lords to consider the state 
 of the Sessions that much time had lately been 
 lost, owing to the indisposition of the Managers, 
 and he dreaded the adjournment to another year. 
 
 That
 
 That the illness of one Gentleman, Mr. Grey, 
 was apparent, and another Hon. Manager had 
 applied, as he understood, to postpone the Trial, 
 on account of indisposition, from Friday last, to 
 another day, though he had afterwards seen the 
 Hon. Manager in the Park, on horseback. That 
 he had been often ill during the Trial, and twice 
 rose from his bed in a very high fever to attend in 
 the Hall. 
 
 He prayed, therefore, that the Lords would 
 go on so as to finish in this year ; and then did 
 not care how many days they sat. 
 
 Mr. Fox said, that in the situation of the Gen- 
 tleman at the bar, he could well excuse any warmth 
 of expression from him. That it was true he 
 had written to the Noble Lord who presided in 
 the absence of the Chancellor, and said, that 
 though he was ready to go on (as Friday last) yet 
 if it would not occasion any material delay, he 
 wished to postpone it, as he was indisposed. That 
 it was true he did ride out, which might be rather 
 imprudent fora person indisposed as he was ; but 
 that, unless indisposed, he would not have ex- 
 pressed a distant wish for an alteration of the 
 day. 
 
 Mr. Burke instantly rose, and said that Mr. 
 Hastings was perpetually complaining, but triat 
 while the Managers were serving in this cause for 
 
 nothing,
 
 (577 ) 
 
 nothing, the Criminal had Ninety Thousand 
 Pounds of Nobkissin's money in his pocket. 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY-SEVENTH 
 
 DAY. May 19. 
 
 THE Court met at a quarter before three, when 
 Mr. Fox in a very handsome manner acknowledged 
 that Mr. Dallas had not misquoted the Aft, and 
 that his argument was consequently fair ; that the 
 confusion arose from his (Mr. Fox) adverting to 
 the 24th and not to the 23d clause of the Regu- 
 gulating Aft. Having done this full justice to 
 Mr. Dallas, Mr. Fox proceeded to animadvert 
 on the defence read by Mr. Hastings to the House 
 of Lords in 1791. He said that Mr. Hastings in 
 that defence had declared, that if he had mistaken 
 the Aft, every man with whom he had conversed 
 
 or corresponded, had been in a similar error 
 
 Mr. Fox lamented that the Counsel could not 
 answer him, but he challenged the whole world 
 to dispute his statement, and he added, that when 
 Mr. Hastings took upon himself to state any thing 
 as a faft, he was sure to be mistaken. Mr. Hast- 
 ings had asserted in his defence in 1791, before 
 the Lords, that if he was in an error in thinking 
 that the Aft of 1773, did preclude the receipt of 
 presents even for the Company, every man with 
 whom he conversed or corresponded, was in a 
 
 similar
 
 ( 578) 
 
 similar error. To prove that this assertion was 
 not true, Mr. Fox read a partial selection from 
 a debate at the Council Board at Calcutta, in 
 October 1774; but if he had read the whole de- 
 bate, it would have fixed the truth of Mr. Hasu 
 ings's assertion beyond all doubt The real state- 
 ment we now give t 
 
 Mr. Hastings brought on the 23d of October, 
 1774, two bags, one of gold and one of silver to 
 the Council, being small presents that he had re- 
 ceived since the regulation aft. had taken place in 
 August He left it to the Board to decide, whe- 
 ther he should continue as Governor General to 
 receive those presents, and the following resolution 
 passed instantly. 
 
 " Ordered, That the money be sent to the cash, 
 * f and carried on account to the Company's cre- 
 " dit, under the head of Nuzzers, and that what- 
 " ever sums may be hereafter tendered by the 
 " Governor, be received and credited in the same 
 " manner" The question then is, Whether the 
 argument of General Clavering and Mr. Francis 
 which followed, applied to presents received by 
 the Governor for his own use, or whether it meant 
 to apply to an universal prohibition ? This is the 
 whole point. The minutes prove that the sub- 
 sequent debate turned upon what a Member might 
 do under the law. General Clavering, and Mr. 
 Francis said, that to receive presents was against 
 
 law,
 
 (579 ) 
 
 law, applying it to presents received by any man 
 for his own use. They had previoufly determined 
 the point of receiving them for the public. 
 
 Mr. Hastings insists upon it, that neither Ge- 
 neral Ciavering nor Mr. Francis, nor the Direc- 
 tors, nor the King's Ministers, had ever expressed 
 a doubt of its being competent to Mr. Hastings 
 to receive money, if it were to be applied to the 
 public service. 
 
 General Ciavering and Mr. Francis agreed to 
 receive the Rohilla prize-money, as a deposit for 
 the Company, and to be disposed of hereafter as 
 the Company chose. This was a present to the 
 Army j and in 1784, in Mr. Pitt's Administration, 
 that money was given to the Army. When Ge- 
 neral Ciavering sat in the Chair, in the absence 
 of Mr. Hastings, he received a Nuzzer from the 
 Zemindar of Burdwan, and sent it to the Treasury. 
 
 When Colonel Upton made the Mahratta Peace 
 in 1776, he received a present, and was ordered 
 to pay the amount of into the Treasury. When 
 Mr. Hastings wrote to the Directors, in January 
 1784, that he had received a present of ten lacks 
 of rupees from the Nabob Vizier, the Directors 
 wrote to him in January 1783, with the concur- 
 rence of the King's Ministers, that the act pre- 
 cluded them from giving that present to him, if 
 they were inclined to do so ; that the Aft said, 
 that all presents received should be construed to 
 
 be
 
 be received to and for the sole use of the Com- 
 pany. That they approved of the intention of 
 Mr. Hastings to appropriate the whole ten lacks 
 to the public service, and directed him striftly to 
 abide by the Aft of Parliament. Now, if there 
 is sense or meaning in language, it is clear that the 
 Directors conceived Mr. Hastings might receive 
 presents provided they were employed in the pub- 
 lic service ; but it does not stop even here. 
 The Directors in March 1784, when Mr. Pitt 
 was the Minister, wrote to Mr. Hastings that they 
 did not doubt his integrity ; that after having re- 
 ceived the several presents, they approved of his 
 having paid them into the Treasury. 
 
 In no one Letter, is Mr. Hastings told, that 
 to receive presents, and to apply them to the use 
 of the Company is illegal. No such idea, from 
 any aft that was done, appears to be taken up 
 any where ^ and the faft undoubtedly is, that 
 all men in India, and as far as we know from their 
 afts, every man in England did believe prior to 
 Mr. Pitt's Aft, which is explicit and clear as to 
 the future, that it was not illegal for a Governor to 
 receive presents, and to apply them to the Public 
 Service. 
 
 Mr. Hastings is, therefore, completely warrant- 
 ed in asserting, that neither in conversation, nor 
 in correspondence, did he ever hear it doubted, 
 that the Governor General, though precluded 
 
 from
 
 from receiving presents for his own use or behalf, 
 might receive them for the Company. If.further 
 proofs were wanting, what shall we say to the Acts 
 of the King's Ministers, who knowing as early as 
 July 1782, that Mr. Hastings had received and 
 applied more than 200,000!. as presents for their 
 service, have kept the money from that time to 
 this when the amount, principal and interest, is 
 more than 6oo,oool. 
 
 Having stated that Mr. Hastings must be con- 
 vifted for receiving presents against law, it being 
 a crime to receive presents, even though they were 
 applied to the public service ; he entered into a 
 very long and ingenious train of reason, in order 
 to shew the presumption to be, that when Mr. 
 Hastings received these several sums, or at least 
 a part of them, he did really intend to apply them 
 to his own use. The great argument was, that 
 Mr. Hastings had appealed to Mr. Larkins, as 
 being privy to the whole process of the receipt of 
 these several presents, whereas it appeared, on the 
 examination, that he was not acquainted with 
 these transactions until the 22d of May, 1782.- 
 We are confident that the same honourable and 
 fair sentiments which pervaded the mind of Mr. 
 ;Fox, when he produced evidence in reply, that 
 totally exculpated Mr. Hastings from having re- 
 ceived 2000 rupees a day from Muny Begum as 
 Q Q a bribe,
 
 a bribe, still have their influence over him, and 
 that he^will rejoice to be informed from undoubt- 
 ed evidence, that his whole arguments rested on a 
 fallacy which will be apparent to him and the 
 whole World, when fairly stated. 
 
 In May 1782, Mr. Hastings wrote to the Di- 
 rectors, that he had received and applied to their 
 service 200,000!. presents made to himself; that 
 these sums were received for their use, at a time 
 the Company much needed them, and that if they 
 wished for further information, he was ready to 
 answer upon honour, or upon oath, to any ques- 
 tions the Court might put to him. 
 
 This Letter reached England in May 1782, 
 when Mr. Fox was the Minister. No sort of 
 notice was taken of it until March 1784, when 
 Mr. Pitt was the Minister, Mr. Fox having 
 been thrown out on the failure of his India 
 Bill. 
 
 The Directors, with the concurrence of Mr. 
 Pitt, wrote to Bengal, that they had received the 
 letter of Mr. Hastings, stating the amount of the 
 presents he had received that they did not mean 
 to express a doubt of his integrity; on the con- 
 trary, after having received these presents they 
 cannot avoid expressing their approbation of his 
 conduct in bringing them to the credit of the 
 Company; yet the statement appears so unin- 
 telligible
 
 telligible, that they desire Mr. Hastings to an- 
 swer three questions. He having voluntarily 
 offered to answer any questions they might put to 
 him. 
 
 These questions were : 
 
 ist. At what period was each sum received? 
 
 2d. What were the motives of Mr. Hastings 
 for concealing the knowledge of these receipts 
 from the Council ? 
 
 3d. Why were bonds taken for part of those 
 sums, and others entered as deposits? 
 
 To this Letter Mr. Hastings replied from 
 Cheltenham. The two latter questions he re- 
 plied to. The first he answered as well as he 
 could, by saying, that he believed the sums were 
 received nearly at the time they were paid into 
 the Treasury, but that he would refer them to 
 Mr. Larkins for a more particular answer to 
 that first question, or for any investigation re- 
 specting the particulars of this transaction, as 
 Mr. Larkins, was privy to every process of it, 
 and possessed, as Mr. Hastings believed, the 
 only memorandum which he ever kept on the 
 subject. 
 
 Mr. Fox contended, that the words every pro- 
 cess of it, meant the trasaclion from first to last, 
 a conclusion which no man living will draw who 
 reads the letter of the Directors to which the 
 Q Q 2 letter
 
 letter of Mr. Hasting is an answer. The fallacy 
 that the subjeft is takeli up piecemeal. The letter 
 of Mr. Hastingss from Cheltenham, and the letter 
 of Mr. Larkins from Bengal, are applied as an 
 answer to an accusation of the Commons, with 
 which it has nothing to do ; and Mr. Larkins, in 
 Westminster Hall, said, that his letter was merely 
 an answer to a letter from Mr. Hastings, and con- 
 sequently, confined to the subject of that letter. 
 The most cruel part of the business, as it respefts 
 Mr. Hastings, is this, that his answer to the letter 
 of the DircQors, has been read in Westminster- 
 hall, as it were an answer to the Charge of the 
 the House of Commons. 
 
 Mr. Fox contended, that the expression in 
 the letter from Cheltenham, and in Mr. Hast- 
 ings's defence, conveyed this meaning, that from 
 the first Mr. Larkins was privy to the money trans- 
 aaions of Mr. Hastings, whereas Mr. Larkins 
 swears that he knew nothing of them until the 22d 
 of May 1780, according to his recollection; but 
 Mr. Fox omitted to relate another part of Mr. I 
 Larkins testimony, which puts the matter i a j 
 very different view for Mr. Larkins swore, that j 
 though he did not recoiled being told by Mr. 
 Hastings prior to the 2*d of May 1780, that the 
 bonds were the property of the Company, he must 
 have had some information on the subjecl, or he 
 
 should
 
 ( 5*5 ) 
 
 should have received, on account of Mr. Hast- 
 ings, the interests due upon these Bonds as it be- 
 came due ; whereas, in point of fal, he had never 
 received any interest upon them. Every thing 
 that genius and ingenuity could do, was done by 
 Mr. Fox, in order to convince the Lords that 
 Mr. Hastings did intend at one time to apply part 
 of these presents to his own use. He lamented that 
 the Council could not speak after him, and gave so 
 fair a challenge to all the world to refute his reason- 
 ing, that we shall proceed with our observations, as 
 we state the feveral parts of his {peech Mr. Fox's 
 argument, was intended to shew, that tho' Mr. 
 Hastings had ultimately paid into the Trea- 
 fury all the money that he received, there was the 
 strongest reason to believe, that for a time, at 
 least, he intended to appropriate a part of these 
 sums to his own use, which was a substantial 
 crime, as it most undoubtedly is; if the evi- 
 dence is clear upon this point, the Lords 
 must pronounce Mr. Hastings guilty. The proof 
 he contended, was clear from the false and con- 
 tradictory accounts that Mr. Hastings had given 
 of these money transactions, and that these ac- 
 counts were false and contradictory, appear- 
 ed from the evidence of Mr. Larkiris, which Mr. 
 Fox quoted. The question then is, did Mr. Fox 
 quote Mr. Larkins's evidence fairly ? That he 
 o 3 meant
 
 (586) 
 
 meant so to do, \ve are confident ; but he omi- 
 ted the most material part of it. It turns alto- 
 gether upon Three Bonds, which were taken 
 by Mr. Hastings, in his own name. One dated 
 in November, 1780; and the other two in Oc- 
 tober, 1780. 
 
 These bonds were for four Lacks and six 
 thousand Rupees, or 40,000 I. and were appa- 
 rently the property of Mr. Hastings from the 
 5th of January 1781 to the 22d of May 1782 
 It is clear from the Evidence, that he ne- 
 ver meant to apply any Part of the remaining 
 . 160,000 to his own use. The whole Sum re- 
 ceived and accounted for was . 200,000 inde- 
 pendent of Nobkissen's prefent. On the 22d of 
 May 1782, Mr. Hastings wrote to the Directors, 
 that the Bonds were not his property. An inference 
 might be drawn, that from the year 1780, and 
 until the end of May 1782, Mr. Hastings really 
 intended to convert this money to his own use ; 
 but to obviate this inference, Mr. Hastings had 
 said, that Mr. Larkins knew from the first, that 
 the bonds were not his property; and further, 
 that prior to his going to Benares in July 1781, 
 be had written on the back of each bond, that 
 they were not his property, and that he left the 
 bonds with Mr. Larkins. Mr. Fox said that this 
 account was/<z/je, for though the bond? were left 
 
 with
 
 (587 ) 
 
 with Mr. Larkins, the date of the indorfement 
 was not prior to July 1781, as Mr. Hastings had 
 asserted, but on the 2gth of May 1782. 
 
 The first material question is, by what means 
 was this falsehood, as Mr. Fox calls it, detected; 
 Not by the Managers ; but by the eagerness of 
 Mr. Hastings to put the truth of his assertion 
 beyond a doubt. This induced him first to fearch 
 the India Houfe for the bonds, and on their not 
 being found, he desired Mr. Larkins in Bengal, 
 would make a public application to Lord Corn- 
 wallis, that the Bonds might be fearched for, and s 
 if found, that they might be sent to the Company, 
 "which they were, and, as his Lordship states, at the 
 desire of Mr. Hastings. The bonds arrived, and 
 on the indorfement being adverted to, it appeared 
 most clearly that they were not dated prior to 
 July 1782, but on the 2gth of May, 1782. 
 
 We admit that the mistake is clear-, how far the i 
 epithet false can be applied to the A61, is another 
 point; for we think the justice of the following 
 reflection must strike every honest man. Mr. Hast- 
 ings in his speech to the Lords in May 1791 -, after 
 expressing his surprize at his own mistakes when 
 writing on matters of accont, without having a 
 single paper or document of any sort near him, 
 adds, after stating that he was himself the 
 person who desired the Bonds might be searched 
 ft 3 4 for
 
 ( 588 ) 
 
 for and sent to Englnd, " Had my instniftions 
 " for the purpose intended by the indor-ement 
 t; of the Bonds been invented for the pur- 
 pose of deception, I should have stopped when 
 I had assigned it. Instead of this, I sought, 
 <' and with a diligence which it is not likely tha; I 
 " should have cmployedto detect myself in a false- 
 " hood, first for authentic copies of the Ind 
 < Bonds, at the India-houfe, and afterward^, ( >r 
 " the originals at Calcutta. These being found, 
 " proved that I had errod in my account of the 
 * f transaction ; but it J^o demonstratively proved 
 " that I had given that account, believing it to 
 " be true, and presumptively, that my intention, 
 ** and consequent instructions to Mr. Larkins 
 " were, that the Bonds, in the event of my death, 
 " should be cancelled by him." 
 
 But the most material part, and which would 
 afford a very strong presumption indeed a^.iiu.st 
 Mr. Hastings, if the evidence were as Mr. Fox 
 stated it, is now to be mentioned. After .stat- 
 ing that the mistake as to the date of the Bonds 
 was difcovered by Mr. Hastings himself, not by 
 his Accufers, he faid, 
 
 u My Lords, after this I should be almost 
 * afraid to hazard a fupposition ; but as the Bonds 
 " were left with Mr. Larkins, as my Attorney, 
 41 and as Mr. Larkins knew from the first that 
 
 they
 
 (589) 
 
 " they were not my property, I concluded, that 
 " I told him, that in the event of my decease, he 
 " was to deliver them to the Council, which I 
 confounded with the Aft, of having endorsed 
 " them." 
 
 Mr. Fox affirms, that Mr. Larkins positively 
 fwore, he did not know until the 22d of May, 
 1782, that the Bonds were not the Property of 
 Mr. Hastings. If he did so swear, the inference 
 would be fair, that between the receipt of Bonds 
 in January 1781, and May 1782, it might be pre- 
 sumed, that Mr. Hasting? intended to take this 
 40,000!. to himfelf, but still we shall be puzzled 
 to know -why Mr. Hastings was fo anxious to have 
 the Bonds produced. 
 
 Mr. Fox dismisses all the conclusions and all 
 the iup} ositons, and meets the facl fully. Mr. 
 Hastings asserts most confidentl), that Mr. Lar- 
 kins knew from the first, that the Bonds were not 
 his property. The question then is, does Mr. 
 Larkins, or does he not swear, in the manner that 
 Mr. Fox stated him to swear ? 
 
 We will endeavour to give his Evidenc most 
 correEly. 
 
 Mr. Larkins fwears that he does not recollect 
 being told, until the 2d of May, 1782, that the fe 
 Bonds \\ere not the property of Mr. Hastings; 
 that he does not recolletl having been instructed 
 
 by
 
 by Mr. Hastings in 1781, to deliver up those 
 Bonds, in the event of his decease, to the Com- 
 pany, that he hopes he is not expetltd to swear 
 that he might not have forgotten it ; that he cer- 
 tainly does not recollect it; that he certainly 
 thinks it would have made an impression upon 
 his memory : but he cannot undertake to sweai 
 positively that Mr. Hastings did not give such an 
 instruction, but if he did, he had forgotten it. 
 Here is the substance of Mr. Larkins's evidence, 
 which Mr. Fox stated fairly up to this point. It 
 is not positive but Mr. Fox had a right to argue 
 upon it as he did. 
 
 But on the farther examination of Mr. Lar- 
 kms, he swore, that those Bonds never made part 
 of Mr. JJastings'i private Property, that they -were 
 never entered on his books. That the money never 
 made part of his private caJJi^ but was carried 
 immediately into the Treasury. That no interest 
 ever was received upon those Bonds ; and then to a 
 farther question, Mr. Larkins answered, page 
 8760. 
 
 " I do not recollect what instructions I had re- 
 u ceived from Mr. Hastings, between the month 
 ** of January, 1782, when they were first applied 
 * for, and the 22d of May, 1782, when I be- 
 w same completely acquainted with the transaction* 
 
 Q. " Whether he gave you any explanation 
 
 " upon
 
 ( 591 ) 
 
 upon the fubjeft. Answer, I have already said, 
 that I must have received some information 
 from Mr. Hastings, which induced me to con- 
 sider thefe Bonds, though apparently his pro- 
 perty, not fo; otherwife, one year after their 
 date, I should have applied to the Treasury 
 for the annual interest which then became pay- 
 " able upon them. I did not do so; but I 
 " do know that Mr. Hastings ever told me be. 
 fore the 22d of May 1782, anything that could 
 have led me to suppose from whom that money 
 was obtained!" 
 
 This is a fair and complete abstraa of all the 
 Evidence to this great and essential point. The 
 interest due upon these Bonds in November 
 1781, was 3200!. Mr. Hastings was then at 
 Benares, and Mr. Larkins had the Bonds at 
 Calcutta. Is it, or is it not fair to believe, that 
 the reafon which induced Mr. Larkins not to 
 receive the interest was, Mr. Hastings having 
 told him, that the Bonds were not hi? property. 
 Every Gentleman will draw his own conclufionj 
 but if it had been true, as Mr. Fox stated, that Mr! 
 Larkins swore positively, that he had no commit 
 nication prior to the 22 d of May, 1782, it would 
 be clear that Mr. Hastings had asserted a false- 
 hood; and it would be fair to prefume, he had 
 forae nefarious purpofe to answer in having so 
 
 done;
 
 ( 592 ) 
 
 done ; as the Evidence really stands, is it not ra- 
 ther more fair to conclude that Mr. Haftings re- 
 membered rightly ? 
 
 We repeat it, that Mr. Fox himself, very much 
 to his honour, produced a piece of evidence which 
 Mr. Hastings for many years had searched for in 
 vain, and \vhich totally exculpated him from the 
 first charge, that is, of having applied to his own 
 use a sum of One Lack and a half of Rupees, 
 in 1772, given as a bribe for an appointment to 
 office ?->i j~.'. 
 
 The whole argument on which Mr. Fox rests to 
 criminate Mr. Hastings, is so unworthy of him, 
 that he would not have used it we are sure, had he 
 fairly considered the evidence. When Mr. Hast- 
 ings declared, that Mr. Larkins was privy to every 
 process of his money transactions, it was in July 
 1785, before he was impeached, and it is impos- 
 sible for any man who reads the Letter to the 
 Court of Dire8ors from whence this expression 
 is taken, to apply the sense and meaning, which 
 Mr. Fox applies to it, provided he first reads the 
 Letter from the Directors, to which this is a reply. 
 He is asked three questions by the Directors, and 
 without book or account with him, he answers 
 those three questions, and says, that if the Direc- 
 tors wish for further information, or for the means 
 of making any investigation, he refers them to 
 
 Mr.
 
 ( 593 ) 
 
 Mr. Larkins, who was privy to every process. 
 What process is it he alludes to ? The process that 
 had a reference to the questions put to him by the 
 Directors. But as Mr. Fox in his hurry stated it, 
 every Gentleman must have supposed, that this 
 Letter was a defence of some accusation of the 
 Commons, and not a reply to three specific ques- 
 tions put to him by the Directors. 
 
 What follows? Mr. Hastings says, perhaps, 
 you will think what I now tell you, sufficient for 
 any purpose you may have to answer ; if not apply 
 to Mr. Larkins. The Directors were satisfied 
 The Board of Controul was satisfied for they 
 never inquired further about the matter. But 
 Mr. Hastings was not satisfied. He had been 
 asked at what period the several sums composing 
 the 200,000!. was received? He answered, that 
 he believed, .nearly at the time they were paid 
 into the Treasury ; that he had no memorandum, 
 but would write to Mr. Larkins, to send the ori- 
 ginal memorandum if he had it, to the Directors. 
 Mr. Hastings did so ; Mr. Larkins did send it, 
 with a letter ; and this letter of Mr. Larkins, and 
 this memorandum have been argued upon, as if 
 they were presented by Mr. Hastings, as a complete 
 answer to the charge preferred against him by the 
 House of Commons. This is a fallacy. If there 
 is any thing false in the letter, or in the account, 
 
 Mr.
 
 ( 594 ) 
 
 Mr. Fox has full right to say so, and to make the 
 most of it ; but his candour, had he considered 
 the subject, would have prevented him from stat- 
 ing the letter, so as to impress his auditors with a 
 belief, that it was a reply to a charge of the Home of 
 Commons. 
 
 Having thus cleared the ground, we come to 
 consider what Mr. Hastings did say, when his 
 conduft was viewed in a different light. 
 
 The Directors and the King's Ministers in 
 June 1785, returned him their thanks for his long, 
 faithful, and able services. They did not accuse 
 him of breaking the law, by accepting and paying 
 into their Treasury 200,000!. On the contrary, 
 they approved what he had done, and merely 
 wanted to know why he took Bonds for some of 
 the sums, and entered others as deposits why he 
 concealed the receipt from his Counsel and theDi- 
 reftors, and at what period the several sums were 
 received. The answer was confined to the ques- 
 tions asked. But the House of Commons charg- 
 ed him with breaking the law, in accepting the 
 presents at all ; and they charged him with re- 
 ceiving them with a corrupt intention of applying 
 them to his own use. Let any Gentleman read 
 
 the answer of Mr. Hastings to these charges 
 
 let him read Mr. Larkins's evidence, ajid then 
 
 we
 
 (595 ) 
 
 we affirm, that he will find no contradiction what- 
 ever in the accounts. 
 
 In the defence made by Mr. Hastings in the 
 House of Commons, there is not one syllabic 
 from which an inference can be drawn, that Mr. 
 Hastings meant to impress the House with a belief 
 that Mr. Larkins knew from whom any one of 
 the sums was received, further than appears by 
 the account sent home in May 1782. This is so 
 material a part in the case, that if we repeat our 
 arguments in some measure, the importance of 
 the subjeft: will excuse us. 
 
 In the defence made by Mr. Hastings in the 
 House of Lords, there is not one single syllable 
 from whence it can be inferred that Mr. Larkins 
 knew either the persons from whom the several 
 sums were taken, nor the periods at which they 
 were taken, further than appears in the account 
 of the 22d of May 1782. 
 
 But in the defence before the Lords, there is 
 this remarkable expression : 
 
 " As the bonds were left with Mr. Larkins, as 
 4C my Attorney, and as Mr. Larkins from the first 
 * knew that they were not my property, I con- 
 " eluded that I told him in 1781, that in the event 
 " of my decease he was to deliver them to the 
 " Council, which I confounded with the a& of 
 " having indorsed them." 
 
 This ,
 
 (596) 
 
 This is the true and only point of the least con- 
 sequence. Here is a positive assertion made by 
 Mr. Hastings, that Mr. Larkins knew from the 
 fir^t that the Bonds were not the property of Mr. 
 Hastings; and Mr. Fox says, that Mr. Larkins 
 positively swears to the contrary. If he really 
 did so, then Mr. Fox would have a sound argu- 
 ment. Mr Fox, we are confident, is incapable 
 of making the a-s.Tiion he did, unless he thought 
 it was true. It happens, however, that Mr. Lark- 
 ins swears that he cannot, at the distance of twelve 
 years, recolleft that Mr. Hastings told him the 
 Bonds were not his property, or that he desired 
 him to deliver them up on the event of his death. 
 He thinks such a circumstance was not likely to 
 escape him, but he also swears, that on these 
 Bonds no interest ever was received, and that 
 unless he had had some intimation from Mr. Hast- 
 ings, which at this distance of time he cannot 
 recollecl, he certainly should have received 
 the interest on those Bonds, which he never 
 did. 
 
 One would conceive it impossible for any evi- 
 dence short of positive recolledion to justify Mr. 
 Hastings more fully. What motive can be assign- 
 ed for Mr. Larkins's neglecting to receive the 
 interest upon these Bonds, amounting in October 
 and November 1781 to Thirty-two Th msanJ 
 
 Rupees,
 
 Rupees, or 3000!. but the one Mr. Larkins 
 assigns, that he must have had some communica- 
 tion from Mr. Hastings, though he cannot recoi- 
 led at this distance of time what it was ; where 
 presumption is to determine guilt or innocence, 
 the man who undertakes to state what an evidence 
 has proved, should state it fairly and in toto ; and 
 we are confident Mr. Fox would have done so, 
 if it had occurred to him. He would not allow 
 for a moment, a few years ago, that the 2000 
 Rupees a day received by Mr. Hastings in 1772, 
 was other than a. bribe for an appointment to office. 
 This year Mr. Fox very honourably produced 
 evidence himself, which removed all doubts, by 
 shewing, that all Governors, when at Moorshe- 
 dabad, received the same allowance. 
 
 In his first day's speech he brought a serious 
 accusation against Mr. Dallas : That having mis- 
 quoted the Clause of an Aft, the argument found 
 ed upon it fell to the ground. On the second 
 day he acknowledged that he, and not Mr. Dallas 
 had misquoted the clause. 
 
 The Lords, who have all the evidence before 
 them, will naturally look to that, and to that alone. 
 No remarks that do not apply to the whole evi 
 dence can have weight with them ; but the Pub- 
 lic who heard Mr. Fox's speech have a right to 
 know, that, from haste, he did net state the whole 
 R R of
 
 ( 010 ) 
 
 I r. Lar kins' s evidence on this most imp. 
 point. 
 
 We have already proved that there is no evi- 
 dence on this article, except the voluntary con- 
 fession of Mr. Hastings himfelf We have al- 
 ready shewn that a letter, written by Mr. Hast- 
 ings in July 1785, to the Directors, was alluded 
 to by Mr. Fox, as if it were an anfwcr to the 
 charge of the Houfe of Commons, but that on 
 this fallacy being detected, and when the letter is 
 considered as it ought to be, with a reference to 
 that letter, to which it is an anfwer, no contra- 
 diction of any kind will appear in it; we shall 
 therefore proceed with Mr. Fox's arguments. 
 
 He observed, that it appeared by the Paper 
 which Mr. Larkins tranfmitted to the Court of 
 Directors, that upon the Cabooleats or engage- 
 ments for money granted to Mr. Hastings, there 
 was a balance of forty thoufand pounds due : That 
 of this sum ten thousand was received, and has 
 never been paid to the Company : That though 
 the Paper states the remaining thirty to be in 
 balance, it is even now a matter of doubt where 
 it is, and that Mr. Haflings may have that money 
 in his pocket at this moment, or Gunga Goviud 
 Sing may have it, but that, in fad, Mr. Hastings 
 has never given the Company any satisfaction on 
 this point. 
 
 Here
 
 ( 6n ) 
 
 N 
 
 Here again Mr. Hastings has very just ground 
 to complain that Mr. Fox, professing a fair sum- 
 mary of the evidence, has, in his hurry, most 
 materially misrepresented it. This Paper has 
 nothing to do with the charge of the House of 
 Commons. The Directors desired to know from 
 Mr. Hastings, in March 1784, at what periods 
 the several fums which he had carried to their 
 credit were received ? Mr. Hastings in answer, 
 in July 1785, fays, he believes he can affirm 
 with certainty that they were received near the 
 time that they were paid into the Treasury, but if 
 the Directors wish for further information, he re- 
 fers them to Mr. Larkins, who was privy to every 
 process of the transaction, and possessesas, he be 
 lieves, the only memorandum that he, Mr. Hast- 
 ings, ever kept of the transaction. He lays also, 
 that this will be a channel for making any further 
 investigation they please. The Directors and the 
 Board of Controul enquire no further; but Mr. 
 Hastings himself writes to Mr. Larkins, and de- 
 sires him to send that memorandum to the Direc- 
 tors. Mr. Larkins does so. Surely^ww the mo- 
 ment the Directors possess the Paper, they are 
 the persons to enquire. Mr. Hastings had as- 
 sured them that he had paid into their Treasury 
 all the money he received. If, from the informa- 
 tion which that Paper afforded, it appeared either 
 
 R R 2 tO
 
 ( 6*2 ) 
 
 to the Directors, or to the Board of Controul, 
 that there was a balance in Gunga Govind Sing's 
 hands, or a ballance upon the Cabooleats uncol- 
 lefled, they, and not Mr. Hastings, were the per- 
 sons to order an enquiry in Bengal. Mr. Hast- 
 ings fays, " I will afford you the means of mak- 
 " ing any investigation apply to Mr. Larkins." 
 ^The Directors made no investigation, and Mi. 
 Hastings is now accused for a negleft, which, 
 if it be one at all, must be accounted for by the 
 Board of Controul. When we say accused, we do 
 not mean that he is legally accused, for though the 
 Commons were in possession of the Paper, by which 
 it appeared tthat there was a balance of a Lack of 
 Rupees in the hands of Gunga Govind Sing, and 
 that Forty thousand Pounds were uncolletled, 
 they have neither charged Mr. Hastings with cri- 
 minality nor negleft, for not enforcing the pay- 
 ment of thofe feveral balances ; and therefore every 
 thing faid by Mr. Fox on these points, is foreign 
 to the charge. Mr. Fox connected with the receipt 
 of this money the character of Gunga Govind 
 Sing, of whom he faid there was but one opinion, 
 and that a very bad one. Here again Mr. Fox 
 did not quote the evidence by any means cor- 
 relly. The substance of all the evidence re- 
 lative to Gunga Govind Sing is as follows 
 
 Mr.
 
 Mr. Young fwore, that he bore a very bad 
 character among the natives and Europeans. 
 
 Mr. Peter Moore fwore, that he was a man of 
 very bad character, and considered as a general 
 oppressor of every native he had to deal with ; 
 that by the Europeans he was detested, and by the 
 natives he was dreaded. 
 
 Mr. Harwood fwore, that he has heard Gunga 
 Govind Sing was very arbitrary and oppressive in 
 his public employment, and that that was his ge- 
 neral character. 
 
 Mr. Anderfon swore, that he did not recolleft 
 any official complaints, nor indeed any complaints, 
 against Gunga Govind Sing : that he did not think 
 he had generally a bad chara&er; on the con- 
 trary, he thought he generally had a good cha- 
 racter, but at the fame time there might be per- 
 sons found in Bengal who would give him a bad 
 character ; there were perfons who had taken op- 
 posite fides of a party, which will have an effect 
 upon the minds of people, and persons who had 
 suffered by his appointment, who were his com- 
 petitors. 
 
 Sir John Shore swore, that he did not believe 
 Gunga Govind Sing was deficient either in skill 
 or ability : That he was acquainted with him for 
 a great number of years : That he knew no na- 
 tive fit for the appointment he held : That he 
 R R 3 certainly
 
 ( 614 ) 
 
 certainly should not have selefted him by choice 
 but cannot recolleft at present whether he could 
 have pitched on any other perfon in preference : 
 That he did not find Gunga Coving Sing so ac- 
 tive and zealous as he wished him to be : That he 
 believed any native in the situation in which Gun- 
 ga Govind Sing was placed, would use his influ- 
 ence for his own advantage, and he had no doubt 
 Gunga Govind Sing did so: That when detached 
 to Dacca and Bahar, Sir John, by his own choice, 
 took with him, as his Executive Officer, the fon 
 of Gunga Govind Sing. 
 
 But the most fmgular circumftance attending 
 this man, is contained in the evidence produced 
 by Mr. Burke in reply, and it ought to operate 
 most forcibly upon the mind of every candid man 
 general abuse should go for nothing. 
 
 Mr. Stables, after Mr. Haftings had quitted 
 Bengal moved in council, " That Gunga Govind 
 Sing, his son, and all his dependants, be removed 
 from their offices" and he fays, " The cries and 
 complaints of the natives in general, shew how 
 unworthy he has been of his trust.'* 
 
 Sir John Macpherson, the Governor General, 
 opposes this motion, and fays, " Gunga Govind 
 Sing is not himself desirous to be continued in 
 office he fees that he has lost the confidence of 
 a majority of Government, and he knows that he 
 
 has
 
 ( 6i 5 ) 
 
 has no 4ependance to place upon my fupport be- 
 yond the moment that either past or present mis- 
 conduct is proved against him. 
 
 " I think there can be little fear, after the 
 accusations that have already come forward 
 againft him, but the natives will make com- 
 plaints. The danger is on the other fide, and 
 should make us cautious not to admit general 
 charges without proof against him. The pre- 
 cedent is a bad one in any country^ but espe- 
 cially in Bengal. The outstanding balances, and 
 their magnitude since the management of Gunga 
 Govind Sing, would make a very heavy charge 
 against him ; but on the other hand, if he can 
 prove that a greater revenue has been realized 
 from the provinces during his fervice as Dewan, 
 than in any preceding period of the administra- 
 tion of the revenue, he has a substantial claim to 
 justice." 
 
 The Directors were so struck with the injus- 
 tice of the mode in which it was proposed to 
 proceed against Gunga Govind Sing, that they 
 wrote to Bengal in August, 1788, as follows^ 
 after very fairly and fully stating the case. 
 
 " Although we feel no predilection for Gunga 
 Govind Sing, we muft fairly acknowledge that we 
 do not think sufficient ground was laid to justify 
 his removal from office." 
 
 R R 4 " Another
 
 ( 616 ) 
 
 Another ground for his removal was the 
 expectation that complaints would come which 
 were kept back by his continuance in office. In 
 the early periods of our territorial possessions, 
 when the whole Administration of the country, 
 provincial and superior, was in the hands of one 
 person, (Mahomed Reza Cawn) such an appre- 
 hension might be allowed to prevail. But \ve 
 think it would now greatly impeach both the 
 vigour and justice of our Government in Bengal, 
 to fuppose that any considerable atl of injustice 
 could be committed by any individual whatso- 
 ever, without the means of complaint and repara- 
 tion being open to the aggrieved." 
 
 Such is the opinion of the Directors and of the 
 Board of Controul ; and against this, Gunga Go- 
 vind Sing, described by Mr. Burke " as a man at 
 the sound of whose name all India grew pale," 
 nothing criminal has yet been proved, though he 
 resigned his office in May 1787, and from that 
 period has been a private inhabitant of Calcutta; 
 and the only complaint preferred against him came 
 to a solemn hearing in the Supreme Court of Ju- 
 dicators, where Gunga Govind Sing was honour- 
 ably cleared, and his accusers committed to prison, 
 both for perjury and forgery. It will not be said, 
 that the influence of Mr. Hastings protected him; 
 for from the moment he left Bengal, the Su- 
 preme
 
 (6i 7 ) 
 
 preme Council were adverse to Gunga Govind 
 Sing, and Lord Cornwallis will not be suspe&ed 
 either of prote&ing, or of oppressing him. No 
 Gentleman can believe from the evidence which 
 have we given fairly on loth sides t that Gunga 
 Govind Sing z'ssucha man as Mr. Fox describes 
 him to be. 
 
 We have already gone through the most ma- 
 terial parts of this celebrated Speech. There 
 were some points which we did not expeft from 
 so fair a reasoner as Mr. Fox. He said, that 
 Mr. Hastings having given the whole power of 
 Bengal to Gunga Govind Sing in 1781, might have 
 received many considerable sums, of which no- 
 thing wasyet known. After a sevenyears Trial, and 
 with incontrovertible evidence before the Court, 
 that Bengal had been progressively improving in 
 Agriculture, Population, and Commerce, during 
 the Administration of Mr. Hastings ; after the 
 opinion of India on the character and condu6l of 
 Mr. Hastings was so well known, it was not to be 
 expected, that so fair a man as Mr. Fox, would 
 have wandered from what did appear in the evi- 
 dence, into surmises, as to what Mr. Hastings 
 might have done, which has not been discovered. 
 Mr. Fox, in stating the several presents, did not 
 endeavour to conned! with them any corrupt a6l 
 done by Mr. Hastings in favour of those who 
 
 gave
 
 ( 618 ) 
 
 gave money ; nor was there any thing stated by 
 way of aggravation, except in the case of the 
 present received from the Nabob of Oude, 
 amounting to 100,000!. which was accepted, Mr. 
 Fox said, at a time when the Nabob was compel- 
 led to rob his Mother. Here again Mr. Hastings 
 has every reason to complain of the hard treat- 
 ment he has met with; and we may a little admire 
 the nature of British Justice. 
 
 This present was,ftccepted in September 1781, 
 and compleatly paid in February 1782. As fast 
 as the money was received, Mr. Hastings ex- 
 pended it in the public service, a great part being 
 advanced to the army, in a period of the gr 
 public distress. The propriety of this present, it 
 remained with the Directors to determine. They 
 might have taken it for the Company, or given it to 
 Mr. Hastings, or have applied it in liquidation of 
 the Nabob's debt; for after taking credit for 
 these ten lacks of rupees, and after taking the fifty- 
 five lacks from the Begum, there was still a 
 considerable balance due from the Nabob to 
 the Company. 
 
 The Directors, with the approbation of the 
 King's Ministers determined to keep these ten 
 lacks to themselves in January 1783; and it is 
 surely rather too much to hear Mr. Hastings ac- 
 cused in May 1 794,of receiving these ten lacks, and 
 
 to
 
 to hear it asserted to be an aggravation of the of- 
 fence, that he had taken it from the Nabob about 
 the time that a part of the Treasures of the Be- 
 gum were seized, in order to discharge a part of 
 the debt due from the Nabob to the East-India 
 Company. 
 
 This observation will indeed apply to every a& 
 done by Mr. Hastings nothing that he did, if he 
 aBed wrong, would have been a permanent evil. 
 In twelve, or at the utmost, in eighteen months, any 
 any one aB of his might have bean reversed, but 
 all his a&s have been confirmed, and the advant- 
 age accruing to the nation by confirming them 
 all, is thirty-four millions seven hundred and ten 
 thousand pounds, while Mr. Hastings has been 
 seven years arraigned as a Culprit, for what he has 
 done. After this, and after his having received 
 the thanks of the King's Ministers, and the Di- 
 reftors, for his long, faithful, and able services, we 
 may surely say, that nothing in politics is certain. 
 
 In the preceding remarks we have shewn, that 
 of all the sums which Mr. Hastings admitted he 
 had received, he is not accused of having ulti- 
 mately applied one rupee to his own use. 
 
 The accusation is, that for some time he in- 
 tended to appropriate to his own use the one fifth 
 part of the sums that he receivedWe have fairly 
 
 stated
 
 (6 2 o) 
 
 stated the evidence, and the World will draw it 
 own conclusions. 
 
 The present received from Nobkissen, resting 
 upon Mr. Hastings'sdeclaration alone, and it being 
 in proofjthat it was applied to the payment of cer- 
 tain charges, which are admitted to have been 
 incurred for public services, we shall proceed to 
 remark on what Mr. Fox said relative to the 
 Mahratia and to the money given by Mr. 
 Hastings to purchase the neutrality, and the assist- 
 ance also, of Moodajee Borsla, in the course of 
 the last general war. Though it be clear that Mr. 
 Hastings was not the author of the Mahratta 
 War, we shall argue the point without consider- 
 ing whether he was or was not the author of it, 
 and we shall look to the actual situation in which 
 the British Government stood in India at the 
 commencement of the year 1781. 
 
 Hyder Ally had totally defeated Colonel Baillie, 
 and had compelled Sir Heclor Munro to retreat 
 to Fort St. George. The Marattas in Guzzerat 
 kept General Goddard at bay. .N.adajec Sindia 
 was advancing from Malwa, and Moodajee Boosla 
 had sent his son Chimnajee Boosla, at the head of 
 thirty thousand horse, to invade Bengal in her 
 richest quarter. The Nizam of the Decan, who 
 had formed the confederacy against us, was threat- 
 ening to take the field, and to attack the Nor- 
 thern
 
 (621 ) 
 
 them Circars. Nuzeph Cawn, who possessed 
 the person of the Emperor, was hostile to us. A 
 superior French fleet arrived upon the Coast in 
 January 1781, and was expected to return with 
 land forces, as soon as the season would admit. 
 
 In this desperate state, though Mr. Hastings 
 knew that Moodagee Boosla was unwillingly 
 drawn into the confederacy against us, it surely 
 became necessary to take some means to rid our 
 western frontier of so powerful a body of men, 
 as a thousand accidents might provoke hostilities. 
 Nor was this all ; Colonel Pearse, who was going 
 to reinforce Sir Eyre Coote with five regiments 
 of Sepoys, could not march through Cuttack, 
 while 30,000 Maratta horse remained there. 
 Chimnajee Boosla, very frankly said that, drag- 
 ged as his father was, against his will, into the 
 confederacy, his army was reduced to such as 
 state of distress, that it actually required assist- 
 ance from Bengal, or it could not be kept in 
 order. 
 
 In Nov. 1780, Mr. Hastings privately sent 
 Chimnajee three lacks of rupees, and in April he 
 concluded a Treaty with him, 'by which he gave 
 him thirteen, and lent him ten lacks more, which 
 have never been repaid. In return for this sum 
 of 260,000!. a free passage was secured for Col. 
 Pearse's army through the Maratta Province of 
 
 Cuttack ;
 
 ( 622 ) 
 
 Cutfack ; two thousand Maratta horse were to 
 join the Colonel ; he was to be well supplied with 
 provisions, and the Maratta army of 30,006 horse 
 vas to return to Berar. These conditions were 
 most honourably performed, though the Ma- 
 ratta horse came too late, and returned from 
 Gaujam. 
 
 The consequences of this arrangement were 
 most beneficial From that moment one great 
 Member of theConfederacy withdrew hin:sclf, and 
 the other parts of the Confederacy distrusted each 
 other. But before the confequcnces of this Treaty 
 could be known, Mr. Dundas proposed a reso- 
 lution, which the House voted, that Mr. Hast- 
 ings had concluded a precarious Treaty, on most 
 extravagant and dishonourable conditions, one 
 party who made it having no authority so to do : 
 But we believe Mr. Dundas very materially 
 changed his opinion, when he knew that every 
 good consequence which Mr. Hastings predicted, 
 actually happened. No further effort was made 
 against us by the Berar Mahrattas during the war; 
 on the contrary, the most perfect amity subsisted 
 between them and the English. A peace with 
 Sindia followed in October 1781 ; a truce with 
 all the Mahrattas in January 1782 ; and a general 
 peace with them in May 1782 ; and we got ulti- 
 mately out of the war in India, without the loss 
 
 of
 
 ( 623 ) 
 
 of an inch of territory; on the contrary, Lord 
 Lansdowne was enabled to save a West India 
 Island, by restoring to the French, the settlements 
 we had taken from them in Bengal, and in the 
 Carnatic. Mr. Dundas fairly confessed, in 1786, 
 that the man who did not see in Mr. Hastings the 
 features of a great Statesman, must be blinded by 
 prejudice. 
 
 Now let us see what Mr. Pitt and Mr. Dundas 
 have done in a situation not very dissimilar from 
 that of Mr. Hastings. It is of no consequence to 
 shew, if it could be done, that the war might have 
 been avoided, in which we are now engaged. The 
 discussion of the question would be as useless now, 
 as it was in 1781, to enquire whether the Direc- 
 tors, the Government of Bombay, or Mr. Hast- 
 ings, was the author of the Mahratta war. If 
 Mr. Pitt brings us as honourably out of this, 
 as Mr. Hastings brought us out of the Mahratta 
 war, his important services, will be the more grate- 
 fully acknowledged than those of Mr. Hastings 
 have been. The facl is, that though Spain, Austria, 
 Prussia, the Germanic Body, Great Britain, and 
 Holland, are united against France, her numbers, 
 and her situation, and the enthusiasm of the people 
 have enabled those who direct her armies, to 
 baffle all our efforts on the Continent. 
 
 The
 
 (6*4) 
 
 The King of Prussia, though the first to en- 
 gage against France, professes his inability to con- 
 tinue the war. This nation, which was the last 
 engaged in the contest, consents to give him One 
 Million Four Hundred Thousand Pounds, and 
 uses her influence with Holland to give him Four 
 Hundred Thousand Pounds more, for the service 
 of a body of troops during the present campaign. 
 The Treaty is warmly approved by the House of 
 
 Commons. 
 
 But tho' a confiderable sum has been sent in 
 
 advance, the king of Prussia has totally ruined 
 us in the Netherlands, by not complying with the 
 terms of the treaty. We lament the situation in 
 which this breach of Faith has placed Mr. Pitt ; 
 but we do not blame him. 
 
 The treaty by which Mr. Hastings gave 260,000!. 
 to Moodagee Boosla, produced the most decisive 
 and immediate good confequences, yet that treaty 
 is branded on the Journals of Parliament, with the 
 epithets " precarious," " unwarrantable," " ex- 
 "jravagant,*' " impolitic," and " dishonourable." 
 
 None of the reasoning now used in favour of 
 Mr. Pitt, could be heard in defence of Mr. Hast- 
 ings ; the House of Commons fees, and wisely 
 sees, in the case of Mr. Pitt, the danger of en- 
 couraging, abstract discussions at this perilous 
 moment, and therefore every attempt to prove 
 
 that
 
 ( 625 ) 
 
 that the war might have been avoided is disco- 
 vered. The calamity is at our door, and as Mr. 
 Hastings well said, when Hyder had overrun the 
 Carnatic, This is the season for aftion, not for 
 ** debate :" But in the last general war, when the 
 American contest armed the world against Great 
 Britain; Gentlemen of the most opposite parties 
 in Parliament, forgot their personal animosities, 
 and though in daily habits of accusing each other 
 as the authors of the calamities which England 
 then sustained, joined most cordially in condemn- 
 ing the measures of those in India, who were 
 bravely struggling through every difficulty; and 
 who, inftead of receiving from time to time, as 
 Lord North did then^ and as Mr. Pitt does now> 
 all the support that Parliament could give, had to 
 contend with every fpecies of counteraction, 
 which the folly, or the prejudice, or the ignorance, 
 of persons who then guided the National Coun- 
 cils, could throw in their way But though all 
 men of enlightened minds, must now see the 
 errors they then committed, one man, and but 
 one man has the manliness to step forward and 
 acknowledge his mistake. We mean Mr. Dun- 
 das, who professing to think in 1782, that the 
 removal of Mr. Hastings was a wise and neces- 
 .sary measure, did in that year, move his recal in 
 the House of Commons. But in 1784, he vo- 
 s s luntarily
 
 f 626 ) 
 
 luntarily stepped forth, and then expressed M 
 the House his joy, that the proprietors of India 
 Stock, had successfully opposed his motion, be- 
 ing convinced that by continuing Mr. Hastings in 
 India, they had performed a very eflential pub- 
 lie fer/ice. 
 
 As Mr. Fox slightly touched upon the Mar- 
 ratta war and the Marratta Peace, we have of- 
 fered the preceding remarks to our readers. 
 
 We have been particular in our observations 
 on Mr. Fox's Speech, because it applied to the 
 great and important article on which the Impeach- 
 ment now refts. 
 
 It is indeed charged by the Commons, that the 
 objeft of Mr. Hastings in all his afts, were " to 
 * s acquire for himself, and his dependants, exor- 
 " bitant wealth" 
 
 He is charged therefore with giving 18,000!. a 
 year to Sir Eyre Cootc a bullock contraft to Mr. 
 Coftes an Opium contract to Mr. Sulivan 
 one agency to Mr. Auriol a second to Mr. 
 Belli and a third to Sir Charles Blunt 
 
 These are all the accusations, though his prose- 
 cutors had to review his dispofal of a great pa- 
 tronage during a Government of thirteen years 
 If for argument sake, it wre to be admitted, that 
 the profits arising to the individuals on these con- 
 tracts and agencies were as large as the managers 
 
 state
 
 state them to be, the aggregate amount would be 
 iflmg, when compared to the profit, on a 
 single loan, in England, in the late war. 
 
 Mr. Hastings was charged with taking very 
 large bribes, betwen the years 1772 and 1774, 
 and concealing the receipt of them and with re- 
 ceiving large bribes, between the years 1780 and 
 1784; the receipt of which he discovered-His 
 view in receiving these several sums was said to 
 be, to acquire for himself exorbitant -wealth. 
 
 The subjea, though apparently extenfive, does 
 in fed he in a very narrow compass. 
 
 All the charges in the first period, that is from 
 irom 1772 to 1774, are unsupported by a tittle of 
 evidence, except that which applies to the sum 
 Two thousand Rupees a day, received by Mr. 
 Hastings in the year 1772, wh en he was at Mor- 
 shadabad, agreeably to the prance of his prede- 
 cessors. Whether it was right in Lord Clive, in 
 Mr. Verelst, and in Mr. Hastings, to receive that 
 allowance for entertainment, is not the question- 
 But it is clearly proved, that it was not that which 
 Commons charged it to be - a bribe for the 
 appointment of Muny Begum to a public office _ 
 consequently the charge falls to the ground 
 
 The presents received by Mr. Hastings be- 
 twccn 1780 and 1784, are distinguished by Mr. 
 Fox, under the name of the avowed presents " 
 That is, presents of which there is not a tittle 
 
 to
 
 of evidence as to the receipt of them, beyond 
 the voluntary information given by Mr. Hastings 
 himself. It was firft contended by Mr. Fox, 
 to receive these presents subsequent to the 
 aft of 1773, was a breach of the law. It 
 was next contended that Mr. Hastings did 
 for a time, intend to apply a part of these pre- 
 sents to his own use These are the important 
 questions to be considered. Mr. Fox said every 
 thing that man could say upon both, and we admit, 
 that his arguments would have the greatest weight, 
 provided he had reasoned upon the evidence The 
 faft is, that he only took a fart of the evidence, 
 and omitted that part which placed the matter in 
 a very opposite point of view. 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY-EIGHTH 
 DAY. May 23. 
 
 The Court met to-day at half past two, when 
 Mr. Taylor replied on the Contracts . 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY-NINTH 
 
 DAY May 27. 
 
 Mr. Taylor concluded his summary of the con- 
 tracts. 
 
 ONE
 
 ( 629 ) 
 
 i 
 
 Mr. Burke's ist Day. 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND FORTIETH 
 DAY, May 28. 
 
 Of Mr. Burke's fpeech, on this day, it is ab 
 folutely impossible to convey an adequate idea to 
 thofe who did not hear it. Every term of abuse 
 which the Englifh language affords, he applied 
 to Mr. Hastings; but not one word had the least 
 connection with the Evidence which has been 
 in the trial. As we wish at all times to do jus- 
 tice to Mr. Burke, we fhall transcribe two pas- 
 sages from a speech printed by Mr. Burke him- 
 felf in the year 1785, when Mr. Pitt and Mr. 
 Dundas were as much the objects of his detesta- 
 tion, as Mr. Hastings appears to be now; and 
 we desire our readers to believe, that, if pos- 
 sible, he abused Mr. Hastings this day in grosser 
 language, than he then did His Majesty's present 
 First Lord of the Treafury and Secretary of State. 
 
 " Let no man hereafter talk of the decaying 
 ' energies of nature, all the Als and Monu- 
 " ments in the records of Peculation, the con- 
 folidated corruption of ages, the patterns of 
 w exemplary plunder in the heroic times of 
 s s 3 Roman 
 

 
 ( 630 ) 
 
 " Roman iniquity, never equalled the gigantic 
 " corruption of this single aft. 
 
 " Your Ministers knew, when they signed the 
 " Death Warrant of the Carnatic, that the Na- 
 " bob would not only turn all the unfortunate 
 " Farmers out of employment, but that he has 
 " denounced his severest vengeance againft them 
 " for acting under British authority. With a 
 u knowledge of this disposition, a British Chan- 
 " cellor of the Exchequer, (Mr. Pitt) and Trea- 
 " surer of the Navy, (Mr. Dundas) incited by 
 " no public advantage, impelled by no public 
 " necessity, in a strain of the most wanton per- 
 " fidy, which has ever stained the annals of man- 
 " kind,- have delivered over to plunder, impri- 
 " sonment, exile and death itfelf, according to 
 " the Mercy of fuch execrable Tyrants as the 
 " unhappy and deluded fouls, who, untaught by 
 * uniform example, were ftill weak enough to 
 " put their trust in English Faith." 
 
 If the imagination of our readers can suppose 
 it possible for abuse on an individual to be more 
 virulent than that which we have quoted here, 
 Mr. Burke on this day abused Mr. Hastings with 
 more virulence than he abused Mr. Pitt on the 
 28th of February 1785. We think it necessary 
 again to remark, that this abuse of Mr. Pitt, is 
 
 taken
 
 taken from a speech published by Mr. Burke 
 himself. 
 
 Mr. Buric's *d Day. 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY-FIFTH 
 DAY, May 30. 
 
 Mr. Burke began, on this day, by restating 
 what he had faid yesterday, that Mr. Hastings, 
 instead of appearing in a humble and decent 
 manner, had dared to accufe the House of Com- 
 mons of the bafest ingratitude, that he had given 
 them Impeachment for Impeachment. 
 
 After Mr. Burke had spent a considerable time 
 in repeating what he had before said on this fub- 
 jea, he went to the next head that he had dwelt 
 upon on the laft day, and contended that Mr. 
 Hastings was not founded in asserting that the 
 Government of India was not arbitrary. 
 
 It will be fufficient to fay, that Lord Corn- 
 wallis, in one of the minutes alluded to by Mr. 
 Burke, expressly fays, that every thing of Law, 
 of Police, and of Regulation, tending k> me- 
 liorate the condition of the people of Bengal, 
 it owes to the British Government. Every 
 s s 4 thing
 
 ( 63* ) 
 
 thing depending, prior to the British Adminis- 
 tration, on caprice, and the pleasure of the So- 
 vereign, or the person to whom he delegated his 
 power. In Lord Cornwallis's evidence there is 
 the following question and answer. 
 
 " Q. What is the general mode of proceeding 
 " against refraftory Zemindars according to ihe 
 Laws and Customs of Hindustan ?"' 
 
 " A. It is difficult to defcribe the regular mode 
 " of proceeding in a despotic Government, but 
 tncy are frequently confined and dispossesed." 
 This is the compleatest possible aiwwer to three 
 fourths of Mr. Burkes fpeech. 
 
 Mr. Burke also repeated what he had' before 
 faid of the insolence of Mr. Haflings in acci^i > 
 the House of Commons of the basest ii'gr,,titde 
 He said he had impeached the Body who had im- 
 peached him. That until this lime, every man 
 who had been impeached by so great a liody as 
 the Commons, feemed fensible of their misfor- 
 tune; but different was the case with Mr. Has- 
 tings. He boasted his merits, while he asserted 
 his innocence. The facts alluded to are thefe, and 
 the impartial part of mankind may think there is 
 more of Truth than Infolence in what Mr. Has- 
 tings said to the Lords in 1792. Mr. Hastings af- 
 firmed to their Lordships, that the Commons had 
 impeached him for afts which the King's Minis- 
 ters
 
 ( $33 ) 
 
 ters had fully approved. That while the Mana- 
 gers were declaring in Westminfter-Hall, that Mr. 
 Hastings had desolated the Provinces of Bengal, 
 the India Minister was proclaiming to the House 
 of Commons, that Bengal had been the best go- 
 verned, and the most flourishing Country in In- 
 dostan under the British Administration. That 
 while the Managers were declaring, that the re- 
 fources of the Company were diminished under 
 the Administration of Mr. Hastings^ Mr. Dun- 
 das was proving to the Houfe of Commons, by 
 the evidence in figures, that under the adminis- 
 tration of Mr. Hastings, they had increased two 
 millions sterling a year; that is, that in 1772, 
 when he came to the Government, they were three 
 millions; and in 1785, when he left it, they were 
 five millions sterling a year. 
 
 After stating thefe fafts in the boldest but in 
 the clearest language. Mr. Hastings adds, ad- 
 dressing the Commons. " I gave you all, and 
 you have rewarded me with confiscation, dis- 
 grace, and a life of impeachment." 
 
 If the above assertions were not striBly true, 
 then indeed Mr. Hastings would be the most in- 
 solent man alive. But the whole world knows, that 
 each assertion is true, and until Mr. Burke spoke, 
 \ve believe no man living thought of applying the 
 
 word Insolence for Truth. 
 
 Mr, 

 
 Mr. Burke spoke from a quarter before Two 
 till a quarter after Five, and went through a part 
 of Benares, tho' he professed his intention to be, 
 not to go into any of the articles which had been 
 so fully detailed before. The greatest number of 
 Lords present was Nineteen, they were reduced to 
 Thirteen before Mr. Burke had finished. The 
 audience was numerous, and of course the epi- 
 thets used by Mr. Burke, which were of the 
 coarsest kind, carried even beyond his former 
 abuse of Mr. Pitt, would be circulated very ge- 
 nerally. 
 
 Mr. Burkes %d Day. 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY-SECOND 
 DAY. Junt 3. 
 
 The court met at two o'clock to-day, and Mr. 
 Burke proceeded to sum up the remainder of the 
 Benares Charge. The account of it stands thus: 
 It was opened by Mr. Fox and Mr. Grey in two 
 days. It was closed by Mr. Anstruther in a speech
 
 ( 635 ) 
 
 of one day. The evidence in reply was closed 
 by Mr. Grey in a speech of two, and by Mr. 
 Burke in a speech three days, fo that eight days 
 have been employed by the Managers in Speeches 
 on the Benares article, independent of what Mr. 
 Burke said in his first opening fpeech : and after 
 so much time, and after fo much money spent, the 
 evidence proves, that when Cheyt Sing was ex- 
 pelled in 1.781, Mr. Hastings raised the public 
 revenue of Benares from 230,000!. to 400,000!. 
 a year : that this increased revenue has been re- 
 gularly paid from 1780 to 1793, and that there is 
 no sort of doubt of this increafed revenue being 
 regularly paid in future; that the country has 
 flourished eminently fince the expulsion of Cheyt 
 Sing; that Benares has considerably increased 
 in building and in population fince the expulsion 
 of Cheyt Sing ; that the Police, establifhed by 
 Mr. Hastings, in Benares, has rendered that city 
 the first in India. To this clear, decided, and 
 undoubted evidence, Mr. Burke opposed a Let- 
 ter, written by Mr. Hastings in 1784, in which 
 he stated, that by the bad management, of the 
 Aumil after a very heavy drought, the country 
 had been greatly oppressed, and that in the line 
 through which he marched, from Buxal to the 
 extremity of the Benares Province, the natives 
 
 had
 
 C 636 ) 
 
 had dcsrted their villages, owing to the negleft 
 of the Aumil. 
 
 The next was a report from Mr. Duncan, in 
 1788, who fays, that fome Pergunnahs had fallen 
 off since the expulsion of Chcyt Sing. 
 
 Now Mr. Burke rejects all evidence from 
 Gentlemen of all descriptions; rej efts the solemn 
 assertions of the People themfelves; rejeBs the 
 Public accounts; rejects all that his Friend Mr. 
 Dundas has faid of the flourishing state of Ben- 
 ares; a*nd insists upon it, that Mr. Hastings and 
 Mr. Duncan have proved, that the Country is 
 utterly ruined. And with this, at last, the Be- 
 nares Caufe is ended, until the Lords shall de- 
 cide, whether the six millions sterling, which 
 this Nation has received from Benares shall be 
 restored to Cheyt Sing. 
 
 The fame mode of stating fafts which distin- 
 guished Mr. Burke, when he told what passed in a 
 large company, when the late Lord Dover was pre- 
 sent, distinguished him in relating passages from 
 the Letters of Mr. Duncan and Mr. Hastings. 
 He read what the former Gentleman said of the 
 state of some trifling Pergunnahs; and from that 
 partial statement, he argued, that the whole Pro- 
 vince of Benares was ruined inevitably; that 
 Province from which the Company has received 
 400.000!. a year, from 1782 to this day. 
 
 He 

 
 He read parts, or rather he desired Mr. Wynd- 
 ham, to read part of a letter from Mr. Hastings, 
 in which he reprefented the confequences of an 
 alarming drought, and the bad conduft of the 
 Aumil when joined together for one year: but 
 when Mr. Wyndham came to the following parts 
 of the fame letter, Mr. Burke desired him to stop; 
 we fhall therefore infert it in this place. 
 
 I have the happiness to find all men satisfied 
 and happy in the excellent administration of the 
 " city of Benares, and have experienced what few 
 men of the first station have known in the inter- 
 courfe with the natives of India, if of any other 
 46 country, the voice of adulation, divested even 
 in my own presence, from myself, in the eager- 
 " nefs of bestowing a better merited praise upon 
 " another. Such is the tribute which the wisdom 
 and integrity of Ally Ibraham Caun have extort- 
 ed from the hearts of thofe who have been 
 " fubjeftion to his jurisdicV' 
 
 At half past four, Mr. Burke complained that 
 he was tired, and the Court adjourned, having sat 
 only two hours and a half, though the Commons 
 had fent a message that they were ready to pro- 
 ceed day by day until the Trial was clofed ; but 
 no Manager was ready to proceed to clofe this 
 everlasting Caufe ; and yet the Managers formed 
 
 a Com- 

 
 ( 638 ) 
 
 a Committee, instructed to inquire into tire caufes 
 of the duration of the Trial. 
 
 The court meets again on Thursday, when it 
 is hoped, tho' hardly expeded, that Mr. Burke 
 will clofe. Nothing new has been faid: from 1788 
 to 1794, the fame remarks have been repeated. 
 
 Mr. Burkes 4/A Day. 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY-THIRD 
 DAY, Junt 5. 
 
 The Court, on this day, betrayed strong symp- 
 toms of being fatigued by the great length and 
 fmall advance made by Mr. Burke in his closing 
 Speech. The audience was thinned considerably, 
 the Commons were few in number, no Managers, 
 and only twelve Lords prefent. Mr. Wyndham 
 afterwards arrived. Mr. Burke began at two, by 
 restating, that Mr. Hastings, by expelling Cheyt 
 Sing, and by his own subsequent regulations, had 
 utterly ruined Benares. 
 
 Injustice to the British nation, we wish to re- 
 mark that from the letter, of which Mr. Burke 
 read a part, and from the answer of Lord Corn- 
 wallis, it is clear that the revenue of 400,000!. a 
 year which Mr. Hastings had fixed as a proper 
 
 sum
 
 sum for the British nation to receive, "was a sum 
 which the Country could well pay, leaving the 
 Rajah a sum amply sufficient for his dignity 
 and expence. 
 
 The country did pay this Revenue under Mr. 
 Hastings, under Sir John Macpherson, and un- 
 der Lord Cornwallis. It continues to pay it un- 
 der Sir John Shore, yet with all this Evidence 
 before him, with the Evidence of the public ac- 
 counts; did Mr. Burke insult common sense on 
 this day, by repeating again that Benares had 
 been utterly ruined by Mr. Hastings. 
 
 Mr. Burke then went into the complete history 
 of Oude, though the whole has been abandoned 
 by the Commons, and read extracts from Minutes, 
 which do not apply in the least to any matter de- 
 pending on this impeachment. Mr. Burke said 
 he charged Mr. Hastings with treason and re- 
 bellion, that is the Commons did so, for not lay- 
 ing his Persian correspondence before the Coun- 
 cil. 
 
 From ten minutes past two, until the Court 
 rose a quarter before five, not a fyllable faid by 
 Mr. Burke, had the least reference to any matter 
 in charge against Mr. Hastings. 
 
 The whole Speech applied to those Articles, 
 
 which the House of Commons have abandoned. 
 
 By the last Houfe, they were voted without be- 
 
 1 ing
 
 ( 6 4 o ) 
 
 ing read, and this Houfe precluded the Mana- 
 gers from going into them at all. Consequent- 
 ly, this was a day totally lost; and the Lords 
 feemed to think so, for the number Twelve, which 
 the court confided of, when it aflembled, was re- 
 duced to Nine before Mr. Burke had done. 
 
 When the Lords retired, a Petition was pre- 
 fented from Mr. Hastings to the Lords, in which 
 he reminded their Lordlhips, that when the Reply 
 was postponed last year, it was stated that in fac\ 
 it would be no loss of time, as the Court might sit 
 day by day, so as to finish it and come to judge- 
 ment early in this Sessions ; that except the short 
 delay by the examination of Lord Cornwallis, the 
 whole of this year had been taken up by the Ma- 
 nagers in reply. 
 
 That he could not help being alarmed at the 
 advanced state of the Session, compared with the 
 progress made by the Managers in the Reply ; 
 and, therefore, he most earnestly intreated, that 
 their Lordship swould take his unparallelled case 
 into confideration ; and that they would be sui- 
 tors to His Majesty not to prorogue this Sessions, 
 until the Speech in reply was finished; and un- 
 til nothing but the Judgement should remain. The 
 Lords, after this Petition was read, determined to 
 meet again on Saturday. 
 
 As this was a day wholly lost, no man could 
 
 form
 
 form an idea of the time Mr. Burke will take 
 
 Ten guineas have been given to receive a guinea 
 For every fpeaking day that Mr. Burke shall yet 
 take; but it is very singular, that though the 
 Commons sent a message to the Lords, that they 
 Were ready to proceed day by day, Mr. Burke 
 himself desires the Lords to indulge him with a 
 day's recess. It was at his request that the Court 
 did not meet last Saturday, and it was at his ear- 
 nest desire that the Trial was put 'off from this 
 day to Saturday. We trust, however, that the 
 time will come, when every circumstance attend- 
 ing this unparalleled Trial will be fully ex. 
 plained. 
 
 In such a season of calamity and danger, that 
 
 r instead of evidence, epithets disgusting to all who 
 
 hear them, should be fo lavishly bestowed upon 
 
 |.a man who has done as much to serve his coun- 
 
 l try, as any British subjed now living, is indeed 
 
 |a very ferious evil. Nobody desires to stop Mr. 
 
 Burke. 
 
 If the Commons, in whose name he speaks, 
 
 t think it right to keep all that Mr. Hastings pro- 
 
 |cured for them, and to boast of the amount, 
 
 .value, and importance of his acquisitions. 
 
 I If the King's Ministers thinks it right to hold 
 
 a language in the Houfe of Commons so totally 
 
 different from what Mr. Burke holds in West- 
 
 T T minster-
 
 ( 642 ) 
 
 minster-Hall, still there can be no reason why 
 some period should not be put to such contra- . 
 diBions. Let us therefore hope, that his Ma- 
 jesty will be addressed not to prorogue Parliament 
 until Mr. Burke has done. The Lords who as- 
 sembled to hear the opening Speech of Mr. Burke, 
 to the number of one hundred and sixty-eight, are 
 now reduced to ten. 
 
 The Managers, Mr. Wyndham excepted, have 
 deserted Mr. Hastings, and the whole world 
 anxiously await the day of judgment. 
 
 Mr. Buries $th Day. 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY-FOURTH 
 DAY, June 7. 
 
 The Court met at two, twelve Lords present. 
 Mr. Burke began by complaining in very strong 
 terms, both of the Caurt and Mr. Hastings ; of 
 the latter, for writing a most audacious Libel, un- 
 der the name of a Petition ? and of the former, 
 for having received it upon their Journals. What 
 the House of Commons would do, in consequence 
 of this insult, he could not tell, as he had not yet 
 had an opportunity of consulting the House upon 
 it ; he should therefore proceed as if no such Li- 
 bel had been written. 
 
 What
 
 ( 643 ) 
 
 What Mr. Burke calls a Libel, is the Petition 
 presented by Lord Hardwicke to the Lords, in 
 which Mr. Hastings states truths that certainly do 
 no credit to the Managers. The faft is, that in 
 the last year the Lords wanted the Commons to 
 begin and to finish their reply. Mr. Burke and 
 the Managers persuaded the Commons to desire 
 the Lords to put off the Trial to this year; and 
 it was said in the Commons, that it would be no 
 real loss of time, because the reply could not be 
 finished in the last year, but by deferring it to this 
 year, the House might meet day by day, and ac- 
 tually conclude it very early in this Session. 
 
 To this promise, and to the breach of it, Mr. 
 Hastings did very strongly allude in his Petition 
 to the Lords ; for it was impossible for him not 
 to be apprehensive, that instead of pronouncing 
 Judgement in this year, Mr. Burke's fpeech would 
 not be finished, unless their Lordships interceed- 
 ed with his Majesty, to keep Parliament sitting 
 some time longer. It is equally certain, that the 
 Commons did send a message to the Lords, that 
 they were ready to proceed day by day. Mr. Burke 
 applies continually to the Lords, and desires them 
 not to sit two days together. 
 
 Is it possible for Mr. Hastings not to feel? and 
 
 has he not a right to complain ? Mr. Burke ^says, 
 
 no other persen has ever dared to complain as Mr. 
 
 T T a Hastings
 
 ( 644 ) 
 
 Hastings has done. It may be so, but it is equally 
 true, that no Englishman before this day, has been 
 seven years on his trial, or impeached for the 
 measures which he took to bring thirty-four mil- 
 lions sterling into the Public Exchequer, and to 
 add two millions sterling a year to the annual Re- 
 venue of England. If the language of Mr. Hast- 
 ings is bold, let it be considered, that his services 
 and their importance are universally acknow- 
 ledged. 
 
 Mr. Burke then recapitulated the material points 
 of his last day's speech', not one of which had the 
 least reference to any one of the four articles, on 
 which Mr. Burke himself admits the impeachment 
 depends ; but as the result of all was said to be, 
 that the dominions of the Nabob ofOude were ut- 
 terly ruined by Mr. Hastings, we shall, as in the 
 case of Benares, appeal to fa6ls, in order to prove 
 that the ruin consists only in the imagination of 
 Mr. Burke. 
 
 In January 1775, Sujah Dowlah, Nabob of 
 Oude, died, and was succeeded by his son, the 
 present Nabob. It was determined by the Go- 
 vernment of Bengal, in oppostion to the opinion 
 of Mr. Hastings, that the Treaties subsisting be- 
 tween Bengal and Oude expired with Sujah Dow- 
 lah. They, therefore, compelled the Nabob either 
 to give up all connections with Bengal, or to con- 
 sent
 
 ( 645 ) 
 
 sent to increase the Subsidy which he paid for a 
 Brigade of British Troops, from 21, to 26,000!. a 
 month ; and also, to cede for ever to the Com- 
 pany, the Province of Benares. 
 
 Mr. Burke defended this aft ; though Mr. Dun. 
 das described it, as it certainly was, a most fla- 
 grant breach of a Solemn Treaty . The Directors 
 concurred in opinion with Mr. Hastings, that the 
 Treaty with Sujah Dowlah did not expire at his 
 death; but they were well pleased by the in- 
 crease of the Subsidy, and the acquisition of Be- 
 nares, both of which resulted from the intimate 
 connection formed by Mr. Hastings with Sujah 
 Dowlah, in the year 1773. 
 
 At the latter end of the year 1775, such was the 
 distress of the Nabob, and such the confusion in 
 his country, owing to the Begum withholding his 
 father's treasures, which left an army of one hun- 
 dred thousand men many months in arrears, that 
 the Nabob was persuaded by Mr. Bristow, to ap- 
 ply for British officers to command his forces* 
 The request was complied with, and a number of 
 officers were sent to Oude upon emoluments 
 and allowances, infinitely beyond any that were 
 enjoyed by the Bengal army. Mr. Burke misre- 
 presents this matter .so completely, that any per- 
 son who heard him, must have supposed that Mr. 
 Hastings formed this arrangement, whereas it was in 
 T T 3 facl:
 
 ( 646 ) 
 
 faft done by the majority, Messrs. Clavering, Mon- 
 son, and Francis. 
 
 Two of the officers first appointed were Major 
 Webber, Aid-de-Camp to General Clavering, who 
 was not in the Company's Service, and Major Mar- 
 sack. It is no reflection upon Major Webber* 
 who is a very worthy and honourable man, to say 
 that he made a handsome fortune in the Nabob's 
 service in four yers. It is well known that Ma- 
 jor Marsack has purchased the fine Seat and Park 
 of Lord Cadogan, at Cavcrfham. Many other 
 officers appointed by General Clavering in 1775$ 
 have returned with easy and independent fortunes. 
 This Nabob had Aid-dc-Camps, Secretaries, Ad- 
 jutant, and Quarter- Master-General, Pay-master, 
 and Commissaries, with their Deputies. 
 
 Mr. Bristow, who was the Chief, is supposed, 
 upon good grounds, to possess the largest foi tune 
 that ever was made in India. We do not men- 
 tion this as invidious very far from it, but in 
 order to shew that the system under which so 
 many fortunes were made in Oude, was not form- 
 ed by Mr. Hastings, as Mr. Burke so erroneously 
 states, but by General Clavering, Colonel Mon- 
 son, and Mr. Francis. 
 
 The Nabob had no money, and was unable to- 
 pay these new military and civil establifhments, 
 or to discharge what was then owing to the 
 
 Company.
 
 Company. He therefore assigned certain dis- 
 trias to Mr. Bristow, who, in concert with the 
 Minister, was in truth the Sovereign of Oude, a 
 f a a stated by Captain Edwards, who swore that 
 the Nabob was in a state of subordination to all 
 the residents alike. In other words, and in ano- 
 ther passage, he said, that the Nabob's Minister, 
 who was under the influence of the resident, en- 
 tirely governed the country. Such was the system 
 established in 1775 by the majority, and this sys- 
 tem continued under Mr. Bristow first, then under 
 Mr. Middleton, or Mr. Purling, until September, 
 1781, when it was in fome degree altered. 
 
 In 1784, Mr. Hastings made an arrangement 
 with the Nabob, by which it was agreed that if, 
 the Nabob discharged the debt then due to t 
 Company ; and if in future he regularly paid the 
 subsidy due for the British Troops, no resident 
 should have the slightest interference in his do- 
 minions, This arrangement, which Mr. Burke 
 has quarrelled with, as he does with every thing, 
 was very fully approved by the King's Ministers, 
 and was ordered by them, to be invariably ad- 
 hered to. It has been so, but still we exercise a 
 superintending power in Oude, precisely similar 
 to that which was exercised by Mr. Hastings. 
 Lord Cornwallis, who, on all occasions speak! 
 and aBs as a man of honour, was unwilling that 
 
 T 4
 
 648 
 
 his countrymen should undergo the scandal of be- 
 ing the authors of disorders with which they had 
 nothing to do, and wrote to the Direaors, That 
 the Disorders in Oude are to be traced in the 
 charaaer of the Prince," whom he describes as 
 very extravagant, and utterly averse to business 
 of any kind. His Lordfhip therefore proteBed 
 the Minister, Hyder Big Khan, against the Na- 
 bob, and as often as the Nabob seemed disinclined 
 3 aa agreeable to the wishes of the Minister, 
 Lord Cornwallis has remonstrated, and the evil 
 was redressed. When this Minister died in 1792, 
 the Nabob waited to know the pleasure of Lord 
 Cornwallis, before he appointed a successor. 
 
 From 1773, when Mr. Hastings formed the 
 first arrangement with SujahDowlah, to this time/ 
 we have received above seventeen millions ster- 
 ling from Oude. Oude has, in f a a, paid above 
 one third of the annual expence of the Bengal 
 army, independent of the large sums in bullion 
 remitted to the Treasury, in Calcutta, which en. 
 abled us to preserve India, in the last general 
 war. 
 
 We have proved, by a reference to f a a s , which 
 
 > general notoriety, that the system which led 
 
 our first interference in the internal Govern- 
 
 'ent of Oude, was not the system of Mr. Hast- 
 
 mgs, but of General Clavering, Colonel Monson, 
 
 and
 
 ( 649 ) 
 
 and Mr. Francis. Justice to those Gentlemen 
 induces us to declare, that no such mischievous 
 confequences as Mr. Burke states, did result from 
 that interference. 
 
 The Military Farmers General, as Mr. Barke 
 calls them, guarded the extreme Provinces of the 
 Nabob's Dominions, countries which Mr. Bristow 
 described, before these officers were appointed* 
 as in such a state of anarchy and rebellion, that 
 they could hardly be said to make part of the 
 Nabob's dominions j under these Military Farmers 
 General, the countries were much better governed 
 than they had been before or since, and revenues 
 were collected, and brought into the Treasury at 
 Lucknow, from districts which before those Offi- 
 cers were appointed, had paid nothing to the 
 Nabob. 
 
 That the assumption of the Government of 
 Oude, by the British resident Mr. Bristow, in 
 1775, and the continuance of the same power 
 uftder Mr. Middleton, was a serious evil, and that 
 the employment of British officers to collect re- 
 venues, was liable to every objection stated by Mr. 
 Hastings, is most certain; but it was an evil, as 
 it affected our own service, not as it injured the 
 Nabob's subjects. Is there a man so weak, or foolish 
 as to believe, that Oude is better governed now, 
 than it was either by Mr. Bristow or Mr. Middle- 
 ton?
 
 ton ? Certainly it is not ; but as the Nabob ha* 
 discharged all his debts to the company, and as he 
 now regularly pays the subsidy, we have no right, 
 or pretence for interfering with him in his govern- 
 ment, except by advice, which has been equiva- 
 lent to command to this day. 
 
 Even the removal of every species of inter- 
 ference in the internal affairs of Oudc, was made 
 criminal in Mr. Hastings, by one of those thirteen 
 articles, which the Commons passed without read- 
 ing, though the King's Ministers expressed their 
 fullest approbation of the conduct of Mr. Hastings 
 in forming that arrangement. 
 
 We have gone through this subjeft. It is true 
 that it has nothing to do with any matter in charge, 
 but it will serve to shew with what ingenuity Mr. 
 Burke can turn afts of merit into crimes. 
 
 From this country of Oude, so compleatly and 
 irretricveably ruined, this nation has received 
 above 17 millions sterling since 1773. It is to 
 receive in future years half a million sterling carfi 
 year, and it is completely protected by the British 
 forces from Foreign invasion. It is absurd, ridi- 
 culous, contrary to fal, and to common sense, to 
 state a country as ruined, which is enabled for 
 twenty years together, to pay such sums to a Fo- 
 reign State, merely for military assistance. 
 
 ONE
 
 ( 6 5 i ) 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY-FIFTH 
 DAY, June 11. 
 
 Mr. Burkes 6th Day. 
 
 The Court this day assembled at two o'clock; 
 twelve Lords being present, and Mr. Wyndham 
 with Mr. Burke. The Manager recapitulated 
 what he had said the last day, and then went into 
 a very strong and pointed attack upon the testi- 
 mony and conduft of Sir Elijah Impey, a Mem- 
 ber of the House of Commons, and upon the 
 several Gentlemen who had been employed in 
 Oude. He went through the Begum charge in 
 part, contended that it was impossible they should 
 have been in rebellion in the year 1781, that the 
 whole was a story invented by Mr. Hastings, as 
 a plea for seizing her treafures ; and offered, as a 
 proof of it, that the Directors had sent the most 
 positive orders for instituting a particular enquiry 
 into the truth of the accusation against the Be- 
 gum, which orders the colleagues of Mr. Hastings 
 would have carried into execution, had not they 
 been over-ruled by Mr. Hastings. 
 
 This subjeft occupied Mr. Burke for a consi- 
 derable time ; and in the course of this fpeech, 
 he applied so many coarse epithets to Mr. Hast- 
 ings, that at length he started up, and declared, 
 
 that
 
 that the Dire&ors had sept no orders for insti- 
 tuting the inquiry mentioned by Mr. Burke; and 
 that Human Nature must at lad be exhausted by 
 hearing such gross falsehoods so often repeated. 
 
 Mr. Burke appeared a little confounded, but 
 recovering himself said, he hoped theCourt would 
 not permit that wicked wretch that fcourge of 
 India that criminal, to infult the House of Com- 
 mons. After fome time Mr. Wyndham said, 
 the best way would be, to read again the orders 
 of the Directors, for the enquiry alluded to by 
 Mr. Burke. As this is a matter of a most delicate 
 nature, we shall merely state the Fafts, to which 
 the orders of the Directors applied ; the orders 
 themselves, the minutes that followed them, of 
 which parts only were read by Mr. Wyndham, 
 and leave the world to form their own conclu- 
 sions. 
 
 In July 1782, the Direftor* were informed 
 that in confequence of the support given to Cheyt 
 Sing, the Guarantee of the Company had been 
 withdrawn from the Begum ; that Mr. Hastings 
 had strenuously encouraged and supported the Na- 
 bob in resuming the Jaghire, and in seizing the 
 treasure of the Begum, they were informed that 
 all the treasure taken, amounting to 500,000!. had 
 been applied to the discharge of the debt due by 
 the Nabob to the East-India Company. The Be- 
 nares
 
 
 ( 653 ) 
 
 Tiares narrative, and the affidavits, were sent home 
 by the fame conveyance, and arrived in July 
 1782. The Directors answered these advices on 
 the i4th of February 1783. 
 
 The Managers gave the answer in evidence 
 in 1788, and prefaced it with these words 
 Then the Managers acquainted the House they 
 would next proceed to shew that the Direftors 
 did order an Enquiry to be made in India into 
 the condua of the Begum, that all the world 
 might know the real truth of the case; and that 
 Mr. Hastings did stifle that Enquiry. The 
 letter is then entered by the Managers in page 
 " 920, and the answer in these words. 
 
 If it should hereafter be found that the Begum 
 did not take that hostile part against the Com- 
 pany which has been represented, as well in the 
 Governor General's Narrative as in the several 
 documents therein referred to, and as it no where 
 appears from the papers at present in our posses- 
 sion, }hat they excited any commotion previous 
 to the insurreaion of Cheyt Sing, but only arm, 
 f ed themselves in consequence of that transaaion, 
 and as it is probable that such a condua pro- 
 's ceeded entirely from motives of self-defence, un- 
 der an apprehension that they themselves might 
 likewise be laid under unwarrantable contribu- 
 tions, we direa that you use your influence with 
 
 the
 
 ( 654 ) 
 
 u the Vizier that their Jaghires may be restored to 
 " them." 
 
 Here is the order ; and the point in dispute is, 
 whether this be an order for enquiring into the 
 truth of the Rebellion of the Begums, or whe- 
 ther it be an order to use the influence of the 
 Bengal Government to restore to her her Jag- 
 hire ; as to the treasures, the Directors arc totally 
 silent on that subjcft ; yet it is obvious, that if an 
 enquiry was ordered, and if in the refult of that 
 enquiry she should prove to have been falsely ac- 
 cused, on what principle of justice, or common 
 sense, could the Directors have patted over the 
 Treafurcs. 
 
 The Government consisted of Mr. Hastings, 
 Mr. Wheeler, Mr. Stables, and Sir John Mac- 
 pherson. After the Letter of the DireBors had 
 been read, Mr. Wheeler stated his wish always to 
 conform implicitly to the orders of the Directors ; 
 that those then before them were entirely provi- 
 sional ; that he was fully convinced, not only from 
 the report of Mr. Hastings, but from the opinions 
 of many individuals totally unconcerned on the 
 subjea, that the Begums at Fyzabad did take a 
 hostile part against the Company during the dis- 
 turbances at Benares; but as the Diredors ap- 
 peared to be of a different opinion, and conceived 
 that there ought to be stronger proofs of the dc- 
 
 fe&ion
 
 ( 6 55 ) 
 
 fe&ion of the Begums than had been laid before 
 them, he thought, that before they decided on 
 these orders, the late and present Residents should 
 collea all the information they could upon the 
 subject. 
 
 If there be sense or meaning in language, Mr. 
 Wheeler said, before I consent to intercede with 
 the Nabob, for the restoration of their Jaghires, 
 I desire to know, what has been their past and 
 present conduft. 
 
 Mr. Hastings replies, that he thinks Mr. 
 Wheeler has mistaken the intention of the Di- 
 rectorsthat he sees nothing like an Order ex- 
 pressed or implied, for such an enquiry as Mr. 
 Wheeler proposes. Here the matter drops until 
 the 22d of September, when a Minute from Mr. 
 Staples is read, in which he says, that the Direc- 
 tors feem not to be satisfied that the disaffection 
 of the Begums is fufficiently proved, 
 
 He therefore thinks, that the late and pre- 
 sent Resident, should be called upon t o colleft 
 what further information they can, and the Com- 
 manding Officers who were at the time in the 
 Vrzier's country. 
 
 If there be any meaning in language, this mo- 
 tion was not made in compliance with an Order, 
 but because Mr. Stables conceived that the Di- 
 
 retlors
 
 ( 656 } 
 
 reftors seemed not to be satisfied with the infor- 
 mation before them. 
 
 Mr. Hastings appealed to the letter. He fays it 
 does not order an enquiry, but adds, if evidence 
 is to be collected, it should be collected from all 
 persons capable of giving it, and not confined to 
 official characters. 
 
 To this Minute Mr. Staples makes no reply. 
 
 Sir John Macpherfon, (whofe Minute Mr. 
 Wyndham did not read, (though it follows in the 
 next page,) says, " I have read the letter of the 
 c Directors with attention. When it was first 
 read in Council, I understood that the para- 
 ** graphs about the Begums, as directing an in- 
 K vestigation, Sec. 
 
 " On a close attention to the words and spirit 
 * of the different paragraphs upon the subject, I 
 K do not think we are directed to commence any 
 " new investigation of Evidence. Indeed I do 
 * not see how any new investigation of Evidence 
 " could be regularly undertaken, or what salu- 
 < tary purpose it could answer. 
 
 " There has been no appeal from the Begums 
 * to this Government, and there certainly was 
 " sufficient proof, at the time, that those who had 
 the management of their concerns during the 
 * troubles of Benares, were no friends, but real 
 enemies to the cause of the English." 
 
 Here
 
 Here is all the evidence to this point; Mr. 
 Burke contends that an enquiry was ordered, that 
 the colleagues of Mr. Hastings thought so, and 
 that Mr. Hastings to screen himself refused it. If 
 Mr. Burke had read all the evidence as it is on 
 the Minutes, Mr. Hastings would have been un- 
 pardonable in interrupting him. It would have 
 been seen, had the whole been read, that neither 
 Mr. Wheeler, nor Mr. Stables, proposed an en- 
 quiry, because it was ordered, but because Mr. 
 Stables thought the Directors seemed not to be 
 satisfied, and because Mr. Wheeler would not ap- 
 ply for the restoration of her Jaghire, until he 
 knew her past and present disposition. 
 
 Sir John Macpherson was clearly of opinion, that 
 there was no order for an enquiry. Why did Mr. 
 Wyndhamomit Sir John Macpherson's evidence? 
 Why did the Managers, when they called Mr. 
 Stables to this point in 1788, not call Sir John 
 Macpherson, who was also in England? These 
 are questions which may fairly be asked by those 
 who wish really to know the truth. 
 
 We do not mean to excuse Mr. Hastings, how- 
 ever, on any ground but this. Mr. Burke set out, 
 by saying, that he would read the evidence, to shew 
 that Mr. Hastings had disobeyed the orders of the 
 Directors. He gave the book to Mr. Wyndham ? 
 U u who
 
 who read a garbled account, and Mr. Burke argu- 
 ed, as if the whole had been read. 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY-SIXTH 
 
 DAY, June 12. 
 Mr. Burkes ^h Day. 
 
 This day produced nothing new From Mr. Burke, 
 or worth recording. He desired Mr. Wyndham 
 to read the account transmitted by Major Gilpm 
 and Captain Jacques to the British Resident at 
 Lucknow, of the distresses suffered by the Women 
 of the Khord Mahl, or Concubines of Sujah Dow- 
 lah, in 1782; but he totally omitted a reference 
 to the evidence of those Gentlemen, by which it 
 appears, that no British subjed, much less Mr. 
 Hastings, who never heard of their distresses, could 
 be accountable for them; that they had no sort 
 of conneaion with the Begum, and that no mea- 
 sures pursued against her, could in any respeft 
 add to or diminish the distresses of these unhappy 
 women, who had a very small allowance from the 
 Nabob, and that small allowance was irregularly 
 paid. 
 
 By reading the description of these distresses, 
 
 and
 
 and omitting the evidence of the cause of them, 
 Mr. Burke made out a very piteous tale ; and 
 with this, and other matters, which had no con- 
 nection with Mr. Hastings, he continued until 
 near six o'clock, when the Court adjourned, and 
 meet again on Saturday, on which day Mr. Burke, 
 it is said, is to make an end of his Speech. 
 
 There were two very curious points in this day's 
 Speech, on which we shall make a few observa- 
 tions. 
 
 The first was where Mr. Burke said, that this 
 country had a particular interest in the good Go- 
 vernment of India, since the Public were to re- 
 ceive from the surplus revenues of India in future 
 five hundred thousand pounds a year. How Mr. 
 Burke could venture to allude to this law, is in- 
 deed astonishing. 
 
 t It passed in the last Session; and though Mr. 
 Burke had solemnly pledged himself to oppose 
 with his utmost force, every attempt to perpetuate 
 the present oppressive and corrupt system by which 
 India is governed : he actually absented himself as 
 often as that Bill was under discussion in the House. 
 It has passed, and it is grounded upon data, which 
 are death's blows to the Impeachment; for it is 
 assumed, that we have a right to all we possess in 
 India; and it is assumed, that the revenues in fu- 
 ture will be equal to what they now produce. If 
 u u 2 Mr,
 
 (C6o ) 
 
 Mr. Hastings has been justly impeached, heavy 
 indeed are the demands which the Princes of India 
 have upon England, for the public robberies of 
 Mr. Hastings ; and very considerable must be the 
 annual deductions from the future revenues of 
 India. 
 
 The second is a point, which tho' not immediately 
 respecting Mr. Hastings, proves, that Mr. Burke 
 has omitted no means to obtain information, and 
 as he has procured none, it establishes most clearly 
 the assertions of Colonel Duff, that India is unit- 
 ed in his favotfr. 
 
 Mr. Burke said, he had received a letter from 
 Mr. Bristow, in which that Gentleman affirmed, 
 that one of the Eunuchs of the Begum had suf- 
 fered corporal punishment at "Lucknow. It is 
 proved in evidence, that Mr. Hastings neither 
 directly nor indirectly authorized such a punish- 
 ment, nor was 'he ever acquainted with this cir- 
 ciflhs'taric'e. The faft undoubtedly is, that if the 
 teridih Resident had not interfered to prevent it, 
 the Nabob would have put these Eunuchs to 
 death ; Mr. Hastings knew nothing about them. 
 The material question, and the only one in which 
 lie is concerned is this ; " Was it right or wrong 
 " in him to withdraw the Guarantee of the British 
 " nation from the Begum, and to advise the Na- 
 bob, to tak from her certain sums of money, 
 
 for
 
 (66i ) 
 
 " for the purpose of liquidating the Public Debt, 
 " which he owed to the company ?" 
 
 The supposed cruelties to the Eunuchs, the sup- 
 posed distress of the concubines in the Khord 
 Mahl, Mr. Hastings, connot be responsible for; 
 Major Gilpin and Captain Jacques have fully 
 proved, that he neither knew of the one or the 
 other. But the curious point is this, that though 
 Mr. Burke has let it out, that he has been carry- 
 ing on a secret correspondence in Bengal, he has not 
 been able to excite the Begum, or her Eunuchs, 
 or any human being to complain of the tyranny, 
 oppression, injustice, or cruelty of Mr. Hastings. 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY-SEVENTH 
 DAY, June 14. 
 
 Mr. Burkes $th day. 
 
 Mr. Burke on this day began by stating, that 
 Mr. Hastings had despoiled the Nabob of Bengal 9 
 like an ancient knight, of all his armour his hel- 
 met his haw beck and at last cut off his spurs 
 that he afterwards restored him to all his privi- 
 leges, for the purpose of again bringing into power 
 u u 3 that
 
 ( 66. ) 
 
 that infamous, corrupting, and corrupted prostitute, 
 Munny Begum; that he made her Chief Justice, 
 and the country was again given up to murderers 
 and robbers -that he set up the country gentle- 
 men to auction, and put his own domestics in pos- 
 session of the . estates of the Nobles of the 
 country. 
 
 This part of Mr. lurkc's speech was uncon- 
 nected with any matter in charge ; equally irregu- 
 lar was it to state, that Mr. Hastings had been a 
 bullock contra&or Mr. Burke then went very 
 slightly through the contracts ; the abolition of the 
 provincial Councils and Gunga Govind Sing, 
 he then went back to Oude, and came back again 
 to Bengal, to what he called the bribe of the 
 entertainment that is, the sum of two thousand 
 Rupees a day, paid to Mr. Hastings, while he was 
 at Moorshedabad in 1772. Mr. Burke then said, 
 that if the Lords would attend him one hour on 
 Monday, he would finally close ; upon which the 
 court adjourned. 
 
 ONE
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY-EIGHTH 
 DAY, June 16. 
 
 Mr. Burkes $th and last Days Speech. 
 
 Mr. Burke began by an allusion to a speech of 
 one of the council, whom he accused of taking im- 
 proper liberties, and 'he then mentioned an epi- 
 gram*, of which the same gentleman was the 
 supposed author. 
 
 As it is in proof, that the sum of 2000 Rupees 
 a day received by Mr. Hastings in 1772, was 
 for entertainment, agreeably to established cus- 
 tom, and not a bribe, as charged by the late 
 House for an appointment to office, Mr. Burke 
 took up quite a new ground He affirmed 
 that the covenants were made precisely to 
 prevent this sort of abuse Here again Mr. 
 Burke fails for both Lord Clive and Mr. Ve- 
 relst subscribed the covenants, as well as Mr. 
 Hastings; both those Governors took the two 
 thousand Rupees a day for entertainment, with- 
 out conceiving it to be, as it certainly was not, a 
 breach of their covenants Mr. Burke then re- 
 
 * Oft have I wondered that on Irish ground, 
 No poisonous reptiles ever yet were found ; 
 Reveal'd the secret stands of Nature's work, 
 She sav'd her venom, to create a Burke. 
 
 u u 4 turned
 
 ( 664 ) 
 
 turned to Kobkessin's present, which he affirmed 
 to be worse than any a6l of Verres, and applied 
 the epithets, rogue, common cheat, swindler, to 
 Mr. Hastings, for having taken that present for 
 the Company. 
 
 Mr. Burke then came to Lord Cornwallis's evi- 
 dence, which he insisted proved Bengal to be ruined 
 He then read the 39th seftion of the A& of the 
 S^th of his present Majesty, to prove the oppres- 
 sions of Mr. Hastings, The A61 of Parliament, 
 he said, had declared the oppressions and the op- 
 pressor, and addressing himself to the Lords, he 
 said, You must repeal this A61 of Parliament, you 
 must declare the Legislature a Liar, before you 
 can acquit Warren Hastings. 
 
 Mr. Burke then said, that Mr. Hastings had 
 pleaded his merits, which was no answer to a cri- 
 minal charge, but in faft, every aft which he stat- 
 ed to be meritorious, had been condemned by a 
 former Parliament, Mr. Dundas having moved 
 forty-five resolutions, each of which condemned 
 some aft done by Mr. Hastings. Every one of 
 those, said Mr. Burke, not excepting one of 
 them, were all censured by the House of Com- 
 mons. 
 
 Mr. Hastings admits this statement to be true, 
 and told the House of Commens he did so, at the 
 same time that he complained of the cruel injuries 
 
 be
 
 ( 665 ) 
 
 he suffered, by that body having censured and 
 prosecuted him in one character, for ab which 
 in another they had very fully approved, and of 
 which they continued to enjoy all the benefit 
 Mr. Burke next affirmed, that Mr. Hastings was 
 the author of the Maratta war, and that he con- 
 cluded it, by a dishonourable peace. 
 
 At last Mr. Burke came to his close, which was 
 the strongest mixture of the sublime and beauti- 
 ful in language, but weak and silly in argument, 
 that we ever remember to have heard He al- 
 luded to the miserable state of France at the pre- 
 sent moment to the murder of the best of 
 Kings, and the most glorious of Queens, and to 
 the destruction of the Parliament of Paris, a court 
 almost as dignified as that which he was then ad- 
 dressing, and uniformly pure in its legal decisions 
 -to the destruction of all ranks and orders in 
 society ; and after praying that heaven would avert 
 from us the miseries that have desolated France, 
 he said, that if it should be their Lordships lot to 
 submit to the axe of the Guillotine, on any future 
 and dreadful convulsion, their last hours would 
 be more tranquil from a reflection, that in the 
 great cause before them they had decided by the 
 rules of equity and justice. With a peroration 
 of which this is the substance, Mr. Burke con- 
 eluded this long trial; and as he quitted Parliamer t 
 
 in
 
 ( 666 ) 
 
 in the course of the Session, we shall here give 
 the deb-ue that took place on the motion of 
 hanks to the managers, when it was brought for- 
 ward by Mr. Pitt. 
 
 HOUSE OF COMMONS, 
 
 28/A June. 1794. 
 
 MR. PITT faid, he rose to make his promised 
 Motion, for the Thanks of that House to the 
 Managers for their condua in the Impeachment 
 against Warren Hastings, Esq. When first he in- 
 tended taking this step, he had considered it as a 
 matter of course, to which he thought no possible 
 objeaion could have been offered from any quar- 
 ter of the House ; but when he had postponed his 
 motion, upon intimation that it was intended to be 
 opposed, he had set himself to consider what ob- 
 jeaions could be made to such a measure gene- 
 rally, or to this one in particular. The Impeach- 
 ment itself had been voted, not only from a con- 
 viaion that there was sufficient ground to put the 
 party accused upon his trial, but as a terror to 
 
 those
 
 those placed in a similar situation in the govern- 
 ment of our distant provinces; nor wasihere any 
 exercise of their power in which the House 
 shewed themselves more majestic than in that pro- 
 tection which they thus shewed themselves deter- 
 mined to afford those parts of the British empire, 
 which, by being thus far removed from their im- 
 mediate inspection, might be supposed most liable 
 to oppression and plunder. When he looked at 
 the magnitude of the task which they had thus 
 imposed upon their Managers, he could not avoid 
 feeling every thing in their favour, and a business 
 of such extent, and executed so ably, covered 
 every error they might have lapsed into, if such 
 could be really imputed to them, and that no ex- 
 ception ought to be taken to it, unless a total fai- 
 lure or miscarriage could be imputed to them. 
 Where, he asked, could such a charge be stated ? 
 Perhaps the length to which the trial had been 
 protracted might be objected; this was a presump- 
 tion naturally to be looked for, if we looked either 
 at the nature of the transaction itself, the charges 
 exhibited upon the occasion, or the evidence ne- 
 cessarily produced in support of those charges. 
 Was there any thing in all these which could be 
 fairly imputed to their managers ? On the con- 
 trary, it formed the peculiar privilege and advan- 
 tage of trial by impeachment, over the ordinary 
 
 proceedings
 
 f 668 ) 
 
 proceedings in the courts of justice, that delin- 
 quencies beyond their reach were to be brought, 
 if deserving, to punishment without the interven- 
 tion of those legal shackles which frequently arrest 
 the avenging hand of the law in the ordinary forms. 
 This, however, which, instead of an objection, was 
 an argument in favour of impeachments generally, 
 was unnecessary to be urged in the present in- 
 ftance, if Gentlemen, instead of computing the 
 years, took the trouble of analyzing the trial by 
 the number of days, and the few hours occupied 
 in each day, which it had taken up. The next 
 point to be considered was, that of this time, whe- 
 ther more or less, how much of it had been occu- 
 pied by the managers, and how much by the de- 
 fendant in the several replies, and ftill further, 
 what additional delay given by the latter, by un- 
 ceasing and unwearied objeBions taken on his 
 part to almost every thing offered on the part of 
 the prosecution. To prove this disposition to ob- 
 jeBing to evidence, Gentlemen had but to look 
 to the Report made by their Committee on the 
 causes of delay, they would find it fully proved. 
 It was in the next place to be recollecled, that 
 their Managers had to discuss questions in the 
 course of Mr. HastingVs Trial, which they could 
 not tamely relinquish without abandoning the pri- 
 vileges of the Commons, as contradistinguished 
 
 from
 
 < 659 ) 
 
 from the ordinary courts of law. Upon all these 
 grounds he, and he trusted the House with him, 
 would by no means be inclined to admit, either 
 that there were any grounds for imputing any de- 
 Jay whatever, or even if there were, that their Ma- 
 nagers were to be censured for it. But these ob- 
 jections, true or false, came in the present stage 
 too late. If they were well founded, better they 
 had been made in time, when the correction of 
 them, as they arose, might have prevented two acts 
 of injustice; rendering the Defendant an object; 
 of persecution, and their Managers of delusion, 
 in going on with measures in themselves wrong, 
 but which the silence of that House seemed to 
 sanction. Under all these circumstances, he could 
 see no possible ground of objection to the present 
 motion ; those who were of opinion from the be- 
 ginning, that the prosecution was a just and ne- 
 cessary one, mould not now object to its conclu- 
 sion ; those who were originally of a contrary 
 opinion, and adverse to the instituting any pro- 
 ceedings whatever, he appealed to their candour, 
 whether being in a minority throughout, they 
 ought to expect the House to aft in the sequel, as 
 they wished in vain to persuade them to act at the 
 commencement; but rather allow the House to 
 act: as was usual in similar cases. Did they wifh 
 for the acquital of Mr, Hastings ? That was an 
 
 event
 
 ( 670 ) 
 
 event no longer in their hands, but rested in ano- 
 ther place ; how then could that wish operate, 
 either as a motive or reason for with-holding the 
 usual thanks ? Any thing now done in the House 
 of Commons could have no effeft upon the Lords 
 Mr. Hastings must be acquitted or condemned 
 upon legal evidence and legal evidence alone. It 
 was not a question now, what the House would do 
 if the Impeachment was now to be voted. The 
 whole business was concluded as far as depended 
 upon the House ; and not to thank the Managers, 
 would be to depart from usual practice on similar 
 occasions. It was certainly true, that such Gen- 
 tlemen as had uniformly, throughout the course of 
 the trial, shewn themselves adverse to the Mana- 
 gers, could not add any thing to the eclat of the 
 Managers, by joining in the vote of thanks : on 
 the contrary, their dissent wo.uld prove it not a 
 business of course, but rather of discrimination; 
 still, however, he could not help expressing a wisli 
 that on this, as on another occasion, hereafter to 
 be submitted (the vote of thanks to Lord HoodJ, 
 the vote of that house might be unanimous. He 
 concluded with moving, " That the thanks of that 
 House be given to the Managers appointed by 
 them to conducl the prosecution against Warren- 
 Hastings, Esq. for the faithful Management in the 
 discharge of the important trust reposed in them." 
 
 Mr.
 
 (6 7 ) 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS seconded the motion. 
 
 Mr. SUMNER said, he could not avoid ex- 
 pressing his surprise, that a motion such as that he 
 had just heard read, should be considered as a 
 matter of course. He said, that he rose with 
 considerable diffidence to oppose a motion which 
 had been made by the Right Honourable Gentle, 
 man, with whom it was generally his good fortune 
 to agree. The Right Honourable Gentleman had 
 supported the motion with all his talents and with 
 all his influence, but he must add, he had not dis- 
 played any degree of candour in the course of 
 his speech, when he presupposed the objections 
 which would be made from a certain description 
 of Gentlemen in that House, one of whom he 
 had infinite pride and pleasure in declaring him- 
 self to be. Mr. Sumner said, he was happy to 
 avow himself a very great admirer of Mr. Has- 
 tings; that he looked up to him with every senti- 
 ment of regard and affection ; but his objections 
 to the present motion arose from circumstances 
 utterly independent of Mr. Hastings. The Right 
 Honourable Gentleman had said, that Mr. Has- 
 tings could not in any shape be affe&ed now by 
 any motion that could be made in this House ; 
 that the decison was before a competent Court, 
 which could only determine by evidence. Ad- 
 mitting
 
 milling this to be the fact, as he did, still a vote 
 of thanks was, in a certain degree, a vote of ap- 
 probation of the Managers conduct. Surdy the 
 period was too short for the Houfc to determine 
 upon the conduct of their Managers. Seven 
 years had the trial lasted, and it had been attended 
 with circumstances new and extraordinary. It 
 was true, that on former occasions thanks had bee 
 voted, and as the Speaker had informed him from 
 the chair, before tl>e judgement was pronounced, 
 but certainly not until the verdift was known. 
 In tl*s instance the thanks would be voted many 
 months before the judgeinem, and though any 
 thing that could be construed into an approba- 
 tion of the Commons, would not affect the jutl Ce- 
 ment, there was an indecency in the proceedings 
 which led htm to oppose it in the -first instance by 
 the previous question. 
 
 Mr. Sumner said, that if the time were not im- 
 proper, he certainly would not oppose a vote <>i 
 thanks to the Managers, one cxcepted, who had 
 faithfully discharged the trust imposed on them, 
 by supporting the specific charges, voted by 
 ihe last House of Commons. Mr. Sumner said t 
 that he a-ctained the same opinion which he had 
 so often profcased of the charges, which he 
 thought to be ill founded ; but it was the duty of 
 the .Managers to support them, and he never wtmld 
 
 refuse
 
 be fo illiberal as to objeft to their receiving tl e 
 thanks of that House at a proper time, provided 
 they could be givn without their bestowing their 
 thanks at the same time on the leading Manager, 
 who, he contended, by his conduct, had dis- 
 graced and degraded the House of Commons, 
 and had dared, in their name, to vilify every 
 Gentleman who had had the honour and good for- 
 tune to serve his country in India; including in 
 his abuse, all their connexions of every defcrip- 
 tion, and applying the odious epithet gang to this 
 body of men. The Speaker calling out order, 
 Mr. Sumner said, that if he could find more mea- 
 fured expressions to convey to the Houfe his fenfe 
 of the misconduct of Mr. Burke, and of the dis- 
 grace he had brought upon the House, he would 
 use them ; but he would proceed to explain of 
 what nature the Manager's conduft had been, in 
 the hope that it would be as much reprobated by 
 the House, as he knew it was ly all descriptions of 
 persons out of doors. The fa&s that he ftiould de- 
 tail, the Members in general were ignorant of, for 
 very few indeed had attended; and of all Mem- 
 bers of the Houfe, the Right Honourable Gen- 
 tleman below him was the last man who was com- 
 petent to decide on the conduft of the Managers, 
 his various avocations making his absence from 
 the trial an at of necessity. He had too high an 
 opinion of the Minister to think it possible for 
 x x him
 
 him to have made the motion before them, had he 
 ever heard the leading Manager in Westminster 
 Hall. Mr. Sumner said, in the light he viewed a 
 vote of thanks, he cou'd not possibly assent 
 to it. Did the House know that Mr. Burke 
 had folemnly affirmed, that Captain Williams 
 had murdered Raja Mustapha Cawn with his own 
 hands ? He would ask, what authority had the 
 House given to Mr. Burke to make such a charge ? 
 Was it decent or honourable in the House to 
 suffer such language to be uttered against any 
 Gentleman, and yet deny to him the means of de- 
 fending himself? All that man could do was 
 done by Captain Williams to bring this outrage- 
 ous calumny to a fair trial ; he petitioned the 
 House upon it five years ago, the House would 
 not bring a charge that he could reply to ; and is 
 the Manager to receive thanks for daring to charge 
 an English Gentleman with murder in a speech, 
 and there to leave it? Is this British justice ! 
 
 The last House voted twenty articles of im- 
 peachment against Mr Hastings; three were gone 
 through in the last Parliament Benares, the Be- 
 $um, and the Presents. This House, by a formal 
 vote, precluded the Managers from going into 
 any other articles, except the Contrads; and the 
 prosecution was finally closed in the first session of 
 this Parliament. Does the House know, that in 
 contempt and defiance of this resolution, the Ma- 
 nager insisted on his riglu to go into the other 
 
 articles,
 
 articles, and expressly told the Lords, that the 
 Commons had not abandoned them, nor tvjr 
 would abandon any one of them? Will the 
 House thank the Manager for this contempt of 
 their authority ? Does the House know, that the 
 language used by the leading Manager to the Court 
 was in the highest degree disgraceful ? That he 
 had the presumption to tell the Court, whether 
 with a view to intimidation, or fr6m -the wildness 
 of the moment, that -the Commons had not only 
 prosecuted, but they had found Mr. Hastings 
 guilty when they impeached him ; that the Lords 
 could not acquit him without proving the legislature 
 altar? Is such language to be borne ? Is this Bri- 
 tish justice? Will 'an English House of Com- 
 mons approve of such sentiments ? Whit is a 
 solemn trial by impeachment bat a mockery, a 
 farce, if such language s not scouted by every 
 man who hears it ? The leading Manager find ng 
 ihe general sentiments of Gentlemen wh > have 
 served in India to be strongly in favour of Mr. 
 Hastings, and, in order to invalidate the testi- 
 mony of the witnesses, has attempted t y b acken 
 and to blast the character of eve.y Gentleman 
 who has breathed the air of Asia. Was ihs uni'i- 
 ersal abuse necessary in order to convict Mr. 
 Hastings ? Is the character and fame of every 
 man to be torn in pieces w ihout a h aring? Is 
 his to be done by the authority of the House of 
 x x 2 Com-
 
 
 I 676) 
 
 Commons ? Arc they prepared to adopt at once 
 the extravagant and indecorous substitution of the 
 slang of Billingsgate for the strong energetic lan- 
 guage of truth and justice? Will they confer on 
 Mr. Hastings, by this vote, the minor titles of 
 swindler, thief, rogue, sharper, cheat, or the more 
 daring descriptions, tyrant, oppressor, and mur- 
 derer ? " I charge him," said the Manager, " as 
 *' a tyrant^ oppressor, and murderer in the largest 
 M sense of the word." Does the House know, that 
 though Mr. Burke was reprimanded for accusing 
 Mr. Hastings of murder, he repeated the charge 
 on the very next day, and again repeated it a few 
 days ago, as he says himself, in the largest sense of 
 the word ? Instead of thanks, does he not de- 
 serve the resentment and the reprobation of the 
 House? Has the House ever charged Mr. Has- 
 tings with murder ? On the contrary, has it not 
 reprimanded the Manager for using such foul lan- 
 guage ? In his last and closing speech he has 
 dared to say, that he charged Mr. Hastings with 
 murder in the largest sense of the word, and this 
 at a period when he could make no new charge of 
 any kind without a positive disobedience of the 
 orders of the House. Shall we return him thanks 
 for abusing so grossly the confidence which the 
 House reposed in him ? 
 
 Did the House mean to impeach every man who 
 had served his country in India when they put 
 
 Mr.
 
 ( 677 ) 
 
 Mr. Hastings on his trial ? The violence of due 
 Manager had spared neither the dead nor the living. 
 Hear, said Mr. Sumner, what he says in his closing 
 speech : 
 
 " This cruel tyrant, Hannay, a substitute for a 
 " still more cruel and bloody tyrant. Warren 
 " Hastings Hastings says to Hannay, you have 
 " sucked blood enough for yourself, now suck 
 M blood for your neighbours." 
 
 Does this House authorize such language? 
 Colonel Hannay is dead. No part of his con- 
 .dul is implicated in the articles on which the cause 
 rests. 
 
 Speaking of another Gentleman, the Manager 
 says, This Balfour, the writer of this extraordi- 
 " nary letter, one of the military farmers general 
 46 employed under Hannay in desolating the coun- 
 ** try." Is such language to be countenanced or 
 endured? What is there in the charge that ap- 
 plies in the smallest degree to Major Balfour ? 
 
 Speaking of Major Osborne, the Manager said, 
 u Major Osborne had been dismissed. A court- 
 -martial removed him, justly or unjustly I care 
 " not, from his situation. There he sits in that 
 " box. Who sent him to Oude, to suck the blood 
 the military had spared? 
 
 What is there, said Mr. Sumner in the articles 
 
 on which the Commons rest their case that applies 
 
 xx 3 to
 
 to Major Osborne ? The House is degraded and 
 disgraced by the misconducl of the Manager. 
 
 M His supple, worn-down, beaten, cowed, and 
 " I am afraid, bribed colleague, Mr. Wheler." 
 Is this justifiable language to be applied to a man 
 who is no more, when there is no evidence that can 
 warrant such an insinuation? In any stage of the 
 iria 1 , said Mr. Sumner, such language would be 
 highly improper; but in the last stage of it, after 
 evidence was closed on both sides, to make such 
 remarks was in facl to betray the cause entrusted 
 to him ; for he excited no sentiments but those of 
 indignation and contempt, either in the Court or 
 in the audience, by such general and illiberal 
 abuse. 
 
 In the same indecent terms that the Manager 
 had mentioned every Gentleman almost who had 
 given evidence on the trial, did he address the 
 Court. Does the House know, that in offering a 
 piece of evidence which the Court unanimously 
 rejected, the Manager told them that he was ad 
 dressing an assembly of nobles, that they would 
 not do so foul a thing as uwrejcft the evidence he 
 offered ; for if they did, they would aft like 
 thieves in a night cellar ? 
 
 Mr. Sumner said, he could continue to quote 
 passages from the last speech of the Manager so 
 very offensive to decency, so degrading to the 
 
 character
 
 chara&er of the House of Commons, as would 
 shock the ears of every Gentleman -who reflected, 
 that as a Member he shared in the disgrace brought 
 upon-' them all by the Manager; but he trusted he 
 had laid sufficient grounds for the motion which 
 he meant to conclude with, and would therefore 
 move the previous question ? 
 
 p3l"T3<i_'b .CUr V. ', JUff; .H/i C!"!J Uju ii->li '-. '-.' 
 
 Mr WIGLEY said, r he rbse to second the mo- 
 tion, and very fully concurred in all the observa- 
 tions of his Honourable Friend. But there was 
 another reason which also weighed most forcibly 
 with him; the House was sensible of the clamour 
 which had been raised out of doors, and justly 
 raised on account of the unprecedented duration 
 of this trial. The House felt it, and had ordered 
 a Committee to report the causes of the duration 
 of it. The House had good reasons, he pre- 
 sumed 1 , though they did not occur to him, for ap- 
 pointing the Managers to be members of that 
 Committee. It struck him, that they were made 
 judges m 1 their own cause, for the fault must be 
 v;ith the -Managers, the Counsel of Mr. Hastings, 
 or the Lords. In the close of that Report another 
 was promised. Was it decent to thank the Mana- 
 gers before any motion was even made upon tt 
 first, or before the second Report, though pro 
 mised so long ago, was delivered ? No precedent 
 
 x x 4 of 

 
 (68o) 
 
 of former thanks applied in any degree to this case. 
 The trial had lasted seven years, and would not be 
 finally terminated until the next session. Let 
 Gentlemen consider the nature of their Managers' 
 conduct before they came forward with a vote of 
 approbation. If the trial had been finished in the 
 first year, the House would have been competent 
 to form an opinion, but the Members had deserted 
 the Hall, and even the Managers very few had 
 lately attended. At all events, Mr. Wigley con- 
 ceived the present to be a very improper time to 
 vote thanks to the Managers. 
 
 Mr. ROBINSON said, he had been present in 
 Westminster Hall when the leading Manager had, 
 in hii opinion, treated the Court with very great 
 indecency. The security of the constitution de- 
 pended upon each branch of the legislature being 
 kept perfectly distinct, on its being treated with 
 every degree of respe&. As the leading Manager 
 had not afted towards the Court in a manner that 
 became him to aft, he should certainly oppose his 
 receiving the thanks of the House. 
 
 Mr. WINDH AM said, that although at first in- 
 tending not to speak, as being in some degree a 
 party in the question, yet he felt himself relieved 
 from this, by the distinction taken between Mr. 
 
 Burke
 
 ( 68i ) 
 
 Burke and the other Managers; although he was 
 convinced there was not one of them but would 
 be proud to be connected with him in the fame 
 and honour of the transaction. Declaring him- 
 self as competent to decide upon what had passed 
 at the trial as any other person whatever, from his 
 constant attendance, he affirmed, that in every in- 
 stance quoted by the Member who opposed the 
 motion, he had been completely mistaken; in 
 many instances attributing to Mr. Burke words 
 never uttered by him, and in others the expressions 
 were so garbled as not to be understood. He, for 
 one, had never conceived, that in speaking upon 
 what the Managers looked upon as crimes of the 
 deepest dye, they were to observe the courtly lan- 
 guage of a drawing-room. 
 
 Mr. FRANCIS said, that his intention in ad- 
 dressing the House on the present occasion, was to 
 give his testimony as a witness to certain points of 
 fat. That having attended the trial with the 
 greatest diligence, and more constantly, he be- 
 lieved, than any other Member of the House, he 
 was at least a competent witness upon every thing 
 that passed, and that he did not mean to assume 
 any other charaBer in this debate. That % without 
 questioning the Honourable Gentleman's veracity, 
 he did and must dispute the exa&ness of his recol- 
 lection
 
 IcQion on many points; and that even the Ho' 
 nourable Gentleman himself had not trusted en- 
 tirely to his own memory, having been obliged to 
 refresh it by recurring to a newspaper, to which 
 Mr. Francis well knew that no confidence ought 
 to be given. That he thought the Honourable 
 Gentleman had greatly overstated, and given a 
 very harsh and strained costru6tion, in every in- 
 stance, to the language used in the pleadings by his 
 Right Honourable Friend; but that, in some 
 very material particulars, he took upon him to af- 
 firm, that the Honourable Gentleman had been 
 grossly mistaken or misinformed. For example, 
 the expression of Spider of Hell was never ap- 
 plied by his Right Honourable Friend to Mr. 
 Hastings ; it was a quotation from a speech of Sir 
 Edward Coke against Sir Walter Raleigh, and Mr. 
 Burke, when he mentioned it, had spoken of it as 
 a weak and foolish expression; that the words, a 
 Judge of Hell, were nothing but a quotation from 
 Virgil, 
 
 Castigatyuc auditquc doios, subigitqucfatcri, 
 
 which the Honourable Gentleman had thought fit 
 to translate into very vulgar English, and then 
 fixed his own English words upon Mr. Burke. 
 There was another instance, more material than 
 
 all
 
 all the rest, on which he could aver with positive 
 certainty, and would be ready to do so, in a court 
 of justice, if it ivere necessary, on which the Ho- 
 nourable ^Gentleman was most competently mis- 
 taken, namely, when he asserted that his Right 
 Honourable Friend had' 'treated a vote of this 
 House (in which some expression he had vised re- 
 lative to Sir 1 Elijah Impey' had been 'disavowed 
 and disapproved of) wfrrr levity 1 ' aVid 'distespea. 
 This charge,- Mr. Francis affirmed,' was r riot true, 
 and that there was not the smallest ground or pre- 
 tence for it : that, on the contrary, when his Right 
 Honourable Friend mentioned this vote in West- 
 minster Hall, he did it in terms of the greatest de- 
 ference and respect, and with a most singular 
 choice and propriety of language; for the truth of 
 which Mr. Francis appealed to Mr. Fox. 
 
 Mr. Francis then observed, that Gentlemen who 
 laid such mighty stress on casual expressions, or 
 other little circumstances not essential to the con- 
 duct of so heavy and so labourious a business as 
 the Impeachment, fhould have been particularly 
 cautious in stating the fa6ls with the utmost accu- 
 racy; and finally, that even if it had been true, 
 that any inconsiderate or even passionate expres- 
 sion had escaped any of the Managers, which he 
 was far from admitting, it would be no objeftion 
 to the vote of thanks now proposed. That this 
 
 vote
 
 (684 ) 
 
 vote expressed nothing but to thank the Managers 
 for their faithful management in their discharge of 
 the trust reposed in them, and neither did nor could 
 be supposed to bind the House to adopt every in- 
 dividual word used by the Managers in their plead- 
 ings ; and that therefore, unless it could be stated 
 and proved, that their management had been 
 unfaithful, which had not been attempted, nor even 
 pretended, the House could not justly refuse their 
 assent to the resolution as it stood proposed. 
 
 Mr. FOX, contrary to his intention, found 
 himself obliged to say a few words. He disclaimed 
 all separation between the rest of the Managers, 
 and the Right Honourable Member, so eminently 
 qualified, not only by nature, but likewise by his 
 particular study and attention to be, as he was 
 termed, their leader in this business,and with whom 
 it was their boast and glory to be identified. As 
 to the imputation of using harsh terms, he did uot 
 conceive, that the Managers were chosen for their 
 capabilities in courtly phrases ; and as to persist- 
 ing to think the fate of Nundcomar a murder, if 
 there was any blame in it, it was his, for it was he 
 and not Mr. Burke who had so expressed himself 
 before the Lords, subsequent to the censure pas- 
 sed upon Mr. Burke by the House, and he was 
 yet to learn, how any vote of that, or any other 
 
 House,
 
 House, however it might controul his words or 
 a&ions, was to shackle his thoughts or opinions. 
 
 Mr. LAW rose after Mr. Fox and said, that it 
 was unnecessary for him to say much more than to 
 confirm the statement of his two honourable friends, 
 Mr. Surnner and Mr. Wigley, which he did most 
 completely ; nor tfould he suppress his surprize 
 and astonishment at the conduct of gentlemen of 
 character, whose talents he revered, in attempting 
 to excuse the leading Manager, by asserting, that 
 in some instances, his expressions had been misre- 
 presented. Mr. Law solemnly affirmed that they 
 were not; that the English language did fot af- 
 ford expressions more gross, violent, abusive, and 
 indecent than those which the Manager had used. 
 If any passage in his speech could be called sub - 
 lime and beautiful, it was at best but sublime and 
 beautiful nonsense ; at other times his expressions 
 were so vulgar and illiberal, that the lowest black- 
 guard in a bear garden, would have been ashamed 
 to utter them. He was indeed surprised that a 
 Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fox) should conde- 
 scend to mix his charader with that of the leading 
 Manager. Mr. Law said, he had been a very con- 
 stant attendant upon the trial, and he had often 
 seen the Right Hon. Gentleman exert his great 
 abilities in support of the cause assigned to him, 
 
 and
 
 ( 686 ) 
 
 and as often excited in order to correct the follies, 
 and the intemperance of the leading Manager. 
 Whatever his abilities might be, he was totally un- 
 fit to conducl a public trial. His violence, his 
 passion, and his obstinacy were unconquerable ; 
 and as for his supposed information, he was really 
 astonished that a man who had been twenty-two 
 years employed in Indian inquiries should still be 
 so very ignorant of India. His prejudices had 
 totally warped his judgment. The feeling of the 
 public, Mr. Law said, would not, and coulld not 
 be changed by a vote of that House. Many 
 thousand persons of both sexes had heard the 
 closing speech of the Honourable Manager, which 
 had lasted nine days. His expressions could not 
 be mistaken; and he was confident, that if the 
 minutes of the short-hand writers were called for, 
 it would appear that the terms he used, instead of 
 being less, were more illiberal, outrageous, and 
 offensive than his honourable friends had repre- 
 sented them to be. They were universally re- 
 probated from the first characters amongst the nu- 
 merous audience that heard them, down to the 
 messengers, door-keepers, and guards. In that 
 House, Mr. Law suid, Gentlemen would not 
 speak out ; but he knew that they condemned the 
 conduft of the leading Manager as much as he did ; 
 but observed, that he was not to be controlled, 
 
 and
 
 ( 687 ) 
 
 and that opposition only made him the more vio- 
 lent. Mr. Law said, the Manager had treated the 
 Court as ill as he had done Mr. Hastings. To 
 .the truth of the various quotations, one excepted, 
 which was of an old date, he bore the fullest tes- 
 timony. The expressions were used in this year, 
 and all of them within a month. The context in 
 no instance could take away from the grossness 
 or illiberality of the expressions. It was dis- 
 graceful to the House, and scandalous to the cause 
 of justice, that the most atrocious libels fhould be 
 uttered against Gentlemen whose condul was not 
 in question, and who consequently could not 
 defend themselves. Amongst the Gentlemen with 
 whose characters the Manager had made free, there 
 was a very old and intimate friend of his own, 
 Major Osborne, a Gentleman of as fair and ho- 
 nourable a character as any in England, and a 
 man who knew how to defend himself. It was 
 highly unjust in the House, and highly impolitic, 
 to afford their sanction in the slightest degree to 
 ,any of the abominable calumnies that were uttei> 
 ed. It involved them in injustice, inconsistency, 
 and absurdity. It degraded the national character 
 most unjustly throughout Europe. Barrere in the 
 National Convention had the other day detailed 
 as a fact, an infamous falsehod, which party malice 
 had invented many years ago ; be meant the ac- 
 cusation,
 
 ( 688 ) 
 
 accusation, that the English were the authors of 
 the dreadful famine that raged so fatally in Bengal 
 in the year 1770. At that time, Mr. Law said, he 
 was in Bengal, and he affirmed most solemnly that 
 every exertion was made by the British govern- 
 ment to lessen the shocking miseries which the 
 people sustained, not from any mismanagement of 
 the government, which was then in the hands of 
 Mahomed RezaCawn,but from a failure in the pe- 
 riodical rains ; that every civil servant of the Com- 
 pany, every British Officer at every military station, 
 and every Englishman throughout Bengal, exerted 
 himself to alleviate the distresses of the people. 
 The most liberal subscriptions were entered into, 
 and every personal exertion used, to procure grain 
 \vherever it could be found ; yet some modern 
 historians had represented the English as the cause 
 of that famine, and as insensible of the miseries 
 it brought upon the people. 
 
 In the same style of misrepresentation did the 
 leading Manager, in the first year of this trial, in- 
 troduce a story which resounded through Europe, 
 to the disgrace and scandal of this nation ; he 
 meant the story of Deby Sing. Mr. Law said, 
 that on its being told, he affirmed that it could not 
 be true. He knew that cruelty was no part of an 
 Englishman's character in any country, and as 
 little so in India as any part of the world. This 
 
 justice
 
 ( 68 9 ) 
 
 justice he was sure the noble Marquis would do 
 to his countrymen ; for he was too high and too 
 honourable a character to conceal the truth, be- 
 cause men of great consideration in this country 
 had been misled. The noble Marquis had shewn 
 himself to be superior to those follies and preju- 
 dices which had distinguished so many persons in 
 England. 
 
 The leading Manager had implicated a very in- 
 timate friend of his in the story of Deby Sing j he 
 meant Sir John Shore, whom the Minister had se- 
 le&ed to govern BengaL He had described that 
 Gentleman as an accomplice in the crimes of Mr. 
 Hastings, and had gone so far in folly as to re- 
 monstrate to the Directors on their appointing him 
 Governor General of Bengal. 
 
 Mr. Law said, that when he heard the Manager 
 tell this story with so much confidence in West- 
 minster Hall, he was sure from his own knowledge 
 of the country that the story could not be true ; 
 but his regard for Sir John Shore, and his zeal for 
 the honour of his country, induced him to sift the 
 business to the bottom. He went most carefully 
 and attentively through all those volumes which 
 the Manager had in his possession also, and he 
 boldly challenged the most inventive malice of 
 the most malicious man that ever existed, to affix 
 blame either upon Mr. Hastings or Sir John 
 Y y Shore
 
 Shore for any concern they had in thai transac- 
 tion. The fat was shortly this; a district was 
 rented for two years to a man of the name of De- 
 by Sing, and let out again by him to under-far- 
 mers. This man had for years been employed in 
 the revenue line, and was much esteemed both by 
 Sir John Shore and Mr. Anderson. 
 
 Tne first year the rents were regularly paid; in 
 the second there were complaints of great severi- 
 ties having been used in the collection of the reve- 
 nue. The first and the only aft done by Mr. 
 Hastings throughout the whole business, wa> to 
 order Deby Sing to be removed, and that in so 
 hasty a manner, as to expose himself to the charge 
 of having acled with too much severity to him. 
 A Gentleman was deputed to receive the com- 
 plaints of the natives, Mr. Paterson, of whom the 
 world has heard so much, and who was so little 
 pleased with the extravagant encomiums of the 
 leading Manager, that he has publicly disavowed 
 him, and has publicly expressed concern that his 
 reports should have been tortured into evidence 
 against Mr. Hastings, who had no sort of concern 
 in the business; but was most anxious to detccl 
 the enormities of Deby Sing, and to punish him. 
 
 Mr. Paterson transmitted to Calcutta all the 
 complaints he had received, and amongst them 
 were statements of cruelties practised upon cer- 
 tain
 
 ( 691 ) 
 
 tain of the natives, too shocking to be repeated. 
 These complaints arrived when Mr. Hastings was 
 absent, and the Board appointed a Committee of 
 Company's servants (all senior to Mr. Paterson, 
 and not junior, as the Manager stated) to sift this 
 business to the bottom. The Commissioners 
 were sworn, and the examinations were taken upon 
 oath. Their commission did not terminate until 
 long after Mr. Hastings was in England ; and the re- 
 sult of the fullest examination -was, that the most 
 dreadful of the cruelties charged never were com- 
 mitted at all, and that for such severities as were ex- 
 ercised, no possible blame could attach upon any 
 English gentleman. Such, Mr. Law affirmed, was 
 the true state of the case ; and it was a disgrace 
 to the House of Commons that the leading Ma- 
 nager should have travelled out of his indiclment, 
 in order to utter his calumnies against Sir John 
 Shore, and the public servants employed in the 
 revenue line. 
 
 Mr. Law lamented exceedingly that so superior 
 a man as Mr. Fox, since he had accepted the of- 
 fice of a Manager, had not condescended to exa- 
 mine and to judge for himself before hespoke. Had 
 he ever himself looked into the history of Deby 
 Sing, he never could have justified for a moment 
 (he conduft of the leading Manager. 
 
 y a Nor
 
 Nor was this, said Mr. Law, the only instance in 
 which the leading Manager had quitted the arti- 
 cles entrusted to him, in order to indulge the ma- 
 lignity of his own disposition. He had lately de- 
 scribed Mr. Hastings as a man of a low, vulgar, 
 and obscure origin, whose occupations had been 
 base, mean and sordid. If it were of any conse- 
 quence in this free country, and at this period, for 
 a man to value himself upon the accidental cir- 
 cumstance of family, Mr. Hastings might have as 
 fair grounds to boast of his family as any Gentlc- 
 maji in the House. Such topics arc ridiculous; 
 but that from such a man as the Manager a 
 word mould be uttered on the subjetl of low, 
 mean, and obscure origin, was indeed most extra- 
 ordinary, the Manager of all men living ought to 
 have avoided such a topic. Mr. Hastings, the 
 Manager said, had been a fraudulent bullock 
 contractor in the year 1761. This is downright 
 calumny. Where is the charge voted by the 
 House, or where the evidence, that entitled him 
 to make such an assertion? Indeed, said Mr. 
 Law, the Manager, in his closing speech of nine 
 days, wasted five of them upon points that had 
 not the most distant relation to the cause entrusted 
 to him by this House; and the more he consider- 
 ed his conduft, the more he was convinced, that 
 from 1788 to this day, he had systematically, for 
 
 some
 
 ( 693 ) 
 
 some purpose or other, delayed the close of the trial 
 to as late a period as he possibly could, to the abuse 
 of public jnstice, at a most enormous expence 
 to the nation, and to the manifest inconvenience 
 of all ranks of people. Every thing he had done 
 was for the purpose of delay. The House col- 
 le&ively had not attended, and therefore could not 
 judge ; but such Gentlemen as had heard the Ma- 
 nager examining witnesses, keeping some of them 
 four days together, asking questions that had no 
 relation to the points in issue, or putting the same 
 questions over and over again, must be convinced 
 that delay, and delay alone was his object. No 
 \vords, Mr. Law said, could convey to Gentlemen 
 who had not heard his closing speech an adequate 
 idea of it it lasted nine days two were employed 
 in going thro' the Benares, and two in going over 
 the Begum article. A most indecent proceeding 
 Mr. Law said, in his opinion, and a very poor 
 compliment to the Managers, who had well and 
 ably performed their duties; a proceeding that 
 could have no other effecl than to weaken the 
 force of their observations. Such was the uni- 
 versal remark. Another day was wasted in part 
 by remarks on the article,, which the Right Hon. 
 Gentlemen (Mr. Fox) had enforced by every ar- 
 gument that talents, eloquence, and ingenuity 
 could bring forward, and which well merited the 
 Y y 3 most
 
 (694 ) 
 
 most serious attention of every man. Mr. Law 
 said, though he differed in opinion with Mr. 
 Fox, yet he must do him the justice to say, that 
 all that man could do to support the cause, he had 
 done. But here again the leading Manager must 
 interfere; he must destroy as far as he could the 
 effeft produced by Mr. Fox's speech: he went 
 over the ground again, until listlcssncss, fatigue, 
 and disgust were apparent in every countenance. 
 The remaining four days were wasted by the Ma- 
 nager upon points that had no sort of relation to 
 the charge, improper at any time to have been agi- 
 tated, but when dwelt upon in a speech in reply, 
 which ought to be confined to remarks upon evi- 
 dence before the Court, in the highest degree in- 
 decent and irregular. Part of the time was wasted 
 in reading papers that are not in evidence, and in 
 blackening the characters of Gentlemen who can- 
 not defend themselves. What, then, could the 
 Manager mean, but to scatter his calumnies as 
 wide as he could, and to continue the trial to the 
 latest possible moment he could ? Mr. Law said, 
 and it was well known, that he had no sort of con- 
 nection with Mr. Hastings, and that he had in In- 
 dia disapproved of some some of his political 
 measures; beyond this he had never gone, as an 
 Honourable Member (Mr. Francis) well knew. 
 On political subjecU he had differed with Mr. 
 
 Hastings,
 
 Hastings, but never upon any one of the four 
 points on which this impeachment rests. On those 
 points he never had but one opinion ; and he be- 
 lieved the mind of every fair and impartial man 
 in the kingdom was .made up as to Mr. Hastings. 
 He was confident that Mr. Hastings in no one at 
 of his public life,, had been warped by interested 
 or malicious motives. One good effea this trial 
 would have it would convince his countrymen 
 how grossly they had |?een imposed upon, and they 
 would be less liable to imposition in future. 
 
 Mr. Law concluded by saying, that as he thought 
 the conduQ of the leading Manager -throughout 
 the trial, had entailed shame and disgrace upon the 
 House of Commons, he should vote most heartily 
 for the previous question. 
 
 Mr. FOX, in explanation said, that what he had 
 said on ttje topic alluded to, was the result of a 
 full consideration of the subjea, and not from the 
 hearsay of any person whatever; and what, were 
 the same occasions to occur, he should not hesi- 
 tate ta say again; but if it was from hearsay only 
 that he had his information, he wondered how the 
 Honourable Member came to know that circum- 
 stance : but he could tell him the faB was quite 
 the reverse. 
 
 Y y 4 Mr-
 
 Mr. ANSTRUTHER supported the conduft 
 of Mr. Burke, and said, that though the leading 
 Manager originally had told the story of Dcby 
 Sing, yet it was another Right Hon. Gentleman 
 (Mr. Fox) and himself who proposed to give evi- 
 dence upon it, thinking they might make Mr. 
 Hastings responsible for the ats of Deby Sing. 
 It was true the Court had unanimously rejected 
 the evidence ; but he still retained his own opi- 
 nion on that, and on other points of evidence 
 which had been rejected. 
 
 Mr. SUMNER spoke in explanation ; he wish- 
 ed, if any one Gentleman doubted his veracity, to 
 refer to the minutes of the short-hand writer, as 
 the only criterion by which they could determine 
 who was right in the statement of the language 
 used by the Right Honourable Manager; and 
 upon this point he declared himself willing to 
 meet any of those Gentlemen who considered it 
 in a different point of view from him. 
 
 Mr. SHERIDAN supported the condud of 
 Mr. Burke; he said, that if the question was 
 merely whether the Managers merited the thanks 
 of the House or not, that he should not vote on 
 the occasion, but the motion for the previous 
 question on the ground on which it was moved, 
 i viz.
 
 viz. for the purpose of throwing a reflection on 
 the conduft of one of the Committee, changed 
 its nature entirely, and he therefore should feel 
 it his duty to remain in the House with those who 
 oppose it. 
 
 The question was then put, when there ap- 
 peared, 
 
 For the previous question 21 
 
 Noes 55 
 
 Majority 34 
 
 The question of thanks was then put, when 
 there appeared, 
 
 Ayes 50 
 
 Noes 21 
 
 Majority 29 
 
 The usual motion, that the Speaker do give the 
 thanks of the House to the Managers in their 
 places, was then put and carried; and the SPEA- 
 KER addressed the Managers in the following 
 speech : 
 
 Gentlemen, 
 
 IT is my duty to communicate to you the 
 thanks of this House, for the manner in which 
 you have discharged a most arduous trust, on an 
 
 occasion
 
 ( 698 ) 
 
 Occasion highly interesting to the honour and jus-* 
 lice of the nation. 
 
 The subjeft, to which your attention has IHVM 
 directed, was intricate and extensive beyond ex- 
 ample : You have proved, that it was well suited 
 to your industry and eloquence, the exertions of 
 which have conferred honour, not on yourselves 
 . only, but on this House, whose credit is intimately 
 conncclcd with your own. A forcible admonition 
 has been given on this occasion, to all persons in 
 situations of high and important national trust, that 
 they can neither be removed by distance, or shel- 
 tered by power, from the vigilance and authority 
 of this House, which is possessed of no privilege 
 more important than that by which it is enabled to 
 bring public delinquents to the bar of public jus- 
 tice, and thus to preserve or rescue from disho- 
 nour, the British name and character. 
 
 But in addressing you on this occasion, and in 
 considering the beneficial consequences to be cx- 
 pecled from this proceeding, it is impossible not 
 to advert to the increased security which the con- 
 stitution has derived in the course of it, from the 
 recognition and fall confirmation of the principle, 
 that an impeachment is not discontinued by a dis- 
 solution of Parliament; a principle essential to 
 the privileges. of this House, and to the indepen- 
 dent and effectual administration of public justice. 
 
 Under
 
 Under these impressions, suggested by the na- 
 ture and importance of your trust, and by the 
 manner in which you have discharged it, I obey, 
 with the utmost satisfaction, the commands of this 
 House, by stating to you their resolution 
 
 44 That the Thanks of this House be given to 
 44 the Members, who were appointed the Mana- 
 44 gers of the Impeachment against Warren Has- 
 44 tings, Esq. for their faithful management in their 
 4i discharge of the trust reposed in them." 
 
 Mr. PITT moved, that the Speaker do print 
 his speech. 
 
 Mr. BURKE said, that by the orders of the 
 House, when the Thanks were given, he and his 
 brother Managers were tongue-tyed, and had no 
 means whereby to express their gratitude but by 
 their submission to those orders. But he thought 
 he should be wanting in gratitude if he did not, 
 the moment the penalty of silence was removed, 
 seize the first opportunity to express his own sa- 
 tisfaajon, and that of his fellow Managers, on the 
 occasion. They had laboured to discharge their 
 duty, they had completed the task, and they were 
 paid by the Thanks of that House, the first reward 
 men could receive. Next to the Thanks he must 
 notice the very dignified and elegant manner in 
 
 which
 
 ( 700 ) 
 
 which the Speaker had discharged that task, in 
 which he consulted not only the grandeur and 
 dignity of that House, but at, the same time po- 
 liteness and attention to them. He then entered 
 into a short defence of the ccfiiduft of the Im- 
 peachment. He assured the House, that no aspe- 
 rity of remark should provoke him to say a word, 
 that prejudices arising from personal friendship, or 
 from a sense of personal obligations, were too lau- 
 dable for him to be discomposed at : he would 
 only assure the House, that he had thrown no ge- 
 neral reflections on the Company's servants, hav- 
 ing merely repeated what Mr. Hastings himself 
 had said of the troops serving in Oude ; and 
 it would be found by referring to the iath and 
 i3th articles, that the House had marked their 
 opinion of the officers serving in Oude, in the 
 very terms that he had used ; and as for the other 
 expressions, they had been very much misrepre- 
 sented. 
 
 Mr. LAW, in reply to Mr. Burke, said, that he 
 desired not to be included amongst those Gentle- 
 men, if any such there were, which he did not be- 
 lieve, who afted either from early prejudices, or 
 from a sense of favours received ; he was as in- 
 dependent of Mr. Hastings as of the two Right 
 Honourable Gentlemen who were united in the 
 
 present
 
 ( 7 01 ) 
 
 present question; and he gave his vote from 
 the firmest convi&ion that he was right, and that 
 instead of thanks, the leading Manager merited 
 the reprobation of every man who had the ho- 
 nour of the House and of the country at heart : 
 he was, indeed, sorry to see the Right Honoura- 
 ble Gentleman ( Mr. Fox], whom he much re- 
 spected, afting in the present instance under such 
 a leader. He knew what the sense of the coun- 
 try was, and no vote of that House, though sup- 
 ported by all the influence both of the Minister 
 and of the Opposition, could change the public 
 mind, or convince the people of the propriety 
 of the conduft of the leading Manager. With 
 regard to his having misrepresented any one ex- 
 pression used by the leading Manager in West- 
 minster Hall, he was confident he had not, 
 and that if the minutes of the short-hand writer 
 were referred to, it would be found, that he 
 had been infinitely more abusive and violent 
 than he had been represented in the quotations that 
 were made. Mr. Law repeated, that no con- 
 tradiftion, let it come from what quarter it 
 would, could have the slightest effea in this 
 case ; it was impossible to mistate what so many 
 thousands had heard, what so many thousands 
 had reprobated, and which, as he said before, ex- 
 cited no other sentiments than those of contempt 
 
 and
 
 and indignation in the minds of the auditors, from 
 persons of the highest rank down to the door- 
 keepers, guards, and porters, attending in and 
 about Westminster Hall, 
 
 APPEXDIX.
 
 .3c. 
 
 rro 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 IT may possibly be deemed more satisfa&ory to 
 our Readers, if we cite at length the authorities 
 for the several assertions made in the course of 
 the debate. 
 
 The vote alluded to by Mr. Sumner, which 
 precluded the Managers from going into any fur- 
 ther articles except contracts, passed the 4th of 
 February, 1791, and is in the following words.: 
 
 " That in consideration of the length of time 
 " which has already elapsed since the carrying up 
 " the impeachment now depending against Warren 
 " Hastings,'Esq. it appears to this House to be pro~ 
 " per, for the purpose of obtaining substantial 
 * justice, with as little further delay as possible, to 
 " proceed to no other parts of the said impeachment 
 u than those on which the Managers have already 
 " closed their emdence t excepting only such parts as 
 " relate to contrails, pensions, and allowances" 
 
 Upon
 
 ( 74 ) 
 
 Upon this motion a division took place, Mr. 
 Ryder proposing, that the prosecution should be 
 instantly closed; the numbers were 161 to 79, so 
 that it was carried to go on as far as the contracts, 
 but no further. 
 
 It is to be observed, that in obedience to the 
 letter and the spirit of this vote, that the Mana- 
 gers brought forward the article of contracts, and 
 then entirely closed the prosecution in May 1791 ; 
 that is, in four sitting days after this resolution of 
 the House was voted. The impeachment then 
 rested upon four articles The Benares, the Be- 
 gum, the Presents, and the Contracts. The de- 
 fence was confined to these four articles j and the 
 evidence in reply^ was also confined to them ; the 
 Lords rejecting every thing offered that was not 
 striftly evidence in reply to these Jour articles. Mr. 
 Fox, Mr. Grey,Mr. Sheridan, and Mr. Taylor, who 
 summed up these four articles, confined themselves 
 most correftly to the matter contained ineach ; but 
 Mr. Burke contended, that the Commons had not 
 abandoned one of the twenty articles ; and when 
 stopped by the Court, retired to consult with Mr. 
 Windham before he would give up the point. 
 
 The proof that Mr. Burke attacked the charac- 
 ters of the civil and military servants of the Com- 
 pany collectively, will be found in the quotations 
 that we shall give from his speeches in four several 
 
 years.
 
 years. Mr. Burke denies this charge, and says, 
 he merely repeated the refleaions that Mr. Has- 
 tings had cast upon the Company's servants ; yet 
 in various passages of his speech, he has accused 
 Mr. Hastings of making common cause with them. 
 In his last speech he accused Mr. Hastings of dis- 
 obeying an order transmitted to him for enquiring 
 into past abuses; commented on the excuse of- 
 fered by Mr. Hastings, "which was, that any irre- 
 gular ads committed were owing to a want of a 
 system of law and policy, and did not originate 
 in the habits of licentiousness in the Company's 
 servants. Forgetting all that he had said, Mr. 
 Burke seriously told the. House, that it was not 
 he, but Mr. Hastings, who had calumniated 
 the Company's servants. Mr. Burke added, that 
 the House, in the i2th and i3th articles, had given 
 their sentiments of the officers serving in Oude. 
 It is not now of moment to state, though the faft 
 is true, that the last House voted the i 2 th and 
 13th articles without reading one line of them; 
 but had they been voted after the fullest enquiry, 
 they were totally abandoned by a vote of this House-, 
 the only step this House ever took being totally to 
 abandon all that the last House had voted, four 
 charges excepted; and into the truth or the false- 
 hood of those four charges it never enquired. 
 We do not say this with a view of diminishing the 
 z 2 importance
 
 ( 76) 
 
 importance which may be fairly due to those four 
 charges; but as this House of Commons has, by 
 an express law, appropriated to the public service^ 
 the proceeds, to use a mercantile phrase, which 
 arose from the afts that are charged to the criminal 
 in those charges, it is fair to say, that they were 
 not voted by this House of Commons, and that 
 this House cannot believe them to be true. 
 
 In the very sensible and energetic speech addres- 
 sed by Mr. Speaker to the Managers, he truly 
 says, that the House possesses no privilege more 
 important than that by which it is enabled to bring 
 public delinquents to the bar of public justice, 
 and thus to preserve or rescue from dishonour the 
 British name and characler. A noble sentiment, 
 and most eloquently expressed. There never 
 was an occasion on which the House of Commons 
 acted so disinterestedly. In the original charge 
 it was affirmed, that the various measures pursued 
 by Mr. Hastings, by which thirty-four millions 
 sterling were acquired for Great Britain, and an 
 additional revenue of two millions sterling a year, 
 were flagrant violations of public faith, or als of 
 outrageous tyranny, plunder, and oppression. 
 
 The charge is now curtailed, but in its present 
 state is of great importance. Mr. Sheridan, speak- 
 ing in the name and on the behalf of the Common^ 
 said, that if Mr. Hastings were found guilty on the 
 
 Benares
 
 ( 7=7 ) 
 
 Benares, the Begum, and the Presents, ceconomi- 
 cal as the House was, it would be impossible not to 
 give the parties aggrieved full and complete, restitu- 
 tion; that is, to take from the public six millions 
 sterling, the principal and interest of the money 
 taken from Cheyt Sing; two millions sterling, the 
 principal and interest of the money taken from 
 the Begum; and eight hundred thousand pounds, 
 the principal and interest of the presents taken by 
 Mr. Hastings, and paid into the public treasury : 
 to this sum of eight millions eight- hundred thousand 
 pounds, which must be paid in money, is to be 
 added, a deduction of two hundred thousand 
 pounds a year from the future revenue of Benares. 
 By no other means can the British nation be rescued 
 from dishonour, provided Mr. Hastings be guilty. 
 No Gentleman, therefore, who considers the speech 
 of the Speaker, or the speech of the Minister, 
 which contained the same sentiment, can withhold 
 his approbation, not unmixed -with wonder t at the 
 very great disinterestedness expressed by both. 
 Any other nation than Great Britain, when in- 
 volved in an expensive and calamitous war, the 
 fatal effe&s of which we daily experience, and af- 
 ter having paid so largely for foreign aid, would be 
 contented to enjoy the advantages that were pro- 
 cured for them thirteen years ago without further 
 investigation, until India called for redress. But 
 z z 2 though
 
 ( 708 ) 
 
 though the Minister of India has unequivocally 
 declared, that an empire in the East has been well 
 governed; though he presented, and the legisla- 
 ture passed a bill, by which the public participate* 
 to a great amount in the advantages obtained by 
 Mr. Hastings; though from various accidents the 
 Company \vcre unable to pay half a million in thit 
 year to the public^ until the Legislature gave them 
 leave to borrow the money ; such is the sacred re- 
 gard which the Minister professes for the honour 
 of the nation, thatybr seven years he had allowed 
 that party which was once called the Opposition, 
 to exert every talent they possess in order to 
 prove, that without fixing everlasting disgrace on 
 the British name and character, Mr. Dundas must 
 not continue to impose upon the -world by boasting 
 of the importance and value of our Indian terri- 
 tories. Our opinion is, that the Managers have 
 been completely mistaken ; an opinion we may 
 be allowed to give, as we are not judges in the 
 cause, and as all the evidence is closed; but if 
 the Managers are right, the nation must pay to 
 India eight millions eight hundred thousand pounds^ 
 and we must take off two hundred thousand 
 pounds a year from our India revenue in future, 
 or the nation must undergo the double disgrace of 
 having proved, that it has robbed and plundered to 
 tn enormous amount, and of putting into its own 
 i pocket
 
 ( 709 ) 
 
 pocket all that was obtained by that robbery and 
 
 plunder ' 
 
 The following passages are sele&ed from Mr. 
 Burke's speeches in the several years : 
 
 MR. BURKE, IN 1788. 
 
 " MY LORDS. 
 
 ** The Gentlemen who have it in command to 
 support the impeachment against Mr. Hastings, late 
 Governor General of Bengal, have directed me 
 to open a general view of the grounds upon which 
 the Comjftons have proceeded in their charges 
 against him : to open a general view of the extent, 
 the magnitude, the nature, the tendency, and effcft 
 of the crimes with which they have charged him. 
 
 " What the greatest interests of the nation has be~ 
 gun, its highest tribunal will accomplish. Justice 
 will be done to India. 
 
 " It is not solely, whether the prisoner at the bar 
 be found innocent or guilty, but whether millions of 
 mankind should be miserable or happy. 
 
 " My Lords, It is not only the subjects of this 
 great empire who are concerned, but the credit and 
 honour of the British-nation will itself be decided by 
 this decision. 
 
 zz 3 "We
 
 " We know that as we are to be served by men, 
 that the persons who serve us must be tried as men, 
 and that there is a very large allowance indeed 
 due to- human infirmity and human error. This 
 we know, and have weighed before we came to your 
 Lordships bar. But the crimes we charge are not 
 the causes and ejfefts of common human frailty, such 
 as we know and feel, and can allow for ; but they 
 are crimes which have their rise in the wicked dis- 
 positions of men they are crimes which have their 
 rise in avarice, rapacity, pride, cruelty, ferocity, ma- 
 lignity of temper, hauglitiness, insolence - f in short, 
 every thing that manifests a heart blackened to the 
 very blackest a heart dyed deep in blackness a 
 heart gangreened to the very core. 
 i " We have not chosen to bring before you a 
 poor, trembling delinquent. 
 
 We have brought before you the head, the chief \ 
 a captain general of iniquity one in whom all the 
 fraud, all the tyranny of India are embodied, disci- 
 plined, and arrayed. 
 
 " You have now a boundless objitl it is notfrom 
 this county, or that parish, but whole climes, and 
 differing nations. 
 
 ' Knowing your Lordships to be possessed, 
 along with all other judicial virtues, with that of 
 patience, I hope, and trust, you will not grudge a 
 few short hours to the explanation of that, vhich 
 
 has
 
 
 has cost the Commons near fourteen years of assi- 
 duous application that you will not refuse a few 
 hours to what has cost the people of India upwards 
 of thirty years of their innate -inveterate patience to 
 
 tndure. 
 
 " The first of his afts was the most bold and ex- 
 traordinary that 1 believe entered into the head of 
 any man, / will say, of any tyrant, which was no- 
 thing less than a general exceptionless confiscation of 
 the property of Bengal. He put it up to a pre- 
 tended public, but in reality to a private and cor- 
 rupt auction. 
 
 " I shall say nothing either of the circumstan- 
 ces of the purchase, or of the right of the people 
 to their property, or to the nature and mode of 
 deteaion, until that great question, the greatest of 
 all which we shall bring, shall be brought before 
 your Lordships, particularly as an article of 
 
 charge. 
 
 And here I come to the beginning of a 
 great notorious system of government, which 
 consists of many abuses, branched out into such 
 a variety of ways, and has so much affefttd the 
 kingdom, that I may venture to say, it will make 
 one of the greatest and most weighty parts of the 
 
 charges. 
 
 " I charge him with having taken away the lands 
 of orphans, with having alienated the fortunes of 
 z z 4
 
 ( 7*2 ) 
 
 dows \vith having wasted the country and destroyed 
 the inhabitants, after cruelly harassing and dis- 
 tressing them. I charge him with having tortured 
 their person^ and dishonoured their religion, thro 
 his wicked agents, who were at the bottom and root 
 of his villainy. 
 
 " I charge him in the name of the Commons of 
 England. 
 
 *' Now, my Lords, what is it we want ? We 
 want to have the cause of oppressed princes of 
 undone women of the first rank, redressed of de- 
 solated provinces and wasted kingdoms, redressed. 
 Do you want a criminal, my Lords ? When was 
 there so much iniquity charged against any one ? 
 No, my Lords, you must not look to India to 
 furnish one, for Mr. Hastings has not left in 
 India substance enough to furnish such another de- 
 linquent. 
 
 ** I impeach Warren Hastings in the name 
 of the people of India, whose laws, rights, and 
 liberties he has subverted. I impeach him in ihc 
 name of the people of India, whose country he 
 has destroyed I impeach him in the name of hu 
 man nature, which he has cruelly injured and op- 
 pressed in both stxe?. 
 
 MR,
 
 ( 713 ) 
 
 ilfc. -BURKE IN 1789. 
 
 Eminent for the pillage and destruction gf 
 provinces. 
 
 " Crimes of great enormity^ the ruin and expul- 
 sion of illustrious families , the iota/ rum of villages, 
 the total expulsion o/" the first houses in Asia. 
 
 " A wan who, in his own person, has done more 
 mischief than all those persons whose evil prac- 
 tices had produced all those laws, those regulations, 
 and even his own appointment. 
 
 " A corrupt, shocking arrangement was made, 
 and Bengal saw a dancing girl administer its laws. 
 
 "He has murdered that man by the hands of 
 Sir Elijah Impey. 
 
 11 He gorged his ravenousmtw with an allowance 
 of 200!. a day. He is not satisfied without sucking 
 the blood of 1400 nobles. He is never corrupt 
 without he is cruel. He never dines without creat- 
 ing a famine. He feeds on the indigent, the de- 
 caying, and the ruined, and them he depresses to- 
 gether; not like the generous eagle, whp preys on 
 a living, reluctant, equal prey : No ; he is like the 
 ravenous vulture, who feeds on the dead, and the 
 enfeebled, who destroys and incapacitates nature in 
 the destruction of its object, while devouring the 
 
 carcases
 
 ( 7*4 ) 
 
 carcases of the dead, and then prides himself in 
 his ignominious security, and his cruelty is beyond 
 his corruption ; at the same time, there is in his hy- 
 pocrisy something more terrible than his cruelty, 
 For at the same time that he exercises a proscrip- 
 tion that sweeps off the bread of thousands of the 
 nobility^ he turns the precious balm that flows from 
 wounded humanity into deadly, rancorous? and mor- 
 tal poison to the human race. 
 
 " Mr. Hastings feasts in the dark alone; like a 
 wild beast he groans in a corner over the dead and 
 dying; and like the tyger of that country, he 
 wishes to withdraw it to a cavern, to indulge with 
 unobserved enjoyment in all the wanton caprices 
 of his appetite. 
 
 " He comes a heavy calamity to the nation, 
 as we say a country is visited by famine and pes- 
 tilence. 
 
 " His crimes are so multiplied, that all the 
 contrivances of ingenuity to cover them are abor- 
 tive. 
 
 " If the language had furnished me, under the 
 impression of those feelings, a word sufficient to 
 convey the complicated atrocity of that aft, as it 
 stood in my mind, I should certainly not have 
 used the word murder; but having no other, I was 
 obliged to use that word.
 
 (7'5) 
 
 MR. BURKE IN 
 
 " One cannot conceive a crime that defames 
 human nature, of which this man is not charged in 
 the articles of impeachment that are given before 
 your Lordships; and with respeftto the Commons 
 of Great Britain, when human nature is stirred 
 with rage against his crimes; when it is the sympa- 
 thy which God has planted in us, and horror of 
 those crimes, that has called the Commons to your 
 Lordships' bar. When they hear of murders 
 when they hear of women torn from their houses 
 when they hear of the most cruel racks and tortures 
 that can be inflitted, and all^this from the avarice 
 of the man who is at your Lordships' bar. 
 
 Every drop of blood that was spilt in conse- 
 quence of his als, was murder. We charge him 
 with robberies we charge him with tortures we 
 charge h,im with cruelty. 
 
 " The unfortunate people of England, for four- 
 teen years have suffered these things. It is they that 
 have had patience. 
 
 " The Commons wish at this moment to close 
 the charge, and to proceed no further in any of 
 the articles now before you, than those on which 
 they have already delivered their evidence. My 
 Lords, the Commons rejoice at the approach of a 
 
 day
 
 day, by them so long wished, a day which is to vin- 
 dicate and give glory, or to obscure for ever, the 
 justice of this kingdom. The Commons have ap- 
 proached it with a manly confidence, but at the same 
 time, with an anxious solicitude for the greatest 
 stake any nation ever did, or ever could have, 
 namely, whether its bighcsi bodies on judicial pro- 
 ceedings; whether its hi -hest tribunals shall vin- 
 dicate that justice, without which no government 
 can stand ; whether they shall vindicate the dis- 
 pensations of Providence, that has committed so 
 great an empire in so distant a country to Great 
 Britain; whether this country lias energy and abi- 
 lity to proteft them ; whether we should retain a 
 country so remote and distant, notwithstanding 
 all the difficulties that nature has thrown in 
 our way. My Lords, I venture to say, this day 
 is a day most justly desired by the House of 
 Commons. 
 
 MR. $URKE IN 1794. 
 
 " This swindling MAECENAS swindling of 
 glory, and obtaining honour under false pre- 
 tences a bad scribbler of absurd papers, who 
 could never put two sentences of sense together. 
 
 A frau-
 
 ( 77 ) 
 
 " A fraudulent Bullock Contra&or his ex- 
 amples are of persons who have become rebels to 
 their sovereigns. 
 
 " A traherous and rebellious assumption of the 
 power which belongs only to the King, as Sove- 
 reign, with both Houses of Parliament. 
 
 " If you allow such do6lrines, your Lordships 
 are as wild, savage, and unprincipled as the pri- 
 soner who stands at your bar. 
 
 " His supple, worn-down, beaten, cowed, and 
 I am afraid, bribed colleague, Mr. Wheler. 
 
 " Hear what Lord Coke says of a passage in 
 Virgil 
 
 Castigatque, auditque dolos, subcgitque fateri. 
 
 " Such are the damned and damnable proceed- 
 ings of a Judge in Hell, and such a judge was 
 Warren Hastings. 
 
 " We charge him as a tyrant, an oppressor, and 
 murderer, in the largest sense of the word. 
 
 " A man whose origin was low, obscure, and 
 vulgar, and bred in vulgar and ignoble habits 
 more proud than persons born under canopies of 
 state, and swaddled in purple. 
 
 8S The indecency, the rancour, the pride, and 
 the insolence of the Dows, the Hastings's, and 
 their adherents.
 
 ( 7*8 ) 
 
 You have seen the atrocious insolence, the 
 tyrannical pride, with which he reproaches us. 
 
 This cruel tyrant HANNAY, a substitute to a 
 still more cruel and bloody tyrant, WARREN HAS- 
 TINGSHASTINGS says to HANN ? AY, you have 
 sucked blood enough for yourself, now suck blood 
 for your neighbours. 
 
 " Captain Williams murdered Rajah Mustapha 
 Cawn with his own hand. 
 
 ** No man is a tyrant, who is not, when he can 
 be, a rebel. 
 
 u God forbid that I should praise that Com- 
 mittee in any respect I know it was a committee 
 of robbers. 
 
 " A species of account, which, in a night cellar 
 amongst thieves, could hardly be attempted. 
 
 " I wore a suit of fine cloaths as Jew bail they 
 all will bum for your gang. 
 
 * Here is a watch I wore it as long as I chose, 
 and now I give it up to the gang. 
 
 " As to house-rent for aid-de-camps, he may 
 say, I have found lodgings in St. Giles'sybr some 
 cf the gang. 
 
 " A sink not only of filth and excrement to 
 shock the natural senses, but of filth and excre- 
 ment to shock the moral sense of every visitor. 
 
 " Vindicating
 
 ( 719 ) 
 
 ft Vindicating himself by the founding of a col- 
 lege for thieves, pickpockets, felons, and house- 
 breakers. 
 
 " In the swindling account, swindle upon swin- 
 dle and Mr. LARKING keeping the private as he 
 kept the public account, has swindled a whole 
 year in his account of this transaction. 
 
 " A common-place dog-trot fraud, of the 
 meanest of mankind. 
 
 " You must repeal the Aft of Parliament, if 
 you acquit Mr. HASTINGS you must pronounce 
 the Legislature a liar. 
 
 " Major Os BORNE had been dismissed. A 
 court martial had removed him I care not whe- 
 ther justly or unjustly; there he sits in that box. 
 Who sent him to Oude to suck the blood the mi- 
 litary had spared ? A wild beast when his belly is 
 full may be pleased and lick your hand. You might 
 have a serene day under such a beast, but can you 
 under that man HASTINGS? 
 
 " He is a captain general of iniquity thief 
 tyrant robber cheat sharper swindler. We 
 call him all these names, and are sorry that the 
 English language does not afford terms adequate 
 to the enormity of his offences. 
 
 " Revenge is a sort of wild justice it is the 
 test of heroic virtue we will continue to the end 
 
 to
 
 ( 7 20 ) 
 
 to persecute. I vow, that we bear immortal ha- 
 tred against this scum, filth, and pollution of In- 
 dian guilt; if the Commons do not, I take it all 
 to myself. 
 
 41 Sir WALTER RALEIGH was called a spider 
 of hell. This was foolish, indecent, in Lord 
 COKE. Had he been a Manager on this trial, he 
 would have been guilty of a negleft of duty, had 
 he not called the prisoner a spider of hell. 
 
 " I tremble for the event, because, if the pri- 
 soner is innocent, the Commons are guilty. 
 
 " Nothing but the malice of the House of 
 Commons could have instigated them to institute 
 this prosecution, if they had not been sure of his 
 guilt Nothing but a great party formed by hi* 
 wealth could support him. 
 
 * We reduced this cause into a smaller compass, 
 into four charges, because of the long protraction 
 of it those we left being as bad as the rest. 
 
 " What! compare this man, a bullock driver, 
 with TAMER LAN E and those conquerors? When 
 GOD punished PHARAOH and Egypt, he did not 
 send armies, but lice and locusts, to lay the land 
 waste. 
 
 " This arbitrary creature ignorant stupid 
 
 from a blind presumption, overturned the whole 
 system, and ruined the trade of the country. By 
 
 his
 
 ( 7" > 
 
 his owrTconduft, he set all vigilance asleep : by 
 his bullock contrails he corrupted his coadjutor. 
 
 " When he comes before you, you find him 
 possessed of no one quality fit for any busioess 
 whatever. 
 
 " Sometimes GOD has made wickedness mad. 
 
 46 I ask and scrutinize what was latent in a ty- 
 ger's heart what was in a tyger's breast to do . 
 and that he did. 
 
 " He formed all these infernal plots in his 
 mind, uncertain which he would execute. 
 
 At the same time that he had the rapacity of a 
 vulture, he had not the talons or the beak of a vul 
 lure he lost his prey. 
 
 FINIS.
 
 10
 
 rERSITY OF CALIFORNI 
 
 THE UN1VF 
 
 University of California 
 W REGION) 
 
 SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 405 Hllgard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1388 
 
 Return this material to the library 
 
 from which it was borrowed. 
 
 I 
 
 INON-RENEWA 
 
 . i : 
 
 )UE 2 WKS FROM DATE RE 
 APR 2 
 
 991 
 
 ILL