UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT LOS ANGELES UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT LOS ANGELES EX A M I NAT I O N EXPEDIENCT OF CONTINUING THE PKESEKT IMPEACHMENT; RALPH, BROOME, Esc*. AUTHOR OF THE ELUCIDATION OF THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST WARREN HASTINGS, Es L ND N: Printed for JOHN STOCKDALE, oppofite Burlington Houfe, Piccadilly. M.DCC.XCJ. [Price Two Shillings and Six-pence.] PRECEDENTS O N IMPEACHMENTS. This Day is PulUJbed. IN ONE VOLUME OCTAVO, Price Five Shillings in Boards, A N ELUCIDATION OF THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, Preferred by the lad PARLIAMENT againft WARREN HASTINGS, Esa. B Y RALPH BROOME, Captain in the Service of the EAST INDIA COMPANY on the Bengal Eftablimment, and Perfian Tranflator to the Army on the Frontier (lation, during Part of the late War in India. N. B. At the latter End of this WORK is Con- tained a View of all the Precedents relative to the Con- tinuance and Abatement of Impeachments on the Diflb- lution of Parliament, with an Examination of the Ar- guments pro and con. LONDON Printed for JOHN STOOfcDALE, Piccadilly. COMPLETE EDITION O F SIMKIN's LETTERS, CONTAINING A PARTICULAR ACCOUNT OF 'MR. H A S T I N G S's TRIAL From its commencement in 1778, to the prefent Time. Day is Publijhed, Beautifully printed on a Superfine Wire wove PAPER, in One Volume Octavo, Price 73. in Boards, THE LETTERS S I M K I N THE SECOND, TOETIC RECORDER OF ALL THE PROCEEDINGS UPON THE TRIAL OF WARREN HASTINGS, ESQ.. IN- WESTMINSTER HALL. / curre per Alpes, UtPutKis flaceasei DECLAMATIO jfaJ/ JUVENAL. Enligbxn'dSiatefmanl go through Toil and Strife, And for thy Country's Good, embroil thy Life. Go mighty Warrior ! wide and wider roam, To come at length, and be abus'd at home. ANON. London: Printed for JOHN STOCKD ALE, January 8th, 1791. N. B. The Second Part of the above Work may be had feparate to complete the ft rft Edition in One fmall Volume Svo. Price 33. in Boards. 335 AN EXAMINATION, C. 2 T* 1 HAVE upon former occanons addrefled K- the public upon the fubjecl: of the prefent ~' Impeachment. What I have written has beeu collected by Mr. Stockdale, and fold in the mape of a pamphlet. The collection has been reviewed by the monthly and lite- rary reviewers ; the former paid me the ? compliment of faying, that I had rendered 7 that intelligible, which had, till then, baffled wvthe powers of comprehenfion ; and the lat- ter faid, that the arguments I had made ufe B of 354804 of were weighty, and deferving of confede- ration. Thus encouraged, I venture to lay be- fore the public fome reflections upon the prefent ftate of the impeachment above men- tioned. It was, till very lately, my decided opinion founded upon fearch of precedents, that the proceedings would abate or be an- nihilated by the diflblution of the laft Par- liament. In that opinion I find myfelf, as far as refpects the Houfe of Commons, totally miftaken ; but I have this confolation, that I have erred in company with the moft re- fpe&able law authorities in this kingdom. Much ingenuity has been made ufe of to eftablifh the validity of the precedent in 1678, and to deftroy the erFedt of all thofe that followed. This much, however, {lands uncontradi&ed and uncontroverted by any one. Except the inftances that occurred between the years 1678 and 1685, the whole Hiftory of England cannot furnim a [ 3 ] precedent of an impeach ment begun by one Parliament and purfued by another. The cafes of Lords Peterborough and Salifbury and the Duke of Leeds, are reprefented as particular cafes, and having no analogy to the prefent ; but for my own part I cannot difcover any other diffimilarity than that of rank. The cafes above mentioned have nobility, members of the upper Houfe, for the accufed, and the prefent cafe has a lefs dignified fubjecl:, a Commoner only. Whe- ther it be among the privileges of the Peer- age that the diflblution of Parliament mail extinguim the impeachment of a Peer, I know not, but it certainly was not put upon that footing. The judgement of the Lords in the cafes of Lord Danby, Peterborough, and ' Saliibury, in the years 5685 and in 1690., was declared ta have for its foun- dation, the laws of the land and the ufage of Parliament, without even an insinuation of exckrfive peculiarity in favour of their own body. There are, I admit, many pe- B 2 culiarities [ 4 ] culiarities in the cafe of Mr. Haftings, which diftinguilh it from all irate trials in this country, or in any other. Among thefe ^ peculiarities may be reckoned the length of time fince the facts happened, the duration of the trial, and the feverity with which it /\ has been conducted. Were we to eftimate the degrees of guilt by the length of the fpeeches madeagainft him, by the harfhnefs of the epithets with which they are load- ed, by the number of days employed to- tally in the arts of aggravation, and by the duration of the impeachment, we could not fail to coniider him as the worft of mankind ; as one who had ruined his country, nay, as the common enemy of human nature. If any man writes or fpeaks in his favour, he is called an hireling or a partaker of the plunder, or he is ftigmatized with fome other appellation equally opprobrious. Some of thofe who, being called by the Managers, gave teftimony in Mr. Haftings's favour, were either directly or indirectly accufed of per- [ 5 ] perjury, and I believe every witnefs with- out exception, who happened to fpeak in his favour, was reprefented to the world as a very fufpicious character. On the contra- ry, thofe witnefTes whofe teftimony tended to criminate, were extolled as men of un- queftionable veracity, of the purefl honour, and moil inflexible morality. When Mr. Paterfon's report concerning the infurrection at Rungpore, and the crueltie committed by Deby Sing, was dilated on in Weftminfter Hall, he was reprefented as a young gentleman of more than apofto- lic credit and veracity. But fince the fame young gentleman, hearing of the unfair life which had been made of that report, and of its being perverted to the purpofes of ca- lumny, has written home declaring his ab- horrence thereof, and that Mr. Haftmgs, fo far from promoting or protecting guilt, was the moft forward for detecting and avenging it, we hear nothing more of his extraordi- nary nary qualities and uncommon attachment to the caufe of truth and juftice. I have looked into the hiftory of our own country, where I found many examples of violent and eager profecutions for ftate crimes ; fome of them have been fpeedily brought to an iffue, fatal to the objects of accufation ; but there is not one inftance to be found, wherein time has not operated to the abatement of public anger and profe- cutton. Lord Bolingbroke was attainted for high treafon, and afterwards pardoned. Lord Oxford was put upon his trial for a fimilar offence ; he was accufed of having bafely betrayed the intereft of his country, and having affifted her enemies. Crimes, greater than thefe, if true, could not be committed by a minifter or flatefman, yet we find that the profecution and punifhrnent of this offender was not thought of confe- quence equal to the prefervation of formal etiquette. The Commons of that day, foon- er t 7 ] er than fufFer the judge", of the higheft court of judicature in this kingdom, to exercife that right and privilege which muft necef- farily belong to every court of juftice, viz. that of fettling the form of proceeding, abandoned the profecution altogether. Many- other inftances may be adduced of thofe who have done the mofl effectual and moft permanent injuries to their country, and yet have owed their fafety to the diflblution of Parliament, or to the lapfe of time. But none of thofe things which operated to the prefervation of thofe who injured their country, are permitted to operate in the fa- vour of him who has moft effectually ferved her. Time, inftead of cooling, inflames refentment, and the ghoft of the Parliament that is dead, rifes up to re- kindle and ani- mate the vengeance of that which is living. Precedents are laid afide, analogy is difre- garded, and eftablimed legal opinions are contradicted. One day we are told, that the profecution of the. Houfe of Commons is [ 8 ] is the profecution of the people of England, and the next day we hear that every repre- fentative is totally independent of his confti- tuents. If the people petition to the rulers of their own creation, their petitions are rejected ; but if the name of the people is made ufe of for form's fake only, they are indifiolubly bound and inextricably impli- cated in the acls of their uncontrolable re- prefentatives. According to the doctrine of this day, the refolutions of a paft Houfe of Commons are binding upon the prefent, and the dying requeft of a diflblved body ought to be regarded by their fuccefibrs with all the reverence and veneration of a pious fon, to the admonitions of a departed father. Pofterity in heading the hiftory of the pre- fent times will naturally inquire into the caufe of thefe extraordinary docftrines and events. They will fay, what crime had the man committed, or what acts of uncom- mon atrocity had he been guilty of, that the old cuftoms and ufage of Parliament i were t 9 1 Were to be fet afide for the fpecial purpofe of punifhing his offences ? And all this in a country where fuch ftri& regard is paid to form and ceremony, that many of the mofl guilty wretches are fuffered to avail themfelves of fome trifling technical error, and thereby efcape with their lives and for- tunes from the hands of juftice. Upon in- quiry, they will find nothing but what un- V avoidably arofe from circumftances and (itu- ation ; that fuppoiing the ats were intrin- lically wrong, they were done, not with a view to ferve himfelf or his dependents, but for the indifpenfably neceflary fervice of that very nation which now profecutes him ; a nation, that, if there were any thing wrong in the conduct of Mr. Haftings, participate, nay, appropriate the guilt to themfelves, by keeping pofleflion of what he is faid to have taken unjuftly from the natives of India. But I think I have de- ^ monflrated in the work which I alluded to, in the firft page, to the fatisfadlion of C every [ 19 J every candid reader, that the taking of Cheyt Sing in the time of war, and the advifing of the -Nabob to confifcate the treafure of which his mother unjuftly and unnaturally deprived him, and afterwards turned againfl him, were perfectly agreeable to the laws and cufloms of Indoflan, and as reconcilable to the prin- ciples of found policy and ftrit juftice, as taxation is in England, and as the decrees concerning property are in the befl regulated courts of equity. This may appear very bold after what has been faid fo often to the contrary, by a gentleman once in full poffef- iion of the public confidence. That day, however, is now gone by, and the people reafoiiing by analogy, fay, that he who can artfully mifreprefent the affairs of our near- eil neighbours, may be juftly fuipecled of misftating things that happened very re- mote both in time and place. The gentle- man I allude to, in the brilliance of his ipeeches, and the rhetorical exuberance of his writings, is almoft without an equal ; but C n 3 but in plain reafoning, in the clofe invefti- gation of fads, in the accurate weighing and balancing of merit and dement, in ma- king fair deductions and candid flatements, he is miferably deficient. There is nothing which mankind ought to guard againft more than what is called Oratory. It is to the underftanding, what optical glafles are to the eye. The ufe of the former, Jike that of the latter, is to magnify or diminilh the apparent fize of obje&s. The facts I have juft mentioned make up the principal fum of criminality yet brought forward againft Mr. Haftings ; for as to the fufpicion of his having intended to apply the money he received for the Com- pany, to his own ufe, I never canbeperfua- ded that it Xvas of importance enough to excite a parliamentary profecution. Here I wifh the reader to paufe for a few moments ; and if he be converfant with C 2 the the hiftory of the world in general, or with that of his own country in particular, to afk himfelf this queftion : Can there be art example found in the whole courfe of my reading of a man fo feverely punifhed'for a&s of fuch doubtful criminality ? Has Mr. HafHngs injured his country ? Has he betrayed her intereft ? Has he by mifma- nagement loft her provinces ? His greateft enemies acquit him of all; thefe things. What is it, then, that they do lay to his charge ? Why, they fay, that in his zeal to defend the country committed to his care, he taxed -a zemindar, who his accufers think ought not to have been taxed without fome higher authority ; that he advifed the Nabob of Oude to take from his unnatural mother certain fums of money, his pater- nal inheritance, of which me had defrauded him. Thefe are the ats which are held up to this country, now reaping the moft folid and fubftantial benefits from them, as crimes of the blackeft dye and of inexpi- able [ '3 ] able guilt. Perhaps fome people who read this, will fufpect me of having taken the fame liberty in extenuating, as Mr. Haftings's accufers have done in aggravating his guilt. But this is not the cafe. In the Elucidation before alluded to, I gave all the arguments of his accufers their full weight ; I abridged them of nothing but their harm epithets. And here I hope I mail be par- doned, if I hazard a fufpicion of my own, namely, that the length of the fpeeches, the profufion of epithets, the eccentric deviations from the fubjeft, and the rhetorical drefs of the accufations, were artfully intended to in- flame the paffions, and bewilder the under- flandings of the hearers. My reafon for thinking that confufion was fludied more than elucidation, is this : I fcarcely ever converfed with any one man, who, though he had conftantly attended the trial, under- flood the principal points which were at iffue between the accufers and accufed. The only things which feemed to imprefs upon C 14 1 upon the minds of the audience* were the ftrong terms of abufe, fuch as Captain General of Iniquity, Tyrant, OpprefiTor, Murderer, and Ib forth. Every one laid, that Mr. Haftings muft have dene fome- thing very-bad^ or fuch epithets would not have been ufed. The audience, who formed thefe hafty conclufions, did not recolle that the fame voices which exclaimed againft Mr. Ha- flings, have in the very fame manner, and in almoft the very fame words, exclaimed as loud againft the Minifters of this Country. Venality, Corruption, Ruin, and Impeach- ment, have been echoed and re-echoed in the chapel of St. Stephen, without pro- ducing any eftecl: upon the people without doors. It may be afked, why did the Ipeeches of the fame men produce fo much more effect agaihft the minifter of India, than againft a minifter of England ? The rcafon is plain and obvious, In the latter I cafe, I '5 1 cafe, the fcene of a&ion was near and open to the eye of jevery obferver ; the know- ledge and experience of every individual gave the lye to factious declamation, and fictitious grievances. But in the former cafe, the fcene of action was too remote, both in time and place, for the people to exercife their own judgment. They were obliged to fee with the eyes of other men, and take the accufations upon the credit of the accufers : the voice of denial was borne down by the charge of participancy of guilt ; ocular demonftration could not be had in one cafe, as in the other ; add to this, there is a natural propenfity in the human mind to the believing of marvellous nar- rations, which concern a remote period, or a diftant country, and to the doubting of facts which happened lately, or very near us. Why this propenfity exifts in defiance of reafon and common fenfe, I know not ; but every one who examines the conduct of mankind in all ages, mufl fubfcribe to the truth truth of the obfervation. To raife a ftrong prefumption of guilt againft Mr. Haftings, his fortune was reprefented as enormoufly large. The firft idea that fpfings up in the mind of every one upon hearing of large and rapid acquifitions, is, that the means were unjuftifiable. And we readily give a man, credit for the will, as foon as we are aflured that he was poffeft of the power. For this reafon alone, the defence of a man accufed of peculation becomes extremely difficult. The object of accufation has to combat the natural prejudice of the mind. Experience mows us, that by much the greater part of mankind are not proof againft temptation, and uhlefs any individual has eftablifhed the moft unequivocal character for felf-denial, we are apt to fufpect, that he did not let flip any opportunity of im- proving his own circumftances. Some people, who are zealous fupporters of the dignity of human nature, may deny what I have now remarked ; but if it be not true, I cannot [ 7 ] I cannot account for the ready credit which is generally given to accufation, and denied to the aflertions of innocence. I do not fay, that this preference is univerfal in all cafes, but I think the rule holds without an ex- ception, when the accufation concerns thofe things to which men are naturally impelled by the force of paffions. Such, for example, are intrigues by young men for the pofleffion of women ; and by men of a more advanced age for the pofleffion of wealth and power. I fhall not enter into a difeuffion of Mr. Haftings's fortune, nor of the means by which he acquired it. I fhall content myfelfwith faying, that one of his former colleagues in office, and who muft be befl able to judge of the means, cxprefles his wonder, not at the magnitude, but at the fmallnefs of Mr. Raftings^ fortune, al- ledging, that his falary, properly managed, muft have accumulated a much larger fum than he is fuppofed to be poffefTed of, D We [ . 1 We /ead lately in the public papers, of an officer of high rank in his Majefty's fer- vice, who had commanded ajrmies in the fields of Indoftan, who was perfonally un- acquainted with Mr. Haflings, delivering his ientiments of that gentleman ; he faid, that the enemies of the Company in India bore the moft honourable teflimony to Mr. Haftings's ability, as a governor and a poli- tician ; that the people whom he was accufed of having oppreft, were extravagant in their -praife of hisjuftice and moderation ; that the country was more or lefs profperous and fiourifiiing, in proportion to the greater or lefs extent of Mr. Haftings's influence ; that Bengal, which was immediately under his eye, was of all other provinces the moil happy and productive. But how, as we are told by the fame papers, was this evi- dence treated ? // was called an Arabian Nights Entertainment. In the lame man- ner, the petitions of that very people, whofe fufterings are held up to the world as the ground [ '9 1 ground of this impeachment, have been treated by the fame authority. The na- tives, inflead of praying for juflice againft Mr. Haftings, fupplicate juftice and mercy for him. They deny having fufFered under the government of Mr. Haflings ; but how were their teftimonials and petitions an- fwered ? The late chief Manager told the Court, that thefe teftimonials (hould be among the firft evidence he would call to fupport his own allegations, and in proof of Mr. Haftings's oppreffion. The prefump- tion of innocence was fufpended by the cu- riofity which was excited in every one's mind, by the boldnefs of the promifed ex- traordinary conclusions ; but the evidence of the teftimonials was never called for, and they were, or feem to be, wholly forgotten. I muft not omit one particular part of the fpeech which accompanied this promise, and which was, if poffible, ilill bolder than the promife itfelf. D 2 The t 20 ] The Court was defired to " coniider thofc " who figned the teftimonials as people who " are forced to mix their praifes with their " groans, forced to fign with their hands " that had been in torture while yet warm " with thumbfcrews upon them, forced to " fign his praifes, and that, it was hoped, " would give their Lordfhips a full and fatis- " factory proof of the miferies of thefe poor " people." I think I may fafely affirm, that in all the annals of oratory, both ancient and modern, there never appeared a bolder figure, or a more extravagant hyperbole. Could the author of fuch words think fo meanly of his judges, as to flatter himfelf that fuch aflertions, which carried, not improbability, but abfo- lute impoffibility on the face of them, could impofe upon their weaknefs and credulity ? No, he knew better ; but he hoped that it would keep alive the public clamour which was dying away with refpel to Mr. Haftings, and beginning to rife up againft himfelf. He He knew that Mr. Haflings had not the. fmalleft influence or controul over the na- tives of India ; and that the very circum- ftance of the teftimonials having been tranf- mitted home publicly by Lord Cornwallis, was an undeniable proof of their authenti- city. Had there been a fufpicion of their having been obtained by compulfion, influ- ence, or folicitation, it would have been an eafy matter to have inquired into the facts. There has been abundant time for doing as two years have elapfed lince they ar- rived in England. No attempt has been made to controvert their authenticity ; and why ? Becaufe no man, not even the chief manager himfelf, ever ferioufly doubted A it. Upon this fubjecl: I have but one thing more to remark, which is, that there N never exifted an instance previous to this, of profecuting a man for an injury, the perpetration of which was denied by thofc who alone had the means of knowing, and i affirmed t ] affirmed by thofe only who had not the means of knowing. But the quotations I have already made, are but a fmall 'part of the contradictions which have arifen in the courfe of this im- peachment. We find that the laft Houfe of Commons voted two refolutions perfectly in oppofition to each other, with refpect to the flate of the province of Bengal. To criminate Mr. Hafh'ngs, and to make him appear as an oppreffive tyrant, Bengal was voted to be depopulated and ruined ; to eftablim the credit of the Eaft India Com- pany, the fame country was voted to be rich, flourifhing, and productive. The laft Houfe of Commons was frequently remind- ed of thefe irreconcilable refolutions. Every member faw and felt it, but not one at- tempted to deny or juftify the fadl: : it was too plain for denial, and it was too grofs for juftification; the reproach was heard with confcious filence and affeftation of con- tempt. I 3 1 tempt. It was ftated among other things in a newfpaper, and the paragraph was con- ftrued into a libel upon the Houfe of Com- mons. The author, whom the mem con- fcla recil had induced to affix his name to it, was puniihed ; but upon what grounds \ Not for publifliing an untruth, but for vio- lating the privilege of Parliament. Other /\ offences of a fimilar nature, attended with more aggravating circumftances, had been committed by other men, and were pafled over without punilhment, and almoft with- out nodce. The member who had been thus treated, announced his intention of bringing forward a motion with refpect to the contradictory refolutions above mention- ed. A day was appointed, but before that day came, every engine was fet to work to prevent its coming forward, or to render it abortive. He was prevailed upon to aban- don the motion, for which he has been juftly condemned both by his friends and enemies. The previous queflion might have [ '4 ] have been moved to prevent the difcuflion,' but the very (hrinking from examination would have eftablimed the fact : but the fact cannot ftand in need of any eftablifh- ment, for any man by turning to the charges voted againft Mr. Haftings, and to the re- folutions of the Houfe of Commons upon the opening of the India budget, may con- vince himfelf of the truth of what has been aflerted. The price of India flock rofe two per cent, upon the credit given to the laft refolution, but I cannot fay that it fell upon the credit of the former. The ill confequence of abandoning the motion above mentioned is now felt, for we have heard this parliamentary cenfure made ufe of to prove that no fuch contradictions ex- ifted. A country gentleman is faid to have urged thefe apparent contradictions in the votes of the laft Houfe of Commons con^ eerning India, as the ground of his chan*- r *5 ] ging his fentiments in regard to the merit of the- impeachment. But how were thefe arguments treated ? He was told that they had been fcouted as often as they had been ufed by a gentleman who was ultimately punifhed for the publication of them. The \vordfcoufing brings to my recollection a commanding officer in India, who always made it a rule in controverfy, to fcout the argument he could not anfwer. This I take to be the cafe of the gentleman in quef- tion, who has courage enough to fcout , but not to deny the truth of the arguments urged againft him. Is it reafonable to fup~ pofe, that had the facts been untrue or misftated, not one perfon would think it worth his while to deny them ? There is no man whofe mode of reafoning I fufpedl: fb much, as that of the late chief Manager of the impeachment ; and the grounds of my fufpicion fo peculiarly attached to him, are, that I fcarcely ever read three pages of his writing, or heard him fpeak for ten minutes E at at a time, without difcovering fome fallacy or other. The vaft flow of words which he is matter of, and the thick rich drefles which the wardrobe of his imagination can furnim at a moment's warning, enable him to conceal the greatefl deformities, and to give falfehood and abfurdity the appear- ance of truth and reafon. I read his late pamphlet with the mofr, jealous eye, and though my judgement was fometimes daz- zled with the fplendour of his diction on the firft reading, I difcovered a plentiful crop of falfe premifes and unjuft conclufions upon the fecond. Having faid thus much concerning the nature of the impeachment, as it flood in the lafl Parliament, chiefly for the fake of thofe who, not having read what I formerly wrote on that fubjed, may happen to pe- rufe this, I mail now make fome obferva- tions on the prefent ftage of this flow and artfully embarrafled profecution. A quef- A queftion will foon be agitated, whe- ther the proceedings fhall be renewed or dif- continued. The arguments in favour of renovation or continuance are principally thefe: i . It muft be for the advantage of Mr. Haflings that the trial Ihould proceed, be- caufe, without an acquittal, his character will defcend to pofterity, not in fuch fair colours as it ought to do, if he be innocent. * 2v That the prefent Houfe of Commons is in honour, if not in law, bound by the refolutions of the laft. 3. That to fuffer crimes of notoriety and enormity to efcape without punifhment, would lower the dignity of the Britifli Parliament in the eyes of all Europe ; and in the opinions of the native princes and in- habitants of Indoftanj it would amount to a denial or failure of juflice. E 2 4. That 4. That Mr. Haftings's efcape by the diflblution of Parliament would prove an encouragement to future offenders to fpin out their trials by procraftination and delay, fo as to extend them beyond the life of one Parliament. 5. That to difcontinue the proceedings on account of pafl delays, and the proba- bility of future, would be to reflect on the conduct of the late Managers. 6. That ftrict juftice ought to be done, let the difficulties be ever fo many or fo great, and let the confequences be what they may : Fiat jujlltia, mat cesium. Thefe are the principal reafons I have yet heard urged in favour of renovating or con- tinuing the profecution. I (hall now exa- mine them one by one in the order in which I have fet them down. In In regard to the firft, I readily agree that it would be for the intereft of Mr. Haftings that the trial mould go on ; but there are certain provifos requifite, without which it muft be an irreparable injury. Thefe pro- vifos are, I fear, unattainable. The firft requifite is, that there fhould be a moral certainty, or, at leaft, a very ftrong proba- bility of the trial's ending in the fpace of one Seffion of Parliament. This is, in its own nature, unattainable. It would dero- gate from the dignity of both Houfes, to enter into a compromife with a prifoner at the bar. It is alfo incompatible with the very nature of fupreme Courts of criminal juftice, to fix limitations to the number of charges, and to fet bounds to their own au- thority. The only poffible method of fhort- ening the duration of Impeachments, with* out infringing on the rights of one Houfe or the other, would be, by an exercife of the royal prerogative, to keep the Parliament fitting, without any prorogation, till the. i trial [ 30 ] trial fhould be ended. But Mr. Haftings is not of K confequencfc enough to expect fuch an exertion in his favour. He has no right to hope that all public bufmefs fhould be fufpended, and his cafe to be the only fubjed of Parliamentary attention. The Lords have hitherto avoided fitting in Wdff- minfter Hall during the fevered part of the winter, for their health's fake ; and in the fpring, which is the only feafon that has been devoted to this trial, they have not leifute to fit more than two or three days at fartheft, in a week. The experience of three years proves that twenty-three days, on an average, are the mofi that can fee given to Weftmrnfter Haft in one fefiion ; for in trrfee- years the Lords have' fat juft fixty- iiine days. Arguing from what has been co what muft be, we may fairly conclude, that more than the number above mention- ed cannot be allotted to this trial for the three years to come. In estimating the pro-' fcible duration of the trial, I fhall not fol- low low the example of a gentleman, who made it appear that upon the prefent fyftem, it could not end in lefs than forty years.* But I will take what I have heard for granted, namely, that the late Managers, if re- elected, would abandon all the remaining ar- ticles, except one, namely, that of contracts. We all faw that the laft charge, viz. that of prefents, occupied the fpace of two Seffions of Parliament in the profecution only. Now the charge of contracts is in its own nature capable of much more amplification than that of prefents. The. latter divided itfelf into only two heads, that of avowed, and that * This gentleman's calculation was founded upon falfe premifes. The true way of calculating the trial's duration by analogy, is this : the firft two charges were got through by the profecutors in one feffion ; the next article has taken up two years, and \e may reafonably allow the fame time for the next, which will makeup four years for the fecond pair of articles. Here we difcover the ratio of increafing retar- that of concealed prefents ; but the former will refolve itfelf into four heads, there be- ing that number of contrails to be inquired into. There will confequently be a much wider field open for evidence and declama- retardation, or which is the fame thing, the decreafe of velocity. But we find the ratio to be in geometri- cal progreffion, that is, every pair of articles requires four times as many years to be got through, as their immediate predeceffors did ; this being fettled and the. rule eftablifhed, the calculation ftands thus : There are twenty, or ten pair of articles in the whole. i ft Pair of Articles, i Year. 2d Ditto 4 Ditto. 3d Ditto 1 6 Ditto. 4th Ditto 64 Ditto. 5th Ditto 256 Ditto. 6th Ditto 1024 Ditto. 7th Ditto 4096 Ditto. 8th Ditto 16384 Ditto. 9th Ditto 65536 Ditto. 10th Ditto ^,62 1 44 Ditto. Total 349525 Years for the profe- cution only. This may appear laughable, but I infift upon its "being the faireft calculation yet made, if we are to reafon by analogy. tion, [ 33 1 tion, as mufl be evident to every one who confiders that it will be neceflary to exa- mine the price of the articles contra&ed for, by way of afcertaining the profits of the contracts. It will lead alfo to an inquiry into the characters and refponfibility of the fuccefsful and difappointed candidates, in or- der to fhow why a preference was, or fhould have been given to the propofals of this man or the other. It will be neceflary alfb to trace the hiflory of former contracts, and to mow the cuftoms and ufage of govern- ment in like cafes, and to compare the whole with the orders from the direction at home. A thoufand other difficulties will occur which I have not time to point out, nor the ability to forefee.* Every one who has heard or read the fpeeches of the late chief Manager, and fome of his aflbciates, knows, that either of them can fpeak four or five days upon the moft trifling fubjed. We are all cer- ; tain of their powers, and what reafon have they ever given us to fufpect their inclina- tions ? Two years would not finifh the pro- F fecution [ 34 ] fecution upon this one article of contra&s* even if the future Managers fhould be more oeconomical of their oratory than their pre- decefiors. After this muft come the defence of four charges, which, on the defendant's fide, may take three or four years more, and this defence mufl be followed by a replication, which will require a year or two more at leafr. Thefe efli mates taken together, amount to a greater length of time than Mr. Haftings can afford to fpend, from a life already fo far advanced, under the torture of hopelefs perfecution. Another provifo is alfo requinte to make it a defirable thing for Mr. HafHngs that the trial fhould proceed ; viz. that the accufers and accufed fhould be nearer upon a footing at the bar of the Houfe of Lords, than the Commons feem willing to admit. It is in vain for a Lord Chancellor or a High Stew- ard, to tell the prifoner to be of good cheer, and not to fuffer depreffion from the weight of his accufers, if the defendants and profe- cutors [ 35 ] cutors are not intitled to the fame indulgen- ces from the Court. The very doctrine of Lex et Confuetudo Parliamenti is fufficient to difcourage any prifoner from placing much confidence in his own defence. For what is this Lex et Confuetudo Parliament}* but a right claimed by the Commons, to fet- tle their own privileges, not in a fixed and invariable code made for general purpofes, but according as occafions may arife ? The judges would not take upon them to de- clare what were the privileges of Parliament, but left each Houfe to fettle their own. But even this power of fixing their own privi- leges would not be fo dangerous to the fub- jet, if they were fo fettled and reduced to * The definition of this law and cuftom, accord- to Vanghan, who was a ftrong advocate for it in the the cafe of Lord Clarendon, is, Lex ab omnibus qua- renddy a multis ignorata et a paucis cognita* If for paucis we read nemine, the definition is admirable. But I apprehend that paucis fignifies the leaders of the prevailing party in the Houfe of Comnons, and^ if fo, the true meaning of Lex et Confuetudo Parlia- ment is, the privilege of making privileges. F 2 writing [ 36 ] writing as to enable any man to fay, Thus far Parliament may go and no farther. Un- lefs the object of accufation could difcover the ne plus ultra of the power of his accu- fers, the conteft with fuch a body is like fencing without a foil, or fighting without a fword with an experienced gladiator. I believe there is no inftance of an acquittal upon a Parliamentary impeachment, and if there is, I cannot call it to mind at this mo- ment. There are many inftances of impeach- ments inconfiderately undertaken and dif- continued upon various pretexts, and fome cafes where impeachments have ended in bills of attainder. But if a prifoner were acquitted, the Commons may impeach again. Should any Houfe of Commons ever confi- der it as derogatory to their dignity to be de- feated by an individual, they may renew and perfevere in their profecutions till they have crufhed him to atoms. Let the reader re- flect for a moment on the inequality of the conteft between the Houfe of Commons and an Individual. Twenty Managers of felect abi- [ 37 1 abilities, aided by a number of common and civil lawyers, oppofed to a prifoner and three counfel. The former inverted with powers to call for what papers they pleafe, to fend for and examine what witnefles they think proper, and to make ufe of the public purfe for defraying the expences of the profecu- tion. The prifoner has none of thefe ad- vantages. I could enumerate many more on the fide of the profecutors ; but they are fo obvious to every one that reflects, that it were a lofs of time to do it. It has been alked, what are Mr. Haftings's wifties on this fubjec~t, and why do not his friends come forward upon the occafion ? In my opinion, it matters very little what he wimes or defires. The votes of the Houfe of Commons ought not to be influenced by confiderations of this nature. Thofe mem- bers who think him guilty of fuch crimes as deferve everlafting punimment, who think him deferving, not only what he has fuffered, but all that ingenuity can make him fufFer, will and ought to vote for the ren - [ 38 ] renovation or continuance of the profe- cution. But thofe who think him guilty of no crime, or that his part fufferings have more than expiated his offences, together with thofe who think it incompatible with the genius and fpirit of the Britim laws, that a man fhould be upon trial for his whole life, will, doubtlefs, vote againft it. I do not know what Mr. Haftings's wifhes are upon this queftion ; I have heard him fay, that no man fhould know his fenti- ments, a refolution wifely adopted, and which he mould have adopted four years a^o. After the Commons had loaded their o Journals with criminal allegations againft him, he by his friends expreffed a wifh to be impeached, in order that he might have an opportunity of anfwering the accufation. Little did he think at that time, that fo far from obtaining the objedl of his wifhes, he was fupplicating his own mifery and de- ftru&iou. Let him, however, benefit from experience, and take care how he becomes acceflary to his own injuries. i With C 39 ] With regard to the retrieval of cha rafter by acquittal, I can only fay that vittefumma brews, fem nos vetat tnchoare longam. The profpect is too diflant for the moft fanguine hope, even if it were refolved to let him enter immediately on his defence. It would then be a work of three years, at the very loweft computation. I know that fome people will fay, that I have over-rated the time, but I muft again appeal to experience as the foundation of probability. Let us recoiled, that the late Managers fpent twenty days in making fine fpeeches, and eleven days in debating upon the admiflibility of evidence. The fubjecls for dilatation will be more in number, and more ample in fubftance than thofe that have already occurred. So much time has elapfed fmce the fpeeches were made, that the impreffions are nearly effaced, and will confequently require to be made anew. There will be all the characters of the defen- dants witnefles to be cut up, and their tefti- mony [ 40 ] mony to be invalidated and explained away. The fpeeches of Mr. Haft ings' s counfel, which will doubtlefs be very long, muft be anfwered. A variety of circumftances will arife to occafion delay ; circumftances which cannot be forefeen or prevented. As many or more, if the Managers are fo inclined, may be defignedly created. At the rate of twenty- three days for one feffion, all thefe things cannot be accomplimed in lefs than three or four years. I am not confcious of having ufed any exaggeration, arid I do defy any perfon to impeach the probability of my predictions or the juftice of my con- clufions. It may be faid, for I have heard it faid, that the Houfe of Commons will take care that no fuch delays mail happen in future. But great and powerful as that Houfe is, they are not equal to the taflc. When the late chief Manager and his colleagues are re-appointed, what power upon earth can put the bridle upon their tongues, or limit the length of their fpeeches ? There muft be in the conducting of ftate trials fo much [ 4! ] much left to the Managers, that they may protract and procraftinate juft as much as they pleafe. There is no remedy but that of changing them, and that would amount to an annihilation of the proceedings, or at leaft to a difcontinuance of the fuit. The obfervations which the late chief Manager made upon the reproof given him by the then Houfe of Commons for charging Mr. Haftings with the death of Nundcomar, are frefh in the memories of all who heard him. Under thefe circumftances, Mr. Haftings cannot wifh (at leaft I mould think fo) for a renovation of the proceedings. In regard to his character, he mufl leave it to the can- dour of poiterity, who having no perfonal refentment againfr. him, no danger to appre- hend from his acquittal, may be inclined to think (what moft difmterefted people do at prefent) that the written teftimonials of the natives over whom he prefided, with refpeft to his moderation and juftice, and the evidence G and [ 4* ] and admiffion of his enemies with refpedt to his Services, are a full refutation of oratori- cal abufe, and illiberal, ftudied invective. The character of his chief accufer, high as it may ftand for great talents and literary ac- complimments, will weigh not very heavy in the fcale of popular opinion, when op- pofed to the plain affirmation of knowledge and integrity. It will be remembered, that he who contradicted the teftimonials of thoufands in favour of that governor ge- neral, whom they venerated and adored, had effrontery enough to contradict the oral teftimony of millions groaning under the oppreffion of an arbitrary government. It will be remembered, that he who raifed his voice to the utmofl pitch for the liberty of America, employed his proftituted pen for the enflaving of another kingdom. Bio- graphers will publifh the hiftory and anec- dotes of his life ; and in comparing his ora- tions and writings with each other, they will be {truck with the glaring contradic- tions E 4* ]' tions and abfurdities of his various tenets and opinions. Pofterity will fee in his cha- ra&er little to commend, much to admire, but infinitely more to lament and reprobate. From the afperfions of fuch men there is little to apprehend on account of future re- putation. It is, however, a ferious evil to have fuch a mafs of criminating matter, wherein there is little intelligible, except the terms of abufe, left {landing againfl an accufed perfon on the Journals of the Lords, without an anfwer or attempt at refutation. But great as this evil may be, it is ftill a- - greater to be fixed to the bar for life, with- out a gleam of hope, or the moft diftant profpeft of conclufion. The next reafon for continuance is, that the prefent Houfe of Commons is in honour, though not in law, bound by the refolutions of the laft. G 2 It C 44 ] It may be eafy enough to make a. pathetic fpeech upon this fubjecl:, and to reprefent a difTolving Houfe of Commons in the charac- ter of a dying father conjuring and admonim- ing his heirs to go on with a law fuit 'which he himfelf had undertaken for fome capri- cious reafon or other. I am, however, much inclined to think, that as fooh as the litigious father was interred, mofl people would advife the heir to examine well the grounds of litigation, and unlefs there were more weighty reafons for continuing than abandoning the profecution, to let it drop immediately upon the father's death. I think no rational being would carry his ideas of filial obedience to the requeft of a dying father, fo far as to violate the firft precepts and injunctions of Christianity. But a com- parifon of this kind is no ways applicable to the cafe of a diflblved and a fucceeding par- liament. If the latter were bound in the fmallejl degree by the votes of the former, it would prevent the repeal of detrimental fbtutes, [ 45 } ftatutes, and the amendment of every error whatever. The laws of Great Britain would become like the laws of the Medes and Per- fians,. fixed and unalterable. The dotrine is fo abfurd, that I would as foon fet about a ferious demonftration of the exigence of light and darknefs, as undertake a refutation of fo palpable an abfurdity. I fhould fup- pofe, that the gentleman I have often allu- ded to, in his wildeft and moft eccentric flights, would not maintain fo abfurd a pro- pofition, as that a fucceeding Parliament is bound, either by honour or law, to accede to the votes of their predeceflbrs. Certainly the former ought to examine before they re- jel, in the fame manner as they fatisfy themfelves of the inexpediency of a ftatute before they repeal it. The laft Houfe of Commons are not entitled to an extraordi- nary degree of credit ; for that they did vote contradi&ions, is clear beyond a doubt. The prefent Houfe, when the India minifter Brings forward his budget, will, probably, have [ 46 ] have their affent called for to fimilar pro- petitions. They will vote India to be in a flouriming ftate in the evening, and the next morning they may go into Weftmin^ fter Hall to tell the lords, that Mr. Raftings has ruined the provinces of Bengal and Ba- har beyond the power of reftoration. Many fpecious arguments may be made ufe of to entrap unwary members into a belief, that having voted the exiftence or dependence of an impeachment, they are bound by honour and a juft regard to confiflency to go on with it. But let it be remembered, that the right and the expediency of enforcing that right, are as diftinft as. two propofitions can pof- fibly be from each other. In examining the queftion of expediency, the Houfe will, probably, recollect that the leaders of the two parties, which then generally oppofed each other, were divided in their opinions with refpect to the points of criminality. Both agreed there was fomething criminal, but what that fomething was, they co.uld not [ 47 ] not fettle among themfelves. It was urgecl as a reafon why the abftraft queftion of abatement or dependence of an impeachment on a diflblution of Parliament, mould be dif- cufled feparately and without reference to the particular cafe which gave rife to the quef- tion, that if that disjunctive mode were not adopted, it would be impoffible for poflerity to know upon what bafis the refolution was founded. The votes of fbme might be in- fluenced by one confideration, and fome by another. Some might vote againil farther difcuffion from defpair of ever feeing the trial ended. Others from humanity to- wards the prifoner ; and others, becaufe in their opinions a diflblution of Parliament ex* tinguimed an impeachment. Thefe argu- ments had defervedly much weight ; but it is to be lamented, that the fame objections had not been made to that fweeping vote, which pafled upon the Benares article ; for in that inftance, though a majority of thirty-nine agreed that there was fomething criminal t 48 ] criminal in one allegation or another, yet, had the allegations been difcuffed feparately, there would not have been a majority in fa- vour of criminality in any one point or alle- gation in the whole article. There is fcarcely a man living whofe conduct, even for one day, would bear fuch a fcrutiny as Mr. Haftings's has undergone in this impeachment. You will fcarcely ever find a perfon who does not difcover fomething wrong in every tranfaftion which he ana^ lizes and examines. Suppofe the minifter on a late occafion had been compelled to lay before the public the whole procefs of the convention ; has any perfon a doubt but that the ingenuity of his enemies would have difcovered fomething really or appa- rently reprehenfible in his conduct ? I be- lieve it is a maxim that admits of no dif- pute, that no minifter can hold his fituation in this country longer than he can keep a majority to fupport him in both Houfes ; and I think it is equally clear, that no mi- i niftet [ 49 ] nifter would keep that majority long, if he were obliged to expofe every tranfa&ion, with all its concomitant nttnutfa, to public investigation. The reafori of this is, that let a Minifter's conduct be as intentionally pure as the fnow upon the mountains, it would be eafy for thofe who envy his iitu- ation, to give his a&ions fuch a colour and hue, as muft unavoidably render him unpo- pular, and confequently drive him from his place. When I confider how the enemies of Mr. Haftinss have had accefs to all his o public and much of his private correfpon- dence, how they have ranfacked every fe- cret abyfs and corner for matter to bring againir. him, it is really a miracle that they have not been able to find fomething better to lay hold of, than any thing they have yet urged againft him. The reafons which I have already {rated, are furficient of themfelves, but I could bring many more, why the prefent Houfe H [ 5 ] of Commons, before they determine to re- commence the profecution, mould accu- rately examine every article and allegation. If they haftily adopt them as their own, the chief Manager may at a future period tell them, as he did their predeceflbrs, that the impeachment was as much theirs as his. He might confider them as anfwerable for every miilake that had crept into the articles. And, doubtlefs, they would be fo in fair and true conftruction. It would be founded forth to the world, that the adop- tion of the articles by the prefent Houfe of Commons was an undeniable proof of their truth and importance. It \vould be ufed as an argument againfl the prifoner in one Houfe, and very pofiibly at fome future time againfl thofe who adopted the refolu- tions in another. It is very reafonable to cxpecl, that thofe who took an active part in bringing this impeachment forward, will life every argument, however fallacious, to prevail with the prefent Houfe to give it their [ 51 ] their unqualified approbation and adoption. But furely it is quite the reverie with refpeft to the new members, and to thofe who ei- ther voted againft it, or took no a&ive con- cern in its fuccefs ; it would be not only an aft of injuftice to Mr. Haftings to adopt the trial without examination, but a breach of that duty which every reprefentative owes to his constituents. The great ufe of chan- ging our reprefentatives, is to give the people an opportunity of rejudging their deputies, and of correcting the errors of their old reprefetatives, by Subjecting their aits to the revifal and judgment of their new. The third reafon for the continuance of the impeachment is, that if crimes of fuch notoriety and enormity are Suffered to efcape unpunimed, it would lower the dignity of the Britim Parliament in the eyes of all Europe ; and in the opinions of the princes and natives of Indoftan, it would amount to a denial or failure of juflice. H 2 With [ 5* ] With refpect to the diminution of dignity in the eyes of all Europe, I have this to re- mark, that were a queftion ftated abftraftly, can it become the dignity of an individual, of a body corporate, or of any affembly of people whatever, to carry on a criminal pro- fecution againfr, one man, for the fame crime for feven years or longer? I think there could be but one anfwer given to it. Were another queftion ftated in the fame abftracl: way, does it become the dignity of a Prince, of a Miniftry, of a Parliament, or of any ruling body, to employ a fervant in a high ftation, neceflarily inverted with many difcretionary powers for a great num- ber of years, and after he has refigned his of- fice, to bring him to trial for actions which his fuperiors had been informed of regu- larly, and which had received the avowed approbation of fome of his fuperiors, and the tacit implied approbation of all : I think there could not be two anfwer s given to this [ 53 ] this queftion. How then is it pofTtble that the dignity of Parliament can fufFer by the abandoning of fuch a profecution. But it muft refleft upon the wifdom of our ancef- tors in the eyes of all the world, when it is confidered, that it is not repugnant to any written law which they have eftablimed, for a man to be kept upon his trial for one and the fame offence for his whole life. It is feldom that laws are enacted in any ftate till occafion calls for them. Our ancestors faw many oppreffions by the crown, and they guarded againft them, but there never exifted an inftance before the prefent one of cruming a man by the bulk, not by the fpecific weight of accufation. For this rea- fon they made no ftatute of limitations with regard to Parliamentary impeachments, but furely now the evil does exift, it calls aloud for remedy and redrefs. Our Parlia- mentary anceftors acquired infinite honour to themfelves, and conferred an ineftimable obligation upon their grateful pofierity, by their [ 54 ] their fuccefsful flruggles in favour of liberty againft the defpotifm and tyranny of Kings ; and our cotemporary legiflators would ac- quire equal honour to themfelves, and con- fer equal benefit upon us and our pofterity, if they would frame fuch a ftatute or law, as would prevent themfelves or their fuc- ceffbrs from carrying their refentment and vengeance beyond the bounds of reafon and juftice. / With refpect to the opinions of the princes and inhabitants of India, I would ad- vife thofe who think that the honour of Parliament would fuffer in their eyes, if Mr. Haftings's perfecution were dropped, to recollect the teftimonials which thefe princes and inhabitants fent over in his favour about two years ago. I would then aik the fupporters of this argument, whether this nation would think it de- rogatory to the honour of his Majefty, were he to grant a pardon to a prifbner un- der fentence of deathy in confequence of a 2 peti- t 55 ] petition (igned by many thoufaads of his mofl refpedable fubjefts ? But the cafe of Mr. HafKngs is much ftronger, for the na* tives of India do not afk a pardon for him for offences committed, but they fay he has done nothing to make him fraud in need of it. In order to enter in the opinions of other men, we muft reduce our own knowledge down to the flandard of theirs, or raife them to the fame level : we mufl take up their prejudices in favour of their own laws and cuftoms : in mort, we mufl place ourfelves as nearly as poflible in their fituations. To exemplify this, let the reader fuppofe himfelf one of the India Princes or Zemindars who figned the tefU- monials ; he is told, that after Mr. Haftings had quitted his government, he is impeached for cruelty and oppreffion committed in In- dia. Confcious of the falfehood of the ac- dilation, and knowing that Mr. Haftings's adminiftration, when compared with any other he had ever feen, was lenient in the ' extreme, he figns a teftimonial of his good con- ..* [ 56 ] condut. and petitions in his favour. After- wards this Indian Prince is told, that his tef- timonial was not attended to, that thofe who could know nothing of the matter, were believed in preference to thofe who alone could know any thing about it. Suppofe farther, that this Indian Prince fhould here- after be told, that this governor, whom all India loved and adored, was kept upon his "trial for eight or ten years, and laftly died from anxiety and defpair. What ideas muft he entertain of Englifh laws and Englifh juflice ? With fuch a view of our boafted confthution, (and this is the only view an Indian can take of it) would he not prefer the fpeedy fentencc of Nader Shaw, to the lingering juftice of a Britifh legiflature ? What mufl a Mahommcdan Cay or Mufti think of our do&rine of evidence, when he compares it with their own r In their courts of juftice, the ftrongeft proofs are requiiite . to eftablim criminality, but when the Cazy is told, that with us a man may be convi&ed of [ 57 ] of oppreffion upon the evidence of thofe who neither faw nor felt, in defiance of the tefti- mony of thofe who muft have feen and felt, had the oppreffions been committed ; can he fail of treating our doclrine of evidence with contempt and abhorrence ? I do not fay that fuch is the doctrine of evidence among us, in all cafes ; but with the know- ledge which the Indians poffefs, and from the premifes which are before them, they can make no other concluiions. What can we reafon from, but what we know ? Pope's Ejjay on Man. The fpirit of the Mahommedan laws, both ecclefiaftical and civil, is that of le- nity. Captives taken in war are always faved by converfion to the faith, and mur- der itfelf is not punifhed with death, even in a (lave, if the heirs will accept, and his mafler pay the ftipulated fine.* What opi- nions, then, mull: the Mahommedan s enter- tain of our laws, when thofe who are fup- * Vid. Hedaga, a Mahommedan law bpok, tranf- lated by Mr. Hamilton, and now in the prefs. I pofed f 58 ] pofed to have been injured, are not only prevented from remiffion of the injuries, but are not fuftered to bear teftimony in favour of the accufed, that no fuch injuries were done to them ? Such ideas, as I have de- fcribed, the natives of India now entertain of this profecution. I have heard gentle- men who have lately returned from that country declare, that none of the Indians be- lieve that Mr. Haftings is really profecuted on account of any thing he did in India : they fay, it may ferve as a pretext, but the real caufe muft be very different from the oftennble one. In that opinion they are not fmgular; for I have heard many people throw out iufpicions very unfavorable to the moral characters of fome of his accufers* They fay, that the amor jujlltia never ex- aggerates, that the man who really loves and feeks juftice, will endeavour to con- vince the judgment, not to inflame the paf- iions ; he will take care whilil he is doing juflice to one perfon, not to do an aft of flill greater injufUce to another. I think I have [ 59 ] have fufficiently fhewn, that it will be no diminution of honour to the prefent Houfe of Commons, in the eyes of neigh- bouring ftates, nor in the opinions of the princes of India, if this profecution be dif- continued ; on the contrary, I have proved, .that the long duration of this trial has brought into view an imperfection in the Conftitution, which has, till now, remained undifcovered. We all underfland the meaning of the words honour and dignity, but we are not all agreed, where to place them. In my opinion true honour and dignity confift in folid and fubflantial juftice, and as there can be no juilice in crufhing an individual by a long and indefinite profecution, fo there can be neither honour nor dignity in doing it. I know it will be laid, that it is difgraceful to Parliament to be baffled by an individual in their purfuit of juftice. The propofi- tion is true ; but the prefent cafe does not J i come [ 60 ] come within it. If the articles were inju- dicioufly drawn ; if they comprehended a great deal of irrelevant matter ; if they in- cluded all the acts of a long adminiftration ; if they were from their imweildy and un- manageable bulk, from their want of fhapc and form, totally unfit for a court of juf- tice, who are the parties to blame in this tranfaction ? Surely Mr. Haftings cannot be blamed for things in which he had no concern. The articles were drawn by a Committee, and no doubt the late chief Manager had a principal ihare. If we por- tion out the particular mares of blame, they will be divided in this way. The gentle- man jufl alluded to was very injudicious, and mewed vaft want of technical ikill in his profeffion, in framing fuch imweildy articles. The Committee mewed want of judgment or of attention in not correcting the errors of their chairman. / And the late Houfe of Commons paid too high a com- pliment to their Committee, when they voted [ 61 ] voted the articles without more examina- tion. Thefe are errors no ways imputable to Mr. Haftings. But that they are errors, and very grievous ones, no man will take upon him to deny. Here I would alk the moft zealous advocate for continuing the impeachment, whether there be either ho- nour, dignity, juftice, or any thing laud- able in perfevering in error and miftake. I know that every argument will be urged that ingenuity can invent, to make the pre- fent Houfe of Commons believe that their honour is committed ; and the true caufe of making this attempt is, that the articles cannot be abandoned without an impliec? reflection upon him that framed them. But the queftions for the confideration of every member are thefe : Shall we prefer juftice to injuftice ? Or fhall we facrifice our own honour to fave that of another man ? The fourth reafbn for continuing the, im- peachment is, that if Mr. Haftings be fuf- fered [ 62 ] fered to efcape by diffolution of Parliament, it will encourage other offenders to ufe the arts of delay, and to defeat juflice by pro- trading the trial beyond the life of one Par- liament. This objection to difcontinuance has no weight, for the Commons may renovate procefs if they think fit. Befides, no one can impute delay to Mr. Haftings. It has been faid, in anfwer to the complaints made by his friends on the fcorc of delay, that he might have defended himfelf article by ar- ticle, and that it was the wifh of the Ma- nagers that he mould do fo. A propofal of that kind never would have been made, had not the Managers feen in it great advantages to themfelves. They would have had the advantage of turning the admiffions in his defence upon the firil article into evidence to criminate him upon the next. It may be faid, that actions really inno- innocent cannot be tortured into crimina- lity ; and that a man ought in ftricl juf- tice to be punifhed for crimes, let them be brought to light how they may. This is undeniably true when applied to crimes that are in their own nature criminal, and per- haps it may hold good, when applied to po- fitive or prohibited crimes ; but by no means when applied to ex pofl fafto crimi- nality, fuch as the taxing of a zemindar, who in the opinion of fome was not tax- able. But all the crimes imputed to Mr. Haflings are of that nature. They are merely fpeculative ; fuch for example, was his receiv- ing money for theufe of the Company, under an idea that the law fanctioned it. To make the very worft of that offence, it amounts to no more than an involuntary miftake, which cannot be clafled among the mala in fe^ nor the mala prohiblta. When miftakes, not only perfectly innocent, but highly be- neficial to his country, are tortured into acts of inexpiable criminality, furely the ac- [ 64 ] acciifed is juftified in withholding from his accufers all the information he can. Not^ withflanding thefe unfair advantages taken againft him, Mr. Raftings, of himfelf, would not have objected to the mode of trial propofed by his accufers. The objection was made by his counfel, who, in contend- ing for the prefent mode, aled as all other profeflional men would, that is, infilled upon that which the law allowed them, and they thought moft advantageous to themfelves in conducting the defence. It was lately urged as an argument in favour of pro- ceeding with the old articles, rather than to begin de novo, that it would be an injuftice to the accufed, for the profecutors to avail themfelves of his defence, in the confer uct- ing of new charges. But the great evil which would have lighted upon Mr. Haf- tings, had the mode of trial propofed. by the Managers been acceded to or decided in their favour, is this ; he would from that mo- ment have been certain of being condemned, or C 65 ] or he mud have fought through the whole twenty articles. For had he been acquitted upon nineteen, they would have tried the twentieth. One of the Managers, who is well verfed in the doctrine of chances, and who was the propofer, if not the contriver, of this new mode of trial, knows very well, that if the chances upon any one or every one of the articles taken feparately, were nineteen to one in the prifoner's favour, there would be alrnoft a certainty of convicting him upon one or the other of the twenty. He knew very well, that no mart either in public or private life can conduct himfelf without fome faults, and he knew alfo that there was nothing fo white but himfelf and his. colleagues could tinge it with black. It is impdffible for the ingenuity of matt to charge Mr. Haftings with delay, or being: rKe caufe of delay, K The [ 66 ] The fifth objection I have heard to dif- continuance, is, that to abandon the profe- cution upon account of the paft delay and probable future, would reflect upon the conduct of the late Managers. I have mown already, that more refpedt is due to fubftantial juftice, than to the cha- racter of any individual whatfoever, and I could make it evidently appear, if it were I necefTuiy, that the refolutions of the laft Houfe of Commons, though moved by the chief Manager himfelf, did bear very hard upon his own character. For what \vas the purport of them ? It was to enable the Managers to lay down a load which their own indifcretioa had laid upon their own fhoul- ders. It was a tacit acknowledgement that A they had overloaded the articles.* To blind * If any other man had done this, the chief mana- ger would have compared him to the voracious glut- ton difcharging the fuperfluous crudities of an over- loaded ftomach. the t 67 ] the eyes of the public, and to cover their own errors, they talked about the avocations of the judges ; but they mufl have been very ignorant indeed, if they did not know that the judges muft devote part of their time to their other duties. When circum- ftances arife, which no human fagacity can forefee or guard againft, there is fome ex- cufe for mifcarriage and failure of fuccefs, but when all the impediments are obvious and irremovable, there can be no excule pleaded for undertaking what cannot be per- formed. The wifdom of thofe who drew the articles, may be compared to that of a man who begins to eredl: a palace, with not money enough to build a cottage. It is true, the chief Manager in his late pam- phlet, ridicules reafon and calculation ; but I cannot help thinking that calculation, had he condefcended to accept its affiftance, would have been of great ufe to him in drawing the articles in this impeachment. It would have faved him from a difgrace, K 2 which which it is not in the power of this Houic of Commons to wipe away from him, whe- ther they adopt his articles or not. His mif- conducl may be of this ufe ; it may prove an ufeful lefibn to future Parliaments to em- ploy in ferious undertakings men of judg- ment, inftead of men of fanc^P and imagina- tion. I hope I mall not incur the difplea- fure of the prefent Houfe of Commons, when I fay that their predeceflbrs proclaim-? ed to the world their own errors, when they determined to abandon fixteen parts out of t\yenty of their accufations ; and they pro- claimed their own injufUce, when in the yery al of abandoning them, they infilled upon their truth and importance. The chief fylanager muft have felt himfelf very un- comfortable, when he made the motion for abandonment. He expofed himfelf to a yery juft rebuke, had any member thought fit to give it to him. He might have been thus addretfed : " You have perfuaded us to * f vote twenty articles ; you affured us you " would [ 69 ] " would fubftantiate them all; you drew ** them yourfelf, and you had the aid of " what counfel you thought fit toafkfor-and " to confult. We placed our confidence in " you and your aifociates ; you have wafted " our time in voting the articles which you " now want to abandon ; you have put the