next were they to look, then, for the sort of proof necessary to support the charge? Undoubtedly, to the conduct of sir Elijah during the trial. In respect to that, great stress had been laid by the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Fox) on the character of Caumel Odein, as if the criminality had rested solely on the testimony of that witness, who had been represented to be a man of an infamous character. But was that the fact? Let any man read the trial, and they would see that the conviction of Nundcomar followed not more from the unanswered and clear proof of his guilt, as established by the evidence in support of the charge, than from the gross prevarication, infinite contradiction, and manifest perjury of his own associates, whom he had called as witnesses in support of his defence. To prove that the fact was so, he animadverted on the testimony of Mohun Pershaud, Kissen Juan Doss, and other witnesses, and read several extracts from the trial, to show that sir Elijah had, in various instances, delivered himself from the bench, during the trial, as the friend of Nundcomar, rather than as the agent for the prosecution.

After a variety of remarks in illustration of his assertion, that the conduct of sir Elijah, during the trial, did not afford proof of his having been actuated by any corrupt motive, Mr. Pitt spoke of his refusal to grant the appeal that had been moved, and showed, that according to Mr. Farrer's evidence, who had confessed he felt himself" beaten upon that ground," there was no proof, that, in point of law, the granting of an appeal was warrantable. The last matter, therefore, to be considered was, that sir Elijah had refused to grant a respite to Nundcomar, and that, he observed, was the only part of the charge upon which the hon. baronet had grounded much argument. In order to judge how far sir Elijah was blameable in this respect, the Committee ought to refer to the charter, and see in what manner the authority to reprieve was vested in the chief justice. Mr. Pitt here read the words of the charter that referred to this point, whence it appeared, that where the chief justice reprieved and suspended the execution of a capital sentence, he was to transmit to his Majesty his reasons for granting such respite, and that those reasons were to be stated at length in writing. He asked what reasons sir Elijah could have stated, since the prisoner had been convicted after a long and impartial

trial, and there had resulted no fact or circumstance to warrant such a proceeding? He reasoned on the discretion that the charter gave the judges of the Supreme Court, and contended, that it was idle to argue that a discretion existed, and that, nevertheless, it was criminal in a judge to exercise the very discretion, which it was admitted on all hands, that he legally possessed. Mr. Pitt concluded with declaring, that, in no view could any corrupt_motive be brought home to sir Elijah Impey; and that, therefore, he never voted from a more decided conviction of mind, that he should give his negative to the question.

Mr. Burke begged leave to remind those hon. gentlemen who had defended sir Elijah Impey's conduct, of the immediate effect of their not supporting the question. Their sanctioning the conduct of sir Elijah, would hold out this lesson to future judges: "Copy the conduct of sir Elijah Impey, desert the strict line of your duty, abandon your impartiality, mix political interests with your judicial attentions, become instruments in the hands of government, and, opposing power to right, instead of protecting the innocent take part with the guilty." Was that a lesson fit to be taught immediately on the eve of calling some of the members of that House to fill the seat of justice? With regard to the confederacy between Mr. Hastings and sir Elijah Impey, the fact was rendered indisputable from its having been proved from the mouth of sir Elijah himself, that Warren Hastings, in defiance of his oath, and in breach of his faith to the rest of the Supreme Council, had communicated the contents of the petition of Nundcomar, as sent to general Clavering before the execution, and brought by the general to the Council afterwards, and, upon such communication, ordered to be burnt by the hands of the common hangman, as a libel on the judges. He put the case, that a collusion existed between the Attorney-general and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it came out that, in a matter where the former was sworn to secrecy, he had communicated the secret to the latter; would any man living entertain a doubt of the confederacy and collusion? Mr. Burke animadverted on Mr. Pitt's speech, and observed, that as it had been said of old, that if the gods were to address themselves to mankind, they would use the language of the Greeks; with equal justice might he contend, that

if despotism itself were to speak, it would use the language, and adopt and enforce the arguments of the right hon. gentleman. The Committee divided: for sir Gilbert Elliot's Motion, 55; Against it, 73. The following is a List of the members who voted upon this occasion:

For Sir Elijah Impey.

Darrel, Lionel

Cornwall, C. W.

Egerton, colonel

Elliott, hon. E. Jas.
Elliott, hon. John
Fleming, sir M. Le
Fraser, James

Gamon, Richard
Gould, sir Charles

Gower, hon. John L.
Gipps, George
Graham, lord
Grenville, William
Grimston, hon. W.
Hanway, sir Samuel
Harding, George

Against Sir

Adam, William
Anstruther, John
Burgoyne, general
Burke, Edmund
Bouverie, hon. Wm.
Barnard, lord
Basset, sir Francis
Bridgman, Orlando
Cunynghame, sir W.
Cooper, sir Grey
Courtenay, John
Cavendish, lord Geo.
Crew, John

Conway, hon. W. S.
Conway, hon. R. S.
Clayton, sir Robert
Damer, Lionel

Elliot, sir Gilbert
Ellis, Welbore

Hoghton, sir Henry
Hood, lord
Hood, sir Alex.
Howard, hon. Rich,
Hunter, John
Jekyll, J.
Kenyon, sir Lloyd
Kenrick, John
Lewes, sir Watkin
Lowther, James
Lowther, William
Macdonald, Archibald
Macreath, Robert
Maddocks, John
Mesurier, Paul Le
Mornington, lord
Pitt, William
Penn, Richard
Parker, sir Peter
Popham, Alexander
Pulteney, William
Pulteney, Daniel
Rolle, John
Rooke, James
Rose, George
Scott, John
Strutt, John
Sumner, J.

Sutton, sir Richard
Sulivan, Richard
Steele, Thomas
Thornton, Samuel
Thornton, Richard
Villiers, lion. J. C.
Westcote, lord
Yonge, sir George
Elijah Impey.
Erskine, sir James
Elphinstone, hon. K.
Eden, sir John
Edwin, Charles
Fox, Charles James
Fullarton, colonel
Fitzpatrick, Richard
Grey, Charles
Hare, James
Hussey, William
Howell, David
Johnstone, sir James
Jolliffe, William
Long, Dudley
Ludlow, lord
Lambton, John
Montagu, hon. Fred.
Middleton, William
Maitland, lord

The chairman was then desired to report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Motion respecting the Expenses of Mr. Hastings's Trial.] May 9. Mr. Burges said, that the House had sometime since, ordered an account of the monies issued from the Exchequer for the discharge of the expenses incurred by carrying on the trial of Warren Hastings, esq., to be laid upon the table. These commands had been complied with, but as the money was issued by impress in large sums, the House could not possibly derive any satisfaction from such an account, because it gave no information whatever as to the manner in which the sums issued were expended; neither did it enable the House to judge of the amount of the current expenses, or to form any conjecture of the probable amount of the future expense, He had no doubt of the good conduct of the honourable managers, and that every thing was conducted on the most economical principles; but, as it was the duty of that House to watch over every sort of public expense, with a view to enable them to discharge that necessary duty in the present instance, he should move, "That the solicitors to the managers appointed by this House to make good the Articles of Impeachment against Warren Hastings, esq., do lay before this House, a particular account of the expenditure of the several sums advanced to them by the Exchequer; and of such other expenses as may have been incurred by them, on account of the prosecution against Warren Hastings, esq., as far as the same can be ascertained."

Mr. Fox said, that to the motion he had not the smallest objection, but he begged to have it understood, that he considered the object of the motion as in no sort affecting him or the rest of the Committee. It was no part of their duty to be answerable for the expenditure of the money issued by their solicitors. They were responsible only for the services ordered, and the propriety of those services. The other duty lay with the Lords of the

Treasury, whose province it was to manage and account for all the expenditures of the kingdom.

Mr. Pitt replied, that doubtless the lords of the Treasury considered it as a very delicate point to take upon themselves to interfere with the managers of the prosecution in a matter which they felt it to be their duty to watch over. It was incumbent on them to look at the current expense, and see that the money issued was economically applied. He was glad, therefore, that the motion had been made, because it would put the matter on its true issue between the managers and the treasury, who had not the proper papers upon the subject before them, and without which it would be impossible for them to discharge their duty; but, in order that the House might know, that they had not been unmindful of the subject, as soon as the sums that had been issued, amounted to any thing like a size, that appeared extraordinary, (he was far from meaning to insinuate that they were larger than was necessary,) they had sent a letter to the managers, couched in as decent and respectful terms as possible, and modestly intimating, what, in their opinion, ought be done; but as the answer they received to that letter, did not give them any great hopes of being able to derive the necessary satisfaction from the managers, he was glad that means had been resorted to, which would produce it in the way the most satisfactory.

Mr. Burke did not object to the motion, but with regard to what the right hon. gentleman had suggested relative to the letter which he had written to the Treasury, by order of the committee of managers, he positively asserted that it was not true. Mr. Pitt said, that the right hon. gentleman, perhaps, from being accustomed to use an extraordinary licence of speech elsewhere, showed himself so much the slave of habit and practice, that he forgot the place where he was, and seemed desirous of introducing that habit and practice within those walls; for, it was scarcely possible in any other way to account for the style of his expression in the few words he had uttered. He would not, however, dwell on that circumstance, nor should any impropriety in that House prevent him from doing his duty, and saying whatever a sense of that duty dictated. The House had, undoubtedly, a right to ask whether the number of persons employed in consequence of the direction of the

managers was necessary, and into the other particulars of the expense incurred on account of the trial in Westminsterhall. The expense was considerable, but no expense was unnecessary to obtain the ends of justice. Feeling in that manner, the lords of the Treasury had sent a modest hint to the managers; in answer to which they had received a letter, that did not give them any very great expectation of being able to receive much satisfactory information through the channel of such a correspondence.

Mr. Burke said, that as he had been accused of using very improper language, the right hon. gentleman ought to have had personal information of the fact, to which he had spoken, and not ventured an assertion respecting a matter which he had at second-hand. The right hon. gentleman had alluded to what he supposed to have passed, in a place where he seldom or ever made his appearance; but it was the curse of the right hon. gentleman's situation, to be surrounded with whisperers and tale-bearers, and to take up matters as they were conveyed to his ears by such reporters. Had the right hon. gentleman been present at the place in question more frequently, he would have known that all the reports, like that which he had relied on, were mere calumnies, and then he would not have exposed himself to the contradic tion he had received. With regard to the expenses incurred by the prosecution, no expense could scarcely be too great for the obtainment of justice; but if what the right hon. gentleman had termed a modest hint was meant as taking up the expense, with a view to put an end to the trial, the right hon. gentleman should find that the managers were determined not to abandon the business. If they were refused every expense, they would still go on, and persevere till they brought it fairly to its conclusion. Mr. Burke said, he was ashamed that so paltry a consideration as the expense amounted to, should be talked of, when the great importance of the subject, and the deep interests that were involved in it, were the points in question. The money that had been stolen from India had not yet been employed in bringing the robbers to light and to justice. Their justice at home ought to bear something like a proportion to their injustice abroad. For their part, the managers would be found steady to their trust. If there should be any desirous of going out of the straight path, and turning from the right to the

left, the Committee would not be found among the number; they would not prevaricate, but uniformly adhere to the principles of justice. With regard to the services ordered, as managers acting under the authority of the House, they had an undoubted right to order such as were in their judgments necessary; but if the House, upon examination, should give another judgment, and think they were unnecessary, where, under such a circumstance, would rest the responsibility? Undoubtedly, with the House, and not with the managers. Mr. Burke took notice of Mr. Pitt's having said, he was glad that the motion had been made, and commented on that expression coming from a right hon. gentleman who had voted with the majority of that House, in carrying the Impeachment up to the House of Lords. The present motion could only have been made by those who had uniformly opposed the trying of Mr. Hastings at all. What construction ought to be put on the conduct of a gentleman who had voted for a prosecution, and who now declared himself glad that a motion was made hostile to that prosecution? With regard to any improper expression of his when the dispute was about a fact and not an argument, the shortest and most direct reply was, in his opinion, the best. When the papers came, the House would see whether he had any apology to make

or not.

The motion was agreed to, After which it was ordered, on the motion of the marquis of Graham, "That there be laid before this House a copy of the correspondence that has passed between the Lords Commissioners of his Majesty's Treasury, and the managers appointed to make good the articles of impeachment against Warren Hastings, esq. relating to the money expended on account of the said prosecution."

Debate in the Commons respecting the Slave Trade. Mr. Pitt said, that he rose for the purpose of moving a resolution relative to the Slave Trade-a subject which, it was evident from the great number and variety of petitions presented to that House respecting it, had engaged the public attention to a very considerable extent, and consequently deserved the most serious notice of that House. But, whatever was done on such a subject, every gentleman must agree, ought to be done with the maturest deliberation. Two opinions had

prevailed without doors, as appeared from the language of the different petitions. It had been almost generally conceived that the African Trade ought to be put a stop to; yet others had regarded it as only standing in need of some new regulations; but all had agreed that it ought not to remain under its present predicament. All the circumstances of it in point of fact, and the consequences that would necessarily result from any measure that might be adopted, would, without doubt, call for much consideration and discussion; but what these circumstances were, and what those consequences were likely to prove, were, in his opinion, unfit topics for immediate discussion, as the advanced period of the session, and the want of proper materials for the full information of the House, would render it almost impossible to go at present diffusely into the examination. The subject had better be discussed when it might produce, some useful debate, and when the inquiry instituted by his Majesty's ministers elsewhere should be brought to such a state of maturity as that the result of it might be laid before the House, in order to enable them to proceed to a decision founded on principles of humanity, justice, and sound policy. As there was not a probability of reaching so desirable an end in the state of the business as it then stood, he meant to move a resolution, pledging the House to proceed to the discussion early next session. A notice had been given early in the present session by an hon. friend of his (Mr. Wilberforce) who was prevented from attending his duty there by severe indisposition. As in the hands of his hon. friend every measure of humanity and national interest, was most likely to be advantageously placed, he hoped that his hon friend would be able at the opening of the ensuing session, to resume his charge, and bring the subject forward; but should his hon. friend not be sufficiently recovered to be able to attend, he pledged himself to bring forward some proposition himself upon the subject. The House would observe, that he had studiously avoided giving any opinion, or even glancing at any opinion that he might be supposed to entertain respecting it; and, as it was not possible to go into the discussion then, he thought it much wiser not to broach an opinion till the moment of discussion should arrive. The titles of the several petitions being then read, Mr. Pitt concluded with moving: "That this

House will, early in the next session of parliament, proceed to take into consideration the circumstances of the Slave Trade, complained of in the said petitions, and what may be fit to be done thereupon." Mr. Fox declared, that what the right hon. gentleman had said laid him under very considerable embarrassment. He had himself considered the subject very minutely, and it had been his intention to have brought something forward in that House respecting it; but when he heard that an hon. gentleman, one of the members for Yorkshire, had resolved to take it up, he was unaffectedly rejoiced, not only knowing that gentleman's purity of principles and sincere love for the rights of humanity, but because, from a variety of considerations as to the characters and situations in which different men stood in that House, there was something that made him honestly think it was better that the business should be in the hands of the hon. gentleman than in his, and that it was much more likely to come from the hon. gentleman with more weight, more authority, and more probability of success than it could from himself. Having premised this, Mr. Fox said, that as so many petitions, and those signed by such numbers of persons of the most respectable character, had been presented, he was extremely sorry that it had been found impossible that the subject of them should be taken up this year. He certainly could not impute it as a matter of blame, that the case had not been otherwise, and lamented, as every gentleman must do, the absence of the hon. gentleman who had undertaken to bring it forward, and still more the cause of that absence. The right hon. gentleman had said, he thought there were circumstances that might happen by the next year, that would make it more advisable and advantageous to take it up then, than it would have been to enter upon it in the present session. In answer to this he must declare, it was his opinion, that no such circumstance could happen. From one part of the right hon. gentleman's speech,he presumed it was the inquiry into the subject that had been instituted by the lords of his Majesty's privy council that was alluded to, as the source to which that House was to look up for some necessary information.. To the justice and propriety of that proposition he must give a flat denial; because there could be no information laid before that House, through the medium of the lords of the [VOL. XXVII.]

privy council, that could not much more advantageously have been obtained by that House, had they themselves instituted an inquiry. It was their duty to advise the King, and not to ask his advice. This the constitution had laid down as one of its most essential principles; and though in the present instance, he saw no cause for blame, because he was persuaded his Majesty's ministers had not acted with any ill intention, it was a principle' that ought never to be departed from, because it never could be departed from without establishing a precedent that might lead to very serious abuse. He lamented that the privy council, who had received no petitions from the people on the subject, should have instituted an inquiry, and that the House of Commons, the table of which had been loaded with petitions from all parts of the kingdom, should not have instituted any inquiry at all. He hoped those petitions would have a fair discussion in that House, independent of any information that could be given the House by his Majesty's ministers. He could not, therefore, help lamenting that the subject had not been brought forward earlier: when he said this, he was aware that the hon. member who had undertaken it, was rendered incapable of attending the House; and he was also aware how unpleasant it must be for any one of that hon. gentleman's friends to have come forward, and answered for him, by saying that his health was such that he would not be able to attend during that session. It was certainly a very delicate thing to do, and what no gentleman could easily bring himself, on any occasion, to stand up and declare. He did not, therefore, impute blame any where on account of the delay, but he certainly lamented it extremely. A right hon. gentleman, every way competent, had said that it was to be brought forward in the course of the next session of parliament; and if his hon. friend could not then attend, he stood pledged to propose it himself. Surely it was somewhat strange that the right hon. gentleman had not given the House his sentiments on the subject, and the general view in which he meant to take it up. It was not a subject that was new, and on which gentlemen had formed no opinion; on the contrary, it was one on which most men had formed some opinion or other. He wondered, therefore, the right hon. gentleman had not hinted what his opinion was. Had his hon. friend been able to have come to [2K]