in proportion to the greatness or littleness of the services performed. They only who had directed them, and saw the degree of effect they had operated, could alone judge of their importance. The Committee having the business in their hands, knew them to be great, and knew the charges incurred to be proportionably trifling and inconsiderable. The Committee were responsible for those services, or rather he was responsible, as the leading member of that Committee, and he meant not, in the smallest degree, to shrink from his responsibility or shelter himself behind the Committee, for conduct undoubtedly his own, and for which he was and ought to be peculiarly responsible. The hon, baronet had said, he seconded the motion, because it was not moved with a view to censure of the past, but of caution for the future. If it was necessary to give caution for the future, there must have arisen some occasion for that caution, which implied, that the Committee of managers had acted in a manner in which they ought not to have acted. For his part, he rejected the proffered caution. He would take no more caution than he had done. He acted to the best of his judgment, and he was conscious that he was responsible for his conduct. censure or deserved approbation, without having sufficient information before him to enable him to judge whether they de. served either? He had no scruple to say, that he had his doubts whether one part of the general charge, namely, the sums expended by the solicitors for the prosecution, did not amount to more than ought to have been so expended. When a particular account should be before the House, if it should appear to him that censure was merited, the right hon. gentleman opposite should not find him shrink from the question; nor should any thing that any member might say intimidate him from doing what he might think to be his duty, Mr. Burke declared, that he did not mean to intimidate the hon. gentleman by any thing he had said, and that he was perfectly indifferent, as far as concerned himself, as to any future proceeding that might be grounded on the account moved for; but he could not help remarking upon the extraordinary circumstance of the professed friend of Mr. Hastings calling for an account of the expense incurred by the prosecution, at the very moment that one of the strongest charges was so closely griping the delinquent, that he saw it impossible for him to escape. He had no objection personally to the production of the account, but he warned the House, that they were about to establish a precedent full of danger, and likely to cover Mr. Hussey saw no reason for the motion. Was 8,000l. too much, considering the importance of the prosecution? He had heard no suspicion of lavish or im-him with much disgrace. provident conduct in the Committee of managers insinuated. When the business was at an end, he should expect the money issued to be strictly accounted for, but not before. Mr. Fox said, the House would recollect, that no ground had been stated for the motion, but that, on the contrary, all intention to ground a censure was disavowed. From what motive, therefore, were they to suppose the hon. gentleman made his motion? It was not possible for the House to adopt it, in its present unexplained state, without pursuing a conduct of which not one of its past proceedings could furnish an example. Mr. Burges said, that the motive that induced him to make the motion was, a desire to obtain information. He had expressly stated, that he did not make the motion in order to ground a censure against the Committee of managers, or any person whatever. How was it possible for him to declare that they merited Sir Peter Burrell wished to be informed whether the hon. member desired to have a strict account of every particle of the expense laid before the House. If this was the case, he thought it highly dangerous to the prosecution, to disclose to the defendant all the proceedings of his prosecutors. Doubtless, at the conclusion of the prosecution, a full statement of every expenditure on account of it ought to be rendered, but he was sure there was no precedent to be found for producing a detail of particular charges pending the prosecution. Mr. Pitt observed, that if any gentleman would really say, he apprehended danger to the cause from producing the account moved for, he would strenuously oppose the motion, because he thought that a consideration infinitely beyond any advantage that could result from laying the paper on the table. But, if no danger nor material inconvenience could be stated as likely to result from producing the account, he thought it for the honour May 30. Mr. Fox observed, that as a of the House and the honour of the ma-particular account of the distributions of nagers, to produce it; as it would, in fact, the sums expended, in consequence of if it turned out to be as gentlemen had the trial of Warren Hastings esq. had been described, and which he had no reason before the House for some days, he wished to doubt it would turn out, prove the best to know when the hon. gentleman who and most complete answer to all idle moved for the account, and said he had reports, and effectually prevent the repe- doubts relative to a part of the general tition of any similar motions. heads stated in the account, meant either to bring forward the said doubts, or declare whether they still left upon his mind the same impression. Mr. Fox certainly saw no immediate danger in producing the account then moved for, but what struck him as the matter to be guarded against was the establishing a precedent that might be mischievous in future. He reminded the House, that no particular article in the general account on the table had been objected to. Mr. Burke was desirous of calling the solicitors for the prosecution to the bar, to explain one or two points that he was sure would satisfy the House. The characters of the solicitors were such as to place them above all suspicion of being capable of acting dishonourably. Mr. Pitt said, it was the undoubted right of every member of that House to call for an account of the public expenditure in every instance, and such account ought to be granted, where neither danger nor inconvenience could be stated as likely to result from inquiry, Mr. Sheridan said, he would take down Mr. Pitt's declaration, that it was the undoubted right of every member to call for an account of the public expenditure in every instance, and that such accounts ought to be granted, in order to make use of it on a future day. Mr. Pitt desired the hon. gentleman would also take down the condition of their being granted; which was, that neither inconvenience nor danger could be stated as likely to result from inquiry. Mr. Burke remarked, that however the motion might prove inconvenient, and entail disgrace on the House, he was sure it would ultimately reflect honour on the managers, as it would prove, that for a most insignificant expense, they had by their exertions, rendered their country important and essential services. The House divided: Tellers SMr. Burges YEAS {Sir William Dolben Mr. Hussey }60 NOES Mr. William Smith 17 So it was resolved in the affirmative. The managers withdrew without dividing. Mr. Burges answered, that in his humble opinion, he had sufficiently done his duty in calling for the papers. They were now before the House, and an opportunity was open to every gentleman to form his sentiments upon the subject. What his doubts were, he imagined must suggest themselves to every gentleman who read the accounts, and therefore he left to persons, who had more weight and authority in that House than he had, to take the matter up; but if no other person should, and the House should call upon him to bring the subject forward, he was perfectly ready to obey their commands. Mr. Sheridan observed, that the sort of way in which the matter had been treated, was a little extraordinary. The hon. gentleman had, on a former day, said, that he had his doubts upon one of the heads of the general account, but that he could not say whether those doubts were well founded or not, before he saw a more particular statement of the items; that particular statement had now been presented some days, and the hon. gentleman had just declared, he still entertained his doubts, but that he left it to other gentlemen to move the discussion. Now he wished the hon. gentleman would either act upon his doubts, or get some other gentleman to take his doubts up for him, and act upon them. From what had already passed, the matter ought not to drop without a farther investigation. Mr. Burges said that if the House. thought that it was now more peculiarly his province to bring the subject forward, he had not the smallest objection to take the task upon him, and in that case, he believed the proper way would be either to move that the papers be referred to a Committee of the whole House; or to give notice of a day on which he would state his sentiments upon their contents.Mr. Pitt recommending the latter mode, Mr. Burges gave notice for the ensuing Friday. June 6. Mr. Burges rose. He observed, that he wished, if possible, to satisfy the call of a right hon gentleman, who, on a former day, had desired him to state his doubts respecting the articles in the account of the expenses incurred by the trial of Warren Hastings, esq. He repeated the circumstances that had led to such a call having been made upon him, and then proceeded to explain what his doubts were. The first of them he stated to be a doubt whether the House had authorized the managers to employ counsel; a doubt whether there was any precedent for their employing counsel; and, in case the House had not authorized them to employ counsel, and that there was no precedent for it, a doubt whether there was any peculiar circumstance of difficulty in the nature of the present prosecution, that made the assistance of counsel necessary. Mr. Burges argued these doubts separately and distinctly. He said, it would not, he should suppose, be denied that the House had not given any authority to the managers for the employment of counsel, and he could not find any precedent for the assistance of counsel having been either required or granted in such prosecutions. At the same time he conceived, it was not one of those sort of prosecutions, that required the special assistance of counsel. Only two legal points had yet arisen in the progress of the cause, that of the guarantee, and that of the year 1783. Whatever legal difficulties might offer, there were learned gentlemen enough on the Committee of managers to solve every doubt. He proceeded to state his doubts on the difference between the two bills that had been delivered to the House by the solicitors for the prosecution at different periods, and pointed out the particulars in which that difference consisted. These were in the total amounts, and the charges on account of sums paid to counsel, and the charge of the solicitors' expenses. He dwelt on these differences, reasoning upon each, and declaring that it struck him, as if two more counsel had made a part of the clause in the first bill, than in the second, since, in the second, a sum equal to the difference was transferred from the charge of money paid to counsel, to the charge of expenses incurred by the solicitors. He went into calculations to show, that the sum divided different ways would warrant the supposition of a different number of counsel being employed. He said. that 80581, was not the whole of the expense incurred; but that, in fact, it amounted to full 15,000l. at present, and with the fees of the clerks of the two Houses, &c. it would amount to 18,000l. before the session closed. He concluded with moving," That Messrs. Wallis and Troward, solicitors for the Impeachment against Warren Hastings, esq. do lay before this House, on the first day of every month during the continuance of the said impeachment (if this House shall then be sitting, otherwise on the first day this House shall sit after every such first day of the month) a particular account of such expenses and charges as shall have been incurred by the said solicitors, as may have occurred subsequent to any account by them previously delivered to this House stating specifically to whom, and on what account, such sums shall have been paid.” Mr. Burke said, that he rose neither to second nor to resist the motion. Before he seconded, he must approve a motion; before he opposed it, he must feel a strong reason for meeting it with his negative. In the present case he felt no powerful propensity either way. He could not however avoid offering his warmest congratulations to the hon. gentleman on his having chosen that glorious day, after the triumph of the morning, to bring forward a business of such an important nature! It was the hon. gentleman's choice of filling up the happy interval between their adjournment from Westminster-hall and the rising of the House, with calling them to the examination of the items of a solici tor's bill, which alone was fit to follow his first onset within those walls, when he had stood up, and boldly ventured for a long time, singly and unseconded, to call for the attention of the House, after every other member had been struck dumb with astonishment and admiration at the wonderful eloquence of his hon. friend (Mr. Sheridan) who had that day again surprised the thousands who hung with rapture on his accents, by such a display of talents as were unparalleled in the annals of oratory, and as did the highest honour to himself, to that House, and to his country. For his part, Mr. Burke added, his mind was not sufficiently let down from the height of exaltation to which it had been raised: it required a degree of bending, of wetting, and of relaxation, to sink his thoughts to the level of such an inquiry as that to which the hon. gentleman had called their attention. After such a sublime and glorious feast as the morning had afforded, the hon. gentleman's curious speculation on minute particulars convinced him that Providence had intended that man should not be proud, but that ecstacy of the mind should be checked and cooled by some sudden concomitant of mortification and disgrace, so that, under any circumstances, it should be impossible for a human being to escape long from having some proof of natural infirmity thrust before his sight. He again congratulated the hon. gentleman, therefore, on his choice of a day, declaring, that if ever there was a day made to dignify the nation, made to dignify human nature itself, it was that very day. Of all species of oratory, of every kind of eloquence that had been heard, either in ancient or in modern times; whatever the acuteness of the bar, the dignity of the senate, or the morality of the pulpit, could furnish, had not been equal to what that House had that day heard in Westminster-hall. No holy religionist, no man of any description as a literary character, could have come up, in the one instance, to the pure sentiments of morality, or in the other, to the variety of knowledge, force of imagination, propriety and vivacity of allusion, beauty and elegance of diction, and strength of expression, to which they had all that day listened. From poetry up to eloquence, there was, not a species of composition of which a complete and perfect specimen might not have been culled, from one part or the other of the speech to which he alluded, and which, he was persuaded, had made too strong an impression on the minds of that House to be so soon obliterated, as to render such a coarse dish of soups as the hon. gentleman had set before them, at all palatable. There was, Mr. Burke added, no conquest of man over man, like that of genius over injustice; instead, therefore, of resolving themselves into a committee of petit accounts, they ought, like the Romans, after Scipio's victories, to go and thank the gods for that day's triumph. In conclusion, Mr. Burke declared that he disdained to take notice of such a subject as the hon. gentleman had stated to the House. If the hon. gentleman doubted, or any man doubted, the solicitor's charges, let them call the solicitors to the bar, and examine them. For his part, he would continue to order such services as he thought proper, till the House should think proper to command him to desist. [VOL. XXVII.] Mr. Fox said, if there was any thing in the account worth inquiry, let it be inquired into. He and the managers had nothing to do with it. The subject had come under discussion in no less than three different days; and he thought it a little. hard, that those on the other side, who appeared to concur with them, and to agree that they had nothing to do with it, should nevertheless suffer it to be again brought forward, and the same things repeated respecting it. If his astonishment could be raised at all at the paper just delivered, it would be at the ridiculous parsimony with which a prosecution of such magnitude was carried forward. If the hon. gentleman had done what was fair, he would have stated his doubts before. The first account contained the subject of his doubts as well as the second; and the latter gave him no sort of information respecting them, which the second did not convey. With regard to the hon. gentleman's declaration, that only two points of law had occurred, if the hon. gentleman, instead of spending his time in the neat calculations he had so nicely made, had examined the charges already gone into, with all his profound skill in arithmetic, he would venture to say he would have found more legal points than he could easily have counted up. In respect to the employment of counsel, he believed it was a new thing to employ counsel on such a prosecution, but he was persuaded, from his own experience, that the assistance of counsel had been and would be indispensably necessary to the safe conduct of the cause. The expenses of the prosecution of Mr. Hastings stood upon the same ground with every other species of public expenditure, and he saw no reason why, after the House had appointed managers for the conduct of the prosecution, it should not give them as much confidence with respect to a prudent management of the expenditure entrusted to their superintendence, as they gave the particular departments which presided over any other peculiar head of public expenditure. Mr. Drake said, that although he approved of the present motion, yet after the rebuff which his hon. friend had met with, he was almost afraid to utter one syllable in its favour. He fully acceded to the compliments passed on the oration delivered by Mr. Sheridan in Westminsterhall, and confessed that he had that day listened to all that was great and grand, ornamental and elegant; virtue had been [2 N] House had been called on for that purpose, the noble lord would have stated fully the nature and tendency of the Bill. He could not but lament the want of this necessary information, for of all the pro aggrandized, and vice debased; if he was not a natural lover of virtue, he should that day have been made a convert to it. He nevertheless must ever stand up the avowed friend of economy. The managers, undoubtedly, were no way answer-ductions he had ever read, the present able for the correctness of the accounts on the table. They were engaged in nobler objects and loftier pursuits; but surely that was no reason why his hon. friend and himself, being men of humbler faculties, might not attend to matters of the dry and less elevated nature of the bills in question. Mr. Pitt said, that undoubtedly the managers were entitled to the confidence of the House, and whatever assistance they thought was necessary for the safe conduct of the cause, he would be ready to say, they ought to be authorized to procure. He had entertained some doubts in his own mind, whether it was necessary that two civilians should be employed. If the right hon. gentleman thought that they were requisite, he was ready to declare that they ought to be employed. Sir W. Dolben said, that although he had scarcely recovered from the effect of the whiff and wind of Mr. Burke's fell arm, yet he ventured to second the motion, because he thought it the duty of that House to attend to such objects. He defended Mr. Burges from the ridicule of Mr. Burke, and said, that though in the discharge of his duty, his hon. friend had condescended to notice the subject under consideration, he had talents equal to the moving in a higher sphere. Mr. M. A. Taylor considered the motion as a paltry attempt to cast a slur on the managers, and therefore was determined to take the sense of the House upon it. Mr. Dundas said, he had given and would continue to give confidence to the managers; but as the question of the council was settled, and the rest of the Bill referred to matters which lay with the Board of Treasury, he saw no use in proceeding to a division, and would therefore prevent it, by moving the order of the day. After some further conversation, the order of the day was put and carried. Debate in the Lords on the Insolvent Debtors Bill.] May 23. Lord Rawdon having moved, that the Insolvent Debtors Bill be committed, The Lord Chancellor objected to the motion. He had trusted that before the Bill was the most vague, loose, and unintelligible compound of blunders and absurdities. He was certain it did not originate with the noble lord, but had been drawn up by some interested person, who had imposed on his known bumanity and love of justice. Bills of this description were, at all times, objects which required the most scrupulous investigation: the House had annually witnessed instances of their being submitted to their judgment, and with much propriety had rejected them. The present Bill embraced objects of a larger scale; it went to overturn, in a great measure, those laws which our ancestors had thought prudent to continue from the time of William the Conqueror to the present period. The learned lord then endeavoured to show the inefficacy of several parts of the Bill, and asserted that it would give additional latitude to wicked and designing men, to prey upon the honest and industrious part of the community. It was his wish to make Insolvent Bills answer their original intention, and then the numbers within the walls would bear but a small proportion to what they now did. It had long been the custom, whenever an insolvent Bill was pending, for persons, by means of some friend, to fling themselves into prison, in order to be white-washed, and thereby defraud their just creditors. The Bill now brought in from the mode in which they were to obtain their liberation, would give them an additional opportunity of effecting this. Under this Bill, those who had been guilty of the greatest breaches of trust might be cleared, whilst a clause particularly prevented the liberation of those imprisoned for verdicts obtained on libels. Was this justice? was this equity? The Chancellor said, he should vote against the commitment. Lord Rawdon was astonished that the learned lord should want farther information, after the full manner in which he had detailed its objects. He could by no means subscribe to the learned lord's assertion, that imprisonment for debt had existed from the time of William the Conqueror. In the days of Edward 1, it only extended to bailiffs, who purloined the revenues of their lords, and |