abolishing the receiving private petitions were to obtain, it would be telling the people of England in plain terms, "we will not listen to your grievances, we will only listen to the grievances of our own members." Mr. Dundas said, that as it appeared the Bill of Rights gave no authority for receiving the petition, he hoped the right hon. gentlemen, who was more conversant in parliamentary forms than he was, would give some instance of a precedent where a similar petition had been received; but, for his part, he knew of none. He remembered it had even been disputed whether the petition against the shop-tax could be received, as it did not affect the patrimonial rights of the petitioners. It was absurd to say, that if the petitioners failed in their proof of the allegations stated in the petition, they would incur the censure of the House-they surely could not be censured for failing to prove what they believed to be true. For his own part, he had no wish to avoid a discussion of the abuses complained of, if the mode in which they came before the House was founded on the usual practice of Parliament; and for that information he begged leave to appeal to the Chair. The Speaker said, that undoubtedly so far as the forms of the House went, it was perfectly competent to receive the petition in the first instance, if the House were of opinion that the subject matter of it was such as demanded a parliamentary discussion. Such instances occurred every day; and he apprehended no other motion was intended at present on the petition now under consideration, but simply that it should lie on the table. Mr. Pitt acknowledged that the subjects had a right to present petitions to the House; but, at the same time, contended, that the whole of the present case rested on discretion. Because it surely would not be insisted upon, that although the subjects had a right to present petitions, the House had not an equal right to exercise their discretion, and say whether they would receive them or not. They had often exercised that discretionary right, and the grounds of discretion were threefold, as the right hon. gentleman had stated them to be. Undoubtedly, neither of these objections applied to the present petition, and he saw no great difficulty in receiving it; but it would have been desirable, if the grievance really existed to the extent alleged, that an endeavour should have been made to obtain a remedy at an earlier period, and it was rather to be wondered at, that the fittest opportunity of provoking an inquiry, had not been seized, and this at some one of the various elections which had taken place during the time that the petition. stated the grievance to have existed. The petition was brought up and read, setting forth, "That the Petitioners esteem it their duty to represent to the House, that great and notorious abuses prevail respecting the shipping employed in the rivers Thames and Medway under the management and direction of the Board of Ordnance; that useless vessels, the property of Government, are retained on the establishment, although the contract vessels employed in those rivers are fully adequate to the service of the public in time of peace, and that the contract vessels are hired at much less expense than is incurred by those on the establishment, all the masters and mates of which are freemen of the borough of Queenborough; that for the last thirty years, the borough of Queenborough has been constantly represented in Parliament by a member of the Board of Ordnance, and during that period, the expenses of the establishment have been enormously increased, by the addition of new vessels, the augmentation of the salaries of the masters, and the unnecessary and unprecedented appointment of mates; and that by these means, the public money is wantonly and wastefully expended, and the Board of Ordnance have acquired, and still keep up and maintain an undue and corrupt influence in the election of members to serve in Parliament for the borough of Queenborough, to the prejudice of the rights of the Petitioners and others, freemen of the said borough, and in violation of the freedom and purity of elections; and that the Petitioners are desirous and prepared to substantiate the truth of their allegations at the bar of the House, or before any committee of the same, and most earnestly request the House to institute such inquiries, and to take such measures, for the correction of the abuses complained of, as to the House shall seem meet." Ordered to lie on the table. Proceedings upon the Impeachment of Mr. Hastings.] Dec. 5. In consequence of the order of the House of Lords with which Mr. Hastings was served towards the close of the last session, to put in his Answer to the Charges exhibited against him by the Commons on the first Tuesday after the next meeting of Parliament, on the prescribed day he appeared at the bar, and presented answers. Of these the Lords sent a copy to the House of Commons this day. The said Answer* being read short, pro formâ, Mr. Burke moved, "That it be referred to a Committee, and that they do consider thereof, and report their opinion what is most proper to be done towards the further proceedings therein;" which having been agreed to, the Speaker desired him to name his Committee. Mr. Pitt named Mr. Burke, as the first member, which being agreed to, Mr. Burke next proposed Philip Francis, esq. Upon the question being put, the House divided: Tellers. Mr. Grey YEAS{Lord Maitland NOES } 23 The Earl of Mornington 97 So it passed in the negative. * See Commons Journals, Vol. 43, p. 32. conduct, in their rejection, he said, he neither supposed to exist, nor would he charge the House with having harboured, or being influenced by it in their late vote, but the only presumeable reasons for rejecting any one member of the former committee could be no other than two, either a general disqualification on general grounds, or a personal disqualification from inability or unfitness to assist in conducting the prosecution. Both these questions had been already decided, and the House would have acted wickedly and weakly in suffering his hon. friend to take so great a part in the proceeding hitherto, and to have adopted his ideas, if they had judged him to be disqualified to take a share in the business. The fact was, his honourable friend was most eminently qualified to assist in the prosecution; for through his superior knowledge of it had all the charge relative to the revenues been made out and established, and so greatly had he himself been aided and assisted by the information which he had received from his hon. friend, that he, in his honour and conscience declared, he felt himself disqualified from conducting the remainder of the prosecution safely and securely without him, and he meant and desired the Declaration to be considered as given with all the solemnity of an oath, though a man need not be put upon his oath when confessing his own disqua lification. It was for this reason, essential to himself, and essential to the House and their joint credit, he wished his hon. instructor and associate-for so he might justly term him-to have been continued a member of the committee. Why the House had by their recent vote thought proper to reject the future assistance of his hon. friend, he was utterly at a loss to guess. That those members who had uniformly expressed a disinclination to the prosecution, and in almost every stage of it endeavoured to put a stop to it, should have made a part of the majority on the late division was natural enough, because nothing could be more consistent than for those who had declared themselves adverse to any prosecution, to endeavour to take away the means of pur suing it, when once a prosecution was instituted; but for many of the gentlemen of another description, who had cordially co-operated and assisted in the investigation, previous to the matter having assumed the regular shape and form of a criminal process, to concur in a vote side of the House might consider as Mr. Burke then moved, that the Committee be armed with the usual powers; which was agreed to. Dec. 7. Mr. Burke reported the Re plication of the Commons to Mr. Hastings's Answer, as follows: which embarrassed and weakened the cause and endangered its ultimate event, was to him a circumstance altogether unaccountable. The Committee then naming, was not the Committee of managers, and therefore not of equal importance; but so fully was he convinced of the great utility and importance of the assistance of his hon. friend, and that he should feel himself, who knew the subject as well as most men, so exceedingly crippled and enfeebled without the advantage of his hon. friend's superior information, that when the day for naming the next committee should come, he would again appeal to the sense of the House, and try to have his hon. friend reinstated. Mr. Rolle rose to reply; but the Speaker called to order, and stated, that after the House had concluded a question, by a division, it was out of all rule of order to enter into a debate upon the principles of their decision. And more especially at present, when the right hon. member had himself said, that there would be a future opportunity of taking the sense of the House on the point in dispute. Mr. Burke replied that, he would content himself with the preliminary protestation that he had made against the effect of the late vote, and after just touching upon some of the grounds of the protestation, as stated in his former speech, he proceeded to nominate the other gentlemen of the Committee, who were the same as were appointed last year, with the omission of the name of Mr. Francis, and the addition of those of Mr. Wilbraham, Mr. Fitzpatrick, and Mr. Courtenay. Mr. Fox expressed his wish to appeal seriously to the gentlemen on the other side upon one particular resulting from their late vote, by which they had thrown so violent a discountenance on the prosecution; and that was, the necessity of filling the chasm in the Committee, which they had occasioned by rejecting the only member, who, from every consideration, appeared to be the most proper to be upon it. He therefore submitted it to the consideration of the other side of the House, whether it would not be right and becoming in them to supply the vacancy, by naming from among themselves some person of acknowledged information upon the subject. He suggested the right hon. gentleman at the head of the India board Mr. Dundas); but said, that he would agree to the nomination of any other well-informed gentleman, whom the other [VOL. XXVI.] "The Commons have considered the Answer of Warren Hastings, esq., to the Articles of Impeachment exhibited against him by the knights, citizens, and bur gesses, in Parliament assembled, in the names of themselves, and of all the Commons of Great Britain; and observe, That the said Warren Hastings hath endea voured to cover the crimes laid to his charge by evasive insinuations and misrepresentation of facts. That the said Ane swer does give a gloss and colouring utterly false and untrue to the various criminal matters contained in the said Articles. That the said Warren Hastings did in fact commit the numerous acts of extortion, bribery, peculation, cruelty, breach of faith, violation of the orders of the lawful authority to which he was subject, and of the various other offences and crimes of which he stands accused. And the Com mons, in full confidence of the truth and justice of their accusation, and of the necessity of bringing the said Warren Hastings to a speedy and exemplary punishment, and not doubting that your lordships will use all becoming diligence to do justice to the proceedings of the Commons, and to vindicate the honour of the nation, do aver their Charge against the said Warren Hastings for high crimes and misdemeanors to be true, and that the said Warren Hastings is guilty in such manner as he stands impeached. And that the Commons will be ready to prove their Charges against him at such convenient time and place as shall be appointed for that purpose." The said Replication was agreed to it up and Mr. Burke was ordered to carry to the Lords. Dec. 10. The Lords acquainted the Commons that they had appointed the 13th of February next, for the Trial of Warren' Hastings, esq., at the bar of the House of Lords; and that they would order conveniences to be prepared there, for the managers of the said Impeachment. Dec. 11. The above Message from the [4 P] Lords being read, Mr. Burke moved, 1. | known to all who heard him. All knew "That managers be appointed to make that he had been sent out to India as one good the Articles of Impeachment against of the supreme council on account of this Warren Hastings, esq., and that the Com- reputation, and returned with the appromittee to whom it was referred to consider bation and the confidence of his employers. the Answer of Warren Hastings be the But in such a case the testimony of his said managers. 2. That Messrs. Wallis friends would be incomplete, unless corroand Troward be the solicitors to the said borated and confirmed by the testimony of managers. 3. That this House will be his enemies. This testimony his hon. present at the trial of Warren Hastings as friend had also obtained. By a steady a Committee of the whole House. 4. And and consistent hostility to the malversathat a message be sent to the Lords, re- tions and corruptions of others, he had questing that they would provide suitable provoked the most rigid scrutiny into his accommodations for the members of this own conduct while in India, and since his House." Which motions, being severally return he had courted, not shunned, input, were agreed to. quiry. Had any discoveries of misconduct on his part been to be made, they would long since have been before the public, since they must have come within the knowledge of those who were well disposed to bring them to light. It was, therefore, fair to conclude that his character was unimpeachable, since it had not been impeached, and that he possessed that innocence and integrity of life and conduct which qualified him to come forward as the accuser of another. Debate on Mr. Fox's Motion for adding Mr. Francis to the Managers of the Impeachment against Mr. Hastings.] Mr. Fox now rose, and begged leave to trespass upon the attention of the House, whilst he adverted to his design of proposing, as a member of the Committee for managing the Impeachment at the bar of the House of Lords, an hon. friend of his whom the House had approved as a member of the Committee to whom the drawing up of the Articles of Impeachment had been intrusted, but whose nomination as a member of the Committee appointed to consider of the answer to these articles had been opposed. There must, indeed, be strong arguments adduced to prove the fitness of the hon. gentleman to sit as a member of the one Committee, and his unfitness to sit as a member of the other. They were not now acting as the judges of Mr. Hastings; they were not even sitting in the character of a grand jury to decide whether or not a bill of indictment was to be found against him; they were become his prosecutors; in that capacity they had committed themselves, and would act with the utmost inconsistency if they failed to avail themselves of every circumstance and of every assistance that might give effect to their prosecution. Whatever objections might be urged to Mr. Francis as the judge of Mr. Hastings, though for his own part he neither felt nor admitted their existence, there could be no possible objection to his appearing as his accuser. To the character of an accuser, innocence and integrity were indispensably necessary. It was requisite that he who preferred an accusation against another should himself be blameless, and his reputation unsuspected. That his hon. friend possessed this reputation was well It was fit also that an accuser should possess talents. What the natural abilities of his hon. friend were, it was needless to state where they were so well known. What his acquired abilities on the subject of the prosecution were, must be equally evident from, the opportunities he had enjoyed. It was much to have been in India; it was much to have been acquainted with the evasions and tergiversations under which Mr. Hastings had been accustomed to screen his conduct. When Cicero came forward as the accuser of Verres, what were the arguments he advanced why the prosecution should be committed to him? "Because," said he, "I am acquainted with the evasions and sophistry of his advocate Hortentius. I am accustomed to combat and overthrow them." Nor was it less requisite that an accuser should entertain no partiality in favour of the accused; and not only that he should entertain no partiality, but that he should not be indifferent as to the event of the prosecution: that he should be animated with an honest indignation against the crimes and the criminal whom he attempted to bring to justice. In the case of a prosecution for murder, where the son of the person said to have been murdered was the prosecutor, he made his charge and produced his proofs with such seeming coolness and indifference, that the judges stopped him by asking: "Were the facts you allege true? Was this man really the murderer of your father? If you indeed believed him such, you could not possibly go on in this unaffected and impartial manner. While, therefore, you address us in this trim language, we can give no credit to what you say." Even like this might be the answer of the party accused; and such had actually been the answer of Mr. Hastings to the remonstrance of the court of directors: "If you actually disapprove of my conduct, you could not possibly address me in such gentle terms." If Mr. Francis was supposed to cherish enmity to Mr. Hastings, it was not enmity to his person, it was enmity to his crimes. He was, therefore, from his detestation of those crimes, and his ability to prove them, a proper person to become the accuser of Mr. Hastings. There was no such thing known as an impartial prosecution in this country, for although all prosecutions were commenced in the king's name it was always the party injured that came forward in support of them. As to the merits of his hon. friend in other points, it was enough to say, that if India was to be better governed; if the abuses and corruptions that had prevailed in that country were to be corrected; if the hon. gentleman at the head of the board of control was able to introduce a purer and a better system, he must own that his knowledge had flowed originally from Mr. Francis. Under these circumstances, if his hon. friend was not appointed a member of the Committee, the House must prevaricate, and depart from a charge which they had already adopted. He had with infinite application and ability brought forward the charge of abuses in the administration of the revenues. The sole argument which he had ever heard against the appointment of his hon. friend was, that he had once had a personal quarrel with Mr. Hastings. Of what weight was this? He was not to be the judge, but the accuser of Mr. Hastings; and not the only accuser, but an accuser, joined with others. Was he supposed of such authority as to influence the judges? Were the whole Committee of such authority? The Lords would sit to pass sentence, upon their honour, like a jury on their oath, and Heaven forbid that the united authority of the Commons of EngHand should influence their decision! Were this argument to be allowed of any force, what a lesson would it teach to all our governors abroad, who might dread inquiry into their conduct? It would be saying this to them, "You know the persons who have the means of discovering your mal-administration, and you have only to provoke a private quarrel with them, and they can never afterwards be suffered to bring a charge against you; and if they cannot be admitted as your accusers, much less can they appear as evidence against you." The truest criterion for judging on the subject was the circumstance that the prosecution was to be arranged like other prosecutions," and that the House, having once adopted it as their own, were to employ the best means of supporting it. His hon. friend was more conversant in the affairs of India than any member of that House, and not to avail themselves of his knowledge and ability, would be a dereliction of their own cause. If they demanded impartial accusers, who were acquainted with the subject of the accusation, where were they to be found? Not in India, for it afforded not a man who could be said to be impartial in this cause. And by whom was Mr. Hastings to be accused-by those who had supported his measures, or those who had opposed them? by his friends, or his enemies? There were not many accusers from India. He knew but few from that quarter who could dare to assume the character, or whose own conduct would stand the test of inquiry. To exclude from the Committee the person likely to be the most dangerous accuser, would have a very pernicious appearance. Next to the power of choosing, was the power of rejecting accusers; and such favour shown to him who had abused the authority intrusted to him, and such discountenance to him who had faithfully done his duty would have the effect of making the criminals conclude themselves in safety, and operate as an unjust and barbarous restraint upon the innocent. Mr. Fox now moved, "That Philip Francis, esq., be added to the managers appointed to manage the impeachment against Warren Hastings, esq." Mr. Caswell observed, that he had voted against Mr. Francis being upon the Committee the first time it came to the question, and was left in a minority. He had likewise voted against him a second time on the preceding Wednesday, and when he came into the House, it had been said, how dared any gentleman offer such an insult to another member of that House? |