insist, that the new Act was, to prevent the former one from being evaded by that cunning and artifice which had been employed by Mr. Hastings; and from various letters and documents he contended, that Mr. Hastings himself could never have understood them in the manner now re

Hastings had exercised peculation and extortion, and had only exercised them to supply the exigencies of the public service, and had always applied them to that sole purpose, this, though not a justification of his conduct, would have been a diminution of the offence. But no such palliation as this appeared in the transaction; and though it was not absolutely proved that Mr. Hastings had not converted this money to the public service, yet there was very strong ground for some thing more than suspicion; and his avoiding to give any explanation of the busi ness, though ordered to do so by the Court of Directors, made the circumstance still more suspicious and unfavourable.

Directors sent to India, not a single trace | of inattention to the Act could be found. He explained the clause of the Act of 1784, by contending, that although in the conception of that House the meaning of the Act of 1773 was clear and explicit, yet as some persons had been known to entertain a doubt, it was thought right, by an ex-presented. If, in this proceeding, Mr. planatory Act of 1784, to put the matter out of all manner of doubt. Upon the present occasion, he said, he could not resist an attempt to save Mr. Larkins from what he thought rather too harsh treatment, and declared, that he had ever understood that gentleman to be a man of strict honour and unimpeachable integrity, and by no means capable of wilful perjury, though he had certainly, through mere inadvertency, sworn fully, instead of swearing to the best of his knowledge, respecting Mr. Hastings's letter of the 22nd May, 1782, not having been opened since he had parted with it out of his hands. Mr. Grenville said, he must contend that the Act was strong enough to answer every purpose for which it had been framed. This letter, instead of defending, went to condemn the Governor-general's conduct. The laws having been found inefficient to guard against the increasing inroads of corruption, it was thought necessary to enforce the operation of that Act, by establishing a new code, which was intended to remove the cruel extortions and oppressions under which the poor natives of India groaned. Shall, then, the Governorgeneral endeavour to shelter himself under a misconception of law and aggravated injustice by extortion? His demand upon Cheit Sing was shameful and inhuman to the most criminal degree; and it was his wish to carry before the august tribunal of the House of Lords, the man who had dared to sully the lustre of the British name, and to trample on the sacred inheritance of an unoffending race of people. The rajah Cheit Sing had been called upon by Mr, Hastings for five lacks of rupees; and at the very time when the Directors were deliberating at home on what measures it would be proper to pursue with respect to that chief, the Governor-general was extorting from him a present of two lacks for his own private use. In conclusion, Mr. Grenville observed, that when he followed up his earnest wishes to vindicate the Board of Controul from any imputation of being a party in what was called the misconstruction of the Regulation Act, he must beg leave to

Mr. Sheridan begged leave to say, that of all insinuations, that which might have fixed upon the minds of the committee even the shadow of a suspicion that Mr. Larkins had been guilty of corrupt and wilful perjury, was the most distant from his idea. The whole of what he meant to intimate was, that an incontrovertible fact stood forward, which, in its nature, ascertained, that Mr. Larkins had deposed upon oath, to the truth of some points, which most certainly did not fall within his own immediate knowledge.

Major Scott, in reply to lord Mulgrave, who had asserted that it was a shabby defence, to plead that Mr. Hastings had mistaken the law, and that it was a diabolical doctrine to advance, that the Eng lish security in India depended on our keeping the native princes in ignorance, said:-I must trespass upon the indulgence of the committee for a very short time, in order to obviate two objections that have fallen from the noble lord below me. It is not, Sir, from any conviction in my own mind, that I say Mr. Hastings mistook the law; but when great and respectable au thorities in England assert it, I am desirous of bowing to their opinions; but this I contend, that the noble lord is totally unfounded in saying, that Mr. Hastings, when he received the Bill, had a different opinion of it; and this, which is the main point, I am very confident I shall be able to prove, even from those circumstances

which the noble lord has adduced, to prove
the reverse. The noble lord says, that
when colonel Champion applied for per-
mission to divide ten lacks, given by Sujah
Dowlah to our victorious army, Mr. Has
tings refused his consent, because it would
be in breach of the new Act just then ar-
rived; and to oppose it, would be to incur
the penalty: but if the noble lord will go
on a little farther, he will find that Mr.
Hastings proposed, in November 1774,
that the government of Bengal should do
all that was in their power, namely, re-
ceive the money as a deposit, and submit
it to the Court of Directors to take such
steps as they thought proper, in their wis-
dom, to secure the money to the army.
What did the Directors do? Why, they
approved of the money remaining as a
deposit; and after repeated representa-
tions from Bengal, they, with the sanction
of the Board of Control, have given that
money to the army which served in the
Rohilla campaign; yet, by the noble lord's
doctrine, they have all acted against law.
Now observe what Mr. Hastings did on
another occasion. On the 31st Oct. 1774,
a few days after the establishment of the
Supreme Council, he brought to the Board
two bags, one containing 147 gold mohrs,
the other 327-rupees, being the nuzzars
he had received since the operation of the
new Act. He gave it as his opinion, that
he ought to continue to take them, and to
bring them to the Company's account;
but submitted his opinion to the correction
of the other members; and it was agreed,
that this money should be paid into the
treasury, and that the treasurer should
receive such other sums as Mr. Hastings
should hereafter pay in, under the same
hhead. General Clavering, col. Monson,
and Mr. Francis, gave it as their opinion,
what to receive any presents, would be a
breach of the law; but if the noble lord
reads their minutes, he will clearly see
that they do not apply to the minute of
the Governor-general, but to that of ano-
ther member, who had received and given
trifling nuzzeranas, without bringing them
to account. The noble lord will also see,
by a public account on your table, that
presents to the Governor-general, form a
regular head of receipts, under the head
of Durbar charges. In one year, the Com-warmly approved of it.
pany received above 2,000l.; in another, Mr. Le Mesurier said that he, as a Di
three; in another nine; and so on. But, rector, had ever understood the construc-
according to the noble lord's construction tion of the Act of 1773 to be that which
of the Act, the most trivial of these pre- Mr. Hastings had put upon it, and under
sents was, in fact, as much a breach of the which he had acted,

law, as the highest: and so chaste was
general Clavering, that he not only ap-
plied it to money, but he would not ac-
cept a plate of mangoes, or a basket of
oranges. I contend, therefore, that if the
construction which the noble lord puts
upon the law, is a true one, every man in
England, and in India, whose duty it was
to enforce the observance of that law, has
mistaken it, as well as Mr. Hastings.—
With regard to the second observation of
the noble lord, that it was a diabolical
doctrine to support, namely, that we must
destroy the morals of the native princes in
India, in order to govern them; I affirm
that I never uttered nor conceived such a
sentiment; but this I will affirm, that it
was a most wise and proper measure to
appoint Munny Begum, the widow of
Meer Jaffier, to the guardianship of the
Nabob during his minority, after the Court
of Directors had ordered Mahomed Reza
Cawn to be removed. The person, whos
from his family had pretensions to that
office, was Yeteram ul Dowlah, the Na-
bob's uncle; but he had evidently an in-
terest in his death, as his own son would
in that event have succeeded to the Mus-
nud; and the jealousy and want of prin-
ciple in Eastern courts, are too well known
to require their being mentioned. If an
ambitious Mussulman had been appointed
to the office, he might have instilled no-
tions into the Nabob's mind very dan
gerous to our own government; for there
can be no danger in stating that which
all the world knows to be true, that the
Mahometan government was a usurpa-
tion upon the natural and just government
of Hindostan, and that our government is
a usurpation upon theirs. That the na-
tives, the greater mass of the people, are
happier now than they were under their
Mahometan rulers, we know; but this I
contend, that the aspiring and ambitious
Mussulmans, who are even sunk to down-
right insignificance compared with their
former state, must behold us with jealousy,
and something more. I contend, there-
fore, that it was prudent to preclude men
of this description from the person of the
Nabob; and the Directors saw the ap-
pointment of Munny Begum as made with
a view to this consideration, and they very

The question being put, the committee divided: Yeas, 165; Noes, 54.

charges, he could not think himself justified in joining in a general vote of impeachment, which might seem to counte

Debate on the Report from the Com-nance the whole of each several charge.

mittee on the Charges against Mr. Hastings. The report was then brought up by Mr. St. John; and upon the question, that it be read a first time,

Mr. Le Mesurier opposed its being re ceived, it being a matter of infinitely too much importance to be entered into at that late hour of the evening. There were a great number of gentlemen who had not as yet given their sentiments; and it would be unjust to hurry on the question with such precipitancy, as to prevent gentlemen from giving their votes according to the opinions they had formed upon the whole of the charges. For that reason he moved as an amendment, that the word 'now' be omitted, and the word to-morrow' be inserted.

Mr. Dempster seconded the motion, assigning as a reason that many gentlemen were absent, who wished to be present at the discussion of so great a question.

Mr. Burke answered, that those who were not present stood without excuse, if they felt any wish to be present. The proceeding had been long and arduous, and rather lingering than precipitate, and no man could complain of want of sufficient notice. Indeed, so full a House as that was, proved that the notice had been ample, and he hoped that the House would not consent to farther delay.

Mr. Rolle wished that every gentleman might have a full opportunity of hearing all the arguments, and of giving his vote. He meant therefore to oppose coming to a decisive question that night.

Mr. Pitt observed, that, in a business of such consequence as that before the House, he felt every successive stage become more and more important, and could not therefore repress his anxiety to preserve that degree of regularity in the proceeding, which should leave gentlemen at full liberty to deliver their votes, singly and exclusively, on the merits of the grand decisive question of impeachment, free from all manner of hesitation arising from any objectionable form in which that question might come forward. He therefore wished to know how the right hon. gentleman intended to proceed? For his part, having in some of the articles gone only a certain length in his assent, and by no means admitted a degree of guilt, of an extent equal to that imputed in the

The method which it was most advisable, in his opinion, to pursue was, to refer the charges to a committee, in order to select out of them the criminal matter, and frame it into articles of impeachment, and then, on those articles, when reported to the House, to move the question of impeachment. If, on the contrary, the mode adopted was to move the impeachment immediately, he should find himself under a necessity of moving, on the report from the committee which had already sat on the charges, several amendments, confining the effects of each charge to that degree of real guilt which he thought appeared in it. He waited, therefore, to be informed which was the intention of the friends and authors of the prosecution in this respect, that he might regulate his conduct accordingly.

Mr. Fox observed, that when he felt the pleasure of discovering even those gentlemen whose political principles and remarks so often militated against his own, seriously adopting the same sentiments upon a great and important question which he entertained, no man was more willing to bend himself to their wishes as to the mode of best carrying those sentiments into effect. It was therefore with great concern that he felt it impossible for him to agree with the right hon. gentleman in the proposition which he had just stated: but he really could not do so without betraying, as he conceived, the business in hand, and weakening, even to the dangerous risk of losing it ultimately, the great question naturally consequent on all the discussions and elaborate investigations of the committee they had just come out of; the great question, "That Warren Hastings, esq. be impeached." That question was, he thought, the next and immediate step to be taken by the House, after agreeing (if they should agree) to the report then on the table; and they would in that case follow it up by sending word to the House of Lords, that the House of Commons had resolved to impeach Mr. Hastings, and declaring that they were preparing articles, and would present them with all convenient dispatch, reserving to themselves the constitutional right of supplying more articles, after they had gone through the whole, whether they should have occasion at all to exercise that right

amendments? Mr. Fox added, that if he | rits on the part of Mr. Hastings, to counappeared to deliver his sentiments in some emotion upon the present occasion, he could declare that they were uttered only with a natural warmth rather arising from his consciousness of the importance of the business, and his sense of the deep degree in which the honour, the dignity, and the character of the House and of the nation, were involved, than from any spark of passion or intemperance of feeling. He had merely delivered his individual sentiments, independent of party or connexion. They might possibly not be supported; but as he really thought he could not, without betraying the cause, countenance any other mode of proceeding, so he could not lend himself to its support; and if a question were put on the mode proposed by the right hon. gentleman, he should be obliged to vote against it.

terbalance whatever faults he might have committed, the consequence of which would prove that the House must have the complete question to determine, not only on the guilt of Mr. Hastings, and the amount of it, but also on his services and deserts, and how the balance stood between both. From hence the right hon. gentleman had drawn an inference, that the proper method was first to come to a general resolution to impeach, and then on that resolution the question of the setoff services ought to be debated, and after the resolution to impeach was carried, to appoint a committee to draw up the precise articles on which that House should rest their charge, and which they were prepared to substantiate by proof at the bar of the House of Lords. But, in his opinion, this complexion of the case, instead of supporting the propriety of such Mr. Pitt felt the strongest conviction a mode of proceeding, did absolutely renthat the becoming warmth of the right der a different one essentially necessary. hon. gentleman proceeded from an un- For how was it possible to form an estifeigned zeal for the true rights and ho- mate or comparison between the offences nour of the House, as there was certainly and merits of Mr. Hastings, except by nothing, either in the question itself, or in first ascertaining the extent of each? The the manner in which it had been intro- extent of his transgressions then could duced, which could give rise to such a only be set forth in the final articles of degree of earnestness, except a firm con- impeachment; for it was pretty well unviction that there was some real danger to derstood, that the whole of the matter the success of the whole proceeding, or contained in the present articles of charge, to the essential forms and functions of even on those which the committee had that House, actually involved in it. For voted, was not criminal nor even authenhis own part, he had no object in view, tic, and that a great part of them conexcept to bring the business to its ulti-sisted of facts incapable of proof, or mate stage, in the most unquestionable which, if proved, could not be imputed and regular manner possible. He should therefore be extremely willing to coincide in opinion with the right hon. gentleman, and to give up his own idea upon the mode to be adopted, could he, for a moment, suppose either that the right hon. gentleman's object, which was also his own, would be answered by it, or that the right hon. gentleman's objections to the mode which he had suggested at all applied to it; but he must say that he still remained unaltered in his former opinion, and he scarcely thought it possible that there could arise any difference of sentiment upon the subject. The right hon. gentleman had argued in favour of his opinion, from the peculiarity of the present case, which peculiarity he stated to be, that the question of impeachment was not to stand confined simply to a discussion of the existence and degree of guilt; but that a set-off was to be made of me

to Mr. Hastings as delinquencies. What, then, was the House to do, in order to bring the question of comparison between his crimes and his deserts fairly before them, except to separate and analize the charges, so as to distinguish the real guilt from that which was unfounded, and then, having a clear view of a certain degree of ascertained guilt, determine how far that guilt would weigh against whatever degree of merit might be alleged and proved in his favour? For his part, he was at present ready to confess, that whatever might have been his opinion of the origin of the proceeding, he was so fully satisfied, that the House at least could not, after what had passed, and after what it was in possession of, with any sort of propriety, take any notice of the merits of Mr. Hastings, because nothing could possibly occur that should now induce them to reject the vote of impeachment, provided