Page images

If it be

rectly or indirectly involved in every part of them. still objected, that these crimes are irrelevant to the charge, we answer, that we did not introduce them as matter of charge. We say they were not irrelevant to the proof of the preamble of our charge, which preamble is perfectly relevant in all its parts. That the matters stated in it are perfectly true, we vouch the House of Commons; we vouch the very persons themselves, who were concerned in the transactions. When Arabic authors are quoted, and Oriental tales told about flashes of lightning and three seals, we quote the very parties themselves giving this account of their own conduct to a committee of the House of Commons.

Your lordships will remember, that a most reverend prelate, who cannot be named without every mark of respect and attention, conveyed a petition to your lordships, from a gentleman concerned in one of those narratives. Upon your lordships' table that petition still lies. For the production of this narrative we are not answerable to this House; your lordships could not make us answerable to him; but we are answerable to our own House, we are answerable to our own honor, we are answerable to all the Commons of Great Britain, for whatever we have asserted in their name. Accordingly, General Burgoyne, then a member of this committee of managers, and myself, went down into the House of Commons; we there restated the whole affair; we desired that an inquiry should be made into it, at the request of the parties concerned. But, my lords, they have never asked for inquiry from that day to this. Whenever he or they who are criminated, not by us, but in this volume of Reports that is in my hand, desire it, the House will give them all possible satisfaction upon the subject.

A similar complaint was made to the House of Commons by the prisoner, that matters irrelevant to the charge were brought up hither. Was it not open to him, and has he had no friends in the House of Commons, to call upon the House during the whole period of this proceeding, to examine into

the particulars adduced in justification of the preamble of the charge against him; in justification of the covenants of the company; in justification of the act of parliament? It was in his power to do it, it is in his power still; and if it be brought before that tribunal, to which I and my fellow managers are alone accountable, we will lay before that tribunal such matters as will sufficiently justify our mode of proceeding, and the resolution of the House of Commons. I will not, therefore, enter into the particulars, (because they cannot be entered into by your lordships,) any further than to say, that if we had ever been called upon to prove the allegations which we have made, not in the nature of a charge, but as bound in duty to this court, and in justice to ourselves, we should have been ready to enter into proof. We offered to do so, and we now repeat the offer.

There was another complaint in the prisoner's petition, which did not apply to the words of the preamble, but to an allegation in the charge, concerning abuses in the revenue, and the ill consequences which arose from them. I allude to those shocking transactions which nobody can mention without horror, in Rampore and Dinagepore, during the government of Mr. Hastings, and which we attempted to bring home to him. What did he do in this case? Did he endeavor to meet these charges fairly, as he might have done? No, my lords; what he said merely amounted to this ;-examination into these charges would vindicate my reputation before the world; but "I, who am the guardian of my own honor, and my own interests," choose to avail myself of the rules and orders of this House, and I will not suffer you to enter upon that examination.

My lords, we admit you are the interpreters of your own rules and orders. We likewise admit that our own honor may be affected by the character of the evidence which we produce to you. But, my lords, they who withhold their defence, who suffer themselves, as they say, to be cruelly criminated by unjust accusation, and yet will not permit the

evidence of their guilt or innocence to be produced, are themselves the causes of the irrelevancy of all these matters. It cannot justly be charged on us; for we have never offered any matter here, which we did not declare our readiness upon the spot to prove. Your lordships did not think fit to receive that proof. We do not now censure your lordships for your determination; that is not the business of this day. We refer to your determination for the purpose of showing the falsehood of the imputation, which the prisoner has cast upon us, of having oppressed him by delay and irrelevant matter. We refer to it, in order to show that the oppression rests with himself; that it is all his own.

Well, but Mr. Hastings complained also to the House of Commons. Has he pursued the complaint? No, he has not; and yet this prisoner, and these gentlemen, his learned counsel, have dared to reiterate their complaints of us at your lordships' bar; while we have always been, and still are, ready to prove both the atrocious nature of the facts, and that they are referable to the prisoner at your bar. To this, as I have said before, the prisoner has objected. This we are not permitted to do by your lordships and therefore, without presuming to blame your determination, I repeat that we throw the blame directly upon himself, when he complains that his private character suffers without the means of defence, since he objects to the use of means of defence which are at his disposal.

Having gone through this part of the prisoner's recriminatory charge, I shall close my observations on his demeanor, and defer my remarks on his complaint of our ingratitude until we come to consider his set-off of services.

The next subject for your lordships' consideration is the principle of the prisoner's defence. And here we must observe, that either by confession or conviction, we are possessed of the facts, and perfectly agreed upon the matter at issue between us. In taking a view of the laws, by which you are to judge, I shall beg leave to state to you upon what

[ocr errors]

principles of law the House of Commons has criminated him, and upon what principles of law, or pretended law, he justifies himself; for these are the matters at issue between us : the matters of fact, as I have just said, being determined, either by confession on his part, or by proof on ours.

My lords, we acknowledge that Mr. Hastings was invested with discretionary power, but we assert, that he was bound to use that power according to the established rules of political morality, humanity, and equity. humanity, and equity. In all questions relating to foreign powers, he was bound to act under the law of nature and under the law of nations, as it is recognised by the wisest authorities in public jurisprudence. In his relation to this country, he was bound to act according to the laws and statutes of Great Britain, either in their letter or in their spirit; and we affirm, that in his relation to the people of India, he was bound to act according to the largest and most liberal construction of their laws, rights, usages, institutions, and good customs; and we furthermore assert, that he was under an express obligation to yield implicit obedience to the court of directors. It is upon these rules and principles the Commons contend, that Mr. Hastings ought to have regulated his government; and not only Mr. Hastings, but all other governors. It is upon these rules that he is responsible, and upon these rules, and these rules only, your lordships are to judge.

My lords, long before the committee had resolved upon this impeachment, we had come, as I have told your lordships, to forty-five resolutions, every one criminatory of this man, every one of them bottomed upon the principles which I have stated. We never will, nor can we abandon them; and we therefore do not supplicate your lordships upon this head, but claim and demand of right, that you will judge him upon those principles, and upon no other. If once they are evaded, you can have no rule for your judgment but your caprices and partialities.

Having thus stated the principles upon which the Com

mons hold him and all governors responsible, and upon which we have grounded our impeachment, and which must be the grounds of your judgment, (and your lordships will not suffer any other ground to be mentioned to you,) we will now tell you what are the grounds of his defence.

He first asserts, that he was possessed of an arbitrary and despotic power, restrained by no laws but his own will. He next says, that "the rights of the people he governed in India are nothing, and that the rights of the government are every thing." The people, he asserts, have no liberty, no laws, no inheritance, no fixed property, no descendable estate, no subordinations in society, no sense of honor or of shame; and that they are only affected by punishment so far as punishment is a corporal infliction; being totally insensible of any difference between the punishment of man and beast. These are the principles of his Indian government, which Mr. Hastings has avowed in their full extent. Whenever precedents are required, he cites and follows the example of avowed tyrants, of Ali Verdi Khan, Cossim Ali Khan, and Sujah Dowlah. With an avowal of these principles he was pleased first to entertain the House of Commons, the active asserters and conservators of the rights, liberties, and laws of his country; and then to insist upon them more largely and in a fuller detail before this awful tribunal, the passive judicial conservator of the same great interests. He has brought out these blasphemous doctrines in this great temple of justice, consecrated to law and equity for a long series of ages. He has brought them forth in Westminster Hall, in presence of all the judges of the land, who are to execute the law, and of the House of Lords, who are bound as its guardians not to suffer the words, "arbitrary power," to be mentioned before them. For I am not again to tell your lordships that arbitrary power is treason in the law; that to mention it with law is to commit a contradiction in terms. They cannot exist in concert; they cannot hold together for a moment.

Let us now hear what the prisoner says, "The sovereign

« PreviousContinue »