The sovereign's rights are undoubtedly sacred rights,
and, ought to be so held in every country in the world,
because exercised for the benefit of the people, and
in subordination to that great end for which alone
God has vested power in any man or any set of men.
and, ought to be so held in every country in the world,
because exercised for the benefit of the people, and
in subordination to that great end for which alone
God has vested power in any man or any set of men.
Edmund Burke
Am I, in praising
this Mahornetan law, applauding the principle, of elective sovereignty? No, my Lords, I know the mischiefs
which have attended it; I know that it has shaken
the thrones of most of the sovereigns of the Mussulman religion; but I produce the law as the clearest
proof that such a sovereign cannot be supposed to
have an arbitrary power over the property and persons of those who elect him, and who have an acknowledged right to resist and dethrone him, if he does not afford them protection.
I have now gone through what I undertook to
prove, - that Mr. Hastings, with all his Indian Council, who have made up this volume of arbitrary power, are not supported by the laws of the Moguls, by the laws of the Gentoos, by the Mahometan laws, or
by any law, custom, or usage which has ever been
recognized as legal and valid.
But, my Lords, the prisoner defends himself by
example; and, good God! what are the examples
* Hedaya, Vol. II. pp. 247, 248.
? ? ? ? 220' IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
which he has chosen? Not the local usages and constitutions of Oude or of any other province; not the general practice of a respectable emperor, like Akbar,
which, if it would not fatigue your Lordships, I could
show to be the very reverse of this man's. No, my
Lords, the prisoner, his learned counsel here, and his
unlearned Cabinet Council, who wrote this defence,
have ransacked the tales of travellers for examples,
and have selected materials from that mass of loose
remarks and crude conceptions, to prove that the
natives of India have neither rights, laws, orders, or
distinction.
I shall now proceed to show your Lordships that
the people of India have a keen sense and feeling of
disgrace and dishonor. In proof of this I appeal to
well-known facts. There have been women tried in
India for offences, and acquitted, who would not survive the disgrace even of acquittal. There have been Hindoo soldiers, condemned at a court-martial, who
have desired to be blown from the mouth of a cannon,
and have claimed rank and precedence at the last
moment of their existence. And yet these people are
said to have no sense of dishonor! Good God! that
we should be under the necessity of proving, in this
place, all these things, and of disproving that all'
India was given in slavery to this man!
But, my Lords, they will show you, they say, that
Genghis Khan, Kouli Khan, and Tamerlane destroyed ten thousand times more people in battle
than this man did. Good God! have they run mad?
Have they lost their senses in their guilt? Did they
ever expect that we meant to compare this man to
Tamerlane, Genghis Khan, or Kouli Khan? - to compare a clerk at a bureau, to compare a fraudulent
? ? ? ? SPEECH IN REPLY. FIRST DAY. 221
bullock-contractor, (for we could show that his first
elementary malversations were in carrying on fraudulent bullock-contracts, which contracts were taken
from him with shame and disgrace, and restored with
greater shame and disgrace,) to compare him with
the conquerors of the world? We never said he was
a tiger and a lion: no, we have said he was a weasel
and a rat. We have said that he has desolated countries by the same means that plagues of his description have produced similar desolations. We have said that he, a fraudulent bullock-contractor, exalted
to great and unmerited powers, can do more mischief
than even all the tigers and lions in the world. We
know that a swarm of locusts, although individually
despicable, can render a country more desolate than
Genghis Khan or Tamerlane. When God Almighty
chose to humble the pride and presumption of Pharaoh, and to bring him to shame, He did not effect
His purpose with tigers and lions; but He sent lice,
mice, frogs, and everything loathsome and contemptible, to pollute and destroy the country. Think of
this, my Lords, and of your listening here to these
people's long account of Tamerlane's camp of two
hundred thousand persons, and of his building a pyramid at Bagdad with the heads of ninety thousand of
his prisoners
We have not accused Mr. Hastings of being a great
general, and abusing his military powers: we know
that he was nothing, at the best, but a creature of
the bureau, raised by peculiar circumstances to the
possession of a power by which -incredible mischief
might ble done. We have not accused him of the
vices of conquerors: when we see him signalized by
any conquests, we may then make such an accusa
? ? ? ? 222 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
tion; at present we say that he has been trusted with
power much beyond his deserts, and that trust he has
grossly abused. - But to proceed.
His counsel, according to their usual audacious
manner,-( I suppose they imagine that they are counsel
for Tamerlane, or for Genghis Khan,) have thought
proper to accuse the Managers for the Commons of
wandering [wantoning? ] in all the fabulous regions
of Indian mythology. My Lords, the Managers are
sensible of the dignity of their place; they have never
offered anything to you without reason. We are not
persons of an age, of a disposition, of a character, representative or natural, to wanton, as these counsel call it,- that is, to invent fables concerning Indian antiquity. That they are not ashamed of making this
charge I do not wonder. But we are not to be thus
diverted from our course.
I have already stated to your Lordships a material circumstance of this case, which I hope will never
be lost sight of, -- namely, the different situation in
which India stood under the government of its native
princes and its own original laws, and even under
the dominion of Mahometan conquerors, from that in
which it has stood under the government of a series
of tyrants, foreign and domestic, particularly of Mr.
Hastings, by whom it has latterly been oppressed and
desolated. One of the books which I have quoted was
written by Mr. Halhed; and I shall not be accused
of wantoning in fabulous antiquity, when I refer to
another living author, who wrote from what he saw
and what he well knew. This author says, -- In
truth, it would be almost cruelty to molest these
happy people " (speaking of the inhabitants of one of
the' provinces, near Calcutta); " for in this district are
? ? ? ? SPEECH IN REPLY. -FIRST DAY. 223
the only vestiges of the beauty, purity, piety, regularity, equity, and strictness of the ancient Hindostan
government: here the property as well as the liberty
of the people is inviolate. " My Lords, I do not refer you to this writer because I think it necessary to
our justification, nor from any fear that your Lordships will not do us the justice to believe that we
have good authority for the facts which we state, and
do not (as persons with their licentious tongues dare
to say) wanton in fabulous antiquity. I quote the
works of this author, because his observations and
opinions could not be unknown to Mr. Hastings,
whose associate he was in some acts, and whose adviser he appears to have been in that dreadful transaction, the deposition of Cossim Ali Khan. This writer was connected with the prisoner at your bar in
bribery, and has charged him with detaining his bribe.
To this Mr. Hastings has answered, that he had paid
him long ago. How they have settled that corrupt
transaction I know not. I merely state all this to
prove that we have not dealt in fabulous history, and
that, if anybody has dealt in falsehood, it is Mr. Hastings's companion and associate in guilt, who must
have known the country, and who, however faulty he
was in other respects, had in this case no interest
whatever in misrepresentation.
I might refer your Lordships, if it were necessary,
to Scrafton's account of that ancient government, in
order to prove to you the happy comparative state of
that country, even under its former usurpers. Our
design, my Lords, in making such references, is not
merely to disprove the prisoner's defence, but to vindicate the rights and privileges of the people of India.
We wish to reinstate them in your sympathy. We
? ? ? ? 224 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
wish you to respect a people as respectable as yourselves, -a people who know as well as you what is
rank, what is law, what is property, - a people who
know how to feel disgrace, who know what equity,
what reason, what proportion in punishments, what
security of property is,. jLst as well as. any of your
Lordships; for these are things which are secured to
them by laws, by religion, by declarations of all their
sovereigns. And what, my Lords, is opposed to all
this? The practice of tyrants and usurpers, which
Mr. Hastings takes for his rule and guidance. He
endeavors to find deviations from legal government,
and then instructs his counsel to say that I have asserted there is no such thing as arbitrary power in
the East. Good God! if there was no such thing in
any other part of the world, Mr. Hastings's conduct
might have convinced me of the existence of arbitrary
power, and have taught me much of its mischief.
But, my Lords, we all know that there has been arbitrary power in India, -- that tyrants have usurped
it, -- and that, in some instances, princes otherwise
meritorious have violated the liberties of the people,
and have been lawfully deposed for such violation.
I do not deny that there are robberies on Hounslow
Heath, -- that there are such things as forgeries,
burglaries, and murders; but I say that these acts
are against law, and that whoever commit them commit illegal acts. When a man is to defend himself
against a charge of crime, it is not instances of similar violation of law that is to be the standard of his:defence. A man may as well say, " I robbed upon Hounslow Heath, but hundreds robbed there before
me ": to which I answer, "The law has forbidden
you to rob there; and I will hang you for having vio
? ? ? ? SPEECH IN REPLY. -FIRST DAY. 225
lated the law, notwithstanding the long list. of similar
violations which you have produced as precedents. "
No doubt princes have violated the law of this country: they have suffered for it. Nobles have violated
the law: their privileges have not protected them
from punishment. Common people have violated the
law: they have been hanged for it. I know no human being exempt from the law. The law is the
security of the people of England; it is the security
of the people of India; it is the security of every person that is governed, and of every person that governs.
There is but one law for all, namely, that law which
governs all law, the law of our Creator, the law of
humanity, justice, equity, -the Law of Nature and
of Nations. So far as any laws fortify this primeval
law, and give it more precision, more energy, more
effect by their declarations, such laws enter into the
sanctuary, and participate in the sacredness of its
character. But the man who quotes as precedents
the abuses of tyrants and robbers pollutes the very
fountain of justice, destroys the foundations of all
law, and thereby removes the only safeguard against
evil men, whether governors or governed, -- the
guard which prevents governors from becoming tyrants, and the governed from becoming rebels.
I hope your Lordships will not think that I have
unnecessarily occupied your time in disproving the
plea of arbitrary power, which has been brought forward at our bar, has been repeated at your Lordships' bar, and has been put upon the records of both Houses. I hope your Lordships will not think
that such monstrous doctrine should be passed over,
without all possible pains being taken to demonstrate
VOL. XI. 15
? ? ? ? 226 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
its falsehood and to reprobate its tendency. I have
not spared myself in exposing the principles avowed
by the prisoner. At another time I will endeavor
to show you the manner in which he acted upon
these principles. I cannot command strength to
proceed further at present; and you, my Lords, cannot give me greater bodily strength than I have.
? ? ? ? SP E C H
IN
GENERAL REPLY.
SECOND DAY: FRIDAY, MAY 30, 1794.
M Y LORDS,- On the last day of the sitting of
this court, when' I had the honor of appearing before you by the order of my fellow Managers, I stated to you their observations and my own upon
two great points: one the demeanor of the prisoner
at the bar during his trial, and the other the principles of his defence. I compared that demeanor
with the behavior of some of the greatest men in
this kingdom, who have, on account of their offences, been brought to your bar, and who have seldom escaped your Lordsl-lips' justice. I put the
decency, humility, and propriety of the most distinguished men's behavior in contrast with the shameless effrontery of this prisoner, who has presumptuously made a recriminatory charge against the House of Commions, and answered their impeachment by
a counter impeachment, explicitly accusing them of
malice, oppression, and the blackest ingratitude.
My Lords, I next stated that this recriminatory
charge consisted of two distinct parts, - injustice and
delay. To the injustice we are to answer by the nature and proof of the charges which we have brought
before you; and to the delay, my Lords, we have
answered in another place. Into one of the conse
? ? ? ? 228 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS
quences of the delay, the ruinous expense which the
prisoner complains of, we have desired your Lordships
to make an inquiry, and have referred you to facts and
witnesses which will remove this part of the charge.
With regard to ingratitude, there will be a proper
time for animadversion on this charge. For in considering the -merits that are intended to be set off
against his crimes, we shall have to examine into the
nature of those merits, and to ascertain how far they
are to operate, either as the prisoner designs they
shall operate in his favor, as presumptive proofs that
a man of such merits could not be guilty of such
crimes, or as a sort of set-off to be pleaded in mitigation of his offences. In both of these lights we shall
consider his services, and in this consideration we
shall determine the justice of his charge of ingratitude.
My Lords, we have brought the demeanor of the
prisoner before you for another reason. We are desirous that your Lordships may be enabled to estimate, from the proud presumption and audacity of the criminal at your bar, when he stands before
the most awful tribunal in the world, accused by
a body representing no less than the sacred voice of
his country, what he must have been when placed in
the seat of pride and power. What must have been
the insolence of that man towards the natives of India, who, when called here to answer for enormous
crimes, presumes to behave, not with the firmness
of innocence, but with the audacity and hardness of
guilt!
It may be necessary that I should, recall to your
Lordships' recollection the principles of the accusation and of the defence. Your Lordships will bear
? ? ? ? SPEECH IN REPLY. -- SECOND DAY. 229
in mind that the matters of fact are all either settled
by confession or conviction, and that the question
now before you is no longer an issue of fact, but an
issue of law. The question is, what degree of merit
or demerit you are to assign by law to actions which
have been laid before you, and their truth acknowledged.
The principle being established that you are to decide upon an issue at law, we examined by what law the prisoner ought to be tried; and we preferred a
claim which we do now solemnly prefer, and which
we trust your Lordships will concur with us in a
laudable emulation to establish, -- a claim founded
upon the great truths, that all power is limited by
law, and ought to be guided by discretion, and not by
arbitrary will,- that all discretion must be referred
to the conservation and benefit of those over whom
power is exercised, and therefore must be guided by
rules of sound political morality.
We next contended, that, wherever existing laws
were applicable, the prisoneL at your bar was bound
by the laws and statutes of this kingdom, as a British
subject; and that, whenever he exercised authority
in the name of the Company, or in the name of his
Majesty, or under any other name, he was bound by
the laws and statutes of this kingdom, both in letter
and spirit, so far as they were applicable to him and;o his case; and above all, that he was bound by
the act to which he owed his appointment, in all
transactions with foreign powers, to act according to
the known recognized rules of the Law of Nations,
whether these powers were really or nominally sovereign, whether they were dependent or independent. The next point which we established, and which
? ? ? ? 230'IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
we now call to your Lordships' recollection, is, that
he was bound to proceed according to the laws,
rights, laudable customs, privileges, and franchises
of the country that he governed; and we contended
that to such laws, rights, privileges, and franchises
the people of the country had a clear and just
claim.
Having established these points as the basis of Mr.
Hastings's general power, we contended that he was
obliged by the nature of his relation, as a servant to
the Company, to be obedient to their orders at all
times, and particularly where he had entered into special covenants regarding special articles of obedience. These are the principles by which we have examined the conduct of this man, and upon which we
have brought him to your Lordships' bar for judgment. This is our table of the law. Your Lordships
shall now be shown the table by which he claims to
be judged. But I will first beg your Lordships to
take notice of the utter contempt with which he treats
all our acts of Parliament.
Speaking of the absolute sovereignty which he
would have you believe is exercised by the princes
of India, he says, " The sovereignty which they assumed it fell to my lot, very unexpectedly, to exert;
and whether or not such power, or powers of that nature, were delegated to me by any provisions of any act of Parliament I confess myself too little of a lawyer to pronounce," and so on. This is the manner
in which he treats an act of Parliament! In the
place of acts of Parliament he substitutes his own
arbitrary will. This he contends is the sole law of
the country he governed, as laid down in what he
calls the arbitrary Institutes of Genghis Khan and
? ? ? ? SPEECH IN REPLY. - SECOND DAY. 231
Tamerlane. This arbitrary will he claims, to the
exclusion of the Gentoo law, the Mahometan law,
and the law of his own country. He claims the
right of making his own will the sole rule of his
government, and justifies the exercise of this power
by the examples of Aliverdy Khan, Cossim Ali Khan,
Sujah Dowlah. Khan, and all those Khans who have
rebelled against their masters, and desolated the
countries subjected to their rule. This, my Lords,
is the law which he has laid down for himself, and
these are the examples which he has expressly told
the House of Commons he is resolved to follow.
These examples, my Lords, and the principles with
which they are connected, without any softening or
mitigation, he has prescribed to you as the rule by
which his conduct-is to be judged.
Another principle of the prisoner is, that, whenever the Company's affairs are in distress, even when that distress proceeds from his own prodigality, mismanagement, or corruption, he has a right to take for the Company's benefit privately in his own name,
with the future application of it to their use reserved
in his own breast, every kind of bribe or corrupt
present whatever.
I have now restated to your Lordships the maxims
(by which the prisoner persists in defending himself,
and the principles upon which we claim to have him
judged. The issue before your Lordships is a hundred times more important than the cause itself, for it is to determine by what law or maxims of law the
conduct of governors is to be judged.
On one side, your Lordships have the prisoner
declaring that the people have no laws, no rights, no
usages, no distinctions of rank, no sense of honor, no
? ? ? ? 232 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
property, - in short, that they are nothing but a herd
of slaves, to be governed by the arbitrary will of a
master. On the other side, we assert that the direct
contrary of this is true. And to prove our assertion
we have referred you to the Institutes of Genghis
Khan and of Tamerlane; we have referred you to the
Mahometan law, which is binding upon all, from the
crowned head to th6 meanest subject,- a law interwoven with a system of the wisest, the most learned, and most enlightened jurisprudence that perhaps ever
existed in the world. We have shown you, that, if
these parties are to be compared together, it is not
the rights of the people which are nothing, but rather
the rights of the sovereign which are so. The rights
of the people are everything, as they ought to be, in
the true and natural order of things. God forbid
that these maxims should trench upon sovereignty,
and its true, just, and lawful prerogative! - on the
contrary, they ought to support and establish them.
The sovereign's rights are undoubtedly sacred rights,
and, ought to be so held in every country in the world,
because exercised for the benefit of the people, and
in subordination to that great end for which alone
God has vested power in any man or any set of men.
This is the law that we insist upon, and these are the
principles upon which your Lordships are to try the
prisoner at your bar.
Let me remind your Lordships that these people
lived under the laws to which I have referred you,
and that these laws were formed whilst we, I may
say, were in the forest, certainly before we knew what
technical jurisprudence was. These laws are allowed
to be the basis and substratum of the manners, customs, and opinions of the people of India; and we
? ? ? ? SPEEISCH IN REPLY. -SECOND DAY. ,. 233
contend that Mr. Hastings is bound to know them:
and to act by them; and I shall prove that the very
condition upon which he received power in India was:
to protect the people in their laws and known rights. ;
But whether Mr. Hastings did know these laws, or
whether, content with credit gained by as base a
fraud as was ever practised, he did not read the books'
which Nobkissin paid for, we take the benefit of
them: we know and speak after knowledge of them.
And although I believe his Council have never read:
them, I should be sorry to stand in this place, if there
was one word and tittle in these books that I had not:
read over.
We therefore come here and declare to you that he
is not borne out by these Institutes, either in their:
general -spirit or in any particular passage to which:
he has had the impudence to appeal, in the assumption of the arbitrary power which he has exercised. We claim, that, as our own government and every
person exercising authority in Great Britain is bound
by the laws of Great Britain, so every person exercising authority in another country' shall be subject to the laws of that country; since otherwise they break
the very covenant by which we hold our poweir there.
Even if these Institutes had been arbitrary, which
they are not, they might have been excused as the
acts of conquerors. But, my Lords, he is no conqueror, nor anything but what you see him, --a bad scribbler of absurd papers, in which he can put no
two sentences together without contradiction. We
know him in no other character than that of having
been a bullock-contractor for some years, of having.
acted fraudulently ill that capacity, and afterwards.
giving fraudulent contracts to others. ; and. yet I will
? ? ? ? 234 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
maintain that the first conquerors of the world would
have been base and abandoned, if they had assumed
such a right as he dares to claim. It is the glory of
all such great men to have for their motto, Parcere
subjectis et debellare superbos. These were men that
said they would recompense the countries which they
had obtained through torrents of blood, through carnage and violence, by the justice of their institutions,
the mildness of their laws, and the equity of their
government. Even if these conquerors had promulgated arbitrary institutes instead of disclaiming them
in every point, you, my Lords, would never suffer
such principles of defence to be urged here; still less
will you suffer the examples of men acting by violence, of men acting by wrong, the example of a man
who has become a rebel to his sovereign in order that
he should become the tyrant of his people, to be examples for a British governor, or for any governor.
We here confidently protest against this mode of justification, and we maintain that his pretending to follow these examples is in itself a crime. The prisoner has ransacked all Asia for principles of despotism;
he has ransacked all the bad and corrupted part of it
for tyrannical examples to justify himself: and certainly in no other way can he be justified.
Having established the falsehood of the first. principle of the prisoner's defence, that sovereignty, wherever it exists in India, implies in its nature and essence a power of exacting anything from the subject, and disposing of his person and property, we
now come to his second assertion, that he was the
true, full, and perfect representative of that sovereignty in India.
In opposition to this assertion we first do positively
? ? ? ? SPEECH IN REPLY. - SECOND DAY. '235
deny that he or the Company are the perfect representative of any sovereign power whatever. They
have certain rights by their charter, and by acts of
Parliament, but they have no other. They have their
legal rights only, and these do not imply any such
thing as sovereign power. The sovereignty of Great
Britain is in the King; he is the sovereign of the
Lords and the sovereign of the Commons, individually and collectively; and as he has his prerogative
established by law, he must exercise it, and all persons claiming and deriving under him, whether by
act of Parliament, whether by charter of the Crown,
or by any other mode whatever, all are alike bound
by law, and responsible to it. No one can assume or
receive any power of sovereignty, because the sovereignty is in the Crown, and cannot be delegated
away from the Crown; no such delegation ever took
place, or ever was intended, as any one may see in
the act by which Mr. HIastings was nominated Governor. He cannot, therefore, exercise that high supreme sovereignty which is vested by the law, with the consent of both Houses of Parliament, in the
King, and in the King only. It is a violent, rebellious assumption of power, when Mr. Hastings pretends fully, perfectly, and entirely to represent the sovereign of this country, and to exercise legislative,
executive, and judicial authority, with as large and
broad a sway as his Majesty, acting with the consent
of the two Houses of Parliament, and agreeably to
the laws of this kingdom. I say, my Lords, this is a
traitorous and rebellious assumption, which he has
no right to make, and which we charge against him,
and therefore it cannot be urged in justification of his
conduct in any respect.
? ? ? ? 236 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
He next alleges, with reference to one particular
case, that he received this sovereignty from the Vizier
Sujah Dowlah, who he pretends was sovereign, with
an unlimited power over the life, goods, and property
of Cheyt Sing. This we positively deny. Whatever
power the supreme sovereign of the empire had, we
deny that it was delegated to Sujah Dowlah. He
never was in possession of it. He was a vizier of the
empire; he had a grant of certain lands for the support of that dignity: and we refer you to the Institutes of Timour, to the Institutes of Akbar, to the institutes of the Mahometan law, for the powers of
delegated governors and viceroys. You will find that
there is not a trace of sovereignty in them, but that
they are, to all intents and purposes, mere subjects;
and consequently, as Sujah Dowlah had not these
powers, lie could not transfer them to the India Company. His master, the Mogul emperor, had them
not. I defy any man to sliow an instance of that emperor's claiming any such thing as arbitrary power;
much less can it be claimed by a rebellious viceroy
who had-broken loose from his sovereign's authority,
just as this man broke loose from the authority of
Parliament. The one had not a right to give, nor
the other to receive such powers. But whatever rights
were vested in the Mogul, they cannot belong either
to Sujah Dowlah, to Mr. Hastings, or to the Company. These latter are expressly bound by their compact to take care of the subjects of the empire, and to govern them according to law, reason, and equity;
and when they do otherwise, they are guilty of tyranny, of a violation of the rights of the people, and of
rebellion against their sovereign.
We have taken these pains to ascertain and fix
? ? ? ? SPEECH IN REPLY. -SECOND DAY. 237
principles, because your Lordships are not called upon
to judge of facts. A jury may find facts, but no jury
can form a judgment of law; it is an application of
the law to the fact that makes the act criminal or
laudable. You must find a fixed standard of some
kind or other; for if there is no standard but the immediate momentary purpose of the day, guided and
governed by the man who uses it, fixed not only for
the disposition of all the wealth and strength of the
state, but for the life, fortune, and property of every
individual, your Lordships are left without a principle
to direct your judgment. This high court, this supreme court of appeal from all the courts of the kingdom, this highest court of criminal jurisdiction, exercised upon the requisition of the House of Commons, if left without a rule, would be as lawless as the
wild savage, and as unprincipled as the prisoner that
stands at your bar. Our whole issue is upon principles, and what I shall say to you will be in perpetual
-reference to them; because it is better to have no
principles at all than to have false principles of government and of morality. Leave a man to his passions, and you leave a wild beast to a savage and
capricious nature. A wild beast, indeed, when its
stomach is full, will caress you, and may lick your
hands; in like manner, when a tyrant is pleased or
his passion satiated, you may have a happy and serene:
day under an arbitrary government. But when the~
principle founded on solid reason, which ought to restrain passion, is perverted from its proper end, the
false principle will be substituted for it, and thenl
man becomes ten times worse than a wild beast. The
evil principle, grown solid and perennial, goads him
on and takes entire possession of his mind; and then
? ? ? ? 238 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
perhaps the best refuge that you can have from that
diabolical principle is in the natural wild passions and
unbridled appetites of mankind. This is a dreadful
state of things; and therefore we have thought it necessary to say a great deal upon his principles.
My Lords, we come next to apply these principles
to facts which cannot otherwise be judged, as we have
contended and do now contend. I will not go over
facts which have been opened to you by my fellow
Managers: if I did so, I should appear to have a distrust, which I am sure no other man has, of the greatest abilities displayed in the greatest of all causes.
I should be guilty of a presumption which I hope I
shall not dream of, but leave to those who exercise
arbitrary power, in supposing that I could go over the
ground which my fellow Managers have once trodden,
and make anything more clear and forcible than they
have done. In my humble opinion, human ability
cannot go farther than they have gone; and if I ever
allude to anything which they have already touched,
it will be to show it in another light, -- to mark more
particularly its departure from the principles upon
which we contend you ought to judge, or to supply
those parts which through bodily infirmity, and I am
sure nothing else, one of my excellent fellow Managers has left untouched. I am here alluding to the case of Cheyt Sing.
My honorable fellow Manager, Mr. Grey, has stated to you all the circumstances requisite to prove two things: first, that the demands made by Mr. Hastings
upon Cheyt Sing were contrary to fundamental treaties between the Company and that Rajah; and next, that they were the result and effict of private malice
? ? ? ? SPEECH IN REPLY. - SECOND DAY. 239
and corruption. This having been stated and proved
to you, I shall take up the subject where it was left.
My Lords, in the first place, I have to remark to
you, that the whole of the charge originally brought
by Mr. Hastings against Cheyt Sing, in justification
of his wicked and tyrannical proceedings, is, that he
had been dilatory, evasive, shuffling, and unwilling to
pay that which, however unwilling, evasive, and shuffling, he did pay; and that, with regard to the business of furnishing cavalry, the Rajah has asserted, and his
assertion has not been denied, that, when he was desired by the Council to furnish these troopers, the purpose for which this application was made was not
mentioned or alluded to, nor was there any place of
muster pointed out. We therefore contended, that
the demand was not made for the service of the state,
but for the oppression of the individual that suffered
by it.
But admitting the Rajah to have been guilty of
delay and unwillingness, what is the nature of the
offence? If you strip it of the epithets by which it
has been disguised, it merely amounts to an unwillingness in the Rajah to pay more than the sums stipulated by the mutual agreement existing between him and
the Company. This is the whole of it, the whole front
and head of the offence; and for this offence, such as
it is, and admitting that he could be legally fined for
it, be was subjected to the secret punishment of giving
a bribe to Mr. Hastings, by which he was to buy off
the fine, and which was consequently a commutation
for it.
That your Lordships may be enabled to judge more
fully of the nature of this offence, let us see in what
relation Cheyt Sing stood with the Company. He
? ? ? ? 240 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
was, my Lords, a person clothed with every one of the
attributes of sovereignty, under a direct stipulation
that the Company should not interfere in his internal
government. The military and civil authority, the
power of life and death, the whole revenue, and the
whole administration of the law, rested in him. Such
was the sovereignty he possessed within Benares:
but he was a subordinate sovereign dependent upon
a superior, according to the tenor of his compact,
expressed or implied. Now, having contended, as we
still contend, that the Law of Nations is the law of
India as well as of Europe, because it is the law of
reason and the law of Nature, drawn from the pure
sources of morality, of public good, and of natural
equity, and recognized and digested into order by the
labor of learned men, I will refer your Lordships to
Vattel, Book I. Cap. 16, where he treats of the breach
of such agreements, by the protector refusing to give
protection, or the protected refusing to perform his
part of the engagement. My design in referring you:to this author is to prove that Cheyt Sing, so far from being blamable in raising objections to the unauthorized demand made upon him by Mr. Hastings, was absolutely bound to do so; nor could he have done
otherwise, without hazarding the whole benefit of the
agreement upon which his subjection and protection
were founded. The law is the same with respect to
both contracting parties: if the protected or protector
does not fulfil with fidelity each his separate stipulation,
the protected may resist the unauthorized demand of
the protector, or the protector is discharged from his
engagement; he may refuse protection, and declare
the treaty broken.
We contend in favor of Cheyt Sing, in support of
? ? ? ? SPEECH IN REPLY. -SECOND DAY. 241
the principles of natural equity, and of the Law of
Nations, which is the birthright of us all, --we contend, I say, that Cheyt Sing would have established,
in the opinions of the best writers on the Law of Nations, a precedent against himself for any future violation of the engagement, if he submitted to any new demand, without what our laws call a continual claim
or perpetual remonstrance against the imposition.
Instead, therefore, of doing that which was criminal,
he did that which his safety and his duty bound him
to do; and for doing this he was considered by Mr.
Hastings as being guilty of a great crime. In a paper
which was published by the prisoner in justification
of this act, he considers the Rajah to have been guilty
of rebellious intentions; and he represents these acts
of contumacy, as he calls them, not as proofs of contumacy merely, but as proofs of a settled design to rebel,
and to throw off the authority of that nation by which
he was protected. This belief he declares on oath to
be the ground of his conduct towards Cheyt Sing.
Now, my Lords, we do contend, that, if any subject, under any name, or of any description, be not
engaged in public, open rebellion, but continues to
acknowledge the authority of his sovereign, and, if
tributary, to pay tribute conformably to agreement,
such a subject, in case of being suspected of having
formed traitorous designs, ought to be treated in a
manner totally different from that which was adopted
by Mr. Hastings. If the Rajah of Benares had formed
a secret conspiracy, Mr. Hastings had a state duty
and a judicial duty to perform. fie was bound, as
Governor, knowing of such a conspiracy, to provide
for the public safety; and as a judge, he was bound
to convene a criminal court, and to lay before it a
vodI. XI. 16
? ? ? ? 242 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
detailed accusation of the offence. He was bound to
proceed publicly and legally against the accused, and
to convict him of his crime, previous to his inflicting,
or forming any intention of inflicting, punishment.
I say, my Lords, that Mr. Hastings, as a magistrate,
was bound to proceed against the Rajah either by
English law, by Mahometan law, or by the Gentoo
law; and that, by all or any of these laws, he was
bound to make the accused acquainted with the
crime alleged, to hear his answer to the charge, and
to produce evidence against him, in an open, clear,
and judicial manner. And here, my Lords,. we have
again to remark, that the Mahometan law is a great
discriminator of persons, and that it prescribes the
mode of proceeding against those who are accused of
any delinquency requiring punishment, with a reference to the distinction and rank which the accused held in society. The proceedings are exceedingly
sober, regular, and respectful, even to criminals
charged with the highest crimes; and every magistrate is required to exercise his office in the prescribed manner. In the IHedaya, after declaring and discussing the propriety of the Kalzi's sitting openly in the execution of his office, it is added, that there is no
impropriety in the Ka'zi sitting in his own house to
pass judgment, but it is requisite that he give orders
for a free access to the people. It then proceeds
thus: -"It is requisite that such people sit along
with the Kazi as were used to sit with him, prior to
his appointment to the office; because, if he were
to sit alone in his house, he would thereby give rise
to suspicion. " *
My Lords, having thus seen what the duty of a
* Hedaya, Vol. II. p. 621.
? ? ? ? SPEECH IN REPLY. -SECOND DAY. 243
judge is in such a case, let us examine whether Mr.
Hastings observed any part of the prescribed rules.
First, with regard to the publicity of the matter. Did
he ever give any notice to the Supreme Council of
the charges which he says he had received against
Cheyt Sing? Did he accuse the Rajah in the Council, even when it was reduced to himself and his poor,
worn down, cowed, and I am afraid bribed colleague,
Mr. Wheler? Did he even then, I ask, produce any
one charge against this man? He sat in Council as
a judge, - as an English judge, - as a Mahometan
judge, --- as a judge by the Gentoo law, and by the
Law of Nature. He should have summoned the party to appear in person, or by his attorney, before him,
and should have there informed him of the charge
against him. But, my Lords, he did not act thus.
He kept the accusation secret in his own bosom.
And why? Because he did not believe it to be true.
This may at least be inferred from his having never
informed the Council of the matter. Ite never informed the Rajah of Benares of the suspicions entertained against him, during the discussions which took place respecting the multiplied demands that were
made upon him. He never told this victim, as he
has had the audacity to tell us and all this kingdom
in the paper that is before your Lordships, that he
looked upon these refusals to comply with his demands to be overt acts of rebellion; nor did he ever
call upon him to answer or to justify himself with
regard to that imputed conspiracy or rebellion. Did
he tell Sadanund, the Rajah's agent, when that agent
was giving him a bribe or a present in secret, and
was thus endeavoring to deprecate his wrath, that he
accepted that bribe because his master was in rebel
? ? ? ? 244 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
lion? Never, my Lords; nor did he, when he first
reached Benares, and had the Rajah in his power,
suggest one word concerning this rebellion. Did
he, when he met Mr. Markham at Boglipore, where
they consulted about the destruction of this unhappy
man, did he tell Mr. Markham, or did Mr. Markham
insinuate to him, any one thing about this conspiracy
and rebellion? No, not a word there, or in his whole
progress up the country. While at Boglipore, he
wrote a letter to Lord Macartney upon the state of
the empire, giving him much and various adiice.
Did he insinuate in that letter that he was going up
to Benares to suppress a rebellion of the Rajah Cheyt
Sing or to punish him? No, not a word. Did he,
my Lords, at the eve of his departure from Calcutta, when he communicated his intention of taking 500,0001. , which he calls a fine or penalty, from the
Rajah, did he inform Mr.
this Mahornetan law, applauding the principle, of elective sovereignty? No, my Lords, I know the mischiefs
which have attended it; I know that it has shaken
the thrones of most of the sovereigns of the Mussulman religion; but I produce the law as the clearest
proof that such a sovereign cannot be supposed to
have an arbitrary power over the property and persons of those who elect him, and who have an acknowledged right to resist and dethrone him, if he does not afford them protection.
I have now gone through what I undertook to
prove, - that Mr. Hastings, with all his Indian Council, who have made up this volume of arbitrary power, are not supported by the laws of the Moguls, by the laws of the Gentoos, by the Mahometan laws, or
by any law, custom, or usage which has ever been
recognized as legal and valid.
But, my Lords, the prisoner defends himself by
example; and, good God! what are the examples
* Hedaya, Vol. II. pp. 247, 248.
? ? ? ? 220' IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
which he has chosen? Not the local usages and constitutions of Oude or of any other province; not the general practice of a respectable emperor, like Akbar,
which, if it would not fatigue your Lordships, I could
show to be the very reverse of this man's. No, my
Lords, the prisoner, his learned counsel here, and his
unlearned Cabinet Council, who wrote this defence,
have ransacked the tales of travellers for examples,
and have selected materials from that mass of loose
remarks and crude conceptions, to prove that the
natives of India have neither rights, laws, orders, or
distinction.
I shall now proceed to show your Lordships that
the people of India have a keen sense and feeling of
disgrace and dishonor. In proof of this I appeal to
well-known facts. There have been women tried in
India for offences, and acquitted, who would not survive the disgrace even of acquittal. There have been Hindoo soldiers, condemned at a court-martial, who
have desired to be blown from the mouth of a cannon,
and have claimed rank and precedence at the last
moment of their existence. And yet these people are
said to have no sense of dishonor! Good God! that
we should be under the necessity of proving, in this
place, all these things, and of disproving that all'
India was given in slavery to this man!
But, my Lords, they will show you, they say, that
Genghis Khan, Kouli Khan, and Tamerlane destroyed ten thousand times more people in battle
than this man did. Good God! have they run mad?
Have they lost their senses in their guilt? Did they
ever expect that we meant to compare this man to
Tamerlane, Genghis Khan, or Kouli Khan? - to compare a clerk at a bureau, to compare a fraudulent
? ? ? ? SPEECH IN REPLY. FIRST DAY. 221
bullock-contractor, (for we could show that his first
elementary malversations were in carrying on fraudulent bullock-contracts, which contracts were taken
from him with shame and disgrace, and restored with
greater shame and disgrace,) to compare him with
the conquerors of the world? We never said he was
a tiger and a lion: no, we have said he was a weasel
and a rat. We have said that he has desolated countries by the same means that plagues of his description have produced similar desolations. We have said that he, a fraudulent bullock-contractor, exalted
to great and unmerited powers, can do more mischief
than even all the tigers and lions in the world. We
know that a swarm of locusts, although individually
despicable, can render a country more desolate than
Genghis Khan or Tamerlane. When God Almighty
chose to humble the pride and presumption of Pharaoh, and to bring him to shame, He did not effect
His purpose with tigers and lions; but He sent lice,
mice, frogs, and everything loathsome and contemptible, to pollute and destroy the country. Think of
this, my Lords, and of your listening here to these
people's long account of Tamerlane's camp of two
hundred thousand persons, and of his building a pyramid at Bagdad with the heads of ninety thousand of
his prisoners
We have not accused Mr. Hastings of being a great
general, and abusing his military powers: we know
that he was nothing, at the best, but a creature of
the bureau, raised by peculiar circumstances to the
possession of a power by which -incredible mischief
might ble done. We have not accused him of the
vices of conquerors: when we see him signalized by
any conquests, we may then make such an accusa
? ? ? ? 222 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
tion; at present we say that he has been trusted with
power much beyond his deserts, and that trust he has
grossly abused. - But to proceed.
His counsel, according to their usual audacious
manner,-( I suppose they imagine that they are counsel
for Tamerlane, or for Genghis Khan,) have thought
proper to accuse the Managers for the Commons of
wandering [wantoning? ] in all the fabulous regions
of Indian mythology. My Lords, the Managers are
sensible of the dignity of their place; they have never
offered anything to you without reason. We are not
persons of an age, of a disposition, of a character, representative or natural, to wanton, as these counsel call it,- that is, to invent fables concerning Indian antiquity. That they are not ashamed of making this
charge I do not wonder. But we are not to be thus
diverted from our course.
I have already stated to your Lordships a material circumstance of this case, which I hope will never
be lost sight of, -- namely, the different situation in
which India stood under the government of its native
princes and its own original laws, and even under
the dominion of Mahometan conquerors, from that in
which it has stood under the government of a series
of tyrants, foreign and domestic, particularly of Mr.
Hastings, by whom it has latterly been oppressed and
desolated. One of the books which I have quoted was
written by Mr. Halhed; and I shall not be accused
of wantoning in fabulous antiquity, when I refer to
another living author, who wrote from what he saw
and what he well knew. This author says, -- In
truth, it would be almost cruelty to molest these
happy people " (speaking of the inhabitants of one of
the' provinces, near Calcutta); " for in this district are
? ? ? ? SPEECH IN REPLY. -FIRST DAY. 223
the only vestiges of the beauty, purity, piety, regularity, equity, and strictness of the ancient Hindostan
government: here the property as well as the liberty
of the people is inviolate. " My Lords, I do not refer you to this writer because I think it necessary to
our justification, nor from any fear that your Lordships will not do us the justice to believe that we
have good authority for the facts which we state, and
do not (as persons with their licentious tongues dare
to say) wanton in fabulous antiquity. I quote the
works of this author, because his observations and
opinions could not be unknown to Mr. Hastings,
whose associate he was in some acts, and whose adviser he appears to have been in that dreadful transaction, the deposition of Cossim Ali Khan. This writer was connected with the prisoner at your bar in
bribery, and has charged him with detaining his bribe.
To this Mr. Hastings has answered, that he had paid
him long ago. How they have settled that corrupt
transaction I know not. I merely state all this to
prove that we have not dealt in fabulous history, and
that, if anybody has dealt in falsehood, it is Mr. Hastings's companion and associate in guilt, who must
have known the country, and who, however faulty he
was in other respects, had in this case no interest
whatever in misrepresentation.
I might refer your Lordships, if it were necessary,
to Scrafton's account of that ancient government, in
order to prove to you the happy comparative state of
that country, even under its former usurpers. Our
design, my Lords, in making such references, is not
merely to disprove the prisoner's defence, but to vindicate the rights and privileges of the people of India.
We wish to reinstate them in your sympathy. We
? ? ? ? 224 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
wish you to respect a people as respectable as yourselves, -a people who know as well as you what is
rank, what is law, what is property, - a people who
know how to feel disgrace, who know what equity,
what reason, what proportion in punishments, what
security of property is,. jLst as well as. any of your
Lordships; for these are things which are secured to
them by laws, by religion, by declarations of all their
sovereigns. And what, my Lords, is opposed to all
this? The practice of tyrants and usurpers, which
Mr. Hastings takes for his rule and guidance. He
endeavors to find deviations from legal government,
and then instructs his counsel to say that I have asserted there is no such thing as arbitrary power in
the East. Good God! if there was no such thing in
any other part of the world, Mr. Hastings's conduct
might have convinced me of the existence of arbitrary
power, and have taught me much of its mischief.
But, my Lords, we all know that there has been arbitrary power in India, -- that tyrants have usurped
it, -- and that, in some instances, princes otherwise
meritorious have violated the liberties of the people,
and have been lawfully deposed for such violation.
I do not deny that there are robberies on Hounslow
Heath, -- that there are such things as forgeries,
burglaries, and murders; but I say that these acts
are against law, and that whoever commit them commit illegal acts. When a man is to defend himself
against a charge of crime, it is not instances of similar violation of law that is to be the standard of his:defence. A man may as well say, " I robbed upon Hounslow Heath, but hundreds robbed there before
me ": to which I answer, "The law has forbidden
you to rob there; and I will hang you for having vio
? ? ? ? SPEECH IN REPLY. -FIRST DAY. 225
lated the law, notwithstanding the long list. of similar
violations which you have produced as precedents. "
No doubt princes have violated the law of this country: they have suffered for it. Nobles have violated
the law: their privileges have not protected them
from punishment. Common people have violated the
law: they have been hanged for it. I know no human being exempt from the law. The law is the
security of the people of England; it is the security
of the people of India; it is the security of every person that is governed, and of every person that governs.
There is but one law for all, namely, that law which
governs all law, the law of our Creator, the law of
humanity, justice, equity, -the Law of Nature and
of Nations. So far as any laws fortify this primeval
law, and give it more precision, more energy, more
effect by their declarations, such laws enter into the
sanctuary, and participate in the sacredness of its
character. But the man who quotes as precedents
the abuses of tyrants and robbers pollutes the very
fountain of justice, destroys the foundations of all
law, and thereby removes the only safeguard against
evil men, whether governors or governed, -- the
guard which prevents governors from becoming tyrants, and the governed from becoming rebels.
I hope your Lordships will not think that I have
unnecessarily occupied your time in disproving the
plea of arbitrary power, which has been brought forward at our bar, has been repeated at your Lordships' bar, and has been put upon the records of both Houses. I hope your Lordships will not think
that such monstrous doctrine should be passed over,
without all possible pains being taken to demonstrate
VOL. XI. 15
? ? ? ? 226 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
its falsehood and to reprobate its tendency. I have
not spared myself in exposing the principles avowed
by the prisoner. At another time I will endeavor
to show you the manner in which he acted upon
these principles. I cannot command strength to
proceed further at present; and you, my Lords, cannot give me greater bodily strength than I have.
? ? ? ? SP E C H
IN
GENERAL REPLY.
SECOND DAY: FRIDAY, MAY 30, 1794.
M Y LORDS,- On the last day of the sitting of
this court, when' I had the honor of appearing before you by the order of my fellow Managers, I stated to you their observations and my own upon
two great points: one the demeanor of the prisoner
at the bar during his trial, and the other the principles of his defence. I compared that demeanor
with the behavior of some of the greatest men in
this kingdom, who have, on account of their offences, been brought to your bar, and who have seldom escaped your Lordsl-lips' justice. I put the
decency, humility, and propriety of the most distinguished men's behavior in contrast with the shameless effrontery of this prisoner, who has presumptuously made a recriminatory charge against the House of Commions, and answered their impeachment by
a counter impeachment, explicitly accusing them of
malice, oppression, and the blackest ingratitude.
My Lords, I next stated that this recriminatory
charge consisted of two distinct parts, - injustice and
delay. To the injustice we are to answer by the nature and proof of the charges which we have brought
before you; and to the delay, my Lords, we have
answered in another place. Into one of the conse
? ? ? ? 228 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS
quences of the delay, the ruinous expense which the
prisoner complains of, we have desired your Lordships
to make an inquiry, and have referred you to facts and
witnesses which will remove this part of the charge.
With regard to ingratitude, there will be a proper
time for animadversion on this charge. For in considering the -merits that are intended to be set off
against his crimes, we shall have to examine into the
nature of those merits, and to ascertain how far they
are to operate, either as the prisoner designs they
shall operate in his favor, as presumptive proofs that
a man of such merits could not be guilty of such
crimes, or as a sort of set-off to be pleaded in mitigation of his offences. In both of these lights we shall
consider his services, and in this consideration we
shall determine the justice of his charge of ingratitude.
My Lords, we have brought the demeanor of the
prisoner before you for another reason. We are desirous that your Lordships may be enabled to estimate, from the proud presumption and audacity of the criminal at your bar, when he stands before
the most awful tribunal in the world, accused by
a body representing no less than the sacred voice of
his country, what he must have been when placed in
the seat of pride and power. What must have been
the insolence of that man towards the natives of India, who, when called here to answer for enormous
crimes, presumes to behave, not with the firmness
of innocence, but with the audacity and hardness of
guilt!
It may be necessary that I should, recall to your
Lordships' recollection the principles of the accusation and of the defence. Your Lordships will bear
? ? ? ? SPEECH IN REPLY. -- SECOND DAY. 229
in mind that the matters of fact are all either settled
by confession or conviction, and that the question
now before you is no longer an issue of fact, but an
issue of law. The question is, what degree of merit
or demerit you are to assign by law to actions which
have been laid before you, and their truth acknowledged.
The principle being established that you are to decide upon an issue at law, we examined by what law the prisoner ought to be tried; and we preferred a
claim which we do now solemnly prefer, and which
we trust your Lordships will concur with us in a
laudable emulation to establish, -- a claim founded
upon the great truths, that all power is limited by
law, and ought to be guided by discretion, and not by
arbitrary will,- that all discretion must be referred
to the conservation and benefit of those over whom
power is exercised, and therefore must be guided by
rules of sound political morality.
We next contended, that, wherever existing laws
were applicable, the prisoneL at your bar was bound
by the laws and statutes of this kingdom, as a British
subject; and that, whenever he exercised authority
in the name of the Company, or in the name of his
Majesty, or under any other name, he was bound by
the laws and statutes of this kingdom, both in letter
and spirit, so far as they were applicable to him and;o his case; and above all, that he was bound by
the act to which he owed his appointment, in all
transactions with foreign powers, to act according to
the known recognized rules of the Law of Nations,
whether these powers were really or nominally sovereign, whether they were dependent or independent. The next point which we established, and which
? ? ? ? 230'IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
we now call to your Lordships' recollection, is, that
he was bound to proceed according to the laws,
rights, laudable customs, privileges, and franchises
of the country that he governed; and we contended
that to such laws, rights, privileges, and franchises
the people of the country had a clear and just
claim.
Having established these points as the basis of Mr.
Hastings's general power, we contended that he was
obliged by the nature of his relation, as a servant to
the Company, to be obedient to their orders at all
times, and particularly where he had entered into special covenants regarding special articles of obedience. These are the principles by which we have examined the conduct of this man, and upon which we
have brought him to your Lordships' bar for judgment. This is our table of the law. Your Lordships
shall now be shown the table by which he claims to
be judged. But I will first beg your Lordships to
take notice of the utter contempt with which he treats
all our acts of Parliament.
Speaking of the absolute sovereignty which he
would have you believe is exercised by the princes
of India, he says, " The sovereignty which they assumed it fell to my lot, very unexpectedly, to exert;
and whether or not such power, or powers of that nature, were delegated to me by any provisions of any act of Parliament I confess myself too little of a lawyer to pronounce," and so on. This is the manner
in which he treats an act of Parliament! In the
place of acts of Parliament he substitutes his own
arbitrary will. This he contends is the sole law of
the country he governed, as laid down in what he
calls the arbitrary Institutes of Genghis Khan and
? ? ? ? SPEECH IN REPLY. - SECOND DAY. 231
Tamerlane. This arbitrary will he claims, to the
exclusion of the Gentoo law, the Mahometan law,
and the law of his own country. He claims the
right of making his own will the sole rule of his
government, and justifies the exercise of this power
by the examples of Aliverdy Khan, Cossim Ali Khan,
Sujah Dowlah. Khan, and all those Khans who have
rebelled against their masters, and desolated the
countries subjected to their rule. This, my Lords,
is the law which he has laid down for himself, and
these are the examples which he has expressly told
the House of Commons he is resolved to follow.
These examples, my Lords, and the principles with
which they are connected, without any softening or
mitigation, he has prescribed to you as the rule by
which his conduct-is to be judged.
Another principle of the prisoner is, that, whenever the Company's affairs are in distress, even when that distress proceeds from his own prodigality, mismanagement, or corruption, he has a right to take for the Company's benefit privately in his own name,
with the future application of it to their use reserved
in his own breast, every kind of bribe or corrupt
present whatever.
I have now restated to your Lordships the maxims
(by which the prisoner persists in defending himself,
and the principles upon which we claim to have him
judged. The issue before your Lordships is a hundred times more important than the cause itself, for it is to determine by what law or maxims of law the
conduct of governors is to be judged.
On one side, your Lordships have the prisoner
declaring that the people have no laws, no rights, no
usages, no distinctions of rank, no sense of honor, no
? ? ? ? 232 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
property, - in short, that they are nothing but a herd
of slaves, to be governed by the arbitrary will of a
master. On the other side, we assert that the direct
contrary of this is true. And to prove our assertion
we have referred you to the Institutes of Genghis
Khan and of Tamerlane; we have referred you to the
Mahometan law, which is binding upon all, from the
crowned head to th6 meanest subject,- a law interwoven with a system of the wisest, the most learned, and most enlightened jurisprudence that perhaps ever
existed in the world. We have shown you, that, if
these parties are to be compared together, it is not
the rights of the people which are nothing, but rather
the rights of the sovereign which are so. The rights
of the people are everything, as they ought to be, in
the true and natural order of things. God forbid
that these maxims should trench upon sovereignty,
and its true, just, and lawful prerogative! - on the
contrary, they ought to support and establish them.
The sovereign's rights are undoubtedly sacred rights,
and, ought to be so held in every country in the world,
because exercised for the benefit of the people, and
in subordination to that great end for which alone
God has vested power in any man or any set of men.
This is the law that we insist upon, and these are the
principles upon which your Lordships are to try the
prisoner at your bar.
Let me remind your Lordships that these people
lived under the laws to which I have referred you,
and that these laws were formed whilst we, I may
say, were in the forest, certainly before we knew what
technical jurisprudence was. These laws are allowed
to be the basis and substratum of the manners, customs, and opinions of the people of India; and we
? ? ? ? SPEEISCH IN REPLY. -SECOND DAY. ,. 233
contend that Mr. Hastings is bound to know them:
and to act by them; and I shall prove that the very
condition upon which he received power in India was:
to protect the people in their laws and known rights. ;
But whether Mr. Hastings did know these laws, or
whether, content with credit gained by as base a
fraud as was ever practised, he did not read the books'
which Nobkissin paid for, we take the benefit of
them: we know and speak after knowledge of them.
And although I believe his Council have never read:
them, I should be sorry to stand in this place, if there
was one word and tittle in these books that I had not:
read over.
We therefore come here and declare to you that he
is not borne out by these Institutes, either in their:
general -spirit or in any particular passage to which:
he has had the impudence to appeal, in the assumption of the arbitrary power which he has exercised. We claim, that, as our own government and every
person exercising authority in Great Britain is bound
by the laws of Great Britain, so every person exercising authority in another country' shall be subject to the laws of that country; since otherwise they break
the very covenant by which we hold our poweir there.
Even if these Institutes had been arbitrary, which
they are not, they might have been excused as the
acts of conquerors. But, my Lords, he is no conqueror, nor anything but what you see him, --a bad scribbler of absurd papers, in which he can put no
two sentences together without contradiction. We
know him in no other character than that of having
been a bullock-contractor for some years, of having.
acted fraudulently ill that capacity, and afterwards.
giving fraudulent contracts to others. ; and. yet I will
? ? ? ? 234 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
maintain that the first conquerors of the world would
have been base and abandoned, if they had assumed
such a right as he dares to claim. It is the glory of
all such great men to have for their motto, Parcere
subjectis et debellare superbos. These were men that
said they would recompense the countries which they
had obtained through torrents of blood, through carnage and violence, by the justice of their institutions,
the mildness of their laws, and the equity of their
government. Even if these conquerors had promulgated arbitrary institutes instead of disclaiming them
in every point, you, my Lords, would never suffer
such principles of defence to be urged here; still less
will you suffer the examples of men acting by violence, of men acting by wrong, the example of a man
who has become a rebel to his sovereign in order that
he should become the tyrant of his people, to be examples for a British governor, or for any governor.
We here confidently protest against this mode of justification, and we maintain that his pretending to follow these examples is in itself a crime. The prisoner has ransacked all Asia for principles of despotism;
he has ransacked all the bad and corrupted part of it
for tyrannical examples to justify himself: and certainly in no other way can he be justified.
Having established the falsehood of the first. principle of the prisoner's defence, that sovereignty, wherever it exists in India, implies in its nature and essence a power of exacting anything from the subject, and disposing of his person and property, we
now come to his second assertion, that he was the
true, full, and perfect representative of that sovereignty in India.
In opposition to this assertion we first do positively
? ? ? ? SPEECH IN REPLY. - SECOND DAY. '235
deny that he or the Company are the perfect representative of any sovereign power whatever. They
have certain rights by their charter, and by acts of
Parliament, but they have no other. They have their
legal rights only, and these do not imply any such
thing as sovereign power. The sovereignty of Great
Britain is in the King; he is the sovereign of the
Lords and the sovereign of the Commons, individually and collectively; and as he has his prerogative
established by law, he must exercise it, and all persons claiming and deriving under him, whether by
act of Parliament, whether by charter of the Crown,
or by any other mode whatever, all are alike bound
by law, and responsible to it. No one can assume or
receive any power of sovereignty, because the sovereignty is in the Crown, and cannot be delegated
away from the Crown; no such delegation ever took
place, or ever was intended, as any one may see in
the act by which Mr. HIastings was nominated Governor. He cannot, therefore, exercise that high supreme sovereignty which is vested by the law, with the consent of both Houses of Parliament, in the
King, and in the King only. It is a violent, rebellious assumption of power, when Mr. Hastings pretends fully, perfectly, and entirely to represent the sovereign of this country, and to exercise legislative,
executive, and judicial authority, with as large and
broad a sway as his Majesty, acting with the consent
of the two Houses of Parliament, and agreeably to
the laws of this kingdom. I say, my Lords, this is a
traitorous and rebellious assumption, which he has
no right to make, and which we charge against him,
and therefore it cannot be urged in justification of his
conduct in any respect.
? ? ? ? 236 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
He next alleges, with reference to one particular
case, that he received this sovereignty from the Vizier
Sujah Dowlah, who he pretends was sovereign, with
an unlimited power over the life, goods, and property
of Cheyt Sing. This we positively deny. Whatever
power the supreme sovereign of the empire had, we
deny that it was delegated to Sujah Dowlah. He
never was in possession of it. He was a vizier of the
empire; he had a grant of certain lands for the support of that dignity: and we refer you to the Institutes of Timour, to the Institutes of Akbar, to the institutes of the Mahometan law, for the powers of
delegated governors and viceroys. You will find that
there is not a trace of sovereignty in them, but that
they are, to all intents and purposes, mere subjects;
and consequently, as Sujah Dowlah had not these
powers, lie could not transfer them to the India Company. His master, the Mogul emperor, had them
not. I defy any man to sliow an instance of that emperor's claiming any such thing as arbitrary power;
much less can it be claimed by a rebellious viceroy
who had-broken loose from his sovereign's authority,
just as this man broke loose from the authority of
Parliament. The one had not a right to give, nor
the other to receive such powers. But whatever rights
were vested in the Mogul, they cannot belong either
to Sujah Dowlah, to Mr. Hastings, or to the Company. These latter are expressly bound by their compact to take care of the subjects of the empire, and to govern them according to law, reason, and equity;
and when they do otherwise, they are guilty of tyranny, of a violation of the rights of the people, and of
rebellion against their sovereign.
We have taken these pains to ascertain and fix
? ? ? ? SPEECH IN REPLY. -SECOND DAY. 237
principles, because your Lordships are not called upon
to judge of facts. A jury may find facts, but no jury
can form a judgment of law; it is an application of
the law to the fact that makes the act criminal or
laudable. You must find a fixed standard of some
kind or other; for if there is no standard but the immediate momentary purpose of the day, guided and
governed by the man who uses it, fixed not only for
the disposition of all the wealth and strength of the
state, but for the life, fortune, and property of every
individual, your Lordships are left without a principle
to direct your judgment. This high court, this supreme court of appeal from all the courts of the kingdom, this highest court of criminal jurisdiction, exercised upon the requisition of the House of Commons, if left without a rule, would be as lawless as the
wild savage, and as unprincipled as the prisoner that
stands at your bar. Our whole issue is upon principles, and what I shall say to you will be in perpetual
-reference to them; because it is better to have no
principles at all than to have false principles of government and of morality. Leave a man to his passions, and you leave a wild beast to a savage and
capricious nature. A wild beast, indeed, when its
stomach is full, will caress you, and may lick your
hands; in like manner, when a tyrant is pleased or
his passion satiated, you may have a happy and serene:
day under an arbitrary government. But when the~
principle founded on solid reason, which ought to restrain passion, is perverted from its proper end, the
false principle will be substituted for it, and thenl
man becomes ten times worse than a wild beast. The
evil principle, grown solid and perennial, goads him
on and takes entire possession of his mind; and then
? ? ? ? 238 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
perhaps the best refuge that you can have from that
diabolical principle is in the natural wild passions and
unbridled appetites of mankind. This is a dreadful
state of things; and therefore we have thought it necessary to say a great deal upon his principles.
My Lords, we come next to apply these principles
to facts which cannot otherwise be judged, as we have
contended and do now contend. I will not go over
facts which have been opened to you by my fellow
Managers: if I did so, I should appear to have a distrust, which I am sure no other man has, of the greatest abilities displayed in the greatest of all causes.
I should be guilty of a presumption which I hope I
shall not dream of, but leave to those who exercise
arbitrary power, in supposing that I could go over the
ground which my fellow Managers have once trodden,
and make anything more clear and forcible than they
have done. In my humble opinion, human ability
cannot go farther than they have gone; and if I ever
allude to anything which they have already touched,
it will be to show it in another light, -- to mark more
particularly its departure from the principles upon
which we contend you ought to judge, or to supply
those parts which through bodily infirmity, and I am
sure nothing else, one of my excellent fellow Managers has left untouched. I am here alluding to the case of Cheyt Sing.
My honorable fellow Manager, Mr. Grey, has stated to you all the circumstances requisite to prove two things: first, that the demands made by Mr. Hastings
upon Cheyt Sing were contrary to fundamental treaties between the Company and that Rajah; and next, that they were the result and effict of private malice
? ? ? ? SPEECH IN REPLY. - SECOND DAY. 239
and corruption. This having been stated and proved
to you, I shall take up the subject where it was left.
My Lords, in the first place, I have to remark to
you, that the whole of the charge originally brought
by Mr. Hastings against Cheyt Sing, in justification
of his wicked and tyrannical proceedings, is, that he
had been dilatory, evasive, shuffling, and unwilling to
pay that which, however unwilling, evasive, and shuffling, he did pay; and that, with regard to the business of furnishing cavalry, the Rajah has asserted, and his
assertion has not been denied, that, when he was desired by the Council to furnish these troopers, the purpose for which this application was made was not
mentioned or alluded to, nor was there any place of
muster pointed out. We therefore contended, that
the demand was not made for the service of the state,
but for the oppression of the individual that suffered
by it.
But admitting the Rajah to have been guilty of
delay and unwillingness, what is the nature of the
offence? If you strip it of the epithets by which it
has been disguised, it merely amounts to an unwillingness in the Rajah to pay more than the sums stipulated by the mutual agreement existing between him and
the Company. This is the whole of it, the whole front
and head of the offence; and for this offence, such as
it is, and admitting that he could be legally fined for
it, be was subjected to the secret punishment of giving
a bribe to Mr. Hastings, by which he was to buy off
the fine, and which was consequently a commutation
for it.
That your Lordships may be enabled to judge more
fully of the nature of this offence, let us see in what
relation Cheyt Sing stood with the Company. He
? ? ? ? 240 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
was, my Lords, a person clothed with every one of the
attributes of sovereignty, under a direct stipulation
that the Company should not interfere in his internal
government. The military and civil authority, the
power of life and death, the whole revenue, and the
whole administration of the law, rested in him. Such
was the sovereignty he possessed within Benares:
but he was a subordinate sovereign dependent upon
a superior, according to the tenor of his compact,
expressed or implied. Now, having contended, as we
still contend, that the Law of Nations is the law of
India as well as of Europe, because it is the law of
reason and the law of Nature, drawn from the pure
sources of morality, of public good, and of natural
equity, and recognized and digested into order by the
labor of learned men, I will refer your Lordships to
Vattel, Book I. Cap. 16, where he treats of the breach
of such agreements, by the protector refusing to give
protection, or the protected refusing to perform his
part of the engagement. My design in referring you:to this author is to prove that Cheyt Sing, so far from being blamable in raising objections to the unauthorized demand made upon him by Mr. Hastings, was absolutely bound to do so; nor could he have done
otherwise, without hazarding the whole benefit of the
agreement upon which his subjection and protection
were founded. The law is the same with respect to
both contracting parties: if the protected or protector
does not fulfil with fidelity each his separate stipulation,
the protected may resist the unauthorized demand of
the protector, or the protector is discharged from his
engagement; he may refuse protection, and declare
the treaty broken.
We contend in favor of Cheyt Sing, in support of
? ? ? ? SPEECH IN REPLY. -SECOND DAY. 241
the principles of natural equity, and of the Law of
Nations, which is the birthright of us all, --we contend, I say, that Cheyt Sing would have established,
in the opinions of the best writers on the Law of Nations, a precedent against himself for any future violation of the engagement, if he submitted to any new demand, without what our laws call a continual claim
or perpetual remonstrance against the imposition.
Instead, therefore, of doing that which was criminal,
he did that which his safety and his duty bound him
to do; and for doing this he was considered by Mr.
Hastings as being guilty of a great crime. In a paper
which was published by the prisoner in justification
of this act, he considers the Rajah to have been guilty
of rebellious intentions; and he represents these acts
of contumacy, as he calls them, not as proofs of contumacy merely, but as proofs of a settled design to rebel,
and to throw off the authority of that nation by which
he was protected. This belief he declares on oath to
be the ground of his conduct towards Cheyt Sing.
Now, my Lords, we do contend, that, if any subject, under any name, or of any description, be not
engaged in public, open rebellion, but continues to
acknowledge the authority of his sovereign, and, if
tributary, to pay tribute conformably to agreement,
such a subject, in case of being suspected of having
formed traitorous designs, ought to be treated in a
manner totally different from that which was adopted
by Mr. Hastings. If the Rajah of Benares had formed
a secret conspiracy, Mr. Hastings had a state duty
and a judicial duty to perform. fie was bound, as
Governor, knowing of such a conspiracy, to provide
for the public safety; and as a judge, he was bound
to convene a criminal court, and to lay before it a
vodI. XI. 16
? ? ? ? 242 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
detailed accusation of the offence. He was bound to
proceed publicly and legally against the accused, and
to convict him of his crime, previous to his inflicting,
or forming any intention of inflicting, punishment.
I say, my Lords, that Mr. Hastings, as a magistrate,
was bound to proceed against the Rajah either by
English law, by Mahometan law, or by the Gentoo
law; and that, by all or any of these laws, he was
bound to make the accused acquainted with the
crime alleged, to hear his answer to the charge, and
to produce evidence against him, in an open, clear,
and judicial manner. And here, my Lords,. we have
again to remark, that the Mahometan law is a great
discriminator of persons, and that it prescribes the
mode of proceeding against those who are accused of
any delinquency requiring punishment, with a reference to the distinction and rank which the accused held in society. The proceedings are exceedingly
sober, regular, and respectful, even to criminals
charged with the highest crimes; and every magistrate is required to exercise his office in the prescribed manner. In the IHedaya, after declaring and discussing the propriety of the Kalzi's sitting openly in the execution of his office, it is added, that there is no
impropriety in the Ka'zi sitting in his own house to
pass judgment, but it is requisite that he give orders
for a free access to the people. It then proceeds
thus: -"It is requisite that such people sit along
with the Kazi as were used to sit with him, prior to
his appointment to the office; because, if he were
to sit alone in his house, he would thereby give rise
to suspicion. " *
My Lords, having thus seen what the duty of a
* Hedaya, Vol. II. p. 621.
? ? ? ? SPEECH IN REPLY. -SECOND DAY. 243
judge is in such a case, let us examine whether Mr.
Hastings observed any part of the prescribed rules.
First, with regard to the publicity of the matter. Did
he ever give any notice to the Supreme Council of
the charges which he says he had received against
Cheyt Sing? Did he accuse the Rajah in the Council, even when it was reduced to himself and his poor,
worn down, cowed, and I am afraid bribed colleague,
Mr. Wheler? Did he even then, I ask, produce any
one charge against this man? He sat in Council as
a judge, - as an English judge, - as a Mahometan
judge, --- as a judge by the Gentoo law, and by the
Law of Nature. He should have summoned the party to appear in person, or by his attorney, before him,
and should have there informed him of the charge
against him. But, my Lords, he did not act thus.
He kept the accusation secret in his own bosom.
And why? Because he did not believe it to be true.
This may at least be inferred from his having never
informed the Council of the matter. Ite never informed the Rajah of Benares of the suspicions entertained against him, during the discussions which took place respecting the multiplied demands that were
made upon him. He never told this victim, as he
has had the audacity to tell us and all this kingdom
in the paper that is before your Lordships, that he
looked upon these refusals to comply with his demands to be overt acts of rebellion; nor did he ever
call upon him to answer or to justify himself with
regard to that imputed conspiracy or rebellion. Did
he tell Sadanund, the Rajah's agent, when that agent
was giving him a bribe or a present in secret, and
was thus endeavoring to deprecate his wrath, that he
accepted that bribe because his master was in rebel
? ? ? ? 244 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
lion? Never, my Lords; nor did he, when he first
reached Benares, and had the Rajah in his power,
suggest one word concerning this rebellion. Did
he, when he met Mr. Markham at Boglipore, where
they consulted about the destruction of this unhappy
man, did he tell Mr. Markham, or did Mr. Markham
insinuate to him, any one thing about this conspiracy
and rebellion? No, not a word there, or in his whole
progress up the country. While at Boglipore, he
wrote a letter to Lord Macartney upon the state of
the empire, giving him much and various adiice.
Did he insinuate in that letter that he was going up
to Benares to suppress a rebellion of the Rajah Cheyt
Sing or to punish him? No, not a word. Did he,
my Lords, at the eve of his departure from Calcutta, when he communicated his intention of taking 500,0001. , which he calls a fine or penalty, from the
Rajah, did he inform Mr.
