No More Learning

Hastings's guilt to be, and what I must prove it to be
as well as I can, did not believe that Providence did
watch over Mr. Hastillgs, so as in the nick of time,
like a, god ill a machil)e, to come down to save hini ill
? ? ? ? 314 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
the moment of his imminent peril and distress: I did
not think so, but I must not say so.
But now, to show that it was not weakly, loosely,
or idly, that I took up this business, or that I anticipated a defence which it was not probable for Mr.
Hastings to make, (and I wish to speak to your
Lordships in the first instance, but to the Commons
in the next,) I will read part of Mr. Hastings's defence before the House of Commons: it is in evidence before your Lordships. He says, -- "My accuser " (meaning myself, then acting as a private member of Parliament) "charges me with'the receipt of large sums of money, corruptly taken before
the promulgation of the Regulating Act of 1773,
contrary to my covenants with the Company, and
with the receipt of very large sums taken since, in
defiance of that law, and contrary to my declared
sense of its provisions. ' And he ushers in this
charge in the following pompous diction:'That
in March, 1775, the late Rajah Nundcomar, a native
Hindoo of the highest caste in his religion, and of
the highest rank in society, by the offices which he
had held under the country government, did lay
before the Council an account of various sums of
money,' &c. It would naturally strike every person
ignorant of the character of Nundcomar, that an accusation made by a person of the highest caste in
his religion and of the highest rank by his offices
demanded particular notice, and acquired a considerable degree of credit, from a prevalent association
of ideas that a nice sense of honor is connected with
an elevated rank of life: but when this honorable
House is informed that my accuser knew (though he
suppressed the facts) that this person, of high rank
? ? ? ? SPEECH ON THE SIXTH ARTICLE. -- THIRD DAY. 315
and high caste, had forfeited every pretension to
honor, veracity, and credit, --that there are facts
recorded on the very Proceedings which my accuser
partially quotes, proving this man to have been
guilty of a most flagrant forgery of letters from
Munny Begum and the Nabob Yeteram ul Dowlah,
(independent of the forgery for which he suffered
death,) of the most deliberate treachery to the state,
for which he was confined, by the orders of the
Court of Directors, to the limits of the town of
Calcutta, in order to prevent his dangerous intrigues, and of having violated every principle of common honesty in private life, -- I say, when this
honorable House is acquainted it is from mutilated
and garbled assertions, founded on the testimony of
such an evidence, without the whole matter being
fairly stated, I do hope and trust it will be sufficient
for them to reject now these vague and unsupported
charges, in like manner as they were before rejected
by the Court of Directors and his Majesty's ministers, when they were first made by General Clavering, Colonel Monson, and Mr. Francis. -- I must here interrupt the course of my defence to explain on
what grounds I employed or had any connection
with a man of so flagitious a character as Nundcomar. "
My Lords, I hope this was a good and reasonable
ground for me to anticipate the defence which Mr.
Hastings would make in this House, - namely, on
the known, recognized, infamous character of Nundcomar, with regard to certain proceedings there charged at large, with regard to one forgery for
which he suffered and two other forgeries with
which Mr. Hastings charged him. I, who found that
? ? ? ? ~16 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
the Commons of Great Britain had received that very
identical charge of Nundcomar, and given it to me
in trust to make it good, did naturally, I hope excusably, (for that is the only ground upon which I
stand,) endeavor to support that credit upon which
the House acted. I hope I did so; and I hope that
the goodness of that intention may excuse me, if I
went a little too far on that occasion. I would have
endeavored to support that credit, which it was
much Mr. Hastings's interest to shake, and which he
had before attempted to shake.
Your Lordships will have the goodness to suppose
me now making my apology, and by no manner of
means intending to'persist either in this, or in anything which the House of Commons shall desire me
not to declare in their name. But the House of
Commons has not denied me the liberty to make
you this just apology: God forbid they should! for
they would be guilty of great injustice, if they did.
The House of Commons, whom I represent, will
likewise excuse me, their representative, whilst I
have been endeavoring to support their characters
in the face of the world, and to make an apology,
and only an humble apology, for my conduct, for
having considered that act in the light that I represented it, --and which I did merely from my private opinion, without any formal instruction from the House. For there is nio doubt that the House is
perfectly right, inasmuch as the House did neither
formally instruct me nor at all forbid my making
use of such an argument; and therefore I have
given your Lordships the reason why it was fit to
make use of such argument, -- if it was right to
make use of it. I am in the memory of your Lord
? ? ? ? SPEECH ON THE SIXTH ARTICLE. - THIRD DAY. 317 ships that I did conceive it to be relevant, and it was by the poverty of the language I was led to express my private feelings under the name of a murder. For, if the language had furnished me, under the impression of those feelings, with a word sufficient to convey the complicated atrocity of that act, as I felt it in my mind, I would not have made use of the word murder. It was on account of the language furnishing me with no other I was obliged to use that word. Your Lordships do not imagine,
I hope, that I used that word in any other than a
moral and popular sense, or that I. used it in the
legal and technical sense of the word murder. Your
Lordships know that I could not bring before this
bar any commoner of Great Britain on a charge for
murder. I am not so ignorant of the laws and
constitution of my country. I expressed an act
which I conceived to be of an atrocious and evil
nature, and partaking of some of the moral evil
consequences of that crime. What led me into that
error? Nine years' meditation upon that subjedt.
My Lords, the prisoner at the bar in the year 1780
sent a petition to the House of Commons complaining of that very cllief-justice, Sir Elijah Impey. The House of Commons, who then had some trust in me,
as they have some trust still, did order me, along with persons more wise and judicious than myself, several of whom stand near me, to make an inquiry into the state of the justice of that country. The consequence of that inquiry was, that we began to conceive a very bad opinion both of the complainant aud defendant in that business, - that we found the English justice to be, as we thought it, and reported it to the House, a grievance, instead of a redress, to the people of India.
? ? ? ? 318 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
I could bring before your Lordships, if I did not spare
your patience, whole volumes of reports, whole bodies
of evidence, which, in the progress we have made in
the course of eight or nine years, brought to my mind
such a conviction as will never be torn from my heart
but with my life; and I should have no heart thatwas fit to lodge any honest sentiment, if I departed
from my opinion upon that occasion. But when I
declare my own firm opinion upon it, --when I declare the reasons that led me to it, -- when I mention the long meditation that preceded my founding a judgment upon it, the strict inquiry, the many hours
and days spent ill consideration, collation, and comparison,-I trust that infirmity which could be actuated by no malice to one party or the other may
be excused; I trust that I shall meet with this indulgence, when your Lordships consider, that, as far as
you know me, as far as my public services for many
years account for me, I am a man of a slow, laborious,
inquisitive temper, that I do seldom leave a pursuit
without leaving marks, perhaps of my weakness, but
leaving marks of that labor, and that, in consequence
of that labor, I made that affirmation, and thought the
nature of the cause obliged me to support and substantiate it. It is true that those who sent me here
have sagacity to decide upon the subject in a week;
they can in one week discover the errors of my labors
for nine years.
Now that I have made this apology to you, I assure
you, you shall never hear me, either in my own name
here, much less in the name of the Commons, urge
one thing to you in support of the credit of Nundcomar grounded upon that judgment, until the House
shall instruct and order me otherwise; because I
? ? ? ? SPEECH ON THE SIXTH ARTICLE. -THIRD DAY. 319 know, that, when I can discover their sentiments, I ought to know nothing here but what is in strict and literal obedience to them.
My Lords, another thing might make me, perhaps,
a little willing to be admitted to the proof of what I
advanced, and that is, the very answer of Mr. Hastings
to this charge, which the House of Commons, however, have adopted, and therefore in some degree purified. "To the malicious part of this charge, which
is the condemnation of Nundcomar for a forgery, I do
declare, in the most solemn and unreserved manner,
that I had no concern, either directly or indirectly, in
the apprehending, prosecuting, or executing of Nundcomar. He suffered for a crime of forgery which he
had committed in a private trust that was delegated
to him, and for which he had been prosecuted in the
dewanny courts of the country before the institution
of the Supreme Court of Judicature. To adduce this
circumstance, therefore, as a confirmation of what was
before suspicious from his general depravity of character, is just as reasonable as to assert that the accusations of Empson and Dudley were confirmed because they suffered death for their atrocious acts. "
My Lords, this was Mr. Hastings's defence before
the House of Commons, and it is now in evidence
before your Lordships. In this defence, he supposes
the charge which was made originally before the Commons, and which the Commons voted, (thofigh afterwards, for the convenience of shortening it, the affair was brought before your Lordships in the way in which
it is,) - he supposes, I say, the whole to proceed from
a malicious intention; and I hope your Lordships will
not think, and I hope the Commons, reconsidering this
matter, will not think, that, when such an imputation
? ? ? ? 320 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
of malice was made for the purpose of repelling this
corroborating argument which was used in the House
of Commons to prove his guilt, I was wrong in attempting to support the House of Commons against his imputation of malice. I must observe where I am limited and where I am
not. I am limited, strictly, fully, (and your Lordships
and my country, who hear me, will judge how faithfully I shall adhere to that limitation,) not to support
the credit of Nundcomar by any allegation against
Mr. Hastings respecting his condemnation or execution; but I am not at all limited from endeavoring to
support his credit against Mr. Hastings's charges of
other forgeries, and from showing you, what I hope
to show you clearly in a few words, that Nundcomar
cannot be presumed guilty of forgery with more probability than Mr. Hastings is guilty of bringing forward
a light and dangerous (for I use no other words than
a light and dangerous) charge of forgery, when it
serves his purpose. Mr. Hastings charges Nundcomar with two other forgeries. " These two forgeries,"
he says, " are facts recorded in the very Proceedings
which my accuser partially quotes, proving this man
to have been guilty of a miost flagrant forgery of a
letter from Munny Begum, and of a letter from the
Nabob Yeteram ul Dowlah "; and therefore he infers
malice in those who impute anything improper to
him, knowing that the proof stood so. Here lie asserts
that there are records before the House of Commons,
and on the Company's Proceedings and Consultations,
proving Nundcomar to have been guilty of these two
forgeries. Turn over the next page of his printed
defence, and you find a very extraordinary thing.
You would have imagined that this forgery of a letter
? ? ? ? SPEECH ON THE SIXTH ARTICLE. -- THIRD DAY. 321 from Munny Begum, which, he says, is recognized and proved on the Journals, was a forgery charged by Munny Begum herself, or by somebody on her part, or some person concerned in this business. There is no other charge of it whatever, but the charge of Warren Hastings himself. He wants you to discredit
a man for forgery upon no evidence under heaven but that of his own, who thinks proper, without any sort
of authority, without any sort of reference, without
any sort of collateral evidence, to charge a man with that very direct forgery. " You are," he says, " well informed of the reasons which first induced me to give any share of my confidence to Nundcomar, with whose character I was acquainted by an experience of many years. The means which he himself took to acquire
it were peculiar to himself. He sent a messenger to
me at Madras, on the first news of my appointment
to this Presidency, with pretended letters from Munny
Begum and the Nabob Yeteram ul Dowlah, the brother of the Nabob Jaffier Ali Khan, filled with bitter invectives against Mahomed Reza Khan, and of as
warm recommendations, as I recollect, of Nundcomar.
I have been since informed by the Begum that the
letter which bore her seal was a complete forgery,
and that she was totally unacquainted with the use
which had been made of her name till I informed her
of it. Juggut Chund, Nundcomar's son-in-law, was
sent to her expressly to entreat her not to divulge it.
Mr. Middleton, whom she consulted on the occasion,
can attest the truth of this story. "
Mr. Middleton is dead, my Lords. This is not the
Mr. Middleton whom your Lordships have heard and
know well in this House, but a brother of that Mr.
Middleton, who is since dead. Your Lordships find,
VOL. X. 21
? ? ? ? 322 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
when we refer to the records of the Company for the
proof of this forgery, that there is no other than the
unsupported assertion of Mr. Hastings himself that
he was guilty of it. Now that was bad enough; but
then hear the rest. Mr. Hastings has charged this
unhappy man, whom we must not defend, with anothller forgery; he has charged him with a forgery of
a letter from Yeteram ul Dowlah to Mr. Hastings.
Now you would imagine that he would have given
his own authority at least for that assertion, which he
says was proved. He goes on and says, " I have not
yet bad the curiosity to inquire of the Nabob Yeteram
ul Dowlah whether his letter was of the same stamp;
but I cannot doubt it. "
Now here he begins, in this very defence which is
before your Lordships, to charge a forgery upon the
credit of Munny Begum, without supporting it even
by his own testimony, - and another forgery in the
name of Yeteram ul Dowlah, which he said he had
not even the curiosity to inquire into, and yet desires
you, at the same time, to believe it to be proved.
Good God! in what condition do men of the first
character and situation in that country stand, when
we have here delivered to us, as a record of the Company, Mr. Hastings's own assertions, saying that these forgeries were proved, though you have for the first
nothing but his own unsupported assertion, and for
the second his declaration only that he had not the
curiosity to inquire into it! I am not forbidden by
the Commons to state how and on what slight grounds
Warren Hastings charges the natives of the country
with forgery; neither am I forbidden to bring forward the accusation, which Mr. Hastings made against Nundconmar for a conspiracy, nor the event of it, nor
? ? ? ? SPEECH ON THE SIXTH ARTICLE. -THIRD DAY. 323
any circumstance relative to it. I shall therefore proceed in the best manner I can. There was a period, among the revolutions of philosophy, when there
was an opinion, that, if a man lost one limb or organ,
the strength of that which was lost retired into
what was left. My Lords, if we are straitened in
this, then our vigor will be redoubled in the rest,
and we shall use it with double force. If the top and
point of the sword is broken off, we shall take the
hilt in our hand, and fight with whatever remains
of the weapon against bribery, corruption, and peculation; and we shall use double diligence under any restraint which the wisdom of the Commons may lay
upon us, or your Lordships' wisdom may oblige us to
submit to.
Having gone through this business, and shown in
what manner I am restrained, where I am not to repel Mr. Hastings's defence, and where I am left at
large to do it, I shall submit to the strict injunction
with the utmost possible humility, and enjoy the liberty which is left to me with vigor, with propriety, and with discretion, I trust.
My Lords, when the circumstance happened which
has given occasion to the long parenthesis by which
my discourse has been interrupted, I remember I was
beginning to open to your Lordships the second period of Mr. Hastings's scheme and system of bribery. My Lords, his bribery is so extensive, and has had
such a variety in it, that it must be distinguished not
only with regard to its kind, but must be likewise distinguished according to the periods of bribery and the epochas of peculation committed by him. In the first
of those periods we shall prove to your Lordships, I
? ? ? ? 324 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
believe, without the aids that we hoped for, (your Lordships allowing, as I trust you will do, a good deal for
our situation,) - we shall be able, I say, to prove that
Mr. Hastings took, as a bribe for appointing Munny
Begum, three lac and an half of rupees; we shall prove
the taking at the same time the Rajeshaye bribes.
Mr. Hastings at that time followed bribery in a natural manner: he took a bribe; he took it as large as lihe
could; he concealed it as well as he could; and he got
out of it by artifice or boldness, by use of trick or use
of power, just as he was enabled: he acted like a wild,
natural man, void of instruction, discipline, and art.
The second period opened another system of bribery.
About this time he began to think (from what communication your Lordships may guess) of other means
by which, when he could no longer conceal any bribe
that he had received, he not only might exempt himself from the charge and the punishment of guilt, but
might convert it into a kind of merit, and, instead of
a breaker of laws, a violator of his trust, a receiver of
scandalous bribes, a peculator of the first magnitude,
might make himself to be considered as a great, distinguishing, eminent financier, a collector of revenue
in new and extraordinary ways, and that we should
thus at once praise his diligence, industry, and ingenuity. The scheme he set on foot was this: he pretended that the Company could not exist upon principles of strict justice, (for so he expresses it,) and that their affairs, in many cases, could not be so well
accommodated by a regular revenue as by privately
taking money, which was to be applied to their service
by the person who took it, at his discretion. This
was the principle he laid down. It would hardly be
believed, I imagine, unless strong proof appeared, that
? ? ? ? SPEECH ON THE SIXTH ARTICLE. -THIRD DAY. 325
any man could be so daring as to hold up such a resource to a regular government, which had three million of known, avowed, a great part of it territorial, revenue. But it is necessary, it seems, to piece out
the lion's skin with a fox's tail, - to tack on a little
piece of bribery and a little piece of peculation, in
order to help out the resources of a great and flourishing state; that they should have in the knavery of
their servants, in the breach of their laws, and in the
entire defiance of their covenlants, a real resource applicable to their necessities, of which they were not
to judge, but the persons who were to take the bribes;
and that the bribes thus taken were, by a mental
reservation, a private intention in the mind of the
taker, unknown to the giver, to be some time or other,
in some way or other, applied to the public service.
The taking such bribes was to become a justifiable
act, in consequence of that reservation in the mind
of the person who took them; and he was not to be
called to account for them in any other way than as
he thought fit.
My Lords, an act of Parliament passed in the year
1773, the whole drift of which, I may say, was to prevent bribery, peculation, and extortion in the Company's servants; and the act was penned, I think, with as much strictness and rigor as ever act was penned.
The 24th clause of Chap. 63, 13 Geo. III. , has the
followinlg enactment: " And be it further enacted
by the authority aforesaid, that, from and after the
first day of August, 1774, no person holding or exercising any civil or military office under the crown, or
the said United Company, in the East Indies, shall accept, receive, or take, directly or indirectly, by himself, or any other person or persons on his behalf, or
? ? ? ? 326 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
for his use or benefit, of and from ally of the Indian
princes or powers, or their ministers or agents, or
ally of the natives of Asia, any present, gift, donation,
gratuity, or reward, pecuniary or otherwise, upon any
account, or on any pretence whatsoever, or any promise or engagement for ally present, gift, donation, gratuity, or reward: and if any person, holding or exercisinlg any such civil or military office, shall be guilty of any such offence, and shall be thereof legally convicted," &c. , &c. It then imposes the penalties: and
your Lordships see that human wisdom cannot pen
an act more strongly directed against taking bribes
upon any pretence whatever.
This act of Parliament was in affirmance of the covenant entered into by the servants of the Company,
and of the explicit orders of the Company, which forbid any person whatever in trust, " directly or indirectly, to accept, take, or receive, or agree to accept, take,
or receive, any gift, reward, gratuity, allowance, donation, or compensation, in money, effects, jewels, or
otherwise howsoever, from any of the Indian princes,
sovereigns, subahs, or nabobs, or any of their ministers,
servants, or agents, exceeding the value of four thousand rupees, &c. , &c. And that he, the said Warren
Hastings, shall and will convey, assign, and make over
to the said United Company, for their sole and proper
use and benefit, all and every such gifts, rewards, gratuities, allowances, donations, or compensations whatsoever, which, contrary to the true intent and meaning
of these presents, shall come into the hands, possession,
or power of the said Warren Hastings, or any other
person or persons in trust for him or for his use. "
The nature of the covenant, the act of Parliament, and the Company's orders are clear. First,
? ? ? ? SPEECH ON THE SIXTH ARTICLE. -THIRD DAY. . 327
they have not forbidden their Governor-General, nor
any of their Governors, to take and accept from the
princes of the country, openly and publicly, for their
use, any territories, lands, sums of money, or other
donations, which may be offered in consequence of
treaty or otherwise. It was necessary to distinguish
this from every other species of acceptance, because
many occasions occurred in which fines were paid
to the Company in consequence of treaties; and it
was necessary to authorize the receipt of the same
in the Company's treasury, as an open and known
proceeding. It was never dreamed that this should
justify the taking of bribes, privately and clandestinely, by the Governor, or any other servant of the Company, for the purpose of its future application
to the Company's use.
It is declared that all such
bribes and money received should be the property of
the Company. And why? As a means of recovering them out of the corrupt hands that had taken
them. And therefore this was not a license for
bribery, but a prohibitory and penal clause, providing
the means of coercion, and making the prohibition
stronger. Now Mr. Hastings has found out that this
very coercive clause, which was made in order to enable his superiors to get at him and punish him for bribery, is a license for him to receive bribes. He
is not only a practitioner of bribery, but a professor,
a doctor upon the subject. His opinion is, that he
might take presents or bribes to himself; he considers the penal clause which the Company attached to their prohibition, and by which all such bribes are
constructively declared to be theirs, in order to recover them out of his hands, as a license to receive bribes, to extort money; and he goes with the very
? ? ? ? 328 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
prohibition in his hand, the very means by which he
was to be restrained, to exercise an unlimited bribery,
peculation, and extortion over the unhappy natives
of the country.
The moment he finds that the Company has got a
scent of ally one of his bribes, he comes forward and
says, " To be sure, I took it as a bribe; I admit the
party gave me it as a bribe: I concealed it for a time,
because I thought it was for the interest of the
Company to conceal it; but I had a secret intention,
in my own mind, of applying it to their service: you
shall have it; but you shall liave it as I please, and
when I please; and this bribe becomes sanctified the
moment I think fit to apply it to your service. " Now
can it be supposed that the India Company, or that
the act of Parliament, meant, by declaring that the
property taken by a corrupt servant, contrary to the
true intent of his covenant, was theirs, to give a license to take such property, - and that one mode
of obtaining a revenue was by the breach of the very
covenants which were meant to prevent extortion,
peculation, and corruption? What sort of body is
the India Company, which, coming to the verge of
bankruptcy by the robbery of half the world, is afterwards to subsist upon the alms of peculation and bribery, to have its strength recruited by the violation of the covenants imposed upon its own servants? It
is an odd sort of body to be so fed and so supported.
This new constitution of revenue that he has made is
indeed a very singular contrivance. It is a revenue
to be collected by any officer of the Company, (for
they are all alike forbidden, and all alike permitted,)
- to be collected by any person, from any person, at
any time, in any proportion, by any means, and in
? ? ? ? SPEECH (IN THE SIXTH ARTICLE. - THIRD DAY. 329
any way he pleases; and to be accounted for, or not
to be accounted for, at the pleasure of the collector,
and, if applied to their use, to be applied at his discretion, and not at the discretion of his employers.
I will venture to say that such a system of revenue
never was before thought of. The next part is an
exchequer, which he has formed, corresponding with
it. You will find the board of exchequer made up
of officers ostensibly in the Company's service, of
their public accountant and public treasurer, whom
Mr. Hastings uses as an accountant and treasurer of
bribes, accountable, not to the Company, but to himself, acting in no public manner, and never acting but upon his requisition, concealing all his frauds
and artifices to prevent detection and discovery. In
short, it is an exchequer in which, if I may be permitted to repeat the words I made use of on a former occasion, extortion is the assessor, in which
fraud is the treasurer, confusion the accountant, oblivion the remembrancer. That these are not mere words, I will exemplify as I go through the detail: I
will show you that every one of the things I have
stated are truths, in fact, and that these men are
bound by the condition of their recognized fidelity to
Mr. Hastings to keep back his secrets, to change the
accounts, to alter the items, to make him debtor or
creditor at pleasure, and by that means to throw the
whole system of the Company's accounts into confusion.
I have shown the impossibility of the Company's
having intended to authorize such a revenue, much
less such a constitution of it as Mr. Hastings has
drawn from the very prohibitions of bribery, and such
an exchequer as he has formed upon the principles I
? ? ? ? 330 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
have stated. You will not dishonor the legislature
or the Company, be it what it may, by thinking that
either of them could give any sanction to it. Indeed,
you will not think that such a device could ever enter
into the head of ally rational man. You are, then,
to judge whether it is not a device to cover guilt, to
prevent detection by destroying the means of it; and
at the same time your Lordships will judge whether
the evidence we bring you to prove that revenue is a
mere pretext be not stronger than the strange, absurd
reasons which he has produced for forming this new
plan of an exchequer of bribery.
My Lords, I am now going to read to you a letter
in which Mr. Hastings declares his opinion upon the
operation of the act, which he now has found the
means, as he thinks, of evading. My Lords, I will
tell you, to save you a good deal of reading, that
there was certain prize-money given by Sujah ul
Dowlah to a body of the Company's troops serving in
the field, -- that this prize-money was to be distributed among them; but upon application being made to Mr. Hastings for his opinion and sanction in the
distribution, Mr. Hastings at first seemed inclined to
give way to it, but afterwards, upon reading and considering the act of Parliament, before he allowed the soldiery to receive this public donation, he thus describes his opinion of the operation of the act.
Extract of a Letter from Mr. Hastings to Colonel
Champion, 31 August, 1774.
"Upon a reference to the new act of Parliament,
I was much disappointed and sorry to find that our
intentions were entirely defeated by a clause in the
? ? ? ? SPEECH ON THE SIXTH ARTICLE. - THIRD DAY. 331
act, (to be in force after the 1st of August, 1774,)
which divests us of the power to grant, and expressly
prohibits the army to receive, the Nabob's intended
donation. Agreeable to the positive sense of this
clause, notwithstanding it is expressed individually,
there is not a doubt but the army is included with all
other persons in the prohibition from receiving presents or donations; a confirmation of which is, that in the clause of exceptions, wherein' counsellors-at-law,
physicians, surgeons, and chaplains are permitted to
receive the fees annexed to their profession,' no mention whatever is made of any latitude given to the
army, or any circumstances wherein it would be allowable for them to receive presents. . . . . . This
unlucky discovery of an exclusion by act of Parliament, which admits of no abatement or evasion wherever its authority extends, renders a revisal of our proceedings necessary, and leaves no option to our
decision. It is not like the ordinances of the Court
of Directors, where a favorable construction may be
put, and some room is left for the interposition of the
authority vested in ourselves, -- but positive and decisive, admitting neither of refinement nor misconstruction. I should be happy, if in this instance a method could be devised of setting the act aside,
which I should most willingly embrace; but, in my
opinion, an opposition would be to incur the penalty. "
Your Lordships see, Mr. Hastings considered this
act to be a most unlucky discovery: indeed, as long
as it remained in force, it would have been unlucky
for him, because it would have destroyed one of the
principal sources of his illegal profits. Why does lie
consider it unlucky? Because it admits of no reser
? ? ? ? 332 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
vation, no exception, no refinement whatever, but is
clear, positive, decisive. Now in what case was it
that Mr. Hastings made this determination? In the
case of a donation publicly offered to an army serving
in the field by a prince then independent of the Company. If ever there was a circumstance in which any refinement, any favorable construction of the act
could be used, it was in favor of a body of men serving in the field, fighting for their country, spilling their blood for it, suffering all the inconveniences of
that climate. It was undoubtedly voluntarily offered
to them by the party, in the height of victory, and
enriched by the plunder of whole provinces. I believe your Lordships will agree with me, that, if any relaxation, any evasion, of an act of Parliament
could be allowed, if the intention of the legislature
could for a moment be trifled with, or supposed for
a moment doubtful, it was in this instance; and yet,
upon the rigor of the act, Mr. Hastings refuses that
army the price of their blood, money won solely almost by their arms for a prince who had acquired millions by their bravery, fidelity, and sufferings.
This was the case in which Mr. Hastings refused a
public donation to- the army; and from that day to
this they have never received it.
If the receipt of this public donation could be thus
forbidden, whence has Mr. Hastings since learned
that he may privately take money, and take it not
only from princes, and persons in power, and al)oullding in wealth, but, as we shall prove, from persons in a comparative degree of penury adii distress? that
he could take it from persons ill office and trust,
whose power gave them the mleans of ruining the
people for the purpose of enabliing tlhemselves to pay
? ? ? ? SPEECH ON THE SIXTH ARTICLE. - THIRD I)AY. 333
it? Consider in what a situation the Company must
be, if the Governor-General can form such a secret exchequer of direct bribes, given eo nomine as bribes, and accepted as such, by the parties concerned in the transaction, to be discovered only by himself, and with only the inward reservation that I have spoken of.
In the first place, if Mr. Hastings should die without having made a discovery of all his bribes, or
if any other servant of the Company should imitate
his example without his heroic good intentions in
doing such villanons acts, how is the Company to recover the bribe-money? The receivers need not divulge it till they think fit; and the moment an informer comes, that informer is ruined. He comes, for instance, to the Governor-General and Council,
and charges, say, not Mr. Hastings, but the head of
the Board of Revenue, with receiving a bribe. " Receive a bribe? So I did; but it was with an inten
tion of applying it to the Company's service. There
I nick the informer: I am beforehand with him: the
bribe is sanctified by my inward jesuitical intention.
I will make a merit of it with the Company. I have
received 40,0001. as a bribe; there it is for you: I
am acquitted; I am a meritorious servant: let the
informer go and seek his remedy as he can. " Now,
if an informer is once instructed that a person who
receives bribes can turn them into merit, and take
away his action from him, do you think that you
ever will or can discover any one bribe? But what
is still worse, by this method disclose but one bribe,
and you secure all the rest that you possibly can receive upon any occasion. For instance, strong report prevails that a bribe of 40,0001. has been given,
? ? ? ? 334 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
and the receiver expects that information will be laid
against him. He acknowledges that lie has received
a bribe of 40,0001. , but says that it was for the service of the Company, and that it is carried to their account. And thus, by stating that he has taken
some money which he has accounted for, but concealing from whom that money came, which is exactly Mr. Hastings's case, if at last an information should
be laid before the Company of a specific bribe having
been received of 40,0001. , it is said by the receiver,
"Lord! this is the 40,0001. I told you of: it is
broken into fragments, paid by instalments; and you
have taken it and put it into your own coffers. "
Again, suppose him to take it through the hand
of an agent, such as Gunga Govind Sing, and that
this agent, who, as we have lately discovered, out of
a bribe of 40,0001. , which Mr. Hastings was to have
received, kept back half of it, falls into their debt
like him: I desire to know what the Company can
do in such a case. Gunga Govind Sing has entered
into no covenants with the Company. There is no
trace of his having this money, except what Mr.
Hastings chooses to tell. If he is called upon to
refund it to the Company, he may say he never received it, that he was never ordered to extort this money from the people; or if he was under any
covenant not to take money, he may set up this defence: " I am forbidden to receive money; and I
will not make a declaration which will subject me
to penalties": or he may say in India, before the
Supreme Court, "I have paid the bribe all to Mr.
Hastings "; and then there must be a bill and suit
there, a bill and suit here, and by that means, having one party on one side the water and the other
? ? ? ? SPEECH ON THE SIXTH ARTICLE. -THIRD DAY. 335 party on the other, the Company may never come
to a discovery of it. And that in fact this is the
way in which one of his great bribe-agents has acted I shall prove to your Lordships by evidence.
Mr. Hastings had squeezed out of a miserable
country a bribe of 40,0001. , of which he was enabled
to bring to the account of the Company only 20,0001. ,
and of which we should not even have known the
existence, if the inquiries pursued with great diligence by the House of Commons had not extorted the discovery: and even now that we know the fact,
we can never get at the money; the Company can
never receive it; and before the House had squeezed
out of him that some such money had been received,
he never once told the Court of Directors that his
black bribe-agent, whomn le recommended to their
service, had cheated both them and him of 20,0001.
out of the fund of the bribe-revenue. If it be asked,
Where is the record of this? Record there is none.
In what office is it entered? It is entered in no
office; it is mentioned as privately received for the
Company's benefit: and you shall now further see
what a charming office of receipt and account this
new exchequer of Mr. Hastings's is.
For there is another and a more serious circumstance attending this business. Every one knows, that, by the law of this, and, I believe, of every country, any money which is taken illegally from anlly person, as every bribe or sum of money extorted
or paid without consideration is, belongs to the person who paid it, and he may bring his action for it, and recover it. Then see how the Company stands.
The Company receives a bribe of 40,0001. by Mr.
Hastings; it is carried to its account; it turns brib
? ? ? ? 336 IMPEACHM1ENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
ery into a revenue; it sanctifies it. In the mean
time, the man from whom this money is illegally
taken sues Mr. Hastings. Must not he recover. of
Mr. Hastings? Then, if so, must not Mr. Hastings
recover it again from the Company? The Company undoubtedly is answerable for it. And here is a revenue which every man who has paid it may drag
out of the treasury again. Mr. Hastings's donations of his bribes to the treasury are liable to be torn from it at pleasure by every man who gives the money. First it may be torn from him who receives it; and then he may recover it from the treasury, to which he has given it.
But admitting that the taking of bribes can be
sanctified by their becoming the property of the
Company, it may still be asked, For what end and
purpose has the Company covenanted with Mr. Hastings that money taken extorsively shall belong to the Company? Is it that satisfaction and reparation
may be awarded against the said Warren Hastings
to tile said Company for their own benefit? No:
it is for the benefit of the injured persons; and it
is to be carried to the Company's account, "but in
trust, nevertheless, and to the intent that the said
Company may and do render and pay over the moneys received or recovered by them to the parties injured or defrauded, which the said Company accordingly hereby agree and covenant to do. " Now here is a revenue to be received by Mr. Hastings for
the Company's use, applied at his discretion to that
use, and which the Company has previously covenanted to restore to the persons that are injured and damaged. This is a revenue which is to be torn
away by the action of any person, - a revenue which
? ? ? ? SPEECH ON THE SIXTH ARTICLE. - THIRD DAY. 3837
they must return back to the person complaining,
as they in justice ought to do: for no nation ever
avowed making a revenue out of bribery and peculation. They are, then, to restore it back again. But how can they restore it? Mr. Hastings has
applied it: he has given it in presents to princes,laid it out in budgeros, -- in pen, ink, and wax, --
in salaries to secretaries: he has laid it out just ill
any way he pleased: and the India Company, who
have covenanted to restore all this money to the persons from whom it came, are deprived of all means of performing so just a duty. Therefore I dismiss the
idea that any man so acting could have had a good
intention in his mind: the supposition is too weak,
senseless, and absurd. It was only in a desperate
cause that he made a desperate attempt: for we shall
prove that lie never made a disclosure without thinking that a discovery had been previously made or was likely to be made, together with anl exposure
of all the circumstances of his wicked and abominable concealment.
You will see the history of this new scheme of
bribery, by which Mr. Hastings contrived by avowing some bribes to cover others, attempted to outface
his delinquency, and, if possible, to reconcile a weak
breach of the laws with a sort of spirited observance
of them, and to become infamous for the good of his
country.
The first appearance of this practice of bribery
was in a letter of the 29th of November, 1780. The
cause which led to the discovery was a dispute between him and Mr. Francis at the board, in collsequence of a very handsome offer made by Mr. Hastings to the board relative to a measure proposed by VOL. X. 22
? ? ? ? 338 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
him, to which he found one objection to be the money
that it would cost. He made the most generous and
handsome offer, as it stands upon record, that perhaps
any man ever made, - namely, that lie would defiay
the expense out of his own private cash, and that he
had deposited with the treasurer two lac of rupees.