On the 19th of February, 1789, the prisoner presented a petition to your Lordships, in which he states, after many other complaints, that a great
number of his witnesses were obliged to go to India,
by which he has lost the benefit of their testimony,
and that a great number of your Lordships' body
were dead, by which he has lost the benefit of their
judgment.
number of his witnesses were obliged to go to India,
by which he has lost the benefit of their testimony,
and that a great number of your Lordships' body
were dead, by which he has lost the benefit of their
judgment.
Edmund Burke
?
SPEECH IN REPLY.
- FIRST DAY.
171
which we charge him with are of that atrocity, that,
if brought home to him, he merits death. Yet,
when, in pursuance of our duty, we come to state
these crimes with their proper criminatory epithets,
when we state in strong and direct terms the circumstances which heighten and aggravate them, when we dwell on the immoral and heinous nature of the acts,
and the terrible effects which such acts produce, and
when we offer to prove both the principal facts and
the aggravatory ones by evidence, and to show their
nature and quality by the rules of law, morality, and
policy, then this criminal, then his counsel, then his
accomplices and hirelings, posted in newspapers and
dispersed in circles through every part of the kingdom, represent him as an object of great compassion, because he is treated, say they, with nothing but opprobrious names and scurrilous invectives.
To all this the Managers of the Commons will say
nothing by way of defence: it would be to betray
their trust, if they did. No, my Lords, they have
another and a very different duty to perform on this
occasion. They are bound not to suffer public opinion, which often prevents judgment and often defeats
its effects, to be debauched and corrupted. Much
less is this to be suffered in the presence of our coordinate branch of legislature, and as it were with
vour and our own tacit acquiescence. Whenever the
public mind is misled, it becomes the duty of the
Commons of Great Britain to give it a more proper
tone and a juster way of thinking. When ignorance
and corruption have usurped the professor's chair, and
placed themselves in the seats of science and of virtue,
it is high time for us to speak out. We know that
the doctrines of folly are of great use to the profes
? ? ? ? 172 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
sors of vice. We know that it is one of the signs of
a corrupt and degenerate age, and one of the means
of insuring its further corruption and degeneracy, to
give mild and lenient epithets to vices and to crimes.
The world is much influenced by names. And as
terms are the representatives of sentiments, when
persons who exercise any censorial magistracy seem
in their language to compromise with crimes and
criminals by expressing no horror of the one or detestation of the other, the world will naturally think that they act merely to acquit themselves in its sight
in form, but in reality to evade their duty. Yes, my
Lords, the world must think that such persons palter
with their sacred trust, and are tender to crimes because they look forward to the future possession of the same power which they now prosecute, and purpose to abuse it in the manner it has been abused by the criminal of whom they are so tender.
To remove such an imputation from us, we assert
that the Commons of Great Britain are not to receive
instructions about the language which they ought to
hold from the gentlemen who have made profitable
studies in the academies of Benares and of Oude.
We know, and therefore do not want to learn, how to
comport ourselves in prosecuting the haughty and
overgrown delinquents of the East. We cannot require to be instructed by them in what words we
shall express just indignation at enormous crimes;
for we have the example- of our great ancestors to
teach us: we tread in their steps, and we speak in
their language.
Your Lordships well know, for you must be conversant in this kind of reading, that you once had
before you a man of the highest rank in this country,
? ? ? ? SPEECH IN REPLY. FIRST DAY. 173
one of the greatest men of the law and one of the
greatest men of the state, a peer of your own body,
Lord Macclesfield'. Yet, my Lords, when' that peer'did but just modestly hint that he had received hard measure from the Commons and their Managers,
those Managers thought themselves bound seriatim,
one after another, to express the utmost indignation
at the charge, in the harshest language that could be
used. Why did they do so? They knew it was the
language that became them. They lived in an age
in which politeness was as well understood and as
much cultivated as it is at present; but they knew
what they were doing, and they were resolved to use
no language but what their ancestors had used, and
to suffer no insolence which their ancestors would
not have suffered. We tread in their steps; we pursue their method; we learn of them: and we shall
never learn at any other school.
We know from history and the records of this
Iouse, that a Lord Bacon has been before you. Who
is there, that, upon hearing this name, does not instantly recognize everything of genius the most profound, everything of literature the most extensive, everything of discovery the most penetrating, everything
of observation on human life the most distinguishing
and refined? All these must be instantly recognized,
for they are all inseparably associated with the name
of Lord Verulam. Yet, when this prodigy was
brought before your Lordships by the Commons of
Great Britain for having permitted his menial servant to receive presents, what was his demeanor?
Did he require his counsel not'"to let down. the
dignity of his defence"? No. That Lord Bacon,
whose least distinction was, that he was a peer of
? ? ? ? 174 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
England, a Lord High Chancellor, and the son of a
Lord Keeper, behaved like a man who knew himself,
like a man who was conscious of merits of the highest
kind, but who was at the same time conscious of having fallen into guilt. The House of Commons did not spare him. They brought him to your bar.
They found spots in that sun. And what, I again
ask, was his behavior? That of contrition, that of
humility, that of repentance, that which belongs to
the greatest men lapsed and fallen through human
infirmity into error. IHe did not hurl defiance at
the accusations of his country; he bowed himself
before it. Yet, with all his penitence, he could not
escape the pursuit of the House of Commons, and
the inflexible justice of this Court. Your Lordships
fined him forty thousand pounds, notwithstanding
all his merits, notwithstanding his humility, notwithstanding his contrition, notwithstanding the decorum of his behavior, so well suited to a man under the
prosecution of the Commons of England before the
Peers of England. You fined him in a sum fully
equal to one hundred thousand pounds of the present
day; you imprisoned him during the King's pleasure; and you disqualified him forever from having a seat in this House and any office in this kingdom.
This is the way in which the Commons behaved formerly, and in which your Lordships acted formerly, when no culprit at this bar dared to hurl a recriminatory accusation against his prosecutors, or dared
to censure the language in which they expressed their
indignation at his crimes.
The Commons of Great Britain, following these
examples and fortified by them, abhor all compromise with guilt either in act or in language. They
? ? ? ? SPEECH IN REPLY. - FIRST DAY. 175
will not disclaim ally one word that they have spoken, because, my Lords, they have said nothing abusive or illiberal. It has been said that we have used such language as was used to Sir Walter Raleigh,
when he was called, not by the Commons, but by a
certain person of a learned profession, "a spider of
hell. " My Lords, Sir Walter was a great soldier, a
great mariner, and one of the first scholars of his
age. To call him. a spider of hell was not only indecent in itself, but perfectly foolish, from the term being totally inapplicable to the object, and fit only for the very pedantic eloquence of the person who used
it. But if Sir Walter Raleigh had been guilty of
numberless frauds and prevarications, if he had clandestinely picked up other men's money, concealed his
peculation by false bonds, and afterwards attempted to cover it by the cobwebs of the law, then my
Lord Coke would have trespassed a great deal more
against decorum than against propriety of similitude
and metaphor.
My Lords, the Managers for the Commons have
not used any inapplicable language. We have indeed used, and will again use, such expressions as are
proper to portray guilt. After describing the mnagnitude of the crime, we describe the magnitude of the
criminal. We have declared him to be not only a
public robber himself, but the head of a system of
robbery, the captainl-general of the gang, the chief
under whom a whole predatory band was arrayed,
disciplined, and paid. This, my Lords, is what we
offered to prove fully to you, what in part we have
proved, and the whole of which I believe we could
prove. In developing such a mass of criminality
and in describing a criminal of such magnitude as
? ? ? ? 176 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
we have now brought before you, we could not use
lenient epithets without compromising with crime.
We therefore shall not relax in our pursuits nor in
our language. No, my Lords, no! we shall not fail
to feel indignation, wherever our moral nature has
taught us to feel it; nor shall we hesitate to speak
the language which is dictated by that indignation.
Whenever men are oppressed where they ought to be
protected, we called [call? ] it tyranny, and we call
the actor a tyrant. Whenever goods are taken by violence from the possessor, we call it a robbery, and the
person who takes it we call a robber. Money clandestinely taken from the proprietor we call theft, and the
person who takes it we call a thief. When a false
paper is made out to obtain money, we call the act
a forgery. That steward who takes bribes from his
master's tenants, and then, pretending the money to
be his own, lends it to that master and takes bonds
for it to himself, we consider guilty of a breach of
trust; and the person who commits such crimes we
call a cheat, a swindler, and a forger of bonds. All
these offences, without the least softening, under all
these names, we charge upon this man. We have so
charged in our record, we have so charged in our
speeches; and we are sorry that our language does
not furnish terms of sufficient force and compass to
mark the multitude, the magnitude, and the atrocity
of his crimes.
How came it, then, that the Commons of Great
Britain should be calumniated for the course which
they have taken? Why should it ever have been
supposed that we are actuated by revenge? I answer, There are two very sufficient causes: corruption and ignorance. The first disposes an innumera
? ? ? ? SPEECH IN REPLY. -FIRST DAY. 177
ble multitude of people to a fellow-feeling with the
prisoner. Under the shadow of his crimes thousands
of fortunes have been made; and therefore thousands of tongues are employed to justify the means by which these fortunes were made. When they cannot deny the facts, they attack the accusers, - they attack their conduct, they attack their persons, they
attack their language, in every possible manner. I
have said, my Lords, that ignorance is the other cause
of this calumny by which the House of Commons is
assailed. Ignorance produces a confusion of ideas
concerning the decorum of life, by confounding the
rules of private society with those of public function.
To talk, as we here talk, to persons in a mixed company of men and women, would violate the law of such societies; because they meet for the sole purpose of social intercourse, and not for the exposure, the censure, the punishment of crimes: to all which
things private societies are altogether incompetent.
In them crimes can never be regularly stated, proved,
or refuted. The law has therefore appointed special
places for such inquiries; and if in any of those places we were to apply the emollient language of drawing-rooms to the exposure of great crimes, it
would be as false and vicious in taste and in morals
as to use the criminatory language of this hall in
drawing and assembling rooms would be misplaced
and ridiculous. Every one knows that in common
society palliating names are given to vices. Adultery in a lady is called gallantry; the gentleman is: commonly called a man of good fortune, sometimes
in French and sometimes in English. But is this
the tone which would become a person in a court of
justice, calling these people to an account for that
VOL. XI. 12
? ? ? ? 178 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
horrible crime which destroys the basis of society?
No, my Lords, this is not the tone of such proceedings. Your Lordships know that it is not; the
Commons know that it is not and because we have'
acted on that knowledge, and stigmatized crimes with
becoming indignation, we are said to be actuated rather by revenge than justice.
If it should still be asked why we show sufficient
acrimony to excite a suspicion of being in any manner influenced by malice or a desire of revenge, to
this, my Lords, I answer, -Because we would be
thought to know our duty, and to have all the world
know how resolutely we are resolved to perform it. The Commons of Great, Britain are not disposed to
quarrel with the Divine Wisdom and Goodness,
which has moulded up revenge into the frame and
constitution of man. He that has made us what we
are has made us at once resentful and reasonable.
Instinct tells a man that he ought to revenge an injury; reason tells him that he- ought not to be a
judge in his own cause. From that moment revenge
passes from the private to the public hand; but in
being transferred it is far from being extinguished.
My Lords, it is transferred as a sacred trust to be
exercised for the injured, in measure and proportion, by persons who, feeling as he feels, are in a temper to reason better than he can reason. Revenge is taken out of the hands of the original injured proprietor, lest it should be carried beyond the bounds
of moderation and justice. But, my Lords, it is in
its transfer exposed to a danger of an opposite description. The delegate'of vengeance may not feel
the wrong sufficiently: he may be cold and languid
in the performance of his sacred duty. It is for
? ? ? ? SPEECH IN REPLY. - FIRST DAY. : 179
these reasons that good men are taught to tremble
even at the first emotions of anger and resentment
for their own particular wrongs; but they are likewise taught, if they are well taught, to give the loosest possible rein to their resentment and indignation, whenever their parents, their friends, their country, or their brethren of the common family of
mankind are injured. Those who have not such
feelings, under such circumstances, are base and degenerate. These, my Lords, are the sentiments of the. Commons of Great Britain.
Lord Bacon has very well said, that "revenge is a
kind of wild justice. '. ' It is so, and without this wild
austere stock there would be no justice in the world.
But when, by the skilful hand of morality and wise
jurisprudence, a foreign scion, but of the very same
species, is grafted upon it, its harsh quality becomes
changed, it submits to culture, and, laying aside its
savage nature, it bears fruits and flowers, sweet to
the world, and not ungrateful even to heaven itself, to
which it elevates its exalted head. The fruit of this
wild stock is revenge regulated, but not extinguished,
- revenge transferred from the suffering party to the
communion and sympathy of mankind. This is the
revenge by which we are actuated, and which we
should be sorry, if the false, idle, girlish, novel-like
morality of the world should extinguish in the breast
of us who have a great public. duty to performf.
This sympathetic revenge, which is condemned by
clamorous imbecility, is so far from being a vice, that
it is the greatest of all possible virtues, -a virtue
which the uncorrupted judgment of mankind has in
all ages exalted to the rank of heroism. To give up
all. the repose and pleasures of life, to pass sleepless
? ? ? ? 180 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
nights and laborious days, and, what is ten times
more irksome to an ingenuous mind, to offer oneself
to calumny and all its herd of hissing tongues and
poisoned fangs, in order to free the world from fraudulent prevaricators, from cruel oppressors, from robbers and tyrants, has, I say, the test of heroic virtue, and well deserves such a distinction. The Commons,
despairing to attain the heights of this virtue, never
lose sight of it for a moment. For seventeen years
they have, almost without intermission, pursued, by
every sort of inquiry, by legislative and by judicial
remedy, the cure of this Indian malady, worse ten
thousand times than the leprosy which our forefathers
brought from the East. Could they have done this,
if they had not been actuated by some strong, some
vehement, some perennial passion, which, burning
like the Vestal fire, chaste and eternal, never suffers
generous sympathy to grow cold in maintaining the
rights of the injured or in denouncing the crimes of
the oppressor?
My Lords, the Managers for the Commons have
been actuated by this passion; my Lords, they feel
its influence at this moment; and so far from softening either their measures or their tone, they do here,
in the presence of their Creator, of this HIouse, and
of the world, make this solemn declaration, and nuncupate this deliberate vow: that they will ever glow
with the most determined and unextinguishable animosity against tyranny, oppression, and peculation in
all, but more particularly as practised by this man in
India; that they never will relent, but will pursue
and prosecute him and it, till they see corrupt pride
prostrate under the feet of justice. We call upon
your Lordships to join us; and we have no doubt that
? ? ? ? SPEECH IN REPLY. -FIRST DAY. 181
you will feel the samne sympathy that we feel, or (what
I cannot persuade my soul to think or my mouth to
utter) you will be identified with the criminal whose
crimes you excuse, and rolled with him in all the
pollution of Indian guilt, from generation to generation. Let those who feel with me upon this occasion
join with me in this vow: if they will not, I have it
all to myself.
It is not to defend ourselves that I have addressed
your Lordships at such length on this subject. No,
my Lords, I have said what I considered necessary to
instruct the public upon the principles which induced
the House of Commons to persevere in this business
with a generous warmth, and in the indignant language which Nature prompts, when great crimes are
brought before men who feel as they ought to feel
upon such occasions.
I now proceed, my Lords, to the next recriminatory
charge, which is delay. I confess I am not astonished
at this charge. From the first records of human impatience down to the present time, it has been complained that the march of violence and oppression is rapid, but that the progress of remedial and vindictive
justice, even the divine, has almost always favored the
appearance of being languid and sluggish. Something of this is owing to the very nature and constitution of human affairs; because, as justice is a circumspect, cautious, scrutinizing, balancing principle, full of doubt even of itself, and fearful of doing
wrong even to the greatest wrong-doers, in the nature
of things its movements must be slow in comparison
with the headlong rapidity with which avarice, ambition, and revenge pounce down upon the devoted prey
? ? ? ? 182 IIMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
of those violent and destructive passions. And indeed,
my Lords, the disproportion between crime and jus-. tice, when seen in the particular acts of either, would,be so much to the advantage of crimes and, criminals, that we should find it difficult to defend laws and tribunals, (especially in great and arduous cases like
this,) if we did not look, not to the immediate, not to
the retrospective, but to the provident operation of justice. Its chief operation is in its future example; and
this turns the balance, upon the total effect, in favor
of vindictive justice, and in some measure reconciles
a pious and humble mind to this great mysterious
dispensation of the world.
Upon the charge of delay in this particular cause,,
my Lords, I have only to say that the business before
you is of immense magnitude. The prisoner himself
says that all the acts of his life are committed in it.
With a due sense of this magnitude, we know that
the investigation could not be short to us, nor short
to your Lordships; but when we are called upon, as
we have been daily, to sympathize with. the prisoner
in that delay, my Lords, we must tell -you that we
have no sympathy with him. Rejecting, as we have
done, all false, spurious, and hypocritical virtues, we
should hold it to be the greatest of all crimes to
bestow upon the oppressors that pity which belongs
to the oppressed. , The unhappy persons who are
wronged, robbed, and despoiled have no remedy but
in the sympathies of mankind; and when these sympathies are suffered to be debauched, when they are
perversely carried from the victim to the oppressor,
then we commit a robbery still greater than that which
was committed by the criminal accused.
My Lords, we do think this process long; we lament
? ? ? ? SPEECH IN REPLY. -FIRST DAY. 183
it in every sense in which it ought to be lamented;
but we lament still more that the Begums have been
so long without having a just punishment inflicted
upon their spoiler. We lament that Cheyt Sing has
so long been, a wanderer, while the man who drove
him from his dominions is still unpunished. We are
sorry that Nobkissin has been cheated of his money
for fourteen years, without obtaining redress. These
are our sympathies, my Lords; and thus we reply to
this part of the charge.
My L6rds, there are some matters of fact in this
charge of delay which I must beg your Lordships will
look into.
On the 19th of February, 1789, the prisoner presented a petition to your Lordships, in which he states, after many other complaints, that a great
number of his witnesses were obliged to go to India,
by which he has lost the benefit of their testimony,
and that a great number of your Lordships' body
were dead, by which he has lost the benefit of their
judgment. As to the hand of God, though some
members of your House may have departed this life
since -the commencement of this trial, yet the body
always remains entire. The evidence before you is
the same; and therefore there is no reason to presume
that your final judgment will be affected by these
afflicting dispensations of Providence. With regard
to his witnesses, I must beg to remind your Lordships
of one extraordinary fact. This prisoner has sent to
India, and obtained, not testimonies, but testimonials
to his general good behavior. He has never once
applied, by commission or otherwise, to falsify any
one fact that is charged upon him, - no, my Lords,
not one. Therefore that part of his petition which
states the injury he has received from the Commons
? ? ? ? 184 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
of Great Britain is totally false and groundless. For
if he had any witnesses to examine, he would not
have failed to examine them; if he had asked for a
commission to receive their depositions, a commission
would have been granted; if, without a commission,
he had brought affidavits to facts, or regular recorded
testimony, the Commons of Great Britain would never
have rejected such evidence, even though they could
not have cross-examined it.
Another complaint is, that many of his witnesses
were obliged to leave England before he could make
use of their evidence. My Lords, no delay in the trial has prevented him from producing any evidence; for we were willing that any of his witnesses should
be examined at any time most convenient to himself.
If many persons connected with his measures are
gone to India, during the course of his trial, many
others have returned to England. Mr. . Larkins returned. Was the prisoner willing to examine him?
No: and it was nothing but downright shame, and
the presumptions which he knew would be drawn
against him, if he did not call this witness, which
finally induced him to make use of his evidence.
We examined Mr. Larkins, my Lords; we examined
all the prisoner's witnesses; your Lordships have their
testimony; and down to this very hour he has not
put his hand upon any one whom he thought a proper
and essential witness to the facts, or to any part of
the cause, whose examination has been denied him;
nor has he even stated that any man, if brought here,
would prove such and such points. No, not one word
to this effect has ever been stated by the prisoner.
There is, my Lords, another case, which was noticed by my honorable fellow Manager yesterday. Mr.
? ? ? ? SPEECH IN REPLY. -FIRST DAY. 185
Belli, the confidential secretary of the prisoner, was
agent and contractor for stores; and this raised a
suspicion that the contracts were held by him for the
prisoner's advantage. Mr. Belli was here during the
whole time of the trial, and six weeks after we had
closed our evidence. We had then no longer the
arrangement of'the order of witnesses, and he might
have called whom he pleased. With the full knowledge of these circumstances, that witness did he suffer to depart for India, if he did not even encourage
his departure'. This, my Lords, is the kind of damage which he has suffered by the want of witnesses,
through the protraction of this trial.
But the great and serious evil: which he complains
of, as being occasioned by our delay, is of so extraordinary a nature that I must request your Lordships
to examine it with extraordinary strictness and attention. In the petition before your Lordships, the prisoner asserts that he was under the necessity, through his counsel and solicitors, " of collecting and collating from the voluminous records of the Company the
whole history of his public life, in order to form a
complete defence to every allegation which the Honorable House of Commons had preferred against him,
and that he has expended upwards of thirty thousand
pounds in preparing the materials of his defence. "
It is evident, my Lords, that the expenditure of this
thirty thousand pounds is not properly connected with
the delay of which he complains; for he states that
he had incurred this loss merely in collecting and collating materials, previous to his defence before your
Lordships. If this were true, and'your Lordships
were to admit the amount as a rule and estimate by
which the aggregate of his loss could be ascertained,
? ? ? ? 186 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
the application of the rule of three to the sum and
time given would bring out an enormous expenditure
in the long period which has elapsed since the com~mencement of the trial, - so enormous, that, if this monstrous load of oppression has been laid upon him
by the delay of the Commons, I believe no man living
canl stand up in our justification. But, my Lords, I
am to tell your Lordships some facts, into which we
trust you will inquire: for this business is not in our
hands, nor can we lay it as a charge before you.
Your own Journals have recorded the document, in
which the prisoner complains bitterly of the House of
Commonsj and indeed of the whole judicature of the
country, - a complaint which your Lordships will do
well to examine.
When we first came to a knowledge of this petition,
which was not till some time after it was presented,
I happened to have conversation with a noble lord,
- I know not whether he be in his place'in the
House or not, but I think I am not irregular in
mentioning his name. When I mention Lord Suffolk,
I name a peer whom honor, justice, veracity, and every. virtue that distinguishes the man and the peer would claim for their own. My Lord Suffolk told
me, that, in a conversation with the late Lord Dover,
who brought the prisoner's petition into your House,
he could not refrain from expressing his astonishment
at that part of the petition which related to the expense Mr. Hastings had been at; and particularly as
a complaint had been made in the House of the enormous expense of the prosecution, which at that time had only amounted to fourteen thousand pounds,
although the expense of the prosecutor is generally
greater than that of the defendant, and public pro
? ? ? ? SPEECH IN REPLY. FIRST DAY. 187
ceedings more expensive than private ones. Lord
Dover said, that, before he presented the petition, he
had felt exactly in the same manner; but that Mr.
Hastings assured him that six thousand pounds had
been paid to copying clerks in the India HIouse, and
that from this circumstance he might judge of the
other expenses. Lord Dover was satisfied with this
assurance, and presented the petition, which otherwise he should have declined to do, on account of the
apparent enormity of the allegation it contained. At
the time when Lord Suffolk informed me of these particulars, (with a good deal of surprise and astonish-ment,) I had not leisure to go down to the India House in order to make inquiries concerning them,
but I afterwards asked the Secretary, Mr. Hudson, to
whom we had given a handsome reward, what sums
he had received from Mr. Hastings for his services
upon this occasion, and the answer was, "Not one
shilling. " Not one shilling had Mr. Hudson received from Mr. Hastings. The clerks of the Company informed us that the Court of Directors had
ordered that every paper which Mr. Hastings wanted
should be copied for him gratuitously, --and that, if
any additional clerks were wanting for the effectual
execution of his wishes, the expense would be defrayed by the Directors. Hearing this account, I
next inquired what expedition money might have been
given to the clerks: for we know something of this
kind is usually done. In reply to this question, Mr.
Hudson told me that at various times they had received in little driblets to the amount of ninetyfive pounds, or thereabouts. In this way the account stood when I made this inquiry, which was at least
half a year after the petition had been presented to
? ? ? ? 188 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
your Lordships. Thus the whole story of the six
thousand pounds was absolutely false. At that time
there was not one word of truth in it, whatever be
the amount of the sums which he has paid since.
1Tour Lordships will now judge whether you have
been abused by false allegations or not, allegations
which could scarcely admit of being true, and which
upon the best inquiry I found absolutely false; and I
appeal to the testimony of the noble lord, who is now
living, for the truth of the account he received from
the worthy and respectable peer whose loss the nation
has to bewail.
There are many other circumstances of fraud and
falsehood attending this petition, (we must call things
by their proper names, my Lords,) - there are, I say,
many circumstances of fraud and falsehood. We
know it to have been impossible, at the time of presenting this petition, that this man should have expended thirty thousand pounds in the preparation of materials for his defence; and your Lordships' justice, together with the credit of the House of Commons, are concerned in the discovery of the truth. There is, indeed, an ambiguous word in the petition.
He asserts that he is engaged for the payment of
that sum. We asked the clerks of the India House
whether he had given them any bond, note, security,
or promise of payment: they assured us that he had
not: they will be ready to make the same assurance
to your Lordships, when you come to inquire into
this matter, which before you give judgment we desire and claim that you will do. All is concealment
and mystery on the side of the prisoner; all is open
and direct with us. We are desirous that everything
which is concealed may be brought to light.
? ? ? ? SPEECH IN REPLY. - FIRST DAY. 189
In contradiction, then, to this charge of oppression
and of an attempt to ruin his fortune, your Lordships
will see that at the time when he. made this charge
he had not been, in fact, nor was for a long time
after, one shilling out of pocket. But some other
person had become security to his attorney for him.
What, then, are we to think of these men of business,
of these friends of Mr. Hastings, who, when he is possessed of nothing, are contented to become responsible for thirty thousand pounds, (was it thirty thousand pounds out of the bullock contracts? ) - responsible, I say, for this sum, in order to maintain this suit previous to. its actual commencement, and who
consequently must be so engaged for every article of
expense that has followed from that time to this?
Thus much we have thought it necessary to say
upon this part of the recriminatory charge of delay.
With respect to the delay in general, we are at present under an account to our constituents upon that
subject. To them we shall give it. We shall not give
any further account of it to your Lordships. The
means belong to us as well as to you of removing
these charges. Your Lordships may inquire upon
oath, as we have done in our committee, into all the
circumstances of these allegations. I hope your
Lordships will do so, and will give the Commons an
opportunity of attending and assisting at this most
momentous and important inquiry.
The next recriminatory charge made upon us by
the prisoner is, that, merely to throw an odium upon
him, we have brought forward a great deal of irrelevant matter, which could not be proved regularly in
the course of examination at your bar, and particrl
? ? ? ? 190 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
larly in the opening speech, which I had the honor
of making on the subject.
Your Lordships know very well that we stated in
our charge that great abuses had prevailed in India,
that the Company had entered into covenants with
their servants respecting those abuses, that an act
of Parliament was made to prevent their recurrence,
and that Mr. Hastings still continued in their practice. Now, my Lords, having stated this, nothing
could be more regular, more proper, and more pertinent, than for us to justify both the covenants required by the Company and the act made to prevent the abuses which existed in India. We therefore
went through those abuses; we stated them, and,
were ready to prove every material word and article
ill them. Whether they were personally relevant
or irrelevant to the prisoner we cared nothing. We
were to make out from the records of the House
(which records I can produce, whenever I am called
upon for them) all these articles of abuse and grievance; and we have stated these abuses as the
grounds of the Company's provisional covenants with
its servants, and of the act of Parliament. We have
stated them under two heads, violence and corruption: for these crimes will be found, my Lords, in almost every transaction with the native powers; and the prisoner is directly or indirectly involved in every part of'them. If it be still objected, that these
crimes are irrelevant to the charge, we answer, that
we did not introduce them as matter of charge. We
say they were not irrelevant to the proof of the preamble of our charge, which preamble is perfectly
relevant ill all its parts. . That the matters stated in
it are perfectly true we vouch the House of Com
? ? ? ? SPEECH IN REPLY. -FIRST DAY. 191
molls, we vouch the very persons themselves who
were concerned in the transactions. When Arabic
authors are quoted, and Oriental tales told about
flashes of lightning and three seals, we quote the very
parties themselves giving this account of their own
conduct to a committee of the House of -Commons.
Your Lordships will remember that a most reverend prelate, who cannot be named without every
mark of respect and attention, conveyed a petition to
your Lordships from a gentleman concerned in one
of those narratives. Upon your Lordships' table that
petition still lies. For the production of this narrative we are not answerable to this House; your Lordships could not make us answerable to him; but we are answerable to our own House, we are answerable to our own honor, we are answerable to all
the Commons of Great Britain for whatever we have
asserted in their name. Accordingly, General Burgoyne, then a member of this Committee of Managers, and myself, went down into the House of Commons; we there restated the whole affair; we
desired that an inquiry should be made into it, at the
request of the parties concerned. But, my Lords,
they have never asked for inquiry from that day to
this. Whenever he or they who are criminated (not
by uLs, but in this volume of Reports that is in my
hand) desire it, the House will give them all possible
satisfaction upon the subject.
A similar complaint was made to the House of
Commons by the prisoner, that matters irrelevant
to the charge were brought up hither. Was it not
open to him, and has he had. no friends in the House
of Commons, to call upon the House, during the
whole period of this proceeding, to examine into the
? ? ? ? 192 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
particulars adduced in justification of the preamble
of the charge against him, in justification of the
covenants of the Company, in justification of the act
of Parliament? It was in his power to do it; it is
in his power still; and if it be brought before that
tribunal, to which I and my fellow Managers are
alone accountable, we will lay before that tribunal
such matters as will sufficiently justify our mode
of proceeding, and the resolution of the House oi
Commons. I will not, therefore, enter into the particulars (because they cannot be entered into by
your Lordships) any further than to say, that, if we
had ever been called upon to prove the allegations
which we have made, not in the nature of a charge,
but as bound in duty to this Court, and in justice to
ourselves, we should have been ready to enter into
proof. We offered to do so, and we now repeat the
offer.
There was another complaint in the prisoner's petition, which did not apply to the words of the preamble, but to an allegation in the charge concerning abuses in the revenue, and the ill consequences which
arose from them. I allude to those shocking transactions, which nobody can mention without horror, in
Rampore and Dinagepore, during the government of
Mr. Hastings, and which we attempted to bring home
to him. What did he do in this case? Did he en-,
deavor to meet these charges fairly, as he might have
done? No, my Lords: what he said merely amounted to this: -"Examination into these charges
would vindicate my reputation before the world;
but I, who am the guardian of my own honor and
my own interests, choose to avail myself of the rules
? ? ? ? SPEECH IN REPLY. - FIRST DAY. 193
and orders of this House, and I will not suffer you to
enter upon that examination. "
My Lords, we admit, you are the interpreters of
your own rules and orders. We likewise admit that
our own honor may be affected by the character of
the evidence which we produce to you. But, my
Lords, they who withhold their defence, who suffer
themselves, as they say, to be cruelly criminated by
unjust accusation, and yet will not permit the evidence of their guilt or innocence to be produced, are themselves the causes of the irrelevancy of all these
matters. It cannot justly be charged on us; for we
have never offered any matter here which we did not
declare our readiness upon the spot to prove. Your
Lordships did not think fit to receive that proof.
We do not now censure your Lordships for your
determination: that is not the business of this day.
We refer to your determination for the purpose of
showing the falsehood of the imputation which the
prisoner has cast upon us, of having oppressed him
by delay and irrelevant matter. We refer to it in
order to show that the oppression rests with himself,
that it is all his own.
Well, but Mr. Hastings complained also to the
House of Commons. Has he pursued the complaint?
No, he has not; and yet this prisoner, and these
gentlemen, his learned counsel, have dared to reiterate their complaints of us at your Lordships' bar, while we have always been, and still are, ready to
prove both the atrocious nature of the facts, and that
they are referable to the prisoner at your bar. To
this, as I have said before, the prisoner has objected;
this we are not permitted to do by your Lordships:.
and therefore, without presuming to blame your deVOL. XI. 13
? ? ? ? 194 IMPEACHMENT OF'WARREN HASTINGS.
termination, I repeat, that we throw the blame directly upon himself, when he complains that his private
character suffers without the means of defence, since
he objects to the use of means of defence which are
at his disposal. ,
Having gone through this part of the prisoner's
recriminatory charge, I shall close my observations on
his demeanor, and defer my remarks on his complaint
of our ingratitude until we come to consider his setoff of services.
The next subject for your Lordships' consideration
is the principle of the prisoner's defence. And here
we must observe, that, either by confession or conviction, we are possessed of the facts, and perfectly
agreed upon the matter at issue between us. In taking a view of the laws by which you are to judge, I
shall beg leave to state to you upon what principles
of law the House of Commons has criminated him,
and upon what principles of law, or pretended law,
he justifies himself: for these are the matters at issue
between us; the matters of fact, as I have just said,
being determined either by confession on his part or
by proof on ours.
My Lords, we acknowledge that Mr. Hastings was
invested with discretionary power; but we assert that
he was bound to use that power according to the established rules of political morality, humanity, and
equity. In all questions relating to foreign powers
he was bound to act under the Law of Nature and
under the Law of Nations, as it is recognized by the
wisest authorities in public jurisprudence; in his relation to this country he was bound to act according to the laws and statutes of Great Britain, either
? ? ? ? SI'EECH IN REPLY. -FIRST DAY. 195
in their letter or in their spirit; and we affirm, that
in his relation to the people of India he was bound
to act according to the largest and most liberal construction of their laws, rights, usages, institutions, and good customs; and we furthermore assert, that
he was under an express obligation to yield implicit
obedience to the Court of Directors. It is upon these
rules and principles the Commons contend that Mr.
Hastings ought to have regulated his government;
and not only Mr. Hastings, but all other governors.
It is upon these rules that he is responsible; and upon
these rules, and these rules only, your Lordships are
to judge.
which we charge him with are of that atrocity, that,
if brought home to him, he merits death. Yet,
when, in pursuance of our duty, we come to state
these crimes with their proper criminatory epithets,
when we state in strong and direct terms the circumstances which heighten and aggravate them, when we dwell on the immoral and heinous nature of the acts,
and the terrible effects which such acts produce, and
when we offer to prove both the principal facts and
the aggravatory ones by evidence, and to show their
nature and quality by the rules of law, morality, and
policy, then this criminal, then his counsel, then his
accomplices and hirelings, posted in newspapers and
dispersed in circles through every part of the kingdom, represent him as an object of great compassion, because he is treated, say they, with nothing but opprobrious names and scurrilous invectives.
To all this the Managers of the Commons will say
nothing by way of defence: it would be to betray
their trust, if they did. No, my Lords, they have
another and a very different duty to perform on this
occasion. They are bound not to suffer public opinion, which often prevents judgment and often defeats
its effects, to be debauched and corrupted. Much
less is this to be suffered in the presence of our coordinate branch of legislature, and as it were with
vour and our own tacit acquiescence. Whenever the
public mind is misled, it becomes the duty of the
Commons of Great Britain to give it a more proper
tone and a juster way of thinking. When ignorance
and corruption have usurped the professor's chair, and
placed themselves in the seats of science and of virtue,
it is high time for us to speak out. We know that
the doctrines of folly are of great use to the profes
? ? ? ? 172 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
sors of vice. We know that it is one of the signs of
a corrupt and degenerate age, and one of the means
of insuring its further corruption and degeneracy, to
give mild and lenient epithets to vices and to crimes.
The world is much influenced by names. And as
terms are the representatives of sentiments, when
persons who exercise any censorial magistracy seem
in their language to compromise with crimes and
criminals by expressing no horror of the one or detestation of the other, the world will naturally think that they act merely to acquit themselves in its sight
in form, but in reality to evade their duty. Yes, my
Lords, the world must think that such persons palter
with their sacred trust, and are tender to crimes because they look forward to the future possession of the same power which they now prosecute, and purpose to abuse it in the manner it has been abused by the criminal of whom they are so tender.
To remove such an imputation from us, we assert
that the Commons of Great Britain are not to receive
instructions about the language which they ought to
hold from the gentlemen who have made profitable
studies in the academies of Benares and of Oude.
We know, and therefore do not want to learn, how to
comport ourselves in prosecuting the haughty and
overgrown delinquents of the East. We cannot require to be instructed by them in what words we
shall express just indignation at enormous crimes;
for we have the example- of our great ancestors to
teach us: we tread in their steps, and we speak in
their language.
Your Lordships well know, for you must be conversant in this kind of reading, that you once had
before you a man of the highest rank in this country,
? ? ? ? SPEECH IN REPLY. FIRST DAY. 173
one of the greatest men of the law and one of the
greatest men of the state, a peer of your own body,
Lord Macclesfield'. Yet, my Lords, when' that peer'did but just modestly hint that he had received hard measure from the Commons and their Managers,
those Managers thought themselves bound seriatim,
one after another, to express the utmost indignation
at the charge, in the harshest language that could be
used. Why did they do so? They knew it was the
language that became them. They lived in an age
in which politeness was as well understood and as
much cultivated as it is at present; but they knew
what they were doing, and they were resolved to use
no language but what their ancestors had used, and
to suffer no insolence which their ancestors would
not have suffered. We tread in their steps; we pursue their method; we learn of them: and we shall
never learn at any other school.
We know from history and the records of this
Iouse, that a Lord Bacon has been before you. Who
is there, that, upon hearing this name, does not instantly recognize everything of genius the most profound, everything of literature the most extensive, everything of discovery the most penetrating, everything
of observation on human life the most distinguishing
and refined? All these must be instantly recognized,
for they are all inseparably associated with the name
of Lord Verulam. Yet, when this prodigy was
brought before your Lordships by the Commons of
Great Britain for having permitted his menial servant to receive presents, what was his demeanor?
Did he require his counsel not'"to let down. the
dignity of his defence"? No. That Lord Bacon,
whose least distinction was, that he was a peer of
? ? ? ? 174 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
England, a Lord High Chancellor, and the son of a
Lord Keeper, behaved like a man who knew himself,
like a man who was conscious of merits of the highest
kind, but who was at the same time conscious of having fallen into guilt. The House of Commons did not spare him. They brought him to your bar.
They found spots in that sun. And what, I again
ask, was his behavior? That of contrition, that of
humility, that of repentance, that which belongs to
the greatest men lapsed and fallen through human
infirmity into error. IHe did not hurl defiance at
the accusations of his country; he bowed himself
before it. Yet, with all his penitence, he could not
escape the pursuit of the House of Commons, and
the inflexible justice of this Court. Your Lordships
fined him forty thousand pounds, notwithstanding
all his merits, notwithstanding his humility, notwithstanding his contrition, notwithstanding the decorum of his behavior, so well suited to a man under the
prosecution of the Commons of England before the
Peers of England. You fined him in a sum fully
equal to one hundred thousand pounds of the present
day; you imprisoned him during the King's pleasure; and you disqualified him forever from having a seat in this House and any office in this kingdom.
This is the way in which the Commons behaved formerly, and in which your Lordships acted formerly, when no culprit at this bar dared to hurl a recriminatory accusation against his prosecutors, or dared
to censure the language in which they expressed their
indignation at his crimes.
The Commons of Great Britain, following these
examples and fortified by them, abhor all compromise with guilt either in act or in language. They
? ? ? ? SPEECH IN REPLY. - FIRST DAY. 175
will not disclaim ally one word that they have spoken, because, my Lords, they have said nothing abusive or illiberal. It has been said that we have used such language as was used to Sir Walter Raleigh,
when he was called, not by the Commons, but by a
certain person of a learned profession, "a spider of
hell. " My Lords, Sir Walter was a great soldier, a
great mariner, and one of the first scholars of his
age. To call him. a spider of hell was not only indecent in itself, but perfectly foolish, from the term being totally inapplicable to the object, and fit only for the very pedantic eloquence of the person who used
it. But if Sir Walter Raleigh had been guilty of
numberless frauds and prevarications, if he had clandestinely picked up other men's money, concealed his
peculation by false bonds, and afterwards attempted to cover it by the cobwebs of the law, then my
Lord Coke would have trespassed a great deal more
against decorum than against propriety of similitude
and metaphor.
My Lords, the Managers for the Commons have
not used any inapplicable language. We have indeed used, and will again use, such expressions as are
proper to portray guilt. After describing the mnagnitude of the crime, we describe the magnitude of the
criminal. We have declared him to be not only a
public robber himself, but the head of a system of
robbery, the captainl-general of the gang, the chief
under whom a whole predatory band was arrayed,
disciplined, and paid. This, my Lords, is what we
offered to prove fully to you, what in part we have
proved, and the whole of which I believe we could
prove. In developing such a mass of criminality
and in describing a criminal of such magnitude as
? ? ? ? 176 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
we have now brought before you, we could not use
lenient epithets without compromising with crime.
We therefore shall not relax in our pursuits nor in
our language. No, my Lords, no! we shall not fail
to feel indignation, wherever our moral nature has
taught us to feel it; nor shall we hesitate to speak
the language which is dictated by that indignation.
Whenever men are oppressed where they ought to be
protected, we called [call? ] it tyranny, and we call
the actor a tyrant. Whenever goods are taken by violence from the possessor, we call it a robbery, and the
person who takes it we call a robber. Money clandestinely taken from the proprietor we call theft, and the
person who takes it we call a thief. When a false
paper is made out to obtain money, we call the act
a forgery. That steward who takes bribes from his
master's tenants, and then, pretending the money to
be his own, lends it to that master and takes bonds
for it to himself, we consider guilty of a breach of
trust; and the person who commits such crimes we
call a cheat, a swindler, and a forger of bonds. All
these offences, without the least softening, under all
these names, we charge upon this man. We have so
charged in our record, we have so charged in our
speeches; and we are sorry that our language does
not furnish terms of sufficient force and compass to
mark the multitude, the magnitude, and the atrocity
of his crimes.
How came it, then, that the Commons of Great
Britain should be calumniated for the course which
they have taken? Why should it ever have been
supposed that we are actuated by revenge? I answer, There are two very sufficient causes: corruption and ignorance. The first disposes an innumera
? ? ? ? SPEECH IN REPLY. -FIRST DAY. 177
ble multitude of people to a fellow-feeling with the
prisoner. Under the shadow of his crimes thousands
of fortunes have been made; and therefore thousands of tongues are employed to justify the means by which these fortunes were made. When they cannot deny the facts, they attack the accusers, - they attack their conduct, they attack their persons, they
attack their language, in every possible manner. I
have said, my Lords, that ignorance is the other cause
of this calumny by which the House of Commons is
assailed. Ignorance produces a confusion of ideas
concerning the decorum of life, by confounding the
rules of private society with those of public function.
To talk, as we here talk, to persons in a mixed company of men and women, would violate the law of such societies; because they meet for the sole purpose of social intercourse, and not for the exposure, the censure, the punishment of crimes: to all which
things private societies are altogether incompetent.
In them crimes can never be regularly stated, proved,
or refuted. The law has therefore appointed special
places for such inquiries; and if in any of those places we were to apply the emollient language of drawing-rooms to the exposure of great crimes, it
would be as false and vicious in taste and in morals
as to use the criminatory language of this hall in
drawing and assembling rooms would be misplaced
and ridiculous. Every one knows that in common
society palliating names are given to vices. Adultery in a lady is called gallantry; the gentleman is: commonly called a man of good fortune, sometimes
in French and sometimes in English. But is this
the tone which would become a person in a court of
justice, calling these people to an account for that
VOL. XI. 12
? ? ? ? 178 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
horrible crime which destroys the basis of society?
No, my Lords, this is not the tone of such proceedings. Your Lordships know that it is not; the
Commons know that it is not and because we have'
acted on that knowledge, and stigmatized crimes with
becoming indignation, we are said to be actuated rather by revenge than justice.
If it should still be asked why we show sufficient
acrimony to excite a suspicion of being in any manner influenced by malice or a desire of revenge, to
this, my Lords, I answer, -Because we would be
thought to know our duty, and to have all the world
know how resolutely we are resolved to perform it. The Commons of Great, Britain are not disposed to
quarrel with the Divine Wisdom and Goodness,
which has moulded up revenge into the frame and
constitution of man. He that has made us what we
are has made us at once resentful and reasonable.
Instinct tells a man that he ought to revenge an injury; reason tells him that he- ought not to be a
judge in his own cause. From that moment revenge
passes from the private to the public hand; but in
being transferred it is far from being extinguished.
My Lords, it is transferred as a sacred trust to be
exercised for the injured, in measure and proportion, by persons who, feeling as he feels, are in a temper to reason better than he can reason. Revenge is taken out of the hands of the original injured proprietor, lest it should be carried beyond the bounds
of moderation and justice. But, my Lords, it is in
its transfer exposed to a danger of an opposite description. The delegate'of vengeance may not feel
the wrong sufficiently: he may be cold and languid
in the performance of his sacred duty. It is for
? ? ? ? SPEECH IN REPLY. - FIRST DAY. : 179
these reasons that good men are taught to tremble
even at the first emotions of anger and resentment
for their own particular wrongs; but they are likewise taught, if they are well taught, to give the loosest possible rein to their resentment and indignation, whenever their parents, their friends, their country, or their brethren of the common family of
mankind are injured. Those who have not such
feelings, under such circumstances, are base and degenerate. These, my Lords, are the sentiments of the. Commons of Great Britain.
Lord Bacon has very well said, that "revenge is a
kind of wild justice. '. ' It is so, and without this wild
austere stock there would be no justice in the world.
But when, by the skilful hand of morality and wise
jurisprudence, a foreign scion, but of the very same
species, is grafted upon it, its harsh quality becomes
changed, it submits to culture, and, laying aside its
savage nature, it bears fruits and flowers, sweet to
the world, and not ungrateful even to heaven itself, to
which it elevates its exalted head. The fruit of this
wild stock is revenge regulated, but not extinguished,
- revenge transferred from the suffering party to the
communion and sympathy of mankind. This is the
revenge by which we are actuated, and which we
should be sorry, if the false, idle, girlish, novel-like
morality of the world should extinguish in the breast
of us who have a great public. duty to performf.
This sympathetic revenge, which is condemned by
clamorous imbecility, is so far from being a vice, that
it is the greatest of all possible virtues, -a virtue
which the uncorrupted judgment of mankind has in
all ages exalted to the rank of heroism. To give up
all. the repose and pleasures of life, to pass sleepless
? ? ? ? 180 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
nights and laborious days, and, what is ten times
more irksome to an ingenuous mind, to offer oneself
to calumny and all its herd of hissing tongues and
poisoned fangs, in order to free the world from fraudulent prevaricators, from cruel oppressors, from robbers and tyrants, has, I say, the test of heroic virtue, and well deserves such a distinction. The Commons,
despairing to attain the heights of this virtue, never
lose sight of it for a moment. For seventeen years
they have, almost without intermission, pursued, by
every sort of inquiry, by legislative and by judicial
remedy, the cure of this Indian malady, worse ten
thousand times than the leprosy which our forefathers
brought from the East. Could they have done this,
if they had not been actuated by some strong, some
vehement, some perennial passion, which, burning
like the Vestal fire, chaste and eternal, never suffers
generous sympathy to grow cold in maintaining the
rights of the injured or in denouncing the crimes of
the oppressor?
My Lords, the Managers for the Commons have
been actuated by this passion; my Lords, they feel
its influence at this moment; and so far from softening either their measures or their tone, they do here,
in the presence of their Creator, of this HIouse, and
of the world, make this solemn declaration, and nuncupate this deliberate vow: that they will ever glow
with the most determined and unextinguishable animosity against tyranny, oppression, and peculation in
all, but more particularly as practised by this man in
India; that they never will relent, but will pursue
and prosecute him and it, till they see corrupt pride
prostrate under the feet of justice. We call upon
your Lordships to join us; and we have no doubt that
? ? ? ? SPEECH IN REPLY. -FIRST DAY. 181
you will feel the samne sympathy that we feel, or (what
I cannot persuade my soul to think or my mouth to
utter) you will be identified with the criminal whose
crimes you excuse, and rolled with him in all the
pollution of Indian guilt, from generation to generation. Let those who feel with me upon this occasion
join with me in this vow: if they will not, I have it
all to myself.
It is not to defend ourselves that I have addressed
your Lordships at such length on this subject. No,
my Lords, I have said what I considered necessary to
instruct the public upon the principles which induced
the House of Commons to persevere in this business
with a generous warmth, and in the indignant language which Nature prompts, when great crimes are
brought before men who feel as they ought to feel
upon such occasions.
I now proceed, my Lords, to the next recriminatory
charge, which is delay. I confess I am not astonished
at this charge. From the first records of human impatience down to the present time, it has been complained that the march of violence and oppression is rapid, but that the progress of remedial and vindictive
justice, even the divine, has almost always favored the
appearance of being languid and sluggish. Something of this is owing to the very nature and constitution of human affairs; because, as justice is a circumspect, cautious, scrutinizing, balancing principle, full of doubt even of itself, and fearful of doing
wrong even to the greatest wrong-doers, in the nature
of things its movements must be slow in comparison
with the headlong rapidity with which avarice, ambition, and revenge pounce down upon the devoted prey
? ? ? ? 182 IIMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
of those violent and destructive passions. And indeed,
my Lords, the disproportion between crime and jus-. tice, when seen in the particular acts of either, would,be so much to the advantage of crimes and, criminals, that we should find it difficult to defend laws and tribunals, (especially in great and arduous cases like
this,) if we did not look, not to the immediate, not to
the retrospective, but to the provident operation of justice. Its chief operation is in its future example; and
this turns the balance, upon the total effect, in favor
of vindictive justice, and in some measure reconciles
a pious and humble mind to this great mysterious
dispensation of the world.
Upon the charge of delay in this particular cause,,
my Lords, I have only to say that the business before
you is of immense magnitude. The prisoner himself
says that all the acts of his life are committed in it.
With a due sense of this magnitude, we know that
the investigation could not be short to us, nor short
to your Lordships; but when we are called upon, as
we have been daily, to sympathize with. the prisoner
in that delay, my Lords, we must tell -you that we
have no sympathy with him. Rejecting, as we have
done, all false, spurious, and hypocritical virtues, we
should hold it to be the greatest of all crimes to
bestow upon the oppressors that pity which belongs
to the oppressed. , The unhappy persons who are
wronged, robbed, and despoiled have no remedy but
in the sympathies of mankind; and when these sympathies are suffered to be debauched, when they are
perversely carried from the victim to the oppressor,
then we commit a robbery still greater than that which
was committed by the criminal accused.
My Lords, we do think this process long; we lament
? ? ? ? SPEECH IN REPLY. -FIRST DAY. 183
it in every sense in which it ought to be lamented;
but we lament still more that the Begums have been
so long without having a just punishment inflicted
upon their spoiler. We lament that Cheyt Sing has
so long been, a wanderer, while the man who drove
him from his dominions is still unpunished. We are
sorry that Nobkissin has been cheated of his money
for fourteen years, without obtaining redress. These
are our sympathies, my Lords; and thus we reply to
this part of the charge.
My L6rds, there are some matters of fact in this
charge of delay which I must beg your Lordships will
look into.
On the 19th of February, 1789, the prisoner presented a petition to your Lordships, in which he states, after many other complaints, that a great
number of his witnesses were obliged to go to India,
by which he has lost the benefit of their testimony,
and that a great number of your Lordships' body
were dead, by which he has lost the benefit of their
judgment. As to the hand of God, though some
members of your House may have departed this life
since -the commencement of this trial, yet the body
always remains entire. The evidence before you is
the same; and therefore there is no reason to presume
that your final judgment will be affected by these
afflicting dispensations of Providence. With regard
to his witnesses, I must beg to remind your Lordships
of one extraordinary fact. This prisoner has sent to
India, and obtained, not testimonies, but testimonials
to his general good behavior. He has never once
applied, by commission or otherwise, to falsify any
one fact that is charged upon him, - no, my Lords,
not one. Therefore that part of his petition which
states the injury he has received from the Commons
? ? ? ? 184 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
of Great Britain is totally false and groundless. For
if he had any witnesses to examine, he would not
have failed to examine them; if he had asked for a
commission to receive their depositions, a commission
would have been granted; if, without a commission,
he had brought affidavits to facts, or regular recorded
testimony, the Commons of Great Britain would never
have rejected such evidence, even though they could
not have cross-examined it.
Another complaint is, that many of his witnesses
were obliged to leave England before he could make
use of their evidence. My Lords, no delay in the trial has prevented him from producing any evidence; for we were willing that any of his witnesses should
be examined at any time most convenient to himself.
If many persons connected with his measures are
gone to India, during the course of his trial, many
others have returned to England. Mr. . Larkins returned. Was the prisoner willing to examine him?
No: and it was nothing but downright shame, and
the presumptions which he knew would be drawn
against him, if he did not call this witness, which
finally induced him to make use of his evidence.
We examined Mr. Larkins, my Lords; we examined
all the prisoner's witnesses; your Lordships have their
testimony; and down to this very hour he has not
put his hand upon any one whom he thought a proper
and essential witness to the facts, or to any part of
the cause, whose examination has been denied him;
nor has he even stated that any man, if brought here,
would prove such and such points. No, not one word
to this effect has ever been stated by the prisoner.
There is, my Lords, another case, which was noticed by my honorable fellow Manager yesterday. Mr.
? ? ? ? SPEECH IN REPLY. -FIRST DAY. 185
Belli, the confidential secretary of the prisoner, was
agent and contractor for stores; and this raised a
suspicion that the contracts were held by him for the
prisoner's advantage. Mr. Belli was here during the
whole time of the trial, and six weeks after we had
closed our evidence. We had then no longer the
arrangement of'the order of witnesses, and he might
have called whom he pleased. With the full knowledge of these circumstances, that witness did he suffer to depart for India, if he did not even encourage
his departure'. This, my Lords, is the kind of damage which he has suffered by the want of witnesses,
through the protraction of this trial.
But the great and serious evil: which he complains
of, as being occasioned by our delay, is of so extraordinary a nature that I must request your Lordships
to examine it with extraordinary strictness and attention. In the petition before your Lordships, the prisoner asserts that he was under the necessity, through his counsel and solicitors, " of collecting and collating from the voluminous records of the Company the
whole history of his public life, in order to form a
complete defence to every allegation which the Honorable House of Commons had preferred against him,
and that he has expended upwards of thirty thousand
pounds in preparing the materials of his defence. "
It is evident, my Lords, that the expenditure of this
thirty thousand pounds is not properly connected with
the delay of which he complains; for he states that
he had incurred this loss merely in collecting and collating materials, previous to his defence before your
Lordships. If this were true, and'your Lordships
were to admit the amount as a rule and estimate by
which the aggregate of his loss could be ascertained,
? ? ? ? 186 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
the application of the rule of three to the sum and
time given would bring out an enormous expenditure
in the long period which has elapsed since the com~mencement of the trial, - so enormous, that, if this monstrous load of oppression has been laid upon him
by the delay of the Commons, I believe no man living
canl stand up in our justification. But, my Lords, I
am to tell your Lordships some facts, into which we
trust you will inquire: for this business is not in our
hands, nor can we lay it as a charge before you.
Your own Journals have recorded the document, in
which the prisoner complains bitterly of the House of
Commonsj and indeed of the whole judicature of the
country, - a complaint which your Lordships will do
well to examine.
When we first came to a knowledge of this petition,
which was not till some time after it was presented,
I happened to have conversation with a noble lord,
- I know not whether he be in his place'in the
House or not, but I think I am not irregular in
mentioning his name. When I mention Lord Suffolk,
I name a peer whom honor, justice, veracity, and every. virtue that distinguishes the man and the peer would claim for their own. My Lord Suffolk told
me, that, in a conversation with the late Lord Dover,
who brought the prisoner's petition into your House,
he could not refrain from expressing his astonishment
at that part of the petition which related to the expense Mr. Hastings had been at; and particularly as
a complaint had been made in the House of the enormous expense of the prosecution, which at that time had only amounted to fourteen thousand pounds,
although the expense of the prosecutor is generally
greater than that of the defendant, and public pro
? ? ? ? SPEECH IN REPLY. FIRST DAY. 187
ceedings more expensive than private ones. Lord
Dover said, that, before he presented the petition, he
had felt exactly in the same manner; but that Mr.
Hastings assured him that six thousand pounds had
been paid to copying clerks in the India HIouse, and
that from this circumstance he might judge of the
other expenses. Lord Dover was satisfied with this
assurance, and presented the petition, which otherwise he should have declined to do, on account of the
apparent enormity of the allegation it contained. At
the time when Lord Suffolk informed me of these particulars, (with a good deal of surprise and astonish-ment,) I had not leisure to go down to the India House in order to make inquiries concerning them,
but I afterwards asked the Secretary, Mr. Hudson, to
whom we had given a handsome reward, what sums
he had received from Mr. Hastings for his services
upon this occasion, and the answer was, "Not one
shilling. " Not one shilling had Mr. Hudson received from Mr. Hastings. The clerks of the Company informed us that the Court of Directors had
ordered that every paper which Mr. Hastings wanted
should be copied for him gratuitously, --and that, if
any additional clerks were wanting for the effectual
execution of his wishes, the expense would be defrayed by the Directors. Hearing this account, I
next inquired what expedition money might have been
given to the clerks: for we know something of this
kind is usually done. In reply to this question, Mr.
Hudson told me that at various times they had received in little driblets to the amount of ninetyfive pounds, or thereabouts. In this way the account stood when I made this inquiry, which was at least
half a year after the petition had been presented to
? ? ? ? 188 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
your Lordships. Thus the whole story of the six
thousand pounds was absolutely false. At that time
there was not one word of truth in it, whatever be
the amount of the sums which he has paid since.
1Tour Lordships will now judge whether you have
been abused by false allegations or not, allegations
which could scarcely admit of being true, and which
upon the best inquiry I found absolutely false; and I
appeal to the testimony of the noble lord, who is now
living, for the truth of the account he received from
the worthy and respectable peer whose loss the nation
has to bewail.
There are many other circumstances of fraud and
falsehood attending this petition, (we must call things
by their proper names, my Lords,) - there are, I say,
many circumstances of fraud and falsehood. We
know it to have been impossible, at the time of presenting this petition, that this man should have expended thirty thousand pounds in the preparation of materials for his defence; and your Lordships' justice, together with the credit of the House of Commons, are concerned in the discovery of the truth. There is, indeed, an ambiguous word in the petition.
He asserts that he is engaged for the payment of
that sum. We asked the clerks of the India House
whether he had given them any bond, note, security,
or promise of payment: they assured us that he had
not: they will be ready to make the same assurance
to your Lordships, when you come to inquire into
this matter, which before you give judgment we desire and claim that you will do. All is concealment
and mystery on the side of the prisoner; all is open
and direct with us. We are desirous that everything
which is concealed may be brought to light.
? ? ? ? SPEECH IN REPLY. - FIRST DAY. 189
In contradiction, then, to this charge of oppression
and of an attempt to ruin his fortune, your Lordships
will see that at the time when he. made this charge
he had not been, in fact, nor was for a long time
after, one shilling out of pocket. But some other
person had become security to his attorney for him.
What, then, are we to think of these men of business,
of these friends of Mr. Hastings, who, when he is possessed of nothing, are contented to become responsible for thirty thousand pounds, (was it thirty thousand pounds out of the bullock contracts? ) - responsible, I say, for this sum, in order to maintain this suit previous to. its actual commencement, and who
consequently must be so engaged for every article of
expense that has followed from that time to this?
Thus much we have thought it necessary to say
upon this part of the recriminatory charge of delay.
With respect to the delay in general, we are at present under an account to our constituents upon that
subject. To them we shall give it. We shall not give
any further account of it to your Lordships. The
means belong to us as well as to you of removing
these charges. Your Lordships may inquire upon
oath, as we have done in our committee, into all the
circumstances of these allegations. I hope your
Lordships will do so, and will give the Commons an
opportunity of attending and assisting at this most
momentous and important inquiry.
The next recriminatory charge made upon us by
the prisoner is, that, merely to throw an odium upon
him, we have brought forward a great deal of irrelevant matter, which could not be proved regularly in
the course of examination at your bar, and particrl
? ? ? ? 190 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
larly in the opening speech, which I had the honor
of making on the subject.
Your Lordships know very well that we stated in
our charge that great abuses had prevailed in India,
that the Company had entered into covenants with
their servants respecting those abuses, that an act
of Parliament was made to prevent their recurrence,
and that Mr. Hastings still continued in their practice. Now, my Lords, having stated this, nothing
could be more regular, more proper, and more pertinent, than for us to justify both the covenants required by the Company and the act made to prevent the abuses which existed in India. We therefore
went through those abuses; we stated them, and,
were ready to prove every material word and article
ill them. Whether they were personally relevant
or irrelevant to the prisoner we cared nothing. We
were to make out from the records of the House
(which records I can produce, whenever I am called
upon for them) all these articles of abuse and grievance; and we have stated these abuses as the
grounds of the Company's provisional covenants with
its servants, and of the act of Parliament. We have
stated them under two heads, violence and corruption: for these crimes will be found, my Lords, in almost every transaction with the native powers; and the prisoner is directly or indirectly involved in every part of'them. If it be still objected, that these
crimes are irrelevant to the charge, we answer, that
we did not introduce them as matter of charge. We
say they were not irrelevant to the proof of the preamble of our charge, which preamble is perfectly
relevant ill all its parts. . That the matters stated in
it are perfectly true we vouch the House of Com
? ? ? ? SPEECH IN REPLY. -FIRST DAY. 191
molls, we vouch the very persons themselves who
were concerned in the transactions. When Arabic
authors are quoted, and Oriental tales told about
flashes of lightning and three seals, we quote the very
parties themselves giving this account of their own
conduct to a committee of the House of -Commons.
Your Lordships will remember that a most reverend prelate, who cannot be named without every
mark of respect and attention, conveyed a petition to
your Lordships from a gentleman concerned in one
of those narratives. Upon your Lordships' table that
petition still lies. For the production of this narrative we are not answerable to this House; your Lordships could not make us answerable to him; but we are answerable to our own House, we are answerable to our own honor, we are answerable to all
the Commons of Great Britain for whatever we have
asserted in their name. Accordingly, General Burgoyne, then a member of this Committee of Managers, and myself, went down into the House of Commons; we there restated the whole affair; we
desired that an inquiry should be made into it, at the
request of the parties concerned. But, my Lords,
they have never asked for inquiry from that day to
this. Whenever he or they who are criminated (not
by uLs, but in this volume of Reports that is in my
hand) desire it, the House will give them all possible
satisfaction upon the subject.
A similar complaint was made to the House of
Commons by the prisoner, that matters irrelevant
to the charge were brought up hither. Was it not
open to him, and has he had. no friends in the House
of Commons, to call upon the House, during the
whole period of this proceeding, to examine into the
? ? ? ? 192 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
particulars adduced in justification of the preamble
of the charge against him, in justification of the
covenants of the Company, in justification of the act
of Parliament? It was in his power to do it; it is
in his power still; and if it be brought before that
tribunal, to which I and my fellow Managers are
alone accountable, we will lay before that tribunal
such matters as will sufficiently justify our mode
of proceeding, and the resolution of the House oi
Commons. I will not, therefore, enter into the particulars (because they cannot be entered into by
your Lordships) any further than to say, that, if we
had ever been called upon to prove the allegations
which we have made, not in the nature of a charge,
but as bound in duty to this Court, and in justice to
ourselves, we should have been ready to enter into
proof. We offered to do so, and we now repeat the
offer.
There was another complaint in the prisoner's petition, which did not apply to the words of the preamble, but to an allegation in the charge concerning abuses in the revenue, and the ill consequences which
arose from them. I allude to those shocking transactions, which nobody can mention without horror, in
Rampore and Dinagepore, during the government of
Mr. Hastings, and which we attempted to bring home
to him. What did he do in this case? Did he en-,
deavor to meet these charges fairly, as he might have
done? No, my Lords: what he said merely amounted to this: -"Examination into these charges
would vindicate my reputation before the world;
but I, who am the guardian of my own honor and
my own interests, choose to avail myself of the rules
? ? ? ? SPEECH IN REPLY. - FIRST DAY. 193
and orders of this House, and I will not suffer you to
enter upon that examination. "
My Lords, we admit, you are the interpreters of
your own rules and orders. We likewise admit that
our own honor may be affected by the character of
the evidence which we produce to you. But, my
Lords, they who withhold their defence, who suffer
themselves, as they say, to be cruelly criminated by
unjust accusation, and yet will not permit the evidence of their guilt or innocence to be produced, are themselves the causes of the irrelevancy of all these
matters. It cannot justly be charged on us; for we
have never offered any matter here which we did not
declare our readiness upon the spot to prove. Your
Lordships did not think fit to receive that proof.
We do not now censure your Lordships for your
determination: that is not the business of this day.
We refer to your determination for the purpose of
showing the falsehood of the imputation which the
prisoner has cast upon us, of having oppressed him
by delay and irrelevant matter. We refer to it in
order to show that the oppression rests with himself,
that it is all his own.
Well, but Mr. Hastings complained also to the
House of Commons. Has he pursued the complaint?
No, he has not; and yet this prisoner, and these
gentlemen, his learned counsel, have dared to reiterate their complaints of us at your Lordships' bar, while we have always been, and still are, ready to
prove both the atrocious nature of the facts, and that
they are referable to the prisoner at your bar. To
this, as I have said before, the prisoner has objected;
this we are not permitted to do by your Lordships:.
and therefore, without presuming to blame your deVOL. XI. 13
? ? ? ? 194 IMPEACHMENT OF'WARREN HASTINGS.
termination, I repeat, that we throw the blame directly upon himself, when he complains that his private
character suffers without the means of defence, since
he objects to the use of means of defence which are
at his disposal. ,
Having gone through this part of the prisoner's
recriminatory charge, I shall close my observations on
his demeanor, and defer my remarks on his complaint
of our ingratitude until we come to consider his setoff of services.
The next subject for your Lordships' consideration
is the principle of the prisoner's defence. And here
we must observe, that, either by confession or conviction, we are possessed of the facts, and perfectly
agreed upon the matter at issue between us. In taking a view of the laws by which you are to judge, I
shall beg leave to state to you upon what principles
of law the House of Commons has criminated him,
and upon what principles of law, or pretended law,
he justifies himself: for these are the matters at issue
between us; the matters of fact, as I have just said,
being determined either by confession on his part or
by proof on ours.
My Lords, we acknowledge that Mr. Hastings was
invested with discretionary power; but we assert that
he was bound to use that power according to the established rules of political morality, humanity, and
equity. In all questions relating to foreign powers
he was bound to act under the Law of Nature and
under the Law of Nations, as it is recognized by the
wisest authorities in public jurisprudence; in his relation to this country he was bound to act according to the laws and statutes of Great Britain, either
? ? ? ? SI'EECH IN REPLY. -FIRST DAY. 195
in their letter or in their spirit; and we affirm, that
in his relation to the people of India he was bound
to act according to the largest and most liberal construction of their laws, rights, usages, institutions, and good customs; and we furthermore assert, that
he was under an express obligation to yield implicit
obedience to the Court of Directors. It is upon these
rules and principles the Commons contend that Mr.
Hastings ought to have regulated his government;
and not only Mr. Hastings, but all other governors.
It is upon these rules that he is responsible; and upon
these rules, and these rules only, your Lordships are
to judge.
