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.
have never offered any matter here which we did not
declare our readiness upon the spot to prove.
Edmund Burke
-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.
My Lords, long before the Committee had resolved
upon this impeachment, we had. come, as I have told
your. Lordships, to forty-five resolutions, every one
criminatory of this man, every one of them bottomed
upon the principles which I have stated. We never
will nor can we abandon them; and we therefore do
not supplicate your Lordships upon this head, but
claim and demand of right, that you will judge him
upon those principles, and upon no other. If once
they are evaded, you can have no rule for your judgment but your caprices and partialities.
Having thus stated the principles upon which the
Commons hold him and all governors responsible, and
upon which we have grounded our impeachment, and
which must be the grounds of your judgment, (and
your Lordships will not suffer any other ground to be
mentioned to you,) we will now tell you what are
the grounds of his defence. .
He first asserts, that he was possessed of an arbitrary and despotic power, restrained by no laws but his own will. He next says, that " the rights of the
? ? ? ? 196 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
people he governed in India are nothing, and that
the rights of the government are everything. " The
people, he asserts, have no liberty, no laws, no inheritance, no fixed property, no descendable estate, no
subordinations in society, no sense of honor or of
shame, and that they are only affected by punishment
so far as punishment is a corporal infliction, being totally insensible of any difference between the punishment of man and beast. These are the principles of his Indian government, which Mr. Hastings has
avowed in their full extent. Whenever precedents
are required, he cites and follows the example of
avowed tyrants, of Aliverdy Khan, Cossim Ali Khan,
and Sujah Dowlah. With an avowal of these principles he was pleased first to entertain the House of
Commons, the active assertors and conservators of the
rights, liberties, and laws of his country; and then to
insist upon them more largely and in a fuller detail
*before this awful tribunal, the passive judicial conservator of the same great interests. EIe has brought
out these blasphemous doctrines in this great temple
of justice, consecrated to law and equity for a long
series of ages. He has brought them forth in Westminster Hall, in presence of all the Judges of the land,
who are to execute the law, and of the House of
Lords, who are bound as its guardians not to suffer
the words " arbitrary power" to be mentioned before
them. For I am not again to tell your Lordships,
that arbitrary power is treason in the law, - that to
mention it with law is to commit a contradiction in
terms. They cannot exist in concert; they cannot
hold together for a moment.
Let us now hear what the prisoner says. "The
sovereignty which they [the subahdars, or viceroys
? ? ? ? SPEECH IN REPLY. -FIRST DAY. 197
of the Mogul empire] assumed, it fell to my lot, very
unexpectedly, to exert; and whether or not such
power, or powers of that nature, were delegated to
me by any provisions of any act of Parliament I confess myself too little of a lawyer to pronounce. I
only know that the acceptance of the sovereignty of
Benares, &c. , is not acknowledged or admitted by any
act of Parliament; and yet, by the particular interference of the majority of the Council, the Company
is clearly and indisputably seized of that sovereignty.
If, therefore, the sovereignty of Benares, as ceded to
us by the Vizier, have any rights whatever ann6xed to
it, and be not a mere empty word without meaning,
those rights must be such as are held, countenanced,
and established by the law, custom, and usage of the
Mogul empire, and not by the provisions of any British act of Parliament hitherto enacted. Those rights,
and none other, I have been the involuntary instru
ment of enforcing. And if any future act of Parliament shall positively or by implication tend to annihilate those very rights, or their exertion, as I have exerted them, I much fear that the boasted sovereignty of Benares, which was held up as an acquisition
almost obtruded on the Company against my consent
and opinion, (for I acknowledge that even then I
foresaw many difficulties and inconveniences in its
future exercise,) - I fear, I say, that this sovereignty
will be found a burden instead of a benefit, a heavy
clog rather than a precious gem to its present possessors: I mean, unless the whole of our territory in. that
quarter shall be rounded and made an uniform compact body by one grand and systematic arrangement,
- such an arrangement as shall do away all the mischiefs, doubts, and inconveniences (both to the gov
? ? ? ? 1,98 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
ernors and the governed) arising from the variety of
tenures, rights, and claims in all cases of landed property and feudal jurisdiction in India, from the informality, invalidity, and instability of all engagements in so divided and unsettled a state of society, and
from the unavoidable anarchy and confusion of different laws, religions, and prejudices, moral, civil, and
political, all jumbled together in one unnatural and
discordant mass. Every part of Hindostan has been
constantly exposed to these and similar disadvantages
ever since the Mahometan conquests. The Hiindoos,
who never incorporated with their conquerors, were
kept ill order only by the strong hand of power. The
constant necessity of similar exertions would increase
at once their energy and extent. So that rebellion
itself is the parent and promoter of despotism. Sovereignty in India implies nothing else. For I know
not how we can form an estimate of its powers, but
-from its visible effects; and those are everywhere the
-same from Cabool to Assam. The whole history of
Asia is nothing more than precedents to prove the
invariable exercise of arbitrary power. To all this I
strongly alluded in the minutes I delivered in Council, when the treaty with the new Vizier was on foot
in 1775; and I wished to make Cheyt Sing independent, because in India dependence included a thousand
evils, many of which I enumerated at that time, and
they are entered in the ninth clause of the first section of this charge. I knew the powers with which
an Indian sovereignty is armed, and the dangers to
which tributaries are exposed. I knew, that, from
the history of Asia, and from the very nature of mankind, the subjects of a despotic empire are always
vigilant for the moment to rebel, and the sovereign is
? ? ? ? SPEECH IN REPLY. -- FIRST DAY. 199
ever jealous of rebellious intentions. A zemindar is
an Indian subject, and as such exposed to the commoil lot of his fellows. The mean and depraved state of a mere zemindar is therefore this very dependence
above mentioned on a despotic government, this very
proneness to shake off his allegiance, and this very
exposure to continual danger from his sovereign's
jealousy, which are consequent on the political state
of Hindostanic governments. Bulwant Sing, if he
had been, and Cheyt Sing, as long as he was, a zemindar, stood exactly in this mean and depraved state by the constitution of his country. I did not make it
for him, but would have secured him from it. Those
who made him a zemindar entailed upon him the
consequences of so mean and depraved a tenure.
Aliverdy Khan and Cossim Ali filled all their zemindars onil the necessities of war, and oil every pretence either of court necessity or court extravagance. "
I beseech your Lordships seriously to look upon
the whole nature of the principles upon which the
prisoner defends himself. He appeals to the custom
and usage of the Mogul empire; and the constitution of that empire is, he says, arbitrary power. He
says, that he does not know whether any act of Parliament bound him not to exercise this arbitrary power, and that, if ally such act should in future be
made, it would be mischievous and ruinous to our
empire in India. Thus be has at once repealed all
preceding acts, he has annulled by prospect every
future act you can make; and it is not in the power
of the Parliament of Great Britain, without ruining
the empire, to hinder his exercising this despotic
authority. All Asia is by him disfranchised at a
stroke. Its inhabitants have no rights, no laws, no
? ? ? ? 200 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
liberties; their state is mean and depraved; they may
be fined for any purpose of court extravagance or prodigality, - or as Cheyt Sing was fined by him, not only
upon every war, but upon every pretence of war.
This is the account he gives of his power, and of
the people subject to the British government in India.
We deny that the act of Parliament gave him any
such power; we deny that the India Company gave
him any such power, or that they had ever any such
power to give; we even deny that there exists in all
the human race a power to make the government of
any state dependent upon individual will. We disclaim, we reject all such doctrines with disdain and
indignation; and we have brought them up to your
Lordships to be tried at your bar.
What must be the condition of the people of India,
governed, as they have been, by persons who maintain
these principles as maxims of government, and not as
occasional deviations caused by the irregular will of
man,. - principles by which the whole system of society is to be controlled, not by law, reason, or justice, but by the will of one man? Your Lordships will remark, that not only the
whole of the laws, rights, and usages, but the very
being of the people, are exposed to ruin: for Mr.
Hastings says, that the people may be fined, that
they may be exiled, that they may be imprisoned,
and that even their lives are dependent upon the
mere will of their foreign master; and that he, the
Company's Governor, exercised that will under the
authority of this country. Remark, my Lords, his
application of this doctrine. "I would," he says,
" have:kept Cheyt Sing from the consequences of this
dependence, by making him independent, and not in
? ? ? ? SPEECH IN REPLY. -FIRST DAY. 201
any manner subjecting him to our government. The
moment he came into a state of dependence upon the
British government, all these evils attached upon him.
-It is," he adds, " disagreeable to me to exert such
powers; but I know they must be exerted; and I
declare there is no security from this arbitrary power,
but by having nothing to do with the British government. "
My Lords, the House of Commons has already well
considered what may be our future moral and political condition, when the persons who come from that
school of pride, insolence,- corruption, and tyranny are
more intimately mixed up with us of purer morals.
Nothing but contamination can be the result, nothing
but corruption can exist in this country, unless we
expunge this doctrine out of the very hearts and
souls of the people. It is not to the gang of plunderers and robbers of which I say this man is at the head,
that we are only, or indeed principally, to look. Every man in Great Britain will be contaminated and
must be corrupted, if you let loose among us whole
legions of men. , generation after generation, tainted
with these abominable vices, and avowing these detestable principles. It is, therefore, to preserve the
integrity and honor of the Commons of Great Britain that we have brought this man to your Lordships' bar.
When these matters were first explained to your
Lordships, and strongly enforced by abilities greater
than I can exert, there was something like compunction shown by the prisoner: but lie took the most
strange mode to cover his guilt. Upon the crossexamination of Major Scott, lie discovered all the engines of this Indian corruption. Mr. Hastings got
? ? ? ? 202 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
that witness to swear that this defence of his, fiom
which the passages I have read to your Lordships are
extracted, was not his, but that it was the work of
his whole Council, composed of Mr. Middleton, Mr.
Shore, Mr. Halhed, Mr. Baber,- the whole body of
his Indian Cabinet Council; that this was their work,
and. not his; and that he disclaimed it, and therefore that it would be wrong to press it upon him.
Good God'! my Lords, what shall we say in this stage
of the business? The prisoner put in an elaborate
defence: he now disclaims that defence. He told us
that it was of his own writing, that he had been able
to compose it in five days; and he now gets five persons to contradict his own assertions, and to disprove on oath his most solemn declarations.
My Lords, this business appears still more alarming, when we find not only Mr. Hastings, but his
whole Council, engaged in it. I pray your Lordships
to observe, that Mr. Halhed, a person concerned with
Mr. Hastings in compiling a code of Gentoo laws, is
now found to be one of the persons to whom this
very defence is attributed which contains such detestable and abominable doctrines. But are we to consider the contents of this paper as the defence of
the prisoner or not? Will any one say, that, when
an answer is sworn to in Chancery, when an answer
is given here to an impeachment of the Commons,
or when a plea is made to an indictment, that it
is drawn by the defendant's counsel, and therefore is
not his? Did we not all hear him read this defence
in part at our bar? -- did we not see him hand it
to his secretary to have it read by his son? - did he
not then hear it read from end to end? -did not
he himself desire it to be printed, (for it was no
? ? ? ? SPEECH IN REPLY. -F1RST DAY. 203
act of ours,) and did he not superintend and revise
the press? - and has any breath but his own breathed
upon it? No, my Lords, the whole composition is
his, by writing or adoption; and never, till he found
it pressed him in this House, never, till your Lordships began to entertain the same abhorrence of it
that we did, did he disclaim it.
But mark another stage of the propagation of these
horrible principles. After having grounded upon
them the defence of his conduct against our charge,
and after he had got a person to forswear them for
him, and to prove him to have told falsehoods of the
grossest kind to the House of Commons, he again
adheres to this defence. The dog returned to his
vomit. After having vomited out his vile, bilious
stuff of arbitrary power, and afterwards denied it
to be his, he gets his counsel in this place to resort
to the loathsome mess again. They have thought
proper, my Lords, to enter into an extended series
of quotations from books of travellers, for the purpose of showing that despotism was the only principle
of government acknowledged in India, - that the people have no laws, no rights, no property movable or
immovable, no distinction of ranks, nor any sense of
disgrace. After citing a long line of travellers to
this effect, they quote Montesquieu as asserting the
same facts, declaring that the people of India had no
sense of honor, and were only sensible of the whip
as far as it produced corporal pain. They then proceed to state that it was a government of misrule, productive of no happiness to the people, and that it so continued until subverted by the free government of
Britain, - namely, the government that Mr. Hastings
describes as having himself exercised there.
? ? ? ? 204 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
My Lords, if the prisoner can succeed in persuading us that these people have no laws, no rights, not
even the common sentiments and feeling of men, he
hopes your interest in them will be considerably lessened. He would persuade you that their sufferings
are much assuaged by their being nothing new, --
and that, having no right to property, to liberty, to
honor, or to life, they must be more pleased with the
little that is left to them than grieved for the much
that has been ravished from them by his cruelty and
his avarice. This inference makes it very necessary for me, before I proceed further, to make a few
remarks upon this part of the prisoner's conduct,
which your Lordships must. have already felt with
astonishment, perhaps with indignation. This man,
who passed twenty-five years in -India, who was fourteen years at the head of his government, master of
all the offices, master of all the registers and records,
master of all the lawyers and priests of all this
empire, from the highest to the lowest, instead of
producing to you the fruits of so many years' local
and official knowledge upon that subject, has called
out a long line of the rabble of travellers to inform
you concerning the objects of his own government.
That his learned counsel should be ignorant of those
things is a matter of course. That, if left to himself,
the person who has produced all this stuff should,
in pursuit of his darling arbitrary power, wander
without a guide, or with false guides, is quite natural. But your Lordships must have heard with astonishment, that, upon points of law relative to the tenure of lands, instead of producing any law document or authority on the usages and local customs
of the country, he has referred to officers in the
? ? ? ? SPEECH IN REPLY. . FIRST DAY. 205
army, colonels of artillery and engineers, to young
gentlemen just come from:school, not above three
or four years in the country. Good God! would not
one rather ha'e expected to hear him put all these
travellers to shame by the authority of a man who
had resided so long in the supreme situation of government, -to set aside all these wild, loose, casual, and silly observations' of travellers and theorists?
On the contrary, as if he was ignorant *of everything, as if he knew nothing of India, as if he had
dropped from the clouds, he cites the observations of
every: stranger who had been hurried in a palanquin
through the country, capable or incapable of observation, to prove to you the nature of the government, and of the power he had to exercise.
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.
My Lords, long before the Committee had resolved
upon this impeachment, we had. come, as I have told
your. Lordships, to forty-five resolutions, every one
criminatory of this man, every one of them bottomed
upon the principles which I have stated. We never
will nor can we abandon them; and we therefore do
not supplicate your Lordships upon this head, but
claim and demand of right, that you will judge him
upon those principles, and upon no other. If once
they are evaded, you can have no rule for your judgment but your caprices and partialities.
Having thus stated the principles upon which the
Commons hold him and all governors responsible, and
upon which we have grounded our impeachment, and
which must be the grounds of your judgment, (and
your Lordships will not suffer any other ground to be
mentioned to you,) we will now tell you what are
the grounds of his defence. .
He first asserts, that he was possessed of an arbitrary and despotic power, restrained by no laws but his own will. He next says, that " the rights of the
? ? ? ? 196 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
people he governed in India are nothing, and that
the rights of the government are everything. " The
people, he asserts, have no liberty, no laws, no inheritance, no fixed property, no descendable estate, no
subordinations in society, no sense of honor or of
shame, and that they are only affected by punishment
so far as punishment is a corporal infliction, being totally insensible of any difference between the punishment of man and beast. These are the principles of his Indian government, which Mr. Hastings has
avowed in their full extent. Whenever precedents
are required, he cites and follows the example of
avowed tyrants, of Aliverdy Khan, Cossim Ali Khan,
and Sujah Dowlah. With an avowal of these principles he was pleased first to entertain the House of
Commons, the active assertors and conservators of the
rights, liberties, and laws of his country; and then to
insist upon them more largely and in a fuller detail
*before this awful tribunal, the passive judicial conservator of the same great interests. EIe has brought
out these blasphemous doctrines in this great temple
of justice, consecrated to law and equity for a long
series of ages. He has brought them forth in Westminster Hall, in presence of all the Judges of the land,
who are to execute the law, and of the House of
Lords, who are bound as its guardians not to suffer
the words " arbitrary power" to be mentioned before
them. For I am not again to tell your Lordships,
that arbitrary power is treason in the law, - that to
mention it with law is to commit a contradiction in
terms. They cannot exist in concert; they cannot
hold together for a moment.
Let us now hear what the prisoner says. "The
sovereignty which they [the subahdars, or viceroys
? ? ? ? SPEECH IN REPLY. -FIRST DAY. 197
of the Mogul empire] assumed, it fell to my lot, very
unexpectedly, to exert; and whether or not such
power, or powers of that nature, were delegated to
me by any provisions of any act of Parliament I confess myself too little of a lawyer to pronounce. I
only know that the acceptance of the sovereignty of
Benares, &c. , is not acknowledged or admitted by any
act of Parliament; and yet, by the particular interference of the majority of the Council, the Company
is clearly and indisputably seized of that sovereignty.
If, therefore, the sovereignty of Benares, as ceded to
us by the Vizier, have any rights whatever ann6xed to
it, and be not a mere empty word without meaning,
those rights must be such as are held, countenanced,
and established by the law, custom, and usage of the
Mogul empire, and not by the provisions of any British act of Parliament hitherto enacted. Those rights,
and none other, I have been the involuntary instru
ment of enforcing. And if any future act of Parliament shall positively or by implication tend to annihilate those very rights, or their exertion, as I have exerted them, I much fear that the boasted sovereignty of Benares, which was held up as an acquisition
almost obtruded on the Company against my consent
and opinion, (for I acknowledge that even then I
foresaw many difficulties and inconveniences in its
future exercise,) - I fear, I say, that this sovereignty
will be found a burden instead of a benefit, a heavy
clog rather than a precious gem to its present possessors: I mean, unless the whole of our territory in. that
quarter shall be rounded and made an uniform compact body by one grand and systematic arrangement,
- such an arrangement as shall do away all the mischiefs, doubts, and inconveniences (both to the gov
? ? ? ? 1,98 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
ernors and the governed) arising from the variety of
tenures, rights, and claims in all cases of landed property and feudal jurisdiction in India, from the informality, invalidity, and instability of all engagements in so divided and unsettled a state of society, and
from the unavoidable anarchy and confusion of different laws, religions, and prejudices, moral, civil, and
political, all jumbled together in one unnatural and
discordant mass. Every part of Hindostan has been
constantly exposed to these and similar disadvantages
ever since the Mahometan conquests. The Hiindoos,
who never incorporated with their conquerors, were
kept ill order only by the strong hand of power. The
constant necessity of similar exertions would increase
at once their energy and extent. So that rebellion
itself is the parent and promoter of despotism. Sovereignty in India implies nothing else. For I know
not how we can form an estimate of its powers, but
-from its visible effects; and those are everywhere the
-same from Cabool to Assam. The whole history of
Asia is nothing more than precedents to prove the
invariable exercise of arbitrary power. To all this I
strongly alluded in the minutes I delivered in Council, when the treaty with the new Vizier was on foot
in 1775; and I wished to make Cheyt Sing independent, because in India dependence included a thousand
evils, many of which I enumerated at that time, and
they are entered in the ninth clause of the first section of this charge. I knew the powers with which
an Indian sovereignty is armed, and the dangers to
which tributaries are exposed. I knew, that, from
the history of Asia, and from the very nature of mankind, the subjects of a despotic empire are always
vigilant for the moment to rebel, and the sovereign is
? ? ? ? SPEECH IN REPLY. -- FIRST DAY. 199
ever jealous of rebellious intentions. A zemindar is
an Indian subject, and as such exposed to the commoil lot of his fellows. The mean and depraved state of a mere zemindar is therefore this very dependence
above mentioned on a despotic government, this very
proneness to shake off his allegiance, and this very
exposure to continual danger from his sovereign's
jealousy, which are consequent on the political state
of Hindostanic governments. Bulwant Sing, if he
had been, and Cheyt Sing, as long as he was, a zemindar, stood exactly in this mean and depraved state by the constitution of his country. I did not make it
for him, but would have secured him from it. Those
who made him a zemindar entailed upon him the
consequences of so mean and depraved a tenure.
Aliverdy Khan and Cossim Ali filled all their zemindars onil the necessities of war, and oil every pretence either of court necessity or court extravagance. "
I beseech your Lordships seriously to look upon
the whole nature of the principles upon which the
prisoner defends himself. He appeals to the custom
and usage of the Mogul empire; and the constitution of that empire is, he says, arbitrary power. He
says, that he does not know whether any act of Parliament bound him not to exercise this arbitrary power, and that, if ally such act should in future be
made, it would be mischievous and ruinous to our
empire in India. Thus be has at once repealed all
preceding acts, he has annulled by prospect every
future act you can make; and it is not in the power
of the Parliament of Great Britain, without ruining
the empire, to hinder his exercising this despotic
authority. All Asia is by him disfranchised at a
stroke. Its inhabitants have no rights, no laws, no
? ? ? ? 200 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
liberties; their state is mean and depraved; they may
be fined for any purpose of court extravagance or prodigality, - or as Cheyt Sing was fined by him, not only
upon every war, but upon every pretence of war.
This is the account he gives of his power, and of
the people subject to the British government in India.
We deny that the act of Parliament gave him any
such power; we deny that the India Company gave
him any such power, or that they had ever any such
power to give; we even deny that there exists in all
the human race a power to make the government of
any state dependent upon individual will. We disclaim, we reject all such doctrines with disdain and
indignation; and we have brought them up to your
Lordships to be tried at your bar.
What must be the condition of the people of India,
governed, as they have been, by persons who maintain
these principles as maxims of government, and not as
occasional deviations caused by the irregular will of
man,. - principles by which the whole system of society is to be controlled, not by law, reason, or justice, but by the will of one man? Your Lordships will remark, that not only the
whole of the laws, rights, and usages, but the very
being of the people, are exposed to ruin: for Mr.
Hastings says, that the people may be fined, that
they may be exiled, that they may be imprisoned,
and that even their lives are dependent upon the
mere will of their foreign master; and that he, the
Company's Governor, exercised that will under the
authority of this country. Remark, my Lords, his
application of this doctrine. "I would," he says,
" have:kept Cheyt Sing from the consequences of this
dependence, by making him independent, and not in
? ? ? ? SPEECH IN REPLY. -FIRST DAY. 201
any manner subjecting him to our government. The
moment he came into a state of dependence upon the
British government, all these evils attached upon him.
-It is," he adds, " disagreeable to me to exert such
powers; but I know they must be exerted; and I
declare there is no security from this arbitrary power,
but by having nothing to do with the British government. "
My Lords, the House of Commons has already well
considered what may be our future moral and political condition, when the persons who come from that
school of pride, insolence,- corruption, and tyranny are
more intimately mixed up with us of purer morals.
Nothing but contamination can be the result, nothing
but corruption can exist in this country, unless we
expunge this doctrine out of the very hearts and
souls of the people. It is not to the gang of plunderers and robbers of which I say this man is at the head,
that we are only, or indeed principally, to look. Every man in Great Britain will be contaminated and
must be corrupted, if you let loose among us whole
legions of men. , generation after generation, tainted
with these abominable vices, and avowing these detestable principles. It is, therefore, to preserve the
integrity and honor of the Commons of Great Britain that we have brought this man to your Lordships' bar.
When these matters were first explained to your
Lordships, and strongly enforced by abilities greater
than I can exert, there was something like compunction shown by the prisoner: but lie took the most
strange mode to cover his guilt. Upon the crossexamination of Major Scott, lie discovered all the engines of this Indian corruption. Mr. Hastings got
? ? ? ? 202 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
that witness to swear that this defence of his, fiom
which the passages I have read to your Lordships are
extracted, was not his, but that it was the work of
his whole Council, composed of Mr. Middleton, Mr.
Shore, Mr. Halhed, Mr. Baber,- the whole body of
his Indian Cabinet Council; that this was their work,
and. not his; and that he disclaimed it, and therefore that it would be wrong to press it upon him.
Good God'! my Lords, what shall we say in this stage
of the business? The prisoner put in an elaborate
defence: he now disclaims that defence. He told us
that it was of his own writing, that he had been able
to compose it in five days; and he now gets five persons to contradict his own assertions, and to disprove on oath his most solemn declarations.
My Lords, this business appears still more alarming, when we find not only Mr. Hastings, but his
whole Council, engaged in it. I pray your Lordships
to observe, that Mr. Halhed, a person concerned with
Mr. Hastings in compiling a code of Gentoo laws, is
now found to be one of the persons to whom this
very defence is attributed which contains such detestable and abominable doctrines. But are we to consider the contents of this paper as the defence of
the prisoner or not? Will any one say, that, when
an answer is sworn to in Chancery, when an answer
is given here to an impeachment of the Commons,
or when a plea is made to an indictment, that it
is drawn by the defendant's counsel, and therefore is
not his? Did we not all hear him read this defence
in part at our bar? -- did we not see him hand it
to his secretary to have it read by his son? - did he
not then hear it read from end to end? -did not
he himself desire it to be printed, (for it was no
? ? ? ? SPEECH IN REPLY. -F1RST DAY. 203
act of ours,) and did he not superintend and revise
the press? - and has any breath but his own breathed
upon it? No, my Lords, the whole composition is
his, by writing or adoption; and never, till he found
it pressed him in this House, never, till your Lordships began to entertain the same abhorrence of it
that we did, did he disclaim it.
But mark another stage of the propagation of these
horrible principles. After having grounded upon
them the defence of his conduct against our charge,
and after he had got a person to forswear them for
him, and to prove him to have told falsehoods of the
grossest kind to the House of Commons, he again
adheres to this defence. The dog returned to his
vomit. After having vomited out his vile, bilious
stuff of arbitrary power, and afterwards denied it
to be his, he gets his counsel in this place to resort
to the loathsome mess again. They have thought
proper, my Lords, to enter into an extended series
of quotations from books of travellers, for the purpose of showing that despotism was the only principle
of government acknowledged in India, - that the people have no laws, no rights, no property movable or
immovable, no distinction of ranks, nor any sense of
disgrace. After citing a long line of travellers to
this effect, they quote Montesquieu as asserting the
same facts, declaring that the people of India had no
sense of honor, and were only sensible of the whip
as far as it produced corporal pain. They then proceed to state that it was a government of misrule, productive of no happiness to the people, and that it so continued until subverted by the free government of
Britain, - namely, the government that Mr. Hastings
describes as having himself exercised there.
? ? ? ? 204 IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.
My Lords, if the prisoner can succeed in persuading us that these people have no laws, no rights, not
even the common sentiments and feeling of men, he
hopes your interest in them will be considerably lessened. He would persuade you that their sufferings
are much assuaged by their being nothing new, --
and that, having no right to property, to liberty, to
honor, or to life, they must be more pleased with the
little that is left to them than grieved for the much
that has been ravished from them by his cruelty and
his avarice. This inference makes it very necessary for me, before I proceed further, to make a few
remarks upon this part of the prisoner's conduct,
which your Lordships must. have already felt with
astonishment, perhaps with indignation. This man,
who passed twenty-five years in -India, who was fourteen years at the head of his government, master of
all the offices, master of all the registers and records,
master of all the lawyers and priests of all this
empire, from the highest to the lowest, instead of
producing to you the fruits of so many years' local
and official knowledge upon that subject, has called
out a long line of the rabble of travellers to inform
you concerning the objects of his own government.
That his learned counsel should be ignorant of those
things is a matter of course. That, if left to himself,
the person who has produced all this stuff should,
in pursuit of his darling arbitrary power, wander
without a guide, or with false guides, is quite natural. But your Lordships must have heard with astonishment, that, upon points of law relative to the tenure of lands, instead of producing any law document or authority on the usages and local customs
of the country, he has referred to officers in the
? ? ? ? SPEECH IN REPLY. . FIRST DAY. 205
army, colonels of artillery and engineers, to young
gentlemen just come from:school, not above three
or four years in the country. Good God! would not
one rather ha'e expected to hear him put all these
travellers to shame by the authority of a man who
had resided so long in the supreme situation of government, -to set aside all these wild, loose, casual, and silly observations' of travellers and theorists?
On the contrary, as if he was ignorant *of everything, as if he knew nothing of India, as if he had
dropped from the clouds, he cites the observations of
every: stranger who had been hurried in a palanquin
through the country, capable or incapable of observation, to prove to you the nature of the government, and of the power he had to exercise.
