A N 
 
 ELUCIDATION 
 
 OF THE 
 
 ARTICLES of IMPEACHMENT 
 
 PREFERRED BY THE 
 
 LAST PARLIAMENT 
 
 AG AINST 
 
 WARREN HASTINGS, Esq. 
 
 LATE 
 
 GOVERNOR. GENERAL 
 
 O F 
 
 BENGAL. 
 
 By RALPH BROOME, Es^ 
 
 CAPTAIN IN THE SERVICE OF THE EAST INDIA COMPANY ON 
 THE BENGAL ESTABLISHMENT, 
 
 PERSIAN TRANSLATOR 
 
 TO THE ARMY ON THE FRONTIER STATION, DURING PART 
 OF THE LATE WAR IN INDIA. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 PRINTED J"OR J<JJIN STOCKDALE, OPPOSITE BURLI.S G TOU HOPSE, 
 PICCADILLY. 
 
T 
 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 1V1 R. Hastings's Trial being ended, or at 
 leaft fufpended, by the Diffolution of Parlia- 
 ment, I am now going to fulfil the promife I 
 made long fince to the Public, namely, that I 
 would put my real name to the Letters pub- 
 limed in the Oracle laft winter. 
 
 At the beginning of the Work, the motive 
 of my writing on this fubject was declared by 
 the Editor of the Paper. And I do here again 
 moft folemnly declare, that neither Mr. Haftings 
 nor Major Scott, nor any other perfon of his 
 party, ever fuggefted to me the idea of the 
 work I publifhed, nor of any thing of, the kind. 
 Whatever I have written upon the fubjecl: of 
 Mr. Haftings' s Impeachment, whether gravely 
 or ludicroufly, was perfectly my own, both in 
 defign and execution. A great part was fent to 
 the Prefs without the infpeclion of any perfon 
 
 whatever. Mr. Haftings never ferved me in his 
 
 o 
 
 a life, 
 
11 PREFACE. 
 
 life, either at home or abroad, confequently he 
 could have no claims upon my gratitude. It 
 may be aiked then, Why did I write on a fub- 
 jcdt in which I was not interefted ? My anfwer 
 is, that I was frequently in company where I 
 heard gentlemen give their opinions without any 
 knowledge of the queftion. I have heard many 
 people cry, Mr. Hangings mull be a very bad 
 man, if a fiftieth part of what Mr. Burke ac- 
 cufes him of, be true, and when they were 
 afked, what it was that Mr. Burke had accufed 
 him of, their anfwer always was, That they 
 could not tell : That it was fuch an immenfe 
 mafs of confufed matter, that they could not 
 comprehend it ; but they took it for granted 
 that it muft be fomething very bad, or Mr. 
 Burke would not make ufe of fuch ftrong and 
 opprobrious language. Inflances of this nature 
 happened very often, and one in particular in a 
 northern county, which firft. fuggefted the idea 
 of thefe Letters. It was to give the public a 
 clear and impartial view of the Charges exhibited 
 again!! Mr. Raftings, that I publifhed the 
 Elucidation, as the Printer waspleafed toftile it, 
 for I myfelf gave it no title or appellation what- 
 ever. It was my ftudy to avoid giving offence 
 to any man. I was at that time perfonally un- 
 known to all the Managers, and confequently 
 
 could 
 
PREFACE. Ill 
 
 could not be inimical to them upon private 
 grounds. If I thought differently from them, 
 it was the effect of conviction operating upon 
 my mind. Things that appeared to them cri- 
 minal in the highefr. degree, appeared to me as 
 abfolutely neceffary to the falvation of the Britifh 
 Empire in India. 
 
 Such was the confifcation of the Begum's 
 treafure at Ferruchabad — By Mr. Sheridan, the 
 act of urging a fon to refume his property from 
 his mother, was reprefented as a crime of the 
 deepeft dye. To me, the mother's detention of 
 her fon's right feemed.more criminal in the 
 firfr. inftance, than his forcible refumption of 
 of it in the fecond. 
 
 The taxation of Cheyt Sing feemed to me, 
 as far as I was able to judge from my know- 
 ledge of India Cuftoms,, Politics, and form of 
 Government, to be full as juft and equitable, 
 as any tax that ever was impofed by a Britifh 
 Legiflature, and the fining of him for difobe- 
 dience was fully as equitable, and perhaps more 
 neceflary, than many of our penal ftatutes. 
 
 I could, upon the deeped: reflection, difcover 
 
 no other difference than this, namely, that the 
 
 acts of our legiflature are too high for any 
 
 power on earth to call them into queftion ; and 
 
 a 2 the 
 
IV PREFACE. 
 
 the acts of the Britilh government in India are 
 not of fo uncontroulable a nature. 
 
 Mr. Haftings, both in the bufinefs of Chyte 
 Sing and of the Begums, did what he thought 
 was juftifiable by the Laws of India, and the 
 cuftoms of every government in the world. 
 I am far from thinking that Mr. Haftings acted 
 circumfpectly or prudently in all that he did : 
 but I am as fully convinced as human evidence 
 and unprejudiced reflection can make a man, 
 that in all the charges brought before the court, 
 Mr. Haftings did what he thought was indif- 
 penfably neceffary, and therefore ftri&ly jufti- 
 fiable. The incautious, and I may fay impru- 
 dent manner, with refpect to himfelf, in which 
 he acted, is a ftrong prefumptive proof of the 
 purity of his intentions. 
 
 It was owing to this firm conviction in my 
 mind, that I have in all companies, where the 
 fubject has been ftarted, endeavoured to give 
 thofe who chofe to attend, a clear ftatement of 
 the principal fads : and wherever I have thought 
 Mr. Haftings wrong, I never fcrupled to de- 
 clare it. I am not the blind partizan of Mr. 
 Haftings, nor am I the hireling as Mr. Burke 
 has infinuated. 
 
 I do bid defiance to all mankind, to mew 
 
 one 
 
PREFACE. V 
 
 one inftance of Mr. HafT.ings having ferved 
 me, or even to mew any felnfh view that I can 
 poffibly have in efpoufing his caufe. 
 
 It never was my intention nor expectation to 
 influence the minds of thofe who were ulti- 
 mately to judge, by any writings of mine. 
 
 All I meant was, to prevent the Public from 
 being led away by bold and hazardous decla- 
 mation. 
 
 It did, and does appear to me a very cruel 
 thing, that a man who had filled the highefl 
 pofl in India for thirteen years, who was ac- 
 knowledged to have faved India, even by fome 
 of thofe who voted for the Impeachment ; 
 a man who governed a large tract, of country 
 to the perfect fatisfaction of thofe who were 
 fubject to his authority. It did appear very hard 
 to me, that fuch a man mould be made the 
 fubjecl: of the molt bitter invective, year after 
 year, without any perfon riling up in his vin- 
 dication, or attempting to flem the torrent of 
 abufe, by a plain and impartial narrative of 
 faas. 
 
 I did not, however, mean profeffedly to de- 
 fend or vindicate Mr. Haftings's conduct by the 
 Letters I publifhed ; for in the ftatement of facts 
 I was guided almoft wholly by the evidence 
 brought by the Managers themfelves. 
 
 I began 
 
VI PREFACE, 
 
 I began the work with a declaration of can- 
 dour, and a promife to correct any thing that 
 mould be mif-ftated. 
 
 There were feveral publications againft me. 
 
 One only, accufed me of mifreprefentation. 
 
 The charge was not without fbme founda- 
 tion ; and I corrected my error. 1 here allude 
 to what I faid of the capture of Bidjagur, 
 namely, that the offenders were too many for juf- 
 tlce. In calling them offenders I followed the 
 opinion and judgement of the court at Cal- 
 cutta, not knowing at that time that their de- 
 cree was r ever fed. 
 
 Confequently, though all the facts were true, 
 yet, as they were not held criminal on the lair, 
 appeal, I had no right to call the Captors who 
 precipitately divided the treafures they found, 
 offenders. 
 
 Excepting this epithet, I do not know that 
 any thing I faid was called in queftion in point 
 of veracity. There was fome perfon who wrote 
 againft the Elucidation in the Gazetteer, but 
 I reallv think the Author not three removes 
 from a madman. It is probable now that I put 
 my name, the fame writer will repeat his abufe ; 
 but unlefs he difcovers himfelf, and publicly 
 avows his work, I mall not think him worthy 
 of my notice : neither will I anfwer any anony- 
 mous 
 
PREFACE. Vli 
 
 mous publication whatever. A man who writes 
 in a public paper under a fictitious fignature, 
 may fay any thing without the rifk of being 
 mamed by detection. Such was the cafe with 
 fome perfon who, at the time I was fubpoenaed 
 to give evidence in Weitminfter Hall, inferted 
 a paragraph in the Morning Post, roundly 
 afierting, that I owed my fortune to Mr. 
 Haftings's patronage. I contradicted the afler- 
 tion with my name to it : and a fecond para- 
 graph appeared in the fame paper, {fating, that 
 as they could not contradict what I had ad- 
 vanced, they muff believe that I never had been 
 under obligations of that nature to Mr. Haftings. 
 Something fimilar to this I have heard with 
 refpect to the late Lieutenant-Colonel Eaton. 
 It was faid, and I believe very truly, that Mr. 
 Haftings fuftained a great lofs by the death of 
 that officer in point of tefKmony ; yet was 
 there a perfon found bold enough to affirm, 
 that he had heard Col. Eaton declare, that his 
 evidence would materially injure Mr. Haftino-s, 
 of whom he always had thought ill. This af- 
 firmation called forth a Letter from Major Scott, 
 {fating, that Col. Eaton had been examined by 
 Mr. Haftings's Counfel, and that his evidence 
 was thought very important to Mr. HafKno-s's 
 juftincation. It is not likely, by the bye, that 
 
 Col. 
 
VllI PREFACE. 
 
 Col. Eaton thought ill of a man to whom he 
 bequeathed a thoufand pounds. 
 
 There is another circumftance which may 
 have had fome weight with me in the produc- 
 tion of thefe Letters — I mean that indifcrimi- 
 nate abufe which fome of the Managers, particu- 
 larly Mr. Burke, have fo lavifhly beftowed on 
 the Company's fervice. In that fervice I fpent 
 many years of my life, and owe to it the bread 
 I eat. All general reflections are odious, and 
 may, as Mr. Burke acknowledges, be treated as 
 calumny. I mould, however, think the lefs of 
 this, if Mr. Burke did not occasionally make 
 exceptions. Whenever it becomes neceifary for 
 him to call upon one of the Company's fervants 
 to give evidence, he is as lavifh in the praife of 
 his witnefs, if his tefrimony anfwers his expec- 
 tations, as he is at other times in the condemna- 
 tion and abufe of all the reft. The deteftation 
 in which 1 hold this kind of conduct cannot 
 poffibly arife from felfim feelings ; for Mr. 
 Burke has never mentioned my name, either in 
 public or private, to my knowledge, nor is it 
 likely that he ever will. My abhorrence ariies 
 from reflecting, that an accufer mould be per- 
 mitted in a free country, where every man's 
 rights are fo well defined, to deftroy the cha- 
 racters 
 
PREFACE. IX 
 
 rafters of thoufands in the lump, in order to 
 convict and bring to punifhment one man. 
 
 What mull: the public think of the enemies 
 of Mr. HafHngs, who wifh to deprive him of 
 every kind of evidence in his favour, by deftroy- 
 ing the credit of thofe whom they think likely 
 to fpeak favourably of him ? It feems to be 
 perfectly indifferent to many of Mr. Haftings's 
 enemies, whether they areconfcious of fpeaking 
 truth or not. A bold aflertion, they are in 
 hopes, will pafs with the public for truth ; and 
 if it will anfwer the purpofe of the moment, 
 they care for nothing more. This I know to 
 be the cafe with refpect to what was aflerted of 
 myfelf; and I may, by analogy, give them 
 credit for the fame with regard to what they fay 
 of others. 
 
 If ever I felt any indignation rifing in my 
 bread upon reading the publications againit. Mr. 
 Haftings, it was not owing to friendfhip for the 
 fufferer ; it was an honed indignation rifing up 
 againft a perverfion of truth, and an artful at- 
 tempt to inflame the public mind againit. the 
 man who has rendered this country more eflen- 
 tial fervice than all his enemies taken together. 
 
 I am aware that this expreilion may excite a 
 laugh. It may be faid, that Mr. Haftings may 
 have rendered his country more fervice than all 
 
 b his 
 
X PREFACE. 
 
 his accufers, and yet have done very little, they 
 having done their country no fervice whatever. 
 Perhaps the expreffion would be lefs liable to 
 cavil, had I faid that Mr. Hafrings had done his 
 country as much good as his accufers have done 
 mifchief. 
 
 It may perhaps be obje&ed to this work, and 
 by no man more likely than, by Mr. Francis, 
 that the author's rank and fituation was not fuch 
 in India as to give him an opportunity of know- 
 ing and judging. To this I anfwer, that had 
 any peribn of higher rank, of more knowledge 
 and greater capacity taken upon him to give 
 the public a concife and candid ftatement of 
 fa&s, I would never have attempted it. 
 
 I did it becaufe no one elfe did it. 
 
 It is true Major Scott has written a great 
 deal, but his writings go fo much into the detail 
 that none but thofe who are deeply interefted, 
 will take the trouble to collect them and to 
 read them with proper attention. This, how- 
 ever, I may venture to fay of Major Scott's 
 writings, and I have heard the fame remarked 
 by very many people, viz. that the fads are al- 
 ways with him. 
 
 In addition to what I have faid in defence of 
 my own writing on this fubjec"t, I might fay, 
 that I muft be at leaft well qualified to 
 
 write 
 
PREFACE. XI 
 
 writs on it, as Mr. Burke can be to ground an 
 Impeachment on it. 
 
 I have theie advantages over him, I was 
 near 15 years in India, I underftand the lan- 
 guage of the country, I have read many of 
 their hiftories, I was for a considerable time on 
 a furvey in the country, and afterwards one of 
 the Perfian tranflators in the field. 
 
 I had many opportunities of acquiring know- 
 ledge which cannot fall to the lot of thofe who 
 never ;were out of this kingdom. I will not, 
 however, find fault let who will call my know- 
 ledge in queftion. 
 
 Let him point out where I am wrong and I 
 fhall always be ready and willing to rectify my 
 error. 
 
 But though I will not vindicate my know- 
 ledge, I defy all the world to accufe me of un- 
 juft or corrupt partiality in favour of Mr. Haf- 
 tings. 
 
 I never fought his acquaintance or Patro- 
 nage in India, and he has never been in a 
 fituation in this country to make his friendship 
 worth feeking on the fcore of intereft. 
 
 I never faw him till about three weeks be- 
 fore I left India, and about a month after I had 
 aiked the General's leave to refisn the fervice. 
 
 b 2 I was 
 
Xll PREFACE. 
 
 I was then barely introduced, and all that he 
 faid beyond the ufual language of introduction 
 was, that he had often heard of me and wifhed, 
 much to fee me. 
 
 I never faw him again till he met me by ac- 
 cident at Cheltenham, where I dined with him 
 once. 
 
 At dinner he expreffed a wifh that I would 
 call on him at his houfe in town, where he 
 wanted to mow me an Arabic book, which was 
 given to him by a native of India as a mathe- 
 matical treatife, and fuppofed to contain pro- 
 blems unknown to Europeans. — I underftood 
 that I had been mentioned to him by' fome of 
 the natives as the likeliefl Englishmen to tranf- 
 late fuch a work, as it required a knowledge of 
 i\rabic and Mathematics, two kinds of learning 
 feldom united in one perfon redding in India. 
 
 This invitation I did not accept, nor did I ' 
 ever fee him again till long after he was im- 
 peached. 
 
 I (hall now conclude this Preface with a fo- 
 lemn declaration, which I defy all mankind to 
 difprove, that I have never received any benefit 
 or fervice whatever, directly or indirectly from 
 Mr. Haflings, nor any promife from himfelf 
 nor from any of his friends ; and that what- 
 ever I have written was by the fole impulfe of 
 
 my 
 
PREFACE. XlU 
 
 my own mind. And I do further declare that 
 nothing ever prevailed with me to write at all 
 on the fubjecl, but a defire to keep the public 
 mind from fixing its judgement till the Lords 
 fhould come to a final decifion upon the Im- 
 peachment. 
 
 I beg alfo it may be remembered, that 
 though I have till now delayed figning my 
 name, I authorifed the Printer to give it to any 
 of the Managers who were mofl interefted ill 
 what I had faid. 
 
 One fatisfaction I have received fince I began 
 the Elucidation, namely, that the cafe of Deby 
 Sing came out juft as 1 ftated it. Mr. Anftru- 
 ther put it in the fame way, he admitted Mr, 
 Haftings not to be the immediate caufe, but 
 faid that the cruelties committed by Deby Sing 
 could not have happened under the former fyf- 
 tem. This was the way, in which Mr. Burke 
 originally ftated it, and when Mr. Fox made 
 an invocation of divine vengeance on himfelf, 
 if the truth of the ftory refpecting Debv Sing 
 was not eftablifhed by evidence, he emphati- 
 cally added in the manner in which his honour- 
 able friend hadjiated it. But the blame which 
 I think juftly imputable to Mr. Burke is the 
 introduction of a ftory no ways conne&ed with , 
 either of the charges in fuch a manner as to 
 
 make 
 
XIV PREFACE. 
 
 make the deepeft impreffion on the minds of 
 the audience, without putting it into the power 
 of the accufed to efface it by the production of 
 oral or written teftimony. If Mr. Burke be- 
 lieved all that he faid, he ought to have made 
 it an article of charge, and if he did not be- 
 lieve it h/mfelf, he ought not to have impofed 
 the belief on others. There certainly are ftrong 
 iymptoms of an artful and premeditated inten- 
 tion to miflead the inattentive hearer into an 
 opinion that Mr. Haftings was knowingly the 
 caufe of unprecedented cruelties. Such was 
 the keeping the flory of Deby Sing a fecret 
 even from his colleagues, who were as much 
 furprized at it as the people in the gallery. 
 His working himfelf up into fuch a parox- 
 yfm of pity and indignation as to faint at the 
 recital of his own ftory. Tales of horror pro- 
 duce the ftrongeft effects at the firft hearing. 
 Had Mr. Burke fainted when he firft read Pa- 
 terfon*s Collection in his clofet, I mould have 
 thought it a real affection of the nervous lyf- 
 tem, but that he mould be more violently af? 
 fected at his own reporting the ftory than he 
 was at the firft reading of it is very impro- 
 bable, and I muit agree with Mr. Haftings's 
 friends, that it has the appearance of a flage. 
 trick, 
 
 s; 
 
PREFACE. XV 
 
 ■Si vis me fere dolcndum ejl 
 
 Primum ipji tibu 
 was the advice of Horace, and it is not impof- 
 iible but Mr. Burke might think that to make 
 the people feel he muft fet the example. Againft 
 thefe appearances we have Mr. Burke's pro- 
 feffions of candour, and general character of 
 unimpeachable veracity. 
 
T O 
 
 THE PUBLIC. 
 
 HE occafion of writing the following Letters was 
 this : — The Author happened one day this laft fummer, 
 to be in company with feveral Gentlemen in a County 
 dijlant front the Metropolis, where the pending Trial 
 became the fubjeft of convey fat ion. — Curiojity, and a 
 defire of knowing the public opinion, induced him for a 
 time to conceal his having been in India from the know- 
 ledge of fbme of the company, in order that they might 
 the more freely deliver their fentiments and opinions.— 
 He was not a little furprifed to find, that though every 
 one in company gave a mojl decided opinion, there was 
 not one prefent who had any real information on the 
 fubjetl. 
 
 B Mr. 
 
li TO THE PUBLIC. 
 
 Mr. Haftings, they /aid, had been guilty of the 
 mojl atrocious barbarities, and deferved the mojl exem- 
 plary punijlmient. They inveighed with vehemence againji 
 his cruelties to the zvomen. But what was their fur- 
 prize in return, when the Author of thefe Letters 
 informed them, that bad as Mr. Burke had rcprcfented 
 Mr. Haftings's conduct, they, by mifunderjlanding him, 
 had made it infinitely zvorfe : that Mr. Burke never ac- 
 cufid Mr. Haftings of inflicting, or ordering punijh- 
 ment to be infliiled on the women ; but that fuch things 
 happened in confeque'nce of Political Revolution, brought 
 about by Mr. Haftings near two years before ; and 
 laftly, that thefe barbarities, as had fince been proved, 
 never happened at all f The Author told them alfo, that 
 Major Scott had put the Public in poffejfion of the real 
 falls, in a Pamphlet publijhed longjince. To zvhich they 
 replied, that they had feen Mr. Burke's fpeech in the 
 newfpapers, but had never feen Major Scott's obfer- 
 vations upon it. One of the company faid, it zvas much 
 to be lamented, that no perfon had yet undertaken to 
 write a kind of hiftory or* the facts which are laid to 
 the charge of Mr. Haftings. He faid, that he had 
 read a great deal on the fubjecl at fepar ate times, but 
 that the narratives were fo broken and interrupted, and 
 fo perplexed and confufed with hard names, that he found 
 it impojiblt to form any clear idea upon the fubjecl. 
 
 i The 
 
TO THE PUBLIC. Ill 
 
 The Author then engaged to write a few Letters 
 for the information of the Gentlemen in that neighbour- 
 hood.— r-He at fir ft thought, that nine or ten jheets of 
 ■paper would have contained all the outlines of the bv.fi- 
 iiefs, and information fufficient for thofe who zuere not 
 to decide ultimately upon the queftion. In this opinion 
 he was fomewhat mifiaken, and has been infenfibly led 
 into a greater length than he originally intended. It is, 
 however, a very fioort zvork now, compared with any 
 production yet publijhed on the fubjetl. 
 
 It is not pretended, that thefe Letters give any 
 New Light ; or that all, and infinitely more, may not 
 le extracted from the Reports of the Committee which 
 have fat on the inveftigation of India Affairs, and from 
 other publications. They will be ferviceable to thofe 
 enly who wijh to underftand the fubftance of the 
 Charges, and the Proofs infupport of them, without the 
 labour of reading many folio volumes. It has this advantage 
 alfo, that every term is explained, and the whole brought 
 down to the comprehenjion of the moft uninformed Eng~ 
 li/h reader. At the fame time, there are to be found 
 arguments inter fper fed in thefe Letters, that may be 
 of fome ufe to men of more enlightened under ft andings. — 
 // has this farther advantage, that the Author is no 
 Partijan — he owes nothing in point- of for 'une to Mr. 
 Haftings, nor his opponent, Mr. Francis. To the lat^ 
 B 2 tcr- 
 
IV TO THE PUBLIC. 
 
 ter he is unknown perfonally, and very little acquainted 
 with the former. In India he /pent much of his time 
 in the cultivation of Oriental Literature, and took every 
 opportunity ofincreajing his knowledge , by frequent con- 
 verfations zvith the mojl enlightened natives. 
 
 LET- 
 
LETTER I, 
 
 Sir, 
 
 AGREEABLY to your requeft, and to my own 
 promife, I now begin to give you fome account of 
 Mr. Haftings's Trial. I do not mean to detail all 
 the arguments adduced on both fides ; but merely 
 to ftate the nature and fubftance of the Charges, and 
 to fliew the principal points upon which they turn ; 
 for, in general, the difpute is not concerning facts, 
 but the Names or Epithets which thofe facts ought 
 to bear ; that is, whether they are criminal or not.-~- 
 Neither (hall I follow Mr. Burke through his open- 
 ing, or introductory Speech, which lafted four 
 days ; and, in fome degree, deftroyed its own force, 
 by its vatt length and perplexity. It will be fuffi- 
 cient to fay, that he gave an account of the Reli- 
 gion, Cuftoms, and Manners of the Natives of In- 
 doftan ,- that he traced all the Revolutions of that 
 country, from the firft Mahomedan Invafion of it, 
 down to the year 1756, when the Englijh Interejl 
 began to be of fome weight in the political fcale of 
 the Empire. 
 
 In 
 
5 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OP 
 
 In the courfe of his narrative, he inveighed much 
 againft the injuftice of the Englim, and mentioned 
 many things tending to throw difcredit on Mr. 
 Haftings, whilft very young in the Company's fer- 
 vice. But he faid, that he did not mean to bring 
 any criminatory matter againft the prifoner, which 
 happened previous to the year 1772, the time of 
 Mr. Haftings's fuccemon to the Chair at Bengal. 
 
 I know it is the with of you and many others, to 
 be informed more particularly of the real ftate of 
 that ftory, which was detailed by Mr. Burke^ con- 
 cerning Deby Sing. There is fomething remarka- 
 ble in this ftory : though it is not made matter of 
 charge, yet it has hurt the character of Mr. Haf- 
 tings in the eyes of all Europe, more than all the 
 Twenty Articles put together. Of this Mr. Haf- 
 tings complains heavily, and not without good rea- 
 fon ; for had it been a feparate article, or included 
 in fome other article, he might one day or other 
 have had an opportunity of anfwering the accufation 
 in the fame public manner in which it was made ; 
 but as it ftands, he has not, nor ever had the means 
 of pleading to it, as he did to the written charges ; I 
 therefore do not fee how he can refute it. It is true, 
 Mr. Burke did fay, that he held himfelf refponfible 
 for the truth of it, and bound to prove, by evit 
 dence, all he afferted in his Introduction, as well as 
 in the Charges or Articles themfelves. But I do 
 not perceive at prefent any method of bringing the 
 matter to iffue, unlefs another article were added 
 
 to 
 
MR. HASTINGS S IMPEACHMENT* 7 
 
 to the prefent number, and that, perhaps, the Com- 
 mons may not chufe to do. 
 
 If Mr. Burke meant, by the relation of thofe hor- 
 rid cruelties, to inflame the minds of the Court and 
 Audience againft the Defendant, and thereby ren- 
 der them more eafy of belief to other criminating 
 matter, knowing at the fame time, that he could 
 not be called upon to eftablifh the fads by evidence, 
 he certainly acted unfairly. I mull, however, iri 
 favour of Mr. Burke, obferve, that had a difpaf- 
 fionate perfon read his Introductory Speech, inflead 
 of hearing it, or had he preferved the whole in his 
 memory, he would have had ftrong doubts in his 
 own mind, whether any of the facts, fuppofing 
 them true,' could m any fhape reflect upon Mr. 
 Haftings, Mr. Burke does not fay, that Mr. Haf- 
 tings either committed, or ordered any violence to 
 be committed on the Natives ; but he fays, that 
 Mr. Haftings was the author of a meafure which 
 eventually occafioned all thofe cruelties which he 
 detailed in i~o affecting a manner in Weftminfter 
 Hall. But there is a wide difference between being 
 unknowingly and unforefeeingly the remote caufe, 
 and being the wilful and immediate caufe of an 
 event. 
 
 But to give you a clearer idea of the matter, I 
 will ftate the fubftance of Mr. Burke's Speech, ancj 
 Major Scott's Pamphlet in refutation of it. — The 
 former fays, that Mr. Haftings having by accident 
 the Supreme Power in his own hands, changed the 
 fyftem of collecting the Revenues of Bengal, with 
 
 no 
 
S ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 no other intention than that of increaling his own 
 power. 
 
 Here you perceive is the firft point at iffue — Mr. 
 Haflings denies this intention. But before I pro- 
 ceed farther, I muft explain the nature of that fyf- 
 tem which Mr. Haflings fet afide ; and alfo of that 
 which he adopted in its room. 
 
 From the year 1773, the revenues had been col- 
 lected under the direction of Provincial Councils. — - 
 To enable you to understand clearly what is meant 
 by a Provincial Council, you may fuppofe the Re- 
 venues of this kingdom to be collected by a Board 
 of Officers, Stationed in the different Counties, and 
 fubordinate to the Treafury Board in the Metropo- 
 lis. Of thefe Provincial Councils there were fix. 
 
 Their proceedings were tranfmitted to the Su- 
 preme Council at Bengal, which you may in this 
 cafe confider as the Treafury Board here in Eng- 
 land. Mr. Burke fays, thefe Provincial Councils 
 were formed by Mr. Haflings in 1773. Mr. Haf- 
 tings fays, they were neither of his formation, nor 
 had they his approbation. 
 
 Here you will obferve is the fecond point at 
 iffue. 
 
 It is neceffary I mould now take notice, that pre- 
 vious to October 1774, the Adminiflration of Ben- 
 gal confided of a Prefident and eleven Counfellors r 
 Mr. Haflings was Prefident, but could not always 
 procure a majority in Council, and confequently of- 
 ten yielded to neceffity. — Such appears to have been 
 the cafe in the forming of thefe Provincial Coun- 
 cils ; 
 
MR. HASTINGSS IMPEACHMENT. 9 
 
 cils ; and, indeed, it mud be obferved, that from 
 the time of forming them in 1773, to the time of 
 diflblving them in 178 1, the Adminiftration was in 
 a very unfettled ftate : I do not mean unfettled with 
 refpect to form or conftitution, *but unfettled with 
 refpect to the prevalence of party. The Council 
 of Bengal, like all Political Bodies^ were in gene- 
 ral divided into parties. — And though Mr. Haftings ■ 
 had the majority before 1781, yet he held it by a 
 Very precarious tenure, and could not venture tt 
 great innovations. But in the year laft mentioned, 
 Mr. Haftings having the calling vote in his own 
 perfon (there being only one member ( Mr. 
 Wheeler) of the Supreme Council then living, and 
 in Tndiaj fet afide the Provincial Councils, and 
 eftablilhed a Committee of Revenue at Fort Wil- 
 liam in their ftead. 
 
 Among other reafons for the alteration, it is al- 
 Hedged, that Mr. Francis condemned the Provincial 
 Councils in a minute (landing on record. And it 
 feems alfo, that the experienced utility of the new 
 fyftem juftifies the meafure ; for it has continued^ 
 with fome little alteration, ever fince. 
 
 This new Committee confiiied of the Company's 
 Civil Servants, who had commimons on the net 
 amount of the Revenue. Mr. Burke fays, their 
 emoluments were about 62,000!. a- year. — Here you 
 will obferve, that the difference of the two iyftems 
 of collection is this— one Council or Committee did 
 the bufinefs of fix ; and that Council, inftead of 
 being remote from the Prefidency, was on the fpot. 
 C —This 
 
JO ELUCIDATION ON THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 —This is all the change which I can perceive ; for 
 the old and the new Revenue Board were alike fub- 
 jed to the controul of the Supreme Council. Mr. 
 Haflings appointed Goonga Govind Sing, a native, 
 to be Dewan, or Steward to this new Revenue Com- 
 mittee. 
 
 It happened foon after the formation of this Coun- 
 cil, that Deby Sing, the man of whom you have 
 heard fo much, was accepted by the Committee, 
 as a Tenant for the province of Rungpore, at an 
 advanced rent, for the term of two years. The 
 firft year things went on fmoothly ; the rent was 
 paid, and no complaint made; but towards the 
 clofe of the fecond an infurredion broke out in 
 Rungpore, occafioned, a*s Mr. Burke ftated it, by 
 thofe abominable cruelties committed by Deby 
 Sing and his agents, and which were detailed in 
 Weftminfter Hall fo much to the prejudice of Mr. 
 Haftings's character. 
 
 Here a queftion muft naturally arife in the mind 
 of every reader — How is Mr. Haflings anfwerable 
 for the conduct of Deby Sing ? Mr. Burke con- 
 tends, that his changing the fyftem of collection 
 makes him anfwerable for all its confequences. " I 
 confider the Prifoner (laid Mr. Burke, with great 
 energy) refponfible for all the ads of Deby Sing,, 
 and doubly refponfible, if he knew him to be a bad 
 charader at the time he was accepted Tenant to 
 Rungpore." The firft part of this afTertion muft 
 havc been made in the warmth of elocution ; and I 
 dare fay, Mr. Burke would give it up on refledion. 
 
 a But 
 
mr. Hastings's impeachment. 11 
 
 But to the fecond, I fuppofe every perfon will agree. 
 Jf the alteration in the collection of Revenues was 
 made to increafe their amount, it was certainly a 
 very laudable act, particularly at that period, when 
 money was fo much wanted for carrying on the war. 
 And though the change of fyftem may have opened 
 an inlet for Deby Sing and others, yet Mr. Haftings 
 mud be confidered as the very remote, and per- 
 fectly innocent caufe of whatever happened in con- 
 fequence of his ad million. But, by the bye, I do 
 not fee why Deby Sing might not have been em- 
 ployed in the collections under one of the Provin- 
 cial Councils, as well as under the prefent Revenue 
 Council ; and the fame things have happened iri 
 that way as in this. At any rate, it is abfurd tQ 
 charge the author of any innovation with every con- 
 fequence that he could not reafonably forefee at the 
 time of making it. 
 
 Mr. Burke's reafoning would carry the offences he 
 imputes to Mr. Haftings up to Lord North, as the 
 minifter who appointed or recommended him to the 
 office of Governor General. 
 
 If Mr. Burke can eftablim his proportion, that, 
 Mr. Haftings changed the old fyftem with a view 
 of increafing his own power and emolument, and to 
 let loofe his bribe -brokers and plunderers (as he 
 calls them) on the country, Mr. Haftings is cer- 
 tainly reprehenfible in the higheft degree. It would^ 
 be a much heavier charge againft him, tl\an all the 
 Twenty Articles thrown together into one fcale.— - 
 Jvlr. Burke, you may be allured, is perfectly fenfi- 
 C 2 ble 
 
12 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 ble of this, aad nothing prevented his making it 
 matter of charge, but the impoffibility of proving 
 the intention. Whoever attended to Mr. Burke in 
 his opening Speech, and imputed any part of Deby 
 Sing's guilt to Mr. Haftings, muft have given that 
 Gentleman credit for the motive he imputed to Mr. 
 Haftings. — I fay imputed, becaufe Mr. Burke did 
 not fay he could prove that avarice and love of 
 power were the motives, but that he could impute 
 the Prifoner's conduct to nothing elfe. He gave 
 his reafons for thinking as he did. He faid, that 
 Goonga Govind Sing was a dependant on Mr. 
 Haftings ; that in the capacity of Dezvan he had the 
 whole management of the Revenue bufinefs in his 
 own hands ; and that the members of the Commit- 
 tee funk into infignificance — that Deby Sing was in- 
 troduced into office by the influence of Goonga Go- 
 vind Sing ; and that Mr. Haftings, through the me- 
 dium of the latter, was the real, though concealed 
 mover of every thing. 
 
 There is one thing which Mr. Burke in his hurry 
 feems to have overlooked, or, perhaps, not to have 
 credited ; I mean the evidence of Mr. Anderson, 
 who was one of the Revenue Committee, and by 
 whofe recommendation, joined to Mr. Shore's, 
 Deby Sing got his appointment. By this Gentle- 
 man's evidence it appears, that Goonga Govind 
 Sing was averfe to the employing of Deby Sing 
 and remonftrated, though ineffectually, againft it. 
 It appears alfo, that the appointment of Deby Sing 
 originated in the Revenue Committee, and not, in 
 
 the 
 
MR. hastings's impeachment. 13 
 
 the Supreme Council. Mr. Haftings, it is true,, 
 knew of it, and difapproved it ; but yielded to the 
 recommendation and withes of the members of the 
 Committee above-mentioned. 
 
 This breaks the chain of Mr. Burke's reafoning ; 
 for you fee he traces it link by link in this manner : 
 Deby Sing was the agent of Govind Sing, and Go- 
 vind Sing was the agent of Mr. Haftings. But Mr. 
 Anderfon proves, that fo far from Deby Sing's being 
 the agent of Goonga Govind Sing, he was put into 
 power contrary to the latter's inclination. — If Mr. 
 Burke adverted to this circumftance, and did not 
 ftate it, I make no doubt but you will think it a 
 want of candour. 
 
 Major Scott, both in a fpeech he made in Parlia- 
 ment, and in a pamphlet which he publifhed, 
 charged Mr. Burke with premeditated mifreprefen- 
 tation ; but I by no means go that length. On the 
 contrary, I think in the immenfe mafs of evidence, 
 and different matter before him, he might eafily 
 overlook fome parts, and thence be led into erro- 
 neous conclufions. — But I pafs over this, as foreign 
 to my purpofe : I am neither going to accufe nor 
 vindicate the conduct of Mr. Burke ; but I muft 
 now inform you, that when the Council, or Com- 
 mittee of Revenue, were informed of the complaints 
 made againft Deby Sing, they fent Mr. Patterfon, 
 an amftant in that department, to inquire into the 
 truth of them. He went into the province of Rung- 
 pore, where he collected a vaft bundle of papers, 
 filled with thofe dreadful {lories you have already 
 
 Jheard 
 
T4 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 heard of. This, yon are to obferve, was an ex 
 parte examination ; that is, Mr. Patterfon heard 
 only one fide ; and Deby Sing, as may naturally be 
 expected, denied the fads. 
 
 The Committee of Revenue not thinking thefe 
 reports of Mr. Patterfon fufficiently audientic to 
 ground a decifion upon them, the Supreme Council 
 deputed three European Gentlemen in the Compa- 
 ny's fervice, to inquire more minutely into the facts 
 alledged againft Deby Sing. Thefe Commiffioners 
 were fworn in the ftricteft manner, to make a dili- 
 gent, juft, and impartial inquiry. They proceeded 
 to Rungpore, and Mr. Patterfon either went with 
 them, or followed them to that place. Great dif- 
 putes, naturally productive of delay, arofe between 
 the Commiffioners and Mr. Patterfon ; and you will 
 think it ftrange, when I tell you, that the Supreme 
 Council, of which Lord Cornwallis is the head, did 
 not come to a decifion on this bufinefs till laft No- 
 vember, though it had been then pending five 
 years. 
 
 From infpecting this decifion, and the report of 
 the Commiffioners, upon which it is founded, it 
 appears perfectly clear, that thofe abominable cruel- 
 ties, which fo affected the audience in Weftminfter 
 Hall, never happened ; but ftill it is equally clear, 
 that great oppreflions did take place. Lands frau- 
 dulently and violently purchafed, were reftored to 
 their owners, and large retributions were made to 
 the fufferers. A native, named Hurram, was held 
 by the Supreme Council to be more culpable than 
 
 his 
 
MR. HASTINGS S IMPEACHMENT. IjJ 
 
 his principal, Deby Sing, but the latter was not ac- 
 quitted. 
 
 Before I take leave of this ftory, I muft make 
 this remark : — Mr. Haftings's conduct fubfequent to 
 the accufations brought againft Deby Sing, feems to 
 have been directly the reverfe of what one would 
 naturally expect from a friend or patron. When he 
 faw Mr. Patterfon's reports, he feems to have given 
 more credit to them than any other perfon, for he 
 caufed Deby Sing's fufpenfion from office, under a 
 conviction that no fair inquiry could be made whilft 
 his power continued, making at the fame time a 
 promife of indemnity, if the fuppofed criminal was 
 found innocent. 
 
 There are other minxes of Mr. Haftings's upon 
 record, which (hew his diflike and diftruft of Deby 
 Sing; and it is morally certain, that had Mr. Haf- 
 tings been any way implicated in the bufinefs, he 
 muft, and would have fettled it long before he left 
 the Chair. There was no want of time or means, 
 had he thought it neceffary to fmother the truth. 
 
 If you read with attention what I have written in 
 this letter, it will imprefe your mind very forcibly 
 with the truth of the Latin adage, Nimium ne credt 
 colori. The caution is applicable to all colourings 
 whatever. Mr. Burke reprefented Mr. Patterfon's 
 reports, collected in the manner I have ftated, as 
 indubitable truths. " Had he not found them on 
 <f the Company's records, he ihould not have be- 
 " lieved them;" but had he faid alfo, that though 
 they are upon record, yet the authenticity of thefe 
 
 re- 
 
l6 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 reports muft depend on the veracity of the natives 
 of the province of Rungpore ; and if Mr. Burke 
 had known thofe people fo well as I do, he would 
 have received any narration from them with many 
 grains of allowance; It is true, Mr. Burke did take 
 notice of the Commiffioners fent to make a farther 
 inquiry ; but the manner in which he reprefented it, 
 made the audience fuppofe, that their bufmefs was 
 rather to fmother the truth, than expofe it. The 
 Committee of Revenue, which was compofed 
 of old fervants, were not to be led away by exag- 
 gerated complaints ; they well knew that lying, 
 which is held abominable in this country, is not 
 fcandalous in that. The moft jealous man of his 
 honour does not refent being charged with falfe- 
 hood. Amplification (I wifli the word were ex- 
 punged out of rhetoric) is ufed more in the Eaft* 
 than it is in Europe, by the moft dirTufive orators. 
 
 It has oftentimes been a queftion in my mind> 
 whether the fludy of Oratory and Rhetoric, as a fcience 
 or art,»isnot more prejudicial than beneficial to fo- 
 ciety. It is certainly beautiful and pleafing ; but, 
 like moft beauties, it is deceptive. It has more or 
 'lefs effect in proportion to the weaknefs or ftrength 
 of the hearer's mind. Oratory feldom mifleads 
 the judge, but it does the jury, almoft in every in A 
 fiance. The former fees through it, but the lat- 
 ter do not. I have long adopted one rule for the 
 guidance of my own judgement. I do not know 
 whether you will approve or condemn it — It is this : 
 the more a fpeaker labours a point, the more I am 
 
 in- 
 
MR. Hastings's impeachment. 17 
 
 inclined to fufpect it ; and confequently more exact 
 in weighing his arguments ; and whenever I hear a 
 declamatory fpeech, full of ftrong epithets, either 
 for or againft, I (trip the matter of all its drefs, and 
 then take a review of all the real information I 
 haye obtained. It is in this way I hear Mr. Burke's 
 fpeeches, and read Major Scott's pamphlets ; and 
 it is in conformity to this rule, that I have collected 
 the matter which I mean to give you in the courfe 
 of thefe Letters. 
 
 I have now done with the ftory of Deby Sing, 
 and have only to fay, that it were to be wiftied that 
 Mr. Burke would take a review of all the circum- 
 ftances, and ftate them candidly in fome future 
 fpeech, as publicly as he did before; or think of 
 fome method of bringing them before the court in 
 fuch a fhape as Mr. Haftings might anfwer them. — 
 This is no more than common juftice, and I dare 
 fay, Mr. Burke and his friends will not think other- 
 wife on this fubject. 
 
 I have been often aiked to give my opinion of Mr. 
 Haftings's character. I have as much as pofiible 
 declined it ; for I think the opinion of one who has 
 been under his command, may be juftly fufpected. 
 The queftion is almoft tantamount to afking — " Did 
 he ferve or dis-ferve you ?" However, with refpect 
 to the character before us, 1 can fay this — I never 
 heard him accufed of Avarice or Cruelty even by 
 his enemies, till I heard it from Mr. Burke in the 
 Houfe of Commons. If he really is avaricious, he 
 has carried on the molt fuccefsful hypocrify for 
 D thirty 
 
IS ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT -OF 
 
 thirty years, and in a manner of which I believe 
 there exifts no example. — With refpect to cruelty, 
 all who knew him by name or perfon in India, will 
 acquit him of that crime : that part of his character 
 he may leave to his enemies. He was always ef- 
 teemed humane and companionate, even to weak- 
 nefs ; and he knows that he has often been the dupe 
 of fictitious diftrefs. — In regard to his political cha~ 
 ra£ler 9 I can only fay, I have heard it applauded, 
 and I have heard it condemned. But in the courfe 
 of my life, I have fo often found caufe to change 
 my opinion upon better information, that I fcarcely 
 ever fix it, but keep my mind open to conviction. 
 The appearance of a natural object changes with the 
 place of view, and it is only when the eye is in the 
 center of obfervation, that it can fee and judge of 
 all its parts. The fame holds good with refpect to 
 mental perception ; but ftrange to tell, though every 
 man acknowledges the truth of the proportion, very 
 few take it with them into practice. It was a juft ob- 
 fervation of Swift's — we know a little, prefume a 
 great deal, and fo jump to a conclufion. 
 
 I once heard a gentleman of great elocution haran- 
 guing againft Mr. Haftings's conduct in a public 
 coffee-room. He mis-ftated many facts, and drew 
 many wrong conclufions. I afked him a few quef- 
 tions, when finding himfelf unqualified to anfwer 
 them, he very coolly acknowledged he knew nothing, 
 of the matter. I could not refill the momentary 
 impulfe of faying, though perhaps rudely, that his 
 
 know- 
 
wr. hastings's impeachment. 19 
 
 knowing nothing might have been a reafon for his 
 faying nothing. 
 
 I (hall conclude this Letter with obferving, that 
 whatever errors I may fall into, in dating the fub- 
 ject matter of the prefent Impeachment, they mufl 
 proceed from the head and not the heart. Mr. 
 Haftings neither ferved or dis-ferved me ; I was 
 known to him by name, but not by perfon, till a 
 very few days before he left the Chair at -Bengal; I 
 therefore owe him nothing but juftice, in common 
 with all thofe who fpeak of his character and con- 
 duel. 
 
 2, LE T- 
 
to ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT GP 
 
 LETTER II. 
 FIRST ARTICLE of the IMPEACHMENT 
 
 ON THE 
 
 BENARES CHARGE. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 I SHALL now proceed to ftate the Firft Article of 
 the Impeachment, for you are to remember, that what 
 I have already related, makes no part of the Charges 
 voted by the Commons. 
 
 In perufing my former letter, it cannot have 
 efcaped your obfervation, that had Mr. Burke's ftate- 
 ment been perfectly correct, it could have amounted 
 to nothing more than fufpicion, and that fufpicion 
 founded on imputed motives. 
 
 In order to give you a clear idea of the merit or 
 demerit of the cafe I am now going to enter on, \ 
 mull give you a general notion of the Indoftan Go- 
 vernment. The want of this preliminary knowledge 
 renders the fubject very perplexed and obfeure to. 
 Englifh readers — many people alfo fall into great 
 miftakes, from comparing Eaftern tranfactions with 
 the laws of Great Britain. — Mr. Burke himfelf is not 
 exempt from this failing. 
 
 The 
 
mr. hastings's impeachment. it 
 
 The word Indojlan fignifies the Country of the Hin- 
 doos, who may be called the Aborigines of the coun- 
 try. Of this people you have read and heard 
 enough, without needing that I mould add to your 
 ftock of knowledge. It is near 800 years fince 
 Indoftan was firft invaded, and partly fubdued by 
 the Mahommedans : but I date the commencement 
 of the Mahommedan Government in Indoftan, from 
 the invafion and conqueft of it by Timur, or Tamer- 
 lane, as he is called in Europe. The defcendants 
 of this conqueror have fat on the throne upwards of 
 three centuries. You mud remember, that when I 
 fpeak of the Government or Conftitution of India, 
 1 mean the Policy or Adminiftration adopted by 
 the family of Timur. Being Mahommedans by 
 Religion, they confequently took the Coran for their 
 guide in religious concerns ; but in Politics they 
 adopted the cuftoms of the Tartars. 
 
 Before the conqueft of Indoftan by the Mahom- 
 medans, the country was in the pofleffion of many 
 Rajahs ; fome were independent, and fome were in 
 a ftate of fubordination. Thofe who fubmitted, and 
 made their peace with the conquerors, were per- 
 mitted to hold their lands, upon paying certain fti- 
 pulated fums annually. In the courfe of their hif- 
 tory, we find that the empire was divided into twelve 
 Subahs, governed by as many Subahdars, whom 
 you may compare to the Lord Lieutenant of Ire- 
 land. Thefe Subahdars were appointed by the 
 King, and removable at pleafure. In every Subah, 
 
 there 
 
32 ELUCIDATION OF TH£ SUBJECT OF 
 
 there was a Dewan appointed for the collection of 
 the revenues from the Rajahs who held the lands. 
 
 I muft here explain the meaning of the words 
 Rajah and Zemindar, which, as I mail often ufe 
 them, would, if not explained, be productive of 
 much confufion — Zemindar came in with the Ma- 
 hommedans, it being a compound word of Arabic 
 and Perfian. derivation, and lignifies Land-holder. 
 Zemindary means the Lands in pcrTerlion of the 
 Zemindar. Every mart who held lands under Go- 
 vernment was a Zemindar ; but every Rajah was 
 not a Zemindar, becaufe there are many who bear 
 the name of Rajah, and yet have no land or domi- 
 nion ; neither was every Zemindar a Rajah, i 
 
 The word Rajah is analogous to Lord, in its dou- 
 ble fenfe, as it may be a mere title of honour, or 
 exprenive of dominion. It is very common for the 
 King of Indoftan to confer the title of Rajah on any 
 favourite Hindoo, and at prefent it may be pur- 
 chafed. The title is confirmed by a deed or wri- 
 ting, as Peerages are in this kingdom by patent. I 
 mult caution you to diftingiiilh between names that 
 are honorary, and have no particular duty or office 
 annexed to them, and thofe that are official ; that 
 are acquired and loft together with the poft or of- 
 fice ; for example, any Hindoo may obtain , the 
 title of Rajah without any power or poffeffion being 
 derived from it ; and any MufTulman may be cre- 
 ated a Nabob' in the fame way. 
 
 You may fometimes hear of Nazim and Nizamut; 
 the latter fignifies a great divifion of the Empire, 
 
 and 
 
mr. hastings's impeachment. 23 
 
 and the former fignifies the perfon who prefides 
 over it. 
 
 The Subahdars or Lieutenants had their depu- 
 ties in different parts of their Vice-royalties, fome of 
 whom were of the rank of Nabob, and fome of in- 
 ferior degree. There were courts of juftice in every 
 diftrict, which decided between fubjedts according 
 to the Muflim law in fome cafes, and according to 
 the Hindoo law in others. It often happened, that 
 the Subahdars and Dewans were guilty of oppref- 
 fion, and being beyond the reach of the ordinary 
 courts of law, the injured had no redrefs, except by 
 application to the throne. Mod of the Emperors or 
 Kings of Indoftan were eafy of accefs to their in- 
 jured fubjecr.s, and a certain portion of time was de- 
 dicated to the hearing of complaints in perfon. There 
 are many inftances of exemplary punifhment being 
 inflicted on ftate officers of the higheft rank and 
 confequence. A Subahdar could not deprive a 
 Zemindar of his lands, provided he paid his fhare 
 of the revenue with punctuality, and committed no 
 ad of difobedience : but if the Subahdar punifhed 
 him for a fuppofed offence, the King, upon com- 
 plaint, made his own ideas of right and wrong the 
 rule of his decifion. No Emperor fuffered his Su- 
 bahdars to tyrannize, if he could prevent them, but 
 infilled on their conforming to the laws of the Coran, 
 as far as that book could guide them, and where it 
 failed, to conform to the cuftoms of the country, and 
 in every thing to act confeientioufly. But when a 
 Zemindar was difobedient, the Subahdar chaftifed 
 
 him 
 
24 ELUCIDATION 6? TtfE SUBJECT OP 
 
 him according to his own difcretion ; and when the 
 punifhment was too fevere, redrefs might be had by 
 appealing to the Throne. 
 
 Such was the ftate of the empire till the death of 
 Alumgeer, better known in Europe by the name of 
 Aurengzeeb. It was very ufual in the times of 
 Akbar, Jehangeer, and others, for the Emperor's 
 Sons to be Subahdars of diftant provinces ; and 
 there are many inftances of their rebelling againfl 
 the authority of their Fathers. After the death of 
 Alumgeer, violent contentions broke out between 
 his Sons, which much weakened and narrowed the 
 bounds of the empire. We have no hiftory of the 
 Mogul empire in Indoftan, that comes down lower 
 than the twelve firft years of the reign of Alumgeer. 
 It is faid that he forbade the writing of the Hiftory 
 of his own Times ; yet I have a book which gives 
 an imperfect account of his reign for thirty years 
 after the above-mentioned period. I had alfo not 
 long fince, the perufal of a book written for the ufe 
 of a particular European Gentleman by a native of 
 Delhi, which commenced with the death of Alum- 
 geer, and ended with the accefllon of Shah Allum, 
 his prefent Majefty. In reading their feveral hifto- 
 ries, I have obferved that the bounds of the empire 
 have been frequently changing, fometimes more 
 narrow, and fometimes more extenfive, and that 
 the Mogul authority was never univerfally acknow- 
 ledged throughout Indoftan. Their hiftory is no- 
 thing but a feries of rebellions in different parts of 
 the empire, or perhaps more properly, of ftruggles 
 
 for 
 
MR. HASTINGS S IMPEACHMENT. 2£ 
 
 for independency, made by the Indian Rajahs 
 againft fovereignty, which derived all its rights 
 from the fword, under the direction of an intolerant 
 religion. 
 
 I know Mr. Burke denies the exiftence of arbitrary 
 power. If by this he means, that no man ought to 
 exercife arbitrary power, or to make his own will 
 the rule of action, I readily fubfcribe to his opinion. 
 But if he means, that no ftate ever was governed by 
 the difcretionary will of one man, his aflertion is 
 pofitively wrong. 
 
 The word arbitrary is liable to much cavil : people 
 generally connect the idea of injuftice and oppref- 
 fion with it ; but I do not ufe it in that fenfe. When 
 I fay that a man poflelies arbitrary power, I mean 
 that he is at liberty to act as his own difcretion may 
 direct him. If he is a wife prince, he will ufe his 
 authority to the good of his people ; if not, he may 
 act oppreffively. Inftead of arbitrary, I fhall in 
 future ufe the word difcretionary ; and when I men- 
 tion difcretionary power, I , mean that the perfon 
 poffefied of it, is not obliged to confult any judgment 
 but his own. The Mogul Emperors, in political 
 administration, are perfectly abfolute and difcre- 
 tionary, yet generally juft in their decifions. But 
 in fact, how can they be otherwife than difcre- 
 tionary ? The people have no Magna Charta to de- 
 fine their juft rights : they have no word to exprefs 
 Prerogative, nor durft any writer there attempt to 
 limit the rights of the Sovereign. 
 
 The fubjects were fometimes very patient under 
 oppreflion, and at other times flew to arms upon 
 
 E triflino- 
 
 D 
 
26 ELUpIDATIONS ON THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 trifling provocation, I beg here to be underftood, 
 not as an advocate for a defpotifm which denies the 
 rights of the people, but only as faying that their 
 rights are not defined in India, nor contended for 
 againfl the fovereign authority. I never met with 
 an Oriental book that ftarted the idea ; but the ge- 
 neral fcope of all their writings is to convince Mo- 
 narchs, that their true intereft lies in conciliating 
 the affections of the people. Almoft every book 
 abounds with this kind cf morality ; but I never 
 read a line in any one of them, that tended to dif- 
 tinguifh between the Prerogative of the King and 
 the Rights of the People. 
 
 The inhabitants of India have a religious venera- 
 tion for the family of Timur, and though they make 
 little fcruple at fhedding Royal Blood, they hold it 
 indifpenfably neceffary, that one of that race mould 
 be on the throne. They are regardlefs of primoge- 
 niture, and as ready to acknowledge the younger! 
 fon as the elded. There is no inftance in their hif- 
 tory, of a fubject not of Blood Royal afpir'mg to the 
 Throne ; but whatever his ambition may be, he 
 performs every act of defpotifm in the name of fome 
 Prince of the Blood, whom he places upon the 
 Throne for the occafion. Since the death of Alum- 
 gcer the empire has gradually declined. Subah-. 
 dars who had been removeable at pleafure, fixed 
 therr.felves and their defcendants in their refpective 
 governments ; but their claims to perpetuity are 
 founded on the King's weaknefs, and not on the 
 cuftoms of the empire. Subahdars now confer pro- 
 vinces and zemindaries on their dependants, with- 
 out 
 
MR. HASTlKcVs IMPEACHMENT. 27 
 
 out confulting the King; and the Grantees accept 
 their grants, 'without feeking the Royal confirma- 
 tion. The cafe was very different in the days of 
 Akbar, and fome of his fucceffors. 
 
 I (hall conclude this long, but neceffary expla- 
 nation, with obferving, that all the acts which pro- 
 perly appertained to the Royal Authority, are now, 
 of courfe and of neceffity, exercifed by the ufurpers : 
 fovereign Authority muft exift fome where. Such as 
 I have defcribed, is the actual prefent ftate of every 
 province in the empire, to which the Englifh Go- 
 vernment has conformed, only becaufe fo it found 
 it. I have been very particular in {taring the former 
 and prefent Conftitution of India, becaufe I may 
 often have occafion to refer to it, and alfo becaufe 
 no man can form any judgment of the merit or de- 
 merit of Mr. Haftings in this Article of Impeach- 
 ment, without a perfect knowledge of the govern* 
 ment of Indoftan. 
 
 Sefder Jung, a man of great rank and importance 
 in the empire, Was made Subahdar of the province 
 of Oude, by the Emperor Mahomed Shah. The 
 empire was then weak, but it has grown gradually 
 weaker ever lince ; and as it has never been in the 
 power of the King to recal the great Subahdars, the 
 fon and grandfon of Sefder Jung have retained pof- 
 feifion of Oude ever fince the appointment of the 
 latter. 
 
 The produce of Benares was an appendage of 
 
 the Subahdary of Oude, and at that time under the 
 
 Mag'iftracy of Ruftum Ally. 
 
 E 2 I find 
 
28 ELUCIDATIONS ON THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 I find myfelf here under the neceffity of making a 
 fhort digreflion, in order ro give fome account of 
 the parentage of Cheyt Sing ; for you well know- 
 that he has been reprefented as a great Prince, which 
 has led many people to coniider him in the fame 
 light as they do a Prince of the German Empire. 
 To be fure, the term Prince, like mod other titles 
 of rank, is very indefinite in its fignification ; and 
 to this want of precifion and exact analogy between 
 Indian names and Englifh names, I attribute a vaft 
 part of that confufion and perplexity, which many 
 readers complain of in the fpecches of thofe Gen- 
 tlemen who conduct the profecution. Many of the 
 apparent inconfiftencies in the Minutes of the Su- 
 preme Council at Bengal would be reconciled, if 
 this difficulty could be removed. Every perfon who 
 ever attempted to tranflate from one language to 
 another, mull have often found himfelf embarraffed 
 in a felection of correfpondent terms : and if this 
 difficulty be great in comparing European languages 
 with each other, how much muft it be enhanced, 
 in comparing European terms with Afiatic, when 
 cuftoms, offices, and every thing are fo different. 
 
 The grandfather of Cheyt Sing was a Bramin, 
 named Monferam, who at the time that Sefder 
 Jung firft obtained his Subahdary, had the ma- 
 nagement of a fmall divifion of land, yielding a 
 revenue of about 500 1. a year. His good conduct 
 recommended him to the notice of Ruftum Ally, 
 the Aumeldar or Governor of the diftrict of Benares, 
 
 who made him his Dewan, or Steward. The ma- 
 nagement 
 
MR. Hastings's impeachment. " 29 
 
 nagement of Benares was left to his care, while his 
 patron gave himfelf up to indolence and pleafure. 
 Monferam took advantage of Ruftum Ally's inac- 
 tivity, and by intrigue, accompanied with offers of. 
 an increafe of revenue, obtained from Sefder Jung, 
 their common fuperior, the difmiffion of his Mafter, 
 and his own appointment to fucceed him in the Go- 
 vernment. The title of Rajah he obtained by pur- 
 chafe from the King, in the manner I have before 
 defcribed. He continued in his office till his death, 
 and obtained a grant of the fucceflion to his fon Bul- 
 want Sing. 
 
 Sujah Dowla, fon, and fucceffor to Sefder Jung, 
 frequently wifhed to difpoffefs Bulwant Sing of the 
 province of Benares ; but as he, in quality of Subah- 
 dar, had made himfelf independent of, or at leaft 
 uncontrolable, by the Emperor, fo Bulwant Sing was 
 become ftrong enough to difpute the authority of him- 
 felf. Their differences were always fettled by a 
 pecuniary compofition, which the vaflal in India 
 generally has recourfe to, to appeafe the anger of 
 his offended mafter. 
 
 Cheyt Sing is the fon of Bulwant Sing by a 
 daughter of a Ragapoot Zemindar, who fell into 
 his hands by the chance of war. The lady not be- 
 ing of fo high a caft as Bulwant Sing, could not 
 legally become his wife ; he however did marry her, 
 in defiance of one of the mod facred inftitutes of 
 their religion. By a former marriage, Bulwant Sing- 
 had a daughter, who was the wife of Doorgbegey 
 Sing, and mother of Rajah Mahafs Narain, the 
 
 prefent 
 
30 ELUCIDATIONS ON THE SUBJECT OP 
 
 prefent Rajah of Benares. — From this account, you 
 may judge what pretentions Cheyt Sing has to the 
 title of Prince. The true light in which he ought 
 to be confidered, is that of a Steward or Truftee 
 for his fuperior, the Subahdar, and removable at 
 pleafure. It is certain, that his grandfather Mon- 
 1 feram muft have confidered the adminiftration of 
 the province of Benares in that light, when he by 
 intrigue fupplanted his rnafter, Ruftum Ally, in the 
 office. 
 
 There is a wide difference between a Zemindar 
 who is the proprietor of the lands, fubject to certain 
 payments, and whofe iffue generally fucceeds him, 
 and an Aumeldar, Renter, or Steward, whofe ap- 
 pointment is only temporary. 
 
 This is one of the points at iffue between the Ma- 
 nagers and Mr. Haftings : for they reprefent Cheyt 
 Sing fometimes as an- independent Prince, fome- 
 times as a tributary, and at other times as an ally. 
 I muft confefs, that though I have often heard the 
 Managers defcribe the official character of Cheyt 
 Sing, I never could put their ideas together in my 
 own mind, fo as to fix to him any public character 
 at all. I don't know whether I have expreffed my- 
 felf intelligibly or not, but I mean, that were you 
 to afk me, in what light do they confider Cheyt 
 Sing's public character, I muft anfwer, I cannot 
 difcover it. But it is moft effential to the caufe, to 
 inquire into the nature of Cheyt Sing's rank and fi- 
 tuation in the Empire ; for I know many people 
 look upon the difplacing of him as the expuliion of a 
 2' King 
 
mr. hastings's impeachment.' 31 
 
 King and the overthrow of a kingdom ; whereas, in 
 fact, it is nothing more than the chaftifement of an 
 ennobled Steward or Truftee. 
 
 In the year 1770, Bulwant Sing died, and as he 
 was faid to have rendered fome fervice to the Eng- 
 lish intereft during the war with Coflim Ally and 
 Sujah Dowla, the Court of Directors recommended 
 him to the attention of their Prefidency at Fort Wil- 
 liam. Upon thefe fuppofed' fervices, Mr. Burke 
 lays much ftrefs, with a view of mewing the Eng- 
 lifh ingratitude, in expelling his fon. There are, 
 however, Minutes of Council, fupported by the 
 evidence of Mr. Stables, which make thefe fervices 
 very doubtful. In compliance with the above-men- 
 tioned recommendation, the Prefidency obtained for 
 Cheyt Sing, from Sujah Dowla, the fucceffion to his 
 father's office. The deed of stipulation between the 
 Subahdar Sujah Dowla and his appointed officer 
 Cheyt Sing, is frequently called a treaty : that term 
 may be very proper, but it is apt to excite the idea 
 of an agreement between two contracting powers, 
 independent of each other ; whereas, in fact, it is 
 of the nature of a grant. Sujah Dowla granted the 
 administration, or aumeldary of Benares and Gaza- 
 pore to Cheyt Sing, upon his paying a kind of he- 
 riot or fine, in prefent money, to the amount of 
 200,000 1. and engaging to pay annually about 
 230,0001. This fettlement remained undifturbed 
 for three years, when another negociation took place 
 in favour of Cheyt Sing, of which Mr. Haftingswas 
 chief conductor. The intent of this fecond negocia- 
 tion 
 
32 ELUCIDATION ON THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 tion I do not clearly comprehend, unlefs it were for 
 the purpofe of guaranteeing the office to Cheyt 
 Sing and his pofterity, and interdicting Sujah 
 Dowla from exacting more than the rent already 
 ftipuhted. But I think both thefe points were in- 
 cluded in the rirft grant. 
 
 Be this as it may, in a very fliort time, the Vizier 
 Sujah Dowla wanting, or forefeeing the want of 
 money to carry on a war with the Rohillas, de- 
 manded of Cheyt Sing an aid to the amount of 
 50,000 1. He pleaded the guarantee; and the Com- 
 pany's fervants interfering, the demand was aban- 
 doned, not becaufe Sujah Dowla thought he had 
 no right to the aid, but becaufe he had not the cer- 
 tain means of enforcing it. 
 
 Here I rauft refer you to the conftitution of the 
 Empire, whereby you will perceive, that the interfe- 
 rence of the Company was unconftitutional in the ex- 
 treme, not in one inflance only, but; in every ftage 
 of the bufinefs : it is reconcilable only to the jus 
 fortiorisy which, if acknowledged, legalizes every 
 thing. — It is true, the Mahommedan government 
 was founded on ufurpation; and I am afraid, if we 
 carry our inquiries very far back, we fhall find all 
 governments in the fame predicament. But when 
 a government is fettled upon fome fixed principles, 
 and there are rules and cuftoms eftablilhed for the 
 afcertaining of rights, we may compare actions with 
 thofe rules and cuftoms, and fay of them, they do, 
 or do not conform to the rules. For if we examine 
 the validity of rules and cuftoms, and allow no- 
 thing 
 
MR. HASTINGSS IMPEACHMENT. 33 
 
 thing to the operation of time, I am afraid that all 
 the diftinctions of right and wrong will entirely 
 vanifh. 
 
 In tracing up rights, we muft flop fomewhere, 
 and (hut our eyes. We can have no idea of right 
 and wrong, but as it accords or difagrees with fome 
 known rule, precept, or maxim. But the rules or 
 laws of right and wrong with refped to property, 
 not only vary in different countries, but are in a per- 
 petual flare of fluctuation in one and the fame 
 country. — Now, if we examine the conduct of the 
 Company's fervants by the doctrine I have juft laid 
 down, we fhall find it irreconcilable to the conftitu- 
 tion of the Mogul empire, but perfectly reconcilable 
 to what they conceived to be their duty, namely, to 
 advance the intereft of their matters. 
 
 In their attempts to make Cheyt Sing as much as 
 poffible independent of the Subahdar Sujah Dowla, 
 their policy was not to ferve Cheyt Sing but to 
 weaken the power of Sujah Dowla. He had been, and 
 might be again, they thought, a formidable neigh- 
 bour — Their idea was, divide et impera, and in effect- 
 ing their views they confidered not the legality of 
 the means. The restrictions they laid on Sujah 
 Dowla, they never meant to lay on themfelves. 
 Mr. Fox feems/to argue this point upon the Chrif- 
 tian precept, <k Do unto others as you would that 
 they fhould do unto you." This is certainly an ad- 
 mirable precept, both in theory and practice, among 
 fubjects under one government; but the hiitory of 
 mankind (hews, that it is impracticable in politics, 
 
 F at 
 
54 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 at leaft I cannot find that it ever has been in ufe 
 among dates and ftatefmen, the moil fcrupulous of 
 whom have never carried their obferyance of the 
 Chriftian precept farther than " to do unto others 
 as they knew that others would do unto them." 
 
 There is fomething very peculiar in this cafe: 
 while all Miniftcrs of State have been applauded 
 and honoured by their country, for making advan- 
 tageous agreements and treaties with the neighbour- 
 ing powers, without even inquiring into the means 
 of obtaining thefe advantages, the Company's fer- 
 vants are called upon by their own countrymen to 
 reconcile their political conduct to the rigid rules of 
 morality. 
 
 I have fliewn that the Company's fervants exer- 
 cifed an authority which belonged only to the King; 
 but in juftice to them I mud fay, that they took 
 things as they found them. They found the Royal 
 Authority crippled, I may fay, fufpended; and it 
 was not the Englifh intereft to reftore it. In the 
 reign of Alumgeer, Cheyt Sing would not have 
 fought the Company's Guarantee to fhield him from 
 the demand of his fuperior, nor would he have 
 thought Sujah Dowla's grant of the leaft validity 
 againft a fucceeding Subahdar, nor againft the 
 Grantor, if he thought fit to revoke it. Bulwant 
 Sing, and his fon would, if they had had intereft 
 fufficient, have procured a Sunud from the King, 
 in expectation that he would fupport his own act 
 againft the Subahdar. But as the Royal Authority 
 was not efficient, Cheyt Sing thought a guarantee 
 
 from 
 
MR, HASTINGS S IMPEACHMENT. 35 
 
 from the Company, who had 20,000 regulars, a 
 much better fecurity. 
 
 Here you obferve Cheyt Sing was not afraid of a 
 change of Subahdars, becaufe they were too ftrong 
 to be removed, and had afTumed to themfelves fo- 
 vereign authority ; but he could not truft his mafter, 
 and therefore called in the Company's fecurity. 
 The Company's fervants came into the meafure, 
 becaufe, as I faid before, it was their intereft to 
 weaken the power of Sujah Dowla, by rendering 
 Cheyt Sing as independent as pofiible. 
 
 I think I have fhewn to a demonstration, that the 
 conduct of the Company's fervants, of late, and of Mr. 
 Haftings in particular, is notinconfiftent, when com- 
 pared with the object of their employment, namely, 
 the promotion of the Company's intereft in India ; 
 though there may be apparent inconfiftencies, when 
 one part of their conduct is compared with another. 
 To exemplify this : It was the intereft of the Com- 
 pany to reftrain Sujah Dowla's authority over his 
 vaffals, but not to fubmit to the fame reftrictions 
 themfelves. For my own part, I confider Cheyt 
 Sing as almoft out of the queftion ; for if the Com- 
 pany procured for him immunities and advantages to 
 which he had no claim, either from birth, inheri- 
 tance, or rank, and afterwards thought fit to with- 
 draw thefe immunities, he certainly had no caufe 
 to complain. He may be thankful for what he had 
 received. If any perfon had a right to complain, it 
 was Sujah Dowla, who was forced into grants he did 
 not like to make, and reftrained from the exercife of 
 
 F 2 the 
 
36 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 the cuftomary authority of his office ; I mean with 
 regard to the fettlement on the death of Bnlwant 
 Sing *, and to the fecond treaty negociatcd by Mr. 
 Hastings -f; for when the firft fettlement was made 
 with Bulwant Sing, Sujah Dowla was indebted to 
 Englifh clemency. J, not only for the fovereignty of 
 Benares, but for the reftoration of all his dominions, 
 which he had loft by the common mifchance of war. 
 No doubt he would have refilled the Company's fe- 
 cond application, if he had been ftrong enough, 
 and he would have complained of their injuftice, 
 had there been any power, able and willing, to re- 
 drefs the injury. 
 
 But to return to the narrative. — Sujah Dowla, the 
 Subahdar of whom I have been fpeaking, died in 
 February, 1775, and his fon Afoph ul Dowla fuc- 
 ceeded him in. the Subahdary. Whether he was 
 confirmed by the King, I know not, but he exer- 
 cifed all the rights of it, the fame as his father had 
 done. Cheyt Sing of courfe became his vaflal and 
 dependent. — It is evident Afoph ul Dowla did not 
 confider himfelf in every refpec"t as poiTefied of So- 
 jigrity; ancj that he acknowledged the fupremacy 
 of the King in fome points ; for we find him pur- 
 chaflng the rank and office of Vizier of the Empire, 
 the duties of \vl>ich were performed by a Deputy. — 
 The new Subahdar being in want of money, de- 
 manded of Cheyt Sing the loan of 50,0001. by way 
 of advance. He refufed it, and the Council en- 
 t couraged him in the reliftance. 
 
 * In 1770. I In 1773, tin 1765. 
 
 The 
 
• MR. HASTINGS'S IMPEACHMENT. %j 
 
 The Managers lay great ftrefs upon this ; for they 
 fay, if Mr. Haftings and the Council would not 
 permit either Sujah Dowla or his fon to treat Cheyt 
 Sing as a vaffal, what right had they to treat him as 
 fuch when they became his fuperior, or Lord Para- 
 . mount ? The anfwer is here as before. The 
 Subahdar of Oude had been formerly power* 
 ful enough to endanger the Company's exiftence 
 in India, and the Council wifhed to abridge his 
 power ; but they did not mean to do away their 
 own rights by the reftriction they laid upon their 
 neighbours. If this doctrine is not found, and if 
 the conduct of the Company's fervants is not jufti- 
 fiable upon thefe grounds, I am afraid that the con- 
 duel: of every ftate towards its neighbour will incur 
 the like condemnation. Upon this principle all 
 dates act ; they all endeavour to preferve the ba- 
 lance of p6wer; but in the means of keeping up this 
 equilibrium, they feem in general to lofe fight of 
 thofe moral rules, which do, or mould guide the 
 conduct of individuals living under the fame go- 
 vernment. 
 
 I muft now call your particular attention to what 
 immediatel/ follows. Soon after Cheyt Sing's re- 
 fufal of the loan, the Supreme Council, of which 
 Mr. Haftings was Governor General, thought pro- 
 per, but upon what grounds 1 cannot learn, to de- 
 mand of Afoph ul Dowla, the transfer, or ceffion of 
 Benares and Gazipore, to the Company. Mr. Haf- 
 tings remonftrated againft it, and contended, that 
 the demand amounted to a flagrant violation of a 
 treaty made between his father Sujah Dowla, and 
 his heirs, on the one part, and the Company on the 
 
 2 other, 
 
$8 ELUCIDATION Of THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 other, ten years before. The Council perfevered> 
 alledging the expiration of the treaty with the death 
 of Sujah Dowla, and obtained the ceflion of the faid 
 provinces. 
 
 The Court of Directors thought it a violation of 
 the treaty ; but as they obtained the addition of 23 
 lacks of rupees annually to their revenues, they did 
 not exprefs much diflatisfaclion, nor did they ever 
 command reftrtution to be made. • 
 
 It muft appear matter of wonder to the unpreju- 
 diced obferver, when he reflects that one Gentleman, 
 who was a very efficient and and active Member of 
 Council in procuring this extorted ceflion, mould 
 now be among the foremoft to call Mr. Haftings to 
 account for breach of treaty. Mr. Haftings's con- 
 duel: towards Cheyt Sing, (taking it as the Managers 
 reprefent it), links into infignificance, when com- 
 pared with the conduct of the Supreme Council to- 
 wards Afoph ul Dowla. Their demand is not jus- 
 tifiable by the law of nations, nor by the laws of the 
 empire : they had not even the plea of neceflky ; 
 for the Company was then at peace, and in a flourifh- 
 jng ftate. I do not mean to infer, that Mr. Haf- 
 tings is the more innocent, becaufe Mr. Francis is 
 the more guilty. The perpetration of a great of- 
 fence, cannot juftify a lefs. — The only impropriety 
 that ftrikes one, is the not impeaching Mr. Francis 
 for his fhare in the violation of a treaty, whereby 
 Afoph ul Dowla was robbed of provinces worth 
 400,000 1. a year, whilft Mr. Haftings is impeached 
 for compelling Cheyt Sing to pay an extraordinary 
 
 aid, 
 
mr. hastings's impeachment, 39 
 
 aid, and that to a very fmall amount, in the time of 
 aclual war. 
 
 This circumftance muft ftrike every body very 
 forcibly, who confiders it for a moment. It cannot 
 have efcaped Mr. Burke ; arid why Mr. Francis is 
 not impeached, I cannot yet underftand. Mr. 
 Francis prqbably would fay, that the Subahdary of 
 Oude reverted to the King, according to the cuf- 
 toms of the empire, and that Afoph ul Dowla was 
 an ufurper. True, it did fo ; but then the King was 
 defrauded of his juft right. — Whether we confider 
 the King's rights exifling in full force, fufpended 
 by wa,nt of power to enforce them, or extinguifhed 
 by ufurpation, it never can be maintained that the 
 India Company had any right to extort from Afoph 
 ul Dowla the ceded provinces, except that of fu- 
 perior ftrength, and a well difciplined army. 
 
 Many people exclaim againft the injuftice of this 
 ad, and dpubtlefs with great reafon. But after all, 
 it will be a complaint againft human nature, for all 
 flares do the fame as often as they can. To judge 
 of the conduct of ftates, and ftatefmen, we muft 
 confider the duties of mankind ; I mean thofe rules 
 by which it is generally allowed men ought to regu- 
 late their conduct in this world. — Compare it to a 
 number of concentric circles, of which, felf is the 
 center. We agree that a man mould confult his own 
 intereft firft ; then that of his children, relations, 
 neighbours, fellow-citizens, and countrymen ; then 
 mankind in general ; and laftly, all the animal cre- 
 ation.— Moralifts may fay, that all mankind mould 
 
 be 
 
4© ELUCIDATION. OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 be treated as one family, — It ought to be fo, but it 
 never has, and moft likely never will be fo. What- 
 ever may be morally right, it is nevertheleis certain, 
 that States, dealing with each other, do not con- 
 ftder themfelves bound by the fame rules as citizens 
 to citizens, living under one Government. The 
 actions of political men muft be pronounced good 
 or bad, according to their agreement or difagree- 
 ment with thofe rules which other fovereign dates 
 think themfelves obliged to follow. 
 
 Much has been written upon the law of nations, 
 and a fine fyflem of univerfal morality has been 
 creeled ; but the misfortune ' is, that there is no 
 earthly power to enforce thofe laws, and they are 
 violated with impunity in this life every day. 
 
 Having (hewn how Monferam the grandfather, 
 Bulwant Sing the father, and Cheyt Sing himfelf, 
 came himfelf into the poiferlion of Benares, &c. 
 and alfo the manner in which the Engliih acquired 
 the lordfhip over him and his territorial pofTeffions ; 
 I am now to inform you, that after the ceifion had 
 been made for fome fhort time, it became a matter 
 of debate in the Supreme Council, how and in what 
 manner the provinces fhould be governed. 
 
 Here I muft obferve, that Mr. Haftings, who 
 at this time was generally in the minority, had op- 
 pofed the demand of Benares from the Subahdar 
 Afoph ul Dowla, upon the ground of its being a 
 violation of a treaty made with his father Sujah 
 Dowla. His arguments were ftrong, but n'jt weighty 
 enough to make his colleagues abandon their in- 
 tention 
 
mr. Hastings's impeachment. 41 
 
 tention. Failing in that, and thinking it his duty 
 to mitigate ads of injuftice which he could not pre- 
 vent, he propofed to divide the rents of Benares, 
 &c. between the Company and Subahdar, and to 
 make it a kind of joint dependency on both. In 
 this propofal, which was rejected, Mr. Haftings fpeaks 
 of " freeing Cheyt Sing from the " remains of his 
 " vafialage." 
 
 I muft confefs, I cannot comprehend how a man 
 that was to pay rent to two landlords, and to be de- 
 pendant on both jointly, could be faid to be freed 
 from his vafTalage. This propofal was, as I faid 
 before, rejected; and it fignifies very little to at- 
 tempt a recapitulation of the terms. Mr. Haftings 
 himfelf may throw a light upon this, notwith- 
 ftanding my want of comprehenfion ; but Mr. 
 Burke, in a very ingenious manner, heaps together 
 Mr. Haftings's arguments in oppofition to the de- 
 mand of the ceffion before it was made, his argu* 
 ments in favour of a modification of the demand, 
 and his arguments in fupport of the Company's right 
 to an unqualified fovereignty over the provinces, 
 when they were actually ceded, and apparently con- 
 futes Mr. Haftings by his own principles — that is, 
 he fhews a great contradiction. 
 
 But this contradiction will difappear, when exa- 
 mined by the rules I have laid down in the preceding 
 part of this Letter. I there faid, that right and 
 wrong muft be meafured by fome known rule, pre- 
 cept, or maxim, to which the difputants agree to 
 refer it. Mr. Haftings firft argued againft the de- 
 mand, upon the principle of its being a violation of 
 
 G a treaty 
 
43 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 a treaty. He was over-niled, and forced to aban- 
 don his principle, and confequently could argue no 
 longer from that. He then argued for a modifica- 
 tion of the demand, and an equal divifion of pro- 
 fits, on the principle of expediency. This alfo was 
 over-ruled, and he was obliged to adopt a new 
 principle, and confequently vary his arguments. 
 Hence arife the contractions complained of. I dare 
 fay, Mr. Haftings retains his firft opinion with re- 
 gard to the moral rectitude of the demand : but it 
 was ufelefs to reafon from a principle in his own 
 mind which he could not imprefs on the minds of 
 thofe who had the power of adopting or rejecting. 
 
 The force of thefe obfervations muft be felt very 
 flrongly by every Cabinet Minifter, and by every 
 parliamentary leading Partizan in this kingdom. 
 They often difagree in private about the rectitude 
 and propriety of the meafures they are to adopt in 
 public ; but when they have fettled the plan among 
 themfelves, they all argue in fupport of it. Were 
 the public in pofTeffion of the private opinions of 
 every Cabinet Minuter, and to compare them with 
 their public declarations, there would appear a mafs 
 of confufion and abfurdity, that would aftoniih and 
 difguft the mind of every perfon who took the trouble 
 tp compare them. 
 
 When Mr. Hadings found himfelf beat in the ar- 
 guments, or,T may fay, over-ruled in the two mo- 
 tions he made on the fubject of Benares, he was 
 driven to adopt a new plan, and to confider Chcyt 
 Sing, in the character in which he then flood, as a 
 
 vaflai 
 
MR. HASTINGS S IMPEACHMENT* 4£ 
 
 vaflal or dependant on the Company. Upon this 
 principle, a funud or grant was made out in the 
 name of Cheyt Sing, according to the ufual form 
 of fuch inftruments. This funud feems to have 
 made him a Zemindar ; but he was a Zemindar of 
 their own making. Cheyt Sing engaged to pay 
 about 2,30,0001. annually, as a rent, not as a tri- 
 bute. Mr. Burke ufes thefe words fynonimoufly, but 
 they convey to me very different ideas. In the Per- 
 fian, the words are very different. When we hear 
 of a perfon paying tribute, we annex the idea of a 
 fum of money paid annually by a weak Prince to a 
 ftronger, as the price of forbearance or protection ; 
 but when we hear of rent, we annex the idea of a 
 compenfation for the annual ufe of lands, belonging 
 to the Lord who receives the rent. If Cheyt Sing 
 was tributary, the lands were his own : if a renter, 
 they belonged to the Company. — But I have fhewn, 
 that whatever he was, he was the creature of the 
 Company in every inftance. In their acquired (ufur- 
 ped you may call it) Sovereign capacity, the Com- 
 pany's fervants reftrained Sujah Dowla from exer- 
 cifing his ufual authority over his vaflal ; they 
 obliged him to receive Cheyt Sing, though not the 
 legal fucceflbr to his father ; and they obliged 
 Afoph ul Dowla to transfer the provinces of Benares, 
 and the vaflalage of Cheyt Sing, to the Company. 
 If it be afked, why did thefe fervants of the Com- 
 pany interfere between a fovereign and his vaflal ? it 
 can only be anfwered by a queftion — Why did the 
 King of Pruflia interfere between the Stadtholder 
 
 G 2 and 
 
44 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OP 
 
 and the Dutch ? Why did Mr. Pitt do the fame > 
 And why did the nation applaud fuch an illegal, 
 though very neceffary, and political interference ? 
 He thought it the intereft of his King and Country, 
 to whom he was refponfible for his conduct. The 
 Company's Servants thought the fame. Were Mr. 
 Pitt to be impeached for his conduct in the Dutch 
 bufinefs, he would either be acquitted or con- 
 demned, according to the flandard of juftice by 
 which he might be tried. If his accufers placed the 
 criminality, in his acting contrary to the intereft of 
 his country, he would be acquitted with honour ; 
 but if they placed it in the breach of the law of na- 
 tions, or acting contrary to the true interefls of Hol- 
 land, it would become a very doubtful queftion. 
 This is precifely Mr. Haftings's cafe in this charge, 
 and in the next that I fhall treat of : — he is not ac- 
 cufed of betraying the intereft of his country ; but 
 he is accufed of revoking or altering the conditions 
 of the Company's grant to "a Grantee, who gave 
 nothing in return for it. — The obligation lay all on 
 one fide. 
 
 In addition to the powers Cheyt Sing had, when 
 under the Subahdar, at the motion of Mr. Haltings 
 he was inverted with the adminiftration of criminal 
 juftice, and the power of coining money. 
 
 This does not ftrike me as a politic meafure; 
 But though I can difcover no good reafon for in- 
 creasing Cheyt Sing's power, doubtlefs the Supreme 
 Council were fatisfied with its propriety. 
 
 Three 
 
mr. Hastings's impeachment, 45 
 
 Three years after this ceflion had taken place, 
 (1778) a rumour prevailed in India of a French 
 War, and Mr. Haftings forefeeing a probable want 
 of money, propofed to the Council, that Cheyt 
 Sing mould pay 50,0001. extra, by way of aid 
 towards the charges of the war. It was agreed to, 
 and the money was paid, but not without much 
 evafive procraftination. The demand was renewed 
 the fecond year, and the year following. Cheyt 
 Sing did pay the whole, but his evafions, procrafti- 
 nations, and excufes, provoked Mr. Haftings be* 
 yond the bounds of patience. 
 
 His delay in one inftance endangered one of the 
 Company's armies then on foreign fervice. To 
 thefe feveral demands, Mr. Burke imputes much 
 criminality. — For, fays he, " why do yourfelf what 
 " you would not fuffer another to do ?" This is 
 unanfwerable in Morality or Chriftianity; but in 
 Politics, it cannot ftand a moment. As a Chriftian, 
 Mr. Burke argues well, not as a Politician. Had 
 the Company inftructed their Servants, in treating 
 with the Natives, never to take any advantage of 
 them, which they would not like to have taken 
 againft themfelves, they would not have had one 
 acre of land in Indoftan. And were Mr. Pitt in- 
 ftrufted to make the Golden Rule, do unto others as 
 you would that they floould do unto you, the guide of 
 his political conduit, he would be but a forry Mi- 
 nifter. 
 
 Were Mr. Haftings tried for betraying the inte- 
 
 reft of his country, he would be acquitted of the 
 
 2 charge 
 
46 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 charge inftantly ; but the Charges againft him are! 
 of that nature, as to render it extremely difficult to 
 lay down any rule of juftice by which we are to 
 judge of his condud. It is for this reafon I have 
 been very profufe in treating of the Conftitution of 
 Indoftan, and in tracing ftep by ftep the acquired 
 rights of Cheyt Sing, and in (hewing that the con- 
 dud of Political Men cannot be tried by rules of 
 Morality. Were Mr. Haftings tried by the cuftoms 
 of Indoftan, 1 mean, if his condud towards Cheyt 
 Sing were compared with the treatment Vaftals 
 ufually receive from their Superiors, it would be 
 thought lenient, and not in the lead repugnant to 
 the cuftoms of the Empire. In interdiding Sujah 
 Dowla from demanding more than the ftipulated 
 annual rent from his Vaffal, Mr. Haftings feems to 
 have conformed to the pradice of that Government 
 to which he had recently fucceeded ; and in de- 
 manding from Cheyt Sing an extra aid in time of 
 State Neceffity, he was juftified by a rule of right, 
 or cuftom, acknowledged by Bulwant Sing, his 
 father. 
 
 The inftance I am going to adduce in fupport of 
 this affertion, has been overlooked by both parties, 
 or at leaft not drawn into argument by either : but 
 it appears to me to throw fuch a light on the cuf- 
 toms of the Indoftan Government, that I fliall di- 
 grefs a little to relate it. 
 
 In the year 1766, Sujah Dowla was hard preffed 
 by the Company for the payment of a fum he then 
 owed them. Being unable to raife the money him- 
 
 felf 
 
mr. hastings's impeachment. 47 
 
 felf he called upon his dependant Zemindars, and 
 among the reft, upon Bulwant Sing, who contri- 
 buted as his quota, three lacks of rupees, or 
 30,0001. — The next year Sujah Dowla repeated the 
 demand ; but as no extraordinary neceffity exifted 
 then, as it did before, Bulwant Sing objected, and 
 appealed to the Britifli Government. 
 
 A deputation of three Englifh gentlemen (MefTrs. 
 Cartier and RufTel, and General Smith) were in- 
 ftructed to inquire, among other things, into the 
 nature of the difpute ; and if they found the dif- 
 puted demand to be part of a Nezeranah, or ftipu- 
 lated pecuniary compliment fettled in the year 1765, 
 they were, according to inftructions, to compel pay- 
 ment from Bulwant Sing ; but if it proved to be an 
 increafe of rent, they were to inform Sujah Dowla, 
 that the Englifti Government was bound to prevent 
 any infringement of the Treaty. Sujah Dowla in- 
 formed the Commimoners that he meant it as an 
 annual and additional Nezeranah like that which he 
 had obtained the preceding year. In anfwer to this, 
 jBulwant Sing replied, that the Nezeranah, or ex- 
 traordinary payment of three lacks the preceding 
 year, was made on account of the extraordinary oc- 
 cafion, namely, the neceffity his fuperior was under 
 of fulfilling his engagement to the Company ; but 
 as that neceffity no longer exifted, he ought to pay 
 no more than the ftipulated annual payment. — The 
 arbitrators were fatisfied with Bulwant Sing's anfwer, 
 and would not fufTer an extraordinary demand to 
 be made without an extraordinary occafion to juftify 
 it. — Here you fee Bulwant Sing acknowledges the 
 
 . right 
 
48 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 fight of his fuperior to demand an extra aid to re- 
 lieve the prefling and immediate neceflity, but ob- 
 jected to its being drawn into a precedent for an 
 increafe in his annual payments. 
 
 Had Cheyt Sing been deprived of his fituation, 
 without any offence or neglect of duty, he would not 
 have been worfe treated than Ruftum Ally was by 
 Sefder Jung, at the inftigation of Cheyt Sing's 
 Grandfather, Monferam. 
 
 Mr. Burke feems fenfible that there is no way of 
 fixing criminality on Mr. Haftings, except that of 
 proving that his conduct was influenced more by 
 motives of private revenge than of public fervice. 
 To eftablifh this opinion, he ftates that Mr. Haf- 
 tings was offended with Cheyt Sing for the part he 
 acted when a conteft for the Chair took place be- 
 tween the former and General Clavering. This is 
 one of thofe cafes which are incapable of proof. On 
 Mr. Burke's fide it is fufpicion ; on Mr. Haftings's, 
 pofitive denial. How is it poflible to determine the 
 real motives of any man's conduct ? Circumftances 
 may warrant conjecture, but in this cafe, circum- 
 ftances would make againfl the fufpicion. 
 
 General Clavering died in 1777, and no extra 
 aid was demanded till 1778, and then not till a war 
 was faid to be broke out in Europe, and one was 
 actually commenced againft the Mahrattas in India. 
 
 I fhould have told you before, that during the fe- 
 cond year of making a demand of an extra aid 
 from Cheyt Sing, his evafive and refractory conduct 
 obliged the Supreme Council to fend two battalions 
 
 of 
 
MR. HASTINGS S IMPEACHMENT. 49 
 
 of fepoys againft him, the expence of which he 
 paid, about 2000I. After that he offered through 
 his agent, two lacks, or 2o,oool. as a propitiation 
 for his offence, which was accepted. 
 
 Upon the invafion of the Carnatic in 1780, ths 
 Supreme Council required of Cheyt Sing to furnifh 
 2000 horfe, which demand was lowered to half that 
 number. He anfwered, that he had but 1300 
 horfe, of which he could fpare only 500, and that 
 in lieu of the remainder, he would furnifh 500 
 matchlock men. Matchlock men are a kind of 
 mufqueteers who fire with a match inftead of flint : 
 they are of fome ufe to an army, but not much. 
 His refufal, and neglect to comply with this requi- 
 fition, irritated Mr. Haftings, already out of humour 
 with his former evafions, fo much, that he came to a 
 refolution of fining him, for which purpofe he fet 
 off in Auguft 1 78 1 for the town of Benares. To 
 enable himfelf to act with vigour and difpatch, he 
 procured from the Supreme Council a delegation of 
 its full authority out of the Company's Provinces to 
 himfelf. The fact was, the Supreme Council con- 
 fifted only of two Members, Mr. Haftings and Mr. 
 Wheler, When together, the former was omnipo- 
 tent ; for having by Act of Parliament the calling 
 vote when the Members divided equally upon a 
 queftion, he could carry any point from his own 
 authority alone. By this delegation of authority, 
 Mr. Haftings was the Supreme Council beyond the 
 Provinces, and Mr. Wheler within them. Mr. 
 Eurke considers this divifion of power as criminal. 
 
 H I fhall 
 
$0 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OP 
 
 I ihall not wafte time to confider this queftion, as 
 the fame thing happened again in 1784. 
 
 Previous to his departure, Mr. Haftings expreffed 
 to Mr. Wheler, and others, his intention of fining 
 Cheyt Sing fifty lacks of rupees, about 500,0001. 
 It does not appear that this threat was ever carried 
 into effect, or that Cheyt Sing was ever informed of 
 Mr. Haftings's intentions. When the latter arrived 
 at Benares, he ordered the Rajah to be confined, 
 and a guard of fepoys was placed over him. In a 
 few hours afterwards, an affray arofe between the 
 Rajah's people and the guard. The event was 
 dreadful — more than 200 of the latter were killed, 
 and as many wounded : three European officers 
 were among the former number — Cheyt Sing was 
 refcued, and a general infurrectiori broke out in 
 the province of Benares. I mail not enter into the 
 hiftory of the war, but content myfelf with faying, 
 that it ended with the total expulfion of Cheyt Sing. 
 It is faid, and I believe truly, that many offers, or 
 folicitations, were made from the Rajah and his 
 friends towards a reconcilement, but they were in- 
 effectual ; and indeed Mr. Haftings, by rejecting 
 all offers from Cheyt Sing, feems to have conformed 
 exactly to the opinion of the Court of Directors, 
 and the King's Minifters, who wrote to Bengal, that 
 after the maffacre no countenance could be fhewn 
 Cheyt Sing, nor had they ever entertained an idea 
 of reftoring him. 
 
 There is an item of this Charge, which imports 
 
 criminality to Mr. Haftings for giving away the 
 
 1 Company's 
 
 r 
 
MR. HASTINGS S IMPEACHMENT. $1 
 
 Company's property in the plunder of Badgegur. 
 In that fort Cheyt Sing had ufually kept his treafure. 
 He carried off all he could when he fled the coun- 
 try, and left his mother to defend the fort, which is 
 by nature very ftrong, being built on a rock. Of this 
 every man in India will readily acquit Mr. Haftings. 
 No mathematical truth was ever imprefled more 
 deeply on my mind, than that Mr. Haftings never 
 meant to give away any confiderable part of the 
 Company's property. Advantage was taken of an 
 unguarded expreffion in a letter addrefled to the 
 Commanding Officer. Mr. Haftings there very 
 loofely fays, that he confiders the property which 
 might be found in the fort as the right of the cap- 
 tors. The fort was foon after taken, and the Com- 
 manding Officer thinking he could juftify himfelf 
 under the words of the letter, inftantly divided the 
 treafure, to the amount of near 300,000!. Mr. 
 Haftings calls it a private letter ; but in that I think 
 him wrong : he could write no private mandatory 
 letters in his then fituation. He founds the diftinc- 
 tion of private and public letters on the addrefs ; 
 but this is too fubtle and refined for military men. 
 But the fad was, the expreffion was not in the na- 
 ture of a command, but only declaratory of an 
 opinion, which upon reconnderation might, and 
 would have been altered. The Officers knew that, 
 for had they been fatisfied of their having a clear 
 indifputable right, independent of Mr. Haftings's 
 letter, they would not have been fo hafty in the dif- 
 tribution. All the criminality that poffibly can he 
 H 2 imputed 
 
$Z ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 imputed to this, amounts to nothing more than ad- 
 vantage taken of inadvertency. Mr. Haftings tried 
 to recover the divided treafure, and certainly in 
 ftrict juftice ; if it was distributed under a miftake, 
 it ought to have been reftored. This is my private 
 opinion, confirmed by the judgement of the Supreme 
 Court of Judicature at Calcutta : but upon an appeal 
 made from that Court to the Lords in Council, it 
 was determined that Mr. Haflings's letter juftified 
 the divifion. 
 
 I have now gone through the principal parts of 
 the Fuji (or, as it is commonly called, the Benares) 
 Charge, as far as relates to Chey t Sing ; but you are 
 to obferve, that the Adminiftration of the Country, 
 after his flight, is made criminal matter againft Mr. 
 Haftings, and furnifhes feveral items of the latter 
 part. Of thofe I (hall fpeak briefly in my next 
 letter, and mall conclude this with Hating the prin- 
 cipal points upon which the Charge, as far as I have 
 gone, will probably turn. To make it more clear, 
 I will give it in the air of dialogue. 
 The Firjl §{ueJlion is — In what relation did Cheyt 
 Sing (land to the Company at the time an additional 
 ium of five lacks, or 50,0001. was demanded of 
 him ? — According to my idea, a Zemindar of the 
 Company's making. 
 
 Second Queftion. — What is a Zemindar, and what 
 are his rights ?. — By the conftitution of the Mogul 
 empire in Indoftan, a Zemindar was a landholder, 
 deriving his title from a royal grant, and fometimes 
 by a vice-royal grant, called in India a Sunud. 
 
 third 
 
MR. HASTINGS S IMPEACHMENT. 53 
 
 Third Queflion. — Was fuch a grant revocable ?— 
 The fame authority that gives can revoke, in the 
 fame manner as a legiflature can repeal an ad of its 
 own making. The Emperors did k, the Subah- 
 dars did it ; the Indoftan hiftories abound with ex- 
 amples of it. 
 
 Fourth §tueflion. — In what light does the Company 
 {land in India, compared with the conftitution of the 
 empire ? — As an uiurping Subahdar, certainly, with 
 refpect to Benares, and I think the fame with refpect 
 to the province of Bengal, for they have committed 
 'acts of forfeiture. If the King were in a fituation 
 to enforce his own rights, the provinces are out of 
 the queftion ; but as to Benares, it was a ceffion 
 from one ufurper to another. 
 
 Fifth Queftion. — What are the powers of the Su- 
 preme Council in Bengal ? — The Company, under 
 charter, have a right to hold lands, &c. and to ex- 
 ercife fovereignty in India. The Supreme Council 
 are the delegates of the Company, the majority of 
 whom I take to be acting Subahdar of all the Pro- 
 vinces they hold in the Mogul empire. I therefore 
 confider the Council, with refpecl: to the empire, in 
 the fame light as I do Afoph ul Dowla the Subah- 
 dar of Oude. 
 
 Sixth Queftion. — In making a demand upon Cheyt 
 Sing, now confidered as a Zemindar under the Su- 
 bahdar of Bengal, for five lacks of rupees, upon the 
 eve of a war, was it repugnant to the cuftoms of the 
 empire ? — I do not know whether T am correct in 
 calling the Company Subahdar of Bengal, for I think 
 
 the 
 
£4 ELUCIDATION 0.F THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 the King granted them the dewanay or revenue only; 
 but in fpirit, if not in letter, they are the Subahdar, 
 for the revenue and army are both in the power of 
 the Company, But to anfwer the queftion, I fay it 
 was not repugnant to the cuftoms of the empire. 
 
 Seventh Queftion. — Is it cuftomary for the Subah- 
 -dars to call on their Zemindars .to furnith troops in 
 time of war? — That is the mode in which, fuch 
 large armies as we read of in their hiftories, ace fo 
 foon collected. I have noticed many of thefe circu- 
 lar mandates. 
 
 Eighth Queftion. — How were the Zemindars trea- 
 ted who difobeyed thefe orders ?— It is the common 
 policy of Indian Chiefs, if they think their Lord Par 
 ramount is in danger of being defeated, and of lo- 
 fing dominion, to colled their troops and to ftand 
 neuter. If the event proved favourable to the lat- 
 ter, they made the bed apology they could. Some- 
 times the offended mafter would deprive them of 
 their tenures, and at other times accept a pecuniary 
 compenfation. 
 
 Ninth Qiiejlion. — In fining, or rather in intending 
 to fine Cheyt Sing, for not furniming the required 
 number of troops, and for evading, as much as he 
 could, the payment of the extra demand, did Mr. 
 Hastings act, according -to the cuftoms of Indof- 
 tan ? — Not exactly. Mr. Hastings relied upon 
 the awe which the Britifh name ftrikes into the mind 
 of a native of India, and went with a very fmall 
 force, whereas a native Subahdar would have 
 marched againft his vafial, taken him prifoner, and 
 
 per- 
 
mr. hastings's impeachment. 5$ 
 
 perhaps never have re-inflated him ; or perhaps he 
 might have accepted a pecuniary compenfation. — 
 The punifhment would have been difcretionary, and 
 the weight of it would have been more or lefs, ac- 
 cording to the natural difpofition of the Matter, 
 and the preflure of circumftances. 
 
 The queftions hitherto, concern the cuftoms and 
 laws of Indoftan; and the anfwers, I can fay with 
 great confidence, are fuch as every man who ever 
 was in India, and enabled to read their hiflories, 
 mull fubfcribe to. 
 
 Quejlion. — Wherein does the difference confift, in 
 this flatement of Cheyt Sing's fituation, and that of 
 the Managers ? — They confider him as a tributary 
 Prince, and that when a Sovereign has entered into 
 a' treaty with his Tributary for a certain fum of mo- 
 ney, and that is actually and regularly paid, he can- 
 not demand more, without a violation of the treaty, 
 and lofs of honour. I confider him as a fubjedl 
 holding lands under his Sovereign's grant, revokea- 
 ble at pleafure, or liable to alteration. I have (hewn 
 that Cheyt Sing's grandfather obtained the province 
 of Benares, as an act, of favour Sefder from Jung, and 
 that Ruflum Ally was turned out of the fame office 
 with little ceremony, and lefs credit to his fucceflbr. 
 I have (hewn alfo how Bulwant Sing, and his fon 
 Cheyt Sing, became poffefTed of the provinces, in 
 which there are certainly no marks of Princely power 
 or authority. If Cheyt Sing is to be conlidered as a 
 fubjedl: to the Subahdar of Bengal, or to the Com- 
 pany (and I am fure no evidence given at the bar, 
 
 nor 
 
<fi ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 nor any arguments from the Managers, have im- 
 prefTed my mind with a contrary notion) I (hall 
 then fhew that he could have no pretence to refufe 
 the payment of five lacks of rupees, nor to with- 
 hold his troops from the lervice of the ftate to which 
 he was fubjeel:. 
 
 In every Sovereign State (by which I mean a 
 ftate that is not under the legiflature of another) 
 there muft exift a legiflature, or a legiflative power ; 
 I think this is fo evident that I need not argue upon 
 it. The legiflative power in a Sovereign State, 
 may be in the hands of one man, or in the hands of 
 an indefinite number : if in one man, we call it an 
 abfolute monarchy, or defpotic government ; if in 
 the hands of many, it may be a limited monarchy, 
 like ours, an ariftocracy or democracy. Now I fay, 
 there is no ftate where the fubject has any allowed 
 right againft the legiflature, whether in the breaft of 
 of one man or many. To exemplify this, though 
 the King cannot deprive me of my property, nor 
 compel my fervices beyond what is already fixed for 
 me, yet the legiflature can increafe the tax upon my 
 lands, fo much as to make it not worth my holding ; 
 it may take them away for public ufes ; it may com- 
 pel my perfonal fervices ; in fhort, it may do any 
 thing. 
 
 Blackftone fpeaks of the omnipotence of the legif- 
 lature over all rights. I do not mean to deny the 
 natural rights, of mankind, becaufe whenever a legif- 
 lature becomes too oppreflive, the people will and 
 do rebel, and then every thing goes fcack to firft 
 
 prin- 
 
MR. tfASTlNGs's IMPEACHMENT* tfi 
 
 principles. But what I mean is, that as long as 
 people agree to fubmit to the laws in being, and to 
 acknowledge a legiflative power, the allowed or af- 
 certained rights of the people are nothing that I know 
 of; for if neither my perfon nor property are out of 
 the controul and difpofal of the legiflature, I fee 
 nothing that I can call unalienably my own. 
 
 In India there is no Parliament to make laws ; 
 there is no Magna Charta to define the rights of the 
 people ; there are no law books to define the prero- 
 gative of the King. The King has now, as far as 
 his dominion extends, all the executive power of 
 his Majefty King George, and all the legiflative 
 powers of the Three Eftates of this kingdom. 
 
 Here I wifli you to flop for a minute, and to con- 
 fider the power of our legiflature : — • What is ic 
 they cannot do, and what have they not done ?— * 
 They make laws and repeal laws ; they make things 
 pofitively criminal, which are not naturally fo ; they 
 punifh by impeachment and attainder, offences 
 againft the flate, not by any known rule of punish- 
 ment, but according to their own difcretion. When 
 money is wanted, they levy it on the fubjedb, in 
 which the majority of legiflators exercife their own 
 judgements.— The Emperor of Indoftan having all 
 thefe powers in his own hands, is juft as abfo- 
 lute and difcretionary as out legiflature, but not 
 more fo. x 
 
 We certainly have lefs to fear from the caprice or 
 injuflice of a divided legiflature, than from that 
 which exitts in the bread of one man. In this con- 
 
 I Cfts 
 
58 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 fids all the difference. But to what are we indebted 
 for this very valuable difference ? To the chance of 
 war. Our anceftors ftruggled with tyranny, and 
 were fuccefsful ; they have with wonderful wifdom 
 and fagaciiy fecured the conftitution againft the ty- 
 ranny of one man ; but it is not yet done againft the 
 tyranny of many. I do not mean to infinuate, that 
 any legislature is, or ever was tyrannical ; but that 
 if the majority of both Houfes, with the concurrence 
 of the King, were inclined to bear hard upon an 
 individual, I do not fee how it can be prevented. 
 The Indian Chiefs have alfo ftruggled for liberty, 
 but they were not fuccefsful, confequently they are 
 under the dominion of one man, inftead of being 
 under the dominion of many. This fe If- con centered 
 power, which the Great Mogul, or Emperor of In- 
 doftan ufed to exercife in a very great extent, and 
 now in a fmall one, his Subahdars, now exercife 
 over their refpedtive jurifdidtions. Whether they 
 have juft right to fuch power, is foreign to the pre- 
 fent queftion ; but fuch they have and make ufe of 
 on all occafions. Such is the power which the Com- 
 pany's fervants, in quality of Subahdar, or Admini- 
 ftrators of the Government of Bengal, have, and 
 muft exercife for the good and benefit of their maf- 
 ters, and the people under dieir command. In time 
 of war and general neceffity, they muft make as free 
 with the property of individuals as the legislature 
 does here. If the Company's fervants were execu- 
 tive only, and had a Parliament to refer to, it would 
 be otherwife ; but being both executive and legisla- 
 tive, 
 
MR. Hastings's impeachment. $9 
 
 tive, there can be no private property in the Com- 
 pany's provinces exempt, when wanted from the 
 public fervice. If there be any fuch, the pofleflbr 
 is in a better fituation than any man in this king- 
 dom. 
 
 Here feems to be the rock upon which Mr. Burke 
 originally foundered. He conlidered a grant made 
 to a fubject by an adminiflration poflefled of legif- 
 lative and executive powers, equally binding with 
 a treaty made between two independent ftates, 
 or between a Sovereign and his Tributary. There 
 ■ can be no treaty between a legiflature and a fubject. 
 A legiflature cannot bind itfelf; if it could, it would 
 do away its own powers, and ceafe to be a legiflature. 
 If it be denied, that the Company's fervants have a 
 legislative, or which is the fame thing,adifcretionary 
 power over the inhabitants of their own provinces, 
 I would afk who has it ? Somebody muft have it. 
 — It cannot be exercifed by the King of Great Bri- 
 tain, for he has done it away for a time by charter: 
 it cannot be in the direction, becaufe they have dele- 
 gated all they had to the Supreme Council; nor can 
 it be in our Parliament, becaufe they have alfo dele- 
 gated all they had to the Supreme Council ; I do not 
 mean to fay, that thefe delegates are not anfwerable 
 to the Company and to Parliament for their conduct : 
 they mod afluredly are anfwerable for every abufe 
 of authority. But I mean, that as long as they re- 
 main in the adminiflration, they muft neceflarily ex- 
 ercife over the natives of the provinces, the fame 
 powers which the legiflature here exercifes over the 
 1 2 fub- 
 
OO ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OP 
 
 fubjects in this kingdom : they muft make laws and 
 regulations as occafions demand them : they are at 
 too great a diftance to confult the treafury board, or 
 the Court of Directors ; they muft ad immediately or 
 not at all. I consider the Supreme Council to {land 
 much in the fame relation to the Company their 
 matters, as the Subahdars did to the Emperor when 
 j:he empire was in a ftourifhing ftate; they were en- 
 trufted with abfplute powers, but they durft not 
 abufe them. 
 
 I may here be afked, how and by what rule of right 
 and wrong oughc Mr. Haftings to be tried ? I anfwer, 
 in the fame manner as he would have been tried under 
 Akbar, had he been a Subahdar in thofe days. That 
 Emperor would have liftened to no fubtle difti notion? 
 between tribute and rent; to no contradictions in mi- 
 nutes of Council at different confutations : he would 
 have made the lex rationis his guide : he would have 
 faid, Has my delegate ufed the power I entrufted to 
 him fp; I .he fervice of the ftate, or has he been cruel and 
 oppreilive to the fubjecls I put under his command? 
 Has Le treated a refractory Zemindar worfe than my 
 other Subahdars, pr I rnyfelf (hould have done on 
 the like qccafion? He would have confidered the 
 cuitoms of the empire, and neceility of the cafe. 
 
 I have frequently heard it alledged againft Mr. 
 Haftings, that the demand from Cheyt Sing was, 
 partial and unjuft; and that in cafes of ftate neceflity, 
 every Zemindar under the Englifh Government 
 (hould have contributed alike; but this objection va- 
 fiifhes, when it is recollected that Cheyt Sing held 
 2, his 
 
MR. hastings's impeachment. 6i 
 
 bis Zemindary very different from any other. His 
 annual collection was near fifty lacks, out of which 
 he paid the Company only twenty-three and a half 
 lacks, fo that he had a balance of twenty-fix lacks of 
 rupees to fupport his troops and houfehold ; whereas, 
 no exertion whatever could have increafed the reve- 
 nues of Bengal and Bahar : they were already 
 ftrained as far as they would bear, and in fome cafes, 
 beyond. 
 
 No Mogul Emperor would have confidered a Ze- 
 mindar holding under a Subahdar's Sunud, as an in- 
 dependent Prince, or as a Tributary. I Ihould like to 
 hear Mr. Fox take up this fide of the argument. 
 No man can entertain a higher opinion of that gen- 
 tleman's talents than I do ; but I often fufpect, that 
 what he wifhes to imprefs on the public, is not 
 deeply imprefTed on himfelf. He feems to act and 
 fpeak, as if he thought right and wrong nothing 
 more than light and fhade, and that by a fkilful dif- 
 tribution of colours, he may convert one into the 
 other at pleafure. Were I upon terms of intimacy 
 yi ith Mr. Fox, I (hould like to afk him, as a friend, 
 what Mr. Haftings ought to have done, and to pur 
 the following queftions for his candid anfwers: 
 
 Ought money to be raifed for the public fervice, or 
 not? 
 
 In India, where the wealthy draw all their riches 
 from the poor to fupport themfelves in luxury, and 
 jo make good their payments to the Government, 
 ought any extra demand for money, in time of war, 
 to fall on the rich or not ? 
 
 As 
 
62 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 As there is no Parliament in India, in whom did 
 the power of afTefiing taxes, &c. reft? Was it in the 
 Supreme Council, or where did it lie ? 
 
 As Mr. Haftings could not borrow on bond, nor 
 draw on the Company, being prohibited by Parlia- 
 ment, what mould he have done to raife money ? 
 
 In all I have faid reflecting legiflation in India, I 
 do not mean fpiritual law, nor the laws of property 
 between individuals, forthefe are out of the prefent 
 queftion ; I mean the rights of the people with re- 
 fpect to the ftate; and I think I have abundantly 
 (hewn, that no private property is, can, or ought to 
 be fecure, when the ftate ftands in need of it. . In the 
 bell regulated ftates, individuals are fuffered to hold 
 property only upon thefe condititions — that they 
 muft give up a part, or the whole, whenever the 
 whole fociety calls for it. 
 
 Before I quit this fubject, I cannot avoid making 
 a few remarks upon the nature of ftate crimina- 
 lity. — Mr. Pitt held Mr. Haftings juftifiable for 
 making the extraordinary demand of five lacks, or 
 5o,oooI. and argued it much on the fame principles 
 I have done; but he condemned him for the in- 
 tended fine. Surely Mr. Pitt did not confider, that 
 an unexecuted intention, except it concerned the 
 life of Majefty, was never held criminal by any laws 
 in this world. The fine propofed was large, but not 
 more than Cheyt Sing was well able to pay, as the 
 event demonftrated. Add to this, the fine was to 
 relieve the diftreffes of Government, then almoft at 
 
 its 
 
mr. hastings's impeachment. 63 
 
 its laft gafp : fo that if the intention had its demerit 
 on one fide, it had its balance of merit on the other. 
 
 The difagreement of opinion with refpect to the 
 criminal points of Mr. Haftings's conduct, between 
 the two leaders of the Houfe of Commons, Mr. Fox 
 and Mr. Pitt, has frequently brought to my mind 
 fome very ingenious arguments I formerly read in 
 an Oriental manufcript, where the author proves, or 
 attempts to prove, that right and wrong are mere 
 ideas, or creatures of imagination. 
 
 Much pains have been taken to prove inconfif- 
 tency in Mr. Haftings's opinion, delivered at diffe- 
 rent times. — The Council were perpetually making 
 and refunding refolutions, all the time I was in In- 
 dia, both in the civil and military eftablimments. — 
 A perfoh who had feen them at a difta'nce, would 
 have confidered the conduct of the Supreme Coun- 
 cil as a courfe of experiments for the difcovery of 
 knowledge. But when we confider the jarring inte- 
 refls of the members of that Council, that the ba- 
 lance or cafting vote was perpetually (hifting from 
 one fide to the other, that the Governor General 
 had his own friends to keep fteady, and to provide 
 arguments to meet the objections of his opponents 
 upon almoft every queftion, we cannot be furprifed 
 at the mod glaring contradictions. — I do not fay that 
 fwch are to be imputed to Mr. Haftings ; but I do 
 not fee how it was poflible for him to be exempt 
 from them. — A Governor could never be allured of 
 carrying into effect any refolution that pafled ; for 
 it frequently happened, that the abfence or death of 
 
 a mem* 
 
64 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 a- member gave a fudden turn to the balance, and 
 new meafures were immediately adopted. 
 
 It would not be difficult to trace this very affair of 
 Cheyt Sing up to the fame fource. For I am ftrongly 
 inclined to believe he never would have difputed the 
 demands of Government, either for money or troops r 
 had he not known the g indentions which prevailed in 
 council, and buoyed himfelf up with the hopes of fee- 
 ing a change in adminiftraiion favourable to himfelk 
 Whenever power is wanting to effect, any plan or 
 fcheme, recourfe muft be had to artifice, or it muft 
 b*i abandoned altogether. Mr. Mailings never had 
 power enough, except for a fliort time, when Mr. 
 "Vyheler and he were alone in council to effect any 
 thing of himfelf. He was therefore obliged to do a 
 number of things to fecure the votes of his col- 
 leagues, which he would not have done if he had 
 had the powers fince granted to Lord Cornwallis. 
 
 But the fame contradiction is apparent in our mi- 
 nifters, and inourlegiflature. — In the former, mea- 
 fures change with men ; and in the latter, we fee 
 laws made one feffions, and repealed the next. If 
 there were any power upon earth able to arraign the 
 conduct of any legiflature in the univerfe, it would 
 not probably pafs without cenfure. But when we 
 talk of contradictions in the minutes of Mr. Hangings 
 and his colleagues, what fhall we fay to one of the 
 honourable Managers, .who formerly defended the 
 Governor General's conduct at Benares, and is now 
 his accufer on the fame article ? — I do not know how 
 that Gentleman would reconcile his two parts to each 
 
 other i 
 
mr. hastings's impeachment. 65 
 
 other : but were he to fay, that in the firft inftance 
 he was deceived, he would ftill be open to cenfure " 
 for temerity, in attempting to influence others upon 
 a fubject of which he was himfelf ignorant. He 
 cannot cover his head and his heart by the fame 
 mield. 
 
 I mail conclude with cautioning you, and any one 
 who may read thefe Letters, againft miftaking my 
 meaning, when I fpoke in a former part of this Let- 
 ter concerning arbitrary power. This I do, becaufe 
 Mr. Fox feems to have miftaken Mr. Haftings's 
 meaning in a like expreffion. 
 
 I will exemplify and explain my ideas by calling 
 your attention to the dictatorial powers granted to an 
 individual by Rome, when a republic. The Dicta- 
 tor was made abfolute for a time, and armed with 
 difcretionary powers. His instructions were ex- 
 preiled in one fentence — Ne quid detrimenti refpub* 
 lica capiat. Mr. Haftings might perhaps fay, that 
 thefe powers were arbitrary. Mr. Burke would fay 
 they were difcretionary only. The latter is the mod 
 correct, but they both mean the fame. — They both 
 mean, that a perfon armed with thefe powers may 
 and muft act from his own judgement, without 
 confuking any other. 
 
 If the Dictator acted properly it was a happy 
 thing, for the republic, but it depended on the fe- 
 nate, at the expiration of his office, to pronounce 
 whether he had made a difcreet and juft ufe of his 
 authority, or an arbitrary and oppreffive ufe of 
 i , But certain it is, that the Romans confiding in 
 
 K the 
 
66 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 the wifdom of an individual, intruded the Dictator 
 with abfolute authority; but they never could be 
 certain whether wifdom and juftice, or caprice and 
 oppreflion, would influence the will and conduct of 
 this unlimited truftee for the public. You will, from 
 what I have faid, underftand, that when I mention 
 arbitrary power, I mean dictatorial, or fuch as Rome 
 conferred on her Dictators. 
 
 Such I take to have been Mr. Haftings's mean- 
 ing ; but if I remember right, the defence of the 
 Benares Charge, againft which Mr. Fox inveighed 
 fo much, on account of this unguarded expreflion 
 concerning arbitrary power, was not penned by 
 Mr. Haftings himfelf. The charges were fo nume- 
 rous, and the time for replying fo fhort, that Mr. 
 Haftings's friend undertook part of the tafk for him ; 
 and I am almoft certain, that this had been publicly 
 mentioned by Major Scott in the Houfe of Com- 
 mons in 1787, and this particular anfwer was after- 
 wards proved by evidence in Weftminfter Hall, to 
 have been written by a Gentleman whom I have the 
 honour of being acquainted with. Mr. Haftings, 
 therefore, does net hold himfelf refponfible for it ; 
 but any perfon might juftify it, by giving a proper 
 explanation. The Gentleman never meant that Mr. 
 Haftings was poffeiled of that kind of arbitrary 
 power which a man poffefles over his fheep, which 
 he may kill, give away, or fell ; but, that having 
 no peifon to confult, he muft act from his own 
 iudgement, and that Mr. Haftings muft anfwer for 
 the juft and difcreet ufe of that abfolute audiority 
 2 1 with 
 
MR. hastings's impeachment. 67 
 
 with which he was inverted, to thofe from whom he 
 received it. To this explanation T dare fay Mr. 
 Fox will fubfcribe. I fhewed to a demonftration, 
 that there miift be in all ftates an abfolute and dif- 
 cretionary power lodged fomevvhere ; that it was 
 often divided, and fometimes necelTarily vetted in 
 one man. 
 
 In England, the executive and legiflative powers 
 are on the fpot, and the former can confult the 
 latter in a few days, yet there have been emer- 
 gencies fo preffing as to induce the former to alTume 
 a difcretionary power which was not granted by the 
 latter. Such was the Proclamation for flopping the 
 Exportation of Wheat, in Lord Chatham's admini- 
 stration. I could quote other instances, but it is 
 unnecelTary. It is, however, ufual to pafs a Bill of 
 Indemnity by way of preventing its being drawn 
 into a precedent. But this cannot apply to India, 
 for there the Board, in their delegated capacity, 
 mufl act. upon every occafion, to which no rule or 
 written order can be applied, from their own judge- 
 ment and difcretion, accountable, as I faid before, 
 to their fuperiors, and bound to prove that their 
 conduct was guided not by caprice or whim or per- 
 fonal gratification, but by considerations of public 
 benefit. 
 
 From what I have faid, the true queflions in 
 Mr. Haftings's cafe are — Did he ufe his authority, 
 to the bed of his judgement, for the good of his 
 country, or for felfifh and interested purpofes ? It 
 is the intention only that can conftitute criminality, 
 
 K 2 and 
 
68 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 and of the intention people mult judge from a com- 
 parative view of all the circumftances. 
 
 When the Rebellion in Benares was extinguished, 
 and Cheyt Sing totally expelled, Mr. Haftings, in 
 fettling the country, appointed Rajah Mehepnarain, 
 the next in lineal defcent from Bulwant Sing, to the 
 government of Benares, the adminiflration of which 
 was committed, under the infpe&ion of Mr. Mark- 
 ham, to his father Durbedgy Sing. The rent, 
 which in Cheyt Sing's time was 23 lacks, or about 
 230,0001, was now raifed to 40 lacks or 400,000!. 
 There was fome alteration made in the mercantile 
 duties, and there were fome penfions granted to a 
 few native individuals, who, in the opinion of 
 Mr. Haftings, were deferving of fuch favours, as a 
 recompence for their fervices in aflifting to fupprefs 
 the Rebellion. 
 
 J do not fee much contradiction in Mr. Burke's 
 and Mr. Haftings's' account of this tranfaction, nor 
 do I clearly underftand which are the criminal 
 points on which it turns. It may be for granting 
 the penfions, but the Supreme Council afterwards 
 gave the meafure their approbation. There are 
 items or allegations which feem to imply or impute 
 criminality to Mr. Haftings for letting the lands at 
 too high a rate ;• but I cannot fuppofe that what is 
 efteemed a virtue in a fteward for an individual can 
 be thought criminal in a fteward for the public. 
 
 The increafed revenue has continued ever fince 
 the year after the expulfion of Cheyt Sing. 
 
 The 
 
mr. hastings's impeachment. 69 
 
 The Supreme Council, upon a reprefentation by 
 Mr. Markham, then Refident at Benares, that Dur- 
 bedgy Sing, through mifcondud, had failed in the 
 ftipulated payments, ordered him to be deprived of 
 his office and imprifoned. A Jaghire, which had 
 been allowed him for the fupport of his office and 
 ftation, was alfo taken from him and re-annexed to 
 the revenue. 
 
 The principal point in difpute here is, whether 
 thefe were the acts of Mr. Haftings alone or of the 
 Board conjointly ; but whether they were the acts of 
 one or the other, the meafure appears to have been 
 thought neceflary, and the Board confirmed it. In 
 exculpation of Durbedgy Sing, his fon Mehepnarain 
 and the widow of Bulwant Sing endeavoured to lay 
 the blame on Mr. Markham ; but as the one was a 
 weak woman, and the other, from youth and want of 
 cultivation, incapable of bufinefs, it feems Mr. 
 Haftings paid little attention to what they wrote. 
 This alfo is made matter of charge, and fo is the 
 conferring of the adminiftration of Benares on Jagger 
 Deo, who fucceeded Durbedgy Sing. The latter 
 proved to be very unfit for the office, and was, on 
 account of mifconduct in diftreffing the natives, 
 afterwards difmifled by the Board at the repeated 
 folicitation of Mr. Haftings. All the iniquities of 
 this man are by Mr. Burke imputed to Mr. Haftings ; 
 but it proves in this cafe as in that of Deby Sing, 
 that Mr. Haftings was of all others the mod zealous 
 to bring him to punifhment. 
 
 The 
 
70 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 The Benares Article concludes with dating, that 
 the Province of Benares is defolate and ruined, and 
 that all the mifchief originated from Mr. Haflings's 
 mil conduct. 
 
 I mould have added, that Durbedgy Sing died 
 y/hile in confinement ; and it was infinuated by one 
 of the Managers, that his death was owing to durefs 
 and poverty. It appeared, however, in evidence, 
 that his durefs was continued after Mr. Haftings's 
 refignation, and that he died of difeafe contracted 
 before his imprifonment. 
 
 I have now explained the principal points of this 
 article ; not all, for the .allegations are very nume- 
 rous and minute, and make it matter of criminality 
 that Mr. Haftings gave credit to an unauthenticated 
 piece of intelligence received over land reflecting 
 the French war. By unauthenticated Mr. Burke 
 means, not coming through an official channel, fuch 
 as the Court of Directors or Secretary of State, 
 
 The intelligence on which Mr. Haftings and the 
 Council acted was tranfmitted over land from Cairo 
 by a Mr. Baldwin, the Company's Agent or Refi- 
 dent in that city, It was alfo attefted by eight other 
 gentlemen at the fame place. Chandernagore was 
 taken from the French in a few days after the ac- 
 count arrived, and it was upon the credit given to 
 Mr. Baldwin's information, that the firft aid of five 
 lacks was demanded of Cheyt Sing. It was well 
 known in India at the time, or foon after Chander- 
 nagore was taken, that it was done without official 
 
 intel- 
 
MR. HASTINGS S IMPEACHMENT. ^1 
 
 intelligence, but it was univerfally thought a very 
 laudable and fpirited undertaking. 
 
 You fee how difficult it is to avoid the imputation 
 of criminality, and with what wonderful rifk every 
 Governor acts, who in preffing emergencies obeys 
 the calls of duty in oppofition to thofe prudential 
 cautions which are neceflary to guard his conduct 
 againft legal cenfure. Occafions are perpetually 
 riling, which call for inftantaneous decifion and 
 execution : there is no time to confult the opinions 
 of thofe who are ultimately to judge of the pro- 
 priety of the action. Afterwards, when an inquiry 
 takes place, the rectitude or criminality depends 
 not on the fad itfelf, but on the conftruction that 
 may be put on it ; and that conftruction will vary 
 according to the degree of knowledge and under- 
 {landing of every one who is to pafs an opinion 
 upon it. No man can judge of any fituation he 
 has not feen. Were Mr. Burke fent out Governor- 
 general to India, fettered as Mr. Haftings was, he 
 would foon fay as he did once before, that what he 
 thought demonftrable in theory, was not reducible 
 to practice ; he would fay there were difficulties 
 difcovered at a nearer view, that were imperceptible 
 at a diftance; he would no longer fay, that India 
 could be governed by the laws of Great Britain. I 
 have often heard it afferted, that Mr. Burke made 
 a declaration of that kind in one of his public de- 
 clamations ; but there appears to me fuch a glaring 
 abfurdity in the proportion, that I am more inclined 
 
 to 
 
72 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 to believe that it has been imputed to him by his 
 enemies than that he ever faid it. 
 
 I mall take leave of this charge with a few obfer- 
 vations, which may appear to be rather out of place ; 
 but I have referved them for the end, and for this 
 reafon — the whole weight of this charge refts upon 
 the unjuft expulfion of a man fometimes called a 
 Zemindar, fometimes a Tributary, fometimes a 
 Prince, and at other times an Independent Sove- 
 reign. Now mark with what kind of argument his 
 title is fupported : — at the time the Supreme Coun- 
 cil, then very much divided among themfelves, 
 were confulting what privileges they mould grant 
 Cheyt Sing, a number of minutes were given in to 
 the Board by Mr. Haftings and his colleagues, fome 
 of them apparently contradictory, and fome I think 
 impolitic. At length, however, a Sunud and Pot- 
 tah were made out : the one is a kind of charter, 
 and the other declares the terms and conditions. — * 
 Thefe Cheyt Sing received, and in return gave a 
 Cubboleet, or a kind of promillbry deed, to execute 
 the terms inipofed on him. Now, one would fup- 
 pofe, that if Cheyt Sing had afterwards had a dif- 
 pute with the Council, and there had been any tri- 
 bunal to decide between them, he would have taken 
 . his Sunud and Pottah in his hand, and faid — 
 " This is my title ; thefe are the conditions of my 
 tenure : I am juft what thefe deeds make me." — « 
 This is the cuftom here in England, when the King's 
 Grant comes in queftion. The Judges look at the 
 
 deed 
 
mr. hastincs's impeachment. 73 
 
 deed or patent, and judge of the claimant's rights 
 from that. But the Managers, in fupporting the 
 Rajah's right to fovereignty, inftead of faying to the 
 Lords — " Look at the Sunud and Pottah, let the 
 Clerk read them;" fay—" Read Mr. Haftings's 
 minute of this day, and his minute of that— See 
 what he thought of the Rajah's fituation." 
 
 This method of conftruing the nature of the Ra- 
 jah's tenure is juft the fame as it would be, if the 
 French King were to difpute the Commercial 
 Treaty, and in order to make his conftruction good, 
 to quote what one Cabinet Minifter faid, or what 
 another might fay, at the time of making it. What 
 would Mr. Pitt fay to that ? He would tell the 
 French King — " As to what patted among ourfelves, 
 is out of the queftion : there is the treaty — We muft 
 abide by the letter and fpirit of it, not by our de- 
 bates and confutations." This is precifely the cafe 
 with Cheyt Sing's title to fovereignty : — it is not to 
 be found in the deed ; it is to be found only in the 
 recorded confultations of the Supreme Council, and 
 there only by a forced conftruction. 
 
 If the Managers quoted thefe opinions to (hew 
 their contradiction, it is very well ; but if they are 
 fet up to fupport Cheyt Sing's title to fovereignty, 
 it cannot (land for a moment. The Sunud makes 
 him Zemindar, Aumeen., and Fougdar ; that is, it 
 veils him with a power to collect the Revenues, and 
 to maintain the peace of the country, without the 
 lcafthint at fovereignty. There are no words of per- 
 petuity, nor any which convey a tenure for. life or 
 1^ term 
 
74 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 term of years : it is barely a confirmation of the 
 Zemindary. The Sunud is drawn according to the 
 ufual form of thefe inftruments, and no man can 
 read one of them with attention, without drawing 
 this conclufion — that it was intended by the grantor 
 to be durante bene placito, and no longer. 
 
 It is true, Mr. Fox carries his argument farther 
 back, and fays, that Sujah Dowla made the grant 
 perpetual between his own heirs and the heirs of 
 Cheyt Sing ; promifing and fwearing by the Coran, 
 that no increafe mould ever be demanded beyond 
 what was expreffed in the deed of agreement ; and 
 that this grant bound Afoph ul Dowla and the Com- 
 pany alfo. He adds alfo, that Afoph ul Dowla 
 could not transfer a greater or more extenfive right 
 than he himfelf pofieffed. This laft part is indubi- 
 tably true, but the fallacy lies here — Sujah Dowla 
 could not grant a title or right to Cheyt Sing, as Ze- 
 mindar, which he did not poflefs himfelf, as Subah- 
 dar ; for as Subahdar he had, according to the 
 conflitution of the empire, only a life tenure, or in 
 fact, only during the King's pleafure. And if we 
 confider him as a fovereign, independent of the Em- 
 peror's controul, it is the fame ; for no independent 
 Sovereign pofTefTed of legiflative powers can grant 
 a fubject any charter which his fucceffor may not 
 take away. Search the whole hiftory of the world, 
 and fhew, if you can, an inftance of the contrary. 
 
 But to ilhiftrate this, I will fuppofe Mr. Fox as 
 
 advocate for Cheyt Sing, pleading his right before 
 
 the Subahdar Afoph ul Dowla. 
 
 I claim 
 
mr. hastings's impeachment. 75 
 
 I claim the Zemindary of Benares in behalf of my 
 client, under this deed which your father granted. — 
 " By the word of God, this agreement is made be- 
 u tween me and my heirs, and you and your heirs, 
 " and it (hall never be deviated from. You fee it is 
 i( perpetual." 
 
 Afoph ul Dowla would reply thus — cc hi the firft 
 place, it was an extorted agreement, by the interfe- 
 rence of your Englifh protectors ; but I (hall not 
 avail mylelf of that. My grandfather and father 
 were Subahdars of Oude ; they exercifed fovereign 
 power, and I do the fame : they were ufurpers, it is 
 true, and fo am I. The family of Timur are the 
 fame, and the difference of their claim and mine is, 
 only in the length of time : they have been on the 
 throne more than three hundred years — we have 
 been fovereigns only fifty, or thereabouts. The ba- 
 lance of prefcription is againft us, but the power is 
 with us. In my perfon, as Sovereign of this Subah- 
 dary, are vefted all the powers of your King and 
 Parliament ; that is, I am fole legiflator. My fa- 
 ther was the fame in his day; but you know that 
 no legiflature can bind itfelf, and that no King or 
 legidature can grant immunities to a fubje&, which 
 the fucceeding one cannot take away: you mud 
 know that from the hiftory of your own country. Re- 
 member your legiflature dripped the church of all 
 its lands ; it has altered the fucceffion of the Crown ; 
 there is no ad, however arbitrary, that your legifla- 
 ture has not done at one time or other. Now, Sir, 
 I fay, that my father, as Subahdar and Legiflator 
 
 L 2 of 
 
76 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 of Oude, could not bind me any ftranger, than the 
 legislature in the reign of George the Firft can bind 
 the legislature of George the Third. 
 
 " But of all men in this world, you are the laft 
 that I fliould have expected this argument from ; — 
 you who contended that the legislature of Great 
 Britain was competent to the annulling of a charter 
 granted to the Eaft India Company for a term of 
 years, in as folemn a manner at leaft as my father 
 granted the Zemindary to Cheyt Sing. You had not 
 patience to wait the expiration of a few years ; but 
 as far as lay in your power, broke through the moll: 
 folemn engagements. Now, if you thought that 
 you, as a Minifter of Great Britain, could, with the 
 confent of Parliament, take away the charter from 
 the Company, why could not I, as a Legislator 
 and Sovereign of Oude, take away the charter my 
 father gave to Cheyt Sing ? If you fay that I am 
 not Legislator of Oude and its appendages, tell 
 me who is. I have no Parliament ; I am myfelf 
 both King and Parliament ; but if you fay that the 
 Emperor is the Legislator, it will ferve your argu- 
 ment no better, for then my father could not do 
 away rights which belonged to the Crown : he was 
 only Subahdar for life at fartheft, and could grant no 
 perpetuities. — Befides, our law is abhorrent of per- 
 petuities ; yours is the fame ; you allow private 
 gentlemen to entail their eftates only to a certain 
 number of defcendants ; and as to the fucceflion of 
 your Crown, you make it perpetual by Act of Par- 
 liament ; but you every now and then bring in a 
 
 bill 
 
mr. hastings's impeachment.' 77 
 
 bill to correct, explain, or modify the former ad, or 
 to clog it with fome new conditions. 
 
 " You miftake, Mr. Fox ; I hold all my poffef- 
 fions by the fame tenure as my father did. — You have 
 fallen into an error, by confidering me as a limited 
 monarch, whereas I am no more limited than your 
 Three Eftates are. 
 
 " I have ceded my rights in Cheyt Sing's Zemin- 
 dary to the Company, not with free will, I confefs ; 
 but I have done it to avoid a rupture. But in trans- 
 ferring thefe provinces to the Company, 1 give them 
 over perfectly free, not as a fovereign to his fervant, 
 fubject to rent and obedience, but as one fovereign 
 gives over an ifland or country to another. — After- 
 terwards, it is in the bread of a new Mailer to 
 make what conditions he pleafes." 
 
 The Managers are fenfible that they could not 
 
 fupport Cheyt Sing's title by the laws and cuftoms of 
 
 the empire, and therefore they over and over again 
 
 call the attention of the Court to Mr. Haftings's 
 
 minutes, and the refolutions of Council. But furely 
 
 the Board could annul their own refolutions ; nor 
 
 could Cheyt Sing fupport his claim on refolutions 
 
 never communicated to him. He muft have re- 
 
 courfe to his Sunud and nothing elfe. — There are 
 
 no words of perpetuity in it, nor a lingle expreflion 
 
 that looks like a treaty between two fovereigns. — It 
 
 is couched in the llile of a Lord to his fervant. If 
 
 the Managers fay that Mr. Haftings, in fome of his 
 
 minutes, reafoned ill, I lhould join with them ; but 
 
 thefe contradictions and variations aroje, as I faid 
 
 be- 
 
78 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 before, from the diffenfions among the members of 
 the council, and from the change of circumftances, 
 which unavoidably drove them to the dereliction of 
 old principles, and to the adoption of new. 
 
 In my next Letter I fhall treat of the Second 
 Charge, viz. the Begums of Oude. 
 
 LET- 
 
[79 3 
 
 LETTER III. 
 SECOND ARTICLE of the IMPEACHMENT. 
 
 THE 
 
 BEGUMS OF OUDE. 
 
 lAM now going to Hate the principal points at ifltie 
 between the accufers and accufed, on the Second 
 Article of Impeachment, namely, the Begunk of 
 Ov.de. — Begum, in the Perfian, fignifics Queen; but 
 it is a title in India given to ladies of very high rank, 
 who are not of royal parentage. Such are the Begums 
 of Oude. When the Nabob SujahDowla, of whom 
 I faid fo much in my former Letters, died in the 
 year 1775, his Subahdary defcended to hisfon Afoph 
 ul Dowla. He left behind him a widow, whom I 
 ihall diftinguifh, to avoid obfcurity, by the appella- 
 tion of the younger Begum. He left alfo a mother 
 living, who was the widow of Sefder Jung, whom I 
 formerly fpoke of as being the firft Subahdar of his 
 family in pofieflion of Oude. 
 
 It was the cuftom of Sujah Dowla, as it is of many 
 
 men in the Eaft, to depofit their treafures in the 
 
 Zenana. — Zenana is a Perfian word, fignifying much 
 
 the fame as Seraglio, and is the place where the 
 
 1 women 
 
&0 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OP 
 
 women are lodged. It is by people of rank held very 
 facred, and no perfon of the male fex is permitted to 
 enter it, except fuch as are very nearly related. 
 They have rules for regulating thefe exceptions j and 
 thofe who are allowed to fee the women, fuch as 
 brothers, tec. are called Mehrem. 
 
 Some months after the death of Sujah Dowla, his 
 fon Afoph ul Dowla turned his attention to the trea- 
 fures of his father. 
 
 Mr. Briftgw, who was then Refident at Lucknow, 
 in a letter to the Supreme Council, ftates thefe trea- 
 fures to amount to near two million fterling ; but he 
 fays, that report made them more than double that 
 fum. There are two points of view in which the 
 depofit may be confidered : had it been a cafe be- 
 tween private individuals, the Coran would have de- 
 cided it, and the mother, if without a fettled dower, 
 and all her irTue, would have had their refpeflivc 
 (hares, as fettled by that book; but as Afoph ul 
 Dowla was a fovereign, or at leaft in the exercife of 
 fovereign power, the treafures were generally confi- 
 dered as the property of the State, 
 
 I am of opinion, that in law, the Begum's Jaghire 
 would have been confidered as a proportional dower, 
 and that me would have had no fhare of the treafure 
 in any event. 
 
 This is my idea at prefent, as far as I could collect 
 from a fmail Arabic Treatife on the Mahommedan 
 Law, now in my poflefTion. There is alfo a large 
 work now in the prefs, tranflated by Mr. Hamilton 
 and Mr. Anderfon, from an Arabic manufa ipt, called 
 
 Me day a t 
 
mr. hastings's impeachment. 8i 
 
 Uedayd, which contains a much fuller explanation of 
 the laws refpefting dowers, &c. than is to be found 
 in the book above-mentioned. As this book will 
 foon be publifhed, it may be referred to j and it. is 
 to be lamented, that it has not been tranflated long 
 fmce, as it would have faved thofe gentlemen who 
 inquire into India matters from much error. 
 
 I remember having read in the Hcdaya, that where 
 the wife's dower is not fettled at the time of marriage, 
 they are guided by the cuftoms of her hufband's fa- 
 mily ; thence I conclude alfo, that the Jaghire would 
 have been confidered as a proportional dower. I ihall 
 not argue the point of right, which is fo indefinite, 
 particularly in this cafe, where it may be confidered 
 in a private or public light, though much will depend 
 on the opinion which the Lords may entertain on this 
 queftion : for if the treafure left by Sujah Dowla in 
 the cuftody of his widow, were by political law the 
 right of the fucceeding Sovereign, or the legal pro- 
 perty of his fon, by the laws of the Coran y I do not 
 fee how the Begum could think herfelf much injured, 
 let the refumption take place when it would. 
 
 I muft here digrefs for a minute, to take notice of 
 fomething I heard from Mr. Sheridan— He repro- 
 bated the idea of right founded on either of thefe 
 grounds I have dated ; and to maintain his argu- 
 ment, he told the Court, that the fecurity of a 
 Zenana is the title of a faint to the relics on an altar, 
 placed there by piety, guarded by holy fuperftition, 
 and to be fnatched from thence only by facrilege.--- 
 
 M The 
 
8a ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 The inference he draws is, that becaufe the Zenana 
 is iacred, the treafure was the Begum's own. 
 
 Whether Mr. Sheridan meant this as a beautiful 
 period, or whether he was ignorant himfelf, I cannot 
 fay; I fhould rather fuppofe the latter; but certain 
 it is, that the fon, Afoph ul Dowla, was no more 
 interdicted by law from entering the Zenana than his 
 father $ and, confequently, the treafures were no more 
 protected againft the former than the latter. By the 
 laws of the Zenana, the fon was a Mehrem, as I flated 
 before. It may afTume the appearance of pedantry, 
 but it Is neceflary to obferve, that H<eram in Arabic, 
 means nearly the fame as Zenana in Perfian ; and 
 Mehrem, being a participle of the fame root, fignifies 
 a perfbn prohibited in marriage, and confequently 
 admiffible into the Zenana. 
 
 In the book I before quoted, or in fome other one 
 in my pofTeflion, there is a chapter defcribing the de- 
 grees of confangninity, which fall within the circle of 
 Mehrem. It is for this reafon that the Mahommedan 
 law makes a wide diftinction between a man's taking 
 by force or ftealth a fum of money from his parents, 
 and from thofe that are not related to him. In the lat- 
 ter cafe, it would be felony, if I may apply that term 
 to Mahommedaij law ; but not in the former. The 
 principle of this diftinction muft be, that no property 
 can be illegally taken by him who has by confangui- 
 nity a right to enter die Zenana. Neither did the 
 natives in India, at the time of feizing the Begum's 
 treafure, confider it in the fame light it has been con- 
 
 fiderec} 
 
 
mr. hastings's impeachment. 83 
 
 fidered here, that is, as far as I underftood from 
 thofe with whom I converfed on the fubject. 
 
 Mr. Sheridan fays, the arguments of Mr. Haf- 
 tings's Counfel were futile and frivolous— I do not 
 know how they argued the point, not being in Court 
 that day y neither am I much acquainted with either 
 of thofe gentlemen ; but I can from my own know- 
 ledge take upon me to fay, that Mr; Sheridan's 
 arguments on this head cannot ftand one moment 
 before any perfon who has the flighted knowledge of 
 the Mahommedan cuftoms. To fay that the mother 
 acquired, and that the fin loft, a right to the treafure 
 from its being depofited in the Zenana, is the ftrangeft 
 idea that ever was ftarted. Were I difpofed to ani- 
 madvert on that gentleman's fpeech, there would be 
 much room for it in that part where he tells the 
 Lords, that they muft not argue from the Turkifh 
 Mahommedans, they being of a mean and degene- 
 rate race. He was aware of there being no law or 
 cuftom in Turkey that would warrant his Zenana 
 doclrine, and he therefore made a new fpecies of 
 Mahommedans for India. It is, however, very fo- 
 reign to my purpofe to point out the falfe conclufions 
 in that gentleman's oration. There are counfel for 
 that bufinefs, and they will find no want of matter. 
 
 I have heard, Mr. Sheridan purpofes publifhing 
 that Speech he made in the Houfe of Commons, 
 and which produced this Impeachment. Were I in 
 the lift of his friends, I would advife him to imitate 
 the wifdom of the Grand Lama t who deriving all his 
 confequence from feclufion, keeps his perfon from 
 M c. public 
 
84 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT Ofr" 
 
 public view. I have heard the Mulnahs read chap- 
 ters of the Coran in fuch tone and accent, that I have 
 been wonderfully ftiuck with its feeming fublimity -, 
 but when 1 read the fame words with an eye to their 
 fen(e y I found it to be mere trafh. Mahommed fore- 
 faw that it would fufFer by tranflation, and forbade 
 the Coran being tranflated. Mr. Sheridan may lofe 
 by publication - y and he cannot add to his fame, 
 though he may to his fortune. 
 
 I will now return to the fubjecr. from which I have 
 {frayed almoft imperceptibly to myfelf. 
 
 Mr. Haflings confiders the treafure lodged in the 
 Zenana to have been the property of the State ; but 
 what his reafons for that opinion are, I do not know. 
 3&e may fay, that being aflefTed and levied on the 
 public for public ufes, they ought not to be employed 
 for private purpofes ; and thereby drive the fucceffor 
 to levy new taxes on his fubjecr.s to fupply the exi- 
 gencies of State, which would not have exifted, had 
 the collections been turned to their proper or intended 
 ufe. The King of Pruffia feems to have entertained 
 a fimilar opinion, when he told his fucceffor, that 
 the wealth which he had amaffed was the property of 
 the Public, and not of himfelf. Mr. Haftings will 
 probably bring ftronger reafons than thofe I have fug- 
 gefted, to fupport his opinion, that the mother acted 
 unjuftly in with-holding the treafure from her fon. 
 
 In the latter end of 1775, tne Nabob being much 
 flraitened for money, requefted the interference or 
 mediation of the Reiident, Mr. Briftow, who accor- 
 dingly undertook it, without any inflruclions from 
 
 the 
 
MR. HASTINGS S IMPEACHMENT. 8 
 
 the Supreme Council. The refult was, that he pre- 
 vailed on the lady to give up 30 lacks, or 3oo,oooL 
 in cafh and valuables, and to cancel an obligation 
 for 26 lacks of rupees, which fhe had lent her fon on 
 a former occafion. This was all that could be ob- 
 tained, without proceeding to violence; and in or- 
 der to obtain even this, Mr. Brillow was obliged, 
 in the Company's name, to guarantee her in the pof- 
 feffion of the remainder of the depofited treafures, 
 and alio of her Jaghires. Jaghires are alignments 
 of particular lands, for particular ufes, fuch as the 
 maintenance of families, &c. &c. They are analo- 
 gous to penfions, with this difference only, that it is 
 a landed eftate inflead of an annuity paid by the 
 Treafury. 
 
 The Supreme Council, of which Mr. Haftings 
 was, though Governor General, an inefficient mem- 
 ber, approved of the guarantee, and thus it relied 
 till the year 1781. This was the nature of the te- 
 nure by which the younger Begum, or mother of 
 Afoph til Dowla, held her property. 
 
 I fhall now explain the fituation of the elder Be- 
 gum, or grandmother of the Nabob Afoph ul 
 Dowla. — This lady had certain allowances fettled on 
 her by her fon Sujah Dowla, for the fupport of her- 
 felf and dependants, and the family of her deceafed 
 hufband Sefder Jung. She had fome Jaghire lands 
 which fhe held by royal grant, I mean from the 
 Emperor. According to her flatement, her grand- 
 fon Afoph ul Dowla had deprived her of thefe al- 
 lowances, 
 
36 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 lowances, and done many other acls extremely ofTen- 
 five to her. She therefore adopted the refolution of 
 withdrawing herfelf from his dominions, and gave 
 out that her intention was to vifit Korbella, which 
 Mr. Middleton fays is another name for Mecca; but 
 T think it is the burying place of Hufun, Mahom- 
 med's grandion, who was killed and buried in the 
 Deferts of Chaldea. This, however, is very imma- 
 terial. The Nabob difapproved of her departure, 
 and requeued Mr. Middleton's influence^ who was 
 then refident at his Court, to prevent it. 
 
 Mr. Middleton engaged in the bufinefs, and after 
 much negociation it was fettled. — The principal 
 terms were, that {he mould go to Korbella when me 
 liked; that her penfionary lands mould be reftored, 
 and during her abfence, be under the care of the 
 younger Begum ; that (lie fliould have the manage- 
 ment of the Zenana (that is, of the women and 
 children left by her deceafed fon,) and an allowance 
 of about j 4,000 rupees a month for their fub- 
 fiftence. There were other articles, but I have fta- 
 ted the moil important. 
 
 The Managers contend, that Mr. Middleton 
 guaranteed this agreement, and thereby pledged the 
 Company's faith for the obfervance of it. 
 
 Mr. Middleton feems to confider himfelf as a 
 witnefs only, and engaged no farther than to ufe his 
 influence with the Nabob, in cafe he mould be in- 
 clined to break it. It does not appear that he ever 
 acquainted the board with what he had done; but his 
 fuccefibr, Mr. Turling, did communicate fome ac- 
 count 
 
mr. Hastings's impeachment. 87 
 
 count of this guarantee, (as the Begum feems to 
 have confidered it) to the Supreme Council in the 
 year 1780, or thereabout. Probably the Begum 
 might not underftand the difference between figning 
 as a witnefs, and as a guarantee. Mr. Haftings de- 
 nies having any knowledge of this tranfaction ; and 
 it fecms evident from feveral documents, that he 
 never approved of the refident's interference with the 
 domeftic arrangements of the Nabob's family, and 
 the fettlements of his parents. 
 
 Here I mud beg leave to make a few obfervations 
 upon the conduct of the Nabob and his mother. — 
 The latter had not honefty enough to give up any 
 part of the treafure me had in her pofleflion when her 
 hufband died, of her own free will and accord :— 
 for as I have (hewn already, it was either the pro- 
 perty of her fon in his fovereign capacity, as guar- 
 dian and truftee for the date, or it belonged to him as 
 the legal heir of Sujah Dowla, and to the other 
 children, &c. according to the proportion fettled by 
 the Coran. — To have made it her own, fhe would 
 have fet up a will, of which I have heard no mention. 
 The Nabob's character -was fo well known to his 
 mother and grandmother, that neither of them would 
 truft his word, unlefs the Company pledged their 
 faith for his obfervance of it. — Accordingly, we find 
 fhat when the Nabob gave a receipt in full for his 
 patrimony, though in fact he got no more than the 
 mother chofe to give him, Mr. Briftow became fecu- 
 rjty. It is obfervable that this gentleman acted with- 
 out 
 
83 ELUCIDAT: ~ rTT? Stf^JECT 6F 
 
 out the authority of tjie oupreme Cowncil, i 
 to the agreement with the younger Begum, as Mr, 
 Middleton did with refpect to the elder. It is natu- 
 ral to fuppofe that thefe gentlemen confidered an ar- 
 rangement between fuch very near relations, rather of 
 a private than public nature.— The interference can 
 be juftified but upon one ground, namely, that the Be- 
 gums might be provoked to leave the fon's domi- 
 nions, and carry off the immenfe treafures they were 
 fuppofed to poflefs. Another obfervation occurs, 
 that though the Nabob is reprefented by the |Mana- 
 gers as a mod dutiful fon and grandfon, yet we find 
 that in 1778, three years after the death of his father, 
 he had fo ftripped his grandmother of all the jaghires 
 and penfions allowed her by Sujah Dovvla, for the 
 maintenance of herfelf and dependants, that (lie was 
 driven to the determination of leaving his domi- 
 nions, as the only means of preferving the refidue of 
 her fortune; and to effect this, (he gave out that (he 
 wifhed to make a pilgrimage to Korbella. 
 
 Here is another inftance of the wonderful effect of 
 oratory, and of the fkill which men of abilities pof- 
 fefs in bringing one part of the picture into the mod 
 ilriking point of view, whilft another of no lefs im- 
 portance is thrown back into the fhade, and fcarcely 
 noticed. I have heard many people, who happened 
 to attend Weftminfter Hall on particular days, or 
 who read now and then in a newfpaper, fome part of 
 Mr. Sheridan's fummary on. this charge, obferve, 
 that Mr. Haftings mud have been loft to all the feel- 
 ings of humanity, when he infilled on the Nabob's 
 
 2 taking 
 
mr. hastings's impeachment. $9 
 
 taking away the treafures of his parents : whereas the 
 fact is, that the old Begum owed all me had to the in- 
 terference of Mr. Middleton ; and the younger Be- 
 gum is indebted to the mediation and guarantee of 
 Mr. Briftow for the detention of that property which 
 me at lead ought to have divided, or, in the opinion 
 of mod people, to have given up all together. — At 
 the fame time that I think it was indecent in the Eng- 
 lifh Government to interfere in their public capacity 
 between the Nabob and his parents, yet having once 
 fanctioned the agreement, and committed their faith 
 to the Begum, they mod undoubtedly ought to ad- 
 here to it. I think alfo with the Managers, that 
 the circumftance of Mr. Middleton's figning the 
 treaty, though perhaps without the knowledge of his 
 mafters, bound them as effectually as if it had been 
 done by their exprefs order and inftruction, that is, 
 if he figned it as a guarantee, not as a witnefs. 
 But it is not reafonable to think, that in the former 
 cafe, he would have kept it from the knowledge of 
 his fuperiors : if he did, he ought to anfwer for it 
 himfelf. 
 
 Mr. Middleton, on his examination, did Mr. 
 Haftings, in the opinion of many people who could 
 reafon only from the comparifon of a few circum- 
 ftances, more injury by his want of recollection, 
 and cautious mode of anfwering, than he would 
 have done, had he given the mod correct and ex- 
 plicit elucidation. — I do not mean to fay that Mr, 
 Middleton was incorrect, but not knowing whac 
 facts might be thought criminal by the Houfe of 
 
 N Commons, 
 
90 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 Commons, he Teemed afraid to anfvver many quef- 
 tions, left they might on a future occafion be turned 
 againft himfelf. It feems Mr. Middleton was ad- 
 vifed by Counfel, (not Mr. Haftings's, for they re- 
 fufed to give him any on the fubjedt) not to anfwer 
 particular queftions. That cautious mode may be 
 very right, and it certainly muft be fo, or it would 
 not be recommended by all lawyers in general ; but 
 to thofe who are not profeflional men, and do not 
 make the fame allowances, it feems as if the witnefs 
 was confcious of guilt, and therefore wifhed to hide 
 it. The hearers, fuch as I have defcribed, imme- 
 diately give him credit for fome thing infinitely 
 worfe than his examiners themfelves impute to 
 him. 
 
 This witnefs flood in an awkward predicament ; 
 —he had formerly been accufed by Mr. Haftings, 
 before the Supreme Council, of mifconduct in this, 
 very bufinefs ; and when he found himfelf prefl by 
 entangling queftions, in Weftminfter Hall, he 
 feemed fearful that every anfwer might be turned 
 againft himfelf. The Managers reprefented this 
 appearance of fear as the effect of his caution, and 
 defire to fcreen Mr. Haftings ; whereas in fact, his 
 own fafety was his real object, as he at laft ac- 
 knowledged, when he threw himfelf on the indul- 
 gence of the Court. 
 
 Such was Mr. Middleton's cafe. Before I drop 
 the fubject of the right each Begum had to her trea- 
 fure and jaghire, 1 muft anfwer a queftion that will 
 naturally rife in the mind of every attentive reader, 
 
 namely, 
 
MR. hastings's impeachment. 91 
 
 namely, why did not the Nabob take pofleffion of 
 the treafures depofited by his father in the Zenana, 
 immediately upon his acceffion to the Mufnud or 
 Throne ? The anfwer is, that it was not in his 
 power without waging war with his mother, who 
 had all the city of Fyzobad and its ■vicinity in her 
 interefl, and therefore the iffue might have been 
 unfavourable. The Nabob took a different me- 
 thod, and tried to borrow the money, in which he 
 fucceeded to a certain amount ; and when his mo- 
 ther would lend no more, he applied to Mr. Brif- 
 tow, as I have already dated. I fhould have ob- 
 ferved, that in the year 1778, the Nabob feemed 
 inclined to break through the agreement made with 
 his mother, under the fanction of Mr. Briftow, but 
 was prevented by the Board. 
 
 I have (hewn how the Begums became poflefled of 
 their treafure and jaghires, and in what manner the 
 Company guaranteed the pofTeflion thereof to the 
 younger Begum ; for I cannot find that there is any 
 proof of the Company's faith being pledged to the 
 elder. I have read the evidence over attentively, and 
 I cannot find that Mr. Middleton was authorifed by 
 the Board ; on the contrary, there is a Letter from 
 them to him forbidding his active interference, but ap- 
 proving of his conciliatory mode of fettling the dif- 
 putes between the grandmother and grandfon by 
 advice. It does not appear by any of the public 
 correfpondence, that any greater latitude was ever 
 given to the Refident. 
 
 N 2 The 
 
gZ ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 The Managers argue this point, on a presump- 
 tion that there muft have been private authority 
 from Mr. Haftings alone. I muft leave this point 
 as it ftands, there being fufpicion on one fide, and 
 denial on the other. 
 
 In my former Letter I ftated, that in the year 
 1 78 1, Mr. Haftings went to Benares, and that an 
 infurrec~r.ion broke out in that province by the means 
 of Cheyt Sing and his adherents. During thefe 
 troubles, the Nabob marched with his troops to 
 the aid of Mr. Haftings, and met him at Chunar, 
 in the vicinity of Benares. 
 
 A new agreement was made between the Nabob 
 and the Company, confifting of feveral articles ; 
 but that which more immediately concerns this part 
 of the Charge was, that the Nabob mould be at li- 
 berty to refume all the jaghires and penfionary lands 
 in his dominions. In the execution of this plan, 
 Mr. Haftings urged the Nabob to make the re- 
 fumption general. But with refpect to the jaghires 
 of the younger Begum, he infifted that an annuity 
 mould be paid her, equal to the fum it was fup- 
 pofed to bring in. In this refumption Mr. Haftings 
 feems in ibme meafure to have been influenced, or 
 at leaf! accelerated by the reports he had heard con- 
 cerning the aid which Cheyt Sing derived from fome 
 of thefe Jaghiredars, particularly the Begums. But 
 if he had heard no fuch report, reafon and found 
 policy would have juftified the meafure. To what 
 can we impute the rebellion at Benares, but to that 
 weak policy adopted by the Supreme Council, when 
 
 they 
 
mr. Hastings's impeachment. 03 
 
 they fuffered Cheyt Sing to keep up a large body of 
 troops, in a manner independent of the Engliih 
 Government. I do not mean that he was independent 
 of the Engliih Government, for he certainly was not; 
 but the army in his pay looking no higher up than to 
 their immediate Chief, put it into his power to affert 
 independence whenever an opportunity offered. 
 
 One would have thought, that the double game 
 which Bulwant Sing played between the Nabob Sujah 
 Dowla and the Engliih on a former occafion, might 
 have convinced the Company's Servants of the ab- 
 furdity of having too powerful a fubject. Such 
 was the cafe with the Begums, for their jaghires 
 were fo large and populous, that we find the younger 
 Begum told Mr. Briftow, that if the Englifh would 
 ftand neuter, her fon might do his worft. Mr. Haf- 
 tings faw the neceffity of breaking this power, but 
 
 m 
 
 he ought to have feen it fooner. Perhaps in excufe 
 for this he might fay, " I faw it before, but had it 
 ie not in my power.'' — It may be fo. 
 
 The hiftory of Europe (hews the neceflity of 
 having the ftrength of a kingdom- concentered in one 
 government, of whatever form that government 
 may be. England was full of inteftine commotions 
 till Henry the Seventh reduced the power of the Ba- 
 rons ; and France made but a fmall figure, before 
 the whole force of the kingdom was under the im- 
 mediate controul of one adminiftration. 
 
 The refumption of the jaghires was certainly a 
 wife meafure, and cannot ftand in need of any de- 
 fence. Neither is it unufual for Sovereigns in In- 
 dia to revoke thefe grants ; and I obferve that Mr. 
 
 Purling 
 
^4 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 Purling gave evidence to that effed : for furely the 
 power that gave, may refume. The Begums had in 
 natural juftice a claim to an annuity of equalvalue, 
 both on account of dower and of the guarantee, pro- 
 vided they had committed no act deferving confisca- 
 tion. Our legislature takes away part of any man's 
 land, when wanted for public ufe, and compels the 
 owner to take an eftimated compenfation in money, 
 without confulting his inclination. If then it be 
 justifiable to take away property for public conve- 
 nience, fuch as new roads, canals, &c. how much 
 more reafonable muft it be to do the fame, even in 
 a much higher degree, when the not doing it en- 
 dangers the peace and fafety of the community. 
 Befides, in the cafe of the Begums, there was fome- 
 thing worfe than ordinary : the adminiftration of 
 the jaghires was in the hands of two Eunuchs, who 
 were notoriously difaffeded to the Nabob. It is 
 owing to this circumftance, that no dired proof of 
 revolt can be brought home to the Begums. Proof 
 there undoubtedly is, but it is <:ircumftantial. Their 
 guilt can only be inferred from the condud of their 
 Minifters, for Ladies of their rank do not tranfad 
 bufinefs in public. But of this I may have ocean on 
 to fpeak hereafter. 
 
 There appears to me to have been great impro- 
 priety in interfering between the Nabob and his pa- 
 rents in every inftance, unlefs the Supreme Council 
 confidered them as pofTefTed of feparate fovereign- 
 ties. What would the politicians of Europe think of 
 it, if they faw our Mimftry guaranteeing to the 
 
 i mother 
 
mr. Hastings's impeachment. 95 
 
 mother and grandmother of the French King their 
 refpedive jointures and marriage fettlements ? How- 
 ever, as far as the guarantee extended, it is in- 
 cumbent upon Mr. Haftings to (hew that he ad- 
 hered to the fpirit of it, or to aflign fome reafon fof 
 the contrary ; otherwife, I agree with Mr. Burke, 
 that the honour of the nation is tarniihed. I think 
 I have already (hewn beyond the power of objection 
 or cavil, that the resumption of the jaghires was 
 founded upon principles of prudence and found po- 
 licy, confirmed by recent and fatal experience. And 
 if it lay in my power, I would rather inftitute an 
 inquiry into the reafon of its not being done fooner, 
 than of its being done when it was. But as I faid 
 before, the Begums were intitled to an equivalent ; 
 an annuity of equal value was propofed, but not 
 readily accepted : they did not relifh the idea of 
 parting with their influence in the country. Doubt- 
 lefs they were encouraged to refill by their favourite 
 Eunuchs, whofe intereft would be ruined by it. It 
 is probable that they reafoned in the fame manner 
 as a wealthy Gentleman does in this country, who 
 fets more value on 1 0,000 1. a year riling from an 
 exteniive tract, of land in fome county, than he does 
 on 1 1, 000 1. ifluing from the Bank, as the intereft 
 of his flock. The former gives him great influence, 
 the latter very little, if any. In the refumption of 
 the jaghires in general, the Nabob was left to his 
 own difcretion as to equivalents ; and probably would 
 have been fo with refpedt to his mother, had not 
 the Company's faith been pledged. He was there- 
 fore 
 
i)6 ELUCIDATION OF THF. SUBJECT OF 
 
 fore bound to make them compenfation, and the 
 Company became anfwerable for the payment of 
 the annuities, in the fame manner as they did for 
 their poflefiion of their jaghires. In fhort, it was an 
 ufeful commutation. 
 
 Mr. Haftings in his defence fays, that gratitude 
 to the Nabob for his ready affiftance at the time he 
 himfelf was in diftrefs at Chunar, was an acceflary 
 motive to the confent he fo readily gave to the re- 
 fumption of the jaghires. That might ferve as a 
 good reafon for expediting the bufinefs, but one 
 would have thought, that Mr. Haftings had feen 
 enough at Benares to convince him of the 
 general tendency which all the fubordinate Chiefs 
 have to revolt upon all occafions; and that 
 none of them are actually fubordinate longer than 
 they are unable to refift. It may be faid, that the 
 Conftitution of the Mogul Government is, imperium 
 in imperio, or rather multa imperia in imperio. It is 
 fo ; but it is wretched policy for the Englifh to 
 adopt, who maintain their pofiemons in the Eaft, as 
 much by opinion as by force ; and this opinion of 
 Englifh invincibility grows weaker every day. To 
 this divifion of power we may attribute all the 
 intefline commotions in Indoftan, and the prefent 
 debility, I may almoft fay, annihilation of the 
 Emperor's authority. There will always be an op- 
 pofition, flronger or weaker, to every government ; 
 and the difference which England feels between its 
 prefent ftate and that previous to Henry the Se- 
 venth, is, that then oppofkion had recourfeto their 
 
 fwords, 
 
MR. hastings's impeachment. 97 
 
 fwords, and now to their tongues. The men are 
 alike, the fpirit is alike, but the means are al- 
 tered. 
 
 From what I have faid, it mufl be allowed that 
 the refumption of the Jaghires was prudent, wife, and 
 juft, whether a guarantee exiftedor not. But it ftrikes 
 me as a very abfurd conclufion to maintain, that 
 becaufe a Sovereign has entered into a guarantee, he 
 is not at liberty to withdraw it, when the circum- 
 ftances which induced him to make it are no longer 
 the fame. All fecurities of this kind are made under 
 an implied, if not expreffed provifo, that it mail 
 endure no longer than the party favoured fhall deferve 
 it. The only rule whereby we can judge of the con^ 
 duel: of the Supreme Council, is that of political 
 prudence. Was it right in the Englifh Government 
 to interfere between the Nabob and his parents ? 
 Certainly not, if the Nabob is confidered as a Sove- 
 reign ; if as a Subject, perhaps otherwife. Was it 
 right to advife, or permit him to refume the Jaghires, 
 when experience had (hewn their ill confequences ? 
 Undoubtedly it was, and the blameable part is the 
 firft granting of them, particularly to women, who 
 mull entruft the management to other hands. 
 
 Having now fhewn why the Jaghires were and 
 ought to be refumed, I fhall proceed with the narra- 
 tive part. After the execution of the treaty with 
 the Nabob, on the 19th September, 1781, for the 
 refumption of the Jaghires, &c. it appears that Mr. 
 Haftings receiving (till farther information of the 
 Begums having aided Cheyt Sing in the rebellion at 
 
 Q Benares,' 
 
98 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 Benares, conceived the idea of confifcating that trea- 
 fure which was in the pofTeflion of the younger Be- 
 gum, the Nabob's mother, and which, as I faid 
 before, was guaranteed by Mr. Briftow. The Ma- 
 nagers lay much ftrefs upon Mr. Middleton's re- 
 newing the fame guarantee to the younger Begum 
 in 1778. It does not however appear, that he had 
 any particular authority for it ; neither can I per- 
 ceive any ufe it was of; for Mr. Briitow's act bound 
 the Company as firm as the renovation of the fame 
 by Mr. Middleton could poffibly do. The gua- 
 rantee to the younger Begum is admitted; .it is that 
 to the elcjer only which appears to be in diipute. 
 But even this is in reality of little c'onfequence, for 
 the two T ^adies were fo blended together in eveiy 
 aft, that whatever involved the one, involved the 
 other alfo. 
 
 The two Begums are confounded together even 
 •by Gentlemen well acquainted with India in general. 
 The natives of India obferve a fooliih reverence in 
 fpeaking or writing of perfons of high rank : they do 
 not like to mention their names, particularly of 
 women, and hence in fome of their letters in the 
 Books of Evidence, there is an apparent obfcurity as 
 to the Lady meant. The fact is, the principal 
 (hare of power was in the hands of the younger Be- 
 gum, but the elder was the advifer and directrefs in 
 mod things. The refponfibility lay with the former, 
 as far as it could lay with a Lady in a Zenana. 
 
 In November 1781, as Sir Elijah Impey was 
 a, bout to pay the Nabob a vifit at Lucknpw, Mr. 
 
 Hastings 
 
MR* HASTINGS^ IMPEACHMENT. 99 
 
 Haftings fcnt by him a verbal meffage to Mr. Mid- 
 dleton, the purport of which was, that if the Nabob 
 were inclined to confifcate or take pofleflion of that 
 treafure, which had formerly been in difpute be- 
 tween him and his Mother, the guarantee would 
 not be pleaded againft him. I do not know that 
 thefe are the precife words ; but the fpirit I take to 
 amount to this, that the Nabob might, if he thought 
 proper, take porTefiion of the treafure. 
 
 This is feemingly circuitous, but there was no 
 method of interfering with the Nabob's govern- 
 ment but in the way of advice and recommendation. 
 It was well known that the Nabob longed for an 
 opportunity to poflefs himfelf of that treafure which 
 he always had confidered as unjuftly with-held 
 from him. 
 
 The Managers take wonderful advantage of this 
 circumftance ; I mean the fuggeftion made by 
 Mr. Haftings in the way I have mentioned. The 
 advifing a fon to rob his mother is by them placed 
 in a thoufand different lights. It certainly had a 
 great effect upon the Houfe of Commons, when 
 Mr. Sheridan opened this article ; his Speech alfo 
 had fome effect upon the audience in Weftminfter 
 Hall. I have fometimes thought that it would fave 
 a deal of trouble, if every advocate and orator, on 
 the accufing fide of the queftion,. were obliged to 
 take an oath that he would not directly or indirectly 
 endeavour to make others believe what he did not 
 believe himfelf, or to take a fimilar oath at the end 
 of his Speech, that he. had not mif-ftated any fact 
 
 O 2 wil- 
 
100 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT 0$ 
 
 wilfully, nor reprefented any thing better or worfe 
 than he really believed it to be. I would lay this 
 tax only on the accufer. Humanity makes great 
 allowance for the accufed. It is natural for a man 
 to deny guilt; felf-prefervation juftifies it: but 
 there appears to be fomething unpardonable in im- 
 puting more criminality than is deferved, and in 
 torturing acts into guilt by mifreprefentation. 
 
 When Mr. Sheridan was talking of the tender 
 Son, how much it would have taken off from the 
 brilliancy of his colouring, had he faid to the au- 
 dience in the next fentence ; but remember, there was 
 no time when the Nabob would not have done this very 
 atl, if not refirained by the Company : and if he had 
 added, this very Son was fo cruel as to deprive his 
 Grandmother of the alloivances fettled by his Father, and 
 drove her to the refolution of flying from his dominions , 
 unlefs the Company would protect her. How much 
 would it have deftroyed the pathetic part of his 
 oration, had he ftated, that thefe very treafures were 
 unjuftly detained by an avaricious Mother from a 
 needy and diftrefTed Son. Yet Mr. Sheridan knew 
 moft of thefe circumftances perfectly well, when he 
 made his oration of four days length in Weftminfter 
 Hall. He might fay, and it is the only thing he 
 could fay, I do not believe one fyllable that makes 
 in favour of Mr. Haftings, but I implicitly believe 
 all that appears or can be made appear againft him. 
 I cannot help faying, though perfectly uninterefted 
 in the fate of Mr. Haftings, or in the event of the 
 trial, that the "knowledge which I poflefs of the fub- 
 i ject, 
 
mr Hastings's impeachment. lot 
 
 je&, gave me that difgnfling kind of view which a 
 perfon unaccuftomed to plays is liable to, and al- 
 ways feels, upon removing from the front boxes to 
 behind the fcenes. Mr. Sheridan underftands the 
 human mind : he knows how inflammable it is, and 
 he knows how to warm and to cool it ; he can 
 mould it to his own liking. He knows that few 
 people poffefs a mind like his own, that is capable 
 of furveying a large edifice at one comprehenfive 
 glance : he knows alfo, how to fix the obferver's 
 eye upon that part which may ferve his own pur- 
 pofe, by exciting either pleafure or difguft. 
 
 I have been led into thefe digreffive reflections by 
 referring to that Gentleman's Speech to refrefh my 
 memory, in regard to a particular circumftance I 
 mall foon have occafion to ftate. — I have juft laid it 
 down, impreffed with two very contrary fentiments : 
 I feel a high degree of pity for the weaknefs of thofe 
 minds, which can be feduccd by founding periods, 
 and a ftill higher degree of admiration at the elocu- 
 tion of the ingenious fpeaker. 
 
 To form a tolerable judgement of the merit or de- 
 merit of Mr. Haftings's conduct, you rauft enter 
 into all his views and intentions, when he left Cal- 
 cutta to vifit the Upper Provinces, and to fettle die 
 difpute with Cheyt Sing. Thefe I (hall ftate, as far 
 as I can collect them from the feveral accounts he 
 has given himfelf, from the knowledge I had 
 through other channels, and from the obfervations 
 made by the Managers during the trial. Mr. Haf- 
 tings's firft object was certainly the procurement of 
 
 money, 
 
102 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 money, without which it was impotfible for thtf 
 wheels of Government to move. 
 
 I cannot avoid remarking in this place, that what- 
 ever errors Mr. Haftings may have committed, he 
 was driven into them by a lblecifm in politics. I fay 
 a folecifm in politics, yet I do not know where to fix 
 the blame.— What I allude to, is the, appointment of 
 a Council to govern a kingdom j to wage war, and 
 perform every other act of fovereignty, without 
 pointing out fome mode of raifmg extraordinary fup- 
 plies for extraordinary occafions. Every body knows,- 
 that in all States, there are times when the product of 
 the year will npt defray the expences of the year. 
 What then is to be done ? The Council have only 
 the choice of illegalities — take what fleps they will, 
 they mull be condemned at all events, of acting il- 
 legally (I mean wich refpect to the laws of Great 
 Britain) if they are tried by Englifhmen j for many 
 people of this country have no idea of any thing being 
 legal and juft, which has not the fanction of Parlia- 
 ment, without ever confidering, that in India there 
 is no Parliament to confult.— Another confideration 
 with Mr. Haftings feems to have been the correction 
 of fome evils in the Nabob's Government, whofe 
 wealth and refources were found to be on the decline, 
 and unable to fupport the army, there being at that 
 time near a third of our military eftablifhment in the 
 Nabob's dominions, and in his pay. Probably he 
 might then have had in contemplation the refumption 
 of fome, or all the Jaghires; for the Nabob had 
 granted away fo many as to diminifh his revenue 
 
 with- 
 
mr. hastings's impeachment. 103 
 
 without diminifhing his expences. He doubtlefs had 
 other views, but thefe were the moft confpicuous. 
 It happened with him, as it does with moft others, 
 that in the profecution of one defign, another defign 
 grows out of it ; that is, unexpected events happen, 
 which generate other events. The rebellion of Cheyt 
 Sing was certainly an incident that deranged Mr. 
 Haftings's plan ■, but it is to that rebellion we mud 
 attribute the conduct of the Begum j for though fhe 
 might have entertained ill will to the Englifh, fhe 
 would have concealed it till a fit opportunity occurred 
 of manifefting it. The infurrection at Benares was 
 like a fhower of rain, which brings forth the weeds j 
 but the feeds were in the earth before. No doubt, 
 when Mr. Haftings was well aflured of the Begum's 
 difaffection to the Englifh Government, and of her 
 having lent aid to Cheyt Sing, he conceived the idea, 
 not of punifhing her, for her fex would not allow of 
 it, but of depriving her of the means of future mif- 
 chief. But as to the Jaghires, he moft likely would 
 have advifed or permitted the refumption of them, 
 let the Begums have acted how they would -, but they 
 would have had a pecuniary equivalent. 
 
 There is one thing which has often occurred to my 
 mind, when reflecting on the cruelty of taking away 
 the Jaghires and treafures, as defcribed by Mr. 
 Sheridan ; but it has not been drawn into argument 
 by either party : it is, that the only people really 
 and bona fids injured by taking away the Jaghires, 
 \vere the tivo Eunuchs, the Begum's Prime Minifters. 
 Theirs was the real power, and they had all the in- 
 fluence, 
 
104 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OP 
 
 fiuence. The Begum could, from her fituation and 
 confinement, do nothing but by the advice of thefe 
 men. A woman fecluded from view in a Zenana, 
 could be but a mere tool or machine in the hands of 
 her minifters. They wrote and dictated all her letters. 
 It is impoflible to have been otherwife. The very 
 idea of fuffering two Eunuchs, under the name of the 
 Begum, to manage a large province, is abfurd in the 
 extreme, and could have been fuffered only by want 
 of confideration, or the means to alter it. You fee 
 then, Mr. Haftings could not have had an idea of 
 executing vindictive juftice towards the Begum, 
 whatever he might have had .towards her Eunuchs. 
 The former was beyond his reach, whatever his in- 
 clinations might have been : the latter were amenable 
 to juftice in their perfons, and certainly ought to an- 
 fwer for their mal-adminiftration, as much as \ 
 minuter in this kingdom would do in like circum- 
 flances : I may fay, a great deal more, for many re- 
 prehenfible meafures in this country, which have 
 been imputed to the Minifter of the day, did not ori- 
 ginate with him. He was confequently blameable 
 for the execution only j but the Begum's Eunuchs 
 Svere the authors and executors of every act, good or 
 bad. So early as the year 1775, Mr. Briftow fpeak- 
 ing of thefe men fays, that they preferved " a total 
 c independence of the Nabob and his Minifters, refufed 
 1 obedience to his perwannahs, and beat the officers of 
 c his government." I would here have it beunderitood 
 in general, that when I fpeak of the difafFection and 
 fediuous difpofition of the Begums, I follow the lan- 
 guage 
 
MR. HASTINGS S IMPEACHMENT. I05 
 
 guage of the accufers and the accufed ; for, in my 
 opinion, the Eunuchs were principally, if not wholly 
 culpable. 
 
 I laid in a former part of this Letter, that after 
 Mr. Haflings received what he thought decifive tes- 
 timony againfl the Begums, he conceived the idea of 
 confifcating the treafure of which I have faid fo much. 
 It is not perfectly afcertained, at leaft I cannot make 
 it out from comparing the evidence, whether it arofe 
 from Hyder Beg, the Nabob's acting Minifler, from 
 Mr. Haflings himfelf, or from Sir Elijah Impey. 
 The latter fpeaks of it as an idea of his own fuggeft- 
 ing ; but the molt probable thing is, and it is flated 
 by Mr. Sheridan in his fpeech, that it was firfl pro- 
 pofed to Mr. Haflings by Hyder Beg, through the 
 means of Ally Ibraheem ■, but, in my opinion, it is 
 very ill worth inquiring into. Certain it is, that Sir 
 Elijah Impey gave his opinion in favour of the lega- 
 lity of it, founded on the fuppofition that the Begums 
 had been guilty of hoflility, either by caufing infur- 
 reclions, or fecretly aiding Cheyt Sing. 
 
 I have already taken notice of Sir Elijah's going 
 to Lucknow, and alfo of the commiffion he was to 
 execute ; but it happened that in a converfation with 
 Mr. Haflings, concerning the revolution which had 
 jufl then taken place in Benares, he exprefled an idea, 
 that as Mr. Haflings had many enemies in England, 
 it might be advifeable for him to collect Affidavits in 
 proof of thofe facts which had led to the revolution 
 abovementioned. Mr. Haflings caught the idea, and 
 
 P approved 
 
106 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 approved of it, in my opinion very injndicioufly. In 
 this opinion I do not expect many fupporters, but 
 my reafons are thefe : ---Affidavits are to remove 
 doubts, but a rebellion cannot be a doubtful thing ; 
 its confequences are felt far and near, and the report 
 of it fpreads, uncontradicted, through whole coun- 
 tries. You often hear various accounts as to the mi- 
 nutiae, but no man doubts of any of the rebellions he 
 reads of in the Englifh Hiftory. Befides, greater revo- 
 lutions have been effected in India, and the Directors 
 relied upon the veracity of their Government for the 
 ftatement of facts. Add to this, the idea of defend- 
 ing before accufation implies guilt. I mult fay, I 
 do much difapprove of Sir Elijah's advice, and blame 
 Mr. Haftings for accepting it. Sir Elijah is efteemed 
 a man of great profeflional abilities, and of a very 
 iuperior understanding ; he may have many objec- 
 tions to what I have dated, but my mind cannot of 
 itfelf flrike out any good reafon for taking thofc 
 affidavits. 
 
 There is one miftake into v/hich the Managers feem 
 to have fallen, for they fpeak of the affidavits as hav- 
 ing been collected to efcablifh the guilt of the 
 Begums, whereas that was not the object of them. 
 The fcheme of confifcating the treafure was adopted 
 previously to the taking of the affidavits. They 
 were intended to juftify what had happened at Be- 
 nares, and all that relates to the Begums came in 
 collaterally ; for the deponents gave in of themfelves 
 all that they knew of the troubles in general. 
 
 Had 
 
MR. HASTINGS S IMPEACHMENT. IO7 
 
 Had thefe affidavits been collected for the purpofe 
 of criminating the Begums, they would have been 
 much more full and explicit, that is to fay, Mr. 
 Middleton would have informed thofe who made the 
 affidavits, that they mult be particular in dating all 
 they knew concerning thefe Ladies and their de- 
 pendents. Mr. Sheridan took great advantage of 
 this want of point, and infers from it, that Mr. Haf- 
 tings could get no better proof to rely upon ; whereas 
 the fact is, Mr. Haftings never tried to collect a body 
 of evidence againft the Begums ■, as it came in colla- 
 terally, and almoft accidentally, he availed himfelf 
 of their contents, when he found himfelf attacked 
 upon this article. This diftinction feems to be un- 
 derftood by very few of thofe with whom I have con- 
 verfed on the fubject. I know three officers now in 
 London, who converfed with fome prifoners taken 
 during the rebellion of Cheyt Sing, at Pateeta or 
 Lutteefpore, who declared they were of that party of 
 Nujeebs who were fent by the Begums from Fyza- 
 bad, and I believe from Colonel Popham to the 
 youngeft officer in his camp, the fact was never 
 doubted nor diiputed. This is a circumftance I 
 fhould not mention now, if the gentlemen to whom I 
 allude had not been fummoned to give evidence in 
 Weftminfter Hall j and I muft fay, that Mr. Sheri- 
 dan never difplayed his abilities to greater advantage, 
 than in the management of his evidence -, I mean by 
 contriving to keep back thofe gentlemen who could 
 have proved more than enough to fpoil his fpeech. 
 
 P 2 No- 
 
108 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 Nothing but the taking of thefe affidavits could 
 have fuggefted to Mr. Pitt the idea of bringing the 
 Begums to trial before the treafures were confifcated. 
 But Mr. Pitt did not confider the impoffibility of 
 doing that: — their fex, the cuftom of the country, 
 and a variety of other obftacles, arofe in the way. 
 Mr. Haflings had no judicial authority over any per- 
 fon in the Nabob's dominions, much lefs over his 
 parents. With refpect to them, he was only gua- 
 rantee, which fecurity they forfeited, and he with- 
 drew it of courfe. Mr. Pitt might fay, the Nabob 
 (hould, in fome way or other, have given them a fair 
 hearing j but fuch an idea could originate only from 
 want of knowing the Conftitution of the Mogul Go- 
 vernment. There is no court of juftice to decide 
 between the fovereign and the fubjecl: ; the former 
 admits of no authority or judgement fuperior to his 
 own. The Monarch does not erect a tribunal, and 
 become plaintiff in his own courts, as the King of 
 Great Britain does. He hears, determines, and pu- 
 nifhes from his own difcretion alone : he makes his 
 own judgement the rule of evidence. It is not fo in 
 the inferior Courts, for there, in cafes between fub- 
 jecl; and fubjecl:, the rules of evidence are clofely ad- 
 hered to j but I never yet heard of a State trial or 
 impeachment in India. 
 
 Sir Elijah, at the time he went to Lucknow to 
 take the affidavits, executed his own commiffion alio 
 with r cfpecl to confifcating the treafures. The Nabob 
 accordingly applied for permiffion, which was granted 
 of courfe. But though, as I obferved before, the 
 
 idea 
 
mr. Hastings's impeachment, 109 
 
 idea of confifcating the treafure originated with his 
 own Minifter, the Nabob now wanted to make the 
 confifcation an alternative for the general refumption 
 of the Jaghires, that is to fay, hewifhed to beexcufed 
 from taking the Jaghires from the Orderlies, but ex- 
 prelfed no reluctance with regard to thofe held by 
 the Begums. There appears to be an inftability in 
 the Nabob's conduct throughout all this bufinefs, not 
 eafily reconcileable, at firft fight, with common fenie. 
 But the caufe of it is accounted for, by recollecting 
 that Mr. Haftings preflfed him very hard to make the 
 refumption general -, and as that meafure would in- 
 volve many of his particular favourites in ruin, the 
 Nabob would rather have foregone the whole plan 
 than injure them. Thefe men, who had fo ftrong an 
 influence over the mind of their mailer, were a fet of 
 Orderlies, who owed their promotion to difgraceful 
 fervices. Though the Nabob left Chunar the latter 
 end of September, intending, as it was believed, to 
 begin the refumption of the Jaghires immediately, 
 nothing was done during the next month, and part of 
 November. 
 
 Mr. Middleton, whofe influence with the Nabob 
 was much relied on by Mr. Haftings, was either very 
 dilatory, or very unfuccefsful. And to haften this 
 gentleman in his endeavours, was another object of 
 Sir Elijah's journey to Lucknow. It were needlefs 
 to enter into a narrative of Mr. Middleton's excufes, 
 which appear rather contradictory, at leaft to my un- 
 derftanding. The alternative of confifcating the trea- 
 fure, inftead of refuming the Jaghires, was not ac- 
 cepted 
 
IIO ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 cepted by Mr. Haftings ; on the contrary, he prefled 
 the Nabob to adopt both meafures, to which he was 
 at times confenting, and at times adverfe : however, 
 the refult was, that both were carried into effect, 
 though not without much difficulty.— The two Eu- 
 nuchs, who were the Begums' Prime Minifters, were 
 confined for fome time, before they could be pre- 
 vailed upon to give up, or difcover the concealed 
 treafure. 
 
 There certainly is one objection which mud natu- 
 rally occur to the mind of every attentive reader, 
 namely, why was not the Nabob fuffered to follow 
 his own inclinations upon thefe two propofitions ? 
 The only anfwer that fuggefts itfelf to my mind is, 
 that the Nabob Afoph ul Dowla, is an extremely 
 weak man, totally unqualified for any public ftation 
 in life j that Hyder Beg Cawn, his acting Minifter, 
 has for many years, in fact, managed all the bufinefs 
 of the Subahdary - 3 that he does fo at this hour, under 
 the aufpices of Lord Cornwallis, for his Lordfhip re- 
 prefents the Nabob's character nearly as I have done ; 
 and though he does not interfere directly with the 
 Nabob's Government, he relies upon the Minifter, 
 and confequently fupports him. Hyder Beg Cawn 
 knows that his office depends upon the countenance 
 and intereft of his Lordfhip, and therefore ftudies his 
 will and pleafure. The Nabob is fenfible of his ina- 
 bility to difplace the Minifter, without breaking with 
 the Englifh Government, and is therefore obliged to 
 follow his advice and opinion. The fame influence 
 prevails in the Nabob's Councils now as it did under 
 
 the 
 
MR. HASTINGS S IMPEACHMENT. Ill 
 
 the former Adminiftration in India, though per- 
 haps more circuitoufly. 
 
 Hyder Beg was ftrenuous both for the refumption. 
 of the Jaghires, and the conflfcation of the treafures : 
 he was not biafled by the fame partialities to unde- 
 ferving objects as the Nabob was. He knew the 
 danger of entrufting the eunuchs with power, and 
 the ill ufe they had made, and might again make, 
 of the treafure in the poffeflion of their miftrefs. He 
 knew alfo the weaknefs of the title under which fhe 
 held it. He, as the acting, and only intelligent mi- 
 nifler, was well acquainted with the difordered Hate 
 of his mailer's finances : the vaft debt, near a mil- 
 lion and a half, which he owed to the India Com- 
 pany ; and the utter impoffibility of paying any part 
 of it, or even preventing the troops from mutinying, 
 without a fpeedy fupply of money — he, I fay, know 
 ing all thefe circumftances, was ftrenuous and ur- 
 gent both for the refumption of the Jaghires, and 
 the conflfcation of the treafures. The Nabob was, 
 like many other weak Princes, compelled in a man- 
 ner by his minifter to confult and act for the good 
 of the ftate. 
 
 I have all along called it a confifcation, in which 
 I have followed authority ; but as many as are of 
 opinion that Mr. Briltow's guarantee was injurioufly 
 forced upon the Nabob, will quarrel with the term, 
 and fay, that it was nothing more than the Nabob's 
 taking his juft, and long-withheld right. But I am 
 fpeaking of facts which will be equally true, though 
 I may err in the choice of terms. 
 
 The 
 
112 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 The fums of money obtained from the Begum, to- 
 gether with the jewels and other valuables, amounted 
 to about fixty lacks of rupees, or 6oo,oool. flerling. 
 The whole was not obtained at once, but received 
 at different times, as the Begum and her miniiters 
 could be prevailed on to part with it. Mr. Sheri- 
 dan, in his fummary of the evidence on this charge, 
 dwelt much on the cruelties practifed on the eu- 
 nuchs ; but I am told, he was not fo very pathetic 
 before the -Lords as he had been before the Com- 
 mons, when he firft opened this charge. 
 
 Here it is neceflary to obferve a little on the dif- 
 ference of cuftoms in England and Indoftan : — In 
 the former, a man glories in being able to pay, 
 and in having paid his debts ; in the latter he boafts 
 among his friends of having evaded them. But in 
 all countries where debtors refufe, or neglect pay- 
 ment, fome fort of perfonal feverity is made ufe of. 
 Without it the recovery of debts would be very pre- 
 carious all over the world. It took up much time 
 during the trial of this article, to inveftigate the 
 mode in which the eunuchs had been treated, and 
 alfo to inquire into the fufferings of the Ladies of the 
 Khord Mahal. Khord Mahal fignifies a little pa- 
 lace, and in this inftance it means a feparate build- 
 ing, where the ladies of the feraglio reiided. I ap- 
 prehend its inhabitants mud have been principally 
 inferior concubines, and natural children of the late 
 Nabob Sujah Dowla. As far as I could collect from 
 the evidence of Major Gilpin and others, the incon- 
 veniencies which thefe ladies buffered a.rofe princi- 
 pally 
 
MRi HASTINGS^ IfaPfeACHMENT* tl3 
 
 pally from failure of returns from certain affignments 
 fettled for their fupport, and would have happened 
 equally, if the Begums had been in pofleflion of 
 their treafures and jaghires. 
 
 Much evidence was brought as to the manner in 
 which the Begums' palace was furrounded by the 
 fepoys, and the inconvenience which they confe* 
 quently fufTered. But I iinderftood this was con- 
 ducted by the Nabob and his minifters, who cer^ 
 tainly beft knew how to compel reftitution of pro- 
 perty, without infringing the laws of decency and 
 punctilio. As they cannot enter the Zenana in the 
 fame manner a fherifF's officer does the houfe of a re- 
 lifting debtor, with a writ of execution, they are ne- 
 ceflarily driven to furround the place, and prevent 
 ingrefs and egrefs. There muft be fome way of en- 
 forcing the law upon women as well as men, let their 
 rank be what it may ; and it feems the mode adopted 
 was the beft, if not the only one. 
 
 I believe alfo, that the fepoys which furrounded 
 the Zenana were the Nabob's ownj or if they were 
 the Company's, the orders for their conduct came 
 from the Nabob originally. I do not fee that this 
 inquiry, let it turn out as it may, can affeeT: Mr. 
 Haftings, for he was not prefent. He can be an- 
 ftrerable for no more than the permitting, encou- 
 raging, and perfuading the Nabob to confifcate the 
 treafures. If that meafure was right, the mode of 
 execution cannot make it wrong. If the Begum 
 was wrong in detaining the treafurc, all the incon- 
 venience (he was put to, was imputable to her own 
 
 Q^ ob- 
 
114 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 obftinacy. The whole merit or dement muft de- 
 pend entirely on the withdrawing of the guarantee, 
 and encouraging, or even infilling on the confifca- 
 tion. 
 
 There is to be fure an immenfe mafs of matter 
 in this article, for it fills up a folio volume, exclu- 
 iive of many very long fpeeches, probably, if printed, 
 enough to fill another volume in folio ; but the prin- 
 cipal points may be brought into a very fmall circle 
 indeed. The pith of what the Managers fay, is as 
 follows ; — Firft, they endeavour to prove that the 
 treafure was the property of the younger Begum, 
 left fc by her hufband, for the fupport of the feveral 
 branches of his family ; but of this I cannot difcover 
 a veflige of evidence, either written or oral. Then 
 they endeavour to fupport her title to the treafure, 
 from the facrednefs of the place where it was depo- 
 fited ; namely, the Zenana ; but I have commented 
 on the Zenana law already. Next they fay, if both 
 thefe titles fail, the Company's guarantee cures all 
 former defects, and that the refumption of the Jag- 
 hires was alfo a violation of the fame guarantee. As 
 Mr. Haitings has already given in his defence to the 
 Houfe of Commons, th"ey are enabled to combat the 
 arguments he is expected to bring in vindication of 
 his conduct; and they confequently maintain that the 
 Begums never affifted Cheyt Sing with men or mo- 
 ney ; that the troops found in Cheyt Sing's army, 
 which were in India, fuppofed to have come from. 
 Fyzabad, the Begum's refidence, actually came 
 from Lucknow, the Nabob's capital. This afler- 
 
 tiort 
 
mr. hastings's impeachment. 115 
 
 tion may be true, but it is at war with common 
 fenfe. It muft have been very difficult, I might fay 
 almoft impofiible, to inlift a body of men to ferve 
 againft the Englifh at Lucknow, where fo many 
 Englifti gentleman refided, without the circumftance 
 coming to their knowledge. Had the Nabob en- 
 couraged fuch a thing, it would have amounted al- 
 moft to a declaration of hoftilities. 
 
 Having endeavoured to fhew that the Begum and 
 her minifters had committed no act of forfeiture, 
 they proceed to fhew, that no ftate neceffity exifted ; 
 that is, that the Englifli government had made 
 a treaty of peace with Sindia, one of the Mah- 
 ratta Chiefs, and had been fuccefsful on the coaft, 
 confequently the Company's affairs was fecure from 
 danger, and the troops in no want of money. In 
 this manner they preclude every kind of defence, 
 by faying — You did not confifcate the treafure for 
 any act of the Begum, or her minuter ; nor were you 
 under the neceffity of railing money out of the ordi- 
 nary way, to carry on the war. 
 
 When a perfon in England, and who never was 
 out of Europe in his life, undertakes to prove^ in 
 defiance of, and in oppofition to the testimony of 
 feveral gentlemen who were on the fpot, that no in- 
 furrection broke out, and that no act of hoftility was 
 committed by the inhabitants of a province in Afia ; 
 I fay, when a perfon undertakes that tafk, every 
 hearer muft. at leaft give him credit for great cou- 
 rage and refolution. But fhould the fame perfon, in 
 contradiction to what pafled under my own eye, in 
 0^2 con- 
 
tl6 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OP 
 
 contradiction to thoufands of documents which prove 
 that the war in India lafled long after the treaty with 
 Sindia and the feizure of the treafures— mould the 
 fame perfon, I fay, rife up againft all thefe contra- 
 dictions ftarjng him in the face, and tell us, that 
 no ftate neceffity exifted in India in the year 1781, 
 what muft my opinion be of the courage and abili* 
 lities of that man ? 
 
 The Managers lay great ftrefs on the active part 
 Mr. Haftings took in urging the Nabob to confifcate 
 the treafure, and to refume the Jaghires of his parents. 
 They aecufe Mr. Haftings alfo of fubordination of 
 letters, a term I do not underftand well enough my-? 
 felf to explain it to others. They fay alfo, that he 
 Carried on with the Refident at the Nabob's court, 
 two kinds of correfpondence, one public and an- 
 other private. They lay heavy ftrefs on his fending 
 or permitting Sir Elijah to collect affidavits, which 
 they confider as done rather to juftify a future act of 
 violence, than to difcover the truth of what had paf- 
 fed. But I ftiewed in a former part of this letter, 
 that the affidavits were taken to convince the Com- 
 pany at home of the caufes of Cheyt Sing's rebellion, 
 and that all that came in concerning the aid lent 
 him by the Begums, was collateral, and merely 
 the overflowing of the minds of thofe who made the 
 affidavits ; that is, being defired to ftate all they 
 knew concerning the troubles in the Upper Provin- 
 ces, they ftated what they knew and heard, refpect- 
 ing the Begum and her minifters. 
 
 The 
 
MR. HASTINGS S IMPEACHMENT. H7 
 
 The Managers fay alfo, that the rebellions which 
 broke out in Oude and its vicinity, during the trou- 
 bles of Benares, were occafioned by the oppreflions 
 of Colonel Hannay, who was at that time a Military 
 Collector in certain diftricts of the Nabob's domi- 
 nions. Thefe are not all the items or allegations ; 
 but they are the moft flriking features in the fecond 
 article of impeachment. The Managers alfo charge 
 Mr. Haftings with receiving a hundred thoufand 
 pounds, as a prefent from the Nabob, at the time 
 the treaty was fettled at Chunar. This fum was car- 
 ried to the Company's credit ; but they impute the 
 aft to fear of detection. I have taken no notice 
 before of this prefent, becaufe there is a particular 
 article of impeachment dedicated principally to the 
 fubjecl: of prefents, and which is now at ifTue. 
 
 I do not know how Mr. Haftings will defend him- 
 felf againft thefe allegations, it being now intruded 
 to council, who, you know, mechanically (if T may 
 ufe fuch a word in this place) deny all that cannot 
 legally be proved againft their client. This, no 
 doubt, is a very proper mode of defence, and fo 
 common among lawyers, that a profeffional man 
 would be condemned by his brethren, if he did not 
 adopt it. But though I am ignorant as to the de- 
 fence which will now be fet up, or offered in a court 
 of juftice, I can ftate the fubftance of what Mr. 
 Haftings has already faid in anfwer to the allegations. 
 He infills that the treafures were the property of the 
 ftate ; that Mr. Briftow acted wrong in making the 
 guarantee, but as he did make it with the appro- 
 bation 
 
1I& ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 bation of the majority of the Supreme Council, the 
 Company was bound by the guarantee, until the 
 mifconduct of the Begums forfeited it ; — that the Be- 
 gum did forfeit her claim to protection, by the aid 
 ifre lent to Cheyt Sing, of which he had proofs fatis- 
 fkctory to his own mind ; that the refuinption of the 
 Jaghires was politically necelfary ; — but that he in- 
 tended her an annuity of equal value, guaranteed in 
 the fame manner as her Jaghires had been ; — that a 
 ftate neceftitydid exift at the time he confented to 
 the Nabob's taking pofTeflion of the'treafures, which 
 his mother with-held from him ; — that in employ- 
 ing Sir Elijah Impey to receive the affidavits, he 
 thought the rank of the Chief Magistrate would give' 
 additional weight to them. It is not meant that ir 
 could verify them, but that it would'prove that the de- 
 ponents really did fwear to their contents/ which 
 might otherwife have been doubted. It is proba- 
 ble Mr. Haftings might be led into taking the affi- 
 davits, by the reflection that he did not enjoy the 
 confidence of the Directors at that period, though 
 he did that of the proprietary. 
 
 Mr.' Haftings denies the infurrections in the Be- 
 gums jaghire lands having been occafioned by the 
 exactions of Colonel Hannay. I did not obferve in 
 reading the evidence through, any probability of 
 Colonel Hannay's having excited or caufed the' 
 diflurbances in the Begum's jaghire lands. I do 
 not fee the poffibility of it, as he had nothing 
 to do with her diftricts. With refpect to the fubor- 
 nation of Letters, I do not know what Mr. Haftings 
 will fay, nor do I well know what the words mean, 
 
 when 
 
mr. Hastings's impeachment. 119 
 
 when applied to letter-writing. If the Managers 
 mean, that Mr. Haftings procured fuch letters to be 
 written by the natives, as would ferve to colour or 
 juftify his own conduct, it can only be faid, that if 
 he did a& in that manner, it muft have been owing 
 to the oppofition he conftantly met with in council ; 
 no man ever does an acl; indirectly, that he can ef- 
 fect by direct means. No man who has not been a 
 witnefs to the pernicious effects of a perpetual fhift- 
 ing balance of power, can form an adequate idea of 
 the difficulties a Governor-General muft be under, 
 when oppofed by the members of his Council. He 
 was by duty bound to propofe plans for various 
 operations, particularly in time of war, and when 
 his plans were approved by the Council, nothing was 
 more common than to have them checked in the 
 middle by fome objection or other. Thefe difficul- 
 ties drove him unavoidably to do things which he 
 would gladly have left undone, if his plans poflibly 
 could have been effected by direct means. It was 
 precifely the cafe of a (hip having a harbour in view, 
 with a foul wind : to make the port fhe muft make 
 many traverfes, and alter her tack very often. 
 
 To an obferver who did not know the pilot's in- 
 tention, thefe frequent changes in the courfe would 
 appear unaccountable and abfurd ; but the failors 
 who knew the object, are not at all furprifed at it. — 
 Aftronomers were long puzzled to account for the 
 apparent irregularities in the planetary movements, 
 but when they erected a fcheme, and placed the eye 
 in the centre of the fun, they obtained an immediate 
 
 2, folution 
 
120 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 folution of appearances, and found the motions of 
 the planets to be regular and uniform. 
 
 There is no way whereby you can account for Mr, 
 Haftings's conduct fatisfactorily, without taking into 
 confideration the difficulties he had to contend with, 
 and the objects he had in view. To preferve the 
 Company's poffeffions in a very dangerous and com- 
 plicated war, was his principal object:, I may fay, as 
 far as I can judge, his only one. But the difficulties 
 which he had to encounter were innumerable : the 
 Court of Directors difapproved of almoft every means 
 he made ufe of to raife money, though they never 
 pointed out to him any mode of fupply. On the 
 contrary, they ftill expected the fame inveftment in 
 time of war as they did in peace. And here, by the 
 bye, I cannot help commenting a little on one 
 finking abfurdity which exifls in the Bengal Govern- 
 ment. The Company require two millions fterling 
 annually to be drawn from Bengal by way of inveft- 
 ment, or to be fent to Madras and Bombay ; yet af- 
 ter all theft exactions, they expect the country to 
 flourifh, and wonder that it does not. Neither the 
 Directors nor the Managers feem to confider the 
 difference that muft unavoidably take place in the 
 ftate of two countries governed upon two diametri- 
 cally oppofite principles. This kingdom is governed 
 with an eye to its own profperity and advantage ; 
 but Bengal is governed with an eye not to its own 
 profperity, but to the profperity and advantage of 
 Great Britain. It is, in my opinion, extremely ab- 
 furd to expect the fame effect from two caufes fb 
 totally different, I can- 
 
MR. hastings's impeachment. 121 
 
 I cannot help comparing this fyftem of govern- 
 ment to the management of a farmer, who, having 
 two efrates, carries all die manure to one eftate only, 
 and thus having robbed one to improve the other, 
 he wonders that both do not bear equally good crops. 
 If any perfon ferioufly confiders the drain of treafure 
 from Bengal in the laft war, and fince the peace, he 
 will be aftoniihed to find the country in fo very flou- 
 rifhing a Itate as it now is. It carries conviction to 
 my mind, that the Britifh government is by far the 
 beft, and the mod lenient that Bengal has expe- 
 rienced, fince the firft invafion of it by the Mahom- 
 medans. 
 
 That a (late of neceflity did exilt, I can fpeak 
 from my own knowledge ; I mean, that the troops 
 mull in a fhort time have mutinied, had not trea- 
 fure been procured by fome means or other. For 
 my own part I know of no other refource at that pe- 
 riod, than that which was adopted ; but it is proba- 
 ble, that if the Begums had not been hoftile to the 
 Englifh interelt, and thereby forfeited all claim to 
 protection, Mr. Haftings would have tried to bor- 
 row the money upon the Company's fecurity. I do 
 not know that this plan was in his mind, but it feems 
 to me to have been fuch as a reafonable man would 
 have thought of. Neither do I think the Begum 
 would have objected to the Company's fecurity. To 
 Mr. Haftings, confidered either in his private or 
 public capacity, it could have made but little dif- 
 ference whether he raifed the money by loan or con- 
 fifcation. The difference would not have been much 
 
 R to 
 
122 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 to the Company's intereft, for the treafure connT- 
 cated was employed in paying the Nabob's debts, 
 who then owed the Company a million and a half 
 nearly. The only difference that I perceive is this, 
 that the Nabob would have owed the Company 60 
 lacks more, and the Company would have owed 
 the Begum the fame fum. This is an idea of my 
 own, having never heard it darted by any one. It 
 arifes in my thoughts, from recollecting that there 
 were at Cawnpore three armies in the greateft dif- 
 trefs for money ; that a mutiny muft have enfued 
 if the troops had not been paid at the time they 
 were, and that as Sindia was fo near with his army, 
 Oude muft have been loft. Neither would it have 
 been extraordinary, if the Mharattas had feized that 
 very treafure which is now the object of this dif- 
 cuffion. In fhort, no human being can form an 
 idea of what the confequences might have beem 
 
 It certainly muft appear ftrange to a reflecting 
 mind, when told that all the Gentlemen in India 
 were deceived into a belief that the Begum and her 
 Minifters were hoftile to the Englifh in 178 1 ; that 
 no Nujeebs were taken prifoners by Colonel Pop- 
 ham, or any of his Officers ; that Captain Williams 
 did not intercept a variety of treafonable Letters 
 from the Begum's Minifters during the infurrec"tion ; 
 that Captain Gordon did not lofe his detachment 
 through the treachery of their Fougedors ; and that 
 the Managers, by reading over certain documents, 
 difcovered the miftake. But how much more 
 ftrange muft it appear to me, when I find that the 
 
 making 
 
MR. HASTINGS^ IMPEACHMENT. 11$ 
 
 making a peace with one Mharatta Chief out of a 
 great many, and a little fuccefs upon the coaft, had 
 done away all the diftreffes of the feveral armies in the 
 field. To me, who have been frequently employed 
 tofoothe and exhort the troops to patience and refig- 
 nation — to me, who felt the diftrefs perfonally, and 
 faw it in others, this difcovery mud appear indefcri- 
 bably ftrange indeed. The proof brought by the 
 Managers in fupport of the non-exiftence of State- 
 Neceflity, was the lameft and weakeft I ever heard or 
 read in any caufe whatever. 1 was in Court when 
 the Manager announced to the Lords, that they 
 were going to prove that no State-Neceffity exifted, 
 and I muft fay, I was never more flruck with the 
 boldnefs of any aflertion in my life. I could not 
 help remarking to a friend who flood near, that if 
 they fucceeded in that attempt, they never need 
 defpair of any thing they undertook. 
 
 In reading over the proceedings, I turned my at- 
 tention to one point, namely, to difcover whether 
 Mr. Haftings might in his conduct to Cheyt Sing 
 and the Begums be juftly fufpe&ed of felfifhnefs — 
 Whether he was actuated by a defire to ferve himfelf 
 or the Company. Had the former been his object, 
 he might have amafTed immenfe wealth ; he might 
 have loft the country, and have fheltered himfelf Co 
 fecurely under general orders, and want of inflruc- 
 tion, that no accufation could have touched him. 
 
 The principal objection made by the Managers, 
 is to the means which he made ufe of to fave his 
 country ; but in my opinion, it is not enough for 
 
 R 2 the 
 
 Li 
 
124 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 the accufers to prove that the means were bad, un- 
 lefs they could fhevv that the accufed had the choice 
 of better. The revenues of Bengal were fufficient 
 for every purpofe of government and trade, in a 
 time of peace, but not for a long and complicated 
 war. Money was borrowed of individuals as long as 
 there was any to lend. Bonds bore fo great a dif- 
 count, that it was- in vain to attempt a loan. The 
 government of India could not draw bills upon the 
 Company without flying in the face of an ac~l of par- 
 liament, beyond a certain amount. To this prohi- 
 bited refource they were at length driven, and the 
 bill-holders were for a long time in a very uncertain 
 ftate, with refpeft to acceptance and payment ; and 
 fome of the holders obliged to wait for their money 
 much longer than they expected or agreed for. 
 Perhaps it might have looked more noble, if the nc- 
 ceffity had been avowed, and the feizure made by 
 our own troops, without the intervention of the Na- 
 bob. It would have deprived Mr. Sheridan of the 
 moft pathetic and affecting part of his Speech, that 
 of making the fon the instrument of punifhing his 
 mother. But there are many reafons why that could 
 not be done. It would have proclaimed our weak- 
 nefs to all India, and would have encouraged our 
 enemies on all fides to attack us. The Nabob had 
 a legal claim, either as Heir or Sovereign, to the 
 treafure, which never could in foro confcientia be 
 abrogated and done away, without his own confent. 
 His agreement to accept a part, when he had not 
 the offer or power of obtaining the whole, might be 
 
 valid 
 
MR. hastincs's impeachment. 124 
 
 valid in a Court of Law, but never could be fo in 
 confcience ; for that would be to fupport and en- 
 courage lawlefs detention of another's property. 
 There was no way of obtaining the treafure but 
 through the Nabob, and that required management 
 and addrefs. The Nabob was at times for, and at 
 times againft the meafure ; but his objection lay not 
 to the want of reditude or to the immorality of it, but 
 knowing that the money, when received, would go 
 to the liquidation of his debt to the Company, in- 
 ftead of coming into his own treafure, he became 
 indifferent, and even reluctant. 
 
 Mr. Haftings, in his defence, fays, that when he 
 had hurt his own reputation, as he conceived would 
 be the cafe, by permitting the Nabob to refume the 
 Jaghires of his mother and grandmother, and to 
 confifcate their treafures, he was determined not to 
 make that facrifice for nothing, and therefore di- 
 rected Mr. Middleton to carry it into execution. 
 He was apprehenfive alio, that the Nabob would 
 intimidate his parents with menaces, and privately 
 obtain fums of money from them, as the purchafe of 
 forbearance. This might have been one of hisrea- 
 fons, but I think not the principal one; he would not 
 have fhewn all that anxiety, that uneafinefs at unne- 
 ceffary delay, if that had been his fole inducement. 
 It was my opinion at the time, as it was of every 
 Gentleman whom I converfed with in India on the 
 fubject, that it was the extremity of diftrefs which 
 urged him on the meafure. It is the only point of 
 view in which Mr. Haftings's conduct appears un- 
 
 objec- 
 
126 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 objectionably reconcileable to reafon and prudence. 
 Suppofing the relief of the then exigencies of State 
 to be his object, every Letter that he wrote, every 
 inftru&ion that he gave ; in fhort, every thing which 
 came out in evidence, all tend to one and the fame 
 point ; all the means feem adapted to the end. 
 
 At the fame time that I do, for my own part, be- 
 lieve thefe to have been very ftrong motives for his 
 conduct., I am under no doubt of his eftablifhing 
 difaffection and diiloyalty againft the Begums, and 
 that their offences were fuch as to deferve the treat- 
 ment they received. It is not clear to me, that he 
 will bring the charges home to either of thefe La~ 
 dies, fo as to convict them of doing any perfonal 
 act againft the Englifh Government, or the Nabob's; 
 but that deficiency is owing to their fex. Thsir 
 Minifters," and Fougedars, and their fubjects, were 
 notoriously hoftile. Principals are always made 
 refponlible for their agents. 
 
 In a former part of this Letter, I faid that the 
 Eunuchs were moftly, if not wholly in fault, and 
 I gave my reafons for thinking fo : 1 ftill confider 
 them as the real offenders, and the only perfons 
 that really fuffered by the lofs of the lands and trea- 
 fures. 
 
 Our late war with the Dutch originated from the 
 fubjects of that State fupplying the Americans with 
 military ftores, &c. All Sovereigns take upon 
 themfelves, if able, to punifh thofe who afTifl their 
 enemies. This, I believe, is allowed by all who 
 have written on the Law of Nations. Upon this 
 
 ground 
 
MR. HASTINGS S IMPEACHMENT. I27 
 
 ground Mr. Haftings in a great meafure refts his 
 Defence againft this Charge, though I dare fay he 
 will acknowledge, that had the neceffity for money 
 been lefs preffing, he might have been lefs urgent, 
 and lefs anxious for the confifcation. 
 
 Every perfon who coolly reflects upon what I 
 have written, may difcover the clue which unravels 
 Mr. Haftings's inmoft thoughts upon the fubjefb. 
 He had failed at Benares of refources : he meant to 
 prefs the Nabob for payment of the debt he owed 
 the Company, but he had not fettled in his mind 
 the means whereby the Nabob was to raife the mo- 
 ney. Whillt his mind remained in this deliberate 
 ftate, the Begums are accufed (and to his mind, 
 fatisfa&orily convicted) of aiding our enemies. Im- 
 mediately, whether from the fuggeftion of the Na- 
 bob's Minifter, of Sir Elijah Impey, or himfelf, 
 he determines the confifcation of that treafure which 
 he always thought unjuftly detained by the mother 
 from the fon. Afterwards, when the Nabob began 
 to trifle with him, Mr. Haftings preft him to the 
 fulfilling of his engagement. If we fuppofe thefeto 
 have been Mr. Haftings's ideas on the fubject, all 
 the apparent inconfiftencies are reconciled ; and 
 he juft did what all Ministers mult do, namely, 
 effect that by addrefs which he could not by a direct 
 command or order. 
 
 Great exception is taken by the Managers to Mr. 
 Haftings's fuppreflion of correfpondence, and keep* 
 ing things a fecret from his colleagues. The word 
 Suppreffton, like that before mentioned of Subornation, 
 
 is 
 
1*8 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJF.CT OF 
 
 is a word that catches the ear, and impofes on the 
 underftanding of thofe who are not well acquainted 
 with the Company's orders to their Presidencies on 
 this fubject.. There is no Act of Parliament, nor 
 (landing order of the Company, that requires or 
 enjoins the Governor General to lay all his Corre- 
 fpondence of every kind before the Board ; nor is 
 there any time limited for laying before them fuch. 
 parts as he is bound to lay before them. There is 
 an order which fays, that the Governor General 
 fhall alone correfpond with the Chiefs and Princes of 
 India, but that he ihall lay before the Board all the 
 letters (or tranflates) which he receives, and aniwer 
 them with the concurrence of the Board. Under 
 this order Mr. Haftings might have correfponded 
 with the Nabob's Minifter, and have derived much 
 ufeful information, without being obliged to make 
 his Correfpondence known to the Board. But when, 
 in confequence of a private confutation between 
 Mr, Haftings and the Nabob's Minifter by letter, 
 any meafure was by them thought expedient, then 
 it was undoubtedly proper that the Official Letter, 
 propofing it as an act of Government, fnould be 
 fubmitted to the Board in the manner pointed out in 
 the order above quoted. This I conceive to be the 
 fpirit of the order; but neither the word nor the 
 fpirit of the order apply to the prefent cafe ; for 
 Mr. Haftings, whilft out of the Company's Pro- 
 vinces, was himfelf the Supreme Council, that is, 
 he had no occafion to confult any of his Colleagues 
 with refpect to the tranfactions in the Nabob's do- 
 i minions : 
 
mr. hastings's impeachment. 129 
 
 minions : neither had the Members at Calcutta any 
 occafion to confult his judgement in regard to the 
 Company's Provinces. It was a divifion of power 
 between the Members of the Supreme Council, 
 whether legal or not I cannot fay, neither (hall I 
 inquire. After all, if there is any thing wrong in 
 the fupprefnon of Letters, as the Managers call it, 
 the heft apology Mr. Haftings can make is, to refer 
 his accufers to the arguments ufed by our Miniflry 
 when they gave Lord Cornwallis abfolute powers as 
 often as he thought neceflary to ufe them. The 
 divifions in our Cabinet Miniftry would often over- 
 throw all public bufinefs, were it not that they are 
 obliged to act in concert or refign ; no fuch obliga- 
 tion exifted in the Supreme Council. But I have 
 {hewn, that all the turnings and windings in Mr. 
 Haftings's conduct, all the apparent contradictions, 
 are owing to the oppofition he fo frequently met 
 with in Council. It is the fame in our Parliament, 
 and ever muft be in all divided power. The inte- 
 refts of men vary, and thence arife difficulties and 
 obstructions to public bufinefs. 
 
 If there were a Monarch in India to new-model 
 the Supreme Council every time the Members car- 
 ried their difputes too far, or fo as to impede public 
 bufinefs or endanger the fafety of the State, there 
 would be no harm in their litigations ; on the con- 
 trary, their difputes would operate like the Oppo- 
 fition in Parliament ; it would prevent abufe of au- 
 thority. But as that is not the cafe, and as the ba- 
 lance of power was in Mr. Haftings's time always 
 
 S fhifting 
 
I^O ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 fhifting from fide to fide, innumerable evils refuked 
 from it. The fault lay in the Conftitution, which is 
 now rectified. But were I to undertake the tafk, I 
 have no doubt of being able to prove, that every 
 evil complained of, that all the mifconduft of the 
 feveral Prefidencies in India, arofe from conftitu- 
 tional defects, and want of wifdom in thofe who 
 planned and erected the fyftem of government ; and 
 yet, when we confider the fudden, rapid, and unex- 
 pected growth of the Engiifh empire in India, we 
 cannot much wonder at obferving fo many defects 
 in the Conftitution. Experience only can difcover 
 the bed mode of government, and we have not yet 
 had India long enough to find out the beft policy. 
 
 One evil muft naturally arife from this Impeach- 
 ment, and the confequences may be feverely felt in 
 another war. No prudent Governor will hereafter 
 truft to the rectitude of his own intentions : he will 
 not go beyond the prefcribed line of his duty ; for 
 to whatever extremities he may be reduced for 
 money in peace or war, he muft content himfelf 
 with the ordinary refources of the year. Should his 
 government be threatened by an invading enemy, 
 or by internal {edition, he muft look into the Book 
 of Orders, and if he cannot find an approved pre- 
 cedent or rule there, which will apply precifely to 
 the cafe before him, he muft wait till the invaders 
 have taken poft in the country, or till unreftrained 
 fedition has diffufed itfelf over every part of it. He 
 would then find that he had nothing left but an ob- 
 (tructed revenue, a weakened credit, and a finking 
 
 reputation. 
 
mr» Hastings's impeachment. 131 
 
 reputation. With thefe he might fave the country 
 committed to his care, if he could. I fee but one 
 way of avoiding fimilar cafes of difficulty, nor am I 
 quite certain whether it would anfwer or not : it is 
 that of permitting the Government of India to draw 
 Bills on the Company in time of war and real 
 diftrefs ; for the payment of which the Biitifh Par- 
 liament (hould become fecurity. I am of opinion no 
 man will ever lend on bond fecurity again in India. 
 The remembrance of the vaft difcount, and the 
 terms of remittance, will deter every prudent man 
 from thinking of it. Bills on England, fecured in 
 the manner I propofe, would get all the ready money 
 from individuals ; but whether enough could be 
 obtained in that manner, I know not. 
 
 I have heard Mr. Burke fpoken of as a very hu- 
 mane man, as one poffefTed of all the virtues that 
 can render a private character dear to fociety. For 
 all thofe qualities I give him entire credit; but when 
 I confider his political principles, 1 cannot help 
 thinking them detrimental to the interests of his 
 country. I do not allude to the prefent cafe, which 
 I confider but as one branch of a great and wide 
 fpreading tree. It were eafy to trace all, or by much 
 the greater part of his political conduct, up to the re- 
 publican principles which he avows. Certain caufes 
 muft produce certain effects; and I do confider it as a 
 very unfortunate circumftance for this kingdom, 
 that a man polfeffed of fuch natural and acquired 
 endowments, (hould entertain the principles he is 
 S 2 known 
 
1^1 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 known to do. He ha? been in the minority much 
 the greater part of his parliamentary life, where he 
 feems to have oppofed upon the true principle of 
 oppofition, namely, that the Minifter mult be always 
 in the wrong. I have heard that he wrote a book, to 
 prove that a bad adminiftration muft and mould be 
 oppofed in every meafure, with a view of overturn- 
 ing it. Suppofing this principle to be juft, who is to 
 decide on the goodnefs orbadnefs of adminiftration, 
 and to determine what adminiftration mould be fup- 
 ported or oppofed ? I never faw, though I have often 
 wifhed to fee this curious performance ; I fpeak from 
 report only. To thefe republican principles I im- 
 pute in a great meafure the lofs of America, and all 
 the changes which have happened of late years in the 
 connection of Ireland and Great Britain. The con- 
 nection is undoubtedly weakened, or at leaft ftands 
 upon a different footing to what it was before the 
 American war. To thefe fame republican principles 
 T impute the prefent impeachment, but at the fame 
 time I do not condemn Mr. Burke, or any other 
 member of oppoiition, for entertaining them; I only 
 lament it. If Mr. Burke is convinced that his prin- 
 ciples are right, he does well in acting under them ; 
 but if he thought with me, that the doctrines which 
 he maintains have already loft us one country, and 
 broke a link in the chain which holds us to another, 
 and that they muft ultimately endanger, if not lofe to 
 us our pofleffions in the Eaft, he would undoubtedly 
 change his conduct. I by no means infmuate that 
 Mr. Burke intentionally would injure his country, 
 
 for 
 
mr. hastings*s impeachment. 133 
 
 for I fee many reafons why he (hould not entertain 
 fuch a wifh, and none why he ihould ; but I think, 
 him miftaken as to the mode of ferving it. 
 
 An attentive reader of what I have written, might 
 afk, How comes it that the Nabob is ib very much 
 under the influence of the Engliih Government ? 
 
 To explain this briefly, you muft know that Afopli 
 ul Dowla is by nature extremely weak, indolent, 
 and inactive. Soon after the death of his father 
 his troops mutinied, and it required the afliftance of 
 an Engliih Brigade to fubdue them. There is no 
 doubt but this mutiny arofe from the Begums detain- 
 ing the treafures left in the Zenana, and which have 
 proved to be the foundation of this impeachment, 
 or at lead of this article. This detention of the 
 treafures compelled the Nabob to accept the hard 
 conditions impofed upon him by the Supreme Coun- 
 cil in 1775, viz. the relinquifhment of Benares and 
 Ghazepore to the Company, and the increafe of the 
 monthly fubiidy for the pay of the troops. 
 
 The next confequence was, that the Nabob ap- 
 plied for EnglifiT officers to command his own troops. 
 They were granted him. In a fhort time thele 
 troops were formed into a temporary brigade, paid 
 by the Nabob ; and foon after, the duty of the tem- 
 porary brigade was done by detachments from the 
 Company's brigades. The name temporary was 
 done away, and with it all their dependance upon the 
 Nabob, their matter. In this gradual way, the Na- 
 bob loft his army. It began in 1776, and was 
 brought into its laft ftage in 1779. It has remained fo 
 
 ever 
 
134 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 ever fince. But this is not the only way in which the 
 Nabob was ftripped of his authority. But to explain 
 the other will be rather difficult, without giving 
 fome previous account of the mode of paying pub- 
 lic debts in India. When a Nabob owes a fum of 
 money, he frequently gives a Tuncaw, or affign- 
 ment of fome part of his revenue for that year, juft 
 as if you mould fuppofe our treafury board to give 
 the King of Pruffia an alignment of the land-tax of 
 Wales to pay afubfidy, or the hire of his troops. 
 
 The collecting of the revenue gives a vaft influence 
 to Tuncaw holder over that country, particularly in 
 India, where collections are ufually made by an armed 
 force, and not in a peaceable manner, and by equi- 
 table affeffment, as is practifed in England. — -To pay 
 the temporary brigade, and another brigade of the 
 Company's Rationed in the Nabob's dominions, to- 
 gether with all the civil eftabliihment at Lucknow, 
 and a fubfidy annually remitted to Calcutta, required 
 near half of the Nabob's revenues. The refident at 
 L-ucknow received the Tuncaws, and the Aumeels, 
 under his inflection, made the collections : the con- 
 fequence of which was, that the reiident's influence 
 was almoft irrefiftible. Being thus deprived of his 
 army, and part of his country, it was not in the Na- 
 bob's power to difpute the pleafure of the Englifh 
 Government. If it be faid, that the Supreme 
 Council did wrong in thus tying up the hands of the 
 Nabob, Mr. Haftings will fay that General Claver- 
 ing, Mr. Monfon, and Mr. Francis, laid the foun- 
 dation, and he built upon it. If the principle of this 
 
 incroach- 
 
MR. HASTINGS S IMPEACHMENT. I35 
 
 incroachment be attacked as immoral and unjuft, 
 the accufation will be againft human nature. There 
 neither is, nor ever was, and probably never will be, 
 that (late which would not take advantage of a weaker 
 one if it could. France, England, and Pruffia have done 
 the fame with Holland, as far as it lay in their pow- 
 er, everlince it was fevered from Spain; and though 
 neither of thefe powers have yet fubjugated that re- 
 public, the forbearance is not owing to clemency, but 
 to the jealous eye of their neighbours, who watchfully 
 endeavour to keep up the balance of power. Poland 
 affords a recent example of the natural propensity 
 Sovereigns in general have to increafe their own ter- 
 ritories, and to diminifh thofe of their neighbours. 
 If the gaining of this afcendancy in the Councils of 
 the Nabob be unjuft and blameable, it may be faid 
 in favour of Mr. Haftings, that he purfued the fteps 
 of his predeceflbrs in India, and the example of all 
 the ftatefmen in the world. 
 
 Except in the prefent inftance, I believe there is 
 not a cafe to be found in the hiftory of the world, 
 where a Governor was brought to trial for confult- 
 ing the intereft of his employers too much, and their 
 allies too little. 
 
 The fault generally imputed to our minifters is, 
 that in their continental negociations, the advanta- 
 ges are againft them; but in the conduct of the 
 Company's fervants, the objection is quite the re- 
 verfe, and that the advantages are too much for them. 
 What (hall we fay then, or where (hall we draw the 
 
 1 line ? 
 
I36 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 line ? Or how fhall we determine upon what is right 
 and wrong in political queftions? One principle we 
 have to go by, which I have never yet heard con- 
 troverted, namely, that yon Ihould love and ferve 
 your country ; but the defect is, that the boundary of 
 this love to our country is not fixed : you may do 
 too much as well as too little. 
 
 Having now given the outlines of this article of 
 impeachment (for I do not pretend to fay that I have 
 entered into every aggravating item and allegation, 
 which would be tedioufly unneceffary) I fhall juft re- 
 capitulate the principal points, upon which the de- 
 cifion will ultimately reft. 
 
 The firft queftion is, Whether the treafure left by 
 Sujah Dowla was the property of the widow or the 
 ion? 
 
 To that I anfwer, that it could not be the widow's 
 —it might be the fon's, as a fucceeding fovereign, or 
 it might be his proportionally, according to the Ma- 
 hommedan law of diftribution. But it is to be ob- 
 ferved, that in the latter cafe, ail the debts of the de- 
 ceafed muft have been paid before any diftribution 
 took place. The arrears of the army, and the debt 
 to the Company, would have fwallowed up a million 
 and a half, which is much more than has yet been 
 recovered from the Begum. 
 
 The fecond queftion is, Whether the Nabob's 
 accepting a part, and giving a releafe for the re- 
 mainder, guaranteed by the Company, can in foro. 
 confcientice confer a right on tl^e mother, which fhe 
 had not before. 
 
 This 
 

 MR. Hastings's impeachment. 137 
 
 This is a matter of confcience, and different men 
 will give different opinions. 
 
 The third queftion is, Whether the information 
 Mr. Haflings received refpe&ing the Begum's afiift- 
 ing Cheyt Sing in his rebellion, is a ground of juftifi- 
 cation for without drawing the guarantee, and urging 
 the Nabob to take away the difputed treafures, and 
 commute the jaghires for an annuity of equal value ? 
 
 The fourth queftion is, Whether a State necefTity 
 did exiftin India at the time, or whether it were ftrong 
 enough to have juftified a violent ufurpation of pri- 
 vate property, even though the Begums had done 
 nothing amifs ? 
 
 Thefe are the principal points upon which this ar- 
 ticle depends. It may be argued and decided upon 
 any of thefe grounds feparately, or upon all collec- 
 tively ; but the Managers have fo loaded the pro- 
 ceedings with extraneous matter, that people who 
 have not all the documents before them, or are unac- 
 cuftomed to laborious inveftigations, are totally led 
 away from the main point, I do not mean, that the 
 Lords are led away, for they are in poiTeffion of all 
 the printed evidence, and I fuppofe the fpeeches 
 alfo, but I mean the audience in the gallery, who 
 hear and attend to thofe parts only which roufe their 
 pafiions. If Mr. Haflings did right in withdrawing 
 the guarantee upon either of the grounds I have ftated, 
 it will be ill worth while to inquire into the means 
 whereby he prevailed on the Nabob to execute, or 
 ;he manner in which the confutation was executed. 
 
 T Mr. 
 
I38 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OP 
 
 Mr. Sheridan is a very judicious advocate for any 
 fide of the queftion he takes up : in his fpeech he 
 touched but flightly on the queftion of right, but 
 feemed to reft his hope of fuccefs on an appeal to the 
 paffions. For this reafon he played the fame game 
 as Mr. Burke did in the opening of the impeach- 
 ment. He contrived to make the Houfe of Com- 
 mons believe, and he endeavoured to make the 
 Lords think the fame, that all the diftreffes which the 
 Ladies of the lefler Palace fuffered, were in confe- 
 quence of feizing the Begum's treafure. But they 
 are circumftances totally unconnected, and perfectly 
 independent of each other. The former did not 
 derive their fupport from the latter, nor was it fit 
 they mould. A wife is a very improper truftee for 
 her hufband's miftrefTes and natural children. The 
 Ladies of the lefler palace derived their maintenance 
 from ajaghire or affignment, through Letafat Ally 
 Cawn, and it was from his deception or failure, that 
 they fuffered inconvenience and diftrefs ; but it can- 
 not be fuppofed that the time in queftion was the 
 only time that he difappointed them. No doubt it 
 happened often, thpugh not known to the English. 
 Neither would the Nabob fufTer any Englifh gentle- 
 men to fay a word about thefe women, for he was 
 highly offended with Major Gilpin for mentioning 
 them in his letter to the refident. And I can fpeak 
 from my own knowledge, that according to the cuf- 
 toms and etiquette of the country, there was great; 
 reafon for offence. Major Gilpin acted as every hu^ 
 mane man would do; but the Nabob did not relifh 
 
 thai 
 
MR. HASTINGS^ IMPEACHMENT. I39 
 
 that fpecies of humanity ; neither would any Mufful- 
 man have liked it better. Mr. Sheridan in like man- 
 ner has expatiated on the fufferings of the Begums. 
 
 But after all, when we bring it down to common 
 life, and compare it with things to which we are all 
 accuftomed, it amounts by comparifon to this only : 
 A Lady of very high rank, next to Royalty, a Duchefs 
 for example, at the death of her hufband gets poflef- 
 lion of all his ready money, bills, bonds, &c. to a 
 very large amount ; fhe refufes to divide with her fon, 
 and keeps it all upon the plea of right, a right founded 
 on pofleflion and nothing elfe. The fon does not 
 choofe to go to extremities with his mother, and bor- 
 rows as much as he can, with a promife, not a defign 
 of repayment. At laft he gives way to over-ruling 
 perfuafion, almoft amounting to compulfion, accepts 
 a farther fum, with a remifiion of what he had already 
 borrowed, and renounces his claim to the remainder. 
 Afterwards, the party that in a manner compelled 
 the compromife, withdraws his influence, and the 
 fon, confidering his claim no longer barred, takes 
 from the mother what he ought to have had years 
 before; Where is the injuftice in this ? Not where 
 the Managers place it. It lies in Mr. Briftow, who 
 made fuch bad terms for the Nabob, and if he did 
 not make better for himfelf, it would reflect on his 
 judgement ; and in the Begum, who would not di- 
 vide her hufband's property with his fon. In thofe 
 two lay injuftice, and in the Nabob lay extreme folly, 
 unlefs he went upon a fuppofition that he could ftill 
 make it his own by loan, or feizure, when he liked. 
 
 T 2 This 
 
I4<* ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT Of 
 
 This is the true ftate of the fact, when ftripped of 
 its colours. But to make it ftrike forcibly on the 
 minds of the people of England, the Begums are called 
 PrinceJfeSy which they really are not. I faid in the 
 beginning of this letter, that Begum fignifies SOueen-, 
 in that I followed the- authority of Meninski ; but I 
 have either heard from the natives of India, or {ten 
 in fome of th&ir Dictionaries, that Begum is the femi- 
 nine of Beg. Beg is a common Mogul title, fynoni- 
 mous to Lord. But be this as it will, there is no- 
 thing royal either in the Nabob or his parents. Cafes 
 full as hard as this happen very often in our Courts 
 at Weftminfter. If my mother detained my property 
 by force, the Judges would decide as between A. and 
 B. j and if I made out my claim to their fatisfadtion, 
 they would fend their officers to break open my mo- 
 ther's locks, and put me in pofTefiion of what fhe 
 might be unjuft enough to withhold : and though I 
 might have given my mother a deed of renunciation 
 for the whole, upon receiving only a part, yet equity 
 would annul that deed, if I could prove that it was 
 obtained from me by any undue influence or impro- 
 per means. It is true, a long examination took 
 place, to fliew the Court that great cruelties were 
 made ufe of in getting porTeflion of the treasure. The 
 Eunuchs were impriibned and put in irons, I grant, but 
 the irons were more afflictive to the mind than to the 
 body ; for in regard to what they really fufFered in 
 their perfbns, there are at this hour many debtors in 
 the King's Bench, and other gaols, who fuffer infi- 
 nitely more than they did, and have much more 
 
 caufe 
 
Mr. hastings's impeachment. i^f 
 
 caufe for complaint. Befides, they might have been 
 releafed at any time, by paying the ftipulated fum. 
 It is well known that it was in their power to have 
 done it at any time ; and there are infinuations in 
 fome of their correfpondence with the Begum, whilft 
 in confinement, that would lead one to think they 
 could have difcovered much more than they did. But 
 I do not fee how Mr. Haftings can be anfwerable for 
 the means made ufe of to recover the money : it was 
 all done by the direction of the Nabob, who knew 
 the proper method much better than any Englifhman 
 could do. 
 
 Mr. Haftings mufl be confidered in the fame light 
 as a Judge is here. The Judge mufl take care that 
 judgement is not illegally granted againft my proper- 
 ty ■, but in the execution of the judgement, the Judge 
 is not concerned, nor will he inquire into it, unlefs 
 I complain by fome kind of fuit againft the Sheriff 
 or his officers. Every thing the Begums or the 
 Eunuchs fuffered, was owing to their refiftance. But 
 it would be the fame in this country ; for if the exe- 
 cution of a judgement be refilled, the Sheriff will af- 
 femble a body of men and wage war with the 
 defendant. Such was the cafe with the Begum, mu- 
 tatis mutandis^ that is, when we make the neceffary 
 allowances for the difference in the laws and cufloms 
 of the two countries, and confider alfo the rank of the 
 parties. The method adopted was the only one. 
 No Judge could decide between the Nabob and his 
 mother j the former was unavoidably, what no man 
 Ihould be, the arbiter of his own caufe; he was the 
 
 execu- 
 
1^2 ELUCIDATION;; OW THE SUBJECT OP 
 
 executing officer of his own fentence. The truth is, 
 he was above the law of the land, but we may ftill 
 examine his conduct by the laws of Indoftan, and the 
 law of reafon. The queflion then is, Did the Nabob 
 do more, or was he advifed to do more than a Cazy, 
 that is, an Indoftan Judge, or an Englifh Judge, 
 would have awarded in a like cafe, between indivi- 
 duals whofe rank had fubjected them to legal deter- 
 mination ? 
 
 This laft queflion can be anfwered by thofe only 
 who have made the Mahommedan law their fludy. 
 But though I have looked into the books upon this 
 head, I have not materials enough to form a decided 
 judgement upon the right, with refpect to Mahom- 
 medan laws and cuftoms, and muft therefore leave it 
 to better-informed men. I mean, I am not certain 
 whether the treafure left by Sujah Dowla was ftate 
 property or private property j but I am certain Mr. 
 Sheridan's Zenana law has no exiftence but in his 
 imagination. My doubts are confined to the two 
 former fuppofitions, whether the lbn ought to inherit 
 the treafures in capacity of Sovereign, or to follow 
 the laws of the Coran, and take the fame fhare as a 
 private individual would have in a fimilar cafe. 
 Were I the advocate of Mr. Haftings, or inclined to 
 throw a ridicule on the doctrine of his accufers, I 
 might fay, that they have erected not only a lingua- 
 factory of characters, but a linguafactory of laws 
 alfo. 
 
 The more I reflect on the nature and incertitude 
 
 of* State criminality (and I have been led to confider 
 
 1 it 
 
MR. HASTINGS S IMPEACHMENT. I43 
 
 it a great deal, during the writing of thefe letters), 
 the more I admire our own Constitution, and con- 
 gratulate our Ministry upon their having the legifla- 
 ture at hand, to confult upon all occafions. If they 
 have no rule or political custom to guide their con- 
 duct, they can call together both Houfes of Parlia- 
 ment, and make a law for the emergency. But in 
 India, the Supreme Council muft act from their own 
 difcretion in all extraordinary cafes, and trust to 
 chance for approbation or condemnation. I fay truft 
 to chance, becaufe, as the understandings, pafilons, 
 and interests of men vary, fo will their decifions upon 
 one and the fame action differ in the like proportion. 
 The only method, in my opinion, whereby we may 
 fafely judge of the conduct of a Minister of State, or 
 Governor of a Province, is that adopted by physi- 
 cians, when they inquire into the practice of each 
 other.— First, What was the difeafe ?* Were there 
 more remedies than one ? Did the practitioner take 
 the fafeit and the belt ? Suppofing there were but 
 one remedy, were there more danger to be appre* 
 hended from the remedy than the difeafe ? 
 
 This rule would bring Mr. Hastings's cafe to a 
 narrow compafs. Did a political difeafe exist ? Had 
 the State Phyfician a choice of remedies ? Did he 
 take the best or only one in his power ? Was the re- 
 medy or difeafe most likely to prove fatal to the con- 
 stitution of the patient ? 
 
 No man can ever form a proper judgement on 
 Mr. Haftings's conduct, who does not first make 
 himfelf master of the fubject, and then afk himfelf 
 
 this 
 
144 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 this queftion — Could I in the fame fituation, all cir- 
 cumstances confidered, have acted better ? After all, 
 if it can be made appear, that his motives were in 
 any degree' felfiih, or originated from any of thofe 
 bafe paflions which difturb and difgrace the human 
 mind, no man would be more ready to condemn him 
 than myfelf, and I believe all mankind will join in, 
 the opinion. 
 
 Since thefe Letters, written originally for the rea- 
 fons formerly ftated to the public, were delivered to 
 the Printer, I have read Mr. Erfkine's fpeech in de- 
 fence of Stockdale. I have heard that it was taken, 
 down very correctly, I mall therefore confider it as 
 genuine. It certainly is replete with found argu- 
 ments, but I am not going to add to the many pa- 
 negyrics already and defervedly paid to that mafter- 
 piece of elocution — that Gentleman's fame, as ain 
 Advocate, requires no trumpet. But what I admire 
 infinitely more dian all he has faid, or poffibly ever 
 will fay as an orator, is the generous part he has 
 taken in the concerns of Mr. Haftings. He is not 
 the advocate of the accufed, but the advocate of the 
 caufe of juftice, that is, what he conceives to be the 
 caufe of juftice. In all other political queftions, he 
 is the decided and zealous partizan of oppofition. 
 He acts in concert with the accufers j yet in regard 
 to the impeachment, he totally departs from them, 
 He avows it publicly and privately. 
 
 I have heard the change of fentiment in Mr. Pitt, 
 upon the queftion of impeachment, offered as a proof 
 of guilt. I have heard it faid, that nothing but con- 
 viction 
 
MR. HASTINGS^ IMPEACHMENT. I45 
 
 viction could have induced the Minifter to take the 
 part he did. God forbid that I fliould impute any 
 other motives to Mr. Pitt than internal conviction j 
 but I certainly could figure to myfelf other motives 
 for Mr. Pitt's conduct ; that is, I think I could point 
 out political reafons, which might h?ve their weight 
 in molt understandings. But with reiprct to Mr. 
 Erfkine, I can fee many political reafons which might 
 induce that Gentleman to act againft Mr. Haftings, 
 but none that could induce him to fpeak in his fa- 
 vour s I mean no political reafons ; and therefore 
 when I hear of Mr. Erfkine's fpeaking on the fub- 
 ject in the manner he did at Weftminfter Hall, I mull: 
 conclude that he was actuated by the nobleft princi- 
 ple of the human mind, namely, the confcioufnefs of 
 what is due to injured innocence. If I am right in 
 my conclufion, his conduct on this occafion does in- 
 finitely more honour to his heart than all his elo- 
 quence, great as it is univerfally allowed to be, can 
 polfibly do to his head. I am totally unknown to 
 Mr. Erfkine, and he is equally unknown to me, ex- 
 cept by his fame and reputation. After having faid 
 thus much in regard to the man, I muit take notice 
 of fome parts of his fpeech, which, however pleafing 
 they may be to Mr. Haftings and his friends, do not 
 meet my ideas at all. The parts I allude to are 
 pages 85, 6, 7. In one part of page 86, Mr. 
 Erfkine fays, " It may and mult be true that Mr. 
 " Haftings has offended againft the rights and pri- 
 « f vileges of Afiatic Government, if he was the faith- 
 " ful Deputy of a Power, which could not main- 
 
 U " tain 
 
146 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 " tain itfelf for an hour without trampling upon 
 " both. He may and muft have offended againft 
 " the laws of God and nature, if he was the faith* 
 " ful Viceroy of an empire, wrefted in blood from 
 te the people to whom God and nature gave it." — I 
 need not quote more, for the whole page, and part 
 of the next go on in the fame (tile. 
 
 Mr. Erfkine would not have faid this, had he 
 read diligently and attentively the hiftories of Indof- 
 tan flnce the firft Mahommedan invafion. The go- 
 vernment of the India Company has been lenient in 
 the extreme, when compared with the beft Mogul 
 Emperor that ever fat on the throne. Nay more, 
 I would undertake to prove, that no one act. of Mr. 
 Haftings's government that I ever yet heard of, 
 was worfe, more tyrannical, or unjuft, than is done 
 by every legislative power (whether in the hands of 
 one man or many) repeatedly, and almoft unob- 
 fervedly. This may be thought a very bold affer- 
 tion, but it is a very true one. The expulfion of 
 Cheyt Sing and the rebellion at Benares arofe from 
 the fame caufe as the American war ; namely, re- 
 filled taxation. The taxing of Cheyt Sing was as 
 politically neceffary as the taxation of America, and 
 in my opinion much more fo. Parliament was an- 
 fwerable onlyibr the principle upon which they taxed 
 America, the rebellion followed in confequence.-— 
 Mr. Haftings is anfwerable for the principle upon 
 which he taxed Cheyt Sing ; the rebellion was, like 
 the other, an unexpected and unforefeen confe- 
 rence. The taking the treafure from the Begum 
 
 muft 
 
mr. hastings's impeachment. 147 
 
 muft be cenfidered by all thofe who think the Nabob 
 was unjuftly kept out of his patrimony, as an execu- 
 tion, like thofe which Mr. Erfkine fues out daily for 
 his clients at Weftminfler. But thofe who think that 
 thefe Ladies ought not to poffefs jaghires, and intruft 
 them to their eunuchs, will think the refumption po- 
 litically neceflary, and fimilar to our government's 
 getting by commutation the fovereignty of the Ifle 
 of Man. Thofe who think with Mr. Haftings, that 
 they aided our enemies, will conclude that the con- 
 fifcation was juft, and grounded on the law of na- 
 tions. 
 
 Whatever is done by a Parliament, we are apt to 
 confider juft and equitable, in general, not always ; 
 but there being no appeal, the fubjects mult ac- 
 quiefce, let them think what they may. But I wifli 
 any man to reflect, and put to himfelf this queftion — 
 If what is done by the Three Eflates were done by 
 the Cabinet, mould I not call it arbitrary and iniqui- 
 tous ? What can be the reafon of this difference ? 
 It confifts in this ; we are in the habit of fubmitting 
 to our divided legiflature, and we think nothing can 
 be right that has not the fanction of King and Par- 
 liament ; but had we been bred up under a legifla- 
 ture lefs extenfive, we fhould have looked for no 
 other fanclion. But there are two ways in which acts 
 of government may be confidered : — Firft, whether 
 they conform to rule and cuftom ; that is, whether the 
 a<fts of government are performed by thofe who have 
 a prefcriptive and conflitutional right to perform 
 them > And fecondly, whether thofe Governors 
 U 2 aftect 
 
148 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 afted difcreetly, and had public good for their mo- 
 tive ? If either of thefe fail, the aft is wrong. In 
 the former cafe, a regular fixed legislature cannot 
 fail, but it may in the latter. With refpeft to the 
 Supreme Council, both may be doubted ; that is, 
 whether they can juftify deviation from rules, or the 
 acting legiflatively or difcretionally, upon the fpur 
 of the occafion, or not. And alfo, whether, fup- 
 pofing them porTeffed of that right, they did aft dif- 
 creetly and ufefully or not ? I fay, that the Supreme 
 Council at Calcutta may be attacked on either of 
 thefe grounds. — You may fay, they had no right to 
 ufe extraordinary means to meet extraordinary occa- 
 sions. You may fay, the means ufed were more op- 
 preflive and unjuft than they need to have been. To 
 apply this reafoning to the prefent cafe, I fay, that 
 if Mr. Haftings had a right, or is juftified in ufing 
 extraordinary means to raife fupplies for the war in 
 India, that the means were intentionally as innocent 
 and good, as any means that are ufed in this coun- 
 try, in the raifing of the annual fupplies in time of 
 war. People, in judging, confider the agent more 
 than the aft. They fay, who is this Mr. Haftings, 
 that taxes Princes, and acts thus from his own dif- 
 cretion ? I mould anfwer, were I prefent at the 
 queftion — He was a Viceroy, ordered to preferve a 
 large country to the empire of Great Britain, whofe 
 conflituents forgot to point out to him fome legal 
 method to raife extraordinary fupplies for extraordi- 
 nary occafions. This Viceroy afted from his own 
 judgement : he took what he thought the beft me- 
 thod, 
 
mr. hastings's impeachment. 149 
 
 thod, but his judges think he was wrong ; but they 
 never have yet told him what he ought to have 
 done. By his judges in this cafe, I mean the 
 Houfe of Commons. It is a queflion I have a thou- 
 fand times afked ; I have put it to Lords, Commons, 
 and private individuals, but I never got an anfwer 
 
 to it yet, that I could underftand Q^ If Mr. 
 
 Haftings acted wrong, what ought he to have 
 done ? 
 
 Mr. Erfkine was certainly wrong in his admiffions, 
 and that I could demonftrate to him, were I in ha- 
 bits of intimacy with him, and were we to difcufs 
 the evidence on the Benares and the Oude charge, 
 coolly and deliberately together. 
 
 I have now done with this charge, and (hall pro- 
 ceed to that of the Prefents. 
 
 L E T- 
 
[*5o ] 
 
 LETTER IV. 
 
 THIRD ARTICLE of the IMPEACHMENT. 
 
 THE 
 
 PRESENTS. 
 
 1 AM now going to treat of the Third Article 
 brought to trial, though it is numbered the Sixth in 
 the catalogue of charges. The fubjecl of this arti- 
 cle is the receipt of prefents, which feem to be di- 
 vided into two heads : the firft is the concealed Pre- 
 fents, as the Managers call them, and of which Mr. 
 Haftings denies the receipt. The fecond is the 
 avowed prefents ; that is, fuch as Mr. Haftings ad- 
 mits having received for the Company's ufe. 
 
 Now you are to know, that an ad was pafTed in 
 the year 1773, and took place in September 1774, 
 which prohibits the reception of Prefents ; that is, 
 it declares that no fervant of the Company fliall re- 
 ceive any donation from a native of India ; and that 
 if any gifts or prefents are received, they (hall be 
 paid to the Company, and confidered as having 
 
 been 
 
ELUCIDATION, &C. ljt 
 
 been received for their ufe. I have not the ad be- 
 fore me, and therefore cannot ftate the words ; but 
 the conftrudion put upon the ad was, that no indi- 
 vidual could receive money by way of gift, for his 
 own ufe, but that he might do fo for the benefit of 
 the Company. There is certainly an obfeurity in the 
 wording of the ad, which is corrected by another 
 panned in 1 784 : I mean, that the obfeure claufes are 
 cleared up ; and it is declared, that no Prefent mall 
 be taken either for the ufe of the individual or the 
 Company. 
 
 By the ad above quoted, that claufe in the pre- 
 ceding ad, which fubjeds the receiver of prefents 
 to certain penalties, is repealed, and cannot operate, 
 unlefs the fuit was adually commenced previous to 
 the id of January 1785. I flate this, becaufe the 
 Managers, by their own conftrudion of the ad of 
 1773, confider Mr. Haftings as criminal, for hav- 
 ing received prefents avowedly for the ufe of the 
 Company. In this cafe it is obfervable, that what 
 Mr. Haftings confidered as meritorious, by his con- 
 ftrudion of the ad, the Managers confider as crimi- 
 nal, by their conftrudion of it; that is, the former 
 thought he might legally accept prefents for the 
 Company's ufe, and the latter think that he could 
 not. This is a very nice and fubtle point of law ; 
 but furely if there be any thing wrong in this, itmuft 
 be imputed to thofe who penned the ad ; for, if it 
 were meant to exclude the Company, they mould 
 have faid neither for the ufe ofhimfelfor of the Company, 
 or they fhould have faid, that neither the Company, 
 1 nor 
 
1$Z ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 nor their fervants, /hall receive prefents from the na- 
 tives. There could then have been no miftake. I 
 fliould think the Managers will not infill on this 
 point ; but if they do, and the Lords agree with 
 them in the conftruction of the aft, Mr. Haftihgs 
 mull be found guilty ; that is, he will be found 
 guilty of being a bad lawyer, but not guilty of 
 having acted intentionally wrong. 
 
 In treating of thefe prefents, I fhall begin with 
 thofe which the Managers call the concealed Pre- 
 fents, and I (hall, as I have done in the former 
 charges, extract the fubflance of the accufation and 
 the defence : you may form fome idea of the com- 
 plexity of this article, when Mr. Burke was engaged 
 three days, and part of the fourth, in opening it in 
 part only. There is one thing in his opening which 
 I cannot pafs over, though it is in fact irrelevant to 
 the charge. It happened, that fome time before 
 the Houfe of Lords proceeded to the trial in April 
 laft, the natives of India fent over a great number 
 of petitions and memorials in favour of Mr. Haf- 
 tings. Mr. Burke got hold of them, and in order to 
 do away their effect., he defires the Lords to confider 
 thofe who Jigned the petitions, as people that are forced 
 to mix their praifes with their groans ; forced to 
 fign with their hands that had been in torture ; while 
 yet warm with the thumb-fcrcws upon them, forced to 
 fign his praifes ; and that will, I hope, give your Lord- 
 Jhips a full and fatisfaclory proof of the miferies of thefe 
 poor people. You have often heard me exprefs my- 
 felf with much indignation againil all orators, from 
 
 De- 
 

 MR. hastings's impeachment. 153 
 
 Demofthenes down to the prefent moment. The 
 more I read, the more I hear of what is called elo- 
 quence and oratory, the more I deteft and defpife 
 it. Could Mr. Burke poflibly believe what he faid, 
 or was it only a figure to divert the ladies ? I dare 
 fay there was not one man who figned the petitions, 
 that ever wore a thumb-lcrew in his life ; but if they 
 had, how could Mr. Hidings in England, or his 
 friends in India (if he has any there) force the inju- 
 red natives to li^n petitions in favour of the ac- 
 cufed, while Lord Cornwallis is Governor General ? 
 Mr. Haftings had no intereft in India among the 
 natives, at the time the petitions were figned. Is 
 not this enough to deftroy the credit of every thing 
 Mr. Burke has faid upon the bufinefs of the im- 
 peachment ? It may be faid, that orators muft be 
 allowed the privilege of amplification ; but how mall 
 the hearer know what deductions he ought to make 
 on the credit fide, unlefs the fpeaker were to furnifh 
 him with a table of ratios and difcounts. You may, 
 perhaps, think this a ludicrous idea, but I am really 
 very ferious. It is very neceffary that every accufer 
 mould be prevented from aggravating, or that he 
 (hould give in his fcale of aggravations, otherwife 
 the criminality of the accufed muft vary according to 
 the different degrees of elocution in the accufers. — 
 To illuftrate this, the fame offence which in the 
 mouth of Mr. Grey would be brown, in the mouth 
 of Mr. Adam would be dark, and in the mouths of 
 Mr. Fox, Mr. Burke, or Mr. Sheridan, would be 
 as black as charcoal. 
 
 X It 
 
154 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 It is neceflary to premife, that when I may have 
 occafion to fpeak of the Nabob, I mean the Nabob 
 of Bengal, named Mobarech ul Dowla, and not the 
 Nabob of Oude, who are as diftind perfons as the 
 Kings of France and Pruffia : and that when I fpeak 
 of the Begum, it is a lady totally diftinft from thofe 
 I fpoke of in my former letters. The fcene hitherto 
 has lain in Oude, and the vicinity of Oude, which 
 are not provinces belonging to the Company, but to 
 Afoph ul Dowla, Subahdar of Oude, though the 
 influence of the Company was and is very great 
 throughout his dominions. But the fcene now lies 
 in the Company's provinces, viz. Bengal, Behar, 
 and Orifla. 
 
 I formerly explained the meaning of Dewan and 
 of Dewanny. The former is the Collector, the lat- 
 ter the collection of the Revenues. I (hall not give 
 a detail of the means whereby the Company fixed 
 their authority in Bengal, nor carry my inquiries far- 
 ther back than to the year 1757, when Lord Clive 
 obtained from the Emperor the Dewanny of the 
 three provinces for the Company. It was then fet- 
 tled, that the Emperor mould have a tribute of 26 
 lacks, and the Nabob of Bengal 50 lacks of rupees 
 annually. Though Lord Clive had thus obtained 
 the Dewanny, the collections were made, not in the 
 name of the Company, but in that of the Nabob, 
 whofe Deputy or Prime Minifler was Mahomed 
 Reza Cawn, 
 
 About the year 1770 or 1771, one of the Direc- 
 tors received information of fome mifconducl: in 
 
 Ma* 
 
MR. HASTINGS S IMPEACHMENT. I55 
 
 Mahomed Rcza Cawn, and a refolution was formed 
 to remove him from his office, and to make a ftrict 
 inquiry into his behaviour. — For this purpofe, 
 amongft others, they removed Mr. Haflings from 
 his feat in the Council of Madras, and appointed 
 him Prefident of the Council of Bengal. — I have in 
 the former charges fpoken of Mr. Haftings by the 
 title of Governor General, but his rank was that of 
 Prefident only, until the year 1 774. — The diftinction 
 is more nominal than effential, but I mention it to 
 avoid confufion. 
 
 In the year 1772, Mr. Haftings fucceeded Mr, 
 Cartier ; and foon after he had taken pofleffion of 
 his office, he deprived Mahomed Reza Cawn of the 
 Regency, in confequence of the exprefs orders he 
 had received from the Court of Directors. But as 
 by that deprivation, the young Nabob, then a mi- 
 nor, was left without a guardian, it became necef- 
 fary to fill up that office. But the queftion was, 
 who was the mod eligible : the choice fell upon 
 Munny Begum. — This lady, whatever fhe might 
 have been by birth and parentage, was of great 
 importance in the country, long before the Englifli 
 had eftablifhed their authority in India. — She was 
 the favourite wife of the Nabob Jaffier, who ap- 
 pointed her fon to be his fucceffor in the Subah- 
 dary. It is in India as it is in England, a man may 
 raife a woman up to his own rank, though a woman 
 cannot elevate a man. Mr. Burke was very violent 
 againlt this appointment ; but the very reafons 
 which he affigned for her ineligibility, were the very 
 X 2 rea- 
 
I56 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 fons which induced the Prefident and Council to 
 elect her, and the Court of Directors to approve 
 their choice. 
 
 Mr. Burke contends, that as (he was a woman 
 (hut up in a Seraglio, or Zenana, me was incapable 
 of tranfacting public bufinefs. So (lie was : but it 
 was intended that her Servants or Minifters ihould 
 be under the influence and controul of the Prefi- 
 dency at Calcutta. To have appointed the young 
 Nabob's uncle to the office of Guardian, would 
 have expofed the perfon of the minor to great dan- 
 ger, and the ftate to many inconveniencies. Mr. 
 Haftings, in a Letter to the Directors, gave fo 
 many and fo very ftrong reafons for the choice he 
 had made, that they expreffed their fatisfaction in 
 the mod decided manner. 
 
 By making it appear that this woman was wholly 
 unqualified for the trufl, Mr. Burke endeavours at 
 making the Lords believe that her appointment was 
 purchafed from Mr. Haftings. — Whereas the true 
 flate of the cafe is, that it was the wifli of the Di- 
 rectors, and the object of Mr. Haftings, to eftablifh 
 the doctrine of paffive obedience and non-refiftance 
 in the Nabob's Court, and not to introduce a per- 
 fon into authority, who might feek occalion to turn 
 it againft themfelves. 
 
 Mahomed Reza Cawn, who, as I mentioned 
 before, was Deputy Subahdar from 1765 to 1772, 
 was now deprived of his office, and taken from 
 Morfhedabad, the feat of the Nabob's Government, 
 to Calcutta, where he was kept for fome time. In 
 
 the 
 
mr. hastings's impeachment . 157 
 
 the interim, Rajah Gourdafs, the fon of Nund- 
 comar, was appointed Deputy Dewan, whilft Mun- 
 ny Begum had the care of the Nabob's perfon and 
 houfehold. — In the appointment of Rajah Gourdafs, 
 Mr. Haftings feems to have relied much on the 
 abilities of his father, Nundcomar, whom he en- 
 deavoured, though with very little fuccefs, to make 
 instrumental in the difcovery of the mifconduct of 
 Mahomed Reza Cawn. This degraded Minifter 
 flood accufed of caufing, or increafing a famine, by 
 the monopoly of rice, and alfo of various other mif- 
 demeanours. A reduction was at that time made 
 by order of the Directors, of the annual expences 
 of the Nabob's houfehold, down to 1 6 lacks of ru- 
 pees. The difburfement of this fum was under the 
 infpection of Munny Begum, in confequence of her 
 becoming guardian to the young Nabob's perfon. 
 The alteration took place in the year 1772, at no 
 great diftance of time after Mr. Haftings fucceeded 
 to the Prelidency of Bengal. But two years after- 
 wards, a very great change was made in the Go- 
 vernment of India. 
 
 By Act of Parliament, pafled in 1 773, and which 
 took effect in 1774, the Prefident and Council were 
 done away, and a. new Adminiflration was formed, 
 confiding of a Governor- General and four Counfel- 
 lors. It took the name of the Supreme Council, 
 and was entrufted with much greater powers than the 
 preceding Government had been. Mr. Haftings 
 and Mr. Barwell were the only two in the Supreme 
 Council who had made part of the laft Adminiftra- 
 
 tion : 
 
158 ELUCIDATION OP THE SUBJECT OP 
 
 tion : — three Members came from England, viz. 
 Sir John Clavering, Mr. Monfon, and Mr. Francis. 
 They arrived in October 1774, and immediately 
 difcovered a difpofition very inimical to Mr. Haf- 
 tings. The Court of Directors had given orders to 
 the Supreme Council to inquire diligently into the 
 mal -practices of their Servants in India, and this 
 tafk the new Members zealoufly engaged in. — Ac- 
 cordingly, in March 1775, about five or fix months 
 after their arrival in India, Mr. Francis introduced 
 to the notice of the Board a long paper from Nund- 
 comar, dating, among a variety of other matter, that 
 Mr. Haftings had received from himfelf (Nundco- 
 mar) a lack of rupees, for appointing his fon, Ra- 
 jah Qourdafs, to the oiHce of Deputy Devvan, and 
 another lack from Munny Begum, for appointing 
 her guardian to the minor; and alfo a lack and a 
 hajf more from the fame Lady, by way of entertain- 
 ment, for the fame reafon. Two days after the 
 delivery of the above-mentioned paper, Mr. Mon- 
 fon moved that Nundcomar mould be called before 
 the Board, and examined upon the contents of the 
 Letter he had written. Mr. Haftings faw through 
 their intention, and refolved not to fubject himfelf 
 to a perfonal infjlt. H[e propo.fed to his colleagues 
 to form themfelves into a Committee, and to exa- 
 mine his accufer as much as they chofe ; declaring 
 at the fame time, that he would not degrade him- 
 felf by appearing as a criminal, where it was his 
 right to prefide. Though this would have anfwered 
 every purpofe of investigation, had that been thei,f 
 
 only 
 
mr. Hastings's impeachment. 159 
 
 only object, yet the majority reje&ed the propofition. 
 By the majority I mean Sir John Clavering, Mr. 
 Monfon, and Mr. Francis, who upon mod quef- 
 tions divided againft Mr. Haftings and Mr. Barwell. 
 I never yet heard any fatisfaftory reafon affigned for 
 not examining Nundcomar in a Committee. It is 
 probable they may have had many reafons, but the 
 only two that fuggeft themfelves to my mind, are 
 thefe : Firft, it is likely they wifhed to mortify the 
 Governor General, and to convince all Indoftan of 
 their own fuperiority. And fecondly, to ftrengthen 
 Nundcomar's evidence, by their obfervations upon 
 Mr. Haftings's condud during the examination. 
 Thefe are reafons of my own fuggeftion, I by no 
 means vouch for the truth of them. They could 
 hardly expect that Mr. Haftings would flibmit to be 
 infulted by Nundcomar; and I believe there is no man 
 of common fpirit but will approve of Mr. Haftings's 
 conduct in this refufal. As the majority perfifted in 
 calling in the accufer, the Governor General diflblved 
 the Council, but they voted the diflblution illegal, 
 and continued to fit. They called Nundcomar, 
 and examined him, fo that they obtained all the in- 
 formation they could have had, had Mr. Haftings 
 fat by all the time of the examination. 
 
 About this time difputes ran very high among the 
 Gentlemen of the Supreme Council, and one Mem- 
 ber carried it to a great length indeed. The Board, 
 that is, the majority, ordered a confidential fervant 
 of Mr. Haftings, named Cantoo Baboo, to attend 
 them. He confuhed his mafter, who bade him not 
 
 1 go; 
 
l6o ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 go : he was fummoned again, and went. General 
 Clavering finding that his difobedience was in con- 
 fequence of the prohibition of the Governor General, 
 moved to have him put in the flocks. Cantoo Ba- 
 boo was, by his office, the firft native in Calcutta, 
 and of fo high a caft as would have rendered the pu- 
 nifhment worfe than death. — The General defended 
 the propriety of the punifhment, by faying that Mr. 
 Haftings had ordered fome of the loweft wretches 
 in the country to be put in the flocks for acts of un- 
 cleanlinefs and of public nuifance. The General 
 mufl have known, that the blame was due to the 
 mafler, and not to the fervant ; and that fuch a pu- 
 nifhment to fuch a man, was equally as bad as it 
 would have been to have taken an Officer, and 
 flogged him in the front of his regiment. I men- 
 tion this, not as pertinent to this charge, but merely 
 to fhow the acrimony of party at that time, and as a 
 ftrong proof, that their principal object was to hum- 
 ble and mortify Mr. Haflings. Nothing but that 
 determination could have urged General Clavering 
 to think of fo fevere a punifhment for fa trifling an 
 offence. Mr. Haftings acted in this cafe as he did 
 in the former ; for he declared his refolution to pro- 
 tect his fervant at the hazard of his life. One of the 
 Members, apprehenfive of the confequences, moved 
 to adjourn, and 1 believe there it ended. 
 
 To return to the Narrative. — In the May follow- 
 ing (1775), the Board deputed Mr. Goring to ex- 
 amine the difburfements of various, fums in feveral 
 departments at Morihedabad, and to deprive Mun- 
 
 ny 
 
MR. hastings's impeachment. 161 
 
 ny Begum of her office and authority : I mean that 
 which had been conferred on her in the year 1772, 
 by the former Adminiftration. Among other powers 
 granted to Mr. Goring by the majority, was that of 
 removing the Begum from her Zenana, and placing 
 her in fome other houfe in the neighbourhood. 
 re is an expreflion in one of that Gentleman's 
 Letters, which is of fo curious a nature, that though 
 it is foreign to my Narrative, I cannot pafs it over. 
 It feems that the Begum hinted to him, that there 
 were Courts of Juftice at Calcutta to redrefs the in- 
 jured ; upon which he propofes to the Board, that 
 the confinement of the Begum's fervants mould be 
 done in the name of the Nabob; the intention of 
 which was to avoid the danger of being made per- 
 fonally anfwerable for the oppreffions he was about 
 to commit. 
 
 I mud here recall to your mind the Zenana doc- 
 trine preached up by Mr. Sheridan, in the former 
 article. It was then facrilege to touch, nay to look 
 into the Zenana of a woman of rank. That may be 
 the opinion of Mr. Sheridan now, and alfo of Mr. 
 Francis, but it could not have been the opinion of 
 the latter, when he entrufted a young man with an 
 abfolute power over the perfon of a Lady of the 
 firft rank in Bengal. With this power in his hands, 
 and by threatening the Begum to make ufe of it, he 
 had the mind of the Begum perfectly under con- 
 trol:! ; it was not putting her perfon on the wheel, 
 but it was putting her mind on the rack. By thefe 
 and fuch like means, Mr. Goring prevailed on the 
 
 Y Begum, 
 
l62 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 Begum to declare that fhe had expended a lack and 
 a half of rupees on Mr. Haftings's entertainment, 
 while he was at Morfhedabad. Whether Mr. Haf-^ 
 tings acknowldges the whole, or any part of this 
 fum, I know not ; for that we mud wait till we 
 hear his defence. It is, however, the cuftom of the 
 country, when one Potentate vifits another, to de- 
 fray the expence of his vifit ; and had the Nabob 
 vifited Mr. Haftings at Calcutta, an expence would 
 have fallen on the Company. It is a long eftablifhed. 
 cuftom ; and this tranfaclion was prior to the Aft of 
 1773, which prohibits the receipt of prefents. 
 
 I think I have now dated all that is neceffary to 
 be known by thofe who are not ultimately to decide 
 upon this queftion. The charge is, that Mr. Haf- 
 tings received three lacks and a half of rupees, for 
 the appointment of Munny Begum and Rajah Gour- 
 dafs to their feveral offices. The allegations are 
 fupported by the extorted layings of Rajah Gour- 
 dafs, the voluntary accufation of Nundcomar, and 
 as far as one lack and a half, by the extorted word 
 of Munny Begum, who fays, that while Mr. Haf- 
 tings was at Morfhedabad, he received two thou- 
 fand rupees a day, according to the eliablifned cuf- 
 tom, in lieu of provifions ; but beyond that (lie had 
 not given a lingle cowry. 
 
 But the greater part of this evidence, loofe and 
 vague as it is, was held by the Judges of fo inad- 
 miflible a nature, that the Managers could not pre- 
 vail on the Court to let them read it. Mr. Haf- 
 tings's defence is not yet given in, fo I cannot take 
 
 1 upon 
 
MR. HASTING^ IMPEACHMENT. I 63 
 
 upon me to fay what is proved and what is not. 
 What I have already dated, is the fubftance of all 
 that could be offered in evidence, even if the Pro- 
 fecutors were allowed to read every thing. 
 
 Mr. Burke, in the courfe of bringing forward this 
 Article, laid great ftrefs upon the declaration of 
 Nundcomar, and laboured hard to infer guilt from 
 Mr. Haftings's refufal to confront his accufer. He 
 imputes that conduct to fear, and confeioufnefs of 
 guilt, which other people impute to a manly fpirit 
 and juft lenfe of his own dignity. 
 
 However, as the execution of this man formerly 
 made a great noife in England, and as it furnifhed 
 matter for an intended Impeachment of the Chief 
 Juftice who tried him, I will give a brief account of 
 this extraordinary character — In the time of Meer 
 Jaffier, he was Deputy Subahdar, or Prime Mi- 
 nifter : after the death of the former, Mahomed 
 Reza Cawn fucceeded to that appointment. It is 
 very natural to fuppofe, that Nundcomar muft and 
 would refent his degradation. When he heard that 
 Mr. Haftings was about to fucceed to the Chair 
 of Bengal in 1771, or in the beginning of 1772, 
 he fent Letters to him at Madras, in the names 
 of Ytram ul Dowla, the Nabob's uncle, and 
 the Munny Begum. The Letters were filled with 
 invectives againft Mahomed Reza Cawn, and re- 
 commendation of himfelf. Mr. Haftings afterwards 
 found that Munny Begum had no knowledge of 
 thefe Letters, and that they were a forgery of Nund- 
 comar's. He had been convicted alfo of making 
 
 Y 2 falie 
 
164 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 falfe accufations concerning the receipt of prefents 
 in the time of Lord Clive's government. It may 
 be afked, why did Mr. Haftings employ a man of 
 fo infamous a character ? The anfwer is, that he 
 gave up his own will to the commands of the Court 
 of Directors, who thought that Nundcomar's having 
 filled the office himfelf in the time of Meer JafEer, 
 would qualify him for the difcovery of the mal-prac- 
 tices of his fuccefTor. Their hopes lay in the active 
 malignity, as they exprefs it, of this man. They ex- 
 pected he would bring to light the embezzlement of 
 very large fums, and therefore enjoined Mr. Haf- 
 tings to make ufe of him in that way. The Court 
 of Directors were difappointed, for after a full inves- 
 tigation, Mahomed Reza Cawn was acquitted, and 
 Nundcomar imputed his failure to Mr. Haftings's 
 not fupporting him, as he wifhed. But the powers 
 which he wanted, were fuch as could not be granted 
 in any State. His hopes of fucceeding to wealth 
 and honour being thus blafted, Nundcomar turned 
 his thoughts to revenge, and the difpofition of the 
 majority towards Mr. Haftings afforded him an early 
 opportunity. Here you perceive the origin of this 
 accufation againft Mr. Haftings for bribery. 
 
 In the courfe of the trial, Mr. Burke declared, 
 that if Mr. Haftings attempted to invalidate the tef- 
 timony of Nundcomar, by faying that he was of in- 
 famous character and hanged for forgery, he would 
 prove that he was hanged by the Chief Juftice, to 
 (creen Mr. Haftings from the accufations brought 
 againft him for bribery. Thefe are not the precife 
 
 words. 
 
MR. Hastings's impeachment. 16^ 
 
 words of Mr. Burke, but they are the purport of 
 what he faid. A charge of this kind had been 
 brought againft the Chief Juftice of Bengal in the 
 preceding Seflion of Parliament, and rejected. It is 
 true, the majority for rejecting the charge was not 
 great. 
 
 Mr. Haftings, feeling himfelf much injured by 
 Mr. Burke's faying at the bar of the Lords, in his 
 delegated character of firft Manager for the Houfe 
 of Commons, that he had murdered Nuncomar 
 through the medium of the Chief Juftice, petitioned 
 the Houfe of Commons to make it an article of 
 charge againft him, in order that he might have an 
 opportunity of publicly refuting what he thought 
 the grofieft of calumnies. This petition reduced 
 the Houfe to a very awkward fituation. It was im- 
 pofTible to grant the prayer of the petition without 
 falling into the greateft contradictions. How could 
 they fay in an additional article, that Mr. Haftings 
 had fuborned the Chief Juftice, when they had 
 previoufly faid that the Chief Juftice was not 
 fuborned by Mr. Haftings. The confequence was, 
 that the Commons were under the neceflity of dif- 
 avowing their firft Manager. But as Mr. Burke and 
 others of his party (till pcrfift in faying, that though 
 the Commons have decided otherwife, they (hall 
 always maintain their former opinions, I fhall digrefs 
 a little farther, and ftate in as few words as pouible 
 what I take to be the real fact. In doing this, I (hall 
 follow principally the evidence of Mr. Farrer, who 
 wasNundcomar's advocate during his trial. 
 
 The 
 
l66 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 The enemies of Mr. Haftings and Sir Elijah 
 Impey, wifhing to have it thought that the accufa- 
 tion for Forgery fprung up againft Nundcomar from 
 the accufation he had made againft Mr. Haftings 
 for receiving prefents, carefully fupprefs one very 
 material circurnftance. Mr. Farrer arrived in Cal- 
 cutta at or before the formation of the Supreme 
 Court of Judicature, and in about a month after 
 his arrival, Mr. Driver, an attorney, informed him 
 that a fuit had been inftituted againft Nundcomar in 
 the Mayor's Court ; but as there was a Forgery in 
 the cafe, he, Mr. Driver, had advifed his client to 
 iriftitute a criminal profecution againft Nundcomar, 
 and that his client had agreed to the advice. There 
 was, however, an obftacle in their way : the ori- 
 ginal papers, without which the Forgery could not 
 be eftablifhed, were lodged in the Mayor's Court, 
 and though the Court were willing to grant copies, 
 the originals could not be obtained. 
 
 Mr. Driver added, that the Mayor's Court was not 
 fo free from influence as could be wifhed, when pro- 
 ceeding againft fuch a man as Nundcomar; but now, 
 as a more independent court was eftablifhed, he 
 fhould advife his client to apply again for the original 
 papers. Mr. Farrer, who was then on the profecu- 
 tion fide, moved the court for the papers, fix weeks 
 before Nundcomar's accufation was produced at the 
 board by Mr. Francis. It appears not to have been 
 an eafy matter to get pofleftion of the original pa- 
 pers : for I obferve Mr. Farrer was obliged to repeat 
 his application twice, before lie obtained them. 
 
 Soon 
 
mr. hastings's impeachment. 167 
 
 Soon after this, Nundcomar was committed toprifon, 
 and the profecution began. 
 
 I have been more particular in [eating this cir- 
 cumftance, becaufe it proves beyond the poffibility 
 of contradiction, that the idea of trying him for for- 
 gery originated with Mr. Driver fome time before 
 Sir Elijah Impey arrived in Bengal. The trial went 
 on in the regular way, and Nundcomar was con* 
 v idled, to the fatisfaction of every body. Mr. Far- 
 rer, in his evidence given before the Houfe of Com- 
 mons, does not feem to exprefs a doubt of his guilt. 
 On the contrary, it is evident that Nundcomar en- 
 deavoured to prove his innocence by the moft gla- 
 ring perjuries, and his witnefies were profecuted by 
 order of the Court. It is true the forgery had been 
 committed fix years or more before the profecution 
 was undertaken, but there are many good reafons 
 for its not being done fooner. It was a cafe between 
 an executor and a debtor, in which the latter fet up 
 a forged Bond or Note againft the claim of the 
 former. The difpute was referred to a Native Court 
 of Juftice, and thence to arbitration, about five 
 months before the eflablifhment of the Supreme 
 Court of Judicature at Bengal. 
 
 During the proceedings in the Native Court, 
 Nundcomar' was offered this alternative, either to 
 refer the difpute to arbitration, or to fwear to the 
 truth of his fet- off. He declined both, but at length 
 accepted the former.— There is nothing in the whole 
 proceeding which appears to me object ion able, ex- 
 cept the not refpiting the convict till his Majefty's 
 
 pleafure 
 
l68 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 pleafure were known. Sir Elijah Impey in his de- 
 fence has demonftrated the legality of all he did 5 he 
 has alio fully ihewn, that none of thofe reafons, which 
 ufually induce Judges to recommend a convict to 
 mercy, had any exifcence in the cafe of Nundcomar j 
 but there is one circumftance which has efcaped the 
 Chief Juftice, and which is applicable only to a con- 
 vict in that country-— Forgery is not a capital offence 
 by the laws of Indoftan, and it was made capital in 
 England to anfwer commercial purpofes only.— - 
 There is nothing but rigid neceflity that canjuftify 
 mankind in depriving their fellow -creatures of life. 
 It is facrificing a few for the good of a great many. 
 In England it might be wrong to pardon forgeries, 
 became it might encourage offences of that nature ; 
 but the reafons which demand the execution of a 
 penal ftatutc in this country, do not demand it in 
 that. Evety Judge muft feel, when he enforces a 
 penalty or fentence beyond what the nature of the 
 offence feems to require. Forgery is certainly in its 
 own nature a very heinous offence, but not more fo 
 than any other fraud or deception which deprives a 
 man of his juft property ; and yet one man may cheat 
 me of my fortune, and no law will punifh him for it, 
 whilfT another, who by forging deprives me of a few 
 pounds, forfeits his life for it. 
 
 It is nothing but the neceffity of fupporting com- 
 merce, that could have induced our Legiflature to 
 make one fpecies of fraud fo much more pofitively 
 criminal than another. 1 think Sir Elijah Impey 
 'd have refpited Nundcomar upon this ground; 
 
 but 
 
MR. HASTINGS^ IMPEACHMENT. 169 
 
 but there are other reafons why he might have refpited 
 execution. But in what I have faid, I give my own 
 opinion only ; I may be lingular, and therefore do 
 not wilh any perfon to adopt it. 
 The Attorney-General, the prefent Lord Chancel- 
 lor, in 1776, gave an opinion to the Eaft India Com- 
 pany, on the fubject of commencing a profecution 
 againft Mr. Haftings for the lack and a half of rupees, 
 fuppofed to be received from Munny Begum — He 
 fays, " Nundcomar's evidence goes for nothing j" 
 and why, becaufe after conviction, his oath cannot 
 be taken. To Mr. Haftings it could be of no con* 
 fequence whether the man was hanged or not. I 
 never have been able to account for the defertion of 
 Nundcomar by Sir John Clavering, Mr. Monfon, 
 and Mr. Francis. Had they applied to Sir Elijah 
 Impey, I believe he would have refpited him i but 
 General Clavering, who received a Letter from 
 Nundcomar before his execution, would not even 
 open it till after he was hanged. 
 
 I have now gone through what Mr. Burke calls 
 the concealed Prefents. There were two other allega- 
 tions of the fame nature, which I underftand are 
 abandoned, but why, I do not know j perhaps they 
 are thought untenable. 
 
 It was my intention to have treated of the avowed 
 Prefents in the fame manner I have done with refpect 
 to the former. But upon looking over the Charges, 
 I find a want of documents. As far as I have gone, 
 I have, drawn by much the greater part of my infor- 
 
 Z mation 
 
1 *JO ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 mation from the evidence, written and oral, adduced 
 by the Managers in fupport of the profecution. 
 
 This part, which concerns the avozved Prefents, is 
 expected to come on at the Meeting of Parliament, 
 and has not yet been much entered into, fo that I find 
 it impoftible to particularize, without the danger of 
 mif-ftating fome part or other, a thing I moft care- 
 fully wifh to avoid. I therefore muft content myfelf 
 with faying, that it appears by the Charges, that Mr. 
 Haftings received, for the ufe of the Company, above 
 aoo,oool. at different times, from the natives of 
 India. I alfo understand from other channels of in- 
 formation, that above 40,0001. of the above fum was 
 received, entered, and expended in fuch a way, as to 
 excite fufpicion of Mr. Haftings having had an inten- 
 tion of keeping the money for his own uie. I cannot 
 judge by what means the fufpicion will be maintained 
 or fupported, if what I hear be true, that the Mana- 
 gers have no evidence except what they draw from 
 Mr. Haftings's own ftatement, and that of his attor- 
 ney, the Accountant- General. Suppofing thefe to 
 be their only proofs, I do not fee how guilt can be 
 inferred from contradictions in account?, particularly 
 when it is confidered that accounts in India are moft- 
 ly kept by the natives, and that in fitting the Hindoo 
 dates and Mahommedan dates to the Engliih, very 
 great errors muft unavoidably arife. Inftead of draw- 
 ing an argument in proof of guilt from the contradic- 
 tion of accounts, I mould think it much more fair to 
 conclude, that fuch contradictions muft be a proof 
 of innocence. For whoever is pclTefted of all thein- 
 
 forma- 
 
MR. Hastings's impeachment. 171 
 
 formation, and intends to deceive, will never fail to 
 make up fuch an account as will not contradict and 
 expofe itfeX 
 
 There is one argument which (truck me. upon 
 flightly cafting my eye over the ftatement of. the 
 prefents, as made out by the Accountant-General, 
 which is unanfwerable. I mean that thofe prefents 
 upon which the fufpicion is caft, were received 
 whilfl Mr, Francis was in India, and thofe which 
 were received afterwards, were carried to the public 
 accounts without delay, and without any circuitous 
 proceeding. The plain inference to be drawn from 
 this, is, that Mr. Haflings was in the time of Mr. 
 Francis obliged to make ufe of indirect means to 
 carry on the bufinefs of Government. He often 
 wanted to expend fums on fecret fervice, which he 
 had every reafon to believe Mr. Francis would oppofe. 
 But no fooner was that gentleman gone from Bengal, 
 than Mr. Haflings, finding himfelf no longer under 
 the neceffity of taking indirect means, acted more 
 openly and unequivocally. Now the fair way of rea- 
 foning is, to fay, that if Mr. Haflings wifhed to keep 
 the Prefents for his own ufe, he had a better oppor- 
 tunity of doing it after Mr. Francis was gone than he 
 had before : there was no active fpy to inveftigate 
 his conduct. All the apparently irreconcileable parts 
 of Mr. Haflings's adminiflration may, as I have 
 more than once faid, be imputed to the oppofition 
 he met with in Council. He concealed the receipt of 
 a fum of money, and he fent a fum of nearly the fame 
 arnount to purchafe the forbearance of a Mahratta 
 
 Z 2 army. 
 
1J2 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 army. Both thefe meafures Mr. Francis would pro- 
 bably have condemned, at leaft Mr. Haftings feared 
 he would. It is impoffible for human ingenuity to 
 account for Mr. Haftings's concealing many tranfac- 
 tions more in the time of Mr. Francis than afterwards, 
 upon any other principle than that general averfion 
 he had to litigate and fight with his colleague every 
 inch of ground he advanced in the fervice of his em- 
 ployers. I do take this argument to be a full anfwer 
 to all that can be inferred from the inaccuracy of ac- 
 counts i for I am certain no man, that ever was in 
 India, will deny, that if money was the object of Mr. 
 Haftings, the beft time for him to effect it, was after 
 the departure of Mr. Francis. — Whereas we find, 
 that when he was under no reftraint, every Prefent 
 was brought publicly to public account. It may be 
 faid, this is arguing from fuppofition only ; but furely 
 when the intentions of a man are inferred and deduced 
 from his acts in one inftance, it is equally fair to do 
 the fame in another. 
 
 It is ufelefs for me to argue this point any farther. 
 It already carries conviction to my mind, and fo it 
 muft remain till I hear fomething againft my argu- 
 ment, of which I can at prefent form no idea. 
 
 It is true, fome of the bonds were received after 
 Mr. Francis's departure, but the money was received 
 before. Add to which, the coalition between Mr. 
 Haftings and Mr. Wheler was not ftrengthened by 
 experienced confidence and fupport at the time of 
 taking the bonds. 
 
 I have 
 
MR. HASTINGS S IMPEACHMENT. I 73 
 
 I have now gone through all the Charges that are yet 
 brought forward, and as there is a probability of there 
 being already enough in hand to laft till the Diflblu- 
 tion of Parliament, I fhall not meddle with the re- 
 mainder. 
 
 One obfervation you muft have made, namely, 
 that all the Charges, except that made by Nundcomar 
 fifteen years ago, are of a political nature, and whe- 
 ther they are held criminal or innocent by the Lords, 
 it is evident that they originated from that defeft in 
 the Constitution of the Government in India, which 
 has pointed out no legal means of providing for ex- 
 traordinary occafions. A queftion naturally arifes — 
 How comes it that Mr. Burke and his friends difcover 
 fo much criminality in thefe proceedings ? It is im- 
 poflible to anfwer that queftion, unlefs you impute 
 motives which I would not impute to any man, by 
 any other fuppofition than this, namely, that Mr. 
 Burke drawing his ideas of right and wrong from the 
 obfervations he has made in this country, cannot ad- 
 mit any meafures to be right which has not the fanc- 
 tion of the Britiih Parliament. And yet this fuppo- 
 fition will not totally anfwer the queftion, becaufe we 
 well know, that Mr. Burke has both ■ the capacity and 
 means to acquire as good a knowledge of the cuftoms 
 and manners of India as any man could poffibly 
 have, without being on the fpot. 
 
 I am furprized much lefs at the ill reafoning of the 
 bulk of mankind on this queftion, than I am at the 
 arguments adduced by fome of the Managers. 
 
 They 
 
174 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 They all know as well, or much better than I do, 
 the impoffibiiity of carrying on a war without money. 
 They know alfo, that no State can raife the fupplies 
 for a war, particularly of a complicated one, within 
 the year. And they know alfo, that out of five 
 ways adopted by the Government in India to raife 
 extraordinary fupplies, three of them are made matter 
 of impeachment. One of them was in one inftance 
 reprobated by the Directors, and anodier was fo ma- 
 naged as to give great diffatisfaction, for a time, to 
 thofe who were principally concerned. 
 
 I believe no human invention could have flruck 
 out a fixth method of raifing money in India during 
 the war. Government borrowed as long as any one 
 would lend, and they opened their Treafury for un- 
 limited remittances ; the lad of which was feverely 
 condemned, and the lenders haflily ordered to take 
 the money they had advanced back by inflalments. 
 They taxed Cheyt Sing, and Mr. Haflings is im- 
 peached for it. The Nabob of Oude was urged to 
 refurne the treafure left by his father, and withheld 
 from him by his mother, and Mr. Haflings is im- 
 peached for it. The natives made prefents to Mr. 
 Haflings ; he received them, and expended them in 
 the Company's fervice, and he is impeached for it. 
 Now I would put diis cafe very ferioufly to the feel- 
 ings, and alfo the underflanding of every man who 
 will take the trouble to read what I have written.— 
 Every man mufl take this into very deep confideration 
 before. he can with fafety take upon him to judge of 
 the merit or demerit of Mr. Haflings. Neceflity is 
 
 the 
 
to. Hastings's impeachment. 173 
 
 the only thing that can legalize or juftify taxation in 
 any State : if it can juftify taxation in one State, it 
 can in another. But there is fomething peculiar in 
 Mr. Haftings's cafe : his accufers will neither let him 
 raife money by taxation, nor voluntary donation. He 
 ought not to have received money from the Nabob of 
 Oude, becaufe he was poor ; yet the Company was 
 known to be much poorer. But if poverty was a 
 good reafon why a perfon mould not contribute to 
 the aid of a finking, or even of a rifing State, it 
 might be pleaded by many people, very effectually 
 and juftly, againft the payment of taxes in this 
 country. 
 
 Mr. Pitt inveighed for an hour againft the difpro- 
 portion between the fum Cheyt Sing mould have 
 paid, and the fum Mr. Hastings propofed fining him. 
 It was in the ratio of ten to one ; and yet Mr. Pitt 
 does not fcruple to bring in an act which fines a per- 
 fon for evading the duty upon a hat to the amount of 
 three-pence, in the large fum of iol. The fine in this 
 cafe is 800 to 1 ; but even upon a good hat, where 
 the duty is 2s. the fine is in the proportion of 100 
 to 1. But almoft all our penal ftatutes lay on a pe- 
 nalty in a ratio much higher than Mr. Haflings ever 
 propofed fining Cheyt Sing. 
 
 Before I take leave of this fubject, I muft take no- 
 tice of fomething which formerly fell from Lord 
 Mulgrave : — he faid that ignorance was a Jhabby ex* 
 cafe, and that it was of little avail in Mr. Haftings to 
 fay that he mifunderftood the Act of Parliament, and 
 that he conceived the intention of the act to be the 
 2 reftric- 
 
176 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 reftriction of Servants, and not of the Company, with 
 refpect to the receiving of Prefents. Poffibly Mr. 
 Haftings may be wrong in his conftruction of the 
 clauie, though I much doubt it j but this I can fafe- 
 ly affirm, that Lord Mulgrave's aflertion is much 
 lefs defenfible than Mr. Haftings's conftruction of the 
 Ad in queflion. 
 
 Having the ftatute now before me, I will quote the 
 claufe at length, to enable you, and every one who 
 reads this letter, to judge how feverely the words are 
 taken againfl Mr. Haftings, in order to make him 
 criminal. 
 
 " And be it further enacted by the authority afore - 
 faid, That from and after the firftday of Auguft, one 
 thoufand feven hundred and feventy-four, no perfon 
 holding or exercifing any civil or military office under 
 the Crown, or the faid United Company, in the Eaft 
 Indies, ihall accept, receive, or take, directly or in- 
 directly, by himfelf, or any other perfon or perfon* 
 on his behalf, or for his ufe or benefit, of and from 
 any of the Indian Princes or Powers, or their Minif- 
 ters or Agents (or any of the natives of Afia), any 
 prefent, gift, donation, gratuity, or reward, pecuni- 
 ary or otherwife, upon any account, or on any pre- 
 tence whatfoever ; or any promife or engagement for 
 any prefent, gift, donation, gratuity or reward : And 
 if any perfon, holding or exercifing any fuch civil or 
 military office, ffiall be guilty of any fuch offence, 
 and fhall be thereof legally convicted in fuch Supreme 
 Court at Calcutta, or in the Mayor's Court in any 
 other of the faid United Company's fettlements where 
 
 fuch 
 
MR. HASTING'S 1MPEACHMEKT. I 77 
 
 fuch offence mall have been committed ; every fuch 
 perfon fo convicted (hall forfeit double the value 
 of fuch prefent, gift, donation, gratuity, or reward, 
 fo taken and received ; one moiety of which forfei- 
 ture fhall be to the faid united Company, and the 
 other moiety to him or them who fhall inform or 
 profecute for the fame ; and alfo fhall and may be 
 fent to England by the order of the Governor and. 
 Council of the prefidency or fettlement where the 
 offender fhall be convicted, unlefs fuch perfon fo 
 convicted fhall give fumcient fecurity to remove him 
 or themfelves within twelve months after fuch con- 
 viction. 
 
 " And it is hereby further enacted by the authority 
 aforefaid, That every fuch prefenr, gift, gratuity, do- 
 nation, or reward, accepted, taken, or received, and 
 all fuch dealing or tranfaction, by way of traffic or 
 commerce, of any kind whatfoever, carried on con- 
 trary to the true intent and meaning of this act, fhall 
 be deemed and conflrued to have been received, 
 taken, had, and done, to and for the fole ufe of the 
 faid united Company ; and that the faid united Com- 
 pany, upon waving all penalties and forfeitures, fhall 
 and may fue and profecute for the recovery of the 
 fame, or the full value of fuch prefent or gift, or the 
 profits of fuch trade refpectively, together with in- 
 tereft, at the rate of five pounds per centum per an- 
 num, from the time of fuch prefent, gift, gratuity, 
 donation, or reward, being received, or of fuch deal- 
 ing or tranfaction, by way of traffic or commerce, as 
 A a afore- 
 
17? ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 aforefaid, by action, for money had and received to 
 the ufe of the faid Company." 
 
 To bring the criminating part of the claufe into a 
 narrower compafs, fo that the different members of 
 the fentence may be more readily connected toge- 
 ther, I will abridge and analize it. It will Hand 
 thus, when a little reduced: — After the ift of Au- 
 guft, 1774, no fervant of the King or Company, 
 being in the Eafl Indies, {hall receive dire&ly or in- 
 directly, by himfelf (or any other perfon or perfons 
 on his behalf, or for his ufe and benefit) from any 
 native of Afia, any gift, upon any account, or upon 
 any pretence whatfoever. Thofe lawyers who con- 
 tend that this claufe deprives a Governor of the 
 power of taking prefents for the ufe of the Company, 
 mud, in their conftru&ion, disjoin the mono- 
 fyllable or, all the words which I have put into a pa- 
 renthefis, and then it will ftand thus, No fervant, 
 &c. fhall receive by himfelf, directly or indirectly, 
 from any Afiatic, any gift, upon any account, or on 
 any pretence whatever. Taking the fentence in 
 this way, it may be contended, that the words on any 
 account, or on any pretence, may exclude the Com- 
 pany alfo; that is, that no fervant of the King or 
 Company fhall receive gifts from an Afiatic, on any 
 any account, not even on account of the King or 
 Company. Dividing the fentence in this way, a 
 doubt may be raifed, but the true meaning and in- 
 tention of the claufe is difcoverable by the words in 
 the parenthefis ; which infer, that no fervant of the 
 King or Company fhall receive a gift from a na- 
 tive 
 
MR. hastings's impeachment. 179 
 
 tive through the medium of another perfon, for his 
 own ufe and benefit ; but this claufe does not lay- 
 that a fervant, &c. mall not receive, through the 
 medium of another perfon, a gift for the ufe of the 
 Company. It only reftrains this middle-man or 
 agent, from receiving gifts for the benefit of his prin- 
 cipal, and not from receiving gifts for the ufe of the 
 Company. Mr. Haftings here might oppofe quibble to 
 quibble, and fay, that I never favv nor received one 
 rupee of the money. My agents received it, it is 
 true, but they were reftrained from receiving it for 
 my ufe, but not reftrained from receiving it for the 
 ufe of the Company. Or, in other words, I am for- 
 bid the. receipt of prefents by myfelf, and by my 
 agents alfo for my ufe, but I am not forbid receiving 
 prefents through an agent for the Company's ufe. 
 I think no man can read the above claufe, and fe- 
 rioufly believe that it was the intention of the legis- 
 lature to take away the Company's right to Peelri- 
 cufti, Nezer, and other cufcomary donations, by fuch 
 vague and loofe words as are found in this queftion- 
 able claufe. 
 
 Had fuch been the intention of Parliament, the 
 Company would have oppofed it, either by fome of 
 the Directors who were members of Parliament, or 
 by Counfel. They were in this inftance filentiy and 
 unobfervedly deprived of a very valuable pare of 
 their charter. But it never was underftood either 
 by the Supreme Council at Calcutta, by the Court 
 of Directors at home, or the King's Minifters, that 
 this ad had taken away the Company's right to pre- 
 fents. 
 
 Aaz If 
 
l8o ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OP 
 
 If Mr. Haftings was in an error, he was fo in com* 
 mon with all others, and the miftake might have con- 
 tinued to this moment, had not the diligent fearch of 
 his enemies brought this up againft him. But fup- 
 pofing that Mr. Haftings has mifunderftood the Act, 
 to which I by no means affent, there is ftill another 
 claufe in a later Act, which cures the diforder ; for 
 in the 24th of his prefent Majefty, there is one claufe 
 which exprefsly forbids the receipt of gifts, &c. &c. 
 for the ufe of the individual and the Company alfo. 
 And another, which repeals fo much of the Act 
 above-mentioned (to wit, the 13th of George III.) 
 as fubjects any perfon receiving prefents to any pe^ 
 nalty or forfeiture for fo doing, provided no profecu- 
 tion be commenced before the ifl of January, 1785. 
 Surely if one Statute be drained to its utmoft, or 
 even beyond its natural and obvious meaning, againft 
 him, another ought to be conftrued in his favour, or 
 at any rate it mould not be totally rejected. It; does 
 ftrike me as a very hard cafe, if a repealed claufe be 
 revived againft a man, and a living claufe not fuffered 
 to operate in his favour. 
 
 Having now laid before you the claufe from which 
 the criminality is extracted, and (hewing its obfcurity 
 was fuch as to lead many into error, I mail examine 
 the validity of Lord Mulgrave's opinion. 
 
 Firft, I would aik him, whether any man, not a 
 lawyer, would conftrue the act differently from what 
 Mr. Haftings did ? And whether he is himfelf at this 
 moment clear in his opinion, that Mr. Haftings has 
 miftaken the fenfe of the Act ? But for argument's 
 
 fake 
 
MRt hastings's impeachment. 1S1 
 
 fake, T will for the prefent fuppofe he has miftaken 
 the interpretation of the claufe ; but then I muft tell 
 his Lordihip, that all writers upon penal laws agree 
 in this, that every penal Statute ought to be exprefled 
 in the moil clear and intelligible language, and that 
 to punifh for the breach of fuch as convey an obvi- 
 ous meaning very different from the real and latent 
 meaning, would be to lay fnares for innocence, and 
 to punifh the fubjects for the offences of the legifla- 
 tors. The ufe ofpunifhment is to prevent the com- 
 miflion of future offences ; but if you punifh 50 men 
 for mifunderftanding an obfcure claufe in a penal 
 Statute, your examples will be of no ufe, for they 
 never can affift the underflandings of men in inter- 
 preting the next obfcure Statute that may fall in 
 their way. 
 
 Lord Mulgrave muft have drawn his argument 
 from having heard it faid, that ignorance is no ex- 
 cufe in criminal cafes with a Court of Law. It h 
 very true ignorance is inadmiffible, but why is itfo ? 
 The reafon is, that if ignorance were received as an 
 excufe, it would be often pleaded, and in a great 
 meafure defeat the purpofe of the law. It is un- 
 doubtedly a great evil to punifh any man for a pofU 
 tive crime, unlefs he knew before the commimon of 
 it that it was made criminal by fome Act of Parlia- 
 ment; but it would be a ftill greater evil to let the 
 offence go unpunifhed, becaufe it would be an en- 
 couragement to others, who would plead ignorance 
 alfo, and defeat the operation of law in every inftance. 
 The law goes upon general principles, and makes 
 
 choice 
 
iZz ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 choice of the leffer evil. But that does not apply to 
 impeachments, which go upon partial principles, 
 and not general ones. The nature and ufe of impeach- 
 ment is to punifh fuch offences as the common or 
 ftatute law will not reach. It is to preferve the Con- 
 ftitution fafe from thofe whofe high offices and fta- 
 tions might enable them to injure it, without being 
 amenable to common law proceedings. A Statef- 
 man may do his country a thoufand mifchiefs, with- 
 out being expofed to danger from any Statute what- 
 ever. The Houfe of Commons therefore, which 
 may be confidered as the reprefentatives of the peo- 
 ple, and confequently guardians of their own rights 
 and welfare, have a right to refent and profecute 
 any offence committed againft the State or Nation 
 at large. In order to eftablifh fhate criminality, it is 
 neceffary to (hew that the people are injured, or 
 likely to be injured. All public profecutions are 
 are founded upon this principle. I believe were we 
 to go through the Hiftory of impeachments, we 
 fhould find that they were undertaken to punifh 
 crimes which might fome way or other hurt the pub- 
 lic. 
 
 Now let us examine how the mifunderftanding of 
 this Act of Parliament can poffibly affect the people of 
 England in fuch a manner as to induce them to de- 
 mand vindictive juftice for it at the bar of the Houfe 
 of Peers. An Act of Parliament is made profef- 
 fedly with an intention to reftrain the Company's 
 fervants from taking prefents from the Indians ; but 
 by the loofe manner in which it was penned, it be- 
 comes. 
 
MR. hastings's impeachment* iti$ 
 
 comes a matter of doubt, whether the prohibition does 
 not extend to the Company as well as to their fervants. 
 In the mean time, before this doubt was fuggefted, 
 the Company's chief fervant, in time of adual ne- 
 ceflity, receives 2 or 300,0001. in prefents from the 
 natives for the ufehis mafters. 
 
 This is the true (late of the cafe, and I mud fay, 
 and I believe every impartial man will agree with me, 
 that if the prefervation of the Company's territories 
 in India be of advantage to the public, the people 
 of England are not injured by Mr. Haftings's re- 
 ceiving prefents for the ufe of the Company and the 
 defence of their territories. How then muft it ftrike 
 every man of reflection, when he fees the people of 
 England rife up againfl Mr. Haflings, and tell the 
 Lords, that we demand juftice againfl the man for 
 miftaking a flatute, at the fame time we acknow- 
 ledge that his intention was to ferve us, and that he 
 did mod effentially ferve us thereby ? One might 
 here afk the people — Is this man the enemy of his 
 country ? No ; He is the friend of his country. 
 His very miftakes were our falvation. But I hitherto, 
 have underftocd, that thofe who demand juftice 
 againft an offender, always do it under an idea that 
 they are injured or likely to be injured by fome act 
 or other ; but in this inftance, you are neither injured 
 nor likely to be injured. Why then do you demand 
 the infliction of punifhment ? The only anfwer that 
 could be given by the people is, that owing to the ob- 
 fcurity of the claufe, he rnifunderflood the prohibition 
 of our legiflaturc, and therefore we demand that the 
 1 criminal 
 
184 ELUCIDATION OP THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 criminal may be punifhed for a crime he never in- 
 tended to commit. 
 
 This is a plain ftatement, as far as regards receiv- 
 ing prefents for the ufe of the Company ; and I am 
 firmly peffuaded, that no difinterefted man in this 
 kingdom would wiih to fee a Governor General cal- 
 led to account for fuch an offence. It is true, if 
 any informer had fued Mr. Haftings within the limi- 
 ted time, for the penalty of double the value, as 
 ftated in the claufe, and if the Court had been of 
 opinion, that the words of the Ad excluded the re- 
 ceiving prefents for the ufe of the Company, the 
 plaintiff muft have recovered. But the reafon is, 
 that the Judges have no difcretionary power to refufe 
 judgement upon a penal ftatute, when demanded, 
 however much they may feel for the profecuted 
 party. But the cafe is widely different with the 
 member of Parliament, who is called upon to vote for 
 or againft an impeachment for the breach of a penal 
 ftatute. The* member has a court of confcience in 
 his own bofom, and can put to himfelf this ques- 
 tion : — Who is molt in fault, the perfon who pens 
 an obfcure fentence, or the perfon who mifunder- 
 ftands it ? — I would afk Lord Mulgrave if there can 
 be two anfwers given to that queftion. And I 
 would beg of him to confider the diftindtion be- 
 tween the Judge who Ls bound to inforce a penal 
 ftatute, according to the letter, without adverting 
 to the fpirit, and the profecutor, who has the liberty 
 of confcience to enjoin or reftrain the profecution. 
 Had Mr. Haftings faid, I did not know of, or I 
 
 for- 
 
MR. Hastings's impeachment. 18; 
 
 forgot the Aft of Parliament, it would have been, as 
 his Lord fh ip obferved, ajhabln- exevfe ; but when we 
 confider that the tiue explication of an obfeure claufe 
 can only be obtained from the opinion of the Judges, 
 or a new declaratory law, we mud allow, that to a 
 perfon in India, the means of underftanding and 
 knowledge were not within his reach ; and that ig- 
 norance of a fault was an unavoidable, and confe- 
 quently a pardonable one. I have beftowed more 
 pains in examining this queftion than you perhaps 
 may think neceflary ; but it is owing to a wifh I 
 entertain of preventing an unfair impreffion being 
 made by the opinion of Lord Mulgrave, who in 
 mod cafes is certainly a very refpeftable authority ; 
 but in this I differ with him toto ccelo. You are, 
 however, to obferve, that what I have faid, has no- 
 thing to do with the impeachment in this article, 
 when it is put on the other ground ; namely, that 
 Mr. Haftings actually received the prefents for his 
 own ufe, and gave them up through fear of detec- 
 tion. If the Managers can cftablilh that clearly and 
 demonstratively, I fuppofe there will not be two opi- 
 nions as to the guilt. 
 
 Much has been faid on the length of the prefent 
 trial. It certainly is unprecedented in die annals of 
 England. It is, perhaps, the firft inflance of the 
 kind that ever happened in the known world. Sir 
 Walter Raleigh's was a hard cafe ; but he was not 
 longer under trial than others had been before him. 
 But in all difeafes, the firft thing to be confiderea 1 is, 
 the nature of the malady-— whether it admits of a 
 B b remedy, 
 
lS6 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 remedy, and whether the remedy is not worfe th«an 
 the difeafe ? Mr. Haftings's friends fay, that the 
 articles are numerous ; that the items or allegations 
 are nearly 2000 ; that the expence is enormous, be- 
 yond the power of any fortune to fupport ; that two 
 feffions are already pafTed away in hearing the evi- 
 dence in proof of two articles only, and part of an- 
 other ; that, by analogy, it will take fixteen years 
 to go through the profecution ; and that two or 
 three years more may be reafonably allowed for the 
 defence and replication. Hence they fay, it is evi- 
 dent, that mould Mr. Haftings's life be protracted to 
 feventy, he cannot fee the end of the trial. They 
 enumerate many more hardships than what I have 
 mentioned ; but as you muft have feen. them ftated 
 in the newfpapers, I mail pafs them by. But after 
 all, I mult confefs, that it is very difficult, in the 
 prefent ftage of the bufinefs, to point out a remedy. 
 It is an evil or injury beyond the reach of the law to 
 redrefs. Our anceftors, in framing the conftitution, 
 have taken every poffible precaution to guard againft 
 the overbearing power of any fingle branch of the 
 legislature ; but mould they all unite, or one part 
 pamvely obferve the oppreffion of an individual by 
 another, there is no remedy ; nor is it in human 
 wifdbm to provide one. 
 
 The Commons have, by the conftitution, an un- 
 doubted right to impeach whomever, and for what- 
 ever they pleafe. It is fit they mould have it ; for, 
 as I have laid before, every (late muft have a difcre- 
 tionary power to punifh undefined offences, to pro- 
 1 vide 
 
mr. hastings's impeachment. 187 
 
 vide againft future evils, and to remedy thofe 
 which have happened. It muft have a power of 
 pun idling by a kind of ex pq/l fatto law ; but then it 
 certainly ought to be exerted againft thofe adlions 
 only which are in their own nature criminal, or in 
 fome way or other prejudicial to the ftate. And 
 whilft the difcretionary power is confined to this, 
 there can be no harm in it ; for there is a kind of 
 obligation on every public man to act for the be- 
 nefit of the ftate that employs him : a failure of 
 duty is juftly punifhable. But it is alfo incumbent 
 on thofe to whom the people have delegated the 
 power of punifliing, to ufe it with moderation, and 
 not exceed the bounds of natural juftice. The 
 thing complained of in this inftance is, that the 
 Commons, by voting fuch a number of articles, and 
 loading them with fo many allegations, have in- 
 flicted a punimment more fevere than would poffi- 
 bly have been fentenced by the Lords, had the de- 
 fendant pleaded guilty at once. Certainly, as the 
 event turns out, it would have been more prudent in 
 Mr. Haftings to have pleaded guilty, when firft 
 called upon to anfwer ; but who then could forefee 
 the procraftination which has fince happened. As 
 matters now ftand, Mr. Haftings has nothing to 
 hope, but from the mercy of the Lords, and the 
 Miniftry. It is in the power of the latter to fliorten 
 or lengthen the feflion of Parliament (I mean with 
 the confent of the King) and it is in the power of 
 the former to appoint the days of fitting, and to 
 make them more numerous than heretofore. 
 
 B b 2 This 
 
l88 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 This appears to me as the only way of relieving 
 Mr. Hailings ,• and if the Lords will not take this 
 part, there is no remedy upon earth. It is true, 
 the* Parliament muft of courfe, in a certain fpace of 
 time, be duTolved; but as many of the fame mem- 
 bers may probably be returned again, the impeach- 
 ment may of courfe be renewed, and continue on for 
 another feflion. It will never be in the power of 
 any other branch of the legislature to fay to the Com- 
 mons, We will reftrid you as to the number of arti- 
 cles you are to exhibit againft the brifoner, or to fix 
 the tie plus ultra as to matter or time. The Com- 
 mons are in pofTeflion of a valuable and neceflary 
 privilege, and they ought not to part with it, nor 
 fuffer it to be entrenched on in the flighted degree. 
 They have the fame power over a ftate officer, as a 
 rich man has over a poor neighbour. The latter 
 may bring action after action againft the poor man, 
 till he has ruined him by expences ; and though 
 the poor man may have every verdict in his favour, 
 yet the courts of juftice can never prevent the rich 
 man from renewing the old fuit, or ftriking out fome 
 other equally ruinous and oppreflive. Thefe are 
 evils to which all claries of people are liable ; and it 
 is impoffible to contrive laws to prevent them to- 
 tally. I have heard many difinterefted people ex- 
 claim, not againft this privilege of the Houfe of 
 Commons, but againft the exercife of it to too great 
 an extent againft an individual. I have heard it re- 
 peatedly affirmed, and Major Scott has more than 
 once faid it in the Houfe of Commons, as well as in 
 
 his 
 
mr. hastings's impeachment. 1S9 
 
 his publications, that many of the articles pafled 
 with little examination ; in (hort, that they were 
 roted in the lump. Suppofing this to be true, and 
 I have never yet heard it contradifted, it amounted 
 to little lefs than an impeachment for life ; and 1 
 have heard it called the giving of him up as a vi&im 
 to the Managers. 
 
 JThe former part of the lafl fentence I firmly 
 believe, and the latter I have heard ftrongly main- 
 tained in private companies by thofe who were not 
 the adherents of Mr. Haftings. This is a length to 
 which I did not go, for I confider the greater part of 
 the Houfe as deceived in their expectations. They 
 had not made themfelves fufEciently acquainted with 
 the fubjecl to know what an immenfe mafs of evi- 
 dence, written and oral, mull be brought to fuftain 
 fuch a number of allegations. Neither did they 
 forefee, that their Managers would take four or five 
 days to open half an article, and as many more to 
 fum up the evidence upon it. I even doubt much 
 if Mr. Burke himfelf forefaw the extent of the trial ; 
 yet if any one had the means of foreknowledge, he 
 certainly was the man. He knew, that with the 
 clofeft application, it cofl him fome years to under- 
 ltand India bufmefs ; and it was but reafonable to 
 fuppofe, that it would cofl him as many, if not 
 more, to make the Lords underfbmd it. ' I fay rrypre 
 years, becaufe the Lords would apply only a few 
 hours in a day, and but a few days in the year, when 
 compared with the time fpent in the acquifition of 
 knowledge by Mr. Burke, Add to which, much 
 
 delay 
 
I9O ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 delay might naturally be expected from the Counfel 
 objecting to evidence. Hence one may reafonably 
 conclude, that Mr. Burke knew at the time, that he 
 had carved out work for many years. 
 
 I have heard the procraftination on the part of a 
 Chief Magiflrate imputed to interefted motives ; 
 but I am unwilling to fufpect him of that, without 
 ftronger grounds. But certain it is, that much time 
 has been very unneceflarily confumed in long 
 Speeches and vehement Declamation. This kind 
 of Oratory ferves very well to amufe the Audience 
 in the Gallery, who occafionally attend as a matter 
 of amufement ; but to the Lords, who attend as a 
 matter of duty, it rauft be irkfome and fatiguing in 
 the extreme. At the fame time it is impoflible to 
 {top or prevent thefe repetitions, if the Managers 
 are determined to perfevere in the ufe of them : they 
 claim the privilege of being heard, and it cannot be 
 denied them. 
 
 The more I confider the fituation of the Judges, 
 the Accufers, and the Defendant, the more difficul- 
 ties prefent themfelves to my mind. The Commons 
 have voted and pledged themfelves to fubftantiate 
 a mafs of allegations that muft employ them for 
 many feffions ; and they cannot with honour with- 
 draw them : they cannot haften their Managers 
 without giving them offence, and perhaps provoke 
 them to refignation ; and the Managers, if we may 
 judge from the length of their Speeches, &c. fhew 
 very little defire to bring the Trial to conclufion. 
 
 There is at this time an information filed againft 
 
 a pub- 
 
 
MR. hastings's impeachment. 191 
 
 a public paper, for calling this profecution a {hame-i 
 ful bufinefs. It is undoubtedly a very improper 
 term to be applied to any Aft of either branch of 
 our Legiflature ; but it mud be admitted by every 
 impartial man in the kingdom, that the delay is and 
 mult be extremely oppreffive ; and it were much to 
 be wifhed, that both Houfes of Parliament would 
 unite in bringing the bufinefs to a fpeedy conclufion. 
 The Lords might contribute their fhare by fitting 
 often, and with as little interruption as poffible ; 
 and the Commons might contribute their fhare, by 
 advifing their Managers to make ufe of as little 
 delay as poffible : without the concurrence of both 
 Houfes in this joint endeavour, the profpeft for the 
 Defendant is dreary indeed ; and it would be an act 
 of mercy to end the Trial by a Bill of Attainder at 
 once. 
 
 The friends of Mr. Haitings 'complain loudly 
 againft the Profecutors for withholding, or rather 
 for not bringing forward the evidence of certain 
 Gentlemen, which would have made in favour of 
 the Defendant. I hardly know what to fay upon 
 this point, nor do I well underftand the practice of 
 other courts in like cafes. I have indeed heard it 
 faid, that Lawyers hold it difhonourable in a Coun- 
 fel (or the Profecution to withhold evidence, whi,ch 
 in the courfe of his inquiries he has found favour- 
 able to the perfon accufed. Whether this be Law, 
 or only a point of honour, I do not know ; but in 
 reading over the Speeches of the Chief Managers, 
 I took notice that they bound themfelves to the ob- 
 fervance of more candour than is ufually obferved 
 
 by 
 
1§Z ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 by Advocates in ordinary Profecuticns. The)' faid 
 they would take no advantage in aggravating the 
 Charge, nor ftate any thing againft him, which 
 they could not and would not eftablifh againft him 
 by competent evidence. They confidered them- 
 felves as the Reprefentatives of the Commons of 
 Great Britain, as the Advocates for Truth, and not 
 as Advocates bound to maintain a Criminal Profe- 
 cution againft it. After fuch a declaration from 
 Mr. Burke, one would not have expected the ftory 
 of Deby Sing ; a ftory fo artfully introduced as to 
 do the Defendant more harm than all the twenty 
 Articles, put together, in the opinion of mankind; 
 and at the fame time to preclude him from the be- 
 nefit of calling evidence- to refute it. Whether this 
 really was an ingenious contrivance of a Chief Ma- 
 nager, or whether he introduced it without forefee- 
 ing the effect, I know not ; but there never were 
 two things more at variance with each other than 
 this narrative and the declarations I have juft quoted 
 from tljeir Speeches. I do not find fault with Mr. 
 Burke's bringing this hiftory before the Bar ; but it 
 is the manner in which he did it that I condemn. 
 He befpoke and certainly gained credit by his pro- 
 ferlions and promife of candour, and then introduced 
 criminal matter, which he knew muft make a very 
 deep impreffion ; taking care at the fame time to 
 leave the Accufed without the means of effacing it. 
 But this is not all ; for in the very narrative ol 
 which I am fpeaking, the evidence of Mr. Anderfon 
 was not brought forward, which would, if ftated, 
 have totally deitroyed all the effect wiflied to be 
 
 pro- 
 
 
MR. HASTINGS S IMPEACHMENT. I93 
 
 produced. Were I the Advocate of Mr. Haftings, 
 and were I to write with the intention of expo- 
 fing the contradictions in the fpeeches, declara- 
 tions, and doctrine of the Managers, I could 
 expofe a picture that would be very unpleafing 
 to them, and difgufting to the public. 
 
 The great evil which in my opinion is mod likely 
 to affect Mr. Haftings, by the Managers neglecting 
 to call certain Gentlemen as evidence, is death. 
 Some are already dead, and many more will be 
 fo by the common chance of mortality, long before 
 Mr. Haftings will have an opportunity of calling 
 them. This alfo is a misfortune for which I fee no 
 remedy, but in the honour and juftice of the Houfe 
 of Commons. 
 
 There is another thing much complained of by 
 Mr. Haftings's friends : it is the fuperiority which 
 the Managers claim over the Defendant's Counfel. 
 '—They fay they, are cloathed in the robes of Ma- 
 giftracy. — If this be the law of the land, if they 
 really were fo cloathed, a trial would be a mere 
 farce or mockery. It is the part of a Magistrate to 
 command, and not folicit. They might in their 
 Magisterial capacity give the law, and not receive 
 it. The Gentleman who threw out this doctrine, 
 would be very unwilling to allow it, mould the day 
 ever come when he mi°;ht fee himfelf or his friend 
 at the Bar in Weftminfter-Hall. He would again 
 become the advocate for the rights of the people, 
 againft tyranny and oppreffion. I look upon the 
 11 C c breaching 
 
194 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 i 
 
 broaching of this doctrine in Weflminfter-Hall as 
 done at random, or by way of experiment, fome- 
 thing like the Prince's right to the Regency, fet up 
 by Mr. Fox and Lord Loughborough. 
 
 I mail conclude with making a few general obfer- 
 vations upon the probable injury which individuals, 
 who incur the difpleafure of a Houfe of Commons, 
 may hereafter receive from this precedent. Every 
 body knows, that all popular affemblies are very 
 liable to divide into parties ; that oppofition excites 
 animofity, and that men become more and more 
 heated by their own declamations, as well as thofe 
 of others. This profecution has pointed out the 
 way, and furnimed a precedent for oppreffing an 
 object of refentment without a fentence or judge- 
 ment. A Houfe of Commons alone can do more 
 towards punifhing an individual, whether innocent 
 or guilty, in many cafes, than could be beyond 
 the fevered fentence. It requires nothing more than 
 the voting of an immenfe mafs of allegations, to fix 
 the accufed to the Bar for the remainder of his life. 
 This certainly is the firft inftance of the kind; but 
 it may become general. Every accufer wifties to 
 take all advantages he can, if we may judge from 
 practice and not proferlions. And as future accu- 
 fers mud fee the advantages obtained by manage- 
 ment and delay in this trial, they mofl undoubtedly 
 will avail themfelves of the fame, or fimilar means 
 of procraftination. Should this evil become ge- 
 neral, it mull and will, like others, when arrived 
 
 ' to 
 
wr. Hastings's impeachment. 19$ 
 
 to a certain '! -height, redrefs itfelf ; that is, a law 
 muft be made to limit the length of the proceedings. 
 It may hereafter be found full as neceflary to guard 
 againft the oppreffions of reprefentatives, as againft 
 the throne. 
 
 Th u s far was written and publiJJjed previous to the 
 lajl Sejfwn of the lajl Parliament. What follozvs was 
 written after the D/Jfolution of Parliament, and contains 
 an account of what pajfed, refpetting the 'Trial of Mr* 
 Hajiings, during the lajl Setfion. 
 
 THE laft Seffion ended with the clofe of the 
 Evidence and fummary thereof on the 3d Article. I 
 mail now, in order to render as complete as poflible 
 what I formerly wrote on this fubject, give a clear 
 and concife flatement of the remaining part of the 
 Article concerning prefents, and that the reader may 
 at one view fee the full extent of the charge, I 
 (hall fubjoin a lilt of the Donors and their dona- 
 tions. 
 
 Rupees. 
 
 Rajah Chyte Sing - - - - - 200,000 
 
 Rajahs Cullian Sing and Kelloran - 200,000 
 
 Nundolol -- ------ 50,000 
 
 Rajah of Nuddeah ■* 1 50,000 
 
 Rajah of Dinagepore - 200,000 
 
 Nabob Vizier ------ 10,00,000 
 
 Rajah NobkefTen 300,00.0. 
 
 C c % Thefe 
 
I96 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT ty? 
 
 Thefe were originally diftinguifhed by : Mr. Burke 
 by the appellation of avowed prefents, as thofe of 
 which I treated laft year were by that of concealed 
 prefents. To this lift was fubjoined by the Mana- 
 gers in the profecution of this part of the Charge 
 an allegation borrowed from the 12th Article of 
 Charge which ftates the offer of another prefent of 
 ten lacks which were not received by Mr. Raf- 
 tings. 
 
 I mail begin with the firft prefent, namely, that 
 from Rajah Chyte Sing ; it was offered to Mr. Has- 
 tings through his Agent Sadanund, the declared in- 
 tention of which was to atone for the neglect the 
 Rajah had been guilty of in not paying the five lacks 
 demanded of him by our Government, in aid of 
 carrying on the war the two preceding years. This 
 demand on one fide, and neglect, of payment on 
 the other, were the caufe of the Rajah's expulfion 
 from his Zemindary, as was fully fhown when I 
 treated of the ift Article. When the offer of the 
 two lacks was firft made, Mr. Haftings refufed it, 
 but in a (hort time after he fent for Sadanund and 
 agreed to accept it. Mr. Larkins the Accountant 
 General was privy to the tranfaction, and received 
 the money. By his letter to the Chairman of the 
 Court of Directors, it appears that Mr. Haftings at 
 the time of receiving the money, declared his in- 
 tention to apply the fame to the Life of the Company, 
 in removing Mr. Francis's objection to the want of 
 a fund for defraying the expences of Col. Camac's 
 Detachment. It is here necefTary to be obferved 
 
 that 
 
MR, HASTI1n'G3 , S IMPEACHMENT. J$f 
 
 that Col. Camac's Detachment was intended tocanfe 
 a diverfion of the Mharatta forces from the Weft 
 fide of India, and to enable General Goddard to 
 carry on his plan of operations with more effect in 
 the vicinity of Gazeret. Mr. Francis obje&ed to 
 the fending of a Detachment under the command of 
 Col. Camac on account of the increafe of expence, 
 and Mr. Haflings in order to cheat him into confent, 
 propofed paying the extra charges out of his own 
 purfe, at the fame time intending to apply the 
 abovementioned two lacks to that purpofe. If 
 there were any thing wrong in the attempt to impofe 
 upon Mr. Francis, (which by the bye did not fuc- 
 ceed) it was owing to that flrong oppofition which 
 the latter almoft always made to the meafures pro- 
 pofed by the Governor General. Mr. Haflings, 
 however, did not conceal the receipt of the prefent 
 from the Court of Directors, but in his firfl letter 
 on that fubjedt he was not explicit enough to fa- 
 tisfy their curiofity. They demanded a further ex- 
 planation, which was given to them by Mr. Haflings 
 and Mr. Larkins the Accountant General. 
 
 This Article concerning prefents, as the Mana- 
 gers have now brought it forward, divides itfelf 
 into many branches, and includes alfo the letting of 
 lands, for they fay that Kelloran and Cullian Sing, 
 two Rajahs of the Province of Behar, made prefents 
 to the amount of four lacks of Rupees, on conside- 
 ration of the leafes which were granted them. They 
 argued this point with great ingenuity, for either the 
 lands were let too cheap or they were not ; if they were 
 
 let 
 
't$$ ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OP 
 
 let too cheap, why then, they tell us, that the Company's 
 Inter eft was facrificed for a Bribe to the Governor Gene- 
 ral; and if they were not let too cheap, why then the 
 taking of the four lacks of Rupees was an atl of extor- 
 tion upon the diftrejfed Rajahs. This at firft light ap- 
 pears to be conclufive reafoning, but the ftrength of 
 it is utterly deftroyed, when we confider that it is the 
 general practice of renters in that country to make 
 prefents upon the granting or renewing of leafes. 
 It is highly probable that fuins of nearly the fame 
 amount would have gone into fome other channel 
 had the lands been let by or to any other perfons. 
 Add to this, a renter in India would pay a grofs fum 
 under any other denomination, much rather than 
 •under that of rent. An increafe of rent forms a pre- 
 cedent and tends to open the eyes of Government 
 to the true value of the lands, a fpecies of knowledge 
 which every renter mull from motives of fclf-intereft 
 wifh. to keep from the proprietors of the foil. It is 
 admitted that two lacks of Rupees were received, 
 but it appears alfo that as foon as the money was re- 
 ceived, it was carried to the public account and offi- 
 cially entered under the proper head. There is no 
 ground for fufpecting that Mr. Haftings intended to 
 apply the donation to his own private purpofe, and 
 unlets fome fuch intention could be eftablifhed or 
 made, at lead, very probable, there can be no cri- 
 minality in it, for whether the act of taking were 
 right or wrong, it amounts to nothing more than an 
 error of judgement. 
 
 Another 
 
MR. hastings's impeachment. 199^ 
 
 Another prefent, received upon a different foot- 
 ing, came from the Rajah of Dinagepore. It 
 amounted nominally to four lacks, but two only were 
 realized. It was paid under the denomination of 
 Pefhcufh or fine upon the inveftiture of the young 
 Rajah after the death of his father. Great exertions 
 were made to connect this prefent with the letting of 
 the lands in the diftricts of Dinagepore and Rung- 
 pore, but the dates repel this attempt in an inilant. 
 The party that made the prefent, and the perfon 
 that rented the lands, were very different : add to 
 which, the prefent was made one year before the al- 
 teration took place in the Collection of the Revenue. 
 There was alio another prefent received to the 
 amount of a lack and a half of Rupees from the Ra- 
 jah of Nuddeah. 
 
 All thefe prefents were carried to the public 
 account, but the manner in which fome of them 
 were paid into the Treafury, was fuch as to excite 
 fufpicion that Mr. Hangings intended to have kept 
 them for his own ufe. The fact was, that no cafh 
 could be lodged in the public treafury without ap- 
 pearing in the Treafurer's account under fome head 
 or other. Mr. Haftings, therefore, applied to the 
 Board for Bonds to be made out in his own name 
 for their amount. The Bonds were granted accord- 
 ingly, but Mr. Haftings never received either princi- 
 pal or intereft upon them. On the contrary, he endor- 
 fed on them a declaration that neither principal nor 
 intereft was his own, but that both belonged to the 
 Company. The date of the Endorfement did not 
 
 agree 
 
%QO ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT 01? 
 
 agree with the Account which Mr. Haftings had given 
 thereof in his defence to the Houfe of Commons ; 
 for he there fays, that he endorfed the faid Bonds and 
 left them with Mr. Larkins to deliver up in cafe 
 any accident happened to himfelf, much about the 
 time of his going on a vifit to the upper Province in 
 1 78 1. But when a reference was lately made to the 
 Bonds themfelves, it appeared that they were not en- 
 dorfed till the 29th of May, 1782. 
 
 The ufe which the Managers made of this mif- 
 take, was to excite a fufpicion that Mr. Haftings 
 never would have given up the Bonds at all, had he 
 not received intelligence of an inquiry into India af- 
 fairs then carrying on in a feledt Committee of the 
 Houfe of Commons. 
 
 I cannot find, however, that any proof was 
 brought that made it appear even probable that Mr. 
 Haftings had received any fuch information. 
 
 There was one circumftance which proved rathef 
 unfortunate to him in this tranfa&ion. Mr. Haftings 
 had, in November 1780, written home an account 
 of the prefent he received from Chyte Sing, 
 and he had alfo advifed the Directors in a letter 
 dated the 20th of January, 1782, of his having re- 
 ceived 10 lacks of Rupees from the Nabob of Oude, 
 and in the May following, he with the affiftance of 
 Mr. Larkins made out an Account of all the pre- 
 fents he had received up to that period. The Ac- 
 count was inclofed in a letter written by Mr. Lar- 
 kins on the 22d of May, 1782, and intended to' 
 have been difpatched by the Lively Packet, then 
 
 in 
 
mr. hastings's impeachment. 2ot 
 
 in conftant expectation of failing for Europe. It Co 
 happened that the Lively was detained till the next 
 December, and in the interim between May and 
 December, an account had reached India of the in- 
 quiry by the Houfe of Commons as abovemen- 
 tioned. To prevent any imputation or fufpicion of 
 the difcovery having been made in confequence of 
 that intelligence, the letter was opened, and an affi- 
 davit was made by Mr. Larkins, fetting forth that 
 die Account was made out and the letter which in- 
 clofed it written on the 2 2d of May, and that it had 
 remained fealed till the 16th of December, and then 
 opened for the exprefs purpofe of being accompa- 
 nied by the affidavit. There was no way of crimi- 
 nating Mr. Haftings in this tranfaction without invol- 
 ving Mr. Larkins in the guilt of perjury ; and there 
 were reflections caft upon that gentleman in the Ele- 
 venth Report of the Select Committee, which 
 wounded his feelings very feverely. Mr. Lar- 
 kins, however, has this confolation, that no uncan- 
 did infinuation can injure his honour in the opinion 
 of thofe who know him. All who knew him in In- 
 dia, either in perfon or reputation, will agree that he 
 was one of the laft men in Bengal to be felected for 
 the purpofes of perjury. 
 
 It is fomewhat remarkable, that Mr. Larkins is 
 almoft the only man in the fervice of whom all 
 Adminiftrations have fpoken in the higheft terms of 
 approbation. Lord Cornwallis has faid of him all 
 that can be faid of human nature ; he defcribes him 
 
 Dd as 
 
202 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 as pofTeffing acknowledged probity, great ability, and 
 unwearied application. Such a man as this may mif- 
 take, but cannot commit a perjury. 
 
 I mentioned above that Mr. Haflings advifed the 
 Directors of his having accepted a prefent of ten 
 lacks of Rupees from the Nabob of Oude, which 
 was carried to the Company's Account. He did 
 at the fame time folicit the Company's permifTion 
 to keep the faid fum for his own ufe. His requefl 
 was not granted. The Managers made the receipt 
 of the money a matter of criminality, and the afk- 
 ing permifTion to keep it became matter of aggra- 
 vation. There was alfo another prefent received of 
 half a lack of Rupees from Nundolol, but there was 
 not much flrefs laid upon the receipt of that, fo I 
 {hall pafs over it without further animadverfion. 
 
 The laft prefent was from NobkifTen. It amount- 
 ed to three lacks of Rupees, and was received in 
 the year 1783. Mr. Haflings, it feems, at firft 
 propofed borrowing the money for his own neceffi- 
 ties, but at the time of receiving it, NobkifTen beg- 
 ged his acceptance of it. Mr. Haflings at that in- 
 flant neither accepted nor refufed, but after a time 
 he agreed to take the money as a gift. He inform- 
 ed the Directors of what he had done, and pro- 
 pofed his keeping it in payment of certain contin- 
 gent charges due to himfelf from the Company. 
 The propofition was not rejected, and Mr. Haf- 
 tings gave in his contingent Bills, and has kept 
 the money in difcharge of his jufl debt. 
 
 \ I call 
 
MR. Hastings's impeachment. 203 
 
 I call it slj'uJ debt, becaufe I cannot find that Mr. 
 Haftings's claim on the Company for the contingent 
 Charges he made out has ever been queftioned by 
 any of his greateft enemies, except Mr. Burke. 
 
 The only obje&ion was to the mode he adopted 
 for the payment of his own demand. It mtift how- 
 ever be remembered, that the Company's finances 
 were very low in 1783, and it is probable Mr. Haf- 
 tings thought the Directors would have lefs objection 
 to his claim, when it was to be fatisfied without add- 
 ing to the weight of their then diftrefTes. 
 
 The grand points which the Managers laboured 
 to eftabliih during the laft Seffion, were thefe, 
 namely, that Mr. Haftings received all thefe pre- 
 fents for himfelf originally, and that fear of detec- 
 tion and future punifhment was his only motive for 
 giving them up to the public treafury, and that 
 the Company's lands were not let fo advantageouf- 
 ly as they would have been, had not the Governor 
 General been under the influence of bribery and cor- 
 ruption. With refpect to the firft of thefe two 
 points, I mufl recal to the reader's mind what I 
 have repeatedly remarked during the courfe of this 
 Elucidation ; viz. that the perpetual difTentions in 
 Council, and the almoft unremitted oppofition made 
 to the meafures propofed by the Governor General, 
 induced him to do many things which he would 
 not have done, had he been as free and unfhackled 
 as his fucceffor Lord Cornwallis has fince been. 
 
 If Mr. Haftings received funis of money without 
 
 the knowledge of his colleagues, he alfo expended 
 
 D d 2 fums 
 
204 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OP 
 
 fums of money for the public fervice without their 
 participation or confent. Such was his fending to 
 Chimnagee Boofla three lacks of Rupees, by way 
 of purchafing an uninterrupted paflage for our army 
 through Catac to the Coaft. 
 
 The very money which he received in a prefent 
 from Dinagepore and Nuddeah, was employed for 
 this purpofe. It was at that time very uncertain 
 whether Mr. Haftings could have perfuaded his col- 
 leagues to fuch a meafure or not. But it is very cer- 
 tain that had Chimnagee Boofla been induced either 
 by refentment or diflrefs to plunder the lower pro- 
 vinces, and to harrafs Col. Pearce's army on their 
 way to Madrafs, the confequences would have been 
 felt very feverely by all the Company's Settlements 
 in India, and particularly by Madras, which might 
 have been loft to the Englifh for ever. 
 
 I mull confefs that the feveral accounts given by 
 Mr. Haftings and Mr. Larkins of the time of taking 
 the feveral prefents, and of various other circumftances 
 relative thereto, do not agree with each other fo 
 well as might be reafonably expected. By a para- 
 graph in one of Mr. Larkins's letters, it feems that 
 Mr. Haftings had no written memorandums what- 
 ever, and the beft account that Mr. Larkins could 
 give, was collected from Perfian and Bengally pa- 
 pers, translated by Meniheys and Sircars. As Mr. 
 Haftings never confidered the money as his own, 
 the ftrongeft impreilicn made on his mind was that 
 of being able to render fervice to his country by 
 means which fortune had thrown into his way, and 
 
 which 
 
mr. hastings's impeachment. 20$ 
 
 which it was not in the power of his colleagues to 
 thwart or to oppofe. It is highly probable that at 
 the time of immediate danger to the ftate, he ex- 
 pected his countrymen would hold that meritorious, 
 which now to his great difappointment and mortifi- 
 cation he finds they hold criminal. The whole 
 ftream of his attention was in the years 1780 and 
 1 78 1, turned to the prefervation of the country 
 over which he prefided. It is not therefore to be 
 wondered at, if in the diverfity of objects that then 
 occupied his mind, many of the trivial circumftances 
 reflecting the receipt of a few lacks of Rupees have 
 efcaped his recollection. To this and this only we 
 muft impute the want of accuracy in the accounts 
 he has given of thefe tranfactions. And indeed I 
 muft fay, that if ever Mr. Haftings intended to 
 convert the prefents he received from the natives to 
 his own ufe, the means he made ufe of to conceal 
 the receipt of them, were the moft injudicious that 
 could poflibly be devifed. Add to this, all the Evi- 
 dence which the Managers ever brought or could 
 bring on the fubject was furniflied by himfelf. No- 
 thing was ever difcovered that he did not voluntarily 
 difcover. 
 
 It was entirely at his own requeft that the Bonds 
 were inquired for at the India Houfe, and afterwards 
 fent home by Mr. Larkins with the permiffion of 
 Lord Cornwallis. Every application was his own. 
 A man muft be mad who knowingly and intention- 
 ally furnifhes Evidence againft himfelf. The account 
 which Mr. Haftings gave of the prefents he received, 
 
 both 
 
206 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 both in his letter from Cheltenham and in his De- 
 fence before the Houfe of Commons, was from me- 
 mory, and his recollections not being very perfect, 
 he certainly blended together facts which happened 
 at different periods. Such was his leaving the Bonds 
 with Mr. Larkins in 1781 to deliver up in cafe of 
 his death and his endorfing them the following year. 
 Both facts he recollected, but not the time when 
 they happened. Had Mr. Haflings forefeen that 
 fuch rigid advantage would be taken of every little 
 flip he might happen to make, he would doubtlefs 
 have taken the fame caution as a prudent tradefman 
 does, who will give you no account till he has con* 
 fulted his books. Few men who are giving Evi- 
 dence in a Court of Juftice will ever take upon them 
 to make ftatements of accounts from memory, when 
 the articles and relative circumftances have been 
 committed to writing. 
 
 Were Mr. Haftings to infift on the common rule 
 of Evidence, which is, that where a man's confeflion 
 is received as teltimony againft himfelf, the whole 
 confeffion mail be received as truth or no part of it 
 at all. If this rule were to obtain in Mr. Haftings's 
 cafe, the Managers would be under the neceffity 
 of believing, that whether the act was legally right 
 or wrong, the intention was good and meritorious. 
 
 The fecond grand point which the Managers la- 
 boured to eftablifh, was that Mr. Haftings aboliftied 
 the Provincial Revenue Councils and inftituted a 
 Committee of Revenue at Calcutta, with a view 
 
 of 
 
mr. hastincs's impeachment, 207 
 
 pf increafing his own power and authority, and of 
 gratifying his own avarice and ambition. 
 
 To effect this, they read letters of Mr. Haftings 
 to the Court of Directors, in which the then mode 
 of collecting the revenues was commended* and a 
 propofal made for rendering it perpetual by Act of 
 Parliament. By the doing of this, they made it ap- 
 pear that Mr. Haftings had been rather too much in 
 a hurry in paffing judgement upon a meafure not 
 fully tried and examined. But furely there can be 
 nothing criminal in a man's changing his opinion 
 after conviction founded on experience. Who is 
 there in this world that has not frequently changed 
 his opinion upon one and the fame fu 'eject ? I might 
 here fay, that the accufers of Mr. Haftings are the 
 laft men in the world who fhould impute criminality 
 to the fluctuation of opinion. It is probable, that 
 whenever Mr. Haftings (hall have it in his power to 
 explain the motives of his conduct on this bufinefs, 
 he may fay, that in 1775 he felt the advantage of 
 Provincial Councils ; for whilft the Members of the 
 Supreme Council were quarrelling upon every topic 
 that came before them, the bufinefs of the Revenue 
 went on without interruption, becaufe it was con- 
 ducted by other men ; had it been tranfacted in de- 
 tail by the Governor General and Council, the 
 confufion occafioned by their diflentions would have 
 flopped the courfe or at leaft have embarraffed the 
 order of Collection. He may fay alfo, that in 
 1773, he propofed the very plan for collecting the 
 Revenues which he carried into effect in 1781, that 
 
 he 
 
208 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OP 
 
 he was over-ruled by his colleagues at the firfl: pe- 
 riod, and that in the interval between the two, he 
 gave a preference to Provincial Councils, for the 
 reafons above mentioned. But when the death of 
 Gert. Clavering and Col. Monfon had diminifhed the 
 evils of oppofition and diflention, he then faw the 
 inconveniences of Provincial Councils in a flronger 
 light than he had done whilft they were obfeured 
 by evils of greater magnitude. In other and fewer 
 words he may fay, of two evils, I chufe the leaft. 
 The rock upon which Mr. Haflings r s judgement is 
 fplit lies here. In recommending to the Miniftry 
 to perpetuate Provincial Councils, he gave way to 
 his feelings, and fuppofed that the then oppofition 
 and difagreement in the Supreme Council would 
 laft for ever, without confidering that all evils rec- 
 tify themfelves by their own violence, and the 
 Wronger the paroxyfm, the nearer the termination 
 of the difeafe. 
 
 Much ftrefs was laid by Mr. Fox upon the em- 
 ployment of Goonga Govind Sing. This man's 
 character has been varioufly reprefented. Mr. 
 Burke calls him a bold atrocious villain, at the found 
 of whofe name all India grows pale. This muft have 
 been meant as a beautiful figure in fpeech, and not 
 as a literal truth, for certain it is, that not a hun- 
 dredth part of the inhabitants of India ever heard 
 of his name. Mr. Moore and Mr. Young gave 
 him a bad character alfo. Mr. Anderfon fpoke fa- 
 vourably of him, and Mr. Shore thought as well of 
 kitu as he did of black men in general, adding, that 
 
 he 
 
mr. Hastings's impeachment. 209 
 
 he himfelf had felected the Son of Goonga Govind 
 Sing for an appointment of great truft and impor- 
 tance. It does not appear that any charge has ever 
 been fubftantiated againfl Goonga Govind Sing, 
 and though he is no lqnger in a public office or em- 
 ploy, he refides in perfect fecurity in Calcutta. 
 There was an attempt made to criminate him foon 
 after Mr. Haftings left the chair, but it failed. 
 
 Mr. Fox feemed to think it criminal in Mr. Haf- 
 tings to employ a man againft whom an accufation 
 had been brought though not fubftantiated. Mr. 
 Fox furely would not have held this doctrine, had 
 he reflected upon the confequence of admitting it 
 in all cafes, neither has it been the practice in any 
 ftate to difqualify a man for public employ upon no 
 better ground than that he has been accufed. Lord 
 Danby was impeached in the reign of Charles II. 
 difcharged without a trial in the reign of his Suc- 
 ceifor, was appointed to high offices by King 
 William, who created him a Duke, after which 
 he was again impeached and again employed. 
 Lords Somers, Portland, Orford, and Halifax, 
 were impeached by the Commons in the reign of 
 Mary and William, and held the higheft offices in 
 the ftate under Queen Anne. The laft Parliament 
 but one pafled fevere votes againft the Marquis of 
 Buckingham and Mr. Pitt, and yet they are again 
 employed, and I believe few people think the worfe 
 of them for any thing contained in thofe votes of 
 cenfure. Sir Robert Walpole was expelled the 
 Houfe of Commons for notorious corruption, and 
 
 E e was 
 
2IO ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 was afterwards for twenty years the leading Minifter 
 of this kingdom. The Duke of Marlborough and 
 Lord Townihend were accufed and condemned by 
 the Houfe of Commons, and yet they both enjoyed 
 high offices under George I. 
 
 An accufatitm, fomewhat fimilar to that brought 
 againft Goonga Govind Sing, was by the City of 
 London urged againft the late Lord Holland. Mr. 
 Fox was himfelf turned out of office in rather an ab- 
 rupt manner, as he himfelf defcribed it, and if the 
 reafon I have heard affigned for his being fo turned 
 out be true, it would operate as forcibly againft his 
 being re-inftated, as any accufation could againft 
 Goonga Govind Sing. It were needlefs to fay any 
 more upon this point of Criminality, and I have no 
 doubt but Mr. Fox upon re-confideration would for 
 his own fake abandon it. 
 
 Another method taken by the Managers to fliow 
 that Mr. Haftings muft have acted corruptly was, 
 the ftatement of the Revenue Accounts for fome 
 years previous to, and fome years fubfequent to the 
 abolition of Provincial Councils. But this kind of 
 proof feems to make very little in their favour. 
 The amount of the fums received into the treafury 
 was liable to variation both before and after the 
 change of fyftem ; but it appears from the account 
 given in Evidence that the product of the three laft 
 years next after the alteration exceeded that of the 
 three immediately preceding by about thirteen lacks 
 of Rupees. This circumftance, together with the 
 continuation of the new fyftem under Lord Corn- 
 
 wallisj 
 
MR. hastings's impeachment. 211 
 
 wallis, is a full refutation of all that can be faid 
 agcainft the abolition of Revenue Councils on the 
 fcore of profit and lofs. The Company certainly 
 have not been fufferers by the alteration. 
 
 Another mode attempted to fix criminality on 
 Mr. Haftings, was to fhow that the farmers and 
 renters were injured by it, and that the impoveriih- 
 ing of the inhabitants muft in the end be injurious 
 to the intereft of the Company. This effect has 
 certainly not been produced in the courfe of eight 
 years which have fucceeded that arrangement, if we 
 are to credit the Accounts fent home by Lord Corn- 
 wallis as detailed to us by Mr. Dundas in his India 
 Budget. There is certainly much apparent contra- 
 diction in the votes of the Houfe of Commons on 
 this article. With refpect to Mr. Haftings, they 
 voted that his adminiftration of the Revenue and 
 the fyftem he adopted had ruined the country, but 
 with refpect to Mr. Dundas's Budget, they voted 
 the fame country to be in a nourifhing (late, holding 
 out to the public the profpect of an increafing Re- 
 venue, and a large annual furplus. How thefe two 
 Votes can be reconciled, I know not. This much 
 I can, however, take upon me to fay, that the Pro- 
 vinces of Bengal were in the time of Mr. Haftings's 
 Government as well treated, and the inhabitants 
 feemed to live as happy as could poffibly be expect- 
 ed, when it is confidered that India is governed, 
 not with an eye to the profperity of itfelf, but with 
 an eye to the advantage of its Conquerors. 
 
 E e 2 The 
 
2,11 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OP 
 
 The firft confideration has ever been, and ever 
 will be in all conquered countries, to raife fuch 
 Revenues as will fuffice to keep the conquered in a 
 ftate of fubjugation, and to remit an annual balance 
 to the fuperior ftate. 
 
 How widely different is the ftate of Great Britain, 
 a kingdom which partly by trade and partly by con- 
 quer!: has drawn to itfelf immenfe wealth from near, 
 and diftant nations. 
 
 In the years 1778 and 1779, I was employed on 
 a furvey in the hills near Ragemahl. I crofted the 
 country in many directions, and had various oppor- 
 tunities of converfing with the natives, and of ob- 
 ferving the manner in which they lived. Having 
 no European with me I was, for the fake of fociety, 
 neceflarily driven to aflbciate a good deal with the 
 natives. At almoft every village I came to, I had 
 an opportunity of converfing with its chief Magif- 
 trate, who ufually came to folicit a guard to prevent 
 the camp followers from committing depredations. 
 I do not remember in the whole courfe of my furvey 
 having heard more than one or two people complain 
 of the Englilh Government. In general, the vil- 
 lages feemed to be populous, and the lands round 
 them to be well cultivated. The time which I 
 fpeak of was previous to the year in which the Reve- 
 nue Councils were aboliftied, but I never did hear 
 from any perfon who had travelled through the dif- 
 ferent provinces, that they were in a ftate lefs flou- 
 rifhing after the change of fyftem than they were 
 before. 
 
 I be- 
 
MR. HASTINGS S IMPEACHMENT. 213 
 
 I believe no Governor ever ftudied the profperity 
 of the country over which he prefided more than 
 Mr. Haftings did whilft he was Governor of Bengal. 
 If the original plan were not his, he certainly adopt- 
 ed and carried into effect the fcheme for civilizing 
 the Mountainers who inhabit a vail tra£t of hills near 
 the city of Ragemahl. Thefe inhabitants of the 
 woods ufed to come down in bodies, and commit 
 vaft depredations upon the people who dwelt in the 
 plains below them, and it is owing to Mr. Haftings 
 that thefe evils exift no longer. Before I left India 
 in 1785, I faw the fame people, who, whilft I was 
 on a furvey about fix years before, were almoft as 
 wild and full as mifchievous as the beafts in the fo- 
 reft, perfectly civilized and employed in preventing 
 the robberies they ufed to commit. Thefe are not 
 the acts of a Governor who is regardiefs of the wel- 
 fare of thofe whom he governs. It will therefore 
 require a much ftronger proof than any which has 
 ever yet been adduced by the accufers of Mr. Haf- 
 tings, to make me believe that he ever would have 
 permitted the natives to be oppreffed, much lefs to 
 encourage or abet the oppreflbrs. 
 
 I have now gone through the feveral charges 
 againft Mr. Haftings, as far as the Managers have 
 brought them into Evidence. It is true, there are 
 many Articles more which probably would have 
 been entered into, had not the diffolution of Par- 
 liament put a flop to the proceedings. Whether 
 the diffolution of Parliament has put a total flop to 
 all further proceedings without beginning de novo, 
 
 ' is 
 
214 EtUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 is a queftion that has been much agitated, and feemS 
 very difficult of decifiort. The Lawyers them- 
 felves, who certainly ought to be the bed qualified to 
 fpeak on fuch a fubject, feem as much divided in 
 their opinions as other men. This incertitude muft 
 be owing to the want of Heady precedents to guide 
 their judgement, or perhaps to the want of leifure 
 to confult them. 
 
 This diverfity of opinion refpecting the event of 
 the Impeachment induced me to look into thofe few 
 books which I had the means of perufing on this 
 fubject. The cafe which occurred to me as mofl 
 in point to the prefent bufinefs, was that of the Earl 
 of Danby. His Lordfhip was impeached by the 
 Commons on the 23d of Dec. 1678 of High Trea- 
 fon. A debate arofe .whether he mould be com- 
 mitted, it being the opinion of fome Lords that, 
 though the Commons had called his offence treafon, 
 it did not amount to a crime of fuch magnitude. 
 The majority was againft the commitment. It was 
 apprehended that the Commons would complain of 
 this as a denial of juftice, and the confequence was 
 a difTolution of Parliament. A new Parliament was 
 called, and the Impeachment was refumed as foon 
 as a difpute between the King and Commons con<- 
 cerning the Election of a Speaker was fettled. It 
 naturally became a queftion with the Lords, whe- 
 ther the Impeachment mould be confidered as alive 
 or extinct. On the 19th of March 1678-9, the 
 Houfe came to a refolution, of which the following 
 is a Copy ; 
 
 Dig 
 
MR. HASTINGS^ IMPEACHMENT. 21$ 
 
 Die Mercuriiy 19 Martii, 1678-9. 
 
 *' The Lords this day taking into coniideration 
 M the Report made from the Lords Committees for 
 " Privileges, that in purfuance of the Order in the 
 u i7thinftantto them directed, forconiideringwhe* 
 61 ther petitions of appeal which were prefented to 
 " this Houfe in the loft Parliament, be (till in force 
 u to be proceeded upon, and for confidering of the 
 " ftate of Impeachments brought up from the 
 " Houfe of Commons the lafl Parliament and of all 
 ?* incidents relating thereto, upon which the Lords 
 " Committees were of opinion, that in all cafes of 
 f* appeals and writs of error, they continue and are 
 " to be proceeded upon in Jlatu quo as they flood 
 " at the dilTolution of the lafl Parliament without 
 " beginning de novo, and that the dilTolution of 
 " the laft Parliament doth not alter the ftate of the 
 " Impeachments brought up by the Commons in 
 " that Parliament." 
 
 About the 25th of March the Lords acquainted 
 the Commons that they had fent to apprehend Lord 
 Danby, but that he had withdrawn. A difabling 
 bill paffed the Houfe of Lords, and about the 
 fame time the Commons hearing that the King had 
 granted a pardon to Lord Danby, declared the fame 
 to be illegal. They next refolved to bring in a bill 
 of attainder againft his Lordfhip, which was with 
 fome alterations or amendments agreed to by the 
 
 Lords. 
 
%l6 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 Lords. The alterations did not pleafe the Com- 
 mons, and they contended, that inftead of a bill of 
 attainder it became a bill of banifhment. Several 
 conferences took place, in one of which the Lord 
 Privy Seal fpoke of the order of the 1 9th of March, 
 1678-9, as a point gained to the Commons, that is, 
 the continuation of Impeachments after a diflblution 
 of Parliament. The Commons, however, did not 
 confider it in that light, but contended for its being 
 the antient courfe and method of Parliament.* 
 The Commons at length prevailed, and the 21ft 
 of April, 1679, was appointed for Lord Danby's 
 furrender. On 15th of the fame month his Lord- 
 ihip furrendered himfelf, and on the 25th following 
 the Lords acquainted the Commons that Lord Dan- 
 by had put in his plea. He pleaded the King's par- 
 don and the Commons denied the validity, and de- 
 manded judgement againft him on the 25th of May. 
 Two Days after the Lords acquainted the Commons 
 that they had fixed the 10th of the fame month for 
 Lord Danby's making good his plea, and that they 
 had addrefled his Majefty to appoint a Lord High 
 Steward. There were at that time five other Lords 
 tinder Parliamentary profecution. The Commons 
 propofed the appointment of a Committee of both 
 Houfes to fettle the mode of trial both as to them 
 
 * Mr. Hume in his Hiftory of England takes notice of this 
 being an unprecedented cafe, and imputes the renovation of the 
 Impeachment againft Lord Danby to rekindled refentment, which 
 the Commons entertained towards him on account of the difpute 
 which had juft before happened on the Election of a Speaker. 
 
 and 
 
MR. HASTINGS S IMPEACHMENT. 217 
 
 and to Lord Danby. This propofal was not very 
 well relifhed by the Lords, but it was at length ac- 
 ceded to. Upon this occafion difputes arofe with 
 regard to the Bifhops, whom the Commons wifhed 
 to exclude from voting in capital offences ; whilft 
 thefe conferences and difputes were carrying on, the 
 King prorogued the Parliament till the 14th of Au- 
 guft. 
 
 A new Parliament met on the 1 7th of October, 
 1679, and was prorogued to the 26th of the next 
 January. After feveral prorogations, the Parliament 
 met for the difpatch of bufinefs on the 22d of Oc- 
 tober, 1680, and was dhTolved the 20th of January 
 following, without taking any farther notice of Lord 
 Danby. The next Parliament met at Oxford on 
 the 2 1 ft of March, 1680-1, and was dhTolved 7 
 days after their meeting. No other Parliament was 
 convened during the reign of King Charles II. who 
 died February the 6th, 1684-5. On tne meeting 
 of the firft and only Parliament held in the reign 
 of King James II. Lord Danby petitioned the 
 Houfe of Lords, as did three other Lords who had 
 lain under Impeachments fince the year 1678. The 
 Houfe took into confideration the hardfhip of their 
 cafes, and came to the following queftion, viz. whe- 
 ther the order of the 19th of March, 1678-9, be 
 reverfed and annulled as to their feveral Impeach- 
 ments, which paffed in the affirmative. Againft 
 this decifion four Lords only protected, and gave 
 for reafons, 
 
 F f ift, 
 
2l8 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 ift, That it endeavoured an alteration in a judi- 
 cial rule and order of the Houfe in the higheft part 
 of their power and judicature. 
 
 2d, Becaufe it laid afide an order made and re- 
 newed upon long debate, report of Committees of 
 Precedents, and former refolutions. 
 
 3d, Becaufe every Court of judicature ought to 
 preferve the former rule of proceedings. 
 
 As King Charles had formed a refolution to go- 
 vern as long as poUible without Parliaments, and 
 as Lord Danby had remained near three years in pri- 
 fon without any profpecl of having his plea difcufled, 
 or being "enlarged by trial and acquittal, he applied 
 to the King's Bench to be admitted to bail, which 
 was argued in May 1682. The Chief Juftice 
 checked his Lordfhip's Council, which induced 
 Lord Danby to fpeak for himfelf. He argued his 
 own cafe with great ability, and though he did not 
 fucceed upon the firft, fecond, or third application 
 to the King's Bench, he did at length (Hilary term 
 1683) convince all the judges, who unanimously 
 agreed that he ought to be bailed. There are to be 
 found in Lord Danby's Speech fome very ftrong 
 and apparently unanfwerable arguments againft the 
 validity of a commitment by the Houfe of Lords 
 after the diffolution of Parliament. Poflibly thofe 
 and fimilar arguments induced their Lordfhips to 
 annul the order of the 19th of March, 1678-9. 
 It was however by virtue of this order that Lord 
 Stafford was tried, condemned, and executed, in 
 December 1680. This Nobleman was impeached 
 
 by 
 
mr. Hastings's impeachment. 219 
 
 by the fecond Parliament of King Charles II. on the 
 5th of December, 1678, and brought to trial by 
 the fourth Parliament of the fame King two years 
 afterwards. One of the exceptions taken by the 
 prifoner was, that the Impeachment, or I mould fay 
 articles, were preferred in a former Parliament. This 
 was anfwered by Sir William Jones and Serjeant 
 Maynard, both eminent Lawyers and Managers, but 
 I mull fay, the anfvver was very jejune and unfatis- 
 factory. The latter, that what was once upon re- 
 cord in Parliament, might at any time afterwards 
 be proceeded on, that it was a fudden objection, 
 but that he conceived it had been done, and that if 
 there were no precedent, he hoped, in fuch a cafe as 
 this, the Court would make one. He concluded 
 with faying, that reafon was for it ; but he did not 
 attempt to mow in what manner reafon favored his 
 fide of the queftion. Sir William Jones admitted, 
 that a general impeachment was begun in the Long 
 Parliament ; but a particular one, he faid, was be- 
 gun in the laft, that his Lordmip had pleaded to it, 
 at a time when he was not fo well advifed as at the 
 prefent moment. 
 
 The ftronghold, which Sir William Jones laid his 
 hand on, was the refolution of the Lords on the 
 19th March, 1678-9, which I have already quoted 
 at length. An argument of this nature was unan- 
 fwerable by the Lords, who were bound to main- 
 tain their own refolution till formally refcinded and 
 annulled. 
 
 F f 2 Sir 
 
ZIO ELUCIDATION OF THE. SUBJECT OF 
 
 Sir Francis Winnington fpoke alfo to the fame 
 point, but reded entirely upon the order of the 1 9th 
 of March above alluded to. Upon the whole, it 
 feems to have been a very doubtful point, whether 
 Impeachments were extinguished by a diffolution of 
 Parliament or not, before that period, but the incon- 
 venience of the refojution was fo fenfibly felt in the 
 cafe of Lord Danby, that it continued not quite fix 
 years. Since the cafe of Lord Stafford, I believe 
 the Hiftory of England affords no inftance of pro- 
 ceeding being had upon an Impeachment begun by 
 a former Parliament. In the cafe of the Lords Salif- 
 bury and Peterborough, in 1789, a Committee was 
 appointed by the Houfe of Lords to infpecT: prece- 
 dents, and after the inflection thereof, and a confi- 
 deration of the refolutions or orders of the 1 9th of 
 March 1 678-9, and the 22d of May 1 685, the Lords 
 above-mentioned were difcharged from their bail. 
 A proteft was eritered againft this order by only eight 
 Lords. 
 
 The next Impeachment which feems applicable 
 to the prefent queftion, was of the Duke of Leeds 
 in 1695. His Grace was accufed by the Commons 
 of corruption in a matter concerning the Eafl India 
 Company. On the 30th of April the Lords in- 
 formed the Commons of the Duke's having put in 
 his anfwer and accompanied their information with 
 a copy of it. On the ift of May the Lords fent a 
 mefiage to remind the Commons thereof, faying, 
 that they thought themfelves obliged in juftice fo to 
 do, and to deiire to know when tiiey would be 
 
 ready 
 
mr. hastings's impeachment. 221 
 
 ready to make good their articles, in order that a 
 day may be appointed for that purpofe. 
 
 The next day the Duke complained heavily of 
 the delay of the Commons in not replying to his 
 anfwer, alledging, that the Impeachment was only 
 to load him with difgrace, and that they never in- 
 tended to try him. On the day following, he 
 preffed the Lords to difcharge the Impeachment, 
 unlefs the Commons replied. The fame day, the 
 Commons declared, at a conference, that the with- 
 drawing of a material witnefs had occafioned the 
 delay ; in confequence of which, proclamation was 
 made to prevent the witnefs from leaving the king- 
 dom. A few days afterwards, the Parliament was 
 prorogued, and in October it was diffolved, and a 
 new one met on the 2 2d of the following March. 
 
 It does not appear that this Profecution was ever 
 renewed. In the cafe of the Earl of Oxford, a de- 
 bate arofe, " Whether an Impeachment was- fuper- 
 (C feded by a prorogation of Parliament." Many 
 Lords maintained the affirmative, but it was carried 
 in the negative. A Proteft was entered by eleven 
 Lords, and one reafon affigned was, " that they 
 ** could fee no difference between a prorogation and 
 " a diffolution of Parliament, which in conftant 
 ** practice have had the fame effect as to determina- 
 " tion both of judicial and legislative proceedings, 
 <{ and that this vote might tend to weaken the Refo- 
 " lution of this Houfe, made on the 2 2d of May, 
 " 1 685, which was founded upon the law and prac- 
 ** tice of Parliament in all ages, without one prece- 
 
 " dent 
 
222 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 et dent to the contrary, except in cafes which 
 " happened after the order of the 1 9th of March, 
 Cf 1678-9, which was reverfed and annulled in 
 " 1685; and, in purfuance thereof, the Earl of 
 " Salisbury was difcharged in 1690." At that 
 time it was not infilled on by any one that a diflb- 
 lution of Parliament did not annul an Impeachment ; 
 neither do I know that it is infilled on now by thofe 
 that are interefled in the decifion. It is true, the 
 Lords may, if they pleafe, reverfe the order of 
 May 22, 1685, and revive that of March, 1678-9, 
 but whether they will or not, is a matter of much 
 uncertainty. Serjeant Maynard, in the cafe of 
 Lord Stafford, faid, that reafon was in favour of 
 the Impeachment's remaining in Jiatu quo after the 
 diflblution of that Parliament which brought it for- 
 ward, and to be fo taken up by the fucceeding Par- 
 liament. The Serjeant did not tell the Court what 
 his reafons were for that opinion, and Sir William 
 Jones refted very wifely upon the order of March, 
 1678. In my opinion, a variety of reafons may be 
 urged in favour of the contrary dodlrine; but my 
 mind cannot fugged one in favour of the Serjeant's 
 mode of thinking. One reafon that flrikes me very 
 forcibly is this : The Houfe of Commons is not a 
 permanent body, but may be dhTolved at pleafure. 
 Every right and privilege which the Members en- 
 joyed individually, ceafes with the diflblution of the 
 body to which they belonged ; and indeed it would 
 be highly abfurd, if the cafe were otherwife. But it 
 is equally abfurd to fuppofe a non-exiiling body can 
 
 have 
 
MU. HASTINGSS IMPEACHMENT. 22$ 
 
 have any rights or privileges after its civil death, and 
 which never can revive again, unlefs the King (hould 
 happen to die before a new Parliament is affembled. 
 It is true, if a man be robbed or aflaulted, and die 
 before the profecution is determined, there is no 
 reafon why the profecuted party mould be acquitted 
 by the death of the injured one. The King fues the 
 offender for a breach of his peace ; and as all punifh- 
 ment, at the fuit of the King, is for example more 
 than vengeance, the utility of the profecution is not 
 at all diminiihed by the death of the real profecutor. 
 I am aware that the fame may be faid with regard to 
 Impeachments, that they are at the fuit of the Peo- 
 ple, and that the Commons are no more interefted 
 in the event than all the reft of their fellow-fubjefts. 
 If this were really the cafe, it would be unanfwer- 
 able ; but every body knows that the reverfe is the 
 real truth. If I grant a power of attorney for the 
 performance of a fpecial act, that aft is really mine. 
 So alfo, if I give a general power of attorney, the 
 afts of my agent are and ought to be confidered as 
 mine ; and my not revoking the general power is a 
 plain declaration of my being fatisfied with his con- 
 duct. But were I obliged to give any perfon an 
 irrevocable power of attorney for feven years, the 
 afts which he performs would be virtually his and 
 not mine. 
 
 By the Conftitution of this kingdom, the confent 
 of the people governed is neceflary to the laws that 
 are to govern them : but by the fame Conftitution 
 they are obliged to make a temporary transfer of 
 
 their 
 
224 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 their legislative power to a certain number of Depu- 
 ties. Thofe Deputies, when chofen, are their own 
 matters : they are not removable by their electors, 
 and confequently enjoy, for feven years, all the le- 
 gislative rights of the People. It may be faid, that 
 the People give their confent by their Deputies, but 
 that dodtrine is jufl as abfurd as tranfubftantiation. 
 No man can give a free and voluntary approbation to 
 a thing that is to happen, before he has heard or 
 thought of it. I confider a Member of Parliament's 
 feat in the Houfe of Commons much in the fame 
 light as I do a tenant for years poffeffing fome part 
 of a manor ; it is his property till the leafe expires, 
 and he may do any thing with it, that is not contrary 
 ,to the conditions of the leafe. So a Member of 
 Parliament has, by gift of his condiments, a {even 
 year's right of legiflation. I believe no man upon 
 earth can deny the truth of what I have afferted. It 
 mufl follow then that an Impeachment is, .to all in- 
 tents and purpofes, an ad of the Majority of the 
 Houfe of Commons, and that the People have, in 
 fact, nothing at all to do with it. For were every 
 County and every Borough in the kingdom to join 
 in petitioning the Houfe of Commons to defift from 
 a profecution, they are not bound to take notice 
 of it. 
 
 In the year 1701, the Magiftrates and Grand 
 Jury of Kent prefented a petition to the Houfe of 
 Commons, and the Gentlemen who delivered it were 
 committed by the Houfe, who voted the faid peti- 
 tion to be fcandalous, infolent, and feditious. Soon 
 
 after, 
 
MR. Hastings's impeachment. 225 
 
 After, a pamphlet was fent to the Speaker of the 
 fame Houfe of Commons, known by the name of 
 the Legion Letter, which reprehended the conduct 
 of the Houfe in terms of great feverity. Among 
 other grievances complained of, was this : — " That 
 " the delaying of proceedings upon capital Im- 
 " peachments, to blaft the reputation of perfons, 
 " without proving the fact, is illegal and oppref- 
 " five, deftructive to the Liberty of Englifhmen, a 
 " delay of Juftice, and a reproach of Parliaments/' 
 Thefe are ftrong and harfh words, but I do not 
 quote them as applicable to the late Houfe of Com- 
 mons, for they certainly were not backward, how- 
 ever prolix their Managers may have been. I 
 mention this laft inftance, and the foregoing, merely 
 to fhew that the voice of the People, with refpeft 
 to Impeachments, had but little effect with Parlia- 
 ment. This was very juftly confidered as a feditious 
 bufinefs ; but the imprifonment of the Kentifh 
 Gentlemen was condemned by the greater part of 
 the kingdom. I make no doubt but in general the 
 Houfe of Commons would, from prudential mo- 
 tives, give way to the willies of the People ; but 
 their acts would not be lefs conftitutional or more il- 
 legal on that account, if they did not. 
 
 When our Kings difTolve their Parliaments, it is 
 evident that they do not confider them as fpeaking 
 the voice or fentiments of the People; for the very 
 object of calling a new Parliament, is to difcover if 
 the late Parliament did or did not fpeak the language 
 ©f their Constituents. If then we agree that the 
 
 G g Houfe 
 
226 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 Houfe of Commons, though the Reprefentatives of 
 the People, are in fact, uncontrolable and irrefpon- 
 fible truitees, all the acts which they do, are unde- 
 niably their own. 
 
 Now let us fuppofe, that an Impeachment were 
 to be confidered as the profecution of the People, 
 and to continue from Parliament to Parliament, it 
 might fo happen that the Lords might fend to a fuc- 
 ceeding Houfe of Commons to acquaint them of 
 the day they meant to refume the Trial ; the Com- 
 mons might, with great propriety, return for an- 
 fwer, We know nothing of the matter — we never 
 voted an Impeachment — we do not approve of it : 
 The Prifoner mull then be acquitted — and why ? 
 Not for want of evidence, but for want of profecu- 
 tors. It might then be faid the People have changed, 
 their mind ; they lodged a profecution, and began 
 the trial, and now, without leave of the Court, they 
 withdraw the profecution. Into this abfurdity we 
 mud neceflarily fall, if we maintain that an Impeach- 
 ment remains in fiatu quo, defcending from one 
 Parliament to another. But if we fuppofe an Im- 
 peachment to be the ad of our Reprefentatives in 
 their capacity of unlimited difpofers of the People's 
 legiflative rights, and that all their acts not palled 
 into law are as diffoluble as themfelves in their cor- 
 porate capacity, then there is no abfurdity at all. 
 Gne fet of Delegates did one thing, and their fuc- 
 cefTors do another. The Conftituents are not be- 
 trayed into inconfiftency and abfurdity, as they muft 
 be if an Impeachment, begun by one Parliament 
 
 and 
 
MR. HASTINGS S IMPEACHMENT. I27 
 
 and di (continued by another, be confidered as the 
 real and virtual ad of the People at large. It is 
 uiiial to fay, that the act of the Houfe of Commons 
 is the act of the People ; but if a legal decifion is to 
 reft upon it, we muft foon find that it was built upon 
 an aerial foundation. 
 
 Mr. Fox on the feventh day of Mr. Haftings's 
 trial, and in his opening of the hrft article, gave a 
 very true and juft account of what an Impeachment 
 really is, with refpect to its origin and fource. I will 
 tranfcribe his words, as they were taken down by 
 one of the Short-hand Writers : — " My Lords, 
 cc former Impeachments have been many of them 
 " highly laudable ; there have been fome, in which 
 " we might wifh that fome things had been dif- 
 " ferent ; but I believe they have all this in com- 
 (C mon — that they have generally been the profecution of 
 Ci a powerful and triumphant Party in the Houfe of 
 tl Commons, generally on right principles, fometimes on 
 i( miftaken ones ; but they have come to the Bar of this 
 <( Houfe to impeach perfons zvho have beenfo unfortunate 
 t( as to fall under their difpleafure." According to 
 this, and I believe no man in his fenfes who has 
 ever read the Hiftory of England, will deny the 
 truth of it — an Impeachment is, in general, a trial 
 of political manoeuvre, and ftrength of Parties, This 
 alone would, with a cool, difpaffionate, and difin- 
 terefted man, be a very cogent reafon why Impeach- 
 ments mould end with the Parties who brought them 
 forward. 
 
 G g 2 No 
 
228 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 No doubt, when the Lords, in 1678, determined 
 that Impeachments mould pafs from Parliament to 
 Parliament, they went upon the idea, that though 
 the Reprefentatives were changed, the principals, 
 that is, the People, were the fame. But when they 
 came ferioufly to confider the cafe of Lord Danby, 
 and the Popifh Lords, they faw the inconvenience of 
 the order they had made, and confequently reverfed 
 it. The Judges were extremely puzzled how to act. 
 They faw a prifoner of high rank committed by an 
 exifting body, and kept in prifon by a non-exiftent 
 body, if I may be allowed to ufe fuch an expreflion. 
 Still they did not know how the Lords might confi- 
 der their interference at their next meeting ; and it 
 feems to have been done with much apprehenfion, 
 when they did at laft confent to take bail. Lord 
 Danby, in the courfe of his arguments before the 
 King's Bench, put his own fituation in a variety of 
 ftrong and (hiking lights, and in every one the ab- 
 furdity of the order of March, 1678-9, appeared 
 more and more confpicuoufly. There was an ab- 
 furdity in the idea of an inferior Court bailing a 
 prifoner committed by a fuperior Court, which haw 
 refufed bail. In that light it appeared to Chief 
 Juftice Pemberton. But there was an abfurdky alfo 
 in the idea of a perfon's remaining a prifoner ad cufto- 
 diam only, under a commitment by a Court that had 
 loft its exiftence, and was uncertain when it might 
 recover it again : or, in other words, it was abfurd 
 tjiat an annihilated authority mould be of fuperior 
 
 force 
 
MR. HASTINGS S IMPEACHMENT. 229 
 
 force and efficacy to any exifling authority in the 
 kingdom. By the order above-mentioned, an act 
 of one fingle branch of the legiflature acquired all 
 the folidity and ftrength of an aft of the three eftates. 
 But I do not fee how the Houfe of Lords can 
 be confidered as a permanent body, fince fixteen 
 of them are elective. 
 
 It is true, by far the majority of the Peers fit in 
 Parliament by their own right, either hereditary or 
 created, but as that Houfe is compounded partly of 
 Peers by inheritance, partly of Lords of Parliament 
 by office or promotion, fuch as the Bifhops, and part- 
 ly of reprefentatives of the Peers of Scotland, it 
 never can be confidered as a fixed and permanent 
 Court of Juftice. A King may according to the 
 prefent Conftitution govern without a Parliament, 
 if he can find fupplies of money, &c. for the fpace of 
 three years, but no longer ; yet when a Parliament 
 is aflembled at the end of three years, there is no- 
 thing that I know of that prevents a fudden difTo- 
 lution again. 
 
 It were for thefe and many other reafons extreme- 
 ly abfurd, that the unfinifhed acts of fuch an un- 
 fteady Court, both as to the time and duration of its 
 fitting, mould continue alive, while the Court itfelf 
 is civilly defunct. But as the cuftom of Parliament 
 now ftands (at leaft what I conceive to be the cuf- 
 tom of Parliament) all the difficulties vanifh, an un- 
 finifhed Impeachment dies and is extinct with the 
 power of thofe who introduced it, and of thofe who 
 were to decide upon it ; then, on the meeting of a 
 
 ne\r 
 
230 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 new Parliament, if the Commons think there foil 
 remains matter enough to impeach the party accufcd 
 a fecond time, there appears to be no very ftrong 
 reafon why they mould not undertake it. But, as I 
 laid before, the preferring of an Impeachment 
 alive after the dilfolution of the Impeachers, makes 
 the Succeeding Houfe of Commons heirs to the dis- 
 putes of their predeceffors. This is contrary to the 
 genius and fpirit of elective legislation, for the rea- 
 fon of difiblving one Parliament and calling ano- 
 ther is to abate animofity and contention, and to 
 put it into the power of the people at large to recti- 
 fy the miftakes they may have made in the choice 
 of their reprefentatives. But if Impeachments are 
 kept alive by fome kind of magic, notwithstanding 
 the total extinction of the Impeachers, and during 
 the civil death of the judges, it follows that quoad 
 hoc the diffblution of Parliament is of no ufe, and 
 the people have no power of correcting the miftakes 
 of their reprefentatives, becaufe the newly elected 
 Members muft follow the footfteps of their prede- 
 ceffors, unlefs they avoid it by falling into anodier 
 abfurdity, and make the people their constituents a€ 
 variance with themfelves, I mean that of refuiing 
 to profecute when called upon by the Lords for 
 that purpofe. 
 
 The lawyers of former days introduced a number 
 of fictions into their method of arguing, and it was 
 generally done to extricate themfelves out of fome 
 difficulty in which imprudence and want of fore- 
 sight had involved them; but this 1 have obferved, 
 
 that 
 
mr. Hastings's impeachment. 231 
 
 that whenever fiction is argued upon as a general 
 principle, the confequences are nothing but a firing 
 of abfurdiries and contradictions. 
 
 There is alfo another apparent abfurdity in con- 
 tinuing Impeachments alive after the diffolutibn of 
 Parliament, particularly after the Managers have 
 carried them to trial as in this inflance. Thofe who 
 conducted the bufinefs in one Parliament, may be 
 difqualified from doing it in the next by not being 
 re-chofen; How then could a trial in an advanced' 
 (late be refume'd by thofe who had never yet taken 
 it up ? But, independent of the abfurdities I have 
 Hated and many others pointed out by Lord Danby, 
 there is another ftrong reafon againft the refufcita- 
 tioni of Impeachments in Jiatu quo, after a diflb- 
 lution of one Parliament and in the beginning of 
 another. Impeachments partake very much of the 
 nature of legiflation, and are exercifed only by the 
 three branches of the legislature ; they aflume to 
 themfelves the right of pumihing for acts not made 
 criminal either by the common law or the ftatute 
 law of this Kingdom, One of the greateit bleflings 
 any nation can enjoy confifts in having the nature 
 and extent of criminality accurately defined, that is, 
 that every fubjecl may know what is criminal and 
 what is not, and that the puniihment of crimes 
 mould be left as little as poflible to the difcretion of 
 the judges. This lad rule cannot be univerfal, but 
 the more general it is, fo much the better for the 
 fubjecl. But the two Hbufes of Parliament, in 
 their judicial functions, exercife their legiflative ca- 
 pacity 
 
232 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OP 
 
 parity alfo, for if the majority in the Houfe of Com- 
 mons think any ad wrong, no matter whether there 
 can be a precedent found in common law or a pro- 
 hibitory claufe in flatute law or not, they immediately 
 call it criminal, carry up their charge to the upper 
 Houfe, and if the majority of the Lords agree^with 
 the Commons in thinking the act wrong, the party 
 is condemned and puniftied. This power is entrufhed 
 to no other court ; for in indictments and informa- 
 tions in the King's Bench, you muft (how that the 
 act is an offence either by common law or flatute, 
 or the indictment will not lie ; but an Impeachment 
 will lie for any thing, for example, a Minifter who 
 makes a bad peace or a bad treaty, may be im- 
 peached, and it is not unreafonable to fuppofe that 
 Mr. Fox and his party, had they been ftrong enough, 
 would have impeached Lord Shelbume for the 
 peace he made at the conclufion of laft war. If then 
 Impeachments partake fo very much of the nature 
 of legiflation, and if it be the approved cuftom and 
 ufage of Parliament, that all acts not fanctioned by 
 the exprefs confent of the three eftates, fhould by 
 the dilfolution of Parliament be utterly annihilated 
 and extinguifhed, why then it is equally juft and rea- 
 lonable that Impeachments not finilhed fhould fhare 
 the fame fate. 
 
 In favour of perpetuating Impeachments I have 
 heard this argument urged, that if the dilfolution 
 of Parliament extinguifhed an Impeachment, it 
 would be in the power of the Crown to fcreen any 
 offender from juftice, for though he might be im« 
 
 prifoned 
 
MR. HASTINGS S IMPEACHMENT. 233 
 
 prifoned or bailed, yet as he would be fet at liberty 
 by a diffolution of Parliament, he might leave the 
 kingdom and defeat the intentions of his accufers : 
 this objection derives all its validity from a fuppofi- 
 tion of a cafe not likely, if poffible, to happen. It 
 is fcarcely poffible for any monarch, as the Conftitu- 
 tion now (lands, to govern for one year without pre- 
 ferving the confidence either of a Parliament or the 
 People. If the Hotife of Commons thwart the 
 King's meafures, an appeal may be had to the peo- 
 ple as in the year 1784, but if the people approve 
 the conduct of their deputies and return them again, 
 I do not fee how the bufinefs of Government can 
 go on, until a good underftanding be reftored be- 
 tween the King and his Parliament. No cabinet mi- 
 nifter will ever be found bold enough to advife his 
 Majefty to diflblve a parliament for the fake of let- 
 ting a traitor efcape from puniihment. One cannot 
 make this fuppofition without making another very 
 abfurd one, namely, that there may exift a King 
 who is an enemy both to himfelf and his people, 
 but if the poflibility, without the probability of a 
 King's abufing his prerogative, or ufing it for the 
 injury and not the good of the people, were a fuffi- 
 cient caufe why the King mould not be intruded with 
 it, it would follow that a King mould be intrufted 
 with no power at all ; for there is fcarcely a part of 
 the royal prerogative that may not be turned to in- 
 jury, if a King were inclined fo to do. The Confti- 
 tution of this kingdom inuft unavoidably trull the 
 executive power with many prerogatives ; the wif- 
 H h doiu 
 
234 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 dom of our ancestors have contrived many checks, 
 but it is ufelefs to contrive a check for an event that 
 is never likely to happen ; befides, if it be thought 
 dangerous to the welfare of this kingdom to leave it 
 in the power of a King to deliver a criminal from the 
 hand of juftice by the diflblution of Parliament, it 
 muft be equally dangerous to leave it in the King's 
 power to pardon the offender after trial, conviction, 
 and fentence. No man will deny the King's power 
 of pardoning after fentence, notwithstanding the 
 King's pardon cannot be pleaded in bar of an Im- 
 peachment yet pending. It would be juft as bad to 
 pardon an offence, in defiance and oppofition to the 
 cries of the nation for juftice, as it would be to dif- 
 folve a Parliament for the fake of letting an offen- 
 der efcape. Both would amount to the fetting up 
 of a feparate intereft between the King and people, 
 and the flight of the criminal would amount to a 
 confeflion of guilt equal if not fuperior in point ot 
 evidence to a legal fentence. I have heard alfo the 
 precedents which 1 have quoted treated with ridicule 
 becaufe they happened in the reign of the Stuarts. 
 It is true, the order of 1678, was made in the reign 
 of Charles II. and that of 1685 in the reign of 
 James II. but the recognizing of the laft in the 
 cafe of Lord Salifbury and his difcharge thereon, 
 happened in the reign of King William. The 
 Tory intereft did not prevail at that time. I agree 
 with thofe, who think that a diflblution of Parlia- 
 ment ought not to annul an Impeachment, that bad 
 precedents ought not to be followed. The changes 
 and alterations to which all ftates are liable, often 
 
 render 
 
MR. HASTINGS S IMPEACHMENT. 235 
 
 render a precedent which was very good at the 
 time of making it a very dangerous one to follow 
 at a future period. 
 
 For this and other reafons a judicial Court of fo 
 high an authority as the Houfe of Lords, ought not 
 to be indiffolubly bound down by forms and pre- 
 cedents, but then there ought to be fome very good 
 and fubftantial reafon for fetting afide the old, and 
 making a new precedent. If precedents were to 
 be univerfally difregarded, the ftudy of the law 
 would be at an end. The Solicitor and Advocate 
 would have to ftudy the capacity and to difcover 
 the temper and paffions of thofe who were to decide, 
 and after all, a decifion would be a mere matter of 
 chance. 
 
 The incertitude of the law in this country has 
 long been proverbial. It is certainly a great evil ; 
 but if precedents were difregarded, the incerti- 
 tude would become greater, and the evil would 
 be intolerable. A divided Government muft ad- 
 here ftriftly to forms. Its very exiftence depends 
 more upon form than fubftance. Our anceftors, 
 in framing this Conflitution, had an eye to the 
 natural propenfity which all men have to exer- 
 cife arbitrary power, and therefore eftablifhed forms 
 and precedents for all the inferior Courts of Juftice, 
 well knowing, that if judges were allowed at all 
 times to fet afide precedents, it would amount to an 
 annihilation of all the common law of this kingdom. 
 
 The only cafe that can confidently with reafon 
 
 juflify the deviation from precedent is, where the 
 
 H h 2 dan- 
 
236 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 danger of following it, is greater than may be reafon- 
 ably expected to attend the departure from it. The 
 fetting afide a precedent tends to unfettle the law. 
 Inferior Courts follow the example of fuperior, and 
 if precedents are treated with difregard by the 
 Houfe of Lords, the influence of it may extend to 
 all the Courts in the kingdom. I have heard it ob- 
 jected to the precedents I have quoted, that in the 
 year 1700, the Duke of Leeds having been im- 
 peached in a former Parliament, the Lords came 
 to a refolution to difcharge the Impeachment be- 
 caufe the Commons did not proceed to profecute. 
 This has been held up as a kind of revocation of 
 the order of 1685. In my opinion no found ar- 
 gument can be drawn from fo loofe a determina- 
 tion ; it does not fay that the Lords difcharged 
 the Impeachment for that reafon only, or that they 
 would have gone on with the fame trial, had the 
 Commons urged them to it. The queftion before 
 the Court was, not whether a diffolution annuls an 
 Impeachment, but what is to be done with the 
 Duke of Leeds ? And the determination is, as no- 
 body profecutes, we fhall difcharge the Impeach- 
 ment. It would be abfurd to give a loofe expreffion 
 which pafled without examination or debate, all 
 the weight and efficacy of a refolution made after 
 fearch of precedents, and a patient hearing of all 
 the arguments that could be urged both for and 
 againft it. 
 
 I have alfo heard it faid, and it was faid with great 
 truth, that there is no inftance in the annals of Eng- 
 land 
 
MR. hastings's impeachment. 237 
 
 land to which Mr. Haftings's trial can be compared, 
 that in the cafes I have cited, the proceedings had 
 gone no farther than the charges, anfwer, and repli- 
 cation being given in to the Houfe of Lords, and 
 that the Commons had not begun with the adduction 
 of evidence. All this is true, but it is impofTible to 
 draw any line after the accufed has put in his anfwer, 
 for the trials is as much begun and in a ftate of pro- 
 grefiion immediately after the accufed is called upon 
 to anfwer, as it can be at any fubfequent period. 
 When the profecutors and profecuted have joined 
 iflue, the trial is to all intents and purpofes begun 
 and going forward. 
 
 In what I have written with refpect to the dura- 
 bility of Impeachments, I have confidered Mr. 
 Haftings as totally out of the queftion. I do not 
 know what his fentiments nor thofe of his lawyers 
 are on this point, having never converfed with 
 either on this fubject. I have treated it as a fpecu- 
 lative queftion, into which I was led by the diver- 
 fity of opinions which I have heard offered at va- 
 rious times by various perfons. If I were afked, 
 whether it were more to the intereft of Mr. Haftings, 
 that the Impeachment fhould revive mjlatu quo, or 
 be begun de novo, I fhould not hefitate to declare 
 in favour of the former. It would be a mod cruel 
 cafe indeed, were he made to ftand the brunt of 
 60 or 70 days invective over again upon the Arti- 
 cles which are already gone through, and to furnifh 
 the fame entertainment again to a numerous audi- 
 ence, who eftimate the value of a ticket by the ra- 
 tio 
 
23S ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 tio of abufe, and all this for the performance of 
 ads which at the time of doing he thought highly 
 meritorious. 
 
 Certainly when he taxed one rich fubject. in India, 
 and confifcated the treafures of another, he thought 
 he was ferving this country by preferving our pof- 
 feflions in that; but now he finds that what he 
 thought meritorious is by other politicians thought 
 criminal in the extreme. It is owing to thofe 
 crimes, (if they are crimes) that Mr. Dundas, who 
 voted for the Impeachment, has at this moment fo 
 principal a (hare in the controul of all India, for 
 without them there had been nothing to controul. 
 In my inquiry into the probability of the Impeach- 
 ment being ended by the diflblution of the laft 
 Parliament, I have been imperceptibly led into a 
 greater length than I intended, and I may fubjecl: my- 
 felf to the cenfure of the lawyers for meddling with 
 a queftion wholly appertaining to their province; 
 to their rebuke I mud fubmit if they think fit to 
 give it, and were I not deterred by the apprehen- 
 sion thereof, I might have carried my inquiries Hill 
 farther into the nature of Impeachments in general. 
 I mall however drop this fubject, and conclude the 
 work I have undertaken with fome general remarks 
 upon the manner in which Mr. Haftings's trial has 
 been conducted. 
 
 The Leader of the Impeachment gave notice of 
 his intended attack in the year 178;, and in the 
 year following he made a variety of motions, in 
 fome of which he failed and in others fucceeded. 
 
 He 
 
mr. hastings's impeachment. 239 
 
 He carried his point at that time fo far as to get the 
 Benaris charge voted to contain impeachable mat- 
 ter. From that day it is very natural to fuppofe 
 that Mr. Haftings muft have fufFered great uneafi- 
 nefs in his mind. The next year, viz. 178 7,. all the 
 Articles were voted and carried up to the Lords, 
 but the Seffion was too far gone to begin a trial 
 which promifed fo much perplexity and delay. 
 Whatever he might have felt the preceding year, 
 he muft have felt (till more in the interval between 
 the final vote of the Impeachment and the com- 
 mencement of the trial. It may be faid, that inno- 
 cence has no reafon to fear : That affertion, however, 
 is not founded on truth. The opinions of men are 
 often fo divided upon the queftion of guilty or not 
 guilty, that every man, however pure his heart may 
 be, muft be apprehenfive whilft under trial for his 
 own fafety. In common cafes the facts only are in- 
 quired into, and the judge in fumming up the Evi- 
 dence directs the attention cf the Jury to facts only ; 
 for all criminal cafes that are tried in inferior Courts 
 of Juftice have fomething in them either of the ma- 
 lum in fe, or the malum prohibitum, but political of- 
 fences confift too often in the fpirit of parties. Dr* 
 Sacheverel's Sermon would not have been thought 
 criminal in the reign of James I. though it was de- 
 fervedly condemned at a later period. The Mana- 
 gers of the prefent Impeachment have often main- 
 tained that they ought to be bound, not by the rules 
 and forms of the common law, but by the lex and 
 confuetudo Parliamenti. How variable the law and 
 
 cuftom 
 
2-4-0 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OP 
 
 cuftom of Parliament is, appears by the feveral 
 votes and refolutions I have quoted fo often in the 
 •courfe of this work ; one would, however, be apt to 
 think that Juftice muft be fixed and immutable, and 
 that whatever rules were fit to be purfued in one 
 Court were equally proper in another. For the 
 reafons I have mentioned, every man's mind, whilft 
 under an accufation by fo powerful a body as the 
 Houfe of Commons, muft be in a (late of extreme fo- 
 licitude ; and however firm a reliance he may place 
 on thejuftice of his judges, he cannot anfwer for the 
 operation of their confciences. Every Peer, no 
 doubt, follows the dictates of his confcience, but 
 from their different votes upon many ftate trials, 
 it is evident their confciences dictated a very diffe- 
 rent language. I mention this more particularly to 
 fhow what ftate of mind every perfon muft be in, 
 who falls under the indignation of the Houfe of 
 Commons : he can have no property that he can call 
 his own, for the fine may exceed his power of pay- 
 ment, nor can any perfon with fafety confide pro- 
 perty in his hands, for it may be fwept away in the 
 general ruin. The ftate of mind which I have 
 defcribed and perhaps much worfe, though with a 
 mens fib'i confeia re5li, Mr. Haftings muft have fuf- 
 fered from the year 1787 to the prefent moment. 
 But he could not have enjoyed much tranquillity for 
 the two years immediately preceding. Every body 
 knows that the delay of juftice is almoft tantamount 
 to the denial of it. Of this delay Mr. Haftings 
 complains, and with great reafon. In faying this, 
 
 I do 
 
MR. HASTINGS S IMPEACHMENT. 241 
 
 I do not mean to reflect on the late Managers of the 
 profecution, for I will do them the juftice to fay, 
 they were never backward on their parts. Much 
 time was fpent in making long Speeches, which in 
 my opinion might have been condenfed or abrid- 
 ged without loling any of their ftrength and ener- 
 gy. They certainly did roc follow the example of 
 that Athenian, who being afked what he was medi- 
 tating on, replied, that he was thinking how to 
 condenfe what he had to offer to the people, with- 
 out lofing any part of its fignification. Brevity in 
 fpeech is not their failing, but it matters not to what 
 caufe the delay is owing. It has certainly been 
 enormoufly great, and has formed a precedent of a 
 very dangerous tendency to the liberties of this 
 country. It has militated, not only with Magna 
 Charta, and with the principles of the Conftitution, 
 but with the principles of natural juftice, and with 
 the deareft and mod valuable rights of mankind. 
 Lord Danby, when he pleaded his own caufe before 
 the King's Bench, quoted the comment of Lord 
 Coke upon the following words of Magna Charta, 
 viz. 
 
 " Nulli vendemus, nulli negabimus, aut differemus 
 " juftitiam; that they are fpoken in the perfon of 
 " the King who in judgement of law is always pre- 
 '.*. fent, and repeating the faid words, in all his 
 " Courts of Juftice; and therefore every fubje6t 
 <c of the realm may at all times have a remedy by 
 " the courfe of the law, and may have juftice done 
 *f freely, fully, and fpeedily without delay, for delay 
 I i "is 
 
242. ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 " is a fort of denial." The faid Lord Coke ob- 
 ferves farther, " that thofe words of Magna Charta 
 " are fully explained by later Statutes, viz. 20th of 
 " Eliz. c. 3, which do dired that there lhall be no 
 " delay or hindrance of fpeedy juftice to any man, 
 " neither by any feal, nor by any order, nor any 
 " writ whatfoever, neither from the King, nor by 
 " any oAforcaufe." 
 
 Lord Danby applied this doctrine to his own cafe, 
 to (hew that imprifonment for two years without a 
 trial was againft the laws of this country. His ar- 
 guments did at length prevail over the reluctance 
 of his judges and they confented to his being bailed. 
 But if this quotation from Lord Coke applied with 
 force and effect to Lord Danby's cafe, it applies 
 with much greater to this of Mr. Haftings. 
 
 The trial of Mr. Haftings has lafted in one and 
 the fame Parliament for three years. There have 
 been three prorogations and a DifTolution of Par- 
 liament lince the Articles were prefented to the 
 Lords by the Houfe of Commons. Certain it is, 
 that our anceftors by the obtaining of Magna Char- 
 ta, and by the enacting a variety of ftatutes in favour 
 of liberty and natural juftice, did fuppofe, as they 
 very reafonably might, that they had barred the 
 door to every fpecies of oppreflion. In this, how- 
 ever, they were miftaken, for here we fee an in- 
 ftance how a man, innocent, for any thing yet 
 proved to the contrary, may be ruined in his for- 
 tune, health, and every thing that is worth living 
 for, by a fpecies of delay unprecedented in the 
 
 hif- 
 
MR. HASTINGS S IMPEACHMENT. 243 
 
 hiftory of this country. I call it unprecedented, be- 
 caufe upon looking over the fix volumes of State 
 Trials, which commence with' the nth year of Ri- 
 chard II. and end with the 16th of his prefent Ma- 
 jefty, there is not one inftance of a trial's duration 
 in any degree fimilar to this. The longed I met 
 with is that of Archbiihop Laud, which continued 
 from the 12th of March, 1643-4, and ended, as to 
 proceeding by Impeachment, the 1 1 th of October 
 following. On the 3d of January, 1644-5, he was 
 condemned by bill of attainder, and executed on 
 the 1 oth of the fame month. This Prelate had been 
 under confinement for a great while previous to his 
 trial ; but it muft be remembered, that this cafe 
 happened during the Civil Wars, at a time when the 
 Conftitution was torn to pieces by interline convul- 
 fions. In times of greater tranquillity fuch a prece- 
 dent would fcarcely have occurred. 
 
 That the Lords themfelves have at various times 
 thought delay very incompatible with juftice, is evi- 
 dent from the many mellages they have occafionally 
 fent to the Commons to remind them of the articles 
 delivered in and not followed up in due courfe of 
 time. In the cafes of Lords Somers, Portland, Orford 
 and Halifax, the Houfe of Lords gave the Com- 
 mons to underftand that they thought it incumbent 
 upon them to difpatch the trials of all the impeach- 
 ed Lords before the rifing of Parliament; that it 
 was what Juftice required, and could not be looked upon 
 as a matter of indulgence. If it be true what the 
 Lords there fay with refped to the impeached No- 
 I i 2 bles, 
 
244 elucidation of the subject of 
 
 bles, and. I believe there is no man in the kingdom 
 cruel enough to deny it, furely juftice required that 
 Mr. Haltings's trial mould have been difpatched in 
 lefs than three years. Happy had it been for that 
 Gentleman, had the Lords in 1788 thought as they 
 did in 1701. The evils of delay to a profecuted 
 perfon are innumerable, befides the enormous ex- 
 pence which no fortune, however large, can fup- 
 port. There is a danger of the party accufed be- 
 ing convicted by the want of Evidence to fubftan- 
 tiate his defence. It is impoffible any man can keep 
 his witnefTes alive againft the courfe of nature, and 
 it is unreafonable to expect or defire witnefTes to 
 attend year after year, without any confideration for 
 the lofs of rank and emolument. Some witnefTes, 
 and thofe of great importance, Mr. Haftings has 
 loft by death, and others who came from a foreign 
 kingdom to bear teftimony in his favour are gone 
 back, and will probably never be prevailed on to 
 return again. 
 
 Let us fuppofe a cafe not impoffible to happen, 
 that a prifoner who has been for years upon his 
 trial, and has had the misfortune to lofe his witnefTes 
 by death or unavoidable abfence, mould fay to his 
 Judges ; " My Lords, I have had my witnefTes 
 " ready for fome years ; many of them are now dead, 
 <c and others could no longer fupport themfelves in 
 " expectation ; I could with the benefit of their 
 " allegations have cleared myfelf of all guilt, I now 
 <c find myfelf deprived of the means to make good 
 " my defence and mull fall a victim to delay." Is 
 
 there 
 
MR. HASTINGS S IMPEACHMENT. 245 
 
 there a Judge upon earth, unlefs he difbelieved 
 the prifoner's aflertion, who could find his own con- 
 fcience hardened enough to condemn him. 
 
 I do not know of any law exifting that limits the 
 duration of trials. It is feldom that the legiflature 
 of any kingdom provides a remedy before the evil 
 exifts. Had it been the cuftom of tyrannical Kings 
 to keep perlbns whom they thought fit to profecute 
 for year after year on a criminal trial ; — no doubt 
 there would have been a claufe in Magna Charta li- 
 miting the duration of criminal profecutions, or there 
 would have been a ftatute provided for that purpofe ; 
 for furely the fecuring of every individual againft 
 the delays of the law is one of thofe blefhngs in 
 which all mankind, from the higheft to the loweft, 
 is equally interefled. It is true, there are very few 
 men who ever can be brought to the bar to defend 
 a thirteen years Adminiftration of a foreign country, 
 as Mr. Haftings now is, but there may be difcarded 
 Minifters who may be called upon to account for 
 an Adminiftration of equal length, who may be in- 
 volved in equal difficulties with Mr. Haftings, and 
 perhaps fixed to the bar for life. The fpirit of 
 party in this country has frequently run very high, 
 and in no affemby higher than in the Houfe of Com- 
 mons. There may be leaders of a party who may 
 avail themfelves of this precedent to harrafs and dif- 
 trefs where they cannot convict and condemn. The 
 very cafe I am now deprecating, may, for any thing 
 I know, be the cafe of Mr. Haftings ; for though 
 I am in my own mind fully perfuaded, that the 
 
 Lords 
 
246 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OP 
 
 Lords «annot proceed upon the prefent grounds of 
 Impeachment, without fetting afide the laft refolu- 
 tion in the cafe of Lord Danby, yet for any thing 
 I fee to the contrary, the Commons may begin de 
 novo, as they did in the cafe of the Duke of Buck- 
 ingham. Articles of Impeachment were exhibited 
 againft the Duke, in May 1626, and in the follow- 
 ing month the Parliament was diifolved. The next 
 Parliament met in March 1628, but they did not 
 take it up in Jiatu quo, as they muft and would have 
 done had there exifted fuch a rule as was afterwards 
 made in 1678. The Impeachment was juft begin- 
 ning de novo when a prorogation took place. Should 
 this be the cafe with Mr. Haftings, that is, mould 
 the prefent Houfe of Commons think his conduct. 
 deferring punifhment, and vote a new lift of Arti- 
 cles againft him, he will act right if he profits by 
 his former miftake and pleads guilty at one, for as 
 Mr. Sheridan faid, his punifhment could not be 
 more than imprifonment, and a diminution of his 
 fortune ; the latter part of this anticipated fentence 
 has been already inflicted. 
 
 His fortune muft be reduced very confiderably 
 indeed, by a three years criminal profecution. But 
 fuppofing the proceedings fhould be annulled by 
 the diifolution of Parliament, and that the prefent 
 Houfe of Commons mould be either fo alarmed at 
 the length of the proceedings, or fo well fatisfied 
 with the innocence of the accufed, as not to renew 
 the profecution, Mr. Haftings will then ftand in a 
 moft miferable predicament. The proceedings, as far 
 
 as 
 
MR. HASTINGS S IMPEACHMENT. 247 
 
 as they have gone, will appear at length among the 
 State Trials. They will fill four or five volumes, 
 and occupy nearly as much fpace as all the State 
 Trials which have hitherto been handed down to 
 pofterky. The bitter invectives of the Managers 
 will fland upon record unanfwered and unrefuted. 
 No future reader will believe it poflible that fo 
 much can have been faid without fome founda- 
 tion to reft upon. Thus may the character of Mr. 
 Haftings be handed down to pofterity with difgrace 
 and infamy ; for thofe very ads, which, had he 
 had an opportunity of vindicating, he might have 
 proved to his judges were honourable and merito- 
 rious. There is no man, however much he may 
 hate Mr. Haftings as an individual, but muft al- 
 low, taking it as an abftrad queftion, that to fuffer 
 everlafting afperfion without the means of j unifica- 
 tion is an evil that calls aloud for redrefs and refor- 
 mation. There are no bodies of people upon earth 
 that have remonftrated and complained more loudly 
 of acts of injuftice than the Britifh Houfe of Com- 
 mons has frequently done to the Monarch on his 
 throne ; confequently, no body of people upon 
 earth ought to be more circumfpect and careful, left 
 they opprefs thofe they are bound by duty to pro- 
 tect. It is not, however, the mercy of Parliament 
 which Mr. Haftings implores ; it is acceleration of 
 juftice which he afks, and not compafiion. Or if it 
 is compaffion, it is of that fort which the Lords have 
 frequently (hewn to Members of their own Houfe, 
 when under an impeachment by the Commons — I 
 
 mean, 
 
248 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 mean, the frequent reminding of the accufers of the 
 evils of delay, and expediting the bufinefs as much 
 as the cuftom and ufage of Parliament would per- 
 mit. There are many instances of the Lords ac- 
 quitting the prifoner and difcharging the impeach- 
 ment, when the Commons have been backward in 
 the profecution. 
 
 Before I totally difmifs the fubject, I muft make 
 a few obfervations upon what paffed in the Houfe 
 of Commons on the eleventh of May kit. 
 
 Mr. Burke moved the two following refolutions, 
 which were fupported by Mr. Pitt : the latter faid, 
 that they were fo reafonable as to preclude all doubt 
 of their receiving the concurrent affent of every 
 Member prefent ; and the Houfe agreed to them, 
 accordingly : 
 
 " Refolved, that this Houfe taking into confi- 
 '■ deration the interruptions occafioned by the oc- 
 " cupations of the Judges and the Houfe of Lords, 
 " and alfo the impediments which have occurred, 
 iC and may incur, in the courfe of the trial of the 
 " Impeachment of Warren Haftings, Efq. doth, 
 " without meaning to abandon the truth or impor- 
 " tance of the charges, authorize the Managers of 
 < f the faid Impeachment to infift only upon fuch 
 " and fo many of the faid charges, as (hall appear 
 u to them mod conducive to the obtaining of fpeedy 
 " and effe&ual juftice againft the faid Warren Haf- 
 " tings." 
 
 " Refolved, that the Commons of Great Britain 
 •' in Parliament affembled, from a regard to their 
 
 own 
 
MR. HASTINGS S IMPEACHMENT. 249 
 
 e( own honour, as from the duty which they owe 
 <e to all the Commons of Great Britain, in whofe 
 " name as well as their own, they ac~t in the public 
 " profecutions by them carried on before iheHoufe of 
 " Lords, are bound to perfevere in their Tmpeach- 
 " ment againft Warren Haftings, Efq. late Gover- 
 " nor General of Bengal, until judgement may be 
 " obtained upon important articles in the fame." 
 
 There is fomething extremely repugnant to my 
 ideas of juftice in the firft RefoLution ; for it autho- 
 rizes the Managers to abandon the profecution of 
 as many articles as they pleafe, and at the fame 
 time fays, " though we do confent to the derelic- 
 " tion of feveral charges, yet we flill fay the pri- 
 " foner is guilty of all we have ailed ged againft 
 " him t" that is, we will proclaim him to be a bafe 
 man to all the world, but we will not give ourfelves 
 the trouble to prove it. It will take up too much 
 of their Lordfhips time to hear our proofs, and the 
 Judges have fomething elfe to do befides fpending 
 their time in Weftminfter-Hall. 
 
 It is a very ferious thing for a man to be thus 
 ftigmatized by fo great a body as the Houfe of 
 Commons of Great Britain ; and I believe no man 
 can be found of effrontery enough to fay, that it is 
 not cruel and oppremve : out of the great refpect 
 which I owe to the Reprefentatives of the Commons 
 of Great Britain, I will not confider it in the fame 
 light as I would do were it between two private in- 
 dividuals. In a fimilar cafe between the latter, I 
 fliould not hefitate to fay, that to deprive a man of 
 
 Kk his 
 
~2$0 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 his chara&er in any manner or way that puts it out 
 of the power of the defamed perfon to defend or re- 
 trieve it, would be one of the moft iniquitous acts, 
 next to murder, that human nature is capable of. 
 It is faid in our law books, that a King can do no 
 wrong ; but I do not recoiled; having heard or read, 
 that either Houfe of Parliament is equally infallible 
 and fecure from errors. To accufe, and not fub- 
 ftantiate the Charge, has been often thought actio- 
 nable by the Courts of Juftice : actions have been 
 brought, and large damages have been given, for 
 indictments ralhly prefented. But to accufe, and 
 not even to attempt the fubftantiation of the Charge, 
 has always, and very juftly, been held actionable 
 by all lawyers of all ages. But the Houfe of Com- 
 mons, armed with innumerable and undefined pri- 
 vileges, are not accountable to the courts of juftice ; 
 they are refponfible to none but their conftituents > 
 and that refponfibility goes no farther than to the 
 chance of rejection upon their next canvaffing for a 
 re-appointment. 
 
 Had I been one of the Members of the Houfe 
 of Commons, I certainly mould not have objected 
 to the abandoning as many articles as the Managers 
 thought fit; but" I ihould have felt fome reluctance 
 in configning a character to everlafting infamy and 
 difgrace, without making good all that we had 
 joined iflue upon, and had alledged againft it ; that 
 is to fay, I would have left out thofe words, without 
 meaning to abandon the truth, &c. &c. from the Re- 
 folution. 
 
 Posterity, 
 
mr. hastings's impeachment. 251 
 
 Pofterity, when they mall refer to the Journals of 
 the Houfe of Commons for precedents, will pro- 
 bably be ftruck with an idea, that the Managers 
 were afraid to come to iflue upon many of the ar- 
 ticles, as the Refolution feems to infinuate that ibme 
 of them were not very conducive to the obtaining 
 fpeedy and effectual juflice againft the accufed. 
 
 The next Refolution is to me aimoft unintelli- 
 gible; but the fenfe in which I underftand it is, 
 that the Commons cannot forfake the profecution 
 without fubje&ing themfelves to the reproach of the 
 world for bringing a charge which they could not 
 make good ; and that as they had committed the 
 credit of the people at large, by making ufe of 
 their names in the Impeachment, it was there- 
 fore a duty incumbent on the Houfe to get Mr. 
 Haftings convicted by fome means or other. By 
 this it feems that the perfeverance in the profecu- 
 tion is more for the purpofe of faving themfelves 
 than for condemning him. I may have miftaken 
 the fenfe, and it may mean fomething very diffe- 
 rent ; but this I am fure of, that the caufe or reafon 
 now held forth to the world for profecuting Mr. 
 Haftings, is very different from what it ufed to be. 
 Formerly the object was to retrieve the national 
 character, which had been grievoufly injured by the 
 oppreffions Mr. Haftings committed upon the un- 
 happy natives of Indoftan ; but now that the na- 
 tives in their petitions fay that they never were op- 
 preffed; now, that after the total annihilation of 
 Mr. Haftings's power in India, they all unite in 
 
 K k 2 his 
 
252 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 his praifes, the gentleman who moved the Refolu- 
 tion is driven to affign other reafons for continuing 
 the Impeachment. 
 
 The reafons now, are, honour and duty ; that is, 
 having faid it, we muft Hand to it ; and having 
 committed the credit of the people, whofe name 
 we took -pro forma, rather than for fubftance, we 
 muft, in duty to them, guard the public reputation 
 by condemning Mr. Haftings. I again fay, that I 
 do not know this to be the meaning of the RefoluV 
 tion, but it is that which it impreffed upon my 
 mind at firft reading, as it now does after much 
 confideration of its true import. Suppoling my 
 conftruction to be right, I do then fay, that I dif- 
 fer toto ccelo with Mr. Burke, in the fignification of 
 honour and duty : I hold this doctrine, that there is 
 infinitely more honour and dignity in acknowledge- 
 ing an error, than in defending it ; that there is 
 more duty {hewn to the people in acts of folid and 
 fubftantial juftice to an individual, than in ma- 
 king them nominally triumphant over a fallen man, 
 who never injured or offended them, but whofe 
 whole life has been fpent in their fervice, and to 
 whofe zeal and activity they owe a great part of 
 their national reputation. It is a duty I firmly be- 
 lieve, which nine tenths of the inhabitants of this 
 kingdom would have readily remitted to the late 
 Houfe of Commons. 
 
 Thefe Refolutions read very well to a curfory eye, 
 but when they are analized, like moft other general 
 profeJions, mean nothing at all ; or if they have 
 
 any 
 
MR. HASTINGS^ IMPEACHMENT. 253 
 
 any meaning, it is very different from what was in- 
 tended to *be exprefled. 
 
 I hope I (hall not incur the difpleafure of the pre- 
 fent Houfe of Commons by animadverting on the 
 laft : it has been my ftndy, in all I have written, 
 to avoid giving offence, both to public bodies 
 and to private individuals ; but as it may happen, 
 as it certainly has frequently happened before, that 
 a Houfe of Parliament may pafs a vote or refolu- 
 tion on the fuggeftion or motion of fome popular 
 leader, which, upon farther confideration, may prove 
 detrimental and ill advifed ; fo it is a right that 
 every Englishman claims, to point out in a refpect- 
 ful manner the advantages which may arife from re- 
 funding an oppreffive Refolution. — Were I a mem- 
 ber of the Houfe of Commons, I fhould certainly 
 endeavour to perfuade my affociates, that the mod 
 effectual method of making the natives of India be- * 
 lieve that we were fincere in our good intentions 
 towards them, would be to reftore all the prefents 
 which Mr. Haftings has taken from the feveral Ra- 
 jahs and Nabobs, and to pay back the confifcated 
 treafures of the Begums. A ftep of this kind would 
 have a ftronger effect on their minds, than all the 
 fpeeches that ever were or ever will be made againft 
 • peculation and corruption. The profecution of Mr. 
 Haftings for receiving illegally funis of money for 
 the Company's ufe, without reftoring the faid fums 
 to their former owners, refembles the cafe of Phoe- 
 bidas in the Grecian hiflory, who was punifhed by 
 the Spartans for taking Thebes, in direct violation 
 
 of 
 
254 ELUCIDATION OF THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 of a treaty of peace : his honorable matters con- 
 demned the act, whilft they enjoyed all the advan- 
 tages of it ; for they kept poffeflion of the place 
 without once confidering, that if it were unjuft in 
 Phoebidas to feize the city, it was no lefs fo in 
 them to keep it. This behaviour of the Spartans 
 has been very juftly ftigmatized by all the hiftoriana 
 who have treated on the fubject. 
 
 After I had fent the foregoing fheets to the prefs, 
 I had an opportunity of feeing a copy of a letter 
 from Lord Cornwallis to the Court of Directors, 
 dated the 8th of February laft ; I could not help 
 obferving, that the prefiiire of circumftances had 
 very nearly driven his Lordihip to take a ftep 
 exactly fimilar to one which is made matter of 
 great criminality in Mr. Haftings : I allude to his. 
 Lordfhip's determination to leave the Prefidency 
 and go to the Coaft, which journey was prevented 
 by the arrival of General Meadows : the words of 
 his letter are, " My fenfe of duty to you and to my 
 " country called upon me to difpenfe with the com- 
 u mon forms upon fo critical an occafion, and tho* 
 " I knew that feveral great inconveniencies might 
 " arife by my quitting the immediate direction of 
 ** the fupreme government, and I was alfo fenfible 
 ** that the meafure would not have been fanctioned 
 " by any exifcing law, I determined to take the re- 
 " fponfibility upon myfelf, and to propofe that the 
 <c fupreme Board mould invert me with full powers 
 " to take a temporary charge of the civil as well as 
 " the military affairs of Fort St. George, in order 
 
 "to 
 
MR. hastings's impeachment. 2^5 
 
 cc to endeavour by my own prefence to prevent a 
 <c repetition of the difgraces and calamities which, 
 Cf under nearly fimilar circumftances, happened 
 •* early after the commencement of the lad war with 
 " Tippoo's father." 
 
 Here we fee an inftance of the impom'oility of 
 governing a diftant country by rigid rules and or- 
 dinances ; fomething muft always be left to difcre- 
 tion. In order to decide upon the merit or demerit 
 of the breach of orders in a Governor and Com- 
 mander in Chief, there is but one queftion to be 
 afked, namely, Was it abfolutely neceffary ? By this 
 rule Mr. Haftings's conduct ought to be tried ; to 
 this I dare fay he will readily fubmit ; and if it be 
 found that any of thofe actions, which were the fub- 
 je&s of the three Articles already brought forward 
 in Weftminfler-Hall, proceeded from felfifti views, 
 and not from zeal for the public fervice, then he 
 certainly deferves fevere punifhment ; but if on the 
 contrary, it fhall appear that thofe actions were 
 done with the belt of intentions, and that they re- 
 ally proved the falvation of our territories in India, 
 then he deferves, not only an honorable acquittal, 
 but the warmed thanks and higheft rewards from 
 his grateful country. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 S PLE N- 
 
SPLENDID EDITION OF 
 SHAKSPEARE 
 
 IN F O L' I O. 
 
 In the Prefs, anJfpcedily will le puhlijfjed, 
 
 IN TWO LARGE VOLUMES FOLIO, 
 
 Containing near ,i 700 Pages, beautifully printed upon a fuper- 
 fine wove Royai Paper, and embellifhed with a Head of the 
 Author, from an Original j 
 
 PRICE FIVE GUINEAS IN BOARDS, 
 
 SHAKSPEARE, 
 
 INCLUDING 
 
 The Whole of his Dramatic Works ; 
 
 With Explanatory Notes, compiled from various Commentators-. 
 
 To which will be added, 
 
 A Copious INDEX to all the remarkable Paflages and Words. 
 
 By the Rev. SAMUEL AYSCOUGH, F. S. A, 
 
 And Affiftant Librarian to the Brittfli Mufeum. 
 
 Printed for JOHN STOCKDALE, Piccadilly. 
 
 %* Mr. Stockdale has already experienced a liberal Encou- 
 ragement from the Public for his Edition of SHAKSPEARE, 
 in one Volume, 8vo. 'and to whom he begs Leave to return his 
 grateful Acknowledgements. As the prefent Edition will cod 
 him fome thousands," he humbly folicits the Afliftance of the 
 Admirers of Shakspeare, by favouring him with their Names 
 as Subfcribers. 
 
 N. B. A Specimen of the Paper and Type may be feen at 
 Mr. Stoc&dals'*.