have been received by the House, and it is asserted, that he has been influenced by corrupt motives in various instances. This being the case, I cheerfully vote for the cause being transferred to that tribunal, where I know the falsity of the charge must be proved by incontrovertible evidence; and it is upon this ground I give my vote. I agree to the impeachment, as the means by which the honour of Mr. Hastings will be fully cleared; at the same time I, with all mankind, express my wonder, that after all the calamities this country has sustained, after all the losses she has suffered from the folly or mismanagement of her rulers, the man allowed by all to have been eminently successful, should be the object of prosecution by the Commons of Great Britain in Parliament assembled. Mr. Burgess rejoiced to think he had throughout defended the cause of a great and injured man, and had opposed proceedings which he should ever reprobate as unjust, impolitic, interested and malicious. Other gentlemen might, if they thought proper, vote to-day for the impeachment. He could not follow their example. Consistently with the dictates of his conscience, and with his own personal honour, he must oppose the prosecution to its last stage. If a division should take place, he would vote against it; if not, he would instantly quit the House, to avoid being implicated in the guilt and disgrace of the sentence about to be pronounced. The question was carried. Mr. Montague said, that he rose to make a motion, which could not, he conceived, meet with resistance after what had passed, as it was founded in principles of humanity and justice. Mr. Montague then moved, "That Mr. Burke do go to the Lords, and, at their bar, in the name of the House of Commons, and of all the Commons of Great Britain, do impeach Warren Hastings, esquire, late Governor-general of Bengal, of High Crimes and Misdemeanors; and acquaint the Lords, that this House will, with all convenient speed, exhibit Articles against him, and make good the same." The majority of the House immediately attended Mr. Burke to the bar of the House of Peers, where Mr. Burke solemnly impeached Mr. Hastings in the form above recited. House, that he had been to the bar of the House of Lords in obedience to the commands of the House, and there, in the name of the House of Commons, and of all the Commons of Great Britain, impeached Warren Hastings, esq. of High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Mr. Burke proposed Messrs. Wallis and Troward, as the Solicitors on the part of the House. On the 14th, Mr. Burke carried the Articles of Impeachment up to the Lords. Debate on Words spoken by Mr. Courtenay, reflecting on Lord Hood.] May 14. Lord Hood rose and said, that he felt himself under the necessity of calling the attention of the House to a matter of personal reflection, and therefore the sooner it was cleared up the better. An hon. gentleman (Mr. Courtenay) had, on the preceding Wednesday, used an expression in debate, which was considered as an insinuation that he had not done his duty in the action of the 12th of April, 1782. If by saying that he had been a spectator' of that action, the hon. gentleman aimed at any such meaning, he should be glad that he would explain himself, because in such a case it was not more an insinuation against him than against the noble lord who commanded in chief; since, if the fact were, that he had not done his duty, the noble lord was bound to have brought him to a court-martial. Sir James Erskine rose, but was interrupted by a member (we believe Mr. Grosvenor) who spoke to order, and said that he had witnessed so many of the dis agreeable discussions to which such sort of conversation led, that he hoped the matter would not be taken up by any member except the noble lord and the hon. gentleman who had made use of the expressions alluded to. Sir James Erskine said, that he meant to speak to order. He then declared his extreme surprise at hearing his hon. friend called upon to give an explanation of an expression, which he had amply and completely explained the very day on which he had made use of it. Mr. Windham contended, that it was disorderly and contrary to all regular practice to call upon an hon. gentleman to explain an expression which he had let fall in the course of debate, four or five days after that debate had taken place; but, in this case, it was singularly so, beMay 11. Mr. Burke reported to the cause his hon. friend had, directly, upon his being called to order, done away the possibility of its being supposed, that he meant to convey any insinuation to the prejudice of the noble lord, by declaring in express terms, that he had no such intention. He confessed that, when his hon. friend had let fall the expression, it struck his ear as meant to convey an unpleasant insinuation, and therefore he had felt great pleasure in hearing his hon. friend disavow an intention of making any insinuation whatever to the prejudice of the noble lord's gallant conduct. But he could give another proof, that his hon. friend had been sincere in his disavowal of any such intention; and that was, his expression of the utmost anxiety to him, in private, on the day of the debate, that such a construction should have been put upon his words, as he saw had been entertained by the other side of the House. The Speaker stated the order and usage of proceeding when any improper or offensive words were spoken in the course of debate to be, for those words to be immediately taken down, and a proceeding had upon them before any other business or question was debated; but, it was irregular, when the words had not been complained of at the time, to enter into a discussion of any expression which had fallen in the course of debate, three or four days afterwards. Mr. Burke begged leave to assure the House, that his hon. friend (Mr. Courtenay) had, on the very day of the debate, when the expression in question escaped him, declared to him, that it was an accidental lapse of speech, into which he had been betrayed by hurry; and that instead of 'spectator' of the action of lord Rodney, he meant to have used the word 'participator.' No man could appear more hurt than his hon. friend, when he found the construction which a part of the House had put upon it. Indeed, it was impossible that his hon. friend, whose wit was not greater than his justice, nor more prominent than his good, humane, and even temper, could have intended to throw out any thing injurious to the character of the noble lord, to whose exertions the country stood so highly indebted, and whose merit that House had recognized in a manner the most flattering to honest pride. Mr. Burke spoke of lord Hood's behaviour on the 12th of April, 1782, declaring, that it dignified the title which he wore; and repeated his assertion relative to Mr. Courtenay's declaration to him, that he had not meant to throw out any imputation prejudicial to the noble lord's character. The member who had called sir James Erskine to order, rose again, and said, that if Mr. Courtenay, with whom he had the pleasure to be acquainted, and whom he knew to be a man of honour, did not feel it to be necessary to add any thing more upon the subject, he thought that the conversation ought not to continue. Mr. Pitt observed, that he should take care not to be disorderly in what he had to say; for, he would conclude with a motion; and that a motion which, if the hon. gentleman had any intention of casting an aspersion on the character of the noble lord, would give him an opportunity of doing it fairly and manfully, and not by indirect and covert insinuation. He admitted, that the general indignation excited in all parts of the House a few nights before, at the suspicion that an imputation had been hinted to the prejudice of the noble lord, who so justly stood in the highest rank of public esteem and gratitude, and against whom any imputation would be a reflection on that House, which had made him the object of a public vote of thanks, and on his Majesty who had bestowed upon him a distinguished mark of his favour, for his eminent and memorable services, most certainly drew from the hon. gentleman some sort of explanation. But those who knew that hon. gentleman, would know that it was no very extraordinary supposition to entertain, that this explanation, though in terms it might appear an apology, might in fact be meant rather as an aggravation than an extenuation of the injury. It appeared, however, from the assertion of two friends of the hon. gentleman, that he himself had declared to them, that he was sorry he had used the expression. Why not then say in public, what he had already declared in private? The hon. gentleman would have an opportunity, now, in consequence of his motion, of saying for once, whether he was serious or not; and if he had nothing to state to substantiate an insinuation against the noble lord, at least to enter into a retraction of that which he was supposed, and which he had supposed himself to have made. Mr. Pitt now moved, That the Resolution of the House of the 22d of May, 1782, thanking sir George Rodney for his gallant conduct in the late most brilliant and decisive victory over the French fleet in the West Indies, t and also the Resolution, thanking Sir Samuel Hood, &c. for their bravery and gallant conduct on the above most glorious occasion. Mr. Pitt next moved, That the said Resolutions be printed in the votes of this day. Mr. Fox said, that he had no objection to the motions; having, on every occasion, notwithstanding any little political differences of opinion which might prevail between the noble lord and himself, uniformly expressed his sincere satisfaction in having been himself happily the person to move the vote of thanks in that House, when he had the honour to stand in a particular situation. He knew those thanks to have been highly merited, and so far from feeling any objection to the proposed motions, they would, in his opinion, do good, by refreshing the minds of all ranks of people with the gallantry of the officers, whose names were inserted in the vote of thanks, and the very great obligations which the country owed them. With regard to his hon. friend, however, he could not help thinking that he had been rather hardly called upon. For what was the real fact? His hon. friend had let fall an expression to which a meaning had been annexed foreign from that which his hon. friend intended it to convey. The instant his hon. friend found the construction that had been put upon it, he rises voluntarily, and in a manner that must have satisfied every man who heard him, declared, that he had not intended to insinuate any thing derogatory to the reputation, or professional conduct of the noble lord in question; and yet he was called upon at four days distance, to explain his meaning over again. He might as well be called upon the next day to repeat his explanation a third time, the day after a fourth, and so on to the end of the session. Lord Hood said, the fact was, that he had not heard the expression himself, as he happened to be moving from his seat when the word was used; nor was it till the next day that he knew the nature of the sort of attack which had been made upon him. This was the first day upon which he had found an opportunity of saying the little he had thought it due to himself to say upon the occasion. Had he known that the hon. gentleman had declared that he did not mean any insinuation against his character, he should have been fully satisfied; but the House would not think that he had been unne[VOL. XXVI.] cessarily scrupulous, when they considered, that an officer's character was all which he had to carry him through the world. The motion was agreed to nem. con. May 13.] Mr. Courtenay said, that he rose, unapplied to and unsolicited, to make some short remarks upon what had been the subject of a debate on the preceding day. He rose to do that justice to the professional character of the noble lord (Hood) which he was precluded from doing, by the acrimonious, or rather unhandsome manner in which he had been solicited to do so by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However inclined he might have been, the style and manner of the right hon. gentleman made his compliance at the moment incompatible with any sense of propriety or decorum, and inconsistent with any sentiment of spirit or honour. Sanctioned by the opinion of his friends on the preceding day, he had remained silent, and resisted the exhortations of the right hon. gentleman, who, with great professions of cordiality, had advised him to repeat an explanation which he had already made, and which was therefore unnecessary; and at the same time the right hon. gentleman, with his usual felicity of expression, and insidiousness of intention, prevented him from complying with a request, urged with affected candour and studied plausibility. Sanctioned by the opinion of those friends, and at their desire, he rose to do what at his coming into the House he had not the least conception of doing to repeat the explanation which he had given on Wednesday last, that he had not the least intention to throw any reflection on the noble lord. The expression was unintentional, and had dropped in the hurry of debate. It would have been absurd, ridiculous, and foolish, in him to have hinted any insinuation against the character of the noble lord, who stood deservedly high in his profession, in the estimation of his country, and who had received the thanks of the representatives of the people for his services. Debate in the Commons on the Charges against Mr. Hastings-Misdemeanors in Oude.] May 14. The House having resolved itself into a committee of the whole House on the charges against Warren Hastings, esq. Mr. Burke expressed his hopes that he should not have occasion to detain the House long, as they had at length arrived [4 E] at the important period which rendered | minal facts, which Mr. Burke read from a it a matter of common opinion, that paper on which he had extracted the great wherever a charge upon the face of it outlines of the charge. After going wore the features of criminality, it would through the list, Mr. Burke observed, that be wiser to submit it, when matured by he thought it necessary to say thus much the secret committee in the shape of an out of respect to the committee, and that article of impeachment, to the investiga- he had avoided urging more matter in tion and decision of the House of Lords, order to accommodate himself to the than to spend much of the time of that season, the wishes of gentlemen on all committee in inquiring minutely concern- sides, and the propriety of the particular ing the particular facts contained in it. case. He now moved the usual resoluHe had last week impeached Warren tion, "That the sixteenth article conHastings, esq. of high crimes and mis- tained matters of charge of high crimes demeanors, and that day he had delivered and misdemeanors against Warren Hastat the bar of the House of Lords the ings, esq," articles of impeachment-a circumstance which did that House the highest credit, and at the same time rendered it the less necessary for him to trespass much upon the patience of the House on the present extremely long charge, as it stood upon their table. He should, however, merely state the principal points of it in a summary way, to show that it contained criminal matters, and then move the general question upon the whole. With regard to several of these facts Mr. Hastings had himself saved him and the committee much time and trouble by admitting them in his defence, and particularly all the charge contained relative to the distress of the province of Oude and the confusion of the Nabob Vizier's affairs: he should, therefore, accuse the said Warren Hastings with having been the cause of that decay, distress, and confusion; he should charge it upon the British Government of the province exercised under the direction of the said Warren Hastings, and prove, that it was owing to a military force being established in the province unconnected with the government, and not subject to the control of the Nabob, and to the appointment of the British officers to collect the revenues; he should charge the said Warren Hastings with making treaties for the professed purpose of remedying evils, but by them aggravating the same; with employing secret agents to counteract all good measures; with making contradictory charges against the British resident at Oude; with ordering a native collector to be murdered; with afterwards letting a large territory to farm to Almas Ali Khan for six years; with laying snares and traps to deceive and ensnare the British resident; with pretending to pay the Nabob's debts, which were never paid, and with an infinite variety of other cri Major Scott said, that he did not mean to divide the committee upon the present charge, or to detain them more than four or five minutes. In fact, as the friend of Mr. Hastings, he should rather wish that the charge might go up to the Lords, because he was conscious that where criminality was alleged, infinite merit would appear; but as a member of the British House of Commons, he considered it his duty to tell gentlemen, that he held a letter in his hand which so clearly and pointedly explained the cause of all the distresses that had been felt in Oude, that he should hold himself culpable if he did not communicate it to them. The letter, it was true, was before the House, but he believed that it had been perused by very few indeed of those who had voted for the impeachment of Mr. Hastings. The major said, he joined issue with the right hon. gentleman in all he had said as to the distresses of Oude; but he contended, that all these distresses were occasioned by a system which Mr. Hastings had not only opposed on its establishment in 1775, but had actually prophetically foretold, at the time the measure was adopted by general Clavering, colonel Monson, and Mr. Francis, in opposition to the opinion of Mr. Hastings. The major here read extracts from Mr. Bristow's letter, dated Lucknow, January 22, 1777, and then concluded thus: I have read this letter, to justify myself to the House for opposing with a negative only so nonsensical a charge as that now before you. We agree as to the distress of Oude, but the right hon. gentleman attributes that distress to Mr. Hastings; I, on the contrary, who have been in Oude myself, who have conversed with almost every man who has served in that country, and who have studied the subject, know that Mr. Hastings foretold the mischievous consequences of the system which his colleagues had established, and that he alone has the credit of remedying those evils which they occasioned. Oude is a country which has little trade and no mines; yet it appears that since the 1st of September 1773, the Company has received above 14 millions sterling from the Vizier; of this sum the Company has drawn from the country 8 millions sterling, and since 1773, fiftytwo gentlemen who have been employed in Oude, have returned with fortunes to Great Britain; I suppose upon an average, that they have brought home 25,000l. each; some may have brought home more; many, to my knowledge, have returned with much less. This will make the whole amount of specie extracted from Oude, including the sums sent to Calcutta for the purchase of European exports, at least ten millions sterling. Is there a man of common sense, who seriously considers this account, that can doubt a moment as to the causes of the distress which has been sustained in Oude? I therefore repeat, that on Mr. Hastings's account I rejoice that a charge so completely nonsensical has passed; but as a member of parliament I tell this committee, that they are about to vote a charge which, if they gave themselves the trouble to inquire into, they would find, is so far from having any foundation in fact, that Mr. Hastings is entitled to infinite merit from rescuing the Nabob Vizier from the distresses in which he was involved by the majority of the supreme council. Mr. Francis contended, that they did not charge Mr. Hastings with being the author of the distress and confusion which prevailed in the province of Oude previous to his having the direction of its government, but while the direction of it was completely in his power. Mr. Hastings had truly said, that colonel Monson died on the 28th of September 1786, and from that period only he was accountable for any act of the government of Bengal: that was precisely the fact, and upon the events which followed in Oude from that date to the day of Mr. Hastings's quitting the government of Bengal, were they and Mr. Hastings at issue. Mr. Burke said, that whether the charge was nonsensical or not, whether it was founded in folly or fraught with wisdom, was not for them, but for the House of Lords to determine that tribunal would, doubtless, examine with impartia lity, investigate patiently, and decide wisely and justly. It was his business to substantiate facts by evidence, and to prove all that he should charge. With regard to Mr. Bristow's letter, he had read it attentively, and he relied a good deal upon much of its contents: with respect to the fortunes made in Oude, unless the making of those fortunes should be found to involve in it something of criminality, he should not meddle with them: if it should be found that it did, he should in that case most undoubtedly interfere; and as to some persons having made great, and others small fortunes, if it should turn out that any of the persons of the latter description were highly criminal, it would' be matter of regret with him to know that their conviction could scarcely be followed with any other punishment than imprisonment. Mr. Dempster declared, that Mr. Hastings appeared to him so far from being the author of the distresses in Oude, that he thought it unworthy of that House to make it a matter of impeachable charge against him. The motion was carried without a division. Debate in the Lords concerning the Votes of Scotch Peers created British Peers.] May 18. The Earl of Hopetoun rose, and desired that the resolution of that House of January 170S-9 might be read. The clerk read it accordingly as follows: "That at any election of the Sixteen Peers of Scotland to represent the Scotch Peerage in the British Parliament, or of any one or more of them, no Scotch Peer who has been created a British Peer by patent since the Union shall be entitled to vote." The earl rose again, and observed that the subject on which he had taken the liberty of troubling their lordships, lay in a very narrow compass. It was clear, from the resolution just read, that the matter had been taken into consideration early after the articles of union between the two kingdoms were settled, and it appeared that it had been very deliberately considered and discussed, before the resolution was put upon the Journals. That resolution had remained unquestioned as to its propriety and justice ever since, nor had any Scotch peer, in the circumstances described, which were those of having been created a British peer by patent, attempted to vote for any of the sixteen peers returned to represent the |