After a desultory conversation of nearly three hours continuance, Mr. Pitt moved to withdraw the proposed amendment, and to add the words by impeachment' to the motion; which, after a fresh conversation, was agreed to. The debate on the main question then proceeded. Mr. Burton made an elaborate defence of the conduct of Mr. Hastings upon the subject of the Rohilla war, tracing every step of the business, and justifying it with strong argument. He argued that as the ally of Sujah Dowlah, we could not avoid entering into the Rohilla war. He detailed all the circumstances of that war, and concluded with a panegyric on the merits of Mr. Hastings. His abilities, he said, were shining and commanding; and he was not more remarkable for genius than for humanity. With respect to the charges of cruelty, Mr. Burton said, he was well assured that no such imputation could attach to Mr. Hastings, whose characteristic was humanity almost to womanish weakness. Mr. Wilberforce thought that the Rohilla war was undertaken by Mr. Hastings unnecessarily, and prosecuted with cruelty; but he did not believe that this cruelty was imputable to Mr. Hastings, any otherwise than he had employed, or at least empowered a man so vindictive and cruel as Sujah Dowlah, to be the instrument of that war. The guarantee he considered merely as a specious plea. It amounted to no more, and could not, in any sound reasoning, be said to have pledged the British faith to the Vizier, to assist him in his rapacious scheme on the Rohillas. Thinking as he did with respect to the question of the Rohilla war, he must, of course, agree to the present motion; but, on the general question for the impeachment of Mr. Hastings, he confessed he should hesitate. The Rohilla war was a subject of so long a date, that he felt himself unhappy at the idea of raking it up after such a length of time. It was the duty of the noble Lord in the blue ribbon, who understood the whole of the business so well, and who was the minister at the time, to have recalled Mr. Hastings. The answer which he had given to the noble lord who had charged him with this neglect of duty, had not been answered to his satisfaction. But it was not the length of time that had elapsed only which influenced his mind. The subsequent merits and general character of Mr. Hastings weighed with him against particular errors, He had left our affairs in a more prosperous condition than they had been in for years before, and he had spent his life and injured his health in our service. To punish Mr. Hastings now, was like eating the mutton of the sheep which we had previously shorn of its fleece. Certainly we ought to have recalled him when he committed the fault; but having suffered him to wear out his constitution in our service, it was wrong to try him when he could be of no farther use. Of the criminality of Mr. Hastings in regard to the Rohilla war he was perfectly convinced. The original contract was certainly not so much for the recovery of a sum of money as for the extirpation of the people; and it was a pitiful and ridiculous thing in us to question the title of the Rohillas to the country which they possessed. Their title was the same as our own, derived from the sword. What were we but the Rohillas of Bengal? It was a contract not defensible, for an end inhuman and scandalous. Mr. Fox rose next, and said: Mr. St. John;-I rise at this hour, to express what I think with regard to this business, after combating two days about the form in which it should be put. It is indeed to me of very little consequence, in what shape the question is brought before us: I want only to come at the ground upon which the matter stands; I wish only to meet the thing itself fairly and openly; the participation, the guilt, the criminality which may justly be imputed to Mr. Hastings, with regard to the war with the Rohillas-a war carried on to their ruin, destruction, extermination, or any other name you may please to give it, for it was certainly more than conquest. This is the object to which I have done all in my power to call the attention of the House; and I must confess that I am not a little surprised that it has been so much evaded, as it certainly has been, and that in a manner extremely marked. The first charge exhibited by my right hon. friend, appeared not to meet the wishes of the House. wishes of the House. A charge specific of particular facts, was called for-this was complied with. My right hon. friend brought a charge entirely of the nature and description of what had been demanded: it was then thought more agreeable to gentlemen to move a question upon the charge as it originally stood: this was acceded to with equal facility. Had I foreseen the use that would have + minal, highly criminal with regard to the Rohilla war, ought to vote for the question. Much blame has been thrown by an hon. gentleman (Mr. Wilberforce) upon my noble friend in the blue ribband for not recalling Mr. Hastings at the time he blamed him, as he declares he did, for the Rohilla war. The fact is, the noble lord did desire to recall Mr. Hastings, but he was withstood by those who were Mr. Hastings's immediate masters. He did all in his power; he sent out general Clavering, Mr. Monson, and Mr. Francis, to examine into his conduct, and to be a check upon the violence of his proceedings. The effect has been as he foresaw, and it has brought to light those actions which are the subject of inquiry this day. My right hon. friend too, who brought forward this charge, has been accused of been made of these concessions, I would I never have consented; I do not mean that my consent would have been of any avail, but I would have debated to the last, rather than suffered the motion to take the form it has now assumed. It has, indeed, always been my opinion, that the best mode of proceeding in this business, was to move a general question, whether the whole of the charges contained matter of impeachment; and if this should be the opinion of the committee, to consider what particular articles were to make a part of this impeachment; and had it not been that I confided in the declarations of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, I would have still persisted in this manner of taking up the business. It is my opinion that the number, as well as the weight of the crimes that might be found, should go in the minds of gentle-a persecuting spirit; of bringing forward men who form a resolution for impeachment; that the crimes should be great and enormous; and that not only should they bear that character, but that they should be in number very considerable, in order that the aggregate and not the individuals alone, might form ground for inducing this House to present them before the House of Peers, in the only mode in which they can charge any man, that of impeachment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer professes entirely to agree with me in this point; he has declared that he does not consider the vote upon this article, or any one article, as pledging gentlemen to impeach, if upon a retrospect of the whole, after having gone through each, they do not find grounds to lead them to such a determination. But although the right hon. gentleman professes this to be his opinion, I must contend he means something else; why, otherwise, would he be so much for retaining the word impeachment' at all in motion? If, as he declares, the vote is solely whether there are high crimes and misdemeanors imputable to Warren Hastings, in this charge, that word can only tend to mislead, and occasion a sense of the motion before the House different from what it really is in its true intention. As I have said a good deal upon this in the course of the evening, I beg only that it may not be misunderstood by gentlemen, and that the motion may be taken in the i sense explained by the right hon. gentleman to be his sense, and which certainly is mine, that every gentleman who is convinced that Warren Hastings is cri actions that had been passed over, and which it was right to bury in oblivion. Such imputations, I believe, my right hon. friend will not much regard; but when the hon. gentleman complains of Parliament, it is too much to pass it over in silence. This business was first inquired into, in the committee of secresy, in the year 1782; it was then censured, and severely censured; and although it was a transaction that had happened so many years before that period, it was not made known to them as a subject of inquiry before the appointment of that committee. It was in consequence of the facts that were discovered by that committee, that the resolutions reprobating the conduct of the governor-general, were passed by the House of Commons. My right hon. friend, it is true, moved for several papers; some were granted him, many were refused; but the whole had its origin in the year 1782. But why should not the conduct of Mr. Hastings be entered into? If by the resolution of the House not to inquire into the transactions of the year 1781, an act of grace was passed, was all his life to be exempted; or was it only that period of it, between the year 1781, and the year 1782? Certainly there must be some time for this purpose; and if the hon. gentleman could prove that the Rohilla war was after this time, in which no inquiry was to be made, he might do something; but let this be left to those who are convinced of the guilt of Mr. Hastings and do not choose to condemn him, as their last subterfuge; but to which, it is to be thought, they will be ashamed to fly. It has been said by some, that they see With respect to the particular question, too much of party spirit in this business. I agree that professions are nothing. They have often deceived, and will deceive again; but I rest upon something better than professions. I rest upon my uniform conduct in this business-I was, from the first, a supporter of an inquiry into the management of the affairs in India: I was in the origin a strong advocate for the necessity of punishing the delinquency that was found there, by the activity of the learned gentleman (Mr. Dundas). Through the whole of that business, I supported that learned gentleman, at a time when I disapproved of his politics as much as I do now: I supported him, even when those who were his friends were against the measures he proposed. I wish by no means to treat it lightly. I do not approve of making the difference of opinion, in the gentleman at the head of the Board, on this subject, an object of pleasantry. The whole business is, in my opinion, solemn and important to the last degree. Much has been said of side questions, but I persuade myself there is a disposition in gentlemen to meet this question fairly and openly. Much disgrace would be upon this country, if they should countenance the advice that has been given them by some persons, of assenting to this war, as founded on justice. For this war of the Rohillas has appeared to all the world so wholly unjustifiable, that there has not been found among any set of men, any person that could defend Sir, I can appeal to something better it. If it shall be supported by a British than party spirit; I can show that this has House of Commons, it will be the greatest always been the line of my conduct; I misfortune that can befall this nation. can appeal to the part I took upon myself The determination of this night will be at a much earlier period, in bringing to attended to by all Europe. The nations justice crimes committed in our Asiatic around us will form upon it their future dominions; and there, too, by a man who measures with regard to their power in had great advantages in his favour: for India; and may justly presage the total great fame, great glory, great acts for his loss of all confidence in the justice of this country, were all in the character of lord nation in that part of the world. What Clive; but these I valued as nothing. must be thought by our government in Under whose banners did I then contend? India? The rule held out to them they It was under the banners of that man, who must, no doubt, consider as that by which is now at the head of all the law and reli- they are in future to direct their congion of this country, the present Lord duct. Chancellor of England, who treated the subject with that manly eloquence for which he is so much distinguished; who crushed, I may say, to atoms, all those who attempted to set up the services of lord Clive as a bar to punishment. He would not suffer a word to be heard, he would not allow mention to be made of any thing that was done by him, as any argument to prevent his punishment. I supported him, and if such was my opinion with respect to lord Clive, I do not see any thing in Mr. Hastings's conduct to induce me to change my mode of action. I do not think that in any capital instance he has been of great use to the Company. The Mahratta peace is alleged in his favour. I have my doubts whether this peace had the merit ascribed to it; but if it had, it was a peace only upon a war entered into by himself, on his own wanton provocation; for he does not seem to have been at any time a friend to peaceable measures; he opposed also the forming, and the accomplishment of the treaty of Poonah and Poorunder; he opposed also the peace with Tippoo Saib. It was said, that if we guaranteed Sujah Dowlah, we ought to follow him to the extent of what he proposed, and that there was no medium between forfeiting our faith as guarantees, and joining with him in the destruction of the Rohillas. This is, indeed, horrid policy. Instead of acting the part of an equitable umpire and mediator, what is it but to countenance and assist barbarous vengeance and rapacity? to defend what has thrown indelible stains upon the most brilliant monarchs? If any thing similar to this, of which we are speaking, were to happen in Europe, how great would be the cry against it? If Great Britain were to guarantee a truce between the Emperor and the Dutch, in which they stipulated to pay a certain sum of money to the Emperor; if they afterwards were to refuse to perform this, we ought, according to this reasoning, to join with the Emperor in the complete conquest of Holland. A noble lord (Mulgrave) has, indeed, most sagaciously observed, What, in such a situation, is governor of India to do; is he to consult Puffendorf and Grotius? No. But I will tell him what he is to consult the laws of nature-not the statutes to be found in those books, nor in any booksbut those laws which are to be found in Europe, Africa, and Asia-that are found amongst all mankind-those principles of equity and humanity implanted in our our hearts, which have their existence in the feelings of mankind that are capable of judging. I have compared the conquest of the Dutch to the case of the Rohillas-but it was more than a conquest. The word 'extermination' has been used; but if the meaning of it be, that every man, woman, and child was put to death, Mr. Hastings is not guilty of so enormous a crime. Suffer me to make use of an example, that may come home more to your feelings; and that is with regard to Ireland. The English are not above one-ninth of the inhabitants of that country; but they possess all the power, together with the greatest part of the property and landed estates of it. Were a French army to come and take possession of Ireland, and say to the English," you are a set of robbers, those lands do not belong to you; you are usurpers, and you came here under the greatest usurper in the world;" (for I believe most of the English families settled in Ireland in the time of Oliver Cromwell)" get you gone-get over that channel, and leave this country, of which you have so unjustly taken possession" what difference would there be in an action of this kind, and what has been done to the Rohillas? Only this-the Rohillas had been in possession fifty years; and the English one hundred and fifty. No one, I believe, will think that the time could make any material difference; but if this was done by an enemy, it could only be done under the pretence of restoring the country to its ancient masters. With regard to the Rohillas, that is not the case-in other respects the case would not be dissimilar. If all the English were extirpated from Ireland, the manufacturers, the plowmen, and the labourers, would still be left-but I believe no one would say, that there would not be great hardship in such case, great injustice, great cruelty. Figure to yourselves such a body of people driven from a country in which they were in peaceable possession, rooted up, and sent amongst you with their wives, with their [VOL. XXVI.] F children, without property, without any thing to support them in existence: yet they would have another advantage; the English would only be sent across a narrow channel to their friends and countrymen ; but the wretched Rohillas had no country-the country they had left, had long been possessed by others, and where were these miserable people to seek for a place of shelter-from the persecution of whom? of Englishmen-natives of a country renowned for its justice and humanity. They will carry their melancholy tale into the numerous tribes and nations among whom they are scattered; and you may depend upon it, the impression which it must make, will, sooner or later, have its effect. A great deal of argument has been made use of, with regard to the guarantee, it is said, we entered into. I own I think very differently from most people on this particular point. I think it necessary to consider first, if the agreement was a guarantee; I think Mr. Hastings was guilty, if it was no guarantee: if it was one, I think he is most guilty. But it was no guarantee. Sir Robert Barker, who signed the treaty alluded to, had no powers for this purpose. He himself thought it no guarantee. The Board thought it no guarantee. In truth they could not enter into one, not even Mr. Hastings himself, without contradicting in the most express manner the very opinions he was at that time strongly impressing to be the directors of his conduct. On the subject of offensive war, there has been much dispute; but whatever may be the sentiments of others with regard to it, Mr. Hastings most explicitly declares his opinion to be against it. In the year 1772, Mr. Hastings, in his letter to the court of directors, says "I can in this beg leave to assure you, that I adopt, with sincerity and satisfaction, your orders against offensive war;" and with regard to the Vizier, he declares "that nothing shall either tempt or compel him to pass the political line which they had laid down for his operations with him." He makes use of a very singular expres sion for the purpose of shewing his strong determination on this point; it seems to me to be nonsense; but it is intended to shew his measures in a strong light; he says, "In the mean time you will observe, that I have refused to go farther than agreeing to a passive defence of his [F] dominions," This letter was written in for mankind, actions are not always deNovember, 1772; in the June preceding, rived from pure sources in public bodies; the treaty was signed by sir Robert Barker. but in general, they take care to hold forth If he had guaranteed them by this treaty, to the world principles of equity and and come under an obligation to support justice. such a guarantee by an offensive war, it is impossible he could have expressed himself in this manner. In Mr. Hastings's own letter he takes merit to himself for having gone into no offensive treaty; and it is not to be supposed, he could be either so absent, or have so much duplicity, as to speak of a business in a light which he knew to be false, and which might so easily be discovered. But they double the guilt by supposing a guarantee. If he was guarantee, it could be no reason for his taking up arms; the object was solely the acquisition of a sum of money; and I must beg leave to say, that the object of profit can be no reason for taking up arms at any time or upon any emergency. Here was solely the purpose of acquiring the sum of forty lacks of rupees. No previous requisition was made of them, but the country was immediately invaded. Couple this with the office which they ascribe to him; he was an umpire and a mediator. Every person who is a guarantee to a treaty is a guarantee on both sides. An hon. gen. tleman said, that he might be such, and not be bound to interfere: this I deny; he has a power of choosing; he is bound to procure the effect of it in its full extent. But what was the conduct of Mr. Hastings? He receives a bribe for the purpose of extorting a sum of money from those he was obliged by treaty to defend ; and he adds to the character of a cruel invader, that of a corrupt and profligate judge. I declare, Sir, that in all the writings I have ever seen, I never heard such doctrine maintained as I have heard on this subject in this House. I do not pretend to be greatly conversant in books of this kind, but in all of them I have ever looked into, I have never seen a conduct such as this attempted to be defended; not even in Machiavel, nor the most corrupt defenders of crooked policy. It is worse than any mode of acting adopted by the meanest States of Italy; and if such doctrines are allowed by the House of Commons to be valid, they are the first public assembly-I do not say that has acted upon them-but they are the first which has ever avowed and adopted them in any part of the civilized world. Unfortunately But if he did guarantee this treaty, it is insisted that he was bound to see the money paid to Sujah Dowlah. Was there no other way of procuring this than the one which Mr. Hastings followed? I will not put it better than in the words of an hon. gentleman (Mr. Hardinge), who, when he pleases, possesses the powers of eloquence as much as any gentleman I know; but in a plain and simple manner he expressed this more strongly than by the most magnificent figures-Mr. Hastings's language to the Rohillas was this, " If you do not pay this sum of money, be ye exterminated." An hon. gentleman complains, that an appeal has been made to his passions. It is true, it is an appeal to the passions; this simple expression is an appeal, the strongest that ever was made to the feelings of mankind-it is one of those subjects which eloquence cannot heighten, and the force of which words can only diminish. If a sum of money was due by any one country to another with which we were in alliance; if that sum was demanded, and refused to be paid, we might join our ally in arms; but we should not rush blindly into war; we should weigh its policy; balance the advantage to be gained; and at any rate, we should follow it no farther than procuring the payment of the sum, and the expense of enforcing it. The noble lord was pleased to say, that` Mr. Hastings was obliged to join in arms with Sujah Dowlah, and having joined him with his troops, he had no more control over them; but this is by no means the line of his proper conduct. If Mr. Hastings thought it right to grant an aid of troops to Sujah Dowlah, it ought to have been only for the purpose of enabling him to recover this sum of money; but he ought not to have suffered him to carry his resentment to the Rohillas any farther; and even to enter into an offensive war for this purpose, would have been contrary to his orders, and what the object would not have been equal to. Had Mr. Hastings said to himself, I will procure this money for Sujah Dowlah, as the guarantee of the treaty; as the director of the English forces, and the president of the Company's servants, I feel myself bound to see that the stipulation is |