that the committee confift of the following perfons: Edmund Burke, Efq. Right Hon. Thomas Pelham Right Hon. Frederick Montagu A divifion took place upon the nomination of Mr. Francis, against whom it was objected, that in India he had been perfonally at variance with Mr. Haftings; and he was rejected by a majority of 96 to 44. It was afterwards moved in the ufual forms, that the committee might be invested with the cuftomary powers of calling for papers and witneffes, fitting where they pleased, &c. &c., and it was agreed, that it must neceffarily be a fecret committee. On the 19th day of April, Mr. Francis opened the charge relative to the revenues of Bengal.-He took this occafion of vindicating his character against certain malicious infinuations which had been induftrioufly circulated both within and without the house, and to the effects of which he attributed the rejection of his name in the appointment of the committee the day before. It had been infinuated, he faid, that through the whole of his conduct in the profecution of Mr. Haftings, he had been actuated by private perfonal motives of hoftility and hatred. In juftification of himfelf, therefore, he should beg leave to state to the committee the origin and grounds of that hoftility.-After ftating the circumstances which recommended him to the appointment of one of the council with general Clavering and Mr. Monson, in the year 1773, he folemnly protested that they did not go out, as was generally imagined, with fentiments hoftile to Mr. Haftings; but on the contrary that they all entertained the highest opinion of that gentleman's public character, infomuch that general Clavering, previous to their failing, obtained a private audience of his majefty for the purpofe of humbly foliciting him to send out fome mark of honour to Mr. Haftings, in order to induce him to continue in the government. With this high opinion of Mr. Haftings they landed at Calcutta ; but foon found their error: it was upon public grounds, as all who were acquainted with the tranfactions of India well knew, that their oppofition to Mr. Haftings commenced, and it was upon those grounds that his had continued to the prefent moment. Another circumftance of a more delicate nature had indeed occurred, which it was neceffary to explain to the committee. He had, it was true, fought a duel with that gentleman at Calcutta; but here too there was no private caufe of quarrel, their difference had been a public difference. Mr. Haftings had entered a minute upon the records of the council fo injurious to his character in his public capacity, that it left him no other other alternative than that which he embraced; they met, and he was fhot through the body; he did not imagine that he thould furvive; he gave Mr. Haftings his hand, and declared he forgave him-But what was it he forgave him? Why, the infult he had offered him, and the being the cause, as he then imagined, of his death. He did not renounce the opinions he held of his public conduct; he did not promise to abandon thofe opinions in case he furvived; he did not engage to defift from profecuting an enquiry into his conduct, if he lived to come to England, which he had always declared to Mr. Haftings himself he would endeavour to cause to be inftituted. Mr. Francis was anfwered by Major Scott. After which Mr. Pitt rofe, and faid, that the observations he had to make upon the present charge lay within fo limited a compafs, as not to require him to take up much of the time of the committee; and in fact, he should only call their attention to one particular point, upon which alone he thought they could with any degree of propriety concur with the honourable gentleman in the motion which he had made; nor did he think, that even on that point the house would act confiftently in voting the present charge, because it was included in another charge, to which the house had already affented. This circumftance was the fact of Mr. Haftings having received prefents from Kelleram and Cullian Sing, on the fettlement made with the zemindars, -farmers, and collectors, in 1781. The house therefore having voted a specific article on that head, he fhould by no means vote another merely on the fame ground; and he was perfectly fatisfied that there was no other foundation for a criminal charge againft Mr. Haftings in the article which the honourable gentleman had opened, except that which he had now ftated-the accepting of prefents. Still, if it could be made appear that the charge, as it stood, would tend to throw any fresh or neceffary light upon the receipt of the prefents-would establish itmore ftrongly in point of fact, or elucidate and prove the guilt of the tranfaction more forcibly-he should then be ready and willing to give the motion his hearty fupport. As to the other matters contained in the charge, and ftated by the honourable gentleman, he either looked upon them as not criminal, or, if criminal, as not fufficiently prov ed, or capable of being fubftantiated at the bar of the other house. In the courfe of this debate, Mr. Barwell, the member for St. Ives, who had been an affociate with Mr. Haftings in the government of Bengal, obferved, that a right honourable gentleman having frequently introduced his name with fome infinuation of blame, he could not avoid expreffing an earnest defire, that if there was any charge of delinquency against him, it might be brought forward, and he was ready to meet it in that houfe, or elfewhere. Mr. Burke, who was the perfon alluded to, replied, that he did not mean to bring forward a charge against the honourable member, as his hands were fufficiently full already; but if he was really anxious to be accused, he would, when at leifure, apply himself to the fubject; for if he were compelled to fpeak the truth, he muft fay, that he did not think the whole of the gentleman's conduct unexceptionable ceptionable whilft he was in India. -At length the queftion was put, and the committee divided; ayes 71, noes 55. On the 25th of April Mr. Burke brought up from the fecret committee the articles of impeachment, which being read a first time, were ordered to be printed, and to be taken into confideration on the 9th of May. Upon that day, on a motion that they fhould be read a fecond time, lord Hood rofe to give his determined negative, and went, over the arguments he had urged upon a former occafion. He was followed by Mr. Alderman Wilkes, and Mr. Smith, who were of opinion that many facts, upon which the charges were founded, were unfupported by evidence, others juftifiable by ftate neceffity, others again actually juftified by the approbation of his mafters and of the public, others defenfible from the difference of manners and government in that country, and others highly meritorious. The former infifted ftrongly on the filence of the natives of India upon the fubject of the dreadful oppreffions faid to have been practifed amongst them; and attributed the greatest part of what appeared criminal in the conduct of Mr. Haftings, to the craving and avaricious policy of this country, whofe demands had in fome inftances driven Mr. Hattings to the ufe of means not ftrictly juftifiable. The amount of the charges, he faid, fuppofing the facts true, was this, that Mr. Haftings, by oppreffion, by injuftice and corruption, has obtained for the company nine millions and a half sterling. He thought that all the acts complained of were wife, politic, and juft. But were he of a contrary opinion, he could not, as an honest man, lay his hand upon his heart, and vote for the impeachment of Mr. Haftings, while he bafely and infamously benefited by his mifdeeds. And how gentlemen, who condemn these acts fuffer a day to pafs without moving retribution to the fufferers, was to him incomprehenfible. The lord advocate for Scotland (Mr. Ilay Campbell) faid, that confidering the house as fitting in the capacity of a grand jury, and confequently that they ought to be thoroughly perfuaded of the truth of the indictment, fo far as the evidence went, and not to reft fatisfied merely with remote probabilities, he could not confcientiously give his vote for the impeachment. He then took a view of the different articles of charge, and pointed out the parts in which he conceived the evidence to be effentially defective. He confidered the neceffities of the company, and the dangerous crifis of their affairs, as grounds of justification for the ftrong measures purfued by Mr. Haftings, in order to extricate them. The company having actually reaped the benefit of them, and fo far approved of them, as never to have fignified any intention of reftitution, he could not conceive with what propriety Mr. Haftings could be impeached for them He further obferved, that Mr. Haftings had been most unjustly blamed for various acts of adminiftration, in which he had only concurred with others-that the order of dates, as well as the ftate of the council at different periods, ought to have been more diftinctly attended to in the charges. Mr. Haftings had enjoyed the cafting voice in the council only for a very fhort time, and even then Mr. Barwell was equally refponfible with him. Afterwards, Mr. Wheler, Sir John Macpherson, Sir Eyre Coote, and Mr. Stables, came gradually into the council. At one period a coalition took place between Mr. Haftings and Mr. Francis. How do the profecutors account for this? -and is Mr. Haftings alone to be made accountable during that period? He concluded with obferving, that in fuggefting what had occurred to him in favour of Mr. Haftings, he had avoided faying any thing upon the topic of his extraordinary fervices in general, being doubtful whether, upon the fuppofition of guilt in any fpecific article, a fet off, as it is called, or balancing of accounts between merits and demerits, would relevantly be admitted-at the fame time it was a mode of defence not altogether new. The proceedings in lord Clive's cafe left no room to doubt that he owed his fafety to it; and there was still a more illuftrious example of it in hiftory, the cafe of Epaminondas, the Theban general, who, when tried for his life before the tribunal of his country, for having kept the command fourmonths afterhe should have laid it down, acknowledged the crime, but enumerated the glorious actions which he had performed; and faid he would die with pleasure, if the fole merit of thefe were afcribed to him.-This fpeech procured his acquittal-and whoever reads the hiftory of India, during the late war, will be apt to think that Mr. Haftings may die when he pleases, with fimilar words in his mouth. Mr Alderman Townshend juftified Mr. Haftings on the ground of ftate neceflity; and faid, that he deferved the higheft applaufe, for not having ftood upon fo paltry a punctilio as confidering whether a meafure was rigidly correct and legal, when the immediate neceffity of the company's affairs, and the falvation of India, were concerned. The making reftitution to the perfons who had been injured would be more like an act of justice, than hunting down an individual, againft whom no complaints had been made. Mr. Martin declared himself a friend to the impeachment, fince the facts in the feveral charges had been fo fully established. He said, if any gentleman would move, that retribution fhould be made, he would fecond the motion. Lord Mulgrave faid, that as he had always voted against the ques tion, except on the charge relative to prefents, he muft, for the fake of confiftency, vote against the impeachment. Mr. Burgefs produced an address from the officers of the army in India, an army of 70,000 men, all of whom bore teftimony to the important fervices of his adminiftration. The chancellor of the exchequer then rofe, and obferved, that he was not a little furprifed to find, that after every charge had been fully inveftigated in the committee, gentlemen fhould now object to the natural confequence of the whole, without bringing out any new matter whatever. He reprobated the idea of a fet-off in very ftrong terms. He acknowledged, that many mea fures during the adminiftration of Mr. Haftings, were uncommonly brilliant; and that in these his merits were unquestionable. But he trufted no man, who seriously regarded regarded the honour of the house of commons, would expect that the juftice of the country could admit of any compromife whatever. He was forry his honourable friend, the lord advocate of Scotland, fhould conceive the honour of the representatives of the British nation not interested in refcuing the British character from that degree of infamy and degradation to which it had been reduced. The accufations which had been preferred against Mr. Haftings were now not only the cause of the house, but, in his opinion, involved the honour of every member individually. Nor had he lefs hefitation, from the importance of the fubject, to fay, it affected the government of thewhole empire. It was a question which fhook the basis of the conftitution, for it was literally a question of refponfibility. And here he defired to be understood as by no means agreeing with his honourable friend, in comparing the house of commons to a grand jury. There were certainly points in which that comparifon could not be justified. It would, if carried up in its full extent, put it out of the power of the commons of Great Britain to carry any bill of impeachment whatever. The houfe of commons could examine no evidence on oath. All they were therefore accountable for was the conviction of their own minds. On this principle he was prepared to vote for the general queftion. From the weight and importance of the charges, the policy and intereft of the country required that an example fhould be made of the delinquent. The neceffity of this he urged, particularly from the difpofition he perceived in the abettors of Mr. Haf tings, to juftify him on the princi ples of expediency and neceflity. But he contended, that they had even failed in fubftantiating that plea, fince no neceffity whatever, in many cafes where that pretext was fet up, had been proved. He even fhewed, by a statement of the facts in evidence, that where neceffity had been moft infifted on, profufion and corruption demonftrated that it did not exift. After preffing this on the house with much earneftnefs, he adverted to the articles in general; and faid, he did not by any means adopt them without exception: but that as he' agreed with the leading idea of all, except the charges concerning Cheyt Sing, he thought there could be no impropriety in carrying up the articles as they ftood to the houfe of lords; he fhould, therefore, from a fincere conviction that he was doing his duty to the public, vote decidedly for the queftion. The house then divided on the queftion, whether the report should be now read a fecond time, which was carried in the affirmative, by 175 to 89. After which the firft article of impeachment was read and agreed to without a divifion, and the reft deferred till the morrow, when they were read, amended, and agreed to. Mr. Burke then rofe, and moved," That Warren "Haftings, efq; be impeached of high crimes and mifdemeanors upon the said articles.” Mr. Sumner, a gentleman who had formerly been in the service of the India company, rofe to exprefs his aftonifhment that a perfon of fuch high character, acknowledged ability, and received integrity, as Mr. Haftings, fhould be the fub je&t |