explain the conduct of Mr. Pitt, or affectedly ascribing to him unbounded virtue or unprecedented candour, it is fair and reasonable to give him credit for just motives, unless some positive facts or declarations can be adduced tending to impeach him. It is not easy to believe that a snare so obvious could have been laid in the sight of individuals so eminently endowed with judgment and sagacity as the prosecutors of this inquiry; and, if any person could suppose that a device so shallow could be attended with effect, the sequel will shew how miserably he was deceived. If it were necessary to ascribe Mr. Pitt's conduct to any motive of party politics, unconnected with Mr. Hastings, it might, with more appearance of probability, be surmised, that, as he saw his opponents engaged with all their hearts, and pursuing with all their industry and energy the prosecution of the supposed delinquent; as he saw that all their splendid displays and gigantic efforts gained for them no extensive popularity, indifference being the general feeling; as he must be aware that many facts which they assumed as decisive would be explained, contradicted, or not adequately supported, when the case should be brought to rest, not on declaration, but on evidence, and that every failure would be recorded to their disadvantage, while the public feeling would be powerfully engaged in the cause of an individual attacked by such a formidable combination; he was pleased to see the members of opposition engaged in a conflict where success could gain for them no accession of influence or popularity, while failure would by many be deemed to inflict disgrace. His declarations and conduct throughout the debates are in conformity with this notion. In voting on one charge, he yielded to the eloquence of Mr. Sheridan, which he described as the "wand of the "enchanter;" in another, he acquiesced in part of the accusation, although he described the residue as untenable, or below the dignity of Parliament; and, upon all occasions, he spoke of his intended vote as the result of present impression only, sufficient to found a charge, but not to warrant a conviction. CHAP. LXI. 1786. CHAP. 1786. Situation of Whoever might rejoice, whoever might triumph in the result of these debates, one member, who had been most active in originating, and most unrelenting in Mr. Francis. pursuing the charges against Mr. Hastings, had no reason to exult; this was his old opponent, Mr. Francis. In various parts of the proceeding, he was treated in a manner far from complimentary. On a motion which he made on the subject of evidence*, Mr. Pitt observed that he should be particularly jealous of any proposal proceeding from him, after his dishonourable and disgraceful conduct in the examination of Captain Mercer. He had procured a letter to be written to him by that gentleman, containing gross and violent calumnies against Mr. Hastings, and then so managed the examination of that letter, as to cause it to be entered upon the minutes of the committee, thereby making the House his accomplices in recording and publishing an indecent libel. He was nominated on the committee to prepare the articles of impeachment; but his name occasioned the only division which attended the formation of that list, and his motion on the fifteenth charge was favoured by a less striking majority than any of the others. He complained of a libel against him, published in a newspaper, but did not venture on a motion, and the House would not in5th December. terferet. When the impeachment had been carried up, and managers were to be appointed, Mr. Burke was, on all hands, thought worthy to be the first nominated, and the vote passed without a division: he immediately proposed Mr. Francis; but only twenty-three members were found acceding to the proposition; while, in rejecting it, ninety-seven concurred; and Mr. Burke in vain appealed against the vote, as it would occasion a chasm, by rejecting from the committee the only individual who, from every consideration, appeared most proper to be one of its members. In a few days, Mr. Fox revived the subject, by moving that Mr. Francis should be added to the list of managers; but, although he enforced the proposition by an able speech, 10th. CHAP. LXI. 1786. and was supported by Mr. Windham, Mr. Dundas, General Burgoyne, and Mr. Francis himself, the House was inexorable, and the motion was rejected*. To allay those feelings by which Mr. Francis admitted himself to be affected, the other members of the committee wrote him a letter of regret and eulogy, which 18th Dec. was immediately published; but unfortunately, some person, well acquainted with the person, situation, acts, and resources of the honourable gentleman, reprinted it, with remarks well calculated to render the laudatory parts of it doubtfult; and no public expression, beyond the letter thus answered, was proffered for his gratification. 1787. To dismiss, for some time at least, the subject of Motion for imParliamentary impeachments, it will be necessary peachment of Sir Elijah briefly to state the proceedings against Sir Elijah Impey. Impey. After some unavoidable delay, notice of the motion, at a stated day, was given by Sir Gilbert 24th April. Elliot; but, that day being also found inconvenient, he did not produce his motion until the ensuing session. He considered the Supreme Court in India as a law 12th Dec. job, as a colony for the bar in Westminster Hall, by which young adventurers in the profession, as well as in politics, were to carry their talents to the Indian field, and by which, in process of time, that House was to behold a learned as well as a lay squad from Bengal. After many more observations of the same kind, he shortly stated his charges. The first related to Nundcomar; the next was the Patna cause; the third, the unaccountable extension of the jurisdiction of the court; then came the Cossijurah cause; the acceptance of the office of the Sudder Duannee Adaulet, with an enormous salary, in direct disobedience to the act by which he held the place of supreme judge; and the last was founded on the affidavits which he took at Lucknow, in justification of Mr. Hastings's conduct toward the Begums of Oude, which was termed a scandalous prostitution of his high authority. * 122 to 62. It was published by Stockdale, in 1788. CHAP. 1787. Sir Elijah Impey defends himself. April. 1788. Sir Gilbert produced these charges in writing; and they were ordered to be received, read shortly, and printed. Sir Elijah never shewed the least apprehension on the subject; and, when offered to be exempted from examination in Mr. Hastings's case, he declined the privilege, declaring that, as he had no consciousness of guilt, he was free from all impression of fear. At the first opportunity, he petitioned for a hearing, the ex4th February. amination of witnesses, and other business, occupied a long period of the session; but, being at length admitted to the bar of the House, he delivered a long, eloquent, and energetic defence. He shewed that the evidence adduced before a committee of the House, on the subject of Nundcomar, was inapplicable; but he complained of the libels which had been put into circulation on the subject, particularly one which imputed to Lord Mansfield a declaration that the legal murder of Nundcomar showed every person in Bengal what they had to expect. Although these attacks had been daily made for thirteen years, and vehemently renewed since his arrival in England, he had rigorously abstained from all vindicatory publications, however urged and solicited. Far from uttering the sentiments imputed to him, the noble lord, whose name had been so indecently used, had declared that he had never formed any opinion on the subject, that the assertion was an absolute falsehood, and he had authorised the contradiction of it wherever made. He also cited letters of approbation which he had received from Sir William Blackstone, Lord Walsingham, Lord Ashburton, and the Attorney-general, Mr. Wallace. If the points insisted on, with respect to Nundcomar, were true,—if, for the purpose of screening the guilty from a just accusation, he had made the law of England the engine and instrument of a confederacy to accomplish the death of the accuser, he was guilty, not of a misdemeanor, but of a murder, of the basest, foulest, and most aggravated nature; and life would then have been the merited forfeit. As to the claim of Nundcomar to especial protection as the accuser of Mr. Hastings, he declared that the fact was unknown to him and the other judges, except by rumour; it formed no part of the prisoner's defence; evidence might most easily have been given, but it was not; nor, until the end of thirteen years, was it brought forward as a topic of accusation. An adjournment having taken place, he completed his defence on the other charges, supporting his statements by official and public documents*. CHAP. LXI. 1788. The proposed impeachment formed the topic of 28th April. languid discussions on three several days, and, at last, 7th May. it was totally destroyed, by a motion that the House 27th. would, on that day three months, resolve itself into a Motion lost. committee, which passed without a division. This admirable defence was printed separately, as a pamphlet; and it is inserted verbatim in Hansard's Debates, vol. xxvi. p. 1341. |