would tell the right honourable gentleman, the Speaker said, in what he was irregular. It was perfectly competent to the right honourable gentleman to juftify the Managers from any imputation, and which no man could caft upon them without reflecting on the honour of that Houfe; yet if he went into the conduct of Mr. Haftings, and anticipated the nature of his defence, he took it, the Houfe would feel that fuch references were irregular. Mr. Burke faid, when he laid down any general principle, Mr.Burke he endeavoured to fortify it with fome proofs. He begged pardon if he had been wrong. He had been endeavouring, he faid, to fhew that the Managers had been guilty of no delay, and that if there had been any delay, it had proceeded from the prifoner himself. With regard to compaffion (for a cafe of coinpaffion had been attempted to be set up) he truffed he was as ready as any other man to feel for the dif treffes of his fellow creatures. Mr. Burke declared, he did Mr. not yet know on what fide he fhould vote. If he were to vote for his own ease, he said, he fhould vote for the addrefs. Mr. Loveden fhortly explained, and faid, it was not his intention to arraign any man or body of men. He had Loveden. ftated, that one great caufe of delay arofe from the prorogations and diffolution. He did not mean to fay these were unneceffary or improper, but he feared they would wound and weaken that great bulwark of our conftitution, the right of the Commons to trial by impeachment. Major Scott explained. General Smith (who had rifen while Mr. Burke was on his General legs, and to whom Mr. Burke had faid a word or two), faid Smith. he did not know whether the right honourable gentleman had alluded to him when he got up, but he thought it right to explain himself. He reminded the Houfe, that he had been chairman of the felect Committee, that had brought forward thofe charges which conftituted the articles of impeachment. He was therefore perfectly aware of their magnitude; but he could not fit filent and hear fuch harfhfounding epithets of Indian delinquency, Indian peculation, and Indian corruption, applied fo generally, to the calumny of many deferving officers, and others. The General declared, he believed there were men who had ferved their country as well in the Eaft Indies as in any other part of the globe, and whofe merits ought not to be funk, and their characters injured by general indifcriminate afperfion. Mr. Burke faid, being called on by an old colleague, he Mr. Burke rofe to explain. The honourable General, who was a man of great merit undoubtedly, and had ferved his country well, both abroad and at home, in that House especially, by bring. ing forward a great body of matter of India evidence, in VOL. XXIX. 4 D two Mr. Fox. two voluminous reports, was guilty, if he was guilty, of fcandalizing all who had ferved in India. Mr. Burke would not admit, that the talking of Indian delinquency in a general manner, was at all cenfurable. If it was, how happened it that his honourable friend next him (Mr. Francis) had not rifen and flated that he had libelled him? Mr. Burke faid, he often in that Houfe talked of parliamentary corruption, borough corruption, and minifterial corruption, and no man thought illiberally or unfairly. Did his honourable acceffary in guilt, (if guilt there was any, in collecting proofs of peculation and charging them on individuals), mean to say that there was no fuch thing as India corruption? Mr. Fox, as foon as Mr. Burke fat down, rofe, and faid, he was forry to protract the debate, but as he fhould cer tainly vote for the addrefs, he could not confent to give a filent vote for it, but muft wish to affign his reafons why he fhould do fo. In the first place, he faid, he must differ entirely from the right honourable and learned gentleman over the way, in that part of his argument, which related to the Royal prerogative, and declare, that he did not think the Houfe of Commons, taking upon itself to advise the Crown upon great and fitting occafions, with regard to the exercife of any one of the Royal prerogatives, was an unconstitutional interference in that Houfe; and as a proof that he had always thought as he did then think, that the House had a right to advile the King as, to the ufe of his prerogative to prorogue or diffolve the Parliament, Mr. Fox faid, in the year 1778, and in 1779, he had moved and voted for several addrefes, defiting His Majefty to fufpend his prerogative upon the fubject of that most important prerogative, the making of peace and declaring war; but he had been unfuccefsful; in 1783, however, he had more fuccessfully, as to the motion, voted for an addrefs, the fame in effect as the former addreffes, though not equally fortunate as to event. Indeed, Mr. Fox faid, he could not foresee any poffible cafe that could arife for that Houfe to addrefs His Majesty, (and he recollected having voted with a minority of 200 or 250), when (having previously voted that the influence of the Crown had encreased) they addreffed His Majefty, and begged him not to porogue the Parliament till they fhould have paffed certain bills for the purpofe of diminishing that in fluence. It was true, 'Mr. Fox faid, there had been a majority against that motion, but he was one of those who did not think thofe arguments which had been used against the motion had any great weight in them, nor could arguments of the general impropriety of interfering with the preroga tive, have any great weight in them, when the occafion for fuch interference was ferioufly important and preffing. Having faid this, Mr. Fox proceeded more particularly to fpeak to the prefent queftion. He faid, he could not agree with the right honourable gentleman on the fame bench with him, that the motion contained any expreffion tending towards, or which could be fairly conftrued to be an imputation on the Managers; and one reafon why it was impoffi ble that any fuch imputation was defigned, was, becaufe, if blame were due to them, it was more due to the Houfe,, of which they acted in this profecution as the representatives; and it was to be confidered that they reprefented that Houfe at the bar of the House of Lords, not as they represented the people in Parliament, but in a very different point of view. As reprefentatives of the people, they could act contrary to the opinion of the people, if they thought it right fo to act; but as reprefentatives of that Houfe, they were obliged to be confined to their inftructions. Nor was that all; the Houfe thought it not only neceffary to attend the trial themselves, and thus be witnefs of the conduct of their Managers, but did what in his opinion was a difgrace to the House, they received petitions from without doors, ftating any part of the Managers conduct to be objectionable. If therefore the Managers had been guilty of any error, neglect, or delay, he conceived the Houfe would have taken notice of the matter, or they would have heard of it in confequence of an application, or applications, from without doors. Neither having been the cafe, it was fair to conclude that they had been guilty of no fuch error. Mr. Fox faid, he was far from wishing to fay any thing that should feem hoftile to the honourable and learned gentleman, who had fo ably and fairly opened the oppofition to the addrefs then moved; he was too fenfible of the advan tages he and the reft of the Managers had derived from the direct, manly, and powerful fupport which the honourable and learned gentleman had given them throughout the profecution, and more especially from his having in fo masterly and conftitutional a manner ftated his fentiments on the im. portant queftion, whether the impeachment did or did not continue, notwithstanding a diffolution of Parliament, to be in the leaft defirous of appearing to act from party feelings in what he was about to fay; but he must declare that he fhould have voted for the addrefs if there had been no impeachment pending, because there was no circumstance in the hiftory of this country that made it more dangerous to have a speedy prorogation of Parliament, than the prefent ftate of politics; that confideration, he was ready to admit, gave a bias, as it were, to his mind, and led him to give way 4 D 2 to to the prefent addrefs, because he thought it would be detrimental to the interefts of the country for Parliament to be prorogued, before they received the anfwer from the Court of Petersburgh. Having faid thus much, Mr. Fox declared, he joined with the honourable gentleman who moved the address, in thinking that it was to be lamented that any delay had existed; and no one could regret it more than thofe who were immediately concerned in the impeachment. They were, Mr. Fox faid, completely the fervants of the House, and acted at their will for the reafons he had already flated; he trusted, however, that the Managers had not caufed that delay. He was fure, that the Houfe had not, and he did not know that the Lords had; because, if they acted with more delay than the due attention to the rest of the public bufinefs on their parts required, he prefumed, on a proper application to them upon the fubject, they would have endeavoured to correct their error. If the motion glanced at any one, it was not at the Managers, Mr. Fox faid, but at the minority of the House of Commons, and of the Houfe of Lords, who voted the question of abatement. Not that he meant to blame that minority of the two Houfes; he had no doubt that they acted in a manner which they thought their duty required, and ftood upon what they conceived to be the law of Parliament and the law of the conftitution. The Houfe, however, had decided that their opinions were erroneous; but that did not alter the fact, that they, who had thought the trial was at an end, had, in effect, added confiderably to its protraction, by endeavouring to abridge it altogether. The Lords had taken a confiderable time to fearch precedents, and had fince taken much time alfo to deliberate on them; all this was unfortunate for Mr. Haflings, but it had been unavoidable. With regard to the impoffibility of afcertaining the duration of the trial, as far as remained to be gone through, Mr. Fox declared, he felt the whole force of what had been faid by the right honourable gentleman oppofite to him, and by the right honourable gentleman on the fame bench with him, and agreed with them that it was impoffible to fay how much longer it would be, before it could he brought to a conclufion; but the Managers would, he hoped, finish giving their evidence fufficiently early for them to fum up the whole evidence on the charge on that day, or on Wednesday; but could he, could any Manager, could the private and confidential friend of Mr. Haftings, fay how long his defence would take? To that defence the Managers would have to reply, and the nature of the reply must be measured by the nature of the defence; there might be occafion to call new witneffes to refute and repel facts ftated ftated in the defence; or there might be no occafion to do more than make a fingle fpeech in anfwer to the defence. x Al! depended on circumftances that could not be foreseen. I Mr. Fox faid, he had no ground to guide him in regard to Mr. Haftings's defence, but even if he heard from the best authority what its length probably would be, he owned, he could give no anfwer whatever as to the conclusion of the proceedings; because, as he had already obferved, the reply must be according to the nature of the defence; he had no doubt however, that the Managers for their own fakes would be as fhort as poffible. He could not conclude, Mr. Fox faid, without remarking, that although Mr. Haftings had complained of delay, and had addreffed their lordships on that subject in the Court, there feemed to be an appearance of an intentional delay on his part, and that of the counfel on his fide. That very day, Mr. Fox faid, the Managers had wanted to prove a particular circumstance, and they offered to produce the refult of the Company's accounts to prove it, but the whole accounts were infifted on being produced. He did not mean to fay that this was not perfectly legal, but the refults of fuch accounts had repeatedly been received as fufficient evidence in the preceding part of the trial. Poffibly, it might be neceffary to Mr. Haftings's defence that this fort of conduct fhould be adopted.. He took it for granted that it was, but he thought it right to ftate the fact. After fome farther obfervations and arguments, Mr. Fox fuggefted a wifh that the motion were made lefs definite; and recommended that inftead of it, defiring His Majesty not to prorogue the feffion till judgement was given; it should be amended fo, as do no more than to defire His Majefty not to porogue before fuch further progress was made in the trial as fhould afford reasonable grounds of expectation, that it might be brought to a conclufion early in the next feffion, Mr. Ryder faid, as he had on a former occafion taken pains to have the trial brought as fpeedily as poffible to an end, it would naturally be expected that he fhould not give a filent vote that day. In regard to the many reafons that had been stated against the motion, by the right honourable gentleman, and by a right honourable friend of his, he concurred intirely; for the greateft part of his right honourable friend's fpeech, and certainly in his mind the ftrongest part, had proved, that if the motion were agreed to, it would impofe this difagreeable duty on His Majefty's Ministers; they must either advise His Majesty to give a direct denial to the addrefs, and thus appear to countenance delay; or they muft confent to keep Parliament fitting when it was most irkfome to gentlemen to attend, and when probably there would Mr. Ryder. |