cedent in point, that no other cause could be assigned for the House adopting this line of conduct, than this very. one, that they seemed determined, by carrying up articles of impeachment after articles of impeachment, to maintain a right which they had long been in possession of, and in that instance were resolved not to abandon. The charges on which the committee had determined, were grave and interesting; but there were others of no less moment than those which had been brought forward; and to abandon those, would amount to an act of public injustice, and would be treachery to that cause in which they were now so laudably engaged.

With regard to the remarks which had been made by the right honourable gentleman on the variety of matter contained in the charge under deliberation, he could not entirely concur with him in opinion; nor could he think of allowing some of those points, which, agreeably to his amendment, he had wished to omit, to be entirely rejected. The points contained in the charge were multifarious; but notwithstanding their variety, they had one common object: that object was, to show that Mr. Hastings's government had been prodigal and corrupt. It was to illustrate this feature in his administration, and to prove that he acted on system, and that that system was depraved, that he had brought forward so many examples. This had been his main concern; and to characterize the government of any person, it was absolutely necessary to take into the account a great variety of acts. In vindication of Mr. Hastings, it had been alleged, that he had not been crimi, nated by those who were superior to him. But was this a solid argument in his favour? Could it with any decency be urged, that, because a person in office, who had suffered himself to be corrupted; who, in that station in which he had been placed, had been guilty of peculation, and of various other misdemeanors, incompatible with the character of a man of confidence; and who, notwithstanding all these depravities, had escaped either the eye or the censure of his superiors; could it be urged, that he was on

this account to be vindicated; that he was on this account to be absolved from those crimes, which, owing to a fortunate revolution of affairs, had been brought to light, and were likely to become the objects of national justice? No; the plea was inadmissible. If any person employed by the right honourable gentleman who spoke last, were to betray the trust reposed in him, and if, after ten years had passed away, this misconduct were to be detected, would it form any apology in behalf of such a culprit, that he had escaped the censure of the right honourable gentleman under whom he had been engaged? Would this circumstance exculpate him in the eye of the House, or before the tribunal of justice? It certainly would not. But, with respect to Mr. Hastings, the fact was, he had not only corrupted India, but he had also corrupted the court of directors, who were his superiors. He had blinded their eyes; and this circumstance was a principal cause why his conduct had not been stigmatized by their marked disapprobation. But to assert, that on this account he was to be vindicated, was as absurd as to affirm, that because robbery was now, perhaps, more frequent than in any former period, the law therefore tolerated it, and it was on this account excusable,

But he wished to enter into an examination of those points to which the right honourable gentleman had objected, and which it was his object to separate from being grounds of charge. The rice contract was one of them. Did he recollect that this very contract, which was intended for the preservation of Madras in the first instance, was to be executed at the risk of destroying Bengal? And why was this sacrifice to be made? For the express purpose of gratifying Mr. Auriol. And was there no other way by which this gentleman could have been recompensed for his meritorious poverty? What was the sacrifice of public interest which had been made on this occasion? Had not the merchants promised to procure the rice at five per cent.? Why then give Mr. Auriol an enormous benefit of fifteen? Was this douceur likely to qualify him the better

any thing in his habits of life to entitle him to so extraordinary a preference? He was out of trade: he had no capital: he had nothing to justify his being put on the same footing with those whose profession was mercantile, who were ready to act on the shortest notice, and who, of course, could have undertaken the execution of this contract with more facility, and on more reasonable terms than Mr. Auriol. But this contract was not confined in its operation to Madras. It extended to Bencoolen to St. Helena, which was almost at our own door- and to Bombay, where, notwithstanding the jobbing mood which they were not unfrequently in, in that part of the world, they had been astonished at the circumstance of being supplied with rice, at double the price they could have procured it for themselves. This mode of rewarding people for their services, he considered as highly impolitic and dangerous; increase of salary was surely a much wiser method — for, to encourage the hope of recompense by the means of contract, what was it but to exhibit a motive to induce mankind to rob the public?

The next point on which he animadverted, was the duty on salt. There he also alleged, that a most shameful alienation of the public money had obtained; for the first commissioner had a yearly income of 18,000l. given him, which was certainly extravagant, and an eminent example of that corruption, which distinguished the government of Mr. Hastings. Mr. Hastings had acted as the agent of the Company against the Company-and for what reason? Who was Mr. Belli? His own private secretary. And when a person of this description got a gratuity of thirty per cent. on a contract which could have been executed for twenty, and when this contract was extended, in the very face of the orders of the court of directors, during five years—was there not something in this mode of conduct to justify, what was more than suspicion, a rational presumption of criminality? Feeling, therefore, the importance of all these considerations to illustrate the general feature of Mr. Hastings's government, he thought it would be im

proper to omit them, and therefore he would propose an amendment to the one made by the right honourable gentleman, including the agency for rice, the salt-duty, and the other articles on which he had enlarged in the course of his remarks.

The committee divided, first, upon Mr. Burke's amendment, which was carried by 66 against 57; and then upon the main question, which was carried by 60 against 27.

March 22.

THIS day Mr. Dundas took occasion to offer to the House a few hints relative to the proceeding in which they had been for some time engaged. He then remonstrated on the practice of calling for voluminous papers just a day or two before every new and separate charge was about to be opened. Such a custom must tend not only to confuse gentlemen's minds, and keep them in continual labour, but had a very awkward appearance. Either, when the right honourable gentleman opposite to ⚫ him made his charges first, he was satisfied that he was in possession of sufficient evidence to support them, or he was not. If he had been satisfied, why call for more papers just a day or two before every charge was to be opened? He would move, for the future, that no papers should be asked for, or granted, unless gentlemen came and stated, that upon a closer examination of the particular charge they had undertaken to move, they discovered that certain links in the chain of evidence, necessary to support the proof of the facts stated in the charge, were wanting; and upon such an assertion made out to the satisfaction of the House, no gentleman would be so unreasonable as to refuse the granting of those papers. Another consideration which he wished to submit to gentlemen was, the state and situation of the intended impeachment, and the period of the year. Every gentleman must, he conceived, be extremely desirous to have the impeachment go up to the House of Lords in sufficient time to have it put into a way of trial at least this session; and at any rate, it would, he should imagine, be disgraceful to that House, if they did not contrive to have done their part so far as to have formed the

articles of impeachment by the beginning of May, and to have enabled the House of Lords to proceed upon the trial in that month. He could not therefore help expressing his surprise, that the right honourable gentleman opposite had not moved to report the resolutions come to by the House, and also the necessary questions upon them, so that those professional persons versant in the nature of legal evidence, and the practice in cases of criminal proceeding, whose assistance, he presumed, would naturally be looked to, might, while the committee were inquiring into such remaining charges as were meant to be brought forward, be at the same time going on in forming the articles of impeachment to be ultimately carried up to the House of Lords.

Mr. BURKE thanked the right honourable gentleman for the propositions which he had made, and the very judicious observations with which he had accompanied them. He gratefully accepted the propositions, and would certainly adopt them; but the right honourable gentleman must permit him to say a few words on some parts of what he had urged. With regard to calling for papers, he was willing to agree to call for no more, but upon the condition suggested by the right honourable gentleman; and he could assure him, that he had not called for any in the course of the present session, or scarcely any, for the purpose of satisfying his own mind as to any one of the charges, or of the facts contained in them. His own mind had been long since completely satisfied; but he had called for them to satisfy the minds of others, and in order to remove doubts stated and suggested in debate upon the charges already heard. When, therefore, it happened to him that a paper would tend at one and the same time to elucidate passages and parts of any charge about to be opened to the committee, and to clear up and remove doubts that had been stated respecting any parts or passages of charges already examined into, he had thought it right to call for that paper; but he had never called for an unimportant paper, or unnecessarily put papers upon the table. With regard to the conduct of the impeachment, most certainly the aid of professional men,