of February 1789, Mr. Hastings presented a petition to the House of Lords, and had first complained, that his trial had lasted a year, which, with regard to the period from its commencement, was true, but not true in the light of a trial going on de die in diem, for a twelvemonth. Mr. Hastings had next complained, that several noble lords, his judges, had left this world in the course of nature. That was a circumstance which the managers could not help, nor had he ever before heard that it was among the privileges of peers of parliament to escape paying the debt of nature. But neither the managers nor that House had the power of preventing their death, much as they must regret that the noble lords should die. Mr. Hastings next talked of his witnesses having gone to India. If he had let them go there, it was his own fault; the managers could not help it; and all he could observe was, that the trial must take its course, and nature must take her's likewise. His own health, Mr. Hastings had next said, which a long residence in India had injured, required the benefit of foreign air, which the trial deprived him of the opportunity of taking. The fact Mr. Burke denied; nothing could hinder him from enjoying foreign air, if he would settle with his bail for that purpose. Again, Mr. Hastings complained, that he was taken out of his rank in life, and deprived of those enjoyments which other men might command. He could not believe it. They saw him at balls, at operas, at plays, and at assemblies. [A cry of Oh!] Mr. Burke said, he would re-assert the fact, in spite of that Oh, which, he was persuaded, was not the Oh of sensibility. Besides, when Mr. Hastings declared that he suffered hardships, was it not competent to the managers for the Commons of England to prove the contrary, and that he enjoyed all the comforts of life, and shared in its rational pleasures? Long might he enjoy them! He did not regret his enjoying them, he had only asserted that Mr. Hastings did enjoy them. And he believed, if the ease of the life of Mr. Hastings were compared with the labour of his (Mr. Burke's), it complain. He wished, therefore, that gentlemen who complained of the hardships which Mr. Hastings endured, would justify what they said on the subject, on their legs, that he might have an opportunity of answering them. A man, upon his trial, undoubtedly could not be quite at his ease; it was inseparable from the nature of the case. But Mr. Hastings complained of the mode of trial being so expensive, and his fortune so small. Mr. Burke here referred to Mr. Hastings's petition, a copy of which he held in his hand, and affirmed, that if it were true that the House deprived Mr. Hastings of the means of his existence by their mode of conducting the trial, they were violating justice. But let them see how the fact stood. It had been stated that Mr. Hastings's fortune was under 50,000l. that 30,000l. was spent during the first session in getting the records copied, and that 20,000l. more was probably spent during the course of the next session. If so, Mr. Hastings could not have bread. The context seemed to say, that the materials cost him 50,000ol. What, then, must the superstructure cost him? Mr. Hastings had told a noble lord, who was stunned at the assertion, that he might judge of his expences by the single fact, that copying papers at the India-house alone had cost him 3,000l. Mr. Burke declared that he had been there, and desired the proper person to tell him what it cost Mr. Hastings at the India-house; when he was told, not one farthing; for every thing was copied gratis, though he could not say but that some little civility might have been offered to the clerks. Mr. Burke said, that Mr. Hastings gained neither credit nor compassion by stating what was not true. The managers were ready to enter into every particular asserted by Mr. Hastings in his petition, and would undertake to disprove the allegations. But whether what he had alleged was true or false, Mr. Hastings was entitled to justice, and ought not to be kept one moment longer in suspence than was unavoidably necessary. should have thought that Mr. Hastings, who stated all the grievances and hardships alleged in his petition, would have He been glad if they had given him the opportunity to clear away any imputation, and to have refuted any one charge; but that he rejected, and therefore the assertion that he had used every rational mode of shortening the proceeding, was not true. Whatever was the hardship which Mr. Hastings suffered, Mr. Burke contended that it was his own, and not imposed on him by the managers. There were three ways of a man getting off from a trial; the first, by an honourable acquittal; the second, by an acquittal; and the third, by an escape effected by procrastination. It was evidently the aim of Mr. Hastings to attempt to escape by procrastination, and thus, in the end, baffle the House of Lords. However the managers of the prosecution might fail in knowledge of the law, or in dexterity, no man, he believed, would say that they were deficient in zeal or in exertion. They had throughout been solely actuated by a desire of obtaining public justice, and they wished to put some speedy end to a prosecution, which had already lasted longer than the longest election committee. By the conduct of the defendant, it was clear that he wished to gain time. This was evident, from every paper that was read being insisted on being read at full length, and by other symptoms. So that Mr. Hastings appeared like a fox, who, when hunted and pursued, endeavours to elude his hounds, and try which has the longest wind. Mr. Hastings seemed to think, that the House, tired and sickened of the business, would abandon it altogether: he would submit to the House, however, whether it would become their dignity to act in that manner, and whether they ought not to shew that they had the power to carry on a prosecution effectually, after they had once thought it a debt due to justice that it should be instituted; he submitted it also to the consideration of the House, whether the best means to prevent the chicane so obviously practised, would not be to let the party positively discover that he had no hopes for an escape, and that the House would not be satisfied till justice was obtained. To effect this, the House had first to put the prosecution within a manageable compass, and next by a resolution to declare that they would not be baffled. Mr. Burke mentioned that Lord Somers, Lord Halifax, and some of our best men, had been impeached, and he stated the nature of the proceedings upon these occasions. He mentioned also the authority given to the managers of the impeachment of Lord Macclesfield, and on this he had chiefly grounded one of his motions. Mr. Burke now moved his two resolutions, as follow 66 1. That this House, taking into consideration the interruptions occasioned by the occupations of the Judges and the House of Lords, as also the impediments which have occurred, or may occur, in the course of the trial of the impeachment of Warren Hastings, Esq. doth, without meaning to abandon the truth or importance of the charges, authorise the managers of their said impeachment, to insist only upon such and so many of the said charges as shall appear to them the most conducive to the obtaining speedy and effectual justice against the said Warren Hastings." 66 2. That the Commons of Great Britain in parliament assembled, from a regard to their own honour, and from the duty which they owe to all the Commons of Great Britain, in whose name, as well as in their own, they act in the public prosecutions by them carried on before the House of Lords, are bound to persevere in their impeachment against Warren Hastings, Esq. late Governorgeneral of Bengal, until judgment may be obtained upon the important articles in the same.” The first resolution was agreed to without a division; the second, by a majority of 48 to 31. COMPLAINT AGAINST MAJOR SCOTT FOR A LIBEL ON OF THE IMPEACHMENT AGAINST THE MANAGERS May 27. N the 21st of May, General Burgoyne complained to the House of a libellous publication inserted in one of the morning papers with the signature of "John Scott," one of their members, grossly reflecting upon the conduct of the managers of the impeachment of Mr. Hastings, and upon the justice of that House. The letter was read by the clerk, and Major Scott being called to answer this complaint, avowed himself to be the author. The honourable major entered into a general justification of the letter, and declared, that if he had been guilty of an error, he had been drawn into it by great examples. He then mentioned a variety of publications by Mr. Burke, Mr. Sheridan, and General Burgoyne, which he considered to be stronger libels than he had ever written. The major having withdrawn, General Burgoyne moved, "That it is against the law and usage of parliament, and a high breach of the privilege of this House, to write or publish, or cause to be written or published, any scandalous or libellous reflection on the honour and justice of this Honse, in any of the impeachments or prosecutions in which it is engaged." Which being agreed to without a division, he next moved, "That it appears to this House, that the letter now delivered in and read is a scandalous and libellous paper, reflecting on the honour and justice of this House, and on the conduct of the managers appointed to conduct the impeachment now proceeding against Warren Hastings, Esq." Mr. Pitt submitted, that in a matter relative to their own privileges, the House ought to proceed with all possible caution, and moved, that the debate be adjourned to the 27th instant. The motion was agreed to, and on the day appointed, the debate being resumed, Major Scott was again heard in his place. The motion was first opposed by Mr. Wigley, who thought that the House, in its justice, ought not to proceed in a severe manner against the honourable member; who had already made the most satisfactory apology for |