Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

be instituted, had sold out of the public funds very considerable sums of his property.

Major Scott, misapprehending that it was intended to insinuate that this property belonged to Mr. Hastings, got up to assure the House that he had no concern in it; and to declare upon his honour, that from the information he possessed relative to the affairs of Mr. Hastings, he could take upon him to assert that his whole fortune did not exceed 50,000l. Mr. Pitt defended the mode of proceeding adopted by the House, and did not conceive that they could with propriety resort to any other.

Mr. BURKE declared, that he had not insinuated that Mr. Hastings had sold out any part of his property. The person to whom he had alluded, was Sir Elijah Impey; but he begged to have it remembered, that he had barely stated to the House, that he had heard so: he was not bound, therefore, to prove the fact. With respect to the impeachment of Mr. Hastings, he certainly did not mean to abandon the articles that remained to be investigated, nor to rest the impeachment solely on the finding of the committee of inquiry, that there was matter of charge in the two articles already examined. The rest of the charges contained facts of a nature highly criminal, and he had little doubt but that the greater part of them would be established to the conviction of the committee: if, however, no one of the remaining articles should be determined to contain matter of charge, he should nevertheless think, that there was ample ground for impeachment in the two articles already decided. But what he had said, was, not that he should do either of the things already alluded to, but that if the House 'should be of opinion with him to proceed with the impeachment, that then he should lodge the charge with the House of Lords, accompanying it with a notice, that the Commons were preparing the articles.

February 20.

THE House being in a committee on the charges, Mr. Dundas rose and said, that as notice had been given that a charge of a serious nature would be brought forward against Sir Elijah Impey, he would suggest to those concerned in the prosecution, that it would be inconsistent with the justice, the candour, and the benevolence of that House, to call and examine a gentleman as a witness at their bar, and then to make his evidence the ground of future crimination against him. Sir Gilbert Elliott said, that though he had determined, from a review of his general conduct, to move for an impeachment against Sir Elijah Impey, yet the House could not think of waving the advantage of any information it could possibly obtain. The subject of the present examination, however, did not come, as far as he knew at present, within the limits of his intended charge, although the latter went to affect nearly the whole of Sir Elijah's conduct, as he looked on him, by his extra-official interference, to have had a share in some of the most guilty transactions that had taken place in India.

Mr. BURKE contended, that if it was to be established as a rule, that no person who might be afterwards impeached should give evidence relating to that on which he might be impeached, it would be impossible to gain any evidence. Mr. Hastings had destroyed all official information; no evidence could be gained there; it must, then, be procured from his confidential agents, of whom Sir Elijah Impey was one. He added, that upon this occasion, he must be regarded as certainly not the least insignificant party concerned, and therefore it was material for him, as prosecutor of Mr. Hastings, to lose none of the rights of prosecution: the prosecutor could not insist on the evidence criminating himself; nor was it to be supposed that Sir Elijah would be led into any self-examination. That gentleman was not as ignorant as a poor rustic; he had filled important situations. He was private secretary to Mr. Hastings, and was possessed of the prin

cipal part of the correspondence relative to Farruckabad. If gentlemen contended against admitting Sir Elijah's evidence, he certainly would take the sense of the committee upon it. Parliament examined the South-sea directors, and afterwards impeached them.

Mr. Pitt was of the same opinion with Mr. Dundas, but ha no objection to Sir Elijah's being examined. He thought it would be proper for the chairman to give notice to Sir Elijah, that it was probable he might be impeached, and that the circumstances on which he was to be examined might be connected with the charges against him.

Mr. BURKE had no objection to this. He contended, that if a minister was impeached, it would not be thought improper to examine the secretaries of state, though an impeachment might be lodged against them for their share in the business. He was certain that if an impeachment were lodged against the right honourable the chancellor of the exchequer, for corruption in office, for peculation, or even for the French treaty, the secretaries and his other colleagues might be called on to give their evidence, though they themselves might be afterwards impeached.

It was at length agreed that the chairman should inform Sir Elijah Impey, that a criminal prosecution might be instituted against him for extra-official and other conduct, during his residence in India, and that the circumstances on which he was to be examined, might be connected with the charges exhibited against him. Sir Elijah was then called, and the chairman having given him the above information, Sir Elijah said, "I thank you, Sir; but being conscious of no guilt, and there being no part of my conduct which I wish to secrete, I have no objection to give the committee the fullest information in my power." Mr. Burke then proceeded in the

examination:

March 2.

THIS day Mr. Pelham opened the fourth charge, the subject of which was the corrupt and oppressive conduct of Mr. Hastings towards the nabob of Farruckabad. After he had gone through the charge, and Major Scott had been heard in reply, Mr. Dundas rose and said, there were two points necessary to be cleared up, before he could bring himself to vote for Mr. Hastings on the present question. The first related to the breach of the treaty of Chunar. This treaty he confessed that he never liked, and always regretted its having been made; his prejudice therefore against the treaty might naturally operate in reconciling him to the breach of it, provided it could be plausibly defended. It was not impossible but there might have been some desirable object in view in the making of the treaty, which might justify that measure, notwithstanding it was evident that a necessity would occur of breaking it. If this was the case, he should then admit that it was a bad way of doing a good thing, and be induced to excuse it, particularly if the same good end could not have been obtained by more direct means. But what this desirable object was, and how it happened to be only attainable by such indirect, circuitous, and objectionable means, he expected to have fully explained before he could bring himself to look upon the transaction as innocent or excusable; and as yet he had never heard any such explanation attempted. He should also expect to hear of some actual necessity having existed for the recall of Mr. Shee, seeing that Mr. Hastings knew, and expressly acknowledged, that by such recall either the nabob of Farruckabad must be sacrificed to the nabob vizier, or else be abandoned to the dangerous and destructive management of his own family and servants. Unless he should receive a full answer to these two points, he should certainly feel himself indispensably bound to vote for the motion, provided it was persisted in; yet he could not but give a caution to the gentleman who had brought forward the charge, to reflect whether it would be worth while to prosecute it to the other House, as it appeared not likely, if substantiated, to add much to Mr. Hastings's criminality or punishment, and would require a vast volume of evidence to prove. This he only submitted to his discretion, for if the

question were to be put, he must vote for it, unless he should receive complete satisfaction on the two points he had already stated.

Mr. BURKE declared, that the charge consisted of a number of complicated crimes; each of them, in his mind, of a most heinous nature, each serving to throw light upon and prove the other. He said it was peculiar to Mr. Hastings to do every thing in an indirect way, and to blend his most serious transactions with such a heap of farcical mummery, that there was scarcely an instance in which he had not carried his despotic powers to their highest extent, and manifested the most violent degree of oppression and tyranny; but that although the tragical event was sure to excite horror, the means by which it was effected had always something in it which provoked ridicule. An example of this was, no doubt, to be found in the whimsical scene, which must have presented itself to the beholder, could any person have been present at Chunar when Mr. Hastings was employed in juggling the nabob vizier to sign a treaty, which treaty he knew at the time there would be an absolute necessity to break soon afterwards, and with the conditions of which he never meant to comply. Mr. Burke here imagined Mr. Hastings, the nabob of Oude, and Mr. Middleton, to be in the same room together, and described Mr. Hastings as presenting one treaty to the vizier, and when he was ready to sign it, suddenly drawing another treaty out of his pocket, and slipping it before the nabob, telling him, either himself or by Mr. Middleton, that as he must have a very different treaty to show in Leadenhall-street, from that which they meant to act under, he begged he would sign that, but that he would comply with the conditions of the other; for though he had often broken his faith, and meant to do so again, yet that he might rest assured he would be honest to him. Mr. Burke urged some arguments to prove that the taking 100,000l. of a man in such known distress as the nabob of Oude was at the moment when

« AnteriorContinuar »