it was possible for them to be prepared for it, the cause on the part of the prosecution must be materially injured: secondly, that on the part of Mr. Hastings no honourable advantage could be gained, because final judgment could not be thereby accelerated. These points he illustrated by showing what connexion the charge of Benares had with the other charges, aud the impossibility that the Lords themselves could be able to understand the case, even if the managers were able to reply in the present session, because much of the evidence was yet unprinted. It would therefore be injurious to the honour of Mr. Hastings, as well as prejudicial to the prosecution, that this business should be hurried on, as proposed by their Lordships; besides, by this mode of proceeding, they would deprive the managers of the privilege of a general reply upon the whole case, to which they were certainly entitled. Now, if it was necessary for Mr. Hastings to be in possession of all the evidence on the part of the prosecution, before he began his defence, was it not equally necessary that the managers should be in possession of all the evidence on the part of the defence before they began to reply? He therefore submitted to the House, whether the Lords could in justice, in candour, or in fairness expect the managers to proceed upon their reply under all these circumstances at the time appointed. But the disadvantages did not stop here; for he readily confessed that he was not, nor could he be able to proceed to the reply at the time appointed by the Lords, by any diligence which could be used; and therefore that part of the case must be defective until the next session, and then the defect must be supplied by those who should follow him in the reply upon the other charges: so that the final judg. ment would not be accelerated a single day from this haste, but on the contrary was likely to be retarded. He wished gentlemen to reflect on the lateness of the session, and then see what good could be produced by proceeding now upon any part of this trial. He concluded with moving, "That a message be sent to the Lords to acquaint their lordships, that the House of Commons, taking into con sideration the state of the impeachment now depending against Warren Hastings, esq., together with the advanced period of the session, are convinced that it is not only impossible to obtain judgment [VOL. XXX.]

on their several charges, but to complete their reply to the defence on more than one principal head thereof, and even that with great inconvenience; and being of opinion that it would be prejudicial to the cause of justice, in any point of view, that the course of the reply should be broken, and the attention of the court divided on the matter of the said impeachment, the whole of which their lordships have considered as one cause, they desire the Lords to postpone any further proceedings on the same till the next session of parliament, when the Commons will be ready and desirous to attend from day to day, if their lordships think fit to make good their charges."

Mr. Wigley opposed the motion, as tending to create delay.

Mr. Law opposed it also, and observed that the delay of this trial was a great vexation to the defendant. The cause had lasted six years; he knew that in these years only 120 days had been allowed. He did not say that any party was to be accused particularly of delay; each should take his share, but he thought that no farther delay should take place if the House had the power to prevent it. He saw a good reason for proceeding this session as far as the managers could; perhaps it would accelerate the decision a quarter of a year, and that was a great consideration to Mr. Hastings, in his present situation. The delay of his trial he was sure was such as the people of this country were generally displeased with, and was contrary to the principles of our constitution.

Mr Cawthorne opposed the motion, as a measure of unnecessary delay.

Mr. Sheridan maintained it to be impossible to do justice to the cause by coming to a reply in the present session. He maintained that there was not the smallest colour for charging the managers with delay, and verily believed, that proceeding to a reply as the Lord proposed, would not hasten the conclusion of the trial a single hour.

Mr. Secretary Dundas saw not the least injustice or hardship which the defendant would sustain, by the carrying of this motion. Was it supposed by any body, that final judgment would be delayed in the cause by it? On the contrary, he was satisfied, so far from protracting the trial, that in the end it would shorten it. If the managers proceeded to reply in the present session, as proposed by the [3 R]

Lords, he was clearly of opinion it would be neither more nor less than wasting so many days as they should be employed for the present session. As to delay, the managers were not chargeable with it, nor was that House chargeable. He had no difficulty in stating the delay to have been with the Lords; they met at too late an hour in the day; adjourned for too long a period; had been too scrupulous about the attendance of the judges from time to time, when in point of fact they had no occasion for the assistance of the judges; thus they lost every year all the time of the assizes. What reason could there be for this? Had their lordships not legal ability enough within the walls of their own chambers? Had they not lord Thúrlow, the then chief justice of the Common Pleas, lord Bathurst, and a noble earl (Stanhope), who had undertaken to teach the law fords law in the House of Peers? To be serious, he thought their lordships might have decided many points, without the assistance of the judges; and by adjourning to their own chamber upon all these points, the parade of the thing wasted the time that ought to have been employed in transacting the real business of the trial. He was convinced, that had they attended in the morning, and taken six hours each day of sitting, the trial would have been over in the first session, or early in the beginning of the second. He thought it his duty to say this, in order that there should not be a false impression made upon the public. Let the imputation of delay rest where it ought to be, with the Lords; for he had no idea, as one of the members of that House, to take blame where he did not deserve it. Mr. Ryder found it impossible to accede to the motion for a delay till next session, particularly as he could not agree in one of the reasons given in the motion for that delay. He agreed that much of the delay was imputable to the Lords; but this made him the more averse to the least appearance of delay on the part of

that House.

The House divided:

thought himself bound to give notice, that to-morrow he should bring forward a motion, which appeared to him to be necessary for the justice and honour of that House.

June 7. Mr. Grey rose to call the at tention of the House to a subject, which appeared to him of considerable importance, and with regard to which he thought it would be impossible for him to act without the advice and direction of that House. The very great and important duty which devolved upon the managers of the impeachment against Mr. Hastings, had become infinitely more difficult since the vote of that House last night. If he had acted according to his own feelings uponthat occasion, he should have solicited the House to withdraw his name from the list of the managers. In the vote he had alluded to, he was placed in a situation in which he could not perform what might be said to be his duty, in a manner that would be of advantage to the public. If the House were pleased to impose a task upon their managers, it should follow, as a necessary consequence, that the House should support them in the execution of that duty. If the House thought, that, from the conduct of the managers upon this impeachment, it had been brought into such a situation, that it could be no longer carried on with honour to that House, it would become the House at once to say so, and to put an end to it by an immediate vote, and then proceed to censure the managers for their conduct. If circumstances had arisen that induced the House to be of opinion that the conduct of the managers had been in any degree improper, it should in a manly manner declare that to be the case; at any rate, it could not be proper for the House to send their managers to the bar of the Lords to conduct a diffi cult and important business, which the House, in fact, wished to get rid of, not by a vote, but by an indirect mode of thwarting them in some points, and abandoning them in others. This was what he wished not to be the case; and he felt it heavy upon him from the recent proceedings of the House. Upon these grounds, he should have felt himself warranted to say, that the duty, as it now stood, was such as he was not able to perform, and therefore he should pray of the House to dismiss him from a situation in which he could not act with propriety;

undoubtedly that would be his wish, and he should retire from the business, if the House were pleased to signify their consent to it. At the same time, it would be with regret that he should leave those with whom he had engaged in this great and important trial: he must confess, it would be a subject of very deep regret to leave them at all, but much more at the present moment, and in the present situation. However, he could not help it, and he must consider what he owed to himself on the present occasion; and feeling himself unable to appear at the bar of the Lords to proceed upon the trial on the day appointed, as a manager of the Commons of Great Britain, to reply upon the charge now before their lordships for determination, he must desire the House to dismiss him, or to give him such directions for his conduct, by which he might be enabled to proceed in the discharge of a task to which he was not at present competent.

Mr. Burke wished some gentleman to express their sentiments upon this subject, by which the managers might be guided. A great deal had been urged on the ground of compassion to the accused. This was certainly an unusual mode of conducting a criminal charge, on the part of those who yet pretended to favour the prosecution. It arose from a flimsy, prevaricating, petty, peevish morality, that was incompatible with the dignity of pubdic justice. It was a base and scandalous language; that should be disdained by that House, when in the exercise of its accusatorial functions. The subject of, this trial nad been attempted to be converted into a subject of mirth, as well as made the theme of compassion for the accused. These things were improper and inconsistent. There never was any thing so dull as insipid mirth, nor any thing so immoral as perverted morality. We heard complaint and appeals to compassion on the part of a man who said he dreaded he should be a beggar, and who had been in India fourteen years, enjoying in salaries and emoluments the sum of 40,000l. a year. heard these things-without horror and as tonishment. We heard a man appeal to compassion for fear of his being reduced to beggary, when he himself had caused two unfortunate women to be robbed of one million of money

We

Mr. Rolle called to order. He did not see that the right hon. gentleman was in order; there was no question before the House

The Speaker said, that the subject now before the House was such as would not, in his opinion, admit of any loss of time. The hon. manager in his application to the House, intreated their directions as to the step he was to take upon the subject of the impeachment against Mr. Hastings. The House of Peers had already adjourned over till to-morrow, and therefore could have no power to proceed upon any thing on that day. What proceeding they could institute, the House would be under the necessity of immediately deciding, in order to direct the hon. manager. A message might be sent to the Lords, perhaps to defer the farther proceeding on the trial for a day or two, as the case was urgent. It was possible that the Lords might then be sitting. A motion might be made immediately in that House, and a message might be sent to the Lords, while they were sitting, to desire they would continue to sit for a short time, in order to receive a message from that House. It was not an unusual thing, in the case of an impeachment, to require the Lords to sit for some time longer. Under these circumstances, he begged Mr. Burke to abstain from any observations upon the general question at the present moment. If it was the pleasure of the House to send the message he suggested to the Lords, the House might then have time to determine upon another message to the Lords, and it would then be to be determined whether they should require that the trial should be put off to a future day. If the Lords should be adjourned, it would then be for the House to consider whether they could direct their managers to proceed on the day appointed, and then intreat the Lords at the bar to put off the trial to a future day; and afterwards to send a message to the Lords to induce them to put off the trial still farther. This appeared to him to be the regular mode of proceeding; but he must observe that the subject was such as to require an immediate determination.

Mr. Burke acquiesced in the recommendation from the Chair. It was then whispered that the Lords were adjourned. Upon which, the Speaker said, that although the Lords had adjourned to-day, they would be in their own chamber in the morning before they came to Westminsterhall, and a message might be delivered to them then, and the message might be agreed upon this evening, and might be carried to the Lords, although the Commons should not be sitting at that time.

Mr. Dundas said, that he should not feel himself encouraged to expect, that any suggestion from him would induce the mind of the House to differ from the opinion they had expressed yesterday. But he should now make another experiment, and move that a message be sent to the Lords to request farther time. He then moved, "That a message be sent to the Lords, to acquaint their lordships, that the members of this House, appointed to manage the impeachment against Warren Hastings, esq. will be unable to proceed on Monday next in their reply to the defence of the said Warren Hastings, esq. and therefore to desire that their lordships will allow further time for that purpose."

Sir John Ingleby moved the standing order of the House that strangers should withdraw. Strangers withdrew accordingly. After a debate of considerable length, the House divided on Mr. Dundas's motion:

June 10. The Lords took the message into consideration, and agreed to proceed in the trial on the second Tuesday in the next session of parliament.

Mr. Whitbread's Complaint of a Libel on the Managers of the Impeachment against Mr. Hastings]. June 12. Mr. Whitbread -called the attention of the House to a newspaper, called "The World," dated the 27th of May, containing a scandalous reflection on the managers appointed by that House to conduct the impeachment against Mr. Hastings. It was there stated, that a right reverend prelate (the Archbishop of York) had said "that it was "impossible for him to sit silent, to listen to the illiberal conduct of the managers, that they examined a witness as if he "was not a witness, but a pickpocket; " and that if Marat or Robespierre were "there, they could not conduct the im"peachment in a more scandalous manner," &c. This was highly indecorous, and an insult not only on the managers, but also on the House of Commons itself; and they could not expect the House to think highly of them, if they did not vindicate their own

dignity, and take such steps as might lead to the punishment of the propagators of such scandalous calumny. He could have wished to have confined his motion to the person who uttered the words; but he found that to be impossible, and that he must move for the prosecution of the printer of the paper in which they were reported. Indeed, the printer had thought fit to make comments on these words, and these comments were such as tended to justify the language. Here Mr. Whitbread read the comments, and contended that the House ought to take the matter up seriously, both with regard to the printer and the right reverend prelate; the one for the comments, and the other for uttering the words. That the archbishop had made use of very scandalous expressions, he could prove; for he had been at the pains of procuring a transcript from the short-hand writer's notes taken at the trial. They stated, that after the examination by Mr. Burke, of a witness on the 25th of May, the archbishop had said, " Upon my word, my lords, this proceeding is intolerable; the gentleman at your bar is treated like a pickpocket; and if Marat or Robespierre were in the box, they could not conduct themselves in a more improper manner than I have often witnessed in the course of this trial." This was the substance of what the right reverend prelate had said. Mr. Whitbread then expatiated on the impropriety and indecency of these expressions, and called upon the House to support the managers and their own dig. nity. He should propose to address his majesty, praying that the attorney-general might be directed to prosecute the printer of this paper, and then to institute an inquiry, in form, whether the words alluded to had been uttered, when, where, and by whom.

The Speaker suggested the propriety of following precedent upon this occcasion, and referred to the Journals of the 16th of June, 1789,* where a prosecution had been instituted against the printer of The World for scandalous reflections upon the House of Commons.

The Journals being read, and the paper now in question delivered in and read, Mr. Whitbread moved, "That the said paragraphs contain matter of a scandalous and libellous nature, reflecting on the conduct of the members appointed by this House to manage the impeachment against Warren Hastings, esq.

* See Vol. 28, p. 168.