might amount to something, yet it would not raise a degree of presumption in its favour to entitle it to admission, thus taking the weight of evidence as an argument against its competency; and with respect to the opinions of the judges, he could only say, that the managers never knew the principle on which they proceeded, as they always gave those opinions before the lords, shut up in their chamber of parliament, to the absolute exclusion of strangers; consequently, from such opinions given in the dark, and to the managers totally behind the curtain, they had no rule for their guidance and improvement, and therefore they were obliged to persist in every question they put that might have been objected to by the defendant's counsel, not knowing what the judges would approve or what they would disapprove.

The next consideration was, upon the matter of fact, with respect to the time which the discussion of this impeachment had already taken up. It was said, it had lasted six years. It had so but how many days had been employed in that period? Only 116. In one year only 20 days had been allowed. If the lords required any extraordinary diligence from the managers, their lordships, from the example they gave, did not require that diligence with a very extraordinary good grace. The managers, however, did not wish to be extravagant in their requisitions to their lordships; for they asked only for a week, upon important ground, for proceeding upon this trial, although the lords had taken months for themselves without condescending to assign any ground whatever. How stood the case with respect to speeches before the lords upon this trial? Upon the Benares charge, which he had the honour of opening, he spoke only one day, and an honourable friend of his another day. Two days were consumed in speeches from the managers on this point: eight were taken up by the counsel for the defendant in answering them. He did not say that the counsel took up too much time; he dared say it was too little for the business they undertook; but he mentioned this to shew how the truth was with regard to the question of delay.

Another thing was to be noticed upon this trial, and it arose out of the circumstances of its commencement. When the lords said to the managers that they should not ask for judgment charge after charge separately, but that Mr. Hastings should hear the whole of the charges to be exhibited against him before he should be called upon to make a defence to any, why was this rule not to be followed with respect to the managers in making their reply to the defence of Mr. Hastings? Why was one rule to be followed by the defendant, and another to be marked out for the prosecutors?

For, according to the mode allowed Mr. Hastings for his defence, the managers ought to have time to peruse the whole of the defence before they proceeded to reply to it. And, if the counsel for the defendant required time to answer the speeches of the managers and to rebut the evidence called for the prosecution, why was there not to be time for the reply in the same manner? He would go farther, and say, that even if he had known a good while ago that the defence would have been closed at the time it was, he was then entitled to think and expect from the conduct of the lords, upon former stages of this trial, that they would not have called upon the managers for their reply till the next session of parliament. How stood facts upon this point? On the 14th of February, 1791, the House of Commons sent a message to the lords, importing that they were ready to proceed upon this trial. What were their lordships pleased to do? Not a word was heard from them until the 17th of May, and then, it might be supposed, they made up by their activity for their past neglect. How stood the fact? How many days did their lordships allow the managers to proceed upon this trial in the whole of that year? Only four; and on the 30th of May their lordships diligence closed for the session. Did they then tell Mr. Hastings, that he must make his defence to what had been exhibited against him in a week, as they called upon the managers to reply? Nothing like it; for they allowed him till the next year to prepare it. Was there one law for Mr. Hastings, and another for the managers? He confessed, that, upon every view he had of the subject, and from the conduct of the lords, he fully expected that they would not have called upon the managers for their reply until the next session.

Another part of the business had been alluded to by the learned gentleman, which was, that Mr. Hastings had been obliged to request his friends to come down to the House on the day of trial in time to form a House, to prevent delay that must otherwise have happened. Upon this he must say, that there might, out of the 116 days which had been taken up in this trial, be three or four on which the lords might have waited for the Commons for, perhaps, the space of half an hour. This, he presumed, was not very disgraceful to the managers, nor very extraordinary, for on some days the chancellor did not come before three o'clock in the afternoon, frequently at one, and if he should by accident, without any intimation to the managers, be in the hall at twelve, it was not very surprising that the managers were not in court much before one o'clock. If this was laid as matter of blame upon the managers, he did think the weight of the accusation not more than they could very well bear, without thinking them

selves likely to be weighed down by it. It seemed, however, that now Mr. Hastings called for expedition in the course of this trial, in hopes of having final judgment this session. Was there any body possessed of the least knowledge of the subject, who had the most distant idea that final judgment could be obtained in this mighty business this session? If there was, he confessed himself bound to admire his candour, and his confidence in the diligence of the Lords.

The most remarkable part of the objections now started against the delay of the managers was yet remaining. It was pretended that the managers must know, or might have known, the whole of the evidence long ago, for that the whole of it might have been printed. To which he answered, that was impossible, for a great part of the evidence on the part of the defence had not, by the express desire of the defendant's counsel, been heard as yet by any body in that court, having been carried on from page to page, and entered upon the trial as read, to be printed hereafter; and even this could not be ready for their lordships before the very day on which they had called upon the managers to appear in Westminster Hall to rebut it; and how could the managers do justice to that House, to themselves, and to the public, under such singular circumstances, if they were to comment upon evidence which they had never heard? With regard to the speeches of the learned counsel for the defendant, he confessed himself unable to reply to them also, without time to read them from the transcript of the short-hand notes taken at the trial; for under the idea of being allowed to have that advantage, he had waved the thought of taking full notes himself; and he must say, that however great and splendid might be the talents of the learned gentleman who spoke last, he did not think that even he would be well pleased if he was called upon to reply without the assistance to which he alluded. Was it, therefore, fit that the managers should now be called upon to reply in this situation? Were they to comment upon 206 pages of evidence which they had not, and which they could not have read? Were they to reply to speeches which took up altogether nearly twenty-four hours to deliver without reading them, and weighing the arguments contained in them? He confessed himself unable to do so in less than a fortnight; more he did not require.

There was another point which he had hinted at before, which was, that it was possible that evidence would be produced in reply, and yet gentlemen persisted in saying, that the managers ought to go on without farther time, before they had seen all the evidence on the part of the defence. How was it possible to know what the evidence, which had been

entered as read, might turn out to be? When gentlemen came to consider these points properly, he hoped the time the managers asked would not appear too much, and that they were not guilty of delay in taking it, if allowed. He was ready, after the time proposed, to proceed upon the subject of the Benares charge; at the same time, he doubted the expediency of it. But, with regard to the other charges, he must say, it appeared to him to be neither consistent with the character of that House, nor with justice, to proceed upon the others, until much more time was taken to consider of the whole of the defence which had been made to them; rather than attempt to answer the defence, it would be better not to answer at all, but to leave the case as it stood, and call for judgment on it. He was, however, far from being sure that even that would be of any avail to the defendant, for the purpose of having judgment in the present session.

Having made these observations, he must say, he was glad that this debate had taken place, and he was under some obligation to the learned gentleman whose opposition had produced it, because it had afforded him an opportunity of proving what he trusted he now had proved, and what he had often asserted, that the more this subject was investigated, the clearer it would appear, that whatever delay there might be, none of it was imputable to the managers. On their part there had not been an attempt at any dilatory proceeding. He defied any man, in any situation, however great his talents or abilities, to prove that the managers had neglected any part of their duty in the course of this arduous proceeding, or to impute to them any corrupt motives, or to shew what inducement men, situated as they were, had to have any corrupt motives upon this subject.

The motion was agreed to, on a division, by 87 to 42.

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 paper, 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 impeachment in a more scandalous manner, &c." This, Mr. Whitbread said, 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 punish 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 those 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 dignity. The mode which he should propose appeared to him to be the only one which the House ought to adopt upon this occasion. It was, 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 said newspaper was then delivered in at the table, and the paragraphs complained of therein being 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." The motion being seconded by Mr. Francis, was opposed by Mr. Secretary Dundas, who concluded his speech with moving, "That the House do now adjourn."- Mr. Windham felt so strongly the necessity of supporting the managers, that if the honourable gentleman who made the first motion should think fit to persist in it, he should vote with him, though he could wish for an adjournment. Mr. Burke, after assuring the House that the motion