HOUSE OF COMMONS, Wedneſday, February 27, 1788.

[14]Sir Elijah Impey tells you, on another occa⯑ſion, and to ſerve another material purpoſe, that he knew nothing of the contents of the charges of Nundcomar againſt Mr. Haſtings. His words, as I wrote them down upon the inſtant, were; ‘"I aver, that I did not know what they were. How ſhould I? They were produced before a ſecret Council, and examined by a ſecret Committee, of which all the members, their clerks and ſecreta⯑ries, were ſworn to ſecrecy."’—Now, Sir, ad⯑mitting it to be poſſible, that Sir Elijah Impey might not know, from public report, the ſpe⯑cific ſums ſtated, or the particular facts and circumſtances charged by Nundcomar againſt Mr. Haſtings, that admiſſion will not avail him. You are called upon to believe, that Sir Elijah Impey, living in the cloſeſt connection and intimacy with Mr. Haſtings, did not know what was known to every man in Calcutta; what was the univerſal ſubject of converſa⯑tion there for many months together, namely, that Nundcomar had accuſed Mr. Haſtings of venality and corruption in his office. He did not know that this charge was laid before the Council on the 11th of March; that Nundco⯑mar had been examined before the Council; [15] that, on the 20th of April, Nundcomar was ſummoned to appear before all the Judges, to anſwer to a charge of a conſpiracy againſt Mr. Haſtings; and that, having been acquitted and diſmiſſed on that examination, he was, on the 6th of May, arreſted, and committed to the common jail, by a warrant ſigned by two of the Judges, upon a charge of forgery. The facts at leaſt were too public and too noto⯑rious not to be known to him. But we are to believe, that, knowing ſuch facts, it never once occurred to him, that there could be any relation between the firſt, and all that followed it. Being ignorant, as he aſſures you, of the particulars of the charge againſt Mr. Haſtings, he never once ſuſpected that that act of Nund⯑comar could have been the motive of thoſe ſubſequent meaſures, which were taken to de⯑ſtroy him. Any other man, I think, would have combined the circumſtances. In any other human mind, they muſt have excited ſome degree of ſuſpicion. My Honourable Friend, I doubt not, will be able to ſatisfy this Houſe, in proper time, that the general fact, namely, that Nundcomar had brought a criminal charge againſt Mr. Haſting, and even the ſpecial nature of that charge, were [16] judicially known to Sir Elijah Impey long be⯑fore the execution. What I contend for, and inſiſt upon now, is, that it is a thing utterly incredible; that it is a belief, to which no hu⯑man credulity can extend, that Mr. Haſtings, who, in the face of the moſt ſacred obliga⯑tion and engagement, thought himſelf at li⯑berty to communicate to Sir Elijah Impey the petition of Nundcomar, to give him a corrected tranſlation of it, and to furniſh him, as I ſhall prove he did, with copies of our Minutes, directly arraigning the conduct of Sir Elijah Impey in the trial and execution of Nund⯑comar, ſhould not have imparted to him the charges preferred againſt himſelf by Nundco⯑mar, which, though entered in the ſecret de⯑partment, were neither of a ſecret nature in themſelves, nor in fact a ſecret to any man in Calcutta.

The ſecond preliminary obſervation, which I wiſh to impreſs on the minds of the Commit⯑tee, regards the diſtinction, which Sir Elijah Impey carefully makes, and ſtrenuouſly inſiſts on, between the paper itſelf, and our Minutes, upon the ſubject;—the firſt he ſaw; the ſecond he never ſaw, till very lately, when he ob⯑tained a copy of them from the India Houſe. [17] It is indeed not only material, but eſſential to his defence, that he ſhould perſuade you of the truth of this laſt aſſertion. He well knew, though you are not aware of it, that, if he admitted that he had ſeen our Minutes of the 16th of Auguſt 1775, at any time before Ja⯑nuary 1776, he muſt have convicted himſelf of the groſſeſt falſehood and contradiction. I ſhall ſpeak to that point preſently. But it ſeems that he not only did not ſee them in the year 1775, but that he never ſaw them a tall, till very lately. Now, Sir, I beg leave in the firſt place to obſerve, that the Minutes in queſtion, on the preſent production of which he profeſſes to place ſo much reliance, have not been concealed from the world; have not been buried in obſcurity. The books, now before me, (called the Bengal Nar⯑rative and Appendix) muſt have been print⯑ed by the Court of Directors in the year 1776, or 1777; I preſume ſo, becauſe I had a copy of them, long before I left Bengal, in the courſe of the year 1778, if not ſooner. There were other copies in Calcutta. They were read with avidity by every man in the ſettlement, who could procure a ſight of them. They contain not only our Minutes, but great [18] part of our proceedings, and all our correſ⯑pondence with Sir Elijah Impey, on the ſub⯑ject of Nundcomar. To all other men, the contents muſt have been an object of curioſity at leaſt. I know they were ſo. To him, in par⯑ticular, they were in the higheſt degree in⯑tereſting and important. Yet the learned gen⯑tleman never ſaw them in Bengal; theſe books it ſeems, never fell into his hands! nay, you are to be believe that, among the number of perſons, by whom they were unqueſtionably peruſed, he had no acquaintance, who might have told him that ſuch a compilation, pub⯑liſhed by authority, and in which his name and conduct were ſo often mentioned, exiſted in Calcutta. He had no friend or well-wiſher, among that number, who might have waited on him, as ſoon as he had read our Minutes, to congratulate him on the teſtimony given, as you are told, by his enemies or opponents, in favour of his integrity, and to recommend thoſe paſſages at leaſt to his immediate pe⯑ruſal. Believe it if you will; believe it if you can. Perhaps you may think that, having gone ſo far, you have done enough, and that Sir Elijah Impey has no farther demand on your credulity. That learned gentle⯑man [19] is not ſo eaſily ſatisfied. It ſeems, Sir, he knew the facts; he knew that we had or⯑dered a libel on the Supreme Court of Judica⯑ture to be burned, and that it was burned; he had ſeen the paper itſelf, and was in poſſeſ⯑ſion of a copy of it, given him by Mr. Haſt⯑ings; but he had never, never ſeen the Mi⯑nutes that related to it! Now, Sir, it is of itſelf an extraordinary circumſtance, that Mr. Haſtings, who thought himſelf at liberty to give him the paper, in violation, as I think, of the laws of the Council, and of his own per⯑ſonal agreement, ſhould not have communi⯑cated to him thoſe Minutes, which make an eſſential part of the tranſaction, and which, if they were then ſuppoſed to mean what he tells you they ſo clearly expreſs, were not only in⯑nocent of all offence to the Judges, but con⯑veyed a poſitive approbation of their conduct. Why ſhould Mr. Haſtings make ſo partial a communication of our proceedings to Sir Eli⯑jah Impey?—Why ſhould the Governor Gene⯑ral with-hold from the Chief Juſtice the fair and reaſonable ſatisfaction of knowing that we, his enemies, had borne teſtimony to the recti⯑tude of his conduct, and vindicated his cha⯑racter from every aſperſion, which might have [20] been, or could be thrown upon it. I defy any man to ſtate a principle of action that will juſtify Mr. Haſtings in doing the firſt, and not doing the ſecond; or a rational motive of any kind, to make it probable in fact, that he did the one and not the other. The aſſer⯑tion is, that Mr. Haſtings did not communi⯑cate our Minutes on this occaſion to Sir Elijah Impey. Why not?—perhaps he thought it unfair;—perhaps he thought it would have been a breach of truſt and honour to his col⯑leagues.—Perhaps he made a diſtinction between the paper itſelf, which, as he ſays, having been ordered to be publickly burnt, could be no ſecret of ſtate ^*, and the Minutes of the Council, given in ſecret debate and recorded for the ſole information of the Court of Directors. —In general, there might have been ſomething, though in this caſe there would have been no⯑thing in the diſtinction;—but in fact, did he make the diſtinction? I appeal to Sir Elijah Im⯑pey, and ſhall leave it to him to anſwer the queſ⯑tion. In his letter of the 20th of January 1776, in four or five months after the tranſaction of which we are ſpeaking, he tells the Secretary of State, ‘"The Governor General has, within [21] theſe few days, communicated to me ſeveral Minutes, ſigned by General Clavering, Colo⯑nel Monſon, and Mr. Francis; they are ſeve⯑rally fraught with direct charges, or plain inſinuations againſt the characters of the Judges, and the conduct of the Court of Judicature. Some ſeem more particularly levelled at me."’ You have it then from un⯑queſtionable authority, that Mr. Haſtings did communicate our Minutes to Sir Elijah Impey: —Minutes fraught with direct charges againſt him:—Minutes, which, as he, Impey, ſays, were intended to be kept ſecret; but the Governor General had at laſt thought, that they ought in juſ⯑tice to be communicated to him.—Did he ſo? Then where was the juſtice of Mr. Haſtings, when he communicated to his learned friend thoſe ſecret Minutes of ours, which were fraught with charges againſt him, and did not commu⯑nicate to him thoſe other Minutes, in which, as this learned gentleman tells you, we had ex⯑preſſed a direct, unequivocal approbation of his conduct? was it a fair and honourable pro⯑ceeding to his colleagues? would it have been common juſtice even to his enemies, to impart the one, and not the other, to the perſon, who was the ſubject of both; to impart to Sir Elijah [22] Impey every thing that was likely to inflame him againſt us, and to withhold from his know⯑ledge what might have operated in his mind, as an antidote againſt that poiſon; namely, the ſtrong declarations which we are ſtated to have made in his favour? was it juſt to Sir E. I. to diſcover to him the charges, which we had written home againſt him, and not to fur⯑niſh him with that clear, complete, and irre⯑ſiſtible anſwer, which had eſcaped or been ex⯑torted from us, by which the charges might not only have been refuted, but muſt have been annihilated; I mean the direct teſtimony and confeſſion of his accuſers? For my part, Sir, I acquit Mr. Haſtings of acting ſo un⯑juſtly to all parties; to his friend, as well as to his foes. I acquit him of it, becauſe I am not able to conceive a reaſon, good or bad, why he ſhould act in a manner at once ſo unfair to his colleagues, and ſo injurious to his friend. I have no doubt that he communica⯑ted all our Minutes to Sir Elijah Impey. In proper time, I ſhall ſhew you, for what reaſon the contrary is maintained by this learned gen⯑tleman. On this part of the ſubject, I ſhall trouble you with only one obſervation more.— The Judges, in their letter of the 28th of Au⯑guſt [23] 1775, tranſmitted to us certain petitions^*, which had been addreſſed to them, in order that they might ſtand recorded ^* on our conſulta⯑tions; ‘"which," they ſay, "we think pecu⯑liarly proper at this time; as, by promul⯑gating the univerſal ſenſe of this ſettlement, in relation to our conduct, they are a di⯑rect and public refutation of the libel, and corroborate ſuch of your Minutes, as tend to vindicate our reputations."’—Now, Sir, if he had not ſeen our ſecret conſultations of the 16th of Auguſt, how came he to know, that thoſe or any other Minutes exiſted? How could he make the diſtinction between ſuch as did and ſuch as did not tend to vindicate his reputation? Mine was the only Minute of the three, to which, by any poſſible conſtruction, that tendency could be imputed. Is it not evident from this paſſage alone, that he had a copy of the conſultation before him; or, what [24] is in effect the ſame, that the ſubſtance of our different Minutes had been diſtinctly ſtated to him.—From all the premiſes, taken toge⯑ther, I draw this immediate inference of fact which, as I conceive, it is impoſſible for the human mind to reſiſt, and which, for other reaſons, I know to be true, namely that, while he pretended to be ſcrupulouſly neuter in the diſ⯑putes, which agitated the Council, he was ſecretly leagued in early connexion, in cloſe commu⯑nication, in deep alliance and confederacy with Mr. Haſtings. In what ſenſe that fact is material to my defence, and in what manner I mean to apply it, will ſoon appear.

I muſt now requeſt the Committee to ob⯑ſerve, that there are two parties concerned in the accuſation brought againſt us by Sir Elijah Impey;—one, the then majority of the Coun⯑cil collectively, viz. General Clavering, Colo⯑nel Monſon, and myſelf;—the other, Sir John Clavering alone. Our cauſes are diſtinct, and muſt be ſeparately conſidered and defended. With reſpect to the former of theſe parties, I have already ſtated to you the recorded facts of the tranſaction, in the order in which they happened. I am now to ſtate the reaſons of [25] our conduct; I mean, not only our avowed, but our reſerved reaſons for acting as we did.

In reply to the Governor's motion, I ſaid^* that ‘"I thought our ſending a copy of the Raja Nundcomar's addreſs to our Board, to the Chief Juſtice and the Judges, would be giving it much more weight than it deſerv⯑ed; and that I conſidered the inſinuations, contained in it, againſt them, as wholly un⯑ſupported, and of a libellous nature."’ In the whole of that opinion Colonel Monſon agreed; but he added, ‘"that if the Board ſhould com⯑municate the paper to the Judges, he thought they (the Members of the Board) might be liable to a proſecution for a libel."’ General Clavering-diſapproved of the propoſition, ‘"be⯑cauſe he thought it might make the Mem⯑bers of the Board, who ſent it, liable to a proſecution."’ The Governor General and Council having unanimouſly agreed that the Perſian paper ſhould be publicly deſtroyed, I concluded the debate with another motion, in the following words^†:—‘"By the ſame channel through which the Court of Directors, and his Majeſty's Miniſters, and the nation, might be informed of the contents of the pa⯑per [26] in queſtion, they muſt alſo be informed of the reception it had met with, and the ſentence paſſed upon it at this Board. I therefore hope that its being deſtroyed in the manner propoſed, will be ſufficient to clear the character of the Judges, ſo far as they ap⯑pear to be attacked in that paper; and to pre⯑vent any poſſibility of the imputations, indi⯑rectly thrown on the Judges, from extend⯑ing beyond this Board, I move that the en⯑try of the addreſs from Rajah Nundcomar, entered on our proceedings of Monday laſt, be expunged."’

Before I offer any obſervation on the true intent and meaning of theſe Minutes, allow me to read to you a few ſhort paſſages out of other Minutes of ours, written both before and after the execution of Nundcomar, in which our opinion of the real principle and purpoſe of that proceeding is very ſtrongly and very explicitly declared.

Now, Sir, if it be true that there is a mani⯑feſt inconſiſtency, a palpable contradiction be⯑tween theſe declarations, and our intermediate proceedings on the 16th Auguſt, 1775, I have brought that inconſiſtency and contradiction plainly and diſtinctly into your view. I am ſure I can ſatisfy the Committee that it does not exiſt. In the firſt place, you will allow me to ſay that, ſetting aſide all conſideration of mo⯑ral character, and claiming nothing in favour of General Clavering, Colonel Monſon, and myſelf, but that we ſhall not be taken for idiots, it is not very likely that, having re⯑peatedly charged the proſecution and execu⯑tion of Nundcomar againſt Sir Elijah Impey, as a political meaſure of the moſt atrocious kind; having ſo often recorded that opinion on the proceedings of the Council, we ſhould almoſt at the ſame moment, voluntarily, and [31] without any apparent reaſon, deliberately con⯑tradict ourſelves, and record our own condem⯑nation on the face of our proceedings. Is it a thing to be believed, that having advanced ſuch a charge, we ſhould ſo lightly abandon it, and that, having abandoned, we ſhould re⯑ſume and re-aſſert it, without once attempting to reconcile or explain the inconſiſtency of our conduct, if the idea of that contradiction, which is now urged and inſiſted on, had ever occurred to us? Is it likely that, while we were con⯑tending with Mr. Haſtings for the good opi⯑nion of the Court of Directors, we ſhould have placed ourſelves before them in a point of view, which muſt have utterly annihilated their confidence in us?—Sir, I affirm that, in fact, we did no ſuch thing. The terms of my opinion of the contents of the paper, which I propoſed ſhould be deſtroyed, are, I ſee, particularly relied on. I deſire they may be ſtrictly examined. I ſaid that to ſend to the Judges a copy of Nundcomar's petition, would be giving it much more weight than it deſerved; that I conſidered the inſinuations contained in it againſt them as wholly unſup⯑ported, and of a libellous nature. I thought and ſaid ſo then. I think and ſay ſo ſtill, in [32] the extent and manner in which they were ſtated in that paper. The perſon, in whoſe name it appeared, was dead. He had, whe⯑ther juſtly or unjuſtly, legally or illegally, been convicted of a crime, and had ſuffered an ignominious death. Even if he had been reſpited after conviction, his evidence would have been uſeleſs, for his credit was gone. A petition from ſuch a perſon, accuſing his Judges, could have no ſort of weight. It came before us without a reſponſible accuſer, without a proof, or evidence of any kind; I therefore ſaid it was wholly unſupported. No man, I preſume, will deny that it was in ſtrict⯑neſs of a libellous nature. I aſſerted then, as I aſſert now, that it was a libel on the whole Court of Juſtice, in the ſtrict and proper ſenſe of the word. The dreadful charge contained in it, included all the Judges, concerning two of whom (Sir Robert Chambers and Mr. Hyde) we never had a ſuſpicion of the motives, which we attributed to Sir Elijah Impey, though I am far from acquitting them of all blame. Concerning another of the Judges, the late Mr. Lemaiſtre, though we ſaw him united in the cloſeſt intimacy with the Chief Juſtice, and ready to ſupport his opinions on all occaſions, [33] with a degree of zeal and paſſion which, how⯑ever ſincere, was not to be excuſed, yet in that, which conſtitutes the deadly guilt of the tranſaction, we never ſuſpected him to be con⯑cerned;—in a confederacy I mean with Sir Eli⯑jah Impey to take off Nundcomar, in order to ſave Mr. Haſtings from the effect of that man's evidence. We were bound therefore to treat the petition as an indiſcriminate libel againſt a whole Court of Juſtice. Is there any thing in that reſolution, or in the terms of my opi⯑nion, on which it was founded, that under any, I will not ſay fair and liberal, but under the moſt rigorous conſtruction, can be under⯑ſtood to expreſs or ſignify that we thought the paper falſe, as well as libellous of all the Judges? This is no new diſtinction, ſet up by me to ſerve the preſent purpoſe. It is no af⯑ter thought, no ex poſt facto vindication of my conduct. I can prove to the Committee, that I always made the ſame diſtinction between an accuſation and a libel. When Mr. Haſtings accuſed me perſonally, about three months be⯑fore, of preſenting a libel againſt him to the Board, my anſwer to him ſtands recorded in the following words:

This is my defence againſt the charge, as it affects us collectively on the face of our pro⯑ceedings; and I willingly ſubmit to your judg⯑ment, whether the avowed oſtenſible reaſons, publicly aſſigned by me, be not ſufficient to account for my public official conduct on the occaſion, and to acquit me of the preſent charge of contradiction. But had I no other motives for what I did, beyond thoſe which I have aſſigned? Undoubtedly I had, and I am ready to declare them. Addreſſing you, as I do, under an honourable and moral obligation, as powerful and coercive as any, that law or religion can impoſe upon the human mind, I ſhould hold myſelf a perjured man, if called upon, as in effect I am, for the whole truth, I reſerved any part of it from your knowledge. My ſecret predominant motive for propoſing to deſtroy the original paper produced by Ge⯑neral Clavering, was to ſave him, and him alone, from the danger, to which he had expoſed him⯑ſelf by that raſh inconſiderate action. Yet the ſtep I took was not immediately taken on [36] my own ſuggeſtion. As ſoon as Mr. Haſtings propoſed that a copy of the paper ſhould be ſent to the Judges,—a ſtep ſuſpicious on the face of it, and by which it was impoſſible any good purpoſe could be anſwered,—Colonel Monſon ſtarted at it, and deſired me to go with him into another room. Poſſibly Mr. Barwell may recollect the circumſtance. He then ſaid, ‘"I ſuppoſe you ſee what the Governor means. If the Judges get poſ⯑ſeſſion of the paper, Clavering may be ruined by it."’ My anſwer was, ‘"Why, what can they do to him?"’ To that he replied, ‘"I know not what they can do; but, ſince they have dipped their hands in blood, what is there they will not do?"’— He then deſired me to move that the original paper ſhould be deſtroyed by the hands of the common hangman. This ſhort converſation paſſed very nearly, I firmly believe, if not preciſely, in the terms in which I have related it. It is not poſſible I ſhould ever forget or miſtake the ſubſtance of it. If I am charged with having acted a feeble, puſillanimous part, let it be remembered that my fears, whether well or ill founded, were not for myſelf; that the danger, whether real or imaginary, could [37] no way extend to me. To fear nothing when we ourſelves are in no danger, is not an un⯑queſtionable proof of reſolution;—much leſs is it a proof of timidity to fear every thing for the ſafety of a friend. It was my opinion, however, and is ſo at this hour, that the dan⯑ger to General Clavering was real and ſerious. The author of the libel was dead. General Clavering had made himſelf the publiſher, and put himſelf into the power of his enemies. I cannot bring before you in evidence the ſtate of the ſettlement at that time; the great power that was confederated againſt us, and the univer⯑ſal combination of all ranks of Europeans to ſup⯑port that power in all its operations. We were ſent out by Parliament to enquire into and to reform abuſes. The firſt diſcoveries, that came before us, gave a general alarm. The cauſe of Mr. Haſtings was made and declared to be the common cauſe and intereſt of all the Com⯑pany's ſervants. We, on the contrary, were conſidered as their common enemy, and were at once the object of their jealouſy, their fear, and deteſtation. With a very few exceptions, we three in effect ſtood alone againſt the com⯑bined power of two Members of the Council, one of whom was the Governor General; [38] againſt the Supreme Court of Judicature, againſt the Board of Trade, and againſt the united animoſity and clamour of the whole ſettlement. If, in that ſtate and temper of the times, General Clavering had been indicted for a libel on the Supreme Court, whoſe powers were in effect, to us, undefined, unli⯑mited, and ſubject to nocontroul^*, I cannot po⯑ſitively affirm what would have been the con⯑ſequence; but I am poſitively ſure, that no efforts would have been ſpared, no methods unattempted to haraſs and diſtreſs him, and, if poſſible, accompliſh his ruin. This I de⯑clare upon my honour, and am ready to de⯑clare upon my oath, was my motive, as I am convinced it was that of Colonel Monſon, for inſiſting that the original paper ſhould be deſtroyed. I do not expect, that the force of this motive ſhould be felt in this place and at the preſent hour, as it was by us, upon the ſpot, and in the moment of ac⯑tion. [39] The period is too remote. The ſcene is too diſtant. The inſtant impreſſion upon our minds cannot eaſily be communicated to yours. We knew we were ſurrounded by the ſnares of the law. We had no legal learn⯑ing. We had no legal advice. You may ſpeculate coolly and wiſely upon our conduct; but you will not determine equitably, if you do not endeavour to place yourſelves exactly in our ſituation. At all events, whether we did right or wrong, we certainly did not do that of which we are accuſed. We never ſaid, that the contents of Nundcomar's peti⯑tion were not true. As Mr. Haſtings entirely agreed with us in every thing we did, I never had a doubt that the tranſlation was deſtroyed, until Sir Elijah Impey produced a copy of it at the bar of this Houſe. Of the authenticity of this tranſlation, you have no other evidence but that, which confeſſes it was obtained by means the moſt unjuſtifiable, by means, which prove, what we always ſuſpected, that we were betrayed, by one of our own Board, to Sir Elijah Impey, and by means, which prove to demonſtration the colluſion and confederacy, that ſubſiſted from the firſt between Sir Elijah Impey and Mr. Haſtings. The exiſtence of [40] that well-grounded ſuſpicion is material to our defence.

I am now to reply to that part of Sir Elijah Impey's accuſation, which excluſively affects General Clavering. On my own account per⯑ſonally, I have no manner of concern in it. I am here the uninſtructed advocate, the feeble defendant of an honourable friend, who is now no more. In his name, and for his cauſe, I claim and expect that indulgence, that favour and protection, which he, I am ſure, would never have ſolicited for himſelf, but which is admitted to be due, and which this Houſe, in fact, has liberally diſtributed to other defen⯑dants. The learned gentleman himſelf, when he appeared at your bar, was received there, as he ought to be, with favour and indulgence. He was received there, with what I believe is not quite ſo common, though perhaps equally proper, with diſtinguiſhed marks of protec⯑tion. But if indulgence, if favour and protec⯑tion are due to a perſon, who is preſent to de⯑fend himſelf, who is himſelf a man of great learning and experience, and who can at any time collect and command the united learning of his profeſſion, and ſummon it to his aſſiſt⯑ance: how much more are they due to a man [41] of great character, who is not here to plead his own cauſe; who is not only abſent, but dead, and who died in the ſervice of his country. Not, indeed, in the field of battle, where his gallant mind would have led him, but in a vile, vexatious conteſt with men;—I will not attempt to qualify them;—General Clavering thought himſelf degraded by a conteſt with ſuch men.

In this tranſaction, I cannot undertake to an⯑ſwer for all the motions of his conduct. I think I can for ſome of them. But aſſuredly, Sir, I ſhall not attempt to explain what I never underſtood; that is, with what inten⯑tion, and for what poſſible purpoſe, he brought the paper before the Board. Neither is that queſtion material at preſent. The queſtionable words in his Minute of the 14th of Auguſt, 1775, when he produced the Petition of Nundcomar, are theſe: ‘"As I imagined that the Paper might contain ſome requeſt that I ſhould take ſome ſteps to intercede for him, and being reſolved not to make any applications whatever in his favour, I left the Paper on my table till the 6th, which was the day after his execution, when I ordered it to be tranſlated by my interpre⯑ter."’—On this proceeding, the queſtion is [42] too obvious not to occur inſtantly to every man who hears me, why had he reſolved not to make any application whatever in favour of Nundcomar?

In attempting to account for an act done by another, ſo many years ago, and to verify the motives of the perſon who did it; you will not expect that the evidence ſhould amount to demonſtration. The beſt that I can offer you, and the utmoſt the caſe will admit of, is ſtrong probability and fair con⯑jecture. The peculiar character and known principles of General Clavering muſt be taken into the account. Remember that you are trying a cauſe of honour in a Court of Honour, in the forum conſcientiae, which exiſts in the heart of every honourable man, not in a Court of Law. You cannot fairly pronounce upon the man, without knowing and conſidering the general principles of his life. Now, Sir, I affirm of General Clavering, what I believe will not be diſputed by any perſon who knew him, that his moral mind and character were ſtrictly and ſeverely upright; that he determined every queſtion that came before him with ri⯑gid juſtice; that his delicacy, in every thing that appeared to him to touch his honour, was more than ſcrupulous, and bordered, if poſ⯑ſible, [43] upon exceſs. I have ſometimes told him ſo, when I have ſeen him refuſe little complimentary preſents of fruit, or flowers, ſent to his family, and order them to be re⯑turned.—He was a man very tender of public reputation; very fearful of reproach; and, particularly fearful of the imputation of ſup⯑porting and encouraging the accuſer of Mr. Haſtings. With theſe principles, he might poſſibly think that it did not become him to intercede for a man found guilty of a capital offence. But it is much more probable, and more material to his preſent vindication, that he was well convinced his interceſſion would do miſchief inſtead of good, and would rather haſten than retard the execution of Nundco⯑mar. Mr. Farrer tells you in his evidence⁷, that when he propoſed to the General to re⯑ceive and tranſmit to the Judges, a Petition of Nundcomar addreſſed to the Governor Ge⯑neral and Council, his anſwer ended with theſe words, ‘"nor indeed did he think it would do any good."’ That he had ſolid and ſufficient reaſon for entertaining that opinion, I believe I can demonſtrate. Many gentlemen, I dare ſay, who heard Sir Elijah Impey's fugitive de⯑fence [44] at the Bar, went away with an impreſ⯑ſion, that General Clavering, Colonel Mon⯑ſon and I, never took any formal ſteps in favour of Nundcomar; and that if we had interceded for him, it might probably have ſaved his life. Whether the Judges would or would not have yielded to our interceſſion, is a queſ⯑tion, which no human tribunal can decide. You may form a judgment of it, however, by obſerving how the Court acted, when we really did intercede with them in favour of Nundcomar, in inſtances of no importance to the real purpoſes of juſtice, though very im⯑portant to the unfortunate man himſelf. I ſhall ſtate the facts I allude to, in the terms in which they are recorded.

On the 8th of May, 1775,^* a Petition was received from Rajah Nundcomar to the Go⯑vernor General and Council, which, after ſtating many other particulars, very deſerv⯑ing of the attention of the Houſe of Com⯑mons, concludes with the following words,— ‘"The Honourable Preſident, I am well aſ⯑ſured, is fully ſenſible of the facts I allude to;—It may be requiſite to explain to the reſt of the Honourable Members of the [45] Board, that the inſtitutions of our religion ſtrictly enjoin a number of ablutions, pray⯑ers, and other ceremonies to be performed by the ſect of Bramins, before they can take any kind of food. Nothing of this can be performed in the place where I now am; and, could even theſe obſtacles be ſurmounted, the place itſelf, as being in⯑habited by men of a different religion, would prevent my receiving any ſuſtenance without breaking thoſe rules, which I have hitherto religiouſly obſerved. I therefore humbly requeſt, that I may be permitted to reſide, under as ſtrict a guard as may be judged requiſite, in ſome place where theſe objections may be obviated."’

After a long and careful examination made by the Board into the truth of this re⯑preſentation, I moved^*, ‘"That the Sheriff and his Deputy ſhould be directed to wait on the Chief Juſtice, on the part of the Board, to repreſent to him the ſituation of the Rajah Nundcomar, whoſe religion, as he had informed the Board, had obliged him to deny himſelf ſuſtenance in the par⯑ticular circumſtances of his preſent con⯑finement; [46] and to deſire the Chief Juſtice would conſider of granting the Priſoner ſuch relief, as might be conſiſtent with the ſtrict ſecurity of his perſon to anſwer to the charges brought againſt him; and that a copy of the latter part of the Rajah's Pe⯑tion to the Board ſhould be delivered to the Sheriff."’ Colonel Monſon and General Clavering agreed.

The Governor General ſaid, ‘"I object to the Motion, becauſe the ſame repreſenta⯑tion may be made by the Priſoner himſelf to the Chief Juſtice; and I think, therefore, it would be improper that it ſhould be con⯑veyed to him through the authority of Go⯑vernment."’

In reply to this meſſage Sir Elijah Impey, in his letter of the 9th of May, thought pro⯑per to ſay ^*,

‘"I muſt make it my requeſt, that the Maha Rajah may be acquainted by the Board that, if he has any further appli⯑cation to make for relief, he muſt ad⯑dreſs himſelf immediately to the Judges, who will give all due attention to his re⯑preſentations; for ſhould he continue to addreſs himſelf to the Board, that which [47] will, and can only be obtained from prin⯑ciples of juſtice, may have the appearance of being obtained by the means of influence and authority, the peculiar turn of mind of the natives being to expect every thing from power, and little from juſtice."’

In another letter, dated May 15, 1775, he ſays ^*:

‘"I did not, nor do not queſtion the autho⯑rity of the Board in receiving Petitions; I carefully reſtricted what I ſaid to this indivi⯑dual Priſoner; I did not deſire his Petitions ſhould not be received; but, when received, if they were to require any thing from the Judges or the Court, that the anſwers given to thoſe Petitions ſhould be, that he muſt apply himſelf directly to the Judges; and this I did to avoid the imputation I then alluded to, and which would be equally de⯑rogatory to the character of the Council, as that of the Judges.’

‘"The particular reaſon, which called upon me in this caſe, to make that requiſition, was the reports publicly circulated in this town, that, if the Judges could not be pre⯑vailed [48] upon to releaſe the Maha Rajah, he he would be delivered by force."’

This ſuppoſed report of an intention in the Commander in Chief and two of the Council, to releaſe the Priſoner manu forti, was not in⯑conſiderately advanced or abandoned by the learned Gentleman. After we had forced him to declare, as he did in his letter to the Board of the 30th of May 1775 ^*, ‘"That he knew it to be totally groundleſs; that he again and again diſclaimed ever having given any credit, and deteſted the thought of adding weight to ſo ſcandalous a report,"’ he revived it in his letter to the Secretary of State, of the 20th of January 1776, in the fol⯑lowing words: ‘"It ſhould be known that the conduct of the Council, (meaning the majority) to the Judges, and to the Pri⯑ſoner during his confinement, had raiſed an almoſt univerſal belief in the Natives, and even among the Europeans, that the Pri⯑ſoner would be protected from juſtice, in de⯑fiance of the Court."’—And now he re⯑ſumes, and inſiſts upon it once more at the Bar of this Houſe. I leave it to him to recon⯑cile an imputation of ſuch a nature, if he can, to that high approbation, with which he ſays [49] we afterwards received the execution of Nund⯑comar. But, in what light did General Cla⯑vering conſider it? Sir, the imputation of a deſign to reſiſt the Civil Power, to oppoſe the Execution of Juſtice, appeared to him not only ſo ſcandalous, but ſo dangerous, ſo par⯑ticularly levelled at him, as a Military Man, as Commander in Chief of the Army, that he thought it neceſſary, for his ſafety, to ex⯑culpate himſelf from it by oath ^*. I ſay, for his ſafety, becauſe I am firmly of opinion, that he would have been in as great danger as Nund⯑comar, if the Judges could have found any thing criminal to have laid to his charge. Colonel Monſon and I, though not the imme⯑diate objects of that infamous calumny, thought it right to take the ſame oath. From this extraordinary fact, I leave it to you to conclude, what muſt have been our opinion of the perſonal ſecurity of our ſituation.

On the 30th of May, the Chief Juſtice thought fit to write us a very long letter (on the ſubject of our interpoſition in behalf of Nundcomar,) in which he ſaid ^‡,

[50] ‘"As to communicating Petitions to the the Judges, I apprehend that no Board, even of the higheſt authority in England, can refer any matter, either to a Court of Juſtice, or any Judge thereof, otherwiſe than by ſuit legally inſtituted."’

On the 23d of June ^*, the Chief Juſtice declared from the Bench, that the Governor General and Council, whom he conſidered as nothing more than as Agents of the Eaſt In⯑dia Company, could only apply to the Court by humble Petition, and that the Court could not receive in future any letters or meſſages but in that form.

On the 27th of June ^*, we tranſmitted to the Judges a tranſlation of a letter addreſſed to the Governor General and Council, in fa⯑vour of Nundcomar, by the Nabob Mobaric ul Dowlah, Subadar of the Provinces of Ben⯑gal, Bahar, and Orixa; titular indeed, for to that ſtate was he reduced, but the only right⯑ful repreſentative of the Sovereignty, and ſtill acknowledged to be the Nazim, or Chief Criminal Magiſtrate of the country. Whe⯑ther the Judges gave any anſwer to that ſpe⯑cific application from the Nabob, through the Governor General and Council, I cannot diſ⯑cover. I rather ſuſpect that, as Sir Elijah Impey knew the reference had paſſed unani⯑mouſly at the Board, he thought it beſt to take no notice of what he could not conve⯑niently condemn without a cenſure of his friends. —But obſerve how he acted, when he found us alone. On the 20th of June, the [52] Governor General and Council had reſolved to addreſs the Judges in behalf of the Nabob's Vakeel, for whom we claimed, as well on the part of the Prince whom he repreſented, as on the part of our Government, by whom he was received, the rights and privileges of a public Miniſter ^*. Mr. Haſtings and Mr. Barwell diſſented, and refuſed to ſign the letter. I beg leave to read to you an extract from the anſwer, which the Judges ſent us the next day by a Maſter in Chancery ^†:

‘"That the Court is of opinion, that all claims of individuals ought to be made di⯑rectly to the Court by the individuals, and not by the authority of the Governor Ge⯑neral and Council.’

‘"That it is contrary to the principles of the Engliſh Conſtitution, for any perſon or perſons to addreſs a Court of Juſtice by letter miſſive, concerning any matter pend⯑ing before ſuch Court; and that the higher the ſtation of the perſon or perſons ſo ad⯑dreſsing, the act is the more unconſtitu⯑tional."’

[53]Finally Sir, I beg leave to read to you an extract of what is called ^* the unanimous opinion of the Court, delivered (on the 1ſt of July) by the Chief Juſtice, in conſequence of a letter ſigned J. Clavering;—George Monſon;—P. Francis.

‘"It is with the deepeſt concern we find the Council ſtill perſiſt to addreſs the Court by letter, on ſubjects pending in Court, or on which the Court have given their opinion; and that, notwithſtanding the frequent de⯑clarations, and unanimous opinion of the Court, upon the impropriety of that mode of addreſs."’

After all this had paſſed, it is not much to be wondered at, that General Clavering ſhould reſolve not to make any more applications in favour of Nundcomar.

You have ſeen, that we interceded for him with the Judges. You have ſeen, in what manner our interceſſion was received. It is proper you ſhould know, what the ſubject and occaſion were, which drew down ſo many cenſures and menaces upon us. As ſoon as we received Nundcomar's petition of the 8th of May, the concluſion and prayer of which [54] we immediately reſolved to communicate to Sir Elijah Impey; we examined the Sheriff and Under Sheriff, concerning the circum⯑ſtances of Nundcomar's confinement, and of his ſituation in the goal. From their evidence it appeared, that he was committed on the 6th; and from that time, I think about forty hours, had refuſed to take any ſuſtenance. The next day, the Chief Juſtice's anſwer to our meſſage was received in Council.

He deſired the Sheriff and Under Sheriff to inform us ‘"that Rajah Nundcomar was not committed by him, and that he had no authority to interfere in the affair, there be⯑ing felony expreſsly charged in the war⯑rant."’ General Clavering then ſaid^*, ‘"I acquaint the Board that I have received a letter from Mr. Joſeph Fowke, who is juſt come from viſiting Maha Raja Nundcomar; acquainting me, that it is the opinion of the people, who were about him, that they do not think he can live another day with⯑out drink. He ſays his tongue is much parched, but that his ſpirit is firm. In the [55] converſation that he had with the Raja, the Raja told him, do not trouble yourſelf about me. The will of heaven muſt be complied with, I am innocent."’ I immediately moved that the goaler might be ſent for to inform us whe⯑ther Rajah Nundcomar had really taken no ſuſtenance ſince his confinement, and in what ſituation the Raja then was. When he came, I queſtioned him myſelf, and it appeared by his examination, that the Rajah had then ta⯑ken no ſuſtenance for ſixty-three hours;—that the jail was crowded; that it had not been ſo full before, and that there were at that time twenty-three felons in it, beſides other priſo⯑ners. I then moved ‘"that the information laid before the Board by General Clavering, and the further account given by the jailer, ſhould be communicated to the Chief Juſtice, by the Secretary, on the part of the Board; and that the Secretary ſhould wait upon him accordingly as ſoon as the Board broke up."’ This was agreed to and ordered.

On the ſame day, we received a letter from Sir Elijah Impey to inform us that he had ſent for the pundits, and examined them con⯑cerning the pretended ſcruples of Nundcomar. The reſult was, that there were no grounds for [56] altering the mode of confinement of the Maha Raja. He aſſured us^*, ‘"that the Judges would, as far as by law they might, remit the ri⯑gour of the Engliſh law, in all caſes, where its effects might be prejudicial to the natives on account of their religion; and perhaps in ſome caſes, would yield even to prejudices, if national and deep rooted. But they muſt not ſuffer the pretence of religion to be ſet up for the purpoſes of eluding the ordinary courſe of the law."’ Accordingly the unfortunate man was aban⯑doned to his fate; or, if you will, to the un⯑avoidable conſequence of his own obſtinacy. Whether his ſcruples were well, or ill founded, is more than I am able to explain. We know with certainty that the Gentoo religion is, in a great degree, ceremonial; and in a very low degree, if at all, dogmatical. It preſcribes many things to be performed, many others to be abſtained from, but not much to be believ⯑ed. It forms the occupation, rather than the creed of a mild, inoffenſive, innocent people. To preſerve what they think a religious purity, to ſave themſelves from what they deem to be [57] indelible pollution; I do not ſay that they will act with vigour, (that perhaps is not in their nature) but I know they will ſuffer and endure with a patience more than human. Can you doubt that Nundcomar was in earneſt in the ſcruples he profeſt, when I tell you that, while the Judges were debating with us, whe⯑ther he ought to be relieved or not, and while Sir Elijah Impey debated the point with us, whether Nundcomar ought to be relieved or not, and while he was amuſing himſelf with writing us long letters on the ſubject, the old man, above ſeventy years of age, reſolutely perſiſted in refuſing all manner of food for more than eighty hours? In ſo much that the Judges themſelves, alarmed at the idea and poſſible conſequences of an illegal murder, gave an indirect permiſſion to the jailor, as it were without their knowledge, to pitch a tent for Nundcomar out of the limits of the priſon, in which, at proper hours, he might perform his ablutions and prepare his food. Sir Eli⯑jah Impey takes care to tell you, what ſpe⯑cial pains he took to inform himſelf, whe⯑ther there was any real foundation for the re⯑ligious difficulties pretended by Nundcomar^*.

[58]He ſent the pundits, whom he calls the keep⯑ers of the conſciences and the oracles of the Gentoos, to examine the place of his confinement, and they, it ſeems, told him that ^*, ‘"a Bramin could not properly perform his ablutions, or eat and drink in the place where Raja Nund⯑ocmar was confined. But, if he did, he would not loſe his caſt, but he muſt perform a pennance."’

Now, Sir, it is proper you ſhould know, that theſe pundits, in point of circumſtances and ſituation, were very low and indigent per⯑ſons; that they received ſmall ſalaries for their attendance on the Supreme Court, and were removeable at the pleaſure of the Judges. Admitting nevertheleſs that, in this ſtate of dependance, they might have had courage enough to deliver an opinion adverſe to the ap⯑parent inclination of the Chief Juſtice, on whom they depended, and that the opinion, which they did deliver, was ſincere, it ought not to have prevailed with Sir Elijah Impey againſt what he ſaw was the internal conviction of Nundcomar, demonſtrated by a determina⯑tion to die, rather than ſave his life by ſub⯑mitting to pollution. He ought to have [59] known, that the Hindoos are not only divided into caſts, but that, in the ſame caſt, there are different orders and degrees, not only diſ⯑tinct in point of rank, but ſeparated by religi⯑ous rules and inſtitutions, attached and appro⯑priated to every diviſion of every caſt, and which can neither be renounced or invaded without a crime. The Bramin of a lower claſs is no judge even of the ceremonies, much leſs of the religious ſcruples of a ſuperior Bramin. When Nundcomar was informed of the report made by the pundits, the old man ſmiled, and ſaid, ‘"theſe men are not of my level. They are no judges of my conſcience."’

Want of food was not the only diſtreſs, to which this unfortunate man was obliged to ſubmit. He was confined in a miſerable jail, crowded with debtors and felons of all nations, ranks and religions; and though he might have had every accommodation, which ſuch a place could afford, ſtill I affirm, that it muſt have been to him not only a loathſome, but a dangerous, cruel, and tyrannical confine⯑ment. Mr. Naylor, the Company's Attor⯑ney, committed by Sir Elijah Impey for a contempt of the Court, in not anſwering inter⯑rogatories, died in conſequence of being ſhut [60] up there a few weeks. Others, to my know⯑ledge, have ſuffered by it ſeverely.

In ſuch a priſon, we knew that Nundcomar was periſhing for want of food.—That we felt the moſt ſerious anxiety for his ſituation, Sir Elijah Impey may affect to doubt, if he thinks proper. That General Clavering ſent con⯑ſtantly to enquire about his health, is charged and admitted. But, in this offence, he had accomplices, it ſeems, whom Sir Elijah Im⯑pey has thought it perfectly proper and be⯑coming in him to include in the charge. For the ſake of calumniating the memory of Sir John Clavering, he brings the ladies of his family into public notice, into the judicial view of the Houſe of Commons. Sir John Cla⯑vering's daughters are accuſed of ſending every day to the priſon with compliments to the Rajah, and inquiries about his health. One would think that, even if there had been any thing improper in what they did, the conſi⯑deration due to their ſex and youth, to their beauty and accompliſhments, might have pro⯑tected them from ſo ungenerous an alluſion to their names and conduct. But it is in the ex⯑erciſe of their charity, in the diſplay of that benevolent virtue, which gives new luſtre to [61] youth and beauty;—it is in the performance of the moſt amiable of all human duties, that the daughters of General Clavering are intro⯑duced to be evidence againſt their father, and even Lady Clavering againſt her huſband. The charge means nothing, if it be not in⯑tended to convey, that General Clavering had ſome improper connection and correſpondence with the accuſer of Mr. Haſtings. Without that application, the mention of the ladies of his family would be mere malice, and nothing elſe. But, why not accuſe me too of the ſame offence? I was at leaſt as guilty of it as they. I ſent meſſages every day to Nundcomar. If, knowing his ſituation ſo exactly as I did from the Sheriff, I had neglected him at ſuch a time, I muſt have loſt all ſenſe of humanity. For the ſame ſort of purpoſe, we are accuſed of having paid a viſit of ceremony to Rajah Nundcomar. I anſwer it by aſking, why ſhould we not? He was a perſon of the firſt rank in his own country.—He belonged to the high⯑eſt order of the Bramins.—I believe he was their Chief.—He had been Prime Miniſter of the Government under Meer Jaffier, and his ſon. Was ſuch a man not intitled to a viſit from General Clavering, Colonel Monſon and [62] me?—In point of rank, he was far ſuperior to any of us. But, what was the fact?—On the day^*, after he was examined before the Judges, at Sir Elijah Impey's houſe, on a charge of a pretended conſpiracy againſt Mr. Haſtings, when the charge was diſmiſſed, and when his accuſers were not even bound over to proſecute, we paid him a ſhort viſit at his houſe. I am ſure it did not exceed ten minutes. We ſaw plainly enough for what reaſon he was perſecuted, and we thought it became us to pay him that compliment, as a public mark of countenance and good opinion. We did not promiſe him protection, for unfortunately we had no power to protect him.

I have given you now an exact and faithful account of a tranſaction, which, I think, Sir Elijah Impey would never have appealed to, if he had not been blinded by a guilty mind. He flattered himſelf that he had contrived to make it impoſſible to detect the falſehood of his ſtory. I believe you are ſatisfied, that he was, from the firſt, united in cloſe colluſion with Mr. Haſtings; that we were not miſtaken in ſuſpecting, that our ſecret debates in Council were betrayed to [63] him;—that our ordering Nundcomar's petition to be burned, was founded on an apprehenſion materially connected with that ſuſpicion;— that, by that reſolution, we never meant to pronounce upon the ſubſtance or merits of the petition; and that the learned gentleman him⯑ſelf never once thought of giving the conſtruc⯑tion to what we ſaid, or of drawing the con⯑cluſion from what we did, which he now ad⯑vances, for the firſt time, almoſt thirteen years after the event. If, on this laſt material point, there be yet a doubt in the mind of any man, I can remove it by the beſt of all evidence, by that at leaſt, which uſually makes the deep⯑eſt impreſſion,—by the evidence of the party againſt himſelf. Sir Elijah Impey's letter to the Secretary of State, dated the 20th of Jan⯑uary 1776, is now before me. It conſiſts of ſeventeen folio pages in print. It appears to have been written on purpoſe to vindicate his character from the aſperſions uniformly thrown upon it, by Clavering, Monſon, and Francis, for his conduct in the buſineſs of Nundcomar, to charge them with having conſtantly imputed to the Court the moſt atrocious motives for their conduct, by ſtrong inſinuation, malignant ſar⯑caſm, and ſevere cenſure; and to accuſe them of attempting, on ſundry occaſions, to over⯑awe, [64] or reduce the authority of the Supreme Court.

I beg leave to read to you a few ſhort paſ⯑ſages out of this ſtudied performance^*.

1. ‘"The Governor General has within theſe few days communicated to me ſeveral Minutes, ſigned by General Clavering, Co⯑lonel Monſon, and Mr. Francis. They are ſeverally fraught with direct charges, or plain inſinuations, againſt the characters of the Judges, and the conduct of the Court of Judicature. Some ſeem more par⯑ticularly levelled at me.’

2. ‘"The crimes either directly charged up⯑on the Judges, or indirectly inſinuated, (which, I think, we have more reaſon to com⯑plain of, as being leſs liberal) are of ſo hor⯑rid and deteſtable a nature that, if they are well grounded, ought to ſubject each of them to the higheſt puniſhment a Parlia⯑ment Impeachment can inflict, and brand their names with infamy to the lateſt poſ⯑terity.’

3. ‘"I do ſincerely attribute the offenſive parts of the paragraphs to imaginations heat⯑ed by party diſputes; and entertain ſo high [65] a ſenſe of the honour of the Gentlemen, that at a period ſome diſtance from the events, which ſhall have given time for their judgements to cool, they will them⯑ſelves be ſhocked at what they have wrote, and be willing to retract the charges."’

I agree with this learned gentleman intire⯑ly in the definition he has given of his crimes, as well as in his opinion of the puniſhment they deſerve. But I call upon him to explain to you, if he can, why, in January 1766, he looked forward to a future period for a future retractation of the charges we had ſtated, of the falſehoods we had written againſt him, if it be true, as he now tells you, that we had already abandoned thoſe charges, if we had already acknowledged the falſehood of our aſſertions, and borne a clear unqueſtionable teſtimony to the rectitude of his conduct. The diſtinction he endeavours to ſee up be⯑tween our Minutes, which he affirms he never ſaw, and our public act in burning the paper, will be no relief to him. He ſays he never ſaw our Minutes on the ſubject. Be it ſo, the aſ⯑ſertion is incredible;—but I abandon that queſtion. At the preſent moment, I do not deſire you to believe what he denies, but only [66] to remember, what he has admitted. He was in poſſeſſion of the paper, and knew that we had ordered it to be deſtroyed. If he had re⯑ally conceived that, by that reſolution, we meant to expreſs or imply an opinion of the falſehood of the contents, he ought to have concluded from it then, as he pretends to do now, that we ourſelves had acquitted him, by a public voluntary act of our own, of all the atro⯑cious charges we had brought againſt him. In that ſenſe, if the act in queſtion was any proof at all, it was full as good a proof of our favourable opinion of him, as any thing we could have ſaid in our Minutes upon the ſub⯑ject.—In this long letter he never mentions or alludes to either one or the other. Yet that was the time, if ever, for him to have availed himſelf of the evidence of the perſons he calls his enemies, againſt themſelves, and to invali⯑date any declarations they might have made againſt him on other occaſions: inſtead of ap⯑pealing then to the recorded fact,—to what he now calls irreſiſtible evidence of our opi⯑nion in his favour, he expreſsly looks forward to a diſtant day, when he expects that we ſhall be ready to condemn ourſelves, when we ſhall [67] he ſhocked at what we have written, and be willing to retract our charges.

4. ‘"A public notification is profeſſedly made to the Engliſh nation, by which it is attempted to perſuade them, that the Court of Judicature, eſtabliſhed by his Majeſty for protecting the natives of this country, and the Eaſt India Company, from the violence and oppreſſion of the Company's ſervants, has been by the Judges converted into an execrable inſtrument in the hands of Mr. Haſtings, of deſtroying the innocent native, for the ſake of protecting the guilty ſervants of the Company.’

5. ‘"It ſhould be known, that the conduct of the Council to the Judges, and to the Priſoner during his confinement, had raiſed an almoſt univerſal belief in the natives, and even among the Europeans, that the priſoner would be protected from Juſtice, in defiance of the Court.’

6. ‘"Raja Gourdaſs (ſon of Nundcomar) has cauſed it to be intimated to me, that he was very deſirous to pay his reſpects to me, but is poſitively enjoined (he muſt mean forbidden) entering my houſe by members of the Coun⯑cil."’

[68]I have no recollection of this fact, nor do I believe one word of it. It is poſſible, I confeſs, that Raja Gourdaſs might have been very deſi⯑rous to pay his reſpects to Sir Elijah Impey, and for reaſons perfectly coercive on the timid mind of a Hindoo. But he had no occaſion for our conſent. If he had aſked me for my appro⯑bation of ſuch a viſit, I ſhould certainly have told him what I thought of it. The ſtory in effect, which you are called upon to believe, is, that Raja Gourdaſs was bonâ-fide, very deſirous to pay his reſpects to Sir Elijah Impey; that is, to thank him for the murder of his father.

I ſhall read but one ſhort paragraph more out of this letter. To underſtand it, you ſhould know that, in one of our Minutes, we had ſaid, we were ignorant of any attempts to over-awe or reduce the authority of the Supreme Court.

‘"In anſwer to this, (Sir Elijah Impey ſays) I muſt refer to the letters ſent me by the Council in May laſt, concerning Nundco⯑mar; the letter addreſſed to Mr. Juſtice Hyde and Juſtice Lemaiſtre; the univerſal tenor of the Minutes of the Council, whenever the conduct of the Judges made part of their conſultations.’

[69]In this paſſage, the terms he has ſelected are incluſive without exception. The univerſal tenor of our Minutes was to attack, to con⯑demn, and to reprobate the conduct of the Su⯑preme Court. It was ſo, I allow it. But, when you have received that charge from Sir Elijah Impey, when you have ſeen it delibe⯑rately ſtated and inſiſted on by him,—in writ⯑ing,—in a formal letter to the Secretary of State for his Majeſty's information, will you permit him to tell you now, that it was not true?—will you ſuffer him to aver againſt his own record? will you endure to hear him ſay, that we did not univerſally condemn the Judges, whenever their conduct made part of our conſulta⯑tions? for that on the very proceeding, which was eſſentially in queſtion, which, he ſays, we had charged as a crime, that would brand the names of the Judges with infamy to the lateſt poſ⯑terity, on this very proceeding, we had already ſaid or done what muſt have amounted in our minds to a complete vindication of their con⯑duct.—Even now, Sir, I am content to let him chooſe what ſingle aſſertion he will abide by.—But no man is at libery to aſſert and deny the truth of the ſame propoſition. You ſee, for what reaſon Sir Elijah Impey was ſo parti⯑cular [70] in ſtating to the Committee, that he had never, till very lately, ſeen our Minutes of the 16th of Auguſt 1775.

Had he admitted that he had ſeen the Minutes in Calcutta, his letter to the Secre⯑tary of State would, upon his preſent ſhewing, have been a direct falſehood as a charge, and palpably defective as a defence. With thoſe Minutes before him, and underſtanding them in the ſenſe of approbation or even of ac⯑quittal, he could not have ſaid that we had univerſally condemned the conduct of the Supreme Court. Much leſs, while he was defending himſelf againſt the moſt atrocious imputations, particularly levelled at him, could he have omitted all mention of a fact ſo material to his defence, ſo irreſiſtible in its na⯑ture, as that we, who accuſed, had com⯑pleatly acquitted him.

I do not mean to give the Committee any farther trouble. Either the charge, which this learned Gentleman has brought againſt Sir John Clavering, Colonel Monſon and my⯑ſelf, is anſwered, or it is not in my power to anſwer it. Had he acted with the ſame can⯑dour to me, which my honourable friend has obſerved to him;—had he thought proper to [71] deliver it in writing, I would have anſwered it in writing. Let him deliver it even now upon paper, and I pledge myſelf to anſwer it in the ſame manner. Whether he does or no, it is my intention, though I do not ab⯑ſolutely bind myſelf to do ſo, to write down what I have ſaid, and to offer it to the Com⯑mittee. Some way or other, I mean to put him in poſſeſſion of my defence. If his cauſe be good, let him have all advantages in de⯑fending it. Let him go free while he accuſes; and let me be bound down by my defence.

A word more, and I have done. Some ſin⯑gular circumſtances have contributed to mark me to the public eye as an object of attention. In our day it has happened, that two perſons, removed from ſtations of the higheſt truſt, have been accuſed of crimes the moſt atro⯑cious that ever yet were the ſubject of accuſa⯑tion before any human tribunal;—one of them, on evidence which, in this Houſe at leaſt I may preſume to ſay, may be taken for concluſive. The other is only accuſed.—The very firſt thing theſe perſons think it neceſſary to do, the very firſt ſtep they make towards their defence, is to declare that I am their enemy. Their conduct tells you, that I am [72] the firſt difficulty, which they muſt endeavour to overcome; that I am the ſingle perſon, whom it is eſſential to their ſafety to attack, to calumniate, to diſqualify, to diſcredit, and to remove. I am honoured by their objec⯑tion. I am proud of the diſtinction. In the baſe, vindictive meaning of enmity, I am not the perſonal enemy of either of them. But I deſire it to be underſtood, I wiſh to have it [...]roclaimed, wherever my name can be known, and to whatever period it ſhall exiſt, that it is the poſſeſſion which I value moſt, that it is the inheritance which, above all others, I am anxious to tranſmit to my ſon, that I am in moral principle oppoſed to the principles of theſe men; that I declare and avow immortal enmity to their minds and to their conduct, and that I truſt that my character and princi⯑ples will be known and diſtinguiſhed by an eternal oppoſition and everlaſting hoſtility to the manners, the character, the conduct, and the hearts of Warren Haſtings and Sir Elijah Impey.