HOUSE OF COMMOMS.

THE Order of the Day being read, on the motion of Sir Gilbert Elliot, and the Houſe having reſolved itſelf into a Com⯑mittee of the whole Houſe, to conſider fur⯑ther of the Charges againſt Sir Elijah Impey, Mr. Wyndham in the Chair.—

Mr. Francis roſe and ſaid: I lament that there is not a fuller attendance, and eſpecially am I con⯑cerned that ſome gentlemen are not preſent who heard Sir Elijah Impey deliver his ſpeech at the bar; in which he thought fit to paſs a cenſure on the conduct of General Clavering, Colonel Monſon, and myſelf. I will, however, if the Committee will grant me that indulgence, now proceed, ac⯑cording to my notice on a former day, to anſwer the imputation.

[2] The conſent of the Committee being ſignified to Mr. Francis, he again roſe and ſaid—

MR. WYNDHAM,

I Flattered myſelf, Sir, that, when the Houſe thought proper to exclude me from the Committee of Managers, whether that Reſolution was meant to be a diſcharge from a ſervice, or a relief from a duty, it would have had this effect, at all events, that from thenceforward I ſhould be ſuffered to re⯑main in a ſtate of neutrality; and that, as I was deprived of the honour, I ſhould alſo be exempted from the cares and cenſures to which the managers of an impeachment muſt unavoidably ſubmit. But much more had I reaſon to expect that, after the public declaration, which I made in Parlia⯑ment almoſt two years ago, that I would never ſit in judgment upon him, and that I would never give a judicial vote in any cauſe, in which Sir Elijah Impey might be a party, unleſs I could ſafely give it for him; and having avowed that declaration in print, as the moſt public mode of avowal of it, and having alſo ſince repeatedly declared to my friends, and par⯑ticularly to the Hon. Baronet near me, (Sir Gilbert Elliot) that I would never directly or indirectly, take a part of any kind in the proſecution of Sir Elijah Impey, and having ſtrictly adhered to the ſpirit of thoſe declarations, I ſhould not have been implicated in any ſhape in the impeachment of that gentleman: Leaſt of all did I expect that I ſhould be accuſed by him of having borne teſtimony to [3] his good conduct, and be compelled by him to anſwer, as a criminal, for declarations, which he tells you I have heretofore made in his favour. I do not mean to deny his right of mixing accuſation with defence, if to criminate others be in any de⯑gree material, or even uſeful to his own exculpation. In ſome caſes undoubtedly the weapons of attack are the beſt, perhaps the only inſtruments of de⯑fence. With ſome men ſuch is the only defence that can be made. Whether the uſe he has made of this weapon, and the manner in which he has availed himſelf of his undiſputed right, on this occaſion, be perfectly prudent or not, can only be determined by the event. All I aſſert and contend for, is, that I, in my turn, may be allowed the ſame latitude which he has taken, and which I allow him. It is not my direct object this day to crimi⯑nate him or any man. But it may be neceſſary to my Defence. It may be unavoidable. Defence and accuſation, in this particular caſe, may be in⯑ſeparable. If that ſhould happen, I deſire it may be remembered, that, beſides the general right which, for myſelf, I admit, I ſtand upon the ſpecifick uſe he himſelf has made of it, and fol⯑low the precedent which he has himſelf ſpecifically ſet me.

Sir, the ſituation in which I have lately ſtood in this Houſe, has been very painful to me indeed. I have been repeatedly the perſonal object of de⯑bate; the middle paſſive ſubject between the action and re-action of the powers of the Houſe: between [4] the hammer and the anvio. How irkſome ſuch a ſituation muſt have been, I leave to the ſenſa⯑tions of thoſe who have ſtood in the ſame ſituation themſelves. Much has been ſaid of my character, much of my temper. I have, by one learned gen⯑tleman not now preſent, (the Maſter of the Rolls) been accuſed of comparing myſelf with him, and and with others of his profeſſion. Such a com⯑pariſon I never preſumed to make. Arrogance is one thing, paſſion is another; paſſion I have ever conceived to be an honeſt, open, and manly emo⯑tion of the mind; arrogance on the contrary, I take to be a cold, ſettled, and determined rule of conduct, reſulting from illiberal and unwarrantable ideas. I may have made uſe of warm or paſſion⯑ate language perhaps, but I was never guilty of the preſumption and arrogance which has been im⯑puted to me. I ſtand up now as the Defendant in the preſent caſe: as ſuch, I hope to be heard patiently, and with a fair and liberal conſtruction—that is all I deſire.

The charge brought againſt Sir J. Clavering, Col. Monſon, and myſelf, by Sir Elijah Impey, as I underſtand it, amounts to this: (It is his own fault if I do not ſtate it correctly. I mean to do it fairly.)

‘"That whereas we had by ſundry declarations and minutes, both before and after the event, expreſſed or ſtrongly intimated our opinion that the proſecution, trial, and execution of Nunducomar were ſounded on [5] political motives, and purſued for the ſole purpoſe of ſaving Mr. Haſtings from the effect of that man's evidence, no credit ought to be given to the ſame, be⯑cauſe we had, in a few days after the execution, ordered a paper, purporting to be a Petition from Nunducomar againſt the Judges, to be burnt, the entries of it to be expunged, and the tranſlations to be deſtroyed; and, becauſe he had on that occaſion declared, that we conſidered the informations con⯑tained in it as wholly inſupported, and of a libellous nature, and that to ſend a copy of it to the Judges would be giving it much more weight than it de⯑ſerved."’

If this be the Charge, I admit all the facts, and deny the concluſion. If I have omitted any part of the Charge: If I have not ſtated it in as ſtrong terms againſt myſelf as it is poſſible to be ſtated, I beg any gentleman who hears me, to correct me. I requeſt the Committee to divide the Charge into two parts, and to conſider it: Firſt, as it regards us collectively: Secondly, as it perſonally regards General Clavering in particular.

But I entreat the Committee to conſider prelimi⯑nary, Firſt, how this paper came into Sir Elijah Impey's hands, and in what ſtate, and with what proof of its authenticity it is now brought before the Houſe.

[Here Mr. Francis read an Extract from the Bengal Appendix, p. 585, dated the 16th of Auguſt, 1775.]

[6] On that day we reſolved upon a motion, made by me, that the original ſhould be burnt, and burnt by the hands of the common hangman; to which Mr. Haſtings repeatedly ſaid he had no objection; but obſerved, that this would not be enough, as the paper ſtood on our records, and would that way become public. To remove that objection, I pro⯑poſed that the entry ſhould be expunged, and it was agreed that it ſhould be expunged accord⯑ingly, and that the tranſlations ſhould be deſtroyed. The reſolution was unanimous. Mr. Haſtings ap⯑proved of it, and was party to it. On the 28th of Auguſt the Judges wrote to us in the following words:

[7] The following was our Reply, dated Sept. 11, 1775.

And this letter is ſigned by Mr. Haſtings, who knew that he alone had given the information.

It is true he diſapproved of the draft, but not for the reaſon, which he ought to have aſſigned, and which would have prevented our writing that paragraph; neither can he pretend, that he held himſelf bound by the ſenſe of the majority to ſign the letter, becauſe, upon another occaſion, viz. on the 16th of June, 1775, he poſitively refuſed to ſign a letter to the Judges, of which he diſap⯑proved.

Sir Elijah Impey tells you, on another occaſion, that he knew nothing of the contents of the Charges of Nunducomar againſt Mr. Haſtings. How ſhould he? They were produced before a Secret Council; they were examined by a Secret Committee, of [8] which all the Members, their Clerks and Secretaries were ſworn to ſecrecy. Mr. Haſtings nevertheleſs communicates this paper to him, and through his channel to the other Judges. I ſhall preſently ſhew, that he imparted many other parts of our proceedings to him.

Sir Elijah Impey affirms, that although the pa⯑per was imparted to him, he never ſaw the minutes till very lately, when he procured a copy of them from the India Houſe. This is very extraordinary, and, indeed, it is incredible, that Mr. Haſtings ſhould ſhew him one and not the other; eſpecially as it appears, that in the month of January follow⯑ing, he communicated to him ſeveral other minutes ſigned by us, in which charges againſt him were certainly expreſſed, and eſpecially as theſe very mi⯑nutes were printed by the Directors, and in poſſeſ⯑ſion of many people in Bengal, in the courſe of 1776 or 1777, and, I believe, read by every body in Calcutta. I know they were by many. Mr. Haſtings takes upon him not only to communicate the paper, after he had agreed that the entry ſhould be expunged, and the tranſlations deſtroyed, but even alters the tranſlations in many parts with his own hand. Who will ſay that, a paper, ſo communicated, ſo altered, and ſo produced, de⯑ſerves any credit? What is a Secret Commitee? The name ſufficiently ſpeaks its character; and in reſpect to the Secret Committee of Council in Cal⯑cutta, not only Mr. Haſtings, and every member was bound by an oath of ſecrecy, but the ſecretaries [9] and clerks, and every one of their officers. Even if there had been no oath, Mr. Haſtings was bound in truth and honour by his own agreement; in my own breaſt, I hold ſuch an agreement to be equally binding with an oath.

The original paper, I have no doubt, contained inſinuations againſt the Judges, and that thoſe inſi⯑nuations being wholly unſupported, deſerved no weight. That the deſcription I gave of it was exact, and that it was a libel upon the whole Court of Juſtice, in the ſtrict and proper ſenſe of that word. The queſtion is, whether by theſe declarations I contradict many others in which I have charged the proſecution and execution of Nunducomar againſt Sir Elijah Impey, as a political meaſure of the moſt atrocious kind. At firſt ſight, it is not very likely that we (or any men who were not abſolute ideots) ſhould enter ſuch contradictions, on the ſame re⯑cords, and place ourſelves before the Directors in a pointof view which muſt utterly annihilate their confidence in us.

Let the Committee judge of the following declara⯑tions made by us before, and after the execution of Nunducomar.

[12] The petition was brought before us after the man's death. It charged the Judges with having murdered him, for having accuſed Mr. Haſtings, or to that effect. It came before us without a reſponſible accuſer, without a witneſs to prove, or evidence to ſupport it; the fabrication of a man, publickly executed for a crime, and conſequently no longer capable of proving his allegation. This being the caſe, it was what I called it, a libel, and nothing elſe, I called it ſo then, I call it ſo ſtill; though I was not then, nor am I now, convinced, that the ſubſtance of it was untrue. But it included all the Judges; concerning two of whom (Juſtice Hyde and Sir Robert Chambers) we never had a ſuſpicion of corrupt motives: and concerning ano⯑ther of whom (Mr. Juſtice Le Maiſtre) we had then no ground of ſuſpicion; excepting his intimacy with Sir Elijah Impey, his acting on all occaſions as his inſtrument, and the notorious violence of his deport⯑ment. We therefore treated it as a libel againſt a whole Court of Juſtice ought to be treated.

This is no new diſtinction by me; no after-thought, no ex poſt facto vindication. When Mr. Haſtings accuſed me perſonally, about three months before, of preſenting a libel to the Board, what was my anſwer on that occaſion.

This is my defence againſt the Charge, as it af⯑fects us collectively on the face of our proceedings, but we had other motives for our conduct, which do not appear upon the records, and which I ſhall now lay before the Houſe.

This concerns General Clavering, and not myſelf. In this part he is properly the Defendant, and not I. If favour, protection, and indulgence are due [14] to a man who is here to defend himſelf, (and they have been ſhewn in an eminent degree to Sir Elijah Impey) how much more are they due to a man of great character, who is not here, who is not only abſent, but dead, and who died in the ſervice of his country; not in an honourable, but a moſt odious ſervice: not in the field of battle, where his gallant mind would have led him, but in an odious, unprofitable conteſt, with men of whom he had the worſt opinion poſſible. I cannot under⯑take to anſwer for all the motives of his conduct in this tranſaction, but I think I can for ſome of them.

Let gentlemen recollect the general temper of the ſettlement. The union between the Governor General, Mr. Barwell, and the Judges, or ſome of them, and the general combination amongſt them againſt us. That we were conſidered in the ſet⯑tlement as the common enemy, and Mr. Haſtings looked up to as their common protector. That Sir Elijah Impey, in one of his letters to us, had already declared, that reports were publickly cir⯑culated in Calcutta, that if the Judges could not be prevailed upon to releaſe Nunducomar, he would be delivered by force, manu forti, by the Com⯑mander in Chief.

Againſt this imputation, Gen. Clavering thought it neceſſary for his ſafety to exculpate himſelf by oath. I ſay ſafety, becauſe I am firmly of opinion, that he would have been in as great danger as Nundu⯑comar, if the Judges could have found any thing to lay to his charge. The General ſays, in his Minute of the 14th of Auguſt, 1775, that he was reſolved not to make any application whatever in favour of Nunducomar. He knew, by experience, that all ſuch applications would be needleſs; that they would be much more likely to injure than to ſerve Nunducomar, and that our interceſſions would rather haſten than delay his execution. In ſupport of this aſſertion, I beg leave to read to you ſome paſſages from our Records. The Houſe will obſerve, that we had often applied to Sir Elijah Impey for ſome indulgence to this unfortunate man in the mode of his impriſonment, particularly that he would not ſuffer him to periſh for want of ſuſtenance. Sir Elijah ſays, in reply, in his letter of the 9th of May, 1775.

In another letter, dated May 15, 1775, he ſays.

On the 27th of June we ſent to the Judges an application from the Nabob of Bengal, in fa⯑vour of Nunducomar; to which the following is the anſwer of the Judges ſent by meſſage, June 25, 1775.

To another application made at the ſame time, by the Nabob, through us, in favour of his own Vaqueel, or Miniſter, at Calcutta, Sir Elijah wrote as follows.

And Sir Elijah declared from the Bench, that the Governor General and Council, whom he con⯑ſidered as nothing more than as agents of the Eaſt-India Company, could only apply to the Court by humble petition, and that the Court could not [18] receive in future any letters or meſſages but in that form.

After all this paſſed, it is not much to be won⯑dered at that General Clavering ſhould reſolve not to make any more applications in favour of Nun⯑ducomar. Gen. Clavering was a ſtrict, rigid man, not as ſome thought cruel, but rigid over much even to prudery, as I ſometimes told him, in conſe⯑quence of his refuſing even a diſh of fruit, and ci⯑vilities that certainly did not come within the legal prohibition of preſents; very tender of public re⯑putation, and particularly fearful of the imputation of ſupporting and encouraging the accuſer of Mr. Haſtings, an imputation, which, he was ſure he ſhould incur and equally ſure of doing Nundu⯑comer no ſervice. What he did, was, in truth, a moſt raſh and inconſiderate action, namely, the bringing the Petition at all before the Board. The man was dead, and Gen. Clavering made himſelf [19] the publiſher of the libel. He put himſelf in the power of his enemies who infallibly would have ruined him. This, let it operate as it may, I de⯑clare, upon my honour, and I ſhall, if neceſſary, upon my oath, was a ſtrong concurrent motive with Col. Monſon and me, for getting the paper deſtroy⯑ed. As Mr. Haſtings entirely agreed with us in every thing we did relative to the paper, I never had a doubt that all the tranſlations of it were deſtroyed, until Sir Elijah Impey produced a copy of it at the Bar of this Houſe. Of the authenticity of which you have no evidence, and which, admitting it to be authentic, muſt have been 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, be⯑tween Sir Elijah Impey and Mr. Haſtings.

I beg the Committee to conſider whether ſuch facts were not convincing proofs of a confederacy and colluſion exiſting between the Governor-Ge⯑neral and Sir Elijah Impey; to me they appeared ſuch, and ſo I conceive they muſt to every candid man. I heſitate not to declare, in the moſt explicit, and in the moſt ſolemn manner, that the private motive of my ſtanding ſo forward as I did for the deſtruction of the copy and tranſlations of the peti⯑tion ſent by Nunducomar, previous to his execu⯑tion, to General Clavering, was not the public one I aſſigned, viz. that it was a libel; but my fear for [20] the ſafety of General Clavering: Colonel Monſon and myſelf obſerving, that the Judges had gone all length; that they had already dipped their hands in blood for a political purpoſe; and that they might again proceed on the ſame principle. With reſpect to what paſſed relative to Nunducomar's application to be removed from the common gaol of Calcutta, to ſome place where he could take ſuſtenance, and perform his ablutions, and other ceremonies, in a manner conformable to his reli⯑gion, I beg to declare to the Committee, that however abſurd to many, ſuch opinions as Nundu⯑comar entertained on that ſubject may be conſider⯑ed, yet I believe, and always did believe, Nundu⯑comar to be ſerious in thoſe ſcruples: he gave a ſtrong proof that he was ſo, by continuing to re⯑fuſe any kind of nouriſhment for ſiuty or ſeventy hours together. The manner in which General Clavering's daughters have been treated by Sir Elijah Impey, at the bar of this Houſe, was in the moſt unbecoming, in the moſt unwarrantable man⯑ner. The conduct of theſe ladies had been moſt groſly miſrepreſented—not their ſex, their virtue, their youth, their beauty, nor their many accom⯑pliſhments, could reſcue them from the moſt illi⯑beral miſrepreſentation; a miſrepreſentation, haz⯑arded merely for the purpoſe of making them, by a falſe and forced conſtruction of their conduct, to appear as the accuſers of their father. The act they did, was an act of humanity, an act of cha⯑rity, which, had they been ugly, deformed, loath⯑ſome, or even proſtituted, would have caſt a veil [21] over their vileſt vices; but that act had been, by Sir Elijah Impey, perverted, and falſely urged as a proof againſt their parent. Thoſe ladies viſited Nunducomar in his confinement, and endeavoured to make his ſituation as light as poſſible. If ſuch conduct was a crime in the ladies. I am equally criminal; I viſited Nunducomar frequently, and ſhould have conſidered myſelf devoid of humanity had I done otherwiſe. The ſufferings of Nundu⯑comar were great, confined in the common gaol of Calcutta, ſo miſerable, ſo horrid a place, that the bare commitment to it was equal to death. Many confined in that priſon had died in conſequence of ſuch confinement, and particularly a Mr. Maynard. Many who hear me know what I aſſert to be a fact; let gentlemen then conſider what the unfor⯑tunate Nunducomar muſt have felt in ſuch a con⯑finement; a man eſteemed of higher rank in his own country than any of the Council, a man who had been the Prime Miniſter of the country, and was of the higheſt caſt of his religion!! It was un⯑doubtedly true that the Supreme Court ſent pundits to Nunducomar to examine into his ſcruples, and that they declared that he might take ſuſtenance without incurring more than a very ſlight and tri⯑vial penance; but it ſhould be conſidered what the pundits were; they were men of ſmall income, and of a lower caſt of religion than Nunducomar, and could not conſequently judge of his ſcruples. Nunducomar himſelf told me, that the pundits not being of ſo high a caſt as himſelf, were wholly in⯑capable of adviſing him, or feeling the ſame ſcru⯑ples [22] that he did. Nunducomar was of the higheſt order of the Bramins, and it was therefore moſt probable that what he had aſſerted was true, eſpe⯑cially as he continued, though upwards of ſeventy years of age, to refuſe all ſuſtenance, till the Judges themſelves were alarmed at the idea of a legal murder, and cauſed Nunducomar to be removed to a place of confinement more adapted to his being able to perform what his conſcience told him his religion required.

I conceive, Sir, the beſt evidence that can be brought againſt any man, to be that man's own evidence, ſuch evidence generally makes the deepeſt impreſſion: I will undertake to ſatisfy the Com⯑mittee, that Sir Elijah Impey, when in Bengal, never looked on the tranſaction, on which he now pretends to place ſo much reliance, in the ſame ſenſe in which he repreſented it at the bar of this Houſe. I will prove that Sir Elijah Impey never did, before his defence at the bar, give that con⯑ſtruction to the act of General Clavering, Colonel Monſon, and myſelf, of burning the petition of Nunducomar, as he has lately endeavoured to fix upon it, namely, that it amounted not only to a flat contradiction of any opinions we had, or might deliver to the diſadvantage of the Judges, in that buſineſs, but did expreſs and convey a direct and explicit juſtification of their conduct. To prove that this was not the opinion of Sir Elijah Impey, in the year 1775, I beg leave to read ſeveral paſ⯑ſages from a letter ſent by Sir Elijah Impey to the [23] Secretary of State, dated the 20th of January, 1776, written on purpoſe to vindicate his character from the aſperſions uniformly thrown upon it by General Clavering, Colonel Monſon, and myſelf, for his conduct in the buſineſs of Nunducomar, and to charge us with having conſtantly imputed to the Court the moſt atrocious motives for their conduct, by ſtrong inſinuation, malignant ſarcaſm, and ſe⯑vere cenſure; and to accuſe us alſo of attempting, on ſundry occaſions, to over-awe, and reduce the authority of the Court.

Had Sir Elijah Impey, at the time he wrote that letter, conſidered our declaraion that Nun⯑ducomar's petition was a Libel, and the burning it in conſequence thereof, as any proof of our opi⯑nion in his favor, can it be imagined by any reaſonable man that he would not have ſtated, and urged it for that purpoſe in his letter to the Secre⯑tary of State, which conſiſted of ſeveral ſheets, and was, from beginning to end, a profeſſed defence of himſelf againſt our charges, and a laboured effort to recriminate upon us! Inſtead of doing ſo, the fact was not mentioned, or even alluded to, in this voluminous letter—That was the time, if ever for him to have availed himſelf of our evidence againſt ourſelves, and to have invalidated any de⯑clarations [26] we might have made againſt him on other occaſions—His not availing himſelf of that op⯑portunity, warranted a concluſion the moſt irreſiſt⯑ible; it proves beyond a doubt that while he was in Bengal, or at leaſt, however, when he wrote the letter, that he had not the moſt remote Idea, that our act, on which he now inſiſts, could bear the Conſtruction he now gives it.

But why, Sir, did Sir Elijah Impey declare that he never ſaw the minutes of the Secret Committee till lately? the reaſon is obvious—becauſe, had he admitted that he had ſeen the minutes in Calcutta, as in fact he muſt have done, his letter to the Se⯑cretary of State, dated Jan. 23, 1775, would have been a manifeſt falſhood as a charge, and palpa⯑bly defective as a defence. It would have been falſe upon the face of it, and his anſwer to the charge, criminating him on account of the execution of the Nunducomar, would have been moſt unaccountably defective by the omiſſion of that, which, if true, and agreeable to his conſtruction of it, would have been the beſt anſwer of all, viz. our own acquittal of him by the minutes in queſtion.

I appeal, Sir, to the judgement of the Committee, and to common ſenſe, whether, by the facts I have ſtated, I have not fully anſwered the accuſation, and cenſure, by Sir Elijah Impev, on Gen. Clavering, Colonel Monſon, and myſelf—I think I have done ſo, in a manner that muſt be ſatisfactory to the feel⯑ings [27] of every gentleman preſent, and to every honeſt man who hears me.

I have been under much difficulty on account of Sir Elijah Impey's having made his imputation oath; I will act a more fair part, I challenge Sir Elijah Impey to put upon paper his charge againſt us; if he does ſo, I pledge myſelf to the houſe, and to the world, that I will deliver the defence of Gen. Cla⯑vering, Col. Monſon, and myſelf, in writing like⯑wiſe.

Sir, I wiſh to make one further obſervation to the Committee, and that is, to remind them of the extraordinary mode adopted by Mr. Haſtings, and Sir Elijah Impey, when defending themſelves at the bar of this houſe, againſt charges ſtated in expreſs terms, and in a ſpecific form—The very firſt thing thoſe men thought neceſſary to do, in that ſituation, was to mark me as their enemy, they ſeemed to conceive it eſſential to their ſafety to ſingle me out as a perſon proper to attack, to calumniate, to diſ⯑credit, to diſqualify, and to remove.—I know not how other gentlemen may feel, but I own myſelf proud of the diſtinction—I conſider it an honour. I am not the perſonal enemy of thoſe men, but I hope as long as my name ſhall exiſt, it may be known in oppoſition to theirs, and that my charac⯑ter, my conduct, and my name, may everlaſting remain contraſted, and conſidered as in everlaſting hoſtility with the names, conduct, characters, and hearts, of Mr. Haſtings, and Sir Elijah Impey.