part attacked; or whether, on the contrary, that conclusion itself, when embodied with what goes before it, does not stand explained and justified?

"The first article of impeachment," continues our 5 author, "is concerning Cheit Sing, the Zemindar of Benares. Bulwant Sing, the father of this Rajah, was merely an aumil, or farmer and collector of the revenues for Sujah-ul-Dowlah, Nabob of Oude, and Vizier of the Mogul empire. When, on the decease of his father, 10 Cheit Sing was confirmed in the office of collector for the Vizier, he paid two hundred thousand pounds as a gift, or muzzeranah, and an additional rent of thirty thousand pounds per annum."

"As the father was no more than an aumil, the son 15 succeeded only to his rights and pretensions. But by a sunnud granted to him by the Nabob, Sujah Dowlah, in September, 1773, through the influence of Mr. Hastings, he acquired a legal title to property in the land, and was raised from the office of aumil to rank of Zemindar. 20 About four years after the death of Bulwant Sing, the Governor-General and Council of Bengal obtained the sovereignty paramount of the province of Benares. On the transfer of this sovereignty the Governor and Council proposed a new grant to Cheit Sing, confirming his 25 former privileges, and conferring upon him the addition of the sovereign rights of the mint, and the powers of criminal justice with regard to life and death. He was then recognized by the Company as one of their Zemindars; a tributary subject, or feudatory vassal, of the 30 British empire in Hindostan. The feudal system, which was formerly supposed to be peculiar to our Gothic ancestors, has always prevailed in the East. In every description of that form of government, notwithstanding accidental variations, there are two associations ex35 pressed or understood; one for internal security, the

other for external defence. The King or Nabob confers protection on the feudatory baron as tributary prince, on condition of an annual revenue in the time of peace, and of military service, partly commutable for money, in the time of war. The feudal incidents in the Middle Ages in 5 Europe, the fine paid to the superior on marriage, wardship, relief, etc., correspond to the annual tribute in Asia. Military service in war, and extraordinary aids in the event of extraordinary emergencies, were common to both."

10

"When the Governor-General of Bengal, in 1778, made an extraordinary demand on the Zemindar of Benares. for five lacs of rupees, the British empire, in that part of the world, was surrounded with enemies which threatened its destruction. In 1779, a general confederacy 15 was formed among the great powers of Hindostan for the expulsion of the English from their Asiatic dominions. At this crisis the expectation of a French armament augmented the general calamities of the country. Mr. Hastings is charged by the committee with making 20 his first demand under the false pretence that hostilities had commenced with France. Such an insidious attempt to pervert a meritorious action into a crime is new even in the history of impeachments. On the 7th of July, 1778, Mr. Hastings received private intelligence 25 from an English merchant at Cairo, that war had been declared by Great Britain on the 23d of March, and by France on the 30th of April. Upon this intelligence, considered as authentic, it was determined to attack all the French settlements in India. The information was 30 afterward found to be premature; but in the latter end of August a secret despatch was received from England, authorizing and appointing Mr. Hastings to take the measures which he had already adopted in the preceding month. The Directors and the Board of Control have 35

expressed their approbation of this transaction by liberally rewarding Mr. Baldwyn, the merchant, for sending the earliest intelligence he could procure to Bengal. It was two days after Mr. Hastings's information of the 5 French war that he formed the resolution of exacting the five lacs of rupees from Cheit Sing, and would have made similar exactions from all the dependencies of the Company in India had they been in the same circumstances. The fact is that the great Zemindars of Bengal 10 pay as much to government as their lands can afford. Cheit Sing's collections were above fifty lacs, and his rent not twenty-four."

"The right of calling for extraordinary aids and military service in times of danger being universally estab15 lished in India, as it was formerly in Europe during the feudal times, the subsequent conduct of Mr. Hastings is explained and vindicated. The Governor-General and Council of Bengal having made a demand upon a tributary Zemindar for three successive years, and that 20 demand having been resisted by their vassal, they are justified in his punishment. The necessities of the Company, in consequence of the critical situation of their affairs in 1781, calling for a high fine; the ability of the Zemindar, who possessed near two crores of rupees in 25 money and jewels, to pay the sum required; his backwardness to comply with the demands of his superiors; his disaffection to the English interest, and desire of revolt, which even then began to appear, and were afterwards conspicuous-fully justify Mr. Hastings in every 30 subsequent step of his conduct. In the whole of his proceedings it is manifest that he had not early formed a design hostile to the Zemindar, but was regulated by events which he could neither foresee nor control. When the necessary measures which he had taken for 35 supporting the authority of the Company by punishing

a refractory vassal were thwarted and defeated by the barbarous massacre of the British troops and by the rebellion of Cheit Sing, the appeal was made to arms; an unavoidable revolution took place in Benares, and the Zemindar became the author of his own destruction.” Here follows the concluding passage, which is arraigned by the information :

:

5

"The decision of the House of Commons on this charge against Mr. Hastings is one of the most singular to be met with in the annals of Parliament. The 10 Minister, who was followed by the majority, vindicated him in every thing that he had done, and found him blamable only for what he intended to do; justified every step of his conduct, and only criminated his proposed intention of converting the crimes of the Zemin- 15 dar to the benefit of the state by a fine of fifty lacs of rupees. An impeachment of error in judgment with regard to the quantum of a fine, and for an intention that never was executed, and never known to the offending party, characterizes a tribunal of inquisition rather 20 than a court of Parliament."

Gentlemen, I am ready to admit that this sentiment might have been expressed in language more reserved and guarded; but you will look to the sentiment itself, rather than to its dress; to the mind of the writer, and 25 not to the bluntness with which he may happen to express it. It is obviously the language of a warm man, engaged in the honest defence of his friend, and who is brought to what he thinks a just conclusion in argument, which perhaps becomes offensive in proportion to its truth. 30 Truth is undoubtedly no warrant for writing what is reproachful of any private man. If a member of society lives within the law, then, if he offends, it is against God alone, and man has nothing to do with him; and if he transgress the laws, the libeller should arraign him before 35

them, instead of presuming to try him himself. But as to writings on general subjects, which are not charged as an infringement on the rights of individuals, but as of a seditious tendency, it is far otherwise. When, in the 5 progress either of legislation or of high national justice in Parliament, they who are amenable to no law are supposed to have adopted, through mistake or error, a principle which, if drawn into precedent, might be dangerous to the public, I shall not admit it to be a libel in 10 the course of a legal and bonâ fide publication to state that such a principle had in fact been adopted. The people of England are not to be kept in the dark touching the proceedings of their own representatives. Let us therefore coolly examine this supposed offence, and see 15 what it amounts to.

First, was not the conduct of the right honorable gentleman, whose name is here mentioned, exactly what it is represented? Will the Attorney-General, who was present in the House of Commons, say that it was not? Did not 20 the Minister vindicate Mr. Hastings in what he had done, and was not his consent to that article of the impeachment founded on the intention only of levying a fine on the Zemindar for the service of the state, beyond the quantum which he, the Minister, thought reasonable? 25 What else is this but an impeachment of error in judgment in the quantum of a fine?

So much for the first part of the sentence, which, regarding Mr. Pitt only, is foreign to our purpose; and as to the last part of it, which imputes the sentiments of 30 the Minister to the majority that followed him with their votes on the question, that appears to me to be giving handsome credit to the majority for having voted from conviction, and not from courtesy to the Minister. To have supposed otherwise I dare not say would have been 35 a more natural libel, but it would certainly have been a