66

design of openly resisting our authority or disclaiming our sovereignty; I looked upon "a considerable fine as sufficient both for his "immediate punishment and for binding him "to future good behaviour."

Here, my Lords, the secret comes out. He declares it was not for a rebellion or a suspicion of rebellion that he resolved, over and above all his exorbitant demands, to take from the Rajah 500,0007. (a good stout sum to be taken from a tributary power), that it was not for misconduct of this kind that he took this sum, but for personal ill behaviour towards himself. I must again beg your Lordships to note that he then considered the Rajah's contumacy as having for its object not the Company, but Warren Hastings, and that he afterwards declared publickly to the House of Commons ;-and now before your Lordships, he declares finally and conclusively, that he did believe Cheit Sing to have had the criminal intention imputed to him.

"So long," says he, "as I conceive Cheit "Sing's misconduct and contumacy to have "me" (in italics as he ordered it to be printed) "rather than the Company, for its object, so

long I was satisfied with a fine. I therefore "entertained no serious thoughts of expelling "him or proceeding otherwise to violence; but "when he and his people broke out into the

"most atrocious acts of rebellion and murder, "when the jus fortioris et lex ultima regum,

were appealed to on his part (and without "any sufficient plea afforded him on mine) I "from that moment considered him as the "traitor and criminal described in the charge, "and no concessions, no humiliations, could ever after induce me to settle on him the "zemindary of Benares, or any other territory, upon any footing whatever.”

46

Thus then, my Lords, he has confessed, that the era and the only era of rebellion was when the tumult broke out upon the act of violence offered by himself to Cheit Sing; and upon the ground of that tumult, or rebellion as he calls it, he says, he never would suffer him to enjoy any territory or any right whatever. We have fixed the period of the rebellion for which he is supposed to have exacted this fine; this period of rebellion was after the exaction of the fine itself, so that the fine was not laid for the rebellion, but the rebellion broke out in consequence of the fine and the violent measure accompanying it. We have established this, and the whole human race cannot shake it. He went up the country through malice to revenge his own private wrongs, not those of the Company. He fixed 500,000l. as a mulct for an insult offered to himself, and then a rebellion broke out in consequence

consequence of his violence. This was the rebellion and the only rebellion; it was Warren Hastings's rebellion, a rebellion which arose from his own dreadful exaction; from his pride; from his malice and insatiable avarice. A rebellion which arose from his abominable tyranny, from his lust of arbitrary power, and from his determination to follow the examples of Sujah Dowlah, Azoph ul Dowlah, Cossim Ali Khan, Aliverdi Khan, and all the gang of rebels who are the objects of his imitation.

My patience, says he, was exhausted. Your Lordships have, and ought to have a judicial patience. Mr. Hastings has none of any kind. I hold that patience is one of the great virtues of a governour; it was said of Moses, that he governed by patience, and that he was the meekest man upon earth. Patience is also the distinguishing character of a judge; and I think your Lordships, both with regard to us and with regard to him, have shewn a great deal of it; we shall ever honour the quality, and if we pretend to say, that we have had great patience in going through this trial, so your Lordships must have had great patience in hearing it. But this man's patience, as he himself tells you, was soon exhausted. "I considered,” he says, "the light

"in which such behaviour would have been "viewed by his native sovereign, and I resolved

he

"he should feel the power he had so long in"sulted. Forty or fifty lacks of rupees would "have been a moderate fine for Sujah ul Dowlah "to exact: he who had demanded twenty-five "lacks for the mere fine of succession, and re"ceived twenty in hand, and an increased rent "tantamount to considerably above thirty lacks 66 more; and therefore I rejected the offer of twenty, with which the Rajah would have compromised for his guilt when it was too late."

66

66

Now, my Lords, observe who his models were when he intended to punish this man for an insult on himself. Did he consult the laws? Did he look to the Institutes of Timour or to those of Ghinges Khan? Did he look to the Hedaia or to any of the approved authorities in this country? No, my Lords, he exactly followed the advice which Longinus gives to a great writer: -Whenever you have a mind to elevate your mind; to raise it to its highest pitch, and even to exceed yourself, upon any subject, think how Homer would have described it, how Plato would have imagined it, and how Demosthenes would have expressed it; and when you have so done, you will then no doubt have a standard which will raise you up to the dignity of any thing that human genius can aspire to. Mr. Hastings was calling upon himself, and raising his mind to the dignity of what tyranny could

do;

do; what unrighteous exaction could perform. He considered, he says, how much Sujah Dowlah would have exacted, and that he thinks would not be too much for him to exact. He boldly avows, I raised my mind to the elevation of Sujah Dowlah. I considered what Cossim Ali Khan would have done, or Ali Verdi Khan, who murdered and robbed so many. I had all this line of great examples before me, and I asked myself what fine they would have exacted upon such an occasion. But, says he, Sujah Dowlah levied a fine of twenty lacks for a right of succession.

Good God! my Lords, if you are not appalled with the violent injustice of arbitrary proceedings, you must feel something humiliating at the gross ignorance of men who are in this manner playing with the rights of mankind. This man confounds a fine upon succession with a fine of penalty. He takes advantage of a defect in the technical language of our law, which, I am sorry to say, is not in many parts as correct in its distinctions and as wise in its provisions as the Mahometan law. We use the word fine in three senses; first, as a punishment and penalty; secondly, as a formal means of cutting off by one form the ties of another form, which we call levying a fine; and thirdly, we use the word to signify a sum of money payable upon renewal of

a lease