the iron hand of unlimited oppression: for such purpose he should propose a clause to cause the regulations of the present Bill, should it pass into a law, to be strictly observed by those employed in the trade, if notice of the Act could be proved to be given to them by a vessel which should be dispatched from the Admiralty for the purpose of affording them such information. By such regulation taking effect after cargoes were laid on board for a greater purchase of slaves than the Bill would allow, he was fully aware that a loss would be sustained by the sufferers of such cargoes: such loss he computed to be about ten per cent., and he was extremely willing that it should be made good to the merchants, and doubted not but the House would agree with him in such indemnification, even if it went to 15 per cent., as the whole would not in such a case, he believed, exceed 12 or 15,000l. The Committee divided on sir W. Dolben's proposed amendments: Yeas, 56; Noes, 5. The other blanks were filled up, and the Bill was ordered to be reported to-morrow; when it was accordingly reported, read a third time, and passed. Proceedings upon the Impeachment of Sir Elijah Impey.] May 27. The order of the day being read for going into a Committee to consider farther the charges against sir Elijah Impey, sir Gilbert Eliott moved, "That the Speaker do now leave the chair." The Attorney General contended, that the charge relative to the Patna cause, if it was any charge against sir Elijah Impey, must prove equally a charge against the whole court. In 1780, the subject of the charge became an object of parliamentary consideration, and an act had passed upon it. The East India Company had agreed to give security, in case the sentence was not affirmed by the privy council in the course of five years, to pay the parties 30,000, and that day he understood, the solicitor to the East India Company had received notice of its being set down for hearing. He asked, therefore, whether that House would wish to proceed in the discussion of a cause that was to come on for hearing before the tribunal most proper to decide it? Mr. Anstruther said, that his reason for wishing the House to proceed was, that the cause was totally at an end, and that | no party had any longer any interest in it. In support of this assertion, he recapitulated the circumstances attending it. He maintained that the bond entered into by the East India Company, under the Act of 1781, was forfeited, since the five years expired in January 1788. He conceived the whole business to be a collusion between sir Elijah and the Company; and he stated the charge as criminal, because sir Elijah, acting corruptly, (he meant not from pecuniary motives) had overset the whole judicature of India, for the sake of extending his own jurisdiction. If it was really too late in the session to go through with the charge, he should think that a fit reason for putting it off; but he was far from being of opinion that such was the state of the case. Mr. Grenville observed, that the hon. gentleman had stated the strongest reason for putting off the charge, when he mentioned the late period of the session, which certainly was a strong objection to the going on with it. He could not think there was any ground for the suspicion of collusion between the Company and sir Elijah. He added other reasons for being of opinion that the charge ought not to proceed, while it was going to another tribunal, though that circumstance, he admitted, by no means debarred the House from exercising its functions respecting the charges at a future period. Mr. Burke observed, that the whole reminded him of a story of sir Robert Walpole, who, retiring from the fatigues of public business, desired his son to get him a book to read to him. The son asked him, on what subject? Should it be history? No, said sir Robert, not history; there can be no truth in that. He admitted philosophical speculations, travels, and Pliny; but history, he said, could not be true. Mr. Burke applied this story to Mr. Grenville's argument, and talked about young statesmen, who were filled, as it were, with wine, and had all the body and strength of it; while older politicians were obliged to take up with the lees, which were somewhat stale and sour. He next stated all the particulars of the Patna cause, in the investigation of which he had many years since taken a considerable part. The East India Company had originally brought it before that House, and with great earnestness had urged them to investigate it. They had caught the Company's warmth, and felt with equal ardour. They took it up, and considered it as so outrageous and bad, that no appeal could | He submitted it to the feelings of the be expected. An act was passed for the House, whether, when magistrates had immediate relief of the magistrates of been dragged four hundred miles from Patna, and the Company gave bond to their native place to be tried by laws to have the cause heard before the privy which they were strangers, and suffered council. Mr. Burke stated the manner to remain in prison, they did not merit in which the Bill had been curtailed in attention? That House, he said, was no the House, declaring their noble had prison, although he knew it was not exbeen reduced to nine-pence, But, as a tremely well calculated for business in little practical good was better than moun- summer; yet in a case of such magnitains of speculative advantages, they had tude, ordinary considerations ought to patiently submitted to hold fast by the re- give way, and they ought not to hold out mainder that was left of their bill. The to India, that sir Elijah Impey, being one East India Company, who had been so hot of their own colour, one of their gang, as upon the business, grew cool directly it were, should, upon this account, be afterwards. The first thing they did was protected by them. Because the East to prevaricate, and leave the magistrates India Company had delayed to do justice of Patna, who had been dragged some for nine years, that House ought not to hundred miles before a jurisdiction they prevaricate. For his part he would not, knew nothing of, to amuse themselves in for no Horace had told him to keep his prison, as they had been told in another piece ten years. place, by dancing in irons to the jingling of their chains, and to regale themselves with the perfumes of the common sewer of the prisons of Calcutta. The Company, Mr. Burke said, had made a false entry, and had altered their own record; they had been guilty of the grossest frauds and villanies to prevent the effect of their own petition, and had omitted to send the Act out to India. And what had they done since? They had forfeited 30,000/. for the purpose of defeating a criminal charge against that criminal whom they had called upon the House to proceed against. Mr. Burke enlarged on these particulars, and applied the nonumque prematur in annum' of Horace, to the nine years that had elapsed since the subject was first agitated, declaring, that nothing would make him add a tenth. He took up the cause for the sake of the rights of the magistrates of Patna, for a man who was a magistrate before the dirty East India Company had any power over Patna. He alluded to the expression of a bit of wax hanging to a piece of parchment, as applied to a charter on which depended the lives of millions, and asked if they, the Commons of England, owed no more protection to India, and its injured inhabitants, than a company of merchants could give them? With regard to the lateness of the season, he owned, that many things had great weight when compared with that circumstance; but when it was considered that the Patna cause had been protracted for nine years, surely they would agree that the protractors, and not the miserable inhabitants of India, ought to be punished. Mr. Smith rose to exculpate himself from the aspersion which Mr. Burke had cast on the Company, declaring he had sat for many years amongst the Directors, and with as good men as those with whom the right hon. gentleman had associated, without any disparagement to the gentle men, be they whom they might. Mr. Smith justified the conduct of the Company, declaring, they were always governed by the advice of their law officers, and bad as respectable law officers as any in the profession. They had called on their law officers to take care that no time was lost; and he defied the right hon. gentleman to prove that the Company had been guilty of any prevarication, or of having, at any time, attempted to screen any man from justice. Mr. Pitt said, that the subject had caused more warmth than it seemed to require. The right hon. gentleman had told them, that they were not to trust to history, and a great many more things that had very little to do with the question. An hon. and learned gentleman had admitted, that if the privy council had affirmed the sentence, that would go a great way towards exculpating sir Elijah Impey. [Mr. Burke said, "I never admitted that."] Mr. Pitt continued: the admission was too fair, too reasonable, and too candid, for the right hon. gentleman to have made, undoubtedly; but it so happened, that he alluded to another person, the learned gentleman opposite (Mr. Anstruther). As, therefore, the cause was to go before the privy council, as it was possible for the sentence to be affirmed, and as by next session they would know whether it came on or not, he thought it far more advisable to wait till then; and the more especially, since by going into it under those circumstances, they would break through a principle allowed to be a good one, and by putting it off, they would be able to go into it in future with more accuracy. The right hon. gentleman had said that that House was not a prison; a strong argument, in his mind, for not going into the consideration of the charge. If the House had been a prison, they might have some hopes of being able to detain the members, and force them to attend the consideration; the case being otherwise, in all probability, if the charge came on, they would have to look for their members at the distance of four hundred miles from those walls. He could not, however, believe that gentlemen were serious in wishing to go into an inquiry, which it would be impossible for them to finish at that advanced period of the session. The right hon. gentleman himself had too many avocations, avocations that were both honourable and useful, to wish to go into it. Mr. Burke begged leave to contradict a right, hon. gentleman, who had supposed him to have admitted, that the Company had requested to have the obligation upon them to give security for referring the sentence to the privy council, inserted in the Act of 1781. He had said no such thing, but the contrary, affirming that it had not been desired by the Company, nor by that House, but by the highest authority, the lord Chancellor, at whose express request he had inserted the obligation on the Company in the Bill. Mr. Burke desired the right hon. gentleman, who had proved so bad an historian, not to take upon himself the office of being his historian; declaring that he had rather trust to the Public Advertiser, the Morning Chronicle, or the Morning Post, as reporters of his speeches, though he did not consider them as the most faithful records. He complained of the right hon. gentleman's treatment of him, and said, the oppression of great parts and great powers was too much to be borne. It reminded him of a story of a Roman lady, who had married a man with a bad breath, and when he was dead, the widow was asked how she could bear to live so long with a man who had a foul breath? The lady, who was a virgin when she married, had said, in reply, that she thought all men's breaths were the same. He had heard severe things from many ministers who sat in the place which the right hon. gentleman filled, but he had suffered more from the offensive and foul breath of the right hon. gentleman, than from that of any minister that had gone before him. The hon gentleman over the way had boasted of sitting in as good company as ever he did. That was a bold word. The marquis of Rockingham, Mr. Dowdeswell, the Duke of Portland, and Mr. Fox, were not easily matched. Mr. Pitt answered, that he thought he never had heard a proposition more distinctly laid down, than when he had heard the right hon. gentleman say, the East India Company had requested, that their being obliged to give security to refer the sentence in the Patna cause to the privy council, might be inserted in the Act of 1781. The right hon. gentleman had complained of his treatment of him. In the heat of debate, a warm expression might escape him; and it must be acknowledged, that the right hon. gentleman being himself remarkably guarded, and cautious of saying any thing to offend others, was peculiarly justified in taking offence at any thing rather harsh that was said of himself. With regard to the ministers who sat where he did, he had not heard so many ministers as the right hon. gentleman, and therefore he could not remember what severe things they had said to him, but the right hon. gentleman had given sufficient proof that he had forgotten the severe things that he had himself said to ministers. Mr. Burke answered, that he would plead guilty to the charge of having neither been malicious in the first instance, nor vindictive in the second. The question was at length put, and negatived. It was then moved, and carried, "That this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee. Debate in the Commons on Lord Newburgh's Estate Bill.] June 2. The Petition of lord Newburgh having been referred to a Committee of the whole House, Sir Herbert Mackworth observed, that the subject was so well known to the House, that he need not trouble the Committee with any discussion of it, but would merelymove "That the House be moved for leave to bring in a Bill to allow lord Newburgh 2500/. a-year out of the rents and profits of the Derwentwater estate, situated in Cumberland, Northumberland, and part of Scotland." Mr. Fox reminded the Committee, that it was four or five years since parliament had interposed its authority in favour of several families, whose estates had been forfeited in consequence of their ancestors having joined in the rebellion; that he had, at the time, endeavoured to call their attention to the case of lord Newburgh, which was certainly extremely hard, and which he had then observed, deserved the attention of the House as much as that of any other family, however respectable. As the sum now proposed to be given was extremely moderate, he thought the least that could be done, would be to put his lordship on the same footing, in point of time, with those families who had received back their estates, and therefore he trusted that there would be no objection to letting the annuity commence four or five years back. Sir James Johnstone reprobated the severe custom of withholding the property of any family, on account of the conduct of their ancestors in a cause with which they had no concern. The Pretender was now dead, and all fear of the renewal of any question on right to the Crown at an end. Mr. Pitt said, that no one could be more inclined than he was, to go as far as possible for the advantage of the noble lord in question, as he considered his case an extremely hard one. He thought they might fairly fix the commencement of the annuity at a period somewhat earlier than the present; but three or four years arrears appeared to him too large a sum to levy on a public charity, and as he understood the motion must specifically state the whole of the sum to be allowed, he wished the hon. baronet to withdraw it for the present and make it on the morrow, in order to allow time for consideration. The motion was accordingly withdrawn. June 3. The House having resolved itself into a Committee on lord Newburgh's Petition, sir Herbert Mackworth moved, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill for charging several estates in the counties of Northumberland, Cumberland, Durham, &c. with a clear rent charge of 2,500l., payable to the grandson of the late Charles Ratcliffe, the right hon. Anthony James earl of Newburgh, and the heirs male of his body, to commence from the 25th day of March 1787." Alderman Newnham said, that Greenwich Hospital had ever been with him a favourite foundation; he considered it a national benefit, and one that every man who wished well to the navy, the natural bulwark of the kingdom, ought to support. He could not, therefore, approve of saddling the fund of Greenwich Hospital with the 2,500l. a year. He conceived lord Newburgh's case to be oppressive, and had not the smallest objection to granting him the sum proposed; but if the annuity ought to be granted, his opinion was, that it ought to be paid out of the public purse. He hoped that the Bill, if the annuity was to be charged upon Greenwich Hospital, would contain a pledge, that no farther claims should ever be made upon it on a similar account. Sir Herbert Mackworth did not conceive it possible for those who might bring in the Bill to insert any pledge in it, that no farther claim should be made on the Derwentwater estate. Their object was, to secure an annuity of 2,500l. to the present lord Newburgh. Alderman Newnham contended, that it was highly necessary that the House should either pay the annuity out of the public purse, or give the Hospital its quietus, as to any subsequent claims. That subsequent claims might be made, was more than probable. Indeed the House had already heard of one on the account of some female relations of lord Newburgh. If the House wished to deal generously by his lordship, they ought to deal justly by the Hospital. When a man gave away what was his own, he was generous; but not when he gave away the property of others. The Derwentwater estate was the property of Greenwich Hospital; a property conveyed by act of parliament; and therefore the House had no right to make a farther disposal of it. Mr. M. A. Taylor approved of the worthy magistrate's objection, though, at the same time, he believed lord Newburgh's case so hard, as to deserve immediate attention. Greenwich Hospital, he had reason to believe, was at present by no means in a state to spare any considerable sum out of its revenue. Their expenditure had of late been great, and the charge incurred by their having to rebuild their chapel, in consequence of the late fire, was so large as materially to have diminished their sum in hand. Sir James Johnstone said, that it had been his constant opinion, that lord Mr. Jolliffe declared, that the charging the annuity upon Greenwich Hospital, appeared to him to be ridiculous, because he thought either the whole of the estate of his ancestors should be restored to lord Newburgh, or the public ought to grant him the annuity themselves. What he principally rose for was, to move an amendment to the motion. There was a lady living (an aunt of lord Newburgh) upon very scanty means, which, narrow as they were, she derived from the bounty of the king of France. That, he thought, ought not to be the case; and as he was well assured lord Newburgh would allow his aunt whatever addition the Committee might think proper to make to his proposed annuity, which had been stated to be extremely moderate, he meant to move an addition to the sum proposed; but in order to obviate the possibility of objection, he should only move for a single 100%. to be added to it, and that instead of 2,500l. be inserted 2,600l. per annum. New-justing every question of the sort, the only fit way of proceeding was to govern what was to be done by some principle or other, and not to make the motion arbitrary, as accident or caprice directed. What principle, then, could be taken as a guide in the present instance? In the first place, it must be admitted, that lord Newburgh had no legal claim of any sort on the public; still, however, he was ready to say, that although his case was by no means similar to those to which it had been compared, it had in some respects sufficient similarity to entitle it to be considered as a hard one, and to induce him to consent to the relief that was proposed. Feeling it to stand in that respect, what were they to look to? No man would contend, that the present income of the Derwentwater estates was to be taken as the principle. It must be remembered, that the estates of lord Newburgh's ancestors consisted of two parts: the one, estates, that had they not been forfeited, would have been his lordship's in right of strict settlement; the other, estates from all claim to which he had been barred, in consequence of the question of alienage having been decided against him. In regard to the former, it was to be considered, that the estates had been greatly improved since they had been in the hands of the governors of Greenwich Hospital, who had expended nearly 80,000l. upon them, in order to render them as valuable as they were at present. They had also laid out considerable sums to discharge the incumbrances upon them at the time of their forfeiture, and had likewise paid 30,000/ granted to the ancestors of the present lord Newburgh. These several sums, therefore, must all be deducted from the value of the estate, and then what remained would be found to be the rents that lord Newburgh might reasonably claim. These considerations had governed him, in consenting to the present motion, which was grounded on the principle that he had laid down. As to any increase of the sum settled, because an hon. member, without showing any ground for such an assertion, loosely said, that if lord Newburgh had any addition made, he would give that addition to another person, upon whom no part of the estate had been entailed, and who had no claim upon the public whatever, he never would consent to such an addition; it was a departure from every thing like a principle, Mr. Fox said, that as he could not help thinking the annuity proposed extremely moderate, and short of what ought to have been granted, he should of course vote for the amendment. Mr. Pitt trusted that the right hon. gentleman would excuse him, if he imputed what he had just said, to his wish to take every possible opportunity of showing his desire that lord Newburgh should be still more amply provided for than was proposed, rather than to his conviction of the propriety of the amendment; because he was persuaded if he had considered the amendment with the acuteness that he generally applied to such matters, he must have seen that it ought not to pass. Mr. Pitt declared, that no man would more readily agree to any fair proposition in favour of lord Newburgh than he would. But, in ad |