SHERIDAN. 529 produce the necessary documents. At length, Mr. Burke, on April 4, 1786, charged the late governor-general of Bengal, with high crimes and misdemeanours, and lodged nine articles against him, on the table of the House of Commons. The first of these, which comprehended the Rohilla war, was lost, eighty-seven only having voted for the motion, while one hundred and nineteen declared against i t , on June 1st. On the 13th o f the same month, Mr. Fox brought forward the Benares charge, which was carried by a majority o f one hundred and nineteen t o seventy-nine, the chancellor o f the exchequer concurring i n the vote. On February 7th, 1787, i n a committee o f the whole house, Mr. Sheri dan presented the fourth charge, viz. the resumption o f the Jaghires, and the confiscation o f the treasures o f the Princesses o f Oude, o n which occasion, during a speech o f five hours and a half, h e commanded the universal attention and admiration of all who heard him. He commenced his speech b y some pointed allusions t o the conduct o f Sir Elijah Impey, who had recurred t o the low and artful stratagem o f printed hand-bills o f defence, i n favour o f Mr. Hastings, i n respect t o the present articles o f accusation. Neither the informality o n any subsisting evidence, nor the adducement o f any new explanations o n the part o f the late chief justice o f Bengal, could make the slightest impression upon the vast and strong body o f proof now intended t o b e brought forward. The long and un wearied attention paid b y parliament t o the affairs o f India, the volumi nous productions o f their committees, the repeated recommendations o f His Majesty, were a l l undeniable proofs o f the moment, and magnitude o f the consideration; and incontrovertibly established this plain, broad fact, that parliament had directly acknowledged that the British name and character had been dishonoured, and rendered detested throughout India, b y the malversation and crimes o f the principal servant o f the East India Company. To some sarcasms propagated i n another place h e would ask, “Is parliament mis-spending i t s time b y inquiring into the oppressions practised o n millions o f unfortunate persons; and endeavouring t o bring the daring delinquent, who had been guilty o f the most flagrant acts enormous tyranny, and rapacious peculation, t o exemplary and condign punishment? Was i t a misuse o f their functions, t o b e diligent i n attempting t o wipe off the disgrace attached t o the British name i n India, and t o rescue the national character from lasting infamy Their indefatigable exertions i n committees,—their numerous, elaborate, and clear reports, their long and interesting debates, their solemn addresses t o the throne,—their rigorous legislative acts, their marked detestation o f that novel and base sophism i n the principles o f judicial inquiry, (the constant language o f the goveruor-general's servile dependents!) that crimes might b e compounded, -that the guilt o f Mr. Hastings was t o b e balanced b y h i s successes, that WOL. II. M. M.
