by Mr. Hastings as being false as well as irrelevant. Major Scott having offered to prove that the allegations were true, Mr. Fox said he conceived that it was proper to permit the honourable major to go fully into the truth of the allegations of the petition, and not to confine him to a naked statement of them. The petition pretended to accuse the managers of urging matters against the petitioner that were not relevant, and, at the same time, it charged them with having knowingly spoken falsehoods. It was material, therefore, to them that the truth of the facts should be made out. The honourable major had stated the petition as he conceived it to be; he, on the other hand, had stated it according to what it was. The honourable gentleman had stated it as if the petition had been what he wished it to be, and what it ought to have been, and he did this with the greater confidence, because he seemed to have the countenance and support of a member of great weight in the House. He observed, that Mr. Hastings had so managed as to convert his accusers into defenders; and, under the word irrelevant, he had brought against them the worst charge that could possibly be urged the charge of having uttered falsehoods at the bar of the House of Lords. The master of the rolls having given it as his opinion, that the averment of the falsehood was no more than a protestation or formal plea of not guilty, on the part of the petitioner, and that therefore, it was not necessary to go into the proof, the House acquiesced in his opinion. Mr. Bouverie then moved, "That the House do now adjourn." This motion was opposed by Mr. Mitford, who observed that too much attention could not possibly be paid to the allegations of the petition, if they turned out to be true; if they were not true, the petition, and the person who presented it, merited the severest censure. - Mr. Fox supported the motion of adjournment. He passed an encomuim on the conduct of Mr. Burke, and said he had acted with great propriety throughout the business. He had given the House as much satisfaction as was necessary, and feeling the indignity of being called upon as a defendant, by the culprit, whom he had been directed by that House to prosecute, he had refused to do more. He admired his right honourable friend's conduct that day, in being absent, not less than his general conduct. The whole was manly, consistent, and dignified. The question being put, that the House do now adjourn, a division took place.

Yeas 97: Noes 157. So it passed in the negative. It was next moved, "That Mr. Gurney, one of the short-hand writers of the notes taken at the trial of Warren Hastings, Esq. in Westminster-hall, be now called in;" which being negatived, Mr. Adam moved, "That a committee be appointed to inspect precedents, and to report to the House what evidence has been received, by the House, respecting any complaint of expressions or words used on the trial of any impeachment, by any members of this House employed to manage such impeachment." This motion was carried by a majority of 102 to 17.

On the 4th of May, the said committee reported, that there were no precedents of any complaint of words spoken by managers in Westminster-hall to be found. The managers again urged their objections to the examination of any shorthand writer; but the favourers of the petition, insisting upon the duty of the House to govern itself in such cases by what should appear most likely to promote the ends of substantial justice, prevailed; and, after a division of 115 to 69, Mr. Gurney, the short-hand writer, was called in, and examined. The next question was, whether all the particulars complained of by the petitioner should be inquired into, or whether the House might select what part they pleased. Mr. Pitt and others were of opinion that the House ought to pay no attention to the words said to have been spoken in the former year, as the complaint had been so long deferred; and they should confine themselves to the words relative to Nundcomar. This was also objected to by the managers, as an arbitrary proceeding, but finally agreed to by the House. Another debate then took place upon the extent of the examination, as restricted to the case of Nundcomar. The managers contended that the whole of that part of Mr. Burke's speech ought to be produced, as necessary to elucidate the nature of the words complained of; the other side were of opinion, that it was only necessary to ask the witness if Mr. Burke had made use of those express words, After much altercation, in which Mr. Fox complained in strong and pointed terms of the indignity and injustice with which the managers were treated, it was agreed that some part of the speech preceding the words should be read; which being done, and the offensive words ascertained, the Marquis of Graham rose, and moved, "That no direction or authority was given by this House to the committee ap

pointed to manage the impeachment against Warren Hastings, Esq. to make any charge or allegation against the said Warren Hastings Esq., respecting the condemnation or execution of Nundcomar. And that the words spoken by the right honourEdmund Burke, one of the said managers, viz. he (meaning Warren Hastings Esq.,) murdered that man (meaning Nundcomar) by the hands of Sir Elijah Impey,' ought not to have been spoken" Upon this motion a debate of considerable interest took place, in the course of which Mr. Burke was warmly supported by Mr. Fox, Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Windham, and Mr. Francis. On a division, the motion was agreed to by a majority of 135 to 66. As soon as the House was resumed, Mr. Bouverie moved, "That the thanks of this House be given to the right honourable Edmund Burke, and the rest of the managers, for their exertions and assiduity in the prosecution of the impeachment against Warren Hastings Esq., and that they be desired to persevere in the same." The master of the rolls considered the motion as not merely premature, but extremely improper, at that moment, just as the House had voted a censure upon one of the honourable managers; and therefore, without meaning any personal incivility to any of those honourable gentlemen, he should take the liberty of moving the previous question on the honourable gentleman's motion. This motion was agreed to. In consequence of the preceding votes some difference of opinion is said to have arisen in the committee of managers, relative to their continuance in that situation. It was, however, resolved to proceed; and accordingly, the next day of trial, Mr. Burke began his speech by commenting on the relative situations of himself and of the prisoner at the bar, and on the decision of the Commons with respect to their proceedings. *

*For the proceedings in Westminster-hall, on the 5th of May, 1789, see the fourth volume of this collection.

ABOLITION OF THE SLAVE TRADE.

May 12.

HE consideration of the slave trade, which, in conformity

THE

to a resolution passed by the House of Commons last year, ought to have been resumed early in the present session, was, on account of the peculiar circumstances of the times, deferred till the 12th of May. An elaborate report from the privy council was laid upon the table, and several petitions, both for and against the proposed abolition of the trade, were presented to the House. These papers were this day referred to a committee of the whole House to consider of the circumstances of the slave trade; in which committee Mr. Wilberforce concluded a speech of extraordinary merit, with moving twelve resolutions, founded on the report of the privy council.

Mr. BURKE said, that he did not mean to detain the committee but for a few minutes. He was not able, even if he had been inclined to it; but as from his other parliamentary duties he might not have it in his power to attend the business in its progress, he would take that opportunity of stating his opinion upon the subject. In the first place, he thought the House, the nation, and all Europe, under very great and serious obligations to the honourable gentleman, for having brought the subject forward in a manner the most masterly, impressive, and eloquent. A trade begun with savage war, prosecuted with unheard-of cruelty, continued during the mid passage with the most loathsome imprisonment, and ending in perpetual exile and unremitting slavery was a trade so horrid in all its circumstances, that it was impossible a single argument could be adduced in its favour. On the score of prudence nothing could be said in defence of it, nor could it be justified by necessity, and no case of inhumanity could be justified, but upon necessity; but no such necessity could

be made out strong enough to warrant such a traffic. It was the duty of that House therefore, to put an end to it. If it were said, that the interest of individuals required that it should be continued, that argument ought not to be listened to. Supposing a rich man had a capital to a considerable amount lying by him, and every one, he observed, who had a large capital was a rich man. All capitals required active motion; it was in their nature not to remain passive and unemployed; but if a large capital were employed in a traffic, disgraceful to the nation and shocking to humanity, it was the duty of that House to change its application, and instead of suffering it to be ill-employed, to direct it to be employed in some trade, at once advantageous in its end, respectable in its nature, and useful to mankind. Nor was it any argument to say the capital was already engaged in the slave trade; for from its active principle when taken out of that trade, it would soon find employment in another channel. This had been the case with the merchants and shipowners of Liverpool, during the American war; the African trade was then almost wholly lost, and yet the shipowners of Liverpool had their ships employed, either as transports in the service of government or in other ways.

After descanting on this point for some time with great soundness of reasoning, Mr. Burke said, he could have wished that the business might have been brought to a conclusion at once, without voting the propositions that had been read to them. He was not over fond of abstract propositions. They were seldom necessary, and often caused great difficulty and embarrassment. There was, besides, no occasion whatever to assign detailed reasons for a vote, which upon the face of it sufficiently justified the House in coming to it. If the propositions should happen to be made, and not be carried in that House, nor in the other, such a complication of mischiefs might follow, as would cause them heartily to lament that they ever were voted. If the ultimate resolution should happen to be lost, he declared, he was afraid the propositions would pass as waste paper.