the issue was as happy as the interference was proper, and instead of fomenting discord between the two Houses, it had been the means of promoting their future harmony.

Still, however, there were other reasons which, in the opinion of some gentlemen, ought to preclude any motion on the subject. They professed to think that an impeachment did not abate by a dissolution of parliament, but that to come to any vote upon it, would seem to pledge the House to proceed with this particular impeachment. They were anxious that the general principle should be separated from the particular case, and when the impeachment of Mr. Hastings was fairly got rid of, the House, they thought, might dispose of the principle at their leisure. Those who argued thus, were the movers of an abstract question, not he. They advised the House to assert an abstract privilege in general terms; but by no means to do so, till they had first dismissed the case to which it applied; to settle the point of law, but not till they had suffered the prisoner to escape. Just so might a culprit at the Old Bailey, or his counsel for him, after hearing his indictment read, and seeing his jury impannelled, in case of any difficulty in point of law arising, say to the court, "This is a general question of law, and I am charged with a particular fact: do not prejudge my case, by deciding on the point of law; separate the general principle from the particular case; suffer me to depart, and decide on the point of law when I am dismissed from your bar, and in no danger of being affected by your decision." This would be a proposition, to which, he apprehended, neither the court nor the prosecutor, unless he were a collusive prosecutor, would be very ready to listen. Without any such attempt at refinement, without either separating what could not be separated, or blending what ought not to be blended, and taking for his model the vote on the impeachment of Lord Danby, after a dissolution of parliament, he should move a plain practical resolution, namely, "That it appears, that an impeachment by this House, in the name of the Commons of Great Britain in parliament assembled, and

of all the Commons of Great Britain, against Warren Hastings, Esq. late governor-general of Bengal, for sundry high crimes and misdemeanors, is now depending."

Mr. Erskine, wishing to gain time for deliberation, moved, "That Sir Peter Burrell might leave the chair." A debate which lasted, by adjournments, three days, ensued. Mr. Erskine, in an elaborate speech, endeavoured to shew, that in consequence of the dissolution of parliament, the impeachment had abated, and on this ground he was supported by Mr. Hardinge, Mr. Mitford, Sir John Scott, and several other gentlemen, principally lawyers. On the other side of the question, the lead was taken by Mr. Pitt, Mr. Fox, Mr. Burke, Mr. Anstruther, Mr. Adam, Mr. Dundas, and Mr. Addington the Speaker.

December 23.

On the 23d of December, the third day of the debate,

Mr. BURKE rose. He said he was happy to find that gentlemen had taken up the question on the principles of reason, as well as on the authority of precedent. In a question which concerned the safety and welfare of the people, every consideration, except what had a tendency to promote these great objects, became superseded — Salus populi suprema lex, prima lex, media lex. As precedents, however, were one ground, though only one ground of legal argument, they ought not to be despised, as they were evidence of legal tradition, and shewed what was reputed law at the time of their being given. They ought for this purpose to be shewn to have the qualities fit to render precedents of full authority in law. They ought to be shewn; first, to be numerous and not scattered here and there; secondly, concurrent and not contradictory and mutually destructive; - thirdly, to be made in good and constitutional times; - fourthly, not to be made to serve an occasion; - and fifthly, to be agreeable to the geheral tenor of legal principles, which over-ruled precedents,

admire prompt and extemporaneous eloquence. But prompt deliberation, extemporaneous research, and sudden judgment, do not demand my respect so powerfully. In a case that required research and consideration, ought he not, before he adopted it into his reasoning, to have paid some attention to the statement of facts? But the honourable and learned gentleman had assigned the reason of all this; "he did not feel himself at home." The bar was the scene of his wealth, of his reputation, of his fame; this House was only the scene of his duty. It was related of Lewis XIV. that all his children by his mistresses were handsome and vigorous, while those by his wife were puny: his physician, when he was asked the reason, replied, {that his wife had only the rinsings of the bottle. In like manner, that House had only the refuse of the honourable and learned gentleman's abilities; they obtained him solely at second hand. This was the scene of his duty, the other the scene of his pleasure:

"I take her body, you her mind -
Which has the better bargain?"

This partiality for home was easily accounted for. Home was home let it be ever so homely, and, in consequence of this partiality, the gentlemen of the long robe were led to measure the proceedings of parliament by those of the courts, and to prescribe the rules of the courts as the standard of the usage of parliament. Here they were only militant, and gave to royal prerogative all that weight which in their future situations they might be called to support. To us (said Mr. Burke), who are only ordinary members of parliament, the rights of the Commons are every thing. Without them we have no existence. We have no other ground to retire to. Fighting for them we fight pro aris et focis. Hitherto the members of that House (because in that House they were "at home") had some sort of affectionate leaning, and fond domestic partiality towards their privileges. They took it for granted, that what they possessed in favour of their constituents,

was lawfully possessed. They thought that what was never disputed in that House ought not to be disputed any where. They employed argument and research, to defend their rights against those who attacked them, and not to raise questions amongst themselves and against themselves; or to furnish offensive weapons to their adversaries, by teaching them to doubt the legality of their best-founded claims. It was now, for the first time, that they were arrived to that pitch of candour as to set to work all the hunters after precedents, all the scratchers of parchment, all the revivers of dead ink, with a view, if possible, to discover a flaw in their own title. It was strange that they should advise them to search the obscure recesses of antiquity, more especially when those recesses were granted to be obscure, and, leaving the solid ground of possession on which they stood by the resolutions of 1673 and 1678, to try whether some mouldy parchment might be raked out to dispossess them of their possession under that solemn decree. What rendered it still more strange was, that this search of obscurity was to produce light, and an endless length of investigation was proposed as a remedy of delay, and with a view to promote promptitude of proceeding in this trial.

Another gentleman of the long robe, the master of the rolls, had complained of this delay. What rendered the complaint singular was, that the honourable gentleman had been an eminent practitioner, and was now a judge of Chancery, a court which had not hitherto been famed for the celerity of its decisions. And certainly till the time of the learned gentleman, who no doubt had effected a reform in that respect, any complaint of delay from this quarter could not but have carried with it an air of ridicule. It was a new circumstance that the court of Chancery should instruct parliament to be more expeditious in its proceedings. But why did not these gentlemen, who complained of the length of the proceedings of parliament, at once bring in a bill to shorten its continuance, and, as it frequently had been suggested before, to make it triennial,

biennial, or annual, or oftener if need be, since, by these means, all their purposes of expedition would be effectually answered? The cause must then die, not with its nature and merits, but with the parliament with whose duration the thread of its life was twisted. But, perhaps, the most surprising objection which had proceeded from a member of the law, was that which had been stated to written evidence. It was well known that there was no other sort of evidence employed in Chancery, except in particular cases. The judges in all the courts took notes, not only for their own use, but for the instruction of the jury and the summing up of the evidence. It was singular, that the things provided as aids to the known frailty of memory, should be alleged as reasons for rejecting memory so assisted, and admitting nothing written to be a ground of judgment. How came the memory to be worse for that which was always done in perpetuam rei memoriam? But when was this objection started? Why was it not proposed during the three concluding years of the former parliament? Was not written evidence then as bad as it was now? Was it not found out till after the dissolution of parliament? Was it now, for the first time, brought forward, when the charges might be supposed to be nearly finished? The motive of all this it was not difficult to ascertain. The culprit was now on the eve of making his defence. Any former attempts in his defence had been found mischievous in the extreme; and from what was to follow, the same consequences might be appreheneded. At this moment of his peril, therefore, they interposed, and wished to snatch him away in a cloud from the unequal conflict between his cause and his defence.

The proposition which all these objections had been intended to establish was, that impeachments terminate with a dissolution of parliament, and are, of consequence, subject to the will of the crown. But in their attempts to shew that this was law, they had never endeavoured to prove that law, thus administered, was conducive to jus tice. In treating of the excellence of any art, it was

1