Page:Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol 5.djvu/419

] corruption and the crimes of Hastings, should be admitted by the court; but the lords retired to their own chamber of parliament to consider this point. There were so many retirings and returnings, that lord Stanhope said the judges walked, but the trial stood still. They were, however, finally of opinion that the evidence could not be admitted, the parties themselves not being there to substantiate it, and that, therefore, it was only circumstantial evidence. Burke, on this, exclaimed—"Plunder on, ye Indian delinquents! the laws intended to restrain you are mere scarecrows! Accumulate wealth by any means, however illegal, profligate, or infamous. You are sure of impunity; for the natives of India are, by their religion, debarred from appearing out of their own country, and circumstantial evidence will not be received."

(See page 407.)

Fox, however, insisted that direct personal evidence, taken and accepted by the supreme council in India, was good and sufficient evidence in that court; but the lords again retired to take the opinion of the judges on this point; and, on returning, replied that the judges did not consider that evidence could be received there which had not been given originally on oath. On this, Burke appeared to lose all patience. He declared that the ends of justice were thwarted by forms of law; that the criminal was thus effectually screened. When the most distinguished men in India had investigated, proved, and received these charges in evidence; and when the accused now stood before the house of peers impeached by the commons, instead of standing forward as a man conscious of his innocence, and glad of the opportunity to clear his name from such foul taint, every technical obstacle which the ingenuity of his counsel could devise was thrown in the way of evidence. When the testimony of Nuncomar, as taken by the supreme council of Calcutta, was tendered, it was rejected because it was not given upon oath, this being notoriously contrary to their religion; it being known, an oath was never required from natives. Yet this very evidence had been received by the council as legal; and, what was more, Hastings himself had always contended, during his own government, that such evidence was legal, and had informally acted upon it.

This decision, Burke properly said, "held out to future governors of Bengal the most certain and unbounded impunity. Peculation in India would no longer be practised as it used to be, with caution and secrecy—it would in future stalk abroad in noon-day, and act without disguise; because, after such a decision as had been given by their lordships, there was no possibility of bringing into court the proofs of peculation." The managers then desired that Philip Francis should be called in to prove the corruption of Hastings in the transactions with the munny Begum. Francis was no native; he could be examined on oath, and he was perfectly familiar with many of these transactions. But here, again, the counsel of Hastings most clamorously interfered, and the lords decided against the calling of Francis. Defeated again, neither native evidence taken before the Calcutta council, nor the evidence of one of the council itself being admitted, the managers brought forward a letter from the munny Begum, proving the reception of the bribe by Hastings. This was objected to, as being merely a copy, though an attested one. After some delay the original itself was produced, and persons high in office in India at the time came forward to swear to the hand and seal of the Begum. This, it might have been supposed, would be decisive. By no means. The counsel of Hastings had still a resource. They submitted to the lords that the letter could not be admitted as evidence, because it made part of the evidence before the council which had been rejected on