Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 25.djvu/151

H Hastings was justified in his first demands. But the defence was insincere, and was abandoned on the frivolous pretence that Hastings's subsequent treatment of the rája showed too much severity. Lord Thurlow only anticipated the judgment of subsequent critics in expressing his surprise at this inconsistency.

The next two years were passed by Hastings at Windsor, while the debate on his case dragged its way through rare evenings in the House of Commons. He made experiments in farming and gardening, and worked on the materials for his defence with his friend David Anderson and other volunteer assistants. At length, on 3 April 1787, the impeachment was voted by a majority of nearly three to one, in which were included Pitt himself and most of his supporters. Macaulay attributes the surrender of Hastings by Pitt to the young minister's fear of Hastings's rivalry. The trial before the House of Lords opened in Westminster Hall on 13 Feb. 1788, foremost among the managers for the commons being Burke, Sheridan, and Gilbert Elliot (afterwards first Lord Minto) [q. v.] Fox and Windham were also among the number. Francis, though not a manager, continued to assist the prosecution. Such was the fervour of Burke's denunciations that Hastings's staunchest admirers—nay, even himself—were carried away for the moment. But Hastings bore the storm bravely, and it was in this very period that the purchase of Daylesford was at last negotiated. For the old house and 650 acres of land he paid 11,424l.; but its restoration cost him far more.

Hastings always had supporters. Fanny Burney and Hannah More were on his side. John Nicholls [q. v.], author of the ‘Parliamentary Recollections,’ said that he ‘thought of him with the highest veneration.’ Lord Teignmouth, once an opponent, could only account for what was going on by denying Burke's sanity. The trial occupied the court for thirty-five days in 1788; it was resumed in April of the following year. In June 1790 a dissolution took place, and was pleaded in bar of further proceedings, but the plea was overruled. In 1791 the court investigated the charges of personal corruption, and then Hastings made his final defence. The next two years were given to the arguments of counsel; in 1794 the managers replied to the defence. Numberless addresses and testimonials were laid before the court from various communities in India, both native and European, at which Burke sneered, but which were genuine, spontaneous, and highly relevant.

The second Benares address, of 1788, declared that Hastings, by appointing the most distinguished of the Brahmans and Musalmans to preside over their affairs, had ‘rendered the inhabitants much happier than they were during the administration of Chait Singh.’ From Rajmahal came an address which, after testifying to the consideration that he always showed to the heads of native society, added that ‘he was not covetous of other men's money, and was not open to corruption. No war arose in his time’ (they were only thinking of their own province); ‘he was not haughty, or proud of pomp and luxury; he did not seek his own ease.’ Similar addresses came from Lucknow, Farukhabad, and other places nearer Calcutta. These testimonials were given spontaneously, and long after their recipient had ceased to hold either power or the prospect of power. In reference to one passage in the Rajmahal address may be noticed a description of the private habits of Hastings as governor-general, which occurs in a note by the translator of the ‘Siyar-ul-mutakharin,’ who had served under Hastings in his secretary's office. ‘Governor Hastings,’ he said, ‘always wore a plain coat of English broadcloth … his throne a plain chair of mahogany … his table sometimes neglected, his diet sparing and abstemious; his address and deportment very distant from pride, and still more from familiarity.’

The House of Lords proceeded to debate on their judgment in 1795. Of personal corruption Hastings was unanimously acquitted; his manner of life, and what Macaulay justly calls ‘his honourable poverty,’ left his judges no alternative. As to the charges arising out of the Benares affair, it was found by a large majority that he was not only justified by the circumstances in claiming aid from a feudatory, but that the punishment of that feudatory's contumacy was neither excessive nor vindictive. In the case of the Oudh dowagers it was held that there was no evidence either of greed or of malignity, and that the treatment of the ladies was partly due to their own conduct, and was excused by the exigencies of the time. Thurlow and Bishop Horsley were strongly in Hastings's favour. The chief of the hostile judges was Lord Loughborough, the chancellor, who had to pronounce the acquittal of the accused on 23 April 1795.

The trial, which occupied 145 days, extending over seven years and three months, cost Hastings 70,000l., and he was left, as he himself said, without the means of subsistence. But the company came generously to his aid. He received addresses of congratulation on his acquittal from various