There is another topic he takes up more seriously, and as a general rebutter to the charge.  Says he, “After a great many of these practices with which I am charged, Parliament appointed me to my trust, and consequently has acquitted me.”—­Has it, my Lords?  I am bold to say that the Commons are wholly guiltless of this charge.  I will admit, if Parliament, on a full state of his offences before them, and full examination of those offences, had appointed him to the government, that then the people of India and England would have just reason to exclaim against so flagitious a proceeding.  A sense of propriety and decorum might have restrained us from prosecuting.  They might have been restrained by some sort of decorum from pursuing him criminally.  But the Commons stand before your Lordships without shame.  First, in their name we solemnly assure your Lordships that we had not in our Parliamentary capacity (and most of us, myself I can say surely, heard very little, and that in confused rumors) the slightest knowledge of any one of the acts charged upon this criminal at either of the times of his being appointed to office, and that we were not guilty of the nefarious act of collusion and flagitious breach of trust with which he presumes obliquely to charge us; but from the moment we knew them, we never ceased to condemn them by reports, by votes, by resolutions, and that we admonished and declared it to be the duty of the Court of Directors to take measures for his recall, and when frustrated in the way known to that court we then proceeded to an inquiry.  Your Lordships know whether you were better informed.  We are, therefore, neither guilty of the precedent crime of colluding with the criminal, nor the subsequent indecorum of prosecuting what we had virtually and practically approved.

Secondly, several of his worst crimes have been committed since the last Parliamentary renewal of his trust, as appears by the dates in the charge.

But I believe, my Lords, the judges—­judges to others, grave and weighty counsellors and assistants to your Lordships—­will not, on reference, assert to your Lordships, (which God forbid, and we cannot conceive, or hardly state in argument, if but for argument,) that, if one of the judges had received bribes before his appointment to an higher judiciary office, he would not still be open to prosecution.

So far from admitting it as a plea in bar, we charge, and we hope your Lordships will find it an extreme aggravation of his offences, that no favors heaped upon him could make him grateful, no renewed and repeated trusts could make him faithful and honest.

We have now gone through most of the general topics.

But he is not responsible, as being thanked by the Court of Directors.  He has had the thanks and approbation of the India Company for his services.—­We know too well here, I trust the world knows, and you will always assert, that a pardon from the crown is not pleadable here, that it cannot bar the impeachment of the Commons,—­much less a pardon of the East India Company, though it may involve them in guilt which might induce us to punish them for such a pardon.  If any corporation by collusion with criminals refuse to do their duty in coercing them, the magistrates are answerable.