and, for aught he knew, the death-warrant of their persons.  At the same time that he took these affidavits he became himself a witness in this business; he appears as a witness.  How?  Did he know any one circumstance of the rebellion?  No, he does not even pretend to do so.  “But,” says he, “in my travels I was obliged to avoid Fyzabad, upon account of the suspected rebellion there.”  Another chief-justice would have gone fifty miles about to avoid Lucknow, for everybody knows that Lucknow was the focus and centre of extortion, corruption, and peculation, and that a worse air for the lungs of a chief-justice could not be found in the world.  If his lungs wanted the benefit of pure air, he would even have put himself in the focus of a rebellion, to have kept at a distance from the smell of carrion and putrid corruption of every kind that was at Lucknow.  A chief-justice may go to a place where a rebellion is raging, he may die a martyr to his honor; but a chief-justice who puts himself into the focus of peculation, into the focus of bribery, into the focus of everything that is base and corrupt,—­what can we expect from him but that he will be engaged in clandestine jobs there?  The former might kill Sir Elijah Impey, the knight-errant, but the chief-justice would remain pure and entire; whereas Sir Elijah Impey has escaped from Lucknow, and the chief-justice is left by Mr. Hastings to shift for himself.

After mentioning this violation of the laws of hospitality by Sir Elijah Impey, I would ask, Was any notice given by him, or by any of Mr. Hastings’s agents, to the Nabob, who was so immediately interested in this matter?  Was any notice given to the Begums that any such charge was entertained against them?  Not a word.  Was it notified to the eunuchs?  Was it to Saadut Ali Khan?  Not a word.  They were all within their power.  The eunuchs were a year in irons, and they were subjected to the want of food and water for a part of that year.  They were dragged from Fyzabad to Lucknow, and from Lucknow to Fyzabad.  During all that time was there a word mentioned to them by any one person on the part of Mr. Hastings, that they were accused of this matter?  Not a word.

We now submit to your Lordships’ vindictive justice and condemnation this recriminatory defence, in which every principle of justice has been violated.  And now I will ask your Lordships whether you would have suffered such a procedure in the case of the prisoner at your bar.  It was asked by a person of great authority in this House, when we were going to produce certain evidence against Mr. Hastings, (we do not say whether we offered to produce it properly or improperly,—­that is another matter,)—­we were asked, I say, whether our intentions of producing that evidence had been communicated to Mr. Hastings.  Had he had an opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses who had given that evidence?  No, he added, that evidence must be rejected.  Now I say to your Lordships, upon the same ground, deal with the Begums as you dealt with Mr. Hastings.  Do not keep two weights and measures for different persons in the same cause.  You would not suffer such evidence to be produced against him; you will not assuredly suffer such evidence to be produced to you in his favor and against them.