to obtain in the house of lords, the question would be wholly at an end, and the right of impeachment at once annihilated; since it were better to file an indictment in the one, than prefer an impeachment in the other. But the foundation of impeachments was, to bring delinquents to justice, who would have escaped if tried according to the ordinary rules of the courts of judicature. The practice of the house of lords was incompatible with that of the other courts, in regard to vivá voce evidence and decision, without separating. Notes were in constant practice, and written evidence consulted, without which it were impossible, in cases of impeachment, to reduce under one view the whole body of the evidence; for there were few instances in which impeachments did not occupy some days; written evidence were then as indispensable in a trial of ten days as of three years. But it was said, that in a long impeachment, in consequence of the constant change of members in the house of lords, some who had been accusers, became judges. In reply, he observed, that there was no period of prorogation to which the same objection would not apply. The members who were so circumstanced, certainly could not be deprived of their judicial powers; at the same time, the exercise and application of those powers remained at the sole disposal of their own feelings and consciences. It was an unavoidable circumstance incidental to the nature of such a proceeding as an impeachment, from which no danger of injustice could be apprehended, with any shadow of reason.

He should, he said, wave for the present, every consideration of the enquiry how far the house of commons were disabled from proceeding in the impeachment depending, as it remained a subject for future investigation. When it was once established that the right of impeachment did not abate by dissolution, the discretion of the house would next determine whether it were expedient to prosecute the impeachment in question any farther; or what other line of conduct to pursue in regard to such a proceeding. Of this he was very sure, that no fair objection could be urged, from any defect of information. The court in

which the trial had been conducted, was accessible to all; all the reports and papers respecting the evidence, were open to general inspection; so that it was entirely at the option not only of every member of the house of commons, but also of every British subject, to remain in ignorance of any part of the proceedings. He wished it to be understood by all, as an established and incontrovertible principle, that impeachments continued in statu quo. A contrary mode of proceeding would be attended with consequences destructive of the privileges of the house, as well as injurious and prejudicial to the cause of the party accused. If an offence, for instance, were committed, the conviction of which required a proceeding by impeachment, upon the eve of a dissolution of parliament, the prosecution might be postponed until the meeting of a new parliament, in order to avoid a repetition of the proceedings; the consequence naturally to be apprehended was, the escape of the delinquent. If, on the other hand, an impeachment had been carried on for such a considerable length of time, as to exceed a dissolution of parliament, the repetition of the proceedings in that case might materially impede the progress of other public business. The death of a witness, in the mean time, might very considerably too affect the state of the evidence; and an impeachment, by this mode of proceeding, might be converted into an engine of oppression and injustice. Suppose the party impeached to have made some progress in his defence, his accusers might possess sufficient influence to procure a sudden dissolution of parliament; the consequence might be, a fresh accusation against him, fabricated out of his own defence. By such a nefarious proceeding, an individual might continue to be the object of a public prosecution all his life-time, without the possibility of the means of being pronounced either innocent or guilty. Thus, an impeachment must continue in satu quo after a dissolution, or the privileges of parliament must suffer violence, and the cause of the accused sustain irreparable injury, and intolerable oppression. He was clearly decided in his opinion, therefore, from the weight of precedents, from the principles of the constitu

tion, from the authority of the greatest luminaries of the law, from the immutable principles of justice, from the expediency of public trials, and from every argument of plain conímon sense, that impeachments not only continued unaffected by a dissolution of parliament, but existed in statu quo, notwithstanding the operation of such an event; he therefore would vote, with cheerful confidence, for the original motion of the right honourable gentleman, that the impeachment of Warren Hastings, esq. was now depending.

On a division, there appeared,

For the Speaker's leaving the chair
Against it

The original motion was then carried.

30

143

April 19, 1791.

DEBATE, in a committee of the whole house, on Mr. Wilberforce's motion "for instructing the chairman to move for leave to bring in a bill to prevent the further Importation of Slaves into the British colonies in the West Indies."

MR. PITT declared, that from the first hour of his having had the honour to sit in parliament, down to the present, among all the questions, whether political or personal, in which it had been his fortune to take a share, there never had been one in which his heart was so deeply interested as the present; both on account of the serious principles which it involved, and the important consequences connected with it. He observed, that however forcibly he might appeal to the natural and unerring feelings of every man upon this subject, and however strong an argument he might, therefore, draw, even from this consideration, yet this was not the ground on which he was about to rest the determi nation of the present question.

The present was not a mere question of feeling; it was not for the sake of exercising humanity, as had been often falsely imagined, that the abolition of the trade in slaves was pressed upon she committee; but it was quite another principle, which ought,

in his own opinion, to determine their minds. The main argument insisted on was, that the slave-trade was founded in injustice; and it is therefore, (said Mr. Pitt,) such a trade, as it is impossible for me to support, unless gentlemen will, in the first place, prove to me, that there are no laws of morality binding upon nations, and that it is no duty of a legislature to restrain its subjects from invading the happiness of other countries, and from violating the fundamental principles of justice.

He observed, that many gentlemen, however, who opposed the motion, had brought forward, on the present occasion, a plea of impracticability. Several of them had even expressed a desire to see the slave-trade abolished, if it were not for some necessity for continuing it, which they conceived to exist; nay, almost every one, he believed, and in particular an honourable baronet, and another honourable gentleman †, appeared to wish, that the farther importation of slaves might cease, provided it could be made out that the population of the West Indies could be, by any means, maintained without it.

Mr. Pitt proposed, therefore, with the permission of the house, to apply himself particularly to this subject; for as this appeared to operate, in the minds of so many gentlemen, as the chief objection, he trusted, that, by shewing this argument to be groundless, and the whole idea of impracticability, as it was now urged, to be entirely a misconception, he should be able thus to clear away every obstacle whatever; so that, having no ground, either of justice or necessity, to stand upon, there could be no excuse or pretence left to the committee, for resisting the preBent motion.

He might reasonably hope, however, that gentlemen, even upon their own grounds, would not reckon any disadvantage to the plantations, which was merely small and temporary, to be a sufficient reason to warrant the continuance of the slave-trade. It was surely not any slight degree of expediency, any small balance of profit, nor any light shades of probability, on the one

Sir William Young.

+ Mr. Stanley, agent for the islands.

side, rather than the other, that would determine any gentleman in the present question. He asked pardon even for the supposition. The house, he was sure, would not decide the question, on such grounds. The slave-trade was an evil of such a magnitude, that there must be a common wish in the committee at once to put an end to it, if there were no very great and serious obstacle. Nothing short of the utmost danger, nay of ruin, to the West-India islands, ought we to hear urged as a plea for continuing such a trade as this. It was a trade by which multitudes of unoffending nations were deprived of the blessings of civilization, and had their peace and happiness invaded. It ought, therefore, to be no common expediency; it ought either to be some positive necessity, or, at least, something very like necessity, which it became those gentlemen to plead, who took upon them to defend the continuance of this trade.

He knew that the West-India gentleman had used very strong language, on this part of the subject, and had expressed an alarmı for the islands that was very serious indeed. It would be proper, however, for the committee to consider this for themselves; for he could not help thinking, there was an over-great degree of sensibility, among those gentlemen, on this particular point, and that their alarm, as he hoped to prove, was excited in a way which the occasion by no means justified. He had endeavoured carefully and impartially to examine into this himself, and he would now proceed to lay those reasons before the house, which induced him firmly to believe, not only that no permanent mischief would follow from the abolition, but not even any such temporary hurt or inconvenience as could be stated to be a reason for preventing the house from agreeing to the question before them: on the contrary, that the abolition itself would lay the foundation for the more solid improvement of all the various interests of those colonies.

In proceeding upon this subject, he should apply his observations chiefly to Jamaica, which contained more than half the slaves in the whole West Indies; and, if he should succeed in proving that no material detriment could arise to the population