A History of the Four Georges and of William IV, Volume IIIMcCarthy, Justin H. (Justin Huntly)
History
A History of the Four Georges and of William IV, Volume III
McCarthy, Justin H. (Justin Huntly)
Great Britain -- History -- 1714-1837; Great Britain -- Politics and government -- 1714-1837
Although he was the target for the eloquence of Burke, of Fox, and of
Sheridan, still Hastings's hopes were high, and they mounted higher
when the Rohilla war charge was rejected by a large majority. But they
were only raised so high to be dashed to earth again in the most
unexpected manner. The friends of Hastings were convinced that he
would have the unfailing support of Pitt in his defence. He was now to
learn that he was mistaken.
[Sidenote: 1787--Pitt and the impeachment]
Hastings had one very zealous champion in the House of Commons. This
was a young member, Sir James Bland-Burges. He rose not merely with
the approval of Pitt, but actually at Pitt's instigation, to defend
Warren Hastings on the question of the treatment of the Rajah of
Benares. It is scarcely surprising that the House did not pay him any
great attention. Having just come under "the spell of the enchanter,"
it would hardly have listened with attention to an old and well-known
member, and Bland-Burges was a young and unknown man. He could not
command a hearing, so, whispering to Pitt that he would leave the
remainder of the defence to him, he sat down, and the debate, on Pitt's
suggestion, was adjourned.
On the following day the young defender came to the House hot to hear
Pitt deliver to an attentive senate that defence which he had striven
unsuccessfully to make. He has recorded the astonishment, indignation,
and despair when Pitt rose to make his declaration concerning the
charge against Hastings. The minister in whom Hastings trusted to find
an ally offered some cold condemnation of {278} the intemperance of the
attack, proffered some lukewarm praise to Hastings, and then announced
that he would agree to the motion. To most of Pitt's supporters Pitt's
action came as an unpleasant surprise; but to Bland-Burges, from his
previous conversation with the minister, it seemed like an act of
treason. There was little for Bland-Burges to do, but it is to his
credit that he did that little. It required no small courage for a
follower and a friend of Pitt to defy his authority in the House. Yet
that is practically what Bland-Burges did. Raging with indignation at
what he conceived to be the tergiversation of his leader and the
treachery to his hero, Bland-Burges once again forced himself upon the
attention of the House. The leaders on both sides being agreed, it was
expected that the matter would be settled out of hand, and the Speaker
had actually put the question and declared it carried when Bland-Burges
leaped to his feet and challenged a division. He acted with the
courage of his despair, but, as he says, few unpremeditated enterprises
ever succeeded better than this one. "The question indeed was carried
by a great majority, but those who were against it were almost entirely
of those who till then had implicitly voted with the minister. This
was not only mortifying to Mr. Pitt, but highly encouraging to Mr.
Hastings and his steadfast friends."
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account