precedents, by which the National Constitution must be interpreted. How completely they cover the charges against Andrew Johnson, whether in the formal accusation or in the long antecedent transgressions to which I shall call attention as an essential part of the case, nobody can question. Broad as this definition may seem, it is in harmony with the declared opinions of the best minds that have been turned in this direction. Of these none so great as Edmund Burke, who, as manager on the impeachment of Warren Hastings, excited the admiration of all by varied stores of knowledge and philosophy, illumined by the rarest eloquence, marking an epoch of British history. Thus spoke the greatest genius that has ever explained the character of impeachment:-- “It is by this tribunal that statesmen who abuse their power are tried before statesmen and by statesmen, upon solid principles of State morality. _It is here that those who by an abuse of power have polluted the spirit of all laws can never hope for the least protection from any of its forms._ It is here that those who have refused to conform themselves to the protection of law can never hope to escape through any of its defects.”[156] The value of this testimony is not diminished because the orator spoke as manager. By professional license an advocate may state opinions not his own, but a manager cannot. Appearing for the House of Representatives and all the people, he speaks with the responsibility of a judge, so that his words may be cited hereafter. Here I but follow the claim of Mr. Fox.[157] Therefore the words of Burke are as authoritative as beautiful. In different, but most sententious terms, Mr. Hallam, who is so great a light in constitutional history, thus exhibits the latitude of impeachment and its comprehensive grasp:-- “A minister is answerable for _the justice, the honesty, the utility of all measures_ emanating from the Crown, _as well as for their legality_; and thus the executive administration is, or ought to be, subordinate, in all great matters of policy, to the superintendence and virtual control of the two Houses of Parliament.”[158] Thus, according to this excellent witness, even failure in justice, honesty, and utility, as well as in legality, may be the ground of impeachment; and the Administration should in all great matters of policy be subject to the two Houses of Parliament,--the House of Commons to impeach, and the House of Lords to try. Here again the case of Andrew Johnson is provided for.