HISTORY OF EUROPE. 
ehcroach more and more every day 
on his other avocations, and inter- 
fere with the discharge of his other 
duties. He had always expressed, 
and he continued to express, the 
most marked and unqualified re- 
probation of lord Wellesley’s sys- 
tem of war and conquest in India; 
and he professed, on the part of 
the government to which he. be- 
longed, a determination to pursue, 
in regard to that country, a totally 
different system. But, in changing 
the late system of Indian politics, he 
was, averse to any retrospective in- 
quiry with a view to punishment. 
It was unnecessary to prosecute such 
an inquiry, after the system com- 
plained of had been abandoned, and 
the persons who had carried it on, 
removed from office ; and, in general, 
he observed, it was inexpedient to 
impeach men for errors of system, 
unless when, in support.of it, they 
had been guilty of acts of great de- 
linguency. Whether the delinquen- 
cies of lord Wellesley were such 
as to merit impeachment, was 2 
question on which Mr. Fox declared, 
that he had not yet made up his 
mind, but, whenever the subject 
came before him, he should act as 
the case seemed to require. He 
added, that he would take no part 
inthe previous stages of the inquiry. 
He had resolved, after the unsatis. 
factory result of Mr. Hastings’ trial, 
to have no further concern in In- 
dian impeachments ; and in his pre- 
Sent official situation, he thought it 
would be unbecoming in him to take 
an active part against a person under 
‘accusation. Ministers ought, in ge- 
neral, to abstain from interfering in 
inquiries of this nature, and leave the 
task to other members of the house; 
that no weight might be lent to ac- 
ensations, except what they derive 
101 
from the individual who prefers them, 
and from the force of truth. The 
influence of this last consideration 
on Mr. Fox’s mind appeared from 
his conduct in lord Melville’s trial 
for, though he had been aetive in 
bringing that noble personage to the 
bar of the house of lords, and though 
as one of the mahagers of the’ im- 
peachment named by the commons, 
he atiended, in that eapacity, "im 
Westminster Hall, on the first day 
of the trial, he took no part what 
ever in the subsequent proceedings, 
though several legal and constitu- 
tional questions were agitated during 
the trial, in which his opinion woald 
have had great authority against the 
defendant. foiled 
Mr. Francis, whose name, through 
a long course of years, has been as- 
sociated with whatever is right or 
meritorious in Indian politics, though 
he expressed a most decided opinion 
of lord Wellesley’s delinquency, yet 
declined, from personal reasons, to 
have any concern in his impeach- 
ment, and declared, that it was his 
intention, in future, to withdraw 
himself generally from the discus- 
sion of political questions purely 
and properly Indian, and not in- 
volving any immediate British in- 
terest. But, notwithstanding this 
declaration, he was found at his post 
during the remaining part of the ses- 
sion, ou all questions relating to 
India, and ever ready to support 
Mr. Paull in the prosecution of his 
inguiry. 
Mr. George Johnstone, a friend 
of Mr. Paull, who, before the re- 
turn of lord Wellesley to England, 
had expressed himself most violently 
against that nobleman’s conduct in 
India, took occasion, early in the 
present session, to inform the house, 
that he had dissuaded Mr. Paull 
H3 from 
