demanding of him whether the particulars so suggested were not the answer he had so made?

1788, February 29.-Pa. 418.

Answer. The lord chief baron of the court of exchequer delivered the unanimous opinion of the judges, upon the question of law put to them on Friday the 29th of February last, as follows-" That when a witness produced and examined in a criminal proceeding by a prosecutor disclaims all knowledge of any matter so interrogated, it is not competent for such prosecutor to pursue such examination, by proposing a question containing the particulars of an answer supposed to have been made by such witness before a committee of the House of Commons, or in any other place; and by demanding of him whether the particulars so suggested were not the answers he had so made."

1788, April 10.-Pa. 592.

Second Question.-Whether it be competent for the managers to produce an examination taken without oath by the rest of the council in the absence of Mr. Hastings the governour-general, charging Mr. Hastings with corruptly receiving three lacks 54,105 rupees, which examination came to his knowledge, and was by him transmitted to the court of directors as a proceeding of the said councillours, in order to introduce the proof of his demeanour thereupon ;—it being alleged by the managers for the Commons, that he took no steps to clear himself, in the opinion of the said directors, of the guilt thereby imputed, but that he took active means to prevent the examination by the said councillours of his servant Cantoo Baboo? 1789, May 14.—Pa. 677.

Answer. The lord chief baron of the court of exchequer, delivered the unanimous opinion, of the judges, upon the said question, in the negative-and gave his reasons. 1789, May 20.-Pa. 718.

Third Question.-Whether the instructions from the court of directors of the United Company of Merchants of England

trading to the East-Indies to Warren Hastings, Esquire, governour-general; Lieutenant-General John Clavering, the Honourable George Monson, Richard Barwell, Esquire, and Philip Francis, Esquire, councillours, constituted and appointed the governour-general and council of the said United Company's Presidency of Fort William in Bengal, by an act of parliament passed in the last session, intituled, "An act for establishing certain regulations for the better management of the affairs of the East-India Company, as well in India as in Europe;" of the 29th of March 1774, Par. 31, 32, and 35; the consultation of the 11th March 1775; the consultation of the 13th of March 1775, up to the time that Mr. Hastings left the council; the consultation of the 20th of March 1775; the letter written by Mr. Hastings to the court of directors on the 25th of March 1775-it being alleged that Mr. Hastings took no steps to explain or defend his conduct-are sufficient to introduce the examination of Nundcomar, or the proceedings of the rest of the councillours on the said 13th of March, after Mr. Hastings left the council, such examination and proceedings charging Mr. Hastings with corruptly receiving three lacks 54,105 rupees ?

1789, May 21.--Pa. 730.

Answer.-The lord chief baron of the court of exchequer delivered the unanimous opinion of the judges, upon the said question, in the negative-and gave his reasons. 1789, May 27.--Pa. 771.

Fourth Question.--Whether the publick accounts of the nizamut and bhela, under the seal of the begum attested also by the nabob, and transmitted by Mr. Goring to the board of council at Calcutta, in a letter bearing date the 29th June 1775, received by them, recorded without objection on the part of Mr. Hastings, and transmitted by him likewise without objection to the court of directors, and alleged to contain accounts of money received by Mr. Hastings; and it being in proof that Mr. Hastings, on the 11th of May 1778, moved the board to comply with the requisitions of the nabob Mobareck ul Dowlah, to re-appoint the

Munny Begum, and rajah Goordass (who made up those accounts) to the respective offices they before filled-and which was accordingly resolved by the board-ought to be read? 1789, June 17.—Pa. 855.

Answer. The lord chief baron of the court of exchequer delivered the unanimous opinion of the judges, upon the said question, in the negative-and gave his reasons. 1789, June 24.-Pa. 922.

Fifth Question.Whether the paper delivered by Sir Elijah Impey, on the 7th of July 1775, in the supreme court, to the secretary of the supreme council, in order to be transmitted to the council as the resolution of the court in respect to the claim made for Roy Radachurn, on account of his being vakeel of the nabob Mobareck ul Dowlab-and which paper was the subject of the deliberation of the council on the 31st July 1775, Mr. Hastings being then present, and by them transmitted to the court of directors, as a ground for such instructions from the court of directors as the occasion might seem to require-may be admitted as evidence of the actual state and situation of the nabob, with reference to the English government ?

1789, July 2.--Pa. 1001.

Answer.-The lord chief baron of the court of exchequer delivered the unanimous opinion of the judges, upon the said question, in the affirmative-and gave his reasons. 1789, July 7.-Pa. 1030.

Sixth Question.-Whether it be, or be not, competent to the managers for the Commons to give evidence upon the charge in the sixth article, to prove that the rent at which the defendant, Warren Hastings, let the lands mentioned in the said sixth article of charge, to Kelleram, fell into arrear and was deficient and whether, if proof were offered that the rent fell into arrear immediately after the letting, the evidence would in that case be competent.

VOL. VII.

74

1790, April 22.-Pa. 364.

Answer. The lord chief baron of the court of exchequer delivered the unanimous opinion of the judges upon the said question "That it is not competent to the managers for the Commons to give evidence upon the charge in the sixth article, to prove that the rent at which the defendant, Warren Hastings, let the lands mentioned in the said sixth article of charge to Kelleram, fell into arrear, and was deficient"—and gave his reasons.

1790, April 27.-Pa. 388.

Seventh Question.-Whether it be competent for the managers for the Commons to put the following question to the witness upon the sixth article of charge; viz. "What impression the letting of the lands to Kelleram and Cullian Sing made on the minds of the inhabitants of that country?" 1790, April 27.-Pa. 391.

Answer. The lord chief baron of the court of exchequer delivered the unanimous opinion of the judges upon the said question "That it is not competent to the managers for the Commons to put the following question to the witness, upon the sixth article of charge; viz. What impression the letting of the lands to Kelleram and Cullian Sing made on the minds of the inhabitants of that country"-and gave his 1790, April 29.-Pa. 413.

reasons.

Eighth Question. Whether it be competent to the managers for the Commons to put the following question to the witness, upon the seventh article of charge; viz. "Whether more oppressions did actually exist under the new institution than under the old ?" 1790, April 29.-Pa. 415.

Answer. The lord chief baron of the court of exchequer delivered the unanimous opinion of the judges upon the said question "That it is not competent to the managers for the Commons to put the following question to the witness, upon the seventh article of charge; viz. Whether more oppressions did actually exist under the new institution than under the old"-and gave his reasons.

1790, May 4.--Pa. 428.

al

Ninth Question.-Whether the letter of the 13th April 1781 can be given in evidence by the managers for the Commons, to prove that the letter of the 5th of May 1781, ready given in evidence, relative to the abolition of the provincial council, and the subsequent appointment of the committee of revenue, was false in any other particular than that which is charged in the 7th article of charge?

1790, May 20.-Pa. 557.

Answer. The lord chief baron of the court of exchequer delivered the unanimous opinion of the judges upon the said question "That it is not competent for the managers on the part of the Commons to give any evidence on the seventh article of impeachment, to prove that the letter of the 5th May 1781 is false in any other particular than that wherein it is expressly charged to be false"-and gave his 1790, June 2.-Pa. 634.

reasons.

Tenth Question.-Whether it be competent to the managers for the Commons to examine the witness to any account of the debate which was had on the 9th day of July 1778, previous to the written minutes that appear upon the consultation of that date?

1794, February 25.-Lords' Minutes.

Answer. The lord chief justice of the court of common pleas delivered the unanimous opinion of the judges upon the said question-" That it is not competent to the managers for the Commons to examine the witness, Philip Francis, Esquire, to any account of the debate which was had on the 9th day of July 1778, previous to the written minutes that appear upon the consultation of that date"-and gave his reasons.

1794, February 27.-Lords' Minutes.

Eleventh Question.-Whether it is competent for the managers for the Commons, in reply, to ask the witness, whether, between the time of the original demand being made upon Cheit Sing, and the period of the witness's leav