whether, if proof were offered that the rent fell in arrear immediately after the letting, the evidence would in that case be competent?

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.

Question.

1790, April 27. - Pa. 388.

Seventh.

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 reasons. 1790, April 29. - Pa. 413.

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.

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, already 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 seventh 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 Com mons to give any evidence on the seventh article of

impeachment, to prove that the letter of the 5th of May, 1781, is false in any other particular than that wherein it is expressly charged to be false,"-and gave his reasons. 1790, June 2. - Pa. 634.

Question.

Tenth.

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?

Answer.

1794, February 25.-Lords' Minutes.

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.

Question.

1794, February 27.- Lords' Minutes.

Eleventh.

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 Cheyt Sing and the period of the witness's leaving Bengal, it was at any time in his power to have reversed or put a stop to the demand upon Cheyt Sing, the same not being relative to any matter originally given in evidence by the defendant? 1794, February 27.- 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 for the Managers for the Commons to ask the witness, whether, between the time of the original demand being made upon Cheyt Sing and the period of his leaving Bengal, it was at any time in his power to have reversed or put a stop to the demand upon Cheyt Sing, the same not being relative to any matter originally given in evidence by the defendant," and gave his reasons.

1794, March 1.- Lords' Minutes.

Twelfth.

Question. Whether a paper, read in the Court of Directors on the 4th of November, 1783, and then referred by them to the consideration of the Committee of the whole Court, and again read in the Court of Directors on the 19th of November, 1783, and amended and ordered by them to be published for the information of the Proprietors, can be received in evidence, in reply, to rebut the evidence, given by the defendant, of the thanks of the Court of Directors, signified to him on the 28th of June, 1785? 1794, March 1.- Lords' Minutes.

Answer. Whereupon the Lord Chief-Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, having conferred with the rest of the Judges present, delivered their unanimous opinion upon the said question, in the negative, and gave his reasons.

1794, March 1.-Lords' Minutes.

REMARKS

IN

VINDICATION OF THE PRECEDING REPORT.

THE preceding Report was ordered to be printed for the use of the members of the House of Commons, and was soon afterwards reprinted and published, in the shape of a pamphlet, by a London bookseller. In the course of a debate which took place in the House of Lords, on Thursday, the 22d of May, 1794, on the Treason and Sedition Bills, Lord Thurlow took occasion to mention " a pamphlet which his Lordship said was published by one Debrett, of Piccadilly, and which had that day been put into his hands, reflecting highly upon the Judges and many members of that House. This pamphlet was, he said, scandalous and indecent, and such as he thought ought not to pass unnoticed. He considered the vilifying and misrepresenting the conduct of judges and magistrates, intrusted with the administration of justice and the laws of the country, to be a crime of a very heinous nature, and most destructive in its consequences, because it tended to lower them in the opinion of those who ought to feel a proper reverence and respect for their high and important stations; and that, when it was stated to the ignorant or the wicked that their judges and magistrates were ignorant and corrupt, it tended to lessen their respect for and obedience to the laws themselves, by teaching them to think ill of those who admin