trial was sent over to mislead, and that much important information relative to it, was kept back. This convinced him sir Elijah was conscious how illegally he had acted. Else why did not sir Elijah mention any thing of the points of law in the ac count of the trial? Did he mean merely to gratify that sort of idle curiosity that inclined people to read the published accounts of trials at the Old Bailey, merely to see what was the fact charged and proved? In a trial like that of Nundcomar, the points of law, and the manner in which they were settled, were the mat. ters dear to England, and weighed against them; the fact itself was nothing.-Sir Gilbert went into arguments to prove that sir Elijah intended, at all events, to put Nundcomar out of the way. To establish this, he stated the strong prevalence of party in India at the time, the great heats and animosities that influenced and irritated the different parties, the superiority of that of the Governor-general over that of the majority in council; the known fiendship of sir Elijah for Mr. Hastings, the equally well known dislike of sir Elijah for the majority, and vice versa, their dislike for him. He quoted a passage of a letter from sir Elijah to lord Rochford, to prove his having expressly declared himself a friend to the party of Mr. Hastings. He instanced sir Elijah's declaration at the bar, that Mr. Hastings had handed to him a copy of the libel burnt by the common hangman, as a proof of Mr. Hastings's intimate connexion with sir Elijah; a conduct in which Mr. Hastings had violated every duty, and contradicted his own solemn act and deed. He read another passage in the letter to prove that sir Elijah was well acquainted with the politics of Bengal, previous to the trial of Nundcomar. That, and a variety of other circumstances, added to the notoriety of the fact, sir Gilbert said, tended to prove that sir Elijah well knew that Nundcomar had publicly stood forward the informer against Mr. Hastings, having charged him with gross peculation, and that he was engaged as a principal witness in a pending prosecution, at the very time that he was apprehended, indicted, and tried.

He next proceeded to investigate all the proceedings previous to, and upon, the trial, in order to establish that part of the charge against sir Elijah. With regard to the crime of forgery, it was first to be considered, whether it was a capital

offence in India? It was, he observed, not necessarily punishable with death any where. In India it never had been deemed the object of such a punishment. He recapitulated the transaction in the outset of the trial, the objections made by Nundcomar's counsel, and the manner in which the chief justice had received those objections, answering them with unbecoming warmth and passion. He said, it was not to this day certainly known who was the person that drew the indictment, and the strong presumption that it was drawn by one of the judges, (Mr. Tolfree having in evidence at their bar declared, he saw it in the hand-writing of Mr. Justice Le Maitre) was a ground to warrant a suspicion that sir Elijah was concerned in preparing it. The great skill and correctness with which it was drawn, proved it to have been the work of a very able practitioner; it must have been drawn by a lawyer, and by one well skilled in the draft of such documents. Had it been the work of a counsel, its acknowledged 'merit would have drawn forth its author, and have made his fortune; the obscurity, therefore, in which the real truth, in respect to this particular was involved, and all the mysterious circumstances relative to it, led the mind to something stronger than mere conjecture, as to who was the drawer of it. Sir Gilbert reasoned on the impropriety of a judge's stepping so far out of the line of his duty, as to take upon him such an office, and contended that the exercise of it must unavoidably have biassed his mind, since no man could take so materially active a part in a prosecution without imbibing prejudice in limine, and feeling a sort of interest in the conviction of a prisoner, highly unbecoming the character and duty of a judge. He went into the discussion of the circumstance of the plea of Nundcomar, and quoted from Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown, a case of two rebels, the Kinlocks, tried at St. Margaret's Hill, as reported by Mr. Justice Forster, who then sat upon the bench. It appeared from the report, that the court had even submitted to a gross irregularity; an irregularity which, in the end, proved fatal to the indictment, rather than not give the pri soners the full benefit of the forms of English law.

He called the attention of the Court to the great difference between the two cases; the Kinlocks were indicted for high treason, Nundcomar was indicted for forgery, long since committed, and he

was not liable to be tried at all in India, either under a British statute, or as having committed a capital offence. He quoted a variety of learned authorities, to show that the plea of Nundcomar ought not to have been cited. He reasoned upon the objection that had been made to Mr. Elliot's taking upon him the office of interpreter of the question put to the witnesses, and their answers; and said, he knew that the high sense of honour, and strict integrity of his relation, were more likely to add to the security of the prisoner, than tend to increase his danger: yet it was very natural for him and his counsel to take the objection. Mr. Elliot having interpreted the indictment, it was also natural for Nundcomar to consider Mr. Elliot, as in some sort a prejudiced person, and to suppose that his mind was prepared to render the evidence in the most unfavourable and strong turn of expression. The manner in which sir Elijah had answered the objection, tended to over-awe the counsel for the prisoner. He stated other parts of the conduct of sir Elijah, that, in his opinion, proved him to have acted as counsel and agent for the prosecution. He remarked upon the criminality of such conduct, declaring it to have been directly the reverse of that which the mild spirit of the law of England dictates in the conduct of all trials for life and death. He said, the evidence delivered by Mr. Farrer in the House of Commons was the most satisfactory that could be adduced; and he reasoned upon it in all its parts. He spoke of the complaints urged by Mr. Farrer, that his witnesses had been cross-examined in a manner different from any that had been examined on the part of the prosecution, and that sir Elijah had kept one of them seven hours under examination. He declared that sir Elijah's defence of his conduct in this particular, on the ground, "that the counsel for the prosecution proved incompetent to the task, and that he had conducted the examination, in order to further the ends of justice," afforded an unanswerable proof of his unjustifiable conduct, and strongly corroborated the suspicion, that he acted in the whole of the transaction, as the political instrument of Mr. Hastings, to whom Nundcomar was doubtless made a political victim. Sir Gilbert next went through a discussion of every part of the evidence, and examined the characters of several witnesses for and against the prisoner, con

tending that the partiality of sir Elijah's conduct throughout the trial, was obvious and undeniable.

Having animadverted upon the manner in which sir Elijah summed up his charge to the jury, sir Gilbert said, that only two or three other points, which were relative to the conduct of sir Elijah after the trial, in respect to his over-ruling the arrest of judgment that had been moved, and in respect to his refusal to grant a respite, called for the attention of the Committee. These were, if possible, still more important than all which he had yet offered to their consideration on the subject. With the consent of the Committee, therefore, he would wish to defer the conclusion of his opening till the day of the debate, being himself so extremely fatigued, and conceiving the Committee to have found themseves equally fatigued, that as it would add greatly to his personal ease and accommodation, so he hoped it would prove generally satisfactory. He observed, that, in fact, the postponement of the remainder of what he had to say, previous to the Committee's entering upon a general debate on the charge, till the day of debaté, would prove an advantage to the cause, and as he would not, on that day, take up much of their time, he hoped there would be no objection to his then moving, That the chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Mr. For conceived that the proposition, considering the long speech that his hon. friend had that day delivered, and the little ground there was for complaining of it as containing any thing not immediately pertinent and necessary, could not be objected against.

Sir Richard Sutton, after having remarked that certainly some considera. tion was due to the feelings of the person who was more immediately the subject of the charge then before the Committee, added, that gentlemen must naturally expect that the person to whom he alluded, was extremely anxious that the Committee should come to a decision as soon as, with a due regard to the forms of that House, they should be able. He contended, that much delay had already taken place, and that the examination of the witnesses had more than once been put off, to suit the convenience of the honourable accuser, and that any longer unnecessary delay would be equally an act of injustice to the person accused, and a disgrace upon themselves and their

the House ever since ten in the morning, and had been engaged in parliamentary business of a nature equally important. He, for one, therefore, felt himself so fatigued and exhausted, that he was unfit to proceed to take part in a debate of such uncommon magnitude.

Mr. Pitt having adverted to the importance of the charge, and the great desire that must prevail on all hands to have it brought to a decision, added, that he therefore hoped it was not to be the practice in that House for every gentleman to preface any subject he thought proper to introduce with a speech of such considerable length, as to contain matter enough to fill a large volume. Not that he meant to impute any sort of impropriety to the hon. baronet for having spoken so long; he was fully persuaded he had not used a word or an expression that he did not think necessary to the illustration of his subject: all he wished to guard against was the introduction of such an inconvenience to the public business, as the making it a custom always to preface every subject with a speech so lengthened, as to prevent any other topic being discussed for two days together. With regard to the wish of that side of the House to proceed, gentlemen must not wonder that it should be the earnest desire of every member to bring the first charge, which had been so long before them, to a decision. He, for one, felt that desire; but if the hon. baronet found himself so exhausted that he could not finish his opening speech, and wait the debate afterwards, he could only lament the cause of that circumstance. If the hon. baronet thought himself able without inconvenience to conclude his speech, and let the Committee have nothing remaining but to enter upon the debate at another opportunity, he owned it would give him very great satisfaction, because two days had already been occupied by the opening, and he wished to save the dedication of a third to the same purpose, not at all feeling any difficulty in declaring, that from a sense of duty, and for the sake of public convenience, he was very much against the practice of continuing a debate for more than one day, where it could be

avoided.

Mr. Fox observed, that there was something new in a speech of the sort that his hon. friend had made, since, perhaps, there never had been one delivered, which so distinctly and so closely adhered to its

subject; but there was nothing new in adjourning in the midst of a debate. The very last session, another hon. friend of his (Mr. Sheridan) had made a still longer speech than his hon. friend had that day; but although his hon. friend had then completed his speech and concluded his argument, and although it was not so late an hour of the night as it then was, the Committee had thought it right to adjourn the debate till another day. Nor was it even new for the House to admit three or four days for the opening of a matter of importance, as was the case in regard to sir Thomas Rumbold. In that charge, indeed, the House had appointed counsel to open, and the counsel were two gentlemen, who now were members of that House, but who, he recol. lected, had taken four days to open their charge. With regard to his hon. friend's speech, the matter in it had been placed in new and different lights, from those in which gentlemen might perhaps have before looked at the subject; and therefore it required some more time for deliberation, than if the argument had not been quite new. He was notwithstanding aware, that however new the lights thrown upon a subject, and however different the views in which it was at any time placed, different people would consider it, as their previous ideas, their received notions, and their minds inclined them respecting its general nature. The speech of his hon. friend that day was much more replete with new information, than the charge respecting the Begums, though that had been opened in so masterly a speech, deservedly exciting the highest admiration and applause, by anThe other of his honourable friends. reason was obvious; for, upon that charge he had spent more time in previous examination and inquiry than upon this; and, therefore, he was fully apprized what was the sort of argument which best applied to it. For this reason, ingeniously as his hon. friend had argued it, his arguments had not appeared to him with so great an air of novelty, as those he had that day heard on the Nundcomar charge. But as the right hon. gentleman had given up his expectation of going into the general debate that night, all that remained between them was to settle about the finishing the opening. His hon. friend he was sure if he had felt himself able, would have proceeded; but, as that was unfortunately not the case, and as his hon. friend had declared,