had been most studiously and cautiously guarded against. That such an idea as the right honorable gentleman had stated, was implied by parliament, was not, Mr. Sheridan thought, to be tolerated; the right honorable gentleman, and the gentleman behind him, seemed to have adopted a principle which might be extended for seven years, as well as three; and, therefore, not choosing to lend his sanction, to the principle, that the executive power ought to continue maimed and crippled by useless and harsh restrictions, for three years, he should move to leave out the words "three years," and that the words "one year" be inserted in the blank.

Mr. Chancellor Pitt answered, that the honorable gentleman who spoke last, seemed to have done him more justice than the honorable gentleman near him, because he had expressly stated, that as they could not fix the precise period of the duration of His Majesty's illness, he would agree to three years, as a period the most extreme and distant that could be taken; but that if His Majesty should not recover soon, the restrictions ought to cease within the period proposed; and the honorable and respectable member who had introduced it, had expressly stated a similar sentiment. How then could it be considered, that, adopting the words "three years" to fill up the blank under the construction which had been laid down, was making parliament declare that its opinion was, that the restrictions ought to last for three years? With regard to the amendment proposed, would not the honorable gentleman, by what he was doing, defeat his own purpose? The honorable gentleman had observed that he moved an earlier day, that it might not appear to be the opinion of parliament, that parliament thought the restrictions ought to continue three years. He should conceive, that the honorable gentleman would serve his purpose better, by withdrawing his amendment, and letting the original motion be put.

Mr. Sheridan answered, if the motion for filling the blank with the words "three years" was carried, the right honorable gentleman had declared. it would appear that it was not the opinion of the house that the restriction should continue for three years. This was, Mr. Sheridan said, the most extraordinary opinion he had ever heard, and therefore, he should certainly persist in his amend

ment.

The question was put, and the clause filled up with the words "three years," agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the bill.

Mr. Sheridan begged leave to ask a question of the honorable and learned gentleman whom he saw opposite to him, the answer given to which would shew whether his amendment was necessary or not. His Majesty had power to grant a commission for opening parliament; and he desired to know whether the King had not power to invest those commissioners with full regal authorities.

He found from the precedents with which they had been furnished, that in the case of Henry the Sixth, when the Duke of York was appointed to exercise the royal authority in parliament, it might be done. What he wished to know then, was, could the King do the same thing by a general commission; or whether, as in the case of Lord Hardwicke, in the year 1754, he must issue a second commission to give the royal assent to any bill or bills?

The Master of the Rolls answered, that if the honorable gentleman meant to enquire whether the King could delegate the whole of his authority by one commission, he thought he could not do so; he could not, for instance, make his Attorney-General King. To make any man King by attorney, was a power that the King of England did not possess. With regard to the commissions issued in Henry the Sixth's reign, in the cases of the Duke of Gloucester in the commencement, and the Duke of York in a subsequent period; in both those cases the commissions issued under the great seal, and were confirmed by parliament.

Mr. Sheridan thanked the honorable and learned gentleman for answering him in part, but he had reasoned rather than answered him entirely. Mr. Sheridan proceeded to put his case again, and maintained that the commission appointing the Duke of Gloucester to hold the parliament, and give the royal assent to bills, was a case in point. The King was then a minor, incapable of acting for himself, as our king was at present incapable, though from another cause. Was there not in the King a power, not only to issue a commission investing commissioners with authority to open par

liament, but to give the royal assent to a bill, and to act in every instance with the royal authority.

The Attorney-General said he would answer the honorable gentleman in three words;-The King cannot.

Mr. Sheridan afterwards went again into the question which he had before put to the lawyers, grounding his second application upon a clause which he moved; the object of which was, to restrain His Majesty from granting any general commission, investing the commissioners with powers to open the parliament, give the royal assent to bills, &c. &c. &c.

The question was put on Mr. Sheridan's clause and negatived.

MARCH 19.

ORDNANCE ESTIMATES.

The report of the resolutions voted by the committee of supply on the ordnance estimates, having been brought up by Mr. Gilbert, and the resolutions read a first time, on the question being put "That these resolutions be read a second time." General Burgoyne, Mr. Courtenay, and Mr. Sheridan opposed them. The object of the resolutions was to grant a sum of 218,000l. for the extraordinaries of the ordnance. This demand was made by ministers, in consequence of a plan formed by the Master-General, for fortifying to a certain extent, the West India islands. In the course of the debate Mr. Courtenay was called to order by the speaker.

Mr. SHERIDAN rose to defend his honorable friend, Mr. Courtenay, who had, he thought, been rather improperly called to order.

The speaker answered, that it was an essential part of his duty, to preserve order. It was at all times disagreeable to him to interrupt gentlemen; but when they in a second speech, went into new reasoning and argument, instead of confining themselves to expla nation, he felt it to be his duty to interrupt them; and, however he might on any occasion mistake the point of duty, in respect to order, yet, when his intentions were of the nature which he had described, he conceived it to be unhandsome to make any reflection on his conduct.

Mr. Sheridan admitted that his honorable friend's words, when he was called to order from the chair, were not afterwards followed with that explanation,

which he had expected he was about to give; but the house well knew, when gentlemen were interrupted, it frequently happened they pursued a different train of ideas from those they had set out with. With regard to the question itself, he did not mean to speak to the military part of it, nor did he conceive this was the question before the house. But, if they were to rely on military authority, his honorable friend (Colonel Phipps) must excuse him, if, on account of his greater experience, he gave the preference to the authority of his honorable friend near him (General Burgoyne.) The real question, however, for their consideration, appeared to him to be, whether His Majesty's Chancellor of the Exchequer, in asking that sum from parliament, had giving the proper documents to satisfy the house, that the sum ought to be voted? Mr. Sheridan said, he thought the right honorable gentleman had not; because, last year he had himself submitted the very same motion, as that which was now made by his honorable friend. The right honorable gentleman had then declared that no estimate had been received by government from the West Indies, but that government expected one; and when it came, it should be laid on the table. Upon that suggestion, or rather promise, Mr Sheridan said, he had consented to wave his motion. He remarked, that he perfectly well recollected, the right honorable gentleman had last year said, the expense would probably amount to about 200,000l. but, that if it were double that sum, the object would deserve it. As it was confessed, that an estimate was now before the Board of Ordnance, the house ought to have it upon the table, before they proceeded to vote the money. Mr. Sheridan declared, he had not been present when the seamen were voted; but when he saw that 2000 additional seamen had been voted, it gave him great satisfaction, because he thence conceived, that the project of fortifying the West

India islands had been reconsidered by His Majesty's ministers, and rejected as impolitic; a conception to which the train of reasoning of the right honorable gentleman naturally led, when he spoke upon the subject, in the course of the preceding session.

The resolution for granting the sum demanded, was voted without a division.

MAY 4.

PETITION OF MR. HASTINGS.

-that

On the 3rd of February, Mr. Hastings presented a petition to the house of lords, in which, after recapitulating the proceedings, which had already been had from the commencement of the impeachment, he stated the great hardships to which its extraordinary duration had, and was likely still further to subject him. Among these, he mentioned the decease of several of his judges-the detention of witnesses necessary for his defence-the probability of his being deprived of many of them by various accidents-his health impaired, and his fortune wasted. He reminded them, that two articles only, out of twenty, had yet been gone through by his accusers— his expenses had already exceeded 20,000l. and consequently, that should his life be continued to the close of the trial, he might find himself destitute of the means of defence, and even of subsistence, and run the dreadful chance of having his character transmitted on the records blasted with unrefuted criminations. He therefore prayed that they would enable him to make his innocence, and he hoped his deserts, apparent, by proceeding without delay upon his trial. The intervention of the circuits of the judges rendered it impossible for the lords to proceed upon the trial before the 20th of April, when the court was resumed, and sat during the remainder of the session, seventeen days. The charge brought before them, and opened by Mr. Burke, was that relative to the corrupt receipt of money. In the course of his speech, Mr. Burke had occasion to remark upon the conduct of Mr. Hastings towards one of his accusers in India, called Nundcomar; and after relating other acts of injustice and cruelty, he added, that he had, at last, murdered that person, by the hands of Sir Elijah Impey. A few days after the charge had been opened, Major Scott presented a petition from Mr. Hastings to the house of commons, in which he stated, that Mr. Burke in supporting the charges, exhibited against him at the bar of the house of lords, had accused him of sundry heinous crimes not laid in the articles of impeachment. He instanced the charge of having been concerned in a plot for assassinating the Shahzada, and in another plot for putting to death the son of Jaffier Ally Khan; of being accessary to certain