horrible cruelties alleged to have been committed by one Dibi Sing, and lastly, of having been guilty of the murder of Nundcomar. He therefore prayed the house either to bring forward and prosecute those charges in specific articles, and thereby give him an opportunity of vindicating his innocence, or to grant him such other redress as to their justice and wisdom might seem fit. A motion was made that the petition should be brought up,which was, after a debate, agreed to without a division. A difficulty occurred as to the mode of ascertaining the words spoken. The notes of the short-hand writers, who attended the trial, being contended for by several of the members, and objected to by Mr. Fox and Sir Grey Cooper as contrary to the uniform practice of parliament. Their objections appeared of so much importance to the house, that a committee was appointed to search for precedents. The committee reported, that there were no precedents of any complaint of words spoken by managers in Westminster-Hall to be found. The managers again urged their objections to the examination of any short-hand writers; but the favourers of the petition, insisting upon the duty of the house to govern itself in such cases, by what should appear most likely to promote the ends of substantial justice prevailed; and after a division of 115 to 66, the short-hand writer was called in. The next question was, whether all the particulars complained of by the petitioners should be enquired into, or whether the house might select what part they pleased. Mr. Pitt and others were of opinion, that the house ought to pay no attention to the words said to have been spoken in the former year, as the complaint had been so long deferred: and they should confine theselves to the words relative to Nundcomar. This was also objected to by the managers, as an arbitrary proceeding, but finally agreed to by the house. Upon this question,

Mr. SHERIDAN remarked, that all partial examinations of the petition were improper; the house had, for the purpose of granting justice to Mr. Hastings, received, and agreed to take into their consideration the petition; he hoped, therefore, that they would not be so unjust to his right honorable friend (Mr. Burke) as to refuse to take the whole of the petition into their serious consideration, that he might have an opportunity of meeting and refuting the charges which it contained. If the house proceeded upon the principle which they had avowed to proceed upon in their reception of the petition, the principle of doing justice to Mr. Hastings, what right had they to garble his grievances, and to say, "This we will, and this we will not consider ?" If they considered any, they were bound to consider

the whole. The mode proposed by the amendment might possibly be thought a more handy way of passing a slur upon the managers of the prosecution; but it was a mode which he sincerely hoped that the house would not adopt.

After much altercation, in which Mr. Fox complained in strong and pointed terms of the indignity and injustice with which the managers were treated; it was agreed, that some part of Mr. Burke's speech preceding the words complained of, should be read; which done, and the offensive words ascertained, the Marquis of Graham rose, and moved, "that the said words were not authorized by any proceedings of that house."

Mr. Sheridan asked if that was the only measure intended to be brought forward, or whether it was to be followed up by any other resolution?

The Marquis having replied, that at present he knew of none. Mr. Fox observed, that granting this to be the case, he for one, saw no objection to it, and should not trouble the house with any arguments against it; since, subsequently to the passing of the motion, it would prove fully competent for Mr. Burke or any other manager to repeat the same expressions. Mr. Pitt followed.

Mr. Sheridan said, that he certainly had declared in Westminster Hall, that he thought the execution of Nundcomar a foul murder. Would any gentleman who had read the trial, or would the right honorable gentleman opposite to him stand up and declare that he was conscientiously convinced that he ought to have been executed? If the house commanded him not to allude to the transactions in question, he should certainly pay obedience; but if it did not, he should think that he deserted his duty if he omitted to charge Nundcomar's execution as a murder.

Mr. Fox said, that he felt himself justified in still persisting to declare, that he would call Nundcomar's execution a murder, unless the house told him to the contrary; and that the managers, he contended, ought to be enabled to understand explicitly what the motion

meant.

The Marquis of Graham said, that he had not wished to act otherwise than delicately to the managers; but the debate had changed the face of things; and since they insinuated that they could not go on without getting themselves into considerable perplexity, because the

motion did not condemn the words already spoken, he would move an amendment, to remove that objection. The Marquis then added to the motion these words, "and that the words of the right honorable Edmund Burke, one of the said managers, viz. he (meaning Warren Hastings, Esq. murdered that man, (meaning Nundcomar) by the hands of Sir Elijah Impey, ought not to have been spoken."

This produced another long debate, in which Mr. Fox endea voured to prove both the relevancy of Mr. Burke's words, and the impropriety and injustice of the interference of the house; and was answered by Mr. Pitt and Colonel Phipps. The house at length divided; when there appeared for Lord Graham's motion 135; against it 66.

MAY 6.

COUNTY ELECTION BILL.

that

Mr. SHERIDAN said, that notwithstanding it was too evident that the county election act, in operation and effect, had been found to be productive of great inconvenience, and therefore must, he feared, be repealed; he gave the noble lord who introduced it full credit for the goodness of his intention, and the just and constitutional principle on which it was founded, as indeed every bill was likely to be which came from the hands of the noble lord in question. But it was highly necessary some bill should pass to regulate and ascertain the right of voting, since it was well known that committees of that house had not only decided differently, in respect to the right of voting, but that two committees, who had tried the merits of a petition complaining of an undue election for one and the same county, had given decisions diametrically opposite to each other. Mr. Sheridan declared, that he highly approved of the honorable gentleman's idea of a committee being appointed to enquire into the laws of election, as they stood at present; and he trusted that, at the present advanced period of the session, all possible expedition would be used.

MAY 20.

MOTION BY MR. MAINWARING FOR LEAVE TO BRING IN A BILL TO EXPLAIN AND AMEND THE ACT ON 6 GEO. III. CAP. 36, RELATIVE TO TREES, SHRUBS, PLANTS, &c.

Mr. SHERIDAN expressed his pleasure at perceiving that the honorable member was inimical to the extension and increase of the penal laws. There were so many of those statutes, and in several cases they were carried to so extreme a degree of rigour and severity, that they proved a disgrace to the laws and to the country. He hoped, therefore, that the house would always look with a peculiar degree of delicacy on every endeavour to increase the number of penal statutes, and to multiply robberies, felonies, and offences coming under those descriptions. With regard to the object of the honorable gentleman's proposed bill, he did not clearly comprehend it. The honorable gentleman had said, the legislature, when it passed the act of the 6th of the present king, had one thing in their contemplation, and had enacted another. Was the fact strictly correct, or was it under the pretence of protecting nursery grounds to make it felony in a school-boy to rob an orchard; or was it that gooseberry bushes ought to be fenced round with gibbets, that the honorable gentleman now moved for a bill of amendment? If it were intended to go to such an extent, it would be carrying the penal laws to a ridiculous degree of rigour.

The house divided; ayes 30; noes 6. Leave was therefore given to bring in the bill.

JUNE 10.

WAYS AND MEANS.

Mr. Pitt entered into a state of the finances of the country, and spoke at considerable length.

Mr. SHERIDAN rising next, observed, that in the case of a statement by which the public prosperity was to be estimated, it became so natural to wish to realise the favourable expectations which might be entertained of the situation of the country, that it was a task extremely painful to raise any dispute, or even to insinuate any doubts which might tend to remove the grateful delusion. Upon an occasion like this, however, it was impossible to be silent; and, therefore, he should think himself warranted in making a trespass upon the attention of the house. Certain propositions had been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the course of his speech, and it would be very easy for him to lay down other propositions which would entirely contradict them; but this would be going upon grounds too loose for the house to form any judgment of the merits of their several affirmations, which could only be established by a reference to authentic documents. To these he was willing to refer himself; and it would be a test of sincerity in the Chancellor of the Exchequer, much to be wished for, if he would submit himself to the same trial, and would not oppose any motion which he should make for the production of such papers as would affirm or disaffirm, by an irresistible authority, what they could severally advance in opposition to each other. Superficial and slight indeed was the manner in which the right honorable gentleman (Mr. Pitt) had condescended to justify the loan he had proposed. He had said little or nothing about what the house had a right to expect to be more particularly informed of; and he had scarcely shewn a cause of any kind, much less a sufficient cause, why the nation should be re