doubts whether a case of this kind could be brought under them. His notion was, when extortion and other misdemeanors were mentioned, that this must mean misdedemeanors of a similar nature, and that even faults of a lower description, if of a different kind, could not properly be cognizable under these acts. However, it was very probable that the construction put upon the acts by the honourable and learned gentleman was the right one, and that crimes of less magnitude than private extortion, for it was to this that the acts evidently referred, might be cognizable under the acts. As to the present case coming under them, that was out of the question. Yet he must at the same time say, that what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bankes) had said militated a good deal against this construction, for the case of Mr. Holland, where the Attorney-General at that time (Lord Eldon), thought that political matters were cognizable under these acts, was undoubtedly very strong-but in addition to the authority of the then Attorney-General, we had the authority of the King's Bench here, for he was speaking under correction, as he might be mistaken, that court seemed to have established this construction. The Attorney-General moved the information, and if the Court of King's Bench allowed the proceedings to go on, it appeared like a proof that they had been of opinion that the crimes mentioned in the information were cognizable under the acts. These authorities then were certainly in favour of the honourable gentleman's construction of the acts. But then the answer that had been given by the honourable and learned gentleman was very strong. The accused, it appears, had not stated the objection, and, no doubt, it was very possible that the point might have been overlooked. But this he would say, in passing, if the construction put on these acts by the honourable and learned gentleman was the right one, and probably it was, there must be a very considerable alteration in them, in order to render them capable of answering any useful purpose, as it appeared that few things came under them, and that very considerable delay might take place; so that this mode of proceeding could not at least be recommended from any convenience of dispatch. He had indeed heard it said, that all those offences were punishable in the courts of law. Undoubtedly the court of King's Bench was competent to the trial

of

of such offences. But though this might be the case in point of theory, yet, in matters of this sort, it was not altogether the case in point of practice; and this, therefore, ought to be the object of future consideration. In the present case, the House had got into a difficulty, and he lamented to say, that he saw no way of getting rid of it, and therefore it must be fairly encountered. But as to the principle of impeachment in this instance, he might certainly change his opinion if he heard some new facts that had not yet come to his knowledge, or stronger arguments than he had as yet heard; but unless something of this sort should happen, he must say, that he was fully determined to vote against an impeachment. He might, to be sure, hear something that might give a different colour to the whole transaction, and then he would act as he saw proper. Now, he had been one of the most earnest to engage in the impeachment of Mr. Hastings, but before the conclusion of that trial, he had come to this opinion, that it was morally impossible that justice could be obtained he meant no reflection on the tribunal by which Mr. Hastings had been tried, with regard to crimes connected with India, by the mode of impeachment. He felt this so strongly, that nothing but some new and very impressive information, indeed, could induce him to vote in the present instance for a trial by impeachment. But it might be said, suppose you should be of opinion that Lord Wellesley had very much misconducted himself, what were you to do? That would depend on the degree of delinquency and on other circumstances. The opinion of the House of his conduct might be marked by a declaration of its sentiments, or if more than that should be required, then we had other modes of proceeding. But at all events, whatever might be the result, he hoped that the mode of impeachment would not be adopted. Now, as to the way in which we were proceeding at present, there was one mode, and only one that he saw, by which this matter could be brought to a conclusion before the end of the present session. To be sure it might be said that he wished to withdraw himself from the affair altogether when he proposed it; but it was to sacrifice the whole day to business, to go on with the evidence at eleven o'clock in the morning, and to proceed with other business at the usual hour, in the same manner as the Lords had lately done. He allowed that he must be absent

absent if this mode should be adopted, for in the situation in which he stood, for him to attend would be absolutely impossible. This, therefore, was certainly not a mode to which he was partial, as his absence would be necessary, but at present he saw no other. But there were some here of opinion that the examination of this oral testimony would not last long-perhaps not beyond two or three days; but if, contrary to expectation, it should last long, then he did not see any mode that could answer the purpose, except this vigorous prosecution of the business, which must be conducted in the absence of many members who would wish to be present. There might also be another objection to this point of form. But, however, we had only now to proceed with the evidence for two or three days; and if it was likely to go to any length, then it would be necessary to adopt some new and extraordinary course; for he felt that it was necessary, in justice to the accuser and the accused, that the House should come to some decision this session. The hon. gentleman who conducted this affair, must feel delay extremely unpleasant, though he certainly was not responsible for the delays of the House of Commons; and, on the other hand, it would be dreadful to keep the accused and his friends in suspense. He thought, therefore, that we should begin directly, and proceed with as much dispatch as the forms of the House would allow.

Mr. Paull then moved, that the House should go into a committee on the charge, and that the papers and accounts presented in the last and present session should be referred to the committee, and that the witnesses should attend it.-Ordered.

The House having gone into a committee, Lord Folkstone in the chair,

Mr. Paull moved that Lord Teignmouth be called in. This was agreed to. His lordship was called in, and had a chair provided for him by order of the committee.

Mr. Paull proceeded to examine the witness; but nothing of any particular interest occurred till he came to the question-" Whether in the opinion of the noble lord, colonel Scott ought to have been continued as resident at Lucknow, after the strongest objections against him had been made by the Nabob Vizier ?"

Mr. Garrow (the witness having been previously ordered to withdraw) objected to this question, on the ground

that

that it had nothing to do with the case, and that any opi nion was not legal evidence.

Dr. Laurence told the honourable and learned gentleman, that, in the proceedings before this House, strict legal evidence was not required, as nothing could be more different than the situation of the House of Commons in search of information, and that of a court of law. Opi nions had been admitted in the examination of witnesses in the case of Mr. Hastings. He also mentioned that Lord Hardwicke had ruled that, before the Peers, hearsay evidence respecting a conspiracy should be received, with the proviso that only legal evidence should be taken as far as the prisoner (Lord Lovat) was concerned. The question, he contended, was strictly in point. If his learned friend had, therefore, been acquainted with the practice of Parlia◄ ment, he would not have made this objection.

Mr. Garrow said that he was satisfied with the answer of the learned Doctor; for it seems he had strayed from the courts below to this place, where he found that legal knowledge was totally useless in the examination of witnesses. He thanked the learned Doctor for his lecture, and said that it seemed, from his report, that this House had resolved mast magnificently to depart from the rules of evidence which had been established by the wisdom of ages for the protection of our lives and liberties. He denied it was possible that hearsay evidence could be received in any Bri-. tish court of justice; and, indeed, the learned Doctor seemed to correct himself here; for he here added, that legal evidence only was received as far as the prisoner was concerned.

Mr. Windham observed upon the tone in which the learned gentleman had spoken, and said that though he had thanked his learned friend for his lecture, he had not profited by it. Now, he would tell that learned gentleman that he had profited by his lecture, and, moreover, that he did not even thank him for it. He had said he had come from the courts below, and from what he had said, would suppose he thought himself there still. The question was whether the rules of the courts below applied to parliamentary proceedings? Did the learned gentleman mean to say that they did, where the cases were so very different? If he did not mean to say this, he said nothing at all. As to the particular question, opinions might undoubtedly be received in this preliminary enquiry, provided they came from competent persons.

Dr.

Dr. Laurence referred the learned gentleman to the case of Lord Lovat, for the accuracy of what he had stated..

Mr. Garrow in explanation, said he had not asserted that the rules of evidence in the courts below, applied strictly to Parliamentary proceedings, but contended that the nearer we came to them, the better. He denied that hearsay and loose evidence could be admitted in a court of justice.

Mr. Francis and Lord H. Petty contended that questions as to opinion might be put in such cases as the present, to competent persons; that the object of the House was to gain information, and that the rules of evidence in the lower courts did not apply there.

Mr. Rose argued that it was not proper to admit mere opinions, even in parliamentary preliminary inquiries, and said that the House was much obliged to his learned friend for originating the present discussion.

Mr. Martin (of Galway), and Mr. Paull, argued in favour of putting the question.

- Mr. Alexander spoke against putting the question proposed.

Mr. Wilberforce thought it perfectly correct to interrogate, with regard to the constitution and practice of the Indian government, a person so competent to answer as the noble lord under examination. At the same time he would recommend to the honourable examiner to put his questions more in a clear and precise manner, in order that the answers should be decisive, and not left open for various constructions.

Mr. Paull conceived his question as precise as could be desired.

After a few words from Mr. Huskisson, the examination was resumed.

The scope of the examination appeared to relate to, the system upon which the noble witness acted in the government of India; the course which he would have followed in certain cases, in which Marquis Wellesley was concerned; his opinion upon certain acts of that noble Marquis; his construction of different treaties, particularly that concluded between the Company and the Nabob of Oude, in 1798.

Upon the construction of the latter treaty, it was con tended by Mr. C. Wynne, Sir A. Wellesley and Mr. WalVOL. III. 1805-6.

LI

lace,