part of the world; and, fecondly, the dates of the communication made by the court of Madrid of the feizure of the English fhips, and of its grounds for having fo done; and after, the dates of the intelligence received of the hodile preparations of that power. Thefe motions were mide with a view to cenfure the conduct of the chancellor of the exche quer, who, it was faid, in his fpeech upon the opening of the budget, had held forth the great advantages of the fouth-fea trade, at the time he knew it to be both infignificant and precarious and the profpect of a continuance of peace, when he knew we were upon the point of being embroiled with Spain.

These motions were refifted by adminiftration, as tending to a difclofure of circumftances, which, in the prefent con ucture, it would be dangerous to divulge; and the imputations they were intended to convey, were met with a general denial of their truth, and declarations that they fhould be ready to meet the charges fully and directly, as foon as it could be done with propriety. Upon a divifion, there appeared for the production of papers 121, against it 213.

A motion was alfo made by Mr. Francis, for an account of all the appointments of amballadors to Madrid fince the laft peace, the falaries paid them, and the periods of their refidence. This motion being acceded to, and the papers laid before the houfe, Mr. Francis moved a refolution grounded upon them, that it appearing," that fince the year 1783, four ambaffadors had been appointed to the court of Madrid, and an expence incurred on their account of 35,602 7. and that no ambaffadors had refided there but for

thirteen months, his majesty should be requefied to give directions for the due performance in future of the fervices belonging to thofe appointments." In aniwer to the charge implied in Mr. Francis's motion, a circumflantial account was given of the caufes, which had prevented the refidence of the ambaffadors in Spain; and the order of the day being call ed for, the houfe divided, for the order 95, again it 59.

On

In the houfe of lords, the addrefs, in anfwer to the meffage, was moved by the duke of Leeds, and feconded by lord Rawdon, and a motion for the production of papers relative to the capture of the veffels, and to the armaments preparing in Spain, was negatived without a divifion. the 12th of May, another motion was made by the earl of Kinnoul upon the fame fubject. His lordfhip obferved, that for his own part, he fhould not hesitate to declare, that he ftrongly fufpected the minifter of having, for purposes beft known to himfelf, kept back, for a confiderable time, the information given to the houfe by his majesty's meffage. He fufpected adminiftra- tion alfo of having neglected to make a timely preparation, proportioned to the armaments of Spain, by which neglect that country had been encouraged to defend the aggreffion complained of. He condemned his majefty's fervants for having deluded the country by holding out a profpect of permanent peace, when they must have known of the probable grounds of an ap proaching war. He judged it proper, therefore, to move for the date of the firft official information received. He wifhed not to move for any paper that could be objected to on the grounds of ftate fecrecy. The

fubftar.ce

fubftance of the information given in the remonftrance of the Spanish ambaffador had been stated in his majesty's message; he defired only to have the date of the receipt of that information. This could in no ways prove injurious to the interests of the country, and he thought it would neither be candid to the houfe, nor honourable to the minister, to refufe it. In conclufion, Lord Kinnoul moved for "An humble addrefs to his Majesty, that he would be graciously pleafed to order to be laid before the houfe, the date of the receipt of the remonftrance prefented by the Spanish ambassador to his majesty's ministers, by order of his court.'

Lord Walfingham then rofe, and faid, that the motion of the noble lord could not be agreed to, unless the houfe departed from a rule which they had invariably and wifely obferved; that of never fuffering papers to be produced relative to a negociation with a foreign power, pending fuch a negociation.

The motion was supported by lord Portchester, lord Carlisle, and lord Stormont and the question being put, the house divided, and there appeared, contents 34, non-contents 53.

On the 10th of May a vote of credit for one million paffed the house of commons without oppofition.

In our 30th volume we have given á particular account of the compeafation voted for the American loyalifts, of the principles upon which it was diftributed, and of the case of Mr. Harford.

Our readers will alfo find at the end of the historical part of this volume, a statement laid before the house of commons of the claims made, and of lofles allowed by the

commiffioners for examining the. claims of the American loyalifts. On the 11th of May, the chancellor of the exchequer, after ftating the amount of the claims given in by the American loyalifts, the amount allowed by the commiffioners, and the fums already paid, moved, that the fum of 224,000l. be granted for farther payments; and the fum of 32,000l. to make good the loffes fuftained by certain perfons, inhabi- · tants of the United States of America. Some of these, he said, had fuftained very heavy loffes by a conduct which entitled them to the munificence of this country; and it was found on enquiry, that the reafon why they had not applied in perfon for compenfation, was, that their loffes had deprived them of the means of leaving America. At the fame time he gave notice, that on the enfuing Tuefday he should propofe a compenfation, in the way of perpetual annuity, to the Penn family, whofe loffes were estimated by the commiffioners at 500,000l. and, alfo, for fome other claims not yet provided for.

He then moved a mode of compenfation for such persons as fustained loffes by fupplying the army or the navy with ftores, provifions, &c.; for fuch as fuffered by the ceffion of Florida; and for fuch as fuffered by loffes of income arifing from offices.

On the 14th, the chancellor of the exchequer called the attention of the committee to the loffes fustained by the family of Penn. Their case, he faid, was different from that of any other of the American loyalifts, and could not be governed by any of the rules already laid down by the houfe. He ftated their allowed lofs to be 500,000l. and pro[G 2]

pofed

pofed to grant to them and their heirs an annuity of 4000l. to be paid out of the confolidated fund. He obferved, that the state of Pennfylvania, fenfible of the great merit of the family, had granted a fum of 130,000 l. fterling, to be paid by inftalments. The fact, however, was, that 11,000l. was all that had been paid, though the family had no reafon to doubt the ultimate payment. He thought that the granting of this annuity, in the manner propofed, would be a ftrong mark of the national generofity and respect for the fervices of their great ancestor. He hoped the committee would think with him, that the annuity he had propofed was neither profufe on the one hand, nor sparing on the other. He concluded by moving a refolution for granting the faid annuity from the 5th of January 1790.

Mr. F. Montagu and other members were of opinion, that 5000l. ought to be the least fum granted as an annuity to that refpectable family. Mr. Wilmot argued, that taking the cafe of Mr. Harford, whofe lois was eftimated at 230,000l. and who received a compenfation of 70,000l. as a rule, a grant of 5000 per annum would fill be below the mark. Mr. Fox and Mr. Francis thought 4000/. fufficient, and declaring they fhould take the fenfe of the committee; that fum was agreed upon without a divifion.

On the 17th of May, a meffage from his majefty was delivered by the chancellor of the exchequer, ac-, quainting the houfe with his intentions of granting to the Rev. Dr. Willis, a penfion of one thoufand pounds a year nett, for twenty-one years; and requesting the affiftance of parliament for that purpose: a bill was the next day ordered to be

brought in for the purpose mentioned in the meffage, and paffed both houses.

On the 26th of May the house having refolved itself into a committee of the whole house, upon the tontine act of the laft feffions, Mr. Pitt begged leave to remind the committee, that the tontine had originally been propofed as an experiment, and, at the time, it had appeared to him a reasonable expectation, that it would have proved of equal advantage to the public and the fubfcribers. This, however, had not been the cafe; and although the tontine originally bore a premium, it had fince been at a confiderable discount, and if perfifted in according to the original terms, the individuals who had taken the whole of it muft fuftain a very confiderable lofs; an event which he had little doubt but that the committee would feel it became them to endeavour to guard against, and the more especially, if any means of doing fo could be fuggefted which would not militate against the public intereft. The committee would recollect, that when he had first opened the fubject, with a view of affording the original fubfcribers relief, he had hinted at enlarging the time of nomination from October to April; but, upon mature confideration, it had appeared, that although fuch a measure would afford the original fubfcribers effential relief, it could not be adopted with perfect fecurity to thofe perfons who had been already nominated; and therefore, it had been confidered as adviseable to push that propofition no farther. He meant to propose to give those who held the fhares of the tontine an option of exchanging it for long annuities, and to ein3

power

court adjourned on Wednesday the 9th of June, being the fixty-eighth day.

power the commiffioners of the treafury to nominate to the fhares, which might be vacant when the period of nomination to fhares fhould expire, which would be in October next, and to hold the fame for the public. By thefe means gentlemen would fee that faith would be kept with the perfons whofe lives were already interefled, the original fubfcribers would be refcued from the rifque they at prefent ran, in confequence of a fpeculation, which, prima facie, had undoubtedly been a laudable one, and the public itself would be no fufferer.

The propofition of Mr. Pitt, after fome oppofition, in which it was urged that the fubfcribers might conceive themselves to be injured, and confequently that their confent ought to be obtained, was adopted by the committee, and a bill paffed both houses for carrying it into effect.

The fubject of the flave trade was agam moved by Mr. Wilberforce early in the feflion. The evidence produced by the planters was not gone through till near the clofe, and the remaining time was employed in examining fome additional witneffes in favour of the abolition. The further confideration of the fubject was then adjourned.

Upon the 16th day of February, the trial of Mr. Haftings re-commenced in Weftminster-hall, being the fifty-fifth day of the fitting of the court. The court fate in this feffion but thirteen days, in which the managers of the houfe of commons went through the charge relative to the receipt of prefents, which was opened by Mr. Anftruther, and the evidence fummed up and obferved upon, in a fpeech which lafted two days, by Mr. Fox. The

On the 11th day of May, Mr. Burke called the attention of the houfe to a motion he had to offer upon the fubject of the protracted continuance of the trial. After fome obfervations upon the petition prefented by Mr. Haftings to the house of Lords, he adverted to what he conceived to be the principal causes of its not having been brought to a speedier conclufion: the first was, the determination of the house of Lords, obtained at the inftance of Mr. Haftings, to proceed upon all the articles of charge before they came to any decifion; another was, that the counsel for Mr. Haftings had infifted upon reading papers at large inftead of extracts: but what occafioned, perhaps, the greateft delay, was, that the managers were not made acquainted with the grounds and extent of the principles on which the decifions of the houfe of Lords were made refpecting the admifibility of evidence. This made it impoflible for them to know how far the next queftions, which they intended to put, might, or might not, militate against thofe principles. He concluded by moving the following refolutions:

That this house, taking into "confideration the interruptions "occafioned by the occupations of "the judges and the houfe of Lords, "as alfo the impediments which "have occurred, or may occur, in

the courfe of the trial of the im"peachment of Warren Haftings,

Efq; doth, without meaning to "abandon the truth or importance "of the charges, authorife the ma"nagers of their faid impeachment, "to infilt only upon fuch and fo

many of the faid charges as fhall appear to them the moft condu"cive to the obtaining fpeedy and "effectual justice against the faid "Warren Haftings.'

66

may

2d, "That the commons of Great "Britain in parliament affembled, "from a regard to their own ho"nour, and from the duty which "they owe to all the commons of "Great Britain, in whose name, as "well as in their own, they act in "the public profecutions by them "carried on before the houfe of "Lords, are bound to perfevere in their impeachment againft Warren Haftings, Efq; late "general of Bengal, until judgment be obtained upon the most important articles in the fame." On the 17th of May complaint was made to the houfe by general Burgoyne of a libellous publication inferted in one of the morning papers with the fignature of John Scott, a member of the house of commons, grofsly reflecting upon the conduct of the managers of the impeachment, and upon the juftice of that house. The letter was then read by the clerk, and major Scott being called to an fwer this complaint, avowed himself to be the author of the letter in queftion; and at the fame time declared, that no man living had a higher refpect for the rules of the houfe than he had; and if he had broken them, he had done fo unintentionally, and was forry for it. The honourable major then entered into a general juftification of his letter, and declared, that if he had been guilty of an error in his conduct, he had been drawn into it by great examples. He then entered into a variety of publications by Mr. Burke, Mr. Sheridan, and ge

ing voted without a divifion, he next moved, "That it appears to this house, that the letter now deli. vered in, is a fcandalous and libellous paper reflecting on the honour and juftice of this houfe, and on the conduct of the managers appointed to conduct the impeachment now proceeding against Warren Haftings, efq."

Upon the fuggeftion of the chancellor of the exchequer, that in a matter relative to their own privileges, and efpecially as a great laxity of practice had of late years obtained with respect to publica tions upon the proceedings of parliament, the house ought to proceed with all poffible caution. He then moved, that the debate be adjourned to Thursday, the 27th of May. It was then refumed, and after a long converfation, in which the prevailing abufes of the freedom of the prefs were pointedly difcuffed, the motion was adopted.

It was then moved, "That John Scott, efq. a member of that house, in publishing the faid letter, was guilty of a grofs and fcandalous li

bela