not extremely clear, was undoubtedly an exercise of authority proper only for a court having full cognizance of the cause. I will not minutely enumerate the several orders made preparatory to the trial of Lord Lovat, and in the several cases I shall have occasion to mention, touching the time and place of the trial, the allowance or non-allowance of counsel, and other matters of the like kind, all plainly judicial, because the like orders occur in all the cases where a journal of the preparatory steps hath been published by order of the peers. With regard to Lord Lovat's case, I think the order directing the form of the high steward's commission, which I have already taken notice of, is not very consistent with the idea of a court, whose powers can be supposed to depend, at any point of time, upon the existence or dissolution of that commission. In the case of the Earl of Derwentwater, and the other lords impeached at the same time, the house received and recorded the confessions of those of them who pleaded guilty, long before the teste of the high steward's commission, which issued merely for the solemnity of giving judgment against them upon their conviction. This appeareth by the commission itself: It reciteth, that the Earl of Derwentwater, and others, Coram nobis in præsenti parliamento, had been impeached by the commons for high treason, and had, Coram nobis in præsenti parliamento, pleaded guilty to that impeachment; and that the king, intending that the said Earl of Derwentwater and others, de & pro proditione unde ipsi ut præfertur impetit', accusit', & convict' existunt coram nobis in præsenti parliamento, secundem legem & consuetudinem hujus regni nostri Magnæ Britanniæ, audientur, sententientur, & adjudicentur constituteth the then lord chancellor high steward (hac vice) to do and execute all things which to the office of high steward in that behalf do belong. The receiving and recording the confession of the prisoners, which amounted to a conviction, so that nothing remained but proceeding to judgment, was certainly an exercise of judicial authority, which no assembly, how great soever, not having full cognizance of the cause, could exercise. See the In the case of Lord Salisbury, who Journals of had been impeached by the commons the Lords. for high treason, the lords, upon his petition, allowed him the benefit of the Act of general pardon passed in the 2d year of William and Mary, so far as to discharge him from his imprisonment upon a construction they put upon that Act, no high steward ever having been appointed in that case. On the 2d of October, 1690, upon reading the Earl's petition, setting forth that he had been a prisoner for a year and nine months in the Tower, notwithstanding the late Act of free and general pardon, and praying to be discharged, the lords ordered the judges to attend on the Monday following, to give their opinions, whether the said Earl be pardoned by the Act. On the 6th the judges delivered their opinions, that if his offence was committed before the 13th of February | ; 1688, and not in Ireland, or beyond the seas, he is pardoned. Whereupon it was ordered, that he be admitted to bail, and the next day he and his sureties entered into a recognizance of bail, himself in 10,000l. and two sureties in 5,000l. each and on the 30th he and his sureties were, after a long debate, discharged from their recognizance. It will not be material to enquire, whether the house did right in discharging the Earl, without giving the commons an opportunity of being heard; since, in fact, they claimed and exercised a right of judicature without an high stewardwhich is the only use I make of this case. They did the same in the case of the Earl of Carnwarth, the Lords Widdrington and Nairn, long after the high steward's commission dissolved. These lords had judgment passed on them at the same time that judgment was given against the Lords Derwentwater, Nithsdale, and Kenmure; and judgment being given, the high steward immediately broke his staff, and declared the commission dissolved. They continued prisoners in the Tower under reprieves till the passing of the Act of general pardon, in the 3d of King George the First. On the 21st of November Lords' 1717, the house being informed that Journals. theselords had severally entered into recognizances before one of the judges of the court of King's Bench, for their appearance in the house in this sessions of parliament; and that the Lords Carnwarth and Widdrington were attended accordingly: and that the Lord Nairn was ill at Bath, and could not then attend; the Lords Carnwarth and Widdrington were called; and severally at the bar, prayed that their appearance might be recorded; likewise prayed the benefit of the Act 3 G. 1. c. 19. for his Majesty's general and free pardon. Whereupon the house ordered, that their appearance be recorded, and that they attend again to-morrow, in order to plead the pardon. And the recognizance of the Lord Nairn was respited till that day fortnight. On the morrow the Lords Carnwarth and Widdrington, then attending, were called in; and the lord chancellor acquainted them severally, that it appeared by the records of the house, that they severally stood attainted of high treason; and asked them severally, what they had to say, why they should not be remanded to the Tower of London? Thereupon they severally, upon their knees, prayed the benefit of the Act, and that they might have their lives and liberty pursuant thereunto. And the attorney-general, who then attended for that purpose, declaring that he had objection, on his Majesty's behalf, to what was prayed, conceiving that those lords, not having made any escape since their conviction, were entitled to the benefit of the Act; the house, after reading the clause in the Act relating See Sect. 54 to that matter, agreed that they should of the 3 G.I. be allowed the benefit of the pardon, as to their lives and liberties; and discharged their recognizances, and gave them leave to depart without further day given for their appearance. On the 6th of December following the like pro ceedings were had, and the like orders made, in nefit of the Act, as to life and liberty, which was I will not recapitulate; the cases I have cited, and the conclusions drawn from them, are brought into a very narrow compass. I will only add, it would sound extremely harsh to say, that a court of criminal jurisdiction, founded in immemorial usage, and held in judgment of law before the king himself, can in any event whatever be under an utter incapacity of proceeding to trial and judgment, either of condemnation or acquittal, the ultimate objects of every criminal proceeding, without certain supplemental powers derived from the Crown. These cases, with the observations I have made on them, I hope sufficiently warrant the opinion of the judges upon that part of the second question in the case of the late Earl Ferrers, which I have already mentioned. And also what was advanced by the lord chief baron in his argument on that question, "That though the office of high stew"ard should happen to determine before execu"tion done according to the judgment, yet the "court of the peers in parliament, where that judgment was given, would subsist for all the purposes of justice during the sitting of the par"liament." And consequently that in the case supposed by the question, that court might appoint a new day for the execution. APPENDIX, No. 2. QUESTIONS referred by the LORDS to the First. Question. Whether, when a witness produced and examined in a criminal proceeding by a prosecutor disclaims all knowledge of any matter so interrogated, it be competent for such prosecutor to pursue such examination, by proposing a question containing the particulars of an answer supposed to have been made by such witness before a Answer. The lord chief baron of the court of Exchequer delivered the unanimous opinion of the judges, upon the question of law put to them on Friday the 29th of February last, as follows"That when a witness produced and examined in "a criminal proceeding by a prosecutor disclaims "all knowledge of any matter so interrogated, it is not competent for such prosecutor to pursue "such examination, by proposing a question con"taining the particulars of an answer supposed to "have been made by such witness before a com"mittee of the house of commons, or in any other place; and by demanding of him whether the particulars so suggested were not the answers he "had so made." 1788, April 10.-Pa. 592. 66 Second. Question. Whether it be competent for the managers to produce an examination taken without oath by the rest of the council in the absence of Mr. Hastings the governour-general, charging Mr. Hastings with corruptly receiving three lacks 54,105 rupees, which examination came to his knowledge, and was by him transmitted to the court of directors as a proceeding of the said councillors, in order to introduce the proof of his demeanour thereupon ;-it being alledged by the managers for the commons, that he took no steps to clear himself, in the opinion of the said directors, of the guilt thereby imputed, but that he took active. means to prevent the examination by the said councillors of his servant Cantoo Baboo? 1789, May 14.-Pa. 677.— Answer. The lord chief baron of the court of Exchequer delivered the unanimous opinion of the judges, upon the said question, in the negative -and gave his reasons. 1789, May 20.-Pa. 718. Third. Question. Whether the instructions from the court of directors of the united company of merchants of England trading to the East Indies to Warren Hastings, Esquire, governour-general; Lieutenant-General John Clavering, the Honourable George Monson, Richard Barwell, Esquire, and Philip Francis, Esquire, councillors, constitute and appointed the governour-general and council of the said united company's presidency of Fort William in Bengal, by an act of parliament passed in the last session, intituled, " An Act for "establishing certain regulations for the better management of the affairs of the East India company, as well in India as in Europe;" of the 29th of March 1774. Par. 31, 32, and 35; the consultation of the 11th March 1775; the consult Answer. The lord chief baron of the court of Exchequer delivered the unanimous opinion of the judges, upon the said question, in the affirmative ation of the 13th of March 1775, up to the time 1789, May 21.-Pa. 730. Answer. The lord chief baron of the court of Exchequer delivered the unanimous opinion of the judges, upon the said question, in the negative and gave his reasons. 1789, May 27.-Pa. 771. Fourth. Question. Whether the publick accounts of the Nizamut and Bhela, under the seal of the Begum attested also by the Nabob, and transmitted by Mr. Goring to the board of council at Calcutta, in a letter bearing date the 29th June 1775, received by them, recorded without objection on the part of Mr. Hastings, and transmitted by him likewise without objection to the court of directors, and alledged to contain accounts of money received by Mr. Hastings; and it being in proof that Mr. Hastings, on the 11th of May 1778, moved the board to comply with the requisitions of the Nabob Mowbarek ul Dowla, to re-appoint the Munny Begum, and Rajah Goordass (who made up those accounts) to the respective offices they before filled -and which was accordingly resolved by the board-ought to be read? 1789, June 17.—Pa. 855. Answer. The lord chief baron of the court of Exchequer delivered the unanimous opinion of the judges, upon the said question, in the negativeand gave his reasons. 1789, June 24.-Pa. 922. Fifth. Question. Whether the paper delivered by Sir Elijah Impey, on the 7th of July 1775, in the supreme court, to the secretary of the supreme council, in order to be transmitted to the council as the resolution of the court in respect to the claim made for Roy Radachurn, on account of his being Vakeel of the Nabob Mobarek ul Dowlah-and which paper was the subject of the deliberation of the council on the 31st July 1775, Mr. Hastings being then present, and by them transmitted to the court of directors, as a ground for such instructions from the court of directors as the occasion might seem to require-may be admitted as evidence of the actual state and situation of the Nabob, with reference to the English government? 1789, July 2.-Pa. 1001. 1789, July 7.-Pa. 1030. Sixth. Question.-Whether it be, or be not, competent to the managers for the commons to give evidence upon the charge in the sixth article, to prove that the rent at which the defendant, Warren Hastings, let the lands mentioned in the said sixth article of charge, to Kelleram, fell into arrear and was deficient-and whether, if proof were offered that the rent fell into arrear immediately after the letting, the evidence would in that case be compe1790, April 22.-Pa. 364. tent. Question. Whether it be competent to the managers for the commons to examine the witness to any account of the debate which was had on the 9th day of July 1778, previous to the written minutes that appear upon the consultation of that date? 1794, February 25.-Lords' Minutes. Answer. The lord chief justice of the court of Common Pleas delivered the unanimous opinion of the judges upon the said question-" That it is "not competent to the managers for the commons "to examine the witness, Philip Francis, Esquire, "to any account of the debate which was had on "the 9th day of July 1778, previous to the written "minutes that appear upon the consultation of "that date"-and gave his reasons. 1794, February 27.--Lords' Minutes. Eleventh. Question. Whether it is competent for the managers for the commons, in reply, to ask the witness, whether, between the time of the original demand being made upon Cheit Sing, and the period of the witness's leaving Bengal, it was at any time in his power to have reversed or put a stop to the demand upon Cheit Sing; the same not being relative to any matter originally given in evidence by the defendant? 1794, February 27.-Lords' Minutes. Answer. The lord chief justice of the court of Common Pleas delivered the unanimous opinion of judges upon the said question-"That it is not competent for the managers for the commons to "ask the witness, whether, between the time of "the original demand being made upon Cheit Sing "and the period of his leaving Bengal, it was at any time in his power to have reversed or put a stop to the demand upon Cheit Sing, the same "not being relative to any matter originally given "in evidence by the defendant"-and gave his 1794, March 1.-Lords' Minutes. reasons. Twelfth. Question. Whether a paper, read in the court of directors on the 4th of November 1783, and then referred by them to the consideration of the committee of the whole court; and again read in the court of directors on the 19th of November 1783, and amended, and ordered by them to be published for the information of the proprietors, can be received in evidence, in reply, to rebut the evidence given by the defendant, of the thanks of the court of directors, signified to him on the 28th of June 1785. 1794, March 1.-Lords' Minutes. Answer. Whereupon the lord chief justice of the court of Common Pleas, having conferred with the rest of the judges present, delivered their unanimous opinion upon the said question, in the negative-and gave his reasons. 1794, March 1.-Lords' Minutes. THE END. BUNGAY: PRINTED BY J. R. AND C. CHILDS INDEX. Where Numerals stand without any Roman Figures, they refer to the Introduction prefixed to Vol. I. A' BECKET, THOMAS, ii. 572. Abolition of negro slavery, ii. 419. Absentee tax, Irish, ii. 385, objections to it, 386. Address to the British colonists, 401. Aristocracy, a true natural one, an essential part of society, Army estimates, Burke's speech on those of 1790, ii. 376. Administration, the short one, some account of, i. 75, 110: Ascendency, Protestant, in Ireland, remarks on, ii. 455. that of 1763, 108. Admiration, difference between this and love, i. 55. Allies, the, remarks on their policy in respect to France, in AMERICAN COLONIES- The measures adopted by the Rockingham Adminis- Speech on American taxation, 154. Effects of the tea tax, and reasons for its repeal, 161. Reasons why England should not tax the colonies, 173, 192, a determination to do so, the prime cause Basis of Mr. Burke's plan of conciliation, 182. Objections to the use of military force, for compelling Causes of American love of liberty, 186. Assignats, French, i. 471. Association, political, advantages of, i. 151, 220. Atheism by establishment, what? ii. 296. Athenian republic, the, i. 14. Auckland, Lord, letter from, to Mr. Burke, ii. 353, Burke's Aulic council, the, ii. 243. Ball, Dr. his notions of the rights of men, i. 526. Beautiful, the, compared with the sublime, i. 58, 69, Beauty, definition of, i. 47, proportion not essential to, 48, of the sex, a perception of, enters into the idea of love, 65. Bede, the venerable, notices of, ii. 529. Benares, Rajah of, his rights and titles, ii. 92: Warren Bengal, internal trade of, ii. 21. Bingham, letter to Sir Charles, on the Irish absentee tax, Available means of repressing disaffection in the colo- | Blacklock, the poet, i. 71. Six propositions for conciliating the Americans, 196. Address to the king on the conduct of the government Ambition, its effects on society, i. 36. Animals, proportion not the cause of beauty in, i. 49. Blackness, the effects of, on the mind, i. 65. Bolingbroke's works, lxxiii, remarks on their character and Brissot's address to his constituents, i. 629. Bristol, Burke's speeches at, i. 176. addresses to the electors of, i. 256. Aristocracy, an, differs from a despotism only in name, i. 12. | Britain, invasion of, by Cæsar, ii. 504, ancient inhabitants |