Commons Sitting of 18 June 1806

MINUTES.
Sir J. Sinclairobtained leave to bring in a bill for altering and amending the acts of the 28th and 30th of the king regulating the number of passengers to be carried on the outside of coaches.—On the motion of Mr. Windham, the lords amendments to the mutiny bill were taken into consideration and agreed to.— Lord Folkstone stated that it would be in the recollection of the house that the sum of 40,000l. had been voted by them for paying the debts of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. Among the sums voted by parliament, and unprovided for, since ordered to be laid before the house, he observed mention of the sum of 41,010l. paid to John earl of Chatham, and George bishop of Lincoln. He felt at a loss how to get at the fact of this appropriation of the public money, but he believed the best mode for him to pursue would be, to move, "that there be laid before the house a copy of the order for paying to John earl of Chatham, and George bishop of Lincoln, the sum of 41,010l." Ordered.

AFFAIRS OF INDIA.—OUDE CHARGE.
Earl Temple having moved the order of the day for taking the Charge against the marquis Wellesley relative to the Nabob of Oude into consideration, Mr. Paull was about to move that witnesses be called in, when the Speaker informed him that the first question was, that the charge be now taken into consideration. The question being put,
Mr. Bankes,in pursuance of the intimation he had given the preceding day, rose to oppose the motion, and to state the reasons which induced him to think the house should proceed no further in this business, but dismiss it entirely from their consideration; in which he did not think it would be necessary for him to do more than to shew the house that the legislature had already provided another and a more eligible mode of proceeding before a different tribunal. The tribunal to which he alluded, was that established by an act passed in 1784, for the special trial of crimes committed in India. He by no means denied the inquisitorial power of the house of commons; on the contrary, he wished to speak of it always with the highest respect, and to acknow-

737
ledge that in many instances it had been productive of the best consequences. But the power, like many other of its rights and privileges, should be used with sound discretion; for there were cases, of such a nature, as it would be extremely unwise and injudicious to bring before the house; and those were cases in a considerable degree analogous to the present. It was a case not less complicated than that which with so little success, and so little honour to the house of commons, by whom it was urged forward, or that tribunal before which it was tried, had occupied the attention of parliament for seven successive sessions. The subject now before the house was no less than that of the revenues, and other political affairs of Oude, for a period of nearly 40 years; and in a more especial degree, during a period of 5 years that marquis Wellesley had been chief governor in India. The honourable member who brought forward these charges accused the noble marquis of a criminal interference in the affairs and government of the nabob of Oude; of having violated the independence guaranteed by treaty; of having wrested from the nabob one-half of his territory; and of having excited his subjects to rebellion, and then having recourse to arms to restore tranquillity. In support of this charge, a most voluminous mass of written documents had been laid on the table, and a considerable body of oral evidence was now, he understood, in waiting, for the purpose of being called in and heard. So voluminous was the mass of documents produced, that it was impossible for the house to have made the due use of them. The farther the subject was contemplated, the larger and more complicated did it appear. The house would therefore see it was a case at once too extensive, too abstruse, too intricate, and too hard for them to decide upon; and he doubted not that they would perceive the propriety of dismissing it without consideration, or giving any opinion upon it; for whatever might be the innocence of the noble lord in question, and though the proceedings in the way of investigation by this house, with a view to subsequent impeachment, might not bring home to him any punishment, yet it was obvious from experience, it might produce to him much embarrassment and vexation. In the case of Mr. Hastings, though after a tedious progress of seven sessions, he was finally acquitted, yet the trial brought ruin upon his fortune, and inflicted
738
the most grievous inquietude upon his mind and therefore of all tribunals he should avoid that the most where the guilty had so little and the innocent so much to dread. Besides, it was utterly impossible that the individual members of that house, respectively, could have had time, consistently with their other avocations to pay the particular attention necessary to every part of the evidence laid before them upon this case, to enable them to consider it with the minuteness necessary to warrant a solemn decision, as it would be the duty of a jury to do, before another tribunal. And with respect to impartiality, perhaps it would not be deemed altogether unjust to infer, that some share of party feeling on the subject might have its weight in the deliberation, which of all others should be the most free and unbiassed. There were certainly cases on which the house might feel itself pressed to some decision: but if ever there was a case on which it was desirable the house should not assume a jurisdiction, this was that one. The act to which he had alluded as providing especially for the trial of offences committed in India, passed in 1784, required that application should be made by the party accusing to the Court of King's Bench in the first instance, stating the nature of the accusation: and if the Court of King's Bench should prima facie deem the charge such as was worthy of serious trial, then it had power to direct that a tribunal be constituted, consisting of a certain number of members from each house of parliament, and one judge from each of the three courts of Westminister Hall, one of whom at least should always preside at the sittings of such tribunal, before which any such accusation should be tried. Such a tribunal certainly must be much more competent in point of knowledge upon the subject, than any other which could be found. He had heard it said, that this act of parliament was not intended to extend to crimes of this high political nature, but was contined in its operation to others of a quite different description; but he had some observations to offer to the consideration of the house, which must remove all doubts, and silence all objections upon this point, and prove the full competence of the tribunal to which he alluded, to try crimes of the present description. He mentioned the case of Mr. Holland, against whom charges was preferred by the crown, strictly of a political nature; such as, not marching troops with sufficient expedition against

739
Tippoo Sultaun; not forwarding with sufficient promptitude dispatches from Tillicherry to Bombay, with an account of the hostilities which had broken out with Tippoo: and the whole of the charges, with but one or two exceptions, were of a similar nature, relating to the making of war, the marching of troops, &c. This cause had a final hearing in 1794; 12 of the counts out of 19 were continued; and for the other 7, which had been rejected a writ of error was brought in the Court of King's Pench to confirm them; but in the interim, Mr. Holland absconded with all his property. This instance, then, he hoped would prove the acknowledged competency of such a tribunal to try crimes of a high political nature. He had been told by some gentlemen, that in the present case he had made his objection too late, and that the house having entertained the charge, was now indispensably bound to come to some decision upon it. To this he would answer, that he could not make his objection until he was aware of the full grounds and nature of the charge, which he could not be until it was laid upon the table, with the documents upon which it was founded; and this was the very first opportunity he had had of making his objections since the charge and documents were completely before the house. Other members who had not read the documents so extensively as he had, might not be so fixed in their opinions as to the impropriety of entertaining a charge of this nature before either house of parliament; however, he himself had let no time slip by him in making his objection upon the first fair opportunity that offered. The hon. member who brought forward this charge had an undoubted right to lay it upon the table, even though he stood entirely alone and unseconded. So far the house had entertained the charge, but no farther; they had founded upon it no proceeding, nor pledged themselves to any, and therefore could, with the utmost propriety, dismiss it. There were precedents in point upon the journals:—the cases, for instance, of lord Coningsby and sir G. Porter, in the reign of king William, and some others. On the part of the noble lord, he was apprehensive that the dismissal would give him some pain, as it would look like refusing to hear the cause; but he could not think of violating an important public principle, in compliment to individual feelings, or give way to a mode of proceeding, which it was so desirable to avoid. It
740
might be said, that misrepresentations had gone forth in print, and that documents had been printed by that house, in support of the charge, which rendered a speedy decision the more necessary; to which he had to answer, that documents equally strong, in refutation of those charges, had been also printed; and what right had the house to conclude that the public mind would only attend to the accusation, and reject the defence? For this own part, he had studiously avoided, throughout the whole of his speech, any expression that could in the slightest degree mark the bias of his own opinion upon the truth or falsehood of the charge in question; but in case the house should be disposed to entertain the charge, and to go into the discussion, he saw no reason why they could not, instead of proceeding by way of impeachment, if they should deem any further proceeding necessary, direct the king's Attorney General to proceed in the manner pointed out by the acts of 1784 and 1786. The hon. member concluded by giving his negative to the motion for now proceeding to take the charge into consideration.
The Master of the Rollsobserved, that the course which his hon. friend had proposed to the house to pursue, was certainly calculated to fiatter their indolence; and, for his part, he should have been glad could it have been adopted with propriety. It would certainly relieve the house from a burden of which all must be sensible. But he thought that the principles and arguments of his hon. friend went too far, and would eventually trench upon those inquisitorial powers which belonged to the house, to enquire into charges of magnitude brought against persons of high dignity. In matters of this kind we must be content to follow the principles of our ancestors. His hon. friend had said, that impeachment should only be resorted to in cases of the last necessity. But it was by no means certain, this would proceed the length of impeachment. The charge alone was now proposed to be taken into consideration, and it would be afterwards for the house to decide, what course should be followed when that was gone through. With regard to the particular mode of trial which he recommended, it could not, from the instance which he had mentioned, be considered as likely to be very expeditious. In 1791, the information was filed against Mr. Holland, and it was not before 1794 that the Court of King's Bench had decided on the form of information to be laid before

741
the tribunal to be appointed under the act. All the necessary subsequent proceedings upon this information were afterwards to take place. This mode, therefore, did not promise much more expedition, than that by impeachment. His hon. friend had stated a doubt, whether the present charge could be brought under the act in question. That act empowered the formation of a tribunal for the trial of extortion, and other misdemeanors; and it was rational to explain the general words, "other misdemeanors," as referring to offences of a similar or an inferior nature, since higher offences must have been specified in preference to those of a minor kind, had it been designed to include them. His hon. friend's doubt, therefore, appeared perfectly well founded, and he himself was convinced that the act had no reference to those higher political offences with which the noble lord was charged, and that therefore the trial of the charge could not be instituted under the act in question. It must be confessed, indeed, that the offences with which Mr. Holland was charged were of a political. nature, and that the opinion of lord Kenyon was of high authority, but still he might be permitted to doubt the interpretation which was then put upon the act. It appeared to him that the house could not drop their proceedings in the present instance. They had agreed to take the charge into consideration, and they could not pass from the vote they had already given. He wished that his hon. friend had offered his suggestion at an earlier period. For a whole year the subject had been before the house; papers had been moved for day after day, and the nature of the charge had been, in some measure,explained to the house. It was obvious that it related to the administration of the noble lord in India. When it was moved that the house should take the charge into consideration, then would have been the proper time for bringing forward the present motion. But now the house were in effect called upon to declare that they were in an error, and to say, that though they had resolved to take the charge into consideration, they would now give no .opinion at all on the subject, nor come to any determination with regard to what should follow. It appeared to him that the present motion would do justice neither to the accuser nor the accused. Supposing the accuser to be actuated by malice, which he had no reason to presume, should the present motion be agreed to, he might congratulate himself on having gained
742
his object, by exciting doubts in the public mind with regard to the conduct of the noble lord, and throwing a shade over his character which it might be difficult to remove. No opportunity would be given for the accused being heard in his own defence. The whole charge would be left to be discussed in a newspaper controversy, and such was certainly not the proper way for deciding it. Neither would justice be done to the accuser. After so long perplexing himself with papers and enquiry, after giving and taking so much trouble, it would not be fair to drop the matter at once, without coming to any determination upon it. But the house had already passed a resolution to take the charge into consideration. The matter might be postponed, but it could not be relinquished. It did not appear that this business could occupy much of time of the house. The papers on which the charge was founded had long been printed, and it would not be difficult for any gentleman to form an opinion on the subject. Should the motion be agreed to, the house would be considered as having, in some measure, relinquished its inquisitorial power, and as having delcared itself inadequate to such enquiries. Such was the conclusion which he thought the public would naturally draw.
Mr. Secretary Foxrose and observed, that if there was a wish that one could entertain on the subject in preference to another, it must be to accede to the proposition of the hon. gent. on the personal inconvenience with which a contrary mode of proceeding must be attended to individuals, and the labour to which it must subject them, but also on account of the great inconvenience which must thus be occasioned in conducting the public business of the house. Feeling as he did the importance of the latter consideration, he trusted the house would indulge him in saying a few words relative to the matter which now engaged their attention. Considering the embarrassment that must arise to the public business, if the affair was to go on in the usual way, he thought that it would be absolutely necessary to find out some mode of quickening the natural course of the proceedings. Fir it we were to proceed in the usual way, supposing that this oral evidence should last as long as it had done on former occasions, considering the time that must be spent in taking down the questions and the answers, it was impossible, unless the whole should be much shorter

743
than any one could expect, that the matter could be brought to a conclusion this session of parliament; when he said "impossible," he wished to explain precisely what he meant by that term. It was impossible, supposing that parliament should sit only the usual time. He did not mean to state that ministers might not advise his majesty to prolong the session, and keep the parliament sitting, but it would be recollected that it was not in their power to compel an attendance, that is, such an attendance as the importance of the case would demand. It must be seen, therefore, that the house was placed in a very disagreeable situation, and that it must be the wish of every person to escape from the labour and burthen of this enquiry, if it could be done with justice and propriety; not so much with a view to personal inconvenience, though that was something, as on account of the difficulties to which parliament would be reduced, in managing the public business of the nation. Now, with that wish strongly impressed on his mind, he certainly assented to a great part of what the hon. gent. had said. He having recognised the right which the house of commons had to proceed by the way of impeachment; and not only this, but having also recognised the inquisitorial power of the house as the vital principle by which the members had acquired the power to sit there, and to watch over the liberties, rights and privileges of their constituents: having done all this, and indeed it was impossible for one so well versed in history and the principles of the constitution to do otherwise, he (Mr. Fox) certainly went with him a great way, and even agreed with him in many of the practical observations which he had made. He admitted the importance of the inquisitorial powers of that house, but he was at the same time convinced that it was one of those powers which were best exercised when they were rarely exercised. As to the position of the honourable gentleman, that it was a power which ought not to be exercised, except in cases of absolute necessity, he certainly could not go with him that far; taking necessity in the strict signification of the term, he admitted, however, that it ought not to be exercised, except in cases where honour rendered it necessary—that is, where no other mode of proceeding could be consistent with the the honour of the crown, of the parliament and the nation. He confessed that at first so much did he wish to accede to the proposi-
744
tion of the honourable gentleman, influenced by the difficulties of parliament, and the arguments which the hon. gent. had advanced, that he had been considering how far it was possible to support him. But there was one part of his argument in which the hon. gent. had very materially failed, and that was where he spoke of the point of time. With respect to the time at which this proposition was made, he would go half way between the hon. gent. and the learned gent. near him (the Master of the Rolls) The latter had observed, that when you allowed voluminous papers to be laid on the table, and entertained the matter thus far, it was necessary that you should proceed farther. He could not go with him thus far; for if in these papers nothing should be found which could form any ground of proceeding, then you might undoubtedly stop and say, that you would not advance any father; or if you saw good cause to go on, then you had still to consider whether another mode than impeachment, less burthen some to the members of this house, more consistent with the proper management of the public business, and equally consistent with the interests of justice, and the honour of the crown, the parliament, and the nation, might not be adopted. He could not therefore agree, that the act of allowing these papers to be laid on the table, did in itself render it absolutely necessary to proceed farther. But then the hon. gent. on the other side said, and this was the earliest and most proper time at which he could come with his proposition—he was compelled to differ with him. He could not be allowed have objected to the production of the papers and of the charge, but when the matter came to a vote of the house—when the question was put 16 days ago, whether the charge should be taken into consideration, aye or no, then was the time for the hon. gent to have said, no: but now the house having pledged itself to the accuser and to the accused, by this vote, and more than that, having actually ordered witnesses to attend, it stood bound to both parties to enter upon the consideration of this charge at some convenient time. He did not say that it had pledged itself absolutely to proceed now, but it was bound to entertain the charge, and to consider it. And here, therefore, what the hon. gent. said was inapplicable. He said that we ought to have nothing to do with the charge, but that we ought to dismiss it without proceeding any farther. But when the house had come to a vote on the subject,

745
he conceived that the motion of the hon. gent. was totally inadmissible. For this he was extremely sorry, as he before stated, not only on account of the personal inconvenience which this affair might occasion to himself and others, but also on account of the difficulties which it would throw, in the way of the public business. Now, with respect to the acts of 1784, and 1786, he had strong hopes when he came to the house, that the matter might by possibility be referred to such a tribunal. But when he heard the words of the acts "extortion or other misdemeanors," he had very great 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 misdemeanors 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 gent. 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. gent. (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)) thong it 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 hon. gent's. construction of the acts. But then the answer that had been given by the hon. and learned gent. 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 hon. and learned gent. was the right one, and probably it was, there must be a very con-
746
siderable alteration in them, in order to render them, capable of answering any useful purpose, as it appeared that few things c me 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 such offences. But though this might be 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

747
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 the 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 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. gent. 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 suspence. He thought, therefore, that we should begin directly, and proceed with as much dispatch as the forms of the house would allow.
On the motion of Mr. Paull,the house then resolved itself into a committee, to consider of the charge, lord Folkestone in the chair. The chairman first desired the serjeant to call lord Teignmouth. Mr. Paull then said a few words, which we could not distinctly hear, relative to the introduction of a short-hand writer. The Speaker said, that pursuant to the practice of the house, it was not usual to make a motion on the subject; but the clerk on an understanding, would do his duty,—Lord Teignmouth then having appeared at the inside of the bar, the chairman said, "my lord,
748
there is a chair for your lordship to repose on, if you think proper."
Mr. Paullimmediately rose, and proceeded to interrogate his lordship with respect to transactions in India, from the period of his appointment to the post of governor-general. A question being put to the noble lord, with respect to the opinion he entertained of certain treaties, which had been entered into with the native princes,
Mr. Garrowrose, and said, whatever questions were asked should merely relate to facts. He apprehended that the opinion of the noble lord, with regard to written documents, could not, with propriety, be asked; as the opinion the house should entertain, would be best known from the treaties themselves.
Mr. Paullsaid, if he was not allowed to put the question, a part of his charge must remain without proof.
Mr. Garrowsaid, the only mode the hon. gent. could pursue, was first to prove the fact, and then to produce the treaty, to show in what manner it was broken.
Mr. Johnstonedid not think the hon. gent. (Mr. Paull) would find himself in any difficulty, as he could ask whether any demand was made on the Vizier, in consequence of additional troops?
Mr. Paullthen proceeded with the examination. Upon the question; "if the nabob had made a forcible representation of the conduct of the resident (Mr. Cherry), for improper interference, would your lordship have thought yourself justified in continuing him at Lucknow?" Lord Teign-mouth was about to read, from a paper which he held in his hand; when
Lord Templebegged the noble witness might withdraw. He then submitted to the house, whether it was proper the noble lord should read his reply from papers, which were already before the committee? or whether it would not be better, to prevent the house from having garbled extracts from them enforced upon their attention, and to save time, that the witness should say at once, that the answer was to be found in the papers?
Mr. Francissaid, he thought also that the reading of papers was anomalous, and that it was not the practice, in such cases as this, for the witnesses to refer to papers, for any purpose beyond that of refreshing their memories.
Mr. Roseconsidered it improper that the noble lord should be interrogated as to his opinion upon any point, and thought

749
that the testimony ought to be contined to matter of fact.
Mr. Paullsaid, the practice of reading from papers had been invariably pursued during the impeachment of Mr. Hastings, and the noble lord was merely referring to memorandums which he held in his hand, for his individual use.
Mr. Garrowcould not conceive what the opinion of the noble witness, asked for in the interrogatory, could have to do with the malversation charged against the governor-general of India. He hardly knew, to what extent that house felt itself privileged to make such inquiries in a case of the nature of that before them; but, certainly, in any other place, the rules of evidence would not permit an inquiry as to the opinion of the witness.
Dr. Laurencetold the hon. and learned gent. 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. Would not the hon. gent. in the situation of an attorney-general, have been able, even in a court of justice, to put a question that should lead to legal evidence? Opinions 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 parliament, he would not have made this objection.
Mr. Garrow,said that he was satisfied with the answer of the learned doctor; for it seemed 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 most 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 British 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. Secretary Windhamobserved upon the tone in which the learned gent. 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 gent. 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, one would suppose he thought himself there still. The question was, whether the rules of the courts below applied to parliamentary proceedings? Did the learned gent. 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.
Mr. Garrowexpressed his surprise at the severity of the language which had been applied to him by the right hon. secretary. He had said, that he should not profit by the lecture which he (Mr. Garrow) had delivered; this was the second time he had ever addressed that house, and if he was deserving of a rebuke, the lecture of the right hon. gent. would certainly be profitable to him; and he could not but thank him for the courtesy and kindness with which it had been given. He was not fencing with the argument of the learned gent. (Dr. Laurence), but would again decidedly express his conviction, that no hearsay evidence could be legally received, to advance the conviction of any man, for a conspiracy or otherwise.
Mr. Francis and lord H. Pettycontended 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 enquiries, 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. Wilberforcethought 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 hon.

751
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. Paullconceived his question as precise as could be desired. After a few words from Mr. Huskisson, the examination was resumed. The scope of the examination related 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 contended by Mr. C. Wynne, sir A. Wellesley and Mr. Wallace, that no question should be proposed to the witness, a copy of the treaty itself being on the table, of which the house could of course form its own judgment, without resorting to the opinion of the witness. Dr. Laurence stated, that a similar question had been put to sir R. Barker, on the trial of Mr. Hastings, and besides that the house had already decided that the witness could be examined as to matters of opinion. The question was accordingly allowed.—Sir A. Wellesley put several questions to the noble lord with regard to the expence of the company's troops employed in the territories of the nabob of Oude, the character of the nabob's own troops, and the disposition of his subjects.—On a question being put by Dr. Laurence, as to whether the nabob vizier was addicted to excessive drinking or not, a good deal of conversation took place. It was at length determined that the question should be asked. The noble lord answered in the affirmative, but added that he always preserved so much decency as not to expose himself in public; he also added that his highness made use of spirituous liquors.—To a question relative to the great estimation in which the turban is held among the Mussulmen, the noble lord, among other things in his answer stated, that he recollected on one occasion, the nabob having changed with him, and put on his lordship's hat, whilst the noble lord himself wore the turban of the nabob.—When the examination was concluded for the day, and the house had resumed, a conversation took place on the subject of the order of the house in proceeding. It appeared to be the understanding of the house at length, that the Speaker
752
should take the chair at an early hour, for the purpose of forwarding private business, and that as soon after 5 o'clock as the members most interested in the case should be ready to hear evidence, that that should take precedence of all other business. It was also understood that the second reading of the training bill was to be postponed; and that it would be impossible to bring on the Farrucabad charge until the next session of parliament.