able gentleman had thought proper to give way on the present occasion. He stated the consideration due to the gentlemen who had so laudably stood forward as friends of the militia, and urged the little regard that the difference of the expense deserved; when, in fact, the difference was so mere a trifle between calling out two-thirds of the militia annually, and calling out the whole.

The house divided; ayes (for the amendment, as it stood, for two-thirds of the militia) 49; noes 13. The bill was here ordered to be engrossed, with the amendment.

JUNE 9.

PETITION OF THE EAST-INDIA COMPANY.

MR. SHERIDAN said, that it was highly reprehensible to introduce, at so late a period of the session, great and important matters which required deliberate discussion; and particularly culpable indeed was the negligent way in which they were opened by the right honourable gentleman, as if they were of little consequence, and fit to be considered only as matters of course. Mr. Sheridan proceeded to prove, that the necessity for the present application must have been known early in the session; and that the directors had no manner of occasion to have waited under the expectation of receiving additional information by the last ships from India. He stated the grounds upon which he formed these opinions, and entered into an examination and discussion of several parts of the report of the situation of the East-India Company's affairs which had been laid on the table. He asserted, that the calculations were most erroneous; the deductions false; and the result of the whole of such as he had touched upon, consequently fallacious. The commutation tax had failed so greatly in point of productiveness, that instead of the many hundred thousand pounds which the public were led to believe they should receive for what they paid so dearly for, it had only produced one hundred thousand pounds compensation; and great part of that was extremely disputable, whether it was to be ascribed to the operation of that tax, or to any other effect, which he had taught the public to entertain respecting it.

Mr. Pitt answered, that Mr. Sheridan had greatly misconceived the report, and declared, that from having combated a report brought in by Mr. Grenville, with some success, he seemed to be of opinion, that any report might be handled with equal dexterity; but he had shown the reverse to be the fact. Mr. Pitt

appealed to the house, whether the commutation tax had not proved gloriously successful. As the honourable gentleman had not offered any objection to the motion, but had gone into a detail of matters totally foreign to it, it was unnecessary to detain the house with a long argument in reply.

Mr. Sheridan contended, that the right honourable gentleman not only misconceived, but grossly mis-stated his reasoning; a circumstance which he imputed altogether to the right honourable gentleman's want of capacity on such subjects. The right honourable gentleman's boasting of the commutation tax, and looking round him, and appealing to a few of his own friends for support in his assertion, was no proof of the success of it, or the feeling of the public respecting it. Let him ask the country, let him inquire without those walls, (where he was sure of his majority), let him appeal to the people at large, and ascertain their sense of it, and he would then learn that its unpopularity was equal to its failure in point of produce!

The resolutions were agreed to without a division.

JUNE 12.

PETITION OF THE EAST-INDIA COMPANY.

The report of the two resolutions in the committee of supply, in consequence of the East-India Company's petition, was brought up by Mr. Rose: and the resolutions, after having been read a first and second time, were agreed to.

MR. SHERIDAN remarked, that as occasions might more than once arise, for the investigation of the subject of the two resolutions just read and agreed to by the house, he would not take up their time by going into it at that moment; but the more he examined the matter, the more fully he was convinced of the fallacy and error of the report upon which the directors of the East-India Company had presumed to apply to that house for the assistance which they had desired. Mr. Sheridan stated some of the particulars, in which he differed altogether from the chancellor of the exchequer. One of them was, with regard to the sum sent from Bengal to China, in the course of the past year, which amounted to no more than £8000, although he said, the right honourable gentleman had conceived that it amounted to £275,000. He said, that he had a motion to make for a paper, to the production of which he conceived the right honourable gentleman could have no sort of objection, as it would give the house a degree of information respecting the business which they

much wanted. Mr. Sheridan concluded with moving, "that there be laid before this house, extracts of all letters received by the court of directors of the East-India Company, since the 1st of January last, relating to the probable future amount of the net surplus revenues of the company's possessions in India; and also of all letters relating to the amount of sums which may probably be remitted, on the company's account, from India to China, in the next four years."

Agreed to.

JUNE 21.

PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MR. HASTINGS.

• Mr. Hastings on the 1st of May, having been called to the bar, addressed himself in a short speech; in which he stated, that he considered his being allowed to be heard in that stage of the business as a very great indulgence, for which he begged leave to make his most grateful acknowledgments to the house; and as his wish was to deliver what he had to say in answer to the charges that had been presented against him by an honourable member, with a greater share of accuracy and correctness than he could pretend to in a speech from memory, he had committed his sentiments to writing, and hoped to be permitted to read them. This request being granted, Mr. Hastings proceeded to read his defence, in which he was assisted by Mr. Markham and the clerks of the house. Three days were spent in going through the several parts of his defence, and it was afterwards, at the request of Mr. Hastinys, ordered to be laid upon the table of the house, and printed for the use of the members. The house in a committee next proceeded in the examination of witnesses in proof of the charges; and on the 1st of June, Mr. Burke brought forward the Rohilla charge, and moved the following resolution thereupon. "That the committee having considered the said article, and examined evidence on the same, are of opinion that there are grounds sufficient to charge Warren Hastings with high crimes and misdemeanours upon the matter of the said article." After much discussion, the debate was adjourned at halfpast three o'clock, and renewed the day following. At half-past seven the committee divided, when there appeared for the motion 67; against it 119.

On the 13th of June, Mr. Fox brought forward the charge respecting the Rajah of Benares. It was carried by a majority of 119 to 79: “that there was matter of impeachment against Warren Haitings contained in the said charge." The Chancellor of the Exchequer concurred in this vote, but upon very narrow grounds. He thought the demands made upon the Rajah went beyond the exigence of the case, and that Mr. Hastings had pushed the exercise of the arbitrary discretion intrusted to him beyond the necessity of the service. The conduct of the minister on this occasion, drew upon him much calumny from the friends of Mr. Hastings. They did not hesitate to accuse him out of doors both publicly and privately of treachery. They declared it was in the full confidence of his protection and sup

• Abstract of proceedings, continued from that under the head of April 26.

port that they had urged on Mr. Burke to bring forward his charges; and that the gentleman accused, had been persuaded to come to their bar with an hasty and premature defence; and they did not scruple to attribute this conduct in the minister to motives of the basest jealousy.

On the 21st of June, Mr. Hamilton moved, "that the house should be called over on the morrow fortnight." This step he considered as the only means of enforcing a full attendance, with a view to go on with the charges against Mr. Hastings, so as to completely finish them in the course of this session. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dempster.

MR. SHERIDAN stated his reasons why he should give it his negative, being persuaded, notwithstanding the honourable gentleman's dauntless determination to bear all the odium and unpopularity of it, that whoever did support it, would find some share of the odium incurred by calling gentlemen back to town, after they had gone into the country and made their arrangements for the summer, fall upon them. Mr. Sheridan then begged leave to justify his absent friend, which he would do, he said, by stating what his meaning was, in order to show that he had not pledged himself to second a motion for a call, unless it could be made to appear that the call would be effectual. Mr. Sheridan here repeated that part of the argument of Mr. Fox on Friday, in which that gentleman had declared, that it would be a most desirable thing to go through the whole of the charges that session, if it were practicable to obtain such an attendance as ought to be present in the discussion of matters of such infinite importance; and if that could be made to appear to be likely, he should then have no objection to support a call of the house, or to any other means of enforcing it. He appealed to the house, whether this was a pledge to support a motion for a call, before it was made to appear probable that a call would be effectually obeyed? A word had fallen from the honourable gentleman which required some notice. Perhaps the honourable gentleman had used it accidentally, and without meaning to convey any improper insinuation by it. If he had, he would be so good as to say as much. But if he really meant it in its ordinary sense, he believed the house would agree with him, that pending an inquiry before parliament into the public conduct of Mr. Hastings, it was not very decent language, nor language that would be endured within those walls, especially after the vote the house had so recently come to upon the subject. The honourable gentleman had said, he stood up in

behalf of a persecuted and accused man. That Mr. Hastings was an accused man, was true, but in what was he a persecuted man? He would not endeavour to argue that he was not persecuted, because if the honourable gentleman alluded to the vote on the charge relative to Benares, he sat near several of Mr. Hasting's persecutors, who could much better justify their vote, than it would become him to attempt to do for them. Neither the cause of substantial justice, the reasonable claims of Mr. Hastings, nor the dignity and character of the house, would be better served and satisfied, by going on with the charges without interruption, than by postponing the remainder of them till the next session. On the contrary, he contended that they would all of them be far less satisfied. He observed in the first place, that it was necessary not only to have a full attendance, but also that gentlemen should attend with that sort of temper which would qualify them for seriously discussing and solemnly deliberating on the important facts submitted to their consideration. Did the house imagine either whether the call was enforced or not, that gentlemen would after that day attend in numbers or with a determination to apply their minds closely to the subject? On the contrary, was it likely, if they proceeded any farther, that they should divide more than one hundred and twenty, or one hundred and fifty on any one of the remaining charges? He asked whether any gentleman present would say, that it would be right and decent to go on in that manner, with not a third part of the house present? Would it not expose them to the advantage taken already more than once by an honourable gentleman opposite to him (Major Scott) in respect to the admirable code of principles for the government of India, laid down in the resolutions moved by the right honourable and learned gentleman, so greatly to his own honour, in 1782? What had been the honourable gentleman's (Major Scott's) argument in respect to those resolutions, but a repeated declaration that they had been moved and voted in a thin house? If they proceeded, therefore, with the rest of the charges, and more of them should be voted, they would next session, in all probability, hear that they had been voted in a thin house. The honourable gentleman on Friday last, had taken a new ground of argument to urge the house to proceed with the remainder of the charges. He had positively declared his belief, that the