The Works of the Right Honourable Edmund Burke - LightNovelsOnl.com
You're reading novel online at LightNovelsOnl.com. Please use the follow button to get notifications about your favorite novels and its latest chapters so you can come back anytime and won't miss anything.
_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 public 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 alleged 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 Mobarek ul Dowlah to reappoint the Munny Begum and Rajah Gourdas (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 negative,--and 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 Rada Churn, 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 was 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.
_Answer._--The Lord Chief-Baron of the Court of Exchequer delivered the unanimous opinion of the Judges upon the said question, in the affirmative,--and gave his reasons.
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 in arrear immediately after the letting, the evidence would in that case be competent?
1790, April 22.--Pa. 364.
_Answer._--The lord Chief-Baron of the Court of Exchequer delivered the unanimous opinion of the Judges upon the said question,--"That it is 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 gave his reasons.
1790, April 27.--Pa. 388.
_Seventh._
_Question._--Whether it be competent for the Managers for the Commons to put the following question to the witness, upon the sixth article of charge, viz.: "What impression the letting of the lands to Kelleram and Cullian Sing made on the minds of the inhabitants of that country"?
1790, April 27.--Pa. 391.
_Answer._--The Lord Chief-Baron of the Court of Exchequer delivered the unanimous opinion of the Judges upon the said question,--"That it is not competent to the Managers for the Commons to put the following question to the witness, upon the sixth article of charge, viz.: What impression, the letting of the lands to Kelleram and Cullian Sing made on the minds of the inhabitants of that country,"--and gave his reasons.
1790, April 29.--Pa. 413.
_Eighth._
_Question._--Whether it be competent to the Managers for the Commons to put the following question to the witness, upon the seventh article of charge, viz.: "Whether more oppressions did actually exist under the new inst.i.tution than under the old"?
1790, April 29.--Pa. 415.
_Answer._--The Lord Chief-Baron of the Court of Exchequer delivered the unanimous opinion of the Judges upon the said question,--"That it is not competent to the Managers for the Commons to put the following question to the witness, upon the seventh article of charge, viz.: Whether more oppressions did actually exist under the new inst.i.tution than under the old,"--and gave his reasons.
1790, May 4.--Pa. 428.
_Ninth._
_Question._--Whether the letter of the 13th April, 1781, can be given in evidence by the Managers for the Commons, to prove that the letter of the 5th of May, 1781, already given in evidence, relative to the abolition of the Provincial Council and the subsequent appointment of the Committee of Revenue, was false in any other particular than that which is charged in the seventh article of charge?
1790, May 20.--Pa. 557.
_Answer._--The Lord Chief-Baron of the Court of Exchequer delivered the unanimous opinion of the Judges upon the said question,--"That it is not competent for the Managers on the part of the Commons to give any evidence on the seventh article of impeachment, to prove that the letter of the 5th of May, 1781, is false in any other particular than that wherein it is expressly charged to be false,"--and gave his reasons.
1790, June 2.--Pa. 634.
_Tenth._
_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 Cheyt 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 Cheyt Sing,--the same not being relative to any matter originally given in evidence by the defendant?
