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?

    1794, February 27.—­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 for the Managers for the Commons to ask the witness, whether, between the time of the original demand being made upon Cheyt 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 Cheyt Sing,—­the same not being relative to any matter originally given in evidence by the defendant,”—­and gave his reasons.