PRINTED FOR LONGMAN, HURST, REES AND ORME, PATERNOSTER-ROW; J. HATCHARD, PICCADILLY; AND BLACKS AND PARRY, LEADENHALL-STREET. CONTENTS SECOND VOLUME. DEC. 22, 1790, Motion relative to the impeachment of Mr. Hastings April 19, 1791, Mr. Wilberforce's motion for abolishing the slave-trade- Feb. 17, 1792, Consideration of the state of the public revenue and expenditure Page 143 Mr. Fox's motion for peace with France - 157 Jan. 21, 1794, His Majesty's speech on opening the Report of the secret committee respecting Bill for suspending the habeas-corpus act- 202 Pagê 141 225 July 10, 1794, Mr. Sheridan's motion for an account of Jan. 21, 1795, 236 Motion by Mr. Wilberforce to facilitate His Majesty's speech on opening the MR. PITT'S PARLIAMENTARY SPEECHES. December 22, 1790. THE order of the day having been read, for the house to resolve itself into a committee of the whole house to consider the state of the impeachment of Warren Hastings, Esq., Sir Peter Burrell took the chair of the committee :when Mr. Burke moved, "That it appears that an impeachment by this house, in the name of the commons of Great Britain in parliament assembled, and of all the commons of Great Britain, against Warren Hastings, Esq. late governor-general of Bengal, for sundry high crimes and misdemeanours, is now depending." Mr. Erskine opposed the motion, and, in order that a committee might be appointed to search for precedents, he moved, "that Sir Peter Burrell leave the chair;" upon which a debate ensued of very considerable length*. Mr. PITT, iu rising, requested the attention of the committee in that early stage of the discussion, while he submitted to their consideration his solemn and deliberate opinion upon the question at issue, the decision of which involved in it considerations of the first magnitude; the rights and privileges of parliament were concerned, which must remain ever inviolably sacred, or *The parliament had this year been dissolved: and the question to be decided by this debate (which lasted by adjournments for three days) was, whether an impeachment brought by the commons of Great Britain in parliament assembled, in their own name, and in the name of their constituents, did not remain in statu quo, notwithstanding the intervention of a dissolution? VOL. II. |