reserving a discussion of its particular merits to another place. It was
stated on the 22d of April, 1790, "On that day the Managers proposed to
show that Kelleram fell into great balances with the East India Company,
in consequence of his appointment." It is so stated in the printed
Minutes (p. 1206). But the real tendency and gist of the proposition is
not shown. However, the question was put, "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, Esquire, 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 into arrear
immediately after the letting, the evidence in that case would be
competent?" The Judges answered, on the 27th of the said month, as
follows:--"_It is not competent for the Managers for the House of
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."

The House will observe that on the question two cases of competence were
put: the first, on the competence of Managers for the House of Commons
to give the evidence supposed to be offered by them, but which we deny
to have been offered in the manner and for the purpose assumed in this
question; the second is in a shape apparently more abstracted, and more
nearly approaching to Parliamentary regularity,--on the competence of
the evidence itself, in the case of a supposed circumstance being
superadded. The Judges answered only the first, denying flatly the
competence of the Managers. As to the second, the competence of the
supposed evidence, they are profoundly silent. Having given this blow to
our competence, about the other question, (which was more within their