Prussian minister, and also by an Austrian officer of rank, who was then just arrived from the Prussian army, it appeared that the army immediately under marshal Mollendorf was complete to 62,400 effective men; but in the state. ment of the latter it was added that the corps under general Kal. kreuth, which was to furnish the contingent of 20,000 men to the emperor, was not complete.

By a dispatch from marquis Cornwallis, dated Mayence, 21st June, it appears that marshal Mol. lendorf then represented to his lordship, that the corps stipulated in the treaty was complete at the time of the signature to 51,000 fighting men; but that they were since reduced by casualties 39,000 fighting men, and that the whole force under marshal Mollendorf's command, including men of all descriptions, amounted at that time to 84,000.

to

By an abstract, taken from an inclosure in a dispatch from lord Malmesbury to lord Gernville, it appears that the return of the Prussian army employed on the Rhine on the 6th of August was,

In the return of the Prussian force transmitted by lieutenantcolonel Don, dated 26th of October, 1794, it appears that at that period it consisted of 70,000 men.

In another return of the Prussian force transmitted by the same officer, dated November, 1794, which the names of the corps are specified, a list is given of 77 bat talions and co squadrons. This list includes the names of all the battalions and squadrons enumer ated in the table annexed to the treaty.

N. B. Besides the force which the king of Prussia was to furnish, under the treaty with the maritime powers, he was bound to furnish his contingent as a member of the empire, and the contingent stipu lated for under his treaty with the emperor was 20,000 men.

Ceremony of the Acquittal of Warren Hastings, Esq. (late Governor General of Bengal) before the High Court of Parliament, for High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

ΟΝ

N Thursday, April 23, this celebrated trial, which began on the 12th of February 1788, came to a decision. The hall was as much crowded as on the first day. The splendour of the assembly, from the number of ladies, it is impossible to describe. Mr. Fox and the rest of the managers came into their box at twelve o'clock. The peers entered the hall half an hour afterwards.

Proclamation being made in the usual way, Warren Hastings, esq. with his bail, came into the court, and was directed to withdraw.

The lord chancellor then stood up, and said, that the lords had upon Friday last resolved, that judgment should be given this day on the charges of high crimes and misdemeanors brought by the house of commons against Warren Hast. ings, esq.

The following are the resolutions which they entered into, and the questions to be put to the lords severally:

Resolved by the lords spiritual and temporal, in parliament assembled, that the following questions be put to the lords in West**minster hall, viz.

1. Is Warren Hastings, esq. guilty, or not guilty, of high crimes and misdemeanors, charged upon him by the commons in the firstarticle of charge?

2. Is Warren Hastings, esq. guilty, or not guilty, of high crimes and misdemeanors, charged upon him by the commons in the second articie of charge?

3. Is Warren Hastings, esq. guilty, or not guilty, of high crimes and misdemeanors, charged upon him by the commons in the sixth article of charge, in so far as relates to the said Warren Hastings having in the years 1772, 1773, and 1774, corruptly taken the several sums of money charged to have been taken by him in the said years, from the several persons in the said article particularly mentioned ?

4. Is Warren Hastings, esq. guilty, or not guilty, of high crimes. and misdemeanors, charged upon him by the commons in the sixth article of charge, in so far as relates to his having, on or before the 26th of June 1780, corruptly received and taken from Sadaniund, the Buxey of the Rajah Cheit Sing, the sum of two lacks of rupees as a present or a gift?

5. Is Warren Hastings, esq. guilty, or not guilty, of high crimes and misdemeanors, charged upon him by the commons in the sixth article of charge, in so far as relates to his having, in October

1780, taken and received from Kelleram, on behalf of himself and a certain person called Cullian Sing, a sum of money amounting to four lacks of rupees, in consideration of letting to them certain lands in the province of Bahar in perpetuity, contrary to his duty, and to the injury of the East India company?

6. Is Warren Hastings, esq. guilty, or not guilty, of high crimes and misdemeanors, charged upon him by the commons in the sixth article of charge, in so far as relates to his having, in the year 1781, received and taken as a present from Nundoolol, the sum of fifty-eight thousand rupees?

7. Is Warren Hastings, esq. guilty, or not guilty, of high crimes and misdemeanors, charged upon him by the commons in the sixth article of charge, in so far as relates to his having, on or about the month of September, 1781, at Chunar, in the province of Oude, contrary to his duty, taken and re. ceived as a present from the vi. zier the sum of ten lacks of ru. pees?

S. Is Warren Hastings, esq. guilty, or not guilty, of high crimes and misdemeanors, charged upon him by the commons in the sixth article of charge, in so far as re lates to his having first fraudalently solicited as a loan, and of his having afterwards corruptly and illegally taken and retained as a present or gift, from rajah Nob. kissen, a sum of money amounting to 34,000l. sterling; and of his having, without any allowance from the directors, or any person, authorized to grant such allowance, applied the same to his own use, under pretence of discharging certain expences said to be incurred

by the said Warren Hastings in his public capacity?

9. Is Warren Hastings, esq. guilty, or not guilty, of high crimes and misdemeanors, charged upon him by the commons in the fourth article of charge, in so far as relates to his having, in the year 1781, granted a contract for the provision of opium for four years, to Stephen Sullivan, esq. without advertising for the same, and upon terms glaringly extravagant and wantonly profuse, for the purpose of creat ing an instant fortune to the said Stephen Sullivan ?

10. Is Warren Hastings, esq. guilty, or not guilty, of high crimes and misdemeanors, charged upon him by the commons in the fourth article of charge, in so far as relates to his having borrowed money at a large interest, for the purpose of advancing the same to the contractor for opium, and engaging the East India company in a smuggling adventure to China?

11. Is Warren Hastings, esq. guilty, or not guilty, of high crimes and misdemeanors, charged upon him by the commons in the fourth article of charge, in so far as relates to the contract for bullocks granted to Charles Croft, esq.

12. Is Warren Hastings, esq. guilty, or not guilty, of high crimes and misdemeanors, charged upon him by the commons in the fourth article of charge, in so far as relates to his having granted the provision of bullocks to sir Charles Blunt by the mode of agency?

13. Is Warren Hastings, esq. guilty, or not guilty, of high crimes and misdemeanors, charged upon him by the commons in the fourth arcicle of charge, in so far as relates to the several allowances charged

to have been made to sir Eyre Coote, and directed to be paid by

the vizier for the use of the said sir Eyre Coote?

14. Is Warren Hastings, esq. guilty, or not guilty, of high crimes and misdemeanors, charged upon him by the commons in the fourth article of charge, in so far as relates to the appointment of James Peter Auriol, esq. to be agent for the purchase of supplies for the relief of the presidency of Madras, and all the other presidencies in India, with a commission of fifteen per

cent.?

15. Is Warren Hastings, esq. guilty, or not guilty, of high crimes and misdemeanors, charged upon him by the commons in the fourth article of charge, in so far as relates to the appointment of John Belli, esq. to be agent for the supply of stores and provisions for the garri. son of Fort William in Bengal, with a commission of thirty per cent.?

16. Is Warren Hastings, esq. guilty, or not guilty, of the residue of the high crimes and misde. meanors, or any of them, charged upon him by the impeachment of the commons? Resolved, by the lords spiritual and temporal, in parliament assembled, that the said questions shall be severally put in Westminsterhall to each of the lords, beginning with the junior baron; and that the only answer shall be given by each lord in these words: "Guilty, upon my honour;" or, "Not guilty, upon my ho"nour;" laying his right hand on his breast.

The lord chancellor held in his hand a list of the peers present, and who had taken their seats in VOL. XXXVII,

their robes before, the throne. Those peers who did

not mean to

vote retired behind the throne. The noble lord then began with the junior peer present, in the following manner:

George lord Douglas, is Warren Hastings, esq. guilty, or not guilty, of the high crimes and misdemeanors charged upon him by the commons in the first article of charge? Lord Douglas stood up, took off his hat, and laying his right hand on his heart, pronouncedNot guilty, upon my honour.

James lord Fife, how say you? Not guilty, upon my honour. Charles lord Somers, how say you?-Not guilty, upon my ho nour.

Francis lord Rawdon, how say you?-Not guilty, upon my honour.

Thomas lord Walsingham, how say you?-Not guilty, upon my ho

George carl of Warwick, how say you?-Not guilty, upon my honour.

George William earl of Coventry, how say you?-Not guilty, upon my honour.

John earl of Suffolk, how say you?-Guilty, upon my honour. George marquis Townshend, how say you?-Not guilty, upon my honour.

Francis duke of Bridgewater, how says your grace ?-Not guilty, upon my honour.

Francis duke of Leeds, how says your grace? Not guilty, upon my honour.

Charles duke of Norfolk, how says your grace?-Guilty, upon my

honour.

Thus on the first question, twenty-three peers pronounced Mr. Hastings not guilty. Six pronounced him guilty.

On the 2d question the numbers were the same.

On the 3d question he was una nimously declared not guilty. The duke of Norfolk then retired behind the throne and did not vote

any more.

On the fourth question, four.. peers pronounced him guilty-the earl of Caernarvon, earl Fitzwilliam, earl of Suffolk, and the lord chancellor; all the rest not guilty.Lord Suffolk then withdrew.

On the 5th, 6th, and 7th, lord Caernarvon, lord Fitzwilliam, and the lord chancellor, guilty-all the rest not guilty.

On the 8th, lord Caernarvon, lord Fitzwilliam, lord Mansfield, and the lord chancellor, guilty-all the rest not guilty.

On the 9th, lord Walsingham, lord Caernarvon, lord Radnor, lord Fitzwilliam, and the lord chancellor, guilty-all the rest not guilty.

On the roth he was unanimously acquitted.

On the 11th and 12th lord Caernarvon, lord Fitzwilliam, and the chancellor, guilty-all the rest not guilty.

On the 13th and 14th, lord Caernarvon, lord Radnor, lord Fitzwilliam, and the chancellor, guilty -all the rest not guilty.

On the 15th and 17th, lord Caernarvon, lord Fitzwilliam; and the lord chancellor, guilty-all the rest not guilty.

The following will shew the whole in one point of view.

The figures answer to the 16 questions. N. G. stands for not guilty. G. stands for guilty. Lord