Pruflian minifter, and alío by an Auftrian officer of rank, who was then just arrived from the Pruffian army, it appeared that the army immediately under Marthal Mollendorf was complete to 62,400 effective men; but in the state ment of the latter it was added that the corps under general Kalkreuth, which was to furnish the contingent of 20,000 men to the emperor, was not complete. By a difpatch from Marquis Cornwallis, dated Mayence, 21ft June, it appears that Marshal Mollendorf then reprefented to his lordship, that the corps ftipulated in the treaty was complete at the time of the fignature to 51,000 fighting men; but that they were fince reduced by cafualties to 39,000 fighting men, and that the whole force under Marthal Mollendorf's command, including men of all defcriptions, amounted at that time to 84,000 men. By an abstract, taken from an inclosure in a difpatch from Lord Malmesbury to Lord Grenville, it appears that the return of the Pruffian army employed on the Rhine on the 6th of Auguft was, In the return of the Pruffian force tranfmitted by lieutenantcolonel Don, dated 26th October, 1794, it appears that at that period it confifted of 70,000 men, In another return of the Pruffian force tranfmitted by the fame officer, dated November, 1794, in which the names of the corps are fpecified, a lift is given of 77 battalions and 100 fquadrons. This lift includes the names of all the battalions and fquadrons enumerated in the table annexed to the treaty. N. B. Befides the force which the king of Pruffia 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 ftipulated for under his treaty with the emperor was 20,000 men. Account of the Number of Foreign Troops actually in British Pay, as far as the jame can be ufceriained by the latest Returns received at the Secretary of State's Office, laid before the lionfe of Commons on the 13th of February, 1795. Ceremony of the Acquittal of Warren Haflings, Efq. (late Governor General of Bengal) before the High Court of Parliament, for High Crimes and Mijdemeanors. ON N Thursday, April 23, this celebrated trial, which began on the 12th of February 1788, came to a decifion. The ball was as much crowded as on the first day. The fplendour of the ailembly, from the number of ladies, it is impoffible to defcribe. Mr. Fox and the reft 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 ufual way, Warren Haftings, efq. with his bail, came into the court, and was directed to withdraw. The lord chancellor then stood up, and faid, that the lords had upon Friday last refolved, that judgment thould be given this day on the charges of high crimes and mifdemeanors brought by the house of commons against Warren Haftings, eiq. The following are the refolutions which they entered into, and the questions to be put to the lords feverally : Refolved by the lords fpiritual and and temporal, in parliament affembled, that the following quef tions be put to the lords in Westminfter hall; viz. 1. İs Warren Haftings, efq. guilty, or not guilty, of high crimes and mifdemeanors, charged upon him by the commons in the first article of charge? 2. Is Warren Hastings, efq. guilty, or not guilty, of high crimes and mifdemeanors, charged upon him by the commons in the fecond article of charge? 3 Is Warren Haftings, efq. guilty, or not guilty, of high crimes and mifdemeanors, charged upon him by the commons in the fixth article of charge, in so far as relates to the faid Warren Haftings having in the years 1772, 1773, and 1774, corruptly taken the feveral fuins of money charged to have been taken by him in the faid years, from the feveral perfons in the faid Article particularly mentioned? 4. Is Warren Haftings, efq. guilty,or not guilty, of high crimes, and mifdemeanors, charged upon him by the commons in the fixth article of charge, in fo far as relates to his having, on or before the 26th of June 1780, corruptly received and taken from Sadanund, the Buxey of the Rajah Cheit Sing, the fum of two lacks of rupees as a prefent or a gift? 5. Is Warren Haftings, efq. guilty, or not guilty, of high crimes and mifdemeanors, charged upon him by the commons in the fixth article of charge, in fo far as relates to his having, in October 1780, taken and received from Kelleram, on behalf of himself and a certain perfon called Cullian Sing, a fum of money amounting to four lacks of rupees, in confideration of letting to them certain lands in the province of Bahar in perpetuity, contrary to his duty, and to the injury of the Eaft India company? 6. Is Warren Haftings, efq. guilty, or not guilty, of high crimes and mifdemeanors, charged upon him by the commons in the fixth article of charge, in fo far as relates to his having, in the year 1781, received and taken as a prefent from Nundoolol, the fum of fifty-eight thousand rupees? 7. Is Warren Haftings, efq. guilty, or not guilty, of high crimes and mifdemeanors, charged upon him by the commons in the fixth article of charge, in fo 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 received as a prefent from the vizier the fum of ten lacks of rupees? 8. Is Warren Haftings, efq. guilty, or not guilty, of high crimes and mifdemeanors, charged upon him by the commons in the fixth article of charge, in fo far as relates to his having firft fraudu lently folicited as a loan, and of his having afterwards corruptly and illegally taken and retained as a prefent or gift, from rajah Nobkitten, a fum of money amounting 10 34,000l. fterling; and of his having, without any allowance from the directors, or any perfon authorized to grant fatch allowance, applied the fame to his own ufe, under pretence of difcharging certain expences faid to be incurred by the faid Warren Hattings in his public capacity? 9. Is Warren Haftings, efq: guilty, or not guilty, of high crimes and mifdemeanors, charged upon him by the commons in the fourth article of charge, in fo far as relates to his having, in the year 1781, granted a contract for the provifion of opium for four years, to Stephen Sullivan, efq. without advertising for the fame, and upon terms glaringly extravagant and wantonly profufe, for the purpose of creating an inftant fortune to the faid Stephen Sullivan ? 10. Is Warren Haftings, efq. guilty, or not guilty, of high crimes and mifdemeanors, charged upon him by the commons in the fourth article of charge, in fo far as relates to his having borrowed money at a large intereft, for the purpofe of advancing the fame to the contractor for opium, and engaging -the Eaft India company in a smuggling adventure to China? I. Is Warren Haftings, efq. guilty, or not guilty, of high crimes and mifdemeanors, charged upon him by the commons in the fourth article of charge, in fo far as relates to the contract for bullocks granted to Charles Croft, efq. 12. Is Warren Haflings, efq. guilty, or not guilty, of high crimes and mifdemeanors, charged upon him by the commons in the fourth article of charge, in fo far as relates to his having granted the provifion of bullocks to fir Charles Blunt by the mode of agency? 13. Is Warren Naftings, efq guilty, or not guilty, of high crimes and mildemeanors, charged upon him by the commons in the fourth article of charge, in fo far as relates to the feyeral allowances charged to to have been made to fir Eyre Coote, and directed to be paid by the vizier for the use of the faid fir Eyre Coote? 14. Is Warren Haftings, efq. guilty, or not guilty, of high crimes and mifdemeanors, charged upon him by the commons in the fourth article of charge, in fo far as relates to the appointment of James Peter Auriol, efq. to be agent for the purchase of fupplies for the relief of the prefidency of Madras, and all the other prefidencies in India, with a commiffion of fifteen per cent. 15. Is Warren Haftings, efq. guilty, or not guilty, of high crimes and mifdemeanors, charged upon him by the commons in the fourth article of charge, in so far as relates to the appointment of John Belli, efq. to be agent for the supply of ftores and provifions for the garrifon of Fort William in Bengal, with a commiffion of thirty per cent. 16. Is Warren Haftings, efq. guilty, or not guilty, of the refidue of the high crimes and mifdemeanors, or any of them, charged upon him by the impeachment of the commons? Refolved, by the lords fpiritual and temporal, in parliament affembled, that the faid questions fhall be feverally put in Westminsterhall to each of the lords,beginning with the junior baron; and that the only anfwer fhall 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 lift of the peers prefent, and who had taken their feats in VOL. XXXVII. their robes before the throne. Thofe peers who did not mean tơ vote retired behind the throne. The noble lord then began with the junior peer prefent, in the fol→ lowing manner: George lord Douglas, is Warren Haftings, efq. guilty, or not guilty, of the high crimes and mifdemeanors charged upon him by the commons in the firft article of charge? Lord Douglas ftood up, took off his hat, and laying his right hand on his heart, pronounced→→→ Not guilty, upon my honour. James lord Fife, how fay you? Not guilty, upon my honour. Charles lord Somers, how fay you?-Not guilty, upon my honour. Francis lord Rawdon, how fay you?-Not guilty, upon my honour. Thomas lord Walfingham, how fay you?-Not guilty, upon my honour. Edward lord Thurlow, how fay you?-Not guilty, upon my honour. Martin lord Hawke, how fay you?-Not guilty, upon my ho Thus, on the first question, twenty-three peers pronounced Mr. Haftings not guilty. Six pronounced him guilty. On the 2d queftion the numbers were the fame. On the 3d question be was unanimously declared not guilty. The duke of Norfolk then retired bebind 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 reft not guilty.Lord Suffolk then withdrew. On the 5th, 6th, and 7th, lord Caernarvon, lord Fitzwilliam, and the lord chancellor, guilty-all the reft not guilty. On the 8th, lord Caernarvon, lord Fitzwilliam, lord Mansfield, and the lord chancellor, guilty-all the reft not guilty. On the 9th, lord Walfingham, lord Caernarvon, lord Radnor, lord Fitzwilliam, and the lord chancellor, guilty-all the reit not guilty. On the roth he was unanimoutly acquitted. On the 11th and 12th, lord Caernarvon, lord Fitzwilliam, and the chancellor, guilty-all the reft not guilty. On the 13th and 14th, lord Caernarvon, lord Radnor, lord Fitz. william, and the chancellor, guilty -all the reft not guilty. On the 15th and 16th, lord Caer narvon, lord Fitzwilliam, and the lord chancellor, guilty-all the ret not guilty. The following will fhew the whole in one point of view. The figures answer to the 16 queftions. N. G. ftands for not guilty. G. ftands for guilty. Lord |