time enough in the short life of man to repair the desolations of war by the acts of magnificence and peace. But under the English go. vernment all this order was reversed. Our

conquest there, after twenty years, was as crude as it had been the first day. The natives scarce knew what it was to see the grey head of an Englishman. Young men (almost boys) governed there, without society and without sympathy with the natives. They had no more social habits with the people than if they still resided in England; nor indeed any species of intercourse, but that which was necessary to the making a sudden fortune with a view to a remote settlement. Animated with all the avarice of age, and all the impetuosity of youth, they rolled in one after another, wave after wave, and there was nothing before the eyes of the natives but an endless, hopeless prospect of new flights of birds. of prey and passage, with appetites continually renewing for a food that was continually wasting. Were we to be driven out of India this day, nothing would remain to tell that it had been possessed during the inglorious period of our dominion, by any thing better than the ouranoutang, or the tyger." The peroration was an eulogium on his friend Fox as the mover of the bill. After a very animated general panegyric, he entered on the praises of the bill, anticipating the fervent and adoring gratitude with which he and the supporters of it would be

regarded in India. He said, "There was not a tongue, a nation, a religion in India, which would not bless the presiding care and manly, beneficence of that house and of him who proposed to them this great work. Their names would never be separated before the throne of the Divine Goodness, in whatever language or with whatever rites pardon was asked for sin, and reward for those who imitated the Godhead: in his universal bounty to his creatures."

The bill passed the House of Commons by a very great majority. When it came to the Peers, it met, if not with an abler opposition, with a much more numerous in proportion to the num-. ber of the assembly; and talents (with the excep-. tion of Lord Thurlow) were chiefly on the side of Ministry. The acute and comprehensive genius of Pitt, with the sound sense and extensive knowledge of India affairs possessed by Dundas, had exhausted the arguments that could mili tate against the bill. Even Thurlow brought forward little new matter on the general merits of the bill, but confined himself chiefly to the attack on Hastings. "If (said he) Hastings be a depopulator of provinces, and an enemy to the human race, let his crimes be brought forward." The close habits of judicial nvestigation of that great man represented invective, however eloquent, against an indivicual as mere inanity, unless supported by proof.

Though defended by the Duke of Portland,

Lords Stormont, Carlisle, Sandwich, and Loughborough, with all the force of their respective talents, it was thrown out in the House of Peers. Whether the more decisive opposition that it met with in that house was owing to the Lords, from having had more time to consider its principles and effects, being convinced that . it was an unjust and dangerous measure, or to some extrinsic cause, I cannot take upon me to determine. It is certain, that of the Peers (with the exception of the Duke of Richmond, Lord Rawdon, Lords Thurlow and Camden, and a few more) those who were most zealous in opposing it, were not those whose talents and habits of discussion rendered them the most competent judges of great political regulations. It was understood in the House of Commons that it had been represented by authority to many Peers, that those would not be considered as the friends of the Sovereign who voted for the bill. Resolutions of great boldness and decision were adopted, after much debate, by the house, declaring that it was derogatory to the honour of the Crown, and subversive of the constitution of the country, to report any opinion or ́alledged opinion of the King on any proceeding pending in parliament, so as to influence the votes of the members. The King determined on an entire change of Administration. The principal members were immediately dismissed from office, and a very general resignation of

employments took place. Pitt was appointed Prime Minister. The majority, however, continued in favour of Opposition in the House of Commons. A series of motions was proposed and adopted, tending to prove that the Minister ought not to continue in office without the support of the House of Commons. That no one could be long Minister if thwarted by the House of Commons, is obvious; at the same time, neither law nor precedent was brought forward to prove that the continuance of a Minister in office contrary to the approbation of the House of Commons was unconstitutional. The King certainly, as chief executive magistrate, has a right to chuse his own Ministers, (unless under disqualifications ascertained by law) for performing any branch of the executive duties. The House of Commons have a right to im peach, on the ground of malversation in office, any of the Ministers, but not to prescribe to him in his choice of a Minister. Notwithstanding the remonstrances of the House of Commons Pitt continued in office. Although the majority was against him in the house, it was very evident that it was for him in the nation. His Majesty seeing that the opinion of the House of Commons continued contrary to his own, and conceiving it to be contrary to that of his people, determined to put it in the power of the people to manifest their approbation or disapprobation of their present representatives.

By dissolving parliament, he virtually asked this question, DID YOUR LATE REPRESENTATIVES SPEAK YOUR SENSE OR NOT? If they did, you will reelect them; if not, you will elect others. Being asked this question respecting their late representatives, the greater part of the people answered No. A very considerable majority of members friendly to Pitt was returned:

1

The new parliament met the 18th May, 1784. The first business which exercised the talents, of Burke was a motion for preventing a scrutiny into the election of his friend Fox, at the instance of Sir Cecil Wray. Fox, on this occasion displayed a minute, accurate, and profound knowledge of law, which astonished the most eminent professional men on both sides. This motion was negatived, and the scrutiny proceeded.

June 14th, Burke made a motion for a representation to the King, the general object of which was to vindicate the conduct of Opposition, and to censure that of Administration. It dwelt particularly on the rectitude and expediency of the late East-India bill, and on the dreadful consequences it affirmed likely to ensue from the dissolution of parliament. Although Burke's speech on this occasion contained very great ingenuity, yet the main arguments were necessarily a repetition of what had been frequently urged before. The motion was nega tived without a division.