cause she has lost her reputation. It is the same with a nation if it has lost its character, all is gone, and nothing remains but gaudy trappings to conceal its misery. And it is of little consequence, whether this consists of fine cambrics, of rich scarlet or good black cloth, of silks or satins. The same principle holds good with nations as with individuals. When once a man has sacrificed his honour, in what respect is he better than a beast? What is he good for, but to fatten; to drink rich wines and wallow in luxury and riot? Equally insidious were the designs of France in endeavouring to make a treaty with Portugal, to seeure to herself the monopoly of the Brazil cottons: this was an indisputable proof of the insincerity of the French court. Our manufacturers might exult on the temporary advantage they would derive from the avidity of the French for English commodities; but if at the expiration of twelve years France should be found a large, commercial, trading, and naval power, the merely temporary benefits of trade would, doubtless, become purchased at a most shameful and alarming price — the price of irretrievable ruin to this country.

EAST INDIA JUDICATURE BILL.

February 20.

THE HE House having resolved to go, on the 27th instant, into a committee on the East India judicature acts, Mr. Dempster this day moved, That certain petitions from the civil and military servants of the East India Company, and others, the British inhabitants of Fort William in Bengal, be referred to the said committee; and also that they be at liberty to be heard by their counsel, in support of the said petitions. The Speaker expressed some doubt, whether the petitions could be thus heard, consistently with the forms of the House, and wished that a precedent might be adduced, by which the House would

stand justified in giving their assent to the proceeding. Mr. Dempster begged leave to adduce as a precedent, the hearing of counsel in favour of the shopkeepers against the shop-tax. There were gentlemen lately arrived from Bengal to be examined, he believed, touching the merits of the petition; but even if there were no precedent, he contended that the present petition ought to be heard. Britons had a right to be heard against the passing any law which might infringe on their natural privileges. The petitioners, however, could not avail themselves of that right by reason of their distance; their right now to be heard could not be disputed on any grounds supported by justice. He then quoted as precedents the hearing the Manchester merchants by counsel, against some acts relating to the American trade, and the London merchants being permitted to be heard by themselves against the Bank. The Speaker answered, that in his opinion, precedents of this nature were not applicable to the present petitions, unless the honourable gentleman would say that evidence was to be produced; then the precedents would apply; for evidence was produced in support of those petitions. He wished the House to weigh the matter well previous to their establishing a pre

cedent.

Mr. BURKE declared, that all Englishmen were fully privileged to pray against the passing of any act which might affect their rights; the House would grant permission; its proceedings allowed that objections should be stated against any act prior to its being made a law; it would not be common justice, then, to deprive the petitioners of the privilege of being heard by counsel against a bill which was passed into a law previous to their knowledge of such law being intended, and against which they had no opportunity to demur, they being in a remote part of the globe. If they were denied being heard against the bill, on account of their not objecting to it previous to its being made a law, it would be saying to them, Our precedents admit you to object, but nature debars you. He was as much for a strict observance of the precedents of the House as any gentleman could be, as long as they were supported by reason; but technical rules should be done

away whenever they were contrary to justice. If the present was to be considered as a new case, old precedents should not be brought against it. Trial by jury, and other valuable privileges, ought not to be done away without a hearing. No man should be proceeded against without permitting him to speak in his own vindication. There was no country, no government in the world, however despotic, but admitted the petitions of individuals; even the grand seignior, when going to mosque, received. petitions from the meanest of his subjects; and he should entertain no high opinion of his piety, if such petitions were refused.

Mr. Dundas was of opinion, that there were many reasons for refusing to comply with the prayer of the petition. With regard to the acts referred to, so fully was he convinced of their propriety, that he would readily expatiate on that theme for a day, for two days, or for a week, if so long it pleased the honourable gentlemen opposite to him to continue their objections to the tenour of those acts.

Mr. BURKE said, he had not the smallest doubt but that the right honourable gentleman would find a peculiar degree of pleasure in defending the justice of those acts; it was a theme which was confessedly dictated by self-love; but when the right honourable gentleman talked of his being particularly pledged, it included no more than this modest assertion that the measure must be just, because he was the minister of India. But with respect to the present objections to the measure, if the language of the petition was displeasing to the right honourable gentleman as coming from men in arms, that might possibly have been a good reason for rejecting the petition; but when it was once received, that objection was of course given up, and it now mattered not whether they originally came, in the language of Milton, "beseeching, or besieging," they were now entitled to a hearing. He was not at all surprised to hear that gentlemen going out to India, had approved

of these acts. Those who had favours to ask, were easily persuaded; and those, who perhaps could not go out but through the interest of that right honourable gentleman, would readily yield their conviction to his arguments; eloquent as he was by nature, there was then a superior eloquence in his situation, a persuasion in his official rank, which few adventurers so situated could withstand. The House, however, was not now to deliberate on the opinions of gentlemen going to India, but on the complaints of those who were already in that country, and whose supplications were poured out to them for hearing and redress.

Mr. Dundas denied that the opinion of any gentleman on these acts had been extorted or perverted by his situation, as he had no power to send out any person in any office to India.

Mr. BURKE replied, that though the right honourable gentleman might not be possessed of any direct power to that end, yet all who knew his influence with the court of directors must own that indirectly he might effect a great deal; or, if this was denied, he was certainly possessed of a power nearly equivalent that of instantly recalling any person who met his displeasure.

The motion was agreed to.

February 27.

THE House went into a committee on the Bengal petitions, for the repeal of the East India judicature bill. After the counsel had retired from the bar, Mr. Dempster said, that on the next open day he should move for leave to bring in a bill to repeal the said bill, agreeably to the prayer of the petitions. Mr. Pitt observed, that there was sufficient time for the honourable gentleman to make his motion, and that instead of waiting for an open day, he ought to avail himself of the present day, which was kept open merely to accommodate him, though other very important business had been postponed for that

purpose. It was absurd, after having had the benefit of counsel,. for the committee to adjourn immediately, as it were in order to forget the arguments of the counsel, before they should come to a vote upon the subject. Mr. Dempster answered, that his reason for deferring his motion was the thinness of the House. He then moved, "That the chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again." Upon which, Mr. Pitt moved, by way of amendment, "That the chairman do leave the chair."

Mr. BURKE contended, that a great deal of argument might still be adduced in favour of the original motion. It gave him great concern to find that British subjects in India were not to be permitted to enjoy the same privileges which British subjects in England enjoyed. If they were to be deprived of their freedom, if English mouths and English pens were not to be allowed to be exercised in favour of oppressed natives, those natives must lose their freedom entirely, and no complaint against persons in office could ever be preferred with effect, so as to reach the knowledge and challenge the inquiry of the parliament of Great Britain, because the acts petitioned against put it in the power of the governor-general to seize and imprison every British subject who should presume particularly to state the variety of oppressions under which a native might unfortunately languish.

Major Scott said, that as to the government of Bengal, it had ever been, and it ever must be despotic.

Mr. BURKE maintained, that the worst that could be said of any government was, that it was despotic. If the British government established in India was despotic, so far from its being the best possible government for the country, all circumstances considered, it must be the worst, because of the infinite distance of India from the seat of supreme authority. If Englishmen in India were deprived of their rights and privileges, a total end was put to freedom in India, since an Englishman who suffered his liberties to be