cendant over them as to make them forgetful of their faith, and blind to their true interests.

The Opposition, on the other hand, contend : First, That the war is unjust. The Dutch, they say, are, by the now subsisting treaty, allowed to furnish our enemies with stores. They are, as every body knows, so rapacious of gain, that they have supplied even their own enemies with stores, particularly in a very memorable instance, the siege of Bergen-op-Zoom; and how can we then expect they will do for us what they will not do for themselves? The pretended treaty which has been found is, in fact, no treaty; it is only a rough draft; it purports to be no more, for its initial words are, "We agree upon this as the proper plan for a treaty," &c. Our demand of punishment on Van Berkel is insolent, ridiculous, and illegal. How is he punishable? by what law? Suppose an Englishman, some years ago, had, in his cabinet, drawn up a treaty with Corsica, or that he had actually agreed upon terms with some Corsican chief, and the French had demanded punishment on him ; should we have inflicted it? or rather could we? Our demand to the States is not unlike that of the Czar Peter, who, when an ambassador of his was arrested in London for debt, demanded the heads of the persons concerned in the arrest!

;

Secondly, As the war is unjust, so is it inexpedient and rash. War is at all times an evil; what then must it be to a nation already engaged in hostilities with three of the greatest powers in the world, sinking under the enormous weight of its debt, with all its resources exhausted; -a war against our

natural ally, whose interests are inseparable from ours? What though they have been long lulled in peace; their indefatigable industry will shortly put them in a state, not merely of defence, but of annoyance. The severest blows our naval power ever sustained were from the Hollanders. The names of Van Tromp and De Ruyter are still dreadful. Who knows how soon the rashness of our councils may raise up other commanders as formidable? We talk of the weakness of the Dutch settlements, but we forget the condition of our own; that our oppressions in the East Indies have made for us there as many enemies as there are natives; that we are already engaged in war with the fierce Marattoes; that discord and enmity rage among the servants of the Company, particularly at Bengal, where all is anarchy. A war with Holland must be a war with all the powers of Europe; for, as the Dutch have acceded to the armed neutrality, there can be no doubt that all the neutral powers will make theirs a common cause.

I leave you, my dear Roget, to determine on which side the arguments preponderate. However weighty the arguments of Opposition, it must be confessed they come with a bad grace from men who have so often blamed the timidity of the Ministry. Our circumstances, you will say, have greatly changed, and it would be madness in us to hold the same language now, which, a few years since, would have been moderate and reasonable; but it was only last summer, at a moment the most alarming we have ever known, when great part of London lay in ashes, and re

bellion and civil war seemed at our very doors, that the Duke of Richmond reproached the Ministry in the severest terms for not proceeding rigorously to punish a Russian, who was said to have been concerned in burning the chapels. The Duke was then for despising the Russians, and the armed neutrality. No matter what the consequences. "Fiat justitia et ruat cœlum."

I must how conclude by informing you of the death of Mrs. Facquier. You know too well the great obligations we have to her, and were yourself too well acquainted with her excellent disposition, not to conceive how much we all should feel her loss, were it not lightened by the consideration that her death is a deliverance from a painful existence. Considering what she has gone through for many years past, one cannot call it a cessation of life, but the conclusion of a lingering death; "non erepta vita sed donata mors est." She expired, free from all pain, in a state of composure and tranquillity which could hardly be expected after what she so long had suffered. Though she had never any apprehension of quitting this life, (for it had proved to her a state of too severe probation for her to be attached to it, nor could a life of such piety and charity leave her any dread of futurity,) yet having so often experienced such sharp pain from disease, she always expressed some fear of what she might suffer at the moment of dissolution; but her death was like sleep. So true is it that half the terrors of death are of our own creation. Adieu. Yours most affectionately,

SAML. ROMILLY.

1 See antè, p. 9.

LETTER VIII.

Gray's Inn, March 27. 1781.

When I have told you, my dear Roget, that your little boy and all your friends here are in perfect health, I have concluded all the most interesting intelligence I have to send you, and must have recourse to public news to fill my letter. I might, indeed, indulge myself with planning schemes of future felicity: the probability of our seeing each other next summer in Switzerland already affords me the dream of a transient happiness; but of happiness it becomes us to be economists.

Little business of consequence has come on lately in our Parliament; the Lords have scarcely any debates; the Duke of Richmond, Lord Shelburne, and Lord Camden never attend. In the Commons, some unsuccessful attempts have been made to curb that system of corruption which is the bane of our constitution. One was a Bill against contractors sitting in Parliament; the same Bill which last year passed the Commons, and was thrown out by the Lords. The debate was short; for the majority were so confident of victory, and so vociferous for the question, that few deigned to speak on one side of the House, or were permitted on the other. One argument used against the Bill was, that it was unjust and cruel to suppose that members of Parliament would be induced to vote against their conscience by the hope of being favoured with lucrative contracts; as if men of honour and fortune would prefer their own interests

to those of their country. Another objection was, that the Bill would, in its effects, prove an exclusion of merchants from Parliament. You observe how these arguments destroy one another. If these contractors are so disinterested as to prefer the public to their own private good, they will sooner resign the advantage to be made by contracts than quit the service of their country in Parliament; consequently, the Act will not operate as an exclusion. If, on the contrary, preferring an increase of their private fortunes to the honour and satisfaction of promoting the public good, they keep thei contracts and resign their seats, it necessarily follows that they are not men who have the welfare of their country at heart, not men who can safely be entrusted with the rights of their fellow-citizens and the interests of their country. Another Bill, which has been thrown out by the House of Commons, was for disqualifying officers, employed in the collection of the Excise and Customs, to vote at elections of members of Parliament. The opposers of this Bill dared to profane the name of Liberty by saying that the Bill was destructive of it, and that it would rob a very large class of men of their dearest privilege; though they well know that this dear privilege is a hateful burden to all but those who are dishonest enough to make a profit of it that the rest, threatened with the loss of their places if they vote against the court, find themselves, at every election, reduced to the dilemma of choosing between a sacrifice of fortune or of conscience.

The conduct of the English judges in India is