arrive here with the greatest dispatch. You fent ten mangoes for my mafter, and two for me, which all I have delivered to my master, thinking that ten was not fufficient to prefent him with. I write this for your information, and falute you with ten thousand respects. I Muttu Kiftnah, of Madras Patnam, Dubafh, declare, That I perfectly understand the Gentoo language; and do most folemnly affirm, that the foregoing is a true tranflation of the annexed paper writing from the Gentoo language. (Signed) Muttu Kistnah, A REPRE PRE FAC E. T HE representation now given to the public relates to some of the most essential privileges of the house of commons. It would appear of little importance, if it were to be judged by its reception in the place where it was propofed. There it was rejected without debate. The subject matter may, perhaps, hereafter appear to merit a more serious confideration. Thinking men will scarcely regard the penal diffolution of a parliament as a very trifling concern. Such a diffolution muft operate forcibly as an example; and it much imports the people of this kingdom to confider what leffon that example is to teach. The late house of commons was not accused of an interested compliance to the will of a court. The charge against them was of a different nature. They were charged with being actuated by an extravagant spirit of independency. This fpecies of offence is fo closely connected with merit; this vice bears fo near a refemblance to virtue; that the flight of an houfe of commons above the exact temperate medium of independence, ought to be correctly ascertained, left we give encouragement to difpofitions of a lefs generous nature, and lefs fafe for the people; we ought to call for very folid and convincing proofs of the existence, and of the magnitude too of the evils, which are charged to an independent spirit, before we give fanction to any measure, that by checking a spirit so easily damped, and so hard to be excited, may affect the liberty of a part of our constitution, which, if not free, is worse than useless. The editor does not deny, that by poffibility fuch ̄an abuse may exist: but prima fonte, there is no reason to presume it. The houfe of commons is not, by its complexion, peculiarly fubject to the distempers of an independent habit. Very little compulfion is neceffary, on the part of the people, to render it abundantly complaifant to ministers and favourites of all defcriptions. It required a great length of time, very confiderable industry and perfeverance, no vulgar policy, the union of many men and many tempers, and the concurrence of events which do not happen every day, to build up an independent house of commons. Its demolition was accomplished in a moment; and it was the work of ordinary hands. But to construct is a matter of skill; to demolish, force and fury are fufficient. The late house of commons has been punished for its independence. That example is made. Have we an example on record, of an house of commons punished for its fervility? The rewards of a fenate fo disposed, are manifeft to the world. Several gentlemen are very defirous of altering the constitution of the house of commons: but they must alter the frame and conftitution of human nature itself, before they can fo fashion it by any mode of election, that its conduct will not be influenced by reward and punishment; by fame, and by difgrace. If thefe examples take root in the minds of men, what members hereafter will be bold enough not to be corrupt? Efpecially as the king's highway of obfequiousness is fo very broad and eafy. To make a paffive member of parliament, no dignity of mind, no principles of honour, no refolution, no ability, no industry, no learning, no experience are in the least degree neceffary. To defend a post of importance against a powerful enemy, requires an Elliot; a drunken invalid is qualified to hoist a white flag, or to deliver up the keys of the fortrefs on his knees. 4 The |