The fecond fection has for title, Meafures adopted by Lord Pigot, for reftoring the Rajah, and fettling the Country of Tanjore in Pursuance of the Orders of the Company.' During the whole of this long and interefting fection, lord Pigot appears to have kept steadily in view the great end proposed by the company. His lordfhip fet out with endeavouring to engage the concurrence of the nabob in the execution of the orders. Difappointed in this view, we fee him gradually proceed in the grand bufinefs of the reftoration; and to perfist in showing every confiftent mark of attention to the interefts of the nabob; in rejecting the violent measures, proposed by those identical men, who now accufe his lordship of violence. We see him acting in a manner to deserve what he gained, the unanimous approbation of the board; the grateful thanks of the company; and throughout, not more folicitous to execute the commands of the company, than anxious to execute them in the order and in the manner which they thought moft likely to be effectual. We fee him at laft rifk his government, his liberty, his life, to give permanence and ftability to that fyftem which he was ordered to re-eftablish; and uniformly acting in fuch a manner, that, on finishing the fecond section, every reader concludes, with his able advocate-Thus far to fay he is acquitted of any breach of orders, would be to do injuftice to his lordship: thus far lord Pigot has a claim, not to the cold compliment of exculpation, but to the warmeft teftimony of applaufe,'

The third fection treats, with the fame clear reasoning, and the fame convincing argument, of the conduct of lord Pigot in his difputes with the nabob and the members of the council.'. To the nabob his lordship's condu&t feems to be fairly related, and to be fully juftified-With refpect to the council, his conduct alfo, to our conceptions, is proved to have been strictly legal. The advocate of the noble lord proceeds next to convince the world, that the exercise of his client's legal negative power, could never have brought on the convulfion which followed; that it was the exercise of an illegal pofitive power, on the part of the faction, which compelled the prefident reluctantly, in a legal, regular way, to fufpend two members. of the board; and that what followed was the unavoidable confequence of the fedition and mutiny of the faction; was legal, was neceffary. The fection concludes with this fpirited and manly paffage.

• We must again recall to the reader's attention what we have before remarked. The legality of thefe vigorous measures will depend upon these plain and fimple questions; " By the confti

tution of government, is the prefident, or is he not, invested with the power of putting a negative upon every act of government "Has the council, or has it not, the power of doing an act of government without the concurrence of the prefident?" To both thefe queftions we have already given plain and direct anfwers. We have, I think, proved the negative power of the prefident: we have, I think proved, that, without the concurrence of the prefident, the council has no power to do acts of government. This proved, it follows, that attempts to deprive the prefident of his negative power; to affume all the powers of government to a part only of the council, independently and exclufively of the prefident: that attempts to withdraw the officers and foldiers from their obedience to the governor and council; are acts fubverfive of government; tend to introduce anarchy and confufion; to excite mutiny and fedition. Thefe vigorous measures were therefore legal. But though legal they were violent, Violent! was it violent to fufpend the civil fervants of the company, who fubverted the conftitution of the company's government ? was it violent to order an officer, who excited mutiny and fedition to appear before the tribunal appointed by law for the cognizance of offences committed by officers? It was an act of vigour, but furely not of violence. But fuppofe, for the fake of argument, it were an act of violence; to whom muft the blame be imputed? Who brought the conteft to an iffue? We have feen it was the faction. Lord Pigot did nothing he refused only to act. The faction acted. The faction figned the letter. That brought on the fufpenfion of Stratton and Brocke. The faction figned the proteft, difperfed the proteft. That brought on the fufpenfion of the others and the arreft of Fletcher. It is frange, that the blame of thefe proceeding fhould be thrown on the man who was only afferting his legal right;"—and that only to a negative power-" which he could not give up without a breach of truft to his employers." In a word the remedy was frong; was, if you will, violent. But it was legal: but it was neceffary. No medium was left. No man, not the feverest cenfurer of Lord Pigot, has been able to point out any other poffible mode of breaking the tyranny of the faction. It was -legal, it was neceffary, to fufpend from the government, "thofe who had overturned all law, and all government:" to fend to the tribunal of a martial court an officer who had violated martial law. But again, I repeat it boldly, this was an occafion where forms, and regular order, might have been disregarded. Moments there are in all governments when a good and a virtuous adminiftration muft difregard them. It has been excellently faid of a minifter, and may with equal truth be applied to a governor "He should be a bold man ; a man who would have been a fuccessful rebel, had not his virtues made him a patriot*.”

Answer to Mr. Burke's Letter, fecond edit. p. 43.

The

The fourth and laft fection defcribes the conduct of those whom the advocate of lord Pigot clearly proves he has a right to call the faction of feven. Its fubject is, the motives, the manner, the inftrument of effecting what, as Mr. Stratton has well faid, ought not to be called a revolution.”

The conclufion contains an apology for the work, which is the only part of the whole that ftrikes us as useless and unneceffary. It is like the strained politeness of a Chesterfield, which begs ten thousand pardons for conferring on you an uncommon obligation. Such of our readers who are fond of apologies, fhall be gratified.

• Some apology is due to the reader for this work: fome perhaps for the ftile; fome for the length of it. There are who may think appeals to the public on queftions like thefe, fhould be avoided. Perhaps they fhould. But to us no choice was left. The friends of lord Pigot were not the first to make the appeal, The agents of the nabob, verfed in thefe literary contefts, the friends of the faction, firft founded the alarm: they got poffeffion of the daily prints. Then the prefs teemed with their letters, their original papers, their accounts of fecret conferences, ere the friends of lord Pigot faid a word.,

There are, who may object to the ftile: as fometimes too warm; as sometimes too contemptuous. To the parties concerned I owe no apology. I have not difturbed the alhes of the dead to give weight to imputed crimes to the living. I come with proofs in my hand; I fuppofe nothing; I impute nothing;, I refer to no fecret conferences; to no manufcripts in poffeffion of an Indian prince. In a man fupported by authentic documents, refuting the most groundless charges couched in the most illiberal terms, fomething may be allowed to the warmth of friendship. Something to a character, too ftubborn to yield to the flimfy refinements of falfe delicacy.'

In the Appendix, we find, the vouchers on which this gentleman grounds his defence of lord Pigot. The difference in the facts advanced by the writer of this Defence, and by the opponents of lord Pigot, is not more material, than the difference in the nature of the proofs which each party has adduced in fupport of the facts refpectively alleged. The opponents of lord Pigot are conftantly referring to papers which may have been fabricated for the prefent purpofe; to fecret conferences; and to MSS. in poffeffion of the nabob, which the antiquary would fooner covet as curiofities, than the lawyer admit as evidence.-To thefe whimfical authorities, the fingle, but folid defender of lord Pigot oppofes the fingle, but folid evidence of the authentic documents published by that com

pany's

pany's orders, of whom lord Pigot is proved to have been a faithful fervant.

So much for the prefent Eastern queftion-a question of more importance than is generally imagined, and which points at more than meets the vulgar eye.

.

To conduct this bufineis, (as our author remarks, not with the coldnefs of a pleader, but with the warmth of an hiftorian), to depofe a governor; the civil fervants of the company employ the army; thank the army; reward the army; give to the foldiers of that army proper gratifications; to the commander of that army a poft which had been always intrusted to the civil governor. And what part of the army did they employ? Not Europeans; not troops enured to difcipline; not troops who had no intereft in frequent revolutions but feapoys; but troops of the country; but troops who muft with for frequent revolutions; but troops whofe obedience was fecured only by the awful respect, with which they were accustomed to confider the great officers of the company. That charm is now diffolved. The prætorian band in the Roman empire; the Strelitz of Ruffia; the jannifaries of Porte; may teach us how dangerous it is to inftruct an army in this fpecies of political arithmetic. Thanked, rewarded, for depofing one governor; they will foon learn to merit rewards, and thanks by depofing another. The princes of the country will catch inftruction; they too will learn to thank, and to reward an army, that may unite in expelling governors and councils, and factors, and all. They have taught a leffon which may, which repeated, in the natural courfe of events, must, end in the extirpation of the English name from the whole country of Indoftan.'

So much for the different publications upon the present queftion. True it is, that the last publication has experienced more of our attention that perhaps all the others. Do any

of our readers afk the reafon of this? It is because the Defence of Lord Pigot' deferves more attention than all the others as it advances nothing which does not reft on the moft refpectable authorities, and appears to us to take the fide of juftice. Should any of our readers doubt whether lord Pigot can boaft the jufter fide, all who have seen this publication, must at least allow him to poffefs the better advocate; for the Defence of Lord Pigot' will continue to be read, when the late revolution may ceafe to be remembered.

If we confider this performance merely in the light of the argument of an advocate in favour of his client, committed to writing, as the practice is in Scotland, and, we believe, in France; and as the practice might, not improperly, be here, it is a work ftill more extraordinary.

On fir W. Draper's Defence of the Duke of Bedford, Junius

Junius faid, May God protect me from doing any thing that may require fuch defence, or deferve fuch friendship!'-Of the prefent vindication of lord Pigot we fhall only add our prayer that, if we ever require fuch defence, we may find fuch friendship.

Conjectures on the Tyndaris of Horace, and fome other of his Pieces 5 with a Poftfcript. By John Whitfeld, A. M. 4to. 25. Richardfon and Urquhart.

THE

HE Tyndaris, who is the fubject of this writer's conjectures, is the lady, to whom Horace addreffes the feventeenth ode of the first book. She paffes with fome interpreters, they do not tell us upon what grounds, for a daughter of Gratidia. But this, our author thinks, is unlikely; because Gratidia is a Roman name; whereas Tyndaris, and her furly confort, Cyrus, were foreigners. Tyndaris was a Thracian; he was by condition a liberta; but of fubftance, and came to Rome in the retinue, he supposes, of Rhæmetalces [al. Rhimotalces] king of Thrace. She probably ftaid in Rome, and refided there, and was known at the palace. She certainly received a diftinguishing mark of favour from thence, and we see she is addreffed by Horace.'-These particulars he endeavours to confirm by a fepulchral infcription, found at Rome, which runs in these words, Julia Tyndaris C. Fulii regis Rhoemetalcis L. fecit fibi & fuis, &c. He imagines, that this Julia Tyndaris is the Tyndaris of Horace ; that she was the real author of a Greek ode, beginning Xaips μor Paun, tranflated by Lipfius (de Magnitudine Rom. 1. 1.) and afcribed to Erinna; and laftly, that he was Horace's Threffa Chloe, his Chloe Sithonia, and his Venus Marina.All this is poflible; but the last conjecture, that Tyndaris was the Venus Marina, mentioned by Horace, is utterly improbable.

In the ode to Tyndaris there are many bold, figurative expreffions, among which is vitrea Circe. Some commentators fuppofe, that vitrea only fignifies frail, in oppofition to the character of Penelope. Horace fays, vitrea fama; P. Syrus, vitrea fortuna. Our author accounts for the epithet in this

manner.

One of the interpreters obferves, that Horace propofes proper fubjects to engage Tyndaris to write. It is rather more likely, that by dices Horace means, you have written.' He had been fhewn fome pieces of hers; where, in her own tongue, which was the Greek, the had applied to Circe fome word or other equivalent to vitrea, Now, whatever he thought of the word, it was the height of good breeding in him to adopt