Sir William Jones to J. Shore, Efq. June 9, 1789. I am glad Jayadeva* pleases you, and thank you for the fublime period of Hooker; of which I had only before feen the first part. His idea of heavenly and eternal law is just and noble; and human law as derived from it, must partake of the praise as far as it is perfectly adminiftered; but corruptio optimi fit peffima, and if the administration of law fhould ever be corrupted, fome future philosopher or orator will thus exhibit the reverse of the medal. "Of law there can be no more acknowledg ed, than that her feat is the ftore-house of "quirks, her voice the diffonance of brawls; "all her followers indeed, both at the bar and "below it, pay her homage, the very leaft as gaining their fhare, and the greatest as "hoping for wealth and fame; but kings, "nobles, and people of what condition soever, * Gitagovinda, or the songs of Jayadeva; Works, vol. iv. p. 236. "though each in different fort and manner, "yet all have uniformly found their patience " exhausted by her delays, and their purse by "her boundlefs demands*" * The parody was fo obvious, that I could not refrain from shewing you the wrong fide of the tapestry, with the fame figures and flowers, but all maimed and difcoloured. Sir William Jones to J. Shore, Efq. 1789. We have finished the twentieth, and laft book of Guicciardini's History, the most authentic, I believe (may I add, I fear) that *The reader will thank me for giving him an opportunity of perusing the passage, at the close of the first book of the Ecclesiastical Polity, which Sir William Jones has parodied. "Of law, there can be no less acknowledged than that "her seat is the bosom of God, her voice the harmony "of the world: all things in Heaven and Earth do her "homage, the very least as feeling her care, and the (( greatest as not exempted from her power; both an gels and men, and creatures of what condition soever, though each in different sort and manner, yet all with "uniform consent, admiring her as the mother of their "peace and joy." ever was compofed. I believe it, because the hiftorian was an actor in his terrible drama, and perfonally knew the principal performers in it; and I fear it, because it exhibits the woeful picture of fociety in the 15th and 16th centuries. If you can fpare Reid, we are now ready for him, and will reftore his two volumes on our return from Crifhna-nagur. When we meet, I will give you an account of my progress in detecting a most impudent fraud, in forging a Sanferit book on oaths, by Hindus, fince I faw you. The book has been brought to me, on a few yellow Bengal leaves apparently modern. The Brahman, who brought it from Sambhu Chaudra Rai, faid it was twelve years old; I believe it had not been written twelve days. He faid the original work of Mahadeva himself, from which the prohibition of fwearing by the water of the Ganges was extracted, was at Crishna-nagur. I defired him to tell Sambhu Chaudra, who wants me to admit him a fuitor, in formû pauperis, without taking his oath, that unless he brought me the original, and that apparently ancient, I should be convinced that he meant to impose upon me. Sir William Jones to Mr. Juftice Hyde. Sept. 19, 1789. You have given Lady Jones great pleasure, by informing us from fo good authority, that a ship is arrived from England; she with her best compliments. prefents you Most readily fhall I acquiefce in any alleviation of Horrebow's* mifery, that you and Sir Robert Chambers fhall think just and legal. I have not one law book with me, nor if I had many, should I perfectly know where to look for a mitigation by the court of a sentence, which they pronounced after full confideration of all its probable effects on the perfon condemned. I much doubt, whether * This man, a foreigner, commanding a vessel, trading to Bengal, was convicted before the supreme court of judicature, of purchasing the children of natives, for the purpose of carrying them out of the country, and selling them as slaves. It was the first instance of an attempt of this kind; he was prosecuted by order of the government of Bengal, and since the punishment inflicted upon Horrebow, the attempt has not been repeated. it can legally be done; nor do I think the petition ftates any urgent reason for it. First, he mentions loffes already fuftained (not therefore to be prevented by his enlargement), and, in my opinion, they cannot easily be more than he deferves. Next, his wife's health may have been injured by his difgrace, and may not be restored by our shortening the time of his confinement, which, if I remember, is almost half expired, and was as fhort as juftice tempered with lenity would allow. His own health is not faid to be affected by the imprifonment in fuch a place, at fuch a season, for if it were proved that he were dangerously ill, we might, I fuppofe, remove him to a healthier place, or even let him go to fea, if able furgeons fwore, that in their ferious opinion, nothing else could fave his life. That is by no means the cafe, and I confefs I have no compaffion for him; my compaffion is for the enflaved children and their parents. Nevertheless I know the benevolence of your heart, approve whatever you and Sir R. C. and fhall may do, if any precedent can be found or re |