ftry propofe to make of it. The King's honour is that of his people. Their real honour and real intereft are the fame.-I am not contending for a vain punctilio. A clear, unblemished character comprehends, not only the integrity that will not offer, but the fpirit that will not fubmit to, an injury; and, whether it belongs to an individual or to a community, it is the foundation of peace, of independence, and of fafety. Private credit is wealth ;-publick honour is fecurity.-The feather that adorns the royal bird supports his flight. Strip him of his plumage, and you fix him to the earth, JUNIUS.

LETTER XLIII.

TO THE PRINTER OF THE PUBLICK ADVER

SIR,

TISER.

Feb. 6. 1771.

I Hope your correfpondent Junius is better employed than in anfwering or reading the criticifms of a newspaper. This is a task from which, if he were inclined to fubmit to it, his friends ought to relieve him. Upon this principle, I fhall undertake to anfwer Anti-Junius, more, I believe, to his conviction than to his fatisfaction. Not daring to attack the main body of Junius's laft letter, he triumphs in having, as he thinks, furprized an out-poft, and cut off a detached argument, a mere ftraggling propofition. But even in this petty warfare, he fhall find himself defeated.

Junius does not fpeak of the Spanish nation as the natural enemies of England. He applies that defcription, with the strictest truth and juftice, to the Spanish Court. From the moment when a Prince of the houfe of Bourbon afcended that throne, their whole fyftem of government was inverted, and became hoftile to this country.

Uni

ty

ty of poffeffion introduced a unity of politicks; and Lewis the Fourteenth had reafon, when he said to his grandfon, "The Pyrenees are removed." The hiftory of the prefent century is one continued confirmation of the prophecy.

The affertion, "That violence and oppreffion at "home, can only be fupported by treachery and fubmiffion abroad," is applied to a free people whofe rights are invaded, not to the government of a country where defpotick or abfolute power is confeffedly vefted in the Prince; and with this application, the affertion is true. An abfolute monarch,. having no points to carry at home, will naturally maintain the honour of his Crbwn in all his tranfactions with foreign powers. But, if we could fup pose the Sovereign of a free nation, poffeffed with a defign to make himself abfolute, he would be inconfiftent with himfelf, if he fuffered his projects to be interrupted or embarraffed by a foreign war, unless that war tended, as in fome cafes it might, to promote his principal defign. Of the three exceptions to this general rule of conduct, (quoted by Anti-Junius), that of Oliver Cromwell is the only one in point. Harry the Eighth, by the fubmiffion of his parliament, was as abfolute a Prince as Lewis the Fourteenth. Queen Eliza beth's government was not oppreffive to the people; and as to her foreign wars, it ought to be confidered, that they were unavoidable. The national honour was not in queftion: She was compelled to fight in defence of her own person, and of her title to the Crown. In the common cause of felfifh policy, Oliver Cromwell fhould have cultivated the friendship of foreign powers, or, at leaft, have avoided difputes with them, the better to establish his tyranny at home. Had he been only a bad man, he would have facrificed the honour of the nation to the fuccefs of his domeftick policy.. But, with all his crimes, he had the fpirit of an Englishman.

U 2

Englishman. The conduct of fuch a man must always be an exception to vulgar rules. He had abilities fufficient to reconcile contradictions, and to make a great nation at the fame moment unhappy and formidable. If it were not for the refpect I bear the minifter, I could name a man, who, without one grain of understanding, can do half as much as Oliver Cromwell.

Whether or no there be a fecret fyftem in the clofet, and what may be the object of it, are queftions which can only be determined by appearances, and on which every man muft decide for himself.

The whole plan of Junius's letter proves, that he himself makes no diftinction between the real honour of the Crown and the real intereft of the people. In the climax to which your correfpondent objects, Junius adopts the language of the court, and by that conformity, gives ftrength to his argument. He fays, That "the King has not only facrificed the interefts of his people, but (what "was likely to touch him more nearly) his perso"nal reputation, and the dignity of his crown?'

The queries put by Anti-Junius can only be anfwered by the miniftry. Abandoned as they are, I fancy they will not confefs that they have, for fo many years, maintained poffeffion of another man's property. After admitting the affertion of the miniftry, viz.-That the Spaniards had no rightful claim, and after juflifying them for faying fo,-it is bis bufinefs, not mine, to give us fome good reafon for their fuffering the pretenfions of Spain to be a fubject of negotiation. He admits the facts;let him reconcile them, if he can.

The laft paragraph brings us back to the original queftion, Whether the Spanish declaration contains fuch a fatisfaction as the King of Great Britain ought to have accepted? This was the field upon which he ought to have encountered Junius openly and fairly. But here he leaves the

argument,

argument, as no longer defenfible. I fhall therefore conclude with one general admonition to my fellow-fubjects:-That when they hear these matters debated, they fhould not fuffer themselves to be misled by general declamations upon the conveniencies of peace, or the miseries of war. Between peace and war, abftractedly, there is not, there cannot, be a queftion in the mind of a rational being. The real queftions are, Have we any fecurity, that the peace we have fo dearly purchaf ed will last a twelvemonth? and if not,-Have we, or have we not, facrificed the fairest opportunity of making war with advantage?

PHILO JUNIUS.

ADDRESSED TO THE FRINTER OF THE PUB LICK ADVERTISER..

SIR, April 22. 1771. то O write for profit, without taxing the prefs;-to write for fame, and to be unknown;-to fupport the intrigues of faction, and to be difowned, as a dangerous auxiliary, by every party in the kingdom, are contradictions which the minifter muft reconcile, before I forfeit my credit with the publick. I may quit the fervice, but it would:be abfurd to fufpect me of defertion. The reputation of these papers is an honourable pledge for my attachment to the people. To facrifice a refpected character, and to renounce the esteem of fociety, requires more than Mr. Wedderburne's refolution; and though in him it was rather a profeffion than a defertion of his principles, (I fpeak tenderly of this gentleman; for, when treachery is in queftion, I think we fhould make allow-ances for a Scotchman), yet we have feen him in

U 3

the

the Houfe of Commons overwhelmed with confufion, and almost bereft of his faculties.-But, in truth, Sir, I have left no room for an accommodation with the piety of St. James's. My offences are not to be redeemed by recantation or repentance. On one fide, our warmeft patriots would disclaim me as a burthen to their honest ambition. On the other, the vileft prostitution, if Junius could defcend to it, would lofe its natural merit and influence in the cabinet, and treachery be no longer a recommendation to the royal favour.

The perfons who, till within thefe few years, have been moft diftinguished by their zeal for highchurch and prerogative, are now, it feems, the great affertors of the privileges of the Houfe of Commons. This fudden alteration of their fentiments, or language, carries with it a fufpicious appearance. When I hear the undefined privileges of the popular branch of the Legislature exalted by Tories and Jacobites, at the expence of those strict rights, which are known to the fubject, and limited by the laws, I cannot but fufpect, that fome mifchievous scheme is in agitation, to destroy both law and privilege, by oppofing them to each other. They who have uniformly denied the power of the whole Legislature to alter the defcent of the Crown, and whofe ancestors, in rebellion against his Majefty's family, have defended that doctrine at the hazard of their lives, now tell us, that privilege of parliament is the only rule of right, and the chief fecurity of the publick freedom.—I fear, Sir, that while forms remain, there has been fome material change in the fubftance of our conftitution. The opinions of these men were too abfurd to be fo eafily renounced. Liberal minds are open to conviction.-Liberal doctrines are capable of improvement. There are profelytes from atheism, but none from fuperftition.-If their prefent profeffions were fincere, I think they could not but

be