of commons as the present, what is it, but an indecent mockery of the common sense of the nation? I think he might have contented himself with defending the greatest enemy, without infulting the diftrelles of his country.

His concluding declaration of his opinion, with respect to the prefent condition of affairs, is too loofe and undetermined to be of any service to the public. How ftrange is it that this gentleman fhould dedicate so much time and argument to the defence of worthless or indifferent characters, while he gives but feven folitary lines to the only fubject, which can deserve his attention, or do credit to his abilities,

LETTER XXVIII.

TO THE PRINTER OF THE PUBLIC AD

SIR,

VERTISER.

20. October 1769.

I VERY fincerely applaud the

spirit with which a lady has paid the debt of gratitude to her benefactor. Though I think fhe has mistaken the point, fhe fhews a virtue which makes her refpectable. The question turned upon the perfonal generofity or avarice of a man, whofe private fortune is immense. The proofs of his munificence must be drawn from the uses, to which he has applied that fortune. I was not speaking of a Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, but of a rich English duke, whofe wealth gave him the means of doing as much good in this country, as he derived from his power in another. I am far from wishing to leffen the merit of this fingle benevolent action ;-perhaps it is the more confpicuous from standing alone. All I mean to say is, that it proves nothing in the present

argument.

JUNIUS.
LET-

LETTER XXIX.

ADDRESSED TO THE PRINTER OF THE

SIR,

PUBLIC ADVERTISER.

19. October 1769. I AM well affured that Junius

will never defcend to a difpute with fuch a writer as Modeftus (whofe letter appeared in the Gazetteer of Monday) especially as the difpute must be chiefly about words. Notwithstanding the partiality of the Public, it does not appear that Junius values himself upon any superior skill in compofition, and I hope his time will always be more usefully employed than in the trifling refinements of verbal criticifm. Modeftus, however, fhall have no reason to triumph in the filence and moderation of Junius. If he knew as much of the propriety of language, as I believe he does of the facts in question, he would have been as cautious of attacking Junius upon his compofition, as he feems to be of entering into the subject of it; yet after all, the last is the only article of any importance to the public,

I DO

I Do not wonder at the unremitted rancour with which the Duke of Bedford and his adherents invariably speak of a nation, which we well know has been too much injured to be easily forgiven. But why muft Junius be an Irishman ?-The abfurdity of his writings betrays him.-Waving all confideration of the infult offered by Modeftus to the declared judgment of the people (they may well bear this a mong the reft) let us follow the feveral inftances and try whether the charge be fairly supported.

FIRST then, the leaving a man to enjoy fuch repose as he can find upon a bed of torture, is fevere indeed; perhaps too much fo when applied to such a trifler as Sir William Draper; but there is nothing abfurd either in the idea or expreffion. Modeftus cannot diftinguish between a sarcasm and a contradiction.

2. I AFFIRM with Junius, that it is the frequency of the fact, which alone can make us comprehend how a man can be his own enemy. We should never arrive at the complex idea conveyed by those words, if we had only feen one or two instances of a man acting

to

to his own prejudice. Offer the propofition to a child, or a man unused to compound his ideas, and you will foon fee how little either. of them understand you. It is not a fimple idea arifing from a fingle fact, but a very complex idea arifing from many facts well ob.. ferved, and accurately compared.

3. MODESTUS Could not, without great affectation, mistake the meaning of Junius, when he speaks of a man who is the bittereft enemy of his friends. He could not but know, that Junius spoke, not of a false or hollow friendship, but of a real intention to serve, and that intention producing the worst effects of enmity. Whether the defcription be strictly applicable to Sir William Draper is another queftion. Junius does not say that it is more criminal for a man to be the enemy of his friends than his own, though he might have affirmed it with truth. In a moral light a man may certainly take greater liberties. with himself than with another. To facrifice ourselves merely is a weakness we may indulge in, if we think proper, for we do it at our own hazard and expence; but, under the pretence of friendship, to sport with the reputation, or facrifice the honour of another, is fomething

worse