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 the has miftaken 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 immenfe. The procfs of his munificence must be drawn. from the ufes, to which he has applied that fortune. I was not speaking of a Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, but of a rich English duke, whose 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 single 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. 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 (whose 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 composition, and I hope his time will always be more usefully employed than in the trifling refinements of verbal criticism. 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 queftion, he would have been as cautious of attacking Junius upon his, compofition, as he feems to be of entering into the fubject of it; yet after all, the last is the only article of any importance to the public. 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 among the rest) let us follow the several inftances and try whether the charge be fairly fupported, 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 fuch a trifler as Sir William Draper; but there is nothing abfurd either in the idea or expreffion. Modeftus cannot distinguish between a farcasm and a contradiction. 2. I AFFIRM with Junius, that it is the frequency of the fact, which alone can make ùs 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 arising from a fingle fact, but a very complex idea arising from many facts well observed, 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 (poke, not of a false of 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 question. Junius does not fay 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 something worfe worse than weakness; and if, in favour of the foolish intention, we do not call it a crime, we must allow at least that it arifes from an overweening, bufy, meddling impudence.Junius fays only, and he says truly, that it is more cxtraordinary, that it involves a greater contradiction than the other; and is it not a maxim received in life, that in general we can determine more wifely for others than for ourfelves? The reafon of it is fo clear in argument, that it hardly wants the confirmation of experience. Sir William Draper, I confess, is an exception to the general rule, though not much to his credit. 4. IF this gentleman will go back to his Ethicks, he may perhaps difcover the truth of what Junius fays, that no cutward tyranny can reach the mind. The tortures of the body may be introduced by way of ornament or illustration to reprefent those of the mind, but ftri&ly there is no fimilitude between them. They are totally different both in their cause and operation. The wretch, who fuffers upon the rack, is merely paffive; but when the mind is tortured, it is not at the command of any outward power. It is the fenfe of guilt which |