diftreffes were occafioned.-His Grace's humanity was affected; he enquired into the author's fituation, and on finding it to be what is there defcribed, unfolicited by aught but his own noble nature, he fent for Henry, and in the most oblig ing and gracious manner presented him with a patent employment, which was at that time va

cant.

Sure I am, that many parallel, perhaps more meritorious, instances of his Grace's munificence, might be recounted, if those, who like me have partaken of them, had virtue fufficient to acknowledge themselves obliged, when they had received an obligation.

FRANCES.

LETTER XXVIII.

ADDRESSED TO THE PRINTER OF THE PUBLIC ADVERTISER.

SIR,

October 20, 1769.

I VERY

VERY fincerely applaud the spirit with which a lady has paid the debt of gratitude to her benefactor. Though I think he has mistaken the point, the fhews a virtue which makes her refpectable. The queftion turned upon the perfona! generofity

generofity or avarice of a man, whofe private fortune is immense.

The proofs of his munificence must be drawn from the ufes to which he has applied that fortune. I was not fpeaking 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 prefent argument. JUNIUS.

LETTER

XXIX.

A LETTER OF MODESTUS TO JUNIUS.

SIR,

November 13, 1769.

THE HREE weeks are elapfed fince you favoured the public with an effay on the arreft of a general officer. You wrefted the circumftances with which it was attended, into a crime against administration. You told the ftory in your own way; you reafoned upon it in your own way also; you abused, you praised, you challenged, and you concluded. In all this it would be difficult to decide, whether the inveteracy of your malice,

the abfurdity of your argument, the barbarity of your intention, or the dullness of your ftile and compofition, appeared most confpicuous.

But, Sir, waving the reft, you challenged, and thefe are the precife terms of your defiance: I • have been accused of endeavouring to inflame the paffions of the people-let me now appeal to their understanding.-If there be any tool of adminiftration daring enough to deny these facts, or shameless enough to defend the conduct ⚫ of the miniftry, let him come forward. I care ⚫ not under what title he appears. He shall find

me ready to maintain the truth of my narra

tive, and the juftice of my obfervations upon • it, at the hazard of my utmost credit with the publie."

Two days after your letter made its appearance in the Public Advertiser, an answer to it appeared in the Gazetteer, in which your challenge was accepted in the following words: You challenge any tool of administration to defend the ⚫ conduct of miniftry; I accept of your challenge, though it is not addreffed to me. I am no tool of adminiftration, but your equal, Junius, perhaps your fuperior, in every thing that may become a man. I defire for judges of the conteft, juftice, candor, and impartiality. I dare you to the uttermoft; and if I do not make you appear,

་

in the eyes of all reasonable men, as contemp⚫tible as you deserve to be, let the fcorn be tranfferred to myfelf.'

What is the reafon, Junius, that you have hitherto taken no notice of that letter? The author of it, too candid to affirm what he could not immediately prove, fuppofed, in his argument, your narrative to be true; and even on that fuppofition, he demonftrated your obfervations not only unjust, but inconfiftent, even to abfurdity. But if he could not with certain knowledge deny the fact, he doubted it; he told you fo; and, in the belief that no man would give a formal challenge without pursuing it, he has enquired into the truth of that fact. He tells you now, and will maintain it at the utmoft hazard of HIS credit with the public, that your narrative is no less falfe than your obfervations are fallacious. It is falfe (for inftance) that the general officer applied to a ferjeant, not on duty, to favour his. efcape. It is falfe, that the officer of the guard ftood at a distance, and fuffered the bufinefs to be done. He was spoke to by the other officer in the coffee-houfe, and he not only declined interfering in perfon, but flatly refused his affiftance directly or indirectly. He did more; he diffuaded his brother officer from his intention, and believed he had prevailed. His only fault was, being the M 4 dupe

dupe of the other's apparent repentance, who left the coffee-houfe as if he intended to proceed no farther in the attempt; and took the opportunity to apply to fome foldiers of the guard, while the officer who commanded it remained in the coffee-houfe. It is falfe that the guard was turned out, or under arms. And it is a moft malicious conftruction of the fairest conduct, to blame adminiftration, becaufe thefe gentlemen have not been punished by military law.

The truth is, that it was proposed to try the offenders by military law, immediately after the offence was committed; but, in a confultation with the civil magiftrate, it was judged improper, left a military trial should prejudge the action now depending, and in which the offenders are at prefent under bail. A fair trial is the right of every Englishman, whatever offence he may be guilty of. Our civil rights are our must precious blef-fings; and our form of trial is the bulkwark of thefe rights; and, Sir, you contradict the principles you profefs, when you endeavour to set up martial, in oppofition to common law, and give that the lead which ought to follow. Had thefe gentlemen been firft tried by military law, the evidences brought before a court-martial muft have been afterwards examined in the courts of law; but witneffes already examined upon oath, according