hundred pounds) was, with your connivance and consent*, paid to Colonel Burgoyne, to reward him, I presume, for the decency of his deportment at Prestonf; or to reimburse him, perhaps, for the fine of one thousand pounds, which, for that very deportment, the court of King's Bench thought proper to set upon him. It is not often that the chief justice and the prime minister are so strangely at variance in their opinions of men and things.

I thank God there is not in human nature a degree of im

The friends of the noble duke chiefly attempted to shelter him under a denial that this transaction was done with his connivance or consent. The following is a letter upon this subject, in answer to the charge of JUNIUS, inserted in the Public Advertiser, Dec. 14, 1769.

TO THE PRINTER OF THE PUBLIC ADVERTISER.
SIR,

The infamous traduction of that libeller JUNIUS, his daring falsehoods, and gross misrepresentations, excite in me the utmost abhorrence and contempt, and I hope all his deadly poisons will be sheathed in the natural antidote every good mind has to malevolent and bitter invective. What act of delinquency has the Duke of Grafton committed, by colonel Burgoyne disposing of a patent obtained of his Grace? Will JUNIUS dare to assert it was with the Duke's privity, or for his emolument? Let us state the fact, and disarm the assassin at once. A place in the custom-house at Exeter becomes vacant-colonel Burgoyne asks it of the Duke of Grafton-he gives it. The colonel says I cannot hold it myself; will you give it my friend?-The duke consents-the colonel nominates-the duke apppoints;-but, says JUNIUS, the colonel set it up to sale, and actually received a sum of money for it. Be it so he took a gross sum for what was given him as an annual income; and who is injured by this? If the Duke of Grafton sold it, he is impeachable; if he gave it to be sold, he is blameable; but if his Grace did neither, which is the fact, he is basely belied, and most impudently and wickedly vilified.

I am, Sir,

Your best friend,
JUSTICE.

Dec. 12. JUNIUS, nevertheless, completely accomplished his object; the noble duke not chusing to persevere in this prosecution of Vaughan, with the prospect of a counter-accusation. See Private Letters, No. 15. Edit.

† Colonel, afterwards general, Burgoyne, was commissioned by administration to offer himself as a candidate, upon a parliamentary vacancy in the borough of Preston. During the contest that ensued, he suffered his partizans to commit the most disgraceful excesses; and having squandered not less than ten thousand pounds, without success at last, he was, upon the close of the election, prosecuted for his riot, and fined, as stated in the text. EDIT.

pudence daring enough to deny the charge I have fixed upon you. Your courteous secretary*, your confidential architects, are silent as the grave. Even Mr. Rigby's countenance fails him. He violates his second nature, and blushes whenever he speaks of yout. Perhaps the noble colonel himself will relieve you. No man is more tender of his reputation. He is not only nice, but perfectly sore in every thing that touches his honour. If any man, for example, were to accuse him of taking his stand at a gaming-table, and watching with the soberest attention for a fair opportunity of engaging a drunken young nobleman at piquet, he would undoubtedly consider it as an infamous aspersion upon his character, and resent it like a man of honour.-Acquitting him therefore of drawing a regular and splendid subsistence from any unworthy practices, either in his own house or elsewhere, let me ask your Grace, for what military merits you have been pleased to reward him with a military governments? He had a regiment of dragoons, which one would imagine, was at least an equivalent for any services he ever performed. Besides, he is but a young officer, considering his preferment, and, except in his activity at Preston, not very conspicuous in his profession. But it seems, the sale of a civil employment was not sufficient, and military governments, whieh were intended for the support of worn out veterans, must be thrown into the scale, to defray the extensive bribery of a contested election. Are these the steps you take to secure to your Sovereign the attachment of his army? With what countenance dare you appear in the royal presence, branded as you are with the infamy of a notorious breach of trust? With what countenance can you take your seat at the treasury-board or in council, when you feel that every circulating whisper is at your expense alone, and stabs you to the heart? Have you a

Tommy Bradshaw.

Mr. Taylor. He and George Ross, (the Scotch agent and worthy confidant of Lord Mansfield) managed the business.

Mr Rigby was proverbially remarked for a countenance not easily abashed by any occurrence. EDIT.

$ Col. Burgoyne, only a few days before the date of this letter, had been promoted to the Government of Fort St. George. EDIT.

single friend in parliament so shameless, so thoroughly abandoned, as to undertake your defence? You know, my Lord, that there is not a man in either house, whose character, however flagitious, would not be ruined by mixing his reputation with yours; and does not your heart inform you, that you are degraded below the condition of a man, when you are obliged to hear these insults with submission, and even to thank me for my moderation?

We are told, by the highest judicial authority, that Mr. Vaughan's offer to purchase the reversion of a patent in Jamaica (which he was otherwise sufficiently entitled to) amounted to a high misdemeanour*. Be it so: and if he de

* A little before the publication of this and the preceding letter, the chaste Duke of Grafton had commenced a prosecution against Mr. Samuel Vaughan, for endeavouring to corrupt his integrity by an offer of five thou sand pounds for a patent place in Jamaica. A rule to shew cause, why an information should not be exhibited against Vaughan for certain misdemeanours, being granted by the Court of King's Bench, the matter was solemnly argued on the 27th of November, 1769, and, by the unanimous opinion of the four judges, the rule was made absolute. The pleadings and speeches were accurately taken in short-hand and published. The whole of Lord Mansfield's speech, and particularly the following extracts from it, deserve the reader's attention. "A practice of the kind complained of here is certainly dishonourable and scandalous.—If a man, standing under the relation of an officer under the King, or of a person in whom the King puts confidence, or of a minister, takes money for the use of that confidence the King puts in him, he basely betrays the King,-he basely betrays his trust.—If the King sold the office, it would be acting contrary to the trust the constitution hath reposed in him. The constitution does not intend the crown should sell those offices, to raise a revenue out of them. -Is it possible to hesitate, whether this would not be criminal in the Duke of Grafton;-contrary to his duty as a privy counsellor;-contrary to his duty as a minister--contrary to his duty as a subject.-His advice should be free according to his judgment;—It is the duty of his office; he has sworn to it."—Notwithstanding all this, the chaste Duke of Grafton certainly sold a patent place to Mr. Hine for three thousand five hundred pounds; and, for so doing, is now lord privy seal to the chaste George, with whose piety we are perpetually deafened. If the House of Commons had done their duty, and impeached the black Duke for this most infamous breach of trust, how woefully must poor, honest Mansfield have been puzzled! His embarrassment would have afforded the most ridiculous scene that ever was exhibited. To save the worthy judge from this perplexity, and the no less worthy Duke from impeachment, the prosecution against Vaughan was immediately dropped upon my discovery and publication of

the

serves it, let him be punished. But the learned judge might have had a fairer opportunity of displaying the powers of his eloquence. Having delivered himself with so much energy upon the criminal nature, and dangerous consequences of any attempt to corrupt a man in your Grace's station, what would he have said to the minister himself, to that very privy counsellor, to that first commissioner of the treasury, who does not wait for, but impatiently solicits the touch of corruption; who employs the meanest of his creatures in these honourable services, and, forgetting the genius and fidelity of his secretary, descends to apply to his house-builder for assistance?

This affair, my Lord, will do infinite credit to government, if, to clear your character, you should think proper to bring it into the House of Lords, or into the court of King's Bench.But, my Lord, you dare not do either.

JUNIUS.

LETTER XXXV*.

TO THE PRINTER OF THE PUBLIC ADVERTISER.

19 December, 1760.

WHEN the complaints of a brave and powerful people are observed to encrease in proportion to the wrongs they have suffered; when, instead of sinking into submission, they are roused to resistance, the time will soon arrive at which every

the Duke's treachery. The suffering this charge to pass, without any inquiry, fixes shameless prostitution upon the face of the House of Commons, more strongly than even the Middlesex election.-Yet the licentiousness of the press is complained of!

The address to the King through the medium of this letter, made a very great impression upon the public mind at the moment of its appear. ance, and though 500 copies of the P. A. were printed in addition to the usual numbers circulated, not a single copy was to be procured in a few hours after its publication. The author himself, indeed, seemed to entertain a very favourable opinion of it; as in Private Letter, No. 15, speaking of this Letter, he says, "I am now meditating a capital, and, I hope, a final piece." It was for this production that the Printer was prosecuted, and obtained the celebrated verdict of "guilty of printing and publishing

only,"

inferior consideration must yield to the security of the So. vereign, and to the general safety of the state. There is a moment of difficulty and danger, at which flattery and falsehood can no longer deceive, and simplicity itself can no longer be misled. Let us suppose it arrived. Let us suppose a gracious, well-intentioned prince, made sensible at last of the great duty he owes to his people, and of his own dis graceful situation; that he looks round him for assistance, and asks for no advice, but how to gratify the wishes, and sécure the happiness of his subjects. In these circumstances, it may be matter of curious SPECULATION to consider, if an honest man were permitted to approach a King, in what terms he would address himself to his Sovereign. Let it be imagined, no matter how improbable, that the first prejudicė against his character is removed, that the ceremonious difficulties of an audience are surmounted, that he feels himself animated by the purest and most honourable affections to his King and country, and that the great person, whom he addresses, has spirit enough to bid him speak freely, and un

only," the consequence of which, as already observed in note to page 19, was, that two distinct motions were made in court; one by the counsel for the defendant in arrest of judgment, grounded on its ambiguity, and another by the counsel for the Crown, to compel the defendant to shew cause why the verdict should not be entered up according to the legal import. The case being argued, the Court of King's Bench ultimately decided that a new trial should be granted. This accordingly commenced, when the attorney general observing to the Chief Justice, that he had not the original newspaper by which he could prove the publication; his Lordship laconically replied, "that's not my fault, Mr. Attorney:" and in this manner terminated the second trial. The fact is, that the foreman of the jury upon the first trial had pocketed the paper, upon its being handed to the jury box for inspection, and had afterwards destroyed it. The expense the defendant was put to in this prosecution, as stated in Private Letter, No. 19, amounted to about 1207. The late Mr. Almon, who was also prosecuted for selling a reprint of this letter, asserts, in a note to another edition of this work, that the legal expence incurred in defending his own action, which could not exceed that of the original printer, amounted to between five and six hundred pounds! An exaggeration which proves the necessity of exercising no small degree of caution, in estimating whatever other facts he has attempted to advance, with a view of elucidating the general history of the times. EDIT.