I

fhall make you no apology for confidering a certain pamphlet, in which your late conduct is defended, as written by yourself. The perfonal intereft, the perfonal refentments, and above all, that wounded fpirit, unaccustomed to reproach, and I hope not frequently confcious of deferving it, are fignals which betray the author to us as plainly as if your name were in the title-page. You appeal to the public in defence of your reputation. We hold it, Sir, that an injury offered to an individual is interefting to fociety. On this principle the people of England made common caufe with Mr. Wilkes. On this principle, if you are injured, they will join in your refentment. I fhall not follow you through the infipid form of a third perfon, but addrefs myself to you directly.

* 1, ”

You feem to think the channel of a phamphlet more refpectable and better fuited to the dignity of your cause, than that of a news-paper. Be

i

all,

ch,

ing

Sas

ge.

re

red

his

mon

if

ent.

Orm

di

let

ity

Be

it fo. Yet ifr news-papers are fcurrilous, you must confefs they are impartial. They give us, without any apparent preference, the wit and argument of the miniftry, as well as the abufive dulnefs of the oppofition. The fcales are equally poifed. It is not the printer's fault if the greater weight inclines the balance.

Your pamphlet then is divided into an attack upon Mr Grenville's character, and a defence of your own. It would have been more confiftent perhaps with your profeffed intentions, to have confined you to the laft. But anger has fome claim to indulgence, and railing is usually a relief to the mind. I hope you have found benefit from the experiment. It is not my defign to enter into a formal vindication of Mr. Grenville upon his own principles. I have neither the honour of being perfonally known to him, nor do I pertend to be completely master of all the facts. I need not run the rifque of doing an injustice to is opinions, or to his conduct, when your pamphlet alone carries upon the face of it, a full vindication of both.

Your firft reflection is, that Mr. Grenville was of all men the person who should not have complained of inconfiftence with regard to Mr. Wilkes. This, Sir, is either an unmeaning fneer, a peevish Sentexpreffion

31

expreffion of refentment, or, if it means any thing, you plainly beg the question; for whether his parliamentary conduct with regard to Mr. Wilkes has or has not been inconfistent, remains → yet to be proved. But it feems he received upon the spot, a fufficient chafifement for exer 31 cifing fo unfarily his talents of mifrepresentation. You are a lawyer, Sir, and know better than Is do, upon what particular occafions a talent for mifreprefentation may be fairly exerted; but to punish a man a fecond time, when he has been once fufficiently chaflifed, is rather too fevere. It is not in the laws of England; it is not in your own commentaries, nor is it yet I beleive in the new law you have revealed to the house of commons. I hope this doctrine has no existencer but in your own heart. After all, Sir, if you had confulted that fober difcretion, which your t feem to oppose to the triumph, to the honeft jolity of a tavern, it might have occured to you t that, although you could have fucceeded in fixing a charge of inconfiftence upon Mr, Grenville, it would not have tended in any shape to excul-s pate yourself.>

Your next infinuation, that Sir William Mereni dith had haftily adopted the falfe gloffes of histi new ally, is of the fame fort with the first. It of conveys a fneer as little worthy of the gravity of

your

your character, as it is ufelefs to your defence. It is of little moment to the public to enquire by whom the charge was conceived, or by whom it was adopted. The only queftion we ask is, whether or not it be true. The remainder of your reflections uyon Mr. Granville's conduct destroy themselves. He could not poffibly come prepared to traduce your integrity to the house. He could not forefee that you would even speak upon the question, much lefs could he forefee that you would maintain a direct contradiction of that doctrine, which you had folemnly, difinterestedly, and upon føbereft reflection delivered to the public. He came armed indeed with what he thought a refpectable authority, to fupport what he was convinced was the cause of truth, and I doubt not he intended to give you in the course of the debate, an honourable and public teftimony of his efteem. Thinking highly of his abilities, I cannot however allow him the gift of divination. As to what you are pleased to call a plan coolly formed to impose upon the house of commons, and his producing it without provocation at midnight, I confider it as the language of pique and invective, therefore unworthy of regard. But Sir, I am fenfible I have followed your example too long, and wandered from the point.

The quotation from your commentaries is matter of record. It can neither be altered by your friends, nor mifreprefented by your enemies, and I am willing to take your own word for what you have faid in the house of commons. If there be a real difference betwen what you have written. and what you have spoken, you confefs that your book ought to be the ftandard. Now, Sir, if words means any thing, I apprehend that when a long enumeration of difqualification (whether by ftatute or the custom of parliament) concludes with these general comprehenfive words, but subject to thefe reftrictions and difqualifications, every fubject of the realm is elegible of common ⚫ right,' a reader of a plain understanding must of course reft fatisfied that no fpecies of difqualification whatsoever had been ommited. The known character of the author, and the apparent accu racy with which the whole work is compiled, would confirm him in his opinion; nor could he poffibly form any other judgment, without look ing upon your commentaries in the fame light in which you confider those penal laws, which though not repealed, are fallen into difufe, and are now in effect A SNARE TO THE UNWARY.. Janna

You tell us indeed that it was not part of your plan to specify any temporary incapacity, and that you could not, without a spirit of prophecy