could be proved in a court of justice. Yet a religious man might have remembered, upon what foundation some truths, most interesting to mankind, have been received and established. If it were not for the internal evidence, which the purest of religions carries with it, what would have become of his once well-quoted decalogue, and of the meekness of his Christianity? THE generous warmth of his resentment makes him confound the order of events. He forgets that the insults and distresses which the Duke of Bedford has suffered, and which Sir William has lamented with many delicate touches of the true pathetic, were only recorded in my Letter to his Grace, not occasioned by it. It was a simple, candid, narrative of facts; though, for aught I know, it may carry with it something prophetic. His Grace, undoubtedly, has received several ominous hints; and I think, in certain circumstances, a wise man would do well to prepare himself for the event. BUT I have a charge of a heavier nature against Sir William Draper. He tells us that the Duke of If it were not for the internal evidence, &c.] JUNIUS never alludes to subjects of religion, otherwise than in a manner that shews his mind not to have been impressed with due reverence for religious truth. This reference to the internal evidences of christianity, is light, profane, and unworthy of true eloquence. Only recorded in my Letter to his Grace, not occasioned by it.] That part of Sir William Draper's last Letter, to which this paragraph is an answer, was ridiculously absurd. But JUNIUS makes its absur dity still more strikingly conspicuous. Bedford is amenable to justice;-that parliament is a high and solemn tribunal; and that, if guilty, he may be punished by due course of law: and all this he says with as much gravity as if he believed one word of the matter. I hope, indeed, the day of impeachment will arrive, before this nobleman escapes out of life;-but to refer us to that mode of proceeding now, with such a ministry, and such a House 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 insulting the distresses, of his country. His concluding declaration of his opinion, with respect to the present condition of affairs, is too loose and undetermined to be of any service to the public. How strange is it, that this gentleman should dedicate so much time and argument to the defence of worthless or indifferent characters, while he gives but seven solitary lines to the only subject which can deserve his attention, or do credit to his abilities! JUNIUS. But to refer us to that mode of proceeding now, &c.] It is true, as JUNIUS suggests, and Sir William Draper could not but know, that no man can be brought to justice, while the powers of the gowernment, and the legislature, are under his controul.—Sir William Draper did not answer this Letter. But he again wrote in the newspaper, a few years afterwards, on the subject of the troubles in America. LETTER LETTER XXVIII. TO THE PRINTER OF THE PUBLIC ADVERTISER, WHEN Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, the Duke of Bedford, being informed of the merits and the necessities of Mrs. Griffith, a lady distinguished for some excellent writings of morality and fiction, bestowed for the benefit of her und her husband a small appointment, by which they were set above want. He had been prompted by no motive, save the desire to relieve indigence, and patronize merit. But the gratitude of Mrs. Griffith, interposed on an occasion the most seasonable, to vindicate the fame of her benefactor. JUNIUS had demanded to hear of but a single instance of indigence relieved, and works of genius rewarded, by the Duke of Bedford. Mrs. Griffith produced that instance: and no small impression was made by it on the mind of the public, in favour of the Duke. JUNIUS replies, in this short Letter. This reply is not satisfactory. He strives to distinguish between what the Duke did as Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and what he should have done as Duke of Bedford. This is a distinction which he had not thought of making, when he insolently asserted, that no one instance of discriminating generosity by the Duke, could be mentioned. I should wish that JUNIUS had been more candid. But, it is the interest of a disputant to grant nothing to his adversary, unless he can gain more than he loses by the concession. SIR, 20. October, 1769. I VERY sincerely applaud the spirit with which a lady has paid the debt of gratitude to her benefactor. Though I think she has mistaken the point, she shews a virtue which makes her respectable. The question turned upon the personal generosity or avarice of a man, whose private fortune is immense. The proofs of his munificence must be 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, 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 lessen the merit of this single benevolent action ;—perhaps it is the more conspicuous from standing alone. All I mean to say is, that it proves nothing in the present argument. JUNIUS. LETTER LETTER XXIX. ADDRESSED TO THE PRINTER OF THE PUBLIC THE Duke of Bedford found other defenders, beside Mrs. Griffith. One writer in particular, subscribing the signature of Modestus, and whom JUNIUS chose to consider as being, in truth, no other than Mr. Rigby, published in the newspaper named the Gazetteer, a Letter, boldly attacking JUNIUS, and not unskilfully defending the Duke of Bedford. It was necessary that this writer should not be suffered to triumph without a reply. In the following Letter, and under the persona of PHILO-JUNIUS, the eloquent political satirist has sufficiently refuted the assertions, and spurned back the puny assault, of Modestus. The excellence of the stile of these Lètters, appeared to those who 'dis liked them, to be a primary cause of their popularity. It was judged that, if contempt could be brought upon them, as pieces of eloquence, the name of JUNIUS would cease to be formidable. Modestus, therefore, represented their composition, as miserably quaint and incorrect; quoted phrases, of which he affirmed that the blundering inconsistency proved the author to be an Irishman; and maintained, that he who could commit such solecisms in stile, must be utterly incapable of distinguishing the just inferences of reasoning, and of estimating the truth of facts. JUNIUS employs, in the following Letter, his wonted artifice, quicksighted discernment, and force of argumentation. He begins with disclaiming all pretensions to eloquence and fine writing; then, in every instance in which he had seemed to be successfully harassed by the criticism of Modestus, either satisfactorily refutes that criticism, or turns the critic so effectually into ridicule, that the reader entirely forgets that his remark could be right. Nor is even his Grace of Bedford suffered to escape, without having the severity of the former invective upon him enhanced, on account of the officious interposition of his defender. This is a good model for any man to study, who may, in like manner, wish to vindicate himself against the attack of bold, malignant criticism. SIR, |