proved all that you have asserted. I meddle with nothing but his character as commander in chief; and, though I acquit him of the baseness of selling commissions, I still assert, that his military cares have never extended beyond the disposal of vacancies; and I am justified by the complaints of the whole army, when I say that, in this distribution, he consults nothing but parliamentary interest, or the gratification of his immediate dependants. As to his servile submission to the reigning ministry, let me ask, whether he did not desert the cause of the whole army, when he suffered Sir Jeffery Amherst to be sacrificed, and what share he had in recalling that officer to the service? Did he not betray the just interest of the army, in permitting Lord Percy to have a regiment? And does he not at this moment give up all character and dignity as a gentleman, in receding from his own repeated declarations in favour of Mr. Wilkes?

In the two next articles I think we are agreed. You candidly admit, that he often makes such promises as it is a virtue in him to violate, and that no man is more assiduous to provide for his relations at the public expence. I did not urge the last as

Sir Jeffery Amherst to be sacrificed, &c.] This great officer, the friend and favourite of Lord Chatham, had been, chiefly on ac count of this friendship, very abruptly and imperiously removed from the government of Virginia, and left with no reward, but his military rank, for all his gallant and important services. He was restored to the service; and rose, afterwards, to the highest command in the army.

an

an absolute vice in his disposition, but to prove that a careless disinterested spirit is no part of his character; and as to the other, I desire it may be remembered, that I never descended to the indecency of enquiring into his convivial hours. It is you, Sir William Draper, who have taken care to represent your friend in the character of a drunken landlord, who deals out his promises as libérally as his liquor, and will suffer no man to leave his table either sorrowful or sober. None but an intimate friend, who must frequently have seen him in these unhappy, disgraceful moments, could have described him so well.

THE last charge, of the neglect of the army, is indeed the most material of all. I am sorry to tell you, Sir William, that, in this article, your first fact is false; and, as there is nothing more painful to me than to give a direct contradiction to a gentleman

of

your appearance, I could wish that, in your future publications, you would pay a greater attention to the truth of your premises, before you suffer your genius to hurry you to a conclusion. Lord Ligonier did not deliver the army (which you, in classical language, are pleased to call a palladium) into Lord. Granby's hands. It was taken from him much against his inclination, some two or three

Lord Ligonier did not, &c.] The dismission of Lord Ligonier had taken place some time before the appointment of the Marquis of Granby to the chief command of the forces. But, the office had been, in the interval, unfilled.

years

years before Lord Granby was commander in chief. As to the state of the army, I should be glad to know where you have received your intelligence. Was it in the rooms at Bath, or at your retreat at Clifton? The reports of reviewing generals comprehend only a few regiments in England; which, as they are immediately under the royal inspection, are perhaps in some tolerable order. But do you know any thing of the troops in the West Indies, the Mediterranean, and North America, to say nothing of a whole army absolutely ruined in Ireland? Enquire a little into facts, Sir William, before you publish your next panegyric upon Lord Granby; and, believe me, you will find there is a fault at head-quarters, which even the acknowledged care and abilities of the adjutant-general cannot correct.

PERMIT me now, Sir William, to address myself personally to you, by way of thanks for the honour of your correspondence. You are by no means undeserving of notice: and it may be of consequence, even to Lord Granby, to have it determined, whether or no the man, who has praised him so lavishly, be himself deserving of praise. When you returned to Europe, you zealously undertook the cause of that gallant army, by whose bravery at Manilla your own fortune had been established. You complained, you threatened, you even appealed to the public in print. By what accident did it happen, that in the midst of all this bustle, and all these clamours for justice to your injured troops,

the

name

name of the Manilla ransom was suddenly buried in a profound, and, since that time, an uninterrupted silence? Did the ministry suggest any motives to you, strong enough to tempt a man of honour to desert and betray the cause of his fellow-soldiers? Was it that blushing ribband, which is now the perpetual ornament of your person? Or was it that regiment, which you afterwards (a thing unprecedented among soldiers) sold to Colonel Gisborne ? Or was it that government, the full pay of which you are contented to hold, with the half-pay of an Irish colonel? And do you now, after a retreat not very like that of Scipio, presume to intrude yourself, unthought-of, uncalled-for, `upon the patience of the public? Are your flatteries of the commander in chief directed to another regiment, which you may again dispose of on the same honourable terms? We know your prudence, Sir William, and I should be sorry to stop your preferment.

JUNIUS.

LETTER

LETTER IV.

TO JUNIUS.

SIR William Draper severely felt the force of the argument and in vective in the preceding Letter. He was excited to make a second. attempt, to vindicate as well his own honour as that of the Marquis of Granby, and to evince, if possible, that his literary talents were not utterly contemptible in comparison with those of JUNIUS. With these views, straining all his abilities, he wrote the following Letter. It is undeniably of considerable merit, as a piece of exculpatory eloquence. It is written more carefully than his former Letter, and with somewhat more of oratorical art. Yet, even here, he deals with too much of artless candour; he affects too much the use of such ornaments as are fittest to adorn the theme of a school-boy, or the laboured essay of a college pedant; he descends into detail and confession, too much in the manner of a man that felt himself humbled, awed, subdued, before his adversary.

This Letter begins with remarking, what advantages JUNIUS derives from the concealment of his person; how dishonest are the motives by which he must be prompted; how bitter his malignity; how ungenerous his misrepresentations; how powerfully his literary talents have seconded the badness of his heart. The author, next, renews his defence of Lord Granby; and maintains it with a degree of skill, that seems to have been sufficient to deter JUNIUS from returning upon that nobleman's character as a fit subject of political satire. Of the state of the army, too, Sir William here writes with a knowledge of military fitness, and of the certain principles of human action, by which the force of the animadversions of JUNIUS is in a great degree destroyed. But, when this worthy man comes to speak of himself, he at once discovers the whole extent of his humiliation. He makes confession, as if he were on the rack; and, in the fulness of his heart, brings his adversary acquainted with facts against him, which but for this too frank discovery might not have become publickly known. Had he not thus furnished his opponents with a key to secrets, of which the notoriety was to make him odious, perhaps he might have come off from the contention, without heart-bitterness or disgrace.