SIR, LETTER XXXI. TO THE PRINTER OF THE PUBLIC ADVERTISER. 14 November, 1769. THE variety of remarks, which have been made upon the last letter of JUNIUS, and my own opinion of the Writer, who, whatever may be his faults, is certainly not a weak man, have induced me to examine, with some attention, the subject of that letter. I could not persuade myself that, while he had plenty of important materials, he would have taken up a light or trifling occasion to attack the Ministry; much less could I conceive that it was his intention to ruin the officers concerned in the rescue of general Gansel, or to injure the general himself. These are little objects, and can no way contribute to the great purposes he seems to have in view, by addressing himself to the public. Without considering the ornamented stile he has adopted, I determined to look farther into the matter, before I decided upon the merits of his letter. The first step I took was to enquire into the truth of the facts; for if these were either false or misrepresented, the most artful exertion of his understanding, in reasoning upon them, would only be a disgrace to him.-Now, Sir, I have found every circum stance stated by JUNIUS to be literally true. General Gansel persuaded the bailiffs to conduct him to the parade, and certainly solicited a corporal and other soldiers to assist him in making his escape. Captain Dodd did certainly apply to captain Garth for the assistance of his guard. Captain Garth declined appearing himself, but stood aloof, while the other took upon him to order out the King's guard, and by main force rescued the general. It is also strictly true, that the general was escorted by a file of musqueteers to a place of security.-These are facts, Mr. Woodfall, which I promise you no gentleman in the guards will deny. If all or any of them are false, why are they not contradicted by the parties themselves? However secure against military censure, they have yet a cha racter to lose, and surely, if they are innocent, it is not beneath them to pay some attention to the opinion of the public. The force of JUNIUS's observations upon these facts cannot be better marked, than by stating and refuting the objections which have been made to them. One writer says, "Admitting the officers have offended, they are punishable at common law, and will you have a British subject punished twice for the same offence?"-I answer that they have committed two offences, both very enormous, and violated two laws. The rescue is one offence, the flagrant breach of discipline another, and hitherto it does not appear that they have been punished, or even censured for either. Another gentleman lays much stress upon the calamity of the case, and, instead of disproving facts, appeals at once to the compassion of the public. This idea, as well as the insinuation that depriving the parties of their commissions would be an injury to their creditors, can only refer to general Gansel. The other officers are in no distress, therefore, have no claim to compassion, nor does it appear that their creditors, if they have any, are more likely to be satisfied by their continuing in the guards. But this sort of plea will not hold in any shape. Compassion to an offender, who has grossly violated the laws, is in effect a cruelty to the peaceable subject who has observed them; and, even admitting the force of any alleviating circumstances, it is nevertheless true, that, in this instance, the royal compassion has interposed too soon. The legal and proper mercy of a King of England may remit the punishment, but ought not to stop the trial. Besides these particular objections, there has been a cry raised against JUNIUS for his malice and injustice in attacking the ministry upon an event, which they could neither hinder nor foresee. This, I must affirm, is a false repre the consequences with which it may be attended) to deserve a parliamentary enquiry: when the guards are daring enough, not only to violate their own discipline, but publicly and with the most atrocious violence to stop the execution of the laws, and when such extraordinary offences pass with impunity, believe me, Sir, the precedent strikes deep. PHILO JUNIUS *. LETTER XXXII. TO THE PRINTER OF THE PUBLIC ADVERTISER. SIR, 15 Nov. 1769. I ADMIT the claim of a gentleman, who publishes in the Gazetteer under the name of Modestust. He has some right to expect an answer from me: though, I think, not so much from the merit or importance of his objections, * This letter was originally printed in the Public Advertiser, with the signature of Moderatus. It shews that JUNIUS himself was peculiarly pleased with the composition, or he would not have raised it, in his own edition, to the rank of those letters which possess the signature of his chief auxiliary. EDIT. In the copy corrected by the author, and from which the original edition of these letters was printed, he gives directions to omit the letter under this signature in the following words:"MODESTUS is too stupid, and must not be inserted." EDIT. as from my own voluntary engagement. I had a reason for not taking notice of him sooner, which, as he is a candid person, I believe he will think sufficient. In my first letter, I took for granted, from the time which had elapsed, that there was no intention to censure, nor even to try the persons concerned in the rescue of general Gansel; but Modestus having since either affirmed, or strongly insinuated, that the offenders might still be brought to a legal trial, any attempt to prejudge the cause, or to prejudice the minds of a jury, or a court-martial, would be highly improper. A man, more hostile to the ministry than I am, would not so often remind them of their duty. If the Duke of Grafton will not perform the duty of his station, why is he minister?— I will not descend to a scurrilous altercation with any man: but this is a subject too important to be passed over with silent indifference. If the gentlemen, whose conduct is in question, are not brought to a trial, the Duke of Grafton shall hear from me again*. The motives on which I am supposed to have taken up this cause, are of little importance, compared with the facts themselves, and the ob * See this subject further pursued in Miscellaneous Letters, LXIV. to LXVIII. inclusive. EDIT. |