tended, I call upon your lordship to point out a man better entitled to precedence upon that list than Sir Jeffery Amherst.

Your last assertion is that his regiments are not given away. It is a matter of perfect indifference. Yet the pub

lic has reason to believe that Colonel Hotham is now colonel of the 15th regiment, and that the commission of commandant of the royal Americans only waits until it shall be determined whether General Gage shall be recalled or not.

Permit me now to refer your lordship to the questions stated in my last letter, and to desire you to answer them strictly. If you do not, the public will draw its own conclusions.

Your emissaries, my lord, have rather more zeal than discretion. One of them, who calls himself A considerate Englishman, could not write by authority, because he is entirely unacquainted with facts. His declamation therefore signifies nothing. In his assertions however, there is something really not unpleasant. He assures us that your lordship's great abilities were brought into employment to correct the blunders of Mr. Pitt's administration. It puts me in mind of the consulship which Caligula intended for his horse, and of a project which Buckhorse once entertained of obliging the learned world with a correct edition of the classics.

LUCIUS.

LETTER XXXVIII.

TO THE PRINTER OF THE PUBLIC ADVERTISER.

SIR, 6 September, 1768. WHEN a worthless administration do a notorious act of injustice to a good man, which naturally raises the indignation of the public; they are not satisfied with the first blow, but their emissaries go to work to blacken the character which was fair before, in order to justify the measures of their masters.

In this light I must look upon the performance of your correspondent Cleophas, jun. in your paper of to-day.

His assertion, "that the Duke of Grafton assured Sir Jeffery Amherst that General Gage should be recalled, if Sir Jeffery chose to go to his government" is an absolute fal

sity; for (and I speak from very good authority) the matter of the chief command of the troops Lever was mentioned, either by the Duke of Grafton or any of his colleagues. Had it been so Lord Hillsborough in going his rounds (his lordship understands me) would not have failed to have expatiated fully thereon; but the letters of your masterly correspondent Lucius have drove his lordship to the mean and paltry art of employing some of his nameless dependants to throw out insinuations, which he knows to be false, yet judging from the general run of mankind, flatters himself that at least part of them will be believed..

My design being only to set the public right in regard to the assertion of Sir Jeffery Amherst's being offered the chief command of the troops, which, in truth, never happened, I shall take no notice of the other part of your correspondent's letter; but leave him and his bungling patrons to find in the list of the army an officer so fit as Sir Jeffery Amherst to deal with the refractory colonists,

L. L.

LETTER XXXIX.

FOR THE PUBLIC ADVERTISER.

7 Sept. 1768.

id

Quid enim est minus, non dico oratoris, sed hominis, quam objicere adversario, quod ille si verbo negarit, longius progredi non possit qui objecerit?-CICERO.

TO THE EARL OF HILLSBOROUGH.

MY LORD,

THE bare assertion of a falsehood requires nothing more than a determined countenance. To maintain a consistent falsehood not only demands a genius of invention, but a faithful memory. In your lordship's letter, signed Cleophas, jun. you are pleased to assert that the Duke of. Grafton offered to recall General Gage in order that Sir Jeffery Amherst might return to America with the chief command of the king's forces. Now, my lord, I absolutely deny the fact, and as the public will not expect me to prove a negative, I shall leave it to your lordship to produce your evidence, if you

have any.

Really, my good lord, your letters upon business are

drawn up with very little caution. In one article you tell us that the chief command in America was offered to Sir Jeffery Amherst, and, in the next, that he has been discovered for some time past to entertain a strong partiality for the refractory colonists. If both these facts were true, what an opinion must we conceive of a ministry careless and imprudent enough to intrust a man so biassed with such a command! You see, my lord, to what an unfortunate dilemma you have reduced yourself by a weak inconsistent defence. The rage of writing letters has brought many a wiser minister than your lordship to an untimely end.

You seem determined, my lord, to go through the family of Cleophas. Be it so. If your pedigree extended from Denbigh to St. David's I would not cease to pursue you from father to son, until I had fairly extirpated the whole family.

LETTER XL.

LUCIUS.

TO THE PRINTER OF THE PUBLIC ADVERTISER.

SIR, 7 September, 1768. As I have not the least intention to enter into any dispute with Lucius, indulge me but this once, and give me leave to assure you, it shall be the last on the subject from me; and though this man writes so ungenteelly, that he scarce deserves an answer, yet I could not help thinking this much necessary in justice to a nobleman whom he has most shamefully attacked in consequence of my letter, but whose character is above the reach of malice, and who will be respected when such pests of society are no more

The account I sent you relative to the resignation of Sir Jeffery Amherst, I had heard publicly talked of at table, and in a coffee-house; it was told as no secret; but was said to be from very good authority. I sent it as a piece of intelligence without either adding or diminishing. I made no comment on it as I intended no offence. Facts were stated as they were told, and as no dates were mentioned, I gave none. I left it to the public to form opinions as they pleased; to Sir Jeffery Amherst's friends to contradict it, if they thought proper; and it has served as a bone for curs of opposition to snarl at.

Though I do not mean to enter into any dispute with this fellow, yet I cannot help making a few observations on his letter. That the government of Virginia was given away four days before the intention of administration was mentioned to Sir Jeffery Amherst, I have good ground to believe it is not a fact: and if you, Lucius, possessed but one grain of honesty, and if you had no other intention but to communicate useful information to the public, you would have told them so that it was applied for even as soon as it was whispered that such a measure was to be adopted, upon the supposition that Sir Jeffery Amherst would not choose to reside, I can believe: that it was promised to Lord Boutetort in case he did not, I can likewise believe; and this might have been four, or even fourteen days, for ought I know, before it was mentioned; but pray where is the harm in all this? I fancy no measure of government is entered into immediately on its being mentioned; it requires some time to digest. And when it was judged expedient, in consequence of the accounts from that province, to send the governorgeneral to reside in Virginia, it was mentioned in the tenderest manner to Sir Jeffery. No affront was ever intended. Any recompense (if he did not choose to go) in the power of administration, or in the gift of majesty, was offered to him. What more could he expect? He had it in his option to go or not; and if he did not go, he was promised an equivalent, perhaps more. As soon as this measure was surmised, was their any harm in Lord Boutetort's application? Was there any fault in Lord Hillsborough's promising his interest for his friend? But is this an absolute appointment? No. All the world knows applications are made long before vacancies happen, and preferments are promised; but every one, except Lucius, can make a distinction between a promise and absolute appointment. I dare say there were applications from more than one quarter before the late archbishop died: and probably it was promised before the event happened: but if the see had not become vacant, the present archbishop might have remained at Coventry.

But speak out malevolence, speak envy, disappointment, and ill-nature. What in the name of goodness could be Sir Jeffery Amherst's objection to Lord Boutetort? Was it because he is a nobleman? Because he has gone to the chapel at St. James', and has carried the sword of state before his king? Because he never has insulted majesty, but has

always behaved himself as a dutiful and loyal subject, and respectfully to his sovereign? Are these the weighty motives for objecting to his succession? Or is it still a greater crime to be poor? And do these make it an affront, not an injury? Forbid it heaven! Forbid it Sir Jeffery Amherst's better genius! What would you have had, Lucius? Would you have wished to have had the naming of Sir Jeffery's successor! What a pity you had not! I declare you deserved it! How could my Lord Hillsborough dare to recommend without your permission!

Demands, you say, are unfit to be used from subjects requesting of the crown. Indeed, Lucius, you are right; but many subjects now a-days forget that they are so! and call them by what name you please, I acknowledge these articles of accommodation sent to the Duke of Grafton by Sir Jeffery Amherst, or said to be sent, answer exactly to the ideas I have of demands, and pretty peremptory ones too.

It is strange, Lucius, that you cannot write one line without abuse. Had you made your remarks upon the Duke of Grafton's answer to the first article without abusing his Grace, it would have been genteel; but the scurrilous language you use, even when your arguments are just, proves that you are equally acquainted with the gentleman, and sense of honour. I believe it is well known that no commander-in-chief ever made less during a long war than Sir Jeffery Amherst did: and I am very sorry indeed that want of fortune, the consequence of honesty and integrity, should ever be assigned as a reason to refuse honours to those who deserve them. The honours of this country, and its treasures to support them, have often been lavished on many who deserved them less than the conqueror of America. This I think was the only exceptionable answer from the Duke of Grafton. I hope it is not true.

Whatever delicate feelings you, Mr. Lucius, may have, I know not; but I am of opinion that sinecure places, non-resident governments, and pensions are in fact the same, though different in names: nay, the worst of the whole appears to me to be a non-resident governor. The very word implies a necessity of doing something; in fact he does nothing he therefore is paid for what he does not, though it is his duty to do it. In short he is paid for a neglect of duty; but because our language has not annexed the word pension to such a neglect, it does not grate his ears. And, after all, what was Sir Jeffery Amherst but a pensioner on