Without any uncommon depravity of mind, a man SO trusted might lose all ideas of public principle or gratitude, and not unreasonably exert himself to perpetuate a power which he saw his fellow citizens weak and abject enough to surrender to him. But if, instead of a man of a common mixed character, whose vices might be redeemed by some appearance of virtue and generosity, it should have unfortunately happened that a nation had placed all their confidence in a man purely and perfectly bad; if a great and good prince, by some fatal delusion, had made choice of such a man for his first minister, and had delegated all his authority to him; what security would that nation have for its freedom, or that prince for his crown? The history of every nation that once had a claim to liberty, will tell us what would be the progress of such a traitor, and what the probable event of his crimes

Let us suppose him arrived at that moment at which he might see himself within reach of the great object, to which all the artifices, the intrigues, the hypocrisy, and the impudence of his past life were directed. On the point of having the whole power of the crown committed to him, what would be his conduct? an affectation of prostrate humility in the closet, but a lordly dictation of terms to the people, by whose interest he had been supported, by whose fortunes he had subsisted. Has he a brother? that brother must be sacri

*This severe invective is aimed against the late Lord Chatham, formerly the right hon. W. Pitt. The reader, by a perusal of the preceding letters, is already acquainted with the utter aversion which Junius at first felt for this nobleman on various political accounts, and especially on the subject of the American dispute. His aversion, however, softened as their political views approximated, and was at length converted into approbation and eulogy.

[Dr. Good resorts to this forced construction by way of fixing Junius with the authorship of Poplicola's letters; but, so far as the writings of Junius can be authentically traced, he uniformly cherished favourable sentiments towards Lord Chatham, and never an "utter aversion." This is manifest from his private letter referred to in the preceding note, dated Jan. 2, 1768, and reprinted in the Appendix to the present volume. Junius has himself described the growth of his admiration of Lord Chatham in a passage of singular beauty (vol. i. p. 391). To have been the unvarying eulogist of that nobleman he must have been inconsistent with himself-more steadfast to an individual than to his own principles; and have been, as that statesman unquestionably was, the alternate advocate and opponent of measures of identical political import, to accommodate himself to the shifting vane of his Lordship's party movements. Upon this part of Chatham's career some strictures have been submitted, in the Editor's introductory Essay.]-ED.

ficed *. Has he a rancorous enemy? that enemy must be * Lord Temple, brother-in-law to Lord Chatham. They resigned their respective offices, the former of privy seal, and the latter of principal secretary of state, in October 1761. Lord Temple was succeeded by the Duke of Bedford; and upon Lord Chatham's forming his administration in 1766 he took the post of privy seal himself. Lord Temple did not take part in any ministry arranged subsequent to his resignation of that office, and died Sept. 11, 1779.

The following letter from Lord C., before his promotion to the peerage, explains the motives of their joint resignation; it was addressed to a friend in the city1:

66 DEAR SIR,

Finding, to my great surprise, that the cause and manner of my resigning the seals is grossly misrepresented in the city, as well as that the most gracious and spontaneous marks of his Majesty's approbation of my services, which marks followed my resignation, have been infamously traduced as a bargain for my forsaking the public, I am under a necessity of declaring the truth of both these facts, in a manner which I am sure no gentleman will contradict. A difference of opinion with regard to measures to be taken against Spain, of the highest importance to the honour of the crown and to the most essential national interests, and this founded on what Spain had already done, not on what that court may further intend to do, was the cause of my resigning the seals. Lord Temple and I submitted in writing, and signed by us, our most humble sentiments to his Majesty, which, being overruled by the united opinion of all the rest of the King's servants, I resigned the seals on Monday the 5th of this month, in order not to remain responsible for measures which I was no longer allowed to guide. Most gracious public marks of his Majesty's approbation of my services followed my resignation: they are unmerited and unsolicited, and I shall ever be proud to have received them from the best of sovereigns.

"I will now only add, my dear Sir, that I have explained these matters only for the honour of truth, not in any view to court return of confidence from any man who, with a credulity as weak as it is injurious, has thought fit hastily to withdraw his good opinion from one who has served his country with fidelity and success, and who justly reveres the upright and candid judgment of it, little solicitous about the censures of the capricious and the ungenerous. Accept my sincerest acknowledgments for all your kind friendship, and believe me ever with truth and esteem,

"Oct. 14, 1761.

66

My dear Sir, your faithful Friend,

"W. PITT."

[Long as this note is, it does not elucidate the text, namely, the "sacrifice of a brother" by the Earl of Chatham, an omission I shall endeavour to supply. The rupture between Chatham and his brother-in-law, Lord Temple, originated in a dispute on the distribution of cabinet council employments in 1766, Temple nominating Lords Gower and Lyttleton, from which Chatham dissented. 66 Upon this," says Lord Chesterfield, "Lord Temple broke up

1 The "friend" was Mr. Beckford.

p. 158.-ED.

·Chatham Correspondence, vol. ii.

promoted *. Have years of his life been spent in declaiming against the pernicious influence of a favourite? That favourite must be taken to his bosom, and made the only partner of his power. But it is in the natural course of things that a despotic power, which of itself violates every principle of a free constitution, should be acquired by means which equally violate every principle of honour and morality. The office of a grand vizir is inconsistent with a limited monarchy, and can never subsist long but by its destruction. The same measures by which an abandoned profligate is advanced to power must be observed to maintain him in it. The principal nobility, who might disdain to submit to the upstart insolence of a dictator, must be removed from every post of honour and authority; all public employments must be filled with a despicable set of creatures, who, having neither experience nor capacity, nor any weight or respect in their own persons, will necessarily derive all their little busy importance from him. As the absolute destruction of the constitution of his country would be his great object, to be consistent with that design he must exert himself to weaken and impoverish every rank and order of the community which, by the nature of their property, and the degree of their wealth, might have a particular interest in the support of the established government, as well as power to oppose any treacherous attempts against it. The landed estate must be oppressed; the rights of the merchant must be arbitrarily invaded, and his property forced from him by main force, without even the form of a legal proceeding. It will assist him much if he can contribute to the destruction of the

the conference, and in his wrath, went to Stowe." Lord Temple himself explains the matter in a letter to his sister, the Countess of Chatham, dated July 27, 1766, by stating that he had received the proposition of Pitt with indignation, to be "stuck into a ministry as a great cipher at the head of the Treasury, surrounded with other ciphers all named by Mr. Pitt," and with the politics of several of whom he differed. He had acquiesced in the sacrifice of a brother, Mr. George Grenville's pretensions, but that he would not, in the projected ministry, go in like a child and come out like a fool."— Chatham Correspondence, vol. ii. p. 468.

66

The wound continued open a couple of years, but through the mediation of their mutual friend Mr. Calcraft, and repeated advances on the part of Pitt, a reconciliation was effected. Further to strengthen the family compact, Mr. Grenville heartily acceded to the union.-Id. vol. iii. p. 349.-ED. *The Duke of Bedford.

+ Lord Bute.

poor by continuing the most burthensome taxes upon the main articles of their subsistence. He must also take advantage of any favourable conjuncture to try how far the nation will bear to see the established laws suspended by proclamation, and upon such occasions he must not be without an apostate lawyer, weak enough to sacrifice his own character, and base enough to betray the laws of his country *.

These are but a few of the pernicious practices by which a traitor may be known, by which a free people may be enslaved. But the masterpiece of his treachery, and the surest of answering all his purposes, would be, if possible, tc foment such discord between the mother country and her colonies as may leave them both an easier prey to his own dark machinations. With this patriotic view, he will be ready to declare himself the patron of sedition and a zealous advocate for rebellion. His doctrines will correspond with the proceedings of the people he protects, and if by his assistance they can obtain a victory over the supreme legislature of the empire, he will consider that victory as an important step towards the ad-· vancement of his main design †.

Such, Sir, in any free state, would probably be the conduct and character of a man unnecessarily trusted with exorbitant power. He must either succeed in establishing a tyranny or perish. I cannot without horror suppose it possible that this our native country should ever be at the mercy of so black a villain. But if the case should happen hereafter, I hope the British people will not be so abandoned by Providence as not to open their eyes time enough to save themselves from destruction; and though we have no Tarpeian rock for the immediate punishment of treason, yet we have impeachments; and a gibbet is not too honourable a situation for the carcase of a traitor.

POPLICOLA.

* This subject is fully explained in many parts of the Letters of Junius, and in the notes now subjoined to them. The character alluded to is Earl Camden, at that time Lord Chancellor.

+ Lord Chatham, then Mr. Pitt, opposed Mr. George Grenville's Stamp Act, and denied the right of the parliament of Great Britain to legislate for America.

VOL. II

I

LETTER II.

TO THE PRINTER OF THE PUBLIC ADVERTISER.

SIR, May 28, 1767. YOUR Correspondent C. D. * professes to undeceive the public with respect to some reflections thrown out upon the Earl of

* Poplicola, the writer of this reply, by some means or other mistook the real signature, which instead of being C. D. was W. D. The letter is dated from Clifton, and is obviously from the pen of Sir. W. Draper; affording a singular proof that the Knight of the Bath and Junius were political opponents under signatures mutually unknown, and so far back as May, 1767. The subject of Sir William's observations was a defence of Lord Chatham against some strong observations made upon his character by Mr. Wilkes, in a letter addressed to the Duke of Grafton, relative to the illegal proceedings of the Earl of Halifax. The letter is dated Paris, Dec. 12, 1763 [1766'], and the part chiefly adverted to is the following:

"I believe that the flinty heart of Lord Chatham has known the sweets of private friendship, and the fine feelings of humanity, as little as even 'Lord Mansfield. They are both formed to be admired, not beloved. A proud, insolent, overbearing, ambitious man is always full of the ideas of his own importance, and vainly imagines himself superior to the equality necessary among real friends, in all the moments of true enjoyment. Friendship is too pure a pleasure for a mind cankered with ambition, or the lust of power and grandeur. Lord Chatham declared in parliament the strongest attachment to Lord Temple, one of the greatest characters our country could ever boast, and said he would live and die with his noble brother. He has received obligations of the first magnitude from that noble brother, yet what trace of gratitude or of friendship was ever found in any part of his conduct? and has he not now declared the most open variance and even hostility? I have had as warm and express declarations of regard as could be made by this marble-hearted friend, and Mr. Pitt had no doubt his views in even feeding me with flattery from time to time; on occasions, too, where candour and indulgence were all I could claim. He may remember the compliments he paid me on two certain poems in the year 1754. If I were to take the declarations made by himself and the late Mr. Potter à la lettre, they were more charmed with those verses after the ninety-ninth reading than after the first; so that from this circumstance, as well as a few of his speeches in

1 There is no species of evidence so conflicting as dates, which, without the greatest care, are apt to be printed incorrectly. In Woodfall's edition the date is given as 1763; in Almon's Correspondence of Wilkes it is 1767; but 1766 is manifestly correct, judging from the dates of Wilkes's transitory visit to England in the winter of that year, and his return to Paris on the failure of his official suit to the Duke of Grafton.-ED.