It is a matter of perfect indifference to the public, whether the grant, for instance, of the manor of Dale is sufficient to convey Swale also as its appendant; or whether Swale ought specifically to be named. These are not the sort of questions with which we are affected: the ministers may think it wise, perhaps, to hazard the good faith of a crown grant upon such subtle criticisms. Their operation one way or the other (if prescription had not intervened) would not have been a mat ter greatly to concern the public; but it does concern the public, and in the highest degree, whether long, quiet, undis. puted possession, which is the best of titles against the subject, shall or shall not be a title at all against the crown? Whether a treasury, availing itself of a remnant of odious, and for a long time inactive barbarism, shall upon points of legal subtilty endeavour to shake that title? Whether they shall refuse a search of the only material office for settling the doubts that they raised? Whether they shall decline taking the opinion of the king's law servants on such important points of law? Whether they shall refuse to hear the party by his counsel? And whether without any of those forms, some of justice, and all of decency and candour, they shall arm a wealthy and powerful informer with a crown claim to harass and oppress the subject. These are the points in the Duke of Portland's case, in which the public is concerned. If no prescription is pleadable against the crown, and if the treasury, without hearing, is suffered at pleasure to halloo an informer at your estate, on the bare report of a surveyor's duty, their own creature; woe to the property of England! Remember that almost all that property has at one time or other flowed from royal grants. No possessor, no purchaser, no mortgagee is safe; no further safe than he is covered by the act of James the First, which is now sought to be converted from a temporary regulation into a perpetual rule of law. That truly wise and patriotic bill, which the ministerial gentlemen are pleased to term factious, was what our ancestors called for, and so far as it regarded themselves, obtained, on the alarm of just such sort of grants as this to Sir James Lowther. They did not contend that the grants should be made, only in cases where the crown had a plausible title. No; they maintainel "that such titles prior to sixty years should not be set up at all." They demanded that the crown should litigate with the subject on the same terms of equity on which the subjects litigated with one another; and that sixty years of possession should bar a royal as well as a pri vate claim. They lived, indeed, in an age of extravagant prerogative, and they could not obtain this right fully for posterity; but they did what they could, and secured it for themselves. The arguments of the ministry are not against the Duke of Port land, but against the doctrine of prescription itself; against natural justice; and against the principles of that wise and constitutional, though (by the misfortune of its time) imper fect law, the statute of the 21st of King James the First. What do we care whether this dormant and antiquated claim of the crown be well or ill founded in strict law? I take it for granted that it has no foundation; and make no sort of doubt that when it comes to trial, it will appear scan dalously groundless. Besides the favourable presumption that ought to operate for possession, the whole conduct of the treasury gives me a right to conclude against them. If they were so sure of the validity of their claim, why did they not a little discuss the grounds of the surveyor's report, and order him to produce his vouchers? How could it hurt this or any other fair claim (supposing this a fair one) to have the records in his office inspected? Would a fair claim be hurt by having it openly and solemnly debated by counsel? Any set of men who have regard even to decorum in their injustice, could never have acted with this barefaced partiality to one person, and with such a scandalous spirit of oppression towards another. It was in their official capacity they ought to have seen the right of the crown to make this grant defended, and the right of the Duke of Portland examined. They ought to have had the King's counsel to cover them with their opinions and arguments in point of law; and not to have first passed the grant without hearing or examination, and then trusted for their apology to a legal discussion argued miserably, and without authority, in a common newspaper. Their arguments might have been produced with some grace and some weight to the public, when it was known that they had been officially considered, and fairly canvassed among all the parties con cerned before the act was done; and that these arguments were the grounds of their conduct, not excuses for their delinquency. At present they can only excite contempt for their weak defence of those actions, whose atrociousness had before merited the abhorrence of all good men. VALERIUS. LETTER XXIV. TO THE PRINTER OF THE PUBLIC ADVERTISER. SIR, May 19, 1768. AN officer of the guards, on whose veracity I can rely, has informed me that the Secretary at War has thought proper to write a letter of thanks to the commanding officer of the troops lately employed in St. George's Fields*. The substance of it, as well as I can remember, is rather of an extraordinary nature, and I think deserves the attention and consideration of the public. I understand that his Lordship thanks them in the King's name for their good behaviour, and assures them that his Majesty highly approves of their con* As this letter is frequently alluded to by Junius in the course of the present work, we shall here insert a copy of it : "SIR, "War Office, May 11, 1768. "Having this day had the honour of mentioning to the King the behaviour of the detachments from the several battalions of foot-guards which have been lately employed in assisting the civil magistrates and preserving the public peace, I have great pleasure in informing you that his Majesty highly approved of the conduct of both the officers and men, and means that his Majesty's approbation should be communicated to them through you. Employing the troops on so disagreeable a service always gives me pain, but the circumstances of the times make it necessary. I am persuaded they see that necessity, and will continue, as they have done, to perform their duty with alacrity. I beg you will be pleased to assure them that every possible regard shall be shown to them; their zeal and good behaviour upon this occasion deserve it; and in case any disagreeable circumstance should happen in the execution of their duty, they shall have every defence and protection that the law can authorize and this office can give. "I have the honour to be, Sir, "Your most obedient and most humble servant, "Field officer in staff waiting for the duct. He further engages his promise that, whatever bad consequences may ensue, they may depend upon the utmost assistance and support that his office can afford them*. Without entering into the evidence on which the coroner's verdict against an officer and some soldiers of the guards was founded, I shall not scruple to say that this mention of the King's name is very improper and indecent. The father of his people undoubtedly laments the fatal necessity which has occasioned the murder of one of his subjects, but cannot be supposed to approve highly of a conduct which has had dreadful consequences. An event of this shocking nature may admit of excuse and mitigation from circumstances of necessity, but can never be the object of the highest royal approbation; much less was it proper to signify such strong approbation of a conduct which includes a fact still sub judice, and the particulars of which are not yet known with any degree of certainty. The secretary at war would have done better in confining his letter to the expression of his own sentiments. What he has said for himself, if I am rightly informed, will require more wit than he possesses to defend. For the mere benefit of the law, I presume, the prisoners will hardly thank him. It is a benefit they are entitled to, and will certainly have whether he and his office interfere or not. If he means anything more, let him look to his words. But I hold it to be highly unconstitutional as well as illegal, to promise official support and protection to either party in a criminal case, wherein the King prosecutes for the loss of his subject. There is a degree of folly in a minister of the crown signing such a letter which looks like infatuation; but I hope the Court of * In the riot here alluded to, which originated from a vast concourse of people assembled together opposite the King's Bench prison, on May 10, in the expectation that Wilkes would be liberated from it on this day in order to take his seat in parliament (it being the first day of its session), about fourteen persons were shot, and more wounded, by the precipitate firing of the military. Among the rest was a young man of the name of Allen, who had taken no part in the tumult, and was slain in an out-house belonging to his father (who lived in the neighbourhood) in the very act of imploring mercy of the soldiers who shot him. Some of the military more immediately engaged were secured by the civil power, and were on the point of taking their trial for the murder; and it is to this transaction the letter alludes. King's Bench, or some other court, will let him know what the law calls abetment and maintenance, and bring him to his THE moment I heard you had given a positive promise to Lord Rockingham in my favour, I did you the justice to be satisfied that all my hopes and pretensions to succeed Mrs. were at an end. But a second promise which I understand you have lately given to another, revives my spirits and makes me flatter myself that you mean me no harm. I have one chance less against me than I had, for your last resolution is certainly the one you will not abide by; so that at present there is nothing in my way but your engagement to Lord Rockingham, the bad effects of which I shall endeavour to remove by this letter. I feel as strongly as you how much it would violate the consistency of your character to keep your word from any motives of probity or good faith; but if I can suggest to you the means of performing your first promise to Lord Rockingham, and yet continuing as great a rascal as you would wish to be, all objections on the score of integrity will be removed, and you will owe me no small obligation into the bargain. You are a mere boy, Harry, notwithstanding the down upon your chin, and would do well to cultivate the friendship of women of experience. With all due submission This and the preceding letters to Bifrons, inclusive, are probably by Junius; at least they are directed to questions on which he was well informed, and on which he occupied himself afterwards with a more disciplined and energetic pen.-ED. |