Whatever delicate feelings you, Mr. Lucius, may have, I know not; but I am of opinion that sinecure places, nonresident 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 neglect, it does not grate his ears. And, after all, what was Sir Jeffery Amherst but a pensioner of the colony of Virginia? He did nothing for it, and was paid. Our idea of a pension is a reward granted for past services; so was his. Such as you, Lucius, such tools of opposition, such state incendiaries, venal mercenary wretches, are glad to receive rewards of your labours infinitely less honourable than either place or pension.

The Duke of Grafton's other answers were unexceptionable. As to the regiments being given away, I did not know it, therefore I am excusable.

And now, Mr. Lucius, I'll tell you a secret. Your supposing my letter to come from my Lord Hillsborough, in my opinion did credit to the performance and honour to me; but in justice to him I must declare, that I am not, know not, never saw, nor never spoke to the Earl of Hillsborough in my life-but, just as formerly, I am, &c.

CLEOPHAS.

LETTER XLI.

TO THE EARL OF HILLSBOROUGH.

MY LORD, September 9, 1768. Ir is indifferent to the public whether the letters signed Cleophas are written by your Lordship or under your immediate direction. Whoever commits this humble begging language to paper, we know to a certainty the person by whom it is held. We know the suppliant style your Lordship has condescended to adopt at routs, at tea-tables, and in bankers' shops. But although you have changed your tone, I am

VOL. II.

bound in honour not to give you quarter. You have offended heinously against your country, and public justice demands an example for the welfare of mankind.

I foresaw Cleophas would soon be disavowed. It seems the poor gentleman never saw, nor spoke to your Lordship in his life, but just as formerly. The saving is a good one.

You say your character is above the reach of malice. True, my Lord, you have fixed that reproach upon your character to which malice can add nothing. You say it will be respected when such pests of society as I am are no more. I agree with you that it is very little respected at present, and I believe I may unluckily have been the spoil of good company; but I doubt whether my death, or even your own, will restore you to your good fame. Your peace of mind is gone for ever.

After the particulars quoted by Cleophas, it looks like trifling with the public, to confess that his accounts were collected in a coffee-house, and that he will neither answer for facts nor be directed by dates. These are evasions which I scorn to imitate. My authority is indisputable; I have stated facts with precision, and marked the dates by which I shall invariably abide, yet Cleophas (alias your Lordship) says he has good ground to believe that the government was not given away four days before Sir J. A. was apprised of it; he believes indeed that it was previously applied for, and that Lord Boutetort had a conditional promise of it. These, it seems, are the articles of his creed; but, as they are not points of religious faith, to which there might be some merit in sacrificing our understanding, I presume the public is not obliged to conform to them. My questions were put strictly to points of fact and time, and have not yet been answered. Places, I doubt not, are often applied for and promised before they are vacant; but I did not expect to hear so indecent a case supposed and urged by a man in your Lordship's station, as that the see of Canterbury was promised to another before the death of the late pious and truly reverend incumbent.

You say that government was ready to make Sir J. A. any recompense; yet, excepting a grant of lands in a wilderness, every one of his requests was flatly denied.

You ask if there was any harm in this, or any fault in that. What is this but crying peccavi, in the very language of

misery and despair? It neither suits the spirit which can do wrong with firmness, nor that purity of innocence which is conscious of having done right. If the necessity of sending over a governor to Virginia had really existed, and if your Lordship had thought proper to take an early opportunity of stating that necessity to Sir J. A., if you had previously apprised him of the design of giving him a successor, and if, in conformity to such declarations, a man of business, of judgment, or activity, had been fixed on, you surely could not have paid too great an attention to Sir J. A., and you would have prevented every possible appearance of an intention to affront him. As to the pecuniary injury, I will venture to say there is not a man breathing who would have been more easily satisfied in that respect than Sir J. A. Compare this supposition with your real proceedings towards him, and though you cannot blush, I am sure you will be silent.

Your questions in favour of Lord Boutetort amount to nothing. It is not that he is a bad man, or an undutiful subject. But he is a trifling character and ruined in his fortunes. Poverty of itself is certainly not a crime. Yet the prodigality which squanders a fair estate is in the first instance dishonourable; in the next it leads to every species of meanness and dependence, and when it aims at a recovery at the expense of better men, becomes highly criminal. Will your Lordship, can you, with a steady countenance, affirm that it was the necessities of the state, and not his own, which sent him to Virginia?

Your Lordship may give what name you think proper to the requests proposed by Sir J. A. He was desired to specify them to the Duke of Grafton, and they were refused. It is true, he did not confine himself to the idea of a bare equivalent for the pecuniary value of his government. A generous mind, offended by an insult equally signal and unprovoked, looks back to services long neglected, and with justice unites the claim arising from those services to the insult, which of right demands a signal reparation.

As you seem, in the Duke of Grafton's answer to the first article, to feel and acknowledge your weakness, I shall not press you further upon it.

The pensions given by the crown have been so scandalously prostituted that a man of any nicety might well be forgiven

if he wished not to have the title of pensioner added to his name. But I shall not descend to a dispute about words. I speak to things. If, instead of the government of Virginia, his late Majesty, on the surrender of Louisbourg, had thought proper to give Sir J. A. a pension, and if this had been the declared motive of giving it, he might have accepted it without scruple, and held it with honour. Instances of pensions so bestowed are not very frequent. Sir Edward Hawke's is one. How widely different is the case in question! I will not pretend to do justice to this good man's delicacy and sense of honour; but I can easily conceive how a man of common spirit must be affected, when a place which he possessed on the most honourable terms is taken from him, without even the decency due to a gentleman; when he sees it given to a needy court dependant, and when the only reparation offered him, is to enroll him in a list of pensioners among whom an honest man would blush to see his name. If you had not been in such haste to correct the blunders of Mr. Pitt's administration, I think your insignificant friend might have appeared in that list without any disgrace to himself, and his distresses might have done credit to the humanity of your Lordship's recommendation.

You did not know that the 15th regiment was given to Colonel Hotham. Yet your assertion was direct. For shame, my Lord; have done with these evasions. Poor Pownal* hangs his head in perfect modesty, and even your fidus Achates, your unfortunate Barrington, disowns you.

I shall conclude with hinting to you (in a way which you alone will understand) that there is a part of my behaviour to you for which you owe me some acknowledgment. I know the ostensible defence you have given to the public differs widely from the real one intrusted privately to your friends. You are sensible that the most distant insinuation

of what that defence is would ruin you at once. But I am a man of honour, and will neither take advantage of your imprudence, nor of the difficulty of your situation.

* Secretary to the Board of Trade.

LUCIUS.

LETTER XLII.

Plerisque moris est, prolato rerum ordine, in aliquem lætum atque plausibilem locum quam maxime possint favor abiliter excurrere.-QUINTILIAN.

TO THE EARL OF HILLSBOROUGH.

MY LORD, September 10, 1768. YOUR change of title makes no alteration in the merits of your cause. You argued as well, and were full as honest a man, under the character of Cleophas, as you are under that of Scrutator. The task of pursuing falsehood through a labyrinth of nonsense is, I confess, much heavier than I expected. You have a way with you, my Lord, which blunts the edge of attention, and sets all argument at defiance. But I hold myself engaged to the public, whose cause is united with that of Sir Jeffery Amherst. The people of this country feel, as they ought to do, your treatment of a man who has served them well; and the time may come, my Lord,. when you in your turn may feel the effects of their re

sentment.

You set out with asserting, that the crown has an indisputable power of dismissing its officers without assigning a cause. Not quite indisputable, my Lord; for I have heard of addresses from parliament, to know who advised the dismission of particular officers. I have heard of impeachments attending a wanton exertion of the prerogative, and you perhaps may live to hear of them likewise.

Another assertion of the same sort has been thrown out by your emissaries, and is now gravely maintained by your Lordship, viz., that the promise conveyed to Sir J. A. by Mr. Pitt was in itself an absurdity, and that no succeeding minister is bound to make good an engagement entered into by his predecessor in office *. I shall leave my Lord Privy Seal to ex

* The reference is to the letter signed Scrutator, in which the writer observes as follows in respect to the subject in question :-" An absurd promise is asserted to have been made to Sir Jeffery Amherst at the time of his appointment to the government of Virginia, that his attendance on his government should never be required; and a torrent of obloquy has been