country. Lord Chatham is called a lunatic, the Ministry abused, and Mr. George Grenville highly extolled.—(ii. 511.)

XI.-1767, Dec. 22. "Downright."-A short attack on Lord Chatham in answer to Mr. Macaroni.- (ii. 517.)

"an

XII.-1768, Jan. 2. "To Lord Chatham" (without signature.) Lately printed in vol. iii. p. 302 of the Chatham Correspondence. This remarkable letter (which is not in Woodfall's edition of Junius) commences thus: "If I were to give way to the sentiments of respect and veneration which I have always entertained for your character, or to the warmth of my attachment to your person, I should write a longer letter," &c. After saying he has " opportunity of knowing something," and that the Earl may rely on his veracity, he states that during the Earl's absence from the administration, not one of the ministers had adhered to him with firmness, or supported his principles in the King's service-points out the conduct of his colleagues, and informs him of the plan of the Duke of Grafton to subvert him in the administration. The conclusion is in these words: " My Lord, the man who presumes to give your Lordship these hints, admires your character without servility, and is convinced that if this country can be saved, it must be saved by Lord Chatham's spirit, by Lord Chatham's abilities."

XIII.-1768, Feb. 16. (No signature.)-Censuring the Ministry, and especially the appointment of persons of no rank as Commissioners of the Privy Seal for six weeks, apparently during Lord Chatham's illness. In this letter Junius shows deep knowledge of the machinery of the constitution, and speaks with some respect of Lord Chatham himself.-(iii. 1.)

XIV.-1768, Feb. 24. "Mnemon."-Describes the English character as "somewhat phlegmatic" and patient under aggression, and applies the fact to Sir James Lowther having obtained a grant of part of the Duke of Portland's estate, "" on the absurd and tyrannical principle, that no length of possession secures against a claim of the Crown." Calls Sir George Saville, who brought in a bill on the subject, "one of the ablest, most virtuous, and most temperate men in the kingdom."—(iii. 7.)

XV.-1768, March 4. "Mnemon."-An eloquent letter on the danger and injustice of the maxim "nullum tempus occurrit Regi"; calls Sir George Saville "a superior genius, a great light of the age," and attacks the Ministry for their conduct on the subject.-(iii. 13.)

XVI.-1768, March 24. "Anti Stuart."-Also on the nullum tempus maxim, in answer to a letter signed "Anti van Teague," who had defended the grant to Sir James Lowther. That signature seems to indicate that Junius was supposed to be an Irishman, and Mr. Burke. Junius signs" Anti Stuart," in reference to John Stuart, Earl of Bute, whose daughter Sir James Lowther had married. He then attacks the public character of the Duke of Grafton, the Prime Minister, and says he had not meddled with his private character, which he left for the Duke to earth in, whenever he is hard run, "according to the laudable example" of Lord North.-(iii. 22.)

XVII.-1768, April 5. "C."- Censures the conduct of the Ministry in respect to the proceedings at and after Wilkes's election for Middlesex. Wilkes himself is, however, severely treated, as "a man of most infamous character in private life," "without a single qualification, either moral or political ;' "overwhelmed with debts, a convict and an outlaw;" who "had wantonly and treasonably attacked" the King, who is spoken of in very respectful terms.-(iii. 27.)

XVIII. 1768, April 5. "Q in the Corner."-On the same subject. Suggests that the ministers tolerated Wilkes's conduct, in allowing him to return to England and remain at large notwithstanding his outlawry, with the object of terrifying Lord Bute, by producing their tribune once more upon the stage.—(iii. 32.)

XIX.-1768, April 12. "C."-Again on the maxim "Nullum tempus occurrit Regi." Attack on the ministry for having acted upon it towards the Duke of Portland.-(iii. 34.)

XX.-1768, April 23. (No signature).-" To the Duke of Grafton." A severe attack on his public and private character, and especially for having sat with his mistress (Miss Parsons, afterwards Lady Maynard) publicly at the Opera. (iii. 40.)

XXI.-1768, April 23. "Bifrons."-Charges the ministry with duplicity as their general characteristic. Attacks Lord Camden. Adverts particularly to the Duke of Portland's case: says "he remembers seeing Bassambaum, Saurez Molina, and a score of other jesuitical books burnt at Paris, by the common hangman.”—(iii. 42.)

XXII-1768, May 6. "C."-The ministry censured for opening Parliament by commission.-(iii. 48.)

XXIII.-1768, May 12. "Valerius."-On the Duke of Portland's case, in reply to a defence of the grant to Sir James Lowther.-(iii. 51.)

XXIV.-1768, May 19." Fiat Justitia."-Censure of Lord Barrington's (Secretary at War) letter, dated May 11, which he says he was informed of by an officer of the Guards, conveying the King's approval of the conduct of the troops in suppressing the riots in St. George's Fields, and promising them the protection of the law and of the War Office.-(iii. 57.)

XXV.--1768, July 1.

"Pomona."- "To Master Harry, in Black Boy Alley," [query on his duplicity in promising a place to Lord Rockingham and to another person. Proposes to show how he can perform his first promise, and ". yet continue as great a rascal as you would wish to be." "You are a mere boy, Harry, notwithstanding the down upon your chin." (iii. 60.)

XXVI.-1768, July 19.

"C."-On the appointment of a new Commis

sion of Trade, which is ridiculed.-(iii. 63.)

XXVII.-1768, July 23. "C."-Reply to a letter signed "Insomnis " (iii. 66), defending the new Commission of Trade, supporting his former letter. (iii. 69.)

XXVIII.-1768, July 30. (No signature.)-Attack on the "weak, distracted, worthless ministry," for their proceedings towards America. He adverts to his letter of the 19th December, 1767 (No. X.)-repeats many of his statements-praises Mr. George Grenville, whom the ministry "feared and hated," because he had the "melancholy triumph of having truly foretold the consequences of their own misconduct," and preferred the rebellion of half the empire to acknowledging his superiority over them-says the nation is "on the brink of a dreadful precipice; the question is whether we shall still submit to be guided by the hand that hath driven us to it, or whether we shall follow the patriot voice [Mr. Grenville] which hath not ceased to warn us of our dangers, and which would still declare the way to safety and honour."-(iii. 73.)

XXIX.-1768, August 5. "L. L."-Expressing indignation at the dis

missal of Sir Jeffery Amherst from his government of Virginia, whose services and merits are strongly described. (iii. 80.)

XXX.-1768, August 6. (No signature.)-A defence of Mr. Grenville's conduct respecting the Stamp Act, and towards the American Colonies, in answer to two writers in the 'Public Advertiser.' In reply to vague hints from one of them, he challenges him to "meet upon the fair ground of truth, and if he finds one vulnerable part in Mr. Grenville's character, let him fix his poisoned arrow there.”—(iii. 83.)

XXXI.-1768, August 10. "Lucius." In reply to " 'Virginius," a writer who had defended the appointment of Lord Botetourt, as successor to Sir Jeffery Amherst in Virginia; and exposing the motives and injustice of his dismissal.-(iii. 89.)

XXXII.-1768, August 19. "Atticus." On the situation of the country. The decline of public credit had induced him to sell out of the funds, and invest his property in land; and concluding with a violent invective against the ministry.-(iii. 91.)

XXXIII.-1768, August 23. "Valerius."-The ministry were ordered to dismiss Sir Jeffery Amherst for the sake of giving Lord Botetourt, who is severely attacked, the situation. "It was proper not only to affront living merit, but to insult and trample upon the sacred ashes of the dead;" i.e. the late Duke of Cumberland, "whose family was the great school of military knowledge," and under whose patronage Amherst first appeared.(iii. 98.)

XXXIV. 1768, August 29. "Lucius.""To the Earl of Hillsborough," Secretary of State for the Plantations, imputing to him the dismissal of Sir Jeffery Amherst, detailing every circumstance relating to it, and giving reasons for its not having been the act of any of his colleagues. He was not dismissed by the advice of Lord Granby or Sir Edward Hawke, the latter of whom had a pension, "nobly earned I confess, but not better deserved than by the labours which conquered America in America." 66 'Military men have a sense of honour which your Lordship has no notion of." Speaking of Lord Chatham, he says, "his infirmities have forced him into a retirement where, I presume, he is ready to suffer, with a sullen submission, every insult and disgrace that can be heaped upon a miserable, decrepid, worn-out old man." He puts a series of questions to Lord Hillsborough about Sir Jeffery's dismissal, and says "they must and shall be answered."

"the enter

"The W-y Company," mentioned in a note to this letter as prise," which Junius says had ruined Lord Botetourt (Sir Jeffery Amherst's successor), was the Warmly Company, for converting copper into brass, of which Lord Botetourt was the head. It is surprising that the object of that company had not furnished Junius with a sarcasm.-(iii. 105.)

XXXV.-1768, Sept. 1. "Lucius.”- "To the Earl of Hillsborough," in reply to a letter signed "Cleophas," explaining the facts attending Sir Jeffery Amherst's dismissal, which letter Lucius assigns to the Earl himself, who has, he says, forfeited all title to respect, by the disingenuous and evasive nature of its contents. The facts of the case are fully discussed; and the Duke of Grafton is bitterly and warmly attacked for refusing Sir Jeffery's propositions for recompense. Lucius shows much information respecting contemplated army arrangements.-(iii. 116.)

XXXVI.—1768, Sept. 6. "L. L."-In reply to a letter signed "Cleo

phas, Jun.," whose explanation of part of the Earl of Hillsborough's con duct towards Sir Jeffery Amherst is called "an absolute falsity." As the writer of this letter speaks of "Lucius" (certainly "Junius") as "a masterly correspondent," and as on the following day "Lucius" himself answered "Cleophas, Jun.," stating the same thing as "L. L." had done, it may, perhaps, be doubted if it were written by Junius.-(iii. 124.)

XXXVII.—1768, Sept. 7. "Lucius."- "To the Earl of Hillsborough," denying a statement of "Cleophas, Jun." in defence of that minister.(iii. 126.)

XXXVIII. 1768, Sept. 9. "Lucius."-" To the Earl of Hillsborough," in answer to another letter of "Cleophas" on the same subject. He says his "authority is indisputable;" that the Earl's ostensible defence differs entirely from his private explanation; and that he is indebted to his forbearance for not exposing it. "You are sensible that the most distant insinuation of what the defence is would ruin you at once. But I am a man of honour, and will neither take advantage of your imprudence, nor of your situation."-(iii. 133.)

XXXIX.-1768, Sept. 10. "Lucius.". "To the Earl of Hillsborough," in answer to "Scrutator" on the same subject, in which "Lucius" made a mistake in the date of part of the transaction.-(iii. 139.)

XL.-1768, Sept. 15. "Lucius."-"To the Earl of Hillsborough," adverting to the same subject, but containing general charges of incapacity, especially in the instructions given by the Earl to governors in America. In a postscript he collects all the epithets heaped upon him by Lord Hillsborough's partisans, and corrects the mistake in dates in his preceding letter.(iii. 145.)

XLI.-1768, Sept. 20. "Lucius."- "To the Earl of "Hillsborough." Draws a parallel between the case of Mr. Ford, who had been convicted of perjury, but escaped from an error in the date of the offence, and the mistake in the dates, above mentioned. He then answers a letter detracting from Sir Jeffery Amherst's military services, and "says the Earl, had left Amherst "poor in every article of which a false fawning minister could deprive him, but you have left him rich in the esteem, the love, and veneration of his country," and "concludes" the discussion.-(iii. 151.)

XLII.-1768, Oct. 6. "Atticus."- "Since my last letter (No. xxxii.) was printed."-On the state of France and this country, and the effect on public credit, in continuation of his letter of 19th August.-(iii. 156.)

XLIII.-1768, Oct. 12, "Temporum Felicitas."-Satirical praise of the correspondents who had supported the ministry, and again alluding to Lord Hillsborough and Sir Jeffery Amherst.-(iii. 160.)

XLIV.-1768, Oct. 15. "Brutus."-In answer to "A Friend to Public Credit," who had replied to Atticus's letter of the 6th October (No. xlii.), on the state of Foreign Affairs.-(iii. 162.)

XLV. 1768, Oct. 19. "Atticus."-On the state of affairs. He announces that Lord Shelburne's removal from office had "within these few days been absolutely determined,” and unsparingly examines the conduct of the Duke of Grafton and the other ministers, seriatim. When discussing that of Lord Hillsborough, the case of Sir Jeffery Amherst is prominently mentioned, and the secret cause of his dismissal is stated. (Vide No. Xxxviii.) Praises Granby's bravery, generosity, and good humour.

Grossly abuses Lord Shelburne, whose "life is a satire on mankind," in deserting a friend and attaching him to a declared enemy. "Of Lord Chatham," who had resigned on the 16th, then supposed to be worn out with the gout, "I had much to say, but it were inhuman to persecute when Providence has marked out the example to mankind.”—(iii. 165.)

XLVI.-1768, Oct. 26. "Why?"-A high eulogium on the Earl of Rochford, pointing out his peculiar fitness for conducting affairs with France. He refers to the letter of Atticus (No. xlv.), and says the public reflect with horror on the intelligence he had communicated, and therefore asked why Lord Rochford was made Secretary of State, and for the Northern Department? (iii. 177.)

XLVII.-1768, Oct. 27. "Brutus."-In answer to "Plain Truth and Justice," who had replied to his letter on the decline of public credit, supporting his former statements on that subject. It contains a compliment to Mr. Grenville,-" We may retire to our prayers, for the game is up."-(iii. 180.)

XLVIII.-1768, Nov. 14. "Atticus."-On the state of public affairs, and reviewing generally the conduct of the administration, its weakness and vacillation. "For my own part I am not personally their enemy." He particularly censures the Commander-in-Chief, Lord Granby, who looks no further than to the disposal of Commissions, and suffers the army to be robbed by way of pension to the noble disinterested house of Percy, and Sir Jeffery Amherst to be sacrificed." Most of the subjects noticed in his previous letters are touched upon. It is remarkable that he should state that "the Peerage which had been absolutely refused is granted" to Sir Jeffery Amherst, whereas he was not created a peer until the 20th May, 1776, eight years after.-(iii. 183.)

XLIX. 1768, Nov. 21. "Junius."—(The first letter bearing that celebrated signature, but it was not included in Junius's own edition of his Letters in 1772, probably because Wilkes was mentioned in a manner not consistent with their relations in that year.) On the violation of "all ties of honour, professions of friendship, and obligations of party" by the ministry to Wilkes, but clearly shows that he is not personally interested about him.(iii. 190.)

L.-1768, Dec. 15. (No signature).-" To the Right Hon. George Grenville," "who possessed all the constituent parts of a minister, except the honour of distributing or the emolument of receiving the public money," containing general censure on the administration.(iii. 192.)

LI.-1769, Jan. 21. “Junius.”—On the state of the nation. General censure of ministers (including the Marquis of Granby, Commander-inChief), and review of their proceedings; but he compliments Sir Edward Hawke to whom the navy is so highly indebted, that no expense should be spared to secure to him an honourable and affluent retreat. Praises the personal virtues of the king.-(i. 387.)

LII-1769, Feb. 7. "Junius."-" To Sir William Draper." Reply to a letter from Sir William Draper, who had defended the Marquis of Granby. "I should have hoped that even my name might carry some authority with it." In support of his charges against that nobleman, Junius says, "he deserted the cause of the whole army when he suffered Sir Jeffery Amherst to be sacrificed.-(i. 410.)