If the combination at Boston be not a breach of any standing law (which I believe it is) ought it not to be immediately declared so by an act of the legislature? It is true that private persons cannot be compelled to buy or sell against their will; but unlawful combinations, supported by public subscription and public engagements, are, and ought to be, subject to the heaviest penalties of the law. I shall only add, that it is the common cause of this nation, and that a vigorous and steady exertion of the authority of Great Britain would soon awe a tumultuous people, who have grown insolent by our injudicious forbearance, and trampled upon us because we submitted to them*

LETTER XI.

TO THE PRINTER OF THE PUBLIC ADVERTISER. MR. WOODFALL, December 22, 1767. YOUR correspondent of yesterday, Mr. Macaronit, in his account of the new ministerial arrangements, has thrust in a laboured bombast panegyric on the Earl of Chatham, in which ae tells us, "that this country owes more to him than it can ever repay. Now, Mr. Woodfall, I entirely agree with Mr. Macaroni that this country does owe more to Lord Chatham than it ever can repay, for to him we owe the greatest part of our national debt, and THAT I am sure we never can repay. I mean no offence to Mr. Macaroni, nor any of your gentlemen authors who are so kind to give us citizens an early peep behind the political curtain, but I cannot bear to see so much incense offered to an Idol who so little deserves it.

I am yours, &c.

DOWNRIGHT.

This letter was without a signature, and could not, therefore, be announced, but was thus noticed on the day previous to its publication: "C.'s favour is come to hand." For a further continuance of this subject, see Miscellaneous Letters, Nos. 29 and 31.

+ This writer had furnished the printer with a list of the supposed changes in administration.

See the conclusion of Miscellaneous Letter, No. 4, and Private Letter, No. 23, in which the same term is applied to Lord Chatham. But these inferences of Dr. Good are negatived by the knowledge subsequently obtained of the real sentiments of Junius in respect of Lord Chatham. Other wise Downright is short and pointed enough for a Junius.-ED.

LETTER XII.

TO THE PRINTER OF THE PUBLIC ADVERTISER.

SIR, February 16, 1768. A MINISTER Who in this country is determined to do wrong should not only be a man of abilities, but of uncommon courage, To invade the rights, or to insult the understanding of a nation qualified to judge well, and privileged to speak freely, upon public measures, requires a portion of audacity unacquainted with shame, or of power which knows no control. Whether it be owing to a hardy disposition, or to the conceit of unlimited power, or to mere stolid ignorance, I know not, but it is too apparent that the present ministry, in everything they do, or attempt to do, are determined to set the understanding and the spirit of the English people at defiance. In a succession of illegal or unconstitutional acts, the instance of to-day ought at once to remind us of what they have done already, and to alarm us against what they may attempt hereafter. We have reason to thank God and the legislature that some of the most flagitious of their enterprises have been happily defeated. Their endeavour to establish a suspending power in the crown met with all the contempt it deserved+; nor have they yet quite succeeded in emancipating the colonies from the authority of the British legislature. But when open and direct attacks upon the constitution have failed, a bad ministry will naturally have recourse to some more artful measures, by which the prerogative of the crown may be extended, and the purposes of arbitrary power answered as effectually, and more securely to themselves. When attempts. of this insidious nature are made, it is the duty of every subject, be his situation what it may, to point out the danger to

• This appears to be the germ of the after amendment in the Dedication (v. i. p. 87), on the danger of bad precedents; "what yesterday was fact, today is doctrine." But this does not prove that the present communication is by Junius, as he may have either improved on his own first expression, or that of another. Both the style and tenour of the argument, however, agree well with Junius, and the dissatisfaction evinced towards Lord Chatham further on, and noticed by Dr. Good, is not inconsistent with his known aentiments at an early period.-Ed. vol. i. P. 418.

See this subject further discussed in Junius, Letter 60,

his countrymen, and warn them to guard against it. I shall take another opportunity to inquire into the legality of the appointment of a third secretary of state: at present let me be permitted to rouse the attention of the public to a later and to a still more flagrant stretch of prerogative. A prostitution or corruption of old offices may be as fatal to the constitution as the illegal creation of new ones. In the Gazette of Saturday se'nnight we are informed that the privy seal is committed to the care of three persons, whose commission is to continue six weeks *. From the names of these persons we can collect nothing, but that two of them are of Scottish extraction, and that the third is recorder of St. Alban's; but from their insignificance and obscurity we may easily collect, that there is some particular design in fixing on such persons to execute one of the first offices of the state. Why the Earl of Chatham should continue to hold an employment of this importance, while he is unable to perform the duties of it, is at least a curious question t. But it is

Whitehall, Feb. 2. The King has been pleased to issue his commission under the great seal, authorizing and empowering Richard Sutton, William Blair, and William Frazer, Esqrs., or any two of them, to execute the office of Keeper of his Majesty's Privy Seal, for and during the space and term of six weeks, determinable nevertheless at his Majesty's pleasure; and also to grant, during his Majesty's pleasure, to the right honourable William Earl of Chatham, the said office of Keeper of his Majesty's Privy Seal, from and after the said term of six weeks, or other sooner determination of the said commission.

We have here another proof of the hostility of Junius at one period to this nobleman, a previous proof having already occurred in the Miscellaneous Letter, No. 1, to the note appended to which we refer the reader.

In the Private Letter, No. 23, dated October 19, 1770, he still insinuates his dislike; for in requesting the printer of the Public Advertiser to contradict his being the author of the letters subscribed A Whig and an Englishman, he adds, "I neither admire the writer nor his idol." Who the writer of these letters was we know not, but the idol was certainly Lord Chatham. In reality it was not till about the date of Letter 54, under his favourite signature of Junius, that he began to think commendably of this nobleman. "I am called upon," says he, in that Letter, "to deliver my opinion, and surely it is not in the little censure of Mr. Horne to deter me from doing signal justice to a man, who, I confess, has grown upon my esteem.”1

All the needful elucidation of this commentary of Mason Good will be found in notes, pp. 108-110. It does not appear from any writing authentically identified with Junius, that he ever fe a strong aversion : wards Lord Chatham, but the reverse.— -ED.

infinitely more material to inquire why the interregnum is not committed to people of a higher rank and character.

The establishment of the several high offices of state forms a natural and constitutional check upon the prerogative of the crown. No illegal or unconstitutional grant, charter, or patent of any kind, can take effect from the mere motion of the sovereign, but must pass through a number of offices, in each of which it is the duty of the officer, if the case requires it, to remonstrate to the crown, as he himself is answerable for the consequences of any public instrument which he has suffered to pass through his department. The delay of this progression has another good effect, in giving the subject time and opportunity to enter his protest against any sudden or inconsiderate grant, by which his own property, or the welfare of the country in general, may be affected, and to have the matter fairly discussed.

of

The precedence annexed to these high offices (exclusive of the importance of the several degrees of trust reposed in them! sufficiently proves that they ought to be confined to men the first character and consequence. Men of that degree may safely be trusted, because they have a greater stake to hazard, and are answerable to the public with their lives and fortunes. The dignity of the lord privy seal's office (next in rank to the president of the council) would of itself be a sufficient reason for giving it to none but men of birth and character, and the great trust annexed to that dignity is a further reason for never committing such an office to any but men of the first rank and fortune. But in the choice of the present commissioners there seems to be something particularly and singularly improper. When a caveat is entered against a grant from the crown, and when a question of political and commercial importance is therefore to be discussed, can there be a higher insult to the public than to commit the determination of such a question to three persons very low in point of rank, and absolutely dependent in point of situation? Shall we not be justified in supposing that they are elected for no other quality but their insignificance ? Whatever pretences may be alleged to the contrary, the public will have too much reason to suspect that these worthy commissioners are taught their lesson, and that the job is too dirty to be imposed upon gentlemen of a higher station than a clerk in office. I cannot

believe that these persons could have been chosen by the Earl of Chatham. Whatever may be his faults, a man of spirit could no more lend his office than he could his mistress to the purposes of prostitution; much less would he descend to take either of them back again with a public mark of infamy apon them *.

Now, Sir, let us suppose these three respectable persons seated upon their tribunal, with two judges of England by their side, and the first lawyers of this country pleading before them upon a question of the first importance to this country; the judges, I doubt not, will sit in silent wonder at the judicial abilities of these great men, and silent they must be, unless a point of law should arise on which the triumvirate shall deign to ask their opinion; the lawyers will naturally exert their utmost efforts, when they consider that they have the honour to plead before three gentlemen of such profound knowledge, such distinguished rank, and such inflexible probity, that neither ignorance, nor ministerial influence, nor private corruption, can have any share in their decision.

I pity the unhappy Englishman, for he perhaps may blush for his situation.

* Lord Chatham, at this time, was suffering from severe indisposition, so much so that he was unable to use a pen. His continuing to hold the privy seal, while its duties were discharged by a commission, was justified by the earnest entreaty of the King, who was conscious of the influence of his name in strengthening the ministry. In a note, dated January 23, 1768, addressed to Lord Chatham by George III., he says:

"I am thoroughly convinced of the utility you are to my service, for though confined to your house, your name has been sufficient to enable my administration to proceed. I therefore, in the most earnest manner, call upon you to continue in your employment; indeed my conduct towards you since your entering into my service gives me a double right to expect this of you, as well as what you owe your country, and those who entered into my service in conjunction with you."-Chatham Correspondence, vol. iii. p. 318.

But though Junius was partial to Chatham, he was not so to some of his colleagues, and cautions his Lordship against their underhand practices. See Appendix. Private Letter to the Earl, dated January 2, 1768.-Ev.