But if we could

actions with foreign powers. fuppofe the Sovereign of a free nation, poffeffed with a design to make himself abfolute, he would be inconfiftent with himself if he fuffered his projects to be interrupted or embarraffed by a foreign war; unless that war tended, as in fome cafes it might, to promote his principal design. Of the three exceptions to this general rule of conduct, (quoted by Anti-Junius) that of Oliver Cromwell is the only one in point. Harry the Eighth, by the fubmiffion of his parliament, was as abfolute a prince as Lewis the Fourteenth. Queen Elizabeth's government was not oppreffive to the people; and as to her foreign wars, it ought to be confidered that they were unavoidable. The national honour was not in question. She was compelled to fight in defence of her own perfon and of her title to the crown. In the common cause of felfish policy, Oliver Cromwell should have cultivated the friendship of foreign powers, or at least have avoided dif putes with them, the better to tyranny at home. Had he been only a bad man, he would have facrificed the honour of the nation to the fuccefs of his domeftic policy. But, with all his crimes, he had the fpirit of an Englishman. The conduct of fuch a man must always be an exception to vulgar

establish his

rules.

rules. He had abilities fufficient to reconcile contradictions, and to make a great nation at the fame moment unhappy and formidable. If it were not for the respect I bear the minifter, I could name a man, who, without one grain of understanding, can do half as much as Oliver Cromwell.

Whether or no there be a fecret fyftem in the clofet, and what may be the object of it, are queftions, which can only be determined by appearances, and on which every man muft decide for himself.

The whole plan of Junius's letter proves that he himself makes no diftinction between the real honour of the crown and the real intereft of the people. In the climax, to which your correfpondent objects, Junius adopts the language of the Court, and, by that conformity, gives ftrength to his argument. He fays that," the King has not only facrificed the interest

66

of his people, but, (what was likely to touch "him more nearly,) his perfonal reputation and "the dignity of his crown."

The queries, put by Anti-Junius, can only be answered by the miniftry. Abandoned as they are, I fancy they will not confefs that they have for fo many years, maintained poffeffion of another man's property. After admitting the affertion of the miniftry-viz. that the Spa

niards

niards had no rightful claim, and after justifying them for faying fo ;-it is his business not mine, to give us fome good reafon for their fuffering the pretenfions of Spain to be a fubject of negotiation. He admits the facts;-let him reconcile them if he can.

The laft paragraph brings us back to the original question, whether the Spanish declaration contains fuch a fatisfaction as the King of Great Britain ought to have accepted. This was the field, upon which he ought to have encountered Junius openly and fairly. But here he leaves the argument, as no longer defenfi ble. I fhall therefore conclude with one general admonition to my fellow fubjects;-that, when they hear thefe matters debated, they fhould not fuffer themfelves to be misled by general declamations upon the conveniencies of peace, or the miseries of war. Between peace and war, abftra&tedly, there is not, there cannot be a question in the mind of a rational being. The real queftions are, Have we any fecurity that the peace we have fo dearly purchased will last a twelvemonth? and, if not,—have we, cr have we not, facrificed the fairest opportunity of making war with advantage?

PHILO JUNIUS.

VOL. II.

LET

LETTER

XLIV.

TO THE PRINTER OF THE PUBLIC ADVER

SIR,

TISER.

22. April 1771.

To write for profit without taxing the prefs;

to write for fame and to be unknown;-to fupport the intrigues of faction and to be difowned, as a dangerous auxiliary, by every party in the kingdom, are contradictions, which the minifter must reconcile, before I forfeit my credit with the public. I may quit the fervice, but it would be abfurd to fufpect me of defertion. The reputation of these papers is an honourable pledge for my attachment to the people. To facrifice a refpe&ted character, and to renounce the efteem of fociety, requires more than Mr. Wedderburne's refolution; and though, in him, it was rather a profeffion.than a defertion of his principles, [I fpeak tenderly of this gentleman, for when treachery is in queftion, I think we should make allowances for a Scotchman,] yet we have feen him in the house of commons over-whelmed with confufion, and almoft bereft of his faculties.-But in truth, Sir, I have left no room for an accommodation with the piety of St. James's. My

offences

effences are not to be redeemed by recantation or repentance. On one fide, our warmest patriots would difclaim me as a burthen to their honest ambition. On the other, the vileft proftitution, if Junius could defcend to it, would lofe its natural merit and influence in the cabinet, and treachery be no longer a recommendation to the royal favour.

The perfons, who, till within thefe few years, have been moft diftinguished by their zeal for high church and prerogative, are now, it feems, the great afferters of the privileges of the house of commons. This fudden alteration of their fentiments or language carries with it a fufpicious appearance. When I hear the undefined privileges of the popular branch of the legislature exalted by Tories and Jacobites, at the expence of thofe ftrict rights, which are known to the subject and limited by the laws, I cannot but fufpect, that fome mifchievous scheme is in agitation, to destroy both law and privilege, by oppofing them to each other. They who have uniformly denied the power of the whole legislature to alter the defcent of the crown, and whofe ancestors, in rebellion against his Majefty's family, have defended that doctrine at the hazard of their lives, now tell us that privilege of parliament is the only rule of right, and the chief fecurity