« PreviousContinue »
George's sinecure for many years. Johnston, Elliot, and many other officers, were promoted, whom Junius mentions with the highest contempt. In fine, as I observed before, not one man connected with Lord George's trial escaped retaliation and personal censure afterwards.
The reader will observe that Lord Barrington of the War Office, had also written to Lord George, signifying that his Majesty had no further occasion for his services as lieutenant-general and colonel of dragoon guards, which communication Lord George acknowledged by the following letter.
“Pall-Mall, September 11, 1759. “ MY LORD, “I have received the honor of your lordship's letter, signifying to me his Majesty has no further occasion for my service, as lieutenant-general and colonel of dragoon guards.
“ If I were conscious of having deserved this mark of his Majesty's displeasure I should be most unhappy; as it is, I only regret that I shall have no further opportunity of exerting my zeal in the service of my king and country.
“I am, my lord, &c. &c.
“ GEORGE SACKVILLE." “To Lord Barrington."
The name of Barrington stands conspicuous among the catalogue of Junius's enemies. He served on the continent with Lord George, and was afterwards appointed to the War Office, a situation which was offered to Lord George himself previous to his disgrace.
Junius says, “poor B-ch for many years was his nickname. His time-serving duplicity is now so well known, that he seldom speaks without being laughed at. Sometimes his folly exceeds all bounds; as for instance, when he traduced the whole body of general officers, which, I presume, they will not readily forget.”—Miscel. Letter CXIII.
“I desire you will inform the public that the worthy Lord Barrington, not contented with having driven Mr. D’Oyley out of the War Office, has at last contrived to expel Mr. Francis.' Letter cx. 23 March, 1772.
It is highly probable that they both unguardedly gave information to Lord George, which was useful to him in his character of Junius, and which in an indirect manner might have been the cause of their removal from the War Office. In confirmation of this opinion, we find, that Mr. D'Oyley was afterwards private secretary to Lord George, and Sir Philip Francis obtained an appointment in India.
I have stated in the preface, that it was not
my intention to enter into the claims of others. They have all been ably refuted, excepting the last candidate, Sir Philip Francis, whose claims have only been noticed by the Edinburgh Reviewers. Those learned critics have not gone systematically into the question, but have been guided by the ingenuity of the volume laid before them. As they have not come to any satisfactory conclusion, I shall merely state a few facts here, which will at once shew, that it is idle for a moment to suppose that Sir Philip had any claim whatever to the authorship of the letters, more than Mr. D’Oyley, or any other person whom Junius may have casually mentioned.
Sir Philip Francis was patronized and encouraged by the Earl of Chatham, and it was through his patronage that Sir Philip became secretary to General Bligh. By the same recommendation he was afterwards appointed seeretary to the Earl of Kinnoul, ambassador to Lisbon. Let us hear the opinion which Junius entertained of the Earl of Chatham.
Vol. 1. p. 213, private letter to Mr. Wood. fall, (PRIVATE)
“Friday Morning, Oct. 19, 1770. “ By your affected silence, you encourage an idle opinion that I am the author of the Whig, &c. though you very well know the contrary. I
neither admire the writer nor his idol.” [The Earl of Chatham.]—No. 23.
Vol. 11. p. 452.- “Without any uncommon depravity of mind, a man so trusted might lose all ideas of public principle or gratitude, and not unreasonably exert himself to perpetuate a power,
which he saw his fellow-citizens weak and abject enough to surrender to him. But if, instead of a man of a common mixed character, whose vices might be redeemed by some appearance of virtue and generosity, it should have unfortunately happened that a nation had placed all their confidence in a man purely and perfectly bad ; if a great and good prince, by some fatal delusion had made choice of such a man for his first minister, and had delegated all his authority to him, what security would that nation have for its freedom, or that prince for his crown? The history of every nation, that once had a claim to liberty, will tell us what would be the progress of such a traitor [the Earl of Chatham], and what the probable event of his crimes.
“Let us suppose him arrived at that moment, at which he might see himself within reach of the great object to which all the artifices, the intrigues, the hypocrisy and the impudence of his past life were directed. On the point of having the whole power of the crown committed to him,
of his power.
what would be his conduct ? An affectation of prostrate humility in the closet, but a lordly dictation of terms to the people, by whose interest he had been supported, by whose fortunes he had subsisted. Has he a brother? that brother must be sacrificed. Has he a rancorous enemy? that enemy must be promoted. Have years of his life been spent in declaiming against the pernicious influence of a favourite? that favourite must be taken to his bosom, and made the only partner
But it is in the natural course of things, that a despotic power, which of itself violates every principle of a free constitution should be acquired by means, which equally violate every principle of honour and morality. The office of a grand vizir is inconsistent with a limited monarchy, and can never subsist long, but by its destruction. The same measures by which an abandoned profligate is advanced to power, must be observed to maintain him in it. The principal nobility, who might disdain to submit to the upstart insolence of a dictator, must be removed from every post of honour and authority," &c.
Vol. 11. p. 510.-—“I will not suppose that the bulk of the British people is sunk into so criminal a state of stupidity: that there does exist a particular set of men, base and treacherous enough to have enlisted under the banners of a lunatic