just equal to the persecution of a prisoner in the King's Bench Wilkes], and to the honourable struggle of providing for their dependants. If there be a good man in the King's service, they dismiss him of course; and when bad news arrives, instead of uniting to consider of a remedy, their time is spent in accusing and reviling one another. Thus the debate concludes in some half misbegotten measure, which is left to execute itself. Away they go: one retires to his country-house; another is engaged at a horse-race; a third has an appointment with a prostitute; and as to their country, they leave her, like a cast-off mistress, to perish under the diseases they have given her.

LETTER XXXIV.

ATTICUS.

TO THE PRINTER OF THE PUBLIC ADVERTISER.

SIR, August 23, 1768. AMIDST the general indignation which has been excited by the marked affront lately put upon Sir Jeffery Amherst, it is odd to find people puzzling themselves about the motives which have actuated administration in this extraordinary procedure Nothing is more short and easy than the solution of this affected difficulty. They were ordered to act in this manner.

The

The public knows and can know no other reason. ministry know and desire to know no other reason. They have not the slightest quarrel with Sir Jeffery Amherst. They have not the most trivial regard for Lord Boutetort Some of them are known even to hate his Lordship; the rest are scarcely acquainted with him; but they have received the order, and that is enough for them. Their whole political system is wrapped up in one short maxim—

"My author and disposer! what thou bidd'st
Unargued I obey!"

In this lesson they are perfect to a miracle; and the signal proof they have just given of their daring and determined servility shows them altogether worthy of that confidence which the favourite so wisely reposed in them (during his

pleasure), the depositaries of his intentions, and the trustees of his power.

But, although it be in vain to seek for any higher principle than blind obedience in the formal and executive members of the ministry, it is worth while to examine a little more minutely the motives which might actuate in this affair the secret but deliberative and guiding part of administration.

Can we believe from the monstrousness, or can we doubt from the notoriety, of the fact, that the political principles held by the present governor of Virginia during the greatest part of his life, and avowed, almost without a mask, could be his sole recommendation to that employment? Can we believe that these principles constitute such a transcendent degree of merit as makes it necessary to reward its possessor at the expense of the national honour, gratitude, and safety? Such merit must be served in any way, and at any price. A peerage, which every one knows could not be had without the royal countenance, was not sufficient. It was too little that he was put into an honourable employment near the person of his sovereign. After an unsuccessful attempt to reward him further by a violation of our laws in an illegal patent, he is now to be provided for by the ruin of our affairs in a critical and important government.

As a part of this system, and in order to give it a due roundness and relief, it was thought proper not only to affront living merit, but to insult and trample upon the sacred ashes of the dead. It was not forgot under whose patronage Sir Jeffery Amherst first appeared in the world. It was not forgot that he was one of the many public benefits derived to this country from that great school of military knowledge and loyal sentiments, the family of the late Duke of Cumberland. Here was a glorious opportunity of cherishing a true friend to despotism, and at the same time of insulting the memory of him who had been the heavy scourge, and (it was once hoped) the final destroyer of that cause. This opportunity was not lost.

To return: I have said that the justly obnoxious principles at which I have hinted, constitute, or seem at least to constitute, the sole merit of the new governor If the friends of

the ministry can discover any other, they would be very kind to mention them. The public looks upon this transaction in

a very serious light. Nothing but the strongest conviction that the very salvation of America depends upon the abilities of Lord Boutetort can reconcile them to the affront which has been put upon Sir Jeffery Amherst.

They derive no consolation from being told that this meritorious commander had received a previous intimation to repair to his government, with which he showed himself unwilling to comply. They are as dissatisfied as ever; first, because the fact itself, standing upon no higher authority than ministerial assertion, will be disputed. Falsehood is a servile vice; and to the imputation of that vice people in a slavish condition, whether low or high (for servitude, as well as hell, has its ranks and dignities), will always be subject, especially if ministers are known to have found the dexterous art of splitting themselves, and possessing one character in which to promise, and another in which to act*.

But with all the advantage of their supple habits, and of their double characters, will they venture to assert, that the arrangement in favour of Lord Boutetort was not determined upon before they had consulted Sir Jeffery Amherst concerning a residence in Virginia? In the next place, did they not know that his residence in the character of governor in America, where he had before commanded in chief, was a thing incompatible with all the ideas entertained by military men concerning rank and precedence? And if so, was not the order for residence given (if it was given) that it might be disobeyed? Is it not a heavy aggravation, instead of the least excuse, for their offence?

Lastly, the public would be glad to know how it comes that this grand ministerial reformation was taken up in this single instance; it made no part of a general arrangement. If it were done in consideration of the colonies, let me ask, whether the people of Virginia have lately complained of the absence of their governor, under which they have acquiesced upwards of fifty years? If it was done on the part of Great Britain, again let me inquire whether the lieutenantgovernors, who have acted during those fifty years, have wanted authority, knowledge, or capacity? If they did, in what manner is the defect supplied by the new appointment? Is the new governor invested with any larger powers than the *See Miscellanes Ietter, No. 21, ante.

late lieutenant-governors? degree of experience, knowledge, or sagacity for the exercise of those powers? No, no; the manner of filling the vacancy made by the removal of Sir Jeffery Amherst sets in the broad glare of daylight the true reasons for making it; it was not done to reform a public abuse, but to accommodate a private job; it was not Virginia that wanted a governor, but a court favourite that wanted the salary.

Or is he endued with a greater

I cannot help observing, in the ministerial writings with which the papers have been lately filled, that much scurrilous abuse has been thrown out against the Whig party and Whig principles. Permit me to congratulate the ministers on this well-chosen topic: the defence is worthy of the cause. They tell us, that all party distinctions ought to be done away, and that men of all kinds ought to have an equal share in public employment. This notion, taken with due corrections, has some sense, but in their application much absurdity. No man would prevent the public from being served by the abilities of any person, because he might have the misfortune in some time of his life to be mistaken in his political opinions or connections. But every Whig thinks it fair, that persons under such circumstances should be obliged to produce some other merit besides those mistakes; and that they should give some other proofs of their conversion to the principles of our happy establishment, than their necessity, or their desire of partaking in the emoluments which it has to bestow.

This surely is the sentiment and language of candour and moderation. This ought to be the inviolable rule where the question is concerning offices of trust, and which require weight and ability for their execution. When the question is concerning the mere graces of the crown, the rule is to become even more severe; and every lover of the constitution must think it a crime hardly less than treason in those who shall advise a court to discountenance the families which have promoted the revolution, and at the same time to load with its favours those who (reconciled by profit, not by opinion) have ever been the declared enemies both of the revolution and of every benefit we derive from that happy event You may hear again from

Your humble Servant,

VALERIUS.

VOL. II

P

LETTER XXXV.

TO THE EARL OF HILLSBOROUGH.

MY LORD, August 29, 1768. THE honourable lead you have taken in the affairs of Ameri a hath drawn upon you the whole attention of the public. You declared yourself the single minister for that country, and it was very proper you should convince the world you were so, by marking your outset with a coup d'éclat. The dismission of Sir Jeffery Amherst has given a perfect establishment to your authority, and I presume you will not think it necessary or useful to hazard strokes of this sort hereafter. It will be advisable at least to wait until this affair is forgotten, and, if you continue in office till that happens, you will surely be long enough a minister to satisfy all your ambition.

The world attributes to your Lordship the entire honour of Sir Jeffery Amherst's dismission, because there is no other person in the cabinet who could be supposed to have a wish or motive to give such advice to the crown. The Duke of Grafton and the Chancellor were once Lord Chatham's friends. However their views may now be altered, they must know it would disgrace them in the eyes of the public, to offer an unprovoked outrage to a man whose conduct and execution had contributed not a little to their patron's glory.

The Duke of Bedford and his friends have uniformly held forth Sir Jeffery Amherst as the first military man in this country; they have quoted him on all occasions when military knowledge was in question, and even been lavish in his praise. Besides, they openly disclaim any share in this measure, and they are believed.

The Earl of Shelburne usually finds himself in opposition. therefore is not too often consulted. In this instance he cer tainly did not concur with the majority. He still is, or pretends to be, attached to Lord Chatham, and I fancy he is not yet so cordially reconciled to the loss of the American department as to dishonour himself merely to oblige your Lordship.

You will not venture to insinuate that Sir Jeffery Amherst was dismissed by the advice of Lord Granby or Sir Edward Hawke. Military men have a sense of honour which your Lordship has no notion of. They feel for a galiant officer