calls rigmarole in logic, riddlemeree among schoolboys, and in vulgar acceptation, Three blue beans in a blue bladder. It is the perpetual parturience of a mountain and the neverfailing delivery of a mouse. I am, Sir,

Your humble Servant,

LETTER LXXX.

For the Public Advertiser.

DOMITIAN*.

December 13, 1770.

CHAPTER OF FACTS, OR MATERIALS FOR HISTORY+.

1. THE House of Lords, justly offended at the accuracy and precision with which a certain noble Duke's oration has been delivered to the public, and concluding that the very words must have been taken down in writing, by some foreign enemy, have determined to preserve the honour of their members, and the credit of their eloquence, by ordering all strangers to be carefully excluded.

2. But not to give offence, the exclusion is made general; their Lordships very properly considering that the members of the House of Commons are no more fit to be trusted with the debates of a public assembly than the spies or emissaries of a foreign ambassador, or so many Jesuits in disguise.

3. The right honourable the Speaker of the House of Lords was pleased to summon all the lords to attend on Monday last, on purpose to inform their Lordships collectively in what corner of the house each lord separately might find waste paper for his necessary occasions. N. B. It seems to be the fate of this unhappy paper (which always brings nasty ideas with it) to be produced in a most unseemly manner. In the Court of King's Bench, the introduction of it was allowed to be irregular, unprecedented, and EXTRAJUDICIAL. In the House

It has been already remarked that Junius admitted this to be one of his signatures.-ED.

By Junius, see note, post, p. 319.

See the preceding letter.

of Lords it was only silly and ridiculous. What a strange antipathy some men have to a record! When they dare not erase they fairly take post and travel out of it.

4. The bill for regulating contested elections was strenuously opposed by Lord North and the rest of the King's servants. Yet every one of the judges who went the circui: last summer, instead of instructing the several grand juries in the old, legal, constitutional way, were ordered to sound the praises of the House of Commons for their singular virtue in passing this and the privilege bill. And now let it be observed that in the first instance of the operation of this new law (the Shoreham election) not one of the ministers attended. Yet, intrusted as they are with the executive power of the state, it is their particular duty to attend, to facilitate, and inforce the execution of the laws; and these are the people who deafen us with their complaints of the licentiousness of the times, and the total want of respect into which the laws are fallen.

5. So far from performing this duty, it is a fact notorious that one Purling, a Caribbee, has been encouraged by ministry to introduce a third candidate at Shoreham, and to give him four of his own votes, in order that by having two petitions preferred (a case not expressly provided for by the act), this wise, this salutary law may be defeated in the first instance, and have a contempt thrown upon it.

6. Let it be known to posterity, that when Lord Mansfield was attacked with so much vehemence in the House of Commons on Thursday the 6th instant, not one of the ministry said a word in his defence. Nobody spoke for him but the Carlton House junto, Jenkinson and Sir Gilbert. (N. B. Mungo is sick). Even Mr. George Onslow, who in general is not very scrupulous, confined himself to the defence of Mr. Baron Smythe, and did not utter a syllable in favour of poor Mansfield. These facts show plainly: 1st, How the Carlton House connection hangs together. 2nd, That Lord North himself is not over and above pleased with the closet influence of the CHIEF JUGGLER.

The great Lord Camden did yesterday (11th of December, 1770) address himself directly to Lord Mansfield, and declare that he considered the paper delivered in by that Lord as a challenge to himself, which he accepted; that the glove was

thrown down, and HE took it up. That he was ready to meet him in defence of the laws of this country, and vehemently urged that a day might be fixed for debating the matter. But notwithstanding every possible instance made by the minority Lords, the Chief Justice shrunk from the combat, and would not fix any day.

LETTER LXXXI

For the Public Advertiser.

December 14, 1770

SECOND CHAPTER OF FACTS, OR MATERIALS FOR HISTORY.

66

1. THE Earl of Chatham having asserted, on Tuesday last, in the House of Lords, that Gibraltar was open to an attack from the sea, and that, if the enemy were masters of the bay, the place could not make any long resistance, he was answered in the following words by that great statesman the Earl of Sandwich:- Supposing the noble Lord's argument to be well founded, and supposing Gibraltar to be now unluckily taken, still, according to the noble Lord's own doctrine, it would be no great matter. For although we are not masters of the sea at present, we probably shall be so some time or other, and then, my Lords, there will be no difficulty in re taking Gibraltar." N.B. This Earl is a privy counsellor, and appeared to have concerted this satisfactory answer with Peg Trentham at the fire-side.

Sir Edward Hawke, on Wednesday last, gave the House of Commons a very pompous account of the fleet. Being asked why, if our navy was so numerous and ready for service, a squadron was not sent to Gibraltar and the West Indies? his answer was candid :-"That for his part he did not understand sending ships abroad when, for aught he knew, they might be wanted to defend our own coast. Such is the care taken of our possessions abroad! One great minister tells us they may be easily retaken; another assures that they cannot be defended. Will that man who sleepeth never awake until destruction comes upon him? Has ne uc

us

friend, no servant, to draw his curtain, until Troy is actually in flames?

3. Lord North informed the House of Commons on Wednesday that, although he wished for an honourable accommodation, he thought it his duty to tell the House, that he feared war was too probable; that he intended to move for a further augmentation of ten thousand seamen*, and that, at any rate, he should advise the keeping up the naval and military force upon the augmented stablishment, for that, notwithstanding the language held by the French and Spanish ministers, there was, all over France and Spain, the greatest appearance of hostile preparations.

4. The riot in the House of Lords has shocked the delicacy of Sir Fletcher Norton. Upon occasion of some clamour yesterday, he called to them, with all the softness of a bassoon, Pray, gentlemen, be orderly; you are almost as bad as the other House.

5. On Tuesday last, Lord Camden delivered into the House of Lords a paper containing three questions, relative to the doctrine laid down in Lord Mansfield's paper, which he

* Both this and the preceding communication were unquestionably from Junius. His industry in collecting information, in attending the debates of parliament, and communicating the results of each through different channels, was indefatigable. In a letter addressed by Mr. Calcraft to the Earl of Chatham, dated December 16, 1770, a similar report is made of the probability of war, and the utterances of Lord North, and which it is likely either Junius had communicated to Calcraft, or Calcraft, who was a member, to Junius. Mr. Calcraft says to his Lordship :

"First for the land-tax, Lord North alleged the four shillings necessary for the year, in any event. He told us our situation was precarious; that war was too probable; that so many more ships were ordered to be fitted as would take 9000 additional seamen; and though Spain should come to terms of accommodation, it would be unwise to disarm whilst the warlike preparations of France and Spain continued."-Chatham Correspondence, vol. iv. p. 57. Of the riot mentioned in the next paragraph by Junius, Mr. Calcraft, in the same letter says, "Now for yesterday! Lord George Germain moved for a conference with the Lords, was seconded by Lord George Cavendish, and most ably supported by Mr. Dunning, Colonel Barré, and Mr. Burke. Their speeches were admirable. Barré described the riot in the Lords as a mob broke in, headed by Lords Marchmont and Denbigh, of whose persons he gave the most ridiculous description."-Ibid, p. 58.

I have already mentioned the fact that Sir Philip Francis obtained from the late John Calcraft, Esq., all the letters and papers Sir Philip had for merly addressed to his father, the above-mentioned Mr. Cal-raft-ED.

desired that Lord would answer, if he could. Lord Mansfield was very angry at being taken by surprise upon a subject he nad never had an opportunity of considering, and that he valued the constitutional liberty of the subject too much to answer interrogatories *.

LETTER LXXXII.

TO THE PRINTER OF THE PUBLIC ADVERTISER.

SIR, December 17, 1770. As far as assertion goes, no man argues better than your correspondent Nervat. If we are contented to take his word

* Vide Lord Mansfield, note, post, p. 324.

† Nerva was a writer in favour of Lord Mansfield upon the subject of his conduct in the cause of the King against Woodfall for printing Junius's Letter to his Majesty; as well as for his posterior proceeding in the House of Peers upon the matter of this cause; in the course of which he thought proper, as has been observed already, to summons the House specially, in order to afford him an opportunity of fully explaining himself upon this point; an opportunity, however, of which he was even at last afraid to avail himself. See Appendix, vol. i. p. 472.

The letter of Nerva, above alluded to, was addressed to Lord Chatham, and appeared in the Public Advertiser, December 14, 1770. The following is a copy :

"For the Public Advertiser.

"TO THE RIGHT HON. LORD CHATHAM.

"MY LORD, "December 14, 1770. "I saw on Monday, in a certain great assembly, the most striking contrast of character that ever was exhibited on any public occasion. On the one hand, decency, propriety, dignity, wisdom, and temper; on the other, presumption, insolence, absurdity, meanness, folly, ignorance, and rancour. Your Lordship sat for one of the pictures, and, I am sorry to say, it was not for the best. To speak without metaphor, what demon, save the demon of malice, could inspire you with an objection to the fair, the equitable information which Lord Mansfield offered to the House? The proposal itself, the terms in which it was conceived, would have conciliated a barbarian; but your animosity is worse than a barbarian's, and betrays the principle from which it springs! In an unprecedented, extrajudicial, captious, and insidious manner, you had taken occasion to censure that great man's opinions in the court of justice where he presides. Though you endeavour to take him by surprise, that you might catch at some unfair advantage from his answer, you were baffled and disappointed. He answered you with the noble sim plicity of innocence, and the wisdom that never forsakes the mens conscia