This is a characteristic trait in Junius, and it is evident from the interest uniformly manifested by that writer towards Alderman Sawbridge, that he was not only personally acquainted with him, and respected his private character, but was a sincere admirer of his principles as a politician. In a private letter to Mr. Woodfall (17th February 1772) Junius says, "I could not have conceived it possible, that you could protract the publication so long. At this time, particularly before Mr. Sawbridge's motion (in favour of triennial parliaments), it would have been of singular use." And in another letter, of 29th February 1772, he says, "I am very glad to see that the book will be out before Mr. Sawbridge's motion." On the 4th March 1772, Mr. Sawbridge's motion came on, when the Alderman made a long speech, which is the only one reported, and the motion was of course lost by a large majority. After a long search to find whether Lord George voted on the occasion, Mr. Coventry discovered the following paragraph in the Daily Advertiser of the 10th March 1772:-"Through the kindness of one of our correspondents, we have been favoured with a few of the names who voted in favour of Mr. Alderman's motion," and in this short catalogue stands the name of Lord George Sackville, which not only shews that he was in the House that night, but also that his opinion was in unison with that expressed by Junius.

On the 7th February 1774, JOHN HORNE and HENRY SAMPSON WOODFALL were summoned to the bar of the House of Commons, the one as the author, and the other the printer of a libel on the Speaker; and although many able speeches were made for and against Mr. Horne, Lord George took no part in the debate, but preserved

an entire silence. When, however, Captain Phipps presented a petition from Mr. Woodfall, acknowledging his offence, and throwing himself upon the clemency of the House, Lord George was the only member who spoke in favour of receiving it, "hoping the House would discharge the prisoner at the bar: his case,” he said, was singularly hard; he was about to be punished for what his brother printers were daily guilty of, viz. printing the proceedings of the House;" and Woodfall was accordingly ordered to be discharged.

66

It will be recollected that Junius, in a private letter to Woodfall, dated 12th December 1769, says: "as to the House of Commons, there may be more danger. But even then, I am fully satisfied, the Ministry will exert themselves to quash such an inquiry, and on the other hand you will have friends."

"Of all the political characters of the day," observes Dr. Good (Preliminary Essay, p. 81), "Mr. GRENVille appears to have been Junius's favourite; no man was more open to censure in many parts of his conduct, but he is never censured; while, on the contrary, he is extolled wherever an opportunity offers: yet Junius positively asserted that he had no personal knowledge of Mr. Grenville."

In his letter of the 6th August 1768, Junius applauds Mr. Grenville for enforcing the Stamp Act in America, and concludes by saying:-"Your correspondent confesses that Mr. Grenville is still respectable: yet he warns the friends of that gentleman not to provoke him, lest he should tell them what they may not like to hear. These are but words. He means as little what he threatens, as when he condescends to applaud. Let us meet upon the fair ground of truth, and if he finds one

vulnerable part in Mr. Grenville's character, let him fix his poisoned arrow there."

Mr. Coventry (p. 181) shews that Lord George Germain, in a speech delivered in the House of Commons on the 7th March 1774, in reply to Mr. Burke, observed, when speaking of the Stamp Act, "I was of opinion that it should not be repealed, and voted accordingly."

In one of Junius's private letters to Mr. Wilkes, dated 7th September 1771, he declared himself favourable to repealing the duty on tea in America; and in a speech delivered in parliament on the 26th January 1775, Lord George Germain expresses similar sentiments.

On a motion for making the "Grenville Act" perpetual, which was brought before the House of Commons. on the 25th February 1774, Lord George expressed his admiration of Mr. Grenville's talents as a statesman, and his character as an individual, in the following words: "The author of this bill (Mr. Grenville) had preserved a good name while in office and when out, and he sincerely hoped the noble Lord would endeavour to have his name handed down to posterity with the same honour as Mr. Grenville had."

In 1757, an administration was attempted to be formed, including Lord George as Secretary of War, and George Grenville as Chancellor of the Exchequer; this was however abandoned, from that period down to the time of Junius, although they continued members of successive parliaments, and coincided in every respect in politics, "I have never been able," observes Mr. Coventry, "to find that they were on terms of personal acquaintance; but it is evident from Lord George's eulogium on his character after his decease, that he continued a warm admirer of Mr. Grenville's talents as a statesman."

Lord George Germain took a very active part in the debates on Indian affairs, which were carried on with much acrimony and violence; but he seems to have acted conscientiously, giving his opinions with moderation, and preserving a strict regard to the merits of the case. It was, however, on American affairs that he was most calculated to influence the House by his extensive knowledge of that country, acquired through the medium of his intimate friend Sir Jeffery Amherst, and others who had served there during the late war. He likewise obtained every information of what was then passing in America, through his nephew Lord Thanet, who corresponded with Lee and other republicans in that country, and could therefore lay before the House information on American affairs to which most of the members were utter strangers. Although his Lordship was decidedly hostile to ministers in everything else, he strenuously continued to support the opinions maintained by Junius respecting the dispute with America; and while the rest of the opposition condemned the whole of the ministers' measures, Lord George gave them his support on this point. At last, on the 28th March 1774, he laid down so clearly the policy which ought to be adopted in the then crisis of affairs, that Lord North publicly thanked him for his hints, observing, that they were worthy of so great a mind, and shortly afterwards it was discovered that his Lordship's personal assistance was required to extricate ministers from the labyrinth in which they were involved.

This glorious spirit of WHIGGISM animates millions in America, who prefer poverty with liberty, to gilded chains and sordid affluence, and will die in defence of their rights as men—as freemen,-what shall resist this spirit?

Lord Chatham.

With regard to the high-sounding, unintelligible phrases of legislative supremacy and parliamentary omnipotence towards the Americans, for my part, it only conveys to my mind such an idea, and equal satisfaction, as the answer given by the fine gentleman in the Play, who being charged with baseness by his friend, who told him he had eat his meat, drank his wine, and lain with his wife, made no other reply, at the end of every sentence, but, "Sir, I wear a sword."

Lord Camden.

Unfortunately for this country Mr. Grenville was at any rate to be distressed, because he was minister; and Mr. Pitt and Lord Camden were to be the patrons of America, because they were in opposition. Their declarations gave spirit and argument to the colonies; and while perhaps they meant no more than the ruin of a minister, they in effect divided one half of the empire from the other.

Junius.