American Independence and the French Revolution (1760-1801). Various

reply to the committee deputed to present it to his Lordship:

      Gentlemen,

      It is not easy for me to give expression to all I feel on the extraordinary honour done to my public conduct by the city of London; a body so highly respectable on every account, but above all, for their constant assertion of the birthrights of Englishmen in every great crisis of the constitution.

      In our present unhappy situation my duty shall be, on all proper occasions, to add the zealous endeavours of an individual to those legal exertions of constitutional rights, which, to their everlasting honour, the city of London has made in defence of freedom of election and freedom of petition, and for obtaining effectual reparation to the electors of Great Britain.

      As to the point among the declarations which I am understood to have made, of my wishes for the public, permit me to say there has been some misapprehension, for with all my deference to the sentiments of the city, I am bound to declare, that I cannot recommend triennial parliaments4 as a remedy against that canker of the constitution, venality in elections; but I am ready to submit my opinion to better judgment if the wish for that measure shall become prevalent in the kingdom. Purity of parliament is the corner-stone in the commonwealth; and as one obvious means towards this necessary end is to strengthen and extend the natural relation between the constituents and the elected, I have, in this view, publicly expressed my earnest wishes for a more full and equal representation by the addition of one knight of the shire in a county, as a further balance to the mercenary boroughs.

      I have thrown out this idea with the just diffidence of a private man when he presumes to suggest anything new on a high matter. Animated by your approbation, I shall with better hope continue humbly to submit it to the public wisdom, as an object most deliberately to be weighed, accurately examined, and maturely digested.

      Having many times, when in the service of the crown, and when retired from it, experienced, with gratitude, the favour of my fellow-citizens, I am now particularly fortunate, that, with their good liking, I can offer anything towards upholding this wisely-combined frame of mixed government against the decays of time, and the deviations incident to all human institutions; and I shall esteem my life honoured indeed, if the city of London can vouchsafe to think that my endeavours have not been wanting to maintain the national honour, to defend the colonies, and extend the commercial greatness of my country, as well as to preserve from violation the law of the land, and the essential rights of the constitution.

COMMENTS ON PARLIAMENTARY HAPPENINGS (DECEMBER, 1770).

       Source.—Letters of Junius (Letter LXXXI.). London: G. Bell and Sons. 1911. Vol. ii.

       Table of Contents

For the “Public Advertiser,” December 14, 1770.

       Table of Contents

      SECOND CHAPTER OF FACTS, OR MATERIALS FOR HISTORY.

      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 retaking Gibraltar.” N.B. This Earl is a privy counsellor, and appeared to have concerted this satisfactory answer with Peg Trentham at the fire-side.

      2. 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 us that they cannot be defended. Will that man who sleepeth never awake until destruction comes upon him? Has he no 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 establishment, 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 desired that Lord would answer, if he could. Lord Mansfield was very angry at being taken by surprise upon a subject he had never had an opportunity of considering, and said that he valued the constitutional liberty of the subject too much to answer interrogatories.