of the House of Commons in the previous year. We find here that Junius was addressing Whately exactly as Pownall had heard him spoken to in that committee room. DUKE OF GRAFTON Staunch as Junius was to a man like Grenville whom he respected there was no such fierce enemy of those he despised; for them their rank and station only emphasised the terms in which they were addressed. Nobody suffered more than the Duke of Grafton, who had begun life as a strong Whig under Chatham, whom he deserted to take office under Lord Rockingham of whom he tired. Chatham again received the Duke into favour and, on resuming office in 1766, made him First Lord of the Treasury. When Chatham resigned the Duke, instead of following his leader, remained behind and succeeded to the Premiership. The Duke's private life did not look well in the fierce light thrown upon it by Junius who regarded him as a turncoat, and wrote on August 13, 1771: "My abhorrence of the Duke arises from an intimate knowledge of his character and from a thorough conviction that his baseness has been the cause of greater mischief to England than even the unfortunate ambition of Lord Bute. To Pownall, who had been the trusted subordinate of Lord Chatham when Mr. Pitt, the manner in which his old chief was treated by the Duke must have been specially obnoxious. THE CABINET Not only the Premier did Junius hold up to contempt, but the rest of the Ministry, and they were the men whom Pownall was fighting in the House of Commons. Among them were Lord Bute who was regarded as the King's evil genius; the Duke of Bedford who had been Lord Bute's agent in negotiating the Treaty of Paris in 1763 and was held responsible for not getting better terms; Lord North who became the King's instrument in oppression when he succeeded the Duke of Grafton as Premier, and Chief-Justice Lord Mansfield who was a nominee of Lord Bute. It mattered nothing to Junius what station a man held. How the man attained his station and what use he made of it when he got it, what he himself was apart from the trappings of office were the questions which determined how each individual was treated in these Letters. From this rule there was an exception. LORD HOLLAND 1 The one man whom Junius let off lightly was Lord Holland, whose dealing, as Paymaster-General, with public funds laid him open to censure. That it did not fall on him from the pen of Junius, so alert in dealing with others, was quickly noticed. A writer to the Public Advertiser of October 16, 1771 said: "I know nothing of Junius, but I see plainly that he has designedly spared Lord Holland and his family." So marked was this exception in favour of Lord Holland that some connection between him and Junius was inferred to explain his exemption from the lash which fell so heavily on others. This has been brought forward in support of the idea that Francis was the author, for it would have been impossible for him as Junius to place his early benefactor in the pillory. But it also applies to Pownall, who as CommissaryGeneral in Germany, had served in the department of which Lord Holland was the head, and therefore in a position to earn the gratitude of the anonymous publicist. THEIR ROYAL HIGHNESSES THE DUKES OF CUMBERLAND The elder of the two Royal Princes who bore this title was the uncle of George III. His name is associated with Culloden and he was Commander-in-Chief in the latter years of his father George II. Of him Junius wrote with respect; he says, of General Amherst: "It was not forgot that he was one of the many public benefits 1 Woodfall, 1814, iii. p. 410. desired to this country from that great school of military knowledge and loyal sentiments, the family of the late Duke of Cumberland."1 Such a remark would come quite naturally from Pownall. He had been treated with marked favour by the Duke who had honoured him with orders to attend the Conference at Alexandria, in Virginia, in 1755, and had specially commanded him to draw up a scheme for operations in America in 1756.2 As Pownall's wife was a friend of the Duchess of Cumberland it is evident that he had been admitted not only to the military school-of which Junius speaks-but to the family circle of the Duke, at whose death in October 1765 the title was conferred on his nephew, the King's brother. On October 2, 1771, this second Duke was privately married to Mrs. Horton, sister to the Colonel Luttrell, whose return for Middlesex to the House of Commons the Court had arranged in place of Wilkes the demagogue who had obtained a majority of votes. A note to Woodfall, says that the marriage was first made known to the public by a caustic Letter from Junius, one of the Miscellaneous Series, which is dated November 13. The agitation which followed led to the introduction by the King's command of the Royal Marriage Act on February 21, 1772. On the next day Junius wrote to Woodfall that "the intended Bill, in consequence of the message, will be a most dangerous innovation in the internal policy of this country." Reference to this period in Chapter X. will shew that three weeks after Junius had expressed in writing his objection to this Bill Pownall spoke against it in the Commons. On March 13 he followed Mr. Dowdeswell in debate, and moved to omit a clause in the preamble. Nor did his opposition stop there. He wrote and published a pamphlet called pamphlet called "Considerations on the Indignity suffered by the Crown and Dishonour brought upon the Nation by the marriage of H.R.H. the Duke of Cumberland with an English subject. Here we have Junius writing, and Pownall both writing 1 Woodfall, 1814, iii. p. 101. 2 See ante, pp. 55 and 61. 3 Woodfall, 1814, iii. p. 415. 4 This is mentioned in Watt's Bibl. Brit., but there is British Museum, and it has not been possible to obtain one. shews the mind of the writer. no copy of it in the The title, however, and speaking, on the same subject in the same spirit and at the same time. RIGHT HON. GEORGE GRENVILLE The character of Mr. George Grenville has already been noticed in connection with his tenure of office from 1763 to 1765, and with the Stamp Act for which he became responsible. Though he made that mistake he did so in the belief that he was acting rightly, and he stood out in marked contrast to his elder brother Lord Temple, who was one of the most mischievous schemers of a scheming age. While Grenville lacked the genius which distinguished his brother-in-law, Mr. Pitt, he was a good administrator, a well-read, hard-working and intensely painstaking man. Those qualities may be assigned to Junius also. A town-bred man, Mr. Grenville had none of the personal knowledge of the outside world which Junius shewed so markedly in respect of America. That, however, was a difference in experience. So far as character was concerned they resembled each other in some respects. Living among mercenary men Mr. Grenville was not greedy for money, Junius declined to accept it when offered to him by Woodfall. Though he held the highest offices Mr. Grenville did not intrigue to get them; to him Junius wrote three letters directly and personally, they are dated February 6, September 3 and October 20, 1768.1 The fact that they were both disinterested men when others were the reverse was probably the cause of that thorough-going attachment which Junius shewed to Grenville. That there were few political characters of the day who were more entitled to it was recognised in his Preface to Woodfall's edition of the Letters by Dr. Mason Good, who elsewhere gave a detailed account of Mr. Grenville's habits of life.3 The opinion Junius held of Mr. Grenville has often been noticed; so much so that it has been generally considered indispensable to the claim for any one alleged to have played the part of 1 These letters are reproduced in facsimile by Mr. Twisleton in his Handwriting of Junius, Plates 1, 3, 5. 2 Woodfall, 1814, i. note to p. 81. 3 Ibid. iii. p. 196. |