not defpifed by thofe who employed him in a task certainly unbecoming the character of a chriftian divine; and earning only a fcanty fubfiftence by teaching the English language. Mr. Grenville afferts, that Mr. Wilkes was tried and convicted by a favourable jury. To this Mr. Wilkes excepts, in the Atrongest terms. A favourable jury, fays he, which asked no one question, and only pronounced the fingle word guilty, is abfolute nonfenfe-You ought to have faid, that he was tried by an illegal jury, for notices declaring that the trials were put off, figned Summoning Officer, were fent to feveral of the legal fummoned jury, only the day before the trials, fo that no fair jury of his Countrymen have pronounced any judgment on him. Mr. Grenville knew this circumftance, and therefore was greatly. criminal in denying Mr. Wilkes the juftice of going into this part of his petition. Was the jury which found Mr. Wilkes guilty of publishing an unpublished poem, a favourable, or even a confcientious jury?- -A very fair queftion this-And the writer of this REVIEW, who is in every refpect qualified to be a juror on fuch a trial, is humbly of opinion that Mr. Wilkes was guilty of printing, but not of publishing any part of the Effay on Woman; and for this reafon ;-becaufe he apprehends, that a jury on a trial of a misdemeanour, for which pains and penalties are to be incurred, ought not to go by any law conftructions of common terms; but are to confider them inthe general meaning and acceptation in which they are daily and hourly understood and taken; especially in fo plain a cafe as this. In which a thousand common living evidences might have been brought into court to affert the common idea of publishing, in oppofition to any obfolete conftruction taken from the dead letter of the law. Shall the Stamp-Office receive fuch immenfe fums for the daily publications of pamphlets in the news-papers, and shall a jury be at a lofs for the general meaning of the term publishing ; or admit of its being taken in any other than the general fenfe it bears in the civil fociety, where the accufation is to be tried? Certainly no-But let us give a familiar inftance of the practical ufe of the term; and fhew what our courts of law have adopted on other occafions. It is ufual to advertise a pamphlet in the following manner-In a few days will be published, c. &c. Suppofe in the interim, that being intimately acquainted with the author of the propofed publication, I fhould defire an order from him to the printer for twelve copies for the ufe of some particular friends, which are delivered to me, and even diftributed by me to my friends, before the day of publication. If this pamphlet afterwards proves to be a libel, am I to be tried, convicted, fined, and imprifoned for publishing a libel ?-no in. tance of a profecution on fuch a charge can be produced, ex cept Mr. Wilkes's. On the contrary, it has been the invariable rule to profecute author, printer, and publisher, if they could be found, and by the publisher, has ever been understood, the perfon ufing the trade of publishing for gain, for a livelihood-It was fo understood when Mr. Kearfly was profecuted for publifh ing ing the North-Briton; but if the perfons who through their connections with the author, got poffeffion of a dozen copies of any illegal performance and difperfed them, had been deemed the publishers, I apprehend others befides Mr. Kearly might have been profecuted as the publishers of the North-Briton-and the fame might probably have been the cafe with Dr. Shebbeare's Letter to the People of England; in fhort, with almost every new production. And the confequence of fuch profecutions, is too obvious to dwell upon-being no less than the fubversion of the liberty of the prefs. The comparifon drawn by Mr. Grenville, between the NorthBriton No. 45, and Dr. Shebbeare's fixth letter to the People of England, affords Mr. Wilkes fresh ground of accufation against him. In the fpeech it is faid Mr. Wilkes was convicted" for a libel certainly not lefs feditious or criminal than Dr. Shebbeare's." In reply, Mr. Wilkes very juftly remarks, that, as to the fixth letter to the People of England," it was charged in the information to be falfe as well as wicked, &c.—But the word falfe was not in the information against the North-Briton No. 45-nor was the charge of falfhood made against any part of that paper. And reminds Mr. Grenville that he challenged him, Lord North, and all the miniftry in the Houfe of Commons, on the first day of the feffion in 1763, to point out a fingle falfhood. The queftion is then put-Whether a fhort paper, which did not contain one line untrue, is equally criminal with a volume, which fcarcely contained a fingle truth, which traduced the revolution, afperfed the memory of K. William III. grofsly vilified King George I. and II. and baftardised the whole royal family.-Certainly every impartial man will join in a negative to this question, and in expreffing his aftonishment "that fuch an enemy to the Houfe of Hanover as Dr. Shebbeare, fhould be penfioned during Mr. Grenville's adminiftration, and fhould continue in the government's pay to this hour." In page 49 of Mr. Grenville's speech, there is this remarkable paffage-"Had Mr. Wilkes ventured to return home, whilft I had the honour to be intrufted with the executive powers of theftate, he fhould not have remained out of cuftody four and twenty hours, without fubmitting himself to the juftice, or the mercy of the King, whom he had fo grievously offended."--The obfervations on this paffage are too curious and interefting to be omitted, especially as there are two lines which put it out of doubt that Mr. Wilkes is the real author of the letter under our confideration." Such is the wretched cant of ministers whenever they are attacked themselves, but the impofture is too ftale to pals. It is impoffible to fuppofe the King was grievously offended, becaule the minifters were treated according to their exceeding demerits, when at the fame time the utmost reverence was fhewn to his facred character. In that very paper he is faid to be a prince of jo many great and amiable qualities, whom England truly rescres, and it is added, the perfonal character of our prefent amiable fovereign, makes us easy and happy that fo great a power power is lodged in fuch hands. Might not therefore the North Briton, Number 4-5: after fuch juftice done to the character of the Sovereign, fafely fay of the minifters. "The Scotch minifter, has indeed retired.. Is his influence at an end? or does he ftill govern by the three wretched tools of his power, who to their indelible infamy have fupported the most odious of his meafures, the late ignominious peace, and the wicked extension of the arbitrary mode of excife"? But the minifters, and Mr. Grenville in particular, one of the three, were indeed juftly, as well as grievously offended, and therefore he again in his fpeech very indecently introduces the facred perfon of the King to avenge his own private, and perfonal quarrel. Neither the juftice nor the mercy of the King were in any part of the bufiness once compromifed. The very caufe of all this dire difcord was merely----JUNONIS gravis ira, et inexfaturabile pectus, Quam nec longa dies, pietas nec mitigat ulla. Thefe lines need no comment- we all know that Juno the pagan's queen of Heaven, had no hand in this affair, but we may easily guess the great lady, the lines are applied to ; and we fhall poftpone our remarks on this part of Mr. Wilkes's conduct, till we come to a direct perfonal infult in the appendix offered to a higher character. The introduction to Lord Weymouth's letter relative to the bufinefs of St. George's fields on the 10th of May 1768. is filed a libel in Mr. Grenvile's fpeech. In the pamphlet before us, it is cleared from that imputation, on this principle, "That there is not the leaft mixture of falfhood or even a dash of error in that paper. And as to Lord Weymouth's being a peer of the realm, &c. it is obferved, that there is no privilege in a court of honour, or confcience below, nor of juftice above, for fuch foul deeds in any man. The higher the ftation of the criminal, the greater is his offence, and the more examplary ought to be the punishment. The fame obfervation extends to the frith lord, who afterwards in cold blood could approve and applaud the maffacre, and, proftituting the authority of office and the name of his fovereign, write a letter of thanks to merciless ruffians in the ftile Prince Ferdinand of Brunswick did, to the most brave and generous troops in the world, after the glorious day of Minden. As Mr. Wilkes ftrictly notices every appearance of fallacy in his adverfaries, impartial juftice obliges us to remark one in his pamphlet page 42. "He has ftood forth with his perfon, pen, and purfe in fupport of our just rights." With what degree of truth it can be faid, that a declared infolvent who has been fupported himself by the benevolent contibutions of the public, and is fill afking alms to relieve him from a load of debt, has fupported our rights with his purfe we leave the world to judge: all we have to add on this point is that moft men are of opinion his purfe has been replenished by his public conductand that a better thing could not have happened unto him, refpecting himself perfonally, than the obitinate, foolish perfecution of him by the miniftry. VOL. VI. H A few 1 A few very home queftions are put to Mr. Grenville relative to the peace of Paris, which Mr. Grenville it is faid, entirely appro-. ved, though he contrived to avoid figning it. I defire, fays Mr. Wilkes, "You will inform us, if all the new territories together, which we retained after a war of fuch prodigious expence, afford now a fufficient revenue even to defray their own eftablishments, so far from paying the intereft of the very debt we contracted to make thofe conquefts. Yet we know that Martinique or Guadeloupe alone, would have greatly aftffied us, in point of revenue, and that it entirely depended on your friend, the enemy of England, the Scottish peace-maker, over whom you had then fo great influence, to have fecured us one, if not both, of thofe rich and important iflands." How far Mr. Grenville had it in his power to have bettered the conditions of the peace made by the Earl of Bute, it is impoffible for us to determine. But the remark concerning our new acquired territories, and the giving up Martinique and Guadaloupe is but too juft- It was mentioned in the house of commons by fome of the glorious minority, before Mr. Wilkes appeared in a public light, he has therefore only the merit of retaling it again to the public. From the first hour that this part of the miferable bargain was known; it was deemed by all the independent friends of their country both within doors and without, as a traiterous transaction. By way of appendix to this letter in reply to Mr. Grenville, and without any connection with or relation to the subject of Mr. Grenville's fpeech- A narrative of Mr. Wilkes's public conduct is reprinted, which firft appeared in the POLITIGAL REGISTER, vide vol. 3. page 257. and to this is tacked the general warrants -the proceedings on the alteration of the record, &c. We fhall clofe this account of the pamphlet before us, with part of an extract from the Middlefex Journal of September 26, 1769. on the fubject of Mr. Wilkes's petition- -The whole letter to the printer of the Middlefex Journal, we are affured from very good authority was written by Mr. Wilkes himself. The following extract will convince our readers that no other person in the kingdom would have wrote it. ད "I have met with fome few men of fense and humanity, who think that Mr. Wilkes deferved the first year's imprisonment and the firft fine for the North Briton number 45, but I have not heard a fingle man of understanding or honour, of opinion, that he deserved even the flightest cenfure for having an idle poem carefully locked up in his closet, which in fact has only been made known, by the villains who ftole it, and by their abettors.--Perhaps a more fit, or juft fubject of the interpofition of the crown by a remiffion of the fecond fentence, even for the honour of government, has never occurred; but all struggles against the natural bent * of an obftinate mind are vain and ineffectual. It is be * Will Mr. Wilkes now plead, that he means to attack the king's fervants, when he infults the S ? furely not. Here fides fides an old obfervation, that we often pardon those who have injured us, but never those we have injured." An Appeal to the World, or a Vindication of the Town of Bofton, from many falfe and malicious Afperfions contained in certain Letters and Memorials, written by Governor Bernard, General Gage, Comomodore Hood, the Commiffioners of the American Board of Customs, and others, and by them refpectively tranfmitted to the Miniftry. Published by order of the Town. London reprinted for J. Almon, Is. I from a review of own fee page 295, and 352 in our Registers for November and De- Having made fuch ample remarks on the two volumes of letters on the contest between the inhabitants of Boston and their Governor, and on juft foundations condemned Bernard's conduct, we muft beg leave ftrongly to recommend the attentive perufal of this appeal which will not only justify our former obfervations, but prove beyond a doubt, that our American brethren, have been fhamefully ill-ufed by their Governor, and by the administration at home, on the too implicit faith of his vile mifrepresentations, is an open charge against the frame of mind, the natural difpopofition of *** could any private man profeffing christianity bear an accufation of this kind "Sir, the natural bent of your mind is obftinacy, to fuch a degree that renders you incapable to forgive an injury- -nay, what is more, though you must be fenfible that in other points you must have injured the perfon, who now fues for a pardon from you?" Few private perfons we apprehend would be able to bear fuch an infult with tolerable temper. To fay the truth, it wears too much the complexion, of a premeditated defign to exafperate, which Mr. Grenville and others have declared has been the conftant purport of the writings of John Wilkes Efq; H 2 A Letter |