to wealth and honors; but in consequence of the Duke of Grafton's intrigues in the cabinet, all his prospects were blasted. So early as July, 1768, The Bedfords' had begun to persecute Lord Shelburne. * * In August the removal of Lord Shelburne was proposed in the closet and objected to;' but his enemies seem to have prevailed, for in September Mr. Lynch was appointed envoy extraordinary to the King of Sardinia. Lord Chatham had resolved, under these circumstances, to resign, and in mentioning his resolulution to the Duke of Grafton on the 12th of October, he added, that he could not enough lament the removing of Sir Jeffrey Amherst (from the government of Virginia) and that of Lord Shel*The Duke of Grafton, however, was determined that Lord Shelburne should resign, and accordingly Lord Chatham and Lord Shelburne retired from the ministry on the 21st of October, 1768. Macleane of course followed the fate of his chief, and doubtless felt keenly his dismissal from the honors and emoluments of office. In less than three months Junius launched his first formidable philippic against the ministry."

burne.'

*

6

Here it is assumed that Macleane first entered on political life under Shelburne, and that all his hopes were overthrown when his chief was driven from power by the combined influence of Grafton and Bedfordhence Junius, and hence his animosities. Now, if the "hence Junius" be admitted as probable, it does not, therefore, follow, that Macleane was Junius.

| ing periods and writing letters, public or private, beyond the requirements of the hour. In May, 1771, he accepted the Chiltern Hundreds; and was, by Lord North, appointed Superintendent of Lazarettoes, with £1,000 a year. In another twelvemonth, January, 1772, he figured as collector at Philadelphia; and in April, 1773, as Commissary-general of Musters, and Auditor-general of Military Accounts, with the rank of lieutenant-colonel in India,

an appointment worth about £5,000 a year." So far, indeed, was Macleane from running into fierce opposition, that, according to the report of his brother, he was for the greater part of his public life an avowed supporter of the ministry. It is true that while in France he became intimate

with Wilkes, was his personal and kind friend, lent him money, and was very fierce in respect to the Middlesex election. So were many and much more distinguished men-who hoped thereby rather to get into office than to be kept out of it. The cause of Wilkes, so far as it was connected with the Middlesex election, was the cause of constitutional liberty. On his own showing, Macleane separated from Wilkes when he became under-secretary, and quarrelled with him after the Rockingham party had withdrawn their protection and their pensionafter Chatham had publicly and somewhat wantonly denounced him-and when Shelburne was working by all direct and indirect means against him in the city; in fact, when it was politic to do so. Wilkes asserted, and perhaps believed, that Macleane was bought off by the court-and Walpole has perpetuated the charge; but there is no proof that it was true. On the contrary, the reply to Wilkes was, that he could not have been bought off, for he had never been in opposition, except on the question relating to the Middlesex election: "Eight years have elapsed since his return to England, during six of them he has been zealous in support of the administration; when he differed it was on account of the Middlesex election."

Sir David appears to be wholly unaware that when the Rockingham party were in office, Macleane was appointed lieutenantgovernor of St. Vincent, and with hopes, wrote William Burke, that, "by the mediation of Lord Cardigan, he will be made a commissioner for the sale of lands, which will gild the plume the other gives." When, however, in the autumn, Macleane was just about to embark, Chatham and Shelburne came into office, and Macleane became under-Secretary of State, and Ulysses Fitzmaurice was appointed lieutenant-governor. In the next parliament (1768) Macleane was returned as member for Arundel, together with Sir George Colebrook, chairman of the East India Company-a conjunction not without its significance to those who know the issues, but on which we cannot now dwell. Of course at the close of that year, when Shelburne, the secretary, retired, Macleane, the under-secretary retired with him; but never so far, we suspect, as to be out of sight of office. In 1769 and 1770, as we shall hereafter show, the involvement of Macleane's private affairs, consequent on his gambling in India stock, could have left him little leisure to attend to politics, or to turn-ernment.'

And this "zealous" supporter of administration, Macleane, we are now told, was Junius! "Junius," as Sir David exclaims when considering the pretensions of Sackville, "asking and receiving favors from the crown!" No one, indeed, can raise stronger objections than Sir David. "It would be a difficult task," he says, by way of objection to Francis, " to persuade the public that Junius held lucrative office in the State, while he was systematically assailing the King and the gov

Would it be more difficult in the

case of Francis than of Macleane? To say nothing of earlier offices, was not the Lazarettoes with its thousand a year (three times as lucrative an appointment as Francis held) followed according to his own theory by a whole volume of Junius's "Letters," including a modest contribution by the soft spoken Veteran? Seriously, we agree with Sir David that there would be such a moral obliquity in this conduct as ought to be conclusive equally against the claims of Francis and those of Macleane-even if we had no other evidence. We may here, however, observe by way of further analogy," that it was in this same year, 1771, that Macleane and Wilkes were libelling each other in the public newspapers-that Macleane challenged Wilkes-and that Junius carried on his long, labored, and friendly correspondence with

him.

King of Spain, and the argument which ne founded thereon, were made in a set speech delivered in the House of Commons on the 13th of February, when the question relating to the Falkland Islands was under discussion; and, curiously enough, Macleane commenced, after the Vindex fashion, by reference to his broken eloquence. "I promise," he said, "to make up in brevity for my want of utterance, and on this ground I entreat the patience of the House." The speech is not reported in the Parlimentary History, and is only summarily noticed by Cavendish; but it was published at the time in the newspapers-and no doubt, from the marked emphasis of the printer, the copy was furnished by Macleane. The reference, therefore, by Vindex (assumed to be Junius,) whether generous or not, was at least pertinent. Macleane's argument, so far as our question is concerned was this:

Macleane, we are told, gained the patronage of Lord North-that "most treacherous The last speaker (he said) has "made use of a of all the King's ministers," as Junius called word which I cannot pass over in silence; he has him early in 1771, by writing a pamphlet said that England has recognized the right of Spain in "Defense of the Ministry on the subject of to Falkland's Islands, by accepting the Spanish the Falkland Islands!" We must confess minister's declaration. Others have more modestthat when we came to this passage, it took y termed this a reservation of right. But I deny away our breath. Junius to stop in the mid both the one and the other, since the giving poscareer of his labors to write a defense of the right which is worth contesting for. The treaties session of the soil gives this country that only ministry! Of all the "analogies" this is cer- of Nimeguen," &c. &c.," are full of such sorts of tainly the most curious! Macleane, we are reservations, which really mean nothing. Will told, wrote this defense early in 1771; Junius, the House give me leave to quote one or two exwe know, wrote and published in January, amples from the very last treaty of peace-the 1771, his attack on the ministry, and on their treaty of Fontainebleau? In this treaty, the King conduct in respect to the Falkland Islands his minister, calls the Duke of Bedford ambassador of Portugal, that little king, in his pleins pouvoirs to an attack so severe and so damaging that Dr. plenipotentiary from the King of Great Britian, Johnson is said to have been especially called France, &c.; and yet France took no manner of on to reply to it! A man who can believe umbrage at this phrase. But in matter of reservathis may "most powerfully and potentially" tion certainly no monarch ever equalled the King believe anything. It is indeed "by indirec-of Spain; for in this very treaty he has kept up, tions to find directions out."

in the titles he has assumed, his claim to three parts in four of the whole world; for not content enemies, he has reserved his right also to those with reserving his right to the territories of his of his best friends and allies. His words ran thus: Don Carlos, by the grace of God, King of Castile, of Leon, of Arragon, of the two Sicilies, of Jerusalem, of Navarre, of Grenada, of Toledo,

We are not surprised that Sir David Brewster was anxious to get a sight of this pamphlet. If a few private letters had awakened such strong suspicions, what might not have been proved by a whole political pamphlet ? But there is no copy," it appears "in the British Museum, nor any other library, pub-of lic or private," where he has made inquiry after it; and his inquiries "have been very extensive." Shall we tell him why this result? because, as in the celebrated case of the "impossible," a pamphlet is "very seldom" found which, never existed. It is strange that Sir David did not suspect this from the very words of the reference: "In spite of Mr. Laughlin's disinterested unbroken eloquence," says Vindex.

Macleane's reference to the titles of the

Valencia, of Galicia, of Majorca, of Minorca, of Murcia, of Java, of the Algarves, of Algeira, of Seville, of Sardinia, of Cordova, of Corsica, of GIBRALTAR, of the Canary Islands, of the EAST INDIES, of the WEST INDIES, ISLANDS and CONTINENT, of the OCEAN; Archduke of AUSTRIA, of BRABANT, of MILAN; Count of Hapsburg, of FLANDERS, of TIROL, &c.' Can anybody, after these claims, think that of the Falkland Islands worth attending to, or that such reservations are nothing? For all these reasons, I shail, from the more than mere empty words of form, meaning bottom of my heart, vote for the question as moved by the noble lord."

*

*

We have quoted enough to illustrate the reference by Vindex-" Pray tell that ingenious gentleman, Mr. Laughlin Macleane, that when the King of Spain writes to the King of Great Britain, he omits four-fifths of his titles. disinterested, unbroken, melodious eloquence, it is a melancholy truth that the crown of England was never so insulted, never so shamefully degraded, as by this declaration." And the gentleman who voted "from the bottom of his heart"-and who could talk and write about voting "from the bottom of his heart"-was Junius!

With the subsequent history of Macleane our readers are in no way interested; but there are some incidents in his past career which throw a light on the character of the manand we may as well clear them up.

Macleane, says Sir David, perished in 1777, on board the Swallow packet, which foundered at sea.

of May, 1769, when stock fell in a few days from 275 to 240, and continued to fall for years after, and at one swoop he was reduced to beggary. When accused of this-stigmatized as a "disgraceful and dishonest bankrupt" In spite of Mr. Laughlin's--the best defense was, that his conduct, "if it did not justify the extent of his transactions, ought at least to extenuate his fault for he gave up to his creditors “Grenada estates and all"-nay, that he did more, for "he legalized every demand that stood unsatisfied against him; from which it is evident that Grenada estates and all" were not sufficient to satisfy his enormous stock-jobbing liabilities. Indeed, the records of the Court of Exchequer prove this, and a great deal more. We thence learn that his early friend, General Monckton, had given him a bill for 1,000l. to get discounted; and though Monckton did not receive a shilling, he was, in 1770, sued on the bill. It is not said that this arose from any moral misconduct on the part of Macleane, nor are our readers interested in the circumstances; but it came out incidentally that on the 25th of July, 1769,* Macleane was indebted to De la Fontaine & Brymes, stock brokers, and the holders of Monckton's bill, in the enormous sum of 23,555l. 13s. 2d. We know further, and from like proceedings in the Exchequer, that in that same year, 1769, Macleane was so desperately in want of money, that the Earl of Shelburne gave him three bonds for 5,000/. each; and when sued for the amount, Shelburne applied for an injunction on the ground of want of consideration, but did not succeed. Here, then, is nearly 40,000l. due to two parties, which must be considered as amongst the unsatfied laims which he had legalized after Grenada estates and all" were gone. The "heirs" of Macleane, if not wiser in their generation, were certainly better informed than Sir David Brewster.

“He left a will, by which he bequeathed a variety of profuse' legacies, without any available funds to pay them. He had purchased four estates in Grenada, for which he paid 200,000l.; but strange to say, his heirs declined to administer to his will. His son-in-law, the late Colonel Wilkes, governor of St. Helena, informed the writer of this article, that application had been made to him to give a title to some of these properties, but that he uniformly declined to do this, from a conviction that the estate was insolvent, and hence a considerable West India estate became the property of its steward."

The refusal of his heirs to administer would, under the circumstances here stated, have been strange indeed! Macleane had, it is true, bought estates in Grenada; but the greater part of them were, we suspect, taken up on credit. It was asserted that while at Martinique he "picked up money enough to purchase some, and credit enough to comprehend a great many more;" and this was not denied by his brother, who argued that credit implied honor. Be the fact as it it does not affect the issue; for Macmay, leane long before he died had lost all-was utterly ruined. He was a great stock-jobber, especially in India stock; and his speculations were, we believe, carried on at the same time, and on the same scale, in Amsterdam, in Paris, and in London. He was at first successful; but then came the panic

"the

A great deal more might be written on the statements and inferences in this pamphlet ; but the evidence in chief has so utterly broken down, that it would be idle to waste further time in an examination of what is merely adduced as incidental and corroborative proof.

* See Junius' Private Letter of 10th Dec., 1769.