justify."

COMMENTS ON THE DOCTOR'S NOTES.

Note 8, p. 28. [1.] The doctor is here in error. In no place does Junius
use language which can even be distorted into an argument in favor of
enforcing the _right_ to tax America. He here attacks the opposition or
minority because they had from _selfish motives_ divided one-half of the
empire from the other. He states the views of Mr. Grenvile on the
subject of taxing the colonies, _but not his own_. Elsewhere, however,
he does, and this is his language: "Junius considers the right of taxing
the colonies by an act of the British Legislature as a _speculative_
right merely, never to be exerted, nor ever to be renounced."--Let. 63.
But Camden and Pitt denied the _right_.--Bancroft, vol. v., pp. 395,
403. Junius stood between the two parties in regard to taxing the
colonies, hence could not be a partisan.

[2.] Here again is an error. Rockingham and Chatham led the two wings of
the minority. The former was in favor of septennial, the latter of
triennial parliaments.--Let. 52. Herein Junius agreed with Chatham, and
hence could not be a partisan of Rockingham.--Let. 53. But because
Junius eulogized Chatham, he was said to be a partisan of Chatham, which
he afterwards contradicts when he compiled his letters, in a note to the
name of Mr. Pitt in his first letter, and is as follows: "And yet
Junius has been called the partisan of Lord Chatham." In Letter 53,
Junius denies partisanship to both. Neither did he agree with Lord
Camden, and mildly censures him for his action.--Let. 59. Junius was
never a partisan, as will be fully proven hereafter. This shows how
limited a knowledge the doctor had of Junius, and also how unfit to
comment on these matters of fact. He had not even caught the design or
spirit of Junius. He was advocating the cause of the people and not the
cause of any party or faction.

Note 10, p. 31. [3.] Shelburne was _dismissed_; he did not resign. This
is a grave error in the doctor, when the conduct of king and ministers
is the theme, and when we are studying the motives and character of the
writer. As I wish to excite inquiry, in the mind of the reader, to lead
him to a just method of criticism and investigation, I will briefly
state how I detected even so apparently trifling a mistake as the above.
The first sentence of the paragraph is as follows: "Drawing lots would
be a prudent and reasonable method of appointing the officers of state
compared to a l