[M] 13. It is unnecessary to say that Lord Mansfield is here pointed at. No one now believes that this great jurist ever did the things here ascribed to him by Junius.[5] All that is true is, that he was a very high Tory, and was, therefore, naturally led to exalt the prerogatives of the crown; and that he was a very politic man (and this was the great failing in his character), and therefore unwilling to oppose the king or his ministers, when he knew in heart they were wrong. This was undoubtedly the case in respect to the issuing of a general warrant for apprehending Wilkes, which he ought publicly to have condemned; but, as he remained silent, men naturally considered him, in his character of Chief Justice, as having approved of the course directed by the king. Hence Mansfield was held responsible for the treatment of Wilkes, of whom Junius here speaks in very nearly the terms used by Lord Chatham, as a man whose "conduct" he censured, but with whom every moderate man must "make common cause," when he was "persecuted in a way which the real spirit of the laws will not 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.