Yet, though I cannot think the style of Junius secure from criticism, though his expressions are often trite, and his periods feeble, I should never have stationed him where he has placed himself, had I not rated him by his morals rather than his faculties.  What, says Pope, must be the priest, where a monkey is the god?  What must be the drudge of a party, of which the heads are Wilkes and Crosby, Sawbridge and Townsend?

Junius knows his own meaning, and can, therefore, tell it.  He is an enemy to the ministry; he sees them growing hourly stronger.  He knows that a war, at once unjust and unsuccessful, would have certainly displaced them, and is, therefore, in his zeal for his country, angry that war was not unjustly made, and unsuccessfully conducted.  But there are others whose thoughts are less clearly expressed, and whose schemes, perhaps, are less consequentially digested; who declare that they do not wish for a rupture, yet condemn the ministry for not doing that, by which a rupture would naturally have been made.

If one party resolves to demand what the other resolves to refuse, the dispute can be determined only by arbitration; and between powers who have no common superiour, there is no other arbitrator than the sword.

Whether the ministry might not equitably have demanded more is not worth a question.  The utmost exertion of right is always invidious, and, where claims are not easily determinable, is always dangerous.  We asked all that was necessary, and persisted in our first claim, without mean recession, or wanton aggravation.  The Spaniards found us resolute, and complied, after a short struggle.

The real crime of the ministry is, that they have found the means of avoiding their own ruin; but the charge against them is multifarious and confused, as will happen, when malice and discontent are ashamed of their complaint.  The past and the future are complicated in the censure.  We have heard a tumultuous clamour about honour and rights, injuries and insults, the British flag and the Favourite’s rudder, Buccarelli’s conduct and Grimaldi’s declarations, the Manilla ransome, delays and reparation.

Through the whole argument of the faction runs the general errour, that our settlement on Falkland’s island was not only lawful, but unquestionable; that our right was not only certain, but acknowledged; and that the equity of our conduct was such, that the Spaniards could not blame or obstruct it, without combating their own conviction, and opposing the general opinion of mankind.

If once it be discovered that, in the opinion of the Spaniards, our settlement was usurped, our claim arbitrary, and our conduct insolent, all that has happened will appear to follow by a natural concatenation.  Doubts will produce disputes and disquisition; disquisition requires delay, and delay causes inconvenience.