who could not be trufted, fince he could not forbear to expofe, under a falfe name, his best friend; and they refolved to convert this circumftance into an engme for his destruction. With this view they dropped ambiguous hints, whit ered ftrange ftories, and gradually formed a party, that might, on a favourable occafion, crush him at the London Tavern. This occafion foon prefented itself. When Mr. Wilkes was an exile at Paris, the Rockingham administration, in order to ftrengthen itself, offered to make him governor of Jamacia. Lauchlin Macleane being then at Paris, propofed himself for his fecretary, and upon the strength of the neceffitous patriot's promife, lent him a fum, not lefs than roool. Perfevering, notwithstanding his difappointment, in the fame laudable attachment, he fubfcribed zool. one for himself, another for a friend, when the fociety at the London Tavern was firit inftituted. But instead of paying the fubfcription in cash, he fent notes, which Mr. Wilkes owed him, protesting at the fame time, that the remainder fhould never appear against him; a circumftance which Samuel Vaughan will, I am told, authenticate by affidavit, if it is defired and which kept this article from being inferted in the debts to be paid. Now this Macleane becoming once a bull at the rencounters of the East India gamblers, was fo hard pursued by the bears, that he has thought proper ever fince to abandon the Bill of Rights, and to bow the knee to adminiftration. Yet, being still connected with the Rockingham party, who, in order to curry favour with St. James's, perfecute Wilkes with the zeal of old friends, he was perfuaded to demand of the Bill of Rights, the remainder of the debts in a letter, which informed the members that Wilkes was a perfect philofopher, as he could bear with fortitude, not only his own misfortunes, but thofe of his friends. Before the letter was opened, Townfend ftruck it with the palm of his hand, as it lay on the table, and cried out, d nit! who could ever have thought that Macleane would have made this demand! a clear proof that he was in the fecret, and had fome previous knowledge of its contents. The thing appeared fo Mr. Macleane finds himself attacked A afforded afforded you warmth, which gave you life; retching you from the cold and deadly hand of poverty, diftreis, and contempt. Is it because your ungenerous foul cannot brook an obligation, that you recoil on your benefactors ? but when fuch a friend as Fitzherbert could not escape the malevolent fhaft of your fatire, I need not blush to be made the but of it. To no two men have you owed fo much; to no two men have you made fo base a return! But I did not fit down with an intention to rail against you; I fat down to demand fatisfaction. The bearer will fettle time, place, and weapons, of all which you have the choice; and I have only to add, that if you will deign to return one obligation for all there you have fo often acknowledged, it will be by giving as much difpatch and facility as poffible to the fettlement of this account. I am, fir, Your most humble fervant, To J. Wilkes, Efq. L. M. To the PRINTER, SIR, Prince's-Court, Tuef. Jan.29. Defire you to print the following long article in the Morning Chronicle of Saturday, which he laid greatly reflected on Mr. Lauchlin Mcleane, and added, that Mr. L. Macleane was in doubt whether he should contradict it or not, and that the article was falfe and infamous. Mr. Wilkes obferved, that it must be left to every gentleman's own opinion, whether he would or would not contradict any anonymous authors, that the public in general gave them little credit. The Major then faid, that as Mr. Wilkes muft certainly know feveral particulars in that account to be falfe, he hoped that he would contradict it for his friend, Mr. L. Macleane. Mr. Wilkes replied, that in the very fame account he too was most injuriously treated, that he did not mean to contradict it for himself, and therefore would not for another, that he knew nothing about the writing or the publication of that paper, and that every gentleman must act for himself. The Major afterwards mentioned, that he believed the paper was wrote by fome friend of Mr. Wilkes, to which Mr. Wilkes anfwered, that he was of à very I state of facts in to-morrow's paper, different opinion, but that not a line Mr. Macleane fays, that "Sunday he traced the abufe (on bim in the Morning Chronicle of Saturday) by a friend to Mr. Wilkes." I declare, fir, on my honour, that I was, and ftill am, entirely ignorant of the author of the account referred to in that paper, nor was I directly or indirectly concerned in it. I call upon Mr. Macleane to prove the charge, and to justify every part of his letter. I am fure that no man in his fenfes, who has read the account in the Morning Chronicle of last Saturday, ever fufpected me to be the author. I likewife defy him to prove me in any moment of my life guilty of the bafe and mean fin of ingratitude. I do not complain that Mr. Macleane has brought a railing accufation, but I aver that he has made various falfe ebarges againit me. I am, fir, Your humble servant, JOHN WILKES. Major Macleane, who has often been at Mr. Wilkes's house in Prince's Court, calledalone upon him Sunday noon, Jan. 27. He talked in the ufual friendly way of common occurrences, and among other things mentioned a of it came within the sphere even of his guess as to the author, and that the Major might tell Mr. L. Macleane this from him as a private friend. The Major then gave Mr. Wilkes a fealed letter from Mr. L. Macleane, nearly the fame as that printed above, and defired an anfwer. Mr. Wilkes replied, "If I had known that you had a letter, I would not have faid fo much, but I defire you to inform Mr. Macleane of the converfation which has paffed between us before you mentioned a word of any letter. Mr. Wilkes heard nothing more from Mr. Macleane on the Sunday. Tuesday morning Mr. Macleane's letter to Mr. Wilkes appeared. To this Major Macleane publifhed the following reply. Buckingham-ftreet, Jan. 30, 1772. addrefs the public, but two fuch motives as a regard to my own character, and fidelity to my friend, have got the better of it for was there the finalleft foundation in truth for the story Mr. Wilkes has trumped up, I must have acted diametrically oppofite to my inftructions. I know not what Mr. Wilkes means to infinuate by faying, that "I have often been at his houfe in Prince's Court." If he means to infinuate that I ever had a friendship for him, or even an acquaintance with him, he means to deceive the public, or more properly to do me a mischief. I disclaim him,and all concern with him; and if I have ever had a difference with my friend L. M. it has been for his having been duped by that man. But instead of bringing my vifits to light, Mr. Wilkes ought to have fuppreffed them; for they were but three in all, and for the fole purpose of bringing him to fettle fome mode of payment of the half of a debt long due to my friend, in which I was fo far from fucceeding, that I found him always evafive and trifling. And if my impreffions of Mr. Wilkes were bad before thefe vifits, I must own they have been much worfe fince. The public I hope will excufe the mildncfs with which I treat a man who has fo grofly mifreprefented me. It would be inconfiftent with my profeflion to treat, as he deferves, one whom I have experienced within thefe three days to be fo devoid of the first principles and fpirit of a gentleman. I am, fir, Your most obedient fervant, ALLAN MACLEAN. On Sunday morning I received a note from Mr. Macleane, defiring to fee me before I called on Mr. Wilkes, which I was to have done by appoint ment, relative to the fettling fome node for the payment of a debt due to Mr. M. from Mr. Wilkes. I went immediately, and found him writing a letter, which was directed to Mir. Wilkes: he told me that he had been with the printer of the Morning Chronicle, in winch paper he had been abufed the day before, who faid that the publication complained of cane from a friend of Mr. Wilkes from the B of Rights, but not from Mr. Wukes himielf." Mr. M. then read me the letter, and faid, this is an attal of fome delicacy, and muit be fubmitted entirely to your difcretion"; for on the one hand I am determined not to put up with infult, and on the other I do not wish to embroil myfelf with any man; but above all with fuch a man as Mr. Wilkes ; that the delivery of the letter to Mr. Wilkes would therefore be conditional; for if he (Mr. Wilkes) fhould agree to contradict the points complained of, then it might be reasonably prefumed that he did not countenance the publication; on the other hand, fhould he pofitively refufe to contradict affertions which he must allow to be falfe, no reafon could then be affigned for fuch refufal (confidering the obligations he lay under) but his being at the bottom of the matter himmelf." Mr. M. further faid, that for his own part he had no doubt of Mr. Wilkes's being at the bottom of it, because there was a mifreprefentation of a fact, which fact could be known to nobody but by Mr. Wilkes or himfelf. He then read me a paragraph from a bundle of Mr. Wilkes's letters lying before him, which convinced me of the truth of his affertions. He then added, "I repofe myself entirely on your difcretion: If Mr. Wilkes will contradict the affertions complained of, I shall give my felf no farther trouble about him; if he will not, you may conclude him the caufe of the publication; in which cafe I will have nothing to do with fubalterns, while I can bring it home to the principal." This is the purport as near as I can recollect of the difcourfe between Mr. M. and me prior to my going to Mr. Wilkes, and I concluded from it, that Mr. M. was very averfe to the letter being delivered, in cafe he could obtain a proper difavowal of untruths from Mr. Wilkes. He even directed me to keep the letter back as long as poffible, in order to try every other means of obtaining redrels. I then went to Mr. Wilkes, who beginning to speak upon money matters, I told him that I was not authorifed to enter upon that fubject; and asked him if he had feen the Morning Chronicle of Saturday? he answered that he had. I then laid that it contained much faite and grois abufe of Mr. M. In this opinion Mr. Wilkes agreed with me, adding, that no man in England had been much abufed as himself, but that in thefe times no man was iafe from the prefs. I then alked him what he intended doing in this matter? he replied that he could do nothing in it, as he had made it a rule not to pay any regard to anonymous writers. I told him, that as afperfions had been thrown on Mr. M. which he knew to be falfe, it was his duty as a gentleman to contradict them; that had any man been abufed in the fame manner, in a matter wherein I was as much concerned as Mr. Wilkes was in this, I thould think myself bound as a gentleman and a man of honour to contradict it; and therefore did not fee how he could avoid doing it. He gave me the fame anfwer as before, viz. that he was refolved never to take any notice of anonymous writers. I replied, if that was the cafe, that I could not help looking uponthis being in the knowledge of that publication. He declared he was a ftranger to the paper or its author; that Mr. M. might contradict it himfelf; he would not. I obierved that Mr. M.'s contradicting it would not be to the prefent purpofe; that he (Mr. Wilkes) was the only perfon that could contradict it properly; and further faid, that from comparing one circumstance in that paper with a paragraph in a letter from him to Mr. M. I was firmly convinced that no man could have given the leaft hint of that matter (which was most grofly mifre prefented) except Mr. Wilkes or Mr. M. and that therefore Mr. M. muft look to him alone, as he had refolved to have nothing to do with fubalterns. Mr. Wilkes again repeated his ignorance of the paper, or its author. I then told him, that I locked upon what he faid as a mere evafion, and gave him Mr. M.'s letter. When he had read it, I defired an answer. He faid he had none to give, but defired me to tell Mr. M. what he had faid before he knew I had the letter from him, viz. that he was totally unacquainted with the paper, or its author; and this he was fure would fatisfy Mr. M. and that he would not have faid fo much had he known of the letter before. I defired him to think better of it, as it was a ferious affair, and the letter required an antwer. He repeated that he would give none but what he had given before he received the letter, which he was fure would fatisfy Mr. M. I then assured him that it would not, nor did I fee how it poffibly could, as nothing could be fatisfactory to Mr. M. but Mr. Wilkes 's contradicting the abufe, or giving fuch an answer to the letter as it required from one gentleman to another. Upon his ftill refufing to give any anfwer to Mr. M.'s letter, I departed, fully convinced, that though he might not have had an immediate hand in the publication; he was at the bottom of it; and in this opinion I ftill continue, and ever thall. This I declare to the best of my recollection to be what paffed between Mr. Wilkes and me, and I inmediately returned to Mr. M. and told it to him. When I left Mr. M. I went to Capt. Alexander Macleane, who was waiting for me at a coffee-house. I told him every word of what passed, which I made him take down in writing as I dictated to him. т ALLAN MACLEAN.. The next day the following letter appeared from Mr. L. Macleane. SIR, Bridge-Road, Jan. 31,1771. IT is very embarralfing to find proper words for a fecond letter to a man who has made fe poor an answer to the first. If I had a difficulty in the manner of refenting the unmanly attack made upon me, it arele from the apprehenfion that I fhould be drawn into a public difcuffion of a private injury. Averfe however as I am to this method of doing myself juftice, I find that Mr. Wilkes will afford me no other. For this reafon I embrace it, and for this reafon only. But as the fubject is too copious for a news-paper (in which I fhall no more reply on this head) I fhall referve what I have principally to fay for a future and feparate publication, if neceflary; contenting myself at prefent with a few obfervations on Mr. Wilkes's vapid performance of yester day. Mr. Wilkes declares, that " on his honour he was, and ftill is, ignorant of the author of the account referred to, &c." I do not believe him. The proof demanded of him was fo reafonable, that his refufal to comply with it, placed the negative on a much more folid footing than his " on his honour" placed the affirmative. Befides Befides Mr. Wilkes's honour has turned out a falfe jewel that bears no price as a pledge. Can any man blame me for not being contented with this fort of fatisfaction, when the letter in which I have been abused offers to bring Mr. Samuel Vaughan as an evidence to prove a pofitive lye by an affidavit? And has not the printer acknowledged that the paper complained of, originated from a friend of Mr. Wilkes's in the Bill of Rights; that it was not intended to have made its appearance for fome time; and that the person who brought it to him was afraid to be known, because, being dependent, the ftep he had taken might do him much harm? In fuch a cafe could I require a more moderate satisfaction? I was accufed by an anonymous writer of having given money to Mr. Wilkes for a pur. pofe very difgraceful to ine. Would my afterting the contrary pafs for more than a mere ipfe dixit? Who then fo proper to refute this lie as Mr. Wilkes who was the cause of it? For if I had not fuccoured him in his dif trefs, I fhould not have been fubject to the calumny it occafioned. Common gratitude ought to have made him do me juftice without a prompter. But being requested to do it, and refufing to comply, could he expect to escape my honeft refentment? I therefore fought redrefs from him as the principal, determined not to grope in the dark for his dirty fkulking fubal terns. Mr. Wilkes fays" the letter he received was nearly the fame as that printed in the Public Advertiser." I fay it was literally the fame. I copied both from the fame rough draft; and I ftrive to be correct in what I write at all times. Mr. Wilkes calls upon me "to juftify every part of my letter." If Mr. Wilkes will explain what he means by "justify," I shall know how to anfwer. By a late performance of his in the papers, in which he fays, "He will be anfwerable for every production of his pen, which thall never write a line he will not justify," I thought he understood the word, and believed him to be a man of courage; but his refufing all manner of anlwer to my first letter, has con "No vinced me that I was mistaken. man in his fenfes, he fays, ever fufpected him to be the author." I will not differ from him about this phrafe as far as it regards myself; perhaps I was out of my fenfes when I had any thing to do with Mr. Wilkes, and I am inclined to believe that this is a confeffion which every man, who has ever had, or now has, any connexion with him, will one day or other be brought to make as well as myself. Mr. Wilkes makes ufe of the word "false," what can I fay to it? The man a wretch, indeed, who wishes to decide the differences in the language of Billingfgate only ! Mr. Wilkes" defies me to prove him guilty in any moment of his life of the bafe and mean fin of ingratitude.' This is too much while Mr. is alive! In answer to it, however, I fhall only fay, that I defy him to prove, that in any one moment of his life he has ever shewn one inftance of gratitude. Profeffions he has made without number, but never realised one of them. "Major Macleane called alone upon him on Sunday." Does Mr. Wilkes think the Major ought to have brought a peace officer or the ferjeant of the guard with him?" On Sunday." I was not aware that this might fhock Mr. Wilkes; but the truth is, I hate malice prepenfe, and therefore do not with to fleep on an injury. If I had been abused on Friday, I should have called on Mr. Wilkes on Saturday, and then I fhould not have offended his piety, nor difturbed his devotion on Sunday. Mr. Wilkes replied, "that in the fame account too he was moft injuriously treated." Let any man who knows Mr. Wilkes read the letter in queftion, and draw that eonclufion if he can. There is not a fyllable of what Mr. Wilkes calls, "injurious to him," which does not point to the fource from whence the letter fprang. His favourite foibles alone are touched upon, and with a gentle hand. But is it not the stale trick of all affaffins, when they ftab in the dark, to give themfelves a flight wound, that they may efcape fufpicion? And this is the true key to the publication complained of. L. MACLEANE, Mr. |