hinder nor foresee. This, I must affirm, is a false representation of his argument. He lays no stress upon the event itself, as a ground of accusation against the Ministry, but dwells entirely upon their subsequent conduct. He does not say that they are answerable for the offence, but for the scandalous neglect of their duty, in suffering an offence, so flagrant, to pass by without notice or enquiry. Supposing them ever so regardless of what they owe to the public, and as indifferent about the opinion, as they are about the interests of their country, what answer, as officers of the crown, will they give to Junius, when he asks them, Are they aware of the outrage offered to their Sovereign, when his own proper guard is ordered out to stop, by main force, the execution of his laws?—And when we see a Ministry giving such a strange unaccountable protection to the officers of the guards, is it unfair to suspect, that they have some secret and unwarrantable motives for their conduct? If they feel themselves injured by such a suspicion, why do they not immediately clear themselves from it by doing their duty? For the honour of the guards, I cannot help expressing another
