:-NRLF SB Ml fiS7 wn ill V ! c* XX tr v a ^Xt * s *"&^^4fi^, x^<^ /&&& Jis "fr^-i^r tr~*i^ *S /VT^+*^, fr^- ?' frz*, y^^v^ v>>^%5^^. ^fcy^^/M^C_, ^ rJ x>l/ */l~ /**JLS i^bsist #-*+sv**^ -v &&***< ? ^^^ j^~ %^**~^ Ot^^ /*** &t*^- L* s*~~~~-**^*^j^ _, SL<*'tJ f -*+~^Jl' - ^. <# fL*s*<&-<' as to induce him to continue the same signature in 1769. We should, or ought to be, in possession of clear and explicit information to warrant us in saying this or that letter was from the pen of Junius. Conjectures are not proofs ; and an inference is not a fair one, unless we have correct data. What, then, have we to support Mr. Woodfall's opinion that these Miscellaneous Letters are written by Junius ? We will pass over a long list of signatures, as various as the style of the letters, and devote a little time to " Atticus." " There were, says Mr. Woodfall, p. *55, some very excellent letters, signed Atticus, that appeared in the Public Advertiser between the dates of June 26, 1772, and October 14, 1773, and exhibit much of Junius's style, spirit, and sentiments; and which, hence, by some tolerable judges, have been actually ascribed to him ; but for various reasons, the editor is convinced they are not the production of Junius. The talents they afford proof of, though considerable, are inferior ; and they contain attacks upon some statesmen who were never attacked by Junius." 19 The fatuity of these admissions is unaccountable. On previous occasions, letters were admitted into the Miscellaneous Selection on account of the style, spirit, and sentiments, independently of any other evidence ; but now it pleases Mr. Woodfall to condemn a letter as spurious, although " some tolerable judges" have pronounced it " a very excellent letter," and " it also exhibits much of Junius's style and sentiment." The reasons, however, for so unceremonious a rejection of Atticus, are stated as " inferior to Junius in talents, and they contain attacks upon some statesmen who are never attacked by Junius." The justness of these observations satisfies me ; but how can Mr. Woodfall be judged by these rules ? How is it that the same test was not applied to all the Miscellaneous Letters ? Inferiority of style and talents condemn an Atticus why not also a Lucius, a Veteran, a Tilbury, a Correggio, and id genus omne ? Surely the law which banishes one impostor should not allow a score not only to escape all punishment, but to be exalted to titles of honour. Inferiority of style is conclusive evidence against the Miscellaneous Letters generally ; and inferiority of style and sentiment will be conclusive evidence against any claim depending on them for proofs of identity. Dr. Johnson said " I should have believed Burke to be Junius, because I know no man but Burke who mas capable of writing these letters, but Burke spontaneously denied it." Mr. Woodfall very properly remarks that Atticus could not be written by Junius, " because he attacks statesmen who were never attacked by Junius." Will not the same objection extend to Poplicola and nearly one half of these letters ? We cannot be unacquainted with the abuse therein freely bestowed on many eminent statesmen never attacked by Junius. In a subsequent page, we will supply a few facts to show that the most impudent and blackguard language is applied to statesmen never attacked by Junius. I will confine myself at present to one example Lord Camden : " An apostate lawyer, weak enough to sacrifice his own character, and base enough to betray the laws of his country." Poplicola. " The laws of England under his feet, and before his distorted vision a dagger, which he calls the law of nature, and which marshals him the way to murder the constitution." Correggio. " The assertor of prerogative independent of law." Atticus. And letter 17 and 21 " hold him to public odium." These epithets may be compared with Junius's opinion of Lord Camden in letter 69. " To the Right Hon. Lord Camden. My Lord I turn with pleasure from that barren 20 waste in which no salutary plant takes root, no verdure quickens, to a character fertile, as I willingly believe, in every great and good qualifi- cation. I call upon you, in the name of the English nation, to stand forth in the defence of the laws of your country : and to exert, in the cause of truth and justice, those great abilities with which you were entrusted for the benefit of mankind. Your Lordship's character assures me that you will assume that principal part which belongs to you, in supporting the laws of England against a wicked judge, who makes it the occupation of his life to misinterpret and pervert them." The only inference which can be drawn from this comparison, is, that the same writer cannot have published such opposite opinions ; consequently, that Junius cannot be identified in Correggio, Poplicola, and Atticus. It could not have escaped Mr. G. Woodfall's observation, that no private letter was received by his father from Junius before April, 1769, two years after the date of the first Miscellaneous Letter, signed Poplicola ; an omission so singular as to persuade an unprejudiced person that Junius was not in correspondence with Mr. Woodfall, senior, either as a public or private writer, prior to the appearance of the first Junius in 1769. The Miscellaneous Letters signed Poplicola require a particular examination. The prominence of their station, being the 1st and 2d in the order of Mr. G Woodfall's arrangement, and their " sarcastic exprobratory style," entitle them to it; but I have more powerful motives than these in taking up this investigation. The letters of Poplicola are at variance with those of Junius on a material question, and wilful or ignorant misrepresentations are visible throughout them. In the second letter, we have the following specimen of " false facts." " Mr. C. D. wilfully misrepresents the cause of that censure which was very justly thrown upon Lord Chatham, when the exportation of corn was prohibited by proclamation. The measure itself was necessary, and the more necessary from the scandalous delay of the Ministry in calling the Parliament together ; but to maintain that the proclamation was legal, and that there was a suspending power lodged in the Crown, was such an outrage to the common sense of mankind, and such a daring attack upon the constitution, as a free people ought never to forgive. The man who maintained those doctrines ought to have had the Tarpeian rock or a gibbet for his reward. Another gentleman, upon 21 that occasion, had spirit and patriotism enough to declare, even in a respectable assembly, that when he advised the proclamation, he did it with the strongest conviction of its being illegal ; but he rested his defence upon the unavoidable necessity of the case, and submitted himself to the judgment of his country. This noble conduct deserved the applause and gratitude of the nation, while that of the Earl Chatham, and his miser- able understrappers, deserves nothing but detestation and contempt." On referring to the speech of Lord Chatham on the 9th of January, 1770, and comparing his language with the assertions of Poplicola, we shall have little hesitation in saying that he knowingly stated what was false. His Lordship " was satisfied there was a power in some degree arbitrary with which the constitution entrusted the Crown, to be made use of under correction of the legislature, and at the hazard of the minister, upon any sudden emergency or unforeseen calamity which might threaten the welfare of the people or the safety of the state. That on this principle he had himself advised a measure which he knew was not strictly legal; but he had recommended it as a measure of necessity, to save a starving people from famine, and had submitted to the judg- ment of his country." We will now turn to the Sixtieth Letter of Junius. " With regard to Lord Camden, the truth is, that he inadvertently over-shot himself, as appears plainly by that unguarded mention of a tyranny of forty days, which I myself heard. Instead of asserting that the proclamation was legal, he should have said, f My Lords, the proclamation was illegal, but I advised it, because it was indispensably necessary to save the kingdom from famine ; and I submit myself to the justice and mercy of my country/ Such language as this would have been manly, rational, and consistent; not unfit for a lawyer, and every way worthy of a great man." In this inquiry we observe Poplicola at variance with Junius, and designedly confounding Lord Chatham with Lord Camden. No one will, I hope, now consider the letters of Poplicola as the productions of Junius. The inequality of composition and style is, I imagine, sufficiently appa- rent between the Letters of Junius and the Miscellaneous Letters, an argument decidedly opposed to their being the production of the same mind. Mr. Barker, after contending with Dr. Parr and Mr. Charles Butler that no great inequality of style and composition can proceed from the same individual, observes " But I must be permitted to remark that Junius, when he writes under the signature of Junius, is always true to himself; the same spirit, the same vigour, the same mind, the same sarcasm, the same point, the same heart, the same intelligence, the same elegance of thought, the same splendour of diction, the same harmony, pervades every letter." " No man can have read Junius carefully without observing the high-mindedness and pride which belong to his character." Lord Chatham addresses his nephew in the following nervous language : ' Fmitimis Oratori Poeta.' " Substitute Tully and Demosthenes in the place of Homer and Virgil ; and arm yourself with all the variety of manner, copiousness and beauty of diction, nobleness and magnificence of ideas of the Roman Consul ; and under the powers of eloquence, complete by the irresistible torrent of vehement argumentation, the close and forcible reasoning, and the depth and fortitude of mind of the Grecian statesman." The Editor of the Anniversary Calendar remarks that " this imperial style would not disgrace the page of Junius himself." But where shall we seek for an eulogium on the Miscellaneous Letters ? The Reviewers have manifested great shyness about these Letters. The promises in the Gentleman's Magazine for December, 1812, are yet unfulfilled. In that Number, Mr. Urban pledged himself to continue the Review of Mr. G. Woodfall's edition of Junius ; not a line has been written about them since. If I ventured a guess as to the cause of the omission, it would probably wear the appearance of being an uncharitable one. The general inattention of literary men to these letters is unaccoun- tably provoking : " The phraseology, the manner, the exprobratory style, independently of any other evidence, sufficiently identifying them as the productions of Junius" ! ! The following epithets, applied to the Earl of Chatham, are examples of the high-mindedness of the Junius of Mr. G. Woodfall's Miscellaneous Collection. " A Man purely and perfectly bad a Traitor a Traitor hung on a gibbet, (by way of distinction) a Grand Vizier an abandoned Profligate the Patron of Sedition a Villain, (by way of ^distinction from) a black Villain -a Madman a Stalking Horse to a Stallion, 23 smelling at a Thistle a Lunatic brandishing a crutch a Lunatic bawling through a grate a Lunatic writing with desperate charcoal a Dotard old Gouty Legs" cum multis aliis. To comment on these " high-minded" expressions is needless. Junius might probably have remarked " Every common dauber writes rascal and villain under his pictures, because the pictures themselves have neither character nor resemblance. But the works of a master require no index his features and colouring are taken from nature the impression they make is immediate and uniform : Nor is it possible to mistake his characters, whether they represent the treachery of a Minister or the abused simplicity of a King." The writer of the preliminary essay to Mr. Woodfall's edition of Junius grasped at too much ; the public should have been spared the expense of purchasing an incongruous collection of letters possessed of no intrinsic merit whatsoever. In concluding this investigation, I will remark that he must be a bold man, and possess more boldness than judgment, who ventures to contend, unsupported by strong evidence, that the Miscellaneous Letters were written by Junius. The question of what claim has Lord Chatham to be considered the author of the Letters of Junius, will now be one for serious and attentive investigation. I will proceed, in the first instance, to examine and compare the political opinions of Lord Chatham and Junius.* If I succeed in pro- ducing parallel passages from the writings of Junius and the speeches of Lord Chatham, I shall have laid a foundation on which I shall be able to erect a substantial and durable claim for his Lordship to the authorship of those Letters. Take the following : JUNIUS. " I too have a claim to the candid interpretation of my country, when I acknowledge an involuntary compulsive assent to one very unpopular opinion. I lament the unhappy necessity, whenever it arises, of providing for the safety of the state by a temporary invasion of the personal liberty of the subject. Would to God it were practicable * The great object is to connect the rival claimants, with the various personal opinions, prejudices, and, above all, spleens of Junius. Here is in reality the most difficult part of the business." -Blackwood's Magazine, Vol. XVIII. p. 168. 24 to reconcile these important objects in every possible situation of public affairs ! The community has a right to command, as well as to purchase, the service of its members. I see that right founded originally upon a necessity which supersedes all argument. I see it established by usage immemorial, &c."* LORD CHATHAM. " I willingly take this occasion to declare my opinion upon a question not a very popular one, neither am I running the race of popularity. I am myself clearly convinced that without impressing, it is impossible to equip a respectable fleet. I do not rest my opinion merely upon necessity. I am satisfied that the power of impression is founded upon uninterrupted usage. It is the consuetudo Regni, and part of the common law prerogative of the Crown."t J JUNIUS. " His Majesty proceeds to assure us that ( he has made the laws the rule of his conduct.' Was it in ordering or permitting his Ministers to apprehend Mr. Wilkes by a general warrant ? General warrants, it is true, had been often issued, but they had never been regularly questioned or resisted till the case of Mr. Wilkes ; he brought them to trial, and the moment they were tried, they were declared illegal." Letter 41. CHATHAM. " Ministers had refused to lay the warrant before the House, because they were conscious of its illegality. Neither the Law Officers of the Crown, nor the Minister himself, had attempted to defend the legality of this warrant. He therefore did not hesitate to say that there was not a man to be found of sufficient profligacy to defend this warrant upon the principle of legality. It was no justification, he said, that general warrants had been issued." Parl. Hist. Vol. XV. p. 1402. JUNIUS TO THE KING. " Are you a Prince of the House of Hanover and do you exclude all the leading Whig families from your * Letter 59. t Gent. Mag. Vol. XL. p. 573. J Dr. Parr directed the attention of Mr. Barker to a letter about Junius in the Morning Chronicle, Dec. 26, 1812, where the following words occur : " It is not a little remarkable that both Junius and Lord Chatham should have expressed the same unpopular opinion respecting the legality of press warrants ; a deviation from their general system almost unaccountable in two men professing so strong an attachment to the liberty of the subject, and who so commonly appealed to popular feelings." Letters on the author of Junius, p. 281. 25 councils ? Do you profess to govern according to law ; and is it con- sistent with that profession to impart your confidence and affection to those men only who, though now perhaps detached from the desperate cause of the Pretender, are marked in this country by an hereditary attachment to high and arbitrary principles of government ?" Junius writes to Lord Mansfield" In your earlier days you were but little infected with the prudence of your country you had some original attachments which you took every proper opportunity to acknowledge. The liberal spirit of youth prevailed over your native discretion. Your zeal in the cause of an unhappy Prince (the Pretender) was expressed with the sincerity of wine and some of the solemnities of religion." Letter 41. CHATHAM. " I cannot avoid seeing some capital errors in the distribution of the royal favour. There are men, my Lords, who, if their own services were forgotten, ought to have an hereditary merit with the House of Hanover ; whose ancestors stood forth in the day of trouble, opposed their persons and fortunes to treachery and rebellion, and secured to his Majesty's family this splendid power of rewarding. There are other men, my Lords, (looking sternly and shaking his fist at Lord Mansfield) who, to speak tenderly of them, were not quite so forward in the demonstrations of their zeal to the reigning family ; there was another cause, my Lords, and a partiality to it, which some persons had not, at all times, discretion enough to conceal." Parl. Hist. vol. 16, p. 1107- JUNIUS. " There is no statute existing by which the specific disability* is created. There is no precedent in all the proceedings of the House of Commons which comes entirely home to the present case. An attempt has been made, not merely to rob a single county of its rights, but, by inevitable consequences, to alter the constitution of the House of Commons. This fatal attempt has succeeded, and stands a precedent, recorded for ever." Letter 16. " Mr. Walpole's incapacity (to sit as a member of the House of Commons) arose from the crimes he had committed, not from the punish- ment the House annexed to them." Letter 20. * The specific disability was " The expulsion of a member of the House of Commons, of itself, creates in him such an incapacity to be re-elected, that at a subsequent election any votes given to him are null and void." Junius, Letter 16. 1 26 " But Junius has a great authority to support him, which, to speak with the Duke of Grafton, I accidentally met with this morning in the course of rny reading. It contains an admonition which cannot be repeated too often. Lord Somers, in his excellent tract upon the rights of the people makes this observation/" &c. Letter 46. LORD CHATHAM'S SPEECH. " Now, my Lords, I affirm, and am ready to maintain, that the late decision of the House of Commons, upon the Middlesex election, is destitute of every one of those properties and conditions which I hold to be essential to the legality of such a decision. It is not founded in reason, for it carries with it a contradiction, that the representative should perform the office of the constituent body. It is not supported by a single precedent ; for the case of Sir R. Walpole is but a half precedent, and even that half is imperfect. His incapacity was indeed declared, but his crimes are stated as the ground of the resolution, and his opponent was declared to be not duly elected, even after his incapacity was established." " His Lordship quoted Lord Somers in support of his law ; he called him an honest man, who knew and loved the English constitution." Parl. Hist. vol. 16, p. 661. JUNIUS. " I can more readily admire the liberal spirit and integrity, than the sound judgment, of any man who prefers a republican form of government, in this or any other empire of equal extent, to a monarchy so qualified and limited as our's. I am convinced that neither is it in theory the wisest system of government nor practicable in this country." LORD CHATHAM. " I revere the just prerogative of the Crown. I acknowledge the just power and reverence the constitution of the House of Commons. The constitution of this country depends upon King, Lords, and Commons, and which, by their power, are a balance to each other." JUNIUS. " The power of King, Lords, and Commons is not an arbitrary power. The power of the Legislature is limited, not only by the general rules of natural justice and the welfare of the community, but by the forms and principles of our particular constitution. If this doctrine be not true, we must admit that King, Lords, and Commons have no rule to direct their resolutions, but merely their own will and pleasure. They unite the legislative and executive power in the same hands, and dissolve the constitution by an Act of Parliament. But I am persuaded you will not leave it to the choice of seven hundred persons, notoriously corrupted by the Crown, whether seven millions of their equals shall be freemen or slaves." Dedication to the Letters, p. 5. 27 CHATHAM. " The House of Commons, we are told, have a supreme jurisdiction, that there is no appeal from their sentence. We all know what the constitution is we all know that the first principle of it is, that the subject shall not be governed by the arbitrium of any one man, or body of men (less than the whole Legislature,) but by certain laws, to which he has virtually given his consent, which are open to him to examine, and not beyond his ability to understand. Let us consider which we ought to respect most, the representative or the collective body of the people. My Lords, five hundred gentlemen are not ten millions ; and if we must have a constitution, let us take care to have the English nation on our side. If the freeholders of England desert their own cause, they deserve to be slaves." Parl. Hist. vol. 16, p. 659. JUNIUS. " I am no friend to the doctrine of precedents exclusive of right, though lawyers often tell us that whatever has been once done, may lawfully be done again." Preface to Junius's Letters, p. 45. CHATHAM " With respect to the decision of the courts of justice, I am far from denying their due weight and authority ; yet, placing them in the most respectable view, I still consider them not as law, but as an evidence of the law ; and before they can arrive at even that degree of authority, it must appear that they are founded in and confirmed by reason that they do not violate the spirit of the constitution. The justice of the measure is superior to the force of precedents." Parl. Hist, pp. 66 J, 958. JUNIUS. " The people of Ireland have been uniformly plundered and oppressed. In return, they give you every day fresh marks of their resentment. It is not from the alienated affections of Ireland or America that you can reasonably look for assistance, still less from the people of England." Letter 35. CHATHAM. " Ireland has various reasons to complain ; you may judge of their number and magnitude by the present flame. The fact is, that Great Britain, Ireland, and America are equally dissatisfied, and have reason to be dissatisfied, with the present Ministry." Parl. Hist, vol. 17, p. 220. JUNIUS. The affray in St. George's Fields, at the contest for the Middlesex election in 1769, when Clarke was killed by Edward M'Quirk, is described as " wretches butchered by the Guards," and M'Quirk is called ' a monster.' Letter 8. 28 CHATHAM. " The measures taken to carry the Middlesex election in favour of the court, the decision of that election, the murders in St. George's Fields," &c. &c. Parl. Hist. vol. 17, p. 221. JUNIUS TO WILKES. " Whenever the question shall be seriously agitated, I will endeavour (and if I live I will assuredly attempt it,) to convince the English nation by arguments, to my understanding unanswerable, that they ought to insist upon a triennial, and banish the idea of an annual Parliament." " Lord Chatham's project of increasing the number of Knights of Shires appears to me admirable, and the moment we have obtained a triennial Parliament, it ought to be tried." RECORDED OPINION OF LORD CHATHAM. " With the most deli- berate and solemn conviction to his understanding, he now declared himself a convert to triennial Parliaments." Parl. Hist. vol. 17* p- 223. JUNIUS TO WILKES. " I do most earnestly wish that you would consider of, and promote a plan for, forming constitutional clubs all through the kingdom. A measure of this kind would alarm Government more, and be of more essential service to the cause, than any thing that can be done relative to new-modelling the House of Commons." LORD CHATHAM. " The Americans, sore under injuries, and irritated by wrongs, stript of their inborn rights and dearest privileges, have resisted, and entered into associations, for the preservation of that blessing to which life and property are but secondary considerations ; associations prompted by no other motive than that glorious and exalted one, the preservation of their common liberties." Gent. Mag. v. 25, p. 7- JUNIUS. " As to cutting away the rotten boroughs, I am as much offended as any man at seeing so many of them under the direct influence of the crown, or at the disposal of private persons ; yet I own I have both doubts and apprehensions in regard to the remedy you propose. I shall be charged, perhaps, with an unusual want of political intrepidity, when I honestly confess to you that I am startled at the idea of so exten- sive an amputation. In the first place, I question the power de jure of the legislature to disfranchise a number of boroughs upon the general ground of improving the constitution. When you propose to cut away the rotten parts, can you tell us what parts are perfectly sound ? Are there any certain limits, in fact or theory, to inform you at what point you must stop, at what point the mortification ends ? I highly approve 29 of Lord Chatham's idea of infusing a portion of new health into the constitution, to enable it to bear its infirmities." Letter 69. LORD CHATHAM. " The boroughs of this country have properly enough been called the rotten parts of the constitution. But in my judgment, these boroughs, corrupt as they are, must be considered as the natural infirmity of the constitution. Like the infirmities of the body, we must bear them with patience, and submit to carry them about with us. The limb is mortified, but the amputation might be death. Let us try whether some gentler remedies may not be discovered. Since we cannot cure the disorder, let us endeavour to infuse such a portion of new health into the constitution as may enable it to support its -most inveterate diseases." Parl. Hist. vol. 16, p. 753. JUNIUS. LIBERTY OF THE PRESS. " Let it be then impressed upon your minds, let it be instilled into your children, that the Liberty of the Press is the palladium of all the civil, political, and religious rights of an Englishman. The liberty of the press is our only resource ; it will command an audience when every honest man in the kingdom is excluded." Dedication and Preface to Letters. CHATHAM. " The circumstances had justly alarmed the nation, and made them uncommonly attentive to the operations of Parliament. Hence the publication of the parliamentary debates. And where was the injury, if the members acted upon honest principles ? For a public assembly to be afraid of having their deliberations published, is monstrous and speaks for itself. Not satisfied, however, with shutting their doors, the Commons would overturn the liberty of the press. The printers had spirit, and resisted. The irritated Commons exerted their privilege above the laws of the land, and their servants acted illegally in the execution of their illegal orders." Parl. Hist. vol. 16, p. 221.* * Chiefly by the exertions of Mr. Burke in the contest between the House of Commons and the Magistrates of the City, the Government were compelled tacitly to concede the privilege, against which they had long and zealously contended, of publishing the debates and proceedings in Parliament. Lord Chatham had probably opened the way to it by the peculiar force of his character, by the original and impressive nature of his eloquence, and still more by the example, so rare before his career, of elevation to the highest power and honours of the state, founded solely on personal merit and Parliamentary usage. Quar. Rev. vol. 34, 465, 477- 30 JUNIUS TO THE KING. " How long, and to what extent, a King of England may be protected by the forms when he violates the spirit of the constitution, deserves to be considered. A mistake in this matter proved fatal to Charles and his son. You have no enemies, Sir, but those who persuade you to aim at power without right. Sir, the man who addresses you in these terms is your best friend, he would willingly hazard his life in defence of your title to the crown." CHATHAM. " I know that when the liberty of the subject is invaded, and all redress denied him, resistance is justified. Power without right is the most odious and detestable object that can be offered to the human imagination ; it-is not only pernicious to those who are subject to it, but it tends to its own destruction. Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it ; and this I know, my Lords, that where law ends, tyranny begins. I revere the just prerogative of the Crown, and would contend for it as warmly as for the rights of the people. I esteem the King in his personal capacity, I revere him in his political one/' Parl. Hist. vol. 16, pp. 359, 650, 748. " It has been a subject for remark and regret that JiiTiius should believe that the constitution allows him to regard the reigning prince as occasionally culpable in his own person. To few people, perhaps, in the present day, will his reasons carry conviction. But, bating this single opinion, his view of the principles and powers of the constitution appears to be equally correct and perspicuous." To have proved that Lord Chatham and Junius were perfectly agreed in opinion on this important question, is highly satisfactory to my argument, but the full value of the parallel will be more apparent if we consider that it is impossible to bring forward another individual, (answering in all other essential points,) contemporary with Junius, except Lord Chatham, who acknowledged that the constitution allows a subject the right of resistance on particular occasions. The religious opinions of Junius have afforded matter for controversy. By some "he has been accused of deism and atheism, by others he has been conceived to be a dissenter. To judge from the passages in his writings, he appears to have been a Christian upon the most sincere conviction ; one of whose chief objects was to defend the religion established by law. To the religion of the court it must be confessed that he was no friend." 31 If I have the requisite labour to collect the passages in the Letters of Junius bearing on the subject of religion it will be sufficient the charge of atheism, deism, or sectarianism, is quite irrelevant to our inquiry. " Divided as the Americans are into a thousand forms of policy and religion, there is one point on which they all agree : they equally detest the pageantry of a King, and the supercilious hypocrisy of a Bishop." " His Majesty's predecessors had some generous qualities in their com- position, with vices, I confess, or frailties in abundance. They were kings or gentlemen, not hypocrites or priests. They were at the head of the Church, but did not know the value of their office. They said their prayers without ceremony, and had too little priestcraft in their undertakings to reconcile the sanctimonious forms of religion with the destruction of the morality of the people." " The fundamental principles of Christianity may still be preserved, though every zealous sectary adheres to his own exclusive doctrine, and pious Ecclesiastics make it part of their religion to persecute one another." P* 359. 45 have been a man who had some reasons of gigantic force for hating the chief members of the British government at the time, with not merely a political but a personal rancour." Let us now examine the language addressed by Junius to the Duke of Graf ton : " Without much political sagacity, or any extraordinary depth of observation, we need only mark how the principal departments of the state are bestowed, and look no farther for the true cause of every mischief that befals us. The finances of a nation, sinking under its debts and expences, are committed to a young nobleman already ruined by play.* Introduced to act under the auspices of Lord Chatham, and left at the head of affairs by that nobleman's retreat, he became minister by accident ; but deserting the principles and professions, which gave him a moment's popularity, we see him, from every honourable engage- ment to the public an apostate by design." Letter 1. " Lord Chatham was the earliest object of your political wonder and attachment ; yet you deserted him, upon the first hopes that offered of an equal share of power with Lord Rockingham. Still, however, he was your friend, and you are yet to explain to the world why you consented to act without him. Lord Chatham formed his last adminis- tration upon principles which you certainly concurred in, or you could never have been placed at the head of the treasury. By deserting those principles, and by acting in direct contradiction to them, in which he found you were secretly supported in the closet, you soon forced him to leave you to yourself, and to withdraw his name from an administration which had been formed on the credit of it." (Letter 12.) " Was not Lord Chatham the first who raised the Duke of Grafton to the rank and post of a minister and the first whom he abandoned ? After deserting Lord Chatham's principles, and sacrificing his friendship, is he not now closely united with a set of men, who, though they have occasionally * " The Duke of Grafton took the office of Secretary of State with an engagement to support the Marquis of Rockingham's administration. He resigned however in a little time, under pretence that he could not act without Lord Chatham, nor bear to see Mr. Wilkes abandoned ; but that under Lord Chatham he would act in any office. This was the signal of Lord Rockingham's dismission. When Lord Chatham came in, the Duke got possession of the Treasury. Reader, mark the consequence !" 46 joined with all parties, have in every different situation, and at all times, been equally and constantly detested by this country ?" Letter 13. " The Duke of Grafton has always some excellent reason for deserting his friends. The age and incapacity of Lord Chatham ; the debility of Lord Rockingham ; or the infamy of Mr. Wilkes. Lord Chatham, Mr. Grenville, and Lord Rockingham have successively had the honour to be dismissed for preferring their duty, as servants to the public, to those compliances which were expected from their station. A submissive administration was at last gradually collected from the deserters of all parties, interests, and connexions : and nothing remained but to find a leader for these gallant well-disciplined troops. Stand forth my Lord, for thou art the man." (Letter 15.) " If I were personally your enemy 1 might pity and forgive you. You have every claim to compassion, that can arise from misery and distress. The condition you are reduced to would disarm a private enemy of resentment, and leave consolation to the most vindictive spirit, but that such an object as you are would disgrace the dignity of revenge. If I had followed the dictates of my own opinion, I never should have allowed you the respite of a moment. I submitted, however, to the judgment of men, more mode- rate, perhaps more candid, than myself." (Letter 36.) " His Majesty remembers with gratitude how soon you had accommodated your morals to the necessities of his service how cheerfully you had abandoned the engagements of private friendship, and renounced the most solemn professions to the public. The sacrifice of Lord Chatham was not lost upon him ; even the cowardice and perfidy of deserting him may have done you no disservice in his esteem." (Letter 49.) " You are the pillow upon which I am determined to rest all my resentment. My detestation of the Duke of Grafton is not founded upon his treachery to any individual, though I am willing enough to suppose that in public affairs it would be impossible to desert or betray Lord Chatham, without doing an essential interest to this country. My abhorrence of the Duke arises from an intimate knowledge of his character, and from a thorough conviction that his baseness has been the cause of greater mischief to England than even the unfortunate ambition of Lord Bute." (Letter 54.) " The divine justice of retribution seems now to have begun its progress. Deliberate treachery entails punishment upon the traitor ; there is no possibility of escaping it, even in the highest rank to which the consent of society can exalt the meanest and worst of men." Letter 67- 47 I have taken the preceding quotations from twelve of the Letters of Junius to His Grace the Duke of Grafton ; and although I have quoted rather extensively, from the first Letter in January 1769, " when Junius began his warfare/' to the sixty-seventh, which closed his correspondence with the Duke, I could have multiplied their number, there being scarcely one Letter of Junius's which does not directly allude to His Grace. It is almost superfluous to make any comment on what Junius and Lord Chatham have said about the Duke of Grafton ; yet o important is the parallel which I am endeavouring to substantiate, that I will, with the utmost possible conciseness, review what has been stated in reference to this particular subject. Without favouring us with an express declaration of his own station in society, Junius assures us that he has an intimate knowledge of the Duke of Grafton's character that he detests and abhors him and that if he had followed the dictates- of his own opinion he never should have allowed him the respite of a moment. Where, I would ask, ought we to seek for Junius ? Not in the anti-chambers of our nobility not at the Board of the Exchequer not in the throng of common characters. No ! we must range through the mansions of the great, and fixing our attention on the individual who had an intimate knowledge of the Duke of Grafton, who had been perfidiously deserted and betrayed by the Duke, who felt an abhorrence and detestation of him. I repeat, on such a man our attention should be directed ; and it will not be a very improbable supposition if we presume that such an one may be the author of the Letters of Junius. Lord Chatham had an intimate knowledge of the Duke of Grafton. He had been " duped, deceived by the Duke, when he least suspected treachery at a time when the prospect was fair, and the appearances of confidence were strong. Snares had been artfully laid by his Grace to take advantage of his Lordship's state of health," and his Lordship's speeches had been publicly characterised by the Duke as " the effects of a distempered mind brooding over its own discontents/' Dr. Bisset remarks " Personal motives evidently inflamed this writer (Junius) against individual officers of the crown, whom party considerations induced him to assail as members of a body which was to be driven from the councils of the king to make way for the restoration of the Whigs." And Junius says of the Duke of Grafton " You are the pillow upon which I am determined to rest all my resentment." Mr. Home's explana- tion or opinion of the meaning of this last sentence is too valuable not to be noticed : " Because Lord Chatham has been ill treated by the King, and treacherously betrayed by the Duke of Grafton ; the latter is to be ' the pillow on which Junius will rest his resentment.' " " Had the author of Junius drawn as much wisdom from life as he did from books had he been accustomed to the busy hum of men had he frequented the crowded halls of nobles had he often championed popular rights in multitudinous assemblies the harsher features of his mind would have been gradually softened cunning would have taught him the necessity of pretending to feel human sympathies, if his heart had not been opened to generous sensibilities ; he would have maintained his opinions, though in a more subdued tone, with the same intellectual energy : he would have still pursued the public criminals, but have not forgotten what was due to public decorum ; the courtesies of society would have been generally observed, and some kind of specious respect would have been habitually shewn to noble rank, and elevated station, and commanding influence, and high reputation, and professional fame, and sacred royalty. Junius is the only well-educated writer who seems not in these points to have been actuated by the feelings of mankind. And how shall we account for this perfect independence of mind, and this reckless heart of steel, except by supposing him to have been parti- cularly circumstanced to have been placed in unavoidable seclusion or to have indulged in solitary majesty ?" Mr. Barker's Letters. If there be any truth in the declarations of Mr. Charles Butler " to whom it was frequently given to hear the speeches of Lord Chatham" if Mr. Burke, his contemporary, be entitled to attention and credit if Lord John Russell and the Editor of the Retrospective Review have presented us with a faithful outline of the character of Lord Chatham if all history be not false and if we be allowed to form our opinions of his Lordship from his speeches and actions then, I confidently say, no man, except Lord Chatham, can be compared and identified with the character of Junius so beautifully pourtrayed by Mr. Barker. I will now leave the consideration of this subject to those who have remarked that Lord Chatham had no hostile feeling to the Duke of Grafton. If the Letters of Junius are not to be received as conclusive evidence of the fact, I know not to what we must refer for information. Having proved that the Letters of Juniuf to the Duke of Grafton are remarkable for a personal feeling of animosity, I will show that those 49 written by that writer to Sir William Draper are equally so, for a total absence of any bad passion j yet Jtmius condemns, and in the most uncourteous manner, the conduct of Sir William. " The defence of Lord Granby does honour to the goodness of your heart. You feel, as you ought to do, for the reputation of your friend ; and you express yourself in the warmest language of the passions. Touched with your generosity, 1 freely forgive the excesses into which it has led you ; and far from resenting those terms of reproach, which, considering that you are an advocate for decorum, you have heaped upon me rather too liberally, I place them to the account of an honest indig- nation, in which your cooler judgment and natural politeness had no concern. I am not your enemy, nor did I begin this contest with you. I write to you with reluctance." Junius to Sir William Draper. The Letters of Junius develope so intimate an acquaintance with the most private transactions of men, we must infer that he not merely had unusual opportunities of gaining information, but also that he was personally acquainted with the transactions and characters of those who are the objects of his notice. If, on the contrary, Junius had to acquire his knowledge on the spur of the moment, how indefatigable he must have been in obtaining it ; and he would have to exercise uncom- mon caution in avoiding the prying curiosity of his informants. In the case of Sir William Draper, he had not ten entire days to devote to the task. Junius, we recollect, did irot begin the contest ; his expressions are " Really, Sir William, I am not your enemy, nor did I begin this contest." Unprepared, however, as we may presume he was for the contest, how did'he extricate himself from the dilemma ? To the asto- nishment and r niortifi cation of Sir William, he entered into a minute detail of facts, implicating him in certain transactions which, to the generality of men, were either unknown or not comprehended. The Editor of the Gentleman's Magazine for 1769, p. 65, submitted the Letters of Junius to Sir William Draper to his readers, because " the papers are written with a knowledge of public affairs beyond the line of ordinary information." In that opinion every one will concur and few will say that Lord Chatham had not a knowledge of public affairs beyond the line of ordinary information.* * An American gentleman, Mr. Newhall, who has written a book endeavouring to prove Earl Temple to be Junius, remarks at page ixxi., 50 Lord Chatham was not the enemy of Sir W. Draper ; a few lines from a speech of Mr. Pitt's, in January, 1766, decides this point. " Will you quarrel with yourselves, now the whole House of Bourbon is united against you, while the ransom for the Manillas is denied by Spain, and its gallant conqueror basely traduced into a mean plunderer, a gentleman (Colonel Draper) whose noble and generous spirit would do honour to the proudest grandee of the country." Parl. Hist. vol. 16, p. 107* The next question for consideration, although surrounded with difficulties, I shall approach with some diffidence ; yet not for a moment will I shrink from a fair review of it, feeling neither doubt nor fear as to the result. The positive declarations of almost every writer on the controversy of who was Junius, are arrayed against me on the subject which now demands an investigation. It is stated by the Editor of the Edinburgh Review for June, 1826, that " Junius supported the cause of authority against America with Mr. Grenville, the Minister who passed the Stamp Act. He maintained the highest popular principles on the Middlesex election with the same statesman who was the leader of opposition on that question. No other party in the kingdom but the Grenvilles combined these two opinions. Whoever revives the inquiry, therefore, unless he discovers positive and irresistible evidence in support of his claimant, should show him politi- cally attached to the Grenville party, which Junius certainly was ; and must also produce some specimens of his writings of tolerable length, such as might afford reasonable ground for believing that he could have written these letters. A simple text, therefore, ascertains the political connexion of Junius." Mr. Barker's observation on the above sentence is " The reviewer has clearly shewn the political connection between Junius and George Grenville, and I therefore subscribe to his opinion that such connection that " the familiarity of Junius with the affairs of the War-Office Depart- ment, in all its details, has long been an obstacle, which the advocates of almost every candidate for the authorship have found it impossible to overcome." Perhaps Mr. Newhall does not include Lord Chatham in his list of candidates, or, what is not improbable, he forgot that his Lordship was, par excellence, The War Minister. 51 must be proved to have existed in the case of any claimant for the author- ship of the Letters, or the claims should be at once rejected. It is well known that Junius always differed from Lord Chatham on the subject of the taxation of America. As an admirer of Mr. George Grenville in the part he took on that occasion, it was impossible that Junius could approve of Lord Chatham's conduct." Mr. Coventry remarks " The line of politics pursued by Junius and the Earl of Chatham was totally different on American taxation, which of itself shews there was no connection between them." The writer of the Preliminary Essay to Mr. WoodfalPs Ed. of Junius cautiously gives an opinion that, " anterior to the American contest, Junius was as thoroughly convinced as Mr. G. Grenville himself of the supremacy of the legislature of this country over the American colonies." In the absence of any definite declaration of Junius in favour of the opinion that he supported Mr. G. Grenville, I will select from the Letters every passage, quoted by others, to favour that hypothesis. The first Letter of Junius affords a long quotation : " A series of inconsistent measures had alienated the colonies from their duty as sub- jects, and from their natural affection to their common country. When Mr. Grenville was placed at the head of the Treasury, he felt the impossibility of Great Britain's supporting such an establishment as her former successes had made indispensable, and, at the same time, of giving any sensible relief to foreign trade and to the weight of the public debt. He thought it equitable that those parts of the empire which had benefited most by the expenses of the war, should contribute something to the expenses of the peace, and he had no doubt of the constitutional right vested in Parliament to raise that contribution. But unfortu- nately for this country, Mr. Grenville was at any rate to be distressed because he was Minister, and Mr. Pitt* and Lord Camden were to be the patrons of America ; because they were in opposition, their declara- tions gave spirit and argument to the colonies ; and while, perhaps, they meant no more than the ruin of a Minister, they in effect divided one half of the empire from the other." Letter 1. I cannot suppose that any one can correctly infer from these quota- tions that Junius advocates Mr. G. Grenville's American tax, or that he " * Yet Junius has J)een called the partizan of Lord Chatham !" 52 supports the cause of authority with that gentleman against the Ameri- cans. As, however, the point disputed is of considerable consequence, we will dispassionately examine each sentence. Junius informs us, that Mr. Grenville thought it equitable to exert a certain power, having no doubt of the constitutional right. Substi- tuting Junius for Grenville, my argument would not be tenable, but I object to such a transposition, and so unfair a manner of procuring data. Junius continues " But unfortunately for this country, Mr. Grenville was at any rate to be distressed because he was Minister, and Mr. Pitt* and Lord Chatham were to be the patrons of America, because they were * The Notes to Woodfall's Edition of Junius are termed by the Editor explanatory. Some of them were made by Junius himself, and are marked Author. A second class are the Editor's, and a third are so very explanatory, that neither Author nor Editor has claimed them. No one will disturb the first two classes of notes ; our inquiries must be for an owner to the unclaimed and nameless ones. In matters of importance references to particular passages or circumstances are indispensable. The first Letter of Junius afforded us an example of the annotations which have found their way into that edition of Junius. It stands as follows : " Yet Junius has been called the partizan of Lord Chatham" ! Indeed. Where at what time and by whom has been ? Why, I thought this Jirst Letter of Junius was verily and truly the first ! How comes it to pass that the exclamation is in the past tense ? Junius has been called. Oh ! you bungling annotator ! the note should have been reserved and given, explanatory of any random ^passage in any Letter except the first. Now who will pride himself to avow his legitimate right to that explanatory note ? It appeared before Mr. Woodfall pub- lished his edition, and it has been sufficiently referred to by every writer on this question since ; and what amuses me is the fact that it has always been considered as an original note ; in short, that it was written by Junius. How very inconsistent would it have appeared for Junius to have made such a remark, is apparent. The Letters printed in 1769 are without that note when it was first introduced, I have no means of ascertaining. Mr. Newhall makes a shrewd remark when he notices the first Letter : " This note by Junius illustrates why he had been so called, because he had been politically opposed to Mr. Grenville. "j^If it could be proved in opposition." (Surely Junius might term any particular circumstance unfortunate, without being subject to the charge of advocating the cause of America with Mr. Grenville.) " Their declaration gave spirit and argument to the colonies, and while perhaps they meant no more than the ruin of a Minister, they in effect divided one half of the empire from the other." To rightly understand this sentence we must turn to the state of political parties antecedent to, and at the period of, the introduction of the Stamp Act. Mr. Pitt's Ministry continued from 1756 to October 1761, and was supported by his intimate friend and brother-in-law, Mr. G. Grenville. When the Duke of Bedford's Ministry was formed in 1763, the gentlemen who took office were hostile to the line of policy adopted and recommended by Mr. Pitt, and with but few exceptions were not members of Mr. Pitt's administration. At this critical period the brother-in-law* and friend of that Junius appended the note, I would observe that it was a perfectly unnecessary one, and intended to perplex his readers on any question which might arise connecting Lord Chatham with the author of the Letters. * I will give a brief sketch of these changes from a paper in the London Magazine for 1769, p. 71- "At length Lord Bute, finding his acting publicly in office with any degree of credit an utter impossibility, withdrew himself apparently from the chief direction of affairs, and was succeeded at the treasury board by Mr. George Grenville, who had filled many employments, and was supposed to be one of the ablest financiers in the kingdom. The enemies of the late Premier asserted that Mr. G. Grenville was nothing more than the creature of the favourite. The minority, headed by Mr. Pitt, Lord Temple, the Duke of Newcastle, &c. could by no means forgive Mr. Grenville's junction with Lord B., though in that junction Mr. G. shewed a firm resolution to support his own independence, and was soon after dismissed from his employments. After this dismissal he was above the condescension of acting a secondary character in the Ministry, and was therefore considered by Mr. Pitt and Lord Temple, who were the oracles of that party, as an impracticable man, with whom there was no possibility of carrying on the opposition heartily." * 54 Mr. Pitt, joined the Duke of Bedford, and was companion to Lords North, Sandwich, Hillsborough, Mr. Welbore Ellis, and Jerem. Dyson. In 1765 he became the more associated to his new friends, and more estranged from his old friend Mr. Pitt, by introducing the bill termed the American Stamp Act. Under such circumstances, Mr. Pitt would distress Mr. Grenville, because, as Junius says, he was Minister ; and