* 3 M ^ n\^^ '. ■">. v^S^ \°°<. ^> sS ^^^ ^^. x'^' ^- ^ - -p. ^ .^ ^> « A- oo^ i % <■■ ^,^' =r^^pC/%^^ %/ <0^; .if.i:.r> ^,-owr> JP: a jfs ir. T IK .^11 F 1., oJ %0 CUixS^^^J^ k^ ClM-l. 7^, fLx^ fv/LyfO) u) (i(m^ir^»~hj^ /ee/i c^L ^^ /t/U^C^ w^ LETTERS ON JUNIUS, ADDRESSED TO JOHN PICKERING, ESQ. SHOWING THAT THE AUTHOR OF THAT CELEBRATED WORK EARL TEMPLE. BY ISAAC NEWHALL. AT A PROrER TIME VOU SHALL KNOW ME. JUNIUS. BOSTON. HILLIARD, GRAY, LITTLE, AND WILKINS, 1831. Entered atcorcling to Act of Congress, in the year 1831, by Isaac Newhall, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Massachusetts. HIHAM T UPPER, PBIKTER ADVERTISEMENT The present work was first announced by the following Notice, published in the Boston Evening Transcripts of September 25,1830 — ' Junius. — A southern paper has lately republished an article which originally appeared in the Boston Palladium of the 6th of August last, and contained the following remark — '' The New York papers now say, that the late Earl Temple, brother of the Right Hon. George Grenville, the jmtative father of our noto- rious Stamp Act, was the writer of Junius ; but it is difficult to believe it.' The author of the article then goes on to enforce his doubts by a concise view of the character and talents of Earl Temple ; conceding, that he was " respectable " as a writer but adding — " we can hardly suppose him to have been the author ' of the best compositions in our language. To write better than Bolingbroke, Swift, or Johnson, is an elevation which none of the Grenvilles, clever as they were, ever rose to." ' The writer of this Boston article, whose style indicates him to be of the old classical English school, has evidently studied the characters of the statesmen who influenced or directed the measures of the British government at the period in question. But, notwithstanding the strong opinion here expressed by him, I can venture to assure him, that he will hereafter find quite as strong reasons for changing it. ' The suspicion that Lord Temple was the author of Junius, has, it is true, been but recently thrown out in England: and tliat suspicion has been founded upon statements lately made there, of the existence of certain papers alleged to have been found at Stowe (the family residence of Lord Temple), which, IV ADVERTISEMENT. it is said, establish the fact, that Junius's Letters were written by some one of the Grenvilles. Mr E. H. Barker, the latest English writer upon the Junius controversy, in his work respect- ing the claims of Sir Philip Francis (which I think are now completely demolished), appears to have but little faith in the supposed discoveries made at Stowe. However that fact may be, I can inform the correspondent of the Palladium, that many years ago, an American gentleman, residing in a neighboring town, had, after much investigation and reflection, come to the conclusion, that Lord Temple was, beyond any doiiht, the author of Junius. This result was obtained, not by the aid of any extrin- sic evidence of the kind supposed to exist in England (which was of course not accessible in this country), but merely by a continued and careful study of Junius, and of contemporary publications relating to the political history of that day. The grounds of this opinion were noted down, from time to time, by the individual alluded to; and by patient and regular deductions from the internal and historical evidence in the case, the above result will now be established in such a manner, as, in my hum- ble judgment, leaves no more room for doubt. I am enabled to add, that the materials collected by the discoverer himself, in support of this opinion, will shortly be published. 'A Reader of Junius.' The individuaj alluded to in this Notice was Mr New- hall, of Salem, in Massachusetts ; and the present Letters contain the result of his investigations. In consequence of his absence from the place of publication, the work was put into the hands of a friend, who has performed whatever editorial duty has been required in the case. Boston, June 7, 1831 . CONTENTS INTRODUCTORY ESSAY ix LETTER I. Account of the Author's original investigation of the author- ship of Junius's Letters — The Pamphlet of 1766, enti- tled An Enquirij into the Conduct of a Late Right Hon- orable Commoner, (i. e. Mr Pitt afterwards Lord Chatham), written by Lord Temple ] LETTER IL The Authorship of that Pamphlet further considered — Extracts from the Pamphlet 9 LETTER III. The same subject continued — Comparison of the Pamphlet with Junius's Letters — The family connexion of Lord Temple, Mr George Grenville, and Mr Pitt — Lord Tem- ple's Reconciliation with Mr Grenville — His co-operation in the North Briton, and his acquaintance with Mr Wilkes 19 LETTER IV. One of the Miscellaneous Letters of Junius, signed Pop- licola, corresponding with Lord Temple's Pamphlet . 33 LETTER V. References to other Miscellaneous Letters of Junius, re- specting Lord Chatham — The Reconciliation between Lord Chatham and Lord Temple, corresponding to the change in Junius's tone and feelings — The eminent talents of Lord Temple — Lord Chatham's letter contain- ing the reasons of his resignation 39 LETTER VI. The warm attachment of Junius for Mr George Grenville — Junius's declaration, that he was not personally known to Mr Grenville, explained 45 VI CONTENTS. LETTER VII. Account of Mr George Grenville — Offends his brothers, but afterwards, reconciled 56 LETTER VIII. Junius's Agreement in politics, with Mr Grenville — The Public Life of Mr Pitt— Mr Pitt and the Grenvilles omit- ted in the Ministerial Arrangements — Mr Pitt dismissed and again recalled — The Quarrel in Parliament between Lord Temple and Lord Bute — Further remarks on the Separation of Mr Grenville from his family — Lord Bute obliged to retire — The case of Wilkes's North Briton — Mr Pitt's Declaration respecting it — A new Negotiation attempted, by the Earl of Bute, to bring Mr Pitt into office — The king himself sends for Mr Pitt and Lord Temple 59 LETTER IX. The disagreement between Mr Pitt and Lord Temple, con- tinued — Lord Bute's policy, as to the great families — He solicits an interview with Lord Temple and Mr Gren- ville ; and the result 73 LETTER X. A new arrangement is proposed to Mr Pitt — Sir William Pynsent bequeathes him an Estate — Mr Pitt is involved in litigation respecting it — Lord Mansfield's suspected influence in this case, supposed to be a motive for Junius's attacks — Lord Bute's Private Influence ; and an extraor- dinary instance of vigilance in observing his movements — Further remarks on the Quarrel between Lord Temple and Mr Pitt 77 LETTER XI. Effects of the Disagreement between Lord Temple and Lord Chatham — Their reconciliation, and Junius's change of tone 84 LETTER XII. Lord Chatham's strong regard for Lord Temple — The Brit- ish successes, under Lord Chatham, essentially owing to the ability of Lord Temple — List of British victories 05 LETTER XIII. Account of the Earl of Bute, and the motives of Junius for attacking him — Lord Bute ai;^d his friends determine to humble the Grenvilles — His offensive language towards Lord Temple — A Portrait of him 103 CONTENTS. Vll LETTER XIV. Junius's feelings towards the Prince, George III, as the pupil of Lord Bute — Memorial, from Dodington's Diary, on the Education of the Prince ; probably by Lord Tem- ple — Lord Bute's plan, to keep possession of the King, and to destroy the influence of the Grenvilles — Extracts from Dodington's Diary — The hostility of George II to Lord Temple, in the case of Admiral Byng .... 117 LETTER XV. The hostility of Junius to Lord Mansfield and Sir William Blackstone 129 LETTER XVI. Mr Wilkes's intimacy with Lord Temple — His arrest, under a General Warrant — Lord Temple's interposition in his behalf — Mr Wilkes, dismissed fi-om his office of Colonel, and Lord Temple's subsequent dismissal — Lord Temple's letter to him on that occasion 133 LETTER XVII. The same subject continued 142 LETTER XVIII. The Duke of Grafton, formerly a friend, but afterwards a bitter enemy, of Mr Wilkes — The attack of Junius on the Duke — The case of McQuirk 148 LETTER XIX. The Duke of Bedford — Reasons for Junius's attack on him 155 LETTER XX. TheMarquisofGranby— Sir William Draper .... 161 LETTER XXI. Account of Earl Temple and his family 167 LETTER XXII. Lord Temple's residence, at Stowe ; and, while in London, in Pall-Mall — Junius, not necessarily a military man . 175 LETTER XXIII. Junius and Lord Temple held the same political opinions 180 LETTER XXIV. The opinion of the Welsh judge, George Hardinge, of Junius — Junius's panegyric on Lord Chatham — The motives of Junius, and reasons for discontinuing his Letters — Burke's politics, and his opinion of Mr George Grenville 185- Vlll CONTENTS. LETTER XXV. Junius was a member of Parliament — Extract from Mr Cotes's journal — Junius does not mention Lord Temple in his Letters — An early friend of Mr Almon . . . 192 LETTER XXVI. Parallel passages from the Writings of Junius and Lord Temple — Prophetic opinions of Junius respecting the American contest 198 LETTER XVII. Additional Remarks on Junius and Mr George Grenville — Junius signs one of his Miscellaneous Letters, A Member of one House of Parliament 201 LETTER XXVIII. On the person, figure, and handwriting of Junius — The copy of his Letters bound in vellum 203 LETTER XXXI. Lord Temple's age — Almon's Anecdotes of Chatham, proba- bly, in part written by Lord Temple — Description of Stowe , ... 205 LETTER XXX. Explanatory Remarks, respecting Lord Chesterfield's sup- posed opinion of Lord Temple and the Pamphlet . . 212 LETTER XXXI. Account of the Stowe Papers 227 LETTER XXXIl. Dt Waterhouse's work on Junius 227 APPENDIX. No. I. — The Pamphlet of 17GC, entitled ' An Enquiry into the Conduct of a Late Right Honourable Com- moner ' (Mr Pitt), written by Lord Temple . 237 II. — Lord Chesterfield's Letter, respecting the above Pamphlet 261 HI.— Character of Mr George Grenville 263 IV.— The North Briton, No. 45 . 267 V. — Dr Johnson's Critique on Junius 272 VI.— The arrangement of the Ministry, 1767 to 1770 . 276 INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. The materials of the following Letters were, in part collected many years ago without any view to publica- tion ; and they would probably have remained unpub- lished, had not the authorship of Junius's Letters been again brought before the literary world by the late re- ported discovery of certain papers in the archives of the Grenville family at Stowe, in England, which, it is said in the journals of the day, ' establish beyond the possibility of doubt, the real author.' This * real au- thor,' according to the latest accounts from England, is by some conjectured to be Earl Temple, the elder brother of the celebrated George Grenville, and brother- in-law of Lord Chatham. The object of the present Letters is to prove, that Lord Temple was in fact the author ; and that this dis- covery was made in the United States, by the writer, many years ago — long before any hints or indications were given of there being evidence like that which b X INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. is said to have been found at Stowe, — much less that the evidence was such, as, it was conjectured, would fix that authorship on Lord Temple. After the numerous unsuccessful attempts to solve this curious problem in English literature, it may ap- pear presumptuous, particularly in an American — under all the disadvantages of his distance from the scene of Junius's warfare, and the want of a personal acquaintance with the minute occurrences of that pe- riod — to fancy, that he has discovered the author. Yet it may be said with truth, that such a distant posi- tion for observation is not without its advantages ; for if, on the one hand, an observer thus circumstanced v/ould be obliged to throw away more labor in his pur- suit, than one who was nearer to the scene, yet, on the other hand, the former would be less likely to have his attention distracted and led astray from the main object by circumstances in reality of inferior importance, which would make an undue impression upon one who should happen to be, if we may so speak, present at the place of action ; as, according to the common observa- tion, the looker-on has a more commanding view of the game than those who are engaged in it. So far, however, as respects the discussion of this question by Americans, it will suffice to remark, that we have as great an interest in every question of English literature as our brethren of the mother country. Their literature still is — and long may it continue to be — ours. But some persons may, perhaps, be ready to ask ac- cording to the prevailing fashion of the age — of what vtiliiy will it be to discuss this question ? Instead of giving an answer to this inquiry in our own language, we beg leave to reply in the just and forcible remarks INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. XI of an accomplished writer in a leading British journal of the present day : * ' A succession of problems, or puzzles, in the literary and political history of modern times, has occasion- ally occupied some ingenious writers, and amused many idle readers. Those who think nothing 2iseful, which does not yield some palpable and direct advantage, have indeed scornfully rejected such inquiries as frivo- lous and useless. But their disdain has not repressed such discussions — and it is fortunate that it has not. Amusement is itself an advantage. The vigor, which the understanding derives from exercise on every sub- ject, is a great advantage. If there should be any utility in history, it must be very useful, that it should be accurate — which it never will be, unless there be a sohcitude to ascertain the truth even of its minutest parts. History is read with pleasure, and with moral effect, only so far as it engages our feelings in the merit or demerit, in the fame or fortune, of historical person- ages. If it did not excite such feelings, we should study it with the same coolness and tranquillity with which we study physical science. But, in contemplat- ing the fortunes of our fellow creatures, in history, in fiction, or in real life, we are eager, we are intensely anxious to discover the guilt or innocence, the claims to eminence, or the events of the lives of those whose characters have excited in our minds strong feelings, whether friendly or adverse. Our interest in the his- tory of past times is of the same nature with our sen- timents on the matters that daily occur around us. The breathless anxiety, with which the obscure and * Edinburgh Review for June 1826, vol. 44, page 1 3 in an article ascribed to Sir James Mackintosh. XU INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. conflicting evidence on a trial at law is watched by the by-standers, is but a variety of the same feeling, which prompts the reader of history to examine the proofs against Mary Queen of Scots, with as deep interest as if she were alive, and were now on her trial. And it is wisely ordered, that it should be so. For the condition of mankind would not, upon the whole, be bettered by our feeling less strongly about each others' concerns.' This able writer then enumerates various problems of the kind in question — as, ' Who wrote the book which bears the name of Thomas a-Kempis 1 Who was Perkin Warbeck ? Was Queen Mary an accomplice in the murder of Lord Darnley ? Who was the Pris- oner in the Iron Mask ? Who was the writer of the Whole Duty of Man ? Who wrote the Letters of Junius ? ' And, after briefly adverting to the state of the evidence on these several problems, he makes the following remarks on the last of them : ' The writer of the Letters of Junius is still undis- covered [June, 1826]. The only claim entitled to discussion, is that set up for Sir Philip Francis^ in spite of that gentleman himself, by Mr Taylor, in the very ingenious book, too boldly entitled ' Junius Iden- tified.' * From that book, especially from the interest * After the appearance of Mr Taylor's first publication,, the Editor of the English Monthly Magazine made a direct in- quiry of Sir Philip Francis, as to his authorship ; to this the fol- lowing reply was made ; which, notwithstanding its strong lan- guage, Mr Taylor is pleased to consider as so evasive, that he wonders ' how any one can have been misled by it for a mo- ment : ' 'Sir, — The great civihty of your letter induces me to an- swer it, which, with reference merely to its subject matter, I should have declined. Whether you will assist in giving INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. Mm taken by Junius in the petty intrigues of the War Office, and from the coincidence of the artificial hand- writing of Junius with the artificial hand-writing of Sir Philip, in the possession of Mr Giles, we may probably infer, that Sir Philip was in the confidence of Junius and perhaps his amanuensis. The supposition, how- ever, most prevalent among contemporary politicians and men of letters was, that the Letters were written by Mr Dyer, an original member of Johnson's Club, and an intimate friend of Burke, from whom the writer might have received some of his information, perhaps casually ; and from whose conversation the few but striking Burkisms, so much at variance with the gen- eral tenor of the style, might have overflowed into the mind of Dyer and almost insensibly dropped from his pen. A simple test ascertains the political connexion of Junius — the only circumstance which he could not disguise, because it could not he concealed ivithout defeating his general purpose. He 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 Elec- tion — with the same statesman, who was the leader of opposition on that question. No other party in the kingdom hut the Grenvilles comhined these tico opinions ; and it is very unlikely, that a private writer, unpledged and unconnected, should have spontaneously embraced political doctrines, which, though ingenuity might re- currency to a silly, malignant falsehood, is a question for your own discretion. To me it is a matter of perfect indifference. I am, Sir, yours, &c. P. Francis.' ' To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine.' h* XlV INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. concile them in reasoning, were, in the disputes of that period, the opposite extremes.' After these just remarks, this reviewer arrives at the following conclusion — ' Whoever revives the inquiry, therefore, unless he discovers positive and irresistible evidence in support of his claimant, should show him to be politically attached to the Grenville party ^ lohich Junius certainly was, and must also produce some spe- cimens of his writings of tolerable length, such as might afford reasonable ground for believing, that he could have written these Letters — which must be allowed to be finished models, though not of the purest and highest sort of composition. The general vigor of a man's mental powers affords little more proof that he could be a good writer, than that he could be a great painter. There may indeed be evidence so positive, as will establish the truth of the supposition which ap- peared most improbable — as has actually happened in the case of the Iron Mask. But such possibilities must exist in all moral reasonings.' On the present question, however, the reviewer justly adds, in a note to his article (p. 6), the following qual- ifications of his general conclusion — * It is not to be understood, that other persons may not have held opin- ions adverse to the cause of the Americans and favor- able to that of Wilkes. The value of the criterion depends on the improbability, that, on the two most important questions which occurred for ten years, a writer of great ability should zealously, frequently, and for a long period, write in support of the popular side on one, and of the unpopular on the other, unless he, or those whom he supported, had been pledged to these opposite opinions, by measures of so public and decisive INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. XV^ a nature as to cut off all retreat. It may be oberved also, that Junius, who is unfriendly to Lord Chatham in the beginning, loads that nobleman with panegyric, after he was reconciled to Lord Temple and Mr Gren- ville. There did, and perhaps there still does exist, a private letter from Junius to Mr Grenville, professing political attachment, and at the same time discouraging all attempts to pluck off his mask. Wilkes was origi- nally Member for Aylesbury, and Lieutenant Colonel of the Bucks Militia, under Lord Temple. Hence the extravagantly disproportioned interest taken by Junius in every petty intrigue of alderman and sheriffs, which touched that celebrated adventurer. Though a few letters were written after the death of Mr Grenville, yet to that event and the dissolution of his jyarty, the cessation of Junius is to be attributed. In these cir- cumstances, and others not yet publicly known, originat- ed the supposition that Mr Lloyd was Junius. But some specimen of his writing is wanting to countenance that supposition. In the cases of Dyer and Francis, the two candidates of most plausible pretension, no proof has hitherto appeared of connexion loith the Gren- ville party. Some resemblance of style in Francis is a very inconsiderable argument ; for almost every con- tributor to a newspaper, during the twenty years which followed the Letters, was an imitator of Junius.' * The justness of these reflections will be evident upon a careful attention to the facts exhibited in the follow- ing Letters ; and, to use the language of the science of demonstration, all the essential conditions of the prob- lem will be satisfied. In order, however, that the ft. * Edinburgh Review, ubi S7ij). XVI INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. reader may be possessed of the actual state of this curi- ous and interesting question, it may be useful to take a brief review of the history of the Junius controversy. For, though every reader has a general knowledge of it, yet few persons, probably, have a sufficiently precise recollection of particulars to enable them to make any useful comparison of what has been written, or suppos- ed to be discovered, with what is brought into view in the present publication. A very summary account of the principal claims, which have been made for different authors, will accordingly be here given. On the first appearance of Junius's Letters, the atten- tion of the public, as well as of the parties interested, was immediately directed to the discovery of an author, who discussed the gravest constitutional questions with an ability, which was equalled only by his remorseless severity and fearlessness in scanning the measures and private characters of the men, who directed the affairs of Great Britain at that period — not sparing even the sacred and inviolable majesty of the sover- eign himself The various claims, however, which have been made on behalf of the greater part of the supposed authors, may be disposed of without any difficulty ; even some which have been brought forward under the most plau- sible and imposing circumstances. In this class we may now place that, which has been lately re- newed with so much earnestnestness, for Mr Charles Lloyd, who was at that period a clerk of the Treasury, and afterwards a deputy-teller of the Exchequer. Much importance has been attached to this claim, in conse- quence of the very decided opinion in its favor, which was long entertained, and was defended to the last with INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. XVll the most obstinate heroism, by that late eminent Eng- lish scholar, Dr Parr — a claim, to which the authority of this venerated and remarkable man has given its chief consequence, but which will be examined in a subse- quent part of our remarks, and, as we think, shown to be unsupported. For the mere convenience of reference, the claims of the supposed authors will be here very briefly con- sidered, in the alphabetical order of their respective names or titles. 1. Lord AsHBURTON, more familiarly known as Mr Dunning, the celebrated English lawyer, has been long suspected as the author of Junius. The most formal and express claim in his favor was made in the highly valuable, though now somewhat neglected, edi- tion of Junius, published in London in 1801, under the name of ^ Robert Heron, Esquire,^ and reprinted in the United States in 1804, upon which some further remarks will be hereafter made. That editor says, in very guarded language — ' I believe myself to have nearly discovered who was certainly the author of these Letters. But I have, without entirely satisfying my- self, protracted inquiries, and renewed my doubts, till the necessity of publication calls upon me to interrupt them with an imperiousness that is no longer to be re- sisted. I cannot now lay before the reader all the de- tails of facts and circumstances on which my judgment is founded. The result I shall briefly state. The au- tlior of these Letters was no other than the celebrated Dunning, afterwards Lord Ashburton.' This editor then proceeds to argue, but by no means on satisfactory grounds, that Lord Ashburton alone had those motives for attacking Lord Mansfield and the Duke XVlll INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. of Grafton, which certainly influenced the mind of Ju- nius — that he alone possessed that knowledge of the constitutional law — that the nervous, epigrammatic cast of his speeches and pleadings had no mean resem- blance to the style and manner of Junius — that he had those political connexions with different parties and in- dividuals, which the letters imply — that he had the strongest reasons for concealing the authorship forever, on account of the favors received by him from the crown, &c. In answer to this claim, however, it is justly observed in the Preliminary Essay to Woodfall's Junius — now well understood to have been written by Dr John Mason Good — that ' Dunning was Solicitor General at the time these Letters first appeared, and for more than a twelve-month afterwards ; and Junius himself has openly and solemnly affirmed — '' I am no lawyer hy profession; nor do I pretend to be more deeply read than every English gentleman should be in the laws of his country." Dunning was a man of high and unblem- ished honor, as well as of high independent principles ; it cannot therefore be supposed, that he would have vilified the king, while one of the king's confidential servants and counsellors ; nor would he as a barrister have written to Woodfall in the course of a confidential correspondence — '' I am advised^ that no jury will find a bill.'"* To these remarks we may add, that Junius constant- ly manifests a fixed and by no means an affected con- tempt for the legal profession. In one of his letters to Mr Wilkes (Sept. 18, 1771), he says, with an earnest * See, among other places, Junius's Preface ; Letters 14 and C8 ; Private Letters to Wilkes. Sent. 18. 1771. No 70. INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. XJ]^ . tics ; in these Burke never appeared.* Nor is it credi- * Butler's Reminiscences, vol. i. p. 69, &c. t Junivis's Letters. INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. XXV ble, as Mr Butler and others have remarked, that Burke would have spoken of himself in such terms of eulogy as he applies to Junius, in one of his speeches in the House of Commons : ' How comes this Junius,' says he, ' to have broke through the cobwebs of the law, and to range uncontrolled, unpunished, through the land ? The myrmidons of the court have been long, and are still, pursuing hini in vain. They will not spend their time upon me, or you, or you. No! they disdain such vermin when the mighty boar of the forest, that has broke through all their toils, is before them. But what will all their efforts avail ? No sooner has he wounded one than he strikes down another dead at his feet. For my part, when I saw his attack-upon the King, I own my blood ran cold. I thought he had ventured too far, and that there was an end to his triumphs. Not that he had not asserted many truths; yes, sir, there are in that com- position many bold truths, by which a wise prince might profit. It was the rancour and venom with which I was struck. In these respects the North Briton is as inferior to him, as in strength, wit and judgment. But while I expected in this daring flight his final ruin and fall, behold him rising still higher, and coming down souse upon both houses of parliament ! Yes, he did make you his quarry, and you still bleed from the wounds of his talons. You crouched, and still crouch, beneath his rage. Nor has he dreaded the terrors of ycnir brow, sir;* for he has attacked even you — he has — and I believe you have no reason to triumph in the encounter. In short, after carrying away our royal * Sir Fletcher Norton (Speaker of the House of Commons), who was distinguished by a pair of large, black eye-brows. C* XXVI INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. eagle in his pounces, and dashing him against a rock, lie has laid you prostrate ; and king, lords, and com- mons are but the sports of his fury. Vfere he a member of this house, what might not be expected from his know- ledge, his firmness and integrity? He would easily be known by his contempt of all danger, by his penetra- tion, by his vigor. Nothing would escape his vigilance and activity. Bad ministers could conceal nothing from his sagacity, nor could promises nor threats induce him to conceal anything from the public' In addition to these circumstances, Mr Burke, in the year 1784, instituted a prosecution against Junius's printer, Woodfall ; and, though considerable interest was made with Mr Burke to induce him to drop the prose- cution, in different stages, he was inexorable, and pur- sued it to a verdict ' with the utmost acrimony,' * and obtained ,^100 damages, ' the whole of which was paid to the prosecutor.' t Besides this, his political conduct, was wholly at variance with the supposition of his au- thorship. Among other instances, when Mr Grenville published his ' Present State of the Nation ' (in 1769), Burke immediately answered it, and arraigned the au- thor and his friends with a vehemence peculiar to him- selft It is also a fact, that Burke always disclaimed the authorship. As long ago as the year 1779, Dr John- son observed — ' I should have believed Burke to be Junius, because I know no man but Burke who is ca- pable of writing these letters ; but Burke spontaneously denied it to me. The case would have been different, * Butler's Reminiscences, vol. i, page 81. t Woodfall's Junius, vol. i, page 102, note. t Ibid. INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. XVlI had I asked him if he was the author ; a man so ques- tioned, as to an anonymous publication, may think he has a right to deny it.' * On another occasion he is stated to have denied it, as related in the following an- ecdote ; Dean Marley, who was at a watering place with him, at a distance from London, suspected him of the authorship ; but upon the appearance of one of Junius's letters and an immediate reply to it, which could not have been made by Burke at that distance, Dean Mar- ley said to him — 'Now, Burke, I am clear that you are not the author of Junius ; ' and Burke answered — ' I could not write like Junius, and if I could, I would not,' f He is also said to have ' expressly and satisfac- torily denied it to Mr William Draper, who purposely interrogated him upon the subject ; the truth of which denial is, moreover, corroborated by the testimony of the late Mr ¥/oodfall, who repeatedly declared that neither of them [Courtney nor Burke] was the writer.' J One of Mr Burke's biographers, Dr Bissett, after briefly and candidly stating the general arguments for and against his authorship, comes to the following re- markable conclusion, which is believed to be peculiar to himself ' Were I,' says he, ' to hazard an opinion on the subject, it would be, that Burke was not most frequently the writer of Junius's letters, if he was of any. Though very excellent, they are not equal, nor peculiarly similar, to his productions. They have been imputed to Lord George Germain [Lord Sackville], but I cannot accede to that opinion. Lord George is close * Boswell's Life of Johnson, vol. i, page 83, American edit, t Letter of General Cockburne to the Editor of the Dubhn Magazine, as cited in Mr Barker's Letters, page 239. t Woodfall's Junius, Preliminary Essay, page 101. XXVlll INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. and correct ; in those qualities he resembles Junius ; he does not abound in point and imagery ; and in those qualities does not resemble Junius. I think Lord George Germain not Junius, because inferior to the latter ; Burke, because superior.' * Another, and a popular biographer, Mr Prior, in- clines to the opinion that Burke was the author of Ju- nius. His reasoning on the point is certainly remark- able ; and, if resorted to in other cases, would lead to results as remarkable. He says, in the first place, that ' internal evidence, so far as regards the style, is not .to be looked for, where the aim was such profound con- cealment.' Undoubtedly the author would desire to conceal himself under an assumed style, and might for a short time, in a single letter or two, succeed in his attempt. But, unless he were already known to the public as a writer, there would be no necessity of as- suming this disguise ; and if he had written enough to have formed a manner which already distinguished him from others, his habit and manner would, in a course of steady writing for four or five years, frequently break out and betray him. Besides, why do we argue that Junius's Letters themselves were all written by one person, unless from their generally uniform character in style and matter ? And why are the advocates of different candidates for the authorship called upon to produce specimens of acknowledged productions of their candidates, in proof of their claims? This biographer also adopts the common mode of ar- gument on another point ; that the attacks and sneers aimed at his candidate by Junius, and the incompati- * Bissett's Life of Burke, vol. i, p. 164, 2d edition. INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. XXIX bility of their political opinions, are to be considered as profound stratagems of war, to which the secret ene- my resorted, the better to conceal himself. On this latter point, the reasoning of the able reviewer above quoted is a sufficient reply — Junius had certain po- litical objects in view, which he could only hope to ef- fect by the aid of his political friends ; he could not, therefore, have the childish folly to attempt, under a disguise, to write down the same political friends and their measures, whom he was strenuously exerting him- self in public to advance and defend, 4. Dr Butler^ Bishop of Hereford ; formerly Secretary to the Right Hon. Bilson Legge, Chancellor of the Ex- chequer, and father to the present Lord Stawell. On the subject of his claims, it has been observed — 'that although he was a man of some ability, and occasionally a political writer, yet ' he never discovered those talents that could in any respect put him upon an equality with Junius.'* To which may be added the opinion of * a friend of Dr Butler's and who himself took an active part in the politics of the times,' as expressed in ' a letter to a high official character of the present day.' He says — ' from all that I was ever able to learn of the Bishop's personal character, he was incapable of dis- covering or feeling those rancorous sentiments, so un- becoming his character as a Christian, and his station as a prelate, expressed towards the Duke of Grafton, Lord North, Sir William Draper, and others — more especial- ly the king.'t 5. The Earl of Chatham. This celebrated man, has been often mentioned among the conjectured auth- * Woodfall's Junius, Preliminary Essay, p. 120. t Ibid, p. 121. XXX INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. ors of Junius ; but, though a general and indistinct view of the evidence, in a mass and on one side only, might leave an impression favorable to this opinion, yet the moment we begin to analyze it, the impression is dissi- pated. The whole course of opinions maintained or combated by Junius on several fundamental points in, the politics of that day, were in direct opposition to those of Lord Chatham. ' He could not ' as an able writer before quoted observes, ' disguise his political connexion, because it could not be concealed without defeating his general purpose.' * Besides this, the severe attacks of Junius upon Lord Chatham from the year 1767 to 1769, not exceeded and perhaps not equalled in rancour by any of his letters, and afterwards his unmeasured panegyric of that eminent man, are utterly incompatible with the supposition of his authorship ; as will abundantly ap- pear in the course of the following letters. It is a little remarkable, that this hypothesis, which was started several years ago (we believe it is mention- ed in the Monthly Review of 1810, among other places, but we have not the volume at hand), should be revived at the present time, simultaneously, by one writer in England, Mr Swinden, and by one in our own country, Dr Benjamin Waterhouse. The modest and unassum- ing tone of the former, which is a small pamphlet, forbid our speaking of it in such terms as its slender and unsatisfactory contents would justify. When a writer who undertakes to discuss a subject, of all others, requiring careful examination and minute accuracy, comes so ill prepared to his task, that he confounds Mr George Grenville with Lord Grenville — and feels so insecure in his historical knowledge, that he speaks of * Edinburgh Review, vol. 44, p. 5. INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. XXXl the most notorious events as of occurrences which he has 'understood^ to have happened, his readers will take little satisfaction in accompanying him through an intricate investigation. The work of our learned country- man, Dr Waterhouse, who is a veteran in the corps of our American literati, as well as in his own profession, is of a very different character. The writer of the fol- lowing letters, p. 230, considers it the best which he has seen on the authorship of Junius ; though he cannot, of course, consider the argument of Dr Waterhouse as satis- factory. For further remarks upon it we refer the reader to the whole of his 32d letter ; as we also do to the whole series of the letters, for an answer to the argu- ments which are urged in favor of Lord Chatham's au- thorship. 6. Dunning. — See Ashburton. 7. Samuel Dyer. He is described by Boswell as ' a most learned and ingenious member of the Literary Club, for whose understanding and attainments Dr John- son had great respect.'* But he died September 14, 1772 ; and Junius continued to write for some months after that ; his last letter being dated January 19, 1773. t 8. Henry Flood. It is a sufficient answer to the claim made in his favor, that he was absent from Lon- don (being in Ireland) throughout a great part of the summer of 1768, and at a time when Junius was con- stantly corresponding with his printer, and with a rapidity which could not have been maintained, even at a hundred, and occasionally at less than fifty miles dis- tance from the British metropolis.| * Boswell's Life of Johnson, vol. i, p. 374. t Woodfall's Junius, Preliminary Essay, vol. i, p. 100. X Ibid, 157. XXXll INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. 9. Sir Philip Francis. The claims made in favor of this gentleman have for some time past attracted much attention. The volume published in support of them, by Mr Taylor, under the title of Junius Identified^ reached a second edition in England in 1818, and has been once published in America. Of this work Mr Butler observes — ' the external evidence is very strong ; so strong, perhaps, that if he had been tried upon it for a libel, and the case had rested upon the facts from which this evidence is formed, the judge would have directed the jury to find him guilty. But the internal evidence against him, from the inequality of his ac- knowledged writings, is also very strong ; if the able author of the article " Junius " in the Edinburgh Review [for November, 1817], had not professed a different opinion, the present writer would have pronounced it decisive.'* And by way of reply to the argument found- ed on some passages of Sir Philip's writings, Mr Butler justly asks — ' Are the glow and loftiness discern- ible in every page of Junius once visible in any of these extracts? Where do we find in the writings of Sir Philip, those thoughts that breathe, those words that burn, which Junius scatters in every page ? A single drop of the cohra [de] capello, which falls from Junius so often. 't In these sentiments, every reader, who is capable of feeling the force of English style, will concur. Mr Butler, after a short discussion of the question, comes to the conclusion, that ' all external evidence is in favor of Sir Philip, all internal evidence is against him. Thus the argument on each side, neutralizes the argument on the other, and the pretension of Sir Philip vanishes.' * Reminiscences, vol. i, p. 81. t Ibid, p. 83. INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. XXXlll After this view of the case, Mr Butler argues, that a third hypothesis is necessary, to which he himself in- clines — that Sir Philip might have acted as the aman- uensis of Junius, and might occasionally have given in- formation or hints to his principal, and therefore might properly be called his collaborator.' Mr Butler, how- ever, very candidly adds, that besides the fact of Sir Philip's being a young man at the time, the circum- stances of fortune, intercourse with the world, and the offers of indemnity to Woodfall, are all inconsistent with the claims made on his behalf* The deference manifested by Mr Butler for the opinion expressed in the Edinburgh Review will be di- minished by an article since published in the same jour- nal (for June, 1826, already quoted), in which it is ob- served — ' The writer of the Letters of Junius is still undiscovered. The only claim entitled to discussion is that set up for Sir Philip Francis, in spite of that gen- tleman himself, by Mr Taylor in the very ingenious book, too boldly entitled ' Junius Identified.^ The able writer of this article, however, thinks, from cir- cumstances in the case, that we ' may probably infer, that Sir Philip was in the confidence of Junius, and perhaps his amanuensis.' f In opposition to the claim of Sir Philip Francis, Mr E. H. Barker has lately, with vast labor, collected in a volume of nearly six hundred pages, all the evidence which was accessible, by means of an extensive corres- pondence with various persons, who would be likely to possess any facts in relation to the sabject. Those readers who have given any attention to this claim, if * Reminiscences, vol. i, page 83. t Edinburgh Review, vol. xliv, page 9, for June, 1826. d XXXIV INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. doubts have hitherto existed in their minds, must, we think, upon a careful and impartial consideration of the great mass of evidence now brought together, have their doubts removed. In our humble judgment, this claim is completely demolished. It is impossible, in the limits prescribed to these re- marks, to give even an abridgment of the numerous facts and reasonings exhibited against this claim ; but a few of the principal ones must be noticed. One of them is, that although it may have happened that Sir Philip Francis had feelings of revenge to grati- fy, for slighted services, and might, from that motive, have exposed the transactions of the War Office, yet, unluckily for this hypothesis, ' Junius had sprung up two or three years before ; at first, under other names, and then under that Roman appellation, Junius ; ' and this hypothesis, too, as Mr Barker has observed, as- sumes, that Sir Philip, while only twentyseven years of age, and a clerk in that oflice, should have ventured into a political discussion that put at hazard his own advancem.ent ; and that he must have begun his lite- rary career by a series of papers, perfect in their style of composition, and his political career by professing hose high public principles which belonged only to experienced statesmen.* Another formidable objection, stated at large by Mr Barker, in the language of his correspondent, is, the hostilhy shown for a long time by Junius to Lord Chat- ham ; which, it would be contrary to reason to suppose, could have proceeded from a man, who, like Sir Philip, had been patronised by that noble lord, and was under * Barker's Letters, pp. 5, 6. INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. XXXV such deep obligations to him.* Mr Barker, it is true, thinks that the author cited by him (Mr Coventry), does not state this part of the case with perfect fair- ness, because he omits to mention that Junius did, at a subsequent period, speak in warm commendation of Lord Chatham. But it may be still replied, that until some adequate cause shall be assigned for an opposite course of conduct on the part of Sir Philip towards Lord Chatham at the two different periods — that is, bitter enmity to him in the outset, and conciliatory, and even friendly language accompanied with high pane- gyric, afterwards — the mere existence of such hostility on the part of the protege towards his patron still leaves much weight in this objection. Upon the hypothesis, how- ever, which is adopted in the following Letters, namely, that Lord Temple was the author of Junius, this same hostility and subsequent reconciliation become an essen- tial part of the proof Mr Barker justly observes, that ' in order to identify Sir Philip with Junius from the sentiments avowed by each about Lord Chatham, Mr Taylor is required to prove, that Sir Philip ever, at any period of his whole life, sympathized with Junius in per- sonal hatred and political hostility, or even in the smallest degree of personal and political aversion to Lord Chatham; if he cannot produce such a proof, then I maintain, that he ought to abandon his opinion as quite untenable from this consideration alone. 't The argument in favor of Sir Philip Francis, which is founded on the resemblance of his style to that of Ju- nius, loses much of its weight by the fact, that he never * See also Gentleman's Magazine for October, 1828. t Barker's Letters, p. 30, seqq. where the argument is carried oat at large. XXXVl INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. published anything till several years after Junius had ceased to write ; and he therefore had the same oppor- tunity with many other writers of forming his style upon that model. And, even with that advantage, though several resemblances in mere language have been in- dustriously brought together, yet the elevated and sus- tained tone of thinking, which characterises Junius as much as a lofty and steady flight distinguishes the royal bird above all others, is not, in our judgment, to be found in Sir Philip Francis. 10. Mr Glover, the author of Leonidas. This writer is one of the only three, whose claims in the opinion of Mr Butler, ' deserve any consideration ; ' the other two are Burke and Sir Philip Francis. ' To support the pretensions of Mr Glover,' says Mr Butler, ' no evidence is adduced, except that something of the high Whig prin- ciples of Junius is discoverable in the volume which has been published of Glover^s Memoirs ; and, that Glover is known to have lived in an elevated line of society, in which these principles were professed.' But this evi- dence, as Mr. Butler candidly admits, ' amounts to little ; and the style of his " Memoirs" is very unlike that of Junius.' * It is unnecessary to add any thing further on the claims of Mr Glover. 11. William Gerard Hamilton, familiarly known by the appellation of Single-Speech Hamilton. Of him the editor of Woodfall's Junius observes — ' he had neither energy nor personal courage enough for such an under- taking ;' and * solemnly denied ' the authorship ' to Mr Courtney in his last illness, as that gentleman has per- sonally informed the editor;' the truth of which denial, * Butler's Reminiscences, vol. i, p. 100 — 101. INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. XXXVU he adds, ' is moreover corroborated by the testimony of the late Mr Wood fall, who repeatedly declared, that neither of them [Hamilton and Burke] was the writer of these compositions,' * Besides this evidence, Mr Ma- lone, in his preface to Hamilton's Parliamentary Logic, states, that Hamilton made a ' solemn asseveration near the time of his death, that he was not the author of Junius.' He adds the following anecdote, which at once goes to the disclaiming of the authorship, and con- trasts the literary taste of the two writers — 'The figures and allusions of Junius are often of so different a race from those which our author [Hamilton] would have used, that he never spoke of some of them without the ^strongest disapprobation; and particularly, when a friend, for the purpose of drawing him out, affected to think him the writer of these papers, and, bantering him on the subject, taxed him with that passage, in which a nobleman then in a high office, is said to have "travelled through every sign in the political zodiac, from the scorpion, in which he stung Lord Chatham, to the hopes of a virgin,'' &c., as if this imagery were much in his style. Mr Hamilton, with great vehe- mence exclaimed — " had I written such a sentence as that, I should have thought I had forfeited all preten- sions to good taste in composition forever." ' In addition to these facts, it will be al.so recollected, that Hamilton was chancellor of the exchequer in Ire- land from 1TG3 to 17S4, during which period all Ju- nius's Letters appeared ; and that he was also against a parliamentary reform, which with Junius was a favor- ite object. t The anecdote which has contributed to * Woodfall's Junius, vol. i, p. 100—101. t Woodfall's Junius, vol. i, p. 118. XXXVlll INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. fix the authorship on Hamilton — that he told one of his fi-iends the contents of a- letter of Junius before its publication, is sufficiently accounted for, as has been often remarked, by supposing that Woodfall might have read it to him the day before it happened to be printed. 12. Major-general Charles Lee. So much importance had been attached to the claim made in favor of Gen- eral Lee (originating in a statement of Mr T. Rodney, published in the Wilmington Mirror, State of Dela- ware), that the Editor of Woodfall's Junius has made a minute and careful comparison of dates, which con- clusively proves, that it is wholly unsupported. The results were, briefly — that Lee's great distance from England, being on the continent of Europe at that time, and his well known politics, render it impossible that he should have written the letters.* Mr Barker adds — that * General Lee had the requisite ardor of mind and the leisure, but wanted the spirit of industry admitted to have been indispensably necessary for Ju- nius.'! 13. Charles Lloyd. That eminent scholar, the late Dr Parr, in a letter to Charles Butler, Esq., dated April 9, 182:2, says, in his usual emphatic manner, — ' Your account of Junius is very entertaining ; but I tell you, diiid peremptorily tell you, that the real Junius was secretary to George Grenville, of whom you can- not forget, that having ceased to be prime minister, he was so provoked as to attend an angry county meeting in Bucks. The name of Junius was Lloyd. Lord Grenville knows, the late Marquis of Buckingham once dropped three or four significant words ; but I * Woodfall's Junius, vol. i. p. 120. \ Barker's Letters, p. 43. INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. XXXlX will tell you more when we meet in London.'* The same opinion is expressed with equal confidence in another letter from Dr Parr to Mr Butler — ' I, for these forty years, have had the firmest conviction, that Junius was Mr Lloyd, brother of Philip Lloyd, Dean of Norwich, and secretary to George Grenville.'f This learned writer has also noted down the same firm be- lief in the Catalogue of his Library, under the article Junius : ' The writer of Junius was Mr Lloyd, secre- tary to George Grenville, and brother to Philip Lloyd, dean of Norwich. This will one day or other be gen- erally acknowledged. S. P.'t But this long settled and unshaken opinion of Dr Parr is opposed by the strong fact stated by the Editor of Woodfall's Junius — that Lloyd was on his death-bed at the date of Junius's final letter, January 19, 1773 — his death having taken place in three days afterwards, January 22, 1773 ; and yet the letter contains sufficient proof of having been written in the possession of full health and spirits,' &c.§ This single fact is thought, by the editor here cited, to be conclusive evidence against Mr Lloyd's claim. It has, however, been considered as far from being conclusive by several writers ; some of whom have observed, that a man might be well able to write such a letter, as the one last mentioned, even three days before his death ; that the letter itself is * Butler's Reminiscences, vol. ii., p. 241, American edit. Lett. xii. t Butler's Reminiscence, vol. ii, p. 223, Letter ix, without a date. \ Biblioth. Parriana, p. 407. § Woodfall's Junius, vol. i. p. 100 of Prelim. Essay. Xl INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. very short, and therefore proves nothing of intellectual ability.'* Mr Butler is of this opinion ; and he considers it a strong argument in favor of Lloyd, that when he died, Junius ceased to write. t But there are, obvious- ly, many other reasons than natural death for a dis- continuance of the Letters. In the letter now imme- diately under consideration he gives sufficient reasons for suspending his labors, though invited by Woodfall to resume his pen. He says — ' In the present state of things, if I were to write again, I must be as silly as any of the horned cattle that run mad through the city, or as any one of your wise aldermen. I meant the cause and the public. Both are given up. I feel for the honor of this country, when I see that there are not ten men in it who will unite and stand together upon any one question. But it is all alike, vile and contemptible. 't The editor of Heron's Junius also, in commenting upon an expression in the Dedication to the English Nation — ' if Junius lives, you shall often be reminded of it,' i. e. the dangers to which their apathy exposes them — makes the following just re- marks : * We do not know that this promise was ever fulfilled. Yet it is not from this to be inferred, that the author of these letters died immediately after he had collected them. A change of mind, an alteration of circumstances, a thousand causes which we cannot estimate, might intervene, to make Junius drop the pen forever, after he had formed a monument of ge- * Barker's Letters, p. 252. t Butler's Reminiscences, vol. i, p. 252. X Junius's Private Letters to Woodfall, Letter 63, in Wood- fall's Junius, vol. i, p. 255. INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. xH nius and public virtue, which it is not easy to be sup- posed that he could have by any subsequent efforts excelled.' * These views are entirely in accordance with the remarks of the late Editor of Woodfall's Junius, who says — 'In truth it must have been, as he himself states it, insanity, to have persisted any longer in anything like a regular attack ; Lord Camden had declined to act upon his suggestion ; the great pha- lanx of the Whig party was broken up by the death of Mr George Grenville ; the vanity and extreme jealousy of Oliver and Home had introduced the most acrimo- nious divisions into the Society for supporting the Bill of Rights : and the leading patriots of the city had so intermixed their own private interests and their own private squabbles with the public cause, as to render this cause itself contemptible in the eye of the people at large. He had already tried, but in vain, to awaken the different contending parties to a sense of better and more honorable motives ; to induce them to forego their selfish and individual disputes, and to make a common sacrifice of them upon the altar of the consti- tution. Yet, at the same time, so small were his ex- pectations of success, so mean his opinion of the pre- tensions of most of the leading demagogues of the day to a real love of their country, and so grossly had he himself been occasionally misrepresented by them, that, in his confidential intercourse, he bade his correspond- ent beware of entrusting himself to them. ' Nothing,' says he, * can be more express than my declaration against long parliaments ; try Mr Wilkes once more, * Heron's Junius, vol. i, p. xvii, of Dedication, in not©, Xli INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. (who teas in private possession of his sentiments upon this subject) ; speak for me in a most friendly, hnijii'm tone, that I icill not submit to be any longer aspersed. Between ourselves, let me recommend it to you to be much on your guard w'lih patriots J* These are, certainly, good reasons for his ceasing to write ; and, upon the hypothesis that Lord Temple was Junius, they w ill be found to have been the true ones. Besides; this letter of January 19, 1773, was ac- knowledged by Woodfall, in his reply of the 7th March following (in the Public Advertiser of the 8th March) as usual, and his ' signals ' for Junius again thrown out ; which would hardly have been done, if, as many believe, Woodfall knew Junius ; for at the time of this acknowledgment Lloyd had been dead a month and a half.t In that reply, too, Woodfall apologizes (March 7), for not sending the copies of the Letters, which he was to get bound for the author, by informing him that he did not get them out of the binder's hands till the day before, March 6. He must then have sent them, as Mr G. Coventry observes, in his correspondence with Mr Barker, to the place which had been appoint- ed by Junius, and this was not done till six weeks after Lloyd's death. If then, Junius had been dead at that time, the books would probably have remained at the place, to which they were sent (the Coffee-House), and might have led to a discovery of the author at that period, 13. John Roberts. It is sufficient to state here, as in the case of Mr Dyer, the simple fact, that Roberts * Woodfall's Junivis, Preliminary Essay, vol. i, p. 55. t Woodfall, Junius, vol. i, 256, note. INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. xliii died July 13, 1772, and that Junius continued to write six months after that time. 14. The Rev. Philip Rosenhagen. His pretensions, says the Editor of Woodfall's Junius, are hardly worth noticing. He was ' a school-fellow of Mr H. S. Wood- fall, continued on terms of acquaintance with him in subsequent life, and occasionally wrote for the Public Advertiser, but was repeatedly declared by Mr Wood- fall — who must have a competent evidence of the fact — not to be the author' * To this may be added, that ' he was of foreign origin, and could not have those English feelings in matters of politics which so forcibly speak in every line ' of Junius. t 15. Lord George Sackville, or Lord George Ger- main. The claims, which have been often made on be- half of this celebrated man, have lately become a sub- ject of greater interest than ever to American readers, in consequence of an ingeniously written publication from the pen of an American, in a little volume enti- tled, with some confidence, as we think, ' Junius Un- masked, or Lord George Sackville proved to be Junius^ ' printed at Boston, 1828, but dated, in the preface, ' B ,' which we presume is intended for some other place than Boston. This volume was called forth by that of Mr Coventry, which was published in London (1825) in favor of Lord Sackville's authorship — a point, which the American writer thinks Mr Coventry ' has proved beyond any reasonable doubt.' This learn- ed writer, however, adds to Mr Coventry's evidence in the case ' a class of proofs yet stronger and more irresistible, which he [Mr Coventry] has in a great * Woodfall's Junius, vol. i, p. 121. t Heron's Junius, vol. i, p. C8. Xliv INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. measure, overlooked — I mean, the internal proofs de- rived from habits of thought and peculiarities of style.' * So decisive does this writer consider the whole evi- dence to be, and so confident does he feel in the results of his examination, that he hopes ' it will not be thought that there is anything unbecoming or presumptuous ' in the title of his book — * Sackville proved to be Ju- nius.' ' 1 am satisfied,' says he, ' the proof is made out ; and I flatter myself others will be satisfied.' He afterwards adds — ' If the authorship of Junius be es- tablished, it may prevent, for the future, much idle speculation on the subject.' t How differently does the same evidence strike differ- ent minds ; and how little hope is there, especially in this inquisitive nation of ours, that we shall repress what this respectable writer calls ' idle ' speculation ! Since the publication of his ingenious work in 1828, our own press, to say nothing of the English, has al- ready issued two large books, and the present volume makes the third, all denying the claim.s of his candi- date. Lord Sackville, and each ascribing Junius to a different author. Justly may he exclaim with the des- pairing ancient — O frustra siisccpti mei lahorcs ! O spes fallaccs ! O cogitationes inanes mecs ! The strong opinion, above quoted, of a writer who appears to have given more attention than the mass of readers to this controversy, and who shows himself to have a just perception of the force of English style, de- mands something more than the passing notice, with which he dismisses the claims of every other candidate than his own — when he says — ' I think it imnecessa- * Junius Unmasked, preface, p. ii. t Ibid, p. V. INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. XlV ry to beat down the slight pretensions set up in favor of almost all these claimants.' * How many and who of the other claimants this writer considers to have but ' slight pretensions/ does not distinctly appear ; but we should ourselves agree to his remark so far as this, that their pretensions will now, as we believe, prove to have been unfounded, however ingeniously they may have heretofore been supported. The arguments brought together by this writer in favor of Lord Sackville are — 1. That he was more suspected than any other person at the time when Ju- nius appeared — 2. That he had the requisite talents and learning — 3. That he had ' those strong motives, which only can account for the letters of Junius ' — 4. That the author of Junius had been a soldier, as Sackville had been — 5. That he had the friendships and animosities which are indicated in Junius's Let- ters — 6. That Junius, as 'can hardly be doubted,* was a member of the House of Commons, as was Sackville — 7. That ' Lord Sackville held the political sentiments expressed by Junius — 8. That Junius was not an Irishman, yet had lived in Ireland — 9. That he was not a lawyer, but a man of rank and independ- ent fortune — 10. That one of the letters of Junius had upon it the words ' Pall-Mall,' near the signature, and that Lord Sackville resided in that part of London — IL The inquiry made by that ' fool,' Swinney, of Lord Sackville, to know if he was the author of Junius, only a day or two before it was mentioned to Woodfall by Junius — 12. The deep anxiety of Junius to remain concealed — 13. The anecdote related by Cumberland, * Junius Unmasked, pp. 9, 10. e Xlvi INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. that Lord Sackville, just before his death, mentioned ' in jest,' that he was among the suspected authors, and his lordship did not make a formal denial of the truth of that suspicion — 14. Lord Sackville's last interview with Lord Mansfield, in which he earnestly asked forgive- ness, if he had ever been unjust to his great merits, or forgetful of his many favors, &.c. The greater part of the reasons adduced by this writer, in support of Lord Sackville's authorship, are alike applicable, though perhaps not to the same ex- tent in every instance, to many other leading men of that period ; and a very satisfactory answer to the most important of them is given by a correspondent of Mr Barker's; whom that gentleman characterizes as an ' in- telligent friend to whom he owes many literary obliga- tions.' That correspondent observes — ' The cause as- signed [page 104 of Butler's Reminiscences] for Lord George Sackville's enmity to the King and Lord Mans- field is evidently erroneous ; for his lordship's trial and disgrace on account of the battle of Minden took place in the reign of George II. His lordship's animosity, in- deed, towards the Marquis of Granby might well be accounted for by what happened at Minden. But neither his late Majesty nor Lord Mansfield, it is be- lieved, had any concern in the prosecution ; besides, why should Lord George have stifled his resentment for nine or ten years ? Numerous occasions had offer- ed, long before Junius's Letters were written, for at- tacking the Sovereign and the Chief Justice. It ap- pears, however, by Junius's early letters under various signatures, that his opposition to government arose from the dismissal of the Grenville administration, and the re- peal of the American Stamp Act. What evidence have we INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. xlvii that Lord George Sackville teas attached to the Gren- villes? Another objection to the claims of Lord George arises from his early life and habits, which were military ; whereas Junius professed profound constitutional knowledge.'* This reasoning, founded on general and comprehen- sive views, deserves attention ; and it is not outweighed by various little circumstances, which, apparently in conflict with it, are thrown together into the opposite scale of evidence. To the arguments adduced in this discussion, we should apply the old and sound maxim — that we must be governed, not by their number, but by their weight — ponderantur, non numerantur. We may add one or two further considerations to those urged by the writer just quoted. Junius was at first extremely hostile to Lord Chatham ; but was after- wards reconciled to him. Now it does not appear that Lord Sackville's opinions of that distinguished man ever underwent such an entire change. This change, however, did take place in Lord Temple's feelings, as will appear throughout the present letters ; and it exactly coincided, in time, with the open quarrel be- tween him and Lord Chatham. We think, too, that the writer above quoted, by Mr Barker, concedes more than the facts required in respect to the actual hostility of Junius to Lord Granby. It is abundantly evident, that there was no personal animosity against him on the part of Junius ; on the contrary, Junius says, he ' lamented his death,' and * never spoke of him with resentment. 't Junius's vengeance was di- rected against the party which included Lord Granby's * Barker's Letters, Pref. p. xxiv. \ Junius, Letter vii, note at the end. xlviii INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. friends and coadjutors, rather than against the noble lord himself. If style and manner were not mere matters of taste, about which there is no disputing, we should further express our settled opinion, that there is no less weight in the argument founded on the supposed difference of style, in the Letters of Junius, and the known writings of Lord Sackville ; for, as is observed by the Editor of Woodfall's Junius, ' if we examine into his Lordship's style, we shall meet with facts not much less hostile ' to the claim. ' Of his own composition he thus speaks in a letter published shortly after his return from Germany, drawn up in justification of his conduct at the battle of Minden : " I had rather upon this oc- casion submit myself to all the inconveniences that may arise from the want of style, than borrow assist- ance from the pen of others, as I have no hopes of es- tablishing my character but from the force of truth." ' * And, in proof that he had not spoken ' with an undue degree of self-modesty,' the editor has subjoined a let- ter of his Lordship which abundantly supports that opinion. t * Woodfall's Junius, vol. i, p. 161. t We insert this letter, as published in Woodfall's Junius at the end of the Preliminary Essay : ' Minden, Aug. 2, 1759. * Dear Sir, — The orders of yesterday, you may believe, affect me very sensibly. His Serene Highness has been pleased to judge, condemn, and censure me, without hearing me, in the most cruel and unprecedented manner ; as he never asked me a single question in explanation of anything he might disapprove ; and as he must have formed his opinion upon the report of others, it was still harder he would not give me an opportunity of first speaking to him upon the subject ; but you know, even in more trifling matters, that hard blows are some- INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. xHx In further corroboration of this, it is certainly a strik- ing fact, that Lord Sackville's defence before the court martial was, as Mr Cumberland states, written for him by Dr Shebbeare. Could the lofty spirit of Junius, we may ask, stoop to * borrow assistance' from the pen of Dr Shebbeare ? Another circumstance, which has been often men- tioned in this controversy, appears to us to have more times unexpectedly given. If any body has a right to say that I hesitated in obeying orders, it is you. I will relate what I know of that, and then appeal to you for the truth of it. * When you brought me orders to advance with the British cavalry, T was near the village of Halen, I think it is called, I mean that place, which the Saxons burnt. I was there advanc- ed by M. Malhorte's order, and no further, when you came to me. Ligonier followed almost instantly ; he said, the whole cavalry was to advance. I was puzzled what to do, and begged the favor of you to carry me to the Duke, that I might ask an explanation of his orders. But that no time might be lost, I sent Smith with orders to bring on the British cavalry, as they had a wood before they could advance as you directed ; and I reckoned, by the time T had seen his Serene Highness,! should find them forming beyond the wood. — This proceeding of mine might possibly be wrong; but I am sure the service could not suffer, as no delay was occasioned by it. — The Duke then ordered me to leave some squadrons upon the right, which I did, and to advance the rest to support the infantry. This I declare I did, as fast as I imagined it was right in caval- ry to march in line. — I once halted by Lord Granby to com- plete my forming the whole. U pon his advancing the left before the right 1 again sent to him to stop : — He said, as the Prince had ordered to advance, he thought we should move forward. — I then let him proceed at the rate he liked, and kept my right »p with him as regularly as I could, till we got to the rear of tlie infantry and our batteries. — We both halted together, and afterwards received no order, till that which was brought by Col. Web and the Duke of Richmond, to extend in one line to INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. weight than some writers have been willing to allow to it ; we mean the well-known and fine-edged sarcasm on the courage of Lord Sackville — ' I believe (says Ju- nius), the best thing I can do will be to consult with my Lord George Sackville. His character is known and respected in Ireland as much as it is here ; and I know he loves to be stationed in the rear, as well as myself — a remark which no officer would be likely to make of himself, after he had been publicly pointed the morass. — It was accordingly executed ; and then, instead of finding the enemy's cavalry to charge, as I expected, the battle was declared to be gained, and we were told to dismount our men. ' This, I protest, is all I know of the matter, and I was never so surprised, as when I heard the Prince was dissatisfied that the cavalry did not move sooner up to the infantry. — It is not my business to ask, what the disposition originally was, or to find fault with anything. — All I insist upon is, that I obeyed the orders I received, as punctually as I was able ; and if it was to do over again, I do not think I would have executed them ten minutes sooner than I did, now I know the ground, and what was expected ; but, indeed, we were above an hour too late, if it was the Duke's intention to have made the caval- ry pass before our infantry and artillery, and charge the ene- my's line. — I cannot think that was his meaning, as all the or- ders ran to sustain our infantrj'^ : — and it appears, that both Lord Granby and I understood we were at our posts, by our halting, when we got to the rear of our foot. ' I hope I have stated impartially the part of this transaction that comes within your knowledge. — If I have, I must beg you would declare it, so as I may make use of it in your ab- sence : for it is impossible to sit silent under such repioach, when I am conscious of having done the best that wr: ^ n my power. — For God's sake, let me see you, before yo. o to England, ' I am, my dear Sir, ' Your faithful humble servant, ' Gkorge Sat, i.' INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. H at, and formally convicted by a Court Martial, as a coward.* In attaching so much weight to this circumstance, we are aware that we differ in some degree from a very high authority — we mean Mr Butler, who observes, that this anecdote may be thought a strong, but it evi- dently is not a decisive argument ; particularly if we suppose, what certainly is not impossible, that Lord George had upon this subject all the pride of conscious innocence.' t This learned writer adds — ' it must also be observed, that it is by conjecture only that the jeu d'esprit, in which this expression is found, is im- puted to Junius.' In reply to these remarks of this learned author, we think it may be fairly urged, that although a soldier who felt the consciousness of innocence, might, if ne- cessary in a serious discussion, allude to a circum- stance which all his readers would look upon as dis- graceful, yet it would not be natural for him to make it the subject of a jest in any case. And, as to the authenticity of the anecdote, it is to be observed, that Mr Woodfall has published it upon the same authority with the Blisccllaneous and other Letters, included in his edition of Junius ; and if we repudiate the one, we cannot acknowledge the other.J Mr Butler, however, adds a reflection of a more gen- eral nature, which deserves attention — * To the Re- n]iniscent,' says he, ' it appears more difficult to recon- cile liQrd George's authorship of Junius with that * " ^5Hett's History of England, vol. v, p. 275, chap. 13, sectior " and Trial of Lord George Sackville. t ' v's Reminiscences, vol.i, p. 91. X \Vi- ill's Junius, vol. i, p. 37. note. ■ij.., lYir:;,' Hi INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. writer's advances to Mr Wilkes, or his intromission of himself into city politics, or the importance which he appears to have attached to them. The high aristoc- racy of the Whigs was, at that time, just beginning to thaw ; but the Reminiscent recollects, that Lord George was considered to be eminently aristocratic ; it is diffi- cult to think he would have run, as Junius did, into the city, or considered it to be of the importance which Junius thought it, that one man or another should be the lord mayor.' * As a circumstance of some weight, though certainly not decisive, it may be farther added, that Lord George Sackville did, by implication, substantially deny the authorship ; observing to a friend — * I should be proud to be capable of writing as Junius has done ; but there are many passages in his letters I should have been sorry to have written.' t It is true, as Dr Good ob- serves, that such a declaration is too general * to be in any way conclusive.' But it may be replied, that it is corroborated in some degree by the anecdote before alluded to, which is related of Lord Sackville [Ger- main], by Mr Cumberland, who was his secretary, and who says — *I never heard, that my friend. Lord George Germain, was amongst the supposed authors, till, by loay of jest, he told me so not many days before his death. I did not want him to disavow it, for there could be no occasion to disprove an absolute impossi- bility. The man who wrote it had a savage heart; for some of his attacks are execrable ; he was a hypocrite, for he disavows private motives, and makes pretension! to a patriotic spirit.' * Butler's Reminiscences, vol. i, p. 91. \ Wocdlall's Junius, vol. i, p. 161, citing Chalmer'a Appen- dix, p. 7. INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. Hu The conclusion of our American advocate of Lord Sackville's claims, that Junius had been a soldier, can- not be drawn with certainty from his occasional use of military phrases and illustrations. This argument, it will be perceived, belongs to the class of those which are said by logicians to prove too much. An indus- trious correspondent of Mr Barker's has made a collec- tion of the chief images and illustrations in the Letters of Junius, from which statement, however singular it may appear, we should have stronger reason for infer- ring that Junius had been a physician than a soldier. He informs us, that of those images and illustrations there are, from the military art, seven ; from the medical science, tioelve; from the terms of commerce, six, &lc. After a careful, and, we believe, an impartial review of all the circumstances urged in support of the claim of Lord SackviJle, some of which will be more parti- cularly adverted to hereafter, we have found it impossi- ble to bring our mind to the conclusion, that he was the author of Junius's Letters ; and we have felt no little surprise, that the editor of Woodfall's Junius should attach so much weight to the facts urged in sup- port of the claim, as to consider the evidence ' to be somewhat indecisive even to the present hour [1814].' * 16. John Home Tooke, known in the Correspond- ence of Junius, as the Rev. John Home. This extra- ordinary man was named many years ago among the suspected authors of Junius's Letters ; t and this opin- ion has been lately again brought forward and support- ed with ability in an elaborate volume of more than * Preliminary Essay, vol. i, p. 160. t See the Monthly Review, for 1789, vol. Ixxxi, p. 465, and other English periodicals, &c. liv INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. four hundred pages, octavo, published at New York, in July, 1829, under the title of ' The Posthumous Works of Junius,' and dedicated by the author, ' J. F.' (who, in conformity with the plan of his volume, styles him- self * The Compiler ' ) to Sir Francis Burdett. The author of that volume observes — ' In regard to the mysterious and long-sought author of Junius, the compiler of this work, like many before him, is confi- dent that he has fixed upon the right man.' * We are, however, obliged to say, that after an attentive consid- eration of his arguments, we find several difficulties which do not admit of solution upon this hypothesis. But it is not our intention here to go into a critical ex- amination of it ; as the grounds of argument against it are for the most part, such as would be an anticipation of much that is contained in the following letters in xelation to the claims of Lord Temple. A few general remarks, however, may be properly submitted to the reader in this place. 1. It seems to us impossible, that an individual situ- ated both politically and personally, as Mr Tooke was, at that period, could have had the means of knowing so promptly and accurately, as Junius did, the intended measures of the British cabinet, from time to time. 2. We do not perceive any adequate cause assigned, why the opinions and feelings of Mr Tooke in regard to Lord Chatham should have undergone that entire change which those of Junius did. 3. The decla- ration of the present Lord Grenville, quoted by the author, p. 4'2l, that ' he (Junius) is not any of the per- sons suspected,' is at variance with the supposition of Mr Tooke's authorship ; for Mr Tooke had been too * Preface, p. i. INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. Iv often spoken of, as the writer of Junius, to have been overlooked by Lord Grenville on the occasion when his remark was made. 4. The age of Mr Tooke, as stated by the * Posthumous Works,' is irreconcilable with the the supposition ; for, it is assumed, and upon solid grounds, by all the writers on this question, that Ju-- nius must have been a man of fifty years old at least, at the date of his first letter, January 21, 1769; which would have made him ninetythree years of age in 1812, the time of Mr Tooke's death ; but Mr Tooke was only in his seventy seventh year when he died. If we go back to the still earlier period when Junius wrote under other signatures, it will be found that Mr Tooke was only thirtyone years old ; an age, at which his studies and habits of life were wholly inconsistent with the attainment of that extensive and solid political knowl- edge and experience, which Junius indisputably pos- sessed. 5. This hypothesis also renders it necessary, that the angry letters which passed between Junius and Mr Tooke, and the sarcasms thrown out by the former against the latter, on various occasions, were all a mere stratagem, to mislead the public in respect to the author. This supposition, we confess, appears to us violent, and not in keeping with the rest of the transaction. It has, we know, been also resorted to, by writers, who adopt the hy- pothesis of Lord Chatham's authorship ; and, it is obvious- ly impossible to maintain such an hypothesis in either of these cases, without making that assumption. Now, after making all just allowances for the petty stratagems which would be natural in secret warfare, we confess, that we cannot treat the severe collisions between Junius and those two aide adversaries, as mere artifices, played off before the public, tlic better to conceal the authors. Ivi INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. Independently of the circumstances in which Lord Chatham and Mr Tooke were placed, we have ever thought, from the letters alone, that the attacks of Junius upon those two conspicuous characters, resem- bled more the unconcealed hostility of a real enemy than war in disguise. This advocate of Mr Tooke's claim has a strong suspicion, that Dr Good, and Mr G. Wood fall (son of the original publisher), were in possesion of the name of the author ; in which he may very possibly be right ; we have sometimes entertained the same suspicion. But when this respectable writer goes so far as to infer, first, that Woodfall's use of the term ' Political Works ' of Junius, evidently implies, that he had written other works, and then in the next place, that those other works were, no doubt, the ' Epea Pteroenta' of Tooke, we are not able to follow him to his conclusion.* That Mr Tooke kneiv who Junius was, as he is said to have stated to Dr Graham and Mr Stephens, and that he considered Junius to be his ' best friend,' may be true.t But, with our author, we hesitate to infer from this 'equivocal' declaration, that Mr Tooke meant himself by that expression. 17. Walpole, Horace. This celebrated man has been considered by some writers to have claims to the authorship of Junius. But they have never been urged in such a manner, as to require particular notice on the present occasion. Mr George Coventry, in a letter to Mr Barker, dated March 11, 18:27, makes the follow- ing statement on the subject : ' As Woodfall, in his last edition, does not mention Horace Walpole, and at *The Posthumous Works of Junius, p. 17, 18. f Ibid, 290. INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. Ivii the time my manuscript was going to press, an able Essay arrived from Sir C. Grey in India, in favor of Walpole's claims, I considered myself bound to refute them, which I have satisfactorily done. This so con- vinced the Marquis of Lansdowne and others who had charge of the MS., that they abandoned the pub- lication.' 18. WilJirs, John. This extraordinary individual was very early suspected of having written the Letters of Junius. We have observed that suspicions of this kind were noticed in English journals, as long ago as the year 1774,* and doubtless existed before that time. But, besides the evidence of circumstances to the contrary, Mr Butler, who was on the nrost intimate terms with him, makes the following statement : * Far from giving the least hint that he [Wilkes] was the author of Ju- nius's Letters, he always explicitly disclaimed it, and treated it as a ridiculous supposition. No one, ac- quainted with his style, can suspect for a moment, that he was the author of them ; the merit of his style was simplicity; he had both gaiety and strength, but to the rancorous sarcasm, the lofty contempt Vvith which Ju- nius's Letters abound, no one uas a greater stranger than Mr Wilkes. To this may be added, the very slighting manner in which Junius expresses himself of Mr Wilkes. I am willing to admit, that if Mr Wilkes had v/ritten Junius's Letters, he would have treated Mr Wilkes uncivilly for the sake of disguising himself But sneer, and particularly that kind of sneer, which Mr Wilkes occasionally receives from Junius, you may be assured Mr W^ilkes would never * See Monthly Review, vol. xlii, p. G-5. / Iviii INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. have used in speaking of himself.' Mr Butler further states, that his conversations with Mr Wilkes on this subject took place between the years 1776 and 1784 ; and that one of their amusements was an attempt to discover the author of Junius's Letters. With this view, he observes, ' they considered them with great attention, examined many of the originals, collected and sifted all the anecdotes which they could learn, and weighed all the opinions and conjectures which they could hear of.'* He adds, that Mr Wilkes received many letters from Junius, which were never published ; one in particular on the subject of improving the representation of the people. Their opinions toere different. I remember Junius's letter began by saying — he was * treated as a pagan idol, with much incense, but with no attention to his oracles.' Dr Good also is clearly of opinion that Mr Wilkes was not Junius ; which, he says, must be apparent to every one who will merely give a glance at either the public or private letters. Wilkes could not have abused himself in the manner he is occasionally abus- ed in the former ; nor would he have said in the latter (since there was no necessity for his so saying) — ' T have been out of town for three weeks ' — at a time when he was closely confined in the King's Bench. The private letter here alluded to is dated Nov. 8, 17G9 ; Wilkes entered the King's Bench prison April 27, 1768, and was liberated April 18, 1770.'t Mr Wilkes and Mr Butler thought Junius's ' high wrought panegyric of Lord Chatham was ironical.' But * Butler's Reminiscences, vol. i, pp. 67, 68, American edition. t Woodfall's Junius, Preliminary Essay, vol.i, p. 133. INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. Hx upon the hypothesis maintamed in the following letters — that Lord Temple was Junius — this is satisfactorily and naturally accounted for, by the history of the difference and subsequent reconciliation between that noble lord and Lord Chatham, who was his brothei-in-law. With a view to this hypothesis, also, the relation in which Lord Temple and Mr Wilkes stood to each other demands a brief consideration. It is observed in the passage above quoted from Dr Good, that Wilkes could not have abused himself in the manner he is occasionally abused by Junius ; and Mr Butler, as we have seen, though he admits that Wilkes, Junius, might have treated himself uncivilly in order to keep up the disguise, yet thinks, that he would not have used the peculiar sneer at himself which he receives from Junius. Mr G. Coventry also, in a letter of March 11, 1827, quoted by Mr Barker, assumes it to be a fact * well known, that no two persons could live on more hostile terms than Mr Wilkes and Lord Temple.' * This last statement, we confess, has much surprised us. That Lord Temple might have some objection to ap- pearing constantly before the public as the particular friend of Mr Wilkes, through the whole of his extraor- dinary career, we can conceive. But if the statement just quoted means, that they were not, generally speak- ing, on terms of friendly intimacy, it is contradicted by their whole private history. Mr Wilkes was a near neighbor of Lord Temple, in the country, and they appear to have had a good deal of intercourse with each other. Mr Wilkes constantly speaks of Lord Temple as his friend ; and it is familiar to every reader of Eng- lish history, that Lord Temple acted the part of a firm friend towards him on various occasions ; as, particular- * Barker's Letters, p. 2-51. Ix INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. ly, in the case of Wilkes's arrest and commitment to the Tower for publishing the celebrated Number Forty Five of the North Briton. Immediately upon his com- mitment, Lord Temple called to see him, but was re- fused admittance. Lord Temple himself went to the Court of Common Pleas, in order to obtain the writ of habeas corpus, under which Wilkes was finally discharg- ed — and, when he was directed to dismiss Mr Wilkes from his command as colonel of the militia of Bucking- hamshire, he expressed so much interest for him, in the letter of dismissal, that he was himself immediately removed from his office of Lord Lieutenant of the county. It was with the aid of Lord Temple's talents and money also, that Mr Wilkes defended himself a- gainst all the power and influence of the members of the administration, and was enabled to institute and successfully terminate the prosecutions against the Sec- retaries of State and the under officers of government. Now, after making all just allowcinces for motives of a public nature, we cannot doubt tliat leelings of personal regard also entered into the motives of Lord Temple. The same feelings towards Mr Wilkes are expressed by Junius. When about publishing an edition of his Letters, he requests Woodfall, in a manner which indi- cates that he had some friendly claims on Mr Wilkes, to ' shew the Dedication and Preface to Mr Wilkes ; ' and adds, ' if he has any material objection, let me know.' * And in a letter to Wilkes, dated September 7, 1771, he says, with emphasis, and probably in allu- sion to the transactions abovementioned as well as others — ' I have served Mr Wilkes, and am still capa- ble of serving him.' f ** Private Letter to Woodfall, No. 40. t Private Letters, No. C6, near the close. INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. Ixi On the subject of Wilkes's election, we subjoin a curious anecdote, for which we are indebted to an ob- liging friend, and which shews the strong interest taken in his success by Lord Temple, * The expulsion of John Wilkes from the House of Commons, in 1769, was brought forward purely to gratify the resentment of the interior cabinet against that gentleman. John Wilkes had no virtues that en- titled him to the esteem of his country, but he was a persecuted man. The generous character of English- men led them to partake with a man persecuted by power ; he became popular because the court had op- pressed him. It may not be improper to mention here, a little anecdote, which I received from the late Mr Sergeant Glynn, the confidential friend and law adviser of John Wilkes. Earl Temple had furnished Mr Wilkes with a qualification to enable him to stand for Middlesex ; but Mr Wilk*es was at that time under a sentence of outlawry for a misdemeanor, viz. for a libel published in the North Briton, No. 45. It was a mat- ter of uncertainty whether this judgment of outlawry could be reversed by a writ of error ; and, if the judg- ment of outlawry were not reversed, the freehold estate of .£600 a year, which Earl Temple had granted to Mr Wilkes for his life, would have been forfeited. Earl Temple would not expose himself to this risk ; it was therefore arranged, that if Mr Wilkes should be called on at the poll, to produce his qualification, he should immediately decline the poll ; but Mr Wilkes was not called on. I mention this anecdote, to show, how of- ten important events depend on little circumstances. If Mr Wilkes had not been elected for Middlesex, his ex- pulsion, and all the consequent questions, could never Ixii INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. have taken place. But the most important consequence resuking from this persecution was, that it appeared that there was no measure so humilitating to those who supported it, but that a majority of the House of Com- mons might be brought to vote for it. It was seen that this House of Commons, elected under the auspi- ces of the Duke of Grafton, in 1768, was perfectly well suited to adopt every measure proposed by the interior Cabinet.' * We have dwelt the longer upon the relation subsist- ing between Lord Temple and Mr Wilkes, because a correct view of it, is of some importance in respect to the question discussed in the following Letters, and be- cause we think erroneous opinions have been adopted by some writers on this subject. The personal char- acter of Mr Wilkes, with all its faults — which cer- tainly cast a shade over his life — was such as brought him into the immediate society of the distinguished men, whose eminent talents and influence made them the leaders of the liberal or whig party of that period. He was himself a man of no ordinary talents. Mr But- ler who knew him intimately, characterises him, pos- sibly with some degree of partiality, as * a delightful and instructive companion, but too often offensive by his freedom of speech when religion or the sex was mentioned.' He adds, that his acquaintance with Mr Wilkes ' did not begin till his political turmoils were at an end. In his manners and habits he was an elegant epicurean, yet it was evident to all his inti- mates, that he feared * Manes aliquos et subterranea regna. Juvenal. * Recollections and Reflections on Personal and Political Affairs during the Reign of George III. By Jolin Nichols, Esq. p. 30, Amen'iin Ef*ition. 1622. INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. Ixiil In his real politics he was an aristocrat, and would much rather have been a favored courtier at Versailles than the most commanding orator in St Stephen's chapel. His distresses threw him into politics ; he as- sumed the character of a staunch Whig ; and all must admit his consistency .... Mr Wilkes abounded in anecdote ; wit was so constantly at his command, that wagers have been gained, that from the time he quitted his home near Story's Gate, till he reached Guildhall, no one would address him, who would leave him with- out a smile or a hearty laugh. Nothwithstanding their feuds, Lord Sandwich and he were partial to each other. On one occasion, the Reminiscent not having been punctual to an engagement which Lord Sandwich had made for him, it was (not good-naturedly) mentioned to his lordship, that the delinquent had dined with Mr Wilkes. * Well then,' said Lord Sandwich, ' Wilkes has so often made me break appointments with others, that it is but fair he should once make a person break his appointment with me.' * Mr Wilkes's parliamentary patron was Lord Temple, by whose influence he was chosen representative for Aylesbury in Buckinghamshire ; and he was in hopes, through the interest of his patron, to have obtained some place under government, which his embarrassed circumstances rendered highly desirable. But he was always disappointed in this, and used to ascribe his fail- ure to Lord Bute. He connected himself as a political wri- ter with Lord Temple, in 1762, defending him and Mr Pitt, and attacking the ministry. In the same year ho commenced the famous periodical work called the North Briton, in which he was assisted by Lord Tem- * Butler's Reminiscences, vol. i, p. C3-C6, Amer. edition. Ixiv INTRODUCTORY ESSAY, pie and Charles Churchill. This journal was estab- lished in order to counteract The Briton, which Sraol- let conducted in defence of Lord Bute's administration ; and the North Briton, it is supposed, contributed to drive Lord Bute to a resignation in 1763. The con- sequences of his prosecution for publishing the 45th No. of that work are well known, and have been already mentioned. The result was a complete triumph on the part of Wilkes against the whole strength of the gov- ernment ; by which he was emboldened, in defiance of the advice of his friends, to set up a press in his own house, and to reprint the North Briton. On a second persecution, he withdrew to France, and incurred the penalty of outlawry ; but this outlawry was afterwards reversed, as illegal. He was immediately elected mem- ber for Middlesex; and was again punished by fine and imprisonment for publishing two libels. In 1769, he was expelled from the House of Commons : he was immediately re-elected, but declared incapable of a seat during that parliament. He was now, as his biogra- phers relate, the martyr of liberty, and large sums of money were collected to pay his debts. He was again re-elected, and again refused a seat ; Colonel Luttrell, the Court candidate, whose votes were but about the fourth part of Mr Wilkes's, being declared to be elect- ed. But on the accession of the Rockingham admin- istration, he prevailed in a motion for rescinding the decision of the House of Commons, which gave Lut- trel his seat. This admission of Luttrell as a member, to the exclusion of Wilkes, caused loud complaints through the country, and only aided the popularity of the latter. He was successively chosen an alderman of London, sheriff of London and Middlesex, and lord INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. IXT mayor of London ; and finally in 1776, was re-elected member of parliament for Middlesex, and permitted to take his seat without opposition. At length, after hav- ing passed the active years of his life in the most stormy scenes of a most tumultuous period of British politics, and having been the means — whatever may have been his motives — of securing some permanent advantages to the cause of public and private liberty, his latter years passed off quietly and without much notice ; and, to use his own expression, of unrivalled felicity, he was ' an extinguished volcano.' These views of Mr Wilkes's character and his con- nexion with Lord Temple, lead us to add a few ob- servations in this place, more immediately relating to the latter ; whose claims to the authorship of Junius's Let- ters are the subject of the present work. As we do not wish to anticipate anything which the reader will find in the following pages, our remarks will be confin- ed, as far as possible, to certain points which require additional explanation. The character and talents of Lord Temple have probably been less conspicuous in the common histories which we have of English affairs — and most readers, even those who read for useful instruction, content themselves with those meagre and unsatisfactory works — in consequence of his having been called upon to act in public jointly with his brother-in-law, Mr Pitt, afterwards Lord Chatham, whose overwhelming talents threw all his friends as well as adversaries into the shade. That Lord Temple, however, was one of those, whose intellectual endowments entitle them to the rank of leading men, is undeniable. If the natural force of his talents was resisted and prevented from Ixvi INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. being felt in the public councils, it was owing to the influence of those secret causes, against which mere intellectual power cannot of itself prevail — those causes, to which even the lofty mind of Lord Chatham was compelled to yield. Of Lord Temple's ability, however, there is the fullest evidence, both in the express decla- rations of Lord Chatham himself, and in the public measures in which Lord Temple's opinions had an in- fluence. We believe it will be found, as some of his friends have affirmed, that no small part of the fame w^hich Lord Chatham obtained by his foreign wars, was owing to the able plans and counsels of Lord Temple, then in the War Department. Lord Chatham accord- ingly placed the greatest reliance upon him ; and when the open diiference took place between them, in the year 1766 — which is particularly mentioned in the first part of the present Letters — Lord Chatham never ceased to lament the want of a friend, whom he after- wards publicly pronounced to be one of the greatest men that England had produced. He appears, however, to have had some traits of character, which too frequent- ly prevent superior talents from having their full influ- ence, both in public and private life. He is described by one of the biographers of Lord Chatham, as ' the blunt, the honest and artless Earl Temple ; ' * and an- other writer, Mr Almon, who was a confidential friend of his, says of him — 'the natural disposition of this noble Lord was the most amiable that can be conceived, to his friends ; but when offended, his disapprobation was warm and conspicuous ; his language flowed spon- *The History of the Life of William Pitt, Earl of Chatham, Dublin, 1783, INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. Ixvii taneously from his feelings ; his heart and voice always corresponded.'* For these reasons, as well as his being an efficient member of the Pitt or whig party, Lord Temple was a man who would not be in much request with the persons who composed the court party of his day. And even before the close of George the Second's reign, it appears by that curious and instructive book, the Diary of George Bubb Dodington (Lord Melcombe), that a settled plan was adopted for getting rid of him. As this work is not very common, we give a few extracts from it. ' 1749, Oct. 15 — At Leicester House. The Gren- villes presented for the title of Temple. ' 1752, Nov. 27 — King's Birth Day kept. Lord Hills- borough began a conversation with me. He thought there must be some disturbance arise from the Pitt par- ty ; that, though they were so well pleased, they were still uneasy ; that they neither liked others nor were lik- ed by them. I said I could not conceive that they would stir. He said, yes; for that Pitt's passion was ambition, not avarice — that he was at a full stop, as things were, and could have no hopes of going farther. He was once popular; and, if he could again make a disturbance, and get the country on his side, he then might have hopes; now, on the present system, he could have none. I replied, I thought they could not part with what they had, &c. &c. He said they had the Temple pocket — that, to his knowledge, they were all as one and would stand or fall with Pitt as their head. Lord Hillsborough wondered they did not break out; he daily expected it. * Almon's Anecdotes nf Lord Chatham, vol. ii. p. 29. Ixviii INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. ' 1755, Nov. 20 — Messrs Pitt, Legge, and George Grenville received letters of dismission, and James Grenville resigned the Board of Trade. ' 1757, Feb. 18 — A motion for <£ 200,000, for an army of observation in Germany, agreed to without debate or division. Mr Tucker had agreed with Mr George Grenville to be paymaster of the Marines, and for George Grenville to be chosen in his place. The king sent to Fox, to know if he could 'prevent it, and if he thought I would interpose : Mr Fox said, he supposed, his Ma- jesty commanded me, I would. The king ordered Fox to speak to me — he did, and I stopt it. This is the Jirst step toivards turning out Lord Temple. '1757, March 7 — The Duke of Newcastle, who had resigned, would not move ; the king grew impatient to get rid of the ministry which he had imposed upon him- self, and threw himself upon Fox to form a new admin- istration. We agreed to begin ivith dismissing Lord Temple; I proposed Lord Hallifax for the Admiralty, the king consented to it, and I was to negotiate the af- fair with him.'* We cannot doubt, therefore, that Lord Temple had the talents, as he certainly had the motives, for writing Junius; all which will be more fully shown in the present work. It is true, that both intellectual power and motives also may be found in others; as, for exam- ple in Lord Chatham. Yet independently of the numer- ous facts wholly inconsistent with his being the author * Diary of the late George Bubb Dodington. Baron of Mel- combe Regis, from Marcli 8, 1749 to February 6, 1761 — 3d edit. London, 1785. Mr Butler, in his Reminiscences, characterises this record of political corruption as — ' the lamentable revela- tions ' of Lord Melcombe. INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. Ixix of Junius, there is some ground for the discrimination which is made between Junius and Lord Chatham, though expressed perhaps too strongly, in the follow- ing remarks : * In generous self-confidence, and in effusions of animated sentiment, the great Earl Chatham was cer- tainly not unequal to Junius. But he wanted the ex- tensive and profound knowledge of the author of these Letters ; and he had even less skill to unite the arts of insinuation with those of overbearing confidence and energy. Chatham does not appear to have usually rea- soned well in his speeches. Much of his eloquence was in his elocution ; much of it, in his intrepidity and disinterestedness, oratorical and political.'* ' The claims of a particular individual,' says another writer on this question, * can be morally maintained only by the circumstance, that they are peculiar to that particular individual, inapplicable to all other claimants, and yet having an apparent connexion with Junius.' These conditions, to the extent in which they should be taken, will, as we think, be found to be fulfilled in the hypothesis adopted in the following Letters — that Lord Temple was Junius. The coincidences between different occurrences in the life of Lord Temple, and the tone and course adopted by Junius at different periods, as pointed out in the present work, are certainly very remarkable. When, for example, Lord Chatham and Lord Temple were openly at variance, in consequence of the attempt made by the former to exclude the latter from any participa- tion in forming a ministry (in the year 1766), Junius attacked Lord Chatham with as much severity as he * Heron's Junius, vol. i, page 51. g IXX INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. did any individual who fell under his displeasure. This temper continued till the autumn of 1768, when a re- conciliation took place between them ; immediately upon which, the tone of that writer began to change towards Lord Chatham, and at last rose to the highest strain of eulogy, in the memorable passage which is to be found in his 54th Letter, and is copied into the present vol- ume.* Another remarkable coincidence in the opinions of Junius and Lord Temple is, that both uniformly agreed in their politics, and on certain fundamental measures of domestic and foreign policy, with the well known English statesman, Mr George Grenville, the brother of the latter; as is justly observed by a writer before quoted ;t while, on the contrary Lord Chatham differed from them all in regard to some essential measures of government. I Indeed the uniform attachment of Ju- * See p. 187. Lord Chatham afterwards made him one of the executors of his will. t Page xiii, ante. t Among these measures was the American Stamp Act, which has generally been ascribed to Mr Grenville. But the following statement from Almon's Anecdotes, shows the uncer- tainty upon v/hich received historical facts often rest. ' It was in this session (1765) of Mr Grenville's Administration, that the American Stamp Act was passed; which Mr Grenville af- terwards defended with the warmest zeal and resolution ; yet, if we may believe Mr Jenkinson, now Lord Liverpool, who, in such a case may safely be taken for the best authority, this measure was not Mr Grenville's. See Mr Jenkinson's speech in the House of Commons, on the 15th May, 1777. His Lord- ship has not yet informed the nation, to whom this measure ought to have been ascribed ; though he has explicitly acquitted Mr Grenville of it.' P. 410, note. INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. Ixxi nius to Mr Grenville is one of the most remarkable cir- cumstances in his letters.* The familiarity of Junius with the affairs of the War Department, 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 ; and, this circumstance alone has, perhaps, more than any other, given the greater plausibility to the claims of Sir Philip Francis, who was, for a considerable time, an un- der officer in that department. But, when we know, as is fully explained in the following letters, that Lord Temple was a principal in that department, and was also for a time a lord of the Admiralty, this difficulty is satisfactorily explained. Junius avails himself of this familiarity with the War Department, particularly in his correspondence with Sir William Draper, and employs it with great effect to the entire discomfiture, and as we should think, extreme mortification of his adversary. But we find afterwards that Sir William forgave him; and the opinion of Sir William is certainly a strong tes- timonial in favor of the honesty of the motives of Junius. * On this point the Author of the present work adds one further remark, in addition to what is stated by him, respecting Junius's declaration that he did not personally know Mr Gren- ville : ' On the subject of Junius's not being personally known to Mr Grenville, I would add one more remark to show, that if the writer is Lord Temple, that declaration is of no weight against the supposition. It is this ; in the Miscellaneous Letters of Junius, No. 100, signed Anti-Fox, he makes a remark as to his being unknoicn to himself, which is stronger than that re- specting his being unknown to Mr Grenville. »'' I know nothing of Junius, but I see plainly that he has designedly spar- ed Lord Holland and his family," &c. The black boy spoken of by Junius, in this Letter, is Charles Jamea Fox.' Ixxii INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. It appears in the following anecdote : * Some months after the Letters of Junius were published collectively/ says Mr Campbell, ' Boyd met Sir W. Draper at the Tennis Court, where their acquaintance was originally formed in the year 1769, and where, being both great tennis players, they used often to meet. The conver- sation turning upon Junius, Sir William observed, that " though Junius had treated him with extreme severity, he now looked upon him as a very honest fellow ; that he freely forgave him for the bitterness of his censures, and that there was no man with whom he would more glad- ly drink a bottle of old Burgundy." '* We now pass on to some other considerations, con- nected with the investigation made in the following work. Among other things, we would, for a moment, ad- vert to the style of Junius, and its resemblance to the specimens of other publications, which there is no reason to doubt were, either in whole or in part, the productions of Lord Temple. The basis of the argument on this head, with the author of the present work, is a remarkable pam- phlet published in 1766, which contains a minute and curious account of the quarrel between Lord Temple and Lord Chatham. In calling this pamphlet Lord Temple's, however, the author of these Letters would not be understood as affirming, that every word of it was from his pen ; on the contrary, it contains many laudatory expressions, which he never would have ap- plied to himself It is sufficient for the purpose, that * Campbell's Life of Hugh Boyd, p. 185, as cited in Wood- fftU'g Junius, note to Lett. vii. INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. Ixxiii the substance of it was furnished by Lord Temple, as Almon informs us ; who also states, that it was written by Mr Humphrey Cotes, assisted by another person;* but who that other person was, and why he is not named, Mr Almon does not inform us. There can be no doubt, as the writer of these Letters supposes, that jt was Lord Temple himself The reader will find (p. 198), several parallel pas- sages from this pamphlet and from Junius, which per- haps will bs thought more strikingly similar in tone and manner of thinking, than even in language. To those examples, we add here a few others. The word dictation, which in the time of Junius was not in use, and probably was not to be found in any other English writer, in the sense of prescribing or re- quiring, occurs in his letters, and also in the Pamphlet just mentioned. t ' An affectation of prostrate humility in the closet, but a lordly dictation of terms to the people.' Junius' s Miscellaneous Letters, No. 1, April 28, 1767, cited p. 33 of the present work. * If Mr Pitt insisted up- on a superior dictation, dz>c.' Enquiry, see p. 251, post. In the Letters of Junius and in the Enquiry, the word dictator also, though in comm.on use among English writers, occurs at about the same period,, with a fre^ queilcy and in a manner which indicate the habitual action of one mind. * Almon's Anecdotes, vol. ii, p. 23, note. t Foi" an account of this extraordinary publication, entitled ' An Enquiry into the Conduct of a late Right Honorable Com- moner,' see the following Letters, pp. 6, 8, 9, 212, &c. The whole pamphlet, except a few pages, makes the first article of tfje Appendix to the present volume. Ixxiv INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. Both Junius and Lord Temple make great use of the word disdain and its derivatives ; ' The principal nobil- ity who might disdain to submit to the upstart insolence of a dictator,' &,c. Miscellaneous Letters, l^o. 1, cited p. 36, post. — ' Who with a magnanimity almost pecu- liar to himself disdained to wear the chains, or put on the livery of such an incompetent statesman,' &lc. Enquiry ^ p. 242, post. — ' By an integrity that is now, and to the latest ages will be admired, in disdaining to put on the livery of the Favorite, or that of his Vice-Roy, the new made peer' [Chatham]. Enquiry, ip. 257, post. * He [the Duke of Grafton] then accepted of the Treasury up- on terms, which Lord Temple had disdained.' Miscella' neous Letters, No. 48, Oct. 19, 1768. — ' They disdained to set an example of deceit to the public ' &lc. Enquiry, p. 261, post. These writers also appear to have had a partiality for the verb to thunder. Two instances are noticed in the present work, p. 198, one from Junius's Miscellaneous Letters, No. 47, and one from the Enquiry, p. 240, post. Another example is- the following : ' Instead of the dignity of thundering out secrets of state from the gallery, we see the first Lord of the Admiralty skulking into the House just before a division,' &c. Junius's Letters, vol. 2, p. 346, American Edition. One example is given, p. 198, post, of this expression, used by the two writers — ' to widen and strengthen the bottom of his administration. Another, of similar im- port and nearly the same in words, may be here added : ' His [Lord Temple's] wish was, to retrieve the honor of the nation by an administration formed upon a broad bottom,' &LC. Enquiry, p. 257, posts At p. 198, post, also is given a contemptuous descrip- tion of the ministry, from Junius (under the name of INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. IxXV Atticus ) and from the Enquiry — ' A ministry whose names were almost unknoicn till they appeared in the Gazette.' Enquiry, p. 253, post. An expression closely resembling this will be found in one of the Miscellane- ous Letters, published shortly after The Enquiry: * We knoio as little of the services they [the Ministers] have performed since it became their lot to appear in the Gazette, as we did of their persons or characters before.' Miscellaneous Letters, No. 3, signed Anti- Sejanus, Jr. We could make some additions to these parallel pas- sages, if it were necessary ; but, so far as particular expressions of the kind here given will serve to identify a writer, we think the instances produced are sufficient ; more especially, when we consider that some of them were rather uncommon, that they were used at about the same period of time in the different publications in question, and generally speaking, in relation to the same topics of discussion. An ingenious writer, before quoted, has with many others supposed, that the author of Junius must have been so conversant with either Ireland or Scotland, as, by force of habit, to have used some words in a pecul- iar manner, and diiferently from the English ; he gives, as one example, the verb to mean, employed by Junius tlius : * They who object to detached parts of Junius' letter, either do not mean him fairly, or have not con- sidered,' &LC. — ' I meant the cause and the public ; both are given up.' — * You are satisfied that I mean you well,' &-C.* This is not a common idiom at the pre- sent day ; but Mr Wilkes, who certainly wrote good English, makes use of the same expression — ' I am * Junius Unmasked, p. 11. IxXVi INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. satisfied that Junius now means me well^ &/C.* Other unusual phrases and words have been urged on this point, and even to prove that Junius must have been an Irishman by birth, or at least educated in Ireland. But this opinion is ably combated by Dr Good, in the Pre- liminary Essay to Woodfall's edition of the Letters. Perhaps greater weight was originally given to this suggestion than it deserved, because it was at a very early period declared by the party writers of the day, and probably for mere party purposes, that Junius was the production of Edmund Burke. If Junius was not an author by profession — as the difference of finish in his style at different periods, would seem to indicate — he might occasionally make slight deviations from the current idiom or established words used by the com- munity of authors and critics of his day, which would naturally attract observation.! A difference in his style ' after two years' practice ,' was observed many years ago, when only the Letters under the signature of Junius had been published. | But the difference be- tween those and the Miscellaneous Letters — which go back two or three years farther — is, in our judgment, more palpable. We would here be understood to speak of mere finishing or polish of style ; for in all his writ- ings, the earlier and the later, though not in all alike, we find the same vehemence and intensity — the same * Woodfall's Junius, Correspondence of Wilkes and Junius, Lett. 5, vol. i, p. 302. t In his Miscellaneous Letters, No. 96, for instance, he says of Mr Wedderburne — * his profession sets his principles at auction,' which, though it may be good English, was not the current language of business. t Monthly Review, vol. Ixxi, p. 368. INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. Ixxvii * thoughts that breathe, and words that burn,' which have given unfading celebrity to his composition. The able and discriminating writer in the Edinburgh Review, whom we have before quoted, passes the fol- lowing judgment on the style of Junius's Letters — that they ' must be allowed to be finished models, though not of the purest and highest sort of composition.'* Numerous particular criticisms on his style, and made generally with a more than common soundness of judg- ment, but bordering on severeness of taste, and per- haps sometimes hypercritical, are interspersed through- out the notes of the valuable edition of Junius, which was published at London in 1801, under the name of ' Robert Heron, Esq.,' and reprinted at Phila- delphia, in 1804. One of the general remarks of this Editor deserves attention ; — that the occasional use of such words, for example, as wherein, and some others which occur only * in our elder classical works, and in books of law,' indicate that ' the reading of Junius ' lay chiefly in such works, t In another place, the first paragraph of the 12th Letter, he justly condemns in the concluding sentence of that passage, ' two puns, of which one cannot approve, as consistent with delicate correctness of composition ; but which nevertheless pro- duce, as we here find them, no unhappy effect, and which might serve to excite the horse-laugh of the vul- gar part of Junius' readers.' ^ Another observation of this commentator, who appears to have formed his opin- ions according to the severest canons of taste, and is apparently of the older school, occurs in a note on the * Edinburgh Review, vol. xliv, p. 1 ; for June, 1826. t Heron's Junius, vol. i, p. 86, note. t Ibid, p. 126, note. IxXViii INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. first Letter, where he criticises the use of the word j^wan- ces in Junius, as a term introduced from the French into the English language ' without necessity, among numberless other barbarisms of office.' But he at the same time observes, that this term * seems however, to be at last legitimated.' Yet those who cultivate delicate propriety of style, would do well to be sparing in the use of it.'* * Ibid, p. 28. We have been at a loss to know the origin of this valuable edition of Junius, which passes under the name of ^E-obert Heron.' The circumstance which first excited our attention was, that we could find no account of it in the Eng- lish Reviews ; and a friend, who has by our request made a more particular search, has been equally unsuccessful. In the jour- nals of literature and bibliographies, we find, under the name of Robert Heron, a well known writer in other departments of knowledge, an account of numerous original works and editions of authors, but no mention of an edition of Junius by any editor of that name. A friend particularly conversant with British literary history has mentioned to us the fact, that Mr John Pinkerton published two works under the name of Robert Heron-, and this circumstance is mentioned in Watts'' Bibliotheca Britannica ; but neither of these was Junius. The JVotcs of He- ron, whoever he was, contain a fund of accurate and minute historical information ; and this is often given in a tone and man- ner indicating a familiarity with public measures and their causes, and the motives to them, which would seem to be derived either from personal observation, or from in- tercourse with the actors in them. Some circumstances also would seem to afford ground for supposing, that this editor knew more about ihe author of Junius, than he communicates. Was it, for instance, by an accident, that he placed the portrait of Lord Temple as a frontispiece to his edition, and yet (as Woodfall also did in his edition), left out his name from the in- dexes to each of his volumes ; while, at the same time, he fre- quently speaks of him in his Notes, and generally in terms of commendation ? The name of Grenville is also omitted in his indexes. The style of the Notes is finished with care, and is INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. Ixxix The celebrated critique upon Junius by Dr Johnson — who however wrote as a partizan, matched against Junius by the ministry — although it was drawn up under the restraints of strong political prejudices, and in qualified and cautious language, must, so far as re- spects the ability and style of his adversary, be consid- ered as strong testimony of the critic himself, and as indicating also the judgment of the public, in favor of the extraordinary force of talents and style displa3;ed by Junius. He says — ' It is not by his liveliness of im- agery, his pungency of periods, or his fertility of allu- sions, that he detains the cits of London and the boors of Middlesex. Of style and sentiment, they take no cognizance . . . The supporters of the Bill of Rights feel no niceties of composition .... 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.'* Upon the whole, when we compare the decisions of the most eminent critics, and make all just allowances for the bias of political or other feeling, we shall probably often stiff from academic exactness; as, for example, where he says, Sir William Draper ' seems to have sitten down to write.' P. 45. We cannot help forming- conjectures as to the real edi- torship in this case ; but they are not such as would be entitled to attention, and are, perhaps, unfounded. * We have thought this remarkable critique of Dr Johnson would be a proper addition to the present volume, as it was con- sidered to be to Woodfall's edition of Junius ; from the notes of of which we copy it. The reader will find it in our Appendix, No. V. But we are not to be understood as adopting all the opinions contained in it. IXXX INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. find the result of the concurring opinions of those, who estimate the composition of Junius by a rigorous stand- ard of taste, to correspond very nearly with the judgment passed upon it in Heron's work — that if we except ' an occasional excess of epigrammatic turns, a structure of sentences sometimes labored to harshness and almost to obscurity, with a few incongruities of metaphor, these Letters must be owned to be, in all other re- spects, probably the most vigorous and faultless speci- men of human eloquence that the world has yet seen.' Since this work was put to press, the following arti- cle, respecting another candidate for the authorship of Junius, has appeared in the Gentleman's Magazine, for February, 1831. * Gray's Inn, February/ 4. * Mr Urban, — * Your correspondent, Mr Barker, in your last Sup- plement, page 579, has misnamed Mr McLean, whose Christian name was Laughlin, not Lachlin. Accord- ing to my recollection of his handwriting, it bore no resemblance to that of Junius, as given in the fac-simile copies published by Mr George Wood fall. McLean was a man of talent, but I have no conception of his having been able to write the Letters of Junius. That he was connected with Lord Shelburne there is no doubt. It is not likely, therefore, that he should have written against his Lordship ; but Junius, in some of his Letters, has spoken contemptuously of that noble- man, who was never held in much esteem as a political character, and was long known by the nick-name of Malagrida. INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. Ixxxi ' It is said in the Letter quoted by Mr Barker, that whenever Junius mentions Lord Temple's brother-in- law, Lord Chatham, it is evidently with great caution and hesitancy. Now surely the writer could not have seen the early Letters of Junius, under other signatures, in which Lord Chatham is grossly abused for his sup- port of the American Colonists (whom Junius consid- ered as rebels), and for his Lordship's opposition to the Stamp Act. Junius even goes so far, as to treat Lord Chatham as a lunatic, nor is he much more civil to Lord Camden. ' Junius, beyond all question, was a decided Grenville- ite ; and I am thoroughly persuaded he was known to the Grenville family. Indeed, I have heard, on very good authority, that the law citations, contained in one of Ju- nius's Letters to Lord Mansfield, were furnished by Counsellor Darell, and were sent by him from Stowe to Mr Woodfall, the printer of the Public Advertiser ; ajid yet I have never heard that any such animosity ex- isted between the Grenvilles and Lord Mansfield, as could warrant their giving countenance to the severe and inhuman attacks made by Junius on the latter great man. ' I cannot agree with Mr Barker's correspondent, that the French revolution grew out of the principles of Junius ; but I think it sprung in a great measure from the resistance of the Americans, to whom, as I have already signified, Junius was fiercely inimical.' The preceding extract, though published at London in February, before the present work was put to press, was not received by the author of these Letters, till afterwards, in the month of April last. In a commu- h Ixxxii [NTRODUCTORY ESSAY. nication of April 13, he makes the following remark upon it : ' The last Supplement here spoken of has not come to hand ; but, I presume, the article alluded to by this writer, related to Mr Swinden's pamphlet, supporting the claims of Lord Chatham. The writer thinks it beyond question, that Junius was a Gren- ville-ite ; but he cannot account, or never heard of such animosity existing between the Grenvilles and Lord Mansfield, as could warrant their giving counte- nance to the inhuman attacks made by Junius on Lord Mansfield. I think this has been satisfactorily account- ed for in the course of my investigation.' The handwriting of Junius's Letters is here al- luded to by this English writer. The author of the present work has purposely avoided this ground of ar- gument ; believing, that he had ample proof without it, and that it was in itself the least to be relied upon. It is, however, occasionally mentioned in the course of the notes to his letters ; as at pages 128 and 141 ; in which last place a curious fact is stated, which, so far as it is of any weight, may be said to confirm the hypothesis of Lord Temple's authorship ; that is, that Mr Wilkes and Mr Butler thought the handwriting of Junius's Letters resembled that of a card of invitation which the former had from ' old Lady Temple, written in her own hand.' Junius also says to Woodfall, ' I would avoid having this hand too commonly seen ; ' a hint, which shows it to have been a natural hand, and not, as some have supposed, a feigned one. A remark or two further, upon what may properly be considered the mere minutiae of this question, will be here added. INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. IxXXiii One of tlie writers in favor of Lord Chatham, Mr Swinden, imagines that the signature C, affixed to seve- ral of the Private Letters, might be significant, and mean Chatham. An adversary of Lord Chatham would, we think, be more likely to take this disguise. But, apart from the indiscretion of the author's adopting a letter of his own name, the letter C was the initial of va- rious signatures adopted by Junius. It may possibly de- serve inquiry, whether the signature affixed to the Pam- phlet of 1766, called Lord Temple's pamphlet, is signi- ficant — ' N. C. M. S. C The same signature is affix- ed to several pieces in verse (called in the book itself, ' excellent pieces of poetry ' ! ) accompanying an im- portant contemporary publication entitled ' The His- tory of the Minority, during the years 1762, 1763, 1764, and 1765 ; ' of which we have the fourth edi- tion, London, 1765, now before us. This publication, in its tone and course of reflections upon particular topics, and occasionally in its language, bears a strong resemblance to Lord Temple's Pamphlet ; and he pro- bably had some agency in it. We may add, that it states numerous facts, which show the intense interest and zeal of Lord Temple in the cause of Mr Wilkes and of civil liberty, in defence of which, he stood forth 'with bis person as well as his^>M7se.' Three of the above letters are initials of Junius's early signatures ; the other, N, does not occur among those names. We add but one more remark on this head. Among the Latin lines, which the printer of the Public Advertiser used to throw out as ' signals ' to Junius, is the following — De TE fabula nanatur ; — where the letters TE, which happen to be the initials of Temple, are printed by Woodfall in capitals. Ixxxiv INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. Whether they were so printed in the PubHc Adver- tiser, we have not the means of determining. But we do not attach any importance to circiunstances of this description, which are as likely to be the result of mere accident, as of design. LETTERS AUTHORSHIP OF JUNIUS LETTER I. Salem, Massachusetts, August 20, 1830. Sir, When 1 saw you in town on the third instant, there was a paragraph in the Salem Gazette of that morning, stating, upon the authority of late London newspapers, that a person not hitherto named had been discovered to be the author of the Letters of Junius. The discovery was said to have been made from docu- ments in the library at Stowe ; the person alluded to was Lord Temple. I observed to you, that I had for many years considered Lord Temple to be the author, and I then gave some of the reasons which first led me to entertain that opinion — which, I may add, I have found no reason to abandon in consequence of anything I have seen published on the subject. The statements which I made on that occasion seemed to you to be entitled to attention ; and you ex- 1 <4 LETTERS ON THE pressed a wish, that I would give you my views on some of the principal points of the subject, which first led me to fix on Lord Temple as the author of those celebrated Letters ; accompanied with the proofs which I had found in confirmation of my opinion. This I shall now attempt to do ; relating every cir- cumstance, as it occurred during my investigation, and in that plain manner which will be expected from one, whose habits and business have been very different from that of an author. I shall perhaps detail many things which a skilful writer would throw aside as unnecessa- ry ; and I may, on the other hand, omit some that might be of importance. However this may be, you may rest assured, that whatever I communicate shall be truly stated ; and I must then leave the importance or unimportance of it to the judgment of the reader. It is many years since I first read Junius ; in my earliest days I was pleased in perusing his Letters, in the common editions, which had no explanatory notes, except the few written by the author himself. But soon after the publication of the valuable edition under the name of Robert Heron, Esq., printed in London in 1801, and reprinted in America in 1804, I procured a copy of it and read it with much attention, and with new interest ; not, however, originally with the view of making a discovery of the author, — which had long defied the ingenuity of so many persons in England, more favorably circumstanced than I could be at a great distance from the scene, — but simply from the desire of more thoroughly understanding everything which was to be found in a favorite author. AUTHORSHIP OF JUNIUS. 6 The copy of Heron's Junius, which I owned, happen- ed to be one that contained the engraved portraits of several of the distinguished persons who are mentioned in the work. In some copies of the American edition, as I am informed, the portraits were suppressed; and had it happened, that I had purchased one of those, in- stead of the copy which I did, it is possible that my at- tention might not have been again excited, at that period, to a further investigation of the authorship. However that might have been, on one occasion, while I was turning over the leaves, referring to differ- ent passages of the work, and examining the portraits, I was struck with the singular circumstance, — for such it appeared to me, — of finding the portrait of Earl Temple conspicuously fronting the title-page, although, according to my recollection, his name icas not once men- tioned in the Letters, This circumstance led me to read the work once more; and I found, as I had anti- cipated, that, notwithstanding the names of the king's ministers and other leading men of that period, were repeatedly mentioned, the name of Lord Temple did not once occur in the Letters themselves, though it does a few times in the Notes which Junius himself added to them ; but even there the name is mentioned in so slight and casual a manner, as not to attract particular attention ; and, perhaps, in those few instances was in- serted with a design of avoiding the suspicion, which an entire suppression of it might have excited. I also examined Heron's notes, in which Lord Temple is nam- ed a few times. The result was, that I became by degrees, confirmed in the opinion, that Lord Temple must have been the author. 4 LETTERS ON THE At that time I had not minutely studied the private history of the period when Junius wrote ; and I had of course an imperfect knowledge of the family connex- ions and private friendships or animosities of Lord Temple ; having only directed my attention to his polit- ical character, and to the part which he had taken in the public transactions of that day. I therefore began as opportunities offered during my leisure hours of read- ing, to make researches in order to obtain more particu- lar information respecting Lord Temple. Everything I read tended only to strengthen my original impressions. In the splendid administration of Mr Pitt (Lord Chat- ham), Earl Temple was of the ministry ; in the first in- stance, as first lord of the admiralty, and afterwards as lord privy seal. Mr Pitt was his brother-in-law, having married his sister ; Mr George Grenville, known in this country as the father of the famous American Stamp Act, was a younger brother, and also one of the ministry. In 1761, Lord Temple and Mr Pitt resigned their places, in consequence of a disunion among the ministers, but with an understanding, that they would still continue to act together. Mr Grenville, however, re- mained in office, and continued to act with his former associates. This unexpected conduct of Mr Grenville, caused an interruption of the friendship subsisting be- tween him an^ his two brothers. I could not but observe, however, that Junius always spoke of Mr Grenville with much respect, both personally and politically; and I soon found that a reconciliation had afterwards taken place — with many other particulars, which I shall mention in the course of my letters. I also found, that partly in consequence of the Duke of Grafton's de- AUTHORSHIP OF JUNIUS. O serting Lord Chatham, after that great man had been the earliest object of the Duke's political wonder and at- tachment, Junius appeared to hold the Duke in utter detestation. I began to note down in my copy of Heron's Junius, and on the blank leaves of the volumes, various refer- ences to those passages, which appeared to me to sup- port the opinion I had formed respecting the author. This was done some years previous to 1817, which date I fix by an event to be mentioned hereafter. The copy of Heron's Junius here mentioned, was the one to which I alluded in my first conversation with you on this subject; when, in reply to your inquiry after the book itself, 1 observed, that it had been out of my possession for several years, but that I would endeavor to recover it. The fact was, that in May, 1825, I dis- posed of most of the books which constituted my li- brary, and among them was that copy of Junius. Im- mediately after our conversation I took measures to recover the book, but have not been able to succeed till this time ; which must be my apology for not fulfilling my engagement to you so soon as I had intended. I had an impression, as I then observed, that my Junius was in the possession of Dr F*****, in the neighbor- ing town of Beverly; and I accordingly addressed a note to him requesting the use of it for a short time ; but he informed me, that it was not in his possession. A further search led me, only the day before yester- day, to the gentleman who had it, Mr S****** of this town, in whose hands I was happy to find the vol- umes; and with my old notes, references, and paper marks remaining in them. Among other things, 1* 6 LETTERS ON THE my references to various passages of the old ' London Magazine,' of which I had about a hundred numbers, between the years 1763 and 1774. These Magazines had also for several years been out of my hands, having been left packed up with several other pamphlets in a trunk, in a neighboring town. I have been fortunate enough to find them again, with my old marks remain- ing as I had left them. In one of those old Magazines, for August, 1766, page 421, my attention was forcibly arrested by an ar- ticle headed — 'Extracts from a remarkable Pamphlet lately published, entitled An Enquiry into the Conduct of a late Right Honorable Commoner ' — i. e. William Pitt, afterwards Earl of Chatham.* The tone and man- ner of the writer, and especially the minute particulars of private occurrences disclosed in the pamphlet, left no doubt in my mind, that it was written by Lord Tem- ple. It was spoken of as a pamphlet which much en- grossed the public attention. The language and spirit of it were, in my opinion, those of Junius; and it bore internal evidence, equally strong, of having been written by Lord Temple. After the lapse of perhaps a year or two from the time of which I am now speaking, I noticed in the London Magazine for 1774, some letters of Lord Chesterfield, then just published ; in one of which, dated the same year with the pamphlet in question, 1766, he says to his son — ' You ask who is the author of the pamphlet ? ' His reply is — 'it is ascribed to Lord T ' and he * In the Gentleman's Ma gazi7ie for Aug. 17G6, p. 347, similar extracts from this pamphlet are given, and some of them more at large. — Edit. AUTHORSHIP OF JUNIUS. 7 adds — 'but I think it above him.' This last remark, as matter of opinion, had little weight in my mind ; the former, however, as a statement of the current re- port of the day, made a strong impression upon me ; as I supposed Lord Temple was the person alluded to, and I had myself, upon the internal evidence alone, and without the least knowledge of any such general opin- ion, already ascribed it to the same nobleman. The title of the pamphlet, it is true, is not mentioned by Lord Chesterfield ; but it was obviously, as I thought, the one in question. Assuming it, therefore, as a fact, that Lord Temple must have been the author of the pamphlet, I pursued my investigation upon that supposi- tion ; and this pamphlet was the means of my satisfying myself of the correctness of the opinion, which I had formed as to the authorship of Junius. Upon these data, I made memorandums and margi- nal references in my copy of Junius ; by means of which I shall collect together the substance of the present Letters. When I first conversed with you, I had no intention of prosecuting the subject any further, than to present a very brief and general view of what I considered to be satisfiictory evidence, — I would say demonstration, if it were not presumptuous — that LoiyI Temple was the author of Junius. By your desire, however, I will con- tinue my researches, and shall in future letters commu- nicate the results more in detail than I had before con- templated. I am, &c. LETTERS ON THE LETTER 11. Sir, In my last letter I observed, that I had originally assumed it as a fact, upon the internal evidence alone, that Lord Temple was the author of the remarkable pamphlet of 1766; and that I was fully confirmed in that opinion by the observation, which I there quoted from Lord Chesterfield's Letters, notwithstanding his lordship's accompanying remark, that he thought it ' above him.' I have experienced no small gratification at finding what I consider a still further confirmation of my opinion, in the statement made by Mr Almon, the well known Whig printer of that day, in his Anecdotes of the Life of Lord Chatham, which I had never seen till the passage was recently pointed out to me by your- self Mr Almon introduces his copious extracts from the Pamphlet, with this remark, in a note ; — 'Lord Chesterfield, in his letters to his son, says, this pamphlet was written by Lord Temple. But his lordship was mistaken. The pamphlet was written by Mr Humphrey Cotes, assisted by another person. It is, however, true, that the particular facts stated in this account of the conference and of the audience, were communicated hy Lord Temple, in conversation, to Mr Cotes ; who, with- out Lord Temple's participation, caused them to be pub- lished.' From the language of this statement of Mr Almon, circumstanced as he was in relation to Lord Temple and other parties concerned, I have felt no hesi- tation in drawing the inference, that the substance of the pamphlet was in fact dictated, though perhaps not AUTHORSHIP OF JUNIUS. \f actually committed to writing, by his lordship himself.* The reflections throughout, and the occasional intensity of passion could have proceeded from no other than the party, whose feelings had been so unjustly and so deeply wounded. This important pamphlet furnishes us with a solution of one of the difficulties, which has always embarrassed the inquiry into the authorship of Junius's Letters — that is, the vehemence with which Junius originally at- tacked Lord Chatham (in the Miscellaneous Letters published by Mr Woodfall), though he afterwards, under the signature of Junius, began to change his tone, by first coldly approving of his conduct, and at length bestowing upon him the splendid eulogy which is well known. At the former period, a violent difference had broken out between Lord Temple and Lord Chatham, which was felt by the former, in a manner that was to have been expected from a person of his temperament and disposition, as described — perhaps with partiality — by Mr Almon : ' The natural disposition of this noble * In a letter, which Mr Almon sent to Lady Chatham with a copy of his Anecdotes of Lord Chatham, he says — ' From your Ladyship's noble brother, the late Earl TenipJe,! receiyed the most interesting part of these Anecdotes ; his Lordship honored me with his friendship and esteem many years.' Whether Mr Almon knew the author of Junius, at this period (1791), we cannot determine ; but it is a little remarkable, that Junius is mentioned only twice, so far as I have observed, in this whole work ; once, in a note, volume i, p. 419, where he is spoken of merely as 'a, popular writer;' and once, in the Appendix to volume 3d, page 379, as cited p. 204 post. The manner in which Junius is barely mentioned in both places, is remarkable. It should be added, that one of his Miscellaneous Letters, signed Snti-Se,ianus, Jr. is mentioned by Almon, vol. i, p. 329. 10 LETTERS ON THE lord/ says the writer, 'was the most amiable that can be conceived, to his friends ; but when offended, his disap- probation was warm and conspicuous — his language flowed spontaneously from his feelings; his heart and his voice always corresponded. With such a temper, it was not probable, that the cause of his separation from Mr Pitt would either be concealed or indifferently ex- pressed.' * The pamphlet in question gives a minute account of the measures, and particularly of the haughty and overbearing deportment of Lord Chatham, which led to that separation, and compelled Lord Temple (in the language of the pamphlet) to refuse submission to Mr Pitt as ' sole and absolute dictator' in the ministry. But, as I shall have frequent occasion to advert to this separation and various other facts resulting from an ex- amination of this pamphlet, I shall here give several extracts from it, accompanied with a few brief remarks. The whole manner and tone of the pamphlet are such, as would naturally proceed from a v/ounded spirit like that above described. The author of the pamphlet begins with this observa- tion — that ' in the tide of almost every great man's life, there is commonly one period, which is not only more remarkable than the rest, but conveys with it strong characteristic marks of the complexion of him to whom it belongs;' and by way of example, he gives us some part of the history of the Lord Chancellor Bacon and others ; then he gives us a short history of the * Right Honorable Commoner' (Mr Pitt), and having carried it down to his being made paymaster, he proceeds thus : — ^ Almon's Anecdotes, vol. ii, p. 28. AUTHORSHIP OF JUNIUS. 11 * For a little time he was quiet, but his ever restless ambition soon broke out, and he aimed at the sole guid- ance of the state, which he seemed resolved to take by storm. He thundered against Hanover, the very name of which he was for expunging out of the dictionary ; it was called a mill-stone hung about the neck of Great Britain, and styled the bane of this country, from the expense which it cost us ; and the most solemn declara- tions were made, that not a shilling nor a man should go to Germany. The popular gale wafts him into power, and though not to that degree of eminence in station, which constitutionally gives the lead in public business, yet he usurped an absolute dominion over the whole court. It is his nature to bear no control ; therefore the King was taken captive in his closet, and made prisoner upon his throne. But, as it were to atone for this con- duct, and to give the public another proof that not theirs but his own interest, was the object he had in view ; though absolute minister, and of course at full liberty to carry on the war upon whatever system he pleased, and a neutrality secured for Hanover ; yet he entered into all the predilections of his sovereign, broke the neutral- ity in Germany, and, notwithstanding his many furious and energetic declarations against the continent, the very sounds of which were tingling in our ears, he plunged us deeper into the German war than any of his predecessors; sent over more men and more money, than any other minister ever dared, and at an expense of above eighty millions, conquered America in Germany.'* * ' It is only curious from observ.-^lion of his natural inconsis- tency, to mention, that when the late Lord Anson was attacked in the House of Commons upon tiie loss of Minorca, the late Commoner (knowing that the late Lord Hardwicke was then the 12 LETTERS ON THE * And to support this enormous load of expense, it was at his express injunction, that the last heavy additional duty was laid upon beer, even in opposition to the Duke of Newcastle and the late Mr Legge, who would other- wise have laid a tax upon the luxuries of life, in order to spare the industrious and put the burden upon the rich and idle — a tax cruelly wrung from the briny sweat of industry, and which seems to have been found- ed on no other principle, than, that in order to render the people dependent, we should begin by making them poor. Ever wishing to attain and preserve power by any sacrifice or any means, and finding soon after the accession of his present Majesty, that the Earl of Bute was in possession of the royal ear, he was the first and principal instrument of that noble lord's introduction to power, particularly to the post of secretary of state and coadjutor to himself; which shows, as clearly as any- thing can, his early and close connexion with the Favor- ite. And upon what principle could this be done, but the hope of thereby laying the foundation of security to himself ' When the Favorite had gained the ascendancy, and had formed designs incompatible with the honor of the crown and the interest of the kingdom ; when he had drawn the substance and the shadow likewise of strength from the great Commoner, and defeated him also in his mighty design upon Spain ; then, even then, notwith- court's favorite) stood up to vindicate his Lordship, and said, " that lie was convinced his lordship had erred through want of intellect, and not through design." After this extraordinary declaration, he restored his lordship to that very post, for which he had pronounced him unqualified through deficiency of under- standing.' JVote by the author of the pamphlet. AUTHORSHIP OF JUNIUS. 13 Standing this insult and many others, such was either his lust for office, or his friendship for the favorite, that he would have sacrificed his haughty, overbearing spirit to a sufferance of remaining in office, and submitted to a control not only contradictory of all his former princi- ples, but infamous in the eyes of the public, had it not been for the spirited and truly patriotic resentment of his most noble friend and relation, Earl Temple ; who, with a magnanimity almost peculiar to himself, disdain- ed to wear the chains, or put on the livery of such an incompetent statesman, such a contemptible being ; and first strongly urged, and at length forced the Com- moner into resignation ; which he accompanied with his own, in order to give an example of spirit and resist- ance to an usurpation, so exceedingly dangerous to both court and people.' After having given an account of several fruitless ne- gotiations for bringing Mr Pitt again into the adminis- tration, he gives us an account of the then late successful one as follows : * The error last year had been in consulting Lord Temple first. This year another method was taken, Mr Pitt was^rs^ applied to ; and after that gentleman had had a conference, first with the late lord chancellor, and then with his majesty. Lord Temple was sent for ; who, directly after his coming to town, waited on his majesty at Richmond. Next day (July 16, 1766) his lordship received a very affectionate letter from Mr Pitt, then at North-End, Hampstead, desiring to see his lord- ship there, as his health would not permit him to come to town. His lordship went, and Mr Pitt acquainted him, that his majesty had been graciously pleased to send 2 14 LETTERS ON THE for him to form an administration ; and, as he thought his lordship indispensahlc, he desired his majesty to send for him, and to put him at the head of the treasury ; and that he himself would take the post of privy seal. The Commoner then produced a list of several persons, which, he said, he had fixed upon to go in with his lord- ship ; and which, he added, was not to be altered. Lord Temple said, that he had had the honor of a con- ference with his majesty at Richmond the evening be- fore, and that he did not understand, from what passed between them, that Mr Pitt was to be absolute master, and to form every part of the administration ; if he had, he would not have given himself the trouble of coming to Mr Pitt upon that subject, being determined to come in upon an equality with Mr Pitt, in case he was to oc- cupy the most responsible place under the government. And, as Mr Pitt had chosen only a side place, without any responsibility annexed to it, he should insist upon some of his friends being in the cabinet offices with him, and in whom he could confide ; which he thought Mr Pitt could have no objection to, as he must be sen- sible he could not come in with honor, unless he had such nomination ; nor did he desire but that Mr Pitt should have his share of the nomination of his friends. And his lordship added, that he made a sacrifice of his brother, Mr George Grenville, who, notwithstanding his being entirely out of place, and excluded from all con- nexion with the intended system, would nevertheless support the measures of their administration ; that it was his idea to conciliate all parties, which was the ground that made Mr Pitt's former administration so respectable and glorious, and to form upon the solid ' AUTHORSHIP OF JUNIUS. 15 basis of U?iion, an able and responsible administration ; to brace the relaxed sinews of government ; retrieve the honor of the crown, and pursue the permanent interest of the public : but, that if Mr Pitt insisted upon a supe- rior dictation, and did not choose to join in a plan for the restoration of that Union, which at no time was ever so necessary, he desired the conference might be broke off, and that Mr Pitt would give himself no further trouble about him, for that he would not submit to the proposed conditions. Mr Pitt, however, insisted upon continuing the conference ; and asked, who those per- sons were whom his lordship intended for some of the cabinet employments ? His lordship answered, that one in particular was a noble lord of approved character and known abilities, who had last year refused the very of- fice now offered to him (Lord Temple) though pressed to it in the strongest manner by the Duke of Cumber- land, and the Duke of Newcastle ; and who, being their common friend, he did not doubt Mr Pitt himself had in contemplation. This worthy and respectable person was Lord Lyttleton. At the conclusion of this sentence, Mr Pitt said, good God, how can you compare him to the Duke of Grafton, Lord Shelburne, and Mr Conway? Besides, said he, I have taken the privy seal and he cannot have that. Lord Temple then mentioned the post of lord president; upon which Mr Pitt said, that could not be, for he had engaged the presidency : but, says he, Lord Lyttleton may have a pension. To which Lord Temple immediately answered, that would never do; nor would he stain the bud of his administration with the accumulation of pensions. It is true Mr Pitt vouchsafed to permit the noble lord to nominate his own 16 LETTERS ON THE board ; but at the same time insisted, that if two per- sons of that board (Thomas Townsend and George Ons- low, Esq.), were turned out, they should have a com- pensation, i. e. pensions. ' Mr Pitt next asked, what person his lordship had in his thoughts for secretary of state ? His lordship answer- ed. Lord Gower, a man of great abilities, and whom he knew to be equal to any Mr Pitt had named, and of much greater alliance ; and in whom he meant and hoped to unite and conciliate a great and powerful par- ty, in order to widen and strengthen the bottom of his administration, and to vacate even the idea of opposi- tion ; thereby to restore unanimity in parliament, and confine every good man's attention to the real object of his country's welfare. And his lordship added, that he had never imparted his designs to Lord Gower, nor did he know, whether that noble Lord would accept of it; * but mentioned it now only as a comprehensive meas- ure, to attain the great end he wished, of restoring unanimity by a reconciliation of parties, that the busi- ness of the nation might go on without interruption, and become the only business of parliament. But Mr Pitt rejected this proposal, evidently healing as it ap- peared, by saying, that he had determined Mr Conway should stay in his present office, and that he had Lord Shelburne to propose for the other office, then held by the Duke of Richmond ; so that there remained no room for Lord Gower. This, Lord Temple said, was coming to his first proposition of being sole and abso- lute dictator, to luliich no consideration slioidd ever in- * ' Lord Temple afterwards wrote to Lord Gower, to excuse the mention he had made of his name.' AUTHORSHIP OF JUNIUS. 17 ducc liini to submit. And therefore he insisted upon ending the conference ; which he did with saying, that if he had been first called upon by the king, he should have consulted Mr Pitt's honor, with regard to the arrange- ment of ministers, and have given him an equal share in the nomination ; and that he thought himself ill-treat- ed hy 3Ir Pitt, in his not observing the like conduct. ' Had Mr Pitt not chosen to refuse a plan of govern- ment, so obviously calculated and designed for the good of the country, and for putting an end to those unhappy divisions which have long obstructed the public busi- ness, we should have seen an administration formed of the most able and upright men in the kingdom ; acting upon principles agreeable to the public wishes ; and whose natural strength and alliances, would have given such stability to their power, as would have afforded the most sincere satisfaction to the public, who are con- cerned and grieved at their repeated changes, made ap- parently without any design of restoring peace to the kingdom, or any desire of putting the direction of af- fairs into capable hands; changes obviously patched up, and consisting of nothing but a temporary succes- sion of men, whose names were almost unknown till they appeared in the Gazette. Changes made by the favorite, and designed to render all sets of men con- temptible, that he may at length, like Cardinal Maza- rine, publicly resume his power and tell the people, he is the only capable man in the kingdom.' This is followed, in the pamphlet, by some strictures upon the history of that Cardinal, who was advanced and protected in the administration of France by the Queen mother of Lewis XIV ; and upon Mr Pitt's 18 LETTERS ON THE late acceptance of a title and a share with Lord Bute in the administration of this kingdom ; which the author concludes thus : ' With whom, besides, is the late Commoner in league ? With those very men whom he hated most and despised ; with Gen. Conway, whom two years ago he refused to see at Hayes, though pressed to it in the strongest manner by Lord Lyttleton ; with Lord Shel- burne, upon whom he put a negative last year, when nominated to the very office he now enjoys ; with Col. Barre, who called him an heap of contradictions, &-C. &LC. ' If it is asked, why had he so great a penchant for them now ? the answer is, because the first, in a great measure, laid the foundation of the surrender of the honor and authority of Great Britain, and made a ten- der of both at the feet of the Colonies ; the second as- sisted him, and the third follows of course. ' This little corps, contemptible in numbers and des- picable in abilities, is to be reinforced by the subalterns of the late ministry ; by those whose excessive lust for office, whose ingratitude, meanness, and subserviency, would not suffer them to follow the resignations and dis- missions of their patrons. The moment these heard there was another recruiting sergeant in town, they in- stantly deserted both officers and colors under which they had first enlisted, and for present pay and good quarters, repaired to the drum-head of the enemy.' * In my next letter I shall make some remarks upon this extraordinary publication. I am, &lc. * In 1768 Lord Temple was reconciled with Mr Pitt. The Letters of Junius commenced in 1769. Then how much the AUTHORSHIP OF JUNIUS. 19 LETTER III. Sir, The pamphlet, from which the extracts in my last letter were taken, will be found upon a careful perusal to carry its own evidence with it of having been writ- ten by Earl Temple. A writer in the London Maga- zine of August 176G. in attempting to controvert the arguments of the pamphlet, also assumes him to have been the author ;. and observes, that * he labors hard to prove that Lord Chatham is the willing tool of Lord Bute ; and, from the discovery thereof, Lord Temple, as must be supposed, declined taking part in the ad- ministration.' The same writer further says, 'that Lord Temple was offered the chief department of state, but he insisted on Lord Lyttleton being given that, which had previously been assigned to Lord North, ' and ' thus does it evidently appear that Lord Temple's objections were, not that the administration was to be framed or to proceed under the influence of Lord Bute, but to his not being permitted to recommend whom he pleased to some of the chief offices in government.' Again — ' as to Lord Temple's making so great a merit of sacrificing a brother (Mr Grenville, who had previously taken so great care of himself) .... that surely should appear strange, after a declaration having been made of their reconciliation being only kindred, and not political.' language and sentiments of this pamphlet, except towards Lord Cliatliam, coincide with the language and sentiments of Juni- us's Letters. 20 LETTERS ON THE Again he says — ' it appears that Lord Temple had in effect separated from Lord Chatham, and thrown him- self at the head of a party, which the latter would not join, and therefore they are become like the kindred chiefs of Rome, each struggling for the superiority ; and which in the end will prevail, can only be foreseen by estimating the comparative degree of popularity, which each with his respective party, may be supposed to possess ; for thereon must depend, which will like Pompey, become vanquished, or victorious, like Cae- sar.' These extracts from a contemporary writer show the opinion entertained by Lord Temple of that ad- ministration ; and also, that he was himself, in some sense, a disappointed man. They also show the opin- ion, which his adversaries entertained of the greatness of his character, as well as his energy of mind. Junius, in his first letter and elsewhere, speaks of his brother, Mr GrenviUe, with particular respect. In animadverting upon the bad management of their finances under the Duke of Grafton, he observes, that * 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 suc- cesses had made indispensable 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.' He adds in a note — ' yet Junius has been called the partizan of Lord Chatham !' AUTHORSHIP OF JUNIUS. 21 This note by Junius illustrates, why he had been so called — because he had been politically opposed to Mr Grenville. But Lord Temple and he both were re- conciled to Lord Chatham in 1768, a few months be- fore the date of Junius's first letter. Taking it for granted then, that Lord Temple is the author, the extracts which I have given, viewed in con- nexion with Junius's letters, will throw that light which \VQ seek on the subject of the present inquiry. Junius, in his first letter observes, that ' appearances justify suspicion ; and, when the safety of a nation is at stake, suspicion is a just ground of inquiry. Let us enter into it with candor and decency.' I have already shown the detestation in which he held the Duke of Grafton. But Sir William Draper, being touched by the manner in which his commander, Lord Granby, is noticed, in a reply attempts his defence. This evidently leads Junius on to higher game, as in the sequel. In the 15th Letter he says — ' the advice of the ablest men in this country has been repeated- ly called for and rejected. The spirit of the favorite (Lord Bute) had some apparent influence upon every administration ; there were certain services to be per- formed for the favorite's security, which your prede- cessors in office had the wisdom or virtue not to undertake. The moment this refractory spirit was discovered, their disgrace was determined. Lord Chat- ham, Mr Grenville, and Lord Rockingham have suc- cessively had the honor of being dismissed for doing their duty to the public, rather than those compliances which were expected from their station.' 22 LETTERS ON THE Here Junius might have added Lord Temple ; but he avoids naming himself throughout. Again — ' a submissive administration was at last col- lected from the desertion of all parties, interests, and connexions ; and nothing remained but to find a lead- er, for these gallant, well disciplined troops. Stand forth, my Lord, for thou art the * man. Lord Bute found no resource of dependance or security in the proud, imposing superiority of Lord Chatham's abili- ties ; the shrewd, inflexible judgment of 3Ir Gren- villc, ' &.C. Remarks. — The one (Lord Chatham) had been an honorable competitor and was brother-in-law to Mr Grenville ; the other, (Mr Grenville) his brother ; and both, for some time, at variance with Lord Temple, alias Junius, but now friends. The great objects of Lord Temple in writing Junius, were — 1st, to establish his own everlasting fame ; 2d, that of his family connex- ions, at the same time he was attempting to establish the rights of Englishmen ; he therefore aimed the boldest invectives against the administration, knowing that by its overthrow, he and his friends would come into power, and that he should thereby gratify his own ambition ; but directing that ambition to the seeking of his country's honor and welfare. In his 18th Letter, which is addressed to Sir Wm. Blackstone, he again mentions his brother, Mr Gren- ville, thus: * Your pamphlet then is divided into an attack of Mr Grenville' s character, and a defence of your own. It would have been more consistent per- ^ Granby, AUTHORSHIP OF JUNIUS. 23 haps with your professed intentions to have confined yours to the last It is not my design to enter into a formal vindication of Jfr Grenville upon his own prin- ciples Your first reflection is, that Mr Gren- ville was, of all men, the person who should not have complained of inconsistence with regard to Mr Wilkes,' &LC. See also 19th Letter, the same subject continued, and Mr Grenville defended by Philo Junius. In Letter 23d (to the Duke of Bedford) he says — ' I will not pretend to specify the secret terms, on which you were invited to support an administration, which Lord Bute pretended to leave in full possession of their ministerial authority and perfectly masters of themselves.' — The administration, as appears by a note, was composed of Mr Grenville, Lord Halifax, and Lord Egremont. Again — ' Apparently united with Mr Grenville, you waited until Lord Rockingham's feeble administration should dissolve in its own weakness. The moment their dismission was suspected, the moment you per- ceived another system was adopted in the closet, you thought it no disgrace, to return to your former depend- ence and solicit once more the friendship of Lord Bute, You begged an interview, at which he had spirit enough to treat you with contempt.' It may not be without use to add, in this connexion, Lord Chesterfield's sentiments of the administrations, from his letters to his son, between 1763 and 1768, published in the London Magazine for 1774: — ' July 15th, 1765 — I told you in my last you should hear from me again, as soon as I had any thing more to write ; and now I have too much to write and will 24 LETTERS ON THE refer you to the Gazette Many more changes are talked of; I do not remember, in my time, to have seen so much at once as an entire new board of treas- ury and two new secretaries of state, &lc. ' Here is a new political arch almost built, but of materials of so different a nature, and without a key stone, that it does not, in my opinion, indicate either strength or duration. It will certainly require repairs and a key stone next winter, and that key stone must be Mr Pitt. It is true he might have been that key stone now ; and would have accepted it, but not witJi- out Lord Twiple^s consent ; and Lord Temple posi- tively refused. There was evidently some trick in this, but what, is past my conjecturing.' But see Lord Temple's pamphlet above quoted, for a very different account of this affair. 'August 25th, 1765 — I do not knov/ whether you have the Daily Advertiser, and the Public Advertiser, in which all the political letters are inserted, and some very well written ones on both sides ; but I know, that they amuse me for an hour or two every morning. Lord Temple is the supposed author of the pamphlet you mention ; but I think it above him. Perhaps his brother, who is no ways satisfied with the present ar- rangement, may have assisted him,' It is evident, that Lord Chesterfield had not read the pamphlet from which I have above given extracts (and which was written, as I have no doubt, by Lord Tem- ple), for he gives a wrong reason for Mr Pitt's not be- ing that key stone now. Neither does he justly ap- preciate the talents of Lord Temple. AUTHORSHIP OF JUNIUS. 25 I give one more extract from Lord Chesterfield, as cor- roborating that part of Lord Temple's pamphlet, which speaks of Mr Pitt's not being satisfied with anything short of being dictator. It is dated August 17th, 1765. ' You have seen there has been changes at Court I believe there must be more, before a ministry is set- tled ; what those will be, God knows. Were 1 to conjecture, I should say the whole will centre in Mr Pitt. * August 1st, 1766 — The curtain was at last drawn up, the day before yesterday, and discovered the new- actors, together with the old ones. Mr Pitt, who had carte blanche given him, named every one of them ; but what would you think he named himself for ? Lord privy seal, and (what will astonish you as it does every mortal here) Earl of Chatham. The joke is here, ihRt he h.n.d a fall ujp stairs , and has done himself so much hurt, that he will never be able to stand upon his legs again. Every body is puzzled how to account for this step ; though it would not be the first time that great abilities have been duped by low cunning. But be it what it will, he is now certainly only Earl of Chatham, and no longer Mr Pitt, in any respect what- ever It is a measure so unaccountable, that nothing but proof positive could have made me believe it ; but true it is Charles Townsend has now the sole management of the House of Commons ; but how long he will be content to be only Lord Chatham's vicegerent there, is a question which I will not pretend to decide. There is one very bad sign for Lord Chat- ham's new dignity, which is, that all his enemies with- out exception rejoice at it; and all his friends are 3 26 LETTERS ON THE stupified and dumbfounded .... when this ministry is settled, it be the sixth ministry in six years' time.' The following extracts from the Notes to Heron's valuable edition of Junius, will throw still further light upon the history of the administrations of that period ; a knowledge of which is indispensable in this inquiry. In Letter llth, to the Duke of Grafton, Junius says, ' The system you seem to have adopted, when Lord Chatham unexpectedly left you at the head of affairs, gave us no promise,' &c. ; upon which Heron has this Note : — ' Upon the dismission of the Buckingham ad- ministration, Lord TempJe, partly, as it should seem, for want of penetration and comprehension of mind, partly from honesty, and in part from an ungenerous personal resentment, refused, as he had formerly done, to assist in the formation of a new ministry, unless he might be assured, that the king would, on all occa- sions, adopt whatever principles of policy he should choose to dictate, and would employ those, and only those servants, whom he should recommend. Such terms, it would not have become the sovereign to com- ply with. Lord Chatham had a mind incapable of dealing so ungenerously with his prince. He formed an administration to succeed the party of Lord Rock- ingham, in which a nomination of men from all parties was attempted, to the exclusion of none but the un- wavering adherents of Rockingham and Temple. The Duke of Grafton had been secretary of state under the Marquis of Rockingham. He abandoned that admin- istration, when he found their fall was near. Attach- ing himself to Lord Chatham and appointed first lord of the treasury, while Chatham reserved for him- self the place of lord privy seal in the new ministry.' AUTHORSHIP OF JUNIUS. 27 It is truly surprising, that a writer so familiar with the history of that period, as the author of the above Note appears to have been, should have formed such an estimate of the talents of Lord Temple, as to imag- ine, that he refused to assist in forming a new minis- try, ' in part for want of penetration and comprehen- sion of mind.' The very fact, that he was called upon jointly with Lord Chatham for that purpose, if there were no other proof of abilities, would of itself strong- ly show the opinion entertained of him by those per- sons, who had the best opportunities of knowing his talents. But Lord Temple, in his pamphlet, as we have seen, gives a better reason for his declining to act on that occasion. On Letter l-2th, to the Duke of Grafton, 1769, He- ron has this Note : — ' The parties of the Duke of Newcastle, and of Pitt and Lord Temple, were now both in opposition. Lord Egremont and the Earl of Granville died ; and the Duke of Bedford and his friends were introduced to the minis- try. These ministers became disagreeable to their sovereign ; and attempts were made by the Earl of Bute, by the sovereign himself, by the Duke of Cum- berland, to prevail with Mr Pitt, Lord T'emple, and Lord Lyttleton, to form a new ministry, and to occupy its principal places. These attempts were unsuccess- ful, because the sovereign would not deliver himself up into the hands of Mr Pitt and Lord Temple, so un- conditionally as they required.' I may remark upon this Note, that Lord Temple's pamphlet, to which I have referred, sets this matter also in its proper light. 28 LETTERS ON THE In Heron's Notes on Letter 15th, addressed to the Duke of Grafton, the following remark occurs : ' At the time these letters were written. Lord Chatham Lord Temple, the Marquis of Rockingham, and Mr George Grenville, acted in union.' In the text, to which the above is a note, Junius says — 'The moment this refractory spirit was dis- covered, their disgrace was determined. Lord Chat- ham, Mr Grenville, and Lord Rockingham have suc- cessively had the honor to be dismissed for preferring their duty, as servants to the public, to those compli- ances which were expected from their station.' And why did not Junius name Lord Temple with these other three ? I can imagine no other reason than to avoid speaking of himself. Again — Junius speaks emphatically of ' the shrewd, inflexible judgment of Mr Grenville.' Note by Heron. ' This gentleman was a younger brother of Lord Temple and brother-in-law to Lord Chatham In parliament he acted with his elder brother, afterwards Earl Temple, with Mr Pitt, and Sir George Lyttleton When Mr Pitt and Lord Temple retired abruptly from office, Mr Grenville was persuaded to co-operate with his brother-in-law, the Earl of Egremont, under the banners of Lord Bute On the resignation of Lord Bute he was raised to the place of first lord of the treasury. He was the author of the famous stamp-act, and of the first persecution of Mr Wilkes He had been at variance with his brother. Lord Temple, ever since that nobleman re- tired from office ; hut they were now reconciled. He continued, ever after, in opposition to the ministers. AUTHORSHIP OF JUNIUS. 29 .... In 1768, both he and Lord Temple were fully reconciled to Lord Chatham.' Junius's Letter to Sir Wm. Blackstone 17(39 : — * Your first reflection is, that Mr Grenville was of all men, the person who should not have complained of inconsistence v/iih regard to Mr Wilkes. This, sir, is an unmeaning sneer, a peevish expression of resent- ment, or, if it means anything, you plainly beg the question ; for whether his conduct has or has not been inconsistent with regard to Mr Wilkes remains to be proved.' Junius's last letter is addressed to Lord Camden, and closes the series thus : -^ * Considering the situation and abilities of Lord Mansfield, I do not scruple to affirm with the most solemn appeal to God for my sincerity, that in my judgment, he is the very wor^t and most dangerous man in the kingdom. Thus far I have done my duty in endeavoring to bring him to punishment. But mine is an inferior, ministerial office, in the Temple of justice, I have bound the victim and dragged him to the altar.' The reasons for this extreme hostility to Lord Mansfield will appear hereafter. In a note to Letter 7, to the Duke of Grafton, Heron says — ' The North Briton, the work of John Wilkes, assisted by Charles Churchill and Lord Temple, was admirably addressed to every popular prejudice and passion, and contributed, therefore, in an extraordina- ry degree to inflame both high and low, especially about the metropolis, with mingled rage and contempt against the government.' 3* 30 LETTERS ON THE When therefore Lord Temple commenced writing the Letters of Junius, he had become ah-eady practis- ed in that kind of skill, which should operate like •enchantment, on high and low, on both mobs and and lords, on the unlearned and the learned. In the Notes on Letter 35th, to the King, Heron re- marks — ' It was published on the eve of an occasion upon which the Whigs hoped, at last, to force them- selves in a body into administration on their own terms. The Grenvilles, the Earl of Chatham, the Marquis of Rockingham, with their adherents, were now united, ' &c. Letter 35th. The distance of the Colonies, &c. Note by Heron : ' It should seem, as if, in writing this paragraph, Junius felt himself at a loss, whether to be of the opinion of Mr Grenville, or that of Lord 'Chatham, in respect to the treatment of the Ameri- cans.' It being Lord Temple who wrote, he was at a loss ; the remarks would apply to no other man. Letter 39th. ' The cause of the public was under- taken and supported by men, whose abilities and unit- ed authority, to say nothing of the advantageous ground they stood on, might well be thought sufficient to determine a popular question in favor of the peo- ple.'* Junius. Letter 52d. Note by Heron : — ' Mr Wilkes was ap- pointed to the chief command of a regiment. The Grenvilles were his friends. Lord Temple, his * Note by Heron — ' Lord Chatham, Lord Camden, Lord Tem- ple, Mr Beckford, Mr Dowdeswell.' Similar remai-ks as in the pamphlet, &c. AUTHORSHIP OF JUNIUS. 31 neiglihor in the country ; and during the ministry of Pitt and Temple, Wilkes was an adherent, and even a favorite of the ministers. When Pitt and Lord Temple retired from official employment, Wilkes was led to adopt, with warmth, the resentments of his friend Temple.' Letter 52d. Note by Heron : — ' The papers of the North Briton were written with purity and liveliness of style, with great violence of satire, with a know- ledge of the most secret anecdotes of the time, with a perfect adaptation of their spirit to the tone of vulgar prejudice, sometimes with genuine strokes of serious eloquence, never without consi