« PreviousContinue »
say: "I should not survive a discovery | striking in a multitnde of passages from his three days." Junius in the Cabinet! and pamphlets and speeches. It is not worth Junius, by proxy, in the Palace! The idea while to dwell on these; no amount of them certainly carries a fascination along with it; could ever make Francis the real Nominis and we do not wonder the veiled assaulter Umbra. There is another view of Sir of King, Lords and Commons should employ Philip's feeble likenesses which strikes us. every effort of power and ingenuity to carry Even putting any design on his part out of his secret to the gave with him. None but the question, it may not be improbable that a man in the predicament of Chatham would the peculiar shape of his sentences, the tone have taken such a world of pains to remain of his sentiments, and the character of his hidden. To a secretary or any other hire- figures are owing to a bona fide sympathy ling, what would discovery signify? What with Junius, whose identity we believe he would it signify to Sir Philip Francis? suspected, if he did not know it. Francis Celebrity; an imperishable name. To seems to have formed his style on that of Chatham it signified odium which would him whose Latin secretary he was, who, he weigh down the honor or prosperity of his says, fascinated his young enthusiasm by house; deprive his family of their pen- his imposing qualities, and to whom he prosion; hinder the fortunes of the future Prime fessed himself under an endless weight of Minister-the future Commander-in-Chief; gratitude. And, indeed, perhaps Sir Philip, tarnish the dignity of his fame with the seeing the wish of Lord Chatham to remain unworthy stains of truculent passion. As for ever unknown, may have thought he for the renown-he could do without it; could show that gratitude in no better way his column was high enough already. What than by helping a deception which should would build up an enduring name for any bring suspicion to his own door, and away other man, Chatham flung by. No small from the right one! We sometimes think man would ever have done this. The pride there may have been some understanding, of assuming such an authorship must have by which the young man, for some powerful been balanced by powerful considerations, considerations of emolument, as well as such as we assert could belong to none but friendship, was bound to discourage the a man of lofty mark and likelihood. truth by every means in his power. However this may be, we find that Sir Philip's resemblances to Junius cannot be admitted as any valid proof. A few facts as unshakable as pyramids settle that question.
As for Sir Philip Francis, the idea that considerations of the kind could belong to him is absurd. He did his best to look like Junius, we are convinced. We perceive this pretension in a hundred passages and traces. In his paper on the Regency published in 1811, he employs the words spoken by Chatham (in a speech. of 1770) as an epigraph: "There is one ambition at least which I will not renounce, but with my life. It is the ambition of delivering to my posterity those rights of freedom which I have derived from my ancestors." Sir Philip then says: "After the noble speaker of these words, no man has so good a right to make use of them as I have." He wishes to make the world think that when he reported Chatham's speech, he made him a present of some of the sentiments-which is also found in Junius. The mere reporting the speech could scarcely give him any right to it. In another place he says Chatham made a certain assertion, or, "it is recorded for him." A wish to confound himself with Junius is palpable in Sir Philip. His imitations of Junius's phrases or his plagiarisms are very
Mr. Wade, in the edition of Junius referred to in the beginning of this article, takes up Taylor's hypothesis and attempts to corroborate it. He argues for Sir Philip through a series of what must be considered very lame and impotent conclusions. But one thing is very remarkable both in Taylor's and Wade's views of the case: they bring Chatham into the foreground; they cannot get on without him—a fact full of suggestion. The grave and gouty figure is always "to the fore." Mr. Taylor believes Junius reported Chatham's speeches, and Mr. Wade believes Junius received most of his Parliament, Court, and Club news from Lord Chatham, also from Lord Holland. also thinks that Lord Chatham only became intimate with this terrible young man of twenty-seven or twenty-eight after his letters had made him popularly known; but that thereafter his Lordship contributed to them and encouraged them; so that Chatham
must be considered as only a piece of Junius! With reference to his Lordship's speeches, known to be reported by Francis in 1770, Mr. Wade says: "It is not improbable that Francis composed these speeches for Lord Chatham: he certainly composed many of his Lordship's speeches!" Our readers are beginning now to understand the value of Mr. Wade's disquisition to the new edition of Junius. He states, in support of his assertion, that, in a copy of Belsham's History of Great Britain which belonged to Sir Philip Francis, he (Sir Philip) had made the following manuscript note: "I wrote this speech for Lord Mansfield, as well as all those of Lord Chatham on the Middlesex Election." Surely the word wrote means reported. To show that Francis could employ himself in making speeches for Lord Mansfield is not the happiest mode of proving Sir Philip to have been Junius. Mr. Wade supposes that Junius, as Lord Chatham's auxiliary, tried along with him to pull down the Grafton Ministry; and he adopts a very clumsy explanation to account for the coincidences between Chatham and Junius. He says Mr. Calcraft, the army agent, usually sent information of all sorts from London to Lord Chatham at Hayes; and he tries to show by very desperate inference, that young Francis the auxiliary communicated with Calcraft, and, through him, with Chatham. It would have been much easier for the young man to go to Hayes in a post-chaise and do his business directly! Mr. Wade quotes Justice Hardinge to show that Junius mentioned a matter known only to Chatham, Temple and Camden, and concludes it was Temple, as it could not be any body else, who betrayed the matter to the pages of Junius. A letter of the widowed Lady Francis to Lord Campbell is also quoted, in which she makes some very rambling and contradictory statements, saying in the first place, that Sir Philip never said he was Junius, and yet going on to state, (as if the thing was an admitted matter of course,) that in his (Francis's) controversy with Sir William Draper, "a new and powerful ally came to his assistance," meaning by the latter, William Pitt, Earl of Chatham! Whatever may be thought of Mr. Wade and his witnesses, it is plain Lord Chatham stands very much in the midst of them; his great shadow is always crossing the net-work of their hypotheses and expla
nations. Lady Francis is sure her husband was Junius, because he gave her, on her marriage, a copy of Junius's Letters, and was always interested in every thing that concerned them.
Mr. Wade admits, not being able to help it, that the object of Junius was the replacing of Chatham at the head of the government; and that the mighty juvenile ceased his letters because the cause was "given up," and Lord North came into power. He also argues that Francis was known to be Junius by the King, Lord North, and the government! who gave him a place in India worth ten thousand a year, to be rid of him. But he says Francis had no understanding with the Court that he should be silent in return for the place. No; he took it like a virtuous Roman, as his due, for other considerations. Now it must strike every body as very curious that Francis never thought of telling his wife what he communicated to the King, Lord North, and the government. Poor Lady Francis would give any thing to be able to state the fact, yet she cannot say, and she says all she can, that her husband ever confided the secret in any way to her. Mr. Wade's elucidation of Junius is wonderfully unique. With reference to the pretensions urged for Chatham, he says decisively, that this nobleman, "though most effective in oratory, was careless in literary composition, inexact, loose and repetitionary." It is well known that all great orators have been, and are, in the habit of writing their speeches, or the salient and telling points of them, before speaking them. It is also known that at college Pitt was in the habit of translating the orations of Thucydides and Cicero, with the most sedulous attention. Besides this, the general truth lies the other way. A man's written compositions are usually closer and more correct than his spoken eloquence. Pitt always thought earnestly and forcibly, and his speeches are well-knit and full of close argument. Such a man could not write inexactly and loosely.
Mr. Wade speaks much of the Chatham correspondence recently published by the grandsons of the great Earl. It is by means of this correspondence that the attempt is made to connect young Francis, or Junius, with Chatham, by means of Calcraft. The family of Chatham would dread nothing so much as the identification of the truculent
Junius with their founder, their decus et tuta- | Tories, with that sounding, simulated assault men. They would do every thing to hinder upon the Earl of Chatham. it. This correspondence contains two letters purporting to be from Junius to Chatham! But they are eminently suspicious, if not forgeries; just such things as Chatham himself, or his descendants, planning an eternal concealment, would provide. They weigh less than a feather, such as they are, against the massive proofs that lie in the other scale. To explain the fact that Francis, who, he asserts, loved and respected Chatham, abuses the Earl under the signatures "Poplicola," Anti-Sejanus," &c., in the first series of the Letters, Mr. Wade courageously abolishes as many as tell against him; he calls them spurious, with the decision of Alexander cutting the Gordian difficulty. All Mr. Wade's arguments have only the effect of bringing Chatham more suggestively forward. Unable to ignore the palpable likeness between Junius and Chatham, he still argues for Sir Philip, saying that the Earl had given him (Sir Philip) the first impression of greatness by his noble eloquence and the lofty independence of his character. He stoutly contends that this undeniable similarity was filtered through young Francis into Junius; he does not believe in a direct transmission. He admits that Francis shows himself inferior to Junius in every thing but the Letters. He says, "With the fire of a Chatham in his bosom to electrify the senate, and with the acumen, knowledge of human nature, and mastery of language of a Hume, a Robertson, and a Gibbon, to adorn and invigorate history, Sir Philip Francis was destined to leave, as his avowed productions, only a pile of well-nigh forgotten speeches, protests, pamphlets, manuscript notes on book-margins, and fugitive verses." But he gets over this obstacle; he swallows the chokepear thus: "I reply that Francis was unquestionably a person of precocious gifts." He flowered too soon; he faded prematurely, harassed and worn out by the stern duties of his lucrative place in India! Jam satis est. We shall not follow Mr. Wade any longer.
We hold up our hands and bless critical Wade; but we cannot put the slightest faith in his conclusions. He has left Francis as he was, a young man of twenty-seven, when Poplicola's powerful letter, breathing of the matured and masterly Junius in every sentence, opened the five years' war against the
There seems to be but two competitors now left upon this stage, Sir Philip Francis and the Earl of Chatham; and posterity will have to make its decision between the young clerk in the War Office, and the Titan of English statesmanship and politics. Those who object against Lord Chatham for Junius's appearance of early hostility toward that nobleman, must be incapable of understanding how a mind fertile in resources could carry on such a deception. They allow Junius wonderful powers of many sorts; but they do not allow him the power of managing his mystery. Whereas, Chatham, like Ulysses, had a subtle, close-contriving intellect; and the ability of Junius is as plainly seen in the strategy which has left the world so long in the dark, as in the literary merit of the Letters themselves. All minor ob jections must go for nothing in this question; such as that he did not know George Grenville, &c. It is too great a fault with those looking for Junius to accept implicitly what that shrewd masquer says. That is a stupid mode of coping with any one so cunning of fence. A man once ran, with his neighbors, to drag the river for his drowned wife; they searched down along the stream, but he who knew the dear departed better, went to look for her the other way, against it, and found her, they say, in a strong eddy. In the same manner, if we would come at Junius, we must go against the drift of many of his sayings and sentiments.
We think there appears on the face of this controversy an evident reluctance of English writers to recognize Junius in Lord Chatham. Woodfall, who certainly suspected the truth, the truth, if he did not know it, seems willing to lead us away from the Earl. Robert Heron in 1801 set the curious to run after Dunning. Taylor and Wade, though the stern apparition of Chatham stands in their path, turn aside to young Francis. In the Chatham correspondence any recognition of the Earl is discountenanced, which perhaps is only natural to expect from his grandsons. The general idea of Lord Chatham, a name synonymous with every thing great and venerable, would naturally be opposed to the belief that he was Junius; and it is difficult to argue away those convictions that come without any argument at all. Dr. Waterhouse, our countryman, was the
first who put forward Lord Chatham in a him.
The writer of Junius went to the grave, hoping and believing he should never be discovered; and his family, for the strongest reasons, have obliterated, and will do all in their power to obliterate, every trace which could bring that charge home to him. There are certainly no letters, nor any other token left to indicate him, save the printed epistles. He will remain a mystery for ever, if the evidences of these will not discover
These, in our opinion, are not equivoThey point to Lord Chatham, the only man who could write Junius's Letters-the only man who had the motives to write them. The solid weight of proof is all on his side; the quillets and quiddities of special pleading, some of them imposing enough, belong to Francis and the rest. It now remains to be seen whether the real Nominis Umbra can be thought able to appropriate the boast of Isis, in the temple at Sais, that no mortal had lifted her veil. But the semirecognized truth seems to be, that the portrait of Junius, done by an American artist, is to be seen, full in the middle of a great historic painting, now hanging upon the walls of the British House of Lords. w. D. Chelsea, Mass.
THE study of even inexplicable problems] their applications to life and conduct to be sure, but essentially the same.
Two or three of the ablest works of this class, with an accurate and succinct historical survey of the doctrines and characters of the leading philosophers, will be of more real service to the honest student than a small library read and collated after the old fashions. Most of these works, as Bacon advises, may be merely "tasted," (read in part or hastily,) others by deputy, (in reviews, commentaries, critical dictionaries,) and a very few thoroughly studied-the master minds, as infrequent here as in every department.
is by no means altogether useless, if they exert the effect of sharpening the critical faculties. The reasoning employed is generally inconclusive; the evidence is apt to be unsatisfactory or insufficient; yet the powers of the mind are braced by the exercise of ingenuity, of patient thought, of careful analysis. Mental activity, the habit of cautious investigation, self-knowledge, and candor, ought to result from these pursuits.
It is well to ascertain the fruits of human inquiry, to know the unknowable, to speak after the German fashion, or as Locke has happily stated this position: "When we know our own strength, we shall the better know what to undertake with hopes of success; and when we shall have well surveyed the powers of our own minds, and made some estimate what we may expect from them, we shall not be inclined either to sit still and not set our thoughts on work at all, in despair of knowing any thing, or on the other side question and disclaim all knowledge, because some things are not to be understood. It is of great use to the sailor to know the length of his line, though he cannot with it fathom all the depths of the ocean."
On some of the most important of these topics, (considered as speculative dogmas,) the proper state of mind appears to be that of philosophic doubt. Indifference promotes clearness; a clear thinker can distinctly express his doubts; liberal views beget a tolerant temper in others, and imply the possession of it in the theorist.
Beattie, himself a writer on these subjects and a Professor of Moral Philosophy, expressly admits, “All the practical, and most of the speculative parts of moral science have been frequently and fully explained by the ablest authors." In any thirty or forty volumes of ethical discussion, you will find here a new term, there a novel illustration; for the most part, a constant recurrence to admitted principles and facts, varied in
Of the great mass of ethical and metaphysical writers, the style is extremely pocr, mean, bald, and tedious. They seek to be so distinct, and are so copious, as to become tiresome, and that too in the discussion of conceded truths. They reverse the self-censure of Horace on his concise obscurity, and overwhelm a few commonplace ideas in a copia verborum. But this waste of the syllogism is as great an error as a matter of taste as the most verbose declamation. Diffuse logic is even worse than diffuse rhetoric, as well as inimical to the very spirit of reasoning. Rhetorie admits copiousness; logic is close; beauty is strength here, as well the essence of wisdom as of wit.
After the piles of controversial tracts, sermons, and philosophical treatises on the subjects of liberty, freedom of the will, moral necessity, &c., the sum of the matter, it appears, may be thus briefly stated. Moral necessity appears to be a fair logical inference from the premises, but freedom is safest to assume as a ground of practice; as a question, it is still open to the metaphysicians.
Philosophical necessity, practical freedom-to reconcile History and Providence, freedom of the will and the foreknowledge of Omniscience, (wholly a mystery,)-is logically impossible.
Systems are invariably one-sided and ex