368 Ch. 9. 1769 SLANDEROUS STORIES OF BEDFORD. of a son with whom, as must have been known to a person so well informed as Junius, he had lived on terms of the most affectionate and unreserved intercourse. Upon the same painful subject, the writer could not refrain from adding an anecdote, more like the tattle of a disappointed valet, than one to which the malice of a man of liberal attainments could descend. The great faults of the Duke were that he abused the advantages of a commanding position to factious ends, and that he preferred the petty interests of his particular party to any consideration of the public service. To expose with the utmost severity of censure a policy so injurious to parliamentary government would have been just and useful; but Junius thinks it more damaging to relate a pitiful story of the Duke's having been assaulted by some ruffian at a race-course. Even the famous letter to the King which was elaborated with the greatest pains, has hardly an allusion to the point on which His Majesty's conduct was most reprehensible. The design of exalting the power of the Crown beyond the limits assigned to it by that settlement which placed the House of Hanover on the throne; the unconstitutional and unworthy system of discrediting the responsible ministers by means of agents instructed to baffle their policy and to supplant them whenever it suited his purpose to do so:-these grave offences are passed over. The dismissal of the great administration which the King found in power at his accession was attributed, not to the design long since COARSE SATIRE OF JUNIUS. matured at Leicester House of carrying on the government by means of the King's creatures, but to an occasional pique and resentment. Legge, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had refused to recommend the nominee of Bute at an election; therefore he and his colleagues were turned out. George the Third is reproached, after the fashion of the vulgar libellers of the day, for employing Scotchmen, because they had been the last to give up the cause of their ancient kings. The only fortunate stroke in this, the most ambitious and the least successful of all his libels, was, that the destruction of one man had for years been the sole object of the King's government. 369 Ch. 9. 1769 Junius. It may be consistent with the vile policy of libel Politics of to address itself to the coarsest intelligence, and so to make use of vulgar delusion and prejudice; but when we find Junius, for a moment, treating public questions apart from personality, his views are narrow, and his expressions trite. The first letter which bears his signature, and which, fortunately for his fame, provoked the hostility of Sir William Draper, is a dissertation upon political affairs and public men, little, if at all, above the level of other articles on the same subject in the public prints. On the American question, his opinions were those of Grenville; on the question of parliamentary reform, then just in its dawn, he denies the right of the Legislature to disfranchise the rotten boroughs, and he is so ill read in the elements of constitu 370 Ch. 9. 1769 POLITICAL IGNORANCE OF JUNIUS. tional law as to style the elective franchise the birth-right and the freehold of its possessor. He asserts with equal ignorance, that the reform in the representation of the People is a matter exclusively for the House of Commons, like a money bill. Even upon the exciting topics of the day, topics agitated in every form, he contributed little in the way of argument or felicity of exposition. He shewed a remarkable want of discrimination also in assigning its due importance to every subject; an essential qualification for a public writer. The question upon which he seems to have bestowed the greatest pains, was one of mere technical law; his aim being to shew that Lord Mansfield illegally, and therefore corruptly, held a man to bail whom he ought to have committed;-a matter in which the public took little or no interest. And as there was no slander to which he would not stoop for the purpose of wreaking his malice (as in the instance of the Duke of Bedford); in like manner he would descend to the grossest arts of the political incendiary. A regiment of guards, for example, had incurred odium for acting against the populace in Wilkes's riot. Every man of sense and candour knew that the soldiers had done no more than their duty; but the people were to be flattered at any price; the animosity against the Household troops was therefore to be inflamed; while invidious comparisons were made between this corps and the infantry of the line. SUPERIORITY OF DEAN SWIFT. 371 Ch. 9. 1769 a classic The writings of Junius, rescued from the perishable columns of a newspaper, have long since been transferred to the library, and the libeller is ele- Junius become vated into an English classic. Swift, indeed, a writer. genius of the first order, had previously occupied the same place, but with a title far higher and more secure. Setting aside the exquisite satire of the two matchless apologues, Junius can even then stand no comparison with the Dean of St. Patrick. Even in rancour, the anonymous libeller is excelled by the Irish satirist almost as much as in wit. Both were animated with strong personal malice; Junius combut the intensity of scorn and hatred with which pared to Swift. the lampoons of Swift are often charged, imparts to them something of the sublime; while the malignity of Junius, though sometimes almost appalling, is too much mingled with the vanity of literary display. Of humour, in which Swift excels every English author, Junius had but a small share; nor is his invective ever poured out in that torrent of derision with which the Dean overwhelms his victims. Nothing, again, can be more in contrast than the respective styles of these great masters of libel. That of Swift is the perfection of homely simplicity; while the periods of Junius are of the most artificial construction, and polished with the greatest labour. The Irish writer, full of meaning, and intent only on being understood, makes use of common words and short sentences. The point is in the meaning, not in the expression. The contrary may be said of Junius, 372 Ch. 9. 1769 Supposed authorship of the letters of Junius. Deficiency in the Civil List. AUTHORSHIP OF JUNIUS. who affects only scholastic terms, and that balanced antithetical style which denotes poverty of genius. The best of his performances are his letters to Sir William Draper. Free from the virulence which deforms most of his compositions, these letters are models of cool contemptuous ridicule. The quality of his antagonist was not such as to put a strain upon his powers, and he obtains an easy victory. Scattered up and down his works there are some fine passages and striking expressions; but on the whole, they have ever appeared to me inflated, exaggerated, and tiresome. The authorship of these celebrated letters has been the subject of more extensive and ingenious speculation than any other question of historical curiosity. They have been ascribed to almost every leading member of the opposition; to Lord Temple, to Lord George Sackvile, Burke, Gerard Hamilton, Wilkes, Glover, and many others of less note. It is not my intention either to examine the pretensions of these several claimants, or to contribute any new theory on the question. The evidence which connects Sir Philip Francis with these publications is perhaps the strongest, though it is not so completely satisfactory to my mind as it has appeared to more competent judges. In the midst of the disastrous conflict between the House of Commons and the electors of Middlesex, a message from the Crown was brought down a See Addenda K, p. 400. |