Having already gone to so much length in our review of this volume, we shall pass over very cursorily both the subject of general politics, and the particular application of the science as it referred to the war with America. Very opprobrious language is applied to our venerable Sovereign, whose conscientious discharge of his exalted duties is known to every Englishman, and as the errors of his reign will now be attributed to an infirmity, which no rectitude of heart could prevent, we shall not sully our pages by quoting the offensive paragraphs.

It is said that the great obstruction to the peace with America was, that we endeavoured to detach her from her allies; and it might be so without any imputation on the honour of this country: which, single-handed and unsupported in the sequel, maintained a contest with four distinct powers. We have, however, under all the circumstances, no doubt of the injustice and impolicy of that war; and if any uncertainty with regard to it rests on the mind of man, it will be effectually removed by the letters before us, which unfold the whole circumstances of the protracted negociation, by which that war was terminated. The great work of peace was accomplished by this best friend of humanity, to whom the attention of our readers has been invited. What Washington was in the camp Franklin was in the cabinet; and it is to this day problematical, whether America be indebted for the early acquisition of her independence more to the valour of the one, or to the wisdom of the other: certain it is, that different as were their occupations, there was a great resemblance between them in their natural vigour of mind, and in their general character founded upon it. If it be objected that they were both destitute of what has received the venerable appellation of learning, and should their writings, exceeded by few in clearness, precision, and force, be deemed no satisfactory answer, we reply in the words of the eloquent advocate of the poet Archias: "Quæret quispiam, Quid? illi ipsi summi viri, quorum virtutes literis proditæ sunt, istane doctrina, quam tu effers laudibus, eruditi fuerunt? Difficile est hoc de omnibus confirmare: sed tamen est certum, quid respondeam. Ego multos homines excellenti animo ac virtute fuisse, et sine doctrinâ, naturæ ipsius habitu propè divino, per seipsos et moderatos et graves extitisse fateor: etiam illud adjungo, sæpius ad laudem atque virtutem naturam sine doctrinâ, quàm sine naturâ valuisse doctrinam,"

[60]

ART. VII.-The Identity of Junius with a distinguished Living Character established. "In sese redit." London, Taylor and Hessey, 1816. Svo. pp. 366.

Of the many attempts since the appearance of Woodfall's edition of the Letters of Junius, to ascertain to what individual, public or private, they were to be assigned, this is the best executed and the most plausible. The "distinguished living character" fixed upon is Sir Philip Francis.

The anonymous author of this volume, not a very long time since, put forth an argument in the shape of a pamphlet, in which he endeavoured to make out that the Letters of Junius were the joint production of Dr. Francis and his son Sir Philip; the main reason for supposing and supporting this union was, that Sir Philip Francis was only nineteen years old at the time, and could not therefore himself have been possessed of the experience or the learning of Junius, nor could have otherwise become acquainted with the political facts to which such frequent reference was made. The very necessity for such a combined authorship was to us a tolerably convincing proof that the hypothesis, however ingeniously maintained, was untenable: in the writings of no man, living or dead, is there more unity than in those of Junius: the style of thought and language is the same from beginning to end, and it is any thing but the style of a young unpractised author; granting, then, that Dr. Francis only furnished the intelligence, we feel persuaded that it was impossible that his son, a boy of nineteen, should have penned any one of the masterly and polished productions that were given to the world under the

name of Junius.

Presuming, therefore, that this renewed attempt in hand was by the same individual, we took it up unwillingly, and it was not until we arrived at the third chapter, that we found that the writer of this Identification had mistakenly asserted, in his first production on the subject, that Sir P. Francis was born in 1748 instead of 1740; this correction makes a most material difference in the author's favour, which, perhaps, he scarcely estimates highly enough; for, instead of being nineteen, Sir P. Francis was twenty-seven years old at the date of the earliest miscellaneous letter, and all those signed Junius were consequently published between his twenty-ninth and thirty-second year," a time of life," as is justly observed," in which men generally undertake the greatest designs of which they are capable.' This cor

rection in point of date, we admit, renders it possible that Sir P. Francis should have been the author of the Letters of Junius: the probability is another question; and the acquired style of Junius, which appears to be the result of long practice and great skill, is one of the difficulties still to be overcome; for even at thirty, such singular regularity of construction, and precision of phraseology, held up by many succeeding critics as models for imitation, could scarcely be acquired.

The author of this work commences, like a skilful logician, by clearing his ground: the great obstacle he meets with is a letter sent by Sir P. Francis to the Editor of the Monthly Magazine, who had applied to him to be informed if he were in truth the author of the Letters of Junius, as charged in the first pamphlet: the answer was in these terms:

"The great civility of your letter induces me to answer it, which, with reference merely to its subject-matter, 1 should have declined. Whether you will assist in giving currency to silly malignant falsehood is a question for your own discretion. To me it is a matter of perfect indifference."

What, let us ask, is the natural impression produced by this letter! Sir P. F. pronounces that the statement is a falsehood, and that it is a silly and malignant falsehood, which, to our judgment, appear about as plain and unequivocal words as it was possible for a man to use; but it is the business of our author to maintain the contrary, and he sets about it accordingly with a degree of confidence truly legal, which is generally proportioned to the difficulty to be encountered.

"I need not ask the reader whether this letter is evasive or not. He will perhaps wonder how any one can have been misled by it for a moment. The editor, however, with a simplicity that does him honour, did not perceive the futility of this pretended disavowal, though he had just stated, properly enough, that if the hypothesis were not true, Sir Philip Francis would be able by a word to disprove it.' It certainly is not so disproved, and we are therefore authorized to conclude that it could not fairly be disputed. No man, who had it in his power to give a simple negative to such a question, would have had recourse to an inuendo. The only surprising part of the transaction is, that any answer should have been returned by one who knew he could not send a better; but perhaps

* The author's attempt to prove that "silly and malignant falsehood" are ambiguous terms, reminds us of the man in the farce, who being called "scoundrel, coward, and liar," answered that he did not understand such insinuations.

Sir Philip had no suspicion that it would be printed verbatim in the Monthly Magazine. He must have thought the editor of that publication would state the denial in his own way; and that if an impression was made on his mind in the first instance, the public would be convinced at second hand.

"Without supposing this, we are involved in a difficulty of a very peculiar kind: the abundance of the evidence being actually in danger of stifling the charge. For it would appear, that if Sir Philip calculated on his reply being given to the public, he could scarcely have taken a more effectual step to make the world believe that he was Junius. His unequivocal affirmation of the fact would not have been so directly convincing, since there exists no reason why the author, whoever he be, should now make that disclosure which he had resolved to withhold for ever; and unless some sufficient motive apparently urged him to a public acknowledgement, his claiming it would but subject him to the imputation of unfounded pretensions.

On the other hand, to deem the evasion unintentional, is not only affronting to the understanding of Sir Philip, but at variance with every trait in his character. It is in the memory of many members of the House of Commons, how skilfully he can parry attacks like the present, by a mode not very dissimilar. Nor is it likely that he who was styled by Mr. Burke, the first pamphlet writer of the age, and who has all his life been engaged in political controversy, should on this occasion alone be at a loss for words in which to convey his meaning. It is well known, that in all he writes, his expressions are selected with unusual care, and that he has thereby acquired a wonderful strength and clearness of style." (p. 12—14.)

Here our author is somewhat bolder in his assertions than logical in his conclusions, and his argument on this part of the subject is strangely at variance with his preface, where he states, that "at this time of day it is impossible that any harm can accrue to the author of the Letters of Junius." Then why should Sir P. Francis resort to any evasion to any artful or designed ambiguity, in his denial? One obvious answer to the reasoning above given the author of it himself supplies, when he expresses his astonishment that any answer at all should have been returned, supposing Sir P. F. to be guilty; and another is assigned by him in his preface, that the writer of the Letters of Junius, whoever he be, has no motive, personal or public, to continue the concealment.-Is Sir P. Francis now in any official situation which would be put in jeopardy by his avowal? No.-Has he changed his politics, and would be ashamed to acknowledge his tergiversation? No.-Is there one individual living who would be likely or capable of wreaking vengeance upon his newly-discovered castigator? No. On the contrary, would not any man, however

exalted his rank, or extensive his fame, be proud to admit, were it true, that he was the person who deserved all the applauses that, since the year 1773, have unanimously been heaped upon a name? In short, on the part of the author of the Letters of Junius, there is now every motive to disclose himself, and not a single reason for continuing the secret. Can it be said, that the merit of the Letters of Junius is merely imaginary? or that the esteem in which they are held by high and low, by the learned as well as by the unlearned, is to be attributed to the mystery that involves the author? that, like the story of the Man with the Iron Mask, the interest is derived chiefly from impenetrable concealment? Undoubtedly not; and the position would fail, unless the supporter of it could prove, not only that Junius is a fool himself, but all the rest of the world who admire his talents are fools also.

For these plain reasons, most of those who have thought at all upon the subject, have come to the almost unavoidable conclusion, that the real author of the Letters of Junius is not now living; that he was "the sole depository of his own secret ;" and that that secret has died with him. Unless, therefore, some unforeseen circumstance should occur to disclose it-some remarkable confession should be discovered at a distant day, it is probable that, like the admirable work of the Whole Duty of Man, or the Lives of Wilkins and Buncle, the Letters of Junius will remain. anonymous to the latest generation. It would not be unentertaining (though the time for such an experiment is a little past) to see some clever fellow, who has not, in fact, the slightest pretension but his cleverness, start as a candidate for this vacant honour.

The whole reasoning in this work applying to the events of the life of Sir P. Francis, is founded upon a short piece of biography published in a monthly publication, and written, as our author asserts, by a friend of the subject of the article, with his approbation and from his materials. Now, if this be the fact, and we have every reason to believe it,* another marked inconsistency is observable: if Sir P. Francis be so anxious to prevent the discovery that from his pen proceeded the Letters of Junius, is it likely that he should himself voluntarily have supplied the evidence which was to lead to his own conviction?-A considerable portion of the volume before us is made up of a parallel

* Indeed we have been assured, though circuitously, that it was penned by "the first pamphlet writer of the age."