between the incidents in the life of Sir P. Francis and events upon which Junius dwells in various parts of his productions: yet the author insists, that the very means of making this comparison were furnished by the individual who is now resorting to artifices, and making untrue assertions of falsehood, to prevent a disclosure, at which, as a man of sense and discernment, he would most sincerely rejoice.* The importance of the facts communicated by Sir P. Francis to his biographer, to the purpose of our author, may be collected from some of the conclusions at which he imagines he arrives. "On the whole, however, I consider it established, 1st, That the latest period to which Junius carried on that regular correspondence with his printer which marks his residence in town, was March 23, 1772. 2dly, That the time of his positive renewal of it was March 7, 1773. In the interval he wrote three public letters, accompanied with private notes, dated the 3d, 4th, and 10th of May, 1772; and one private note, dated January 19, 1773; from all which nothing can be inferred with certainty as to his actual situation. To compare with the above dates, we have the undoubted facts, 1st, That Sir Philip Francis left the War Office on March 23, 1772, and went abroad before Midsummer; 2dly, that he returned to England some time in the spring of 1773. The exact accordance of the first date renders the other almost equally conclusive. The two succeeding chapters are occupied by a comparison, on the same authority, between the friends of Sir P. F. and those of Junius, as collected from his writings. We willingly admit that this part of the question is handled ingeniously, and with great closeness of argument, more especially where the author endeavours to establish his hypothesis by the praises Junius bestows upon Sir P. F. and his associate D'Oyley. What the author of this volume says on the topic of the cause of the anxiety of Junius for the security of his printer, deserves extracting; it will afford a specimen of the closeness of the reasoning, and of the industry of the writer. Admitting, then, that Junius had a personal acquaintance with his printer, let us see how this fact will affect Sir Philip Francis. His lot was certainly very different from Mr. Woodfall's; and at the * According to the admission of the author of this work, Sir P. Francis had no secrets to keep, and refused no kind of information: thus, when applied to by the very publishers of this volume, he admitted a fact on which great stress is afterwards laid, viz. that he reported a part of a debate in the Parliamentary History, which it is imagined greatly resembles Junius. (Vide p. 259.) time the Letters were published, there seems to have been no kind of connection between them. But it appears that at one period they had the opportunity of becoming intimate. They were school-fellows of the same standing: in 1753 Sir Philip was placed at St. Paul's school, under the care of Mr. George Thicknesse; in 1756 he was received into the Secretary of State's office. Let us compare these dates with the following extract from Nichols's Biographical Anecdotes:-Henry Sampson Woodfall was born June 21, 1739, O.S. At eleven years old he went to St. Paul's school, whence he removed to serve his apprenticeship with his father." He entered the school, therefore, in 1750-1, about two years earlier than Sir Philip. As between their ages there was but the difference of one year, and it was possible for them to have remained together three years at school, their intimacy might be presumed: but I am told that I have the authority of the present Mr. Woodfall for stating, that his father formed an acquaintance with Sir Philip Francis when at school, which caused them through life to regard each other with particular kindness; and though various circumstances soon dissolved that early connection, yet the remembrance of it was ever after kept up between them, by some friendly token of acknowledgement whenever they met. This piece of intelligence establishes a point which otherwise would be entitled to some notice from its probability. But the truth may also be arrived at through a different medium: the Rev. Philip Rosenhagen was the school-fellow, and continued through life the mutual friend, of Sir Philip Francis and Mr. Woodfall; thus there is additional proof of a particular bond of union having subsisted between the two latter gentlemen at the time they were at school." (p. 120-122.) The author from thence proceeds more particularly to the public life of Sir P. F., following with the same ardour of pursuit as if he had really his game in view. We have not space to dwell upon these details, which are spun out in such a manner as a little to injure their effect: he notices with the utmost precision every little coincidence of expression; sometimes descending with a degree of puerility to insignificant minutia, noticing as singular, and peculiar to Junius and Sir P. F. the most ordinary phraseology: we will insert a short specimen, to prove that we are warranted in our objection. "The following peculiarities are almost equally strong with the above: "Junius. Upon occasion of a jurisdiction unlawfully assumed by the House.' "Francis. On occasion of a bill brought down from the House of Lords.' CRIT. REV. VOL. V. Jan. 1817. K "Junius. lishman.' When you affectedly renounced the name of Eng "Francis. -The barbarous terms affectedly made use of.' "Junius.- I am sorry to tell you, Sir William, that, in this article, your first fact is false.' 6 "Francis. This part of the motion, I say, implies a false fact." “Junius.— The cases to prove that the assumed privileges of either House of Parliament are not examinable elsewhere than in their own houses, are Lord Shaftsbury's case, &c.' 1 “Francis.--' He has added some specific evidence, which I shall take the liberty to examine, because it is of an examinable nature in itself, and happens to be familiar to me.'" (p. 235-236.) We must pass over the comparison between the political opinions of the two individuals, (for two we still hold them to be,) although the similarity is made out with considerable skill, and proceed to what we think the best part of the work, which, if sufficiently supported by other circumstances, might have tended to stagger our judgment. We have already stated that Sir P. F. allowed that he had reported certain speeches by the Earl of Chatham and other Peers, delivered on the opening of the session, January 9, 1770. Here we admit there is a striking resemblance between the language of Junius and that which Sir P. F. has given to the Lords, and it cannot be supposed to be exactly their lordships' own expressions, as the reporter only professed to transcribe from memory. An important remark, however, is to be made upon this portion of the argument, that the debate took place in January, 1770, while the most valuable of the letters of Junius were not written until after that date; so that Junius might have seen and copied from the debate as reported: still, however, the coincidence is remarkable. We quote several extracts.. "That he was satisfied there was a power in some degree arbitrary, with which the constitution trusted the crown, to be made usé of under correction of the legislature, and at the hazard of the minister, upon any sudden emergency, or unforeseen calamity, which might threaten the welfare of the people, or the safety of the state. That on this principle he had himself advised a measure which he knew was not strictly legal; but he had recommended it as a measure of necessity, to save a starving people from famine, and had submitted to the judgment of his country.' [Junius.That Parliament may review the acts of a minister is unquestionable; but there is a wide difference between saying that the crown has a legal power, and that ministers may act at their peril.' Instead of asserting that the proclamation was legal, he (Lord Camden) should have said, 'My lords, I know the proclamation was illegal, but I advised it because it was indispensably necessary to save the kingdom from famine, and I submit myself to the justice and mercy of my country." (p. 262-263.) Far That they ought to be treated with tenderness, for in his sense they were ebullitions of liberty which broke out upon the skin, and were a sign, if not of perfect health, at least af a vigorous constitu tion, and must not be driven in too suddenly, lest they should strike to the heart. [Junius. No man regards an eruption upon the surface, when the noble parts are invaded, and he feels a mortification approaching to his heart.' "I shall only say, give me a healthy vigorous constitution, and I shall hardly consult my looking-glass to discover a blemish upon my skin?'" (p. 265.) That the Americans had purchased their liberty at a dear rate, since they had quitted their native country, and gone in search of freedom to a desert. [Junius, speaking of the Americans, says: They left their native land in search of freedom, and found it in a desert.'" (p. 268.) "Lord Mansfield. He began with affirming, that he had never delivered any opinion upon the legality of the proceedings of the House of Commons on the Middlesex election, nor should he now, notwithstanding any thing that might be expected from him. That he had locked it up in his own breast, and it should die with him.'— [Junius to Lord Mansfield: As a lord in Parliament, you were repeatedly called upon to condemn or defend the new law declared by the House of Commons. You affected to have scruples, and every expedient was attempted to remove them. The question was proposed and urged to you in a thousand different shapes. Your prudence still supplied you with evasion; your resolution was invincible. For my own part, I am not anxious to penetrate this solemn secret. I care not to whose wisdom it is entrusted, nor how soon you carry it with you to your grave.' In a note to this passage, it is added: " He said in the House of Lords, that he believed he should carry his opinion with him to the grave.' "As no report of this speech had then been published, it is clear, from the above extract, that Junius was in the House at the time it was delivered." (p. 275.) The same course is pursued with regard to the debate of the 22d January, 1770, also reported by Sir P. Francis: we will subjoin a concluding specimen, in which the author of this work seeks to deprive Junius of one of the most memorable similes in any writer, and which is quoted with a sort of rapture by all his admirers. Lord Chatham seems certainly to have supplied the ore, which Junius has worked into shape, and polished into beauty. "My lords, I revere the just prerogative of the crown, and would contend for it as warmly as for the rights of the people. They are linked together, and naturally support each other. I would not touch a feather of the prerogative. The expression, perhaps, is too light; but since I have made use of it, let me add, that the entire command and power of directing the local disposition of the army is the royal prerogative, as the master feather in the eagle's wing; and if I were permitted to carry the allusion a little farther, I would say, they have disarmed the imperial bird, the Ministrum Fulminis Alitem. The ministry have tied up the hand which should direct the bolt.' 66 [Junius. The ministry, it seems, are labouring to draw a line of distinction between the honour of the crown and rights of the people. This new idea has yet been only started in discourse; for in effect, both objects have been equally sacrificed. I neither understand the distinction, nor what use the ministry propose to make of it. The king's honour and interest is that of the people. Their real honour and interest are the same. I am not contending for a vain punctilio. A clear unblemished character comprehends not only the integrity that will not offer, but the spirit that will not submit to an injury; and whether it belongs to an individual or to a community, it is the foundation of peace, of independence, and of safety. Private credit is wealth; public honour is security. The feather that adorns the royal bird supports its flight. Strip him of his plumage, and you fix him to the earth." (p. 331-333.) It was not our intention to have devoted so much space to this renewed investigation, which has already in vain employed the pens of hundreds of pamphleteers to prove that it was any body and every body these crude attempts were well ridiculed at the time by a friend of ours, who established the point with about as much plausibility in favour of the late Mr. Suett the Comedian. Our unwillingness to devote so large a portion of our Review to this work, did not however arise from the exhaustion of the subject, but because we really thought the enquiry scarcely worth it: a plausible supposition was the utmost that could be attained, and, after all, how much better or wiser we are for it we know not. Nothing but the positive, undeniable, avowed fact could be completely satisfactory; and whether this writer or that approach nearest the truth in their conjectures is of little consequence : Truth will admit of no degrees: Facts, not conjectures, if you please; |