IIE, whom Junius had so rabidly insulted. In either case, this baseness was not confined to the instance of the sovereign.

The handwriting part of the controversy is as puzzling as any other, but much less important. Junius, of course, disguised his handwriting. By turning to the pamphlets reviewed in the Edinburgh Review, the reader may see some ingenious efforts to identify, nevertheless, the handwriting of Junius with that of Sir Philip Francis. By turning to Mr Coventry's volume, he may see, in like manner, copious specimens of Junius's penmanship, contrasted with that of Lord George Sackville. In truth, the two gentlemen seem to have written very much like each other, and therefore it is the less wonder there should be many traces of likeness between their handwritings and that of Junius. The fact is, that the educated men of the same period often do write extremely like each other; nay, without going so far back, we have ourselves met with many autographs quite as like that of Junius as either Francis's or Sackville's.

The great question of all still remains: which of these men has shown, in his general history, the talent and the temper most akin to Junius?

The life of Sir Philip Francis has not yet been written; that of Lord George Sackville has been extremely well written by Mr Coventry. We know, in general, that Sir Philip was a clever speaker and writer, and that he bore a very high character both in India and in England. The specimens of his composition given in the Edinburgh Review were there pronounced to be worthy of Junius. Mr Butler thinks quite otherwise, and so do we. Let the reader turn either to the Review or the Reminiscences, and judge for himself.

With the exception of a few friendly and official letters, we have as yet no specimens of Lord Sackville's mode of writing. To these letters the laboured compositions of Junius bear no resemblance-neither do Cicero's Epistles to his Philippicks. But we have abundant specimens of Lord George's mode of speaking on important occasions; and above all, we have many highly interesting specimens of his method of acting, in cases where his personal character and temper were put to the severest trial, and his talents

roused by the most powerful of all stimulants.

But before we quote anything from this part of Mr Coventry's volume, let us see what he has collected in the way of virorum clarorum testimonia, in regard to the intellectual character of his hero.

The

"Having shown, that the enemies of Junius were the enemies of Lord Viscount Sackville; that the friends of Junius were the friends of Lord Viscount Sackville; and that the line of politics laid down by the former, was strictly pursued by the latter, it now only remains to affix further testimonials of his lordship's abilities, which have occasionally been called in question, as inadequate to the performance of the letters. able speeches which have been brought forward, as evidence of his lordship's opinions, clearly prove that he was competent to speak or write on any subject. There were very few topics that came before the House, on which his lordship did not enlarge. These speeches have, undoubtedly, been read with interest by all statesmen and members of Parliament. For the satisfaction of other readers, I shall lay before them a few testimonials of eminent men who were well acquainted with him, and who were competent judges to discriminate between natural and acquired talent:

"There was no trash in his mind.'— William Gerard Hamilton.

"Lord Sackville never suffered the clearness of his conceptions to be clouded by any obscurity of expressions.'—Richard Cumberland.

"Lord Sackville's countenance in

dicated intellect, particularly his eye, the motions of which were quick and piercing.'-Sir N. Wraxall.

"I thank the Noble Lord for every proposition he has held out: they are worthy of a great mind, and such as ought to be adopted.-Lord North.

"Lord George Sackville was a man of very sound parts, of distinguished bravery, and of as honourable eloquence.Lord Orford, Vol. I. p. 244.

"During the seven years that his Lordship was Secretary for the Colonies, he had, principally, Charles James Fox to contend with. Throughout this long and arduous period, he displayed signal ability in his replies.'-Parliamentary

Debates.

"In business, Lord George Germain was rapid, yet clear and acute; rather negligent in his style, which was that of a gentleman and a man of the world, unstudied, and frequently careless, even in

his official dispatches. But there was no obscurity or ambiguity in his compositions.'-Sir N. Wraxall.

"Mr Pitt styled Lord George Germain the Agamemnon of the day.'-Sir N. Wraxall.

"In the debate on the Mutiny Bill, Lord Orford says that Lord George Sackville displayed more ability that Mr Pitt.' [afterwards Earl of Chatham. ]-Memoirs -Nov. 1754

666 'Among the persons of eminence to whom Mr Pitt had recourse for support, at this delicate crisis of his ministerial life [1783], when every parliamentary aid which could sustain him against the coalition, was anxiously sought after, the late Lord Sackville attracted his attention. That nobleman had, hitherto, taken no decided part in the debates during the progress of the East India Bill, though he voted against it personally,' &c.-Sir N. Wraxall.

"On the Marquis of Carmarthen's motion, in 1782, after Lord George Germain had been created a viscount by the King, Sir N. Wraxall observes:

"His enemies confessed, that never was a more able, dignified, or manly appeal made within the walls of the House of Peers, than Lord Sackville pronounced on that occasion.'

duct, without offending the parties declared against him. Very different was the conduct of Lord George. From the outset, and during the whole process, he assumed a dictatorial style to the court, and treated the inferiority of their capacities as he would have done had he been sitting amongst them. He browbeat the witnesses, gave the lie to Sloper, and used the judge advocate, though a very clever man, with contempt. Nothing was timid, nothing humble, in his behaviour. His replies were quick and spirited. He prescribed to the court, and they acquiesced. An instant of such resolution at Minden had established his character for ever.'

"This intrepid and daring spirit was peculiar to Lord George through life; it fully accords with the description given in a letter to a certain nobleman on the intricate question before us, wherein the writer says

"Whenever Junius appears in a probable character, he is great and generous, above every idea of deriving a mercenary emolument from his writings, impatient and indignant at opposition, and fiery and implacable in his resentments. have long felt assured this is no common man; and when you desire me to search for Junius amidst the discontented of his

I

"Among the parliamentary orators of 1755, Lord George Sackville stands pre-eminent. Lord George informed and convinced; with a frankness in his speech, there was a mystery in his conduct, which was far from inviting.'-Lord Orford.

"In 1757-A Commission of Enquiry was directed concerning the Miscarriages at Rochfort, composed of the Duke of Marlborough, Lord George Sackvisle, and General Waldegrave. Upon this occasion, Lord Orford observes that 'Lord George Sackville was more than a balance to the other two in abilities.'

"At the conclusion of Lord George Sackville's trial in 1760, Lord Orford pourtrays a certain character so applicable to Junius, that I cannot withhold in serting it here:

"Lord George's own behaviour was most extraordinary. He had undoubtedly trusted to the superiority of his parts for extricating him. Most men in his situation would have adapted such parts to the conciliating the favour of his judges, to drawing the witnesses into contradictions, to misleading and bewildering the court, and to throwing the most specious colours on his own con

"Think of a genius not born in every country, or time; a man gifted by nature with a penetrating and aquiline eye, with a judgment prepared with the most extensive erudition, with an Herculean robustness of mind, and nerves not to be broken by labour; a man who could spend twenty years in one pursuit.

Such a man was Junius.

"I cannot seek him among discontented politicians, for he was apparently bound to no set of men; and though he thought with Mr Grenville, he is less distinguished by any political attachments or sympathies, than by his abomination of one particular administration; on the score of politics alone he has hitherto eluded our curiosity. As an injured person, to whom should we particularly direct our attention?'

N. B. We have given only a part of this section of Mr Coventry's volume.

The reader has seen Horace Walpole's Account of Lord George Sackville's behaviour on his trial. He must be interested with Mr Coventry's narrative of his celebrated duel with Governor Johnstone, which arose out

EIGHT years have now elapsed since the public attention was strongly seized by an attempt to identify the author of the Letters of Junius with a political character of considerable importance then surviving-Sir Philip Francis. The volume in which this thesis was maintained had the fortune to attract, in an especial manner, the notice of the Edinburgh Reviewers, and the article in which its propositions were retailed, was, at the time, looked upon as among the most successful of their efforts in this kind. Our attention is now solicited to another volume, which has for its object the identification of Junius with another person altogether, a person of infinitely greater importance in every respect, the late Viscount Sackville, better known under his earlier appellations of Lord George Sackville, and Lord George Germaine.

Sir Philip Francis, when the attempt above alluded to was made known to him, made no answer except this," It is a malignant falsehood and calumny." Lord Sackville has been dead these forty years, so that he has no opportunity to make or to withhold a similar disavowal. This we consider, we must distinctly say, as of no consequence whatever. The Edinburgh Reviewer thought that after the lapse of near half a century, Sir Philip Francis need have no unpleasant feelings in seeing the Letters of Junius traced to his pen. We take quite a different view of the matter, and are firmly persuaded that no man who had any fragment of the feelings of a gentleman left within him, could have suffered himself and Junius to be identified after the lapse of whatever period of time, without emotions of the most perfect agony. Junius, whoever he was, was a man of extraordinary genius. His book must always preserve its place high among the classics of England; but beyond this intellectual praise all is dark. Junius was a first-rate master of the art of rhe torical invective; but he was also one of the meanest, the basest of libellers:

He had for ever forfeited his character as a gentleman by what he had done; for he had raked together, without even the pretence of any public grounds for so doing, all the most secret domestic calumnies he could muster, and mixed them up in the chalice which he held to the lips of his political enemies. He had, in innumerable instances, libelled the men of a family through its women. This one trait is enough for us. We say nothing even of the rancorous attacks upon his innocent, amiable, and respectable Sovereign. We take one broad position. The political writer who had permitted himself to assail his opponents, by insulting their wives and sisters, could never hope to acknowledge his trespass, and yet to maintain his place in society; and therefore no man capable of writing Junius could ever, by possibility, witness without torture any attempt to identify him with that Gigantic Shadow. If the Edinburgh Reviewer be still of an opposite opinion, we are sorry to differ from so great an authority; but we cannot help it.

The fact is, that Junius and Sir Philip Francis were, both of them, Whigs; and the fact is also, that, up to the time at which the Edinburgh Review about Junius appeared, the Whigs of our own time held and maintained (ay, and acted upon too) very different notions, as to some rather important matters, from those which they have since found it convenient to adopt-or at least to proclaim. The article in question appeared long before any Edinburgh Reviewer had dreamt that the day might ever come, when he should find it convenient to represent personality either as a mo. dern or as a Tory invention. In those days, the "Twopenny Post bag" was the beau-ideal of elegant satire; and nobody need blush to own himself author of Junius' attacks upon the Tory ladies of his time! We leave our friend to read over his admirable and admired article now with what feelings he may, and proceed at once to the subject of the volume before us.

We say to its subject; because, before we come to itself, we must advert to a very interesting chapter in the ve nerable Mr Charles Butler's" Reminiscences," which work was first published in 1822. Mr Butler was living on terms of great intimacy with Wilkes soon after the time of Junius's publications, and these two gentlemen conjunctly amused themselves with a de liberate inquiry into the claims of the different persons who had, up to that day, been suspected. Their inquiry terminated in nothing. Mr Wilkes inclined to suspect the late Bishop Butler. The other saw no strength in any of the arguments on which Wilkes' suspicion (for, after all, it was no more) relied. He gave the result of the investigation in a letter, which, ere long, found its way into the pages of the Anti-Jacobin Review, then flourishing.

The subject, however, had continued to occupy Mr Butler's able mind ; and, in his "Reminiscences,”* he takes up the state of the controversy as it had been left by the publication of the attempts to identify Junius with Sir Philip Francis, and, upon the whole, treats of it with equal ingenuity and candour. The general result was, that he thought the external evidence for Sir Philip was very strong, the internal of the very weakest, and concluded that Sir Philip had indeed been connected with Junius, but this only as an amanuensis. This theory sufficiently accounted for the many striking facts which had been alleged in evidence of Sir Philip's connexion with the terrible Letters ;among others, it accounted for the fact, that Sir Philip was promoted from a very obscure rank here, to a very high office in India shortly after Junius ceased to write, because, argued Mr Butler, Junius might be a man not above entering into a compromise with Lord North, yet entirely above seeking any pecuniary compensation for his silence to himself, and such a man might easily have been able to have his amanuensis provided for, even in the high style in which Sir Philip Francis's then unknown merits were certainly most suddenly and unexpectedly rewarded.

The question remained as to Junius

In

himself. Mr Butler says, that he himself recollects the first person who was generally suspected was Lord George Sackville. He adds, that Sir William Draper lived and died in the belief that Lord George was the man. fact, no other feasible guess was made at the time, except one; we allude to the suspicions of Burke. These suspicions have, we think, been entirely disproved. The evidence of style is here so strong, that it alone might be sufficient; but further, the politics of Junius differed essentially from those of Burke as to the Stamp Act, the Triennial Parliaments Bill-in short, as to some of the most important questions of the time. Thirdly, and lastly, and conclusively, there is nothing either in Burke's character, or in Burke's history, to account for the tone and temper of those ferocious diatribes, in relation to persons with whom, in many instances, Burke lived and died on terms of friendship, respect, and affection. Who can believe, for example, that Burke was ever capable of writing the famous letter to the King? -Burke, whose life had been, on the whole, a most fortunate one-Burke, who had met with nothing to sour a naturally delightful temper-Burke, who was, his enemies themselves being judges, the very soul of candour and sin→ cerity, as well as of gentleness. As to the arguments drawn from Junius's railing a little at the Irish, his throwing a sarcasm on Burke's own eloquence, these we certainly think of no consequence. Junius, whoever he was, wore a mask with deeper layers than such as these ; nor, if there were any strong evidence against Burke, should we hold Burke's own language about Junius in the House of Commons as of any avail. Whoever Junius was, we may be quite sure that he was in the habit of abusing Junius in society; and, of course, if he knew himself to be suspected, (as both Burke and Sackville did,) he would rail so much the more vigorously.

In all such cases, we confess we are inclined to give very considerable weight to the first guess that finds general favour. In this case, the first such guess was Lord George Sackville. The only other guess that has been supported with very strong arguments,

is Sir Philip Francis. Let us then lay the two claims together, and try, if possible, to determine where the balance falls.

The principles from which the defenders of the two different hypothe ses set out, are, generally, the very same. The question turns upon the comparative success with which they have brought the facts of the cases to coalesce with these admitted tests.

And, first, it is admitted on both sides, that Junius must have been a man who had some reasons of gigantic force for hating the chief members of the British government at the time, with not merely a political, but a personal rancour.

Now Mr Francis was, at that period, a very young man, a clerk in the War-Office. He was, during the period of Junius's publications, dismiss ed from his office by the nobleman at the head of this department, Lord Barrington; and the very dismission forms one topic in Junius's attack upon that lord.

But-Lord George Sackville had a history of a far darker sort to look back upon. The most remarkable incident in his life was one well calculated to sour for ever the temper of a man born, as is now admitted on all hands, with high talents and high spirit. He had entered early into the army: he had distinguished himself and bled profusely in almost every battle of the time he had risen to nearly the highest dignities of his profession : he had been lieutenant-general of the ordinance in England, and commander of the English forces in Germany during the campaign of Minden. In the course of that battle, he was, whether justly or unjustly, charged with a neglect of Prince Ferdinand the commander-in-chief's orders; and a charge of cowardice was openly insinuated. He was, upon this, dismissed immediately from all his offices in the army, his name erased from the list of the privy council, and a valuable sinecure he had long held in Ireland taken from him. All this was done without trial, although, from the first moment, he did nothing but demand investigation. The government of George II. did all they could to prevent a trial-the King himself personally intimated, that if he were trici, and found guilty, his fate shoul. be the same as that of Byng. Lord George persisted, and he was at length tried.

He was found guilty of neglecting to execute the commands of his general with sufficient alacrity, and declared incapable of serving the King thenceforth in any military capacity. The King did not merely approve of this sentence, but commanded it to be published at the head of every regiment in the service, "in order that officers being convinced that neither high birth nor great employments can shelter offences of such a nature; and, that, seeing they are subject to censures that are much worse than death to a man who has any sense of ho nour, they may avoid the fatal consequences arising from disobedience of orders."

It is no part of our present object to inquire into the justice of the sentence, thus aggravated by the personal rescript of George II. We profess ourselves to have long been thoroughly convinced that Lord George was perfectly blameless. Prince Ferdinand was a heavy German, jealous of Sackville's brilliant talents, and the haughty independence of his address and conduct. The second British officer in the field was Lord Granby, a very brave man certainly, but as surely a very dull one. He also hated and dreaded Lord George Sackville's brightness of parts and assumption of utter superiority. One of the Grafton family was aid-de-camp to Prince Ferdinand; Granby succeeded to the employments taken from Sackville, and this Fitzroy (afterwards Lord Southampton) was one of the fatal witnesses on his trial.

We cannot remember all this, and hesitate to agree with Mr Butler, in admitting that

"There certainly was an event in his lordship's life which would sour him against mankind, and fill his soul with bitter hatred against the King in whose reign it happened, and his immediate successor on the throne; against Lord Mansfield, their secret and confidential adviser in all state prosecutions; and against the Duke of Grafton, the brother of Lord Southampton, a strong witness against Lord George in the court-martial which was held upon him."

In addition to this, be it noticed, that although the very day after George the Second's death, Lord George Sackville went and kissed the young King's hand, and was received very graciously, yet he was immediately afterwards informed (from Lord Bute of course,)