It is remarkable that both Mr. Butler and Dr. Good ultimately abandoned the pursuit of Junius in despair;* but it is clear, that while they were engaged in their interesting search, each proceeded in his course con amore, and in the spirit described by Cowley "Although I think thou never found wilt be, The search itself rewards the pain." When we examine the relative degree of authority to which these investigators are entitled, we are inclined on the whole to give the preference to Mr. Wilkes and Mr. Butler; for these gentlemen seem to have been actuated by no other motives than laudable curiosity, and a sincere desire to discover the real author of the Letters; and if Mr. Wilkes's connexion with Junius were not quite so close and intimate as that of Mr. S. W. Woodfall, this circumstance is more than counterbalanced by leaving him free from that bias in favour of Junius which appears in some degree to have warped and influenced the judgment of Mr. George Woodfall, whose father was so completely mixed up, and as it were, identified, with Junius and his secret. This bias is * Dr. Good, in a letter addressed to Mr. E. H. Barker, a few weeks before his death, observes, "The question is one of great interest, as well on the score of national history as of literary curiosity, yet, like many other desiderata, I am afraid it is likely to lie beyond the fathoming of any line and plummet that will be applied to it in our day." And Mr. Butler concludes a letter to the same gentleman, dated June 14, 1828, in these words: "I am sorry I cannot communicate to you any information of importance on the subject in which you take so great an interest. I have only to add, that it appears to me to be involved in as great obscurity as ever.” plainly discernible in Mr. Woodfall's publication; and shews itself by an anxious endeavour on all occasions to exalt the character of Junius; whose patriotism, honour, and other excellent moral qualities, are held up to admiration in a way which is not warranted by a fair and candid interpretation of his letters and conduct. Although we admit that no suspicion can be entertained of the accuracy of any of Mr. G. Woodfall's statements respecting his father's transactions with Junius, we must confess, that considerable misgivings have at times come over us, as to whether his publication discloses the whole truth relating to his father's mysterious correspondent. The late Dr. Parr also entertained a similar suspicion, for in a letter written by him and published in Mr. Barker's book (p. 243), the Doctor observes that "the supposed author of Junius would venture upon falsehood, and Woodfall, knowing the importance of such disavowal, would record, although he disbelieved it. Woodfall stated a fact, and left his readers to their own conclusion; and it was the wish, if not the duty of Woodfall, to keep us in the dark." Mr. Cumberland heard that Mr. Woodfall was deeply guaranteed, from which circumstance he fairly inferred that, "although he might not know his author, he must have known whereabouts to look for him." The truth of the guarantee seems now admitted; and we may be certain that Junius faithfully performed the promise made to Mr. S. H. Woodfall, "that in point of money, be assured you shall never suffer," from the very high testimony borne in the "Preliminary Essay" to the honour and liberality of Junius; for such an acknow ledgment would not have been made, unless the son had been perfectly satisfied with the conduct of Junius towards his father. On this subject, Dr. Good thus expresses himself: "Of his (Junius) personal and private honour, however, we can only judge from his connexion with Mr. Woodfall, yet this connexion is perhaps sufficient; through the whole of it, he appears in a light truly ingenuous and liberal." We must however beg leave to demur to this summary mode of proving the honour and liberality of such a character; for the instance given, may more properly be regarded as a solitary exception to a general rule. Indeed, much consideration of the subject is not necessary, to convince any disinterested and impartial individual that little merit can be conceded to Junius for his liberality to his printer, who was placed in the front of the battle, to answer and suffer for the licentious effusions of his author. Besides, there can be little doubt, that the fate of this celebrated writer was in Mr. Woodfall's hands, who might on various occasions during the correspondence, have traced and delivered up Junius to his enraged enemies; and it was to his honourable forbearance alone that Junius owed his safety. Mr. Woodfall may therefore be considered the armour-bearer of the mysterious Knight, whose office it was to cover him in the day of battle with the shield of invisibility, while his own person was left exposed to all the darts of the enemy; and Junius must have been a recreant Knight indeed, if he had not requited such valuable services by pouring balm into the wounds of his champion, and supplying him liberally with the sinews of war. From all these circumstances, it seems hardly credible that Mr. G. Woodfall should not have been able to point out more precisely than he has done, "whereabouts to look for his author." Perhaps he considered himself bound in honour not to disclose the secret of a man, from whom his family had experienced nothing but liberal and honourable treatment, and therefore, while he published most of the private letters, and related many particulars highly curious and interesting respecting Junius, he might not deem it prudent to furnish the public with a test, which, if applied to his hero, would have been attended with consequences similar to those experienced by another celebrated personage, whom -Ithuriel with his spear Touched lightly-for no falsehood can indure |