WOODFALL'S EDITIONS OF JUNIUS; 1772 & 1812. XXXV

granted; and the work was speedily produced in two small volumes. The author wrote several confidential notes to his printer, not only urging expedition, but manifesting much anxiety in prescribing accuracy of the text. He also requested that three sets of the work should be bound for him, in a particular manner, one of which was to be in vellum, gilt, &c. This was accordingly done, and the choice copy has often been eagerly sought for, as a clue to the author. The whole history of these transactions is detailed in an edition of Junius, published in three octavo volumes in the year 1812; where also will be found the Author's private Notes to Woodfall, as well as others to and from Wilkes.

Previously to 1812 many imperfect editions of these Letters had successively appeared, and my friend, the late Mr. George Woodfall, a most worthy man in private life, son of Mr. H. S. Woodfall, the publisher of the "Public Advertiser," deemed it therefore advisable to print a new, corrected, and greatly enlarged edition of the writings of the anonymous satirist, which is above referred to. He engaged Dr. John Mason Good, to edit the same, to write explanatory notes, and annex to the whole a "Preliminary Essay." In different conversations with both those gentlemen, I have heard them repeatedly state, that they could never satisfy themselves in assigning the authorship to either or to any of the persons who had then been named, and whose identity and qualifications had been advocated by different writers.

In the preliminary essay, Dr. Mason Good touches upon nearly all the points connected with the authorship of these celebrated compositions. He commences by a veracious and graphical description of the calamitous state of the British empire, at the time when the political "great unknown" first addressed the public; and he justly remarks, that never had the history of this country exhibited a period of equal extent that more peremptorily demanded the severe decision and overpowering pen of such a writer as Junius. The Constitution was shaken to its basis; successive ministries were always unsuccessful, and often profligate and corrupt, and parliaments were

weak and obsequious; Great Britain was exposed to universal contempt abroad, and general discord at home; and the American colonies were on the very verge of open rebellion.

On the 28th of April, 1767, Junius, under the signature of "Poplicola," commenced, in the " Public Advertiser," his internecine warfare upon the individuals whom he deemed the foes of liberty and his country. Lord Chatham was the first person on whom he poured out the vials of his wrath; and he followed up the blow by two letters; one of them under the same signature as the preceding epistle, and the other under that of "Anti-Sejanus, Junior." In the last of these a stinging attack is also made upon Lord Bute.

Vigorously as the masked champion had begun the contest, he continued it with still increasing vigour, and with untiring perseverance. As connected with our inquiry, it is worthy of notice that Lord Townshend was the next who felt the keenness of his satire; and that, in the letters addressed to that nobleman, there are sarcastic allusions to two points, which, some years before, had been touched upon in a similar tone, by the anonymous author of "A Letter to a Brigadier General."

Under various appellations, among which are those of Mnemon, Domitian, Vindex, Atticus, Lucius, Brutus, and others, the public defender continued his labours from the 28th of April, 1767, till the 21st of January, 1769, when he finally adopted, for his more elaborate compositions, the signature of Junius, which he had previously used in a single instance; that of Philo-Junius he assumed for subjects of minor importance. His last political letter was printed in the "Public Advertiser," May 12th, 1772. His reasons for then retiring from the field he has himself given, in his private communications to Mr. Woodfall. As early as 1769, the apparent hopelessness of his labours seems to have excited in him a momentary disgust. "I am weary," says he, "of attacking a set of brutes, whose writings are really too dull to furnish me with even the materials of contention, and whose measures are too gross and direct to be the subject of argument, or to require illustration." He, nevertheless,

DR. MASON GOOD ON JUNIUS.

xxxvii

for two years and a half longer, persisted in his exertions, and with greater energy and talent than ever; but at length, finding success was rendered impossible by the miserable jealousies and squabbles of the popular party, he relinquished his pen in despair. Twelve months after he had ceased to be a public writer, he thus, in his last private letter to Mr. Woodfall, states the cause of his silence :-"I have seen the signals thrown out for your old friend and correspondent. Be assured I have had good reason for not complying with them. In the present state of things, if I were to write again, I must be as silly as any of the horned cattle that run mad through. the city, or as any of your wise aldermen. I meant the cause and the public: BOTH ARE GIVEN UP. I feel for the honour of this country, when I see that there are not ten men in it who will unite and stand together upon any one question. But it is all alike vile and contemptible."

After a series of able remarks on the feelings, principles, temper, and peculiar style of Junius, Dr. Good proceeds to describe the circumstances which must be combined in an individual, in order to identify him with Junius.

"From the observations contained in this essay," says he, "it should seem to follow, unquestionably, that the author of the Letters of Junius was an Englishman, of highly cultivated education, deeply versed in the language, the laws, the constitution and history of his native country; that he was a man of easy, if not affluent circumstances, of unsullied honour and generosity, who had it equally in his heart and in his power to contribute to the necessities of other persons, and especially of those who were exposed to troubles of any kind on his account; that he was in habits of confidential intercourse, if not with different members of the cabinet, with politicians who were most intimately familiar with the court, and entrusted with all its secrets; that he had attained an age which would allow him, without vanity, to boast of an ample knowledge and experience of the world; that, during the years 1767, 1768, 1769, 1770, 1771, and part of 1772, he resided almost constantly

in London or its vicinity, devoting a very large portion of his time to political concerns, and publishing his political lucubrations, under different signatures, in the 'Public Advertiser;' that, in his natural temper, he was quick, irritable, and impetuous; subject to political prejudices and strong personal animosities; but possessed of a high independent spirit; honestly attached to the principles of the constitution, and fearless and indefatigable in maintaining them: that he was strict in his moral conduct, and in his attention to public decorum; an avowed member of the established church, and, though acquainted with English judicature, not a lawyer by profession. What other characteristics he may have possessed, we know not; but these are sufficient; and the claimant who cannot produce them conjointly is in vain brought forward as the author of the Letters of Junius."

Lastly, Dr. Good passes in review all the persons who, at the time when he wrote, had been suspected of having written these celebrated Letters. They are Charles Lloyd and John Roberts, originally Treasury clerks; Samuel Dyer, a learned man, and a friend of Burke and Johnson; William Gerard Hamilton, familiarly known as Single-speech Hamilton; Mr. Burke; Dr. Butler, late Bishop of Hereford; the Rev. Philip Rosenhagen; Major-General Lee, who went over to the Americans, and took an active part in their contest with the mother country; John Wilkes; Hugh Macaulay Boyd; John Dunning, Lord Ashburton; Henry Flood; and Lord George Sackville.

Few words will suffice to disqualify the first three of these candidates. After having suffered under a lingering illness, Lloyd was on his death-bed when the last private letter of Junius was written. Nor, though he was a prolific pamphleteer, is there any thing in his writings which displays the manner or the intellect of Junius. As to Roberts and Dyer, they had for many months been in their graves, while Junius was still wielding the pen. Hamilton, though with abilities above mediocrity, and though he had vanity enough to declare that he could excel Junius, was a luke-warm politician,

VARIOUS CLAIMANTS TO THE AUTHORSHIP.

xxxix

with neither sufficient nerve to plunge into such a perilous contest, nor mental powers and tenacity to sustain it. Burke, who always disowned them (and who, as we know from good authority, repeated his disclaimer almost at the close of his life), has long ceased to be regarded as the author of these compositions. It is, indeed, astonishing, that he should have been suspected; the striking difference between the two writers, in style, in political attachments, and in many political opinions, ought to have prevented such a suspicion. With respect to Dr. Butler, and the Reverend Philip Rosenhagen, they may be dismissed with little ceremony, as there is not a tittle of evidence in their favour. They "come like shadows; so depart!" The claim of General Lee (who is said to have acknowledged the authorship) is utterly demolished in one brief sentence. "It is a notorious fact," says Dr. Good, "that during the whole, or nearly the whole of the period in which the Letters successively appeared, this officer was on the continent of Europe, travelling from place to place, and occupying the whole of his time in very different pursuits." The laurels of Junius cannot, therefore, adorn the brow of General Lee. The title of Wilkes is briefly but decisively nullified. "That he is not the author of them (says Dr. Good) must be clear to every one who will merely give a glance at either the public or the private letters. Wilkes could not have abused himself in the manner he is occasionally abused in the former; nor would he have said in the latter (since there was no necessity for his so saying) 'I have been out of town for three weeks,' at a time when he was closely confined in the King's Bench." The pertinacity and assurance with which the claim of Hugh Macaulay Boyd has been urged have induced Dr. Good to enter at some length into the subject; and he demonstrates clearly that the claim is unfounded—that Boyd possessed neither the affluence nor the mature years of Junius, nor that writer's easy access to the circle of high life and to the secrets of State, nor even his political principles, Junius being a decided mixed monarchist, and Boyd a wild, random republican. That Boyd was an imitator of Junius is beyond dispute; but he bears only such a resemblance