founded. One or two minute circumstances, which, to our limited vision, appear to coincide, shall exercise a more powerful dominion over the intellect, than the most elaborate chain of argument, although, in point of truth, they might have been produced by combinations widely different from each other. We seldom allow ourselves to consider that it is the constant sport of nature to throw out analogies and resemblances. How often does she gratify her caprice, for instance, with those exact similitudes between one man and another, those amusing plagiarisms from herself, which have given birth to as much perplexity in the tragi-comedy of real life, as the Antipholises of Ephesus and of Syracuse in the mimic scene of the theatre ! Many are the problems which have led the reasoning power of man a long dance of error. Of these the French Causes Célèbres furnish us with several extraordinary instances. Witness also the Douglas cause, and the question of the guilt or innocence of Mary Queen of Scots, which, notwithstanding that Andrew Stewart and Whitaker expended upon it the full force of their acute intellects, will, perhaps, never be settled upon any basis stronger than that of plausible conjecture. Since the appearance of the first of that series of powerful invectives, written under the signature of Junius, the question, "Who was the real author of those letters ?" has excited intense curiosity. We always thought that, whoever he might bave been, he and his family, to the latest of its generations, must have felt, and continue to feel, the utmost anxiety for the impenetrability of his concealment. As a public writer, he unquestionably served his country. In times pregnant with danger to the constitution he revived the antient intrepidity of the English character, and by his fiery eloquence taught the people how to estimate and guard their rights. He gave a tone to the public press, which, happily, it still preserves, of manly resistance to every measure calculated in the least degree, to affect the freedom of the actual commonwealth which flourishes under the shade of our monarchy. But as a private individual, Junius made himself a sacrifice to these objects. He must have had many things to answer for to his honor, and, perhaps, to his consistency. Among his friends and acquaintances he wore a mask, which enabled him to betray or attack them with matchless arms, if at any time they gave occasion for his resentment. His personal professions and conduct would perhaps have been frequently found in contradiction to those of Junius, an inconsistency which must have cost him many a severe pang, if Bb 4 >1 he he was, as undoubtedly he appears to have been, a man of delicate feelings. But if, in the course of the irritations and inquiries to which the violence of Junius gave birth, the question, "Are you the author?" happened to have been put to the real person, and if, relying on the darkness of his disguise, he reconciled it to his honor to answer by a lie,then who, we ask, would be Junius? Who would think that literary renown, even if it promised immortality, could wipe out the foul stain of falsehood, that must accompany that name, and be worn with it to the remotest ages? Who then was Junius? We have read at different times the whole of the voluminous controversy upon this literary mystery, and we do not hesitate to say, that the greater number of the persons to whom his letters have been attributed, were incapable of writing even one of them. Perhaps an exception might be made in favor of Gibbon and Wilkes, but certainly neither of these was Junius. Sir Philip Francis disclaimed the imputation as a libel on his character. Mr. Coventry, in the work before us, endeavors to fix it on Lord George Sackville. No one, he justly contends, has any pretension to the authorship of Junius, of whom the following testimonials cannot be produced: 1. That he was an Englishman. 2. That he was a man of rank, and of independent fortune. 3. That he was a man of highly cultivated talents, and of superior education; that he had successfully studied the language, the law, the constitution, and the history of his native country; but that he was neither a lawyer nor a clergyman. 4. That he either was, at the time of writing the Letters, or had previously been, in the army, is evident from his practical knowledge of military affairs. 5. That he moved in the immediate circle of the court. 6. That he was a member of the established church. 7. That he was a member of the House of Commons. 8. That from the early information Junius obtained on governinent affairs, it is evident he was connected with some persons in administration. 9. That he was a firm friend to Sir Jeffery [afterwards Lord] Amherst. 10. That he was a friend to Colonel Cunninghame. 11. That he was an admirer of Mr. Grenville. 12. That he was a strong advocate for the Stamp-Act in America. 13. That he was in favour of repealing the duty on tea in America. 14. That he was an advocate for triennial parliaments. 15. That 15. That he considered the impeachment of Lord Mansfield as indispensable. 16. That from the manner in which he upholds rotten boroughs, it is highly probable they either constituted part of his property, or that he was in some way connected with them. 17. That he considered a strict regard should be paid to the public expenditure, that the national debt might not be increased. 18. That he was against disbanding the army, although a firm friend to the marching regiments; he was also in favour of impressing seamen. 19. That he must have had an antipathy to Sir Fletcher Norton, the Speaker of the House of Commons, from the contempt with which he speaks of him. 20. That he was necessarily a friend to his printer, Mr. Woodfall. 21. That he must have resided almost wholly in London, from his correspondence with Mr. Woodfall, to whom he gives notice when he occasionally goes into the country. One of his letters being dated Pall-Mall, we may fairly presume his town-house was in that street. 22. That from his remembrance of the Walpolean battles, his seeing the jesuitical books burnt in Paris, and his avowal of a long experience of the world, as well as from other circumstances mentioned in his correspondence with Mr. Wilkes, he could not be less than fifty years of age at the time of writing these Letters. 23. That from the hints given to his printer, Mr. Woodfall, we may infer arrangements had been made for his coming into office; which though not accepted by him at the time, were sufficiently important to induce him to write no more. 24. Finally, that so powerful an attack on the private character of persons of such high rank being inconsistent with the pen of political writers, in general, who condemn measures, and not character, we may reasonably conclude, that they proceeded from the pen of one who had received a severe wound from some of those individuals who formed part of the existing administration.' Lord George Sackville is shewn to have possessed all these qualifications. We have often heard that, in his lifetime, his Lordship was suspected of being Junius. Sir William Draper at first divided his suspicions between Lord George and Mr. Burke. Upon receiving an unequivocal denial from the latter, he transferred them wholly to Lord George. The motives which might have influenced a man of such high station, and great intellectual endowments as his Lordship, to occupy his pen for more than four years, in one continued strain of personal invective, may be traced to the unfortunate prosecution for his conduct at Minden. The parties who promoted that prosecution, were also accessary to his dismissal from office in 1766. Cumberland, indeed, in his Me moirs, tells us, that not many days before his death, Lord Sackville told him, by way of jest, that he was among the suspected authors. "I did not want him to disavow it," he continues; for there could be no occasion to disprove an impossibility." It is much to be lamented that, in those solemn moments which preceded that nobleman's dissolution, Cumberland did not ask him to disavow it. But it is a remarkable circumstance, that a dying man should voluntarily introduce a subject, which he had never before mentioned to his friend during a long and intimate acquaintance. As to the impossibility of his having been Junius, we are by no means disposed to agree with Cumberland. Undoubtedly the court-martial held upon Lord George Sackville, preceded as it was by the most unmanly persecution, the sentence, and the severity of the public orders which confirmed it, would account for the bitter hatred which he bore against the King, in whose reign he suffered those disgraces; and an infirmity common to men of vehement feelings will account for his transferring to George the Third, some part of the rancour which he felt towards that monarch's grandfather. It is well known, also, that Lord Mansfield was the secret adviser of both, in all matters of state-accusation. Lord Mansfield is the subject of Junius's most unsparing hatred. The Duke of Grafton, who is pursued in the letters with the most implacable animosity, was the brother of Colonel Fitzroy, the strongest witness against Lord George on the court-martial. One circumstance is somewhat important: the strong anxiety expressed by that nobleman a few days before his death to see Lord Mansfield. In the interview which took place in the presence of Cumberland, he solicited Lord Mansfield's forgiveness, if ever, in the fluctuations of politics, or the heats of party, he had appeared in his eyes, at any moment of his life, unjust to his (Lord Mansfield's) great merits, or forgetful of his many favors. As to the Duke of Bedford, who in one of the letters is hunted down with an almost savage rancour by Junius, the compliment must be paid to the head rather than the heart of Lord George Sackville, if he were, indeed, the author of it. For what had the Duke done to incur such merciless severity? He had accepted an appointment (the deputyrangership of Phoenix-Park) from which Lord George had been prematurely dismissed, before his conduct in Germany had been fairly tried before a court-martial. It is a very remarkable coincidence, that Junius does not spare one character, nor one family, who had any share in the the disgrace of Lord George Sackville; and it is particularly worthy of notice, that nearly all the parties, upon whom he poured the phials of his indignation, were military charac→ ters, or in some way or other connected with the army. The severity of the sentence of the court-martial was aggravated tenfold by the confirmation of the King: "It is his Majesty's pleasure that the above sentence be given out in public orders, 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 much worse than death, to a man who has any sense of honour, they may avoid the fatal consequences arising from disobedience of orders."" Lord George, who conducted his own defence, and had, as he thought, completely refuted the charge, seemed to have been fully convinced, by this violent sentence, that there was a secret intrigue in the cabinet to destroy him. His name was erased from the list of privy counsellors, he was stripped of all his emoluments, and declared incapable of serving his Majesty in any military capacity whatsoever. Lord Barring ton, of the War-Office, had written to him a letter, signifying his dismissal as lieutenant-general and colonel of dragoon guards. The places which he held were given to the very persons, who had afforded evidence against him on the courtmartial. The Marquis of Granby was made Commanderin-Chief, and Master-General of the Ordnance; Colonel Fitzroy was appointed aide-de-camp to the King, and one of the grooms of the bed-chamber. Lord Barrington is conspi cuous among the victims of Junius. The Marquis of Granby, who seems to have had no other enemy, is also one of the first objects of Junius's animadversions. The letter to that nobleman was frequently, at the time, attributed to Lord Geroge. A most important circumstance in this controversy is the attack upon Lord Townshend. Junius imputes cowardice to him at the battle of Minden, from the mere fact of his shed→ ding tears at the death of a soldier, who was killed near the spot where he stood. "No one," says Junius with bitter irony, "that I know of can suppose those tears shed from that depression of spirits, which the extremity of fear sometimes produces, and which finds some ease from an involuntary overflow at the eyes." Yet the courage of Lord Townshend was never before disputed. Some private offence must have been given; and the following fact deserves atten→ tion. Lord Townshend (who had once been on friendly terms with Lord George Sackville) had an ingenious turn for drawing; and having joined with the party by whom Lord |