of liberty, that noblest of all human passions, he stands forth the guardian and defender of his country: an equal terror to the tyrant, who would enslave her, as to the traitors who would betray. Whatever sentiments that passion can inspire, whatever arguments good sense can dictate, whatever ideas of highest sublimity his own great genius could conceive, the reader will find in the following orations, philippics, and olynthiacs. After such a character of them, what modest excuse can be made for the translator? He professes, and surely without suspicion of affectation, his apprehension of sinking under the attempt. Yet while he feels the influence of the same passions that animate the original, he will not wholly despair of the translation*." It is said that Dr. FRANCIS was a favourite with the king, who consulted him on many occasions. He was also the intimate friend of Garrick, whose endeavours to discover JUNIUS gave him so much annoyance. And in addition to these instances of general resemblance, it must not be unnoticed that Dr. FRANCIS had that connection with the family of the late Lord Holland, which accounts satisfactorily for the respect and forbearance which JUNIUS observed, whenever they were mentioned. As in the following pages it is not attempted to prove that Dr. FRANCIS had actually any share in writing the Letters of JUNIUS, we shall not press the subject farther than to remark, that the preceding facts are worthy of attention, for the influence they may be supposed to have had on the habits, feelings, and principles of Sir PHILIP. In removing their operation one degree, the effect they would have had, in the first instance, will be found to be little weakened; for as it is likely that he would derive many peculiarities of style, and modes of thinking, from the writings and instruction of his father, so the prevalence of these same characteristics in the Letters of JUNIUS, is, primâ facie, in favour of their being the composition of the son. No person, at the present day, could expect to find in the avowed productions of JUNIUS any clue, that would directly lead to a discovery of the author. Had this knowledge been attainable from the Letters which have hitherto appeared under his name, the curiosity of the public would long since have received its gratification: but, qui nescit dissimulare nescit vivere, was a maxim too well understood by the writer, to admit of his forgetting it on such important occasions. The only prospect of obtaining light on the subject consisted, therefore, in those Private and Miscellaneous Letters which have recently made their appearance. To these my attention was more particularly directed by common curiosity, without any expectation of finding out the writer. In this quarter, however, those passages were observed, which gave rise to the present investigation. Nearly at the end of the third volume, I was struck with the unparalleled zeal which the writer displayed in the cause of two individuals belonging to the War-office. It appeared that Mr. D'Oyley, a clerk in that establishment, had a short time before been deprived of his situation, through the interference of Lord Barrington: and the writer of the Letter to which I allude, desires Mr. Woodfall to inform the public, "that the worthy Lord Barrington, not contented with having driven Mr. D'Oyley out of the War-office, had at last contrived to expel Mr. FRANCIS*.” The Editor states in a note, that this was the present Sir PHILIP FRANCIS. Surprised at the occurrence of this name, and at an interference so extraordinary, I began to consider whether Sir PHILIP might not have been the writer. His general character for politics and literature proved him to possess the requisite qualifications; and on reference to his Life in the Public Characters, I saw sufficient evidence, as I thought, to confirm my conjecture. The impression made by the facts there related, was strengthened by a comparison of style. From these materials a statement was drawn up, entitled a Discovery of the Author of the Letters. *JUNIUS, iii. p. 444, signature VETERAN. Before it went to press, I requested a friend to call on Sir PHILIP FRANCIS, and inform him, that if he had the slightest objection to have his name connected with the investigation, he might rely on the total suppression of the work. I am satisfied this communication was made in a way which must have convinced Sir PHILIP that it proceeded solely from a respect for his feelings, and that what was proposed would be performed. It was perhaps due to him that not a step should be taken without his permission; nor could his refusal betray him into an implied admission of the truth of the charge. A simple negative would leave it still undetermined, whether his aversion proceeded from a dread of the disclosure,--or from a tender respect for his father's memory, or from a reasonable dislike to that free discussion of his own character and qualifications, which the question of necessity required. His reply was liberal enough. "You are quite at liberty to print whatever you think proper, provided nothing scandalous be said respecting my private character." Soon after the appearance of the pamphlet, the editor of the Monthly Magazine, intending to notice it in that work, wrote to Sir PHILIP FRANCIS, to ask him whether the conjecture was correct. The editor did not recollect the distinction drawn by that strict moralist, Dr. Johnson, between spontaneous and extorted acknowledgments; or, pro bably, he would not have taken the trouble to make this application. "BOSWELL. Supposing the person who wrote JUNIUS were asked whether he was the author, might he deny it? "JOHNSON. I don't know what to say to this. If you were sure that he wrote JUNIUS, would you, if he denied it, think as well of him afterwards? Yet it may be urged that what a man has no right to ask, you may refuse to communicate; and there is no other effectual mode of preserving a secret, and an important secret, the discovery of which may be very hurtful to you, but a flat denial; for if you are silent, or hesitate, or evade, it will be held equivalent to a confession. But stay, Sir, here is another case. Supposing the author had told me confidentially that he had written JUNIUS, and I were asked if he had, I should hold myself at liberty to deny it, as being under a previous promise, express or implied, to conceal it. Now, what I ought to do for the author, may I not do for myself? *" Had the editor of the Monthly Magazine looked for an affirmative to his question, he should have recollected that he was not addressing one "Who would be woo'd, and not unsought be won," have been supposed, were still in the way of such * Boswell's Life of Johnson, iv. 344. |