345

CHAPTER XVII.

A PRESUMPTION favourable to the main hypothesis of this investigation is raised, and ought to have weight, from the successful issue of that part of our inquiry which relates to the author of the preceding speeches.---None but internal evidence led to the conclusion that Sir PHILIP FRANCIS reported them, yet we have seen that by competent authority that judgment has been pronounced correct. Now, what has taken place in the one instance we may fairly infer would ensue in the other, provided the requisite authority could be as freely appealed to, and with the same chance of getting an impartial and decided answer.--But disregarding the connection of Sir PHILIP FRANCIS with the preceding speeches, let us now consider whether they contain sufficient evidence for determining them to be the composition of JUNIUs. To decide this question satisfactorily we must lay aside the feelings of an advocate, and view it with the strictest justice.

That JUNIUS took great interest in the debates at this period, is proved by his Letters to Wood

fall. Whatever might be his personal views, it is very certain that they depended upon a change of ministers, and at this time he had the greatest reason to hope that some alteration would be effected. Nor was that expectation altogether disappointed, though his private views were frustrated. In consequence of the great exertions of Lord CHATHAM at the opening of Parliament, the ministry were thrown into confusion. The secession of Lord Camden from the chancellorship attended his first speech, and the resignation of the Duke of Grafton followed his second. As these were important events to JUNIUS, so the means by which they were brought about must have been regarded by him with particular interest. But he leaves no doubt of this, for on December 12, 1769, one month before the opening of Parliament, he tells Woodfall, "I am now meditating a capital and I hope a final piece ;--you shall hear of it shortly." Then follows his famous Letter to the King, in which the dissolution of Parliament and a change of administration are urged with all the ability of which the writer was capable. He might justly deem it a "capital" piece, and hope it would be દ "final," that is, effective of the removal of ministers, and of the elevation of his own friends; in contemplation of which, he promises Woodfall in his next Letter, dated December 26, 1769. “If things take the turn I expect, you shall know me by

my works." In January came the speeches of Lord CHATHAM, following up the blows of JUNIUS with an effect that must have been highly gratifying to him, though the turn which he desired did not take place. Lord North became minister in the place of the Duke of Grafton, and the great seal was put in commission. JUNIUS and Lord CHATHAM still, however, fought under the same banner: and when the remonstrance of the city of London was presented, the former supported it by a Letter, which he told Woodfall to give notice of by the extraordinary method of " dispersing a few hand-bills;" so earnest was he in bringing on that change before specified: adding, "Pray do whatever you think will answer this purpose best, for now is the crisis." And on the following day, having heard that Lord CHATHAM intended supporting the Westminster remonstrance, he writes in the flush of hope, "I have no doubt that we shall conquer them at last." Alluding to these speeches he says in a private Letter to Wilkes, "Chatham has gallantly thrown away the scabbard, and necer flinched. From that moment I began to like him*.” Identified thus in one object with Lord CHATHAM, we have, prima fácie, every reason to think that JUNIUS took such interest in the debates of the 9th and 22d of January, 1770, as would lead him

1 * JUNIUS, i. * 321.

(if ever) to be present on those evenings; and if he took notes at any time, that it would be on those occasions. Let us see then, since he was in the habit of doing both, whether the speeches in question, from internal evidence, might not fairly be concluded to have come from him. We need not go far; the first parallel (p. 267) shews that he was present, and took notes at that debate. The sentiments and expressions of JUNIUS, for the space of ten lines, were borrowed from what now appears to have been Lord CHATHAM's speech, and this without any acknowledgment, though the passage in the Letter was written nearly two years after the speech was made. The words are not exactly the same, but they are as near as the notes, from which we suppose them to be taken, would render necessary; they are as near as any man writing at two distant periods, from the same notes, would be likely to make them;-they convey the same thoughts in the same order, with the fidelity of a literal translation. Now in what way is this to be accounted for? There was no report printed from which the passage could have been quoted, nor would the plagiary have passed without observation if the original had been known. The inference is unavoidable, that he who wrote the Letters was likewise the Reporter of the Speech.

Many other passages from the same speech lead to the conclusion, that JUNIUS had it in his

memory when he wrote at a subsequent period: but let us proceed to the second debate, and see whether in that also the internal evidence is such as we have met with in the former. In the first place, JUNIUS seems to have borrowed from this speech those remarkable metaphors, the political Bible (p. 327), and the feather that adorns the royal bird, &c. (p. 332); to have taken them he must have heard the debate, for they are not elsewhere in print. Secondly, in a private Letter to Wilkes, he speaks of cutting away the rotten boroughs, in the figurative language of the speech, and with the same doubts as to the policy of the act. Thirdly, he not only alludes to the proposal of Lord CHATHAM to increase the knights of shires, but he quotes a passage from the speech before us, in so very nearly the same words, that we know not how to account for it, unless by the supposition that he was himself the reporter. Under that idea the coincidence explains itself; though when it is considered that notes only were taken of the speech, it may appear surprising that the two passages, when fully expressed, should bear so close a resemblance to each other. But it is probable that the speech, though not published till twenty years after, was composed while the original was fresh in the writer's memory, which has caused it to be so intermingled with the