moral axiom gleaned from his own long experience of the world, was at this very time something more than thirty years of age; it seems absurd to suppose that JUNIUS could be much less than fifty, or that he affected an age he had not actually at tained *."

Whatever may be thought of the vanity of JuNIUS, in speaking of his own long experience of the world to a man as old as himself, his conduct and language were exactly imitated by Sir PHILIP FRANCIS, when at the age of forty-six, he addressed the assembled members of the House of Commons in the following strain:

"I speak from long observation and experience, and with all the deliberation and conviction of which my understanding is capable, when I affirm, that to unite all the powers of government in India in one person, would be a dangerous measure in one view of it, and a useless measure in every other.

The reader will doubtless think with me, that from the words in question no positive inference can be drawn with respect to the writer's age; and that if it be allowed to extract conclusions at this rate, the most contradictory opinions may be supported.

But JUNIUS, on another occasion, alludes to his

JUNIUS, i. 46. Preliminary Essay.

+ Mr. Fraticis's Speech, March 7, 1786, p. 28.

time of life. The passage occurs in one of his letters to Wilkes. "Many thanks for your obliging offer; but, alas! my age and figure would do but little credit to my partner. I acknowledge the relation between Cato and Portia ; but, in truth, I see no connexion between JUNIUS and a minuet*."

The general and vague idea of age and infirmity which this hint conveys, is unworthy of serious consideration, because it was clearly his desire and intention that some grave senator should be taken for the author of those Letters. He, therefore, very naturally insinuates, (but as before, plausibly, and without a positive assertion) that his condition was such as to disqualify him from dancing with Miss Wilkes. A sense also of the incongruity of such an amusement with the profession of so stern a patriotism as he was displaying, seems to come across his mind, and causes him very properly to observe, that he sees no connexion between JUNIUS and a minuet.

But when there was no particular reason why JUNIUS should affect to be thought older than he really was, it does not seem that his natural disposition would prompt him to decline so flattering an invitation. Look at his letter to JUNIAthere his age is much less doubtfully indicated:

* JUNIUS, i. * 325. Private letter to Wilkes. + JUNIUS, iii. p. 218, signature JUNIUS.

he is unwilling to be considered either so old or so infirm, as to "do but little credit" to a handsome partner. The style of this letter is so evidently that of a young man, that it was, in my opinion, the sole reason for his repenting of its publication: it revealed too much. At all events, the unguarded levity with which he wrote it, and the anxiety with which he desired its recal, prove pretty clearly what belonged to the natural man, and what to the assumed character.

Whether a man at thirty-one may speak with propriety of his long experience of the world, is, after all, a question which every individual must determine for himself. Perhaps it may be said, that every man at that age imagines he has had long experience. But though I may differ from the Author of the Essay, in his opinion of the probable age of JUNIUS, I am perfectly ready to acquiesce in the characteristic trait that follows: viz. "that he had attained an age which would allow him, without vanity, to boast of an ample knowledge and experience of the world*." We all know that to gain this knowledge depends, not so much on the time a man has lived, as on the use he has made of opportunities. "Great men are not always wise, neither do the aged understand judgment."

* JUNIUS, i. p. 98. Preliminary Essay.

But here it may be asked. What grounds are there for supposing that Sir PHILIP FRANCIS, above most men, had attained that early knowledge of the world? What proofs have we that he had acquired so deep a knowledge of politics in particular, as to be qualified at the age of thirty to produce the Letters of JUNIUS? I would answer these questions by producing the evidence of Sir PHILIP himself. In a speech against the endeavours of Great Britain to compel Russia to restore Oczakow to the Turks, he expressed himself as follows.

"In this place, Sir, I wish I had ability to attract the attention of the House, and to fix it, if possible, on some considerations connected with the subjects in debate, and essential, in my mind, to the future peace and security of the kingdom. I have lived to see great changes in the government and policy of nations, in France, in Holland, in Poland, and America. But I declare most seriously, and most solemnly, that I have seen no revolution among nations so extraordinary as that which has taken place in my own time, in the temper and character of this country. The countenance that expressed, the features that distinguished, the character of England, are faded and effaced. We have now neither prejudices nor principles; nothing original, nothing of our own. When I first came into life, when, without experience or

capacity to judge, I had opportunity to observe upon public transactions and national dispositions, I do affirm, that the prevailing principle, the fayourite language, not only at court, but universally throughout the kingdom, was to reprobate German alliances, and to withdraw from continental connections of every kind. This was the declared system of the government at his Majesty's accession, with an evident concurrence of the country. The policy of the cabinet takes the opposite direction, and the people follow it. The very language which I now hold, which thirty years ago would have been received with applause both by court and people, at this day, for aught I know, may expose me to the fury of the populace, and to have my house pulled down, as if I had declared myself an enemy to church and king. In the actual temper and habits of the country, I see nothing like an appropriated system. We stick to nothing. We are not properly a nation of merchants, nor of farmers, nor of manufacturers, nor of soldiers. A gentleman said yesterday, we were a nation of stock-jobbers. I say, we are a nation of 3 per cents, and nothing else."

Sir PHILIP here speaks of the state of parties, when he first had an opportunity to observe upon public transactions and national dispositions,―thirty

Mr. FRANCIS's speech, March 1, 1792. Vide Parliamentary Debates, vol. 31.