probability that the author could remain concealed or unsuspected, were he frequently to appear before the public, would compel him either to shun writing altogether, or to continue to publish anonymously; and this necessity has, I fear, stood in the way of more good, than it has been the means of effecting, even with JUNIUS cast into the scale. This, I am aware, is a very questionable notion. But might not all the great political truths maintained by JUNIUS have been placed in as strong a light, and have been equally well supported, without danger to the person of the writer? The risk proceeded from his severe castigation of men in power, which, though it might attract attention to his doctrines, did but little in support of them. They are founded on a better basis than the passions, or the good resulting to posterity, from the labours of JUNIUS, will be much less than the author predicted. He says in his dedication, “When kings and ministers are forgotten, when the force and direction of personal satire is no longer understood, and when measures are only felt in their remotest consequences, this book will, I believe, be found to contain principles worthy to be transmitted to posterity*" If this shall be the fate of the Letters, when they have lost the sharpness which gave them at first so high a relish-if, deprived of their per

* JUNIUS, i. p. 1, Dedication.

sonal satire, even JUNIUS admits they will be permanently beneficial;-what is this but to affirm that, had they never possessed it, they would still have done essential service to the country. Besides, it is not designed that every sarcasm, much less the censures often justly cast on men in power, should have been suppressed;—much, indeed, might have been done in this way without endangering the writer's welfare: and, independent of all other considerations, the grace of the fashion of these Letters, would have secured them respect and admiration. With his high qualifications, had every available means been employed, short of rendering it absolutely necessary that the writer should be concealed for the remainder of life, greater advantage, I think, might have accrued, both to the nation and to the man. He would not have been deterred from undertaking some larger work ;-his powers would not have been cramped by his bending them, for the sake of greater security, in a direction foreign to their natural expression;-and had his conduct been uniformly agreeable to the tenets he avowed, the cause in which he engaged would have been doubly benefited.

I know not whether these or other reasons have weighed with Sir PHILIP FRANCIS; but it is with much concern I see so few publications with his name affixed to them. It is certain that he has been a very frequent anonymous writer in

pamphlets, newspapers, and magazines; but the regret is a national one, that in no larger work, if we except JUNIUS, has he left to his country the fruits of his uncommonly extensive reading, his profound research into the history and constitution of this kingdom, and long and intimate acquaintance with the leading events of his own particular time.

CHAPTER IV.

WHEN this subject was formerly discussed, I stated my belief that Sir P. FRANCIS did not leave England until the spring of 1774. Of his proceedings from the time that he quitted the War-office, until his departure for Bengal, we had no account, till the preceding biographical sketch informed us that "the greatest part of the year 1772, he spent in travelling through Flanders," &c.

The first sight of this passage was not a little startling, when it was recollected that the Letters of JUNIUS did not cease altogether until 1773. It seemed impossible that the writer could at any time have been absent from England for the greater part of a year. His labour was so incessant that it denied him even the opportunity of quitting London, except for a few days. In one respect this new information was truly gratifying; it brought all my pretensions to a test which, if it did not establish, must destroy their validity. The incompatibility of the fact with the writing of any one letter, would be of itself sufficient to overthrow the whole hypothesis. On the other hand, if the supposition

that all the Letters of JUNIUS were written by Sir PHILIP was, in every instance, reconcileable with the foregoing statement of his absence, it would then be a remarkable presumption in favour of the charge.

When the reader examines the dates of Sir PHILIP's departure and return, and the dates of the Letters, he will see that the occurrence not only admits of adjustment with the Letters of JUNIUS, but that it dove-tails into a vacant part of the correspondence with the minutest exactness.

Let us first compare the whole time of Sir PHILIP's absence, with the dates of JUNIUS's Letters. "The greatest part of the year 1772, he spent in travelling through Flanders," &c. Now the last Letter which JUNIUS wrote, in that year, is dated May 12; it was sent to Woodfall two days previous to its publication; consequently, May 10 is the latest period in the year 1772, at which we are able to find any trace of the author. It need not be observed how well this date allows of the absence of the writer, during " the greatest part of the year 1772."

But perhaps it may be imagined, that Sir PHILIP left England earlier than accords with the production of those Letters, which were written by JUNIUS in May 1772. To ascertain what is due to this supposition, the reader is requested to observe, that in the Miscellaneous Letters signed

E