convulsion would, for ages, have followed. But it was im possible to effect such a change, without offering violence to many distinguished interests. Hence all the ills of jacobitism, and of a temporary uncertainty in the title to the throne. UNDER the HOUSE OF HANOVER, the aristocracy were at length established in the chief possession of the powers of the government, yet in a due reconciliation of their interests, to those equally of the people and the crown, Law continually gathering new force, strengthened beyond calculation, the general stability of the Constitution. PoPERY was continually weakened by the increasing diffusion of knowledge, and by her alliance to unpopular politics. A compromise was made with the pretensions of PURITANISM, which served for a time, to appease their discontent, and ́ suppress their clamours. Amidst every change in administration, the ARISTOCRACY-including all the better part of the nation,-have with some variety of modifications, remained still masters of the state.-JUNIUS is in the following Letters, evidently not a friend to the idea of an IMPOSSIBLE DEMOCRACY-as he is an enemy to any thing like absolute exclusive DESPOTISM. He labours, throughout the Letters, to recommend a particular modification of aristocracy which would in the whole, have proved less beneficial than that which he opposed. The means he employed, were, in part those of seditious democracy. But, he gave for the time, an highly salutary power to public opinion. And even the government which he harrassed was benefited by the energy of his resistance to some of the most dangerous errors of a short-sighted political selfishness. THE other illustrations which might have been introduced under this head, will be found in the Notes. Who Who was the REAL AUTHOR of these LETTERS? remarkable. THE HE fate of the name of JUNIUS has been He who made it first illustrious in ancient times, was the deliverer of Rome from a race of tyrants. And it has been chosen, as the favourite appellation of modern writers lifting up the boldest voice against what was abhorred as tyranny. In the year 1581, was published at Paris, a work intituled Stephani JUNII Bruti, Vindicia contra Tyrannos. In the assumption of the name of Stephen, the writer was understood to compare himself to the saint so called, the first martyr of the Christian church. He added the appellation of JUNIUS Brutus, in comparison of his own undertaking with that of the First Consul of Rome. THIS work treats of the obedience due to Kings,-the just grounds of resistance to their authority, the manner in which injured subjects ought to act in the organization of that resistance,—the legality of calling in foreign aid against a tyrant, and the obligation on neighbouring nations to assist a people groaning under the yoke of oppression, to burst its fetters. It was written during those civil wars in France, which partly the efforts of the reformation against popery, in part the treacherous tyranny of Catherine di Medici and her children, had excited. THE Author's real name was, for a while, studiously concealed. The curiosity of the learned throughout Europe strove impatiently to discover it. The book was given out to have been first printed at Edinburgh, in the year 1579. It was ascribed to Theodore Beza, to Parsons the Jesuit, to the the famous Mornai du Plessis, and to that great lawyer, Francis Hottoman. At last, however, it was satisfactorily declared by a M. D'Aubigné, to have been composed by the learned and eloquent HUBERT LANGUET the correspondent of Sir Philip Sidney, and by him confided to Mornai du Plessis, who made it public through the press.-Even the account of D'Aubigné, though generally believed in the learned world, has been called in question by Bayle, that ingenious marshaller of opposite probabilities. And it remains in some sort, uncertain-who was the JUNIUS, the author of the Vindiciae contra Tyrannos? as well as-who was the JUNIUS the writer of the following Letters? CRELLIUS, the famous Socinian of Poland, also published in the year 1637, a work under the title of Vindiciœ pro Religionis Libertate, in which he assumed JUNIUS BRUTUS, as the signature of the author. If I do not exceedingly mistake; the writer of the fol lowing Letters, had one or both of these examples in view when he took up the appellation of JUNIUS. It seems, at least, much more probable, that he knew the work of Languet, and followed that bold and energetic writer's example, than that without a knowledge of the Vindicia contra Tyrannos, he adopted his feigned appellation at once from the early history of ancient Rome. This is confirmed by the consideration, that, in a note on one of the Letters of Sir William Draper, the English JUNIUS seems, with his antagonist, to confound Marcus with Junius Brutusan oversight of which he could hardly have been guilty, if he had assumed the signature of JUNIUS directly from the comparison of his own efforts with those of the first Roman Consul. VOL. I. * i EVERY EVERY attempt to detect the Author of these Letters has hitherto failed. SOME approach may be made toward the discovery, by comparing the character of this writer, which has, in the preceding Essays, been clearly and justly deduced from his Letters, with that which we know of the works, habits, talents, and acquirements of the different persons to whom the composition of the Letters has been, upon conjecture, ascribed. : 1. A VIGOROUS and active understanding; great strength and vivacity of imagination; ardent passions, which were, however, rarely intemperate to weakness; moral feelings eagerly alive, but directed, perhaps, in their habits of perception, not so much upon his own conduct, as on that of others; an ambitious spirit, little scrupulous in it's choice of means; and an enthusiasm for the triumph of truth and patriotism, capable of advancing that triumph even by dishonest arts; must have been fundamental qualities in the character of whosoever was the author of these Letters since it is incontestibly true, that such qualities are, throughout the whole tenor of the Letters, most strikingly displayed. He must have been a man accustomed to public business, of deep insight into human nature gained in actual converse with the world, familiarly versant in the principles of law and politics, the practice of the Court of King's Bench, the eloquence and argumentation of the House of Commons. He had some knowledge of chemistry, mathematics, and natural philosophy. He had been a diligent reader of the classical works of Latin, French, English, and possibly, too, of Grecian Literature. He had studied logic and moral philosophy, according according to the methods prevalent about fifty years since, in the English universities. He had been accustomed to an epigrammatic, figurative, nervous way of writing; which, however, would rarely suffer point to degenerate into quaintness, or use figures where they could serve only to encumber, without giving any real increase of strength. All his knowledge from books had been fully digested in his mind, tried in every particular by the test of real life and affairs: He was master of it, not overpowered by it: He was, in its use, not a savage handling a compass or a perspective glass with gawky admiration; but an English pilot who, with ease, could apply either to all the purposes for which it was, by the maker, intended. The doctrines of Christianity, and the formalities of the Romant Catholic religion, were familiar to his mind. He was a consummate master of rhetorical art. He was, evidently, of that mature age, at which, by natural growth, exercise, and experience, all the powers of the individual, are in their greatest vigour.-That JUNIUS, whoever he was, possessed these qualities, is as clear from the Letters, and as certain, as the proper qualities of any man's character can be to the discernment of an intelligent friend who has lived, for twenty years, in daily intercourse with him, 2. Ir is, also, clear from the tenor of these Letters; that their writer must have been one that, from January 1769 to February 1779, was in constant hostility, open or secret, to the measures of Government. His first Letter is dated, January 21st, 1769: the last date in the collection is January 21st, 1772. 3. He must have been in England, during this period. The Letters came out, in succession, with such references |