the date of the last of JUNIUS's private letters; an essay, which has sufficient proof of having been written in the possession of full health and spirits; and which, together with the rest of our author's private letters to the Printer of the Public Advertiser, is in the possession of the proprietor of this edition, and bears date January 19th, 1773. While as to Roberts and Dyer, they had both been dead for many months anterior to this period: Lloyd died, after a lingering illness, January 22d, 1773; Roberts July 13th, and Dyer on September 15th, both in the preceding year.

Of the two next reputed authors, Hamilton had neither energy nor personal courage enough for such an undertaking', and Burke could not have written in the style of JUNIUS, which was

Hamilton, from his having once made a brilliant speech in the lower House of Great Britain, and ever afterwards remaining silent, was called Single-speech Hamilton. In allusion to this fact, and that he was the real JUNIUS, there is a letter in the Public Advertiser of November 30, 1771, addressed to WILLIAM JUNIUS SINGLE-SPEECH, Esq. The air of Dublin however, should seem, according to Mr. Malone's account of him, to have been more favourable to his rhetorical powers than that of Westminster: for this writer tells us that Mr. Hamilton made not less than five speeches in the Irish Parliament in the single Session of 1761-2. Parliamentary Logic, Pref. p. xxii. Lord Orford, indeed, contrary to general rumour, intimates that he was twice a speaker in the British Parliament, Parlia mentary Logic.

precisely the reverse of his own, nor could he have consented to disparage his own talents in the manner in which JUNIUS has disparaged them in his letter to the Printer of the Public Advertisér, dated October 5, 1771; independently of which, both of them solemnly denied that they were the authors of these letters, Hamilton to Mr. Courtney in his last illness, as that gentleman has personally informed the editor; and Burke expressly and satisfactorily to sir William Draper, who purposely interrogated him upon the subject; the truth of which denial is, moreover, corroborated by the testimony of the late Mr. Woodfall, who repeatedly declared that neither of them was the writer of these compositions. Why Burke was so early and generally suspected of having written them it is not easy to say; but that he was so suspected is obvious not only from the opinion at first entertained by sir William Draper, but from various public accusations conveyed in different newspapers and pamphlets of the day; the Public Advertiser in the month of October containing one letter under the signature of Zeno, addressed "to JUNIUS, alias Edmund, the Jesuit of St. Omers';" another under the signature of Pliny Junior, a third under that of Querist, a fourth under that of Oxoniensis, and a fifth under that of Scævola, together with many others to the

1 See Note to Letter LXI. Vol. II. P. 366.

same effect: and, as has already been hinted at, an anonymous collector of many of the letters of JUNIUS, prefixing to his own edition certain anecdotes of Mr. Burke, which he confidently denominated "Anecdotes of JUNIUS," thus purposely, but fallaciously, identifying the two cha

racters'.

' In addition to the above proofs that Burke and JUNIUS were not the same person, the editor might refer to the prosecution which Mr. Burke instituted against Mr. Woodfall, the Printer of the Public Advertiser, and conducted with the utmost acrimony for a paper deemed libellous that appeared in this journal in the course of 1783. Considerable interest was made with Mr. Burke to induce him to drop this prosecution in different stages of its progress, but he was inexorable. The cause was tried at Guildhall July 15, 1784, and a verdict of a hundred pounds damages was obtained against the printer; the whole of which was paid to the prosecutor. It is morally impossible that JUNIUS could have acted in this manner: every anecdote in the preceding sketch of his public life forbids the belief that he could.

Neither is it to be conceived, without greatly disparaging Mr. Burke's memory, that he could have written the letter to Garrick which JUNIUS wrote (see No. 41.); nor have spoken in the terms in which JUNIUS has spoken of Chamier, while he professed for both a warm and unreserved friendship. We may also further remark that the well known pamphlet, entitled "The Present State of the Nation," published in 1769 by Mr. George Grenville, was immediately answered by Mr. Burke in a tract entitled "Observations on a late publication, entituled, The Present State of the Nation,"-in which the political opinions of Mr. Grenville, and consequently of JUNIUS, who, as we have already observed, was the general advocate of Mr. Geo. Grenville, are censured with a vehemence peculiar to Mr.

Burke,

If however there should be readers so inflexible as still to believe that Mr. Burke was the real writer of the Letters of JUNIUS, and that his denial of the fact to sir William Draper was only. wrung from him under the influence of fear, it will be sufficient to satisfy even such readers by shewing that the system of politics of the one was in direct opposition to that of the other upon a variety of the most important points. Burke was a decided partisan of lord RockingBurke, and altogether sufficient, were there no other proof, to demonstrate that Burke and JUNIUS could not be the same per600. The reader may take the following extracts as specimens:- -“This piece is called, The present State of the Nation. It may be considered as a sort of digest of the avowed maxims of a certain political school, the effects of whose doctrines and practices this country will feel long and severely."

* * * *

* *

"A diversity of opinion upon almost every principle of politics had indeed drawn a strong line of separation between them and some others. [The marquess of Rockingham.] * "The purpose of this pamphlet, and at which it aims directly or obliquely in every page, is to persuade the publick of three or four of the most difficult points in the world—that all the advantages of the late war were on the part of the Bourbon alliance; that the peace of Paris perfectly consulted the dignity and interest of this country; and that the American stamp act was a master-piece of policy and finance; that the only good minister this nation has enjoyed since his Majesty's accession, is the earl of Bute; and the only good managers of revenue we have seen are lord Despenser and Mr. George Grenville; and under the description of men of virtue and ability, he holds them out to us as the only persons fit to put our affairs in order.”. -Burke's Works, Vol. II. 8vo edit. pages

11, 12 and 15.

ham, and continued so during the whole of that nobleman's life: JUNIUS, on the contrary, was as decided a friend to Mr. George Grenville. Each was an antagonist to the other upon the great subject of the American Stamp Act. JUNIUS was a warm and powerful advocate for triennial parliaments; Burke an inveterate enemy to them. To which the editor may be allowed to add, that while Mr. Burke in correcting his manuscripts for the press, and revising. them in their passage through it, is notorious for the numerous alterations he was perpetually making, the revised copy with which the late Mr. Woodfall was furnished by JUNIUS for such part of the genuine edition of his Letters, as he re-examined, contained very few amendments of any kind.

The following extracts from Mr. Burke's celebrated speech on American taxation, delivered April 19, 1774, will put the reader into possession of that gentleman's arguments upon each of the above public questions, and, compared with the short subjoined extracts from JUNIUS, will justify the contrast which the editor has thus ventured to offer. It will also present the reader with a brilliant specimen of the eloquence of both characters.

Mr. Burke observes, in the course of this celebrated speech', that "In the year 1765,

1 See 8vo. edit. of his Works, Vol. II. p. 389, et seq.