PART I.

INTRODUCTION.

The literary work which survives a century has uncommon merit. Time has

set the seal of approval upon it. It has passed its probation and

entered the ages. A century has just closed upon the work of Junius. The

causes which produced it, either in act or person, have long since

passed away. The foolish king, the corrupt minister, and the prostituted

legislature are forgotten, or only recalled to be despised; but the work

of Junius, startling in thought, daring in design, bristling with

satire, a consuming fire to those he attacked, remains to be admired for

its principles, and to be studied for its beauty and strength.

The times in which Junius wrote were big with events. The Seven Years'

War had just closed with shining victories to Prussia and England.

Frederic, with an unimpaired nation and a permanent peace, it left with

a good heart and much personal glory; but George III., with India and

America in his hands, with the plunder of a great conquest to distribute

to a greedy and licentious court, it left pious, but simple.

Great wars disturb the masses. They awaken them from the plodding, dull

routine of physical labor, and, thrusting great questions of conquest

and defense, of justice and honor, before them, agitate them into

thought. Conditions change; new ideas take the place of old ones, and a

revolution in thought and action follows. But a war of ideas, starting

from principles of peace, brings the enslaved again to the sword, and

this crisis is termed a revolution.

Junius wrote at the dawn of the age of revolutions. The war of ideas was

waged against priestcraft, and skepticism was the result. Voltaire had

struck fable from history with the pen of criticism, and a scientific

method here dawned upon history. Rousseau's democracy had entered the

hearts of the down-trodden in France, and, a wandering exile, he had

spread the contagion in England. George Berkeley, the Irish idealist,

had just died, and the Scotch Thomas Reid arose with the weapon of

common sense to test the metaphysician's ideas. Common Sense was, in the

strictest sense, revolutionary, and, under the tyranny of king, lords,

and commons, meant war. It was not a phrase without meaning, but a

principle proclaimed, and it passed more readily into the understanding

of the common people because conveyed in common speech. When Reid said,

"I despise philosophy, and renounce its guidance; let my soul dwell in

common sense," he illuminated all Britain and America. The philosophy of

common sense entered the professor's chair, invaded the pulpit, and,

having passed thence into the humblest cottage, soon took a higher

range--it went immediately up and knocked at the king's gate. It would

be false to say it found admittance there. It was only because there

had been a new world opened as an asylum for the oppressed of every

land, that it did not sweep kings and monarchs from all the high places

in Europe.

At this time, too, Mr. Pitt, the great commoner, the friend of common

sense and English liberty, in his old age, war-worn and sick, had

compromised with his vanity for a title. In his great fall from Pitt to

Chatham, from the people to a peerage, he gained nothing but lost his

good name. He exchanged worth for a bauble, and a noble respect for the

contempt of nobles and the sorrows of the people. Mr. Pitt had departed,

Lord Chatham was passing away; and in any assault by a trafficking

ministry and corrupt legislature upon the people's rights, there was no

one left to bend the bow at the gates.

To tax the colonies became the settled plan of king, ministers, and

parliament. The tax was easily imposed, but could not be enforced.

Freedom had long before been driven to America, and, in a line of direct

descent, her blood had been transmitted from mother to son. The true

sons of freedom now stood shoulder to shoulder, and, looking forward to

independence, claimed to have rights as men, which king and lords would

not concede to subjects. The Stamp Act was passed and repealed, and a

Test Act substituted. England refused to compel the colonies to give up

their money without their consent, but menaced them, and consoled

herself with these words: "_The king in parliament hath full power to

bind the colonies in all things whatsoever._" Having surrendered the

fact, she indulged in declamation, and the world laughed at her folly.

Like a fretful and stupid mother demanding a favor of her son grown to

manhood, and, being refused, persists in scolding and shaking the fist

at him, as if he still wore a baby's frock.

At this juncture Junius wrote his LETTERS. The circumstances called him

forth. He was a child of fate. He spoke to the greatest personages,

assaulted the strongest power, and advocated the rights of man before

the highest tribunal then acknowledged on earth. This he could not do

openly, and what he said came as with the power of a hidden god. There

is no evidence that Junius ever revealed himself. "I am the sole

depository of my own secret, and it shall perish with me." This he said

and religiously kept. But his was the age which demanded it. He also

said: "Whenever Junius appears, he must encounter a host of enemies."

One hundred years have passed since he said this, but this "host" is

less to be feared now than when he wrote. No one now can injure him, and

there are few who would assault his grave. It is time to unmask Junius,

and though still to be hated, I will reveal the enemy of kings and the

friend of man. The reforms he advocated for England are partly

accomplished, and the principles he taught, if not adopted there, have

been established in America. He left no child to bear his name, but he

was the father of a nation. The unimpaired inheritance was his thoughts

and principles; these he transmitted, not alone to this nation, but to

the world--_for the world was his country_.

METHOD.

In the investigation of a subject so startling and novel, and especially

when it leads to the criticism of a work which has found favor with the

public, and now to be attributed to an author who has been publicly

condemned, it becomes the critic to state clearly the plan of his

argument, what he designs to do, and how he intends to do it. I

therefore ask: Who was Junius? I answer: Thomas Paine. The object of

this book is to prove this, and possibly to demonstrate it. To do this,

I shall follow as closely as possible the order of events, giving

parallels and coincidences in character, conduct, and composition of the

masked and the open life.

I do not fear as to the proof of my proposition, but I shall aim higher,

I shall try to demonstrate by the overwhelming weight of facts. Proof

produces belief, demonstration knowledge. The innocent have been hanged

on the evidence of proof, but a fact is established by demonstration.

Demonstration follows proof, and knowledge follows belief; and ascending

from the individual to mankind, we find the age of reason to succeed the

age of faith. Science dwells in demonstration, and establishes

principles from observed facts. Why may there not be a scientific

criticism? To arrive at this the writer must ascend to that eminence in

feeling where the opposing prejudices of mankind can not reach him; he

must rise above praise or censure, he must dwell alone in the light of

reason, he must be a child of Truth. Vain, however, would it be to

expect to find himself or a public devoid of prejudice. This is

impossible, for prejudice is produced by strong conviction. It is a

feeling which, like a magnet, points as the electric force directs. To

counteract this force is to destroy the magnet. It is those who think

deeply, and have investigated thoroughly, who have an enlightened

prejudice, and those who take upon authority what others tell them, who

have a blind prejudice; but those who neither think nor investigate for

themselves may truly be said to have no prejudice. My object is to

convince the understanding and thereby build up a prejudice in favor of

my proposition, which shall have a foundation of fact and argument, not

to be removed, and to be but little disturbed. The world is my jury,

they shall decide upon the facts. Lord Bacon gave the world a _method_,

this method is also mine: LET FACTS REVEAL THE INWARD TRUTH OF NATURE.

MYSTERY.

There is a scarcity of facts, a painful obscurity connected with that

part of Mr. Paine's life before he removed to America. In fact, history

has given him to the world, as almost beginning life on his arrival at

Philadelphia, near the close of the year 1774. At this time, in the full

stature of manhood, a little less than forty years of age, we find him

without a personal history, without any events in life sufficient to

predicate his after life upon. Can the great life to come rest on

nothing? How came that mighty mind so fully stored with history, so

deeply analytic, so skilled in literature and science, so perfect in the

art of expressing ideas, so highly disciplined and finely equipped,

ready to do battle against kings and ministers and in behalf of human

rights? Whence came that mighty pen, which has often been acknowledged

to have done more for human freedom than the sword of Washington? Why

this dumb silence of history? There comes to us no thought of Mr. Paine

worth recording prior to this time. The proud and imposing

superstructure stands on a basis fit and substantial, but it rises out

of the depths of mystery. And what little we do know of him prior to

this time, aside from the great fact of his birth, is only a series of

minor facts, with great blanks not even capable of being filled up by

the imagination.

When a lad he went to school, but how long he went, or with what

proficiency he studied, nobody knows. At sixteen he went aboard a

privateer, but how long he served, or what made him quit the service,

nobody knows. At twenty-seven he enters the employ of the English

government as an exciseman, but was dismissed in a little over a year,

nobody knows why. He now teaches school in London a year, but nobody

knows with what success, or what were his accomplishments. He now quits

London and letters, and the society of the learned, to return to the

same petty office from which he had been dismissed, and for the trifling

salary of less than fifty pounds a year. This office he now holds eight

years more. Only a solitary ray of light illuminates this long period,

when in the full tide of life. The chronicler renders it insignificant

by a single dash of the pen. It is closed with another dismissal and

dismal mystery. He now forever separates from his wife upon _amicable

terms_, nobody knows why. During their after lives they neither of them

marry, and never speak disrespectfully of each other. He leaves her all

the property, and often sends her money during his after life. This

obscure and twice dismissed English exciseman, it is said, now goes to

talk with Benjamin Franklin, minister at the court of St. James, for

several of the colonies; and, by what means nobody knows, obtains

letters of the highest commendation, as an introduction to America, from

her greatest and most honored citizen. A few months afterward Benjamin

Franklin places in the hands of Mr. Paine important documents, for him

to write a history of the political troubles and a defense of the

colonies. A mighty work, worthy of a greater than Franklin! These facts

stagger credulity. An obscure English exciseman, whose life is yet a

blank, who has never been an author, save perhaps of some fugitive

pamphlet to demand more pay for excise officers, is _introduced_ to

America, and is _solicited_ and _intrusted_ by America's greatest

writer, thinker, patriot, and statesman, to do America's greatest work,

and that work, too, which shall decide forever the fate of a world.

Franklin! by what mysterious gift of divination hast thou found thy man?

Is there no child of America among all the sons of Freedom equal to the

task? Where art thou thyself? But the man Franklin found had no need of

books or his documents. This obscure Englishman had the facts in his

memory, the wrongs in his heart, the logic in his reason, and he thought

for himself. His work was half written before Franklin had furnished him

with the "necessary papers," and as a New Year's gift surprised the

learned doctor with the first pamphlet of COMMON SENSE.

The appearance of this greatest of political works which has blessed a

world, with all the attending circumstances--the obscure life of Paine,

the few wild events connected with it, the unprecedented action of

Franklin, the introduction to the world of a profound thinker and almost

perfect writer in the full ripeness of his intellect, and the beginning

of an unceasing brilliant literary life _at its meridian_, are

mysteries, save in this instance, unknown to history. COMMON SENSE is a

child of mystery. It is the best of this great author's productions. He

himself so considered it, for he directs that his tombstone shall bear

the simple inscription, THOMAS PAINE, AUTHOR OF COMMON SENSE.

That Thomas Paine should have lived an easy, idle life, without any

great effort in thought, study, or composition, for fifteen years

immediately preceding the appearance of COMMON SENSE, is what no writer,

or thinker, or student, or statesman will believe. Great works of genius

do not come in this way, much less profound political writings. Even

inspiration would desert the connection. And that the proud, ambitious,

literary adventurer, who shall dedicate his life to the good of mankind,

who shall wrest the power from priests and the scepter from kings,

should content himself to fill a poor and petty office under a king he

despised, without some nobler object in view, and at that age too when

the mind of man is the most aspiring, and drives to the greatest

activity, is what no one who knows the heart of man, and the secret

springs of action, will believe. But if it can be proven that Thomas

Paine was Junius, then will every blank be filled and every mystery

dispelled.

There is no external evidence, direct in its nature, as to the

authorship of Junius; the evidence is internal. That the secret did not

perish with Junius, no one can gainsay. But that he told it to no one,

we are not at liberty to conclude. Time has sufficiently removed us from

the scene of conflict. We are not bewildered with a multitude of

claimants, with an army of witnesses for and against; nor are we

disturbed by the clamors of the public, and the hearsay evidence of

belligerant. In this universal calm I will bring Junius forth to speak

for himself.

STATEMENT.

The time occupied in writing the LETTERS OF JUNIUS was just three years.

The first one is dated January 21, 1769, and the last one January 21,

1772. They were written for the _Public Advertiser_, a newspaper printed

in London, and were afterward revised and corrected by Junius. The

edition which he corrected "contains all the letters of Junius, Philo

Junius, and of Sir William Draper, and Mr. Horne to Junius, with their

respective dates, and according to the order in which they appeared in

the _Public Advertiser_." There are sixty-nine in all. Of these, Junius

wrote sixty-one; thirty the first year, six the second, and twenty-five

the third year. In these LETTERS Junius frequently defends himself over

the signature of Philo Junius, which he deemed indispensably necessary

in answer to plausible objections. On this point Junius observes: "The

subordinate character is never guilty of the indecorum of praising his

principal. The fraud was innocent, and I always intended to explain it."

These letters were an attack upon the king and ministry, and a defense

of the people, whose original rights had been invaded. If Thomas Paine

wrote them, he was then an exciseman stationed at Lewes, about forty

miles south of London, and was just thirty-five years old when he

completed them.

I will now introduce to the reader Junius himself through his first

letter, which was one of his most finished productions, and contains the

germs of all the rest. I will give also the comments of Chauncey A.

Goodrich, D.D., formerly professor of Rhetoric in Yale College. These

comments are to be found in the doctor's work, entitled _British

Eloquence_. I do this for two reasons: to let the reader see what high

value is placed on Junius by the learned who teach eloquence by example,

and also that he may see the object, method, and style of Junius. I

shall afterward add my own comments on the doctor's notes, setting him

right when in error in matters of _fact_. This will fully open the

question and prepare the reader for my argument.

LETTER

TO THE PRINTER OF THE PUBLIC ADVERTISER.[A]

SIR,--The submission of a free people to the executive authority of

government is no more than a compliance with laws which they themselves

have enacted. While the national honor is firmly maintained abroad, and

while justice is impartially administered at home, the obedience of the

subject will be voluntary, cheerful, and, I might say, almost unlimited.

A generous nation is grateful even for the preservation of its rights,

and willingly extends the respect due to the office of a good prince

into an affection for his person. Loyalty, in the heart and

understanding of an Englishman, is a rational attachment to the guardian

of the laws. Prejudices and passion have sometimes carried it to a

criminal length, and, whatever foreigners may imagine, we know that

Englishmen have erred as much in a mistaken zeal for particular persons

and families, as they ever did in defense of what they thought most dear

and interesting to themselves.

It naturally fills us with resentment to see such a temper insulted and

abused.[B] In reading the history of a free people, whose rights have

been invaded, we are interested in their cause. Our own feelings tell us

how long they ought to have submitted, and at what moment it would have

been treachery to themselves not to have resisted. How much warmer will

be our resentment, if experience should bring the fatal example home to

ourselves!

The situation of this country is alarming enough to rouse the attention

of every man who pretends to a concern for the public welfare.

Appearances justify suspicion; and, when the safety of a nation is at

stake, suspicion is a just ground of inquiry. Let us enter into it with

candor and decency. Respect is due to the station of ministers; and if a

resolution must at last be taken, there is none so likely to be

supported with firmness as that which has been adopted with moderation.

The ruin or prosperity of a state depends so much upon the

administration of its government, that, to be acquainted with the merit

of a ministry, we need only observe the condition of the people. If we

see them obedient to the laws, prosperous in their industry, united at

home, and respected abroad, we may reasonably presume that their affairs

are conducted by men of experience, abilities, and virtue. If, on the

contrary, we see a universal spirit of distrust and dissatisfaction, a

rapid decay of trade, dissensions in all parts of the empire, and a

total loss of respect in the eyes of foreign powers, we may pronounce,

without hesitation, that the government of that country is weak,

distracted, and corrupt. The multitude, in all countries, are patient to

a certain point. Ill usage may rouse their indignation and hurry them

into excesses, _but the original fault is in government_.[C] Perhaps

there never was an instance of a change in the circumstances and temper

of a whole nation, so sudden and extraordinary as that which the

misconduct of ministers has, within these very few years, produced in

Great Britain. When our gracious sovereign ascended the throne, we were

a flourishing and a contented people. If the personal virtues of a king

could have insured the happiness of his subjects, the scene could not

have altered so entirely as it has done. The idea of uniting all

parties, of trying all characters, and distributing the offices of state

by rotation, was gracious and benevolent to an extreme, though it has

not yet produced the many salutary effects which were intended by it. To

say nothing of the wisdom of such plan, it undoubtedly arose from an

unbounded goodness of heart, in which folly had no share. It was not a

capricious partiality to new faces; it was not a natural turn for low

intrigue, nor was it the treacherous amusement of double and triple

negotiations. No, sir; it arose from a continued anxiety in the purest

of all possible hearts for the general welfare.[D] Unfortunately for us,

the event has not been answerable to the design. After a rapid

succession of changes, we are reduced to that change which hardly any

change can mend. Yet there is no extremity of distress which of itself

ought to reduce a great nation to despair. It is not the disorder, but

the physician; it is not a casual concurrence of calamitous

circumstances, it is the pernicious hand of government, which alone can

make a whole people desperate.

Without much political sagacity, or any extraordinary depth of

observation, we need only mark how the principal departments of the

state are bestowed [distributed], and look no farther for the true cause

of every mischief that befalls us.

The finances of a nation, sinking under its debts and expenses, are

committed to a young nobleman already ruined by play.[E] Introduced to

act under the auspices of Lord Chatham, and left at the head of affairs

by that nobleman's retreat, he became a minister by accident; but,

deserting the principles and professions which gave him a moment's

popularity, we see him, from every honorable engagement to the public,

an apostate by design. As for business, the world yet knows nothing of

his talents or resolution, unless a wavering, wayward inconsistency be a

mark of genius, and caprice a demonstration of spirit. It may be said,

perhaps, that it is his Grace's province, as surely as it is his

passion, rather to distribute than to save the public money, and that

while Lord North is Chancellor of the Exchequer, the first Lord of the

Treasury may be as thoughtless and extravagant as he pleases. I hope,

however, he will not rely too much on the fertility of Lord North's

genius for finance. His Lordship is yet to give us the first proof of

his abilities.

It may be candid to suppose that he has hitherto voluntarily concealed

his talents; intending, perhaps, to astonish the world, when we least

expect it, with a knowledge of trade, a choice of expedients, and a

depth of resources equal to the necessities, and far beyond the hopes of

his country. He must now exert the whole power of his capacity, if he

would wish us to forget that, since he has been in office, no plan has

been formed, no system adhered to, nor any one important measure adopted

for the relief of public credit. If his plan for the service of the

current year be not irrevocably fixed on, let me warn him to think

seriously of consequences before he ventures to increase the public

debt. Outraged and oppressed as we are, this nation will not bear, after

a six years' peace, to see new millions borrowed, without any eventual

diminution of debt or reduction of interest. The attempt might rouse a

spirit of resentment, which might reach beyond the sacrifice of a

minister. As to the debt upon the civil list, the people of England

expect that it will not be paid without a strict inquiry how it was

incurred.[F] If it must be paid by Parliament, let me advise the

Chancellor of the Exchequer to think of some better expedient than a

lottery. To support an expensive war, or in circumstances of absolute

necessity, a lottery may perhaps be allowable; but, besides that it is

at all times the very worst way of raising money upon the people, I

think it ill becomes the royal dignity to have the debts of a prince

provided for, like the repairs of a country bridge or a decayed

hospital. The management of the king's affairs in the House of Commons

can not be more disgraced than it has been. A leading minister

repeatedly called down for absolute ignorance--ridiculous motions

ridiculously withdrawn--deliberate plans disconcerted, and a week's

preparation of graceful oratory lost in a moment, give us some, though

not an adequate idea of Lord North's parliamentary abilities and

influence.[G] Yet, before he had the misfortune of being Chancellor of

the Exchequer, he was neither an object of derision to his enemies, nor

of melancholy pity to his friends.

A series of inconsistent measures has alienated the colonies from their

duty as subjects and from their natural affection to their common

country. When Mr. Grenville was placed at the head of the treasury, he

felt the impossibility of Great Britain's supporting such an

establishment as her former successes had made indispensable, and, at

the same time, of giving any sensible relief to foreign trade and to the

weight of the public debt. He thought it equitable that those parts of

the empire which had benefited most by the expenses of the war, should

contribute something to the expenses of the peace, and he had no doubt

of the constitutional right vested in Parliament to raise the

contribution. But, unfortunately for this country, Mr. Grenville was at

any rate to be distressed because he was minister, and Mr. Pitt and Lord

Camden were to be patrons of America, because they were in opposition.

Their declaration gave spirit and argument to the colonies; and while,

perhaps, they meant no more than the ruin of a minister, they in effect

divided one-half of the empire from the other.[H]

Under one administration the Stamp Act is made, under the second it is

repealed, under the third, in spite of all experience, a new mode of

taxing the colonies is invented, and a question revived, which ought to

have been buried in oblivion. In these circumstances, a new office is

established for the business of the Plantations, and the Earl of

Hillsborough called forth, at a most critical season, to govern America.

The choice at least announced to us a man of superior capacity and

knowledge. Whether he be so or not, let his dispatches as far as they

have appeared, let his measures as far as they have operated, determine

for him. In the former we have seen strong assertions without proof,

declamation without argument, and violent censures without dignity or

moderation, but neither correctness in the composition, nor judgment in

the design. As for his measures, let it be remembered that he was called

upon to conciliate and unite, and that, when he entered into office, the

most refractory of the colonies were still disposed to proceed by the

constitutional methods of petition and remonstrance. Since that period

they have been driven into excesses little short of rebellion. Petitions

have been hindered from reaching the throne, and the continuance of one

of the principal assemblies put upon an arbitrary condition, which,

considering the temper they were in, it was impossible they should

comply with, and which would have availed nothing as to the general

question if it had been complied with.[I] So violent, and I believe I

may call it so unconstitutional an exertion of the prerogative, to say

nothing of the weak, injudicious terms in which it was conveyed, gives

us as humble an opinion of his Lordship's capacity as it does of his

temper and moderation. While we are at peace with other nations, our

military force may perhaps be spared to support the Earl of

Hillsborough's measures in America. Whenever that force shall be

necessarily withdrawn or diminished, the dismission of such a minister

will neither console us for his imprudence, nor remove the settled

resentment of a people, who, complaining of an act of the legislature,

are outraged by an unwarrantable stretch of prerogative, and, supporting

their claims by argument, are insulted with declamation.

Drawing lots would be a prudent and reasonable method of appointing the

officers of state, compared to a late disposition of the secretary's

office. Lord Rochford was acquainted with the affairs and temper of the

Southern courts; Lord Weymouth was equally qualified for either

department. By what unaccountable caprice has it happened, that the

latter, who pretends to no experience whatsoever, is removed to the most

important of the two departments, and the former, by preference, placed

in an office where his experience can be of no use to him?[J] Lord

Weymouth had distinguished himself in his first employment by a

spirited, if not judicious conduct. He had animated the civil magistrate

beyond the tone of civil authority, and had directed the operations of

the army to more than military execution. Recovered from the errors of

his youth, from the distraction of play, and the bewitching smiles of

Burgundy, behold him exerting the whole strength of his clear, unclouded

faculties in the service of the crown. It was not the heat of midnight

excesses, nor ignorance of the laws, nor the furious spirit of the house

of Bedford; no, sir; when this respectable minister interposed his

authority between the magistrate and the people, and signed the mandate

on which, for aught he knew, the lives of thousands depended, he did it

from the deliberate motion of his heart, supported by the best of his

judgment.[K]

It has lately been a fashion to pay a compliment to the bravery and

generosity of the Commander-in-chief [the Marquess of Granby] at the

expense of his understanding. They who love him least make no question

of his courage, while his friends dwell chiefly on the facility of his

disposition. Admitting him to be as brave as a total absence of all

feeling and reflection can make him, let us see what sort of merit he

derives from the remainder of his character. If it be generosity to

accumulate in his own person and family a number of lucrative

employments; to provide, at the public expense, for every creature that

bears the name of Manners; and, neglecting the merit and services of the

rest of the army, to heap promotions upon his favorites and dependents,

the present Commander-in-chief is the most generous man alive. Nature

has been sparing of her gifts to this noble lord; but where birth and

fortune are united, we expect the noble pride and independence of a man

of spirit, not the servile, humiliating complaisance of a courtier. As

to the goodness of his heart, if a proof of it be taken from the

facility of never refusing, what conclusion shall we draw from the

indecency of never performing? And if the discipline of the army be in

any degree preserved, what thanks are due to a man whose cares,

notoriously confined to filling up vacancies, have degraded the office

of Commander-in-chief into [that of] a broker of commissions.[L]

With respect to the navy, I shall only say that this country is so

highly indebted to Sir Edward Hawke, that no expense should be spared to

secure him an honorable and affluent retreat.

The pure and impartial administration of justice is perhaps the firmest

bond to secure a cheerful submission of the people, and to engage their

affections to government. It is not sufficient that questions of private

right or wrong are justly decided, nor that judges are superior to the

vileness of pecuniary corruption. Jeffries himself, when the court had

no interest, was an upright judge. A court of justice may be subject to

another sort of bias, more important and pernicious, as it reaches

beyond the interest of individuals and affects the whole community. A

judge, under the influence of government, may be honest enough in the

decision of private causes, yet a traitor to the public. When a victim

is marked out by the ministry, this judge will offer himself to perform

the sacrifice. He will not scruple to prostitute his dignity, and betray

the sanctity of his office, whenever an arbitrary point is to be carried

for government, or the resentment of a court to be gratified.

These principles and proceedings, odious and contemptible as they are,

in effect are no less injudicious. A wise and generous people are roused

by every appearance of oppressive, unconstitutional measures, whether

those measures are supported openly by the power of government, or

masked under the forms of a court of justice. Prudence and

self-preservation will oblige the most moderate dispositions to make

common cause, even with a man whose conduct they censure, if they see

him persecuted in a way which the real spirit of the laws will not

justify. The facts on which these remarks are founded are too notorious

to require an application.[M]

This, sir, is the detail. In one view, behold a nation overwhelmed with

debt; her revenues wasted; her trade declining; the affections of her

colonies alienated; the duty of the magistrate transferred to the

soldiery; a gallant army, which never fought unwillingly but against

their fellow-subjects, moldering away for want of the direction of a man

of common abilities and spirit; and, in the last instance, the

administration of justice become odious and suspected to the whole body

of the people. This deplorable scene admits of but one addition--that we

are governed by counsels, from which a reasonable man can expect no

remedy but poison, no relief but death. If, by the immediate

interposition of Providence, it were [be] possible for us to escape a

crisis so full of terror and despair, posterity will not believe the

history of the present times. They will either conclude that our

distresses were imaginary, or that we had the good fortune to be

governed by men of acknowledged integrity and wisdom. They will not

believe it possible that their ancestors could have survived or

recovered from so desperate a condition, while a Duke of Grafton was

Prime Minister, a Lord North Chancellor of the Exchequer, a Weymouth and

a Hillsborough Secretaries of State, a Granby Commander-in-chief, and a

Mansfield chief criminal judge of the kingdom.

JUNIUS.

DOCTORS NOTES:

[A] 1. Dated January 21, 1769. There is a great regularity in

the structure of this letter. The first two paragraphs contain the

_exordium_. The _transition_ follows in the third paragraph, leading to

the main _proposition_, which is contained in the fourth, viz., "that

the existing discontent and disasters of the nation were justly

chargeable on the king and ministry." The next eight paragraphs are

intended to give the proof of the proposition, by reviewing the chief

departments of government, and endeavoring to show the incompetency or

mal-administration of the men to whom they were intrusted. A

_recapitulation_ follows in the last paragraph but one, leading to a

restatement of the proposition in still broader terms. This is

strengthened in the _conclusion_ by the remark, that if the nation

should escape from its desperate condition through some signal

interposition of Divine Providence, posterity would not believe the

history of the times, or consider it possible that England should have

survived a crisis "so full of terror and despair."

[B] 2. We have here the starting point of the exordium, as it

lay originally in the mind of Junius, viz., that the English nation was

"insulted and abused" by the king and ministers. But this was too strong

a statement to be brought out abruptly. Junius therefore went back, and

prepared the way by showing in successive sentences, (1.) Why a free

people obey the laws--"because they have themselves enacted them." (2.)

That this obedience is ordinarily cheerful, and almost unlimited. (3.)

That such obedience to the guardian of the laws naturally leads to a

strong affection for his person. (4.) That this affection (as shown in

their history) had often been excessive among the English, who were, in

fact, peculiarly liable to a "mistaken zeal for particular persons and

families." Hence they were equally liable (this is not said, but

implied) to have their loyalty imposed upon; and therefore the feeling

then so prevalent was well founded, that the king in his rash counsels

and reckless choice of ministers, _must_ have been taking advantage of

the generous confidence of his people, and playing on the easiness of

their temper. If so, they were _indeed_ insulted and abused. The

exordium, then, is a complete chain of logical deduction, and the case

is fully made out, provided the popular feeling referred to was correct.

And here we see where the fallacy of Junius lies, whenever he is in the

wrong. It is in _taking for granted_ one of the steps of his reasoning.

He does not, in this case, even mention the feeling alluded to, in

direct terms. He knew it was beating in the hearts of the people; his

whole preceding train of thought was calculated to justify and inflame

it, and he therefore leaps at once to the conclusion it involves, and

addresses them as actually filled with _resentment_ "to see such a

temper insulted and abused." The feeling, in this instance, was to a

great extent well founded, and so far his logic is complete. In other

cases his assumption is a false one. He lays hold of some slander of the

day, some distorted statement of facts, some maxim which is only half

true, some prevailing passion or prejudice, and dexterously

intermingling them with a train of thought which in every other respect

is logical and just, he hurries the mind to a conclusion which seems

necessarily involved in the premises. Hardly any writer has so much art

and plausibility in thus misleading the mind.

[C] 3. Here is the central idea of the letter--the

_proposition_ to be proved in respect to the king and his ministers. The

former part of this paragraph contains the major premise, the remainder

the minor down to the last sentence, which brings out the conclusion in

emphatic terms. In order to strengthen the minor, which was the most

important premise, he rapidly contrasts the condition of England before

and after the king ascended the throne. In doing this, he dilates on

those errors of the king which led to, and which account for, so

remarkable a change. Thus the conclusion is made doubly strong. This

union of severe logic with the finest rhetorical skill in filling out

the premises and giving them their utmost effect, furnishes an excellent

model for the student in oratory.

[D] 4. In this attack on the king, there is a refined artifice,

rarely if ever equaled, in leading the mind gradually forward from the

slightest possible insinuation to the bitterest irony. First we have the

"uniting of all parties," which is proper and desirable; next "trying

all characters," which suggests decidedly a want of judgment; then

"distributing the offices of state by _rotation_," a charge rendered

plausible, at least, by the frequent changes of ministers, and involving

(if true) a weakness little short of absolute fatuity. The way being

thus prepared, what was first insinuated is now openly expressed in the

next sentence. The word "_folly_" is applied to the conduct of the king

of England in the face of his subjects, and the application rendered

doubly severe by the gravest irony. Still, there is one relief. Allusion

is made to his "unbounded goodness of heart," from which, in the

preceding chain of insinuations, these errors of judgment had been

deduced. The next sentence takes this away. It directly ascribes to the

king, with an increased severity of ironical denial, some of the meanest

passions of royalty, "a capricious partiality for new faces," a "natural

love of low intrigue," "the treacherous amusement of double and triple

negotiations!" It is unnecessary to remark on the admirable precision

and force of the language in these expressions, and, indeed, throughout

the whole passage. There had been just enough in the king's conduct, for

the last seven years, to make the people suspect all this, and to weaken

or destroy their affection for the crown. It was all connected with that

system of favoritism introduced by Lord Bute, which the nation so much

abhorred. Nothing but this would have made them endure for a moment such

an attack on their monarch, and especially the absolute mockery with

which Junius concludes the whole, by speaking of "the anxiety of the

purest of all _possible_ hearts for the general welfare!" His entire

Letter to the king, with all the rancor ascribed to it by Burke, does

not contain so much bitterness and insult as are concentrated in this

single passage. While we can not but condemn its spirit, we are forced

to acknowledge that there is in this and many other passages of Junius,

a rhetorical skill in the evolution of thought which was never surpassed

by Demosthenes.

[E] 5. The Duke of Grafton, first Lord of the Treasury. It is

unnecessary to remark on the dexterity of connecting with this mention

of a treasury, "sinking under its debts and expenses," the idea of its

head being a gambler loaded with his own debts, and liable continually

to new distresses and temptations from his love of play. The thought is

wisely left here. The argument which it implies would be weakened by any

attempt to expand it. Junius often reminds us of the great Athenian

orator, in thus striking a single blow, and then passing on to some

other subject, as he does here to the apostasy of the Duke of Grafton,

his inconsistency, caprice, and irresolution.

[F] 6. Within about seven years, the king had run up a debt of

L513,000 beyond the ample allowance made for his expenses on the civil

list, and had just applied, at the opening of Parliament, for a grant to

pay it off. The nation were indignant at such overreaching. The debt,

however, was paid this session, and in a few years there was another

contracted. Thus it went on, from time to time, until 1782, when

L300,000 more were paid, in addition to a large sum during the interval.

At this time a partial provision was made, in connection with Mr.

Burke's plan of economical reform, for preventing all future

encroachments of this kind on the public revenues.

[G] 7. Notwithstanding these early difficulties, Lord North

became at last a very dexterous and effective debater.

[H] 8. This attack on Lord Chatham and his friend shows the

political affinities of Junius. He believed with Mr. Grenville and Lord

Rockingham in the _right_ of Great Britain to tax America; and in

referring to Mr. Grenville's attempt to enforce that right by the Stamp

Act, he adopts his usual course of interweaving an argument in its favor

into the language used.[1] He thus prepares the way for his censures on

Lord Chatham and Lord Camden, affirming that they acted on the principle

that "Mr. Grenville was at _any rate_ to be distressed because he was

minister and they were in opposition," thus implying that they were

actuated by factious and selfish views in their defense of America.

About a year after this letter was written, Lord Rockingham was

reconciled to Lord Chatham and Lord Camden, and all united to break down

the Grafton ministry. Junius now turned round and wrote his celebrated

eulogium on Lord Chatham, contained in his fifty-fourth letter, in which

he says, "Recorded honors shall gather round his monument, and thicken

over him. It is a solid fabric, and will support the laurels that adorn

it. I am not conversant in the language of panegyric. These praises are

extorted from me; but they will wear well, for they have been dearly

earned." The last of his letters was addressed to Lord Camden, in which

he says, "I turn with pleasure from that barren waste, in which no

salutary plant takes root, no verdure quickens, to a character fertile,

as I willingly believe, in every great and good qualification."

Political men have certainly a peculiar faculty of viewing the

characters of others under very different lights, as they happen to

affect their own interests and feelings.[2]

[I] 9. The "arbitrary condition" was that the General Court of

Massachusetts should rescind one of their own resolutions and expunge it

from their records. The whole of this passage in relation to

Hillsborough is as correct in point of fact, as it is well reasoned and

finely expressed.

[J] 10. The changes here censured had taken place about three

months before. The office of Foreign Secretary for the Southern

Department was made vacant by the resignation of Lord Shelburne.[3] Lord

Rochford, who had been minister to France, and thus made "acquainted

with the temper of the Southern courts," ought naturally to have been

appointed (if at all) to this department. Instead of this he was made

Secretary of the Northern Department, for which he had been prepared by

no previous knowledge; while Lord Weymouth was taken from the Home

Department, and placed in the Southern, being "_equally_ qualified"

[that is, wholly unqualified by any "experience whatsoever"] for either

department in the Foreign office, whether Southern or Northern.

[K] 11. As Secretary of the Home Department, Lord Weymouth had

addressed a letter to the magistrates of London, early in 1768, advising

them to call in the military, provided certain disturbances in the

streets should continue. The idea of setting the soldiery to fire on

masses of unarmed men has always been abhorrent to the English nation.

It was, therefore, a case admirably suited to the purposes of this

Letter. In using it to inflame the people against Lord Weymouth, Junius

charitably supposes that he was not repeating the errors of his

youth--that he was neither drunk, nor ignorant of what he did, nor

impelled by "the furious spirit" of one of the proudest families of the

realm--all of which Lord Weymouth would certainly say--and therefore

(which his Lordship must also admit) that he did, from "the deliberate

motion of his heart, supported by the best of his judgment," sign a

paper which the great body of the people considered as authorizing

promiscuous murder, and which actually resulted in the death of fourteen

persons three weeks after. The whole is so wrought up as to create the

feeling, that Lord Weymouth was in _both_ of these states of mind--that

he acted with _deliberation_ in carrying out the dictates of headlong or

drunken passion.

All this, of course, is greatly exaggerated. Severe measures did seem

indispensable to suppress the mobs of that day, and, whoever stood forth

to direct them, must of necessity incur the popular indignation. Still,

it was a question among the most candid men, whether milder means might

not have been effectual.

[L] 12. The Marquess of Granby, personally considered, was

perhaps the most popular member of the cabinet, with the exception of

Sir Edward Hawke. He was a warm-hearted man, of highly social qualities

and generous feelings. As it was the object of Junius to break down the

ministry, it was peculiarly necessary for him to blast and destroy his

popularity. This he attempts to do by discrediting the character of the

marquess, as a man of firmness, strength of mind, and disinterestedness

in managing the concerns of the army. This attack is distinguished for

its plausibility and bitterness. It is clear that Junius was in some way

connected with the army or with the War Department, and that in this

situation he had not only the means of very exact information, but some

private grudge against the Commander-in-chief.[4] His charges and

insinuations are greatly overstrained; but it is certain that the army

was moldering away at this time in a manner which left the country in a

very defenseless condition. Lord Chatham showed this by incontestible

evidence, in his speech on the Falkland Islands, delivered about a year

after this Letter was written.

[M] 13. It is unnecessary to say that Lord Mansfield is here

pointed at. No one now believes that this great jurist ever did the

things here ascribed to him by Junius.[5] All that is true is, that he

was a very high Tory, and was, therefore, naturally led to exalt the

prerogatives of the crown; and that he was a very politic man (and this

was the great failing in his character), and therefore unwilling to

oppose the king or his ministers, when he knew in heart they were wrong.

This was undoubtedly the case in respect to the issuing of a general

warrant for apprehending Wilkes, which he ought publicly to have

condemned; but, as he remained silent, men naturally considered him, in

his character of Chief Justice, as having approved of the course

directed by the king. Hence Mansfield was held responsible for the

treatment of Wilkes, of whom Junius here speaks in very nearly the terms

used by Lord Chatham, as a man whose "conduct" he censured, but with

whom every moderate man must "make common cause," when he was

"persecuted in a way which the real spirit of the laws will not

justify."

COMMENTS ON THE DOCTOR'S NOTES.

Note 8, p. 28. [1.] The doctor is here in error. In no place does Junius

use language which can even be distorted into an argument in favor of

enforcing the _right_ to tax America. He here attacks the opposition or

minority because they had from _selfish motives_ divided one-half of the

empire from the other. He states the views of Mr. Grenvile on the

subject of taxing the colonies, _but not his own_. Elsewhere, however,

he does, and this is his language: "Junius considers the right of taxing

the colonies by an act of the British Legislature as a _speculative_

right merely, never to be exerted, nor ever to be renounced."--Let. 63.

But Camden and Pitt denied the _right_.--Bancroft, vol. v., pp. 395,

403. Junius stood between the two parties in regard to taxing the

colonies, hence could not be a partisan.

[2.] Here again is an error. Rockingham and Chatham led the two wings of

the minority. The former was in favor of septennial, the latter of

triennial parliaments.--Let. 52. Herein Junius agreed with Chatham, and

hence could not be a partisan of Rockingham.--Let. 53. But because

Junius eulogized Chatham, he was said to be a partisan of Chatham, which

he afterwards contradicts when he compiled his letters, in a note to the

name of Mr. Pitt in his first letter, and is as follows: "And yet

Junius has been called the partisan of Lord Chatham." In Letter 53,

Junius denies partisanship to both. Neither did he agree with Lord

Camden, and mildly censures him for his action.--Let. 59. Junius was

never a partisan, as will be fully proven hereafter. This shows how

limited a knowledge the doctor had of Junius, and also how unfit to

comment on these matters of fact. He had not even caught the design or

spirit of Junius. He was advocating the cause of the people and not the

cause of any party or faction.

Note 10, p. 31. [3.] Shelburne was _dismissed_; he did not resign. This

is a grave error in the doctor, when the conduct of king and ministers

is the theme, and when we are studying the motives and character of the

writer. As I wish to excite inquiry, in the mind of the reader, to lead

him to a just method of criticism and investigation, I will briefly

state how I detected even so apparently trifling a mistake as the above.

The first sentence of the paragraph is as follows: "Drawing lots would

be a prudent and reasonable method of appointing the officers of state

compared to a late disposition of the secretary's office." After reading

this, and then the note, it occurred to me that the king should not be

so severely censured for any mistake in judgment in filling an office

suddenly left vacant by a resignation. If the writer did so he was

malignant, and ought to be condemned by all liberal-minded and good

people. And after having studied thoroughly the character of Mr. Paine,

for I now supposed him to be the author, I said: although the language

is his, the spirit is not. I confess this staggered me not a little,

but in a few moments I regained myself, after reading these lines from

Bancroft's History, vol. vi., pp. 214, 215, 216: "Yielding to the daily

importunities of the king, Grafton prepared to _dismiss_ Shelburne....

Shelburne was removed. The resignation of Chatham instantly followed....

The removal of Shelburne opened the cabinet to the ignorant and

incapable Earl of Rochford, who owed his selection to the mediocrity of

his talents and the impossibility of finding a secretary of state more

thoroughly submissive." This was satisfactory to me. What was evidence

against my hypothesis by the note of Doctor Goodrich, was evidence in

favor of it when the facts were known. This shows how careless men

become who do not have in view a scientific method, and who do not

search after the soul of things, but content themselves with a

superficial reading. I would here warn the reader to question the

statement of any writer which does not come with more than a plausible

degree of truth. The day of historic fable is past. History is a

science. The man of science takes but little on authority not capable of

proof, and it is through this scientific method that the humblest mind,

capable of rational judgment, becomes supreme over itself.

Note 12, p. 34. [4.] That Junius had a private grudge against Lord

Granby, is an affirmation not supported by the facts. Junius himself

says, in a note to Letter 7: "The death of Lord Granby was lamented by

Junius. He undoubtedly owed some compensations to the public, and seemed

determined to acquit himself of them. In private life he was

unquestionably that good man, who, for the interest of his country,

ought to have been a great one. I speak of him now without partiality.

_I never spoke of him with resentment._ His mistakes in public conduct

did not arise either from want of sentiment, or want of judgment, but in

general from the difficulty of saying _no_ to the bad people who

surrounded him."

Note 13, p. 36. [5.] To which I reply: every student of history _does_

believe just the things ascribed to Lord Mansfield by Junius, and as the

doctor has given us no authority in support of his rash affirmation, I

will dismiss him to the tender mercies of those who will search for

themselves.

ESTIMATE OF JUNIUS, BY MR. BURKE.[A]

How comes this JUNIUS to have broke through the cobwebs of the law, and

to range uncontrolled, unpunished, through the land? The myrmidons of

the court have been long, and are still, pursuing him in vain. They will

not spend their time upon me, or you, or you. No; they disdain such

vermin, when the mighty boar of the forest that has broken through all

their toils, is before them. But what will all their efforts avail? No

sooner has he wounded one than he lays another dead at his feet. For my

part, when I saw his attack upon the king, I own my blood ran cold. I

thought that he had ventured too far, and there was an end of his

triumphs. Not that he had not asserted many truths. Yes, sir, there are

in that composition many bold truths, by which a wise prince might

profit. It was the rancor and venom with which I was struck. In these

respects the North Briton is as much inferior to him as in strength,

wit, and judgment. But while I expected in this daring flight his final

ruin and fall, behold him rising still higher, and coming down souse

upon both houses of Parliament. Yes, he did make _you_ his quarry, and

you still bleed from the wounds of his talons. You crouched, and still

crouch, beneath his rage. Nor has he dreaded the terrors of your brow,

sir;[B] he has attacked even you--he has--and I believe you have no

reason to triumph in the encounter. In short, after carrying away our

Royal Eagle in his pounces, and dashing him against a rock, he has laid

you prostrate. Kings, Lords, and Commons are but the sport of his fury.

Were he a member of this House, what might not be expected from his

knowledge, his firmness, and integrity? He would be easily known by his

contempt of all danger, by his penetration, by his vigor. Nothing would

escape his vigilance and activity. Bad ministers could conceal nothing

from his sagacity; nor could promises or threats induce him to conceal

any thing from the public.

FOOTNOTES:

[A] From a speech delivered in the House of Commons.

[B] Sir Fletcher Norton, Speaker of the House, was

distinguished for the largeness of his overhanging eyebrows.

SOCIAL POSITION.

What was the position of Junius in society? Was he a man of fortune or

of humble means? Was he a peer, or the leader of a party or faction, or

was he one of the common people? Let Junius tell. In his reply to Sir

William Draper, he says: "I will not contend with you in point of

composition--you are a scholar, Sir William, and, if I am truly

informed, you write Latin with almost as much purity as English. Suffer

me then (for I am a plain, unlettered man) to continue that style of

interrogation which suits my capacity."--Let. 7. In the following the

italics are Junius'. He had been upbraided by Sir William for his

assumed signature, and replied: "I should have hoped that even _my_ name

might carry some authority with it, if I had not seen how very little

weight or consideration a printed paper receives, even from the

respectable signature of Sir William Draper."--Let. 3. Again, he says:

"Mine, I confess, are humble labors. I do not presume to instruct the

learned, but simply to inform the body of the people, and I prefer that

channel of conveyance which is likely to spread farthest among

them."--Let. 22. Again: "Welbore Ellis, what say you? Is this the law of

Parliament, or is it not? I am a plain man, sir, and can not follow you

through the phlegmatic forms of an oration. Speak out, Gildrig! Say yes

or no."--Let. 47. Again: "I speak to the people as one of the

people."--Let. 58. In Let. 57 he says he is a "stranger" to the Livery

of London. He says, also, in Let. 25, to Sir William Draper: "I believe,

sir, you will never know me. A considerable time must certainly elapse

before we are personally acquainted." This language is not equivocal.

They neither of them personally knew the other. In Let. 18 he says he is

not personally known to Mr. Grenville, a member of the House of Commons.

Nor was he a collegian or lawyer. In Let. 53 he says: "I speak to facts

with which all of us are conversant. I speak to men and to their

experience, and will not descend to answer the little sneering

sophistries of a collegian." And again: "This may be logic at Cambridge,

or at the treasury, but among men of sense and honor it is folly or

villainy in the extreme." In Let. 7 he says to Sir William Draper: "An

academical education has given you an unlimited command over the most

beautiful figures of speech. Masks, hatchets, racks, and vipers dance

through your letters in all the mazes of metaphorical confusion." This

is one of Junius' most withering sarcasms. In his Preface he says: "I am

no lawyer by profession, nor do I pretend to be more deeply read than

every English gentleman should be in the laws of his country." ... "I

speak to the plain understanding of the people, and appeal to their

honest, liberal construction of me." And of the Letters he says in the

Dedication: "To me, originally, they owe nothing but a healthy, sanguine

constitution."

Now, from the above facts, and the method of elimination, it may be

affirmed, Junius was not prominent before the English nation. He was

not a peer, nor member of the House of Commons. He could not have been

an army officer. He was not a collegian, nor a lawyer. What, then, was

he? Just what he says himself to be: "one of the common people, with a

healthy, sanguine constitution," but by no means without genius,

education, and practical knowledge.

JUNIUS NOT A PARTISAN.

But let us continue the method of elimination till we find his true

position. Because we can not safely affirm what he was, till we know in

some particulars, what he was not; and it is thus the spirit and object

of Junius may be made visible. I affirm, therefore, Junius was not a

partisan. In proof of which I submit the following, from Let. 58, to the

study of the reader:

"No man laments more sincerely than I do the unhappy differences

which have arisen among the friends of the people, and divided

them from each other. The cause, undoubtedly, suffers as well by

the diminution of that strength which union carries along with it,

as by the separate loss of personal reputation, which every man

sustains when his character and conduct are frequently held forth

in odious or contemptible colors. The differences are only

advantageous to the common enemy[A] of the country. The hearty

friends of the cause are provoked and disgusted. The lukewarm

advocate avails himself of any pretense, to relapse into that

indolent indifference about every thing that ought to interest an

Englishman, so unjustly dignified with the title of moderation.

The false, insidious partisan, who creates or foments the

disorder, sees the fruit of his dishonest industry ripen beyond

his hopes, and rejoices in the promise of a banquet, only

delicious to such an appetite as his own. It is time for those who

really mean the _Cause_ and the _People_, who have no view to

private advantage, and who have virtue enough to prefer the

general good of the community to the gratification of personal

animosities--it is time for such men to interpose. Let us try

whether these fatal dissensions may not yet be reconciled; or, if

that be impracticable, let us guard, at least, against the worst

effects of division, and endeavor to persuade these furious

partisans, if they will not consent to draw together, to be

separately useful to that cause which they all pretend to be

attached to. Honor and honesty must not be renounced, although a

thousand modes of right and wrong were to occupy the degrees of

morality between Zeno and Epicurus. The fundamental principles of

Christianity may still be preserved, though every zealous sectary

adheres to his own exclusive doctrine, and pious ecclesiastics

make it a part of their religion to persecute one another. The

civil constitution, too--that legal liberty, that general creed

which every Englishman professes--may still be supported, though

Wilkes and Horne, and Townsend and Sawbridge, should obstinately

refuse to communicate; and even if the fathers of the Church--if

Saville, Richmond, Camden, Rockingham, and Chatham should disagree

in the ceremonies of their political worship, and even in the

interpretation of twenty texts of Magna Charta. I speak to the

people as one of the people. Let us employ these men in whatever

departments their various abilities are best suited to, and as

much to the advantage of the common cause as their different

inclinations will permit. They can not serve us without

essentially serving themselves."

In the above Junius places himself on the side of the people, and

clearly above all party or faction. But he continues:

"I have too much respect for the abilities of Mr. Horne, to

flatter myself that these gentlemen will ever be cordially

re-united. It is not, however, unreasonable to expect, that each

of them should act his separate part with honor and integrity to

the public. As for differences of opinion upon speculative

questions, if we wait until they are reconciled, the action of

human affairs must be suspended forever. But neither are we to

look for perfection in any one man, nor for agreement among many.

When Lord Chatham affirms that the authority of the British

legislature is not supreme over the colonies in the same sense in

which it is supreme over Great Britain; when Lord Camden supposes

a necessity (which the king is to judge of), and, founded upon

that necessity, attributes to the crown a legal power (not given

by the act itself) to suspend the operation of an act of the

legislature, I listen to them both, with diffidence and respect,

but without the smallest degree of conviction or assent. Yet I

doubt not they delivered their real sentiments, nor ought they to

be hastily condemned.... I mean only to illustrate one useful

proposition, which it is the intention of this paper to inculcate,

'That we should not generally reject the friendship or services of

any man because he differs from us in a particular opinion.' This

will not appear a superfluous caution, if we observe the ordinary

conduct of mankind. In public affairs, there is the least chance

of a perfect concurrence of sentiment or inclination; yet every

man is able to contribute something to the common stock, and no

man's contribution should be rejected. If individuals have no

virtues, their vices may be of use to us. I care not with what

principle the new-born patriot is animated, if the measures he

supports are beneficial to the community. The nation is interested

in his conduct. His motives are his own. The properties of a

patriot are perishable in the individual; but there is a quick

succession of subjects, and the breed is worth preserving. The

spirit of the Americans may be an useful example to us. Our dogs

and horses are only English upon English ground; but patriotism,

it seems, may be improved by transplanting. I will not reject a

bill which tends to confine parliamentary privilege within

reasonable bounds, though it should be stolen from the house of

Cavendish, and introduced by Mr. Onslow. The features of the

infant are a proof of the descent, and vindicate the noble birth

from the baseness of the adoption.[B] I will willingly accept a

sarcasm from Colonel Barre,[C] or a simile from Mr. Burke.[D] Even

the silent vote of Mr. Calcraft is worth reckoning in a division.

What though he riots in the plunder of the army, and has only

determined to be a patriot when he could not be a peer? Let us

profit by the assistance of such men while they are with us, and

place them, if it be possible, in the post of danger to prevent

desertion. The wary Wedderburne, the pompous Suffolk, never threw

away the scabbard, nor ever went upon a forlorn hope. They always

treated the king's servants as men with whom, some time or other,

they might probably be in friendship. When a man who stands forth

for the public, has gone that length from which there is no

practicable retreat, when he has given that kind of personal

offense, which a pious monarch never pardons, I then begin to

think him in earnest, and that he will never have occasion to

solicit the forgiveness of his country. But instances of a

determination so entire and unreserved are rarely to be met with.

Let us take mankind as they are; let us distribute the virtues and

abilities of individuals, according to the offices they affect;

and when they quit the service, let us endeavor to supply their

places with better men than we have lost. In this country there

are always candidates enough for popular favor. The temple of fame

is the shortest passage to riches and preferment.

"Above all things, let me guard my countrymen against the

meanness and folly of accepting of a trifling or moderate

compensation for extraordinary and essential injuries. Our enemy

treats us as the cunning trader does the unskillful Indian; they

magnify their generosity, when they give us baubles of little

proportionate value for ivory and gold. The same House of Commons

who robbed the constituent body of their right of free election;

who presume to make a law, under pretense of declaring it; who

paid our good king's debts, without once inquiring how they were

incurred; who gave thanks for repeated murders committed at home,

and for national infamy incurred abroad; who screened Lord

Mansfield; who imprisoned the magistrates of the metropolis for

asserting the subjects' right to the protection of the laws; who

erased a judicial record, and ordered all proceedings in criminal

suit to be suspended; this very House of Commons have graciously

consented that their own members may be compelled to pay their

debts, and that contested elections shall, for the future, be

determined with some decent regard to the merits of the case. The

event of the suit is of no consequence to the crown. While

parliaments are septennial, the purchase of the sitting member or

of the petitioner, makes but the difference of a day. Concessions

such as these, are of little moment to the sum of things; unless

it be to prove that the worst of men are sensible of the injuries

they have done us, and perhaps to demonstrate to us the imminent

danger of our situation. In the shipwreck of the state, trifles

float, and are preserved; while every thing solid and valuable

sinks to the bottom, and is lost forever."

* * * * *

Nor did Junius ever receive pay for his writings. The charges made

against him are thus briefly disposed of: "To write for profit, without

taxing the press; to write for fame, and to be unknown; to support the

intrigues of faction, and to be disowned as a dangerous auxiliary by

every party in the kingdom, are contradictions which the minister must

reconcile before I forfeit my credit with the public. I may quit the

service, but it would be absurd to charge me with desertion. The

reputation of these papers is an honorable pledge for my attachment to

the people.... But, in truth, sir, I have left no room for an

accommodation with the piety of St. James'. My offenses are not to be

redeemed by recantation or repentance. On one side, our warmest patriots

would disclaim me as a burthen to their honest ambition. On the other,

the vilest prostitution, if Junius could descend to it, would lose its

natural merit and influence in the cabinet, and treachery be no longer a

recommendation to the royal favor."--Let. 44. "He is not paid for his

labor, and certainly has a right to choose his employment."--Let. 63.

"As for myself, it is no longer a question whether I shall mix with the

throng and take a single share in the danger. Whenever Junius appears he

must encounter a host of enemies. But is there no honorable way to serve

the public without engaging in personal quarrels with insignificant

individuals, or submitting to the drudgery of canvassing votes for an

election? Is there no merit in dedicating my life to the information of

my fellow-subjects? What public question have I declined? What villain

have I spared? Is there no labor in the composition of these

letters?"--Let. 53.

In compiling the Letters, he says in his Preface: "The printer will

readily acquit me of any view to my own profit. I undertake this

troublesome task merely to serve a man who has deserved well of me and

the public, and who, on my account, has been exposed to an expensive,

tyrannical prosecution." This was Mr. Woodfall, publisher of the _Public

Advertiser_.

I am now prepared to ask: What, then, was the object of Junius? What

does he mean by "The _Cause_ and the _People_"? To what _Cause_ has he

"_dedicated his life_"? and which, if he should desert, would be the

"_vilest prostitution_?" Why this great zeal and disinterested

benevolence? Aloof from party, unknown to the public, writing for

neither fame nor favor, what is the meaning of this literary

adventurer?

FOOTNOTES:

[A] King, ministers, and parliament.

[B] That the reader may see the value Junius placed on such men

as Onslow, I will place before him a short address of Junius to the

king: "As you are a young man, sir, who ought to have a life of

happiness in prospect; as you are a husband, as you are a father (your

filial duties I own have been religiously performed), is it _bona fide_

for your interest or your honor, to sacrifice your domestic

tranquillity, and to live in perpetual disagreement with your people,

merely to preserve such a chain of beings as North, Barrington,

Weymouth, Gower, Ellis, Onslow, Rigby, Jerry Dyson, and Sandwich? Their

very names are a satire upon all government, and I defy the gravest of

your chaplains to read the catalogue without laughing."

[C] Isaac Barre defended the colonies and opposed the Stamp Act

in the House of Commons with "a display of eloquence, which astonished

all who heard him." When the ministry in 1771 tried to suppress the

practice of reporting the parliamentary debates, he denounced them and

the House of Commons in the strongest and most sarcastic terms; and

after closing his speech he "left the house, calling upon every honest

man to follow him." The letters of Junius were afterwards attributed to

him.

[D] "_A simile from Mr. Burke._" One is here forcibly reminded

how prophetic this sarcasm is of what Mr. Paine will say in his Rights

of Man, of Mr. Burke's imagery: "I have now to follow Mr. Burke through

a pathless wilderness of rhapsodies." ... "His intention was to make an

attack on the French revolution; but instead of proceeding with an

orderly arrangement he has stormed it with a mob of ideas, tumbling over

and destroying one another."

A REVOLUTIONIST.

The object of Junius was to produce a revolution in England, to dethrone

the king, depose the ministry, dissolve Parliament, and bring the

constitution back to its original principles. He defends, at the same

time, the action of the American colonies, and encourages them to move

on with the work.

It is, perhaps, noticeable to the historian, and especially if he

studies the causes of human action, that great movements in behalf of

human weal are at no given time confined to a particular locality, but

that they, in a measure, span the world. They at least radiate till they

affect the whole of a particular type of mankind. Nor is this

attributable altogether to commerce and a social interchange of thought,

for these take time; but it seems as though, at times, convulsions of

thought instantaneously affect great classes of people widely separated

by ocean or country. The study of mobs and riots in America, England,

and France would lead to this conclusion. It is, however, not a mooted

point, that the same cause which moved the colonies to action just prior

to the revolution, at the same time convulsed the English nation. The

tyranny of king, ministers, and Parliament put its heel on the neck of

Englishmen as well as Americans. The people rose in rebellion there as

well as here. Patriots arose in England as well as in America, and

foremost among them all was Junius, for he fought the battle of freedom

for the whole world.

But that Junius meant _war_ in England, is evident from almost every

letter. I will give a few extracts in proof. In his Dedication he says:

"Although the king should continue to support his present system of

government, the period is not very distant at which you will have the

means of redress in your own power: it may be nearer, perhaps, than any

of us expect; and I would warn you to be prepared for it." If Thomas

Paine wrote the Letters of Junius, he said this just before departing

for America.

In his address to the Livery of London, he says, in regard to the

candidates for election: "Will they grant you common halls when it shall

be necessary? Will they go up with remonstrances to the king? Have they

firmness enough to meet the fury of a venal House of Commons? Have they

fortitude enough not to shrink at imprisonment? Have they spirit enough

to hazard their _lives and fortunes_ in a _contest_, if it should be

necessary, with a prostituted legislature? If these questions can fairly

be answered in the affirmative, your choice is made. Forgive this

passionate language. I am unable to correct it. The subject comes home

to us all. It is the language of my heart."--Let. 57. Upon the

appointment of Luttrell as adjutant-general, and who, thereupon, takes

command of the army in Ireland, Junius says: "My Lord, though it may

not be possible to trace this measure to its source, we can follow the

stream, and warn the country of its approaching destruction. The English

nation must be roused and put upon its guard. Mr. Luttrell has already

shown us how far he may be trusted, whenever an open attack is to be

made upon the liberties of this country. I do not doubt that there is a

deliberate plan formed. Your lordship best knows by whom. The corruption

of the legislative body on this side, a military force on the other, and

then, _farewell to England_."--Let. 40. Addressed to Lord North. The

italics are his own.

Speaking of the king, he says: "If he loves his people, he will dissolve

the parliament which they can never confide in or respect. If he has any

regard for his own honor, he will disdain to be any longer connected

with such abandoned prostitution. But if it were conceivable [and it was

with Junius] that a king of this country had lost all sense of personal

honor, and all concern for the welfare of his subjects, I confess, sir,

I should be contented to renounce the forms of the constitution once

more, if there were no other way to obtain substantial justice for the

people."--Let. 44. Any one who is acquainted with the English

constitution knows that "its forms" can not be renounced without a

revolution. And as to his opinion of the king, he says, "his virtues had

ceased to be a question." ... "The man I speak of [the king] has not a

heart to feel for the frailties of his fellow creatures. It is their

virtues that afflict, it is their vices that console him."--Let. 53. But

this will be brought out more strongly in my _Parallels_, and I will

leave it here and pass on to speak of his _sympathy with the colonies_.

* * * * *

It has perhaps been already noticed by the reader, that Junius, in the

extracts given, spoke in the most respectful terms of the colonies. But

when he says: "The spirit of the Americans may be an useful example to

us;" and, "patriotism may be improved by transplanting," he meant more

than praise of the colonies. He meant to stir up the English nation to

action and rebellion. He speaks of the affections of the colonies as

having been "alienated from their common country" by a series of

inconsistent measures.--Let. 1 and Let. 3. But in no instance does he

blame them. In his address to the king, he says: "The distance of the

colonies would make it impossible for them to take an active concern in

your affairs, if they were as well affected to your government as they

once pretended to be to your person. They are ready enough to

distinguish between you and your ministers. They complained of an act of

the legislature, but traced the origin of it no higher than to the

servants of the crown; they pleased themselves with the hope that their

sovereign, if not favorable to their cause, at least was impartial. They

consider you as united with your servants against America; and know how

to distinguish the sovereign and a venal parliament on one side, from

the real sentiments of the English people on the other. Looking forward

to independence, they might possibly receive you for their king; but if

ever you retire to America [this would be after Junius had effected a

revolution in England], be assured they will give you such a covenant

to digest as the presbytery of Scotland would have been ashamed to offer

to Charles the Second. They left their native land in search of freedom,

and found it in a desert. Divided, as they are, into a thousand forms of

policy and religion, there is one point in which they all agree: they

equally detest the pageantry of a king, and the supercilious hypocrisy

of a bishop."--Let. 35. Oliver Cromwell he calls an "accomplished

president," and extols his genius.--Let. 14. Much more could be given of

the same nature, but this is sufficient.

REVIEW OF JUNIUS.

I wish the reader to catch the spirit of Junius, and to this end I will

briefly review the book.

Junius, before beginning, has an orderly plan for his literary campaign.

He opens it with the new year, and closes it with the same. He begins

with a full and sweeping broadside at king, ministers, and parliament,

at the same time defending the English people and the American colonies.

He knew this would call forth a return fire, for which he held himself

in readiness. He expected a defense of the Duke of Grafton, but was

disappointed in this, for it came from Sir William Draper, in behalf of

Lord Granby. After he had temporarily silenced this gun, the last shot

from Sir William being, "Cease, viper!" he pours charge after charge

into Grafton, the prime minister. He does not attack the king at this

time, for the reason that "it had been a maxim of the English

government, not unwillingly admitted by the people, that every

ungracious or severe exertion of the prerogative should be placed to the

account of the minister; but that whenever an act of grace or

benevolence was to be performed, the whole merit of it should be

attributable to the sovereign himself." That is, the maxim that "The

king can do no wrong," was yet admitted by the people, and for Junius

to attack the king instead of the prime minister, would have thwarted

his design, which was, as before stated, _Revolution_. Nor does Junius

dare to assault the throne till he has brought forth a response in

defense of Grafton, knowing that when it came it must reflect on the

king. The last of May of the first year he had brought all his charges

against Grafton, and to them there had been no response but "the flat

general charge of scurrility and falsehood." This Junius did not deign

to answer. He now appears over the signature of Philo Junius, compiling

the facts and giving them in their order. The principle charges were: an

invasion upon "the first rights of the people and the first principles

of the constitution" by the arbitrary appointment of Mr. Luttrell as a

member of the House of Commons in the place of Mr. Wilkes, who, at the

king's solicitation, had been expelled: the disgraceful conduct of

Grafton in associating with a prostitute in public: the charge of

bastardy upon the duke: the desertion of Lord Chatham: the betrayal of

Rockingham and Wilkes: his vascillating and weak action in regard to the

colonies: and marrying the near relative of a man who had debauched his

wife. But nothing could provoke any reply worthy of an answer by Junius

till he, near the close of the year, brought forward the charge against

Grafton of "selling a patent place in the collection of customs at

Exeter to one Mr. Hine." Junius says of this: "No sale by the candle was

ever conducted with greater formality. I thank God! there is not in

human nature a degree of impudence daring enough to deny the charge I

have fixed upon you." To aggravate this charge, Junius works up

another, which is as follows: "A little before the publication of this

and the preceding letter, the Duke of Grafton had commenced a

prosecution against Mr. Samuel Vaughan for endeavoring to corrupt his

integrity by an offer of five thousand pounds for a patent place in

Jamaica." But now the duke is charged by Junius with the acceptance of a

bribe from Mr. Hine, and to save the duke from impeachment, and Lord

Mansfield from embarrassment, the prosecution is immediately dropped.

See Let. 34. In a note to the above Letter Junius says: "From the

publication of the preceding to this date, not one word was said in

defense of the Duke of Grafton. But vice and impudence soon regained

themselves, and the sale of the royal favor was openly avowed and

defended. We acknowledge the piety of St. James', but what has become of

its morality?"

It is now the 12th of December, and on the 19th Junius assaults the

throne. Till now there was no opportunity offered, for up to this time

the king stood within the impregnable fortress, "The king can do no

wrong." Junius, while he acknowledges this maxim, does so merely to get

the ear of the king, for he afterward in his Preface takes occasion to

place himself right before the public. But having once entered the

king's castle, he makes George the Third the most insignificant and

detestable object on earth. It is the most powerful piece of satire

against kingcraft in the English language, and while it remains to be

read by the people, kings may look on and tremble. Junius also in this

not only hints _war_, but threatens _revolution_. In closing he says:

"But this is not a time to trifle with your fortune. They deceive you,

sir, who tell you that you have many friends whose affections are

founded upon a principle of personal attachment. The fortune which made

you a king forbade you to have a friend. It is a law of nature which can

not be violated with impunity. The mistaken prince who looks for

friendship, will find a favorite, and in that favorite the ruin of his

affairs." And the closing sentence is: "While he plumes himself upon the

security of his title to the crown, should remember, that, as it was

acquired by one revolution, it may be lost by another."--Let. 35.

But Junius failed to produce the desired effect. The spirit of

revolution was now at its height. The ocean must ebb. A reaction

follows, and during two years more Junius strives to put new life into

the flagging energies of his countrymen, and to kindle anew the fire of

liberty. But the flame goes out.

The commons have been corrupted by the king, and now the lords give way:

"The three branches of the legislature (king, lords, and commons) seem

to treat their separate rights and interests as the Roman triumvirs did

their friends; they reciprocally sacrifice them to the animosities of

each other, and establish a detestable union among themselves upon the

ruin of the laws and liberty of the commonwealth."--Let. 39.

Of the House of Lords he says: "By resolving that they had no right to

impeach a judgment of the House of Commons in any case whatsoever, where

that house has a competent jurisdiction, they in effect gave up that

constitutional check and reciprocal control of one branch of the

legislature over the other, which is, perhaps, the greatest and most

important object provided for by the division of the whole legislative

power into three estates; and now let the judicial decisions of the

House of Commons be ever so extravagant, let their declarations of law

be ever so flagrantly false, arbitrary, and oppressive to the subject,

the House of Lords have imposed a slavish silence upon themselves; they

can not interpose; they can not protect the subject; they can not defend

the laws of their country. A concession so extraordinary in itself, so

contradictory to the principles of their own institution, can not but

alarm the most unsuspecting mind."--Let. 39. Junius, in a note to this

Letter, calls for a leader upon this state of facts: "The man who

resists and overcomes this iniquitous power assumed by the lords, must

be supported by the whole people. We have the laws on our side, and want

nothing but an intrepid leader. When such a man stands forth, let the

nation look to it. It is not his cause, but our own."

But the leader did not come, and Junius is no more known to England.

After such declarations it would outrage all degrees of probability to

suppose that Junius revealed himself to the king and ministry, and that

they conferred on him a fat office for what he had written. I will not

insult the common sense of my readers by offering an argument against

it, founded upon the laws of human nature. And yet, Lord Macaulay has

surrendered his reason to just such an assumption. Had Junius ever

revealed himself to the king and his "detestable junto," that would have

been the last of him.

Before I take my leave of Junius, I will give two extracts in which he

sounds, TO ARMS!

He is addressing the Duke of Grafton: "You have now brought the merits

of your administration to an issue, on which every Englishman, of the

narrowest capacity, may determine for himself; it is not an alarm to the

passions, but a calm appeal to the judgment of the people upon their own

most essential interests. A more experienced minister would not have

hazarded a direct invasion of the first principles of the constitution

before he had made some progress in subduing the spirit of the people.

With such a cause as yours, my lord, it is not sufficient that you have

the court at your devotion, unless you find means to corrupt or

intimidate the jury. The collective body of the people form that jury,

and from their decision there is but one appeal. Whether you have

talents to support you at a crisis of such difficulty and danger, should

long ago have been considered."--Let. 15.

"My lord, you should not encourage these appeals to Heaven. The pious

prince from whom you are supposed to descend made such frequent use of

them in his public declarations, that, at last, the people also found it

necessary to appeal to Heaven in their turn. Your administration has

driven us into circumstances of equal distress--beware, at least, how

you remind us of the remedy."--Let. 9.

Junius breathed the spirit of revolution. This is the purpose, and only

purpose, of the Letters, namely: to produce a revolution in England.

And, if Thomas Paine was Junius, the idea never left him. As this is a

fact which extends through the life of Mr. Paine, I shall offer some

proof here, on this point, as amidst the multiplicity of facts and

arguments it may hereafter escape me. It will serve, also, to introduce

Mr. Paine to the reader.

An obscure English exciseman has now been a little more than two years

in America, and _just_ five years since Junius wrote his last Letter; he

has written "Common Sense" and one "Crisis;" he has revolutionized

public sentiment in America, the Declaration of Independence has been

sent abroad to the world, and the war well begun, when in his second

"Crisis" he indites the following to Lord Howe: "I, who know England and

the disposition of the people well, am confident that it is easier for

us to effect a revolution there than you a conquest here. A few thousand

men landed in England with the declared design of deposing the present

king, bringing his ministers to trial, and setting up the Duke of

Gloucester in his stead, would assuredly carry their point while you

were groveling here ignorant of the matter. As I send all my papers to

England, this, like Common Sense, will find its way there; and, though

it may put one party on their guard, it will inform the other and the

nation in general of our design to help them."

{66}Here Mr. Paine has announced the name of the leader whom Junius called

for. But Paine proposes to do Junius over again. Hear him! In the year

1792 he writes: "During the war, in the latter end of the year 1780, I

formed to myself the design of coming over to England.... I was strongly

impressed with the idea that if I could get over to England without

being known, and only remain in safety till I could get out a

publication, I could open the eyes of the country with respect to the

madness and stupidity of its government. I saw that the parties in

parliament had pitted themselves as far as they could go, and could make

no new impression on each other. General Greene entered fully into my

views, but the affair of Arnold and Andre happening just after, he

changed his mind, and, under strong apprehensions for my safety, wrote

to me very pressingly to give up the design, which, with some

reluctance, I did." He afterward renews the same design. In accompanying

Colonel Laurens to France, certain dispatches from the English

government fell into his hands through the capture of an English

frigate. These dispatches Paine read at Paris, and brought them to

America on his return. He says: "By these dispatches I saw further into

the stupidity of the English cabinet than I otherwise could have done,

and I renewed my former design. But Colonel Laurens was so unwilling to

return alone, more especially as, among other matters, he had a charge

of upward of two hundred thousand pounds sterling money, that I gave in

to his wishes, and finally gave up my plan. But I am now certain that,

if I could have executed it, it would not have been altogether

unsuccessful."--Note, Rights of Man, part ii. Nor is this all. "When

Napoleon meditated a descent upon England by means of gunboats, he

secured the services of Thomas Paine to establish, after the conquest, a

more popular government."--New Am. Cyc., Art. Thomas Paine. From all

that I can gather, Mr. Paine was himself the author of this "plan of

Napoleon's."

COMMON SENSE.

Junius is heard no more in England. The fame of this unknown author has

gone round the world. A score of volumes have been written to prove his

identity with a score of names. But all that has been said is wild with

conjecture, and arguments have only been built upon "_rumor_," and

"_facts_" drawn from the imagination. A scientific criticism has never

been attempted. Truth has been insulted by the imagination in its wild

ramblings, and writers have contented themselves with theory and fancy,

"to pile up reluctant quarto upon solid folio, as if their labors,

because they are gigantic, could contend with truth and Heaven." But

while the king and his cabinet are setting traps, and hunting up and

down the whole realm for this "mighty boar of the forest," in fear that

he will again plunge at the king, or tear the ermine of Lord Mansfield,

Thomas Paine, just landed upon the shores of America, hurls back a shaft

at royalty which transfixes it to the wall of its castle. This was

_Common Sense_. A reaction had taken place in England, and the people of

America were also affected thereby. Reconciliation was the cry,

independence scarcely lisped, and, when lisped, people "startled at the

novelty of it." "In this state of political suspense," says Mr. Paine,

"the pamphlet of Common Sense made its appearance, and the success it

met with does not become me to mention. Dr. Franklin, Mr. Samuel, and

John Adams were severally spoken of as the supposed author. I had not,

at that time, the pleasure either of personally knowing or being known

to the two last gentlemen. The favor of Dr. Franklin's friendship I

possessed in England, and my introduction to this part of the world was

through his patronage.... In October, 1775, Dr. Franklin proposed giving

me such materials as were in his hands toward completing a history of

the present transactions, and seemed desirous of having the first volume

out the next spring. I had then formed the outlines of Common Sense and

finished nearly the first part; and, as I supposed the doctor's design

in getting out a history was to open the new year with a new system, I

expected to surprise him with a production on that subject much earlier

than he thought of, and, without informing him what I was doing, got it

ready for the press as fast as I conveniently could, and sent him the

first pamphlet that was printed off."--Note, Crisis, iii.

Opening the new year with a new system is emphatically what Junius also

did, and it is most remarkable that the appearance of Junius' first

Letter had, at first, the same effect in England that Common Sense had

in America. Both came like thunderbolts. "On January 10, 1776, when 'a

reconciliation with the mother country was the wish of almost every

American,' a pamphlet called Common Sense, advocating the establishment

of a republic of free and independent states, 'burst upon the world'--in

the language of Dr. Rush--'with an effect which has rarely been produced

by types and paper in any age or country.' It was immediately denounced

as 'one of the most artful, insidious, and pernicious of pamphlets!'

John Dickinson, a staunch supporter of the American cause, and author of

the 'Farmers' Letters,' opposed the idea of independence in a speech as

a member of the Continental Congress. The author of 'Plain Truth,' one

of the _many replies_ to Common Sense, thought that 'volumes were

insufficient to describe the horror, misery, and desolation awaiting the

people at large in the siren form of American independence.' Dr. William

Smith, provost of the University of Pennsylvania, said, in his 'Cato's

Letters,' published in March, 1776: 'Nor have many weeks yet elapsed

since the first open proposition for independence was published to the

world; it certainly has no countenance from congress, and is only the

idol of those who wish to subvert all order among us, and rise on the

ruins of their country.'"--Art. Thomas Paine, New Am. Cyc.

This was the first effort in America toward revolution. It was a bold

hand, moved by a daring heart, that wrote Common Sense. In style and

language, in argument and sentiment, in spirit and character, it is the

finest political document ever produced in the English language. The

object for which Junius and Common Sense were written I have shown to be

the same, namely: _revolution_, and that the base of operation has only

been changed. It is still an attack upon king, lords, and commons, and a

defense of the people. I now go to show that Common Sense is a concise

reproduction of Junius, in sentiment, style, and method of

argumentation. But I will first call to the reader's mind a sentence

from Junius in answer to the assertion of Dr. Smith just quoted, that

Common Sense was "the first open proposition for independence." On the

contrary, the first open statement of Junius in regard to the colonies,

addressed to the king six years before this, is as follows: "_Looking

forward to independence_, they might possibly receive you for their

king; but, if you ever retire to America, be assured they will give you

such a covenant to digest as the presbytery of Scotland would have been

ashamed to offer to Charles the Second. They left their native land in

search of freedom, and found it in a desert. Divided as they are into a

thousand forms of policy and religion, there is one point in which they

all agree--they equally detest the pageantry of a king, and the

supercilious hypocrisy of a bishop."

I have now only to remark: when Thomas Paine came to America, at least

when he wrote Common Sense, he understood the American people and what

they wanted better than they did themselves; _and so did Junius_.

I now bring Common Sense and Junius together to show parallels of idea,

method, and style.

COMMON SENSE was addressed to the inhabitants of

America, the Introduction of which is as follows:

"Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following

pages are not yet sufficiently fashionable to

procure them general favor; a long habit of not

thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial

appearance of being right, and raises, at first, a

formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the

tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts

than Reason."

{71}JUNIUS was dedicated to the English nation;

portions of the Dedication are as follows:

"I dedicate to you a collection of letters

written _by one of yourselves_, for the common

benefit of us all. They would never have grown to

this size without your continued encouragement and

applause. To me they originally owe nothing but a

healthy, sanguine constitution. Under your care

they have thriven; to you they are indebted for

whatever strength or beauty they possess."

"A long and violent abuse of power is generally

the means of calling the right of it in question

(and in matters, too, which might never have been

thought of had not the sufferers been aggravated

into the inquiry), and as the king of England hath

undertaken, in his _own right_, to support the

parliament in what he calls _theirs_, and as the

good people of this country are grievously

oppressed by the combination, they have an

undoubted privilege to inquire into the

pretensions of both, and equally to reject the

usurpations of either.

"In the following sheets the author hath

studiously avoided every thing which is personal

among ourselves. Compliments as well as censure to

individuals make no part thereof. The wise and the

worthy need not the triumph of a pamphlet; and

those whose sentiments are injudicious or

unfriendly will cease of themselves, unless too

much pains is bestowed upon their conversion."

"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. When you leave the

unimpaired, hereditary freehold to your children,

you do but half your duty. Both liberty and

property are precarious, unless the possessors

have sense and spirit enough to defend them.

"Be assured that the laws which protect us in

our civil rights, grow out of the constitution,

and they must fall or flourish with it. This is

not the cause of faction or of party, or of any

individual, but the common interest of every man

in Britain. Although the king should continue to

support his present system of government, the

period is not very distant at which you will have

the means of redress in your own power; it may be

nearer, perhaps, than any of us expect; and I

would warn you to be prepared for it...."

"The cause of America is, in a great measure, the

cause of all mankind. Many circumstances have and

will arise, which are not local, but universal,

and through which the principles of all lovers of

mankind are affected, and in the event of which,

their affections are interested. The laying a

country desolate with fire and sword, declaring

war against the natural rights of mankind, and

extirpating the defenders thereof from the face of

the earth, is the concern of every man to whom

nature hath given the power of feeling; of which

class, regardless of party censure, is THE

AUTHOR."

"You can not but conclude, without the

possibility of a doubt, that long parliaments are

the foundation of the undue influence of the

crown. This influence answers every purpose of

arbitrary power to the crown.... It promises every

gratification to avarice and ambition, and secures

impunity.... You are roused at last to a sense of

your danger; the remedy will soon be in your

power. If Junius lives you shall often be reminded

of it. If, when the opportunity presents itself,

you neglect to do your duty to yourselves and to

posterity, to God and to your country, I shall

have one consolation left in common with the

meanest and basest of mankind: civil liberty may

still last the life of JUNIUS."

I would call the attention of the reader to the manner in which they

close: to the _cause_ of which they speak: to the object of their

labors: to the fact that they stand above party or faction: to the

expression of Junius, "written by one of yourselves:" to the declaration

that if he lives he will often remind the English people of the danger

they are in and of the remedy: to the fact that Mr. Paine here does it,

and continues to do it ever after while he lives: in short, I would call

the attention of the reader to the perfect similarity in style, object,

and sentiment, save in this--the one was the requiem of Freedom in

England, the other, her natal song in America.

As I have called attention to the style, I would caution the reader not

to be betrayed by the word "hath" of Mr. Paine. It by no means affects

the style. It was doubtless used or not used at first as a blind by Mr.

Paine; for he sometimes used it and sometimes did not. A few years later

in life it is abandoned altogether, and Junius occasionally lets it

slip. See Let. 37. And also the word "doth."--Note, Let. 41.

The following gives a distinction between society and government, the

failure of human conscience, and the necessary surrender of human

liberty:

_Common Sense._

"Society in every state is a blessing, but

government even in its best state is but a

necessary evil. In its worst state, an intolerable

one; for when we suffer or are exposed to the same

miseries by a government which we might expect in

a country without government, our calamity is

heightened by reflecting, that we furnish the

means by which we suffer. Government, like dress,

is the badge of lost innocence. The palaces of

kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of

paradise, for were the impulses of _conscience_

clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would

need no other law-giver; but that not being the

case, he finds it _necessary_ to surrender up a

part of his property to furnish means for the

protection of the rest; and this he is induced to

do by the same prudence which in every other case

advises him out of two evils to choose the least."

_Junius._

"It is not in the nature of human society that any

form of government in such circumstances can long

be preserved."--Let. 35.

"The multitude in all countries are patient to a

certain point. Ill usage may rouse their

indignation and hurry them into excesses, but the

original fault is in government.

"The ruin or prosperity of a state depends so much

upon the administration of its government, that to

be acquainted with the merit of a ministry, we

need only observe the condition of the

people."--Let. 1.

"If _conscience_ plays the tyrant it would be

greatly for the benefit of the world that she were

more arbitrary and far less placable than some men

find her."--Let. 27.

"I lament the unhappy _necessity_ whenever it

arises of providing for the safety of the state by

a temporary invasion of the personal liberty of

the subject."--Let. 58.

"Junius feels and acknowledges the evil in the

most express terms, and will show himself ready to

concur in any rational plan that may provide for

the liberty of the individual without hazarding

the safety of the community."--Let. 63.

Mr. Paine now proceeds to form a government upon an ideal plan, and show

the origin of those first principles which would operate in the first

peopling of a country. "But as nothing but heaven is impregnable to

vice," the natural restraints of society will not be sufficient to check

it; this will necessitate the establishment of a government. At first,

the whole colony may deliberate, and in the first parliament every man

will have a seat. But as the colony increases this can not be done,

because inconvenience prohibits it. He now observes:

_Common Sense._

"This will point out the convenience of their

consenting to leave the legislative part to be

managed by a select number chosen from the whole

body, who are supposed to have the same interests

at stake which those have who appointed them, and

who will act in the same manner as the whole body

would were they present. If the colony continue

increasing, it will become necessary to augment

the number of representatives; and that the

interest of every part of the colony may be

attended to, it will be found best to divide the

whole into convenient parts, each part sending its

proper number; and that the _elected_ might never

form to themselves an interest separate from the

_electors_, prudence will point out the propriety

of having elections often; because, as the

_elected_ might by that means return and mix again

with the general body of the _electors_, in a few

months their fidelity to the public will be

secured by the prudent reflection of making a rod

for themselves. And as this frequent interchange

will establish a common interest with every part

of the community, they will mutually and naturally

support each other, and on this (not on the

unmeaning name of king) depends the _strength of

government and the happiness of the governed_."

_Junius._

"The House of Commons are only interpreters whose

duty it is to convey the sense of the people

faithfully to the crown; if the interpretation be

false or imperfect, the constituent powers are

called to deliver their own sentiments. Their

speech is rude but intelligible; their gestures

fierce but full of explanation. Perplexed with

sophistries, their honest eloquence rises into

action."--Let. 38.

"I am convinced that if shortening the duration of

parliaments (which, in effect, is keeping the

representative under the rod of the constituent)

be not made the basis of our new parliamentary

jurisprudence, other checks or improvements

signify nothing. On the contrary, if this be made

the foundation, other measures may come in aid,

and, as auxiliaries, be of considerable advantage.

If we are sincere in the political creed we

profess, there are many things can not be done by

king, lords and commons."--Let. 68.

"Here, then, is the origin and rise of government;

viz, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of

moral virtue to govern the world; here, too, is

the design and end of government, viz: freedom and

security. And however our eyes may be dazzled with

show, or our ears deceived by sound; however

prejudice may warp our wills, or interest darken

our understanding, the simple voice of nature and

reason will say, it is right."

"The free election of our representatives in

parliament comprehends, because it is the source

and security of every right and privilege of the

English nation. The ministry have realized the

compendious ideas of Caligula. They know that the

liberty, the laws, and property of an Englishman,

have in truth but one neck, and that to violate

the freedom of election strikes deeply at them

all."--Let. 39.

"Does the law of parliament, which we are often

told is the law of the land; does the right of

every subject of the realm, depend upon an

arbitrary, capricious vote of one branch of the

legislature? The voice of truth and reason must

be silent."--Let. 20.

In the above the sentiment is not only the same, but the same metaphors

are used. As a "rod" for the representative, and the "voice of reason."

In the following the same metaphor also is used, but with a change in

the application.

_Common Sense._

"But the constitution of England is so exceedingly

complex, that the nation may suffer for years

together without being able to discover in which

part the fault lies; some will say in one, some in

another, and every political _physician_ will

advise a different medicine."

_Junius._

"After a rapid succession of changes, we are

reduced to that state which hardly any change can

mend. It is not the disorder, but the _physician_:

it is not a casual concurrence of calamitous

circumstances; it is the pernicious hand of

government which alone can make a whole people

desperate."--Let. 1.

In the above, Junius is speaking, in his first Letter, with all the

prejudices of an Englishman in favor of the constitution. But this soon

wears off, and in his closing Letter he speaks as boldly as COMMON

SENSE.

_Common Sense._

"I know it is difficult to get over local or long

standing prejudices, yet if we will suffer

ourselves to examine the component parts of the

English constitution, we will find them to be the

base remains of two ancient tyrannies, compounded

with some new republican materials.

"_First_: The remains of monarchical tyranny in

the person of the king.

"_Secondly_: The remains of aristocratical tyranny

in the persons of the peers.

"_Thirdly_: The new republican materials in the

persons of the commons, on whose virtue depends

the freedom of England."

_Junius._

"I confess, sir, that I felt the prejudices of my

education in favor of a House of Commons still

hanging about me.... The state of things is much

altered in this country since it was necessary to

protect our representatives against the direct

power of the crown. We have nothing to apprehend

from prerogative, but every thing from undue

influence."--Let. 44.

"The nearer any government approaches to a

republic, the less business there is for a king.

It is somewhat difficult, to find a proper name

for the government of England. Sir William

Meredith calls it a republic, but in its present

state it is unworthy of the name, because the

corrupt influence of the crown by having all the

places at its disposal, hath so effectually

swallowed up the power, and eaten out the virtue

of the House of Commons (the republican part in

the constitution), that the government of England

is nearly as monarchical as that of France or

Spain. Men fall out with names without

understanding them. For it is the republican and

not the monarchical part of the constitution of

England, which Englishmen glory in, viz: the

liberty of choosing a House of Commons from out

their own body; and it is easy to see, that when

republican virtue fails, slavery ensues. Why is

the constitution of England sickly, but because

monarchy hath poisoned the republic, the crown

hath engrossed the commons."

See how Junius now bows to monarchy in order to

strike it:

"I can more readily admire the liberal spirit and

integrity, than the sound judgment of any man who

prefers a republican form of government in this or

any other empire of equal extent, to a monarchy so

qualified and limited as ours. I am convinced that

neither is it in theory the wisest system of

government, nor practicable in this country. Yet,

though I hope the English constitution will

forever preserve its original monarchical form, I

would have the manners of the people purely and

strictly republican. I do not mean the licentious

spirit of anarchy and riot; I mean a general

attachment to the common weal, distinct from any

partial attachment to persons or families; an

implicit submission to the laws only; and an

affection to the magistrate proportioned to the

integrity and wisdom with which he distributes

justice to the people, and administers their

affairs. The present habit of our political body

appears to me the very reverse of what it ought to

be. The form of the constitution leans rather more

than enough to the popular branch; while in effect

the manners of the people (of those at least who

are likely to take the lead in the country)

incline too generally to a dependence upon the

crown. The real friends of arbitrary power combine

the facts, and are not inconsistent with their

principles, when they strenuously support the

unwarrantable privileges assumed by the House of

Commons. In these circumstances it were much to be

desired that we had many such men as Mr. Sawbridge

to represent us in parliament. I speak from common

report and opinion only, when I impute to him a

speculative predilection in favor of a republic.

In the personal conduct and manners of the man I

can not be mistaken. He has shown himself

possessed of that republican firmness which the

times require, and by which an English gentleman

may be as usefully and as honorably distinguished

as any citizen of ancient Rome, of Athens, or

Lacedemon."--Let. 58.

I would remark on the above passage from Junius, that this is one of his

finest rhetorical efforts, and it is well worthy of a moment's pause,

to study its plan and probable effect on the English mind. This was

written near the close of his literary campaign. The reaction had set

in, and he was stemming the tide of public opinion. He wishes to bring

the people up to his republican notions, and to rouse them to action. He

begins by _admiring the liberal spirit and integrity_ of the man, but

reflects on his judgment who prefers a republic to a monarchy so

_qualified and limited_ in a country of _that size_. He limits monarchy

to a small country. The reader will mark how guarded he is here. He is

fully aware of the prejudices of the people in favor of monarchy, and

doubtless he spoke his own sentiments at the time, qualified as they

were. Mr. Paine afterward spoke of "setting up the Duke of Gloucester,

deposing the king, and bringing the ministers to trial." Junius has now

prepared the public ear for an attentive and respectful hearing; he has

bowed to monarchy, and touched the heart of his audience. He now

introduces the principles of a republic, which produce a spirit devoid

of anarchy and riot, but one attached to the common weal and submissive

to the laws only. He now tenderly chides the people for their dependence

upon the crown, _especially the leaders_. He then advances to a charge

of inconsistency, and shows the advantage the friends of arbitrary power

take of it. He now supports himself by _authority_ in a eulogy on Mr.

Sawbridge, of whom he says: "He has shown himself possessed of that

republican firmness which the times require." He at last caps the climax

with an array of republics, and a hint that an English gentleman would

be "honorably distinguished" if he would come forward and play the part

of Brutus. The whole paragraph is deeply planned and finely wrought out,

and would fall with stunning weight upon the mind of the English nation.

But let us proceed. Mr. Paine asked, in the last sentence quoted above

in the parallel column: "Why is the constitution of England sickly?"

etc. He also further says: "An inquiry into the _constitutional errors_

in the English form of government is at this time highly necessary, for,

as we are never in a proper condition of doing justice to others while

we continue under the influence of some leading partiality, so neither

are we capable of doing it to ourselves while we remain fettered by an

obstinate prejudice. And as a man who is attached to a prostitute is

unfit to choose or judge of a wife, so any prepossession in favor of a

rotten constitution of government will disable us from discerning a good

one."--Common Sense, Part I.

Englishmen considered rotten boroughs the only rotten part of the

constitution, but Common Sense and Junius both considered that the

disease had extended from the extremities to the heart. Junius says:

"As to cutting away the rotten boroughs, I am as much offended as

any man at seeing so many of them under the direct influence of

the crown, or at the disposal of private persons. Yet, I own I

have both doubts and apprehensions in regard to the remedy you

propose.... When all your instruments of amputation are prepared,

when the unhappy patient lies bound at your feet, without the

possibility of resistance, by what infallible rule will you direct

the operation? When you propose to cut away the rotten parts, _can

you tell us what parts are perfectly sound_? Are there any

certain limits, in fact or theory, to inform you at what point you

must stop--at what point the mortification ends? To a man [Mr.

Wilkes] so capable of observation and reflection as you are, it is

unnecessary to say all that might be said upon the subject.

Besides that, I approve highly of Lord Chatham's idea of infusing

a portion of new health into the constitution, to enable it to

bear its infirmities--a brilliant expression, and full of

intrinsic wisdom."--Last Letter of Junius.

_Common Sense._