sidering the intellect of Junius, it was very
easy to see that not many of that, or of any
other party were equal to the letters. In
all there is closeness and pungency, but in
some there is richness of classical allusion,
and fertility of imagery. The imagery, be-
sides, frequently resembles that for which
Burke's writings are so eminently distin-
guished. In one of his letters to the Duke
of Grafton, Junius borrows metaphors from
a source very usual with the orator. • Lord
Bute's views and situation required a crea-
ture void of all these properties; (abilities,
judgment, and integrity) and he was forced
to go through every division, resolution,
composition, and refinement of political
chemistry, before he happily arrived at the
caput mortuum of vitriol in your Grace. Flat
and insipid in your retired state, but brought
into action, you became vitriol again.' After-
wards, but
• you have discovered your pur
poses too soon; and instead of the modest
reserve of virtue, have shewn us the terma-
gant chastity of a prude, who gratifies her
passions with distinction, and prosecutes

1

one lover for a rape, whilst she solicits. the rude embraces of another. The rapidity of Burke's genius often hurries him into a mixture of figures. This too is frequently the case with Junius: thus in a letter to the Duke of Grafton, with what countenance can you take your seat at the Treasury Board, or in Council, when you feel that every circulating WHISPER is at your expence alone, and STABS you to the heart!"

From both the reasoning and style of some of Junius's letters, many think there are grounds for believing Burke to be the author.

Those, on the other hand, who conceive him not to have been Junius, may probably reason in the following manner :-On considering the intellectual qualities of Burke and of Junius, it would appear that there is so great a dissimilarity between the one and the other, as to justify us in disbelieving Burke to be the writer. As to the intellectual character of Junius, although we must

allow it very considerable excellence, we may easily perceive that it is of a different kind and inferior degree to that of Edmund Burke. In Junius we have more of perspicacity than of expansion; more of pungency than of force. His weapon is the sharp arrow of Teucer, not the massy sword of Achilles. He rapidly penetrates into particulars, but does not rise to great general views. He is rather an expert lawyer, speaking closely to his own side, than a philosophical politician, embracing the interests of kingdoms and of mankind. Whatever Burke has spoken, or avowedly written, goes beyond the mere object of the hour, and makes accuracy of detail and acuteness of reasoning subservient to the establishment or confirmation of some general truth. Junius keeps directly to his subject the rapidly associating mind of Burke pursues his thoughts through a train of combinations, not always necessary to the specific object, though always pleasing, interesting, or instructing. Junius is thoroughly acquainted with the road in which he chuses to steer, but attends little to its bearings,

any farther than they are necessary for piloting his bark: Burke surveys the whole coast. In Junius there is neatness and justness of allusion: in Burke, richness, beauty, and grandeur of imagery. The style of Junius is clear, correct, and precise, with no great variety: the style of Burke copious, brilliant, forcible, with wonderful variety, appropriate to the diversity of subjects and objects. Either Burke did not write Junius's Letters, or wrote very differently from his general manner; and employed a strict, watchful, and uniform attention for which we can assign no adequate motive in restraining his intellectual powers from their usual exertions and expatiations.

Besides these general reasons of intellectual character, which contravene the belief that Burke is the author, there are special ́reasons from his opinions. Burke had been a member of the Rockingham Administration, and was the supporter of that party, its principles and measures: there are passages in Junius which shew the author to be

neither. In a letter to the Duke of Bedford he says, Apparently united with Mr. Grenville, you waited until Lord Rockingham's Administration should dissolve in its own weakness.

These were not the sentiments of Burke respecting the administration of his friend and patron. Again, in a letter to Mr. Horne Tooke, speaking of Lord Chatham: He has publicly declared himself a convert to triennial parliaments; and though I have long been convinced that this is the only possible resource we have left for preserving the substantial freedom of the constitution, I do not think we have a right to determine against the integrity of Lord Rockingham or his friends. Other measures may undoubtedly be supported by argument, as better adapted to the disorder, or more likely to be obtained.' Burke, it is well known to every man acquainted with parliamentary history, was uniformly averse to triennial parliaments. One of the letters disapproves of the opposition made to Mr. Grenville's laws respecting America: Burke always approved of that opposition, and