Junius Unmasked Part 20

53. They had the same predilections in regard to politics.

54. They were neither of them partisans.

55. They were both practical.

56. Both often appealed to experience and the evidence of facts.

57. Both a.s.sert the mind becomes what it contemplates.

58. Both were deeply read in the "_history of the human heart_."

59. Both delight in charging _b.a.s.t.a.r.dy_.

60. Secretiveness was a ruling characteristic.

61. Both had the same opinion of moderate men.

62. They were both enthusiasts.

63. Both were too proud to be vain or to flatter.

64. Both placed too high an estimate on the judgment of the ma.s.ses.

65. Both were excessively hopeful.

66. Personal honor unparalleled in history.

67. Both express themselves alike in regard to avarice and the miser.

68. Both often a.s.sert that "language fails."

69. Both have the same method of argumentation, and hereunder many parallels are given.

70. Both have the same style, and hereunder many parallels are given.

71. More than sixty parallel expressions and figures of speech are given.

72. They both use the same kind of figures the most frequently.

73. They use the figure in the same manner, and usually one at the close of an article.

74. Both use the same facts and figure to ill.u.s.trate national honor.

75. The same rythm in style is common to both.

76. The same alliteration.

77. The same method of bringing the subject into one view.

78. The wandering from the point and mentioning the fact.

79. The same threat, command, and warning.

80. The same method of ridicule and satire.

81. The same use of diminutives.

82. The same sacrifice of grammar to conciseness.

83. The same majesty and grandeur of style.

84. _Common Sense parallels with Junius_, in many ways, and hereunder more than forty examples, which to repeat would be to rewrite them.

85. They were both revolutionists.

86. They both dedicated their life to the same object: to remove some wrong, to do mankind some good.

87. They both attacked the King of England and his ministry in the same spirit and language.

88. Both had the same opinion of bribery at elections.

89. They were both political reformers, following the same principle without pay and above party.

{190}In the above argument I have given nearly three hundred parallel facts and characteristics, many of them of such a nature that it would be at variance with _nature_ itself to suppose them to belong to different men. But I have also searched for a _solitary fact_ which would in the least render Mr. Paine and Junius incompatible, and _have found it not_.

This is a task I hope some reader, who has some means and ample time, will devote a year or two to investigate. My case is much stronger than I hoped even to make it. I have by no means given all the facts and parallels, but where one would answer, I put it in the place of several on the same subject. I have labored to condense--not to expand; I have, therefore, commented but little, and reasoned scarcely any. There is no reasoning which is superior to the simple declaration of facts. It should be the office of the writer to present _facts_ to A REASONING WORLD. The literary world has had enough of the whirlwind of words; it wants a deluge of facts. Then each mind will take care of itself, if worth preserving. To this end I subjoin Lord Macaulay's five reasons why Sir Philip Francis was Junius:

"Was he the author of the Letters of Junius? Our own firm belief is that he was. The external evidence is, we think, such as would support a verdict in a civil--nay, in a criminal proceeding. The handwriting of Junius is the very peculiar handwriting of Francis, slightly disguised. As to the position, pursuits, and connections of Junius, the following are the most important facts, which can be considered as clearly proved: First, that he was acquainted with the technical forms of the Secretary of State's office; secondly, that he was intimately acquainted with the business of the War Office; thirdly, that he, during the year 1770, attended debates in the House of Lords, and took notes of speeches--particularly of the speeches of Lord Chatham; fourthly, that he bitterly resented the appointment of Mr. Chamier to the place of Deputy Secretary at War; fifthly, that he was bound by some strong tie to the first Lord Holland.... Now here are five marks, all of which ought to be found in Junius. They are all five found in Francis. We do not believe that more than two of them can be found in any other person whatever. If this argument does not settle the question, there is an end of all reasoning on circ.u.mstantial evidence." [In answer to this, see appendix.]

{191}If that kind and amount of evidence would hang a man in the time of Macaulay, the times have so changed that it takes far stronger evidence to hang men now than then. That kind of evidence is absolutely worthless for two reasons: first, the facts alleged in the separate counts are neither of them necessary to the production of Junius; and, secondly, they would prove nothing if they were, for they might be common to a hundred men, and that they were _not_ would be matter of fact to prove.

Even Macaulay makes this rest on his own _belief_. "We do not _believe_," he says, "that more than two of them can be found in any other person whatever." But the fact is, they are absolutely "imaginary," and not at all necessary.

"The internal evidence," he says, "_seems_ to point in the same way."

First, he acknowledges that Francis, as a writer, is inferior to Junius, but not "_decidedly_," and then he goes on to say: "One of the strongest reasons for believing that Francis was Junius, is the _moral_ resemblance between the two men." Macaulay now sets up a character for Junius, the most of which is not to be found in Junius, and says it is like Francis. It is thus he imposes on the credulity of the ignorant.

But I give his words, that the reader may investigate for himself:

"It is not difficult, from the letters which, under _various signatures_, are known to have been written by Junius, and from his dealings with Woodfall and others, to form a tolerable correct _notion_ of his character." I call the attention of the reader to the above sentence, and have emphasized the word "_notion_," and the phrase "_various signatures_." Of the former, I would remark that a _notion_ of one's character falls far short of a judgment, and in a criticism is not only trifling, but contemptible. In regard to "various signatures," I will let Junius himself answer: "The encouragement given to a _mult.i.tude of spurious, mangled publications_ of the 'Letters of Junius,' persuades me that a complete edition, corrected and improved by the author, will be favorably received."--Preface. In this volume his signature is Junius, and occasionally, when he wishes to explain the meaning, or defend the principle, he puts forward Philo Junius, but _never without this cause_. I now proceed to give the character which Macaulay has picked up--_I know not where_:

"He was clearly a man not dest.i.tute of real patriotism and magnanimity--a man whose vices were not of a sordid kind. But he must also have been a man in the highest degree arrogant and insolent--a man p.r.o.ne to malevolence, and p.r.o.ne to the error of mistaking his malevolence for public virtue. 'Doest thou well to be angry?' was the question asked in olden time of the Hebrew prophet, and he answered: 'I do well.' This was evidently the temper of Junius, and to this cause we attribute the savage cruelty which disgraces several of his Letters. No man is so merciless as he who, under a strong self-delusion, confounds his antipathies with his duties. It may be added that Junius, though allied with the democratic party by common enmities, was the very opposite of a democratic politician. While attacking individuals with a ferocity which perpetually violated all the laws of literary warfare, he regarded the most defective parts of the old const.i.tution with a respect amounting to pedantry; pleaded the cause of Old Saurum with fervor, and contemptuously told the capitalists of Manchester and Leeds that, if they wanted votes, they might buy land and become freeholders of Lancashire and Yorkshire. All this, we believe, might stand, with scarcely any change, for a character of Philip Francis."

Thus much Macaulay. Where he got the above character I am unable to tell, unless out of his own imagination. Before I answer it, I will give another perversion of the truth. Dr. Goodrich concludes his article on Junius as follows: "Junius continued his labors, with various ability, but with little success, nearly two year's longer; until, in the month of January, 1772, the king remarked to a friend in confidence: 'Junius is known, and will write no more.' Such proved to be the fact. His last performance was dated January 21, 1772, three years to a day from his first letter to the printer of the Public Advertiser. Within a _few months_, SIR PHILIP FRANCIS was appointed to one of the highest stations of _profit and trust_ in India, at a distance of fifteen thousand miles from the seat of English politics!"

The "_few months_" in the above sentence is just a year and a half after the king "remarked in confidence," etc. But Francis did not go to India for more than two and a half years after. In March, 1772, he resigned his clerkship in the war department, in consequence of a quarrel with Lord Barrington, the new Minister at War. He then left England, and traveled on the continent the remainder of the year; in the June following he was appointed one of the Council of Bengal, with a salary of 10,000, and in the summer of 1774 went to India. That fall Thomas Paine came to America. It is thus the phrase "_a few months_," artfully put into a sentence in connection with the _supposed_ fact that the king had found out Junius, and had bribed him to stop writing, would mislead the mind, and pervert a reasonable conclusion. This is a trick of the pen, and to which no honorable mind will descend. The fact is, Francis would never have been thought of as Junius, had he not been an intimate friend and schoolmate of Mr. Woodfall's.

{195}But the above argument, summed up by Lord Macaulay, is the strongest on record for any man till now. I was not aware of its weakness till now. I supposed there was a plausible argument at least.

To be answered, it needs only to be appended to this. I speak without vanity, for the argument is nature's own, not mine. I will honor it, therefore, with a reb.u.t.tal from Junius himself. In Letter 44 he says: "I may quit the service, but it would be absurd to suspect me of desertion.

The reputation of these papers is an honorable pledge for my attachment to the people. To sacrifice a respected character, and to renounce the esteem of society, requires more than Mr. Wedderburn's resolution; and though in him it was rather a profession than a desertion of his principles (I speak tenderly of this gentleman, for, when treachery is in question, I think we should make allowances for a Scotchman), yet we have seen him in the House of Commons, overwhelmed with confusion, and almost bereft of his faculties. 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 prost.i.tution, 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."