my eyes at least, is a blemish." His own opinion of some of his letters may be collected from the following extracts. Of the letter of the 8th October 1769, to the Printer of the P. A., he says: "I wish the inclosed to be announced to-morrow conspicuously, for Tuesday; I am not capable of writing anything more finished." And of the letter to Lord Mansfield, dated the 14th November 1770, he remarks: "The inclosed, though begun within these few days, has been greatly laboured. It is very correctly copied; and I beg you will take care that it be literally printed as it stands." Of the letter to the Duke of Grafton (22d January 1771), he says: "I am strangely partial to the inclosed. It is finished with the utmost care. If I find myself mistaken in my judgment of this purpose, I positively will never write again." The letter of the 30th September 1771, addressed to the Livery of London, he declares-"Is of such importance -so very material-that it must be given to the public immediately."

Junius seems to have been quite shocked at the numerous blunders by which the spurious editions of his Letters were deformed; for upon receiving a copy of Newberry's book, he addressed a note to Woodfall, begging him to hint to Newberry, that as he had thought proper to reprint his Letters, he ought at least to have taken care to have corrected the errata; adding at the same time, "I did not expect more than the life of a newspaper; but if this man will keep me alive, let me live without being offensive."

During the whole period that Junius wrote in the Public Advertiser he was exceedingly anxious to repu

* This seems to imply that he employed an amanuensis.

diate and disclaim all such letters as he had not actually written, but which might possibly be mistaken by the public for his compositions. Thus in a letter to Mr. Woodfall, of the 16th November 1769, he says: "As I do not choose to answer for anybody's sins but my own, I must desire you to say to-morrow, we can assure the public that the letter signed A. B., relative to the Duke of Rutland, is not written by the author of Junius." Again, on the 19th October 1770, he observes: “By your affected silence you encourage an idle opinion that I am the author of 'The Whig,' though you very well know the contrary. I neither admire the writer nor his idol. I hope you will set this matter right." This idol was the Earl of Chatham; and Junius himself shortly afterwards became one of his worshippers.

So early as July 12, 1769, Mr. Woodfall tells us that Junius began to entertain thoughts of dropping a character and signature which must have cost him great labour, and not unfrequently exposed him to peril: "I really doubt," says he, "whether I shall write any more under this signature. I am weary of attacking a set of brutes, whose writings are too dull to furnish me with even the materials of contention, and whose measures are too gross and direct to be the subject of argument, or to require illustration."

The last political letter issued under the signature of Junius was addressed to Lord Camden, and possessed the peculiarity of being the only encomiastic letter that ever fell from the pen of Junius. It followed the publication of his long letter addressed to Lord Mansfield upon the illegal bailing of Eyre, and both letters were published on the 21st January 1772. It appears from

the correspondence of the Earl of Chatham, recently published (iv. 190), that Junius forwarded proof sheets* of these two letters to his Lordship, accompanied by the following remarkable letter:

(Most secret.)

MY LORD,

London, 14th Jan. 1772. CONFIDING implicitly on your Lordship's honour, I take the liberty of submitting to you the inclosed paper, before it be given to the public. It is to appear on the morning of the meeting of Parliament. Lord Mansfield flatters himself, that I have dropped all thoughts of attacking him; and I would give him as little time as possible to concert his measures with the Ministry. The address to Lord Camden will be accounted for, when I say, that the nation in general are not quite so secure of his firmness as they are of Lord Chatham's.

I am so clearly satisfied that Lord Mansfield has done an act not warranted by law, and that the inclosed argument is not to be answered (besides that I find the lawyers concur with me), that I am inclined to expect he may himself acknowledge it as an oversight, and endeavour to whittle it away to nothing. For this possible event, I would wish your Lordship and the Duke of Richmond, to be prepared to take down his words, and thereupon to move for committing him to the Tower. I hope that proper steps will also be taken in the House of Commons. If he makes no confession of his guilt, but attempts to defend himself by any legal argument, I then submit it to your Lordship, whether it might not be proper to put the following questions to the Judges. In fact they answer themselves; but it will embarrass the Ministry,

* This explains the following enigmatical passage in Junius's private letter to Woodfall (January 11, 1772): “Your failing to send me the proofs, as you engaged to do, disappoints and distresses me extremely. It is not merely to correct the press (though even that is of consequence), but for another most material purpose. This will be entirely defeated if you do not let me have the two proofs on Monday morning."

and ruin the character which Mansfield pretends to, if the House should put a direct negative upon the motion.

1st. Whether, according to the true meaning and intendment of the laws of England relative to bail for criminal offences, a person positively charged with felony-taken in flagranti delicto -with the mainœuvre, and not making any defence, nor offering any evidence to induce a doubt whether he be guilty or innocent, -is bailable or not bailable?

2d. Whether the power, exercised by the Judges of the Court of King's Bench, of bailing for offences, not bailable by a justice of peace, be an absolute power of mere will and pleasure in the Judge, or a discretionary power, regulated and governed, in the application of it, by the true meaning and intendment of the law relative to bail?

Lord Mansfield's constant endeavour to misinterpret the laws of England is a sufficient general ground of impeachment. The specific instances may be taken from his doctrine concerning libels; the Grosvenor cause ;-his pleading Mr.De Grey's defence upon the Bench, when he said, "Idem fecerunt alii, et multi et boni;"-his suffering an affidavit to be read, in "The King against Blair," tending to inflame the Court against the defendant when he was brought up to receive sentence;-his direction to the jury in the cause of Ansell, by which he admitted parol evidence against a written agreement, and in consequence of which the Court of Common Pleas granted a new trial; and lastly, his partial and wicked motives for bailing Eyre. There are some material circumstances relating to this last, which I thought it right to reserve for your Lordship alone.

It will appear by the evidence of the Gaoler and the City Solicitor's clerk, that Lord Mansfield refused to hear the return read, and at first ordered Eyre to be bound only in 2007., with two sureties, until his clerk, Mr. Platt, proposed 300%., with three sureties. Mr. King, clerk to the City Solicitor, was never asked for his consent, nor did he ever give any. From these facts I conclude, either that he bailed without knowing the cause of commitment, or, which is highly probable, that he knew it extra

judicially from the Scotchmen, and was ashamed to have the return read.

I will not presume to trouble your Lordship with any assurances, however sincere, of my respect and esteem for your character, and admiration of your abilities. Retired and unknown, I live in the shade, and have only a speculative ambition. In the warmth of my imagination, I sometimes conceive, that, when Junius exerts his utmost faculties in the service of his country, he approaches in theory to that exalted character which Lord Chatham alone fills up, and uniformly supports in action.

JUNIUS.

Another letter, under the signature of Nemesis, appeared on the 12th May 1772, which was the last of all the public letters written by Junius.

The farewell letter of Junius to Mr. Woodfall bears date 19th January 1773, and is in the following words:

"I have seen the signals thrown out for your old friend and correspondent: be assured that I have had good reason for not complying with them. In the present state of things, if I were to write again, I must be as silly as any of the horned cattle, that run mad through the city, or as any of your wise aldermen. I meant, the cause and the public. Both are given up. I feel for the honour of this country, when I see that there are not ten men in it, who will unite and stand together upon any one question. But it is all alike, vile and contemptible. You have never flinched, that I know of, and I shall always rejoice to hear of your prosperity. you have anything to communicate (of moment to yourself), you may use the last address, and give a hint."

If

"The private and confidential letters addressed to the late Mr. Woodfall (says Dr. Good), are now for the first time made public by his son, who is in the possession of the author's autographs; and from the various facts and anecdotes they disclose, not only in relation to this extraordinary character, but to other characters as well,