1825.] 
says the supposition. The style of J. H. 
Tooke, like his mind (to waive all other 
considerations), though clear and powerful, 
was not pliant, or versatile. It was pre- 
cise, not imagimative—pungent, not elo- 
quent. No labour could have enabled him 
to assume and sustain the style of Junius : 
sensible as he was of its beauty and excel- 
lence. Not less insufficient are the grounds 
upon which the pretensions of Sir Philip 
Francis, Edmund Burke, Sir William 
Jones, &c. &e. &c., have been attempted 
to be upheld; and, hitherto, we confess 
that, to usat least, the inquiry has appear- 
ed to be involved inimpenetrable mystery : 
and, we might add, not worth half the mar- 
vel or the trouble which the literary world 
had manifested concerning it. The pre- 
sent volume, however, comes before us in 
a very different shape, at least of proba- 
bility; and it has the collateral merit of 
containing a good deal of interesting infor- 
mation, concerning the political history of 
the period to which the letters refer. We 
have not, however, been able to discover in 
these contents any thing that should ac- 
count for any attempts to suppress the pub- 
lication: unless it be that some relative 
families might feel themselves galled at 
the inference which, not by the author, but 
in spite of the author, becomes inevitably 
drawn, in the course of preliminary inquiry, 
that, in the notorious affair of Minden, 
the glory of the British arms was com- 
promised by personal pique and animosi- 
ties. Yet that some attempts at suppres- 
sion have been made is apparent, not only 
from the brief notice prefixed—[“ The pub- 
lie are respectfully informed, that this is the 
work announced for publication by Mr. Mur- 
ray in November last’ |—but from the cir- 
cumstance of its coming forth at last, 
though in full costume of elegance as to 
paper, type and embellishment, without 
the name of any publisher. ‘“‘ London: 
Printed by G. Woodfall,” and the names of 
the artists, Neale and Stockley, 352, Strand, 
scarcely visible on the engraved title-page 
and the portrait prefixed, being all the in- 
formation given that can guide even the 
inquiry of any one who might wish to pro- 
cure a copy. If our space would permit, 
we should, on this very account, be some- 
what ample in our examination ; since in 
proportion as a work itself is difficult of 
access, analysis and extract are the more 
gratifying to curiosity. But we must con- 
fine ourselves to a very brief sketch. 
In the prefatory remarks, Mr. Coventry 
enumerates twenty-four predicaments, that 
must every one of them have been appli- 
cable to the author of the Letters of Ju- 
nius: and, in the course of the work, we 
think it no more than justice to admit, 
that not only these positions are com- 
pletely proved, as far as Junius is con- 
cerned, but that in every one’of these pre- 
dicaments Lord George Sackville stood. 
The case is, therefore, thus far made out 
Monruty Mac. No. 4]5. 
Monthly Review of Literature. 
249 
as a very probable one. Nor do we at 
present recollect any additional predica. 
ment deducible from the Letters of Junius, 
under which Lord G. Sackville can be 
affirmed not to have stood., The proba- 
bility is, in fact, throughout strongly sup- 
ported. The enmities and partialities of 
Junius, and the enmities, or provocations 
to enmity, and the partialities of Lord G.S., 
are identified; as are also the communi- 
ties of sentiment, and even of language, in 
the letters of the one, and the parliamentary 
speeches, &c. of the other; and the fac- 
similes present certainly quite as much re- 
semblance as might be expected between 
the careless hand, in which-the same indi- 
vidual might write his hasty letters, and 
that in which he might be expected to 
transcribe (and we have the evidence of 
Junius himself that he did carefully tran- 
scribe) that which he was elaborately pre- 
paring for the press. It, also, must be ad- 
mitted that, in addition to the general pro- 
babilities so strongly sustained, there are 
some particular incidents that push pro- 
bability almost to the verge of demonstra- 
tion. We might instance Lord G. S.’s so- 
licited interview, when he felt the approach 
of dissolution, and his remorseful apology 
to Lord Mansfield, for some unexplained 
wrongs, some injustice done to him in the 
fluctuations of politics and the heats of party. 
Still stronger is thelight thrown on the his- 
tory of the well-known letter to the ‘‘ vaga- 
bond” Garrick, by the new proven fact of 
Lord G.S.’s occupyinga house at Richmond. 
which overlooked all usual access to the 
palace there, and the facilities, from such 
approximation, of sointriguing a spirit for 
detecting the object of Garrick’s visit. But 
the most conclusive of all, is the argument 
founded upon that private letter of Junius 
to Mr. Woodfall, in which he says 
«© That Swinney is a wretched but a dangerous 
fool. He had the impudence to go to Lord George 
Sackville, whom he had never spoken to, and ask 
him whether or no he was the author of Junius— 
take care of him.” - 
We confess that we know not how to re- 
sist the conclusion that this “ cannot be 
satisfactorily explained in any other way 
than that Junius and Lord G. Sackville 
were one and the same person.” How else 
could Junius know that Swinney called on 
Lord G. S.? That he had never spoken to 
Lord G.S. before? What question he had the 
impudence to ask Lord G. S.?— What 
intimacy, confidence, and unfathomable se- 
crecy must there have been between Junius 
and Lord G. S., if they were not, in fact, 
one! In short, to those who feel them- 
selves interested in the inquiry, we recom- 
mend Mr. Coyentry’s volume, as by far the 
most satisfactory of any thing we have met 
with upon the subject. 
The Life, Writings, Opinions, and Timés 
of the Right Hon. George Gordon Noel By- 
ron, Lord Byron ; including, in its most ex- 
tensive 
