Paine.Junius.
"The example shows to the artificial world that man must go back to nature for information."—R. M., part ii. "Can we possibly suppose that if government had originated in a right principle and had not an interest in pursuing a wrong one, that the world could have been in the wretched and quarrelsome condition we have seen it?... What was at first plunder, assumed the softer name of revenue, and the power originally usurped they affected to inherit."—R. M., part ii., chap. ii. See, also, a fine specimen of this kind of argumentation in the first chapter of Common Sense. "To establish a claim of privilege in either house, and to distinguish original right from usurpation, it must appear that it is indispensably necessary for the performance of the duty, and also that it has been uniformly allowed. From the first part of this description it follows, clearly, that whatever privilege does of right belong to the present House of Commons, did equally belong to the first assembly of their predecessors, was so completely vested in them, and might have been exercised in the same extent. From the second we must infer that privileges which, for several centuries, were not only never allowed, but never even claimed by the House of Commons, must be founded upon usurpation."—Let. 44.

In regard to America, I have shown their views to run parallel. Mr. Paine says in Crisis vii: "The ministry and minority have both been wrong." And Junius says in his first Letter: "But unfortunately for his country, Mr. Grenville was at any rate to be distressed because he was minister, and Mr. Pitt and Lord Camden were to be the patrons of America because they were in opposition." The minority here meant no more than the ruin of a minister and split the nation, without doing the colonies any good. Mr. Paine also says of Lord Chatham on this same point in Crisis viii: "An opinion hangs about the gentlemen of the minority, that America would relish measures under their administration which she would not from the present cabinet. On this rock Lord Chatham would have split had he gained the helm."

I bring forward this parallel to show three things, the same political opinions, the same views of the parties in England, and the same figures of speech, all thrown into the same subject-matter. This, together with the same resemblance in style, surely point to the same author.

This leads me on to speak of other private opinions. And first of lawyers, and especially Lord Mansfield:

Paine.Junius.
"It is difficult to know when a lawyer is to be believed."—Let. to Erskine, Int. Of those who preside at St. James': "They know no other influence than corruption, and reckon all their probabilities from precedent. A new case is to them a new world, and while they are seeking for a parallel they get lost. The talents of Lord Mansfield can be estimated at best no higher than those of a sophist. He understands the subtleties but not the elegance of nature, and by continually viewing mankind through the cold medium of the law, never thinks of penetrating into the warmer regions of the mind."—Crisis, vii. "As a practical profession, the study of the law requires but a moderate portion of abilities. The learning of a pleader is usually upon a level with his integrity. The indiscriminate defense of right and wrong contracts the understanding, while it corrupts the heart. Subtlety is soon mistaken for wisdom, and impunity for virtue. If there be any instances upon record as some there are undoubtedly of genius and morality united in a lawyer, they are distinguished by their singularity, and operate as exceptions."—Let. 67. "Considering the situation and abilities of Lord Mansfield, I do not scruple to affirm, with the most solemn appeal to God for my sincerity, that in my judgment he is the very worst and most dangerous man in the kingdom."—Let. 68.

The above parallel in regard to Lord Mansfield is most remarkable. Let us consider it. Whether the statements be true or not, is immaterial. Mr. Paine said he knew no other influence than corruption; that his talents were those of a sophist, and that he understood the subtleties of nature, not its elegance. Reference is here had to the Athenian sophists, whose art it was "to make the worse appear the better reason." This art made them talented in a certain direction, and in the employment of it they became renowned and rich. Paine affirms that the law had corrupted him. Junius says the practice of the law makes a bad man, and that Mansfield was, considering the conditions, the worst man in the kingdom. This is an opinion so singular and prominent, so rare among men, and expressed so boldly and unqualifiedly, by both Paine and Junius, that it furnishes a parallel which comes with positive and telling force. Perhaps Paine and Junius were the only two writers at the time who held this opinion. And that they should express it in the same manner, with all the fine shades and attending peculiarities the same, and be at the same time two persons, is a phenomenon which nature never exhibited but once, and never will again among mankind. To remove the weight of this evidence, something positive must be brought forward to rebut it.

It will be noticed above that Mr. Paine spoke of "precedent" being the basis of reckoning all their probabilities, and that a new case was a new world. Here we find another parallel in opinion:

Paine.Junius.
"Government by precedent, without any regard to the principle of the precedent, is one of the vilest systems that can be set up. In numerous instances, the precedent ought to operate as a warning, and not as an example, and requires to be shunned instead of imitated; but, instead of this, precedents are taken in the lump, and put at once for constitution and for law."—R. of M., part ii., chap. iv. "Precedents, in opposition to principle, have little weight with Junius, but he thought it necessary to meet the ministry on their own ground."—Let. 16, note. "I am no friend to the doctrine of precedents, exclusive of right, though lawyers often tell us that whatever has been done once may lawfully be done again."—Preface.

Many examples could be given of the above likeness, but these are sufficient.