P. 382. In Letter LIII., Horne says: "And in case of refusal, threaten to write them down." Bohn omits "threaten."
P. 428. In Letter LXI., Philo-Junius says, "his view is to change a court of common law into a court of equity." Bohn omits the words "common law into a court of."
P. 437. In Letter LXIII., Junius writes, "love and kindness to Lord Chatham." Bohn omits "and kindness."
P. 439. In Letter LXIV., Junius speaks of "a multitude of prerogative writs." Bohn has it "a multitude of prerogatives."
P. 446. In Letter LXVIII., Junius says to Lord Mansfield: "If, on your part, you should have no plain, substantial defence." Bohn substitutes "evidence" for "defence."
These are the most important errors, but not all that I have found in the text. I now turn to the reprint of Dr. Mason Good's Preliminary Essay. The editor says: "The omission of a quotation or two, of no present interest, and the correction of a few inaccuracies of language, are the only alterations that have been made in the Preliminary Essay." We shall see how far this is true. Such alterations as "arrogance" for "insolence," p. 2.; "classic purity" for "classical chastity," p. 3.; "severe" for "atrocious," p. 15., I shall not particularise farther; but merely observe that, so far from being merely "corrections
of inaccuracies of language," they are frequently changes of meaning.
At pp. 4. and 5., extracts from speeches by Burke and North are introduced into the text. In Woodfall, they are given in a note, so as not to interrupt the writer's argument.
Occasionally, a sentence is partly rewritten. I take one specimen. Dr. Good says that, "But for the Letters of Junius, the Commons of England might still ... have been exposed to the absurd and obnoxious harassment of parliamentary arrests, upon a violation of privileges undefined and incapable of being appealed against—defrauded of their estates upon an arbitrary and interested claim of the crown." In Bohn, p. 5., the words are altered to "have been exposed to arbitrary violations of individual liberty, under undefined pretexts of parliamentary privileges, against which there were (?) no appeal—defrauded of their estates upon capricious and interested claims of the crown."
Dr. Good, to show that Burke could not be Junius, cites several passages from his works; and then proves, by quotations from Junius, that the opinions of the one were opposed to those of the other. In Bohn's edition all these quotations, which occupy twelve octavo pages in Woodfall, are omitted as unnecessary, although the writer's argument is partly founded upon them; and yet the editor has retained (evidently through carelessness), at p. 66., Dr. Good's subsequent reference to these very quotations, where, being about to give some extracts from General Lee's letters, he says: "They may be compared with those of Junius, that follow the preceding extracts from Mr. Burke." This reference is retained, but the extracts spoken of are omitted.