Junius; including letters by the same writer, under other signatures (now first collected)

Front matter

\l

Plat^Yl.

INCLUDING

Preface

but pedantic Blair was a sin that descended through several generations and made a controversialist of Goethe long after the absurd cause had been abandoned on both sides the Tweed. The internal evidence against the antiquity of the Rowley poems fortunately overpowered the clever reasoning of Tyrwhitt ; but William Ireland, backed by Parr, Kemble, and Croft, might long have perplexed the predecessors of Mr Payne Collier, had not the youth's conscience hastened to the rescue of a long-suffering public. It is otherwise with Junius. He is an incomparable enigma. Men of the greatest genius have fastened upon this abstraction and proved him — a mystery. It is our intention to advert briefly to some of the speculations which have been directed towards the identification of this ' airy nothing ' with various public characters.

It was Sir Joshua Reynolds' opinion that Samuel Dyer was the author of the letters, and that he was assisted by Burke and Burke's cousin William. Dyer is represented as . a man of great attainments, but so modest and reserved that he would frequently sit silent in company for an hour, and seldom speak unless appealed to ; when he generally showed himself master of the subject that was under discussion.1 Through the influence of his friend Chamier,2 Dyer procured some post connected with the army ; and Junius in his second letter exhibits an intimate acquaintance with the then state of the War Department. Dyer was a complete master of French and Italian, and had spent some years abroad : and one of his first literary attempts was a translation of ' Les Mceurs.' In Junius there are one or two gallicisms ; he was apparently much used to French reading, and when he had occasion to divide his paragraphs numerically, he adopted the French mode, i°, 20, &c. It was long supposed that Junius died soon after his papers were discontinued. Dyer died shortly after the letters had ceased to appear. William Burke went to his lodgings immediately after his death, and tore many of his friend's papers into minute fragments. Sir Joshua Reynolds saw these broken papers scattered all over the room. This hypothesis, it was held, explained many circumstances that had before puzzled all the conjecturers. It accounted for the prompt and intimate knowledge that Junius exhibited in his letters after the event or whatever else he discussed. Dyer lived on such friendly terms with Burke that from him he could learn everything tha*t was going on or that was even meditated. It accounted also for the novelty of the style ; and Burke's corrections and interpolations are everywhere discernible in those passages the resemblance of which to his known style caused him to be regarded by many as the writer of the letters.

The notion, indeed, that if Burke were not the author he was very largely concerned in the manufacture of the letters, was long current in Burke's own family. This impression was entirely dispelled by the publication of Junius' letters to Mr Granville. If further evidence were needed in refutation of the conjecture, it might be found in the great improbability of a man of Burke's fine character countenancing anything that bore severely upon the Duke of Grafton, who, to quote Sir James Prior, ' while a minister exhibited kindly feeling and recommended him strongly to office under Lord Chatham "as the readiest man upon all points in the House." ' s But the most convincing of all arguments is Burke's spontaneous denial of the authorship. ' I should have believed Burke,' says Johnson, * to be Junius because I know no man but Burke who is capable of writing these letters ; but Burke spontaneously denied it to me. The case would have

1 Maloniana, 119.

2 Anthony Chamier. He is frequently mentioned in Boswcll.

3 Life of Edmond Malone, 423. See also the same writer's 'Life of Burke/ vol. i. p. 186.

PREFACE. vii been different had I asked him if he was the author ; a man so questioned as to an anonymous publication, may think he has a right to deny it.'1 And yet as late as 1775 Johnson still professed his belief in Burke's authorship. 'Johnson said that he looked upon Burke to be the author of Junius, and that though he would not take him contra mundum, yet he would take him against any man. Baretti was of the same mind.' 2 Grattan was also of this opinion. ' Three persons are considered as having the best claim to the authorship of Junius Letters — Gibbon, Hamilton, and Burke. . . I incline to think that Burke was Junius'

Gibbon is out of the question ; but some good arguments have been advanced in support of William Gerard Hamilton. 'I really ^su^pect Single-speech Hamilton to have been the author from the following circumstance,' says Walpole. ' One day at a house where he happened to be, he repeated the contents of that day's Junius ; while in fact the printer had delayed the publication till next day. Hamilton was also brought forward by Lord Holland ; and it is remarkable that Lord Holland, though very open to censure, is not once mentioned.'3 Wraxall, after fully weighing all circumstances, gives it as his conviction that Hamilton was Junius. ' I well remember,' says Mrs Piozzi, ' when they (the letters) were most talked of — and N. Seward said, " How the arrows of Junius were sure to wound and likely to stick." "Yes, sir," replied Dr Johnson, ' ' yet let us distinguish between the venom of the shaft and the vigour of the bow," at which expression Mr Hamilton's countenance fell in a manner that to me betrayed the author. Johnson repeated the expression in his next pamphlet — and Junius wrote no more' 4 In Malone's opinion, Hamilton was quite capable- of having written these letters, but he finds his style very different. ' He would have still more point than they exhibit, and certainly more Johnsonian energy.' Moreover he was all his life distinguished for political timidity and indecision, and dared not, even under a mask, have entered into a decided warfare with persons whom he might find necessary afterwards to him as colleagues. ' This Mr Hamilton is extremely tall and handsome,' writes Miss Burney, ' has an air of haughty and fashionable superiority ; is intelligent, dry, sarcastic, and clever. I should have received much pleasure from his conversational powers had I not been previously prejudiced against him by hearing that he is infinitely wilful, double, and crafty.' 5 These very qualities are held as proving decisively that he was not the author of the letters : for, says Malone, ' he could not have divested himself of the apprehension of a discovery, having long accustomed his mind to too refined a policy, and being very apt to suppose that many things are brought about by scheme and machination which are merely the offspring of chance.'6

One of the last persons we should expect to find among the number of the suspected, is Glover, the author of ' Leonidas.' What reason is given for believing this poet Junius we have not discovered. Anderson in his Life of Glover makes no reference to the accusation. His speeches printed in the ' London Magazine ' and ' Annals of Europe' are called by.his biographer elegant and spirited : but his prose is not the prose of Junius. He was accredited with a great knowledge of public affairs, and his ' in-

z Boswell, 625.

2 Dr T. Campbell's Diary, published in 1854.

3 Walpoliana, 71.

4 Mrs Piozzi's Autobiography, by Hayward, vol. i. 343. Johnson attacked Juuiits in his tract on the Falkland Islands, and it is ludicrous to read of him delighting his imagination with the thoughts of having destroyed his opponent.

5 Diary and Letters, vol. i. 247.

6 Maloniana, 419.

viii PREFACE.

formation concerning trade and commerce pointed him out to the merchants of London as a proper person to conduct their application to Parliament on the subject of the neglect of their trade. He accepted the office, and in summing up the evidence gave very striking proofs of his oratorical powers.'1 Glover died in November, 1785, aged 73.

The pretensions of Delolmeand the Duke of Portland are ridiculed by Lord Brougham . He points out that the sole ground for presuming the authorship of the Duke lies in the interest betrayed by Junius in the question respecting the honour of Inglevvood Forest, which, he says, occupied the attention at that time of every man who talked or wrote upon politics. Delolme he characterizes as an extremely feeble writer, and one unconsciously ignorant of most constitutional points.2 Little is to be said in support of the candidature of Lord Chatham, Dunning, Lord Temple, or Lord Sackville, though an ingenious attempt was made to identify one or the other of these last-mentioned noblemen with Junius by M. Charles de Remusat in the ' L'Angleterre au Dixhuitieme Siecle.'

We now come to Sir Philip Francis, on whom it is proper that we should bestow the greatest share of our attention. His claims have been advocated by many distinguished men ; and by a large and intelligent class his identity with Junius is considered proven. For our part, we shall avoid offering any opinion on the subject one way or the other ; we propose merely to present, in as clear a light as we can, the reasons advanced by those who believe and by those who deny Sir Philip Francis to be the author of the Letters. For this purpose we shall epitomize the reasoning pursued by Lord Brougham in 1817,3 which we believe may be held fairly to express the opinions still preserved by the believers in the Franciscan theory.

Lord Brougham first deals with the question of internal evidence, and transcribes a few specimens of Francis's writings, which he considers amply justify the assertion that the author of Junius, whoever he might be, was not a person of greater talents than Francis. He then submits certain extracts from a speech delivered in 1797 by Francis, and exclaims : ' We humbly conceive that the most careless reader must be struck, not only with the general ability and eloquence of all these passages, but with their extraordinary coincidence with the Letters of Junius in all their most remarkable characteristics. The boldness and even fierceness of 'the tone — the studied force and energy of the diction — the pointed and epigrammatic cast of the style — the concise and frequent metaphors — and the mixture of the language of business and affairs, with a certain scholastic elegance and elaborate sarcasm.' He next goes on to consider various particular circumstances of a personal and historical character, which go much further than the general indications of internal evidence to make out the proposition contended for. 1. He finds that the dates of the Junian Letters exactly tally with Francis's residence in this country and his going abroad. 2. Francis was a clerk in the War-office, and Junius exhibits an intimate acquaintance with the business and persons of that department. 3. Francis was appointed a clerk in the Foreign-office in 1756. Junius shows an uncommon acquaintance with and interest in the transactions of the Foreign Department as well as the War-office ; and the period to which his knowledge refers, precedes the death of Lord Egremont in 1763. 4. The manner in which Jimius always treats

21 x Anderson's British Poets. * Life of Glover,' p. 469.

2 Edinburgh Review, vol. xxix. p. 95.

3 This article was published in Nov. 1817. Francis died Dec. 22, 1818. It was therefore in his power to publish a contradiction.

PREFACE.

IX

Lord Chatham coincides exactly with the expressions of Sir Philip in his speeches and writings. 5. The high admiration of Lord Chatham which Junius shows is not reconcilable with his kindness towards his antagonist Lord Holland. But the history of Sir Philip explains this. His father was Lord Holland's domestic chaplain. Sir Philip himself received from Lord Holland his first place in the Foreign-office ; and sentiments of gratitude would overcome the natural inducement which Junius had to join in the attacks upon Lord Holland. 6. From his private correspondence it is plain that Junius bore a great personal good- will towards Woodfall. Woodfall was educated at St Paul's School, where Francis is known to have Joeen bred ; and Woodfall's son would afterwards speak of the acquaintance formelUat that school between his father and Francis as having given rise to a mutual kindness during their after lives. 7. There is reason to believe that Junius was known to Garrick ; Sir Francis,, in the Preface to 'England,' says that he enjoyed the friendship and esteem of Garrick. 8. It is unquestionable that Junius used to attend the debates in Parliament, and take notes of the more important speeches ; Francis attended the debates during the same period. 9. There are many favourite expressions in their printed works which are common to each; such as 'Of his side' — 'So far forth' — 'Pray never mind' — ' Pray tell me' — &c. 10. Lord Brougham then tells the following story : Mr Jackson of Ipswich was in Woodfall's employment at the period of the Letters ; and he states that he once saw a • tall gentleman, dressed in a light coat, with bag and sword, throw into the office door opening in Fry Lane, a letter of Junius 's, which he picked up and immediately followed the bearer of it into St Paul's Churchyard, where he got into a hackney-coach and drove off. Taylor, in his ' Identity of Junius,' states that the figure and appearance of Sir Philip Francis answer to this description as far as it goes. n. There are various peculiarities of spelling which occur uniformly in both writers. Lastly, though the letters are known to be written in a feigned hand, the general character agrees well with that of Francis.1

Such is Lord Brougham's reasoning, taken in the order in which his arguments are stated. We will now add some further testimonies in support of his opinion. * My own impression,' says Rogers, the poet, 'is that the Letters of Junius were written by Sir Philip Francis. In a speech which I once heard him deliver at the Mansion House concerning the partition of Poland, I had a striking proof that Francis possessed no ordinary powers of eloquence.' 2 Mr Herman Merivale is equally satisfied : ' I regard,' he says, ' the authorship of Junius by Francis, as proved to reasonable satisfaction by the arguments which long ago seemed conclusive to most of. our literary men of eminence who have carefully examined the subject.'3 Lord Macaulay's opinion is well known ; he declares that the evidence in favour of Francis ' is such as would support a verdict in a civil, nay, in a criminal proceeding.' Sir James Mackintosh was so perfectly satisfied that Francis was the man that he begins an entry in his journal (1817) thus : ' Dec. 8. Dined with Junius. His wife is a woman of informed mind and

1 In 1871 was published 'The Handwriting of Junius Professionally Investigated,' by Mr Charles Chabot, edited by the Hon. E. Twistleton. A writer in the ' Quarterly Review' declares that thi-s book has settled once for all the long-disputed controversy. Further than this, it is not necessary to refer to this publication : but the reader will presently remark the entirely different views expressed by a" writer in the same Review in 1868, upon the identity of . Francis with the Letters.

2 Table-Talk.

3 Note in Forster's * Life of Goldsmith.'

PREFACE.

agreeable person. The vigorous hatreds which seem to keep Francis alive are very amusing, ' &C.1

Let us now turn to the other side of the question. It is shown that until forty years had expired since the publication of the last of the Junian letters, the name of Francis was never mentioned in connection with them : which is represented as a fact of considerable importance, since it is to be expected that contemporaries should be acquainted with a variety of circumstances bearing upon the question of identity of which their posterity cannot but be ignorant. It is urged with great emphasis by Sir Fortunatus Dwarris that no one who knew, or heard, or read Francis, thought him capable of producing Junius. Tierney, who was acquainted with Francis, declared that ' he knew no better reason for believing the fellow to be Jtinius than that he was always confoundedly proud of something and no one could ever guess what it could be.' It is laid down broadly, as a matter of fact, that in the cases of all the candidates (thirty or forty in number) peculiarities of spelling or expression are almost invariably forthcoming : and that the same thing may be said of the handwriting of Junius, which clearly supports Mr Smith's theory that Lord Temple wrote the Letters with his wife for an amanuensis. The War-office paper by which Lord Macaulay triumphantly establishes the connection of Junius with the War-office turned out to be a fiction or fancy of Mr Parkes. If Francis were Junius he systematically assailed Wood, Welbore Ellis, Lord Egremont, Lord Barrington, and Calcraft, to all whom he was bound by ties of gratitude and by the liveliest sense of favours to come. — Ju?iius was an accomplished rhetorician ; but the warmest champion of the Franciscan theory, Mr Merivale, admits that Francis's style was hard and meagre, without grace, polish, variety, or flow. — It is next shown that the times at which the letters of Junius were received by Woodfall do not tally with the dates of Francis's known residence in London.2 'The late attempt,' says a writer in 1833,3 ' to give the honour to Sir Philip Francis has failed like the rest, and from a ca.use admitting of no answer. Sir Philip had not talents for the task. Writing all his life and even emulously adopting the style of Junius, he never was able to adopt his spirit. The habiliments were there : the man to wear them was wanting. The epigrammatic turn, the terseness, the virulence, the abruptness, all the errors were there, and all exaggerated : but the redeeming qualities of the great writer — the vividness, the fine originality — the concealed metaphor shining through and giving beauty to the simplest phrase — the intense poignancy striking like a dagger to the heart, were not there, and Junius has gone to his immortality unencumbered by the clay of Sir Philip Francis.' Sir N. H. Nicholas, after years of exploration, arrived at the same conclusion.

One thing, however, we cannot fail to observe in the arguments that are put forth respecting the Franciscan theory : we mean the tendency on the one hand to unduly exalt, on the other hand to unduly depreciate, the merits of the man whose identity is supported or denied.

It is not perhaps unreasonable that the advocates of Francis should extol him as a great genius since it is their business to prove him the author of a very wonderful book. But it does not necessarily follow that he should be a mediocrist, an insignificant fellow, as he has been termed, because his opponents are persuaded that he did not write the letters. Some who have gone so far as to admit the most distinctive and telling

1 Two stanch Franciscans are Lord Campbell and Earl Stanhope.

2 Quarterly Review, vol. cxxiv., art. ' Lord Macaulay and his School.'

3 Blackwood's Magazine.

PREFACE. xi points in the reasoning of Lord Brougham and Mr Taylor, still refuse to believe Francis capable of the letters, and suggest that he was probably the amanuensis of Junius. Without committing ourselves to any opinion, we still cannot help thinking that it is not necessary to represent Francis as an incompetent man in order to demolish the theories of the Franciscans. Some allowance no doubt is to be made for the very active prejudices with which the stories that were related of Francis's temper and manners caused his name to be pursued by those who refused to recognize him as Junius. Even Macaulay, a zealous advocate of Sir Philip, owned that the man was arrogant and insolent and malevolent : and during his lifetime many anecdotes were current of the ferocity or sullenness of his behaviour. Wra^atf declares he never saw him smile, and that he was bursting with bile. But this assertion scarcely qualifies an outburst of profound admiration for the man's genius. ' Nature,' he says, ' had conferred on him talents such as are rarely dispensed to any individual — a vast range of ideas, a retentive memory, a classic mind, considerable command of language, energy of thought and expression.' Judging him by his career, by his speeches, and even by his writings, it seems to us that Sir Philip Francis was a man of first-rate abilities ; and whether our estimate of him be just or not, we cannot conceive that it should be in any wise prejudiced by the most narrow inspection of his pretensions to the authorship of the Letters.

However, assuming, as most of our readers probably will, the Junian riddle to be still unsolved, it is impossible to think of the writer of these wonderful Letters without feelings of the deepest astonishment and admiration. In an age when the rancour of pclitical animosity made jealousy and curiosity two very fervent sentiments, this surprising writer, surrounded on all sides by men open-eared to hear of him, open-eyed to stare at him, preserved an impenetrable masquerade. What an unutterable sense of loneliness must sometimes have possessed him ! There is an austerity in his triumph that is almost painful to think on. He must have thought in whispers and muffled his very instincts. He had unbounded fame ; but he could not enjoy it, being unknown. What transports he knew were surely tiger-like : it was the sudden leap and deadly blow that composed the sum of his literary pleasures. We may figure him wringing in the morning the hand that ere nightfall he had resolved should be laid against a wounded heart. He glided through his brief span of being, a very shadow : wielding material weapons with shadowy hands ; making his very wit tragical with the spirit of the mystery that hedged him about. Let Mr Forster speak for us — he is never more eloquent than when he is dealing with Junius. ' A friend of Gray relates that he had an appointment to meet the poet (Goldsmith) at his lodgings in Jermyn Street, and found him so deeply plunged in the columns of a newspaper, which with his dinner had been sent him from a neighbouring tavern, that his attention was with difficulty drawn from it. "Take this," said he in a tone of excitement: "here is such writing as I never before saw in a newspaper." It was the first letter with the signature of Junius. But it is not what we must now associate with Junius : not the reckless calumnies and scandals ; not the personal spites and hatreds ; not such halting liberalism as his approval of the taxation of America, and his protest against the disfranchisement of Old Sarum, which then so completely seized upon the reason as well as the tempers of men. It was the startling manifestation of power and courage ; it was the sense that unscrupulous ministers had now an enemy as unscrupulous ; that here was knowledge of even the worst chicaneries of office which not the most sneering official could make light of ; that no minister in either House, no courtier at St James's, xii PREFACE.

no obsequious judge at Westminster, no supercilious secretary in any of the departments, could hereafter feel himself safe from treachery and betrayal ; and from what hitherto had only been a vulgar, half-articulate cry from the Brentford hustings, or at best a faint whisper imperfectly echoed from St Stephen's, was now made the property and enjoyment of every section of the people — of the educated by its exquisite polish, of the vulgar by its relish of malice, of the great middle-class by its animated plainness, vigorous shrewdness, and dogged perseverance.'

This great man's remarkable words are : —

' I am the sole depositary of my secret, and it shall die with me.' Is that secret known ?