Memoirs of John Horne Tooke, together with his valuable speeches and writings: also, containing proofs identifying him as the author of the celebrated letters of Junius

Front matter

*p s o o x

<1.

*

Preface

The following pages are devoted to a subject which has long baffled talents and research, and to which, at this late hour, scarcely any thing short of demonstration, can be supposed to impart a lively interest. While the compositions of Junius have furnished a model of style, as bold and brilliant as it is classical, the Author has eluded, discovery, and to this moment, as if disdaining applause, the motto emblazoned on the escutcheon of his fame, anplies, " Stat nominis umbra." This, it must be admitted, is an appalling circumstance, not only checking ambition,, but assailing the inquirer at the entrance; like some ancient sepulchral inscription, at once rebuking the curiosity of the profane intruder, and sternly prohibiting his further advance.

VI PREFACE.

Knowing, however, that the avenues to the temple of truth are ever open, and that its votaries arc not to be deterred from fair and manly discussion, the Author of the following Essay has ventured upon a disclosure of facts and circumstances, ichich will not suffer himself, at least, to doubt as to the identity of Junius. He had the honor of the acquaintance of John Horne Tooke ; and from the opportunities which this afforded, aided by other circumstances, he has been enabled to furnish facts hitherto unknown ; and to present others in a light so new, as to ■ induce a probability that Tooke and Junius are the same. Whether he has happily succeeded in forcing the belief ichich he seeks to establish, and thus securing to the memory of his departed friend, the immortality which shrouds the name of Junius, public, opinion will decide. To this tribunal he has appealed, and his submission to it will be as voluntary as it must be imperative. He will not conceal, however, the pleasure it woidd give him to be the humble instrument of restor-

PREFACE. VII

ing to the rightful owner, honors of so transcendent a character. John Horne Tooke, now that the clouds of political contention have passed away, stands clarum et venerabile no men. His genius was transcendent — his talents of the first order — his struggles for liberty sincere — his privations and sufferings great — and his patriotism undoubted.

It must not be understood that the Author claims the originality of the suggestion that Tooke is Junius ; of the constellation of eminent literary characters of that age, numbers hare been selected to that honor, by literary curiosity or impertinence, and among others John Horne Tooke. He hopes, however, without subjecting himself to the imputation of vanity, he may be allowed the merit of having contributed to change mere suspicion into enduring and unalterable belief. He seeks, by his humble labors, not to weave the wreath, but merely to bind it on, having first ascertained the brows destined to wear it. If he fails of

VIII PREFACE.

•

this, he will at least have the satisfaction of knowing his motives were pure, and of having, while employed in this way, scattered many agreeable associations along the path of a life rapidly descending into the vale.

The Author begs leave to add, that he has consulted, and freely drawn from every publication respecting Junius, to which he has had access, and takes this opportunity, in conclusion, of acknowledging the kindness of many of his literary friends, particularly Mr. S. F. Wilson, and of assuring them that his gratitude, though not so widely circulated, will be as lasting as the name of Junius.

CHAPTER L

The publication of the Letters of Junius forms a singular epoch in the literary history of the last century. They are the first and most perfect specimens of that kind of political writing, which has since so much abounded in the public prints, both of this country and of England ; and like most originals, they have outlived all their imitators and copyists. Addressed directly to men high in office, and enjoying the confidence of the sovereign, they spoke in terms of such haughty superiority — were so acrimonious in their language — so vehement in accusation — and so fierce in invective, that they excited a most extraordinary degree of curiosity and wonder. All the engines of authority were put in motion, aided by the violence of party spirit, enflamed by personal resentment, to discover the audacious writer, who addressed in terms of such unmeasured indignation, the highest and most powerful men in the kingdom — and who spared not in his sweeping reproaches, even the character and conduct of the king. The excitements to which this state of things led, have passed away with the personages and events by which they were raised ; these letters are, however, saved from the common lot of oblivion, and are still read with admiration and curiosity. This is owing partly to the mystery in which the writer shrouded himself, and which he succeeded in preserving, amid all the efforts which were then made and which have been continued for half a century, to discover and identify him ; but mostly to the intrinsic merits of their style, and their wonderful power of argument and expression. As models of composition, they have been already ranked with the Classics of England. No other work can be produced in which the same purity of diction is so uniformly sustained in the midst of such vehemence of passion. The strongest ideas of reproach which the mind conceives are expressed in the strongest terms which words can supply ; and the author, " even in the tempest and whirlwind of his passion," employs the most forcible and polished phrases and illustrations — as though the loftiness of his indignation could condescend to nothing below the noblest powers of language. So generally has this been acknowledged, that many of the condensed expressions of thought, and beautiful illustrations with which they abound, have been quoted so frequently as to become the common property of literature, " familiar in our mouths as household words."

To a work of such high character and acknowledged excellence, it is not extraordinary that many claims of authorship should have been advanced. During the fifty years which have now elapsed, since the termination of the letters, and their publication in the form of a volume, many circumstances of apparent coincidence have been brought to light, each of which in its turn, has been eagerly seized upon by the friends of some eminent person, as affording evidence of his claim to the title of Junius, and made the foundation of new and different theor}\ One of the most singular of these hypothesis, was the attempt to claim the authorship for the Duke of Portland, for no other reason than that Junius wrote against the claim of Sir James Lowther, to the Duke's property of Inglewood Forest, in Cumberland.

Many others were advanced with as little claim to probability, and in this manner, men of the most op-

12 MEMOIRS OT

posite professions and situations in life, and of entirely different and discordant political principles, have been at divers times set forth to the world by some injudicious admirer, as the true Junius. But to each and all of these, some insuperable objection has been, upon closer inquiry, invariably found ; and to this day the authorship of Junius remains a problem in literature, defying the solution of the most ingenious. We may approach the result, but it seems now settled that a complete and perfect body of proof cannot now be attained.

It was at first naturally imagined, that no man possessing the common passions of our nature, could persist in concealing himself, to avoid the admiration of his fellow-men. It was considered not only a phenomenon in literature, but an anomaly in human action, that one could not only refrain from avowing himself, to receive in his life-time the laurels with which the world stood ready to crown him, but should die and leave no trace by which his work could be identified for him. But as one by one, all those for whom it had been claimed with any show of probability, died without making the disclosure, and no discoveries among their writings, or from their portfolios, authorised a posthumous claim for them, all expectation of a direct avowal has ceased.

It is then only from circumstantial proof, from a comparison of the style, manner, expressions and political principles of the Letters of Junius, with the known character, and avowed writings of some distinguished personage, that we can approximate to the truth. If these are found to coincide in every respect, a case of strong probability will be made out, and if in addition, they are aided by unguarded expressions in confidential conversation on the very subject, almost avowing the work, the proof will be further strengthened, and the probability will approach to demonstration.

It will be the object of this essay to show in whose favor these circumstances exist most decidedly, and to explain the reasonings and inferences which have induced the belief that the writer of these celebrated letters was no other than John Horne Tooke. •

Should the questions be asked why this discussion is commenced at so late a period, and why it is undertaken bv an individual so far from the theatre of action, and seemingly unconnected with the events, the answers will be explicit. To the first interrogation, the reply is brief and simple. The literary world has a powerful interest in the just distribution of the honors of literature. The claims of the rightful owner can never grow obsolete, because truth and justice are eternal. That the successful author shuns the rewards which are prepared for him, is not conclusive against inquiry. False claims will abound where the ownership of the estate is doubtful, and it is for the general interest of literature that the title should be quieted. When the facts, which are relied on, are fairly before the public, we have no fears but that their verdict will be just.

In order to explain the circumstances upon which 1 conceived the idea that John Horne Tooke was the author of the Letters of Junius, even before I examined the evidence afforded by the work itself, it will be necessary to recount briefly the origin and occasion of my acquaintance and connexion with him. In the year 1794, I was sent on a mission to England, by the Episcopal Convention of the State of Vermont, upon ecclesiastical affairs, connected with the Courts of Canterbury and York, and " the venerable society for propagating the gospel in foreign parts." The nature of my duties, as the accredited agent of so highly respectable a body, brought me at once into contact with most of the great and learned men of England, and gave me the means of the society of all, had I so pleased. It is but natural to suppose, that such opportunities of intercourse as I enjoyed, were eagerly improved by one whose habits and pursuits were in search of knowledge, and whose ambition it has always been to mingle with the good and great. It may not be considered superfluous to add, that I had the honor of being recognized as a kinsman, and hospitably entertained by one of the most noble and distinguished personages in Great Britain.

Among the eminent men, whose society I had the gratification of enjoying, none stood higher in my estimation, or in that of the public, than Mr. ToOKE, and his intercourse I industriously cultivated. In the year 1796, two years after my first visiting London, I became a resident in the City of Westminster. It is in the memory of all conversant with the history of British politics, that in the summer of that year, a powerful effort was made at the general election to secure a preponderance of the Whig party in the ensuing parliament. Mr. Tooke was a candidate for the representation of Westminster, and I, if not an efficient, was an active and zealous supporter of his interest. As an American I could not feel lukewarm in the cause of one of the earliest champions of America — one who had fearlessly stood forth the advocate of my countrymen in the commencement of their eventful struggle, and had suffered fine and imprisonment in their behalf. As a lover of justice, I could not behold, without indignation, the unrelenting persecution with which he had been followed from his earliest days, by the most powerful men in the kingdom ; the obstinate and rancorous hatred which had arbitrarily excluded him from the pursuit of an honorable profession, and one for which he was peculiarly fitted, had harassed him with actions and prosecutions, and sought to take his life, upon the pretext of high treason, under the abused sanction of the law. His political principles, those of pure Whiggism, were those in which I had been trained, and of which I considered him one of the most efficient advocates. With these feelings I entered warmly into his cause, and though his attempt proved unsuccessful, was for my disinterested and unsolicited exertions, received into his confidence ; which confidence, I am proud to say, continued unimpaired until my departure from London, on my return home in the summer of 1800. It was from the intimacy which ensued, that I gathered the several expressions which I am about to relate ; which expressions first gave rise to the belief which has since risen to conviction, that he was Junius. In the summer of the year 1797, I held a conversation with him upon the subject of his controversy with Junius, in which, after mentioning my admiration of the style of Junius, I added with a smile, that I of course excepted his harsh epithets and coarse invective against Parson Home ; upon which Mr. Tooke replied, smiling, " Junius is the best friend I ever had on earth." .

On another occasion, in my presence, a mutual and reverend friend, in a similar conversation, put the question directly to Mr. Tooke. — " Do you then know the author of Junius ?"— " Yes," replied he, " I do know him better than any man in England." — " Pray, Sir, is he now living f" — " Yes, my dear Sir, he is yet alive."—" He must then be an old man — do . you know his age ?"— Mr. Tooke instantly replied, " Strange as it may seem, I can assure you that Parson Home and Junius were born on the same day in the City of Westminster."

IS MEMOIRS OF

The singular nature of these avowals, connected with so celebrated a controversy, immediately gave me the impression, that he was either himself, as his expressions imply, the writer of Junius, or was so intimately connected with the writer, as to have the means of making the discovery. In this I find myself corroborated by the following circumstance related in the life of Tooke, by Alexander Stephens, and published in 1813, (page 358, vol. ii.)

On the 21st June, 1S07, at Mr. Tooke's house at Wimbledon, some conversation occurred that day at dinner relative to Junius. He laughed at the idea of Mr. Boyd's being the author, as affirmed by Almon. On being told that Henry Sampson Woodfall had intimated that he was in possession of several letters from him, in a fine Italian hand, and seemingly written by means of a crow-quill, he observed, " that Mr. Woodfall was a very honest man, but he doubted the fact ! They had been all surrendered."

" One of the company now asked if he knew the author? On the question being put, he immediately crossed his knife and fork on his plate, and assuming a stern look, replied ' I do.' His manner, tone, and attitude, were all too formidable to admit of any further interrogatories."

From the circumstances which 1 have narrated, as coming under my personal observation, and the peculiar manner in which it was Mr. Tooke's pleasure to speak on the subject, it became my conviction, that he was himself the author. From the insolated facts, it is clear that he knew the writer. If, in the course of the after inquiry, any fact had appeared, which rendered it physically impossible, that he could have been the author : if the political principles therein avowed had been found differing essentially from his, or the style and manner of the letters had been found radically different from Mr. Tooke's style and manner, the naked truth would have still remained for aid in another inquiry, that ToOKE knew the author. But when no such discrepances are found to exist, and in all material points, remarkable coincidences are found ; it is, when connected with the declaration of Junius, " that he was the sole depository of his own secret," evidence that they were the same. That "Parson Home" and the unknown antagonist with whom he wared, were but varieties of the same great man.

Chapter II

A VERY ingenious and elaborate work on the present subject, was published a few years since in England, entitled, " The identity of Junius with a distinguished living character established — including a supplement, consisting of fac-similes of handwriting, and other illustrations." It is understood to be the production of Mr. John Taylor, a very industrious and candid writer. In this work the claims of Sir Philip Francis are urged with so much apparent force and proof, that it is necessary, (by more closely discussing and disposing of them,) to clear the way for other examination. The air of complete decision and confidence with which Mr. Taylor presses his arguments, adds considerably to their weight and effect. To those who have not examined the subject in all its bearings, the sincere conviction of an honest and able man who has studied it thoroughly, has deservedly some of the force of evidence in favor of its truth. Upon grounds similar to this, the opinion seems to spread that Mr. Taylor's arguments and proofs are irrefragable, and that Sir Philip is undeniably identified with Junius. But, however singular some of the circumstances and coincidences may be, (and I am free to confess that some of them are so remarkable, as rarely to be found in the chapter of accidents,) there are several objections to his claims which appear to me unanswerable.

A most formidable objection is contained in the fact, that Sir Philip has expressly disclaimed the authorship attributed to him. Soon after the appearance of Mr. Taylor's pamphlet, the editor of the Monthly Magazine (Sir Richard Phillips I believe,) intended to pursue the inquiry in the form of « ppvipw Tn orrlpr, however, to know Sir Phillips' pleasure on the subject, and to receive some admission from him, (if he really were the author) he addressed him a note, in which he directly made the inquiry. To this he received the following epistle in reply from Sir Philip Francis : —

" Sir — The great civility of your letter induces me " to answer it, which, with reference merely to the sub- "ject matter, I should have declined. Whether you " will assist in giving currency to a silly, malignant

" falsehood, is a question for your own discretion. To " me it is a matter of perfect indifference. " I am, Sir,

" Yours, &c.

"P. Francis."

This seems to me to put the matter at rest, for I cannot understand Mr. Taylor's special pleading upon the terms on which it is drawn up. To my understanding it is no less than a direct affirmation that the charge of being the author was " a silly malignant falsehood.' 1 This is the unequivocal meaning of the words ; and in another place I shall show, that, situated as Sir Philip was in life, at that time, it is truly a malignity, (notwithstanding Mr. Taylor's disclaimers) to put into his mouth the sentiments and language of Junius ; because it would fasten upon him an indelible stain of character, involving moral delinquences, breaches of honor, gratitude and feeling, of which no man would suspect Sir Philip.

Dr. Parr, upon this subject, and with reference to this work of Mr. Taylor's, thus speaks — " The impression produced by a well written pamphlet, and an elaborate critique upon it, in the Edinburgh Review, still direct the national faith towards Sir Philip Francis.

He was too proud to tell a lie, and he disclaimed the work. He was too vain to refuse celebrity, which he was conscious of deserving. He was too intrepid to shrink when danger had nearly passed by. He was too irascible to keep the secret, by the publication of which, he, at this time of day, could injure no party with whom he is connected, nor any individual for whom he cared. Besides, my dear Sir, we have many books of his writings upon many subjects, and all of them stamped with the same character of mind. Their general lexis (as we say in Greek) has no resemblance to the lexis of Junius, and the resemblance in particulars can have far less weight than th^ resemblance of which we have no vestage. Francis uniformly writes English, there are gallicisms in Junius. F ncis is furious, but not malevolent ; FrancL is never cool, and Junius is seldom ardent." Again, " We must all grant that a strong case has been made out for Francis, but I could set up very stout objections t o those claims. It was not in his nature to keep a secret. He would have told it from vanity, or from his courage, or from his patriotism. His bitterness, his vivacity, his acuteness, are stamped in characters very peculiar upon many publications that bear his name, and very faint indeed is their resemblance to the spirit, and in an extended sense of the word, to the style of Junius"

This opinion of so excellent a judge of composition as Dr. Parr, deserves great attention ; and his conclusions from the substance of the second objection to Sir Philips' claims, viz. the inequality of his avowed writings with the writings of Junius. On this part of the argument we shall quote at large from the reminiscences of Charles Butler, Esq., whose opinions, as those of an eminent literary and legal character, and a cotemporary of Junius, are entitled to unreserved attention.' 1 The external evidence produced in these pamphlets is strong, so strong perhaps that if he had been tried upon it for a lible, and the case had rested upon the facts from which this evidence. Is formed, the judge would have directed the jury to find him guilty. B-^the internal evidence against him, from the inequality of his acknowledged writings, is also very strong: If ihe able author of the article, "Junius" in the .Edinburgh Review (for November, 1817) had not profe^ ad a different opinion, the present writer would have pronounced it decisive. That respectable writer produces several passages from the works of which Sir Philip was certainly the author, and finds in them a similar tone and equal merit ; with due deference to his authority, the reminiscent begs leave to think, that if these passages serve to show that Sir Philip was no mean writer, they also prove, that he was not Junius. To bring the question to a direct issue — are the glow and loftiness discernible in every page of Junius, once visible in any of these extracts ? Where do we find in the writings of Sir Philip, " those thoughts that breathe, those words that burn," that Junius scatters in every page ? A single drop of the cobra copella which falls from Junius so often ?

Junius had evidently been a great constitutional reader ; Does Sir Philip appear to have been such, from any of his writings, even the latest ?

But, to bring the matter at once to issue, we shall transcribe from the article on Junius, in the Edinburgh Review, a passage from a publication in which Sir Philip attacks Lord Thurlow, then insert a passage in which Junius attacks Lord Mansfield. We request our readers will compare them, and afterward compare the extract from Junius, with the passage of Hyder Ally's invasion of the Carnatic, transcribed from one of Mr. Burke's speeches in a future part of this publication. Will he not find the inferiority of Sir Philip so great as to render it impossible that he should have been the author of Jimms' Letters 9 On the other hand, will he not find the difference, we do not say in the styles, but in the minds of Junius and Burke, to be such as to render it quite evident that Burke and Junius were not the same person f

SIR PHILIP FRANCIS' CHARACTER OF LORD THURLOW.

" It is well known that a gross and public insult had been offered to the memory of General Clavering and Colonel Monson, by a person of high rank in this country. He was happy when he heard that his name was included in it with theirs. So highly did he respect the character of those men, that he deemed it an honor to share in the injustice it had suffered. It was in compliance with the forms of the house, and not to shelter himself, or out of tenderness to the party, that he forebore to name him. He meant to describe him so exactly, that he could not be mistaken. He declared in his place, in a great assembly, and in the course of a grave deliberation, ' that it would have been happy for this country, if General Clavering, Colonel Monson and Mr. Francis, had been drowned in their passage to India.' If this poor and spiteful

2S MEMOIRS OF

invective had been uttered by a man of no consequence or repute, by any light, trifling, inconsiderate person, by a lord of the bed-chamber, for example, or any of the other silken barons of modern days, he should have heard it with indifference. But when it was seriously urged and deliberately insisted on by a grave lord of parliament — by a judge — by a man of ability and eminence in his profession, whose personal disposition was serious, who carried gravity to sternness, and sternness to ferocity, it could not be received with indifference, or answered without resentment. Such a man would be thought to have inquired before he pronounced. From his mouth, a reproach was a sentence, an invective was a judgment. The accidents of life, and not any original distinction that he knew of, had placed him too high, and himself at too great a distance from him, to admit of any other answer than a public defiance, for General Clavering, for Colonel Monson, and for himself. This was not a party question, nor should it be left to so feeble an advocate as he was, to support it. The friends and fellow-soldiers of General Clavering and Colonel Monson would assist him in defending their memory. He demanded and expected the support of every man of honor in that house, and in the kingdom. What character was safe, if slander was permitted to attack the reputation of two of the most honorable and virtuous men that ever were employed, or ever perished in the service of their country ? He knew that the authority of this man was not without weight ; but he had an infinitely higher authority to oppose it. He had the happiness of hearing the merits of General Clavering and Colonel Monson acknowledged and applauded in terms to which he was not at liberty to do more than to allude : they were rapid and expressive. He must not venture to repeat, lest he should do them injustice, or violate the forms of respect, where essentially he owed and felt the most. But he was sufficiently understood. The generous sensations that animate the royal mind, were easily distinguished from those which rankled in the heart of that person who was supposed to be the keeper of the royal conscience."

EXTRACT FROM THE LETTER OF JUNIUS TO LORD MANSFIELD.

"You will not question my veracity, when I assure you that it has not been owing to any particular respect for your person that I have abstained from you so long.

30 MEMOIRS Ol

Beside the distress and danger with which the press is threatened, when your lordship is party, and the partyis to be judge, I confess I have been deterred by the difficulty of the task. Our language has no term of reproach, the mind has no idea of detestation, which has not already been happily applied to you and exhausted. Ample justice has been done by abler pens than mine to the separate merits of your life and character. Let it be my humble office to collect the scattered sweets, till their united virtue tortures the sense.

" Permit me to begin with paying a just tribute to Scotch sincerity, wherever I find it. I own I am not apt to confide in the professions of gentlemen of that country, and when they smile, I feel an involuntary emotion to guard myself against mischief. With this general opinion of an ancient nation, I always thought it much to your lordship's honor, that, in your earlier days, you were but little infected with the prudence of your country. You had some original attachments, which you took every proper opportunity to acknowledge. The liberal spirit of youth prevailed over your native discretion. Your zeal in the cause of an unhappy prince was expressed with the sincerity of wine, and some of the solemnities of religion. This 1 conceive is the most amiable point of view in which your character has appeared. Like an honest man, you took that part in politics, which might have been expected from your birth, education, country, and connexions. There was something generous in your attachment to the banished house of Stuart. We lament the mistakes of a good man, and do not begin to detest him until he affects to renounce his principles. Why did you not adhere to that loyalty you once professed ? Why did you not follow the example of your worthy brother ? With him you might have shared in the honor of the Pretender's confidence — with him you might have preserved the integrity of your character, and England, I think, might have spared you without regret. Your friends will say perhaps, that although you deserted the fortune of your liege lord, you have adhered firmly to the principles which drove his father from the throne ! — that without openly supporting the person, you have done essential service to the cause, and consoled yourself for the loss of a favorite family, by reviving and establishing the maxims of their government. This is the way in which a Scotchman's understanding corrects the errors of his heart. My lord, 1 acknowledge the truth of the defence, and can trace it through all your cfcndact. I see through your whole life, one uniform