Letters on Junius, addressed to John Pickering, esq., showing that the author of that celebrated work was Earl Temple

Front matter

v^S^

^> sS oo^ i

<0^;

Letter I

Account of the Author's original investigation of the authorship of Junius's Letters — The Pamphlet of 1766, entitled An Enquirij into the Conduct of a Late Right Honorable Commoner, (i. e. Mr Pitt afterwards Lord Chatham),

written by Lord Temple ]

LETTER IL

The Authorship of that Pamphlet further considered —

Extracts from the Pamphlet 9

Letter III

The same subject continued — Comparison of the Pamphlet with Junius's Letters — The family connexion of Lord Temple, Mr George Grenville, and Mr Pitt — Lord Temple's Reconciliation with Mr Grenville — His co-operation in the North Briton, and his acquaintance with Mr Wilkes 19 LETTER IV.

One of the Miscellaneous Letters of Junius, signed Poplicola, corresponding with Lord Temple's Pamphlet . 33 LETTER V.

References to other Miscellaneous Letters of Junius, respecting Lord Chatham — The Reconciliation between Lord Chatham and Lord Temple, corresponding to the change in Junius's tone and feelings — The eminent talents of Lord Temple — Lord Chatham's letter containing the reasons of his resignation 39

LETTER VI.

The warm attachment of Junius for Mr George Grenville — Junius's declaration, that he was not personally known to Mr Grenville, explained 45

VI CONTENTS.

LETTER VII.

Account of Mr George Grenville — Offends his brothers,

but afterwards, reconciled 56

LETTER VIII.

Junius's Agreement in politics, with Mr Grenville — The Public Life of Mr Pitt— Mr Pitt and the Grenvilles omitted in the Ministerial Arrangements — Mr Pitt dismissed and again recalled — The Quarrel in Parliament between Lord Temple and Lord Bute — Further remarks on the Separation of Mr Grenville from his family — Lord Bute obliged to retire — The case of Wilkes's North Briton — Mr Pitt's Declaration respecting it — A new Negotiation attempted, by the Earl of Bute, to bring Mr Pitt into office

— The king himself sends for Mr Pitt and Lord Temple 59

LETTER IX.

The disagreement between Mr Pitt and Lord Temple, continued — Lord Bute's policy, as to the great families — He solicits an interview with Lord Temple and Mr Grenville ; and the result 73

LETTER X.

A new arrangement is proposed to Mr Pitt — Sir William Pynsent bequeathes him an Estate — Mr Pitt is involved in litigation respecting it — Lord Mansfield's suspected influence in this case, supposed to be a motive for Junius's attacks — Lord Bute's Private Influence ; and an extraordinary instance of vigilance in observing his movements

— Further remarks on the Quarrel between Lord Temple and Mr Pitt 77

LETTER XI.

Effects of the Disagreement between Lord Temple and Lord Chatham — Their reconciliation, and Junius's change of

tone 84

LETTER XII.

Lord Chatham's strong regard for Lord Temple — The British successes, under Lord Chatham, essentially owing to the ability of Lord Temple — List of British victories 05 LETTER XIII.

Account of the Earl of Bute, and the motives of Junius for attacking him — Lord Bute ai;^d his friends determine to humble the Grenvilles — His offensive language towards Lord Temple — A Portrait of him 103

CONTENTS. Vll

LETTER XIV.

Junius's feelings towards the Prince, George III, as the pupil of Lord Bute — Memorial, from Dodington's Diary, on the Education of the Prince ; probably by Lord Temple — Lord Bute's plan, to keep possession of the King, and to destroy the influence of the Grenvilles — Extracts from Dodington's Diary — The hostility of George II to Lord Temple, in the case of Admiral Byng .... 117 LETTER XV.

The hostility of Junius to Lord Mansfield and Sir William

Blackstone 129

LETTER XVI.

Mr Wilkes's intimacy with Lord Temple — His arrest, under

a General Warrant — Lord Temple's interposition in his

behalf — Mr Wilkes, dismissed fi-om his office of Colonel,

and Lord Temple's subsequent dismissal — Lord Temple's

letter to him on that occasion 133

LETTER XVII.

The same subject continued 142

LETTER XVIII.

The Duke of Grafton, formerly a friend, but afterwards a bitter enemy, of Mr Wilkes — The attack of Junius on

the Duke — The case of McQuirk 148

LETTER XIX.

The Duke of Bedford — Reasons for Junius's attack on him 155

LETTER XX.

TheMarquisofGranby— Sir William Draper .... 161

LETTER XXI.

Account of Earl Temple and his family 167

LETTER XXII.

Lord Temple's residence, at Stowe ; and, while in London, in Pall-Mall — Junius, not necessarily a military man . 175 LETTER XXIII.

Junius and Lord Temple held the same political opinions 180

LETTER XXIV.

The opinion of the Welsh judge, George Hardinge, of Junius — Junius's panegyric on Lord Chatham — The motives of Junius, and reasons for discontinuing his Letters — Burke's politics, and his opinion of Mr George Grenville 185-

Vlll CONTENTS.

LETTER XXV.

Junius was a member of Parliament — Extract from Mr Cotes's journal — Junius does not mention Lord Temple in his Letters — An early friend of Mr Almon . . . 192

LETTER XXVI.

Parallel passages from the Writings of Junius and Lord Temple — Prophetic opinions of Junius respecting the

American contest 198

LETTER XVII.

Additional Remarks on Junius and Mr George Grenville — Junius signs one of his Miscellaneous Letters, A Member

of one House of Parliament 201

LETTER XXVIII.

On the person, figure, and handwriting of Junius — The

copy of his Letters bound in vellum 203

LETTER XXXI.

Lord Temple's age — Almon's Anecdotes of Chatham, probably, in part written by Lord Temple — Description of

LETTER XXX.

Explanatory Remarks, respecting Lord Chesterfield's supposed opinion of Lord Temple and the Pamphlet . . 212 LETTER XXXI.

Account of the Stowe Papers 227

LETTER XXXIl.

Dt Waterhouse's work on Junius 227

Appendix

No. I. — The Pamphlet of 17GC, entitled ' An Enquiry into the Conduct of a Late Right Honourable Commoner ' (Mr Pitt), written by Lord Temple . 237 II. — Lord Chesterfield's Letter, respecting the above

Pamphlet 261

HI.— Character of Mr George Grenville 263

IV.— The North Briton, No. 45 . 267

V. — Dr Johnson's Critique on Junius 272

VI.— The arrangement of the Ministry, 1767 to 1770 . 276

INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.

The materials of the following Letters were, in part collected many years ago without any view to publication ; and they would probably have remained unpublished, had not the authorship of Junius's Letters been again brought before the literary world by the late reported discovery of certain papers in the archives of the Grenville family at Stowe, in England, which, it is said in the journals of the day, ' establish beyond the possibility of doubt, the real author.' This * real author,' according to the latest accounts from England, is by some conjectured to be Earl Temple, the elder brother of the celebrated George Grenville, and brother-in-law of Lord Chatham.

The object of the present Letters is to prove, that Lord Temple was in fact the author ; and that this discovery was made in the United States, by the writer, many years ago — long before any hints or indications were given of there being evidence like that which b

X INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.

is said to have been found at Stowe, — much less that the evidence was such, as, it was conjectured, would fix that authorship on Lord Temple.

After the numerous unsuccessful attempts to solve this curious problem in English literature, it may appear presumptuous, particularly in an American — under all the disadvantages of his distance from the scene of Junius's warfare, and the want of a personal acquaintance with the minute occurrences of that period — to fancy, that he has discovered the author. Yet it may be said with truth, that such a distant position for observation is not without its advantages ; for if, on the one hand, an observer thus circumstanced v/ould be obliged to throw away more labor in his pursuit, than one who was nearer to the scene, yet, on the other hand, the former would be less likely to have his attention distracted and led astray from the main object by circumstances in reality of inferior importance, which would make an undue impression upon one who should happen to be, if we may so speak, present at the place of action ; as, according to the common observation, the looker-on has a more commanding view of the game than those who are engaged in it. So far, however, as respects the discussion of this question by Americans, it will suffice to remark, that we have as great an interest in every question of English literature as our brethren of the mother country. Their literature still is — and long may it continue to be — ours.

But some persons may, perhaps, be ready to ask according to the prevailing fashion of the age — of what vtiliiy will it be to discuss this question ? Instead of giving an answer to this inquiry in our own language, we beg leave to reply in the just and forcible remarks

INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. XI

of an accomplished writer in a leading British journal of the present day : *

' A succession of problems, or puzzles, in the literary and political history of modern times, has occasionally occupied some ingenious writers, and amused many idle readers. Those who think nothing 2iseful, which does not yield some palpable and direct advantage, have indeed scornfully rejected such inquiries as frivolous and useless. But their disdain has not repressed such discussions — and it is fortunate that it has not. Amusement is itself an advantage. The vigor, which the understanding derives from exercise on every subject, is a great advantage. If there should be any utility in history, it must be very useful, that it should be accurate — which it never will be, unless there be a sohcitude to ascertain the truth even of its minutest parts. History is read with pleasure, and with moral effect, only so far as it engages our feelings in the merit or demerit, in the fame or fortune, of historical personages. If it did not excite such feelings, we should study it with the same coolness and tranquillity with which we study physical science. But, in contemplating the fortunes of our fellow creatures, in history, in fiction, or in real life, we are eager, we are intensely anxious to discover the guilt or innocence, the claims to eminence, or the events of the lives of those whose characters have excited in our minds strong feelings, whether friendly or adverse. Our interest in the history of past times is of the same nature with our sentiments on the matters that daily occur around us. The breathless anxiety, with which the obscure and

* Edinburgh Review for June 1826, vol. 44, page 1 3 in an article ascribed to Sir James Mackintosh.

XU INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.

conflicting evidence on a trial at law is watched by the by-standers, is but a variety of the same feeling, which prompts the reader of history to examine the proofs against Mary Queen of Scots, with as deep interest as if she were alive, and were now on her trial. And it is wisely ordered, that it should be so. For the condition of mankind would not, upon the whole, be bettered by our feeling less strongly about each others' concerns.'

This able writer then enumerates various problems of the kind in question — as, ' Who wrote the book which bears the name of Thomas a-Kempis 1 Who was Perkin Warbeck ? Was Queen Mary an accomplice in the murder of Lord Darnley ? Who was the Prisoner in the Iron Mask ? Who was the writer of the Whole Duty of Man ? Who wrote the Letters of Junius ? ' And, after briefly adverting to the state of the evidence on these several problems, he makes the following remarks on the last of them :

' The writer of the Letters of Junius is still undiscovered [June, 1826]. The only claim entitled to discussion, is that set up for Sir Philip Francis^ in spite of that gentleman himself, by Mr Taylor, in the very ingenious book, too boldly entitled ' Junius Identified.' * From that book, especially from the interest

* After the appearance of Mr Taylor's first publication,, the Editor of the English Monthly Magazine made a direct inquiry of Sir Philip Francis, as to his authorship ; to this the following reply was made ; which, notwithstanding its strong language, Mr Taylor is pleased to consider as so evasive, that he wonders ' how any one can have been misled by it for a moment : '

'Sir, — The great civihty of your letter induces me to answer it, which, with reference merely to its subject matter, I should have declined. Whether you will assist in giving

INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. Mm

taken by Junius in the petty intrigues of the War Office, and from the coincidence of the artificial handwriting of Junius with the artificial hand-writing of Sir Philip, in the possession of Mr Giles, we may probably infer, that Sir Philip was in the confidence of Junius and perhaps his amanuensis. The supposition, however, most prevalent among contemporary politicians and men of letters was, that the Letters were written by Mr Dyer, an original member of Johnson's Club, and an intimate friend of Burke, from whom the writer might have received some of his information, perhaps casually ; and from whose conversation the few but striking Burkisms, so much at variance with the general tenor of the style, might have overflowed into the mind of Dyer and almost insensibly dropped from his pen. A simple test ascertains the political connexion of Junius — the only circumstance which he could not disguise, because it could not he concealed ivithout defeating his general purpose. He supported the cause of authority against America — with Mr Grenville, the minister who passed the Stamp Act. He maintained the highest popular principles on the Middlesex Election — with the same statesman, who was the leader of opposition on that question. No other party in the kingdom hut the Grenvilles comhined these tico opinions ; and it is very unlikely, that a private writer, unpledged and unconnected, should have spontaneously embraced political doctrines, which, though ingenuity might recurrency 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.' ' To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine.' h*

XlV INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.

concile them in reasoning, were, in the disputes of that period, the opposite extremes.'

After these just remarks, this reviewer arrives at the following conclusion — ' Whoever revives the inquiry, therefore, unless he discovers positive and irresistible evidence in support of his claimant, should show him to be politically attached to the Grenville party ^ lohich Junius certainly was, and must also produce some specimens of his writings of tolerable length, such as might afford reasonable ground for believing, that he could have written these Letters — which must be allowed to be finished models, though not of the purest and highest sort of composition. The general vigor of a man's mental powers affords little more proof that he could be a good writer, than that he could be a great painter. There may indeed be evidence so positive, as will establish the truth of the supposition which appeared most improbable — as has actually happened in the case of the Iron Mask. But such possibilities must exist in all moral reasonings.'

On the present question, however, the reviewer justly adds, in a note to his article (p. 6), the following qualifications of his general conclusion — * It is not to be understood, that other persons may not have held opinions adverse to the cause of the Americans and favorable to that of Wilkes. The value of the criterion depends on the improbability, that, on the two most important questions which occurred for ten years, a writer of great ability should zealously, frequently, and for a long period, write in support of the popular side on one, and of the unpopular on the other, unless he, or those whom he supported, had been pledged to these opposite opinions, by measures of so public and decisive

INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. XV^

a nature as to cut off all retreat. It may be oberved also, that Junius, who is unfriendly to Lord Chatham in the beginning, loads that nobleman with panegyric, after he was reconciled to Lord Temple and Mr Grenville. There did, and perhaps there still does exist, a private letter from Junius to Mr Grenville, professing political attachment, and at the same time discouraging all attempts to pluck off his mask. Wilkes was originally Member for Aylesbury, and Lieutenant Colonel of the Bucks Militia, under Lord Temple. Hence the extravagantly disproportioned interest taken by Junius in every petty intrigue of alderman and sheriffs, which touched that celebrated adventurer. Though a few letters were written after the death of Mr Grenville, yet to that event and the dissolution of his jyarty, the cessation of Junius is to be attributed. In these circumstances, and others not yet publicly known, originated the supposition that Mr Lloyd was Junius. But some specimen of his writing is wanting to countenance that supposition. In the cases of Dyer and Francis, the two candidates of most plausible pretension, no proof has hitherto appeared of connexion loith the Grenville party. Some resemblance of style in Francis is a very inconsiderable argument ; for almost every contributor to a newspaper, during the twenty years which followed the Letters, was an imitator of Junius.' *

The justness of these reflections will be evident upon a careful attention to the facts exhibited in the following Letters ; and, to use the language of the science of demonstration, all the essential conditions of the problem will be satisfied. In order, however, that the ft.

* Edinburgh Review, ubi S7ij).

XVI INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.

reader may be possessed of the actual state of this curious and interesting question, it may be useful to take a brief review of the history of the Junius controversy. For, though every reader has a general knowledge of it, yet few persons, probably, have a sufficiently precise recollection of particulars to enable them to make any useful comparison of what has been written, or supposed to be discovered, with what is brought into view in the present publication. A very summary account of the principal claims, which have been made for different authors, will accordingly be here given.

On the first appearance of Junius's Letters, the attention of the public, as well as of the parties interested, was immediately directed to the discovery of an author, who discussed the gravest constitutional questions with an ability, which was equalled only by his remorseless severity and fearlessness in scanning the measures and private characters of the men, who directed the affairs of Great Britain at that period — not sparing even the sacred and inviolable majesty of the sovereign himself

The various claims, however, which have been made on behalf of the greater part of the supposed authors, may be disposed of without any difficulty ; even some which have been brought forward under the most plausible and imposing circumstances. In this class we may now place that, which has been lately renewed with so much earnestnestness, for Mr Charles Lloyd, who was at that period a clerk of the Treasury, and afterwards a deputy-teller of the Exchequer. Much importance has been attached to this claim, in consequence of the very decided opinion in its favor, which was long entertained, and was defended to the last with

INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. XVll

the most obstinate heroism, by that late eminent English scholar, Dr Parr — a claim, to which the authority of this venerated and remarkable man has given its chief consequence, but which will be examined in a subsequent part of our remarks, and, as we think, shown to be unsupported.

For the mere convenience of reference, the claims of the supposed authors will be here very briefly considered, in the alphabetical order of their respective names or titles.

1. Lord AsHBURTON, more familiarly known as Mr Dunning, the celebrated English lawyer, has been long suspected as the author of Junius. The most formal and express claim in his favor was made in the highly valuable, though now somewhat neglected, edition of Junius, published in London in 1801, under the name of ^ Robert Heron, Esquire,^ and reprinted in the United States in 1804, upon which some further remarks will be hereafter made. That editor says, in very guarded language — ' I believe myself to have nearly discovered who was certainly the author of these Letters. But I have, without entirely satisfying myself, protracted inquiries, and renewed my doubts, till the necessity of publication calls upon me to interrupt them with an imperiousness that is no longer to be resisted. I cannot now lay before the reader all the details of facts and circumstances on which my judgment is founded. The result I shall briefly state. The autlior of these Letters was no other than the celebrated Dunning, afterwards Lord Ashburton.'

This editor then proceeds to argue, but by no means on satisfactory grounds, that Lord Ashburton alone had those motives for attacking Lord Mansfield and the Duke

XVlll INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.

of Grafton, which certainly influenced the mind of Junius — that he alone possessed that knowledge of the constitutional law — that the nervous, epigrammatic cast of his speeches and pleadings had no mean resemblance to the style and manner of Junius — that he had those political connexions with different parties and individuals, which the letters imply — that he had the strongest reasons for concealing the authorship forever, on account of the favors received by him from the crown, &c.

In answer to this claim, however, it is justly observed in the Preliminary Essay to Woodfall's Junius — now well understood to have been written by Dr John Mason Good — that ' Dunning was Solicitor General at the time these Letters first appeared, and for more than a twelve-month afterwards ; and Junius himself has openly and solemnly affirmed — '' I am no lawyer hy profession; nor do I pretend to be more deeply read than every English gentleman should be in the laws of his country." Dunning was a man of high and unblemished honor, as well as of high independent principles ; it cannot therefore be supposed, that he would have vilified the king, while one of the king's confidential servants and counsellors ; nor would he as a barrister have written to Woodfall in the course of a confidential correspondence — '' I am advised^ that no jury will find a bill.'"*

To these remarks we may add, that Junius constantly manifests a fixed and by no means an affected contempt for the legal profession. In one of his letters to Mr Wilkes (Sept. 18, 1771), he says, with an earnest

* See, among other places, Junius's Preface ; Letters 14 and C8 ; Private Letters to Wilkes. Sent. 18. 1771. No 70.

INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. XJ]^

.<isire to repel the suspicion of his being one of that fraternity — ' Though I use the terms of art, do not injure me so much as to suspect I am a lawyer. I had as lief be a Scotchman. It is the encouragement given to disputes about titles, which has supported that iniquitous profession at the expense of the community.'* And in one of his letters to Lord Mansfield, he says in the same contemptuous strain — ' To investigate a question of law demands some labor and attention, though very little genius or sagacity. As a practical prof ession, the study of the law requires but a moderate portion of abilities. The learning of a pleader is usually on a level with his integrity t .... 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.'!

It is not easy in all cases to determine, how far we may safely draw a conclusion from the declarations made by an anonymous writer respecting himself; but we may, without much risk of error, assume it as a safe ground of argument, that it is next to impossible for a writer to put on a professional character, when it is not his real one, or to throw it off when it is, without betraying himself in his language or mode of thinking ; he cannot at all times be upon his guard. Now the declarations of Junius, that he was not a lawyer by profession, and his contemptuous opinions of the professors of the law, are consistently kept up throughout

* Woodfall's Junius, vol. ] , p. 812.

tit may be remarked, in passing, [that this term, pleader, appears to be here used rather in the popular than the professional sense.

t Junius, Letter 68.

3tX INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.

his letters ; they may therefore be assumed as truly indicating that he was not a lawyer.

From considerations of this kind, that eminent English jurist, Charles Butler, Esq. inferred, as he originally expressed himself, that Junius ' was not a profound lawyer, from the gross inaccuracy of his legal expressions ;' as when he says ' in his Dedication to the English nation,' the power of king, lords and commons is not an arbitrary power. They are the trustees, not the owners of the estate. The fee simple is in ws.' Now in all trusts of the inheritance, Mr Butler remarks, Uhe fee simple is in the trustees.' * This learned writer, in the second volume of his Reminiscences, expresses himself in still stronger terms, and does not merely suppose that Junius was not ' a profound' lawyer, but says, that a strong argument against his being ^ a lawyer' by profession, might be supported by the great inaccuracy of some of his legal expressions. He then quotes a second time, the inaccurate expression just cited. With that candor, however, which distinguishes his writings, he opposes to this argument a remark made to him by Burke on that point — ' Junius,' said Mr Burke in reply, * probably was thinking of those long terms for years, which you lawyers so dexterously carve out of the fee simple, while you leave the fee simple in possession of the owner.' On this same 'inaccuracy' of Junius, Mr Barker observes, * an intelligent legal friend thinks, that in that particular instance the mistake might have been made by a professional man, because many lawyers are much' less acquainted than Mr Butler is with the conveyancing department of the law.'t

* Butler's Reminiscences, vol. 1, p. 71, and Note, American edition. t Barker's Letters on the Authorship of Junius. London, 1828.

INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. XXI

But, whatever weight should be given to the inference drawn from this single expression of Junius (which is only one circumstance among many in the course of the work), the public is now in possession of one piece of evidence, from the family of Lord Ashburton, which is not to be lightly rejected. Mr Butler, in a letter to Mr Barker of the 14th of June, 1828, long subsequent to the publication of the Reminiscences, states the following facts : ' It was once mentioned to me, that the late Lady Ashburton produced a proof-impression of one of Junius's Letters, with corrections of the press in Mr Dunning's handwriting. This was afterwards explicitly confirmed by a letter from a person present, when Lady Ashburton produced the letter! Being well acquainted with the last Lord Ashburton, I informed his lordship of the tale, and requested his sentiments upon it. He disclaimed, with indignation, his father's authorship of the letters ; said, no such proof-impression had been found among his papers, and that he had never heard his mother mention anything of the kind. He stated other circumstances, which led him to think, that the story deserved no attention.' *

On an impartial review, then, of the evidence adduced in favor of the opinion expressed by Mr Heron and many others — that Lord Ashburton was the author of Junius, — we cannot resist the conclusion, that it is not supported.

2. Hugh Macaulay Boyd. It is justly remarked, in the Preliminary Essay to Woodfall's Junius, that 'of all the pretenders, however, to the honor of having written Junius, Hugh Macaulay Boyd has been brought forward with the most confidence.' He adds, * yet of all

* Baxker's Letters, preface, p. Ixiv. c

XXU INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.

of them, there is not one whose claims are more easily and completely refuted.' * Mr Butler, too, in a letter originally published in the Anti-Jacobin Review, and now republished in his Reminiscences, observes — ' As for Macaulay Boyd's being the author of Junius it is a perfect joke ; no two characters can be more perfectly unlike, than Boyd's and Junius's He must

have been very young, when Junius's letters were written. 't

The argument in favor of Boyd, as stated in Woodfall's Junius, rests principally upon ' three slender facts.' Boyd's imitation of the style of Junius — the suspicion of Almon the printer respecting his handwriting — and an anecdote of Lord Irnham, *in conjunction with a few others of a nature merely collateral, and which, when separated from them, prove nothing whatever ' — though these gentlemen [the advocates of Boyd] undertake to regard it as a moral certainty that Macaulay Boyd did write the letters of Junius.'

All these arguments have been, as we think, satisfactorily answered, at large, in the Preliminary Essay above cited. We shall here advert to but two or three of them.