Junius and his works compared with the character and writings of Philip Dormer Stanhope, earl of Chesterfield ...

Front matter

iV :^T

VSeft

3tfcS£ft it UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Chapter I

A very great degree of probability supported by various concurrent circumstances conspiring in one point, will have much greater weight with me than human testimony upon oath, or even upon honour. — Chesterfield.

The inquiry as to the authorship of the letters of Junius has lately been revived by Mr. Britton, whose name in the literary world will attract attention, although a more improbable hypothesis could scarcely have been imagined than that Lord Shelburne, Colonel Barre, and the Attorney- General Dunning were the junto engaged during five years in the composition of the letters of Junius.

There is, however, one part of Mr. Britton's inquiry that deserves attention, since it carries back the history of Junius to a period that will exclude many of the pretenders from the praise or blame of having written these brilliant epistles. Mr. Britton seems convinced that a letter published in 1760, addressed to " An Honourable Brigadier General," was from the pen of Junius.

" In the language, style, and sentiments of the anonymous letter to General Townshend," says Mr. Britton, " there is a most remarkable and extraordinary coincidence with the Letters of Junius. So striking, indeed, is the resemblance not only in particular phrases and expressions and in isolated passages, but in the style, diction, energy, spirit, and character of the entire composition, that there can scarcely be a doubt the writer was the author, not only of the letters which from 1767 to 1769 appeared in the Public Advertiser under the signatures of Atticus, Lucius, Brutus, Poplicola, &c, but also of the unparalleled effusions which were published in the same journal from 1769 to 1772 with the memorable signature of Junius.

" This resemblance was pointed out in 1817 by a person who had only read some extracts from the "Letter to a Brigadier General" which had appeared in the Gentleman's Magazine. Under the name of Phil-Urbanus, he expressed his strong opinion in the same periodical that if the author of the Letter to a Brigadier General should be known, it would be no difficult task to set at rest the inquiry after the author of the letters of Junius. The hint thus given does not appear to have been followed up, but in 1840 the pamphlet now referred to happened to come under the notice of Mr. N. W. Simons, of the Library of the British Museum. Not knowing that Phil-Urbanus had taken the same view three and twenty years before, Mr. Simons, on reading this obscure and forgotten work, was immediately and forcibly impressed with its analogy in style to the letters of Junius, and its consequent importance as affording a possible clue to the discovery of their author. That gentleman was himself well qualified by previous study of the writings of Junius, to form an opinion on this subject; and that opinion being confirmed by several friends of literary eminence he was induced, in the year 1841, to reprint the " Letter," as well as the " Refutation" of it, appending to them some valuable original remarks, tending, firstly, to prove that the "Letter" was really from the pen of Junius, and, secondly, to refute the opinion that Sir Philip Francis was the author of the letters with that signature.

" In addition to Mr. Simons and Phil-Urbanus, it is stated by another writer in the Gentleman's Magazine (July, 1843), that an individual then recently deceased, who had only seen the extracts from the pamphlet of 1760, had not only come to the same conclusion of its identity of authorship with the letters of Junius, but, previously to the illness which terminated his life, was preparing for the press a statement of his opinion. Thus three several parties, entirely unconnected with each other, after reading either the whole Letter or extracts from it, had arrived at the conviction that it was an early production of the great and unknown

English political satirist, and Mr. Simon's reprint has since induced many other persons to adopt the same opinion."

Now, if it be generally admitted that the " Letter to an Honourable Brigadier General" was written by Junius, and it should be found that the proofs of authorship are in every particular applicable to Lord Chesterfield, the evidence obtained from so unbiassed a source cannot fail, on the outset of this inquiry, to make a strong impression.

But, before we enter upon the subject of this letter, we would remove an unfavourable impression that has, perhaps, prejudiced many against listening to the supposition that Lord Chesterfield could sustain the character of Junius. In the enumeration of the forthcoming attempts to elucidate this interesting question, Mr. Britton has referred to " An Essay preparing by a gentleman in Sussex, intended to show that the polite Earl of Chesterfield was the author of the letters."

If the epithet here given to Lord Chesterfield be meant to expose the absurdity of such an hypothesis, the writer should have recollected that the most distinguished trait in the character of the stern patriot was his extreme politeness. On no point did Junius appear to be more sensible to reproof than on those occasions when, in his indignation, he for a moment forgot the suaviter hi modo which so peculiarly pervades his bitterest invectives.* Scarcely had he attracted the attention of the public when he acquired, even from his adversaries, the epithets elegant, accomplished, said polite. His good breeding seldom forsook him. When called a liar and a scoundrel, he replied in the most courteous language, and by lively sarcasm or polished reproof brought disgrace upon his opponents. The lessons which Junius gave to Sir William Draper on good breeding, afford strong proofs of the polished manners and self control of the writer.

" Touched with your generosity, I freely forgive the excesses into which it has led you ; and far from resenting those terms of reproach which, considering that you are an advocate for decorum, you have heaped upon me rather too liberally, I place them to the

* In these altercations nothing can be more useful than to preserve dignity and sangfroid. Fortiter in re suaviter in modo increases both the force and the severity. — Junius to Wilkes.

This maxim is inculcated throughout the letters of Lord Chesterfield to his son. — See more particularly letter 213.

account of an honest, unreflecting indignation, in which your coolef judgment, and natural politeness had no concern. * *

The last charge of the neglect of the army, is, indeed, the most material of all. I am sorry to tell you, Sir William, that in this article your first fact is false ; and, as there is nothing more painful to me than to give a direct contradiction to a gentleman of your appearance, I could wish that in your future publications you would pay a greater attention to the truth of your premises before you suffer your genius to hurry you to a conclusion."

Such was the language of Junius to the man who had called him a liar and a wretch*

The answer of Junius to another of his opponents is still more characteristic.

" The sophistry of your letter in defence of Lord Mansfield is adapted to the character you defend. But Lord Mansfield is a man of form, and seldom in his behaviour transgresses the rules of decorum.* I shall imitate his lordship's good manners, and leave you in full possession of his principles. I will not call you liar, Jesuit, or villian, but, with all the politeness imaginable, per* haps I may prove you so."

The abuse which Junius incurred by his defence of Sir Jeffrey Amherst is thus coolly replied to in the postscript to a letter under the signature Lucius.

" A friend of mine has taken the pains to collect a number of the epithets with which Lord Hillsborough has been pleased to honour me in the course of our correspondence. I shall lay them before the public in one view as a specimen of his lordship's urbanity and singular condescension.

1. Wretched scribbler,

2. Worthless fellow.

3. Vile incendiary.

4. False Ymx<—in opposition to a true one.

5. Snarler.

6. Contemptible thing.

7. Abandoned tool of opposition and diabolical miscreant.

8. Impudent scurrilous wretch.

* Lord Chesterfield may be said to have brought this word into general use by his paper in the World, No. 189. Works, vol. ii,, p. 299. It frequently occurs in the letters of Junius.

9. Rascal and scoundrel passim.

10. Barking cur, by way of distinction from

" To all of which I shall only say, that his lordship's arguments are upon a level with his politeness."

Home Tooke, affecting to be disgusted with the refinement of Junius, invidiously observed — "You make frequent use of the word gentleman. I only call myself a man, and desire no other distinction."

Even the patriot Wilkes gave singular proofs of the ascendancy which the highly cultivated mind of Junius had obtained over him. This idol of the people humbled himself to the dust before Junius, and was prepared to kneel to and worship " the unknown god of politics." Yet he, too, was impressed with an idea of the personal accomplishments of the writer.

" How happy should I be to see my Portia here dance a grace* ful minuet with Junius Brutus, but Junius is inexorable, and I submit."*

The answer to this offer is well known. It carries with it in tone and feeling the regret of one who could no longer shine in public assemblies. " Many thanks," says Junius, " for your obliging offer ; but, alas ! my age and figure would do but little credit to my partner. I acknowledge the relation between Cato and Portia, but in truth I see no connection between Junius and a minuet."

As this letter was private, the writer can hardly be supposed to have intended to deceive Wilkes as to his age and infirmities. If Wilkes had not been impressed with the popular notion that Junius was one of the active politicians of the day, he might have gleaned from the peculiar turn of expression, and the delicate flattery of the man who had formerly abused him, that Lord Chesterfield alone possessed the art to persuade him to forget the injuries he had received from the pen of Junius.

This is the fair outline of the character of Junius, which, in portraits of the dead, is too commonly overlooked. Let us now turn to the darker lineaments by which Junius is generally recog-

* Wilkes, in the hope, probably, of discovering his correspondent, had offered Junius tickets for the Lord Mayor's ball.— See Wood/all's Junius, vol, 1,2?. 325.

nised. In these features may also be traced a striking resemblance to Lord Chesterfield ; the following unfavourable portrait of his lordship was drawn by a political opponent : —

" Lord Chesterfield was allowed by everybody to have more conversable entertaining table-wit than any man of his time. His propensity to ridicule, in which he indulged himself with infinite humour and no distinction, and with inexhaustible spirits and no discretion, made him sought and feared, liked and not loved by most of his acquaintance ; no sex, no relation, no rank, no power, no profession, no friendship, no obligation, was a shield from those pointed, glittering weapons, that seemed to shine only to a standerby, but cut deep in those they touched. All his acquaintance were indifferently the objects of his satire, and served promiscuously to feed his voracious appetite for abuse that made him fall on everything that came in his way, and treat every one of his companions in rotation at the expense of the rest/' * * * " He

never considered what was true or false, but related everything in which he had no interest just as his imagination suggested it would tell best ; and if by sinking, adding, or altering any circumstance, it served either the purpose of his interest, his vanity, or his enmity, he would dress it up in that fashion without any scruple, and oftentimes with as little probability ; by which means as much as he piqued himself on being distinguished for his wit, he often gave people a greater opinion of the copiousness of his invention, and the futility of his imagination than he desired." He was," says this noble author, " abominably given to fable."* 1

The style of Lord Chesterfield's compositions as described by Lord Hervey, forcibly reminds the reader of the prevailing characteristics of Junius's writings.

" Lord Chesterfield's memoirsf will have a great deal of wit in them, but you will see in every page he resolves to be witty ; every

* Hervey's Memoirs, vol. 1, p. 95, 98.

f These Memoirs were either destroyed by Lord Chesterfield or have been withheld from the public. The Bishop of Waterford, his chaplain and friend, expressed his surprise that nothing should have been found among the late Earl's papers concerning the history of his own times. His Lordship, he says, repeated to him more than once that he was writing it as far as his memory, which was a good one, would furnish him with matter, and Lord S., whose mother was first cousin to Lord Chesterfield, assured the Bishop, as having it from Sir Wm. Stanhope, that one day upon his brother's showing him his manuscripts, he had told him that by his will he had left him the publication of them ; and then added, "publish them as soon as you dare."

paragraph mil be an epigram. His style for short treatises is excellent; but in a long work all that labour and polishing he bestows on every thing he writes will appear stiff and tiresome. Correction will be wanting ; and that want of transition which is so pardonable when it proceeds from haste or a little negligence in running quick from one subject to another, will have an abrupt air and a disagreeable broken effect in such a constrained, studied style, that it has not in writings of a looser and more natural sort."

Junius has, in one of his letters, styled himself Bifrons, and as a polished courtier and vindictive satirist, it must be owned he maintained with inimitable skill the duplicity of character which, by that signature, he had inadvertently assumed.

Having, it is hoped, removed any prejudice that might be entertained on the score of Lord Chesterfield's frivolity of character, we shall resume the subject of this Chapter, and lay before the reader the circumstances which tend to prove that his lordship was the writer of the letter to Brigadier General Townshend.

The first question that the reader will ask in order to satisfy himself that this Letter might have been written by Lord Chesterfield, will be, — what motives could induce his lordship to write such a letter ? m

To answer this inquiry it will be necessary to refer to his lordship's connection with the Court, and with the parties eulogised or condemned in the letter to Lord Townshend.

The parties eulogised, or presumed to be on friendly terms with the writer, are —

Prince Ferdinand,

The Earl of Albemarle,

General Wolfe,

The Marquis of Granby,

M. De Bourgainville.

The persons condemned are—

The King,

Lord Townshend,

Lord Geo. Sackville, »

And the Scots.

With regard to the first of these parties, it may be observed that Prince Ferdinand was one of the few who had not slighted

12 JtitflUS AND LORD TOWNSHEND.

Mr. Stanhope on the score of his illegitimacy. General Wolfe was emphatically styled the friend of Mr. Stanhope. The father of Lord Albemarle was the earliest patron of Mr. Stanhope, and till his death on terms of great intimacy with Lord Chesterfield.* As regards M. de Bourgainville, his name is only once introduced ; but his friendship! for Lord Chesterfield will account for the accuracy of some of the facts detailed in the '* Letter." The conduct of Junius some years later towards the Marquis of Granby will be considered in another part of this work. Thus it will be seen that four, at least, of thefve heroes eulogised by the writer were either friends of Lord Chesterfield or of Mr. Stanhope, whose disappointed ambition is now supposed to have given rise to this extraordinary letter to Lord Townshend.

It would not be surprising if, after the lapse of more than three-quarters of a century, no motive could be assigned to Lord Chesterfield for undertaking this anonymous publication. Those who have endeavoured to obtain materials for a memoir of his lordship's life and times, have in every instance been obstructed in their research. His correspondence has been mutilated or destroyed ; his most interesting lucubrations suppressed ; and access has been denied to those records wherein his fame might have been established.:!; But as we have entered more fully into these extraordu nary [iroceedings in another place, we shall confine ourselves to the proof that Lord Chesterfield had at this time sufficient cause to be dissatisfied with the parties stigmatised in the letter. *

In the year 1759, Lord Chesterfield had obtained a promise that his son should have the honour of investing Prince Ferdinand with the Order of the Garter, intended to be conferred on His Serene Highness for his success at Minden.§ This promise Lord Chesterfield flattered himself he had secured, but his expec-

* The correspondence between Lord Albemarle and Lord Chesterfield has never been published.

t M. de Bourgainville was the gentleman through whose interest Lord Chesterfield was elected a member of the Academy of Belles Lettres.

% See Quarterly Review, vol. LXXVL, p. 461.

§ 4 4 You did well to think of Prince Ferdinand's riband, which I confess I did not, and 1 am glad to find you thinking so far before hand. It would be a pretty commission, and I will accingere me to procure it you." — Letter to his son, Nov. 21st, 1758.

" Prince Ferdinand of Brunswick is most certainly to have the Garter, and I have secured you the honour of putting it on. When I say secured, I mean tations were disappointed either by some intrigue of parties, or by the obduracy of the King. Whether Lord Townshend and Lord Geo. Sackvilie were the persons who, by indirect means, through the machinations of the Princess Dowager of Wales and Lord Bute, thwarted the views of Lord Chesterfield, remains a secret. But the bare suing for this honour for Mr. Stanhope was sufficient to irritate Lord G. Sackvilie, and to induce him to counterwork the ambitious project of Lord Chesterfield. The conduct of the new Court to both parties, sometime after the publication of the anonymous Letter, strengthens the supposition that Lord George Sackvilie was the concealed enemy who deprived Mr. Stanhope of the honour he had so ardently coveted. The " Letter'' was published in the Summer, 1760.* Geo. II. died on the 26th Oct. following, and the meeting between Lord Townshend and Lord Albemarle took place the second week of the new reign. An interval, therefore, of two months had elapsed before there was any stir respecting the " Letter," and the secret seems to have transpired at the critical moment when Lord Geo. Sackvilie was compelled to forego the honours designed him by Lord Bute and his Sovereign.

" Two days after his present Majesty's accession, the Earl of Bute was, with the King's eldest brother, introduced into the Privy Council. Scarce was the ink dry which had marked his name upon the Council Book when, although no minister himself, yet he assumed a magisterial air of authority and began to give law in the court, and to show not only with what contempt he meant to treat the memory and conduct of the deceased monarch, but his dislike of the measures which were then, and had for some time been pursued, and in order to affront the ministers and the allied army, he invited to Court, while the late King lay dead it in the sense in which that word should always be understood at Courts, and that is insecurely ; I have a promise, but that is not caution bourgeoise. In all events do not mention it to any mortal, because there is always a degree of ridicule that attends a disappointment, though often very unjustly if the expectation was reasonably grounded." — Dec. 15, 1758.

* Prince Ferdinand was installed on the 6th May, 1760. Lord Chesterfield was not among the Knights who attended on that occasion. His feelings as a fath t and his resentment against the Court may reasonably be supposed to have counterbalanced the respect due to Prince Ferdinand. The Prince was installed by proxy, which would remove any scruples Lord Chesterfield might have in absenting himself from the ceremony.

14 JUNIUS AND LOKD TOWNSHEND.

in his palace, the only unpopular man at that time in the kingdom, who, but a few months before, had been degraded from his rank for a disobedience of orders when in the service of his country. He was, indeed, admitted to kiss hands, but the true friends of the honour of the Crown, and those who laid the foundation of all that glory which the army had acquired, and of that spirit which might have given law to the world, remonstrated so firmly against it that he was forced to abscond and never presume again, during Mr. Pitt's administration, to show his face at St. James's." — Hist, of the Minority, p. 10.

The mortification that Lord Geo. Sackville was compelled to submit to through the influence of Mr. Pitt and the Duke of Newcastle, appears to have been retaliated on Lord Chesterfield on his Jirst and only appearance at the Court of George the Third. An isolated letter from the correspondence of Lord Chesterfield to Dr. Dodd, affords strong evidence that his lordship had not been graciously received by the neAV Sovereign. The letter is dated July 19, 1766.

"Sir, — I will not begin this letter with the common-place expression of, ' I should be glad to serve you were I able,' which is much oftener a civil denial than a pledge of services really intended to be performed, but I hope you will give a juster and more favourable interpretation to the assurance of my good' wishes for you, however unavailing. As for any direct application from me to the King, it is utterly impossible. I have made my court but once to him since he came to the Crown, and that was in the first week, since when I have never seen his face, and probably he has never heard my name. Moreover, it would be ivholly useless to you for reasons ivhich I will tell you ivhen I have the pleasure to see you next. If you think that my writing to Lord Hertford in your behalf can be of any service to you (which I do not think it can), I shall very readily do it, and if the Duke of Newcastle should retain the ecclesiastical department I will apply to him, and not without some hopes of success, but further this deponent saith not, because further is not in his power."*

The Duke of Newcastle till within a twelvemonth of his death continued to interest himself in politics and to interfere with the

* See Preface to Letters by Lord Chesterfield to Arthur Charles Stanhope* Esq.

intrigues of parties. In 1767 he held meetings with the opposition members at his house at Clermont, and in town.* 4 When he died, he appears to have bequeathed to Lord Chesterfield (who was his junior by a year) the spirit of opposition to the Duke of Grafton's administration, for there is reason to believe that about this time Lord Chesterfield was enlightened by his former colleague upon many of the mysteries and secrets of the two reigns, and that he had obtained from his Grace a knowledge of the parties who had for so many years obstructed the preferment of Mr. Stanhope. Such an acquaintance could not fail to be of great service to Junius in his earlier letters.

In corroboration that Lord Chesterfield did not meet with a very cordial reception at Court, we shall here introduce an anecdote recorded in Walpole's Memoirs of Geo. III.

" Sir William Stanhope, brother of Lord Chesterfield, a man of not less wit and of more ill nature than his elder, said he would not go to court for fear of the itch, which would make him go to the Princess's court for brimstone."

It is well known that a perfectly good understanding always existed between Lord Chesterfield and his brother, and that any affront to his lordship would not fail to be resented by Sir William Stanhope. Whether the discovery that Chesterfield was the author of this letter, or the disappointment that his lordship experienced on introducing his son at court, was the cause of the two brothers withdrawing their attendance is uncertain, but it is probable that the conduct of Geo. III. towards Mr. Stanhope gave the first offence.

In the autumn of 1759, Mr. Stanhope was preparing to leave Hamburgh for England, evidently with a view of obtaining preferment, the hope of which was probably held out to Lord Chesterfield by the ministers of Geo. II. as a compensation for the disappointment he had recently suffered in the affair of Prince Ferdinand. Lord Chesterfield thus counsels his son on this occasion : —

" Give no mortal,\ either there or here, reason to think that you are not to return to Hamburgh again. If you are asked about

* Account of a Conference Political Register, vol. 1, p. 201.

t Change to the Somerset Coffee House and let no mortal know the alteration. — Junius, private letter, vol. I, p. 231.

16 JUNIUS AND LOUD TOWNSHEND.

it say, like Lockhart, that you are le serviteur des he'nemens, for your present appointments will do you no hurt till you have some better destination."

It does not appear, however, that Lord Chesterfield's interest was sufficient to obtain the object intended by Mr. Stanhope's return to England in 1759. Nor did his son succeed in regaining any employment until Mr. GrenvilWs administration in 1763, when he was appointed envoy extraordinary to the Diet at Ratisbon. Even a seat in parliament was with difficulty obtained for him in 1761, and this he was induced to resign in 1764, and was never after allowed to have a seat in that assembly.

The Letter sets out with a most extraordinary confession, and in a style that at first sight does not appear consistent either with the character of Junius or of Lord Chesterfield.

" Sir, — In my religious doubts I apply to the divinity of Dr. Whitefield, in any theatrical difficulties I consult the canonical criticisms* of a certain Right Reverend, and in my polite misadventures the physician of Ludgate Hill is my celer atque Jidelis, secret and speedy. To whom, therefore, shall I appeal in any military doubts but to the man whom fortune, that never erring judge of merit, in one short campaign made a soldier, a general, and a commander-in-chief?"

Note. — In the errata, for soldier we are directed to read colonel.

Few readers would suppose that any instance of gross indelicacy would escape from the pen of Lord Chesterfield, much less would one expect to find similar deviations from propriety in any writings attributed to Junius, for on every occasion under that signature Junius has evinced a scrupulous regard to decorum : but even in this particular the unknown writer betrayed himself. This will be seen by referring to the lines prefixed to Lord Northington's character (Woodfall's Junius, vol. II., p. 483), and the use to which certain papers were destined that were laid before the House of Peers by Lord Mansfield, vol. III., p. 290. For parallel passages in Lord Chesterfield's writings, the reader is

* This rough manner of treating a man of letters implies perhaps more zeal than knowledge, at least I never met with it among the canons of criticism. — Chesterfield to Major Irvine.

JTJNITJS AND LORD TOWNSHEND. 17

referred to the Suffolk Letters, vol. II, p. 117, and to his lordship's Miscellaneous works, vol. II, p. 127.

Instances of still greater indelicacy might he pointed out in the letters of Junius, and in the acknowledged productions of Lord Chesterfield, but with the examples before us the allusion to the Physician of Ludgate Hill will no longer appear inconsistent either with the character of Junius or of Lord Chesterfield.

The ironical confession of the writer's faith in the divinity of Dr. Whitefield is also characteristic* as well as the reflection on the Right Rev. Dr. Warburton for his canonical criticisms, hut perhaps the most remarkable proof that Lord Chesterfield was the writer of this paragraph is to be found in the note containing the sarcasm that Lord Townshend was a colonel but no soldier.

In 1734, when a motionf was made relating to the removal of the Duke of Bolton and Lord Cobham, the Duke of Argyle, who opposed the motion, observed " I am surprised to hear so much noise made about the removal of two lords from their commands in the army. It is true there have been two lords removed but only one soldier."

It is well known that Lord Chesterfield seconded this motion and spoke warmly in favour of his two friends. It was while opposing his lordship on this occasion that the Duke of Argyle made use of this sarcastic distinction, and there can be little doubt that it made a deep impression on the mind of Lord Chesterfield. J We

* We are told by Horace Walpole that Lord Chesterfield was once induced to attend the conventicle of Dr. Whitefield, and no doubt his lordship's reverence for that enthusiast was about as sincere as the occasional professions of his faith in the doctrines of the established church.