This publication received the support of a Field Development Grant awarded by the Research Society for Victorian Periodicals from the bequest of the Eileen Curran estate.
The Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) Licence applies to this document.
From Edinburgh Review vol. 29, November 1817, p. 94-114.
The A Question of Style project's aim is to gain new insights on the writing and editorial practices of the Edinburgh Review during the editorship of Francis Jeffrey. The Edinburgh Review was the main literary journal in early nineteenth-century Britain. It reviewed the most significant publications in literature, history, politics and science and its contributors included some of the most prominent figures of the age. Authors believed that a review from the Edinburgh Review could make or break the fortunes of a publication. Style focuses on the period 1814-1820 and employs methods from periodical studies, book history, computational linguistics and computational stylistics. It was awarded the inaugural Field Development Grant by the Research Society for Victorian Periodicals from the bequest of the Eileen Curran estate.
Manual curation assisted by semi-automated scripts.
All soft end of line hyphenations within a page have been removed, and the word consolidated on its first line. Associated punctuation moved too.
Where a word breaks over a page, the page break has been recorded with the
None - we need the original spellings.
Has been retained, with superfluous surrounding spaces removed.
All quotation marks converted to their simple equivalent, prime or double prime accordingly.
Marks that begin each line of a multi-line quotation have been removed.
Marks within
Punctuation within quotations is recorded inside block
THE question respecting the author of Junius's Letters, is thought, we believe, by
philosophers, to be one of more curiosity than importance. We are very far from pretending
that the happiness of mankind is materially interested in its determination; or that it
involves any great and fundamental scientific truths. But it must be viewed as a point of
literary history; and, among discussions of this description, it ranks very high. After
all, are there many points of civil or military history really more interesting to persons
living in the present times? Is the
During the last two or three years, a number of tracts have appeared upon this much
agitated question. One ascribes the Letters to Glover, the author of Leonidas; another, to
some obscure person, whose name we have forgotten. By far the most ridiculous, however, is a
series of letters, to show that Junius was none other than the late Duke of Portland,— upon
the sole ground that the letters betray an interest in the famous question respecting the
honour of Inglewood Forest, which occupied at that time every man who talked or wrote upon
politicks, and without the shadow of proof that his Grace ever wrote a sentence, either
elegant or forcible, in his life. We ought perhaps to observe, that a more absurd doctrine
than even this, was once seriously maintained; for some one was found to contend, in a
printed book, that Delolme was Junius,— his pretensions to the name being grounded,
probably, upon the admitted facts of his being a foreigner, an extremely feeble writer, and
one unconscionably ignorant of most constitutional points; and of his having, for the
To urge any thing against such claims as these, would be wasting the time of the reader.
But it may be well to remind him, before proceeding further, that the various hypotheses,
which have ascribed the Letters to men of great genius and fame—to Lord Chatham,
Dunning,
We must premise, as this is in some sort a personal question, that we have undertaken to state the argument, without the slightest feeling of disrespect towards the distinguished individual who forms the subject of it. We may add, that we are equally uninfluenced by any idea of doing him honour. If there be any thing in the Letters of Junius which Sir Philip Francis would now wish unwritten, or if he conceives any imputation to be flung upon his conduct in very early life, by the assumption that he was the author, surely the most stern moralist may well be appeased, by the lapse of half a century spent in the undeviating pursuit of the publick good, and the virtuous sacrifice of all personal interests; while, on the other hand, the high rank in which those services have placed him among the patriots of his age, and the almost unbounded praise which his talents have called forth from those judges to whom a wise man would chiefly look, render it a matter of indifference to his fame, whether or not he enjoys the more general, and perhaps vulgar, celebrity which belongs to the name of Junius.
To the greater number of readers, the first question that presents itself is, Whether Sir
Philip Francis has ever shown the eminent talents displayed in Junius's Letters? However
high his reputation may be in the political world, there is no one avowed production of his
which has attracted much popular, or permanent notice, or is at present familiar to public
recollection; and he has therefore shared the fate of many able men whose time has been
devoted to the business of the world, and whose labour, chiefly bestowed upon subjects
connected with their pursuits, has left no lasting monuments of their skill in composition.
So it has fared with Sir Philip Francis. His contemporaries well knew him to be one of the
best writers of the age; but his writings consisted chiefly of minutes, protests, speeches
and pamphlets, which have long since ceased to interest the world at large, and are only
known to political men, or curious inquirers into the details of modern history. We shall
therefore begin the argument, by presenting a few specimens of his composition, sufficient
to justify the assertion, that the author of Junius, whoever he may be, was not a person of
greater talents than Sir Philip Francis. The proof drawn from similarity of expressions will
be further strengthened in the se
It belongs to the learning of these gentlemen to involve, and to their
prudence not to decide.
In the name of God and common sense, what have we gained by
consulting these learned persons! It is really a strange thing, but it is certainly true,
that the learned gentlemen on that side of the House, let the subject be what it may,
always begin their speeches with a panegyric on their own integrity. You expect learning,
and they give you morals; you expect law, and they give-you ethics; you ask them for
bread, and they give you a stone. In point of honour and morality, they are undoubtedly on
a level with the rest of mankind. But why should they pretend to more? Why should they
insist on taking the lead in morality? Why should they so perpetually insist upon their
integrity, as if that were the objection in limine; as if that were the point in
question; as if that were the distinguishing characteristic, the prominent feature of the
profession? Equality is their right. I allow it. But that they have any just pretensions
to a superior morality, to a pure and elevated probity, to a frank, plain, simple, candid,
unrefined integrity, beyond other men, is what I am not convinced of, and never will
admit. On my principles, however, the damage we have suffered is not. very great. In
attending to this learned gentleman, we have lost nothing but our time; we have wasted
nothing but our patience. The question before us may easily, and can only be determined by
ourselves. p. 175, 176.
The following passage is from a speech delivered in 1796.
If I could personify the
House of Commons, it would be my interest as well as my duty to approach so great a person
with the utmost respect. But respect does not exclude firmness, and should not restrain me
from saying, that it is the function of your greatness, as well as of your office, to
listen to truth, especially when it arraigns a proceeding of your own. I am not here to
admire your consistency, or to applaud the conduct which I am endeavouring to correct.
These topics do not furnish any subject for applause. You have nothing like praise to
expect from me; unless you feel, as I do, that a compliment of the highest order is
included in the confidence which appeals to your justice against your inclination. p.
247.
The following attack upon Lord Thurlow has been much and justly admired.
It was
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
These, though extracted from Speeches, are really specimens of Sir Philip Francis's manner
of writing; since they were all printed from his own manuscript. We shall add, however, one
passage from a letter or discourse, sent, like those of Junius, to
Who
is there so ignorant, as not to know that the prerogatives of the Crown are not vested for
his own sake in the person who wears it, but to insure the execution of his office; and
then I ask, what power has the constitution reserved to any set of men to strip the Crown
of those prerogatives, or even to qualify or impair them? Show it if you can, and produce
your evidence. In a case of such importance, I will not submit to authority, and, least of
all, to the authority of a party, which perhaps means or expects to benefit by the
decision. They, who can wholly refuse, may grant upon conditions. The Lords may say, you
shall make no more Peers. The Commons may say, you shall have no power to dissolve us. The
Ministers of course will not submit to be dispossessed; and this is the executive
government, which they are willing to establish in the prince's hands. Before they decide,
let them make the case their own. Do they mean to admit that the king, uniting with a
convention of the peers, could abolish the House of Commons, or even divest them of any
one of their privileges? Could the King and the Commons, I will not say abolish the House
of Lords, but could they take away their jurisdiction in the last resort, or in trials by
impeachment? &c.— I am not talking of desperate or extreme cases. Necessity,
unavoidable and irresistible, must be left to provide for itself. True wisdom even then
will do nothing beyond what the instant exigency requires, and will return as soon as
possible to its regular established courses. Neither do I deny the power of the people to
do what they will. Undoubtedly they may tear down their temples and tribunals, and murder
their teachers and their magistrates. They have a physical force to abolish their laws,
and to trample on the institutions of their forefathers. But, remember; the man who pulled
down the building, and buried himself in its ruins, was blind as well as strong. The
quality of an immoral act is not altered, the guilt of an enormous crime is not
diminished, by the numbers that concur in it. The moment the people did these things, they
would cease to be a nation. To destroy their constitution is beyond their competence. It
is the inheritance of the unborn as well as theirs. What we received from our ancestors,
we are morally and religiously bound, as well as by our laws, to transmit to our
posterity. Of such enormous violence on the part of the people, I know there is no danger.
Will they suffer any other power to do that in their name, which they cannot and ought not
to do for themselves? I heard it from Lord Chatham, 'that power without right is the
Now, 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 can 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.
These, however, are general indications, and could lead to no positive conclusion: But
there are many particular circumstances of a personal and historical nature, that go much
further to make out the proposition contended for. The first of these is the exactness with
which the dates of the Letters tally with Sir Philip Francis's residence in this country,
and his going abroad. In Biographical Memoirs, understood to have been drawn up by a person
connected with him, it is stated, that Sir Philip spent the greatest part of the year 1772
on the Continent. Now, the last letter of Junius in that year is dated May 12th, and was
received by Woodfall two days before. Sir Philip's dismissal from the War Office is
announced in one of the Letters of Veteran, (a name under which Woodfall has shown that
Junius then wrote), dated March 23d; and some time must naturally have elapsed before he
set out. A letter of Junius, dated in May, mentions his having been out of town; and, in
point of fact, he wrote nothing from March 23d to May 4th. Sir Philip's father was then ill
at Bath; and it is most probable that he went to see him before going abroad. From the
above mentioned notice in the Memoirs, it appears that he must have returned at the end of
1772, or early in 1773, provided we are satisfied that he went abroad in May: for it is
there stated, thatabout half a year after his return
he was recommended
as one of the new council at Fortwilliam: Now, the act appointing the council passed in
June 1773;—which tallies with the supposition of his arrival having been in the month of
December or January preceding. Keeping these facts in view, it is very important to remark,
that the first letter received by Woodfall from Junius, after the letter of May 1772, is
dated January 19th, 1773. This, too, was also the last letter which he ever wrote. The
appointment of Sir Philip Francis to India was, either then or soon after, in agitation;
for it was finally arranged before June. Now, the sup
It is known that Sir Philip was a clerk in the War-Office from 1763 to 1772; and Junius
evinces a peculiar acquaintance with, and interest in, the business and the persons of that
department. As some of those persons are obscure individuals compared with the distinguished
objects of his ordinary attacks, a very strong presumption arises from hence, that the
anonymous writer was himself connected with the Office; and the familiar tone in which they
are mentioned, greatly strengthens the conclusion. We shall principally advert to what he
says of Mr Bradshaw, ,Mr Chamier, and Mr D'Oyley. Junius, in the 36th letter of the common
edition, dwells at some length upon Bradshaw's pension, and speaks of him in terms
indicative of considerable personal animosity. In a note, he says, he was too cunning
to trust Irish security
. He gives a sketch of his history, tracing him from his
beginning, as a clerk to a contractor for forage
,—to his being
exalted to a petty post in the War-office
,—and sarcastically remarking,
that, upon his subsequent promotion, he thought it necessary to take the great house in
Lincoln's Inn Fields, where the Lord Chancellor Worthington had resided. In the 57th letter,
he is called the Duke of Grafton's cream-coloured parasite
; and in the
letters signed Domitian and Veteran, published by Woodfall, he is familiarly mentioned as
Tommy Bradshaw
, the cream-coloured Mercury
, whose sister,
Miss Polly, like the moon, lives upon the light of her brother's countenance, and
robs him of no smell part of his lustre.
drawn his intelligence from the first
source, and not the common falsities of the day
that well-educated genteel young broker, Mr Chamier
. A scene is figured
between Lord Barrington his patron, and a general officer, in which every kind of ridicule
is thrown upon Chamier. He is called Tony Shammy
—Little Shammy
—a tight active little fellow
—a little gambling broker
—Little Wad
—my
duckling
—little three per cents, reduced
—a mere scrip
of a secretary
—an omnium of all that's genteel
—with many
other coarse and scurrilous appellations. No less than four letters are addressed to Lord
Barrington in the bitterest tone of invective, in consequence of Chamier's promotion; and it
appears that his relationship with Bradshaw is one of the chief grounds of attack upon the
latter; and whoever reads the following, which comes after these, will be at no loss to
divine the cause of all the hostility, upon the supposition that they are written by Sir P. Francis.
I desire you will inform the public that the worthy Lord Barrington, not
contented with having driven Mr D'Oyly out of the War-office, has at last contrived to
expel Mr FRANCIS. His lordship will never rest till he has cleared his office of every
gentleman who can either be serviceable to the public, or whose honour and integrity are a
check upon his own dark proceedings. Men, who do their duty with credit and ability, are
not proper instruments for Lord Barrington to work with. He must have a broker from
'Change Alley for his deputy, and some raw, ignorant boy for his first clerk. I think the
public have a right to call upon Mr D'Oyly and Mr FRANCIS to declare their reasons for
quitting the War-office. Men of their unblemished character do not resign lucrative
employments without some sufficient reasons. The conduct of these gentlemen has always
been approved of; and I know that they stand as well in the esteem of the army, as any
persons in their station ever did. What then can be the cause that the public and the army
should be deprived of their service? There must certainly be something about Lord
Barrington which every honest man dreads and detests. Or is it that they cannot be brought
to connive at his jobs and underhand dealings? They have too much honour, I suppose, to
do some certain business by commission. They have not been educated in the conversation of
Jews and gamblers;—they have had no experience at Jonathan's;—they know nothing of the
stocks; and therefore Lord Barrington drives them out of the War-office. The army indeed
is come to a fine pass, with a gambling broker at the head of it!—What signifies ability,
or integrity, or practice, or experience in business? Lord Barrington feels himself
uneasy while men with such qualifications are about him. He wants nothing in his office
but ignorance, impudence, pertness, and servility. Of these commodities he has laid in a
plentiful stock, that ought to last him as long as he is Secretary at War. Again, I wish
that Mr FRANCIS and Mr D'Oyly would give the public some account of what is going forward
in the War-office. I think these events so remarkable, that some notice ought to be taken
of them in the House of Commons. When the public loses the service of two able and honest
servants, it is but reasonable that the wretch, who drives such men out of a public
office, should be compelled to give some account of himself and his proceedings. p. 86, 87.
It is to he observed, that Junius took care not to write this letter, nor any of those upon
Chamier's promotion, under his usual signature, because this would at once have directed the
suspicions of the publick towards the War-office, as the quarter in which he lurked, and
even towards the individuals chiefly interested in the questions respecting Chamier. For the
same reason we find him urging Woodfall to conceal his being the author of those attacks
upon Lord Barrington. Keep the author a secret
, says he, (Woodfall, I.
255)—that is, keep the secret that Junius, Veteran, Nemesis, &c. are the same person;
for he knew no other author than Junius. It is, however, not at all improbable, that the
clue to the discovery of Sir P. Francis was furnished by these letters on the War-office;
for they are the last ever written by Junius, except the private letter to Woodfall in
January 1773; so that he seems, on being detected, probably by Lord Barrington, to have
given over writing; and he was soon after appointed to the Council in Calcutta.
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. Thus, he says, in the 23d letter, referring to
the negotiations of 1763, Even the callous pride of Lord Egremont was alarmed; he
saw and felt his own disgrace in corresponding with you (the Duke of Bedford); and
there certainly was a moment at which he meant to have resisted, had not a fatal
lethargy prevailed over his faculties, and carried all sense and memory away with it
.
In a note, he adds, This man (Lord Egremont), notwithstanding his pride and Tory
principles, had some English stuff in him
. Upon an official letter to the Duke of
Bedford, the Duke desired to be recalled; and it was with the utmost difficulty that
Lord Bute could appease him
. In a private letter to Woodfall (I. 200), he says,
that he can threaten him privately with such a storm as would make him tremble
even in his grave.
Now Sir Philip Francis was appointed a clerk in the Foreign
Office in 1756; and having afterwards gone to St Cas as General Bligh's secretary in 1768,
and to Lisbon in 1760, with Lord Kinnoul, he returned to the Foreign Office between October
1761 and August 1763; for, in his speech in the House of Commons, already referred to (Parl.
Deb. xxii. 97.), he says, that he possessed Lord Egremont's favour in the Secretary of
State's Office; and that nobleman came into it, October 1761, and died August 1763. The
negotiations of the Duke of Bedford were carried on between the beginning of September and
the beginning of November, 1762.
The manner in which Junius always treats Lord Chatham, coincides exactly with the
expressions of Sir Philip in his speeches and writings; and is such as might naturally be
expected to result from the kindness he had received from that great man, as well as from
his known principles. But the high admiration of Lord Chatham which Junius has shown, seems
not easily reconciled with his kindness towards his antagonist Lord Holland. I wish
Lord Holland may acquit himself with honour
, says he in a letter to Woodfall (I.
174.); and when he suspected Mr Fox of attacking him anonymously in the newspapers, instead
of retaliating, as he did in the letters already noticed against Lord Harrington, and at
once charging Lord Holland or his son with having been the writers of this attack, as he did
Lord Barry and others in similar cases, he says that he designedly spares Lord
Holland and his family
; but adds, that it is worthy of their consideration,
whether Lord Holland be invulnerable, or whether Junius should be wantonly
provoked. (III. 410.)
. He shows this manifest forbearance towards the Fox
family, not under his usual signature of Junius, but under another, assumed for the obvious
purpose of concealing it, and yet of keeping them from forcing him into a contest with them.
The history of Sir Philip at once explains all this. His father was Lord Holland's domestic
chaplain, lived on intimate terms with him, and dedicated his Translation of Demosthenes to
him, as the patron to whom he owed his church preferment. Sir Philip himself received from
Lord Holland his first place in the Foreign Office. These circumstances must have overcome
the natural inducement which Junius had to join in the attacks upon Lord Holland, for a
conduct which, whether justly or not, was made the constant topic of invective by all who
took the side of Lord Chatham.
It is clear, from his private correspondence, that Junius, whoever he was, bore a great
personal good-will towards Woodfall. The spirit of your letter
, says he,
convinces me that you are a much better writer than most of those whose work
you publish. (I. 196.)
. For the matter of money, be assured that, if a
question should arise upon any writings of mine, you shall not want it. My own works you
shall constantly have; and, in point of money, be assured you shell never
suffer.
(ib.) Again—You must not write to me again; but be assured I
will never desert you. If your affair should come to a trial, and you should be found
guilty, you will * then let me know what expense falls particularly on yourself, for I
understand you are engaged with other proprietors;—some way or other you shall be
reimbursed. (I. 208.)
.
For my own part, I can very truly assure you, that nothing would affect me more
than to have drawn you into a personal danger, because it admits of no
recompense. (I. 221.)
You cannot offend or afflict me but by hazarding
your own safety. (I. 235.)
I have the greatest reason to be pleased
with your care and attention; and wish it were in my power to render you some essential
service. (I. 24-6.)
In a letter to Wilkes, he expresses the same anxiety about
Woodfall's safety; says that the danger to which he is exposed afflicts and distresses him;
and plainly insinuates, that he has spared Lord Mansfield for Woodfall's sake (I. 326.)
But, for other publishers, he seems to have felt no such tenderness; for he frequently
tells Woodfall, if he is afraid himself, that he may send such and such letters to other
printers, whom he names, (see I. 224. 226. 214.) Now, it appears from Nichols's Biographical
Anecdotes, that Woodfall was only a year older than Sir Philip Francis, and that he was
educated at St Paul's School, where the latter is known to have been bred; and it is
asserted in the Tract before us, that Woodfall's son speaks of the acquaintance formed there
between Sir Philip and his father, as having given rise to a mutual kindness during their
after lives, although they rarely met. It must be admitted that this tallies peculiarly well
with a suspicion expressed by Junius at one part of the correspondence, that Woodfall might
know him. He says, I beg you will tell me candidly whether you know or suspect who
I am (I. 171.)
.
There is reason also to believe, that Junius was known to Garrick. He expresses himself
much alarmed by the inquiries of the latter, and was afraid lest Woodfall might have told
him the place where the letters were sent, which he desires him to change. He writes a note,
to be sent to Garrick, with the view of intimidating him, and thus preventing his meddling,
and endeavouring to trace the secret; and he desires Woodfall to copy it in his own hand.
Sir Francis has told us, in the preface to the play of Eugenia, that he enjoyed the
friendship and esteem
of Garrick.
It appears, from various passages in Junius, that the author used to attend the debates in
Parliament, and that he frequently took notes of the more important speeches: That he did so
more especially in the years 1770 and 1771, is clearly proved, by his quoting Lord Chatham's
speeches from reports not then made public, and by his frequently referring to debates at
which he was present. Sir Philip Francis is known to have been an occasional attendant upon
the debates during the same period,—for he cites Lord Chatham's speeches at that time as
having That on this principle he had himself advised a measure, which
he knew was not strictly legal; but he had recommended it as a measure of necessity, to
save a starving people from famine, and had submitted to the judgment of his country. p.
262.
Junius, ( Woodfall II. 365.)—Instead of inserting that the
proclamation was legal, he (Lord Camden) should have said, "My Lords, I know the
proclamation was illegal, but I advised it, because it was indispensably necessary to save
the kingdom from famine; and I submit myself to the justice and mercy of my country." p.
262—3.
Sir P. Francis's Report.—He owned his natural partiality to
America, and was inclined to make allowance even for those excesses. That they ought to be
treated with tenderness; for in his sense they were ebullitions of liberty which broke out
upon the skin, and were a sign, if not of perfect health, at least of a vigorous
constitution, and must not be driven in too suddenly, lest they should strike to the
heart. p. 265.
Junius, (Woodfall, II. 153. I. 311.)—"No man regards an
eruption upon the surface, when the noble parts are invaded, and he feels a mortification
approaching to his heart."—"I shall only say, give me a healthy vigorous constitution,
end I shall hardly consult my looking-glass to discover a blemish upon my skin." p.
265.
Sir P. Francis's Report.—That the Americans had purchased their
liberty at a dear rate, since they had quitted their native country, and gone in search of
freedom to a desert. p. 268.
Junius, (Woodfall, II. 77.)—" They left their
native land in search of freedom, and found it in a desert." p. 268.
There are many other expressions in this speech, and in others of Lord Chatham, reported by
Sir Philip, which appear to be favourite expressions of Junius. Thus, false
fact
—I am a plain man
—ipso facto the law of the
land
—simplicity of common sense, &c
.
There are many favourite expressions in the avowed original works of Sir Philip, which
Junius also indulges habitually. Of his side
—so far
forth
—I mean the public service
(for, I would promote). There
is, moreover, in the general manner of writing, a resemblance extremely striking, especially
where the author is off his guard, and permits his natural temper to appear. Sir Philip's
later works resemble, in this respect, the private notes to Woodfall so strikingly, that we
need scarcely give any examples. There is, for instance, a short note of Sir P. in this
publication in the following terms. Pray never mind anything I say, I slave
myself to death, and write and speak on instant impression.—So I am very sorry if I
have offended you.
The very same tone, and almost the same words, occur in two
notes of Junius, printed by Woodfall;—one of which begins, Pray tell me whether
George Onslow means to keep his word with you
; and ends, and so I
wish you goodnight
:—And another runs thus, Make yourself easy about me—I
know you are an honest man—and I am never angry—I am overcome with the slavery of
writing
. We have not room to add other instances; but we have heard, that among
those persons in London who have lived in his society, and are acquainted with his mode of
expression, the conviction of his being the author of the Letters, is exceedingly
strengthened by this likeness.
That the tempers of Junius and Sir Philip somewhat resemble each other, we have their own
authority. Junius says to Woodfall—Surely you have misjudged it very much about the
book. I could not have conceived it possible that you could protract the
publication so long. At this time, particularly before Mr Sawbridge's motion, it would
have been of singular use. You have trilled too long with the public expectation. At a
certain point of time the appetite palls. I fear you have already lost the season. The
book, I am sure, will lose the greatest part of the effect I expected from it. But I
have done.(p. 157.)
. And again, to Wilkes, You at least, Mr Wilkes,
should have shown more temper and prudence, and a better knowledge of mankind. No
personal respects whatsoever should have persuaded you to concur in these ridiculous
resolutions. But my own zeal, I perceive, betrays me: I will endeavour to keep a
better guard upon my temper, and apply to your judgment in the moat cautious and measured
language
. (ib) Sir Philip, in his Speech (Parl. Debates, xxvii. 210.), says, most
characIt was his purpose on this occasion to say
things strong, severe, and personal; and if he should be thought to exceed the bounds of
moderation, he desired it might not be imputed to a hasty impatience of temper, to which
he was supposed to be more subject than other men; for he said them coolly and
deliberately, and after having maturely reflected on their cause, and on their
consequences. (p. 158.)
. And again, in his Speech, February 26, 1788, Much
has been said of my character, much of my temper. I have by one learned gentleman, not now
present (the Master of the Rolls), been accused of comparing myself with him, and with
others of his profession. Such a comparison I never presumed to make. Arrogance is one
thing; passion is another. Passion I have ever conceived to be an honest, open, and manly
emotion of the mind: arrogance, on the contrary, I take to be a cold, deliberate,
thoughtful thing. I may have made use of warm or passionate language perhaps, but I was
never guilty of the presumption and arrogance which has been imputed to me
. (p.
158-9.).
There are some other considerations of a more general nature, which deserve notice in this
argument. Sir Philip Francis is still living; and that of itself furnishes a ground of
presumption. The improbability is great, that the real Junius should have died, and left no
trace by which to detect him. That he should have wished to be for ever unknown, is not
likely; that he should have been able to elude all discovery, after his decease, is still
less so. The curiously bound set of Letters which he had from Woodfall by his own
directions, at once afforded a reason for believing that he intended to retain the means of
proving his title, at a distant period, and exposed him to detection after his death, if he
allowed that event to happen before he declared himself. Sir Philip's appointment to India
is also extremely well accounted for, by the supposition that he was the author of Junius's
Letters. That a clerk in the War-office should, without having done any thing to make him
known, be sent out at once as a member of the Supreme Council, to which, for the first time,
the powers of Government were about to be entrusted, seems at any rate sufficiently strange
to require an explanation. He was not connected by family with any man of weight in the
ministry; he was wholly unknown at the India House; he was equally obscure in the publick
eye; nor does it appear that he had any patron who interested himself in his promotion,
previously to spring 1772 since, at that time, he was turned out of the Office, to make way
for a favourite of the minister in whose department he served. The next thing we hear of
after this dismissal, is his mis
If it is demanded why Sir Philip should have persisted so long in the concealment, a
satisfactory answer may be given, without having recourse to evidence drawn from the
character and habits of the individual. Some of the principal personages attacked by Junius,
have only been dead a very few years; the nearest relatives of many of them are still alive.
The invectives of Junius against persons officially connected with Sir Philip, must have
differed extremely from the letters which passed between them in the course of business, or
in the intercourse of society. The circumstance of his appointment to India, the consequent
silence of Junius, we may easily imagine to be a strong reason for reluctance to avow
himself as the author. But if to these considerations we add, that Sir Philip has been, by
the steady and honest course of his political life, thrown into habits of intimacy with the
families of those whom Junius most unsparingly attacked, for their personal, as well as
public conduct, in life, we shall be convinced that the discovery would at any time have
been productive of far more pain than the gratification of vanity could compensate, even
admitting the reputation of Junius to be much higher than that of Sir Philip, which we are
not very sure that he is likely to think it, and are still less of opinion that he ought. He
has long, in his proper person, possessed the admiration of all who have a due regard for
unblemished publick virtue, great talents and accomplishments. He might well afford to
forego the applause of the multitude, which could only be purchased by a sacrifice,
certainly, of the tranquillity so invaluable in the decline of life, possibly of the
good-will of some whose approbation e prefers to that of the crowd. Justice to this
gentleman, as well as to the argument We have perused, as our duty
has often led us to do, with great attention, the records of the Company, during the time
in which you executed the important office committed to you by Parliament; and our good
opinion of you has grown in exact proportion to the minuteness and accuracy of our
researches. We have found that, as far as in you lay, you fully answered the ends of your
arduous allegation. An exact obedience to the authority placed over you by the laws of
your country, wise and steady principles of government, an inflexible integrity in
yourself, and a firm resistance to all corrupt practice in others, crowned by an uniform
benevolent attention to to the rights, properties, and welfare of the natives (the grand
leading object in your appointment), appear eminently throughout those records. Such a
conduct, so tried, acknowledged, and recorded, demands our fullest confidence.
These, Sir, are the qualities, and this is the conduct, on your part, on which we ground our
wishes for your assistance. On what we are to ground our right to make any demand upon
you, we are more at a loss to suggest. Our sole titles, we are sensible, are to be found
in the public exigencies, and in your public spirit. Permit us, Sir, to call for this
further service in the name of the people of India, for whom your parental care has been
so long distinguished, and in support of whose cause you have encountered so many
difficulties, vexations, and dangers. p. 23, 24.
This letter was written by the Chairman, Mr Burke, and signed by himself and his
colleagues; among whom we find the names of Fox, Sheridan, Windham, North, and Fitzpatrick.
Mr Burke, in one of his speeches upon the India Bills, has thus described him.
This man, whose deep reach of thought, whose large legislative
conceptions, and whose grand plans of policy, make the most shining
part of our reports, from whence we have learned all our lessons,
if we have learned any good ones; this man, from whose materials those
gentlemen, who have least acknowledged it, have yet spoken as from a brief; this man,
driven from his employment, discountenanced by the Directory has had no other reward, and
no other distinction, but that inward 'sunshine of the soul' which a good conscience can
always bestow on itself. p. 25, 26.
Having shown that all the evidence which can be drawn from a comparison of Junius's Letters
and Sir Philip Francis's Life and Writings, points him out as the author—that there is no
that he once saw a tall gentleman, dressed in a light coat,
with bag and sword, throw into the office-door, opening in
Ivy 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
.-(Woodfall, I. 43.)
The author of the work before us states,
that the figure and appearance of Sir Philip answers to this description
as far as it goes.
There are various peculiarities of spelling which occur uniformly in both writers; and neither of them has any such peculiarity that is not common to both. Thus, they both write 'practise' with an s; 'compleatly' instead of 'completely;' 'ingross,' intire, intrust, and many other such words, which are usually begun with an e—endeavor without an u—skreen with a k, and several others. There may not be much in any of these instances taken singly; but when we find that all the peculiarities that belong to either writer are common to both, it is impossible not to receive them as ingredients in the mass of evidence.
It is stated by a person who examined, with Wilkes, the form and folding of the letters
received by him, that they both agreed in thinking they could see marks of the
writer's habit of folding and directing official letters
.
Last of all, a careful examination has been instituted of the handwriting of Junius; and
the specimens published by Woodfall have been diligently compared with letters of Sir Philip
Francis. Those of Junius are known to be all written in a feigned hand; but its general
character agrees well with that of Sir Philip's. Wherever, in the hurry of writing, (for
example, where
When Sir P. F. signs with his initials, he draws a short strong line above and below them.
The very same lines are uniformly drawn under and over the initials with which Junius signs
his private letters to Woodfall. In correcting the press, they both use, instead of the
ordinary sign of deletion, a different and very peculiar sign, exactly the same in both.
They both place the asterisk or star of reference to a foot-note, at the beginning, and not
at the end of the passage to which it belongs—contrary to what may be termed the invariable
usage of other writers. They both write the words you and yours, in all cases, with a large
Y, the form of which is strikingly alike in both authors. They also use a half large c at
the beginning of a word,—of a peculiar and characteristic formation. Their ciphers or
numerals are all formed exactly on the same plan; as are most of their compound letters.
Instead of a round dot over the i, they both invariably use an oblique stroke, sloping in
the opposite direction to that of the general writing; and they mark their quotations, not
by inverted commas, but by short perpendicular lines. They are both uniformly correct and
systematic in the punctuation of their MS. Both write a distinct little a over &c.; and
connect words divided at the end of a line, not by a hyphen, but a colon, which is repeated,
contrary to general usage, at the beginning of the second line, as well as the end of the
first.
Before concluding this article, we must repeat, that the diligence of the author, whose
work furnishes the materials of this argument, is very praiseworthy, and that the merit of
the investigation belongs entirely to him. We cannot, however, avoid remarking, that he
has frequently overloaded his book with useless and irrelevant quotations;—for example, much
of the Speeches of Lord Chatham, and of Sir Philip Francis's pamphlets; that he many times
draws conclusions from such trivial resemblances in expression as prove nothing,—e. g. p.
236, 237,