'.m* 
 
 iV :^T 
 
 *f « ^£i .'■ 'w j 
 
 VSeft 
 
 
 
 3tfcS£ft 
 
^LIBRARY OF CONGRESS.* 
 # 
 
 
 it UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
 I 
 
JUNIUS AND HIS WORKS 
 
 COMPARED WITH THE 
 
 CHARACTER AND WRITINGS 
 
 PHILIP DORMER STANHOPE, 
 
 EAEL OF CHESTERFIELD. 
 
 None but himself can be his parallel." 
 
 WILLIAM ^CRAMP, 
 
 M 
 
 AUTHOR Or " THE PHILOSOPHY OP LANGUAGE.' 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 HOPE AND Co., 
 
 16, GREAT MARLBOROUGH STREET. 
 
 1850. 
 
_Ib fc.S08 
 
 •Cs£] 
 
PREFACE: 
 
 The object of this first Essay is to endeavour to remove some 
 objections which have hitherto excluded Lord Chesterfield 
 from his fair claim to the authorship of the letters of Junius. 
 Mr. Wade, the editor of a recent edition of the letters, in his 
 second volume, p. xxviii., remarks that 
 
 " One of the wildest conjectures has been the ascription of 
 the letters to Lord Chesterfield." 
 
 In support of his opinion Mr. Wade urges the impossibility 
 of the truth of such a conjecture, on the grounds of the ex- 
 treme old age and physical maladies of Lord Chesterfield, and 
 he concludes his short notice by \ asserting, on the authority of 
 Debrett's Peerage, that " The old Earl died when Junius 
 was in his full career." 
 
 As this error in Debrett's Peerage has been already pointed 
 out (pp. 75 — 113), it will not be necessary to dwell on it 
 here, but merely to repeat that Lord Chesterfield died on the 
 24th March, 1773, the month that Junius so mysteriously dis 
 appeared. It is extraordinary, however, that both Mr. Wade 
 and Mr. Coventry, who profess to have examined the claims 
 of Lord Chesterfield, should refer to the authority of Debrett's 
 Peerage when so important a fact might have been ascertained 
 by having recourse to the periodicals of the day, or to the 
 memoirs of Lord Chesterfield. 
 
 The description of Lord Chesterfield's mental and physical 
 infirmities, and the assertion that his lordship had sunk into 
 the lowest abyss of misery at the time that Junius was in his 
 full career, should be cautiously received. 
 
IV PREFACE. 
 
 That Lord Chesterfield's mental faculties were not greatly 
 impaired at the time the letters of Junius were written, has 
 been proved by the evidence of his contemporaries, who, in 
 almost every instance, flatly contradict the deplorable ac- 
 counts which his lordship at times thought proper to send to 
 his friends. In a letter dated 24th October, 1771, Voltaire 
 writes : — 
 
 " May you enjoy an honourable and a happy old age after 
 passing through the trials of life ! May you continue to enjoy 
 health both of body and mind ! Of t\\o,jive senses allotted to 
 us only one of yours has suffered any decay > and Lord Hun- 
 tingdon assures me that your stomach is good, which is more 
 valuable than a pair of ears." 
 
 Yet at the time this pleasing account of Lord Chesterfield's 
 health was sent to England, his lordship declared, in writing 
 to the Bishop of Waterford, " that his hand trembled to that 
 degree that he could hardly hold his pen — that his under- 
 standing stuttered and his memory fumbled." It is highly 
 probable, therefore, that the exact state of Lord Chesterfield's 
 health in 1771 was better known at Ferney than either here 
 or in Ireland, since the favourable report of Lord Huntingdon 
 can hardly be doubted, for no one was on more intimate 
 terms with Lord Chesterfield than that young nobleman. 
 
 That Lord Chesterfield had reason to believe that he was 
 suspected of employing himself in supporting some of the 
 political factions of that period is nil but admitted in a letter to 
 Mrs. Stanhope, Nov. 4, 1770: — "My friends from time to 
 time require bills of health from me in these suspicious times 
 when the plague is busy in some parts of Europe. All I can 
 say in answer to their kind enquiries is, that I have not the 
 distemper properly called the plague, but that I have all the 
 plagues of old age and of a shattered carcase" 
 
 This letter was written during the longest interval in the 
 correspondence between Junius and Woodfall. Only one 
 letter under the signature of Junius appeared in the Public 
 
PREFACE. V 
 
 Advertiser from the 28th May to the 14th Nov., 1770, and 
 there is a break in the private letters for a period of seven 
 months. It is highly probable that there had been some mis- 
 understanding between the writer and his publisher ; for the 
 first letter (on the renewal of their correspondence) is abrupt, 
 and indicative of the displeasure of Junius 
 
 "By your affected silence you encourage an idle opinion, 
 that I am the author of the Whig, &c, though you very 
 well know the contrary, I neither admire the writer nor his 
 idol [Lord Chatham]. I hope you will soon set this matter 
 right.— C." 
 
 It would be in vain, perhaps, now to inquire into the cause 
 of this disagreement, or whether any angry letters passed, at 
 that time, between Woodfall and Junius, and have for that 
 reason been suppressed. 
 
 As there is not a page, nay scarcely a paragraph, in the 
 letters of Junius that does not bear some imprint of the mind 
 and character of Lord Chesterfield, it is not to be wondered 
 at that he should have occasionally been suspected by his 
 acquaintance, and he must indeed have found some difficulty 
 in keeping alive the impression that he was hors de combat as a 
 political writer. Without some subterfuge like this (imply- 
 ing a physical impossibility), we do not see how Junius (who- 
 ever he was) could have so long preserved his secret, or have 
 found leisure for the composition of his letters. The plea of 
 ill health, no doubt, protected the writer against many imper- 
 tinent intrusions. An instance of this kind occurred to Lord 
 Chesterfield while Junius was engaged in writing his letters. 
 
 M. Suard, an accomplished Frenchman, being on a visit in 
 England, in 1769, was presented to Lord Chesterfield, by his 
 lordship's physician, Dr. Maty. The visit was abridged lest 
 its continuance should fatigue Lord Chesterfield : — " I will 
 not detain you," said his lordship, "I must go and perform 
 the rehearsal of my funeral," alluding to the drive he took 
 every morning in the streets of London." 
 
VI PREFACE. 
 
 Who that witnessed this melancholy procession in the 
 morning, could suspect that during the rest of the day Lord 
 Chesterfield was occupied in writing the letters of Junius ? 
 The conjecture, if for a moment entertained, would appear so 
 incredible, as to check further inquiry, for few would believe 
 that a decrepid, worn out, old man, thus ostentatiously exhibiting 
 his infirmities to the world, could be Junius, and by this and 
 other similar stratagems, Lord Chesterfield probably secured 
 himself against discovery. 
 
 Although Lord Chesterfield made such a display of his 
 funeral before his death, and while the letters of Junius were in the 
 course of publication, yet he would have no posthumous follies 
 at his burial. By his will, dated 4th June, 1772, he limited 
 the whole expense of his funeral to £100, and desired to be 
 buried in the next burying place where he should happen to 
 die. In compliance with this injunction, his remains were 
 interred, without any pomp, in the vault of the chapel in South 
 Audley Street, but they were afterwards removed to the 
 family burial place in Shelford Church, Nottinghamshire. 
 
 An important instance, shewing how tenaciously Lord 
 Chesterfield adhered to his ruling passion for political intrigue, 
 even after the letters of Junius had ceased, may be gleaned from 
 Voltaire's answer to a letter from his lordship, written in 1772. 
 The reproof contained in the opening of Voltaire's letter 
 leaves but little doubt that the subject of Lord Chesterfield's 
 communication was of a 'political character. 
 
 u You desire to have my thoughts on the present state of 
 Europe, I rather now expected you would have asked my 
 opinion about other matters which I happened to be thinking 
 
 of when your last letter was brought me by Mr. S ." (See 
 
 Annual Register, 1773, p. 217). 
 
 To assert that Junius was in his full career at the time 
 Lord Chesterfield was on his death bed, is not borne out by 
 evidence. 
 
 Junius may be said to have been in his full career in 1769. 
 For after his celebrated letter to the King his powers declined. 
 
PREFACE. Vll 
 
 Even his contemporaries perceived the change, and his private 
 letters afford melancholy proofs that he was u overcome with 
 the slavery of writing." He had satiated his vengeance on 
 the Duke of Grafton and Mr. Bradshaw, and would gladly 
 have retired. 
 
 If the facts contained in this Preliminary Essay should pro- 
 duce the favourable impression which the writer anticipate^ 
 the subject will be resumed by a review of the letters of 
 Junius, taken in the order in which they appeared in the 
 Public Advertiser. 
 
 In carrying out this plan, the next Essay will contain the 
 Episodes of Junius against Lord Chatham — Sir James 
 Lowther — and Lord Hillsborough, with critical remarks 
 on the letters signed Atticus, and a review of other miscel- 
 laneous letters published before the writer had assumed the 
 character of Junius. 
 
JUNIUS AND HIS WORKS, 
 
 COMPARED WITH THE 
 
 CHARACTER AND WRITINGS OF 
 
 LORD CHESTERFIELD, 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 A very great degree of probability supported by various concur- 
 rent 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 hypoth- 
 esis 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 de- 
 serves 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 Honour- 
 able 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 
 
6 JUNIUS AND LORD TOWNSHEND. 
 
 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 perio- 
 dical 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 pos- 
 sible 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 con- 
 firmed 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 con- 
 clusion of its identity of authorship with the letters of Junius, 
 but, previously to the illness which terminated his life, was pre- 
 paring 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 con- 
 viction that it was an early production of the great and unknown 
 
JUNIUS AND LORD TOWNSHEND. 7 
 
 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 Ho- 
 nourable 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 un- 
 biassed 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 con- 
 trol 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. 
 
S JtTNIUS AND LOED TOWNSHENJD. 
 
 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 ma- 
 terial 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 appear- 
 ance, 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. 
 
JUNIUS AND LOED TOWNSHEND. 9 
 
 9. Rascal and scoundrel passim. 
 
 10. Barking cur, by way of distinction from 
 
 11. Barking animal, cum multis aliis. 
 
 " 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 oblig- 
 ing 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. 
 
10 JUNIUS AND LORD TOWNSHEND. 
 
 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 con- 
 versable 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 stander- 
 by, 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 every- 
 thing 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 often- 
 times 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 charac- 
 teristics 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." 
 
JUNIUS AND LORD TOWNSHEND. 11 
 
 paragraph mil be an epigram. His style for short treatises is ex- 
 cellent; 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 en- 
 tertained 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 Chester- 
 field, 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 lord- 
 ship'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 Ches- 
 terfield 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 esta- 
 blished.:!; 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 Ferdi- 
 nand 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 
 
JUNIUS AND LOED TOWNSHEND. 13 
 
 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 pub- 
 lished in the Summer, 1760.* Geo. II. died on the 26th Oct. fol- 
 lowing, and the meeting between Lord Townshend and Lord Albe- 
 marle 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 Sove- 
 reign. 
 
 " 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 expec- 
 tation was reasonably grounded." — Dec. 15, 1758. 
 
 * Prince Ferdinand was installed on the 6th May, 1760. Lord Ches- 
 terfield 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 ex- 
 pression of, ' I should be glad to serve you were I able,' which is 
 much oftener a civil denial than a pledge of services really in- 
 tended 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 Hert- 
 ford 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 New- 
 castle 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. 
 
JUNIUS AND LOED TOWNSHEND. 15 
 
 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 pre- 
 ferment, 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 alter- 
 ation. — 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 cri- 
 ticisms* of a certain Right Reverend, and in my polite misadven- 
 tures 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 indeli- 
 cacy 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 sig- 
 nature 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 criti- 
 cism. — 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 per- 
 haps 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 op- 
 posing 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 rever- 
 ence for that enthusiast was about as sincere as the occasional professions of 
 his faith in the doctrines of the established church. 
 
 At a later period of Lord Chesterfield's life, and about the time that Ju- 
 nius so mysteriously disappeared, an attempt was made by the chief supporters 
 of Whitefield to convert his lordship. The circumstance is related by Horace 
 Walpole in a letter to Horace Mann, dated April 17, 1775. "Lady Gertrude 
 Hotham (Lord Chesterfield's sister) had wit like all her brothers, but for many 
 years had been a methodist. About two years ago, as the Earl was ill, she went 
 with her primate, Lady Huntingdon^ to try to tempt him to one of their semi- 
 naries in Wales, hoping to get at his soul by a cranny in his health. They 
 extolled the prospects, and then there were such charming mountains. Hold, 
 ladies, said he, I don't love mountains; when your ladyship's faith has removed 
 the mountains, I will go thither with all my heart." 
 
 t Lord Carteret moved to address the King to know who advised the re- 
 moval of the Duke of Bolton and Lord Cobham from their regiments and what 
 crimes were laid to their charge. 
 
 X It has, perhaps, hitherto escaped observation that Junius refers to this 
 Very debate in one of his letters on the dismissal of Sir Jeffery Amherst. Guarded 
 as his expressions are he admits that he was a contemporary of the heroes of 
 
18 JUNIUS AND LOED TOWNSHEND. 
 
 cannot, therefore, be surprised that after a lapse of twenty-six years 
 his lordship should recal the circumstance and adopt this invidious 
 distinction on this occasion. 
 
 In comparing this letter with the writings of Lord Chesterfield 
 it will not be necessary to remark upon every similitude of phra- 
 seology in which the writer is found to agree with Junius. It will be 
 sufficient to refer the reader to parallel passages from Junius and 
 Lord Chesterfield, distinguishing such words or phrases in which they 
 agree by italics. It is more important to trace the motives which 
 could induce Lord Chesterfield to publish such a letter, and as al- 
 most every paragraph contains some proof that Lord Chesterfield 
 was the author, it will be desirable to quote a greater part of the 
 letter that the reader may have the means of judging of the truth 
 of this supposition. 
 
 " The title under which I have the honour of addressing this 
 letter to you, will not, I confess, immediately point you out to the 
 eye of the public. It has been given by the compilers of the 
 Court Calendar to Brigadier General Townshend, or not improbable 
 that sagacious gentleman sent it to the press himself as an hint to 
 the minister that such a command would be necessary for his 
 Majesty's service, although he might prudently choose to stay at 
 home when he received it." 
 
 There is no proof that Lord Chesterfield was ever on terms of 
 friendship with Lord Townshend. The author of the refutation in- 
 timates that the writer of the letter had been caricatured by his 
 lordship. This, as far as Lord Chesterfield is concerned, we have 
 not been able to ascertain, but it is well known that Lord Chester- 
 field opposed Lord Townshend's favourite scheme of the militia, 
 and it is not, therefore, improbable that his lordship was the sub- 
 ject of one or more of the Townshend caricatures. His lordship's 
 most intimate friend, Lord Lyttleton, was a frequent subject of 
 those satires. So far, therefore, it may be presumed Lord Chester- 
 field was prepared to retaliate should a favourable opportunity 
 occur. 
 
 the great Walpolean battles, and older than his opponent Lord Hillsborough. 
 "You set out with asserting that the Crown has an indisputable power of dis- 
 missing its officers without assigning a cause. Not quite indisputable, my lord, 
 for J have heard of addresses from Parliament to know who advised the dismis- 
 sion of particular officers. I have heard of impeachments attending a wanton 
 exertion of the prerogative and you, perhaps, may live to hear of them likewise. 
 —Vol. Ill, p. 140. 
 
JUNIUS AND LOUD TOWNSHEND. 19 
 
 " However, if envy should peevishly object against this discern- 
 ment of fortune in the choice of her favourites, let it be boldly an- 
 swered that independent of fortune* and her favours you have 
 made the most distinguished honour of th e present war in a pecu- 
 liar manner your own. The Goddess of blindness and caprice had 
 certainly no share in the capitulation of Quebec. Ardent in the 
 pursuit of glory and the applause of your country you generously 
 violated the rules of war and risked the resentment of your supe- 
 rior officer. You signed the articles of capitulation without his 
 knowledge, and anxious for the preservation of your conquest, you 
 appointed the staff of the garrison without even asking his consent. 
 He might indeed, suspect the friendship you had long professed for 
 him, but with the spirit of an old Roman the love of our country 
 omnes omnium caritates complectitur. He might have ordered you 
 into arrest for such an outrage to his authority. He was not insen- 
 sible of the indignity, but you asked his pardon and languishing 
 under his wounds he accepted your submission. Thus you carried 
 your point — you received into your protection the capital of an em- 
 pire larger than half the Roman conquests, and though you had 
 formerly entered your protest against attacking the place, you alone 
 enjoyed the honours of its being taken." 
 
 The person here vindicated by the writer was highly esteemed 
 by Lord Chesterfield. " The day after we had taken the island of 
 Aix, your friend, Colonel Wolfe, publicly offered to do the business 
 with five hundred men and three ships. "f 
 
 The next paragraph of the letter contains a sarcasm against 
 religion, and will remind the reader of a conspicuous trait both in 
 the character of Junius and of Lord Chesterfield. The passage is 
 omitted by Mr. Britton in his quotation of the paragraph. 
 
 " Your appetite for glory being now fully satisfied, you descended 
 from the heights of Abraham like Gideon — not the Gideon who dis- 
 comfited the host of Midian with the sound of his trumpets — but 
 like another illustrious of that name descending at the sign of his 
 Majesty's arms from a delicious feast of turtle." 
 
 * I plainly see that all human prudence, the wisest projects, and the best 
 concerted schemes are vain and frivolous if fortune, that capricious, inconstant* 
 and feminine deity, is not disposed to favour them. — Chesterfield. 
 
 The greatest must submit to the capriciousness of fortune, though they 
 can better than others improve the favourable moments. — lb. 
 
 t Letter to his son, Nov. 4, 1757, 
 
 c 2 
 
20 JUNIUS AND LORD TOWNSHEND. 
 
 In the remaining part of this passage the writer again uses the 
 word sagacious* He also omits to give General Wolfe his title of 
 rank in the army. This proves not only a long and intimate ac- 
 quaintance with General Wolfe, but it also indicates that the writer 
 was not a military man, or he would not even under circumstances 
 of long friendship have twice failed in so important a point in the 
 estimation of military men. It may also be inferred from this in- 
 advertence that the writer was of much higher rank than General 
 Wolfe. 
 
 But it has been observed that the " Letter," if not from the 
 pen of a soldier, " was, at all events, written by a person well 
 skilled in military affairs." As regards Lord Chesterfield, this 
 shrewd observation may be said strictly to apply. For his lordship 
 considered that every gentleman engaged in public affairs (except 
 "lawyers and parsons," of whose understandings he had but a 
 mean opinion),! ought to be well acquainted with military tactics. 
 In accordance with these views, We find him recommending to his 
 son his attending to the minutice of military affairs. Few officers, 
 perhaps, even of the highest rank in the army, were so well 
 acquainted with the routine of their duties as Lord Chesterfield. 
 
 The next paragraph needs no comment. It refers to Lord 
 
 Townshend's militia scheme, which Lord Chesterfield ridiculed and 
 
 opposed. It also alludes to the conduct of Lord Townshend 
 
 during the Rebellion in 1745. On both these points no person 
 
 could be better qualified to mortify Lord Townshend than the Earl 
 
 of Chesterfield. 
 
 " Although I have justly given you the sole honour of your 
 
 capitulation of Quebec, independent of fortune and her influence, 
 
 yet let us not totally disclaim her favour and protection. Among 
 
 heroes of ancient days the favour of the gods was always esteemed 
 
 a pious proof of merit." 
 
 "Fortune" says Lord Chesterfield, 
 
 " fcorn to be controlled 
 Stoops to the forward and the bold. 1 ' 
 
 " Assurance and intrepidity, under the white banner of seeming 
 modesty, clear the way to merit" 
 
 * This is one of those offensive epithets which Junius frequently employed 
 to annoy his adversaries, and bring contempt upon their understandings. 
 
 f Lawyers and Parsons cannot be short.— Chesterfield. 
 
JUNIUS AND LOED TOWNSHEND. 21 
 
 " I know," continues the writer of the letter ', " that our ingenU 
 ous moderns have been reproached with plundering the shrines of 
 antiquity, and ransacking the virtues of the dead, to erect a lying 
 monument of fame to the living. I shall not be apprehensive of 
 this reproach when I assert that the noblest praise ever given to 
 Caesar — that of writing with the same spirit with which he 
 fought, — is equally due to you for the letter you wrote from 
 Quebec to the Secretary of State.* 1 Some malignant spirits, indeed, 
 were offended at your not having paid one civil compliment to the 
 memory of General Wolfe, or inserted one kind expression of esteem 
 or affection with regard to his person. Surely some people are 
 never to be satisfied. Permit me, sir, in your name, to ask them 
 whether your warmest encomiums could have added to that uni- 
 Tersal good opinion which the public had conceived of Mr. Wolfe's 
 abilities and courage." 
 
 This passage contains strong evidence that it came from the pen 
 of Lord Chesterfield. As far as verbal peculiarities will convince, 
 the following short sentence contains several that are to be found 
 in the letter : " I cannot," says Lord Chesterfield, " like many of 
 my contemporaries, rail at the wonderful degeneracy and corruption 
 of these times, nor by sneering compliments to the ingenious, the 
 sagacious moderns, intimate that they have no common sense." 
 
 The charge of plundering the shrines of antiquity bears a 
 strong resemblance to a humourous petition published in the Annual 
 Register, 1758, in juxta position with two other similar contri- 
 butions, — one avowedly from the pen of Lord Chesterfield. Both 
 the other papers, though inferior in composition, bear evident 
 marks of his lordship's style of writing. The petition here referred 
 to is addressed to the Dean and Chapter of Westminster, by 
 whom, it is said, Lord Chesterfield was imposed upon in the pur- 
 chase of the land on which the noble mansion of the family in 
 May Fair now stands. 
 
 The allusion to Caesar may be contrasted with Lord Chester- 
 field's character of that hero. 
 
 " Julius Caesar joined business with pleasure so properly that 
 
 * The following parallel connects this paragraph with the writings of 
 Junius: — " Every one will acknowledge that Lord Townshend was at Quebec, 
 for every one remembers his letter from thence, and perhaps Philo can tell who 
 the secretary was."— -Junius, vol. II., p. 480. 
 
22 JUNIUS AND LORD TOWNSHEND. 
 
 they mutually assisted each other, and though he was the husband 
 of all the wives in Rome, he found time to be one of the best 
 scholars, — almost the best orator, and absolutely the best general 
 there." 
 
 It will not, perhaps, strike the hasty reader that the same train 
 of thoughts was passing in the mind of the writer when he com- 
 posed the above paragraph as had occurred to Lord Chesterfield, 
 ten years be/ore, while Avriting to his son." 
 
 " Every rational being, I take it for granted, proposes to him- 
 self some object more important than mere respiration and 
 obscure animal existence. He desires to distinguish himself 
 among his fellow creatures, and alicai negotio intentus, prceclari 
 facinoris, aut artis bonce, famam qiuerit. Caesar, when embarking 
 in a storm, said that it was not necessary he should live, but that 
 it was absolutely necessary he should get to the place to which 
 he was going. And Pliny leaves mankind the only alternative 
 either of doing what deserves to be written, or of writing what 
 deserves to be read." 
 
 It is also remarkable that in this letter Lord Chesterfield warns 
 his son against those faults in composition for which Lord Towns- 
 hend was so severely critisized by the letter writer and by Junius. 
 
 "Your business is negociation abroad and oratory at home. 
 What figure can you make in either case if your style be inele- 
 gant ; I do not say bad. Imagine yourself writing an office letter 
 to a Secretary of State, which letter is to be read by the whole 
 Cabinet Council, and very possibly afterwards laid before Parlia- 
 ment; any one barbarism, solecism, or vulgarism in it would, 
 in a very few days, circulate through the whole kingdom to your 
 disgrace and ridicule. For instance, I will suppose you had 
 written the following letter from the Hague to the Secretary 
 of State at London, and leave you to suppose the consequences 
 of it:— 
 
 My Lord, — I had last night the honour of your Lordship's 
 letter of the 24th, and will set about doing the orders contained 
 therein, and if so be that I can get that affair done by the next post 
 I will not fail, for to give your Lordship an account of it by next 
 post. I have told the French Minister as how ihat if 'that affair be 
 not soon concluded your Lordship would think it all along of him, 
 and that he must have neglected for to have wrote to his court 
 
JUNIUS AND LOUD TOWNSHEND. 23 
 
 about it. I must beg leave to put your Lordship in mind as how 
 that I am full three-quarters in arrears, and if so be that I do not 
 very soon receive, at least, one half year, I shall cut a very bad 
 figure, for this here place is very dear. I shall be vastly beholden to 
 your Lordship for that there mark of your favour, and so / rest or 
 remain yours, &c. 
 
 " You will tell me possibly that this is a caricatura and an illi- 
 beral and inelegant style. I will admit it, but assure you, at the 
 same time, that a dispatch, with less than half these faults, would 
 blow you up for ever." 
 
 To those conversant with the human mind, and its associations, 
 this proof will convey more weight than mere verbal similarities. 
 
 The use of the words, " surely," " permit me," which occur in 
 the foregoing paragraph, has been included by Mr. Simons, in the 
 evidence that the letter was written by Junius. These terms are 
 of frequent occurrence in the writings of Lord Chesterfield. But a 
 still more remarkable phrase occurs in the next paragraph, not to 
 be met with in Junius, which identifies the writer of the " Letter" 
 with Lord Chesterfield. 
 
 " You had only to temper the ardour of the soldiers in the pur- 
 suit, and, / dare swear, you led them on as regularly and as 
 methodically, according to the rules of war, as your friend and 
 favorite, Lord George, slow marched the cavalry at the battle of 
 Minden." 
 
 " I dare swear" says Lord Chesterfield in a letter* to the Duke 
 of Newcastle, "you well know that Mr. Farrington is dead."— 
 Letters, vol. IV., p. 257. 
 
 " Since I have mentioned the Minden hero, give me leave to 
 ask you, for you are in his confidence, what has become of him. 
 Is he retired (Scipio and others have done it) from the hopes of 
 ambition and the views of glory ? Retired to his late purchase 
 among his faithful friends the Scots ? At least to him they have 
 been faithful." 
 
 As the allusion to Scipio in this part of the letter has been 
 considered by Mr. Simons, to be one of the peculiarities of Junius, 
 
 * This letter is worth referring to, since it shows how well qualified Lord 
 Chesterfield was, in after life, to carry on the secret correspondence of Junius 
 with Woodfall. A similar instance of duplicity will be found in a letter to 
 Lord Lyttleton. — Memoirs, vol. I., p. 87. 
 
24 JUNIUS AND IiORD TOWNSHENI). 
 
 it may be worth while to observe that of all the heroes of antiquity, 
 Scipio was Lord Chesterfield's favourite. He makes frequent refer- 
 ence to him in his speeches and writings, one example will suffice. 
 
 " A Scipio may tear his papers when he can say, come and let 
 us thank the gods," &c. 
 
 Lord Chesterfield's contempt of the Scots will be proved when 
 the acknowledged productions of Junius are reviewed. 
 
 The writer of the "Letter" having dropt Lord Townshend, enters 
 into the conduct of Lord Geo. Sackville at Minden, and ironically 
 contrasts the cool behaviour of that nobleman, with the spirit and 
 energy displayed by the Marquis of Granby on that occasion. 
 
 " What pity that all these maxims, the wisdom at once, and 
 glory of a Revieiv should be thus totally destroyed by one short 
 hour's experience." 
 
 Lord Chesterfield evinced great contempt for soldiers not em- 
 ployed in active service. "As to what is now called discipline, 
 I mean the punctilios usually observed at a Review" &c. 
 
 It would be tedious to point out every minute resemblance 
 in the style and sentiments of this writer in comparison with Lord 
 Chesterfield. The most prominent passages in the remaining 
 paragraphs will therefore only be selected. 
 
 " Danger and difficulty seem to him (Lord Granby) motives of 
 obedience to the orders he receives, and, undoubtedly, he wants 
 Lords George's penetrating spirit, by which he should know before 
 he tried them, how many things are impossible" 
 
 " Sense" says Lord Chesterfield " must distinguish between 
 what is impossible and what is only difficult, and spirit and perse- 
 verance will get the better of the latter.'"^ 
 
 This precept is frequently urged by Lord Chesterfield as the 
 result of his own experience. His lordship also agrees with the 
 writer that want of spirit is too often the cause of failure in mili- 
 tary affairs. In reference to this American expedition, he says, 
 " This is most certain, that we have force enough in America to 
 
 * To vulgar minds it may appear unattainable, because vulgar minds make 
 no distinction between the highly difficult and the impossible. — Junius. 
 
 In this example we find the writer of "the letter," Lord Chesterfield, and 
 Junius expressing the same sentiment, but here, as in every other parallel ad- 
 duced, it will be found that Lord Chesterfield is the author, nor can the writer 
 of "the letter" or Junius be charged with plagiarism since the sentiments oc- 
 cur in Lord Chesterfield's posthumous works. 
 
JITNIVS AND LORD IOWNSBEND. 25 
 
 eat up the French alive in Canada and Quebec, if we have but 
 skill and spirit enough to exert it properly, but of that I am 
 modest enough to doubt." 
 
 The opinion of the writer of the Letter on the policy of the 
 German War is explicitly given. 
 
 " I am no friend to Continental measures ; a bitter enemy to 
 them in the extreme to which they are now carried. I am not so 
 dazzled with the abilities and success of Duke Ferdinand, as not to 
 see great faults, and great good fortune. Through all the glories 
 with which the British arms are environed, I can see the lives of 
 our brave countrymen, I think, much too prodigally lavished 
 away, certainly beyond all proportion of numbers when compared 
 with the rest of the army." 
 
 After having given a minute account of the conduct of the 
 British troops, and the disproportioned slaughter of them at Min- 
 den, he exclaims," 
 
 " Can an Englishman read this account without indignation ? 
 Can he see, without horror, the blood of his countrymen thus 
 lavishly poured forth in this Germanic warfare ? In any decisive 
 action, let the British soldier bleed ; let him die — even for Hano- 
 ver. His blood may not be wholly useless to his country, nor his 
 death unprofitable to that common cause of mankind liberty." 
 
 Lord Chesterfield's strenuous opposition to Hanoverian prede- 
 lictions was conspicuous during the " Great Walpolean Battles," 
 and is said to have fostered a strong resentment against his 
 lordship in the mind of George the Second, — Hanover was at that 
 time the constant theme of Lord Chesterfield's virulent invectives 
 in parliament and in the periodicals of the day. " The case of the 
 Hanover Troops" and the " Vindication" of that pamphlet were 
 joint productions of Lord Chesterfield and Mr. "Waller. The sta- 
 tistical details probably fell to the share of Mr. Waller ; the more 
 polished paragraphs are evidently from the pen of Lord Chester- 
 field, these will at once remind the reader of the style and manner 
 of Junius. 
 
 " If these are but the blossoms of the late boasted change of 
 men and measures, — blossoms stained too with the deepest public 
 and private perfidy, what are the fruits we must expect or rather 
 dread from them ? Power is and must be maintained by the same 
 means by which it is acquired: and if we are to judge by the price 
 
26 JUNIUS AND LORD TOWNSHEND. 
 
 now paid for it, what will be the purchase of the remainder and 
 the consequences of the bargain ?" — Vindication of the case of the 
 Hanover Troops. 
 
 " The same measures" (says Junius in his first letter, 1767) 
 " by which an abandoned profligate is advanced to power, must be 
 observed to maintain him in it." — Vol. II., p. 455. 
 
 Having given vent to his feelings on the subject of Hanover, 
 the writer resumes his attack on Lord G. Sackville : — 
 
 "If, however, there could have remained a doubt upon the 
 minds of the public with regard to Lord George's behaviour at the 
 battle of Minden, after having read his trial, here comes the battle 
 of Warburg. No stronger testimony though one rose from the dead" 
 
 Lord Chesterfield has as irreverently used this quotation from 
 scripture in one of his letters to his son : — 
 
 " I say no more to you on this subject. You have Mr. Harte 
 with you to enforce it, so that, in short, you have Moses and the 
 Prophets, if you will not believe them neither will you believe 
 though one rose from the dead." — Letter 80. 
 
 In the next paragraph the author criticises Lord Townshend's 
 letter from Quebec, and ridicules (as Junius seven years later did) 
 the expression that the Highlanders took to their broad sivords. 
 The impression that this seems to have made upon the writer 
 proves that he was sensitive to any impropriety in composition, 
 even under circumstances where a slip of this kind might be excused. 
 
 Lord Townshend's talent for caricatures is next animadverted on. 
 This is said to have been the chief source of the writer's indignation. 
 
 " If his lordship is in general more famed for artifice and that 
 more useful part of human wisdom called cunning* yet surely your 
 tricking General Monckton of the capitulation was a masterpiece 
 of dexterity. If my lord excels in that well-bred species of wit 
 known by the name of sneering, are not you equally excellent in 
 that good natured species of painting called caricatura, the amuse- 
 ment of your idle hours?" 
 
 Nothing was more offensive to Lord Chesterfield than the 
 species of wit here said to have been indulged in by Lord Geo. 
 Townshend. " Raillery," says his lordship, " requires a very light 
 and steady hand to administer it. A little too strong it may be 
 
 * " In a great business there is nothing so fatal as cunning; manage- 
 ment."— Chesterfield's Letter to his Son." 
 
JUNIUS AND LORD TOWNSHEND. 27 
 
 mistaken for offence, and a little too smooth it may be thought a 
 sneer, which is a most odious thing." 
 
 Junius has given more than one instance of his dislike at any 
 approach to this " well-bred kind of wit."* 
 
 The writer of the letter thus sums up the qualifications of his 
 two heroes : — 
 
 "These are the great outlines of your characters, and if we 
 should examine every the minutest feature,] we shall find not a 
 striking resemblance only, but of such a peculiar land as cannot 
 be mistaken for any one else. If I may be forgiven for deviating 
 into poetry, 
 
 Nought but yourselves can be your parallels. 
 
 " Hereafter, I mean in our future history, one character of 
 praise will be sufficient for both. It will be impossible to separate 
 and disunite your merits or the honours with which they are to be 
 rewarded. In public life, the same military virtues, the same 
 appetite for fighting, and the same abhorrence of retreating, — the 
 same perplexed passion for intrigue, business, politics, ministerial 
 confidence, and parliamentary debates. In private life the same 
 spirit of calumny and caricatura, the same insolence of manners 
 and arrogance of behaviour, the same vetus et insita families 
 superbia." 
 
 " In these last instances, however, you must forgive me, sir, if I 
 think his lordship, whether from genius or some luckier accident, 
 may justly claim a small degree of superiority. He was not born 
 indeed, but he was educated from his earliest infancy, in the house 
 of royalty, Prima ab infantia eductus in domo regnatrice. Here, it 
 is confessed, there was some danger of his perverting those precious 
 instincts with which nature had so liberally endowed him. He 
 might unhappily have learned to become humane, affable, and 
 
 * "I speak to men and to their experience, and will not descend to 
 answer the little sneering sophistry of |a collegian." — Vol. II., p. 305. 
 
 f The author of the " Letter" gives another example in the postscript of 
 this kind of construction : — 
 
 " When they would have received with pleasure any the least hopes," &c. 
 
 As this was not a common mode of construction at that time, it may be 
 worth while to quote the following parallels from Lord Chesterfield : — 
 
 " Practice them upon every the least occasion." — Letter to his Slon. 
 
 " and advise them to be watchful of any the least innovations of any 
 
 part of it:'— Works, Vol. II., p. 42. 
 
28 JUNIUS AND LORD TOWNSHEND. 
 
 condescending, — to compassionate the follies, to forgive the errors 
 of his fellow creatures, and to pay a sacred reverence to human 
 nature. Such are the examples, indeed, of all the princes upon 
 earth of a royal education" 
 
 " But he totally escaped these pernicious errors as unwounded, 
 except another slight scratch in his reputation, as at the battle of 
 Minden. By a peculiar and wonderful strength of virtue in his 
 constitution, he escaped even the poisonous breathings of flattery, 
 that incense of courts so profusely offered up to the young heirs of 
 greatness, and without which no human creature, not even a lord, 
 could dare to be insolent. How well he maintained the not too 
 humble consciousness of his own worth, with what modest confi- 
 dence he always exerted his abilities, let his behaviour at his trial 
 be an everlasting testimony. It should have been a full vindication 
 of his conduct at Minden. There, at least, his complexion was 
 unvaried, his eye firm and unshaken, his whole deportment rather 
 in the extreme of courage than liable even to the suspicion of 
 cowardice. There he certainly wanted not that presence of mind 
 which is the first great excellence of a general, nor did that weak- 
 ness of nerves^ for which a man is no more accountable than for any 
 other error of his constitution,* affect him on an occasion that 
 would have made many a gallant spirit tremble. He boldly in- 
 sulted his judge, overawed the resolution of the court, gave his 
 own asseveration of his innocence (the only uncontradicted evi- 
 dence he gave), and triumphed in the success of those assevera- 
 tions : a noble example, and worthy of your imitation." 
 
 " But you, sir, should disdain the servile spirit of imitation; it is 
 beneath a genius like yours. You should determine yourself to be 
 an original for others to imitate, you should be apprehensive of the 
 usual fate of imitators, who generally copy rather errors than excel- 
 lencies, as indeed it is easier to bend the head like Alexander or 
 Boscawen, than to imitate their courage and intrepidity. f" 
 
 As we approach the conclusion of this extraordinary letter, the 
 
 * "I am convinced," writes Lord Chesterfield, " that a light supper, a good 
 night's rest, and a fine morning, have sometimes made a hero of the same man, 
 who by an indigestion, a restless night, and a rainy morning, would have 
 proved a coward." — Letter 117. 
 
 •f- " Like true imitators, we only ape their imperfections, and awkwardly 
 copy those parts, which all reasonable Frenchmen themselves contemn. — Ches- 
 terfield." 
 
JUNIUS AND LORD TOWNSHEND. 29 
 
 paragraphs present stronger features, indicative of the writer. The 
 irony becomes more severe ; the author's contempt for greatness 
 without merit more apparent, while the sentences furnish several 
 instances of agreement in the sentiments, and expressions used 
 by Junius and by Lord Chesterfield. 
 
 But the most singular feature in the " Letter," is contained in a 
 paragraph above quoted, wherein the writer betrayed his resentment 
 against Geo. II. If the motives we have assigned to Lord Chester- 
 field be admitted, the apparent inconsistency of abusing loth the 
 King and Lord G. Sackville is at once explained, but if any doubt 
 remain, let the following passages from Lord Chesterfield's corres- 
 pondence, when suffering under similar disappointments, be compared 
 with the sentiments expressed in this remarkable paragraph. 
 
 " As Kings are begotten, and born like other men, it is to be 
 presumed that they are of the human species, and perhaps, had 
 they the same education, they might prove like other men ; but 
 flattered from their cradles, their hearts are corrupted, and their 
 heads are turned so that they seem to be a species by themselves. 
 No King ever said to himself 
 
 Homo sum, nihil humani a me alienum puto. 
 
 " The rulers of the earth are all worth knowing, they suggest 
 moral reflections, and the respect that one naturally has for God's 
 vicegerents here on earth is greatly increased by acquaintance with 
 them. — Letter to his Son, p. 308. 
 
 " The emperor, by your account, seems to be very well for an 
 emperor, who, by being above other monarchs in Europe, may 
 justly be supposed to have had a proportionably worse education. 
 I find by your account of him that he has been trained up to 
 homicide, the only science in which princes are ever instructed, 
 and with good reason, as their greatness and glory depend upon 
 the numbers of their fellow creatures which their ambition exter- 
 minates. If a sovereign should by great accident deviate into* 
 moderation, justice, and clemency, what a contemptible figure 
 would he make in the catalogue of princes." — Letter to his Son. 
 
 We should dwell longer on the proofs contained in this letter, 
 if the facts to be adduced as evidence that Lord Chesterfield was 
 
 * Charteris now and then deviated into honesty. — Junius. 
 
30 JUNIUS AND LORD TOWNSHEND. 
 
 the author of the writings of Junius, were not far more conclusive 
 than those derived from this source. All that has been attempted 
 to be shewn, is, that the circumstances which identify Lord 
 Chesterfield to be the author of the " Letter" are stronger than 
 those which have convinced many that it was written by Junius, 
 for, in addition to similarity of style and verbal peculiarities, 
 the personal feelings of the writer have been traced, and so far as 
 circumstances will permit, have been brought home to Lord 
 Chesterfield. 
 
 As the hostility of Junius towards Lord Townshend was of short 
 duration, (although his lordship was one of the first singled out 
 by that anonymous writer for the exercise of hi6 satire and abuse), 
 it may be well to complete this part of the subject by references 
 to the letters of Junius, in which the character of Lord Townshend 
 is introduced.* 
 
 In the first of these letters Junius says — " I have been for some 
 time in the country\, which has prevented your hearing sooner from 
 me. I find you and your brother printers have got greatly into a 
 sort of knack of stuffing your papers with flummery upon two 
 
 * The letters IV., V., VI., VII., and VIII. of Woodfall's Miscellaneous 
 Collection (comprising a period of only two months) refer chiefly to Lord 
 Townshend's appointment as Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland. 
 
 f Here is a distinction which attaches strong suspicion to the Earl of 
 Chesterfield. On referring to his lordship's letters, it will be seen he was at 
 Blackheath at this time, and left town when Junius ceased writing. The fol- 
 lowing table will distinctly prove the connection : — 
 
 Dates of Junius's Letters. Dates of the Earl of Chesterfield's Letters. 
 
 London, April 28, 1767. London, April 6, 1767. 
 
 ~ May 28 ' — Mav 5 
 
 — June 24, May 5 ' 
 
 — * Aug. 25, — June 1, 
 
 — Sept. 16, Blackheath, July 2, 
 
 — Oct. 12 
 
 ' 22' Blackheath, — 9, 
 
 — — 31, London, Oct. 30, 
 
 There is another circumstance connected with these dates that deserves 
 attention. It will be seen here, (as throughout the whole of Junius's corre- 
 spondence) that they are distinct from each other. The letters of the Earl of 
 Chesterfield to his correspondents, seldom, if ever, were written so as to 
 interfere with the labours of Junius. 
 
 As these facts are material to the elucidation of the question another 
 instance may be traced for the satisfaction of the reader. The Earl of Chester- 
 field left London the first week in November, 1767 : during this month, and 
 the greater part of December, no letter appeared from Junius. 
 
JUNIUS AND LORD TOWNSHEND. 31 
 
 certain brothers* who are, labour-in-vain, endeavouring to force 
 themselves out of the world's contempt." 
 
 " I am not a stranger to this par nobile frairum. I have served 
 under the one and have been forty times promised to be served by 
 the other. I don't think it possible to characterise either without 
 having recourse to the other; but anybody who knows one of 
 them may easily obtain an idea of the other! Thus, now, sup- 
 pose you acquainted with the Chancellor, take away his ingenuity 
 and a something that at times looks like good nature, but it is 
 not, and you have the direct and actual character of the peer, a 
 boaster without spirit and a pretender to wit without a grain of 
 sense, in a word, a vain glorious idler without one single good 
 
 quality of head or heart. I hope his affairs with Lord and 
 
 Mr. are the only instances of his setting out with unne- 
 cessary insolence, and ending with shameful tameness.f But is 
 such a man likely to please the brave Irish, whose hasty tempers 
 or whose blunders may sometimes lead them into a quarrel, but 
 whose swords always carry them through it." — WoodfalVs Junius, 
 vol. II, p. 468. 
 
 Whether there be any semblance of truth in the writer's asser- 
 tion that he had served under Lord Townshend, so as to reconcile 
 the fact with the situation of Lord Chesterfield's former varied 
 employments, would be difficult to prove. It is, however, well 
 known that Lord Chesterfield raised a regiment during the rebellion 
 of 1745, and that Lord Townshend at that time held an important 
 command in the army. The author of the " Letter" alludes to the 
 conduct of Lord Townshend at that critical period. 
 
 " The Highlanders would not have made such an obstinate 
 resistance at the battle of Culloden, or rendered the sword and 
 target so justly terrible to the British soldiery, if even your 
 perfect veneration for the person of your royal commander could 
 have prevailed over your natural antipathy to a northern campaign." 
 
 As regards Charles Townshend (who was Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer at this time), it is presumed that Lord Chesterfield 
 
 * Lord Townshend and his brother the celebrated Charles Townshend. 
 The latter died a few weeks after the date of this letter. 
 
 t These were not the only affairs of this kind in which Lord Townshend 
 was engaged. In 1773 he met Lord Bellamont in Mary-le-bone fields, tnd 
 ended the long protracted quarrel by wounding his opponent. — London Mag., 
 Vol. XLIL, p. 87-97. 
 
32 JXTNIUS AND LORD TOWNSHEND. 
 
 had applied to him on the subject of Mr. Stanhope's preferment, 
 and it is probable that on several other occasions Lord Chester- 
 field had been promised to be served by that gentleman. The 
 manner in which Lord Chesterfield sometimes speaks* of Charles 
 Townshend savours of disapprobation and resentment. " Charles 
 Townshend," observed his lordship in 1765, "will play booty;" 
 and it was at this time that Lord Chesterfield is believed to have 
 sent the following bon mot to Woodfall: "We hear that the 
 Right Honorable Mr. Charles Townshend is indisposed at his 
 house in Oxfordshire of a pain in his side, but it is not said in 
 which side." 
 
 The characters of the two brothers are ably discriminated 
 by Junius, and he proves himself to have been well acquainted 
 with the parties he so ingeniously contrasted. 
 
 The "affair with Lord ," relates to a meeting 
 
 between Lord Albemarle and Lord Townshend, which is thus 
 noticed by Horace Walpole, Nov. 4, 1760. "An extraordinary 
 event has happened to-day, — George Townshend sent a challenge 
 to Lord Albemarle desiring him to be with a second in the fields. 
 Lord Albemarle took Colonel Crawford and went to Mary-bone ; 
 Geo. Townshend bespoke Lord Buckingham, who loves a secret 
 too well not to tell it ; he communicated it to Stanley, who went 
 to St. James's and acquainted Mr. Caswall, the captain on guard. 
 The latter took an hackney coach, drove to Mary-bone, and saw 
 one pair; after waiting ten minutes the others came. Towns- 
 hend made an apology to Lord Albemarle for making him wait. 
 Oh, said he, men of spirit don't want apologies ; come, let us 
 begin what we came here for. At that instant out stept Caswall 
 from his coach and begs their pardon as his superior officers, 
 but told them they were his prisoners. He desired Mr. Towns- 
 hend and Lord Buckingham to return to their coach ; he would 
 carry back Lord Albemarle and Crawford in his. He did, and 
 went to acquaint the King, who has commissioned some of the 
 
 * There must have been a trick in Charles Townshend's speaking for the 
 Preliminaries, for he is infinitely above having an opinion. — Chesterfield to 
 his Son, 1762. 
 
 Charles Townshend has given himself more ministerial airs than Lord 
 Chatham will, I believe, approve of. However, since Lord Chatham has 
 thought fit to withdraw himself from that House, he cannot well do without 
 Charles's abilities to manage it as his deputy.— Feb. 13, 17 67. 
 
JUNIUS AND LORD TOWNSHEND. 33 
 
 matrons of the army to examine the affair and make it up. All 
 this while I don't know what the quarrel was, but they hated one 
 another so much on the Duke's account, that a slight word 
 would easily make their aversions boil over."* 
 
 It does not appear in what manner the quarrel was made 
 up, or whether the author of the " Letter" was discovered, though 
 it was, perhaps, through his interference that the duel was 
 prevented, and the steps which he took to save Lord Albemarle 
 possibly led to the detection of the writer. Lord Albemarle was 
 charged only with encouraging the publication,* and probably he 
 had no suspicion of its author or of his motives for writing the 
 " Letter." 
 
 That Lord Albemarle should have been suspected of having 
 promoted the circulation of this libel on Lord Townshend, may be 
 accounted for by the relative position of the parties. Lord Towns- 
 hend accepted the command in America after Lord Albemarle had 
 declined the appointment ; the latter might, therefore, feel jealous 
 of the reputation Lord Townshend had acquired in the capitulation 
 of Quebec. Whether Lord Albemarle was much pressed to accept 
 the command, is doubtful ; for, notwithstanding the plausibility of 
 Lord Barrington's letter on the subject, it appears more than pro- 
 bable that his lordship hoped to obtain the preferment for his 
 brother.f The following is Lord Barrington's letter of congratula- 
 tion to Colonel Townshend, Dec. 30. 1758 : — 
 
 * It is said the quarrel arose from a late publication. — London Chronicle, 
 Nov. 1760. 
 
 "t Lord Barrington to Viscount Ligonier, Oct. 14, 1758. 
 
 " I am very sorry to hear that there is even a possibility of General Bos- 
 cawen not going with the Expedition, especially as your lordship seems to think 
 there will not be time to substitute any other Major-General in his place. By 
 these means my brother is in danger of being second in command, and who- 
 ever is second may soon be first. I use the term danger, because nothing is so 
 unfortunate as being placed at the head of a great enterprize to which one is 
 not equal. Though Colonel Barrington served all the last war, it was as 
 captain, aid-de-camp, or volunteer. He has a good understanding, and is very 
 much resolved to do his duty ; but I do not think him qualified for the im- 
 portant office of a Commander-in-Chief, much less when that command has 
 been declined already by Major-Generai Mostyn and Lord Albemarle, as think- 
 ing themselves unequal to it. I have, in some measure, foreseen this event, 
 from the willingness which has universally appeared to be excused from this 
 service ; and, therefore, I have begged more than once of your Lordship and 
 Mr. Pitt, that two officers, at least, of superior rank might be sent, — the only 
 favour I have desired for my friend, my brother, and my heir. I again depre- 
 cate Colonel Barrington being so near the command, and I entreat of your 
 Lordship to recommend some other Major-General to His Majesty in case Mr. 
 Boscawen should be excused. If this cannot be, I must submit, as I always 
 
34 JUNIUS AND LORD TOWNSHEND. 
 
 " And now, my dear George, allow me most sincerely to con- 
 gratulate you on the honour you have done yourself by the very 
 noble and (I think) wise step you have taken on this occasion. / 
 hope officers with regiments will he ashamed to decline service any 
 where after the example you have set; and, in my opinion, it is for 
 the King's service, nay, I may add, his honour, that such a conduct 
 should not be long unnoticed or unrewarded by him. You know I 
 never flatter you, but I have particular pleasure in such oppor- 
 tunities of telling you my mind as these." 
 
 The slur cast by Lord Barrington upon officers declining service, 
 is evidently levelled at Lord Albemarle. 
 
 It will be seen by the last sentence in the foregoing paragraph 
 from Junius (p. 31), that the writer was partial to the Irish nation, 
 though his encomium by no means indicates that he was an Irish- 
 man. It exhibits the friendly feeling which Lord Chesterfield 
 evinced whenever he spoke of his " adopted country ;" — not the 
 spontaneous affection of a legitimate offspring, but the warm 
 esteem which the recollection of kindness will produce. 
 
 In letter V., [Woodfall's edition,] Junius professes to supply Lord 
 Townshend with the outlines of a caricature, in which several new 
 characters are introduced, and, among the rest, Lord Shelburne 
 and Colonel Barre. 
 
 The difficulty of reconciling the letters of Junius with the situ- 
 ation and connections of many of the candidates, first caused their 
 authenticity to be doubted. But they have been given to the world 
 on pretty good authority ; they also contain internal evidence that 
 the greater part are genuine Letters of Junius. But as far as regards 
 the two in which the names of Lord Shelburne and Colonel 
 Barre are mentioned, there does not appear to be the shadow of a 
 doubt that they, at least, are genuine : for the publisher, in his 
 notices to correspondents, acknowledged that they came from his 
 correspondent C. 
 
 will to the King's pleasure ; but in this one instance I shall submit with reluct- 
 ance and concern. 
 
 " Your Lordship, I think, will be of opinion that whoever has the chief 
 command under General Hopson, should have some distinction, and that he 
 will want an aid-de-camp ; and, therefore, if my brother is to be second in 
 command, I hope you will propose to the King that he should serve as Major 
 (not Brigadier) General. Colonel Webbe acted as such under Lord Loudon in 
 America from the beginning without any commission." — Political Life of Lord 
 Barrington, page 44. 
 
JTJNITJS AND LORD TOWNSHEND. 35 
 
 In the letter before us, the figures of Lord Shelburne and 
 Colonel Barre are thus to be delineated. 
 
 " There is still a young man* my lord, who, I think, will make 
 a capital figure in the piece. His features are too happily marked 
 to be mistaken. A single line in his face will be sufficient to give 
 us the heir apparent of Loyola and all the College. A little more 
 of the devil, my lord, if you please, about the eyebrows — that's 
 enough — a perfect Malagrida I protest. So much for his person ; 
 as for his mind, a blinking bull dogf placed near him, will form a 
 very natural type of all his good qualities." 
 
 In a subsequent letter, dated 7th October, 1767, (which is also 
 authenticated by a notice from the printer to his friend and corres- 
 pondent CJ, the dog is again introduced. The letter was announced 
 — "The Grand Council upon the affairs of Ireland, after eleven 
 adjournments." 
 
 The dramatis personce of the Council are — 
 
 Tilbury (fuddled) Earl of Northington. 
 
 Judge Jefferyes Earl Camden. 
 
 Caution, without foresight . . Mr. Conway. 
 
 Malagrida Lord Shelburne. 
 
 Boutdeville (sulky) Lord Townshend. 
 
 A chair left empty for the High Treasurer (the Duke of Grafton), 
 detained by a hurry of business at Newmarket. 
 A dog barks and wakens Tilbury, who starts up. 
 " Tilbury. — Zounds ! my lord, do you keep bull dogs in your 
 house ? 
 
 Malagrida. — No, my lord; it's but a mungrel.J Your true 
 English bull dog never quits his hold, but this cur plays fast and 
 loose just as I bid him ; he worries a man one moment, and fawns 
 upon him the next." 
 
 The Council breaks up, and leaves Malagrida to soliloquize. 
 
 " What a negro's skin must I have if this shallow fellow could 
 
 see my meaning in my face. Now will I skulk away to — — , 
 
 where I will betray or misrepresent every syllable I have heard, 
 
 ridicule their persons, blacken their characters, fawn upon the man 
 
 * Lord Shelburne. f Colonel Barre. 
 
 X Colonel Barre was a native of Ireland, though of French extraction 
 hence the sarcasm of mungrel. 
 
 D 2 
 
6b JUNIUS AND LOKD TOWNSHEND. 
 
 who hears me, until I have an opportunity of biting even him to 
 the heart." 
 
 Junius, in his reply to an answer to this letter, says : — 
 
 " One word more, and I have done. Did it become him who 
 has undertaken the defence of a whole ministry, to forget the dog ? 
 This mungrel, that barks, and bites, and fawns, has, nevertheless, 
 a share in Council ; and, in the opinion of the best judges, cuts 
 full as good a figure in it as his master." 
 
 The resentment of Junius towards Lord Shelburne, continued 
 as long as his lordship remained in office. On the 22nd October, 
 1768, (nearly a twelvemonth after the above was written), Junius 
 again introduced Lord Shelburne to the public, and described him 
 in terms more offensive than even the portrait he had sketched for 
 him in the character of Malagrida. 
 
 " The Earl of Shelburne had initiated himself in business by 
 carrying messages between the Earl of Bute and Mr. Fox, and 
 was for some time a favourite with both. Before he was an 
 ensign he thought himself fit to be a general and to be a leading 
 minister before he ever saw a public office. The life of this 
 young man is a satire on mankind. The treachery which deserts 
 a friend, might be a virtue compared to the fawning baseness 
 which attaches itself to a declared enemy. Lord Chatham became 
 his idol, introduced him into the most difficult department of the 
 state, and left him there to shift for himself. It was a masterpiece 
 of revenge. Unconnected, unsupported, he remains in office with- 
 out interest or dignity, as if the income were an equivalent for 
 all loss of reputation. Without spirit or judgment to take an 
 advantageous moment of retiring, he submits to be insulted as 
 long as he is paid for it. But even this abject conduct will avail 
 him nothing. Like his great archetype, the vapour on which 
 he rose deserts him, and now, 
 
 * Fluttering his pennons vain, plumb down he drops/ " 
 
 At the time these letters were written, Lord Shelburne was 
 Secretary of State for the Southern Department, and Colonel 
 Barre (his confidential friend) was Vice Treasurer of Ireland. 
 It would have been absolute insanity in either to have written 
 such libels on themselves. With Lord Chesterfield the case was 
 
JUNIUS AND LORD TOWNSHEND. 37 
 
 different. He was at that time neglected by every Minister, and he 
 had just experienced the disappointment of having the doors of the 
 House of Commons closed against his son. His only reliance in 1 767, 
 was on the Duke of Grafton ; and therefore his Grace was spared 
 until the arrangements for the new Parliament were completed. 
 
 The third letter of the Townshend series is an answer to a 
 writer in the Public Advertiser* who had undertaken to vindicate 
 Lord Townshend against the aspersion of a correspondent 
 under the signature No Ghost, and who (if not Junius himself J 
 was evidently a person well known to that writer. This letter 
 is signed Moderator. There is a vein of ironical humour run- 
 ning through the whole of it, that if it were not for its length we 
 should be tempted to lay it at once before the reader as a specimen 
 of Lord Chesterfield's lively manner of writing. The following 
 extract, however, deserves notice from the parallel passage it 
 contains, which not only connects this letter with the more au- 
 thentic publications of Junius, but affords another instance of 
 similarity in the use of a phrase rarely found in other writers. 
 
 " Philo Veritatis asserts that his hero, Lord Townshend, gave 
 proofs of his bravery at Minden and Quebec. No Ghost denies 
 the fact, upon the presumed impossibility of his transporting 
 himself from one of these places to the other in the space of ten 
 days, unless he could fly, and that very fast too. Now flying 
 being a quality which Philo Veritatis does not choose to ascribe 
 (whatever belief it might gain ivith the publicj] to his hero, an- 
 swers this in somewhat a new way. " This objection," says he, 
 "has no weight, and is made only to introduce a scrap of Latin and a 
 witticism. This may be a very good answer at cross purposes, 
 but it is, I confess, a very whimsical one in the present case." — 
 WoodfalVs Junius, Vol. II., p. 478. 
 
 The application of the passage of the Provoked Husband in 
 
 * Philo Veritatis. 
 
 f The genuiness of this letter may be still further authenticated by com- 
 paring the similarity of sentiment contained in the following parallel, rendered 
 the more remarkable by its singularity: — 
 
 Junius. — "When once a man is determined to believe, the very absurdity 
 of the doctrine confirms him in his faith. 
 
 Chesterfield.— "The fact will appear so incredible that it will certainly 
 be believed, the only difficulty will be how to account for it." 
 
 The credulity of the vulgar and their fondness for the marvellous, levelled 
 at in each of these examples, proves the writer to have been a sceptic. 
 
38 JUNIUS AND LORD TOWNSHEND. 
 
 which the phrase " cross purposes'''' occurs (in this instance used 
 by the writer as his own composition), is acknowledged in a sub- 
 sequent letter to have been borrowed from Sir John Brute." 
 " Now, Mr. Woodfall, I shall make but one reflection, and that I 
 shall borrow from Sir John Brute. This may be a very good 
 answer, for aught I know, at cross purposes, but it is a damned 
 whimsical one to a people in our circumstances." — Wood/all's 
 Junius, Vol. III., p. 212. The writer, however, at a later date, 
 under the signature Junius, adopted the phrase " cross purposes," 
 and used it as his own. 
 
 " This, indeed, would have been a most extraordinary way of 
 declaring the law of parliament, and what I presume no man whose 
 understanding is not at cross purposes with itself could possibly 
 understand." — Vol. I, p. 520. 
 
 " That worthy lawyer is never at cross purposes with himself, 
 and / dare say would have maintained the same doctrine in his 
 closet which he has delivered for the instruction of the public." — 
 Vol. III., p. 205. 
 
 Lord Chesterfield says that his friend Lyttleton was often so 
 wrapped up in thought that he did not know his most intimate 
 acquaintance by sight, and "answered them as if he were at cross- 
 purposes." And in one of the papers of TJie World, his lordship 
 quotes Sir John Brute,* thereby shewing the impression that cha- 
 racter had made on him. But enough has been said to authenti- 
 cate the Letter signed Moderator, and connect it with the 
 "Letter" to Brigadier Townshend, we therefore pass on to the 
 remainder of the series. 
 
 Letter Vllf is entitled " Grand council upon the affairs of 
 
 * A gentleman is every man who, with a tolerable suit of clothes, a sword 
 by his side, and a watch and snuff-box in his pocket, asserts himself to be a 
 gentleman, swears with energy that he will be treated as such, and that he 
 will cut the throat of any man who presumes to say the contrary. 
 
 He may abuse and starve his own wife, daughters or sisters, he may 
 seduce those of other men, particularly his friends, with inviolate Honour, 
 because, as Sir John Brute very justly observes, he wears a sword. — Mis. Works, 
 Vol. II., p. 202-3. 
 
 f This and the next letter are remarkable from having been attributed to 
 Edmund Burke. It is no less singular that the next communication from 
 Junius was a bond fide speech of Mr. Burke's, sent with a short preface by 
 Junius for insertion in the Public Advertiser. It is possible that this stratagem 
 was resorted to by Junius to keep alive the conjecture that Burke was the 
 author of the Report of the Hill-street Council, and by that means to with- 
 draw suspicion from himself. 
 
 It would be useless here to enlarge in refutation of the claims of Mr. 
 
JUNIUS AND LOUD TOWNSHEND. 39 
 
 Ireland after eleven adjournments.'" The author professes to give a 
 report of a meeting in Hill-street, convened for the purpose of 
 drawing up Lord Townshend's instructions for the government of 
 Ireland. This was a subject that could not fail to attract the 
 attention of Lord Chesterfield, and though he might not have 
 been consulted by the parties, yet his lordship's friends would 
 naturally communicate to him the circumstances of Lord Town- 
 shend's embarrassment. 
 
 Notwithstanding the levity of the writer's description of the 
 characters included in this drama, the result of the conference 
 cannot be regarded as a pure fiction, for in answer to a correspon- 
 dent (who pretended to give a real account of what passed at the 
 council) the writer, in the seriousness of truth, warned his opponent 
 not to provoke the exposure of the actual conduct of the parties 
 on that occasion.* 
 
 "If facts asserted are notoriously false," says Junius, "the 
 assertion of them can do no mischief; if notoriously true they are 
 beyond the reach of his wit, if he had any to palliate, or of his 
 modesty, which I think is upon a par with his wit, to deny. 
 
 " Now, sir, if I were not afraid of distressing him too much, I 
 would ask him whether Lord Townshend did not openly complain, 
 only three days before his departure, that he could not by the 
 warmest solicitations prevail on the ministry to agree upon any one 
 system of instructions for him, that he was left entirely to himself, 
 and that the ministry could not be persuaded to pay the smallest 
 attention either to his situation or to that of the country he was 
 sent to govern. Did he not say this without reserve to every man 
 he met even in public court, and with all possible marks of resent- 
 ment and disgust ? I would advise your second correspondent not 
 
 Burke, since this speech is the only tangible proof in his favour. His character, 
 connections, and political opinions differ widely from those of Junius ; more- 
 over, he frequently and solemnly denied any knowledge of the letters. But 
 Burke was personally acquainted with Lord Chesterfield, and this will, perhaps, 
 account for the copy of the speech finding its way to Woodfall. 
 
 * This threatening to give still greater annoyance to his adversaries 
 " if provoked," is a practical illustration of one of the maxims of Lord 
 Chesterfield : — 
 
 " If you have the power to hurt, hint, that if provoked, you may pos- 
 sibly have the will too." 
 
 Hints of this kind occur in the correspondence of Junius with the Duke 
 of Bedford, Lord Hillsborough, Mr. Weston, and almost every other character 
 who dared to oppose that writer. 
 
40 JUNIUS AND LORD TOWNSHEND. 
 
 to deny these known facts, for if lie does I will assuredly produce 
 some proofs of them which will gall his patrons a little more than 
 anything they have seen already. Let one of them only recollect 
 what sort of conversation very lately passed between him and the 
 Lord-Lieutenant, how he was pressed and how he evaded. But 
 the facts, of which the public are already possessed, sufficiently 
 speak for themselves, and the nation wants no further proof of 
 the weakness, ignorance, irresolution, and spirit of discord which 
 reign triumphant in this illustrious divan, who have dared to take 
 upon them the conduct of an empire." — Vol. II, p. 497. 
 
 The ostensible design of the letters against Lord Townshend 
 was to expose the incapacity of the ministers, and more particu- 
 larly with reference to their management of Ireland. At the same 
 time the writer appears to have been prompted, by some recent 
 injury, to abuse the several parties named in the drama. Lord 
 Townshend (who seems to have been the principal object of the 
 writer's spleen) visited Lord Chesterfield once after his appointment 
 to the Lieutenancy of Ireland. The circumstance is thus noticed 
 in a letter to the Bishop of Waterford, dated 10th Oct., 1766. — 
 " You have a new Lord-Lieutenant, I have seen him once, and he 
 seems resolved to do well. One thing I verily believe, that he 
 will have no dirty work done nor the least corruption suffered." — 
 Letters, Vol. III., p. 433. 
 
 It must be borne in mind that this guarded encomium on Lord 
 Townshend (in which his lordship's qualifications as a viceroy are 
 not mentioned) was written before Lord Chesterfield had any 
 cause to be displeased with the ministers. It also proves that 
 Lord Townshend had seen Lord Chesterfield on the subject of his 
 recent appointment, and may not Junius refer to this very inter- 
 view in the concluding paragraph of the last letter ? 
 
 The enmity of Junius towards Lord Townshend appears to 
 have subsided with this letter, for, although Junius occasionally 
 alluded to the mismanagement of Ireland, and at a later period 
 betrayed his contempt for Lord Townshend, and promised that 
 the history of his ridiculous administration should not be lost to 
 the public, yet he seems to have studiously avoided the subject. 
 It was a theme, perhaps, too hazardous for Junius to attempt, 
 since he could scarcely have condemned the viceroyship of Towns- 
 hend without reminding the public of the popular administration 
 
 Lord Chesterfield, 
 
JUNIUS AND LOED TOWNSHEND. 41 
 
 In the letter " To the Honourable Brigadier- General," Lord 
 George Sackville received his full share of abuse. It has been 
 shown that at that time Lord Chesterfield consorted with those 
 who strove to injure Lord George Sackville' s reputation. Neither 
 is there any proof that Lord Chesterfield ever professed such a 
 regard for his lordship as would prevent him from saying, in 
 1767 — 
 
 " I believe the best thing I can do will be to consult with 
 my Lord George Sackville. His character is known and respected 
 in Ireland as much as it is here, and I know he loves to be sta- 
 tioned in the rear* as well as myself." — Vol. II, p. 491. 
 
 This, however, is the only instance in which the name of 
 Lord George Sackville is referred to by Junius in his public 
 letters; but soon after that writer had attracted attention, sus- 
 picion rested on Lord George Sackville as the author. In 
 July, 1769, Junius cautions Mr. Woodfall to be on his guard 
 against Swinney (one of Woodfall's correspondents), " who had 
 the impudence to go to Lord George Sackville, whom he had 
 never spoken to, and ask him whether or no he was Junius." 
 
 The fact that Junius continued to write for more than two 
 years after this disclosure, is alone sufficient to prove that 
 Swinney was mistaken in his conjecture ; for had Lord George 
 Sackville been Junius, he might have been traced in his subse- 
 quent correspondence either by Swinney or by Mr. Woodfall. 
 The alarm betrayed by Junius, and the assertion that Swinney 
 had never before spoken to Lord George Sackville, indicates, 
 it is true, a personal acquaintance between Junius and his lord- 
 
 * An anecdote is related of Lord George Sackville, that shews he could 
 hear his character for bravery aspersed, with a calm forbearance which a 
 coward can never assume. 
 
 His lordship, after he had taken the title of Germaine, procured a living 
 for a gentleman whom he had not the honour of knowing. For this civility 
 the gentleman waited on Lord George to return him his thanks. His lordship 
 being inclined to make his situation as easy as possible, acquainted him that 
 since he had procured the living, a second of equal value was within his gift, 
 and he begged to recommend it to him in preference to the other, which was 
 unluckily situated close to a powder-mill. The young parson desiring to ex- 
 press a sense of his gratitude, also to give his lordship a specimen of his wit, 
 unfortunately answered that he was much obliged to his lordship, for he had as 
 great an aversion to powder, as Lord George Sackville. 
 
 His lordship, unruffled, replied with the highest courtesy — " In that par- 
 ticular, sir, you may find, upon more mature deliberation, that common fame 
 has deceived you," without even betraying to the flippant priest, that Lord 
 George Germaine had been Lord George Sackville. 
 
42 JUNIUS AND LORD TOWNSHEND. 
 
 ship ; and this will explain the mystery of the early and accurate 
 information which Junius obtained of Swinney's impertinent visit, 
 for Lord G. Sackville not being Junius would probably mention 
 to his acquaintance so extraordinary an occurrence. 
 
 In a pamphlet published in 1825, (attempting to prove 
 that Lord Geo. Sackville was Junius), we find the author com- 
 pelled to have recourse to Lord Chesterfield in order to account 
 for the knowledge of certain anecdotes divulged by Junius 
 relating to the Duke and Duchess of Bedford. 
 
 The author of this pamphlet admits that Lord Chesterfield's 
 abilities would have been " unquestionably equal to the task" of 
 writing the letters of Junius, but among other objections, he 
 states that Lord Chesterfield died a short time before Mr. Woodfall 
 and Junius concluded their correspondence. It will be shown 
 that Lord Chesterfield died at the very time that Woodfall was ex- 
 pecting the fulfilment of the promise held out by Junius in his 
 last letter, dated 19th Jan., 1773. 
 
 " Junius must have been more than a common political enemy 
 to the duke," says Mr. Coventry, "or he would not have taken 
 such infinite pains to collect a catalogue of the various indignities 
 that had been offered to him. He writes to his printer more 
 than once to obtain for him the information when the duke was 
 flogged by Humphry. Not satisfied with this, he relates anec- 
 dotes of the duchess, which might easily have been obtained 
 from Lord Chesterfield, with whom Lord George was on intimate 
 terms. Another anecdote respecting the duke's chastisement 
 evidently came from that quarter: "Mr. Heston Humphry, a 
 country attorney, horsewhipped the duke with equal justice, 
 severity, and perseverance on the course at Litchfield. Kigby 
 and Lord Trentham were also cudgelled in a most exemplary 
 manner. This gave rise to the following 'story. When the 
 late King heard that Sir Edward Hawke had given the French 
 a drubbing, his Majesty, who had never received that kind of 
 chastisement, was pleased to ask Lord Chesterfield the mean- 
 ing of the word. Sir, says Lord Chesterfield, the meaning of 
 
 the word ■ but here comes the Duke of Bedford, who 
 
 is better able to explain it to your Majesty than I am." 
 
 This last anecdote was not published originally with the letter 
 to the Duke of Bedford, but was added by Junius when he revised 
 
JUNIUS AND LOED TOWNSHEND. 43 
 
 Woodfall's Edition of the letters in 1771. The danger of dis- 
 covery had then in a great measure ceased, and Junius feeling 
 assured of the absence of any positive proofs from his writings, 
 seemed rather to court enquiry, by relating circumstances of a 
 private nature, known but to few beyond the Duke's own family. 
 " Let the friends of the Duke of Bedford observe that humble 
 silence which becomes their situation. They should recollect that 
 there are still some facts in store at which human nature would 
 shudder. I shall be understood by those whom it concerns, when I 
 say that these facts go farther than to the Duke." 
 
 At the time this warning was written, there were not many 
 persons better acquainted with the private and public history of 
 the Duke of Bedford than Lord Chesterfield — none perhaps but 
 himself could " privately threaten his Grace with such a storm as 
 would make him tremble even in his grave." 
 
 It is not necessary to enter minutely into the enquiry whether 
 Lord George Sackville wrote the letters of Junius, since his lord- 
 ship's official papers are sufficient certificates of his incapacity ; 
 but the absurdity of the supposition has lately been fully confirmed 
 in the review* of a work attempting to affix the authorship of 
 Junius on Lord George Sackville. We shall, therefore, only add 
 a few particulars relating to his lordship's political connections after 
 the memorable event that is supposed to have induced him to write 
 the letters of Junius. 
 
 In 1759 Lord George Sackville was deprived of all his em- 
 ployments by Geo. II., and his name struck out of the Council 
 Book by the King's own hand. He was afterwards, at his own 
 request, tried by court martial, found guilty of disobeying Prince 
 Ferdinand's orders, and declared unfit to serve His Majesty in any 
 military capacity whatever. 
 
 Notwithstanding these disgraces, he was introduced the next 
 year at court by Lord Bute, and would probably have enjoyed the 
 favours of the young King, if the ministry had not compelled him 
 to retire. 
 
 That this was the will of the ministers and not of the King, is 
 evident from what followed after Mr. Pitt and the Duke of New- 
 castle had resigned. In 1765 Lord George was re-instated a 
 
 * Vol. ii., p. 32. f Athgeneum, Feb. 10, 1844. 
 
44 JUNIUS AND LORD TOWNSHEDD. 
 
 member of the Privy Council, and appointed one of the Vice- 
 Treasurers of Ireland ; but the next year Lord Chatham's ministry 
 was formed, and Lord George Sackville was excluded. It does 
 not appear that in all these reverses Lord George had any cause to 
 complain of the behaviour of the King towards him. His lord- 
 ship, however, did not accept office again till 1775, and in the 
 interim the letters of Junius were written. 
 
 As Mr. Britton has included Mr. Dunning with Lord Shelburne 
 and Colonel Barre, as joint proprietor in the works of Junius, 
 it may be expected that some notice will be taken of the pre- 
 tensions of that gentleman to the authorship of the letters. L 
 
 " Of all the reputed authors of these celebrated addresses," 
 says Mr. Woodfall's editor, " Dunning, Lord Ashburton, offers 
 the largest aggregate of claim in his favour, and, but for a few 
 facts which seem decisive against him, might fairly be admitted 
 to have been the real Junius. 
 
 " Dunning was Solicitor- General at the time these letters first 
 appeared, and for more than a twelvemonth afterwards; and 
 Junius himself has openly and solemnly affirmed / am no lawyer 
 by 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 unblemished honour 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 confi- 
 dential servants and councellors ; 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 billy — Preliminary Essay, 
 p. 155. 
 
 In addition to these circumstances, Junius frequently expressed 
 his contempt for the profession. In a private letter to "Wilkes he 
 shrunk from the imputation of belonging to a class of men whose 
 general character he despised as much as he did the nation that so 
 often felt the force of his satire. " 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." 
 
 The opinions of Lord Ashburton were also in some cases 
 directly opposite to those of Junius, neither does there appear to 
 be any proof that he had cause for personal resentment against 
 those whom Junius from time to time singled out as victims to 
 
JUNIUS AND LORD TOWNSHEND. 45 
 
 appease the wrath of his vengeance. A single instance of Mr. 
 Dunning' s opposition to that writer will be sufficient to prove how 
 ill-founded was this conjecture. 
 
 Junius, in his letter to Lord Mansfield, condemns the conduct 
 of Baron Smythe in the case of John Taylor, who had, in spite of 
 the instructions of the judge, been found guilty of murder. 
 
 " Your brother Smythe," says Junius, " brow beats a jury and 
 forces them to alter their verdict by which they had found a Scotch 
 Sergeant guilty of murder, — and though the Kennedies were con- 
 victed of a most deliberate and atrocious murder they still had a 
 claim to the royal mercy. They were saved by the chastity of 
 their connections. They had a sister — yet it was not her beauty 
 but the pliancy of her virtue that recommended her to the king. 
 The holy author of our religion was seen in the company of sinners, 
 but it was his gracious purpose to convert them from their sins. 
 Another man, who in the ceremonies of our faith might give 
 lessons to the great enemy of it upon different principles, keeps 
 much the same company. He advertises for patients, collects all 
 the diseases of the heart, and turns a royal palace into an hospital 
 of incurables. A man of honour has no ticket of admission at 
 St. James's. They receive him like a virgin at the Magdalen— 
 Go thou and do likewise. — Vol. II., p. 440. 
 
 Mr. Dunning, though a strong oppositionist, defended Mr. 
 Baron Smythe's conduct in respect to the trial alluded to by Junius, 
 in a speech spoken on a motion made by Mr. Sergeant Glynn, 
 Dec. 6, 1770. Mr. Dunning observed, "It is not that the cha- 
 racters of Judges are not traduced by groundless accusations and 
 scandalous aspersions. These are grievances which every one sees 
 and every one laments. Judge Smythe, for example, has to my 
 knowledge been very injuriously treated. His conduct in trying 
 the Scotch Sergeant at Guildford, for which he has been so much 
 abused in print and now arraigned in parliament, was, in my 
 opinion, very fair and honorable. I was consulted on the affair 
 as an advocate, and I must say that I perfectly coincided with him 
 in sentiment. Had I been in his place I must have fallen under 
 the same odium, for my conscience would not have allowed me to 
 use any other language but that of Baron Smythe." — Editor's note 
 to WoodfalVs Edition, p. 440. 
 
 The above parallel proves that Mr. Dunning could not have 
 
46 JUNIUS AND LORD TOWNSHEND. 
 
 been the author of the letter to Lord Mansfield ; but the extract 
 from Junius contains strong evidence that it was written by Lord 
 Chesterfield. The impiety of the writer is discernible in the com- 
 parison he has drawn between the life of the Saviour of mankind 
 and the questionable decorum of St. James's. 
 
 " It is matter of surprise," observes the editor of the pamphlet 
 to a Brigadier- General, " that in so many letters Junius should not 
 have written a sentence or a word^that has hitherto done more 
 with respect to his identity than supply matter for conjecture and 
 enquiry. Attempts at concealment had before been made, but 
 never, perhaps, with such entire success. Some favourite topic or 
 some ruling subject of the imagination developed in his letters — a 
 peculiar phrase, nay, even an unusual or a colloquial expression 
 would, it might be supposed, have led to the discovery of the 
 author.*" — Intro. , p.B. 
 
 * In answer to this objection we shall confine ourselves here to only four 
 instances of peculiarity of expression rarely to be met with in any writer— 
 certainly in none who have been suspected as Junius or the examples would have 
 been quoted for their singularity. These expressions are " whiffling," " to 
 whittle," " Intendment," " Hospital of Incurables." 
 
 Two out of the four of these are selected from the posthumous works of 
 Lord Chesterfield. 
 
 Junius. 
 
 "Will any officer of rank condescend to receive orders from a little 
 whiffling broker to whom he may formerly, perhaps, have given half-a-crown 
 for negociating an hundred pound stock or sixpence for a lottery ticket." — 
 Vol. III., p. 427. 
 
 " For shame, my Lord Barrington, send this whiffling broker back to 
 the mystery he was bred in. — lb. p. 444. 
 
 2. — " I am so clearly satisfied that Lord Mansfield has done an act not 
 warranted by law, and that the enclosed argument is not to be answered 
 (besides that I find lawyers concur with me) that I am inclined to expect he 
 may himself acknowledge it as an oversight and endeavour to whittle it 
 away to nothing."— Private Letter to Lord Chatham. Corres., Vol. lV. t 
 p. 192. 
 
 3. — "Whether according to the true meaning and Intendment of the laws 
 of England relative to bail, &c." — lb. 
 
 " If there be a judge or lawyer of any note in Westminster Hall who shall 
 be daring enough to affirm that according to the true Intendment of the laws 
 of England, &c."— Vol. JL, p. 442. 
 
 4. — " He advertises for patients, collects all the diseases of the heart, and 
 turns a royal palace into an Hospital of Incurables." — Vol. H„ p. 439. 
 
 Chesterfield. 
 
 1. — "A constant smirk upon the face and a whiffling activity of the 
 body are strong indications of futility." — Letter to his Son, Aug. 10, 1749. 
 
 2. — " I can tell you in general that the Dutch have not whittled down 
 their engagements in this as they have constantly done in all former acts of 
 accession," &c. — Unpublished Letter to Benj. Keene, Feb. 22nd, 1732. 
 
 3. — " Yet I must acknowledge them to be the properest authors to answer 
 the true meaning and intendment of the bill. — Works, Vol. II., p. 103. 
 
JUNIUS AND LORD TOWNSHEND. 47 
 
 As far as regards the majority of persons suspected, these 
 observations may be said strictly to apply ; and even where a re- 
 semblance in style and mode of expression has been traced, the 
 evidence is still inconclusive, because the comparisons are selected 
 from publications written either at a later date than the letters, or 
 after their style had become fashionable among political writers. 
 If it were worth while to take up the time of the reader with 
 evidence of this nature, when more important proofs are in reserve, 
 a volume of quotations might be selected from the writings of Lord 
 Chesterfield, much stronger in testimony of the authorship of the 
 letters than the whole mass of comparisons that have, from time to 
 time, been adduced in favour of the pretensions of the various can- 
 didates ; but such evidence will never convince the public unless 
 
 BORNE OUT BY AN UNBROKEN SERIES OE EACTS AND CIRCUM- 
 STANCES THAT WILL APPLY TO NO OTHER PERSON THAN HIM 
 WHO SHALL BE CHARGED WITH HAVING WRITTEN THE LETTERS, 
 
 Commentators on Junius (and more particularly those who 
 fancy that they have discovered the author) in general take only a 
 partial view of the character of that writer. Like sectarians in 
 religion they select a few passages which seem to favour their 
 opinions, and reject, as spurious or doubtful, those texts and 
 doctrines which, if dispassionately examined, would prove fatal 
 to each particular claim. The uniform practice of resorting to 
 this unfair mode of enquiry has induced many to doubt the 
 authenticity of the early letters in the miscellaneous collection, 
 because many of these have been found irreconcileable with the 
 character and connections of nearly every one who has been sus- 
 pected. These doubts have lately been almost confirmed by the 
 publication of two private letters from Junius to Lord Chatham, 
 found among his lordship's papers after his death. That both 
 these letters were written by Junius can scarcely be doubted from 
 
 " Though the colour be deficient the guilt is the same in the intendment 
 of the law." — lb. p. 249. 
 
 4. — " This club of worthy gentlemen might be not improperly called an 
 Hospital of Incurables," &c. — lb. p. 212. 
 
 " To withdraw in the fullness of his power and the utmost gratification of 
 his ambition from the House of Commons (which procured him his power and 
 which could alone ensure it to him) and go into that Hospital of Incura- 
 bles, the House of Lords, is a measure so unaccountable that nothing but 
 proof positive could make me believe it : but true it is. — Letter to his Son, 
 Aug. 1, 1766. 
 
48 JUNIUS AND LORD TOWNSHEND. 
 
 the exact resemblance of the autographs as portrayed in the fac 
 similes given in the Chatham Correspondence. That Junius could 
 have written such flattering letters, and at the same time have 
 held up Lord Chatham as an object of detestation and contempt 
 appears altogether incredible. There was but one man, perhaps, 
 at that time (possessing the talents and opportunities of Junius) 
 who would have ventured to perpetrate so vile an artifice, or 
 who had dissimulation enough to write the first private letter 
 to Lord Chatham, and that man we are prepared to prove, as far 
 as circumstances can prove anything, was Lord Chesterfield. 
 
 In prosecuting this charge against his lordship, it is not the 
 intention of the writer to pass over any of the miscellaneous letters 
 contained in the edition of 1814. To neglect any one of these 
 contributions to the Public Advertiser would be to break the chain 
 of evidence that connects these writings with Lord Chesterfield, 
 and would render incomplete the development of the motives and 
 causes which impelled the author to proceed in his labours, under 
 his well known signature of Junius. 
 
IKFlRMiTiES OF LORD CHESTERFIELD. 49 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Lord Chesterfield is said to have retained his memory (which is 
 mentioned as surprising for its excellence) and his presence of 
 mind to his latest breath. — Lord Mahon. 
 
 Before we proceed with the evidence that is to prove Lord 
 Chesterfield was the writer of the Letters of Junius, the public 
 may reasonably expect that two very important objections should 
 be answered. 
 
 It has been said that " considering his lordship's advanced age 
 and bodily infirmities" and that " uninfluenced by any personal 
 animosity for engaging in the task, such a supposition must be 
 groundless." 
 
 We shall for the present confine ourselves to the first and most 
 important of these objections, because, if it were true that Lord 
 Chesterfield's "age" or "infirmity" at the time that the letters 
 were written was such as to present to all appearance a physical 
 impossibility — depriving his lordship of the power of writing the 
 letters of Junius, then any motives brought forward, however strong 
 they might be, would fail to convince, and this inquiry would meet 
 the fate of others which have occasionally attracted the attention, 
 without having satisfied the curiosity, of the public. 
 
 The great age of Lord Chesterfield, it must be confessed, does 
 at first sight present a formidable objection to the supposition that 
 he was employed in writing the letters of Junius, and his bodily 
 infirmities add great weight to a difficulty apparently so insur- 
 mountable. The energetic epistles of Junius have so long been 
 regarded as the productions of a vigorous mind, of one ardent in 
 the pursuit of political power, and associated with others both in 
 the composition of the letters and in the contrivances to elude 
 detection, that nothing but the strongest circumstances will remove 
 
50 INFIRMITIES OF LORD CHESTERFIELD. 
 
 the prejudice and convince the public that Lord Chesterfield was 
 the author. 
 
 The first period during which it may be said that Lord Ches- 
 terfield was incapable of supporting the character of Junius was 
 in the summer of 1767, when his lordship was so ill that fears 
 were entertained of his recovery. 
 
 Lady Hervey notices this alarming illness in a letter to Mr. 
 Morris, dated 6th September, 1767, and expresses her uneasiness 
 as to the result, and although Mr. Hawkins assured her that 
 Lord Chesterfield had] no " distemper" but weakness, (the conse- 
 quence of his late malady), yet Lady Hervey declared she was not 
 satisfied with the account she heard of him. 
 
 The writer does not here intend to insinuate that Lord 
 Chesterfield was not seriously ill in the summer of 1767, for the 
 event is corroborated by the chasm in Junius's correspondence 
 during the greater part of the months of July* and August, but 
 it is very doubtful whether Lord Chesterfield suffered such extreme 
 debility in September as is represented by Lady Hervey in her 
 letter of that date : for if Lord Chesterfield wrote the first three 
 letters of Junius in April, May, and June, 1767, and contem- 
 plated renewing his correspondence with Woodfall as soon as his 
 health would permit, he was too able a politician not to encourage 
 a report so favourable to his security, and which could scarcely 
 fail to avert suspicion by the apparent impossibility of his being 
 occupied in such pursuits. 
 
 From the 24th June to the 16th September, 1767, only one 
 letter has been traced to Junius, dated 25th August, in which the 
 writer apologizes to Woodfall for his silence by saying that " he 
 had been for some time in the country or he would have heard 
 sooner from him." In October Lord Chesterfield had rallied and 
 we find three letters in that month from Junius. In November 
 Lord Chesterfield went to Bath and no letter from Junius appeared; 
 but in December, while his lordship was at Bath three letters were 
 published. The first, a bond fide speech of Mr. Burke's, sent by 
 
 * On the 9th July, 1767, Lord Chesterfield flattered himself that he had 
 escaped the prevailing epidemic then raging in London, called by the genteel 
 name of " Vinfiuenza." It was between the date of that letter and the 6th 
 September that Lord Chesterfield was seized with the malady that deprived 
 him of the use of his lower extremities. 
 
INFIRMITIES OP LORD CHESTERFIELD. 51 
 
 Junius for insertion in the Public Advertiser. The second a com- 
 munication without any signature which has little to authenticate 
 it, except its having been acknowledged by Woodfall as' coming 
 from his correspondent C; and the third a short note under 
 the signature Downright, in which the writer accuses Lord 
 Chatham of being the cause of the great increase in the national 
 debt. There is nothing in these three communications which 
 would prevent Lord Chesterfield sending them from Bath by a safe 
 hand for insertion in the Public Advertiser. They required no 
 other answer but such as Woodfall could convey in his notices to 
 his correspondents.* 
 
 It has never, perhaps, occurred to many that the very cir- 
 cumstances which seemed to preclude the possibility of Lord 
 Chesterfield being Junius were his chief protection, and that, like 
 the Roman patriot whose name he adopted, his lordship feigned 
 an imbecility the better to conceal his purpose. We must not, 
 therefore, be surprised that Lord Chesterfield should complain 
 to his friend the Bishop of Waterford that his understanding 
 " tottered" and that his memory " fumbled." But from others we 
 have no such record of his mental decay; on the contrary, we 
 learn that he retained his wit and \ivacity to the last, and that 
 even the pain and suffering which he endured at the close of life 
 (March, 1773) could not overcome the serenity of his mind.f 
 
 His plea of ignorance of political events and of the intrigues of 
 parties is also no better to be relied on — for (supposing him to 
 have been Junius), he would be compelled to assume the sem- 
 blance of ignorance or indifference in order to avert suspicion, and, 
 
 * On the subject of the first of these communications (Burke's speech) 
 Woodfall twice resorted to that means of communicating with the writer, and 
 by his respectful language he shewed even at that early date how much he felt 
 honoured by the contributions of " his friend and correspondent C" : — 
 
 " C's favour is come to hand, and we think our paper much honoured by 
 his correspondence. He may be assured we shall take every possible means 
 to deserve a continuance of it." 
 
 And the next day he made an apology for its non-appearance : — 
 
 " We most heartily wish to oblige our valuable correspondent C, but his 
 last favour is of so delicate a nature that we dare not insert it, unless we are 
 permitted to make such changes in certain expressions as may take off the 
 immediate offence without hurting the meaning." 
 
 f The editor of the Suffolk Correspondence observes " that the collection 
 begins and ends with Lord Chesterfield: — his letters are marked with his 
 characteristic elegance and wit, and his last letter is as gay as his first written 
 55 years before."— Vol. I., p. 32. 
 
 E 2 
 
52 INFIRMITIES OF LORD CHESTERFIELD. 
 
 in some instances perhaps, to escape detection. On these occa- 
 sions a letter to the Bishop of Waterford, written in a trembling 
 hand and indicative of a feeble mind, would (if opened at the 
 post office) be considered as sufficient evidence of Lord Chester- 
 field's deplorable condition. In one of these letters, dated 12th 
 August, 1771, his lordship describes, in mournful accents, his 
 rapid decline " towards second childhood and mere oblivion." 
 
 " I am most prodigiously old," writes his lordship, " and every 
 month of the calendar adds at least a year to my age. My hand 
 trembles to that degree that I can hardly hold my pen. My under- 
 standing stutters, and my memory fumbles." 
 
 And in a note to a subsequent letter we are told by the editor 
 that the autograph was so feebly written as to require another hand 
 to be passed over the trembling outline to make it legible.* 
 
 Notwithstanding these acknowledged indications of his ap- 
 proaching demise, his lordship neglected to make his will — a 
 circumstance so extraordinary that it has not escaped animadver- 
 sion. That important document was not prepared till Junius had 
 published his last letter, entitled Memoirs of Lord Barrington. 
 His lordship's will is dated 4th June, 1772, and is written on seven 
 sheets of parchment, comprising a codicil dated 11th February, 
 1773. Each sheet bears the signature " Chesterfield," written 
 in a firm, and (notwithstanding its characteristic elegance) a bold 
 hand. 
 
 Strange ! that in 1771 Lord Chesterfield's hand should tremble 
 to that degree that he could scarcely hold his pen ; yet in 1772 and 
 1773 he should be able to subscribe his name to parchment in a 
 style that would have been creditable to his proficiency in penman- 
 ship at the age of forty-five ! We shall leave the reader to form 
 his comments on this extraordinary circumstance, and pass on to 
 the next fact connected with the age and infirmities of Lord Ches^ 
 terfield. 
 
 On the 16th March, 1769, Lord Chesterfield apologizes to Mrs; 
 Eugenia Stanhope for being obliged to use another hand to acknow- 
 
 * Surely it would have been less trouble if his lordship's secretary had 
 made a fair copy of the letter, and obtained to it his lordship's signature. The 
 stratagem in this instance seems to have been carried too far, and may justly 
 excite suspicion as to the accuracy of the deponent's account of his wretched 
 Condition. 
 
INFIRMITIES OF LORB CHESTERFIELD.' 53 
 
 ledge the receipt of her letter of the 27th February, and in a letter 
 to Alderman Faulkner, of the 25th of the same month, he says, 
 " A violent inflammation in my eyes, which is not yet quite re- 
 moved, hindered me from acknowledging your last letter." 
 
 So far, therefore, as relates to the early part of March, 1769, 
 Lord Chesterfield seems to have been in such a condition as to 
 render him totally unfit to carry on the correspondence as Junius 
 in the Public Advertiser. 
 
 Now let us inquire what happened to Junius at this precise 
 period, and see how far his situation corresponded with that of Lord 
 Chesterfield. 
 
 Early in April, 1769, in consequence of the temporary cessation 
 of Junius's letters, "A monody" was published on the supposed 
 death of Junius, whom the poet imagines had fallen 
 
 " Midst arrows dipp'd in ministerial gold." 
 
 Junius felt it necessary to notice this calumny, and sent the 
 following note to the printer of the Public Advertiser, dated 12th 
 April, 1769. 
 
 "Mr. Woodfall, — The monody on the supposed death of 
 Junius is not the less poetical for being founded in fiction. In 
 some parts of it there is a promise of genius which deserves to be 
 encouraged. My letter on Monday will, I hope, convince the 
 author that I am neither a partisan of Mr. Wilkes, nor yet bought 
 off by the Ministry. It is true I have refused offers which a more 
 prudent or a more interested man would have accepted. Whether 
 it be simplicity or virtue in me, I can only affirm / am in earnest, 
 because I am convinced, as far as my understanding is capable of 
 judging, that the present Ministry are driving this country to 
 destruction, and you, I think, may be satisfied that my rank and 
 fortune place me above a common bribe. — Junius." 
 
 After the publication of this letter Junius resumed his pen, but, 
 if we are to credit Lord Chesterfield, " the inflammation in his 
 eyes" still prevented him from answering his correspondent's 
 letters. " The only reason," writes Lord Chesterfield, on the 9th 
 July, 1769, "that I had for not writing sooner was that I could 
 not, which I dare say you will allow to be a sufficient one. I have 
 for the last three months had an inflammation in my eyes, which 
 hindered me from either writing or reading, and this is almost the 
 
54 INFIRMITIES OF LORD CHESTERFIELD. 
 
 first, as well as the most pleasing service which they have done 
 me." 
 
 Here is a prevarication, or, to speak in gentler terms, an inac- 
 curacy as to the duration of his lordship's affliction. His first 
 apology was on the 12th March, and on the 25th he was nearly 
 recovered, but on the 9th July it appears he had had a relapse, and 
 had been deprived of the power of reading and writing for the last 
 three months. People suffering under such visitations are apt to 
 keep a better reckoning. 
 
 But it may be well to examine whether Junius was quite at his 
 ease at the date of Lord Chesterfield's last letter, 9th July, 1769. 
 
 On the 15th July, 1769, Junius wrote to Woodfall requesting 
 him to say candidly whether he knew or suspected who he was ? 
 and at the same time instructed him to address his answer to Mr. 
 William Middleton, to be left at the bar of the New Exchange 
 Coffee House, and on the 21st July he cautions "Woodfall to take 
 care of Swinney who had " had the impudence to go to Lord 
 George Sackville to ask him whether or no he was Junius," also to 
 change the address to Mr. John Fretley at the same coffee house, 
 where it was absolutely impossible that he should be known. 
 
 These references to the private letters of Junius distinctly con- 
 nect that writer's fears of discovery with Lord Chesterfield's return 
 of the painful inflammation in his eyes which he took care to com- 
 municate to the Bishop of Waterford only a few days before Junius 
 so anxiously inquired of Woodfall whether he knew or suspected 
 who he was ! 
 
 But the sympathy that seemed to exist between the fears of 
 Junius and the infirmities of Lord Chesterfield did not end here. 
 It is recorded by Horace Walpole that about this time Junius wrote 
 privately to Mr. George Grenville, desiring him to desist from 
 making further inquiries, and that at a proper time he would reveal 
 himself. The knowledge of this circumstance is said to have been 
 obtained from Sir John Irwine, who was on a visit at Wootton (the 
 seat of Mr. G. Grenville) when the letter from Junius arrived. 
 But another letter was sent to Wootton at that time written by Lord 
 Chesterfield to Sir John Irwine, (and if we are correct in our opinion 
 that both letters were from the same hand) this was a masterpiece 
 of dissimulation which few but so bold a politician as Lord Ches- 
 terfield would have had the courage to put in practice. The design 
 
INFIRMITIES OF LORD CHESTERFIELD. 55 
 
 of this letter seems to have been to convince the party at Wootton 
 that their friend, Lord Chesterfield, could not be the author of Ju- 
 nius. The letter is dated 6th August, 1769. After touching 
 slightly on the factious and seditious spirit of the times (without 
 referring to Junius* who was then in the zeni,th of his popularity) 
 which his lordship says shocked all sober thinking people, he breaks 
 off with great seeming indifference. " But enough of politics, 
 which from long disuse and seeing them at present only remotely 
 and through a mist, I must necessarily talk absurdly about," Then 
 follows the account of his own health which (as in similar cases 
 when Junius was hard run) is deplorable enough. 
 
 " As to my own decayed carcass which you so kindly inquire 
 after, I can only tell you that it crumbles away daily. My eyes are 
 still so bad that they are of little use to a deaf man who lived by 
 reading alone. Many other physical ills crowd upon me, and I 
 have drained Pandora's box without finding hope at the bottom. 
 The taxes that nature lays upon old age are very heavy, and I 
 would rather that death would distrain at once than groan long 
 under the burthen." 
 
 It was at this critical conjuncture that Junius publicly declared 
 that he had not the honour of being personally known to Mr. 
 George Grenville. " A truly singular assertion," observes the edi- 
 tor of the letters, " when taken in connection with the fact that Mr. 
 Grenville of all the political characters of the day appears to have 
 been our author's favourite. He voluntarily omits every opportu- 
 nity of censuring him, and readily embraces every occasion of de- 
 fending and extolling his conduct and principles." 
 
 If the editor had compared the private letters of Junius at this 
 time with the date of the letter in the Public Advertiser, wherein 
 this singular assertion was introduced, he would have seen the mo- 
 tive of the writer in thus disclaiming a personal acquaintance with 
 Mr. Grenville. Lord Chesterfield's letter to Sir John Irwine was 
 sent to Wootton eight days after the public declaration from Junius 
 that Mr. Grenville was personally unknown to him, and these two 
 circumstances probably diverted for awhile the suspicions of the 
 Grenville party from Lord Chesterfield. 
 
 * It is remarkable that Lord Chesterfield never mentioned Junius in any of 
 his letters, although he did not think Wilkes below his notice. 
 
56 INFIRMITIES OF LORD CHESTERFIELD. 
 
 It is not pretended that there is no foundation in truth in the 
 excuse which Lord Chesterfield made to his correspondents in 
 March, 1769, for the incapacity of Lord Chesterfield is borne out 
 by the fact that Junius had disappeared, and his absence had 
 given rise to the monody on his supposed death, but that Lord 
 Chesterfield should be just recovering from a relapse, at the very 
 time that Junius was alarmed by the inquiries of Swinney and the 
 still more dangerous surmises of his friends at Wootton is some- 
 thing more than suspicious. It will also occur to the reader, 
 that if Lord Chesterfield was engaged in writing the letters of Ju- 
 nius, some excuse must be invented to account for his remissness in 
 his private correspondence, and this plea of blindness, founded in 
 fact in the first instance (brought on probably by his lengthened 
 correspondence with Sir W. Draper, in February), was afterwards 
 resorted to for the purpose of keeping his acquaintance in the dark 
 as to the nature of his pursuits, and at the same time furnished a 
 plausible excuse for the almost total seclusion in which Lord Ches- 
 terfield passed that part of his life in which the letters of Junius 
 were written. 
 
 So far we have endeavoured to shew what reliance is to be 
 placed on Lord Chesterfield's melancholy description of his infirmi- 
 ties at the time that Junius was publishing his letters. We shall 
 now inquire whether his lordship's testimony against himself is 
 borne out, either by his writings, or by the evidence of his con- 
 temporaries, and whether the wretched account of his " decayed 
 carcass," and his " candid confession" of the corresponding decline 
 in his mental faculties have not, to serve a particular purpose, been 
 greatly exaggerated. 
 
 After Lord Chesterfield's recovery in 1767, we find that he 
 gave his friends a more cheerful account of the general state of his 
 health, than he had been in the habit of doing for some years. " I 
 have a good appetite, a good digestion, and good sleep. You will 
 perhaps ask me what more I would have. I answer that I would 
 have a great deal more if I could. I would have the free use of 
 my legs and all my members, but this I know is past praying 
 for." Letter to Dr. Monsey, December, 1767. 
 
 This may be considered a fair statement of Lord Chesterfield's 
 bodily health, during the period that Junius's letters were in the 
 course of publication. It was only occasionally and under peculiar 
 
INFIRMITIES OP LORD CHESTERFIELD. 57 
 
 circumstances, that his lordship complained of the sad inroads, 
 which time had made in the powers of his mind and body. 
 
 In November, 1766, (only a few months before the first letter 
 of Junius was published), Horace Walpole (writing in the character 
 of Lady Suffolk's maid) thus chides his lordship for complaining 
 that he was growing old. 
 
 " She says and so says Mister Rusil our butler that your lord 
 may be ashamed of himself, so he may, to say that he grows old 
 for he niver was spittlier in his born days." 
 
 His Lordship's sprightly answer to this humorous epistle shews 
 that neither his wit nor his vivacity justified the querulous tone, 
 which from long habit he so frequently assumed in his familiar 
 letters. 
 
 But to come to more serious evidence of Lord Chesterfield's 
 ability, to write at a very advanced age, we find on referring to 
 the recent edition of his letters that " the account of Lord Bute's 
 administration," was written in 1764, when Lord Chesterfield was 
 in his seventieth year, and that the best written and most valuable 
 of his admonitory essays was not undertaken till after Junius had 
 closed his correspondence with Woodfall; for in that admirable 
 " Advice" Lord Chesterfield alludes to the provision he had made 
 in his will in favour of his godson on his return to England.* 1 Lord 
 Chesterfield's will, it will be remembered, was not signed till the 
 4th June, 1772. 
 
 We have in addition to this unquestionable proof of the powers 
 of Lord Chesterfield's mind, the unanimous testimony of his lord- 
 ship's contemporaries, who affirm that his mental faculties remained 
 unimpaired " to his latest breath." Even his memory and presence 
 of mind, that in others are so apt to give such unwelcome indica- 
 tions of approaching age were true to him to the last. 
 
 But it has been asserted that Junius was in full possession of 
 his bodily, as well as his mental faculties, when the letters were 
 written. How this can be proved till the author has been dis- 
 covered is difficult to imagine, for Junius has given a different pic- 
 ture of himself. " Alas ! his age and figure would do but little 
 
 * Mr. A. Stanhope was sent by Lord Chesterfield to Leipsic, in 1768, 
 under the care of Mr. D'Eyverdun, an ex-clerk, who had recently been 
 dismissed from the Secretary of State's Office, but who, it appears, had found 
 favour in the sight of Lord Chesterfield. 
 
58 INFIRMITIES OF LORD CHESTERFIELD. 
 
 credit to his partner," and "In truth he saw no connection between 
 Junius and a minuet." 
 
 Although this may be said to be only a plausible evasion 
 intended to mislead his correspondent, there are still many in- 
 advertent expressions in the letters of Junius, which will not admit 
 of such interpretation. 
 
 He seldom addresses a correspondent that he does not bid them 
 farewell or take leave of them for ever. 
 
 " I want rest most severely,^ and am going to take it in the 
 country for a few days." 
 
 " Yet after I had blinded myself with poring over journals, 
 
 debates, and parliamentary history " 
 
 " Do not think that I solicit new employment. I am overcome 
 with the slavery of writing." 
 
 Home Tooke (presuming that Junius was in full possession of 
 health and spirits) ridiculed the importance, which that writer 
 attached to his labours. 
 
 "I congratulate you, sir, on 'the recovery of your wonted style, 
 though it has cost you a fortnight. I compassionate your labour 
 in the composition of your letters." 
 
 In a letter to Mr. Wilkes, dated 7th September, 1771, Junius, 
 speaking of annual parliaments, says, " Whenever the question 
 shall be seriously agitated, I will endeavour (and if I live will 
 assuredly attempt it) to convince the English nation by argu- 
 ments," &c. 
 
 And in his Dedication he makes use of the same expression, 
 but under still more remarkable circumstances, for he refers to 
 the approaching dissolution of Parliament, which must necessarily 
 take place within two years ; yet Junius doubts whether he shall 
 live to witness that event. 
 
 "You are roused at last to a sense of your danger. The 
 remedy will soon be in your power. If Junius lives you shall 
 often be reminded of it." 
 
 In the early letters of Junius, before there can be supposed 
 to be any reason for concealing his age, he treats the Duke of 
 Grafton (who was then in his 34th year) as "a mere boy, 
 notwithstanding the down upon his chin," and bids him culti- 
 vate the company of women of experience. 
 
 This contempt for men in the prime of life savours strongly of 
 
INFIRMITIES OF LORD CHESTERFIELD. 59 
 
 the overbearing presumption of an octogenarian who will allow 
 none to have experience but those who have passed the age of 
 profiting by it. 
 
 " After long experience of the world," says Junius, " I never 
 knew a rogue who was not unhappy," and in confirmation of 
 this boast of long experience, the writer declared that he remem- 
 bered the great Walpolean battles. 
 
 And well, indeed, might Junius remember them, for in his 
 letters under that signature he did little more than 
 
 " Fight these battles o'er again." 
 
 The names of some of the performers were changed, but the 
 fable was the same. 
 
 Were we not fearful of offending the enthusiastic admirers 
 of Junius, we should be tempted to show that if the spirit 
 imparted to his writings by their malevolence were taken away, 
 they would, in many instances, present strong indications of 
 senility. The constant repetition of the same idea — the frequent 
 recurrence to the same subject, and the impotent threats held 
 out against his adversaries, clearly demonstrate that the writer 
 was not in the possession of the full and vigorous exercise of 
 his understanding, although his wit, memory, and presence of 
 mind were unimpaired. We know that we are upon tender 
 ground, but we are supported in this opinion by the shrewd 
 observations of the contemporaries of Junius. 
 
 We cannot conclude these observations without taking some 
 notice of the manual labour which the letters of Junius imposed 
 upon their author. 
 
 Although we are inclined to believe that the autographs pre- 
 served by Woodfall are in the handwriting of Junius, it is not 
 to be inferred that the writer received no assistance in his labours, 
 for he has admitted the fact that some person was employed in 
 obtaining his letters and parcels from Woodfall. The person thus 
 entrusted must have had the entire confidence of Junius, and we 
 may safely assert that no person would be so likely to discharge 
 this high trust faithfully (assuming Chesterfield was the author) 
 as Mr. Dayrolles, who was at the time that Junius was writing his 
 letters, almost the constant companion of Lord Chesterfield. 
 The same confidential friend might also have been employed in 
 
60 INFIRMITIES OF LORD CHESTERFIELD. 
 
 transcribing the manuscripts for publication. This, at least, was a 
 part of the labours in the performance of which Lord Chesterfield 
 could place the utmost reliance on the skill of Mr. Dayrolles. 
 
 In the spring of 1748 Lord Chesterfield received certain letters 
 from an unknown correspondent at the Hague, signed Van-der 
 Poll. Anxious to keep up the correspondence, his lordship wrote 
 to Mr. Dayrolles on the subject. " If you should by accident know 
 or hear of a Van-der Poll, pray let the person know that I am 
 very much obliged to him for his correspondence, which is very 
 instructive, and that I beg he will continue it. I do not know 
 who he is, and if you should, do not send me his name in a letter 
 by post, for I know that most letters from and to me are opened." 
 
 The editor of the last edition of Lord Chesterfield's letters has 
 revealed the secret of this mysterious letter writer, who, it appears, 
 was no other than Mr. Dayrolles himself. 
 
 "It appears from Mr. Dayrolles's MSS," says Lord Mahon, 
 " that the letters signed Van-der Poll, in a disguised hand, and in the 
 French language were in reality from Mr. Dayrolles himself, as a 
 secure channel of communication. A private letter in his own 
 name, dated August 25, 1748, and sent over by Sir Matthew 
 Decker, further shows that till that period Lord Chesterfield him- 
 self was not aware who Van-der Poll really was." 
 
 If Mr. Dayrolles could thus elude the keen penetration of Lord 
 Chesterfield, with whom he was at that time in constant corres- 
 pondence, the similarity of handwriting must lose much of the 
 importance usually attached to it by persons anxious to prove the 
 authorship of Junius. The truth is, that none of the fac-similes 
 that have been brought into comparison with the autographs of 
 Junius bear much resemblance. The handwriting of Junius is evi- 
 dently greatly disguised, but it is more remarkable for its elegance 
 and precision than for any peculiar form, either in the character 
 of the letters, or the eccentricity of its general appearance. There 
 is very little difference discernible between the fac-simile in the 
 Chatham correspondence dated 2d January 1768, and the 
 last letter which Woodfall received on the 19th Januury, 1773, 
 though some have discovered a tremulous appearance in the latter, 
 indicating the approaches of age. The initial C used in the pri- 
 vate correspondence, is precisely that of Lord Chesterfield; and 
 here it may be well to observe, that Junius, as an old correspondent 
 
INFIRMITIES OF LORD CHESTERFIELD. 61 
 
 of Woodfall* could not change his initial without creating suspi- 
 cion, unless he had employed another hand to copy both his public 
 and private letters, and even then his style might have betrayed 
 him. 
 
 Too much stress, however, seems to have been laid upon this 
 and another point in the discovery of the anonymous writer. A 
 resemblance in handwriting and in style are, indeed, both material 
 as auxiliary tests, but it is far more important to trace the mind of 
 the writer in his prevailing modes of thinking, and in his inad- 
 vertent use of words and phrases as unconnected with the style of 
 the author. For the autographs might not have been the hand- 
 writing of Junius, and the popular character of the style is chiefly 
 attributable to the vindictive feeling which first gave birth to what 
 the writer himself has emphatically called " The style of Junius. "f 
 
 If Junius had been the sole depository of his own secret, and 
 the gentleman who transacted the conveyancing part was put forth 
 only as a blind to deceive the printer, how is the circumstance to 
 be explained that at certain times it was impossible for Junius to 
 obtain his letters from the coffee houses? The usual means of 
 getting possession of these parcels was to send a porter to the 
 coffee house while Junius or his friend waited at a convenient dis- 
 tance till the porter returned, and in doing this the author himself 
 would run no more risk of discovery than by entrusting a confi- 
 dential friend with so important a commission. We are, therefore, 
 led to infer that it was not so much the rank and notoriety as the 
 age and infirmity of Junius that occasioned the difficulties so fre- 
 
 * There is reason to believe that Lord Chesterfield was a contributor to 
 the Public Advertiser long before the date of the earliest letter hitherto traced 
 to Junius* and that the anecdotes published at that time of Lord Chatham's 
 " fall up stairs'* and] Charles Townshend's "pain in his side" were from the 
 pen of Lord Chesterfield : — 
 
 " I do not know" (writes his lordship in 1765) "whether you have the 
 Daily Advertiser and the Public Advertiser in which all the political letters are 
 inserted and some very well written ones on both sides, but I know that they 
 amuse me tant bien que mal for an hour or two every morning." 
 
 The interest which Lord Chesterfield here acknowledged he felt in the 
 political disputes of 1765, is indicative of that cacoethes scribendi which so pro- 
 minently distinguished his lordship throughout his political career. Nor k it 
 too much to presume that Lord Chesterfield would make choice of one of the 
 above named papers should circumstances ever induce him again to enter the 
 lists as a political writer. 
 
 f The first letter that may properly be considered as written in the " style 
 of Junius," is to the Duke of Grafton, April 23, 1768. This letter is also re- 
 markable as being the first personal address from the pen of Junius. 
 
62 INFIRMITIES OF LORD CHESTERFIELD. 
 
 quently adverted to in his letters to Woodfall. The absence of his 
 friend at times would cause this interruption in his correspondence 
 with his printer, for in the case of a letter or parcel being deposited 
 at the coffee house by Woodfall, it required the personal interfer- 
 ence of Junius or his friend to obtain it. 
 
 There is one circumstance at the close of Junius's correspond- 
 ence with his printer that seems to apply to the intimacy which at 
 that time subsisted between Lord Chesterfield and Mr. Dayrolles, 
 but as this involves an incident connected with the publication 
 of the genuine edition of the letters, we must go back as far as the 
 year 1771. 
 
 On the 17th December Junius gave directions to Woodfall to 
 prepare three copies of his edition of the letters, one of which was 
 to be bound in vellum, and lettered Junius 1-2, as handsomely as 
 possible, the edges gilt. In his next letter he informs Woodfall 
 that he has a long paper ready for publication, and he asks Wood- 
 fall whether he can have two proofs struck off without any one 
 knowing what was going forward except the composer, as the letter 
 was not to appear till the morning of the meeting of Parliament. 
 On the publication of the Chatham correspondence (1838) it was 
 discovered that one of these proofs had been forwarded with a 
 letter from Junius to Lord Chatham ; but it seems that Lord Chat- 
 ham thought proper to take no notice of this communication, for 
 the proof was found among his lordship's papers. There can be 
 very little doubt, therefore, that the vellum bound books were in- 
 tended for Lord Chatham, but as his lordship had disregarded 
 Junius's application, it is probable that the author took no further 
 trouble about that copy of his works. For in his letter of the 5th 
 March, 1772, he says, "If the vellum books are not yet bound I 
 would wait for the index ; if they are, let me know by a line in the 
 P. A. When they are ready they may be safely left in the same 
 place as last night." But in his next letter, two months later, he 
 writes, " I am in no manner of hurry about the books ;" and the 
 following day he desired Woodfall to recall the communication left 
 at the accustomed place : — " At present it would be difficult for 
 me to receive it. When the books are ready a Latin verse will be 
 sufficient." After this we hear no more of any parcels having 
 been received by Junius from Woodfall. It is not improbable, 
 therefore, that the vellum bound books remained in the hands of 
 
ItfipnuttttES OF IiORD CHESTEEEIEED. 63 
 
 Woodfall, and that the circumstance of their having been thus 
 bound at the express desire of Junius induced the printer to keep 
 them as a pattern, and this will account for similar copies having 
 been found in the libraries of so many persons, which from time to 
 time has occasioned so much speculation. 
 
 It was about the time that Junius felt so much difficulty in ob- 
 taining his parcels from Woodfall that, it is presumed, Mr. Day- 
 rolles left Lord Chesterfield, for, in September, 1772, Lord Ches- 
 terfield wrote to his friend that, for the last four months, he had 
 been labouring under a diarrhoea, which Dr. Warren had not been 
 able to cure. This will account for the abrupt termination of the 
 writer's correspondence with Lord Barrington, to whom Junius 
 had promised to address sixteen letters that were then ready for 
 publication. 
 
 We have dwelt longer on this subject, perhaps, than may be 
 thought necessary, but as Lord Chesterfield's advanced age, and 
 consequent infirmities, constitute the only objection that can be 
 raised to his pretensions to the authorship of Junius, it may be 
 considered highly important to remove this prima facie impediment, 
 that the reader may be induced to examine more attentively the 
 facts that are to prove that he alone was qualified in every other 
 respect to sustain the character of Junius. 
 
64 THE CAUSE OF JUNITJS's DISCONTENT. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Wrongs are often forgiven, but contempt never is; our pride re- 
 members it for ever.* — Chesterfield. 
 
 Injuries may be atoned for and forgiven, but insults admit of no 
 compensation ; they degrade the mind in its own esteem and 
 force it to recover its level by revenge. — Junius. 
 
 There is yet another objection that has been opposed against 
 the supposition that Lord Chesterfield was the author of the letters 
 of Junius. It has been asserted that no cause whatever existed that 
 could induce his lordship at the advanced age of seventy-three to 
 re-appear before the public as an anonymous political writer. 
 
 So far from this being true, we shall proceed to shew that not 
 only sufficient offence had been given by Lord Chatham and the 
 ministry in 1767, but that the indignities and slights which Lord 
 Chesterfield had endured from the parties so vehemently abused 
 by Junius, were, in their nature, such as would admit of no repa- 
 ration. His feelings as a parent had been deeply wounded, and 
 however unjustifiable his ambitious views may be considered in re- 
 gard to his unfortunate son, he did not the less feel inclined to re- 
 sent any insult offered to him. This, it is well known, was at all 
 times the vulnerable part of Lord Chesterfield's character, and it was 
 here that Lord Chatham in 1767 (perhaps unwittingly) struck the 
 first blow, which was shortly followed by another source of uneasi- 
 ness inflicted by the Shelburne party ; but it was reserved for the 
 
 * This sentiment was first uttered by Lord Chesterfield in the House of 
 Lords in 1740, and was much admired at the time for its delicacy (see Maty's 
 Memoirs, p. 174). It occurs in many of the letters of Junius under a variety 
 of forms of expression. "A generous mind offended by an insult equally sig- 
 nal and unprovoked, looks back to services long neglected, and with justice 
 unites the claim arising from those services to the insult which of right demands 
 a signal reparation." A sense of injuries coupled with insult seems ever to have 
 been present in the mind of Junius. 
 
THE CAUSE OE JTTNIUS"s DISCONTENT. 65 
 
 Duke of Grafton to annihilate the last hope which Lord Chesterfield 
 had of reinstating Mr. Stanhope in that rank of society from which 
 he had been gradually receding from the moment that George the 
 Third ascended the throne. 
 
 It would have been well, perhaps, for the peace of mind of the 
 King if he had imitated the conduct of the Prussian monarch, who, 
 upon the representation of some of his courtiers concerning the 
 disadvantages of Mr. Stanhope's birth, answered with warmth, 
 *' Were he Lord Chesterfield's dog I would have him treated in 
 the most distinguished manner." With such sentiments towards 
 Lord Chesterfield, Geo. III. might have found a sincere friend and 
 supporter, instead of a rancorous enemy under the mask of Junius. 
 
 We would here claim the patience of the reader to a portion 
 of this inquiry that demands some attention, in order to trace 
 the origin and progress of Junius' s discontent and the gradual 
 development of the cause of that writer's hatred of the Duke 
 •of Grafton. 
 
 Towards the close of the year 1766, Lord Chesterfield applied 
 to Lord Chatham desiring him to secure a seat in Parliament 
 for Mr. Stanhope, and received the assurance of Lord Chatham 
 that " he would make it his own affair, and give it in charge 
 to the Duke of Grafton, whose province it was to make the par- 
 liamentary arrangement." 
 
 This promise was made to Lord Chesterfield in Dec. 1766 ; 
 on the 19th Dec, 1767, {eight months after Junius's first letter) 
 Lord Chesterfield wrote to his son : — 
 
 " You ask me questions concerning Lord Chatham which 
 neither I, nor, I believe, anybody but himself can answer ; 
 however, I will tell you all I know and all that I guess 
 concerning him. This time twelvemonth he was here (Bath), 
 and in good health and spirits, except now and then some little 
 twinges of the gout. We saw one another four or five times 
 at our respective houses, but for these last eight months he has 
 been absolutely invisible to his most intimate friends, les sous 
 ministres, he would receive no letter, nor so much as open any 
 packet on business." 
 
 From this it appears that four months had elapsed from the 
 promise given by Lord Chatham to the first appearance of Junius, 
 and that the date of that writer's first letter (28th April, 1767) 
 
66 THE CAUSE OF JTJNITJS's DISCONTENT. 
 
 corresponds exactly with the period that Lord Chatham became 
 invisible to his most intimate friends, and during the subsequent 
 eight months " would receive no letter, nor so much as open 
 any packet on business." 
 
 In the meantime (that is to say, during the spring and autumn 
 of 1767, while the earlier letters of Junius were in the course of 
 publication) Lord Chesterfield, not being able to obtain any intel- 
 ligence from Lord Chatham, had endeavoured to purchase a seat in 
 parliament for Mr. Stanhope, but he had relied too long on the 
 promise given by Lord Chatham, 1766. The opportunity had 
 passed by — all the marketable boroughs had been disposed of, and 
 his lordship's only hope now was, that Lord Chatham might yet 
 keep his word. He therefore again requested an interview, and 
 though denied admittance, he seems to. have entertained a hope 
 that on his return to town he should be able to succeed. It was 
 during this interval of suspense that Lord Chatham received the 
 first anonymous letter from Junius, dated 2d January, 1768. But 
 the most extraordinary circumstance connected with that letter is, 
 that only a few days previous, Junius had again expressed his re- 
 sentment against Lord Chatham. A short letter was published in 
 the Public Advertiser, on the 22d Dec, 1767, under the signature 
 of Downright,* in which the author attributes the alarming in- 
 crease of the national debt, to Lord Chatham, and concludes by 
 saying, "I cannot bear to see so much incense offered to an idol 
 who so little deserves it." 
 
 To account for this apparently inconsistent conduct in Junius, 
 we must refer to Lord Chesterfield's letter of the 19th Dec, 
 1767, wherein it will be seen that his lordship had a second 
 time been repulsed in his attempt to obtain an interview. The 
 short petulant letter of Downright may therefore fairly be ascribed 
 
 * "22nd Dec, 1767. 
 "Mr. Woodfall, — Your correspondent of yesterday, Mr. Macaroni, in his 
 account of the new ministerial arrangements has thrust in a laboured bombast 
 panegyrick on the Earl of Chatham, in which he tells us " that this country 
 owes more to him than it can ever repay. Now, Mr. Woodfall, I entirely agree 
 with Mr. Macaroni, that this country does owe more to Lord Chatham than it 
 can ever repay, for to him we owe the greatest part of our national debt, and 
 that I am sure we never can repay. I mean no offence to Mr. Macaroni nor 
 any of your gentlemen authors who are so kind as to give us citizens an early 
 peep behind the political curtain, but I cannot bear to see so much incense 
 offered to an idol, who so little deserves it. 
 
 " I am, yours, &c, Downright. 
 
THE CAUSE OF JUNITJS's DISCONTENT. 67 
 
 to the hasty ebullition of Lord Chesterfield's disappointment. 
 The subsequent conduct of Junius confirms this ; for from the 
 date of Downright's letter (Dec. 22nd, 1767,) to the 16th Feb., 
 1768, Junius held no correspondence with Woodfall. It was during 
 this suspension of the labours of Junius that Lord Chesterfield 
 informed his son of his unsuccessful attempt to purchase a seat 
 in Parliament. " I spoke to a borough jobber, and offered him 
 five-and-twenty hundred pounds for a secure seat in Parliament, 
 but he laughed at my offer and said that there was no 
 such thing as a borough to be had now. * * * * 
 This, I confess, has vexed me a good deal, and made me the more 
 impatient to know whether Lord Chatham has done anything 
 in it, which I shall know when I go to town, as I propose to 
 do in about a fortnight." — Letter to his Son, dated 19th Dec, 
 1767. 
 
 The private letter of Junius to Lord Chatham preceded Lord 
 Chesterfield's return only two days. This extraordinary letter* 
 
 * "Junius to the Earl of Chatham. Private and secret, to be opened by 
 
 Lord Chatham only. 
 
 "London, January 2, 1768. 
 
 " My Lord, — If I were to give way to the sentiments of respect and vene- 
 ration which I have always entertained for your character, or to the warmth of 
 my attachment to your person, I should write a longer letter than your lord- 
 ship would have time or inclination to read. But the information which I am 
 going to lay before you, will, I hope, make a short one not unworthy your 
 attention. I have an opportunity of knowing something, and you may depend 
 on my veracity. During your absence from administration, it is well known 
 that not one of the ministers has either adhered to you with firmness, or sup- 
 ported, with any degree of steadiness, those principles on which you engaged 
 in the King's service. From being their idol at first, their veneration for you 
 has gradually diminished, until, at last, they have absolutely set you at defiance. 
 The Chancellor, on whom you have particular reasons to rely, has played a 
 sort of fast and loose game, and spoken of your lordship with submission or 
 indifference, according to the reports he heard of your health, nor has he 
 altered his language until he found you were really returning to town. 
 
 " Many circumstances must have made it impossible for you to depend 
 much upon Lord Shelburne or his friends, besides, that from his youth and 
 want of knowledge, he was hardly of weight by himself to maintain any 
 character in the cabinet. The best of him is, perhaps, that he has not acted 
 with greater insincerity to your lordship than to former connections. 
 
 "Lord Northington's conduct and character need no observation. A sin- 
 gularity of manners added to a perpetual affectation of discontent, has given 
 him an excuse for declining all share in the support of government, and at 
 last conducted himself to his great object, a very high title, considering the 
 species of his merit, and an opulent retreat. Your lordship is best able to 
 judge of what may be expected from this nobleman's gratitude. 
 
 " Mr. Conway, as your lordship knows by experience, is everything to 
 everybody as long as by such conduct he can maintain his ground. "We have 
 seen him in one day the humble prostrate admirer of Lord Chatham, the 
 
 F 2 
 
68 THE CAUSE OF JTJNIUS's DISCONTENT. 
 
 was probably intended to awaken the jealousy of Lord Chatham 
 and induce him to take a part in public affairs. If this had been 
 accomplished Lord Chesterfield might have succeeded in obtaining 
 an audience with Lord Chatham. But his lordship remained in- 
 flexible, — neither the private letter of Junius nor the earnest 
 entreaties of the King could rouse Lord Chatham from his 
 lethargy. He still guarded himself from intrusion under the plea* 
 of mental imbecility. 
 
 In bringing these dates and facts before the reader we flatter 
 ourselves that we have solved the principal difficulty connected 
 with the authorship of Junius, and that the early miscellaneous 
 letters, in which Lord Chatham is so prominently distinguished, 
 will no longer be considered inconsistent with the character and 
 peculiar circumstances of the writer. 
 
 From the date of the private and confidential letter of the 2nd 
 Jan., 1768, Lord Chatham is seldom mentioned by Junius. The 
 
 dearest friend of Rockingham and Richmond, fully sensible of the weight of 
 the Duke of Bedford's party, no irreconcileable enemy to Lord Bute, and at 
 the same time very ready to acknowledge Mr. Grenville's merit as a financier. 
 Lord Hertford is a little more explicit than his brother, and has taken every 
 opportunity of treating your lordship's name with indignity. 
 
 " But these are facts of little moment. The most considerable remains. 
 It is understood by the public that the plan of introducing the Duke of 
 Bedford's friends entirely belongs to the Duke of Grafton, with the secret 
 concurrence, perhaps, of Lord Bute, but certainly without your lordship's 
 consent, if not absolutely against your advice. It is also understood that if 
 you should exert your influence with the King to overturn this plan, the Duke 
 of Grafton will be strong enough with his new friends to defeat any attempts 
 of that kind, or if he should not, your lordship will easily judge to what 
 quarter his Grace will apply for assistance. 
 
 " My Lord, the man who presumes to give your lordship these hints 
 admires your character without servility, and is convinced that if this country 
 can be saved, it must be saved by Lord Chatham's spirit, by Lord Chatham's 
 abilities."t 
 
 t It is a curious circumstance that in the year 1741 Lord Chesterfield received a 
 similar compliment from the pen of Lord Chatham : — 
 
 " France by her influence and her arms, means to be sure to undo England and all 
 Europe: by her air and climate she may do the reverse if they confirm the health of the 
 only man who can save us." — Chatham Correspondence, Vol. I., p. 2. 
 
 * The public in general believed that Lord Chatham was at this time 
 insane, but his intimate friends and those about the Court often expressed 
 their doubts upon this point. " I sent him my compliments (writes Lord 
 Chesterfield in his letter of 19th Dec, 1767) and asked leave to wait upon him, 
 but he sent me word that he was too ill to see anybody whatsoever. I met him 
 frequently taking the air in his post chaise and he looked very well." See also 
 the correspondence of Horace Walpole, George Selwyn, and Lady Hervey, in 
 which similar doubts are expressed. Lord Chatham's sudden restoration and 
 his subsequent conduct in parliament, favour the conjecture that he was only 
 acting the " changeling" until a favourable opportunity should occur that he 
 might again unite with his family in their opposition against government. 
 
THE CAUSE OF JUNIUS S DISCONTENT. 69 
 
 writer gradually transferred his resentment to the Duke of Grafton, 
 and here we must again have recourse to Lord Chesterfield's 
 correspondence to account for the change that came over the 
 spirit of Junius. For hitherto his Grace had been designedly 
 spared by his now implacable enemy. 
 
 On the 12th of March, 1768, Lord Chesterfield informed his 
 son of the disappointment of his hopes of seeing him in parlia- 
 ment. " You will not be in this parliament, at least, not at the 
 beginning of it. I relied too much upon Lord Chatham's promise 
 above a year ago at Bath. He desired that I would leave it to 
 him ; that he would make it his own affair and give it in charge 
 to the Duke of Grafton, whose province it was to make the parlia- 
 mentary arrangements. This I depended upon, and I think with 
 reason, but since that Lord Chatham has neither seen nor spoken 
 to anybody and has been in the oddest way in the world. I sent to 
 the Duke of Grafton to know if Lord Chatham had either spoken or 
 sent to him about it, but he assured me that he had done neither ; 
 that all was full or rather running over at present ; but that if he 
 could crowd you in upon a vacancy he would do it with great 
 pleasure. I am extremely sorry for this accident, for I am of a 
 very different opinion from you about being in parliament, as no 
 man can be of any consequence in this country who is not in it, 
 and though one may not speak like a Lord Mansfield or a Lord 
 Chatham, one may make a very good figure in a second rank. I 
 do not pretend to give you any account of the present state of this 
 country or ministry, not knowing nor guessing it myself."* 
 
 The parliament was dissolved on the day previous to the date 
 of this letter, but Lord Chesterfield was not, perhaps, aware at 
 that time of the extent of the mortification that awaited him. 
 
 In the " ministerial arrangement" Mr. Bradshaw, the private 
 secretary of the Duke of Grafton, was returned for the first time 
 a member of parliament for the borough of Bossigny. 
 
 The indignation of Junius at this period was uncontrollable. 
 On the 23rd April a letter appeared in the Public Advertiser, 
 
 * This abrupt confession of ignorance of ministerial affairs from one who 
 had hitherto been so alive to every political movement looks suspicious, and 
 was probably intended to conceal from the curiosity of any one who might 
 open his lordship's letter the designs of vengeance which he meditated against 
 those who had offended him. 
 
70 THE CAUSE OF JUNIUS's DISCONTENT. 
 
 addressed to the Duke of Grafton, in which the private character 
 of his Grace is openly attacked. This letter is remarkable not 
 only as being the first personal address of Junius, but the first in 
 which the name of Mr. Bradshaw is introduced, thus identifying 
 the objects of Junius's resentment with the parties who were at 
 that time the cause of Lord Chesterfield's disappointment and 
 vexation. But Junius was not satisfied by this display of his 
 vindictive feeling, another letter was inserted in the Public 
 Advertiser on the same day in which the writer accuses the Duke 
 of Grafton of duplicity and breach of faith in his capacity as a 
 minister, and as if resolved that his Grace at least should not 
 misunderstand from what quarter these invectives came, a third 
 letter was published on the 1st July, in which the writer alludes 
 in such distinct terms to the circumstance of Lord Chesterfield's 
 late disappointment, and to the conduct of the Duke of Grafton on 
 that occasion, that scarcely a doubt can remain on the subject. 
 The excuses suggested by Junius to the Duke of Grafton in this 
 letter, were probably the exact words employed by his Grace when 
 he answered Lord Chesterfield's inquiry as to the long promised 
 seat in parliament for Mr. Stanhope ; and it seems evident that 
 Mr. Bradshaw, the private secretary to the Duke of Grafton (now 
 the successful rival of Mr. Stanhope) was the bearer of the 
 unwelcome tidings to Lord Chesterfield. 
 
 July I, 1768. 
 " To Master Harry, in Black Boy Alley, 
 
 At tu, simul obligasti 
 
 Perjidum votis caput enigrescis 
 Atrior multo 
 
 " The moment I heard you had given a positive promise to 
 Lord Rockingham in my favour, / did you the justice to be satisfied 
 
 that all my hopes and pretensions to succeed Mrs. — 
 
 were at an end. But a second promise, which I understand you 
 have lately given to another, revives my spirits, and makes me 
 flatter myself that you mean me no harm. I have one chance less 
 against me than I had, for your last resolution is certainly the one 
 you will not abide by, so that at present there is nothing in my 
 way but your engagement to Lord Rockingham, the bad effects of 
 which I shall endeavour to remove by this letter. I feel as strongly 
 
THE CAUSE OF JUNIUS's DISCONTENT. 71 
 
 as you how much it would violate the consistency of your character 
 to keep your word from any motive of probity or good faith ; but 
 if I can suggest to you the means of performing your first promise 
 to Lord Rockingham, and yet continuing as great a rascal as you 
 would wish to be, all objections on the score of integrity will be 
 removed, and you will owe me no small obligation into the bar- 
 gain, * You are a mere hoy, Harry, notwithstanding the down 
 upon your chin, and would do well to cultivate the friendship of 
 women of experience. With all due submission to Miss Nancy's 
 personal knowledge of the world, I believe she has not yet taught 
 you the secret of keeping your word without hurting your prin- 
 ciples. This is a science worthy of a superior genius ; and, 
 without a compliment, Harry, you have talents to improve it into 
 a system of treachery, which, though it may shorten your natural 
 life, will make your reputation immortal." 
 
 " In the first place, I presume, you will have no difficulty in 
 
 breaking your word with Mrs. C y ; the whole distress lies in 
 
 keeping it with your friend the Marquis. My advice is, therefore, 
 that you should order Mr. Bradshaw to write to his lordship, and 
 assure him, in the civilest terms, that ' circumstances which you had 
 not foreseen — that it was with infinite concern — that his lordship's 
 recommendation had such weight with you — that in any other instance 
 — that you flattered yourself his lordship would he candid enough to 
 distinguish hetween the minister and the man — hut that in short you 
 were so unfortunately situated, Sfc. Sfc. Sfc.' Mr. Bradshaw's manner 
 will make the message palatable ; and it would not be amiss if he 
 were to carry it himself. Having disengaged yourself from Lord 
 Rockingham, you must at the same instant write me a letter of 
 congratulation, and desire me to take possession immediately. By 
 these expedients you will preserve all the duplicity and wayward 
 humour of your character — you will have the merit and satisfaction 
 of failing to two people — you will confer a favour without obliging 
 any body, and your enemies give you credit for a conduct equally 
 honourable to your morals and your understanding." 
 
 * The Duke of Grafton was in his 34th year, an age which Junius inva- 
 riably considered far too young to be intrusted with the management of public 
 affairs. The recommendation to cultivate the friendship of women of expe- 
 rience will remind the reader of Lord Chesterfield's system of education. 
 
72 THE CAUSE OF JUNIUS's DISCONTENT, 
 
 " Farewell, Harry, and believe me to be, with the most perfect 
 contempt, yours, 
 
 " Pomona." 
 
 " P.S. If the place is to be given in trust for Miss Parsons, I 
 beg leave to withdraw my pretensions, for I am determined not to 
 suffer a woman to be quartered upon me, in any shape." 
 
 But the writer's indignation was still unappeased, and his 
 anger against the Duke of Grafton and his " cream-coloured 
 parasite" found vent in poetry as well as prose. The following 
 stanzes were at this time sent by Junius to Woodfall for insertion 
 in the Public Advertiser :* — 
 
 HARRY AND NAN. 
 
 AN ELEGY IN THE MANNER OE TIBULLUS. 
 I. 
 
 Can Apollo resist or a poet refuse 
 
 When Harry and Nancy solicit the muse, 
 
 A statesman who makes the whole nation his care, 
 
 And a nymph who is almost as chaste as she's fair. 
 
 ii. 
 ****** 
 
 ****** 
 
 * * * * * * 
 
 ****** 
 
 * The original manuscript copy of this jeu d'esprit has been preserved 
 among the autographs of Junius. It seems that Mr. H. S. Woodfall did not 
 venture to insert the poem in the Public Advertiser, but by some means it 
 found its way to Almon, who published it in the Political Register for 1768, 
 Vol. II., p. 101. Whether Woodfall previously copied it by desire of Junius 
 for some other paper, or whether Junius himself supplied the duplicate is 
 uncertain. Almon published it without any comment. 
 
 The genuineness of this manuscript is unquestionable, since the auto- 
 gragh differs in no respect whatever from the numerous specimens that have 
 been preserved. It is worthy also of remark that the copy now in the hands 
 of Mr. H. D. Woodfall is a clean copy, and evidently transcribed from the 
 rough draft of one who had not made this his first essay in verse. It exhibits 
 the like neatness, care, and precision, which so eminently distinguish all the 
 manuscripts of Junius. The only drawback to elegance in these documents is 
 the shabby appearance of the paper on which some of the private letters are 
 written, but this might have been one of the precautions which Junius thought 
 necessary to adopt in communicating with his printer. His manuscripts for 
 the press are usually written on common foolscap paper and his private 
 letters on a folded half sheet of paper of a similar description. 
 
THE CAUSE OF JTTNIUs's DISCONTENT. 73 
 
 III. 
 
 From fourteen to forty our provident Nan* 
 Had devoted her life to the study of man, 
 And thought it a natural change in her station 
 ****** 
 
 IV. 
 
 Secret service had wasted the national wealth, 
 But now 'tis the price of the minister's health, 
 An expense which the Treasury well may afford, 
 ****** 
 
 v. 
 So lucky was Harry that nothing could mend 
 His choice of a mistress but that of a friend, — 
 A friend so obliging and yet so sincere, 
 With pleasure in one eye and t'other a tear.f 
 
 VI. 
 
 My friend hold the candle, the lovers debate, 
 
 And among them God knows how they settle the state ; 
 
 Was there ever a nation so govern'd before, 
 
 By a jockey, a gambler, a pimp, * * * * * 
 
 Those who have had an opportunity of reading Lord Chester- 
 field's poems will have no difficulty in recognising his lordship's 
 style, so apparent in every line of the above stanzas. 
 
 * Miss Ann Parsons. 
 
 f Mr. Thomas Bradshaw. 
 
 " Mr. Bradshaw affirms upon his honour (and so may the gift of smiling 
 never depart from him." — Junius, Vol. II., p. 247. 
 
 " That cream-coloured gentleman's tears, affecting as they are, carry con- 
 solation along with them. He never weeps but like an April shower with a 
 lambent ray of sunshine upon his countenance." — lb. p. 401. 
 
 The smirking countenance of Mr. Bradshaw excited in Junius an uncon- 
 querable disgust, but this feeling was not confined to that gentleman. The 
 blubbering utterance of Lord North, the unbroken melodious eloquence of Mr. 
 Laughlin McLeane, the pipe of Sir Fletcher Norton, the whiffling activity of 
 Mr. Chamier, and the want of that activity in Tom Wheatley, were themes to 
 which Junius delighted to recur. It would be tedious to refer to every passage 
 in which Junius has thus inadvertently given proofs of his horror at the 
 absence of the graces in any who opposed him. Nor did even those who 
 resembled him in the polite accomplishments of a courtier escape animadver- 
 sion. The pliant Barrington, the obsequious Bontetort, the pompous Suffolk, 
 the courteous Hillsborough, and the humble Conway, were all equally offensive 
 to the refined taste of Junius. None of these noblemen reached the standard 
 of Junius's idea of the dignified deportment of a courtier or a gentleman. 
 
74 THE CAUSE OF JUNIUS's DISCONTENT. 
 
 But Lord Chatham and the Duke of Grafton were not the only- 
 persons who were censured by this writer during the first months 
 of what may be called the Life of Junius. The Shelburnes, the 
 Townshends, Lord Bute, and General Conway, with other mem- 
 bers of the administration, often felt the keen irony of the great 
 political satirist. And here we have the authority of Lord Ches- 
 terfield to prove that against these also he had cause to be offended. 
 For his lordship had not only been kept in suspense as to the 
 promise of a seat in parliament for Mr. Stanhope, but he had been 
 annoyed by the ministry sending a person to fill Mr. Stanhope's 
 place during his temporary absence from Dresden, and although 
 Lord Chesterfield endeavoured to console his son (who was at that 
 time suffering from severe illness) it is pretty clear from the tone 
 of his lordship's letters that neither he nor Mr. Stanhope had been 
 treated with much courtesy by the party then in power. 
 
 Lord Chesterfield's first letter on this subject is an answer to 
 his son, who it appears had requested permission to leave Dresden 
 for a time on account of his health : — " The day after I received 
 your letter of the 21st past, I wrote to Lord Weymouth, and I send 
 you his answer enclosed, from which f though I have not heard 
 from him since) I take it for granted, and so may you, that his 
 silence signifies his Majesty's consent to your request." 
 
 And in his next letter, dated 12th April, 1768, Lord Chester- 
 field wrote — 
 
 "I believe you have guessed the true reason of Mr. Keith's 
 mission, but, by a whisper that I have since heard, Keith is rather 
 inclined to go to Turin as Charge d' Affaires. I forgot to tell you 
 in my last that I was most positively assured that, the instant you 
 return to Dresden, Keith should decamp. I am persuaded they 
 will keep their word with me, as there is no one reason in the 
 world why they should not. I will send your annual to Mr. Lar- 
 pent in a fortnight, and pay the forty shillings a day quarterly if 
 there should be occasion ; for, in my private opinion, there will be 
 no Charge d' Affaires sent." 
 
 In this particular, however, Lord Chesterfield was mistaken. 
 
 Mr. Keith remained at Dresden, much to the annoyance of Mr. 
 
 Stanhope ; and, after the death of that gentleman, obtained the 
 
 honour of knighthood, and an appointment to a superior court. 
 
 We should dwell longer on the annoyances to which Lord 
 
THE CAUSE OE JUNITTS's DISCONTENT. 75 
 
 Chesterfield and his son were at this time subjected, if the cir- 
 cumstance which led to the abandonment of all hope on the part 
 of Lord Chesterfield, or desire of favours from the King and his 
 Ministers, were not too clearly demonstrated by the conduct of 
 Junius to render such a task necessary. 
 
 Mr. Stanhope died on the 16th November, 1768. The mis- 
 cellaneous letters of Junius, which had for some months before 
 appeared in rapid succession in the Public Advertiser, immediately 
 ceased, and, after a lapse of two months,* (with the exception of 
 one solitary encomiastic letter, addressed to Mr. Grenville), the 
 author re-appeared on the 21st January, 1769, under his new and 
 well-known signature of Junius. 
 
 It is not simply the circumstance that Lord Chesterfield had 
 cause to be displeased with Lord Chatham, the Duke of Grafton, 
 and the Court at the time that Junius began to write, that will, 
 in itself, carry conviction home to Lord Chesterfield ; for others, 
 among the several factions of that period, felt themselves aggrieved, 
 and were violent in their abuse against Government. Even Lord 
 Chatham was calumniated by the disappointed patriots of the day. 
 But the facts which separate Lord Chesterfield from every other 
 discontented politician, are traceable in the conduct of Junius 
 towards the parties censured, and these facts are supported by dates 
 and circumstances that will scarcely admit of a parallel, or even of 
 a plausible adverse interpretation. It has been shown that not 
 only sufficient cause did exist at that time to rouse Lord Chester- 
 field's deepest indignation, but that the cause itself is manifested 
 in the unguarded exhibition of Junius's personal feelings, as well 
 
 * It may be here observed, that this is the third instance in which the sus- 
 pension of the labours of Junius has been accounted for. The first interruption 
 occurred during Lord Chesterfield's illness in the summer of 1767. The second, 
 while Lord Chesterfield was expecting an interview with Lord Chatham in Jan., 
 1768, and this more ominous silence which took place immediately on the death 
 of Mr. Stanhope. To these extraordinary coincidences may be added the 
 abrupt termination of the letters to Lord Barrington in May, 1772, at the 
 time that Lord Chesterfield was seized with a dangerous illness, and the still 
 more remarkable silence of Junius after the 19th January, 1773 ; a circum- 
 stance that does not seem capable of explanation by any less event than the 
 death of the author. Lord Chesterfield died (after a short illness) on the 24th 
 March, 1773. On the 19th January Junius desired Woodfall to write if he 
 had anything of moment to himself to communicate. The printer did not 
 avail himself of this permission till the 8th March, when the first signal ap- 
 peared in the Public Advertiser, indicating that a letter was ready for Junius. 
 These signals were repeated for more than a month, but the mysterious author 
 had in the meantime disappeared ! ! ! 
 
76 THE CAUSE OF JTJNITTs's DISCONTENT. 
 
 as by the nature of the abuse which he levelled in the true spirit 
 of retaliation against his enemies. 
 
 The piety of St. James's, the chastity of the Princess Dowa- 
 ger, and the spurious descent of the Duke of Grafton are themes 
 of the writer's constant and bitterest invectives. On these subjects 
 he dwelt with a malignancy which no political offence — no differ- 
 ence of opinion or party feeling will either explain or justify. It 
 was on these occasions, and these only, when a sense of his own 
 wrongs was uppermost in his mind, that Junius forgot his accus- 
 tomed politeness. 
 
 " In what language shall I address so black, so cowardly a tyrant. 
 Thou worse than one of the Brunswicks and all the Stuarts." 
 
 This passage occurs in nearly the last letter to the Duke of 
 Grafton, which Junius was induced to write in consequence of his 
 Grace's refusal to allow the timber to be cut in Whittlebury 
 Forest.* The frequent recurrence in this letter to the origin of the 
 noble family of Grafton is equalled in absurdity only by the foul- 
 ness of the terms employed. 
 
 " Now it appears that a grant of Charles the Second to one of 
 his bastards is to be held sacred and inviolable." 
 
 " You asserted upon your honour that, in the grant of the ran- 
 gership of Whittlebury Forest made by Charles the Second (whom 
 with a modesty that would do honour to Mr. Rigby, you are pleased 
 to call your ancestor) to one of his bastards from whom I make no 
 doubt of your descent — " 
 
 * Although this letter is more virulent than any in the author's edition of 
 Junius, it seems hitherto to have attracted but little notice. This neglect is 
 owing, perhaps, to the difficulty felt by all commentators to apply the circum- 
 stance that occasioned this letter to any of the parties suspected as the writer. 
 The refusal of the Duke of Grafton to allow the King's timber to be cut in Whit- 
 tlebury Forest, over which his Grace was hereditary ranger, could affect the 
 private interest of only a very few of the nobility, and only such as held similar 
 grants from the Crown. Among these was Lord Chesterfield. His lordship's 
 attention would, therefore, necessarily be directed to the conduct of the Duke 
 of Grafton on a subject that so nearly concerned him, but with the public gene- 
 rally it was of very little consequence whether the timber required for the navv 
 was selected from Whittlebury Forest, or a new order was made out at the 
 Treasury transferring the right of spoliation to Sherwood or any other royal 
 forest in the kingdom. The importance, however, which Junius himself at- 
 tached to this letter is evident from the private note which accompanied it. 
 
 " The enclosed is of such importance, so very material, that it must be given 
 to the public immediately. I will not advise, though I think you safe ; all I say 
 is that, I rely upon your care to have it printed either to-morrow in your own 
 paper, or to-night in the Pacquet."- — Private Letter, No. 38, vol. I, p. 226. 
 
THE CAUSE OE JUNIUS's DISCONTENT. 77 
 
 And in this one letter the Duke of Grafton is reminded no less 
 than Jive times of the baseness of his origin ; a circumstance that 
 plainly indicates the true source of the writer's malevolence. The 
 parties who had despised Mr. Stanhope on account of his birth 
 were invariably the objects of Junius's lasting resentment. This 
 was an " unexpiated" and " unexpiable" offence that admitted of 
 no compromise. The writer felt that he had not only been injured, 
 but he had been insulted, and his wounded pride endeavoured to 
 recover its level by revenge. 
 
 On a review of these circumstances (without any reference to 
 the multitude of additional proofs which lie thickly scattered 
 throughout the works of Junius) it may be affirmed that had Mr. 
 Stanhope been treated with the common courtesy due to his long 
 services under Government, and had obtained a seat in parliament 
 at the request of Lord Chesterfield, the letters oe Junius 
 
 WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN WRITTEN. 
 
78 JUNIUS DISCOVERED IN 1772, 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 At present there is something oracular in the delivery of my 
 opinions — I speak from a recess which no human curiosity 
 can penetrate. — Junius. 
 
 The universal question will be who is the author or supposed 
 author of this paper?* To which, if I do not give an 
 answer, I must beg leave to be excused, being determined, 
 at present, to shine like phosphorus in the dark, and scatter 
 my light from the impenetrable recess of my own closet.t — 
 Chesterfield. 
 
 Circumstances are strongly in favour of the rumour that 
 Junius was discovered to the King soon after the publication of 
 the genuine edition of the letters in 1772, nor is it improbable 
 that his own indiscretion furnished " the myrmidons of the Court" 
 with the means of tracing him in the miscellaneous letters which 
 appeared in the Public Advertiser after he had closed his corre- 
 spondence under the signature of Junius. This part of the 
 inquiry is both interesting and important, and deserves some 
 attention from the reserve of the Grenville family in reference to 
 
 * It may be worth while to observe that Junius almost invariably designates 
 his letters by this title, which seems to imply that the author had been accus- 
 tomed at some time to write Essays for the periodicals. In fact, many of the 
 letters of Junius assume more the character of Essays than personal addresses. 
 
 t The literary character of Junius and Lord Chesterfield may be traced in 
 these mottos. Scarcely two celebrated contemporaneous authors would 
 have betrayed so little regard for posthumous fame. Junius determined that his 
 secret should perish with him. The very few Essays which have been incorpo- 
 rated in Lord Chesterfield's Works appear to have been acknowledged by him with 
 reluctance, and although he has confessed himself to be the author of no less 
 than three periodical papers, (Fog's Journal, Common Sense, and Old England) 
 only a very scanty selection of his Essays has descended to posterity. Even 
 his admirable Papers in the World would have been lost to the public, if his 
 friend, Lord Lyttleton, had not by chance been shewn the manuscript of the 
 first essay, and recognised at once the hand writing, but more especially the 
 style, of the writer. A strong proof that Lord Chesterfield was indifferent 
 whether his " innumerable trifles" were accepted or rejected by the publisher 
 so long as his name was concealed. 
 
JUNIUS DISCOVERED IN 1772. 79 
 
 certain private letters of Junius, which have been for so many 
 years withheld from the public. 
 
 But before we enter upon the inquiry whether the secret of 
 Junius has not been long known to certain parties, it will be well 
 to examine the evidence which tends to shew that the author had 
 often been suspected. 
 
 In the first private letter which has been preserved, dated 
 April 20, 1769, Junius desired Woodfall that if any inquiries 
 should be made about his " papers''' to give him a hint. The 
 writer by this evidently expected that the style and matter of his 
 writings would induce suspicion, and he felt it necessary to use 
 every precaution for his safety. This expectation, it appears, was 
 soon verified, for in his third letter to Woodfall, dated 15th July, 
 1769, he says, "I have received the favour of your note. From 
 the contents of it, I imagine you have something to communicate 
 to me. If that be the case, I beg you will be particular and also 
 that you will tell me candidly whether you know or suspect who I 
 am. Direct a letter to Mr. William Middleton, to be left at the 
 bar of the New Exchange Coffee House, on Monday as early as 
 you think proper." 
 
 This private correspondence probably referred to the first 
 serious alarm of Junius, which was caused by the impertinent 
 inquiry of Swinney, (see private letter, No. 5). His next source 
 of inquietude was occasioned by a letter signed A.B., relative to 
 the Duke of Rutland. This letter was published in the London 
 Evening Post, Nov. 7, and reprinted at the desire of Junius, in 
 the Public Advertiser, Nov. 10, 1769. 
 
 The reader is earnestly requested to mark the dates in this part 
 of the inquiry. 
 
 On the 5th Oct., 1769, Junius wrote to Woodfall on the subject 
 of a packet (the nature of which cannot now be ascertained) 
 although it evidently had relation to the search that was then 
 making to discover the author. His fears, however, at the date 
 of this letter appear to have been somewhat allayed, and in his 
 next letter, dated 8th Nov., he wrote to Woodfall, " I have been 
 out of town these three weeks, and though I got your last could 
 not conveniently answer it * * * I should be much obliged if you 
 would reprint (and in the front page, if not improper or inconve- 
 nient) a letter in the London Evening Post of last night to the Duke 
 
80 JUNIUS DISCOVERED IN 1772. 
 
 of Grafton. If it had not been anticipated I should have touched 
 upon the subject myself. However it is not ill done, and it is 
 very material that it should spread. The person alluded to is 
 Lord Denbigh. I should think you might venture him with a D. 
 As it stands few people can guess who is meant." 
 
 Two days after the letter signed A. B. had appeared in the 
 Public Advertiser (i. e. Nov. 12) Junius wrote to Woodfall. " I 
 return you the letters you sent me yesterday. A man who can 
 neither write common English nor spell is hardly worth attending 
 to. It is, probably, a trap for me. I should be glad, however, 
 to know what the fool means. If he writes again open his letter, 
 and if it contains anything worth my knowing send it, otherwise 
 not. Instead of C. in the usual place say only A letter when you 
 have occasion to write to me again, I shall understand you." 
 
 The caution given to Woodfall in this letter, implies that 
 Junius was uneasy at the contents of the letters which he had 
 received, though at that time he was not perhaps aware that the 
 letter signed A. B. had been generally attributed to him, for it was 
 not till the 16th of Nov., that he desired Woodfall to assure the 
 public that the letter signed A. B. was not written by Junius. 
 This notice must have appeared on the very day that Junius was 
 charged with being the author. The following is a paragraph 
 from a letter which appeared in the Public Advertiser on the 
 17th Nov., 1769:— 
 
 "Junius may change his signature, his manner he cannot 
 change. The far-fetched antithesis, the empty period, the pert 
 loquacity, distinguish the writer, and the rancorous and impudent 
 falsehood discovers the man. In vain has he attempted to conceal 
 himself under initials, he is as invariable in the tenor of his dic- 
 tion as he is in the bias of his mind. It was, however, a mark of 
 some judgment in Mr. ■ to use a new signature in your 
 
 paper of Friday. A. B. may praise the Duke of Rutland though 
 Junius has unfamously traduced the Marquis of Granby." 
 
 From the contents of this letter it is evident that the writer 
 entertained the general opinion, current at that time, that Mr. 
 Burke was Junius. 
 
 We would now call attention to the dates of Lord Chester- 
 field's letters at the time that the letter A. B. was inserted in the 
 Public Advertiser. The letter which Junius wrote to Woodfall 
 
JUNIUS DISCOVERED IN 1772. 81 
 
 before he left town is dated 5th October, and on the 8th November 
 he writes, " I have been out of town three weeks." On referring 
 to Lord Chesterfield's correspondence, we find that his lordship 
 left town two days after the date of Junius' s letter, that is to say, 
 on the 7th October ; but we have no evidence to show that Lord 
 Chesterfield was in London on the 8th November, for he wrote to 
 Mrs. E. Stanhope on the 5th November, from Bath. Yet Junius, 
 or his confidential friend, must have been in London, or its imme- 
 diate neighbourhood, from the 8th November to the 16th Nov., 
 for in his letter of the 12th November, he says, " I return you the 
 letters you sent me yesterday."" As this is almost the only instance 
 in which the absence of Lord Chesterfield does not correspond 
 with the apparent situation of Junius, we shall endeavour to ex- 
 plain why no record can be found of Lord Chesterfield's abode 
 during the ten days that Junius was under so great alarm from 
 the inquiry as to the writer of the letter signed A. B. 
 
 In the first place, there is no proof that Lord Chesterfield did 
 not leave Bath immediately after the date of his letter to Mrs. 
 Stanhope. If his business in London was to transmit the letter, 
 A. B., to the publisher of the London Evening Post, it is more than 
 probable that he would keep his journey a secret; and this he 
 could easily do, by taking up his abode at Blackheath for a few 
 days. His letter to Mrs. Stanhope would induce his acquaintance 
 to believe that he was still at Bath, and put a stop to all inquiries. 
 Lord Chesterfield might also suspect from Mrs. Stanhope's inti- 
 macy with Lord North that she was employed by that minister 
 as a spy upon his movements. He could not, therefore, more 
 effectually have guarded against intrusion than by the letter which 
 he wrote a day or two before Junius returned to town. 
 
 Although it was indispensable that Junius should be almost a 
 constant resident in London, or its immediate vicinity, it is not 
 improbable that the composition and copying of the letters was 
 effected in a place where the writer's seclusion would be less 
 noticed, and where he would be more secure against surprise or 
 interruption. For this purpose Lord Chesterfield was provided 
 with a retreat at Blackheath, where he might defy human curiosity 
 to penetrate. 
 
 But of all the subjects chosen by Junius for the display of his 
 political knowledge, there was none, perhaps, that so nearly led ta 
 
82 JUNIUS DISCOVERED IN 1772. 
 
 his detection as his letter on the Convention with Spain, in 1770. 
 This letter was published on the 30th January, 1771, in which the 
 writer professed to take into consideration His Majesty's Speech 
 of the 13th November, and the subsequent measures of Govern- 
 ment : but he confined himself chiefly to that paragraph of the 
 speech which related to the restitution of Falkland Island. 
 
 " The excessive caution" says Junius, " with which the speech 
 was drawn up, had impressed upon me an early conviction that no 
 serious resentment was thought of, and that the conclusion of the 
 business, whenever it appeared, must, in some degree, be dis- 
 honourable to England. There appears through the whole speech 
 a guard and reserve in the choice of expression which shows how 
 careful the ministry were not to embarrass their future projects by 
 any firm or spirited declaration from the throne."* 
 
 The day after this letter had appeared in the Public Adver- 
 tiser Junius wrote to his printer in exultation at its success, nor 
 does he appear to have overrated the sensation it was calculated 
 to produce, for it soon attracted the attention of Government, and 
 Dr. Johnson was ordered to check the daring attacks of the pre- 
 sumptive writer. 
 
 " Of the Doctor's Pamphlet" says the editor of the enlarged 
 edition of the Letters, " the ministry were not a little proud, and 
 especially as they made no doubt that Junius would hereby be 
 drawn into a paper contest with Johnson, and that hence they 
 
 * The opposition of Lord Chesterfield to the Spanish Convention, 1739, 
 bears a strict analogy in language and sentiment to that of Junius in 1771. 
 The very expressions are employed by both on the two occasions ; — 
 
 "I shall agree, my lords, that those expressions which may be thought to 
 relate to any part of our late conduct are very general, more than ordinary 
 care has been taken to make them so, but even this is an argument for the 
 amendment proposed. So great caution is a sort of proof that matters are not 
 all right, it shews a consciousness of some misbehaviour which ought to give 
 us suspicion. 
 
 " The paragraphs that relate to our late transactions are indeed so general, 
 and the terms of expression so artfully and cautiously chosen, that upon any 
 ordinary occasion I should not, perhaps, have made an objection ; but, my 
 lords, the present emergency is the most extraordinary, the most important 
 that has ever happened since I have had the honour to sit in this House. Our 
 trade, our very being, is deeply concerned in every resolution we can come to 
 during this Session of Parliament. The only profitable branch of our trade, I 
 am afraid — the branch upon which all the other, and, consequently, the being 
 of this nation depends, is now at stake." 
 
 Junius, in his letter on the convention, says, — 
 
 u As far as the probability of argument extends, we may safely pronounce 
 that a conjuncture which threatens the very being of this country has been 
 wilfully prepared and forwarded by our own ministry." 
 
JUNIUS DISCOVERED IN 1772. 83 
 
 would possess a greater facility of detecting him. Junius seems 
 to have been aware of the trap laid for him, and made no direct 
 reply whatever." 
 
 But, in the meantime, a more dangerous opponent had appeared 
 in the character of Alcides. The hints conveyed by that writer's 
 letter were too pointed to be misunderstood by Junius ; he, there- 
 fore, prudently declined the contest. 
 
 Alcides had thus described the anonymous author : — 
 
 "A distinguished advocate for popular licentiousness,* who 
 has lain long buried under the ruins of patriotism, has again worked 
 his way into the world, for the honourable purpose of vilifying his 
 Sovereign and misleading his country; and, it is a melancholy 
 reflection that, among the utterly uninformed — among those who 
 take assertion for proof, and receive scurrillity for argument — his 
 opinions upon the Spanish declaration are thought to be unanswer- 
 able. Yet, if we examine these opinions with the most cursory 
 eye, we shall find them so replete with absurdity — so founded in 
 ignorance, that the severity of our censure must be mixed with 
 compassion, and our indignation at the profligacy be mitigated by 
 our pity for the weakness of the author." 
 
 In order to add force to this description, Alcides emphati- 
 cally styles Junius " this polite writer," and concludes his letter 
 with a sarcastic reference to the predominant vice of Lord Ches- 
 terfield, " The dice which Junius plays with are, however, palpa- 
 bly loaded." 
 
 These inuendoes were, surely, sufficient to warn Junius from 
 entering the lists against Alcides, and to deter him from answering 
 the pamphlet of Dr. Johnson; but, with his usual skill, he 
 diverted public attention from these opponents, by answering a 
 less dangerous antagonist, and thus put an end to the controversy. 
 
 It is probable, however, that the public misapplied the hints 
 thrown out by Alcides, although so evidently designed to point at 
 Lord Chesterfield ; and that the distinguished advocate for popular 
 licentiousness was supposed to be Mr. Wilkes, or one of the par- 
 
 * Lord Chesterfield was the most distinguished advocate for the licentious- 
 ness of the stage. His speech in 1737, on the Licensing Bill, has long been 
 considered a masterpiece of oratory in defence of popular licentiousness, and 
 the unbridled liberty of the press. 
 
 g 2 
 
84 JUNIUS DISCOVERED IN 1772. 
 
 tisans who upheld him when he incurred the prosecution which led 
 to his outlawry : but a little consideration would have shown that 
 neither Wilkes nor his advocates could, with propriety, have been 
 said to have lain long buried under the ruins of patriotism. This 
 inuendo referred to the undermining of those patriots who had for 
 so many years withstood the power of Sir Robert Walpole, when 
 that able politician, like a political Sampson, withdrew the chief 
 pillars of the opposition (Carteret and Pulteney), and thereby pulled 
 down destruction upon his enemies, and buried them under the 
 ruins of patriotism. The distinguished advocate for popular licen- 
 tiousness could be no other than he who had rendered himself so 
 conspicuous by his opposition to the bill for restraining the licen- 
 tiousness of the stage. 
 
 In order to show that Alcides had sufficient grounds to suspect 
 Lord Chesterfield to be the author of this letter, nothing more 
 would be necessary than to quote his lordship's speeches on the 
 Spanish Convention, 1739. The same inveterate hostility towards 
 the Spanish court, and the like professions of regard for the dignity 
 of the Crown and the honour of his native country, are discernible 
 throughout the whole of Junius's letters on this subject. It is in 
 vain to say that Junius imitated the conduct and language of Lord 
 Chesterfield, since, in that case, he would not have been intimi- 
 dated by the hints of his opponents, nor would he have sought 
 shelter under other signatures when he desired to display his know- 
 ledge of the treaties and policy of Spain towards Great Britain, 
 from the earliest period of England's conventions with that nation. 
 
 Enough has, perhaps, been said, to prove that the contest on the 
 subject of the Spanish Convention brought the anonymous writer 
 to the very brink of detection, and that nothing but his consum- 
 mate art and dissimulation could have averted discovery, or again 
 lulled suspicion. Subsequently to this, Junius was threatened by 
 the inquiries of (Jarrick, and for some time he was in constant 
 alarm, lest Woodfall should divulge some circumstance that would 
 betray him ; but he was not, perhaps, aware, that Lord Barrington 
 was his most dangerous enemy, until he found, in 1772, that Mr. 
 D'Oyly had been driven from the War Office. 
 
 That Lord Barrington was the principal person employed by the 
 jking at this time to discover the anonymous writer will appear evi- 
 dent from the conduct of Junius, 
 
JUNIUS DISCOVEBED IN 1772. 85 
 
 On the 18th January, 1772, Junius wrote to Woodfall, " The gen- 
 tleman that transacts the conveyancing part of our correspondence 
 tells me there was much difficulty last night," and a few days after 
 he commenced a series of letters addressed to Lord Barrington, at 
 the same time he cautioned Woodfall to take care that it was not 
 known that the letters signed Veteran were written by Junius, for 
 although he had on many occasions, in the course of his correspon- 
 dence, spoken in terms of haughty contempt of Lord Barrington, 
 yet under the signature of Junius he had cautiously avoided giving 
 Lord Barrington any clue to suspect him. As Veteran, however, 
 he felt himself more secure, and related facts that could have been 
 remembered by none but a veteran in politics. He thus describes 
 Lord Barrington's entrance into public life, and proves how well his 
 lordship had supported the character of Political Vicar of Bray. * 
 " The Duke of Newcastle's livery was the first habit you put 
 on. What an indefatigable courtier at his levee. What an assi- 
 duous parasite at his table ! Was there a dirty job to be performed 
 — away went Barrington. Was a message to be carried — who 
 waits there ? — My Lord Barrington. After ruining that brave and 
 worthy man, General Fowke, under the auspices of the Duke of 
 Newcastle, who saved you from destruction, you deserted to Mr. Pitt 
 the moment he came into power. Before the late king's death, you 
 secured a footing at Carlton House, and were prepared to abandon 
 your last patron the moment Lord Bute assumed the reins of go- 
 vernment. From Lord Bute to Mr. Grenville there was an easy 
 transfer of your affections. You are the common friend of all 
 ministers, but it is not in your policy to engage in overt acts of hos- 
 tility against those who may perhaps be next in turn to patronise 
 Lord Barrington. My dear lord or my dear sir are titles with which 
 you have occasionally addressed every man who ever had an office, 
 or the chance of an office, in this kingdom. Even the proscribed 
 John Wilkes, the moment he was sheriff, had a claim upon your 
 politeness. Your character was a little battered by the frequency of 
 your political amours when Lord Rockingham took you into keep- 
 
 *This character was first given to Lord Barrington by Mr. Philip Stanhope 
 in 1756. " I never doubted," writes Lord Chesterfield, " the prudent versatility 
 of your Vicar of Bray." — Vol. IV., p. 198. 
 
 Junius knew that the Duke of Newcastle saved Lord Barrington from des- 
 truction ! His grace was at that time in the habit of consulting with Lord 
 Chesterfield on any political emergency. 
 
86 JUNIUS DISCOVERED IN 1772. 
 
 ing. While you existed by his protection you intrigued with the 
 Duke of Grafton. Another change succeeded. Your mind was 
 open to new lights ; and, without doubt, Lord Chatham was the 
 only man in the kingdom fit to govern a great empire. Still, how- 
 ever, your opinion of men and things were not perfectly settled. 
 When the Duke of Grafton took the lead the pliant Barrington, 
 of course, saw things in a different point of view. There is nothing 
 in your attachments that savours of obstinacy. When his Grace 
 resigned you soon discovered that, to establish government upon a 
 solid footing, the minister's presence was indispensable in the 
 House of Commons. Lord North was then the man after your 
 Lordship's own heart. In your ideas, the first Lord of the Trea- 
 sury, for the time being, is always perfect, but every change is for 
 the better. With all your professions of attachment to the tempo- 
 rary minister, I tell him, and I tell the public, that at this very hour 
 you are caballing with the Duke of Grafton and the Bedfords to 
 obtain the recal of Lord Townshend, and to drive Lord North from 
 the Treasury. But they all know' you. In the inventory of the 
 discarded minister's effects Lord Barrington is always set down 
 as a fixture." 
 
 This sketch of Lord Barrington' s life was written a short time 
 before Mr. Francis was turned out of the War Office. Had Lord 
 Barrington given himself time to examine the foregoing paragraph 
 carefully, and had not been hurried away by the first impression, 
 arising from the exposure of scenes described by Junius as having 
 taken place in the War Office, it is probable that Mr. Francis 
 would not have lost his situation. For Lord Barrington must have 
 known that nearly thirty years had elapsed since he first put on the 
 Duke of Newcastle's livery, and that none but a person who had 
 attended the levees, and been present with his lordship at the Duke 
 of Newcastle's table, could have described his conduct so well. 
 
 Junius published his " Memoirs of Lord Barrington" on the 
 12th May, 1772, and then abruptly terminated his correspondence. 
 It is presumed that it was about the date of this letter that Lord 
 Barrington succeeded in discovering that the writer of the letters 
 signed Veteran, was Junius. For when Lord Barrington read the 
 history of his life thus faithfully and circumstancially related, with 
 the prominent features of his political character drawn by so 
 skilful a hand, and his actions in by-gone days portrayed by touches 
 
JUNIUS DISCOVERED IN 1772. 87 
 
 that none but an eye-witness could so happily have delineated, he 
 must \±2ivefelt that Philip Francis, a discarded clerk of the War 
 Office, could not have been his historian. He would, therefore, 
 naturally turn his inquiries to the very few then living who had 
 known him in early life, and the truth probably flashed upon him 
 at once that his enemy was no other than Loud Chesterfield. 
 It was he who had been his associate at the Fountain Club. It 
 was he who had witnessed his servility at the Duke of Newcastle's 
 table, and at his own, for it was under Lord Chesterfield's banner 
 that Lord Barrington made his first step in preferment.^ This clue 
 being obtained, the difficulty of tracing the letters of Junius to Lord 
 Chesterfield was overcome. Nor is it improbable that Mr. Francis 
 assisted in the search, for the father of Philip Francis was chap- 
 lain to Lord Chesterfield, and the ex-clerk was, perhaps, too ready 
 to admit the share he might inadvertently have had in disclosing 
 certain scenes at the War Office, or in transacting at times, with- 
 out any guilty knowledge, the conveyancing part of the correspon- 
 dence of Junius. 
 
 But it was not, perhaps, from Mr. Francis alone that Junius 
 obtained his information of what was going on at the War Office. 
 He probably heard it from the parties themselves, who had been 
 insulted by Lord Barrington, and his associate, Mr. Chamier. The 
 following passage seems to hint at the source from which one of 
 the scenes was derived : — 
 
 " Let us suppose a case which every man acquainted with the 
 war office will admit to be very probable. Suppose a Lieutenant 
 General, who perhaps may be a peer or a member of the House of 
 Commons, does you the honour to wait upon you for instructions 
 relative to his regiment. After explaining yourself to him with 
 your usual accuracy and decision, you naturally refer him to your 
 deputy for the detail of the business. My dear general, I'm pro- 
 digiously hurried. But do me the favour to go to Mr. Shammy — 
 go to little Waddlewell — go to my duckling — go to little three per 
 cents, reduced — you'll find him a mere scrip of a secretary, an 
 
 * Lord Barrington entered public life shortly after his return from his 
 travels, having been elected member for Berwick in 1740, in the 23rd year of 
 his age. Hejoined the opposition, who were at that time distinguished by the 
 name of " The Patriots," of which band Lord Chesterfield might then be con- 
 sidered the leader. Lord Chesterfield made it one of the conditions of his 
 coming into office that Lord Barrington should be provided for. 
 
88 JUNIUS DISCOVERED IN 1772. 
 
 omnium of all that's genteel, the activity of a broker, the polite- 
 ness of a hairdresser, the — the — the, &c." 
 
 " Our general officer we may presume being curious to see this 
 
 wonderful Girgashite, the following dialogue passes between 
 them : — 
 
 " Lieutenant- General. — Sir, the Secretary at War refers me to 
 
 you for an account of what was done ? 
 
 " Waddlewell. — Done, Sir, closed at three eights — looked flat 
 I must own, but to morrow, my dear Sir, I hope to see a more 
 lively appearance. 
 
 " Lieutenant- General. — Sir, I speak of the noneffective fund. 
 
 " Waddlewell.. — Fund, my dear Sir. In what fund would you 
 wish to be concerned. Speak freely. You may confide in your 
 humble servant. I'm all discretion. 
 
 "Lieutenant- General. — Sir, I really don't understand you. Lord 
 Barrington says my regiment may possibly be thought of for 
 India. 
 
 " Waddlewell. — India, my dear Sir. Strange fluctuation — 
 from fourteen and a half to twenty-two never stood a moment, 
 but ended cheerful — no mortal can account for it. 
 
 " Lieutenant- General. — Damn your stocks, Sir, tell me whether 
 the commission — 
 
 " Waddelwell. — As for commission, my dear Sir, I'll venture to 
 say that no gentleman in the alley does business upon easier terms. 
 I never take less than an eighth, except from Lord Sandwich and 
 my brother-in-law, but they deal largely and you must be sensible, 
 my dear Sir, that, when the Commission is extensive it may be 
 worth a broker's while to content himself with a sixteenth. 
 
 " The general officer, at last fatigued with such extravagance, 
 quits the room in disgust, and leaves the intoxicated broker to 
 settle his accounts himself. 
 
 " After such a scene as this, do you think that any man of rank 
 or consequence in the army will ever apply to you or your deputy 
 again? Will any officer of rank condescend to receive orders from 
 a little whiffling broker, to whom he may formerly have given 
 half-a-crown for negotiating an hundred pound stock, or sixpence 
 for a lottery ticket ? My Lord, without a jest, it is indecent, it is 
 odious, it is preposterous. Our gracious master, it is said, reads 
 the newspapers. If he does, he shall know minutely in what 
 
JUNIUS DISCOVERED IN 1772. 89 
 
 manner you treat his faithful army. This is the first of sixteen* 
 letters addressed to your lordship which are ready for the press, 
 and shall appear as fast as it suits the printer's convenience.— 
 Veteran." 
 
 The signature, as well as the subject of this letter, implies 
 that it was either written by a general officer who was a peer, or a 
 member of the House of Commons, or by some friend of such 
 general officer. 
 
 Major-General Irwine (at that time a partizan of the Grenvilles, 
 and the intimate friend of Lord Chesterfield) was probably the per- 
 son from whom the writer obtained his information. The circum- 
 stances of General Irwine might compel him occasionally to visit 
 the war office, and it was, perhaps, from him and Adjutant- General 
 Harvey, and not from Sir P. Francis, that Junius chiefly became 
 acquainted with the occurrences in Lord Barrington's department. 
 
 General Irwine was at that time a supporter of Lord Temple's 
 party, and therefore could not expect to be very courteously received 
 by Lord Barrington. Adjutant- General Harvey was an old and in- 
 timate friend of Lord Chesterfield, and from such sources his lord- 
 ship would find no difficulty in making himself acquainted with the 
 movements at the war office. 
 
 The conjecture that Junius did not receive his information from 
 Mr. Francis, is rendered still more probable by the letter which 
 Junius wrote immediately after Mr. Francis was dismissed. In that 
 letter he calls upon Mr. D'Oyly and Mr. Francis to declare their 
 reasons for quitting the war office. Neither of these gentlemen 
 could have been so silly as to have written such a letter, but Junius 
 felt that some apology was necessary for the mischief he had occa- 
 sioned, and the only reparation in his power was a public acknow- 
 ledgment of the high sense he entertained of their characters and 
 conduct, and he might hope by this appeal to be furnished with the 
 means of retaliating upon Lord Barrington. Junius, no doubt, 
 knew why Mr. Francis was dismissed, but as the public was not 
 aware of the suspicions entertained by Lord Barrington, he could 
 not defend Mr. Francis until that gentleman had publicly declared 
 his reason for quitting the war office. 
 
 * Six only of these promised letters appeared. The last, entitled Memoirs 
 of Lord Barrington, is dated 12th May, 1772. Just at this time Lord Chester- 
 field was seized with a serious illness, which lasted during the summer of 1772. 
 
90 JUNIUS DISCOVERED IN 1772. 
 
 But there is one scene described in the letters to Lord Barring- 
 ton which Mr. Francis would hardly have ventured to publish, how- 
 ever much he might have been offended by the appointment of the 
 person who had supplanted him. The scene is described in the 
 second letter to Lord Barrington, a portion of which has already 
 been given. 
 
 "By garbling and new modelling the war office, you think 
 you have reduced the army to subjection. Walk in, gentlemen, 
 business done by Chamier and Co. To make your office complete 
 you want nothing now but a paper lanthorn at the door and the 
 scheme of a lottery pasted upon the window. With all your folly 
 and obstinacy I am a loss to conceive what countenance you 
 assumed when you told your Royal master that you had taken 
 a little Frenchified broker from Change Alley, to entrust with 
 the management of all the affairs of his army. Did the fol- 
 lowing dialogue leave no impression upon your disordered imagi- 
 nation ? You know where it passed. 
 
 K. — Pray, my Lord, whom have you appointed to succeed Mr. 
 D'Oyly? 
 
 B. — Please your Majesty, I believe I have made a choice 
 that will be highly acceptable to the public and the army. 
 
 K.— Who is it? 
 
 B. — Sire, it's Appelle Ragosin, born and educated in Change 
 Alley. He glories in the name of broker, and to say nothing 
 of my Lord Sandwich's friendship, I can assure your Majesty 
 he has always kept the best company at Jonathan's. 
 
 K. — My lord, I never interfere in these matters, but I cannot 
 help telling your lordship that you might have consulted my 
 honour, and the credit of my army a little better. Your appoint- 
 ment of so mean a person, though he may be a very honest 
 man, in the mystery he was bred to, casts a reflection upon me, 
 and is an insult to the army. At all events, I desire it may be 
 understood that I have no concern in this ill-judged, indecent 
 measure, and that I do not approve of it. 
 
 I suppose, my lord, you thought this conversation might 
 be sunk upon the public. It does honour to his Majesty, and 
 therefore you concealed it." 
 
 Although the foregoing dialogue is not to be taken as lite- 
 rally true, yet the manner in which it is introduced shows that 
 
JUNIUS DISCOVERED IN 1772. 91 
 
 the writer had some foundation for asserting that the King was 
 not pleased at the appointment of Mr. Chamier ; but it is not 
 credible that Mr. Francis would have thus publicly exposed 
 his principal, even if he had learned this secret of the Council 
 Chamber from his father, who was at that time a favourite with 
 the King. Nevertheless, he was probably suspected by Lord 
 Barrington, for a few days after the date of this letter Mr. 
 Francis was dismissed from the War Office. How he was re- 
 warded for the injury he had sustained by these unjust suspi- 
 cions, or for the share he might have had in discovering the 
 author, has been adduced by Mr. Taylor as one of the proofs 
 that he was the writer of the letters. 
 
 " We have only to conceive," says Mr. Taylor, " that Sir 
 Philip Francis was Junius, and everything is explained." 
 
 The public will not have much difficulty in determining whether 
 " a mere clerk in office" would have been rewarded or punished 
 if he had been discovered to be the author of Junius's letters. 
 The King and his ministers would have been but too happy in 
 finding their enemy in so subordinate a rank in society, nor would 
 they have wished to conceal his name, or spared such an offender 
 the disgrace which must have attached to him as a treacherous servant 
 of the crown. But in Lord Chesterfield the case was widely diffe- 
 rent. To have it publicly known that his lordship had spent 
 the last years of his life in revealing secrets of the court and of 
 the cabinet, and in exposing the weaknesses of the king and his 
 ministers, would have been more galling to the parties than even 
 the very libels themselves. It became necessary, therefore, that 
 those who had assisted in the discovery of Junius should be 
 silenced, and, in some instances rewarded, to ensure their fidelity. 
 Mr. Francis left England immediately after the publication of 
 Junius's last letter, and while he was abroad Lord Barrington, who 
 had a few months before turned him out of the War Office, 
 "honourably and generously" recommended him to Lord North, who 
 procured him the rank of a sovereign in India, and the dismissed 
 clerk, who could not retain a salary of £400, was at once raised 
 to one of £10,000 a year ! ! ! It is further stated, that on Mr. 
 Francis's return to England in 1780, " nobody would speak to him 
 but the King and Edmund Burke, and that his majesty was very 
 gracious to him ;" — and all these honours, Mr. Taylor would per- 
 
92 JUNIUS DISCOVERED IN 1772. 
 
 suade us, were bestowed upon Mr. Francis because the King had 
 discovered that he was the author of the letters of Junius ! 
 
 Mr. D'Oyly, who was the first victim of Lord Barrington's 
 unjust suspicions, (shortly after Mr. Francis's appointment), also 
 obtained a lucrative employment under government. The Gren- 
 villes were reconciled and General Irwine became a favourite of 
 Geo. III.* The enquiry after Junius, as far as the Court was 
 concerned, has from that time been buried in profound silence. 
 
 But it was not merely the extraordinary facts related by Junius 
 in these letters to Lord Barrington that alone supplied the Court 
 with means to lead to the detection of the veteran Junius. The 
 letter signed Cumbrien sis, dated 13th Nov., 1771, had renewed 
 inquiry. In this letter Junius admitted his personal knowledge of 
 the lineaments of the late Prince of Wales, father of George the 
 Third, and of the Duke of Cumberland. " Yet I must confess, 
 partial as I am to you for the sake of that good prince of whose 
 resemblance you carry some cutting traces about you, I could 
 wish you did not stand quite so near as you do to the regency and 
 crown of England." 
 
 The courtly style of this ironical letter of congratulation could 
 hardly fail to direct suspicion to the only person of rank who 
 would dare, in such language, to add insult to the disgrace which 
 had befallen the royal family by the marriage of the Duke of 
 Cumberland with Mrs. Horton. 
 
 That Lord Chesterfield would have no scruples if he wished to 
 annoy the King, may be inferred from the following ode, which 
 
 * Sir John Irwine may be considered the most successful pupil of Lord 
 Chesterfield's system of education. " His person, manners, and conversa- 
 tion," says a modern historian, " were all made for the drawing room. His 
 politeness, though somewhat formal, was, nevertheless, natural and capti- 
 vating. Perhaps (at least so his enemies asserted) his military talents were 
 not equally brilliant with his personal accomplishments, but he had not risen 
 the more slowly on that account to the honours or to the eminences of his 
 profession. Besides a regiment and a government conferred on him by the 
 crown, he had held during several years past the post of Commander-in-Chief 
 in Ireland, with very ample appointments and advantages. But no income, 
 however large, could suffice for his expenses, which being never restrained 
 within any reasonable limits finally involved him in irretrievable difficulties." 
 
 The greatest intimacy subsisted between Lord G. Sackville and Sir John 
 Irwine, who owed much of his advancement and success in life to the pro- 
 tection of Lionel Duke of Dorset. Lord Sackville's disinterested friendship 
 continued to bring Sir John Irwine into parliament for Eastgrinstead after his 
 return from Ireland, which took place on the dissolution of Lord North's 
 administration, down to his final departure from England; Decorated with the 
 order of the Bath, which then conferred much distinction, and of which he 
 
JUNIUS DISCOVERED IN 1772. 9& 
 
 his lordship is said to have written in the character of the Laureat, 
 while the Prince of Wales was alive. In this the family likeness 
 alluded to by Junius is still more offensively pointed out : — 
 
 LORD CHESTERFIELD'S ODE. 
 
 FOE COIIET CIBBEE. THE LAUREAT. 
 
 Written when the Prince of Wales was alive. 
 
 I, Colley Cibber, right or wrong, 
 
 Must celebrate this day, 
 And tune once more my tuneless song 
 
 And strum the venal lay. 
 
 never failed to display the insignia whenever he went to the House, his 
 personal appearance was imposing. Even of a morning, in his greatest 
 undress, he wore a small star embroidered on his frock, without which he 
 rarely appeared any where, and his travelling hussar cloaks bore the same 
 brilliant badge of knighthood. No man knew better the value of external 
 figure aided by manner; and Philip Earl of Chesterfield himself had not more 
 successfully studied the graces. It was impossible to possess finer manners 
 without any affectation or more perfect good breeding. With such pretensions 
 of person and of address it cannot surprise that he attained to a great degree 
 of favour at St. James's. The Kingt considered and treated Irwine as a person 
 whose conversation afforded him peculiar gratification. He often delighted to 
 protract the discourse with a courtier whose powers of entertainment, however 
 extensive, were always under the restraint of profound respect, and who never 
 forgot the character of the prince whom he addressed even for a single moment. 
 Irwine, though so fine a gentleman, loved all the indulgences of conviviality, in 
 which gratification he never restrained himself. The king, not unacquainted 
 with these particulars, having said to him one day at the drawing room, when 
 conversing on his common mode of life, "They tell me, Sir John, that you 
 love a glass of wine." "Those, sir, who have so reported of me to your 
 majesty," answered he, bowing profoundly, " have done me great injustice, 
 they should have said a bottle." 
 
 " Sir John Irwine's first wife was a daughter of the celebrated physician 
 Sir Edward Barry, who brought him no issue, but he afterwards contracted a 
 more obscure matrimonial connection. On his return to England his debts 
 became so numerous and his creditors so importunate that though as a member 
 of parliament his person still remained secure, he found it impossible to reside 
 longer, with comfort, in this country. Quitting, therefore, privately his elegant 
 house in Piccadilly, opposite the Green Park, he retired to the continent, and 
 landing in France he hired a chateau in the province of Normandy, where his 
 military rank secured for him every testimony of respect from the surrounding 
 gentry. He, nevertheless, soon experienced such pecuniary difficulties that he 
 could nourish no hope of ever revisiting his native country, and he removed over 
 the Alps into Italy. I believe he died at Padua, about the month of May, 1788, 
 in great obscurity though not in distress. The King, who sincerely regretted 
 his departure from England, and who well knew the causes of it, often ex- 
 pressed his concern for Sir John Irwine's misfortunes, which he endeavoured to 
 alleviate by sending Sir John the sum of a thousand pounds from his privy 
 purse, in two separate payments. I know this fact from the late Sir Charles 
 Hotham, who was, I think, himself the channel through which his Majesty 
 transmitted the first donation of five hundred pounds. — Wraxall's Memoirs, 
 Vol. II., p. 362. 
 
 t Geo. III. 
 
94 JUNIUS DISCOVERED IN 1772. 
 
 Heaven spread thro' all the family 
 
 That broad illustrious glare, 
 That shines so flat in every eye 
 
 And makes them all so stare. 
 
 Heaven send the prince of royal race 
 
 A little and horse, 
 
 A little meaning in his face 
 
 And money in his purse. 
 
 And as I* have a son like you 
 
 May he Parnassus rule, 
 So shall the crown and laurel too 
 
 Descend from fool to fool. 
 
 Having stated the reasons for believing that the correspon- 
 dence of Junius with Lord Barrington led to that writer's 
 detection, it remains to add such collateral evidence as may tend 
 to confirm the opinion that Junius was at that time discovered. 
 
 "It is commonly reported and believed," says Mr. Taylor, 
 " that the King, the late Lord North, and the present Lord 
 Grenville were, at some time or other, made acquainted with the 
 real name of Junius." According to the following anecdote in 
 Wraxall's Memoirs, the King acquired this knowledge in the year 
 1772. "I have been assured that the King, riding out in the 
 year 1772, accompanied by General Desaguliers, said to him in 
 conversation, we know who Junius is and he will write no more. 
 The general, who was too good a courtier to congratulate upon 
 such a piece of intelligence, contented himself with bowing, and 
 the discourse proceeded no further." 
 
 The secret at that time seems to have been confined to the 
 King and those who were emphatically called " the King's 
 friends," but it appears that it was subsequently imparted to 
 those who were admitted to the King's confidence, and among the 
 rest to Lord Shelburne. The following curious particulars are 
 taken from the New Monthly Magazine for July, 1813 : — 
 
 " Sir Richard Phillips, on calling upon the Marquis of Lans- 
 downe, to whom he was personally known, found him in a sick 
 chamber suffering under a general breaking up of his constitution, 
 
 * Colley Cibber. 
 
JUNIUS DISCOVERED IX 1772. 95 
 
 but in his usual flow of spirits, anecdote and conversation. On 
 his mentioning Almon's new edition of Junius and that the editor 
 had fixed on Boyd as the author, the Marquis exclaimed, I thought 
 Almon had known better. I gave him credit for more discern- 
 ment. The world, however, will not be deceived by him, for 
 there is higher evidence than his opinion. Look at Boyd's other 
 writings, He never did write like Junius and never could write like 
 Junius. Internal evidence destroys the hypothesis of Almon. Sir 
 Richard Phillips then observed to the Marquis that many persons had 
 ascribed those letters to his lordship, and that the world at large 
 conceived that at least he was not unacquainted with the author. 
 The Marquis smiled and said, no, no, I am not equal to Junius. 
 I could not be the author ; but the grounds of secrecy are now so 
 far removed by death and changes of circumstances that it is 
 unnecessary the author of Junius should much longer be unknown. 
 The world are curious about him, and I could make a very 
 interesting publication on the subject. I knew Junius and I know 
 all about the writing and production of those letters. But look, 
 said he, at my condition. I don't think I can live a week, my 
 legs, my strength tell me so ; but the doctors, who always flatter 
 sick men, assure me I am in no immediate danger. They order me 
 into the country and I am going there. If I live over the summer, 
 which, however, I don't expect, I promise you a very interesting 
 pamphlet about Junius. I will put my name to it. I will set 
 that question at rest for ever. Sir Richard Phillips then turned the 
 conversation to the various persons who had at different times 
 been named as Junius, and, after mentioning five or six whose 
 pretensions the Marquis destroyed by very cogent reasonings, 
 his Lordship closed the conversation by stating that it was of no 
 use to pursue the matter further at that time. I'll tell you this 
 for your guide generally, said he, Junius has never yet been 
 named.* None of the parties ever guessed at as Junius was the 
 true Junius. Nobody has ever suspected him. I knew him, and 
 knew all about it, and I pledge myself that if these legs will 
 permit me, to give you a pamphlet on the subject as soon as I feel 
 myself equal to the labour." 
 
 There is no reason to doubt the veracity of Sir R. Phillips in 
 
 * The pamphlet attributing the letters of Junius to Lord Chesterfield was 
 not published till some years after the death of Lord Shelburne. 
 
96 JUNIUS DISCOVERED IN 1772. 
 
 this record of his interview with Lord Shelburne, much less to 
 suspect that his lordship boasted of a secret which he did not 
 possess. Nevertheless, when his lordship died no trace of those 
 materials with which he was prepared to set the question of Junius 
 at rest for ever were discovered. 
 
 After the death of Lord Shelburne, Sir R. Phillips pursued his 
 inquiries, and wrote to the Marquis of Lansdowne, his successor, 
 to know whether he was informed of the person alluded to by 
 his father. To this letter Sir Richard received the following 
 answer : — - 
 
 " Of the author of Junius I have heard nothing but the 
 surmises which have been generally spread respecting Mr. 
 Hamilton, Mr. Burke, &c. It is not impossible my father may 
 have been acquainted with the fact, but perhaps was under some 
 obligation to secrecy, as he never made any communication to me 
 upon the subject." 
 
 This obligation to secrecy seems to have been imposed upon 
 all those who were at any time numbered among " the King's 
 friends." Thus when Lord Grenville obtained that enviable dis- 
 tinction, he, probably, also was intrusted with the keeping of 
 the secret, though there is good reason to believe that the Gren- 
 villes were the first who caught a glimpse of Junius from his 
 writings. 
 
 A correspondent in the Gentleman's Magazine (Aug., 1817) 
 has given a passage from a letter written by Daniel Wray, Esq., 
 to Lord Hardwicke, dated 22nd Nov. 1772 :— 
 
 " The divisions are great in the besiegers' camp, particularly 
 between Lord Temple and Camden, about the author of Junius's 
 letters." 
 
 On these lines the late Mr. Justice Hardinge remarks : — 
 " These few words are of no trivial import, and they wonderfully 
 confirm a passage in a conversation between Lord Camden and 
 me. He told me that many things in Junius convinced him that 
 the materials were prompted by Earl Temple, and he mentioned, 
 in particular, a confidential statement which had been made in 
 private between Lord Chatham, Lord Temple, and Lord Camden, 
 which, from the nature of it, could only have been disclosed by- 
 Lord Temple, through Junius, to the public."* 
 
 * Illustrations of the History of the 18th Century, vol. V., p. 146. 
 
JUNIUS DISCOVERED IN 1772. 97 
 
 In one of the' private letters written by Junius to George 
 Grenville, he is said to have promised shortly to discover himself. 
 Whether Junius did so during the life-time of Mr. Geo. Grenville, 
 or whether Lord Grenville was the first member of the family 
 intrusted with the secret, may be known when the suppressed 
 correspondence of Junius so carefully preserved in the archives of 
 Stowe are laid before the public. 
 
 " Connected with these persons and events," says Mr. Britton, 
 " it is of importance to notice the circumstance of Junius's con- 
 stant advocacy or approval of Mr. Grenville, and it can hardly be 
 doubted that the unpublished letters of Junius, said to be secretly 
 preserved at Stowe, in a mysterious box with three seals, would 
 afford an explanation of this political friendship. The existence 
 of certain letters from Junius to Mr. Grenville has been so fully 
 acknowledged by the late Mr. Thos. Grenville, the present Lord 
 Nugent, and other members of the family, that there cannot be 
 a doubt that such documents are preserved in that splendid 
 mansion, although the number of them and the nature of their 
 contents has been often mentioned with various circumstances of 
 exaggeration and improbability. It is not easy to conjecture the 
 reason of their being still withheld from the public. I repeatedly 
 applied to the present Duke of Buckingham for an examination 
 of them, or for any account which his Grace might think right 
 to impart, but was repulsed with a laconic refusal." 
 
 The fact that the Duke of Buckingham did not deny that 
 unpublished letters of Junius existed among the manuscripts at 
 Stowe, and only refused the examination of them, confirms the 
 rumour recorded by Horace Walpole that Junius corresponded 
 with Mr. George Grenville at the time that he was engaged in 
 writing his public letters, but the reason why these private letters 
 to Mr. Grenville have been so long withheld remains a mystery, 
 nor does this secrecy appear capable of being accounted for but by 
 the conjecture that Junius was too nearly connected with the 
 Grenville family, either in friendship or as a member of that 
 political faction, to allow the letters to be published; unless, 
 indeed, it be admitted that these curious documents are still 
 concealed as one of the conditions which induced the King to 
 receive the Grenville family again into favour, after his Majesty 
 had satisfied himself that the Grenvilles had not encouraged nor 
 assisted Junius in the publication of his letters, 
 
 H 
 
98 JUNIUS DISCOVERED IN 1772. 
 
 The circumstance related by Walpole that Junius promised 
 shortly to reveal himself to Mr. George Grenville if the latter 
 would desist from making enquiries, proves that although the 
 family at Stowe might suspect* who the author was, yet that he 
 had not at that time confided his secret to them. 
 
 The whole tenor of Junius' s writings shews that he had no 
 direct assistance from the party whose cause he so strenuously 
 advocated. " If I were known," says Junius in a private letter to 
 Wilkes, " I could no longer be an useful servant to the public." 
 
 " I have faithfully served the public without the possibility of 
 a personal advantage. As Junius, I can never expect to be re- 
 warded. The secret is too important to be committed to any 
 great man's discretion. If views of interest or ambition could 
 tempt me to betray my own secret, how could I flatter myself that 
 the man I trusted, would not act upon the same principle, and 
 sacrifice me at once to the King's curiosity and resentment." 
 
 " Besides the fallibility natural to us all, no man writes under 
 so many disadvantages as I do. I cannot consult the learned. I 
 cannot directly ask the opinion of my acquaintance, and in the 
 newspapers I never am assisted." Even in his public letters, 
 Junius alludes to his isolated condition. 
 
 " To write for profit without taxing the press ; to write for 
 fame, and to be unknown ; to support the intrigues of faction, and 
 to be disowned as a dangerous auxiliary by every party in the 
 kingdom, are contradictions which the minister must reconcile 
 before I forfeit my credit with the public. I may quit the service, 
 but it would be absurd to suspect me of desertion." 
 
 The bearing of Junius's political views from his first miscella- 
 neous letter in 1767, to the death of Mr. Grenville in 1770, proves 
 that the object of the writer was to establish a Grenville ministry. 
 He laboured to detach from the Duke of Grafton's party, those 
 few whom he honoured with, his esteem, and he succeeded with 
 Granby, Camden, Huntington, and some few others ; but his great 
 triumph was when Lord Chatham "threw away the scabbard." 
 It was then he wrote exultingly to his printer, " We shall con- 
 
 * If Lord Temple, Lord Lyttleton, and Mr. George Grenville suspected that 
 their friend Lord Chesterfield was Junius, many reasons might induce them to 
 keep the secret from the King. Horace Walpole says that George Grenville 
 " made his peace with the Court before his death." Mr. Grenville died on the 
 13th Nov., 1770. 
 
JUNIUS DISCOVERED IN 1772. 99 
 
 quer them at last." How transitory his hopes were, is shown hy 
 the despondency of his last letter. Whether Junius became the 
 scape goat of his friends, may be known if ever that portion of 
 the Stowe manuscripts shall be permitted to appear. 
 
 The circumstances which have led to a suspicion that Junius 
 had one or more associates in his labours, are the allusions that he 
 sometimes makes in his private letters to Woodfall. On one occa- 
 sion he speaks of " People about him, whom he would not wish to 
 contradict, and who would rather see Junius in the papers ever so 
 improperly than not at all." This does not necessarily imply that 
 the persons about him knew that he was Junius or influenced him 
 in writing the letter to which he refers. It was the best apology 
 which he could think of for the folly he had committed — for Junius 
 had placed himself in the predicament of Dr. Caius, by accepting 
 Mr. WoodfalTs correspondent Junia for his bride. But he dis- 
 covered the fair Junia to be no other than the facetious Mr. 
 Caleb Whitefoord, and the wary Junius was in this instance fairly 
 " cozened." 
 
 The gallantry displayed by Junius in this curious letter cannot 
 fail to remind the reader of Lord Chesterfield, but to remove any 
 doubt on this subject let the last sentence of Junius's letter to 
 Junia (almost the only decent one), be compared with the instruc- 
 tion his lordship has given in one of his letters to his son, in which 
 he acknowledges the " Divine right of Beauty" in the very terms 
 here made use of by Junius : — 
 
 Junius. Chesterfield. 
 
 It is true I am a strenuous advocate You will find in every groupe of 
 
 for liberty and property, but when company two principal figures, viz., 
 
 these rights are invaded by a pretty the fine lady and the fine gentleman, 
 
 woman, I am neither able to defend The lady looks upon her empire as 
 
 my money nor my freedom. The Di- founded upon the Divine right of 
 
 vine right of Beauty is the only one an Beauty (and full as good a divine right 
 
 Englishman ought to acknowledge, it is as any King, Emperor, or Pope 
 
 and a pretty woman the only tyrant can pretend to), she requires and 
 
 he is not authorised to resist. — Vol. commonly meets with unlimited pas- 
 
 III., p. 218. sive obedience. — Letters, vol. I., p. 215. 
 
 The death of Lord Chesterfield recalled the memory of one who 
 had long been lost to the world in the seclusion of Chesterfield 
 House. Portions of his correspondence were immediately collected 
 and offered to the public, but no sooner was this known than an 
 alarm spread through the court, and measures were instantly taken 
 to suppress the publication. 
 h 2 
 
100 JTJXIUS DISCOVERED IX 1772. 
 
 It is not the intention of the writer to heighten the importance 
 of the facts relating to these transactions, nor to dwell long on their 
 singularity. It, may, however, be necessary to observe that if the 
 authorities are not in every instance satisfactory, they are the best 
 that can be adduced after a laborious research. But even this ex- 
 treme difficulty in obtaining authentic information relative to the 
 life and writings of Lord Chesterfield is, in itself, a remarkable cir- 
 cumstance, and cannot be over-ruled by the plausible pretext that 
 his lordship's pen was too licentious, both on politics and morals, to 
 permit his works to meet the eye of the public, for the most objec- 
 tionable were allowed to appear, sanctioned by the patronage of 
 Lord North, at that time the confidential servant of the Crown. 
 
 We shall now proceed to lay before the reader the following facts. 
 The first, and perhaps the most important, is the early suppression 
 of Lord Chesterfield's papers : — 
 
 " When the news of the publication of the posthumous letters 
 of Lord Chesterfield reached the ears of the executors they were 
 alarmed because they contained some free opinions of the men and 
 manners of the present age. The Court immediately influenced 
 itself for a suppression, though Mr. Dodsley had printed them off 
 and sold a proportionate share to Mr. Faulkner, of Dublin ; but 
 notwithstanding these engagements, and the great expenses they 
 had been at, Lord Mansfield generously assured them they should 
 have an injunction, and that he would suppress the epistles with 
 little trouble. While this business was contending, Mrs. Eugenia 
 Stanhope gave information of many more papers in her possession 
 containing the characters of all the principal men who had lived in 
 his Lordship's time, civil, military, and naval. This new alarm 
 brought the ministers to terms, and therefore they promised if 
 she would give up the characters they would not impede 
 the publication of the letters, by which means the world became 
 possessed of them, though they lost a composition more sacred to 
 this country than the leaves of the Sibyls to the Roman people 
 To such little arts are our mighty men of the Court driven, that they 
 
 * It has been affirmed that Lord Chesterfield purchased from Mrs. Stanhope 
 the originals of the letters to his son, but that Mrs. Stanhope kept copies, and 
 that after his Lordship's death, she sold the manuscripts for fifteen hundred 
 guineas. In the preface to the first edition it is stated that the letters were 
 published from the originals then in the hands of Mrs. Stanhope. 
 
Junius discovered in 1772. 101 
 
 are afraid to see their own deformed faces in a looking-glass." — 
 London Mag., Dec, 1774, vol. XLIF.,p. 590. 
 
 By this compromise with the ministers, Mrs. Stanhope was 
 allowed to give to the world the most licentious of his lord- 
 ship's writings, and thus afforded the enemies of Lord Chesterfield 
 an opportunity of vilifying his lordship's memory, and thereby pre- 
 vented, in a great measure, further inquiry as to the fate of those 
 papers that would have done honour to his character as a states- 
 man and a writer. 
 
 Among the motley crew of moralists, divines, and sycophants 
 which the first edition of Lord Chesterfield's letters called forth, 
 Doctor Johnson and General Burgoyne were pre-eminently distin- 
 guished. Both have received their reward from a generous and 
 indignant public, but unfortunately for the fame of Lord Chester- 
 field, the chief offender triumphed during his life time, nor was 
 it till the recent edition of Lord Chesterfield's works that the con- 
 duct of Johnson towards his noble patron was exhibited in a 
 proper light. Junius, indeed, had forestalled the one, and if pru- 
 dence had not restrained that writer, Doctor Johnson would 
 doubtless have received such an answer to his pamphlet on the 
 Convention, that all his learning would scarcely have protected him 
 against the envenomed shafts of his opponents. 
 
 As there is no proof that the discovery of Junius was commu- 
 nicated to Dr. Johnson, nor that he was instigated by the Court 
 to defame Lord Chesterfield, we shall here confine ourselves to the 
 conduct of General Burgoyne immediately after the death of 
 Lord Chesterfield. 
 
 In the year 1774 the General distinguished himself as an 
 author by publishing " A Dramatic Entertainment" in which the 
 character of Lord Chesterfield was attempted to be traduced. The 
 reception his satire met with from the public is thus noticed by a 
 contemporary.^ 
 
 " Mr. Foote hath lavishly ridiculed his Lordship's graces and, the 
 author of the Maid of the Oaksj coarsely introduced a jest 
 against them which the honest people warmly disapproved and 
 poignantly hissed. It may become general officers to write, but 
 
 * See Quarterly Review No. CLIT., pp 476-480. 
 
 t The Maid of the Oaks was performed at Drury Lane, Nov. 5, 1774. 
 
102 JUNIUS DISCOVERED IN 1772. 
 
 few of our military town wits have prowess and ability even to 
 engage with Chesterfield dead." 
 
 Circumstances favour the supposition that General Burgoyne's 
 impotent attack on the character of Lord Chesterfield was one of 
 the results of the discovery that his lordship was the author of the 
 letters of Junius. 
 
 1st. The time that this farce was contemplated and composed, 
 coincides with the date that has been- given of the discovery of 
 Junius.* 
 
 2nd. General Burgoyne was one of the King's friends, and 
 had been pointedly abused by Junius, and therefore as a fellow 
 sufferer, might have been entrusted with the secret. 
 
 But Junius himself had before given sufficient grounds to excite 
 suspicion. The transaction in which General Burgoyne was so 
 conspicuous a character, will furnish the best evidence on this point. 
 
 In 1769 Junius chose, for the subject of a new attack upon 
 the Duke of Grafton, the sale of a patent place in the customs 
 at Exeter, given by his grace to General Burgoyne, and afterwards 
 sold by that gentleman to Mr. Hine. There does not appear to 
 have been anything extraordinary in this transaction, and Junius 
 was ultimately compelled to confess that the Duke of Grafton only 
 connived at the transfer, that General Burgoyne might be reim- 
 bursed indirectly for his services at Preston. 
 
 " Come forward thou virtuous minister," says Junius, " and tell 
 the world by what interest Mr. Hine has been recommended to so 
 
 * In a review of this piece, it is said that the performance " was rather 
 but coolly received." Yet the expense of the exhibition does not seem to have 
 been spared, and Mr. Garrick had the credit of the outlay; he also generously 
 assisted the author in revising the piece, and wrote the prologue. "The 
 attention," says our reviewer, " which Mr. Garrick has shown to the deco- 
 rating of the piece, is a convincing proof that he never spares either labour or 
 expense where there is a likelihood of promoting the pleasure of the public. 
 It is said that the scenery only, which has been painted on purpose for the Maid 
 of the Oaks, cost £1,500. This is a prodigious sum, yet it will not appear the 
 least extravagant to anybody who sees it. The landscapes of Claude are 
 scarcely equal to some of the views exhibited, and if nothing beyond the 
 merit of the paintings was held forth to attract the town, we should not be 
 surprised at its bringing twenty crowded audiences. Mr. Garrick's care, how- 
 ever, has not been confined to the scenery, it has extended to the minutest 
 object that could increase either the beauty or magnificence of the entertain- 
 ment." The zeal which Messrs. Garrick and Foote at this time displayed in 
 traducing the character of Lord Chesterfield, is, to say the least, a curious 
 circumstance. 
 
JUNIUS DISCOVERED IN 1772. 103 
 
 extraordinary a mark of his Majesty's favour — what was the price* 
 of the patent he has bought and to what honourable purpose the 
 purchase money has been applied. Nothing less than many thou- 
 sands could pay Colonel Burgoyne's expenses at Preston. Do you 
 dare to prosecute such a creature as Vaughan, while you are basely 
 setting up the royal patronage to auction. Do you dare to com- 
 plain of an attack upon your honour, while you are selling the 
 favours of the crown to raise a fund for corrupting the morals 
 of the people? And do you think it possible that such 
 enormities should escape without impeachment ? It is, indeed, 
 highly your interest to maintain the present House of Commons. 
 Having sold the nation to you in gross they will undoubtedly pro- 
 tect you in the detail, for while they patronise your crimes they 
 feel for their own." 
 
 In the next letter General Burgoyne is personally attacked, and 
 the allusions were of a nature that could hardly fail to create sus- 
 picion as to the writer. 
 
 " I thank God there is not in human nature a degree of im- 
 pudence daring enough to deny the charge I have fixed upon 
 you. Your courteous secretary, your confidential architect, are 
 silent as the grave. Even Mr. Rigby's countenance fails him ; 
 he violates his second nature, and blushes whenever he speaks 
 of you. Perhaps the noble Colonel himself will relieve you. 
 No man is more tender of his reputation. He is not only nice, 
 but perfectly sore in everything that touches his honour. If 
 any man, for example, were to accuse him of taking his stand 
 at a gaming table, and watching with the soberest attention for 
 
 * These high-minded sentiments have induced some to believe that the 
 character of Lord Chesterfield is at variance with that of Junius, but a recent 
 record of his lordship's principles (ivritten about the time this transaction 
 occurred) will surely remove this ill founded prejudice. Is there a passage in 
 the writings of the lofty Junius in any respect superior to the following ex- 
 tract from Lord Chesterfield's advice to his godson and heir? — 
 
 " If you should ever fill a great station at Court, take care above all things 
 to keep your hands clean and pure from the infamous vice of corruption, — a 
 vice so infamous that it degrades even the other vices that may accompany it; 
 accept no present whatever ; let your character in that respect be transparent, 
 and without the least speck, for as avarice is the vilest and dirtiest vice in 
 private, corruption is so in public life. I call corruption the taking of a sixpence 
 more than the just and known salary of your employment under any pretence 
 whatsoever; use what power and credit you may have at Court in the service 
 of merit rather than of kindred, and not to get pensions and reversions for 
 yourself or your family, for I call that also, what it really is, scandalous pollu- 
 tion, though of late it has been so frequent that it has almost lost its name." 
 
104 JUNIUS DISCOVEKED IN 1772. 
 
 a fair opportunity of engaging a drunken young nobleman at 
 piquet, he would undoubtedly consider it as an infamous asper- 
 sion upon his character, and resent it like a man of honour. Ac- 
 quitting him, therefore, of drawing a regular and splendid sub- 
 sistence from any unworthy practices either in his own house or 
 elsewhere, let me ask your Grace for what military merits you 
 have been pleased to reward him with a military government." 
 
 The fact referred to in this passage might have been related 
 by other frequenters of the gaming table, as well as by Lord 
 Chesterfield; but the conduct of General Burgoyne after the 
 death of Lord Chesterfield is strong presumptive evidence that 
 his lordship was suspected. Nor is this the only instance in 
 which Junius is connected with the character of Dupely^ in the 
 " Maid of the Oaks." In a letter dated 22nd June, 1771, Junius 
 says " Make haste, my lord, another, patent applied in time may 
 keep the Oaks in the family. If not, Burnham Wood, I fear, 
 must come to the macaroni.'" 
 
 It was probably this short sentence that confirmed the suspi- 
 cions of General Burgoyne, and induced him to caricature Lord 
 Chesterfield as a macaroni in his dramatic entertainment, " The 
 Maid or the Oaks." 
 
 But Junius has given more than this one instance of his 
 intimacy with the habits of the frequenters of the gaming table. 
 In his first letter to the Duke of Grafton (23rd April, 1768), he 
 admits that Chartres now and then deviated into honesty. 
 
 As this declaration is not borne out by the only record which 
 
 * The character of Dupely in the Maid of the Oaks, is a young man sup- 
 posed to have been educated on the plan recommended by Lord Chesterfield 
 in his letters to his son. He is thus described at the opening of the piece: — 
 
 Lady Bab.— But hark ! I hear the pastorals beginning ; Lord, I hope I 
 shall find a shepherd. 
 
 Oldworth. — The most elegant in the world — Mr. Dupely, Sir Harry's friend. 
 
 Lady Bab. — You don't mean Charles Dupely, who has been so long abroad. 
 
 Sir Harry. — The very same ; but I am afraid he will never do, he is but 
 half a macaroni. 
 
 Lady Bab. — And very possibly the worst half. It is a vulgar idea to think 
 that foreign accomplishments fit a man for the polite world. 
 
 Sir Harry. — Lady Bab, I wish you would undertake him ; he seems to have 
 contracted all the common-place affectations of travel, and thinks himself quite 
 an overmatch for the fair sex, of whom his opinion is as ill founded as it is 
 degrading. 
 
 Lady Bab. — Oh, that is his turn. What, he has been studying some late 
 posthumous letters — 'twould be delightful to make a fool of such a fellow. 
 
 Act 1, Scene 1. 
 
JUNIUS DISCOVERED IN 1772. 105 
 
 we have of the Colonel's undeviating course of vice and profligacy * 
 it would imply a personal acquaintance with that abandoned cha- 
 racter, and if this be admitted it may give some clue to ascertain 
 the age of Junius, for Colonel Chartres (when Junius made this 
 assertion) had been dead upwards of thirty-seven years. 
 
 In addition to the Epitaph written by Dr. Arbuthnot, we have 
 a sketch of the notorious Colonel in Lord Chesterfield's corre- 
 spondence : — 
 
 " Colonel Chartres (whom you have certainly heard of, who 
 was, I believe, the most notorious blasted rascal in the world, and 
 who had, by all sorts of crime, amassed immense wealth) was so 
 sensible of the disadvantage of a bad character, that I heard him 
 once say> in his impudent profligate manner, that though he 
 would not give one farthing for virtue he would give ten thousand 
 pounds for a character, because he could get a hundred thousand 
 pounds by it, whereas he was so blasted that he had no longer an 
 opportunity of cheating people. "f 
 
 This conversation probably occurred at the gaming table, where 
 only, it is presumed, Lord Chesterfield recognized so disreputable 
 a character. During Lord Chesterfield's stay in England in 1730, 
 he assisted at the council in which the report was made of Colonel 
 Chartres' trial and condemnation at the Old Bailey for a rape he 
 had not committed. His pardon was voted unanimously. The 
 recollection of this circumstance seems to have been present in the 
 mind of Junius when he wrote his first letter to the Duke of 
 Grafton : — , 
 
 " Chartres now and then deviated into honesty, and even Lord 
 
 * Here continueth to rot 
 
 The body of Francis Chartres, 
 
 Who, with an indefatigable constancy 
 
 And inimitable uniformity of life, 
 
 Persisted, 
 
 In spite of age and infirmities, 
 
 In the practice of every human vice, 
 
 Excepting prodigality and hypocrisy; 
 
 His insatiable avarice exempting him from the first, 
 
 His matchless impudence from the second. 
 Nor was he more singular in the undeviating pravity 
 Of his manners than successful 
 
 In accumulating wealth. 
 
 Arbuthnot. 
 
 t Letter to his Son, 1750. 
 
 Colonel Chartres is said to have borrowed thirty thousand pounds in half 
 crowns from his acquaintance. 
 
106 JUNIUS DISCOVERED IN 1772. 
 
 Bute prefers the simplicity of seduction to the poignant pleasures 
 of a rape''' 
 
 The next instance which Junius gave of his intimacy with the 
 habits of persons of this description is, perhaps, no less remark- 
 able. It occurs in a letter to Lord Hillsborough, dated 20th 
 Sept., 1768:— 
 
 " My Lord, — Permit me to have the honour of introducing you 
 to a very amiable and valuable acquaintance. Mr. Ford is the 
 gentleman I mean. Your lordship will forgive the timidity and 
 bashfulness of his first address, and considering your quality 
 condescend to make him some advances. There is a similarity in 
 your circumstances, to say nothing of your virtues and under- 
 standing, which may lay the foundation of a solid friendship 
 between you for the rest of your lives. Undoubtedly you are not 
 quite unacquainted with a character on which you appear to have 
 formed your own. His case was singular, my Lord, and cannot 
 fail of exciting emotions of sympathy in your lordship's breast. 
 This worthy man found himself exposed to a most malicious pro- 
 secution for perjury. A profligate jury found him guilty, and a 
 cruel judge pronounced his sentence of imprisonment, pillory, and 
 transportation. His mind was a good deal distressed in the course 
 of this affair, (for he, too, is a man of delicate feelings), but his 
 character, like yours, was above the reach of malice. Not to 
 keep your lordship any longer in pain, I have the pleasure of 
 telling you that when law and justice nad done their worst, a lady 
 in whom he seldom places any confidence at cards, was generous 
 enough to stand his friend. Fortune discovered a flaw in the 
 indictment; and now, my lord, in spite of an iniquitous prose- 
 cution, in spite of conviction and sentence, he stands as fair in 
 his reputation as ever he did." 
 
 Whether this was the Mr. Ford who was once on terms of 
 questionable intimacy with Lord Chesterfield has not been ascer- 
 tained, but the companion of Lord Hillsborough was, probably, 
 the gentleman to whom Junius refers in one of his earlier letters 
 as " The reverend instrument of the Duke of Grafton," who was 
 acquitted for his open and wicked interference in elections.*' 
 
 * When Parson Ford, an infamous fellow but of much offhand and con- 
 versational wit, besought Lord Chesterfield to carry him over with him as his 
 chaplain when his lordship went ambassador to Holland, he said to him, " I 
 
JUNIUS DISCOVERED IN 1772. 107 
 
 Among the miscellaneous letters of Junius there is one con- 
 taining an account of Lord Gower's election to the order of the 
 Garter. It is signed A.B., dated 16th Feb., 1771 :*— 
 
 " Sir, — It is proper the public should be informed that upon 
 Lord Gower's election to be a knight of the Garter, there were 
 but four knights present besides the sovereign, and the Duke of 
 Gloucester was lugged in to be one of them. He intreated, he 
 begged, he implored, but all to no purpose. Poor Peg Trentham 
 was forced to submit to an election which by the statutes of the 
 order is void. Ashmole informs us 7 that to make up a complete 
 chapter of election there should be assembled six knights com- 
 panions, at least, beside the sovereign, the due observance of 
 which hath been so strict formerly that elections have been 
 deferred where chapters have been deficient in number. 
 
 The present way of electing Peg Trentham is for two reasons 
 remarkable. It shows first, in what profound contempt poor 
 Peggy is universally held ; and, secondly, the pious resolution of 
 our gracious Sovereign to introduce a new system of arithmetic. 
 In the decision of the Middlesex election it was resolved that 296 
 were more than 1,143, and now we are told that four are equal 
 to six. This puts me in mind of Lord March's election to the 
 Coterie. All the balls were black; but the returning officer, 
 George Selwyn, thought proper to swear he was duly elected, 
 and he took his seat accordingly. — A. B. 
 
 Lord Chesterfield was elected a Knight of the Garter in 1730, 
 and was installed on the 18th June with the Duke of Cumber- 
 land, and at the expense of his Sovereign, who was present at the 
 ceremony. This honour, it is said, was the supreme object of his 
 lordship's wishes, and it is fair to presume that in after life he 
 would be jealous of any infringement of the statutes of the order. 
 The eclat that attended his own installation is strongly contrasted 
 
 would certainly take you if you had one vice more than you already have.' 
 " My Lord," said Ford, "I thought I should never be reproached for any defi- 
 ciency in that way." " True," replied the Earl, " but if you had still one 
 more almost worse than all the rest put together, it would hinder those from 
 giving scandal." Lord Chesterfield, it appears, knew that Ford wanted that 
 useful vice Hypocrisy. 
 
 * The fact of Lord Gower's election was related in the Public Advertiser the 
 day previous to the insertion of the above letter. This paragraph is also sup- 
 posed to have come from the same hand, and carries with it strong features of 
 Lord Chesterfield's ironical style of writing. — See Woodfall's Junius, Vol. III., 
 p. 339. 
 
108 JUNIUS DISCOVERED IN 1772. 
 
 with the circumstances of Lord Gower's election. That Junius 
 should have noticed the circumstance in the manner he has done, 
 unless he had been one of the order, is unlikely ; and if this be 
 admitted, it brings the identity of Junius within a very narrow 
 compass, and will exclude nearly every one who has been sus- 
 pected as having been the writer of the letters. 
 
 But there is another circumstance also alluded to in this letter 
 that bears hard upon Lord Chesterfield as the author. The 
 manner in which Lord March was " smuggled" into the sanctum 
 sanctorum at White's, indicates that the writer, as a member of 
 that celebrated coterie, was annoyed at the introduction of Lord 
 March* 
 
 It appears by the Selwyn correspondence, that Lord March 
 had been rejected at White's in the spring, 1765,f but by some 
 means, the wish of his friend, George Selwyn, was accomplished, 
 for in a letter dated from White's in October, Lord March writes 
 — " I am in haste to return to the coterie, having left them to write 
 to Newmarket, and to send you this scrawl. \ 
 
 It is scarcely necessary to remark that the three persons named 
 in this letter were not friends of Lord Chesterfield, but their pri- 
 vate character must have been well known to his lordship. Lord 
 Gower made his debut in public life at the time Lord Chesterfield 
 came into office in 1745. 
 
 But to return to the subject of the suppression of Lord Ches- 
 terfield's manuscripts, we would direct the attention of the reader 
 to the review of the late edition of Lord Chesterfield's corres- 
 pondence. The writer, after paying a just encomium on the dili- 
 gence of the noble editor, expresses his surprise and disappoint- 
 ment at the absence of novelty in the collection. 
 
 " We are, however, we must confess, somewhat surprised that 
 his diligence has not brought out more of absolute novelty in this 
 
 * Lord Chesterfield might be considered the father at White's at the time 
 the letters of Junius were written. 
 
 f Our friend (Lord March) goes on just as usual, opposing and disputing 
 with every person every night at the Old Club, to the no small surprise of some 
 of the new members, who have had perseverance enough to be duly elected, 
 viz., Topham Beauclerk, James Walters, Sir George Pigot, and Dick Vernon. 
 On finding them in such good humour, I started Lord March, but they swore 
 he was now a foreigner, and rejected him. — Williams to George Selwyn Corres- 
 i, vol. 1, p. 361. 
 
 Selwyn and his contemporaries, vol. I., p. 414. 
 
JUNIUS DISCOVERED IN 1772. 109 
 
 way. Mr. George Berkeley, we know, had kept carefully some 
 specimens of Chesterfield's epistolary vein, even of the boyish 
 Cambridge time. The writer obtained extraordinary repute in his 
 earliest manhood, and he lived to the age of eighty in the enjoy- 
 ment of all but unrivalled admiration. With such social connec- 
 tions and predilections— such literary habits and facility, his cor- 
 respondence must have been vast ; and even now we can have seen 
 but a very insignificant fragment of it. Where is it ? Even 
 in those comparatively careless days, who could have burnt a letter 
 of Lord Chesterfield's ? We have no doubt that in the reposito- 
 ries of those who represent his various political and fashionable 
 associates, innumerable relics must still be lying disinterred. Lord 
 Mahon tells us that he enquired in vain at Bretby, but it was not 
 there that we should have expected to find much. Lord Chester- 
 field was the last man to keep copies of his own letters ; we 
 should greatly doubt whether he ever wrote anything twice over in 
 his life. But we are not told of any researches in places which we 
 should have conjectured to have been among the likeliest for dis- 
 covery. At Castle Ashby, for instance, at Stanmer, at Clumber, 
 or Longleat, or Hagley. Among his closest connections was that 
 with Mr. Waller, the last male representative of the poet himself, 
 a man of extensive acquirements, an elegant scholar, through life 
 a student. Where are the Waller MSS. ? Has Mr. Upcott no 
 information of their fate ? Then is there not reason to suppose that 
 a very considerable body of Chesterfield's papers exist in the Castle 
 of Dublin. The Earl's brief vice-Royalty is, on the whole, the 
 most honourable feature in his history. Some inedited letters or 
 despatches of that date were quoted with effect a few years ago in 
 the House of Lords by the Marquis of Normanby, but though the 
 noble editor's attention was thus directed to the point, the result is 
 nil. He states that his applications were received with the anti3i- 
 pated courtesy both of Lord Normanby and by the present Lord- 
 Lieutenant, but not in either case were the desired documents 
 placed at his disposal. — Quarterly Review. 
 
 The Lyttleton correspondence fails to furnish any particulars 
 of Lord Chesterfield during the last thirty years of the strict 
 intimacy which subsisted between those distinguished charac- 
 ters. Is it not extraordinary that among the Hagley Papers no 
 letter from Lord Chesterfield could be found of later date than 
 
110 JUNIUS DISCOVERED IN 1772. 
 
 the breaking up of the party who opposed Sir Robert Walpole ? 
 Among Lord Chesterfield's friends there was none for whom 
 he entertained a more sincere regard than for Lord Lyttleton.* 
 
 The volumes of the Chatham Correspondence contain fac 
 similes of the handwriting of almost every distinguished character 
 named in the letters, except that of Lord Chesterfield, yet that 
 was one which would have been most interesting to the public 
 from its extreme rarity. Where are his Lordship's letters to Lord 
 Chatham? Their correspondence must have been voluminous. 
 Why have these also been suppressed ? The editors of the Chat- 
 ham Letters, it is true, have taken some pains to convince the 
 public that Sir Philip Francis was the writer of the letters of 
 Junius. 
 
 Lord Hervey, in his Memoirs, refers the reader to an elaborate 
 letter written by Lord Chesterfield to George II., in 1732, when 
 his Lordship was deprived of his employment at Court, in conse- 
 quence of his opposition to the memorable excise scheme. This 
 letter, the editor states, had been abstracted from the manuscript 
 memoirs. That it would have appeared in no way inferior to the 
 celebrated letter of Junius to the King, will not be doubted by 
 those who remember the spirit in which Lord Chesterfield surren- 
 dered his office. His Lordship refused to resign, and compelled 
 the King to send for the white staff which he held as Steward of 
 the Household. He also advised his friends, Lords Cobham, Stair, 
 and Westmoreland, "/or the sake of the cause to put the minister 
 to the trouble of taking away their places." The letter referred 
 to in Hervey's Memoirs was written two days after Lord Chester- 
 field had been deprived of his place at Court. It is said his Lord- 
 ship expressed in this letter his readiness to sacrifice everything 
 for the King's service, except his honour and conscience. This 
 letter, says Dr. Maty, certainly did not lessen the resentment of a 
 Monarch who, by his contemporaries, is allowed to have been no 
 dissembler. Lord Chesterfield took the first opportunity of going 
 to Court, but he was so far from being graciously received that, 
 contrary to his former intentions, he never again appeared in the 
 Royal presence till the necessity of the times occasioned his recal." 
 Although Lord Chesterfield absented himself from Court, he 
 
 * Lord Lyttleton's integrity and judgment are unquestionable. — Junius. 
 
JTJXIUS DISCOVERED IN 1772. Ill 
 
 could not forbear indulging his propensity of addressing his Sove- 
 reign personally in the language of remonstrance. In the vindi- 
 cation of the Hanover Troops, we find a paragraph on this subject, 
 which will remind the reader of similar passages in the writings of 
 Junius : — 
 
 " Such a one will be glad to be armed with these arguments to 
 combat the natural and blameless partiality of his prince. When 
 he can say, " Sir, these things are now too well understood, and 
 too warmly entertained by the whole nation, to be either attempted 
 or compassed. They can no longer be made to believe that a 
 squabble in Lower Saxony interests Great Britain, nor be prevailed 
 upon to take part in it. Will you lose the affections and exhaust 
 the strength of your kingdom for the addition of a Bailiage to 
 your Electorate." 
 
 But George II. was not the only monarch whom Lord Ches- 
 terfield had the boldness to offend by personal remonstrance. 
 When his Lordship resigned his place as Captain of the Yeomen 
 of the Guard in 1725, he addressed the King in a manner that 
 caused no little astonishment at the time. The only record we 
 have of this speech is contained in a letter from Lady Hervey 
 to Mrs. Howard — 
 
 " We have heard great fame of a speech Lord Stanhope made 
 to the King, but almost every one has heard it in a different way. 
 I fancy I have the truest account of it. We expect to see it in 
 print." 
 
 " This speech," says the editor of the Suffolk Letters, " has 
 not reached posterity. It was, probably, some ebullition of party 
 spirit." 
 
 The probability is that it related to the conduct of George I. 
 towards the heir apparent who had just then been excluded from 
 the regency by his father. Lord Chesterfield was shortly after 
 appointed one of the Lords of the Bedchamber to the Prince of 
 Wales. 
 
 A similar accident to that which happened to Lord Hervey's 
 manuscripts, occurred to a portion of Lady Hervey's correspondence 
 which unfortunately comprised a period when Lord Chesterfield's 
 name would probably have been often mentioned with applause. 
 From the 25th April, 1745, to 24th Oct., 1747, her ladyship's letters 
 to Mr. Morris are said to have been lost! This accident has deprived 
 
112 JUNIUS DISCOVERED IN 1772. 
 
 the public of Lady Hervey's letters during the Scotch rebellion, 
 and the time that Lord Chesterfield was viceroy of Ireland. 
 
 After a diligent search among the manuscripts in the British 
 Museum only one solitary letter has been found in the handwriting 
 of Lord Chesterfield. This is the more remarkable since his lord- 
 ship's biographer was the principal librarian of that institution, and 
 it might be presumed that some original documents in the hand- 
 writing of Lord Chesterfield would have been deposited there. 
 
 The last circumstance to which we shall allude is, perhaps, the 
 most extraordinary instance of suppressing manuscripts in connec- 
 tion with the name of Lord Chesterfield. 
 
 " It is said that it was not till after the publication of Lord 
 Chesterfield's letters that a late prelate put a codicil to his will en- 
 joining his executor to bury all manuscripts which should be found 
 in his bureau in the coffin with him." 
 
 " The manuscripts that were put into the late Bishop of Exe- 
 ter's coffin with his corpse, according to his lordship's order, were 
 not sermons as has been asserted, but a collection of letters he had 
 received in the course of his life from some distinguished person- 
 ages both abroad and at home." — London Magazine, Jan., 1778. 
 
 Though the burying of these manuscripts does not at first sight 
 seem to bear any reference to Junius, yet, if we may be allowed to 
 hazard a conjecture as to the subject of some of the buried manu- 
 scripts, it may be presumed that they related to a circumstance in 
 which Junius is now supposed to have been concerned. 
 
 The pamphlet published in 1761, reflecting on the conduct of 
 Lord Townshend is generally believed to be the production of Junius. 
 The encouragement given to its circulation by Lord Albemarle 
 caused a challenge to be sent by Lord Townshend. The parties 
 met, but the duel was prevented by the interference of the civil au- 
 thorities who had privately received notice of the hostile meeting. 
 Horace Walpole says that the king " commissioned some of the 
 matrons of the army to examine the affair and make it up." It is 
 probable that the Bishop of Exeter (Lord Albemarle's brother) 
 was included in this secret commission, and that the papers and cor- 
 respondence relating to it were intrusted to his keeping. Nothing, 
 however, is known as to the result of this private inquiry, but as 
 Lord Townshend took no further steps to vindicate his honour, it 
 may be presumed that Lord Albemarle acquitted himself of any 
 
JUNIUS DISCOVERED IN 1772. 113 
 
 share in the libel beyond the encouragement he might have given 
 to its circulation. 
 
 But if there was a desire on the part of the king to suppress 
 the works of Lord Chesterfield, the letters enclosed in the Bishop 
 of Exeter's coffin might also include the correspondence of Lord 
 Chesterfield with the family of Albemarle, with whom his lordship 
 had for so many years been on terms of intimacy and friendship. 
 
 The remaining facts in favour of the supposition that Lord 
 Chesterfield was discovered to be the author of the letters of Junius 
 consist chiefly of the suppression of every circumstance connected 
 with the last few years of his lordship's life. Although we have 
 memoirs and correspondence in abundance, written by the contem- 
 poraries of Lord Chesterfield, yet we search in vain for an impartial 
 review of his character, or any the slightest record of the manner 
 in which he occupied his time while the letters of Junius were 
 written. Even Lord Chesterfield's death is passed over by the 
 courtly writers of that day without one encomium on his merit, or, 
 what perhaps is still more extraordinary, without one slanderous 
 anecdote to tarnish the lustre of his name. An ominous silence 
 seems to have been preserved by Walpole, Chatham, Burke, and 
 even the Grenville family, on an event that might reasonably be 
 supposed to have interested every circle of fashionable life.* The 
 Court Guide itself, either accidentally or by design, falsified the date 
 of his lordship's death, and has confounded that memorable event 
 with an act of his lordship's life which took place some few months 
 before. This error has convinced many that Lord Chesterfield 
 could not have been Junius, but why all this effort to suppress the 
 memory of so great a man and to leave posterity only the shadow 
 op a mighty name ? We are unable to account for it upon any 
 other grounds than that the king and his ministers would have it so. 
 
 * See Debrett's Peerage, which states that Lord Chesterfield died on the 
 4th June, 1772. 
 
 the end. 
 
 PRINTED BY BAXTER AND SON, HIGH STREET, LEWES. 
 
FACSIMILE 
 
 JUNIUS, 
 LORD CHESTERFIELD, 
 
 AND 
 
 MRS. C. DAYROLLES. 
 
 SHEWING THAT THE WIFE OF MR. SOLOMON DAYROLLES WAS THE 
 AMANUENSIS EMPLOYED IN COPYING THE LETTERS OF 
 JUNIUS FOR THE PRINTER. 
 
 WITH 
 
 A POSTSCRIPT TO THE FIRST ESSAY ON JUNIUS 
 AND HIS WORKS. 
 
 BY 
 
 WILLIAM CRAMP, 
 
 AUTHOR OF 
 
 "THE PHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGE." 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 HOPE & CO., 16, GREAT MARLBOROUGH STREET, 
 
 1851, 
 
POSTSCRIPT 
 
 FIRST ESSAY ON JUNIUS AND HIS WORKS. 
 
 Since the publication of the Preliminary Essay on 
 " Junius and his Works," an opportunity has been 
 kindly granted by Mr. H. D. Woodfall to examine 
 the autographs of Junius, with the view of tracing 
 in them the handwriting of Lord Chesterfield. 
 Upon close inspection, however, it was found that 
 the handwriting of Lord Chesterfield differed mate- 
 rially from the autographs of Junius, and especially 
 in the formation of certain letters, as k andj — the 
 down stroke of the k being either carried below the 
 line, or terminated by a curve or dot ; and, as 
 regards the small j, it seems never to have been 
 used by Lord Chesterfield. Even when it occurred 
 in the middle of a word, his lordship used the 
 capital «/", or something like it : as a substitute for the 
 small dotted j. 
 
 These singular deviations from the autograph of 
 Junius, were in themselves sufficient to decide 
 that the autographs in the possession of Mr. 
 H. D. Woodfall were not the handwriting of Lord 
 Chesterfield. 
 
 It was necessary, therefore, in order to complete 
 the evidence that Lord Chesterfield was the author 
 of the letters, to seek for an amanuensis among 
 those who were at that time on terms of close 
 intimacy with his lordship. Some letters of Mr. 
 Dayrolles were examined, but on comparing them 
 with the autographs of Junius, not the slightest 
 resemblance could be traced. Fortunately, how- 
 ever, two letters were found in the handwriting 
 
of Mrs. Dayrolles, and although dated so far back 
 as the year 1760, they bore unequivocal marks of 
 identity when compared with the autographs of 
 Junius. The striking resemblance was at once 
 recognised by the skilful artist who had just before 
 decided that the handwriting of Lord Chesterfield 
 was not the autograph of Junius. 
 
 But before we enter upon an examination of 
 Mrs. Dayrolles' handwriting it will be advisable, 
 perhaps, briefly to shew in what relation Mr. Day- 
 rolles stood, in reference to Lord Chesterfield, at 
 the time the letters of Junius were written. 
 
 Mr. Solomon Dayrolles had been attached to 
 Lord Chesterfield from his earliest infancy, by the 
 honour conferred upon him in having Lord Chester- 
 field as his godfather. This arose from the friend- 
 ship which Lord Chesterfield had for Mr. James 
 Dayrolles, the uncle of Mr. S. Dayrolles. The 
 strong affection which Lord Chesterfield had for the 
 latter, was avowed by his lordship on the death of 
 the uncle, but it is sufficient for the purpose of this 
 inquiry to state, that if any one could boast of 
 having the entire confidence of Lord Chesterfield, it 
 was Mr. S. Dayrolles. In the Memoirs of Lord 
 Chesterfield, by Dr. Maty, it is recorded, that for 
 some years before his lordship's decease, he had 
 passed a very secluded life, seldom appearing in 
 public, but that Mr. Dayrolles was his constant 
 companion. 
 
 And it is remarkable that the last person men- 
 tioned by Lord Chesterfield a few moments before 
 he expired, was his friend Dayrolles. So far, then, 
 Mr. Dayrolles is traced as the companion of Lord 
 Chesterfield during the time that the letters of 
 Junius were in course of publication. It is not 
 probable, therefore, that Lord Chesterfield could 
 have concealed from Mr. Dayrolles, even if he had 
 been inclined to do so, that he was writing the 
 letters of Junius ; neither could his lordship, with- 
 
out some assistance, have carried on the corres- 
 pondence with Woodfall. 
 
 In page 59 of the Essay we have hinted that Mr. 
 Dayrolles might have been Lord Chesterfield's 
 amanuensis, but having seen the handwriting of Mr. 
 Dayrolles, it does not seem possible that he could 
 have disguised it into so beautiful a specimen of pen- 
 manship as we find in many of the autographs of 
 Junius. Besides, though Dayrolles' handwriting 
 was not so well known as that of Lord Chesterfield, 
 yet he had been too long, and too recently, employed 
 at Court to run the risk of having his writing too 
 commonly seen, however great the pains he might 
 have taken to disguise it. But by engaging Mrs. 
 Dayrolles to copy the letters, the danger was, in a 
 great measure, removed; while Dayrolles himself 
 had more leisure to obtain information for his friend 
 for the carrying on of the correspondence in the 
 Public Advertiser. Thus it appears that Lord Ches- 
 terfield, although partially infirm, was not destitute 
 of sufficient assistance for the completion of his 
 labours. 
 
 That Lord Chesterfield was capable of using his 
 pen at the time the correspondence between Junius 
 and Woodfall commenced, is satisfactorily proved 
 by the fac simile of his Lordship's letter, dated 
 July 7, 1767. Nor is there any evidence, except 
 Lord Chesterfield's own letters, to shew that 
 he was incapable of committing his thoughts to 
 paper, even up to the time that Woodfall received 
 the last private letter from Junius. 
 
 As Mr. Dayrolles was the only man perhaps in 
 whose hands Lord Chesterfield could trust his life 
 and honour, so the wife was probably the only 
 woman that Lord Chesterfield would have consented 
 to receive assistance from in the hazardous under- 
 taking in which he had involved himself. But 
 Lord Chesterfield was too well acquainted with the 
 dangers that attend the publication of anonymous 
 
libels not to appreciate the value of Mrs. Dayrolles' 
 services, and with such an assistant, he felt himself 
 comparatively safe, so long as she remained true to 
 him, her husband, and herself. 
 
 In examining the facsimile of Mrs. Dayrolles' 
 letter, it will be necessary to bear in mind that it was 
 written several years before the commencement of 
 the private correspondence of Junius with Woodfall. 
 Every one is aware of the changes which take place 
 at different stages of life in the general appearance 
 of handwriting. There are many who are not able 
 to recognise, off-hand, their own autographs if 
 written at distant intervals, but the distinctive 
 marks are seldom obliterated in a hand that has 
 any pretensions to originality. Thus, in Lord 
 Chesterfield's Autograph Letters, his peculiarities are 
 traceable through the several stages of his improve- 
 ment in penmanship. 
 
 In Mrs. Dayrolles' letter, the distinctive marks 
 of Junius' s handwriting are strongly developed; 
 and although there is more space between the 
 words, and a greater freedom than is to be found 
 in some of the autographs of Junius, yet her letter 
 contains all the elements for forming itself by care 
 and practice into the hand of the private letters to 
 Woodfall. 
 
 There are other causes also which would curb the 
 flow of Mrs. Dayrolles' pen, and approximate her 
 style of writing to the autographs of Junius. The 
 handwriting of the private letters from Junius is 
 evidently disguised, and in some instances so much 
 so as to require considerable attention in order to 
 discover the elements of the writer's usual auto- 
 graph ? If it be admitted that Junius employed 
 an amanuensis, the time required in copying would 
 be longer than that occupied by Junius in compos- 
 ing his familiar letters ; and in this case the amanu- 
 ensis could scarcely avoid adopting in some degree 
 
the fashion of Junius's handwriting. This will ac- 
 count for the neatness and precision of many of the 
 autograph letters — more especially those whereon 
 greater pains had been bestowed in transcribing, 
 and these in many particulars resemble the hand- 
 writing of Lord Chesterfield. 
 
 The limited number of Mrs. Dayrolles' letters 
 will not admit a minute comparison, but as far as 
 single letters and words can be compared with the 
 autograph of Junius, the resemblance is complete, 
 and in many instances the identity of handwriting 
 is very remarkable — such as in the formation of 
 the letters a, s, p, w, &c, and in the words have, be, 
 well, are, conspicuous, and many others pointed out 
 in the table of comparisons. 
 
 But the fac similes are before the reader, 
 and as the autographs of Junius become familiar 
 to him, he will find no difficulty in tracing 
 the resemblance. In this pursuit the accuracy 
 of the fac simile letters may be implicitly relied on, 
 for when compared with the originals it is impossi- 
 ble to discover the slightest deviation from the auto- 
 graphs. For this perfection the writer of this Essay 
 is indebted to a gentleman who did him the honour 
 to recommend Mr. Frederick Netherclift, of King 
 William- street, Strand — an artist whose skill in his 
 profession is unrivalled. On this point the gentle- 
 man spoke from experience, having had frequent 
 occasion to employ Mr. Netherclift in taking fac 
 similes which required the nicest tact to arrive at 
 perfection, but in no instance whatever have his ex- 
 pectations been disappointed. They have invariably 
 proved to be (what such things very rarely are) in 
 truth and indeed, fac similes of the copy set before 
 the artist. 
 
 The discovery of a handwriting worthy to be com- 
 pared with the autographs of Junius has not been 
 made without a laborious research, and some personal 
 inconvenience. But it was necessary to satisfy the 
 
8 
 
 public upon this point, that the prejudices of some 
 and the bias of others should no longer stand in the 
 way of a fair inquiry into the claims of so distin- 
 guished a candidate as Lord Chesterfield. This 
 task would, perhaps, have been unnecessary if the 
 character of Lord Chesterfield, as a political writer, 
 had been better known ; for the letters of Junius, 
 when divested of their slander, will prove to be only 
 a repetition of Lord Chesterfield's doctrines and 
 opinions. It matters little who was the transcriber 
 of the letters, (whether Philip Francis, or Mrs. 
 Dayrolles) the mind of Chesterfield alone could 
 have dictated them. This will be clearly shown 
 when the chain of evidence is produced, which 
 wanted this link only to fix the authorship for ever 
 upon Lord Chesterfield. 
 
 The writer takes this opportunity to acknowledge 
 the great obligation he is under to Mr. H. D. Wood- 
 fall, for the liberal and courteous manner in which 
 he has, on several occasions, permitted him to have 
 access to the Junius manuscripts, and more parti- 
 cularly for the favour of being permitted to take fac 
 similes of two of the most interesting of the auto- 
 graph private letters of Junius. The first fac simile 
 is remarkable as being the earliest private letter 
 preserved by Mr. H. S. Woodfall, the other is the 
 last letter which Junius wrote to his publisher. 
 The address (copied from one of the letters) was 
 published in Mr. WoodfalTs edition, and is here 
 reprinted as a specimen of the bold and masterly 
 style of writing which is to be found in many of the 
 manuscripts of Junius. The literal and verbal com- 
 parisons are taken in many instances from the 
 several fac similes of Junius's autograph, given in 
 Mr. WoodfalTs edition of 1812. 
 
1 
 
 ^ 
 
 * 
 
 > 
 
 1 
 
 V 
 
 ^ 
 
l-'tii- simile "i ' i '«ifJ r/, <r.i//Tfh •///.V hand writing ai/th&izme Junius corresponded wiffi /fcW/w// 
 
 fl^'/TUj £&^D; *&nJ^ jicJy y^y frd? 
 
 jyj-e^zy^ fo/x^s y^#-y p^y?uy -^^j^l. pk-^i^,; y^^^e-^ £^-t^^u ^^z^/ ^y^ 
 u p> tse-fo**-/usj£2> / ^Le^<^ ^/st&y s^y- //^ rru^ yC^y *^^ 
 
 -/ejce^ ,^T<^ #n <U-^Jl fejfc^r wL&s?- yyi^yr M^y t y / Jy ? ZrL<s/~^Jc. 
 ftZjcfzM yyMyy^- J 'fr^Lkcj^ ^.A^z^S t^^^o vzes-L-y&yr-u /z> A*ys~c. 
 
 L/rt^/ 1 ^^ <2*y^- On a^yCcM^ /zstrffr/ks^ $^#^fa^Ct rfUx^sf: 
 "yf A> fa/n^ <r>c^u c^y/n /fty <^^y h ^o^£^ j^O^/r72jj2SiJz^^ 
 
 
 "ze^tif **-& yn^<^ ^t^r72-^i^Lj^> fo ^J^yTZ^) yy^yyp-csr--^ 
 
 /^y£ y/C^^-^^^^^^^ y^ajti^,^ (y^^yi^^ r^y^ y 
 y f , ^ y?y yy^>, **/£?- y 7 *^, ^ ^j^ e ^^ yc^/jtu^ 
 
 ' IfMerdjjSlCSon/^'ac-sinv.liihaj : 
 

 v'.-V-; 
 
 '■" 
 
 
 : 
 
'UeJ/ffo, (Brit-Hus:) 
 
 
 M rs I)avrollr 
 
 "Am^Zo wxj? 
 
 ^jrv\ 
 
 H. ^x 3*^72% 
 
 flu, 
 
 f Ce 
 
 T^ilt K^~ ^L 
 
 ls* 
 
 
 tr~yu_; 
 
 
a/ut<Jroms Auhxprzphs and^fubf/shedFac-surtUesafJunuoslJ^O. 
 
 Junius 
 
 L 7 
 
 'T^J a/i( aM Z 
 
 A 
 
 M r M)avr«,Jj t . 
 
 J ' Li^4m^ h) 4^ / Xa^ /^ "^i^. 
 
 3nr*rj Jul/l) (Tk^ -"/^ ^V>v 
 
 ju^fasr? j^asr ^u^/^Uiy- 
 
 (hrvh^tnU- 7^Jk<T1aJ^ 
 
 IKj^ tw* ' -Kjt/h ,Hs^y/ n^r-tn^ vy^eff 
 
 l^nuu. hnwffc- AyyrUL. 
 
 ri^u^y r/^aZt; e^-e^- ' 
 
 %h-e, 'kj^yo /viur Ov 
 
 t/n ~ niu n-z^c 
 
 h/h k 
 
 u^o /nJL, ?UL#v 
 
 Junius 
 
 M rs J)avrolle 
 
 ?vn/G wU> 
 
 ^Ltyh^ r^yiuj o^^ajl/t^ rfx/n-^y 
 
 Gr $^IL (Arm, S^^f 
 
 % [JTU: 
 
 ^ 
 
 Aw u> /vL-cV 
 
 
 
 >?t\Z) (TkJLJ 
 
 
 <^4*«T,6*££ 
 
 /yfo 
 
 J.tfdAatliA 
 

 
Fac srimZes faw'hs, Orifina/sJutapnytto <& Junius irvttepossesxi/m at WI'II I) Wood/alb. 
 
 //-^ Uuhu^ W tov^J-L. fliW- fW^ ^ 
 
 Joints , jjkclL. uM^f f<^M K ^A-^"* _^ 
 
 JuintAsi 1 }/kaiL hum <m. tj- 4,0r-iM 
 
 rj IwkjriXvninr'. 
 
 "f-^L fr^fhJ-^-Ltn^-iL^ ^ fail Cov_*j£y , jviu^- $ JAA^ fiaJ-4tiAXD 
 
 
 /rtM^/^[ / ^«l.. ]MV It-U^pf-ziy^-L*^!- CLLd-Uf/ J^jU*-- 
 
 -t>*4>. 
 
 '. Aty/isrr/r'/(,'X\->'<<7i fitcsmuliifaj 
 

 own.) ii^JU y (p/ ^ °™^> /h/k-C* ia^S /AJL J^Jlx^^^^t^ 
 
 . > JiThsr^ <£f T^LSyxri J"tj*^ O^rri/-^ 
 
 
■AN ESSAY 
 
 ON THE 
 
 AUTHENTICITY OF THE FOUR 
 
 LETTERS OF ATTICUS, 
 
 INCLUDED IN WOODFALL'S EDITION 
 
 OF 
 
 JUNIUS. 
 
 •' When once we shall have got hold of a right conjecture as to who was 
 the writer, every date, fact, and incident in his life must offer itself in proof, 
 and we shall have more than enough of these to settle the question beyon 
 all cavil,"— Athenceum, No. 1194, p. 969. 
 
 BY WILLIAM CRIMP, 
 
 AUTHOR OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGE, ETC. ETC. 
 
 LONDON : 
 HOPE & CO., 16, GREAT MARLBOROUGH STREET. 
 
 1851. 
 
ADVEKTISEMENT. 
 
 The Editor of the "Athenaeum," who professes to know so much about 
 " Junius and his Works," has laughed to scorn the judgment of Dr. Good T 
 for his selection of the miscellaneous letters of Junius. It will be found 
 (with very few exceptions) that these letters contain sufficient "internal 
 evidence " to justify the choice of the learned editor, and if Dr. Good had 
 known or suspected that Lord Chesterfield was Junius, the bulk of the mis- 
 cellaneous letters might have been greatly increased, for the pages of the 
 Public Advertiser, as far back, probably, as the commencement of the reign 
 of George III., contain "innumerable trifles," contributed by Lord Chester- 
 field — many au thenticated by his initial C. These are easily recognisable 
 from others under that signature, by their style and peculiar political bear- 
 ing—the surest test of determining the authenticity of anonymous publica- 
 tions. 
 
 The genuine letters of Atticus ceased on the appearance of Junius. "When 
 some other writer afterwards adopted that signature, it was publicly an- 
 nounced by Woodfall, that the letters were not written by his own corres- 
 pondent. 
 
 The Athenaeum has " pronounced judgment " that, on the publication of 
 the Stowe MSS. it will be found that Junius was " a middle-class man" 
 and it is not improbable that an attempt may be again made to affiliate the 
 letters on some junior clerk in a public office. But let the English nation 
 look to it — Junius was the champion of the people— Avhatever gratitude they 
 owe him should not be again diverted towards an unworthy object. The 
 genuine letters contain abundant proofs that Chesterfield was the writer — 
 whether a republication of these will meet with encouragement remains to 
 be proved— but evidence is already before the public, and that derived almost 
 from the miscellaneous letters, sufficient to convince any unprejudiced reader 
 that Lord Chesterfield was the only person at that time capable of writing 
 the letters of Junius. 
 
JUNIUS IN THE CHARACTER OF ATTICUS/ 
 
 AN. ESSAY ON THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE FOUR LETTERS OF 
 ATTICUS INCLUDED IN WOODFALL'S EDITION OF JUNIUS. 
 
 If I were a party writer, the indiscretion of the ministerial advocates 
 would give one as many advantages as even the icretched conduct of the 
 ministry themselves. But I write for the public, and in that view hold 
 myself far above a little triumph over men whose compositions are as 
 weak as the cause they defend. — Atticus. 
 
 When such wretched advocates and profligate panegyrists of corrup- 
 tion, oppression, fraud, and all political immorality, direct their satire 
 at one man, it is marking him out to the public as a person eminently 
 distinguished by all the opposites of those vices. The execution of their 
 design is as injudicious as the design itself. — Chesterfield, hi Vindication 
 of Lord Lyttleton. 
 
 The letters signed Atticus were written before Junius had ac- 
 quired notoriety under his well-known signature. They preceded 
 the death of Mr. Philip Stanhope only a few weeks, and may 
 he regarded as the gathering of that storm which, after the 
 death of Mr. Stanhope, burst upon the ministers with unmiti- 
 gated fury. Indeed, one of these letters, dated 19th October, 
 1768, is little more than a rough draft of the first celebrated 
 letter of Junius, published on the 21st January, 1769. 
 
 It is no valid argument against the authenticity of these let- 
 ters, " That others are to be found under the same signature in 
 the ' Public Advertiser ' both before and after those selected by 
 Dr. Good." The question is, whether they bear the like " inter- 
 nal evidence " which induced the editor to give the four which he 
 selected a place among the miscellaneous writings of Junius. That 
 he was right in doing so, will perhaps appeal' from the remarks 
 and examples contained in this essay. 
 
 " Disquisitions on the fluctuations of the funds, commerce, and 
 /he decline of the empire" were favourite themes with Lord 
 Chesterfield. Upon these subjects he could write with ease 
 and fluency, for in active life they had often occupied his 
 thoughts, and in his retirement frequently gave birth to gloomy 
 apprehensions and melancholy forebodings. 
 
 Nor are the letters of Atticus without their proportion of 
 evidence to connect them with the writings of Junius. The like 
 phrases, sentiments, and personal feelings, are observable through- 
 out. The examples given will be sufficient to identify Atticus 
 
with both Junius and Lord Chesterfield, for almost every para- 
 graph may be applied with strict propriety to either character. 
 
 The frequent allusion to the funds, and u the practices in the 
 alley," indicates that Junius was deeply interested in that kind 
 of property. Though the assertion made by Atticus in the open- 
 ing of his first letter, "that he had lately sold out," was pro- 
 bably a fiction deemed necessary to the plan of his letter, and 
 assumed for the purpose of introducing his opinions on trade, 
 and the exhausted revenues of Great Britain, yet the writer 
 might have felt some alarm, and contemplated landing himself 
 from a troubled ocean of fear and anxiety. In similar language. 
 Lord Chesterfield described his retirement from office in 1748, 
 and "thanked God that he was safe and quiet on shore'" — no 
 longer tossed on the troubled ocean of politics. 
 
 The prevailing characteristic of these letters (indicative of 
 the winter's temperament to despond) was pointed out by his 
 contemporaries. In answer to this charge, Atticus vindicated 
 himself in his second letter. " If a real misfortune were less- 
 ened by concealment — if, by shutting our eyes to our weakness, 
 we could give our enemies an opinion of our strength —none but a 
 traitor would withdraw the veil which covered the nakedness of 
 our country." And in his fourth letter he says : " In this and 
 my former letters, I have presented to you, with plainness and 
 sincerity, the melancholy condition to which we are reduced." 
 
 In his first letter as Junius the same melancholy disposition 
 is evinced, and elicited from Sir W. Draper observations similar 
 to those which the letters of Atticus the year before had called 
 forth. " This letter," says Sir W. Draper, " opens the deplorable 
 situation of this country in a very affecting manner." 
 
 This characteristic has also frequently been pointed out by com- 
 mentators on the genuine letters of Junius. The editor of the 
 new edition found some difficulty in reconciling a passage in 
 the first letter with the character of Sir Philip Francis. 
 
 " This deplorable scene," says Junius, " admits but of one 
 addition, that we are governed by counsels from which a rea- 
 sonable man can expect no remedy but poison, no relief but 
 death." 
 
 " At first reading," says Mr. Wade, in a note from Heron, 
 " we might regard this and some other similar figures, as merely 
 useless and extravagant. But more careful consideration will 
 induce us to forego this opinion. It is the master art of these 
 letters of Junius that they are addressed equally, on the one 
 hand, to the taste, reason, and spirit of intrigue of the great, 
 and on the other hand, to the prejudices, and fierce abusive 
 spirit of the vulgar. For the sake of the latter, some slight 
 occasional sacrifices were to be made bv taste. Of these, the 
 
present extravagant figure is one. It seems just a sally of 
 genius and dignity of mind descending as far as it is possible 
 for them to descend to the coarseness of vulgar abuse. Never 
 was coarseness better reconciled with dignity than in these 
 letters." 
 
 Had Mr. Heron suspected Lord Chesterfield as the author of 
 the letters of Junius, his difficulty would have been removed, for 
 he might have traced in the writings of Lord Chesterfield this 
 remarkable characteristic of Junius. 
 
 Whenever Lord Chesterfield was dissatisfied with the measures 
 of government he was accustomed to indulge in these gloomy and 
 melancholy forebodings. This peculiar trait in the character of 
 one who was celebrated for his lively parts and philosophical 
 resignation, is noticed by his lordship's biographer (Works, vol. i. 
 pp. 296, 340), and in his letters to Mr. Dayrolle he frequently 
 betrayed this remarkable feature in his character. In 1756 he 
 writes : — " These are not the gloomy apprehensions of a sick man; 
 but real facts, obvious to whoever will see and reflect. One of the 
 chief causes of this unfortunate situation is that we have now in 
 truth no minister, but the administration is a mere republic, and 
 carried on by the Cabinet Council, the individuals of which think 
 only how to get the better of each other. Let us then turn our 
 eyes as much as we can from this melancholy prospect, which neither 
 of us can mend, and think of something else." — (Works, vol. ii. p. 
 189.) And a few days after he wrote, " We are no longer a nation. 
 I never saw so dreadful a prospect." 
 
 " I am not surprised," says Atticus, " that the generality of men 
 should endeavour to shut their eyes to this melancholy prospect. Yet 
 I am filled with grief and indignation when I behold a wise and 
 gallant people lost in a stupidity which does not feel because it 
 will not look forward. The voice of one man will hardly be heard 
 when the voice of truth and reason is neglected, but as far as mine 
 extends, the authors of our ruin shall be marked out to the public. 
 I will not tamely submit to be sacrificed, nor shall this country 
 perish without a warning." — (Vol. iii. p. 176.) 
 
 " If there be yet a spark of virtue left among us, this great 
 nation shall not be sacrificed to the fluctuating interests and way- 
 ward passions of a minister, nor even to the caprices of a monarch. 
 If there be no virtue left, it is no matter who are ministers, nor 
 how soon they accomplish our destruction." — (Vol. iii. p. 189.) 
 
 These passages indicate that Atticus was preparing to come 
 before the public in a more prominent character, and that the 
 crisis of his indignation against the Duke of Grafton was fast 
 approaching. Philip Stanhope was dying when the letters of 
 Atticus were published, and expired on the 16th November, 
 1768. 
 
/ But the letters of Attieus are not only remarkable for their 
 despondency, they also betray the querulous tone of old age. 
 The Duke of Grafton, who was then in his thirty-fourth year (and 
 five years the senior of Sir P. Francis), is described as a mere 
 boy — and he and his associates in the ministry are thus graphically 
 delineated. 
 
 _ " Yet these are the times, sir, when every ignorant boy thinks 
 himself fit to be a minister. Instead of attending to objects of 
 national importance, our worthy governors are contented to divide 
 their time between private pleasures and ministerial intrigues. 
 Their activity is just equal to the prosecution of a prisoner in 
 the King's Bench, or to the honourable struggle of providing for 
 their dependants. If there be a good man in the King's service, 
 they dismiss him of course, and when bad news arrives, instead 
 of uniting to consider of a remedy, their time is spent in ac- 
 cusing and reviling one another. " Thus the debate concludes 
 with some half misbegotten measure, which is left to execute itself* 
 Away they go. One retires to a country-house — another is 
 engaged at a horse-race — a third has an appointment witli a pros- 
 titute — and as to their country, they leave her, like a cast uif 
 mistress, to perish under the diseases they have given her." 
 
 Throughout these disputed. letters we find the same Contempt 
 betrayed in reference to the age and inexperience of the Duke of 
 Grafton, which Junius afterwards so frequently noticed when 
 taunting the King in the choice of so young a minister. In the 
 first letter we have seen that Attieus described the fiery duke as 
 an an ignorant boy, in his third letter his grace is not only a young 
 man, but a young ma>t without solidity or judgment, and he extenuates 
 the amusements of this young man and will not call them criminal, 
 if his grace will only dignify his vices by a due observance of 
 decorum. And in his fourth letter he says, " In vain may we look 
 for the temper and firmness of a great minister ; — we shall find 
 nothing but the passion or weakness of a boy — the enervated lan- 
 guor of a consumption, or the false strength of a delirium.'' 
 
 There are but few moralists who would venture to inculcate the 
 doctrine, that vice may be dignified by the observance of a proper 
 regard for decorum. Yet this extraordinary license against the 
 acknowledged precepts of morality is contained both in the writ- 
 ings of Junius and of Lord Chesterfield. A few instances will 
 suffice to convince the reader that the same mind gave utterance 
 to the sentiments expressed in the following parallels : — 
 
 * The expression, an Act of Parliament executing itself, i3 traceable 
 to Lord Chesterfield. In his lordship's memorable speech on the Gin Act, 
 1743, he said in defence of the existing law, that " its only defect was that 
 it would not execute itself." 
 
Junius. 
 His private- hi story would but 
 little deserve our attention, if 
 he had not voluntarily bi ought 
 it into public notice. I will 
 not call the amusements * of a 
 young man criminal, though I 
 think they become his age bet- 
 ter than his station. There is a 
 period at which the most unruly 
 passions are gratified or ex- 
 hausted, and which leaves the 
 mind clear and undisturbed. 
 His Grace's gallantry would be 
 offended if we were to suppose 
 him within many years of being 
 thus qualified for public affairs. 
 As for the rest, making every 
 allowance for the frailty of hu- 
 man nature, I can make none 
 for a continued breach of public 
 decorum. — Atticus. 
 
 Chesterfield. 
 Do not think that I mean to 
 snarl at pleasure like a stoic, or 
 to preach against it like a par- 
 son. No, 1 mean to point it out, 
 and recommend it to you like 
 an epicurean. A sprightly de- 
 bauche, now and then, is very 
 well, but the dull, sedate, and 
 continued guzzling of claret is 
 very unbecoming to a young 
 fellow. 
 
 If vice itself could be excu- 
 sed, there is yet a certain dis- 
 play of it, a certain outrage to 
 
 Should you be unfortunate 
 enough to have vices, you may, 
 to a certain degree, even dig- 
 
 * Junius, a short time before, had told the public what were the 
 amusements of the Duke of Grafton — horse-racing — the hazard table, 
 and exhibiting the lovely Thais at the Opera House. These, it appears, 
 were not criminal in the eyes of Junius, unless accompanied by a breach 
 of public decorum. 
 
 Although Lord Chesterfield, by his essay on "Decorum" introduced 
 the Latin form of this word into general use, it cannot be said to have 
 been naturalised until the publication of Junius' s letters in 1772; that 
 writer missed no opportunity of employing it in its English form, by 
 emitting the distinction oi' italics. Even within a year or two before 
 Junius had captivated the literary world by his style, we find Lord 
 Chesterfield still endeavouring to accomplish his purpose. In a letter 
 to his God-son, in 1765-6, he writes, "Discretion will teach you to 
 have a particular attention to your moeurs, which we have no one word 
 in our language to express exactly — morals are too much, manners too 
 little — decency comes the nearest to it, though rather short of it. ' 
 Cicero's word, decorum, is properly the thing, and I see no reason why 
 that expressive word should not be adopted and naturalised in our 
 language. I have never scrupled using it in that sense." — Letters, Vol. 
 ii. p. 422. 
 
decency, and violation of public 
 decorum, which, for the benefit 
 of society, should never be for- 
 given. 
 
 nify them by a strict observance 
 of decorum. — Advice to his God- 
 
 So far, we see the character of Atticus strictly agreeing with 
 that of Lord Chesterfield under similar circumstances. But the 
 proofs do not rest here. The parallel sentiments are so exact, 
 that scarcely two minds would have accidentally illustrated their 
 opinions in the following remarkable manner : — 
 
 Atticus. 
 The policy of concealment is 
 no better than the wisdom of a 
 prodigal, who wastes his estate 
 without reflection, and has not 
 courage to examine his accounts. 
 
 I presume he was then learn- 
 ing his trade, for he soon setup 
 for himself. 
 
 To vulgar minds it may ap- 
 pear unattainable, because vul- 
 gar minds make no distinction 
 between the highly difficult and 
 the impossible. 
 
 The greatness of a kingdom 
 cannot long be stationary. That 
 of Great Britain, carried in it- 
 self, an interior principle of 
 weakness and decay. While 
 the war continued, our superi- 
 ority at sea gave us an exclusive 
 commerce with the richest quar- 
 ters of the world, and supplied 
 us with wealth to support such 
 efforts as no nation ever made 
 before. But when the conclu- 
 sion of peace had restored our 
 rivals to the enjoyment of their 
 former trade, the very efforts 
 which had maintained the war, 
 rendered it impossible for us to 
 meet those rivals upon equal 
 terms, &c. — Atticus. 
 
 Chesterfield. 
 The man who by long negli • 
 gence, owes a great deal, de- 
 spairs of ever being able to pay, 
 and, therefore, never looks into 
 his accounts. 
 
 Your apprenticeship is near 
 out, and you are soon to set up 
 for yourself. 
 
 Sense must distinguish be- 
 tween what is impossible and 
 what is only difficult, and spirit 
 and perseverance will get the 
 better of the latter. 
 
 If the balance of trade be 
 against you, that is, if you buy 
 more than you sell, you must 
 necessarily make up that differ- 
 ence in money and your bul- 
 lion, or your coin, which are, 
 in effect, the same thing, must 
 and will be exported, in spite of 
 all laws. But if you sell more 
 than you buy, then foreigners 
 must do the same by you, and 
 make up their deficiency in 
 bullion or coin. Gold and sil- 
 ver are but merchandise as well 
 as cloth or linen, and that na- 
 tion that buys the least and 
 sells the most, must always 
 have the most money. — Axioms 
 in Trade. 
 
9 
 
 The following verbal peculiarities, occurring in the letters of 
 Atticus (identifying that writer as the author of the letters of 
 Junius), may be compared with the diction of Lord Chesterfield : — 
 
 Junius as Atticus. 
 But it was in the colonies 
 where our best and surest hopes 
 were founded. Their exclusive 
 commerce would have sup- 
 ported our home-manufactures 
 when other markets failed, and 
 rewarded us, in some measure, 
 for that security and extent of 
 dominion which the Mood and 
 treasure of this country had 
 purchased for them. 
 
 In my last letter, I foretold 
 the great fall of the stocks, 
 which has since happened, and 
 I do not scruple to foretell that 
 they must and will fall much 
 lower. 
 
 But I see the spirit which 
 has gone abroad through the 
 colonies, and I know what con- 
 sequences that spirit must and 
 will produce. 
 
 The colonies were dutiful 
 children and Great Britain a 
 severe step-mother. 
 
 In the first place, I consider 
 this country as in a situation 
 the like of which it never ex- 
 perienced before, but which the 
 greatest empires have experi- 
 enced in their turns. 
 
 Chesterfield. 
 The people of England could 
 not be induced to submit to new 
 taxes and impositions, in order 
 to destroy that balance of power 
 which, at such an incredible 
 expense of blood and treasure, 
 they had endeavoured to render 
 immoveable, nor the House of 
 Austria to be undone, that the 
 petty princes of Germany might 
 aggrandise themselves out of 
 spoil. — Case of the Hanover 
 troops. 
 
 And your bullion or your 
 coin, which are, in effect, the 
 same thing, must and willhe ex- 
 ported in spite of all law.- -Ax- 
 ioms in T?'ade. 
 
 Rejoice, therefore, that there 
 is one person in the world, who 
 can and icill tell you what will 
 be very useful to you to know, 
 and yet, what no other man 
 living could or would tell you. — 
 Letters. 
 
 For my part, I never saw a 
 froward child mended by whip- 
 ping, and I would not have the 
 mother-country become a step- 
 mother. — Letters. 
 
 What conclusions you will 
 draw from these premises, I do 
 not know, I protest I draw 
 none ; but only stare at the 
 present undecipherable state 
 of affairs, which, in fifty years' 
 experience, I have never seen 
 anything like it. 
 
 - 
 
10 
 
 As for the rest, making every 
 allowance for the frailty of hu- 
 man nature, I can make none 
 for a continued breach of deco- 
 rum, nor can I believe that man 
 very zealous for the interest of 
 his country, who sets her opi- 
 nions at defiance. 
 
 In this single sentence ot 
 Atticus, we find three expres- 
 sions indicative of the author. 
 The frailty of human nature was 
 Lord Chesterfield's excuse for 
 his vices. His rigid observance 
 of decorum dignified those vices, 
 and the phrase, to set at defiance 
 was one of the common phrases 
 of Junius, and may be found in 
 the writings of Lord Chester- 
 field. 
 
 Junius as Atticus. 
 This treatment of the colo- 
 nies, added to his refusal to 
 present a petition from one of 
 them to the King (a direct 
 breach of the Declaration of 
 Rights), will naturally throw 
 them all into aflame. 
 
 Yet the first act of his admi- 
 nistration, was to impose a tax 
 upon America, which has since 
 thrown the whole Continent into a 
 flame. 
 
 In the last instance of his 
 Grace's judgment and consist- 
 ency, we see him, after trying 
 and deserting every party, 
 throw himself into the arms of a 
 set of men whose political prin- 
 ciples he had always pretended 
 to abhor. 
 
 If I were a party writer, the 
 indiscretion of the ministerial 
 advocates would give me as 
 many advantages as even the 
 icretched conduct of the minis- 
 try themselves. 
 
 Chesterfield. 
 Should the noble lord's mo- 
 tion be agreed to, my lords, and 
 the news of it sent * over to 
 France, as it certainly would, 
 the very next dispatch would 
 tell them that the nation were 
 in a flame, and the Government 
 would not be supported by the 
 people. — Debate on the Trea- 
 ties, 1757. 
 
 Did we not oblige Spain to 
 throw herself entirely into the 
 arms of France, by which we 
 again united the two great 
 branches of the house of Bour- 
 bon ? — Debate. 1734. See, also, 
 the same expression used in 
 this debate, and in " Common 
 Sense," No. 103. 
 
 The character of the Duke of 
 Argyle, nay, even the wretched 
 President, will all pretend to 
 have something to say.— Let. 
 to Lord Lyttleton. 
 
11 
 
 You see in the public papers, 
 That wretched creature, Lord the wretched situation of our 
 
 Townsend. 
 
 Marchmont. 
 
 Your wretched friend, that 
 miserable sergeant. 
 
 It has been pointed out as a singularity, that Junius uses " of 
 his side," instead of " on his side," &c, but the peculiarity is, 
 that Junius uses both forms of expression, and in this particular 
 also agrees with Lord Chesterfield. 
 
 Junius as Atticus. Chesterfield. 
 
 Here, my Lord, you have for- You had not the necessary 
 
 tune of your side. — Vol. ii. arms for victory, for you had 
 
 p. 169. only justice of your side, which 
 
 in Scotland as well as here, is 
 
 I am persuaded he would not alone sufficient. — Vol. iii. 
 
 have the reasonable part of the p. 94. 
 Americans of his side. 
 
 We will close these extracts with an example of a peculiarity in 
 diction of apparently trivial import, but rendered remarkable by 
 its having been observed by Atticus in his letters, and, so far, 
 keeps up the connexion between that writer and Junius. 
 
 Antipathies to things are familiar in the experience of every one, 
 but it has not perhaps been generally observed that sensitive 
 minds have often antipathies to words, not because the words are 
 in themselves vulgar or improper, but from some association of 
 ideas that renders their use disagreeable to the individual. This 
 prejudice has occasioned some grammarians to decry certain 
 words which to their own ears alone were objectionable. The 
 word dint has long been repudiated as vulgar, though no term 
 has been substituted to express the exact meaning which that 
 word implies. Under the impression of this kind of antipathy 
 Lord Chesterfield struck the word namely from the vocabulary 
 of Philip Stanhope, and desired him to use the phrase " which 
 is, 11 or " that is," as a substitute. In his own works the word 
 namely never cccurs, though he did not scruple occasionally to 
 adopt the more objectionable abbreviation viz. in its stead. 
 
 The same avoidance of the use of the word namely is rigidly 
 adhered to by Junius in his Letters. During the five years that 
 lie wrote for the "Public Advertiser" it is in no instance introduced. 
 He invariably prefers " that is " or " viz.," where other good 
 writers would not have scrupled to use namely, and perhaps in 
 
 

 12 
 
 preference to the more formal " that is," recommended by Lord 
 Chesterfield. In some instances, indeed, Junius does not seem 
 to have added much grace to the flow of his periods by his 
 strict adherence to the then unpublished instructions of Lord 
 Chesterfield. 
 
 " Yet, even if that -were determined, another question remains 
 full of difficulty and danger ; — that is, in what manner the public 
 will avail themselves of this great right, decided by nothing but 
 a vote in Parliament." — Atticus. 
 
 In this example it will be seen that the printer, in order to 
 comply with the writer's prejudice, was compelled to cobble the 
 sentence, by inserting both a semicolon and a dash where a 
 comma would have been sufficient if the word namely had been 
 employed. 
 
 It may be further observed, that it is the awkward use of the 
 word namely that makes it objectionable, and this probably first 
 gave Lord Chesterfield a dislike to it ; but the sentence in Mr. 
 Stanhope's letter is very little improved by the alteration. 
 
 " You inform me of a very agreeable piece of news, namely, that my 
 election is secured.'''' Instead of namfly " writes Lord Chesterfield," 
 I would always use " which is" or " that is." 
 
 To a philologist this peculiarity will have some weight, and 
 on that account deserves to be recorded among the facts in this 
 inquiry. 
 
 Any one who has attentively read Lord Chesterfield's speeches 
 and writings (more particularly those of the period of the great 
 Walpolean Battles), will find that the doctrines and opinions of 
 Junius are merely a repetition of the maxims and sentiments of 
 Lord Chesterfield. On every great constitutional question they 
 are the same ; nor does the language of Junius differ from the 
 well-known ironical style of Chesterfield, except in the bitterness 
 of its sarcasm, and in those peculiarities which are always ob- 
 servable in laboured compositions. Junius was conscious of this, 
 and withheld his popular signature from those letters that were 
 not written in the style of Junius. The miscellaneous letters, 
 therefore, approach more nearly to Lord Chesterfield's manner of 
 writing, with the exception of that want of freedom which the 
 fear of detection will always produce in an anonymous libeller. 
 
 It would be useless to extend these proofs, for every sentence 
 in the four letters of Atticus breathes the spirit of Lord Ches- 
 terfield. They may be said to contain an epitome of his lord- 
 ship's opinions on the policy of government and the financial 
 resources of Great Britain. 
 

 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS % 
 
 III! 
 020 661 503 5 
 
 kM 
 
 nrifr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 <v 
 
 
 3*d 
 
 * M« 
 
 . ^^-