Зображення сторінки
PDF
ePub

Having abandoned the hope of discovering Junius, the Government wreaked their vengeance on Woodfall, the printer, by prosecuting him for a libel upon the king. The jury, however, notwithstanding the unconstitutional charge to them by Lord Chief-Justice Mansfield, that they should find a verdict of guilty or not guilty," brought in a verdict of "printing and publishing ONLY," which defeated the designs of the Government, and gave a new triumph to Junius and the Opposition.

66

The anxiety to discover Junius now became more eager than ever. So high were his Letters in public estimation that Burke was suspected to be their author. Lord Mansfield, Sir William Blackstone, and Sir William Draper, adopted this opinion. Mrs. Burke once admitted that her husband knew the author, and Sir Joshua Reynolds and Mr. Malone believed that though Burke did not write them, "he polished and finished them for the public eye." Dr. Johnson believed Burke to be Junius, "because he knew no man but Burke who was capable of writing them," but Burke "spontaneously denied it" to Johnson himself. Two pamphlets have been written to prove the identity of Burke and Junius, and Mr. Prior, in his recent life of him, has made an elaborate attempt to confirm this opinion, but his arguments are utterly futile, and prove only what is now almost universally believed, that Junius was an Irishman.*

After Burke's indignant and spontaneous denial that he was Junius, Sir William Draper and others expressed their conviction that Lord George Sackville was the man, and an elaborate work of nearly 400 pages has been published by Mr. Coventry, in order to confer upon him this honour. That Lord George Sackville had many and peculiar reasons for denouncing, with all the severity of Junius, the administration of the Duke of Grafton and its individual members, will be readily granted, but no arguments have been adduced to prove that he possessed those lofty acquirements, and that power of composition,† which must be demanded from every competitor. Mr. Coventry has given twenty-four criteria or testimonials, as he calls them, which must be produced in favour of the true Junius, and by adopting the spurious letters as genuine, he finds no difficulty in producing them all on the part of his favourite ; but we have no hesitation in asserting now, what we shall by and bye prove, that his book is as devoid of argument as his hypothesis is of probability.

Many other competitors for the fame of Junius have been

* Prior's Life of Burke, vol. i. p. 186.

In an address to the public, which Lord George Sackville printed previous to his trial in 1760, he says " I had rather upon this occasion submit myself to all the inconveniences that may arise from the want of style, than borrow assistance from the pen of others, as I can have no hopes of establishing my character but from the force of truth."

Colonel Isaac Barré supposed to be Junius.

*

105

presented for public acceptance, and volumes written to establish their claims. Some have even grasped at the high honour of being Junius, while others have imitated his style, and used his expressions, and adopted his sentiments, in order to have some distant chance of bearing his name.' It would be an unprofitable task, if not at present an impracticable one, to give even the shortest analysis of the arguments which have been employed in favour of the different candidates for the honour of being Junius. Our proper business at present is to lay before our readers some account of Mr. Britton's new work, in which he attempts to identify with Junius the celebrated Colonel Isaac Barré. After doing this, we shall review what have been regarded the superior pretensions of Sir Philip Francis and Lord George Sackville, and also those of Colonel Lachlan Macleane, which in our opinion have a still stronger claim upon public

notice.

The object of Mr. Britton's work is thus described by himself:

"For the last twelve months I have sought by extensive reading, inquiry, and correspondence, to obtain authentic satisfactory evidence, and the result is that the materials I have accumulated, whilst they serve to elucidate the political and private character and talents of the anonymous AUTHOR of the LETTERS-LIEUTENANT-COLONEL BArré, also point out and implicate his intimate associates, LORD SHELBURNE and Mr. DUNNING. There are likewise some extraordinary revelations respecting William Greatrakes, whose career in life, and the circumstances attending his death, with the disposal of his property, abound in mystery, and are pregnant with suspicion. The story of this gentleman is a romance of real life, and like that of the concealed author is enveloped in a cloak of ambiguity and darkness; yet it is confidently believed that he was the amanuensis to Colonel Barré, and also his confidential agent and messenger. To identify these persons and explain their connexion with the public correspondence referred to, to bring out facts of dates and deeds from the dark and intricate recesses in which they were studiously and cunningly concealed, to reconcile and account for contradictions and inconsistencies, have occasioned more anxiety, toil, and scrupulous analysis than

* The following is a list of the persons who have been named either by themselves or others as the authors of Junius' Letters. W. H. Cavendish Bentinck, (Duke of Portland,) the Earl of Chatham, the Earl of Chesterfield, Horace Walpole, (Earl of Orford,) Lord George Sackville, Edmund Burke, Dr. Gilbert Stewart, Hugh Macauley Boyd, Counsellor Dunning, (Lord Ashburton,) Richard Glover, (author of Leonidas,) W. G. Hamilton, (Single Speech Hamilton,) Sir William Jones, General Lee, (an American,) John Wilkes, John Horne Tooke, Charles Lloyd, secretary to Mr. George Grenville, Henry Flood, M.P., Rev. Philip Rosenhagen, William Greatrakes, John Roberts, originally a treasury clerk, M. De_Lolme, Dr. Wilmot, Samuel Dyer, (a literary character, and a friend of Dr. Johnson and Edmund Burke,) Edward Gibbon, Thomas Hollis, Dr. Butler, (Bishop of Hereford,) Sir Philip Francis, Colonel Barré, and Colonel Lachlan Macleane.

can possibly be imagined by any person who has never attempted a similar task. The issue and effects, however, are now submitted to that public tribunal which invariably awards a proper and a just decision, and which I feel assured will ultimately pronounce an impartial verdict, whether favourable or adverse to the author's hopes and opinions."-PREFACE, p. vi.

It has always been believed that Lord Shelburne, afterwards Marquis of Lansdowne, was somehow or other connected with the composition of the letters of Junius. When he quitted office in 1768, and went into opposition to the Government which succeeded him, it was highly probable that some of the distinguished individuals who sat in Parliament for his boroughs of Calne or Wycombe, or who held the office of his private secretary, or of Under Secretary of State when he was in power, would embark in the defence of their leaders, and wage war against the ministry which displaced them. The Duke of Grafton, and the other members of the Cabinet, had by their misconduct and intrigues, compelled Lord Chatham and Lord Shelburne to resign, and it is among the men who suffered by their resignation, who had imbibed their principles, and were actuated by their feelings, that a disinterested inquirer would naturally look for the original of Junius. That Lord Shelburne knew Junius, and everything connected with the writing of his letters, is placed beyond a doubt by the evidence of Sir Richard Phillips, who had a personal interview with him when Marquis of Lansdowne in 1804, and only a week before his death. After Sir Richard had stated to his lordship, "that many persons had ascribed these letters to him, 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 knew all about the writing and production of these 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." When still further pressed by Sir Richard, his Lordship added, "I'll tell you this for your guide generally; Junius has never yet been publicly named. None of the parties ever guessed

Sir R. Phillips' Interview with the Marquis of Lansdowne. 107

at as Junius was the true Junius. Nobody has ever suspected him. I knew him and knew all about it, and I pledge myself, if these legs will permit me, to give you a pamphlet on the subject as soon as I feel myself equal to the labour."*

As this remarkable declaration disproved every preceding theory of Junius that had come under his lordship's notice, some attempts were made to discredit the statement of Sir Richard Phillips; but Sir Richard had no motive for practising any such deception upon the public; and even if his personal character did not protect him from such a charge, it would require evidence of a very peculiar kind to justify us even in doubting the truth of a statement so very probable in all its details. As Colonel Barré therefore had never been publicly named as the author of the letters of Junius, and as he was the personal and political friend of Lord Shelburne, Mr. Britton's theory rests upon a sound and rational foundation, and his arguments are entitled to a fair and candid examination. We regret, however, to find that he has taken it for granted that Junius is the author of the unacknowledged letters collected by Mr. George Woodfall, and that he has drawn many of his arguments from this fallacious source. Many years ago, the writer of this Article had communicated to Mr. Woodfall himself his conviction that these letters were not the genuine production of Junius, and we are glad to observe that the same opinion has been recently maintained with much ability in the pages of the Athenæum. By rejecting these letters as his, we place the character of Junius in a more favourable light, while we deprive Mr. Britton of some of the strongest arguments in favour of Colonel Barré's claim.

When Mr. Britton was at Hungerford about the end of the last century, he became acquainted with the Rev. Dr. Popham of Chilton, who had held for more than twenty years the vicarage of Lacock, in the vicinity of Bowood, the seat of Lord Shelburne. He was an occasional guest of that hospitable house during the period from 1769 to 1772, when the letters of Junius were publishing. Counsellor Dunning and Colonel Barré, for many years, spent the parliamentary recess at Bowood, the one having long represented the burgh of Calne, and the other that of High Wycombe. Dr. Popham was therefore often in their society, and among other subjects he heard the letters of Junius frequently discussed. He was surprised at the "difference of their language," when that subject was discussed by themselves, and in mixed parties, and he came to the conclusion that they were either the authors of the letters, or were familiar with the writer. On a particular day when Dr. Popham and

[blocks in formation]

the three politicians were the whole party at dinner, Junius was not only the subject of conversation, but a certain attack upon him was freely discussed. One of the party remarked, that this attack would be shown up and confuted in the next day's Advertiser. When the When the paper arrived next day, there appeared a note from the printer stating that the letter would appear in the ensuing number. Dr. Popham concluded from these facts that one of his three friends was Junius; and Mr. Britton informs us that Mr. Bayliff, and Mr. Ralph Gaby, two respectable solicitors of Chippenham, who had frequently met with the same parties at Bowood, entertained a similar opinion.

About the same time, Mr. Britton's attention was directed to a tombstone in Hungerford churchyard, to the memory of William Greatrakes, on which was the following inscription :-" Here are deposited the remains of William Greatrakes, Esq., a native of Ireland, who, on his way from Bristol to London, died in this town, in the 52d year of his age, on the 2d day of August 1781. STAT NOMINIS UMBRA." This gentleman was a great friend of Lord Shelburne and Colonel Barré, and was an inmate in Lord Shelburne's house during the publication of the letters of Junius. A Captain Stopford, who attended Greatrakes on his deathbed, asserted that he had told him that he was the author of the letters of Junius, and a relation of the family is said to have discovered in his trunk "the letters of Junius, in the hand-writing of the deceased young man, with all the interlineations, corrections, and erasures, which sufficiently established them as the original manuscripts!"* From these facts, Mr. Britton concludes, that Mr. Greatrakes "was intimately concerned in the letters of Junius," "and that the task which devolved upon him was to copy the letters for the printer, under the immediate superintendence of Colonel Barré."

The opinion that Colonel Barré alone was Junius, was first broached and maintained by Captain Henderson, ordnance store-keeper at Chester, who in 1837 transmitted to the writer of this Article an account of his investigations. Captain Henderson died in March 1847, when he was preparing his remarks on Junius for the press; but Mr. Britton had access to his papers, and a very good abstract of his inquiries is now in our possession. Isaac Barré was the son of a foreign refugee, "settled by the Bishop of Clogher in a shop in Dublin, because his wife had nursed one of the bishop's children," and he was born in that city about the end of 1726. He was sent to Trinity College, Dublin, in 1740, and his name was entered in one of the Inns of Court in London, with the view of studying for the bar. Disliking,

* Cork Mercantile Chronicle, September 7, 1806.

« НазадПродовжити »