^-J^E^^^-r^ <3^.^l^ o^r^^W- F8 U5 Copy 1 THE LETTERS OF JUNIUS. All Ess(fy upon the Authorship of tliese Reniarhahle C oui positions n^ith Original Letters from Jurists, Statesmen and Scholars! SHOWING A CONCURRENT CONVICTION THAT JUNIUS WAS SIR PHILIP FRANCIS ! BY: K F. UNDER^VOOD! 1881: Seymour Times Print. ~> 9900 THE LETTERS OF JUNIUS. SIR PHILIP FRANCIS THE AUTHOR— THE ''PAINE GUESS'' WITHOUT FOUNDATION. The celebrated pliillipics known collectively as the Leiiers of Junius, published in the Public Adver- tiser, a leading London journal, over different signa- tures, such as Mnemon, Atticus, Lucius, Brutus, Junius and Philo Junius (and sometimes with no nom de plume affixed), extend over a period of nearly five years — from Aj^ril, 1767, to the middle of 1772. The signature Junius was not adopted till 1769. For polish and pungency these letters have never been surpassed, if equalled; and in them men and measures were assailed with a freedom, boldness and bitterness, with a disregard of rank and station, age and sex, that excited the curiosity of all readers, and aroused the indignation of the first statesmen of England. During their publication the resources of the different branches of the government were ex- hausted to discover the author of these remarkable compositions; and since that time, books, pamphlets and articles, written to fix their authorship, have been issued in such numbers that were they all col- lected they would form, at least, a small-sized li- brary. These famous letters have been ascribed to more than forty different persons; but notwithstanding all the circumstances under which they were written, the high character and position of tl^e persons assailed, the personalities indulged in, and the laborious re- searches made from the time the letters appeared 2 down to the present, to discover the writer, his fa- mous declaration and prediction contained in the dedication of his collected letters to the English na- tion — "I am the sole depository of my own secret, and it shall perish with me " — have only thus far been verified by the lapse of time. Junius remains the " shadow of a name " — unknoAvn. Of all the persons v/hom different writers have at- tempted to prove the author of these letters, there is only one who, it has not been abundantly shown, could not have been identical with Junius. That one is Sir Philip Francis. For nearly half a century the acutest minds of England have inclined strongly to the opinion that the Franciscan theory is the cor- rect one. A curiously combined chain of affirmative testimony seems to lead directly to Francis, while the absence of negative testimony arising out of the character, oi^inions, habits and connections of Francis to break any link in this long chain of affirmative evidence, goes to strengthen the latter. Lord Brougham in an article published in 1817, gives extracts from a speech delivered by Francis in 1797, and reraprks: "We humbly conceive that the most careless reader must be struck, not only with the general alnlity and eloquence of these passages, but with their extraordinary coincidence with* the let- ters of Junius in all their most remarkable character- istics — the boldness and even fierceness of the tone — the studied force and energy of the diction — the pointed and epigrammatic cast of the style— the con- cise and frequent metaphors — the mixture of the language of business and affairs, with a certain scholastic elegance and elaborate sarcasm." The fol- lowing epitome of Brougham's reasoning is given from the preface to Woodf all's edition of Junius: "1. He finds that the dates of the Juiiian letters exactly tally with Francis's residence in this country and his going abroad. 2. Francis was a clerk in the War office, and Junius exhibits an intimate ac- quaintance with the business and persons of that de- partment. 3, Francis was appointed a clerk in the 3 Foreign office in 1766. Junius shows an uncommon acquaintance with, and interest in the transactions of the Foreign department as well as of the War office; and the period to which his knowledge refers, pre- cedes the death of Lord Egremont in 1763. 4. The manner in which Junius always treated Lord Chatham coincides exactly with the expressions of Sir Philip in his speeches and writings. 5. The high admiration of Lord Chatham which Junius shows is not reconcilable with his kindness towards his an- tagonist, Lord Holland. But the history of Sir Philip explains this: His father was Lord Holland's domestic chaplain. Sir Philip himself received from Lord Holland his first place in the Foreign office, and sentiments of gratitude would overcome the natural inducement which Junius had to join in the attacks upon Lord Holland. 6. From his private correspondence it is plain that Junius bore a great personal good will towards Woodfall. Woodfall was educated at St. Paul's school, where Francis is known to have been bred; and Woodf all's son would after- wards speak of the acquaintance formed at that school between his father and Francis as having given rise to a mutual kindness during their after lives. 7. There is reason to believe that Junius was known to Garrick; Sir Francis, in the preface to 'England' says that he enjoyed the friendship and esteem of Garrick. 8. It is unquestionable that Junius used to attend the debates in Parliament, and take notes of the more important speeches; Francis attended the debates during the same period. 9. There are many favorite expressions in their printed works which are common to each ; such as * Of his side,' * So far forth,' 'Pray never mind,' 'Pray tell me,' &c. 10. Lord Brougham then tells the following story: Mr. Jackson, of Ipswich, was in Woodf all's employment at the period of the letters; and he states that he once saw a tall gentleman, dressed in a light coat, with bag and sword, throw into the office door open- ing in Fry Lane a letter of Junius's, which he picked up and immediately followed the bearer of it into 4 St. Paul's church yard, where he got into a hackney- coach and drove off. Taylor in his ' Identity of Ju- nius,' states that the figure and appearance of Sir Philip Francis answer to this description as far as it goes. 11. There are various peculiarities of spell- ing which occur uniformly in both writers. Lastly, though the letters are known to be written in a feigned hand, the general characters agree v/ell with that of Francis." These reasons taken together, make out a strong case in favor of the authorship of Francis, and al- though published while Francis was yet alive, were never contradicted by him. Wraxall represents Francis as taciturn and " burst- ing with bile;" but expresses admiration for his ge- nius. "Nature," he says, "had conferred on him talents such as are rarely dispensed to any individu- al — a vast range of- icleas, a retentive memory, a classic mind, considerable command of language, en- ergy of thought and expression." Rogers, the poet, says in his Table Talk: " My own impression is that the letters ol Junius wore written by Sir Philip Francis. In a speech which I once heard him deliver at the Mansion House concerning the partition of Poland, I had a striking proof that Francis possessed no ordinary powers of eloquence." Referring to Sir Philip Francis, Lord Brough- ham says (in his Slaiesmen of Times, George the Third): "His taste v/as thus formed on the best models of all the ages, and it was pure to rigorous severity. His own style of writing was, excelling in clearness, abounding in happy idiomatic terms, not over loaded with either words or figures, but not rejecting either beautiful phrases or appropriate ornament. It was somewhat sententioiis and even abrupt, like his manner it did not flow very smoothly, much less fall impetuously; but in force and effect it was by no means wanting, and though somev/hat more antithetical and thus wearing the appearance of more labor than strict taste might justifiy, it had the essential quality of being so pellucid as to leave no cloud whatever over the meaning, and seemed so im- pregnated with the writer's mind as to wear the appearance of being perfectly natural, notwithstand- ing the artificial texture of the composition. In diction it was exceedingly pure, nor could the writer suffer, though in conversation, any of the mootish phrases or even pronunciations which the ignorance or the carelessness of society is perpetually contributing, with the usages of parliament to vitiate our saxon dalect. '-' ''' * ^' - His critical severity, even to the tone and language of conversa- tion was carried to what sometimes appeared an excess." The foUov/ing extract from a letter written by Sir Philip Francis to the Duchess of Devonshire, to- gether with extracts from the lady's letters, are given in Percy Fitzgerald's Life of George the Fourfh, (part 1, chai)t. 32): " Because," says the author, " they iljdstrate the almost elegant style of communication between an accomplished man and woman of the time." The identity of the style of this letter with that of Junius must be admitted by every one familiar with the celebrated "Letters." Francis writes in reply to a letter: " Some cruel words in the letter I received from you yesterday have filled me with deep and serious anxiety, and the more as I cannot, if I would, conjec- ture what grief they relate to, or what is the nature or extent of it. Do not believe it possible that your heart can be ' torn in pieces,' and that mine can be unwounded. On a subject so described, it would be equally unbecoming and useless in me to ask a ques- tion, or to solicit an explanation. Sorrow is certainly softened by participation. To share the burden is to lighten it; but that case supposes a long and mutual intimacy, and cannot be extended to many. From woman to woman, it is most dangerous. In a few minutes I have hated at first sight. In others, as you perhaps may think possible enough, I have loved without waiting for a second. But mere love should beware of confessing anything to its object, except its 6 own passion. The party that desires more intends to command. With all these wise considerations before you, it is for yourself to judge whether any service or council or consolation of mine can be of any use to you. If not, you ought not to tell me; for though I know you would be safe, you do not. Religion comes late, and serves only to console. Can you endure and will you forgive these moral airs in a man who never pretended to be anything, and to be a moralist least of all? With all possible veracity, I do confess to you that I am very wise for everybody but myself. Wisdom has been beaten into me by ex- perience, of which no man, I do believe, has had more than I have had, to my cost, crowded into the same number of years. Yet born and bred as I was in adversity, and traversed by disappointment in every pursuit of my life; I never should have been un- happy if it had been possible for me never to be imprudent. My mind is come at last to maturity, of which you, if you please, and if you want it, may at all times have the benefit. Should I fail in judg- ment, you will find me safe, faithful and discreet. You talk of the shortness of our acquaintance; why, then, if all this be not mere moonshine, and if we are really and seriously to be friends, we have no time to lose. The fact, however, is that I have known you for many years, and long before the date of our ac- quaintance. It is true I saw you at a great distance, and as a bird of passage. The planet passed by, and knew nothing of the poor astronomer who watched her motions and waited for the transit. Hereafter, I hope you will not insist on my seeing you through a telescope. Honestly and honorably I believe I meant nothing but that, while you were writing to me, you thought of nobody but C. F. Not at all, however in the sense of being in love with him. That idea never entered into my thoughts. On that subject, I begin to be what fine ladies call nettled, by your eternally answering me at cross purposes, or telling me, as you do in efiect, that six and four do not make nineteen, and as if I had maintained the contrary. My allega- 7 tion is that I am forsaken, etc. Your defence is that he is a man of transcendent abilities, and externally amiable in private life. I admire the discovery, but it gives me no sort of consolation. ^ ^^ I feel like gummed velvet, and wish I could hate you for half an hour, that I might cut you into a thousand little stars, and live under the canopy. On Monday I wrote till I could not see, without saying half what I in- tended. You say I must have spoilt you. Will you be so good as to tell me what sort of being you were before you were spoiled? As for me, it is a clear case that I must be bewitched, or I never would trust a declared enemy with such a letter as the enclosed. ^ * You say ' I knew your opinion long ago and wish to bring you to own it, that I might attack it.' Most dear insidious person! I had no disposition to inveigh against Mr. Fox's conduct, nor should I have said anything about it, if you had not provoked me on one side and ensnared me on the other. Will you now bo honorable, and can you be just? Did such a letter deserve no answer?" Sir James Mackintosh had so little doubt as to Francis's authorship that he v/roto in his journal in 1817 thus: "Dec. 8. Dined with Junius. His wife is a woman of informed mind and agreeable person. The vigorous hatreds which seem to keep Francis alive are very amusing." In the " Lives of the Chan- cellors," by Lord Campbell, is a letter from the widow of Sir Philip Francis maintaining that he wrote the Letters. His first present to her after their marriage was a copy of Junius, and another copy sealed up and intrusted to her was a posthumous present to his son. Hallam, the historian, was strong- ly of the opinion that Junius was Francis. Lord Macauley alluding to the evidence that Francis wrote the Letters of Junius, observes : " The external evi- dence is, we think, such as would support a verdict in a civil— nay in a criminal proceeding. The hand- writing of Junius is the very peculiar handwriting of Francis, slightly disguised. As to the position, pur- suits snd connections of Junius, the following are 8 the most important facts, which can be considered clearly proved: First, that he was acquainted with the technical forms of the Secretary of State's office; secondly, that he was intimately acquainted with the business of the War Office; thirdly, that he, during the year 1770, attended debates in the House of Lords and took notes of speeches, particularly of the speeches of Lord Chatham; fourthly, that he bitter- ly resented the appointment of Mr. Chamier to the place of Deputy Secretary of War; fifthly, that he was bound by some strong tie to the first Lord Hol- land. * ^ Now here are five marks which ought to be found in Junius. They are all five found in Francis. We do not believe that more than two of them can be found in any other person whatever. If this argument does not settle the question, there is an end of all reasoning on circumstantial evidence." It may be added here that in January, 1772, the King, so it is stated, remarked confidentially to a friend, "Junius is known and will write no more." Junius's last letter was dated January 21, 1772. Not long afterwards Sir Philip Francis was appointed, as Dr. Goodrich says, " to one of the highest stations of profit and trust in India, at a distance of fifteen thousand miles from the seat of English politics." About a dozen years ago the posthumous works of Mr. Parker, edited and completed by Mr. Merivalo, while confirming all the old testimony adduced by Brougham, Macauley and others, brought out some new circumstances which deepened the conviction among men of letters that Francis was Junius. In 1871 was published, " The Handivrifing of Junius Professionally Investigated,'' by Mr. Charles Chabot, edited by Hon. E. Twistleton. This work, which a writer in the Quarierly Review declares has settled once for all the long disputed controversy, seems to have nearly or quite satisfied all who have been suf- ficiently interested in the subject to give it a careful examination that the Franciscan theory is impreg- nable. George Otto Trevelyan in his recently published 9 work, "T/ie Early History of Charles James Fox,'* seems to entertain no doubt whatever as to the au- thorship of the letters. Referring to the work of Joseph Parker he says : " That memoir has virtually set at rest the controversy " that once iDromised to be eternal again. "It was Philip Francis, as we now know, who had taken down from memory and given to the world the speech of the twenty-second of No- vember; and in such hands it is needless to say Cha- tham's invective had lost nothing of its terrors. And now on the 7th of December there appeared in Mr. Woodfall's journal a passage from a speech of the Duke of Grafton, which bore only too evident signs " of having been reported with literal fidelity, accom- panied with the unsparing comments of a critic who signed himself Domitian, and who was as much Ju- nius as Junius was Sir Philip Francis." "His enormous influence over the minds of his countrymen of which he was silently but most justi- fiably proud, would vanish in ' a day (if he we re dis- covered). There would be an end of his hopes of a career in the House of Commons — hopes very pre- cious to him, and as the event showed, not presump- tuous. His post in the department where he was doing such well-paid work, would be vacant as soon is the secretary at war could get hold of a scrap of paper on which to write his dismissal. But the loss of the means of living, would be a small matter to one at whose throat a score of swords would at once be pointed; and when he had run the gauntlet of Bedford's friends and Lowthier's trenchermen, and the brother sportsmen of Grafton, and the half -pay colonels who had been Granby's aides-de-camp, of the guardsmen whose military privileges he had as- sailed with the effective accuracy of official knowledge, and the courtiers whose master he had lectured with irreverance, which to them was nothing short of sacrilege, he had still before him the prospect for years to come, of spending in the King's Bench Pris- on every spare moment that he was not in the custo- dy of the sergeant--dt-arms. Philip Francis, as nine 10 years later all Calcutta, and soon all London knew, was not a whit less brave than he was quarrelsome; but Junius consistently refused to go into the field with an antagonist who staked nothing but the chance of a wound against the certainty of his own utter ruin." In an anonymous work entitled "Junius Unmask- ec/," published in 1872, an attempt is made to prove that the Letters of Junius were written by Thomas Paine. In this work anologes are imagined where none exist, and the reasoning throughout is weak and inconclusive. It has made no impression whatever upon those who are familiar with the Junius question. The theory which connects Paine with Junius' Letters has found another, a scarcely more convincing advo- cate in Prof. Denslow of Chicago who imagines Paine the ''ready writer" and rhetor ican, inspired by Lord George Sackville and others. He seems to have but little confidence however in this theory, and admits that " we cannot think any complete argument can be constructed in behalf of Paine, however great the resemblance may be between his style and that of Junius, until it shall be shown that Paine lived in close communication with Chatham, Francis, Home Tooke, Wilkes, Lord Shelburne, Dr. Wilmot, Burke or Lord George Sackville or with some of them." There is no evidence whatever that Paine either wrote, or had any connection with Junius' Letters. Paine declares unequivocally *' the cause of America made me an author," and there is no evidence that he wrote before he came to America (in 1774) anything except a little pamphlet on the abuses of the Excise department in which he was employed. Paine did not possess and was not in a situation to obtain the knowledge of persons and transactions necessary to enable him to write those letters. Junius was not always as thoroughly and as minutely informed in regard to individuals as he professed to bo, per- haps, — although he was remarkable even in this respect, — yet he possessed information of a certain kind which showed that he was in an official position 11 or moved within the circle of the court; ''for " as the writer of the "Preliminary Essay" in Woodfall, Junius says: "The feature that peculiarly character- ized him, at the time of his writing, and that cannot even now be contemplated without surprise, was the facility with which he became acquainted with every ministerial manouvre, whether public or private, from almost the very instant of its conception." He was not only familiar with what was done, but with the intrigues and intentions of the ministry which were defeated by unforeseen circumstances, as there is abundant evidence to prove. In a letter to Woodfall in 1769, Junius speaks of his " rank and fortune." Paine had neither the one nor the other, and he was not a man to make any claims of that kind. To Woodfall, who urged him to share the profits of the publication of his letters (or to point out some public charity to which an egual sum might be pre- sented) Junius wrote: "As for myself be assured that I am far above all pecuniary views, and no other per- son has, I think, any claim to share with you. Make the most of it, therefore, and let all your views be directed to a solid, however moderate independence, without which no man can be happy or even honest." Thomas Paine never wrote the last sentence in the above extract. A poor man like Paine might have declined to receive the profits of his works in England as he did in America when he wrote in de- fence of the American Revolution; but such a man would not have said " let all your views of life be di- rected to a solid, however moderate independence, without which no man can be happy or even honest." It shows the sphere of life in which the writer moved. It shows that while he was a generous man, he was in affluent or easy circumstances. In another letter to Woodfall he wrote: "For the matter of assistance, be assured that if a question should arise upon any writings of mine, you shall not want it; in point of money be assured you shall never suffer." Paine, who in England was a poor stay-maker, tobacconist 12 and exciseman, was in no condition to give assurances like these. Junius was a believer in a monarchical form of government. Paine hated monarchy. Junius says: "I can more readily admire the liberal spirit and integ- rity than the sound judgment of any man who prefers a republican form of government in this or any other empire of equal extent, to a monarchy 'so qualified as ours. I am convinced that neither is it in theory the wisest system of government nor practicable in this country. Yet though I hope the English Con- stitution will forever preserve its original monarchical form, I would have the manners of the people purely and' strictly republican." — Letter 59. ' Now Paine had no respect for the constitution of the government of England, and he wrote " there is something exceedingly ridiculous in the composition of monarchy." Junius was an advocate of the Stamp Act, applaud- ed Grenville, and was at one time very severe on the friends of the American colonies. *| It would be to no purpose," he wrote December 1767, " at present to renew a discussion of the merits of the Stamp Act, though I am convinced that even the people who were most clamorous against it, either never understood, or wilfully misrepresented every part of it. But it is truly astonishing that a great number of people should have so little foreseen the inevitable consequences of repealing it. ^ '^ There was indeed one man (Grenville) who wisely foresaw every circumstance which has since happened, and who, with a patriot's spirit, opposed himself to the torrent. He told us, that if we thought the loss of outstanding debts and of our American trade, a mis- chief of the first magnitude, such an injudicious compliance with the terms dictated by the colonies, was the way to make it sure and unavoidable." Ho writes, July, 1768: " We find ourselves at last reduced to the dreadful alternative of either making war up- on our colonies, or of suffering them to erect them- selves into independent States. It is not that I now 13 hesitate upon the choice we are to make. Everything must be hazarded." " If the pretensions of the colonies had not been abetted by something worse than a faction here the Stamp Act would have executed itself." Again : " But unfortunately for us, some vain per- nicious ideas of independence and separate domin- fon, thrown out and fomented by designing seditious spirits in that country, and encouraged and confirmed here by the treachery of some and the folly of others, have cut off all those just hopes, those well formed expectations." He comments severely on the "j)u- sillanimous administration" that was "abetting and supporting the colonies against the mother country," and concludes thus: "I shall only add that it is the common cause of this nation; and that a vigorous and steady exertion of the authority of Great Britain would soon awo a tumultuous people, who have grown insolent by our injudicious forbearance, and tram- pled upon us because we submitted to them." Miscellaneous Letters No. 10, 1767. At a later date, when circumstances had somewhat changed, Junius was opposed to taxing the colonies, but insisted on the r'ujM. It was he nffirmed "a spec- ulative right never to be exerted nor never to be re- nounced." This is not the language of Thomas Paine, author of " Camm.on Sense " and " Eights of Man." The English author of the essay in Woodfall's Junius, says that " neither his enmity nor his patriot- ism hurried him into any of those political extrava- gances which have peculiarly marked the character of the present age ; a limited monarchy, like our own, he openly preferred to a republic; "^ " and anterior to the American contest, was as thoroughly convinced as Mr. George Grenville himself of the suprernacy of the legislature of this country over the American colonies." The style of Junius is more studied and finished than that of Paine. There are passages in the writings of Paine which will not suffer by a compari- 14 son wkh the best passages in Junius; but the writings of Paine, as a whole, lack the studied elegance, the rhetorical polish, the classical correctness, which characterize the philippics of Junius. A certain re- semblance in the style of the two writers undoubt- edly exits, which, indeed, is mentioned by Lord Brougham; but there is a dissimilarity not less strik- ing. Each has numerous peculiarities of expression that the other lacks. Paine could no more have writ- ten the Letters of Junius, than Sir Philip Francis could have written Common .Sense or the Age of Reason. Both were men of genius, and the writings of both are stamped by the individuality of their authors. Had Paine written the Letters of Junius, he would have had no reason to conceal the fact during the last thirty years of his life. He would have had ev- ery reason for making it known. He felt a just pride in his writings, which some have without rea- son, I think, characterized as vanity; and this would have led him to disclose the secret. *' I can not," says Col. Robert G. Ingersoll in his Introduction to Denslow's Modern Thinkers, "be- lieve thcit he (Paine) wrote the letters of "Junius," although the two critiques combined in this volume entitled " Paine " and "Junius," make by far the best argument on the subject I have read. First, Paine could have had no personal hatred against the men so bitterly assailed by Junius. Second, He knew at that time, but little of English politicians, and cer- tainly had never associated with men occupying the highest positions, and could not have been personally acquainted with the leading statesmen of England. Third, He was not an unjust man. He was neither a coward, a calumniator nor a sneak. All these de- lightful qualities must have lovingly united in the character of Junius. Fourth, Paine could have had no reason for keeping the secret after coming to America." " I have always believe! that Junius, after having written his letters, accept<3d office from the very men 15 he had maligned, and at last became a pensioner of the victims of his slanders. ' Had he as many mouths as Hydra such a course must have closed them all.' Certainly the author must have kept the secret to prevent the loss of his reputation." The reason here given is generally believed to be the main reason that Junius never disclosed his se- cret; but there were other considerations, doubtless, such as those mentioned by Trevelyan, that influ- enced his course. That Junius was a man of strong prejudice and in- veterate hatred there is abundant proof in his Let- ters, and it must be admitted that he was often as unjust in his comments on men as he ^v as incorrect in his representations of public affairs; but Junius was no coward, in the common meaning of that word, although the loftiest moral courage ho did not pos- sess. This was a quality which I must say, in spite of slanders and lies, was prominent in Paine, who could never be bribed into silence, nor made to do any act which his conscience did not approve. Nothing more need be said to show that Paine was not the author of Junius' Letters, when no evidence whatever has been adduced to show that he was; and my only excuse for dwelling on this point at such length, is the persistent and extraordinary efforts which have been made thiough several Freethought journals, to establish a theory that rests upon no foundation whatever. The authorship of Junius's Letters is not a question in which I feel much interest at present. Some years ago I acquainted myself somewhat with the various theories and arguments on the subject, since which time I have been satisfied that Junius was Francis; but after reading Prof. Denslow's essays, recently published in a volume with other essays, entitled "Modern Thinkers,'' curiosity to know how far schol- ars and thinkers are agreed upon this subject, in- duced me to address notes of inquiry to the persons from whom letters are given below. Among them are men of letters whose literary judgments com- 16 mand attention and respect, and their acquaintance with the period in which Junius wrote, their famil- iarity with the characters, events and writings of that time, and with the evidences presented in support of the numerous claims that have been made as to the authorship of Junius's Letters, give their concurrent opinion great weight and value. Junius was probably Francis; yet I do not think this has been established as an ahsolitte certainty. Whoever wrote th6 Letters, they will never cease to be admired, and the author will ever be a subject of interest to the contemplative mind. " What an un- utterable sense of loneliness must sometimes have possessed him. There is an austerity in his triumph almost painful to think on. He must have thought in whispers and muffled his very instincts. He had unbounded fame; but ho could not enjoy it, being unknown. What transports he knew were surely tiger-like; it was the sudden leap and deadly blow that composed the sum of his literary pleasures. We may figure him wringing in the morning the hand that ere nightfall he had resolved should be laid against a wounded heart. He glided through his brief space of being, a very shadow; wielding mate- rial weapons with shadowy hands; making his very wit tragical with the spirit of the mystery that hedged him about." 17 THE LETTERS. Hon, Josiah Qidncy. I have long thought with Macauley that the letters of Junius were written by Sir Philip Francis, and have not seen the papers to which you allude in which they are attributed to Thouiaw Paine. No liteiary reputation is safe unless an author copyrights his work. There are grave doubts whether Shakspeare wrote Hamlet, though he has enjoyed the reputation of it for two centuries. Josiah Quincy. Hon. Robert C, Wmthroj). In reply to your question of yesterday, I have no time for saying more than that there is no room to doubt that the Declaration of Independence was written by Jefferson, and that the general con- currence of opinion assigns Junius to Sir Philip Francis. Robert C. Winthrop. Wendell Phillips. I have not seen Denslow's argument, but I have often seen the argument for Paine's authorship of Junius stated, and I never thought it had any substantial foundation. Wendell Phillips. George William Curtis. I have your note of the 18th. It is not likely that the author- ship of Junius will ever be settled beyond cavil. But there is lit- tle doubt that the weight of opinion has settled finally upon Sir Philip Francis. In Mr. Trevelyan's early life of Charles James Fox, just published, it is treated as indisputable that Francis was Junius. I am not familiar with the Paine claim, but do not think it has made much impression, and I am vtry sure that he would have been only too glad to prove that he wrote the Letters. George William Curtis. 18 Col T, W, Higginson, I have not given any special attention to the subject of Junius, but should not th'nk the theory of Paine's authorship at all tena- ble. I believe public opinion on the subject among experts now points to Sir Phil'p Francis. You should consult a very elaborate work fa quarto by Edward Twistleton on the authorship of JuniuF, which can probably be found in the Boston Public Library. T. W. Higginson. Eev. H. W. Bellotvs. I have read several works on the authorship of Junius, and in my opinion, there is no longer any reasonable doubt that Sir Philip Francis was the aiithor. I regard the hypothesis of Thomas Paine being the author as preposterous as the opinion that Lord Bacon was the author of Shakspearian plays; yet several volumes of much acuteness and learning have been written to maintain that proposition. There will always be ingenious and eccentric people, who prefer to main- tain the most improbable opinions from the love of practicing their acumen and of differing with people of common sense. The dis- pute about Junius has essentially subsided. It may be a good theme for young debaters, but there is no substantial difference of opinion among fair mindtd men as to the authorship, and Sir Philip Francis is the man. H. W. Bellows. Eev. James Freeman Clarke. Allibone, in his Diet, of Authors, gives the names of forty-two persons who have been seriously believed to have written the letters of Junius — but that of Thomas Paine is not among them. He may come in as the most likely author of Junius after these forty- two have been disposed of. The person who wrote Junius' Letters not only possessed an intimate knowledge of Court and ministerial secrets (which Paine couM not have had), but the strongest reasons for concealing the authorship. Paine had no such reason. He pame to America two or tl ree years after the Junius letters ceased, gnd hgh^fl every reason then to avow himself their author. James Freeman Clarke. 19 Oliver Wendell Holmes. I never looked up the question, or the an3wcr to it, rather. I always supposed Sir Philip Francis was the author. O. W. Holmes. Hon. E. P. Hurlhurt I have yours of the 22nd inst., touching the authorship of Juni- us' Letters, and reply in brief that I <-nce carefully investigated the subject and became satisfied that Sir Philip Francis was the author ; so well satisfied that I have never again looked into the matter. On the other hand I have m ver seen anything to raise even a suspicion in my mind that Thomas Paine was the author. E. P. HURLBURT. Hon, S. S. Cox. You ask my opinion as to whether Thomas Paine wrote the "Letters of Junius." I have no doubt in my own mind that it was Sir Philip Francis ; but it was proved some years ago in Massa- chusetts, in the North American Eeview, that John Quincy Adams wrote Junius, as there were so many analogies of style. Junius is still the "shadow of a great name " — Stat ! S. S. Cox. Edward Evereii Hale. There is not the slightest reason to think the letters of Junius were written by Thomas Paine. There is every reason to think that they were written by Sir Philip Francis. Matters much lesfe Ci^rt lin are accepted with con- fidence every day. Edw. E. Hale. Theodore D. Woolseij, L. L. D. I do not regard my opinion as to the authorship of the Letters of Junius to be of any importance, and it is long since I gave my attention to the subject. The impressi(.n made on me, so far as I examined the evidence was, that Sir Philip Francis was probably the author. Theodore D. Woolsey. 20 James Parian. There is not the smallest reason to doubt that Mr. Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. His own word would be enough for me. I think Francis was Junius. Thomas Paine certainly was not Junius. Paine was a brave and true man. Junius was a coward and a liar; at best lie was an ill informed sensationalist. He attacked persons of whom he knew little. James Parton. Prof, Sumner, of Yale College. I do not know who Junius was. No one knows. I had settled ilown til the opinion that no one ever would know. The evidence for Francis is the strongest without being satisfactory. I should think that the Paine guess was about the wildest that has been made. Paine never would have kept the secret after he left England. W. G. Sumner. F. H. Underwood. In reply to your letter I would say that there is no evidence go- ing to show that Paine was Junius, except that he lived in Eng- land, and that the clear, bold style of Junius was greatly like that of i\Q. acknowledged works of Paine * * The British public generally believe Sir Philip Francis wrote the Junius Let- ters. It will probably never be known with any certainty. * * FjiANCis H. Underwood. Charles Bradlaugh, I hardly feel that I have the right to express a critical opinion on the question you ask me. So far as I have examined the mat- ter I do not think that there is any reliable evidence in favor of the contention that Thomas Paine was the author of the Letters of Jnnius. C. Bradlaugh. 21 HotL George W, Julian, I have yours of the 19th asking my opinion respecting the au- thorship of the letters of Jiinina, and the claim recently put for- ward that they were written by Thomas Paine. I am very sorry to say that I have not given these matters such particular atten- tion as to make my opinion of any critical value. My impression is that Paine did not write the letters of Junius. They are more finished and studied than the more original and ofF-hand writings of Paine. I should consider the generally accepted opinion re- specting the authorship of these letters as more probably correct than any other, though I should be very glad to be convinced that Paine did write them. You have no doubt investigated the matter and your judgment would have great weight with me. Geo. W. Julian. Rev, John W. Chadioick, My lecture on Paine was in the Index, but the date I can not re- member. * * I certainly did not vent the idea that Paine wrote ihe Declaration or that Jefferson did not. Paine's "Common Sense" was glory enough for him. As to Paine's having written the letters of Junius, I do not believe that there is " the sifted sedi- ment of a residium " of a reason for supposing that he did so. Fancy his Exciseman's Letter and Junius from the same hand ! Then, too, with all his virtues, Paine's vanity was enormous and he could never have kept the secret of his authorship to himself if there had been any reason for his doing so. John W. Chadwick. Mrs. Margaret ChappellsmUh. Five years ago I told Mr. that I did not believe Paine to be the author of the " Letters of Junius," and that my esteem for Paine would not be increased by believing that he was the writer of those " Letters." Excepting as a vigorous and refined writer, I have not had any respect for the author of the '* Letters." I have thought that he was a member of a party out of office, which, if in oftice, would have acted as viciously as the party that Junins condemned. I have not cared to know who Junius was, but I have read much of argument and apparent evidence, some of it gathered, I think. 22 from the recent examination of the MSS. of •* the Letters " by an expert, in connection with an examination of letters signed by Francis, which ajjpear to make it higlily probable that Junius was Francis. His education and position in life, his official position in the midst of gossip about quondom and existing high officials, and about intriguing aspirants for office were more calculated to induce such criticisms as tho^e in the " Letters," and were more likely to create the style and the seeming animosity to men more than to measures, such as many politicians exhibit, which I think is manifested in these letters, than were the conditions of Paine, his education, connections and pursuits up to the year 1769. Paine's known style does not, I think, resemble that of the " Let- ters;" and I have not had, in reading his works, any thought of his having any spite against men whose office he wished to occupy, or that he wanted to force from those he condemned a bribe to be silent. * ^- "Junius Unmasked" and Mr. Burr's circumstantial evidence and his arguments do not strengthen the probability that Junius was Paine. ■■■ *" Margaret C'HAPrELLSMiTH. Hon. Steplien J. W. Tahor. I do not think the Letters of Junius were written by Thomas Paine, nor do I think he wrote or "drafted " the Declaration of In- dependonce. He was intellectually equal to the composition of either, and his '•' Common Sense " furnished many ideas and argu- ments to Jefferson, as it did to other Revolutionary orators and authors. The secret of Junius, it seems to me, was compelled by his connection and contact, during his whole life, with the very people whom he had castigated and denounced in his Letters. I see no sufficient reason why Paine should have wished to preserve the secret after he came to this country, if he were the author, ror was he unwilling to acknowledge what he wrote, nor was he desti- t ite of that pride in his jvroduction which he well might entertain. To me the probabilities point more to Sir Philip Francis as the nu- thor of Junius than to any one else who has been named. Stephen J. W. Tabor 23 Prof. Francis Bowen, Sir Philip Francis is unquestionably the author of Junius. This has been demonstrated recently by Twistleton's book containing a professional examination of the liand writing of the two, and by the biography of Francis written by Parkes and Merivale. On the evidence wliich is now producible, any jury ^^ould convict Sir Phil- ip without leaving the court, if being Junius were a capital ofience. Of course, then, Paine did not write these famous Letters. He had neither the knowledge nor the ability for writing them. Any good critic of style would say that Paine's style, although good, is totally unlike that of Junius. Francis Bowen. President Julius Scelye, of Amherst College. President Seelye desires me to acknowledge his receipt of yours of yesterday, and to s;iy that he supposes there is now no doubt among well informed circles that the author of the Junius' letters was Sir. Phflip Francis. This fact, probable before, seems to have been rendered indubitable by the late researches of Messrs. Chabot and Twistleton. C. E. R., Sec'y. Hon, Charles Francis Adams. When I was a young man nobody was a greater man in my mind than the writer of the letters of Junius. I read them and tried, to some extent, to copy them, they weie so pungent. Forty years have passed away and I look at the letters of Junius as upon the most skillful person to let off a sky-rocket and vanish in the smoke. The great difficulty of the writer was that he was eagerly sprawling to produce effects without the least regard to their quali- ty. Nobody can last on so slimy a foundation. Charles Francis Adams. 24 Justin McCarthy, I do not think iny opinion of the Junius controversy has any particular value. Howe-^er, as you are kind enough to ask for it, I can only say that so far as I have been able to form a judgmf nt^ Sir Philip Francis was the author of the letters; and I think that is the general conviction among literary men, and is likely to re- main unshaken. Certawly I have never read anything which had the effect of shaking my conviction. I know, however, that there are some, not perhaps many, men who do not accept the evidence of the authorship as conclusive with regard to Francis. Sir Charles Dilke, for example does not. I happened to have some canversa- tion with him on the subject a few weeks ago. Justin McCarthy, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS ■ 020 661 512 6 I