« PreviousContinue »
contrary, Sir Jeffery Amherst, George Grenville, and others, who are warmly applauded by Junius, are mentioned by his Lordship in terms of opprobrium and contempt. On referring to his correspondence with George Montague, Esq. General Conway, the Rev. Dr. Cole, &c. we find that during the period when Junius was so closely occupied in writing against the Government, Lord Orford's engagements were of a very different nature. His society was much sought after, for he possessed an infinite fund of anecdote, and was a great favourite with some old ladies residing at Richmond and its vicinity. He informs his correspondents of his various movements, so that we can with facility collect how and where he passed his time. He made several excursions to France, and the
in which he describes his adventures is highly amusing. Sept. 11, 1765, he writes to his friend General Conway from Amiens. He was then proceeding to Paris, on a visit to his friend Lord Hertford, who is treated by Junius with great severity. Lord Orford remained in France twelve months. Oct. 2, 1766, he informs General Conway that he is just returned. Afortnight afterwards we find him at Bath. March 12, 1768, he writes to George Montague, Esq., and in this letter takes an opportunity of applauding Lord Chatham and Charles Towns,
hend; but of George Grenville he
« Will George Grenville cease to be the most tiresome of beings? Will he not be constantly whining and droning, and interrupting ?” Very different was the language of Junius, who just before had been satirizing the two former, and as warmly supporting the latter. Dec. 1, 1768, Lord Orford says, “Oh, how delightful and comfortable to be sitting quietly here and scribbling to you, perfectly indifferent about both Houses !” From June 20 to July 15, 1769, we find him on a tour in Cambridgeshire. August 18, 1769, he writes from Calais, “I think it conscientiously right to inform you that I am not in Arlington-street, nor at Strawberry Hill, nor even in Middlesex; nay, not in England. I am-I am-guess where? Not in Corsica, nor at Spa. Stay-I am not at Paris yet, but I hope to be there in two days. In short, I am at Calais, having landed about two hours ago, after a tedious passage of nine hours.” He remained in Paris about a month, and reached home Oct. 13, 1769, having been absent nearly two months. During this period the controversy between Sir W. Draper and Junius took place. June 11, 1770, he tells his friend not to expect long letters from him, being very busily engaged in preparing his last volume of Painters. From July 1 to July 7, 1770, he was on a visit in Bucking
hamshire. Nov. 20, 1770, he writes, “ My last volume of Painters begins to print this week.” From July 30, 1771, to Sept. 7, 1771, he was again in Paris. During this period the controversy between Junius and the Rev. Mr. Horne took place.
By this statement we clearly prove that the suspicions entertained that Lord Orford was Junius are totally unfounded. He was one of the last men who would be likely to undertake so arduous a task, having various other literary subjects constantly engaging his attention. For the satisfaction of those who lay any stress upon handwriting we may also add, that that of Lord Orford and Junius were totally dissimilar.
During my research I have observed hints suggested in favour of the present claimant, with remarks of his having been strongly suspected; but in no one instance have I ever met with an investigation of those claims, or an attempt to disprove those suspicions, further than from general surmise. These have invariably died away, so that the present Enquiry, as it is the only one which has ever been systematically entered into, will afford full scope for fair criticism and investigation.
The reader who may still be biassed in favour of any of the foregoing names, can compare such pretensions with the result of my Enquiry,
on an attentive perusal of the Letters : from which I deduce this opinion ;
That no one has any claim to the authorship of the Letters of Junius, of whom the following testimonials cannot be produced :
1. That he was an Englishman.
II. That he was a man of rank, and of independent fortune.
III. That he was a man of highly cultivated talents, and of superior education ; that he had successfully studied the language, the law, the .constitution, and the history of his native country; but that he was neither a lawyer nor a clergyman.
IV. That he either was, at the time of writing the Letters, or had previously been in the army, is evident from his practical knowledge of military affairs.
V. That he moved in the immediate circle of the Court.
VI. That he was a member of the established church.
VII. That he was a member of the House of Commons.
VIII. That from the early information Junius obtained on Government affairs, it is evident he was connected with some persons in administration.
IX. That he was a firm friend to Sir Jeffery [afterwards Lord] Amherst.
X. That he was a friend to Colonel Cunninghame.
XI. That he was an admirer of Mr. Grenville.
XII. That he was a strong advocate for the Stamp Act in America.
XIII. That he was in favour of repealing the duty on tea in America.
XIV. That he was an advocate for triennial parliaments.
XV. That he considered the impeachment of Lord Mansfield as indispensable.
XVI. That from the manner in which he upholds rotten boroughs, it is highly probable they either constituted part of his property, or that he was in some way connected with them.
XVII. That he considered a strict regard should be paid to the public expenditure, that the national debt might not be increased.
XVIII. That he was against disbanding the army, although a firm friend to the marching regiments; he was also in favour of impressing
XIX. That he must have had an antipathy to Sir Fletcher Norton, the Speaker of the House of Commons, from the contempt with which he speaks of him.