THE

CLAIMS OF SIR PHILIP FRANCIS

TO THE

AUTHORSHIP OF JUNIUS DISPROVED:

In a Letter addressed to Godfrey Higgins, Esq.

LONDON:-1827.

1. Dear Sir,-Accept this offering of respect from a friend, who admires your love of literature, your public principles, your moral worth, your social qualities, your generous spirit, and your frank and manly and independent character.

II." The impression produced by a well-written Pamphlet," (Mr. Taylor's,) says Dr. Parr in a Letter, which has been already laid before the public," and an elaborate Critique on it in the Edinburgh Review, still direct the national faith towards Sir Philip Francis. He was too proud to tell a lie, and he disclaimed the Work. He was too vain to refuse celebrity, which he was conscious of deserving. He was too intrepid to shrink, when danger had nearly passed by. He was too irascible to keep the secret, by the publication of which he at this time of day could injure no party with which he is connected, nor any individual for whom he cared. Beside, dear Sir, we have many books of his Writings upon many subjects, and all of them stamped with the same character of mind. Their general lexis, (as we say in Greek,) has no resemblance to the lexis of Junius; and the resemblance in particulars can have far less weight than the resemblance of which there is no vestige. Francis uniformly writes English. There is Gallicism in Junius. Francis is furious, but not malevolent. Francis is never cool, and Junius is seldom ardent." In another Letter, which has been also laid before the public, Dr. Parr says:

"We must all grant that a strong case has been made out for Francis; but I could set up very stout objections to those claims. It was not in his nature to keep a secret. He would have told it from vanity, or from his courage, or from his patriotism. His bitterness, his vivacity, his acuteness are stamped in characters very peculiar upon many publications, that bear his name; and very faint indeed is their resemblance to the spirit, and, in an extended sense of the word, to the style of Junius."

Mr. Taylor will have serious difficulty in answering these objections to his hypothesis, made by such a master of style, such a judge of composition, and such an anatomist of the human heart as Dr. Parr.

III. "It remains to consider the claim of Sir Philip Francis. This has been ably brought forward in two Pamphlets, intituled, A Discovery of the Author of the Letters of Junius, founded on such Evidence and Illustrations, as explain all the mysterious Circumstances and apparent Contradictions, which have contributed to the Concealment of this most important Secret of our Times: And, The Identity of Junius with a distinguished Living Character established ; including the Supplement, consisting of Fac-similes of Hand-writing, and other Illustrations. (Printed for Taylor and Hessey in Fleet Street.) The external evidence, produced in these Pamphlets in favour of Sir Philip Francis, is very strong:-so strong, perhaps, that, if he had been tried upon it for a libel, and the case had rested upon the facts, from which this evidence is formed, the Judge would have directed the Jury to find him guilty. But the internal evidence against him, from the inequality of his acknowledged Writings, is also very strong: if the able Author of the Article Junius in the Edinburgh Review for Nov. 1817, had not professed a different opinion, the present Writer would have pronounced it decisive. That respectable Writer produces several passages from the Works, of which Sir Philip was certainly the Author, and finds in them a similar tone and equal merit. With due deference to his authority, the Reminiscent begs leave to think that, if these passages show that Sir Philip was no mean Writer, they also prove that he was not Junius. To bring the question to a direct issue,-are the glow and loftiness discernible in every page of Junius, once visible in any of these extracts? Where do we find in the Writings of Sir Philip, those thoughts that breathe, those words that burn, which Junius scatters in every page? a single drop of the cobra capella, which falls from Junius so often? The advocates of the claim in favour of Sir Philip urge, as a strong circumstance in its support, that without family, without patronage, without any one pretension to the notice of the King or the Minister, he was suddenly raised from an obscure seat in the War-office, to a situation of dignity and emolument, which a Nobleman would be happy to procure for his son. This, they say, shews that something was attached to Sir Philip Francis, which rendered the purchase of him, at that time, even at a very high price, an object to Government. Now at the critical moment, in which Sir Philip was thus promoted, Junius ceased to

write this, they conclude, makes it highly probable that the silence of Junius was purchased by the promotion of Sir Philip.' But this is open to several observations. In all his correspondence with Woodfall, Junius describes himself,-and very unaffectedly, as a man of fortune, mixing at large with the world; and promises to indemnify him against any pecuniary loss, which he might sustain in consequence of any prosecution for the Letters, leaving him, however, to abide its other consequences. Nothing of this is reconcileable with the situation of Sir Philip Francis at the time, when these Letters appeared :-It should be added that Sir Philip was then very young. Junius had evidently been a great constitutional reader: does Sir Philip appear to have been such from any of his Writings, even the latest? But, to bring the matter at once to issue, we shall transcribe from the Article on Junius, in the Edinburgh Review, a passage from a publication in which Sir Philip attacks Lord Thurlow,-then, insert a passage, in which Junius attacks Lord Mansfield. We request our readers will compare them; and afterwards compare the extract from Junius, with the passage on Hyder Ally's invasion of the Carnatic, transcribed from one of Mr. Burke's Speeches, in a future part of this publication. Will he not find the inferiority of Sir Philip so great, as to render it impossible that he should have been the Author of Junius's Letters? On the other hand, will he not find the difference, we do not say in the styles, but in the minds of Junius and Burke, to be such as to render it quite evident that Burke and Junius were not the same person?

Sir Philip Francis's Character of Lord Thurlow.

It is well known that a gross and public insult had been offered to the memory of General Clavering and Colonel Monson, by a person of high rank in this country. He was happy, when he heard that his name was included in it with their's. So highly did he respect the character of those men, that he deemed it an honour to share in the injustice it had suffered. It was in compliance with 'the forms of the House, and not to shelter himself, or out of tenderness to the party, that he forbore to name him. He meant to describe him so exactly, that he could not be mistaken. He declared in his place, in a great assembly, and in the course of a grave deliberation, that it would have been happy for this country, if General Clavering, Colonel Monson, and Mr. Francis had been drowned in their passage to India. If this poor and spiteful invective had been uttered by a man of no consequence or repute, by any light, trifling, inconsiderate person, by a Lord of the Bedchamber, for example, or any of the other silken Barons of modern days, he should have heard it with indifference. But, when it was 'seriously urged and deliberately insisted on by a grave Lord of Parliament-by 'a Judge-by a man of ability and eminence in his profession, whose personal 'disposition was serious, who carried gravity to sternness, and sternness to ferocity, it could not be received with indifference, or answered without resentment. 'Such a man would be thought to have inquired before he pronounced. From

"The Reminiscent has been informed by the present (1824) Bishop of Durham that Sir Philip owed the continuance of his seat in the War-office, to the kindness of Lord Barrington, the Prelate's brother; and that Sir Philip's appointment in India was chiefly, if not wholly, due to his Lordship's recommendation of him to Lord North. After this, if we consider how Junius wrote of Lord Barrington, we cannot be surprised that, if Sir Philip were the Author of Junius's Letters, he should wish it to be unknown."

VOL. XXVII.

Pam.

NO. LIV.

2 D

་

his mouth a reproach was a sentence, an invective was a judgment. The acci. dents of life, and not any original distinction that he knew of, had placed him too high, and himself at too great a distance from him, to admit of any other answer than a public defiance, for General Clavering, for Colonel Monson, and for himself. This was not a party-question, nor should it be left to so feeble an advocate as he was, to support it. The friends and fellow-soldiers of General Clavering and Colonel Monson would assist him in defending their memory. He demanded and expected the support of every man of honour in that House, and in the King'dom. What character was safe, if slander was permitted to attack the reputation of two of the most honourable and virtuous men, that ever were employed, or ever perished in the service of their country? He knew that the authority of this man was not without weight; but he had an infinitely higher authority to oppose it. He had the happiness of hearing the merits of General Clavering and Colonel Monson acknowledged and applauded in terms, to which he was not at liberty to do more than to allude: they were rapid and expressive. He must not venture to repeat, lest he should do them injustice, or violate the forms of respect, where essentially he owed and felt the most. But he was sufficiently understood. The generous sensations, that animate the Royal mind, were easily distinguished from those, which rankled in the heart of that person, who was supposed to be the keeper of the Royal conscience.'

Extract from the Letter of Junius to Lord Mansfield.

You will not question my veracity, when I assure you that it has not been owing to any particular respect for your person, that I have abstained from you so long. Besides the distress and danger, with which the press is threatened, when your Lordship is party, and the party is to be judge, I confess I have been deterred by the difficulty of the task. Our language has no term of reproach, the mind has no 'idea of detestation, which has not already been happily applied to you and exhausted. Ample justice has been done by abler pens than mine to the separate 'merits of your life and character. Let it be my humble office to collect the scattered 'sweets, till their united virtue tortures the sense. Permit me to begin with paying a just tribute to Scotch sincerity, wherever I find it. I own I am not apt to confide in the professions of gentlemen of that country, and when they smile, I feel an in⚫ voluntary emotion to guard myself against mischief. With this general opinion of an ancient nation, I always thought it much to your Lordship's honour, that in your 'earlier days you were but little infected with the prudence of your country. You had some original attachments, which you took every proper opportunity to acknowledge. The liberal spirit of youth prevailed over your native discretion. Your zeal in the cause of an unhappy Prince was expressed with the sincerity of wine, and some of the solemnities of religion. This I conceive is the most amiable point of view, in which your character has appeared. Like an honest man, you took that part in politics, which might have been expected from your birth, education, country and connexions. There was something generous in your attachment to the banished House of Stuart. We lament the mistakes of a good man, and do not begin to detest him until he affects to renounce his principles. Why did you not adhere to 'that loyalty you once professed? Why did you not follow the example of your worthy 'brother? With him you might have shared in the honour of the Pretender's confi'dence with him you might have preserved the integrity of your character, and England, I think, might have spared you without regret. Your friends will say, * perhaps, that, although you deserted the fortune of your liege Lord, you have adhered firmly to the principles, which drove his father from the throne;-that without openly supporting the person, you have done essential service to the cause, and 'consoled yourself for the loss of a favorite family, by reviving and establishing the 'maxims of their government. This is the way, in which a Scotchman's understanding " corrects the errors of his heart. My Lord, I acknowledge the truth of the defence, ⚫ and can trace it through all your conduct. I see through your whole life one uniform 'plan to enlarge the power of the crown, at the expense of the liberty of the subject. To this object your thoughts, words, and actions, have been constantly directed. In ⚫ contempt or ignorance of the common law of England, you have made it your study

'to introduce into the Court, where you preside, maxims of jurisprudence unknown 'to Englishmen. The Roman code, the law of nations, and the opinion of foreign 'Civilians, are your perpetual theme;-but who ever heard you mention Magna Charta, or the Bill of Rights with approbation or respect? By such treacherous arts, the noble simplicity and the spirit of our laws were first corrupted. The Norman conquest was not complete until Norman lawyers had introduced their laws, and reduced slavery to a system. This one leading principle directs your interpretation of 'the laws, and accounts for your treatment of Juries. It is not in political questions only, (for there the courtier might be forgiven,) but let the cause be what 'it may, your understanding is equally on the rack, either to contract the power of the Jury, or to mislead their judgment. For the truth of this assertion I appeal to the doctrine you delivered in Lord Grosvenor's Cause. An action for 'criminal conversation being brought by a Peer against a Prince of the blood, you were daring enough to tell the Jury that in fixing the damages they were to pay no regard to the quality or fortune of the parties;-that it was a trial between A and B ;-that they were to consider the offence in a moral light only, and give no greater damages to a Peer of the realm than to the meanest mechanic. I shall not attempt to refute a doctrine, which, if it was meant for law, carries falsehood and absurdity upon the face of it; but if it was meant for a 'declaration of your political creed, is clear and consistent. Under an arbitrary ⚫ Government all ranks and distinctions are confounded. The honour of a Nobleman is no more considered than the reputation of a peasant; for with different liveries they are equally slaves. Even in matters of private property we see the same bias and inclination to depart from the decisions of your predecessors, which you certainly ought to receive as evidence of the common law. Instead of 'those certain, positive rules, by which the judgment of a Court of Law should be invariably determined, you have fondly introduced your own unsettled notions of equity and substantial justice. Decisions given upon such principles do not alarm the public so much as they ought, because the consequence and tendency of each particular instance is not observed or regarded. In the mean time the practice gains ground; the Court of King's Bench becomes a Court of Equity, and the Judge, in'stead of consulting strictly the law of the land, refers only to the wisdom of the Court, and to the purity of its own conscience. The name of Mr. Justice Yates will 'naturally revive in your mind some of those emotions of fear and detestation, with which you always beheld him. That great lawyer, that honest man saw your whole 'conduct in the light that I do. After years of ineffectual resistance to the pernicious 'principles introduced by your Lordship, and uniformly supported by your humble 'friends upon the Bench, he determined to quit a Court, whose proceedings and deci. sions he could neither assent to with honour nor oppose with success.'

Such, in our opinion, is the state of the question ;-all external evidence is in favour of Sir Philip, all internal evidence is against him. Thus the argument on each side neutralizes the argument on the other, and the pretension of Sir Philip vanishes. A third hypothesis is, therefore, necessary: the conclusion, to which it should lead, ought to be such as is consistent with the evidence on each side, and restores to each its individual activity. Now this is done,-and perhaps can only be done,-by supposing that Sir Philip was not Junius, but the amanuensis of Junius-that the real Junius was too high to be bought, so that, when he made his terms with Government, he was contented to remain in a proud obscurity, but stipulated a boon for his Scribe, and was of consequence enough to insist that the boon should be liberal. Now several passages in Junius's Letters seem to shew that he employed an amanuensis. In a Note to Woodfall (1, 210.) he says: You shall have the Letter some time tomorrow; it cannot 'be corrected and copied sooner.' In another, (1, 214.) he says:'The enclosed, though begun within these few days, has been greatly