to his original as the spurious metal and stamp of the coiner bear to the legitimate currency of the Mint. The essayist despatches Dunning in few words; but admits that he has "the largest aggregate of claim in his favour;" his age, rank, talents, learning, brilliant wit, sarcastic habit, and political principles, attachments, and antipathies, all conspiring to mark him for the man. Dr. Good, however, is of opinion that all these indications are neutralised by various circumstances, the chief of which is that Dunning was Solicitor-General when the Letters first appeared, and for more than twelve months afterwards. That Flood could not be Junius is abundantly proved by a reference to dates. Dr. Good closes his inquiry with a notice of "the pretensions which have been offered on the part of Lord George Sackville," to the validity of which pretensions he has evidently a leaning. He owns, nevertheless, that "it is peculiarly hostile to the opinion in favour of Lord George Sackville, that Junius should have accused him of want of courage." This question has, however, been subsequently argued at great length by Mr. Coventry and by other writers. One thing is certain, namely, that if the anonymous "Letter to a Brigadier General" was, as it indisputably seems to be, from the pen of Junius, Lord George Sackville could not possibly have had any part in the subsequent celebrated political Letters.

Since the date of Dr. Mason Good's Essay (1812), numerous attempts have been made to discover the Author of the Letters, with the aid of the "Private Correspondence," the "Miscellaneous Letters," and other information comprised in Woodfall's edition. These attempts have given rise to several trifling and improbable theories, which have been very imperfectly supported; but amongst the publications which have appeared in the same interval, a few are of considerable importance in the history of this question, from the degree of talent, industrious research, and ingenuity, which their authors have displayed.

It may be useful to the general reader to mention briefly the most important of these works. Beginning with the year 1813, John

BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS ON JUNIUS.

xli

Roche must be referred to as the writer of "An Inquiry concerning the Author of the Letters; in which it is proved by internal as well as by direct and satisfactory evidence, that they were written by the Right Honorable Edmund Burke."-(8vo.) It is needless to say that the "proof" adduced in this volume is utterly valueless; and notwithstanding the very general opinion which formerly prevailed that Burke was connected with the Letters, Mr. Roche's book seems to have excited little notice. The year 1813 witnessed three other publications on Junius: indeed the appearance of Woodfall's edition gave fresh interest to the inquiry, and the magazines of the same and the succeeding year teemed with correspondence on the subject. My friend, the late Rev J. B. Blakeway, published “An Attempt to ascertain the Author of Junius's Letters," (8vo. pamphlet), wherein he ascribes them to John Horne Tooke: an idea so utterly improbable, upon the face of the Letters themselves, that I am at a loss to conceive how my learned and estimable friend could have adopted it. Notwithstanding the veto of Dr. Mason Good, Thomas Girdlestone, M.D., also produced "Facts tending to prove that General Lee was the author of Junius" (8vo., pp. 138); and another work, which attracted considerable notice and discussion, was put forward by Mrs. Olivia Wilmot Serres, in the following confident terms: "Life of the Author of Junius's Letters, the Rev. J. Wilmot, D.D., Fellow of Trinity College, Oxford." (8vo.) In 1815, the Letters were attributed to Richard Glover (generally known, from the title of a poem which he wrote, as "Leonidas" Glover), in a "Leonidas" Glover), in a pamphlet with the following title: "An Inquiry concerning the Author of the Letters of Junius; with reference to Memoirs by a celebrated Literary and Political Character." This improbable idea was followed by another assigning the authorship of the Letters to the Duke of Portland. The advocate of the latter notion, whose name is unknown, advanced his theory in the form of "Letters to a Nobleman, proving a late Prime Minister to have been Junius, and developing the secret motives which induced him to write under that and other signatures."

66

(1816, 8vo.) Dr. Busby is supposed to have been the author of Arguments and Facts" (published in the same year), tending to show that John Lewis de Lolme, the author of a famous Essay on the Constitution of England, was the writer of the anonymous epistles.

In 1816, one of the most popular works on the subject of Junius first made its appearance. This volume bore the names of Messrs. Taylor and Hessey, as publishers, and was considered to be the production of the former,-Mr. John Taylor. It was entitled "The Identity of Junius with a distinguished living character established;" and it first put before the public, in a very able and ingenious manner, the claims of Sir Philip Francis to the authorship of Junius. A "Supplement" to the volume appeared in the succeeding year (1817); and a second edition of the whole was published in 1818. The author of "Junius Identified" displayed great power of reasoning and acuteness of argument in this work, and the singular coincidences which he adduced, in matters of date and fact, between Junius and Sir Philip Francis, induced many critics and general readers to consider the question as settled. But a more scrutinising spirit has since arisen, and the statements and arguments of this writer are found to be inconclusive, whilst the frequent denial of Sir Philip Francis has continued to gain credence. It may be desirable to add, that Mr. Taylor's opinion is supported by Edward Dubois, Esq., formerly the confidential friend and private secretary of Sir Philip, who, in common with Lady Francis, still entertains the conviction that his deceased patron was identical with Junius.

Considerable weight was given to Mr. Taylor's volume by an ad

* The motive assigned in this case was to obtain the restitution of the forest of Inglewood and the manor of Carlisle, of which the Duke of Portland had been deprived by the ministry under the famous "Nullum Tempus" Bill, which Junius opposed. The author says:-"The Duke regains this property; and Junius writes no more."

THEORIES OF BROUGHAM, CHALMERS, COVENTRY, ETC. xliii

mirable notice of it in the "Edinburgh Review," for November, 1817, said to have been written by Lord Brougham; wherein, after analysing the various theories before advanced, the profound and discriminating writer warmly espoused the claims of Sir Philip Francis.

In 1817, the "Supplemental Apology for the Believers in the Shakspeare Manuscripts," by George Chalmers, F.S.A., was published: and that work, itself an able piece of criticism and argument from minute and obscure premises, advocated the pretensions of Hugh Macaulay Boyd to the authorship of Junius. This portion of the "Apology" was reprinted as a pamphlet, and entitled, "The Author of Junius ascertained, from a concatenation of circumstances amounting to moral demonstration."

A good edition of Junius appeared at Edinburgh, in 1822, edited by a person who assumed the cognomen of "Atticus Secundus," and who in a well written preface adopts the theory that Francis was the author of the Letters.

The first writer to dispute Sir Philip's claims with any seriousness, was Mr. George Coventry, who in 1825 produced a "Critical Inquiry regarding the real Author of the Letters of Junius" (8vo., pp. 404), which advocates at considerable length, and with great ability, the opinion that Lord George Sackville was Junius. Of nearly equal merit to Mr. Taylor's volume, this by Mr. Coventry appears to me equally inconclusive.* It, however, met with cordial assent from numerous readers. In America, two writers at once adopted the theory of Mr. Coventry; one in a volume entitled "Junius Unmasked, or Lord George Sackville proved to be Junius” (published, in 1828, at Boston, in the United States); another, in No. 65 of the "North American Review."

The author has since left England for America. One of my correspondents informs me, that he altered his opinion on the subject of Junius, and published a pamphlet in support of the claims of Sir Philip Francis; but all my inquiries have failed to meet with any such essay.

The prevalent opinion, founded on the work by Mr. John Taylor, being thus disturbed, the whole question was re-opened; and the literary public were further gratified in 1828 by the appearance of another elaborate volume on the subject, from the pen of Mr. E. H. Barker, of Thetford, in Norfolk (12mo., pp. 576), wherein the subject is elaborately discussed; the claims of Lord George Sackville and Sir Philip Francis refuted; and those of Charles Lloyd, private secretary to the Honourable George Grenville, zealously and ingeniously, though not very successfully, advocated.

The interest taken in the question in America was further manifested in 1831, by "An Essay on Junius and his Letters, embracing a Sketch of the Life and Character of William Pitt, Earl of Chatham; by Benjamin Waterhouse, D.D.," published at Boston.

A valuable addition to the history of the controversy respecting the authorship of Junius was made in 1841 by N. W. Simons, Esq., of the British Museum, who in that year republished an anonymous "Letter to an Honourable Brigadier General [Lord Townshend], late Commander in Chief of his Majesty's Forces in Canada" (1760). In a Preface, remarkable for simplicity and a complete knowledge of the question at issue, he ascribes this Letter to Junius, and at the same time refutes the supposition that Sir Philip Francis was directly or indirectly concerned in the writing. Mr. Simons's publication is one of considerable interest in connection with the present essay, and will be more fully adverted to in a subsequent page.

Without dwelling upon the numerous, the almost innumerable,— articles in Magazines and Reviews, upon this mysterious subject, it will be sufficient to conclude the present list by adverting to the latest comprehensive work relating to it, which bears the following title:"The History of Junius and his works, and a review of the Controversy respecting the identity of Junius. By John Jaques;" (8vo., 1841, pp. 406); in which, after a complete resumé of the question, the author arrives at the conclusion that Lord George Sackville composed the Letters, and that Sir Philip Francis was his amanuensis; thus combining the theory of Mr. Taylor with that of Mr. Coventry.