No More Learning

pletest rake of the day, had brought Wilkes's obscene Essay on Woman before the House
of Lords in a speech of extraordinary hypocrisy.


## p. 398 (#424) ############################################

398 Political Literature (1755—75)
place among his works, was, unfortunately, both hideous in subject
and extravagantly exaggerated in execution.
We find, in fact, that Churchill's talent remained almost
stationary during the four years of his poetic industry. Crab-
apples, according to Johnson, he produced from the first; and such
his fruits remained to the end. He never shows the greater quali-
ties of either of his two chief English predecessors in satire-either
those of Pope whom he underrated, or those of Dryden whom he
admired. His wit, though strong, is never exquisite. His characters
are vividly and trenchantly described; but they do not live to our
imagination. His good sense cannot be said to rise to wisdom;
and he is deficient in constructive skill. The Prophecy of Famine
is, after all, an ill-proportioned mixture of satiric epistle and
satiric eclogue; while his other satires have little unity except
what is provided by the main object of their attack. Although
he justly ridicules some of the current phrases of contemporary
lesser poetry, he cannot be said himself to rise superior to
eighteenth-century conventions. His incessant personifications,
'Gay Description,' 'Dull Propriety,' are, in the end, wearisome;
and many of his humorous couplets, constructed after the fashion
of the time, rather seem like epigrams than are such. His real
forte consisted in a steady pommelling of his adversary; with all
his fierceness and prejudice, acidity and spite were foreign to his
nature.
As a metrist, Churchill can claim some originality. He
uses the heroic couplet of the day with fresh freedom and
effectivity. At first, in The Rosciad, he can hardly be said to
form his paired lines into periods. Then, in The Epistle to
William Hogarth, the last line of his paragraph has a closing
sound and really ends a period. Perhaps, it was his long involved
sentences, compiled of many clauses, which led him, in later pieces,
to a further change. From time to time, he uses enjambement,
and even, by means of it, breaks up his couplets ? .
Churchill so overtops his rivals in political verse that they
scarcely seem worth mentioning. Mason, his frequent butt as
a writer of pastorals—'Let them with Mason bleat and bray
and coo'-shrouded himself in political satire under the name
Malcolm Macgregor? Falconer, a naval officer, attacked Pitt
.
a
from the court point of view. But both of these, and even
1 Cf. , for the effect gained by this occasional variation, Independence, ll. 199–206.
? As to Mason, cf. ante, chap. VI. 3 As to Falconer, cf. ante, chap. VII.


## p. 399 (#425) ############################################

Political Prose Pamphlets. Candor 399
Chatterton in his Consuliad', merely illustrate their inferiority
to Churchill.
Prose was far more effective than verse in the political con-
troversies which followed Bute's resignation. The weekly essay,
in its old form, died out gradually ; but the flood of pamphlets
continued. They were in a more serious vein than formerly.
Measures rather than men were in dispute, not so much because
the public taste had changed, as because the more prominent
politicians, with the exception of Pitt, presented few points of
interest. The ability of many of these numerous pamphlets is
undeniable. Some leading statesmen had a share in them. We
find such men as George Grenville, an ex-prime minister, and
Charles Townshend, leader of the House of Commons, defending
or attacking current policy in this fashion. Others were written
by authors of literary eminence. Edmund Burke published a
celebrated tract in defence of the first Rockingham ministry? ;
Horace Walpole was stirred to address the public concerning the
dismissal of general Conway in 1764; latest of all, Johnson took
part as a champion of the government during the agitation about
the Middlesex election, and in opposition to the accusations
of Junius. Perhaps, however, the more effective among these
pamphlets were due to political understrappers. Charles Lloyd,
Grenville's secretary, wrote a series in support of his patron's
policy, including a clever reply to Burke. Thomas Whateley, ,
secretary to the treasury, defended the same minister's finance.
These and their fellows worked with more or less knowledge of
the ground, and, if their special pleading be conspicuous, they also
dispensed much sound information.
Two pamphlets, which appeared in 1764, and dealt with the
constitutional questions raised by the prosecution of Wilkes,
stand well above their fellows in ability and influence. The first
appeared, originally, as A Letter to The Public Advertiser, and was
signed 'Candor. ' It was an attack on Lord Mansfield for his charge
to the jury in the Wilkes case and on the practice of general
warrants. With a mocking irony, now pleasant, now scathing, the
author works up his case, suiting the pretended moderation of his
language to the real moderation of his reasoning. The same
writer, we cannot doubt, under the new pseudonym 'The Father
of Candor,' put a practical conclusion to the legal controversy in
his Letter concerning Libels, Warrants, etc. , published in the same
1 Cf. ante, chap. x.
? A Short Account of a Short Administration, 1766. (See bibliography. )


## p. 400 (#426) ############################################

400
Political Literature (1755—75)
year. This masterly pamphlet attracted general admiration, and
its cool and lucid reasoning, varied by an occasional ironic humour,
did not meet with any reply. Walpole called it the only tract that
ever made me understand law. The author remains undiscovered.
The publisher, Almon, who must have known the secret, declared
that ‘a learned and respectable Master in Chancery' had a hand
in it? . Candor's handwriting has been pronounced that of Sir
Philip Francis ? ; but, clearly, in view of Almon's evidence, he can
only have been part author; and the placid, suave humour of the
pamphlets reads most unlike him, and, we may add, most unlike
Junius.
Candor's first letter had originally appeared in The Public
Advertiser, and there formed one of a whole class of political
compositions, which, in the next few years, were to take the fore-
most place in controversy. Their existence was due to the shrewd
enterprise of the printer Henry Sampson Woodfall, who had
edited The Public Advertiser since 1758. In addition to trust-
worthy news of events at home and abroad, Woodfall opened his
columns to correspondence, the greater part of which was political.
He was scrupulously impartial in his choice from his letter-bag.
Merit and immunity from the law of libel were the only conditions
exacted. Soon, he had several journals, such as The Gazetteer,
competing with his for correspondents; but The Public Adver-
tiser's larger circulation, and the inclusion in it of letters from
all sides in politics, enabled it easily to distance the rival prints
in the quality and quantity of these volunteer contributions.
George III himself was a regular subscriber; it gave him useful
clues to public opinion. The political letters are of all kinds-
denunciatory, humorous, defensive, solemn, matter-of-fact, rhetori-
cal and ribald. Their authors, too, were most varied, and are now
exceedingly hard to identify. Every now and then a statesman
who had been attacked would vindicate himself under a pseudonym;
more frequently, some hanger-on would write on his behalf, with
many professions of being an impartial onlooker. There were
independent contributors; and small groups of minor politicians
1 Anecdotes of Eminent Persons, vol. 1, pp. 79, 80. Almon's words obviously imply
that the master in chancery was still living in 1797. He wrote again, in 1770, both
anonymously and under the name Phileleutherus Anglicanus (Grenville Correspond-
ence, vol. fi, pp. clxxvi sqq. , where the resemblance in manner to the Candor pamphlets
is made obvious by extracts).
2 Parkes, Memoirs of Sir Philip Francis, vol. 1, pp. 74–81 and 99—101. A fac-
simile of Candor's handwriting is given in vol. II, plate 5.


## p. 401 (#427) ############################################

Letters in The Public Advertiser 401
si
BB
would carry on a continuous correspondence for years. But neither
single authors nor groups can be easily traced through their com-
positions. As is natural, their style seldom helps us to identify
them. They wrote the current controversial prose, and, after 1770,
their prose is tinged with a Junian dye. The pseudonyms throw
little light on the matter. There was no monopoly in any one of
them, and the same author would vary his pseudonyms as much as
possible, chiefly with intent to avoid discovery and the decrease
of credit which his communications might undergo if he were
known, but, also, to provide sham opponents as a foil to his argu-
ments and to create an illusion of wide public support for his views.
A good instance of the letter-writers was James Scott, a
preacher of repute. In 1766, he contributed a series of letters
to The Public Advertiser, signed 'Anti-Sejanus. ' They were
written in the interests of Lord Sandwich, and assailed, with much
vehemence, the supposed secret intrigues of Bute. Scott used
many other pseudonyms, and wrote so well that his later letters,
which show Junius's influence in their style, were republished
separately. From a private letter written by him to Woodfall",
we learn that he, too, was a member of a group who worked
together. Another writer we can identify was John Horne, later
known as John Horne Tooke and as the author of The Diversions
of Purley. He began to send in correspondence to the news-
papers about 1764; but his celebrity only began when he
became an enthusiastic partisan of Wilkes in 1768. Under the
pseudonym ‘Another Freeholder of Surrey,' he made a damaging
attack on George Onslow', and, on being challenged, allowed
the publication of his name. The legal prosecution which fol-
lowed the acknowledgment of his identity, in the end, came to
nothing, and Horne was able to continue his career as Wilkes's
chief lieutenant. But the cool unscrupulousness with which
Wilkes used the agitation as a mere instrument for paying off his
own debts and gratifying his own ambitions disgusted even so
warm a supporter as Horne. A quarrel broke out between them
in 1771 concerning the disposal of the funds raised to pay Wilkes's
debts by the society, The Supporters of the Bill of Rights, to which
both belonged. Letter after letter from the two former friends
des
MTD
i
Cat
fort
6
1 Parkes, Memoirs of Sir Philip Francis, vol. 1, pp. 130—1. Parkes, as usual with
him in the case of the abler letters previous to 1769, attributes · Anti-Sejanus' to
Sir P. Francis. 'Anti-Sejanus' should probably be distinguished from ‘Anti-Sejanus
junior,' in 1767, who is likely to be Junius.
a Celebrated as the single member of the House of Commons who said that No. 45
was not a libel. '
E. L X.
CH. XVII.
26


## p. 402 (#428) ############################################

402
Political Literature (1755—75)
appeared in The Public Advertiser. Horne, who, perhaps, had
the better case, allowed himself to be drawn off into long petty
recriminations on Wilkes's private life. Indiscreet expressions of
his own were brought up against him, and the popularity of
Wilkes, in any case, made the attempt to undermine him impossible.
Yet ‘parson Horne' had his triumph, too. The redoubtable
Junius entered the controversy on Wilkes's side; Horne retorted
vigorously, and proved the most successful critic of the greater
libeller's productions. In truth, Junius's letters owed much of
their success to his victims' inability to rebut his insinuations by
giving the real facts in transactions which were necessarily secret.
Horne's record was clear; he had no dignity to lose; he could pin
Junius down by a demand for proof. Yet, even allowing for these
advantages, his skill in dissecting his adversary's statements and
his courage in defying the most formidable libeller of the day are
much to his credit as a pamphleteer. Before long, Junius was
glad to beat a retreat.
It was in the autumn of 1768 that the political letters of the
unknown writer who, later, took the pseudonym of Junius, gained
the public ear. But we know from his own statement that,
for two years before that date, he had been busy in furtive,
assassinating polemic; and it is possible that a careful search of
newspaper files would result in the discovery of some of his earlier
performances of 1766 and 1767. The time when he appears to
have begun letter-writing tallies well with the objects pursued by
him during the period of his known writings. He was an old-
fashioned whig, and a warm, almost an impassioned, adherent of
the former prime minister, George Grenville. Thus, the accession
to power, in July 1766, of the elder Pitt, now Lord Chatham, with
his satellite, the duke of Grafton, after a breach with Lord Temple,
Grenville's brother, and their adherents, most likely, gave the
impulse to Junius's activity. It was not, however, till October 1768
that he became clearly distinguishable from other writers in The
Public Advertiser. By that time, Chatham's nervous prostration
had rendered him incapable of transacting business, and the duke
of Grafton was acting as prime minister in an administration
which had become mainly tory. For some reason or other,
Junius nursed a vindictive and unassuageable hatred against the
duke, which it seems difficult to attribute only to the rancour of
a partisan. The weakness of the loosely constructed ministry,
too, would tempt their adversary to complete their rout by a
1 Grenville Correspondence, vol. iv, p. 380.
1


## p. 403 (#429) ############################################

The Letters of Junius
403
storm of journalistic shot and shell. So, Junius, sometimes under
his most constant and, perhaps, original signature 'C. , some-
times under other disguises, continued to add to the fury and
cruel dexterity of his attacks. "The Grand Council' ridiculed the
ministers’ Irish policy and their methods of business. A legal job
which was attempted at the duke of Portland's expense furnished
another opportunity. Nor was Junius content with these public
efforts to discredit his foes. In January 1768, he sent Chatham
an unsigned letter, full of flatteries for the sick man and of sug-
gestions of disloyalty on the part of his colleagues. For the time
being, however, Chatham continued to lend his name to the
distracted ministry, which staggered on from one mistake to
another. Those on which Junius, under his various aliases, seized
for animadversion were small matters; but they were damaging,
and his full knowledge of them, secret as they sometimes were,
gave weight to his arguments. His ability seemed to rise with
the occasion: the 'prentice hand which may have penned 'Pop-
licola's' attacks on Chatham in 1767 had become a master of
cutting irony and merciless insinuation, when, as 'Lucius,' he, in
1768, flayed Lord Hillsborough. The time was ripe for his ap-
pearance as something better than a skirmisher under fleeting
pseudonyms, and the series of the letters of Junius proper began
in January 1769. They never, however, lost the stamp of their
origin. To the last, Junius is a light-armed auxiliary, first of the
Grenville connection, then, on George Grenville’s death in 1770,
of the opponents of the king's tory-minded ministry under Lord
North. He darts from one point of vantage to another. Now
one, now another, minister is his victim, either when guilty or
when unable to defend himself efficiently. Ringing invective, a
deadly catalogue of innuendoes, barbed epigrams closing a scornful
period, a mastery of verbal fencing and, here and there, a fund
of political good sense, all were used by the libeller, and
contributed to make him the terror of his victims. The choice
and the succession of the subjects of his letters were by no
means haphazard. His first letter was an indictment of the
more prominent members of the administration. It created a
diversion which made the letter-writer's fortune, for Sir William
Draper, conqueror of Manilla, rushed into print to defend an old
friend, Lord Granby. Thoroughly trounced, ridiculed, humiliated
and slandered, he drew general attention to his adversary, who
then proceeded to the execution of his main design. In six
letters, under his customary signature or the obvious alternative
26-2


## p. 404 (#430) ############################################

404
Political Literature (1755—75)
Philo-Junius, he assailed the duke of Grafton's career as man and
minister. Meanwhile, the agitation provoked by Wilkes's repeated
expulsion from the commions, and his repeated election for Middle-
sex, was growing furious; and, in July 1769, Junius, following the
lead of George Grenville, took up the demagogue's cause. For
two months, in some of his most skilful compositions, he urged the
constituency's right to elect Wilkes. Then, as the theme wore out,
he chose a new victim. Grafton's administration depended on his
alliance with the duke of Bedford, one of the most unpopular men
in England. Junius turned on his foe's ally with a malignity
only second to that which he displayed against Grafton himself.
A triumphant tone begins to characterise the letters, for it was
obvious that the Grafton ministry was tottering to its fall; and
Junius decided on a bolder step. His information was of the best,
and he was convinced that the king had no intention of changing
his ministerial policy, even if Grafton resigned. The king, then,
must be terrorised into submitting to a new consolidated whig
administration. The capital and, I hope, final piece,' as it was called
by Junius, who was conscious of his own influence with the public
though he much overrated it, was an address to the king which
contained a fierce indictment of George III's public action since
his accession. It was an attempt to raise popular excitement to
a pitch which would compel George to yield. But the libeller
placed too much trust in his power over the ruling oligarchy and
gave too little credit to the dauntless courage and resolution of
the king. Lord North took up the vacant post of prime minister;
and his talent and winning personality, assisted by the all-pre-
vailing corruption and by the very violence of the opposition in
which Junius took part, carried the day. It was the House of
Commons which kept Lord North in power, and to its conquest the
angry opposition turned. Junius now appears as one of the fore-
most controversialists on Wilkes's election, and as champion of the
nascent radical party forming under Wilkes's leadership in the
city of London. Other matters, also, were subjects of his letters,
such as the dispute with Spain concerning the Falkland islands,
and the judicial decisions of Lord Mansfield; but they are all
subordinate to his main end. Ever and anon, too, he returns, now
with little public justification, to the wreaking of his inexplicable
hatred on the duke of Grafton, 'the pillow upon which I am
determined to rest all my resentments. But the game was up.
Clearly, neither king nor commons could be coerced by an outside
agitation, which, after all, was of no great extent. The quarrel of


## p. 405 (#431) ############################################

Personal Character of the Letters 405
Wilkes and Horne wrecked the opposition in the city. Junius
saw his scale kick the beam, and it was only the too true report
conveyed by Garrick to the court, in November 1771, that he
would write no more, which induced him to pen his final attack
on Lord Mansfield, with which the collected letters close.
Junius vanishes with the publication of the collected edition of
his letters. It was far from complete. Not only are the letters
previous to 1769 omitted, but many of inferior quality or of
transient interest, written during the continuance of the great
series, usually under other pseudonyms, are absent. And, more
remarkable still, there are certain letters of 1772, after the Junian
series had closed, which he very anxiously desired not to be known
as his, and which passed unidentified for years. Under fresh
pseudonyms, such as ‘Veteran,' he poured forth furious abuse on
Lord Barrington, secretary at war. The cause, in itself, was
strangely slight. It was only the appointment of a new deputy
secretary, formerly a broker, Anthony Chamier, and the resigna-
tions of the preceding deputy, Christopher D'Oyly, and of the first
clerk, Philip Francis. But, trifling as the occasion might be, it was
sufficient to make the cold and haughty Junius mouth with rage. .
Junius follows the habit of his fellow-correspondents in dealing
very little with strictly political subjects. Personal recrimination
is the chief aim of his letters, and it would hardly be fair to con-
trast them with those of a different class of authors, such as Burke,
or even with the product of the acute legal mind of Candor.
Yet,
when he treats of political principles he does so with shrewdness
and insight. He understood the plain-going whig doctrine he
preached, and expounded it, on occasion, with matchless clearness.
What could be better as a statement than the sentences in the
dedication of the collected letters which point out that the liberty
of the press is the guarantee of political freedom and emphasise
the responsibility of parliament? And the same strong common
sense marks an apophthegm like that on the duke of Grafton-
Injuries may be atoned for and forgiven; but insults admit of no compen-
sation. They degrade the mind in its own esteem, and force it to recover its
level by revenge.
Yet these sentences betray in their sinister close the cast of
Junius's mind. There is an evil taint in his strength, which could
not find satisfaction in impartial reasoning on political questions.
This partisanship merges at once into personal hatred, and his
rancour against his chief victim, Grafton, can hardly be accounted


## p. 406 (#432) ############################################

406
Political Literature (1755—75)
6
for on merely political grounds. His object is to wound and ruin,
not only to overthrow. Scandal, true or false, is the weapon of
his choice. The great boar of the forest,' as Burke called him,
loved the poison in which he dipped his tusks, and took a cruel
pleasure in the torture he inflicted. Secure in his anonymity, no
insult or counter-thrust could reach him. With frigid glee, he
retorts upon accusations, which, of necessity, were vague and wide,
by plausible insinuations against his opponents. “To him that
knows his company,' said Dr Johnson, it is not hard to be
sarcastic in a mask. And Junius, thus gripped with the obvious
realities of his position, found no reply to this sarcasm.
But, however much he owed to his concealment and to his re-
markable knowledge of the vulnerable points of his quarry (and,
be it added, to the cunning with which he selected for his attack
men who could not produce their defence), Junius holds a high
position on his own literary merits. He was the most perfect
wielder of slanderous polemic that had ever arisen in English
political controversy. Not lack of rivals, but eminent ability,
made him supreme in that ignoble competition. In invective which
is uninformed by any generosity of feeling he stands unequalled.
His sentences, brief, pithy and pungent, exhibit a delicate equi-
librium in their structure. Short as they are, their rhythm goes
to form the march of a period, and the cat-like grace of their
evolution ends in the sudden, maiming wit of a malign epigram.
Direct invective, lucid irony, dry sarcasm mingle with one another
in the smooth-ranked phrases. A passage on George III and
Grafton will show to what excellence Junius can rise:
There is surely something singularly benevolent in the character of our
sovereign. From the moment he ascended the throne there is no crime of
which human nature is capable (and I call upon the recorder] to witness it)
that has not appeared venial in his sight. With any other prince, the
shameful desertion of him in the midst of that distress, which you alone had
created, in the very crisis of danger, when he fancied he saw the throne
already surrounded by men of virtue and abilities, would have outweighed
the memory of your former services. But his Majesty is full of justice, and
understands the doctrine of compensations; he remembers with gratitude
how soon you had accommodated your morals to the necessities of his service;
how cheerfully you had abandoned the engagements of private friendship,
and renounced the most solemn professions to the public. The sacrifice of
Lord Chatham was not lost upon him. Even the cowardice and perfidy of
deserting him may have done you no disservice in his esteem. The instance
was painful, but the principle might please.
Junius possessed to perfection the art of climax.
1 Jas. Eyre, later chief justice, in whose court there bad lately been condemned
for murder two or three persons, who received the royal pardon.


## p. 407 (#433) ############################################

The Mystery of Junius 407
The anonymity which he marvellously preserved enabled
Junius to maintain that affectation of superiority which dis-
tinguished him. Never before were mere scandals and libellous
diatribes presented with such an air of haughty integrity and
stern contempt for the baseness of jacks-in-office. We have to
make an effort in order to remember that this lofty gentleman,
above the temptation of a common bribe,' is really engaged in
the baser methods of controversy, and cuts a poor figure beside
Johnson and Burke. But, from his impersonal vantage ground,
he could deliver his judgments with more authority and more
freely display the deliberate artifice of his style. Its general
construction will appear from the passage on Grafton which has
been quoted above. But he also uses a more shrouded form of
innuendo than he there employs. He was very ingenious in com-
posing a sentence, or even a whole period, of double meaning, and
in making his real intent peculiarly clear withal. Perfect lucidity,
indeed, is one of his chief literary qualities. In his most artificial
rhetoric, his meaning is obvious to any reader. His wit, too, is of
high quality, in spite of his laboured antitheses. It has outlived
the obsolete fashion of its dress. It far transcends any trick of
words; as often as not, it depends on a heartless sense of comedy.
'I should,' he wrote to the unhappy Sir William Draper, ‘justly be
suspected of acting upon motives of more than common enmity to
Lord Granby, if I continued to give you fresh materials or occasion
for writing in his defence. ' He needs, we feel, defence himself.
The best apology, perhaps, that can be offered for him is that he
was carrying on an evil tradition and has to be condemned chiefly
because of his excellence in a common mode.
Something, too, of his celebrity is due to the mystery he
successfully maintained. The wildest guesses as to his identity
were made in his own day and after. It was thought at first that
only Burke could write so well, and most of the eminent con-
temporaries of Junius have, at one time or another, been charged
with the authorship of the letters. Fresh light was cast on the
problem by the publication, in 1812, of his private letters to Wood-
fall, with specimens of his handwriting, and subsequent research has
at least laid down some of the conditions which must be satisfied if
his identity is to be proved. Among them, we may take it that a
coincidence of the real life of the author with the hints regarding
himself thrown out in the letters is not to be expected. It was part
of Junius's plan to avoid giving any real clue, and he was anxious
to be thought personally important. But there are more certain


## p. 408 (#434) ############################################

408
Political Literature (1755—75)
data to go upon. The very marked handwriting of Junius is well
known, although, to all seeming, it is a feigned hand. The dates of
the letters show when the author must have been in London. His
special knowledge is of importance. He had an inner acquaintance
with the offices of secretary at war and secretary of state, and he
was very well informed on much of the doings of contemporary
statesmen and on the court. His politics show him to have been
an adherent of George Grenville, who was anxious to draw Lord
Chatham into alliance with the thoroughgoing whigs, and turn out
the king's chosen ministers. The latter he hated to a man; but he
had a singular antipathy to Grafton and Barrington? His power
of hating is characteristic. We must find a man proud and malig-
nant, yet possessed of considerable public spirit and of a desire for
an honest, patriotic administration. Finally, we require a proof of
ability, in 1770, to write the letters with their merits and defects.
Later writings, even when tinged with the admired Junian style,
are but poor evidence. Nor is the inferior quality of a man's
later productions an absolute bar to his claims. He may have
passed his prime.
Perhaps it is not too bold to say that the only claimant who
fulfils the majority of these conditions is Sir Philip Francis.
In his case, also, there are corroborative circumstances of weight;
and, although, with our present knowledge, we cannot definitely
state that he was the author of the letters, yet it is pretty clear
that he was concerned in their production. Sir Philip was an
Irishman, the son of that elder Philip Francis who was also a pam-
phleteer. He was born in Dublin on 22 October 1740, but was bred
in England at St Paul's school. In 1756, he obtained a clerkship
in the secretary of state's office, and accompanied Lord Kinnoul
on his embassy to Portugal in 1760. From 1762 to 1772, he held
the post of first clerk at the war office, which he resigned in
obscure circumstances only to be appointed a member of the
governor-general's council in India next year. His long feud
there with Hastings brought him into public notice, and, after his
return to England in 1781, he became the relentless engineer of the
prosecution of his enemy. Failure, however, alike attended these
efforts and his hopes of political office. He gave up, in 1807, the
seat in parliament which he had held from 1784. He survived to
see the claim put forward that he was the author of Junius; but he
died, without either admitting or denying the fact, on 23 December
1 Next to the Duke of Grafton, I verily believe that the blackest heart in the
kingdom belongs to Lord Barrington. ' Junius to Woodfall, Letter 61.


## p. 409 (#435) ############################################

The Franciscan
Theory
409
1818. He had married twice and left descendants by bis first
wife.
Though this career was not humdrum, yet the earlier part of it
by no means corresponded with the fancied importance of Junius,
and John Taylor, who declared for Francis's authorship in 1814,
showed an adventurous spirit in his thesis. Nevertheless, the
arguments he collected then, and those since added by his ad-
herents, form a strong array. The all-important handwriting has
been assigned to Francis by expert evidence; four or five Junian
seals were used by him, and, since Francis's undisguised hand
appears in a dating on the Junian proofs along with the feigned,
while the feigned hand directs the envelope of a copy of verses
dated 1771 and shown, by absolutely independent evidence', to
be of Francis's composition, it seems impossible to avoid the
conclusion that Francis was Junius's collaborator, if not Junius
himself. The same result is obtained from the facts that
Junius used, and vouched for, a report made by Francis of
one of Chatham's speeches in December 1770, and that an
unacknowledged Junian letter signed 'Phalaris' can hardly have
been written without Francis's cooperation, employing, as it does,
Francis's very words in a letter to Chatham? Again, Francis's
presence in London tallies remarkably with the dates of the
letters: When he is absent, Junius is silent. In less external
matters, Francis had that experience of the offices of war and
state which is marked in Junius. His politics were identical with
those of the libeller, and he was at the time engaged as a jackal
of the declining politician Calcraft, in the labour of effecting
a junction of Chatham and the Grenvilles. Calcraft and Lord
Temple, the latter a veteran patron of libellers, may well have
given him court intelligence not otherwise obtainable. Calcraft,
again, at the time of his death in 1772, was, obviously, under great
obligations to Francis for services rendered: he leaves him a
legacy and prescribes his nomination to a pocket-borough of
his own. If Junius's remorseless hatred of the duke of Grafton
1 The verses, copied out by Francis's cousin, Tilghman, and addressed in the
feigned Junian hand, were sent to a Miss Giles at Bath, in the winter of 1770—1.
Later, before this copy was the subject of investigation, Sir P. Francis gave his second
wife another copy, in his own hand and on a portion of the same sheet of paper
as Miss Giles's copy, among other specimens of his early verses.
2 See the article by Sir Leslie Stephen in The English Historical Review, April
1888. The letter to Chatham was sent through Calcraft.
3 Yet the evidence here is rather negative than positive. See Hayward, More about
Junius.


## p. 410 (#436) ############################################

410
Political Literature (1755—75)
remains unexplained though some insult received by Francis in
the course of his official duties is an easy supposition—the fury he
manifests against Barrington in 1772 is in precise harmony with
the mysterious retirement of D'Oyly and Francis which partly
forms the theme of that attack. Then, the characters of Junius
and Francis markedly coincide. The same pride, the same fierce
hatreds, the same implacable revenge and the same good intention
towards the public interest meet us in both. Even the seeming
improbability of Junius's hostile reference to Calcraft is paralleled
by Francis's readiness, when piqued, to put the worst construction
on his friends. At the same time, a difficulty arises in the question
as to Francis's ability to write the letters. True, there are Junian
turns in his productions of later date. He shares that trait with
many writers, and, high though his reputation as a pamphleteer
was, we must admit that, if he was Junius in 1770, under his own
name in 1780 he was a cooling sun.
To sum up, the letters of Junius seem to be brought home to
a small group which included Calcraft, Francis and, perhaps, Lord
Temple? They passed through Francis's hands, and he is their
most likely author. He evidently wished to be thought so; but, if
he was, the malignant talent they displayed could only develop
in secrecy, or, perhaps, his prime was short. He remains in his
real character a pretender only, in his assumed, a shade: stat
nominis umbra.
In Junius, we have the culmination of a series of political
writings; but his merits and defects do not exhaust theirs. Abuse
and slander and political hatred are continually to be found in all.
These blameworthy features should not obscure the quantity of
solid facts and serious argument put forward for the public
information, in many able and honest pamphlets and letters. It
is easier for posterity than it was for the writers to judge of their
fairness and accuracy; not so easy, perhaps, to perceive that, with
their open discussion and criticism, they were the chief safeguards
of the responsibility of government to public opinion.
1 The explanation may lie hid in the lost Junian letter to the duke, signed • Lucius,'
and seen by Henry Bohn (Lowndes's Bibliographer's Manual, see bibliography).
2 Temple has even been claimed as the author of the Letters (Smith, W. J. , Grenville
Papers, see bibliography); but, beyond the facts that he, doubtless, approved their
purpose and was a patron of virulent pamphleteers and himself a pamphleteer, there
does not seem to be corroboration of this theory. It is true that Lady Temple's
handwriting had a strong resemblance to that of Junius. But Temple would hardly
have sent anonymous letters to his brother-in-law, Chatham, written in a hand which
the latter must have known well.
9


## p. 411 (#437) ############################################

BIBLIOGRAPHIES
CHAPTER I
RICHARDSON
I. COLLECTED EDITIONS
Works, with a sketch of his life and writings by Mangin, E. 19 vols. 1811.
Novels. In Ballantyne's Novelists' Library, with a life by Sir Walter Scott.
3 vols. Edinburgh, 1824.
Ed. Stephen, L. , with a prefatory chapter of biographical criticism.
12 vols. 1883.
With introduction by McKenna, E. M. M. 20 vols. 1902.
Complete Novels. With life by Phelps, W. I. 18 vols. New York,
1901-3.
A Collection of the Moral and Instructive Sentiments, Maxims, Cautions,
and Reflections, contained in the Histories of Pamela, Clarissa Harlowe,
and Sir Charles Grandison, digested under proper heads. 1755.
a
a
II. SEPARATE NOVELS
Pamela, or Virtue rewarded. In a series of familiar letters from a beautiful
young damsel to her parents. 2 vols. 1740. 4 vols. 1741-2. 10th edn.
1771. Abridged 1817. Rptd 1891. Transl. into French by Prévost
d'Exiles, A. F. 4 vols. Amsterdam, 1742-3. Another version, 1771.
The following are the direct adaptations of Pamela for the French
stage: Boissy, Louis de, Paméla en France, ou La Vertu mieux éprouvée,
Paris, 1745. Voltaire, Nanine, Paris, 1749. Nenfchâteau, François de,
Pamela, Paris, 1795. Goldoni's adaptations for the Italian stage, Pamela
Fanciulla and Pamela Maritata, both appeared in 1750.
An Apology for the life of Mrs Shamela Andrews, in which the many
notorious falsehoods and misrepresentations of a book called
Pamela are exposed. By Conny Keyber. 1741.
As to Fielding's Joseph Andrews, see bibl. to chap. II, post.
Pamela censured in a letter to the Editor, shewing that under the
specious pretence of cultivating the principles of virtue. . . the
most artful and alluring amorous ideas are conveyed . . . . 1741.
Pamela's conduct in high life. (Sequel to Richardson's novel. ) 1741.
Povey, C. The Virgin in Eden. To which are added Pamela's
Letters proved to be immodest romances. 1741.
Clarissa; or the History of a young Lady, comprehending the most important
concerns of private life, and particularly shewing the distresses that may
attend the misconduct both of parents and children in relation to
marriage, published by the Editor of Pamela. 7 vols. 1748. 2nd edn,
8 vols. , 1749–51; 7th edn, 8 vols. , 1774. In Mrs Barbauld's British


## p. 412 (#438) ############################################

412
Bibliography
Novelists, with prefaces biographical and critical. 1810. Abridged by
Dallas, E. S. 1868.