328 



NOTES AND QUEEIES. 



[No. 127. 



Whilst on the subject of the Pagets (a very 

 interesting one to nie), I cannot refrain from 

 noticing, even at the risk of encroaching on your 

 space, a singular mistake of Anthony a Wood 

 respecting another writer (though of an entirely 

 different family) of the name of Paget. Speaking 

 of the Rev. Ephraim Paget (Athen. Oxon., vol. ii. 

 p. 5 1 .) he says : 



"One of both his names (his uncle I tliink) trans- 

 lated into English Sermons upon Ruth, Lond. 15S6, in 

 Oct., written originally by Lod. Lavater ; but whether 

 the said Ephraim Paget was educated at Oxon, I 

 cannot justly say, though two or more of his sirname 

 and time occur in our registers." 

 Had Anthony ever seen the book in question, he 

 would have been aware that the title-page informs 

 him that it was translated by Ephraim Pagitt, a 

 child of eleven years of age ; and as, according to 

 the said Anthony's account, Ephraim was born 

 in 1575, he would also at once have seen that 

 Ephraim himself — not that ideal personage, his 

 "uncle of the same name" — was the translator. 



Cranmore. 



■ LETTER TO A BRIGADIER-GENERAL. 



(Vol. v., p, 296.) 



Your correspondent W. C. begins his letter 

 modestly. " If," he says, Thomas Lord Lyt- 

 tleton wrote The Letters of Junius, and "if" 

 Junius wrote the " Letter to the Brigadier- 

 General," then he sees a difficulty. Why, of 

 course he does : but as nobody but the writer in 

 the Quarterly believes thnt the said Thomas did 

 write the Letters of Junius, and as it has never 

 been proved that Junius did write the " Letter 

 to a Brigadier," I must believe that something 

 remains to be done before we proceed a step 

 farther either in the way of argument or inference. 

 Unless some such resolution be come to by in- 

 quirers, we shall never get out of the mazes in 

 which this question has been involved, by like con- 

 ditional statements, and the conditional arguments 

 founded thereon. 



As to the Lyttleton story, I shall dismiss it at 

 once : it is not entitled to the sort of respectability 

 which attaches to a case put hypotheticall^', nor to 

 the honour of an "if;" and I must remind your 

 correspondent that in a Junius question " general 

 belief" is no evidence. Every story, however 

 absurd, once asserted, is " generally believed," 

 until some one (a rare and exceptional case) 

 proves that it is not true — probably that it could 

 not be true. The general belief, for example, that 

 the " Letter to a Brigadier " was written by 

 Junius, is not, so far as I know, supported by a 

 tittle of evidence. It is all assertion and assump- 

 tion, founded on the opinion of A., B., and C, as 

 to " style," &c. Now, as some two dozen different 

 persons have been proved, by like confident opi- 



nions, on like evidence, to be the writer of Junius' s^ 

 Letters, I may be excused when I acknowledge 

 that the test is not with me quite conclusive. In 

 respect, however, to this " Letter to a Brigadier,"" 

 Mr. Britton and Sir David Brewster have pro- 

 ceeded somewhat further. Having, with others, 

 come to the conclusion that Junius was the writer, 

 Mr. Britton proceeds to show that Barre served 

 in Canada under Wolfe, and was the very man, 

 from circumstances, position, and feelings, who 

 could, would, and did write that letter. Sir David 

 endeavours to show that Macleane was in like 

 circumstance, stimulated by like feelings, and was- 

 the veritable Simon ; founding his argument mainly 

 on the belief that Macleane was also serving there 

 as surgeon of Otway's regiment. It has been 

 shown in tlie Athenaeum that Macleane never wa& 

 surgeon of Otway's regiment, and that in all pro- 

 bability he never was in Canada : in brief, that 

 tlie memoir is a mistake from beginning to end. 

 As all, however, that is urged by Sir David in 

 favour of INIacleane, as one who had served under 

 Wolfe, mny be thought to strengthen, to that ex- 

 tent, the claim of Barre, who certainly did so serve, 

 and was severely wounded, let us look at the 

 facts. 



Barre was wounded at the capture of Quebec ; 

 and, under date of Oct. 1759, Knox, in his Historical 

 Journal, says, " Colonel Carlton and Major Barre 

 retired to the southward for the recovery of their 

 wounds." From his letter to Mr. Pitt (Chath. 

 Corr.), we find that Barre was at New York, 

 April 28, 1760. He appears subsequently to have 

 joined Amherst before Montreal ; and on the cap- 

 ture of Montreal, on Sept. 8, 1760, he was ap- 

 pointed to convey the despatches to England, and 

 arrived in London on the 5th October. These are 

 facts public and unquestioned — admitted by Mr. 

 Britton. 



Now for a fact out of the " Letter to a Briga- 

 dier." I could give you half a dozen of like charac- 

 ter, but space is precious, and one, I think, will be 

 sufficient. The writer quotes in extenso a letter 

 written by Townshend, published in The Daihj 

 Advertiser, and dated "South Audley Square, 

 20th June, 1760." Mr. Britton admits that the 

 pamphlet must have been published " some time 

 before the 5 th October, as on that day a Refuta- 

 tion appeared;" it was, in fact, reviewed, or rather 

 abused, in the Critical Review for September. 

 We have proof, therefore, that the " Letter to a 

 Brigadier" was written after 20th June, and 

 founded, in part, on facts known in London only 

 on the 21st of June at the earliest: the proba- 

 bilities are that it was published in August or 

 September, certainly before the 5th October. 

 How then could it have been written by a man in 

 America, serving before Montreal ? L. B. G. 



