164 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[2«><iS. No35.,AtJG. 30, '56. 



virulent as Junius ? " The newspapers of that 

 day contained no articles such as are now called 

 leadinuf articles. They published news, and oc- 

 casionally inserted letters from correspondents, 

 commenting on public events. But original com- 

 positions, similar to the Letters of Junius, were 

 not regularly published by the newspapers till 

 about the beginning of this century. Moreover, 

 if these articles had appeared at the time, they 

 would have been anonymous ; and if they had 

 been written with the same force and pungency as 

 the Letters of Junius, there would doubtless have 

 been an equal curiosity to know their authors. 



The merits of the Letters of Junius are not of a 

 high order, but they are precisely of that nature 

 which rendered them effective as engines of party 

 and personal attack. Partly from their style, 

 partly from their boldness, and partly from the 

 secret information which their author possessed, 

 they produced a powerful influence at the time. 

 They have ever since formed the model for the 

 •writers of our daily press, and the secret of their 

 authorship has always continued to be an interest- 

 ing question, not simply because it is a secret, but 

 because it is a secret whicli, in the judgment of 

 the public, is worth knowing. L. 



Francis, Junius. — My attention was drawn to 

 the following passage in reading Rogers's Table 

 Talk. It may perhaps be worth preserving among 

 your notes on this subject : 



" My own impression is that the Letters of Junius were 

 written by Sir Philip Francis. In a speech which I once 

 heard him deliver at the Mansion House, concerning the 

 partition of Poland, I had a striking proof that Francis 

 possessed no ordinary powers of eloquence." — P. 272. 



Query, Could any of your correspondents inform 

 me when this speech was delivered, and where, if 

 at allj I can find it reported ? An Old Patjune. 



Was Daniel Wray Junius ? — It is now gene- 

 rally understood that the claims of Sir Philip 

 Francis as the writer of the Letters of Junius 

 have been disproved. I therefore desire to draw 

 your attention to an Ingenious work by a Mr. 

 Falconer, called The Secret Revealed, published 

 in 1830, at a tirtie when no one would listen to 

 him, because we were then all Franciscans. 



Who Mr. Falconer was I know not ; nor shall 

 I trouble you with his speculations generally. 

 His argument is to prove that Daniel Wray was 

 Junius ; and he adduces one or two facts which 

 are startling. What I want is, that some of your 

 ingenious corresponderlts would show how the 

 *' marvellous coincidences," as he calls them, can 

 be explained without admitting the " unity of aii- 

 thorship ? " 



It is stated in the " Preliminary Essay " to the 

 edition of 1812, that the fifty-ninth letter is the 



one with which Junius had originally intended to 

 conclude ; but that, as Junius himself says. Gar- 

 rick's communication to the King, " has literally 

 forced me to break my resolution of writing no 

 more." (Vol. i. p. 238.) On this Mr. Falconer 

 observes : 



« On the 18th Nov. 1771, Wray thus writes to Lord 

 Hardwicke : ' Had I persevered in that apparently wise 

 resolution to write no more,' &c. Tliis in itself amounts tO 

 little, but 1 request attention to what follows. 



" The communication made b^' Garrick to the King, 

 announcing that Junius would write no more, carries with 

 it still stronger evidence of Wray's being the architype of 

 Junius. So strong, indeed, as to exclude all doubt, it is 

 presumed, of the fact: for VVray not only gives the same 

 intimation to his correspondent, Lord Hardwicke, but 

 actually assigns the very cause, and prefixes the precise 

 day on which Junius designed to conclude his corre- 

 spondence in that character, had he not been forced by 

 Garrick, as he expresses himself, to break his resolution 

 of writing no more. 



" The fifty-ninth letter of Junius, on what the author 

 calls the unhappy differences which had arisen among the 

 Friends of the People, is the one with which he had ori- 

 ginally intended to conclude. . . That letter is dated 

 October 5, 1771. Six days previously [Sept. 29, 1771] 

 (mark that J), Wray writes to Lord Hardwicke as 

 follows : 



" * . . , Nash will carry his election, &c. &c. These 

 proper attentions may satisfy the good people of England 

 for a month, accompanied by the finishing dose of Junius 

 on Saturday.'' In perfect accorcfance with this decided 

 intimation, the intended finishing dose did appear. The 

 5th of Oct., 1771, was on a Saturday." 



1 agree with Mr. Falconer that the coincidence 

 is Startling, and I ask, how can it be explained ? 



An Enquirer. 



ILLUSTRATIONS OF MACAULAT. 



'' The Plotting Levite." — 



With a handful of Sorrow and Grief I am drawn 

 To tell you the truth of the Parsons at Land, 

 And a new swearing brood not in Bufl" but in 



Lawn, 

 The humble Devotants to Lewis le Grand ; 



Conscience, Conscience, nothing but Con- 

 science 

 Nothing but Conscience made them forbear, 

 Nothing but Conscience, nothing but Con- 

 science 

 Nothing but Conscience made them forswean 



A Council of Six, alt pious and good, 

 Jure divino every one. 

 For Popery, Plotting, Sedition and Blood ; 

 And praying devoutly as right as a gun ; 



Conscience, Conscience, nothing but Con- 

 science, 



Nothing but Conscience made them to plot. 



Nothing but Conscience, nothing but Con- 

 science : 



Honour and Loyalty they had forgot. 



