Sept. 29. 1855.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



241 



to find probability shocked by the truth, I felt my 

 curiosity piqued to follow out the vein thus 

 strangely opened. My first inquiry was into 

 •whose hands Judge Thruston's effects had come. 

 I ascertained that his nephew, a Mr. William 

 Bradford, of Washington City, was his executor. 

 I immediately addressed a letter to this gentleman, 

 but receiving no answer, concluded that the story 

 was without foundation ; and shortly afterwards I 

 saw in a newspaper a statement that a vellum- 

 bound copy of Junius had been found among the 

 Stowe Papers at Buckingham House in England. 

 I have since learnt that Mr. Bradford was, when 

 my letter was written, in Europe, and that he is 

 still there. It is remarkable that the National 

 Intelligencer of Washington, of October 2, 1848, 

 which was after Judge Thruston's death, an- 

 nounced that " two new works on the authorship 

 of Junius were preparing in America." One has 

 since appeared, Mr. Griffin's book, arguing that 

 Governor Pownall was Junius. Whether the 

 delay of the other has any connexion with the 

 long absence of Judge Thruston's executor in 

 Europe, remains to be seen. When he returns I 

 shall put myself in communication with him, and, 

 should you deem this letter worthy of a place in 

 " N. & Q.," will inform you of the result. 



I am perhaps led insensibly to attach more im- 

 portance to the statement which I have mentioned 

 than it deserves, in consequence of the uncere- 

 monious manner in which some writers have 

 treated a letter of a near and dear relative of 

 mine, of Feb. 1, 1803, published in the Washing- 

 ton Mirror, in which he declared that General 

 Lee had distinctly, though unguardedly, admitted 

 to him the fact of the authorship. My father's 

 character ought to have secured any statement of 

 his from polemical levity. I owe it to his memory 

 to bring to public notice any circumstances tend- 

 ing to confirm it. T. A. Rodnev. 



A Note in Bohn's " Junius." — In Bohn's incor- 

 rect edition of Junius there are notes prefixed to 

 some of the letters. At the end of one of these, 

 vol. i. p. 121., we read : 



" The entire letter is given in the appendix. Junius in 

 the postscript to his No. 5., threatened to answer it, but 

 never fulfilled his intention." 



Can any reader of " N. & Q." explain what con- 

 nexion these two sentences have with the note, of 

 which they form a part ? To me they are a much 

 greater mystery than the authorship of the Letters. 



X. P. D. 



Junius: Anecdote of George IV. (Vol. xii., 

 p. 164.) The misleading tendency of the anec- 

 dote related by Canning, induces me to repeat the 

 caution in a former Note, that in the present state 



No. 309.] 



of the Junius question it is very desirable that no 

 fact should be put forth, or reproduced as evidence 

 of authorship, unless its foundation in truth be 

 first carefully examined and accurately ascertained. 

 The anecdote of George IV. (who, as the head of 

 the " custodians of the secret," certainly knew 

 who Junius was) carries falsehood upon the face 

 of it, for although Ramus might have " handed 

 Garrick's note to the king at tea-time with the 

 play-bill" it could not have been on the evening 

 before Francis embarked for India, for Garrick's 

 note, informing the king that " Junius would 

 write no more," if written at all, must have been 

 written in November, 1771, and Francis certainly 

 did not embark for India before 1773. He did 

 not even quit the War Oflice till March, 1772. 

 Then, indeed, it is highly probable that he hastily 

 left London, and embarked for the Continent.* 

 For, assuming^ that Francis was Barrington'a 

 principal spy and informer, he could no longer 

 show his face at Chesterfield House, nor mix with 

 his former associates with the disreputable cha- 

 racter of traitor to his friend. AVhen called upon 

 by Junius to declare his reasons for quitting the 

 War Office, he was silent. To avoid this and simi- 

 lar troublesome questions, it was very desirable 

 that he should keep out of the way until he was 

 provided for. Nor did a six years' residence in 

 India purify his reputation, for on his return to 

 England we are told that no one would speak to 

 him but the king and Edmund Burke. 



Junius was discovered early in the first week of 

 February, 1772. He was informed of the fact on 

 the 10th of that month ; but Francis remained un- 

 disturbed at the War Office more than six weeks 

 after the Privy Council were in full possession of 

 the secret. It was not till Junius reluctantly 

 consented to take the first step in the negociation 

 for keeping the secret from the knowledge of the 

 public, that Francis quitted the War Office, f He 

 then embarked for tlie Continent, where he re- 

 mained until the king and Lords North and Bar- 

 rington provided a suitable place for him in India, 

 with a salary of 10,000Z. per annum. 



The facts relating to the discovery of Junius in 

 1772 (not here adduced as evidence, but at pre- 

 sent only glanced at), will in due time be laid 

 before the public, and be well authenticated; for 



* Du Bois states that Francis spent the greater part of 

 the year 1772 in travelling over the Continent, but Junius 

 corresponded with Woodfall (see Pub. Ad., 1772) as late 

 as November in that year, and again on Jan. 19, 1773. 

 These simple facts at once destroy the entire hypothesis 

 in favour of Francis. 



f In the first, and perhaps only, interview with Lord 

 Holdernesse, it was very natural that Chesterfield should 

 endeavour to fish out who had been the chief spies em- 

 ployed to discover him. This intemew took place in 

 March, 1772, the same month that Francis left the War 

 OflSce. 



