Sept. 11. 1852.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



239 



the better execution of his office, "all maner of 

 colours, ojle, vernish, workemen, and laborers, as 

 well free as forreyn, and all maner of necessaries 

 and stuff whatsoever, mete and convenyent to be 

 implojed for that service." A duplicate copy of 

 this is in the Lansdowne MS. 1 15., art. 44., which 

 is erroneously described in the Catalogue as the 

 " Queen's Commission, appointing George Gower 

 her Sergeant Painter." According to Walpole, the 

 ordy painter of note remaining in England after 

 1584, was Marc Garrard (for Lucas van Heere 

 died in tliat year, and Zuccaro vras on the con- 

 tinent) ; and although a few other inferior names 

 are mentioned by Meres, in his Wits Cormnon- 

 tvealfh, 1598, among whom are William and Francis 

 Scgar, brethren (see " X. & Q." Vol. 1., pp. 44. 

 469.), he does not notice Gower among them. If 

 we might conclude (as would seem but reasonable) 

 that the Serjeant-Painler of the sovereign would 

 be called on to paint the royal features, it would 

 throw some light on the many portraits still exist- 

 ing, if a correct list could be obtained of the 

 names of those persons who filled the office, and 

 the dates of their appointment. The following 

 may at once be mentioned : 



Andrew Wiight, temp. Hen. YIII. 



John Broune, ditto. 



Anthony Toto of Florence, in 1551. 



Nicholas Lysarde, 1554. Confirmed by Pat. 



2 & 3 Ph. & M., 10 Apr. 1556. He died 



5 Apr. 1570. 

 William Heme, 1572. Succeeded Lysarde by 



Pat. 14 Eliz., 12 July, 1572. 



This last name is equally unknown to Walpole 

 as Gower ; and from the Patent Rolls the list 

 might, no doubt, be made tolerably complete by 

 any one who had the means and leisure to pursue 

 the inquiry. F. Madden. 



THE EARLY PIRATICAL EDITIONS OF JUNIUS. 



What are now called The Letters of Junius 

 appeared in the Public Advertiser between the 

 21^:t Jan. 1769, and — the coincidence has been 

 before noticed — the 21st of Jan. 1772. These let- 

 ters were republished (with a Dedication, Preface, 

 and notes by tlie writer) by H. S. Woodfall, the 

 pi-inter of the Public Advertiser, on the 3rd March, 

 1772. This is not only the first, but the only au- 

 thentic edition of these celebrated letters. It 

 contains all the letters which Junius acknow- 

 ledged. 



It is however known that a letter signed Junius 

 had appeared in the Public Advertiser on the 21st 

 of Nov. 1768. This letter is reasonably believed 

 to have been written by the same jierson ; but there 

 is not, so far as I know, a single circumstance to 

 strengthen the conjecture. I have no wish to raise 

 a doubt on the subject, but simply to notice the 



fact, because, as I believe, it is a fact ; and it is 

 time that writers on this vexed question should 

 begin to distinguish between what is proved or 

 capable of proof, and what is merely probable. 

 Again, it is generally assumed that the letter of 

 Nov. 1768 was the first which appeared by this 

 writer under the signature of Junius. Is that 

 certain ? It may have been — I believe it was — 

 the first so signed which appeared in the Public 

 Advertiser ; but who will venture to assert that 

 this letter first appeared in the Public Advertiser — 

 or was the first letter the writer published under 

 the signature of Junius? Who has examined the 

 cotemporary newspapers ? Where are they to 

 be found ? All that Junius himself says on the 

 subject is in a private note to H. S. Woodfall 

 (No. 7.) in August, 1769 : "I have never written 

 in any other paper since I began with yours." 

 This certainly is not conclusive against the possi- 

 bility. The assertion of some of his cotem- 

 poraries would lead to the belief that Junius had 

 before written in other papers under the same 

 signature ; and a writer in the Gentlemari s Maga- 

 zine some forty years since (1813), said confi- 

 dently, though equivocally as to his exact meaning, 

 "it is well known that the author of Junius 

 assumed that name long before he wrote in the 

 Public Advertiser under that title." I am not 

 disposed to lay much stress on these anonymous 

 assertions ; but what else could be the meaning of 

 Sir Wm. Draper, who, in his letter of 10th Feb., . 

 says— Junius "is determined to keep the advantage 

 by help of his mask .... Whenever he will be 

 honest enough to lay it aside, avow himself, and pro- 

 duce his face ivhich has so long lurked behind it" &c. 

 So long! what, from the 21st of Jan. to the lOth 

 of Feb. ! So far as we know, he had written but 

 two, and if we include that of Nov., but three 

 letters under that signature. Junius assuredly, 

 and even after he had attained his great fame, 

 had no objection to his letters appearing in 

 other newspapers. In Private Letter No. 34. 

 he instructs AVoodfall, if he have any fears or 

 objections, " transmit it to Bingley, and satisfy him 

 that it is a real Junius, worth a North Briton 

 Extraordinary." On another occasion (No. 24.) 

 he says, " If you have any fears, I entreat you to 

 send it early enough to Miller to appear to-morrow 

 night in the London Evening Post. In that case 

 you will oblige me by informing the public to-mor- 

 row, in your own paper, that a real Junius will 

 appear at night in the London''' I do not mean to 

 draw any inferences from these facts, but merely to 

 submit them for consideration. Can any of your 

 curious readers throw a light upon the subject ? 



The letters now known as the Letters of Junius 

 soon attained celebrity. There can be little 

 doubt that Sir William Draper's replies helped 

 to direct public attention to them. They cer- 

 tainly led to the first collected and separate 



