Sn-' S. V. 124., May 15. '68.] NOTES AND QUlERIES. 



399 



the Letters of Junius is now confined within a 

 very narrow circle. One of the latest writers on 

 the subject, M. de Remusat, in his Angleterrc 

 iiu dixhiiHieme SUde, after a long and elaborate 

 dissertation upon the claims of various competi- 

 tors, ingeniously sums up the questions which 

 should be propounded for the candidates : — 



"Queletait le caractbre moral du personnage? Puis 

 viennent les deux autres questions, celle de la politique, 

 et celle du talent. Si maintenant Ton considere sous ce 

 triple rapport les candidats qui nous ont le plus occupe, 

 Lord Temple, Lord George Sackville, Sir Philip Francis, 

 voici I'ordre dans lequel il nous parait qu'on pent les 

 ranger. Pour le talent, aucun n'ogale Junius; niais 

 Francis est celui qui en approche le plus, Sackville qui en 

 approche le moins. I'our la politique, les analogies sont 

 en faveur d'abord de Temple, puis de Sackville, puis de 

 Francis; pour le caractfere tous trois peuvent etre .Junius. 

 Sackville aurait ete conduit par le ressentimeut d'un or- 

 geuilmortellementblesse; Francis par une nature profon- 

 deinent malveillante ; Temple, par toutes les passions de 

 la politique. Sackville aurait agi comme un ennemi qui 

 se venge ; Temple serait un ambitieux ; Francis une libel- 

 liste." 



The claims of Lord George Sackville are now 

 quite obsolete, I have reason to believe that even 

 the late Mr. Croker, his most influential sup- 

 porter, had changed the opinion which he once 

 advocated in the Quarterly Review. 



For Sir Philip Francis there may be still 

 remaining some few who cling to the theory 

 wliich has occasionally been supported by noble 

 names ; but I must express my confident belief 

 that such support has been given on slender 

 grounds, and without sufficient personal examina- 

 tion, and rather founded on statements which have 

 subsequently been proved erroneous. I select, for 

 instance, the astounding observations of Lord 

 Campbell, in his Lives of the Chancellors, that 

 there is overwhelming evidence to prove that Sir 

 Philip Francis delivered the manuscript to Wood- 

 fall. Many persons who do not take the trouble 

 of " readingup " this question for themselves, may 

 be induced to believe this to be the truth, because 

 it is vouched by so high an authority as the Lord 

 Chief Justice of England. I take leave to say, — 

 assertion for assertion, — that there is not a tittle 

 of evidence such as Lord Campbell describes, not 

 the slightest shadow of pretence or approach to it 

 of any kind ; and I regret that I must, with all 

 due respect, add my belief that Lord Campbell 

 now knows that there is no ground for it, and 

 yet, although his attention has been directed to 

 this mis-statement, he still sufiers it to remain in 

 his new revised and corrected edition, lately pub- 

 lished. If I have stated more than the truth on 

 this subject, I desire and deserve to be corrected 

 for my presumption. I forbear to mention other 

 ] icrsons of note, because I think they are deceived 

 ill having taken too much for granted, instead of 

 reading and judging for themselves. If ever 

 there was a question which required much read- 



ing, this is one, and of which it may truly be 



said — 



" Drink deep, or taste not of the Junius spring." 



Besides I have conclusively shown that the opin- 

 ions of Francis and Junius were diametrically op- 

 posite upon the important question of the Stamp 

 Act, and the Taxation of America. Junius ever 

 supported the cause of authority with Mr. Gren- 

 viile, and Francis, speaking on that subject, de- 

 clares " on the principles, and in the language of 

 Lord Chatham, I rejoice that America resisted," Sfc. 



Francis being disposed of, there remains only 

 Lord Temple, as " master of the situation." 



I write now with more confidence than I did 

 five years ago : I have read more, and thought 

 more, and the consequences are that my convic- 

 tion is still stronger. Nothing has been offered 

 by criticism to shake my belief; nothing has been 

 said but that which may be described as matter 

 of opinion only, not in the least affecting the 

 soundness of my theory, — amounting in fact to 

 this, and no more, that Lord Temple " could not 

 if he would, and would not if he could," — which I 

 take to be a mere gratis dictum. I have abun- 

 dantly proved by his writings that he could, and 

 by his opinions, as recorded in the history of his 

 times, that he toovld. In sliort, his character, his 

 station, his politics, his opinions, his friendships, 

 his resentments, his relative position towards the 

 chief persons mentioned, his presumed motives, — 

 all these form such a combination of qualities and 

 coincidences as cannot be found in any other 

 person who has hitherto been named for the au- 

 thorship of Junius. William James Smith. 



THE first edition OP PARADISE LOST. 



(2°o S. V. 322.) 



No one can admire the magnanimity of Milton 

 more than I do, and the simplicity of the title- 

 page of his great poem is admirable, but we must 

 not suppose that he would have spurned prelimi- 

 nary encomiums, had they been forthcoming of a 

 kind that would do him "honour due." 



It is true that the title-page of the second edi- 

 tion of Paradise Lost is equally simple, stating 

 only that it was " Revised and Augmented by the 

 same Author," yet he did not disdain to prefix to 

 it the Latin panegyric of Dr. Samuel Barrow, in- 

 scribed — 



"In 



Paradisum Amissam 



Surami Poetae 



J O H A N N 1 S Ml L T O N I," 



and commencing — 



" Qui legis Amissam Paradisum, grandia magni 

 Carmina Miltoni, quid nisi cuncta legis? " 



as well as the admirable English verses of Andrew 



