July 9. 1853.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



31 



^uttie^. 



TTAS THOMAS LORD XYTTELTON THB AUTHOR OP 

 JUNIUS'S LETTERS ? 



In the Quarterly Review for 1852 (vol. xc. 

 No. 179.) appeared a clever and speciously writ- 

 ten article on the long debated question of the 

 identity of Junius, in which the writer labours at 

 great length to prove that Thomas, second Lord 

 Lyttelton, who died in 1779, was the real sub- 

 stance of the shadow of Junius, hitherto sought in 

 vain. That this Lord Lyttelton was fully com- 

 petent to the task, I do not doubt ; and that there 

 are many points in his character which may well 

 be reconciled with the knowledge we possess of 

 the imaginary Junius, I also admit — but this is 

 all. The author of the review has wholly failed, 

 in my opinion, to prove his case ; and the remark 

 he makes on ISIr. Britton's theory (as to Col. Barre) 

 may equally well apply to his own, namely, that 

 it affords " a [another] curious instance of the 

 delusion to which ingenious men may resign them- 

 selves, when they have a favourite opinion to up- 

 hold ! " The reviewer, indeed, admits that he has 

 " traced the parallel from the scantiest materials;" 

 and in another passage repeats, that but " few 

 materials exist for a sketch of Thomas Lyttelton's 

 life." Of these materials used by the reviewer, 

 the principal portion has been derived from the 

 two volumes of letters published in 1780 and 1782, 

 attributed to Lord Lyttelton, but the authorship 

 of which has since been claimed for William 

 Coombe. The reviewer argues, that they are 

 "substantially genuine;" but evidence, it is be- 

 lieved, exists to the contrary.* According to 

 Chalmers, these letters were " publicly disowned" 

 by the executors of Lord Lyttelton ; and this is 

 confirmed by the notice in the Gentleman's Maga- 

 zine for 1780, p. 138., shortly after the publication 

 of the first volume. Putting aside, however, this 

 moot-point (which, I trust, will be taken up by 

 abler hands, as it bears greatly on the theory ad- 

 vanced by the author of the Review}, I proceed to 

 another and more conclusive line of argument. 

 In the Preliminary Essay, prefixed to Wood fall's 

 edition of Junius, 1812 (vol. I. p. *46.), the follow- 

 ing statement Is made in regard to that writer, 

 the accuracy of which will scarcely be doubted : 



" There js another point in the history of his life, 

 during his appearance as a public writer, which must 

 not be suffered to pass by without observation : and 

 that is, that during a great part of this time, from Janu- 

 ary 1769 to January 1772, he uniformly resided in 

 London, or its immediate vicinity, and that he never 

 quitted his stated habitation for a longer period than a 

 few weeks." 



* I have been unable to refer to these letters, as no 

 copy exists in the British Museum library. 



Now, do the known facts of Thomas Lyttelton's 

 life correspond with this statement or not ? The. 

 reviewer says, p. 115. : 



" For a period of three years after Mr. Lyttelton 

 lost his seat* — that period during which Junius wrote 

 his achnoivledged compositions — we hardly find a trace: 

 of him in any of the contemporaneous letters or me- 

 moirs that have fallen under our observation." 



But how is it, let me ask, that the author of the 

 review has so studiously avoided all mention of 

 one work, which would at once have furnished 

 traces of Thomas Lyttelton at this very period ?' 

 I allude to the volume of Poems by a Young- 

 Nobleman of distinguished Abilities, lately deceased, 

 published by G. Kearsley : London, 1780, 4to. 

 Does not this look much like the suppressio veri. 

 which follows close on the footsteps of the assertio 

 falsi ? It is hardly credible that the reviewer- 

 should not be acquainted Avith this book, for he 

 refers to the lines spoken In 1765, at Stowe, in the 

 character of Queen Mab, which form part of its 

 contents; and the existence of the work Is ex- 

 pressly pointed out by Chalmers, and noticed by 

 Lowndes, Watt, and other bibliographers. Among 

 the poems here published, are some which ought 

 to have received a prominent notice from the 

 author of the review, if he had fairly stated the 

 case. These are : 



1. Lines "to G e Ed d Ays — gh, Esq., 



[George Edward Ayscough, cousin to Thomas Lyt- 

 telton] /rowi Venice, the 20th July, 1770." — P. 22. 



2. " An Irregular Ode, wrote at Vicenza, in Italy, the, 

 20lh of August, 1 770."— P. 29. 



3. " On Mr. , at Venice, in J , 1770." 



4. "An Invitation to Mrs. A — a D , wrote at 



Ghent in Flanders, the 23rd of March, 1769." — P. 41. 



5. "An Extempore, by Lord Lyttelton, in Italy, anno 

 1770." — P. 48. 



Admitting that these poems are genuine. It is 

 evident that their author, Thomas Lyttelton, was 

 abroad in Flanders and Italy during the years 

 1769 and 1770; and consequently could not have 

 been the mysterious Junius, who In those years 

 (particularly In 1769) was writing constantly in. 

 or near London to Woodfall and the Public 

 Advertiser. Of what value then is the assertion 

 so confidently made by the reviewer (p. 133.) : 



" The position of Thomas Lyttelton in the five year& 

 from 1767 to 1772, is exactly such a one as it is rea- 

 sonable to suppose that Junius held during the period< 

 of his writings ; " 



or how can It be made to agree with the fact of 

 his residence on the Continent during the greater 

 part of the time ? 



* As M. P. for Bewdley. He was returned in, 

 1768, and unseated in January, 1769. 



