and §, No 10,, Mar. 8. °56.] 
NOTES AND QUERIES. 
185 
LONDON, SATURDAY, MARCH 8, 1856, 
Potes. 
WHO WAS JUNIUS ? 
The following Notes are to be understood not 
as a report of all the speculations and discussions 
on this vexed subject which have -from time to 
time appeared in the newspapers and magazines, 
and in Preliminary Essays and Introductions to 
the various editions of the Letters, but simply as a 
bibliographical account of the controversy. 
The first substantigg work, so far as I know, 
was, — 
“ Anecdotes of Junius; to which is prefixed the King’s 
Reply. Southampton. $8vo.” 
This is a mere reprint of Anecdotes of the Author, 
prefixed to the edition of 1771, with “ Piccadilly ” 
in the title-page; and the writgg assumes that 
Edmund Burke was the author of the Letters. 
In or about 1789 a pamphlet was published by 
Philip Thicknesse, entitled, — 
“ Junius Discovered. By P.T. London: Fores.” 
in which he ‘advocated the claims of Horne 
Tooke. 
I ought not, I presume, to include in this list 
the Miscellaneous Works of Hugh Boyd, 1800, al- 
though I doubt whether Boyd’s Works would have 
been either collected or published, but that Mr. 
pbell hoped in the memoir prefixed to prove 
that Boyd was Junius. Be this as it may, about 
the same time appeared as a separate pamphlet, — 
«“ An Appendix to the Supplemental Apology for the 
Believers in the supposititious Shakspeare Papers: being 
the Documents for the opinion that Hugh Me Aulay Boyd 
wrote Junius’s Letters. By George Chalmers, F. R.S. S.A. 
London: Thomas Egerton. 1800.” 
The next special publication, so far as I know, 
was not till 1807, when Dr. Girdlestone pub- 
lished, — 
“Reasons for rejecting the presumptive evidence of 
Mr. Almon, that Mr. Hugh Boyd was the writer of Junius, 
with passages selected to prove the real author of the 
Letters of Junius.” 
Mr. Almon’s “presumptive evidence” was pre- 
fixed to his edition of Junius’s Letters, published 
in 1806 ; and the “ real author,” according to Dr. 
Girdlestone, was General Lee. I have never seen 
this pamphlet, but it was, I believe, republished, 
with additional facts and arguments by Dr. Gir- 
dlestone in 1813. This was followed by — 
“Another Guess at Junius, and a Dialogue between 
Mr. Pitt, father and son. London: Hookham. 1809.” 
in which.the claims of Chatham, as the writer, 
were enforced. 
The edition of Junius in 1812, with the private 
letters to the printer, gave new life to the contro- 
versy, and amongst the earliest publications on 
the subject was, — 
“An Attempt to ascertain the Authors of the Letters 
published under the signature of Junius. By the Rev. 
rie Blakeway, M.A.,F.S.A. Shrewsbury: W. Eddowes. 
To this “A Sequel” was published by Mr. 
Blakeway in 1815. 
Mr. Blakeway concludes, rejoicingly, that he has 
“proved” that Horne Tooke was the writer, “an 
historical fact which will not hereafter be dis- 
puted.” The same year produced the following : 
“The Life of the Author of the Letters of Junius, the 
Rey. James Wilmot, D.D., &c. By his niece, Olivia 
Wilmot Serres. London: Williams. 1813.” 
“Facts tending to prove that General Lee was never 
absent from this country, for any length of time, during 
the years 1767, 1768, 1769, 1770, 1771, 1772, and that he 
was the author of Junius. By Thomas Girdlestone, 
M.D. London: P. Martin. 1813.” 
«“ An Enquiry, concerning the Author of the Letters of 
Junius; in which it is proved, by internal, as well as by 
direct and satisfactory evidence, that they were written 
by the laté Right Hon. Edmund Burke. By John Roche, 
Esq. London: J. Carpenter. 1813.” 
“A Discovery of the Author of the Letters of Junius, 
founded on such evidence and illustrations as explain all 
the mysterious circumstances and apparent contradictions 
which have contributed to the concealment of this ‘ most 
important secret of our times.’ London: Taylor and 
Hessey. 1813.” 
Here “all the mysterious circumstances and 
apparent contradictions” were explained by the 
assumption that Dr. Francis was ‘the author.” 
The proofs, however, were not considered con- 
clusive by the public, and the pamphlet was soon 
followed by, — 
“ An Enquiry concerning the Author of the Letters of 
Junius, with reference to the Memoirs by a celebrated 
literary and political Character. London: John Murray. 
1814.” 
The intention was to show from the “ Memoirs,” 
that Glover, the author of Leonidas, was the 
writer. This was followed by, — 
« Arguments and Facts demonstrating that the Letters 
of Junius were written by John Lewis de Lolme, LL.D., 
Advocate. Accompanied with Memoirs of that ‘ most in- 
genious foreigner, &c. By Thomas Busby, Mus. Doc., 
author of a translation of Lucretius. London: Sherwood 
& Co. 1816.” 
“Letters to a Nobleman, proving a late Prime Minister 
to have been Junius; and developing the secret motives 
which induced him to write under that and other signa- 
tures. With an Appendix, containing a celebrated case, 
published by Almon in 1768. London; Longman & Co. 
1816.” 
The “late Prime Minister” was the Duke of 
Portland. F 
The “ distinguished living character” of the 
next pamphlet was Sir Philip Francis : 
“The Identity of Junius with a distinguished living 
character established. London; printed for Taylor and 
Hessey, Fleet Street. 1816,” 
To this was subsequently added : 
“ A Supplement to Junius Identified, consisting of fac- - 
similes of handwriting and other illustrations. Taylor & 
Hessey: 1817. 8yo,” 
