44 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[2»d S. Vl. 133., July 17. '58. 



a letter to which allusion was made in the memoir of Sir 

 P. Francis published in the Monthly 3Iirror in 1810. 

 Written in the year in which Junius ceased to write, it 

 was thought this letter would afford a much safer crite- 

 rion forjudging of Sir Philip's style than any of his pub- 

 lished writings, the earliest of which appeared several 

 years after Junius had ceased to write. In this private 

 letter Francis speaks of that king whom Junius so 

 fiercely denounced, "as a great and good king who does 

 honour to a throne ; " and, as the following extract shows, 

 ■well might Francis write gratefully of George the Third : 

 " The Athenceum has evei held that it was not within 

 the range of human weakness or baseness, for a Francis, 

 either father or son, to have written with scorn, contempt, 

 and hatred of the king : yet that scorn, contempt, and 

 hatred are marking characteristics of Junius — Mackin- 

 tosh thought them the marking characteristics. The 

 King was the very breath of their life — the bread they 

 ate came from his bounty. The Doctor, indeed, was a 

 personal favourite with llie King, and both father and son 

 •were prodigally favoured and rewarded, though there is 

 no mention of this in the Memoir. The Doctor, if we 

 mistake not, had more than one Crown living; certainly, 

 that of Barrow, in Suffolk. In 1702 he had a grant of a 

 pension of 600/. a year for thirty-one years on the Irish 

 Fund. In 1763 his son Philip was raised at once from a 

 junior clerk in the Secretary of State's office, to be chief 

 clerk of the War Office. In 1764 the Doctor was ap- 

 pointed chaplain to Chelsea Hospital, an appointment 

 which we have reason to believe he soon after sold for 

 an annuitj' ; and in the same year he had an additional 

 grant of 300/. a year from the King's Civil List! In 

 17il-2, Pliilip Francis had some difference with Lord 

 Barrington, then Secretary at War, and resigned ; but he 

 was in 1773 recommended by that same Lord Barrington 

 to a much better place — Member of the Council of I3en- 

 gal. Barrington was not a man whose recommendation 

 to a Prime Minister would have ensured the humblest 

 appointment ; be was not a leader of either of the great 

 parties which then divided the nation ; but he was the 

 direct nominee of the King, and did his bidding ; one of 

 the King's Friends, as they were called, which, by acting 

 in concert, carried to either side a majority, and ensured 

 a triumph. Lord North accepted Barrington's recom- 

 mendation, although, as Francis afterwards acknowledjjed. 

 Lord North at that time had no ' personal knowledge' of 

 him whatever. We cannot doubt that the King ' did it 

 all' — that Barrington had orders to recommend and Lord 

 North to accept the recommendation ; and thus the form 

 of the constitution was kept up. The King — as we now 

 know from his letter to Lord North, June 8, 1773 — bad 

 a high opinion of the ability of Philip Francis; — "I 

 don't know the personal qualifications of others, except Mr. 

 Francis, who is allowed to be a man of talents." There 

 is reason to believe that Fiancis, while in India, corre- 

 sponded privately with Lord North or the King ; certain 

 that his letters were received by or submitted to the 

 King, who expressed his ' fullest approbation ' of his con- 

 duct; and it is said in ^The Memoir' that, when Francis 

 returned to England, ' nobody would speak to him but the 

 King and Edmund Burke.' To us, therefore, this out- 

 burst of feeling about ' the great and good prince ' seems 

 more characteristic of a Francis than a Junius." 



But let the reader turn to the letter itself — see whetiier 

 the style resembles that of Junius, and even if he should 

 see, which we do not, any points of resemblance, — then 

 pause before he slanders the memory of Sir P. Francis bj' 

 pronouncing him to have been Junius.] 



The '■'■Letters of Caiiana." — Can any readers "of 

 " N. & Q." throw light upon the authorship of the 



pamphlet described in the following extract from 

 Mr.,Hotten's Adversaria : — 



" It may, perhaps, interest the readers of Adversaria to 

 know that a curious and remarkable Junius pamphlet was 

 lately sold at a book sale in London. The title of the 

 tract is. Twelve Letters of Canana ; or, the Impropriety of 

 Petitioning the Kirig to Dissolve the Parliament, 8vo., pri- 

 vately printed, 1770. In the sale catalogue it was justly 

 described as ' of the gkeatest karity, if not UNIQUE.' 

 The following description was also added : — 'A most re- 

 markable pamphlet, unmentioned by all bibliographers. 

 It contains a violent attack on Junius, whom the writer 

 evidently knew, as in p. 37. are the following lines : — 

 " When I consider this author as a man of rank and for- 

 tune, as one that has refused great offers, and one who it 

 is impossible ever should be known (and all these things 

 I must believe, for he has told me them himself), I la- 

 ment his quality, I grieve for his indiscretion 



I never told to whom these formidable papers were al- 

 ways sent before they were permitted to be published ; I 

 never explained why, of all the Ministers in your time, 

 in or past the chair, one only never was abused by 

 Junius. For these things might have led to a discovery 

 I had no wish to make," ' &c. The appearance of the 

 pamphlet justifies the conclusion that it was privately 

 printed ; and we should imagine but very few copies 

 were struck off, perhaps not more than half-a-dozen. On 

 the title is a curious woodcut engraving of a coat of arms. 



"It was suggested at the time of the sale that this 

 might give a clue either to the author or to Junius. Mr. 

 Boone purchased the pamphlet for 2/. 



"A distinguished bookseller arrived just as the hammer 

 decided its future ownership, and he boldly declared he 

 would have given 51. rather than have missed it. The 

 British Museum will, in all probability, be the repository 

 of this singular printed document."* 



Anon. 



Junius' Letters to Wilkes. — Presuming that "K. 

 & Q." is now seen by many more readers than 

 when the question " Where are the original MSS. 

 of Junius' Letters to Wilkes?" was inserted in 

 the 3rd volume of the 1" Series, p. 241., will you 

 permit me to repeat it? Mr. Hallam, as it ap- 

 pears by his letter to " N. & Q. (1" S. iv. 476.), 

 returned them to the late Peter EUnsley, Princi- 

 pal of St. Alban's Hall, some time previous to the 

 death of that gentleman, which took place in 1824 

 or 1825. Since that event all traces of them have 

 disappeared. Is it known what became of Mr. 

 Elmsiey's books and papers ? I have heard that 

 tUey are in Edinburgh. Can any of your Edin- 

 burgh correspondents throw light upon the point? 



M. J. L. 



Single- Speech Hamilton said to be Junius. — 

 The-following, taken from the Political Magazine, 

 for January, 1787 (p. 65.), points out Single- 

 Speech Hamilton. The italics are in the ori- 

 ginal : — 



" Anecdote o/ Junius. — The Letters of Junius having 

 exciteii the admiration of all Europe, it may not be un- 

 acceptable to our readers to make them acquainted with 

 the elegant author of them. Not long before Junius ter- 

 minated his literary career, the Duke of R — ch — d was 



[* It was purchased for the British Museum. — Ed. 



"N. & Q."] 



