The Press. — London, England, 1854-06-24 00:00:00

JUNE 24, 1854. to observe how, undeterred by previous failures, each new " discoverer" persists in overlooking all facts which tell against his theory, or in perverting them so as to support it. Governor composition is extremely loose and slovenly, and, because acute critics have dis covered grammatical slips in Junius, Mr. Griffin states gravely : The impartial reader will no doubt bear this in mind whenever he catches the Governor tripping in his grammar, and will set down any occasional defect in grammatical construction as another presumption in favour of the Go vtruor's identity with Junius. It can scarcely be worth while to follow the chain of reasoning of which the above is a From the specimens here given of 'Governor Pownall's writing, it seems to us quite certain that he could not have penned the letters of Junius, and that he was animated neither by his motives nor his principles. The boldness with which. Junius defied in quiry, and the accomplishment thus far of his eniphatic declaration, " I ain the sole depo " sitary of my own secret, and it shall perish " with ine," have greatly contributed to his fame. There are power and grandeur in the strength of will which could thus voluntarily abjure posthumous renown, and could sweep away every trace of, its identity. Modern in quiry, so far from dispelling the " clouds and " darkness" in which " the unknown god" of Mr. Wilkes's political idolatry shrouded him self, seems but to thicken it by increasing the number of pretenders to his throne. The publication of the Chatham and Grenville papers increases our admiration of his activity, and generally sustains that impression of his character derived froth. his acknowledged writings, yet supplies no additional clue to his identity. He still remains as unknown as when with his own hand * he penned his cele brated " Dedication to the English People." Tried by his own test, the reviewer who first put forward Thomas LAtelton has failed to establish his case. " When the true man is found," he wrote, " uncertainty will cease, as truth is, from its very nature, progressive." But no new evidence has been adduced in support of his theory, though many objections have been urged to it. Junius himself is often contradictory, and his critics are continually at fault. Some maintain that he Must, from the gradual improvement in his style, his ardour, audacity, and dissoluteness, have been a young man, while others hold that he was of mature age ; some fancy they can detect in his expressions his Irish origin, while others point tc his constant use of the word " English" to negative the notion. It has generally been assumed that he was a man of family and sta tion ; but one critic, who undertakes the task of correcting all others, hints that he is to be sought in a much lower rank. Not having time for the inquiry himself, he is generously willing to set others on the track of some pa triotic John Gilpin of the day—au absurd crotchet, which could only have been suggested by a vain desire of obtaining distinction for originality. This critic, though very sharp on the con jectures of others, has been singularly unlucky in his own. He soundly abused Wootlfall's edition for negligence, and questioned the antbenticity of the great bulk of the papers included under the title of " Miscellaneous." Among these papers were some signed Cor reggio, and the piece headed the " Grand Council," Our critic, after urging that the printer's notice to " C.," in reference to the Grand Council, was meant for Correggio alone, and not for the initial adopted by Junius, gives us this rare proof of his critical saga city It appears to us that in tone, temper, style, policy, principles, party views, prejudices, likings and dislikings, the writings of Correggio and those on the Grand Council differ absolutely from the known writings ofJunins. Some traces perhaps of Wilkes's style may be discovered. And then follows what the critic takes to be evidence in support of his view, wound up by sneers at Dr. Good and Woodfall for printing the composition as a piece of Junius, and by his own conclusion that there " is more evi " dence in favour of Wilkes than can be ad • We say with his own baud because every new IS. disco vered exhibits distinctly the peculiar penmanship ofJunius, and proves that from his most laboured compositions to the hurried corrections on a proof•sheet no second baud was ever employed. woo..Jr THE PRESS. " duced in favour of Junius." Unluckily for this critic's reputation, there was printed among the Grenville papers that remarkable letter by Junius in which he acknowledged with some pride this very composition of the Grand Council to be his own : The Grand Council was mine, and I may say with truth almost everything that has for two years past at• tracted the attention of the public. And so is extinguished in an instant the carp ing criticism which was to set aside the edi tion of Woodfall as a work of authority. The blunder, from its amusing combination of ignorance and conceit, is worth preservation among the curiosities of criticism. The Lyttelton surmise has found an angry opponent in Sir David Brewster, who, riding a hobby of his own, is characteristically in tolerant of any one else amusing himself after the same fashion. He surlily styles his brother-reviewer in the Quarterly an " anony inous " writer; as if it were customary in periodical literature for contributors to append their names to their papers. His article in the North British is full of errors of all kinds — from such mistakes in judgment as that the ruffianism of Junius would be more excusable if it proceeded froth private than from public Motives, down to such literal blunders as frinting, " head" for heart, and " duration" or deviation. tie announces as a dis tiovery that them is in existence a collec on of poems by Thomas Lyttelton, some dated From Italy in 1779, termed by Sir David " Junius's busiest year." At first sight this seems to tell against Lyttelton's claim; but these Lyttelton poems stand on no better toot ing as to authenticity than the Lyttelton letters which Sir David unhesitatingly pro nounces to be "shameless forgeries.' The poems were issued at about the same date as the letters, and were equally a catchpenny publication. The letters, indeed, were treated with most respect in the reviews of the day. " They contain," says Nicholls, in his " Lite rary, Anecdotes," "several lively strokes or " wit and fancy, and even of good sense and " good thinking, and do his lordship much " more honour than his pretended poems." it is unreasonable, then, to regard one publi cation as genuine and the other as spurious. But, assuming that Thomas Lyttelton did circulate those profligate verses among his friends, why thould he 90 particularly have affixed precise dates to theta ? Why date one piece " Ghent, 23rd March, 1709," and others " Venice, 20th July, 1770," and " Vicenza, 20th August, 1770 "? Such particularity is unusual. And so flit. suspicious. There is nothing irra tional ill the supposition that Juniiis, Who made so sure of the absolute security of his disguise, should have represented himself at inarticular times as distant from the real scene of his labours. Such an artifice—the Old Bailey alibi—would be consistent with the fains we know he took to divert suspicion rom his person, and with the great fear of dis covery he felt or feigned, though Sir David's assertion that, " if found, he would have " been hung at Tyburn and embowelled as a " traitor" partakes of the wildness which often possesses his mind in treating this subject. The dates to the poems, however, may, at any rate, be taken as some sort of evidence that " bad Tom " was really in Italy in some part of the summer of 1770. But this year was very far from being, as Brewster terms it, " the busiest year of Junius." He does not appear to have addressed any note to Wood fall in that year between the 18th of March and 19th of October. Under the signature of Junius he wrote nothing between the 28th of May and the 22nd of August following. For up wards of six weeks (from 7th of July to 22nd of August) he was entirely silent; and, sup posing that he had resolved to divert sus picion, what more likely than that he would make a rapid journey to a distant place, and represent himself as abiding there, when his purpose was but to remain long enough to despatch a few letters to mislead people as to his whereabouts. It is worth noting that, in the Lyttelton letters (which, supposing them to be manufactured, may be tolerably correct on points of fact), Lyttelton is actually repre sented as being in London at the time when he represented himself to be on the Con tinent. We have looked through the poems. 593 Some of them are mero fragments : in one in stance a perfect copy, giving a far higher idea of the talents of the writer, is to be found in other publications. But, such as they are, they strongly resemble Junius's verses, Harry and Nan," and in sentiment his celebrated letter signed " Junia." Quitting this doubtful ground, it is satisfac tory to learn that diligent search has been made among the archives of the Lyttelton family for any documents which might eluci date the question. The present Lord Lyttel ton has interested himself in the inquiry, but the papers preserved concerning Thomas Lyttelton are scanty, and as regards this par ticular point, of very little importance. That collection of his " speeches, letters, verses, " and writings" which he left to his executor, Mr. Roberts, apparently with a view to publi cation, appears to be irrecoverably lost. Not a trace of the collection is to be found. It must have been destroyed by Loid Lyttelton be tween the date of his will and his sudden death, or by his executors at some subsequent period. The entire disappearance of every fragment of the collection is in keeping with the mysterious manner of his death. Some curious papers have, however, been found relative to his decease. and particularly a statement drawn up by Lord Westcote (who became Lotd Lyttelton on the subsequent recreation of the peerage), detailing the ghost story. A. copy of this curious paper has reached us, and we think we shall betray no confidence in making it public. The substance of it must have been known to Dr. Johnson, as he was accustomed to silence doubt on the story by saying, " I had it from " Lord Westcote himself." This paper is endorsed, " Remarkable circumstancesattend " ing the death of Thomas Lord Lyttelton." It is in Lord Westcote's own hand : REMARKABLE DREAM OF THOMAS LORD IFFI'LITON. On Thursday, the 211th of November, 1779, Thomas Lord Lyttelton, when he came to breakfast, declared to Mrs. Flood, wife of Frederick Flood, Esq., of the kingdom of Ireland, and to the three Miss Ampliletts, who were lodged in his house in Hill-street, London I where he then also was ), that he had had an extraordinary dream the night before: he said he thought be was in a room which a bird flew into, which appearance was suddenly changed into that of a woman dressed in white, who bade him prepare to die ;to which he replied—l hope not soon, not in two months ; she rlied—Yes, in three days. He said he did not much regar d it, because he could in some measure ac count for it, for that a few days before he had been with Mrs. Dawson, when a robin redbreast flew into her room. When he had dressed himself that day to go to the House of Lords, he said he thought he did not look as if lie was likely to die. In the evening of the following day he told the eldest Miss Amphlett that she looked melancholy, but, said he, you are foolish and fearful. 1 have lived two days, and, God willing, Twill live out the third. On the morning of Saturday he told the same ladies that he was very well, and believed he should bilk the ghost Some hours after wards he went with them, Mr. Fortescue, and Captain Wolseley to Pitt-place, at Epsom, withdrew to his bed• chamber soon after eleven o'clock at night, talked cheer fully to his servant, and particularly inquired of him what care had been taken to provide good rolls for his breakfast the next morning ; stepped into bed with his waistcoat on, and, as his servant was pulling it off, put his hand to Ins side, sunk back, and immediately expired without a groan. He ate a good dinner after his arrival at Pitt-place that day, took an egg for his supper, and did not seem to be at all out of order, except that while he was eating his soup at dinner he had a rising in his throat, a thing which had often happened to him before, and which obliged him to spit some of it out. His physician, Dr. Fothergill, told roe Lord Lyttleton had in the summer preceding a bad pain in his side; and he judged that some great vessel in the part where he had felt the pain gave way, and to that he conjectured his death was owing. His declaration of his dream, and his expressions above mentioned, conse quential thereunto, were upon a close inquiry asserted to me to have been so by Mrs. Flood, the eldest Miss Amph lett, Captain Wolseley, and his valet de chambre, Faulkner, who dressed him on the Thursday, and the manner of his death was related to me by William Stuckey, in the pre sence of Mr. Fortescue and Captain Wolseley ; Stuckey tieing the servant who attended him in his bedchamber, and in whose arms he died. February the 13th, 1780. In one particular this statement is at va riance with all the accounts (so far as we recollect) published at the time, or with the narrative of Mr. (afterwards Lord) Fortescue. Those accounts all represent Lord Lyttelton's servant as having left his room for a few minutes previous to his death. The late Lord Fortescue related—among others to the pre sent Mr. George Fortescue—the manner of Lyttelton's death, in substance, as follows He called on Lord Lytttleton in Hill-street, on the very ' day that he died. He walked out with him, and, passing • through St. James's churchyard, Lord L. said, " See how *O ,, •