Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1848-10-07

Miscellaneous Letter g. dated Gath June 1861 and signed
Ani-seanus b says that he corrupted by Lord BUrE
charges him with base apostacy with the avaice Of
PENSION and the melancholy ambition o title !" with
shaking hands with Scochman at the heard of catching
his nfamy hopes that he and Lord Butte my continue to
smell at one thistle" &c., Woodf. ii. 465-l67l
Miscellaneous Letter TO- dated 10Th Decerber 1867 with
ont signature calls him ga lunatc y tie high priest,
who, "wh than frantic fury, offered up his bleeding
country victim 10 America. II Woodf. IL III -5l7l
Miscellaneous Letter l. dated 22d Deccme 1867, sign
ed Downright ridcules what the writer ellis " bombas
panegyric on the Earl Of Chatham" in which it said,
sshis country more him than it repay"
To him." remarks Downright tive owetae greatest part
Of the national debt and that repay"
/" bear much incense Offered to idol who
SO little deserves it."--[ WoodE ii, 5l7-5lsl
Miscellaneous Letter II, dated 18th february l76s, is
without signature AT this time Lord CHATHAM being in
bad health did transact business; and the Office Of Prvy
Seal which he held temporarily placed in commission
The writer nveghs at large against the Ministry and holds
up public anmadveson the conduct Of Lord Chatham in
retaining the office while unable discharge its duties
Woodf ill., III Il is observable that this letter is about
six weeks later as the letter Of Downright eleven days
earlier than the private letter of % January l76S, avowng
respec, and vencraton &c. for Lord Chatham. Junius,
complains of Wooda for encouraging, by his affected 81
lence idle opinion" that Junius the author Of a
published letter eulogzng Lord Chatham and adds 81
neither admire the writer his idl"-[Pri Let. No.
30, Woodf 2ls] And the Editor of G. Woodfas edi,
ton says Ii REALITY, ,cas not till about the date Of
letter 3D. under his favore signature Of usUs, that he
= began to think commercially Que. Of that ncbleman.
Woodf ill., A.. This letter "a is dated 18th August, l77l
oodf H. 303 between three and four years after the date
Of the private letter of I'd January l76s, TO Lord Chatham
Among the unbeevers in the genuineness Of all the Mis-
ceaneous Letters is Mr. JAauEs, Of the most respeca
BILE Of the numerous commentators Junius. In s43 that
gentleman published his History of Junus and his Works,
in which he argued that Lord GEORGE uius
and that Sir PHILIP Francis the "condant and aman
uensis of the author Letter Of the miscellaneous Let
tiers Of Junus is an article dated ed October 1857 in
which SAcKyILLE sneered at, Noodf IL 49i, but which,
saws Mr.. Jaques is enormously attributed TO JUNIUs.
[Jagues 239 Now, Mr.. g. Woodal places this parlicu.
lar article on rather better footing % external proof
than he does the Miscellaneous Letters general for he
tells Us that acknowledged in the Public Advertiser
having come from &C., which sthe secret mark in
between Junius and the priner."[ Woodf ii, 49,. But
waving this circumstances in favor Of Miscellaneous Letter y
what rule have for determining between Mr. Jaques who
rejects one and the Editors Of the Chatham papers, who
Jet fire. of the Miscellaneous Letters As those Editors
identity Francis with Junius ard Francis the friend
and admirer Of Lord Chatham they naturally reluctant
believe that Francis lbeed Lord Chatham Mr. Jacques,
the advocate Of Sackye least excusabe for be-
ieying that Sackville Ebeled hirn.elf. -,,
The miscellaneous Letters" si continue 10 complcate
the controversy und better CT their genneness
than any before the public furnished 10 represent
ing their internal evidence sufficient one, the author
of The preliminary essay has overlooked moderated the
signal failure Of that species Of proof bearing general
question Amid the host Of persons whom the LETTERS
or Jusus" have been ascbed there is certainly
fessedy, only whose acknowledged compositions carry
with them internal evidence Of his capacity vile those
letters and in bis iDance almost succumb 'ndef 'ne ad
verse pressure Of he external proof.
Il will be Observed that have No urged that Mr. g.
WoopyALL aas fallen under obligation to the public to
tell ali ,lat he may khoD beEee about the identity Of
Jrx,r, with the author Of the Miscellaneous Letters,
Suct revelation might be broad enough 10 involve dsclo-
sues of what might be the moral duty OF Mr. w. to
cea and So ought not TO be expected But as he vol
UNFAIRLY published the Miscellaneous Letters" assuming
them to be writings Of Juius the Of the
sumption on this collateral head has been brought into ques
lion and as the assumption itself has thrown the public
false scents the main subject in this state Of things
Mr. WooprALL cannot conceive feel any difficulty in either
furnishing some farther proof that those Miscellaneous Let
tiers" were written by Junus or il that be impossible
improper in realizing modifying the assumption ITSELF
Thrysx ycars having elapsed since the publication Of his
first edition. Mr. WooDFALL may, perhaps, be willing to say
whether or he found among his fathers papers any cory
or meos,dum Of that genemans answer the request Of
Juxrs Contained in Private Letter No g. dated July is,
1869: eI6eg that yOu ,cA tell me cdndidy whether
you ksoc suspect who ! om."-L Woodc l. l75.l Two
other Private Letters from JUsIus follow Nos and 5,
der die respective dates Of July IL and July 81 in neither Of
wsch is there any ausion 10 the request Then No.
G. dated August G. and beginning thus "Thc spirit Of your
letter convinces that you much better writer than
most Of the people whose works you publish Whether
you hare guessed ceH IN must be @ 10 our future
quainance" To the first Of these sentences the editor
puts the following "Thc substance Of Mr. WooD
rlLIs reply to Private Letter No. known Wood
l. 1861 Though the substance not, possibly the sha-
do,c was, known perhaps Mr.. G. WoopRALL may not
have considered the reply having any substance There
is an interval Of three weeks between No. and No 81 and
he seems at all have been that No related
the request which had been made in No. Is too much
10 ask does he know any this head, now in s4s
than he knew in 1919 or in 1914
BRADSHAW.