Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1853-10-08

The following letter, written by Mr. MAcAULAY,
is just published for the first time in new edition
of Lord Mahon's History Of England"
"ALBANY, JANUARY Q, 1852
"SR: am obliged to you for the new number of the
Quarterly Reciew. cannot say that it has shaken my
opinion. | wonder indeed that ingenious person
rs the reviewer should think that his objections have
made any impression the vast of circumsantial
evidence which proves Francis to have been sunius
That evidence think, differs not only in degree but
in kind from any evidence which Can be adduced for any
other claimant
.It seems to me- too that one half of the arguments
of the reviewer is answered by the other half Fret we
are told that Francis did not write the letters because it
would have been singuarly Infamous in him to write
them Then we told that he did not write them be-
cause he did not them Surely this reasoning does
not hang well together Is it strange that very proud
man should not confess what would disgrace him /? I
have always believed that Francis kept silence because
he well known to have received great benefits from
persons whom he had, tJunius as Veteran abus
ed with great malignity
alt is odd that the reviewer should infer from the mis-
take about Diapers half pay thai Junius' could not
have been in the War office talked that matter over
more than ten years ago, when was Secretary at War,
with two of the abest and best informed gentlemen in the
department, and all three conclusion the
very opposite of that at which the reviewer has arrived
Francis chief clerk in the English War Office Every
body who drew hapay through that office made the de-
claraton which 'Junius mentions. But Diapers half
pay the Irish establishment and of him the decla
ration was not required. Now, to me and those whom
consulted it seemed the natural thing in the world
that Francis, relying his official knowledge and
considering that there might be difference between the
practice at Dublin and the practice atWestmnster should
put that unlucky question which gave Draper great
advantage have repeatedly pointed out this crcum-
stance 10 who excellent judges Of evidence and
never found one who did not agree with
at is not necessary for me to say any thing about the
new theory which the reviewer has constructed. Lord
Lytleon claims better than those of Burke Barre
and quite rs good those Of Lord George Sackyile
Sngespeech Hamilton. But the against Francis
Or you please in favor Of Francis rests grounds of
very different kind, and coincidence such would
be sufficient TO convict q murderer.
There IS however strong objection TO the theory
or the reviewer which strikes at the FIRST glance
Junius, whoever he was, wrote long letter George
Of which have copy in Lord Mahons possession.
The letter contains decisive indications Of the writer's
situation; but the whole il TO be written by
very high in rank fortune. The Tone though
by any abec is that of inferior The author
declares himself TO be the writer Of squib then famous
called The Grand Council He says that Grenve must
soon be Prime Minister. Till then wish to remain
concealed from you; then will make myself known,
and explain what wish you to do for me- quote from
memory but this is the substance The original have
not but told that II is the handwriting OF
'Junius' letters
Now, this circumstance seems to decisive against
Lord Lyttleton He was George Grenvlles cousin The
connexon between the Stowe family and the Hagey ia
miy had during two generations been extremely close.
probable that George Granville would have known
Lytteton's hand Is it possible that letter written
by Lyteton should have lain at Stowe eighty years. and
that Of the cousnhood should have been struck by
the writing
reviewers theory the arguments which, in my opi
ion prove that Francis the author of the letters
have the honor to be, sir your faithful servant,
IT Is. MACAULAY.r