The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1860-11-29
furfous dsha,s. in which Tor, than in his aad

popular side. by his bill for regulating the
law in cases Of trial for libel. Mr.. GLYEN's
| resolution was voted down.
The hearing Of the arguments upon the mo-
ton in arrest OF Judgment and the motion TO
compel the defendant TO show cause why tue
verdict should not be entered up according to
the legal import Of the words, came on In the
Court Of Kings Bench on The Goth November,
ITO. Lord MANSFIELD delivering the opinion
of the Court instead of combining himself to
the face of the record, went over the whole
case as IL was tried at Nisi Prius, reciting the
| evidence and his own charge TO the jury
Lord CHATHAM, In the House of Lords de-
uounced the conduct of the Chief Justice In
this particular Us "irregular, extraj JUDICIAL
aud unprecedented. A." II, he said, a motion
had been made for a new trial because of q
verdict contrary to evidence or of an i'm
proper charge by the Judge at Nisi Prius, the
proceeding might have been proper enough
But when a motion is made in arrest of judg-
ment, or for establishing the verdict by enter
ing IL up according TO the legal import of the
words, II must be on the ground of something
appearing on the face or the record and in
that case, the judge is not allowed TO travel
out OF the record. JUNIUs, in his preface 10
his own edition of his Letters, denounced Lord
MANsFIALp with great bitterness, both
for his charge on the first trial. and for this
manner OF delivering the opinion OF the Court.
In a note he says he heard Lord CHATHAM de-
liver this speech, and makes an extract from
it. Two other speeches OF Lord CHATHAM are
quoted from by JUHIus. At that day there
were no regular reporters, and 1t was difficult
| to get access 10 either House. In 1793 some
person undertook 10 publish the Parliament
| tary Debates. TAYLOR. the author of" Junius
| Identified says Sir PHILIP FRANCIS, furn-
| ished these same speeches of Lord CHATHAM,
| the parts quoted by JUNIUs being identified
| with Sir Philips report. Lord MACAULAY,
| from this correspondence, held it certain that
| FRANCIS was JUNIUs. Unfortunately, q sub
| sequent writer bethought himself of the very
| simple expedient OF settling the question by
| examining the newspapers of the day, end
| there he found all these speeches of Lord
| CHATHAM reported, the parts quoted by both
| JuNIUs and FRANCIS being found, word for
word. in the paper. Doubtless, both JUSIUs
| and FRANCIS got them from that quarter
| The debates In which they occurred were very
| long, and it is certain that FRANCIS, who held
| a very laborious clerkship in the War Office,
could never have had time to report them.
| If HENRY SAMPSON WooDFALL ever sus
| pected Sir PHILIP FRANCIS of being JUNIUs,
IL is very certain that he never told his suspi-
cions to any one, even to his own son. The
! edition which goes by the name of Wood.
| fairs Junius was not published by HENRY
| SAMPSON WoO1FALL, but by his son. 1t first
appeared in 1912, several years after the death
| of HENRY SAMPSON WooDFALL. The younger
WooDFALL placed all the papers at the dispo-
| sal of DR.. Coon, who wrote the Preliminary
Essay. Then, for the first time were pub
| lished the private letters to WooDFALL signed
| c., the letters to WILKES, and the letters uu-
| der other signatures published in the Public
| Advertiser were then first known to be by JU-
MUS. at the time OF this publication, nobody
suspected Sir PHILIP FRANCIS. Immediately
| after lin 1879 TAYLOR published q book to
prove that JUNIUs was DR.. FRANCIS, the
| father of Sir PHILIP. In 1916 he published
| his "JUNIUs Identified" for the first time, de-
signaling Sir PHILIP himself as the author
This book exhausted the subject. Nothing
| new has been added by the writers who have
since taken up the subject, and their name is
| legion. We have read them all, we believe, of
| any note. and by none Of them is iteven limited
| that WooDFALL suspected Sir PHILIP FEAN-
CTS, or that any body else did until the appear
| the eye of WooDEALL's own son, an essay for
] his own edition, enumerates upwards of thirty
| candidates. but does not once men ton Sir
| PHILIP, or SO much as ailude to him. a man
uamed WADE published an edition of the let
tiers about ten years ago. He takes it for
| granted that FRANCIS was the author, but
| produces no new argument. FRANCIS, when
| seventy -four years old, married a young wo-
man of two and twenty. To this lady, still
living, Lord CAMPBELL wrote a letter re-
guessing her to give all the information in her
power Her answer is curiosity in its way.
II is evident that she herself was convinced.
aud that FRANCIS was extremely desirous to
be thought the author but she candidly ac-
knoWledges that he never told her that he
was. The claims of FRANCIS have been settled
beyond resurrection by a writer in the British
4.henaum. Nobody in England, at this dav.
believes he was the author.
The editor of the GRENvILLE correspon-
dence, who is Librarian at Stowe, has written
an essay upon this subject in which he en-
deavors to show that Lord TEMPLE was the
author of these letters. Oar attention was
directed to this essay by a gentleman of this
city, who told us he thsught the probabilities
much greater in favor of Lord TEsPLE than
the essay, we fully co1cGrred with him Lord
TEMPLE was the brother OF GEORGE GREN-
VILE, and the brother in law of Lord CHAT
Ram. Among the papers of Lord CHATHAM
was found letter of JUNlUs, (private)-
Among the papers of GEORGE GRENvILLk
three private letters of JUNIUs were found
Lord TEMPLE was a member of Lord CHAT
HAMS Administration; had been Secretary OF
State for many years. had managed the affairs
of the War Office during Lord CHATHAM's
illness, and was thus intimately acquainted
with all the details of both offices. He was
exceedingly acticus, q friend OF WILKES. and
the man who furnished him with money TO
hold out against the crown. He was man of
bitter resentments, and hated Lord BATE, who
overthrow the CHATHAM Ministry, Lord BAR
RINGToN, the Duke of Bedford, the Duke of
Grafton and RIGBY, all of whom had de-.
| serted and betrayed the Ministry of Lord
CHATHAM. He detested Col. SuTTRELL as the
opponent of WILKES, and Lord IRNHAM be-
cause he was the father of SUTTR8LL. Lord
MANSFIELD. also, was the subject of bitter
| hatred, and bis aversion TO GEORGE III
| amounted to detestatioL. The author of the
essay in question says he has determined not
| to believe any man the author of JUNIUs upon
| any proof short of mathematical. That is our
| determination yetitd does not prevent us from
| agreeing with him, that Lord TEMPLE is the
| mos, probable person yet named.
TIE ELECTIoN-It is stated that In con.
sequence Of informaiities in voting some of
| the counties, by hitch some of the Bell and
Everett Electors were not voted for. the Elect
raj vote OF Virginia will stand-Beli 0, Brock
| inridge6, or Bell IL, Breckinridge4. The num-
bers are not stated very certainly, but it seems
| to be generally understood that the Electoral
vote will be divided.