The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1871-07-27
Am Old Controversy Revived.

respecting the authorship of "The Letters of
Junius" 1t should be promised for the benefit
of those who have not read up the subject,
that these famous letters, bearing the signature
"Junius," were published in a London newspa-
per called the Public AdUcrtiser The first of
them appeared on the 21st of January 1863,
and the last on the 21st of January, 1772.-
They attacked with great severity the ministe-
rial measures of the Duke of Grafton and his
colleagues, on account of their arbitrary high
Tory tendencies. There were sixty-nine letters
in all: of which twenty-one were addressed to
the printer of the Public Advertiscr, eleven to
the Duke of Grafton, five to Sir William Dra-
per, three to Lord Chief Justice Mansfield, and
the rest to a variety of persons. They are re-
markablc for the elegance of their language,
the force of their arguments, the bitterness OF
their reproaches, the keenness OF their satire,
the extensive information they display, their
fearless tone and their attachment to the great
principles of the Constitution of England. In
a word they must have been the production of
a profound scholar and of an enlightened states
man. Yet, with all tEeir merit, they might
have passed into the category OF works known
only to the learned but for the lmpenetrable
mystery in which they have been shrouded.
The nan,e of the author of them, Tor authors
OF them if there were more than one, though
known to several persons, was never divulged::
If it had been, it would probably have subjected
the owner of it to the vindictive hatred of the
arbitrary ministers of George the Third who
would doubtless have found some pretext for
crushing him. But all efforts to discover the
author proved unavailing. The secret was
rightly kept, and it died with those who knew
it. There have been countless efforts made to
discover it, but though some very plausible
theories have been advanced, and supported by
what appears to be fair evidence nothing GER
tain has come out of all this controversy and
research
The negative evidence, indeed, is undeniably
strong, and when it is fairly weighed against
the positive, the impartial inquirer will find
himself in the condition of the donkey between
two loads of hay DR.. Alibone, in his Die
tionary of Authors title "Junius") gives list
of forty-two persons to whom the authorship of
these celebrated letters has been ascribed. The
weight of testimony has been considered to
preponderate in favor of Sir Philip Francis,
dissolute man and rancorous politician, who
reviled friend and foe alike, with the exception
of the profigate John Wilkes, another noto-
rious politician of that day, with whom "Juni-
us" seems to have been on the best of terms.
Among other proofs adduced in favor of Fran
els has been the evidence of handwriting,
and the professional expert has been called in
to decide the question. There has been no lack
of materials Of this description to operate up
on. In the Chatham Correspondence there are
many words and sentences in the known hand
writing of Francis, and they closely resemble
some of those in the manuscripts of "Junius."
But Francis was the hired amanuensis of Lord
Chatham for more than a year, and therefore
wrote many things of which he was not the au-
thor. He was alsoa servile tool of Calcraft,
Wood, Ellis, and other prominent politicians,
and played 'jackal" to them. The first formal
introduction of the professional expert into
the controversy arose in this manner: In 177O
or 1771, when Junius was in the fullness of his
fame, and Francis was at Bath, q Miss. Giles
afterwards Mrs. King received copy of YER
ses (about sixteen lnes,) accompanied by an
anonymous note, both of which came, as she
believed, from Francis. Between forty and fif-
ty years afterwards, when his name was public
ly associated with Junius, she produced these
documents, and the resemblance of the annoy
nous note to the handwriting of Junius (spec-
linens of which had been Autographed by
Woodfall, the original publisher of the Let
ters,) induced her brother to get it Autographed
for private circulation. 1t attracted some tenn
porary attention, but it was soon forgotten, and
remained so until 1868, when the documents
came into the possession of the Hon. Edward
Twistleton, who submitted the note to Mr..
Netherclift, an expert. That gentleman atonce
declared that it was in the handwriting of Fran
els. Mr.. Twistleton then submitted the verses
to another expert, French gentleman, named
Chabot, who reported that they were not, and
could not have been, written by Francis. The
history of this investigation has just been pub
lished in London, and it re-opcns the doubt
about Francis being the real author of Junius.
He was never suspected by his contemporaries
Of being So He was first put forward as such
in 1913, by Mr.. Taylor, after which Francis
..'played Junius'' to everybody. But Pitt had
long previously told Lord Aberdeen lthe late
Premier of England) that both he and his
father Lord Chatham) knew who the author
was, and that it was not Francis.
The Right Hon. Thomas Grenyillc told his
nieces, as matter of personal knowledge that
not one of the persons who had been mertion-
ed as Junius was that writer. Soon after the
publication of the Diary of Lady of Quality
"a short time ago-Lady Grenville sent word
to the editor, who had mentioned the subject
therein, that Lord Grenyille had told her he
knew who wrote the Junius letters, and that it
was not Francis. But the strongest evidence
against Francis is that he did not possess learn
ing and ability sufficient to enable him to write
the letters. But why the mystery should still
be maintained, now that century has elapsed,
and all the parties concerned have long since
died off, is inexplicable.
MARX TwAIN's ADVENTURE WITH CAR
PEDDLARs.-And then there were the peddlars.
1 bought out the popcorn boy to get rid of him,
because | was trying to compose a poem for q