The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1871-07-13
IN OLD CONTROVERSY. REp1nED.

- , -. ..E--sf-l5 -; :
Never was a.secret so well preserved as tina,
respecting the authorship Of .The le1ers ol
Junius." 1t should be promised for the 6ene'
| fit of those who have not read up the subject,
] that these famous letters, bearing the sigma.
newspaper called the Public Advertiser. The
first Of them appeared on the 21st Of January,
1859, 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 si4ty-nine
letters in all; Of which twenty,ene
| lie Advertiser, eleven to the. Duke OF
Grafton. five to Sir William Draper, three to
Lord Chief Justice Mansfield, and the rest to
variety of persons. They are remarkable
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
great principles of the Constitution of Eng
land. In word;1 they must have been the
production of q profound scholar and OF an
enlightened statesman Yet, with all their
merit they might have passed into: the
category of works known only to the
learned but for the impenetrable mystery
In which they have been shrouded: The
0RIUe VI euc duLnOi WI nutnoAo VI LnDns ~
there were more than one,) though known
to several persons, was never diVulged. II 1t
had been, It would probably have subjected the
owner of It to the vindictire hatred of the
arbitrary ministers Of George the Third, who
would doubtless have found some preteXt tor
crushing him. But all efforts to discover the
author proved unavslllng: The secret was
it. There have been countless efforts made to
discover 1t, but though some very plausible
theories have been advanced, and supported
'by what appears to be fair evidence. nothing
certain has come out ofall this controversy
and research. -,
The negative evidence, indeed, is undeni-
ably strong, and when It is fairly weighed
will find himself in the condition of the don
KEY between two loasls Of hay. DR.. Alllbone,
in his Dictionary OF Authors (title "Junius")
gives list of forty-two persons to whom the
authorship of these celebrated letters has been
ascribed..s The weight Of testimony has been
considered to preponderate In favor ot sT
Philip Francis, g dIssolute man and rancor-
ous politician, who revlled friend and foe alike,
with the exception of the profgate John
wilkes, another notorious politician OF that
day. with whom ssJnnlus' seems to have been
on the best OF terms. Among other proofs
adduced In favor OF Francis has been the
evidence of handwriting, and the pro-
fessonal expert has been called In to
decide the question. There has been, no lack
of materials of this description cooperate upon.
| In the Chatham Correspondence there are
many words and sentences inthe known hand-
writing OF Francis. and they. closely resemble
some Of those In the manuscripts oil "Junlus.
| But Francis was the hired amanuensls OF Lord
| Chatham for more than year, and therefore
wrote many things of (which he was NOT ene
author. he was also q seryile tool OF Caicraf,
i nd 0OltC1ClaUS,
and played 'sjackar' to them. The first forma!
Introduction Of the professional expert Into
| the. controversy arose In this. manner
LIN 1870 or It'll, when Junius was 10
the tullness of his fame. and francis
was at Bath, Miss Giles (afterWards
wards Mrs. King received copy OF verses ass
(about sixteen lines, aecS1mPaaea ~ y eha he
Ibelieved, from Francis. Between forty ano
+ Eflfty wears afterwards, when bis name was
| publicly associated with Junius, she pro
duced these documents, andthe resemblance
of the anonymous note to the handwriting
of Junius (speclmens Of which had peer
lisher of the Letters, Induced her brother tt
get it Autographed for private circulation
| Il attracted some temporary attention, Du
II was soon forgotten, and remained 3 until
| 1868. when the documents came Into the pos
| session of the Hon. Edward TWlstleton, VINO
submitted tho note 70 Mr.: NetnerclRt, 81
expert. That gentleman at once declared
that It was In the handwriting Of Francis. Mr
TWIstleton then submitted the verses te
another expert, French gentleman, namet
] Chabot, who reported that they were not, apt
could not have been, written by Francis. ,'Tht
| history of this investigation hasjust been pub
lIshedin London, and ftreopens the doubt abou
Francis being the real author OF Junius: HI
was never suspected by his, contemporaries o.
being so. he was first put forward as sucn II
1918, BY Mr. Taylor, after which Francis "play
! ed Junfus" to everybody. But Pitt had !onG
previously told Lord Aberdeen (the late Pre-
mIer of England) that both he and his lathe
| I,ord Chathamj knew who the author was
and that it was not Francis.
The Right Hon. Thomas Grenville told ht
nieces. as o matter OF personal knowledge
that not one of the persons who had beef
mentioned as Junlus was that writer. Sool
after the publication of the Diary of 8 Lady o
OualIty-a short time ago-Lady Grenvillt
sent word to the editor, who had mentioned
the subject therein, that Lord Grenyllle hat
told her he knew who wrote the Junius letters
and that 1t was not Francis. But the stronSes
evidence against Francis Is that ne did no
possess learning and ability sufficient to ena
| BILE him to write the letters. But why tnt
mystery should still be maintained, now ina
O Century has elapsed, and all the parties con
cerned have long slnce died of, Is inexpi
| cable