Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1891-07-19

Feeling in some degree surprised at this
unexpected declaration, after pausing
little, replied:
what You have affirmed IL can no longer
remain solely with you, for certainly no
one could know what you have affirmed
bat the author HIMSELF
Recollecting himself. he replied:
have unguardedly committed myself, and
IL would be but folly to deny to you that
am the author, but must request that
YOU will not reveal IT during my life; for
IL never was nor never Will DO revealed by
me 10 any other
"He then proceeded 10 mention several
circumstances TO verify his being the au-
thor; and among them that of his going
over TO the Continent and absenting him.
self from England most of tho time in
which these letters were published In Lon
don etc. ETC. This he thought necessary,
lest by some accident the author should
become known. or at least suspected,
which might have been his ruin had he
been known to the Cegrt OF London, etc.
Whoever will compare the letters of
General Lee written to several OF the
British officers al the commencement Of
our Revolutionary war with those of
Junius will probably be convinced that
they were dictated by the same mind and
written by the same hand, but however
that may be i affirm that what / have
herein communicated to the public rela-
tive to General Lees communication TO
me respecting the author of Junius is in
substance strictly true. and no doubt re-
mains with me but that he was the real
author. Il. RODNEY.
"Doce, February 1, 1909"
STRONG CASE OF IDENTITY.
The testimony of Rodney is supported
by large body of circuInstantial evidence
which, taken Independently of the confes-
sion. presents rs strong case. OF Lees
identity with Junlus rs any that has been
made out for SacsyIlle, Chatham, Boyd,
Lyttloton, Francis, or Horace Walpole.
Before transcrbing General Lees letter TO
Drayton, which smacks so entirely of the
rare Junian flavor, ! will allow DR.. Girdle-
stone TO support the confession already
given by another made TO WOodfall:
Identity OF the ceasing Of Lee to remain
in this country and Of Junius to cor
respond with Mr.. Woodfall may also he
proved. The last letter of Junius was
dated January 10, 1878. Lee embarked for
New York 10th August, 1913, from London.
and arrived Ill America on tAe 10th OF NO
vember, 1873.
"Junius in his forty-frst private letter
10 Mr.. Woodfall. says: Act honorably by
ne and at proper time you shall know
me- JunIus kept his word, for before
he had closed that letter he wrote his real
name bv saying: The aspersions thrown
upon my LEE 10 the bill of rights should be
rcfuted by publication" Lee has here
written his name exactly as he does at the
bottom of his private letters. when he has
not room to write 1t go large as in tho
fac sinie which Mr.. Woodfall has gwen
OF Lis writing. And magniying
glass held over LEE in the fac simie
that the lower part Of the l. and the
two letters r. are formed exactly like the
signature of Lee in the SPECIMEN which
MIR. WOOdfall has given OF Lees writing.
To the Letter II Junius has written not
ONLY PRIVATE, but added AND rhRIIcuLAB.
And there is not an abbreviation OF the
word letter in any Of the specimens which
Mr.. Woodtall has given of the writing OF
Juniusn Ms. note by an unknown hand
very like John Randolph's comments on
this statement as follows: THE present
Mr.. Woodfall in giving the printed copy
of the fac smile OF the handwriting of tho
private letter of Junius TO his father has
taken tho liberty of converting Lee into
the word letter, though the contexts OF
the letter would prove that if any abbre-
Walton were intended il must have been
written Lees, for it desired old Woodfall
to prevail on Wilkes TO let him have ex-
tracts from the second and third letter to
HIM"
GENERAL CHARLES LEES LETTER TO WILLIAM
II. DRAY1oN.
PHILADELPHIA, March Is. 1879.
Sir.-As have settled all my affairs. and
as am gwen to understand that you pro-
baby may soon set out FOR South Carolina,
/ take the liberty of addressing this letter
TO you, which is to close our correspond
ence forever.
Until very lately was taught to consider
YOU only as fantastic, pompous, drdmdtis
persona, a mere MGiU0lio. never to be spoke
or thought of but for the sake of laughter;
and when the humOr for laughter sub:
sided, never to be spoke or thought OF
nore. But find was mistaken; | find
that you are as malignant scoundrel as
YOU are universally allowed to be O rdlcu-
lous and disgusting coxcomb.
You are pleased to say that | am legally
disgraced. All that | shall reply IN that l
am able confidently to pronounce that
every man Of rank i'll the army; every man
onthe Continent who bad read the proceed
lngs of the court martial perhaps. indeed,
may except Mr. Penn. of North Carolina,
and DR.. Scuddcr, of the Jerseys, with
few others of their size of understanding
is Of the opinion that the stigma is not on
him on whom the sentence was passed. but
on those who passed this absurd and pre-
pOsterOus sentence; Tor to be lust, 90
not believe you blockhead enough to
think the charge has u shadow of report,
and if by some wonderful metamorphosls
YOU should become an honest man you
will confess 1t.
As to the confirmation Of this curious
sentence, | do not conceive myself al
liberty to make any comments on it. as 1t
is au affair of Congress, for which body
ever had and ought TO have a profound
respect. only lament that they are dis
gracod by so foul member as Mr William
Henry Dravton.
You will tell me that the Americans are
the most merciful people on the face of
the earth. / think 80, too, and the
strongest instance of il is that they did
not long ago hang up you, and every advo-
cate for the stamp act, and DO not tatter
yourself that the present airs OF patriotism
YOU NAV give yourself and your hard
iaboured letters to the commissioners and
the King. will ever wash away the stain:
If YOU think the terms l make use OF
harsh or unmerited, my friend, MAJOR Ed
wards. is commissioned to point out your
remedy. CHARLES LEE.
One word to your correspondent, MIR.
Glasgow. Ohabot's testimony may estab-
lish the fact of an identity of hand com
mon 10 both Francis and Junius. The
former was quite likely an amanuensis and
go-between of the latter. Junius never
dared to trust his own hand in the writing
or his own person in the delivery OF the
letters.
In conclusion. / shall use the language of
an able Junian critic. excepting only the
name of Horace Walpole where it occurs.
and substituting that of General Charles
Lee in its place.
IF General Charles Leo was not
Juuius We must adopt Lord Byron's witty
solution of the enigma, as the claims OF
every other person who has been .sug-
gested as having been Junius have been
negatived by tho critics.
/ ord ByroD's hypothesis Is contained IN
the following lines;
I've an hypothesis-'tis quite my own;
never let It out I'll now for fear
OF doing people harm about the throne
And inturng some minister or peer
On whom the stigma might perhaps be blown.
1t is, my gentle public, lend thinc ear,
Ills that what Junlus we are wont 10 call
Was really, truly, nobody at all.