The Sun. — 1853-09-05 (London, England)

MACAULAY ON "JUNIUS."  The following letter, written by Mr. Macaulay, is just published, for the first time, in a new edition of Lord Mahon's "History of England :" "Albany, Jan. 3, 1852. " Sir, —I am obliged to you for the new number of the Quarterly Review.' I cannot say that it has shaken my opinion. I wonder, indeed, that so ingenious a person as the reviewer should think that his objections have made any impression on the vast mass of circumstantial evidence which proves Francis to have been `Junius.' That evidence, I 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. First, we are told that Francis did not write the letters, because it would have been singularly infamous in him to write them. Then we are told that he did not write them, because he did not own them. Surely this reasoning does not hang well together. Is it strange that a very proud man should not confess what would disgrace him ? I have always believed that Francis kept silence, because he was well known to have received great benefits from persons whom he had, as Junius' or as Veteran', abused with great malignity. It is odd that the reviewer should infer, from the mistake about Draper's half-pay, that Junius' could not have been in the War-office. I talked that matter over more than ten years ago, when I was Secretaty-atWar, with two of the ablest and best-informed gentlemen in the department, and we all three came to a conclusion the very opposite of that at which the reviewer ha's arrived. Francis was chief clerk in the English War-office. Everybody who drew half-pay through that office made the declaration which Junius' mentions. But Draper's half-pay was on the Irish establishment, and of him the declarations was not required. Now, to me and those whom I consulted, it seemed the most natural thing in the world that Francis relying on his official knowledge, and not considering that there might be a difference between the practice at Dublin and the practice at Westminster, should put that unlucky question which gave Draper so great an advantage. I have repeatedly pointed out this circumstance to men who are excellent judges of evidence, and I never found one who did not agree with me. "It is not necessary for me to say anything about the new theory which the reviewer has constructed. Lord Lyttelton's claims are better than those of Burke or Barre and quite.as *good as those of Lord George Sackville, or Singiespeech Hamilton. But the case against Francis, or, if you please, in favour of Francis, rests on grounds of a very different kind, and on coincidences such as would be sufficient to convict a murderer. " There is, however, one strong objection to the theory of the reviewer which strikes me at the first glance. `Junius,' whoever he was, wrote a long letter to George Grenville, which was preserved at Stowe many years. and of which I have seen a copy in Lord Mahon's possession. The letter contains no decisive indications of the writer's situation ; but, on the whole, it seems to oe written by a man not very high in rank or fortune. The tone, though not by any means abject, is that of an inferior. The author declares himself to be the writer of a squib, then famous, called ' The Grand Council.' He says that Grenville must soon he Prime Minister. Till then I wish to remain concealed even from you ; then I will make myself known, and explain what I wish you to do for me. I quote from memory ; but this is the substance. The original I have not seen ; but I am told that it is the handwriting of `Junius's ' letters.  " Now, this circumstance seems to me decisive against Lord Lyttelton. He was George Grenville's cousin. The connexion between the Stowe family and the Hagly family had, during two generations, been extremely close. Is it probable that George Grenville would not have known Lyttelton's hand? Is it possible that a letter written by Lyttelton should have lain at Stowe 80 years and that none of the cousinhood should have been struck by the writing ? "But, in truth, the strongest arguments against the reviewer's theory are the arguments which, in my opinion, prove that Francis was the author of the letters. " I have the honour to be, Sir, " Your faithful servant, " T. B.