Letter 44, he says of Mr. Wedderburne: "I speak tenderly of this
gentleman, for when treachery is in question, I think we should make allowances for a Scotchman." He speaks of the Scotch "cunning," "treachery," and "fawning sycophancy," of "the characteristic prudence, the selfish nationality, the indefatigable smile, the persevering assiduity, the everlasting profession of a discreet and moderate resentment." This last quotation may be found in the Preface, and was written about four months prior to the publication of the letter of _Scotus_. Now, is the positive evidence of the _genuine_ Letters to be set aside by this fugitive note and letter of _Scotus_? Reason and Common Sense say not. Here then one of the Miscellaneous Letters, and one of the private letters to Woodfall are proven to be forgeries. How many more may have to go the same way? Even the nationality of _Francis_ is against this one of _Scotus_, for he was an Irishman.
It may be well to remark, in passing, that as the manuscript of this letter of _Scotus_ is still in existence, the claims of Francis founded on handwriting will have to go the same way, for proof on genuine handwriting is _doubtful_, but proof on disguised handwriting is _worthless_. All that can be proven from handwriting is, Francis _may_ have been the author of this forged letter of _Scotus_, and other letters of _Veteran_, which were written solely from personal spite toward Lord Barrington.
2. I would call attention to another manifest forgery of a private note and letter. The note is No. 8, vol. i, p. 198, and the letter is No. 58, vol. iii, p. 218, Woodfall's edition. The letter is one of low wit, and somewhat vulgar in its construction, and is an answer to another signed _Junia_, probably written by Mr. Caleb Whiteford. The note says: "The last letter you printed was idle and improper, and, I assure you, printed against my own opinion. _The truth is, there are people about me whom I would wish not to contradict, and who had rather see Junius in the papers ever so improperly than not at all._" The question now is: Did those people, for whose benefit he wrote the letter, keep the _secret_ which has baffled the world?--for these people must have known him to be Junius. And did Junius write falsely, when he said in his Dedication more than two years afterward: "I am the sole depository of my own secret, and it shall perish with me?" Did Junius write falsely when he said: "This edition contains _all_ the letters of Junius?" for this one which he cast out, and is in the Miscellaneous collection, was signed _Junius_. Besides, the handwriting is different from the genuine notes. Compare No. 8, spurious, with No. 3, genuine, vol. i, Woodfall's edition.
Here is clear evidence of forgery in two cases, not from handwriting be it remembered, but from internal evidence. May there not be many more such cases? Moreover, from the style and spirit of all the miscellaneous letters written _after_ the one signed _Atticus_, and printed November 14, 1768, there is no evidence whatever of the hand or head of Junius. Prior to this time Junius had been writing to get his hand in, and his contributions appeared over the signatures of _Atticus_, _Lucius_, _C_, and a few others, but all prior to the above date. Junius _proper_ began with his famous Letter of January 21, 1769, and closed in just three years to a day.
I am now prepared to state: In the comparison of Thomas Paine with Junius I did not suffer myself in a single instance to go outside of the _genuine_ edition; because I plainly saw, after a long and critical study of the Letters, that there was no safe footing outside of it. Whatever, therefore, has been established in style, character, occupation, rank, opinion, etc., in favor of Paine, has at least this merit: _its foundation is good_. I propose now to show that this can not be said in favor of Francis.
I have given on pages 190 and 191 the summing up of the main argument of John Taylor in favor of Francis, by Mr. Macaulay. Macaulay writes only as a reviewer of Taylor, not an original investigator; and a reviewer, too, like many at this day, without searching at the fountain head for the facts in the case. Let us now look at the five points Mr. Taylor makes:
"First, that he was acquainted with the technical forms of the Secretary of State's office." Under this Taylor begins by observing: "One method of discovering the rank and _station_ of Junius is to see with whose names he is most familiar." He then says: "The only persons to whom Junius applies epithets of familiarity are Welbore Ellis, Esq., Lord Barrington, Messrs. Rigby, Whateley, Bradshaw, and Chamier." Taylor then proves Junius to have been familiar with Whateley by a long quotation from miscellaneous letters, one without a signature, and one signed _Henricus_. See Taylor's Junius Identified, page 54. In this connection comes a very important disclosure in regard to Mr. _Grenville_. I will quote Taylor, page 54: "Comparing these indications of personal acquaintance with the opportunities afforded Sir P. Francis, we find that Mr. George Grenville was one of the secretaries of state at the time Sir Philip Francis held that place in the Secretary of State's office, which had been given him by Lord Holland, and Mr. Whateley was then Mr. Grenville's private secretary. This contiguity of station would afford Sir Philip Francis frequent opportunities of acquiring all that _intimate_ and _ocular_ knowledge of Mr. Whateley which is evinced by Junius." That is, which is evinced by Junius in the letter signed "_Henricus_," and the one _without_ signature, and which are not in the genuine edition. But Mr. Taylor proves too much; for then Junius, if he were Sir Philip Francis, would also have been acquainted with Grenville, as Francis doubtless was, and there is nothing to hinder Grenville from becoming acquainted with Francis, where there is such "_intimacy_" between Grenville's _private secretary_ and Francis, and where there is such "_contiguity of station_." Let us now produce positive proof on the other side from a _genuine_ letter. Letter 18 says: "It is not my design to enter into a formal vindication of Mr. Grenville upon his own principles. I have neither the honor of being _personally known to him_, nor do I pretend to be completely master of the facts." But if Francis was Junius, this statement could not be true.
While I am upon this subject of personal knowledge and acquaintance, let me bring forward something against Francis. It is well known that he attended school for about three years with Mr. Woodfall, and that a friendship strong and intimate existed between them through life. Put over against this, from private note to Woodfall, No. 17, the following: "I doubt much whether I shall ever have the pleasure of knowing you; but if things take the turn I expect, you shall know _me by my works_." The italics are his own. Here is a positive statement that Junius did not know Woodfall, and an implied one that Woodfall did not know Junius. If Francis was Junius, here is confusion confounded; but if Paine was Junius, it is as clear as day. But to proceed.
In regard to Bradshaw, Chamier, and Barrington, Taylor quotes from _Domitian_, _Veteran_, _Q. in the Corner_, and _Arthur Tell Truth_, all miscellaneous letters. He also quotes once from private note No. 52, which, like the two others I have shown, is undoubtedly a forgery. This note was dated January 25, 1772, and was written with the manifest purpose of paving the way to those four low and scurrilous attacks on Lord Barrington by _Veteran_. These he began on the 28th, three days after the private note, and promised sixteen letters "already written," but only wrote four, when he exhausted himself. Nearly all the evidence in favor of Francis is taken from these letters. Taylor establishes _not a single fact_ under the first head from _Junius_, and I believe only quotes him _once, and to prove nothing_. I now proceed with the next count.
"Secondly, that he was intimately acquainted with the business of the War Office." In answer to this, I will quote Taylor, page 61, as follows: "But in the letters at the end of the third volume [Letters of _Veteran_, vol. iii, Woodfall's Junius] it seems as if he was almost indifferent to discovery, he so clearly betrays his _personal acquaintance_ with the proceedings of the Secretary of War." This he founds solely on _Veteran_.
"Thirdly, that he, during the year 1770, attended debates in the House of Lords, and took notes of the speeches, particularly of the speeches of Lord Chatham." Taylor tries to establish this claim on the letter _Y. Z._, which is in the Miscellaneous collection. But I insist, _Y. Z._ must be proven to be Junius before any inference can be drawn from it. Taylor can not even prove that Francis wrote it. But he draws an inference from the following in Philo Junius: "In regard to Lord Camden, the truth is, that he inadvertently overshot himself, as appears plainly by that unguarded mention of a tyranny of forty days, _which I myself heard_." The argument is, Junius heard speeches in Parliament, and therefore _might_ have been Francis, as speeches were not reported till long after. As this extract is from authority which I indorse, I will meet it by a passage from Thomas Paine's Crisis vii, showing that he also heard debates in Parliament. Speaking of national honor, he says: "I remember the late Admiral Saunders declaring in the House of Commons, and that in the time of peace, 'that the city of Madrid laid in ashes was not a sufficient atonement for the Spaniards taking off the rudder of an English sloop of war.'"
"Fourthly, that he bitterly resented the appointment of Mr. Chamier to the place of Deputy Secretary at War." This is founded entirely on the letters of _Veteran_.
"Fifthly, that he was bound by some strong tie to the first Lord Holland." This argument is founded on the _silence_ of Junius in regard to Lord Holland, and one letter of _Anti-Fox_, which is in the Miscellaneous collection.
These five points, then, of Taylor's argument are all founded on unauthenticated letters, and yet Macaulay says: "If this argument does not settle the question, there is an end of all reasoning on circumstantial evidence." But, if the evidence of those miscellaneous letters is to be taken as true, which were written nobody knows by whom, and collected forty years after Junius ceased writing, and which had been thrown out of the genuine edition by Junius himself, or had not yet been written, by what rule are we to be guided in settling the question? Let me present a difficulty at once. Suppose I am a Scotchman. I wish to make out a case for some one of my countrymen, and I turn to the Miscellaneous collection and find a letter signed _Scotus_. Ah! here is a Scotchman, as the signature denotes. I immediately begin to read, and to my happiness the first sentence is an unqualified affirmation: "My lord, I am a Scotchman." This is positive, I affirm; and then how delighted I am to find, in a private note, the assurance to Mr. Woodfall that this letter "_is fact_." And, more than this, the original manuscript is at this hour in existence. Now, all I have to do is to show that this disguised hand resembles that of some cotemporary Scotchman's, and Scotland has the honor. This shows how absolutely worthless any argument is, founded on the Miscellaneous Letters. Query: Did not the experts depend largely on the manuscript of this spurious Scotch epistle to make out a case of identity in handwriting? As the above five points which I have reviewed, form the head and body of Taylor's argument, it would be trifling to attack the appendages. These hints will guide the reader.
But the fact is, were the five points which Taylor enumerates and tries to prove from miscellaneous letters established, still there would be no case for Francis. But even _admitting there is_ a good case made out for him on miscellaneous letters, _there is nothing incompatible_ with my case in favor of Thomas Paine founded on the _genuine Letters_. This may be made manifest by the following further observations:
There is no evidence of any weight brought forward to prove that Francis was Junius, because it is _assumed_ that Junius wrote those miscellaneous letters, and especially _Veteran's_ productions. But first prove that Junius was _Veteran_. This can not be done, and it is an important premise in the argument left out. It would be easier to prove that Francis was _Veteran_; and this I do not dispute. It makes my case far stronger to have a clear case made for Francis, founded on the spurious and miscellaneous letters. But that Junius did not write the letters which Taylor makes the foundation of his argument there is abundance of internal evidence to prove. The evidence of forgery I have already adduced. But could Francis have forged the hand of Junius? I answer yes; and for the following reasons:
1. His acquaintance, friendship, intimacy, and peculiar political views would give a ready access to Woodfall's office.
2. The handwriting of Junius could not be kept a secret for it went to the compositors. Nor did Woodfall keep it from the public; nor did he even keep the secrets of Junius as he ought to have done, for it was from Woodfall himself that Garrick obtained the fact that Junius would write no more, after he had compiled his work.
3. After getting a specimen of the disguised hand of Junius, Francis could easily forge it. As evidence of this I quote from Taylor, p. 278, as follows: "It has been observed of him [Francis] that he possessed so perfect a command of his pen that he could write every kind of hand." Taylor acknowledges this extraordinary power of Francis.
Now take with the above three facts the internal evidence of forgery, both in the spirit and on the face of the letters, and we have a strong case in favor of Francis forging the hand of Junius, but assuming the name of _Veteran_.
But again, private notes may be forged as well as letters for publication, which injures them as evidence. And who shall decide at this late day on forgeries? I have herein adduced enough evidence to throw great doubt on the Miscellaneous Letters, and if any thing can be proven from internal evidence, which is acknowledged by all to be the best in the world; then two letters and two private notes accompanying them, I have shown in the language of Junius to be _spurious_. The truth is, there is nothing absolutely safe outside of the _genuine_ edition, for this alone has the plain and positive approval of Junius. Moreover, it was compiled for the purpose of sifting the cheat from the pure grain, and as Junius had assumed one other signature besides his own, he thought it necessary to cast out other publications falsely attributed to him, and unqualifiedly states in reference to Philo Junius, "The fraud was innocent, and I always intended to explain it." Why was he thus explicit if he had been writing continually over other signatures?
Besides the above, the letters of Junius are finished productions, which took much time and care to write, and Junius could not therefore be the author of all those miscellaneous letters attributed to him in Woodfall's edition, for the time is too short to produce them. But it is preposterous to assume that Francis could attend to his clerical duties, and often take down speeches in Parliament, and at the same time write all those letters, both genuine and miscellaneous.
Again in the _genuine_ Letters, there is perfect harmony from the first to the last. There is the same sentiment, spirit, object and style, throughout the whole, and not a single contradiction anywhere to be found. This can not be said of the Miscellaneous Letters, as I have already shown. I would particularly call attention to the language of Junius when charged by Mr. Horne of writing under various signatures, and that he was known. To this Junius responds: "I rely on the consciousness of _my own integrity_, and defy him to fix any colorable charge of inconsistency upon me." The whole _life_, as well as writings of Thomas Paine, sustains this assertion. I have studied Paine and Junius with this affirmation in view, and never have I found Paine to express an opinion inconsistent with Junius. Sometimes there is a change of opinion which he indicates or points out. For example, Junius thought highly of the English army. Paine had reason to change his mind in regard to it, and he says, he once thought the same and reasoned from the same prejudices.
These facts are enough to open the eyes of the reader, and to show him that Taylor's Junius Identified, is a literary fraud no doubt innocently perpetrated. Taylor jumped at a conclusion, namely, that the Miscellaneous Letters were the letters of Junius, and took them as authority, without one thought of inquiry into their authenticity. But his great work should have been, first to _prove_ the Miscellaneous Letters _genuine_. After this he should have shown that Francis was a Scotchman, who was chagrined at the abuse of the Scotch, and at the same time was an Englishman who was intensely exasperated at the Scotch, and that these two facts are not inconsistent with his being an Irishman.
In conclusion, I will submit the following letter of Francis in reply to the editor of the Monthly Magazine, who had made inquiry of Sir Philip, in regard to his being the author of the Letters of Junius:
JULY, 1813.
SIR--The great civility of your letter induces me to answer it, which, with reference merely to its subject matter, I should have declined. Whether you will assist in giving currency to a silly, malignant falsehood, is a question for your own discretion. To me it is a matter of perfect indifference.
I am sir, yours, etc., P. FRANCIS.
I think the word _silly_ in the above letter has a telling significance.
* * * * *
Transcriber's Notes:
1. General transcription clarifying notes:
A. The original printing of this book did not include a Table of Contents, one has been added by the transcriber to aid reader navigation. Major text breaks and page headers were used to formulate the "Chapters".
B. Footnotes have been moved to Chapter ends and have been assigned letters instead of symbols. Each footnote originally appeared on the same page as its reference point.
C. In the chapter entitled "Letter--To the Printer of the Public Advertiser" the footnotes section has been re-titled "DOCTORS NOTES" to coordinate with the next chapter entitled "Comments on Doctors Notes". The note references have been placed in brackets, [1], [2], etc., instead of the parentheses in the original text.
E. In the original book passages of "Common Sense" and the "Letters of Junius" were presented side by side. In this e-text these comparisons have been made by differently indented paragraph blocks. Additional quotes and emdashes have been added as needed.
2. Spelling corrections: (#) = times correctly spelled elsewhere in text.
Pg. 62 "interpid" to "intrepid" (an intrepid leader)
Pg. 206 "surmont" to "surmount" (1) (surmount local prejudices)
Pg. 208 "dependance" to "dependence" (6) (dependence on, Great Britain)
Pg. 253 "christian" to "Christian" (27) (between infidel and Christian)
Pg. 255 "repetiton" to "repetition" (3) (in the repetition of)
Pg. 328 "Whately" to "Whateley" (3) (of Mr. Whateley)
3. Printers corrections and notations on anomolies:
Pg. 112 "--Letter to." - has been retained as it appears in the text, no name for the "to" was given.
Pg. 214 changed "Is" to "is" (to one point, is the power)
Pg. 219 removed duplicate word "of" (sum of individual happiness)
Pg. 228 Section: USURPATION, notations of Paragraph 10, 11, 12, Item "b", sentence correctly ends with "," as item "c" is it's continuation and Paragraph 15, Item "f" "to be" correctly ends without punctuation, and continues in item "g" (to be "Tried").
Pg. 239 Section "First Period", Item 10. "...laws have given" ends without punctuation but continues in Item 11 (Equally to all).
Pg. 254 Paragraph ends with a new sentence starting "And" with no punctuation, which may be the lead in to the next paragraph beginning with "First," and has been retained in this text.
Pg. 268 added word "Works," ("...on the table."--Works, vol. ix,)
Pg. 268 note *Works, vol. v, p. 466. appearing at the bottom of the page had NO REFERENCE POINT, but has been retained in this text and incorporated into the final paragraph of the page which appears to have been the authors intent.
Pg. 310 added correct indentation to quotation: (It signifies a nominal office)
4. Known or suspected archaic words used and retained in this text:
"banditti" (alt. of "bandit") "belligerant" (Fr. Lat. belligerans, arch. of "belligerent") "burthen" (arch. of "burden") "cotemporary(ies)" (arch. of "contemporary") "embassador" (arch. of "ambassador") "eulogium" (ML. of "eulogy") "gayety" (alt. of "gaiety") "incontestible" (alt. for "incontestable") "plentitude" (alt. for "plenitude") "pretentions" (alt. for "pretensions") "rythm" (arch. of "rhythm") "vascillating" (alt. for "vacillating") "wot" (1st and 3rd pers. sing., pr., ind. of "wit")
5. Word variations retained in this text:
"aspertion" (Let. of Junius) and "aspersion" (elsewhere) "gun-boat" (1), "gun-boats" (1), and "gunboats" (1) "Int." (1), "Introd." (1), and "Introduc." (1) (all abbreviations of "Introduction") "re-write" (1) and "rewrite" (1) "viz.," and "viz" (W.E.D. ind. either is correct for "namely") "Wedderburn" (1), "Wedderburn's" (2) and "Wedderburne" (3)