Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Junius. Burke had not the deliberate, resolute, desperate, merciless, and ceaseless malignity of that formidable writer; he was not the wild boar of the forest-he was not the bloodthirsty bird of prey-he was not the public executioner, whose day was spent in leisurely marking the victims for the night-he was not the evil demon, secretly invading the repose of greatness, and shaking the throne of power; and, like reckless death, 'triumphing, not only in the extent of his conquests, but in the richness of his spoils'-he had not the property of the tiger, to crouch peaceably in the covert, and yet spring with deadly aim on all who came within reach of his paw-he was not accustomed to employ the secresy of a Venetian tribunal, or to strike with the certainty of the Holy Inquisition.'-I therefore contend, that till it can be proved that Burke was not in private life the benevolent character which I have described, and that he was the malignant being in private life which we trace in the Letters of Junius, we cannot, with any propriety, consider Burke to be the writer of them.”

After this, we should naturally conclude that Mr. Barker would endeavour to prove that Lloyd was the malignant being whom we trace in the Letters of Junius, or that he had, at least, some probable cause of enmity against the numerous exalted personages maligned by Junius; but he makes no such attempt.

When Mr. R. Fellowes first heard of Mr. Barker's intention to advocate the claim of Lloyd, he congratulated him, in a letter dated March 7th, 1827, in the following terms: "I hope you will prove the true Edipus, and solve the riddle that has puzzled so many men of brains and no brains, so many wits and witlings, for more

than half a century." But after having heard all that Mr. Barker could urge in Lloyd's favour, he closed the correspondence with the following letter:

MY DEAR SIR,

August 16th, 1827.

I return the four volumes of tracts you so obligingly sent for my perusal. I am now more than ever perplexed about the authorship of Junius. I cannot even hazard a guess upon the subject. I am indeed perplexed in what seems an inextricable labyrinth. I am convinced that neither Lloyd nor Whately were the authors of these far-famed compositions. If the Letters were concocted in the cabinet of the Grenvilles, they might have been in a greater or less degree auxiliaries; but two or three subordinate understandings cannot make one master mind. In intellectual operations, numbers do not constitute strength. There may be numerous forces in the field, but it is one presiding mind that marshals the host and gains the victory. Junius might have subalterns to assist, but he was alone and unrivalled in the execution. He is, however, still like the Man in the Iron Mask, a problem that has employed the wits of more than half a century in the solution. If Lloyd alone, or Lloyd and Whately, were in any degree accessories to the work, it must be remembered that they both died too early to make it prudent or safe for them to disclose what they knew. If the Grenvilles were in the secret, they had very momentous reasons to prevent them from divulging it during the last reign. Even at present they may feel a repugnance in having it known that they, in the person of their ancestor, if I may so speak, were accomplices in laying bare to the vulgar scorn the hypocritical interior of sceptred majesty, and in teaching the multitude to think and to speak contemptuously of kings. I am, etc.

R. FELLOWES.

Such being the final sentence passed on the claim of Charles Lloyd, by Mr. Barker's "eloquent, sagacious,

and intelligent friend" Mr. R. Fellowes, we have only to express our admiration of that gentleman's discriminating judgment in the words of Gratiano:

A Daniel, still say I; a second Daniel!

I thank thee, Jew, for teaching me that word.

Shakspeare.

SIR PHILIP FRANCIS.

Sir Nathaniel Wraxall is convinced that Sir Philip Francis was the author of Junius. I do not yet believe it. He was too vain a man to let the secret die with him.

Sir Egerton Brydges' Notes on Wraxall's Memoirs.

I persist in thinking that neither Mr. Burke, nor Sir Philip Francis, was the author of the Letters under the signature of Junius. I think the mind of the first so superior, and the mind of the latter so inferior, to that of Junius, as to put the supposition that either of them was Junius, wholly out of the question.

Mr. Charles Butler's Letter to Mr. E. H. Barker, 14th June 1828.

We must all grant that a strong case has been made out for Francis; but I could set up very stout objections to those claims. It was not in his nature to keep a secret. He would have told it from vanity, or from his courage, or from his patriotism. His bitterness, his vivacity, his acuteness, are stamped in characters very peculiar upon many publications that bear his name; and very faint indeed is their resemblance to the spirit, and in an extended sense of the word, to the style, of Junius.

Dr. Parr.

CHAPTER VII.

Mr. John Taylor's Publications in support of Sir Philip Francis's claim.-Sir Philip's Letter to the Editor of the Monthly Magazine on the subject.-The justness of Sir Philip's claim admitted by Atticus Secundus.-Mr. Butler's remarks on Mr. Taylor's Publications.-Different opinion expressed in the Edinburgh Review.-Sketch of the Life of Sir Philip Francis. His deficiencies in the most important Characteristics of Junius pointed out.-The Edinburgh Reviewer's Statement of the Case on behalf of Sir Philip.-The similarity of style between the Letters of Junius, and the Writings of Sir Philip, shewn only to prove that Sir Philip was a successful imitator of the style of Junius.-Many remarkable instances of successful imitation given.-Ireland's Shakspeare Papers.-Rowley's Poems.-The Poems of Ossian.— George Psalmanazar's Impostures. Several other particulars and coincidents stated by the Reviewer to prove that Sir Philip was the author of the Letters of Junius.-Answered by Mr. Barker.-Sir Philip Francis dies and “makes no sign" of his being Junius.-The opinions of Dr. Parr and Mr. Charles Butler on his claim, and on the Review in his favour.-The sentiments of a Writer in the North American

Review on the subject stated. Concluding remarks by
Mr. E. H. Barker, and the opinion of Sir Walter Scott on
Sir Philip's claim.

« AnteriorContinuar »