Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

taken separately, are of common occurrence in the openings of Letters; but their combination is likely to be extremely rare. Mr. Chabot says he has never seen them combined, except in Junius and Francis; and Mr. Twisleton, who has examined more than 3000 Letters in the “ Grenville Papers,” the “ Anson Papers," and other documents of the same kind, likewise states that he has never seen those lier Letters of Francis, but during the

This practice is not traceable in the earpoints united in any other writer. Mr. Chabot, therefore, we think, is justified in writing of the Junian Letters he seems unadding that, “

consciously to have adopted himself the upon comparing a paper form of signature which he had assumed written anonymously with the known Letters of a suspected party, such a combina- the Junian Letters were being written

as a disguise. On two occasions, whilst tion in each document would carry suspi- viz. on the 3rd May, 1769, and on the 14th cion to the highest point, and united to a few only of other coincidences of equal im- July, 1770— he added two lines, precisely portance, would, by an impartial mind, be as in the Junian signature, thus : deemed conclusive as to the reality of the suspected fact.”

Another habit which Francis had in writing was to put a fullstop after the salutation, thus: “ Sir.” “ My Lord.” This we find in forty-one out of the forty-two Letters in Francis's Letter Book. - The habits of different persons differ in this It is interesting to observe, as Mr. Twierespect. Some put a comma, a few put a leton has pointed out. that this Letter of fullstop, a very few put a semicolon, and the 3rd of May, 1769, was written only the great majority of writers put no stop two days before the private Letter of at all after the salutation. Others do not Junius to Woodfall, No. 2. Francis signed follow any fixed rule, but sometimes put his initials, P. F., between two dashes on no stop, sometimes put a fullstop, and the Wednesday, and Junius signed his inisometimes put a comma. What was re- tial letter, C, between two dashes on the markable in Francis was his settled habit Friday, of marking his salutations with a fullstop. In connection with this subject the folOn scrutinizing Junius with a knowledge lowing anecdote may be mentioned, for of this habit, it will be found that in this which Mr. Twisleton was indebted to Mr. volume there are twenty-five salutations W. J. Blake, of Danesbury, to whom it was of Junius ; that he placed after every one told by his father, the late Mr. William of them either a fullstop or a line of sep- Blake : aration; that he substituted the line of separation in seven instances only, which are in informal Letters to his printer; while in twelve other Letters to his printer, and in all his formal Letters, such as the three Letters to Mr. Grenville, the first Letter to Lord Chatham, the Letter signed «Vindex, and the Letter signed * Scotus,' a fullstop invariably follows the salutation."

We may also direct attention to the manner in which Junius signed his Letters. He rarely subscribed himself otherwise than with the single initial capital letter C, which he placed between two lines, thus : *

Claret

Chitchat

Gauxe ,
Candidate

• It may be remarked, by the way, that these two forms of the letter C can be traced to the hand of Francis, as shown in the following facsimiles:

!

;? _

are

“ After the publication of Junius Identified," Mr. William Blake was in a country house with Sir Philip Francis, and happened to converse with him on the poetry of Lord Byron, to which Sir Philip expressed his aversion. This induced Mr. Blake to single out for his perusal the well known lines in the Giaour,' beginning with • He who hath bent him o'er the dead.' Fran

The most remarkable instances cis read them, went to a writing table, seized a these of the notes of exclamation and inpiece of paper, wrote down on it a string of terrogation, involving in each three operawords which he extracted from those lines, end- tions of the pen, thús:ing with • nothingness' and 'changeless,' added JUNIUS,

FRANCIS. below them the word “senseless,' and then rapidly subscribed his initials between the two

2 dashes. On observing the signature, Mr. Blake said to him, Pray will you allow me to ask you, Sir Philip, do you always sign your initials in that manner?' Sir Philip merely

The attention which Junius and Francis answered grufily, I know what you mean, Sir,' and walked away. This took place in or paid to punctuation had been previously about the year 1817, forty-eight years after the noticed by Mr. Taylor:3rd of May, 1769, the date of the Letter, in this “Nothing affords greater scope for diversity volume in which the signature of his initials be- of practice than the mode of punctuation. It is tween two dashes first occurs.

a common thing for writers to be very careless There is also a striking similarity be- in this matter : but Junius and Sir Philip are tween Junius and Francis in their mode particular in the use of stops, pointing with

minute of abbreviating words. This will be seen The principle upon which this is done shows the

accuracy even the most trilling notes. by two or three examples. Junius and closest conformity of plan. It may seem a trivFrancis occasionally abbreviated the words ial circumstance to some, but the introduction “though” and “would,” thus: “tho',” of the short stroke – or dash — between words “ wod,” as in the following facsimiles :

as well as sentences, to the degree in which it JUNIUS.

is done by both of them, is characteristic of the writers." Junius Identified, p. 375.

On the nature of the evidence thus adduced, the following remarks of Mr. Twis

leton deserve attention : FRANCIS.

“ It is to be remembered that the evidence of the identity of Junius and Francis as band.

writers is cumulative; that is to say, the force wo.

of the evidence depends not on any one single

coincidence, but on numerous coincidences varySo also both Junius and Francis occasion- ing materially in their individual strength, ally abbreviated the words “ do not,” and which, when viewed in connexion lead irresist“your,” in the following manner:

ibly to one inference alone, though each by it

self may be inconclusive. A common fallacy in JUNIUS, FRANCIS.

dealing with such evidence is to take each coincidence separately, and to show that a similar coincidence exists in some other writer. This

would be a perfectly legitimate mode of reasoning if any one coincidence so dealt with were adduced as in itself conclusive; but it fails to meet the requirements of the case, when the argument is based on the combination of many

such coincidences collectively, and not on the Junius and Francis both punctuated separate existence of any one of them. Pertheir writing habitually; and where a sen- haps the best illustration of the force of cumulatence ends in the middle of a paragraph, made, but which is not, on that acccunt, the

tive evidence is one which has long since been they frequently give force to the punctua- less valuable. It is the inference that dice are tion by substituting a dash for a period, loaded, founded on the observation that the and sometimes more effectively by employ- same numbers — say, double sixes — are thrown ing both. Occasionally they add this dash so many times, say fifty times running, that the to every other form of punctuation, in the fact cannot possibly be accounted for by chance. following manner, thus :

In such a case it would be vain for an advocate

the

no

tha

don't don't
M. y

to attempt to shake the inference by stating , allel, are the same width apart, showing that
after each individual throw that every dice- the paper has been made in the same frame or
player sometimes threw double sixes, or oc- mould.
casionally threw many double sixes in succes- “ And, further, I find the two sheets of paper
sion. The point would be that the double sixes are so exactly of the same size and shape, both
are thrown fifty times running.

having been cut slightly out of truth, whereby
“ Applying this illustration to Mr. Chabot's the top edge of the paper is not mathematically
Reports, it would be well, after studying them, parallel with the bottom edge, that I cannot
to review connectedly all the instances of habits doubt they have been taken from one and the
which he has pointed out as common to Junius same quire of paper. And, furthermore, I find
and Francis. In page 134, ten such habits are that the colour of the ink with which those two
specified, which are not necessarily dependent on Letters have been written is the same in both.
the mode of forming letters. Of these, the very Where the ink lies thinly, the writing is pale
first habit is likely to be so rare that it will and somewhat brown; whereas where the write
probably be difficult to find a parallel in any ing has been written with a full pen, it is quite
contemporary of Junius and Francis. If such black."
a parallel is discovered, the point will arise
whether such habit is found in conjunction with

Finally, we will mention one more fact, the second habit ; and if this is so, whether which appears to us of equal, if not greater these two are found in conjunction with the importance than of any preceding ones. third habit, and so forth. And then, if all these. The original proof sheets of the Letters ten habits are found combined in any other in- of Junius are preserved in the British dividual, the question will present itself whether Museum, and several of them are lithothe same person unites the nine characteristics graphed in the volume before us. They enumerated in pages 101 and 102. And, if contain various obliterations, which, upon even those characteristics belong to him, a ques- a narrow scrutiny by Mr. Chabot, were tion will still remain whether the same individ- fonnd to conceal precisely the same words ual combines the nine habits as to the formation and figures as those which now stand in of letters which are specified in page 133. There their places, and which are made to appear is thus a union of at least twenty-eight habits in Junins and Francis ; some of them involv- as corrections of the obliterated writing. ing a complex variety of minor habits or The words obliterated are in a handwritpeculiarities : and all these habits are to be ing of Francis : the words written over viewed in connection with the evidence, which them in that of Junius. This is especially shows that Francis has left the mark of his un- seen in the dates of the Letters. The disguised hand on the Proof Sheets of Junius. dates were not inserted in the manuscripts Commencing with the facsimiles in this volume as sent to the printer, but were added in of the autographs of seventeen different contem- the proof sheets. It would seem that porary writers, search should be made to ascer- Francis, being more off his guard in cortain how many of those twenty-eight habits co- recting the proofs than in writing the exist in any other autographs; and the ultimate Letters, inadvertently inserted the dates point to be decided will be whether the combina- in his natural handwriting; but, upon distion of all of them in Junius and Francis can

covering the mistake he had committed, have been accidental.”

he carefully blotted out these dates, and Previous investigators had called atten- rewrote them above the obliterations in tion to the paper upon which Junius and his feigned hand. But, notwithstanding Francis wrote; but though this is a matter

all the pains he took, the original writing of less consequence than the handwriting,

can still be deciphered behind the oblitera

tions. the observations of Mr. Chabot deserve notice :

“ To assist in concealing these inadvertencies,

and perhaps for the purpose of misleading those “I have examined in every way most minute who might seek to lay them bare, Francis has ly the quality of the paper, both as regards col- previously to making the broad marks of defaceour, texture, and thickness, of Junius's first ment tampered with the writing, by the introLetter to Mr. Grenville, on the 6th February, duction of superfluous letters or portions of them 1768, and I find it perfectly agrees in each of - a practice often resorted to when obliterations those particulars with that of Francis's Letter are made in wills, but which generally fails in written little more than two months previously, effecting its object, as in the present case. Thus viz, on 5th December, 1767. The two sheets of in the first obliterated date, tails have been paper on which those Letters are written also added to the capital J (first written as a letter agree in the following particulars :

I), and to the figures 2 and 6. A dot has been “ The device of the water-mark is the same. placed over the first letter a in' January,' and “ The initials of the maker are the same; and the second letter a has been altered into a letter “ The water-lines, which are not quite par-t, thus :"

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

ji January robe

29. Suly. 1769.

his case.

5. July 1769

We have come to this conclusion after a' careful examination of the evidence before us, and are not deterred from expressing

it by the apprehension of being taunted On examining the photographed proof- with inconsistency. In a previous number sheets we find that all the original dates of this “Review"*

we advocated the have been obliterated and written in the claims of the second Lord Lyttelton for feigned hand, except in one instance, the authorship of Junius, and, on a subsenamely, in the Letter to Dr. William quent occasion, † we stated various reasons Blackstone, where Francis forgot to make against supposing Francis to be the writer the obliteration, and has left the date [29. of the Junian Letters. We are not insenJuly. 1769.) in his own handwriting. We sible to the force of the arguments brought subjoin a facsimile of this date, together forward in the latter of these articles: we with facsimiles of two dates written by candidly confess that we sat down to the Francis in his private letters, in the very study of the Reports before us with a same month and year.

strong impression that it was impossible JUNIUS.

to identify Francis and Junius by a simple comparison of their respective handwritings; but truth and justice compel us to confess that we have risen from them with the conviction that Mr. Chabot has proved

We are conscious that the exFRANCIS.

amples we have quoted may convey to our readers an inadequate idea of the con

clusive nature of Mr. Chabot's arguments. 30.

They are only a few out of many hundred proofs; and they derive their chief force, as we have already remarked, from their cumulative character. Taken separately they are striking, but might in some cases

be accidental: taken collectively they are After this, can any one doubt that irresistible, and their similarity cannot be the Letters of Junius were written by explained by any conceivable number of Francis ? *

accidental resemblances. If, therefore, the

instances we have cited are not sufficient If the hypothesis should be started that Francis to convince some of our readers, we would hand wrote the letters for another person, but was ask them to suspend their conclusion till Twisleton: - To make intelligible the precise if we may judge by the impression profor consideration the following observations of Mr. they have consulted the book itself, which bearing of the handwriting on the authorship, it may duced upon our own minds, will convert handwriter would be conclusive as to who was the the most incredulous. author for any one who entertains a strong conviction of the truth of any one of the four following

We have already remarked that this propositions : - 1st. That the known character of

possesses an independent value the handwriter forbids the supposition of his hav- apart from the Junian controversy. We ing submitted during four or five years to be the had intended to point out its bearing upon in his Dedication to the English Nation, would not other branches of enquiry, but having have volunteered the assertion

work

that he was the sole exhausted our space, we must content ourput himself in the power of another person by mak-selves with referring to the important ing use of him as an amanuensis. 3rdly. That the assistance it will render to all persons conprivate Letters of Junius to Woodfall, and the cornected

with the administration of justice.f rections in the proof sheets bear internal marks of having been written, not by an amanuensis, but by the author himself. 4thly. That, independently of gard to whom it cannot be shown that he was more handwriting, the evidence which points to the hand competent and more likely than Francis to have writer as the author is so strong, standing alone, composed the Junian Letters, and that he might that although it may possibly not be conclusive, it possibly have made use of Francis as his amanuenjustities vehement suspicion, and attains a high de- sis." gree of moral probability. Each reader must judge Quarterly Review," vol. xc., p. 131. for himself whether one or more of these proposi. # Ibid., vol. cxxiv., p., 322. tions commands his assent. For any one who be- The Courts of Common Law have long admitted lieves in the truth of all the four, it would be idle to the principle that a comparison of handwritings undervalue the strength of moral conviction as to may be employed as an instrument in the investi. the authorship, which must arise from the fact of gation of truth, but till within the last few years it the handwriter having been definitively ascertained. was limited to two cases -Ist, the case of ancient And, at the very lowest, if Francis was the hand documents, and 2ndly, in reference to documents al. writer, this throws out of competition with him ready in evidence before the court; but these restricfor the authorship every individual candidate in re- 1 tions were abolished by the Legislature in civil

“It sometimes happens,” says Mr. Twisle-| be rejected as a forgery, or a forged will might tol, “ that it impossible to detect the author be accepted as genuine," * of anonymous letters or of a forged signature,

In conclusion, we congratulate Mr. except by a comparison of handwritings. A bad and base man may successfully have taken Twisleton, not only upon having settled, such precautions that no human eye saw his as we think, once for all the long-disputed hand while it was penning a particular docu- controversy respecting the authorship of ment, and that no external evidence is in the Junian Letters, but upon having proexistence to trace that document into his pos- duced the only work which has yet apsession. In such a case, everything in a trial peared in the English language, conveying inay depend on the special knowledge which is systematic instruction on the comparison brought to bear on the internal evidence of the of handwritings. The book opens a new document itself by the Advocates, the Jury, and interesting vein of inquiry, will be esand the Judge. From ignorance of the subject sential to all engaged in antiquarian or an advocate sometimes does not ask the proper legal pursuits, and ought to find a place in questions of an expert, whose evidence is favourable to his cause. From similar ignorance an

every well-appointed library. advocate on the other side is frequently driven into the subterfuge of declaiming against ex

* Mr. Twisleton adds in a note:-“In the Mat. perts, when, if he had a little knowledge of the tried before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn and a

lock Will Case (Cresswell v. Jackson), which was subject, be might weaken the force of adverse London Special Jury in 1864, three codicils to a will evidence by two or three reasonable objections. were rejected as forgeries. In this case, in which And if in a trial either the judge or a single erything, as far as handwriting was concerned, de prejudiced juryman held the opinion that no pended on minute differences, which he pointed out, certainty could be arrived at by comparison of and which the Chief Justice on the 1st of March, handwritings, or that in such comparison it 1864. in a summing up of remarkable ability, was a better test to look to general character his own comments. If the case had been tried by a than to individual letters, there might easily be judge under the influence of either of the princi. an absolute miscarriage of justice. If accused ples mentioned in the text, the forgery would prob. of writing malicious and libellous anonymous the Lord Chief Justice was published the same year

The summing up of letters, a guilty man might escape, or an inno- from a transcript of the short-hand writer's notes cent man might be condemned. When impor- (London, Alfred Boot, Dockhead, 1864). It will amtant interests were at ke a genuine will might postuabaya pery but it'also deserves special attention

as a luminous model of the manner in which evi. causes by the “Common Law Procedure Act” of dence founded on a comparison of handwritings 1854, and likewise in criminal cases in 1865.

may be presented to a jury.”

A Few minutes before and after the earth- | Blue Book of 1859–60, showing that the direcquakes of the 17th March last, powerful positive tion of these currents across England was in a electrical currents were rushing towards Eng- very notable degree determined by the contour of land through the two Anglo-American telegraph the coast, and that the same auroral discharges cables, which are broken near Trinity Bay, would often produce currents at right angles to Newfoundland. Mr. C. F. Varley, C.E., who each other in direction, in different parts of informed us of the fact, broaches the novel Britain,

Nature. speculation that some earthquakes may be due to subterranean lightning. He imagines that An examination of the mean monthly and as the hot centre of the earth is approached, a annual temperature of the British Isles, based layer of hot dried rock may be found which is on observations extending over a period of thiran insulator, while the red hot mass lower down teen years (1857 to 1869) at 155 stations, has is a conductor. If this conjecture be true been made by Mr. A, Buchan, the secretary of and there is plausibility in it — then the world the Scottish "Meteorological Society, and pubitself is an enormous Leyden jar, which only lished in a recent number of their Journal. requires charging to a very moderate degree to This paper affords the first reliable solution of be equal to the production of terrific explosive this ineteorological problem, which has an imdischarges.

portant bearing especially on the agricultural The French Atlantic cable was disturbed at interests of the kingdom. The monthly isotherthe same time, and so were many of the Eng- mals illustrate the powerful conserving influence lish land-lines, but the only observations as to of the ocean on the temperature of these islands, the direction of the current were made by and they enjoy that mean annual temperature means of the Anglo-American telegraph cables. (45% to 52°) which experience has proved to be

A number of Mr. Varley's charts about earth- most conducive to health and longevity. currents were published in the Government

Academy.

« PreviousContinue »