398 Circumstantial evidence. Style of ADDENDA TO CHAP. IX. one by Junius. The Vindication of Natural Society by a late Noble Lord' was, by many good judges, believed to have been the production of Bolingbroke, until the ingenious deception was avowed by Burke. With regard to the immediate question, as it is a matter of opinion, I may be permitted to say, that I can discover no remarkable similarity between the acknowledged productions of Francis and those of Junius. Some superficial resemblance there is, indeed, in the style and sentiments, such as any writer might acquire with a little trouble; but I can detect little of the terseness and point of the anonymous writer in the orations of the Indian Councillor. 3. The circumstantial evidence to my mind is not more weighty. It is said that Junius spared Lord Holland. But why should a public writer, in the newspapers of 1769–72, attack Lord Holland? That nobleman had retired from public life many years. He might as well have attacked the Duke of Newcastle, or the memory of the Earl of Orford. Besides, there were many public men whom Junius abstained from attacking as well as Lord Holland. One would infer, from this argument, that Junius had run a-muck against every public character in the country. But he did nothing of the kind. Again, it is said, that twenty years after it was delivered, Francis supplied Almon with notes of a speech of Chatham's in 1770; and a close similarity in sentiment and expression is pointed out between several passages of that speech and several passages of Junius. The legitimate conclusion would be that Chatham himself was Junius; but as he certainly was not, it is suggested, why or wherefore I am unable to discover, that Francis himself must have been the man. Many persons besides Francis attended the galleries of both Houses, and it is possible, in those days, when the debates were not published, that some persons besides Francis might have thought it worth while to take notes of a speech of Chatham's. It has been well observed, also, by the editor of the Grenville Papers,' who has bestowed ADDENDA TO CHAP. IX much pains on the investigation of this curious question, that no speech in writing of Francis, previous to the publication of Junius, has been produced; therefore, the similarity of Francis's speeches and writings (if any) proves only that he was, like others, infected by the style of Junius. half-pay. 399 But the conclusive proof, it seems, is the mistake which Mistake about Junius made about Sir William Draper's half-pay. When SirW.Draper's Mr. Macaulay expresses so strong an opinion that such a mistake could have been made only by a person familiar with the business of the War-office (in which Francis was chief clerk), and that good judges of evidence agreed with him in that opinion, I must differ from it with great hesitation. But I am bound to say, that I do not feel the force of this evidence, or except, indeed, for the ingenious turn given to it, that it is any evidence at all. The fallacy seems to lie in the assumption, that nobody but a clerk in the waroffice was likely to know the forms required to be observed in drawing half-pay. But every recipient of half-pay was himself acquainted with those forms; many clergymen and magistrates before whom the requisite declaration is commonly taken must have known them. So that, as far as this proof is concerned, Junius might have been any halfpay officer, any minister of a parish, any justice of the peace. Some of the circumstances, however, have a more pointed Francis at the application. Francis left the war-office in the spring of war-office. 1772, because another man was promoted over his head; and this promotion is the subject of numerous letters by Junius, though under a disguised hand, written in a strain of passion, which, the comparatively insignificant nature of the subject considered, seemed to betoken a personal interest. The cessation of the Junius' letters coinciding with the departure of Francis for India is also a significant fact; and, if the other evidence had been equally cogent, would have gone far to complete the chain of testimony. As it is, however, I must venture to doubt whether Mr. Macaulay would, if he were upon a jury, hang a man upon such 400 Taxation of C. 2. ADDENDA TO CHAP. IX. evidence. If denial is to go for anything, it is certain that Francis denied the authorship of these productions in the most positive and indignant terms that could be employed. In fact, no man dared hint such a thing to him. The interest in this question has hardly yet abated; for, while I write, a new pretender has been set up in the person of the wicked' Lord Lyttelton, whose claims are supported with as much plausibility as those of any other candidate for the honour.-Quarterly Review, 185. The Athenæum also has some interesting papers on the same subject. (I. p. 376.) Pownall, who had been Governor of Massachusetts, in a remarkable speech on the Bill for the Suppression of the Assembly of New York, had emphatically said, 'That the people of America, universally, unitedly, and unalterably, are resolved not to submit to any internal tax imposed upon them by any legislature, in which they have not a share by representatives of their own election.'-Speech in the House of Commons, 1767. Statute of 35 (K. p. 381.) This statute (35 Hen. VIII. c. 2) was inHenry VIII. tended for the relief of English subjects who committed treason in foreign parts, and to afford them the benefit of the trial by jury, and of the laws which defined and regulated the trial of this offence. Yet, notwithstanding the plain language of the statute, which mentioned treasons, etc., committed out of the King's realm of England and others his Grace's dominions, the crown lawyers maintained that it was applicable to the case of subjects, inhabitants of a colony, part of the King's dominions, and having tribunals competent to take cognizance of the crime. If this act was, as the Solicitor-General, Dunning, maintained, in favour of the subject, it would have been a singular perversion of it to transfer the venue for the purpose of securing a conviction. As to a fair trial, a Boston man would have had little chance of obtaining one in England at that time. The people did not understand the colonial question; they thought the colonists were resisting the mother country, because they ADDENDA TO CHAP. IX. wished to avoid bearing their share of taxation. The attempt, however, was not made. 401 (L. p. 391.) Washington already saw the tendency of Washington's prescience. affairs. At this time he writes to Mason, that he should have no hesitation in taking up arms in defence of their liberties, if other resources should fail. - April, 1769. SPARKS'S Life of Washington. Ch. 10. 1769 Rump admi nistration of Lord Chat ham. CHAPTER X. REMNANT OF THE CHATHAM ADMINISTRATION—THE IN PARLIAMENT —DISMISSAL OF LORD CAMDEN-SUDDEN DEATH OF HIS SUCCESSOR THE worst government which this country had experienced since the Revolution was the rump administration of Lord Chatham. While that great man continued at the head of affairs and kept possession of his faculties, it mattered little that the other members of his cabinet were of slender capacity and experience. One commanding genius is enough for any government; and when such exists, it is better, perhaps, that the other ministers should be content with the discharge of subordinate duties. I have shown that Chatham had sketched the plan of a great administration, which his colleagues, deprived of his direction, were utterly unable to fulfil. For the perverse and calamitous measures which superseded the policy of Chatham, it would be a hard measure of justice to load the memory of his successor. The Duke of Grafton has been termed a minister by accident; |