Junius.

JUNIUS .

JUNITJS'S emphatic declaration that his " secret" should "perish with him " is still both a " crux " and a truism . His motto , " Stat nominis umbra , " still , like the Sphynx of old , baffles explanation and defies investigation . Vain have been the essays of erudite commentators , the labours of learned " analysts , " the explanations of pseudo-Hierophants ; the great mystery still remains a mystery nevertheless for those who take an interest in such questions and such

investigations . Numerous as have been the names of the supposed " real and original writers , " we do not affect to suppose that the list is by any means completed , or the number of possible claimants for this posthumous distinction by any means exhausted . It may be well for us to number up here the names of those whom either irresponsible writersor injudicious friendsor eager partisanshave in

succes-, , , sion dogmatically and deliberately put forward as the writer of Junius . Claims , more or less urgent , more or less reasonable , have been asserted for Edmund Burke , for Home Tooke , for Hugh Boyd , for single speech Gerard Hamilton , for Horace Walpole , for Lord Chesterfield , for the wicked Thomas Lord L yttleton , for Dr . Wilmot , for M . De Lolme , for Mr . Charles Lloyd , for the Duke of Portland , for Lord George Sackville , for-General ... Lee ,.. arui for

Colonel Barre . On the theory of a co-partnership , we have Mrs . Dayrolle as the amanuensis of Lord Chesterfield , and Anna Chambers , afterwards Lady Temple , as the amanuensis of Lord Temple . Sir Philip Francis is , however , the person to whom Mr . Taylor orig inally , in his " Junius Justified , " etc ., ancl Mr Twisleton , in his " Hand-writing of Junius , " etc ., Exported by the authority of Lord CampbellLord Macaulayand Lord Stanhopeupheld to be the real Simon

, , , Pure , and to whom , we think , the modern view undoubtedly inclines . Still , it is felt , —we speak under correction , —that even the evidence of handwriting , detailed as it is with all the skill of M . Charles Chabot , the well . known " expert , " in Mr . Twistleton ' s magnificent volume , is , if very suggestive , by no means conclusive .

On the contrary , it is impossible to study carefully , for instance , Lady Temple ' s striking and peculiar handwriting without seeing how strangely it seems to accord with the writing of Junius . No doubt a good deal may be said in favour of the " Franciscan " theory , as it is termed . There are some wondrous and striking " coincidences , " such as M . Chabot has so skilfully educed , but yet the result of the whole argument is , as we said before , somewhat unsatisfactory

at the best , and does not appeal either to our sense of what is clear , what is distsinct , what is proved , what is convincing . If anything , M . Chabot proves too much , and it is perhaps well for us to remember here that the origin of the last important work " in re " Junius , " The Hand-writing of Junius , " etc ., published by Murray , 1871 , arose from a letter book of Sir Phillip Francis from 1767 to 1771 Mr . Smith ' s MSS . and the Woodfall MSS . in the British Museum—all

, , sent to M . Chabot b y Mr . Twistleton for comparison and collation . To this was added subsequently a copy of a note to Miss Giles at Bath , and some verses which had been said to be written by "Junius . " M . Chabot , after a most exhaustive examination and collation of Junian and Franciscan MSS .,

and considering the host , moreover , of opposing claimants , came to the unhesitating conclusion ( see p . 244 " Hand-writing of Junius , " etc . ) that " the letters of Francis and all the MSS of Junius were written by one and the same hand , "