Speculations about Junius are once again the fashion. I would recommend
the editor of "N. & Q." not to enter on the general question; but there
are ways, within his legitimate province, by which he might do good
service. For example, there have been many obscure persons alluded to in
these discussions, about whom we should all be glad to receive
information. Thus, Mr. Combe, the author of _Dr. Syntax's Tour_, figures
prominently in the last number of the _Quarterly Review_. Now, of Mr.
Combe very little is known: his name never, I believe, appeared in a
title-page, although he lived, or rather starved, by literature, for
half a century. From a correspondent of _The Athenæum_ I learn that a
list of Combe's works, in his own handwriting, is in the possession of
Mr. Robert Cole; and as Mr. Cole is said to be a very liberal man, I
have no doubt he would allow you to print that list. What a waste of
speculation, not on one subject, but many subjects, might thus be saved
to another generation of editors and contributors!
There are also numberless facts, or assumed facts, made to do duty in
these discussions, which might with great propriety be subjected to the
searching test of "N. & Q." I submit one as a specimen. The writer of
the above-mentioned article in the _Quarterly_ says: "It is universally
admitted that Junius must have been indefatigable in acquiring
information, and that he was pre-eminently distinguished by the variety
and extent of his knowledge;" and he then quotes from the _Parliamentary
History_ the reported opinion of Burke on this point: "Were he [Junius]
a member of this House, what might not be expected from his
knowledge?... Nothing would escape his vigilance and activity. Bad
ministers could conceal nothing from his sagacity, nor could promises or
threats induce him to conceal anything from the public." On this I
desire to observe, that the "variety and extent" of the knowledge of
Junius is not universally admitted--has indeed been publicly denied; and
that what Burke said, as above quoted, had no reference to Junius
whatever, but to the author of _Another Letter to Mr. Almon in Matter of
Libel_, then just published, and believed to have been written by the
author of the still more celebrated pamphlet, published in 1763 or 1764,
called _A Letter concerning Libels and Warrants_, &c. It is quite true
that the passage has been quoted, and so applied, twenty times, and been
forced to do double duty, that is, been adduced in proof of directly
opposite opinions. This was allowable up to 1842, but inexcusable since
the _Cavendish Debates_ have been published. (See _Cav. Deb._, vol. ii.
pp. 106, 107.)