The questions asked by your correspondent "P." (No. 18. p. 172.)
perplexed by their simplicity. The answer, if answer can be seriously
required, was obvious. All that was ever urged in favour of every other
claimant was against the claim of Sir George Jackson. Beyond this I know
not what reply could be given. Emboldened by silence, "P." now proceeds
(p. 276.) to adduce certain evidence which he supposes has some bearing
on the question. "I possess," he says, "an unpublished letter by Junius
_to_ Woodfall, which once belonged to Sir George Jackson. My query is,
'Is it likely he would have obtained it from Junius, if he were neither
Junius himself nor a party concerned?'" What can be the meaning of this,
obtain _from Junius_ a letter which Junius had sent to Woodfall? Why, it
is obvious that Sir George must have obtained it as "P." obtained it--as
all autograph collectors obtain their treasures--directly or indirectly,
by gift or by purchase, mediately or immediately from one of the
Woodfalls--probably from Henry Sampson Woodfall--probably from George
Woodfall, who has recorded the fact that he lent one letter to a Mr.
Duppa, which was never returned. "P." then proceeds a step further, and
observes--"The manner in which Burke evades the question, as to himself
being the author of Junius, makes me think two or three were concerned
in these letters." Well, and it made others think so half a century or
more since. The three Burkes have often been named--the Burkes again,
with the assistance of Samuel Dyer: and Mr. Prior put forth a very
reputable argument in favour of the claims of the Burkes, but it was
delicate and died young. If your correspondent has nothing to urge in
favour of this conjecture, why disinter it? "P.," however, has it
in his power to do some service to the cause: let him send you, for
publication, an exact copy of the Junius' letter, following carefully
the spelling, the capital letters, the instructions, and even the
punctuation.
Mr. John Sudlow's conjectures are still more simple. He evidently is not
aware that when a public writer assumes a character he is bound to hold
to it consistently; and that as "ATTICUS" was then writing on the
subject of the national debt, and objecting to the financial policy of
the minister, he naturally affected to be a fundholder, to be
frightened, and to have, in consequence, removed his property. What a
strange notion Mr. Sudlow must have of Steele and Addison, if he has
read the _The Spectator_ and _The Tatler_ after this literal fashion.
But I will not speculate on his speculations, but come to facts.
It is true that "amongst the letters attributed to Junius, and, in the
opinion of Dr. Good, most certainly his production, is one signed
Atticus," {323} which your correspondent proceeds to quote, adding that
it is "believed to be the first which appeared signed Atticus." This is
really a little "too bad." It is known, and ought to have been known to
your correspondent before he intermeddled, that Good, though he wrote
so confidently in public, had "most certainly" very great doubts in
private; that others who have examined the question have no doubt at
all; and have, indeed, adduced such strong proofs against Good's
conjectures, that the gentleman now engaged in producing a new edition
of Good's work speaks, in the first volume, the only one yet published,
of Good's "unhesitating affiliation" of these letters, and announces his
intention of offering hereafter "strong proof" that the letters signed
Poplicola, _Atticus_, and others, "_were not written by Junius_." That
there may be persons who _believe_ that the letter quoted was the first
which appeared signed Atticus, I cannot deny; but all who are reasonably
informed on the subject _know_ that it is not so;--know, as stated not
long since in the _Athenæum_, that letters signed Atticus appeared
in the _Public Advertizer_ from 1766 to 1773--possibly before and
after--and that within that period there were at least thirty-seven
letters published, from which Good was pleased to select four.