In the _Quarterly Review_ for 1852 (vol. xc. No. 179.) appeared a clever
and speciously written article on the long debated question of the identity
of Junius, in which the writer labours at great length to prove that
Thomas, second Lord Lyttelton, who died in 1779, was the real substance of
the shadow of Junius, hitherto sought in vain. That this Lord Lyttelton was
fully competent to the task, I do not doubt; and that there are many points
in his character which may well be reconciled with the knowledge we possess
of the imaginary Junius, I also admit--but this is all. The author of the
review has wholly failed, in my opinion, to prove his case and the remark
he makes on Mr. Britton's theory (as to Col. Barre) may equally well apply
to his own, namely, that it affords "a [another] curious instance of the
delusion to which ingenious men may resign themselves, when they have a
favourite opinion to uphold!" The reviewer, indeed, admits that he has
"traced the parallel from the scantiest materials;" and in another passage
repeats, that but "few materials exist for a sketch of Thomas Lyttelton's
life." Of these materials used by the reviewer, the principal portion has
been derived from the two volumes of letters published in 1780 and 1782,
attributed to Lord Lyttelton, but the authorship of which has since been
claimed for William Coombe. The reviewer argues, that they are
"substantially genuine;" but evidence, it is believed, exists to the
contrary.[1] According to Chalmers, these letters were "publicly disowned"
by the executors of Lord Lyttelton; and this is confirmed by the notice in
the _Gentleman's Magazine_ for 1780, p. 138., shortly after the publication
of the first volume. Putting aside, however, this moot-point (which, I
trust, will be taken up by abler hands, as it bears greatly on the theory
advanced by the author of the _Review_), I proceed to another and more
conclusive line of argument. In the _Preliminary Essay_, prefixed to
Woodfall's edition of Junius, 1812 (vol. i. p. *46.), the following
statement is made in regard to that writer, the accuracy of which will
scarcely be doubted:
"There is another point in the history of his life, during his
appearance as a public writer, which must not be suffered to pass by
without observation: and that is, _that during a great part of this
time, from January 1769 to January 1772, he uniformly resided in
London, or its immediate vicinity, and that he never quitted his stated
habitation for a longer period than a few weeks._"
Now, do the known facts of Thomas Lyttelton's life correspond with this
statement or not? The reviewer says, p. 115.:
"For a period of three years after Mr. Lyttelton lost his
seat[2]--_that period during which Junius wrote his acknowledged
compositions_--we hardly find a trace of him in any of the
contemporaneous letters or memoirs that have fallen under our
observation."
But how is it, let me ask, that the author of the review has so studiously
avoided all mention of one work, which would at once have furnished traces
of Thomas Lyttelton at this very period? I allude to the volume of _Poems
by a Young Nobleman of distinguished Abilities, lately deceased_, published
by G. Kearsley: London, 1780, 4to. Does not this look much like the
_suppressio veri_ which follows close on the footsteps of the _assertio
falsi_? It is hardly credible that the reviewer should not be acquainted
with this book, for he refers to the lines spoken in 1765, at Stowe, in the
character of Queen Mab, which form part of its contents; and the existence
of the work is expressly pointed out by Chalmers, and noticed by Lowndes,
Watt, and other bibliographers. Among the poems here published, are some
which ought to have received a prominent notice from the author of the
review, if he had fairly stated the case. These are:
1. Lines "to G----e Ed----d Ays----gh, Esq., [George Edward Ayscough,
cousin to Thomas Lyttelton] _from Venice, the 20th July, 1770_."--P.
22.
2. "An Irregular Ode, _wrote at Vicenza, in Italy, the 20th of August,
1770_."--P. 29.