Admitting that these poems are genuine, it is evident that their author,
Thomas Lyttelton, was abroad in Flanders and Italy during the years 1769
and 1770; and consequently could not have been the mysterious Junius, who
in those years (particularly in 1769) was writing constantly in or near
London to Woodfall and the _Public Advertiser_. Of what value then is the
assertion so confidently made by the reviewer (p. 133.):
"The position of Thomas Lyttelton in the five years from 1767 to 1772,
is exactly such a one as it is reasonable to suppose that Junius held
during the period of his writings;"
or how can it be made to agree with the fact of his residence on the
Continent during the greater part of the time?
{32}
The reviewer, indeed, tells us that "just as Junius concluded his great
work, Thomas Lyttelton returned to his father's house, and Chatham was one
of the first to congratulate Lord Lyttelton on the event." This was in
February 1772; and in the _Chatham Correspondence_, vol. iv. p. 195., is
Lord Lyttelton's letter of thanks in reply. The reviewer would evidently
have it inferred, that Thomas Lyttelton had returned home like a prodigal
son, after a temporary estrangement, and from a comparatively short
distance; but surely, had the volume of _Poems_ been referred to, it might
or rather _must_ have occurred to a candid inquirer, that in February 1772
Thomas Lyttelton returned from his _travels on the Continent, after an
absence of nearly three years_! But, perhaps, the authenticity of the
_Poems_ may at once be boldly denied? Is this the case? Chalmers certainly
includes them with the _Letters_, as having been "disowned" by Lord L.'s
executors; but says, "as to the _Poems_, they added, '_great part whereof
are undoubtedly spurious_.'" It is certain, therefore, that _some_ of the
_Poems_ are genuine; and it is a pity that the exceptions were not
specified, as the discussion might then have been confined within narrower
limits. The editor of the _Poems_, in his address "To the Reader," writes
thus in vindication of them:
"There is scarcely a line in the collection which does not bear
testimony of its origin; the _places and dates_ are also strong
corroborations to such of his friends as he corresponded with _on his
last journey across the Alps_. His style was elegant, and his ideas so
animated, that _spurious productions would be immediately detected_."
This is the testimony of one who "had the honour of his friendship, which
terminated only with his death," and is not to be lightly rejected.[3] My
own conviction is in favour of the authenticity of the whole; but, at all
events, I shall be able to offer undoubted evidence as to the genuineness
of part of the volume, and additional proof that the author was abroad at
the precise time when, if he were Junius, he must have resided in this
country. By Thomas Lord Lyttelton's will (dated Oct. 30, 1777), he
appointed as his executors his brother-in-law Arthur Viscount Valentia, his
uncle William Henry Lord Westcote, and Wilson Aylesbury Roberts of Bewdley.
To the latter he left all his "letters, verses, speeches, and writings,"
with directions that, if published, it should be for his sole emolument.
The important Query therefore at once arises, _what became of these
manuscripts, and were they destroyed or preserved_?
The above Mr. Roberts was an intimate personal friend; and from his local
influence as bailiff and deputy-recorder of Bewdley, had no doubt
contributed towards Thomas Lyttelton's return for that borough in 1768. His
son continued to keep up a close connexion with the Valentia family at
Arley Hall[4]; and this fact, coupled with the close proximity of Bewdley,
Arley, and Hagley, and the circumstance of the co-executorship of Lord
Valentia and Mr. Roberts, would make us naturally look to the library at
Arley as a not unlikely place of deposit for Thomas Lyttelton's papers.
This is not mere conjecture, and brings me immediately to the point at
issue: for, at the sale of the Valentia Library at Arley Castle, in
December last, a manuscript volume made its appearance in a lot with others
thus designated:
"Original Diary of Travels [of Lord Valentia] 4 vols.; Five Memorandum
Books of Journeys and Travels; also _Two Old Folio Volumes of Original
Poetic Pieces_."
One of the folio volumes thus catalogued subsequently came into my hands,
and is evidently one of the manuscripts left by Thomas Lord Lyttelton's
will to the care of Mr. Roberts, since it consists wholly of pieces in
verse and prose of his composition, written either _in his own hand_, as
rough draughts, or copied (apparently by a female scribe) and afterwards
_corrected by himself_. Among the poetry in this MS. I find the greater
part of the long poem printed in the edition of 1780, p. 1., entitled "The
State of England in the year 2199," which is without date in the MS., but
in the edition bears date March 21, 1771; as likewise the "Invitation to
Miss Warb[u]rt[o]n," edit. p. 35., which appears in the MS. without any
name; and the "Extempore Rhapsody, March 21, 1771," edit. p. 37., also
undated in the MS., but which supplies the name of "Yates," expressed in
the edition by asterisks; and also six lines at the end, which were omitted
in the edition on account of their indecency. There are several variations
in the manuscript, which prove that some other copy was followed by the
printer; and many typographical errors in the edition may hence be
corrected. Besides these poems, the following pieces constitute the chief
contents of this manuscript volume:
Draughts of four letters _written by Thomas Lyttelton from Lyons, the
first of which is dated September_ 10, 1769.
Heads of a series of Dialogues, in imitation of "Dialogues of the
Dead," by his father George, first Lord Lyttelton.
Poetical Fragments, imitated from Lucretius.
{33} Two letters addressed by Thomas Lyttelton to his father; and a
third to "Dear George," probably his cousin George Edward Ayscough.
Some Latin lines, not remarkable for their delicacy.
Political letter, _written from Milan_, by Thomas Lyttelton; in which
indignant notice is taken of the commital of Brass Crossby, Lord Mayor,
_which took place in March, 1771_.
Fragment of a poem on Superstition, and various other unfinished
poetical scraps.
Private memoranda of expenses.
A page of writing in a fictitious or short-hand character, of which I
can make nothing.
Remarks, in prose, on the polypus, priestcraft, &c.
Poem in French, of an amatory character.
Portion of a remarkable political letter, containing some bitter
remarks by Thomas Lyttelton on the "first minister." He ends thus: "The
play now draws to a conclusion. I am guilty of a breach of trust in
telling him so, but I shall [not] suffer by my indiscretion, for it is
an absolute impossibility any man should divine who is the author of
the letter signed ARUSPEX."
It would appear from the water-mark in the paper of which this MS. is
composed, that it was procured in Italy; and there can be little or no
doubt it was used by Thomas Lyttelton as a draught-book, during his travels
there in 1769-1771; during which period, nearly the whole of the contents
seem to have been written. The evidence afforded therefore by this volume,
comes peculiarly in support of the dates and other circumstances put forth
in the printed volume of _Poems_; and leads us inevitably to the
conclusion, _that it was utterly impossible for Thomas Lyttelton to have
had any share in the Letters of Junius_. He has enough to answer for on the
score of his early profligacy and scepticism, without being dragged from
the grave to be arraigned for the crime of deceit. His heart need not,
according to the reviewer, be "stripped bare" by the scalpel of any
literary anatomist; but he may be left to that quiet and oblivion which a
sepulchre in general bestows. Before I conclude these remarks (which I fear
are too diffuse), I will venture to add a few words in regard to the
signature of Thomas Lord Lyttelton. In the _Chatham Correspondence_, a
letter from him to Earl Temple is printed, vol. iv. p. 348., the signature
to which is printed LYTTLETON, and the editors point out in a note the
"alteration adopted" in the spelling of the name; but it is altogether an
error, for the fac-simile of this signature in vol. iv. p. 29., as well as
his will in the Prerogative Court, prove that he wrote his name
_Lyttelton_, in the same manner as his father and uncle. As to the
resemblance pointed out by the author of the _Review_ between the
handwriting of Thomas Lyttelton and that of Junius, it exists only in
imagination, since there is really no similitude whatever between them.
Some Queries are now annexed, in reference to what has been above
discussed:
1. In what publication or in what form did the executors of Thomas Lord
Lyttelton disown the _Letters_ and _Poems_?