(Vol. v., pp. 303. 333. 607.; Vol. viii., p. 8.)
I have no doubt that it will be satisfactory to some of your readers to
know that I have in my possession a copy, "vellum bound in gilt," of
_Junius_, printed for Henry Sampson Woodfall, 1772, 2 vols. This copy has
been in the family library for about sixty years. There are no marks by
which it can be traced to its original owner. I imagine it must have been
purchased by my grandfather, Sir Thomas Metcalfe, after his arrival from
India about 1788; this is, however, merely a conjecture, in default of any
more probable theory. Of the authenticity of this copy I have no doubt; I
mean that it is now in the same condition as when it was first issued by
the bookseller. The binding is evidently of an old date, the gilding is
peculiar, and the books correspond exactly with the orders of Junius as
given to Woodfall in Note No. 47., Dec. 1771, and although neatly bound,
are, as Woodfall mentions in No. 64., not highly finished. Are there many
copies of this edition, or may I congratulate myself upon possessing _the_
one ordered by Junius? It is quite possible that my grandfather possessed
this copy some years before his return from India; and I may mention that I
also have a great many political pamphlets and satires, chiefly in poetry,
of different dates, from 1760 to 1780, such as _Catiline's Conspiracy_;
_The Diaboliad_; _Ditto_, with additions, dedicated to the worst man in the
kingdom (Rigby), and containing allusions to all the most celebrated
characters of Junius; _The Senators_, _La Fête Champêtre_, and many
miscellanies. These, however, are perhaps well known. I have also a
pamphlet containing an alleged unpublished canto of the _Faerie Queene_ of
Spenser, and a great many religious tracts from 1580 to 1700. Some of the
political poems are published by Almon. Among other curious stray sheets,
is a list of all the gentlemen and officers who fell in the cause of
Charles I., and Mr. Richard Brown appears amongst the number. I hope to
communicate more fully upon some future occasion, and must conclude with an
allusion to the claims of Francis as the author of _Junius_. Strong as the
proofs may be in his favour in England, I believe that in India there is
testimony no less important; and I have been informed, by one who spoke
with some authority, that the letters of Francis upon record in this
country bear no resemblance _whatever_ to those of Junius. This assertion,
however, is far too vague to satisfy any of your readers. I hope some day
to be able to confirm it by examples. The India House might furnish the
private correspondence between Francis and Hastings, which would be
extremely interesting.