Junius Unmasked Part 31

_History._

John Adams, Member of Congress, the Colossus of debate, signer of the Declaration of Independence, famous in the world, chief of the war committee, on whom great trusts were imposed, in whom great faith was had, in the first trying crisis of the new nation DESERTED HER. _Brave in his home by the sea._

Thomas Paine, the Junius of England, author of Common Sense and the Declaration of Independence, whose fame is unknown, on whom no trust was imposed by the public, undertakes the business of a world; enlists in the army of Washington, and in the first trying crisis of the new nation, by the inspiration of his pen, SAVED HER. _Bravest when stout hearts fail._

Franklin, the firm friend, has been dead these nineteen years, and many more of the old first friends had gone the same way. His mind now reverts to his home in England, and the religion of his father haunts his affections. He asks to be buried in the Quaker burying-ground, and is refused, lest this act of decency should offend the sanctified followers of Fox. It is as well. The old man's will records, that if this be not granted him on account of his father's religion, he was to be buried on his own farm at New Roch.e.l.le. On the 8th of June, 1809, he took his final leave of the world. "I have lived," said he, "an honest and useful life to mankind; my time has been spent in doing good; and I die in perfect composure and resignation to the will of my Creator--G.o.d."

Thus the great REVOLUTIONIST pa.s.sed away. Like all great men, he lived a virtuous, upright life. He had a n.o.ble object in view, and labored manfully to accomplish it. But having done his work well, his enemies have added to his fame by trying to undo what time has approved, and by reviling him when nature has applauded.

CONCLUSION.

Thomas Paine is now placed right before the world. He was peculiarly a favored child of nature. The great strokes of his character are these: A spirit to resent an injury which made him sometimes revengeful and vindictive. Yet a friend in his defense could call upon him for his life, and it would be granted. Too proud to be vain, he rose above the common level in personal honor, and demanded that the character of a nation should be without spot. Benevolent beyond his means, he lived like a miser, that he might have wherewith to bestow upon the needy, whether man, woman, child, or country.

Secretive beyond estimate, he lived a perfect spy upon the world, and obtained from friend and foe, from society and government, what they wished to conceal, and stored away facts which he locked up in his own mind to be used if needed, or everlastingly kept. He was too hopeful to estimate the future correctly, and had too much faith in man to judge correctly of his actions. Yet character he scarcely ever misjudged. As for courage, he dared to do any thing that was right. He dared to think like a philosopher, and to act like a man. Intellectually he was a prodigy; and as for _genius_, under which I combine the constructive, a.n.a.lytic and imaginative faculties the world has never seen his equal.

He was, in short, an artist, inventor, scholar, poet, philosopher, enemy and friend. These mental characteristics were so combined and regulated by his will, that nature could never repeat what she produced in Thomas Paine.

I have faithfully followed the lines of nature in this criticism, and have endeavored to produce a work which the student and statesman can study with profit; which the lawyer may consider as an argument; which will arrest the attention of the historian, and present new themes to the mind of the philosopher; one which will open up a new method for the critic, and in all these a work which the scholar will not despise. This I say without vanity. Mine indeed are humble labors; and my work, whatever it is, has not been laborious and artful, but easy and natural.

I have not written this to make proselytes to his religion, but to do a much injured man a good service. Yet, as hero-worship is a part of man's nature, it may not be improbable that one age will extol what a previous one reviled, and a temple be erected to the religion of a man who was once thought to be a devil. This reminds me of a story which long ago I remember of reading in a volume of the Letters of the Turkish Spy; and as I quote from memory I will give only the substance:

Two hundred years ago, somewhere in Spain, in front of a Christian house of worship, stood a statue. This was the black image of a man sitting on an a.s.s. As each pious devotee pa.s.sed in to worship, or came out therefrom, he spat upon the statue. But a Mussulman emba.s.sador coming from the king of Morocco, observing these rites, which he was told had been performed for centuries, asked the king why they treated this image with such insult. He was told it was the image of Mahomet. The follower of Mahomet, being better informed, replied: This can not be, for Mahomet rode always on camels, and it was Jesus Christ who, it is recorded, rode on an a.s.s. This fact was soon confirmed by the priests, and thereupon the people took to kissing and worshiping what they had before insultingly spat upon, and afterward erected a temple where it stood in honor of it.

APPENDIX.

Those who have never examined the claims advanced in favor of Philip Francis, may be benefited by this Appendix. I think it will herein be made out, that his case has been founded on spurious and unauthenticated records. The case may be stated as follows:

On March 3, 1772, there was published, under the supervision of Junius, a _genuine_ edition of the Letters. In his Preface, he states: "The encouragement given to a _mult.i.tude_ of _spurious_ mangled publications of the Letters of Junius persuades me that a complete edition, corrected and improved by the author, will be favorably received.... This edition contains _all_ the letters of Junius, Philo Junius," etc.

Forty years after this edition was published, when Mr. H. S. Woodfall, the publisher, was dead, his son issued a new edition, in which he collected from the files of the Advertiser what he supposed to be other letters of Junius, and cla.s.sed them as Miscellaneous Letters. This new edition, which is called Woodfall's, was first published in 1812. Upon the heel of this edition, John Taylor published his "Junius Identified,"

supporting his claims in favor of Francis nearly or quite altogether on the Miscellaneous Letters. Till then the claims of Francis were never brought forward. I now proceed to show that these Miscellaneous Letters are not all genuine.

1. They show in many instances internal evidence of fraud. Private Note No. 61 is as follows:

"SUNDAY, May 3, 1772.

"I am in no manner of hurry about the books. I hope the sale has answered. I think it will always be a saleable book. The inclosed is fact, and I wish it could be printed to-morrow. It is not worth announcing. The proceedings of this wretch are unaccountable.

There must be some mystery in it, which I hope will soon be discovered, to his confusion. Next to the Duke of Grafton, I verily believe that the blackest heart in the kingdom belongs to Lord Barrington."

The above note accompanied a letter signed _Scotus_, published in the Advertiser, May 4, 1772. Now, mark! The private note which accompanied this letter of _Scotus_ says: "_This is fact._" And the letter of _Scotus_ opens as follows: "To Lord Barrington: My lord, _I am a Scotchman_," etc. He then goes on, without dignity or grace, to talk bluntly to Lord Barrington, and with an egotistical defense of the Scotch. He says: "There is courage at least in _our_ composition." "For the future, my lord, be more sparing of your reflections on the Scotch."

This letter and the note accompanying it are yet in existence in the original, and are called genuine. Now, that they are forgeries is quite evident from the whole spirit of Junius in regard to the Scotch. In Letter 44, he says of Mr. Wedderburne: "I speak tenderly of this gentleman, for when treachery is in question, I think we should make allowances for a Scotchman." He speaks of the Scotch "cunning,"

"treachery," and "fawning sycophancy," of "the characteristic prudence, the selfish nationality, the indefatigable smile, the persevering a.s.siduity, the everlasting profession of a discreet and moderate resentment." This last quotation may be found in the Preface, and was written about four months prior to the publication of the letter of _Scotus_. Now, is the positive evidence of the _genuine_ Letters to be set aside by this fugitive note and letter of _Scotus_? Reason and Common Sense say not. Here then one of the Miscellaneous Letters, and one of the private letters to Woodfall are proven to be forgeries. How many more may have to go the same way? Even the nationality of _Francis_ is against this one of _Scotus_, for he was an Irishman.

It may be well to remark, in pa.s.sing, that as the ma.n.u.script of this letter of _Scotus_ is still in existence, the claims of Francis founded on handwriting will have to go the same way, for proof on genuine handwriting is _doubtful_, but proof on disguised handwriting is _worthless_. All that can be proven from handwriting is, Francis _may_ have been the author of this forged letter of _Scotus_, and other letters of _Veteran_, which were written solely from personal spite toward Lord Barrington.

2. I would call attention to another manifest forgery of a private note and letter. The note is No. 8, vol. i, p. 198, and the letter is No. 58, vol. iii, p. 218, Woodfall's edition. The letter is one of low wit, and somewhat vulgar in its construction, and is an answer to another signed _Junia_, probably written by Mr. Caleb Whiteford. The note says: "The last letter you printed was idle and improper, and, I a.s.sure you, printed against my own opinion. _The truth is, there are people about me whom I would wish not to contradict, and who had rather see Junius in the papers ever so improperly than not at all._" The question now is: Did those people, for whose benefit he wrote the letter, keep the _secret_ which has baffled the world?--for these people must have known him to be Junius. And did Junius write falsely, when he said in his Dedication more than two years afterward: "I am the sole depository of my own secret, and it shall perish with me?" Did Junius write falsely when he said: "This edition contains _all_ the letters of Junius?" for this one which he cast out, and is in the Miscellaneous collection, was signed _Junius_. Besides, the handwriting is different from the genuine notes. Compare No. 8, spurious, with No. 3, genuine, vol. i, Woodfall's edition.

Here is clear evidence of forgery in two cases, not from handwriting be it remembered, but from internal evidence. May there not be many more such cases? Moreover, from the style and spirit of all the miscellaneous letters written _after_ the one signed _Atticus_, and printed November 14, 1768, there is no evidence whatever of the hand or head of Junius.

Prior to this time Junius had been writing to get his hand in, and his contributions appeared over the signatures of _Atticus_, _Lucius_, _C_, and a few others, but all prior to the above date. Junius _proper_ began with his famous Letter of January 21, 1769, and closed in just three years to a day.

I am now prepared to state: In the comparison of Thomas Paine with Junius I did not suffer myself in a single instance to go outside of the _genuine_ edition; because I plainly saw, after a long and critical study of the Letters, that there was no safe footing outside of it.

Whatever, therefore, has been established in style, character, occupation, rank, opinion, etc., in favor of Paine, has at least this merit: _its foundation is good_. I propose now to show that this can not be said in favor of Francis.

I have given on pages 190 and 191 the summing up of the main argument of John Taylor in favor of Francis, by Mr. Macaulay. Macaulay writes only as a reviewer of Taylor, not an original investigator; and a reviewer, too, like many at this day, without searching at the fountain head for the facts in the case. Let us now look at the five points Mr. Taylor makes:

"First, that he was acquainted with the technical forms of the Secretary of State's office." Under this Taylor begins by observing: "One method of discovering the rank and _station_ of Junius is to see with whose names he is most familiar." He then says: "The only persons to whom Junius applies epithets of familiarity are Welbore Ellis, Esq., Lord Barrington, Messrs. Rigby, Whateley, Bradshaw, and Chamier." Taylor then proves Junius to have been familiar with Whateley by a long quotation from miscellaneous letters, one without a signature, and one signed _Henricus_. See Taylor's Junius Identified, page 54. In this connection comes a very important disclosure in regard to Mr. _Grenville_. I will quote Taylor, page 54: "Comparing these indications of personal acquaintance with the opportunities afforded Sir P. Francis, we find that Mr. George Grenville was one of the secretaries of state at the time Sir Philip Francis held that place in the Secretary of State's office, which had been given him by Lord Holland, and Mr. Whateley was then Mr. Grenville's private secretary. This contiguity of station would afford Sir Philip Francis frequent opportunities of acquiring all that _intimate_ and _ocular_ knowledge of Mr. Whateley which is evinced by Junius." That is, which is evinced by Junius in the letter signed "_Henricus_," and the one _without_ signature, and which are not in the genuine edition. But Mr. Taylor proves too much; for then Junius, if he were Sir Philip Francis, would also have been acquainted with Grenville, as Francis doubtless was, and there is nothing to hinder Grenville from becoming acquainted with Francis, where there is such "_intimacy_"

between Grenville's _private secretary_ and Francis, and where there is such "_contiguity of station_." Let us now produce positive proof on the other side from a _genuine_ letter. Letter 18 says: "It is not my design to enter into a formal vindication of Mr. Grenville upon his own principles. I have neither the honor of being _personally known to him_, nor do I pretend to be completely master of the facts." But if Francis was Junius, this statement could not be true.

While I am upon this subject of personal knowledge and acquaintance, let me bring forward something against Francis. It is well known that he attended school for about three years with Mr. Woodfall, and that a friendship strong and intimate existed between them through life. Put over against this, from private note to Woodfall, No. 17, the following: "I doubt much whether I shall ever have the pleasure of knowing you; but if things take the turn I expect, you shall know _me by my works_." The italics are his own. Here is a positive statement that Junius did not know Woodfall, and an implied one that Woodfall did not know Junius. If Francis was Junius, here is confusion confounded; but if Paine was Junius, it is as clear as day. But to proceed.

In regard to Bradshaw, Chamier, and Barrington, Taylor quotes from _Domitian_, _Veteran_, _Q. in the Corner_, and _Arthur Tell Truth_, all miscellaneous letters. He also quotes once from private note No. 52, which, like the two others I have shown, is undoubtedly a forgery. This note was dated January 25, 1772, and was written with the manifest purpose of paving the way to those four low and scurrilous attacks on Lord Barrington by _Veteran_. These he began on the 28th, three days after the private note, and promised sixteen letters "already written,"

but only wrote four, when he exhausted himself. Nearly all the evidence in favor of Francis is taken from these letters. Taylor establishes _not a single fact_ under the first head from _Junius_, and I believe only quotes him _once, and to prove nothing_. I now proceed with the next count.

"Secondly, that he was intimately acquainted with the business of the War Office." In answer to this, I will quote Taylor, page 61, as follows: "But in the letters at the end of the third volume [Letters of _Veteran_, vol. iii, Woodfall's Junius] it seems as if he was almost indifferent to discovery, he so clearly betrays his _personal acquaintance_ with the proceedings of the Secretary of War." This he founds solely on _Veteran_.

"Thirdly, that he, during the year 1770, attended debates in the House of Lords, and took notes of the speeches, particularly of the speeches of Lord Chatham." Taylor tries to establish this claim on the letter _Y.

Z._, which is in the Miscellaneous collection. But I insist, _Y. Z._ must be proven to be Junius before any inference can be drawn from it.

Taylor can not even prove that Francis wrote it. But he draws an inference from the following in Philo Junius: "In regard to Lord Camden, the truth is, that he inadvertently overshot himself, as appears plainly by that unguarded mention of a tyranny of forty days, _which I myself heard_." The argument is, Junius heard speeches in Parliament, and therefore _might_ have been Francis, as speeches were not reported till long after. As this extract is from authority which I indorse, I will meet it by a pa.s.sage from Thomas Paine's Crisis vii, showing that he also heard debates in Parliament. Speaking of national honor, he says: "I remember the late Admiral Saunders declaring in the House of Commons, and that in the time of peace, 'that the city of Madrid laid in ashes was not a sufficient atonement for the Spaniards taking off the rudder of an English sloop of war.'"

"Fourthly, that he bitterly resented the appointment of Mr. Chamier to the place of Deputy Secretary at War." This is founded entirely on the letters of _Veteran_.

"Fifthly, that he was bound by some strong tie to the first Lord Holland." This argument is founded on the _silence_ of Junius in regard to Lord Holland, and one letter of _Anti-Fox_, which is in the Miscellaneous collection.

These five points, then, of Taylor's argument are all founded on unauthenticated letters, and yet Macaulay says: "If this argument does not settle the question, there is an end of all reasoning on circ.u.mstantial evidence." But, if the evidence of those miscellaneous letters is to be taken as true, which were written n.o.body knows by whom, and collected forty years after Junius ceased writing, and which had been thrown out of the genuine edition by Junius himself, or had not yet been written, by what rule are we to be guided in settling the question?

Let me present a difficulty at once. Suppose I am a Scotchman. I wish to make out a case for some one of my countrymen, and I turn to the Miscellaneous collection and find a letter signed _Scotus_. Ah! here is a Scotchman, as the signature denotes. I immediately begin to read, and to my happiness the first sentence is an unqualified affirmation: "My lord, I am a Scotchman." This is positive, I affirm; and then how delighted I am to find, in a private note, the a.s.surance to Mr. Woodfall that this letter "_is fact_." And, more than this, the original ma.n.u.script is at this hour in existence. Now, all I have to do is to show that this disguised hand resembles that of some cotemporary Scotchman's, and Scotland has the honor. This shows how absolutely worthless any argument is, founded on the Miscellaneous Letters. Query: Did not the experts depend largely on the ma.n.u.script of this spurious Scotch epistle to make out a case of ident.i.ty in handwriting? As the above five points which I have reviewed, form the head and body of Taylor's argument, it would be trifling to attack the appendages. These hints will guide the reader.

But the fact is, were the five points which Taylor enumerates and tries to prove from miscellaneous letters established, still there would be no case for Francis. But even _admitting there is_ a good case made out for him on miscellaneous letters, _there is nothing incompatible_ with my case in favor of Thomas Paine founded on the _genuine Letters_. This may be made manifest by the following further observations:

There is no evidence of any weight brought forward to prove that Francis was Junius, because it is _a.s.sumed_ that Junius wrote those miscellaneous letters, and especially _Veteran's_ productions. But first prove that Junius was _Veteran_. This can not be done, and it is an important premise in the argument left out. It would be easier to prove that Francis was _Veteran_; and this I do not dispute. It makes my case far stronger to have a clear case made for Francis, founded on the spurious and miscellaneous letters. But that Junius did not write the letters which Taylor makes the foundation of his argument there is abundance of internal evidence to prove. The evidence of forgery I have already adduced. But could Francis have forged the hand of Junius? I answer yes; and for the following reasons:

1. His acquaintance, friendship, intimacy, and peculiar political views would give a ready access to Woodfall's office.

2. The handwriting of Junius could not be kept a secret for it went to the compositors. Nor did Woodfall keep it from the public; nor did he even keep the secrets of Junius as he ought to have done, for it was from Woodfall himself that Garrick obtained the fact that Junius would write no more, after he had compiled his work.

3. After getting a specimen of the disguised hand of Junius, Francis could easily forge it. As evidence of this I quote from Taylor, p. 278, as follows: "It has been observed of him [Francis]

that he possessed so perfect a command of his pen that he could write every kind of hand." Taylor acknowledges this extraordinary power of Francis.

Now take with the above three facts the internal evidence of forgery, both in the spirit and on the face of the letters, and we have a strong case in favor of Francis forging the hand of Junius, but a.s.suming the name of _Veteran_.

But again, private notes may be forged as well as letters for publication, which injures them as evidence. And who shall decide at this late day on forgeries? I have herein adduced enough evidence to throw great doubt on the Miscellaneous Letters, and if any thing can be proven from internal evidence, which is acknowledged by all to be the best in the world; then two letters and two private notes accompanying them, I have shown in the language of Junius to be _spurious_. The truth is, there is nothing absolutely safe outside of the _genuine_ edition, for this alone has the plain and positive approval of Junius. Moreover, it was compiled for the purpose of sifting the cheat from the pure grain, and as Junius had a.s.sumed one other signature besides his own, he thought it necessary to cast out other publications falsely attributed to him, and unqualifiedly states in reference to Philo Junius, "The fraud was innocent, and I always intended to explain it." Why was he thus explicit if he had been writing continually over other signatures?