Your correspondent W. C. begins his letter modestly. "If," he says, Thomas Lord Lyttleton wrote The Letters of Junius, and "if" Junius wrote the "Letter to the Brigadier-General," then he sees a difficulty. Why, of course he does: but as nobody but the writer in the Quarterly believes that the said Thomas did write the Letters of Junius, and as it has never been proved that Junius did write the "Letter to a Brigadier," I must believe that something remains to be done before we proceed a step farther either in the way of argument or inference. Unless some such resolution be come to by inquirers, we shall never get out of the mazes in which this question has been involved, by like conditional statements, and the conditional arguments founded thereon.
As to the Lyttleton story, I shall dismiss it at once: it is not entitled to the sort of respectability which attaches to a case put hypothetically, nor to the honour of an "if;" and I must remind your correspondent that in a Junius question "general belief" is no evidence. Every story, however absurd, once asserted, is "generally believed," until some one (a rare and exceptional case) proves that it is not true—probably that it could not be true. The general belief, for example, that the "Letter to a Brigadier" was written by Junius, is not, so far as I know, supported by a tittle of evidence. It is all assertion and assumption, founded on the opinion of A., B., and C., as to "style," &c. Now, as some two dozen different persons have been proved, by like confident opinions, on like evidence, to be the writer of Junius's Letters, I may be excused when I acknowledge that the test is not with me quite conclusive. In respect, however, to this "Letter to a Brigadier," Mr. Britton and Sir David Brewster have proceeded somewhat further. Having, with others, come to the conclusion that Junius was the writer, Mr. Britton proceeds to show that Barré served in Canada under Wolfe, and was the very man, from circumstances, position, and feelings, who could, would, and did write that letter. Sir David endeavours to show that Macleane was in like circumstance, stimulated by like feelings, and was the veritable Simon; founding his argument mainly on the belief that Macleane was also serving there as surgeon of Otway's regiment. It has been shown in the Athenæum that Macleane never was surgeon of Otway's regiment, and that in all probability he never was in Canada: in brief, that the memoir is a mistake from beginning to end. As all, however, that is urged by Sir David in favour of Macleane, as one who had served under Wolfe, may be thought to strengthen, to that extent, the claim of Barré, who certainly did so serve, and was severely wounded, let us look at the facts.
Barré was wounded at the capture of Quebec; and, under date of Oct. 1759, Knox, in his Historical Journal, says, "Colonel Carlton and Major Barré retired to the southward for the recovery of their wounds." From his letter to Mr. Pitt (Chath. Corr.), we find that Barré was at New York, April 28, 1760. He appears subsequently to have joined Amherst before Montreal; and on the capture of Montreal, on Sept. 8, 1760, he was appointed to convey the despatches to England, and arrived in London on the 5th October. These are facts public and unquestioned—admitted by Mr. Britton.
Now for a fact out of the "Letter to a Brigadier." I could give you half a dozen of like character, but space is precious, and one, I think, will be sufficient. The writer quotes in extenso a letter written by Townshend, published in The Daily Advertiser, and dated "South Audley Square, 20th June, 1760." Mr. Britton admits that the pamphlet must have been published "some time before the 5th October, as on that day a Refutation appeared;" it was, in fact, reviewed, or rather abused, in the Critical Review for September. We have proof, therefore, that the "Letter to a Brigadier" was written after 20th June, and founded, in part, on facts known in London only on the 21st of June at the earliest: the probabilities are that it was published in August or September, certainly before the 5th October. How then could it have been written by a man in America, serving before Montreal?
MAPS OF AFRICA.
(Vol. v., p. 261.)
I do not know why, because a man publishes maps of Africa at Gotha, they should not be "fancy portraits," any more than why a man's book should be a good one, because it is printed on a composition which nobody but a German would have the effrontery to call paper.
I had seen Spruner's Map a few weeks after it came out, and the conclusion I came to about it at the time was, that it was certainly a fancy portrait. I shall be glad to be shown that I am in error; and, as I am more sure of the fact that I did come to this conclusion after some examination, than I am of the argument whereby I arrived at it—for my memory is singularly gifted in this way—I should be obliged by E. C. H., or any of your correspondents, informing me what grounds there are for believing Spruner, or any one else, to have produced a map or maps of the north coast of Africa between long. 5° west, and 25° east of Greenwich, or any portion of the said coast,—said map or maps being the result of actual survey. Moreover, if I further inquire when any survey whatever took place of this coast at any time, and profess my utter ignorance of the history of our present North African maps, and my great doubts of their credibility, let not your correspondents imagine that this is one of a few things that I ought to be acquainted with, and really know nothing whatever about.
AJAX.