The attention which Junius and Francis paid to punctuation had been previously noticed by Mr. Taylor: "Nothing affords greater scope for the diversity of practice than the mode of punctuation. It is a common thing for writers to be very careless in this matter: but Junius and Sir Philip are particular in the use of stops, pointing with minute accuracy even the most trifling notes. The principle upon which this is done shows the closest conformity of plan. It may seem a trivial circumstance to some, but the introduction of the short stroke or dash between words as well as sentences, to the degree in which it was done by both of them, is characteristic of the writers.'-—Junius Identified, p. 376. On the nature of the evidence thus adduced, the following remarks of Mr. Twisleton deserve attention : "It is to be remembered that the evidence of the identity of Junius and Francis as handwriters is cumulative; that is to say, the force of the evidence depends not on any one single coincidence, but on numerous coincidences varying materially in their individual strength, which, when viewed in connexion, lead irresistibly to one inference alone, though each by itself may be inconclusive. A common fallacy in dealing with such evidence is to take each coincidence separately, and to show that a similar coincidence exists in some other writer. This would be a perfectly legitimate mode of reasoning, if any one coincidence so dealt with were adduced as in itself conclusive; but it fails to meet the requirements of the case, when the argument is based on the combination of many such coincidences collectively, and not on the separate existence of any one of them. Perhaps the best illustration of the force of cumulative evidence is one which has long since been made, but which is not, on that account, the less valuable. It is the inference that dice are loaded, founded on the observation that the same numbers-say, double sixes-are thrown so many times, say fifty times running, that the fact cannot possibly be accounted for by chance. In such a case it would be vain for an advocate to attempt to shake the inference by stating after each individual throw that every dice-player sometimes threw double sixes, or occasionally threw many double sixes in succession. The point would be that the double sixes are thrown fifty times running. 'Applying this illustration to Mr. Chabot's Reports, it would be well, after studying them, to review connectedly all the instances of habits which he has pointed out as common to Junius and Francis. In page 134, ten such habits are specified, which are not necessarily dependent on the mode of forming letters. Of these, the very first habit is likely to be so rare that it will probably be difficult to find a parallel in any contemporary of Junius and Francis. If such a parallel is discovered, the point will arise whether such habit is found in conjunction with the second habit; and if this is so, whether these two are found in conjunction with the third habit, and so forth. And then, if all these ten habits are found combined in any other individual, the question will present itself whether the same person unites the nine characteristics enumerated in pages 101 and 102. And, if even those characteristics belong to him, a question will still remain whether the same individual combines the nine habits as to the formation of letters which are specified in page 133. There is thus a union of at least twentyeight habits in Junius and Francis; some of them involving a complex variety of minor habits or peculiarities: and all these habits are to be viewed in connection with the evidence, which shows that Francis has left the mark of his undisguised hand on the Proof Sheets of Junius. Commencing with the facsimiles in this volume of the autographs of seventeen different contemporary writers, search should be made to ascertain how many of those twenty-eight habits co-exist in any other autographs; and the ultimate point to be decided will be whether the combination of all of them in Junius and Francis can have been accidental.' Previous investigators had called attention to the paper upon which Junius and Francis wrote; but though this is a matter of less consequence than the handwriting, the observations of Mr. Chabot deserve notice: 'I have examined in every way most minutely the quality of the paper, both as regards colour, texture, and thickness, of Junius's first Letter to Mr. Grenville, on the 6th February, 1768, and I find it perfectly agrees in each of those particulars with those of Francis's Letter, written little more than two months previously, viz. on 5th December, 1767. The two sheets of paper on which those Letters are written also agree in the following particulars:— 'The device of the water-mark is the same. 'The initials of the maker are the same; and 'The water-lines, which are not quite parallel, are the same width apart, showing that the paper has been made in the same frame or mould. 'And further, I find the two sheets of paper are so exactly of the same size and shape, both having been cut slightly out of truth, whereby the top edge of the paper is not mathematically parallel with the bottom edge, that I cannot doubt they have been taken from one and the same quire of paper. And, furthermore, I find that the colour of the ink with which those two Letters have been written is the same in both. Where the ink lies thinly, the writing is pale and somewhat brown; whereas where the writing has been written with a full pen, it is quite black.' Finally, we will mention one more fact, which appears to us of equal, if not greater importance,than any of the preceding ones. The original proof sheets of the Letters of Junius are preserved in the British Museum, and several of them are lithographed in the volume before us. They contain various obliterations, which, upon a narrow scrutiny by Mr. Chabot, were found to conceal precisely the same words and figures as those which now stand in their places, and which are made to appear as corrections of the obliterated writing. The words obliterated are in the handwriting of Francis: the words written over them in that of Junius. This is especially seen in the dates of the Letters. The dates were not inserted in the manuscripts as sent to the printer, but were added in the proof sheets. It would seem that Francis, being more off his guard in correcting the proofs than in writing the Letters, inadvertently inserted the dates in his natural handwriting; but, upon discovering the mistake he had committed, he carefully blotted out these dates, and rewrote them above the obliterations in his feigned hand. But, notwithstanding all the pains he took, the original writing can still be deciphered behind the obliterations. "To assist in concealing these inadvertencies, and perhaps for the purpose of misleading those who might seek to lay them bare, Francis has previously to making the broad marks of defacement tampered with the writing, by the introduction of superfluous letters or portions of them-a practice often resorted to when obliterations are made in wills, but which generally fails in effecting its object, as in the present case. Thus in the first obliterated (first written as a letter I), and to the figures 2 date, tails have been added to the capital J and 6. A dot has been placed over the first letter a in "January," and the second letter a has been altered into a letter t, thus:' js January 1769 On examining the photographed proofsheets we find that all the original dates have been obliterated and written in the feigned hand, except in one instance, namely, in the Letter to Dr. William Blackstone, where Francis forgot to make the obliteration, and has left the date [29. July. 1769.] in his own handwriting. We subjoin a facsimile of this date, together with facsimiles of two dates written by Francis, in his private letters, in the very same month and year. JUNIUS. 29. July. 1769. FRANCIS. 5. July. 1769 30. July. 1769. After this, can any one doubt that the Letters of Junius were written by Francis?* *If the hypothesis should be started that Francis handwrote the letters for another person, but was not himself the author of them, we would submit for consideration the following observations of Mr. Twisleton:- To make intelligible the precise bearing of the handwriting on the authorship, it may be remarked that the knowledge of who was the handwriter would be conclusive as to who was the author for any one who entertains a strong conviction of the truth of any one of the four following propositions:-1st. That the known character of the handwriter forbids the supposition of his having submitted during four or five years to be the amanuensis of another author. 2ndly. That Junius, in his dedication to the English Nation, would not have volunteered the assertion that he was the sole depositary of his own secret, if all the while he had put himself in the power of another person by making use of him as an L-13 VOL. CXXX. We have come to this conclusion after a careful examination of the evidence before amanuensis. 3rdly. That the private Letters of Junius to Woodfall, and the corrections in the proof sheets, bear internal marks of having been written, not by an amanuensis, but by the author himself. 4thly. That independently of handwriting, the evidence which points to the handwriter as the author is so strong, standing alone, that although it may possibly not be conclusive, it justifies vehement suspicion, and attains a high degree of moral probability. Each reader must judge for himself whether one or more of these propositions commands his assent. For any one who believes in the truth of all the four, it would be idle to undervalue the strength of moral conviction as to the authorship, which must arise from the fact of the handwriter haying been definitely ascertained. And at the very lowest, if Francis was the handwriter, this throws out of competition with him for the authorship every individual candidate in regard to 'It sometimes happens,' says Mr. Twisleton, that it is impossible to detect the author of annoymous letters or of a forged signature, except by a comparison of handwritings. A bad and base man may successfully have taken such precautions that no human eye saw his hand while it was penning a particular document, and that no external evidence is in ex us, and are not deterred from expressing it by the apprehension of being taunted with inconsistency. In a previous number of this 'Review '* we advocated the claims of the second Lord Lyttelton for the authorship of Junius, and on a subsequent occasiont we stated various reasons against supposing Francis to be the writer of the Junian Let-istence to trace that document into his possesters. We are not insensible to the force of the arguments brought forward in the latter of these articles: we candidly confess that we sat down to the study of the Reports before us with a strong impression that it was impossible to identify Francis and Junius by a simple comparison of their respective handwritings: but truth and justice compel us to confess that we have risen from them with the conviction that Mr. Chabot has proved his case. We are conscious that the examples we have quoted may convey to our readers an inadequate idea of the conclusive nature of Mr. Chabot's arguments. They are only a few out of many hundred proofs; and they derive their chief force, as we have already remarked, from their cumulative character. Taken separately they are striking, but might in some cases be accidental: taken collectively they are irresistible, and their similarity cannot be explained by any conceivable number of accidental resemblances. If, therefore, the instances we have cited are not sufficient to convince some of our readers, we would ask them to suspend their conclusion till they have consulted the book itself, which, if we may judge by the impression produced upon our own minds, will convert the most incredulous. We have already remarked that this work possesses an independent value apart from the Junian controversy. We had intended to point out its bearing upon other branches of inquiry, but having exhausted our space, we must content ourselves with referring to the important assistance it will render to all persons connected with the administration of justice. whom it cannot be shown that he was more competent and more likely than Francis to have composed the Junian Letters, and that he might possibly have made use of Francis as his amanuensis. * Quarterly Review,' vol. xc. + Ibid., vol. cxxiv. The Courts of Common Law have long admitted the principle that a comparison of handwritings may be employed as an instrument in the investigation of truth, but till within the last few years it was limited to two cases-1st, the case of ancient documents, and 2ndly, in | reference to documents already in evidence before the court; but these restrictions were abolished by the Legislature in civil causes by the 'Common Law Procedure Act' of 1854, and likewise in criminal cases in 1865. sion. In such a case, everything in a trial may depend on the special knowledge which is brought to bear on the internal evidence of the and the Judge. From ignorance of the subdocument itself by the Advocates, the Jury, ject an advocate sometimes does not ask the proper questions of an expert, whose evidence is favourable to his cause. From similar igno rance an advocate on the other side is frequently driven into the subterfuge of declaring against experts, when, if he had a little knowledge of the subject, he might weaken the force of adverse evidence by two or three reasonable objections. And if in a trial either the judge or a single prejudiced juryman held the opinion that no certainty could be arrived at by comparison of handwritings, or that in such comparison it was a better test to look to general character than to individual letters, there might easily be an absolute miscarriage of justice. If accused of writing malicious and libellous anonymous letters, a guilty man might escape, or an innocent man might be condemned.. When important interests were at stake a genuine will might be rejected as a forgery, or a forged will might be accepted as genuine.'* In conclusion, we congratulate Mr. Twisleton, not only upon having settled, as we think, once for all the long-disputed controversy respecting the authorship of the Junian Letters, but upon having produced the only work which has yet appeared in the English language conveying systematic instruction on the comparison of handwritings The book opens a new and interesting vein * Mr. Twisleton adds in a note :-'In the Matlock Will Case (Cresswell v. Jackson), which was tried before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn and a London Special Jury in 1864, three codicils to a will were rejected as forgeries. In this case, in which Mr. Chabot gave evidence against the codicils, everything, as far as handwriting was concerned, depended on minute differences, which he pointed out, and which the Chief Justice, on the 1st of March, 1864, in a summing up of remarkable ability, brought in detail under the notice of the jury with his own comments. If the case had been tried by a judge under the influence of either of the principles mentioned in the text, the forgery would probably have been successful. The summing up of the Lord Chief Justice was published the same year from a transcript of the short-hand writer's notes (London, Alfred Boot, Dockhead, 1864). It will amply repay perusal as a specimen, generally, of intellectual power; but it also deserves special attention as a luminous model of the manner in which evidence founded on a comparison of handwritings may be presented to a jury.' of inquiry, will be essential to all engaged in antiquarian or legal pursuits, and ought to find a place in every well-appointed library. ART. III.-1. La France devant l'Europe. Par Jules Michelet. Seconde Edition. Florence, Lyon et Bordeaux, 1871. 2. La Révolution. Par Edgar Quinet. Cinquième Edition. Revue et augmentée de la Critique de la Révolution. 2 vols. Paris, 1868. 3. La Guerre de 1870. L'Esprit Parisien, Produit du Régime Impérial. Par Emile Leclercq. Troisième Edition. Bruxelles, 1870. 4. The Holy Roman Empire. By James Bryce, D.C.L., Fellow of Oriel College, and Professor of Civil Law in the University of Oxford. Third Edition, Revised. London, 1871. 5. Deutschland und die Kaiseridee. Eine historisch-politische Untersuchung. Von Dr. Octavius Clason. Bonn, 1870. 6. Das neue Deutsche Reich auf dem Grunde Germanischer Natur und Geschichte. Von Dr. H. Veta. Leipzig und Heidelberg, 1871. 7. Preussens Deutsche Politik, 1785, 1806, 1849, 1866. Von Adolf Schmidt, ord. Professor der Geschichte an der Universität Jena. Umgearbeitete bis auf die Gegenwart fortgeführte dritte Auflage. Leipzig, 1867. 8. Zur Französischen Grenzregulirung. Deutsche Denkschriften aus den Verhandlungen des zweiten Pariser Friedens. Berlin, 1870. 9. Die Reden des Grafen von BismarckSchönhausen. Erste, zweite und dritte Sammlungen, 1862-70. Berlin, 1870. If there were two revivals, neither of which, this time last year, could have been considered imminent,-the one was of a French Republic, the other of a German Empire. Still less could it have been expected that the fall of an Imperial throne in France and the restoration of an Imperial throne in Germany, would be precipitated by one and the same stroke of destiny. There has been a third revival-always too closely attendant or consequent on events that shake the political order of things in France -the revival of the old pretension of Paris to rule over the whole country, and of the suburban operative masses to rule over Paris. The first of these pretensions was asserted in a most momentous matter last September, when, on the investment of Paris, the socalled Government of National Defence refused to accept an armistice, and the opportunity offered with it for taking the vote of France for or against peace. What an Iliad of woes might possibly have been spared to France had that vote been taken! * But the Defence Government then took it upon them to act as if Paris were France, and Villette and Belleville have now taken it upon them to act as if they were Paris. The old fatal discord has broken out again between the city populace, who think they have everything to gain, and the people of the country, who know they have everything to lose from a Paris democratic dictatorship, whose leaders and followers now, as in 1793 and 1848, have settled in their own minds that what a republic means, primarily and essentially, is panem et circenses for the quondam working class, who have been playing at soldiers during this last half-year, within the walls of Paris, while the élite of the citizens, in station as well as in character, and their provincial military and marine auxiliaries, have been doing the principal work of war on the ramparts. The dread and horror diffused by the like essential characteristics of the old Jacobin ascendancy at the Terror-epochand surviving even to this day amongst the rural millions in direct contact with the soil, and looking for prosperity solely to the undisturbed reaping of its produce-we find vividly exemplified in the following incident related in the epistle introductory to a work which well deserves the attention of our readers: t 'Our friend, M. Vatel, whose indefatigable activity and conscientious spirit of historical research you are well acquainted with, lately undertook a journey to St. Emilion, in order to as * George Sand, in an interesting recent paper entitled Journal d'un Voyageur pendant la Guerre,' remarks, under the date of 26th September last, I do not see that it was impossible to proceed to the elections, even after the implacable answer of King William (relative to revictualling). There was, indeed, a grand and generous audacity, on the part of the Government of Defence, in summoning us to continued resistance, at the foreseen cost of the most terrible sacrifices. But to forbid France from voting was a course which passed all bounds of allowed audacity, and entered the domain of temerity. It involved a contradiction. We were supposed capable of rushing to arms against odds of ten to one, while we were supposed incapable of discussing, through our representatives, the terms of an honourable peace. The more loudly you proclaim the Republic, the more must the nation feel entitled to exercise their political rights by virtue of the liberty the Republic promises them.' +'La Démagogie en 1793 à Paris,' &c. Par C. A. Dauban. Paris, 1868. should be tempted to trust to a force so composed for preserving public order. certain for himself the exact circumstances the death of the three Girondins, Buzot, Petion, Barbaroux, to see the cave where they took refuge, and the loft where Salles and Guadet 'There is not a more revolutionary instituwere captured. Immediately on his arrival, he tion,' he continued, that is to say, an instituproceeded to a minute inquiry; he put himself tion more productive of revolutions, than a nain communication with the surviving witnesses tional guard. Just after a revolution, to be of these already remote occurrences. He inter- sure, it is useful, as a protection of property, rogated them on the spot, appealed to their re- but its instincts are to bring one on. The macollections, and obtained answers of extraordi- jority of its members have no political knownary clearness and precision to all his ledge; they sympathise with the prevalent feelquestions. But he threw the whole district in- ing, which is seldom favourable to a government. to alarm. Nobody could imagine the mere re- Some wish to give it a lesson, others would like search of truth, the disinterested passion of his- to overthrow it. Very few, except in moments torical accuracy, could be the sole stimulant of of excitement, like those of June, 1848, choose a curiosity so ardent and so inquisitive. They to expose themselves in its defence; and one began to interrogate M. Vatel in his turn. The National Guard who joins the mob does more old men asked him with manifest uneasiness-harm than all the good that can be done by "Are they going to bring all that back again upon us? Are we going to be brought back again to the time of the worthless notes and the great terror-[la grande épouvante]?" The guillotine and the assignats—that's all they kept in mind of the Revolution. Ah yes! -set about making Republicans of these good folks!' How comes it to pass that France allows Paris to revolutionize her once or twice every fifteen or twenty years, with almost the regularity with which London looks forward to her normal decennial commercial crash and panic! In other words, how does it happen that the principles of 1789' are hitherto a political failure by the direct or indirect confession of every candid and instructed French champion of those principles ? twenty who support it. The mob have not the least respect for the uniform; but the soldiers will not fire on it.' * But the main cause of what we have not feared to designate as the political failure of 'the principles of 1789' is to be found in the exaggerated and overstrained character of those principles themselves. To enjoy freedom is not enough for Frenchmen-they must have invented it. The doctrines and traditions of freedom, which have succeeded in Europe and America, must be discarded as antiquated for the principles of 1789,' which have failed in France. Every one of the candid and instructed French champions of those principles touches closely on the true cause of that failure; and then almost every one of them flies off at a tangent, as if 'the principles of 1789' had some intoxicating occult quality in them to drive wise men mad. It is a malady of French amour propre, best described by Shakespeare's Olivia: The remoter causes of this constantly recurring evil are traceable to the times of absolute monarchy, whose concentration of power in a few irresponsible hands holding the reins of administration at the Capital,O you are sick of self-love, Malvolio!' The and sending forth their despotic decrees to French monomania, which finds everlasting the provinces, has been too little changed in expression in the principles of 1789,' conall the revolutions which have taken place sists in assuming that Frenchmen are the orisince. The proximate cause of the often-re- ginal inventors and world-patentees of a perpeated success of a revolutionary minority in fectly new model of human rights and the capital has been the utterly untrustwor- liberties. Fourscore and odd years of bitter thy composition and character of the Na- experience have indeed impressed the contional Guard. The cannoneers of the Na-viction on the wiser minds of France that tional Guard gave the victory to Jacobin every political fabric erected on their patent anarchy, to be followed by Jacobin tyranny, model has proved a failure. This sense of in 1792-93. The cannoneers of the Nation-ever-recurring failure-of real retrogression al Guard have repeated the same part now, from the point of political liberality and though, happily, amidst surrounding eircum- public spirit which had been reached by the stances which preclude all prospect of eigh- better minds of the eighteenth century in teen months of 'Terror' and of Public France-pervades every chapter, we had alSafety.' Twenty years back Alexis de Toc- most said every page, of Edgar Quinet's 'Requeville described their habitual effective-volution.' Yet it fails to lead him to recog ness, negative or positive, intentional or un-nise distinctly, as the primal source of that intentional, in promoting revolution, in the failure, the attempt to make all things befollowing passage of a conversation which come new in an old country,-an attempt has fortunately been placed upon record, and which is full of instruction and warning, not *Memoir, Letters, and Remains of Alexis de only for France, but England, if we ever Tocqueville.' London, 1861. |