LORD  BYRON  and  his  TIMES
Documents Biography Criticism

Memoirs of the Rev. Samuel Parr
Ch XIII. 1816-1820

Ch. I. 1747-1752
Ch. II. 1752-1761
Ch. III. 1761-1765
Ch. IV. 1765-1766
Ch. V. 1767-1771
Ch. VI. 1771
Ch. VII. 1771-1776
Ch. VIII. 1771-1776
Ch. IX. 1776-1777
Ch. X. 1779-1786
Ch. XI. 1779-1786
Ch. XII. 1779-1786
Ch. XIII. 1780-1782
Ch. XIV. 1786-1789
Ch. XV. 1786-1790
Ch. XVI. 1776-1790
Ch. XVII. 1787
Ch. XVIII. 1789
Ch. XIX. 1790-1792
Ch. XX. 1791-1792
Ch. XXI. 1791-1796
Ch. XXII. 1794-1795
Ch. XXIII. 1794
Ch. XXIV. 1794-1800
Ch. XXV. 1794-1800
Ch. XXVI. 1800-1803
Ch. XXVII. 1801-1803
Ch. XXVIII. 1800-1807
Vol. II Contents
Ch I. 1800-1807
Ch II. 1807-1810
Ch III. 1809
Ch IV. 1809-1812
Ch V. 1810-1813
Ch VI. 1811-1815
Ch VII. 1812-1815
Ch VIII. 1816-1820
Ch IX. 1816-1820
Ch X. 1816-1820
Ch XI. 1816-1820
Ch XII. 1816-1820
‣ Ch XIII. 1816-1820
Ch XIV. 1819
Ch XV. 1820-1821
Ch XVI. 1816-1820
Ch XVII. 1820-1824
Ch XVIII. 1820-1824
Ch XIX. 1820-1824
Ch XX. 1820-1825
Creative Commons License

Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
Produced by CATH
A.D. 1816—1820.
Death of Bishop Watson—His autobiography—His plans of ecclesiastical reform—Approved by Dr. Parr—Death of Mr. Sheridan—Dr. Parr’s opinion of his biographer—Their interview at Hatton—Death of the Princess Charlotte—Dr. Parr’s funeral discourse on the occasion—Death of Dr. Combe—His character—Biographical notice of Dr. Burney—His epitaph written by Dr. Parr—Death of Sir S. Romilly—Dr. Parr’s intimacy with him—Death of Sir P. Francis—Dr. Parr’s opinion respecting the authorship of Junius’ Letters.

In the month of July 1816, died, at an advanced age, the truly excellent Dr. Watson, Bishop of Landaff; of whom it will long be remembered and repeated, as a tale of shame and reproach to the dispensers of ecclesiastical preferment during the reign of George III., that, with the strongest claims to the highest promotion, which talents, learning, exalted character, and important services can establish, he was doomed to remain for thirty-five years in possession of the poorest bishopric, utterly excluded from the prospect of farther advancements. In the history of this eminent prelate, and that of the subject of these Memoirs, stands glaringly exhibited the fact, so unpropitious to the well-being of the church, that its emoluments and dignities are the appropriated rewards, not of moral or literary excellence, but of political subserviency,
and court-sycophancy. In such a state of things, can it be denied that the national establishment is grossly perverted from its proper and professed object, as an institution for religious purposes; and turned into a vast machine of state policy, injurious in its operations to the independence and respectability of the clergy, and to the rights and interests of the church and the country?

Soon after the death of Bishop Watson appeared in one 4to. volume, “Anecdotes of his Life,” written by himself; of which Dr. Parr always spoke in terms of high approbation. He considered the book not only as a pleasing delineation of the life of a scholar, emerging from obscurity, and rising to distinction by his own exertions; but also as a valuable record of sound, just, and reasonable opinions, on all the great questions of the times, most intimately connected with the stability and prosperity of the church, with the honour and welfare of the nation, and with the improvement, the order and happiness of the world. He admitted, indeed, that there is a want of dignity in the frequent and fretful complaints of ministerial neglect, which occur in these volumes; and yet, he would often candidly add—“we must remember, however, that they were by no means causeless complaints:” and whilst he allowed that the biographer sometimes talked too complacently of himself, he would often urge the fair consideration that, where conscious merit is shamefully underrated or overlooked, the language of self-vindication will be apt insensibly to run into that of self-commendation. “O yes!” he once said, speaking
energetically, “the bishop’s claims were great—even if he did, in some degree, ‘make foul the clearness of his own deservings,’ as
Shakespeare has it, by publishing them too pompously.”

In the Bibliotheca Parriana, twice is Bishop Watson censured by Dr. Parr, with some severity, though, as the writer thinks, with little reason, because he has admitted into his catalogue of books for the use of theological students a work, entitled “An Essay on the Nature and Existence of the Material World;” a work “of which the principles lead,” says Dr. Parr, “to unqualified scepticism in natural as well as revealed religion.”1 There is, indeed, little doubt that the admission complained of, was a mere act of inadvertence, easily pardonable in the selection of so large a number of books: yet, supposing the work in question was designedly admitted, and even recommended, where is the ground of censure? Upon the principles of fair and free inquiry, ought not the young student to be directed to read the ablest books, and to examine and weigh the strongest reasonings, on all sides of all important questions? And would not the very attempt in this enlightened age, to suppress opinions, and to stifle argument by concealment, no less than by force, be

1 “It is a curious fact, that the Bishop of Landaff gravely recommends this very work, as likely to please those who have a turn for metaphysical inquiries. I suspect he had hardly read beyond the title-page.”—“This book is negligently recommended in Bishop Watson’s list of books for young students in divinity! Risum teneatis, amici! S. P.”—Bibl. Parr. p. 446.

regarded as unjust,—scarcely, indeed, practicable even if just?1

Bishop Watson was most of all admired and applauded by Dr. Parr, in his character of the ardent and intrepid advocate for unlimited toleration to all without the pale of the church; and for reform and improvement, carried to a wide extent, within it. In a charge delivered in 1792, speaking of the test and corporation acts, thus the bishop expresses himself:—“There seem to me but two reasons for excluding any man from office; the one, want of capacity; the other, want of attachment to the constitution of the country. That the dissenters want capacity will not be affirmed; that they want attachment to the civil constitution of the country, has been asserted, indeed, by many, but proved by none;” and, therefore, his inference is, that “all laws of exclusion against them are oppression.” On these principles, Bishop Watson nobly acted, when, at the request of Mr. Pitt, the subject of the test laws was taken into consideration by the bishops in full assembly. On that occasion, in opposition to the whole bench, with the single

1 “Another instance of the same unreasonable and disingenuous attempt to suppress opinion by concealment occurs in the following entry:—‘Livre des Trois Imposteurs’—‘Traite des Trois Imposteurs’—Both lettered on the back ‘Αρρητα και Άόρατα.’ These two books are scarcely to be met with, and Dr. Parr being offered the choice of one or the other, thought it more discreet and becoming for himself to keep both; and thus far prevent the diffusion of a dangerous opinion. Dr. Parr is very anxious that such books should not go abroad, and fall into the hands of young or mischievous persons.”—Bibl. Parr. p. 686.

exception of
Bishop Shipley, he gave his unhesitating vote for their repeal; and he carried the same just principles into his view of the Catholic question, as noticed in a former page. “I make no secret of my opinion,” says he, “that the cordial reception of the Catholics and dissenters into the bosom of the constitution, by the extinction of all disqualifications, is not only due to them, but is become necessary to secure the independence of the empire, and the safety of the country.”1

The plan of ecclesiastical reform, proposed at different times by Dr. Watson, and approved, for the most part, by Dr. Parr, embraced within it almost all the great objects to which the hopes of many of the best friends of the church have been long and anxiously, but hitherto vainly, directed. It begins with a project for the more equitable and reasonable appropriation of its revenues, by equalising the bishoprics, and by reducing the very rich, and augmenting the very poor livings. It recommends, as the best means of terminating perpetual litigation between the parish and the priest, a commutation of tithes for land of equal value; and it strongly urges the necessity of strict prohibitory laws, to remove those scandals of the church—pluralities and non-residences. The plan proposes also the abolition of all subscription to human articles of faith; the revision of the thirty-nine articles; the amendment of the liturgy; the exclusion of the Athanasian, if not of the Nicene Creed; and the introduction of a corrected version of the Scriptures. Concurring, generally, in these views

1 Watson’s Anecdotes of his Life, vol. ii. p. 433, 8vo. ed.

of the wise and enlightened prelate, Dr. Parr used to say that, with some such plan of reform, adapted to the state of times of increasing knowledge, the church would stand and flourish for ages; but with no reform, no improvements—whilst improvement is rapidly advancing every where else—is it possible to hope for it, he would ask, a duration of even “twenty years” to come?

In the same month of July, in the same year, 1816, with the interval only of a few days, the state was deprived, as before the church had been, of one of its brightest ornaments. This was Mr. Sheridan, the early pupil and the constant friend of Dr. Parr, whose youthful genius he contributed to foster; whose career as a writer, a senator, an orator, as the leader of a party, and the counsellor of a prince, he watched, with mingled delight and solicitude; whose character, exhibiting in strong contrast its lights and its shades, he marked with blended admiration and regret; and whose death, attended with so many melancholy circumstances of destitution and distress, he lamented in bitter sorrow, not wholly disconnected with some keen feelings of indignation, directed towards those from whom relief at such a crisis might well have been expected. Most of the great faults imputed to Sheridan, may be traced to his wants and his debts; and when these are remembered to his disadvantage, it should always at the same time be recollected gratefully by his country, that had he been less sincerely or firmly devoted to her cause, “he might have died a rich apostate, instead of closing a life of patriotism in beggary; he might,
to use a fine expression of his own, have hid his head in a coronet, instead of earning for it but the barren wreath of public gratitude.”1

These last are the words of his recent biographer, the Anacreon of Ireland, a philosopher and patriot, as well as a poet, whose “Memoirs of Sheridan,” though assisted by some communications from Dr. Parr, were not published till after his decease. But what the learned divine thought of the biographer himself, he has thus expressed in his last will:—“I bequeath a mourning ring to Thomas Moore, Esq., who stands high in my estimation, for his original genius, for his exquisite sensibility, for his independent spirit, and for his incorruptible integrity.”

Among the published “Recollections” of one of Dr. Parr’s friends, are given the following notes of a visit, when Mr. Moore was for the first time introduced to him at Hatton:—“The poet of freedom,” says the narrator, “was of course animated and brilliant; and Dr. Parr was highly delighted with him.” Speaking of the “Fudge Family,” Dr. Parr declared that he had been much amused with it; but seemed humorously to think an apology necessary for reading it. “It is seldom,” he said, “that I read modern books.”—“No, no,” added he, “but I have all these in my head;”—pointing to the vast collection of learned books stored up around him. Near the close of the visit, he desired his lady to join with him in expressing the sense she could not but entertain of the extraordinary merits of their visitor: and when she hesitated from diffidence, he exclaimed in his ener-

1 Moore’s Life of Sheridan, vol. ii. p. 492.

getic manner,—“She can’t speak; but I’ll tell you why—she is fascinated.” At parting, he presented a volume of Latin poetry of the middle ages to Mr. Moore, who seemed to set a great value on the gift;1 and who has thus expressed his opinion of the giver:—“to the massy erudition of a former age, he joined all the free and enlightened intelligence of the present.”

The 6th of November, 1817, is marked with mournful distinction in the annals of England, as the day on which happened an event, universally and justly regarded as a national calamity. This was the premature and melancholy demise of the Princess Charlotte, the heiress of the crown, and the pride, the hope and the joy of the nation. Never, perhaps, amidst the snares of grandeur, and especially of royal grandeur, did human character stand, in the general estimation, higher than that of this young princess; and the display of early excellence carried forward the fond expectations of all to a reign of talent and virtue, of happiness and glory. In the sorrows of a whole afflicted people, tributary to departed greatness and goodness, few participated more largely than the learned curate of Hatton: who, following the general example, addressed to his parishioners a pathetic and instructive discourse, on the affecting occasion. Though delivered in the morning of the Sunday, subsequent to the funeral, yet, to heighten the effect, the windows of his church, by his order, were closed; and the whole service was performed by the light of candles. Dr. Parr carried to a great length his opinion of the salutary

1 Monthly Mag. Jan. 1826.

effect, produced by exterior rites and forms; and thought that the sentiment of devotion need not disdain to borrow aid from the influence of solemn pomp and ceremony, acting through the medium of the senses, and the imagination, on the mind.

Early in 1817 died at London, in his seventy-fourth year, Charles Combe, M.D., the fellow-pupil at Harrow, afterwards the intimate friend, and subsequently the literary opponent, of Dr. Parr, in a controversy, of which some notice has been already taken.1 Commencing with questions of classical learning and critical taste, it soon degenerated into a personal altercation; during which some strange charges, rashly advanced by the editor of Horace, on the one side, were indignantly repelled by his reviewer, on the other. It was one of those “quarrels of authors,” which reflected little credit on the persons engaged in it, and especially on the accusing party; and Dr. Parr judged wisely in giving directions to his executors that his “Reply to the Statement of a Co-editor,” should make no part of the “Collected Works,” to be published by them.

Dr. Combe was a man highly respectable, as Dr. Parr bore testimony, even in the heat of debate, for his intellectual endowments, his moral excellencies, and his professional knowledge and skill: and he praised him, particularly, for his successful study of ancient medals, in which, indeed, he was unrivalled.2 It was this which introduced him to the friendly notice of the celebrated Dr. Wm. Hunter; by whom he was en-

1 See vol. i. p. 330. 2 Reply to Combe, p. 2. 22.

gaged to undertake the task of arranging and describing the noble collection of coins, which forms the most valuable part of the Hunterian Museum. The task was admirably begun, but never completed: and the Museum has, since the death of Dr. Hunter, been removed to Glasgow University; to which, by his bequest, it now belongs.

Towards the end of the year 1817, the world of letters had to lament the loss of one of its most illustrious scholars, in the death of the Rev. Charles Burney, LL.D. He was of a family, which possessed, and honourably though variously displayed, superior talents and attainments—his father, Dr. Burney, as a professor and historian of music—his elder brother, the late Admiral Burney, as the companion of Cook in his two last and most important voyages—and his sister, Madame D’Arblay, as the author of several pleasing and elegant works of fiction.

Dr. Burney was educated at the Charter-house; and was afterwards admitted of Caius College, Cambridge; whence he removed to King’s College, Aberdeen. Here he soon rose to distinction as a classical scholar, and regularly proceeded to his degree of A.M. From the same college he afterwards received his degree of LL.D. In 1781 he commenced his career, as an instructor of youth at Highgate; and pursued it, successively, at Chiswick, Hammersmith, and, finally, at Greenwich, where he established the celebrated school, over which still presides his son and successor, the Rev. C. Parr Burney; of whom Dr. Parr speaks,
in his last will, with affectionate respect, “as his worthy godson, and the learned son of a very learned father.”

Dr. Burney, Professor Porson, and Dr. Parr, form the bright constellation of British luminaries, who shed a lustre over the classical, and especially the Greek literature of the age and the country in which they lived. Though it might be thought difficult to determine their relative stations in the rank of scholarship, yet Dr. Parr himself scrupled not to decide the question, by saying, as he often did, “There are three great Grecians in England: Porson is the first; Burney is the third; and who is the second, I need not tell.”1 But whatever superiority he might, justly or unjustly, claim for himself, it scarcely need be said, that he held in the highest possible estimation the learning, and especially the Greek learning, of Dr. Burney; to whom, for an accurate and intimate knowledge of the Grecian drama, probably, he would not have hesitated to assign the first place, instead of the last, in this great triumvirate of scholars.

Though the published works of Dr. Burney, whether as author or editor, are not numerous; yet some, at least, in the opinion of all scholars, possess high intrinsic value; particularly his “Bentleii et Doctorum Virorum Epistolæ,” and his “Tentamen de metris ab Æschylo, in choricis cantibus adhibitis.” The Monthly Review, from

1 Though the truth of this anecdote has been called in question, yet it is certain that the words here ascribed to Dr. Parr were uttered in the house of the writer, and in the hearing of some of his friends.

an early period, contains many criticisms on classical works by him: and his own name is certainly entitled to claim a place among the “Anglorum ΠΑΕΙΑΔΑ,” of whom he speaks, who, in the eighteenth century, says he, “Græcos scriptores, laboribus criticis, illuminârunt;” and whom he denominates, not perhaps with the happiest choice of expression, “Magnanimi heroes!”—“En!
Bentleius, Dawesius, Marklandus, Taylorus, Toupius, Tyrwhittus, Porsonus.”1

Dr. Burney did not enter into holy orders till the year 1807. He was soon afterwards appointed one of his Majesty’s chaplains; and in 1815 was preferred to the valuable living of Deptford in Kent. Here he resided during the remaining portion of his life, which proved not long; for, on the morning of Christmas-day, 1817, he was seized with apoplexy, and within three days expired. A monumental tablet, erected by his parishioners in Deptford Church, bears an inscription, written by his friend Archdeacon Thomas, in which are thus drawn the great lines of his character:—“In him were united the highest attainments in learning, with manners at once dignified and attractive; and peculiar promptitude and accuracy of judgment, with equal generosity and kindness of heart. His zealous attachment to the Church of England was tempered with moderation; and his impressive discourses from the pulpit became doubly beneficial from the influence of his example. His parishioners erected this monument as a record of their affection for a revered pastor and friend, of

1 Pref. ad Tentamen de Metris, &c.

their gratitude for his services, and of their unspeakable regret for his loss.”

Soon after the death of Dr. Burney, it was determined by some of his former pupils, under the auspices of one of the most distinguished of that number, Dr. Kaye, now Lord Bishop of Bristol, to raise a monument in Westminster Abbey, as a tribute of their own sincere and grateful respect for the memory of an honoured and lamented preceptor: and the arduous task of writing the Latin inscription was committed to Dr. Parr.1 Indeed, among the friends of Dr. Burney, no one could easily have been found more capable, of estimating his attainments and his services as a scholar, of appreciating his merits and his attractions as a man and a divine, and of representing them to others with all the strong and impressive effect, of which the language, intended to be employed, so well admits. “This epitaph,” says one of those at whose request it was written, “harmonious and correct and vigorous as it is in its language—excellent as it is for the selection of its topics—is peculiarly gratifying, as it contains a portrait of the deceased, which with the utmost truth of delineation, and freshness of colouring, delightfully brings back him, who is departed, to the recollection of all who knew him.”2

Early in November, 1818, closed, under deplorable circumstances, the life of one of the greatest, wisest and best men of his time, Sir Samuel Romilly. It will excite in no considerate mind any other emotion than that of unmingled sorrow,

1 App. No. II. 2 Gent. Mag. April, 1819.

to be told that he died in consequence of a delirium, brought on by excessive grief for the loss of a beloved wife, which armed his own hand against himself. The writer will not attempt, nor will the reader expect, a delineation of the various excellencies which shone out in his character, diffusing a lustre over every path of life, public or private, in which he moved. Delightful, indeed, would it be, to indulge in the recollection of those important services, which he has rendered to the cause of justice, liberty, and humanity, through the course of a laborious life, by the exertion of faculties, which, if not of the highest intellectual order, were yet powerful, and of a kind admirably fitted for the accomplishment of practical good; and which, to that one great object were ever faithfully and ardently devoted. But reluctantly turning away from a spectacle so grand arid so attractive, as that of fine talent, high principle, and generous sentiment, brought together in beautiful union, and put forth, under the direction of the soundest wisdom, in active effort, for the benefit of mankind—the writer hastens to his purpose, of merely recording the long and sincere friendship which subsisted between Dr. Parr, and the great and excellent man whose name has just been mentioned.

That friendship commenced soon after his first appearance at the bar, in 1783: when, having fixed his choice on the midland circuit, Sir Samuel Romilly, for several years, constantly attended the assizes and the quarter-sessions at Warwick. On such occasions, he seldom failed to visit Hatton,
where he was always received with cordial welcome by
Dr. Parr; whose discerning eye soon discovered in his opening character, the clear presages of his future fame and fortune. It was after his departure, on one of these occasions, that, speaking to a friend and a pupil, who had been present, Dr. Parr said, “mark my words—Romilly is a great man—we, who are his friends, know this now; but, in a little time, the world will know it.” This was spoken more than twenty-seven years ago, when that name was little heard of, which the noblest energies, devoted to the best of causes, have since consecrated to the grateful and honourable remembrance of mankind for ages to come.1

In consequence of rapidly increasing practice, after a few years, Sir Samuel withdrew from the circuit, and confined himself to the duties of a Chancery barrister, united with those of a British senator. From that time, his personal intercourse with Dr. Parr was less frequent; but they still kept up, by letter, an interchange of thoughts, confidentially communicating to each other their sentiments on all the great public questions of the times: those especially to which the attention of Sir Samuel Romilly, as a lawyer or a legislator, were more particularly directed. When his extraordinary merits, and the similarity of their views and principles on all subjects of deepest interest to mankind are considered, it will surprise no one to find it recorded in the “Last Will” of Dr. Parr, that “he regarded his lamented friend with esteem and

1 New Monthly Mag. Aug. 1816.

affection more than brotherly.” During his lifetime, he had been induced to offer to his acceptance, φιλίας χάριν, a very valuable present of plate, which was received by Sir Samuel only a short time previously to his death.

When the dreadful intelligence of that melancholy event was brought to him, Dr. Parr was dining at the house of a friend. He instantly laid down his knife and fork, and covered his face with his hands. An eye-witness declared to the writer’s informant, that he never beheld a more affecting sight. For a moment, he was the image of dumb-despairing grief. Then turning away from the table, his eyes filled with tears, he arose and quitted the room. Retiring into another apartment, he begged to be left alone. After some time, he called for his servant, and, as he filled his pipe, anxiously inquired whether Sir Samuel had received the plate, intended to be sent to him? whether he was certain that it had been delivered at his house? On receiving the desired assurance, he expressed much satisfaction, saying it was a comfort to him to know it. He hardly ever afterwards mentioned the name of Romilly, without a pause of reverence before he uttered it, followed by a deep sigh. He is said to have expressed several times an intention of composing and publishing some work, tributary to the memory of his lamented friend. But this, it is apprehended, was rather a wish than a purpose; or, if it ever ripened into a project, nothing was done, as far as appears, to carry it into effect.

In the course of the year 1818, another public
character, of no small eminence, disappeared from the scene of earthly existence in
Sir Philip Francis. Born an Irishman, he became, by education and habits of life, an Englishman. After having served with credit in some of the subordinate offices of government at home, he was sent in 1773 to India, as one of the members of the council at Calcutta. Here he distinguished himself by his opposition to the oppressive measures of Mr. Hastings’ administration; and, on his return to England, by his indefatigable exertions to bring the oppressor to public disgrace and punishment. Having obtained a seat in parliament, he acquired and ever supported the reputation of an upright senator, and an able and impressive speaker. He lived, and enjoyed life, to the advanced age of seventy-eight; and, from his activity and usefulness, continued to the last, it was said of him, “that his country could have better spared many a younger man.”

But the name of this distinguished senator is introduced into these pages, chiefly from its connexion with that great literary question of modern times—“Who was Junius?” An attempt has been made, as the reader is perhaps aware, to prove that the nominis umbra, so long the object of curious and dubious search, is no other than Sir Philip Francis; and that it was he, whose mighty pen held in awe the political world, though the hand which guided it was unknown, and even unguessed. A work entitled “Junius identified,” and an elaborate criticism upon it, by Mr. Brougham, in the Edinburgh Review, has successfully tracked, in the
opinion of many, the real Junius, through the shades of wonderful and mysterious secrecy, in which it was his singular choice to live, and his firm resolve to die; and from which he has hitherto been able to set at defiance all efforts of inquiry, and all hopes of discovery. Speaking of these publications, a very learned judge is said to have declared, “that if any dependence can be placed upon the law of presumptive evidence, the case is made out;” and the general opinion seems to be, that the long-agitated question is, by these publications, set at rest. “Ad extremum, manifesta deprehensione, conclusa res est.”1

But Dr. Parr, who had examined the question with deep attention, though with strong bias on his mind, in favour of another person, writing to a friend, thus expresses himself:—“We must all grant that a strong case has been made out for Francis; but I could set up very stout objections to those claims. It was not in his nature to keep a secret. He would have told it from his vanity, or from his courage, or from his patriotism. His bitterness, his acuteness, his vivacity, are stamped in characters very peculiar upon many publications, that bear his name; and very faint, indeed, is their resemblance to the spirit, and, in an extended sense of the word, to the style of Junius.”

In a letter to another friend, on the same subject, Dr. Parr thus writes:—“Sir Philip Francis was too proud to tell a lie; and he disclaimed the work. He was too vain to refuse celebrity, which he was conscious of deserving. He was too intrepid to

1 Cicero.

shrink, when danger had nearly passed by. He was too irascible to keep the secret; by the publication of which, at this time of day, he could injure no party with which he is connected, nor any individual for whom he cared. Besides, we have many books of his writing upon many subjects, all of them stamped with the same character of mind. Their general lexis, as we say in Greek, has no resemblance to the lexis of
Junius; and the resemblance in particulars can have far less weight than the want of a general resemblance. Francis uniformly writes English. There is Gallicism in Junius. Francis is furious, but not malevolent. Francis is never cool; and Junius is never ardent.”

Dr. Parr’s own opinion respecting this great literary secret of modern times, he has stated in a letter to Charles Butler, Esq. of Lincoln’s Inn, from which the following is an extract:—1

“For these forty years I have had the firmest conviction that Junius was Mr. Lloyd, brother of Philip Lloyd, dean of Norwich, and secretary to George Grenville.2 My information came from two most sagacious observers; and when I spoke to the second, I did not tell him what I had previously heard from the first. One of my witnesses was Dr. Farmer, a most curious, indefatigable, acute searcher into literary anecdote; and he

1 Butler’s Reminiscences, vol. ii. p. 224.

2Junius’s Letters, 2 vols.—The writer of Junius was Mr. Lloyd, secretary to George Grenville. This will one day or other be generally acknowledged. S. P.”—Bibl. Parr. p. 407.

spoke with confidence unbounded. The other was a witness of a yet higher order, who opposed, and, I think, confuted Junius, upon the Middlesex election.1 He was a most wary observer, and a most incredulous man, indeed: he had access, not to great statesmen, but to the officers who were about the House of Commons and the House of Lords: he rested neither day nor night, till he had made his discovery; and there lives not the human being, upon whose judgment I could rely more firmly for a fact. When you and I meet, I will tell you the whole story. All that I shall now add, is, that a very sagacious gentleman of Ireland, who died last year, had, from other. premises, worked out the same conclusion. I could, with little effort, refute all that has been said about
single-speech Hamilton, Edmund Burke, Glover,2 author of Leonidas, and Sir Philip Francis.”

But with deference to the great authorities here appealed to, and in opposition to all that he has heard from Dr. Parr and others, the present writer is of opinion that, among all the rival claims for the authorship of Junius’s letters, those of Mr. Lloyd seem to him to rest on the slightest foundation. One fact, which, if well attested, would go far to decide the question, is, that he had been in a languishing state of health for some time, and was

1 Probably Dr. Nathaniel Forster of Colchester. See vol. i. p. 111, note.

2Memoirs of Mr. Glover.—This book abounds with interesting anecdotes. The editor supposes the author of Leonidas to be the same with Junius; but in this, I believe, he was mistaken. S. P.”—Bibl. Parr. p. 406.

actually lying on his death-bed, at the date of the last of Junius’s letters; which yet indicates in the writer the full possession of health and vigour. On the same side of the question must also be placed, as a weighty consideration, the judgment of
Mr. Butler, and of a literary friend, delivered in the following words:—

“The last time that Dr. Parr was in town, he communicated to me the evidence and arguments by which he supported his hypothesis that Mr. Lloyd was the author of the letters signed ‘Junius.’ They appeared to me very inconclusive. A literary gentleman of the highest eminence, to whom also he communicated them, thought the same. I have quite forgotten them.”1

1 Butler’s Reminiscences, vol. ii. p. 258.