5303. Robert Browning, Sr. to RB
As published in The Brownings’ Correspondence, 30, 321–322.
Paris
Dec 15. ’63
Dear Robert,
There is one circumstance connected with Junius, for which I could never find a satisfactory explanation.— His personal (not political but personal) enmity to the King– Could one man speak more contemptuously of another, than Junius does in his first letter to Horne? [1] could any body forgive it? especially (from what is now known of his character & disposition) Geo iii?– And yet we find his Majesty, giving him a hearty welcome, upon his return from India, (supposing Junius to [have] been identified with Francis) [2] —when almost every other person in the Kingdom turned his back upon him– It is said, by several, that the King, knew who Juns was; I can hardly believe it– There are at least 30 claimants, for the honour of writing Junius—& each of their advocates are as certain of the fact, as the King could have been yet it is evident 29 of them must have been mistaken– I no more believe that George the 3d knew who Junius was—then I believe that Louis xviii knew who was the Prisoner with the famous Mask [3] —and as we have no intimation given us, whom the King alluded to—no very great degree of credit can be given to such vague information–
After the publication of the Letters to Barrington, [4] Ellis, [5] & others, no wonder that suspicion was directed to some one intimately connected with the War Office– At first, D’Oyly [6] was considered the writer—nor was it till after he was dismissed, that circumstances pointed out Francis as being the more likely of the two, to have written them. Woodfall, [7] no doubt, had been applied to, & the original Manuscripts inspected &—(especially as there existed at that very time, some Misunderstandg between Ld Barrington & Francis) & without any further enquiry—Francis was dismissed– The letter which announces this dismission to the public is too mild ever to have been written by a person thus severely (& if guilty, very properly) punished– It strikes me, that Francis, conscious of his own innocence, was well aware of the advantages he might draw from this treatment, when he should see proper to come forward & assert his innocence– The persons interested in his dismissal, had formerly been his very best friends—& his apparent ingratitude, had encreased their animosity to deadly hatred. Francis made a tour upon the continent– Previous to his return—I suppose (& it is merely supposition) that somehow or other Ld B. & the ors had been convinced of his innocence– A deep Mystery hangs over this part of the affair. A Profound secret seems here to have been Kept by all parties—& the result was—a lucrative Appointment in India– [8] I wd have enlarged upon what I have written, & am merely writing from Memory– But I give this as my opinion on which I am as liable to be mistaken as any body else: I wd speak more positively, about F’s connectn with Calcraft. [9]
Yr ever affect “pa” R Browning
Publication: None traced.
Manuscript: Fitzwilliam Museum.
1. RB, Sr. refers to a letter from Junius to John Horne Tooke (né Horne, 1736–1812), politician and philologist, that appeared in The Public Advertiser of 24 July 1771. In defending the radical politician John Wilkes (1727–97), Junius wrote: “The public should, and will forgive him his claret and his footmen … as long as he stands forth against a ministry and parliament, who are doing every thing they can to enslave the country, and as long as he is a thorn in the King’s side” (The Letters of Junius, ed. John Cannon, Oxford, 1978, p. 258).
2. Philip Francis (1740–1818), politician and political writer, is now widely held to be the author of the Junius letters. During the period of their publication in The Public Advertiser, he was chief clerk in the War Office. Francis served on the Supreme Council in India from 1774 to 1780, returning to England the following year.
3. A state prisoner of France during the reign of Louis XIV. In Alexandre Dumas’s Le Vicomte de Bragelonne (1848–50), he is portrayed as Louis XIV’s twin brother. But his real identity has never been discovered.
4. William Wildman Barrington (1717–93), 2nd Viscount Barrington, was secretary at war from 1755 to 1761 and again from 1765 to 1778. The letters to him were from Junius but signed Veteran and Scotus. They appeared in The Public Advertiser from January to May 1772 (see Letters of Junius, pp. 496–509).
5. Welbore Ellis (1713–1802), 1st Baron Mendip, was secretary at war from 1762 to 1765. Although Junius does not address a letter to him, he addresses him directly (and insultingly) in a letter of 28 May 1871 (see Letters of Junius, p. 244).
6. Christopher D’Oyly (bap. 1717–95), barrister of the Inner Temple and friend of Philip Francis, served as deputy secretary in the War Office from 1763 to 1771. His resignation in December 1771 triggered Veteran’s letters to Barrington and led to Francis’s own resignation three months later.
7. Henry Sampson Woodfall (1739–1805), printer and editor of The Public Advertiser.
8. Francis’s salary for serving on the Supreme Council in India was £10,000 per annum.
9. John Calcraft, the elder (1726–72), politician, was a patron of Francis, to whom he bequeathed £1000.
___________________
