ART. II.-The Handwriting of Junius Professionally Investigated. By Mr. Charles Chabot, Expert. With Preface and Col lateral Evidence. By the Hon. Edward Twisleton. London, 4to. 1871. Shaftesbury (who was in a grey silk dressinggown), and said, 'My Lord, I humbly ask your blessing.' The Earl held his hand over him and said, 'I give you my blessing as Earl of Shaftesbury, which perhaps may do you as much good as my Lord of London's; but he lives over the way.' The clergyman | THE Work, the title of which is placed at started to his feet and ran out of the house the head of the present article, possesses a as if pursued by the Evil One, with whom value quite independent of the immediate Shaftesbury was then commonly identified question which it discusses. Its direct obby the Church. ject is to prove by a minute and exhaustive examination of the Junian manuscripts and of the letters of Sir Philip Francis, that both of them were handwritten by the same person; but indirectly it supplies most valuable information and rules for guidance to those engaged in the investigation of subjects in which a comparison of handwriting is more or less involved. It owes its origin, to a great extent, to accidental circumstances, which have such an important bearing upon the investigation before us, that it is necessary to set them forth fully:— Lord Campbell says that 'as to his literary merit he was infinitely inferior to Bolingbroke,' which he was; and Lord Macaulay says that nothing that remains from the pen of Shaftesbury will bear a comparison with the political tracts of Halifax.' Does anything remain of Halifax that will bear a comparison in its way with Shaftesbury's sketch of Mr. Hastings? But it is not as an author or man of letters that Shaftesbury must be judged, but as a man of thought and action, a politician, an orator, a statesman, a master mind made up of many varying gifts and qualities, a 'great faulty human being' in whom the faults are indissolubly blended with the greatness. It was to Shaftesbury's only surviving son that Dryden alluded in the lines: 'And all to leave what with his toil he won 'In the Christmas season of 1770, or 1771,' says Mr. Twisleton, when Mr. Francis was on a visit to his father at Bath, he danced at the Assembly rooms more than one evening with a young lady named Miss Giles. This lady, born in 1751, was the daughter of Daniel Giles, Esq., afterwards Governor of the Bank of England; and in January, 1772, she became Mrs. King by marrying Joseph King, Esq., of Taplow. It was the custom at balls a hundred years ago for a lady to retain the same partner during the whole of the evening; so that the fact of Miss Giles having thus danced with Mr. Francis would imply more of an acquaintance than would necessarily be involved in a young lady's dancing with a gentleman at the present day. Subsequently, she received an Anonymous Note, enclosing Anonymous complimenVerses, both of which she believed to have been sent to her by him. 'The note was in the following words : The inclosed paper of Verses was found this morning by accident. The person who found them, not knowing to whom they belong, is obliged to trust to his own Judgment, and takes for granted that they could only be meant for Miss Giles.' 'The Verses were as follows: This son was a very handsome man, and these lines were supposed to point to his inferiority of understanding. They were more resented by his son, the third Earl, author of the Characteristics,' than any other portion of the satire. After the third Earl, occurs a long interval, during which no lineal descen-tary dant rose to celebrity. But let those who maintain the hereditary quality of genius or character, despair; for in this instance we are reminded of the river which, after running many miles underground, emerges clearer, purer, and less turbid than at its source. After a noiseless descent of nearly two centuries, the name and honours of the Earls of Shaftesbury have devolved upon one who inherits all the domestic virtues, with much of the capacity, intellectual vigour, high courage, and eager animated eloquence of their founder-one in whom ambition is chastened by the pure aims which make ambition virtue-who has uniformly employed his advantages of rank, wealth, and station to alleviate human misery, to improve the moral and material condition of the poorwho stands pre-eminent amongst British nobles for elevated, disinterested, untiring benevolence and philanthropy. 1. 'When nature has, happily, finished her Part, There is Work enough left for the Graces ; 'Tis harder to keep than to conquer the Heart; We admire and forget pretty Faces. 2. In the School of the Graces, by Venus attended, Belinda improves ev'ry Hour; They tell her that Beauty itself may be mend ed, And shew her the use of her Pow'r. 3. They alone have instructed the fortunate Maid { And the Language of Looks to express. 4. They directed her Eye, they pointed the Dart, She can wound if she pleases, or kill. quence of a story. Mr. Twisleton, whose caution and love of truth are most strikingly exhibited in every point of the investigation, would not finally adopt this conclusion till it had been verified by a professional expert. He accordingly applied to Mr. Netherclift, who had previously examined the handwriting of the Anonymous Note, as we have already said; but finding that this gentleman, in consetake the investigation, he placed the case in serious illness, could not underthe hands of Mr. Chabot, another professional expert. Mr. Chabot, however, after comparing the Verses with the Letters of Francis, pronounced an opinion directly contrary to what was expected. He maintained not only that he should not be justified in stating that the Verses were in the handwriting of Francis, but he thought that he could prove the negative, viz., that Francis had not, and could not have, handwritten the Verses; and in corroboration of this opinion he pointed out numerous peculiarities in the which were not in the Letters, and numerous peculiarities in the Letters which were not in the Verses. 'The verses and the Note are each written on a separate sheet of common letter paper, and the handwriting of the two is different. The reason of this is obvious. The humour of the compliment required such a difference. The two documents, though wholly unconnected with St. Valentine's Day, must be regarded in the light of a valentine; the essential idea of which is, that whereas certain Verses in praise of a young lady had been found by accident, Miss Giles alone merited such praise, and the Verses were therefore sent to her as to the per-Verses son for whom they were intended. Hence, it would have been out of keeping with the plan of the valentine if the Verses and the Note had been in the same handwriting.' We need not for our present purpose relate how the existence of the two documents came to the knowledge of Mr. Twisleton, and how he has been enabled to make public use of them. That the two documents were really sent by Francis to Miss Giles no one can entertain any reasonable doubt after perusing Mr. Twisleton's narrative, and one circumstance, which we shall presently lay before our readers, places the fact beyond question. The connexion of these two documents with the investigation into the handwriting of Junius arises thus. The Anonymous Note is in the handwriting of Junius. This will be at once evident, we think, to anyone who compares the facsimile of the Note with the facsimiles of the Junian Manuscripts, and is placed beyond all question by the Report of Mr. Netherclift, printed in the volume before us, in which he proves, by detailed reasonings, that the two must have been handwritten by the same person. As the Anonymous Note was in the handwriting of Junius, and as Francis had evidently sent it, it was taken for granted as a natural consequence that the Anonymous Verses were in the natural handwriting of Francis. This was at first the opinion of Mr. Twisleton himself and of many other literary and legal gentlemen to whom he showed the verses, and it was confirmed by the external evidence and the tradition among the descendants of Mrs. King. But now comes the most interesting part of the And here we may remark, in passing, that the conduct of Mr. Chabot on this occasion should be borne in mind by those who are in the habit of indulging in insinuations against experts.* Mr. Chabot, in giving this opinion, shewed his independence by oppos ing the views of the person by whom he was professionally employed. In fact, the case which he had been called in to support seemed to have broken down in consequence of his evidence. Mr. Twisleton at once acquiesced in the professional opinion of Mr. Chabot; but recollecting from the recently *The following observations of Mr. Twisleton bered in the present investigation. The word on the subject of 'experts' deserve to be remem expert" is often used very loosely. It is frequently used to designate lithographers, or gentlemen connected with banks, who come forward as witnesses once or twice in their lives to express their belief that a particular document was or was not written by a certain individual. The word has, then, a meaning very different from that of general experts in handwriting, reChabot and Mr. Netherclift, to whom cases of cognised as such in courts of justice, like Mr. disputed writing are systematically submitted, from time to time, for their professional opinion, and who are prepared to state detailed reasons for every such opinion which they give. Having been assured that during the last fifty years the taken some pains to ascertain this point, I have number of such experts in London has been very few, and that there are only two such experts in London practice now. Hence, tales about experts should be received with distrust, unless names and particulars are mentioned, so that it may be ascertained in what sense the word "expert" is used.' 'I have receiv'd your packet of the 17th of July. You are very tenacious of your epigram. I observe you contend for it as if your reputation as a poet depended on it. I did not condemn the composition-I only said it was not an original, and I say so still; but yet I am ready to allow you can weave originals, because In the School of the Graces, by Venus attended, published 'Life of Francis' that his cousin | served, seems to have waged battle for the and familiar friend, Mr. Richard Tilghman, originality of his epigram. Tilghman rewas with Francis at Bath when the Verses plied in the following letter, which ends with were sent to Miss Giles, it struck Mr. Twisle- the quotation of the two first lines of the ton that Francis might possibly have availed second stanza of the Verses:himself of the services of Tilghman as an 'MY DEAR FRANCIS, amanuensis. Fortunately, in the Letter Book of Francis, which was in Mr. Twisleton's possession, there were six Letters written to Francis by Tilghman. These were now submitted, together with the Verses, to Mr. Chabot, who expressed his unhesitating conviction that the Verses were in the handwriting of Tilghman, and embodied his opinion in one of the Reports here printed. It would seem that Francis, with his usual caution, was unwilling to bring his own handwriting. into any connection with that of Junius, and accordingly wrote the note himself in the Junian hand, employing his friend Tilghman to copy the Verses, who probably never saw the Note. Belinda improves ev'ry hour."' Upon this Mr. Twisleton remarks: 'Now on an attentive consideration of this self cannot be regarded as the author of paragraph, it seems clear that Tilghman himthe two lines, inasmuch as, in that case, the quotation of them would be wanting in point, We have already referred our readers to and be nearly irrelevant. The subject under Mr. Twisleton's narrative for the proof of the discussion is a poetical composition of Francis, essential point that the Note and the Verses and Tilghman, while he stoutly denies the oricame from Francis; but we will now men-ginality of that particular composition, declares tion the circumstance to which we alluded, himself ready to allow that Francis can weave and which proves incontestably that Tilgh-Verses. This quotation would be singularly originals, and then quotes the two lines of the man was acquainted with the Verses. In 1772 Francis, who was in Italy, wrote a letter to Dr. John Campbell, a leading littérateur of the day. He was evidently proud of this letter, and attached so much importance to it, that he sent a copy of it to his friend Tilghman, who had returned to Philadelphia in America, of which place he was a native. The letter contains the following Latin Epigram, which Francis wrote upon a marble lion in the Medici Palace : inappropriate if Tilghman was merely quoting two lines of his own composition; while it was apposite, and might have been soothing to Francis after the assault on his epigram, if it alluded to Francis's Verses. The latter, therefore, may safely be adopted as the correct explanation of the passage; and the meaning of written, "I deny that the conception of your it is very much the same as if Tilghman had epigram was original, but I do not deny that you can weave originals, for your power to do this has been proved by your verses on Belinda." At the same time, he probably quoted these two particular lines from a catch of fancy in a play of words; to say that, as Belinda, in the School of the Graces, 66 improv'd ev'ry hour," so Francis improved what he borrowed, and thus made his compositions originals.' The circumstances we have narrated above having enabled Mr. Twisleton to test the sagacity and independence of Mr. Chabot, it occurred to him as probable that, if sufficient materials were placed at Mr. Chabot's disposal, he would be able to give a sound opinion on the much more important question whether Sir Philip Francis did, or did not, handwrite the Letters of Junius. In regard to Francis, Mr. Twisleton procured from a grand-daughter of Sir Philip Francis, through Mr. Merivale, one of the two authors of the Life of Francis,' a Letter-Book containing forty-two original Letters written and sent by Francis to his brother-in-law or to his wife in the years from 1767 to 1771 inclusive. And in regard to Junius, not only had the Trustees of the British Museum re- | published the result of his investigations into cently purchased all the original Letters and the handwriting of Junius and Francis; and writings of Junius in the possession of Mrs. most undoubtedly, they are the only instance Parkes, which had belonged first to Mr. in which any such expert has written professionally, and subscribed his name to his opinHenry Dick Woodfall, and afterwards to her ion. Still, although Mr. Chabot has written late husband, Mr. Parkes, but Mr. Murray his Reports under professional responsibility, readily gave access to the original Manu- and they thus deserve to be read with more scripts of the Letters of Junius to Mr. Gren- than ordinary attention, he is desirous—and I ville which were in his possession. Under publish his reports with the same desire-that these circumstances Mr. Twisleton gave for- his conclusions should in no respect be acceptmal written instructions to Mr. Chabot that ed on grounds of mere authority, but that they he should submit the handwriting of Junius should be judged of entirely by the reasons to a searching comparison with the Letters which he advances in their behalf.' of Sir Philip Francis, and should state, professionally, his opinion in writing whether the letters of Francis and Junius respectively were, or were not, written by the same hand.' Subsequently Mr. Twisleton requested Mr. Chabot to report whether the negative could, or could not, be proved respecting Lady Temple and Lord George Sackville, as well as the affirmative respecting Sir Philip Francis. This request was suggested to Mr. Twisleton by what had passed respecting the anonymous Verses, when Mr. Chabot had negatived Francis's claim before Tilghman had been discovered as their handwriter; and it seemed to Mr. Twisleton interesting to ascertain whether there were or were not, any habits or peculiarities of writing in Lady Temple, or Lord George Sackville, which peared to Mr. Chabot incompatible, or not easy to be reconciled, with habits or pecu-To prove that two documents were written liarities in the handwriting of Junius. ap persons The result is contained in two elaborate reports, occupying 197 quarto pages, one on the handwriting of Sir Philip Francis, and the other on the handwritings of Lady Temple, Lord George Sackville, and others. These are followed by facsimiles, taken by photo-lithography, of the letters of Junius and of the proof-sheets of these letters, as well as by similar facsimiles of the letters of Sir Philip Francis and of the other to whom the authorship of the Junian Letters has been at various times ascribed. Thus we have an amount of evidence which has never previously been presented to the publie; and, indeed, as far as Francis is concerned, all the facsimiles of his autographs which have been published in 'Junius Identified,' in the 'Chatham Correspondence,' and in the Memoirs of Sir P. Francis,' do not, combined, quite equal in the number of words the first Letter of Francis contained in the volume before us. There is one peculiar feature in these Reports to which Mr. Twisleton directs special attention: 'As far as is known, they are the only instance in which an expert has deliberately In seeking to prove that two different handwritings have been made use of by the same person, it is important to observe the method pursued in the investigation. Most persons are content with a general comparison, without endeavouring to ascertain the principles which govern the handwriting, or the characteristic habits in the two handwritings under discussion. They thus form their judgment by the impression left upon their minds by general similarity, without that careful examination of the peculiar and distinctive formations of individual letters which characterise the writing. "The principles which underlie all proof by comparison of handwriting are very simple, and when distinctly enunciated, appear to be self-evident. that two documents were written by the same hand, coincidences must be shown Το prove to exist in them which cannot be accidental. by different hands, discrepancies must be pointed out in them which cannot be accounted for by accident or by disguise. These principles are easy to understand, but to exemplify them in observations is by no means always easy.' It is the merit of these Reports that they give an analysis of the handwriting by examining separately the elements or letters of which it is composed. It would be impossible, however, to convey any adequate idea of the method pursued by Mr. Chabot in his investigation without entering into minute details; and even then they would be hardly intelligible without constant reference to the lithographed plates, which we have not the means of reproducing on our pages. But we can promise such of our readers as will take the trouble to study the help of the lithographed plates, a rich Mr. Chabot's remarks and reasoning, with mine of instruction on a subject which had never yet been explained in any systematic treatise. We may first state in general the conclusions at which Mr. Chabot has arrived on the long-disputed controversy respecting the Junian handwriting. 'I find generally,' says Mr. Chabot, in the writing of the Letters of Sir Philip Francis so time. I have never met with a writer who could do so, and sustain a consistent and complete disguise throughout a piece of writing of moderate length.' much variety in the formation of all letters which admit of variety as to render his handwriting difficult to disguise in any ordinary manner, and consequently easy to identify. I discover also in the writing of the Letters and Manuscripts of Junius variations in the forma- One of the most striking characteristics tion of certain letters, in some cases very mul- of the Junian handwriting is the fineness of tifarious, and of frequent occurrence, and that the strokes. It had been often remarked these variations closely correspond with those that Junius must have written with an exobserved in the writing of Sir Philip Francis. tremely fine pen. His handwriting is finer They are, however, chiefly confined to the and smaller than that of Francis; and a small letters in both handwritings; the habit finely made pen, as Mr. Chabot remarks, ual formation of capital letters being seldom departed from in any essential particular in would be a necessary auxiliary to enable a either. I find also, in some instances, wherein person, like Francis, who habitually wrote Junius makes exaggerated formations of certain in a bold hand, to reduce the size of his letters, exact counterparts of them are to be writing. Moreover, a bold handwriting found in the writing of Sir Philip Francis, and would instinctively suggest the contrast of a in some cases as nearly as possible with the fine and diminished style of writing for a same frequency. I further find in the hand-feigned hand. It has been suggested to us writing of Sir Philip Francis a repetition of all, or nearly all, the leading features and peculiar habits of writing, independent of the formations of letters, which so distinguish the Junian writing. These are so numerous, so varied, and in some cases so distinctive, that, when taken collectively, it is scarcely within the limits of possibility that they can be found in the handwriting of any two persons. I am, therefore, irresistibly driven to the conclusion that the Junian Manuscripts and the forty-four Letters of Francis have all been written by one and the same hand.' It is obvious, upon a momentary glance, that the letters of Junius are written in a feigned hand : Upon examination, I find that the principal features of the disguise consist of the very common practice of altering the accustomed slope, and, in many cases, writing in a smaller hand, whilst that which is of more importance, viz. the radical forms of letters, is repeatedly neglected. It is difficult, whilst the mind is engaged on the subject-matter of the writing, to avoid occasionally, indeed frequently, falling into some of the habits of writing peculiar to the writer. The simple expedients of altering the usual slope and size of the writing may be maintained without difficulty, but it becomes very trying to attend to details at the same FRANCIS. JUNIUS. же by a friend that Junius may have maintained without effort the persistent fineness of his lines by using a crow-quill-a suggestion which seems to us very probable, though we do not remember to have seen it made before. Mr. Chabot brings forward two distinct classes of evidence to identify the handwrit ing of Sir Philip Francis with that of Junius, one relating to the formation of letters, and to peculiarities connected therewith, and the other to habits of writing which do not necessarily depend on such formations and peculiarities. The former class cannot, as we have already said, be made intelligible without reference to the plates; but certain specialities will be readily understood by the help of a few woodcuts. Junian handwriting:— 'Upon an attentive examination, it will be found that the slope of the Junian writing differs from that of Francis's principally in the down-strokes of the letters; and that the slope of the up-strokes, which is very horizontally inclined, is, as nearly as may be, the same in both. This will become clearly apparent upon an examination and comparison of the following facsimiles : me the proof the 'Some writers make both the upper and lower turns of their letters angular; others give them considerable roundness; the results are two opposite styles of writing. When Francis wrote rapidly, his writing partook of both characteristics in an eminent degree. See the first seven lines of the 3rd page of his Let ter, No. 38 (Plate 202), wherein the upper turns of the letters are extremely angular, and the lower turns are well rounded, in addition to which the latter are extremely wide. If he altered the down-strokes-by making them more upright, without making any corresponding alteration in the up-strokes of his |
