IN the latter half of the eighteenth century a host of writers took the utmost liberty which the law afforded of publishing scathing invective of the most personal nature aimed against the character of persons who, for one reason or another, had incurred their displeasure. Parliamentary procedure admitted no public reporting of the opinions voiced by the members, and interpellation of the Ministers on questions of public importance was not yet a system. Anonymous writing brought to a fine art instructed the public mind, and even influenced the fortunes of those attacked.

The Letters of Junius, those appearing in the 'North Briton,' and many others under various signatures, have become famous, not only as examples of style, but as political documents of importance. The authors of the majority are unknown, and it has for long been an interesting object of literary research to collect evidence of their identity.

Among the anonymous letters which have acquired notoriety, one of the earliest appeared on the 23rd September 1760 in pamphlet form, "printed for J. Bard, opposite St Dunstans Church in Fleet Street"; it

LETTER."

was entitled 'A Letter to an Honourable Brigadier General, Brigadier-General, Commander-in-Chief of His Majesty's Forces in Canada." The person attacked was the Honourable George Townshend, afterwards the first Marquess Townshend, and the writer employed his utmost efforts to hold up to contempt and ridicule the action of this officer when serving as a brigadiergeneral during Wolfe's Quebec campaign of 1759.

With the character of George Townshend I am not concerned, though it may be said that the sober facts of history do not bear out the truth of the allegations; but the authorship of the Letter is an interesting problem, the more so that much has been written, and with considerable force, to show that the writer of the Letter was also responsible for the famous Junius series. While collecting information on a different subject, chance has thrown in my way some details which have not so far appeared in the various critical works dealing with the Letter or with Junius, and these will perhaps be of interest.

The Letter itself is too long1 to reproduce, but the extracts given below are sufficient to indicate the nature of the at

place, you alone enjoyed the honours of its being taken "; and again: "Especially after you had entered your solemn protest against his plans for attacking the enemy"; and again: "Against whose last desperate attempt you protested in form." It is known that Townshend and the other two brigadiers, Monckton and Murray, had protested against certain proposals of the Commander (Wolfe), but such protests were no doubt made at the Council table, and in the presence only of officers on Wolfe's staff; and of these, Carleton, Barré, and the aidede-camp, Captain Bell, were the most prominent and the most likely, as confidants of Wolfe, to have been present. A correspondence between the Brigadiers, which took place a fortnight after the Capitula. tion, throws a good deal of light on this phase of the affair. The first letter is from Townshend to Murray, dated 5th October (1759): "General Monckton has a copy of all the letters now become so interesting to us. He told me he would give you a copy of them, and he agreed that I might as well take the originals home with me, as our proofs cannot be too circumstantially authentic. Do you agree? I think I should have a copy of the paper to General Wolfe concerning his intended landing higher up the river. We are then in possession of all the negociations of the

Campaign as far as we are concerned, and when in possession of such proofs, one may hope to escape the censure of upright and rational men, tho' perhaps no authorities can secure a man from defamation which is the offspring of ignorance and faction."

To this Murray replied on the same date: "I shall look for the letter you mention, take a copy of it, and deposit the original with you. Since so black a lie was propagated [my italics], I think myself very happy that you will be on the spot to contradict whatever ignorance or faction may suggest. I have no copy of the paper I sent by you to General Wolfe concerning his scheme of landing between Pointe aux Trembles and St Augustin, but the public orders are sufficient proof of his intention to do it, and likewise of the suddenness of the thought of landing where we did.1 . . . . I wish his friends had not been so much our enemies."

From these two letters it is evident that statements were already being made which, in the opinion of the principal actors, were malicious and untrue. There is abundant evidence that the "black lie" referred to by Murray consisted in an assertion that the Brigadiers had opposed the attack upon the French Army at Quebec. The truth is very much the reverse, but this is

a subject which cannot be referred to here. The point for consideration is that the charges contained in the Letter are a repetition of the statements propagated by Wolfe's "friends" immediately after the battle of Quebec and the capture of the town. Of these "friends," it is quite certain that Carleton and Barré were the principal and the nearest to his confidence. Apart from many other circumstances,

which make the death of Wolfe so lamentable, it is to be regretted that no despatches of his, after the action, could be published. His natural nobleness of character would have given credit where it was due, and the misstatements of his friends would never have seen the light.

Further consideration of the Letter shows the intimate acquaintance of the writer with the details of the battle fought before Quebec on the 13th September (1759). Thus: "Yet, Sir, you are conscious that the Highlanders

were

not so forward in the pursuit at Quebec as the 47th Regiment," this particular thrust being induced by Townshend's remark in his despatch to Pitt: "The Highlanders, supported by Anstruther's [58th Foot], took to their broadswords and drove part into the Town and part over the River St Charles." As a matter of fact, Townshend

1 The 78th Foot.

did refer to the good service of the 47th in another part of his despatch; but the author of the Letter was evidently jealous of any credit being given to the Highlanders, though no exception is taken to the forward position assigned to the 58th. Witness the sarcastic: "To what purpose, therefore, this tremendous taking to their broadswords when whole regiment was between them and the enemy?"

3

a

to

Passing over the fact that this antipathy to the Scots was very "Junian" in character, and even the words employed reappeared later in another Letter attributed Junius, the point we are concerned with is that certainly some one actually present at the battle, and well acquainted with the movements of the units during the struggle, must have inspired, if he did not actually write, the sentences just quoted. We know that Carleton and Barré went to New York, after the fall of Quebec, for the recovery of their health, and of course had ample opportunity of comparing notes, and a consideration of the facts related above makes it extremely probable that one or other was the source from which the writer of the Letter received his information. At this point a curious circumstance requires comment : the delay which occurred in publishing the

Letter. Townshend had rereturned to England in November of 1759-the Letter did not appear until 23rd September 1760, an interval of more than ten months. Ordinarily an attack of this kind, to carry its full effect, would be launched as soon as possible after the event to which it principally referred. Some very definite cause must have operated to to prevent earlier publication. On the assumption that Barré had a hand in the affair an explanation is forthcoming, for we know that his wound at the battle of Quebec had "shattered the bones of his nose and left cheek and rendered his left eye useless," and it is quite unlikely that he would be physically capable of any writing for a long time.

How long Barré's convalescence took we do not know, but when the summer campaign against Montreal was organised by General Amherst in 1760 he accompanied the army in the position of Adjutant - General, and presumably left Albany with Amherst at the latter end of June. Again assuming that Barré had something to do with the Letter, it is quite probable that he would have despatched his contribution to it at about this time, and this would have arrived in England early in August, the summer voyage taking from a month to five weeks. As we shall see, this fits in very well with other circumstances.

I have said above that either Carleton or Barré may have

inspired inspired the Letter, and to these two might be added the aide-de-camp Bell. All three were certainly possesssd of the necessary inner knowledge, but of the three it is quite certain that Barré alone was capable of being the Author. His career was remarkable. Of French parentage, he had been educated at Trinity College, Dublin, and was evidently a scholar of merit. He entered the army and served, without any opportunity for distinction, for eleven years in the 32nd Foot, when he became acquainted with Wolfe, who procured for him an appointment as brigade - major during the Louisburg Campaign of 1758. He accompanied Wolfe to England at the end of the campaign, and at this time undoubtedly became acquainted with Lord Shelburne and his circle-Lord Shelburne being a friend of Wolfe's, with whom he had served in the 20th Foot. With Lord Shelburne Barré formed a close intimacy, which is a fact of considerable importance when considering his authorship of the Letter. During the campaign against Quebec and Montreal, Barré took a distinguished part. returned to England in 1760, entered Parliament under the ægis of Lord Shelburne, displayed at once his powers as a brilliant and trenchant speaker, and within two years became Adjutant - General of the Army, Governor of Stirling Castle, and a politician of eminence.

He

Barré regarded Wolfe as the patron who had dragged him