One of your correspondent's rumours is to this effect, that an eminent bookseller was lately called in to value certain MSS., and thus accidentally discovered who "Atticus _or_ Brutus was, and _consequently_ who Junius himself was." This _consequently_ is certainly a most astounding _non-sequitur_ to those who are reasonably well-informed as to the present state of the Junius question. But let that pass. Still I must observe that your correspondent is dealing with a rumour; that the rumour does not tell us whether the discovery is inferential or positive--relates to Atticus or Brutus: nothing can well be more vague. Now my "rumour" said the discovery was of the writer of the letters of Lucius. Under these circumstances it would be idle to waste another line in speculation: enough for the information of your correspondent, if I add, that in one case the discovery _might_ help us to a _conjecture_ who Junius _was_; in another, might prove who he was _not_.
As to the "rumours" about the scents contained in the _Grenville Papers_, they would fill a volume. They have been buzzing about for more than a quarter of a century. The nonsense of one-half was demonstrable by any intelligent person who would have taken the trouble to examine and test them: but nobody did take such trouble. "N. & Q." was not then in existence. The most plausible, and seemingly, from its circumstantiality, best authenticated version, was given by Mr. Barker, in 1828, to the effect that three letters had been discovered, one of which had a fictitious signature; another asked legal advice of Mr. Grenville as to publishing the letter to the King; and the third enclosed a copy of Junius's letter to Lord Mansfield, signed with the author's initials, and with a reference therein to a letter received from Mr. Grenville.
The publication of the letters will soon put an end to "rumour." Meanwhile the few following facts will dispose of Mr. Barker's circumstantial fictions, and perhaps satisfy your correspondent.
There are amongst the _Grenville Papers_ three letters, dated Feb., Sept., and Nov., 1768; the _last_ therefore before the _first_ Junius was published.
_Two_ of these letters are signed with the initial C.; and, on the similarity of the handwriting, it is assumed that the _three_ letters came from the same person. The writer of the _unsigned_ letter claims to have written many of the letters which had latterly appeared in the newspapers, and, amongst others, a letter signed Atticus, a copy of which he encloses. This is according to my recollection; but I will not say positively that he does not claim to be the writer of the _letters_ signed Atticus. The question, therefore, at present stands thus:--The connexion of these letters with the writer of Junius's letters is an inference or assumption, not a fact. It remains to be proved: and, for anything I know to the contrary, it may hereafter be proved by the editor of the _Grenville Papers_,--a diligent and careful man,--that the unknown writer of the unsigned letter is worthy of belief; that he was the same person who wrote the two letters signed C.; that Mr. Grenville's correspondent C. in 1768, was Woodfall's correspondent C. in 1769; and then, whether Mr. Grenville's Atticus was the same Atticus whose four letters were published as written by Junius, by Mr. _George_ Woodfall in the edition of 1812. Simple as this last question may appear, and naturally as most persons would come to a conclusion on the subject, I think it well to mention as a warning, that there were, as admitted in the _Public Advertiser_, two persons who about the same time wrote under that signature, and I think clear evidence of a third writer.