In the _Quarterly Review_ for 1852 (vol. xc. No. 179.) appeared a clever and speciously written article on the long debated question of the identity of Junius, in which the writer labours at great length to prove that Thomas, second Lord Lyttelton, who died in 1779, was the real substance of the shadow of Junius, hitherto sought in vain. That this Lord Lyttelton was fully competent to the task, I do not doubt; and that there are many points in his character which may well be reconciled with the knowledge we possess of the imaginary Junius, I also admit--but this is all. The author of the review has wholly failed, in my opinion, to prove his case and the remark he makes on Mr. Britton's theory (as to Col. Barre) may equally well apply to his own, namely, that it affords "a [another] curious instance of the delusion to which ingenious men may resign themselves, when they have a favourite opinion to uphold!" The reviewer, indeed, admits that he has "traced the parallel from the scantiest materials;" and in another passage repeats, that but "few materials exist for a sketch of Thomas Lyttelton's life." Of these materials used by the reviewer, the principal portion has been derived from the two volumes of letters published in 1780 and 1782, attributed to Lord Lyttelton, but the authorship of which has since been claimed for William Coombe. The reviewer argues, that they are "substantially genuine;" but evidence, it is believed, exists to the contrary.[1] According to Chalmers, these letters were "publicly disowned" by the executors of Lord Lyttelton; and this is confirmed by the notice in the _Gentleman's Magazine_ for 1780, p. 138., shortly after the publication of the first volume. Putting aside, however, this moot-point (which, I trust, will be taken up by abler hands, as it bears greatly on the theory advanced by the author of the _Review_), I proceed to another and more conclusive line of argument. In the _Preliminary Essay_, prefixed to Woodfall's edition of Junius, 1812 (vol. i. p. *46.), the following statement is made in regard to that writer, the accuracy of which will scarcely be doubted: "There is another point in the history of his life, during his appearance as a public writer, which must not be suffered to pass by without observation: and that is, _that during a great part of this time, from January 1769 to January 1772, he uniformly resided in London, or its immediate vicinity, and that he never quitted his stated habitation for a longer period than a few weeks._" Now, do the known facts of Thomas Lyttelton's life correspond with this statement or not? The reviewer says, p. 115.: "For a period of three years after Mr. Lyttelton lost his seat[2]--_that period during which Junius wrote his acknowledged compositions_--we hardly find a trace of him in any of the contemporaneous letters or memoirs that have fallen under our observation."