Art. V. Tie Identity of Junius witk a distinguisfted Living 
Character established.'^ 8vo. pp. 37^. LondoUy Taylor iSc 
Hesse, 1816. 

A Stipplement to Junius Ideniified : Consisting of facsimiles of 
Uandwriting and other Illustrations. 8vo. pp. 36. Taylor & 
Hesse, 1817. 

nrhiE question respecting the author of Junius's Letters, is 
-^ thought, we believe, by philosophers, to be one of more cu«« 
riosity than importance. We are very far from pretending that 
the happiness of mankind is materially interested in its determi- 
nation i or that it involves any great and fundamental scientific 
truths. But it must be viewed as a point of literary history ; and, 
among discussions of this description, it ranks verv high. Af- 
ter all, are there many points of civil or military history really 
inore interesting to persons living in the present times ? Is tbt 



IB 17. Junius. 95 



guilt of Queen Mary — tbe character of Richard IIL— or the 
story of the Man in the Iron Mask, very nearly connected with 
the welfare of the existing generation ? Indeed, we would ra- 
ther caution, even the most profound of philosophers, against 
making too nice an inquiry into the practical importance of 
tfcientinc truths; for assuredly there are numberless propost« 
dona^ of which the curiosity is more easily descried than the 
utility^ in all the branches of science, and especially in the severer 
ones — the professors of which are the most prone to deride an 
inquiry like that about Junius. That the community has loi^ 
taken an extraordinary interest in this question ; that a great 
and universal curiosity has been felt to know who wrote the 
Letters ; seems quite sufficient to justify a good deal of pains in 
the research, and satisfaction in the discovery. He who should 
find out the longitude would, no doubt, more substantially be- 
nefit tbe world ; ^et we dare to assert, that, for one who reallj 
profited by the discovery, a thousand would derive nothing be- 
vond the mere gratification of curiosity; and the inventor'a 
lame would depend chiefly on their voice. Is any man much 
the better for knowing how the alkalies are composed ? In hia 
circumstances, no one — but, in his scientific capacity, every 
one who r^ards the gratification of a learned curiosity. L^ 
us not be too curious iu settling the relative importance of liter* 
ary labour, or even of scientific pursuits. It is a good thing to 
find out the truth, at all events ; and the pleasure of knowing 
what was before unknown, forms, perhaps in all cases, the 
greater proportion of the value derived from the inquiry* 

During the last two or three years, a number of tracts have 
Appeared upon this much agitated question. One ascribes the 
Letters to Glover, the author of Leonidas ; another, to some ob- 
scure person, whose name we have forgotten. By far the most 
ridiculous, however, is a series of letters, to show that Junius was 
none other than the late Duke of Portland, — upon the sole ground 
that tbe letters betray an interest in the famous question respect* 
ing tbe honour of Inglewood Forest, which occupied at that time 
everv man who talked or wrote upon politicks, and without the 
shadow of proof that bis Grace ever wrote a sentence, eitber 
degant or forciUe, in bis life. We ought perhaps to observe^ 
that a more absurd doctrine than even this, was once seriously 
maintained ; for some one was found to contend, in a printed 
book, that Delolme was Junius,— his pretensions to the name be- 
nig grounded, probably, upon the admitted facts of his being a 
ftmigner, an extremely feeble writer, and'one unconscionably ig- 
morant of most constitutional points ; and of bis having, for the 
7 



96 Junius. Nor« 

first time, come to England the winUr that Junius began his 
Letters. • 

To ur^e any thinft again<;t such claims as these, would be 
wnstinof the time of the reader. But it may be we)I to remind 
him, before procee<^in<]j further, that the various hypotheses* 
which have ascribed the Letters to men of great genius and 
fame — to Lord Chatham, Dunning, j: Burke, — as well as t{)ose 
which have given them to inferior persons, but of considerable 
talents, Hflmilton, Boyd, and others, — are now deservedly ex- 
ploded. The publication of Wood fall, some years ago, seems 
to have set this matter at rest ; and to have shown that there were 
insurmountable reasons, founded upon external evidence, against 
believing that any of those personages was Junius. We arc half 
inclined to think, however, that the real author is at length detect* 
ed ; and we shall proceed to lay before the reader the grounds 
of this opinion. The merit of the discovery, if the truth is in- 
deed found out, belongs entirely to the author of the work before 
VS. Sir Philip Francis had never, as far as we know, been 
suspected. The book is written in a way abundantly creditable 
to the author ; especially if, as we suspect, he is not a professed 
literary man. It does not certainly make the most oi the evi- 
dence ; it is somewhat too prolix ; frequently dwells upon tri- 
fles; and is not always very distinct in hs statements. But it 
contains every thing necessary for determining the question ; 
lind is written without affectation. That it proves Sir JPhilip to 
be Juniusi we will not affirm i but this we can safely assert, that 



* Other Letters, indeed, of the same author,, had been published 
under different signatures, two years before this time. The praise 
of Delolme's superficial book; contained in the Preface to Junius, 
is only a new example of the rashness with which men engaged 
in controversy will bestow commendations upon a work containing 
doctrines of which they wisli to avail themselves. Burke's praises of 
Vattel may be given as another Instance ; and they have greatly add- 
ed to the undue reputation enjoyed by that popular work. 

X The legal expressions sometimes used by Junius, where he is not 
discussing any point of law, have been held by many as an evidence of 
his belonging to the learned profession, notwithstanding his own re- 
peated denifd. Thus, * sawmring ef the realtyy * &c. But in some 
cases he uses law language with a degree of inaccuracy which we 
should never have found in one of his habita of distinct and cor- 
rect thinking, had he been a lawyer. Thus, in the Dedication, he 
makes a confusion between the quantity and the specie^ of an estate ; 
where he says, that the Legislature is the trustee, not the otoiter; tb« 
Jic'simpie is vfk the people. 



1817. Junius* 97 

It aocnmulat^ such a mass of circiimstantial evidence, as ren- 
ders it extremely difficult to believe he is not; and that, if so 
many coincidences shall be found to have misled us in this case^ 
our faith in all conclusions drawn from proofs of a similar kind 
may henceforth be shaken. 

We must premise, as this is in some sort a personal question » 
that we have undertaken to state the argument, without the 
slightest feeling of disrespect towards the distinguishei indivi- 
dual who forms the subject of it. We may add, that we are 
equally uninfluenced by anv idea of doin<r him honour. If 
there be any thing in the Letters of Junius which iSir Philip 
Francis would now wish unwritten, or if he conceives any im- 
putation to be flung upon his conduct in very early life, by the 
assumption that he was the author, surely the most stern mo- 
ralist may well be appeased, bv the lapse of half a century spent 
in the undeviating pursuit of the publick good, and the virtuous 
^acriflce of all personal interests ; while, on the other hand, the 
high rank in which those services have placed him among the 
patriots of his age, and the almost unbounded praise which hia 
talents have CaUed forth from those judges to whom a wise man 
would chiefly look, render it a matter of indiflcrence to his fame, 
whether or not he enjoys the more general, and perhaps vulgar^ 
celebrity which belongs to the name of Junius. 

To the greater number of readers, the first question that pre- 
sents itself is, Whether Sir Philip Francis has ever shown the 
eminent talents displayed in Junius's Letters ? However high 
his reputation may be in the political world, there is no cue 
avowed production of his which has attracted much popular, or 
permanent notice, or is at present familiar to public recollec- 
tion ; and he has therefore shared the fate of many able men 
whose time has been devoted to the business of the world, and 
whose labour, chiefly bestowed upon subjects connected with 
their pursuits, has left no lasting monuments of their skill in 
composition. So it has fared with Sir Philip Francis. His con- 
temporaries well knew him to be one of the best writers of the 
age; but his writings consisted chiefly of minutes, protests^ 
speeches and pamphlets, which have long since ceased to mter- 
est the world at large, and are only known to political men, 
or curious inquirers into the details of modern history. We 
shall therefore begin the argument, by presenting a few speci- 
mens of his composition, suflicient to justify the assertion, that 
the author of Junius, whoever he may be, was not a person of 
greater talents than Sir Philip Francis. The proof drawn from 
aimilarity of expressions will \)c further strengthened in the se- 

VOL. XXIX. NO. 57. G • ^ 



9< Junim. ifor* 

quel by particular instances. All that wc desire the reader, in 
this stage of the discussion, to consider, is the general ability 
di^iplayed m the composition. We take all the examples from 
his speeches, carefully written and pubHshed by himself. The 
first shall be from his attack upon the Lawyers in the House of 
Commons. 

* It belongs to the learning of these gentlemen to inTohe, and to 
their prudence not to decide. 

' In the name of God and common sense, what have we gained 
by consulting these learned persons ! It is really a strange thing, 
but it isu oertainly true, that the learned gentlemen on ^at side of 
the House, let the subject be what it may, always begin their speech- 
es with a panegyric on their own integrity. You expect learning, 
and they give you morals ; you expect law, and they give you ethics ; 
you ask them for bread, and they give you a stone. In point of ho- 
nour and morality, they are undoubtedly on a level with the rest of 
mankind. But why should they pretend to more ? Why should 
they insist on taking the lead in morality ? Why should they so 
perpetually insist upon their integrity, as if tliat were the objection 
in limine ; as if that were* the point in question ; as if that were thq 
distinguishing characteristic, the prominent feature of tlie profession? 
Equality is their right. I allow it. But that they have any just pre- 
tensions to a superior morality, to a pure and elevated probity, to a 
frank, plain, simple, candid, unrefined integrity, beyond other men, 
is what I am not convinced of, and never will admit. 

* On my principles, however, the damage we have suffered is not 
very great. In attending to this learned gentleman, we have lost 
nothing but our time ; we have wasted nothing but our patience. 
The question before us may easily, and can only be determined by 
ourselves. ' p. 175, 176. 

The following passage is from a speech delivered in 1796. 

* If I could personify the House of Commons, it would be my in- 
terest as well as my duty to approach so great a person with the ut- 
most respect. But respect does not exclude firmness, and should not 
restrain me from saying, that it is the function of your greatness, a« 
well as of your office, to listen to truth, especially when it arraigns a 
proceeding of your own. I am not here to admire your consistency, 
or to applaud the conduct which I am endeavouring to correct. 
These topics do not furnish any subject for applause. You have no- 
thing like praise to expect from me ; unless you feel, as I do, that a 
compliment of the highest order is included in the confidence which 
appeals to your justice against your inclination, ' p. 24<7. 

The following attack upon Lord Tburlow has been much and 
justly admired. 

* It was well known that a gross and public insult had been offered 
to Uie memory of General Clavcring and Colonel Monson, by a per- 
son of high rank m this country. Hewaahappy when he heard that 



1817. Junius, 99 

his name was included in it with theirs. So highly did he respect the 
character of those men, that he deemed it an honour to share in the 
injustice it had suffered. It was in compliance with the forms of the 
House, and not to shelter himself, or out of tenderness to the party, 
tfiat he forbore to name him. He meant to describe him so exactly, 
that he could not be mistaken. He declared in his place in a great 
assembly, and in the course of a grave deliberation, '* that It would 
Jiaye been happy for this country if General Clavering, Colonel 
Monson, and Mr Francis, had been drowned in their passage to In- 
dia. ** If this poor and spiteful invective had been uttered by a man 
of no consequence or repute, by any light, trifling, inconsiderate 
person, by a lord of the bed-chamber, for example, or any of the 
other silken barons of modem days, he should have heard it with in- 
difference. But when it was seriously urged and deliberately insisted 
9n by a grave lord of Parliament — by a judge — by a man of ability 
and eminence in his profession, whose personal disposition was seri- 
ous, who parried gravity to sternness, and sternness to ferocity, it 
could not be received with indi^rence, or answered without resent- 
ment. Such a man would be thought to have inquired before he pro- 
nounced. From his mouth, a reproach was a sentence, an invective 
was a judgment. The accidents of life, and not any original distinc- 
tion that he knew of, had placed him too high, and himself at too 
great a distance from him, to admit of any other answer than a pub- 
lic defiance, for General Clavering, for Colonel Monson, and for 
himself. This was not a party question, nor should it be lefl to so 
feeble an advocate as be'w^, to support it. The friends and fellow- 
soldiers of General' Clavering and Colonel Monson would assist him 
in defending their memory. He demanded and expected the support 
of every man of honour in that House, and in the kingdom. What 
character was safe, if slander was permitted to attack the reputation 
of two of the most honourable and virtuous men that ever were em- 
ployed, or ever perished in the service of their country ? He knew 
that the authority of this man was not without weight ; but he had 
an infinitely higher authority to oppose to it. He had the happiness 
of hearing the merits of General Clavering and Colonel Monson ac- 
knowledged and applauded in terms to which he was not at liberty to 
do more than to allude : they were rapid and expressive. He must 
not venture to repeat, lest he should do them injustice, or violate 
the forms of respect, where essentially he owed and felt the most. 
But he was sufficiently understood. The generous sensations that 
animate the royal mind, wer^ easily distinguished fropi those which 
rankled in the heart of that person who was supposed to be the keeper 
of the royal conscience,' p. 182 — 184. 

These, though extracted from^ Speeches, are really specimens 
of Sir Philip Francis's manner of writing ,- since they were all 
printed from his own manuscript. We shall add, however, one 
passage from a letter or discourse, sent, like those of Junius, t0 
^ G 2 



loo Junius. Nor, 

a public paper, and subscribed by his own name. It is dated so 
late as 1811, and relates to the great question of restriction on 
the Regency, then in contemplation. The author was then far 
advanced in years ; — but the reader, we think, will be of opiniouy 
that, both in spirit and in style, it bears a more striking resem- 
blance to the papers written by Junius forty years before, than 
any thing else that could be referred to during that long periods 

* Who is there so ignorant, as not to know that the prerogatives 
of the Crown arc not vested for his own sake in the person who 
wears it, bat to insure the execution of his office ; and then I ask» 
what power has the constitution reserved to any set of men to strip 
the Crown of those prerogatives, or even to qualify or impair them ? 
Show it if you can, and produce your evidence. In a case of such 
importance, I will not submit to authority, and, least of all, to the 
authority of a party, which perhaps means or expects to benefit by 
the decision. They, who can wholly refuse, may grant upon con- 
ditions. The Lords niay say, yoti shall make no more Peers. The 
Commons may say, you shall have no power to dissolve us. The 
Ministers of course will not submit to be dispossessed ; and this is 
the executive government, which they are willing to establish in the 
prince's hands. Before they decide, let them make the case their 
own. Do they mean to admit that the king, uniting with a conven- 
tion of the peers, could abolish the House of Commons, or even di- 
rest them of any one of their privileges ? Could the King and the 
Commons, I will not say abolish the House of Lords, but could they 
take away their jurisdiction in the last resort, or in trials by impeach- 
ment?* &c, * I am not talking of desperate or extreme cases* 

Necessity, unavoidable and irresistible, must be left to provide for 
itself. True wisdom even then will do nothing beyond what the in- 
stant exigency requires, and will return as soon as possible to its 
regular established courses. Neither do I deny the potver of the 
people to do what they wilL Undoubtedly they may tear down their 
temples and tribunals, and murder their teachers and their magis- 
trates. ITiey have a physical force to abolish their laws, and to 
trample on tlie institutions of their forefathers. But, remember ; the 
man who pulled down the building, and buried himself tn its ruins, 
was blind as well as strong, llie quality of an immoral act is not. 
altered, the guilt of an enormous crime is not diminished, by the 
numbers that concur in it. The moment the people did these things, 
they would cease to be a nation. To destroy their constitution is 
beyond their competence. It is the inheritance of the unborn as 
well as theirs. What we received from our ancestors, we are morally 
and religiously bound, as well as by our laws, to transmit to our pos- 
terity. Of such enormous violence on the part of the people, I know 
there is no danger. Will tliey suffer any other power to do that in 
tiieir name, which they cannot and ought not to do for thcmselve&? 
I hvard it from Lord Chatham, .* that power without right is tlie 



1817. Junius. 101 

most odious and detestable object that can be offered to the human 
imagination. It is at once res detestahilis et caduca. * Let who will 
assume such power, it ought to be resisted. Brave men meet their 
fate; cowards take flight, and die for fear of death. * p. 218 — 222. 

Now, we humbly conceive, that the most careless reader must 
be struck, not only with the general ability and eloquence of all 
these passages, but with their extraordinary coincidence with the 
Letters of Junius, in all their most remarkable characteristics. 
Hie boldness, and even fierc^ness of the tone — the studied force 
and energy of the diction — the pointed and epigrammatic cast of 
the style — the concise and frequent metaphors — and the mixture 
of the language of business and afiairs, with a certain scholastic 
elegance and elaborate sarcasm. 

These, however, are general indications, and could lead to no 
positive conclusion : But there are many particular circumstan- 
ces of a personal and historical nature, that go much further to 
make out the proposition contended for. The first of these 
is the exactness with which the dates of the Letters tally with 
Sir Philip Francis's residence in this country, and his going a« 
broad, in Biographical Memoirs, understood to have been 
drawn up by a person connected with him, it is stated, that Sir 
Philip spent the greatest part of the year 1772 on the Continent. 
Now, the last letter of Junius in that year is dated May 12th, and 
was received by Woodfall two days before. Sir Philip's disnnssal 
from the War Office is announced in one of the Letters of Vete- 
ran, (a name under which Woodfall has shown that Junius then 
wrote), dated March 23d ; and some time must naturally have 
elapsed before he set out A letter of Junius, dated in May^ 
mentions his having been out of town ; and, in point of fact, he 
wrote nothing from March 23d to May 4th. Sir Philip's father 
was then ill at Bath ; and it is most probable that he went to see 
him before coine: abroad. From the above mentioned notice in 
the Memoirs, it appears that he must have returned at the end of 
1772, or early in 1773, provided we are satisfied that he went a- 
broad in May : for it is there stated, that ^ about half a year af- 
ter his return ' he was recommended as one of the new council 
at Fortwilliam : Now, the act appointing the council passed ia 
June 1773 ; — which tallies with the supposition of his arrival 
having been in the month of December or January preceding. 
Keeping these facts in view, it is very important to remark, that 
the first letter received by Woodfall from Junius <if^r the letter 
of May 1772, is dated January 19lh, 1773. This, too, was al* 
so the last letter which he ever wrote. The appointment of Sir 
Philip Francis to India wa«, either then or soon after, in agita- 
tion i for it was finally arranged before June. NoW| the sup- 



102 Junius. Noi^. 

position that he was the author of Junius, presumes that th6 
prospect of being sent to India put a period to bis labours. 

It is known that Sir Philip was a clerk in the War- Office 
from 1763 to 1772; and Junius evinces a peculiar acquaintance 
with, and interest in, the business and the persons of that de- 
partment. As some of those persons are obscure individuals 
compared with the distin^ished objects of his ordinary attacks, 
a very strong presumption arises from hence, that the anony- 
mous writer was himself connected with the Office ; and the fa- " 
miliar tone in which they are mentioned, greatly strengthens 
the conclusion. We shall principally advert to what he says 
of Mr Bradshaw, ^Mr Chamier, and Mr D'Oyley. Junius^ 
in the 36th letter of the common edition, dwells at some lengtk 
upon Bradshaw's pension, and speaks of him in terms indicative 
of considerable personal animosity^ In a note^ he says, * he 
was too cunning to trust Irish security. ' He gives a sketch of 
his history, tracing him from his beginning, as a * clerk to a 
contractor for forage, ' — to his being ' exalted to a petty post in 
the War-office,' — and sarcastically remarking, that, upon his 
subsequeht promotion, he thought it necessary to take the great 
house in Lincoln's Inn Fields, where the Lord Chancellor 
Worthin^ton had resided* In the 57th letter, he is called the 
Duke of Grafton's ^ cream-coloured parasite $ ' and in the letters 
signed Domitian and Veteran, published by Woodfall, he is fa- 
miliarly mentioned as • Tommy Bradshaw, ' * the cream-co- 
loured Mercury,' whose sister, ^ Miss Polly, like the moon, 
lives upon the light of her brother's countenance, and robs him 
of no small part of his lustre. ' * In a letter, also written by Ju*- 
nius, but under another name, Bradshaw is said to observe^ 
that the writer has * drawn bis intelligence from the first source, 
and not the common falsities of the day i' f and of this, he says 
Bradshaw cannot be ignorant But although it is clear that 
Junius's prejudice against this gentleman was of long standing, 
and connected with his more obscure station in the War-office, 
it is also true, that, at the time of the attacks upon him, he fill- 
ed a considerable station, and was more in the public eye. 
This, however, can hardly be said of Mr Chamier, upon whom 
a far more incessant fire is kept up* He is termed, ' that well- 
educated genteel young broker, Mr Chamier. ' A scene is 
fia:ured between Lord Barringion his patron, and a general 
olHcer, in which every kind of ridicule is thrown upon Chamier. 
He is called * Tony Shammy ' — * Little Shammy ' — * a tight 
active little fellow ' — * a little gambling broker ' — * Little Wad- 



* Woodfairs Junius, III. 406—424* f ^** P- 273. 



MIT. JittikiS. 105 

• 

diewdl* — * my dnddiAg' — * little three per cents, reduced' — 
• a mere scrip of a secretary * — * an omnium of all' that's gen- 
teel ' — with many other coarse and scurrilous appellations. No 
less than four letters are addressed to Lord Barrington in the ^ 
bitterest tone of invective, in consequence of Chamier's promo- 
tion; and ic appears that his relationship with Bradsliaw is one 
of the chief grounds of attack upon the latter ; and whoever 
reads the following, which comes after these, will be at no loss 
Co divine the cause of all the hostility, upon the supposition that 
they are written by Sir P. Francis. 

' I desire you will inform the public that the worthy Lord Bar* 
rington, not contented with having driven Mr D'Oyly out of the 
War-office, has at last contrived to expel Mr Francis. His lord- 
ship will never test till he has cleared- his office of every gentleman 
who can either be serviceable to the public, or whose honour and in- 
tegrity are a check upon bis own dark proceedings. Men, who do 
their duty with credit and ability, are not proper instruments for 
Lord Barrington to work with. He must have a broker from 'Change 
Alley for his deputy, and some raw, ignorant boy for his first clerk. 
I think the public have a right to call upon Mr D*Oyly and Mr 
Francis to declare their reasons for quitting the War-office. Men 
of their unblemished character do not resign lucrative employments 
without -some sufficient reasons. The conduct of these gentlemen 
has always been approved of; and I know that they stand as well in 
the esteem of the army, as any persons in their station ever did. 
What then can be the cause that the public and the array should be 
deprived of their service ? There must certainly be something about 
Lord Barrington which every honest inan dreads and detests. Or is 
it that they cannot be brought to connive at his jobs and underhand 
dealings ? They have too much honour, I suppose, to do some cer- 
tain business by commission. They have not been educated in the 
conversation of Jews and gamblers ; — they have had no experience 
at Jonathan's ; — they know nothing of the stocks ; and therefore 
Lord Barrington drives them out of the War-office. The army in- 
deed is come to a fine pass, with a gambling broker at the head of 
it ! — What signifies ability, or integrity, or practice, or experience 
in business ? Lord Barrington feels himself uneasy while men with 
such qualifications are about him. He wants nothing in his office 
but ignorance, impudence, pertness, and servility. Of these conmio- 
dities he has laid in a plentiful stock, that ought to last him as long as 
he is Secretary at War. Again, I wish that Mr Francis and Mr 
D'Oyly would give the public some account of what is going forward 
in the War-office. I think these events so remarkable, that some no- 
tice ought to be taken of them in the House of Commons. Wlien 
the public loses the service of two able and honest servants, it is but 
reasonable that the wretch, who drives such men out of a public 
office, should be compelled to give some account of himself and Jus 
proceedings. ' p. 86, 87. 



Id4 Junius^ ^Cff4 

It is to be observed, that Junius took care not to write diis 
letter, nor any of those upon Chamier's promotion, under his 
usual signature, because this would at once have directed the 
suspicions of the puhlick to>vard8 the War-ofBce, as the quarter 
in which he lurkeH, and even towards the individuals chiefly in* 
terested in the questions respecting Chamier. For tlie same 
reason we And him urging Woodfall to conceal his being the 
author of those attacks upon Lord Barrington. * Keep the 

< author a secret, * says he^ (Woodfall y I. *i5b) — that is, keep the 
secret that Junius, Veteran, Nemesis^ &c. are the same person ; 
for he knew no other author than Junius. It is, however, not 
at all improbable) that the clue to the discovery of Sir P. Fran-* 
cis was furnished by these letters on the War-office ; for they 
are the last ever written by Junius, except the private letter to 
Woodfall in January 11755; so that he seems, on being detect- 
ed, probably by Lord Barrington, to have given over Mrriting 5 
and he was soon after appointed to the Council in Calcutta. 

Junius shows an uncommon acquaintance with, and interest 
in, the transactions of the Foreign Department as well as the 
War- office ; and the period to which his knowledge refers, pre- 
cedes the death of Lord Egrcmont in 1763. Thus, he says, 
in the 23d letter, referring to the negotiations of 1763, * Even 

* the callous pride of Loni Egremont was alarmed; he saw and 

* felt his own disgrace in corresponding with you (the Duke of 
' Bedford); and there certainly was a moment at which he meant 

* to have resisted, had not a fatal lethargy prevailed over hia 

* faculties, and carried all sense and memory away with it. ' In 
s note, he adds, * This man (Lord Egremont), notwithstand* 

* ing his pride and Tory principles, had some English stuff in 

< him. * Upon an official letter to the Duke of Bedford, the 
Duke * desired to be recalled ; and it was with the utmost dif- 
^ ficulty that Lord Bute could appease him. ' In a private let- 
ter to Woodfall (I. ^00), he says, * that he can threaten him 

* privately with such a storm as would make him tremble even 

* in his grave. * Now Sir Philip Francis was appointed a clerk 
in the Foreign Office in 1756 ; and having afterwards gone to 
St Cab as General Biigh's secretary in 1758, and to Lisbon in 
i760, with Lord Kinnoul, he returned to the Foreign Office 
between October 176-1 and August 1763; for, in his speech in 
the House of Commons, already rtferred to (Pari. Deb. xxii. 
97.), he savHf that he possessed Lord Egremont's favour in the 
Secretary of State's Office ; and that nobleman came into it» 
pel .>oer 1761, and died August 17b3. The negotiations of th^ 
Duke of Bedford were carried on between the beginning of Sep- 
tember and the beginning of November, 1762. 



18 IT. Jimm. 105 

The manner in which Junius always treats Lord Chatham^ 
coincides exactly with the expressions of Sir Philip in his speech- 
es and writings ; and is such as might naturally be expected 
to result from the kindness he had received from that great 
man 9 as well as from his known principles. But the high ad- 
miration of Lord Chatham which Junius has shown, seems not 
easily reconciled with his kindness towards his antagonist Lord 
Holland. * I wish Lord Holland may acquit himself with ho? 
nour, * says he in a letter to Woodfall (L IT^.) ; and when he 
suspected Mr Fox of attacking him anonymously in the news- 
papersy instead of retaiinting, as he did in the letters already 
noticed against Lord Barrington, and at once char^in<r Lord 
Holland or his son with having been the writers of this attack, 
as he did Lord Barry and others in similar cases, he says that 
^ he designedly spares Lord Holland and his family ; ' but adds, 
that it is worthy of their consideration, • whether Lord Holland 

* he invulnerable^ or whether Junius should be wantonly pro*. 

* voked. * (III. 410.) He shows this manifest forbearance to- 
wards the Fox family, not under his usual signature of Junius, 
but under another, assumed for the obvious purpose of con- 
cealing it, and yet of keeping them from forcing him into a 
contest with them. The historv of Sir Philip at once explains 
all this. His father was Lord Holland's domestic chaplain, 
lived on intimate terms with him, and dedicated his Translation 
of Demosthenes to him, as the patron to whom he owed his 
church preferment Sir Philip himself received from Lord 
HoUand his first place in the Foreign Office, rhese circumr 
stances must have overcome the natural inducement which Ji;- 
nius bad to join in the attacks upon Lord Holland, for a con- 
duct which, whether justly or not, was made the constant topic 
of invective by all who took the side of Lord Chatham. 

It is clear, from his private correspondence, that Juniuf, 
whoever he was, bore a great personal good- will towards Wood- 
&1I. * The spirit of your letter, ' says he, • convinces me that 
^ you are a much better writer than most of those whose worki 

* you publish.' (I. 196.) * For the matter of money, be asi- 

* sured that, if a question should arise upon any writings of 
^ mine, you shall not want it. My own works you shall coi.- 
' stantly have ; and, in point of money, be assured you shell 

* never suflfer. ' (i6.) Again — * You must not write to me a- 
^ gain ; but be assured I will never desert you. If your affair 
^ should come to a trial, and you should be found guilty, you will 
^ then let me know what expense falls particularly on youi- 
^ self, for I understand you are engaged with other proprie- 
f tors J — some way or other ,^ shall be reimbursed. * (1. 208.), 



106 JuniuSi Not, 

* For my owtt part, I can very truly assure you^ that nothing 

* would affect me more than to have drawn you into a per- 

* sonal danger, because it admits of no recompense. ' (I. 221.) 

* You cannot offend or sitlict me but by hazarding your own 

* safety* ' (1. 2S5.) ^ t have the greatest reason to be pleased 

* with your care and attention; and wish it were in my power 

* to render you some essential service. ' (I. 24'6.) In a letter 
to Wilkes, he expresses the same anxiety about Woodfall's 
safety ; says that the danger to which he is exposed afflicts and 
distresses him ; and plainly insinuates, that he has spared Lord 
Mansfield for Woodfall's sake (I. 326.) But, for other publish* 
crs, he seems to have felt no such tenderness i for be frequently 
telb Woodfall, if he is afraid himself, that he may send such ana 
such letters to other printers, whom he names. (i»ee I. 224. 226, 
314.) Now, it appears from Nichols's Biographical Anecdotes, 
that Woodfall was only a year older than Sir Philip Francis, 
and that he was educated at St Paul's School, where the latter 
is known to hove been bred ; and it is asserted in the Tract be^ 
fore us, that Wood fall's son speaks of the acquaintance formed 
there between Sir Philip and his father, as having given rise 
to a mutual kindness during their after lives, altnough they 
yarely met. It must be admitted that this tallies peculiarly 
weU with a suspicion expressed by Junius at one part of the 
correspondence, that Woodfall might know him. He says, 

* I b^you will tell me candidly whether you know or suspect 

* who I am.' (L 171.) 

There is reason also to believe, that Junius was known to 
Garrick. He expresses himself much alarmed by the inquiries 
of the latter, and was afraid lest Woodfall might have told him 
the place where the letters were sent, which he desires him to 
change. He writes a note, to be sent to Garrick, with the view 
of intimidating him, aud thus preventing his meddhng, and 
endeavouring to trace the secret ; and he desires Woodfall to 
copy it in his own hand. Sir Francis has told us, in the pre- 
face to the play of Eugenia, that he enjoyed the * friendship and 
esteem ' of Garrick. 

It appears, from various passages in Junius, that the author 
used to attend the debates in Parliament, and that he freouent- 
]y took notes of the more important speeches : That he did so 
more especially in the years 1770 and 1771, is clearly proved^ 
by his quoting Lord Chatham's speeches from reports not then 
made public, and by his frequently referring to debates at which 
he was present. Sir Philip Francis is known to have been an 
occasional attendant upon the debates during the same period, 
^-for he cites Lord Chatham's speeches at that time as having 
6 



181^. JuniUi. 107 

beard thetn ; and there seems no reason to doubt tbat he is the 
member of Parliament described by Almon in his life of Lord 
Chatham, as having furnished him with notes of those speeches^ 
taken by him when he was not in ParUament. But there is a 
more remarkable coincidence than this between Junius and Sir 
l%i]ip. Lord Chatham's speech, at the opening of the session 
in January 1770, was reported by Sir Philip, and communicated 
first to Almon, who published it in 1791, and then to the Par* 
liamentary History, (xvi. 647.) The publisher of the latter work 
informed the author of the tract before us, that he received it 
from Sir Philip, who was present at the debate. Now, a com- 
parison of this speech with some of Junius's letters, proves very 
aatisfactorily, that Junius must either have heard the speech, 
and taken notes of it, or received notes from somebody who was 
present ; and not only so, but that the notes which he took or 
received were nearly the same with those taken by Sir P. Fran** 
CIS. We shall cite some examples of this coincidence. 

Sir P. Francises Report. — * That on this principle he had him- 
self advised a measure, which he knew was not strictly legal ; but 
he had recommended it as a measure of necessity, to save a starving 
people from famine, and had submitted to the judgment of his 
country. ' p. 262* 

Junius^ (Woodfall tl. 365^) — * Instead of inserting that the pro- 
clamation was legal, he (Lord Camden) should have said, " My 
Lords, I know the proclamation was illegal, but I advised it, because 
St was indispensably necessary to save the kingdom from fiunine ; and 
I submit myself to the justice and mercy of my country. " p. 262-3. 

Sir P. Francis's Report, — * He owned his natural partiality to 
America, and was inclined to make allowance even for diose exces- 
ses. That they ought to be treated with tenderness ; for in his sense 
they were ebullitions of liberty which broke out upon the skin, and 
were a sign, if not of perfect health, at least of a vigorous constitu- 
tion, and must not be driven in too suddenly, lest they should strike 
to the heart. ' p. 265. 

Junius^ ( Woodfall y IL 153. /. 311.) — " No man regards an erup- 
tion upon the surface, when the noble parts are invaded, and he fe^ 
-a mortification approaching to his heart. " 

^^ I shall only say, give me a healthy vigorous constitution, 

fuid I shall hardly consult my looking-glass to discover a blemish up- 
(m my skin. '* p. 265. 

Sir P. Francises Report. — * Tliat the Americans had purchased 
their liberty at a dear rate, since they had quitted their native coun- 
try, and gone in search of freedom to a desert. ' p. 268. 

Junius, f Woodfall, IL 77.) — " They left their native land ia 
■earch of freedom, and found it in a desert. " p. 268. 



108 Jufwa» Ndf. 

There are many other expressions in this speech^ and ia 
others of Lord Chatham, reported by Sir Philip, which appear 

to be favourite expressions of Junius. Thus, * false fact * < / 

am a plain man ' — * ipso facto the Utw of the land ' — « simplicity 
of common sense^ ' 3cc. 

There are many favourite expressions in the avowed ori^nal 
works of Sir Philip, which Junius also indulges habitually. < Of his 
« side ' — * so far forth '— * / mean the public service * (for, Immld 
promote). There is, moreover, in the general manner of writing, 
a resemblance extremely striking, especially where the author is 
off his guard, and permits his natural temper to appear. Sir 
Philip's later works resemble, in this respect, the private notes to 
Woodfall so strikingly, that we need scarcely f^ve any examples. 
There is, for instance, a short note of Sir r. in this publication 
in the following terms. « Pray never mind anything I say, I 

< slave myself to death, and write and ispeak on instant impres* 

* sion. — So I am very sorry if I have offended you. * The very 
same tone, and almost the same words, occur in two notes of 
Junius, printed by Woodfall;— one of which begins, • Pray 

< tell me whether George Onslow means to keep his word with 

< you ; ' and ends, * and so I wish you goodnight : ' — And ano- 
ther runs thus, ^ Make yourself easy about me — I know you are 

* an honest man — ^and I am never angry — I am overcome with 
f the slavery of writing. ' We have net room to add other in- 
stances ; but we have heard, that among those persons in London 
who have lived in his society, and are acouainted with his mode of 
expression, the conviction of his being tne author of the Letters^ 
is exceedingly strengthened by this likeness. 

That the tempers of Junius and Sir Philip somewhat resem- 
ble each other, we have their own authority. Junius says to 
Woodfall-** Surely yop have misjud^ it very much about 

* the book. I could not have conceived it possible that you 
^ could protract the publication so long. At this time, parti- 

* cularlv before Mr Sawbridge's naotion, it would have been of 
^ singular use. You have trifled too long with the public expect- 
f ation. At a certain point of time the appetite palls. I fear you 

* have already lost the season. The book, I am sure, will lose the 
f greatest part of the effect I expected from it« But I have done.' 
(p. 157.) And again, to Wilkes, < You at least, Mr Wilke^ 
^ should have shown more temper and prudence, and a better 
^ knowledge of mankind. No personal respects whatsoever should 
^ have persuaded you to concur in these ridiculous resolutions. 
f Dut my own zeal, I perceive, betrays me: I will endeavour to 
« keep a better guard upon my temper, and apply to your judg- 
t meut in the moat cautious and measured language.' {ib) Sir Phi* 
)ip, in bis Speech (Pari Debates^ xxvii. 2iO.}, says, most chara^^ 



1817. 



Junius. ' 



109 



teristicanyy ' It was his purpose on this occasion to say things 
strong, severe, and personal ; and if he should be thought to 
exceed the bounds of moderation, he desired it might not be 
imputed to a hasty impatience of temper, to which he was sup* 
posed to be more subject than other men ; for he said them 
coolly and deliberately, and after having maturely reflected 
on their cause, and on their consequences. ' (p. 1 58.) And again, 
n his Speech, February 26, 1788,^ * Much has been said of my 
character, much of my temper. I have by one learned gen- 
tleman, not now present (the Master of the Rolls), been ac- 
cused of comparing myself with him, and with others of his 
profession. Such a comparison I never presumed to make. 
Arrogance is one thing ; passion is another. Passion I have 
ever conceived to be an honest, open, and manly emotion of 
the mind : arrogance, on the contrary, I take to be a cold,- 
ddiberatCi thoughtful thing. I may have made use of warm 
or passionate language perhaps, but I was never guilty of the 
presumption and arrogance which has been imputed to me. ' 
(p. 158-9.) 

There are some other considerations of a more general nature, 
which deserve notice in this argument. Sir Philip Francis is 
still living ; and that of itself furnishes a ground of presumption. 
The improbability is great, that the real Junius should have died, 
and left no trace by which to detect him. That he should have 
wished to be for ever unknown, is not likely ; that he should 
have been able to elude all discovery, afcer his decease, is still 
less so. The curiously bound set of Letters which he had from 
Wood fall by his own directions, at once afforded a reason for 
believing that he intended to retain the means of proving his 
title, at a distant period, and exposed him to detection after his 
death, if he allowed that event to happen before he declared him- 
self. Sir Philip's appointment to India is also extremely well ac* 
counted for, by the supposition that he was the author of Junius's 
Letters. That a clerk in the War-office should, without having 
done any thing to make him known, be sent out at once as a 
member of the Supreme Council, to which, for the first time, the 
powers of Government were about to be entrusted, seem? at any 
rate sufficiently strange to require an explanation. Ue v/as not 
connected by frmily with any man of weight in the ministry; he 
was wholly unknown at the India House; he was equally ob- 
scure in the publick eye ; nor <1oes it appear that he had any pa- 
tron who interested himself in his promotion, previously to sprincj 
1772, since, at that time, he was turned out of the Uffice, to make 
way for a favourite of the minister in whose department he serv- 
ed. The next thing we hear of after this dismissal^ is his mis* 



!!• Junius* Not. 

sion to India as r satrap, in very critical circumstances. But 
there is noihiii^ surprising in the appointmenty if we suppose 
that he cither suflTerccl himself to be known, or was detected aa 
Junius after his removal from the War-office ; and that the mi- 
nister, now made aware of his extraordinary talents, and of the 
risk to which they might expose him, recommended a step, jus- 
tified by the quniifications of Sir Philip, and counselled by hia 
own apprchen^iopfl. If the secret was only communicated to 
one man — if Sir Philip knew this, and made that one man per- 
sonally responsible for its being kepl-^there was no doubt that it 
would be f o. Nothing but an idle love of talking could lead to 
its being divulged. There was something in the nature of the 
transaction which imposed silence upon both the parties ; and 
Sir Philip, who had the chief interest in its concealment, waa 
jready, during the whole lifetime of the other purty, to watch 
over his fulfilment of the compact. 

If it is demanded why Sir Philip should have persisted sa 
long in the concenlment, a satisfactory answer may be given« 
without having recourse to evidence drawn from ihe character 
and habits of the individual. Some of the principal personages 
attacked by Junius, have only been dead a very few years; the 
nearest relativea of many of them are still alive. The invectives 
of Junius against persons officially connected with Sir Philip, 
must have differed extremely from the letters which passed be- 
tween them in the course of business, or in the intercourse of 
society, ^he circumstance of his appointment to India, the 
consequent silence of Junius, we may easily imagine to be a 
strong reason for reluctance to avow himself as the author. But 
if to these considerations we odd, that Sir Philip has been, by the 
atendy and honest course of his political life, thrown into habits 
of intimacy with the families of those wl)0in Junius most un- 
sparingly attacked, for their personal, as welJ as public conduct, 
in life, we shall be convinced that the discovery would at any 
time have been productive of far more pain than the gratifica- 
tion of vanity could compensate, even admitting the reputation 
of Junius to be much higher than that of Sir Philip, which we 
are not very sure that he is likely to think it, and are still less 
of opinion that he ought. He has long, in his proper person, 
possessed the admiration of 9II who have a due regard for 
unblemished publick virtue, great talents and accomplishments. 
He might well afford to forego the applause of the multitude, 
which could only be purchased by a sacrifice, certainly, of thq 
tranquillity so invaluable in the decline of life, possIl)ly of the 
good-will of some whose approbation he prefers to that of the 
«rowd. Justice to this gentleman, as w^U as to the argument 



1S17. Junius. Ill 

which we are now bringing to a close, requires the insertion of 
the powerful testimonies borne to his rare merits, by the unani- 
mous voice of the Mana^rs of the Impeachment. The fol- 
lowing is a part of the letter which they addressed to him, 
when the House of Commons, on account of his personal quar- 
rel with Mr Hastings, -had excluded him from the Committee. 

" We have perused, as our duty has often led us to do, with great 
attention, the records of the Company, during the time in which 
you executed the important office committed to you by Parliament ; 
and our good opinion of you has grown in exact proportion to tho 
minuteness and accuracy of our researches. We have found that, ' 
as far as in you lay, you fiilly answered the ends of your arduous al- 
legation. An exact obedience to the authority placed over you by 
the laws of your country, wise and steady principles of government, 
an inflexible integrity in yourself, and a firm resistance to all corrupt 
practice in others, crowned by an uniform benevolent attention to 
to the rights, properties, and welfare of the natives (the grand lead- 
ing object in yoiur appointment), appear eminently throughout those 
records. Such a conduct, so tried, acknowledged, and recorded^ 
demands our fullest confidence. 

" These, Sir, are the qualities, and this is the conduct, on your 
part, on which we ground our wishes for your assistance. On what 
we are to around our right to make any demand upon you, we are 
more at a loss to suggest. Our sole titles, we are sensible, are to 
be found in the public exigencies, and in your public spirit. Permit 
us. Sir, to call for this further service in the name of the people of 
India, for whom your parental care has been so long distinguished, 
and in support of who^c cause you have encountered so many diffi- 
culties, vexations, and dangers. " p. 23, 24*. 

This letter was written by the Chairman, Mr Burke, and 
signed by himself and his colleagues ; among whom we find the 
names of Fox, 8heridan, Windham, North, and Fitzpatrick. 
Mr Burke, in one of his speeches upon the India Bills, has thus 
described him. 

" This man, whose deep reach of thought, whose large legislative 
conceptions, and whose grand plans of policy, make the most shin- 
ing part of our reports, from whence we have learned all our lessons, 
if we have learned any good ones ; this man, from whose materials 
those gentlemen, who have least acknowledged it, have yet spoken 
as from a brief; this man, driven from his employment, discounte- 
nanced by the Directors; has had no other reward, and no other dis- 
tinction, but that inward * sunshine of the soul ' whidi a good con- 
science can always bestow on itself. ** p. 25, 26. 

Having shown that all the evidence which can be drawn from 
a comparison of Junins's Letters and Sir Philip Francis's Life 
and Writings, points hioi out as the author — that there is ne 



^ 



us Jufiius^ .Nov. 

tircuinstante ^htch does not taOy with this concIiuioDf and ne 
diflSculty which it does not explain— we shall now verv briefly 
advert to one or two particulars of evidence more strictly exter* 
nal than any which has yet been considered. 

JProm several parts of the correspondence with Woodfall, it 
should seem that Junius frequently delivered the letters himself. 
When he employed another handi we may be well assured it 
was that of a porter or other ordinary messenger^ as was ascer- 
tained, in one instance, by Wilkes, who examined the person, 
and learnt that he received the packet from a gentleman. That 
be should entrust any body with his secret, for the mere pur- 
pose of conveying the letters, appears highly improbable ; and 
to have given a packet for Woodfall to a friend to carry, would 
have been telling him the whole. Now, it seems that a gentle- 
man of respectability, Mr Jackson of Ipswich, was in Wood- 
fall's employment at the period of the Letters ;•— and he states, 
^ that he once saw a tall gendeman, dressed in a light coat, 

* with bag and sword, throw into the office-door, opening in 
^ Ivy Lane, a letter of Junius's, which he picked up, and im- 

* mediately followed the bearer of it into St Paul's Church- 

* yard, where he got into a hackney-coach, and drove off. '— 
{Woodfall^ I. 43.) The author of the work before us states, 
that the figure and appearance of Sir Philip answers to this de- 
scription as far as it goes. 

There are various peculiarities of spelling which occur uni- 
formly in both writers ; and neither ot them has any such pe- 
culiarity that is not common to both. . Thus, they both write 

* practise ' with an 5 ; * compleatly ' instead of ^ completely % ' 

* </}gross, ' f/itire, 2/itrust, and many other such words, which 
are usually begun with an e — endeavor without an u — sA-reen 
with a X:, ana several others. There may not be mueh in any 
of the^e instances taken singly ; but when we find that a// the 
peculiarities that belong to either writer are common to both, it 
is impossible not to receive them as ingredients in the mass of 
evidence. 

It is stated by a person who examined, with Wilkes, the 
form and folding of the letters received by him, that they both 
agreed in ^ thinking they could see marks of the writer's habit 

* of folding and directing official letters. ' 

Last of all, a careful examination has been instituted of the 
handwriting of Junius; and the specimens published by Wood* 
fall have been diligently compared with letters of Sir Philip 
Francis. Those of Junius are known to be all written in a feign- 
ed hand $ but its general character agrees well with that of Sir 
I'hilip's* Wherever, in the hurry of writing} (for example, wher« 



n\i. Junhss. lis 

a word IS illtefltoed), the natural hand, of something near it* 
breaks out, the resemblance is more complete ; and certain pecu« 
Karitiea, preserred in the feigned hand, occur also in Sir Philip's. 
We caoDot follow the comparison through its minute details ; 
but we are confident that it must go far towards satisfying those 
whom the rest of the argument may have failed to convince. 
Some of the more remarkable coincidences are as follows. 

When Sir P. F. signs with his initials, he draws a short strong 
line above and below them. The very same lines are umform* 
]y drawn under and over the initials with which Junius signs 
his private letters to Woodfall. In correcting the press, they 
both use, instead of the ordinary sign of deletion, a different 
and very peculiar sign, exactly tne same in both. They both 
fliace the asterisk or star of reference to a foot-note, at the 
beginnings and not at the end of the passage to which it be- 
longs — contrary to what may be termed the invariable usage 
of other writers. They both write the words you and yourSf 
in all cases, with a large Y, the form of which is strikingly a- 
Kk« in both authors. They also use a half large c at the be- 
l^inning of a word,*— of a peculiar and characteristic formation. 
Their ciphers or numerals are all formed exactly on the same 
plan ; as are most of their compound letters. Instead of a round 
dot over the t, they both invariably use an oblique stroke, slop- 
ing in the opposite direction to that of the general writing; and 
they mark their quotations, not by inverted commas, but by 
short perpandicular lines. They are both unifofmly correct and 
systematic in the punctuation of their MS. Both write a distinct 
little a over &c. ; and connect words divided at the end of a 
line, not by a hyphen, but a colon, which is repeated, contrary 
to general usage, at the beginning of the second line, as well as 
the end of the first. • * 

Before concluding this article, we mudt repeat, that the dili- 
gence of the author, whose work furnishes the materials of this 
argument, is very praiseworthy, and that the merit of the in^^ 
vesttgation belongs entirely to him. We cannot, however, a- 
void remarking, that be has frequently overloaded his book with 
useless and irrelevant quotations;— fpr example, much of the 
Speeches of Lord Chatham, and of Sir Philip Frands's paroph* 
lets; that he many times draws conclusions from such trivial re- 
semblances in expression as prove nothing, — e. g. p. 236, 2:»7| 

\OL, XXIX. NO. 51. H 



* We understand that it is confidently stated in London, that still 
nore precise evidence exbts of the similarity of the hands, drawn 
#sm Sir Philip's earlier penmanship. 



^14 jumai. Kofi 

SS5« SSS'^betide a variety of other instance^; snd that, iir 
some places, he seems to lose himself, asd goes on quoting and 
reasoning, without recollecting the point to be proved — as, where 
be compares a Report of Lord Chatham's Speeches, admitted 
to be made by Sir Pliilip, with the avowed productions of thei 
latter, (p. 266, B. !i{5.)