Z/n lt7’l)’lfjl%/’ 7/ géill/onllfi as.” 9? «Rs; are , 4 .‘ & , \ JLETTERS 8c PARTIC ULAR W com» S c 0MPARED . SKRHPGFRANCKSo JIVNHTUS. Franz. andfifl: .fpa‘l‘nuwa, SIR.P=IFRANC1[S. JUNIUUS° fram Mfaom Jkra‘mm. SUPPLEMENT 9W ................................... WM ........... 2 %~% _______________________________________ 4o ‘ To * ........... 29. .................... 1., wimp/"3% am”.-- w , _ ‘ a??? ................... M . ' gig} JUNIUS IDENTIFIED? ' . , 1;); ' ' ‘ ' I . j ......... . ......... 40 gm ....................... {D ’ WW4” ' , J consxsnuc or KWL/‘i -------------------- $0,” ---------------------------------- 10 ML? -_ 4/) . I ’ ‘ FAC‘SIMILES-OF HAND-WRITING, \/ W ''''''''''' : ----------------------------- {W .................... .10 fl!” // .................................................... I‘M/l x #40 \ ‘ _ AND OTHER ILLUSTRATIONS. R i; Y 5% i a—a’ 0M LONDON : 'PRINTED FOR TAYLOR AND HESSEY, FLEET 51mm. ’1817. *- I'mm a 21.52sz {yfiy at 1711 MW" gamma”. snua. ‘ ~ I r , . 3;" , . o "r 7- 3" ‘ ‘- A | ‘ ' I o m m 1.0-“: t ~ ' . u .0 ‘.'.‘." " ’1 ‘ I no ‘ "m ' V“ ‘I , . 1' . m 0‘. l . ' 0’. ,v '. ”3M o‘ v ° ‘3 a \ “‘3 I ., , ml; 11 , ‘rvvv-'., .\.'. . . ' .(-.v ,;.,,.,o r u \ l r ilk Tymmauqrma / ' ' “’Féfl’szjf . " V 01* R \ x /_ m-au‘i'raxewn , . ‘ } _ ‘ ' ‘ ' » 7:," Rushimk sax <' ,tnm'wiw-(IMH '10 gimme—3M -‘ ~ , " ' V | ’ . ‘ i, 5 ‘5’ “K‘tN‘Wi 9 gxs<¢x \ ‘5 ‘;\\ ‘Vk JE-A, . I ’ — 1W3: ‘ n .m’AOI Imitamul "Mum . ' mnv M99155: STEPHENS , " X '- 'r ~ ~ -“ . .. / I ‘1‘!“ \\‘\".\-,t \ Writ “11:" I. ‘ . , AWL/Ltd ( swam». ‘x,.:;~:.1“1'.'121:aau (MA Hausa mu rwwbmx .1?” ‘ ‘ .f _ ' ‘ . ‘ , '\ 4 _, U6! & {gflfp_ ~‘l ‘ : II? ‘ “gm‘autnia‘wn . 1 .. _ ‘ A * me'rum. Mai! .1 gamx'rm'ramm»haul“; ‘ 3' I ’ .mnv Mpns: smug _ I :VLOflVLQJ . mm?- .1:3;§.u ' Yaaasa dManm 5101 (1.1mm: ‘: A.\ 3 u . u 3:6“ NW 1 >‘L"._'e‘?".""'*w’¥f” “Watt"??émfi:f‘t-"V flit-19:11.2?“ “w. w- . . v - . .- ‘I l ' I ‘ ‘ . \ 0' ' . . ' x ‘ ‘ , t . .mv '|.-DQO n 0 f. ...o - o 3,, o o “ o \ ' - 1 5 V; ' . D A O , 5. f"sz£i‘\iiyi‘:ih\Jx’. "F‘g T3; ‘ ’7‘ 1 (Eat; ‘r'rg' ri‘ Hiyiffl Hg" r’53Earww-myr ‘ ‘, } - A‘ A , 4' l in ‘ ”tux, i *3: __ ; .,. a E 3;. «a in? n, , . ' : . 1‘ ‘ n i . C. - L‘ 5 "in“; r«(--;r‘ r‘ » .4 p: .2 .r. ,uw. x .. “tun-+1 w ad}IE‘egjrj-Jz’ci ,' i y ‘ \ D , , , I ' 2'," :1‘ :E."".! H 11.11“ ‘ 1' +. . » \ _ . r ‘ . i ‘ I \ I. . ' g u .- . l ‘ , y" ‘n . 1 i I ‘ r». p . . z' 3 ,: " ‘ \ i .-.- 1.; ' v‘ a ' - H‘L‘.-<“.r;»v.1 . . v : - I" . \ . H . ,{.L J; J . z‘ ". MK 0 l \ — H .p. I p 0‘ t In 9 ‘ ' u or . . , ',. . x w. v n .. , ,_ . ‘ o '.“ v . a c ‘0 a. ‘ . . . n'. A a \- ‘00 n . l v . . no on '0', 0,. 3 ,' O .' '0 . a y... . rlg‘. . D. o 9.0 , ' ~ c“... 4,’. g 0“... a $ 60.1 ‘9.“«55'5‘ m‘\»‘ 3 . 1 u a “7‘3" y. o. . h‘d} f " , S K x \ \ w» I 5 ‘ . . é ‘a "f‘ 7 ,-#_ 3.3.4.2 Sunni "V Z - :‘4'. ‘*” 33% 31 s JJ¢:,T ‘ D A u ‘ ‘ ' . I .0 ~. - C . .. . u I , I \‘ _ 0‘ V , '«5 _ 4‘ . - » . I. . 4 -- ., m ‘ _ ' -‘ a , ~ wk \ ‘ u‘ . . _ ~ ‘1 ‘ . ‘,-':;.’:,: : 3‘3"“? stPmNmso g , 4 ' ” , ' - ::~‘:“..‘ ~. . .' ’5.‘ A . 4% . » _ N a, J!’ W27 20 ’JW ' .' i L4 0&ij ' 7" i ' 4 (M JaW/fl/éwflawww a/ th /W :7flefiym, A/M Wa/M/m WW \- x qukx" x x x x “,9/ (AMW/(ébntéll Jaw/(mote [I m Meg/A3 / % Wan/Zg7moé J¢m% MM; % M flat/(42w W1, @fiyégg/QJ Jmfig gr", W (/me a/é 4%76/4210 WWW (J W/ Jam/#4 ,4 MW, A 1/6??? gyamaé/ém 4:; .' Wfi/W M 4/444 @ I , y WW0 fjmo'olwafia. Wflfl/[m/gd 49%) WiKM/We/ M @u v’h We enlaccggwyé ' x * Jma m/ Aw ‘. \ \ ‘ .xx . r . ‘ . ~ ‘ . a , Q . . . . n / n ‘ .. x . .. . x / ‘ . . * . .. Z 1., ‘ ,h A . . x I x . ~ . . .. J . K . 1 \ .<. . A _ x . . , L . 1&1. . . . . H y .. q x x. , .1 . W » / . ‘ . .: 1.. x . .. .\ L _ n V ‘ u. / .,.. . «A r x. ‘ _ A I . mr , . x _ . I x I r V A J .. k u a \ ~ | o I ‘ a |u~ 4 ' t . , I .. ‘ . . e . y . _ I‘ ' . , . \n‘ ‘ 1 » I ‘ . I . . ‘ I \1\ A”; :. 3.: 0V 0 O l 0 br" 33,, {’4 u: we. 51R 0 HBO IFZLRA‘XCI S a ,, . . a...c:o° :..:‘, N9mo % ;/m A W - W“ flwwW/L 4/fiw flea ’ _ ‘\ ‘. .w “:1- ... __-..‘.-.A —, Ai~d~'..=.'_'_".:..__h .L. flf ,. .77. , \' o 0 o N imits‘UO/WLM Wm WM <41 flitwi’ ’W Lm (“A/W Wuga .W “49"”? MM W1 M ,‘N’K W?“ LWLW% Matte 9 “7 J4 [b [b if) Jae W um W¢ %W 0717771 mum/13- :r/mwmij’w XWW M49 W Dem/f; W‘Wt mam/Wilt) With/L {WWJm/Wwfligmkwbvflq #M M14 Jib/Jaw @Wfiifl 811R Po FRANCIS Nix: W/éw/ %07 4%: OLA/(1 ’- _ 10” .3 pk). ‘A SUPPLEMENT f To JUNIUS IDENTIFIED- “ Unless the whole series of things which may be alleged in this argument, and every particular thing in it, can reasonably be supposed to have been by accident, then is the truth of it proved.”-—-Bishop Butler. ‘ THE Identity of JUNIUs with a distinguished living. Character has been so well established, in the esti- mation of many who are the best qualified to decide, that we shall no longer consider it a ques— ‘ tion of fact, but of degree z—Was Sir PHILIP FRANCIS the sole author of the Letters? It is proved that the sentiments and style are his: they ‘ ' pervade every letter to such an extent, as to make it visible that some part, at least, was derived from him; and since, in none of the genuine letters, are there ,any peculiarities either of thought or expres- sion, but such as may be found in his acknowledged productions, we are bound to believe that he alone B 569704 JTNTUUS‘: EVE. a”: ..... . 1140/ ”“90”me Math/4L0? «WW1 tLb’LW JW Lt/Lm (HAL/W ._ (mowftw WM,MJM Ma (emf/k twlw: «(Mutts [Jot/101 Mpgffl, Mum- 9W7SK, M mimic/@177“ WW W] W0»?- W¢ iA/(W On 771 ”In 77/7 (fil- 327572771014- 21/7741) fiMS-flu/W‘XW WWDWiQ WWWM WLQMWWL With/z . WV MEL/k1 MAMJWO Wflfimk MLwIJQ LIL/1M WU WJWM Mal. JJM‘L-ou ééwemglaio NEVHO i ”5% Mot: 7; MW react/Malta SINK Po FRANCIS NUS; flux/A W % We («VI/Vi ffliéiww AM mew WM/ %07 afiaL/éA/d «J- ' ‘ 1 ‘ a. ’, . _i '3- *fr"' ., x..-, @534 59‘ ‘ ‘ ‘5: '7», 7 :,.‘..~‘v-.‘. ' " x .1: ' 2, A, .A ‘ "--{‘:};§-‘¢?W ,. ~ , A - ‘A- SUPPLEMENT _‘ T0 JUNIUS IDENTIFIED- “ Unless the whole series of things which may be alleged in this argument, and every particular thing in it, can reasonably be supposed to have been by accident, then is the truth of it proved.”-—Bishap Butler. ‘ THE Identity of JUNIUs with a distinguished living I Character has been so well established, in the esti- mation of many who are the best qualified to decide, that we shall no longer consider it a ques- \ tion of fact, but of degree :-‘—Was Sir PHILIP FRANCIS the sole author of the Letters? It is proved that the sentiments and style are his: they ' ‘ pervade every letter to such an extent, as to make it visible that some part, at least, was derived from him; and since, in none of the genuine letters, are there ,any peculiarities either of thought or expres- sion, but such as may be found in his acknowledged productions, we are bound to believe that he alone B 509704 ‘2 . SUPPLEMENT T0 was concerned in their composition“. Assistance therefore, if he received any, must have been given him in the mechanical part,—in transcribing, or in conveying the Letters. The latter of these is an office of so little mo- Lment that singly it is not worth speaking about; though it may be remarked, that if the author did not employ the pen of another, he would most likely undertake it himself. By means of chairmen and ticket-porters, the danger of discovery was eluded, so that to extricate himself from this trifling risk, it is not probable that J UNIUS 'would encounter the much greater one of confiding his secret to another person. When, therefore, he writes to Woodfall that “ the gentleman who transacts the convey- ancing department of our correspondence tells me there was much difficulty last nightT,” be either speaks of his secretary; or he uses the phrase with reference to himself in the capacity of messenger ;— or, what amounts to the same thing, he applies the term with an excess of courtesy, and perhaps by way of a blind, to the porter or chairman whom he happened to employ. The truth however is told at the commencement of the correspondence. In his fifth private letter to Woodfall (July 21, 1769) . * We have formerly stated our opinion thatJUNws interspersed throughout his Letters, maxims, phrases, and figures, thrown out by Lord CHATHAM and others, viva vote. The circumstance, if true, by no means affects the present conclusion. 1~ James, Private Letter, No. 51. J UNIUS IDENTIFIED. 3 he says, “- Whenever you have any thing to com- municate to me, let the hint be thus, C at the usual place; and so direct to Mr. John Fretly, at the same coffee-house, where it is absolutely impossible I should be known*:” that is himself personally, for Fretly was a feigned name, which no one could knowT. At first, according to this, he called for the letters himself, and when the increased danger Compelled him to make use of a porter or a chair- man, he was even then liable to be seen. “ Your letter was twice refused last night, and the waiter‘as ' often attempted to see the person who sent for it :" he was waiting, it appears, for the return 'of the man who made the inquiry for him, and who was a. common servant, for the waiter’s curiosity was not satisfied by seeing him—The obligation imposed on him to send such people as these to the coffee- houses, for at that time he dared not appear him- self, accounts for a curious observation in one of his. ' letters to Woodfall, “ I think you should give money to the waiters at that place, to make them more attentive i.” The advocate for De Lolme ' JUNIUS, i. “* 174. 1‘ It was absolutely impossible that J UNIUS should be known at the New Exchange coffee-house in the Strand, or at any other cofl'ee-house “ west of Temple Bar.” (Vide Private Letter, No. 54.) How unfriendly this circumstance is to the supposition that any public character was the author, is too obvious to escape the considera- tion of the reader. 11mm», 3. ' 9:7. 4 . SUPPLEMENT TO considers this hint a proof of the writer’s poverty !, But the cause is clear FJUNIUS could not be certain that the money, if he were to give it, would reach the hands of the waiters; and if it did, an incon- venient sort of suspicion would be excited in their minds, as well as in that of the carrier. To apply to Woodfall on the subject was the only rational step that could be taken. We suspected, before, that J UNIUS was his own messenger: and how closely \the description of that messenger, when he was seen, agrees with the personal appearance of Sir PHILIP FRANCIS, has been stated in page 168 of Our former volume. The only way left then in which J UNIUS could receive assistance would be in having his Letters copied for the use of the printer: for whether they were taken down from dictation or not, of this we may be sure, that if be employed an amanuensis at all, it would be in transcribing for the press, that his own hand-writing might not be seen by any . other eye. As he did not trust to another the con— veyance of his letters, the presumption is against his having had this kind of aid. It is strengthened by the evident disguise of the hand, a disguise which increased whenever the writer was most afraid of being discovered. And it is confirmed by'his de- claration to Woodfall, “ I would avoid having this hand too commonly seen. Oblige me then so much as to have it copied many hand, and sent by h 9‘: at a JUNIUS IDENTIFIED. 5 the penny post, that is, if you dislike sending it in your own writing. I must be more cautious than ever*.” Had he employed an amanuensis, he would not have had occasion to trouble Woodfall to get the note copied :-—nor in that case would his dis? covery certainly have ensued from the exposure of the feigned hand-writing of another: .it is evident, therefore, from the tenor of this note, as well as probable from other circumstances, that he wrote the Letters himself; and if he was at that time in an office under government, or had ever left traces of his hand-writing where it might be seen by ministers, or by any other public men, he had ample reason, after all his care, to express his apprehen- sions in the way he did.-——All this applies exactly to Sir PHILIP FRANCIS. Easy access to his writ- ing might be had at that time, both in the War- Office, and in the Secretary of State’s Office. Dur— ing the fourteen years that he was occupied in those departments, it must have met the eye of many persons, both in administration and out of power. Lord CHATHAM knew it well, for Sir PHILIB seems to have acted as his secretary. I Lord Hol- land, the Earl of Egremont, the Earl of * Kinnoul, and many otherS'were no strangers to it. To Lord Barrington the character was familiar; and the dif- ferent' clerks, Bradshaw, Chamier, &c. might have JUNIUS, i. * 230. 5 SUPPLEMENT we recognized it in spite of the disguise. If Garrick, therefore, from whose eyes JUNIUs wished the original note to be concealed, was not himself ac- quainted with the hand-writing of Sir PHILIP, (and it is probable that even he had. seen it before,) yet the chance of his shewing it to those who pos- sessed the knowledge which might lead to his de- tection, certainly justified these apprehensions in the supposed author. If, therefore, the original Letters had been all de- stroyed, and we had nothing but the printed ones to guide us in determining whether the author wrote them with his own hand or not, we see that the affirmative might be maintained with good reason. Now, from this general view of the subject, let us turn to examine the hand-writing of Sir P. FRANCIS and JUNIUs in the annexed documents, to see whether there is such a degree of similarity between . the respective specimens, as would render it certain that, be the author who he may, the actual writer of the Letters was no other than Sir P.’ FRANCIS. Observe, the hand-writing of Sir PHILIP is not Selected for cemparison with that of JUNIUS, from being supposed to resemble it. It comes be- fore us incidentally, not by choice; and it might have been'as unlike as that of Burke, Home Tooke, Hamilton, the Duke of Portland, or any other per- son who has been imagined to be JUNIUS. But though it is not Selected for the sake of its resem- ::~'." g .' ‘{ Prise; ! . .jf, we; ,‘. 1* “h. raw-r . \ ,_ - mafl ’ . y. A g . _" ,‘ k a eager, : .37?;£;L£ Jumus' IDENTIFIED. 1 blance, no advantage will be taken of that circum- stance to ask any concession. If it does not of itself establish the point in question, without re- quiring other proofs to be connected with it, we Wlll abandon our position,»not indeed altogether, for the previous evidence would remain undisturbed, but certainly so far as concerns the mdwzdualzty 0 person in the character of Jumus. The first thing which strikes the eye in com- paring the fac-similes together, is the general like- 72683 which runs through them. The hand of J u- NIUS is that of a good writer, a neat penman, one who knows how to form his letters well; and in this respect, Sir PHILIP FRANCIS displays equal ability. It has been observed of him, that he possessed so perfect a command of his pen, that he could write every kind of hand; and, therefore, it would be difficult to detect a likeness, and illogical to 1nfer any thing from it if it did happen to exist. But though he had this variety in his .power, he could not help falling into a habit of forming hlS letters in a certain manner; and with all his skill in adopt- ing any particular style of writing, it would be utterly impossible for him to imitate that which he had never seen. He might have been a loose, a careless, an irregular, or a bad writer, and then we should have discarded the pretension at once; but as he is the reverse of all this, and as the leading s SUPPLEMENT :ro.~ *- character of his hand-writing bears a strong affinity to that of JUNIUs, we will proceed to a more minute inspection; first premising, that allowance must be. made for the disguise which J UNIUS affected, con- sisting chiefly ‘of that degree of uprightness which results from keeping the elbow far from the side, and the paper opposite the left hand. Many writers-lift up the pen between each let- ter, many more at the end ofCa word, but J UNIUS and Sir PHILIP write with such freedom as to con- nect two, and sometimes three or four words to- gether. (Vide the Specimens, No. Iv, &c.)—— And in forming each letter, they proceed exactly on one uniform principle, producing a series of minute cases of resemblance, utterly impossible to, be found in the writings of two different persons. Even in those peculiarities which would .seem‘ to be introduced for the purpose of assisting the disguise, or removing farther off the appearance of similitude, the assumed practice prevailed so long that it became at last a habit, and the singularity , lost its character. The small Greek e is an instance of this. JUNIUS often uses it, Sir PHILIP only now and then; seevearnestl‘y, No. III.—-——The manner in which the little at is constructed, by first making an e, or rather an 0, beginning at the bottom,7—the ~ curl of the letter 6 at the end of a word,—and the [my klrge c at the beginning,-—-are all of them ex- amples of a principle or habit, which however un- wk, ;' ,4. J UN‘IUS IDENTIFIED. 9 common it maybe, systematically prevails through- out these different fac-similes.——When the same word occurs in both specimens, it often consists of letters formed in every instance quite alike,———an infallible demonstration of the same writer z—Vide correct, first, may, have, &c. . In their capital letters there is the nlcest con- formity. Whether a small letter amplfied IS alone ’ used, as in a, n, q,——-or the proper capital only, as inB, D, E, F, G, &c. —-or both sorts, as 1nC M P, S,——their practice is uniform , and it is scarcely pos- sible to find one character'frequently introduced by either, the parallel of which does not exist in the writings of the other. I speak it, of course, from the impression made on my mind by what I have seen of their writings: not from these specimens only. — The same experience enables me to add, that their figures or numerals are invariably alike. In the application of capital letters to certain words, each appears to be governed by no positive rule, yet his practice is consistent With that of the other. Some people use them for every substan- tive; some for emphatic words only, whether sub- stantives or otherwise; and many omit them al- together, except at the beginning of sentences, and for proper names. JUNIUS and Sir P. FRANCIS prefix them to many, but not to all substantives; and beside these, to no other words except You, ' Yours, and Y oursef ; these are always written by w...\' M‘ ‘ ~ Lam-M -9»;qu . ....— w w 10 SUPPLEMENT To both‘of them with-a capital letter. .The general-rule may perhaps be- a common one, but this'sihfle exception forms an instance of most extraordinary consent 14' Nothing affords greater scOpe for diversity of practice than the mode (f punctuation, , It is, a common thing for writers to be very careless in this matter; but J UNIUS and Sir PHILIP are particular in the use of stops, pointing with minute accuracy even the most trifling notes. The principle on which this IS done shews the closest conformity of plan. It may seem a trivial circumstance to some, but the introduction of the short stroke—or dash—— between words as well as sentences, to the degree it is done by both of them, is characteristic of the writers.-—-With extraordinary uniformity, where imitation is out of the question, they each place a “ grave accentover the small i, more frequently than a round dotr—They very seldom divide a word at the end of a line, preferring in the place of it to leave‘a great space, which is often filled up by an extended flourish of the pen, as is the case in law writings: but when a word is divided, the syllables are connected by a colon rather than a hyphen, and the same mark is repeated unnecessarily at the be- ginning of the next line. Vide the first line in N o. 10. of Woodfall’s fac—similes, and III. and VI. in the annexed engravings—Equally strange, or more so, is the manner in which they sometimes form a note JUNIUS IDENTIFIED. 1 l of interrogation, incarrcctly, y‘et exactly alike. Vide No. v1. —-For the inverted commas, by which quo- tations are' distinguished, they each substitute two short straight strokes.—-—Even 1n the long irregular curve of the parenthesis, the latter limb of which is thicker and less bent than its companion, they differ as much from the accustomed figure as they agree in one peculiar to themselves. Vide fac-similes,1v. and VIII. - The various forms of the (3‘, none of which are continued below the line; and the final a superior at the end of the 830; are more than ordinary indi- cations of the identity of the writers.———Our next trait is irresistible. A copy of one of Sir PHILIP FRANCIs’s pamphlets, with the author’s corrections, having fallen into my possession, I observed, that whenever he blotted out any words or letters in the body of the page, he placed in the margin a Greek J, with a long stroke before it. The proper and usual sign of elision, or dele, is more like the Greek 8, being in fact a round shaped d with the top turned inward through the letter; and the long stroke should follow, not precede the sign, to sepa. rate it from other corrections which might occur in the same line. On examining afterwards the copy of J UNIUS, which the author had revised,.and which is now in the hands of Mr. Woodfall, there appeared precisely the same Greek 3 for dele, with the stroke again before it, in the same improper manner. And 12 SUPPLEMENT To thisfdouble peculiarity is not occasional, but com- mon, throughout the proof—sheets of both anthers, . as far as could be ascertained. ‘ It is customary to distinguish a quotation frOm the rest of the page, in either of two different ways: ‘ viz. by inclosing it between inverted commas, or by underscoring the words, which in printing is ex- pressed by the italic characters. Those who adopt . the one plan seldom follow the other; but J UNIUS and Sir PHILIP indiscriminately use both, and it is difficult to say which obtains the preference; yet they do not apply both in conjunction, which is some- times done by other Writers—Still further to declare their individual sameness, they are in the habit of , referring to the books, whence extracts are taken, in a way that is very rarely witnessed. Authors com- monly aflix the asterisk, or star, at the end of the quotation; thus, without interruption to the flow of the sentence, the eye of the reader is carried down to the authority at the foot of the page : but J UNIUS ‘and Sir P. FRANCIS, always in their writings, place it at the beginning ; and though a practice so repug- nant to custom would of course sometimes be altered by the printer, yet it is generally adhered to in all their works, from the first edition of J UNIus’s Letters, in 1772, and Sir PHILIP FRANCIs’s Letter to Lord North, in 1777,—down to the latest preductions of the latter, and through all the suc- cessive editions of J UNIU s. JUNIUS IDENTIFIED. 13 In whatever way it is possible to prove identity, we may trace it between the parties before us. -It V extends even to the minutest shades of resemblance; and is proved wherever there is the slightest chance of diversity. In the Essay prefixed to the last edi- tion of the Letters of J UNIUS, it is noticed that the author gave the French form to the words mosque and risque. Sir PHILIP does the same; and not only in these words is his mode of spelling conformable to that of J UNIUS, but in every other instance: Some of these are very curious. Tho’ is always written byboth of .them briefly, with the apostrophe: wherever it is printed in full it is con- trary to the manuscript: vide the fac-similes of J UNIUS, and the first edition of the Letters; also the various works of Sir PHILIP FRANCIs.———Com- pleatly, instead of completely; inhance, ingross, in- tire, inforce, inslave, intrust, and the like—for en- hance, &c.; to shulk, to skreen, are examples of a system of orthography uniformly acted on by both writers, however rarely practised by others—Far- ther occurs constantly in all their works: further never.——-And in evident mistakes, wherein they differ from all other people, they still agree with each other. J UNIUS says in the manuscript from which our engraved fac-simile is ‘taken, “ You shall en-‘ and again,- 1 dea'vor to restore annual parliaments :’ “ I will endeavor (and if I live will assuredly at- tempt it) to convince the English nation.” If it ~‘ I‘- L ‘ 14 SUPPLEMENT To . had not .i been seen in the original letter, this er- ror would have remained unknown, for, being so glaringly improper, it was corrected by the printer in'the first edition. The same cause has prevented it from very frequently appearing in the works of Sir PHILIP FRANCIS; but in the “ Observations 0n Mr. Hastings’s Narrative,” printed in 17 86, we find at p. 15, “the artifices imputed to' him by which he is said to have endeavored to elude-pay- ment;” at p. 20, “ I endeavor to fulfil your or- ders;”i and at p. 58, “ The odium of a vindictive sanguinary character which the narrative endeavors to fix,” &c. The repetition of the error in all these cases proves that it was not accidental.-—Again: J UNIUS says to Lord Mansfield, “ I feel for human nature, when I see a man so gifted as you are, de- scend to such vile practise.” Edition. 1772, i. 130. On March 7, 1786, Sir PHILIP, in moving an amendment to the India Bill of 1784, says, “ Of the present Minister Ivam ready to admit, that so base a practise is not to be suspected,” p. 63 : and at p. 70, he mentions “the practise and the wisdom of England ever since parliaments had a being:” , again, in his admirable speech on the Revenue Charge, published in 1787', he speaks of “ a prim- ciple the most profligate, the most corrupt, the most dangerous, I will not say that ever was avow- ed, for no man ever avowed such a principle before, but that ever was admitted into the practise of any 7" xi EMA/’1" «fin-W JUNIUS IDENTIFIED. ' 15 government,” p. 108. . In writings so correct as those of JUNIUs, and‘with men so well educated as Sir P. FRANCIS, these partial aberrations from the right roadare the more singular. For my own part, I think that they alone are sufficient to settle the controversy. _ Who that is acquainted with the private Letters Iiof J UNIUs, inserted in the last edition, can fail to perceive their affinity with the two short notes in our engraving, Nos. IV. and v.? Look at their form, their size, their brevity; their abrupt, unceremonious beginning and ending, though written in the first person; their conversational. style, and the short- ness of the sentences. Compare them in all these particulars with the lettersto Woodfall, and con- sider whether in fact they are not so like them, that there is some reason to suspect they were taken from that collection. J UNIUS commences many .of his notes without any address at the top, or compliment at the close, signing only the letter C, and sometimes omitting even that. Vide No. 10, 13‘, 14, 16, 20, 2], &c. He uses the same col— loquial language that we find in these notes : “ Pray tell me whether George Onslow means to keep his word with you about prosecuting. Yes or No will be sufficient. Your Lycurgus is a Mr. Kent, a young man of good parts about town. And so I wish you a good night.” He also expresses himself very, nearly in the words of Sir PHILIP on occasions 16 ' ' .- SUPPLEMENT zero somewhat similar\: “ Make yourself easy agent, me, I believe you are an honest‘man, and I never-am angry.” ToWilkes: . “ I am overcome with'the slavery of writing.” . . ‘ . The signature terminates this train of coinci- dences with one as remarkable as any. Observe the marks which accompany the letter C, as it is" signed by J UNIUS, and the dash above and below the initials of Sir PHILIP FRANCIS. The resem- blance cannot be more perfect. It properly com- pletes the series, and is in every sense conclu-. sive. It cannot be thought that any of these corre- spondences are too unimportant to be mentioned. In determining a question of personal identity, moles and other little marks are more attended to, than the more general, though stronger, features of similitude. Nor can any one doubt his own com— . petency to draw a positive conclusion from such premises. The agreement is-too prominent, too definite, to be overlooked or resisted. I have only to add, that in the opinion of those Who are most conversant with such matters, and whose evidence would be esteemed conclusive in a'court of law, the hand-writing of one short note No. Iv. compared with the extract, No. VII. which was written forty years anterior, is suflicient to prove, that the hand- writing of the Letters of Junius is that of Sir P. Francis. JUNlUS IDENTIFIED.“ 17 Thereader is now in possession of all the proofs relating to J UNIUS, according to the order in which they presented themselves to the writer of these pages. Till a great part of the last volume was printed, he was ignorant of the collateral testimony of the Speeches of Lord CHATHAM: and it was quite completed, before he knew whether the test of the hand-writing would be favourable or otherwise. But from this source alone a series of facts have been derived, which carry absolute conviction with them: and it now appears, that as our former inves- tigation proved Sir P. FRANCIS to be the Author of JUNIUS’S Letters, so the present makes it clear that none but he was concerned in supporting the character. Thus in various ways,- each effective in itself, and all of them t0gether irresistible, the truth of our conjecture is established. Many important additions might be made to the historical and critical part of our argument; and in a future edition ‘of the work they will pros bably be incorporated. Two or three of these we shall mention, for the satisfaction of those who may wish to carry their inquiries further. It has been remarked, that the year 1770 was more interesting than any other to JUNIUS. His hopes of such a change in administration, as should introduce Mr. George Grenville and Lord CHAT- HAM into power, were at the height; and there never 0 18 i ' SUPPLEMENT 5T0 Was a time w'hen'they could be entertained with more reason.~ .To the speeches of Lord CHATHAM at the commencement of the session, the whole na- tion, and J UNI Us in particular, looked with extreme earnestness for an augury of success on the part of the opposition. On the 9th and 22d of January his lordship’s speeches were reported, as we have seen, by Sir PHILIP FRANCIS. His next recorded ' Speech, a very short one, was delivered on the 2d of February, and the report of it, which Almon took from the London Museum, is from internal evi- dence the work of J UNIUS. The next, which is also briefly given, occurred in the debate of March 2d, and it is shewn to be from the pen of JUNIUS by the character of the letter which accompanied it, when it was first inserted in the Public Advertiser of March 5, The letter is as follows: “ Sir, Ihad the good fortune, last Friday, to be in company with two noble peers who have not been accustomed lately to meet often in private. As the subject of their conversation was curious, and worth the at— tention of your readers, I send you that part Vof it which I can recolleCt, and very nearly in their own words. 1 am, sir, your humble servant, IN- VISIBLE.” Whoever compares this letter with the note prefixed to Burke’s speech, by J UNIUS, on the 5th December, ‘1767 *3 and with the introduc- * Jumps, ii. 498. JUNIUS IDENTIFIED. ' 19 tery paragraph to another sketch of his, on the 19th of November, 1770, “ Sir, A few days ago I was. in a large public company, where there happened some curious conversatz'onfl” will at once perceive that the report which follows may be justly attri'a bated to JUNIUS. The speech then opens in these words: ' “ .Lord Chatkam. The house of Savoy has‘pro- duced a race of illustrious princes; notwithstanding which, it must he confessed that the court of Turin sold you to the court of France in the last peace.” After this sentence, the reports in the Public Advertiser and.the 'London Museum agree word for word with the debate as it"is given by Almon ; but in the place of these three lines Almon has in- serted more than. (Z page and a half of the speech of Lord CHATHAM, not to be found printed in any ether work; and the reporter has introduced, in the course of it, the substance of the above in an em- phatic manner, marking it with italics and small capitals, as if it were, what it certainly was, the essence of that part of the speech—that portion which he took down in his notes—and which his recollection afterwards enabled him to extend to twelve times the original length. “ Then raising his Voice, he asserted in‘ a manly and dignified tone, That this country WAS SOLD at the late peaCc, that we were SOLD by the court of Turin to the court of * Jumvs, iii. ‘278. 20 ' SUPPLEM EN T.- TO France: what more persons were concerned he would not at present state; but what he had stated was an indisputable FACT*.” . . The question, who furnished Almon, in 1792, with 'this extended account of the debate on March 2, 1770, admits but of one answer, when it is con- sidered that from Sir PHILIP FRANCIS were re- ceived the two full reports preceding,‘ and the one, still longer, immediately following this. His anxiety for the success of » Lord CHATHAM’s appeals prompted him to the undertaking, and he'had no. competitor. It was'not so much, therefore, to do greater justice to the speeches ‘that he became their reporter, as because 'he knew they would not other- wise have been preserved at all. The session closed on the 19th of May, and the prorogation continued to November the 13th, 17 7 0. In the mean time J UNIUS was not idle. On J une 16, under the signature of Lucius, the name which he assumed in his attack on ministers for their conduct to Sir Jeffery Amherst, he gave the first authentic information of the seizure of Falkland Island. On June 19, and again on July 3, he alludes to it in a spirited manner under the same signature. On October 1, commenting on the affair of Falkland Island, be strongly pleads for Lord C HATHAM’s appointment to conduct the expected war. On the 8th he makes the subject of Falkland Island matter ' Almon‘s Anecdotes, ii. 144. JUNIUS IDENTIFIED. 21 of complaint and reproach to ministers. On the 12th of November he sent Woodfall the first Letter to Lord Mansfield, which, “ though begun'within these few days, has been very greatly laboured}? It was intended to detach his lordship altogether from the support of an administration, which with- out-him must have fallen to the ground. J UNIUS designed it to appear on the first dayof the session, to assist and encourage the attack which was to be ' made on the ministry that evening. “ This paper (he writes privately to Woodfall) should properly have appeared tomorrow, but I could not compass it, so let it be announced tO—morrow, and printed \Vednesday.” ' Sir PHILIP FRANCIS was equally interested and equally industrious. 'He was in the ‘House of Lords on the 22d of November, taking notes of the great debate respecting Falkland Island. The speech of Lord CHATHAM on that occasion is most elaborately reported by him, according to Wright’s Parliamentary History, for 1770, where this speech is inserted, with a note by the editor acknowledging, though not by name, to whom he was indebted for it. But this was not the first time of its appearing in print. Almon was provided with the same re- port, by Sir PHILIP FRANCIS, as it now appears, though his name was studiously concealed: for what purpose it is not difficult to say. The subject was well known to have been treated of by JUNIUS; f2 2; SUPPLEMENT ‘TO and he might, justly fear that if the debate should betracedtohim, the secret of his identity with that writer would be discovered. To what else can we attribute so mysterious a silence on the part of Al- men, who, though he never mentions him by name“, does not even hint this time at the quarter. from whence he had derived the report: yet it is longer, and not less ably written, than either ef those which led him to allude to the author in a distant manner. The whole debate occupies thirty—sevenpages of the second volume of the Anecdotes, thirty of which are taken up with Lord CHATHAM’S speech alone. Of its energy, and its correspondence with the style and sentiments of J UNIUs, I can give the reader no idea, without making such copious extracts as would not be justified in this stage of our argument. Let it suffice to say, that it affords additional evidence of the same kind as that which is contained in the former speeches; and that the pen, even of J UNIUS, was worthily employed in composing it. 7 (In a note to this speech, Sir PHILIP displays, by way of contrast, the firmness and foresight‘of Mr; George Grenville, on the occasion of the seizure of Turk’s Island by the French ; and in the speech itself he points a reproach at another eminent character, not quite so great a favourite with J U- lr ' ' In hlS preface he returns thanks to several gentlemen, by name, to whom he was infinitely less obliged, but there is not award about bu PHILIP FRANCIS. JUNIus IDENTIFIED. 23 mos, “ There are other men, mylords, [looking sternly at Lord Mansfield] who, to speak tenderly of them, were not quite so forward in the demon- strations of their zeal to the reigning family, 8m.“ The speech is followed by some observations on the double cabinet (“ one qficial the other ficient”) which at that time gave great offence, and much embarrassed public business; and in a note to this account we find embodied a great part of one of J UNIUs’s Letters, published under the signature of Domitian. (Vide the whole Letter in J UNIUS, iii. 314‘.) In this note the original is much garbled.— . Itwis qualified and corrected in a way which would not have been thought of, or ventured upon, by any person but the author, solicitous to remove from it such names and allusions, as would otherwise tend to prove its sympathy with the direct Letters of J UNIUS. The signature is omitted, and the latter part of the letter, which relates to the affair of Falk- land Island, in regard to which the rest may be considered merely introductory, is quite suppressed. The subject, and the time and place in which it is revived to form a note, connect it with the speech, and consequently with Sir PHILIP FRANCIS; and on the other hand it is brought home to J UNIUS, for he authenticates the Letters of Domitian in one of his private notes to Woodfall, and on that ground ' Almon's Anecdotes of Lord CHATHAM, ii. 209. 24 SUPPLEMENT T.O they were inserted 1n the late collection of his writ- ings. —-The extract from this letter does not consti- tute the whole of the note. It Is accompanied with some original remarks on “ another prominent trait in the character of the British government, ”~—the system of a Secret cabinet under the denomination of “ the hing’ s friends, who promulgated, in language quite unreserved, that hzs Majesty was his own mz- nister. The best comment upon this text is, the diminution of the British empire in consequence of the war with America. It was to this system that Lord Chatham alluded in his speech on the 2d Day of March 1770. ” Here 18 another indication of that intermixture of character which has been developed in the former part of the note. The writer refers to that speech of the 2d of March, as if he had himself furnished the report of it, and we have just seen that there exists very sufficient cause for deciding that the only copy extant of that speech was supplied by J UNIUS. But the dispute respecting Falkland Island was not yet settled. The Public Advertiser of Decem- ber 11, contains the following paragraph: “ It is talked that the debates are to be renewed very soon in the upper assembly, for having all papers re- specting the ditferences with Spain, previous to the negociation now on foot, submitted to their inspec- tion.” And JUNIUs, on January 30, 177], com- mences a letter respecting Falkland .Island, in J UNIUS IDENTIFIED. 25 which he attacks that interior cabinet which. Sir PHILIP FRANCIS, with reference to the same sub- ject, speaks of in the note already mentioned, by the appellation of “the king’s friends *2” JUNIUS says, “ If we recollect in what manner the king’s friends have been constantly employed, we shall have no reason to be surprised at any condition of disgrace to which the once respected name of Englishmen may be degraded T.” He then goes on to give a statement of the whole proceeding in the case of the seizure, and the subsequent behaviour of the English and Spanish governments, concluding with a severe examination and exposure of several» passages in the king’s speech on November 13,’ 1770. This was the letter which Dr. Johnson was employed to answer..—The next from J UNIUS, dated February 6, 1771, is on the same subject, and contains another allusion to the “ secret system in the closet.” It was published the day after the discussion in the House of Lords, on the conduct of ministers in the negociation relative to Falkland Island, on which occasion J UNIUS took, as we have seen, such extreme pains to procure free admission to the debates. (Vide JUNIUS, i. *217.) His mo- tive may be guessed at, but it is further illustrated by a paragraph which appeared in the Public Ad- vertiser of February 1. “ Lord CHATHAM, it is ' Almon‘s Anecdotes, ii. 219. t Jumus, ii. 182. ., Th!" , l 26 SUPPLEMENT T0 said, has by some means obtained an authentic copy of every single‘paper that passed between Great Britain and Spain in a late negociation, and 'in- tends, it is said, to compare what he has, with what may be delivered in as the whole of that corre- spondence by the ministry, whence it is appre- hended some important discovery will be made.” Whether any notes were taken of this debate is uncertain. No account of it has been published. But from the anxiety of J UNIUS to be present, we should infer that the opportunity was not lost; and from the care Sir PHILIP FRANCIS took to pre- serve notes of a former discussion on the same subject, we have the best reason to think that he is not unfurnished with materials for the present. e—This, however, is ’Certain,——that on a question which J UNIUS vigorously engaged in, and was ear- nestly desirous to hear discussed, the only debate on record is most extensively and ably reported by Sir PHILIP FRANCIS. On the 11th of December Lord CHATHAM made a motion relative to the law of libel. The debate which ensued is briefly but spiritedly sketched by J UNIUs, in the Miscellaneous Letters on the 13th, 14th, and 17th December, 1770. He has in- corporated a considerable part of it, as his own, in the last of these letters, and he has also introduced it in the notes to his preface. As this has been ob? served upon before, (Vide The Identity, p. 134) I ' JUNIUS IDENTIFIED. 27 Shall detain, the reader. no longer than to remark, that Almon’s report of this part of the speech in differing now and then from the two reports by J UNIUS, as these again vary in expression from each other, affords another clue to find the author. Theperson who made the verbal alterations when the Speech was oiTered a second time to the public, would be very likely to take just the same course the third time, in the copy which he gave to Almon. - Throughout all these transactions relative to the debates in which Lord CHATHAM, for the space of two whole sessions, made his greatest efforts for the removal of Ministers, we perceive Sir PHILIP FRANCIS and J UNIUS interested in the same events, occupied in the same actions, and mingling- their feelings together in one cause, yet neither of them at any moment clashing with the other, so as to pre- sent the idea of two persons,—-neither of them re- peating what had» been done or recorded by the other, yet both together framing a complex but orderly tissue of circumstances, complete but not superfluous when united, though separately con- sisting of parts unconnected, and springing from no system. The longest of these speeches are all positively traced to Sir PHILIP; the. shorter are ‘ as certainly assignable to J UNIUS : yet there is no— thing in any of them exclusively appropriate to either; for Sir PHILIP shews that. he had a hand 28 SUPPLEMENT T0 iri‘itlte latter,'and JUNIUS partly-owes his discovery to the extraordinary indications of his participation in the former. In a word, one person‘was plainly . and undeniably the reporter of the whole; and that person, is Sir PHILIP FRANCIS, the same who, by other evidence, stands identified with J UNIUS. Almon, in many other parts of the Anecdotes, appears to have received the assistance of Sir P. FRANCIS, and particularly in all the details respect— ing the peace of 1763. The public documents by which they are illustrated, and which occupy nearly half a volume, are probably those referred to in the following extract, from a speech delivered by Sir P. FRANCIS on 'the 29th of February, 1792: “On what principle did he [Lord CHATHAM] consent to enter into a negociation in the year 1761, with Monsieur Bussy? was it on the ground of a status quo? would he have Suffered such a preliminary to be stated to him? No]: I (firm, with knowledge, that he would have rejected it with scorn. The principle of that negociation was an uti possidetis. We were to keep all our conquests, unless the con— tracting parties should agree upon exchanges for their mutual convenience. I attended those con- ferences. The documents are in print. But I have other evidence, if- possible, more in point, and drawn from the same authority. The anecdote I allude to is of a public nature, and must appear in the JUNIUS. IDENTIFIED. 29 records of the Secretary of State’s .oflice. - When the court of Spain interposed, and endeavoured to seduce us to terms advantageous to France, what was the answer of Lord CHATHAM to the Spanish ambassador, I [think it was the Conde de Fuentes? I am sure of the substance, I could almost answer fbr the words: “ What, shall the Court of Ver- sailles, the common disturber of the peace of Eu- rope, perpetually profit by her acquisitions; but when the events of war have been against her, is she to be re—instated without loss; is she to suffer nothing from defeat?”—According to another Re- port, “ Mr. FRANCIS said, he penned the answer (f Lord Chatham, as he did many (f his dictating.” ’ The field this opens for inquiry is too extensive to be entered on in this place. Those who are aC~ quainted with the numerous and extraordinary al- lusions which J UNIUS makes to theinegociations and transactions of that period, in his Letter to the Duke of Bedford, and in other parts of his writings, will not require to be told that our argument might be powerfully supported by some of the particulars in this declaration. ' The connection of Bradshaw with the War- Office is set in a new point of view, by the follow- ing paragraph taken from the Public Advertiser of January 10, 1772. “ We are informed that Mr. D’Oyley has re- 30 SUPPLEMENT TO signed hispost of Under Secretary at War. ' The resignation of an oflice is an event so uncom- mon in these times, that it is worthy of some ex-s planation. When the junto of clerks waslformed by Mr. Jenkinson, to transact the business of this country under Lord Bute, Mr. D’Oyley was not considered as one of them; he has never been ads mitted as one, and consequently has never had given him pension or reversion, or any of those douceurs which every one of those gentry now enjoy. He never had the confidential communication of the office, nor even the common official interest in it. The secretary’s place being therefore a mere clerkship of four hundred pounds a year, could neither in ad- vantage nor honour be worth holding, to a man in the station and circumstances of a gentleman. Till a proper person belonging to the junto can be spared, the cream-coloured cherub Bradshaw, who is clerk general andfliend at large, is to be stationed in the War-0ficc.”——When it is recollected that Sir PHILIP FRANCIS was in the War-Office, and by seniority. eligible to the vacant clerkship, the reason for JUNIUs’s antipathy to Bradshaw will be fully evident. ' With peculiar happiness of adaptation, our pre— sent case applies even to circumstances more spe- culative, which, with a strong degree of probability originally in their favour, have been raised into J UNIUS IDENTIFIED. 31 consequence by the frequent mention which is. made of them, and the general impression 'ofl their reality. First—Sir P.,FRANCIS is the only person now living to whom the Letters of J UNIUS have been attributed, and yet it is currently believed that whoever was the author, he is not yet dead. No papers have hitherto been produced, from the port- folio of any deceased author or politician, which could throw light on the subject. No similar hand-writing has been laid before the public: nor have the two books, bound in vellum, fallen into other hands, as far as we "know, than those of their first possessor; though the motive fer having them so distinguished by the binding was, doubtless, that ~ by their means, at some distant period, and proba- bly after his death, the honour of having written the work should be reclaimed for the real author, in opposition to pretensions made on the part of others. ' ’ Secondly—We have before stated our conviction that JUNIUS, like Sir P. FRANCIS, had no personal acquaintance with Mr. George Grenville: though some have imagined that J UNIUs was not only well known to that minister, but secretly encouraged by him in writing the letters.——This supposition is, however, disproved by the fact, that there is pre- ' served at Stowe a private unpublished letter, written by J UNIUS to Mr. G. Grenville, wherein he desires _ 32 SUPPLEMENT TO him ,. to refrain. from making any attempt to discover 'the'author, as it might do harm, but could produce no satisfactory result; adding, that in proper time he wOuld- declare himself. j The tenor of this letter confirms the declaration of JUN’IUS, that he was personally unknown to Mr. Grenville, and com- pletely refutes the idea, that Charles Lloyd, the private secretary of Mr. Grenville, or that any other person at the instigation of the latter, wrote the work; but on the part of Sir P. FRANCIS, the whole proceeding appears rational and consistent, and the declaration perfectly true. The third and last presumptive coincidence which we shall at present notice, is by far the most curious of any.———It is commonly reported and be- lieved, that the King, the late Lord North, and the present Lord Grenville, were at some time or other made acquainted with the real name of JUNIUS. According to the following anecdote in Wraxall’s Memoirs, v. 1. p. 455, the King acquired this know- ledge in the year 1772. “ I have been assured that the King riding out in the year 1772, accom— panied by General Desaguliers, said to him in con- versation, ‘ We know who Juhius 2's; and he will write no more} The General, who was too good‘a courtier to congratulate upon such a piece of intel— . ligence, contented himself with bowing, and the discourse proceeded no farther. Mrs. Shuttleworth, . JUNIUS IDENTIFIED. ' 33 who was General Desaguliers’ daughter, believed in the accuracy of this fact.” As the report of 'such a discovery having been made is now very generally credited, we may admit the evidence of this anecé dote in deciding. at what period it took place. The date assigned is the more entitled to notice, as at that time Lord North was prime minister, and in that capacity he would most likely become ac- quainted with the secret. By parity‘of reasoning it is also probable, that Lord Grenville acquired his information at the. time he held a similar situa- tion: indeed, without this, it is not easy to conceive how Lord North and Lord Grenville should pos- sess an opportunity of gaining that intelligence, which was denied to others in their sphere. On the basis of our conjecture, all these particu- lars have adistinct and rational ground'of insertion. Admitting it possible that Sir PHILIP was known to be JUNIUs in the year 1772, we at} once find a reason for the otherwise inexplicable event of his ap— pomtment, at that very time, to India. It certainly was strange that Lord Barrington, with whom he is represented to have had a quarrel, and from whom I he could not. obtain the next step of promotion in the War-ofi‘ice, though it was justly due to him should in the same year, and while Sir PHILIP was ' abroad, recommend him so “honobrably and gene- rously” to Lord North, as to procure for him the ‘D ' 34 ‘ SUPPLEMENT TO rank of a sovereign in India: it was. unaccountable that the dismissed clerk, who could not retain a salary of 4001. a year, should all at once be raised toone of 10,000]. But conceive him to be JUNIUS, and everything is explained—Perhaps Lord Bar— , rington first perceived the truth, in the hints which were thrown out so unguardedly by Veteran, and being one of thelicoterie called the King’s friends, he‘ may have communicated his surmises to his Majesty, and proposed this honourable mode of banishing the offender. But by whatever means it may have reached the ear of the King, by this disclosure the royal assent may have been obtain— ed.———Lord North would then very reasonably de- mand to know for what services he was to advance Mr. FRANCIS so much above his former rank. His privity was, therefore, unavoidable—As for Lord Grenville, if ever he proposed Sir P. FRANCIS to the King, to fill any place or receive any honour, and if such proposal did not altogether meet the wishes of his Majesty, it is possible that the secret concerning J UNIUS would be stated in confidence, as the. sole cause of the demur. This is mere guessing, but it does not require much ingenuity to conceive under what circumstances such a commu- nication would be almost irresistibly called fora-e- The subject would hear further elucidation, but the writer is desirous to restrict his argument to those JUNIUS IDENTIFIED. '35 public documents and recorded facts which are open to all, and which it is no breach of delicacy to advert to. It is hardly necessary to mention, after what has been adduced, that in all his researches, the writer has never met with one fact, one thought, one word, which in the slightest degree impeded the course of his demonstration. This is a negative criterion of the truth, but of no small value after so extensive . a survey, and it properly crowns the whole pile of evidence. Sir PHILIP FRANCIS must be content to share the lot of all those who have the causam celebritatis to boast of : in Inmc oculi omnium conjiciuntur, atque in cum, quid agat, qucmadmodum vivat, 2'72- q‘uirz'tur; ct tanquam in clarissimci lucc versetur, ita nullum obscurum potest nee dictum cjus cssc nee fac- tum. It is said that he is, angry at the charge: that would be folly. Events, over which no one had control, paved the way for the discovery; and a per- son who had never seen him, or his hand-writing, or had a word of intelligence from any one concerning him, became the‘innocent herald of it. Can there be a stronger proof of the impossibility of further con- cealment? Let him then console himself with the thought that he has kept his secret as far as it de- 36 SUPPLEMENT TO JUNIUS'IDENTIFIED. pended on himself. It was calculated to last out a long life, but he has happily outlived it. Now, having ably and consistently performed his part, he appears in his natural character before the cur- tain drops, and will retire amid the plaudits of an admiring people. - ‘ THE EN Do a} 37 The following List contains the names of some of Sir Philip Francis’ 5 Publications, but it is admitted to be very incomplete. It is inserted for the use and infor- mation of those persons who may desire to extend their inquiries beyond the present volume. ’ 1. Original Minutes of the Governor-General and Council of Fort William, on the Settlement and Collection of the Revenues of Bengal: with a Plan of Settlement, recommended to the Court of Directors in January, 1776.—4to. 1782. ’3 This Plan of Settlement is thus mentioned by Mr.Burke, in a letter to his son, dated Nov. 1777.——“ I don’t know that I ever read any state paper drawn with more ability, and indeed I have > seldom read a paper of any kind with more pleasure.”—(Bis- sett’s Life of Burke.) 2. Letter to Lord North, late Earl of Guildford. With an Ap- pendix. Dated Calcutta, 17th Sept. 1777.——8vo. 3. Speech in the ‘House of Commons, on Friday, July 2, 1784, on India Afl'airs.—8vo. 1784. 4. Two Speeches in the House of Commons, on the original East India Bill, and on the Amended Bill, on the 16th and 26th of July, l784.-—8vo. 5. Speech in the House of Commons, on Tuesday, March 7, 1786, on moving for leave to bring 1n a Bill to amend the India Act of 1784. —8vo. 6. Observations on Mr. Hastings’s Narrative of his Transactions at Benares, in 1781.——8vo. 1786. 7. Observations on Mr.Hasting’s Letter relative to Presents.—8vo. 8. Observations on Mr. Hasting’s Defence.—8vo. '9. Speech in the House of Commons, on the 19th of April, 1787; for the Impeachment of Mr. Hastings on the Revenue Charge. A—With an Appendix.—8vo. 1787. . 10. Answer of Philip Francis, Esq. to the Charge against Sir J 38 Clavering, Col. George Morison, and Mr. Francis, at the Bar of the House of Commons, On February 4, 1788, by Sir Elijah >Impey.—’- 8V0. 1788. 11. Speeches 1n the House of Commons, 28th February and 2d March, 1791, printed' in “ Proceedings m Parliament relative to the Origin and Progress of the War 1n India, &c. ”~8v0. 1792. 12. Heads of a Speech 1n reply to Mr. Dundas, April 23,1793, on the Government and Trade of India. 13. Draught of a Resolution and Plan, intended to be proposed to the Society of the Friends of the People, drawn up in the Autumn of 1793,. and laid before the Society on the 8th of March, 1794. 14. Speech in Answer to Mr. Sylvester Douglas, 1796. . 15. Proceedings in the House of Commons on the Slave Trade. \ and State of the Negroes 'in the West India Islands, with an Ap- pendix [including Speeches on April 18, 1791, March 15, and April ' 11,1796].—8vo 1796. 16. The Question as it stood 1n March, 1798.—8vo.1798. 17. Speech on the Affairs of India, July 19, 1803. 18. Speeches in the House of Commons, on the War against the Mahrattas.—8vo. 1805. ' 19. Speech against the Exemption of Foreign Property in the Funds from the Duty on Income. —-8vo. 1806. 20. Letter to Viscount Howick, on the State of the East India Company, 1807 » 21. Reflections on the Abundance of Paper in Circulation.— 1810. 22. Letter to Earl Grey.—8vo. 1814. 23. Letter Missive to Lord Holland.--1816. 24. Plan of a Reform in the Election of the House of Commons, adopted by the Society of the Friends of the People, in 1795 : with a new Introduction and other Documents. Many other of his corrected Speeches, besides the above, may be seen in Debrett’s Parliamentary Debates, and Wright's Parliamentary History. The latter contains also Sir Philip’s Reports of Lord Chat- ham's Speeches in the year 1770. . ,‘ «‘7' 4, . l“ r e , Lately published by TAYLOR and H393“, Fleet Street, ‘ THE IDENTITY 0F JUNIUS WITH A DISTINGUISHED LIVING CHARACTER ESTABLISHED. .' Printed oniformly with Woodfall’s edition of J UNIUS, and accompanied with . a fine Portrait. 8vo. 12s. bds. ’1'. Miller, Printer,'Noble Street, Cheapcido. RETURN CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT TO IF 198 Main S’rocks LOAN PERIOD I 2 HOME USE ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS. Renewls and Recharges may be made 4 days prior to the due date. Books may be Renewed by calling 642-3405. DUE AS STAMPED BELOW SEP 7 2000 _ UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY FORM NO. DDé BERKELEY. CA 94720-6000