for admission, as Junius did, that the doors should be open to strangers. Secondly, he began his parliamentary life by a bitter personal attack on the Earl of Chatham, a statesman whom Junius always greatly admired. Thirdly, the incidents in the life of Barré do not coincide with the career of Junius. Had Barré been the author, the Bowood politicians would in all likelihood have known him, and Dunning would have saved Junius from legal blunders. But if Barré was Junius, why should he deny it? What motives could he have for concealment, though, as will be shown hereafter, Junius had imperative ones? Why just come out in 1767, or 1769, and then disappear in 1773, and never be again heard of? Reasons must be given for all these eccentricities.

II. AUTHORSHIP OF JUNIUS IDENTIFIED.

In the history of celebrated individuals, as in the history of nations, there is a fabulous era. Among the ancients a descent from the gods occupied the first pages of a hero's biography, but the moderns are satisfied with terrestrial honours with tracing a pedigree to William the Conqueror, Charlemagne, or Iwan the Great. The genealogical chapter dismissed, the next is usually devoted to nursery tales of the auspicious omens that hovered over the birth of the future prodigy, or details of the extraordinary juvenile feats that shadowed the after warrior, statesman, or philosopher. As the life advances the wonderful diminishes; its meridian splendour may justly command admiration, but it seldom so far transcends the average of humanity as to leave unmixed impressions of supernatural genius or perfection.

A gradation of a similar kind pertains to the history of Junius. It began in fable, astonished in its midway progress, long perplexed in its inscrutable mystery, but at last all is unravelled, and shown to have been both possible and natural. The fictitious assumptions of Junius were essential to influence public opinion. That he accomplished his purpose triumphantly; that, under so many temptations, he preserved his

* Seat of the Marquis of Lansdowne.

incognito inviolate; that moving actively and conspicuously in society, he constantly eluded the most eager search after him; and that, after more than half a century of diligent inquiry, there was not a single proximate guess at his identity, are remarkable facts in personal adventure, testifying largely to the extraordinary address and ability of the author. But everything must have an end, and why not the enigma of Junius?

The foundation of the discovery was laid by Woodfall's edition of 1812. Had the public never known any edition of the Letters except that revised by Junius himself, it is probable the author would have remained even unsuspected. But the "Private Letters Nos. 61 and 62, and the "Miscellaneous Letters" subscribed Veteran, Scotus, and Nemesis afforded a clue, of which an ingenious inquirer successfully availed himself *. In these letters (No. 110) a name escaped, the name of one likely to be personally interested in the subject of some of the writings of Junius; that person still lived, was an eminent public character, known to possess superior abilities, greater than the world, and those not intimately acquainted with him, gave him credit for. Upon this person Mr. Taylor fixed, dragged him out, and was the first to challenge as the long sought Junius.

All, however, were not satisfied. The proofs were strong, and able judges acquiesced; still doubts were raised, mysteries remained unexplained, and certain superiorities were urged as distinguishing Junius from his assumed representative. The accused himself was silent; he was called upon to answer; he would neither confess nor positively deny the charge, but left the world to make the discovery. In this state the question has remained, and here I take it up, briefly recapitulating the leading points of Mr. Taylor's discovery, and supplying the needful links in the chain of testimony.

In two directions Mr. Taylor fell into error. First, in adopting the entire of the Miscellaneous Letters " as from the pen of Junius, by which his investigation was embarrassed and he was led to conclusions inconsistent with the integrity of purpose and strict consistency which pervade the authorized letters of the author. Secondly, he fell into one of the snares Junius had adroitly laid for inquirers. Misled by one of those well-contrived feints that were meant to mislead, Mr.

* Mr. Taylor, in his Junius Identified.

Taylor inferred that Junius must be "an old man," or well stricken in years, and under this impression fastened on the father in lieu of the son*. Philip Francis, D.D., was not without weighty claims to the authorship. He was a classical scholar, celebrated for masterly translations of Horace and Demosthenes, lived on intimate terms with persons of rank, especially statesmen, was himself the author of several political pamphlets, and in his writings openly cherished liberal sentiments. Hence, in the first instance, he was naturally thought to be a competent Junius, and the younger Francis, whom Mr. Taylor had mistakenly concluded to be a minor, was supposed to have aided his father, by procuring intelligence, copying the Letters for the press, and doing perhaps "the conveyancing part" with Woodfall. But on discovering Mr. Francis to be ten years older than he had at first been led to believe, Mr. Taylor revised his calculations, and found, in the antecedents of his life, in his apt scholarship and superior talents, his position in the War Office, knowledge of public characters, and varied official experience, that he was adequate to fulfil every condition of the Junius problem; and this was further confirmed by his remarkable character and personal history. Under these new impressions Mr. Taylor resumed his investigation, and in the end relinquished the father to concentrate his labours on the son.

The proofs which Mr. Taylor has adduced to identify Sir Philip Francis with Junius are of three kinds : first, the correspondence of dates and incidents in the life of Sir Philip, with the dates and incidents in the publication of the Letters; secondly, the correspondence between the style, sentiment, and ability of the Letters, with the known writings and speeches of Sir Philip Francis; thirdly, the resemblance between the handwriting of Junius and Francis.

Sir Philip Francis was born in Dublin, in 1740. His father, Dr. Francis, has been adverted to as well known in the learned world, and among the great. His grandfather was Dean of Lismore, in Ireland. In 1750, Sir Philip came to England. In 1753 he was placed at St. Paul's School, and

"A Discovery of the Author of the Letters of Junius." Lond. 1813. This first attempt of Mr. Taylor preceded the publication of Junius Identified by three years.

"The Identity of Junius with a Distinguished Living Character estab lished." Second edition. Lond. 1818.

66

he and Philip Rosenhagen, who was once thought to be Junius, were considered by Dr. Thicknesse, the master, his cleverest pupils. Mr. H. Woodfall, afterwards the printer of the Letters, was at the school at the same time. At this early period, Lady Francis relates that young Francis used to associate with men at the table d' hote at Slaughter's Coffeehouse, when his father, who was Lord Holland's chaplain, used to dine out." In 1756 Lord Holland gave young Francis a place in the Secretary of State's office. The Earl of Chatham, who succeeded Lord Holland, continued to encourage him, and made him his Latin Secretary. Through this patronage he was appointed in 1758 secretary to General Bligh, and was present at the capture of Cherbourg. In 1760, by the same recommendation, he was appointed secretary to the Earl of Kinnoul, ambassador to Lisbon, and between this year and 1763 it is likely he paid the visit to the court of Louis XV. mentioned by Lady Francis *. In 1763, Lord Mendip, then Secretary at War, appointed him to a considerable post in the War Office, which he resigned in the beginning of 1772, in consequence of a difference with Lord Barrington, by whom he thought himself injured, his Lordship having appointed Mr. Chamier, instead of himself, Deputy Secretary at War. The greatest part of 1772 Mr. Francis spent in travelling on the Continent; he visited Rome, and had a long audience of the Pope, of which he sent a curious account to his friend, Dr. Campbell, and which is among the manuscripts of Sir Philip, in possession of his grandson. It would seem that Lord Barrington considered Mr. Francis to have been wronged, as his Lordship, in about half a year after his return to England, recommended him to Lord North as a fit person to be a member of the government of Bengal. In the month of June, 1773, Mr. Francis left England in company with General Clavering and Colonel Monson, the two other gentlemen who had been named in the Act of Parliament, to co-operate in the future government of India.

Farther than this period it is not essential at present to follow the history of Sir Philip Francis. The first authentic public letter of Junius is dated January 21, 1769, and his first private note to Woodfall, April 20, 1769. His last

* Junius alludes, in Letter 21, p. 175, to his presence in Paris at the burning of the Jesuitical books, August, 1761.

public letter, under the signature "Junius," is dated January 21, 1772, and his last miscellaneous letter, under the signature of "Nemesis," is dated May 12, 1772. The last private note Junius addressed to Woodfall is dated January 19, 1773. He addressed no letter to Wilkes of a later date than November 7, 1771. So that Sir P. Francis was passing from his twenty-ninth to his thirty-second year during the publication of all the Letters that are authentically avowed or known to be by Junius.

In respect of age, therefore, I think no valid ground exists for doubting the capabilities of Sir P. Francis to enact the part of Junius. He was four years older than Pitt, when he became Chancellor of the Exchequer and Prime Minister of England. Napoleon, before he reached his twenty-ninth year, had conquered Italy, and evinced administrative powers, in the organization of the civil government of the Italian Peninsula, fully equal, if not superior, to any he displayed in after life. For political writing Francis had attained that period of life when ambitious hopes and intellectual vigour are usually the most efficient, provided, as was peculiarly the case with him, there had been previous educational culture, attention to public affairs, official experience, and general intercourse with the world.

The circumstances which led Mr. Taylor to suspect Sir Philip Francis, his reference to him in consequence, and Sir Philip's reply, I shall let Mr. Taylor narrate.

66 Nearly at the end of the third volume I was struck with the unparalleled zeal which the writer displayed in the cause of two individuals belonging to the War Office. It appeared that Mr. D'Oyley, a clerk in that establishment, had a short time before been deprived of his situation, through the interference of Lord Barrington; and the writer of the letter to which I allude desires Mr. Woodfall to inform the public, that the worthy Lord Barrington, not contented with having driven Mr. D'Oyley out of the War Office, had at last contrived to expel Mr. Francis.'* The Editor states in a note, that this was the present Sir Philip Francis. Surprised at the occurrence of an intervention so extraordinary, I considered what grounds there might be for thinking that either of the offended persons could have been the writer; or whether any one of their immediate relatives had thus volunteered himself to advocate their cause. The political and literary character of Sir Philip Francis caused my suspicions to fall on him. Upon reference to a memoir of his life in the Public Characters, I saw sufficient evidence, as I thought, to confirm my conjecture. The impression made by the facts there related was strengthened by a comparison of style. From these materials I

* Miscellaneous Letters, No. 110, p. 405; signature, Veteran.