drew up my statement, and in agreement with my own opinion called it a Discovery of the Author of the Letters. "Before it went to press I requested a friend to call on Sir Philip Francis, and informed him, that if he had the slightest objection to have his name connected with the investigation he might rely on the total suppression of the work. I am satisfied this communication was made in a way which must have convinced Sir Philip that it proceeded solely from respect to his feelings, and that what was proposed would be performed. It was, perhaps, due to him that not a step should be taken without his permission; nor could his refusal betray him into an implied admission of the truth of the charge. A simple negative would leave it still undetermined whether his aversion proceeded from a dread of the disclosure, or from a tender respect for his father's memory, or from a natural dislike to that free discussion of his own character and qualifications which the question of necessity required. His reply was such as might be expected :- You are quite at liberty to print whatever you think proper, providing nothing scandalous be said respecting my private character.' "Soon after the appearance of the pamphlet, the editor of the Monthly Magazine, intending to notice it in that work, wrote to Sir Philip Francis, to ask him whether the conjecture was correct. The editor did not recollect the distinction drawn by that strict moralist, Dr. Johnson, between spontaneous and extorted acknowledgments; or, probably, he would not have taken the trouble to make this application : "Boswell.-Suppose the person who wrote Junius were asked whether he was the author, might he deny it? "Johnson.-I don't know what to say to this. If you were sure that he wrote Junius, would you, if he denied it, think as well of him afterwards? Yet it may be urged, that what a man has no right to ask, you may refuse to communicate; and there is no other effectual mode of preserving a secret, and an important secret, the discovery of which may be very hurtful to you, but a flat denial; for if you are silent, or hesitate, or evade, it will be held equivalent to a confession. But stay, Sir, here is another case. Supposing the author had told me confidentially that he had written Junius, and I were asked if he had, I should hold myself at liberty to deny it, as being under a previous promise, express or implied, to conceal it. Now, what I ought to do for the author, may I not do for myself?'* "Had the editor of the Monthly Magazine looked for an affirmative to his question, he should have recollected that he was not addressing one "Who would be wooed, and not unsought be won,' to make the confession. Some obstacles, it might have been supposed, were still in the way of such an admission, or as soon as he was publicly affirmed to be the author, Sir Philip Francis would have owned the fact, without waiting for the decent opportunity afforded by the ingenious editor. If, on the other hand, a direct contradiction was contemplated, the reasoning of Dr. Johnson shows that not much faith was due to that. Of an evasive answer, it seems that no suspicion was entertained: the editor thought, 'good easy man, full surely,' that either yes or no would be the frank reply, and in his own opinion he obtained the latter. "When Junius wished to disavow a letter published under his name, and * Boswell's Life of Johnson, iv. 344. actually written by himself, he would not suffer the printer flatly to deny its authenticity, but he instructed him to get rid of it by a side wind. He desired Woodfall to 'recall' the letter, but in such equivocal terms as would effect the purpose without directly committing the integrity of the writer. 'Suppose you were to say-We have some reason to suspect that the last letter signed Junius, in this paper, was not written by the real Junius, though the observation escaped us at the time.-Or, if you can hit off anything yourself more plausible, you will much oblige me, but without a positive assertion.'* Woodfall took the hint, and deprived that letter of its legiti macy by the following note:-'We have some reason to suspect that the last letter signed Junius, inserted in this paper of Thursday last, was not written by the real Junius, though we imagine it to have been sent by some one of his waggish friends, who has taken great pains to write in a manner similar to that of Junius, which observation escaped us at that time. The printer takes the liberty to hint that it will not do a second time.'+ "Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Sir Philip Francis was the author of the Letters, it would follow that, were he placed in the same dilemma in which Junius on this occasion found himself, his conduct would, in all likelihood, be similar to that which Junius adopted. Unwilling to acknowledge, yet unable to deny, he would doubtless seek shelter in ambiguous terms. He would strive to convey that meaning by the spirit, which in strictness would not follow from the letter, of his reply. He would disclaim the thing hypothetically. There is much virtue in an if.' It would be done, we may be sure, in a plausible manner, but without a positive assertion. "Let it be observed, that it is only the author of the Letters of Junius who can be expected to act in this manner. No other man is bound by the precedent; nor have we a right to suppose that any man but the real author would hesitate to give a plain and unequivocal answer to the question, Are you Junius? "It suits neither my purpose nor my inclination, to give a wrong colouring to this singular affair. The following extract from the Monthly Magazine will show the reader the exact nature of the question put to Sir Philip Francis, and in what guarded terms he couched his reply. "Speaking of the pamphlet which contains the charge, We confess,' says the editor of the Magazine, 'we were at first startled by this hypothesis, from its temerity; because, if not true, Sir Philip Francis would be able, by a word, to disprove it; and it could not be supposed that so much labour and expense would be hazarded except on indubitable grounds. To be able, therefore, to render this article as conclusive as possible, we addressed Sir Philip Francis on the subject, in the way the least likely to render the inquiry offensive, and in reply received the following epistle, which we insert at length, in justice to Sir Philip and the public: "Sir,-The great civility of your letter induces me to answer it, which, with reference merely to its subject matter, I should have declined. Whether you will assist in giving currency to a silly malignant falsehood is a question for your own discretion. To me it is a matter of perfect indifference. "I am, Sir, "To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine.' 666 Yours, &c. "P. FRANCIS.' * Private Letter, No. 8, p. 22. + Miscellaneous Letter, Note, post, p. 275. He will, "I need not ask the reader whether this letter is evasive or not. perhaps, wonder how any one can have been misled by it for a moment. The editor, however, with a simplicity that does him honour, did not perceive the futility of this pretended disavowal, though he had just stated, properly enough, that if the hypothesis were not true, Sir Philip Francis would be able, by a word, to disprove it.' It certainly is not so disproved, and we are therefore authorized to conclude that it could not fairly be disputed. No man who had it in his power to give a simple negative to such a question would have had recourse to an inuendo. The only surprising part of the transaction is, that any answer should have been returned by one who knew he could not send a better. But perhaps Sir Philip had no suspicion that it would be printed verbatim in the Monthly Magazine*. He must have thought the editor of that publication would state the denial in his own way, and that if an impression was made on his mind in the first instance, the public would be convinced at second hand." The patrician dignity in which Junius had masked himself had till now entirely screened Sir P. Francis from suspicion, but Woodfall's edition immediately brought into juxtaposition the important fact, that a distinguished living individual was known to have held a subordinate place in the War Office, and to have withdrawn from it at the time and in the manner Junius describes. What could be more natural than the precise inference that Mr. Taylor drew from this junction of occurrences? As to the reply of Sir Philip, it is what might be expected from his character and anonymous position. If he were Junius, he was free to deny it if asked, agreeably with the conventional canon in such cases; but if he were not Junius he was not free to return such an equivocal answer as might lead the world to believe him such, or even have a doubt on the subject. This would have been directly and unfairly misleading for a personal object, and is wholly inconsistent with the integrity which in Sir Philip has never been impugned. But upon the import of his reply to the editor of the Monthly Magazine, I can state what Mr. Taylor was unable to do, namely, the construction Sir Francis himself put upon it. He explained to Lady Francis that his answer to Sir Richard Phillips was no denial, and fools only could take it for one." His answers to other inquirers were of similar tendency, sometimes impatient and angry even to fierceness, but always evasive. To one he said, I have pleaded not guilty, and if any one after that chooses to call me scoundrel, he is welcome." To another, who said, “I'd * Monthly Magazine, July, 1813. 66 66 fain put a question to you," he exclaimed, "You had better not, you may get an answer you won't like." To a third, Oh, they know I am an old man, and can't fight." Lady Francis says, "He was very anxious to avoid either assent or denial, lest he might implicate truth or honour."* 66 The personal movements of Sir Philip Francis coincide exactly with the appearances and disappearances of Junius, of which any one may satisfy himself by comparing the dates of the Letters with the chronological summary previously given. From 1763 to 1772 Sir Philip was in the War Office, and must have resided in or near London; and it is during this period that all the Letters ascribed to Junius were published. In Veteran's letter, written by Junius, and dated March 23, 1772, the expulsion of Mr. Francis from the War Office is announced; from this date till May 4, Mr. Woodfall received no communication from Junius. Coincident with this interval is the fact, that Dr. Francis was then ill at Bath, and it is likely that Sir Philip went to see him before going abroad. All the subsequent communications of Junius, both to the public and Woodfall, were concluded early in May, the last on the 12th, and from this date the Public Advertiser contained no more attacks on Bradshaw or Chamier, and even Lord Barrington is seldom mentioned. The next communication he received from Junius was in January of the following year, and from that time Woodfall heard no more of his correspondent. With this suspension Sir Philip's tour on the Continent exactly tallies. He is supposed to have returned either at the end of 1772 or beginning of 1773, and the last letter the printer ever received from Junius is dated January 19, 1773. From this time Junius finally disappeared. After returning from the Continent it is probable the attentions of Francis were again directed to his father's illness, Dr. Francis dying at Bath, March 5, 1773. In June following, Mr. Francis received from Lord North, on the recommendation of Lord Barrington, as already stated, his appointment to the Supreme Council of Calcutta, and immediately sailed for India. The most sceptical person cannot fail to be struck by these coincidences. Just as Francis moves Junius moves, like substance and shadow. If Francis is in the country, *Lady Francis's letter to Lord Campbell: Lives of the Chancellors, vol. vi. p. 344. Junius is away; if Francis is abroad, Junius is not heard of till his return. If Francis is aggrieved by abrupt dismissal from office, Junius suffers, and pours out the vials of his wrath against all the offending parties. If Francis finally disappears from the scene by removal to another hemisphere, Junius writes no more. The Siamese twins were not more closely conjoined, and if Junius and Francis were not identical, it seems a fair inference that they were allied by some inseparable tie. Other correspondences between them may be traced. Junius evinces an intimate acquaintance with military transactions and the business of the War Office. The affair of General Gansel is so minutely described and dwelt upon, that it might be inferred to have past under his own eyes. But what is most observable of him is his extreme dislike of certain officials in this department, comparatively much below the ordinary objects of his attacks, especially of Mr. Bradshaw and Mr. Chamier, both of whom he assails in terms indicative of considerable personal animosity. On the former person, in one placet, he particularly dwells, remarking that Bradshaw was too "cunning to trust to Irish security;" and traces his history from the time he was "clerk to a contractor for forage," till he found himself enabled to take the great house in Lincoln's Inn Fields, where Lord Chancellor Worthington had lived. In another place he is called the Duke of Grafton's "cream-coloured parasite;" and in Letters signed Domitian and Veteran he is familiarly mentioned as "Tommy Bradshaw," and the "cream-coloured 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." Against Mr. Chamier the fire of scorn is so bitter and incessant, that nothing less than personal hate and jealousy seem capable of producing it. He is termed "Little Shammy," the "wonderful Girgashite, a tight, active little fellow, that would wrangle for an eighth as if born in Jerusalem." A scene is figured between Lord Barrington, his patron, and a general officer, in which every possible ridicule is thrown upon Chamier. Among other opprobrious epithets he is stigmatized as a "little grovelling broker,' "."little three per cents. reduced," an omnium of all that's genteel."§ Four * Letter No. 30, vol. i. p. 239. + Letter 36, and note, vol. i. p. 275. Letter 57. § Miscellaneous Letters, No. 105. scrip of a secretary," 66 a mere |