chiefly in consequence of extreme pecuniary distress, which had oppressed him for the preceding eighteen months or two years, and had driven him from the world, through a fear of being arrested; such were the opposite circumstances of JUNIUS, that the latter was refusing at this very moment, the moiety of the profits resulting from the sale of his own edition of his letters, repeatedly pressed upon him, and to which he was fairly entitled; and offering, from a competent purse, a pecuniary indemnification to Woodfall on account of his prosecution by the crown.

There is, however, a note inserted in JUNIUS's own edition of these letters1, in relating to Lord Irnham, and his baseness to a young and confidential friend, that has been conceived by these same gentlemen as almost decisive in favour of Mr. Boyd's pretensions; the young man here alluded to, having been, as it should seem, one of Mrs. Boyd's guardians; the two families to which the fact relates, from the peculiar motives they possessed for keeping it a secret, not being supposed to have divulged it to any one, and Mrs. Boyd herself having only communicated it in strict confidence to her husband. Yet the reader of the ensuing Private Letters, after witnessing the rapidity with which JUNIUS became informed of Mr. Garrick's intimation to the King, and Swinney's visit to Lord G. Sackville, will have no difficulty in conceiving that JUNIUS, though totally unacquainted with Mr. Boyd or his family, might have easily acquired a knowledge of secrets far more securely locked up than the present. In reality, from Mr. Campbell's own rela

corrupt administration of Lord Townshend in Ireland 'shall not be lost to the public. He now calls upon JUNIUS to fulfil that promis."

That is Boyd, the writer of JUNIUS, as Campbell contends, calls upon himself to fulfil a promise that he had not the smallest intention to perform, as may be seen by reference to Private Letter, No. 63. Sindercombe is a signature of considerable peculiarity, and never appeared in the Public Advertiser during any part of the time that the author, as JuNIUS, was a correspondent in that paper, which the reader will see was from April 28, 1767, to May 12, 1772. EDIT.

1 See Vol. II. p. 123, 124, of this work.

tion of this anecdote, it seems rather a matter of wonder that it should have been a secret to any one, than that it should have been known to Junius at the time of his narrating it; for it appears that at least six persons were privy to the transaction almost from its first existence: the debauchee and the prostitute, the injured bridegroom and his two brothers, and Mrs. Boyd as a part of the bridegroom's family1.-Yet, from these three slender facts,-Boyd's imitation of the style of JUNIUS, Almon's suspicion concerning his hand-writing, and the anecdote of Lord Irnham, in conjunction with a few others of a nature merely collateral, and which, when separated from them, prove nothing whatever, these gentlemen undertake to "regard it as a moral certainty that Macauley Boyd did write the Letters of JUNIUS1."

The late Mr. Woodfall, indeed, made no scruple of denying the assertion peremptorily, admitting at the same time, that he was not absolutely certain who did write them. But this testimony, it seems, though from the printer of the letters themselves, and who, moreover, through the whole period of their publication, was in habits of confidential correspondence with the author, is of no consequence. Let us see by what curious process of logic this testimony is attempted to be invalidated: the reader will meet with it in Mr. Chalmers's pamphlet, who thus observes and reasons:

"A few weeks after the publication of Almon's anecdotes, in 1797, Mr. H. S. Woodfall, meeting the anecdote writer at Longman's shop, complimented him on his entertaining book; 'but said that he was mistaken, in supposing Mr. Boyd to have been the author of JUNIUS's Letters; and then added, with an emphasis, that Mr. Boyd was not the author of them." To these emphatical observations Mr. Almon replied, that he had no doubt of Mr. Boyd's being the author of those letters; that as you, Mr. H. S. Woodfall, never knew who was the author, you cannot undertake to say who was not the author of those letters.' Mr. Woodfall departed without making any reply. What reply could he make? It is absurd in any man, who does not know the true author of JUNIUS's letters, to say, that Macauley Boyd was not the writer of them, in opposition to affirmative proofs. Yet, Mr. H. S. Woodfall afterwards told Mr. L. D. Campbell, that 'Mr. Boyd was not the writer of JUNIUS's letters,' without pretending, however, that he knew the true author."

Now every one who knew Mr. H. S. Woodfall, knew him also to be a man of strict, unimpeachable veracity; a man who would not have ventured to have spoken decisively upon this or any other point, if he had not had very sufficient grounds. We are asked what reply he could have made? and are told that his negative assertion was absurd against the affirmative proofs offered. These affirmative proofs have been already sufficiently noticed; our next business then is to state what reply Mr. Woodfall could have made if he had chosen, and perhaps would have made if he had been differently addressed, of the absurdity of which the reader shall determine when he has perused it: it shall be founded upon negative arguments alone. Woodfall well knew the hand-writings of both JUNIUS and Boyd, and was in possession of many copies of both; and knowing them, he well knew they were different. He well knew that JuNIUS was a man directly implicated in the circle of the court, and immediately privy to its most secret intrigues: and that Boyd was very differently situated, and that whatever information he collected was by circuitous channels alone. JUNIUS he knew to be a man of affluence, considerably superior to his own wants, refusing remunerations to which he was entitled, and offering reimbursements to those who suffered on his account:Boyd to be labouring under great pecuniary difficulties, and

ready to accept whatever was offered him; or, in the language of Mr. Almon, " a broken gentleman without a guinea in his pocket." JUNIUS he knew to be a man of considerably more than his own age, who from a long and matured experience of the world, was entitled to read him lessons of moral and prudential philosophy; Boyd to be at the same time a very young man1, who had not even reached his majority, totally without plan, and almost without experience of any kind, who in the prospect of divulging himself to Woodfall, could not possibly have written to him "after a LONG experience of the world, I affirm before God I never knew a rogue who was not unhappy." Boyd he knew to be an imitator and copyist of JUNIUS; JUNIUS to be no imitator or copyist of any man, and least of all of himself. JUNIUS he knew to be a decided mixt-monarchist, who opposed the ministry upon constitutional principles; Boyd to be a wild, random republican, who opposed them upon revolutionary views: JUNIUS to be a writer who could not have adopted the signature of Democrates or Democraticus; Boyd a writer who could, and who, we are told did do so, in perfect uniformity with his political creed. Woodfall, it is true, did not pretend to know JUNIUS personally, but from his hand-writing, his style of composition, age, politics, rank in life, and pecuniary affluence, he was perfectly assured that JUNIUS COULD NOT BE BOYD.

It was possible therefore for Mr. H. S. Woodfall to have made some reply if he had chosen; and it was possible also for him to have said, without absurdity, and in opposition to the affirmative proofs of his biographers, that Macauley Boyd was not the writer of JUNIUS's Letters.

A thousand other proofs, equally cogent and insurmountable, might be advanced, if necessary, against the pretensions of Mr. Boyd. Among these let the reader compare the letter of JUNIUS, subscribed Vindex, March 6, 1771, Miscel