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 obWetailservation 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 S 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 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

* JUNIUS, iii. 219.-Note, by the Printer.

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 false colouring to this singular affair. The following extract from the Monthly Magazine will shew 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 in

difference.

"I am, Sir,

"Yours, &c.

To the Editor of The Monthly Magazine *.

"P. FRANCIS."

I need not ask the reader whether this letter is evasive or not. He will perhaps wonder how any one can have been misled by it for a moment. Sir Richard Phillips, 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 authorised 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 innuendo. The only surprising part of the transaction is, that any answer should have been returned by one who knew that 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

* Monthly Magazine, July, 1813.

his own way, and that if an impression were made on his mind in the first instance, the public would be convinced at second hand.

Without supposing this, we are involved in a difficulty of a very peculiar kind: the abundance of the evidence being actually in danger of stifling the charge. For it would appear, that if Sir PHILIP calculated on his own reply being given to the public, he could scarcely have taken a more effectual step to make the world believe that he was JUNIUS. His unequivocal affirmation of the fact would not have been so directly convincing, since there exists no reason why the author, whoever he be, should now make that disclosure which he had resolved to withhold for ever; and unless some sufficient motive apparently urged him to a public acknowledgment, his claiming it would but subject him to the imputation of unfounded pretensions.

On the other hand, to deem the evasion unintentional, is not only affronting to the understanding of Sir PHILIP, but at variance with every trait in his character. It is in the memory of many members of the House of Commons, how skilfully he can parry attacks like the present, by mode not very dissimilar*. Nor is it likely

* See Debrett's Parliamentary Debates, vol. xxi. p. 113. and vol. xxii. p. 111.

that he who was styled by Mr. Burke, "the first pamphlet-writer of the age," and who has all his life been engaged in political controversy, should on this occasion alone be at a loss for words in which to convey his meaning. It is well known that, in all he writes, his expressions are selected with unusual care, and that he has thereby acquired a wonderful strength and precision of style.

But there is another test for ascertaining the character of this reply. It affects to charge the statement of a discovery with malignity as well as falsehood. Now I am perfectly willing that the degree of its malignity shall be the measure of its falsehood. I am certainly free from that bad passion in every thing which concerns Sir PHILIP FRANCIS: and from the little work to which he would affix the epithet, it is impossible to bring a single proof in support of the assertion. In this case we are all competent judges.—If then there is no malignity, there is no falsehood.-But Sir PHILIP would laugh if I seriously attempted to refute his insinuation: he charges me neither with malignity nor falsehood. The denial, as far concerns himself, and the accusation, as far it concerns me, both hinge on a condition," Whether you will assist in giving currency," &c.; which has no more to do with the question under discussion, than it has with the Pope of Rome.

It is said by divines, that the punishment of