stance which precludes the possibility of believing him to have written the letter in question. We shall extract the article from whence this information is derived, from the Public Advertiser of Dec. 18, 1771.

"Authentic copy of the conclusion of the speech which Mr. Flood made in the Irish House of Commons, on Monday the 25th of November last, when the debate on the pension of Jeremiah Dyson, Esq. came on before the committee of supplies :

"But of all the burthens which it has pleased government to lay upon our devoted shoulders, that which is the subject of the present debate is the most grievous and intolerable. -Who does not know Jeremiah Dyson, Esq. ?— We know little of him indeed, otherwise than by his name in our pension list; but there are others who know him by his actions. This is he who is endued with those happy talents, that he has served every administration, and served every one with equal success-a civil, pliable, good-natured gentleman, who will do what you will, and say what you please for pay

ment.

"Here Mr. Flood was interrupted, and called to order by Mr. M, who urged that more respect ought to be paid to Mr. Dyson as one of his Majesty's officers, and, as such, one

whom his Majesty was graciously pleased to repose confidence in. However Mr. Flood went on.

"As to the royal confidence reposed in Mr. Dyson, his gracious Majesty (whom God long preserve) has been graciously lavish of it, not only to Mr. Dyson, but to the friends of Mr. Dyson; and I think the choice was good: The royal secrets will, I dare say, be very secure in their breasts, not only for the love they bear to his gracious Majesty, but for the love they bear to themselves. In the present case, however, we do not want to be informed of that part of Mr. Dyson's character-we know enough of him -every body knows enough of him-ask the British treasury—the British council-ask any Englishman who he is, what he is-they can all tell you, for the gentleman is well known.— But what have we to do with him? He never served Ireland, nor the friends of Ireland. And if this distressed kingdom was never benefited by his counsel, interest, or service, I see no good cause why this kingdom should reward him. Let the honourable members of this house consider this, and give their voices accordingly. -For God's sake let every man consult his conscience: If Jeremiah Dyson, Esq. shall be found to deserve this pension, let it be continued; if not, let it be lopped off our revenue as burthensome and unnecessary."

Let us proceed to the pretensions that have been offered on the part of Lord George Sackville as the real JUNIUS. The evidence is somewhat indecisive even to the present hour. Sir William Draper divided his suspicions between this nobleman and Mr. Burke, and upon the personal and unequivocal denial of the latter, he transferred them entirely to the former and that Sir William was not the only person who suspected his Lordship even from the first, is evident from the Private Letter of JUNIUS, which asserts that Swinney had actually called upon Lord Sackville and taxed him with being JUNIUS, to his face'. This letter is, in fact, one of the most curious of the whole collection if written by Lord George Sackville it settles the point at once; and, if not written by him, presupposes an acquaintance with his Lordship's family, his sentiments and his connexions so intimate as to excite no small degree of astonishment. JUNIUS was informed of Swinney's having called upon Lord George Sackville, a few hours after his call, and he knew that before this time he had never spoken to him in his life. It is certain then, that Lord George Sackville was early and generally sus pected, that JUNIUS knew him to be suspected

:

* Private Letters, No. 5.

without denying, as in the case of the author of "The Whig', &c." that he was suspected wrongfully; and that this nobleman, if not JUNIUS himself, must have been in habits of close and intimate friendship with him. The talents of Lord George Sackville were well known and admitted, and his political principles led him to the same side of the question that was so warmly espoused by JUNIUS. It is said, however, that on one occasion his Lordship privately observed to a friend of his, "I should be proud to be capable of writing as JUNIUS has done; but there are many passages in his letters I should be very sorry to have written." Such a declaration, however, is too general to be in any way conclusive: even JUNIUS himself might, in a subsequent period, have regretted that he had written some of the passages that occur in his letters. In the case of his letter to Junia, we know he did from his own avowal. It is nevertheless peculiarly hostile to the opinion in favour of Lord George Sackville, that JUNIUS should roundly have accused him of want of courage, as he has done in Vol. II. p. 491. The facts, however, are fairly before the reader, and he shall be left to the exercise of his own judgment.

'Private Letters, No. 23. 2 See Chalmers's Appendix to the Supplemental Apology, p.7.