tion 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 Macaulay Boyd did write the Letters of JUNIUS'."

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 re

'See Chalmers's Supplement, p. 94. Campbell's Life, 173,

plied, 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 Macaulay 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 speak 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 ne

J

gative 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 cir. cuitous 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 hẹ knew to be a man of considerably more than his own age, who from a long and matured experi ence of the world, was entitled to read him lessons of moral and prudential philosophy; Boyd to be at the same time a very young man', who had not even reached his majority, totally without plan, and almost without experience of any kind, who

1

Boyd was born in October, 1746, and JUNIUS's first letter, under the signature of Poplicola, appeared in the Public Advertiser April 28, 1767, when Boyd had not, as yet, attained his 21st year.

in the prospect of divulging himself to Woodfall, could not possibly have written to him " after LONG experience of the world, I affirm before God I never knew a rogue who was not unhap py'." 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 Macaulay Boyd was not the writer of JUNIUS's Letters.

A thousand other proofs, equally cogent and insurmountable, might be advanced, if neces1 Private Letter, No. 44.

sary, against the pretensions of Mr. Boyd. Among these let the reader compare the letter of JUNIUS, subscribed Vindex, March 6, 1771, Miscellaneous Letters, No. xcI, in which he publicly ridicules Mr. Laughlin Maclean, upon his defence of the ministry, in regard to the Falkland Islands. Mr. Laughlin Maclean is

well known to have been the best and steadiest friend that Boyd ever possessed; and a friend who adhered to him uninterruptedly from 1764 to 1778', in which year Maclean commenced a

'See Mr. Campbell's Life of Boyd, p. 117, 125, 209, 210. In p. 141, he gives us the following account of Mr. Boyd, in support of his assertion that he was the writer of these letters. "From this time [Nov. 27, 1771,] till the 20th of January following, Mr. Boyd's whole time was occupied in examining the law books and state trials above mentioned, and in writing with his usual secrecy for the Public Advertiser: JUNIUS's elaborate letter to lord Mansfield, in which he strove hard to make good his charge against him, is dated the 21st of January, 1772: about three weeks after the publication of this letter, Mr. Boyd went to Ireland; and JUNIUS ceased to write under that signature for the Public Advertiser." The reader will perceive by a reference to Private Letters, Nos. 40 and 48, that the letter to lord Mansfield was finished some considerable time before it made its appearance in the Public Advertiser; and by comparing the dates of the Private Letters, subsequent to that publication, up to March 5, 1772, of which there are no less than seven, he will be satisfied that it was totally impossible for the writer of the Letters of JUNIUS to have been in Ireland at the period described by Mr. Campbell,