\Ve agree, then, with the author of the Preliminary Es. say to Woodfall's edition of the Letters (1812), that the claimant who cannot produce, at least, the characteristics alluded to, is in vain brought forward as the author cf the Letters of Junius.
The principal persons to whom the Letters of Junius have been at different times attributed, are the following: Charles Lloyd, a clerk of the treasury, and afterwards a deputy teller of the exchequer ; John Roberts, also a clerk in the treasury, and afterwards, successively, private secre tary to 'Mr. Pelham, when chancellor of the exchequer, member of Parliament for Harwich, and commissioner of the Board of Trade ; Samuel Dyer ; William Gerrard Hamilton; Dr. Butler, late Bishop of Hereford ; the Rev. Philip Rosenhagen ; Major•General Charles Lee ; John Wilkes ; Henry Flood ; John Dunning, Lord Ashburton ; Lord George Sackville ; Hugh \lacauley Boyd ; Mr. Glover, author of Leonidas ; M. De Lolme ; the late Duke of Portland ; and Sir Philip Francis.
Of the first nine candidates in the above list, we intend to say nothing, as we consider their pretensions to have been already sufficiently disproved ; and shall, therefore, in so far as relates to them, merely refer our curious read ers to the works mentioned at the end of this article.
The claims of Dunning, Lord Ashburton, to the honours of Junius, were formerly considered as superior to those of any other candidate. He possessed all the requisite ta lents, learning, and wit ; his age, and rank in life, his poli tical principles, attachments, and antipathies, together with his usual residence, during the period in question, are all in favour of that hypothesis which assumes hint as the author. Yet there are one or two circumstances in his situation, which render this hypothesis highly improbable. Dunning was solicitor-general at the time these letters first appeared, and for more than twelve months afterwards ; and he cannot therefore be supposed to have been the au thor of the famous letter to the king. Besides, it is pretty clear, as we have already hinted, both from his public let ters, and his private correspondence with Mr. \Voodfall, that Junius was not a professional lawyer.
The talents of Lord George Sackvillc were well known; his political principles made him incline to the same Side of the question which Junius espoused ; and he was sus pected, by Sir William Draper and others, at an early pe riod, of being the real author of Junius. It is very remark
able, too, that from a private letter from Junius to his prin ter, in which he asserts, that a person of the name of Swin ney had called upon Lord Sacitvi;le, and taxed him at ith being Junius to his face ; it appears that Junius was in the knowledge of this fact a few hours after it happened. It would seem to follow, therefore, either that Lord George Sackvillc was Junius, or that Junius, at least, must have been in habits of intimacy with that nobleman. On the other hand, his Lordship is said to have observed, on one occasion, to a friend of his ; " I should be proud to be ca pable of writing as Junius has done ; but there are many passages in his letters I should be very sorry to have writ ten." And, morcever, in one of the letters of Junius, Lord George Sackville is roundly accused of want of cou rage.
Of all the candidates for the celebrity of Junius, there is none whose pretensions have been so obstreperously ad vanced as those of Hugh Macuuley Boyd. This gentle man was born of a respectable family in Ireland, educated at the College of Dublin, and intended for the profession of the law. But, at an early age, he abandoned his legal pur suits ; and having conic over to London in the year 1766, he addicted himself to politics, and led an unsettled life, which continually involved him in pecuniary difficulties. He is known as the author of The Freeholder, which he wrote at Belfast, in the year 1776 ; of The Whig, a series of papers published in the London Courant, between NOvem her 1779, and March 1780; and the Indian Observer, pub lished at Madras in 1793. The chief advocates for the claims of this gentleman are, Mr. Almon, Mr. Campbell, the editor of Boyd's works, and Mr. George Chalmers. We shall endeavour to give a concise statement of the ar guments used by the last mentioned gentleman, omitting only such circumstances in the proof, as appear to us to be altogether trivial and inconclusive.