Mr. Woods, the player, who, at the period in question, was an apprentice with Mr. Woodfall, the printer, on see ing the fac-simile of Boyd's writing, in the year 1800, said he had no doubt that the hand-writing was the same as that of the letters of Junius. Mr. Almon, in the year 1769, having seen a manuscript letter of Junius, which Mr. Woodfall read at a meeting of Booksellers and printers, he suspected Boyd, and taxed him with being the author. Boyd, it is said, instantly changed colour ; and, after a short pause, he said, " the similitude of hand-writing is not a conclusive fact." The evidence of Mrs. Boyd is brought forward to prove, that her husband commenced his corres pondence with the Public Advertiser at the end of the year 1768 ; that he wrote occasionally in the same paper, dur ing the years 1769 and 1770, under the signatures of Lu cius and Brutus ; that he was at great pains in accustom ing himself to disguise his handwriting; that he sent let ters almost every week secretly to the Public Advertiser, and sometimes carried packets himself to sonic penny-post office, or asked her to carry them to \Voodfall's letter-box; that he manifested much solicitude to see the letters of Junius, and was continually talking about Junius; that she would often hint to him her suspicion that he was Junius, to which he made no reply. The same lady states, that Mr. Boyd took a house at Ruston•Green, near Harrow, when Junius's controversy with Mr. Horne commenced ; that lie wrote a great deal while it lasted, and was con stantly talking upon the subject. She farther says, that in November 1771, Boyd borrowed from a neighbour at Ruston Green, several law books and state trials, which he read with great attention, for the purpose, as she thinks, of supporting the charge of Junius against Lord Mansfield, which appeared on the 21st of January, 1772 ; and that about three weeks after the publication of that letter, Boyd went to Ireland. Mrs. Boyd moreover states, that on the very day on which the letters of Junius were republished, with a dedication, pi eface, and notes, Boyd presented her with a copy of the book ; and that, in looking over the pages, she was much struck at seeing sonic anecdotes of Lord Irnham, Miss Davis, and Mr. Nisbet, one of her guardians, which she had communicated to him in confi dence.
A few years after Boy d went to Madras with Lord Ma cartney, a paragraph appeared in the General Advertiser, which plainly alluded to him as the author of Junius. Mrs. Boyd immediately sent a friendly message to the printer, requesting that no more paragraphs alluding to Mr. Boyd might appear in the paper ; and, at the same time, she wrote to Boyd, inclosing the paragraph, and urging him, if the imputation was not true, to contradict it without delay. lint to this request, although frequently repeated, she ne ver obtained a reply. To these circumstances it is added, that some persons, who were acquainted with Mr. Boyd in India, were of opinion that he was Junius ; that Captain Neville, dining with Boyd at Calcutta, heard him say some thing, when they were both mellow with wine, which con vinced him that Boyd was the writer of Junius. And the proof is closed by the evidence of Monsieur Bonnecarrere, to whom Boyd is said to have made a confidential declara tion, that he was the real author of Junius' Letters.
Such is the amount of the evidence in favour of Hugh Macauley Boyd. The proofs have been brought forward
with great confidence, and stated with much ingenuity ; yet to us they still appear inconclusive, on the following grounds.
The evidence with regard to the hand-writing must go for nothing. Mr. Woods speaks from his recollection, at the distance of thirty years. Almon formed a cotijecturc, from a casual glance at a part of the manuscript of one letter of Junius ; but Mr. Wocdfall, who was well ac quainted with the hand-writing of Boyd as well as of Ju nius, and had the very best opportunities of comparing them, denied that the Letters of Junius were written by Boyd. Besides, Boyd is said to have disguised his hand ; the manuscript, therefore, which Almon saw, must have been written in this disguised hand ; yet he is said to have immediately recognised in it the usual hand-writing of • Boyd. In fact, upon an inspection of the fae-similies, it clearly appears that there is no resemblance at all, but ra ther the reverse. Boyd's alleged change of colour, and his reply to the accusation of Almon, arc little to the pur pose. We shall afterwards have occasion to show, and our readers will probably have already perceived, that Boyd was not at all displeased with the imputation.
That Boyd occasionally corresponded with the Public Advertiser is well known. But his correspondence com menced, it is said, in the year 1768 or 1769 ; whereas, the first authenticated letter of the author of Junius, under a different signature, appeared on the 28th of April, 1767, at a period when Boyd had not yet attained his 21st year. Upon a strict examination of dates, also, it would appear, that some of the letters of Junius must have been written during Boyd's visits to Ireland. But Jsmius must then have been resident in London or its vicinity. There is pretty good evidence, that a letter on the state of parties, published in an Irish paper, under the signature of Sinder eombe, when Boyd was in Ireland in 1768, was the produc tion of that gentleman. Now, on the 26th Dec. 1772, long after Junius had declined to continue his papers, this Shidercombe addressed a cat d to the Public. Advertiser, calling upun Junius to renew his correspondence. But upon comparing this card with the private correspondence of Junius with Mr. Woodfall, about the same period, it will be evident that Sindercombe could not be Junius. Moreover, the last public letter of Junius appeared on the 21st of January, 1772 ; and Mr. Boyd is stated to have gone to Ireland about three weeks after that period. But during this absence of Mr. Boyd, Junius was engaged in an almost daily correspondence with Mr. Woodfall, relative to the new edition of the Letters.
With regard to Junius' knowledge of the story of Lord Irnham, our readers will have no difficulty in conceiving, that Junius might have easily acquired information about this matter, when they reflect on the rapidity with which he received intimation of Swinney's visit to Lord George Sackville. There are many such instances of early infor mation, both in his public and private letters. Besides, the story in question, although a sort of family secret, was known to several individuals, and might easily have been divulged and propagated. In fact, it had actually been published some years before it appeared in the note to Ju nius' letter.