Boyd, moreover, seems rather to have courted, than to have been anxious to disclaim the imputation 'of being the author of Junius ; as we may perceive from his ambiguous reply to Alinon ; and from his silence to his wife, when she mentioned to hint her suspicions ; although, at the same time, he seems to have used all the means in his power to impress such suspicions upon her mind. And how unlike to this conduct were the apprehensions which the real Junius betrayed in his private letters to Mr. Woodall! 1Ve shall only further observe, with regard to Mr. Boyd's claim, that it was at once rejected by all those who had the best opportunities of being acquainted with Boyd, and the best means of forming a correct opinion upon the sub ject. Mr. \Voodfall constantly declared his belief, that Boyd was not Junius ; and Lord Macartncy, who " had frequent opportunities of sounding his depth, and of study ing and knowing him well," expresses his opinion to following words: " I do not say that he was incapable of writing to the full as well as Junius ; but, 1 say, I do not by any means believe, that he was the author of Junius." And this was his lordship's deliberate opinion, alter having perused Mr. Chalmers' dppendix to the Supplemental having thus discussed the claim of Mr. Macauley Boyd, NVe shall not detain our readers long with the pretensions of the remaining candidates.
The claim of Leonidas Clover was first advanced a few years ago, and is founded chiefly upon a memoir of that author's writing, containing a sort of journal of political transactiohs, from the year 1742 to 1737. The political principles of Glover are found to coincide pretty nearly with those of Junius ; his talents and acquirements were doubted : he was a man of ample fortune, a member of parliament, a popular man in the city, vell acquainted with public characters, public measures, and ministerial intrigue. It is remarkable, too, that he declined taking an ostensible part in politics, just about the time when Junius first at tracted public notice. He was well known, and much re spected by Mr. Woodfall, the printer ; who, in a letter ad dressed to Junius, says, after requesting instructions how to vote at the next general election, " I have no connec tions to warp me, nor am I acquainted but with one person who would speak to me on the subject, and that gentleman is, I believe, a true friend to the real good of his country ; / mean Mr. Glover, the author of Leonidas." To this let ter Junius returned no answer. Many other presumptive circumstances might he brought forward in support of this gentleman's claim ; but as there is nothing at all, in his case, that approaches to direct evidence, we deem it unnecessary to prosecute the inquiry.
The claim of De Lolme, we believe, is not entirely new; but it has been recently revived, with " evidences multifa rious, anal9gical, phraseological, autographical, argumen tative, and circumstantial," by Dr. Busby, author of a Translation of Lucretius. For Dr. Busby's proofs, we must refer our readers to the work itself, of which the title is quoted at the end of this article.
An ingenious publication has lately appeared, in a series of letters, tending to prove that the late Duke of Portland was the author of the Letters of Junius. The hypothesis
is founded chiefly on the injuries received by the duke from the ministry of that day, and the frequent allusions in the letters of Junius to the .Wullum Tempus bill, and other sub jects,in which the duke's Interest was involved. The sub ject is treated with considerable ingenuity ; but the evi dence is altogether of a presumptive nature, and we must therefore refer our readers to the work itself, for a view of the arguments by which the hypothesis is strengthened.
The latest hypothesis which has been advanced upon this subject is that which ascribes the letters of Jui.ins to Sir Philip Francis; and it will be found, we think, that the re quisites we have demanded, at the commencement of this article, unite in him in a much stronger degree, than in any abet candidate who has yet been started. Sir Philip was a clerk in the war office, from 1763 to 1772, in which last year he was dismissed. The last letter received by Mr. \Voodfall from Junius, as we have already mentioned, is dated January 19, 1773; and the appointment of Sir Philip, as one of the new council at Fort William, took place in the month of June of that year. The claim advanced for him is chiefly founded upon the coincidence of these and other corresponding dates ; on Sir Philip's acknowledged talents ; his opportunities of information on the subjects dis cussed in the Letters ; the similarity of his style to that of Junius ; and likewise the similarity of his hand-writing to that of thefac similes. These, and many other minute cir cumstances, have been brought forward in evidence of this claim, which the reader will find stated at large in the works referred to ; and, upon the whole, it appears to us to be by far the most probable which has hitherto been ad vanced. \Ve must not conceal, however, that Sir Philip, in his answer to an inquiry respecting the truth of this con jecture, by the editor of the Monthly Magazine, speaks of it as " a silly, malignant falsehood." \Ve must leave it to our readers to determine for themselves, whethei they will consider this declaration as a positive denial of the imputa tion, or as a mere evasion. In the former case, they would certainly be inclined to pause, even in the face attic strong est evidence ; in the latter, that evidence must be allowed its full weight ; and we should then regard this long agi tated question as nearly set at rest.
See \Voodfall's edition of Junius, 1812 ; Mr. Malone's Preface to Hamilton's Parliamentary Logic ; Mr. L. D. Campbell's Life of Boyd, prefixed to 13,,yd's works ; Mr. Chalmers' ?ppendix to the Supplemental .4pology, and The 4uthor of Junius ascertained, Lando.t, 18 7 ; Memoirs of Sir X Wraxall ; Memoirs by a celebrated Literary and Political Character, Latium,. 1814 ; and .4n Inquiry concern ing the 4uthor of Junius, with ref( rence to the Memoirs, Ste. ; ?irguments and Facts. demonstrating that the Letters of Junius were written by John Lewis De Lolme, Sec. by Thomas Busby, Mus. Doe. 1816 ; and Letters to a Noble man, proving a late Prime Minister to have been Junius, Sec. 1816; The Identity of Junius with a distinguished Liv ing Character established. London, 1816 ; Supplement to Junius identified, 17c. 1817 ; and Edinburg Review, Nu. p. 94 (z)