that he who was styled by Mr. Burke, "the first pamphlet-writer of the age," and who has all his life been engaged in political controversy, should on this occasion alone be at a loss for words in which to convey his meaning. It is well known that, in all he writes, his expressions are selected with unusual care, and that he has thereby acquired a wonderful strength and precision of style.

But there is another test for ascertaining the character of this reply. It affects to charge the statement of a discovery with malignity as well as falsehood. Now I am perfectly willing that the degree of its malignity shall be the measure of its falsehood. I am certainly free from that bad passion in every thing which concerns Sir PHILIP FRANCIS: and from the little work to which he would affix the epithet, it is impossible to bring a single proof in support of the assertion. In this case we are all competent judges.-If then there is no malignity, there is no falsehood.-But Sir PHILIP would laugh if I seriously attempted to refute his insinuation: he charges me neither with malignity nor falsehood. The denial, as far concerns himself, and the accusation, as far it concerns me, both hinge on a condition, "Whether you will assist in giving currency," &c.; which has no more to do with the question under discussion, than it has with the Pope of Rome.

It is said by divines, that the punishment of

evil spirits will be aggravated by their being compelled to pass sentence on themselves. The utmost stretch of my malignity towards Sir PHILIP shall go no further than to put JUNIUS in the chair, and record the sentence he would award on this occasion.

"Whenever a fact is touched upon, there I fix. When a distinct charge is made, I look for a distinct and particular answer, that denies, or admitting, explains, or in some favourable manner accounts for the fact charged. If instead of this I find nothing more than a paper, in which the author of the charge is called names, I am obliged, as an equitable judge, to consider the cause not as defended, but as utterly abandoned; and the Court must enter an admission by his own advocate of the charge against him."

Sir PHILIP FRANCIS, in his own person, maintains the same doctrine; "When nothing is said in support of the affirmative of any question, that circumstance alone is sufficient to justify the negative."

And JUNIUS gives us this further maxim for the occasion:-" not to defend, is to relinquish §."

• JUNIUS, iii. 208, signature AMICUS CURIE.

+ Mr. FRANCIS's Minute, 18th July, 1778. Vide No. 70, Appendix to the Sixth Report of the Secret Committee on the Carnatic War.

§ JUNIUS, ii. 178, signature JUNIUS.

Before quitting this topic, I beg to assure Sir PHILIP FRANCIS that I am in perfect good humour with him, notwithstanding this finesse respecting falsehood and malignity. I am not so testy as to say, "Do you bite your thumb at me, Sir," because he chooses to bite his thumb. The respect I entertain for him would rather incline me to address him in these words of our great poet,

"Here I salute thee, and thy pardon ask,

That now I use thee in my latter task :—”

a task which he may rest assured I should never have undertaken, had he not called on me to justify my original statement by the charges thus indirectly brought against it.

17

CHAPTER II.

HAVING frequent occasion, in the course of this inquiry, to refer to the Memoir of Sir PHILIP FRANCIS, contained in the Monthly Mirror, I shall make no apology for inserting it in this place. A vein of pleasantry runs through the account, incompatible, it may be thought, with the gravity of our investigation; but I shall be the last to complain of any addition to my reader's amusement. As the biographical sketch is attributed to a gentleman, whose intimacy with Sir PHILIP leaves no doubt as to the accuracy of the facts, it is of importance that it should be given entire.

"MEMOIRS OF SIR PHILIP FRANCIS, K. B.

"The origin of this gentleman is not, like that of some of the greatest names of antiquity, buried in the impenetrable obscurity of unrecorded ages. He was born in Dublin on the 22d of October, 1740, old style. His father, PHILIP FRANCIS, D. D. is sufficiently known in the learned world. His grandfather, JOHN FRANCIS, was dean of the cathedral of Lismore in Ireland, to which he was appointed on the 30th of July, 1722, and his great

с

grandfather, JOHN FRANCIS, became dean of Leighlin, by patent, dated 21st of August, 1696, and appears by Ware's History of Ireland, to have sat in convocation in Dublin, in 1704. This old gentleman is also supposed to have had a father, whose name and memory are unfortunately lost in the abyss of time. These particulars have been carefully collected from the herald's offices in Doctor's Commons, and in Dublin. In the former, it was discovered by a great antiquary, whose business it was to find materials for the pedigree of Sir PHILIP, on his admission to the order of the Bath, that previous to the coronation of Richard II. Richard Francis, who bore exactly the same arms as the present knight, was created a Knight of the Bath, and if Sir PHILIP does not descend lineally from that person, it was entirely his own fault. The heralds offered to prove it by an exact genealogy, provided always that Sir PHILIP would pay down two hundred pounds for such advantage. After maturely weighing the honour against the price, he is believed to have declined that liberal offer. His mother's name appears to have been Elizabeth Roe, whose father thought himself descended from the famous Sir Thomas Roe, who lived in the reign of James the First, and was sent embassador to the great Mogul, by that learned monarch. But here again the links are wanting, or the heralds ran mute for want of encouragement.