whether profound or otherwise, is plain and clear. He that runs may read, and dulness itself may comprehend*."

The perfect agreement between these two descriptions of the style of JUNIUS and Sir PHILIP FRANCIS, will be more fully felt if they are transposed in the mind of the reader. Considered in their application to writings which neither of them were intended to characterize, it will be apparent to any one conversant with either author, that the same qualities must exist in the works of both, or the criticisms would in some respects have been inapplicable.

Thus we have gone through every species of inquiry that can be suggested, to prove the truth or fallacy of any conjecture, and individually, as well as collectively, all are seen to lead to one and the same result. We have called, as it were, upon many different witnesses, wholly unconnected with each other, unknowing what had been related, and strangers to what might follow, yet each tells a tale which confirms the truth in his own particular case, and all unite together in producing a consistent series of proofs, resting on facts in the first instance, and bearing directly upon the point de

* Monthly Mirror, March, 1810.

sired, so as to leave perhaps nothing wanting to establish full conviction. However, to make assurance doubly sure, we shall extend our investigation into another district, where additional evidence of an interesting nature will be met with.

261

CHAPTER XV.

In an inquiry like the present, as soon as a valid conjecture was formed, it would follow, that looking at the question in as many different lights as possible, and in every variety of position, we should find a still greater number of confirmations; and that thus encouraged and supported, we should perceive it to be far more difficult to know when to stop, than where to meet with evidence worthy of being adduced. A superfluity of this kind causes the following facts, documents, and arguments to be laid before the reader. The question might be considered as determined by what has been advanced; but amidst the numerous proofs that offer in support of our opinion, the following appear to be so conclusive in themselves, as to deserve particular distinction. They are also chosen from the rest, because they materially elucidate some of the opinions held by JUNIUS on particular subjects, and because the compositions. which they include are desirable additions to his other works.

The compiler of this investigation was acci

dentally turning over the pages of Almon's Anecdotes of Lord CHATHAM, when his eye was caught by several passages so much in the style of JUNIUS, as to call forth this observation---that either Lord CHATHAM was the Author of the Letters*, or JuNIUS had reported Lord CHATHAM's Speeches. On closer inspection it appeared, that the pages which

• If it were a question worth debating, we have the best of all proofs, that Lord CHATHAM's peculiarities of thinking and expres sion, did not, of necessity, give a complexion to these speeches so much like that of JUNIUS. It is well known that Hugh Boyd was ambitious of being thought the writer of the Letters, and that he imitated the style of JUNIUS. He, by a singular coincidence, also reported two of Lord CHATHAM's speeches in 1775, and 1777; and here, if any where, we might expect to find that character exhibited which is seen in the reports by Sir PHILIP FRANCIS. But neither are they like the latter, nor like JUNIUS. It is astonishing how totally they differ from both: something might be expected from Lord CHATHAM's manner, and something from Boyd's habitual imitation of JUNIUS; but there is not a thought or expression in these speeches which savours either of JUNIUS, or of Lord CHATHAM as he is represented by Sir PHILIP FRANCIS. The consequence is, that not only must Lord CHATHAM have no credit for the literary beauties in the reports of Sir PHILIP FRANCIS, under the plea that the words were so strongly impressed, on the hearer's mind, that he unavoidably adopted them in repeating the sentiments, for then Hugh Boyd would have preserved some, at least, of these membra poetæ, but also Boyd must be shorn of his pretensions to be JUNIUS, by failing on so remarkable an occasion to sustain any part of that character, which is so well supported by Sir PHILIP, If the reader is desirous to obtain ocular demonstration of the truth of our representation, he will find Boyd's reports in the volume of Almon's Anecdotes which contains those of Sir PHILIP FRANCIS, whereby a most favourable op portunity is presented for making a comparison..

contained the spirit of JUNIUS were principally occupied by the reports of two debates, one the 9th, the other on the 22d of January, 1770; that the latter was the composition of a gentleman who had furnished Almon with the previous report; and that a paragraph was prefixed to this first debate, containing allusions to the Reporter, applicable, as we have before noticed, only to Sir PHILIP FRANCIS. The reasons which led to that opinion have been stated; and they were cogent enough for the purpose they were then intended to serve: but to build any thing substantial and important upon this ground it is obvious that a better title ought to be produced. This has since been accidentally provided.-In the New PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY the above-mentioned speeches are inserted, and the following note by the Editor accompanies the first of them:--- This very important debate was taken by a gentleman, who afterwards made a distinguished figure in the House of Commons, and by him it has been obligingly revised for this work. When the Publishers inquired of Mr. Wright, the Editor of the Debates, whether Sir PHILIP FRANCIS was not the gentleman here alluded to, his answer was as satisfactory as could be wished. In reply to your note, I have no hesitation in informing you that Sir PHILIP FRANCIS is the gentleman alluded to in p. 647, vol. 16, of the Parliamentary History."-It was fortu