I cannot concur with those who attribute it to the latter cause. The incident was this,-that in the year 1777 he presented a petition to Government, that he might be put into the pillory. I do not possess a sufficient amount of charity, to believe that pure patriotism dictated this course. I trace it to that insatiable love of notoriety, and the consuming desire to be regarded as a patriot, which were the chief characteristics of his life. Had he really wished to have conferred on him the notoriety of being placed and pelted in the pillory, he had only to set at defiance,

in

any of the newspapers for which he wrote, the laws against sedition, to have his wishes for an exhibition in the pillory gratified. The Rev. Dr. Leat, an able, though not much known because chiefly anonymous, writer in the St. James's Chronicle of that day, turned the petition and the petitioner into racy ridicule, to the great gratification of all who viewed the incident, as I do, as a mere empirical expedient to gain credit for a virtue which Mr. Horne Tooke did not possess.

CHAPTER VII.

THE LETTERS OF JUNIUS.

Some of the many Persons to whom the Authorship of the "Letters of Junius" has been ascribed-Sir Philip Francis, and Recent Attempts to show from Handwriting his Identity with JuniusNew Views as to the Junius Secret-The Public AdvertiserMr. W. S. Woodfall-Mr. William Woodfall.

HAVING in the previous chapter referred to the Letters of Junius in the Public Advertiser, I must here pause for a few moments to make an observation or two in relation to the authorship of these remarkable productions. Though there is even now no absolute certainty as to the party from whose pen they proceeded, the opinion seems all but universal that they were written by Sir Philip Francis. Lord Macaulay, and Lord Brougham, have both, after a thorough investigation into the identity of Junius, recorded their deliberate conviction, that if Sir Philip Francis be not the author, then no faith is hereafter to be placed in circumstantial evidence. Yet there were, until lately, men of learning, who repudiated the notion-and I have no doubt there are still-that the letters of Junius were emanations from the pen of Sir Philip Francis. It was my good fortune to be personally acquainted with two of those who could

never listen with patience to the claims put forward to his authorship. One of these two literary men was Mr. John Galt, and the other Mr. William Cramp. Mr. Galt, author of "Laurie Tod," and many other novels, was in his day only second as a writer of works of fiction, to his illustrious contemporary, Sir Walter Scott. His firm belief was-and never did man believe in anything not absolutely certain more fully-that the authorship of the letters of Junius was to be ascribed to a Mr. Maclean, who had been a long time connected in India with the Government of that country, but returned to this country and lived and died in it, just at the time that would fit in with the publication of the Letters of Junius. Believing myself that Sir Philip Francis was their author, I will not restate the arguments which Mr. Galt made use of to me, only some months before he left London to go down to Greenock to die in his native town. The other literary gentleman who repudiated the idea of Sir Philip Francis being the author of the letters of Junius, was Mr. William Cramp. His name was never well known to fame, but he was a man of great and varied learning. He had devoted more than thirty years to an earnest and continuous investigation of the question, "Who was the Author of Junius ?" and the conclusion at which he arrived was, that Lord Chesterfield was the man. So firmly was he persuaded that these brilliant letters were from Lord Chesterfield's pen, that I almost believe he would have gone to the stake, if there had

been a needs-be, in support of his belief. For several years Mr. Cramp was in the habit of coming to see me, and I never could get him to converse, for many minutes, on any other subject. other subject. Mr. Galt, as all the world knows, died upwards of thirty years ago, and Mr. Cramp closed his earthly existence seven or eight years since, as firmly believing as ever, that the arguments which he had, in many publications, and in one volume of considerable size, advanced in favour of the claims of Lord Chesterfield to the authorship of the letters of Junius, were, as Shakspeare said, in relation to another subject, "confirmation strong as proofs of holy writ."

Though I have only specially mentioned the names of Lord Chesterfield and Mr. Maclean as being believed by eminent literary men to have been Junius, there were no fewer than thirty-five parties, each of whose claims were zealously, and with more or less ability, advocated as being entitled to the distinction. Lord Chatham, Edmund Burke, Gibbon, author of "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," Horace Walpole, Horne Tooke, and John Wilkes, were amongst those to whom the authorship of the Letters of Junius has been ascribed. But though few persons now believe that either of these well-known persons was Junius, I have good grounds for supposing that Lord Chatham had some hand in writing some parts of the letters. There are circumstances that have been known ever since Lady Francis, widow of Sir Philip Francis, wrote to the late Lord Campbell,

respecting the Letters of Junius, which amount to almost conclusive proof that Lord Chatham furnished information made use of in these letters, such as he alone could have given. It is partly on this account that Lord Campbell says, in his "Lives of the Lord Chancellors of England," that the evidence in favour of the identity of Junius with Sir Philip Francis is so strong that a jury of intelligent persons would pronounce a verdict in favour of Sir Philip.

Among those to whom the authorship of Junius has been ascribed, I am surprised to find the name of Edmund Burke, because he spoke of Junius in the House of Commons in a way in which he would not have ventured to do had he himself been Junius. In the year 1770, when the popularity of Junius was at its height, and when the indignation in Court and Government circles knew no bounds, because of the manner in which he assailed George III., Burke thus referred to Junius: "He made you," said that orator and statesman, addressing the members in their collective capacity-" he made you his quarry, and you still bleed from the wounds of his talons. You crouched, and still crouch beneath his rage." And then apostrophizing the Speaker of the House, he exclaimed, "Nor has he dreaded the terrors of your power, Sir. He has attacked even you. He has, and I believe you have no reason to triumph in the encounter. King, Lords, and Commons are but the sport of his fury." Burke, I repeat, would never have used such language, had the letters of Junius