quired. Lost as he is, he would not dare to contradict this letter. If he did, it would be something more than madness. The disorder must have quitted his head, and fixed itself in his heart."

Vol. I. p. 174.-"The Earl of ChathamI had much to say, but it were inhuman to persecute, when Providence has marked out the example to mankind!"

sons.

These extracts are sufficient to shew that Sir Philip Francis and Junius were two distinct perCould Sir Philip Francis have made use of such language against the very man who had brought him forward in the world? It is contrary to reason and common sense.

The writer of the article in the Edinburgh Review for November 1817, has blended Sir Philip Francis with the speeches of the Earl of Chatham, which have nothing whatever to do with the question, any further than that Junius may have borrowed some of his ideas from Lord. Chatham's eloquence, as he evidently did from other distinguished characters. The line of litics pursued by Junius and the Earl of Chatham, was totally different on American taxation, which of itself shews there was no connexion between them.

po

Sir Philip Francis, on the contrary, was an enthusiastic admirer of the Earl of Chatham.

On

the decease of that nobleman, he passed a high eulogium on his character, and observed that he had left no one behind him that bore any resemblance to him. Sir Philip had just cause for this opinion, having been raised to the station he then held in society through that nobleman's interest.

Junius had cause for his invective against the Earl of Chatham. The prominent part which he (when Mr. Pitt) took against Lord George Sackville after the unfortunate affair at Minden, would naturally sour him against that distinguished statesman, however highly he might admire his abilities. Junius admired the abilities of Lord Mansfield, but he detested the man.

On Sir Philip Francis's return from Lisbon, he was recommended to the notice of Welbore Ellis, afterwards Lord Mendip, who was at that time secretary at war. This gentleman also warmly patronized him, and gave him an important situation in his office. Junius invariably speaks of Welbore Ellis with the utmost contempt.Vol. I. p. 128.-"The little dignity of Mr. Ellis has been committed; the mine was sunk, combustibles provided, and Welbore Ellis, the Guy Faux of the fable, waited only for the signal of command. All of a sudden the country gentlemen discover how grossly they have been deceived; the minister's heart fails him, the

grand plot is defeated in a moment, and poor Mr. Ellis and his motion taken into custody. From the event of Friday last, one would imagine that some fatality hung over this gentleman. Whether he makes or suppresses a motion, he is equally sure of his disgrace. But the complexion of the times will suffer no man to be vice-treasurer of Ireland with impunity."

"About this time the courtiers talked of nothing but a bill of pains and penalties against the Lord Mayor and Sheriffs, or impeachment at the least. Little Mannikin Ellis told the king, that if the business were left to his management he would engage to do wonders. It was thought very odd, that a motion of so much importance should be entrusted to the most contemptible little piece of machinery in the whole kingdom. His honest zeal however was disappointed. The minister took fright, and at the very instant that little Ellis was going to open, sent him an order to sit down."

Again, Vol. II. p. 239,-" Welbore Ellis, what say you? Is this the law of parliament, or is it not? I am a plain man, sir, and cannot follow you through the phlegmatic forms of an oration. Speak out Grildrig,—say yes, or no."

Is this the language of one who was under personal obligations to his friend?

Junius had ceased writing under that signa

ture when the name of Sir Philip Francis was mentioned by him. January 25, 1772, Junius informs Mr. Woodfall, "having nothing better to do, I propose to entertain myself and the public with torturing that Barrington." Three days afterwards, a severe invective against that nobleman followed, which was two months before the public were apprised of the dismissal of Sir Philip Francis; and after this dismissal we have a long account of Lord Barrington's life; an attentive perusal of which must convince every reader, that such a narrative proceeded from a very different quarter than from the pen of Sir Philip Francis.

Events are referred to which happened before Sir Philip Francis was born, but of which Junius had a thorough knowledge: he confesses "Lord Barrington and he were old acquaintance," and in taking "a short review of him from his political birth," comments on many subjects which could only have been known to one who moved in a very different circle to Sir Philip Francis. Lord Barrington had become unpopular in consequence of having discharged Sir Philip Francis from his office without just cause. He afterwards endeavoured to clear his character from Junius's imputations, and in furtherance of this measure he took an early opportunity of apply ing to Lord North on Sir Philip Francis' behalf,

when he found he had arrived in England from his tour. Lord North accordingly gave him an appointment in India. If Lord Barrington had had the most distant idea that Sir Philip Francis was in any way concerned in the authorship of the letters, would he thus generously have recommended him to the notice of Lord North?

The family of Sir Philip Francis lived on intimate terms with David Garrick, for whom they entertained the highest esteem. The tenor of the correspondence between Junius and Mr. Woodfall, proves that Junius had no regard for Mr. Garrick whatever.

There was nothing extraordinary in Sir Philip Francis taking a tour to France after his dismissal from the War Office, where he had been so closely confined to business. He had no other employment to attend to, and having never been in France before, it was a novelty. Whereas Junius, expressly states a circumstance which he saw with his own eyes, before Sir Philip was born, viz." The Jesuitical books burnt in Paris by the common hangman."

Sir Philip Francis was an Irishman. It is proved by incontrovertible evidence that Junius was an Englishman.

Sir Philip Francis wrote to Sir Richard Phillips, stating, that it was a "malignant falsehood" to attribute the authorship of the letters