394 



JUN I US. 



Juniu-, and that in looking over the pages, she was much struck 

 ;it seeing some anecdotes of Lord Irnham, Miss Davis, 

 ^-^ -y ' ani l .\] r . Msbet, one of her guardians, which she had 

 communicated to him in confidence. 



A l'i-w years after Boyd went to Madras with Lord 

 Macartney, a paragraph appeared in the General Ad- 

 vertiser, which plainly alluded to him as the author of 

 .Tunius. Mrs. Boyd immediately sent a friendly mes- 

 sage to the printer, requesting that no more paragraphs 

 alluding to Mr. Boyd might appear in the paper ; mid, 

 at the same time, she wrote to Boyd, inclosing the pa- 

 ragraph, and urging him, if the imputation was not 

 true, to contradict it without delay. But to this request, 

 although frequently repeated, she never obtained a re- 

 ply. To these circumstances it is added, that some 

 persons, who were acquainted with Mr. Boyd in India, 

 were of opinion that he was.Junius ; that Captain Ne- 

 ville, dining with Boyd at Calcutta, heard him say some- 

 thing, when they were both mellow with wine, which 

 convinced him that Boyd was the writer of Junius. 

 And the proof is closed by the evidence of Monsieur 

 Itonnecarrerc, to whom Boyd is said to have made a 

 confidential declaration, that he was the real author of 

 Junius' Letters. 



Such is the amount of the evidence in favour of Hugh 

 Macauley Boyd. The proofs have been brought for- 

 vard with great confidence, and stated with much in- 

 genuity ; yet to us they still appear inconclusive, on 

 the following grounds. 



The evidence with regard to the hand- writing must 

 go for nothing. Mr. Woods speaks from his recollec- 

 tion, at the distance of thirty years. Almon formed a 

 conjecture, from a casual glance at a part of the manu- 

 script of one letter of Junius; but Mr. Woodfall, who 

 was well acquainted with the hand-writing of Boyd as 

 well as of Junius, and had the very best opportunities of 

 comparing them, denied that the Letters of Junius were 

 written by Boyd. Besides, Boyd is said to have dis- 

 guised his hand ; the manuscript, therefore, which Al- 

 mon saw, must have been written in this disguised 

 hand ; yet he is said to have immediately recognised 

 in it the usual hand- writing of Boyd. In fact, upon 

 an inspection of the fac-similies, it clearly appears that 

 there K no resemblance at all, but rather the reverse. 

 Boyd's alleged change of colour, and his reply to the 

 accusation of Almon, are little to the purpose. We 

 shall afterwards have occasion to show, and our readers 

 will probably have already perceived, that Boyd was 

 not at all displeased with the imputation. 



That Boyd occasionally corresponded with the Pub- 

 He Advertiser is well known. But his correspondence 

 commenced, it is said, in the year 17fi8 or 176'<); 

 whereas the first authenticated letter of the author of 

 Junius, under a different signature, appeared on the 

 28th of April 1707, at a period when Boyd had not 

 yet attained his 2 1st year. Upon a strict examination 

 of dates, also, it would appear, that some of the letters 

 of Junius must have been written during Boyd's visits 

 to Ireland. But Junius must then have been resident 

 in London, or its vicinity. There is pretty good evi- 

 dence, that a letter on the state of parties, published in 

 an Irish paper, under the signature of Sindercombe, 

 when Boyd was in Ireland in 1768, was the production 

 of that gentleman. Now, on the26'th Dec. 1772, long 

 after Junius had declined to continue his papers, this 

 Sindercomhe addressed a card to the Public Advertiser, 

 calling upon Junius to renew his correspondence. But 

 upon comparing this card with the private correspond. 



ence of Junius with Mr. Woodfall, about the same pc- 

 riod, it will be evident that Sindercombe could not be 

 Junius. Moreover, the last ptiblic letter of Junius ap- 

 pcared on the 2Ist of January 1772; arhl Mr. Boyd is 

 stated 1o have gone to Ireland about three weeks after 

 that period. But during this absence of Mr. Boyd, 

 Junius was engaged in an almost daily correspondence 

 with Mr. Woodfall, relative to the new edition of the 

 Letters. 



With regard to Junius' knowledge of the story of 

 Lord Irnham, our readers will have no difficulty in 

 conceiving, that Junius might have easily acquired in- 

 formation about this matter, when they reflect on the 

 rapidity with which he received intimation, of Swin- 

 ney's visit to Lord George Sackville. There are many 

 such instances of early information, both in his public 

 and private letters. Besides, the story in question, al- 

 though a sort of family secret, was known to several 

 individuals, and might easily have been divulged and 

 propagated. In fact, it had actually been published 

 some years before it appeared in the note to Junius' 

 letter. 



We come now to the Indian evidence. There is no 

 doubt, that, by some individuals, Boyd was suspected of 

 being the author of Junius. But mere suspicions and 

 private opinions are of little weight, in a question that 

 must ultimately be decided by real evidence. The in- 

 formation of Captain Neville is much too vague ; we 

 are not told what the something was which Boyd said 

 when mellow with wine, which produced the particu- 

 lar impression on that gentleman when in the same si- 

 tuation. The evidence of Monsieur Bonnecarrere, in- 

 deed, is more to the purpose ; but we own we are ra- 

 ther suspicious of such declarations as the one alluded 

 to, when we reflect upon the whole conduct of Boyd 

 in regard to his identity with Junius ; and especially 

 when we consider, that we have the very same sort of 

 evidence in the claim advanced for General Lee, which 

 has long since been abandoned. If our memory serves 

 us, a similar declaration is also said to have been made 

 by the late Mr. Suett, the player, in favour of his own 

 claim, as the author of Junius. 



In addition to the foregoing remarks on the weak- 

 ness of the evidence in favour of Mr. Boyd's claim, we 

 shall state a few considerations, which, to our minds, 

 render it almost incredible that Boyd should have been 

 the author of Junius. At the period when Junius com- 

 menced his correspondence with the Public Advertiser, 

 Boyd had not attained his 21st year. Now, although 

 we do not mean to deny that Boyd was a man of con- 

 siderable ability, we have seen no proofs of such pre- 

 cocious talents and intuitive knowledge, as could have 

 enabled him at that age to contend with the greatest 

 wits, and best informed and most experienced men of 

 the day. Mr. Chalmers is aware of the. strength of this 

 objection ; but we do not think he has been successful 

 in his attempt to obviate it. He has produced no pre- 

 vious compositions of Boyd, which could lead us to an- 

 ticipate the future Junius ; and the reference to Chat- 

 terton proves nothing. It is easy for a youth of ability 

 to seize upon a common topic, to gather the floating 

 chit-chat of the quid-nuncs of the day, and to vamp up 

 a composition, abounding in spirited declamation, and 

 pointed invective. But Junius was evidently a writer 

 of a different description. He possessed a knowledge 

 of the world derived from experience ; an intimate ac- 

 quaintauce with the leading characters in the state, 

 which could only have been obtained from an inter- 



