hend; but of George Grenville he says, "Will George Grenville cease to be the most tiresome of beings? Will he not be constantly whining and droning, and interrupting?" Very different was the language of Junius, who just before had been satirizing the two former, and as warmly supporting the latter. Dec. 1, 1768, Lord Orford says, "Oh, how delightful and comfortable to be sitting quietly here and scribbling to you, perfectly indifferent about both Houses!" From June 20 to July 15, 1769, we find him on a tour in Cambridgeshire. August 18, 1769, he writes from Calais, "I think it conscientiously right to inform you that I am not in Arlington-street, nor at Strawberry Hill, nor even in Middlesex; nay, not in England. I am I am-guess where? Not in Corsica, nor at Spa. Stay--I am not at Paris yet, but I hope to be there in two days. In short, I am at Calais, having landed about two hours ago, after a tedious passage of nine hours." He remained in Paris about a month, and reached home Oct. 13, 1769, having been absent nearly two months. During this period the controversy between Sir W. Draper and Junius took place. June 11, 1770, he tells his friend not to expect long letters from him, being very busily engaged in preparing his last volume of Painters. From July 1 to July 7, 1770, he was on a visit in Bucking

hamshire. Nov. 20, 1770, he writes, "My last volume of Painters begins to print this week." From July 30, 1771, to Sept. 7, 1771, he was

again in Paris.

During this period the controversy between Junius and the Rev. Mr. Horne took place.

By this statement we clearly prove that the suspicions entertained that Lord Orford was Junius are totally unfounded. He was one of the last men who would be likely to undertake so arduous a task, having various other literary subjects constantly engaging his attention. For the satisfaction of those who lay any stress upon handwriting we may also add, that that of Lord Orford and Junius were totally dissimilar.

During my research I have observed hints suggested in favour of the present claimant, with remarks of his having been strongly suspected; but in no one instance have I ever met with an investigation of those claims, or an attempt to disprove those suspicions, further than from general surmise. These have invariably died away, so that the present Enquiry, as it is the only one which has ever been systematically entered into, will afford full scope for fair criticism and investigation.

The reader who may still be biassed in favour of any of the foregoing names, can compare such pretensions with the result of my Enquiry,

on an attentive perusal of the Letters: from which I deduce this opinion;

That no one has any claim to the authorship of the Letters of Junius, of whom the following testimonials cannot be produced:

I. That he was an Englishman.

II. That he was a man of rank, and of independent fortune.

III. That he was a man of highly cultivated talents, and of superior education; that he had successfully studied the language, the law, the constitution, and the history of his native country; but that he was neither a lawyer nor a clergyman.

IV. That he either was, at the time of writing the Letters, or had previously been in the army, is evident from his practical knowledge of military affairs.

V. That he moved in the immediate circle of the Court.

VI. That he was a member of the established church.

VII. That he was a member of the House of Commons.

VIII. That from the early information Junius obtained on Government affairs, it is evident he was connected with some persons in administration.

IX. That he was a firm friend to Sir Jeffery [afterwards Lord] Amherst.

X. That he was a friend to Colonel Cunninghame.

XI. That he was an admirer of Mr. Grenville. XII. That he was a strong advocate for the Stamp Act in America.

XIII. That he was in favour of repealing the duty on tea in America.

XIV, That he was an advocate for triennial parliaments.

XV. That he considered the impeachment of Lord Mansfield as indispensable.

XVI. That from the manner in which he upholds rotten boroughs, it is highly probable they either constituted part of his property, or that he was in some way connected with them.

XVII. That he considered a strict regard should be paid to the public expenditure, that the national debt might not be increased.

XVIII. That he was against disbanding the army, although a firm friend to the marching regiments; he was also in favour of impressing

seamen.

XIX. That he must have had an antipathy to Sir Fletcher Norton, the Speaker of the House of Commons, from the contempt with which he speaks of him.

XX. That he was necessarily a friend to his printer, Mr. Woodfall.

XXI. That he must have resided almost wholly in London, from his correspondence with Mr. Woodfall, to whom he gives notice when he occasionally goes into the country. One of his letters being dated Pall Mall, we may fairly presume his town house was in that street.

XXII. That from his remembrance of the Walpolean battles, his seeing the Jesuitical books burnt in Paris, and his avowal of a long experience of the world, as well as from other circumstances mentioned in his correspondence with Mr. Wilkes, he could not be less than fifty years of age at the time of writing these Letters.

XXIII. That from the hints given to his printer, Mr. Woodfall, we may infer arrangements had been made for his coming into office; which though not accepted by him at the time, were sufficiently important to induce him to write no

more.

XXIV. Finally, that so powerful an attack on the private character of persons of such high rank, being inconsistent with the pen of political writers, in general, who condemn measures, and not character; we may reasonably conclude, that they proceeded from the pen of one who had received a severe wound from some of those individuals who formed part of the existing administration.