Those who have never examined the claims advanced in favor of Philip Francis, may be benefited by this Appendix. I think it will herein be made out, that his case has been founded on spurious and unauthenticated records. The case may be stated as follows:

On March 3, 1772, there was published, under the supervision of Junius, a genuine edition of the Letters. In his Preface, he states: "The encouragement given to a multitude of spurious mangled publications of the Letters of Junius persuades me that a complete edition, corrected and improved by the author, will be favorably received.... This edition contains all the letters of Junius, Philo Junius," etc.

Forty years after this edition was published, when Mr. H. S. Woodfall, the publisher, was dead, his son issued a new edition, in which he collected from the files of the Advertiser what he supposed to be other letters of Junius, and classed them as Miscellaneous Letters. This new edition, which is called Woodfall's, was first published in 1812. Upon the heel of this edition, John Taylor published his "Junius Identified," supporting his claims in favor of Francis nearly or quite altogether on the Miscellaneous Letters. Till then the claims of Francis were never brought forward. I now proceed to show that these Miscellaneous Letters are not all genuine.

1. They show in many instances internal evidence of fraud. Private Note No. 61 is as follows:

"Sunday, May 3, 1772.

"I am in no manner of hurry about the books. I hope the sale has answered. I think it will always be a saleable book. The inclosed is fact, and I wish it could be printed to-morrow. It is not worth announcing. The proceedings of this wretch are unaccountable. There must be some mystery in it, which I hope will soon be discovered, to his confusion. Next to the Duke of Grafton, I verily believe that the blackest heart in the kingdom belongs to Lord Barrington."

The above note accompanied a letter signed Scotus, published in the Advertiser, May 4, 1772. Now, mark! The private note which accompanied this letter of Scotus says: "This is fact." And the letter of Scotus opens as follows: "To Lord Barrington: My lord, I am a Scotchman," etc. He then goes on, without dignity or grace, to talk bluntly to Lord Barrington, and with an egotistical defense of the Scotch. He says: "There is courage at least in our composition." "For the future, my lord, be more sparing of your reflections on the Scotch." This letter and the note accompanying it are yet in existence in the original, and are called genuine. Now, that they are forgeries is quite evident from the whole spirit of Junius in regard to the Scotch. In Letter 44, he says of Mr. Wedderburne: "I speak tenderly of this gentleman, for when treachery is in question, I think we should make allowances for a Scotchman." He speaks of the Scotch "cunning," "treachery," and "fawning sycophancy," of "the characteristic prudence, the selfish nationality, the indefatigable smile, the persevering assiduity, the everlasting profession of a discreet and moderate resentment." This last quotation may be found in the Preface, and was written about four months prior to the publication of the letter of Scotus. Now, is the positive evidence of the genuine Letters to be set aside by this fugitive note and letter of Scotus? Reason and Common Sense say not. Here then one of the Miscellaneous Letters, and one of the private letters to Woodfall are proven to be forgeries. How many more may have to go the same way? Even the nationality of Francis is against this one of Scotus, for he was an Irishman.

It may be well to remark, in passing, that as the manuscript of this letter of Scotus is still in existence, the claims of Francis founded on handwriting will have to go the same way, for proof on genuine handwriting is doubtful, but proof on disguised handwriting is worthless. All that can be proven from handwriting is, Francis may have been the author of this forged letter of Scotus, and other letters of Veteran, which were written solely from personal spite toward Lord Barrington.

2. I would call attention to another manifest forgery of a private note and letter. The note is No. 8, vol. i, p. 198, and the letter is No. 58, vol. iii, p. 218, Woodfall's edition. The letter is one of low wit, and somewhat vulgar in its construction, and is an answer to another signed Junia, probably written by Mr. Caleb Whiteford. The note says: "The last letter you printed was idle and improper, and, I assure you, printed against my own opinion. The truth is, there are people about me whom I would wish not to contradict, and who had rather see Junius in the papers ever so improperly than not at all." The question now is: Did those people, for whose benefit he wrote the letter, keep the secret which has baffled the world?—for these people must have known him to be Junius. And did Junius write falsely, when he said in his Dedication more than two years afterward: "I am the sole depository of my own secret, and it shall perish with me?" Did Junius write falsely when he said: "This edition contains all the letters of Junius?" for this one which he cast out, and is in the Miscellaneous collection, was signed Junius. Besides, the handwriting is different from the genuine notes. Compare No. 8, spurious, with No. 3, genuine, vol. i, Woodfall's edition.

Here is clear evidence of forgery in two cases, not from handwriting be it remembered, but from internal evidence. May there not be many more such cases? Moreover, from the style and spirit of all the miscellaneous letters written after the one signed Atticus, and printed November 14, 1768, there is no evidence whatever of the hand or head of Junius. Prior to this time Junius had been writing to get his hand in, and his contributions appeared over the signatures of Atticus, Lucius, C, and a few others, but all prior to the above date. Junius proper began with his famous Letter of January 21, 1769, and closed in just three years to a day.I am now prepared to state: In the comparison of Thomas Paine with Junius I did not suffer myself in a single instance to go outside of the genuine edition; because I plainly saw, after a long and critical study of the Letters, that there was no safe footing outside of it. Whatever, therefore, has been established in style, character, occupation, rank, opinion, etc., in favor of Paine, has at least this merit: its foundation is good. I propose now to show that this can not be said in favor of Francis.

I have given on pages 190 and 191 the summing up of the main argument of John Taylor in favor of Francis, by Mr. Macaulay. Macaulay writes only as a reviewer of Taylor, not an original investigator; and a reviewer, too, like many at this day, without searching at the fountain head for the facts in the case. Let us now look at the five points Mr. Taylor makes:

"First, that he was acquainted with the technical forms of the Secretary of State's office." Under this Taylor begins by observing: "One method of discovering the rank and station of Junius is to see with whose names he is most familiar." He then says: "The only persons to whom Junius applies epithets of familiarity are Welbore Ellis, Esq., Lord Barrington, Messrs. Rigby, Whateley, Bradshaw, and Chamier." Taylor then proves Junius to have been familiar with Whateley by a long quotation from miscellaneous letters, one without a signature, and one signed Henricus. See Taylor's Junius Identified, page 54. In this connection comes a very important disclosure in regard to Mr. Grenville. I will quote Taylor, page 54: "Comparing these indications of personal acquaintance with the opportunities afforded Sir P. Francis, we find that Mr. George Grenville was one of the secretaries of state at the time Sir Philip Francis held that place in the Secretary of State's office, which had been given him by Lord Holland, and Mr. Whateley was then Mr. Grenville's private secretary. This contiguity of station would afford Sir Philip Francis frequent opportunities of acquiring all that intimate and ocular knowledge of Mr. Whateley which is evinced by Junius." That is, which is evinced by Junius in the letter signed "Henricus," and the one without signature, and which are not in the genuine edition. But Mr. Taylor proves too much; for then Junius, if he were Sir Philip Francis, would also have been acquainted with Grenville, as Francis doubtless was, and there is nothing to hinder Grenville from becoming acquainted with Francis, where there is such "intimacy" between Grenville's private secretary and Francis, and where there is such "contiguity of station." Let us now produce positive proof on the other side from a genuine letter. Letter 18 says: "It is not my design to enter into a formal vindication of Mr. Grenville upon his own principles. I have neither the honor of being personally known to him, nor do I pretend to be completely master of the facts." But if Francis was Junius, this statement could not be true.

While I am upon this subject of personal knowledge and acquaintance, let me bring forward something against Francis. It is well known that he attended school for about three years with Mr. Woodfall, and that a friendship strong and intimate existed between them through life. Put over against this, from private note to Woodfall, No. 17, the following: "I doubt much whether I shall ever have the pleasure of knowing you; but if things take the turn I expect, you shall know me by my works." The italics are his own. Here is a positive statement that Junius did not know Woodfall, and an implied one that Woodfall did not know Junius. If Francis was Junius, here is confusion confounded; but if Paine was Junius, it is as clear as day. But to proceed.

In regard to Bradshaw, Chamier, and Barrington, Taylor quotes from Domitian, Veteran, Q. in the Corner, and Arthur Tell Truth, all miscellaneous letters. He also quotes once from private note No. 52, which, like the two others I have shown, is undoubtedly a forgery. This note was dated January 25, 1772, and was written with the manifest purpose of paving the way to those four low and scurrilous attacks on Lord Barrington by Veteran. These he began on the 28th, three days after the private note, and promised sixteen letters "already written," but only wrote four, when he exhausted himself. Nearly all the evidence in favor of Francis is taken from these letters. Taylor establishes not a single fact under the first head from Junius, and I believe only quotes him once, and to prove nothing. I now proceed with the next count.

"Secondly, that he was intimately acquainted with the business of the War Office." In answer to this, I will quote Taylor, page 61, as follows: "But in the letters at the end of the third volume [Letters of Veteran, vol. iii, Woodfall's Junius] it seems as if he was almost indifferent to discovery, he so clearly betrays his personal acquaintance with the proceedings of the Secretary of War." This he founds solely on Veteran.

"Thirdly, that he, during the year 1770, attended debates in the House of Lords, and took notes of the speeches, particularly of the speeches of Lord Chatham." Taylor tries to establish this claim on the letter Y. Z., which is in the Miscellaneous collection. But I insist, Y. Z. must be proven to be Junius before any inference can be drawn from it. Taylor can not even prove that Francis wrote it. But he draws an inference from the following in Philo Junius: "In regard to Lord Camden, the truth is, that he inadvertently overshot himself, as appears plainly by that unguarded mention of a tyranny of forty days, which I myself heard." The argument is, Junius heard speeches in Parliament, and therefore might have been Francis, as speeches were not reported till long after. As this extract is from authority which I indorse, I will meet it by a passage from Thomas Paine's Crisis vii, showing that he also heard debates in Parliament. Speaking of national honor, he says: "I remember the late Admiral Saunders declaring in the House of Commons, and that in the time of peace, 'that the city of Madrid laid in ashes was not a sufficient atonement for the Spaniards taking off the rudder of an English sloop of war.'"

"Fourthly, that he bitterly resented the appointment of Mr. Chamier to the place of Deputy Secretary at War." This is founded entirely on the letters of Veteran.

"Fifthly, that he was bound by some strong tie to the first Lord Holland." This argument is founded on the silence of Junius in regard to Lord Holland, and one letter of Anti-Fox, which is in the Miscellaneous collection.

These five points, then, of Taylor's argument are all founded on unauthenticated letters, and yet Macaulay says: "If this argument does not settle the question, there is an end of all reasoning on circumstantial evidence." But, if the evidence of those miscellaneous letters is to be taken as true, which were written nobody knows by whom, and collected forty years after Junius ceased writing, and which had been thrown out of the genuine edition by Junius himself, or had not yet been written, by what rule are we to be guided in settling the question? Let me present a difficulty at once. Suppose I am a Scotchman. I wish to make out a case for some one of my countrymen, and I turn to the Miscellaneous collection and find a letter signed Scotus. Ah! here is a Scotchman, as the signature denotes. I immediately begin to read, and to my happiness the first sentence is an unqualified affirmation: "My lord, I am a Scotchman." This is positive, I affirm; and then how delighted I am to find, in a private note, the assurance to Mr. Woodfall that this letter "is fact." And, more than this, the original manuscript is at this hour in existence. Now, all I have to do is to show that this disguised hand resembles that of some cotemporary Scotchman's, and Scotland has the honor. This shows how absolutely worthless any argument is, founded on the Miscellaneous Letters. Query: Did not the experts depend largely on the manuscript of this spurious Scotch epistle to make out a case of identity in handwriting? As the above five points which I have reviewed, form the head and body of Taylor's argument, it would be trifling to attack the appendages. These hints will guide the reader.

But the fact is, were the five points which Taylor enumerates and tries to prove from miscellaneous letters established, still there would be no case for Francis. But even admitting there is a good case made out for him on miscellaneous letters, there is nothing incompatible with my case in favor of Thomas Paine founded on the genuine Letters. This may be made manifest by the following further observations:

There is no evidence of any weight brought forward to prove that Francis was Junius, because it is assumed that Junius wrote those miscellaneous letters, and especially Veteran's productions. But first prove that Junius was Veteran. This can not be done, and it is an important premise in the argument left out. It would be easier to prove that Francis was Veteran; and this I do not dispute. It makes my case far stronger to have a clear case made for Francis, founded on the spurious and miscellaneous letters. But that Junius did not write the letters which Taylor makes the foundation of his argument there is abundance of internal evidence to prove. The evidence of forgery I have already adduced. But could Francis have forged the hand of Junius? I answer yes; and for the following reasons:

1. His acquaintance, friendship, intimacy, and peculiar political views would give a ready access to Woodfall's office.2. The handwriting of Junius could not be kept a secret for it went to the compositors. Nor did Woodfall keep it from the public; nor did he even keep the secrets of Junius as he ought to have done, for it was from Woodfall himself that Garrick obtained the fact that Junius would write no more, after he had compiled his work.

3. After getting a specimen of the disguised hand of Junius, Francis could easily forge it. As evidence of this I quote from Taylor, p. 278, as follows: "It has been observed of him [Francis] that he possessed so perfect a command of his pen that he could write every kind of hand." Taylor acknowledges this extraordinary power of Francis.