APPENDIX.
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.