jurious to his character, which Mr Chalmers has thought himself juftified to use, but which in truth and candour he will find himself bound to retract. 1 One of Mr Boyd's nearest relations has long thought that he was the Author of the etters of Junius, from the following pofitive facts: Ift, Towards the latter end of the year 1768, Mr Boyd, who at that period refided in Great Marlboroughftreet, began to be extremely fedulous in collecting political information of every kind, and being in habits of confidential intimacy with the late Mr Laughlin Maclene, Secretary to Lord Shelburne. as well as with fome other diftinguished political characters, whom it is unneceffary to mention here, he was enabled to obtain very early and accurate intelligence of all Minifterial proceedings. 2d, Previous to the appearance of Junius's first letter on the 21ft January, 1769, Mr Boyd was at wonder ful pains in accuftoming himself to difguife his hand writing; and he fucceeded fo happily in doing fo, that hardly any refemblance could be traced between it and his common hand. 3d, During the three years that Junius wrote for The Public Advertifer, viz. from January, 1769, to January, 1772, Mr Boyd fent letters to that paper once, twice, and fome times thrice, a month, fuperfcribed in his difguifed hand. 4th, Thefe letters were written with the moft fcrupulous fecrecy. Mrs Boyd knew not the contents of them, though he often employed her to deliver them. And there is pofitive evidence in contradiction to what, was ftated in The True Briton, that Mr Woodfall never heard of any fuch letters, nor even knew that Mr Boyd had written for his paper before the year 1777, until he was requested, about three months ago, by Mr Boyd's friends, to point out thofe letters that had been written for The Public Advertiser during the three years above mentioned. The writer in The True Briton has told the public with great confidence, that Mr Boyd's contributions to The Public Advertifer, during the time of Junius, are not to be held in comparison with the productions of that admirable writer.' Where are thofe contributions of Mr Boyd's? Mr Woodfall has honeftly confeffed he knows nothing of them; and I defy the writer in The True Briton, or any other man, to fhew me any letters of Mr Boyd's in the Public Advertiser in the fame years with thofe of Junius, except one to Sir Fletcher Norton, which was fent to Woodfall in Mrs Boyd's hand writing, and which will not be found inferior in ftrength and elegance of diction to the most finithed production of Junius's pen. Thefe facts, together with fome very ftrong concurring circumftances, will be given in detail in the new edition of Mr Boyd's Life, which will be publifhed, along with two octavo volumes of his writings, early in the eníuing winter In corroboration of the circumftantial evidence which fhall be adduced in proof of Mr Boyd having written the Letters of Junius, a letter from Mr Almon to the Editor of Mr Boyd's Works, in fupport of his affertion in the first volume of his Biographical and Political Anecdotes,that Mr Boyd was actually the Author of Junius,' will be publifhed in Mr Boyd's Life, and it contains the ftrongest prefumptive proofs of the fact afferted. From the talents and diligence of Mr Chalmers much additional information may be expected when he fhall prefent the public with the documents which he fays he has collected. But I lament that a man of his fagacity fhould have been betrayed by political prejudice, or controverfial rancour, into a violation of that decorum, the breach of which he he was at the fame moment condemning in his opponent, by endeavour ing to blacken the fair fame of departed genius, and to wound the generous feelings of an honourable family Junius,' fays he (meaning Mr Boyd,) was an United Irishman by birth, by habit, and by practice.' If he grounds this affertion on the writings of Junius, it is too abfurd to merit a reply. Every one knows that Junius, although highly blameable for the violence and afperity of his language towards a great Perfonage, was nevertheless, both in principle and practice, a zealous friend to the British Conftitution, and an avowed enemy to a Republican form of government. If the affertion be grounded on the political writings of Mr Boyd, published in Ireland, which Mr Chalmers has lately perufed, it is still more erroneous; inafmuch as there is not a fingle expreffion ia thefe writings, which even the molt ingenious calumny can poffibly torture into fedition, far lefs into any meaning whatever, that will afford Mr Chalmers the fainteft colour of julice in the inference he has drawn, To fay nothing of the forced reafoning that would trace the origin of the recent confpiracy of United Irishmen as far back as the year 1776, it must be perfectly evident to every man of common fenfe, who may have read Mr Boyd's political writings, that this affertion of Mr Chalmers is unfounded in fact, unjustifiable in argument, and altogether uncalled for in the investigation in which he was engaged. Mr Hugh Boyd was in truth, throughout his whole life, by principle, by habit, and by practice, an Arifiocratical Whig; and with regard to the French Revolution, he was fo early as 1789 decidedly of Mr Burke's opinions, which, until the day of his death, he uniformly and ardently continued to fupport. It remains to fay a few words re } lative to another expreffion in Mr Chalmers's Book: Hugh MacAulay,' fays he, who affumed the name of Boyd,' &c. Now as Mr Chalmers was perfectly well acquainted with the cause of Mr Boyd's changing his name, he ought to have explained it, or at least not to have used a phrase which admitted of the following interpretation; MacAulay,' fays the writer in the True Briton, might have changed his name to Boyd; but would a man, with the fubtlety and caution of Junius, have fubjected his character to the difgrace of an alias?' The writer of this obfervation himself will think it abfurd, when he is informed that Hugh MacAulay changed his name to Boyd in ftrict conformity to the will of his maternal grandfather, Hugh Boyd, Efq. of Bally Caftle, in the county of Antrim, who bequeathed to his grandfon, Hugh MacAulay, part of the eftate of Bally Cattle, on condition of changing his name from MacAulay to Boyd. Tranfactions of this nature are fo common, that it were a waste of time to fay any thing farther on the subject, and so pleasant, that I am fure the writer in The True Briton is a man of too much tafte to throw any odium upon them!! Thus much I have thought it my duty to ftate in this place. When the new edition of Mr Boyd's Life fhall be published next winter, the public will be furnished with the most ample means of judging whether he was in reality the celebrated Junius. The Editor of Mr Boyd's Works*. PADDINGTON, Aug. 4, 1799. MR EDITOR, I refterday heard that an article had appeared in your paper of Fuefday, figned The Editor of Mr Boyd's Works, and entitled A few facts * Mr Laurence Dundas Campbell. Editor. con concerning the late Hugh Boyd, the reputed Author of Junius.' I immediately fent for the paper and read it. I mean not to interfere in the smallest degree with the controversy between the Editor of Mr Boyd's Works and Mr Chalmers; but I come forward in the caufe of truth, and with a view to rescue the public from the grofs error refpecting the Author of Junius, into which Mr Almon firit, and the Editor of Mr Boyd's Works and Mr Chalmers, have equally failen, when they took upon them to affert, and next to attempt to prove, that the late Mr Hugh Boyd was the writer of the popular political letters which appeared in The Public Advertiser be tween the commencement of the year 1769 and a part of the year 1772, under the fignature of Junius. That Gentleman, whoever he was, wrote in the Public Advertiser under the three diftinct fignatures, which constitute one celebrated Roman name, Lucius Junius Brutus, exclufive of, what he himself terms auxiliary part of his Correfpondence,' the letters figned Philo Junius, I beHeve I may fafely affert, that every one of his letters was fhewn to me in manufcript by my brother previ ous to publication, and no one of them ever bore the appearance of being written in a disguised hand. the of literary talent. The writer in The True Briton was therefore amply justified in faying, that Mr Boyd's contributions to The Public Advertifer, in the fame years with thofe of Junius, are not to be held in comparifon with the productions of that admirable writer.". Mr Boyd was a respectable man, and undoubtedly a valuable correfpondent to a certain extent to any newfpaper; but he did not poffefs any thing like an equal degree of that tafte in compofition, and that command of words, which fo evidently diftinguish the letters figned Junius. The felicity of expreffion and beauty of Ryle in thofe letters are fo captivating, that a judicious reader who would perufe them now (when the subject of each is no longer impulfive on the paffions, but capable of calm confideration, as a matter of hiftorical controversy.) will, often find a weak argument rendered too dazzling and fplendid for immediate detection, by the glare of brilliant phrafeology. The Editor of Mr Boyd's Works afks- Where are thofe contributions of Mr Boyd's that are to prove that they were not to be held in comparison with the productions of that admirable writer (Junios?) Mr Woodfall has honeftly confeffed, he knows nothing of them.' Has heWhen? 1 was prefent at the converfation, when the Editor of Mr Boyd's Works called on my brother, and queftioned him on the fubject at his houfe at Chelfea, and I do not recollect any fuch confeffion. On the contrary, I well remember that the Gentleman had the fulleft affur. ances from my brother, that Mr Boyd was not the writer of the letters During the period that Junius was in the habit of correfponding with The Public Advertiser, the late Mr Hugh Boyd was in that habit like wife, but not as a ftudioufly concealed writer; and, however Mr Boyd might difguife his hand writing (in which, by the bye, he could not eafily deceive the acute difcernment of a newspaper printer's eye, although-figned Junius; and my brother alfo he might poffibly efcape the detection of others,) it must be admitted on all hands, that he could not difguife his ftyle, and leaft of all in that molt extraordinary way of writing, infinitely above his own reach told him that Mr Boyd was his frequent correfpondent. When the Editor in queftion declares, that he defies the writer in The True Briton, or any other man, to fhew him any other letters of Mr Boyd Boyd in The Public Advertiser, in the fame years of thofe of Junius, except one to Sir Fletcher Norton, which will not be found inferior in ftrength and elegance of diction to the most finished production of Junius's pen,' I would humbly hint to him, that he hurls too bold a defi. ance, and rifques more than he imagines. There is one man living, who could not only directly meet his challenge, but with certainty of fuc cess-I mean my own brother, who had feveral letters from Mr Boyd, which were inferted in The Public Advertiser, the mere perufal of which would fhew that Mr Boyd's compofition, though tolerably adapt ed to winter wear, like a frieze home-fpun great coat, is not to be compared to the fuper fine broad cloth of Junius, manufactured from the best Spanish wool, and equally ornamental and ferviceable in all fea fons. They were remarkably zealous to increase the numbers of what, likes the Mahometans, they chose to term themselves, the True Believers. I know the whole of the affertion, that Mr Boyd was the writer of the letters figned Junius,' to be founded in mifapprehenfion; and, if Mr Almon were to multiply letters in fupport of his affertion till they fwell to volumes, I fhould still feel the moft perfect conviction, not on ly that Mr Boyd was not the writer of the letters under the fignature of Junius, but, I am forry the Editor of that Gentleman's Works obliges› me to add, I am fatisfied Mr Boyd was not capable of composing fuch letters. I defire not, however, to have my opinion relied on as authority; let the critical reader compare the ftyle, language, and fentiments of The Indian Obferver with those of the Letters of Junius, and judge for himself. I do not mean to infinuate, be- It may perhaps be asked, What cause I do not believe, that the Gen- has Mr W. Woodfall to do with tleman who edited Mr Boyd's Works this argument? Nobody appeals to defigned to practise any delufion n him; he was not the printer of Jus the public. It was natural for him nius's Letters.' I have an answer to wish to exalt the character and ready for impertinence. The caufe do honour to the memory of his de- of truth is every man's caufe, and I ceafed friend, Mr Boyd. I wonder would willingly go out of my way not, therefore, at his lending a will to ferve it. In the prefent instance, ing ear to the affertion of Mr Al-, 1 do not go out of my way. No man mon, an affertion founded in igno- living knows more of the conduct rance, and broached in prefumption; of Junius in the management of this but I cannot but fmile when I find correfpondence, and all its relations, an old fox trapped so easily, and ob- than I do, my brother alone exceptserve a respectable, well-informed, ed. He is, at prefent, at a confiderand experienced writer, like Mr able diftance from London, and even Chalmers, become a dupe to the de- were he nearer, I know him too lufion, and take pains to fpread the well to imagine that he would confallacy. When fenfible man a has descend to put pen to paper on a fubonce fuffered his understanding to ject fo abfolutely a matter of mere be taken by furprife, he is anxious curiofity. It is altogether novel in to make converts to keep him in practice to interrogate newspaper countenance.-This was precifely printers as to their correfpondents, the cafe with those who gave credit and the mifconceptions of the Edi.. to the authenticity of Vortigern, and tor of Mr Boyd's Works clearly the pretended Shakspeare papers. fhews, to what grofs abuse the mere fub fubmitting to be queftioned on fuch fubjects, leads. 1 am, Mr Editor, Your humble fervant, P. S. I obferved a letter in The True Briton of Thurfday laft, on the fubject of Junius's Letters, fign ed An Old Obferver, the writer of which fays, Mr Woodfall, the printer of The Public Advertiser, in which the letters were originally, in ferted, was not intrufted with the name of the Author, though he was certainly fecured from the pecuniary penalties, and indemnified from any other inconvenience which might be rifqued as the publisher of them. This affertion I have more than once heard, and always contradicted. To my knowledge, the printer of The Public Advertiser never afked for any indemnity, nor was any offered him. He was left to the free exercife of his own discretion, and had he acted on any other principle, though my own brother, 1 fhould be among the first to declare that he had acted moft unwarrantably; because it has ever been my opinion, that a printer who condefcended to receive an indemnity, betrayed a confciousness that he was about to do wrong, and took a bribe to quiet his fcruples. If, after this explanation, any future writer fhould hazard a fimilar affertion with that above ftated, I shall content myfelf with aufwering him in the words of Father Valerian, as cited by the late Bifhop Warburton, in the advertise went prefixed to his edition of Pope's Works, Mentiris Impudentiffime. IMPEACHMENT OF THE FRENCH EX-DIRECTORS. 1. By attacking, without any previous manifefto or declaration, with out the concurrence of the Legifla tive Body, the Ottoman Emperor, our Ally, by the invafion of Egypt, a country under his domination; and that at a time when the Ottoman Government, fo far from being in a ftate of imminent or commenced hof tilities, or of threats or preparations of war against the Republic, had ftill, on the contrary, an Ambaffador amongst us. 2. By invading Switzerland with out a previous manifefto or declaration, and without the concurrence of the Legislative Body, when the Hel vetic Government was neither in a ftate of imminent or commenced hoftility, of threats or preparations of war against the Republic; and while the wrongs or complaints which we had to impute to them might be redreffed either by fuch changes as the operation of public opinion prepared in that flate, or by fuch as our fituation and the force of trea uch arrangements ties had given us a right to propofe and expect. CHARGE II They have refused to acknowledge the Sovereignty of the Peo ple. 1. By modifying, by the means of violence only, the Conftitution which the Cifalpines and Batavians had accepted and fworn to maintain immediately on the recovery of their li berty; by caufing to be enforced by violence, and in the name of the French Republic, the changes introduced into the Conftitution of a people declared free, acknowledged as independent, and as our Ally. |