found learning and vaft abilities of the great author of THE DIVINE LEGATION OF MOSES, and the many other works of that author, which difplay uncommon fagacity and erudition, might justify a lofty consciousness of his own abilities, which a pamphleteer denominated by the familiar term impudence, the world muft determine. Perhaps, however, the anonymous writer of the pamphlet, if he were alive at this period, and directed his notice towards literary questions, would be inclined to pay more respect to the great WARBURTON, and apply the imputation of fuperior confidence to an author of a much humbler defcription. The publisher of the Works of HUGH BOYD, we should conceive, if he had any fenfe of modesty, would have been contented to reprefent Mr. BoyD as the fuppofed or the probable author of Junius, but to affert, point blank, in his title page, that Mr. BoxD actually was the author, is a ftretch of boldnets almoft without a precedent in the annals of literature. It is, indeed, fuch an exertion of effrontery, and fuch an infult to mankind, as calls for marked reprobation. Nothing but pofitive demonstration of the fact could authorize fuch a pofitive affirmation. The queftion, as to the real author of Junius, has been often difcuffed, and many persons have been fufpected, but though probabilities have led to particular individuals, yet, when thefe probabilities have been examined, they have been found to amount to nothing fatisfactory Moft, however, of the suspected individuals, from time of life, abilities, political connections, experience, and opportunities of information, have more reasonably attracted the eye of curiofity and furprise, and may still more rationally justify fufpicion than a young obfcure adventurer but recently arrived from a place remote from the scene of action, and but little acquainted with characters and events that were obviously familiar to Junius. It appears, that Mr. Almon, the predeceffor of Mr. Debrett, in Piccadilly, gave occafion to the notion that Hugh Boyd was Junius, and the reafon is a very curious one, viz. his having feen the manufcript of one of Junius's Letters, at a meeting of Proprietors of the London Evening Poft, in the Autumn of 1769, when it was fhewn to the company by Mr. H. S. Woodfall; and Mr. Almon tells us, that the moment he faw the hand-writing he had a strong fufpicion that it was Mr. Boyd's, whofe hand-writing he knew, having received feveral letters from him concerning Books." So that without knowing much of the literary talents of Mr. Boyd, for he had written merely concerning books, and only from a fuppofed fimilarity in the handwriting, Mr. Almon strongly fufpects that Hugh Boyd is Junius. But the reafon which Mr. Campbell, the publisher, gives for his confidence in Almon's difcovery, is ftill more curious, for he he fays, "previous to the appearance of Junius's Letters, Mr. Boyd had accustomed himself to write in a disguised hand." Now Mr. Almon contends that Boyd was Junius, because the manufcript of Junius nearly refembled the common hand-writing of Hugh Boyd, fo that the fagacious Mr. Campbell believes in Mr. Almon's difcovery, becaufe it is probable that Hugh Boyd, by his previous preparation, had written Junius's Letters in a difguifed hand, and that he should make his disguised hand nearly refemble his ordinary mode of writing. Such a medley of confufion can hardly be reduced to order, even by the profound judgment of Mefirs. Campbell and Almon. But Mr. Almon, it feems, gave Boyd a strong hint that he believed him to be the author of Junius, and he changed colour instantly, and after a fhort paufe faid, "the fimilitude of hand-writing is not a conclufive fact." Without prefuming to diftruft the veracity of Mr. Almon, it should be obferved, that this relation depends only on his teftimony, and the affertion of an individual cannot be admitted to have much force in dialectics. Befides a fudden, unexpected, accufation may make a man change colour, whether that accufation be founded on truth or falsehood. He might blush, from pride, at the idea of being important enough to be fufpected of ability to write works of fuch admired popularity; or he might blufh with indignation at the abrupt indelicacy with which Mr. Almon might vent his fufpicion. Thefe, however, are fubordinate grounds in the enquiry, as to the real author of Junius; a queftion which the author of Junius, by a folemn declaration, has fet at reft, and for ever put out of the reach of discovery, for it must be remembered, that Junius has made this positive declaration: “I am the fole depofitary of my own fecret, and it shall perish with me.' If, therefore, Junius had ever voluntarily difcovered himself, he would have violated his own folemn declaration, and could have had no claim to the confidence of mankind. That a man fo cautious, and fo full of artifice, would have left it to the power of accident to have difcovered him involuntarily is not to be imagined But Mr. Campbell grounds his chief argument, for his perfuafion, that Hugh Boyd was Junius, upon the refemblance in the ftructure of the language and congeniality of political fentiment in both writers. The first letter of Junius was published in January, 1769, and at that period Hugh Boyd was but little turned of twenty-two years of age. Granting him abilities equal to what Junius poffeffed, it is not to be imagined that he poffeffed the fame political knowledge, experience, and art. Mr. Boyd's papers, published in Ireland, entitled, The Freeholders, were written in 1776, eight years after the firft letter of Junius, for we may include 1769 in the account, as that letter appeared at the beginning of the year. In the courfe of eight years Mr. Boyd's mind muft have been much improved and his knowledge much augmented; and if paffages may be found in his writings ftrongly refembling paflages in Junius, and if there be a correfpondence in political principles, fuch parallels may easily be fupposed to be the effects of Mr. Boyd's known admiration of Junius and a ftudious attempt to keep him as his model in style and fentiment. Such occafional fimilitudes, however, do not prove much, and even if the uniform tenour of Boyd's writings correfponded with that of Junius, in form and fubftance, that conformity would be far from decifive. With Boyd's acknowledged talents it would be ftrange, indeed, if, in the courte of eight years, he could not fufficiently imbue his mind with the character of Junius, to be a fuccefsful imitator of his compofitions. The merit is in the original, and when once the original has been fubmitted to the world the task of imitation is not fo difficult as feems to be imagined. We might illuftrate this fubject by a reference to the art of PAINTING, in which a copyift, though wholly incapable of producing works equal to those of a great mafter, fhall copy those works with fuch spirit and correctness as to deceive the original artist himfelf with a conviction that they were the labours of his own pencil. But Mr. Boyd, though unquestionably a man of abilitics, has written nothing that can be compared with the general merits of Junius as a writer, and the paffages which are brought from Boyd and put in competition with Junius have more the air of plagiarism than imitation. In The Indian Obferver, publifhed by Boyd in the year 1793, there appears to be no refemblance to the ftyle and manner of Junius. The fubjects, indeed, are not controverfial and political, but, as GIBBON obferves, " ftyle is the image of character," and if Hugh Boyd were Junius the peculiarities of his manner would characterife his compofitions whatever might be the fubject. The probable inference is that time, employment, and defultory itudy, had effaced, or impaired, Hugh Boyd's fuperinduced habits of writing in imitation of Junius, when he was in India, and that, after the lapfe of fo many years, he thought and wrote as he would have done if he had never propofed Junius as his model. We have chiefly directed our attention to the works of Hugh Boyd, with a view to the suspicion of his being the author of Junius, because, though they evince a ftrong understanding and a manly fpirit, there is nothing in them that fhews any literary merits which entitle them to critical pra fe, and to the immortality of the prefs. His Journal of an Ebafly from the Government of Madras to the King of of Candy, in Ceylon, contains nothing very interesting; it feems, indeed, to be chiefly the complaints of the ftomach, for an indifferent fupply of provifions. His FREEHOLDER, published in Ireland, to fupport a particular candidate for a feat in Parliament, and his WHIG, published in London, are all upon the trite topics of liberty, the conftitution, the country, &c. &c. which, however facred in themfelves, are generally employed by political readers for the promotion of party views. Mr. Campbell has given, in the first volume, a life of Mr. Boyd, well written, but overburthened with elaborate attempts to magnify his hero, and to bring the public into a belief that Boyd is Junius. Indeed Mr. Campbell difplays to much judgment and knowledge when he is not purfuing the hand in band phantoms of BOYD and JUNIUS, that, if Mr. Almon had not originally fet the chace on foot, we fhould be tempted to fuppofe that he is ambitious of being the founder of a fect of believers, while he himself is fecretly triumphing in his fuccefs and laughing at their credulity. ART. VIII. An Appendix to the Supplemental Apology for the Believers in the fuppofititious Shakspeare Papers: being the Documents for the Opinion that Hugh M'Auley Boyd wrote Junius's Letters. By George Chalmers, F. R. S. S. A. 8vo. PP. 156. Egerton. London. 1800. AVING faid fo much upon the fubject of Hugh Boyd and Junius, in the preceding article, we may be excufed from entering into a very extenfive examination of a work upon the fame fubject, though recommended even by the refpectable name of Mr. Chalmers. Mr. Chalmers, with his ufual industry, has collected all the documents which might . favour the fufpicion that Hugh Boyd is the author of Junius, and with his ufual judgment has placed them in the most advantageous point of view. Still, however, nothing but conjecture is the refult, and that conjecture is opposed by such frong arguments, that we confefs we cannot find conviction where Mr. Chalmers thinks he has discovered it. Mr. Chalmers, with great ftrength of reafoning, examines the grounds upon which feveral diftinguished characters have been conceived to be the authors of the letters which have excited fo much admiration and fo much controverfy, and, with great cogency of argument, impugns the fufpicions which have been attached to each of thofe characters. Among them Lord Sackville, William Gerard Hamilton, Edmund Burke, John Dunning, (Lord Afhburton,) John Roberts, Charles Lloyd, Samuel Dyer, and John Wilkes, are particularly and elaborately elaborately noticed, and we think Mr. Chalmers has given very forcible reafons for difbelieving that any one of them was the author of the compofitions afcribed to him. As to Charles Lloyd, we have reafon to believe that Dr. Parr is convinced he was really the author of Junius; upon what grounds we know not, but we should conceive, that, upon a literary queftion, not immediately connected with the politics and parties of the day, Dr. Parr is not likely to form a judgment upon hafty views and flight foundations. Confidering the diligence and caution which feem to be effential features in Mr. Chalmers's literary character, we cannot avoid being much furprized at his confident perfuafion, that the anecdotes of the author of Junius, prefixed to the edition of his works, pu lifhed in 1771, were written by Junius himself. There is no reafon to believe, and certainly no proof, that Junius gave fanction to any regular collection of his letters, till he wrote the dedication and preface for the edition publifhed by H. S. Woodfall, in the year 1772; yet Mr. Chalmers, in many places, feems to admit it as received proof, that Junius wrote the anecdotes alluded to, in which he highly praifes himfelf, and endeavours to mislead the public into a belief, that Edmund Burke is the author. We know no reafon to believe, as we have faid, that Junius was the author of those anecdotes, which were probably produced by the ufual artifice of a book feller, to take advantage of public curiofity; and, though Junius might have folid grounds for refigning the honour of being known in his real character, yet it is highly improbable that he would fuffer any brow but his own to wear the wreath of immortality, unless, indeed, it may be inferred, that Mr. Burke was actually the author, and was defirous, at once, of escaping the danger, and enjoying the fame, of fuch compofitions, an inference that Mr. Chalmers will afluredly not be inclined to draw, though it is the only one confiftent with the principles of human nature, and his own idea that Junius was the author of the anecdotes, published in 1771, and not noticed in the edition fanctioned by himself, and published the following year. Upon the whole, however we may differ with Mr. Chalmers on the long-agitated queftion, Who was Junius? We can fairly recommend his APPENDIX to our readers, as a work abounding in literary anecdote, judicious criticifin, and forcible reafoning, too ftrongly indeed tinctured with the paflions of a difputant upon topics that relate to his own reputation as a writer and a politician. Before we conclude we cannot help noticing fome paffages in this work which do not feem to have fuch confiftency with each other as might be expected from the accurate judgement of this author. He fays (P. 4.)" that the papers of |