Junius Unmasked Part 32

Besides the above, the letters of Junius are finished productions, which took much time and care to write, and Junius could not therefore be the author of all those miscellaneous letters attributed to him in Woodfall's edition, for the time is too short to produce them. But it is preposterous to a.s.sume that Francis could attend to his clerical duties, and often take down speeches in Parliament, and at the same time write all those letters, both genuine and miscellaneous.

Again in the _genuine_ Letters, there is perfect harmony from the first to the last. There is the same sentiment, spirit, object and style, throughout the whole, and not a single contradiction anywhere to be found. This can not be said of the Miscellaneous Letters, as I have already shown. I would particularly call attention to the language of Junius when charged by Mr. Horne of writing under various signatures, and that he was known. To this Junius responds: "I rely on the consciousness of _my own integrity_, and defy him to fix any colorable charge of inconsistency upon me." The whole _life_, as well as writings of Thomas Paine, sustains this a.s.sertion. I have studied Paine and Junius with this affirmation in view, and never have I found Paine to express an opinion inconsistent with Junius. Sometimes there is a change of opinion which he indicates or points out. For example, Junius thought highly of the English army. Paine had reason to change his mind in regard to it, and he says, he once thought the same and reasoned from the same prejudices.

These facts are enough to open the eyes of the reader, and to show him that Taylor's Junius Identified, is a literary fraud no doubt innocently perpetrated. Taylor jumped at a conclusion, namely, that the Miscellaneous Letters were the letters of Junius, and took them as authority, without one thought of inquiry into their authenticity. But his great work should have been, first to _prove_ the Miscellaneous Letters _genuine_. After this he should have shown that Francis was a Scotchman, who was chagrined at the abuse of the Scotch, and at the same time was an Englishman who was intensely exasperated at the Scotch, and that these two facts are not inconsistent with his being an Irishman.

In conclusion, I will submit the following letter of Francis in reply to the editor of the Monthly Magazine, who had made inquiry of Sir Philip, in regard to his being the author of the Letters of Junius:

JULY, 1813.

SIR--The great civility of your letter induces me to answer it, which, with reference merely to its subject matter, I should have declined. Whether you will a.s.sist in giving currency to a silly, malignant falsehood, is a question for your own discretion. To me it is a matter of perfect indifference.

I am sir, yours, etc., P. FRANCIS.

I think the word _silly_ in the above letter has a telling significance.