'I have receiv'd your packet of the 17th of July. You are very tenacious of your epigram. I observe you contend for it as if your reputation as a poet depended on it. I did not condemn the composition-I only said it was not an original, and I say so still; but yet I am ready to allow you can weave originals, because 'In the School of the Graces, by Venus attended, published 'Life of Francis' that his cousin | served, seems to have waged battle for the and familiar friend, Mr. Richard Tilghman, originality of his epigram. Tilghman rewas with Francis at Bath when the Verses plied in the following letter, which ends with were sent to Miss Giles, it struck Mr. Twisle- the quotation of the two first lines of the ton that Francis might possibly have availed second stanza of the Verses:himself of the services of Tilghman as an 'MY DEAR FRANCIS, amanuensis. Fortunately, in the Letter Book of Francis, which was in Mr. Twisleton's possession, there were six Letters written to Francis by Tilghman. These were now submitted, together with the Verses, to Mr. Chabot, who expressed his unhesitating conviction that the Verses were in the handwriting of Tilghman, and embodied his opinion in one of the Reports here printed. It would seem that Francis, with his usual caution, was unwilling to bring his own handwriting into any connection with that of Junius, and accordingly wrote the note himself in the Junian hand, employing his friend Tilghman to copy the Verses, who probably never saw the Note. We have already referred our readers to Mr. Twisleton's narrative for the proof of the essential point that the Note and the Verses came from Francis; but we will now mention the circumstance to which we alluded, and which proves incontestably that Tilghman was acquainted with the Verses. In 1772 Francis, who was in Italy, wrote a letter to Dr. John Campbell, a leading littérateur of the day. He was evidently proud of this letter, and attached so much importance to it, that he sent a copy of it to his friend Tilghman, who had returned to Philadelphia in America, of which place he was a native. The letter contains the following Latin Epigram, which Francis wrote upon a marble lion in the Medici Palace : Belinda improves ev'ry hour." Upon this Mr. Twisleton remarks: 'Now on an attentive consideration of this paragraph, it seems clear that Tilghman himself cannot be regarded as the author of the two lines, inasmuch as, in that case, the quotation of them would be wanting in point, and be nearly irrelevant. The subject under discussion is a poetical composition of Francis, and Tilghman, while he stoutly denies the ori ginality of that particular composition, declares himself ready to allow that Francis can weave Verses. This quotation would be singularly originals, and then quotes the two lines of the inappropriate if Tilghman was merely quoting two lines of his own composition; while it was apposite, and might have been soothing to Francis after the assault on his epigram, if it alluded to Francis's Verses. The latter, therefore, may safely be adopted as the correct exit is very much the same as if Tilghman had planation of the passage; and the meaning of written, "I deny that the conception of your epigram was original, but I do not deny that you can weave originals, for your power to do this has been proved by your verses on Belinda." At the same time, he probably quoted these two particular lines from a catch of fancy in a play of words; to say that, as Belinda, in the School of the Graces, "improv'd ev'ry hour," so Francis improved what he borrowed, and thus made his compositions originals.' The circumstances we have narrated above having enabled Mr. Twisleton to test the sagacity and independence of Mr. Chabot, it occurred to him as probable that, if sufficient materials were placed at Mr. Chabot's disposal, he would be able to give a sound opinion on the much more important question whether Sir Philip Francis did, or did not, handwrite the Letters of Junius. In regard to Francis, Mr. Twisleton procured from a grand-daughter of Sir Philip Francis, through Mr. Merivale, one of the two authors of the Life of Francis,' a Letter-Book containing forty-two original Letters written and sent by Francis to his brother-in-law or to his wife in the years from 1767 to 1771 inclusive. And in regard to Junius, not only published the result of his investigations into had the Trustees of the British Museum recently purchased all the original Letters and writings of Junius in the possession of Mrs. Parkes, which had belonged first to Mr. Henry Dick Woodfall, and afterwards to her late husband, Mr. Parkes, but Mr. Murray readily gave access to the original Manuscripts of the Letters of Junius to Mr. Grenville which were in his possession. Under these circumstances Mr. Twisleton gave formal written instructions to Mr. Chabot that he should submit the handwriting of Junius to a searching comparison with the Letters of Sir Philip Francis, and should state, professionally, his opinion in writing whether the letters of Francis and Junius respectively were, or were not, written by the same hand.' Subsequently Mr. Twisleton requested Mr. Chabot to report whether the negative could, or could not, be proved respecting Lady Temple and Lord George Sackville, as well as the affirmative respecting Sir Philip Francis. This request was suggested to Mr. Twisleton by what had passed respecting the anonymous Verses, when Mr. Chabot had negatived Francis's claim before Tilghman had been discovered as their handwriter; and it seemed to Mr. Twisleton interesting to ascertain whether there were or were not, any habits or peculiarities of writing in Lady Temple, or Lord George Sackville, which peared to Mr. Chabot incompatible, or not easy to be reconciled, with habits or pecu-To prove that two documents were written liarities in the handwriting of Junius. ap persons The result is contained in two elaborate reports, occupying 197 quarto pages, one on the handwriting of Sir Philip Francis, and the other on the handwritings of Lady Temple, Lord George Sackville, and others, These are followed by facsimiles, taken by photo-lithography, of the letters of Junius and of the proof-sheets of these letters, as well as by similar facsimiles of the letters of Sir Philip Francis and of the other to whom the authorship of the Junian Letters has been at various times ascribed. Thus we have an amount of evidence which has never previously been presented to the public; and, indeed, as far as Francis is concerned, all the facsimiles of his autographs which have been published in 'Junius Identified,' in the 'Chatham Correspondence,' and in the Memoirs of Sir P. Francis,' do not, combined, quite equal in the number of words the first Letter of Francis contained in the volume before us. There is one peculiar feature in these Reports to which Mr. Twisleton directs special attention: 'As far as is known, they are the only instance in which an expert has deliberately In seeking to prove that two different handwritings have been made use of by the same person, it is important to observe the method pursued in the investigation. Most persons are content with a general comparison, without endeavouring to ascertain the principles which govern the handwriting, or the characteristic habits in the two handwritings under discussion. They thus form their judgment by the impression left upon their minds by general similarity, without that careful examination of the peculiar and distinctive formations of individual letters which characterise the writing. The principles which underlie all proof by comparison of handwriting are very simple, and when distinctly enunciated, appear to be self-evident. To prove that two documents were written by the same hand, coincidences must be shown to exist in them which cannot be accidental. by different hands, discrepancies must be pointed out in them which cannot be accounted for by accident or by disguise. These principles are easy to understand, but to exemplify them in observations is by no means always easy.' It is the merit of these Reports that they give an analysis of the handwriting by examining separately the elements or letters of which it is composed. It would be impossible, however, to convey any adequate idea of the method pursued by Mr. Chabot in his investigation without entering into minute details; and even then they would be hardly intelligible without constant reference to the lithographed plates, which we have not the means of reproducing on our pages. But we can promise such of our readers as will take the trouble to study the help of the lithographed plates, a rich Mr. Chabot's remarks and reasoning, with mine of instruction on a subject which had never yet been explained in any systematic treatise. We may first state in general the conclusions at which Mr. Chabot has arrived on the long-disputed controversy respecting the Junian handwriting. 'I find generally,' says Mr. Chabot, in the writing of the Letters of Sir Philip Francis so much variety in the formation of all letters which admit of variety as to render his handwriting difficult to disguise in any ordinary manner, and consequently easy to identify. I discover also in the writing of the Letters and Manuscripts of Junius variations in the formation of certain letters, in some cases very multifarious, and of frequent occurrence, and that these variations closely correspond with those observed in the writing of Sir Philip Francis. They are, however, chiefly confined to the small letters in both handwritings; the habitual formation of capital letters being seldom departed from in any essential particular in either. I find also, in some instances, wherein Junius makes exaggerated formations of certain letters, exact counterparts of them are to be found in the writing of Sir Philip Francis, and in some cases as nearly as possible with the same frequency, I further find in the handwriting of Sir Philip Francis a repetition of all, or nearly all, the leading features and peculiar habits of writing, independent of the formations of letters, which so distinguish the Junian writing. These are so numerous, so varied, and in some cases so distinctive, that, when taken collectively, it is scarcely within the limits of possibility that they can be found in the handwriting of any two persons. I am, therefore, irresistibly driven to the conclusion that the Junian Manuscripts and the forty-four Letters of Francis have all been written by one and the same hand.' It is obvious, upon a momentary glance, that the letters of Junius are written in a feigned hand: 'Upon examination, I find that the principal features of the disguise consist of the very common practice of altering the accustomed slope, and, in many cases, writing in a smaller hand, whilst that which is of more importance, viz. the radical forms of letters, is repeatedly neglected. It is difficult, whilst the mind is engaged on the subject-matter of the writing, to avoid occasionally, indeed frequently, falling into some of the habits of writing peculiar to the writer. The simple expedients of altering the usual slope and size of the writing may be maintained without difficulty, but it becomes very trying to attend to details at the same FRANCIS. JUNIUS. time. I have never met with a writer who could do so, and sustain a consistent and complete disguise throughout a piece of writing of moderate length.' One of the most striking characteristics of the Junian handwriting is the fineness of the strokes. It had been often remarked that Junius must have written with an extremely fine pen. His handwriting is finer and smaller than that of Francis; and a finely made pen, as Mr. Chabot remarks, would be a necessary auxiliary to enable a person, like Francis, who habitually wrote in a bold hand, to reduce the size of his writing. Moreover, a bold handwriting would instinctively suggest the contrast of a fine and diminished style of writing for a feigned hand. It has been suggested to us by a friend that Junius may have maintained without effort the persistent fineness of his lines by using a crow-quill-a suggestion which seems to us very probable, though we do not remember to have seen it made before. Mr. Chabot brings forward two distinct classes of evidence to identify the handwriting of Sir Philip Francis with that of Junius, one relating to the formation of letters, and to peculiarities connected therewith, and the other to habits of writing which do not necessarily depend on such formations and peculiarities. The former class cannot, as we have already said, be made intelligible without reference to the plates; but certain specialities will be readily understood by the help of a few woodcuts. First as to the general construction of the Junian handwriting: 'Upon an attentive examination, it will be found that the slope of the Junian writing differs from that of Francis's principally in the down-strokes of the letters; and that the slope of the up-strokes, which is very horizontally inclined, is, as nearly as may be, the same in both. This will become clearly apparent upon an examination and comparison of the following facsimiles : me the proof the 'Some writers make both the upper and ter, No. 38 (Plate 202), wherein the upper lower turns of their letters angular; others turns of the letters are extremely angular, and give them considerable roundness; the results the lower turns are well rounded, in addition are two opposite styles of writing. When to which the latter are extremely wide. If he Francis wrote rapidly, his writing partook of altered the down-strokes by making them both characteristics in an eminent degree. See more upright, without making any corresthe first seven lines of the 3rd page of his Let-ponding alteration in the up-strokes of his writing, those three qualifications would necessarily be augmented and become more distinctly apparent. Be that as it may, they are the principles upon which the Junian hand is constructed. 'When Junius altered the natural tendency of his hand, which he sometimes attempted for the purpose of disguising it, by making the lower as well as the upper turns of his letters angular, the two leading characteristics of extreme breadth to the former and narrowness to the latter still remain (see his Letter to Woodfall, No. 3). It is not only the fineness and smallness of the writing, but also the angularity of so many of the lower turns of the writing of that Letter that occasions the strong contrast of its general character to that of the Letters to Woodfall, Nos. 7, 9, 12, and 22, and others of the Junian writing. Although many of the Letters of Junius contrast with each other in their general appearance, the construction of the writing of all is based upon these principles:-In all, the upper turns of the letters are angular and cramped, and the lower turns wide and free; and the latter are habitually, though not al ways well rounded, agreeably with the natural tendency of Francis's writing, particularly when he wrote rapidly. The extreme width of the lower turns of the letters frequently occasioned in the Junian hand as much space between the letters as between words, as shown in the subjoined facsimiles : Comam hardy have that the may may dall cour that The following word, taken from Junius's first Letter to Mr. Grenville, forcibly illustrates these three peculiarities :— attachment to 'In that facsimile the upper turns of the letter h and m are angular in the extreme, and the lower turn of the letter h is so round and wide that it occasions almost as much space between the two letters as is afforded between that word and the word following it.' The following may be mentioned as some of the specialities in the handwritings of Junius and Francis: 'I. Sir Philip Francis was apt to write the letter i in the word "time" upside down, as in the following facsimiles: time hime He has done so in eight of the twenty-one in- Time Moreover, the general character of the writing of that word corresponds closely with the two instances taken from Francis's writing. II. But, further, Francis, having written the word "time," in the middle of a sentence, in the peculiar manner shown, had the habit of occasionally making an addition to the small letter t, which had the effect of converting it (improperly) into a capital letter, thus :—— found time your time Second time 'Both of these peculiarities occur in the word "time" written on the 1st page of Junius's first Letter to Mr. Grenville, thus : Mean Time + The Letter from which that word is taken is dated only a month after the date of Francis's Letter from which the first of the two facsimiles of the word "time" is taken, and it time." The form of the addition made by occurs in the same phrase, viz. "in the mean Junius does not exactly correspond with that by Francis, because he was disguising his hand; but the habit or intention is the same, notwithstanding the difference of form. This by Junius, was not uniformly maintained. disguise, however, like many others adopted There is another instance in which no difference of form appears. Francis occasionally made this addition to the small letter t when he wrote the word "thing" in the middle of a sentence where no capital letter was needed, as in the following facsimiles : Every Thing anything any Thing Every Thing 'It will be observed in each case that, if the addition be removed, the word will remain written with a small letter t, commenced with an upstroke in the usual manner, and that the entire word has been written by a single operation of the pen, sustained on the paper until the word has been completed. Those two peculiarities are by no means frequent in the Junian writings; their occurrence in Francis's hand suggests the source whence they are derived. They occur in other words in his writing at irregular intervals, insufficient to be regarded as habits of writing, but rather as inadvertencies to which he was liable. Another instance of an inverted letter i occurs in the word "writing," and "write," in Francis's Letters, thus ;— unte writing It also occurs in similar words in Junius to 'In the same way that Francis formed the letter i similarly to a letter r, so he formed (and far more frequently) the letter r like a letter . The writing of Junius is equally plentiful in these irregularities. 'III. In Junius to Woodfall, the two letters v and e of the second syllable of the word "Cavendish" are omitted. The omission is signified by a character formed somewhat after the following model, thus This mark is the brand of Francis's hand, and, corroborated by other evidence, stamps that Letter as having emanated from him. The omission of the three letters u, a, and r, of the second syllable of the word "February" in the dating of that Letter is signified by a mark in perfect keeping with that employed by Junius, as in the following facsimiles : landishes Lebry 'I do not remember having seen this mode of shortening a word in any other handwriting. It may have been common in the last century, but no instance has attracted my attention in a very large amount of different handwritings of that period which I have examined in the British Museum. It occurs once only in the Junian hand; but I find three other instances in the Letter Book on the backs of Letters by Francis besides that already given, sufficient to show that that mark of abbreviation was a peculiarity specially belonging to his hand. "The preceding are instances of specialities in regard to forms, in all three of which, in combination, few if any other writers can be I find in their hands not only coincidences of found to participate with Junius and Francis. special formations of letters but of special uses for which particular formations only of certain letters are employed; and notwithstanding those formations are of a common character, the application of them to particular uses, to the exclusion of other common formations, gives them considerable importance.' We may also notice another speciality in the two handwritings relating to the letters m and n. 'The junction of two words had the effect of materially altering the character of the forma tion of certain letters in the two handwritings now under examination. Both Junius and Francis frequently formed the letters m and n in a somewhat distinctive manner, as in the following facsimiles : Material Materials + |