particular of it the next day. Now mark me, vagabond-keep to your pantomimes, or be assured you shall hear of it. Meddle no more, thou busy informer! It is in my power to make you curse the hour in which you dared to interfere with- JUNIUS."-No. 41.

We have no other means of accounting for the quickness of the communication, but by supposing Junius was at Richmond on that day.

The palace which the King occupied at that time was situate near Richmond Green. The entrance to the grounds was exactly opposite to a house formerly the residence of Thompson the poet.

At the era in question, this house was rented by Lord George Sackville, who, during this eventful period of his life, spent part of his time here, which not only offered him an occasional retirement, but facilitated his means of information on what was passing in the King's household.

The front of the house so completely overlooked the palace, that, without exciting suspicion, he could notice the daily arrivals with the utmost facility.

His friend Colonel Amherst, also, who was one of the King's aid-de-camps, would naturally be of service to him with regard to any particular intelligence.

The King's palace has been pulled down several years, and the grounds now form part of the Richmond Gardens. Lady Shaftesbury at present resides in the house formerly rented by Lord George Sackville.

The circumstance that Lord George did occupy this house at the time of Garrick's visit, was communicated to me by W. Little, Esq. of Richmond, which has also been fully confirmed by a most respectable old gentleman, a long inhabitant of the place, who knew Lord George personally, at the time of his residence there.

In his dedication Junius says, "I am the sole depository of my own secret, and it shall perish with me."

3d March, 1769-To Sir William Draperhe says "And now, Sir William, I shall take my leave of you for ever. Motives very different from any apprehension of your resentment, make it impossible you should ever know me."

25th Sept. 1769-" As to me, it is by no means necessary that I should be exposed to the resentment of the worst and the most powerful men in the country, though I may be indifferent about yours. Though you would fight, others would assassinate."

A few days after Junius's violent letter to the Duke of Grafton, Mr. Woodfall received a most extraordinary letter from his correspond

ent, wherein he says "I really doubt whether I shall write any more under this signature. I am weary of attacking a set of brutes whose writings are too dull to furnish me even with the materials of contention, and whose measures are too gross and direct to be the subject of argument, or to require illustration."

"That Swinney is a wretched, but a dangerous fool. He had the impudence to go to Lord George Sackville, whom he had never spoken to, and to ask him whether or no he was the author of Junius-take care of him."

"Whenever you have any thing to communicate to me, let the hint be thus, C at the usual place, and so direct to Mr. John Fretley, where it is absolutely impossible I should be known." From a perusal of this letter, eight distinct questions arise:

I. Why should Junius think of altering his signature?

II. How could Junius know that Swinney had called upon Lord George Sackville?

III. How could Junius know that Swinney had never spoken to Lord George before?

IV. Why should Junius alter the direction of Mr. John Middleton to Mr. John Fretley, in consequence of Swinney's call?

V. How could this alteration operate, so that he could not possibly be known?

VI. What difference could it make to Junius, Swinney having called upon a wrong person?

VII. Would not Junius, who was so anxious to preserve strict secrecy, have rejoiced at Swinney's mistake, instead of being angry with him?

VIII. Is not the language used by Junius in speaking of Swinney, directly in unison with Lord George Sackville's language to Mr. Luttrell in the House of Commons, where the word "wretched" occurs in both instances?

The internal evidence of the communication to Mr. Woodfall which gives rise to the above queries, in my opinion cannot be satisfactorily explained in any other way than that Junius and Lord George Sackville were one and the same person.

Chance, I am aware, in some common occurrences might operate so as to reverse this judgment; but I cannot see it possible how an utter stranger should call upon Lord George Sackville at his residence in Pall-Mall, and that it should so happen that Lord George should be acquainted with Junius, whom no other individual could possibly trace then, and has never been able to trace down to the present hour.

Let those who have never examined the subject before, weigh this concluding testimony; they cannot but be struck with the coincidence.

Having shewn, that the enemies of Junius

were the enemies of Lord Viscount Sackville; that the friends of Junius were the friends of Lord Viscount Sackville; and that the line of politics laid down by the former, was strictly pursued by the latter, it now only remains to affix further testimonials of his Lordship's abilities, which have occasionally been called in question, as inadequate to the performance of the Letters. The able speeches which have been brought forward, as evidence of his Lordship's opinions, clearly prove that he was competent to speak or write on any subject. There were very few topics that came before the House, on which his Lordship did not enlarge. These speeches have, undoubtedly, been read with interest by all Statesmen and Members of Parliament. For the satisfaction of other readers, I shall lay before them a few testimonials of eminent men who were well acquainted with him, and who were competent judges to discriminate between natural and acquired talent:

"There was no trash in his mind."-William Gerard Hamilton.

"Lord Sackville never suffered the clearness of his conceptions to be clouded by any obscurity of expressions."-Richard Cumberland.

"Lord Sackville's countenance indicated intellect, particularly his eye, the motions of which were quick and piercing."-Sir N. Wraxall.