roved: First, that he was acquainted
with the technical forms of the Secretary of State's office;
secondly, that he was intimately acquainted with the business of
the War Office; thirdly, that he, during the year 1770, attended
debates in the House of Lords, and took notes of
speeches--particularly of the speeches of Lord Chatham; fourthly,
that he bitterly resented the appointment of Mr. Chamier to the
place of Deputy Secretary at War; fifthly, that he was bound by
some strong tie to the first Lord Holland.... Now here are five
marks, all of which ought to be found in Junius. They are all five
found in Francis. We do not believe that more than two of them can
be found in any other person whatever. If this argument does not
settle the question, there is an end of all reasoning on
circumstantial evidence." [In answer to this, see appendix.]

{191}If that kind and amount of evidence would hang a man in the time of
Macaulay, the times have so changed that it takes far stronger evidence
to hang men now than then. That kind of evidence is absolutely worthless
for two reasons: first, the facts alleged in the separate counts are
neither of them necessary to the production of Junius; and, secondly,
they would prove nothing if they were, for they might be common to a
hundred men, and that they were _not_ would be matter of fact to prove.
Even Macaulay makes this rest on his own _belief_. "We do not
_believe_," he says, "that more than two of them can be found in any
other person whatever." But the fact is, they are absolutely
"imaginary," and not at all necessary.

"The internal evidence," he says, "_seems_ to point in the same way."
First, he acknowledges that Francis, as a writer, is inferior to Junius,
but not "_decidedly_," and then he goes on to say: "One of the strongest
reasons for believing that Francis was Junius, is the _moral_
resemblance between the two men." Macaulay now sets up a character for
Junius, the most of which is not to be found in Junius, and says it is
like Francis. It is thus he imposes on the credulity of the ignorant.
But I give his words, that the reader may investigate for himself:

"It is not difficult, from the letters which, under _various
signatures_, are known to have been written by Junius, and from his
dealings with Woodfall and others, to form a tolerable correct _notion_
of his character." I call the attention of the reader to the above
sentence, and have emphas