al defense of the
Scotch. He says: "There is courage at least in _our_ composition." "For
the future, my lord, be more sparing of your reflections on the Scotch."
This letter and the note accompanying it are yet in existence in the
original, and are called genuine. Now, that they are forgeries is quite
evident from the whole spirit of Junius in regard to the Scotch. In
Letter 44, he says of Mr. Wedderburne: "I speak tenderly of this
gentleman, for when treachery is in question, I think we should make
allowances for a Scotchman." He speaks of the Scotch "cunning,"
"treachery," and "fawning sycophancy," of "the characteristic prudence,
the selfish nationality, the indefatigable smile, the persevering
assiduity, the everlasting profession of a discreet and moderate
resentment." This last quotation may be found in the Preface, and was
written about four months prior to the publication of the letter of
_Scotus_. Now, is the positive evidence of the _genuine_ Letters to be
set aside by this fugitive note and letter of _Scotus_? Reason and
Common Sense say not. Here then one of the Miscellaneous Letters, and
one of the private letters to Woodfall are proven to be forgeries. How
many more may have to go the same way? Even the nationality of _Francis_
is against this one of _Scotus_, for he was an Irishman.

It may be well to remark, in passing, that as the manuscript of this
letter of _Scotus_ is still in existence, the claims of Francis founded
on handwriting will have to go the same way, for proof on genuine
handwriting is _doubtful_, but proof on disguised handwriting is
_worthless_. All that can be proven from handwriting is, Francis _may_
have been the author of this forged letter of _Scotus_, and other
letters of _Veteran_, which were written solely from personal spite
toward Lord Barrington.

2. I would call attention to another manifest forgery of a private note
and letter. The note is No. 8, vol. i, p. 198, and the letter is No. 58,
vol. iii, p. 218, Woodfall's edition. The letter is one of low wit, and
somewhat vulgar in its construction, and is an answer to another signed
_Junia_, probably written by Mr. Caleb Whiteford. The note says: "The
last letter you printed was idle and improper, and, I assure you,
printed against my own opinion. _The truth is, there are people about me
whom I would wish not to contradict, and who had rather see Junius in
the papers ever so improperly than not at all._" The question now is: