implied one that Woodfall did not know Junius. If
Francis was Junius, here is confusion confounded; but if Paine was
Junius, it is as clear as day. But to proceed.

In regard to Bradshaw, Chamier, and Barrington, Taylor quotes from
_Domitian_, _Veteran_, _Q. in the Corner_, and _Arthur Tell Truth_, all
miscellaneous letters. He also quotes once from private note No. 52,
which, like the two others I have shown, is undoubtedly a forgery. This
note was dated January 25, 1772, and was written with the manifest
purpose of paving the way to those four low and scurrilous attacks on
Lord Barrington by _Veteran_. These he began on the 28th, three days
after the private note, and promised sixteen letters "already written,"
but only wrote four, when he exhausted himself. Nearly all the evidence
in favor of Francis is taken from these letters. Taylor establishes _not
a single fact_ under the first head from _Junius_, and I believe only
quotes him _once, and to prove nothing_. I now proceed with the next
count.

"Secondly, that he was intimately acquainted with the business of the
War Office." In answer to this, I will quote Taylor, page 61, as
follows: "But in the letters at the end of the third volume [Letters of
_Veteran_, vol. iii, Woodfall's Junius] it seems as if he was almost
indifferent to discovery, he so clearly betrays his _personal
acquaintance_ with the proceedings of the Secretary of War." This he
founds solely on _Veteran_.

"Thirdly, that he, during the year 1770, attended debates in the House
of Lords, and took notes of the speeches, particularly of the speeches
of Lord Chatham." Taylor tries to establish this claim on the letter _Y.
Z._, which is in the Miscellaneous collection. But I insist, _Y. Z._
must be proven to be Junius before any inference can be drawn from it.
Taylor can not even prove that Francis wrote it. But he draws an
inference from the following in Philo Junius: "In regard to Lord Camden,
the truth is, that he inadvertently overshot himself, as appears plainly
by that unguarded mention of a tyranny of forty days, _which I myself
heard_." The argument is, Junius heard speeches in Parliament, and
therefore _might_ have been Francis, as speeches were not reported till
long after. As this extract is from authority which I indorse, I will
meet it by a passage from Thomas Paine's Crisis vii, showing that he
also heard debates in Parliament. Speaking of national honor, he says:
"I remember the late Ad