miral Saunders declaring in the House of Commons,
and that in the time of peace, 'that the city of Madrid laid in ashes
was not a sufficient atonement for the Spaniards taking off the rudder
of an English sloop of war.'"

"Fourthly, that he bitterly resented the appointment of Mr. Chamier to
the place of Deputy Secretary at War." This is founded entirely on the
letters of _Veteran_.

"Fifthly, that he was bound by some strong tie to the first Lord
Holland." This argument is founded on the _silence_ of Junius in regard
to Lord Holland, and one letter of _Anti-Fox_, which is in the
Miscellaneous collection.

These five points, then, of Taylor's argument are all founded on
unauthenticated letters, and yet Macaulay says: "If this argument does
not settle the question, there is an end of all reasoning on
circumstantial evidence." But, if the evidence of those miscellaneous
letters is to be taken as true, which were written nobody knows by whom,
and collected forty years after Junius ceased writing, and which had
been thrown out of the genuine edition by Junius himself, or had not yet
been written, by what rule are we to be guided in settling the question?
Let me present a difficulty at once. Suppose I am a Scotchman. I wish to
make out a case for some one of my countrymen, and I turn to the
Miscellaneous collection and find a letter signed _Scotus_. Ah! here is
a Scotchman, as the signature denotes. I immediately begin to read, and
to my happiness the first sentence is an unqualified affirmation: "My
lord, I am a Scotchman." This is positive, I affirm; and then how
delighted I am to find, in a private note, the assurance to Mr. Woodfall
that this letter "_is fact_." And, more than this, the original
manuscript is at this hour in existence. Now, all I have to do is to
show that this disguised hand resembles that of some cotemporary
Scotchman's, and Scotland has the honor. This shows how absolutely
worthless any argument is, founded on the Miscellaneous Letters. Query:
Did not the experts depend largely on the manuscript of this spurious
Scotch epistle to make out a case of identity in handwriting? As the
above five points which I have reviewed, form the head and body of
Taylor's argument, it would be trifling to attack the appendages. These
hints will guide the reader.

But the fact is, were the five points which Taylor enumerates and tries
to prove from miscellaneous letters established, still there would be no
case for