The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1894-08-26


in the handwriting Of Sir Philip Francis.
Upon the occasion of the visit TO his house
of MIR. Fuller on June % of this year, Mr..
Francis brought out his copy of the verses
for the purpose of comparison. G. s.
lnglis, who is the leading English expert
in handwriting, was present at the time.
He examined the three documents Mr..
Inglis made the surprising discovery
that all three were written on portions
of the same paper. This was shown by
the texture and water-mark. Thus the
three documents written at Bath on the
same paper by Junius. Francis and
Tilghman were once more brought to-
gether after lapse of 1913 years. Mr.. In
glls thereupOn began a series of compari-
sons of handwriting in these and other
documents which convinced him that
Francis and Junius were one and the
same person. The most important of
these papers is a.corre ted proof sheet of
Junius letter TO Blackstone, bearing the
handwriting of Sir William Francis.
This is shown by three compari
sons which Mr.. Inglis has cleverly made.
The date at the head of the letter, "29
July, 1909, J. was inserted, after the type
was first set up. Mr. Inglis places this
side by side with thedates of two sutheu-
tic letters Of Francis written in the same
month of the same year, and an examina-
ton shows that they are all unqUestiona-
bly, in the same hand. But the corrections
in the letter to Blackstone was made in
different hand-that Is, the handwriting
of Junius. This, however, was only
reigned handwriting, purposely disguised
to ward of suspicion, although Francis
apparently was so careless as to allow the
proof to go out of his possession bearing
his natural handwriting in what MIR
Inglis calls 'unoollterated date"
The same paper contained Junius's APP
ant f~NF &c. ...-. ct
English nation, to stand forth in defense
of the laws of his country" This letter
wound up with the words: 81 do not
scruple to affirm that in my Judgment
Lord Mansfield is the very worst and
most dangerous man in the kingdom
Thus far have done my duty in endeav-
oring to bring him to punishment. But
mine is an inferior ministerial Office in
the temple of justice. l have bound the
victim and dragged him to the altar"
The mystery of the authorship of these
letters which a series of accidents has
now, it appears, solved at last, was ca
gerly discussed from the date of their
first appearance Hardly a single promi-
nent statesman of the time who was not
himself directly attacked by Junius has
wanted champions to assert his claim to
their production. Lord George Sack
vile, Barre, Grafton, Burke, Lord
Loughborough, Gibbon, Lord Chatham,
Sir Phillip Francis, Lord Temple and
many others have all had their sup
porters. Macaulay, in his essay on War
rem Hastings; Stlnhpe, in his History
of England :" Britton, Dixie. Lecky Mas
sey and many others have written on the
subject, without in any way settling the
| controversy.
Only few week ago Longmans, Green
& Co. of London published a book called
"Junius Revealed" by II. II. Francis,
which attempted a solution of the mys-
terry, but failed in the effort. 1t was the
publication of this book, however which
has led to the discoveries which now, IL
IS believed, finally settle the question of
who was Junius
| Francis and his American cousin.
Iilghman, appear to have conducted an
elaborate conspiracy, as each wrote a dis
guised hand. 1t is probable that Thigh
man was the only living man who knew
that Sir Philip Francis was the much
sought Junius, and that Francis took him
| into his confidence in order to carry on
the deception. Tilghman's disguised
hand was a clever imitation of the natural
writing of Francis.
Mr. lnglls has shown that Tilghman
sent to Francis in 1773 a COPY of the Bath
verses and identified the handwriting
with that of the copy Of the same verses
sent to Miss Giles three years previously
OH mp rduClS was porn IN lG4O ana
| died in 1918. He entered. when young
man, the Indian civil service, and was
sent in l774, subsequent to the publication
OF the Junius letters, to Bengal as men,
Der of the new council appointed under
the act Of 1773. He distinguished himself
by the violence of his opposition to War
rem Hastings. Returning to England in
1871, he entered parliament in 17s4, where
he joined the opposition and stimulated
impeachment of Hastings. He received
many favors from and lived on intimate
terms with many of those attacked most
tercely in the Junius letters.