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 Admiral 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.