2°<> S. N« 112., Feb. 20. '58.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



141 



LONDON, SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 20. ISbS. 



THE CANDOR PAMPHLETS. 



^Continued from p. 123.) 



The opinion of Lord Mansfield and the Court 

 of King's Bench, in respect to the law of libel, 

 still occupied public attention, and was from time 

 to time brought under consideration of Parlia- 

 ment ; and during these discussions the Candor 

 pamphlets were reprinted, and went through edi- 

 tion after edition. 



At length, in 1770, the filing of five ex officio 

 informations against booksellers brought the sub- 

 ject once again into fierce discussion ; and then, 

 in anticipation of proceedings in Parliament, out 

 came Another Letter to Mr. Almon in Matter of 

 Libel, dated Aug. 5, 1770, with a Postscript of 

 thirty pages. This was quickly followed by A 

 Second Postscript, separately published. It may 

 be just worth while to notice that all the former 

 pamphlets had been published by Almon, but that 

 this Second Postscript was published by Miller ; 

 although the title-page sets forth that it was 

 written " by the Author of that Letter." 



There can be little doubt that this Letter and 

 Postscript were by Candor. We have the same 

 sort of indirect acknowledgment ; — thus, " when I 

 first entered of the law," " long retreated from the 

 battle of the bar," "when I was formerly of 

 Grays Inn;" and to strengthen other proofs, all 

 the Candor pamphlets are advertised at the end 

 of the Second Postscript, and no other books or 

 pamphlets. Internal evidence is, however, con- 

 clusive. The principles advocated are the same ; 

 the personal feelings of the Avriter the same — the 

 same strong feelings, and for the same reasons, 

 against Mansfield throughout — the same doubt- 

 ful commendation of Hardwicke, with like qualifi- 

 cations — the like approval of judges publishing 

 their opinions ; the writer would have it made a 

 duty of office — the same disposition to sneer at 

 the Scotch, at Hume and his History — the same 

 ostentatious condemnation of libels and libellers 

 — scorn of noisy patriots, Home, &c. — the mobi- 

 lity and their hobby-horse Jack of Aylesbury — 

 scorn of Sandwich and his hypocrisy in dragging 

 the Essay on Woman before the public. It was 

 when the question of ex officio informations was 

 under discussion, Nov. 27, 1770, that Burke re- 

 ferred to Another Letter. 



" I will say nothing on light rumours," said Burke ; 

 •' but will any one tell me they are light rumours? Will 

 the i);unphlet published last summer tell me that? Was 

 that a mean and contemptible performance? and has it 

 made no execution with the public? It is Avritten by a 

 person of great professional knowledge. Sir, he has 

 watched the movements of a certain great person with 

 as much vigilance as we watch the Constitution. Will 

 they say that such a book should walk through the 



public without enquiry? In reading it, good God! said 

 I, that a man of these talents should not have been a 

 member of either House of Parliament! If he had he 

 would have been active. How he would have despised 

 all favorites of the people ; all friends of tyranny ! He 

 would have opened the grievance ; he would have probed 

 it to the bottom." 



The last trace that I find of this great consti- 

 tutional writer is in a Summary of the Law of 

 Libel, by Phileleutherus Anglicanus, addressed in 

 four Letters to H. S. Woodfall, and originally 

 published in the Public Advertizer, and subse- 

 quently collected and published by Bladon, 1771. 



This Summary professes to be written by a spe- 

 culative, not a practising lawyer. By a lawyer 

 certainly, and I have little doubt by Candor. In- 

 ternal evidence is strong, though always open to 

 dispute J but Almon says (Scarce Tracts, i. 274.), 

 in a note on Libels and Warrants, " the author 

 [of L. & W.] wrote several observations " upon 

 the trial of Almon in 1770, and he quotes from 

 these " several observations," and the passage 

 quoted is taken from the fourth of the letters 

 by Phileleutherus Anglicanus (p. 22.). Though 

 Almon does not in that place mention the Sum- 

 mary by name, and does not, by note or com- 

 ment, say who was the writer, even though he 

 republished the Letters in Scarce Tracts (vol. iv.), 

 this extract and statement proves that he knew, 

 or believed, they were written by " Candor." It 

 may be an additional evidence of the parentage of 

 these four Letters and of the Candor pamphlets, 

 that he, Almon, published the four immediately 

 after Another Letter, in vol. iv, Scarce Tracts : 

 and it must be considered conclusive, as in the 

 Memoirs of Almon, though not avowedly written 

 by Almon, the whole letter from which the ex- 

 tract is taken is quoted, and stated to have been 

 written by the author of the Letter on Libels 

 (p. 73.). 



With a few speculative words on the authorship 

 I shall conclude. D. E. 



THE RAWLINSON MANCSCKIPTS. 



An interesting article appeared in The Athe- 

 ncBum of 30th ult. suggesting the publication of a 

 Catalogue to the Rawlinson Manuscripts in the 

 Bodleian, so that this mass of curious historical and 

 biographical information may be made available 

 to antiquaries and literary inquirers. Cambridge 

 has made accessible the rich treasures of Thomas 

 Baker, by the publication of an Index to his Manu- 

 scripts, and Mr. Coxe has acquainted us with the 

 contents of most of the college libraries at Oxford 

 in his useful Catalogue ; but Dr. Kawlinson's 

 munificent collection, for now above a century, 

 has been comparatively unavailable to literary stu- 

 dents for want of a comprehensive Catalogue. It 

 appears that an Index was compiled, but never 

 printed; for Mr. John Price, librarian of the 



