162 



NOTES AND QUEKIES. 



[2nd s. No 113., Feb. 27. '58. 



opinion that the writer of the pamphlets and 

 letters was the same person is the assumed cer- 

 tainty that Candor must have been a lawyer, 

 and the general agreement among lawyers that 

 Junius was not ; although the high authority of 

 Lord Eldon may be quoted on the other side, 

 who is reported to have said "thafthe author of 

 the letters of Junius, if not himself a lawyer, must 

 certainly have written in concert with the ablest 

 and best of lawyers " (Heron, i. 69.). 



By a strange accident Junius and Candor 

 were early associated, indeed " rolled into one." 

 Burke, in the debate (Nov. 1770) already re- 

 ferred to, alluded to both Junius and Candor ; 

 but in the Report drawn up at unusual length by 

 William Woodfall, which appeared in the Morn- 

 ing Chronicle, and was subsequently transferred 

 to the Parliamentary History, these references 

 were brought together, and what was said of 

 the several writers ■\vas made to apply to one of 

 them — Junius. So the question stood until the 

 more careful Reports of Cavendish were pub- 

 lished in 1842. It was, indeed, very difficult for 

 persons who read critically to understand what 

 Burke meant, or could mean, as reported by Wm. 

 Woodfall — difficult to reconcile the first part of 

 the description about "rancour and venom," and 

 the all but calling for prosecution, with the admi- 

 ration for "the knowledge and integrity" with 

 which he concluded. By the light of Cavendish 

 all is plain enough. Burke spoke only and with 

 reprobation of the daring of the great boar of the 

 forest — of Junius ; but with admiration of the 

 " great professional knowledge " of Candor. 



Another curious confusion I shall now proceed 

 to show, and the facts are interesting equally in 

 relation to Candor and to Junius. 



We know that the private letters from Junius 

 to Woodfall, the first assumed to have been writ- 

 ten on or about April 1769, were signed C. ; on 

 which Dr. Good came to the conclusion that C. 

 " was the secret mark in use between Junius and 

 the printer [of the Public Advertizer'], to inform 

 each of the identity or receipt of communica- 

 tions;" and he proceeded, on no better authority, 

 to select notices to C. from amongst the " Notices 

 to Correspondents " in the Public Advertizer, and 

 to treat them all as hints or signals to Junius ; 

 and when it suited his convenience, and the re- 

 quirements of " 3 vols. 8vo.," he inserted letters in 

 the edition of 1812 on this poor authority, and 

 some of them written long before Junius, as 

 Junius, had contributed one line to the news- 

 papei's — as early indeed as 1767. Now, as I 

 Lave shown, or shall show, that amongst the C.'s 

 of 1764 and 1765 was Candor, and as Candor con- 

 tinued a correspondent of the Public Advertizer up 

 to 1770 and 1771,1 cannot but believe that Candor 

 might put in a better claim to some of them ; the 

 more especially as we have evidence, I think, that 



Junius was so addressed for the first time after 

 July, 1769, and then only for four months. His 

 directions to Woodfall in Private Letter (No. 5.) 

 of that date are these, " Whenever you have any- 

 thing to communicate to me let the hint be thus, 

 ' C. in the usual place.' " Here, to my thinking, 

 is conclusive proof that this "hint" was now (July, 

 1769) first chosen. Junius we know constantly 

 changed the sign or hint. Within four months — 

 I take Dr. Good's edition as authority — Junius 

 again ordered the " hint " to be changed. In 

 Private Letter No. 12. (Nov. 12) he directs, "In- 

 stead of ' C. in the usual place,' say only ' A 

 letter.' " 



It is not extraordinary that under Dr. Good's ma- 

 nagement " our correspondent C. " becomes a very 

 important personage in the Junius controversy ; 

 and yet, if writers on the subject had but exa- 

 mined for themselves, they would have found, as 

 I have done, that every volume of the Public Ad- 

 vertizer contained notices to " our correspondent 

 C." Why, then, did Dr. Good stop in his re- 

 searches at 1767? In August, 1764, as I have 

 shown, C. was the signal or hint to " Candor." 

 On Nov. 12, 1765, as I shall now show, there is 

 the following : " Our correspondent C.'s letter 

 came to hand last night ; and he may depend on 

 its having a place in our next." Accordingly in 

 "our next" appears a letter by Candor, dated 

 Gray's Inn, which very letter became the " Ap- 

 pendix" to the Letter on Libels and Warrants. 

 There are many other notices to C. One, how- 

 ever, more significant than usual appeared on 

 Sept. 6, 1767 : " Our correspondent C. will ob- 

 serve that we have obeyed his directions in every 

 particular, and we shall always pay the utmost 

 attention to whatever comes from so masterly a 

 pen." We might reasonably suppose that " our 

 correspondent C," with the " masterly pen," was 

 his correspondent the famous writer of Libels and 

 Warrants ; but no, says Dr. Good, it was a man 

 you never heard of — it was Junius ! a man with 

 " a masterly pen" certainly, but -vfhose first hnowjt 

 contribution — first certaiidy as Junius — appeared 

 not for some sixteen months after this. 



It is impossible not to be struck with some coin- 

 cidences between Candor and Junius. Both ad- 

 dressed their letters to the Public Advertizer, or 

 to Woodfall personally. When Woodfall was 

 frightened, Candor transferred his MS. to Almon, 

 by whom it was published. Junius, in notes to 

 edit. 1772 (ii. 99. 120.) twice gives Almon a 

 friendly pufi' — once when he refers to a pam- 

 phlet which he tells us was " printed for Ahnon," 

 and again when he quotes from Another Letter 

 to Mr. Almon ; which quotation, be it observed, 

 appears without one word of praise. Again, 

 though Almon had published all the Candor pam- 

 phlets from 1764 to 1770, the Second Postscript 

 to Another Letter was published by Miller. I 



