398 



KOTES AND QUEKIES. 



[2°d S. V. 121., May 15. '68. 



pass liim by, because upon a former trial he had 

 been found refractory, and refused to return a 

 verdict at the dictation of the judge. Both wri- 

 ters accuse Lord Mansfield of endeavouring either 

 to contract the power of the jury, or to mislead 

 their judgment ; by each of them his principles 

 are compared to those of Jeffries, and in describ- 

 ing the latter as " bold and courageous," Candor 

 says that he never heard those terms applied to 

 Lord Mansfield, while Junius declares him to be 

 " timid, vindictive, and irresolute." Candor, in 

 allusion to the charge of Jacobitism against Lord 

 Mansfield, speaks of his happy memory in remem- 

 bering all the healths he had drank from his 

 youth; and Junius, in a special note in 1772 

 upon the same subject, adds : " This man was 

 always a rank Jacobite. Lord Ravensworth pro- 

 duced the most satisfactory evidence of his having 

 frequently drunk the Pretender's health upon his 

 knees." The opinions of Junius upon this accu- 

 sation against Lord Mansfield are singularly co- 

 incident also with those of Lord Temple, who was 

 only restrained by the earnest entreaty of Mr. 

 Pitt from supporting the Duke of Bedford's mo- 

 tion upon the subject in the House of Lords in 

 1753, when only four peers accompanied the Duke 

 below the Bar, and the motion was consequently 

 negatived (Grenv. Corresp. i. 101.) It may also 

 be added that Lord Temple's opinions on the sub- 

 jects of Warrants, Libels, Habeas Corpus, Seizure 

 of Papers, &c., are known to be identical with 

 those of Candor and Junius, and Lord Temple 

 and Candor were opposed to all the administra- 

 tions from Mr. Grenville's in 1764, to that of Lord 

 North in 1771. 



The instances are very numerous in which pas- 

 sages from Candor are merely paraphrased by 

 Junius. I will mention one only. Of Lord 

 Mansfield, Candor says, " The poverty of human 

 language is such that it does not produce any ex- 

 pression sufficiently demeaning," &c. ; and Junius 

 says of the same, " Our language has no term of 

 reproach, the mind has no idea of detestation, 

 which has not happily been applied to you, and 

 exhausted." 



I refrain from quoting more, because many may 

 be found in the Notes to Grenv. Correspondence, 



There are good reasons why Lord Temple, with 

 his peculian characteristics, should bear the same 

 rancorous hatred to Lord Mansfield which is so 

 ft*e(piently displayed by Candor and Junius. 



Among other coincidences, it has been men- 

 tioned that Candor and Junius both communi- 

 cated with the same publishers, Woodfall, Almon, 

 and Miller. If Woodfall became alarmed at the 

 dangerous nature of the language he was required 

 to print, recourse was immediately had to Almon, 

 who was a more bold " conveyancer ; " and when 

 even the nerves of Almon were not strong enough. 

 Miller was still in resQrve; for he, says Junius, "I 



am sure will have no scruples." The first ex- 

 ample is the Letter of Candor, of which the be- 

 ginning only appeared in the Public Advertiser, 

 and Woodfall refused to print the remainder 

 unless the author would avow himself, and abide 

 the consequences ; but concealment was a sine qua 

 non, and the Candor Letter was transferred to 

 Almon, by whom it was published as a pamphlet ; 

 and we may assume that for a similar cause the 

 publication of the Second Postscript only of Ano- 

 ther Letter, ^c. was changed from Almon to 

 Miller. 



Again with the poem of Harrij and Nan, an 

 indecent satire upon the Duke of Grafton and 

 Miss Parsons. As the original manuscript of 

 this production still remains in the possession of 

 Mr. Woodfall, it is evident that the editor of the 

 Public Advertiser declined to print it, and Almon 

 being again appealed to, it was published by him 

 in the Political liegister for June, 1768. 



With regard to Harry and Nan, I beg to say 

 one word in self-defence. In one of the most fair 

 and candid reviews of the Grenville Correspon- 

 deiice, and Notes upon Junius, by a very distin- 

 guished writer in the North British Review for 

 August, 1853, thei'e is a rebuke which might, 

 without explanation, appear to be well deserved. 

 It is, that / shoidd have involved Lady Temple in 

 the disgrace of being the author of an indecent 

 poem. 



When I attributed this poem to Lord or Lady 

 Temple, I ought, in justice to myself, to have 

 stated the fact that some verses are extant, In the 

 handwriting of Lady Temple, so objectionable in 

 subject and expression that I could not allow 

 them to be printed, and that there still exists a 

 letter, also in her handwriting, in which a conver- 

 sation between Lord Chesterfield and Mrs. Nu- 

 gent is reported, containing a double entendre in 

 very plain words, which I could not even venture 

 to describe. It should be remembered also that 

 the poem was sent anonymously both to Woodfall 

 and to Almon, and I need scarcely observe that 

 the language and manners of ladies of rank a cen- 

 tury ago were much less guarded than in our 

 more discreet and civilised days. I confess that it 

 was important to my theory to show the extreme 

 similarity in metre and in rhymes to the few 

 poems which were written by Lord and Lady 

 Temple. To these I have alluded more at length 

 in the Grenv. Corresp. iii. ccxx., and I will now 

 only quote one instance from Lord Temple's poem, 

 entitled A Midsummer Night's Dream: — 

 " To such a dream, can I assent refuse f 

 Forbid it, God of Love I and every Muse." 



And the following are the first two lines of 

 Harry and Nan. 



" Can Apollo resist, or a poet refuse. 

 When Ilarrj- and Nancy solicit the Muse?" 

 The controversy respecting the authorshiiJ of 



