122 



NOTES AND QUEKIES. 



[2nd S. No 111., Feb. 13. '58. 



There Is a satirical defence of " the popular Chief 

 Justice" Pratt, of Pitt, and severe satire on 

 Halifax, or rather on the attempt of the Crown 

 lawyers to evade the law. The tone, temper, and 

 satire throughout are kept up with great skill. 

 The writer denies that there ever was " the least 

 connection, or even acquaintance, between the 

 profligate writer [Wilkes] and the great lawyer " 

 [Pratt], and states that, " Mr. Pitt neither has, 

 nor ever had, any more connection with the des- 

 perate libeller." The denial of all acquaintance 

 may be true ; but we must remember that Candor 

 -wrote as a friend of the Ministry^ and hints that 

 Ministers have no objection to be rubbed now 

 and then with a little salt, " so that after all " 

 Wilkes " only offended, as I ween, by the quan- 

 tity he put in his pickle." The notice of Hume's 

 history is clever satire and sound criticism. His 

 comment anticipated Sydney Smith's joke. It is 

 an excellent history, says Candor, to* any one 

 " who reads it free from the prejudice of other 

 histories, that is, who know no fads but what are 

 related by Mr. Hume, &c. &c., and is void of any 

 political or religious principles relative to this co7i- 

 stitution ; in short, whose mind is free from the 

 shackles of previous information." 



This minute analysis was necessary to show the 

 family likeness which runs through all these pam- 

 phlets. 



I come now to the pamphlet from which Lord 

 Campbell quotes : " An Enquiry into the Doctrine 

 lately propagated concerning Libels, Warrants and 

 Seizure of Papers" called in subsequent editions 

 " A Letter coricerning Libels, IfC." This sound 

 constitutional pamphlet excited still more the 

 public attention ; it went ' through numberless 

 editions, and the arguments were from time to 

 time illustrated and enforced by the writer in 

 " Additions," " Postscripts," and " Appendix " 

 separately published and then embodied in the 

 later editions. This pamphlet is signed " the 

 Father of Candor," and is dated " Westminster, 

 October 17, 1764." 



Before I proceed to examine the work itself, it 

 may be well to notice that in a list oi forthcoming 

 works to be published by Almon is announced 

 The Power of Juries, shewing they are Judges of 

 Law as well as Fact. Dedicated to Lord Chief 

 Justice Mansfield. In reference to this work so 

 announced, we have the following advertisement 

 in the Public Advertizer, Wednesday, Nov. 28, 

 1764 : — 



"Tomorrow will be published An Enquiry into the 

 Doctrine lately jiropagated concerning Libels, Src. S^c. The 

 pamphlet lately advertized under the Poiver of Juries is 

 included in this performance." 



This pamphlet is a learned, elaborate, and able 

 review of the whole question, professedly written 

 by a retired lawyer, " The Father of Candor." 

 The writer holds that lawyers are the great. 



indeed the only, authorities on constitutional 

 questions, and has avowedly a " thorough con- 

 viction of the incapacity of other men to dis- 

 cuss points of civil polity." The pamphlet is 

 remarkable for its sound logic, which satis- 

 fies even civilians of the authority of its law. 

 " The Father " takes like views with " Candor," 

 of Hume and Hume's history'; sneers at the Scotch 

 and Scotland ; commends Pratt [afterwards Cam- 

 den] ; abuses Mansfield, Sandwich, and his con- 

 duct towards Wilkes ; censures Wilkes ; speaks of 

 Henry VII. as one of the worst of princes, and of 

 Charles I. as " that pious Monarch, that Martyr 

 to obstinacy ; " commends Lord Somers, a judge, 

 for publishing his thoughts, &c. on what is going 

 forwards ; talks of " old Johnson" [Dr. Johnson]. 



There can be no doubt that " Candor " and 

 " The Father of Candor" were alter et idem, and 

 that the latter, in acknowledging a connexion as 

 " The Father of Candor," meant merely dramatic 

 effect, and to assume a new character as best 

 suited to his new line of argument and demon- 

 stration. Candor had been vivacious, entertaining, 

 and satirical : " the Father-," meant to be serious, 

 argumentative, and legal ; although whoever looks 

 narrowly into both will find that the satire of the 

 one is but a form of the logic of the other. This 

 opinion is strengthened by a fact which is I think 

 conclusive. The " Appendix," which is attached 

 to the sixth and seventh editions, and announced 

 in the title-page, is signed " C," and dated " Grays 

 Inn, Nov. 11, 1765," that is, with the very same 

 .signature and from the same place as the original 

 pamphlet by " Candor," as if the writer meant 

 thereby to acknowledge the identity. The fact, 

 therefore, that these pamphlets were written by 

 one person is, I think, proved. 



But there is more incidental evidence. Almon, 

 as we have seen by his advertisement, did not 

 know at that time who was Candor, and, as I think 

 I shall show hereafter, did not know for certain 

 who was " the Father of Candor." But he may 

 have known — indeed, as he was the publisher of 

 both, he must have known, if it were the fact, that 

 they were written by the same person. I assume 

 that the writer could have'no reason to lead Almon 

 to one conclusion and the public to another ; for 

 with the public the "C. Gray's Inn" of the Ap- 

 pendix would be conclusive. Now Almon, in a 

 Letter to Lord Temple, dated Nov. 12, 1764, says, 

 " I have received another pamphlet from Candor, 

 which is very long, very severe, and very good." 

 {Grenville Corr. ii. 459.) As the Enquiry by 

 " the Father of Candor" was published or adver- 

 tised to be published on Nov. 29, it seems to me 

 conclusively proved that "Candor's letter to the 

 Public Advertizer," and " another pamphlet," the 

 Enquiry, by " the father of Candor," were written 

 by the same person. 



For the publication of this pamphlet Mansfield 



