2''d & No 111., Feb. 13. '68.] 



NOTES AND QUEKIES. 



121 



LONDON, SATURDAY. FEBRUARY 13. 1858. 



Ham. 



d€nning's eloquence. 



Lord Campbell, in his Life of Lord Chancellor 

 Charles Yoi-ke, tells us that in the " Privilege 

 Debute," as it is called, of November 1763, Dun- 

 ning made a violent attack on the Yorkes, father 

 and son, and he gives a long extract from what 

 he calls Dunning's Speech, which he says is " one 

 of the best specimens of Dunning's eloquence pre- 

 served to us." 



When I first read this, more than ten years 

 since, I was startled. I knew that Dunning was 

 not in Parliament in 1763, nor for years after, — 

 first in 1768 ; and I knew that what is called a 

 specimen of Dunning's eloquence were passages 

 extracted from widely separated pages (34, 5, 6. 

 and 95.) of the. once celebrated pamphlet, A Letter 

 concerning Libels, Warrants, &c. published in 1764. 

 To my great surprise this statement has passed 

 without being questioned; and is now in the 

 fourth edition of Lord Campbell's work (vol. vii. 

 p. 85, 6, 7.) reproduced. His Lordship refers as 

 authority to the Law Mag., No. 61. p. 87. How- 

 ever worthless such a second-hand authority 

 might be, I resolved to examine it ; but on re- 

 ferring to No. 61. there was no mention whatever 

 either of the Privilege Debate or of the Yorkes. 

 At last, after a despairing search, I stumbled on 

 the passages in No. 59. (vol. xxx., Brit. Mus. 

 copy) ; but so far is the writer from offering it as 

 a specimen of Dunning's eloquence in the House 

 of Commons, that he makes a distinct acknow- 

 ledgment (p. 85.) that they are extracts from the 

 celebrated pamphlet " Letter concerning Libels, 

 Sfc," attributed, says the writer, to Dunning, and 

 said to have been corrected by Pratt. 



It is strange that a work, once so celebrated, 

 could have been lai-gely quoted from without 

 the fact being discovered ; it is a melancholy 

 proof how easily the historical landmarks of our 

 constitution may be effaced. Such things ought 

 not to be. We are and • ever must remain deeply 

 indebted to the writer, and therefore I propose 

 to show that the " Letter" was only one of a 

 series of pamphlets, in which great constitutional 

 battles were fought, and by which they were won. 

 I will call them " the Candor Pamphlets," leaving 

 it to future evidence to justify this generic name. 

 All to which I shall refer excited great interest 

 at the time of publication ; they sounded like a 

 trumpet; they were quoted everywhere, and 

 wildly commended, or fiercely denounced; and I 

 know no better test of merit. They never lost 

 their significance or value until Parliament (32 

 George III.) " declared " that the law laid down 

 by the writer was the law of England — that in 

 questions of libel juries are judges of law as well 



as of fact, — contrary to the opinion of Lord Mans- 

 field and the recorded judgments of the Court 

 of Queen's Bench. The writer of these pamph- 

 lets was not, and is not, known. Though he may 

 and must have been touched with the eulogium 

 pronounced on him by Burke in the House of 

 Commons, he was not tempted by it into a be- 

 trayal of his secret. Like, his contemporary 

 Junius, he died and made no sign. 



THE CANDOR PAMPHLETS. 



The first of the series of pamphlets to which I 

 shall direct attention is A Letter to the Public 

 Advertizer, published by Almon in 1764. 



This letter is signed " Candor," and dated 

 " Gray's Inn, 31 Aug. 1764." A preliminary 

 notice begins thus : " Candor presents his com- 

 pliments to Mr. Almon, and desires he will convey 

 for him the following letter, a small part of which 

 has been*printed already." The small part had 

 been printed in the Public Advertizer of August 2. 

 Why no more was published in the Public Adver- 

 tizer, to which the whole was addressed, appears 

 from the following significant notice to Corre- 

 spondents on August 7 : — 



" If our Correspondent C. will make himself known to 

 us, we shall be induced to comply with his request ; but 

 if he is unwilling to step forth, and avow himself the author, 

 or indemnify us for any charge whenever we are called 

 upon by authority, the printer does not chuse to run the 

 risk of an expensive prosecution and perhaps a personal 

 trouble into the bargain. No one certainly can blame him 

 for this caution who avails himself of the same by being 

 concealed. C. will understand our meaning when we hint 

 to him that enough has been said already. We wish for a 

 continuance of his correspondence on any future occa- 

 sion." 



Candor, it appears, did not chuse " to step 

 forth " as requested, but transferred the remainder 

 — the whole of what subsequently appeared as his 

 " Letter," including " the sm^U part " which had 

 been printed — to Almon, who published it as a 

 pamphlet. " A second edition," or as I believe 

 the first pamphlet edition, of this Letter was ad- 

 vertised on the 19th Oct. as "this day published;" 

 to which advertisement this significant hint was 

 added ; from which I infer that Almon knew no 

 more of the writer than the editor of the Public 

 Advertizer, nor how or where to address him : 



" fu. The letter dated October the 17th was received 

 yesterdaj'. Every request is complied with ; and an an- 

 swer is ready ; where shall it be sent ? " 



This admirable Letter is professedly written in 

 defence of the Ministry. It is satire from beginning 

 to end — satire on Mansfield, his law, his politics, 

 his principles and his change of principles; — on the 

 House of Commons and its libel law ; on the House 

 of Lords, on the Bishops, on the Scotch " noto- 

 riously barren of wit, humour, and poetry." Hume 

 the historian is spoken of as a " foreigner," and 

 " a loyal Briton " is called " translated English." 



