2uds.Noii6.,MAH.20.'68.] NOTES AND QUERIES. 



241 



• There is no evidence to show that this letter to 

 Woodfall was made into an " Appendix" with the 

 concurrence of the author, and I suspect it was 

 appropriated by Almon without authority, as it 

 Avould more naturally seem to belong to the Letter 

 from " Candor," which was also dated from ''Oray's 

 Im." 



The Letter concerning Libels, Src. from the 

 " Father of Candor," was dated from " Westmin- 

 ster" and I cannot think that the writer intended 

 to acknowledge the identity, after the several 

 allusions to his " Son" in the first edition of the 

 Letter concerning Libels, SfC. 



I will here at once reiterate the belief which I 

 have expressed in the Notes to the Grenville Corre- 

 spondence, that the writer of these pamphlets was 

 also the author of the Letters of Junius, and other 

 productions which I shall hereafter name. It is 

 quite evident that the author intended his dis- 

 guise and concealment to be as absolute as human 

 foresight could render it. He neither trusted 

 Almon nor Woodfall. He describes himself in 

 equivocal and somewhat contradictory terms : — 

 "?jo barrister'' — "a speculative and not a prac- 

 tising lawyer" Sj'C, Sfc. 



With the most reverential respect for the Con- 

 stitutional Law of England, there is throughout 

 these pamphlets a disparaging tone with regard to 

 practising lawyers : thus, in allusion to certain 

 legal doctrines, he says : " but I trust men will 

 not, in a plain matter, suffer themselves to be 

 talked out of their senses." As if he would say, 

 as Junius afterwards did to ^Yilkes : " Though I 

 use the terms of art, do not injure me so much as 

 to suspect I am a lawyer. I bad as lief be a 

 Scotchman," I could quote many instances^ in 

 support of my assertion, but your space forbids. 

 For these reasons I must dissent entirely from the 

 opinioa of your correspondent, that the author 

 was necessarily a lawyer, presuming that he means 

 a professional lawyer. Nor do I think that his 

 quotation touching " the incapacity of other men 

 to discuss points of civil polity," adds any weight 

 to his argument. The author does not mean mere 

 professional and practising lawyers, but "other 

 men," who, though not professional lawyers, are 

 " as deeply read in the laws of their country as 

 English gentlemen should be." In this sense it 

 is true that the "great lawyers," as statesmen, 

 " have always been, and must ever be, the prin- 

 cipal men in Parliament, on Constitutional De- 

 bates." It is, however, a curious fact, and as if 

 the author thought this passage capable of mis- 

 construction, that he expunged it from all the 

 editions subsequent to the first : and besides, the 

 sense of it is much modified and explained by 

 another passage : — 



" Few men know mucli of the nature of Polity, and, of 

 them, all do not sufficiently attend to the conduct of 

 Administration, to observe when slight innovations are 



made in the laws, or in their administration, and of those 

 who do, very few indeed have that degree of understand' 

 ing which enables them to judge soundly of the conse- 

 quences of such alterations, with respect to their liberties) 

 in general." 



The author was treated by the reviewers of his 

 time as a " shrewd party writer," and the authority 

 of his law was much called in question by contem- 

 porary law writers. It is certainly not usual for 

 professional lawyers to write anonymous political 

 pamphlets : such men write, not with disguise and 

 concealment, but openly, for fame and profes- 

 sional advancement, and with a view to the attain- 

 ment of the great prizes of their profession. 



Two other pamphlets were also attributed by 

 me to the Candor family. The first is entitled 

 Another Letter to Mr^ Almon in matter of Libel, 

 1770-71 ; and the second, A Summary of the Law 

 of Libel, which originally appeared in the Public Ad- 

 vertiser, in a series of four letters under the signa- 

 ture of " Phileleutherus," and subsequently in the 

 form of a pamphlet, published by Bladon in 1771. 

 Neither of these pamphlets appeared under the 

 name of " Candor ; " but in the opinion that they 

 were from the pen of the same writer, I have also 

 the satisfaction of being supported by your cor- 

 respondent. 



Having assumed that Almon did not know who 

 was the real author, yet as he was the publisher of 

 all the pamphlets by " Candor," it may be allowed 

 that he had at least, from a variety of circum- 

 stances, the best opportunities of guessing. Let 

 us see, therefore, what Almon did really say upon 

 the subject, and what were his most mature 

 opinions. I will take, then, his LAfe of Wilkes, 

 published in 1805. In this work the Letters con- 

 cerning Libels, 8fc. is twice alluded to, and upon 

 each occasion a note is appended. One of them 

 is a mere repetition of his opinion in the Political 

 Anecdotes, published in 1797, but his Z«/es^ opinion, 

 of the date 1805, is as follows : " This celebrated 

 Tract has been ascribed to many gentlemen. But 

 the real author has not been named. He was a Noble 

 Peer." 



Now as he had himself once suspected and 

 named both Lord Camden and Lord Ashburton, 

 he could not allude to either of them upon this 

 occasion. Who, then, was the " Noble Peer " to 

 whom this conjecture points ? I have asserted 

 that it was Richard Grenville Earl Temple. But 

 your correspondent will hazard no opinion. I 

 venture to hope that he will eventually support 

 my theory. At present he points only to Almon's 

 early guesses, Camden, Ashburton, or a Master 

 in Chancery, supposed to be Robert Pratt, who, 

 by the way, was nephew to Lord Camden. He 

 sat in Parliament for Horsham, through the in- 

 fluence of Lord Irwin, and at the recommenda- 

 tion of Mr. Pitt {Chatham Corresp. ii. 268.) ; but 

 I cannot believe the author to have been either a 

 professional or a practising lawyer, and least of 



