Case of Dunkirk Faithfully Stated and Impartially Considered. By a Member of the House of Commons

London: Printed for A. Moore..., 1730. 8vo (in 4s), pp. 51 [52 blank], disbound. Another edition of 32 pages was published in the same year, but it is not clear which has precedence. Bolingbroke suspected that the French were rebuilding the harbour of Dunkirk and re-fortifying it, in contravention of the Treaty of Utrecht: "The case of Dunkirk certainly rattled many independent backbenchers. To weaken their attachment to the opposition Walpole made great play of Bolingbroke's clandestine and suspicious role in bringing on the whole debate. He succeeded in turning the debate into a discussion on Bolingbroke's past conduct and he managed to discredit the opposition's legitimate criticism of ministerial negligence. Bolingbroke tried in vain to recover lost ground by writing The Case of Dunkirk Faithfully Stated and Impartially Considered (1730), and followed this up with a justification of his own conduct" (Oxford DNB). Goldsmiths' 6825.