Page images
PDF
EPUB

from a desire that there might be a fair review. My wishes and my feelings suggested to me, that there ought to be at least one honest review in the country. A number of gentlemen at Oxford, united their labours to write for it; and it was printed there, under their direction, and published by me in London. It had no scurrility in it whatever; but I found that a review which had no personal abuse, would not succeed, and therefore I discontinued its publication.

Q. That was your feeling, and such your reasoning? A. Yes.

Lord Ellenborough That is, you are now slandering all publi.hers but yourself. That is calling all other reviewers slanderers. I wish you would attend to the advice of others, whose prudence you seem to want. Sir Richard Phillips.-My lord, I know a great deal about reviewers! Attorney General. — Q -Q Ferhaps you never, in advertising a book of your own, annexed to it any commendation of reviewers. I have not done so for many years, I was in the habit of doing it formerly, but I have not done it for many years. I be came ashamed of the practice, and I left it off.

Attorney General.-That is, you grew up into virtue, as they fell into vice.

Lord Ellenborough.-This is saying, that every publisher is dishonourable but yourself. Pray do not arrogate to yourself all the virtue in the publication of books. Are you aware of the effect of your testimony? You have, just this instant, told us, that you have been doing that of which you are ashamed. And that you discontinued it, because you were ashamed of it. Answer the questions plainly without these com

ments.

Sir Richard Phillips.My lord, I have endeavoured to do so. I have said that I formerly published advertisements of books with the characters of reviewers annexed to them. It was the ordinary practice of the trade. I have said, that I discontinued it, and I did so. And I have said that I left it off because I was ashamed of it, and I

am so.

Attorney General.-Q. At what time did you change your system. Will you swear, that within these last six years, you have not published a book annexing to its advertisement, the commendation of reviewers? -A. Yes, I have no doubt I have. It may have happened within these two or three years, perhaps, but this has arisen from accident. We keep our old advertisements standing in the form in which we

have been used to send them to the ne papers, for five or six years together. that an advertisement may latterly have g into a newspaper with the same paragr in it, of the commendation of the revie a long time after I had determined to contiune that practice.

Q. You know of the Annual Review, there is the Monthly Review?—A. Yes. Q. And there is the Eclectic Review, the Critical Review?-4 Yes.

Q Now, I ask you, there being number of reviews, have you never loo into any of them to see if sir John Ca work was revicwed by them ?—A. I do recollect to have done so, within the twelve months.

Q. I ask you whether you have not loo into them concerning "The Stranger Ireland?"-4. I do not recollect to have s

[blocks in formation]

Q. What was the character given of it that review?-A. I think, in the review which I saw it, it had a very good charact

Attorney General. Now, sir Richa Phillips, I will ask you another question have you not yourself assigned as a reas for not publishing this work of sir Jo Carr's, which you have seen in manuscr

[ocr errors]

The Tour in Scotland," "That sir Jo Carr was worn out?"-A. I never us the phrase.

Q. Nor any thing like it?—4. No, any thing like it.

Q. You never have assigned that as reason for not publishing that work? N any other reason except that of this public tion, called "My Pocket Book," and the imputations cast upon the genius of the thor?-A. I have been asked by books lers, questions which they had no busine to ask me, about sir John Carr's work and conceiving such questions to be imper nent, I have said to such booksellers, "th my public engagements would prevent from embarking in such publications, and have given that answer in tenderness to s John Carr."

Q. Have you read "The Tour throug Scotland?"-A. I have looked into it, not read it through.

Q. It is finished?—A. It is.

One of the Jury.-Q. I think, Sir Rich ard, you told the booksellers that your pu lic engagements would prevent you fro embarking in such publications; and the you gave that answer out of tenderness sir John Carr. Pray what was that tender

ness?-A. Because I would not have it understood that any work of that kind, (meaning such works as "My Pocket Book ") had had an effect, which appeared to me to be so prejudicial to his character.

Attorney-General.-I will deal candidly with you, Sir Richard. The person to whom I alluded, when I asked you whether you had not said, "Sir John Carr was worn out," is a Mr. Murray. Now I ask you, did you not say so to him?-A. No, I did not, that I recollect.

Q. Will you take upon yourself to say, upon your oath, that, to Mr. Murray, you did not say "that sir John Carr was worn out A. I could not say such a thing.

Q. Do you swear positively, that you did rot say that "Sir John Carr was worn out ?"—A. I certainly do say, that I did not say so.

Attorney-General.-May it please your lordship: gentlemen of the jury,-I could, certainly, make many observations on the very many ridiculous passages which are to be found in the works of sir John Carr, and which fully justify the ridicule of this book, of which he complains. But I abstain; the case is so rich with ridicule without it, that it would be bad taste to take that course. There is so much in the dramatis personæ, that it renders every thing in the way of ridicule superfluous.— First we have sir Richard Phillips, who has given us evidence of his being either one of the greatest fools that ever lived under the sun, or that he is not to be credited on his oath. I say it appears from his own testimony, either that he has given us false evidence, or that he is the greatest fool that ever walked upon the face of the earthwithout a guide.

Lord Ellenborough interposing.-Weakest, perhaps weakest.

Attorney-General.-The

weakest man that ever walked upon the face of the earth without a keeper.- Erasmus would have given any thing for him when he wrote his Encomion Moria-or Pope, when he wrote his Dunciad. If the author of the Dunciad were now living, he would have changed his héro.-If we were living in the days of Pope-we should have a new edition of the Dunciad after this scene. Sir Richard Phillips tells us, that he is publisher of three of these voluminous works, which have been exhibited to you as the productions of sir John Carr. He has told you, that he had given large sums of money for them. That be was about to open a negociation with sir John Carr, for the purchase of another work, and he tells you, there are I think

five different reviews, the object, of which is, to treat of the merits or the demerits of different publications as they appear in the world, and that they must rise or fall, in a great measure at least-that is, fail of success, or succeed with the public, according to the impression produced by these periodical publications. This must be the case with The Stranger in Ireland," as well as any other work. And sir Richard Phillips being interested in pocket, as to the credit of that work with the public, tells you, that he never looked into any one of these reviews. He felt that, as soon as he said it, to be a strange thing to be said by a bookseller. For a man who derives emolument from the credit of authors-who eats and drinks their labour-lives upon it.-He felt himself bound to account for this strange expression. He does account for it-"I never mix myself," says he, with anony

[ocr errors]

mous scurrilous publications." That is, in substance, "this, my love of virtue, prevents me from opening publications of that kind. They are productions so much beneath me, that I despise them. The purity of my mind might be corrupted by perusing them Have you read the Edinburgh Review I have formerly, but I do not now. I have two objections to them, that they are anonymous, and that they are scurrilous;" and yet he admits, that himself was publisher of "Anecdotes of Public Characters in this Country," and, "Anecdotes of the Founders of the French Republic." He is the publisher himself of these two works, and they are both anonymous--but he startles at the bare mention of scurrility. "The anecdotes are factsa simple narrative of facts." Did these facts, Sir Richard, happen to fall within your own knowledge?-Answer me that plain question.-" No, no, no; facts, as the authors of the works stated to me." That is what sir Richard Phillips calls a narrative of facts!-- so much for sir Richard Phillips's narrative of facts, and so much for his abhorrence of scurrility. Now for his abhorrence of anonymous publications -I feel, he says, and so he ought to feel -so we all ought to feel-" an abhorrence of anonymous scurrility," and yet he publishes two books which are anonymouswhether they contain any thing that is scurrilous, we will not here stop to inquire. But we now come to the Reviews: he holds them in great abhorrence I suppose some of his publications have been roughly handled by them. But who was the publisher of the Oxford Review?- Himself, and here he elevated himself above all other

booksellers; for, says he, "I published, He has arrogated to himself all the honour in

the kingdom, as far as it regards the publica tion of books, and reviews of books. Wha standard shall I take to judge of the pro priety or impropriety of this publication called "My Pocket Book ;-as containin just or unjust criticism on the work of Si John Carr, called "The Stranger in Ire

norris, who has a high personal respect to the auther of the book, called "The Stra

[ocr errors]

name.

ger in Ireland," and partial towards th subject of it. The truth is, that Sir Jo Carr went to Ireland well recommende He received there the honour of knigh hood-and knighthood, fine clothes an genteel manners, are an introduction in genteel circles, and gain a high name for while, to an author, and may be a sh substitute for genius, to a person wh chooses to figure as an author. He thoug his name would uphold his book, but th will never do long, unless the book can p hold his name. Sir John Carr thought th his book would pass on account of E And it very nearly had. My Lo Mountnorris had very nearly got him into the scrape of buying this book of 5 John Carr's called "The Stranger in In "land." He would have done so, b from the circumstance of his having se this book, called " My Pocket Book." A here I think my Lord Mountnorris has som reason to complain of his friend Sir Jo Carr, and of those who gave him that na Not that I mean to insinuate that Sir J Carr is unworthy of the honour of knigh hood; I am speaking of him merely as author, and in that view, knighthood sometimes have the effect of a false toke "Cum pulchris tunicis sumet nova consi "et spes." But what effect has this bo called My Pocket Book," had on t public mind? Why, my Lord Mountnor who has a personal respect for Sir John C shall answer that question. He said t understanding Sir John Carr to have spe handsomely of Ireland, and feeling an

the Oxford Review, that there "might be one honest review in the kingdom," consigning all others, Dr. Aikin's and the rest, to ignominy-placing himself upon a pedestal, looking down on others and degrading them altogether a condition in which he is not intitled to place himself. Now, gentlemen, is sir Richard Phillips that pure, immaculate" land?" I will appeal to my Lord Mount character which he states himself to be ? I put it to you, thus-do you believe he swears truly when he swears, that be became the publisher of the Oxford Review, merely for the purpose of giving to the public one honest review in this kingdom? Do you believe that he swears truly when he swears that?-Gentlemen, I told you that sir Richard Phillips was either a witness who had tript in his evidence, or else, that he is a man the most infirm in judgment that ever walked on the face of the earth without a keeper. He states to you, that he would have given the same sum for the work of sir John Carr now in manuscript that he gave for the others, had it not been for the publication of this book called " My Pocket "Book." He tells you, there are five Reviews, in all of which, he knows, as well as any body, that this work must be handled as others are, but so little does he read reviews or anonymous criticisms, that he hardly looks at them, and he hardly looked at this work, called " My Pocket Book," and yet he tells you in the same breath, that in consequence of these petty comments, as he calls them, of this book, " My Pock"et Book," he declined to buy the other work of his favourite author sir John Carr. But for this scurrilous little work, he would have given sir John Carr £700 for the work which he now has in manuscript. Now, I do say, either that is not true, or sir Richard Phillips is the weakest aud the most absurd creature that ever crept on the face of the earth. I could not conceive, had I not seen it, that a man could have made a figure so foolish. I cannot conceive, that a man should so act against his interest, as knowing there were these reviews and pub-terest in that subject, he was disposed lications, and knowing how the next book of sir John Carr might at, least be handled, and yet would have given 600 in the first instance for this manuscript of sir John Carr's, if it had not been for this little book, "My Pocket Book," which sir Richard Phillips tells you, at the same time, is a contemptible little work, and which, if that be true, could have had little, if any effect upon the public mind. I have been led into this mode of reasoning from the ground which sir Richard Phillips has thought fit to take.

66

buy the book; but he read this critic and having read it, he read the book whe was the subject of it. He then cer pared them with each other-what was t effect of his doing so? Why, that would not buy the book. Why did he buy the book? Because it had been so st cessfully ridiculed. How came it to be successfully ridiculed? Perhaps you e guess. My Lord Mountnorris had like have reposed too much confidence in th name of the author. Bat having lecked

-

the book which gave an account of it, and then having compared them with one another, that is, he compared the book of Sir John Carr with the manner in which it had been turned into ridicule, he said to himself "This work of my friend Sir John Carr "will not do for me-I will not buy it." This is putting, things to the test-this is exactly the use of criticism, which is prerenting those who have not seen, from buyng bad books. This is a proof that in the judgment of my Lord Mountnorris, a man of erudition a friend to the author too, and partial to his subject-thinks the book, after in attentive perusal of it, not worth buying. My Lord Mountaorris did not content himelf with reading this criticism, but he read he book itself, and after perusing both, he bund the book of Sir John Carr so ridicu. bus a work that he would not buy it, br he did not choose to be laughed by those who might see it in his li rary. I do not complain of those who mrchase books without having read them, thearing something of their character from nen of judgment; but those who, like my ord Mountnorris, take the precaution to erase a book before they buy it, are, I hink, a great deal more prudent. My Lord Mountnorris has shewn us the utility criticism; and I think he has shewn us he justness of the criticism here complained f-Gentlemen, I think this case a great leal too clear to require any further obserations. I confess I had brought my mind p to saying a good deal on the subject of John Carr's literary labours. I had been most tempted to do so; but I think it has ecome unnecessary after the evidence you ave heard. I might have compared the works of Sir John Carr with authors of aniquity whose works have been treated with idicule. There was Socrates, and Aristo›lanes criticised him; but his doctrines were ot the less published on that account. Why? Because the ridicule did not affect his fame. It is because works are ridiculous, that ridicule affects them. Whoever sends into the world a book, gives to the public a night of dealing with the content of that book as the contents deserve. If the book be work of genuine merit, no attack upon it, however, violent, or however ingenious, will it any permanent injury. If, on the other hand,it be a work which has for its support, othing but knighthood-a large marginbut-press-gilt leaves morocco and binding, it really never can stand the test of criticism,

and the sooner it is sent into the shades the better. The public are indebted to the critic who so disposes of it; for the public have an interest in the discouragement of bad books, almost as much as in the encouragement of good ones. It has another good effect--It shews those who have not, otherwise, means of discovering the true character of a book, how to save their money. Such is the effect of genuine criticism, and a very valuable thing it is to the public I have my learned friend's concession, that fair and manly criticisin, even if you do not agree in opinion with the critic, is not to be complained of. I think my Lord Mountnorris has proved this to be of that character. -Gentlemen, I will detain you no longer; I am quite satisfied that you will be of opinion, that this book, although severe, was published in the spirit of fair criticism, and, of course, that your verdict will be for the defendants.

Lord Ellenborough.-Gentlemen of the jury; this is an action brought by sir John Carr against these two defendants, booksellers of the names of Hood and Sharpe, for having published, what he contends to be a work intending to turn him into ridicule; and he alledges in his declaration, that he has suffered special damages on account of this book; that he, being about to sell another work to sir Richard Phillips, that bookseller, declined to purchase that work; on which account he could not sell it, whereby he lost the considerable advantage which has been stated to you. Now, gentlemen, before we advance to the work itself, let us look at the principle of this species of action. Every person who writes any book, and publishes it, of whatever description it may be, coinmits it to the public; any person may comment upon it, upon its principle, upon its tendency, or upon its style-may answer, and expose to ridicule its character, if it be ridiculous-and may do the same thing with the author, as far as he is embodied in the work. Now this publication of the Travels of Sir John Carr, makes a description of the place where he is," a principal part of. the work. He is taking his departure from Dublin; and he speaks of himself in a manner that connects himself with the work. The book published by the defendants takes notice of this part of the plaintiff's work, and it is exhibited in the print, and it refers to parts of sir John Carr's book wherein expressions are used similar to those used in the present publication. It is contended that

Supplement to No. 12, Vol. XIV-Price 10.1.

Р

[ocr errors]

this work of the defendants should not be suffered, because it ridicules, immoderately, the works of the plaintiff. Why, gentlemen, if the thing itself be ridiculous-if the principle of it be bad-or, though the principle be unobjectionable, if the work itself be ill digested-bad composition-written with bad taste, or otherwise defective, so as to deserve the character of a "bad book," it is doing great service to the public to write it down; such works cannot be too soon exposed-the sooner they disappear the better. I speak this without prejudice to the work of sir John Carr, for I have not read a word of it. It may be, for aught I know, excellent. It would be unfair in me to censure what I have not read, like the sheriff-God forbid I should do so; the books of this gentleman may be very valuable works. But this I say:-whatever character his works merit, others have a right to pass their judgement upon them, and to censure them, if they be censurable, and to turn them into ridicule, if they be ridiculous. If there were no such right, we should have no security for the exposition of error; bad systems of philosophy would not be written down, as that of Des Cartes was by Newton; and bad systems of government would not be written down, as that of sir Robert Filmer's was by Locke. After Mr. Locke had published his work upon government, against that of sir Robert Filmer, I dare say this sheriff, sir Richard Phillips, would not have given a shilling for the book of sir Robert Filmer, if it were a publication of the present time. What then? Could any body maintain an action against Mr. Locke for his publication, for writing down the fame of sir Robert Filmer? Certainly not. Mr. Locke did great service to the public by writing down that work; and, indeed, any person does a service to the public, who writes down any vapid or useless publication, such as never ought to have appeared. It prevents the dissemination of bad taste, by the perusal of trash; and prevents people from wasting both their time and money. I say this, however, as applicable to fair and candid criticism, which every person has a right to publish, although the author may suffer a loss from it. It is a loss, indeed, to the author; but is what we in the law call Damnum absque injurii; a loss which the law does not consider as an injury, because it is a loss which he ought to sustain. It is, in short, the loss of fume and profits, to which he was never entitled; and the person who occasions that loss, by fair criticism, is not guilty of that species of conduct which subjects him to an action in a court of justice.

Why then, let us suppose that the plaintiff in this action has lost the benefit of selling his Scotch Tour, now in manuscript, to sir Richard Phillips; if he has lost it, by fair criticism upon his former works, which criticisms have rendered his writings ridiculous, be must abide by such loss, it being his fate to sustain it by fair criticism. This I take to be law. If it were otherwise, I do not know where we are to stop. No man will be at liberty to expose the works of another, bowever ridiculous. I think we ought to resist a complaint, against fair and liberal criticism, at the threshold; I think it is our policy, in every view of the thing. I do not know any thing that more threatens the liberty of the press, in the times in which we live, than giving too much encouragement to this spe cies of action. But do not let me be misunderstood; for I do not mean to say, that if there was any thing in the book, published by the defendants, of a libellous tendency, wholly foreign to the work, or unconnected with the author of it, as embodied in the work; if there was any thing in it, tending to render him ridiculous, unconnected with the work, the action is maintainable. Ne ther you nor I have appeared before the world in the character of an author, at least I have not; but, if I had, I should not think myself entitled to maintain an action against any body else, who ridiculed my work, and proved it to be ridiculous. If any person chooses to exhibit a picture, which was it self ridiculous, another cannot be liable to an action, for pointing out wherein it is ri diculous. If another chooses in his work to draw a picture of himself, to place himself in a given situation, another person hasa right to finish that picture by exposing it t ridicule, if it be ridiculous; and by criti cising upon the words which the author bas made use of. If, therefore, you think this is a criticism of the work of this author, and of the author himself, as far as he is connected with the work only, and not written by way of calumny upon him as an indivi dual; I am of opinion that this action is not maintainable. But if you are of opinion, that this work is written against this author, as a man, and unconnected with his work, then, my opinion is, that the action is maintainable. We do not find, that there is any charge here on account of the work being anonymous. In a word, if you are satisfied, that this criticism is levelled at the plaintiff's work, and at the plaintiff himself, only as he is connected with, and embodied in, the work, I am of opinion that he must take the consequences of it; and, indeed it does not appear to have done any material injury,

[merged small][ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »