"for the purpose of ridiculing the works of "the plaintiff. They were not satisfied "with attacking one of the books that he "bad written, but the whole, viz. Stran

sr

ger in France, Northern Summer, Tour "round the Baltic, Stranger in Ireland, "and Tour through Holland. Another "work, written by sir John Carr, viz. A "Tour through Scotland, never had been published, in consequence, as he would prove, of the book published by the de"fendants. In the front of that book, "which they entitled "My Pocket Book," is a frontispiece representing the departure "of the plaintiff from Ireland; and in page 29, preface, an explanation of that frontispiece, which commences with "You shall see what you shall see, the knight errant's regret at leaving Ireland," a gro"tesque figure, with a handkerchief to his

་་

eyes, a number of ridiculous figures fol"lowing him, setting up the Irish howl; a huge porter, carrying his MS. travels, "which are so heavy, that the weight of them obliges him to bend under them; in "one hand he carries the Wardrobe of the kuight errant, encompassed in a small pocket handkerchief, &c. The pa blication itself commences by observing, that the writings of the plaintiff consisted of nothing worth paying for, except the fine binding, "the fine paper, and the goodness of the print; and there was nothing to recom"mend them except the wideness of the mar

66

gins. The defendants had not been satisfied "with publishing one edition of this book, "but they had published three, and had "advertised and circulated it most indus"" triously. This morning there was one purchased at the defendant's shop, enti "tled "a third edition." If this was not "the case, it was for the defendant to 66 prove it ; for he understood it was often advertised to be the tenth edition of a book when there were not fifteen copies of the "first disposed of. He would prove that "the publication complained of had injured

"

no

a

the plaintiff as an author; that he would have got 600 for the Tour in Scotland, if "it had not been for this book. There was man that would wish to give the re"viewers a greater scope than he would; but he could not justify them in making mischievous attack on an author; they "might as well attack his person; for "when they scurrilonsly attacked his works, "it was injuring him in the most essential point. He did not doubt but there might “be some foolish passages in it, but, when the reviewer criticises, he ought to pick "out those passages, and not condemn the

"whole for perhaps one mistake or impro

66

per expression. His learned friend, as "well as himself, had often, unfortunately, "during their professional life, said foolish things, and he should be sorry if they were to be silenced ever afterwards, and deprived of the benefits of their profession, for a foolish expression. He would prove that the defendants had gone the length, in private conversation, to say, "that they would exterminate the plaintiff as an author. If he proved this case, he "had not a doubt but the jury would give a "verdict for the plaintiff, and damages; not "only to the amount of the loss sustained, "but to deter others from sending forth "such scandalous and scurrilous publica"tions. He then proceeded to examine "his witnesses.-Mr. HUNT proved that he purchased at the shop of the defendants, on the 14th March, 1808, a book entitled "My Pocket Book," which he produced, "and another on this morning, which was "stated to be a third edition. He had in

have given 600l if it had not been for “My "Pocket Book," which he heard had depre"ciated the works of the plaintiff so much, "that it deterred him. The witness met the defendant, Hood, one day, who asked him, had he read his " Pocket Book "witness told him he had not, for he never read such scurrility. Hood replied, "Lord help poor Sir John, we have got a rod in pickle for him, we will do for him."—On "his cross examination by the Attorney"General, witness said he never read books "of a scurrilous nature; he considered all

"any man in London, but never published

any without the name of the author.

Although he might have read one or two "numbers of "The Edinburgh Review," "when it was first published, he did not "recollect having read any other. When he "was first in the trade, he used to attach to his advertisements the criticisms of Reviewers on books which he published, but for the last six years he had ceased to "do so. As they crept into vice, he crept "into virtue. He left it off, as he

68

bellous, nothing scurrilous, in it; he never published a libel in his life; if he 66 had, he would be ashamed to come into "that court to give evidence. He did not "know that every thing it contained was fact, but it was given by the author as a plain narrative of facts. He had published "The Oxford Review;" that was also an anonymous publication, but he did it "that there might be one honest review. "Lord Ellenborough here interrupted "the witness, and said, that the questions

66

put to him did uot tend to make him commit. "himself. If they had, he would have pro"tected him; bat the voluntary evidence,

publisher of "the Oxford Review." He was obliged to his lordship for his kind "interference; for although imposed on by the usage of the trade, when he first "commenced business, for six years it had "beea his study to check the scurrility of the press. He could not say that his "sentiments were very refined as to honesty, but he trusted he had a little common honesty in this respect, and he hoped, "while he lived, it might remain with him. "He never read anonymous publications, "whether Reviews or not; for he consider"ed them all scurrilous; but if he published

any thing anonymous, it was as clear from "scurrilous matter as chrystal water. He discontinued publishing" The Oxford

My Pocket Book" had made on him."Lord MOUNTNORRIS deposed, that he had read The Stranger in Ireland," and "My Pocket-Book," chapter by chapter, "and he had no doubt in his mind but that My Pocket-Book" was written to ridi"cule "The Stranger in Ireland." The plaintiff had been recommended to him

66

as a gentleman, and he was pleased to "have found that he had spoken so hand"somely of his native country, Ireland; and "would have purchased a copy of the book, if "it had not been so much depreciated by "the publication of " My Pocket-Book." "The noble lord was cross-examined by "the Attorney-General, who observed, that "he was happy to have the honour or ad

My Pocket Book" was a fair and just "criticism on the other.-Lord VALENTIA "corroborated the evidence of his noble fa"ther -The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, COUN"sel for the defendant, stated, that he ne

ver found himself more perfectly happy "than in addressing the jury in defence of "his clients. His mind was perfectly at

66

ease as to the verdict they would give. His "learned friend, in the opening, had charged him, by anticipation, with what was charged against his client. But he "would assure him he was mistaken; for "whatever foolish expressions he had made

66

66

66

use of, he would not criticise or comment on them. In the first place, they had "the evidence of Sir Richard Phillips. The knight had either given false evidence, or "he was the greatest fool that ever walked "over earth. [Lord Ellenborough observed "that he thought 86 the weakest man" "would be more appropriate.] The At"torney-General then continued. He had "said "the greatest fool," but his lordship "thought" the weakest (nan" was the more "4 proper; then let it be "the weakest man" if sir Richard Phillips had been living when Erasmus was writing, he "would have given any money for him.

"had done nothing more than it ought to "have done, and what an honest criticism

together, a fair criticism? The plaintiff went to Ireland; he was knighted there; "and this he thought was sufficient to make "him commence author. His name was to "sell the book, and he dressed it out in "red morocco, with a wide margin, supe"rior print and paper, and this was thought

So:

by the plaintiff sufficient to insure a sale! "And what had " My poor Pocket Book" "done? Nothing more than what itself "would have done-shewn its true merits. "It was like a coal porter in a fashionable "suit of clothes; his outside was genteel, "but the moment he opened his mouth to speak, you discovered the cheat. "with"The Stranger in Ireland"—the moment you opened it, your expectations "were disappointed. There never was an "author of merit whose works were not "attacked, but the merit of the work si"lenced the attacker. Socrates was a great "author, and he was reviewed by Aristotle, "who was also a great writer, yet it did "not affect the merits of the works of "Socrates. In the present case, if it was

66

a work of merit, "My Pocket Book" "would not have injured it. He was sorry to have taken up so much of the time of "the court and jury; still he wished to speak to them on the subject; for the "action appeared more grotesque than the

frontispiece complained of. What could "be more ridiculous? A book is publish"ed, open to the inspection of every person,

66

containing the most nonsensical ideas that "could enter, the brain of man; another

person criticises it: he turns it into ridi"cule; and prevents a portion of the pub"lic from throwing away their money upon "" nonsense. In doing this, the critic had "done public service, and he trusted the jury would feel it as such, and give a verdict for the defendants.Lord ELLENBOROUGH said, that every 68 man who wrote committed himself to the judgment of the public, and every one 66 might comment upon his work. If the commentator did not step aside from the work, or introduce fiction for the purpose "of condemnation, he exercised only a

66

"the plaintiff had embodied himself in " his work; the principal part of his tour was concerning himself, and, therefore, placing him in Dublin, and the long "coach waiting for him, was not irrelevant "to the subject. Had the party writing "the criticism followed the plaintiff out of "his book into domestic life for the purposes of slander, that would have been li"bellous; but not otherwise. To repress just criticism would be extremely injurious "to society. If a work was sent into the "world that was likely to disseminate a "bad taste, or was destructive of public morals, it was of the first importance to " correct and expose it. Society, in that case, was indebted to the critic. His lordship then alluded to the advancement of philosophy and science by the opposition "one great man had offered to another, and

repeated the observations of the Attorney "General on that subject. If an individu"al, he said, presented the public with ant "outline sketch of himself, that public "had a right to finish the picture; and if "the criticism was a fair one, the author must take the consequences of it. His "lordship added, that he did not know of any thing more threatening to the liberty of the press, than the species of action be Ifore the court; and he would again repeat, "that if the publication complained of was

would find accordingly.-The jury con"sulted together a few minutes, and found "for the defendants."-This is all very true, though I do not like the words fair and just, as used here to qualify the term criticism. The distinction between the man's domestic affairs and his book is clear enough; but, as long as I write about the book and the abilities of the author and the motives, or probable motives, of his writing, and the disposition of mind which the book displays, I cannot safely trust any one to decide, whether my criticism be fair or unfair, just or unjust; that is to say, if the decision is to affect my person or property. The critic is an author as well as the writer of the book. The criticism may bé criticised; and, in both cases, the public are the sole judges of what is fair, or unfair, of what is just, or unjust. Other

wise, and if these qualifications are admissi ble, the courts of justice are to be looked to in matters of taste; they are to decide every literary dispute; and here, as well as elsewhere, we shall be unable to open our mouths without having a lawyer for our guide and assistant. I will not answer for the correctness of this report of the Chief Justice's speech. He might not mean, that a man was punishable, by law, for unfair or unjust criticism; and, I am in hopes, that the decision, upon this occasion, will make the stupid authors feel, that they cannot worry a man of talents to death merely because he has exposed their stupidity.It does not appear, from this report, whether Sir Richard Phillips came forward voluntarily, or was forced forward, in behalf of his brother knight; but, to be sure, it was quite good to hear him say, that he never read scandalous or anonymous publications, when he was the sole or part owner of so many works of the latter description; when he was part owner of a Review, and the sole owner of the "Anecdotes," than which there is not, perhaps, a more false and scandalous book in the English language, that is to say, if falsehood and scandal do not lose their nature when applied to French men and French women, and when they obtain circulation because they are calculated to gratify pre-conceived malice and hatred. The work of Messrs. Hood and Sharpe not only injured Sir John Carr, but Sir Richard Phillips also; for, observe, he is the proprietor of Sir John's first work, the very work that was criticised, and the sale of which must, of course, be greatly injured, if not totally stopped, by a criticism, which had stifled the second work in its shell. So that Sir Richard Phillips was, in fact, a person deeply interested; and, though this circumstance would not alter the fact which he had to state, it would naturally give a tinge to any sentiment that he had to express. I am, however, utterly astonished, that any word should have dropped from him calculated to throw odium upon those who endeavour to make a free use of the press. What would it have been to him, if those bundles of trash, labelled "The Stranger in Ireland," had been sent, as they now, in all probability, will be, to the trunk-makers, or the paste-board mill?

Was this vile rubbish worth the risk of his being exposed to the imputation of wishing to see a brother bookseller suffer for having published a book operating to his injury? I do not impute this wish to him. On the contrary, I sincerely believe him, who is a very kind and good as well as a very clever man, to have entertained no such wish; but,

certainly, his evidence, as stated in the newspapers, is likely to make the public infer such an imputation, The fact, I would almost lay my life, was this: between a bookseller and an author there necessarily arises, particularly if the latter be a person of some consequence, a greater, or less degree of that sort of intimacy, which, as the fashion of the world goes, is denominated friendship. Sir John Carr appears to be a man not likely to lose any thing for the me:e want of asking for; and, he would easily find the means of committing Sir Richard so far as to bring him into court with sentiments favourable to his cause. The moment a man is lashed, or exposed, he, according to the cant of the day, cries out libeller. Libeller is echoed by his friends; and, after hearing this in half a dozen places, he naturally begins to turn himself towards the law for redress, especially if he find himself incapable of defending himself, with his pen. It was thus that the quack in America acted towards me. He began the publications. He issued his destructive prescriptions through the news-papers. I answered his publications; I reduced him to silence, and finally drove him and his death-doing practice out of the city. Unable to defend himself, he had recourse to the lawyers; and, with the assistance of such judges and jurors as are to be found in great abundance in his country, gave me a dose almost as injurious as he would have sent me from his own shop. Of all the acts, of which a man can be guilty, none is so mean, none is so base, none is so truly detestable, as that of seeking, through the law, vengeance for a lite rary defeat. If this were to be tolerated; if exposing a man's alilities to ridicule were to be deemed libelling, and to be punished as such, who, unless he had a long purse, and a body of iron, would dare to attempt the task of criticising the works of a tich min? Every wealthy fool might publish his trash in perfect security, and that, too, without being under the necessity of treating and bribing the Reviewers. No man would dare expose his folly or imbecility; for, at any rate, the tormentors of the law would be set upon the critic, who, as his least punishment, would be half-ruined in his defence. There would be nothing, however infamous as well as foolish, that a poor writer would dare to comment upon with freedom. He must write in trammels so tight as to render his efforts of little or no effect. There would, in short, be a general license for folly and wickedness, when backed by wealth; and still there would be scoundrels so impudent, as to call upon us

to deny ourselves almost the necessaries of life, and to expose life itself, for the purpose of preserving, what they would still call the liberty of the press. The evil would go yet further; for the rich bookseller would become a persecutor as well as the wealthy fool who writes. His purse would be a shield for a dozen or two of dull doctors whom he keeps in bis pay, and by the means of whose imposture-like performinces he increases his fortune. Well might Lord Ellenborough say, that "he knew of no"thing more threatening,to the liberty of "the press than this species of action."But, how stands the case with regard to publications touching the words, or conduct, of persons in general, and particularly members of the government? Is it not. dangerous to the liberty of the press to lay it down as a maxim, that their abilities are not to be ridiculed; that you are to say nothing at all which hurts their feelings, without exposing yourself to punishment? Reports of trials are, in general, very correct; the whole of the places where trials are held are so crowded with lawyers, to whom, indeed, they are almost exclusively appropriated, that it is extremely difficult for any reporter to obtain the accommodation necessary for the making of notes. I do not, therefore, give the words of my motto as words actually uttered by Lord Ellenborough, but merely as words published in the several news papers, as having been uttered by him, upon the occasion alluded to. As such, they must have produced a great deal of effect; and, there is no doubt in my mind, that the doc. trine they contain has encouraged Sir John Carr, knight, to bring the action, the fate of which is above recorded. Let us hope, however, that this dangerous doctrine is now exploded as completely as if the Whigs had kept their words after they got their places, and made it a subject of discussion in parliament; for, I believe, it will be very difficult to produce any solid reason, why a man should have the liberty to hurt the feelings of an author any more than to hurt the feelings of a minister of state; why he should be allowed to ridicule the abilities of the former any more than the abilities of the latter; why it should be an offence worthy of penal visitation in the former case any more than in the latter case. I cannot discover any grounds for a distinction; and, therefore, I conclude, that if we should, by any accident, see a fool in office, we are at liberty to expose his folly, and to convince the nation, that the management of their affairs is in bad hands. Iodeed, the real of the liberty of the press is to cause the weak and wicked

public servants. It is of comparatively triffing consequence what men publish in bocks. Five hundred people, perhaps, never saw, or heard of, Sir John Carr's trash; and, if it could have been read by the whole nation, it is not likely that it would have done either harm or good. But, in the ability and honesty of men in office, every person in the country is deeply interested, and therefore ought to be regularly and minutely informed. upon the subject. Upon matters of taste in books, of what consequence is it whether the people are well-informed er ill-informed? But, upon matters closely connected with the prosperity and honour of the country, it is of great importance that they should lack no information that can possibly be communicated to them. Well, then, how is this information to be given? How, if not through an unshackled press, a press restrained only from uttering falsehood, according to the old language and practice of the law? Suppose I had been in battle with a general, and had seen him run from the enemy, beating him in swiftness as shamefully as a March hare beats a lurcher; suppose I had seen this, or received good information of it, would it not be very ne cessary to make the fact known, in order to prevent such a winged-heeled fellow from again exposing the lives of the army and bringing disgrace upon the nation? Suppose I had an opportunity of knowing several men, pretending to office and power, to be totally unqualified for any business and totally unworthy of any trust; would it not be very useful to communicate iny knowledge to the public? Or, suppose me to have merely an opinion relating to public men, how do we arrive at the best chance of forming correct notions as to things unknown, except it be by expressing our opinions to one another?Nor, can I see what mischief could arise from carrying the same liberty into the discussions relative to the private affairs of men. Suppose, for instance, I say, that Mr. such an one is a contented cuckold; that he has received proof quite sufficient that his wife has had a child by another man; but that, in consideration of a good sum of money, paid him by the principal cuckolder, he holds his tongue, and, as the old saying is, puts his horns in his pocket. This is, indeed, to suppose a strong case; bat, such a case may possibly exist; and, if it does, should not such a man be pointed out? Ought not the mean scoundrel to be held up to the ridicule and scorn of the world? What other way is there of correcting such disgraceful and pernicious vices? Suppose me