from a desire that there might be a fair review. My wishes and my feelings sug gested 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 scarrility in it whatever; but I found that a review which had no personal abuse, would not succeed, and therefore I discontinned its publication.

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

Lord Ellenborough That is, you are now slandering all publishers but yourself. That is calling all other reviewers slanderers. I wish you would attend to the advice of others, whose prulence you seem to want. Sir Richard Phillips.—My lord, I know a great deal about reviewers! Attorney General. Q Perhaps 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 became 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

have been used to send them to the newspapers, for five or six years together. So that an advertisement may latterly have gone into a newspaper with the same paragraph in it, of the commendation of the reviewer, a long time after I had determined to discontinue that practice.

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

Q. Now, I ask you, there being this number of reviews, have you never looked into any of them to see if sir John Carr's work was reviewed by them ?-A. I do not recollect to have done so, within the last twelve months.

Q. I ask you whether you have not looked into them concerning "The Stranger in Ireland"-A. I do not recollect to have seen "The Stranger in Ireland," noticed in more than one review. I have seen it, in some review; I do not recollect which it

was.

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

Attorney General.-Now, sir Richard Phillips, I will ask you another question; have you not yourself assigned as a reason for not publishing this work of sir Joha Carr's, which you have seen in manuscript, "The Tour in Scotland," "That sir Joh Carr was worn out?"-A. I never used the phrase.

Q. Nor any thing like it ?-A. No, not any thing like it.

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

Q. Have you read "The Tour throngh Scotland?"-A. I have looked into it, but 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 public engagements would prevent you from embarking in such publications; and that you gave that answer out of tenderness ta sir John Carr. Pray what was that tender.

C

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 yon had not said, "Sir John Carr was worn out," is a Mr. Murray. Now I ask you. did you not say so to him?-4. 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?". I could not say such a thing.

Q. Do you swear positively, that you did not say that "Sir John Carr was worn ont ?"—4. I certainly do say, that I did not say so.

Attorney-General-May it please your lordship: gentlemen of the jury, I conld, 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 ju-tify 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 every

dramatis personæ, that it renders 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-Weak est, perhaps weakest.

Allorney-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 hero.-If we were living in the days of Pop-we should have a new edition of the Danciad 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 he 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 anthors-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 anonymous 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

booksellers; for, says. he, "I published, 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 character which he states himself to be I put it to you, thus-do you believe he swears truly when he swears, that he 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 ke 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 liave 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 iu 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 and the most absard 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 publications, and knowing how the next book of sir John Cair might at least be handled, and yet would have given #£000 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

He has arrogated to himself all the honour in the kingdom, as far as it regards the publication of books, and reviews of books. Whay standard shall I take to judge of the propriety or impropriety of this publication, called My Pocket Book ;-as containing just or unjust criticism on the work of Sir John Carr, called "The Stranger in Ire"land?" I will appeal to my Lord Mountnorris, who has a high personal respect for the author of the book, called The Stranger in Ireland," and partial towards the subject of it. The truth is, that Sir John Carr went to Ireland well recommended. He received there the honour of knighthood and knighthood, fine clothes and genteel manners, are an introduction into genteel circles, and gain a high name for a while, to an author, and may be a short substitute for genius, to a person who chooses to figure as an author. He thought his name would uphold his book, but that will never do long, unless the book can uphold his name. Sir John Carr thought that his book would pass on account of his name. And it very nearly had. My Lord Mountmorris had very nearly got himself into the scrape of buying this book of Sir John Carr's called "The Stranger in Ire

་་

land." He would have done so, but from the circumstance of his having seen this book, called "My Pocket Book." And here I think my Lord Mountnorris has some reason to complain of his friend Sir Joh Carr, and of those who gave him that nant, Not that I mean to insinuate that Sir Jos Carr is unworthy of the honour of knighthood; I am speaking of him merely as an author, and in that view, knighthood may sometimes have the effect of a false token, Cum pulchris tunicis sumet nova consilia "et spes." But what effect has this book called My Pocket Book," had on the public mind? Why, my Lord Mountaorris, who has a personal respect for Sir John Carr, shall answer that question. He said that understanding Sir John Carr to have spoken handsomely of Ireland, and feeling an interest in that subject, he was disposed to buy the book; but he read this criticism, and having read it, he read the book which the subject of it. He then com pared them with each other-what was the effect of his doing so? Why, that he would not buy the book. Why did he not buy the book? Because it had been so suc cessfully ridiculed. How came it to be so successfully ridicifled? Perhaps you can guess. My Lord Mountnorris had like to have reposed too much confidence in the name of the author. But having locked st

was

the book which gave an acconnt of it, and then having compared them with one and ther 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 preventing those who have not seen, from buying bad books. This is a prof that in the judgment of my Lord Mountnorris, a man of erudition a friend to the author too, and partial to his subject-hinks the book, after an attentive perusal of it, not worth buying. My Lord Mountnorris did not content himself with reading this criticism, but he read the book itself, and after perusing both, be found the book of Sir John Carr so ridicu Jons a work that he would not buy it, for he did not choose to be laughed at by those who might see it in his li brary. I do not complain of those who purchase books without having read them, or hearing something of their character from men of judgment; but those who, like my Lord Mountnorris, take the precaution to perase a book before they buy it, are, I think, a great deal more prudent. My Lord Mountnorris has shewn us the utility of criticism; and I think he has shewn us the justness of the criticism bere complained of-Gentlemen, I think this case a great deal too clear to require any further observations. I confess I had brought my mind up to saying a good deal on the subject of Sir John Carr's literary labours. I had been almost tempted to do so; but I think it has become unnecessary after the evidence you have heard. I might have compared the works of Sir John Carr with authors of antiquity whose works have been treated with ridicule. There was Socrates, and Aristophanes criticised him; but his doctrines were not the less published on that account. Way? 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 right of dealing with the contents of that book as the contents deserve. If the book be a work of genuine merit, no attack upon it, however, violent, or however ingenious, will do it any permanent injury. If, on the other band,ir be a work which has for its support, nothing but knighthood-a large marginbor-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 criticism, 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 bock, and publishes it, of whatever description it may be, commits 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 parls of sir John Carr's book wherein.expressions are used similar to those used in the present publication It is contended that P

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 injuriâ; 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 fame and profits, to which he was never entitled; and the person who occasions that loss, by fair criticism, is not 1. that species of conduct which sub

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, he 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 li berty to expose the works of another, however 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, the giving too much encouragement to this spe cies of action. But do not let me be mis derstood; for I do not mean to say, that there was any thing in the book, published by the defendants, of a libellous tendency. wholly foreign to the work, or unconnecte: with the author of it, as embodied in lif work; if there was any thing in it, tendig to render him ridiculous, unconnected wi the work, the action is maintainable. Na ther you nor I have appeared before the word in the character of an author, at least I have not; but, if I had, I should not thak myself entitled to maintain an action gast any body else, who ridiculed my work a proved it to be ridiculous. If any p chooses to exhibit a picture, which was self ridiculous, another cannot be liable" an action, for pointing out wherein it is diculous. If another chooses in his work draw a picture of himself, to place hims in a given situation, another right to finish that picture by exposing it ridicule, if it be ridiculous; and by cr cising upon the words which the author ba made use of. If, therefore, you think t is a criticism of the work of this author, and of the author himself, as far as he is con nected with the work only, and not writied 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 be anonymous. In a word, if you are satisfie that this criticism is levelled at the plainti work, and at the plaintiff himself, only he is connected with, and embodied in, the work, I am of opinion that he must take the consequences of it: and, indeed it goes not appear to have done any material injury.

person

has