through 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 Richard, you told the booksellers that your publick engagements would prevent you from embarking in such publications; and that you gave that answer out of tenderness to sir John Carr. Pray what was that tenderness-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 not 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 Ju1y,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 evi dence of his being either one of the greatest fools that ever lived under the sun, or that he is not to be cred ited on his oath. I say that 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 earth-without 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 If the auhe wrote his Dunciad. thor of the Dunciad were now liv ing, he would have changed his heIf we were living in the days ro. 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 works, which these voluminous 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 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 publick, according to the impression produ ced by these periodical publications. This must be the case with "The Stranger in Ireland," as well as And sir Richard any other work. Phillips being interested in pocket, as to the credit of that work with the publick, tells you that he never look. ed into any one of these reviews, He felt that, as soon as he said it, 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 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 altogther-a condition in which he is not intitled to place himself. Now, gentlemen, is sir Richard Phillips that pure, immaculate character, which he states Ι I have two himself to be? it to you put thus-do you believe he swears tru ly, when he swears he became the publisher of the Oxford Review, merely for the purpose of giving to the publick one honest review in this kingdom? Do you believe 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 conseqence of these petty com's objections to them, that they are anonymous, and that they are scur. rilous" and yet he admits, that himself was publisher of "Anecdotes of Publick Characters in this country," and, "Anecdotes of the founders of the French Republick." 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 facts; a 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 Phillip's narrative of facts, and his abhorrence of scurrillity. 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 currillity," and yet he publishes two books, which are anonymous; whether they contain any thing that is scurrillous, we will not ments, as he calls them, of this and the honour of knighthood; knighthood, fine clothes and gen teel 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 geni. us, to a person who chooses to figure He thought his as an author. name would uphold his book, but Sir that will never do long, unless the book can uphold his name. John Carr thought that his book would pass on account of his name. And it very nearly had. My Lord Mountnorris had very nearly got himself into the scrape of buying this book of sir John Carr's called "The Stranger in Ireland." He would have done so, but from the circumstance of his having seen this My Pocket Book." book, called " And here I think my Lord Mountnorris has some reason to complain of his friend sir John Carr, and of those who gave him that name. Not that I mean to insinuate, that sir John Carr is unworthy the honour of knighthood; I am speaking of him merely as an author, and in that view, knighthood may some. times have the effect of a false token. "Cum pulchris tunicis sumet nova con• silia et spes." But what effect has this book, called "My Pocket Book," had on the publick mind? Why, my Lord Mountnorris, 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 criti cism, and having read it, he read the book, which was the subject of it. He then compared them with each other what was the effect of his doing so? why, that he would Why did he not buy the book. not buy the book? Because it had been so successfully ridiculed. How came it to be so successfully ridicu. led? Perhaps you can guess. My Lord Mountnorris had like to have reposed too much confidence in the name of the author. But having looked at 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 preventing those who have not seen, from buying 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 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, he found the book of sir John Carr so ridiculous 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 library. I do not complain of those who purchase books without having read them, or hearing something of their character from men of judg`ment; but those who, like my Lord Mountnorris, take the precaution to peruse a book before they buy it, are, I think, a great deal more prudent. My Lord Mountnorris has shewn us the use of criticism; and I think he has shewn us the justness of the criticism here 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. 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 publick 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 hand, it be a work which has for its support, nothing but knighthood; a large margin; hot-press; gilt leaves, morocco and binding, it really can never stand the test of criticism, and the sooner it is sent into the shades the better. The publick are indebted to the critick who so disposes of it; for the publick 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 publick. I have my learned friend's concession, that fair and manly criticism, even if you do not agree in opinion with the critick, 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, commits it to the publick; 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 Cair, 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 no tice 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 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 unobjec tionable, if the work itself be ill digested-bad composition-written with bad taste, or otherwise defec tive, so as to deserve the charac ter of a "bad book,"-it is doing great service to the publick to write it down; such works cannot be too soon exposed-the sooner they diɛ. appear the bettor. 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 booksof this gentlemen 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 tura them into ridicule, if they be ridiculous. If there were no such right, we should have no security for the exposition of errour; bad systems of philosophy would not be written down, as that of Des Cartes was by Newton; and bad system of gov. ernment 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 publick by |