He has arrogated to himself all the honour in 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 ❘ the author of the book, called 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 | He received there the honour of knigh 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 " " "The Stran ger in Ireland," and partial towards the subject of it. The truth is, that Sit Jot Carr went to Ireland well recommende 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 thong his name would uphold his book, but th will never do long, unless the book can hold his name. name. My Pocket Sir John Carr thought th his book would pass on account of 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 and 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 pubterest in that subject, he was disposed Cum pulchris tunicis sumet nova cons " et spes." But what effect has this bo called "My Pocket Book," had on public mind? Why, my Lord Mountnorm who has a personal respect for Sir John Co shall answer that question. He said understanding Sir John Carr to have spok handsomely of Ireland, and feeling an 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 ❘pared them with each other-what wast 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. buy the book; but he read this criticist and having read it, he read the book wh was the subject of it. He then co 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 guess. My Lord Mountnorris had like have reposed too much confidence in t name of the author. But having lecket the book which gave an account of it, and ❘ and the sooner it is sent into the shades the 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 buyang 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 Mountnorris did not content himelf with reading this criticism, but he read The book itself, and after perusing both, he bund the book of Sir John Carr so ridicu bas a work that he would not buy it, for he did not choose to be laughed by those who might see it in his li Mary. -I do not complain of those who Purchase books without having read them, ir hearing something of their character from nen of judgment; but those who, like my Lord Mountnorris, take the precaution to eruse a book before they buy it, are, I hink, a great deal more prudent. My Jord Mountnorris has shewn us the utility criticism; and I think he has shewn us justness of the criticism here complained -Gentlemen, I think this case a great haal too clear to require any further observations. I confess I had brought my mind ip to saying a good deal on the subject of r John Carr's literary labours. I had been Imost tempted to do so; but I think it bas 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 tlhose who have not, otherwise, means of discovering the true character of a book, how to save their money. Such is the effect of gennine 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 come unnecessary after the evidence you ❘ person who writes any book, and publishes ave heard. I might have compared the Works of Sir John Carr with authors of anmity whose works have been treated with idicule. There was Socrates, and Aristohanes criticised him; but his doctrines were 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 less published on that account. Why? Because the ridicule did not affect his ame. It is because works are ridiculous, Mat ridicule affects them. Whoever sends to the world a book, gives to the public a ght of dealing with the contente of that ok as the contents deserve. If the book be work of genuine merit, no attack upon it, however, violent, or however ingenious, will | The book published by the defendants takes hit any permanent injury. If, on the other and it be a work which has for its support, bothing but knighthood-a large margintul-press-gilt leaves morocco and binding, it cally never can stand the test of criticism, 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 pablication. It is contended that P Supplement to No. 12, Vol. XIV.-Price 10.1. . this work of the defendants should not be | 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 crili cism 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, bowever ridiculous. I think we ought to resista suffered, because it ridicules, immoderately, the works of the plaintiff. Why, gentle men, if the thing itself be ridiculous-if the principle of it be bad-or, though the principle be unobjectionable, if the work itse If 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 | 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 misun derstood; 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. Nei ther you nor 1 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 has a right to finish that picture by exposing it to ridicule, if it be ridiculous; and by criti 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 Filiner, 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. Locke did great service to the public by writing down that work; and, indeed, any percising upon the words which the author bas son does a service to the public, who writes down any vapid or useless publication, such ❘ is a criticism of the work of this author, and 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 injuria; 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 guilty of that species of conduct which subjects him to an action in a court of justice. Mr. made use of. If, therefore, you think this of the author himself, as far as he is con nected 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 main tainable. 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 plaintiffs 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, as appears from the opinion of my lord | and reason, must have given him much Mountnorris, who considered the criticism so extremely clever, that after having read it, and the work to which it referred, chap satisfaction. These events are the more gratifying, inasmuch as he shall confess, that he had not contemplated Spain, as the coun ter by chapter, he says, I should have ❘ try in which a successful resistance to France bought the one, but for the other;" which is squivalent to his having said, that he thought the volume, to which the criticism referred, not worth buying; and, if you think so, gentlemen, you will find a verdict for the defendants. One of the Jury. Is there any thing in the defendants' book of a libellous tendency, by way of personal attack on the character of the plaintiff, unconnected with his publicaLons? Lord Ellenborough. - Something has been eferred to of that kind; but nothing has Been laid before us in proof of it. The plaintiff appears to be placed in a ridiculous tuation, in a groupe of figures. He might ave been so described by words. If any thing had been said of this plaintiff reflectag on his character, unconnected with this book, I should have told you that, in my ppinion, it would have been a libel; but we have no proof of that. One of the Jury. If it be contended, that here is any personal reflection upon the laintiff, in this book, unconnected with his Writings, we must go through the contents Xit. Lord Ellenborough. - We have no proof Chat there is. The jury without a minute's consultation, returned a-VERDICT FOR THE DEFEND ANTS. Lord Ellenborough.-I hope nobody will nderstand, from the result of this trial, hat there is the least countenance given to lander nor to ridicule any author, any nore than any other individual, unless such djcule be connected with his works, and the author is embodied with his work; for courts justice are as tender of the moral characers of all men, whether they be authors or 10t, as they are firm in maintenance of the ight of every individual, to give a free pinion, on every publication of a literary work. was most likely to originate. The grand aim of his essay was to awaken his own country to a sense of her danger, in trusting her defence too much to a standing army; as well as to the excess of her imprudence, and even criminal indifference, in suffering her ministers and parliament to evade, in respect of arming, the clear principles of the constitution, without remonstrance or expostulation. Those of our statesmen who talked of armed citizens being only depositaries of panic," and of an organised population being to a regular army of invaders "an unresisting medium," may now feel that they have errors to acknowledge; but the author of the Ægis is well content with the Spanish illustration of his English text. It is not a little to his purpose that, prior to the fall of the Spanish Bourbons, and the Prince of the Peace, the armies of Spain had never been held up to us as models, formed in the school of the great Frederick; that the Corsican had artfully drawn the flower of the Spanish army, such as it was, out of the country, and employed it in the north of Europe; and that with his influence at Madrid, we may be sure that that army had, for a considerable time past, been neglected as much as possible. We knew not, indeed, any thing of its strength; but have seen no evidences of its having been considerable. It has been stated to us, that Castanos himself was at first only at the head of 3 or 4,000 men; and, either in postscript or a note to the letter of our own commissioner, Capt. Whittingham, reporting the surrender of Dupont and Wedel, we were told that " one " half" of the Spaniards were " peasant ry." Be that, however, as it may, we have grounds for understanding, that a junction of the English force of 6,000 men under Gen. Spencer was offered, but declined by Castanos, who felt justly confident of his strength; when we know the firm and dignified conduct of the Spaniards, in declining English assistance for reducing the French fleet at Cadiz, our private intelli, gence respecting a similar conduct in the other case becomes the more credible. Had Spain been provided with a regular force, in any degree considerable, a place of such importance as Saragossa could not have been wholly without them; and yet Palafox, Captain General of Arragon, in his letter "to her, were but Germany a free and a armed nation.*" A stronger contrast, between the effect right and of wrong principles of defence than what we have witnessed in the nort and the south, human history cannot affor The instruction I hope, will not be throw away upon us. Were the emperors Franc and Alexander, ruling over about sixty mi lions of the European population, to giv their debased subjects real freedom, by th introduction of representative assemblie like the cortes of Spain, or the house( commons of England, and were they lik wise to organize what we call a posse com tatus, would not France be instantly strip ped of all her terrors? Would she not the see sprung up around her from the south the north of Europe, an adamantine wall Castile, and Navarre."-Although Spain, so different from the cases of Prussia, Austria, and Russia, was completely taken by surprize; and had her country, from Pam peluna to Cordova, absolutely in the power of French armies, and a French force also master of Cadiz, before she knew that Napoleon was her enemy; yet, to her immortal honour, we hear but of one instance of the armed population, which of course had been very hastily collected, giving way in battle; and even then the disaster produced | warriors; a wall she could not pass ; warı ors she would have no stomach to provoke -Could any longer kings or emperors tren ble, when the Corsican lion put out a pav or was heard to growl? And would the not then contemplate him with the sam composure as we contemplate a caged lion i the tower? Would the licentious soldiery France, half monkey half tyger, any long scamper over all countries doing ridicula mischief mingled with rapine and carnag authors of human calamity, objects of L man curses? Would her terrified tributari any longer snbmit to her insufferable arn gance? Would any prince out of the pa no ill effect; the patriots soon rallied, and the French veterans were shortly after conquered and made prisoners. Even where the general was " without a single soldier," so far are we from hearing that his armed patriots were a mere " depositary of panic,' that the French armies in their repeated attacks OD Saragossa were uniformly repulsed with great slaughter; and Palafox was even able to make detach ments "to Catalonia, Navarre, and other provinces," as he himself states. The French emperor indeed, like a certain English statesman, judging an armed population, to be "an unresisting medium" to his ❘ of France thenceforth dare to play the t invincibles, directs his deputy usurper to proceed to Madrid, and very coolly appoints the time for his arrival; but, by the countermarch which was so precipitate, as barely to allow time for packing up the stolen regalia, it is probable those two great men, Napoleon and Mr. Windham, may by this time have changed their opinion, on the subject of " an unresisting medium." Very far am I indeed, from pretending to superior discernment; but, I lay claim to have pointed out ten years ago the right means of effect ing the deliverance of Europe;" my words were these: Turning then to the map, we see Europe of a size to take care "of herself; adverting to the constitutions "of the governments which are opposed to "each other, we know, that it is by alliance, "not with the English treasury, but with "their own degraded subjects, the courts "of Austria, Germany, and Muscovy, may effectually withstand the arms of France. "Whether the frontiers of the republic be "marked by a Rhine, or a rivulet, it were " in the way of hostility, equally impassable " rant? Would any people endure it? An would not the French themselves, too litt sedate for teachers of liberty, then be taug it? The pillaging occupation of their a mies gone, they would no longer feel curse of conscription. Their vain-glorio humour no longer played upon to the torme of Europe, and their energies compres within national limits, those energies mig be expected to recoil upon the artful tyra who has misapplied them, extorting fro him that sober, solid liberty, of which b craft, aided by their vanity and vices, t hitherto defrauded them. Such, Sir, I take to be the rational pr cess for effecting Europe's deliverance: aa as infallible as it is simple. On no oth principles can it be effected. As to a me balance of power between despots, to ca that by the name of deliverance, would a profanation of the faculty of speech which we are distinguished from brutes. on right principles we cannot be aiding * Appeal, 2d edit. p. 269. |
