Q. Then as to "The Tour through Ireland," what did you pay for that? I gave sir John Carr, 6001. for that, and a conditional 1001. more I think, on the second edition; or, on the sale of a certain number; but previous to the whole of that number being sold, (considering that it would be sold,) I gave sir John Carr 1001. more. So that he had 7001. for the "Tour through Ireland "

Q. What did you give him for the other book, which you purchased of him, "The Tour through Holland " A The same price. It is a sort of rule with booksellers, (at least it is so with me)-that when we are satisfied with the work of an author, we give him, for similar works, the same as we did before, without any treaty.

Q. So that you gave sir John Carr 6001. for "The Stranger in Ireland, and, if it went through a second edition, you were to give him 1001. more; which you did?" A. Yes.

Q. Now, sir, have you seen a 'work of his called, "A Tour in Scotland?" A. I have seen it in a manuscript; sir John Carr has put it into my hands.

Q. It is a work prepared now for publication? A. It is.

Q. Now sir, when you saw that, had you seen the present book, called "My Pocket Book?" A. Yes, I had.

Q. Did you at any time, see one of these defendants, Mr. Hood? A. I frequently saw him.

Q. So as to have a conversation with him concerning this work; I mean the book, called "My Pock. et Book?" A. I have met Mr. Hood, and he has spoken to me particularly on the subject of the book called, My Pocket Book."

Q. Will you state to us, what he

seid to you, on that subject? A. He began by asking me "how sir John Carr did?" I said he was very well. He went on to ask me, have you seen or read, "My Pocket Book?" I answered him by saying, "I never read any scurrility of that kind.”

Q. Did he make any answer to that? A. He did. He said, "the Lord have mercy upon sir John Carr: we have a rod in pickle for him: we will do for him :" or, "we will do his business;" or words to that ef fect. I believe the words were, "the Lord have mercy upon him, poor sir John," or some phrase of that sort, was thrown in ; we will do his business," or, "will do for him."

Q. Do you know whether this book, called "My Pocket Book," has been extensively circulated? A. I have reason to believe it has been very actively and industriously cir culated. I have seen it in the windows of booksellers, attracting some attention, in consequence of a ridic. ulous frontispiece; and booksellers are some of them apt to expose works of this nature, on account of the oddity of appearance in them.

Q Has it been circulated, in what they call "the trade circulation, and sale?"-A. I do not attend trade sales myself, and I cannot speak to that, but I can speak to this-that the whole edition was offered to the trade, at the trade price, and, that a thousand copies were so to be disposed of; as appears by this catalogue.

Attorney General.-You must say nothing to us about that catalogue, for it is not evidence.

Ld. Ellenborough.-Certainly not; you must prove that publication, as well as every other publication by the actual sale. The catalogue is nothing.

Mr. Dampier-Q. Was this work called the Tour through Scotland," or whatever other title it might have, offered to you for sale? A. Yes it was.

Q. Did you buy it, or did you decline it ?-A. The impression which was made on my mind, in consequence of the publication of the book, called "My Pocket Book ;" and the activity with which it was circulated, (as I perceived from the manner in which it was advertised) together with the conversation I had with Mr. Hood, was such, that I certainly declined to buy it.

Q What was the reason of your declining to buy it? A. I certainly declined to buy it, in consequence of the publication of this book, called, "My Pocket Book."

Q Had you, before you were aware of this publication, made any offer of any sum of money, for that work of sir John Carr's which you saw in manuscript? A. Not at that

time.

Q Did you at any time? A. Sir John Carr, subseqnent to this, proposed and offered it to me, for 4001. together with the contingent advantage as before, but I declined it. If this libel had not been published, I should have given sir John Carr the same as he had for the former works; for it is a custom of our trade, unless something happens to make us dissatisfied with the author's work, to give him the same sum for every similar work, as he had for the preceding one-and had I purchased this work now in manuscript, of sir John Carr, I should certainly have given him 6001 for it.

Cross examined.-Q. You state yourself not to be a reader of scur rility-A I certainly do; I wish to read nothing of that kind.

Q. As you state yourself not to

be a reader of any thing of that kind, I take it for granted, you never publish any thing of that sort? A. I mean, that I never read anonymous scurrility. If I see the name of a respectable author on a title page, it becomes another thing.

Attorney General. Do not overpower me, sir Richard Phillips, by a multitude of words, or by answering my questions before I put them to you; especially by references to anonymous writings.

Q. I take it for granted you nev er read the Edinburgh Review?A. I have seen the Edinburgh Review-but I pay no respect whatever to that, or to any other work of anonymous criticism.

Q. I take it for granted, then, sir Richard, that criticism owes its effect to the circumstance of a knowledge of who the author is?

4. It certainly ought to do so; to my mind criticisms should always bear the names of the authors. I do not generally consider that fair criticism which is anonymous.

Q When did you publish these works of sir Johan Carr ?—A. I published the first work, "The Northern Summer," I suppose in 1803 or 4; "The Stranger in Ire land," in 1806; and the "Tour in Ireland," in 1807; "The Tour in Scotland," I saw in 1808-the present year.

Q. As you do not read criticism, except you know who the critick, or the author is, I take it for granted, you do not attend to the Edinburgh Review. If sir John Carr has been praised, or censured in the Edinburgh Review, I take it for granted you do not know it?-A. I never saw it.

Mr. Garrow-I object to the introduction of the Edinburgh Review. It is no evidence.. Lord Ellenborough.-I understand

the Attorney-General's question to be to this effect to take the Edinburgh Review as a mere illustration of the present subject.

Mr. Garrow If it be either directly complimentary to, or directly detracting from, the merit of sir John Carr as an author, the Edinburgh Review may be referred to, as an evidence of the opinion of literary persons, as to the merit of sir John Carr, as an author; but, I submit to your Lordship, that otherwise, it is not evidence in this cause. Lord Ellenborough. They are not taking any thing out of the Edinburgh Review, but the Attorney General is cross-examining the witness, as to his acquaintance with that publication. I see nothing in the course of this examination, which calls upon me to stop it.

Attorney General. I ask sir Richard Phillips, whether he knows that this book had been reviewed by the Edinburgh Reviewers? A. I do not know it; I do not read the Edinburgh Review.

Q. You do not know there is such a publication, perhaps, as the Edinburgh Review? A. There is such a publication, certainly, but I do not recollect that I have read the Edinburgh Review at all, except some parts of the first volume. I thought some of it scurrilous, and I abhor scurrility.

QNow, as you think this publication, which is complained of, is scurrilous; as you abhor scurrility; and, as you know it to be anony mous: you do not soil your pure mind with the perusal of it; are there any reviews published by any persons which are not anonymous? A. None that I recollect, at this moment; there was one sometime ago by Dr. Maty.

Q. But you do know there is

such a publication as the Edin burgh Review? A. I do.

Q. Do you know whether there. is such a publication as the Annual Review? A. I know there is such a publication.

QIs that anonymous? A. That has a name.

Q. Now, as you do not read scurrilous anonymous writings, and as that is not anonymous, since it has a name, perhaps you do read the Annual Review? A. Never, now; I have looked into former volumes of it, but I never read it now; it is a very ponderous publication, which I do not read, because I have not leisure.

Q. Have you had a large sale of sir John Carr's works? A. A ve-. ry respectable sale; a very considerable sale, of the first work. Of "the Tour in Ireland," and of "the Tour round the Baltic," I have sold, I think, very nearly 1500 copies.

Attorney General. I think, sir Richard, that your reprobation of anonymous criticism, cannot be too much commended; certainly, nothing should be published without a name; it is proper we should always know who to resort to, in case any thing be published which is not proper.

Q Pray, sir Richard, was there not a review called "The Oxford Review?" A. Yes.

Q. Who published it? A. It was printed by a person at Oxford.

Q Very likely but who published it in London? A. I was the publisher in London.

Lord Ellenborough. Here, I think I should caution you, sir Richard Phillips, for although I do not know what the publication contained, it may contain something for which you may be responsible, and which may lead you into diffi.

culty; we are here treading upon tender ground; you are not bound to answer any thing which may tend to involve yourself in difficulty.

Sir Richard Phillips. I thank your Lordship, but I shall certainly answer any questions which the Áttorney General chooses to ask me; I never printed a line, to my knowledge, which was calculated to hurt the feelings of any person living.

Lord Ellenborough. It is my duty to caution you, sir Richard, and to tell you, that you are not bound to avow that you are the publisher of any work, which may contain any objectionable matter. You are entitled to a protection as a witness. You have laid yourself open already to many questions, which could not have been regularly asked of you, had you not chosen to avow yourself publisher of the work just alluded to.

Attorney General. There was a work intitled "Publick Characters," I believe? A. There was. Q. And you published it, I believe? A. I did.

Lord Ellenborough. By the name of it, that is a work very likely to be extremely delicate; I caution you once more, how you admit yourself to be the publisher of such works; you are not bound to admit any such matter. You appear to me to be admitting too much : I now give you notice, that I shall not caution you again. You have just admitted yourself to be the publisher of a book called "Pub lick Characters," that, from the title of it, is likely to contain a great deal of very delicate matter.

Sir Richard Phillips. I repeat again, my lord, that I have no disinclination to avow every thing that I ever published. I never publish

ed any work which I should be ashamed to avow in this place.

Attorney General. On that ground, sir Richard, you will tell me, wheth er you published a book called "Publick Characters of the French Revolution? A. I do not know of any book under that title. There was a book published in 1796, by myself, giving an account of the Founders of the French Republick; but it was a plain narra. tive of facts. It was a chronological account of publick men, who' had figured away in France, in the course of the revolution. It was published with a view of giving an account of such persons, there was no scurrility in it, certainly.

Attorney General. No scurrility? A. Certainly none, that I am aware of.

Mr. Garrou. My lord, I rather think I ought to object to this, as an entirely wrong course of proceeding. One would think, from the course which my friend, the Attorney General, is now taking, that sir Richard Phillips was the plaintiff, instead of sir John Carr, for my learned friend seems, now, to be going into the publick life and character of air Richard Phillips. Sir John Carr, the plaintiff upon this record, has nothing in common, nothing to do with sir Richard Phillips. They have no connexion with each other, except that the one of them is the author, and the other the publisher, of a certain work, and then, my lord, how can any part of the life of sir Richard Phillips be evidence upon this issue between sir John Carr and these defendants ?

Lord Ellenborough I do not know any thing of what is common or what is not common, between this plaintiff and this witness; but, you see here, that sir Richard Phillips

is the purchaser of this work; which is reviewed, or, if you please, censured, by the publication of the defendants. On the credit of the author of this work, of which sir Richard Phillips is the purchaser, depends the sale of the unsold part of that work, that is, of the edition now on hand; and this evidence, which he is now giving that he is the proprie tor, and consequently interested in the sale of this book, does not indeed go to his competency, but has a strong bearing on his credit, as a witness; and therefore the Attorney General should, I think, be allowed a larger scope than he should otherwise have, in his cross examination. He has put to sir Richard Phillips many questions, to which sir Richard does not choose to demur, but to which he is certainly entitled to demur, he chooses to say that he is the publisher of many of these works, after the caution which he received from me. I wish he would be guided by other discretion than his

own.

Q. Then it contains nothing but an account of facts within your own knowledge?

A. No, not so; I was not the author, but the publisher.

Attorney General-And yet you say it is a mere narrative of facts; how can you say so, unless they are facts within your own knowledge?— A It was a mere plain narrative of facts.

Lord Ellenborough.-How do you know them to be facts, if you were not present at the transaction? A. It was certainly a narrative of what the author stated to me, and what I considered to be facts. It was like every other book of grave biography and history.

Attorney General.-I think we have now got pretty well rid of the book, which you call the " Narrative of Facts."

Q. You were publisher of the Oxford Review?-A. Yes.

Lord Ellenborough.-More or less, I think it has it has some refer ence to it certainly.

Attorney General -Q. You have very properly uttered your sentiments in reprobation of all criticism which is anonymous-and you are the publisher of a book which gives us the character of those persons who figured in the French revolution. Pray what was the title of that book ?-A. "Anecdotes of the Founders of the French Republick." It was published ten or twelve years ago; it was merely a matter-of-fact book; there was no scurrility in it whatever.

2. You say you would not put your name to any thing that was anonymous, or a scurrilous publication. And you say that yoù published "Anecdotes of the Founders of the French Republick." And you say that you, yourself, published the Oxford Review, which was anonymous ?-A. Yes; but they had not the character of the works which I have reprobated.

Attorney General.-To be sure; for you state that those were facts which you published in your "Anecdotes of the Founders of the French Revolution." And you state also, that you were not the author, but merely the publisher of that book. Pray was that book anonymous ?— A. Yes, but not scurrilous.

2. No, not scurrilous, God for