Imágenes de páginas
[merged small][ocr errors]

Q. Then as to “ The Tour said to you, on that subject? A. through Ireland,” what did you He began by asking me “ how pay for that? I gave sir John Carr, sir John Carr did ?" I said he was 6001. for that, and a conditional, very well. He went on to ask me, 1001. more I think, on the second have you seen or read, “ My Pockedition ; or, on the sale of a certain et Book ?"* I answered him by say. number ; but previous to the whole ing, “ I never read any scurrility of of that number being sold, (consid- that kind." ering that it would be sold,) I gave Q. Did he make any answer to sir John Carr 1001. more. So that that? A. He did. He said, “ the he had 7001. for the “ Tour through Lord have mercy upon sir John Carr : Ireland ”

we have a rod in pickle for him : we Q. What did you give him for will do for him ; or, “ we will do the other book, which you purchas. his business ;" or words to that ef. ed of him, “ 'The Tour through fect. I believe the words were, Holland ?” A. The same price. " the Lord have mercy upon him, It is a sort of rule with booksellers, poor sir John," or some phrase of (at least it is so with me)—that that sort, was thrown in ; * we will when we are satisfied with the work do his business," or, “ will do for of an author, we give him, for simi him." lar works, the same as we did before, Q. Do you know whether this without any treaty

book, called “ My Pocket Book,” Q. So that you gave sir John has been extensively circulated ? A. Carr 6001. for “ The Stranger in I have reason to believe it has been Ireland, and, if it went through a very actively and industriously cir. second edition, you were to give culated. I have seen it in the win. him 1001. more ; which you did ?" dows of booksellers, attracting some A. Yes.

attention, in consequence of a ridic. Q. Now, sir, have you seen a ulous frontispiece ; and booksellers *work of his called, "A Tour in are some of them apt to expose

Scotland ?" A. I have seen it in a works of this nature, on account of manuscript ; sir John Carr has put the oddity of appearance in them. it into my hands.

* l Has it been circulated, in Q. It is a work prepared now for what they call “ the trade circula. publication ? A. It is.

tion, and sale ?"-A. I do not atQ. Now sir, when you saw that, tend trade sales myself, and I cannot had you seen the present book, cal. speak to that, but I can speak to led “My Pocket Book " A. Yes, this that the whole edition was of. I had.

fered to the trade, at the trade price, . Did you at any time, see one and, that a thousand copies were so of these defendants, Mr. Hood ? to be disposed of ; as appears by this A. I frequently saw him. . catalogue.

Q. So as to have a conversation Allorney General.--You must say with him concerning this work; I bothing to us about that catalogue, mean the book, called “My Pock. for it is not evide!ce, . et Book?" . A. I have met Mr. Ld. Ellenborough.--Certainly not; Hood, and he has spoken to me par- you must prove that publication, as ticularly on the subject of the book well as every other publication by called, “ My Pocket Book.” the actual sale. The catalogue is

Q. Will you state to us, what he nothing.

Mr. Dampier-Q. Was this work be a reader of any thing of that called the “ Tour through Scot. kind, I take it for granted, you land,” or whatever other title it never publish any thing of that might have, offered to you for sale ? sort ? A. I mean, that I never read A. Yes it was.

anonymous scurrility. If I see the Q. Did you buy it, or did you name of a respectable author on a decline it ?-A. The impression title page, it becomes another thing. which was made on my mind, in dttorney General. Do not over. consequence of the publication of the power me, sir Richard Phillips, by book, called “ My Pocket Book ;" a multitude of words, or by answer. and the activity with which it was ing my questions before I put them circulated, (as I perceived from the to you;' especially by references manner in which it was advertised) to anonymous writings. together with the conversation I had 0. I take it for granted you devwith Mr. Hood, was such, that I er read the Edinburgb Review certainly declined to buy it. A. I have seen the Edinburgh Re

Q. What was the reason of your view—but I pay no respect whatdeclining to buy it ? A. I certain- ever to that, or to any other work ly declined to buy it, in consequence of anonymous criticism. of the publication of this book, cal. l. I take it for granted, tben, led, “ My. Pocket Book.”

sir Richard, that criticism owes its Q Had you, before you were effect to the circumstance of a aware of this publication, made any knowledge of who the author is? offer' of any sum of money, for that -A. It certainly ought to do so ; work of sir John Carr's which you to my mind criticisms should always saw in manuscript? A. Not at that bear the names of the authors. I time. ,

do not generally consider that fair Q Did you at any time ? A. criticism which is anonymous. Sir John Carr, subseqnent to this, Q When did you publish these proposed and offered it to me, for works of sir Jolin Carr -A. I 4001. together with the contingent published the first work, “ The advantage as before, but I declined Northern Summer," I suppose in it. If this libel had not been pub- 1803 or 4 ; “ The Stranger in Irelished, I should have given sir John land,” in 1806 ; and the “ Tour Carr the same as he had for in Ireland,” in 1807 ; " The Tour the former works ; for it is a in Scotland," I saw in 1808—the tustom of our trade, unless some present year. thing happens to make us dissatisfi. Q. As you do not read criticism, ed with the author's work, to give except you know who the critick, him the same sum for every similar or the author is, I take it for grantwork, as he had for the preceding ed, you do not attend to the Edinone-and had I purchased this work burgh Review.. If sir John Carr now io manuscript, of sir John Carr, has been praised, or censured in the I should certainly have given him Edinburgh Review, I take it for 6001 for it.

granted you do not know it?--A. Cross examined.Q. You state I never saw it. yourself not to be a reader of scur. Mr. Garrow.--I object to the rility ?-A I certainly do ; I wish introduction of the Edinburgh Reto read nothing of that kind. view. It is no evidence. .

Q. As you state yourself not to Lord Elienborough. I understand

the Attorney-General's question to such a publication as the Edin. be to this effect to take the Edin. burgh Review ? A. I do. burgh Review as a mere illustration 2 Do you know whether there . of the present subject.

is such a publication as the Annual Mr, Garrow If it be either Review ? A. I know there is such directly complimentary to, or di.. a publication rectly detracting from, the merit of Q Is that anonymous ? A. sir John Carr as an author, the Ed. That has a name. inburgh Review may be referred to, Q. Now, as you do not read scur. as an evidence of the opinion of lit. rilous anonymous writings, and as erary persons, as to the merit of sir that is not anonymous, since it has John Carr, as an author; bui, I a name, perhaps you do read the submit to your Lordship, that other. Annual Review ? A. Never, now; wise, it is not evidence in this cause. I have looked into former volumes

Lord Ellenborough. They are of it, but I never read it now; it is not taking any thing out of the a very ponderous publication, which Edinburgh Review, but the At- I do not read, because I have not . torney-General is cross-examining leisure. the witness, as to his acquaintance Q. Have you had a large sale of . with that publication. I see no. sir John Carr's works ? A. A ve.. thing in the course of this examina- ry respectable sale ; a very consid. tion, which calls upon me to stop erable sale, of the first work. Of it. . ,

“ the Tour in Ireland," and of Attorney General. I ask sir Rich. " the Tour round the Baltic,” I ard Phillips, whether he knows have sold, I think, very nearly 1500 that this book had been reviewed copies. by the Edinburgh Reviewers ? A. Attorney General. I think, sir I do not know it ; I do not read the Richard, that your reprobation of Edinburgh Review.

anonymous criticism, cannot be too Q. You do not know there is much commended ; certainly, no. such a publication, perhaps, as the thing should be published, without Edinburgh Review? A. There is a name; it is proper we should alsuch a publication, certainly, but ways know who to resort to, in case I do not recollect that I have read any thing be published which is not the Edinburgh Review at all, ex. proper. cept some parts of the first volume. Pray, sir Richard, was there I thought some of it scurrilous, and not a review called “ The Oxford I abhor scurrility. ,

Review?" A. Yes. Q Now, as you think this pub- .Q Who published it? A. It lication, which is complained of, is was printed by a person at Oxford. scurrilous ; as you abhor scurrility; :Q Very likely : but who pub. and, as you know it to be anony lished it in London ? A. I was mous: you do not soil your pure the publisher in London. . mind with the perusal of it ; are Lord Ellenborough. Here, I there any reviews published by any think I should caution you, sir persons which are not anonymous ? Richard Phillips, for although I do A. None that I recollect, at this not know what the publication conmoment ; there was one sometime tained, it may contain something ago by Dr. Maty.

for which you may be responsible, Q. But you do know there is and which may lead you into diffi.

culty ;. we are here treading upon ed any work which I should be tender ground ; you are not bound ashamed to avow in this place. to answer any thing which may Attorney General. On that ground, tend to involve yourself in diffi. sir Richard, you will tell me, wheth. culty.

er you published a book called Sir Richard Phillips. I thank “ Publick Characters of the French your Lordship, but I shall certain Revolution : A. I do not know ly answer any questions which the of any book under that title. Attorney General chooses to ask There was a book published in me ; I never printed a line, to my 1796, by myself, giving an account knowledge, which was calculated of the Founders of the French Reto hurt the feelings of any person publick ; but it was a plain narra. living.

tive of facts. It was a chronologi. Lord Ellenborough. It is my du- cal account of publick men, who ty to caution you, sir Richard, and had figured away in France, in the to tell you, that you are not bound course of the revolution. It was to avow that you are the publisher published with a view of giving an of any work, which may contain account of such persons, there was any objectionable matter. You are no scurrility in it, certainly. entitled to a protection as a witness. "Attorney General. No scurrility! · You have laid yourself open already A. Certainly none, that I am aware to many questions, which could not

of. have been regularly asked of you, Mr. Garrow. My lord, I ra. had you not chosen to avow your ther think I ought to object to this, self publisher of the work just al. as an entirely wrong course of proluded to.

ceeding. One would think, from Attorney General. There was a the course which my friend, the work intitled “ Publick Charac- Attorney General, is now taking, ters," I believe ? A. There was. that sir Richard Phillips was the

Q. And you published it, I be plaintiff, instead of sir John Carr, lieve? A. I did.

for my learned friend seems, now, Lord Elienborough. By the name to be going into the publick Life of it, that is a work very likely to and character of sir Richard Phil. be extremely delicate ; I caution lips. Sir John Carr, the plai otiff you once more, how you admit upon this record, has nothing in yourself to be the publisher of such common, nothing to do with sir works ; you are not bound to ad. Richard Phillips. They have no mit any such matter. You appear connexion with each other, except to me to be admitting too much : that the one of them is the author, I now give you notice, that I shall and the other the publisher, of a not caution you again. You have certain work, and then, my lord, just admitted yourself to be the how can any part of the life of sir publisher of a book called “Pub. Richard Phillips be evidence upon lick Characters," that, from the ti. this issue between sir John Carr and tle of it, is likely to contain a great these defendants? . deal of very delicate matter.

Lord Ellenberough. I do not Sir Richard Phillips. I repeat know any thing of what is common again, my lord, that I have no dis. or what is not common, between this inclination to avow every thing that plaintiff and this witness ; but, you I ever published. I never publishe see here, that sir Richard Phillips is the purchaser of this work ; which l. Then it contains nothing but is reviewed, or, if you please, censur. an account of facts within your own ed, by the publication of the defend knowledge ? ants. On the credit of the author A. No, not 80 ; I was not the auof this work, of which sir Richard thor, but the publisher. Phillips is the purchaser, depends Attorney General And yet you the sale of the unsold part of that say it is a mere narrative of facts ; work, that is, of the edition now on how can you say so, unless they are hand ; and this evidence, which he facts within your own knowledge ? is now giving that he is the proprie- A. It was a mere plain narrative of tor, and consequently interested in facts. the sale of this book, does not in. Lord Ellenborough.-How do you deed go to his competency, but has know them to be facts, if you were a strong bearing on his credit, as a not present at the transaction ? 1. witness ; and therefore the Attorney It was certainly a narrative of what General should, I think, be allowed the author stated to me, and what I a larger scope than he should other. considered to be facts. It was like wise have, in his cross examination. every other book of grave biography He has put to sir Richard Phillips and history. many questions, to which sir Rich Attorney General.-I think we ard does not choose to demur, but have now got pretty well rid of the to which he is certainly entitled to book, which you call the “ Narrative demur, he chooses to say that he is of Facts." the publisher of many of these works, Q. You were publisher of tbe Ox. after the caution which he received ford Review ?--A. Yes. from me. I wish he would be Q. You had nothing anonymous guided by other discretion than his in it of course. Pray what were own.

the names of the Oxford Reviewers ? Mr. Garrow. All this, my Were they known to the publick ? lord, is very well, as between the -A. They were not, Attorney General and sir Rich. Q. You say you would not put ard Phillips ; but, I submit, has your name to any thing that was a. nothing to do with the interest of my nonymous, or a scurrilous publicaclient.

tion. And you say that yoù pub. Lord Ellenborough.-More or less, lished « Anecdotes of the Founders I think it has it has some refer- of the French Republick.” And ence to it certainly.

you say that you, yourself, published, Attorney General --Q. You have the Oxford Review, which was anonvery properly uttered your senti. ymous ?--A. Yes ; but they had ments in reprobation of all criticism not the character of the works which which is anonymous—and you are I have reprobated. the publisher of a book which gives Attorney General.- To be sure ; uš the character of those persons' for you state that those were facts who figured in the French revolution. which you published in your “ An. Pray what was the title of that ecdotes of the Founders of the French book ?-A. “ Anecdotes of the Revolution.” And you state also, Founders of the French Repub. that you were not the author, but lick.". It was published ten or merely the publisher of that book. twelve years ago ; it was merely à Pray was that book anonymous ? matter-of-fact book; there was no A. Yes, but not scurrilous. scurrility in it whatever.

Q. No, not scurrilous, God for.

« AnteriorContinuar »