Page images
PDF
EPUB

Pilgrimage to the Holy Land, and other poems. London, 1816. J. Johnson. Philadelphia, reprinted. M, Thomas. 57 1-2 cts. Reviewed by the lord chancellor, assisted by sir Samuel Romilly and other solicitors in chancery.

COURT of Chancery, London, Nov. 28. Byron v. Johnson-Sir Samuel Romilly stated, that this was a bill filed by the plaintiff, lord Byron, against the defendant, a bookseller in Cheapside and Oxford street; and it prayed that the lord chancellor would grant an injunction to restrain the defendant from publishing certain poems which he had advertised as the works of the plaintiff, but to which the plaintiff was as much a stranger as any person in that court. On the 13th of November instant, the defendant caused the following advertisement to be inserted in the Times journal." Lord Byron. A short time ago we little anticipated the pleasure of announcing a new work from the pen of this noble and justly admired author, which is this day published, uniform with his other works, price 5s 6d. entitled, The Right Hon. Lord Byron's Pilgrimage to the Holy Land. To which is added, the poem of The Tempest. Printed for J. Johnson, 98 Cheapside, and 435 Oxford street." On the same day, the defendant published another advertisement in the morning paper, in these words: "Lord Byron. On the 18th instant will be published, uniform with the noble author's former works, the Right Hon. Lord Byron's Pilgrimage to the Holy Land. To which is added, the Tempest. Printed for J. Johnson, Cheapside, and 335 Oxford street; and sold by all booksellers. Of whom may be had, by the same author, a new edition (the third) price 2s. 6d. Farewell to England; with three other poems, viz. Ode to St. Helena, to my Daughter on the morning of her Birth, and to the Lily of France." As soon as these advertisements appeared, Mr. Murray of Albemarle street, convinced that they were no less impositions on the public than injurious to himself, drew up the following statement, which appeared in a morning paper of the 16th inst.—" Lord Byron. The public are respectfully informed, that the poems lately advertised under the titles of Lord Byron's Pilgrimage to the Holy Land, &c. are not written by Lord Byron. The only bookseller at present authorized to print Lord Byron's poems is Mr. Murray, to whom lord Byron has lately sent, from the continent, two new works, entitled, 1, a Third Canto of Childe Harold: and 2, The Prisoner of Chillon, &c. both of which will be published (price 5s. 6d. each) on Sunday, 23d inst." On the same day, however, the defendant, either apprised of Mr. Murray's intention, naturally concluding that some such measure would be adopted, caused the following advertisement to be published in the same paper:-" Lord Byron. The publisher of the right Hon. Lord Byron's Pilgrimage to the Holy land, together with the Tempest, begs to say that it will be ready for delivery on Wednesday next, price 5s. 6d. uniform with the noble author's former works. He likewise takes this opportunity of informing the pub

Fic, lest they may be misled, that the copyright of this work was consigned to him exclusively by the noble author himself, and for which he gives five hundred guineas.-96 Cheapside, and 335 Oxford street."

Now (said the learned counsel) lord Byron not being here, it is impossible for me to produce an affidavit of his lordship, that he is not the author of these poems; but I can produce another affidavit to that effect, which, at least, must place the defendant under the necessity of showing, by his own affidavit, that lord Byron is the author, and that he gave his lordship five hundred guineas for them-Mr. Scroope Davis, an intimate friend of lord Byron, and who was with him abroad, has lately returned to this country with three poems, for which Mr. Murray gave his lordship 3000l. and Mr. Davis is quite satisfied that lord Byron never wrote any of the poems which the defendant has thought proper to advertise. Mr. Davis has been in the habit of conversing with his lordship in the most confidential manner; he has frequently conversed with him on the subject of money received for the copy-right of his works, and never heard that the noble lord had written any such poems. Mr. Murray's affidavit stated, that lord Byron had often proposed several poems to him, and that he had, at several times, paid his lordship 5000l. for copy-right; but he never heard his lordship speak of such subject as the Pilgrimage, or The Tempest, and he verily believed that the defendant's advertisements were published without the consent or knowledge of the plaintiff, that the plaintiff is not the author of those works, and that the publication thereof is an injury to him, as he gave 2000l. to his lordship for the two poems which he has recently published, in full faith that he was to be the only publisher of his lordship's productions. The learned council then stated that an ex parte application had been made to the vice chancellor to restrain the defendant from publishing those poems, but his honour thinking that there was no person who could swear positively that his lordship was not the author, notice ought to be given to the defendant. Accordingly notice had been given, and therefore if the defendant had thought proper to advertise to all the world that he had paid the money mentioned in his advertisement, and now refuse to swear to that fact, it was to be hoped that his lordship would see sufficient grounds to grant the injunction.

Mr. Shadwell followed on the same side. He observed that whatever might be thought of the reputation of lord Byron as a poet (though, he believed, no adequate judge would venture to question his merits) it was undeniable that his lordship was at least a correct and elegant scholar. But what was the character of the poem which the defendant had been insolent enough to publish to the world in his lordship's name? They manifested, indeed, a total ignorance of the English language, as must be evident from the following excerpts: In the Pilgrimage to the

Holy Land, canto 1, stanza 3, the poet, whoever he might be, introduced this grammatical line—

"And lives there him-on continent or isle," which correct and elegant diction was strongly confirmed by another line in canto 2, stanza 1-"Oh! sails there him down life's unfaithful deep." So much for the poet's knowledge of his vernacular tongue. But then, lord Byron was well acquainted with the Latin language, and of course could not mistake its poetical quantities; yet, what said the author of the Pilgrimage, on this head? In canto 2, stanza 22, he tells his readers, that—

"The joyous schooner bounds before the wind,
"And leaves old Nile and Canopus behind."

This, no doubt, was admirable enough, but it was still surpassed by another line where he sings of "The Lethean stream;" and, certainly if any person could produce an authority in any Latin composition, where Lethaus was used as a dactyle, there could exist no doubt that lord Byron was the author of this poem

But after all, what is this compared to the enchanting lines in The Tempest, where the burthen of the song is " a friendly Leech.” "The wandering Greeks had left the spot,

[ocr errors]

All, save that leech-why went he not!

Did pious pity hold him there

To sooth the parting soul with prayer!

No; 'twas that deep, that stified sigh,

And the side glance from that wild eye,
Which held with more than Pity's chain,
And made that friendly leech remain.
But oft upon the index-stone

That friendly leech would sit alone,

And though the storm would buffet him,
And drenching rains soak every limb,

He recked not. On his dying couch

He told strange tales, which some can vouch,
Which made the started eyeballs glare,

And petrify the stiffening hair,

Of deeds of hell-but they have sped-
God rest the soul of all the dead!"

A noble line, and worthy of the conclusion of such a poem! But, to speak seriously, will any one of these poems exhibit such a want of scholarship that it would be most injurious to lord Byron if they were suffered to go into the world as his productions? Af ter that thundering advertisement of the defendant, that lord Byron was the author, and that he had paid his lordship 500 guineas for the copy-right, it was to be expected that the defendant - would swear positively to those facts, but what had he done? He had taken a technical objection to the bill, that no place of resi dence was assigned to lord Byron, and he believed that lord Byron was abroad. If the defendant, however, had any doubt that this bill was filed by his lordship, most ample security would be im mediately given for the costs.

Mr. Leech, on the part of the defendant, contended, that he was not called upon to answer to the allegations of this bill. It would require some authority to satisfy his lordship that the court of chancery sat there to vindicate the political or literary character of any man. The court, no doubt, would protect his pecuniary interest; but all that the bill said, was, that the poems were published without lord Byron's knowledge, and that his reputation as a poet would be injured by such publication. It was evident, in

deed, that lord Byron's reputation could not be injured by these poems, since Mr. Shadwell had told the court they were so contemptible, that no one could believe them to be his lordship's works. Upon the merits too, it was necessary to look at the form of this motion. Upon what ground could his lordship be called upon to restrain the publication of works which were declared not to be the works of lord Byron? But this bill was not the bill of lord Byron; it was the bill of some friend here, and had that friend satisfied the court, that there was sufficient ground to call for any answer at all? Could a bill be filed in the name of an absent person, and was it enough to call upon the defendant to answer it in a court of justice, because an individual said, I had some conversation with lord Byron, four months ago, and he never told me that he intended to publish such poems? Nothing would be more absurd; for any one acquainted with the literary world must know, that nothing was more common than for an author to conceal his name until he saw what success attended his works. The defendant, indeed, had not gone into the merits, but had filed an affidavit that lord Byron was abroad for the purpose of calling on the court to protect him against the costs.

Sir Samuel Romilly, in reply, observed, that a person abroad might certainly file a bill, and the residence of lord Byron was immaterial, as there could be but one person in the world who was entitled to that appellation. As to the objection that this was not a matter of pecuniary interest, suppose all the pecuniary interest were out of the question, (which was not the case,) the court would interfere to prevent any person from injuring the reputation of another. To cite examples to his lordship was almost unnecessary, but did not Mr. Pope procure an injunction to restrain Curl the book-seller from publishing his letters? Did not Dr. Paley's executors obtain an injunction to prevent the publishing of some of his sermons? Yet what pecuniary interest could they have? Another instance was that of the executors of the great lord Chesterfield, who obtained an injunction to restrain the publication of certain letters to his son, which he never intended for the public eye; but the injunction was obtained too late to prevent the publication. There could be no doubt that the court would protect the character of an individual against works which he never published. Mr. Leech had said, these poems were so contemptible, that they could not injure the reputation of lord

[blocks in formation]

Byron; but the defendant was the only person who could not use that argument, as he had assured the public that he received them from his lordship, and that he paid him a valuable consideration for them. The silence of the defendant was conclusive that they were not lord Byron's work; the defendant had had the opportunity of proving the truth of his assertions, and he had not availed himself of it.. It was argued, indeed, that lord Byron himself did not file this bill; but an affidavit could be procured to show, that his lordship had given a general authority to file a bill in his name, in case such spurious productions should be published as his works.

THE CHANCELLOR. "I think the vice chancellor was very right in not granting an injunction without notice to the defendant. The question now is, whether an injunction should be granted, after such notice has been given. I suppose Mr. Shadwell meant his speech should operate as an injunction, and so it may, but I have nothing to do with that. One objection to the injunction is, that it is put on the loss of character: but I must suppose there is a pecuniary interest also, since Mr. Johnson himself has said, that he gave 500 guineas for these poems. Mr. Johnson, however, has had an opportunity of proving the truth of his assertions, and he has not made use of it. Lord Byron must, therefore, give security for the costs of this bill, and I think that an injunction must be granted. Mr. Leech has certainly done every thing he could for his client, but he has not satisfied the court that the injunction ought not to be granted. Let the defendant, therefore, be restrained from publishing these poems.

A Plea for Sacramental Communion on Catholic Principles. By J. M. Mason, D.D. New York. Whiting and Fanshaw. pp. 400. 1816. London reprinted. It is a singular coincidence, that while the controversy respecting Terms of Communion originated and has been so ably investigated in this country, it should, without any previous concert between the writers, be contemporaneously entered on in the United States of America, and if not with equal, yet with distinguished ability. There is, however, a material difference in the plan and method which the skilful controvertists have respectively adopted, as well as in the peculiar circumstances by which their feelings were excited, and their immediate objects determined. It would be interesting to enter somewhat largely into a comparative examination of the different works, did we not fear that we should become almost unawares too deeply entangled in a controversy we have determined to decline. We shall therefore limit our present remarks to a general analysis of Dr. Mason's book. The copy which has reached us, is highly creditable to the American press; it will not be long, we imagine, before it issues from our own.*

* This expectation has been fulfilled.

Ed. P. F.

« PreviousContinue »