The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-01-28 00:00:00

87'. OLAFt...ti, HABT-STREET.

A Vestry Meeting on the subject of Tithes wss held yesterday,
for the purpose of taking into cooN:leration some important cm.
respondence between the Tithe Ceuln.:tlee and the Bishop of
London t but bttore rite txtrnmeneement of business, Dr. Owen,
the Hector, entered the room.
Air. Nonni mowed that one of the Churchwardens should take
the Chair.

Before this motion could be put, Dr. Owen seated himself in the
Chair, and entened the vestry book.
Mr. NODlW—l.suppowe then that you consider yourself enti-
tled to take the Chair, under the Act of Parliament?
Dr. Owete-7b be sure I
One of the pitiabioners addressed Dr. Owen in a tone of re-
monstrance, and said it would be necessary in the course of the
proceedings to laveatigate hi. emeluct.
Dr Ow EN—I slim t understand you ; why, we are friends ;we
are rowing in the same boat; we have agreed upon every thing,
and the ordy opponent to your wishes is the Bishop.
Mr. None x said the Rector had so often gone from his word
that they could not trust him.
Mr. Owww—lf you soonest my intentions I will immediately
sign any paper you wish. that will bind me to, the sum we
have agreed upon.
Mr. Nonis—The pariah will not run from their words; they
will pay what they have resolved upon, if the intended Bill gets
through Parliament.
Dr. Owes—011! if try annuity is to depend upon the Bill
getting through Parliament, that is another question. In that case
my agreement is void.
Mr. Tu Laotian said it was impossible for tie parish to depart
from its agreement, and he wished to inquire of the Rector,
whether, it they instated a clause to secure him an annuity, he
would oppose it. or interfere.
Dr. the —C eriainly not, unless the Legislature should inter-
fete, to fix mole other sum.
Mr. MOROAN. of Cnochedfriars, then addressed the meeting
in defence of the Rector. The persons who opposed him might
be divided into three climes: the first were thine who could not
be supposed to have any interest in the waive of the Church,
since they never attended it; the second was, of those who dis-
sented from its thereinto, and who were Its enemies, and surely
they were not the persons from whom the sentireents of the parish
att large could be supposed to emanate; the third was, of those
of the congregation, who, for the gratification of their own vindic-
tive spirit of personal revenge, lied dared to turn their becks on
their altar, their religion, and their God. Thoy hail afterwards
disseminated a namphlet in the shape of a false arid scandalous
lever. in which it was falsely asserted that the income of the Doctor
was 2,2001.
Hoerr contended that the majority who opposed the ex-
. actions of the Rector were members of the Establiehed:Church. As to
the charge of turning their backs upon their religion, it was untrue
During the late Dr. Owen's life-time (and he was Rector for 33
I years), the highest Wary that he received was from 23411. to 3001.
per annum. Waa it reasonable. therefore, to suppose that the pa-
rishioner' could be content with the exorbitant rate levied by the
present Rector The father of the present Rector (Dr. Owen), ac-
cording to Malcolm. was so virtuous and learned. that the parishion-
en and the public generously subscribed 10001. for a posthumous
volume of his sermons, which was published in 1797, for the be-
nefit of his daughters. " Think you," said the speaker, " that
the public would subscribe 100 W. for the evidence delivered by the
present Rector, before a Committee of the Howie of Commons, in
1821, on the Vagrant Laws?" (Wear, hear, anti cheers.)
Dr. ()wee (with great warmth).—What do you mean by that,
Sir ? Explain yourself ; I'll not submit to it.
Mr. Rosso—l shall give no explanation ; I have stated facts,
and leave the meeting Is/ draw their conclusions.
Dv. Ow E li—Voit are a paltry fellow. That evidence did me
immortal honour ; Mr. Chetwynd and Sir Thomas Baring told me
Mr. Roeee—Well, I did not say it did not; I merely wished
the gentlemen to read and judge for themselves ; but if it did you
immortal honour, Doctor, why be offended with me for mention-
ing it ?
Dr. Owes—Vou are a paltry fellow. (Great tumult.)
Something like order was at length restored, and Mr. Rolfe
continued his speech. In conclusion he conjured them not to be
overawed by any insolent domination ; but as they valued their
own property, and the welfare of posterity, to resist with all their
might the efforts to perpetuatel so unjust and intolerable a burden.
(Cheers.)
The Secretary to the Tithe Committee then read a long letter
which had been sent to the Bishop of London. In settling the
disputes of this parish, his Lordship had stated his intention to
adopt the rental by which the Rector of Ilishopsgate had been
determined. The letter from the Committee to his Lordship went
into a series of calculations to show that the comparative rental of
this pariah, in comparison with that of Bishopsgete, had been
greatly misrepresented to his Lordship. To this letter the follow-
ing answer had been retuned
(COPY) " Fulham, Jan. 19,1916.
"Stn,—The rental, by which the payment to the Rector of
Biehopegate was determined, is that on which lie received his
tithes. I take the same standard of value with respect to St.
Olave's ILA-street, and am satisfied that an arrangement, framed
on this basis, would be much for the advantage of the parishioners.
But as you inform me that they are of a different opinion, and the
benefit to be obtained is altogether prospective, it may perhaps be
advisable to let the matter rest, more especially considering the
difficulty of satisfactorily explaining in Parliament the very unusual
proposition of reducing the value of the Living to future Incum-
bents below the sum actually received by the present Incumbent,
and secured to him for the term of his Incumbeuey.-1 remain,
Sir, your obedient humble Servant,
I. W. LONDON."
" E. U. Jones, Esq. Chairman of the Committee."
A long and stormy debate then ensued. A letter was read from the
Committee to the Bishop. stating their willingness tc fulfil every con-
dition that bad been proposed by them as to a settlement, on terms
similar to those or Ilishopsgate parish, when taken at a proper ren-
tal. This letter was approved of by the Vestry, and ordered to be
amt. It was also resolved, that every effort to prevail on the Lord
Bishop to Interfere, anti thereby settle the disputes that agitated the
parish had been, uneuecteeful, although the parish were willing to
secure to the Rector the enormous income which he at present re-
ceived, provided the I revisions for the future incumbent was placed
on an equitable basis, consistent with the extent and population of
the parish : that nothing was left to them but an appeal to Parlia-
ment, and they requested the tithe committee to prepare a peti-
tion for the purpose.
These proceedings were carried with only two dissentient voices.
Thanks were given to the Tithe Committee, and the Meeting se.
'nated without paying the usual compliment to the Chairman.

THE INTENDED NEW VICTUALLING ESTA.
BLISIIMENT AT DEVIL'S POINT.

(From the Plymouth Journal]
On Tuesday afternoon last, advantage was taken of the I
lowest spring tide which has occurred during the last six
months, for the purpose of laying the foundation of the
sea-wall connected with the intended new Victualling
Establishment at Devil's Point. The atone was a mass of
granite, from the quarries of Messrs. Trenary and Co. of
Penryn, and weighed about two tons. It was lowered down
by ropes, and fixed in its situation eleven feet below low
water-mark, by the aid of the diving bell. The rock on
which the foundation is laid has an inclination of nearly
45 degrees, consequently it will be necessary to cut into the
solid cliff to effect a lodgment for the stones forming the
basement of the wall. 'I his is done by blasting the rock
with gunpowder under teutrr in the following manner :
A hole is made in the rock by means of the diving bell,
which is charged with gunpowder. A metal tube is then
introduced into the cavity, communicating with the surface
of the water, through which tube a red hot spill is dropped,
which ignites the gunpowder. The concussion which takes
place in the water is very great, and dead fish have fre-
quently been observed to rise to the surface shortly after an
explosion. The wall will stretch, when finished, from De-
vil's Point to the present Slaughter-house, and thence in a
N.E. direction to the new Military-road hailing to the
Marine Barracks—a length of about 2,000 feet. The
base will measure in breadth 7 feet 9 inches, the top 5
feet 9 inches, and the height will be about 30 feet. As
two diving bells will be constantly employed, it is con-
fidently expected that the whole of dui wall will be seen
above water before the elate of the present year. About
5,000 tons of granite and limettone are on the ground,
quite ready to be lowered into their situations. We under-
stand that the frame work, piles, &c.. which have been
erected for the building of the sea wall alone cost bet ween
3,000/. and 6,000. The mortar used in this work is of a
peculiarly strong anal binding nature. It is composed of
one part of Aberthal lime, one of Poizolara Ca kind of
lava brought from Italy) and two of sand. Phis mix-
ture becomes, in a short time after it is laid on, al-
' most as firm as the rock itself. The whole of this
grand national undertaking, consisting when finished
of steam corn mills, slaughter houses, brewery,
bakehouse, storehouses, &a will cover sn area of
twelve acres of ground. It is calculated, however,
that it will require a period of ten years to effect its entire
• completion. An extensive basin will be constructed within
the walls, in order to give every possible facility to the
unloading of vessels. The water for the use of the esta-
blishment is to be supplied from the Plymouth Leat, and
will be conveyed through iron pipes, from a reservoir in
Five Fields, into another about to be constructed in the
field at the extremity of Devil's Point. It is worth the
while of persons possessed of leisure to spend an hour or
two in inspecting the works at this spot. The diving-lolls
are constantly in operation, and so curious a triumph of
art cannot fail to interest the beholder, who will also be
pleased to remark the regularity and extreme order which
pervades all the operations connected with this extensive
undertaking.

THE BRITISH PRESS.

LAW NOTICES.

COURT OF CHANCERY.
STFORIC TEN IFICZ-CHANCLLLOII
CAI*SES TO ■E HEARD THIS DAY.
Bankrupt Petitiors—tx.parte Fitch, Wyatt. and Porter, In re
Dter
Ilatikins • M ilea, 3larqul.ofSalisbury I A t.-0 en. v• M orland
nut heart: • Jackson I Same • Corporation
Bonaker v Bennet Marshall ♦ Dermer of Tomes
Jerninghant • Her. l'eo • Yen Same v Sedgwick
beet Hanks r Hanks GriarsonyStaniforth,
Jackson • Hankcy Weider • Richards to show cause

ROLLS COURT.

CONSENT cArsrs. re:Dilifil•D-111-E-CTIONS. AND PETITIONS

TO DE HEARD THIS MORNING.
Drown v Wing.. tut- Jll,lngsmill • Hulbert, Ex-mirte Mount, pe.
.
ther directions 'Otiose . tit ion
Finidw v Gibbons 9 Roseseell flier., Sutton v Rouble,
cause ' , petition', OHM
In re Windus, pet-. Stone • „Stone. ditto Baillie • Denman,
Lion , ,Price v Pumell,ditto petition
Hay v Fairlie, fur..... Bach • Sillitant, Etrington v Elting.
ther direction. •- itktO - - ton, ditto
Lewes v Idingineed, ..leiterias• Adonis, Sowerby • Sowerby,
petition , ditto
Thomas • Montgo, , Sandwich • Corn. Darlington v Co.
may. ditto . within,' ditto • drington, ditto
Robertson v Cave, • Weatherall • Clay, Fisher v I)avis, ditto
ditto further directions Gower v Gower,ditto
Squire ',Squire, ditto Co: • Cockerel!, Gilbert v. Royds,
Colt/tome v Cal. . ditto ditto
that's*, ditto lin re Market-street • .Same r Same, ditto
Act

COURT OP EXCHEQUER.
CAVALW TO RE HEARD THIS DAY.
AttorneyMenrral r INtartw—Excepuuna by onler.
ManstieCt v t beNlyn—Exception by order.
The Lord Chief Baron will sit on Tueaday and NVednesday
mt.

LAW INTE I. LIG ENCE.

VICIE-CHANCF.ELOWS COURT, FiVOA", 27.

PADLIpt AND OirDERSN. MANN AND °Mtn,
Mr. HORSE, on the part of the plaintiffs, moved for an in-
junction to prevail John Dupree.. Bag. High Sheriff of Bucking•
hamshire, from paying over to the other defendants a sum of money
between 9004 and 1000/.' sore in his hands ; also to restrain the
defendants from proceeding by action or any other mode at
law, against the plaintiffs; and to restrict them from negotiating or
proceeding on a bond passed by the first elaintiffJohn Paulet, Esq.
From the meter:sent of Counsel it appeered that in the year 1017,
Mr. Paulet became embarrassed iu his circumstances, and went to
reside at Abingdon House, in Buckinghamshire. He then had
some conference with the defendant Mr. Deane, who ultimately
undertook to arrange matters satisfactorily with the creditors. Lord
Nugent and Miss Panlet, sister to Me. Paulet, having agreed to
become securities.* warrant of attorney was given by Mr. Peale!
to Mr. Deane. The latter subsequently stated that more money
was requisite to satisfy the claims of. the creditors, and that there
was a lady of the name of Catherine Cecil.residing at Sloane-street,
Chelsea. who, on getting proper security, was ready to advance
700!. The security being accordingly given, Mr. Paulet under-
stood that the money had been received by Mr. Deane, and appto-
priated to the settlement of the original debts. Subsequently Mr.
Deane applied to Mr. Paulet (who was on the eve of departing or
the Continent), in order to procure payment of cash to the amount
of 1161. to which he alleged lie was entitled, partly for remunera.
don, and partly for the balance of money expended In the service
of Mr. runlet. For the purpose of arranging this affair, Mr.
Paulet prevailed upon his sister to join him in a bond to the
amount required, to pay the demand of the defendant, Mr. Deane.
An account of the different Items was then asked from Mr. Deane,
but though a long correspondence elated between him and Mr.
Paula's solicitor on the subject, Mr. Deane has not to the present
period furnished the particulars. Mr. Paulet afterwards learned
that the money which he had supposed to have been converted by
Mr. Deane to the payment of the creditors was never so appro-
priated, and that the charges mode by Mr. Deane, for which the
joint bond was passed, had consequently not been incurred.. Not.
withstanding these circumstances, the defendant, Mr. Deane, entered
judgment on the one bond, arid delivered it to the High Sheriff of
Buckinghamshire for execution. The High Sheriff levied the
amount on the goods of Lord Nugent, and has now in hands. on
this account, money to the amount of between 9001. and 1000/.
Notice was served on the High Sheriff to the effect that, as
soon as the practice of the Court would permit, an order would be
applied for to oblige him to pay the money in his hands into the
Court. Miss Cecil. to whom the bond, as already stated. bad been
pouted, is understood not to be a person possessing the pecuniary
means which she was represented to have. It would therefore be
unsafe to permit any of the money to fall into her power. Under
these circumstances Alt. Home trusted, that as nothing unfair was
intended by the present application, his Honour would grant the
threefold injunction for which he prayed.
The VICE-ruaOcr. LLOII was clearly of opinion that the pre-
sent was a case which required a compliance, and lie accordingly
granted the injunction in all its points.
WIIITTON V. PIDENIX OAS AND COZY COMPANY.
Mr. HART in this case was instructed to move for an injunction,
in order to prevent the continuance of injury which the property of
the plaintiff, situated at Camberwell-grove, was sustaining front
the proceedings of the defendants. From the statement of Counsel
it appeared that the plaintiff possessed a messuage at Camberwell.
grove, which he had leased to a person of the name of llalliday
and another. In front of the premises there is a long avenue of
elm-trees„ under which the Phomix I.lae Company, acting by virtue
of a power vested in them by the trustees appointed by Act of Par.
lianient, hail caused pipes for the conveyance of gas to be laid
down. In June last the works were commenced, and a notice to
desist was served on the defendants. They accordingly ceased to
prosecute the offensive operations for some time, but subsequently
renewed them with increased vigour, tearing up the ground in all
directions, until they had laid under the grove a train of pipes ex.
tending to the greater part of its length. No injurious result was
apparent befOre November, when about thirty of the trees lost their
bark. and exhibited other sudden symptoms of rapid decay. Those
appearances were at first imputed to causes different from the one
now alleged, but when the increase of injury induced a stricter exa-
mination of the origin of the mischief. it was imputed to the escape
of the gas, and to the manner in which the pipes through which it
had been conveyed were laid down. The trees had been inspected
by two nursery gardeners on the 3d and the 10th of the present
month. The affidavits of those persons testified in the strongest
manner that the decay of the trees was caused by the cutting and
grubbing of the roots, when the place was under preparation for the
reception of the pipes. In addition to this testimony, an operative
chymist stated, in the most uneqiiivocal terms, his belief that the
gas which constantly escaped from the pipes produced the detriment
which the bark of the trees experienced. The avenue in question
was one of the greatest ornaments and most beautiful features on
the face of that part of the country. The progress of the present
evil threatened inevitable ruin, to prevent whtrh he (Ale. Hart)
prayed tin an immediate injunction to restrain the Company from
prosecuting the nuisance of which the plaintiff complained.
Mr. SUODEN, on behalf of the Company, conceived that the
plainte's application was reprehensible, as the object of its prayer
was to involve the entire neighbourhood in utter darkness. His
clients had not transgressed the power* deputed to them by the
trustees, who had been appointed for the purpose by Act of Parlia-
ment. But under the present circumstances the motion could not
be granted, as the trustees (in the capacity of agents to whom the
Company acted) had rot been included in the bill, and brought
under the jurisdiction of the Court.
Mr. Mane entertained sanguine hopes that his Honour would
net permit the property of the plaintiff to be destroyed, root and
branch, by an objection such as had been advanced. Delay was
dangerous, and in the present instance would be attended with
effects of irreparable injury.
Mr. SCGDEN observed, that the apprehension of the mischief
likely to result from delay must vanish, when it was considered
that lamps had been already lighted in the place during the last
live months. When the alteration in the bark of the trees was first
remarked, it was ascribe,[ to the pranks of some idle boys who had
indulged themselves in peeling off' the bark. This opinion was not
abandoned until advertisements offering rewards foe the detection of
the offending urchins had proved fruitless. Then, in despair of
tracing the injury to an adequate source, the plaintiff waled the
Gas Company of being the origin of that mischief, with which the
naughty boys had been previously taxed, and which might perhaps
ultimately be discovered in the quality of the soil,
The Viec-Clianceeroa decided that the objection taken by
Mr. Sugden was valid. The necessity of an injunction was to be
deduced from the certainty or great probability that immediate
injury would ensue if it were refused. In the present instance,
huwever, even from the facts adduced by the plaintiff himself, the
probability of such an injury as came within the principle on which
injunctions were granted could not be contemplated. His Honour
should therefore refuse the injunction, as the trustees were not in-
cluded in the bill.
The motion was ordered to stand over until the bill should be
amended.

COURT OF SING'S I%ENCII. WESTMIYITIR,
FRIDAY, JAN. 27.

BIEMOIRS OF HARRIETTE WILSON.
STOCKDALE V. owwttvg.
This was an action brought by J. R. stockdale, the bookseller of
Pall-mall, against the defendant, a bookseller of Catherine-street,
Strand, to recover compensation in damages sustained by him in
consequence of the defendant having pirated the copyright of the
first number of the Memoirs' of Harriette Wilma, of which the
plaintitlalleged himself to be the owner. The cause was tried be-
fore the Lord ChielJustics at the last Sittings for Middlesex, when
die plaintiff' was nonsuited.
Mr. BROUGHAM now moved for a rule to show cause why the
nonsiiit should not be set aside nail 11 new trial had. The two
wants on which the Learne I Judge directed the mimic were—
first, that the property of the plaintiff in the work had not been
proved ; and secondly, that the work itself wits of a libellous and
licentious tendency, in which the law could not recognise a pro-
petty. With regard to the first point, the Learned Counsel ob.
served, that prima facie evidence of the copyright being vested in
the plaintiff"was adduced, for he proved the manuscript to be in
the plaintiff's possession, in which he had made several alterations
this was certainly sufficient evidence to go to a Jury as to tbs right,

of the plaintiff It appeared that the doctrine as to there being
no property in works of a libellous and licentious tendency,
was founded upon a dictum of Lori (Thief Justice Eyre, in a case
which was tried at NVarwick. This dictum was referred to, sod,
as it seemed. recognised in the case of Wolcott v. Walley, 7 Vesev,
and also in that of Southey Sherwood, in 2d Merrivale 431.
Had there been ary other authority on the subject than this dictum,
no doobt Lord Eldon, from his great legal learning and research,
would bite teterred to it when giving judgment in the last
mentioned case, On the hearirg of that case, which was an ap-
plication to the Lord Chancellor to restrain the defendant by a.l
Injunction trout publishing a poetical work called " Wat Tyler,"
of which the plaintiff was the author, thy late Sir Samuel Remaly
most accurately stated the dictum in question. It appeared from
what that learned and eminent person said, that De. Priestley bed
brought an action against the hundred to recover compensation fee
the serious lose he sustained during the petiod of the riots that
took place at Birmingham, when a great many valuable works be-
longing to him were destroyed. On the trial of the ramie at
11 erwick. Lord (Thief Justice Eyre, in summing up to the Jury,
observed that the defendant's COUIPICI had charged Dr. Priestley
with being guilty of publishing works of a ten&itcy. injurious to
the Government. No evidence, however, had been given that any
of the works that were destroyed were of that nature, nor had it
been proved that the Doctor was in the habit of publishing works
of such a tendency.. He (Lord C. J. Eyre) admitted that such a
circumstance, if it had been proved, would have gone very strongly
against the justice of the plaintiff's claim for compensation. This
doctrine, hoverer. the Learned Counsel submitted, could ndt be
sustained. There was another case not referred to in that of
Southey v. Sherwood; which appeared to have acme relation to the
present question, though it dal not actually apply to it. It was
the awe of Form v. Johns, 4 Espinasue, p. P 7. That was an
action brought by a prhuseller against Mr. Johns, to recover the
value of certain prints. It appeared that the defendant gave the
plaintiff a general order for the purchase of caricatures, who, in
pursuance or that order, had purchased and sent to the defendant
several which were of a libellbus and immoral description. The
question was, whether the order extended to authorise the purchase
of prints of that kind. The case, however, was not decided by
the Court, it being referred to arbitration ; but if it had not, he
thought the decision must have been upon a principle difireat from
the one against which he was contending. It was material so
observe upon what ground the doctrine was founded, that no pro-
perty could be maintained in works of a libellous or licentious
tendency. He would suppore a case of larceny, where a man
should have stolen a hunk which contained some passages of an
immoral kind ; could it be asserted that the party stealing it was
not liable to punishment ? And yet such must be the fact if the
owner of ;he book had no legal property iu it.
Mr. Justice t.Ermr.e raid, that the principle applicable to
larceny was altogrher difkrent from that which applied to the case
before the Court ; for there the value of the covers and paper of the
hunk would he taken into consideration ; while here the contents
only were to be estimated, and which were merely of an lug

value.
Mr. Bnorollaw would suppose that the paper was not worth a
shilling, and yet the value ot the property in the contents was a
great deal. Would it be se.:(l
Mr. Justice BAYLEY —That. ilr. Brougham, is a peritio prin.
cipli. It is the duty of the party not to be found to have its hie
possession an Immoral hook.
Mr. BROUGHAM submitted that this argument would equally
apply to the property in the paper, for the paper ought not to be
used for an immoral purpose. In his opinion, the most effectual
way to give currency to libellous anal licentious works was by en-
abling persons to publish them at a cheap rate. The work in
question was originally sold at 7s. fid., but the pirated edition was
published at half that price. If it was to be maintained that no
person could possess a tight of property in a bock, any part of
which might be of an immoral tendency, the maxim, ohs plum
intent, would never hold good in law.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY —Before you can have a property you must
take out all the obnoxious passages.
Mr. Justice 110 t. Ito v n—ls not the ground of action an injury
done ? but how can an injury be done to the property for work
which it is criminal to publish ?
Mr. BnotrollAM observed, that by such reasoning a man could
not by law publish a hook that contained one single passage of a
libellous or immoral nature any more than he could a whole book
filled with passages of such a description. It was clear that if a
1 part of a work was libellous it subjected the publisher to a prose-
cution ; but was he on that account to have his property in the
whole work taken teoin him 1 Ile would now refer the Court to
the case of Byrne v. Dale, ..lil Campbell, which was an action re-
lating to the right of property in a single song. Mr. (Jarrow (now
Mr. Baron Darrow) on that occasion produced one of the stanzas
of the song, which he asserted to be a libel upon the administra-
tion of justice ; as indeed it was, for her Ministers were there ac-
cused ot taking bribes.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY—Did the accusation apply to any particu-
lar individual ?
Mr. BROUGHAM—No, the accusation was general; but Mr.
Justice Lawrence, who presided at the trial, observed, that the
same objection would equally apply to the Beggars' Opera, where
many similar passages occurred ; but his Lordship not only held
that a libellous passage occurring in such a manner, in the course
of a work. could not des,roy the author's right of property in the
whole of it ; but declared, that the supposition of its having so
destructive and extensive an operation was absurd. This in his
(Mr. Brougham's ) opinion clearly showed that that Learned
Judge did not consider that the copyright of the Beggars' Opera
could be destroyed on account of some few improper passages it
might contain. No doubt many parts of that Opera were such as
could not be looked upon as of a very moral nature. It was, in
fact, the history of some of the lowest women of the town, and yet
`the Lord Chamberlain hail not prohibited its exhibition. Another
work was shortly afterwards published by the author of the Bre-
gars' Opera, called Polly, the performance of which was prohi.
biter) by the Lord Chamberlain, but Polly was nevertheless pro-
tected by the Lord Chancellor. (A laugh.) It was quite clear
that Polly was worse than her namesake in the Beggars' Opera,
from the Lord Chamberlain refusing to give her a license ; but
Lord Chancellor Talbot nevertheless granted an injunction to pro-
tect the copyright.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY—Perhaps his Lordship thought the worse
the work was the more likely it would be to promote its circulation
were he to place the parties on equal terms by refusing the in-
junction.
Mr. Ileos-critaat observed that at all events it was quite clear
that it was a worse work than the Beggars' Opera. But there was
another case to which he would reter their Lordskips, which was
very similar to the present. It was that of Bell v. Walker, Ist
Brown's Chancery Cases. There an injunction was applied for to
restrain the defendant from pirating a work, which was certainly of
a licentious character, as was shown by the very title-page of it,
which set forth that the book contained The Memoirs of George
Anne fkllonly, including her Intrigues, &c. &c. ; but Lord
Kenyon granted the injunction. It could not be deeded that that
work was at least of as bad a description as the Memoirs of Her-
rave Wilson, and yet its copyright was protected. On one oc-
casion Lord Ellenborough bad said that If a publication INS so
gross as to affect the public morals, it would, in his opinion, be ad-
visable, in the case of an action for piracy, supposing the copy.
, right to be proved, for the jury not to give any damages. This was
evidently au admission that a right of property in such works ex-
hated, although its Infringement did nut entitle the owner to more
l than nominal damages.
Mr. Justice Ito i.ROTD—I do not see how a right of action can
arise upon that which the law punishes criminally.
Mr. BROUGHAM thought that the statute of Anne was not
meant to protect property in any description of works, but to pre-
vent piracy of kinds. Piracy MO made punishable by that statute
in two ways--either by the defendant's giving up the sheets of the
work he had pirated to the original proprietor, or by an action by
the owner for the loss sustained, which was to be estimated at so
much per sheet. But then, in a subsequent clause of the Act, it
was provided that an action should not be maintainable for the da-
mage, nor the sheets be recoverable, unless something should be
done by the real owner to establish his right of property.
Their Lordships having consulted together—
The Loan CH r Er J yin ICC said that this was an action brought
to recover compensation io damages for the loss the plaintiff had
sustained in the profits of publication, in consequence of another
bookseller having pirated his copyright. At the trial it was clearly
proved that this work professed to be the history of the amours of
a courtesan, and diet it contained much matter highly immoral,
and of a very slanderous and calumnious description concerning
many persons of high rank and character in the country. Such was
the general character of the cork. The question then was whether
the plaintiff hail a right to come into a Court of Law to recover
compensation in damages for some supposed low of profit in the
sale ot a work of this description. Before lie could recover he first
must show that he had a right to sell, for if he had not such right
he could not maintain an action at law. But no lawyer could say
that the plaintiff had a right to sell such a work as this; but every
lawyer and every man must admit that the sale of each and every
copy of a work of this kind was an offence against the law. Were
they then to recognize a right the exercise of which would be a vM-
lotion of the law ? lie was of opinion that upon the plainest prin-
ciples of the common law of England they ought not to do so, for
DO man could have a property in what was an 'illegal work
where they had no authority to guide them, they must look
to the principles of common sense and common justice, for the
principles of common sense and common justice were the
feundation of the common law of England ; and he was clearly of
opinion that those principles required them to refuse to sanction the
publication of such a work as this, by giving protection to the'
copyright that the plaintiff claimed to have in it. He required
no authority for this judicial opinion, for common sense dictated ks
With respect to the cases in Chancery which had been quoted, be
should merely observe that those cases proved only a difference of 1
opinion among the Lean fi l Judges whose names had been
t
mentioned, as to what wasbest mode to prevent the circulation
of those publications. It ad been said that one individual of
high rank and talent thought that the circulation of publications
of this kind would be better prevented by acknowledging a right
of property, and thus check their extension by means of piracy :
while 'another individual of equal rank and equal talents was of
opinion that these works would be best restrained by refusing any
protection to them ; because it was thought that a person would
be deterred from embarking a Large sum in purchasing the manu-
script and publishing of such a work when he knew that any
other individual might the next day have a right to put forth
the same work in a cheaper form ; for gain was the only induce-
ment its getting up publications of this kind. The object, there-.
fore, of both those Learned Judges was to restrain the circula-
tion ; which of the modes were the best it wss not for him to de-
cide. Ile thought it fit to say thus much hi reference to what hath.
been, said to have taken place in a Court of Equity;. pull such de:
cisions were not, properly speaking. any authority in a Court of
Common .Law ; because a Court of Equity would act upon the

Principle of whirr-was the Common Law, and would he guided, id
its decision, by considering whether the party could Or not maim.
tain his right at law. MI *as clearly of opinion that this actical-
was not maintau.nble. and that it would be a disgrace to Alit .
country if any Judge were to sanction it.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY .greed in every thing that had been N
ably said by the Lord Chief Justice,• and would only observe. that
in the case of Southey v. Sherwood. the Lord Chanceljer laid ib
down that the -Court of Equity could not grant an injucetion,
because the plaintiff had no property *filth would be tocogulsed lit
a Court 01 bar.
Mr..lustice Horitbvn was 61 the same opinion. He thought
it would be a most preposterous thing if the Court were to erect
into a species of property that which the law would punish erica,.
M.
r. Justice LITTLEDALE ,concurred with the other Learned
Judges.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY would add one nhservation. which wee.
that there would be no objection for a Court of Equity to restrain
the piracy, if the Coen; in •granfing the injunction, would at the
same time require an undertaking from the author that he would
not himself publish the work.
Rule for a new trial refused.

In consequence of a very offensive efilovium being experienced it
Court this morning, arising from the bad state cf thisewers, theft
Lordships were compelled-to adjrfurn to the adjoining mom, which
occasioned considerable inconvenience both to couosel and attorney*
in attendar.ce, Miring to the very confined 'space allotted to them.
If the tietessity should exist for the eittingeio be continued there.
it would be &great accommodation if the Counsels' table were to be
placed mote le the centre of the room, snatch Might be easily dotal
without at all incommodiniftreir Lordebipa.

COURT OCO NI MON P West mutt TRII4
FRIDAY, JAW. 27&

/GCS!. TOOTS, DTI &X D Alf alititsJoHle tt.aciarett.. walll'A
'this was a proceeding by writ of right, in try thmelaim of des
mandant to certain premises Whiteceosa-crest, Middlesex. now
in the posseasioa of Bagwell. Although the property: ie smell, the
question or right to• it involves dia fide to posimmatons of (Anal*
derahle extent. The novelty of the proceedings attracted a full
Court
It may be necessary' to state. that when a petsonotnits to elakrt
his fee simple property for more than 11, years, he le debarred front
the usual proceedings by ejestntect and other ordinary rouses; hie
only alternative is a writ of fight.' Bye A.et •or Porlianient he is
allowed, in certain.cmes. 30 years to heitig this writ, but in some
cases, such, we believe, as the present, he is allowedoo years. The
trial takes place at bar, before the four Judges of the Court of
Common Pleas, and a tiesnd Assize, consisting of four Knights
and a certain number of. Esquires, chosen after a particular form.
After the officer of the Coon had called the cause, the Jury were
called over, and some eecused through illness. Among those *he
were absent one the ground of illness, was one of the four Knights,
Sir George Alderson, for whom, a physician attended, and mole
that Sir George was ottableto appear, in consequence of an indis.
position which made. it uncertain when or whether he could eve!
attend. The Sheriff also made a airtMar return.
Mr. Sergeant ROssKQuET now moired the Court that the pro.
eel. which had been ismied should be taken off the roll, .and a new
venire issued, with an entry of contingencies, to summon four
Knights to choose a (:rand Amaze or that the demolition( should
enter a suggestion, stating the inability of Sir 'George Alderson to
attend, in consequence of' illness and bodily infirmity, and that the
said Sir George Aide/von should be discharged from attendsnee,
and that a venire be issued to smitten, another Knight to attend.
, and also that a di:friar:l should issue to compel the other Knight*
and Jury to attend. The Leerned sergeant, on behalf of demand.
rut. contended that the Court had a right to outvote either course.
and that the equity of the case required such alternative as would
give justice in this important question. His client was anxious to
go at once to the merits of the case, and he hoped the Court would
not allow any technicalities to prevent or delay the final decision.
Mr. Sergeant VautattAll, for the tenant, would avail himself of
any legal objection to impede the course of this vexatious proceed.
ing. Was it to be tolerated that those who had almost slept " the
sleep of death" over the quiet occupation of this property by his
client, should now be allowed to disturb that possemion by this
most novel proceeding ? He therefore would not wave any part of
the establishel form. He contended that the attendance of the roue
Knights was essential. and that the Court could not suffer the trial
to proceed without them. It was not shown to the Court that sir
fieurge Alderson could never aaend ; he hoped his health would-
enable him to do so, and that he (the Learned Sergeant) might
have the opportunity of seeing Sir George and the other gallant
Knights and Esquires in good health assembled here on a future
occasion. It never was the onlicy of thin Court to give any facility
to disturb a long and peaceable possession. and there was no ground
for a departure from their practice upon the present occasion. No
precedent had been shown to warrant such departure, and he cone_
ceived it imperative on the Court to adhere to established forms.
The COVHT expressed a hope that this antiquated proceeding
by writ of right should undergo a legislative revision; it was not
suited to the lee al practices of the present day. The Court would
not adopt the first proposition of the Learned Sergeant (Ilosanquet).
and although there were no precedents to direct their decision ore
this occasion, they would be governed by the rule of common
sense, which was the best principle or law. They would adopt the
second suggestion. mid direct the Sheriff to strike the name of Six
George Alderson oft' the roll, and to place that of another Knight
upon it, and then the four Knights stall attend with the present
Jury to form a Grand Amin. This course would prevent untie.
ceseary delay, and meet the justice of the case, which was %belt
great object.
The trial was then fixed for I;th April next, and the Court or.
dered the present Jury to be in attendance; adding, that it would
be necessary for such of the gentlemen as wished to be excused
from appearance to renew the application to that effect made this
day. Ihe Court regretted giving them so much trouble, but it
was rift of their power to dispense with it.
Sir Richard liimie, the Foreman, addressed their Lordship.,
complaining of the delay, which occasioned three days' attendance
of the Jury, and hoped the business would be-concluded on the 17th
April.
The Low) Justict would give every facility to get
rid of this question mill* day dud.

COURT OF =CHEQUER, Fainair, Jax. 27.

THE KING V. THE 11111Ar1ti OP st.toa.
Mr. Tierict made an spplicade, to the Onirt that the bearing
of this cause, which was fixed foe thie day, Might be deferred to
Friday next, the documents connected with the cause being vety
numerous and of great length.
Mr. Baron Huttocs said that the dortimente in question were
not forwarded to him until late lest night, and that, from their
voluminous extent, be had nor been' able to read them through,
and therefore thought it quite • proper that the application of tho
Learned Counsel should be complied with.
The hearing of this rase consequently stands over to Friday
next.
GREF.NWICII HOSPITAL—TX4ARTE STOWE.
Mr. CA hirnt in consequence of the• absence of the Solicitor.
General, who was to have appeared on the part of the Governors of
Greenwich Hospital, applied to the Court to appoint some future
day for hearing this cause.
Mr. Baron BULLOCK said he wis well aware that the attend.
ance of Mr. Campbell in another place on this day was of great
importance to that gentleman, and that as he was very well disposed
to afford the Learned Cot ntel every convenience, he would be glad
to know what day would best suit him.
Mr. CAMPBELL said that Saturday week would perfectly meet
his convenience. and he wouldtherefore thank the Court to appoint
that day.
The CotrAT, in compliance with this request, appointed Saturday
next for the'hearing of this case,
THING V. JOHN PEACHEY AND SIR HENRY HUBBUB'S'.
When this cause came on for bearing. Mr. Martin, who was
Counsel for the defendant, was absent from Court t when that gen-
tleman (after an interval of some length) made his appearance,
The LORD CHILI* BARON observed that though the Court had
bot little business to occupy it, yet sniffing as it was it could not
be got through unless gentlemen would- attend punctually the sit-
tings of the Court.
Mr. 11ART1N said that it had been intimated to him last night
that the Lord Chief Baron would not sit to-day, and that he did
not in consequence contemplate that the cue would have come oh
so soon.
Mr. Baron Ganeow said that he could not imagine what cause
could have given rise to such an intimation. Nothing had yester-
day fallen from the Court to warrant such a notion.
111 r. EAGLE said that every member of the Bar was fully eersi-
ble of the necessity of early attendance, and he was quite confident
therecommendation of the Court.to that effect would in future be
strictly attended to.
Mr. MARTIN then made a motion to file a supplemental bill so
amend certain admissions made to the plaintiff in this cause in ig.
norsnce of the existence of a deed subsequently discovered by the
i defendant. Mr. Martin said that Sir 11. Bunbury we* the pro-
f prietor of certain closes situated in the pariah of Minden Hall ;
a bill was filed against Mr. Feachey, who occupied part of the pro.
perty in question. Mr. Feachey, in his answer, stated that the Four
closes which were claimed by the plaintiff in dile cause were partof
13 old closes, which were decided by are award of the Commis-
sioners of Enclosures to be no part of those which Sir Henry Ban-
bury possessed. Those closes were situated in Hollowell.row, and
to those closes the right of the plaintiff we* admitted in an answer
to a bill filed in this Court by the plaintiff. A deed of 109 was
subsequently discovered among genie papers of Sir Henry
Bunbury, which proved his right to the lands in questtoo,
as those lands bad been conveyed by a person of the
name of Poker to another individual named Puce's'. UAL by
him to Sir Thomas Haunter, tinder slum Sir Henry Bunbuiy
claims. The Sulthlk estates of Sir Henry's family were in-
herited from the flamers. This deed was discovered by Mr.
Holmes. the solicitor of Sir Henry Banbury ; and it
by an affidavit of Mr. Eagle, a member of the Bar, thatarraddi
mentioned in the deed we the same adverted to In this same.
It was also, he said, swept that silken this adobe :me made,
Sir Henry Bunbury was, lineman that the BUI of was /a
existence. There was afro to tallith eta poem Dennis,
who swore that Its was well asquabited with tba pork* a( Waden-
ttall that be boom peen* *spiral. 112 quesuramo sad that, to
the best of his itnewhelpt, no *ha were ever paid Mr them.
Those clan, be laid, were let by 81e Henry Danbury tithe haat
. awe therefore, upon the whale appearance of the ease, the pktiatie
in this MUM had no right to the tithe,. The perception of they
tithes wire not in Trigg, hot rather fn the bandrof Sir Decry
• Banbury. The iluptepriation of the tithes of thee. close* were ep

~,