The Sun.
London, England, 1822-02-13 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Frß. 12.
LORD BYRON'S ." CAIN."—MURRAY V. BENBOW.
The LORD CHANCELLOR came into Court a,few minutes
after nine o'clock this morning, and, after hearing a motion of
course, he addressed Mr. Shadwell as follows (the Attorney-
Genera/ was present :)—ln that case in which you have applied
for an injunction, I shall tell you what strikes me on the sub-
ject. This Court, like every other court of justice, holds Chris-
tianity to be a part of the law of the land. Its jurisdiction in
protecting literary property I take to be founded on this:—
Where an action of damages will lie in a court of law for
the piracy or imitation of a work, it will lend its assist-
ance to aid the defective remedy which such a proceeding
affords : for it is obvious that pubhcation after publica-
tion might take place, which you could never otherwise
hunt down, But when the work is of such a nature that
an action for piracy will not lie, then this Court will not
grant an injunction to protect the copyright. Now, if the object
of the present publication be to vilify and bring into discredit
that portion of the Scripture history on which it is founded, it
is a publication for the piracy of which the party could not re-
cover any damages at law. This Court is not armed with a
criminal jurisdiction to punish offences of that nature; but nei-
ther is it called upon to interpose its civil jurisdiction in the pro.
tection of works of such a character. You have alluded to the
noble production of our glorious Milton ; in the course of the
last long vacation, amongst the
- " Solicits jucunda oblivia vita,"
I read that beautiful poem over from beginning to end ; it is,
therefore, quite fresh in my recollection ; and it appears to me
impossible that any one can for a moment doubt that the object
of that production was to promote the great cause of Christiani-
ty. There are, undoubtedly, many passages in it, which, of
themselves, could not by law be vindicated. ; but taking it al-
together, it is clear that its object and effect were, not to bring
into disrepute, but to promote the reverence of our religion.
Now the question is—looking at -the work before me, the pre-
face, the poem, its general tone, and manner of treating its sub-
ject, whether its intent be as innocent;as that of the other with
which you have compared it, or whether it be to bring discre-
dit upon Scripture history and doctrines ? This question 1 have
no right to determine. It is one which is only fitted for the
consideration of a jury. All lam new called upon to say is,
whether I entertain a reasonable doubt on the character of the
book ; and I trust I shall not be considered unreasonable when
I say Ido entertain such a doubt. You must, therefore, take
another mode of trying what is the nature of this production.
It may appear strange that I should thus allow the multiplica-
tion of copies, if the object of the poem be mischievous, which
Ido not say whether it is, or is not ; I cannot help that. The
defendant (Mr. Benbow, I think his name is) does not appear
to oppose this application ; and it is pretty obvious why. The
question, therefore, cannot now be argued before me ; but if it
turns out hereafter that I am called upon to do so, I will ex-
press what my opinion upon it is. At present, all I can say is,
that I cannot grant this injunction until you shew me that you
can maintain an action upon it. It is true that this mode of
dealing with the work, if it be calculated to produce mischievous
effects, opens a door for its wider dissimulation but, sitting
here, II have no criminal jurisdiction to punish or check suck
offences. The way to put a stop to them is by proceeding di-
rectly against the offenders in another mode, and through
another channel. But I again repeat, that I pronounce no
opinion upon the character of the present work.
Mr. SHADWELL—I do not mean, my Lord, to dissent for
a moment from any. thing which your Lordship has said ; but
I have one observation to make upon an expression which fell
from your Lordship in alluding to the preface as affecting the
character of the work—

The LORD CHANCELLOR—Mr. Shadwell, 'I owe it to my-
self to state, that I have not only considered the nature of the
work generally, but, having separated the poem from the pre-
face, I have most anxiously reconsidered it thus separately.
r. SHADWELL—I ought to apologize for having troubled
your Lordship ; but I wished to apprise you that Mr. Murray
claimed no copyright in the preface. It is not on the record ;
nor does it appear by whom it was written. It happened to be
bound up with the work; but a claim upon it constituted no
part of the ground of my motion. My client was desirous that
the poem might be considered separately, without any reference
to it.

The LORD CHANCELLOR—I 'assure you that the conside-
ration of this subject has been very painful to me. My mind,
however, was somewhat relieved by giving it a consideration
sepazate from the preface. All I can say is, this is a work the
character of which may be of a nature not to sustain an action
at law. I don't say that it is ; but it being doubtful, this Court
cannot interfere to protect it.
Mr.. SuAnwELL--Then, my Lord, I suppose the result is,
that I take nothing by my present motion.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Just so.—lnjunction refused.
In a few minutes after his Lordship had pronounced the de-
cision, an officer of the Court gave Mr. Shadwell the copy of the
work which he had upon a former day handed up to the bench.
Mr. SHADWELL—I was almost afraid, my Lord, after what
your Lordship had said, to claim a property in this book.
The LORD CHANCELLORI know I have nawish to claim
a property in it, I assure you.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, FEB. 12.
MANCHESTER MEETING.
REDFORD V. IHRLEY—JOHNSON V. SAME.
Mr. EVANS now showed cause against the rule in these cases
calling on the attorney for the plaintiffs to give information of
the places of abode of his clients, who have brought actions
for injurie, which they allege that they received in the disper-
sion of the celebrated meeting at Manchester. He con-
tended that none of the Authorities which probably would be
referred to on the other side sanctioned the application now
made in a case of personal injury. These authorities were to
be found in 1 Strange, 141 ; 2 Barnadiston, 2 ; 4 Barnewall
and Alderson, 93 ; and a case not yet reported which arose in
the common Pleas ; but they all seemed to confine the advan-
tage sought for to qui tam actions and ejectments, in which the
defendant may, from the nature of the actions, be well' sup-
posed ignorant of the real plaintiff, In opposition to these, he
relied on 2 Strange, 705, as a direct authority to show that the
Court would not thus interfere in any but these
.peculiar ac-
tions. It might be urged that the affidavit to bring back the
venue into Middlesex was not sworn by the plaintiffs, but by
their attorney : this, however, arose entirely from the lateness
of the time when the motion to change the venue was made by
I the defendant, which rendered it impossible to send to Man-
chester. Having thus disposed of the legal part of the ques-
tion, he would ask what were the motives of those by whom
this application was made? In begging the Court to estimate
these, he would observe, that it was the bounden duty of
every advocate to make all such observations as were just
and relevant to the matters in issue. This he would ever do
while he had thnhonour to appear in that Court, whether there
were powerful defendants, whether there were private prose-
cutors or public prosecutors, against whom he had to struggle,
without any wish to hurt private feelings, but with a determi-
nation to do his duty. ,
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE observed, that this really was
not a case in which such observations could fairly arise.
Mr. E vAris said, that his observations were essentially ne-
cessary to the case. He would characterise the conduct of the
defendants as it seemed to him to deserve ; he would never
shrink from the consequences of bis assertions; he would never
screen himself by saying that he had spoken under the protec-
tion of their Lordships, from any legitimate mode of redress
to which a party might regard himself as entitled. What, then,
were the motives of obtaining this rule ? Was it to be fol-
lowed by another rule to commit the plaintiffs, to prison until
the time for trial was over ? Was it security tOr costs which
was desired ? That, undoubtedly, the Court would never com-
pel the plaintiffii to give.
Cr. Justice BAYLEY here interposed, and suggested that
the defendant might wish for this rule in order to prepare for
his defence, as the transaction took place in an immense as-
sembly in which several persons of the same name with the
plaintiffs were probably present.
Mr. EVANS asked for what purpose was the identity of the
individual to be ascertained ? Was he not one of 60,000 persons
all attacked by the same violence ? Had the defendant ventured '
to swear that he did not cut down and trample on the party
complaining ? No ! the true reason of this application was, that
a poor man might attack a rich man or a powerful body, and
that they would not suffer him to conceal himself from their
resentments. He spoke not of things which had no existence.
Their Lordships might remember that some time ago if a man
dared to bring an action against a certain noble Lord in the
north, he was never safe until he quitted the country. A little
time ago a number of poor tenants whO gave offence to another
noble family were turned from their homes in nakedness and
in want. Here the defendant had violently assaulted and
wounded the plaintiffs.

Mr. JusticC BE rr said this did not appear on the affidavits.
Mr. :Eva)/ s read a passage from the affidavit, in which it was
stated, not positively by one of the plaintiffs, but by their attor-
ney. on his information and belief. This gave him full oppor-
tunity of denying the charge on oath, but this he had not ven-
tured to do. It might well be conceived that a poor man, who
had scarcely escaped with life from the violent outrage of the
defendant, should now hesitate to expose himself to his power
and that of his supporters. The array of Counsel for the de-
fendant showed the spirit in which the case was taken up; the
plaintiffs might well desire to conceal themselves from its in-
fluences ; all the authorities were against the motion, which
would give them up to its power ; .and every feeling of justice
c.illed on the Court to refuse it.
Mr. BINGHAM followed on the same side.
Mr. SCAItLETT, in reply, observed, that there was nothing
in the present motion to call the warmth exhibited by his

Learned friend gr. Evans, which he would do better to re'
serve till the trial. In the earlier periods of our legal history,
suitors had no right to appear by attorney, but avereqabliged
to carry on their suits in person..
_ln the affidavits, theee,
was not the slightest suggestion of prejudice or danger? of whick
the plaintiffs had reasonable fear. The • alleged injury took
place in August,' 1819, and the action was not brought until
Michaelmas Term, in 1821—an interval which shewed that the
plaintiffs were in no great haste to obtain redress, and in which
the defendants might easily forget circumstances which occurred
amidst violent agitation in a great assembly. There might be a.
variety of defences from which a full knowledge of thesecircum-
stances could alone enable thedefendant to select the true one ; he
could only seize on the leading facts of the transaction, for he was'
in the dark as to all which personally affected the plaintiffs.--
Inquiries had been made in vain, at Manchester, for the infor-
mation now desired ; the suspicions on one side were at least to
great as those on the other. The Court, however, would not
decide on suspicion, but would order that to be done which was
absolutely required for the purposes of justice.
The CounT were unanimously of opinion that the ruld
should be made absolute. If it were followed by a motion
•
for security for costs, they would refuse it, because they would
aot thus embarrass a poor man complaining •of personal
injury. But the defendant in every case had a right to know'
who the plaintiffs were ; and here the difficulty was increased
by the distance of time, and the vast numbers of people all
ambled. The defences would vary according to the situatiott
of the plaintiffs—if they were in the line between the hustings':
and the magistrates—if on the outskirts of the meeting—or .1
taken in flight after all was over; in which last.case there might
possibly be no defence at all. The Court must do equal jns"
(ice between rich and poor, without respect of either, and not
allow the administration of justice to be libelled by a suggesr.
tion that the laws were not sufficient to afford protection to those
who sought for aid. _

Mr. SZARLETT then proposed that the other rules for brink'
ing back the venue to Middlesex, and for referring it to tht
master to consider of the pleas, should be enlarged till next term:
Mr. Ev Aws refused to accede to this proposition. The plain-
tiffs were determined to allow nothing to prevent them from
going to trial at the next assizes, and they were ready to give
their places of abode directly, in obedience to the precedingrulei
Mr. SCARLETT then proceeded to shew cause against the
rule for bringing back the VENUE from Lancaster to Middlesex,'
where the actions were originally brought. The alledged
ground on which the rule was obtained was, that violent pre
hjudices existed on the subject in Lancashire ; but that county
appened to contain a greater number of jurors than any other,
many of whom were quite as li ely to be as free from prejudice
as the jurors of any of the neighbouring counties. In Illiddle-
sex, where the plaintiffs wished to try, there had been many
meetings held, and strong feelings excited by the transactions inissue. gt

The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE asked if all this did not strongly
point to a third county ; and suggested that the Learned Cour!'
ad could probably arrange among themselves, for a trial in
some place to which there would be no o'•ijeCtion.
Air. EVANS accordingly conferred with Mr. SCARLETT,
and afterwards informed the Court, that he had proposed four
neighbouring counties, and also that the causes should be tried
in Lancaster, by a Jury from the division of West Derby, but
all his proposals had been rejected.
Mr. SCARLETT offered then to exclude the Salford divisioU
of Lancashire, in which the 'fleeting was held, but Mr. Evans
declined the offer, and the rule was discharged. The causes
will, therefore, be tried by Juries from the body of the count,'
of Lancaster.

The rule for referring the voluminous pleas to the Motet
was discussed at a subsequent pait of the day, when the CoU
were clearly of opinion that they ought to be so referred, and
made the rule absolute, directing the master not to form his de;
cision until a reasonable time after the places of the plaintiffs
abode were given.

THE KING V. DOLBY.
In this case, Mi. SCARLETT shewed cause against the rule
obtained on a former day by Mr.Tindall, tbr directing the JurY
process to the Coroners, the Sheriff being found a subscriber w
the Bridge-street Association, by whom the defendant is in'
dieted. He said that the proceeding was erroneous, as the pro'
secutors ought to have entered a suggestion on the roll, instead
of moving the Court.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said, the motion ought to hang
been framed for entering a suggestion, but the Court Woul"
modify it now to that effect, and, with this alteration in fogy,
would make it absolute.

DUNCAN V. HILL.
In this case, which was mentioned on a preceding day, the
Court decided, that a Member of Parliament cannot be ba
because his person is protected from arrest by his Parliament3rY
privilege.
This being the last day of Hilary Term, the Court sat 0
hear motions until a late hour.

Extract from a METEOROLOGICAL JOURNAL for January,
1822, , kept at the Observatory of .the ACADEMY Gob
PORT :
" This month has been dry and •v..dni, and the state of the sir •
mild for the season. Several hor-frosts, however, appeaied iA
the early part of the mornings, anti the thermometer was undc'..
36 deg: on.ten different nights, and three times beloWthLtreva
ing point. The mean temperature of the air is 1 deg. 33 _.„
higher than in last January, and rather more than 2 cleg.2-010
above the mean of January, for seven
.years past. The rassilk
temperature of spring water at 8 A.m. is 2, deg. 4-fifths hie"-
.r
than in January, 1821.
" The aggregate of the spaces described by the rising and
falling of the mercurial column, is unusually small for Januar 4
and the pressure of the atmosphere very great the metal heigur
of the barometer being nearly 7-tenths of an inch above that
the preceding month (December.)
" The wind having prevailed 23 days between -the West
North points of the Compass this month, the depth of rain/
therefore, does not amount to 9-tenths of an inch, even with
Pluviameterplaced on the ground; and the Evaporation is maly
as much again as in former Januaries.
" The atmospheric and meteoric phenomena that have' corne
within our observation this month, are 1 parhelion, 3 lunar
halos, 3 meteors, 1. rainbow, and 3 gales of wind, or days °-
which they have prevailed, namely, l from S. E. and
from N.E.

" Summary of the Weather,—A clear sky, 4-; fine, with 0
rious modifications of clouds, 11 ; an overcast sky, withoutratnr
11}; rain, 4i.—Total 31 days."

COURSE OF EXCHANGE, February 12.
Amsterdam .. 12 9 C. F.
Ditto, at Sight l2 6
Rotterdam l2 10
Antwerp l2 6
Hamburg! 37 5 If Efi
Altona
Paris, 3 Day's sight • 2s 40 0 Us'
Ditto
Bourdeaux, ditto
Frankforton the Main
Madrid

.
Cadiz - Effect°
Bilbao. 36i Effecti/1
Barcelona
Seville
Gibraltar
Leghorn
Gei,t,a .., . 414----Venice, Ital, Liv 27 60
Malta 45 -Naples ' 40
Palermo
Lisbon _
Oporto
IlioJaneiro ..
Dublin ...'. 9,1 Cork 9i pct Cent._