The Statesman.
London, England, 1823-08-09 00:00:00

--"iitiVlE/. % OLLASTON, WIN E-. 11 Elttfli ANJ I,
129.. Reread-street, neat. Visralane, , has on. SALE I
the !nest Old Port, afts., prr dozen ; Buperior Sherry; W.-
at+tgbe
per dosen; and Paideira (unequalled), Ws. per 44,2*
One dote* Port. dogma Sherry. and one doz.n Cape Ma-
deira, kinks Peekeses Included, will he tbrwarded it!
say part o( Iltp kingdom' on the rreeipt of ./5. Also Old
East ladle Aladelta, 19:14. per dozen
.; West India ditto;
48s. pet doz.; Taseriffe. 425. per dozen ; Bueellas, 48s. par
doz.• Lisbon and Mountain, 495. per dozen; Champagnes
of the "Sliest quality; four guineas per dozpn; Clarets, Ht.
Julien, 83s. per„dosen ; Leans and Chateau hlargeaux,
four guineas; Sauterne, RITSRC. are. 74.. per dozen;
bottled. Alta. 104. per dok. All letteis must be post paid.
and no credit.

Old Crusted Pert (warranted, 3 years is bottle) Ms. per
dozen, bottivs btetpdrd.
$) amides co( the above Wines may be had.—Port, 3a. per
bottle; Sherry, ; Cape, Is. W.

CHARLES WltiliHT, Wine Merchant to his Royal
Highoess4he Mite of Clarence, next to the Kin(i
and faci. g the )laytniarket Theatre. Opera Coloanade.Hey.
mrt, Laudon.' MO *sat OLD PORT,CA 36a.
Pp
trADEIR , pe, a es, per dozen. IL
A—
hamper of one dozen of each of the sboie Wines, bottles,
package, &r, Included, will be forwarded on receipt of 61.;
or two dozen Cape Madeira, bottles, &r. for 21. ; Madeira,
Vidonia, Tenerife, Lisbon... Mountain. &c. W. per dozen.—
The Trade supplied.—Presh emptied Wisir Pipes always on
Sale, lit: each. Oid Cognac Brandy, 235. 61. per gallon.
Ohl Jamaica Rum. 16s 61. per gaIIon.—CHAMPACINES,
I just landed, tics. per dozen.

Observe, Samples of the Wines may he pitrimsed ; Old
Port, 3s. per bottle ; Sherry. 34.; Cape Madeira, It. 6d. &e.
Postage to he paid.—No Credit.
Fine Sweet Devonshire Cider, in full quart bottles, 7i. 6d.
per dotenovell up, by two dozen.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, FRIDAY, Aim. 8.
—.ore—

DON 111 AN.—LOaD 'MON V. DVOLIALL.

For I days past the defendant, Mr. Dogasie, who
is a printer, living in Seven-dials, has been in attendance
to tuovr for the dissolution of the injunction obtained
against him. In ronsegnenee, however, of the pressure of
other business, his honour was unable to hear him. The
defendant was to day present at the titling of the Court, and
was informed by his Honour, that as soon as the cause peti-
lions were disposed of, he world hear Vie ease. At shoot
two o'clock the list of c,ias,• petitions was gone through,
and the Court called upon the defendant to proceed with his
mation,

Mr. Dngdale stood on the right hand side of the Court,
close by the bar, near the Delwin. He commenced by
lamenting his inability from want of fonds toeneploy Conn•
sel, and to avail himself of the legit knowledge of those
Learned Gentlemen. He then observed that this injunction
had been obtained upon the c.r perle statement of the de-
alant's Counsel ; and although lie was not present when
the motion was made, he had good reason to believe, that
the Learned Gentleman on that occasion state,' that tile
three last Cantos of the pounn calfeml " Jetta" contained
nothing immoral—m4lol3g which dill not deserve the pro-
tection of the Court. He (the defendant) now appeared to
contend strenuously (and lie hope 1 satisfactorily to the
Court) that this work was whol!y unworthy of the protecs
tiotsof the Court, that its tendency was inotnerral in the
highest sense of the word. most celculased to taint the minds
of the publicsainaumaragi,illogerous, and most
destructive oft hapoorettis oft htreamniffifiry at large. If he
should be •blelle establish this satisfactorily to the Court
(and he entertained little doubt but that he should he able
most completely to prove thesassertion, that the object of the
author of this work was not only to ridicule the establish-
, ments both of Church and State, bat to hold op to public
sscoff and laughter every thing the most sacred, the most vie-
, tuous, the most honourable and dignified in human nattier),
he thought he should then have entitled himself to a
dissolution of the injunction obtained against him. He
thought he should be able to show that scenes of the most
disguslog nature were introduced into this work—such
scenes as no father of a family .would permit to be read, or
for an instant to be listened to. Having proved this, he
should rely with confidence upon the favourable decision of
the Court. The defendant then proceeded to observe, that
the work called Dom Joao first appeared before the public
ahoift three years NCO, and so convinced was the publisher
of its immoral tendency,that he shrunk from avowing to be
the author of the book. There appeared no publisher's
name tc the first two cantos, and although Mr. Murray was
known to be the publisher, and sold them publicly in his
shop, he had never to this day avowed himself as the pub
fisher. The same observation would apply with equal
strength to three cantos subsequently published. A long
period hal elapsed between the publication of those cantos,
and the present tines cantos, with respect to which an in-
junction hal been allowed. At length, however, the long-
looked for cantos appeared, and the very manner of their
appearance he conceited to be a very powerful
argument in his favour. They were published in three
separate editions, one at nine shillings, another at seven
shillings, and a third at the law price of one shilling; and
it was. announced in the advertisement printed in the pubs
lic papers, that " a cheap edition at one shilling to coun-
teract piracy." would be published. The publishers thems
selves, therefore, assumed moat indisputably, that they
were conscious that the work did not deserve protection in
a court of law or equity. They were anxious to appear
themselves first in the market to prevent, if they could, any
person from pirating the work. This, he thought, was on
argument which would have its dne weight upon the mind
of the Court. Assuring them that this work was of an im-
moral tendency, he should (although he certainly was no
lawyer, or much accustomed to quote precedents) advert
to a case of e' Lawrence v. Smith," which had been argued
before the Lord Chancellor. His Lordship then laid down
the principle,that where an action at lame was insufficient,
a court of equity could Aire no relief: and that where a
man cannot recover damages at law upon an immoral work,
a court of equity could grant no injunction, for the Work
was deemed unworthy of protection. In this case. the
plaintiff's lectures were considered to be of an immoral
tendency, as propagating the principles of materialism, and
therefore were to be wholly un leserving of pro-
tectson, and the injunction was dissolved. So with regard
to the present work, he conceived the same principles were
applicable; and upon similar grotinds the injunction
ought here to be dissolved. He considered, however.
that the work now before the Court was far more dan-
gerous, and far more undeserving of protectiun, than
those Lectures. Tne defendant (holding in his hand a
copy of the three last cantos of hue Jowl) proceeded to
quote passages from the work and to accompany them with
his comments. In the three cantos which i.e now held in
his bend, the hero (nos hoes) was conducted through the
most licentious scenes, tend their immorality because still
mote calculated to injure the morals of the public, fo; that
being written in such a warm poetic style. Hut he cons
teived that not only the inanorality of the Work was Aire-
tionahle, butt the work inculcated the most dangerous revo-
lutionary principles. The author seemed to belong to that
new school whose leading principles were liberalism end
licentiousness.. If the writings of his Lordship' were et-
tended as !or as be wished, if his infamous doctrines wire

circulated to every atuarg.s
."-te e t nen lfee
principles *mild be fo produce a revolution; as ksit; 1%
awful, as destructive in its comic end consequences as the
French Revolution, and it would end in the usurpatiottif
powerful spirit, which might possibly be person:atilt by his
Lordship hint.elf. The defendant then observed upp:n the
conduct pursued by tie present publishers of title word.,
They professed patriotic principles. and their *hide liveli-
hood WAS derived from the promalgation of those princi-
plea. If they were desirous of prottaratieK litteridism (or
what he would rather term licentiousness). they sboald
have thrown this work open to the public, and have followed
the example of their prototype Toni Paine: with respect to
his Age of Reason acid 'fights of lion. Then-they would
have h.en the means of commencing a revolution, whiala
would he the realization of all their schemesthronghout life.
The defendant, after again alluding to the case of " Law-
rence e. Smith," and uiiling that it strongly bore upon the
present case, reromineoiled that the Count should take the
trouble to read the work through. upon which the injune-
tiou had been now granted. -He confidently relied upon
the favourable decision of the Court. . • -
Mr. IVazarizao then rose to reply to the artramerig
rata lardiefentlent, anti commented try t-ntireg: Newt it-was -
certainly net his intention to trouble the Cciirt at any
length. If this work wore immoral in its sense and lsn •
guage, not only all the love songs %ono at the different thea•
teas. but every comedy or acter-piece on the subject of love:
would also be immoral and lice-nowt!. He was prepared to
contend that there oat no corrupt meaning contained its
this work, and corrupt meaning cowl I only be implied by
those who were themselves corrupt. if it were necessary
to allude to any particular instance to illustrate this point.
he would refer to the well-known song of" A mile frani
Edinburgh town,' and he con:ended that the same mind
that would interpret Lord Heron's poem to bs licentious,
and in particular the dream of !)odic to he immoral, wouitt
also say that this song ought n wer to ha sung in paint: by
any young lady, or iven read by her in private. He un-
derstood the fixed rule with respect to the protet tiott which
property might to receive to he this:—" The stature protect-
ed all literary pronto ty generally, and. it most be smoothing
to take it out of the general rule to deprive it. of the protec-
tion of the statute." A court of equity would alio protect
property by its injtinction, although he admitted that a
court of equity wou:d not ermect such proptrty as was no:
protected by the statute. ime learned counsel then protect-
ed to cite caws on this point, to show how far a court a! •
equity had exercised its jurisdiction in these M.S. Its
" Lawrence v. Smith," in " S tutbee ta Sherwood," and in
" Murray rt. Benhow," time-principle he bad Lid down Lad
been acknowledg ea.
The Vicn•Citaircrat,oa asked whether any of those asses
had been reported.
Mr. Waxintteau said that the case of " Sonthey e. Sher.
wood," had been r.parted in :::: 3lerivale, -CIO. The
as he understoo I it, %vs. this:—lna work which was deetnett
unworthy of the protection of a Court of Equity, a Jo,lga
in a criminal proceeding on that work mast have made tip
his wind that i: was libellous—that, in case of a trial fns
libel, the subject em tt mer W 33 If proper y coati
be had on the work, the protection of the statute would at.
tacit, and the Court would interere.. The nett proposition
which he had gathered frumj,hcse cases wet; that a single
line or ioulated paasaite Yetacheit from. the rest of the work.
would not he sallitient to make the whole work -
ing of pr decd.'''. The Court would look at the whole
scope and tendency of the work, and judge whether it was
upon the whole a licentious and immoral beak. All the
works upon which the Lord Chancellor had refneed an in-
junction, lie considered ro have barn of this description.
In " Southey and Sherwood," in " Lawrence and Smith,"
and the others which he Lad cited, it would be found that
the whole plan and schema of the tam ks were
immoral, and tended to the encouragement of some
bad and criminal doctrine. That was particularly the case
with Lawrence. Lecturer, a work which, under the cloak
and colour of scientific discussion, inculcated the most per-
nicious doctrines of materialism. in the case of " alurray
and Benbow," where 4* Cain" was the subject of con ider-
ation, the whole intent of that work was to brie; into ridi-
cule and contempt the works of the Almighty and tit: schema
of the Creation. So in the work of Mr. Southey, evilest
Wat Tyler," the whole subjvct of the book was to pro-
mulgate certain seditious doctrines of a most miscbievou.
tendency. The Learned Counsel did not think it necessary
to vindicate any of the passages quoted from time work by-
the defendant; some of those passages might be objection-
able in many particular., tat that was nut the 9leetion :
the true question was, whether they were crimirml at law—
whether by law his Lordship might have written a. he II id
done? The Learned Counsel then commented at sum"
length upon several of the passages in the work, the los. a
the ship, toe scenes on the island subsequent to the ship-
wreck, and the sale of the hero as a slave at the Court ot.
Constantinople, to show the innocent object of the work.
With respect to the 6th canto, which formed a part of the
work now in question, there was nothing in it which coda,
in a pure mina, for a moment excite an improper idea.
There was one passage, and only one. to which hr wank!
call the attention of the Court: he alltuleil to the descrip-
tion of the despatch of Suwarruw to the Empress Cathe-
rine :

---- •
" Glory to thid'and to the Empress !" (Porter;
" Eternal ! sack name: mingled !) " oars."
Every Englishman with a true British and religions feeling'.
most heartily join with his Lordship in the tic,,ription of
this despatch. It nas a fact recorded in Itirtory, that
tiuw.wrow actually communicated in verse to the Empress.
that he had assaulted and taken Ismail, and pat the whole
gar►ison, men, women. and children, to the amount of.
40,00(1 !oels, to the sword. His Lordship had in this passage
ridiculed the heartlessness of the General, anti by( repro-
bated his profane despatch. !le would not detain the Conn
by citing the passage which had heeo voted by the deend-
ant, with respect to his Majesty; it certainly wit in bat
taste, and he could not agree with his Lordship in the ea-
pression Ira that was no objertion to the work, an lit was
not the less entitled to protection. It was true, that his
Majesty' name had been treated with disrespect; bee the
question was, whether the work was of such a criminal Ili-
tare as to warrant a Judge, on an indictment for libel
in his charge to a Jury, to declare the work to be 441-
[ lous?

The VICE-CIIANCELtOR asked, if Mr. ITiketield bad
known of tiny cases o( this kind in a Court of Law ? and
being answered in theisievitive, he Said, the Court of Fquity
only grants a remedy by injunction to make the imperfect
remedy at law complete. We oatt•r, the:efore, look to that
cases to are on what principle Lim law has never refused da-
mages to plaintiffs, except the kooks were criminally libel-
lous. Are you juitifird by the awlinrities in waking sittla
a statement Air. Wakefield? If yoask have any authorities ou
that point, I should be glad to 'lmo/jinni.
Mr. %FAaeriet.n admitted, that the proposition was -VOID
Utmost importance. A case of a nature sucii as to afford a
complete answer to his Hummers question, could never occur
an. it a book which was deelaied to he free from libellous
.matter in a Court of L tv, was yet deemed unworthy •f the
rut! lion oral:Min of equity.
Tim Vice-Cu t 'trauma Wit cases have oc u red where
daitlages hav4 been refused ?•
Mr. Wairseritto believed that in the ease 0 Suet e 7 v.
Sherwood, the Lord Citancellor bad reterreu to a c, • .if