Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1817-04-15


This, no doubt, was admirable enough. bat
It WAS Stiil SURPASSED by another line. where
! he sings of " The Lethcan stream - and Ger
tainiy, il any person could produce I'm aniho.
ritS IN any Latin competition, where ,thin,ts
| was used as 4 dactyl there could e>iSr no
Doubt that Lord Byron was the author Of ihis
| poem.
sut aftcr all. what is this compared TO
the enchanting lines in The TtA.oesi, where
| the bnrthen OF the song is * a jrisaJly
| Lcech:"
| The WANDERING Greeks had left the spot,
| All. save that lcacii--w,,v went he NOT
| Did rious pity hold him there
| 10 sooihc the parting soul viii, praverp
No; twas that deep, that stited SIGH,
| And the side glance from that wild eve,
| winch held with more than PHYS cham,
| And made that friendly leech remain.
Eut OF upon the index stone
| that friendly leech would sit alone;
And though the storm would buffet him,
| Aud d enching rains soak eveiy limb
| lie rocked not-On his diving conch
ne told strange tales, which some canvouch
| wh,ch made the started cye-Lalls glare,
| And pe;rifv the slilenne hair.
| or deeds Of hell-snt they have sped-
God rest the souls of all ;Se deadn'
noble line, and wol Inv of the conclusion ne
snch poem! But To speak seriously, will any
one OF these poems exhibit sucha want OF
scholarship that it would be injurious 10 Lord
hyron II they were suffered to go mo lie world
ne
advertisement Of the defendant. that Lord Dy
ron WAS the author and that he had paid his
lordship 500 guiucas for 'he copyright il was
10 be expected that the defendant woulds swear
positively TO those facts but what mad he done
- had merely ia zen = tcc,micaloheciiruto the
bill. that no place ofreSitiencc wasaSsi.ucd in
lord lSyron, and he believed ina, lord gvron
vas abroad. If The defendant however, had A.
ny donbt that this bill was flied his lordship.
most ample security would be immediately Ii
ven for the costs.
Mr. Leech. on the part OF the defendant
contended, that he was not called upnn 10 an
swer 10 the alterations of this bill II would
require some authority 10 satisfy his lor,isip
that the court OF chancerv sat there TO virdi
cafe the poetlcal or literary character of auv
man. The court, no doubt would protect his
pecuniary interest; bntall that the bill said
was ,hat the poems were published without
! Td ByronS knowledge and that his rp,,u,a
ION as pcet wOuld be iajured bv such uuh-
lication 1t was evident, indeed, that ford
nyroh reputation could not he injured by
'"ese poems. since MIR. Shadwcll had told The
court they were so contemptibln that no one
co"iu believe them to be his lord ship's wor..s
'io"t me merits too II was necessary 10 nok
at ne ,orm %, ms motion. Upon what ground
conld his iortshiU be called upnr 20 restrain fine
puD!lcation OF works which were declared mr.
|" he the works of lord Byronf hut this rim
was NOT lie i,'I of lord BYRON: il was the bill
el9S'nc Trend here, and had that friend salts
i'eu ,ne court that there Sutiirie,it ground
10 can Tor any answer at all: Coaid hill ne
Hieu IN the name of an absent person and
WIS IL e! ough to call upon the defendant to
answer II In a court ofjustce, because n nd-
v'iua' said, had some converse ton with lord
byron four months ago. and lie never told me
tiiat ne va nded to publish such poems ho
'i'n@ Nou'd pc more absurd; tur any one af-
p""nteu win the literary world must know
that NOTHING was more common Than for an
author 10 conceal his name until he saw what
success attended his works. The defendant
nnneeu, h2d not gone INTO The merits, but had
red an affidavit that lord Byron was abroad
Tor the purpose of calling on the court TO nro,
tect him againt the costs
OF Nafnne. RomiliV, in repv, observed that
a person abroad might certainly file bill and
ane 'esiuPnce or Lord Byron was immateii,l,
as there cOnld be bur one person in the ", r 4
VINO was entitled TO that appelIaticn Asfo the
oplecuon that this was nor a matter of pecunia
ry interest, suppose all tie pecunary interest
were out or the question, (Which was not the
cdse.) the Court would interfere TO Dreyent
any person from niuring the reputation of
another. To cite examples 10 his Lordsbin
was almostunne ccSsary; but did not Mr. Pone
procure an injunction 10 restrain Curl. the
hookse!lertrom Publishing his Icttereo Did moi
y. Paleys Executors obtain an Injunction
10 prevent the publication Of some of his ser
monsf ret what prcuniary interest could fley
hcVet another instance was that TIE executors
OF the great lord Chesterfield who obtained
an Injunction to restrain the publication offer
tam let ers 20 his son, which lie lie vtr intended
ior the public eye; bnt the Injunction was oh
td,iicu 100 iate 10 prevent the publication
Ihere ccU!dbe no doubt that he court would
protect ne character ofau individual against
wO1ks which he never published ETr Jeach
ilau Said fEfSe poems were so c0DfcmnfihIe
that Trey could not iniure the reputation ri
Lord Byron; brit the defendant was the onlv
person vino could not use that arrun1ent ae he
had assured the pablo that lie received tbe,n
from iS l0rdship, that he had paid him vain
able consideration for item. Tie silence of the
detendant was conclusive that they were not
Lord Byron's works; the defendant had th,
opportunity oil proving the truth OF his ASSERT
ons, AMI he had nOtav3iled himself oft Itwas
argued indeed, that Lord Byron himself did
not ME thls bill; bat an affidavit could be pro.
cured TO show, that his lordshp had given
general autborityto file bill i'm his name. and
VI case such spurious productions should be
published as his works
The Lord ChancelIor-"I think fI,e Vico.
Chancellor was very right in not granting an
lnlhnclion without notice to the defendant
nc question now is, whether AN Injunction
snouid be granted, after such notice has been
given. suppose Mr.. Shadwcll meamt his
speech should operate as an iniunc tion, and so
u may, Dui ! nave nothing 10 do with that
Ohc objection 10 the Injunction is titatitis mt
on the loss OF character; hut [ must snppose
therc Is Pecun1ry interest also, since MIR
Johnson himself has said, that he gave SEQ
SuineaS for these poems. MIR. Johnson how
ever, mas sat an opportunity of proving the
truth of his assertions aud he has nor made usp
of it, Lord Byron must, therefore,. rive sem
rity Tor the costs OF iliis BIZ. and tlunk that an
injunction must be granted. Mr. Iesch h,s
certainty done every thing lie could foi his eli
cnt, Dat lac has NOT satisfied tic cOurt that fhe
IiurHCitOn ought not 70 De rraoted Lot H..
ucienUaut, therefore be restrained from uut-