On this page
-
Text (1)
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
to Mr , Locke , He had amused himself with giving a definition of human ideas , and his work contained a passage in which it was said not be impossible for the Deity to have imparted to matter the property of thinking . But he had not asserted that doctrine in the sense in
which it was used by the scoffers at religion ; for he contended that the soul was linmortal , and that we should be accountable hereafter for our actions in this life . It therefore did not signify whether the soul was combined with matter or was an abstract essense of immateriality , since its future responsibility was admitted . But that was very different from the doctrine held forth in the school of
Lincoln s-inn Fields . . Mr . Locke not only allowed that the soul was immortal , but it was the object of every part of his book to establish its immortality . Mr . Wetherell then referred to Dr . Butler ' s analogy , which Mr . Shadwell had quoted ; and
said , that , so far from supporting his argument , he had contended that , putting religion out of the question , the strong preponderance of human reasoning was in favour of the soul ' s immortality ; and that neither from the reason of the
thing , nor the analogy of nature , could a conclusion be drawn that the soul was annihilated by death . He belonged to a class of writers who far excelled those of our modern school , and drew very different inferences from them : for this eminent writer says , that it is not even clear that immateriality does not exist in all
animals . Dr . Paley ' s name had also been dragged in , in support of this doctrine , which gave him ( Mr . Wetherell ) considerable surprise ; for , in his concluding chapter , he tells us not to bind ourselves by the analogy of nature ; for in every object of nature there seems to be something ultra the ordinary powers and
functions of nature itself , as it appears to us . But , taking the hypothesis one way or the other , all those great writers reserve the doctrine of revelation , except our modern sciolists , who would engross the garden of science , with all its flowers
and walks and parterres , to themselves . He ( Mr . Wetherell ) expressed his regret at being obliged to make these observationa ; but unless this school of Infidelity was put down , the effect upon society would be most injurious .
The Lord Chancellor said that this case had been argued at the bar with great learning and with great ability . He would explain in a few words the principles on which his decision should be founded . On the observations which had been made upon the College of Surgeons , as the place in which these Lectures had been read , he would not touch ; he Would only treat the plaintiff as the
Untitled Article
author of the work * r i ! his case hatUjeen introduced by a bill filed by Mr . fljLawrence , in which he stated tfeai he was the author of this book , which the defen dant had also published ; and that he was e ^ titled to the protection of this Court , ia the preservation of the profits resulting from its publication . Undoubtedly the
jurisdiction of thi 6 Court was founded on this principle , that where the law will not afford a complete remedy to literary property when invaded , this Court will lend its assistance ; because , where every publication is a distinct cause of aqtion , and when several parties might publish the book , if a man were obliged to bring an action on each occasion , the remedy would be worse than tho disease . But
then this Court will only interfere where he can by law sustain an action for dak mages equal to the injury he has sustained . He might then come here to make hn legal remedy more effectual . But if the case be one which it is not clear will sus « tain an action at law , then this Court wil not give him the relief he seeks . The
present case had been opened as an ordinary case of piracy , and he took it that nothing was then said by Mr . Wilbraham as to the general tenour of the work , of of particular passages in it . He ( the Lord Chancellor ) was bound to look , not
only at its general tenour , but also at particular passages unconnected with its general tenour ; for if there were any parts of it which denied the truth of Scripture , or which furnished a doubt as to whether a court of law would not
decide that they had denied the truth of Scripture , he was bound to look at them , and decide accordingly . There was a peculiar circumstance attending this case , which was , that the defendant possessed no right to the work , but said to the
plaintiff— " This book is so criminal in its nature as to deprive you of all protection at law against others and myself , and I will therefore publish it . " Now he ( tbe Lord Chancellor ) knew it to be said , that in cases where the work contained
criminal matter , by refusing the injunction , allowed the greater latitude for its dissemination . But his answer to that wiw , that this Court possessed tio criminal jurisdiction , it could only look at the civil rights of the parties ; and therefore , whether a different proceeding were hereafter instituted against the defendant , or the plaintiff , or both , was a cir cumstance with which he had nothing to do . The
only question for him to determine was , whether it was so clear that the plaintiff possessed a civil right in this publication , as to leave no doubt upon his ( the Lord Chancellor ' s ) mind that it would support an action in a court of law . Now hj » Lordship had read the whole of thitf book
Untitled Article
398 InteUigence . R ~ -Law eport : Lmfir&noe v * Smith .
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), June 2, 1822, page 388, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2513/page/68/
-