204
NOTES AND QUERIES. [ii s. ix. MAR. u, 1914.
Latin words described as " something too
scandalous and defamatory of private cha-
racter to endure a repetition," and the
author of the MS. confirming him in these
words :
" Two other Latin lines containing personal abuse of two persons too ' gross to mention [erased] un- necessary to repeat" [superscribed].
We may thus feel sure that the words which wo find on the title-page of the quarto and of the Dyce copy, following immediately below the blanks left in these two reprints for the obscene sculpture in the original, formed a part and not the least reprehensible part of the libel for which Wilkes was punished by twelve months' imprisonment, a fine of 500Z., and the furnishing of heavy security for good beha- viour a condition not imposed in the North Briton case. Nor, in spite of his high character for impartiality, was Mansfield likely to take a lenient view of such a libel upon persons of whom one, Sackville, was a lifelong friend, who bade him a touching farewell when on the brink of the grave (Cumberland, ' Mem.,' ii. 249), and the other a brother of his intimate school- fellow and alleged brother-Jacobite (Camp- bell's ' Chief Justices,' 3rd ed., iii. 237-41).
I may here notice two misprints in the quarto, and in addition a third one in the Dyce copy, which tend to show that these are reprints from an imperfect original. The Information correctly sets out verse 80 as :
Or who could suffer being here below ? (Pope's very line.) The reprints insert
- ' what " for who, making nonsense. Again,
verse 2 of stanza 8 of the * Universal Prayer ' should read as in Pope :
All else beneath the sun.
The reprints again make nonsense of it by altering to " Or else." The Dyce copy again prints " Stay " for Say in ' The Dying Lover.' The quarto misprints yoVaiKos for yvvaueos in the line from Homer on the title-page, and the Dyce copy Kvirepov for Kvvrepov.
We learn from his correspondence with Lloyd and Sandwich in the months of September to November, 1763 (Guild. MSS., 214/1), that Webb was ordered to have copies made in his office of the poems, to serve as " briefs " for the Lords of the 'Council. There was a difficulty in getting a sufficiency of copies made in manuscript. Accordingly, on 22 Oct., 1763, Lloyd wrote to Webb that "he [Grenville] has pleased to consent that some copies of it should be printed." It is a reasonable conjecture that these copies may have been made from
Curry's revise and from the unamended
frontispiece, which in these copies would
presumably be merely printed, not engraved,
and so have no " sculpture."
Thus we have explained the errors oE existing reprints, which may have been made from one of the copies ordered by Grenville, and it seems very possible that the Dyce copy may actually be one of those so made by order. Sandwich required eight ; but on Monday, 14 Nov., he writes to Webb : " You have only sent five, which is a great distress." May not some have been clan- destinely sold to supply an insatiable market ? g
"Note If very obscene, the Consideration will be greatly enhanced ; and if a due portion of blasphemy, no encouragement shall be wanting, there being now a great demand for anything of this kind." From a mock advertisement in The Monthly Review, 1763, xxix. 465.
Several printed copies were in existence in 1764, for at the trial " one of the copies of the * Essay on Woman ' was handed to the jury " (London Evening Post, 21-3 Feb.).
As " the persons who were taking down minutes of the trial were ordered by the Court to desist " (ib.), we can glean little of what happened. Norton (A. G.), Moreton, Clayton, and Wallis (probably Wallace) were of counsel for the Crown ; Glynn (Serjt.), Mr. Recorder Eyre, Stowe, Dunning, and Gardiner for the defence ; the jury, who were " out " for an hour, comprised a baronet and eleven esquires. The attorney for the defence wished Kidgell to be called for the defence and treated as a hostile witness. We learn, however, from his own pen that this was not done, but he had to endure the Serjeant's gibes and invective " unworthy of his gown and my character." Further :
" J'eus la mortification d'entendre de mes propres Oreilles Milord le Chef Juge du Bane Royal dormer ses Ordres au Procureur General de poursuivre de la part de la Couronne quiconque a ose" publier quelque chose pre"alablement au Jugement de la Cour."-Guild. MSS. 214/3, Utrecht, "20Aout 1765."
A word may be added as to the behaviour of Mansfield often made a reproach to him. He very properly stopped minutes being taken during the trial, and if Fletcher Norton a man the judge knew to be without scruple had any knowledge of forgeries having been inserted in the ' Essay,' as Kidgell asserted, the great Chief Justice was no party to such an infamy. He was right, perhaps, in law though it was harsh law in holding that there had been a technical publication.
