. The case was memorable both from its
intrinsic importance, and from the celebrity of the plaintiff. In his
answer, on the 13th of June, Curll admitted that nobody had authorised
his work. He rested his defence on three propositions. He maintained
that private correspondence did not come within the Copyright Act of
Queen Anne, because the Act was declared in the title to be for the
"Encouragement of _Learning_," whereas letters on familiar subjects were
not _learned_ productions; and because the Act was designed to protect
books which were avowedly composed for the press, whereas letters were
written without the intention of converting them into a literary
commodity. He said that he was informed, and believed, that the letters
were first "printed"[154] at Dublin, and he contended that all persons
in England had a right to reproduce books which were first "published"
in Ireland. He finally argued that letters were in the nature of a gift
to the receiver, and that after they were delivered to the Dean they
became his property. On the motion to dissolve the injunction on these
grounds, Lord Hardwicke decided that they were none of them valid. He
refused to recognise a distinction between letters and other
compositions. He denied that a prior publication in Ireland could
deprive an English author of his English rights. He, above all,
determined that though the paper on which the letter was written might
possibly be the property of the receiver, the matter remained the
property of the writer. For the same reason that he admitted Pope's
title to his own letters, he declined to continue the injunction with
respect to the letters addressed to him, which had never ceased to
belong to the persons who penned them.[155] The celebrated Murray was
one of the counsel for the poet,[156] and afterwards, when Lord Chief
Justice, he quoted and confirmed the decision of the Chancellor. "The
question," he said, "was whether the property was not transferred to the
correspondent. Lord Hardwicke thought not, and that the writer was still
the proprietor."[157] "Dean Swift," he said subsequently, "was certainly
the proprietor of the paper upon which Pope's letters to him were
written; but no disposition, no transfer of paper upon which the
composition is written can be construed a conveyance of the copy,
without the author's express consent to print and publish, much less
against his will."[158] Just and valuable as is the rule of law which
proh