« ForrigeFortsæt »
vation, when they had brought him to the foot of the scaffold,
P. 497.“ And not being willing to apply," &c, TTT They had applied to the Protector, and received such an answer as they deserved. A deputation of the London Divines went to him to complain, that the Cavalier Episcopal Clergy got their congregations from them, and debauched the faithful from their ininisters. Have they, so,? said the Protector: I will take an order with them; and made a motion, as if he was going to say something to the captain of the guards; when turning short, But hold, said he, after what manner do the Cavaliers debauch your people? By preaching, replied the ministers. Then preach, Back again, said this able statesman; and left them to their own reflections.
P. 527. " And virtuous morals.”—How could he say that these officers, who, he owns, were high enthusiasts, were yet men of sober and virtuous morals, when they all acted (as almost all enthusiasts do) on this maxim, That the end sanctifies the means, and that the elect (of which number they reckoned themselves chief) are above ordinances ?
P. 5.30. “ Published a protestation. And yet these very secluded members had voted the bishops guilty of high treason for protesting in the same manner, when under the like force.
Ibid. « Oliver Cromwell was in doubt." -And is this historian indeed so simple as to think Oliver Cromwell was really in doubt ?
" As strong and convincing as any thing of this nature possibly can be." There is full as strong evidence on the other side; all of which this honest historian conceals--evidence of the King's bed-chamber
, whọ swear they saw the progress of it-saw the write it-heard hiin speak of it as his--and transcribed parts of it for him. It appears by the wretched false taste of composition in Gauden's other writings, and by his unchaste language, that he was utterly incapable of writing this book. Again, consider what credit was, to be given to Gauden's assertion of his authorship. He confesses himself a falsary and an impostor, who imposed a spurious book on the public in the King's naine.
Was not a man so shameless, capable of telling this lie
for a bishoprick, which he was soliciting on the pretended merit of this work? As to allier, it is agreed that Gauden told him that he [Gauden] was the author of the book, and that he saw it in Gauden's hand-writing which is well accounted for by a servant, a tithe-gatherer of Gauden, who swears that Gauden korrowed the book of one of the King's friends (to whom it was communicated by the King for their judgments) to transeribe that he "Gauden] sat up all night to transcribe it, and that he [the tithe-gatherer] sat up with bim to snuff his candles, and mend his fire. It is agreed that Charles II. and the Duke of York believed, on the word of Gauden, "when he solicited his reward, that he [Gauden] wrote it. But then this forwarded their prejudices: and what they believed, Lord Clarendon would believe too. On the whole, it is so far from being certain, as this historian pretends, that the book is spurious,' that it is the most uncertain matter I ever took the pains to examine. There is strong evidence on both sides; but I think the strongest and most unexceptionable is on that which gives it to 5251P. 549. i“ This unrighteous charge.”-The Presbyterians subdued and imprisoned the King. This is agreed son all hands. Then the Independents, getting upperinost, took the King from them, and were determined to murder him. They would have had the Presbyterians join With them in this murder, of which they (the Independents] were to have all the profit, and the Presbyterians only a share in the odium. Besides, they mortally hated the Independents for opposing their two darling
points, the divine right of Presbytery, and the use of force : in religious matters. Was it likely that in these circumstances the Presbyterians should join with the Independents in the odious project? And had they not a wonderful deal of merit in opposing it? But had these Independents been ready to set up their idol of Presbytery, and on their own terms, on condition of joining with them in the murder; I ask then, whether it is likely they would have stood out? Those who have read only this history of them, will have little reason to think they would. Those who were capable of punishing
Arians with death, were capable of doing any wickedness for the cause of God.
P. 551. “Who had the greatest hand in it of all."— There is doubtless a great deal of truth in all this. No party of men, as a religious body, further than as they were united by one common enthusiasm, were the actors in this tragedy, (see what · Burnet says below). But who prepared the entertainment, and was at the expence of the exhibition, is another question
L E T T E R *
A MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT;
SIR, T seemeth to me an odd circumstance, that, amidst
the justest and safest establishment of PROPERTY, which the best form of government is capable of procuring, there should yet be one species of it belonging to an order of men, who have been generally esteemed the greatest ornament, and, certainly, are not the least support of civil policy, to which little or no regard hath been hitherto paid. I mean, the right of property in AUTHORS to their works. And surely if there be degrees of right, that of Authors seemeth to have the advantage over most others; their property being, in the truest sense, their own, as acquired by a long and painful exercise of that very faculty which denominateth us MEN:
And * The following information, communicated by a friend, may acceptable to the reader.
R. W. “ The question, discussed in this letter, came afterwards before the Court of King's Bench in the case of Millar persus Taylor : And, on Feb. 7, 1769,' that Court gave judg hent in favour of the perpetual and exclusive right of an Author, by the common law, io print and publish his own works. Tlie question was revived in the case of Donaldson versus Becket; which came before the Court of Chancery. The Lord Chancellor decreed in conformity to the opinion of the Court of King's Bench. But, upon an appeal from this decree, it was reversed by the House of Lords on the 22d of February, 1774."
And if there be degrees of security for its enjoyment, here again they appear to have the fairest claim, 'as fortune hath becn long in confederacy with ignorance, to stop up their way to every other kind of acquisition.
History indeed informeth us, that there was a time, when men in public stations thought it the duty of their office to encourage letters: and when those rewards, which the wisdom of the Legislature had established for the learned in that profession decined more immediately useful to society, were carefully distributed aniongst the most deservingWhile this system lasted, Muthors had the less occasion to be anxious about literary property; which was, perhaps, the reason why the settlement of it was so long neglected, that at length it became a question, whether toey had any property at all
... But this fond regard to learning being only an indulgence to its infant age; a favour, which, in these happy times of its maturity, many reasons of state have induced the public wisdoin to withdraw; Têtters are now left, like virtue, to be their own revard. We may surely then be permitted to expect that so slender à pittánce should, at feast
, be well secured from rapitje and depredation." Yet 'so great is the vulgar prejudice, against an author's property, that when, at any tiine, attempts have been made to support it, against the most flagrahit acts W robbery and injustice, it was never thought prudent to demand the public protection as a right, but to supPlicate it as a grace : and 'this, too, in order to engage à favourable attention, conveyed 'under every insinuating circumstance of address; such as promoting the paper Inanufactory at home; or augmenting the revenue, by that which is imported from abroad.
. The grounds of this prejudice are various. - It Irath been partly owing to the complaints of unsuccessful writers against booksellers, for not bringing their works to a second edition; and partly, to the complaints of little readers against successful ones, for a contrary cause); Whčn, to the great damage of the purchasers of thic first
edition, they have fraudulently improved a scèona. Tu the proprietor professing to sell only his paper and print
, ärl'hot the doctrine conteyed by it, the purchase, who has nothing else for his 'money, never reckons (and often