vation, when they had brought him to the foot of the scaffold. P. 497. “And not being willing to apply,” &c. 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 ministers. 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. 530. "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? Lo P. 545. “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, who swear they saw the progress of it-saw the King write it heard him 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 inpostor, who imposed a spurious book on the public in the King's name. : Was not a man so shameless, capable of telling this le for a bishoprick, which he was soliciting on the pretended merit of this work? As to Walker, 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 borrowed the book of one of the King's friends (to whom it was communicated by the King for their judgments) to transcribe that he Gauden] sat up all night to transcribe it, and that he [the tithe-gatherer] sat up with him 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 the King. P. 549." This unrighteous charge."-The Presbyterians subdued and imprisoned the King. This is agreed on all hands. Then the Independents, getting uppermost, took the King from them, and were determined to mur 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 Ariaus, DD 2 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. 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 be 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 versus 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, to print and publish his own works. The 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.” DD 3 1 And if there be degrees of security for its enjoyment, here again they appear to have the fairest claim, 'as fortune hath been long in confederacy with ignorance} to stop up their way to every other kind of acquisition. offe 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 amongst the most deserving. While this system lasted, Authors 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 they had any property at all. But this fond regard to learning being only an indul→ gence to its infant age; a favour, which, in these happy times of its maturity, many reasons of state have induced the public wisdom to withdraw; letters are now left, like virtue, to be their own reward. We may surely then be permitted to expect that so slender à pittance should, at feast, be well secured from rapine and depredation. "Yet so great is the vulgar prejudice, against an author's property, that when, at any time, attempts have been made to support it, against the most flagrant acts of 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 a favourable attention, conveyed under every insinuating circumstance of address; such as promoting the paper manufactory at home; or augmenting the revenue, by that which is imported from abroad. # J t The grounds of this prejudice are various. It rath been partly owing to the complaints of unsuccessful writers against booksellers, for not bringing their works to second edition; and partly, to the complaints of little readers mst successful ones, for a contrary cause; which, to the great damage of the purchasers of the first edition, they have fraudulently improved a second. For the proprietor professing to sell only his paper and print, and not the doctrine conveyed by it; the purchaser, who has nothing else for his money, never reckons (and often |