santly terms it, by a phrase borrowed from David Hume. He also recommends the abolition of the Common Law, together with its barbarous maxim, that Christianity is part of the Law of the Land. After these amputations, most people will agree with him that the British Constitution would have no more defects.

These opinions are very different from Sir Thomas Bernard's wish, that the blessings of education should be extended to the poor of whatever religious denomination. They are very different even from a repugnance to subscribe the Thirty-nine Articles: and will surely not be owned by conscientious Dissenters, or sanctioned by Mr. William Smith, and Mr. Belsham, with whom the Author seems to have an intimate and familiar intercourse. Sensible men, of whatever party, must see that this work has overshot the mark, and shews, in contradiction to the Writer's intention, the necessity of adhering to a system of exclusion, in order to keep out of power those who would use it to destroy the present state of society in England.

In a Literary view, the composition is below criticism ; and the distribution of the matter is in no methodical arrangement, but resembles the caprice of childhood or delirium. Mr. Bentham might have stated in a less ponderous manner, that Democracy is the best form of policy, aud Philanthropy the only religion. This is the meaning, which shrinks, like a frightened combatant, under the heavy hollow armour of his big words. This is the kernel which he has enveloped in a huge tasteless husk, and when found, it is nothing but bitter rottenness. Yet we cannot forget that Mr. Bentham has, by a certain party of no small consideration, been treated as a master in a modern School of Legislation, which, with as little respect for the revelation of a future state, as for established authorities, professes to increase human happiness by giving a new direction to the principle of Utility. That is useful, says Mr. Bentham, which promotes pleasure, and avoids pain. In the developement of his system there are these three striking defects: first, it relates only to this world, and therefore, if there be a retribution after death, omits the most material part of human existence; secondly, being

founded on physical pains and pleasures, it leads to selfishness and sensuality; and lastly, it wants obligation, and can only bind those who choose to adopt it, and not all them alike. I call this a new direction given to the principle of Utility; because the consideration of eternal life, and submission to temporal rulers, are doctrines inculcated on individuals upon the ground of promoting their ultimate advantage. Their happiness is the object of these doctrines; but as men are not very open to conviction on this point, and are apt to prefer their immediate to their permanent welfare, and their own profit to the good of society, it is necessary to use authority as well as reasouing, and sometimes authority alone, with those upon whom reasoning is lost, in order to produce that course of action which is, upon the whole, the most beneficial. One thing is not a little remarkable, that a Philosopher of the 19th century should set about to make improvements in the most important and most difficult of the sciences, that of Government, by the way of speculation, rejecting experience.

Mr. Bentham's former lucubrations were ingenious, if not practicable ; they breathed liberty, morality, and benevolence, though the application of his principles to common life would have been visionary and dangerous. But now this Epicurus has left the ease of his gardens, and the retirement of his study, to mingle in practical affairs: this Philanthropist begins his active career of good-will, by endeavouring to hunt down to destruction those who happen to be precisely the persons enjoying the confidence of society. Under the impulse of philosophical fanaticism, he sailies out to redress grievances, and right wrongs: and the Laws, and those who administer them, are the monstrous phantoms which haunt his imagination. In his first fury he breaks his lance against the Church. In talent, in learning, in meaning well, in moral character, he may be compared to his prototype of La Mancha: and he has about equal wisdom; which quality, in both adventurers, degenerates into cunning, as occasions call forth the natural instinct of self-preservation, in opposition to their principles. In one point of comparison

our

our countryman is deficient; he wants the courtesy with which the noble refinement of Cervantes' mind endowed the Knight of the Sorrowful Countenance. On the contrary, his morbid spleen is vomited out in the vilest vulgar scurrility against persons of high public station and equal character, and in terms of outrageous ribaldry against our religion, which are only not blasphemy by being nonsense. I have been carried beyond my purpose, which was to distinguish Benevolence from Beneficence-those who mean well from those who act well. Let us not identify Sir Thomas Bernard's liberality towards the Dissenters with Mr. Bentham's projects for dissolving the Constitution. So ciety suffers from the partiality which the advocates of the Government extend to its abuses; but would suffer more if the prejudices, which exaggerate the abuses of the present system, should prevail to undermine and destroy it. A CONSTANT READER.

On the Crown Privilege of Printing Bibles and Common Prayer Books.

(Concluded from p. 102.) Mr. URBAN,

N the great question on Literary property between Millar and Taylor, in the King's Bench, April 20, 1769, Mr. Justice Willes, in giving judgment, recognized the preceding reasoning of Yorke, Solicitor General, to shew properly in the Crown, as owner of all Books or Writings which he had the sole right of printing, as Acts of Parliament, Orders of Council, Proclamations, the Common Prayer Book; these are his own works, as he represents the State, 4 Burr. 2329. Mr. Justice Aston followed in a very elaborate and acute manner to defend the Common Law right of property-but this point does not belong to any part of our present inquiry, for it related solely to Copy-right as a property at Common Law, which was originally universal, but became limited at the request of Authors, Printers, and Booksellers, who brought in the Act of 8 Anne, c. 19, to a certain period, after which it became general property (lb. 2350), and the term takes account from the date of its entry with the Stationers' Company. But it was provided that nothing in that Act should extend to prejudice or confirm any right of the

Universities, or which any persons had or claimed, to the printing or re-printing any book or copy already printed, or thereafter to be printed. And he(J. Aston) thought, that as the University Rights, by Letters Patent, were not mentioned, there was no ground to assume that their rights were not affected by this Act. Ibid. 2352.

Mr. Justice Yates differed in respect to the perpetuity of Literary property, and which he conceived became Public property as soon as the Author had published it; but that one Stat. of Anne had limited the extent of it to 28 years. He conceived the Patents to have been evormous stretches of the prerogative to raise a revenue, and to gratify particular favourites, without the least regard to Authors and new Compositions, &c. In considering the prac tice of the Court of Chancery in granting Injunctions on Publications, &c. he divided them into three classes, of which the third comprised such as affected those books which were called Prerogative Copies, the Bible, ComInon Prayer Books, Statutes, &c. which the Crown had the sole right of publishing. This right in the Crown he recognized; but this is confined to compositions of a peculiar nature, and to him seemed to stand upon principles entirely different from the claim of an Author: and in defining this kind of property, he stated them to be Bibles, Common Prayer Books, and all Extracts from them, such as Primers, Psalters, Psalms, and Almanacks. These have relation to the National Religion, or Government, or the Political Constitution. Other Compositions, to which the King's right of publishing extends, are the Statutes and State Papers. The King's right to all these is, as head of the Church, and of the Political Constitution.All the Injunctions were granted upon this principle. The King has Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, and power is given to him over these publications, that no confusion may be introduced by such as are false and improper (4 Burr. 2383.) And as Printing bas, since the invention of that Art, been the general mode of conveying these publications, the King has always appointed his Printer: this is a right which is inseparably connected with the King's office, and done at the public charge: aud stands upon dif

ferent

ferent principles than that of an Author. In one of the Ordinances of Parliament, for laying restrictions on Printing, there is a proviso that the Act should not affect the University claims, nor either abolish or abridge the duration of Patents; and in another, that that Ordinance, made in 1642, should not extend to infringe the just privileges of the Printers of the two Universities. So in 21 James I. c. 3. s. 10. that it should not extend to such Patents or Grants of privilege of, for, or concerning Printing; that is, that seven Patents or Grants should neither be prejudiced nor confirmed by that Statute. (Ibid. 2389.) He concluded a luminous argument by these words: "To give that Legislative encouragement a liberal construction is my duty as a Judge; and will ever be my own most willing inclination. But it is equally my duty, not only as a Judge, but as a Meinber of Society, and even as a friend to the cause of Learning, to support the limitations of the Statute." And he therefore closed by deciding that the Author's term was limited by the Statute, and that the plaintiff who claimed a perpetual and unbounded monopoly, had no legal right to recover.

Lord Mansfield stated this to be the first instance of a final difference of opinion in the Court since he sat there; and after many observations relative to the Common Law right, he proceeded :-The King cannot by Law grant an exclusive privilege to print any book which does not belong to himself. The kind of property in the Crown, or a Patentee from the Crown, is just the same; incorporeal, in capacity of violation, but by a civil injury, and only to be vin

dicated by the same remedy, an action upon the case, or a bill in equity. There were no questions in Westininster-hall before the Restoration as to Crown Copies. The reason is very obvious, it will occur to every one that hears me. The fact, however, is so; there were none before the Restoration. His Lordship here stated the substance of the argument in the case of the Stationers' Company against Partridge.—Mr. Salkeld for the defendant, and Sir Peter King for the plaintiff.

Mr. Salkeld, after positively and expressly denying any prerogative in the Crown over the press, or any power to grant any exclusive privilege, says, "I take the rule in all these cases to be, that where the Crown has a Property or Right of Copy, the King may grant it. The Crown may grant the sole printing of Bibles in the English Translation; because it was made at the King's charge. The same reason holds, as to the Statutes, Year Books, and Common Prayer Books."

Sir Peter King, for the plaintiffs, argues thus (throwing out at the same time the things that I have already mentioned; though he does not seem to be very serious in it); “I argue, that if the Crown has a right to the Common Prayer Book, it has a right to every part of it; and the Calendar is a part of the Common Prayer Book; and an Almanack is the same thing with the Calendar," &c.

Parker, Chief Justice, speaks to nothing said at the Bar, but only "whether the Calendar is part of the Common Prayer Book." And, as to that, he goes back as far as to the Council of Nice; and doubts whether it is, or rather indeed thinks that it

is not part of it. He says it may be an Index, but is no part of it.

Mr. Justice Powell says, "You must distinguish this from the Com. mon Cases of Monopolies, by shewing some property in the Crown, and bringing it within the case of the Common Prayer Book ;" and he was rather inclined to think, " that Almanacks might be the King's," because there is a Trial by Almanacks.

To which Lord Parker replied, "that he never heard of such a thing as a Trial by Almanack."

They leave it upon this. It stood over for another argument, to see if they could make it like the Case of the Common Prayer Book. I do not know what happened afterwards: but there never was any Judgment; and though I have made strict inquiry, I do not find that there ever was any opinion given.

I heard Lord Hardwicke say what Mr. Justice Willes has quoted, as to these arguments from property, in support of the King's right, necessarily inferring an Author's. 4 Burr. 2403. The Copy of the Hebrew Bible, the Greek Testament, or the Septu›agint, does not belong to the King. It is common. But the English Translation he bought; therefore it has been concluded to be his property. If any man could turn the Psalms, or the Writings of Solomon, or Job, into verse, the King could not stop the printing or sale of such a Work: it is the Author's Work. The King has no power or controul over the subject matter: his power rests in property. His whole right rests upon the foundation of property in the Copy by the Common Law. Ibid. 2405. And he concluded by giving Judgment for the Plaintiff.

In the subsequent case of Donaldson v. Becket, the matter cane before the House of Lords upon an Appeal from a Decree in the Court of Chancery, founded upon this Judgment, February 9, 1774, in which the twelve Judges gave their opinions seriatim; but it did not relate to the question of Bibles, &c. by the Universities. The Decree was reversed. Ibid. 2417. But the Universities and Colleges of Eton, Westminster, and Winton, alarmed at the consequences of this determination, applied for, and obtained an Act, 15 Geo. III. c. 53, establishing in perpetuity their right

to all the Coples given or bequeathed to them heretofore, or which might hereafter be given to, or accepted by them; and every sheet printed or printing, with a penalty of one penny per sheet, were declared to be forfeited; but this exclusive right is to continue so long only as those Universities shall print such Works at their own presses.

By 54 Geo. III. c. 156, the period of 14 years for Copy-right in any Author, and of a further term of 14 years if he should be then living, were extended A. D. 1814, to 28 years, from the day of the first publication; and if the Author should be living at the expiration of that term, then for the residue of his life; but the entry of the Title-page correctly at Stationers' Hall, with the name and abode of the Publisher, was required within one month after the day of the first sale within the Bills of Mortality, and three months if sold elsewhere. Authors now living have the same right relative to any book which has not been published 14 years at the passing this Act, which was on the 29th July, 1814.

This is the last Parliamentary measure on the subject of Copy-right, but it does not affect our present subject.

Such is the state of the Law upon this subject; notwithstanding which, a very extensive printing and circulation of Bibles and Common Prayer Books has of late years taken place, with Notes, printed at presses, and sold in the trade, without any connection with either of the Universities, or King's Printer, under the assumed sanction of the Annotations constituting such Works to be Commentaries, which were not restricted by the Statutes.

Some years since, John Reeves, Esq. being Joiut Patentee with Mr. Strahan, as King's Printer, published, under the peculiar patronage of his present Majesty, an Edition of the Bible; and this met with so much encouragement, that he was induced to print and publish also several Editions of the Book of Common Prayer without any notes, but with a very judicious and explanatory Introduction. The size and clearness of the type, and the page not being divided into columns, rendered these publications very acceptable to the publick, and therefore they acquired a consider.

able,