Lord THURLOW's Version of Psalm 148, which came too late for this Month's Magazine, shall appear in our next.

A "Constant Reader" may have his queries, respecting the pedigree of the Earl of Huntingdon, solved at the College of Arms.

T. B. is informed that the Princess Eleanor of Brittany, mentioned in our Compendium of County History, Vol. LXXXVII. page 411, was the daughter of Geoffrey Plantagenet, and niece of King John; the latter of whom caused her to be closely immured in Bristol Castle, lest she should have an opportunity of engaging in a clandestine marriage, by which the suc cession to the crown might eventually be disputed. She died in the year 1241, after an imprisonment of thirty-eight years.

T. S. communicates the following anecdote relative to the late Lord Rokeby: "When he represented the city of Canterbury, nearly fifty years ago, he laid a wager of 10/. with the late Alderman Simmons, of that city, that they both should live to see the day when the Bank of England would refuse to pay cash for their own notes. About thirty years after, the Bank suspended cash payments; and his Lordship, when upwards of eighty years of age, rode on his poney from Norton to Canterbury, publicly to demand his wager at the market table of the Alderman, which was instantly paid. At his death upwards of 40,000 guineas were found in his house."

An anonymous Correspondent, alluding to a passage in page 36, stating that "there is in Bedfordshire one Charity, to which alone her late Majesty has paid annually 5001. for more than 50 years," says, "I recollect perfectly well that there was, some years ago, an establishment at Silsoe, under the management of Mrs. Pawsey, for the instruction of young Ladies in useful and polite accomplishments; but more particularly in embroidery. This, I understood, was supported by her Majesty, for the education of Clergymen's daugh

ters.

Mrs. Pawsey was the wife of the late Marchioness de Grey's Steward."

F. D. wishes to receive some information respecting the family of Alexander, descended from a younger son of Macdo nald Lord of the Isles. He states that the first of the name who was raised to the peerage was Sir William Alexander, founder of Nova Scotia, and Secretary of State for Scotland, in the reign of King Charles I.; being created Earl of Stirling by that Monarch in the year 1633. He then inquires, 1. What descendants from the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th sons of Sir William were

existing in 1759, when the Earldom be came dormant ? and who and what are the descendants now existing? 2. Whether any correct pedigrees of the family, comprising the younger branches down to 1740, or later, can be procured? 3. Whe ther it be possible to refer to the papers of the successive claimants of the honours?

CARADOC would be thankful for any memoir of the Rev. RICHARD WOODESON, who for nearly 40 years (from 1732 to 1772) was the worthy master of the Free School at Kingston upon Thames; and hopes that some grateful Scholar may still survive to record his memory.

P. inquires whether any person possesses the manuscripts of Newton, who wrote the History of Maidstone; as they might be of great service to some future historian, in his collections for that town.

We are informed that Mr. Serjeant Sellon, is not appointed Chief Magistrate of Hatton Garden, as stated in our Magazine for January last. There are no Chiefs at the seven offices established by the Police Act of 179%, and continued by several subsequent Acts. The Three Magistrates at each office have the same powers, duties, and remuneration, and there is no difference of rank but what priority of appointment may be supposed to confer.

CORRECTOR says, the term " Mr. Justice," should not be applied to a Justice of the Peace, as in Supplement, p. 644, "Mr. Justice Fielding;" nor to a Welsh Judge, except upon the Circuit, as in Jan. p. 37, "Mr. Justice Hardinge." It is the appropriate, and should be the exclusive, designation of the Pujsne Judges of the Courts of King's Bench and Common Pleas.

Our occasional Reviewer, W. B. has seen with satisfaction the testimony paid to the truth of his remarks on “ A Churchman's Answer to Religio Clerici," in a manly letter dated from Bury St. Edmund's, and signed Alpha, printed in our Magazine for January last, pp. 7, 8. The coincidence that subsists between that unknown writer and our Reviewer is natural: it surely subsists equally and in full force amongst all loyal and pious friends to the Establishment in Church and State.

A "Reader of the Gentleman's Magazine," is informed that the Stuart papers, purchased by Mr. Watson, at Rome, have arrived in England, and are at present, we understand, at Carlton House.

P. 44, note, for Dr. Gutton, read Dr. Sutton; for Rev. Dr. Mathews, read Rev. George Mathew; and for Richard Ragley, read Richard Rayley. We regret that these errors crept in from the article being written in a foreign hand.

On the Crown Privilege of Printing
Bibles and Common Prayer Books.
Mr. URBAN,
Feb. 1.

S the public attention has been lately drawn to the question of privilege in printing and selling Bibles and Common Prayer Books, and as the circulation of them has, since the recent establishment of Societies for National Education, and Sunday Schools, and the universal dispersion of them throughout the world, increased beyond any proportion which former times could have anticipated, it may not be unacceptable to your numerous Readers, to accompany me in a review of such part of the grand question of privilege which was most profoundly argued and decided in the Court of Kings Bench in 1758, in the case of Baskett v. the University of Cambridge; from which I shall extract only such flowers as fell by the way. side, and are applicable to our present case. It was a case sent for argument from the High Court of Chancery. The judges who presided in the Court of King's Bench were Lord Mansfield, the three puisne judges, Denison, Foster, and Wilmot, who adjudged that both parties had a concurrent authority, by different letters patent, to print Acts of Parliament and Abridgments.

In 1 Ed. VI. April 22, Richard Grafton received Letters patent for printing all Statute books and other volumes whatsoever, et alior' volumin' quor'cunque, during his life, with a prohibitory clause to all other per

SODS.

1 Mary. The same grant, with the additional words and things, was, on the decease of Grafton, given to John Cawood for life.

1 Eliz, Mar. 24.-The Queen granted to Richard Jugge and John Cawood, the office of her printers of the same works, and all books which by the Queen, for the service of God,

should be commanded to be used in Churches, &c. for their lives, if it should so long please her Majesty; with a prohibitory clause as before.

In the 19th year of her reign, she extended this grant to Christopher Barker, enumerating Bibles and New Testaments in the English tongue of any translation, with notes or without notes, theretofore printed, or thereafter, by the Queen's command to be printed, and all other books whatsoever which the Queen, for the service of God, had commanded, or should thereafter command, to be used in Churches, &c. during the life of Barker, with a like prohibitory clause. And a similar patent was afterwards granted in the 31st of her reign, to Robert Barker in reversion after his father's death, for his own life.

6 Jas. I. May 10.-The like is granted, with little variation, only the extension of the right by the words “in the English or any other tongue," to Christopher Barker the son of Robert Barker, for his life; and, in 14 Ja. 1, a similar grant was given to Robert the son of Robert Barker.

3 Cha. 1. July 20.-The new patent was granted to Boreham Norton and John Bill, assignees of Barker's, the office and power" solely to print" all and singular Bibles and New Testaments whatsoever, in the English language of any translation, with annota tions or without; and also all and singular books of Common Prayer, and administration of the Sacraments, and other rites and ceremonies of the Church of England.

Subsequent grants by both Charles and Queen Anne, limited the term to 30 years, and they all expired on 10 Jan. 1739, and were at that time vested in John Baskett; and, upon his death, his sons Thomas and Robert, as administrators of his effects, were admitted and sworn into the office of King's Printers, and there

fore

fore claimed the sole and exclusive right.

The right of the University of Cambridge was asserted upon the authority of the following grants:

26 Hen. VIII. Letters patent to print all manner of books approved by their Chancellor, &c.-This grant was afterwards confirmed by Stat. of 13 Eliz. c. 29; and, in 3 Car. I. Feb. 6. the King, after reciting the preceding grants, and to shew how graciously he tendered the privileges of that University, and to abolish all controversies and ambiguities, granted to them all the privileges in the patent of Hen. VIII. to print all books particularly expressed in the preceding patents to any persons or corporations, and that the patent of Queen Elizabeth, or James, or Charles, should not be any impediment to the privilege granted to that University, and for the sale of all such books by their Stationer. Upon this patent the University of Cambridge claimed the right of appointing three Stationers or Printers, duly qualified for this purpose, which right they had exercised, and for many years it was not disputed. And in 1740, they appointed Joseph Bentham, resident in the University, as their printer. Yorke, Solicitor General, argued for the University, that the power of the Crown was not in question, for both parties admitted it, and claimed under it. His extensive and profound reasoning is happily preserved, but is of too great length to be recapitulated here. On the principles of the Common Law it is certain, the King has no prerogative over the art of printing, distinct from parliamentary powers. If he had ever granted the sole exercise of the art, it would have been a monopoly within all the rules laid down in Parliaments and Courts of Law: although the King should, as in the case of Corsellis, in Hen. VI. bring over a foreign printer to set up a press at Oxford, (Middleton's Works, 8, 229.) The Legislature too has recognised the art as free to the industry of the people at large. In some ancient acts it is styled a manufacture of the kingdom; and, in more modern times, a trade; which term excludes the notion of a prerogative right. It is equally certain, that the King has no prerogative to license books antecedent to the printing; he cannot say, none shall see the light

without the review of my Licenser. The liberty of the press consists in printing our thoughts without previous restraints. So Milton, in the times of the troubles, calls it emphatically the liberty of unlicensed printing, and explains himself in many passages of his Areopagitica; see his works, I. 14; Lond. edit. 1753. And thus it has been considered in later times, in parliaments, and in courts of law.

But notwithstanding this, the King has several rights of copy by prerogative. All acts of state flow from the Crown, for the obedience of the subject. The English translation of the Bible, and books of Divine service, were made at the like expence, and by the same authority: the King is the executive power both of the Civil and Ecclesiastical constitution; the people are interested in the authenticity of those laws and acts of state by which they are governed; therefore the King, in all ages, had the right of copy in them: and after the Reformation, when the supremacy of the Crown was clearly asserted and vindicated in parliament from papal usurpation, the King was deemed to have the like prerogative in publishing those books which are the foundation of the established religion of the country, or prescribing public forms of worship to the people. The Crown did not assert the right as a monopoly; the first printers exercised the art without any privilege, general or special. Caxton, to whom the honour of importing the art into England, A.D. 1471, is clearly due, obtained no patent for this purpose. Though favoured and protected by Edw. IV. Hen. VII. the Duke of Clarence, and others, there is no pretence for the notion, that he was either a grantee or servant of the crown. In the large number of volumes which he printed, he never mentions it. His title page never bears cum privilegio, or cum priv. ad imprimendum solum; only these humble words, "Imprinted by me simple man William Caxton."

King Hen. VIII. did not claim this prerogative; the licensing of books, previous to the printing and publishing at that time, was not thought of in England. The best writers on this subject have agreed that political uniformnity in religion first produced the attention and jealousy of a licenser +

they