Our author then proceeds to the examination of several particular cafes, wherein literary property has come under legal confideration; in which he makes it appear very clearly that the arguments of the moft eminent lawyers, and the fenfe even of the legiflature itfelf, are all in favour of the author's exclufive right*. We fhould extend this article, however, to too great a length, fhould we enter upon these cafes; we must, therefore, refer the curious reader to the pamphlet itfelf; and proceed to the fourth article under confideration; viz. how far the establishment of the right in queftion would be prejudicial to the advancement of letters, and of ill confequence to authors.

With regard to the latter, the author of the Enquiry in dulges himself in the following piece of declamation and raillery. If one was to take into confideration, fays he, all the inconveniencies refulting to authors themselves from the eftablishment of this property, they would be found very numerous. The profeffion of an author is of all others the leaft profitable t. By the ftudy of antient poets and philofophers, they easily contract a contempt for riches. Hence enfue a neglect of domeftic concerns, and diftreffed circumftances. If their works were to become a property, they might be taken in execution for debt. Creditors would ravifh from dramatic writers their half-formed tragedies, from Clergymen their pious difcourfes, the fpiritual food of their refpective flocks. A moral effay might go in difcharge of a debt contracted in a bagnio. Philofophy, poetry, metaphyfics, hiftory and divinity, would be taken in fatisfaction for ftay-tape, buckram and canvas, or legs of mutton, calfs heads and other articles, which ufually compofe a taylor's and a butcher's bill." All this is doubtlefs very spirited and pretty;

The arguments which the author of the Enquiry advances on this head are in general vague, declamatory and inconclufive. His propofal for erecting a literary court of judicature is evidently unneceffary, and the practice of foreign nations in this refpect little to the purpose.

How is this confiftent with the writer's fuppofition that a rich irritated author, might be as profitable a client, as a rich litigious widow? However tenacious he might be of his literary credit, he would certainly care little about this kind of property unless he might be fuppofed to draw fome part at leaft of his wealth from that fource. When the poverty of authors was a truer jeft than at present, their property was not worth contending for. The prefent difpute is a proof that their profeffion is grown more lucrative.

but

but furely the Enquirer forgot that he was here enumerating grievances. Is it then a grievance for a man to be enabled to pay his debts, with a thing of no value? If he has no property in his works, of what ufe can they be to him? He would make but a poor dinner, as Jeremy fays in the play, on the maxims of Epictetus, or his own comments on them. If his taylor, his butcher, and his landlord, will take his writings for meat, cloths, and lodging, fo far from thinking this an inconvenience, we believe there is many a well-meaning author will be glad to quit fcores with them. The profession of an author might not alfo be fo unprofitable as the Enquirer now fuppofes it. It is, however, a very drole manner of efpoufing the cause of poor authors, by endeavouring to prove they have no property in their own works, because if they had they might pay their debts with them. But, perhaps, this writer thinks it inconvenient for men of such a philofophical turn to be out of jail. Be this as it may, it is clear that this writer mistakes the cafe: he fays, "If an author had been willing to have taken the benefit of the infolvent act, he would have been guilty of perjury (on the fuppofition of his having an exclufive right to fell his own works) if he had not difcovered his manufcripts. His creditors

might infift on publishing his familiar letters for that species of compofition is as much a property as any other." If Mr. Enquirer hath not miffed the mark here, either an author, by publishing a book, gives up all the rights he before enjoyed in common with the reft of mankind, or elfe all mankind must be fet down for authors. If the familiar letters of one man are literary compofitions, fo are thofe of another; and every man, as well as an author by profeffion, on becoming a bankrupt or taking the benefit of an insolvent act, may be faid to be perjured in the fame manner, for not giving up what sometimes might hang him if he did. But such kind of arguments are not indeed worth a ferious refutation. With refpect to the prejudice, which it is pretended the establifhment of this contefted right would be of, to the cause of letters in general, nothing of any weight has been offered. On the contrary, however, what is advanced by the prefent writer in behalf of authors and bookfellers is well worthy confideration.

"What a prejudice, fays he, would the caufe of Literature fuftain, were Writers deprived of the exclufive right to their own productions, and of the privilege of transferring them? Should this determination ever take place, the public must

9

never

never more expect works of great length and difficulty, the execution of which demand the united contribution of, perhaps, more than twenty opulent Bookfellers, who hazard a certain fum on the profpect of uncertain gain..

"If an Author cannot maintain an exclufive right to his copy, the powers of genius muft languifh, and few will have an opportunity of producing thofe excellent talents with which Nature hath enriched them. Scarce any productions will iffue from the prefs, but hafty fugitive pieces, calculated to ferve the run of the day, and which will excite as little temptation, as they afford opportunity, for piracy.

"It were to be wifhed, indeed, that Authors could receive the whole profits, or fuftain the whole lofs, arifing from the publication of their works; and that Bookfellers were, what the word importeth, mere venders of copies. But this, however natural and reafonable in fpeculation, cannot, for the reasons above affigned, be reduced to practice. Few Authors can advance money for a work of any expence, and wait their reimbursement by flow returns. Neither have they, as formerly, the means of procuring the patronage of the Great, but muft approach them through the channel of the public. Therefore, if they have not an exclufive property in their works, and confequently a power of transferring fuch right, learning will foon be loft among us; the gloom of Gothic ignorance will foon darken the age, and extinguish every beam of science."

Having thus endeavoured to give our Readers an impartial view of this interefting difpute; it may be gathered from the whole, that the exclufive right contended for, is clearly to be ascertained, has been recognized, and may be governed, by the known and established rules of law: that it will produce no inconvenience either with regard to the Author or the public; but that, on the contrary, to deprive Authors of this right, will be injurious both to the public and themfelves, and in the end, deftructive of literature. We have only to hope, therefore, with the prefent ingenious Writer, that this right may be judicially established, and preferved inviolable to lateft pofterity.

Conclufion

Conclufion of the Medical Obfervations and Inquiries. See our laft, page 104.

TH

HE twenty-firft article, is a fhort account of a mortal Fever at Senegal, from Mr. Vage, communicated by Dr. Brocklesby. The principal obfervation is, the ill confequence of bleeding in it. One of two men, nearly of the fame habit, and fickening of it at the fame time, loft fix ounces of blood; the other was not bled; in other refpects they were treated exactly alike; yet the recovery of the first was protracted to double the term of the other. The experi ment was repeated with the fame event in two others. This fever feems to differ effentially from most of our stationary or even epidemic ones, in this island. All who were comatofe, with a dry furface, died.

The twenty-fecond, gives the account and cure of a Fiftula in each Teftícle. The cafe is really curious; fince after a fuppuration in both the contufed tefticles, the feed ouzed from each; the patient, however, thinking himself cured at the end of fix months, married; but found no fpermatic emiffion thro' the ordinary paffage in coition, though a great increase of the former discharge through the fcrotum, and attended with pain. The Relator, Mr. Ingham, after the ufe of emollient cataplafms for three weeks, opened both fiftulas, diffected off all the indurated parts; extirpated a large portion of the lower part of the Epididymis, and then healing the incifions, the natural functions of the teftes were perfectly restored.

The twenty-third, fent by Mr. Kirkland, Surgeon at Ahby de la Zouch, to Dr. Hunter, contains a curious cafe, the fuccefs of which may ferve to introduce an ufeful improvement in furgery, by the application of thin pieces of fpunge after amputation. Both the cafe and the method are fenfibly and properly exhibited; but as they employ above eight pages, we must refer our readers to the whole; and fhall only observe, that thin flices of fpunge were applied, as foon as digeftion was compleat, over thin layers of dry lint immediately covering the wound: by which contrivance, the fpunge imbibing the thinner part of the discharged humour, the remainder proved too thick to be abforbed into the blood, as ufual; and confequently prevented the purulent, colliquative fevers, or profufe hæmorrhages, which fometimes fucceed large amputations. In the prefent cafe, the manifeftly puru

lent ftools, and ftill more purulent urine, were entirely altered by this application; and all the other very unpromifing fymptoms vanishing, the patient was cured.

The twenty-fourth, exhibits an inveterate dropfical cafe, communicated by Dr. Alexander Mackenzie. This was cured, after feveral ineffectual medicines, and three tappings, chiefly by a spontaneous vomiting of above fifty pints of fetid dirty water, with extraordinary explofions of wind almoft every minute, for twenty-four hours. The patient is affirmed to have recovered his health, and his natural plight entirely; and to have died fifteen months after of a frenzy, from a violent fit of paffion, and a small contufion of the head.

The twenty-fifth relates a moft remarkable feparation of a large part of the thigh-bone, which was fent to the Society, with the account, by Dr. Mackenzie. It was seven inches and a half in length, and feparated folely by the oeconomy of Nature, in about three years after a blow received on the thigh; Nature alfo fubftituting a callus fo equivalent, that this thigh is as firm as the other, and the halt in the man's walking, fo little as to be fcarcely perceptible. Dr. Mackenzie's reflection on the whole, including another, fomewhat fimilar, cafe, is fo fenfible, and fo very humane, that we could not prevail on ourselves to omit it.

"On the whole, fays he, it is obvious the cure was all the work of nature and time; and may not it ferve as a caution to Surgeons, not to be too precipitate in amputating limbs? I have myself, by beftowing time and care, faved many limbs that were condemned, particularly in the year 1740: I then living in Virginia, was called by Christopher Robinson, Efq; of Middlesex county, to amputate, or be prefent at the amputation of a leg above the knee, of a Negroe boy of twelve years old upon dilating 2 fmall gleeting hole about three inches above the knee, on the outfide of the thigh; and introducing a jointed or fcrew probe, I found the bone carious to fuch a height, and withal the patient fo emaciated with the tedious difcharge, and a hectic fever, that I diffuaded attempting the operation, but had the Negroe fent to Colonel Samuel Buckner's houfe in Gloucefter county, where I lodged; and by different methods of exfoliating; proper internal medicines, but, above all, by a nourishing good diet, and eighteen months affiduous care, I faved the REV. Sep. 1762.

N

leg