Poems only that were the object of my edition. But a monopoly of the Poems was the object of this editor's avarice. For although he had prefixed to his quarto edition, four hundred and fixteen pages of a farrago, which he entitled "Memoirs "of the Life and Writings of Mr.

Gray," in order to raise a large contribution on the public, yet he was fenfible it was Mr. Gray's Poems that the public principally wanted. And if thefe were allowed to be fold feparately by another perfon, he was afraid that his Memoirs would not be much enquired after.

PERPLEXED in what manner to proceed, in order to accomplish his

laud

laudable defign upon my edition, it was with great joy, after fome search, that he discovered in my book fome pofthumous verfes of Mr. Gray which he (Mr. Mafon) had printed firft from the author's manufcript, and which he conceived, by the author's Will, came under the denomination of property.

THESE Verses amount in all to fifty lines. And for this heinous trespass has the Reverend William Mafon, A. M. Precentor of York, in all Christian charity and meekness, filed a Bill in the Court of Chancery against me, and has publicly branded the action by his Advertisement prefixed to his English Garden with C 2

the

the opprobious term of fradulent practices; and moreover regrets, that the law, though it encourages an author to profecute, feems not (as it now fands) to give him damages from the delinquent adequate to the injury he may fuftain!

WITHOUT enquiring what damages, according to Mr. Mafon's idea, are adequate to the prefent enormous offence, he may be asked, with propriety, what renders the trespass more heinous when I commit it, than when another perfon does?

HE may be asked again, whether The Annual Regifter, (a work which fubfifts entirely by literary depreda

tions)

tions) News-papers, Magazines, Reviews, and other publications, have not made much freer with his edition of Mr. Gray's Poems than I have done? Has Mr. Mafon prosecuted the publishers of these performances? Or are their extracts innocent, while mine are criminal?

If Mr. Mafon prevails in his fuit, he shuts the door at once against extracts of all kinds from new publications. If fifty lines are property, one line is property. And whether I find it in a Magazine, Review, or News-paper, I claim it, and can profecute for damages. Will you affert, that extracts, inferted in thefe publications, fo far from injuring C 3

au

authors, occafion their works to be more known, and confequently to be more called for? But befides, that the law is unacquainted with the diftinction, I contend that the reverfe of this pofition is the truth. For I infift, that extracts from new books give fale and currency to periodical publications, without which the latter would inftantly perish. Deprive for inftance, that champion for literary property, Mr. Dodfley, (who by the bye, according to Mr. Mafon's idea, is the greatest of all literary thieves) of the liberty of taking extracts from new books for the ufe of his Annual Regifter, what would be the fate of that profitable publication? You will not surely

pre

2