OUR LAST BOOK-FIRES.
The eighteenth century, which saw the abolition, or the beginning
of the abolition, of so many bad customs of the most respectable
lineage and antiquity, saw also the hangman employed for the last
time for the punishment of books. The custom of book-burning,
never formally abolished, died out at last from a gradual decline
of public belief in its efficacy; just as tortures died out, and
judicial ordeals died out, and, as we may hope, even war will die
out, before the silent, disintegrating forces of increasing
intelligence. As our history goes on, one becomes more struck by
the many books which escape burning than by the few which incur
it. The tale of some of those which were publicly burnt during
the eighteenth century has already been told; so that it only
remains to bring together, under their various heads, the
different literary productions which complete the record of
British works thus associated with the memory of the hangman.
After the beginning of the Long Parliament, the House of Commons
constituted itself the chief book-burning authority; but the
House of Lords also, of its own motion, occasionally ordered the
burning of offensive literary productions. Thus, on March 29th,
1642, they sentenced John Bond, for forging a letter purporting
to be addressed to Charles I. at York from the Queen in Holland,
to stand in the pillory at Westminster Hall door and in
Cheapside, with a paper on his head inscribed with "A contriver
of false and scandalous libels," the said letter to be called in
and burnt near him as he stood there.
On December 18th, 1667, they sentenced William Carr, for
dispersing scandalous papers against Lord Gerrard, of Brandon, to
a fine of L1000 to the King, and imprisonment in the Fleet, and
ordered the said papers to be burnt.
On March 17th, 1697, a sentence of burning was voted by them
against a libel called _Mr. Bertie's Case, with some Remarks on
the Judgment Given Therein_.
Sometimes they thought in this way to safeguard not merely truth
in general, or the honour of their House, but also the interests
of religion; as when, on December 8th, 1693, they ordered to be
burnt by the hangman the very next day a pamphlet that had been
sent to several of them, entitled _A Brief but Clear Confutation
of the Trinity_, a copy of which possibly still lies hid in some
private libraries, but about which, not having seen it, I can
offer no judgment. At that time Lords and Commons alike
disquieted themselves much over religious heresy, for in 1698 the
Commons petitioned William III. to suppress pernicious books and
pamphlets directed against the Trinity and other articles of the
Faith, and gave ready assent to a Bill from the Lords "for the
more effectual suppressing of atheism, blasphemy, and
profaneness." But it would seem that these efforts had but a
qualified success, for on February 12th, 1720, the Lords
condemned a work which, "in a daring, impious manner, ridiculed
the doctrine of the Trinity and all revealed religion," and was
called, _A Sober Reply to Mr. Higgs' Merry Arguments from the
Light of Nature for the Tritheistic Doctrine of the Trinity, with
a Postscript relating to the Rev. Dr. Waterland_. This work,
which was the last to be burnt as an offence against religion,
was the work of one Joseph Hall, who was a gentleman and a
serjeant-at-arms to the King, and in this way won his small title
to fame.
By the beginning of the eighteenth century, the House of Lords
had come to assume a more active jurisdiction over the Press.
Thus in 1702, within a few days we find them severely censuring
the notorious Dr. Drake's _History of the Last Parliament, begun
1700_; somebody's _Tom Double, returned out of the Country; or,
The True Picture of a modern Whig_; Dr. Blinke's violent sermon,
preached on January 30th, 1701, before the Lower House of
Convocation; and a pamphlet, inviting over the Elector of
Hanover. In the same month they condemned to be burnt by the
hangman a book entitled, _Animadversions upon the two last 30th
of January Sermons: one preached to the Honourable House of
Commons, the other to the Lower House of Convocation. In a
letter._ They resolved that it was "a malicious, villainous
libel, containing very many reflections on King Charles I., of
ever-blessed memory, and tending to the subversion of the
Monarchy."
But the more general practice was for the House of Lords to seek
the concurrence of the other House in the consignment of printed
matter to the flames; a concurrence which in those days was of
far more easy attainment over book-burning or anything else than
it is in our own time, or is ever likely to be in the future. It
would also seem that during the eighteenth century it was
generally the House of Lords that took the initiative in the
time-honoured practice of condemning disagreeable opinions to the
care of the hangman.
The unanimity alluded to between our two Houses was displayed in
several instances. Thus on November 16th, 1722, the Commons
agreed with the resolution of the Peers to have burnt at the
Exchange the Declaration of the Pretender, beginning:
"Declaration of James III., King of England, Scotland, and
Ireland, to all his loving Subjects of the three Nations, and to
all Foreign Princes and States, to serve as a Foundation for a
Lasting Peace in Europe," and signed "James Rex." In this
interesting document, George I. was invited to quietly deliver up
his possession of the British throne in return for James's
bestowal on him of the title of king in his native dominions, and
the ultimate succession to the same title in England. The
indignation of the Peers raised their effusive loyalty to fever
point, and they promptly voted this singular document "a false,
insolent, and traitorous libel, the highest indignity to his
most sacred Majesty King George, our lawful and undoubted
sovereign, full of arrogance and presumption, in supposing the
Pretender in a condition to offer terms to his Majesty; and
injurious to the honour of the British nation, in imagining that
a free, Protestant people, happy under the government of the best
of princes, can be so infatuated as, without the utmost contempt
and indignation, to hear of any terms from a Popish bigoted
Pretender." But was it loyalty or sycophancy that could thus
transmute even George I. into "the best of princes"?
A less serious cause of alarm to their loyalty occurred in 1750,
when certain _Constitutional Queries_ were "earnestly recommended
to the serious consideration of every true Briton." This was
directed against the Duke of Cumberland, of Culloden fame, who
was in it compared to the crooked-backed Richard III.; and it was
generally attributed to Lord Egmont, M.P., as spokesman of the
opposition to the government of George II., then headed by the
Prince of Wales, who died the year following. It caused a great
sensation in both Houses, though several members in the Commons
defended it. Nevertheless, at a conference both Houses voted it
"a false, malicious, scandalous, infamous, and seditious libel,
containing the most false, audacious, and abominable calumnies
and indignities against his Majesty, and the most presumptuous
and wicked insinuations that our laws, liberties, and properties,
and the excellent constitution of this kingdom, were in danger
under his Majesty's legal, mild, and gracious government" . . .
and that "in abhorrence and detestation of such abominable and
seditious practices," it should be burnt in New Palace Yard by
the hangman on January 25th. Even a reward of L1,000 failed to
discover the author, printer, or publisher of this paper, the
condemnation of which rather whets the curiosity than satisfies
the reason. I would shrink from saying that a paper so widely
disseminated no longer exists; but even if it does not, its
non-existence affords no proof that in its time it lacked
justification.
But what justification was there for George King, the bookseller,
who a few years later did a very curious thing, actually forging
and publishing a Royal speech--'_His Majesty's most Gracious
Speech to, both Houses of Parliament on Thursday December 2nd,
1756_'? Surely never since the giants of old assaulted heaven,
was there such an invasion of sanctity, or so profane a scaling
of the heights of intellect! What could the Lords do, being a
patriotic body, but vote such an attempt, without even waiting
for a conference with the Commons, "an audacious forgery and high
contempt of his Majesty, his crown and dignity," and condemn the
said forgery to be burnt on the 8th at Westminster, and three
days later at the Exchange? How could they sentence King to less
than six months of Newgate and a fine of L50, though, in their
gentleness or fickleness, they ultimately released him from some
of the former and all the latter penalty? Happy those who possess
this political curiosity, and can compare it with the speech
which the King really did make on the same day, and which,
perhaps, did not show any marked superiority over the forged
imitation.
The next book-fire to which history brings us is associated with
one of the most important and singular episodes in the annals of
the British Constitution. I allude to the famous _North Briton_,
No. 45, for which, as constituting a seditious libel, Wilkes,
then member for Aylesbury, was, in spite of his privilege as a
member, seized and imprisoned in the Tower (1763). We know from
the experiences of recent times how ready the House of Commons
is to throw Parliamentary or popular privileges to the winds
whenever they stand in the way of political resentment, and so it
was in our fathers' times. For, in spite of a vigorous speech
from Pitt against a surrender of privilege which placed
Parliament entirely at the mercy of the Crown, the Commons voted,
by 258 to 133, that such privilege afforded no protection against
the publication of seditious libels. The House of Lords, of
course, concurred, but not without a protest from the dissentient
minority, headed by Lord Temple, which has the true ring of
political wisdom; and, like so many similar protests, is so
instinct with zeal for public liberty as to atone in some measure
for the fundamental injustice of the existence of an hereditary
chamber. They held it "highly unbecoming the dignity, gravity,
and wisdom of the House of Peers, as well as of their justice,
thus judicially to explain away and diminish the privileges of
their persons," etc.
A few days later (December 1st) a second conference between the
two Houses condemned No. 45 to be burnt at the Royal Exchange by
the common hangman. And so it was on the 3rd, but not without a
riot, which conveys a vivid picture of those "good old" or
turbulent days; for the mob, encouraged by well-dressed people
from the shops and balconies, who cried out, "Well done, boys!
bravely done, boys!" set up such a hissing, that the sheriff's
horses were frightened, and brave Alderman Hurley with difficulty
reached the place where the paper was to be burnt. The mob seized
what they could of the paper from the burning torch of the
executioner, and finally thrashed the officials from the field.
Practically, too, they had thrashed the custom out of existence,
for there were very few such burnings afterwards.
Wilkes was then expelled from the House of Commons; and the same
House, becoming suddenly as tender of its privileges as it had
previously been indifferent to them, passed a resolution, to
which the Attorney-General, Sir Fletcher Norton, was said to have
declared that he would pay no more regard than "to the oaths of
so many drunken porters in Covent Garden," to the effect that a
general warrant for apprehending and seizing the authors,
printers, and publishers of a seditious and treasonable libel was
not warranted by law. Such was the vaunted wisdom of our
ancestors, that, having first decided that there could be no
breach of privilege to protect a seditious libel, they then
asserted the illegality of the very proceedings they had already
justified! Truly they are not altogether in the wrong who deem
that the chief glory of our Constitution lies in its singular
elasticity.
All the numbers of the _North Briton_ especially No. 45, have
high interest as political and literary curiosities. Comparing
even now the King's speech on April 19th, 1763, at the close of
the Seven Years' War, with the passage in No. 45 which contained
the sting of the whole, one feels that Walpole hardly exaggerated
when he said that Wilkes had given "a flat lie to the King
himself." Perhaps so; but are royal speeches as a rule
conspicuous for their truth? The King had said: "My expectations
have been fully answered by the happy effects which the several
allies of my crown have derived from this salutary measure. The
powers at war with my good brother the King of Prussia have been
induced to agree to such terms of accommodation as that great
prince has approved; and the success which has attended my
negotiation has necessarily and immediately diffused the
blessings of peace through every part of Europe." Wilkes's
comment was as follows: "The infamous fallacy of this whole
sentence is apparent to all mankind; for it is known that the
King of Prussia did not barely approve, but absolutely dictated
as conqueror, every article of the terms of peace. No advantage
of any kind has accrued to that magnanimous prince from our
negotiation; but he was basely deserted by the Scottish Prime
Minister of England" (Lord Bute). And, after all, that truth was
on the side of Wilkes rather than of the King is the verdict of
history.
The House of Lords, soon after its unconstitutional attack upon
popular liberties in the case of Wilkes, showed itself as
suddenly enamoured of them a few months later, when Timothy
Brecknock, a hack writer, published his _Droit le Roy_, or a
_Digest of the Rights and Prerogatives of the Imperial Crown of
Great Britain_ (February 1764). Timothy, like Cowell in James
I.'s time, favoured extreme monarchical pretensions, so much to
the offence of the defenders of the people's rights, that they
voted it "a false, malicious, and traitorous libel, inconsistent
with the principles of the Revolution to which we owe the present
happy establishment, and an audacious insult upon His Majesty,
whose paternal care has been so early and so effectually shown
to the religion, laws, and liberties of his people; tending to
subvert the fundamental laws and liberties of these kingdoms and
to introduce an illegal and arbitrary power." The Commons
concurred with the Lords in condemning a copy to the flames at
Westminster Palace Yard and the Exchange on February 25th and
27th respectively; and the book is consequently so rare that for
practical purposes it no longer exists. Sad to say, the Royalist
author came to as bad an end as his book, for in his own person
as well he came to require the attentions of the hangman for a
murder he committed in Ireland.
The next work which the Lower House concurred with the Upper in
consigning to the hangman was _The Present Crisis with regard to
America Considered_ (February 24th, 1775); but of this book the
fate it met with seems now the only ascertainable fact about it.
It appears to enjoy the real distinction of having been the last
book condemned by Parliament in England to the flames; although
that honour has sometimes been claimed for the _Commercial
Restraints of Ireland_, by Provost Hely Hutchinson (1779); a
claim which will remain to be considered after a brief survey of
the works which in Scotland the wisdom of Parliament saw fit to
punish by fire.
The first order of this sort was dated November 16th, 1700, and
sentenced to be burnt by the hangman at Mercat Cross His
Majesty's _High Commission and Estates of Parliament_.
In the same way was treated _A Defence of the Scots abdicating
Darien, including an Answer to the Defence of the Scots
Settlement there_, and _A Vindication_ of the same pamphlet, both
by Walter Herries, who was ordered to be apprehended. More
interesting to read would doubtless be a lampoon, said to reflect
on everything sacred to Scotland, and burnt accordingly, which
was called _Caledonia; or, the Pedlar turned Merchant_.
Dr. James Drake, whose _Memorial of the Church of England_ was
burnt in England in 1705, published a work two years earlier
which stirred the Scotch Parliament to the same fiery point of
indignation. This was his already mentioned _Historia
Anglo-Scotica: an impartial History of all that happened between
the Kings and Kingdoms of England and Scotland from the beginning
of the Reign of William the Conqueror to the Reign of Queen
Elizabeth_ (1703). This stout volume of 423 pages Drake printed
without any date or name, pretending that the manuscript had
come to him in such a way that it was impossible to trace its
authorship. He dedicated it to Sir Edward Seymour, one of Queen
Anne's commissioners for the then meditated and unpopular union
between the two kingdoms. It gave the gravest offence, and was
burnt at the Mercat Cross on June 30th for containing "many
reflections on the sovereignty and independence of this crown and
nation." But, apart from the history that attaches to it, I doubt
if any one could regard it with interest.
No less offence was given to Scotland by the English Whig writer
William Attwood, whose _Superiority and Direct Dominion of the
Imperial Crown of England over the Crown and Kingdom of Scotland,
the true Foundation of a Compleat Union reasserted_ (1704), was
burnt as "scurrilous and full of falsehoods," whilst a liberal
reward was voted to Hodges and Anderson, who by their pens had
advocated the independence of the Scotch crown. Ten years later
Attwood contributed another work to the flames, called _The
Scotch Patriot Unmasked_ (1715). Attwood was a barrister by
profession, a controversialist in practice, writing against the
theories of Filmer and the Tories. He had a great knowledge of
old charters, and wrote an able but inconclusive answer to
Molyneux' _Case for Ireland_. He last appears as Chief Justice in
New York, where he became involved in debt and died.
In 1706 two works were condemned to the Mercat Cross: (1) _An
Account of the Burning of the Articles of Union at Dumfries_; (2)
_Queries to the Presbyterian Noblemen, Barons, Burgesses,
Ministers, and Commissioners in Scotland who are for the Scheme
of an Incorporating Union with England_.
Hutchinson's _Commercial Restraints of Ireland_, published in
1779, and reviewing the progress of English misgovernment, proved
the correctness of Molyneux' prognostications nearly a century
before. "Can the history of any fruitful country on the globe,"
he asked (and the question may be asked still), "enjoying peace
for fourscore years, and not visited by plague or pestilence,
produce so many recorded instances of the poverty and
wretchedness and of the reiterated want and misery of the lower
orders of the people? There is no such example in ancient or
modern history."
That a book of such sentiments should have been burnt, as easier
so to deal with than to answer, would accord well enough with
antecedent probability; but, inasmuch as there is no such record
in the Commons' _Journals_, the probability must remain that
Captain Valentine Blake, M.P. for Galway, who, in a letter to the
_Times_ of February 14th, 1846, appears to have been the first to
assert the fact, erroneously identified the fate of Hutchinson's
anonymous work with the then received version of the fate of the
work of Molyneux. The rarity of the first edition of the
_Commercial Restraints_ may well enough accord with other methods
of suppression than burning.
_The Present Crisis_, therefore, of 1775, must retain the
distinction of having been the last book to be condemned to the
public fire; and with it a practice which can appeal for its
descent to classical Greece and Rome passed at last out of
fashion and favour, without any actual legislative abolition.
When, in 1795, the great stir was made by Reeve's _Thoughts on
English Government_, Sheridan's proposal to have it burnt met
with little approval, and it escaped with only a censure. Reeve,
president of an association against Republicans and Levellers,
like Cowell and Brecknock before him, gave offence by the extreme
claims he made for the English monarch. The relation between our
two august chambers and the monarchy he compared to that between
goodly branches and the tree itself: they were only branches,
deriving their origin and nutriment from their common parent; but
though they might be lopped off, the tree would remain a tree
still. The Houses could give advice and consent, but the
Government and its administration in all its parts rested wholly
and solely with the King and his nominees. That a book of such
sentiments should have escaped burning is doubtless partly due to
the panic of Republicanism then raging in England; but it also
shows the gradual growth of a sensible indifference to the power
of the pen.
And when we think of the freedom, almost unchecked, of the
literature of the century now closing, of the impunity with which
speculation attacks the very roots of all our political and
theological traditions, and compare this state of liberty with
the servitude of literature in the three preceding centuries,
when it rested with archbishop or Commons or Lords not only to
commit writings to the flames but to inflict cruelties and
indignities on the writers, we cannot but recognise how
proportionate to the advance we have made in toleration have been
the benefits we have derived from it. Possibly this toleration
arose from the gradual discovery that the practical consequences
of writings seldom keep pace with the aim of the writer or the
fears of authority; that, for instance, neither is property
endangered by literary demonstrations of its immorality, nor are
churches emptied by criticism. At all events, taking the risk of
consequences, we have entered on an era of almost complete
literary impunity; the bonfire is as extinct as the pillory; the
only fiery ordeal is that of criticism, and dread of the reviewer
has taken the place of all fear of the hangman.
Whether the change is all gain, or the milder method more
effectual than the old one, I would hesitate to affirm. He would
be a bold man who would assert any lack of burnworthy books. The
older custom had perhaps a certain picturesqueness which was lost
with it. It was a bit of old English life, reaching far back into
history--a custom that would have been not unworthy of the brush
of Hogarth. For all that we cannot regret it. The practice became
so common, and lent itself so readily to abuse by its
indiscriminate application in the interests of religious bigotry
or political partisanship, that the lesson of history is one of
warning against it. Such a practice is only defensible or
impressive in proportion to the rarity of its use. Applied not
oftener than once or twice in a generation, in the case of some
work that flagrantly shocked or injured the national conscience,
the book-fire might have retained, or might still recover, its
place in the economy of well-organised States; and the stigma it
failed of by reason of its frequency might still attach to it by
reason of its rarity.
If, then, it were possible (as it surely would be) so to regulate
and restrict its use that it should serve only as the last
expression of the indignation of an offended community instead of
the ready weapon of a party or a clique, one can conceive its
revival being not without utility. To take an illustration. With
the ordinary daily libels of the public press the community as
such has no concern; there is no need to grudge them their
traditional impunity. But supposing a newspaper, availing itself
of an earlier reputation and a wide circulation, to publish as
truths, highly damaging to individuals, what it knows or might
know to be forgeries, the limit has clearly been overstepped of
the bearable liberty of the press; the cause of the injured
individual becomes the cause of the injured community, insulted
by the unscrupulous advantage that has been taken of its
trustfulness and of its inability to judge soundly where all the
data for a sound judgment are studiously withheld. Such an action
is as much and as flagrant a crime or offence against the
community as an act of robbery or murder, which, though primarily
an injury to the individual, is primarily avenged as an injury to
the State. As such it calls for punishment, nor could any
punishment be more appropriate than one which caused the
offending newspaper to atone by dishonour for the dishonour it
sought to inflict. Condemnation by Parliament to the flames would
exactly meet the exigencies of a case so rare and exceptional,
and would succeed in inflicting that disgrace of which such a
punishment often formerly failed by very reason of its too
frequent application.
APPENDIX.
After the conspiracy, known as the Rye House Plot, to kill
Charles II. and his brother, the Duke of York, the University of
Oxford ordered the public burning of books which ran counter to
the doctrine of the Divine right of kings. As the decree is a
literary and political curiosity of the highest order, and not
easily accessible, I here transcribe it from Lord Somers'
_Tracts_. The authors whose books were condemned are sometimes
referred to quite generally, so that some are difficult to
identify, but the following appear to be the principal ones that
incurred the fiery indignation of the University:--1.
Rutherford's _Lex Rex_; 2. G. Buchanan's _De Jure Regni apud
Scotos_; 3. Bellarmine's _De Potestate Papae_, and his _De
Conciliis et Ecclesia Militante_; 4. Milton's _Eikonoklastes_,
and his _Defensio Populi Anglicani_; 5. Goodwin's _Obstructours
of Justice_; 6. Baxter's _Holy Commonwealth_; 7. Dolman's
_Succession_; 8. Hobbes' _De Cive_ and _Leviathan_.
_The Judgment and Decree of the University of Oxford,
passed in their Convocation, July 21, 1683, against
certain pernicious books, and damnable doctrines,
destructive to the sacred persons of princes, their
State and Government, and of all Human Society._
"Although the barbarous assassination lately
enterprised against the person of his sacred majesty
and his royal brother, engages all our thoughts to
reflect with utmost detestation and abhorrence on that
execrable villainy, hateful to God and man, and pay our
due acknowledgments to the Divine Providence, which, by
extraordinary methods, brought it to pass, that the
breath of our nostrils, the anointed of the Lord, is
not taken in the pit which was prepared for him, and
that under his shadow we continue to live and to enjoy
the blessings of his government; yet, notwithstanding,
we find it to be a necessary duty at this time to
search into and lay open those impious doctrines, which
having been of late studiously disseminated, gave rise
and growth to those nefarious attempts, and pass upon
them our solemn public censure and decree of
condemnation.
"Therefore, to the honour of the holy and undivided
Trinity, the preservation of Catholic truth in the
Church, and that the king's majesty may be secured both
from the attempts of open bloody enemies and
machinations of treacherous heretics and schismatics,
we, the vice-chancellor, doctors, proctors, and masters
regent, met in convocation, in the accustomed manner,
the one and twentieth day of July, in the year 1683,
concerning certain propositions contained in divers
books and writings, published in the English and also
in the Latin tongue, repugnant to the Holy Scriptures,
decrees of councils, writings of the fathers, the faith
and profession of the primitive Church, and also
destruction of the kingly government, the safety of his
Majesty's person, the public peace, the laws of nature,
and bonds of human society, by our unanimous assent and
consent, have decreed and determined in manner and form
following:--
"The 1st Proposition.--All civil authority is derived
originally from the people.
"2. There is a mutual compact, tacit or express,
between a prince and his subjects, that if he perform
not his duty, they are discharged from theirs.
"3. That if lawful governors become tyrants, or govern
otherwise than by the laws of God and man they ought to
do, they forfeit the right they had unto their
government.--_Lex Rex_; _Buchanan, de Jure Regni_;
_Vindiciae contra tyrannos_; _Bellarmine, de Conciliis,
de Pontifice_; _Milton_; _Goodwin_; _Baxter_; _H. C._
"4. The sovereignty of England is in the three estates,
viz., Kings, Lords, and Commons. The king has but a
co-ordinate power, and may be overruled by the other
two.--_Lex Rex_; _Hunter_, of a united and mixed
monarchy. _Baxter, H. C. Polit. Catechis._
"5. Birthright and proximity of blood give no title to
rule or government, and it is lawful to preclude the
next heir from his right and succession to the
crown.--_Lex Rex_; _Hunt's Postscript_; _Doleman's
History of Succession_; _Julian the Apostate_; _Mene
Tekel_.
"6. It is lawful for subjects, without the consent, and
against the command, of the supreme magistrate, to
enter into leagues, covenants, and associations, for
defence of themselves and their religion.--_Solemn
League and Covenant_; _Late Association_.
"7. Self-preservation is the fundamental law of nature,
and supersedes the obligation of all others, whensoever
they stand in competition with it.--_Hobbes' de Cive_;
_Leviathan_.
"8. The doctrine of the gospel concerning patient
suffering of injuries is not inconsistent with violent
resisting of the higher powers in case of persecution
for religion.--_Lex Rex_; _Julian Apostate_; _Apolog.
Relat._
"9. There lies no obligation upon Christians to passive
obedience, when the prince commands anything against
the laws of our country; and the primitive Christians
chose rather to die than resist, because Christianity
was not settled by the laws of the Empire.--_Julian
Apostate._
"10. Possession and strength give a right to govern,
and success in a cause, or enterprise, proclaims it to
be lawful and just; to pursue it is to comply with the
will of God, because it is to follow the conduct of His
providence.--_Hobbes_; _Owen's Sermon before the
Regicides, Jan. 31, 1648_; _Baxter_; _Jenkin's
Petition, Oct. 1651_.
"11. In the state of nature there is no difference
between good and evil, right and wrong; the state of
nature is the state of war, in which every man hath a
right to all things.
"12. The foundation of civil authority is this natural
right, which is not given, but left to the supreme
magistrate upon men's entering into societies; and not
only a foreign invader, but a domestic rebel, puts
himself again into a state of nature to be proceeded
against, not as a subject, but an enemy, and
consequently acquires by his rebellion the same right
over the life of his prince, as the prince for the most
heinous crimes has over the life of his own subjects.
"13. Every man, after his entering into a society,
retains a right of defending himself against force, and
cannot transfer that right to the commonwealth when he
consents to that union whereby a commonwealth is made;
and in case a great many men together have already
resisted the commonwealth, for which every one of them
expecteth death, they have liberty then to join
together to assist and defend one another. This bearing
of arms subsequent to the first breach of their duty,
though it be to maintain what they have done, is no new
unjust act, and if it be only to defend their persons,
is not unjust at all.
"14. An oath superadds no obligation to fact, and a
fact obliges no further than it is credited; and
consequently if a prince gives any indication that he
does not believe the promises of fealty and allegiance
made by any of his subjects, they are thereby freed
from their subjection; and, notwithstanding their pacts
and oaths, may lawfully rebel against, and destroy
their sovereign.--_Hobbes' de Cive_; _Leviathan_.
"15. If a people, that by oath and duty are obliged to
a sovereign, shall sinfully dispossess him, and,
contrary to their covenants, choose and covenant with
another, they may be obliged by their later covenants,
notwithstanding their former.--_Baxter_; _H. C._
"16. All oaths are unlawful and contrary to the Word of
God.--_Quakers._
"17. An oath obligeth not in the sense of the imposer,
but the taker's.--_Sheriff's Case._
"18. Dominion is founded in grace.
"19. The powers of this world are usurpations upon the
prerogative of Jesus Christ; and it is the duty of
God's people to destroy them, in order to the setting
Christ upon His throne.--_Fifth Monarchy Men._
"20. The presbyterian government is the sceptre of
Christ's kingdom, to which kings, as well as others,
are bound to submit; and the king's supremacy in
ecclesiastical affairs, asserted by the Church of
England, is injurious to Christ, the sole King and Head
of His Church.--_Altare Damascenum_; _Apolog. Relat.
Hist. Indulg._; _Cartwright_; _Travers_.
"21. It is not lawful for superiors to impose anything
in the worship of God that is not antecedently
necessary.
"22. The duty of not offending a weak brother is
inconsistent with all human authority of making laws
concerning indifferent things.--_Protest. Reconciler._
"23. Wicked kings and tyrants ought to be put to death;
and if the judges and inferior magistrates will not do
their office, the power of the sword devolves to the
people; if the major part of the people refuse to
exercise this power, then the ministers may
excommunicate such a king; after which it is lawful for
any of the subjects to kill him, as the people did
Athaliah, and Jehu Jezebel.--_Buchanan_; _Knox_;
_Goodman_; _Gibby_; _Jesuits_.
"24. After the sealing of the Scripture-canon the
people of God in all ages are to expect new revelations
for a rule of their actions (_a_); and it is lawful for
a private man, having an inward motion from God, to
kill a tyrant (_b_).--(_a_) _Quakers and other
Enthusiasts._ (_b_) _Goodman._
"25. The example of Phineas is to us instead of a
command; for what God hath commanded or approved in one
age must needs oblige in all.--_Goodman_; _Knox_;
_Napthali_.
"26. King Charles the First was lawfully put to death,
and his murderers were the blessed instruments of God's
glory in their generation.--_Milton_; _Goodwin_;
_Owen_.
"27. King Charles the First made war upon his
Parliament; and in such a case the king may not only be
resisted, but he ceaseth to be king.--_Baxter._
"We decree, judge, and declare all and every of these
propositions to be false, seditious, and impious; and
most of them to be also heretical and blasphemous,
infamous to Christian religion, and destructive of all
government in Church and State.
"We further decree, That the books which contain the
aforesaid propositions and impious doctrines are fitted
to deprave good manners, corrupt the minds of unwary
men, stir up seditions and tumults, overthrow states
and kingdoms, and lead to rebellion, murder of princes,
and atheism itself; and therefore we interdict all
members of the university from the reading of the said
books, under the penalties in the statutes expressed.
We also order the before-recited books to be publicly
burnt by the hand of our marshal, in the court of our
schools.
"Likewise we order, that, in perpetual memory hereof,
these our decrees shall be entered into the registry of
our convocation; and that copies of them being
communicated to the several colleges and halls within
this university, they be there publicly affixed in the
libraries, refectories, or other fit places, where they
may be seen and read of all.
"Lastly, we command and strictly enjoin all and
singular, the readers, tutors, catechists, and others
to whom the care and trust of institution of youth is
committed, that they diligently instruct and ground
their scholars in that most necessary doctrine, which,
in a manner, is the badge and character of the Church
of England, of submitting to every ordinance of man for
the Lord's sake, whether it be to the king as supreme,
or unto governors as unto them that are sent by him,
for the punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of
them that do well; teaching that this submission and
obedience is to be clear, absolute, and without
exception of any state or order of men. Also that they,
according to the Apostle's precept, exhort, that first
of all supplications, prayers, intercessions, and
giving of thanks be made for all men, for the king, and
all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and
peaceable life in all godliness and honesty; for this
is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
and in especial manner that they press and oblige them
humbly to offer their most ardent and daily prayers at
the throne of grace, for the preservation of our
Sovereign Lord King Charles from the attempts of open
violence and secret machinations of perfidious
traitors; that the defender of the faith, being safe
under the defence of the Most High, may continue his
reign on earth till he exchange it for that of a late
and happy immortality."
INDEX.
Abelard, all his books burnt, 5.
Allen (Cardinal), 37.
Archer (John), of All Hallows, Lombard Street, 106.
Asgill (John), his book burnt by two Parliaments, 144-47.
Attwood (William), the English Whig, 184.
Aubigne (D'), his _Histoire Universelle_, 19.
Bale (Bishop), 29.
Barnes, 29.
Bastwick (the physician), 81-92.
Beaumarchais, his _Memoirs_ condemned to the flames, 22.
Becon, 29.
Bellarmine, his _Tractatus_ condemned by the Parliament of
Paris, 64.
Bernier (Abbe) _pseud._, 13.
Best (Paul), prisoner at the Gatehouse, 107-109.
Bidle (a tailor's son), 110.
Bissendorf burnt, as well as his books, 9.
Boncerf, 21.
_Book-fires of the Sixteenth Century_, 25-47.
_under James I._, 48-68.
_under Charles I._, 69-93.
_of the Rebellion_, 94-116.
_of the Restoration_, 117-135.
_of the Revolution_, 136-169.
(_our last_), 170-190.
Boulanger, _Christianisme devoile_, 15.
Boyse, his sermon burnt by the hangman, 166.
Brecknock (Timothy), 181.
Buchanan (David), 101.
Buchanan (George), 58, 123.
Burton, the divine, 81-92.
Bury (Rev. Arthur), 141-43.
Busenbaum (the Jesuit), 17.
Calamy (Dr.), 131.
Carr (William), 171.
Cellier (Elizabeth), 134.
_Charles I.'s Book-fires_, 69-93.
Clarkson (Laurence), 114.
Claude, his _Plaintes des Protestants_, 134.
Clendon (John), 159.
Coke (Sir Edward), 57.
_Constitutional Queries_ (1750), 175.
Coppe (Ebiezer), 114.
Coverdale (Bishop), 29.
Coward (Dr.), 147, 148.
Cowell (Dr.), 28, 54-59.
_Crisis, the Present_ (1775), 182, 186.
Cumberland (Duke of), of Culloden, compared with Richard
III., 175.
Cutwode, his _Caltha Poetarum_, 41.
Davies (Sir John), 41, 44.
Declaration of James III., 174.
Defoe (Daniel), 152-4.
Delaune, his _Plea for the Nonconformists_, 130-34.
Dering (Sir Edward), 98.
Derodon, Professor at Nismes, 12.
Deslandes, 17.
Desperiers, 7.
Digby (Lord), 99.
Dolet, 8.
Doleman's _Conference_, 37.
Dominis (Marcus Antonius de), 9.
Drake (Dr. James), 155-57, 173, 183.
Dufresnoy, 17.
Dulaurent, an apostate monk, 13.
Emmius, his posthumous book, 21.
Enjedim, the Hungarian Socialist, 6.
Falkland (Lord), 101.
Fleetwood (William), Bishop of St. Asaph, 167.
Fish's _Supplication of Beggars_, 36.
Freret, 15.
Froude (J. A.), his _Nemesis of Faith_ burned, 144.
Frith, 29.
Fry (John), M.P., 103, 4.
Genebrard (Archbishop), 18.
Gerberon, 12.
Giannone, his _Historia Civile_, 21.
Gigli, his _Vocabulario_, 17.
Goodwin (John), prolific writer, 117-122.
Hall (Bishop), 41, 2, 3.
Hall (Joseph), serjeant-at-arms, 172.
Helot, his _L'Ecole des Filles_, 17.
Herries (Walter), 183.
Holbach (Baron d'), 15.
Humphrey (John), 154.
Huss (John), 6.
Hutchinson (Provost Hely), 182, 185.
_James I., Book-fires under_, 48-68.
James III., Declaration of, 174.
Joly (Claude), 20.
Joye, 29.
_Justiciarius justificatus_, 101.
Keller, the Jesuit, 19.
Kentish Petition (1642), 100.
King (George), the bookseller, 176.
Knewstub, his _Confutation_ (1579), 33.
La Mettrie (De), 14.
Langle (Marquis de), 13.
Lanjuinais, 22.
La Peyrere imprisoned, 12.
Leighton (Alexander), 75.
Le Noble (Eustache), 20.
Lilburne (John), 88, 102.
Linguet, 14.
Locke (John), 127-29.
_Love, Family of_, 32.
Luther, 7, 28.
Lyser, advocate of polygamy, 17.
Mantuanus, the Carmelite, 16.
Manwaring (Roger), 69-71.
Mariana, the Jesuit, 18.
Marivaux (Martin de), 22.
Marlowe (Christopher), 41, 42.
Martin Marprelate, 37.
Marston (John), 41, 42.
_Mercurius Elenchicus_, 101.
_Mercurius Pragmaticus_, 101.
Meslier (Jean), 14.
Milton, 20, 90, 118-22.
Mocket (Richard), 61.
Molinos, founder of Quietism, 11.
Molyneux (William), his _Case for Ireland_, 136-40.
Mondonville (Madame de), 21.
Montagu (Richard), anti-Puritan, 71-3.
Morin (Simon), 10.
Morisot, 10.
Muggleton (Ludovic), 115, 116.
Niclas (Hendrick), of Leyden, 32.
_North Briton_ (No. 45), 177.
Okeford (James), 102.
Orleans (Louis d'), 18.
Osma (Peter d'), 7.
Oxford (University of) Decree against certain pernicious
books, 192.
Paraeus (David), 60.
_Parliament's Ten Commandments_, 101.
_Parliament's Pater Noster_, 101.
Parsons (Robert), the Jesuit, 37, 39.
Pascal, 12.
Peignot, the historian of Condemned Books, 2.
Pidanzet, 21.
Pocklington (Dr. John), 95-8.
Pomponacius, 7.
Porphyry, 5.
Primatt (Joseph), 102.
Prynne (William), 30, 77-93.
_Racovian Catechism_, 111-13.
Raleigh (Sir Walter), 59.
Raynal (Abbe), 23.
Reboulet, 21.
Reeves' _Thoughts on English Government_, 186.
Rousseau, 13.
Rowlands (Samuel), 45.
Rutherford (Samuel), 122.
Rye House Plot, Decree against pernicious books, 191.
Sacheverell (Henry), 157-61.
Sainte Foi, 12.
Salmasius, 119.
Sanctarel, the Jesuit, 20.
Schlicttingius, 11.
Scioppius, 18.
Scot (Reginald), one of the heroes of the world, 49-53.
Servetus, his burning, 8.
Squitinio, 19.
Stubbs (John), 35.
Suarez, 64.
Talbert (Abbe), 17.
Theophile, 16.
Thomas (William), 30.
Thornborough (Bishop), 57.
Tindal (Matthew), 159, 161-63.
Toland, 149.
Toussaint, 17.
Tracy, 29.
Turner, 29.
Tyndale (William), 9, 28, 75.
Voet, professor of theology, 51.
Voltaire, contributed more books to the flames than any
other author of the eighteenth century, 15.
Vorst (Conrad), 66.
Wentworth (Peter), 39.
Wicliff, 29.
Wilkes (John), and the _North Briton_, 177.
Williams (John), 46, 47.
Wither (George), 101.
Wolkelius, friend of Socinus, 11.
Woolston, his Discourse on Miracles, 15.
_Elliot Stock, 62, Paternoster Row, London, E.C._
TRANSCRIBER'S NOTES
The original book has a rooster bookplate illustration at the
beginning and an owl bookplate at the end. Each chapter begins
and ends with a decorative woodcut.
The following words use an oe ligature in the original:
Moeurs
oeuvre
Poetarum
The following corrections have been made to the text:
Page 3: could not himself either affirm[original has
ffiarm] or deny
Page 35: same penalty as its author.[period missing in
original]
Page 136: William Molyneux's[apostrophe and final "s"
missing in original] Case for Ireland
Page 176: [original has extraneous quotation mark]both
Houses of Parliament on Thursday
Page 176: December 2nd, 1756'[original has double
quote]
Page 194: Hobbes'[apostrophe missing in original] de
Cive
Page 196: Hobbes'[apostrophe missing in original] de
Cive
Page 196: _Apolog. Relat. Hist. Indulg._[period missing
in original]
Page 201: Abelard[original has Abela d], all his books
burnt, 5.
Page 203: Genebrard[original has Genebrazd]
(Archbishop), 18.
Page 203: Helot, his L'Ecole[original has L'Escole] des
Filles, 17.
End of Project Gutenberg's Books Condemned to be Burnt, by James Anson Farrer