enotes the property which an author has in his literary works, or which a bookseller, or any other person, may acquire by purchase; a property consisting, in either case, in the exclusive right to print, publish, and sell a particular work.

In former times, before an author could venture to go to press, it was necessary that he should secure a patron who would assist him in bringing his work to light.

"The recompense which the wits of the age of Charles II. could obtain from the public was so small, that they were under the necessity of eking out their incomes by levying contributions on the great. Every rich and good-natured lord was pestered by authors, with a mendicancy so unfortunate, and a flattery so obsequious, as may in our time seem incredible. The fee paid for the dedication of a book was often much larger than the sum which any bookseller would give for the copyright."

"The sale of books was so small, that a man of the greatest name could expect only a pittance for the copyright of the best performance. There cannot be a stronger instance than the fate of Dryden's last production—the Fables. That volume was published when he was universally admitted to be the chief of living English poets. It contains above twelve thousand lines. The versification is admirable; the narratives and descriptions full of life. The collection includes Alexander's Feast, the noblest ode in our language. For the copyright Dryden received £250—less than in our days has sometimes been paid for two articles in a review. Nor does the bargain seem to have been a hard one, for the book went off slowly; and a second edition was not required till the author had been ten years in his grave."—(Macaulay's England, vol. i., p. 405.)

The general diffusion of education in later times has prepared for the author a far more munificent patron in the public, the intermediate agent between him and his patron being the bookseller, who is either employed simply in the character of an agent to dispose of the works of the author, and receives a certain commission on the amount of the sales of the publication, or who contracts to pay the author a certain sum for the right to publish an edition or editions, or for the sole right to continue to publish the book during the statutory term.

Booksellers have some data on which they can make calculations of the probable value of the manuscript of an au-

---

1 Lord Cranworth, in his speech on the Enfranchisement of Copyholds Bill (as reported in the Times, May 20, 1852), remarked that "instances had occurred in quite modern times when that law had been enforced so as to become a very grievous practical hardship. He remembered that the famous race-horse Smolensko, worth some £2000 or £3000, had been seized upon the death of the then owner, Sir C. Bunbury. A somewhat similar circumstance, he believed, had occurred on the death of Sir G. Heathcote. About thirty years ago, when the late Lord Abinger was on circuit, it was falsely rumoured that he had died; and the first intimation which Mrs. Scarlett received of the melancholy event was from the agent of the lord of the manor, who went to seize three of Lord Abinger's horses. The Pitt diamond was at one time pledged to a pawnbroker who had a small copyhold tenement in Westmoreland liable to heriot; and upon his death the owner of the copyhold manor either did seize, or intimated to the parties that he had a right to seize, and he (Lord Cranworth) believed that he had seized that diamond." Copyright. thor of established literary reputation; but an untitled author is likely to be much disappointed with the reception his first adventure receives. The subject on which he has written is one, it may be presumed, in which he takes an especial interest, and he is apt to imagine that others cannot be indifferent to it. It has cost him days and nights of laborious investigation and mental toil; and he hears of the rich prizes that have been drawn in the lottery of literature.

But the bookseller is more familiar with the blanks. It is a remarkable fact, disclosed by a parliamentary discussion, that only "one publication in eight is found to come to a second edition." (See Evidence before the Copyright Committee in 1814.) A great proportion of these do not sell to pay the expense of printing. In the great majority of cases, the contract between an author and a bookseller is made without previous data, and is nothing more nor less than what is commonly called a blind bargain. Dr Paley, on finishing the manuscript of his Moral and Political Philosophy, tendered the copyright of it to a bookseller for L300, and was offered in return L250, exactly in the way that a cautious purchaser bids for unknown merchandise. During this negotiation, a brother of the trade, apprised of the value of Paley's work, came boldly forward and offered L1000 for the copyright. The author having consented to give the party first in treaty the previous option, the latter now saw the matter in a new light, and ended by paying four times the amount of his original offer.

No notion is more general among authors than that booksellers make rapid fortunes at their expense. One writer has published that Jacob Tonson and his nephew died worth L200,000 (D'Israeli's Calamities of Authors, vol. i., p. 29); and not one reader in twenty will stop to question the accuracy of the allegation, though it may be doubted if such a sum was ever realized in trade by any bookseller. In the bookselling trade, as in all lines of business, there are examples of considerable capitals; but these are realized only in the case of long-established concerns, and after a progress of acquisition infinitely slower than the angry imagination of a disappointed author will allow him to believe.

It is, on various accounts, a matter of regret that the limited profits of the bookselling business should not be better understood by literary men. The discovery of it would remove the film from their eyes, and would lessen greatly their habits of complaint. A small offer from a bookseller, as in the case of Paley, is indicative, not of a design to overreach, but of an apprehension that to give more would be to injure himself. On the other hand, we are by no means disposed to launch out into a panegyric of the liberality either of particular individuals, or of the body at large. Like other men of calculation, they naturally mete out their advances, not by attachment to the writer, nor from a patriotic desire to enlighten the public, but by the extent of the expected return. A large allowance for a finished book denotes a confidence of a still larger return from its sale; while the scanty, and apparently niggardly payment of an unknown author, is a token of the fear and trembling with which a bookseller handles a production of doubtful promise.

The agreement between a bookseller and a new author proceeds commonly as follows:—The latter having prepared a work, of which perhaps he has high hopes, but in which he has not had either guidance or advice, sets out by making an offer of his manuscript; and, after some time taken for consideration, he is answered that, his name not being yet known to the public, the publishers cannot take on themselves to make him a payment for his labour, but are willing to give it to the world on their joint account. This leads to a compact, in terms somewhat like the following:—

It is agreed between Messrs Y and Company, booksellers, and Mr Z, that Messrs Y and Company shall print and publish, on their account, jointly with Mr Z, in two volumes octavo, his historical work on ———, Mr Z supplying the manuscript, and Messrs Y and Company taking on themselves the paper, printing, and other publishing charges; the statement of the account to be made up every year at Midsummer—and when, after deducting the various publishing expenses, there shall appear a balance of profit, the same to be equally shared between Mr Z and Messrs Y and Company. The books to be accounted for at the regular trade sale price.

The publication now takes place; and in a twelvemonth afterwards an account is made up in the following form:—

| Dr. | History of ——— by Mr Z. | Cr. | |-----|--------------------------|----| | Printing 60 sheets at 4s. | £120 | 0 | | Overshading and corrections | 0 | 0 | | Paper, 90 reams, at 20s. | 180 | 0 | | Advertising | 10 | 0 | | Boarding 700 copies | 170 | 0 | | Total | £480 | 0 |

Next year the account is considerably shorter, the charges consisting only of advertising and interest of money; but the attraction of novelty having gone off, the sale is also less, and does not probably exceed eighty copies, leaving still an adverse balance of L100. The bookseller goes on with mercantile punctuality to render him a further account; but the sale is now in a state of progressive decrease, and does not, for the third year, exceed fifty copies, leaving still an unfavourable balance of L80. The author now loses patience, and entreats the bookseller to relieve him of all responsibility, by taking over the remaining copies, and considering the account as closed. But it is not every one that escapes so easily: it too often happens that, instead of deriving any profit from his labours, the unfortunate author has to bear the whole expense of paper and printing.

Even the most shrewd and experienced bookseller is unable to calculate accurately what will be the result of his publishing speculations: but, as in other undertakings into which hazard enters, his expectations are often too sanguine; and, in order to secure the éclat of publishing the works of an author of reputation, he will venture to give fully more for his copyrights than the prospect of returns will justify.

An author may either dispose of the entire copyright of his works, or retain the copyright and bargain for so many editions, or lease the publication for a certain number of years.

It is understood that Sir Edward Lytton Bulwer lately leased the publication of his works for ten years to a bookseller for L20,000. Perhaps no works ever yielded the author so large a sum of money as those of Sir Walter Scott, which amounted to between L140,000 and L150,000. Of this sum, L110,000 was realized between 1826 and 1847, while the works were published as a joint speculation between the author and the publisher.

The number of new literary works which are published in Great Britain annually is computed at about 2500, or about 3000 volumes. This is exclusive of reprints, pamphlets, and periodical publications. Taking the average editions of each at 750 copies, we have a total of above two millions of new volumes published annually in Great Britain. In France the number of newly published volumes is greater, because the impressions are larger; but of all countries Germany is in this respect the most remarkable, the new works published there annually exceeding five thousand, or three to one compared to those of England or France.

Printing became general in England about a century after its discovery; and it was in the year 1556 that a charter was granted to the Stationers' Company, an incorporation consisting, not of vendors of stationery in the present sense of the word, but of booksellers and printers, who, for their general benefit, determined to keep at their hall a register, in which should be entered the title of every new book, the name of the proprietors, and the successive transfers of the copyright. By-laws were enacted by the company; fines were levied on members acting in contravention of their regulations; and, in course of time, these resolutions of the association were confirmed by a well-known measure of government, we mean the licensing act of 1662, an act prohibiting the publication of any book unless first licensed by the lord chamberlain and entered in the Stationers' Register. In 1684 a new charter was issued to the company, partly for the purpose of securing the property of books, but more with the view of interposing the royal interdict on any publication at variance with the arbitrary government of Charles II. In the more auspicious reign of William (1691) this act was repealed; but whilst the liberty of the press was restored, the door was unluckily thrown open to infractions of literary property by clandestine editions of books. It was in vain for the owner of a copyright to bring an action against the trespasser; he had no other protection than common law; he could recover only to the extent of the "damage proved"—that is, he could not adduce evidence of the tenth or perhaps the twentieth part of the damage suffered, as he could not prove the sale of one copy out of twenty. This led to applications to parliament in 1703 and 1706; but no act was passed until 1709, when, after much discussion, the sanction of the legislature was given to a bill of which the prominent features were two,—first, an obligation to deliver nine copies to as many public libraries; and, next, a provision for guarding, by severe penalties, the property of copyright during fourteen years. The public libraries entitled to the receipt of a copy each were,—the King's Library, now transferred to the British Museum; the Bodleian at Oxford, and the University Library at Cambridge; in London, Sion College, or the Library of the London Clergy; in Scotland, the libraries of the universities of Edinburgh, Glasgow, St Andrews, and Aberdeen, with that of the Faculty of Advocates; to which were added, by a subsequent act in 1791, two Irish libraries, viz. Trinity College, Dublin, and the Society of the King's Inns in that city,—thus making in all eleven copies to be delivered.

The delivery of so many copies of every new book was a heavy tax, and one which booksellers were indefatigable in their efforts to evade—giving at one time only a single volume, and at others venturing to omit the ungracious duty altogether. Hence a necessity for new acts of parliament, more particularly those of 1775 and 1791. Still these acts were not sufficiently positive; and it having been decided in 1798 (in the case of Beckford v. Hood) that publishers were not prevented by such irregularities from obtaining damages for pirated editions, they became more and more remiss in their deliveries. At last, in 1811, the university of Cambridge having determined to bring the question to an issue, brought an action for the non-delivery of Fox's History, and obtained a verdict. The booksellers, finding that this act was now no longer a dead letter, applied to parliament; but a committee of the House of Commons, appointed in March 1813, made a report in favour of their opponents; and in the succeeding spring an act was passed, confirming in the most explicit terms the claims of the public libraries, who were not even required to pay any proportion of the price of such books as they thought proper to require. In this respect the law of England differs from that of other countries. In several states of the continent of Europe, and in the United States of America, only one copy of a book is required from an author; in France and Austria not more than two.

For many years, we might more properly say for a term of couple of centuries, the property of a book seems to have copyright; its successive shares of literary works being bought and sold without any idea of their expiring. It is not till 1709 that we discover a trace of interference with its permanency, the act of that year defending it against intruders during fourteen years, and no longer. The limitation, however, had no practical effect; copyright was considered as permanent both by the booksellers and the public; nay, even by three out of the four judges of the Court of King's Bench, in the celebrated trial Millar v. Taylor, which took place in 1769, and led to a very memorable display of judicial erudition. The plaintiff charged the defendants with a trespass in publishing an edition of Thomson's Seasons, of which the plaintiff was the sole proprietor. Lord Mansfield, with Judges Willes and Aston, gave an opinion in favour of the permanency of the copyright, in which they were confirmed by Judge Blackstone; but one of their brethren, Judge Yates, took a very different course, and adhered resolutely to the literal construction of the act.

An action for a similar trespass was some time afterwards brought before the Court of Session in Scotland; the London proprietor of a copyright claiming damages for an infraction by a provincial bookseller (case of Hinton v. Donaldson). Here the majority of the bench were adverse to the opinion formerly delivered by Lord Mansfield, and discharged the defendant without a dissentient voice, except that of the well-known Lord Monboddo. At last, in the session of 1773-4, the question came decisively before parliament, the booksellers having brought in a bill for declaring copyright perpetual. This bill passed the Commons, but was thrown out, after much debate, in the Lords.

To avoid perplexity, we shall endeavour to comprise the objections arguments on both sides in these various discussions in a kind of regular succession, adopting the plan of appending answers to each argument, as the best method of doing justice to both sides.

Objection. Ideas cannot be the object of property: they are not visible, tangible, or corporeal. (Judge Yates.)

Answer. Whatever admits of exclusive enjoyment may be property. (Hargrave.)

O. Another person may arrive, by his own process of thought, at similar conclusions; would you deny to him what you granted to his predecessor?

A. There is very little apprehension of such a coincidence; the plans and the results of study admit of as infinite variety as the human countenance; the same views or the same conclusions will never come from two persons,

---

1 The following curious statement of a copyright case is extracted from the Records of the Town Council of Edinburgh:

"The same day, the Councill, upon ane address from Allan Ramsay, representing that he was prejudiced in his interest and reputation, and that the leiges are abused by some printers, ballad cryers, and others, by printing, and causing to be printed, poems of his composition, without his licence or allowance upon false and uncorrect copies; as also, that the ballad cryers refuse to vend and publish his papers, and that he give them at rates beyond what really they can be printed for, they do therefore discharge all printers or paper cryers within this city and suburbs to print or vend any papers of his composition, without his licence; and ordains the said paper cryers to publish and vend the said Allan Ramsay's papers, by allowing them one third of the selling price as their profits, under the penaltie of twentie pounds Scots money, and confiscation of the papers so vendied and printed, besides forfeiture of the papers' cryers their privilege of publishing or vending papers;—amend all which, this shall be a warrant. (Ext.)"

2 This burden was alleviated by the act of 1836, which reduced the number of presentation copies to five. When the number was eleven, publishers had good reason to complain, but relief from the heavier burden reconciles them to the lighter. The amount of tax on the last edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, on this head alone, was £4,15,16s., calculated at the selling price, while the duty on the paper exceeded £6,000; and large sums were paid as advertisement duty, which is now happily repealed, and the paper duty reduced one-half; may the other half soon follow! Copyright, or even from the same person at different times, in the same language. At all events, an arbitrator or a court of justice can be at no loss to decide whether a second publication on the same subject comes within the description of plagiarism.

O. A literary composition is undoubtedly the property of the writer so long as it remains in manuscript; but by the act of publishing he gives it to the world; he lets the bird fly; his property is gone. (Judge Yates.)

A. He gives the public the free use of the knowledge contained in his book; but this is a very different thing from the profit as publisher. The ten shillings paid for a volume entitles the reader to the use of its contents, but can certainly give him no claim to the hundred pounds which may be expected from a new edition. (Lord Mansfield, Judges Willes, Blackstone, and Aston.)

O. It is not clear that common law ever sanctioned the exclusive enjoyment of copyright. The only titles appear to have been the royal patent and the license of the Stationers' Company. (Lord Camden.)

A. It seems to have been always taken for granted by Chancery and other courts that an exclusive right existed. There is a confirmatory example in the highest quarter; the king is perpetual proprietor of the right of publishing acts of parliament and all public documents. (Lord Mansfield, Judges Willes, Blackstone, and Aston.)

O. The patentees of mechanical inventions possess but a limited term; none of them ever advanced a claim to perpetuity. (Judge Yates.)

A. Such patentees are much sooner reimbursed than authors; the fruit of their invention is of direct practical application. Besides, the stranger who makes a duplicate of a machine incurs a much greater relative expense than the stranger who reprints an edition of a book; in the one the materials form the chief part of the cost; in the other, they are comparatively insignificant, and copies may be multiplied by thousands.

O. The statute of the 8th of Queen Anne expressly limits the duration of copyright; it enacts that the protecting penalties shall be in force during fourteen years, and no longer. (Judge Yates.)

A. This is, no doubt, the apparent meaning of the statute, but the preamble of the act declares that it is passed for the protection of literature. To make the act an instrument for curtailing a literary privilege would certainly be at variance with its general language. (Lord Mansfield.)

O. If such property be admitted for a time, is not the term of fourteen years sufficient? What good could the public expect from the writings of men so selfish as to call for a perpetual monopoly?

A. Monopoly is not the proper word; the object may be obtained, as will be shown presently, under modifications which insure to the public a complete supply of books at reasonable prices.

O. "Glory," said Lord Camden, "is the reward of science, and those who deserve it scorn all meaner views."

A. Reputation is, and always will be, the grand stimulus to literary exertion, but it requires long-continued exertion; and if we do not enable a writer to live by his works, we confine the possibility of acquiring reputation to a very small class—to the rich, or to those who derive an income from other means. Such, in fact, has hitherto been the case: standard works have been attempted only by men who, like Gibbon, possessed patrimony, or who, like Robertson and Hume, arrived at the possession of income from other sources. No one imagines that our military or naval officers follow their profession for the sake of pay; yet no one would propose to abridge it on the ground of reputation being their primary object.

O. "It was not for gain," said Lord Camden, "that Bacon, Newton, Milton, and Locke, instructed the world."

A. Each of these distinguished men was obliged to trespass on the time devoted to literature, and to seek an income from public employments. How much better would it have been could they have given an undivided and uninterrupted attention to their favourite pursuits.

The grand error on the part of the booksellers lay in demanding perpetuity instead of prolongation. The idea of perpetuity has in it something very serious, and will not be sanctioned by a legislature without the clearest proof of public advantage.

Foiled in the House of Peers, the booksellers determined to do what men always will endeavour to do when unjustly controlled, namely, to evade that which they cannot resist. They resorted to the alternative of giving an ostensible renewal to a work, by adding, at the end of the term of each copyright, notes and other appendages, which remained their property during another period of fourteen years, and afforded them a kind of guarantee in two ways: first, because a competitor, whatever he might do with the original text, could not touch the addenda; and, next, because the great body of publishers residing in London acted as a corporation, and combined to give circulation to works thus edited, to the complete exclusion of rival impressions.

The law continued on this footing for forty years, the prolonged term of copyright receiving no extension till 1814. On that occasion it was apparent that the universities would carry the point of the delivery copies; and the only alternative was, to seek an indemnity in an extension of copyright to twenty-eight years, which was obtained.

By another act passed in 1836, the number of copies to be furnished to the public libraries was limited to five, viz., the British Museum, the Bodleian Library at Oxford, the Public Library at Cambridge, that of the Faculty of Advocates at Edinburgh, and that of Trinity College, Dublin; whilst the Libraries of Sion College, the four Universities of Scotland, and the King's Inns at Dublin, received compensation for the loss of their privileges by grants from the treasury, calculated on the annual average value of the books each had received during the preceding three years.

The last statute, that which now regulates literary copyright, was passed in 1842. By this act the term of copyright was prolonged to forty-two years; and if the author should live longer than forty-two years after the date of his publication, he retains the property during his lifetime. The property of literary works is vested in the proprietor of the manuscript from which the work shall be first published, and in his assigns.

In cases of copyright subsisting at the time of the passing of the act, the author, or, if dead, his representatives, and the proprietor of the copyright, on coming to a mutual agreement, and inserting a minute to that effect in the books of Stationers' Hall, may secure the benefit of the extended term; but in default of such minute the copyright expires at the end of twenty-eight years. But such publishers or others as have acquired the copyright from "love and affection" shall be entitled to the extended term without any such agreement.

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council are empowered to license the republication of books which the proprietor refuses to republish after the death of the author.

A copy of every book, and of every subsequent edition published with additions or alterations, upon the best paper on which the same shall be printed, is to be delivered to the British Museum within one calendar month after the same has been published, if published within the bills of mortality, or within three calendar months if published in any other part of the United Kingdom; and a copy of each book, on the paper on which the largest number has been Copyright printed, as well as of every subsequent edition containing additions or alterations, is to be delivered either at Stationers' Hall, or to any person authorized by the managers of the respective institutions, within a month after demand, for the following libraries:—The Bodleian at Oxford; the Public Library at Cambridge; that of the Faculty of Advocates at Edinburgh; and that of Trinity College, Dublin.

It is enacted that a book of registry be kept at the hall of the Stationers' Company, in which shall be entered the proprietorship in the copyright of books, dramatic and musical pieces, whether in manuscript or otherwise, which book shall be open for the inspection of any person, on payment of 1s. for every entry which shall be searched for. And the officer at Stationers' Hall shall give a certified copy of any entry when required, on payment of 6s., and such certified copy shall be received in evidence in the courts of law in all summary proceedings, as prima facie proof of proprietorship or assignment of copyright or license, as therein expressed; and in the case of dramatic or musical pieces, shall be prima facie proof of the right of representation or performance.

The entry in the registry book is to record the title of the book; the time of its publication, the name and place of abode of the publisher or assignee, and the share held by each, where there are more than one proprietor.

In case of piracy the proprietor may bring an action against the offender in any court of record in that part of the British dominions in which the offence shall be committed; and in the event of any such action being brought, the defendant, on pleading thereto, shall give to the plaintiff a notice, in writing, of any objection on which he means to rely on the trial of such action.

No person except the proprietor is allowed to import into the British dominions for sale, or have any book first published in the United Kingdom, and reprinted elsewhere, under the penalty of forfeiture of the book, of the sum of L10, and double the value of every book so imported.

By this statute it is provided that the proprietor of any Encyclopaedia, Review, Magazine, Periodical Work, or work published in a series of books or parts, or who shall have employed any person to compose the same, or any volumes, parts, essays, articles, or portions thereof, for publication, on the terms that the copyright thereon shall belong to such proprietor, shall enjoy the term of copyright granted by this act. But the proprietor shall not be at liberty to publish separately any article or review, without the consent of the author, and neither shall the author, unless he has reserved to himself the right of separate publication. Where neither party has reserved the right, they may publish by mutual agreement, but the author, at the end of twenty-eight years, may publish his contributions separately. Proprietors of periodical works may enter them as soon as they commence to publish, and thus secure the benefit of the entry to the whole of the work. The benefits of this act are likewise extended to dramatic and musical pieces, the sole liberty of representing or performing which is granted to the authors or their assigns, during the term of copyright in books, as provided in this act. The assignment of the copyright of any book containing a dramatic piece, or musical composition, does not convey the right of representing or performing the same.

Books pirated may be recovered by action, and become the property of the proprietor of the copyright; but no proprietor of copyright shall be entitled to sue for any infringement before making entry in the book of registry; and all actions for any offence committed against this act must be commenced within twelve calendar months next after such offence is committed.

The act 5th and 6th William IV., cap. 65, gives to authors of lectures the sole right of printing and publishing the same, provided they have given notice of their intention in writing to two justices living within five miles of the Copyright place at least two days before the delivery of the lecture; and a penalty is imposed on such as shall print or publish them without the author's leave; but the act does not extend to lectures delivered in any university or public school, or public foundation.

The law of copyright recognises the right of property in the productions of mental as well as in the productions of physical power; and it must be allowed that nothing can more justly be said to belong to a man than the creations of his own thinking faculties, and, in this view, he and his heirs are entitled to whatever profit or advantage may result from them in perpetuity.

The act of 1842 acknowledges this right of property in the author during his lifetime, and confers on his heirs a limited extension of it in the event of the author's dying before the expiry of forty-two years after the publication of his writings. This limitation may appear an unjust interference with the rights of property; but in this, as in other cases, the rights of individuals must give way to the general benefit of the community. And as it is obvious that the application of the rules of law to the conveyance of literary property through successive generations, as in the case of heritable property, would trammel and limit the circulation of the published thoughts of the instructors of their race, and, in many instances, might even extinguish the brightest lights of science and literature, therefore it was for the interest of all that exclusive property in literary publications should not be held in perpetuity.

In France and Belgium the copyright is protected to the author during his life, and to his heirs for twenty years after his death.

The German confederation, by a decree of 19th June 1845, has extended the protection of literary property to the lifetime and thirty years after the death of the author. By an earlier decree of the confederation, 22nd August 1841, it conferred ten years' protection against the illegal performance of musical compositions and the representation of dramatic pieces.

The laws of many German countries—for instance, the Bavarian law (15th April 1840), the Saxon (22nd February 1844), the Wirtembergian (24th August 1845), had before the law of the confederation granted a protection of thirty years reckoned from the death of the author.

Austria, in a treaty with Sardinia, Tuscany, and the States of the Church, protects copyright in the Italian states of the empire during the author's lifetime and for thirty years after his death, and allows forty years for posthumous publications.

In Russia copyright is secured to the author for life, and to his heirs for twenty-five years.

The copyright law of the United States of America gives the author the exclusive right of publication for twenty-eight years, with the privilege of a renewal for fourteen years to himself and his representatives: these are defined to be his wife and children. A publisher who purchases a copyright cannot obtain a renewal. The privilege of renewal can only be obtained by the author or his representatives (whom it is intended to benefit), if they reside in the United States at the time the renewal is applied for.

No foreigner can establish a copyright in the United States unless resident there, but if resident he may acquire a copyright, whether citizen or not. By the American law an author may acquire copyright by merely entering the title of the book without actually publishing it; it being sufficient if a copy be deposited within three months after publication.

If it be acknowledged that the creations of his brain are the lawful property of the author, which his countrymen are to be punished for invading, is robbery by a foreigner a less heinous offence? And yet, while it has been considered disgraceful and criminal for the citizens of the same state to Copyright. plunder each other, it has been held justifiable for the citizens of one state to commit literary piracy on the citizens of another. In Germany, popular writers have been defrauded of the fruit of their labours by the piracies of publishers in neighbouring states. The Belgians and others have pirated the works of the most distinguished French writers; and the Americans have subjected British authors to the same treatment; they have sometimes even inflicted more serious injuries on the foreign author by garbling his works, or by perpetuating imperfect editions.

We have heard a popular writer of the present day say, that, when in the shop of an American bookseller who reprinted one of his books, on looking at the American reprint, of which large numbers had been sold and were continuing to sell, he found it was copied from the first edition of his work, while later editions had been greatly improved. He asked the American bookseller why he did not rather print from the correct edition, and was answered that the book was stereotyped, and it would involve the loss of the plates to reprint from the last edition; that the present sold very well, and he did not know if a reprint from the last edition would sell any better. The author, desirous that his views should be fairly presented, proposed to another bookseller that he should publish the same work, copied from the last and correct English edition. But, as there is honour among thieves, the bookseller refused, alleging that it was considered a point of honour not to interfere with another bookseller who had the priority in reprinting a British publication; and in consequence of this rule, it is presumed, the Americans continue to enjoy the benefit of the imperfect work, and the author the discredit of its defects.

With the view of remedying this evil, the British Legislature passed an act in 1838 for securing to authors, in certain cases, the benefit of international copyright. In conformity with this statute, conventions have been entered into with France, Prussia, Saxony, Hanover, Brunswick, and some others, by which it is agreed that the authors in the two contracting states shall, "with regard to any such work or articles first published in either of the two states, enjoy in the other the same privilege of copyright as would by law be enjoyed by the author, inventor, designer, or engraver of a similar work if first published in such other state, together with the same legal remedies and protection against piracy and unauthorized republication." Certain regulations are provided for the purpose of giving effect to this general principle, and moderate duties on importation are agreed to, viz.:

| Works originally produced in the United Kingdom, and republished in ————, the cwt. | L2 10 0 | | Works not originally produced in the United Kingdom | 0 15 0 | | Prints or drawings, plain or coloured, each | 0 0 04 | | Bound or sewed, the dozen | 0 0 12 |

It is to be regretted that the offer of Great Britain to enter into treaties for the establishment of international copyright has been accepted by so few; especially that the United States of America should have refused to reciprocate in the protection of literary property. If the unfortunate authors are to be considered fair subjects of plunder by the booksellers of either country, it cannot be denied that the United States will intercept greater numbers, and secure a richer booty; still the adage that "honesty is the best policy" will hold good even in this instance. American literature has been dwarfed by the treatment it has received from those who should be its most munificent patrons—the booksellers—who, instead of encouraging the literary manufacture of native genius and industry, by affording it a fair remuneration, have preferred to lay wait for the rich cargoes of foreigners which they may appropriate.

Were both countries to agree to protect literary property, and to permit importation on the payment of moderate duties, such as those stated above, not only would authors receive the just reward of their labours, but the booksellers would be enabled to carry on a larger and less hazardous trade, and the public would be more extensively benefited. Many valuable books are published in Britain which have a limited sale; and these no American bookseller would reprint, since if he were to import copies, he must pay a high duty, which, when added to the original price, effectually checks the sale. Could the publisher calculate on both the British and American market; open and unfettered, he could remunerate the author more highly, the edition might be larger, and the cost of paper and print smaller; and the public would receive the benefit of this free intercommunication. The advantage would not be confined to either country. As the British authors and booksellers suffer by the present piratical system, so do the authors and booksellers of America. As the larger trade is carried on by the British publishers, they will suffer more in degree, but the punishment of the American publishers will be in proportion. In two states carrying on a war of piracy against each other, individuals now and then might capture rich prizes; but the unhallowed warfare would not promote the prosperity of either country, and the sooner both discontinued it the better for all.

In February 1854 articles of an international copyright treaty were drawn up with great ability by John James Crampton, minister plenipotentiary on the part of Great Britain, and Edward Everett, secretary of state on the part of the United States, and reported to the Senate in executive session.

The treaty, however, is likely to be strongly opposed; and even if it were to force its way through the senate, there are but slender hopes of its passing the House of Representatives.

The temptation to continue to appropriate the best works of British authors without compensation or control is too great for our transatlantic brethren to withstand. There is no doubt that if the American booksellers appropriate without compensation literary copyrights which have cost the British bookseller from perhaps a hundred to a thousand pounds a volume, they will be able to sell them at a greatly reduced rate and in much larger numbers. This will so far benefit the transatlantic readers by furnishing them with the best copyright books at a small price, and give employment to papermakers, printers, and bookbinders. (See Bookselling). In these circumstances it can hardly be expected that a body of representatives depending on the universal suffrages of the people will venture to act in opposition to what their constituents will doubtless consider valuable rights. They may probably acknowledge that the property they are purchasing at a cheap rate is not honestly come by; but the questionable practice has existed so long as to have grown into a prescriptive right, and it has been acted on by so many as to give a kind of sanction to piracy.

The United States of America have enjoyed not only a great advantage over Britain by the balance of literary trade being so greatly in their favour, they being able to reprint ten British authors for one that the mother country could reprint in return; but, besides this, while appropriating to themselves the numerous copyrights of Britain, they have contrived to prevent the English booksellers from reprinting the smaller number of copyright books published by Americans.

The plan that has been adopted by American and other foreign authors, is to publish in the foreign country and in Britain on the same day, and by this means to acquire a copyright in both countries. Both this question, whether a foreign author can acquire a British copyright by simultaneous publication, and the wider question whether a foreign author resident abroad can acquire a British copyright at all, except under the international copyright act, Copyright have given occasion to several important lawsuits and keen discussions, followed by conflicting decisions of the courts. It has been contended that the copyright statutes were passed for the benefit of authors who by birth or residence were subjects of this country, and not to encourage the importation of foreign books by securing a monopoly in their favour. On the other hand it has been argued that an alien, though resident abroad, may enjoy personal property, and enforce personal rights in this country, and that therefore he may hold copyright here. But if copyright were personal property like other goods which the foreigner possessed, then he would be entitled to retain it without any limitation of times, not for 42 years, but for ever.

Copyright differs from personal property in this, that the one is an inherent and permanent right, whereas the other is a terminable privilege conferred by the statutes of the country on its subjects.

It has also been said that on the principles of free trade foreign copyright ought to be recognised. The result of free trade is to break down monopolies, and to lower the price of commodities; but the recognition of the foreign copyright would have a diametrically opposite effect,—it would enable the foreigner to extend the evils of monopoly, and greatly enhance the price of his publications in this country.

If this state of the law be continued, it will be vain to expect further adoption of the international copyright act by foreign countries, for in this view they already possess the advantages it would confer. They retain the copyright in their own country, and are likewise able to secure it in this, and at the same time to appropriate the copyright of British authors without compensation; the "reciprocity" is all on one side.

In 1835, Lord Abinger, in the cause D'Almaire v. Boosey, held that a foreigner might have copyright under the statute. The same opinion was held by Vice-Chancellor Shadwell, in Bentley v. Foster, but he sent the point to be decided by another court. In Chappell v. Purday, the Court of Exchequer, in 1845, delivered a solemn judgment, in which they expressed an opinion, that neither a foreign author residing abroad, who composed a work abroad, nor his assignee in this country, had any copyright in Britain. But, on the other hand, the Court of Common Pleas in 1848 affirmed, in the case of Cocks v. Purday, the exactly opposite doctrine, which was shortly afterwards supported by the Court of Queen's Bench, in Boosey v. Davidson, professedly in consequence of the decision in the case of Cocks v. Purday. Then followed Boosey v. Purday, in which the Court of Exchequer unanimously and distinctly decided, that a foreign author residing abroad was not an author within the meaning of the statutes, which were intended for the encouragement of British talent and industry; and that a foreigner by sending to, and first publishing his work in, Great Britain, acquired no copyright. In a subsequent case of Jeffreys v. Jeffreys, tried in the Court of Exchequer in 1850, that Court affirmed its judgment in Boosey v. Purday. But in May 1851, the Court of Error, consisting of the judges of the Queen's Bench and Common Pleas, overruled that judgment: the case, however, was carried to the House of Lords by appeal.

Here are three recent solemn decisions of English courts of law on one side, and five on the other—a state of judicial administration neither creditable to the British courts, nor conducive to the protection of the property of the British people. It is of the greatest importance that the uncertainty introduced into the publication trade by these decisions should be removed; and if the preponderance of judicial authority should affirm that, by the strict legal interpretation of the statutes, foreign authors and publishers are entitled to privileges which are denied to British authors and publishers, then the legislature should deal with the case, and bring the law into conformity with the copyright laws of other states, not for the purpose of giving protection to British literature in the sense of an odious monopoly, but by placing British and foreign authors and publishers on a footing of equality, and enabling the British public to enjoy the foreign literature on the same cheap terms as the foreigner obtains the English.

The object of the international copyright act is to induce other governments to concede to the authors in the dominions of the contracting parties equal rights in their respective countries. If the law shall be confirmed to be in conformity with the decisions of the Courts of Common Pleas and Queen's Bench, then foreign nations will have no inducement to accede to these treaties, as they already enjoy all the advantages they propose to confer. But if the principle of these treaties is reasonable and mutually advantageous, then the same principle ought to induce parliament to bring our laws as nearly as possible into conformity with the system of reciprocity which the international copyright treaties seek to establish.

This article was prepared for the printer before the decision given (August 1, 1854) on the appeal to the House of Lords, which settles this vexed question, and establishes the copyright, as regards foreigners, on a satisfactory basis.

But the following extracts from the speeches of the three law lords who were present on the occasion will exhibit the grounds on which they arrived at the conclusion, that a foreign author can neither hold copyright himself, nor assign it to another, unless resident in this country.

The Lord Chancellor, in moving the judgment of the house in the appeal case Jeffreys (plaintiff in error) v. Boosey (defendant in error), said he adhered to the view which he had originally taken of the matter. "The right in dispute was not the right to publish, or to refrain from publishing a work which had not yet been given to the world, but was the right to have the exclusive power of publishing such given work. Now, copyright in this way defined was, if not the creature of the statute law, at least a right regulated by that law. The legislature, *prima facie*, must be taken to legislate for its own subjects only; and the object declared by the preamble of the act must be taken to be a merely natural object. A foreigner, of course, who was not a resident abroad but was a resident in this country, and therefore subject to its laws, was for the time in the condition of a native born subject, and, if he came to this country and published his work here, he would be within the protection of the statute. But if at the time of such publication he was residing out of the kingdom, the statute did not protect him. There was a distinction to be taken between the patents for inventions and the copyrights in books. By the common law the Crown had a right to give to a subject a monopoly in a particular manufacture; and all that the statute of James did was to confine the exercise of that patent within definite limits. With regard to his own opinion on the matter, it was founded on the general doctrine that a British senate would legislate for British subjects, properly so called, or for such persons who might obtain that character for a time by being resident in this country, and therefore under allegiance to the Crown, and under the protection of the laws of England."

Lord Brougham said, coming to the case itself, "it was to be taken that the right of an author prior to publication was unquestioned; that he had the exclusive right in his own manuscript; that he might communicate it or withhold it, or that he might exercise his discretion as to whom he would communicate it. Then came the question as to the right of publication. The statute of Anne had been passed for the purpose of encouraging learned men, and with that view that act had given them the exclusive right in their publications for twenty-one years. This, however, was clear, they had no copyright by common law, for if Copyright they had there would then have been no necessity for the passing of that statute. It could scarcely be said that the legislature had decided a century and a half since that an act was to be passed to create a monopoly in literary works solely for the benefit of foreigners. In the present case, he was clearly of opinion that the copyright claimed did not exist, and therefore that foreign law should not prevail over British law where there was such diversity between the two. In his opinion the ruling of his learned friend on the wool-sack was perfectly correct.

Lord St Leonards concurred in all that had fallen from his noble and learned friends, and gives his view of what constitutes residence—a point which might have led to serious disputes. "He could not at the present moment take upon himself to say what would be a sufficient residence to entitle a foreigner having come to this country to claim a copyright. But he would say that whatever would constitute a residence so as to subject him to allegiance while he was in this country, and would confer upon him the rights of a foreigner resident in England, would give him a copyright during the period of his residence here. The Americans on this point experienced no difficulty, for it was expressly defined in their enactments that the law of their country permitted the importation of foreign works. They must not in this country put on their own acts of parliament a strained construction to give to foreigners those rights which foreigners denied to them. He was perfectly clear that if it were necessary, as he held that it was, that Bellini must have resided in England in order to possess the copyright, he had no legal power to assign that copyright as regarded this country, and, the assignment not being valid, the right of action was not maintainable, and therefore the judgment of the Court of Exchequer Chamber ought to be reversed."

The judgment of the Court of Exchequer Chamber was thereupon ordered to be reversed.

(Copyright in the Arts and Designs.—The statutes affecting copyright in the arts of designing and engraving prints are 8th Geo. II., cap. 13, and the 7th Geo. III., cap. 56.

Copyright in Designs for Manufactures. Mr. Emerson Tennant's act, 5th and 6th Victoria, cap. 100, gives to the proprietors of designs for manufactured goods not previously published, the sole right of applying them to articles of the following descriptions for three years:

Articles of manufacture composed wholly or chiefly of Metals, of Wood, of Glass, or of Earthenware—Paper-hangings, and Carpets.

Shawls, when the design is not applied by printing.

Woven fabrics of linen, cotton, wool, silk, or hair, or of a mixture of these coming within the description of what is technically called furnitures; if the design be applied by printing, or by any other process, the repeat of the design being more than twelve inches by eight.

It also gives to the proprietors the sole right of applying the design to the following articles for nine months:

1st, Shawls, where the design is applied solely by printing, or by any other process by which colours may be produced upon textile fabrics.

2d, Yarn thread, or warp, where the design is applied by printing, or by any other process by which colours may be produced.

3d, Woven fabrics composed of linen, cotton, wool, silk, or hair, or of a mixture of these, if the design be applied by printing, or by any other process by which colours are produced upon textile fabrics.

The sole right of applying them is granted for twelve months to the proprietors of designs. For woven fabrics, lace, and any other article of manufacture not comprised in any of the preceding classes, whether such design be applicable for the pattern, the shape, or ornament, or be produced by printing, painting, weaving, modelling, or any other means whatsoever, manual, mechanical, or chemical.

Piracy is punished by a penalty of not less than L5, or more than L30, payable to the proprietor of the design, to be recovered by an action for debt or damages, or by summary proceedings before two justices; but the benefits of copyright can only be acquired by having the designs registered before publication.