IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

1.0

1.1

U&t23.

25
2.2

£f |f£ 12.0

L25 llliu 11.6

^>.

FhotDgraiiiic

Sciences

Corporation

23 WIST MAIN STRIIT

WEftSTER,N.Y. USM

(716)872-4503

CIHM/ICMH

Microfiche

Series.

CIHM/iCMH
Collection de
microfiches.

Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques

Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques

The Institute has attempted to obtain the best
original copy available for filming. Features of this
copy which may be bibliographically unique,
which may alter any of the images in the
reproduction, or which may significantly change
the usual method of filming, are checked below.

Coloured covers/
Couverture de couleur

I I Covers damaged/

Couverture endommag^e

Covers restored and/or laminated/
Couverture restaur^e et/ou peliicui^e

Cover title missing/

Le titre de couverture manque

Coloured maps/

Cartes g6ographiques en couleur

Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/
Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire)

Coloured plates and/or illustrations/
Planches et/ou illustrations en couluur

Bound with other material/
Reli6 avec d'autres documents

Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion
along interior margin/

Lareliure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la
distortion le long de la marge int^rieure

Blank leaves added during restoration may
appear within the text. Whenever possible, these
have been omitted from filming/
II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout6es
lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte,
mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont
pas 6t6 fiimdes.

Additional comments:/
Commentaires suppl^mentaires:

L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire
qu'il lui a 6ti possible de se procurer. Les details
de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du
point de vue biblcographique, qui peuvent modifier
une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une
modification dans la mdthode normale de filmage
sont indiquds ci-dessous.

n
n

D
D

Coloured pages/
Pages de couleur

Pages damaged/
Pages endommagdes

Pages restored and/or laminated/
Pages restaurdes et/ou pelliculdes

Panes discoloured, stained or foxed/
P^ves d4color6es, tachetdes ou piqudes

/ .J3« Jdtached/
PLges d^tach^es

Showthrough/
Transparence

Quality of print varies/
Quality indgale de I'impression

Includes supplementary material/
Comprend du materiel suppi^mentaire

Only edition available/
Seule Edition disponible

Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata
slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to
ensure the best possible image/
Les pages totalement ou partiellement
obscurcies par un feuiilet d'errata, une pelure,
etc., ont 6t6 fiimdes A nouveau de fapon d
obtenir la mellleure image possible.

This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/

Ce document est filmd au taux de rMuction indiquA ci-dessous.

10X 14X 18X 22X

12X

16X

20X

26X

30X

24X

28X

32X

The copy filmed here has been reproduced thank*
to the generosity of:

Thomas Fisher Rare Booit Library,
University of Toronto Library

L'excmpiaire film^ fut reprodult grdce d la
ginArositi de:

Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library,
University of Toronto Library

The images appearing here are the best quality
possible considering the condition and legibility
of the original copy and in keeping with the
filming contract specifications.

Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec ie
plus grand soin, compte tenu de h condition et
de la netteti de I'exemplaire filmd, et en
conformity avec les conditions du contrat de
filmage.

Original copies in printed paper covers are filr<^ed
beginning with the front cover and ending on
the last page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All
other original copies are filmed beginning on the
first page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, and ending on the last page with a printed
or illustrated impression.

Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en
papier est imprim6e sont filmds en commenpant
par Ie premier plat et en terminant soit par la
dernlAre page qui comporte una empreinte
d'impression ou d'iliustration, soit par Ie second
plat, salon Ie cas. Tous les autres exemplaires
originaux sont filmAs en commenpant par la
premiere page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'iliustration et en terminant par
la dernidre page qui comporte une telle
empreinte.

The last recorded frame on each microfiche
shall contain the symbol — ^ (meaning "CON-
TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"),
whichever applies.

Un des symboles suivants apparaftra sur la
derniire image de cheque microfiche, selon Ie
cas: Ie symbole —•^' signifie "A SUIVRE", Ie
symbole V signifie "FIN".

Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at
different reduction ratios. Those too large to be
entirely included in one exposure are filmed
beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to
right and top to bottom, as many frames as
required. The following diagrams illustrate the
method:

Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre
filmis d des taux de reduction diff6rents.
Lorsque Ie document est trop grand pour dtre
reprodult en un seul clich6, il est filmd d partir
de I'angle supirieur gauche, de gauche d droite,
et de haut en bas, en prenant Ie nombre
d'images nicessaire. Les diagrammes suivants
illustrent la mithode.

^^■m

! ;■ -f *Ti5\i?,-^ ;, f,^ jV

■H

'^^.,

COPYEIGHT IN BOOKS

AN INQUIRY INTO ITS OiUCilN, AND AN ACCOUNT OF
THE PRESENT STATE OF THE LAW IN CANADA

I KING OWE OF THE "OCCASIONAL LEOTUIJBS," DEMVEUKU UEKOIIE THE

J.AW aCHOOL OF BISHOP'S COLLEOE

AT SHEU15H00KE, ?.Q.

ThUHSDAY, JAaUAUX 26TU, IHHM

-BY

S. E. DAWSON

MONTREAL
DA^VSON HKOTIIERS, PUBLISHERS

ii^

'C-*- ■■:

tmm

EX-LIBRI5 • JAMES • DOUGLAS

Msssssa

COPYEIGHT IN BOOKS

AN INQUIRY INTO ITS ORIGIN, AND AN ACCOUNT OF
THE PRESENT STATE OF THE LAW IN CANADA

31 c£ccfttrc

BEING ONE OF THE "OCCASIONAL LECTURES" DELIVERED BEFORE TUB

LAW SCHOOL OF BISHOP'S COLLEGE

AT SHEKBROOKE, P.Q.
TuuiiaoAY, Januaey 26th, 1882

S. E. DAWSON

MONTREAL
DAWSON BROTHERS, PUBLISHERS

1882

Entered according t(i .\ct .,1 I'iiriiafm.iii l.vS I.' I..,.

.\Hiuiltuii', :il •llliiivii, III Ihcyciir l.HSil'.

' PRINTK.. ,.V T.,K GAZmK 1'UINTlNGCuin.ANV, M,)NT.,KA,

It' Aliiiister

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen,

I sliall not apologise for the dryness of my subject
to-(liiy, uoi' for the dry manner in whidi it mnst be treated ;
because tliose whom I am now addressing, being students of
law, know well that the goddess Themis is not one of the
Muses, and that those wlio follow her find more thorns than
flowers in her path; but I do a[)ologisc for the linsty manner
in which I have been (tbliged to prepare this paper. I w* uld
gladly have spent more time over it if a contemplated absence
in Europe had not [)ress(Hl me.

Fortunately, the definition of the subject is easy. Copy-
right is the right of nudtiplying copies of literary or artistic
works. It is primarily applied to Books, but extends also to
Paintings, Drawings, and Statuary; and is held to embrace
the cognate subjects of speedies, lectures, and of musical and
dramatic representations. But copyright is not the property
Avhich the author has in hia unpublislicd book or manuscript.
That is a simple right of property, as in the case of any other
moveable thing, and will be regulated by the civil or the
conunou law. Co})yright in all countries is regulated by
statutes, and it commences at the instant of publication.
Although the underlying principles which govern all these
classes of copyright are the same, yet it is evident that the
mode of applying them must vary much in the case of
subjects so different as the representation of a drama, and the
reprint of a book. I propose in this paper to confiue myself
mainly to the right of copy in books.

A 2

Cojii/i'lyht.

Oh this) subject, as on most others, two distinct schools of
tlioujfht exist; holding extreme views and i'undanientally
opposed to cacii other. Th(! one party hohl that the title in
tli(^ copyrijfht of a hook is a iKitiind iinlcffdsihle rIylU, existing
at the eonnnon law, anil |)er|)('tual to the same extent as real
j)roperty, snch as lands an»l houses. The other i)arty hold
that it is a statutory right, granted hy goveriunents in the
interests of literature, anti lor the hencnt of socii'ty generally;
and therefore existing oidy under statutory conditions which
may at any time he eidarge<l or contracted. Some writerss of
the first, or author's school, go so fa'.' as to maintain that
copyright existed under the Ivouian law. This view has
never, however, hceu iield in any country where the study of
the Koman law has been cultivated. I have never met with
more than one citation to sup|)orl this statement, and that is
given hy Mr. .James Applcltm Aloigan, of the New York
l>ar, a writer of two large volumes on the Law of Literature.
He cites the "Institutes," Book 2, Title 1, chapter 33, as
follows : —

" Si in chart is memhrauissc tuis, carmen vcl historiam, vel
oralionem Titius scripscrit, hujus corporis nou Titius,
sed tu don\inus esse vidi'ris."

]Mr. Alorgan writes mniihrdiilxsr, which is not Latin, for
membi'ditisrc, besides altering the tense of the last verb. The
passage correctly translated w«)uld read :

If Titius has written a poem, a history, or a speech upon
your ])aper or j/our ])archment, it is ijou, and not Titius,
who will be the (twner of the thing.

It was a simple case of acccssio, and had reference only to
the labour of transcription, as is evident from the context.
Titius had the right to transcribe any poem he chose. Any
student at law is familiar with that ])rinciide, for it is elemen-
tary in the Civil Law of (Quebec. The ownershij) according
to Koman Law I'ollowed the paper and the parchment — a very
singular method of establishing the right to copy of an author.
Equally unfortunate are Mr. Morgan's citations from Juvenal
and Martial. They merely establish the fact known to every- '

%\.

Co/n/rif/ht,

■ , ;

.: :

body, thnt there were in lioiuo well-known bookaellers, who
kept stocks of books on hand which, by the way, they sold at
very moderate [U'ices.

It is a very common error to sni>poso that the ancient
world was very badly sni)i)licd with books, to transfer to the
times of Greek, Komaii, and !0<j;yi»tian civilisation, the dark-
ness and dearth of mediaeval lOurojte. The fact is iluii in
those days every gentleman's house had its library, and t'\ery
city had its ;<«/>//(■ library. In every wealthy bonselitild was
a servant to read aloud, and iinother to copy boob- You all
remember Ti -o, Cicero's freedman and very dear fri<nul.
Atticus, Cicero's other friend, kept a large number ol sl.ives
traiiMiribing, and made a good deal of money by the sale of
the books so manufactured. In those days a jmblishcr or
bookseller kept a staff of skilled slaves. When a book was to
be published, one of these read, and the others wrote; a.iJ in
that mauner, by the means of cheap slave labour, large
editions of books were published. The literary activity of
the countries around the Mediterranean was very great, and
we under-estimate it. Horace has preserved for us the names
of the booksellers in whose shop he used to lounge. Martial
refers a shabby fellow called Lnpert^is (who wanted to borrow
his epigrams) to his bookseller Atrectus. lie tells him the
shop is " ojjposite the forum of Ciesar, and placards arc posted
outside giving the names of poets," evidently as is the
custom among booksellers to this day. The i)rice of the
volume — the first book of his ejtigrams — he says is five denarii,
equivalent to .'{.v. 0^/. sterling. Now this first book contains 111)
epigrams, or over 700 verses. It a[)i)ears elsewhere that
cheaper copies were provided. Martial referred to copies well
rubbed with pumice and adorned with purple. The cheaper
copies could be bad at half that price, but this was in the best
style. So that, if wc compare the price with the published
price in England of " Maud," or any of the original small
volumes of Tennyson's poems, which were issued at five or six
shillings, the Roman publisher does not sccmi to be much dearer
than the English one. I wish especially to call your attention

Coj)ijright.

to tliis, not as a point of arcluxjology, but as a fact p;erinanc to
my subject; because if there had been anything answering to
copyright in tliose days, in any of these countries, the Roman
law would have noticed it ; for Roman law did not " lie about
loose '" in scattered cases and reports, but was a definite body
of scientific jurisprudence.

Copyright, tlie right of copy, or simply " copy " — for these
are equivalent ^rms, used at different stages of the gr(»wth or de-
finition of the right — is asserted by some to be a natural right
founded on a law of Nature. It is, they say, a title in perpetuity
— transmissible in the same maimer and to the same cxtiMit as
land or houses. They point to Denmark as a brilliant example
of justice, for there co[)yright is perjjctual : and they push
their arguments to an absurdity, because, carried to a legiti-
mate conclusion, these would give to the .lews, as the oidy
surviving representatives of Moses, a right of injunction to
restrain the Bible Society from printing the Pentateuch. It
may be because I am a layman, but I must confess that I find
it diHicult to attach any precise meaning to the expression
Natural Law. Austin says that the Law natural of the
Moderns exactly corresjtonds to the Jus (ieutium of the
Romans. As we have seen, that law is utterly ignorant of
the existence of such .d right. It was not known in the
Middle Ages, and emerged into existence only in very recent
times. It is not even now adopted among all nations. It is
not a right to a necessary thing like food, land, or clothing;
and, in short, it appears to have none of those marks which
seem to characterise that very vague and shifting concej)tion
called Natural Law. Nevertheless, as those who advocate
this view must have some definite positicm in the science of
law in which to j)Iace this right, they classify it under the
head of Occupancy. By the aid of this bold metaphor, they
apply to literary property every rule which is laid down con-
cerning the other older and more tangible things which are
found in the same class. This theory, like many other
theories of natural rights, will not stand the historical method
of investigation

In order to ascertain upon what ground the right of copy
really rests, excluding all such vague expressions as " Natural
Laws," it is necessary to inquire historically how and when
this right first bccjan to be exercised.

No record exists of authors' risjhts having been claimed for
more than one hundred years afler the invention of pinnting.
There was no restriction in i)rintiug books, any more than
there had been in (-(tpying manuscript books. Every printer
printed what he chose without let or hindrance from any
pi'rson. At the end of that period, however, the enormous
power of the press became manifest. Tiie stir of thought
which ])roduced the Keformatiim had been caused, and was
kept up, by the art of printing; and when Philij) and Mary
came to the throne of England they set themselves to stem
the tide of innovation. For that purpose they incorporated
the Stationers' Coin})any by Royal Charter for licensing and
regulating the printing and sale of books, and they vested
in this t'ompany a monoj^d}' of multiplying coi>ies. The
preamble to the Charter sets forth its object. It reads :

" Know ye, that we, considering and manifestly perceiving
" that several seditious heretical books, both in verse and prose,
" are dady published, stamped and printed, by divers scanda-
" Ions, schismatical, and heretical persons, not >nly exciting our
" subjects and liege men to sedition and disobedience against
" us, our crown, and dignity ; but also to the renewal and
" propagating very great and detestable heresies against the
" faith and sound Catholic doctrine of Holy Mother the
" Church, and being willing to provide a remedy in- this case."

For such objects the -Stationers' Company, which, like all
the other ancient trading guilds, had existed from the Middle
Ages, received its charter ; and powers were given to it *' to
search out and destroy " books printed in contravention of the
monopoly, " or against the faith and sound doctrine." They
could " seize, take away, have, burn, or convei'tto their own use
" whatever thfy might think was contrary to the form of any
" statute, act, or proclamation made or to be made." This

charter is still in existence, bnt the entry of all copyrights at
Stationers' Hall is the only remainhig right under it, which
has not been abrogated or fallen into disuse. It was granted
in the year I.O.'jS. Hut before that, in 1469, the Senate of
Venice had oomnicnccd to issue privileges to printers. Ileniy
VIII. had also issned them; and one sentence, in a privilege
he issned in 153i,, gives a cliio to the origin of the right of copy.
It was issued in favour of " Master Jehan Palsgrave, Angloys,
" natyf dc Londres ct graduo de I'aris," for a book which he
is said " to have made with great and long continued dili-
"gence; and in which besydcs his great labours, payns, and
" tyrae thereabout employed, ho hath also, at his proper cost find
" charge, put in print ; wherefore, '" continues the |)atcnt, " we,
" greatly moved and stirred by due consideration of his said
" long time and great diligence about this good and .very
" necessai'y i)urpose employed, and also, of his said great costs
" and charges bestowed about the imprinting of the same,
" have liberally and benignly granted, unto the said Master
" Palsgrave, our favourable letters of privilege, concernirg his
" said book called ' Lesclarcissement dc la langue fran9oise *
" for the space and term of seven years next, and immediately
" after the date hereof ensuing."

It must not be supposed that these royal privileges were
always granted to authors beciiuse of their authors' rights.
They were mono[)olies granted for various reasons, and
generally to printers. Because if authors' rights were the
moving causes of these patents, they would not have been
granted for the works of Teiencc, Virgil, and other heathen
writers. As the early printers enlarged their establishments
they applied everywhere to the Royal authority for these
privileges; and the more the ruling j)owers felt the power of
the press, the more earnestly they endeavoured to regulate
it by licences and iH-iviloges. Queen Elizabeth was much
addicted to granting such monopolies. She granted to
Richard Tottal ;y, monopoly of printing law books, to Byrde,
of music books, to Marsh, of school books, to Flower, of
graumiars, to Vautrolilu-, of Latin books, to Day, of Primers,

and to Symcocke, for all things printed on one side of a sheet
provided the other side was white paper. This she did in the
face of the Stationers' Company, who complained to no effect.

No doubt, there were various good reasons for these pi'ivi-
leges, which Avould appear if we liad the Patents before us ; but
the point I want to make is, that these people were not
authors, and moreover that, for the most part, these rights
were granted for definite and different periods of time. No
doubt authors got j)rivlleges also ; but their rights flowed from
the authority of the Crown precisely as to-day they flow from
the authority of the Parlianicnt. It was not supposed until
long after, that an author had an inherent right of copy. In
Scotland, as in Fi-ance, where the civil law prevailed, the
lawyers held that printing was inter regalia ; and throughout
all Europe this power of granting privilege Avas exercised
directly or delegated to Universities, Commissions, and Bishops,
and always under specified limitations.

In England it was exercised chiefly by High Commission, in
the court of Star Chamber, until 1640 ; when, during the great
rebellion, that Court was suppressed. But Parliament, unable
to tolerate the freedom of the press, or, as it was then styled,
the licentiousness of libels, soon passed another Licensing Act ;
and such Acts were continued under various conditions until
1679, when the last expired.

It w.as in these Licensing Acts during the Rebellion that
ownership in literary property began to take shape, for these
all provided that no work could be printed without the consent
of the ownc. The overthrow of the throne destroyed all
monopolies, and in the confusion of the times the rights of
authors began to emerge. Doubtless the influence of Milton
was felt on their behalf; and the first evidence on record of an
aut/ior\s right of copy is in the case of " Paradise Lost." This
transaction is usually misrepresented. The bargain was that
Simmons was to pay five pounds cash, five pounds more when
1,300 copies were sold, and five pounds each for the second and
third editions. It took seven years to sell the first 1,300
copies, and in 1680 Milton's widow sold her interest for eight

pounds more. Here, then, we have a definite and rational
starting-point for the autlior's right to copy.

It would l)c tedious to trace out tlie various enactments of
the Licensing Acts, and the greater confusion which followed
on the expiration of the last one in 1679. No injunctions
seem to have been granted, hut there were suits at Common
Law for dauiages. At last, in 1709, in the 8tli year of Queen
Anne, tlie first Copyright Act was passed, and it was not
repealed until 1842. The title of llic Act is " An Act for
the Encouragement of Learning, hy vesting the Copies of
printed hooks in the Authors or Purchasers of such Co])ies
during the time mentioned." The word copies liere was the
term then used ior copyright, and this right was /»// the Statute
then vested in the authors or their assigns. This statute was
well called a general patent or privilege granted to authors.

Canada, and especially this [)rovince of Quebec, is not
only an English country — it is a French one : and, inasmuch
as the foundation of our Civil Law is derived from France,
some notice should be taken of the French law. But that is
very clear. It is the same story as in England, but more
distinct, more nncpiestioncd, and continued until more recent
times. Renouard shows tliat tliere were no authors'' rights.
There were oidy Royal privileges direct or delegated. Even
so jjopular an author as Voltaire derived very little profit
from liis books. lie made money and became rich by
speculation, not by literature. In 1777 the rights of
authors began to be recogin'sed ; for in an arret issued in
that year, " all printers are forbidden to print books for
"which privileges have been granted during the existence
"oftiiese privileges, and even after expiry, without permission
" of their authors." To show, however, how uncertain these
authors' rights had been, I may add that another article in
the same arret provides that " whereas many persons through-
" out France had printed, and then possessed, large quantities
" of books printed without any permission, and whereas great
*♦ loss would be occasioned unless such persons were allowed
" to dispose of them ; permission is granted to dispose of such

Copyriijht.

« stocks, but no more copies are to be printed." At last, in
1793, when the Great Revolution had overwhelmed the
monarchy, the first French Copyright Act was passed by the
National Convention, and the rights of authors placed on a
solid basis. The right of copy does not therefore appear in
our Civil Code, because our laws date from a period anterior
to the Revolution.

But soon there arose a tremendous controversy, which
divided nt the time, and still divides, the greatest legal minds
in England into two opjutsing parties. I can only indicate the
salient j)oints of the (piestion. When such men as Lord
Mansfield and Lord Camden, Lord Ilardwickc and Lord
Brougham, adopt and vehemently urge oi)posing views, it does
not become a layman to express an oi)inion. This was the
question —

Does copyright exist by Common Law, fortified and ex-
tended by statute? or is copyright a creation of the Statute

Law?

In Lower Canada this is a theoretical question; but in
Ontario and in the Lower Provinces it might be a practical one.
For the Common Law of England passed into those latter pro-
vinces; and, if copyright exists at Common Law, damages
mi'i-ht be claimed in addition to the penalties under the statutes.
In any case the question is one of great theoretical interest.
As lately as 1851, in the case of Boosey and Jefferys, this
sharp divergence of opinion appeared. In that case Lord
Campbell said: "The first question discussed before us was
" Avhether authors have a copyright in their works at Common
" Law. This is not essential for our determination of the
« ])resent case. If it were, we are strongly inclined to agree
" with Lord Mansfield, and the great majority of the Judges,
" who in ]Millar v. Taylor, and Donaldson v. Becket, declared
" themselves to be in fiivour of the Common Law right of
« authors."

In this very same case, in appeal, Baron Pollock said :
" Copyright is altogether an artificial right, not naturally
" and necessarily arising out of the social rules that ought to

■H

" prevail among mankind assembled in communities, but is a
" creature of the nninicipal law of each country, to be enjoyed
" for such time and under such regulations as the law of each
" state may direct, and has no existence by the Common Law
" of England." Lord St. Leonards and Lord Brougham held
similar views.*

I leave this question for you to meditate upon, and will
simply relate the way it arose and the decision .arrived at.

After the statute of Queen Anne had been passed in 1708, it
was assumed by authors and publishers that, besides their right
under the statute, they had a Common Law right still existing
to which the statute was, as it were, an adjunct. In 1727,
Thomson, the poet, published " The Seasons," and in 1729 he
assigned it to Andrew Millar. By the terms of the Act the
sole right of printing was vested in the author for 14 years and
no lonyer. Consequently', the copyright cj^pired in 1741. But
the assignee, Millar, went on printing imdisturbed, supposing
that his Common Law right survived ; and in this idea he
was supported by the fiict that injunctions were frequently
granted in favour of books of which the statutory term had
expired; notably in the case of Milton's "Paradise Lost."
But in 1763 Robert Taylor reprinted " The Seasons." Millar
sued him, and the case came on in the Court of King's
Bench before four Judges. Three of them. Lord Mansfield,
and Justices Willes and Aston, decided, Mr. Justice Yates

• This divprgencp of opinion sooms to have arisen from two fundamentally
(lifforcnt ronci'ptions cnnecniiiig Natural Law and the Common Law of Kngiand.
Mr. .Tustii'o Willes said : " Tho Coninioii Law, now so called, is foundo^l on the
" Law of Nature and Hcason. Its grounds, maxims, and priiiriplcs are derived
"from many diirorent fountains— from natural anil moral pliiiosopliy, from the
" Civil and Canon Law, from logic, from the use, ronversation, and custom
"among men, collected out of the general disposition, nature, and condition of
" human kind." In the same ciise, Mr. Justice Yates said : " I give my opinion
" as a common lawyer. . . . Improvement in learning ■«•»« no part of tho
" thoughts or attention of our ancestors. The invention of an author is a species
" of property unknown to tho Common Law of England ; its usages are im-
" memorial, and the views of it tend to the benefit and advantage of the public
" with respect to the necessaries of life, ami not to the improvemeut and graces
" of the mind. The latter, therefore, would be no part of the ancient Common
" Law of England. . . . Tho Legislature, indeed, may make a new right."

■I

will

dissenting, that copyright existed at Common Law, and that
the Act of Queen Anne was a cumulative remedy against
infringement.

Scarcely was this decision rendered in 1770, when the
whole question was reopened by Donaldson, who reprinted a
book of which Becket claimed a perpetual copyright at
Common Law. With the decision of Millar v. Taylor be-
fore him the Chancellor granted an injunction, against which
Donaldson appealed to the House of Lords. By order of the
House, three questions were drawn up and submitted to eleven
judges.

" 1. Whether, at Common Law, an author of any book
" or literary composition had the sole riglit of first printing
" and publishing the same for sale, and might bring an action
" against any j)crson who printed, published, and sold the
" same without his consent."

This reus decided in the affirmative liy eight Judges to three.

" 2. If the author had such I'ight originally, did the law
" take it away u]»on his })rinting and publisliing such book or
" literary coniposition ? And might any [)erson afterwards
" reprint and sell for his own benefit such book or literary
" composition against the will of tiic author ? "

This was decided in the negatioe by seoen to four.

" 3. If such action would have laiu at Common Law, is it
" taken away by the statute 8th Anne? And is an author
" by the said statute precluded IVom every remedy except on
'' the foundation of the said statute, and on the terms and
•'' conditions prescribed thereby? "

Thi:i tons decided in. the affinnatiiu' by six Judges to five.

On motion, this decision was adopted in the House of Lords
by a majority of twenty-two to eleven. It was then that Lord
Camden delivered his celebrated speech against the perpetuity
of literary property, and was re[)lied to by Lord Lyttleton.
Upon this decision the law now rests, and briefly it amounts
to this :

L That an author's right over his unpublished book exists
by the Common Law.

Cojtyriffht

2. That [)ubIication by the author would not invalidate his

Coiumun Law right to copy.

3. That the .statute takes away the author's Common

Law right after puhUcatiun, and substitutes in lieu
thereof a statutory right.

Although the Act of the 8th Queen Anne was not re-
pealed until 1842, many Acts were [tassed in the interval as
new subject-matter arose for discussion and settlement. These
were the 8th George II., concerning engravings, amended by
the 7th George III., the 17th George HI., and the 6th and
7th William IV. The 15tli George III. related to University
Copyright; the r>4tli George HI. and loth and 14th Vic-
toria to 8culi)turc. The .'Jrd and 4tli William IV. referred to
Dramatic Compositions ; the .'Jth and Gth oC the same King
to Lectures. The .^th and (5th Victoria, cap. 45, is the Act
of 1842. Thcii! are also two recent statutes on international
Copyright, and one concerning pliotcgraphs. A very large
mass truly of statutory law, which lortunately we need not
further allude to.

While England and Scotland were bound by these statutes
and decisions, there grew up in Ireland a large business in
reprinting English copyright books. But, upon the abolition
of the Irish Parliament in 1801, the Copyright Acts were
extended to Ireland, and the printers there found their occupa-
tion gone. INIany establi.shmcnts were closed, and the whole
publishing business centred in London. One remark 1 would
like to make before proceeding to another liranch of my subject.
If the right to copy existeil as a Connnon Law right, the
statute of Queen Anne, which did not extend to Ireland, could
not atlect such right in Ireland. Why, then, was not this
reprinting stopped by Common Law r This question was put
by Lord Dreghorn in 1772, and I have not found the answer
to it.

As I have already intimated, with the greater part of this
mass of legislation we, in Canada, have no concern, for the
reason that Acts of the Imperial Parliament are not binding
outside of the three kingdoms, urdess it is so specially provided

and enacted. Two of them only extend generally to the
British Doininions. They are the 3rd and 4th Williiun IV.,
cap. 15, concerning the Drama, and the 5th and 6th Victoria,
cap. 45. These two Acts are in force in Canadca, and I may
observe here that the publisiiers of engravings were so well
satisfied with the state of the law as it was, that they declined
any interest in these two Acts, and that, consequently,
engravings and prints are not protected from republication
in Canada. As 1 have restricted my subject to Copyright in
Books, we are only concerned this evening with the second of
these two Acts, viz. the 5th and 6th Victoria, or the Act of 1842.
This Act, connnonly called Serjeant Talfourd's or liord
Mahon's Act, was promoted by persons holding the nu»st ex-
treme views concerning literary [)roperty. The C«)lonies were
then weak, and what is called " llesi)onsible Ciovermnent" had
not been jxranted to tlu! North American Provinces. Books were
published in biUgland at very high prices, freights were high,
and communication was mostly by sailing ships ; so that these
provinces had IVom the first got their supplies of books from
the United Stales. This Act not oidy forbade the reprint-
ing of Knglish books in the Colonies, but it j)rohibited the
importation of reprints from foreign countries, and the eolo
nists suddeidy found themselves cut off from any available
supply of books. An outcry arose from all parts of British
America. In Nova Scotia the Mouse of Assembly passed an
address to the Queen. Jn New Brunswick the Government
protested through the Lieut.-Governor. In Canada remon-
strances were drawn up ;uid forwarded. But the Board of
Trade gave no lu»j)e (>f mitigation. The colonists were in-
formed that the pul)lishers were [)reparing cheap books for
them. At the urgent instance of the Home (iovernment
some of the juddishers did prejtare a cheaper series of books
Su(th a scries was Murray's Home and Colonial Library, but
it consisted of old books only. It contained none of the new
and fresh books which the colonists Avantcd. The publishers,
fortified by the new statute, settled themselves down to their
interests in the narrow kingdoms of the British Isles. They

prepared books only at extravagant prices, to be lent by cir-
culating libiarics. They completed their work of turning the
English people into a [)eople of book-borrowers, and thoy did
not care that the sparsely settled colonists of America could
not be supplied by libraries, but would have to buy books or
do without reading. The absui'dities of the English book-
trade are, owing to this system, almost incredible, and establish
the truth of Lord Macaulay's words that copyright is mono-
poly. For instance', a leading historical work is published in
Paris with profit to the author at 9 francs. The French
copyright edition is sold in London at 9.v. sterling, but the
translation under the International Treiity is sold at IG.v.
Such was the system which the Act of 1842 sought to impose
on the Colonies.

And for a few years it ujns imposed uj)on the Colonies. In
those days the Colonial Post Ottice was administered by
IJritish olfieials, and Imperial otficers responsible only U^ Eng-
land watched over, in our custom-houses, the execution of
Imj)erial laws. They examined the baggage of travellers
and the packages of booksellers, and seized all United States
reprints of English Ixtoks, and all magazines containing
matter derived from English sources. In Montreal especially
they were; very active. Every case or parcel for a bookseller
was opened, and the title-page of each book was carefully
compared with a vohuninous printed list of many hundred
folio pages. If" the title was found in the list, the book was
seized and burned. The bot)ksellers suffered, but the public
got their books as before, for the trade Avas diverted into the
hands of travelling book-agents. In process of time the
booksellers adapted their business to the circumstances ; and
it grew into a war of wits between them and the Imperial
officers. One official made seizures from the shelves of the
booksellers' shops, and threatened domiciliary visits to j>rivate
houses. On one occasion, vexed at his inability to stop the
import of American reprints, he seized the Laprairie steam-
boat for bringing them over the river with the other imports
into the city. At that time " Macaulay's History of England '

Cnpi/riylit.

was the book in orroutcst fleinand. Tlio American edition was
7.5 cents a volume ; tlie English edition was 5 dols. Every
house iiad a copy of Macauhiy, but the Enylish edition of it
was a curiosity. Such was the state of things which tiie
EngHsh puhlishcrs would like to have revived in Canada, and
suggested to our Government in IHiii).

Where a whole coinnumity is dctermiiicd to disohey any
given law, the repeal of that law must soon come alxMit, and
in this case the antagonism was heightened by the arrogance
of the imperial otlicers. The Canadian (lovernment in one
or two cases issued permission to return some books which
had been scjized, to the United Slates; t)nt the I'^nglisli iitHi;er
refused to give them up and bui-ned them. iVt last, in ISIO,
the Custom House was fully handed (»ver to the Canadian
Government, and the last Imperial otlicer departed to
England.

During this time urgent remonstrances were incessantly
made by the Provincial Governments. The lin|)erial (iovcrn-
nient replied that the measure was not a Ministerial one, but
had been adopted by Parliament on the suggestion of an indi-
vidual member. ISIr. Gladstone, then Colonial Secretary,
requested the Board of Trade to rei)rcsent to the publishers,
" in iioiided ami not quoUjiid ternis,'^ the importance of
modifying their exclusive views, and of making some provi-
sion for the intellectual needs of the Colonics, Finally, in
1847, the Imperial Parlianumt passed an Act authoiising llcr
]\Iajesty to issue an Order in Council to suspend that [lorlitm
of the Act of 1842 which related to importing rc()iints from
abroad whenever any Provincial Government made provision
for the rights of authors by imposing a special duly ior their
benefit. The Canadian Government imposed a duty of 12^
per cent., which still appears u[»on our Taritl', This was
accepted by the English Government as satisfactory. The
Order issued, and in consequence, the only portion of the Act
of 1842 which now is in force in Canada is that which [)ro-
hibits reprinting ; and this it is which restrains the Toronto
publishers from reprinting Mark Twain's last book.

Copyrh/ht.

Tliiviiiji ll)iis hroiijflit tldwii tiu; history of Copyright to
tho |Mvsc'ii( inoiiinit. I pass to the (;unsitlc>ratioii of the actual
Htale ol' tho Slaliiti' Law of Canada. I will only proniisu l»y
sayiii}^ that in all thoso (incstions yon must farrliilly distin-
{Tuish hotwc'cn (ho ('oiiiiikui /^iiin or Civil J^tnv right of every
anthor to iho entire eontrol of his work (written or printed)
before pnMicalion, and his sfin'iifan/ n'i//it or iinnnii>oli/ of mill-
tijili/iiKi ((i/ii<s (ijhr i>iililiriiti(>ii. It irt only the latter whieh
is properly eallu«l Copyright.

Coi'YitKjii r IN Canada.

There have heen several Copyright Acts enaefi'd in Canada.
Aets were passed in 1.S41, in lM-17. in ISOS, and lastly in
lK7a. Inasnineh as this last Act repealed all the others, I
will itonline my remarks solely to its etmditions.

As 1 stated hefore, tln' imperial Act of 1H42 contained a
new and unusual clause, extending its opeiation to every part
of tho IW'itish dominions. It conseiputntly follows that any
Canadian Act must lie read concurrently with the Imperial
Act; and, wherever ihe two Aets an- found to «dash, the
Canadian Act nuist give way. It happened that the (Jovern-
incnt whicii passed the Act of IS?.') called in the assistance of
persons practically acipiaintcd with the publishing business;
and the Act was drawn so that no clash can occur between
them ; but, as the conditions vary, an author may obtain |irotec-
tion undtr one which is rcfusi-d by the other, as in the case of
]\Iark Twain. The co-existence of two distinct laws in Canada
has led to much confusion aiid tlisappointmont ; but th(> prin-
ciples which guide them are simple ciuuigh. These 1 will
give, rejecting details, which anyone may pick up from a
perusal of each statute.

And 1st, the Imperial Act: The essential condition of this
Act is that |)ublicatiou nnist///>7 take place in the British Islands
proper. I'nblieation in C'anada, or in any other Coitmy, is of
)i() avail. The object of the Act as laid down in Low v.
Koutlcdge is to induce foreigners and others to publish in Great
Britain, and it protects only those who do so. And yet so selfish

Copyi'iijlU.

1»

were tlic franiers of that iiiciiHuro, so reckless of the intorosfs
of all hilt lvii<rli.sh inuiiiifactiii'ei's, that they iiiade it cxtoiid
over the whole l'!iii|iire. They were detenuiiieil to centre the
printin;^ trade in the British Isli's.*

For a loii^r time it was a (loiihtfiil <|n('stioii whether
foreij^iiers eould ohtaiii Copyright in Eiij^iand unless resident
there at tin; time of publication. Upon this turned the <;reat
ease of tIcHreys v. IJooscy. In considcrinjf this decision care
must be taktMi to renuMuber that the assumed right ori<j;iiiatcd
in IH.'U, when (^uccn Anne's Act was in force. Hellini, a
foreij^iicr resident in Italy, assijjjncd in IH.'li to liicordi his
copyri<^ht in the opera Ln SinuKitnhu/n, Kieordi broujj:lit it
to London and sold it t(t IJoosey. .leH'reys reprinted it, and
Boitsey brought him before the Court of lv\chc(|uer, where
IJaroii Holfe, afterwards Lord Cranworth, presided. The
de(!ision went in favcuir of .FoflVeys, but on appeal before Lord
Campbell it was reversed. The i-ase was carrie<l to the
House of liords. Eleven judges gave their opinions. Six
declared that in order to obtain (!opyright a foreign author
need not be present in England ; and live, that no matter how
tem|)orary, there must be nsiAlnicc at tlie tiint! of iinhlivufiou.
The si\ judges were Erie, Wiiliauis. Coleridge, Maule,
Wightman, and Crompton. The live were I^ord Chancellor
Cranworth, .lervis, l*oll(»ck, I'arke, and Anderson. In the
House of Lords, Lord ISrougham and Lord St. Leonards
sided with the live judges, and the final decision was given iu
favour of Jeffreys. This became the leading case on Coj)y-
right, and was followed in subscpient decisions; but a ques-
tion again arose. It was admitted that first [mblieation in the

* Til IS'.' I, ill Clciiieiiti v. Wnlkt-r, tliu ]iriiici|ilo was laid ilowii tliat tlio
printing must lie doiiu in (iruat IJrilain. Jiunl >SI. Lo'iuanls, in Juffcry «i. I!(josoy,
lio'ld the saino vii^w. ISiirou I'olloi'k said : " Tlie objcol uf tliu I/i'nislaliirc clearly
" is not to eiiCDiirai;!; Ilit^ inijiortation of foruign books and tliuir tirnt publieatiun
" in this I'Diiiitry." LdhI Chancellor Cranworth also connci'tuil tho idea of
printing with j)nlilieatii)n. Ho said: " If a foreigner, having composed, but
" not having puiilishod, a work abroad, wore to come to this country, and, tlio
" week ^r ilay after his arrival, were to piint and ^puOtish it here, he would be
" within thu protection of the statute."

' 9 9

■nwHi

Ci)pijrUjht.

Britisli Tslaiuls is iiccessary — is, therefore, residence in those
islanih also necessary ?

The case of Low i\ lloiitk'diijc !ii final ajtpeal settled that
in the negative. It decided that the residence of the anthor,
no matter how tenij)orary, (iiii/wlicrc in the. liritisli iloiiiiiiiniis,
while his book was beini!; pnhli.shed in England, was sulHeient.
Lord Cairns and Lord West!)ury went so far as to say that
prior publication without residence was sulficient, but to thi ;
extriine view Lords Chelmsford and Cranworth did not
assent.

One other condition of the Imperial Act remains- the
boi)k nnist be registered at Stationers' Hall, but this registra-
tion is t)nly necessary prior to the connneneement of an
action. 1'he omission to register does not invalidate the co]n -
right. A book can be registered after its publication, but il
must be registered previous to an action at law.

Under the Imperial Act, as inter[)retcd by Low '•.
llout ledge, many celebrated American authors have secured a
copyright overall the IJritish Dominions. Many of them ha\e
come with letters to my own house. Annmg them were Dr.
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Heiwy Ward lieecher, Mrs. Whit-
ney, Miss Smiley, Ex-l'resideut Jell'erson Davis, Buyard
Taylor, I*. T. Ijarnum, Miss Cummins, upon whose book the
celebrated ilecision was given ; and last of all, Mark Twain.
One ease is so peculiar that 1 nuist mention it more specially.
jNIr. Kwong-Ki-Chu, a Chinese; gentleman attached to the
Chinese delegation residing at llarltord, wrote a very remark-
able book — a su[>plement to all I'xi-iting Lnglish dieticMiaries.
He is a good English scholar, and had devoteil years to the
elucidation of idiomatic and collorpiial expressions, as well as
of slang and cant words not found in any dictionary. These
he analysed and explained in good language. He appended to
his book a collection of Latin and French phrases, a short
history of China, a Life of tlesus, and one of C<»nfucius, and a
collection of Proverbs, Chinese and En<;lish. It made a
volume of 900 pages. He procured a co[)yright iii the United
States by a transfer before publication to United States

citizens. Then he was anxious lest liis book should be re-
printed in -long Konp;, so he published it first in London and
resided for a week ir Montreal, by that means effectually
barring the Ilong Kong printers from pirating his work, which
he intended chiefly for sale in China. He is a singnhirly
intelHf'ent man. His hook is amusing, for it is difficult to
suppress a smile on residing an clalxu'ate explanation of such
exi)rcssioiis as " to stick in one's gizzard," " to tip a fin," " to
vamose," " to see the elephant," &c. &c.

One point remains to be noticed in the Engli"!! Act, and
it is very im))ortant. The fraincrs of it were very carefid to
demand first /ni/t/imfiou in Great Britain ; but they omitted to
mention the word " printing." It (consequently follows that an
Americiin citi/eu can procure British copyright by sending his
author to Canada and his mannfiictured luxdvS to London;
while an English or Canadian author cannot procure copyright
in the United States under any condition short of bond Jide
citizenship or d(»micile.

I come now to the Canadian Act of 1875. Those who had
to do with the framing of that Act were perfectly familiar with
the state of the English and American law. They could not
touch the Imperial Act, so they ignored it. They were care-
ful not to alb'de to it in any way while avoiding collision with
it. So jealous arc the Englis' ;ml)lishers of any Colonial
copyright legislation that the Act was reserved by Lord
Duiferin under special in-^tructions. On its arrival in Lond»m
the customary storm of misrepresentation and abuse broke out
in llie '"Times" and ';l her Loudon newspapers. The Publishers'
Association sat upon it, and various legal luminaries were
called in. But fii.ding that tlu^ Act was strictly a local Act,
within the j'owers of our Parliament, the Queen was advised
to assent to it, and (he following year it became law.

The first principle underlying the Canadian Act is that of
reciprocity. It concedes to other nations the same jirivileges
which other nations concede to Canadians. The United States
demand that all who avail themselves of their law shall be
citizens or residents, and they refuse international copyright

■^

Coj)y right.

to otlicv nations. The Canadian Act, in (loscribinf]f tlic statns
of tliose wlio conic under it, specifies : " All persons domiv/ihdm
" any part of the dominions of (ireat Britain, or who are citizens
" of any country which lias an International Copyrij^ht Treaty
" withCircnt l»ritain,"' and only those, shall share in the heiiefits
of the Act. IMiirk Twain did not fall under either of tiiesc
cutciforios, and the Canadian authorities wore quite ri<]jlit in
refusing; his copyrijiht. If the pap(>rs had been issued they
would have heen worthless at law. Those who advised the
(Joveriunent in drawinj; up the Ciinadian Act. knew that the
word resident was intcrjtreted Ity the United States courts in
the narrowest sense — to siijjnify a person residiiio^ in a country
(Hiiiiio iiniiiemli \ and they knew also that the J''n<>lisli courts
held the word, in its widest possible nieanint;, to si<riiif\' the
mere moment ary jiresence of the author at the inoment of
]»iil)iicatioii. They crossed the word resident out of the draft
hill and inserted the word doniiei/ed, for the purpose of iiiakiiif^
the liiw in Canada ])re('isel3' corresjiond to the law in the
United States. In makiii<r his first aj>plication Air. Cleinens
acited under the advice <)(" a distin<fiiislied IJostcm lawyer,
who was not aware t>f the distinctness and precisiim of the word
"domicile"" in the Civil Law. lie was misled by a false in-
duction fmiii our rateni Act, and by a false induction from
the <'ase of Ijow r. lioullednrc, which had no reference to our
statute, lie was misled, as all lawyers will be misled who
(even il they live in IJosloii) |)iesume to advise njion the laws
of foreign countries. Mr. Cleinens, however, could fall back
upon the Imperial Act, iiy virtue of which he now holds his
book. \\'e are then face to faee with a startliiiir anomaly — the
Cfipyi'i.uht which oin* Parliament refuses, the Kiij^lish Parlia-
nx'iit i;raiits, and the book which cannot b? printed in Canada
Avithout the aulhoi"s consent, can be iiii|)ort(ul from abroad.*
In many resjiects Mr. Clemens is entitled to sympathy ; for

* Tliis li.is. in f;ict, licon Kiiico (li)no. Doharrcd l>y fha Act of 1842 from
printiiif; lliis IjddU in (lanada, the work wns {irintcd out of tlio rountry, and fhe
wiiet'ts, workcil oil' tlioro, More tlicii imported into Canada on payment of the
12^ jHT cent, duty previously referred to.

'■;

the Toronto people wore very a,<r}T;ressive, even advertising in
the Uniteil States papers to sii])j)ly tlieirclicap editions by post
on receipt of the 20 or 30 cents of price. But tlien the Ame-
ricans have the remedy in their own hands. The moment an
Intoniational Treaty is ninde they will come imdcr our Statute
by its very terms. They cannot hoodwink the Canadians as
they do the English people, and I am sure they will never get
from the Canadian ]*arliiiment anvthini; but reclniocal ritrhts.

There is, however, in the Canadian Act another condition.
It is that the book protected shall be printed and published in
Canada. When the framers of the Imperial Act of 1842
passed their measure they never tlutiighttliat juiblication conld
be effected by importing a few dozen copies of a foreign manu-
factured book. But, under the inHuence of free trade notions,
their statute has been so j)ared down by decision upon decision,
that 1 confidently believe that any American, by simply send-
ing over fifty copies of his book to London with an English
imprint on it, and publishing there twenty -four hoiu-s before he
published in America, would secure a monoixdy for his book
throughout the Jiritish Empire. The Canadians do not under-
stand this, and their Act is drawn so as to secure the printing
of the book. The stereotype ])lates may be im])ortcd, but
they nmst be applied to the jjaper in Canada to come under
our statute.

The other conditions of the Canadian Act requii'C very little
notice. Two c(tpies of each book must be sent to the De])art-
ment of Agriculture at Ottawa, one of which is dci)()sited in
the Libniry of Parliament, and a -notice of registration under
the Act nuist be printed on the title-]):ige, either on the front
or back of it. The other conditions are merely administrative.

Theue are, however, some j)cculiarities in our Act worthy
of mention, because they do not occur in the Cojjyright Law
of other nations.

\. The Canadian Act does not demand prior publication,
but an author, at any time, may print and copyright his book
in Canada. Thereupon it becomes unlawful to print or import
any more copies of unauthorised editions ; but the coj»ies already

in the conntry may be disposed of. There is a proviso, however,
that the original author's edition can always be imported. The
object of this proviso is to ])revont a Canadian jjublishor issuing
a cheap and bad edition of a book, and sluittinfr out of the
country the superior and authentic oricjinal editi(ms. It was
enacted in the interest of the reading public. The United
States Law also does not demand prior publication, but it must
take i)lac(' in a reasonably short time.

2. The Canadian Act is pccidiar in permitting Interim
Copyright, The object of Interim Copyright is to ])revcnt
importation of a book which is jiassing through the press in
Canada. A notioo nuist bo inserted in the " Canada Gazette "
that an Interim Copyright has been secured. A ropy of the
title must also be de])osited in the office of the Minister of
Agriculture, upon which the work is protected. But if the
person who takes out such a copyright fails to print the book
specifie«l within thirty days after its publication by the author
elsewhere, he forfeits his right, and becomes liable to a heavy
penalty. The object of this clause is to prevent fraudulent
entries, made simply for the purpose of keeping the public from
sn|»])lying tbenisclves with a new bocdv ; while the author, not
intenditig t<t |uiblish in Canada, is publishing it elsewhere.

."i. The (/anadian Act jtrovides for Temporary Copyright.
This is intended to cover the ease of works ])ublished in serial
form, either in numbers or in newspapers or magazines. The
title and a short analysis of the work nuist be registered at
Ottawa. JCaeh separate article or number must also contain
notice of registraticm. Such works when jmblished must
eoniply with the conditions of full copyright, although they
may hiive been registered under the Temporary or Interim
Clause,

These are the chief peculiarities of the Canadian Law. It
w«»uld render this jiajter too long if I were to enter upon the
various provisions relating to nuisie, painting, sculpture, draw-
ings, ma])S, photographs. The underlying principles are the
same. There must be registration, and the ])ublic must have
uotice of it in some way. In this res[tect our Act is very

Copiiright,

much superior to the English Act. It is almost impossible to
know when a book is out of copyright in England. It may
not be registered at all, but it anyone, relying on such an
omission, iin|)orts or prints, the autlutr or his assigns may
spring nj), register and prosecute. Hy the mere inspection of
a Canadian book tiie fact and date of its registration can be
known. One more remark and I have done with this branch
of my subject : The de|)artnient at Ottawa does not undertake
to verify tiie statements contained in the documents submitted
to it. It only demands that they shall be in dne form. IJut
if anyone prints upon a book a certificate of registration based
upon fa'so statements — if, for instance, the book in question is
not printed in Canada, or if the .. ..hor does not belong to the
classes indicated by the law, or if the registration is omitted,
or if the title be not legally vested in the applicant, &c. &c.,
the person who thus misleads the public, or imposes on the
department, becomes liable to a heavy fine, and is guilty of a
misdemeaSiour. This is not so well known as it ought to be,
and printers put the co|>yright notice oftentimes on their titles
pretty much as they print their own names. In giving advice
on a question of copyright, a lawyer should ask to see a
certified copy of the entry.

It mi<Tht be asked, where is the need of a Canadian Act if
the Imperial Act is in force in Canada? It is needed because
the English Act is drawn solely in the interest of British pub-
lishers. If a Canadian atithor publish his book first in Canada
he loses Imperial copyright. Consequently our Act was passed
to confer local copyright, conditioned on local publication;
and, moreover, it is only under our local law that importation
can be [)revented. Conse(iuently, if a Canadian author takes
the option of publishing under the English Act alone, his book
may be set up, say at Rouse's Point, and imported on payment
of a dutv of 12i per cent, additional to the regular 15 per
cent, on all books.

Take it all in all, the Canadian Act has worked well.
Under its protection many English books have been reprinted
in Canada with the author's consent, and the United States

Copi/riffht.

editions of these honks have heen exohidcil. Tt is not the
fault of the ( Jovoniincut wliich passed tliat measure that tlie
Imperial Act. still haii^s over us. They could not repeal it.
The Imperial Parliament alone can do tliat, and the intlncnce
of the writinji; elass, and of publishers who control the orf];ans
of pid)lic opinion, is so jj;reat that nothin<>- short of a little
reltcllion will secure its repeal. Our Act is also defective in
that it docs nt)t ])rovide for an action in ilanjujTos. The extreme
penalty is one dollar per co]>y for every copy of a iiiratcd hook
found, hut it is very difficult to find many copies to<jcther.
Those who sell theui keep their stock hidden and show hut
one copy at a tiuie, and there seems to he no way of discovering
how many were imported or printed excepting hy ferreting out
the matter through a detective. Our Act, moreover, has no
provisions for nuisical performances or dramatic representa-
tions. The drama and the music when ])rinted arc protected
from reprijit; hut to prevent re|)resentatiou after printing,
some other method of action must be adopted. What it may
be I do not know.

The power of the Imperial Act of 1842 to prevent the
reprinting of English works in Canada has not been unques-
tioned. It w;is fullv <liscussed in a case decided ab(uit five
years ago in Toronto, which will be found in vol. 23 of Grant's
"Chancery Reports," unih-r the name ol' Smiles c. Belford.
Smiles was the well-known writer of " Self- Help," who had
written and copyrighted in London a new book called
"Thrift;" and IJelford was a publisher in Toronto, who
reprinted it without his leave.

F<n' the defendant it was argued, with a good deal of
plausibility, that, whatever the law might have been in 1842
' ■ later, the confederation of-the provinces, and the concession
ti -v.i^plete freedom of legislation under the British North
.i": •■ ^.j'ica Act, Ijad changed it. For among other subjects
•;ji.^'i d as under the control of the Dominion legislature
co^ J ::^ht was enumerated. Now, that Act being an Imperial
Act, by the insertion of copyrights among the powers it
specified, it abrogated the former Act of 1842 as regards

Copyriffht.

Canada, nnd conceded to the Dominion Parliament plenary
power over the wliolo subject within Ihc Confederated
Provincoa.

The Vicc-Chanpellor did not concur in this view. lie
decided that the liritish North America Act was not intended
to affect the external relations of the Dominion with the other
])arts of the Kinpiro ; and that its object was to effect a redis-
tribution of powers whirh the J'rovini'os already ])ossessed.
The (•opyri'jht eiunneriited in the Act was simply Dominion
Copyiirrht, and this, by the Act, was taken out of the powers
already exercised by the Provinces and centred in the Parlia-
ment at Ottawa, lie also decided two other important points.
He said :

" It is not necessary for the author of a book, who has
duly copyrijfhted the work in Eujfland, to copyright it in
Canada, with a view of restraining a reprint of it there; but
if he desires to prevent the imj)ortatiou into Canada of pirated
copies from a foreign country, he must copyright it in Canada."

He also decided that —

" Before the author of an English copyright book is in a
position to take any ]>roceedings for the protection or to
])revent the infringement of the copyright, he must register his
book under the 24th sec. of the Imperial Statute 5 and 6 Vic.
ch. 45."

This decision has not been" carried to the highest Court of
Aj)pcal. It is ditticult to see under what pretext it could be
assailed.

The Canadian people, having freed themselves from one-
half of the Imperial Act, rested for a long while content ; but,
as the country jirospered, the printers and publishers grew
restive under the remaining restrictions. They felt it hard
that, while the American rcjjrints could be imported, they
were deterred by the Act from sharing in the profit of
repi-inting. Tlic Government adopted their views, and in 1872
passed an Act empowering anyone to reprint English copy-
right works without the consent of the author, upon payment,
through the Government, of a royalty to the author of 12^ per

Co/ti/rit/ht.

cent, on the wholesale price. This would have placed the
Canadian printer in as good a position as theUnited Stiitos
printer, and wonld have seiMircd to tlu^ author tlie same royalty.
The Act was reserved, and never l)ccanie law. The English
authors and jjuhlishors took violent exception to the proposal
to take iiway their property without their consent, even on
payment. Much corre-<iHmdenee passed upon this question,
botii before and after the passing of the abortive Act of 1872.
Kesolntions were ad(tpted by the Houses of Parliament in
Canada urging on the British Government the propriety of
giving Imperial sanction to this Act; but Lord Carnarv(tn
replied mat ho could not advise the Royal assent to an Act
whic^h traversed an Act of the Imperial Legislature ; and, even
if the Royal assent had been given, it would have been
invalid, inasmuch as, by the 2nd section of the Colonial Laws
Validity Act, any part of a Colonial Law which is repugnant
to an Imperial Act, extending to the Colony in which such
law is passed, is fn'o fanto absolutely void and inoperative.

Din-ing the discussion of this branch of the subject of copy-
richt, the Canadian Government forwarded a minute of the
Privy Council adopting a report containing the f(»ll(»wing
priuci|ile : —

" Tilt! important point at issue, and one on which the
" views of the London publishers, and of the people both of
" Canada and the United States, are irreconcilable, is, that the
" former insist upon the extension of copyright without local
" publication, and to this the latter will never consent."

This unnute was ado|)ted in 1870, and the Report was
signed by the late Judge Diinkin, then Minister of Agricul-
ture, and by Sir Francis Ilincks, Minister of Finance. The
whole kernel of the dispute is contained in that sentence. The
same questi<m is coming up again during this Session of
Parliament; for counsel has been retained (so at least the
newspapers say) by some leading publishers to argue the
case before the House, and to move an address to have the
remainder of the Act of 1842 repealed. You will no doubt
hear about it soon. One thing oidy I would beg you to

remember, that no one in Canada proposes to rob the
author of remuneration for his hibour. No Canadian Govern-
ment would listen to such a proiH)sal. The real (pjcstion
underlying all this noise and dust is a trade one. It is, who
shall nianut'acturc the books? The authors are the blinds for
the i»ublishers and printers. Authors' rights and the per-
petual sacredness of literary property, with the rhetoric thereto
ndhoring, are delusive cries which manufacturers uncoiisci(»Ui^ly
take up wh(m urged by their material interests.

1 pass now from the consideration of the Statute Law to
discuss some general princi[(les which underlie the whole
subject. The decisions in Cariada have been few, but as the
business of printing increases, questions will more fre(jnently
arise.

It cannot be too frequently repeated that the law laid
down in Donaldson v. Becket has been followed in every
decision since. Whatever theoretical views writers may enter-
tain, the principle adopted and embodied as law is that the
Copyright Statutes take away an author's Common Law right
to his work, and substitute for it a statutory right. It is im-
portant then to iinjuire at what moment this substitution takes
jdace. In the case of tiefllreys v. lioosey the Lord Chancellor
Cranworth used these words : " Copyright, defined to mean the
" exclusive right of multiplying copies, commences at the instant
'• of publication." In the same case JNIr. Justice Crompton said :
" The monopoly is vested in the author and his assigns for the
" limited term after first i)ublication. This first publication is
" the commeni'ement and foundaticm of the right, the terminus
" a (juo of the period of the existence the right is to run, and
" a condition precedent lo the existence of the right."

What, then, is publication ? It is the distribution to the
])ublic by gratuitous circulation, or the offer for sale to the
general public of copies of any literary or artistic work. If
one copy be offered, with the consent of the author, in a book
store, even if it be not sold, it is publication. But the
unauthorised sale of pirated copies is not publication as regards
the author's rights. Neither by the English law is the private

Copyriyht.

circulation of a limited miinbcr of printed copies. This was
illustrated in tlie case of Prince Albert r. Stran<;c, when the
(^iiecn and the Prince had j^iven to intimate friends litlut-
fraplis and etchinjfs of their own drawinjrs, wiiich Stranji;ehad
jrot hold of and published. A (piestion nr<>;ht arise in Canada,
however, ui>un this point, ior the ('anadian i-tatuto in the
third section has provided a remedy for printing a manuscript
without the author's consent, but leaves such a case as that of
Prince Albert uni>rovided for. The Kn|flish statute leaves
all unpublished matter to the operation of the Common ii.iw.
The readinj^ of a lecture from a manuscript is not publication,
no matter how many times it may be read, nor is the public
performance of a drama or a nuisical work a publication in
the meaninjf ol" the statute. The case of Hray c. Devins
illustrates this. It was a very pecidiar case, and the current
opinion anion<; lawyers in Montreal was that INlr. Hray could
not recover damaf>;es. In ad<litioii to piintinjf Mr. JJray's
lecture without his consent, Mr. Devins invented an ori<fiyal
method of advertising, by ind)edtling in the text of the lecture
advertisements of patent medicines. It was proved that Mr.
liray read from a manuscript, and the manuscript was pr(»-
dnced iti Court. .Judgment went against .Mr. Devins fur
three hundred dollars damages — two hnndied for damage
caused by pul)lication without the author's consent, and
one hundred for injury to his feelings and reputation by
insertion of the advertisements. This decision seems to have
been under the Civil Law. The lirst jiart of it might have
come umler the 3rd section of the statute, which enacts —
" If any pei'son prints or pid)lishcs, or causes to be printed
" or published, any manuscript whatever, the said maiui-
*' script having not yet been printed in Canada or else-
" where, without the consent of the author or legal proprietor
" first obtained, such person shall be liable to the author
" or proprietor for all daniages occasioned l)y such publi-
" cation to be recovered in any court of competent jnris-
" diction." The case was a very amusing one. The literary
experts of Montreal, and many very incxpcits, were sununoned

Cojn/riyht,

as witnepses. The oxtciit of" this Cliuise 3 is very wide. It
covers " any iiiamiscript whatever " of any nature — not only
lectures, but letters, whether marked private or not. Very
Idose notions are prevalent about the publication of letters, but
it is iin admitted princi[»le in Copyright Law that (he lit/lit to
cupym letters is in the writer.

Another principh; very clearly pervades the law of litera-
ture, and that is, the property nmst be definite, Conse-
(piently, there can be no Copyright (»r property in extempo-
raneous speeches, conversations, i»r lectures, not reduced to
writing. Ideas are not the subject of (Copyright, but Avords
are. In the case of Abernethy v. Hutchinson, where a
student to(»k down a pnd'essor's lectures and printed tlieni iu
the " Lancet" newspaper, Lord KIdon doubted whether there
could be property in lectures which had not been reduced to
writing; but he granted an injunction on the ground of breach
of cnnfidence. There is a special Eny-lish statute concerninf
lectures, but it does not extend beyond Ureat IJritain. .lolm
Bright and Lord Macaiday were nuu-h aggrieved by apublisiicr
who reprinted their speeches from " Hansard" and the news-
papers of the day. Tliey hud no remedy, but it induced them
to puldish what they declared to be a true version of their
speei'hes. The publishers, however, demonstrated that pas-
sages had been oniitted which rellected severely ui>on some
statesmen who luid since become political friends of the
speakers, and that their editions, although unauthorised, were
the more correct.

Again, in order to be subject to valid Ctipyright a work
nnist be new. Tiie matter may be new and the arrangement
old, or the plan and arrangement may be new and the matter
old. In either case the work would be i)rotec(ed. There
must be originality in one way or the other. This branch of
Copyright Law is very diHicult. The leading i)rineiple is that
either in material or arrangement, or in conibinati<m of both,
the writer must employ his own labour, judgment, and skill.
He must not copy from another. An abridgment of a copyright
work is permitted, but it must be a real condensation, not a

more oiitllii;^ down of the Iiir<i;or work, iisinnf the Siime words.
l)i('ti<»iiiirit'.< iiiul works ot'ii'lerciicc of that iiiitiire may ho urted
and extracts iiia(h>, liut no material part m;ist he taken. An
entire articdc, tor instance, from a liicttionaiy of hioifraphy
wonhl not he permitted. So in the ease of a eoih'ctioii of
poetry, where fonr or five of Campltell's poems were taken
entire, an injunction was ohtained. Tennyson'^ poems arc
protected hy hiw, hut anyone may eompih' a eoncor(hin(;u
to Tennyson, which woidd also he proteiited. Anotlier
person might ^o over the same work and make another
eonc rihinee — he mij^ht even use the first to check his
own work hy — that also would he protected. An illustrative
case occurred in Canada. A mercantile a<;'euey had compiled
a reference hook, eontaininjr the names of mer<'hants in dif-
ferent towns, with niiirks desij^nating their capital and standing.
Another agency puhlished a hook for a Mimilar purpose with a
different system of marking. The first agency assi ricd that
the second had reprinted their hook instead of compiling the
matter anew. Theeause went to prool", when it ap])eared that
agency No. 1 had ins"rted in its hook a fictitious village,
Avith an imaginary storekeeper, hiacksmith, innkeeper, and
various non-existent artisans, such as* are usually found in a
small village. This, agency No. 2 had inserted in its hook,
and, when aske<l in court to point out on the map the village
which its agent had so carcfidly reported, the manngcr was
fairly puzzled. The suit was unsuc(ressfid, he(rause agency
No. 1 — although the notice was printed in due form on the
hack of the title-page — had failed to comply with the law and
register at Ottawa. Owing to that omissiun, the hook heeamo
puhlic property.

Another admitted principle is that C'opyright is divisihie.
'I'liis is well shown in the case of Low v. Ward. While the
last six chapters of "The (inardian Angel" were passing through
the. press at IJoston, the author, Dr. (Oliver Wendell Hohnes,
came to Montreal and stayed a week at St. Lawrence Ilall.
During that week the complete work appeared in London,
prior to its publication in Boston. Ward and Lock reprinted

Cojn/rh/ht.

mo wonls.

ken. An
l»i«>Hrii|»liy
Ici'tioii of
orti (akoii
[Mteiiis arc
iicordiuice
Aiiutlicr
I', aiiorlier
:;li(M'lv Ills
lliistrativi!
compiled
its ill dif.
staiidiiiir.
ISC with a
!itt'd that
•iliii;;' tlic
■aied tliat
s viliai;e,
I'por, and
oiind ill a
its hook,
lio vilhi^o
.'ijicr was
t! airtMicy

11 Oil thl!

^ law and
k hccame

divisihlc.
\'hilc tlie
^ tliroiigh

Ifohncs,
ICO Hall.

London,
reprinted

the Imok from the " Atlantic Monthly," hut Lows obtained an
injunction h(!canse they had a transfer of valid coityriujlit in the
bIx con(rludiii(r chapters, whicsli w<M*e first puhlisli(>d in ICnifhind
during the author's stay in Montreal.

The law has always made a distinctiini hetwecn literary
property and other property, and in spite of all that has heen
written this distinction is hoth necessary and just, ft is in
itself right and proper to reward literary lalti>ur; and it is
moreover to the interest of society generally that authors
should he (iiicouragcd t(t write, prc('iscly as inventors are
stimuiat<<(l l»y the ]'atent Laws; hut an author docs not
create a new thing hy his own lahoiir. Much of his work is
of necessity horrowed. Chaucer took his '• Cauterhury Tales,"
some from (Jower, and generally from Iioccac(uo, I'etrarch,
and the Italian story-tellers. None of Shakespeare's plots arc
original, and of Milton's ^ Lyci<las," not only the framework,
but whole lines are adapted from 'riieocrilus. If this he the
case witif the great writers, how much more do the smaller
ones enter in upon the lahcnirs of their predecessors! The
nundier of original works is very small : and if the conditions
demanded by the title of ocru/)tiiirf/ were strictly enforced,
there are very few works in the w(»rld which would comply
with its r(M|iiir«'ments. If copyright and patent right were
perpetiial, tlu* whole intellectual and physical world would be
parcelled out by inheritance into small holdings, interlaced so
that the Courts and .Iii(lg(!s would be occupied Ibr ever in
interminable discussions »i]»on intangible things. The claims
put forward by the writers on this subject will irtt bear inves-
tigation. They are for the most ])art special pleaders, and
tbey go too far afield for their illustrations. Thus Mr. Droiio
is arguing for the jierpetnity of literarj- ]iroperty as the result
of labour, and he addiu^es an in(;ideiit in the liook of CJenesis,
where Abraham digged a well ; and he says that Isaac one
hundred years later successfully vindicated his claim to it
because his father dug it.

This excursus into PhlHsnne law is characteristic of much
of the writing upon this subject. It is law run mad. Upon

Copifriglit.

tlio laws of tlic Hittites, Ilivites, Perlzzitcs, or Jebusltes,
4,000 years af^o, Mr. Drone is no better iin autliorlty than
Mr. Morjj;an on Koniaii Law. If there be one thinji; clearer
than another in ihe whole JJook of Genesis, it is that the only
real estate whieh Abraham ])0ssessed in Palestine was tlie
field he h<)iif;;ht of Ephron the Ilittite. The elaborate fnrnio
by which the purchase was made are worlhy of study, as
throwincj liijlit on early i)ro|)crty law. Abraham was a
nomad, and lived by liis Hocks and herds. He went from
place to ])lace, and it is oxpre>'sIy recorded that lie dug many
wells. If he had not, his cattle \\<»iild have died. At this
special well at Reersheba he reinaiiied for a lonjj^ time, and
there he made covi-Uiiiit with Abimelech, whose servants dis-
])uted with his servants lor the use of the well. There was a
ceremony which <i;avc Al)ra!iam a ri(jhl of use, but certainly no
transfer of title in ])er])etuity, as in the other case. Abraham
duu; wells all over Palestine, and when Isaac came afterwards
to these wells he found them filled u|), and on attcmptinj;!; to
clean them out he wiis driven away. Abraham could no more
liave acquired a title by di!j,<fin<>; a well on another man's land
then than he could by buiidiin>; a bouse upon another man's
land now. Such // jirinri writers are really Avould-bc Icjijis-
lators, drawint; th(> law from their own inner consciousness.
The fact simply is that literary property is a recent creatirm,
first of prerogative, theu o(" statute — reasonable, just, and
right — and that, in crcntiug it, the law has put such limitations
upon it as are nec(>ssary for the geiu'raJ good. We have seen
that the first privilege on record, which was granted by
Il'^nry VIII., was for 7 years; the A(!t of Queen Anne
Wi - ior II years; the Act of (Jeorge III. was for 28 years;
the Act of \'ictoria was for 42 years; the pro])osed new Act
is for .00 years. The time is continually extending, and the
copyright holders are still dissatisfied, and clamour for a per-
petuity of monopoly. Few co])yrigbts, as a matter of fact, are
held by authors. Tliey are held by capitalists, the large
publishing houses, who would like the>n to go down from
generation to generation. .Jacob Tonson set up his carriage

large

out of Milton's " Paradise Lost," for which Mrs. Milton got
eight jfouiidy. I am not arguing against literary property, nor
against the jii.st right of an author to his reward. Those who
enjoy the fruit of his labour should pay for the privilege ; but I
am arguing against the demand to enclose in per[)etuity the
connnon ground of intellectual life; against the demand
to vest in the descendants of authors, or of ca[)italists who
have bought up authors' rights, a projjcrty which they, at
least, did not create ; a property, moreover, intangible, diffi-
cult to define and keep separate, and which in a few genera-
tions would become hopelessly intermingled. Then, also, many
great works might be suppressed as opinion changed from age
to age, and a Puritan heir might sujipress the works of
Shakespeare, or a Jacobite lock up or expurgate the works
of Milton. So far was the Parliament of Queen Anne from
supposing that literary property was of so sacred <a nature,
that they insertcil in their Act a clause by which anyone of
a number of high officials could reduce the prices of books
which might Ix* thought unreasonably high ; and this was in
the very first Copyright Act ever passed by any nation. The
reasons for the limitation of the right of copy were stated very
clearly by Napoleon I. He said that —

" The perpetuity of this property in the families of authors
" would biive disadvantages. A. literary property is an
" incorporeal property which, being in the course of time and
" by the process of inheritance subdivided among a multitude
" of individuals, would end so as to exist for nobody ; for how
" could a great number of projjrietors often separated from each
" other, and scarcely knowing each other, combine and reprint
"the works of their common author? Nevertheless, if they
" did not do so, and they alone had the right to publish, the
*' best works would insensibly disappear from circulation."

The only persons who would be benefited by pcr[)etuity of
literary property would be the great publishing houses and
corporations, and the dominion of capital would be extended
into the intellectual world by a species of literary syndicates.

As this subject is likely shortly to occupy the attention of

C()/)i/ri(/ht.

Parliaiuent, it may be well to in. iitioii some of the leading
writers u|)()n it ; and here I may remark that 1 have never met
with any law hooks whieh are so rhetorieal in their style as
those npon this siilijoct. They are all upon one sitk-. and it is
only on reference to the lull nports of leading- eases, or in the
(luotatiftns whieh are ineidenlally given from tin; opinions of
dissentiiiLj judges, that one can gather the possibility of there
being two sides to tlu- (juestion. We read of " the sound and
'* erdighteiied views of Lord Mansfield ; "' he is dcseribed as
delivering " one of the grandest judgments in English judieiid
" literalinc ;"' that is the siime judgment which was overruled
in the House of liurds. Then we read of Lord ("amden's
" sj)ceious harangue ' — of Ijord Macaulay "grojfing in a fog,
" and not understanding the mailer upon which he was speak-
" iug ' — of the •* igiKtranee and sophistry ' (»f those great men
who unfortunately diller from Mr. Drone or Mr. Morgan. IJut
Lord Maeaiday really did know a good deal ab«»ut both history
and literature and Lord Camden knew a deal of law — so
did Sir .Joseph Yates, and Lord lirougham, and L(»rd St.
lieonards, and Lord I'^llenborough, and Lord Cranworth,
and Chief IJaron l'(dlo(d<.

It is not to be wondered at if a species of property first heard
of in the seventeenth century should cause differences of (tpinion
among lawyers and historians. AVeakness of reasoning is not
disguised by warmth of rhetoric; and it is a defect eonnnon
among w riters upon thi> snhjcci to stale what in their opinion the
law ought to have heen, rather than what it is. Of the Lntr-
lish books 1 think '"Copiuger on Copyright "is the most useful.
Shortt on the " Law of Literature "is a good hook, but I oinuot
spe;ik from intimate knowledge. Mr. Sidney .Ferrold lias
lately published a very handy epitome 'if (he English and
Foreign Law. Among American books, Droiw on "'Cojiyrighl ''
is beyond <iuestion tin; best. JNL'. .lames Appleton Morgan has
collected a mass of useful materials in his two lar<^e volumes on
the "Law of Literature." It is useful for its citations, but the
Latin and French (piotations contain many errors. There is
another older book, " Curtis on Copyright," held in much

esteem. I once had it, but it was borrowed from me years
ago for a case then coinino; on, and I saw it no more. I re-
member it well — it contained much jfood exhortation about the
sacredness of literary prctperty. There is no doubt about my
" C'lutis " boinp- protedcd by the Conunon Law, and I hope the
lepd conscience of tlie borrower will check him every time he
takes the volume down.

And now, INIr. Chairman and Gentlemen, I hope I have
not wearied you. I hope 1 have not left your minds in the
same condition as that of a celebrated Minister of State in
Knu;land who had listened for an hour to a deputation about
Copyright. " (iciitlemen," said he, " before you conunenccd I
thought I knew a little about Cojjyright; now I know I never
did know anything about it; and what is more, 1 never shall."

APPENDIX.

A perusal of the prc(!ciling pages will probably convince the
reader that tlie Law of Copyright in Catuula is in a very confused
state. The Canadian Government has from time to time made
etfbrts to iutrodace the system of compensation to authors by means
of royalties. The abortive Act of 1872 (.see p. 27) was based upon
that system.

It is admitted on all sides that the Act of 1812 is a faihire as
regards Canada. It contains provisions which are impracticable.
Tlie Law Lords decided, in Low v. lloutledge, that first publication
must tnke ])lace in the United Kingdom. Theret'orc, books tiist
j)nblislied in Canada arc unprotected ; and jet, by the terms of the
Act, every puhlishcr tlnoughoiit the Britisii Dominions is bound,
under a penalty of X^*, to j)rescnt to tlie Britisii Museum a copy of
eveiy book he issues; and also to [Hisent copies, if demanded, to
the, Bodleian Library at Oxiurd, the Public Jiibrary at Cambridge,
the Advocates' Library at Ediid)urgh, and Trinity College Library
at Dublin. The special duty of 12.', j)er cent, upon the importation
f reprints is exceedingly dillicidt and uncertain in collection,
owing to the extent of the frontier anil the incessant travel to and
from the United States. The l)ook-post has opened up new
channels of imjiort through hundreds of small post-ollices. Moi-e-
over, reprints come in mostly in small numbers, and tlie collecting
and accounting for the trilling sums due up(.)n single eo[)ies would
require an enormous staff of clerks, in tlii'se days of 10 cent, and
20 cent, libraries passing like ne\vs[)apers thnjugh the mails, the
collection of such a duty becomes imjtossible. It is only po.ssible
when books are impoited in long numbers.

The Caiuidian proposals for a royally upon reprinting met with
favour in many quarters in England. The Blue Book of the Copy-
right Commission abounds with i-eferences to it ; and an Act was
even drafted {see 8e.ss. Papers, l.S7 1) in Kngland, endjodying that
principle. It was proposed, ho\V(!ver, by the puhlislu'is that oidy
presses specially licensed shoidd be permitted to reprint Ib-itish
copyright works; by that means they hoped to confine tiie busi-
ness to responsible ])ersons. Anyone convt rsant with Canada will
know that (lovernment could not limit the nundier license<l to
reprint. The pressure on members wt)uld be such that it would
resnlli practically in a general licence. The abortive Canadian Act
of 1872 stipulated for a royalty of 12), per cent, ou the lowest whole-

Appendix.

sale price- of tbo book reprinted. The English copyright owners
objocleil to this as being a vague and indefinite amount, and they
dou1)t('d also the ability of the Government to collect this tax any
more than the import duty.

Yet there is a method of meeting all these objections and of
fulfilling all the necessary conditions. The royalty must be a
definite and reasonable sum — it must be certain in receipt — it must
be easy of collection so as not to involve a large and expensive staff",
and the licensing of special persons must be avoided. The plan
suggested is as follows : —

Isfc. Let the Inland lievenuo Oilice at the cajiital town of each

of the Provinces of the Dominion be charged with the

collcfition of the royalty.

2nd. L(!t any printer intending to reprint a copyriglit book

print oil' th(,' titlc-pnges first — not less tlian 500 at once —

and forward them to the Inland Ilevenue officer of his

province. Let him state the name of the author and

pnblislier of the book to be reprinted, and the price ho

intends to pnblisli at.

3i'd. Let tlie ])rinter send with the title-pages a cheque for ten

per cent, upon the retail price of the number of books for

which ho has printed title-pages.

4tli. The department will tlien stan)p, w/V//. an impressed stamp,

on the nnmbiT of title-pages reciuired for the proposed

issue, a ceitilieate of the payment of the roysilty, and will

remit the money to the Board of Trade in London for the

owner's account.

If such a plan as this were adopted, every book would tell its

own story. Hy a siinph^ inspection of any single copy it would

appi'ar that the duty was duly paid; for no one would dare to

counterfeit, a Government stamp. The stamp, bekiginijiressed, could

not be used for the book of another author, and the amount would

at once be seen to c-oirespond, or not, with the price asked fjr the

book. Suitable penalties would, of course, afford a ready remedy

to anyone aggrieved. Tlie rate of ten per cent, is suggested because

it is the eustoniiny rate in America.

Under this system any Canadian ))rinter might reprint any
book which might aj)pear to promise a profit. In any event, the
author's royalty would be secure. The ]n'ocess being of the nature
of an expropi'iation, no one would have cause to claim a monopoly,
and tlnn-e might be many editions of the same book. The depart-
ment would not stamp less than 500 title-pages at a time, because
of the difficulty of accounting to the authors for small sums.

liiH

Apjunidlx,

The torma of tlio Canndian Copyi iujlit Act wonlil still enable any
antlior to piovcnt », l•()yal^y tMlitinn, by [n-ititiiig his hook in Canada,
or autliorisini^ a i'(i|)riut. lie could also reprint his book in CJanada
•(,t any time iilfer |nil»licatiou. It i'reiiiieiitly hap]n!ns now that
antliors will do iieithei', l)iit sell their advanee sheets to United
States publishers, anil sell the Canadian market to them also, by
underfiikiiit,' to proseeiUe under the Imperial Act of 1H1.'2 any
Canadiiin who repi'ints the book in question. This hus repeat(.'dly
oeeurred, iuid the Canadian pi-inters object to their market being
sold to ii foreii^n (country. On the other hand, many authors con-
sider that ther have a riofht, to deal absnlntely as thoy please with
theii- (iwii '..y. Tiiey do not admit that literary property ia

the crea'!. ih Municipal Law of each nation, and mnst submit

to the lit ..cidoi.i imposed by each lei;islatHro ; bnt they ('laim the
powei" practically to suppiess their book, if they wish, iu any
country. View oo fn • entully diverse can never be reconciled,
and the phui proposed is '.eec , arily a compromise. Even in the
Act of \X\'l, it is pnn'idtil that when the owner of a copyright
(aftci- the death of the author) will not keep his book in print, a
licence may be issued by Government to anyone desirous of re-
printing it.

Tlie interests of printers and pnblisliers are not. however, the only
interests to be considered in this cpu-stion. It ia very important that,
under all circumstances, the original author's editions should not
be excluded. IJecnnse, in the formation of libraries, the authentio
editions must be had, and it would also bt^ unreasonable to prevent
a book collector from j)aying the author's j^rice for his best edition,
witli a view of protecting an inferior local edition of the same
•work.

It wonld result from the adoption of such a plan that the works
of United States authors woidd be reprinted in Canada very largely,
and that Canadian rejtrints would pass southwards acro.ss the
border with the same facility with which United States reprints
now come into Canada. The literature of America is becoming every
year increasingly valuable, and, as the jiopnlation of that continent
ia incieasing rapidly, the money value of copyrights must also
increast! at an accelerating rate. These considerations will no
doubt in time result in an International Treaty based up(m rational
principles of a permatUMit and enduring naturi>. In the meantime
some such plan as that, above stated might be of benetit in recon-
ciling the divergent views of author and printer. It seemed to the
writer appropriate to add, as an appendix to his lecture, his own
views as to a remedy for the present confusion.

stiJl enable any
l)ook in C>inada,
book in Canada
JHiiis now that
I'ots to United
' tliera also, hy
■ of'lM2 any
'">« repeatedly

inarkef, being
y ''iiithora con-
oy please with
•y pi'opei-ty ig
I must submit
■I't'y eliiini th(.
W'«Ii, in any
be reeonoiled,

Even in the

a copyright
ik in print, a
sirous of re-

'ver, tlie only
[loHant that,
sliould not
lie anthentio
> to prevent
>Pst edition,
f the same

f' the works
o>y largely,
••lernss the
I's reprints
'"'ig every

'"ontinent
nnist hIso
'' will no
n rational
meantime

in recon-
led to the
( his own

LA\V SCHOOL.

BISHOP'S COLLEGE. ^

siiKiiiJUouivi;, v.ii.

SECOND SESSION, 1881-82"

FACULTY.

PROFESSORS.
liOBEllT N. HALL, QtL \A..\). [Ih^m), Ciril Law

L. E. MOUIMS. LLM. (Iirun-^ii;n), (ndl /'rocedure.
E. T. UUOOKS, (i.C, l.L.M.. CriniiiKil Law. .

L. c. I5T':lax(tI':i;. ij...m.. Unnmu Uw.

11. C. CAIUXA, LI...M., nhli.i„iioi,s.

H. U. liliUWX, LL.M.. (\>nni,:;ri,d Law.

LECTURERS.
L. E. i'ANM'VI'O.N, LL.H.
1). W. W. 110I)(;E, LL.I5.
«. iJ.'fejANJJOUX, LL.13.

Occasional Lectures (rill iiJ.sd be delirered on special
.suhiccis 1)1/ other lueinucrs of the Profeaaion.

eK(^'^'5*(

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO
LIBRARY

DGNOT

REMOVE

THE

CARD

FROM

THIS

POCKET

-^„

'■;?

^^m^^^mM^i^^:. :::...

WiaiiMn*ii«a