■b«M-�MH«iMHHt>k^

KKMARKS ON SERGEANT TAI-FOURDS Bri.r,

OK TUK, COPYRIGHT LAWS OF FOREIGX COUNTKIES.

BY JOHN J. LOWNDES, Es«.

SAUNDERS AND BENNING. FLEET STREET.

S E 11G E A N T T A L F O U R �, M. P.,

lOK Hls (iKXKUUI'S AIi\0(.'ACV OF TKK liRiTlTS OF AUTriOKS,

CIk follolutng JSngrS

AHK, wrni Jircii liK.'-fKCT, �y I'Kkmission,

Tme object of the following httle treatise is to give a succiuct
historical account of the origin of the property knowa as
' ('opyright,' and of the raodifications and alterations it has
subsequently undergone down to the present time.

The motive in laying it before the public, is to attenipt to
remove the misapprehensions M'hich prevail with regard to
this species of property, both as to its former existence, and
as to the effect and expediency of tlie measure proposed by
Sergeant Talfourd.

It will bc seeii by the Appendix, that in abnost every
country but Great Britain, Copyright is continued for some
period after the author's death, for the benefit of his heirs;
and yet a Bill for this purpose has been for three sessions
before the British legislature, and each session postponed :
and this, owing not so much to any opposition existing to its
principle, which has been each time affirmed by respectable
majorities, as to the apathy with which every question is
treated, which does not awaken the spirit of party, or touch
the ever-sensitive chord of self-interest; and which has thus
suffered an insigi�ficant minority to defeat it in detail.

1 feel sensibly that more time and study than have been
in my power to bestow, are necessary to do jnstice to this
subject; but if, by the perusal of the following pages, the
reader is convinced that such a right as that known by the
name of Copyright did fonnerly exist at cornmon-law, and
was only taken away by a mistaken interpretation of the
efiect of the statute of Anne. and that the state of the
present law is such as imperatively demands alteration; I
shall not consider the few leisure hours I have appropriated
to thcir composition from the severer duties of my profession,
as either mispent or unprofitably employed.

Inner Temtle,
Janvary Sis/, 1840.

FROM THE IXVENTION OF PRINTING, TO THE FOBMATION
OF THE STATIONERS' COMPANY IN 1556.

To seek the origin of Copyright in times prior to the inven-
tion of Printing, would partake more of curious research than
of useful investigation, and would, at best, furnish rather
matter of conjecture than of Information. In the follow-
ing pages, therefore, we shall confine our inquiry as to
the commencement of this right, to the evidences afForded by
the regulations and customs respecting the first printed books;
which, seeing the scanty materials that are handed down to
us, we shall find to be a work involving suffici�nt doubt and
uncertainty, without occupying our time by a search into
darker or more remote periods.

It is improbable, that even in the Augustan age, an age
rich in literature and the arts, any such right ever existed.*
How much more difficult then must it be to show, that in

* But copies appear to have been sold for the purpose of recital before an
audience. Sce Prolog, in Eunuch. Terentii, 20; Mart. Epigr. i, 67, iv, 72, xiii, 3,
xiv, 194; Juv. vii, 83. But this, doubtless, implied no exclusive right.

'J niSTOttlCAL SKETCH

the rude and troubled times Mhich preceded the introduction
of printing into this country, a custom of Copyright obtained
here. And yet Bishop Feil, in his memoir on the state of
printing in the University of Oxford,* asserts, that that Uni-
versity possessed an exclusive right of transcribing and
multiplying books by means of writing, which implies a
species of Copyright.

Be this, however, as it may, our object is not to push our
inquiry to so remote a period, but content ourselves with
tracing from the time of the invention of printing, the first
recognition of this right, and its subsequent allowance and
confirmation; and we shall find, that as soon as it bccamc
valuable, it was claimed, and allowed; not only by favour of
the sovereign, as in cases of privilege, or by consent among
themselves, as in the by-laws of the Stationers' Company;
but on principles of natural equity and justice. And though,
in being minute, we may be thought tcdious, we hope wc
shall not be considered as trilling ; for the links that make up
the chain of evidence, are sometimes of the slightest and most
delicate texture.

It is the general opinion, that the art of printing was first
brought into England by a mercer of London, of the name
of Caxton, who had learned it at his own expense abroad:
the first book printed by him in England being " The game
and playe of the chesse," in the year 1474 : § although there
are not wanting some who claim for Oxford the honour of
printing the first book; since a work bas been discovered,
entitled, "Exposicio sancti Jeronimi in simbolum apostolo-
rum," which is expressed in the colophon to be printed at
Oxford, 1468: "Jmpressa Oxonie Et finita Anno domini.

* Gutch's CoUect. Curiosa. Vol I, p. 271.

I This was the first book printed by him in Englanrt; but the first English
book was printed three years before, " The Recuyell of tlie historyes of Troye,
------in the lioly cyte of Colen," in 1471, by this same Caxton.

nlll|ii.T|»lirw il»-

OK THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT. o

M.cccc.lxviij. xvij die decembris."* As this is, hovvever,
only a single instance, and the date may, perhaps, be a
misprint, or designedly falsified ; we may consider Caxton,
in a practical point of view, as the first English printer.

New Caxton, for the grcater part of his printing career,
being without competitors, needed no special protection for
the works he published ; and accordingly we do not find a
single royal privilege granted for any of his works. And
although Mr. Herbert appears to think he was appointed
" King's printer," t yet it seems scarcely probable that this
office would originate, when there was only a single printer,

� Connected with this book is a eurious story, brought forward by Atkyns, in
an action that he had as King's patentee against the Stationers' Company, for
printing law boolcs. He endeavoured to show by an M.S., said to have been in
the Lambeth L�brary, that printing was first introduced into this country by
Henry VI, who was moved thereto by Archbishop Bourchier; that this Oxford
printer was brought over to England at the King's expense; and that the first
printers were the King's sworn servants. Frora these facts he sought to derive
a certain prerogative or perpetual copyright in the King, as being the first means
of introducing printing into this country. Most even of those, however, who
agrec in thinliing this book a proof of the earlier exercise of the art of printing
in this country than can be adduced in favour of Caxton, and that it must have
been executed by some foreigner, who found his way to England on the dispersion
of the workmen of Guttenberg, Fust, and Schoeffer, at the siege of Mentz; yet
concur in the opinion, that as tlie pretended Lambeth M.S. has neverbeen heard
of since, so it never was anything but a forgery, designed solely to serve Atkyns's
purposes.

t He says, " In M.S. at tho beginning of a copy of Caxton's Chroniclc, coeval
with the publication, he is styled, ' Regius impressor.' This is further confirmed
in tbc epilogue to'Thymage, or myrrour of theworld.'" Herb. Typ. Ant. p, 2.

The M.S. thus referred to, is in a copy of the work that belonged to Mr. Tutet,
and is as follows : " Presens Liber pertinet ad Willm Purde emptus a Willmo Cax-
ton, Regius Jmpressor vicesimo Nouembris Anno Regni Ri?s Edwardi quarti vice-
simo secundo." And the passage in the epilogue of " Thymage, or myrrour of
the world," is " whiche book J began first to translate the second day of Janyuer
the yer of our Lord, m.cccc.Ixxx. And fynysshed the viij day of Marche the same
yere, And the xxj yere of the Regne of the most Crysten kyng. Kynge Edward
the fourth. Vnder the shadowe of whos noble proteccion I haue emprysed and
fynysshed this sayd lytyl werke and boke. Bcsechynge Almyghty god to be his
protectour and defendour agayn alle his Enerayes," &c.

But when we consider the very full and minute account we have of upwards of
B 2

4 HISTOllICAL SKETCH

as it could be of no value. But when scveral began to exer-
cise the art of printing, it was then vcry natural that the
king should select ene out of the rest, the most expert, or the
best recommended; especially to print papers of state and
matters of government. And, accordingly, not long after,
we find onc William Faques, or Fakes, who styles himself
" Regius impressor," in a proclamation against clipped money
in 1504; t and from that time to the present, there has
been a regular succession of persons holding that office.

The first instance that we have of an exclusivc privilege
for printing a book, occurs in the year 1518; and the occasion
of it may be traced, not so much in the increase of printers
by that time, as in the paucity of materials for the exercise
of their tradc ; that is to say, the very few w ritings of imme-
diate temporary interest which were then produced. It was
printed by Ilichard Pynson, who succceded Faques as "regius
impressor ;" and is entitlcd, " Oratio llichardi Pacei in Face
nuperrime composita," &c. Colophon : " Impressa Londini
anno verbi incarnati m.d.xviii. idibus Nouembris per Rich-
ardum Pynson regium impressorem ciiin priuilcjjio a rege
indulto nequishanc orationem intra biennium in regno Angliai
imprimat aut alibi impressam et importatam in eodem regno
Anglise vendat." §

After this, privileges were, during the reign of Henry the
Eighth, very freely granted. We find patents to several
printers for seven years, for all books they may have then
printed, or thereafter should print, to be computed from the
date of the publication: as one to John Gowghe or Gough,

flfty productions of Caxton's press, and that never in any one of these, does he
style himself " regius impressor ; " although he oftcn descends into the most
minute details as to at whose cost and instigation he began to print his works,
■we can hardly think an M.S, note suffici�nt to cstablish the fact, contradicted as
it is by his silence on the point. As to the extract from the Epiloguo of " Thy-
mage, or myrrour of the world," it is quite evident that, even as a coUatcral pro�f
it is of littlc effect; and as a direct, is scarcely better than none at all.

t Herb. Typ. Ant. vol. i, p. 308, § Herb. Typ. Ant, vol. i. p. 264.

OF THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT. 5

in 1540; to Thomas Berthelct, in 1538, " for sixe yeres "; and
to Richard Banks, in 1540. There is also a patent to Regi-
nald Wolfe, of the office of King's printer, in Latin, Greek,
and Hebrew, with a prohibition to print such books as were
therein speciallj^ assigned to him; or such books as "projjria
sua industrid, diligentid, atque labore conquisivit." *

Here we meet, for the first time, with a distinct acknow-
ledgment of the existence of property in a literary work,
wholly separate from the value of the materials employed in
setting it before the public; a property ' acquired,' as we are
told, 'by the patentee's own industry, diligence, and labour.'
That these words refer to a mental outlay on the patentee's
part, or on the part of another on account of the patentee,
either in composing, abridging, or translating a work, is very
evident, from the use of the word " conquisivit"�that the
patentee " had acquired to himself:" how could the patentee
have otherwise acquired more property in one book that he
printed, than another; unless he had expended money, or
mental labour in its composition ? It, therefore, is a distinct
proof of the rccognition of literary property; and although
we find it hex'e in its infancy sheltered under the power of
royal prerogative, we shall soon have to notice it as standing
on firmer and surcr grounds than the patronage of any prince
�on the acknowledged justice and equity of its claim.

In the raeantime had occurred, what may be considered as
the first case of piracy of copyright on record.f Wynken
de Worde had printed a Treatise on Grammar, by Robert
Witinton, in I52;i; which one Peter Trevers, or Treveris, had
taken the liberty of re-printing; and Robert Witinton, in a
subsequent edition, printed by De Worde in 1533, attacks

* Rym. Focdera, vol. xv, p. 150.

t It was a common practice among the earlier printers, to join together in an
impression of a work, and then print tlicir own sevcral title pages to the respective
copies which they took. Thus we find many old books, purporting to be by
different printers, and even of different years, and vet the body of the text is the
same thronghont. So that, although we may meet with works prior to the one
cited in the text, which appear to have heen printed by two or more printers

Trevers with great severity for this act. lic indeed, seemingly
lays the blame only on the incorrectness and faultiness of the
edition; but it is clear, from Mr. Herbert's complete contra-
diction of such being the case,t that the chief crime in the
eyes of the author and his pubHsher, was the reprinting the
work at all. To prevent a recnrrence of this, they procured
a privilege from the king for the second edition.

About this time, also, we find a privilege for printing, which
upon the face of it, though not in express ^yords, is granted
in consideration of the claims an author has to his copy. It
is dated in 1530, and is in favour of " maistre Jehan Palsgraue
Angloys natyf de Londres, et gradue de Paris," for a book
to teach the French language, which he is said to have
" made with a great and long continued dyligence; " and in
which, " besydes his great labours, payns, and tyme there
about employed, he hath also at his proper coste and charge
put in prynt; " wherefore, continues the patent, " ivegreathj
moued and stered by dewe consyderation of his sayd long
tyme and great dyligence about this good and very necessary
purpose employed, and also of his sayd great costes and
charges bestowed about the imprintyng of the same, hauc
liberally and benignely graunted vnto the sayd maister Pals-
graue our fauorable letters of priuilege, concernynge his sayd
boke, called, Lesclarcissement de la langue francoyse, for
the space and terme of seuyn yeres next and immedyatly after
the date hereof enswyng." &c.*

As printers improved, more books were published, and
more privileges granted, as they were found to become more
necessary. The following is a remonstrancc contained in
a letter from Grafton to Lord Cromwell, in August,

about the same time; yet the one alluded to above, is the first one we know for
certainty to have been printcd by one printer in opposition to another.

f Mr. Hcrbert even thought, that it was probable that Witinton might allude
to some other edition printed by this Trevers; so little foundation did there
appear to him to be for Witinton's bitter attaclc on this ground. Typ. Ant.
vol. I, p. 187, * Herb. Typ. Ant. vol. I, p. 470-1

OF THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT. 7

1537,* respecting an apprehended attempt to reprint the
bible, which he had just brought out, commonly known as
" Matthew's Bible."

" And where as I wryt vnto yor lordship for a preuye seale
to be a defence vnto the enemyes of this byble I vnderstonde
that yo' lordshipes mynde is that I shall not nede it. But
now moost gracyous lorde ffor as moche as this worke hath
bene brought forthe to o' moost & costly laboures & charges
which charges amount aboue the some of �500 and I haue
caused of these same to be prynted to the some of 1500
bookes complete, which now by reason that of many this
worke is highly comded, there are that will and dothe go
about the pryntynge of the same worke agayne in a lesser
letter, to the entent that they maye sell their lytle bookes
better chepe then I can sell these gret, and so to make that I
shall sell none at all, or elles very fewe, to the vtter vndoynge
of me yo' orato' & of all those my credyto's that hath'bene
my comforters and helpers therin. And now this worke
thus set forthe w' great stodye & laboures shall soch psons
(moued w' a lytle couetousnes to the vndoynge of other for
their awne pryuate welthe) take as a thynge done to their
handes, in which halffe the charges shall not coma to them
that hath done to yo' poore orato'. And yet shall they not
do yt as they fynde yt, but falsefye the texte, that I dare saye,
looke how many sentences as ara in the byble, euen so many

fautes & erroures shalbe made therin."------"Ye and to

make yt more trewer then yt is, therfore douchemen dwel-
lynge w'in this realme go about the pryntynge of ytt
w"^' can netlier speke good englyshe, ner yet wryte none,
and they wllbe both the prynters & correcto's therof, because
of a lytle couetousnes that wyll not bestow xx or xl� to a
learned man to take payne in yt to haue yt well done, \t
were therfore (as yo' Lordship dothe euydently perceaue) a
thynge vnreasonable to pmyt or sofFer them (which now hath
no soche busynes) to enter into the laboures of them that hath

* Cott. M.S, Cleop. E. v. p. 325,

8 HISTORICAL SKETCH

had bothe sore trouble ^ vnreasonable charges. And the
truthe is this that if yt be prynted by any other before these
be solde (which I thynke shall not be this i� yere at the
least, that then am I yo' poore Orato' vtterly vndone. Ther-
fore by yo' moost godly fauo' if I maye obtayne the Kynges
moost gracyous priuiledgc that none shall prynt them tyll
these be solde, which at the least shall not be this iii yere,
yo' lordship shall not fynde me vnthankfull, but that to the
vttermost of my power I wyll consyder yt," &c.

Let us now consider how the foregoing facts operate in sup-
port of a right of literary property. It may be urged, that these
very privileges, which have been dwelt on as in favour of
Copyright, are so many proofs that no such a right Avas at
that time thought to exist, except by virtue of the preroga-
tive ; for that no man would have cared to secure a right, as
was here done by a royal privilege, had he known it to be
valid in itself; but that, even putting this very obvious ob-
jection altogether aside, the privileges themselves contradict
the very view they are brought to support; for all the in-
stances above adduced, with the exception of onc alone, are
for a limited number of years, and how can instances of limi-
ted privileges be relied on as proofs of an imlimited right ?

To these objections we reply, first, that in the infancy of this
property, it was very natural for a man to have recourse to
the readiest and most effectual way of securing it, which was
by the protecting shadow of the king's privilege ; for at that
time the king's legal prerogative was the best title that could
be relied on in the courts of common law. Besides, the
king and his council regulated what books should be read
and what not, and it was not safe to buy every publication ;
therefore the king's privilege further acted as a guarantee
and protecting recommendation of the book.

And, secondly, we say, that a mistake is made as to the
object with which these privileges are brought forward.
They are adduced simply in favour of a broad principle, and
not with a view to any particular application; and more

OF THE L.AW OF COPYRIGHT. 9

Stress is not laid on one for seven years, than on one for
threc. The principle recognized, namely, the protection of
literary property, is all that is contended for : not the pecu-
liar circumstances connected with it. Indeed it is most pro-
bable that the parties applying for these privileges, never
looked beyond the protection of the one edition they printed;
there was but one class of readers, an impression was calcu-
lated on which would supply their wants, and the only time
for which a privilege was valuable, was, till it was sold off.*
Second, third, and fourth editions, were not confidently
looked to, with the calculating eyes of modern bibhopoles, as
a means of repayment for their vast outlays at the com-
mencement.

Therefore, the foregoing facts prove, that as soon as by the
increase of printers, and the improvements in printing, it be-
came possible for one man by printing another's copy, to
avail liimself of the money and labour expended by the other
upon its production, without sharing in the oost, and so to
undcrsell him ; so soon was the injustice of such a proceed-
ing on all sides proclaimed: that it was distinctly acknow-
ledgcd, that by the rules of common justice and equity, a
man was entitled to that which he had gained to himself
either by mental labour, or by the expenditure of bis money :
and that this view was fully supported by the language in
which the patents were couched; for, unlike other monopolies,
there Mas no attempt to found the granting of them solely
on the King's generosity ; but, on the contrary, a statement
was introduced of the reason for which they were conceded,
namely�that the author had spent much time and labour in
the composition of the work, or that the printer had laid out
great sums of money, and these were the grounds on which
the King was induced to grant them.

* See Grafton's Letter, ante p. 8. And if this was the case with works like
the Bible, which might well be thought to afford a prospect of subsequent edi-
tions, how much more so must it have been in works of an ephemeral nature.
It is evident that in these early stages of printing, the main expenscs were in the
mechanica! part of the process, which are now transferred to the literary portion.

10 IIISTOBICAL SKETCH

FllOM THE INCORPORATION OF THE STATIONER's COMPANY
IN 1556, TO THE REBELLION IN 1640.

Sucu was the state of literary property until the reign of
Philip and Mary, when it being found, that ' many false fond
b��TvS, and ballads, rhymes, and other lewd treatises in the
English tongue, both heretical and seditious/ were being
issued from the press ; it was determined to unite the prin-
ters into one body, the heads of which should be responsible
for the individual members; and the gcneral conduct of
which, could thus be more easily watched, and more cffec-
tually conlrouled. Letters patent were therefore passed,
constituting the Stationcr's Company, the 4th day of May,
1556. The Stationers, it would appear, were a Company
before this date, but this was the commencement of their
existence as a Corporation. By their charter, they were
allowed to make by-laws for the guidance of their mem-
bers ; and no one hut a member of their society, was to be
allowed to practise or exercise the art or mystery of printing
within the dominions of England.*

This was a material step, although not an immediate one,
to firmly securing the right of the first publisher to the ex-
clusive printing of any work he might undertake; f�r tlie
printers now having the power to make laws among them-
selves on the subject, could not fail soon to recognize the
justice and expediency of such a provision. Accordingly,

* Luckombe's hist. of printing, p. 176.

OF THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT. 11

we find them, within two or three years after the formation
of their Company, requiring every one who printed a work to
first enter it in their register-book, for which they paid a
certain sum as for a license; and any one omitting to do so,
or printing a book belomjing to ano�ier memher, was fined.*

Patents which till then had been for particular books, and
were but a proper protection to the patentees in securing
them the due fruits of their labour, began in the succceding
reign of Queen Ehzabeth to be greatly abused. On one
person was sometimes conferred an exclusive right to print
all books of a particular class : thus, the right of printing all
books of common-law was secured to one man; all A. B. Cs.
and Catechisms to another; all almanacs and prognostica-
tions to a third; all music-books to a fourth; besides patents
of particular books to individuals who did not belong to the
company, and were not printers, but farmed the right to
such as were, at exorbitant sums.t

These monopolies pressed so hard upon the poorer sort of
printers, that they petitioned the Queen against them ; and
this expedi�nt meeting with little success, they, being
driven by the desperate state of their circumstances, not
only began to question the right of the Queen to grant
them, but even proceeded to print works in defiance of the
patents.

They did not, however, stop here, for emboldened by their
present success, they began, says Strype, even to print books,
the copies whereof had been bought o/ the authors for their
money, or else given to those that had the property in them
to make their benefit of. They set at defiance the power of
their own Company; and although complaint was made to
the Privy Council, and the matter being referred to commis-
sioners, was settled for a time; yet it soon again broke out,
and the Privy Council was again petitioned that these disor-
ders might be put a stop to. Among other reasons urged,

* Register Book, passim. f Strype, Herb. Typ. Aiit., &c.

12 HISTORICAL SKETCH

' No books at all,' it was said, ' would be printcd within a
short time. For commonly tlie first printer ivas at charge
for the author^s pains, and some other such like extraordi-
nary cost; whereas any other that would print it after him,
came to the copy gratis, and so he might sell cheaper,
better than the first printer, and the first printer should
never utter bis books. Besides, the second printer might
better the first impression by notes, tables, difference in
paper, or volume, (as it is easier to amend than to first in-
vent), which would also hinder the sale of the first printer's
books to his utter undoing. These inconveniences seen,
every man would strain courtesy who should begin; so far
that in the end all printing would decay in the realm, to
the utter undoing of the whole Company of Stationers.' *

That these irregularities and contempts of authority should
have occurred, was not from want of ordinances and decrees
en the subject; but from the liberty and license taken,
owing to the troubles and jealousies that were fomented and
kept alivc in this reign, both by enemies at home and abroad,
and which by fully occupying the attention of the govern-
ment, prevented them from attending to matters wholly of a
civil nature. For the Queen, directly on her coming to the
throne, had issued injunctionsf in which she positively prohi-
bited any one from printing "any maner of booke or paper,
of what sort, nature, or in what language soeuer it be,
except the same be first Ucenced by her Maiestie, by expresse
woordes in writing, or by six of her priuie Councell: or be
perused & licenced by the Archbishops of Canterburie and
Yorke, the Bishop of London, the Chauncelors of both Uni-
versities, the Bishop being Ordinarie, and the Archdeacon
also of the place where any such shall be printed, or by two
of them, whereof the Ordinarie of the place to be alwayes
one;" on pain, "that the partie shall be punished by order

* Strype.
t " Injunctions given by the Queen's Maiestie. Anno domini. 1559," in 15rit. Mus.

OF THE LAM' OK COPYRIGHT. 13

of the sayde Commissioners, as to the quality of the fault
shall be thought meete."

Now as no book could be published without license, and
as no heen se was given to print a work, which belonged to
another by purchase or usage, the property in a copy would
have been sufficiently protected by these injunctions, had
they been strictly obeyed. But that they were far from being
so, we find by a decree being issued by the Star Chamber in
156G,* for the reformation of divers disorders in printing,
which was the first deeree ever made by this Court respect-
ing printing.

It enacted, ' that the printing any book against the force
and meaning of any ordinance, prohibition, or conimand-
ment, contained or to be contained in any the statutes, or
laws of the realm, or in any injunctions, letters patent, or or-
dinancics, past or set forth, or to be past or set forth, should
be visited with the forfeiture of all such books, and disability
to exercise the art of printing, besides imprisonment for
three months without bail or mainprize.' And in order to
keep the printers still more under control, they were en-
joined to enter into 'their several recognisances of reasonable
sums of money to her Majesty, with sureties or without, as
the ecclesiastical commissioners should think expedi�nt;
truly to observe all the said ordinances, well and truly yield
all such forfeitures, and in no point be resisting, but in all
things aiding the said master and wardens of the said com-
pany and their deputies for the true execution of the pre-
mises.'

Notwithstanding this decree, we find afterwards complaints
made against some who had given bonds, and yet broke
through all regulations. Accordingly, in 1586, another decree
was issued, f reciting that the former had been disregarded
and broken through; by reason, it was supposed, that ' the

* Luck. Hist. of Print. p. 104. t Lansd. M.S. cod. 905.

14 HISTORICAL SKETCH

pains and penalties contained and set down in the same had
been too light and small for the correction and punishmcnt
of so grievous and heinous oifences; and so the offendcrs
and malefactors in that behalf had not been so severely pii-
nished as the qualities of their ofFences had deserved ;' and
therefore enacted, 'that no printers who had been admitted
Avithin the last six months, were to exercise their trade, iintil
the excessive number of printers should bc diminished.'

No printing was to be carried on elsevvhere, than in the
city of London ; except one press at Oxford, and one also at
Cambridge. And the directions as to licensing, contained in
the Queen's injunctions of 1559, were here renewed under
severe penalties.

But what more particularly distinguished this decree is an
enactment in favor of Copyright, which jjcrhaps was also in-
cluded in the one of 1566. * For it is by this decree
enacted, ' that no one shall print any book or other paper,
contrary to any statute, letters patent, &c., or contrary to
any allowed ordinance set down for the good governmeiit of
the Company of Stationcrs within the city of London.'
That these words alluded to the protection of the property in
the copies is manifest from the recital of a proclamation in
the subsequent reign, t which states, that whereas this last
decree had been evaded, amongst other ways, " by printing
beyond sea such allowed books, works, or writings, as had
been imprinted within the realm by such to whom the sole
printing thereof, by letters patent, or lawful ordinance or au-
thority did appertain;" and therefore commands, that the
same punishment shall be inflicted on persons importing, as
on persons ofFending under that decree.

* I have not been able to meet with the decree of 156G, in any other than an
abridged form; but as the clause in this decree of 1586 seems taken from the
one of 1500, it is likely the same words would be found in the latter document
if examined.

OF THE LAW OF COPYRKJIIT, 15

The next decree we have to notice, is one in the 13th
of Charles the First, § by which printers were placed under
several arbitrary regulations, and the number of those allowed
to keep a press, limited to twenty.

One of the redeeming features in this otherwise despotic
act, was the protection it afforded Copyright, by the following
clause, which enacted, ' that no one should import, or put to
sale any books, which the Company of Stationers, or any
other person had, or should by any letters patent, order, or
entrance in their register book or otherwise, have the right,
privilege, authority, or allowance solely to print; on penalty
of forfeiture of books, and such fine as that Court should
think fit.'

§ llthJuly, 1G37. Brit. Mus. M.S.

IG HISTOBICAL SKETCH

FBOM THE BEBELLION IN 1640, TO THE BESTOBATION

Nor was the protection thus justly afForded to Copyright
under the legitimate government, wholly lost sight of amidst
the troubles that shortly ensued. For although in the
anarchy and confusion of order and property, which accom-
panied the rebellion, several attempts were made to procure
that all works, without exception, should be open to any to
print: yet OfFspring, Teatly, Burgos, Gouge, Byfield, Sea-
man, Calamy, and a number of other divines, who were on
favorable terms with the party which then prevailed in
Parliament, made strong representations against such a
practica.

They urged, ' that to their knowledge, very considerable
sums of money had been paid by stationers and printers to
many authors, for the copies of such useful books as had been
imprinted. In regard whereof,' they said, ' we conceive it to
be both just and necessary, that they should enjoy a property
for the sole imprinting of their copies. For unless they do,
all scholars will be utterly deprived of any recompense from
the stationers or printers, for their studies and labeur in
writing or preparing books for the press. Besides, if the
books that are printed in England be sufFered to be imported
from beyond the seas, or in any other way re-imprinted, to
the prejudice of those who bear the charges of the impres-
sions, the authors and the buyers will be abused by vicious

OK rilE LAW ()!�■ COl'Y'RlGllT. 17

impressions, to the great discouragement of learned men,
and extreme danger of all kinds of good learning.'

These and simiiar representations had so mueh weight
M�th the House, that in an ordinance they afterwards pub-
lished on the 14th of June, 1643,* 'for suppressing the late
great abuses and disorders in printing,' reciting, amongst
other tliings, that divers persons, " {conirary to former orders
and the constant custom used among the Stationers' Com-
pany) had taken Hberty to print, vend, and publish the most
profitable vendible copies of books belonging to the Company
and other Stationers ;" they ordered, inter alia, that all
books should be " entered in the register book of the Com-
pany of Stationers, according to ancient custom;" and that
no one should print or import printcd, " any book lawfully
licensed and entered in the register book of the said Com-
pany, for any particular member thei'eof, ivithout the license
and consent of the owner thereof �" on pain of forfeiting the
same to the owner, " and such further punishment as should
be thought fit." Wardens, &c., empowered to make search,
seize copies, and break presses, " employed in printing or re-
printing books by such as have no lawful interest in tliem;"
and to bring the compilers, printers, &c., before either of the
Houses, " that so they might receive such further punish-
ments as their offences should demerit."

This ordinance also contained enactments for the licensing
of all books before publication; and when Milton, in his
uoble speech for the Hberty of unlicensed printing, in the
following year, attacked it witli all the force of argument, the
])oignancy of satire, and the enthusiasm of a spirit-stirring
appeal in favour of Hberty; he at the same time carefuUy
guardcd against its being thought, that he objeeted to those
parts of it, which related " to the just retaining of each man
his several copy; which God forbid," he exclaims, " should
be gainsaid."

* Scobell's Acts and Ord. of Parlmt. pp. 44, .'). ed. 1658.
C

18 IIISTOHICAL 8KETCH

In another ordinance of the Usurpation ParUamcnt, passed
the 20th of September, 1649,* for putting down false and
scandalous pamphlets, and regulating printing, and restrain-
ing it " from too arbitrary and general an exercisc," the fol-
lowing enactment was made :�■

That any person printing or reprinting any books entered
in the registry book of the Stationers' Company, without
the consent of the owner thereof, or stitching or binding
the same, should forfeit all such books, and 6s. 8d. for
each.

* Scobell's Acts and Oid.

'i'iiK i^AW OK coPYiuGirr. 19

FUOM THE RF.STORATION IX 1660, 'PO THE ACCESSION
OF WILLIAM AXD MARY, 1688.

As the Uberty of the press had met with but Httle sympathy
even from the loudest declaimers for freedom, so it could not be
expected to receive much consideration at the hands of the re-
stored government, who could trac� in it one of the great means
of their original expulsion. But as there was no Star-Chamber
any longcr, to give an appearance of legahty to the niandates
of the Court, apphcation was obliged to be made to Par-
liament to legislate on that subject; and that compliant
body hesitated not to reforge for the press its old fetters.
To enter into this, however, would be beside our subject at
present, which is merely to show the authority that the act
that they passed* gave to the right of copy in the owner, by
the following clause :�

In which it is enacted, that no one should print any book
or books, " which any person or persons, by force or virtue of
any letters patent granted or assigned, or which should here-
after be granted or assigned to him or them, or (where the same
are not granted by any letters patent), hj force or virtue of any
cntry or cntries thereof duly made or to be made in the regis-
ter book of the said Company of Stationers, or in the register
book of either of the Universities respectively, had or should
have the right, privilege, authority, or allowance, solely to
print, ivithout the consent of the owner or owners of such book
or books;" nor should bind, stitch, &c., on pain of forfeiting

� 13 & 14 Car. 11. c. 33.
C 2

20 HISTORICAL SKETCH

the same, and fjs. 8d. for each book, and being proceeded
against as an offender against that act.

And by another clause, it obliged the printer of every werk
to reserve three copies; one for the King's hbrarj', and one
for each of the Universities of Oxford and Cainbridge.*

The entry of works in the register book of the Stationers'
Company, had been so often recognised and treated as equi-
valent to proof of ownership by decrees and other acts, that
a legal title was thought to be attained by it, even paramount
to that of the king's pateiitee, if he had not registered his
work ; and Atkyns, who held a patent from the king for
printing all books touching the common law, finding parties
acting in defiance of it, on the pretext of priority of title
by entry, petitioned the king, who issued a proclamation,t
wherein, after stating that differences had arisen between the
Stationers' Company and Mr. Atkyns, to whom the king had
granted the sole right of printing all law books, owing to
divers copies of such books being entered in the register
books of the Stationers' Company, by which « private pro-
perty was pretended to be gained thereto; it was stated to be
his Majesty's pleasure, that no book concerning the common
law should be entered in the register book, so as to give
the person entering it aiiy property in such book, but that
the printing thereof be solely reserved to the said Edward
Atkins.

A cause, in which this point was involved, was at this
time pending in the Court of Common Pleas, and is the first
case on record concerning Copyright before a legal tribunal.
It is not regularly reported, but was quoted in the case of
the Company of Stationers v. Parker, 1 Jac. II., Skinner's

* This was the first foundation of the present claim of public bodies to copies
of every work pulilished. Sir Thomas Bodley, liad, as far back as 1610, made an
agreement with the Stationers' Company, by which they agreed to give a copy
of every work printed in the Company to the University of Oxford ; but this
was a matter of private agreement, and not a compulsory clause of a statute.

t Dated the 8th of Nov. 1671.

Ol' THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT. 21

Rep. p. 234. The circumstances were these : ' Roper, the
plaintiif, had bought of the executors of Mr. Justice Crook,
the third part of bis reports ; Streater, the defendant, had a
grant from the King, and printed upon Roper; upon which
the latter brought an action of dcbt upon the stat. 14 Car. II,
Streater pleaded the King's grant, upon which Roper de-
murred, and judgment was given for the plaintiff.' *

And although this judgment was reversed afterwards in
Parhanient, yet its authority was not shaken, since the re-
versal proceeded upon the grounds that the copy belonged to
the King. Besides, the Judges were not consulted on the
occasion, and it is not clear that they would have supported
the rcversal; for although the majority of the Lords concur-
red in reversing the judgment, it was not till after long de-
bate and consultation ; and the opinions of the Judges were
not taken ; for \^ hen the question was put, ' that the Judges
be heard in this case,' it was carried in the negative, ' dissen-
tiente Anglescv.'

* Roper V. Streater, M. T. 24 Car. II., Rot. 237. It was said afterwards, in
the case of the Stationers' Company v. Parker, Skin. 233, in reference to the
abovc case, and in answer to the argument of there being no right of copy at
common law decided in this case, since it was brought on the Statute of 14 Car.II.
that ' although it was truc, that the action was brought on the act of 14 Car. II.,
yet that Statute did not give a right, but only an action of debt;' therefore, that
the case was a precedent of an action on the common-Iaw right of the owner.

Perhaps this case of Roper )'. Streater was the one alluded to by Sergeant
Pembcrton in T. T. 29 Car. II., 1 iVIod. Rep. 250, Stationers' Company v. Sey-
mour, where he says, " When Sir Orlando Bridgcman was Chief Justice in this
court, there was a question raised concerning the va�dity of a grant of the sole
printing of any particular book, with a prohibition to all others to print the
same, how far it should stand good against them that claim a property to the
copy, paramount to the king's grant; and opinions were divided on the point."
If so, the Icarncd sergeant states the case rather differently when he says, " that
opinions were divided on the point." Perhaps he refers to the case before it
was decided, whilst it was pending in the court; and this appears more probable,
since Sir Orlando Bridgeman was not Chief Justice, when judgment was pro-
nounced, having been thcn rcccntly elevated to the dignity of Lord Keeper.

22 lUST�UlCAL SKETCH

The act of Charles the Secoiid abovc mentioned, was at
first made only for a hmited period, hut was afterwards
renewed from time to time till the end of the session, 31
Car. IL, which was in May, 1679, when it was suffered to
expire. The many debates aboiit the Popish Plot, the bill
for excluding the Duke of York from the throne, the im-
peachment of the Lord Treasurer Danby, the ill-humour of
the Parliament, and their encroaching spirit, the short period
of their session, their hasty prorogation and subsequent dis-
solution. are all reasons whv this bill was not again rcnewed,
as it most likely would have been under other circumstances.
And the two subsequent Pai-Ilaments which were held in this
reign, were conducted so tumultuously, betrayed such a spirit
of faction, and were dissolved so hastily, that no time was
found for discussing a bill like the present one, so eompara-
tively unimportant at that moment.

As soon as the legislative protection was thus removed
from the copies of works, the meaner and least honourable
men of the Stationer's Compari}', who had littlc to lose,
having no copies of their own, and much to gain by pirating
the valuable works of their wealthier neighbours, and so
reaping without cost what it had cost others umch to sow,
began without shame or fear to appropriate to themselves
the labours and property of others; whereupon the principal
stationcrs met together in council, on the I7th of August,
1C81, to take some effectual steps to prevent a practice so
ruinous to the best interests of their trade, and agreed upon
the following by-law, which was accordingly passed.*

It recited, that ' AVhereas several members of the company
had great part of their estate in copies, and by ancicnt usage
of the company, when any book or copy was duly entered
in the register book of the company, such person to whom
such entry is made, was, and always had been, reputed and

OF THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT. 23

taken to be the proprietor of such book or copy, and ought
to have the sole printing thereof, which privilege and in-
terest was then of late often violated and abused;' and or-
dained, that where any such entry was duly made, any other
person printing, or importing, selling, binding, or stitching
the same, without the consent of the owner or his assigns,
should forfeit 12d. for every such copy so printcd or im-
ported.*

As our present object is confined strictly to tracing the
different steps by which the Law of Copyright arrived at its
present state, we pass by, as foreign to our purpose, the
legal arguments and discussions that now arose in several
cases, as to the King's power of granting exclusive patents
for difTercnt works; since they were not so much cases in-
terfering with the particular Copyright of individuals, as
rcstrictions on the general liberty of printing.

On the accession of James II. the 13 and 14 Car. II.
c. 3.3, was revived by the Ist of Jac. IL, c. 17, for the term
of seven years, and thence to the end of the next Session of
Parliament.

* This -was aftcrwards, on the 7th of October, approved of and confirmed
by the Lord Chancellor and the Lords Chief Justices, to whoni it was sub-
mitted for that purposc, pursuant to astatute passed in the 19 of Henry VU.
which requires that all by-laws made by companies, shall be first examined and
approved of by the persons therein named, under penalty of �40 for every
default.

24 HISTOKICAL SKETCH

FROM THE REVOLUTI�N IN 1688, TO THE ACCESSION
OF ANNE.

lx WilHam and Mary's reign, whcn this act, commonly
called ' The Licensing Act,' was about to expire, it was re-
newed by the 4 W. & M. e. 24, sec. 15, for a year from
the 13th day of Feb. 1692, O.S. and from thcnce until the
end of the next Session of Parliament.

It may appear curious that in times when liberty was so
zealously asserting her rights, a bill that thus completcly
fettered the prcss sliould have been again renewed; hut it
was in a manner secretly passed through the House of
Commons, it bcing an amendment proposed in committee to
a general act for renewing about a dozen of statutes then
about to expire; and when the motion was put that the
house agreed with the committee in that amendment, it was
only carried by a majority of 19 out of 179 members pre-
sent. On the bill being submitted to a Committee in the
House of Lords, the house, aftcr reading the petition of se-
veral booksellers and bookbinders, and others, dealers in
books and printing, praying to be heard before the passing
of the bill, ordered that they should be heard. But they do
not appear to have met with much success, as the bill was
soon after read a third time ; on which occasion two riders
were ofFered, but these being negatived the bill was passed.
A protest was, however, drawn up and signed by eleven
Lords, which thus concludes their reasons against the bill,�

OF THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT. 25

" Because it subjects all learning and truc Information to the
arbitrary will and pleasure of a mercenary, and perhaps igno-
rant, lieenser; destroys the property of authors in their copies;
and sets up many monopolies."*

We learn from ' lieasons humbly of�ered to be considered
before the act for printing be renewed/f that this ' destruc-
tion of property' referred to certain mal-practices in the ma-
nagement of the register book of the Company of Stationers.
The Company, it appears, not being compclled to do so by
any express words in the statute, sometimes asked large
sums for making an entry, and at others refused or neglected
to enter books ; and not unfrequently made false entries and
erasm'es to the confusion of all property. It was also al-
leged, that the terms of the Act itself were liable to miscon-
struction^ as it seemed to make the fact of an entry equiva-
lent to proof of Icgal ownership. " By the said Act it is
enacted, that a book being licensed and entered into the
Register-book of the Company of Stationers, it is forbid to
be printcd without the owner's licence (who by virtue of
that entry is owner) under the penalty of 6s. 8d. per
book; which Register hath (by the undue practices of the
Ma&ter and Wardens), been so ill kept, that many entries
have been unduly made, insomuch that the true proprietors,
boih by purchase, licence, and entry, all duly made of se-
veral books, which afterwards have been erased, or the leaves
wherein they have been writtcn have been cut out, and un-
due entries made to others who had no right, which is di-
rectly contrary to the plain words and meaning of the said
Act, whereby the owners have not only been defrauded of
their right, but also rendered liable to the penalty of 6s.
8d. per book for all the books they printed, sold or bound.
Many learned authors have been defrauded of their rights
therebj^ who, after many years' pains and study, and after-

t In the Brit. Mus., a printed slieet.

'_() IIISTORICAL SKETCH

M ards by a bare dehvery of their books to be hccnsed, have
been barred by surreptitious entries made in the said Regis-
ter, (to instance, in the book callcd ' Regula Placitandi,'
among many others, written by a leanied lawyer and worthy
Member of Parhament.)"

The Act so renewed was only of short duration, and ano-
ther attempt was soon required to be made, to get its enact-
ments again prolonged. Accordingly, on the lOth of Fe-
bruary, 1694, O.S., when the Committee, appointed to in-
quire into what laws were expiring, or had expired, gave
in their report, they recommended, amongst other laws,
that the 13 and 14 Car. II., e. 33, should be revived.
But the House rejected this recommendation, at the same
time, however, ordering a Committee to be appointed to
prepare and bring in a Bill, ' For the better Regulating of
Printing and Printing Presses.'

A Bill was accordingly prepared and brought into the
House on the 2nd of March, read a tirst time on the 7th, a
second time on the 30th, and sent into Committee. On the
latter day, a Petition was presented from the M aster, Ward-
cns, and Commonalty of the Compaiiy of Stationers, setting
fortli that they heard a Bill was depending in the House for
the better regulation of Printing and Printing-Presses, and
that if their property should not be provided for by the said
Bill, not only the petitioners, but many widows and others,
whose whole livelihood depended on the petitioners' pro-
perty, would be utterly ruiiied.* They therefore prayed to
be heard by counsel touching the said Bill.

What became afterwards of this Bill, we cannot learn ;
whether it was lost in the committee, or whether the report
of the committee was never given in, on account of more
pressing business, or the near termination of the session
which occurred on the 3d of May. Perhaps it was a mea-

* House of C'oininons' Journals.

OF THE LAW OP COPYRIGHT. 27

sure that satisfied neither party, for it appears probable that
it was only brought forward to show that while the Com-
mons refused to revive the Licensing Act, tliey were not un-
willing to pass some measurc of a more moderate nature to
regulate the liberty of printing. We are, however, left to
conjecture, for there were no debates on the subject, nor any
information beyond what may be gleaned from the scanty
details in the Commons' Journals.*

In the meantime the bill to continue the acts about to
expire, was passed in the House of Commons, carried up
to the Lords, and there on the 3rd of April committed;
when, amongst other amendm�nts to the bill, the very
resolution which the Commons had rejectcd, of reviving
the 13 and 14 Car. II, c. 33, Mas pi-oposed and carried,
and the bill, with this alteration, passed and sent down to
the Commons for their concurrence. The Commons then
desired a conference, which being had on the 18th of April,
they submitted to their Lordships a great many reasons for
not eonsenting to the renewal of that act. Amongst the rest:
" Because that act prohibits printing any thing before entry
thereof in the register of the Company of Stationers (except
proclamations, acts of parliament, and such books as shall be
appointed under the sign manvial, or under the hand of a
principal secretary of state); whereby both houses of parlia-
ment are disabled to order any thing to be printed; and the
said Company are empowered to hinder the printing all inno-
cent and useful books; and have an opportunity to enter a
title to themselves and their friends, for what belongs to and
is the lahour and right of others." f The Lords then retired

* Tlic last that was hcard of this Bill, was on the 3rd of April, when the House
ordereti, that the Committee to whom the Bill was committed, should have power
to sendfor persons, papers, and records.

t And another reason was, " Because that Act prohihits any one, not only to
print books whereof another has entered a claim of propcrty in the register of
the Company of Stationers; but to bind, stitch, or put theni to salc, and that

28 HISTOUICAL SKETCH

to their own house, and on the question being put, whether
they agreed with the Coinmons in leaving out the clause,
reviving the 13 and 14 Car. II, e. 33, it was resolved in the
afSrmative.

So that this act, commonly called the ' Licensing Act,'
finally expired on the 25th of April, 1694; which was the end
of the next session, after the expiration of a year from the
13th of February, 1692, O.S.

The same inconveniences arising as did on the former occa-
sion, on the expiration of this act, the stationers soon after-
wards convened a common-hall,* and passed a by-law, similar
to the one of August, 1681. It recited: "Whereas divers
members of this company have great parts of their estates in
copies, duly entered in the register book of this company,
W'hich, by the anclent usage of the company, is, are, or always
hath and have been used, reputed, and taken to be the right
and property of such person and persons (members of this
company), for whom or whose benefit such copy and copies
are so duly entered in the register book of this company, and
constantly bargained and sold, amongst the members of this
company, as their property; and deviscd to children and
others, for legacies, and to their widows for maintenance; and
that he and they, to whom such copy and coj)ies are so duly
entered, purchased, or devised, ought to have the sole print-
ing thereof:" And ordained, " for the better prescrvation of
the said ancient usage from being invaded by evil-minded
men, and to prevent the abuse of trade by violating the same,"
that ' where any such entry of a book was duly made, any one
printing, importing, selling, binding, stitching, or exposing
the same to sale, should forfeit the sum of 12d. for each
copy, or part of such copy.'

under a great pccuniary penalty; thoiigh it is impossible for a bookbinctcr, stitcher,
or seller, to know whether the book brought to him were printed by the proprietor
or another." » 14th May, 1694,

OF THE I.AW OF COPYUrGHT. 29

FROM THE ACCESSION OF ANNE, TO THE PASSING
THE 8tH ANNE, C. 19.

BuT as the foregoing by-law did not have the desired effect,
and some of the poorer sort of the printers, and others not
belonging to the company, persisted in printing other men's
copies: the parties aggrieved petitioned parliament in the
years 1703, 17OG, and again in 1709, to put a stop to these
mal-practices, and to enact penalties against the oifenders.

Some time beforc, in one of the petitioiis of�ered against
the renewal of the hcensing act, we find the following, sug-
gested by the petitioners, as heads of a bill, they were willing
to have passed. ' 1, That it should be made felony for any
printer to neglect to put his name and address to any book
he printed. 2, That a penalty should be fixed on seditious,
treasonable, and scandalous books. 3, That "the proprietor
should be secured in his particular copies, by giving him a
method of process, and treble costs and damages against the
invader." 4, That the register-book of the Company of
Stationers should be duly rectified, and all fraudulent and false
entries, and entries of popish books, and other illegal and
scandalous books there entered, be expunged, and the true
proprietor thus reinstated in his right.'

It is in fact the burden of almost all the petitions that we
meet with, prior to the 8th of Anne, that security be given
to the proprietor for quiet enjoyment of his property in his
copies; not that a property in his copies be given to him.

30 IIISTOIUCAL SKETCH

It is his undoubted right, they say. In the petition above
alluded to they assert : "The property of English authors
hath been always owned as sacred among the tradcrs, and
generally forborne, hithcrto to be invaded : but if any shoukl
invade such properties, titere is remecJy, by la\^s alread}'
made, and no other were ever thought ncedful till 1CC2."

Again, in another petition entitled " Rcasons against the
Act for Licensing," they say : " As for securing propert}^,
ifs securedby lav) already, as om* own exj)crience mayshow;
and before 1662, there nas no Act of Parliament for regu-
lating printing; it is the cnclosed common that is intended
by the patentees to be made a property by Act of Parliament.
That particular property may be sccured, is earnestly
desired."

But although there was remedy, it was not equally clcar
what that remedy was. Copyright had been so long pro-
tected in the manner we have sliown, by decrees and acts,
that any other mode of proceeding was almost unknovin.*
Besides, what use was there in runnina; the hazard of an
action at law against persons, wbo could not, even in the
cvent of success, pay the costs, much Icss the damages, that
might be adjudged against them?

It was these circumstances that induced the respectablc
portion of the trade to earnestly desire that some step should
be taken in Parliament to more effectually secure their pro-
perty ; and by the authority of the legislature, to proclaim,
that their rights were no longer to bc tramplcd on with
impunity.

"They set forth to the Parliament," says Mr. Strype, in
his edition of Stow's Survey of London, "that when the

* It is true, there was the instance in Charles the Second's time, soon after the
expiration of the Licensing Act, in the King's Bench, of an action on the case,
brought for printing the Pilgrim's Progress, ' of which the plaintirt' was and is
the truc proprietor; whereby he lost the benefit and profit of his copy.' Poynder
r. Bradyl, H. T. 31. Car. II. Lilly's Entries, p. Tw. But this was a solitary case,
and as it does not appear that the action was procceded in, it could hardly operate
as a precedent.

OF THE LAW OK COPYRIGHT. 31

author had conveyed over his copy to any of them, they had
a just and legal property thcreunto. And that they had

iven sums of money for copies^, and had settled those copies

on their wives at marriage, or on their children at their
deaths. And that at this time many widows and orphans
had none other subsistence; and that the copies then in use
had cost the present possessors (exchisively of all other
charges of print and paper) at least �50,000. Urging fur-
ther that this property was the same with houses and other
estates, being agreeable to common law and good reason.
To which might be added, that unless this liberty of printing
upon the owners of copies were stopped, it would prove a
great discouragement to the printing of many good books,
offered by authors to the booksellers, who would not care to
meddle in such uncertain gain, and thereby might ensue
great prejudice to knowledge and learning."

And in another case given to the members in support of
their application for a bill, the last reason or paragraph
is as foUows:�" The liberty now set on foot of breaking
through this ancient and reasonable usage is no way to be
effectually restrained, but by an Act of Parliament. For, by
common law, a bookseller can recover no more costs than he
can prove damage; but it is impossible for him to prove the
tenth, nay perhaps the hundredtli part of the damage he
sufferSjbecause a thousand counterfeit copies may be dispersed
into as many diiferent hands all over the kingdom, and he is
not able to prove the sale of ten. Besides, the defendant is
ahvays a pauper; and so the plaintift' must lose his costs of
suit. No man of sttbstance had heen known to ojfend in this
particular; nor will any ever appear in it. Therefore, the
only remedy by the common law is to confine a beggar to the
rules of the King's Bench or Fleet; and there he will conti-
nue the evil practice with impunity. We therefore pray that
confiscation of counterfeit copies be one of the penalties to be
inflicted on offenders."

32 HISTOKICAIi SKEITII

By which we may learn that the reason of applying for
some law on the subject, was not because an author was
thonght to have no right in his copy, or no remedy for its
infringement; but because it was sought to rcnder his right
more beneficial, by the remedy being made more effectivc.
The aetion on the case could only give the damages arising
from each particular sale of a copy proved at the trial; and
the judgment obtained could have no effect on the pirated
copies still remalning in the prlntcr's hands, which lie was
still at the same liberty to attempt to dispose of as at first.
Besides, the aetion on the case was a peculiarly inappropriate
and expensive remedy against partics, who had no property
to answer the event of the trial, and where the plaintiff, even
when successful, was left to pay his own costs; for at this
time no man of respeetability or substance as has been al-
ready stated, had been known to ofFend in sueh a case.

In compliance, therefore, Mitli the above petitions, leave
was given to bring in a bill, which, we are told, went to the
Committee as " A Bill to secure the undoubted property of
copies for ever."* And as this Bill has had a very material
effect on the property of authors, and has been adjudged to
take away from them any common law right they before pos-
sessed, it will not be unprofitable to mark the steps by which
it passed into a law.

On the llth of January, 1709, O. S., say the Journals of
the House of Commons, " Mr. Wortleyf according to order
presented to the House, 'A Bill for the encouragement of
Learning, and for securing the property of copies of Books
to the W^/i^/wZ owners thereof;' and the same was received
and read a first time."

An early day was named for the second reading; but it

* Mr. Justice Willes, in Millar v. Taylor, 4 Burrow's Rep. p. 2.'533. But what
authority the learned Judge had for this statement, does not appear.

t Afterwards the husband of the beautiful and accomplishcd Mary Pierre-
point, better known as Lady Mary Wortlcy Moiitague.

OF THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT. 33

was sufFered to pass by without any notice being taken till
the 2nd of Februaiy, when was presented, " A Petition of
the poor distressed printers and bookbindei's, in behalf of
themselves and the rest of the same trades, in and about the
cities of London and Westminster; setting forth that the
petitioners, who are in number at least five thousand, having
served seven years' apprenticeship, hoped to have gotten a
comfortable livelihood by their trades; but that the liberty
lately taken, of soine few persons printing books, to which
they have no right to the copies, is such a discouragement to
the bookselling trade, that no person can proceed to print
any book without considerable loss, and consequently the
petitioners cannot be cmployed, by which means the peti-
tioners are reduced to very great poverty and want. And,
praying that their deplorable case may be effectually redressed,
in such a manner as to the house shall seem meet." The House
ordered the petition to lie on the table, till the Bill before
the House was read a second time, which it accordingly was
on the 9th of the same month.

After several amendments had been made in Committee, it
was read a third time on the 14th of March, and passed.
The title was then fixed as, '^An Act for the encouragement
of learning, by vesting the copies of printed books in the
authors, or purchasers of such copies, during the times therein
mentioned."

The Lords made some amendments, amongst the rest, the
giving the further term of fourteen years in the event of the
author surviving the first fourteen years; and the Commons
having agreed to all of them except one, which was striking
out the clause regulating the price of books, and which was
subsequently abandoned by the Lords, the Bill was passed,
and received the royal assent the same day, being the last of
the session.

This act stands in the Statute Book as the 8 Annee, c. 19.
It recites that, " Whereas printers, booksellers, and other

34 lUSTORICAL SKETCH

persons, have of late frequently taken the liberty of printing,
reprinting, and publishing, or causing to be printed, re-
printed, and pubhshed, books and other writings, without
the consent of the authors or proprietors of such books and
writings, to their very great detriment, and too often to the
ruin of them and their families :" And enacts, "for prcvent-
ing, therefore, such practices for the future, and for the en-
couragement of learned men to compose and write useful
books ;" that the author or his assigns of any book published
before the lOth of April, 1710, should have the sole right of
printing and publishing it, for the term of twenty one years,
to commence from that day; and the author or his assigns
of any book thereafter to be published, should have the sole
right of printing and publishing for the term of fourteen
years, from the date of publication ; with a provision for a
further term of fourteen years, if the author should be living
at the expiration of the first. And any one printing such
book within the period specified, without the owner's con-
sent, should forfeit all such books or parts thereof, and ld.
for every sheet of the same, one half of the penalty to go to
her Majesty, and the other to any one suing for the same.

The forfeiture and penalties were not to extend to cases
where the title of a work had not been duly entered in the
register book of the Stationers' Company, which entry the
clerk of the Company was required to make, on payment of
a fee of 6d.; and, on refusal, notice in the Gazette to be of
like avail.

When books were sold at unreasonable prices, the Lord
Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord Chancellor, the Lord
Keeper of the Great Seal, the Lord Bishop of London, the
Lord Chief Justices of Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, the
Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer, the Vice Chancellors of
the two Universities, or any one of them, on complaint being
made, might inquire into the same, and regulate the price ;

OF THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT. 35

and any bookseller selling contrary to that regulation should
forf'eit �5 for every book so sold. *

Nine copies of each book were to be sent to the public
librarics therein named, on penalty of �5, and the value of
such copy. t

Nothing in the act was to extend to the prohibiting the
importing or selling any books in Greek, Latin, or any other
foreign language, printed beyond the seas.

All actions were to be brought within three months.

These were the principal provisions of this Bill, which
concluded with this very general proviso: " That nothing in
this act contained should extend, or be construed to extend,
cither to prejudice or confirm any right that the said Univer-
sities, or any of them, or any person or persons have or claim
to have to the printing or reprinting any book or copy
ab-eady printed or hereafter to be printed."

We have no account of any debates on the subject; nor
indeed do we knovv what were the provisions of this Bill, as
it was first introduced into the House of Commons; but we
may fairly assume from the language of the petitions, and
from the original title of the Bill, that it was submitted to
the House, as a Bill to protect the property in Copyright of
an author in perpetuity; and that the House, unwilling to
run the hazard of such prospective legislation, as the enact-

* This clause was repealcd by 12 Geo. II. c. 3G.

t With regard to this clause it may be curious to observe the changes it went
through, before it became as it now stands.

As the Bill was originally brought into the House of Commons, it was only
for three eopies to be delivered to the same public bodies, who were entitled to
thcm, imder the 13 & 14 Car. II. c. 33. In the passage of the Bill through the
Commons, two more copies were added for the Edinburgh University and Sion
College ; and the Scotch Peers, in the House of Lords, not to be behind hand in
letting so good an opportunity pass for enriching their public librarics, at the
expense of the poor author, added accordingly four more copies for Scotland,
making the nine in all.

36 HI8TORICAL SKETCH



				*imtm^^mmmi^*

		HISTORICAL SKETCH

	LAW OF COPYRIGHT.

			CHAPTER I.

FROM THE IXVENTION OF PRINTING, TO THE FOBMATION OF THE STATIONERS' COMPANY IN 1556. To seek the origin of Copyright in times prior to the inven- tion of Printing, would partake more of curious research than of useful investigation, and would, at best, furnish rather matter of conjecture than of Information. In the follow- ing pages, therefore, we shall confine our inquiry as to the commencement of this right, to the evidences afForded by the regulations and customs respecting the first printed books; which, seeing the scanty materials that are handed down to us, we shall find to be a work involving suffici�nt doubt and uncertainty, without occupying our time by a search into darker or more remote periods. It is improbable, that even in the Augustan age, an age rich in literature and the arts, any such right ever existed.* How much more difficult then must it be to show, that in * But copies appear to have been sold for the purpose of recital before an audience. Sce Prolog, in Eunuch. Terentii, 20; Mart. Epigr. i, 67, iv, 72, xiii, 3, xiv, 194; Juv. vii, 83. But this, doubtless, implied no exclusive right. B



	r^^

				APPENDIX,

					CONTAINIVG

			THE STATE OF COPYRIGHT IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

		" C'est svirtout par la l�gislation compar�e que la question de propri�t� litt�- raire peut avancer vers sa solution ; car c'est en combinant les syst�mes adopt�s par des peuples aussi divers par leurs institutions que par leurs mceurs, qu'on reconnaitra quelle est sa v�ritable essence et jusqu'k quel point elle peut se con- stituer par elle-m�me, sans Ie secours de 1'autorit� civile, ou bien si effectivement les droits de chacun sur 1'iEuvre livr�e & tous, ne peuvent se trouver r�gies que par la puissance publi(iue." M- ViCTOR FOUCHER.

L



	122
	122	APPENDIX.
		APPENDIX.

Germany have resolved to establish as a fundamental principle, that for the future, all distinction with regard to penalties and legal remedies against piracy, between the subjects of one State and the snbjeets of anothcr, being parties to the Con- federation, shall be respectivcly abolished; so that the publishers, booksellers, and authors of one State, shall enjoy in any other State of the Confederation, the same protection as in that other State shall be enjoyed by its subjects against piracy. " The most high and high governments will take the necessary measures for the execution of the present decree: they will acquaint the Diet, within two months, as wcll with the measures they have taken, as with the laws and regula- tions which exist with regard to piracy." It would appear, however, that no steps were taken to carry into execution this decree ; for we find on the 2nd of April, 1835, another decree issued, which still promises but does not perform. " The most high and high governments have agreed to prohibit piracy through- out the whole extent of the Confederation, and to establish and secure literary property on uniform principles." At last, on the 9th of November, 1837, the following resolutions were passed by the Germanic Diet:� " Art. 1. Literary productions of everykind, as wcll as works of art, whether already published or not, shall not be multiplied by mcchanical mcans, without the consent of the authors or artists, or those to whom they may have trans- ferred their rights. " Art. 2. The rights above mentioned shall pass to the heirs or representa- tives of the authors or artists, or those to whom they have been transferred ; and when he who brought out the work, or he who is the editor, is named, this right shall be recognized and protected in all the States of the Confederation for aperiod of ten years at the least. This period shall be applicable to literary pro- ductions and works of art, which have already appeared within the territories of the Germanic Confederation, during the twenty years which have preceded the date of this resolution, when these productions and works shall be published anew, reckoning from the year of their new publication. When works are pub- lished in parts, the period shall be reckoned from the publication of the last part. " Art. 3 allows the prolonging of the shortest period of Copyright for ex- pensive works for a time not exceeding twenty years. " Art. 4 gives to authors and artists a right of compensation from all per- sons, who may publish surreptitious copies of their works, and declares that such surreptitious copies, as well as all the matcrials used in their production, shall be seized and destroyed. " Art, 5 interdicts the sale in any of the States of the Confederation of all



			12S AI>PEN'ni?v'. Electorate of Hesse, during the life time of the author, m for a tervi of ten years after his decease : provided that in such State, where the werk is first published, copyright be acknowledged and protected.

		VII. Saxe-Coiujrg-Gotha. In this Duchy, an ordinance has also been published (in 1827), against literary piracy. It directs that after tUrty years have elapsed/ro»! the death of an author, all rights that have descended to his heirs shall cease, as well as those which have been acquired by booksellers.

	VIII. Saxe-Meiningen. An ordonnance of the Duke of Saxe-Meiningen, of the date of the 23rd of April, 1829, declares the duration of Copyright to be for the life of the author, and�or twenty years after his death.

IX. Hamburgh. The Senate published, in .luly 1828, a provisionary decree for the protection of literary property, till the Diet should determine the question finally, giving the exclusive privilege of reprinting, for two years, within the city and lts territory, to all works first printed in one of the States of the Confederation : such term to date from tbc date of publication. X. Other States. In Saxony, an edict of 1773 prohlbits literary piracy; in Ilanover, one of the 17th of September, 1827 ; in Nassau, one of the 4th and 5th of March, 1814; in Reuss, one of the 24th of December, 1827 ; and in Anhalt-Coethen, one of 1829 ; but I am not able to state the periods for which Copyright endares in these countries. P^nough, however, lias been shown, to prove that the greater part of Germanv


				<j»np i~~iiH>~~'~~Jji^»ua~~»HH''''W'i~~^...~~ Wlft ~~- .~~'~~J'Jt~~ilM

		APPENDIX. 131

			SPAIN.

Victor Foucher is of opinion that the proper construction to be put upon a law of 1805, is, that Copyright is perpetual in this coun- try, He refers to "Novissima Recopilatione, 1805, liv. 8, tit. 15, IG, 17, 18, and 19."*

THE TWO SICILIES. Articles 322 and 323 of the penal code of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, f punish literary piracy with a fine of not less than one third, nor more than the doubl� of the sum awarded as damages to the proprietor of the Copyright, two thirds of which fine are to go in addition to damages and the confiscated copies to the proprietor ; and besides these punishments, imprisonment for one month is added when the damages exceed 500 ducats (�85). Respecting the duration of Copyright, and the privileges of au- thors, Victor Foucher says, " that although he is not ahle to affirm it, he believes that they are the same as in France, the Sicilies having retained, as he understands, the ' lois civiles' of that country. J * K;v. Ktr. de Legisl. torn. jv. p. 370, bis.* + There is a French translation of thib cude iii t'ie * CoU. des luis eiv. et crini. des Etut? .Modernes' � A rimprim. Eoy. Paris, 1S34�7. J Kev. Ktr. de Legisl. torn. iv. p, 370, his.

	PRINTR� BV J. OKBEN AV� CO,, B.4RTLKTT'S B�ILDINOS.



	S E 11G E A N T T A L F O U R �, M. P.,

				Sr:., &c., k<-.,

lOK Hls (iKXKUUI'S AIi\0(.'ACV OF TKK liRiTlTS OF AUTriOKS,

			CIk follolutng JSngrS

		AHK, wrni Jircii liK.'-fKCT, �y I'Kkmission,

					III'IDICATKD.



			PREFACE.

		Tme object of the following httle treatise is to give a succiuct historical account of the origin of the property knowa as ' ('opyright,' and of the raodifications and alterations it has subsequently undergone down to the present time. The motive in laying it before the public, is to attenipt to remove the misapprehensions M'hich prevail with regard to this species of property, both as to its former existence, and as to the effect and expediency of tlie measure proposed by Sergeant Talfourd. It will bc seeii by the Appendix, that in abnost every country but Great Britain, Copyright is continued for some period after the author's death, for the benefit of his heirs; and yet a Bill for this purpose has been for three sessions before the British legislature, and each session postponed : and this, owing not so much to any opposition existing to its principle, which has been each time affirmed by respectable majorities, as to the apathy with which every question is treated, which does not awaken the spirit of party, or touch the ever-sensitive chord of self-interest; and which has thus suffered an insigi�ficant minority to defeat it in detail.



		r' - �

			vin l'HEKACK. 1 feel sensibly that more time and study than have been in my power to bestow, are necessary to do jnstice to this subject; but if, by the perusal of the following pages, the reader is convinced that such a right as that known by the name of Copyright did fonnerly exist at cornmon-law, and was only taken away by a mistaken interpretation of the efiect of the statute of Anne. and that the state of the present law is such as imperatively demands alteration; I shall not consider the few leisure hours I have appropriated to thcir composition from the severer duties of my profession, as either mispent or unprofitably employed. J. J. L. Inner Temtle, Janvary Sis/, 1840.



			'J niSTOttlCAL SKETCH the rude and troubled times Mhich preceded the introduction of printing into this country, a custom of Copyright obtained here. And yet Bishop Feil, in his memoir on the state of printing in the University of Oxford,* asserts, that that Uni- versity possessed an exclusive right of transcribing and multiplying books by means of writing, which implies a species of Copyright. Be this, however, as it may, our object is not to push our inquiry to so remote a period, but content ourselves with tracing from the time of the invention of printing, the first recognition of this right, and its subsequent allowance and confirmation; and we shall find, that as soon as it bccamc valuable, it was claimed, and allowed; not only by favour of the sovereign, as in cases of privilege, or by consent among themselves, as in the by-laws of the Stationers' Company; but on principles of natural equity and justice. And though, in being minute, we may be thought tcdious, we hope wc shall not be considered as trilling ; for the links that make up the chain of evidence, are sometimes of the slightest and most delicate texture. It is the general opinion, that the art of printing was first brought into England by a mercer of London, of the name of Caxton, who had learned it at his own expense abroad: the first book printed by him in England being " The game and playe of the chesse," in the year 1474 : § although there are not wanting some who claim for Oxford the honour of printing the first book; since a work bas been discovered, entitled, "Exposicio sancti Jeronimi in simbolum apostolo- rum," which is expressed in the colophon to be printed at Oxford, 1468: "Jmpressa Oxonie Et finita Anno domini. * Gutch's CoUect. Curiosa. Vol I, p. 271. I This was the first book printed by him in Englanrt; but the first English book was printed three years before, " The Recuyell of tlie historyes of Troye, ------in the lioly cyte of Colen," in 1471, by this same Caxton.

		-: I



			nlll\|ii.T\|»lirw il»-

		OK THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT. o M.cccc.lxviij. xvij die decembris."* As this is, hovvever, only a single instance, and the date may, perhaps, be a misprint, or designedly falsified ; we may consider Caxton, in a practical point of view, as the first English printer. New Caxton, for the grcater part of his printing career, being without competitors, needed no special protection for the works he published ; and accordingly we do not find a single royal privilege granted for any of his works. And although Mr. Herbert appears to think he was appointed " King's printer," t yet it seems scarcely probable that this office would originate, when there was only a single printer, � Connected with this book is a eurious story, brought forward by Atkyns, in an action that he had as King's patentee against the Stationers' Company, for printing law boolcs. He endeavoured to show by an M.S., said to have been in the Lambeth L�brary, that printing was first introduced into this country by Henry VI, who was moved thereto by Archbishop Bourchier; that this Oxford printer was brought over to England at the King's expense; and that the first printers were the King's sworn servants. Frora these facts he sought to derive a certain prerogative or perpetual copyright in the King, as being the first means of introducing printing into this country. Most even of those, however, who agrec in thinliing this book a proof of the earlier exercise of the art of printing in this country than can be adduced in favour of Caxton, and that it must have been executed by some foreigner, who found his way to England on the dispersion of the workmen of Guttenberg, Fust, and Schoeffer, at the siege of Mentz; yet concur in the opinion, that as tlie pretended Lambeth M.S. has neverbeen heard of since, so it never was anything but a forgery, designed solely to serve Atkyns's purposes. t He says, " In M.S. at tho beginning of a copy of Caxton's Chroniclc, coeval with the publication, he is styled, ' Regius impressor.' This is further confirmed in tbc epilogue to'Thymage, or myrrour of theworld.'" Herb. Typ. Ant. p, 2. The M.S. thus referred to, is in a copy of the work that belonged to Mr. Tutet, and is as follows : " Presens Liber pertinet ad Willm Purde emptus a Willmo Cax- ton, Regius Jmpressor vicesimo Nouembris Anno Regni Ri?s Edwardi quarti vice- simo secundo." And the passage in the epilogue of " Thymage, or myrrour of the world," is " whiche book J began first to translate the second day of Janyuer the yer of our Lord, m.cccc.Ixxx. And fynysshed the viij day of Marche the same yere, And the xxj yere of the Regne of the most Crysten kyng. Kynge Edward the fourth. Vnder the shadowe of whos noble proteccion I haue emprysed and fynysshed this sayd lytyl werke and boke. Bcsechynge Almyghty god to be his protectour and defendour agayn alle his Enerayes," &c. But when we consider the very full and minute account we have of upwards of B 2



		4 HISTOllICAL SKETCH as it could be of no value. But when scveral began to exer- cise the art of printing, it was then vcry natural that the king should select ene out of the rest, the most expert, or the best recommended; especially to print papers of state and matters of government. And, accordingly, not long after, we find onc William Faques, or Fakes, who styles himself " Regius impressor," in a proclamation against clipped money in 1504; t and from that time to the present, there has been a regular succession of persons holding that office. The first instance that we have of an exclusivc privilege for printing a book, occurs in the year 1518; and the occasion of it may be traced, not so much in the increase of printers by that time, as in the paucity of materials for the exercise of their tradc ; that is to say, the very few w ritings of imme- diate temporary interest which were then produced. It was printed by Ilichard Pynson, who succceded Faques as "regius impressor ;" and is entitlcd, " Oratio llichardi Pacei in Face nuperrime composita," &c. Colophon : " Impressa Londini anno verbi incarnati m.d.xviii. idibus Nouembris per Rich- ardum Pynson regium impressorem ciiin priuilcjjio a rege indulto nequishanc orationem intra biennium in regno Angliai imprimat aut alibi impressam et importatam in eodem regno Anglise vendat." § After this, privileges were, during the reign of Henry the Eighth, very freely granted. We find patents to several printers for seven years, for all books they may have then printed, or thereafter should print, to be computed from the date of the publication: as one to John Gowghe or Gough, flfty productions of Caxton's press, and that never in any one of these, does he style himself " regius impressor ; " although he oftcn descends into the most minute details as to at whose cost and instigation he began to print his works, ■we can hardly think an M.S, note suffici�nt to cstablish the fact, contradicted as it is by his silence on the point. As to the extract from the Epiloguo of " Thy- mage, or myrrour of the world," it is quite evident that, even as a coUatcral pro�f it is of littlc effect; and as a direct, is scarcely better than none at all. t Herb. Typ. Ant. vol. i, p. 308, § Herb. Typ. Ant, vol. i. p. 264.



		OF THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT. 5 in 1540; to Thomas Berthelct, in 1538, " for sixe yeres "; and to Richard Banks, in 1540. There is also a patent to Regi- nald Wolfe, of the office of King's printer, in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, with a prohibition to print such books as were therein speciallj^ assigned to him; or such books as "projjria sua industrid, diligentid, atque labore conquisivit." * Here we meet, for the first time, with a distinct acknow- ledgment of the existence of property in a literary work, wholly separate from the value of the materials employed in setting it before the public; a property ' acquired,' as we are told, 'by the patentee's own industry, diligence, and labour.' That these words refer to a mental outlay on the patentee's part, or on the part of another on account of the patentee, either in composing, abridging, or translating a work, is very evident, from the use of the word " conquisivit"�that the patentee " had acquired to himself:" how could the patentee have otherwise acquired more property in one book that he printed, than another; unless he had expended money, or mental labour in its composition ? It, therefore, is a distinct proof of the rccognition of literary property; and although we find it hex'e in its infancy sheltered under the power of royal prerogative, we shall soon have to notice it as standing on firmer and surcr grounds than the patronage of any prince �on the acknowledged justice and equity of its claim. In the raeantime had occurred, what may be considered as the first case of piracy of copyright on record.f Wynken de Worde had printed a Treatise on Grammar, by Robert Witinton, in I52;i; which one Peter Trevers, or Treveris, had taken the liberty of re-printing; and Robert Witinton, in a subsequent edition, printed by De Worde in 1533, attacks * Rym. Focdera, vol. xv, p. 150. t It was a common practice among the earlier printers, to join together in an impression of a work, and then print tlicir own sevcral title pages to the respective copies which they took. Thus we find many old books, purporting to be by different printers, and even of different years, and vet the body of the text is the same thronghont. So that, although we may meet with works prior to the one cited in the text, which appear to have heen printed by two or more printers



		b HISTORICAL SKETCH Trevers with great severity for this act. lic indeed, seemingly lays the blame only on the incorrectness and faultiness of the edition; but it is clear, from Mr. Herbert's complete contra- diction of such being the case,t that the chief crime in the eyes of the author and his pubHsher, was the reprinting the work at all. To prevent a recnrrence of this, they procured a privilege from the king for the second edition. About this time, also, we find a privilege for printing, which upon the face of it, though not in express ^yords, is granted in consideration of the claims an author has to his copy. It is dated in 1530, and is in favour of " maistre Jehan Palsgraue Angloys natyf de Londres, et gradue de Paris," for a book to teach the French language, which he is said to have " made with a great and long continued dyligence; " and in which, " besydes his great labours, payns, and tyme there about employed, he hath also at his proper coste and charge put in prynt; " wherefore, continues the patent, " ivegreathj moued and stered by dewe consyderation of his sayd long tyme and great dyligence about this good and very necessary purpose employed, and also of his sayd great costes and charges bestowed about the imprintyng of the same, hauc liberally and benignely graunted vnto the sayd maister Pals- graue our fauorable letters of priuilege, concernynge his sayd boke, called, Lesclarcissement de la langue francoyse, for the space and terme of seuyn yeres next and immedyatly after the date hereof enswyng." &c.* As printers improved, more books were published, and more privileges granted, as they were found to become more necessary. The following is a remonstrancc contained in a letter from Grafton to Lord Cromwell, in August, about the same time; yet the one alluded to above, is the first one we know for certainty to have been printcd by one printer in opposition to another. f Mr. Hcrbert even thought, that it was probable that Witinton might allude to some other edition printed by this Trevers; so little foundation did there appear to him to be for Witinton's bitter attaclc on this ground. Typ. Ant. vol. I, p. 187, * Herb. Typ. Ant. vol. I, p. 470-1



		OF THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT. 7 1537,* respecting an apprehended attempt to reprint the bible, which he had just brought out, commonly known as " Matthew's Bible." " And where as I wryt vnto yor lordship for a preuye seale to be a defence vnto the enemyes of this byble I vnderstonde that yo' lordshipes mynde is that I shall not nede it. But now moost gracyous lorde ffor as moche as this worke hath bene brought forthe to o' moost & costly laboures & charges which charges amount aboue the some of �500 and I haue caused of these same to be prynted to the some of 1500 bookes complete, which now by reason that of many this worke is highly comded, there are that will and dothe go about the pryntynge of the same worke agayne in a lesser letter, to the entent that they maye sell their lytle bookes better chepe then I can sell these gret, and so to make that I shall sell none at all, or elles very fewe, to the vtter vndoynge of me yo' orato' & of all those my credyto's that hath'bene my comforters and helpers therin. And now this worke thus set forthe w' great stodye & laboures shall soch psons (moued w' a lytle couetousnes to the vndoynge of other for their awne pryuate welthe) take as a thynge done to their handes, in which halffe the charges shall not coma to them that hath done to yo' poore orato'. And yet shall they not do yt as they fynde yt, but falsefye the texte, that I dare saye, looke how many sentences as ara in the byble, euen so many fautes & erroures shalbe made therin."------"Ye and to make yt more trewer then yt is, therfore douchemen dwel- lynge w'in this realme go about the pryntynge of ytt w"^' can netlier speke good englyshe, ner yet wryte none, and they wllbe both the prynters & correcto's therof, because of a lytle couetousnes that wyll not bestow xx or xl� to a learned man to take payne in yt to haue yt well done, \t were therfore (as yo' Lordship dothe euydently perceaue) a thynge vnreasonable to pmyt or sofFer them (which now hath no soche busynes) to enter into the laboures of them that hath * Cott. M.S, Cleop. E. v. p. 325,



		8 HISTORICAL SKETCH had bothe sore trouble ^ vnreasonable charges. And the truthe is this that if yt be prynted by any other before these be solde (which I thynke shall not be this i� yere at the least, that then am I yo' poore Orato' vtterly vndone. Ther- fore by yo' moost godly fauo' if I maye obtayne the Kynges moost gracyous priuiledgc that none shall prynt them tyll these be solde, which at the least shall not be this iii yere, yo' lordship shall not fynde me vnthankfull, but that to the vttermost of my power I wyll consyder yt," &c. Let us now consider how the foregoing facts operate in sup- port of a right of literary property. It may be urged, that these very privileges, which have been dwelt on as in favour of Copyright, are so many proofs that no such a right Avas at that time thought to exist, except by virtue of the preroga- tive ; for that no man would have cared to secure a right, as was here done by a royal privilege, had he known it to be valid in itself; but that, even putting this very obvious ob- jection altogether aside, the privileges themselves contradict the very view they are brought to support; for all the in- stances above adduced, with the exception of onc alone, are for a limited number of years, and how can instances of limi- ted privileges be relied on as proofs of an imlimited right ? To these objections we reply, first, that in the infancy of this property, it was very natural for a man to have recourse to the readiest and most effectual way of securing it, which was by the protecting shadow of the king's privilege ; for at that time the king's legal prerogative was the best title that could be relied on in the courts of common law. Besides, the king and his council regulated what books should be read and what not, and it was not safe to buy every publication ; therefore the king's privilege further acted as a guarantee and protecting recommendation of the book. And, secondly, we say, that a mistake is made as to the object with which these privileges are brought forward. They are adduced simply in favour of a broad principle, and not with a view to any particular application; and more



		OF THE L.AW OF COPYRIGHT. 9 Stress is not laid on one for seven years, than on one for threc. The principle recognized, namely, the protection of literary property, is all that is contended for : not the pecu- liar circumstances connected with it. Indeed it is most pro- bable that the parties applying for these privileges, never looked beyond the protection of the one edition they printed; there was but one class of readers, an impression was calcu- lated on which would supply their wants, and the only time for which a privilege was valuable, was, till it was sold off.* Second, third, and fourth editions, were not confidently looked to, with the calculating eyes of modern bibhopoles, as a means of repayment for their vast outlays at the com- mencement. Therefore, the foregoing facts prove, that as soon as by the increase of printers, and the improvements in printing, it be- came possible for one man by printing another's copy, to avail liimself of the money and labour expended by the other upon its production, without sharing in the oost, and so to undcrsell him ; so soon was the injustice of such a proceed- ing on all sides proclaimed: that it was distinctly acknow- ledgcd, that by the rules of common justice and equity, a man was entitled to that which he had gained to himself either by mental labour, or by the expenditure of bis money : and that this view was fully supported by the language in which the patents were couched; for, unlike other monopolies, there Mas no attempt to found the granting of them solely on the King's generosity ; but, on the contrary, a statement was introduced of the reason for which they were conceded, namely�that the author had spent much time and labour in the composition of the work, or that the printer had laid out great sums of money, and these were the grounds on which the King was induced to grant them. * See Grafton's Letter, ante p. 8. And if this was the case with works like the Bible, which might well be thought to afford a prospect of subsequent edi- tions, how much more so must it have been in works of an ephemeral nature. It is evident that in these early stages of printing, the main expenscs were in the mechanica! part of the process, which are now transferred to the literary portion.



			10 IIISTOBICAL SKETCH

		CHAPTER II. FllOM THE INCORPORATION OF THE STATIONER's COMPANY IN 1556, TO THE REBELLION IN 1640. Sucu was the state of literary property until the reign of Philip and Mary, when it being found, that ' many false fond b��TvS, and ballads, rhymes, and other lewd treatises in the English tongue, both heretical and seditious/ were being issued from the press ; it was determined to unite the prin- ters into one body, the heads of which should be responsible for the individual members; and the gcneral conduct of which, could thus be more easily watched, and more cffec- tually conlrouled. Letters patent were therefore passed, constituting the Stationcr's Company, the 4th day of May, 1556. The Stationers, it would appear, were a Company before this date, but this was the commencement of their existence as a Corporation. By their charter, they were allowed to make by-laws for the guidance of their mem- bers ; and no one hut a member of their society, was to be allowed to practise or exercise the art or mystery of printing within the dominions of England.* This was a material step, although not an immediate one, to firmly securing the right of the first publisher to the ex- clusive printing of any work he might undertake; f�r tlie printers now having the power to make laws among them- selves on the subject, could not fail soon to recognize the justice and expediency of such a provision. Accordingly, * Luckombe's hist. of printing, p. 176.



		OF THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT. 11 we find them, within two or three years after the formation of their Company, requiring every one who printed a work to first enter it in their register-book, for which they paid a certain sum as for a license; and any one omitting to do so, or printing a book belomjing to ano�ier memher, was fined.* Patents which till then had been for particular books, and were but a proper protection to the patentees in securing them the due fruits of their labour, began in the succceding reign of Queen Ehzabeth to be greatly abused. On one person was sometimes conferred an exclusive right to print all books of a particular class : thus, the right of printing all books of common-law was secured to one man; all A. B. Cs. and Catechisms to another; all almanacs and prognostica- tions to a third; all music-books to a fourth; besides patents of particular books to individuals who did not belong to the company, and were not printers, but farmed the right to such as were, at exorbitant sums.t These monopolies pressed so hard upon the poorer sort of printers, that they petitioned the Queen against them ; and this expedi�nt meeting with little success, they, being driven by the desperate state of their circumstances, not only began to question the right of the Queen to grant them, but even proceeded to print works in defiance of the patents. They did not, however, stop here, for emboldened by their present success, they began, says Strype, even to print books, the copies whereof had been bought o/ the authors for their money, or else given to those that had the property in them to make their benefit of. They set at defiance the power of their own Company; and although complaint was made to the Privy Council, and the matter being referred to commis- sioners, was settled for a time; yet it soon again broke out, and the Privy Council was again petitioned that these disor- ders might be put a stop to. Among other reasons urged, * Register Book, passim. f Strype, Herb. Typ. Aiit., &c.



		12 HISTORICAL SKETCH ' No books at all,' it was said, ' would be printcd within a short time. For commonly tlie first printer ivas at charge for the author^s pains, and some other such like extraordi- nary cost; whereas any other that would print it after him, came to the copy gratis, and so he might sell cheaper, better than the first printer, and the first printer should never utter bis books. Besides, the second printer might better the first impression by notes, tables, difference in paper, or volume, (as it is easier to amend than to first in- vent), which would also hinder the sale of the first printer's books to his utter undoing. These inconveniences seen, every man would strain courtesy who should begin; so far that in the end all printing would decay in the realm, to the utter undoing of the whole Company of Stationers.' * That these irregularities and contempts of authority should have occurred, was not from want of ordinances and decrees en the subject; but from the liberty and license taken, owing to the troubles and jealousies that were fomented and kept alivc in this reign, both by enemies at home and abroad, and which by fully occupying the attention of the govern- ment, prevented them from attending to matters wholly of a civil nature. For the Queen, directly on her coming to the throne, had issued injunctionsf in which she positively prohi- bited any one from printing "any maner of booke or paper, of what sort, nature, or in what language soeuer it be, except the same be first Ucenced by her Maiestie, by expresse woordes in writing, or by six of her priuie Councell: or be perused & licenced by the Archbishops of Canterburie and Yorke, the Bishop of London, the Chauncelors of both Uni- versities, the Bishop being Ordinarie, and the Archdeacon also of the place where any such shall be printed, or by two of them, whereof the Ordinarie of the place to be alwayes one;" on pain, "that the partie shall be punished by order * Strype. t " Injunctions given by the Queen's Maiestie. Anno domini. 1559," in 15rit. Mus.



		OF THE LAM' OK COPYRIGHT. 13 of the sayde Commissioners, as to the quality of the fault shall be thought meete." Now as no book could be published without license, and as no heen se was given to print a work, which belonged to another by purchase or usage, the property in a copy would have been sufficiently protected by these injunctions, had they been strictly obeyed. But that they were far from being so, we find by a decree being issued by the Star Chamber in 156G,* for the reformation of divers disorders in printing, which was the first deeree ever made by this Court respect- ing printing. It enacted, ' that the printing any book against the force and meaning of any ordinance, prohibition, or conimand- ment, contained or to be contained in any the statutes, or laws of the realm, or in any injunctions, letters patent, or or- dinancics, past or set forth, or to be past or set forth, should be visited with the forfeiture of all such books, and disability to exercise the art of printing, besides imprisonment for three months without bail or mainprize.' And in order to keep the printers still more under control, they were en- joined to enter into 'their several recognisances of reasonable sums of money to her Majesty, with sureties or without, as the ecclesiastical commissioners should think expedi�nt; truly to observe all the said ordinances, well and truly yield all such forfeitures, and in no point be resisting, but in all things aiding the said master and wardens of the said com- pany and their deputies for the true execution of the pre- mises.' Notwithstanding this decree, we find afterwards complaints made against some who had given bonds, and yet broke through all regulations. Accordingly, in 1586, another decree was issued, f reciting that the former had been disregarded and broken through; by reason, it was supposed, that ' the * Luck. Hist. of Print. p. 104. t Lansd. M.S. cod. 905.



		14 HISTORICAL SKETCH pains and penalties contained and set down in the same had been too light and small for the correction and punishmcnt of so grievous and heinous oifences; and so the offendcrs and malefactors in that behalf had not been so severely pii- nished as the qualities of their ofFences had deserved ;' and therefore enacted, 'that no printers who had been admitted Avithin the last six months, were to exercise their trade, iintil the excessive number of printers should bc diminished.' No printing was to be carried on elsevvhere, than in the city of London ; except one press at Oxford, and one also at Cambridge. And the directions as to licensing, contained in the Queen's injunctions of 1559, were here renewed under severe penalties. But what more particularly distinguished this decree is an enactment in favor of Copyright, which jjcrhaps was also in- cluded in the one of 1566. * For it is by this decree enacted, ' that no one shall print any book or other paper, contrary to any statute, letters patent, &c., or contrary to any allowed ordinance set down for the good governmeiit of the Company of Stationcrs within the city of London.' That these words alluded to the protection of the property in the copies is manifest from the recital of a proclamation in the subsequent reign, t which states, that whereas this last decree had been evaded, amongst other ways, " by printing beyond sea such allowed books, works, or writings, as had been imprinted within the realm by such to whom the sole printing thereof, by letters patent, or lawful ordinance or au- thority did appertain;" and therefore commands, that the same punishment shall be inflicted on persons importing, as on persons ofFending under that decree. * I have not been able to meet with the decree of 156G, in any other than an abridged form; but as the clause in this decree of 1586 seems taken from the one of 1500, it is likely the same words would be found in the latter document if examined. t 25th Sep. 1G23.



		OF THE LAW OF COPYRKJIIT, 15 The next decree we have to notice, is one in the 13th of Charles the First, § by which printers were placed under several arbitrary regulations, and the number of those allowed to keep a press, limited to twenty. One of the redeeming features in this otherwise despotic act, was the protection it afforded Copyright, by the following clause, which enacted, ' that no one should import, or put to sale any books, which the Company of Stationers, or any other person had, or should by any letters patent, order, or entrance in their register book or otherwise, have the right, privilege, authority, or allowance solely to print; on penalty of forfeiture of books, and such fine as that Court should think fit.' § llthJuly, 1G37. Brit. Mus. M.S.



			IG HISTOBICAL SKETCH

		CHAPTER III. FBOM THE BEBELLION IN 1640, TO THE BESTOBATION IN 1660. Nor was the protection thus justly afForded to Copyright under the legitimate government, wholly lost sight of amidst the troubles that shortly ensued. For although in the anarchy and confusion of order and property, which accom- panied the rebellion, several attempts were made to procure that all works, without exception, should be open to any to print: yet OfFspring, Teatly, Burgos, Gouge, Byfield, Sea- man, Calamy, and a number of other divines, who were on favorable terms with the party which then prevailed in Parliament, made strong representations against such a practica. They urged, ' that to their knowledge, very considerable sums of money had been paid by stationers and printers to many authors, for the copies of such useful books as had been imprinted. In regard whereof,' they said, ' we conceive it to be both just and necessary, that they should enjoy a property for the sole imprinting of their copies. For unless they do, all scholars will be utterly deprived of any recompense from the stationers or printers, for their studies and labeur in writing or preparing books for the press. Besides, if the books that are printed in England be sufFered to be imported from beyond the seas, or in any other way re-imprinted, to the prejudice of those who bear the charges of the impres- sions, the authors and the buyers will be abused by vicious



		OK rilE LAW ()!�■ COl'Y'RlGllT. 17 impressions, to the great discouragement of learned men, and extreme danger of all kinds of good learning.' These and simiiar representations had so mueh weight M�th the House, that in an ordinance they afterwards pub- lished on the 14th of June, 1643,* 'for suppressing the late great abuses and disorders in printing,' reciting, amongst other tliings, that divers persons, " {conirary to former orders and the constant custom used among the Stationers' Com- pany) had taken Hberty to print, vend, and publish the most profitable vendible copies of books belonging to the Company and other Stationers ;" they ordered, inter alia, that all books should be " entered in the register book of the Com- pany of Stationers, according to ancient custom;" and that no one should print or import printcd, " any book lawfully licensed and entered in the register book of the said Com- pany, for any particular member thei'eof, ivithout the license and consent of the owner thereof �" on pain of forfeiting the same to the owner, " and such further punishment as should be thought fit." Wardens, &c., empowered to make search, seize copies, and break presses, " employed in printing or re- printing books by such as have no lawful interest in tliem;" and to bring the compilers, printers, &c., before either of the Houses, " that so they might receive such further punish- ments as their offences should demerit." This ordinance also contained enactments for the licensing of all books before publication; and when Milton, in his uoble speech for the Hberty of unlicensed printing, in the following year, attacked it witli all the force of argument, the ])oignancy of satire, and the enthusiasm of a spirit-stirring appeal in favour of Hberty; he at the same time carefuUy guardcd against its being thought, that he objeeted to those parts of it, which related " to the just retaining of each man his several copy; which God forbid," he exclaims, " should be gainsaid." * Scobell's Acts and Ord. of Parlmt. pp. 44, .'). ed. 1658. C



			18 IIISTOHICAL 8KETCH In another ordinance of the Usurpation ParUamcnt, passed the 20th of September, 1649,* for putting down false and scandalous pamphlets, and regulating printing, and restrain- ing it " from too arbitrary and general an exercisc," the fol- lowing enactment was made :�■ That any person printing or reprinting any books entered in the registry book of the Stationers' Company, without the consent of the owner thereof, or stitching or binding the same, should forfeit all such books, and 6s. 8d. for each. * Scobell's Acts and Oid.

		l__



			'i'iiK i^AW OK coPYiuGirr. 19

		CHAPTER IV. FUOM THE RF.STORATION IX 1660, 'PO THE ACCESSION OF WILLIAM AXD MARY, 1688. As the Uberty of the press had met with but Httle sympathy even from the loudest declaimers for freedom, so it could not be expected to receive much consideration at the hands of the re- stored government, who could trac� in it one of the great means of their original expulsion. But as there was no Star-Chamber any longcr, to give an appearance of legahty to the niandates of the Court, apphcation was obliged to be made to Par- liament to legislate on that subject; and that compliant body hesitated not to reforge for the press its old fetters. To enter into this, however, would be beside our subject at present, which is merely to show the authority that the act that they passed* gave to the right of copy in the owner, by the following clause :� In which it is enacted, that no one should print any book or books, " which any person or persons, by force or virtue of any letters patent granted or assigned, or which should here- after be granted or assigned to him or them, or (where the same are not granted by any letters patent), hj force or virtue of any cntry or cntries thereof duly made or to be made in the regis- ter book of the said Company of Stationers, or in the register book of either of the Universities respectively, had or should have the right, privilege, authority, or allowance, solely to print, ivithout the consent of the owner or owners of such book or books;" nor should bind, stitch, &c., on pain of forfeiting � 13 & 14 Car. 11. c. 33. C 2



		20 HISTORICAL SKETCH the same, and fjs. 8d. for each book, and being proceeded against as an offender against that act. And by another clause, it obliged the printer of every werk to reserve three copies; one for the King's hbrarj', and one for each of the Universities of Oxford and Cainbridge.* The entry of works in the register book of the Stationers' Company, had been so often recognised and treated as equi- valent to proof of ownership by decrees and other acts, that a legal title was thought to be attained by it, even paramount to that of the king's pateiitee, if he had not registered his work ; and Atkyns, who held a patent from the king for printing all books touching the common law, finding parties acting in defiance of it, on the pretext of priority of title by entry, petitioned the king, who issued a proclamation,t wherein, after stating that differences had arisen between the Stationers' Company and Mr. Atkyns, to whom the king had granted the sole right of printing all law books, owing to divers copies of such books being entered in the register books of the Stationers' Company, by which « private pro- perty was pretended to be gained thereto; it was stated to be his Majesty's pleasure, that no book concerning the common law should be entered in the register book, so as to give the person entering it aiiy property in such book, but that the printing thereof be solely reserved to the said Edward Atkins. A cause, in which this point was involved, was at this time pending in the Court of Common Pleas, and is the first case on record concerning Copyright before a legal tribunal. It is not regularly reported, but was quoted in the case of the Company of Stationers v. Parker, 1 Jac. II., Skinner's * This was the first foundation of the present claim of public bodies to copies of every work pulilished. Sir Thomas Bodley, liad, as far back as 1610, made an agreement with the Stationers' Company, by which they agreed to give a copy of every work printed in the Company to the University of Oxford ; but this was a matter of private agreement, and not a compulsory clause of a statute. t Dated the 8th of Nov. 1671.



		Ol' THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT. 21 Rep. p. 234. The circumstances were these : ' Roper, the plaintiif, had bought of the executors of Mr. Justice Crook, the third part of bis reports ; Streater, the defendant, had a grant from the King, and printed upon Roper; upon which the latter brought an action of dcbt upon the stat. 14 Car. II, Streater pleaded the King's grant, upon which Roper de- murred, and judgment was given for the plaintiff.' * And although this judgment was reversed afterwards in Parhanient, yet its authority was not shaken, since the re- versal proceeded upon the grounds that the copy belonged to the King. Besides, the Judges were not consulted on the occasion, and it is not clear that they would have supported the rcversal; for although the majority of the Lords concur- red in reversing the judgment, it was not till after long de- bate and consultation ; and the opinions of the Judges were not taken ; for \^ hen the question was put, ' that the Judges be heard in this case,' it was carried in the negative, ' dissen- tiente Anglescv.' * Roper V. Streater, M. T. 24 Car. II., Rot. 237. It was said afterwards, in the case of the Stationers' Company v. Parker, Skin. 233, in reference to the abovc case, and in answer to the argument of there being no right of copy at common law decided in this case, since it was brought on the Statute of 14 Car.II. that ' although it was truc, that the action was brought on the act of 14 Car. II., yet that Statute did not give a right, but only an action of debt;' therefore, that the case was a precedent of an action on the common-Iaw right of the owner. Perhaps this case of Roper )'. Streater was the one alluded to by Sergeant Pembcrton in T. T. 29 Car. II., 1 iVIod. Rep. 250, Stationers' Company v. Sey- mour, where he says, " When Sir Orlando Bridgcman was Chief Justice in this court, there was a question raised concerning the va�dity of a grant of the sole printing of any particular book, with a prohibition to all others to print the same, how far it should stand good against them that claim a property to the copy, paramount to the king's grant; and opinions were divided on the point." If so, the Icarncd sergeant states the case rather differently when he says, " that opinions were divided on the point." Perhaps he refers to the case before it was decided, whilst it was pending in the court; and this appears more probable, since Sir Orlando Bridgeman was not Chief Justice, when judgment was pro- nounced, having been thcn rcccntly elevated to the dignity of Lord Keeper.



		22 lUST�UlCAL SKETCH The act of Charles the Secoiid abovc mentioned, was at first made only for a hmited period, hut was afterwards renewed from time to time till the end of the session, 31 Car. IL, which was in May, 1679, when it was suffered to expire. The many debates aboiit the Popish Plot, the bill for excluding the Duke of York from the throne, the im- peachment of the Lord Treasurer Danby, the ill-humour of the Parliament, and their encroaching spirit, the short period of their session, their hasty prorogation and subsequent dis- solution. are all reasons whv this bill was not again rcnewed, as it most likely would have been under other circumstances. And the two subsequent Pai-Ilaments which were held in this reign, were conducted so tumultuously, betrayed such a spirit of faction, and were dissolved so hastily, that no time was found for discussing a bill like the present one, so eompara- tively unimportant at that moment. As soon as the legislative protection was thus removed from the copies of works, the meaner and least honourable men of the Stationer's Compari}', who had littlc to lose, having no copies of their own, and much to gain by pirating the valuable works of their wealthier neighbours, and so reaping without cost what it had cost others umch to sow, began without shame or fear to appropriate to themselves the labours and property of others; whereupon the principal stationcrs met together in council, on the I7th of August, 1C81, to take some effectual steps to prevent a practice so ruinous to the best interests of their trade, and agreed upon the following by-law, which was accordingly passed.* It recited, that ' AVhereas several members of the company had great part of their estate in copies, and by ancicnt usage of the company, when any book or copy was duly entered in the register book of the company, such person to whom such entry is made, was, and always had been, reputed and * Register Book.



		OF THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT. 23 taken to be the proprietor of such book or copy, and ought to have the sole printing thereof, which privilege and in- terest was then of late often violated and abused;' and or- dained, that where any such entry was duly made, any other person printing, or importing, selling, binding, or stitching the same, without the consent of the owner or his assigns, should forfeit 12d. for every such copy so printcd or im- ported.* As our present object is confined strictly to tracing the different steps by which the Law of Copyright arrived at its present state, we pass by, as foreign to our purpose, the legal arguments and discussions that now arose in several cases, as to the King's power of granting exclusive patents for difTercnt works; since they were not so much cases in- terfering with the particular Copyright of individuals, as rcstrictions on the general liberty of printing. On the accession of James II. the 13 and 14 Car. II. c. 3.3, was revived by the Ist of Jac. IL, c. 17, for the term of seven years, and thence to the end of the next Session of Parliament. * This -was aftcrwards, on the 7th of October, approved of and confirmed by the Lord Chancellor and the Lords Chief Justices, to whoni it was sub- mitted for that purposc, pursuant to astatute passed in the 19 of Henry VU. which requires that all by-laws made by companies, shall be first examined and approved of by the persons therein named, under penalty of �40 for every default.



			24 HISTOKICAL SKETCH

		CHAPTER V. FROM THE REVOLUTI�N IN 1688, TO THE ACCESSION OF ANNE. lx WilHam and Mary's reign, whcn this act, commonly called ' The Licensing Act,' was about to expire, it was re- newed by the 4 W. & M. e. 24, sec. 15, for a year from the 13th day of Feb. 1692, O.S. and from thcnce until the end of the next Session of Parliament. It may appear curious that in times when liberty was so zealously asserting her rights, a bill that thus completcly fettered the prcss sliould have been again renewed; hut it was in a manner secretly passed through the House of Commons, it bcing an amendment proposed in committee to a general act for renewing about a dozen of statutes then about to expire; and when the motion was put that the house agreed with the committee in that amendment, it was only carried by a majority of 19 out of 179 members pre- sent. On the bill being submitted to a Committee in the House of Lords, the house, aftcr reading the petition of se- veral booksellers and bookbinders, and others, dealers in books and printing, praying to be heard before the passing of the bill, ordered that they should be heard. But they do not appear to have met with much success, as the bill was soon after read a third time ; on which occasion two riders were ofFered, but these being negatived the bill was passed. A protest was, however, drawn up and signed by eleven Lords, which thus concludes their reasons against the bill,�



		OF THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT. 25 " Because it subjects all learning and truc Information to the arbitrary will and pleasure of a mercenary, and perhaps igno- rant, lieenser; destroys the property of authors in their copies; and sets up many monopolies."* We learn from ' lieasons humbly of�ered to be considered before the act for printing be renewed/f that this ' destruc- tion of property' referred to certain mal-practices in the ma- nagement of the register book of the Company of Stationers. The Company, it appears, not being compclled to do so by any express words in the statute, sometimes asked large sums for making an entry, and at others refused or neglected to enter books ; and not unfrequently made false entries and erasm'es to the confusion of all property. It was also al- leged, that the terms of the Act itself were liable to miscon- struction^ as it seemed to make the fact of an entry equiva- lent to proof of Icgal ownership. " By the said Act it is enacted, that a book being licensed and entered into the Register-book of the Company of Stationers, it is forbid to be printcd without the owner's licence (who by virtue of that entry is owner) under the penalty of 6s. 8d. per book; which Register hath (by the undue practices of the Ma&ter and Wardens), been so ill kept, that many entries have been unduly made, insomuch that the true proprietors, boih by purchase, licence, and entry, all duly made of se- veral books, which afterwards have been erased, or the leaves wherein they have been writtcn have been cut out, and un- due entries made to others who had no right, which is di- rectly contrary to the plain words and meaning of the said Act, whereby the owners have not only been defrauded of their right, but also rendered liable to the penalty of 6s. 8d. per book for all the books they printed, sold or bound. Many learned authors have been defrauded of their rights therebj^ who, after many years' pains and study, and after- * Lords' Journals. t In the Brit. Mus., a printed slieet.



		'_() IIISTORICAL SKETCH M ards by a bare dehvery of their books to be hccnsed, have been barred by surreptitious entries made in the said Regis- ter, (to instance, in the book callcd ' Regula Placitandi,' among many others, written by a leanied lawyer and worthy Member of Parhament.)" The Act so renewed was only of short duration, and ano- ther attempt was soon required to be made, to get its enact- ments again prolonged. Accordingly, on the lOth of Fe- bruary, 1694, O.S., when the Committee, appointed to in- quire into what laws were expiring, or had expired, gave in their report, they recommended, amongst other laws, that the 13 and 14 Car. II., e. 33, should be revived. But the House rejected this recommendation, at the same time, however, ordering a Committee to be appointed to prepare and bring in a Bill, ' For the better Regulating of Printing and Printing Presses.' A Bill was accordingly prepared and brought into the House on the 2nd of March, read a tirst time on the 7th, a second time on the 30th, and sent into Committee. On the latter day, a Petition was presented from the M aster, Ward- cns, and Commonalty of the Compaiiy of Stationers, setting fortli that they heard a Bill was depending in the House for the better regulation of Printing and Printing-Presses, and that if their property should not be provided for by the said Bill, not only the petitioners, but many widows and others, whose whole livelihood depended on the petitioners' pro- perty, would be utterly ruiiied.* They therefore prayed to be heard by counsel touching the said Bill. What became afterwards of this Bill, we cannot learn ; whether it was lost in the committee, or whether the report of the committee was never given in, on account of more pressing business, or the near termination of the session which occurred on the 3d of May. Perhaps it was a mea- * House of C'oininons' Journals.



		OF THE LAW OP COPYRIGHT. 27 sure that satisfied neither party, for it appears probable that it was only brought forward to show that while the Com- mons refused to revive the Licensing Act, tliey were not un- willing to pass some measurc of a more moderate nature to regulate the liberty of printing. We are, however, left to conjecture, for there were no debates on the subject, nor any information beyond what may be gleaned from the scanty details in the Commons' Journals.* In the meantime the bill to continue the acts about to expire, was passed in the House of Commons, carried up to the Lords, and there on the 3rd of April committed; when, amongst other amendm�nts to the bill, the very resolution which the Commons had rejectcd, of reviving the 13 and 14 Car. II, c. 33, Mas pi-oposed and carried, and the bill, with this alteration, passed and sent down to the Commons for their concurrence. The Commons then desired a conference, which being had on the 18th of April, they submitted to their Lordships a great many reasons for not eonsenting to the renewal of that act. Amongst the rest: " Because that act prohibits printing any thing before entry thereof in the register of the Company of Stationers (except proclamations, acts of parliament, and such books as shall be appointed under the sign manvial, or under the hand of a principal secretary of state); whereby both houses of parlia- ment are disabled to order any thing to be printed; and the said Company are empowered to hinder the printing all inno- cent and useful books; and have an opportunity to enter a title to themselves and their friends, for what belongs to and is the lahour and right of others." f The Lords then retired * Tlic last that was hcard of this Bill, was on the 3rd of April, when the House ordereti, that the Committee to whom the Bill was committed, should have power to sendfor persons, papers, and records. t And another reason was, " Because that Act prohihits any one, not only to print books whereof another has entered a claim of propcrty in the register of the Company of Stationers; but to bind, stitch, or put theni to salc, and that



		28 HISTOUICAL SKETCH to their own house, and on the question being put, whether they agreed with the Coinmons in leaving out the clause, reviving the 13 and 14 Car. II, e. 33, it was resolved in the afSrmative. So that this act, commonly called the ' Licensing Act,' finally expired on the 25th of April, 1694; which was the end of the next session, after the expiration of a year from the 13th of February, 1692, O.S. The same inconveniences arising as did on the former occa- sion, on the expiration of this act, the stationers soon after- wards convened a common-hall,* and passed a by-law, similar to the one of August, 1681. It recited: "Whereas divers members of this company have great parts of their estates in copies, duly entered in the register book of this company, W'hich, by the anclent usage of the company, is, are, or always hath and have been used, reputed, and taken to be the right and property of such person and persons (members of this company), for whom or whose benefit such copy and copies are so duly entered in the register book of this company, and constantly bargained and sold, amongst the members of this company, as their property; and deviscd to children and others, for legacies, and to their widows for maintenance; and that he and they, to whom such copy and coj)ies are so duly entered, purchased, or devised, ought to have the sole print- ing thereof:" And ordained, " for the better prescrvation of the said ancient usage from being invaded by evil-minded men, and to prevent the abuse of trade by violating the same," that ' where any such entry of a book was duly made, any one printing, importing, selling, binding, stitching, or exposing the same to sale, should forfeit the sum of 12d. for each copy, or part of such copy.' under a great pccuniary penalty; thoiigh it is impossible for a bookbinctcr, stitcher, or seller, to know whether the book brought to him were printed by the proprietor or another." » 14th May, 1694,