We have declined offering any scheme for a new bill as to the extension of copyright: but we are clearly of opinion that nothing can be done that would really promote the interest of good authors, unless it should also directly tend to keep up the character of our publishing trade. And we may here say a word on another novelty most injurious to this honourable profession-the publishers who still do produce books of their own, and limit not their views to the watch of expiring copyrights; and this is a grievance which exists only in the non-enforcement of the existing law-we mean the constant introduction of foreign impressions of English works still under statutory protection. The same evil operates elsewhere -the French booksellers are robbed in this way by the pirates of Belgium and Switzerland to a prodigious extent; and, we are sorry to say, we have looked in vain for any contradiction of a statement which lately ran the round of the European journals, to the effect that King Leopold had in his own royal person urged on the thieves of his Brussels press the wisdom and propriety of extending their field of industry by laying the holders of German copyrights also under systematic contribution to their respectable exchequer. The sea renders our protection against smuggling generally more easy than can be hoped for in the case of countries having a long conterminous line of frontier; but the Custom-house allows every English traveller from the Continent to bring home with him one copy, for his personal use, of each of as many foreign-printed English books as he chooses; and this opens the door for illicit importation on a scale which does interfere very seriously already, and must do so more and more every year, with the just profit of the English author and publisher. Before a new book by an author of any considerable reputation in the lighter branches, or of really high and established name in any department, has been on the London counter for a week, it is reprinted at Brussels and Paris-badly and inaccurately, but very cheaply-and in a month every meretricious little lounging-place called a Library in our coast-towns, and by and by all over the interior, can be supplied with as many copies of the pirate's volumes as there is any demand for among such customers as theirs. The London publishers find it impossible to resist effectually this continual invasion of their rights; in fact, they have of late abandoned all thought of resistance, and such is the audacity inspired by the experience of impunity, that if our reader will refer to the catalogues stitched up with the number of Bentley's Miscellany' for this month, he will see very modern English books openly advertised for sale, with the inviting blazon of French Impression.'

6

But even this is a mere trifle compared with the effects of custom-house

tom-house negligence about pirate-books imported into the British dependencies abroad. It is a fact well known to every English publisher, that no matter what he pays for his copyright—no matter how carefully he has his book printed-no matter how reasonable the price he asks for it-he has no chance of drawing any profit from the sale of his book in the vast market of our colonial empire. The East and West Indies are wholly supplied by the pirates of the United States. A new English book is necessarily dearer than a new French, Belgian, or American one-even laying payment for authorship out of the question-by reason of the higher rate of wages enjoyed by English paper-makers, printers of every class, and binders-and also of the greatly heavier duties imposed here on every article which enters into the material fabric of the book. But, though every care is taken about levying these heavy taxes on the publisher's manufacture, no care at all has been taken about securing him in the profits which ought to be the recompense of his enterprise. Every complaint is met by a solemn shrug, and something about practical difficulty.' We venture to say, that if the Government would name a commission, consisting of half-a-dozen experienced booksellers and as many shrewd lawyers, there would be no practical difficulty in obtaining the details of a regulation that would effectually stop this disgraceful mischief.

We shall not at present enter upon a very interesting question closely connected with all the main topics of this paper-the possibility of a general agreement for the international protection of copyrights. This large and important theme must be reserved.

** We now invite the reader's attention to the anonymous letter which we alluded to (p. 209) when about to notice Mr. Macaulay's speech of Feb. 5, 1841. We felt that these observations ought to be considered apart from anything of ours.

'To the Editor of the Kendal Mercury.

.

12th April, 1838.

Sir,-Having read in your paper of the 7th instant a petition against Sergeant Talfourd's Copyright Bill from the compositors, pressmen, and others employed in the town of Kendal, to be presented to the House of Commons by the representative of that place, I am induced to make a few remarks upon the same, in which I shall en

deavour to be brief.

In the first clause the petitioners declare "that they view with alarm and regret the measure to repeal the existing law, and to substitute a law highly injurious to the interests of the community, the lite

rature

rature of the country, and more particularly to the interests of the petitioners."

The effect of the extension of copyright proposed in Sergeant Talfourd's bill would, according to the words of the petitioners, be to render works having that privilege a mere dead letter, or confine them to the hands of the wealthy, and could not be productive of any real advantage

to the authors."

If certainties and probabilities be looked at with more discernment than is shown by these petitioners, it will be found that a book for which there is a great demand would be sure of being supplied to the public under any circumstances; but a good book for which there might be a continued demand, though not a large one, would be much more sure of not becoming a "dead letter," if the proposed law were enacted than if it were not. It is well known among the intelligent that the non-existence of copyright for English authors in America is a great hindrance to the republication of standard works. The speculation being left open to unlimited competition, publishers do not risk their capital, fearing that some one may afford to undersell them by sending forth the work incorrectly and meanly executed; and thus they who wish to be possessed of standard works are in many cases disappointed. So much for valuable works becoming, through the proposed bill, a "dead letter."

Further, it is well known that readers in the humbler ranks of society are multiplying most rapidly. Is it then to be supposed that the possessors of copyright would be blind to this fact, and, when a work was in course of becoming an object of request to the people at large, would be so unmindful of their own interests as not to supply a widely-increasing demand at a reduced price? Besides, as long as the privilege remained in the hands of the author's children or descendants, who can doubt that they would be peculiarly prompted to extend the circulation of his works, not merely for their own pecuniary advantage, but out of respect or reverence for his memory, and to fulfil what could not but be presumed to be his wish?

In the next clause it is asserted "that the profits enjoyed by literary men of the present day are of the most ample description; as, under the present laws regulating literary property, authors of ordinary talent have acquired both fame and opulence." The petitioners, if they had looked with care no further than their own neighbourhood, could not have made this unqualified assertion. The late Mr. Coleridge resided many years among the Lakes, where his son now resides. It will hardly be disputed that the father was a man of first-rate genius and attainments. Fame, indeed, he acquired, but not till many years after he deserved it; but as to his opulence, if the income tax had continued till the day of his death, the collectors of it would have had a sorry recompense for the trouble of calling upon him for his return. His son, whose powers and knowledge are the admiration of all who know him, though not inclined perhaps to dispute that gold may have abounded in the sands of Pactolus, will have no hesitation in affirming that, if he were to judge from his own experience only, the waters of Helicon can

make

make no such boast. Has even Mr. Southey, a most laborious writer and one of high distinction, attained "opulence" by his works, or anything like it? Yet much the greatest part of these works would become public property instantly upon the death of the author, or within less than half-a-dozen years. And what, till very lately, have been the gains of another author who was born, educated, and has grown old in the neighbourhood of the petitioners? The humblest of the band would blush to hear them enumerated. I forbear to speak of other highlydistinguished authors who have honoured, or do honour, this beautiful country by choosing it for their residence. Not one of them but is too highminded to repine; but the sense of justice is, I doubt not, sufficiently strong in them all to make them resent the denial to their posterity or their heirs of that moderate compensation which a rational view of their interests would lead them to aim at, and which the public might be ready to bestow.

But the next clause of the petition implies that it would be unreasonable and unjust for authors to look for such posthumous remuneration, the words running thus :-" that every book, after its author has received from the public an equitable remuneration, becomes the property of the public, who, by affording such remuneration, have purchased it." An equitable remuneration. Here is the Gordian knot of the question, which the petitioners cut without ceremony. A more than adequate remuneration comes in the course of a season to thousands of works intended only for the season. But can the profits of one season, or ten seasons, or twenty-eight (the utmost term now allowed by law, unless when the author is still alive), be justly deemed a sufficient return for two works (I still confine myself to the productions of this neighbourhood) by Mr. Southey-his "Life of Nelson" and his "Book of the Church?" They are both of interest, eminently national: the one will animate our youth to heroic enterprise, strengthen their patriotism, and tend to form and fix their principles, as long as the English navy shall endure; and the other maintain an enlightened attachment to the Church of England, as long as Providence shall allow it to exist.

Another clause asserts" that the proposed law would, if carried into effect, destroy all those useful and hitherto-considered necessary compilations for the instruction of the young, which have been so eminently useful in exciting in the youthful mind a taste for literature and science." Now, so far from there being just reason for apprehending this consequence, the direct contrary would ensue, inasmuch as, by extending the term of copyright, authors would be under less temptation to prevent copious extracts being made from their works. For even supposing, which we are not warranted to do, that they would deem it injurious to their interests during their lifetime, they would be more willing to put up with the loss, if the law allowed it to be possible, at least for their children or grandchildren to derive an equivalent from their labours, when they themselves shall be no more.

Still confining our views to this neighbourhood, what is the fact? There is lying before me a book entitled "Gleanings in Poetry," the preface to which compilation is signed "Richard Batt," and dated "Friends"

School,

of

School, Lancaster." This book extends with its notes to 612 pages, which 25 are from the poems of Mr. Wordsworth. Did Mr. Wordsworth ever complain of these extracts, which were made without application for his consent? Or did any other writer, from whom copious extracts are taken, utter such a complaint? Again-there was lately published by Mr. Housman, of Lune Bank, near Lancaster, a Collection of Sonnets, from different authors, filling 300 pages, of which pages not less than 57 are from the same author. Did Mr. Wordsworth complain of this liberty being taken? On the contrary, when the editor informed Mr. Wordsworth that the publisher of his works had threatened him with an application to the Court of Chancery for an injunction, Mr. Wordsworth's immediate reply was that he found no fault whatever, and the thing was dropped. Now, the petitioners might have known this, for the fact was published in your paper at the time it happened, probably by the editor or some of his friends; and what is thus true of one individual, it may be confidently affirmed, would have been equally so, if a like liberty had been taken with the works of any other distinguished author, who resides, or has resided in this neighbourhood.

To conclude. The objections against the proposed bill rest upon the presumption that it would tend to check the circulation of literature, and by so doing would prove injurious to the public. Strong reasons have been given above for believing that these fears are groundless, and that such an extension of copyright would cause the reprinting of many good works, which otherwise, to give back the petitioners their own words, would nearly remain a "dead letter." But what we want in these times, and are likely to want still more, is not the circulation of books, but of good books, and above all, the production of works, the authors of which look beyond the passing day, and are desirous of pleasing and instructing future generations. Now there cannot be a question that the proposed bill would greatly strengthen such desire. A conscientious author, who had a family to maintain, and a prospect of descendants, would regard the additional labour bestowed upon any considerable work he might have in hand, in the light of an insurance of money upon his own life for the benefit of his issue; and he would be animated in bis efforts accordingly, and would cheerfully undergo present privations for such future recompense. Deny it to him, and you unfeelingly leave a weight upon his spirits, which must deaden his exertions; or you force him to turn his faculties (unless he is unjust to those whom both nature and law require that he should provide for) to inferior employments. And lastly, you violate a fundamental right, by leaving that species of property which has the highest claim to protection, with the least share of it; for as to the analogy, which has been elsewhere much dwelt upon, between literary property and mechanical inventions and chemical discoveries, it is, as might be shown in a few words, altogether fallacious.

'I am, Sir, your obedient Servant,