54

V. THE ORIGIN AND GROWTH OF

COPYRIGHT.

O branch of English law has been more full of interest

N°

for the lay mind than that which deals with the legal rights of authors in their books. We have not far to seek for reasons. Not only is the history of Copyright law itself of much human interest, but also if it were not for certain statutory barriers which have been raised against authors and booksellers, our bookshelves would lose-or, rather, they would never have gained-many of their greatest treasures. We should be compelled to choose between penury of pocket on the one hand, or penury of mind on the other-or, as a last resource, we might (heaven forbid !) betake ourselves to the bethumbed copies in the local library. The Legislature, for having prevented the necessity of this, is worthy of the reader's gratitude.

Our English law affords us many instances of the ill results of petitioning. Certain classes, labouring beneath grievances, have petitioned Parliament to legislate in their favour, only to find, upon legislation being introduced in accordance with their request, that they have been made subject to restrictions and difficulties up till then unknown. So was it with the authors. They did not understand the legislative machinery which has too often abolished rights that it has intended to protect, and sown the seeds of discord where it would fain have sown the seeds of peace.

Copyright law has afforded for those who would be merry at the expense of the literary inclined, ample ground to base their belief, that authors are the most unbusinesslike of people. The reading public still think of Milton and the sale of Paradise Lost, of Johnson and the sale of Rasselas, of Goldsmith and the sale of The Vicar of Wakefield. Strange is it, however, that we seldom hear of the Act of Good Queen Anne's reign, which deprived authors and booksellers

of their right to publish the works which they owned without any limitation as to time. It was no piece of compulsory legislation introduced to remedy general defects. It was passed as a reply to the repeated and continuous petitions of authors and booksellers asking for legislative protection, in order to improve their methods of suppressing piracies.

Upon this, Mr. Augustine Birrell, with characteristic humour observes, in a delightful although too brief essay entitled, "Authors in Court": "No enemy did this; no hungry mob clamoured for cheap books; no owner of copyrights so much as weltered in his gore. The rights were unquestioned: no one found fault with them. The authors accomplished their own ruin: Never, surely, since the well-nigh incredible folly of our first parents lost us Eden and put us to the necessity of earning our living, was so fine a property-perpetual copyright-bartered away for so paltry an equivalent."

It may well fill us with amazement that at those times in which authors have attempted to obtain better provision for themselves, they have, in each instance, been thwarted and led toward the path of disaster, either by the actions of themselves collectively, or of some of their members individually.

But all else pales and becomes dim beside the Statute of Anne which came about as follows:

To discover the origin of copyright, which, it may be remembered, was defined by Macaulay as "a tax on readers, for the purpose of giving a bounty to writers," we must go back to the first half of the sixteenth century. The Crown at that time claimed prerogative rights, in the case of certain books, to grant the sole privilege of printing them to its assigns. The King, as the Head of the State, exercised the exclusive right to print all Acts of State, Ordinances of the Council and the like; as the Head of the Church he

possessed the exclusive right to print the books, rites, and ceremonies of the Church.

Side by side with these royal privileges, there came to be recognised a sort of Common law right of property in an author or bookseller to his own literary efforts and work,. provided that any exercise of such right did not affect those persons who had obtained a grant from the Crown. A work printed in the year 1523 by Wynkyn de Worde formed the subject of the first recorded dispute as to copyright. No sooner had this work attained popularity than a certain audacious printer, by name Trevers, reprinted it and sold copies at a price much below that of the author's edition. The author's second edition, published in the year 1533, protected by the privilege of the king, contained a vigorous. attack on Trevers for having pirated a book which was exclusively the property of Wynkyn de Worde. The significance of this is evident. It indicates that, even at that early day, some proprietary right was considered to vest in the possessor of literary work.

By means of a Decree of the Star Chamber of the year 1556, the first great landmark in the history of Copyright law in England, the Stationers' Company was established. The Decree was issued mainly on religious grounds, the idea actuating the framers being that of hindering the propagation of the reformed religion. The most effective method was considered to be the imposition of the severest restrictions on the publications of the press. The charter recites "That certain seditious and heretical works, both in rhymes and tracts, are daily printed, renewing and spreading great and detestable heresies against the Catholic Doctrine of the Holy Mother Church." It authorised the incorporation of 97 persons mentioned by name as "The Stationers' Company." The Company was to keep register books in which the titles of all publications and reprints. had to be registered. Authority was given to the Master

and Warden to seize and burn all books printed contrary to their regulations, and to imprison anyone who should exercise the art of printing in any other manner than that which the Company directed.

The person who had registered his rights in the books of the Company was the owner, and he might assign those rights to others, provided the title of the assignee was also entered on the register. The owner was protected from piracies by the Company, who would not hesitate to enforce their authority. Printing was thus made a monopoly of members of the Company. No early decisions in the law Courts as to illegal printing can be found, the reason being that, with these summary powers of seizure and burning, appeals to Courts of law were rendered unnecessary.

Queen Elizabeth confirmed this Charter.

On the 14th June, 1645, the Long Parliament passed an "Act for redressing Disorders in Printing," which reenacted earlier provisions and imposed further stringent penalties upon those who violated the regulations of the Company. This Act required the consent of the owner before any book could be reprinted. If a book were pirated the printer would be liable on the one hand, to penalties for piracy, on the other hand, to the penalties for unlicensed printing. These were the halcyon days of authors. Their weapons wore a double edge.

Pamphleteers were next to come beneath the sheltering wings of the Legislature. Two Acts of the years 1647 and 1649 required pamphlets to be licensed and entered on the register of the Company. The latter Act is well worth reading, if for nothing else, at least for the violence of its language. It contains a lengthy preamble concerning unlicensed and scandalous books and pamphlets"; the "ignorance and assumed boldness of the weekly pamphleteer"; and "the irregularity and licentiousness of printing, the art whereof in the Commonwealth and in

66

all foreign parts hath been sought to be restrained from too arbitrary or general use."

The next link in the chain is the Licensing Act of 1662. It further extended the regulations to be observed, and, amongst other things, it ordered that no persons should presume to print any books which contained doctrine, or opinion, contrary to the Christian Faith or the discipline of the Church of England, and it gave stronger powers to the Master and Wardens of the Stationers' Company to seize books containing matter hostile to the Church or Government.

This Act aroused the ire of authors and others. The discontent that had been smouldering for some time, burst into a flame and burned fiercely throughout the land. The authors strenuously complained that the large sums of money asked by the Company for making entries, the refusal at times to make entries, and the erroneous entries only too frequently made, injured their property. So far did these objections go, and so strong did they become, that upon the question arising in the House of Lords, as to whether this Act should be renewed, we find that one of the reasons advanced against its renewal was "that the Act destroys the property of authors in their copies." These words in the light of later legislation, wore a prophetic cloak. Probably some of those who raised their voices in lamentation, foresaw that the future was full of difficulty, and, perhaps, disappointment.

The Licensing Act expired in the year 1694. It must be remembered that, so far, there had been no statute expressly creating, or judicial decision expressly recognising, the property of an author in his books. True, there had been several Charters and Statutes, giving the Stationers' Company authority over printing and licensing works, but there had been no legal recognition of Copyright as such. All the customs, usages, and regulations were, of course,