Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub
[graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Prices of Grain-Meteorological Diary.—Bill of Mortality.

AVERAGE PRICES of CORN, from Feb. 7, to Feb. 12, 1774.
COUNTIES upon the COAST.

Wheat Rye Bar. Oats Beans
8. dife, difs, defa, dife, d.

1.5 10/3 0/3 2/2 1/3 I COUNTIES INLAND

3 52 +39

Effex

Suffolk

Norfolk

55556aann

3 2,3 -4,2

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Lincola

[blocks in formation]

York

[blocks in formation]

Durham

[blocks in formation]

Northumberland

[blocks in formation]

Cumberland 5 93

[blocks in formation]

Weftmoreland 6 3

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

91 73 4

12 03 S

[blocks in formation]

Leicefter

6110

03

8'2 20

[blocks in formation]

2

Derby

[ocr errors]

Stafford

34, 43 L12

Cornwall

Shropshire

24 2

92

Monmouth
Sommerfet

Devon

640 03
6 34 03 61 103

S so of 101
5 30 c2

[ocr errors]

60

Dorfet

Hereford

[blocks in formation]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

A Meteorological DIARY of the Weather for MARCH, 1773.

Weather.

fine bright day, wet evening

a very fine bright day

dicto

bright morning, cloudy afternoon.

cloudy morning and evening, wet mid day
a very bright day, black churlish evening
a very bright fine day, frofty air

ditto

a very bright fine day

Hamphire
Suffex
Kent

5 110 C2 102 ́5-6003 2/2

7904

North Wales

Males

40

fresh 2981 39

clouds and fu thine at intervals, fome rain

cloudy in general, very little fun

a very fine bright day

heavy morning, fine bright day

bright morning, cloudy afternoon

an exceeding bright day

cloudy at times, but in general a fine day
dicto

a very fine, bright day, uncommonly warm

ditto

dito

ditto

many flying clouds, very bright at times
Cloudy and funshine at intervals, a little fnow
cloudy and heavy, a very little fun, tharp wing
froft in the night, very bright day, that p wind
fmart froft in the night, bright day, very cold
a black. cold, milling day.

Bill of Mortality from Jan, 23, 1774, to Feb. 21, 1974.

Chriftened.

Buried.

852

738 2 1389 | Nama: 95% 3

Females 651)
Whereof have died under two years old 612
Peck Loaf 2s. 6d.

1806

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

THE

Gentleman's Magazine;

For FEBRUARY, 1774

SUMMARY of the ARCUMENTS of the Council and Judges in the great Caufe which came on to be beard before the Houfe of Peers, on Friday the 4th inftant, for aftertaining the Right of LITERARY PROPERTY. On an Appeal from a Decree in Chancery, Donaldfon and Donaldson, Appel. lants; Becket and others, Refpondents.

N this caufe, Mr. Thurloe, Attorney Ge neral, opened as counsel for the appellants. He first enterra into a minute inveftigation of the idea incul cated by what is called a publication; he then dwelt much upon the fenfe of the word Property, defining it philofophically, and in the feparate lights of being corporeal and fpiritual; the term Literary Property, he in a manner laughed at, as fignifying nothing but what was of too abftrufe and chimerical a nature to be defined. The book fellers, he obfèrved, (exemplifying his obfervations by feveral cafes) had not, till lately, ever concerned them felves about authors, but had generally confined the fubftance of their prayers to the legislature, to the fecurity of their own property; nor would they probably have, of late years, introduced the authors as parties in their claims to the common law right of exclufively multiplying copies, had not they found it neceffary to give a colourable face to their monopoly. He was very diffu. five upon grants, charters, licences, and patents from the crown, both to corporate bodies and individuals, tracing them far back, and afferting, that they all specifically proved, that, if there had been any inherent right of excluely multipying copies, fuch inftances of exerting the royal prerogative would

have been unneceffary. He particularly adverted to the ftatute of the 8th of Queen Anne, maintaining that it was not merely an accumulative act declaratory of the common law, and giving additional penalties, but that it was a new law to give learned men a property which they had not before, and that it was an incontrovertible proof that there previously exifted no common law right, as contended for by the refpondents. He cited many cafes to prove his arguments; fome before the 8th of Queen Anne, and others immediately aipon that ftatute, generally inferring that the grand question touching the common law right had never been decifively determined by any Chancellor. He concluded his fpeech with a compliment to his learned co-adjutor, and a hope, that, as the Court of Seffion in Scotland had freed their country from a fpecies of injurious monopoly regarding the prefent queftion, their Lordships would follow fo very laudable an example, and reverfe the decree of the Court of Chancery.

Sir John Dalrymple, as fecond counfel for the appellants, was next heard; He laid down two preliminary obfervations.

Firft, "That the beft and only method of difcovering how the law ftood in any abfrufe cafe, was by adverting to an history of the Law.

Setondly, "That the matter having been decided in favour of his clients by the Lords of Seffion in Scotland, ten Lords to one evinced that the appellants had fubftantial justice on their fide."

Sir John obferved, That the Scotch lawyers, when the queftion concerning Literary Property was lately agitated in that kingdom, found them felves juftified in affirming, that no fuch property ever was claimed in any civilized nation, England excepted, under the canopy of heaven,

In conformity to the first preliminary obfervation, Sir John proceeded to give

[graphic]

ar

52

Arguments for and against Literary Property.

an history of the Law refpe&ting literary works. This hiftoric account he

divided into three periods; from the invention of printing to the inftitution of the Stationers Company in Queen Mary's reign; from the inftitution of the Stationers Company to the licensing act; and, from the licensing a& to the ftature of the 8th of Queen Anne.

Printing, Sir John taid, was, when first discovered, deemed a mystery; the journeymen and apprentices were laid under fevere injunctions not to lay open the principles of the art; and they were then under no other restraints than what they impofed upon themfelves.

Sir John then mentioned the feveral books printed previous to the inftitution of the Stationers Company; and, from the filence refing Literary Property during the whole of that period, Sir John deduced a strong prefumptive proof, that the common law recognized no fuch thing as Literary Property.

Sir John then itated the hiftory of the initution of the Stationers Company. He faid, It was inftituted in the reign of Philip and Mary, princes who ruled with a defpotic fway; that they, like every other defpotic prince, wifhed to crufh the liberty of the prefs: the book fellers, however, acquiefced in the act, becaufe fuch of them as were members of the Stationers Company were benefited by it. There were many curious regulations, Sir John said, fubfifting in this company; he had read them all, and found the following three:

1. That no two persons should speak

at once.

2. That every member should speak with his hat off.

3. That a member should speak-jeriously.

From fuch important regulations, the importance of the company might be dduced; yet, during the whole of this period, not a fuggeftion about commen Jaw light to Literary Property was ttarted; books were printed by licence or leave from the Stationers Company, and published cum privilegio. Whilit, therefore, the members of the Sta.im er Coup ny agreed aniong themselves, the charter granted to that comp ny was a charter enacting a body of licen fers, fued for on a principle of intereft, and granted by the crown on the frinciple of policy.

That books were published during all this une by privilege, or patent, was, Ir John faid, a notorious fact, for he

could produce a lift of many thus pablished, almost as long as his arm.

When the members of the Stationers Company, however, quarrelled amongst themselves, then each talked of fome favourite book as his property: that the public might be impreffed with the confequential notion of the word, it was generally printed, faid Sir John, in letters as long as my finger. Those who plumed themselves upon being the owners of these works called themselves · proprietars, and the works were copy. right.

Thus difmiffing the Stationers Company, with feveral other fevere animadverfions, Sir John touched upon the decrees of the Star-chamber, which he obferved were heinous exertions of unconftitutional power; yet none of them, refpecting books, recognized any other right to veft in the author, or his affignees, than that created by patent.

He then proceeded to examine the or.. dinances iffued in the time of the commonwealth, and inftanced a truth founded on the experience of ages, "that men always took the very lame methods to keep power, when they had obtained it, which they blamed in others before they gained their point." Thus, argued he, the commonwealthmen abuted the king and miniftry for edicts laying reftraints upon the prefs; and yet no fooner had they obtained the reins of government, than they caused ordinances to be iued, prohibiting a book to be published that had not undergone ftate revifion. But, though the prefs was ever an object both to legal and ufurping princes, yet in no regulations refpecting it was a common law right in books noticed in the most diftant manner; yet, had fuch right exifted, we furely must have heard of it, particularly as fome of the British princes were authors, James the First took it into his head to turn poet; he employed his leisure hours, whilit in Scotland, in tranflating the Pfalms of David. His fon published this worki yet fo far was he from dreaming about a common law right, that he granted a patent for the printing it.

With regard to the flatute of Queen Anne, Sir John noticed, that the word veft was adopted in the tile, and the word fecured was infeited in the body of the act. This he thought was a diftin&tion of the greatest propriety, for the act was framed to give an author, or his affignees, a property in that which he had not before; it there

fore

Arguments for and against Literary Property.

fore vefled fomething in nim, and after having refted it, there was a provifion made to fecure it to him. This being the cafe, authors were benefited by hav ing a certain property to convey for a term of years, and they fold their copies accordingly.

It runs

With refpect to the preamble of the act, Sir John took notice, that, admitting fuch a right as that claimed under the denomination of Literary Property, to have exifted anterior to this ftatute, the preamble was couched in terms the most ridiculous. thus, "Whereas divers perfons have taken the liberty to print," &c. A curious expreffion, argued Sir John; one man deprives another of his property, and the legislature calls this only taking a liberty Can it be believed, that British legiflators will talk in this abfurd ftrain? Might it not be with equal propriety faid, that divers perfons have taken the liberty to commit fraud, perjury, or theft? From the very phra frology of the preamble, Sir John in ferred, that one man printing a book published by another, was in fact no more than taking a liberty not perhaps quite equitable, but against which, however, except by ftatute, no provifo was made.

Another claufe in the act furnished Sir John with ample matter of difcuffion. The ftatute vested a property in the author for fourteen years, and no longer. Sir John asked why the phrase and no longer was adopted? Admitung the refpondents right in their notions about a common law property, a claim fo founded mult veft the property in the owner for a perpetuity: how then could th ́s ftatute be called, as it is," An act for the better encouragement of learning Was learning en couraged by depriving learned men of a property they had for a perpetuity, and vefting it in them for a term of years only? The fuppofition was abfurd; and yet if the act did not by fome certain privileges not enjoyed before, encourage learning, a fatute of the legislature was fuffered to be published with a direct falfehood for its imprimatur. Upon the fuppofition of a common law right, the ftature curtailed, instead of enlarging an anthor's privileges; it vefted nothing in him but what he had befo e; it fecured nothing to him but what he was previously fecured in by the common law; and in the place of enjoying a property tranfmiffible in perpetuity to his heirs,

53

he enjoyed one for fourteen years and no longer.

He then had recourse to another kind of argument:-The books, faid he, about which the action was brought, were printed at Edinburgh. In Scotland they have no fuch thing as Literary Property, and by the articles of the union, matters respecting trade stand mutually upon the fame foundation. Can, therefore, or cannot a man import into this kingdom, and here fell, books printed in Scotland ?-He then confidered the fubject metaphyfically; and concluded; that the idea of Literary Property had no existence in the common law of England, nor in any other country under the fun."

The counfel for the refpondents were, Mr. Wedderburne, SollicitorGeneral, and Mr. Dunning. Among many other arguments, it was faid, that, as it was on all hands allowed that an author had originally a right in his own compofition, it was most extraordinary that the moment he exercised his dominion over that property, and endeavoured to raile a piofit from it, he loft it. Publication could not furely be of fuch a nature as to deftroy that right to the matter published, which it was acknowledged an author had before it was published. It had been declared on the other fide, that, during the Licenfing A&t, and thofe reigns when the privileges were obtained, and Star-chamber decrees were so frequent, that the inherent right at common law appeared but dimly; this, it was observed, was no wonder, when, during the period mentioned, nothing but injuftice was feen openly. One part of the argument ufed for the appellants was, that it would benefit authors, if no exclufive right of multiplying copies exifted; this was a very trange affertion, and it was very extraordinary that authors in general Should think otherwife. It was cuftomary for booksellers, as buyers, to buy as cheap as they could; and it was alfo customary for authors to fell as dear as they could; this could not be the cafe, if, the moment a book was published, every man had a right to print it. Authors formerly, when there were few readers, might get but fall prices for their labour; that however had not of late years been the cafe, Hume's Hift wy of England, and Dr. Robertfon's Hiftory of Scotland, had been amply paid for, and Hawkesworth's Voyages ftill more largely: how was

« AnteriorContinuar »