Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/859

upon principles of public utility. But to prescribe to the Crown a perpetual right to the Bible, upon principles of property, is to make the King turn bookseller: and if it be true, that the King paid for the translation of the Bible, it was a purchase made for the whole body of the people, for the use of the kingdom.—Acts of parliament, it is admitted, are the work of the Legislature, and therefore under the direction of the Crown, as the executive part of the constitution. Property therefore is not the foundation of prerogative copies. King Charles I. published a translation of David's Psalms, written, as his Majesty says in the preface, by his Royal Father; but the idea of a perpetual property was not then conceived, and therefore a patent was granted, to give the sole right to the bookseller.

But it is said, that the authority of such a man as Milton is of great weight; and he is represented as speaking, after much consideration, on the very point. His words are, the just retaining of each man's copy, which God forbid should be gainsaid. Milton's Prose Works, 4to. vol. 1. p. 172.—Milton, in the close of his famous speech, "for the liberty of unlicensed printing," in 1644, says, the ordinance of the two houses, for subjecting the press to a licenser, was obtained by indirect means. It may, says he, be doubted, whether there was not in it the fraud of some old patentees and monopolizers in the trade of bookselling, who, under pretence of the poor in their Company not being to be defrauded, and the just retaining of each man's copy (which God forbid should be gainsaid) brought divers glossing colours to the house, etc. Milton's idea of each man's copy arises from the old patentees and monopolizers; and certainly, while there was a relative property in the Stationer's Company, the poorer members ought not to be defrauded. But he does not say how long the copy should be retained; and that is the very point in this cause. It may be presumed, that Milton could not wish that Paradise Lost, which was sold for £5, and two further sums of £5 to be paid conditionally, should continue a splendid fortune in the hands of a bookseller, and his own grand-daughter be obliged to beg a charity play, at Drury Lane theatre, 1752. Dr. Swift and Mr. Pultney were both clearly of opinion, that there was no common law right; vide Swift's Letters, vol. 3. And the opinion of such a man as Mr. Pultney, who was for years of the first ability in parliament, may be allowed to have some weight. Dr. Watts published a volume of sermons in 1720. Mr. Longman, one of the present respondents, republished it in 1758; and though the period of twenty-eight years was expired, a common law right, if it existed, would have protected the property; but Mr. Longman annexed to his edition, a patent for fourteen years, dated the 21st of March 1758.

Whatever encouragement may be due to authors, the common law cannot, after the silence of ages, pronounce at once upon a [140] new species of right, which has been hitherto property, not properly known. Bank notes are of a value well ascertained, and yet the common law did not adapt itself to that emergence of commerce; but it was for the Legislature to make the stealing it, or taking it by robbery, a felony, 2 Geo. II. c. 25. The statute of Ann was not declaratory of the common law, but introductive of a new law, to give learned men a property which they had not before.

But it has been contended on the part of the respondents, that the act of Queen Ann is an accumulative statute, declaring the common law, and giving additional penalties. And in support of this, a pamphlet, said to have been given to the members in 1709, has been cited, and it appears, that the booksellers meant to inculcate the idea of ancient usage; but what that usage was, how it took its origin, or how it was stated in the pamphlet, the extract leaves in obscurity. Contemporary exposition will, no doubt, deserve attention. To this end, the history of the bill, as it stands upon the Journals of the House of Commons, together with the account of the conference with the Lords, will clearly evince, that the legislature were not employed in securing an antecedent property, but expressly declared, "That authors and booksellers had the sole property of books vested in them by that act, for the terms therein mentioned." Vide the Journals, 12th December 1709, when the book-sellers petition was presented; also their second petition, 2d February 1709.—14th March 1709, Resolved, that the title be, "A bill for the encouragement of learning, by vesting the copies in the authors or purchasers, etc."—5th April, the bill returned from the Lords. 5th April 1710, a conference with the Lords, and Mr. Addison, one of the Commons.

Of this evidence the respondents feel the weight, and therefore they resort to