Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/860

a variety of comments upon the statute itself. They rely much upon the preamble, which says,

Whereas printers, booksellers, and other persons, have of late frequently taken the liberty of printing, etc. books and other writings, without the consent of the authors or proprietors of such books, to their very great detriment, and too often to the ruin of them and their families; for preventing therefore such practices for the future,

etc. From the words taking the liberty, and such practices, it is inferred, that the persons within the description of them were wrong-doers. A question is put, When the legislature speak of a liberty taken, could they mean a claim founded on any right? And by practices, did they mean to describe the exercise of a legal right? The word practices, is properly applied to the doing of illegal acts. If they were wrong-doers, the legislature has used the mildest terms in the compass of our language; but surely they were not trespassers. After the final extinction of the licensing act in 1694, men had a right to reprint books, in the same manner as printsellers had lawful authority to copy, engrave, and publish all works, designs, and prints, which were not secured to the inventors by patent for a term of years; and yet the legislature, 8 Geo. II. c. 13. in the very same words, recites in the preamble, "Whereas divers printsellers, etc. have of late taken the liberty [141] of copying, engraving; and for preventing therefore such practices," etc. Again, in 7 Geo. III. c. 38. the printsellers who engraved and exposed to sale the designs and prints of the late William Hogarth, after the period of fourteen years granted to him by parliament, are in that act called the proprietors of the copies of William Hogarth's works; and then the legislature proceeds to restrain those very proprietors from vending the copies which were their legal property. Thus it is plain, that the legislature speaking of a legal right, described it by the words, taking the liberty, and such practices. If by the terms taking the liberty, and such practices, it can by fair construction be intended, that injustice, fraud, and rapine are implied, the like imputation is thrown upon the printsellers, who exercised a legal right, and are allowed to be proprietors. It may be presumed, that if the legislature bad seen actual guilt, or illegal practices, they would, agreeably to their own dignity, have kept no terms with men who violated laws, and wrought the ruin of families. But learning, to the honour of the legislature, was to be encouraged; and it may be asked, if the statute of Queen Ann did not create a new property, what was done for learning? If the right was antecedent to the act, how did the legislature vest the property in authors? If they had the faintest idea of a pre-existing property, why was the sole right of reprinting books, which had been previously published, restrained to twenty-one years, and no more? A strange way of encouraging learning, by abridging ancient rights! If the act of Queen Ann intended merely to give additional penalties, by way of new fences to a common law right, why give those penalties for fourteen years only? If the property is perpetual, why should not the remedy be co-extensive? If by copy be understood a perpetual property, the author who sold his copy under the idea of a transfer for fourteen years only, may be told by an artful bookseller, that more was meant than meets the car, and that a sale of his copy, imports a sale for ever. The consequence will be, that instead of encouraging learning, a snare has been unwittingly spread for men of genius and industry; and the clause of the statute, which gives a reversion to the author at the end of fourteen years, if he live so long, will be eluded by the craft, and, as Milton phrases it, by the sophisms of merchandise. If the book at the end of fourteen years reverts to the author, his interest is served: if it does not, the legislature, by such a construction, has extended no benefit to learned men. But it happily appears, that parliament has revised its own acts, and, in terms as clear as the English language affords, declared, that the property was given by the act of Queen Ann. For 7 Geo. II. c. 24. is intitled, "An act for granting to Samuel Buckley the sole liberty of printing and reprinting the Histories of Thuanus." The preamble recites, that Buckley, at a very great expence, had prepared an edition of Thuanus in seven volumes folio, and then adds,

Whereas the sole liberty of printing and reprinting books for the term of fourteen years, to commence from the day of publishing the same, granted to the proprietors thereof, was granted to the proprietor thereof by an act 8 Anne, [142] intitled, An act for the encouraging of learning, by vesting the copies of printed books, in the authors or purchasers,

etc. Of the sense and meaning of the legislature, we are now fully informed by the highest authority: he that runs may read the intent and scope of