« PreviousContinue »
count of the battle, but even specifies by name the arms and weapons used by the English-gladios, lanceas, secures, et sagittas― makes not the slightest mention of the bombarde, nor of the pallotole di ferro che saettavano.* The French were beaten by the English as completely at Crecy as they were at Waterloo; and their national vanity might have spread the report of the English owing their victory to the advantage of cannon, with as little foundation in fact, as they ascribed their defeat at Waterloo to the entrenchments and fortifications of Mont St. Jean.
In vindicating our traveller from the charge of not mentioning what did not exist in China when he was there, we have been tempted to lay before the public some facts, which, though probably known to those who are much read in the early literature of Spain, may yet be new to such of our readers as are not familiar with that noble language, or have not access to the sources from which we have drawn our information. For this we look to their usual indulgence, though we feel at the same time that an apology is necessary for the digression to which it has led us.
To return to our traveller. With all the apparent improbabilities, defects, and inconsistencies of the narrative there is still enough in it to convince the most sceptical of its general accuracy; while the numerous descriptions and incidents afford, as Mr. Marsden justly observes, unobtrusive proofs of genuineness; among others may be enumerated, the state in which the bodies of persons destroyed by the hot wind of the desert are found-the manufacture of inebriating liquor from the infusion of dates-the tradition prevailing in Budakshan, of the descent of its princes from Alexander of Macedon-the gigantic figures of idols in a recumbent posture -the description of the bos grunniens, or yak of Tartary—the figures of dragons in Kataian or Chinese ornament-the periodical residence of the emperors in Tartary during the summer monthsthe commencement of the Kataian year in February-the ceremony of prostration before the emperor or his tablet by word of command—the ascent to the top of Adam's Peak, in Ceylon, being effected by the assistance of iron chains-the burning of coal, beforementioned, and a great variety of other matters utterly unknown at the time, but which have since been found to be perfectly correct. These indeed are now familiar to most readers: but all the other subjects of which the author treats, and which are not so generally known, are elucidated and explained by the erudition and research of Mr. Marsden; who has added, by his edition of Marco Polo, another treasure to the stock of oriental literature worthy of his distinguished reputation as a linguist and a geographer, and highly meriting a place on the shelf of every library, public and private.
*Villani, tom. ii. lib. 12. p. 280. + Campany, Quest. Crit.
ART. X.-1. The Case stated between the Public Libraries and the Booksellers.
2. Address to the Parliament of Great Britain, on the Claims of Authors to their own Copyright. By a Member of the University of Cambridge (Richard Duppa, Esq. LL.B.)
3. Reasons for a further Amendment of the Act 54 Geo. III. c. 156. being an Act to amend the Copyright Act of Queen Anne. By Sir Egerton Brydges, Bart. M. P. 1817.
4. A summary Statement of the great Grievances imposed on Authors and Publishers, and the Injury done to Literature, by the late Copyright Act. By Sir Egerton Brydges, Bart. M. P. 5. A Vindication of the pending Bill for the Amendment of the Copyright Act, from the Misrepresentations and unjust Comments of the Syndics of the University Library at Cambridge. By Sir Egerton Brydges, Bart. M. P.
6. A Vindication of the Right of the Universities of the United Kingdom to a Copy of every new Publication. By Edward Christian, of Gray's Inn, Esq. Barrister at Law, Professor of the Laws of England in the University of Cambridge, and Chief Justice of the Isle of Ely. 1818.
7. Inquiries and Observations respecting the University Library. By Basil Montagu, Esq. A. M.
8. Inquiries concerning the proposed Alteration of the Law of Copyright, as it affects Authors and the Universities. By Basil Montagu, Esq.
HERE existed no law for the delivery of books to certain public libraries till the second year after the Restoration, when such an enactment grew out of a law passed for restraining the press. By that law, no person was permitted to print any book till it had been previously licensed. Law-books were to be inspected by the Chancellor, or Chief Justice, or Chief Baron; books on history or state-affairs, by the Secretary of State; books on heraldry, by the Earl Marshal; and the Archbishop of Canterbury, or the Bishop of London, was to examine all works in divinity, physic, philosophy, science, or art! The act proceeded to reduce and limit the number of printing-presses: no man, from that time, might become a master-printer till those who then existed should have been reduced to twenty; and the master letter-founders were to be four. Both master-printers and letter-founders were to be nominated and allowed by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London; and no man might keep two presses unless he had been master of the Stationers' Company. Messengers were authorized, by warrants from the king, the secretary of state, or the master and wardens of the Stationers' Company, to enter at what time they should
think fit, and search all houses where they should know, or upon some probable cause suspect, any books to be printed, bound, or stitched, and to examine whether the same were licensed or not. By the same statute, every printer was required to send three copies of every book new printed, or reprinted with additions, to the Stationers' Company, and these copies were to be sent from thence to the king's library and to the public libraries of Oxford and Cambridge. The object of requiring this delivery was manifestly to enforce the intentions of the act, by bringing every book under the cognizance of persons who would see that the provisions of the law were observed. This statute continued in force for a few years, and when the inflammatory spirit of fanaticism was supposed in some degree to have spent itself, it was suffered to expire; the press again became free, and the delivery of the three copies ceased to be law. One of the first acts of James II. was to revive an act so entirely conformable to his temper and designs; and it was continued for six years after the Revolution. Then it was allowed to die: the Imprimatur disappeared from English books, and the delivery of the three copies again was at an end, that delivery having been imposed, not as an encouragement to literature, but as one of the auxiliary inquisitorial restrictions on the press.'
In the year 1709, being the 8th of Queen Anne, an act was made 'for the encouragement of learning, by vesting the copies of printed books in the authors or purchasers of such copies, during the times therein mentioned.' The preamble to this law stated that printers, booksellers, and other persons had of late frequently taken the liberty of printing and publishing books, and other writings, without the consent of the authors or proprietors, to their very great detriment, and too often to the ruin of them and their families;' and the act itself was designed for preventing such practices for the future, and for the encouragement of learned men to compose and write useful books.' By this act it was declared, that the author or his assigns should possess an exclusive copyright for the term of fourteen years from the day of publication and no longer, and that, after the expiration of that term, the sole right should return to the author if he were living, for another fourteen years. A penalty of one penny for every sheet was then imposed upon all pirated copies of books, besides the forfeiture of the books to the proprietors of the copy for waste paper: but it was declared that no person should be subject to the penalties thus imposed, unless the title to the copy of the book should have been entered before publication in the Register book of the Stationers' Company, in such manner as had been usual. The Stationers' Company was first chartered by Philip and Mary, because, the charter says,' seditious and heretical books, both in rhymes and tracts, were daily printed, renewing and
spreading great and detestable heresies against the Catholic doctrines of the Holy Mother Church.' To put a stop to this evil, the charter embodied ninety-seven persons, whom it named, and enacted that no one should practise the art of printing in England unless he belonged to the Company, or had a license. The master and wardens were authorized to search, seize, and destroy all prohibited books, and imprison any one who should exercise the art of printing contrary to this ordinance. It soon became the practice of the Company to keep a public register in their common-hall for the entry and description of books and copies.
By the bill as it was originally brought in, the delivery of the three copies was again required; as it passed through the House of Commons one was added for Sion College, and another for the Faculty of Advocates at Edinburgh. And in the House of Lords four were added for the Scotch Universities, making in all nine copies. It is worthy of notice, that the bill, as it was introduced, had no limitation of the copyright, but proceeded upon the fair common law right and natural equity of authors and proprietors to a perpetual copyright, which they had always before enjoyed. The limitary words were introduced during its progress through parliament, and there have been Judges who thought that the limitation was intended to apply only to the penalties which the act imposed upon those persons who should think proper to publish books which were the property of others. The same act contained this curious clause, that if any person conceived the price which was fixed upon a new book to be high and unreasonable, he might complain of it to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of London, the Lord Chan cellor, certain of the judges in England and Scotland, the Vice Chancellors of either University, or the Rector of the College of Edinburgh, any one of which persons was empowered to summon before him the printer or bookseller, question him concerning the causes of the alleged high price, reduce it to what they might think just and reasonable, and in such case condemn the said printer or bookseller' in all costs and charges that the person or persons so complaining had been put unto, by reason of such complaint.' The enforcement of this wise clause has lately been recommended in the newspapers by some blockhead, who may be excused for not knowing that it was repealed in George the Second's reign, but is not to be pardoned for the meddling and tyrannical disposition which would revive a power, as vexatious in itself as it is incompatible with the common principles of free trade.
The framers of this bill discovered a strange ignorance of the principles of trade, and they were not better acquainted with the true interests of literature. The bill, however, for a full century was understood and acted upon according to its intentions, as hav
ing been framed solely for the purpose of protecting authors and their assigns from piracy. And during more than half that time it was established by repeated decisions in the Court of Chancery that the Common Law right of authors to the copyright of their own works was not taken away by the statute of Anne; but in 1774 the House of Lords made a new decree, and voted the Common Law right to be merged in that statute. Upon this decision the English and Scotch Universities and the three public schools of Winchester, Eton, and Westminster petitioned parliament to secure to them a perpetual copyright in all books which theretofore had been deemed their property, or which might thereafter become so; and they obtained the prayer of their petition. 'Thus,' says Mr. Duppa, the Universities preserved their perpetual copyright; the King also retains his copyright for ever by common law; but the authors lost theirs by an act which was. meant to strengthen the power of the Stationers' Company, and to give an additional protection and security to their property.' Why no similar petition was presented by the authors, who were infi-. nitely more aggrieved, may easily be understood; they felt and suffered as individuals, but were of all men least likely either to act as a body, or to obtain attention to their claims.
With regard to the delivery of the nine copies, it was understood for about an hundred years after the passing of the act, that copies were required of those books only which should be registered at Stationers' Hall. Authors and booksellers therefore who thought the protection which the Act of Anne afforded them worth the expense of nine copies, registered their books, if they apprehended any invasion of their copyright. And when the bill which restored to the Universities and public schools the perpetuity of their copyrights was passed, it appears undeniable that the House of Commons and the friends of the Universities acquiesced in this opinion; for it was ordered that the Committee should make provision for enforcing the clause in the Act of Anne which provides for the delivery of the copies of each book printed and registered under the direction of the said Act. A decision of the court of King's Bench in 1798 established that the author had a right of action for damages, independent of the penalty; but before this decision the practice of registering important books had become very unusual, Lord Colchester's bill for extending the laws of copyright to Ireland required two additional copies for the Dublin libraries, but confirmed the received interpretation of the act by expressing that they were to be of such books as should be entered in the Register. The act for the suppression of seditious societies which directed that the printer's name should be affixed to every work, required also that he should reserve a copy of every work which he printed,