16. The general prevalence of copyright laws in civilised countries appears, no doubt, to afford prima facie evidence that they have been found desirable in the interests of literature, but experience has so often shown that legislation of a kindred kind has been due rather to the influence of the producing than to that of the consuming classes that this evidence cannot be accepted as conclusive. 17. Under existing circumstances there can be of course, as yet, little experimental proof to adduce as to the effect of giving free play to the laws of supply and demand with respect to the published works of an author; but it cannot, I think, be questioned that even if the effect of the present copyright law of this country has been less injurious than I believe it to have been to the interests of authors, it has entirely failed in securing for the public an adequate supply of literature. 18. It may indeed be said without exaggeration that new books are a luxury, the possession of which is confined to the wealthy class, and that they are placed by their price altogether beyond the reach of the great bulk of the people. 19. It may no doubt be argued that this result is due to the inefficiency of demand, and not to the existing restrictions of supply; but there seems to me to be no reason for assuming that literature forms an exception to the rule, which experience has shown to be generally applicable to whatever possesses exchangeable value, viz., that under a system of unrestricted competition the interests of the producer, as well as those of the consumer, are best secured. 20. I believe that the present state of public opinion on this subject is to be attributed to a totally inadequate conception of the literary requirements of an educated community; and Î think that it might be found that if the supply of literature could be largely increased, so as to bring the price within the reach of the masses of the people, it would react upon the demand to an extent which would afford possibilities of literary profit far exceeding anything which has hitherto been attained or imagined. 21. The exchangeable value of a published work depends, not on its cost of production, but on the relation of supply and building a similar house or cottage; or the still more extravagant proposal that an artist shall, without special stipulation, retain a right to prevent each and every subsequent owner of his pictures from copying, engraving, or photographing them, and shall have the power to seize any copies of them without warrant, and to treat the holder of such copies as a criminal unless he can explain where he got them. It is the insistance by English authors on these views of their own rights which has embittered the discussion of the subject of copyright with Canada and with the United States." This sujbect is treated at length in a further MS. paper by Mr. Farrer, which, as a member of the Commission, I have had the advantage of seeing. demand, and I believe that it will always be in the power of the first publisher of a work so to control the value by a skilful adaptation of the supply to the demand as to avoid the risk of ruinous competition, and secure ample remuneration both to the author and to himself. 22. It is doubtless true that this would not be possible in the case of unknown authors, unless their works were of a nature which possessed wide and immediate interest, but however great the intrinsic value of the productions of the class of literary men who might thus suffer, there appears to be nothing in which their position would differ from that of those in other professions and occupations in the early stages of their career, and who have not succeeded in establishing a public reputation. 23. I have been much impressed by the evidence received by the Commission on the operation of the system which prevails in the United States of America. In that important market for English books, although there exists no law which protects a foreign work from re-publication, it has been found in practice that it is the interest of publishers to make arrangements with British authors of eminence, by which they receive a remuneration which, if not equal by way of a per-centage on profits to that which they receive from the publishers of this country under the copyright law, is, nevertheless, of a substantial kind, and sometimes, in consequence of the larger circulation of their works at a cheaper price, larger even in amount than that which they derive from their copyright editions at home. 89. In conclusion I have only to state, that except as regards the questions to which I have referred in the foregoing remarks, I concur in the recommendations contained in the Report of the Commission. All which is humbly submitted for Your Majesty's gracious consideration. LOUIS MALLET. (L.S.) III. THE MANNERS AND OTHER BILLS BETWEEN 1878 AND 1891. 66 Two Parliamentary members of the Commission, Mr. Edward Jenkins, M.P., and Mr. Herschell, Q.C. (now Lord Herschell), lost no time in endeavouring to carry out its recommendations. On the 9th December 1878 a Bill (No. 53) "ordered to be brought in by Mr. E. Jenkins, Mr. Herschell, Mr. Dillwyn, and "Mr. Forsyth," was presented and read a first time. Bill, which was entitled "A Bill to codify and amend the law "of copyright," was never printed, but both its title and the names of its supporters invest the mere fact of its introduction with very great importance. This Not long afterwards the Government took the matter up by the introduction of a Bill, by Lord John Manners, Viscount Sandon, and the Attorney-General, commonly called the "Manners Bill," "to consolidate and amend the law of copyright," which was read a first time on the 29th July 1879, just before the recess. The dissolution of Parliament early in 1880, and the change of Government which followed the general election of that year, naturally cut short the fortunes of this measure, but happily not before it had been printed. The Manners Bill, termed the "Copyright (No. 2) Bill" to distinguish it from the unprinted measure of Mr. Edward Jenkins, was, very unfortunately, not prefixed by a memorandum epitomising its contents. But it may be very briefly described as a Bill to carry out the recommendations of the Commission, though those recommendations were in a few cases departed from. In 76 clauses it proposed to repeal and re-enact, with such amendments as the Commission had recommended, the fourteen then existing Copyright Acts from 8 Geo. 2. c. 13. to 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68. Excepting that the interpretation clause is placed at the end, not at the beginning, of the Bill, it is well arranged, and, considering the difficulty of the subject, fairly easy to understand on the most F 2 |