PART L. CHAPTER IV. translation of Blackstone (a) rests the claim of the Crown to copyright in English translations of the Bible on two grounds, that the translation was made at the expense of the Crown, and that the Sovereign is the head of the Church. Lord Mans- The English field (b) regarded it as a mere right of property founded on the bib the purchase of the translation by the King in the time of James I. Lord Lyndhurst (c) refers it to another consideration, namely, the character of the duty (carrying with it a corresponding prerogative) imposed on the Sovereign as the chief executive officer of the government to superintend the publication of the works upon which the established doctrines of religion are founded, a duty extending to Scotland as well as England. On whatever ground the claim rests, its validity seems now beyond dispute, though the reported cases on the subject are between rival patentees, of whom neither would raise the question of the validity of their patents as against the public in general. An Irish Lord Chancellor, indeed, in 1794, doubted the right of the Crown to grant a monopoly of this kind, and held that a patentee claiming an exclusive right of printing Bibles must establish his patent at law before he could have an injunction in equity.(d) But Lord Eldon, in 1802, granted an injunction to restrain the King's printer in Scotland, who had a patent for the sale of Bibles there, from printing or selling Bibles in England. (e) And in 1828, the House of Lords held that the King's printers in Scotland had, by virtue of their patent, a right to prevent the importation from England by others of Bibles and other works contained in their patent.(f) The exclusive right of printing and publishing and selling copies of the Bible, New Testament, and Book of Common Prayer, is vested by letters patent of the 13 Eliz. in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, concurrently with the Queen's printer, and no one else may print or publish in England any such copies, or sell in England any other copies of the said books than such as have been printed and published by or for the Universities and the Queen's printer, or one of them. (g) (a) 2 Steph. Black. 39; see also the remarks of Yates, J., in Millar v. Taylor (4 Burr. 2382). (b) 4 Burr. 2405. (c) Manners v. Blair (3 Bligh, N. S. 402); see also the opinions of Lord Camden in Donaldson v. Becket (4 Burr. 2408), and of Skinner, C.B., in Eyre v. Carnan (6 Bac. Abr. Prer. F. p. 509). (d) Grierson v. Jackson (Ridg. Ir. T. R. 304). (e) Universities of Oxford and Cambridge v. Richardson (6 Ves. 689). (f) Manners v. Blair (3 Bligh, N. S 391). (9) Universities of Oxford and Cambridge v. Richardson (ubi supra). PART I CHAPTER IV. The Book of It seems to be agreed that the Bible may be printed by others than those having the patent right, if it be accompanied by bona fide notes. (a) There is no Crown copyright in the Hebrew Bible, the Greek Testament, or the Septuagint. They are all common, according to Lord Mansfield; (b) and, said that learned judge, "if any man should turn the Psalms, or the writings of Solomon or Job into verse, the King could not stop the printing or the sale of such a work. It would be the author's work." Nor has any attempt ever been made to prevent any person from publishing a translation of one book, or of a part of the Bible, from the original text, and enjoying a copyright in his production. (c) The Bible patent of the Queen's printer for Scotland expired in 1839. The patent of the Queen's printer for England has lately been renewed during pleasure, notwithstanding the recommendation of a committee of the House of Commons that the exclusive privilege of printing and publishing English translations of the Bible should not be renewed. The claim of the Crown to the exclusive publication of the Common Prayer. Book of Common Prayer is rested on similar grounds-the duty and prerogative of the Sovereign as head of the Church and as chief executive magistrate, to superintend the publication of books of divine service. () It seems that down to the 34th year of Henry VIII. the different books used in divine service were not printed here, but were imported from abroad. A patent was granted in that year for the sole printing of such books, and in the first year of Elizabeth the exclusive right of printing books of divine service was inserted in the same patent with the right of printing the Acts of Parliament, which had some time before been granted, and from that time they were regularly enjoyed together by the King's patentee. In 1781, in the case of (a) 2 Ev. Stat. p. 19, note 11. (c) Godson on Patents and Copyright, 442. (b) 4 Burr. 2405. (d) In Manners v. Blair (3 Bligh, N. S. 391), it was contended that as to the Book of Common Prayer the King could not in Scotland confer the exclusive right of printing it on his printer there, as the King was not the supreme head of the Scotch Church as he was of the English; and the Scotch court from which the appeal was brought to the House of Lords seems to have been of that opinion. Lord Lyndhurst, however, in moving the judgment of the House of Lords, rested the claim of the Crown to copyright in the Prayer Book as well as the Bible on the executive character of the Sovereign-a character which he has equally in Scotland and England; and the patent of the King's printer in Scotland was held valid as to the Book of Common Prayer as well as the translation of the Bible. PART I. Eyre v. Carnan (a), an injunction was granted to restrain the defendant from printing and publishing a form of prayer CHAPTER IV. which had been ordered to be read in all churches. And in Manners v. Blair, (b) before the House of Lords in 1828, the copyright of the Crown was fully recognised. The Queen's printer enjoys the sole right of printing and publishing the Book of Common Prayer. grammar. The claim of the Crown, now obsolete, to the copyright Lilly's Latin in Lilly's Latin Grammar was founded on the alleged original compilation and publication of the grammar at the king's expense, independently of any idea of prerogative.(c) Various grounds for the claim of the Crown, at one time Almanacs. asserted, to copyright in almanacs have been alleged. In the Stationers' Company v. Seymour (d) (Temp. Chas. II.), the right to grant the exclusive privilege of printing almanacs was held to vest in the king; first, because an almanac has no certain author, and, therefore, by the rule of our law, the sovereign had the property in it; secondly, because the almanacs made yearly are but applications of the general rules laid down in the almanac prefixed to the Book of Common Prayer which regulate the moveable feasts of the Church. And the addition of prognostications and other things that are common in almanacs was held not to alter the case, "any more than if a man should claim a property in another man's copy, by reason of some inconsiderable additions of his own." Notwithstanding the decision in this case the Court of King's Bench in the case of the Stationer's Company v. Partridge, (e) strongly inclined against the prerogative right to the printing of almanacs. No judgment, indeed, was given in that case, but it stood over, that the court might see if they could make it like the case of the Book of Common Prayer, and show that the right of the Crown had any foundation in property; and it was never moved afterwards. The subject, however, received a positive decision adverse to the claim of the Crown in the Stationers' Company v. Carnan. (f) That was a case sent from the Court of Exchequer for the opinion of the Court of Common Pleas, and that court, after hearing counsel on both sides of the question, certified their opinion "that the Crown had not a prerogative or power to make such grant [of almanacs] to the plaintiffs exclusive of any other or others." In consequence of this, it was enacted by 21 Geo. 3, c. 56, s. 10, that 500l. a-year should be paid to (a) Cited 6 Bac. Abr. 509. (b) 3 Bligh. N. S. 391. (c) 4 Burr. 2329. (d) 1 Mod. 256. (e) 10 Mod. 105; 4 Burr. 2402; 6 Bac. Abr. 508. (f) 2 W. Bl. 1004. PART I. CHAPTER IV. Nautical almanacs. the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge severally, out of the duty upon almanacs, as a compensation for the annual sum of 1000l., for which they had demised to the Stationers' Company the privilege of printing almanacs. In 1799, Lord North brought in a Bill to revest in the Universities and the Stationers' Company the exclusive right of printing almanacs, but the Bill was thrown out in the House of Commons after Erskine had been heard at the bar of the House against it. No further assertion of the right of the Crown appears to have been made since. With regard to nautical almanacs, sect. 2 of 9 Geo. 4, c. 66, enacts that "It shall and may be lawful to and for the Lord High Admiral, or the Commissioners for executing the office of Lord High Admiral of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the time being, to cause such nautical almanacs or other useful table or tables which he or they shall from time to time judge necessary and useful, in order to facilitate the method of discovering the longitude at sea, to be constructed, printed, published and vended and that every person who, without the special licence and authority of the Lord High Admiral or Commissioners for executing the office of Lord High Admiral aforesaid, for the time being, to be signified under the hand of the Secretary of the Admiralty, for the time being, shall print, publish, or vend, or cause to be printed, published, or vended, any such almanac or almanacs, or other table or tables, shall for every copy of such almanac or table so printed, published, or vended, forfeit and pay the sum of twenty pounds, to be recovered with costs of suit, by any person to be authorised for that purpose by the Lord High Admiral or Commissioners for executing the office of Lord High Admiral aforesaid (such authority to be signified under the hand of the Secretary of the Admiralty as aforesaid), by action of debt, bill, plaint, or information, in any of His Majesty's Courts of Record at Westminster; and that the proceeds of the said penalty, when recovered, shall be paid and applied to the use of the Royal Hospital for Seamen at Greenwich." A narrative of a voyage of discovery prepared under the orders of the Crown is the property of the Crown; but a publisher authorised to publish it by the Secretary to the Admiralty, the profits remaining at their disposition, was held by Lord Chancellor Thurlow not entitled to restrain a stranger from publishing it. (a) The Crown still possesses the exclusive right of printing (a) Nicol v. Stockdale (3 Swans. 687). PART L. CHAPTER IV. Acts of Parlia and publishing Acts of Parliament. Blackstone rests the right on grounds of political and public convenience; the king, as executive magistrate, possessing the right of promulgating to the people all acts of State and Government. (a) ment and other Lord Clare (b) recognised the right, because it is neces- State documents. sary that there should be a responsibility for correct printing, and because copy can only be had from the rolls of Parliament, which are within the authority of the Crown. In olden times the king's officers transmitted authentic copies of all state ordinances to the sheriffs, who proclaimed them in their county courts: when the demand for authentic copies began to increase, and when the introduction of printing facilitated the multiplication of copies, the king's patentee, by command of the king, supplied copies to the people, this seeming an obvious and reasonable extent of that duty which lay upon the Crown to furnish the people with the authentic text of their ordinances. (c) The right of the Crown was recognised in repeated decisions, (d) some of which, however, proceeded upon notions which are now exploded. The right of the patentees of the Crown to the sole printing of the statutes, as now recognised, must depend upon usage, and the force of the decision of the Court of King's Bench, in Basket v. The University of Camridge, (e) in 1758, and upon the recognition of the doctrine of prerogative copies by the House of Lords in the case of Manners v. Blair, (f) in 1828.(g) The former case did not present for direct decision the question of the validity of patents for the exclusive printing of the statutes, as between the Crown and the public, the dispute being there between rival patentees under patents from different sovereigns, each party therefore being interested in upholding the general prerogative. The Court of Chancery sent the case into the King's Bench for the opinion of that court, and after argument the validity of the patents given to both the parties litigant was upheld. This of course assumes the validity of the claim of the Crown. If bona fide notes accompany statutes printed by others Statutes with than those having the patent right, the copyright of the bona fide notes. latter, it seems, is not infringed; (h) but there is no express (a) 2 Bl. Com. 410. (b) Grierson v. Jackson (Ridg. Rep. 304). (c) See judgment of Skinner, C.B., in Eyre v. Carnan (6 Bac. Ábr. 511). (d) Atkins's case (Carter, 89, Bac. Abr. Prer. F. 4 Burr. 2315), Roper v. Streater (Skin. 234), Stationers' Company v. Parker (Skin. 233), Eyre v. Carnan (6 Bac. Abr. 509), Basket v. University of Cambridge (1 W. Bl. 105), Baskett v. Cunningham (Id. 370; 2 Eden, 137). (e) 1 W. Bl 105. (ƒ) 3 Bligh, N. S. 391. (g) Curtis on Copyright, 126. () Maugham, 106; 2 Evans's Statutes, 19. |