International Copyright | Page 3

had been taken away by the statute of Anne, and a term of
years substituted for perpetuity.
Chief among those who, in opposition to this decision, advised the
lords that literary property was not less inviolable than any species of
property known to the law of England, was Sir William Blackstone.
The most important influence in support of the decision was exercised
by the arguments of Justice Yates and Lord Camden. "This judgment,"
says Drone, "has continued to represent the law; but its soundness has
been questioned by very high authorities." In 1851 Lord Campbell
expressed his agreement with the views of Lord Mansfield. In 1854,
Justice Coleridge said: "If there was one subject more than another
upon which the great and varied learning of Lord Mansfield, his special
familiarity with it, and the philosophical turn of his intellect, could give
his judgment peculiar weight, it was this. I require no higher authority

for a position which seems to me in itself reasonable and just."
In 1841 an important debate took place in Parliament upon this same
issue. The right at common law of ownership in perpetuity was asserted
by Sergeant Talfourd and Lord Mahon, and the opinion that copyright
was the creation of statute law and should be limited to a term of years
was defended by Macaulay.
The conclusions of the latter were accepted by the House, and the act of
1842, which is still in force, was the result. By this act the term of
copyright was fixed at forty-two years, or if at the end of that time the
author be still living, for the duration of his life.
I have referred to these discussions as to the nature of the authority
through which the author's ownership exists or is created, as the
question will be found to have an important bearing upon international
copyright. In connection with this debate of 1842 was framed the
famous petition of Thomas Hood, which, if it were not presented to
Parliament, certainly deserved to be. It makes a fair presentment of the
author's case, and is worth quoting:
"That your petitioner is the proprietor of certain copyrights which the
law treats as copyhold, but which in justice and equity, should be his
freeholds. He cannot conceive how 'Hood's Own,' without a change in
the title-deeds as well as the title, can become 'Everybody's Own'
hereafter.
"That your petitioner may burn or publish his manuscripts at his own
option, and enjoys a right in and control over his own productions
which no press, now or hereafter, can justly press out of him.
"That as a landed proprietor does not lose his right to his estate in
perpetuity by throwing open his grounds for the convenience and
gratification of the public, neither ought the property of an author in his
works to be taken from him, unless all parks become commons.
"That your petitioner, having sundry snug little estates in view, would
not object, after a term, to contribute his private share to a general

scramble, provided the landed and moneyed interests, as well as the
literary interest, were thrown into the heap; but that in the mean time,
the fruits of his brain ought no more to be cast amongst the public than
a Christian woman's apples or a Jewess' oranges.
"That cheap bread is as desirable and necessary as cheap books; but it
hath not yet been thought just or expedient to ordain that, after a certain
number of crops, all corn-fields shall become public property.
"That, whereas in other cases long possession is held to affirm a right to
property, it is inconsistent and unjust that a mere lapse of twenty-eight
or any other term of years should deprive an author at once of principal
and interest in his own literary fund. To be robbed by Time is a sorry
encouragement to write for Futurity!
"That a work which endures for many years must be of a sterling
character, and ought to become national property; but at the expense of
the public, or at any expense save that of the author or his descendants.
It must be an ungrateful generation that, in its love of 'cheap copies,'
can lose all regard for 'the dear originals.'
"That, whereas, your petitioner has sold sundry of his copyrights to
certain publishers for a sum of money, he does not see how the public,
which is only a larger firm, can justly acquire even a share in copyright,
except by similar means--namely, by purchase or assignment. That the
public having constituted itself by law the executor and legatee of the
author, ought in justice, and according to practice in other cases, to take
to his debts as well as his literary assets.
"That when your petitioner shall be dead and buried, he might with