English law holds out a further suggestion for reciprocity, saying: 'We will give to your works, even published abroad, the same protection as we give to the works of natives first published in Her Majesty's Dominions, provided that you will grant satisfactory protection in your country to works first published in Her Majesty's Dominions.' It is evident that before we throw stones at our American cousins for the iniquity and meanness of their recent Copyright Act, we must examine the heart of our law, and take heed that our own house is not partially constructed of glass. Bearing in mind the above-mentioned tendency of existing British Copyright law, it remains to be seen whether, if any serious displacement of trade in the direction of the United States should in reality follow the passing of the new Act, there are any means of redressing in the Old World the balance of trade disturbed by legislation in the New. We prefer to mention briefly all that occur to us; not by any means as indicating that they are suitable remedies, but simply as an exhibition of weapons which can be employed at the will of the nation. We are not to be frightened by the mere word 'Protection,' now used by some as a nursery bogey, without consideration of consequences. The reason why a Government is placed in power in any country is, first, to protect the subjects of that country; and if perchance it could be shown that in some cases-exceptional, if you will-Protection does not mean injury to the public at large, we should be inclined to say, 'Protect.' If trade injury to the United Kingdom or its colonies were really to follow the operation of this American Act-designed as it is to effect that object—and if it could be demonstrably shown that compulsorily confining the supply of the English book market to works printed in Her Majesty's Dominions, would not sensibly increase the cost of literature to the public; then the expediency of remedial legislation might be considered. The true criterion seems to be this-If the loss in pounds, shillings, and pence to the publishing and allied trades in Her Majesty's Dominions is greater than the saving in cost of books to the public brought about by printing in America instead of in England, then a case has been shown for legislation. Or, to put it in another way, if the operation of the new American Act is followed by an immediate and sensible decrease in the price of books throughout the British Empire, well and good, even if it is accompanied by some loss of trade in the way of book manufacture; but if the loss of trade results, and books get no cheaper, then there is ground for alarm. Now, Now, the entire effect of the Act as regards the manufacturing clauses could evidently be defeated by the prohibition of entry from any foreign State, to be named in an Order in Council, of stereotypes and of any printed matter entitled in Her Majesty's Dominions to a copyright of origin; that is to say, first published therein. A similar effect would follow the substitution for prohibition of a Customs' duty on such articles-either calculated to act as a prohibitory rate, or to produce a small revenue. These measures may clearly be termed Protectionist, but it may be doubted whether they would really increase the cost of books to the British public. In the United Kingdom, at least, books can probably be printed and put on the market cheaper than anywhere else certainly cheaper than in America. The actual cost of setting the type is not a very important item in the total cost of a work which has a large circulation. For example, in England the actual expense of composition, or setting the type, for a book of 200 pages, with 300 words to the page, need not exceed 127. or 137., though it is rarely so little. It would, we imagine, certainly cost much more than this in the United States, owing to the dearness of labour, but we are not able to quote exact figures. Such measures would also tend to favour the publishing trades in the British Colonies, especially in Canada, for naturally neither prohibition nor duty would extend to importations from any part of the British Empire. Another mode of neutralizing the effect of the Act would be to enact that simultaneous publication abroad and at home should not be held to be first publication for the purposes of an English copyright. This would mean that under the latelypassed American law an English or an American author must choose whether he would have an English or an American copyright. He could not have both; and thus the English author would remain in pretty much the same position as before the passing of the Act, whilst the American author would lose a privilege he now enjoys. Any value such a measure might possess would be simply as an attempt to drive the United States to a more liberal policy. It would protect the manufacturer at the expense of the author. Legislation on these lines might, however, be confined to aliens, or subjects of States which do not belong to the Copyright Union. A method of retaliation, pure and simple, with a Protectionist bias, would be to enact that an American author should not be permitted to enjoy an English copyright, except the work were printed from type set within Her Majesty's dominions. This would give an exact reciprocity as between Great Britain and the the United States, and would complete the now existing Protectionist tendency of our Copyright Law. The last countervailing measure we shall mention is one which has found a good many advocates in the public press. It is a suggestion that a book by a British or foreign author must, in order to acquire an English copyright, be printed from type set within Her Majesty's Dominions, or in a country which is a party to the International Copyright Union. This would certainly mean increased business to English publishers and printers. It is doubtful whether it would increase the cost of production, but it might possibly lead to unforeseen effects in regard to the printing on the Continent of books designed for the English market. It would also present special features of danger in connexion with the British Colonies, who might wish to insist that a reprint within their own colony of a work first published in the United Kingdom, or in some other part of Her Majesty's Dominions, should be necessary to preserve the copyright in that particular colony. Anything leading to such a result would be most unfortunate, as tending to weaken the principle of Imperial Copyright. Clearly, on general principles, all the methods above indicated are in themselves of an illiberal and retrograde character, only to be adopted in case of most urgent necessity, and leading possibly to the spread of narrow-minded principles of copyright in our colonies and throughout the world. It must, further, be taken into account that the new American Act is not yet operative as regards Great Britain. It cannot benefit English authors, nor damage English publishers and printers, until it has been applied to Great Britain by Proclamation of the President of the United States; and this can only be issued if we grant to United States citizens substantially the same benefits of copyright as we grant to British subjects, or are parties to an International Agreement respecting copyright, to which the United States may at will become a party on terms of reciprocity. The Proclamation might also, we presume, be revoked, even when once issued, if any changes were made in our laws in a direction contrary to the provisions of the American Act. It is clear, however, that the battle for supremacy in the publishing business must, if fought at all, be fought out singlehanded between Great Britain and the United States. If it is found that a commercial blow has been dealt to us by the operation of the Act, and if we are really hurt, we have to consider whether we will take it standing up or lying down. Foreign countries having a different language, have also dif ferent ferent copyright relations with the United States from those which we have. They cannot help us a bit, and we must fight for our own hand. Supposing, however, that the commercial loss resultant from the operation of the American Act were ever so clearly proven, it is nevertheless obvious that any English Government, before it could even contemplate remedial legislation, must be in a position to count upon the support of such measures by a sufficient majority in Parliament, backed up by a very decided expression of public opinion in that direction. Evidently, therefore, the time has not yet come for the consideration of any legislative action. Probably it never will come; and any attempt on the part of public bodies or individuals to urge the Government into hasty and premature measures would be ill-advised, and much to be deprecated. We must wait and see what happens, rather than rush in to cure a disease which at present is scarcely known to exist, and of which no accurate diagnosis has yet been made. ART. ART. VI.-1. Suggestions for the Extension of the University— submitted to the Rev. the Vice-Chancellor. By Wm. Sewell, B.D., Sub-Rector and Senior Tutor of Exeter Coll. Oxford, 1850. 2. A Suggestion for supplying the Literary, Scientific, and Mechanics' Institutes of Great Britain and Ireland with Lecturers from the Universities. By Lord Arthur Hervey, M.A. Cambridge, 1855. 3. A Letter on University Extension, addressed to the Resident Members of the University of Cambridge. By James Stuart. Cambridge, 1871. 4. Reports of the Oxford Committee of Delegates of Local Examinations appointed to carry into effect the Statute for Lectures and Teaching in large Towns: of the Cambridge Syndicate for Local Lectures: of the Committee for Local Lectures of the Victoria University: and of the London Society for the Extension of University Teaching. 5. Address on the University Extension Movement. By R. G. Moulton, A.M., of Cambridge, England. Philadelphia, 1891. 6. Annual Address to the Students of the London Society for the Extension of University Teaching. By the Bishop of Durham. March 7th, 1891. HE historian of the future, when he surveys the social Tdevelopment of England during the present century, will be struck by the recuperative power manifested by more than one of our ancient institutions. He will point to the evergrowing popularity of the National Church as the supreme example of such a beneficent revival. Little more than a hundred years ago, Adam Smith sardonically remarked that the clergy of an established and well-endowed religion are apt gradually to lose the qualities, both good and bad, which give them authority and influence with the inferior ranks of people: ' that the arts of popularity are constantly on the side of the adversaries of the Established Church,' and that in England those arts have been long neglected by the well-endowed clergy and are chiefly cultivated by the Dissenters and Methodists.' Singularly blind as was the author of the 'Wealth of Nations' to the significance and moment of the spiritual element in the life of a people, insensible with the polite callousness of his school to the deeper necessities of religious authority, he was guilty of no oversight in forming this estimate of the more popular activities of the Church of England at the time in which he wrote. But to-day all is changed. What slum is there into which the clergy fail to penetrate? what sharp privation of the indigent do they not seek to relieve? Almost the |