174 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



A. Pardon me, I have been very careful to say that I thiuk that an 

 author has a right to the form in which he embodies his ideas. 



Q. That is what I said ; I supposed him to embody his ideas in a 

 book. Then you will admit that, if there is a copyi-ight law which limits 

 that right, the only justification for that limitation would be public 

 policy, or public convenience, or something of that sort. Let us take 

 it from that point of view : how can you reconcile that view of the 

 principle of a copyright law with the existing law ? 



A. I do not reconcile it ; I ventured to say just now that I think 

 that the present law is bad in principle. 



Q. Then you admit that the present law is not based on your prin- 

 ciple ? 



A. Certainly not. 



Sir H. D. Wolff. Have you thought upon the subject whether it 

 would not be for the advantage of authors that the copyright should be 

 extended for a period longer than exists at present ; that it should 

 even be made the perpetual property of the family of the author ? 



A. My impression is, that it would be for the advantage of the 

 author if copyright were made perpetual. 



Q. You said just now that the legislation had not given any privi- 

 lege to the author by giving him copyright; surely it gives him a pro- 

 tection to his property which would not otherwise exist ; do you not 

 think so ? 



A. Quite so. But I ventured to say that that was not a boon 

 but simply a piece of justice, and that he ought to have the pro- 

 tection. 



Q. But do you not think that the Legislature would not give the 

 protection unless it was for the benefit of the public that authors should 

 be encouraged ? 



A. Assuming that it is advantageous that they should be encour- 

 aged, a certain benefit is given to the public. 



Q. The copyright is given to the author that he should be free to 

 publish his works? 



A. I look upon a book in the same way as I look upon any other 

 kind of property. There are people who discuss the expediency of the 

 protection of any property at all ; but it appears to me that upon every 

 ground upon which it is expedient to protect any sort of property it is 

 expedient to protect book property. 



Q. I am not at all disputing that, but I wish to arrive at this view, 

 that you give this protection to the author to enable him to have prop- 

 erty in what is a peculiar property ; there must be a peculiar protection 

 given to a property of peculiar nature, and, having once given him that 

 protection, do you not think that the book itself, or the chattel which 

 he produces, should then go into the ordinary rules of supplj^ and de- 

 mand ; that is to say, that when you have done that, and have reserved 

 to him his property in his book, tlie public ought to be able to obtain 



