50 REPORT—1905. 
body, as it had done in the case of the City of London, he would like to 
know if it had been done in the case of other bodies, such as the Duchies 
of Lancaster and Cornwall. Would there be any special provision there ? 
Dr. Martin explained that there were two classes of delegation of the 
rights of treasure trove. The Corporation of the City of London had the 
right to treasure trove in virtue of a charter of Charles I.’s time ; and 
as regards the second class of case, he instanced that of the Royal 
Trish Academy. It was simply, so far as his knowledge extended, the 
agent of the Crown for its collection and for its exhibition, so that the 
Royal Irish Academy was directly under the control of the Crown as 
regards treasure trove. The City of London was not an agent of the 
Crown : it was the principal in the matter of treasure trove. There were 
many instances throughout the country where a franchise had been handed 
over or assigned to the Lords of the Manor. In the case of the Duchy of 
Lancaster (speaking under correction) he was almost certain that it had 
this right to treasure trove from time immemorial. As regards the Duchy 
of Cornwall, he had no information. There were many instances where 
the right to treasure trove had been assigned in virtue of charters which 
are still in existence. In reply to a question by Mr. Stebbing as to the 
law in regard to treasure cast up by the sea, Dr. Martin said it was 
certainly not treasure trove, but probably belonged to the Crown under 
the technical expression Droits of the Admiralty. 
The Rev. R. Ashington Bullen (Holmesdaie Society and S.E. Union) 
remarked that the famous gold cup found at Rillaton in Cornwall seemed 
to have come into the possession of Queen Victoria at a time (1837) when 
there was no Duke of Cornwall. It was exhibited at the Royal Archo- 
logical Institute in 1867 by permission of the Queen and the Prince of 
Wales. The gold lunettes found at Harlyn in Cornwall in 1866 were 
claimed by the Duke of Cornwall in his own right. 
Mr. W. Morris Colles (Director of the Authors’ Syndicate) then intro- 
duced the following subject :— 
The Law of Copyright as affecting the Proceedings of Scientific Societies. 
From the proof of ‘ Papers relating to the Question of Copyright’ 
which had been placed in his hands since he entered the room, he gathered 
that the points which called for discussion were, mainly, the relations 
between Scientific Societies, their members, and the public with reference 
to papers communicated to, and printed by, or delivered before the Societies. 
These naturally resolve themselves into two classes—namely, public and 
private. As regards papers which were published in the general sense, 
by being placed on sale, the ordinary rules of copyright law applied ; but 
papers which were only privately printed were indistinguishable from 
papers existing only in manuscript, as they were not published at all, and 
the copyright, unless assigned, remained in the authors by common law. 
Some of the Societies had, he noticed, bye-laws declaring the copyright: 
of all accepted papers to be vested in them, but it was questionable 
whether these bye-laws were in themselves sufficient to give the Societies 
a good title to the copyright in such papers without an actual assignment 
(which could be prepared by their legal advisers) in such a form as to hold 
good either against the members themselves or against infringers. This 
was, in short, a case like so many arising under the Copyright Acts, which 
could only be met by special contract. Neither Section 18 of the Copy- 
