THE LAW OF COPrRIGHT. 417 



wliolly beyond our cognizance. As to its justice, our notice of the 

 evidence was chiefly directed to show that much of the asserted claims 

 to originality on which it was based, did ourselves injustice, and could 

 not be sustained. That the decision of Vice-Chancellor James was 

 appealed against, and has since been reversed, may indeed be reason 

 for further review of the subject, in the light of new facts that have 

 transpired, but at the date of publication of the article referred to, his 

 judgment was the latest fact in the case; and, had we then known of 

 the contemplated appeal : Mr. Luke Owen Pike, and not Dr. Nicholas, 

 would have had most reason for objecting to a review which set forth 

 reasons for denying the right either of plaintiff or defendant to claim 

 originality in certain lines of research and induction, as set forth in the 

 evidence, or to priority in publication of the results. 



In reality, it appears to us that Mr. Pike's great error was his choice 

 of the tribunal to which he appealed, the final award of which is now 

 so triumphantly produced by liis rival. His book bears abundant 

 evidence that pecuniary results were not those he had chiefly in view 

 though doubtless they would have been no unwelcome accompanimen, 

 of successful authorship. The sweeping judgment of the Vice-Chan- 

 cellor, even had it remained unchallenged, would have carried no such 

 weight among those whose opinion we believe Mr. Pike chiefly values, 

 as the verdict of competent scientific and literary critics. True, the 

 immediate award of the press is subject to many chances of error, and 

 to still more indirect influences than any court of law ; and its judgment 

 in not a few cases depends on the little coterie, or literary clique, which 

 controls the magisterial We of critical journalism. But a work possessed 

 of any substantial merit outlives the first uncertain veerings of the 

 critical weather-cock,'and is sure to receive its true meed in the end. 

 In the case of any book that has a recognised scientific or literary 

 authority a dozen years after its publication, what do all the reviews 

 that heralded its original appearance amount to ? They may, indeed, 

 have affected its immediate sale, and so, when unfavourable, have 

 diminished the author's chances of profit; but the final estimation of 

 the book at its true worth is independent of such bias of prejudiced 

 judgment. 



But Dr. Nicholas further asserts that the sources from whence our 

 information was derived, whatever they were, were " wholly unworthy 

 of reliance/' These sources are no mystery. They were the TimeSy of 



