THE LAW OF COPTRIQHT. 419 



for him by liis representatives ia court. It will be seen, for example, 

 from a remark in Lord Chancellor Hatherlej's judgment, that he 

 suflfered under unjust imputations as to deficient scholarship; in part, 

 at least, owing to the line of defence adopted by his own counsel; ia 

 part also, probably, from erroneous inferences, based on the comparison 

 instituted between the rival publications in the absence of all rebutting 

 evidence. But on this point we have even now no adequate means of 

 judging, and can only make the satisfactory atonement for all injustices 

 resulting from the first trial and adverse judgment, by producing the 

 later awards of the Lord Chancellor and Lord Justice Giffard, setting 

 aside the Vice-Chancellor's decree. 



So far as could be ascertained from the reports of the first trial to 

 which wo had access — and apparently no better were available, — it 

 appeared that sundry witnesses, of literary and scientific repute, were 

 summoned by the plaintiff to testify their belief that certain opinions 

 as to the physical characteristics of the British population, Saxon and 

 Celtic, were new, set forth for the first time in Mr. Luke Owen Pike's 

 work, and arrived at by its author as the fruits of original and long- 

 continued research. Without either calling in question the industry 

 and research claimed for him, or doubting that his book was the honest 

 result of much labour, we asserted very distinctly that the opinions 

 claimed for him by his witnesses as having been set forth for the first 

 time in his work, were neither original nor new; but that, on the con- 

 trary, most of them had been published years before in this journal, 

 or in other works there named. We, not unnaturally, assumed that 

 the question of originality was submitted to the court as between plain- 

 tiff and defendant. But in this it seems we were mistaken; though no 

 indication of the plea of mere common sources as borrowers appears to 

 have been introduced in the original defence. 



So far as Dr. Nicholas is concerned, it now seems he is perfectly 

 contented to admit all that we then asserted, and indeed claims to have 

 produced nearly the same in evidence before the Lord Chancellor, while 

 still unaware of our assertion of our own literary rights. He has 

 accordingly included among other documents forwarded to us the 

 following "verbatim extracts from the short-hand writer's report," 

 along with copious extracts from the final judgment of the Higher 

 Court, with a request for their publication in the Canadian Journal. 

 In compliance with his appeal, we print them here, in full : 

 5 



