THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT. 429 



" I inspected," sa3's Dr. Latham, "at the request of Dr. Nicholas, his work entitled 

 ' The Pedigree of the English People,' before its publication, and as it was passing 

 through the press. I have studied it with interest since. I have especially compared 

 it with Mr. Pike's work on the same subject [' The English and their Origin '], and 

 that with a view of comparing the two with the decision of the Court of Chancery 

 in favour of the author of the work first published. My personal acquaintance 

 with Dr. Nicholas, which is but slight, has had but little to do with the investiga- 

 tion, which was undertaken mainly on grounds aifecting literature in general. It 

 touches every writer to know, as accurately as possible, how far a later work 

 upon the same subject as an earlier one, from the same source, and from the same 

 point of view, can be published without risk; in other words, how far, under a 

 certain combination of circumstances, by no means uncommon, two works upon 

 the same subject are possible. The matter has pressed itself upon the attention 

 of literary men often enough before now; the domain of biography supplying 

 the chief instances: for here, when we get two lives of the same person, from the 

 same point of view, (fee, a considerable amount of coincidence is compatible with 

 absolute independence in the way of investigation. 



" A question like the one discussed by the Messrs. Pike and Nicholas is much 

 in the same predicament as a biography. The facts upon which an opinion can 

 be founded are limited in number, have long been known, are in a very accessi- 

 ble form, and have been the object of much comment. Two writers, who make 

 it their business to exhaust the matter thus at hand, must have much in common 

 with one another. Eut it will be a great detriment to literature if the mere 

 accident of priority of publication is to exclude the production of the work which 

 possibly may merely differ from its predecessor by having been longer in the 

 hands of either the author or the printer. 



" There are not wanting instances where, when two works are published on the 

 same or similar subjects, the writer of the later one has taken pains to tell the 

 reader that he has abstained from the perusal of the earlier one, with the express 

 \iew of avoiding the charge of imitation or borrowing. As far as I can judge, it 

 is the general opinion that, except with works of imagination, such disclaimers 

 are condemned rather than approved ; it being the duty of the writer to put his 

 book in the best form he can, by reading everything on the subject to which he 

 has access. 



" A single fact, statement, argument, or piece of evidence, common to Dr. 

 Nicholas and Mr. Pike, which might not have occurred to the former writer if 

 the latter had never existed, I, after a careful examination, have failed to find. 

 Such is the fact. It might have been otherwise. There might have been in Mr. 

 Pike's work data which nothing but exclusive knowledge, extraordinary scholar- 

 ship in the Welsh language, access to unpublished documents, new methods of 

 criticism, &c., could give ; and for such he might reasonably claim protection. 

 But I unhesitatingly state that there is nothing of the kind. The facts and 

 arguments of Mr. Pike's work are the facts and arguments of a current, common 

 literature, and not the peculiar property of any individual," D. W. 



