In dealing with the Report of the Royal Commissioners, the Academicians in their Memorial had the easy task of showing that the recommendations contained therein were not only at variance with the previous course of legislation, but with the Commissioners' own expressed views in regard to sculpture. In this section the Commissioners not only endorsed the existing Acts, which vest the copyright in the sculptor, but also they advised that certain privileges should be given in addition to the old. The inconsistency of cutting off the painters from their copyright, while it was advised that the sculptors should retain it, was too patent, and it was hardly possible to put the representations of the Memorial in this respect aside. They were attended to, but the new Bill puts the matter straight according to a method of its own, and consistency is established, not by lifting up the painter, but by pulling down the sculptor. Alas for the sculptors! They have certainly received a treatment worthy of Tartar traditions, and nothing could be more summary than the nature of the 'despatch.' Without a word of complaint or of warning, in face of the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners, all the rights and privileges given by successive Acts of Parliament have been struck away, and yet, apparently, short of this strong measure, the framers of the Bill are hopeless of defending their treatment of painters.

The Royal Academicians cannot look back with very agreeable feelings to the part they have recently taken. In presenting their Memorial to the Government, they did so in the hope of benefiting the cause of art and of the artist, and now they find that their Memorial has only served as an arsenal from which weapons have been obtained to do the cause further injury. While everything the Academicians pleaded for has been denied, two very hard judgments, which are not included in the adverse Report of the Royal Commissioners, have been inserted in the Bill, and their origin is traceable to the Memorial itself. The Academicians pleaded for the painters having the same rights as the sculptors, and, as we see, they have succeeded only in bringing down the sculptors to the painters' level. Again, the Academicians, on the basis of the copyright being vested in the artist, made suggestions in favour of the owners of paintings, who they advised should be benefited by the artists handing over to them all their rights in regard to replicas and portraits. The Bill, as we know, vests the copyright adversely to the artist, but the suggestion about replicas and portraits was apparently found too useful to be set aside; and by means of it an extra turn of the screw is given against the artist. It is done in this way. There is to be a reservation against the artist, even when he has obtained the copyright by a special contract. This reservation is really the concession he offered, and something more, viz., the difference between the 'replica' of the Memorial and the 'copy' exacted by the Bill. The

'replica' was defined in the Memorial as a 'copy in the same material and of the same size as might cause the original to be challenged,' but the 'copy' of the Bill, which the artist must not attempt-even when he has reserved the copyright by agreement-is thus defined: ""Copy" in the case of a painting shall include any repetition, colourable imitation, or other multiplication of the painting or the design thereof, whether by painting, drawing, photography, or otherwise.' What would remain to the artist outside these exceptions it is difficult to say, but to offer this residuum to him as his copyright, and to make that copyright contingent upon a contract, is so like mockery that it is difficult to look upon it as a serious proposition.

It is not my intention to touch upon the manner in which the Bill is drafted; it is the province of the legal critic to do that; but as one having many years' experience of the incidents of an artist's life, I have a natural curiosity to inquire what can be meant by the 'publishing' of paintings, considering that in the great majority of cases they pass direct from the private house of the painter to the private house of the purchaser; and what is to be the nature of the signature which is to give the title to so valuable a property as copyright sometimes becomes? Will a name painted with a brush and not attested by witnesses be enough? If so, to a certainty, fraudulent copyrights would not be uncommon. The publishing and the signing are the acts of the artist, by which the framers of the Bill purpose to create the copyright, and I think I have hinted at some difficulties which probably were not foreseen. Then, as to the transfer of the copyright. How is a purchaser of a painting to know whether he truly obtains the copyright, and that some previous owner has not already sold it? The owners may have been legion, and as the painting itself would carry on its face no evidence of the loss of the copyright, nothing short of an elaborate legal transfer at the sale of every painting or drawing could give the purchaser protection. But if the copyright was vested in the author, the purchaser would know whose signature he must look for in any conveyance of the copyright to himself; and simplicity of procedure, as well as justice, would gain if this were so. I will not say more of these difficulties which strike me in connection with the drafting of the Bill. My desire is to keep attention to the leading principle which underlies it, and which, if accepted by Parliament, would, I believe, affect injuriously the arts of the country, and would certainly by its enactment encroach upon the natural liberty of the artist.

I fail to see how any of the main provisions of the Bill could act beneficially if left undisturbed. I have, however, heard it said in defence of the measure, that the artist could avert all mischief and secure the advantage of copyright to himself, if he took the very simple care of making an agreement at the time of sale of his painting; and moreover that it devolve upon him to do so, rather than upon the pur

chaser, because he is the more accustomed to such transactions. The first remark I make upon this apology is that it leaves out of count the important fact that there is no room on such occasions for playing upon the ignorance of a purchaser, because all he comes to buy he gets, and he is as secure in the enjoyment of his painting as he would have been before 1862, when copyright came down from the clouds. If the State for its own purpose creates a separate and intangible property which does not disturb or detract from the value of the owner's tangible property, it is surely hard to let this be the occasion of making the artist dependent upon contracts (especially as it is known that in most instances he is practically unable to make them), and, if he fails in making them, to place him under penalties and restraints not only as regards the new property, but as regards the whole field of his labour which was free to him under the Common Law. I have shown that the artist is injured if the copyright passes adversely to him, and that the owner is at no disadvantage if he is without it. The onus of making the contract should therefore rest upon the latter, and the artist ought not to suffer detriment except on a clear understanding at the time he sells his work.

The Royal Commissioners have left us in no doubt as to the difficulty the artist is under in making contracts, and it is on the express ground that artists drop their copyrights, under the existing law, rather than adventure contracts at every professional transaction, that the Commissioners urge the necessity of a new Act. As the fact is thus established on unbiassed authority, there is no need for me to offer explanations why it is futile to expect any but a few of the most eminent and favoured artists to make a custom of exacting formal agreements. The reason for this hesitation will be appreciated by all who have frequented studios and purchased works direct from the artist. If the difficulties are now great, the framers of the Bill have done their best, in face of the testimony of the Royal Commissioners, to make them for the future, in the majority of cases, practically insuperable, because, according to its provisions, the artist would have to ask for the return of a portion of the property which was passing into the hands of the purchaser by law; whereas under the existing law his request is limited to the asking of permission to take up something which does not belong to the purchaser.

If the artist is the fittest agent to serve the State in the conduct and development of art work, it is, to say the least, a very roundabout way of doing things to vest the copyright adversely to him, leaving it to the mercy of a contract to reach its proper destination, and it is the more strange that this course should be adopted in the Bill, since the consequences of it have been made clear by the Report of the Royal Commissioners. There can be no room for doubt that, as Parliament may determine the copyright, so it will abide. The artist must not be counted upon to do that which hitherto

he has failed to do. He will not talk of contracts, but, if this Bill is passed intact, he will, as I have already pointed out, in silence abstain from signing his works; the law would drive him to that defence. It is true that by thus abstaining he would find himself in a worse plight than it is possible for him to be in now, for, under the proposed order of things, even unsold works (if unsigned) would be without protection when they were exhibited. But the artist would feel driven to choose the lesser of two evils, and he would think more of securing his independence in all future work, than of privileges (which would still be dependent upon a contract) for a given completed work. The signature clause would in this way be the very tomb of copyright. Piracy would be rampant, and a Bill introduced on the sole plea of suppressing it, would have the result of giving it an ampler field.

It is not conceivable that the signature clause will be allowed to remain, and yet, as the Bill is framed, it is the only way by which the artist can escape from a tyranny and interference that would be intolerable and place him apart from all other workmen. There is, however, no real dilemma, and we have confidence that after full discussion in Parliament the question will be settled on the commonsense plan of giving the copyright, if copyright is to be created at all, into the hands of those who can best use it to the advantage of the State; and between the claims of the owner (who is already fully protected in the painting he has bought), and the claims of the artist, there can be on this issue, to my thinking, no room for doubt.

HENRY T. WELLS.

THE LITERARY CALLING AND ITS

6

FUTURE.

ONE would think that in writing about literary men and matters there would be no difficulty in finding a title for one's essay, or that any embarrassment which might arise would be from excess of material. I find this, however, far from being the case. 'Men of Letters,' for example, is a heading too classical and pretentious. I do indeed remember its being used in these modern days by the subeditor of a country paper, who, having quarrelled with his proprietor, and reduced him to silence by a violent kick in the abdomen, thus addressed him. I leave you and your dirty work for ever, and start to-night for London, to take up my proper position as a Man of Letters.' But this gentleman's case (and I hope that of his proprietor) was an exceptional one. The term in general is too ambitious and suggestive of the author of Cato, for my humble purpose. Literature as a Profession,' again, is open to objection on the question of fact. The professions do not admit literature into their brotherhood. Literature, Science, and Art' are all spoken of in the lump, and rather contemptuously (like reading, writing, and arithmetic'), and have no settled position whatever. In a book of precedence, however a charming description of literature, and much more full of humour than the peerage-I recently found indicated for the first time its relative place in the social scale. After a long list of Eminent Personages and Notables, the mere perusal of which was calculated to bring the flush of pride into my British cheek, I found at the very bottom these remarkable words, 'Burgesses, Literary Persons, and others.' Lest haughtiness should still have any place in the breasts of these penultimates of the human race, the order was repeated in the same delightful volume in still plainer fashion, 'Burgesses, Literary Persons, &c.' It is something, of course, to take precedence-in going down to dinner, for example-even of an et cetera; but who are Burgesses? I have a dreadful suspicion they are not gentlemen. Are they ladies? Did I ever meet a Burgess, I wonder, coming through the rye? At all events, after so authoritative VOL. VI.-No. 34. 3 U