THE BRITISH MUSEUM LIBRARY AND

COLONIAL COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT

ILSE STERNBERG

T H E full story of colonial legal deposit has not yet been written and with the scatteredand incomplete nature of the records may never be wholly recounted. What follows inthis and in a subsequent article on 'The British Museum Library and the India Office'is an outline of the complicated history of the relevant legislation, the attempts to enforceit and a preliminary evaluation of the benefits these brought to collection building in theBritish Museum Library.^

Legislation which defined the ownership of intellectual property and linked thecontrol of printing and publishing (copyright) with the deposit of an example of eachwork in the national library collection was first conceived in France. The Ordonnancede MontpeUier, 1537, decreed that a copy of each work issued should be deposited in theBibliotheque du Roi. The first legislation in Great Britain to require 'every printer [to]reserve three printed copies [on] the best and largest paper of every book [newly] printedor reprinted . . . with additions . . . before any publick vending . . . [for delivery] to thekeeper of his Majesties hbrary, and . . . to the vice-chancellors of the two universities'was the Press Licensing Act, 1662.^ It was to apply 'either within this realm of England,or any other of his Majesties dominions, or parts beyond the seas'. This and subsequentpress licensing Acts were in force for specified periods only and were renewed from timeto time. By 1709 increasing piracy by opportunist printers and publishers caused theirmore upstanding brethren to seek legal protection through Parliament. The result wasthe Copyright Act, 8 Anne, c. 21, which changed the emphasis from control ofdissemination to the spread of knowledge and extended the deposit privilege to a furthersix libraries,^ but which only applied to England and Scotland. The privilege of legaldeposit came to the British Museum Library with the Old Royal Library, presented in1757 by King George IL In 1801 the Copyright Act was amended and protection wasextended to Ireland or as described in the first clause 'the United Kingdom and theBritish dominions in Europe'.^ All works published in London were to be registeredwithin one month and those from elsewhere within three months. Eleven libraries wereto receive deposit copies. This requirement represented a heavy burden on thosepublishers who complied and, whenever the opportunity arose, they petitionedParhament for relief from such an onerous tax.

During the latter years of the reign of George III the existing legislation was amended.

61

The Act, passed in 1814,-̂ extended copyright from fourteen to twenty-eight years andapplied to 'any Part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and everyother Part of the British Dominions'. When in the 1830s, the era of Reform, a revisionot the Copyright Act of 1814 was under consideration, the three groups historicallyinterested in such legislation (the authors, the printers/publishers, and the librarians) alllobbied for a result favourable to their needs. The authors, led by such prominent figuresas G. P. R. James,^ Harriet Martineau, William Wordsworth, Anthony TroUope andCharles Dickens, were seeking redress against unscrupulous printers and publishers whoproduced their works (in the United Kingdom and elsewhere) without payment ofroyalties. The printers and publishers were fighting what they regarded as the unfair taxof legal deposit. Also some of them joined the authors in seeking redress againstprivateers in their own profession. Finally, the librarians were seeking to safeguard thedeposit privilege and to strengthen the penalties for non-compliance.

In 1836 a Bill was proposed by Mr Buckingham, Colonel Thompson and Mr Ewart'to repeal that part of the existing law which required the 'gratuitous delivery of ElevenCopies of every published Book to Eleven of the Public Libraries of the Kingdom'. Thissubsequently became An act to repeal so much of an act . . . as requires the delivery of acopy of every published book to the libraries ofSion College^ the four universities of Scotland^and of the King's Inns in Dublin. It was clearly instigated by the publishers although theauthors also had an interest as it stated that 'the Provisions of the . . . [previous] Act havein certain respects operated to the Injury of Authors and Publishers'. The Bill did notchange the application of the 1814 Act.

The British Museum was kept well informed of such proposals. On 19 May theMuseum solicitors, Bray and Warren of Great Russell Street,® delivered to the Museumtwo copies of the Bill which had been delayed in the printing but which they had justobtained from the House of Commons so that Museum officials could 'consider the effectof the proposed Act'." At this stage the Bill stated that the deposit privilege enjoyed byten of the libraries should be abolished, and that the British Museum Trustees shouldbe obliged to purchase at cost price one copy of every work supplied to them. TheTrustees responded that they considered it their duty to preserve for posterity not onlya copy of every new work published, but also a copy of every edition containing theslightest alterations or additions. Strong representations were made on their behalf andalso by the other privileged libraries but, when on 20 August the 1836 Act came intoforce, six of the libraries had lost the right to receive deposit copies. ̂ ^ The Act went someway to meeting the demands of the publishers but did little for the needs of the authors.

Between 1837 and 1842 Bills to amend the law of copyright were brought annually intoParliament.^^ Both the authors, who tried to extend their right of sole reproduction tosixty years, and tbe publishers fought hard to ensure that their case was fully considered,but the impetus to reconcile the divergent interests and to see the Bills through thelegislative procedure was lacking. As each Bill was brought in Bray and Warren obtainedcopies and advised officials at the Museum.

In 1837 copies of tbe new draft were sent 'with such amendments in it as appear to

62

be necessary on the part of the Museum, and a copy of the clause to be inserted forsecuring the delivery of every book at the Museum'.^^ The proposed Act was to applyaccording to the clause of interpretation 'within any part of the British Dominions'. In1838 two Bills were introduced. The first was yet another attempt to revise the currentstatutes. Again the Bill did not pass through the necessary stages and so yet another Billwas brought in by the same people in the following year. The second measure proposedin 1838 was A Bill for securing to Authors^ in certain Cases, the Benefit of InternationalCopyright proposed by Poulett Thomson and Lord John Russell. This Bill which was tobecome known as the International Copyright Act was aimed primarily at stopping thecirculation of cheap foreign reprints. In the preamble to the Act it was stated that it wasto apply to 'the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and every other Part ofthe British Dominions'. Registers were to be kept at Stationers' Hall; the entry in theregister to cost the sender two shillings and a certificate to prove registry one shilling.The sole copy sent for registration was to be deposited in the Library of the BritishMuseum. Meeting little opposition it quickly became law.̂ ^ That Act and the amendedlaw of 1844 had httle effect. In 1852 An Act to enable Her Majesty to carry into effect aConvention with France on the Subject of Copyright; to extend the International CopyrightActs . . .̂ * did produce results and the British Museum reported to Parliament that19,839 volumes and 15,314 parts of volumes (mainly French and German titles andmusical works) were received between 1854 and 1891 by international deposit.^^

In 1839 Bray and Warren proposed alterations to the Bill brought in during that year,advising Museum officers that their object was 'to provide for the Museum obtainingeither under existing law or the new bill a copy of every work published'. The opinionof Sir Frederick Pollock^^ was sought on proposed amendments. Sir Frederick felt thatthe clause by which penalties were incurred for failure to deliver copies of books requiredsome revision. He feared that the penalty could not be enforced 'in Scotland under theclause as printed and the words "or other action of the like nature^^ [were] added with aview to extend the action to Scotland ',̂ ^ even though the Act was to apply to the 'BritishDominions'. The Interpretation Clause now construed this term to mean 'all parts of theUnited Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the Islands of Jersey and Guernsey, allparts of the East and West Indies and all the colonies, settlements and possessions of theCrown, which now are or hereafter may be acquired'.^^ A separate clause had also beeninserted making delivery at the British Museum obligatory although the other librariesstill had to request the works which they wanted. The deposit clause provided that thebest copy of'the whole of every Book . . . shall within One calendar Month after the dayon which any such Book shall be first sold, published or offered for sale within the Billsof Mortality [i.e. London], or within Three calendar Months if . . . in any other part ofthe United Kingdom, be delivered . . . at the British Museum'.

The 1830S Reform movement had also affected the British Museum in other ways.The level of service provided for students, scholars and the general public althoughbeginning to improve on that of earlier times was far from adequate and did not comparefavourably with what was available abroad. Aware of the impending investigation into

63

the administration of the Museum, Baber, the Keeper of the Department of PrintedBooks, used the services of the recently appointed Extra Assistant Keeper, AntonioPanizzi, to gather information on major European libraries. This exercise which was tobe used to assist the Museum in the defence against its critics provided Panizzi withuseful background knowledge when he was appointed to succeed Baber in 1837. It isinteresting to note that the separate clause in the Copyright Bills requiring deposit in theBritish Museum and the more detailed definition of the term 'British Dominions' wasfirst inserted into the drafts just nineteen months after Panizzi was appointed Keeper andsixteen months after he had written his first report to the Trustees on the subject of hisacquisitions policy for the Library. That document gave prominence to the statementthat, 'The attention of the Keeper of this emphatically British library ought to bedirected most particularly to British works and to works relating to the British Empire',^®before continuing with the need to improve the holdings of the old and the rare, criticaleditions, foreign literature, arts and science.

The 1839 Bill also failed and had to be reintroduced both in 1840 and in 1841. Finally,in 1842 the Bill was brought in which was at long last to become the 'Imperial'Copyright Act. From the Trustees' point of view, the main benefit of this law was thatfor the first time deposit at the British Museum was specified in a separate clause. TheAct also covered works published 'in any Part of the British Dominions'.^'*

The 1842 Act was not immediately effective. It was not until the 1850s that Panizzisucceeded in obtaining the Trustees' agreement to prosecute domestic publishers, actionwhich eventually ensured greater compliance with the deposit clause by UnitedKingdom publishers. Although staff at the Museum frequently affirmed that the clauseextended to the colonies, they were pessimistic about the ability of the Trustees to ensureenforcement of the Act overseas.^^ The publishers continued to fight the irritatingobligation to deposit. In 1864 Adam Black, the M.P. and publisher from Edinburgh,attempted to amend and consolidate the copyright Acts. His Bill, if passed, was to applyto the whole British Empire."^ But, when it was finally brought in there was insufficienttime left in the Parliamentary session to see it through.

A Royal Commission was appointed in 1875 to consider the various copyright Actsand their practical working. Its Report was published in 1878. In his evidence to theCommission the then Principal Librarian, Winter Jones, admitted that although theMuseum was entitled to works published in the colonies it was 'very inconvenient tobring an action for them, and therefore the Keeper of Printed Books is always allowedto purchase them'.'" The Commissioners recommended against both colonial andforeign deposit. They thought that the British Museum should issue for the fee of oneshilling a certificate for each work it received by legal deposit. This would abolish theneed for registration at Stationers' Hall. By combining the acts of registration anddeposit not only would there be a saving of labour and expense but also the BritishMuseum would probably receive more completely the publishing output of the UnitedKingdom. The Trustees, however, joined the publishers in opposing such a scheme sincethey regarded registration of copyright as being outside the sphere of their activities.^^

64

The Report led to a Bill to consolidate and amend the law relating to copyright printed on29 July 1879 but owing to pressure of other business it was never even discussed."'̂ ''

Attempts by the publishers to have the number of deposit copies reduced continuedevery time the question of copyright was considered. In 1875 the InternationalCopyright Act was further amended to exclude some dramatic pieces and theirtranslations. Following a conference held at Berne in 1885 where a draft convention wasagreed by the delegates, further legislation became necessary. International and domesticpressure made it expedient that the United Kingdom accede to the Berne Conventionbut, without the authority of Parliament, the representative of the Queen was unable todo so and neither could it be made effective in Her Majesty's dominions. In June 1886An Act to amend the Law respecting International and Colonial Copyright was passed.^^The Act should have made an end of colonial copyright deposit as Section 8.i.b. statedthat the deposit of a book first produced in a British possession 'shall not be required'.But it did allow (Section 8.4.) that nothing in this or other Copyright Acts 'shall preventthe passing in a British possession of any Act . . . respecting the copyright [andpresumably deposit provisions] within the limits of such possession of works firstproduced in that possession'.

On I June 1894 Richard Garnett, the Keeper of the Department of Printed Books,wrote to the Principal Librarian, Maunde Thompson, about the speech made by SirFrederick Pollock at the Society of Authors' dinner which both he and Thompson hadattended the previous evening. Pollock had spoken of the negotiations between theCanadian Government and the Colonial Office with a view to obtaining concessions incopyright legislation as applicable to Canada."' Since 1889 Canadian representatives hadbeen corresponding with, among others, the Board of Trade, the Foreign Office, theColonial Office, the Copyright Association and the Treasury, as well as with the Society,in an effort to ensure protection for Canadian authors and to promote the rights ofCanadian publishers to compete in the reprint market. Garnett asked that the Trusteesbe informed of the negotiations^^ in the hope that they would take appropriate action.This they did requesting the Principal Librarian to write to the Colonial Secretary"^asking him to press the Museum claim for deposit in exchange for 'any relaxation ofcopyright regulations' in favour of Canadian authors. (Already India,^^ the Cape ofGood Hope and several Crown colonies had passed legislation favourable to theMuseum.) The Colonial Secretary passed this request to the Governor of Canada^^reminding him of the 'important advantage secured to Canada by virtue of the CopyrightAct of 1886, by which copyright throughout Her Majesty's Dominions [was] granted toCanadian authors'.^^ The message was passed on and, when the Canadian Copyright Actof 1875 was revised, the new Act which became law on 22 July 1895 stated that threeinstead of two copies of each work were to be deposited: two in the Parliament of Canada'and one in the British Museum'.^^

In 1898 Maunde Thompson testified before the Select Committee considering yetanother Copyright Bill, that many Colonies were passing Acts in which they voluntarilyincluded a provision for deposit at the British Museum of works issued by local

65

publishers. Although the Trustees had 'never claimed against the Colonies' he did notwish the law to be altered because it might in some cases be desirable 'to have the lawat your back'.^^

The Colonial Conference of 1910, with delegates from the Colonies in London,provided an unique opportunity to convene an Imperial Copyright Conference. The aimwas to ensure uniformity of legislation throughout the Empire. Recommendations fromthis Conference were conveyed to those framing the new draft copyright legislation andmany of these were incorporated in it. But the requirements of the British Museum werenot fully considered in the revised Copyright Act of 1911. The problems caused by theabolition of registration at Stationers' Hall and the definition of a book that includedtrade literature, advertisements, and labels, which increased the need for additional staffand accommodation at the British Museum are another story. ̂ •'̂ The implications for thereceipt of colonial publications by legal deposit were also significant.

The Act had chapters on Imperial and International Copyright. In the first 'ImperialCopyright' was to subsist in the case of a work first published within such parts of HisMajesty's dominions 'to which this Act extends' or in the case of an unpublished work,the author was at the date of the making of the work a British subject or resident 'withinsuch parts . . . as aforesaid', but in no other works, 'except so far as the protectionconferred by this Act is extended by Orders in Council . . . to self-governing dominions'and to foreign countries. The point about foreign countries was further elucidated in alater section. If the foreign country did not give adequate protection to a British authorit was to be 'lawful for His Majesty by order in Council' to direct that copyrightprotection in His dominions be withdrawn from citizens of that country. The clausedealing with ''Delivery of Books to Libraries'' specified only 'the publisher of every bookpublished in the United Kingdom'. There was a clause on ''Application to BritishPossessions'' which stated that the Act 'except such of the provisions . . . as are expresslyrestricted to the United Kingdom, shall extend throughout His Majesty's dominions'.The Legislatures of the self-governing dominions had to declare the Act to be in forcewithin their territories and could modify it as far as the works of their authors wereconcerned. The Act did not specify deposit from His Majesty's overseas territories. TheTrustees of the British Museum were therefore dependent on legislation passed by theDominions and Colonies to ensure the continued receipt of books from them.^^

The wording proved immediately to be defective and had to be rectified by an Orderin Council Extending the Copyright Act, igii. No. 912 (1912), which ensured that the Actapplied 'to any territories under his [Majesty's] protection and to Cyprus . . . as ifthese . . . were part of His Majesty's Dominions'. In 1912 the territories concerned wereBechuanaland, East Africa (later Kenya Colony and Protectorate), the Gambia, theGilbert and Ellice Islands, North and South Nigeria, the Northern Territories of theGold Coast, Nyasaland, Northern and Southern Rhodesia, Sierra Leone, Somaliland,the Solomon Islands, Swaziland, Uganda and Weihaiwei. Later Orders in Councilextended the Act to Palestine, Tanganyika Territory, the Federated Malay States and theBritish Mandate in Cameroon. The law came into operation in the United Kingdom, the

66

Channel Islands (except Jersey), and the Isle of Man in July 1912; in Jersey on 8 March1913; in India, October 1912; Papua, February 1913, and in all other British possessionsfrom I July 1912. In Basutoland it was declared in force by a Proclamation of July

When, in the light of new technology, the need arose to revise copyright legislationboth in 1956^^ and in 1988^^ no changes were made in the law with regard to the depositprovisions and, therefore. Section 15 of the Act of 1911 remains in force to this day.^''

THE MUSEUM'S RELATIONS WITH THE COLONIAL OFFICE

In his evidence to the Royal Commission of 1847-9 Panizzi said that 'Colonial books didnot come in by copyright but he did not feel justified in purchasing them so that theresult was that the Museum lost them'.^^ The problems of enforcing the Act in theBritish overseas territories due to lack of bibliographic control, ignorance and lethargyon the part of colonial publishers and to the cost and difficulty of transporting the bookswere compounded by the inadequate framing of the clauses dealing with deposit. Therelatively low penalty for non-compliance with these provisions was recoverable only inCourts of Record in the United Kingdom. Recovery of such penalties in the coloniesapparently had not been considered. The other copyright libraries, if they made ademand within one year, were also entitled to claim, but all books had to be deliveredwithin one month: a condition which was virtually impossible to meet from many Britishoverseas possessions.'*^ Thus, it was not surprising that in a little over a year after hisappointment as Principal Librarian in 1856, Panizzi persuaded the Standing Committeeof the Trustees to direct him to write to the Colonial Office, stating how desirable itwould be to have a collection of all acts of the colonial legislatures, as well as of otherofficial documents, and newspapers, preserved at the British Museum. Further, he wasto request that Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies give suchdirections as he might 'deem expedient for securing the regular supply of suchdocuments both as to past times, as far as possible, and as to the future'.^^

Accordingly on 16 June 1857, Panizzi wrote to The Right Hon. Henry Labouchere,Secretary of State for the Colonies,^^

It has been represented to the Trustees of the British Museum that it would supply a desideratumand be of great utility to the public to have in the Museum Library a collection of all acts of ourcolonial legislatures as well as other official publications and newspapers printed in the colonies.The Trustees . . . have directed me to apply to you to request that you will be pleased to give suchdirections as you may deem expedient to ensure the regular supply of such documents for the timeto come and to procure those of the past as far as possible.*'̂

A reply from the Colonial Office was received on 24 September. It stated thatinstructions had been ' issued to the Governors of Colonies to send home completecollections of their laws (in all cases at least in which that may be practicable) togetherwith copies of all laws which may be passed in future, for the use of the Museum'.^^

67

*r . . x

Fig. I. Herman Merivale (1806-74), Permanent Under Secretary of State for the Colonies1848-59. IOLR Fi io

68

Some documents were received and the Trustees ordered that special thanks be sent tothe Secretary of State. At the same time it was resolved that although in the Colonies andin the territories of the East India Company, 'many works are published which oughtto be in the Library of the Museum, yet with respect to which the Act 5 & 6 Viet. Cap. 45,cannot be enforced without extreme difficulty, Mr. Jones be authorised to purchasesuch works'.*' This was an order with which Winter Jones was happy to comply evenif he was concerned about the expense of such acquisitions.*^

To ensure that arrangements would work smoothly Panizzi also corresponded withHerman Merivale, Permanent Under Secretary for the Colonies.^^ On 18 June, Merivalein acknowledging 'an application [from the British Museum] to be furnished with avariety of Colonial documents as they arrive, . . . [including] all newspapers printed inthe colonies' wondered if he, Panizzi, was 'aware of the extent of such a requisition orthe extreme difficulty of complying with it,' especially as 'in the "British" coloniesproper newspapers are almost as numerous and quite as ephemeral as in the UnitedStates.' He continued

At present we receive from . . . [the] colonies 165 newspapers . . . They come somewhatirregularly, and we eannot apply numbers [of staff] to keeping them up without incurring anamount of expense and trouble hardly justified . . . But these are only a fraction of the newspaperspublished.

We keep them for some time as they are useful for reference and then store them away . . . [if]the Brit. Museum proposed having them with their imperfections and binding them, they shouldof course be welcome. But I am afraid it would be impossible for us or you to secure a moreregular . . . supply except in the way of trade.^^

To this Panizzi responded

I fear the application on the part of the British Museum with regard to Colonial Documents hasbeen in some degree misapprehended. The Trustees did not ask to be furnished with these papersas they arrive, or as they are officially received at the Colonial Office, but they believe that suchdirections might be given as would ensure the delivery of them to the Museum under theprovisions of the Copyright Act which was intended to include publications in the Colonies. Weought to have at least one Newspaper from each Colony; these would doubtless be supphed bythe Colonial authorities upon receiving instructions to that effect from Government. Whether thePapers mentioned by you as being stored at the Colonial Office would be a desirable acquisitionfor the library of the Museum depends very much upon the proportion of the deficiencies to thewhole. ̂ ^

It was Merivale who on 24 September, following the directions of Labouchere, informedPanizzi that 'Instructions' had been issued. With that letter were included sets of lawsfrom Malta (a complete set, some in Italian or Italian and English, from 1784 to 1851plus most ordinances for 1857), Prince Edward Island (Acts, 1857), Bahamas (some from1857) and St Lucia (Ordinances from 1601 to 1856).

Receipt of material from the Colonies was not however satisfactory. In 1861 WinterJones in his Estimates for the year 1861/62 recalled that three years previously the

69

Trustees had requested the Colonial Office to ask local administrators to send copies ofthe Colonial laws, public papers and newspapers to the British Museum. As a result ofthis initiative laws and legislative proceedings had occasionally been sent to the Library.However, Jones regretted that no other papers had been obtained from this source andhe asked the Trustees to enquire whether the government surveys (i.e. maps and plans)could also be acquired by this means. At the same time he requested that the Trusteesallow him to purchase a number of them in case they were no longer in the governmentdepot. He felt that the services of an agent would be more effective. ^̂ As a consequencethe Trustees again instructed Panizzi to write to the Secretary of State for the Colonieswho was by now the Duke of Newcastle. ̂ ^ Accordingly he wrote that the Trustees were

desirous of receiving a Copy of all Books and Maps relating to the British Colonies which havebeen or shall hereafter be published at the expense of the respective Governments, and I am torequest that your Grace will be pleased to issue instructions to the several Governors of theBritish Colonies, that they may endeavour to procure the transmission to the British Museum,from time to time, of a copy of all such Books and Maps, and also of any other such publicationsas have been hitherto forwarded to the Museum.^*

The Museum officers continued their efforts to obtain publications in this manner andtried to prevent any selection by those transmitting the documents. In December WinterJones informed the Trustees about a letter from the Colonial Office. The Secretary ofState was querying whether or not they really required all maps or only those containingvaluable information and not, for instance, plans of new towns or maps of a more generalcharacter 'which may become obsolete'. This interpretation, Jones stated, did notexpress the meaning of the application, as the plans in question were not usuallypreserved, and it was therefore especially desirable that a copy of such documents shouldbe deposited. After all, they were historical documents and as such ought to find a placein the Library of the British Museum. He trusted, therefore, that the necessary stepswould be taken to secure the transmission of 'all maps according to the letter of theapplication'.'^^

The Colonial Office had since the eighteenth century realized the utility of collectingfor its own purposes books and documents produced in the colonies. It had issuedregulations for the good government of the overseas possessions which includedinstructions to send home documents produced locally. But these were not consistentlyapplied as, being dispersed through the correspondence of the various ColonialSecretaries of State, they were not known to all Colonial Governors. Finally, in 1837,they were codified and published in order to ensure their uniform observance. ̂ ^ Amongthe rules and regulations for His/Her Majesty's Colonial Service was a provision for'Returns to be transmitted half-yearly'." Eventually, in 1862, a handbook of theDepartment, The Colonial Office List, was published. This was issued annually until1940. Using these one can trace the responses made by the Colonial Office to requestsfrom the Trustees of the British Museum and other interested bodies. According to theList for 1868 the 'Rules and Regulations' were revised as of July 1867 for the first time

70

since 1856. Chapter VIII, Financial And Other Returns To Be Furnished To flerMajesty^s Government^ Section III, Other Periodical Returns^ included Regulation No.261:

In Colonies in which it is customary to print the laws the Governor will send home not fewer thaneighteen . . . copies of all Acts passed during the Session of the Colonial Legislature . . . Of theprinted copies of acts fifteen are to be sent under flying covers, addressed as follows:

1. To the House of Lords2. To the House of Commons3. To the Secretary of State for War4. To the Treasury5. To the Board of Trade6. To the Attorney-General7. To the Solicitor-General8. To the Emigration Commissioners9. To the British Museum

10. To the Incorporated Law Society11. To the Library of the Faculty of Advocates of Scotland12. The Library of Lincoln's Inn13. The Library of the Inner Temple14. The Library of the Middle Temple15. The Library of Kings Inns, Dublin. . . Copies of all official publications are to be forwarded to the British Museum.

The effect of this instruction was variable. Not all colonies printed their laws and not allGovernors felt obliged to supply so many copies. As the 'Rules and Regulations' wererevised the number of copies of laws to be sent and their recipients were occasionallychanged. By 1879 the laws were sent to the Crown Agent for distribution.

In 1880 a Committee was appointed by the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty'sTreasury 'to consider the question of an exchange of Public Documents with ForeignStates'. The Earl of Derby, Secretary of State for the Colonies,^^ wrote on 19 June 1883to the Officers administering the Governments of the principal colonies:

I have the honour to transmit to you . . . a Circular . . . addressed by the Secretary of State forForeign Affairs to Her Majesty's representatives abroad respecting the exchange of OfficialPublications . . .3. Official Publications are already transmitted from the Colonies to the British Museum inpursuance of Colonial Regulation No. 261, but not in every case with the completeness orregularity which could be desired.4. Her Majesty's Government are therefore desirous to be informed whether your Governmentwill undertake to transmit copies of all its Official Publications direct to the Librarian of theBritish Museum, upon the understanding that all English Official Pubhcations, described in theaccompanying Circular . . . shall be transmitted to the Colony.

71

5. This proposal is not to . . . [interfere] with the continued transmission of Colonial OfficialPublications for . . . this Department nor . . . of the Colonial Laws for the other Libraries . . .̂ ^

The governments of Canada, Australia and New Zealand and many of the provincialauthorities of the first two were pleased to take advantage of the ofifer, but with theexception of Cape Colony, no African, Asian or Caribbean colony participated in aformal exchange before the mid-twentieth century. Colonies from these areas continuedto send their official documents under Regulation No. 261.

The word 'Rules' was omitted in the 1908 Colonial Office List and the 'Regulations'were revised again. The British Museum equally with some thirteen other libraries,according to Regulation no. 186, was to receive only 'all Acts'. However, a newRegulation, no. 191, encouraged 'the interchange of reports on subjects of commoninterest'. Presumably, as with foreign government exchanges, the British governmentintended to supply their official publications to colonial administrations and forward anydocuments sent in return to the British Museum. From 1926 the List was issued jointlyby the Dominions Office and the Colonial Office and named accordingly. The numberingof the relevant Regulations was changed again both in 1929 and in 1935.̂ '*

During World War II publication of the List was suspended from 1940-45. When itwas revived in 1945 the Regulations were no longer published in it. In a letter seekingthe assistance of Sir Thomas Lloyd, the Under Secretary of State for Colonial Affairs,dated 31 December 1948, Gordon Spinney, Assistant Keeper in charge of the StatePaper Room, was pleased that 'Last year [he, Lloyd, was] good enough to restore, byColonial Office Circular no. 6151/39/47, the provision whereby copies of all ColonialOfficial publications were sent to the British Museum.' Spinney went on to state that theresponse from most colonies had been 'very satisfactory'; the main exception beingBritish Guiana where 'owing to paper shortages and other difficulties' the authoritieswere unable to satisfy the Museum request for the Official Gazette or the Minutes of theLegislative Council. Spinney was pleading that ' in view of the importance of ensuringthe preservation of at least one copy of official documents of this kind in the NationalLibrary' Lloyd should ask the authorities 'to make an exception in our case'.^^ Certainlysome documents did continue to arrive and as stated in the article by Hannam theRegulations 'still apply to the few remaining dependent territories'.^^

As a result of, or perhaps in spite of their experiences, the Museum officers weredetermined to press their right to legal deposit from the Colonies. In a letter of 8 March1883, the then Keeper, Bullen, reminding the India Office that, according to theCopyright Act of 1842, the Trustees were entitled to works published in India, continuedthat he understood the claim could not 'practically be enforced'.^^

At last in 1885 Ceylon passed the Preservation of Copies of Books Ordinance, No. iwhich came into operation on i April. This provided for the deposit of three copies: onefor the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the other two to be disposed of as theGovernor directed, i.e. to a local library, the Colombo Museum Library, and the thirdcopy at the Governor's discretion.*^* (Newspapers in Ceylon had been controlled since a

72

much earlier date by Ordinance No. 5 of 1839, To regulate the printing and publishing ofNewspapers in this Colony which directed that only one copy of each issue was to be sentto the Colonial Secretary.) The following year, 1886, Lord Granville, ColonialSecretary,*'̂ wrote to the British Museum offering to pass on works published in Ceylonwhich were not required by the Colonial Office Library together with copies of thequarterly registration lists. Bullen advised the Trustees to accept the offer but suggestedthat they seek 'discretionary power' to distribute to other institutions any books receivedbut not required by the British Museum Library. ̂ ^ The Trustees agreed and asked thePrincipal Librarian, Bond, to write to the Colonial Office.̂ ^ The 1885 Ordinance provedso effective and the Colonial Office required so few works that by February 1894 thearrangement was revised for the Museum to receive the works direct from Ceylon. TheKeeper of the newly constituted Department of Oriental Printed Books and Manuscripts,R.K.Douglas, complained to the Trustees about the 'valueless literature' including'every little missionary pamphlet, . . . [and] commemoration verse on local horse races',which was embarrassing his Department not just because of the lack of shelf space butalso because of the 'cost of cataloguing and arranging' such trivia. He suggested that infuture the Governor be asked to forward only the lists of books registered so that, as wasthe case with the Indian Presidencies, a selection could be made.^^ This suggestion wascommunicated to the Ceylon authorities and on i February 1895 Douglas sent them ahst of some sixty-six items required out of 123 works published during the first quarterof 1894.̂ ^ From that date the number of such items received at the British Museumdropped appreciably.

It was the result of a conversation between George Johnson of the Colonial Office andCecil Bendall, of the Museum,'" that had led Bullen to alert the Trustees to thepossibilities offered by the Ceylon Registration Act and to take the further step of askingthe Colonial Secretary to request other colonies to enact "a law for the registration of theirpublications'. Johnson before taking any action had asked Bendall to clarify whether theMuseum required every publication in every Colony to be sent or if they would preferlists of all Colonial publications for selection.^^ The Keeper aware of the implicationshad, as already noted, recommended the acceptance of all works providing the MuseumLibrary was allowed discretionary powers to distribute books not required.'" TheColonial Office had agreed to the Trustees' proposal and had written to Malta, the StraitsSettlements, and Hong Kong suggesting that they adopt a system of registration ofbooks. The success of this approach prompted Bullen to write to the Principal Librarianasking him to accept the offer of further assistance from the Colonial Office and torequest that the same system be adopted in Barbados, Canada, Cape of Good Hope,Cyprus, Gibraltar, Jamaica, Mauritius, Natal, Newfoundland, New South Wales, NewZealand, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and Victoria.̂ "*

The Colonial Office had obligingly sent a circular to all colonial governors asking forthe adoption of a system of registration of books published in each colony as then in forcein Ceylon and had suggested further that any such registered publication which mightbe sent to England, should be transmitted direct to the British Museum.^^ This had

73

obviously been a great relief to the officers of the Library as the Colonial Office hadproposed that, out of material sent to them, they would forward only works not requiredby their Library.''^ It was a proposal which the Colonial Office staff had put into practicein spite of strong protests from the Museum:

We intend still to reserve any book (Periodical or otherwise) which we think likely to be usefulin our library, but in almost all cases you will get the whole se t . . . In the rare cases (if any) wherefor special reasons we keep back a number, can you not make it up by ordering it fromTrtibners.'*^

The efforts of the British Museum officers were somewhat countered by theInternational Copyright Act of 1886. That Act, as already noted, specifically exempteda British possession from depositing under legislation passed in the United Kingdom.Bullen in a 'Report on Colonial Copyright' stated that although the Colonial Officecircular had led to Acts in Jamaica, Newfoundland, Ceylon, Straits Settlements, SierraLeone and Cyprus which included deposit arrangements for the British Museum, inAustralia the Acts provided for delivery to local authorities but in no case referred to theclaims of the British Museum. He went on to advise that application be made to theColonial Office for further assistance in obtaining recognition of the Museum claim andthat the Trustees should order purchases to be continued of those colonial worksrequired while the Secretary of State for the Colonies was asked 'to press forconsideration of the Museum claim in future colonial legislation'.^^ By June 1888Victoria, Cape of Good Hope, New Zealand and Tasmania had also responded althoughnot always favourably. The Colonial Secretary was not keen to write again to thosecolonies which had not yet complied unless the Trustees insisted.'^

Fortunately, most of the Colonies agreed to deposit their publications. The decreasein the British Museum purchase grant following the Government's economy measuresintroduced in 1886 by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Randolph Churchill,would have had far more serious consequences for the collections if this had not been thecase. However, even in those Colonies which passed laws that included a depositprovision for the British Museum, effective deposit was very much dependent on thegood will and efficiency of administrators on the spot. I have found no evidence that theTrustees ever attempted legal action to enforce their right of deposit in any overseasterritory. Certainly, as noted above, Maunde Thompson in his evidence to the SelectCommittee of 1898 stated that no such attempt had been made to that date.'^

In a Report to the Trustees of 1917 extolling the Copyright Act just passed in theUnion of South Africa, Barwick^" stated that the British Museum was recognized 'as alibrary of Deposit and Record . . . for the Empire'.^^ Current material from the coloniesand dominions was not purchased at that time but older material to fill gaps was. A reportto the Trustees in the same year on 'Proposed acquisitions' which included an invoicefor the second piece printed at Montreal (Monti-Regali) 1777, as well as items fromJamaica 1780 and 1783, Grenada 1787 and St Christopher 1772, illustrates the type ofmaterial purchased when available.^^

74

The eventual outcome of the negotiations with the Colonial Office is recorded indepartmental reports, letter books and colonial deposit receipt books held in the archivesof both the Departments of Printed Books and of Oriental Manuscripts and PrintedBooks. A reasonably full account of Colonial legislation which arose from the instructionsof the Secretary of State to Governors in the Colonies can be found in the book byPartridge. The lists compiled for this article of registers of receipts of colonialpublications (Tables i and 2) and the table giving the numbers of items received byColonial Copyright deposit (Table 3) provide a guide to those administrations whichpassed legislation including a provision for transmission of works to the British Museumand to the periods during which it was effective.

In conclusion it appears that the idea of and initial soundings for colonial deposit wereyet another instance of Panizzi's administrative genius and opportunism, in this casedemonstrably prompted by Watts and Winter Jones. The inclusion of Secretaries ofState as Trustees in the government of the British Museum was of great benefit to himin furthering his vision of the British Museum Library and in ensuring a sympathetichearing from both the Colonial and the India Offices. Later Principal Librarians (Bond,Maunde Thompson) and Keepers of Printed Books (BuUen, Garnett) aware of theinitiatives pressed hard and successfully for the principle in spite of both commonwealthand international opposition. The period during which material was received from theColonies and India varied substantially from one country or province to another. It issafe to say that receipts were numerous from 1890 until the time of the Second WorldWar (1937 in the case of India). Some countries sent all works which were registeredunder local copyright legislation. From other countries Museum officials, fearing thatthey would be swamped with ephemeral titles, preferred to acquire only thosepublications which they selected. In the post-war period most independence movementsinevitably sought to break administrative ties with the mother country and although anumber of colonial publishers and government printers did not, for some time, delete theBritish Museum from their regular mailing list, others did so immediately. Yet othershad, of course, never added it in the first place. Material continues to be sent sporadicallyfrom individual colonial and commonwealth publishers and, by the goodwill of theiradministrators, from the registrars of the former colonies of Mauritius and SierraLeone. ̂ ^ As indicated in the article by Hannam some of the Crown Colonies continueto send official documents under existing Regulations. In 1976, Hong Kong revised itsCopyright legislation which specifies that a copy of each book printed in the Colonyshould be deposited and named the British Library as recipient.'84

75

TABLE I . COLONIAL COPYRIGHT REGISTERS IN THE DEPARTMENT OFPRINTED BOOKS

Colonial Copyright Receipts (Misc. Countries) i888-i8go

Cape ColonyCeylonCyprusHong KongJamaicaMaltaStraits SettlementsTrinidad

Canada Copyright Lists (General)Canada ReceiptsCape Province (General)Ceylon (Statement of Books Printed)Cyprus (Memoranda of Books Registered)

(Colonial Copyright Receipts)East Africa Protectorate (Kenya)GambiaGhanaGold Coast (Memo, of Books Published)Hong Kong (Books Registered)

(Works and Periodicals)

India (Works and PeriodicalsJamaica (Return of Books Registered)

(Letters Registrar General)(Books and Periodicals)

Malayan Union (Books and Periodicals)MalaysiaMalta (Return of Books Registered)

(Books and Periodicals)Mauritius (Book and Periodicals)

(Lists)Perak, Selangor and

Fed. Malay States (General)Sierra Leone (Books and Periodicals)

(Return Books Registered)Singapore (Memoranda Books Registered

and Receipts)Singapore Colony (Books/Periodicals)South Africa (Books and Periodicals)

(Index of Receipts)Straits Settlements (Books/Periodicals)

(Newspapers)(Lists of Books)

Trinidad (Books and Periodicals)(Copyrieht Lists)

Jan.-Mar. 1890Nov. 1888-Apr. 1890Mar. i88g-Dec. 1890Nov. 1888-June 1890Feb. 1889-Feb, 1890Oct. 1888-May 1890Nov. 1888-June 1890April 1890

1895-1923I895-I9241890-1917I885-19401887-1934, 1938-19461891-1943, 1947-19571908, 1925 (2 entries)1931-19491953-1958I897-19571888-1931Oct. 1911-Sept. 1941Mar. 1947-the present1894-19361887-1934I936-I9641890-19571947-19571945-19661888-1912, 1937-19661890-1940, 1946-1956I946-I9681924-1945

I906-194I1916-1941, 1946-1955I887-1949

1946-1968Oct. 1946-1956July 1937-May 19611927-1947, 195(^19521890-19411924-194I1887-1902, 1911-19341935-I94I1890-19371892-1895

76

TABLE 2. COLONIAL STATE PAPER DONATIONS, FEB. I928-DEC. I933

AlbertaAntiguaBahamasBarbadosBermudaBritish CoiiimbiaBritish GuianaBritish HondurasCayman IslandsCeylonColonial Office (Ceylon & Palestine)Crown Agents (Various)CyprusDominicaFalkland IslandsFederated Malay StatesFijiGambiaGibraltarGold CoastGrenadaHong KongIraqIsle of ManJamaicaJerseyKenya ColonyLeeward IslandsMaltaManitobaMauritiusMontserratNewfoundlandNigeria

Northern ProvincesNorthern RhodesiaNova ScotiaNyasalandOntarioPalestinePapuaPrince Edward IslandSt HelenaSt LuciaSt VincentSarawakSaskatchewanSeychellesSierra LeoneSomaliland ProtectorateSouthern RhodesiaStraits SettlementsSudanTanganyikaTrinidad and TobagoTurks and Caicos Islands

Nov. i92S-Oet. 1933Mar. 1928-N0V. 1933Mar. 1928-Dec. 1933Mar. 1928-Dec. 1933Mar. 1928—Oct. 1933Mar, 1928-Aug. 1933Mar. 1928-N0V. 1933Mar. 1928-N0V. 1933Mar. 1928-Mar. 1932Feb, 1928-Dec. 1933Nov. 1928Nov. 1928-Dec. 1933Mar. 1928-Dec, 1933Mar. 1928Mar. 1928-Dec. 1932Mar. 1928-Dec, 1933Mar, 1928-Sept, 1933Mar. 1928-Dec. 1933Mar. 1928-N0V. 1933Mar, 1928-Dec. ig33Mar.-Nov, 1928Mar. 1928-Dec. 1933Nov, 1930Feb, 1928-May 1933Mar. 1928-N0V, 1933Dec. 1928-June 1933Mar. 1928-N0V. 1933Mar. 1928-Dec. 1933Mar. 1928-Dec, 1933July 1931Mar, 1928-Dec. 1933Mar. 1928-Oct, 1929Mar. 1928-N0V, 1933Feb. 1928-Dec. 1933Sept 1933Mar, 1928-N0V, 1933July 1931Mar, ig28-Sept. 1933Mar, 1928-N0V. 1933Mar, 1928-Dec, 1933Mar. 1928-Oct. 1933Mar. 1928-N0V, 1933Mar. 1928-Sept. 1933Mar. 1928-Oct. 1933Mar. 1928-Sept. 1933Mar, 1928-July 1933Mar, 1928-June 1933Mar, 1928-N0V. 1933Mar, 1928-Apr, 1933Nov. 1928-Mar, 1933Oct. 1931-June 1932Mar. 1928-Aug. 1933Mar. 1928-jan. 1933Mar. 1928-N0V. 1933Mar. 1928-Dec. 1933Oct. 1929-June 1933 {com. overleaf)

11

Table 2 (cont.)

Uganda Mar. 1928-Sept. 1933Western Pacific Is. (including British

Solomon Is., Gilbert & Ellice Is.,Western Pacific High Commission) Mar. 1928-July 1933

Western Samoa Mar. 1928-Fcb. 1933Weihaiwei Mar. 1928-Oet. 1929West Indies (Trinidad) Mar. 1928-Feb. 1933Yukon Nov. 1928-July 1933Zanzibar Mar. 1928-Oct. 1933

Not all the receipt hooks of the colonial state paper donations have been kept. This list from the period 1928-33 givesan indication of the colonies which complied with Regulation no. 261.

TABLE 3 . C O L O N I A L D E P O S I T R E C E I P T S REPORTED TO P A R L I A M E N T

DPB OMPB

Colonial Copyright

322

15962

114114

664959575693465488

220

9588

2071628162

9921

Before 1892 some receipts were reported under the heading International Copyright but, as these included works inFrench and German, they have not heen listed here. From 1920 onwards no detailed breakdown of the figures, only overalltotals of monographs and serials received, were given in the Annual Report to Parliament. It is possible to compile figuresfrom the Departmental Annual Reports hut they are arranged under numerous headings and the scope of each changesfrequently.

Year1892

18931894

18951896

1897

1898

1899

1900

1901

1902

19031904

19051906

1907

1908

1909

1910

1911

1912

19131914

19151916

1917

1918

1919

1920

Number of Vols.

166

999718699569372430625376324485468458525292

438459460416529

377437

311687

Parts of Vols.

227

278202

11290

199

183174275264

1045

4395473962735554565"488517391420

N o detailsN o details

150601

Indian Copyright711

8611400

870917

925721

1451

'5051278

1287

1702

9038737331349

1474

1527

13431681 (Ceylon & HK)

1863

1432

13491698

1763of acquisitions givenof acquisitions given

2059

1295

78

1 The main sources of information are reports andcorrespondence in the British Museum, CentralArchives (BM, CA), the archives of the De-partment of Printed Books (DPB), the De-partment of Oriental Manuscripts and PrintedBooks (OMPB) and the India Office Records(IOR). Material in the British Museum, CentralArchives, is printed by permission of theTrustees, and Crown copyright material in theIndia Office Records is printed hy permission ofthe Comptroller of Her Majesty's StationeryOffice. General background information has alsobeen taken from R. C. Barrington Partridge, TheHistory of the Legal Deposit of Books throughoutthe British Empire (London, 1938), James J.Barnes, Authors^ Publishers and Politicians: theQuest for an Anglo-American Copyright Agree-ment, 1814-1845 (London, 1974) and RichardBell, ' Legal deposit in Britain', The LawLibrarian., viii (1977).

2 An act for preventing abuses in printing seditioustreasonable, and unlicensed books and pamphlets^and for regulating of printing-presses^ 13 & 14 Car.II, c. 33, 1662.

3 An act for the encouragement of learning., byvesting the copies of printed books in the author's orpurchasers of such copies, during the times thereinmentioned, 8 Anne, c. 21 (noted as c. 19 inPickering, The Statutes at Large), 1709.

4 An Act for the further encouragement of learning,in the United Kingdom of Great Britain andIreland., by securing the copies and copyright ofprinted books to authors of such books, or theirassigns . . ., 41 Geo. Il l , c. 107, 1801.

5 An Act to amend the several Acts for theEncouragement of learning . . ., 54 Geo. Il l ,c. 156, 1814.

6 George Payne Rainsford James (1799-1860),described in The Dictionary of National Bio-graphy as 'the most prolific, and in some waysthe most successful novelist of his time'.

7 James Silk Buckingham (1786-1855), author,lecturer, publisher, traveller, M.P. for Sheffield,1832-7; he was expelled from India in 1823 forcondemning the abuses of the government in thenewspaper. The Calcutta Journal, which he hadestablished there in 1818; he took special interestin social reforms; Thomas Perronet Thompson(1783-1869), general, radical, proprietor of theWestminster Review, 1829-36, M.P. 1836-7,1847-52, 1857-9; William Ewart (1798-1869),author, radical, M.P. 1828-68.

8 The firm existed in 1777 as William Bray(1736-1832) of Great Russell Street, probablyno. 6r. William was not only a solicitor but alsoan antiquary and historian of Surrey. By 1793the firm was William and Edward Bray. Edward(1768-1814) was William's son. The family camefrom Shere near Guildford. In I 8 J6 the partnerswere William Bray and Augustus Warren, Jr. By1818 Reginald Bray, the son of Edward, hadjoined them and they had moved a few doors tono. 57. In 1836 George Harding joined the firm.Edward Bray was employed as Secretary to theTrustees, 1806-14. Much of the correspondenceconcerning copyright is signed 'Aug. Warren'.

9 BM, CA, CE4/15, Original Papers, 19 May1836. The Bill is dated 10 May 1836.

10 Copyright Act, 6 & 7 Will. IV, c. n o , 1836.11 For a full discussion of the personalities and the

politics involved see John Feather, 'Publishersand politicians: the remaking of the law ofcopyright in Britain, 1775-1842', PublishingHistory, xxiv (1988), 'Part I: Legal deposit andthe battle of the Library Tax'; and xxv (1989),'Part II; The rights of authors'.

12 BM, CA, CE4/16, Original Papers, 19 June1837- _

13 The Bill was printed on 11 Apr. and the Actpassed on 31 July 1838.

14 15 & 16 Viet., c. 12, 1852.15 In his evidence, given on 23 July 1876 to the

Royal Commission on Copyright, John WinterJones, Keeper, 1856-66, Principal Librarian,1866-78, stated that the International CopyrightAct was 'almost valueless' for acquiring foreignworks as publishers often sent simply title-pagesor fragments in order to secure the copyrightwithout sending the entire work. The pubhshers,mainly French and German, only sent books forwhich they desired to obtain copyright inEngland, the greater number of these beingmusic or works of little importance. He alsosubmitted in written evidence a list of countrieswith whom Conventions of International Copy-right had been concluded between May 1846 andNovember i860. These were: Prussia, Saxony,Brunswick, Thuringian Union, Hanover, Olden-burg, France, Anhalt, Hamburgh, Belgium,Spain and Sardinia. As no new convention hadbeen made with the Kingdom of Italy, heassumed that the one with Sardinia held good forItaly. From 1853 to T921 statistics of accessionsto the Library Departments of the British

79

Museum during the previous year were given inthe Accounts, etc., of the British Museum printedannually in the Parliamentary Papers. Theseincluded a figure for items received 'under theInternational Copyright Act' for the years1854-91.

16 Sir Jonathan Frederick Pollock (1783-1870),judge, M.P. 1831-44, Attorney General, 1834-5,1841-4.

17 BM, CA, CE4/20, Original Papers, 15 May1839.

18 A Bill to amend the Law of Copyright, 12 Feh.1839. 2 Viet. Parliamentary Papers, Public Bills(i). Session 1839, p. 505.

19 DPB, D H i / i , 12 Oct. 1837, : i i - i 3 .20 An Act to Amend the Law of Copyright., 5 & 6

Viet., c. 45, 1842.21 See helow.22 The Trustees, concerned to ensure that their

rights were maintained in the new legislation,appointed a special sub-committee of eightmembers (four of whom were M.P.s) to keep awatching brief. Both Gladstone (elected Trustee,1856) and Disraeli (elected Trustee, 1863), wereincluded hut neither of them attended. The sub-committee asked the Keeper, Jones, for a report.It met twice and suggested 'certain alterations'.BM, CA, CE3/30, 27 Feb. 1864, pp. 526, 561-2;CE7/3, 16 and 19 Apr., pp. 1343-5.

23 Copyright Commission, The Royal Commissionsand the Report of the Commissioners., Minutes ofEvidence, C 2036-1, 1878, No. 1665, J. W.Jones, 4 July 1876.

24 Ibid., Report^ C. 2036, 1878, Paragraphs 145-7,232 and 259-60.

25 Partridge, op. cit., p. 99.26 49 & 50 Viet., c. 33, 1886.27 DPB, DH2/53, I June 1894, Sect. II, Mis-

cellaneous Letters, 19, Garnett to Thompson.28 DPB, DH2/52, 14 July 1894, :84, Canada:

Copyright Act.29 George Frederick Samuel Robinson (1827-

1908), Governor-General of India 1880-4, Sec-retary of State for the Colonies 1892-5.

30 An account of the negotiations between theBritish Museum Library and the India Officewill appear in a forthcoming issue of the BritishLibrary Journal.

31 John Campbell Hamilton-Gordon (1847-1934),Governor-General of Canada 1893-8.

32 Correspondence on the subject of the Law ofCopyright in Canada^ Nos. 76, 78, 99, Par-

liamentary Papers, Accounts and Papers., (10),^895, C. 7783.

33 An Act to amend the Copyright Act, 58 & 59Viet., c. 37, 1895.

34 Report from the Select Committee of the Houseof Lords on the Copyright Bill {H.L.) and theCopyright {amendment) Bill (H.L\ Minutesof Evidence, Nos. 3281-3291, 1898. Parlia-mentary Papers, Reports from Committees (2),p. 231.

35 An unsigned and undated 'Memorandum onpractice with regard to Copyright books in theBritish Museum' (BM, CA, MiscellaneousPapers, Box C2) states that in the Bill asoriginally drafted clause 17 contained provisionsunder regulations made by the Board of Tradefor the continued registration at Stationers' Hallbut that during the consideration of the Bill inCommittee this clause was struck out. Theamendment, it appeared, was made withoutmuch consideration 'and certainly without con-sultation with the Trustees of the BritishMuseum, and without any intention of affectingtheir position'.

36 An Act to amend and consolidate the Law relatingto Copyright, i & 2 Geo. V, c. 46, 1911.

37 Partridge, op. cit., p. 177.38 An Act to make new provision in respect of

copyright and related matters in substitution for theprovisions of the Copyright Act, igii, and otherenactments relating thereto; . . ., 4 & 5 Eliz. II,c. 74, 1956. Ninth Schedule, EnactmentsRepealed,.. . i & 2 Geo. V, c. 46, The CopyrightAct, 1911. The whole Act, except sections fifteen(Delivery of hooks to libraries), thirty-four(Saving of compensation to certain libraries) andthirty-seven (Short title and commencement).

39 An Act to restate the law of copyright, withamendments; • . ., 36 & 37 Eliz. II, c. 48, 1988.The Act omits any mention of deposit.

40 As already mentioned Section 15 specifies only'every book published in the United Kingdom'.

41 Royal Commission, 1847-9, paras. 8996 & 9004and Arundell Esdaile, The British MuseumLibrary (London, 1946), p. 142.

42 Partridge, op. cit., pp. 147-9.43 BM, CA, CE3/27, Minutes, Standing Com-

mittee, 6 June 1857, p. 9216.44 Henry Labouchere (1798-1869), Secretary of

State for the Colonies 1855-8. Secretaries ofState were ex officio Trustees of the BritishMuseum.

80

45 BM, CA, CE27/52, Letter Books, 16 June 1857,p. 247.

46 BM, CA, CE3/27, Minutes, Standing Com-mittee, 10 Oct. 1857, p. 9271.

47 Ibid.48 DPB, DH2/4, Dec. 1857, Estimates to 31 Mar.

1859.49 Herman Merivale (1806-74), Assistant Under

Secretary of State for the Colonies 1847,Permanent Under Secretary 1848-59, thenPermanent Under Secretary of State for India1859-74.

50 BM, CA, CE4/57, Original Papers, 18 June1857, P- 56.

51 BM, CA, CE27/52, Letter Books, 23 June 1857,p. 255, no. 1082.

52 DPB, DH2/6, 4 Feb. 1861. The governmentsurveys referred to were Australian. The son ofH. Bailliere, 219 Regent Street (also New York,Paris and Madrid), a regular supplier of theDepartment, had recently gone to Australia andset up an office in Melbourne. That firm (F. F.Bailliere, Collins Street East, Melbourne) becamefor many years the Museum's main agent forAustralian publications.

53 Henry Pelham Fiennes Pelham Chnton (1811-64), Colonial Secretary 1859-64.

54 BM, CA, CE27/52, Letter Books, 14 Mar. 1861,p. 70, no. 1208.

55 DPB, DH2/6, 27 Dec. 1861, Jones to [ColonialOffice (?)].

56 Rules and Regulations for the Information andGuidance of the Principal Officers and Others inHis Majesty^s Colonial Possessions (London,

1837).57 Harry Hannam, 'The documentation of colonial

rule in Africa', African Research and Docu-mentation: [he Journal of the African StudiesAssociation of the U.K. and the Standing Con-ference on Library Materials on Africa, no. 27(1981), pp. 8-9.

58 Edward Henry Stanley (1826-93), ColonialSecretary 1882-5.

59 International Exchange of Government Publi-cations (For use in H.M. Stationery Office only),(London, 1964), Appx. 3.

60 From information supplied in 1981 by the thenHead of the Official Publications Section,Cambridge University Library, it appears that,although they were not added to the Regulations,the universities of Oxford and Cambridge alsomade successful representations to the Colonial

Office. Circular letters of 28 Dec. 1928, 6 Sept.1930 and 20 June 1932 were despatched to 'TheOffice Administering the Government of . . .'requesting annual volumes of colonial Laws andOrdinances and Law Reports for the Squire LawLibrary, Oxford, and for Cambridge UniversityLibrary. As a consequence some material wasreceived by those two libraries. Cambridge, atleast, received reports from Ceylon, Cyprus, TheGambia, Gold Coast, Jamaica, Kenya, NorthernRhodesia, Tanganyika and Uganda and from theCrown Agents the official handbook of the GoldCoast, the Leeward Islands, Nigeria, Nyasalandand Uganda.

61 A letter in departmental files on internationalexchange conventions from Gordon HaroldSpinney, Assistant Keeper 1942-59, DeputyKeeper 1959-73, ^'^ the Under Secretary of Statefor the Colonies, Sir Tbomas Ingram KynastonLloyd (1896-1968), Under Secretary 1947-56.

62 Receipts at the British Library are still very goodfrom Hong Kong; of the other dependenciesAnguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands,the Cayman Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat,Pitcairn Island, St Helena & Ascension Island,Tristan da Cunha, and the Turks & CaicosIslands continue to send some of their officialdocuments; British Antarctic Territory, BritishIndian Ocean Territory, tbe Falkland Islands,South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islandshave not sent anything for some years.

63 DPB, DH2/30, 14 Apr. 1883, Sect. I, Minutesrelating to the acquisition of books, 15, Indianpublications. Further details will appear in anarticle on relations between the British MuseumLibrary and the India Office in a forthcomingissue of the British Library Journal.

64 The Governor of Ceylon 1883-90, was ArthurCharles Hamilton-Gordon, youngest son of thefourth Earl of Aberdeen. He was privatesecretary to his father when the latter was PrimeMinister 1852-5, and, as the Prime Minister isan .̂v officio Trustee of tbe British Museum, hewas probably aware of difficulties the Museumbad in acquiring such material.

65 George Leveson-Gower (1815-91), Secretary ofState for the Colonies 1868-70 and 1886.

66 DPB, DH2/36, 8 May 1886, Sect. II, 196.67 BM, CA, CE3/43, Minutes, 8 May 1886, pp.

296-7.68 OMPB, Official Reports, 1892-6, 2 Feb. 1894.

Douglas, whose Department was responsible

8i

only for the Oriental language material, waseither unaware of, or found too cumbersome theprocedure required by the Trustees for distri-buting unwanted items. The Trustees, whoinsisted on sanctioning every disposal, hadagreed in 1886 to send twelve printed itemsreceived from Ceylon to the Indian Institute,Oxford. (BM, CA, CE3/43, Minutes, 10 July1886, p. 347)-

69 OMPB, Ceylon publications, June 1885-Dec.1909.

70 George William Johnson, Clerk, Colonial Office1881-1917; Cecil Bendall, Assistant ist Class,British Museum, 1882-98.

71 OMPB, Indian Correspondence, 1878-91. John-son to Bendall, 8 July 1886.

72 DPB, DH2/36, 8 May 1886, Sect. 11, 196,Ceylon publications.

73 DPB, DH2/36, 5 June 1886, Sect. I, : 22, Ceylonpublications.

74 DPB, DH2/36, 9 Oct. 1886, Sect. I, :44,Registration of books in colonies. Quoting a letterfrom the Colonial Office reported to the Trusteesand that the Trustees' thanks had been returned.

75 DPB, DH2/36, 8 May 1886, op. cit.76 OMPB, Indian Correspondence, 1878-91, 21

Jan. 1887. Trtibner was one of the main BritishMuseum agents for the purchase of Asianpublications.

Sect. I,May ii

July 1888, Sect. I,

77 DPB, DH2/40, 12Colonial Copyright.

78 DPB, DH2/40, 14Trustees' Committee.

79 Report from the Select Committee., op. cit.. No.3290, 1898.

80 George Frederick Barwick, Keeper 1914-18.81 DPB, DH2/81, 8 Feb. 1917, : 133, Draft report.

See also :6i and :65, reports to the Trustees of10 Feb. 1917 and 13 May 1916 {sic) and : 134-44letters and memos, 1916—17 between A. C.Lloyd, Librarian, Public Library of SouthAfrica, and the British Museum regarding thenegotiations to ensure that the Museum wasspecified as a beneficiary of the new South AfricaCopyright Act.

82 DPB, DH2/81, : I, Proposed acquisitions., 184 and:88. Draft reports with invoice of 6 Jan. 1917from Henry Stevens Son & Stiles.

83 However, nothing has been received from SierraLeone since 1983 and receipts from Mauritiusare becoming irregular.

84 Hong Kong, Ordinance No. 60 of 1976, BooksRegistration. As Hong Kong is presently a majorcentre of low-price printing, the British Libraryreceives works in many languages (althoughmainly English and Chinese) as well as from anumber of countries, principally Australia, NewZealand and the U.S.

82