the Queen to assent to it, and it remained inoperative. Sir John A. Macdonald was then the leader of our government, and he used, but unsuccessfully, all his influence in order to secure relief. Sir John Thompson (Minister of Justice and afterwards Prime Minister) went to England and presented (1891, 4) two able and exhaustive memoranda. He declared that "the present policy" resulted in "making Canada a market for American reprints, and closing the Canadian press for the benefit of the American press" (a).

He declared that in Canada the belief was growing that "the present state of the law is odious and unjust". He requested that after so many promises and such long delay

some step in advance should be taken towards removing Canadian grievances, beyond the mere routine of inquiries, reports and suggestions" (b).

And he demanded that Canada be permitted to withdraw from the Berne convention and act for herself, for, as he said:

"Canada has been repeatedly assured that her continuance in any treaty arrangements of this kind would be subject to her own desire to withdraw at any time, on giving the prescribed notice " (c).

His mission was fruitless. He could get nothing done. Downing Street was unmoved. Sir John's history of its misdoings, his protests and his demands were all properly labelled and filed, and the 'regretable incident" was brought to a close.

Our subsequent quiescence is due, I believe, to the fact that British authors have come to terms with Canadian publishers (d), and that those men are indifferent as to the place in which the type is set. Indeed, I have some reason for knowing that they prefer printing and binding in the United States to paying higher prices for the work in Canada. The workmen do not seem to have quite understood the situation.

Our release is coming as a necessary incident of an international agreement made at Berlin in 1908, for the revision of the convention made at Berne in 1887, under which certain provisions were made for the reciprocal protection of authors. The new arrangements necessitate the passing of legislation in the various countries, and

(a) Sess. Pap. (Can.), 1892, No. 81, p. 15.
(b) Sess. Pap. (Can.), 1894, No. 50, p. 32,
(c) Ibid., p. 18.

(d) And to the fact that arrangement of that sort has been protected by our statute of 1900.

inasmuch as the day is passed in which the British parliament undertakes to legislate for the self-governing colonies, the Colonial Office finds itself under the necessity of seeking colonial concurrence and co-operation. Those were readily given but upon the terms only, that Canada was to have complete control over her own territories, and was to be free to do as she wished (a).

The bill which the British government proposes to present to the British parliament provides for what it calls "imperial copyright", by which is meant copyright throughout the King's dominions. But the act (when passed) is not to

"extended to a self-governing dominion unless declared by the legislature of that dominion to be in force therein."

Any Dominion, may, moreover, repeal

"all or any of the enactments relating to copyright passed by parliament (including this act) so far as they are operative within that Dominion."

We are invited to place ourselves under the provision of a statute of a parliament not our own. But we need not do so. And in any case our right now or at any time to repeal all British legislation so far as it affects us gives us complete control.

I am afraid that this Paper is not only unusually long, but unusually dry. I made it long so that I might at once get rid of all that I have to say of technical character. The succeeding numbers will, I hope, be of more general interest.

OTTAWA, March, 1912.

JOHN S. EWART.

(a) The Proceedings of the Imperial Copyright Conference 1910, printed in Cd. 5272.

These Papers are sent free of charge to all applicants. If the earlier numbers are wanted, please send fifteen cents to cover postage.

JOHN S. EWART,
Ottawa, Ont.

(In order to draw attention to the purpose for which quotations are employed, italics not appearing in the original, are sometimes made use of.)

IN

N the House of Commons, on 18th March last (1912), Mr. Borden announced that his government proposed, after consultation with the British authorities, to formulate a new naval policy, and that the policy

"shall be presented to parliament; and the people of this country shall be given an opportunity to pronounce upon it."(a).

Mr. Borden did not say whether the submission to the electors would be by way of referendum or by a general election, but, in view of the occurrences of the two previous sessions, there can be no doubt that it is an election, and an early election that is contemplated (b).

The programme will probably be something like this: Mr. Borden and Mr. Hazen will go to London and make, or at least try to make, some arrangement with the British government; parliament will meet as usual in November; a redistribution bill (rendered necessary by the recent census) will be introduced and passed; supply will be arranged; a navy bill will be introduced and carried to a second reading; parliament will be dissolved; election shortly afterwards.

Under these circumstances I make no apology for returning to the subject, and for offering to the readers of these Papers some further material for the formation of opinion. We are engaged in a REVISION OF WAR-RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED KINGDOM. If we are to act wisely, we must consider carefully.

(a) Hansard, p. 5463.

(b) In the session of 1910 (29 March) Mr. Monk's motion declaring that the navy bill, then under consideration, ought to be submitted to a plebiscite was negatived by an overwhelming majority, of which Mr. Borden and most of his followers were part. During the next session this fact was referred to by Mr. Borden's friends in refutation of the charge that he favored a plebiscite: See speeches of Mr. Blain, 25 November, 1910; p. 278, of Mr. Burrell, 28 November, Ib. p. 325; and of Mr. Sproule, 28 November, Ib. p. 334. Mr. Sam Hughes expressed himself as opposed on constitutional grounds to a plebiscite, (25 November, Ib. p. 294). And Mr. Burrell said that it was an appeal to the people by a general election that the leader of the opposition emphatically urged last year," (28 November, Ib. p. 320).