I support this Bill as a Senator, and welcome it as a Bencher of King's Inns. I cannot understand why it should have provoked opposition in any quarter, especially as it is as far as I can see, the most non-contentious Bill that could come before any House. In the first place, it is the product of an agreement between the Benchers of King's Inns and the Minister for Finance, and the Minister is giving effect to that agreement by the introduction of this Bill.
It may interest the House to know where the sum of £433 6s. 8d. in the Bill comes from. In order to ascertain that matter, it is necessary to go back into history, and I think the historical background of this Bill is worth stating here in order that the House may know exactly what it is doing. I do not intend to talk about text-books and other matters which are irrelevant to this Bill. We have to go back to the time of the introduction of printing in the Fifteenth Century.
After the introduction of printing, copies of books multiplied and, of course, printing at that time was a potential for good and evil. Therefore, there was what I may call a rigid Press censorship. Out of that Press censorship, and later out of the law of copyright grew the practice of requiring publishers to deposit free copies of these books for the use of certain specified libraries. Now, the first time, as far as we can ascertain, when books were ordered to be deposited for the use of a national library was in the year 1537 when Francis I, King of France, in order to build up his royal library, issued an ordinance called the Ordinance of Montpelier, on December 28th, 1537, requiring every publisher to deposit a free copy of every book in his royal library.
The king intended at that time and by that means, to preserve for future generations the literary output of the nation from that onwards. Subsequently, in the year 1617, Louis XIII made a decree requiring that two copies of every book should be deposited for the use of the Royal Library, then at Paris. That idea of obtaining free copies of newly published books for the use of the State or the national library spread to other countries, including England, where it was used for the purpose of Press censorship.
The first Act, passed in 1662, was the Press Licensing Act. This required three copies of every book newly published to be deposited—one for the use of the Royal Library, the second for the Bodleian Library, and the third for the use of the University Library at Cambridge. The idea at that time was to censor all literature. The copy in the Royal Library was perused by the king's counsellors for the purpose of detecting sedition, and in the universities by the divines to ascertain whether there was anything blasphemous or contrary to religion. 1662 was the year that Act was passed, and it continued until 1694, when it expired. From that time there was no protection for publishers against the pirating of their books, so they petitioned Parliament, and in 1709 the first Copyright Act was passed shortly after the Union with Scotland.
By that Act it was required that nine free copies of all books published should be deposited. One of these went to the Royal Library which the King kept in his palace in London. Another of them went to the Bodleian Library at Oxford and a third to the University Library at Cambridge. A fourth went to the Sion College in London, a theological college, and in addition there were five free copies to be deposited for the use of Scottish libraries, one for the Faculty of Advocates at Edinburgh, and four for the Scottish Universities at Glasgow, St. Andrews, Edinburgh and Aberdeen.
That was in 1709. From 1709 onwards the publishers tried to evade the obligation. There was no copyright in Ireland before the Union with the result that a number of valuable books published in England were printed here in Ireland on inferior paper and undersold the orthodox editions published in England. When the Union was passed and came into operation on the 1st January, 1801, the British Government proceeded immediately to introduce a Copyright Act for Ireland. In introducing that Act the Government did so not so much for the benefit of literature as to protect the revenue because owing to the alleged pirating of copies of books in Ireland there was a diminution of the excise duty on paper payable in England at that time. When the Copyright Bill was going through Parliament in 1801 a clause was inserted in the House of Commons providing that a free copy of every book should be forwarded to Trinity College Library, Dublin, and when the Bill was going through the House of Lords a clause was inserted providing that a free copy should be sent to the Library of the King's Inns. That is the origin of this £433 6s. 8d. Under the Act of 1801 publishers tried to evade their obligations and in 1814 a further Copyright Act was passed requiring them to contribute these eleven copies but giving the concession of extending the copyright from 14 to 20 years. In 1836 a Copyright Act was passed by which publishers were relieved of their obligation to furnish free copies in six cases, leaving the obligation to furnish free books in five cases still there. These six cases were the Sion Library in London, the Four Scottish Universities and the King's Inns Library. That Act provided that in view of the right to receive a free book each Library which was so to speak disenfranchised should receive compensation out of the Consolidated Fund.
The Act provided that that compensation was to be measured on the average value of the books received by the particular library during the three years ending the 30th June, 1836. That valuation was made and the different libraries received different compensation. The library attached to the University of Glasgow got £707, the Library of St. Andrew's £630, the Library of Edinburgh University £575, the King's Inns £433, the Sion Library £363, and Aberdeen University Library £320—I am omitting shillings and pence—making a total of £3,028. This charge was made on the Consolidated Fund of the late United Kingdom and the grant continued to be paid down to the introduction of the Copyright Act of 1911 by which the 1836 Act was repealed. Section 34 of the 1911 Act provided that the right to receive compensation from the Consolidated Fund should continue but contained the provision that compensation should not be paid in any year unless the Treasury was satisfied that the money paid for the previous year had been spent on the purchase of books for the use of and preservation in the library. That grant continued to be paid out of the public moneys of the late United Kingdom until 1921. I do not know exactly what happened after 1921, but in 1927, when the Industrial and Commercial Property Protection Act was passed, Section 174, sub-section (1) provided that the right to pay compensation which obtained before December, 1921, should continue.
That grant has been a charge on the Central Fund since that time. The Benchers of the King's Inns have used the £433 6s. 8d. each year on the purchase of books. The intention, when the right to obtain free books was given, was that the libraries of the day should preserve them for a future generation. Unfortunately, it was forgotten that books cannot last for ever unless they are bound and re-bound. At the end of the last war the authorities of the library of the Faculty of Advocates in Edinburgh, which was a copyright library, found themselves in financial difficulties owing to the accumulation of a large number of books which had not been bound or preserved. They made a gesture of handing over the library to the nation and in 1925 it became the National Library of Scotland. The Faculty of Advocates retained the law books. These books required rebinding, and a Scottish benefactor, named Sir Alexander Grant, in 1923 made a donation of £100,000 to the Library of the Faculty of Advocates in Edinburgh.
The Minister for Finance here has made a donation of £3,000 to the King's Inns for the rebinding of books. The Benchers of the King's Inns appreciate that very much, because it will enable them to have valuable books in the library preserved for future generations of law students and scholars. The Benchers found that the sum of £433 6s. 8d., while very useful for purchasing books, could be usefully employed also in the binding and rebinding of books, and they made representations to the Minister for Finance for authority to use portion of that grant for the purpose of rebinding. This Bill is the result of these representations, and I can only say that the Benchers of the King's Inns appreciate very much what the Minister for Finance has done, firstly, by making the grant of £3,000, and secondly, by introducing this Bill so that they may have a free hand either to purchase books or spend the money on binding and rebinding. For these reasons I support the Bill.
