appearance, in terms of high and deserved commendation. We characterized it as the best work of the kind that had hitherto appeared in the compass of English literature; and by that recommendation, we have reason to think that the sale of Mr. Horne's work was not a little promoted. The religious public are certainly under considerable obligations to Mr. Horne, both for the valuable compilation which he has furnished, and for the incentive which it has supplied to the more general cultivation of Biblical literature and criticism. From the popularity and success of the work, it might, however, have naturally been expected, that other publications of a similar kind would be brought out in imitation of his; for when did any literary speculation succeed, that did not produce attempts to imitate or to compete with the original work? Indeed, we are only surprised that Mr. Horne has had for so many years the whole market to himself. It is a proof, that the labour bestowed upon the compilation was not too highly rated by the price set on the work; that the compensation afforded by the sale was by no means excessive; and that it was not found easy to produce a better or a cheaper article. And these circumstances will still secure to Mr. Horne, especially in connexion with the now established character of his Introduction, an extensive preference and a ready sale.

Mr. Carpenter admits, that the idea of his "Popular Introduction" was taken from Mr. Horne's work; to which he refers in his Preface, as the only one with which the Author is 'acquainted, that in any degree answers to the description' of compendium' which he represents to be needed. But that publication,' it is added, contains, as its title sufficiently indicates, a great proportion of matter which is not available 'to mere English readers, while its necessarily high price places it, in very many instances, beyond their reach.' Mr. Carpenter seems to have entertained for some time the expectation that Mr. Horne would probably, by an abridgement of his own work, supersede the chance of success for a rival publication. In February of last year, he says, he published the outlines of his book in the Scripture Magazine, without dropping the most distant hint at the idea of a separate pub⚫lication, but simply as a suggestion to others on the expediency of such an undertaking.' Believing that Mr. Horne was in the habit of seeing that Magazine, he concluded that, if he saw fit, he would take the hint, and supply the desideratum. After waiting three months, and not hearing of any such design, Mr. Carpenter announced that a work of this description was preparing for publication, which notice went ⚫ the round of the periodicals in May.' In August, he issued

a prospectus of the work; and in October, five weeks before the publication of the volume, Mr. Horne first announced his present Compendium, as an Abridgement of his larger work. Such are the facts of the case, according to a statement which, though ex parte, we cannot allow ourselves to call in question so long as it remains uncontradicted. From this, it would appear, that Mr. Carpenter thought an abridgement of Mr. Horne's Introduction would be a popular book; that he was anxious to ascertain whether Mr. Horne was himself disposed to undertake it; that he supposed Mr. Horne to have tacitly declined it; and that considering the market to be open, he resolved himself to venture on the task.' That he had an unquestionable right to do so, must be admitted, even if his work were a mere Abridgement of Mr. Horne's, which it certainly is not. A fair and bona fide abridgement of any book is considered, in the eye of the law, as a new work; and however it may injure the sale of the original, yet, it is not deemed in law to be a piracy or a violation of the author's copy-right. It was, moreover, decided by Lord Kenyon (Kearsley v. Carey), that any material alteration which was a melioration, could not be considered as a piracy.

As Mr. Carpenter had a legal right to abridge Mr. Horne's work, so, he had as clear a right to deviate from it, more or less, in a compilation on a similar plan. It may admit of question, which would be less adapted to interfere with the sale of an original work; an avowed and bona fide abridgement, or one which purported to be an independent but similar work. In many cases, an author would probably prefer that his work should be openly abridged by another, than that it should be closely imitated. But, as regards the public, it is possible that a new work brought out in imitation of a preceding one, may be better than a mere abridgement would have been; that it may be to a certain extent a melioration; and, though more adapted on this account to interfere with the interests of the original author, may be less subject to the charge of piracy. Now Lord Mansfield, in deciding a case relative to Engravings, (Sayer v. Moore,) observed: We must take care to guard against two extremes equally prejudicial; the one, that 'men of ability, who have employed their time for the service of the community, may not be deprived of their just merits, ' and the reward of their ingenuity and labour; the other, that the world may not be deprived of improvements, nor the pro· gress of the arts be retarded. The act that secures copyrights to authors, guards against the piracy of the words and sentiments, but it does not prohibit writing upon the same subject, as in the case of Histories and Dictionaries: in the

'first, a man may give a relation of the same facts, and in the same order of time; in the latter, an interpretation is given ' of the identical words. In all these cases, the question of 'fact to come before a jury is, whether the alteration be colour'able or not. There must be such a similitude as to make it probable and reasonable to suppose that one is a transcript of 'the other, and nothing more than a transcript. If the alterations are various and very material, and errors in the original are corrected and not copied, the work is not liable to the charge of piracy. And Mr. Carpenter, it must be admitted, has steered clear of any very servile imitation.

It is a much more difficult question, whether Mr. Horne, while conceding to Mr. Carpenter his legal right to do as he has done, has any ground to complain of dishonourable treatment. Without giving any decided opinion on so delicate a point, we shall set down two or three considerations which, we think, will apply to this in common with many similar cases.

In the first place, if it can be clearly made out, that an author declines and has refused to supply the proposed desideratum, with the knowledge that it will, in that case, be undertaken by another, he must take upon himself the consequence of such refusal. We do not say that Mr. Horne was bound to take up Mr. Carpenter's suggestion, even if he was aware of it; or that his not doing so, could be fairly construed into a refusal. A distinct personal application to Mr. Horne would have ascertained his intention, as well as his reasons for deeming such a publication ineligible, had he declined undertaking it. It was certainly not an imperative obligation on Mr. Carpenter to make such private application; but whether he was not bound in courtesy, and according to the principle of the golden rule, to lay the alternative distinctly before Mr. Horne, we leave to the judgement of our readers. On the other hand, it is due to Mr. Carpenter to observe, that he gave more public and timely notice of his intention, and waited longer to see the result, than many persons would have done. He may have thought that he gave Mr. Horne full time to start fair in the race of competition, or to state, privately or publicly, his objections to the course which Mr. Carpenter was taking. And whether such public notice was all that justice and courtesy demanded, we will not presume to determine.

A second point for consideration is, whether the amount of injury sustained by the author or proprietor of the original work, be compensated by the benefit rendered to the public. If this plea can be substantiated, notwithstanding any hardship in the case, or any unfairness in the proceeding, the interests of the aggrieved party must be made to give way. But if the

private injury be attended with no adequate beneficial result to the public, with only a division or transfer of profits, the general sentiment will at all events resent, if the law cannot reach, the infringement upon another's property or interests. In the case of a material improvement upon the original work, from which the general idea and plan may have been taken, the public are obviously the gainers; or, when an Author has made an unfair use of his monopoly, to demand an exorbitant price, a service is rendered to the public even by acts of piracy, to which, in fact, such a case holds out the strongest temptation. In the case before us, neither of these pleas can be set up; but then, it is not quite clear that any injury will, after all, be sustained by Mr. Horne. Upon the face of the affair, a single volume cannot be supposed to supersede a four-volume work. Could it be for a moment supposed, that all that is valuable in Mr. Horne's work, is to be found in Mr. Carpenter's, then, indeed, a great detriment would ensue to the sale of the larger work, but the public benefit of having the same matter for one third of the price, would far outweigh the private inconvenience. But we take it for granted, that all persons who can afford to purchase Mr. Horne's work, will give it the preference, on the principle which in most cases secures a preference of an original work to an Abridgement. Few Abridgements are popular, even when the original work is voluminous, and susceptible of much compression; and we question whether Mr. Horne's Compendious Introduction is not too much of an analysis to be generally acceptable.

It must be admitted, indeed, that, although professed abridgements and analyses are seldom popular, the more compendious work sometimes obtains a preference, on the ground of its cheapness, in the same way as an inferior article will often obtain a ready sale when offered at a low price, few persons being competent or disposed to institute a proper comparison between the genuine and the imitative article. Something of this kind takes place in most branches of trade, and patents are evaded or rendered nugatory in much the same way as copyrights are. But the consequence not unfrequently is, that the general sale or demand is so much increased, that little ultimate injury results to the original proprietor from the competition. With regard to the works which have suggested these remarks, we cannot doubt that there is room enough in the world for both.'

Fully to exculpate a writer from the charge of piracy, it is not sufficient, however, that he should have kept on the windy side of the law, that he should have done the party concerned no material injury, or even that he should have rendered a

literary service to the public; it is also requisite, that his production be free from the character of imposition and unfairness, that no attempt should be made to mislead the public, and that the amount of obligation to the Writer's predecessor should be honestly acknowledged. If the title and general appearance of a book are closely imitated with a view to deceive the public, the conduct of the party must be stigmatised as highly dishonourable, even though no direct act of piracy be committed; and again, if unrestricted use is made, without acknowledgement, of a former compiler's labours, and the citations of original authorities are adopted, without consulting the original works, a most dishonourable deception is practised. But, if the compilation of a predecessor is merely used as an index or general guide, in the same way as the editor of a dictionary or a gazetteer would avail himself of the alphabetic arrangement of those who had gone before him,-and the original authorities are carefully consulted, the citations verified, and variations, corrections, and additions introduced; then, we submit, that there is nothing dishonourable in adopting, without specific acknowledgement to a former compiler, the same extracts that he has made use of.

We do not think that Horne's Introduction,' and Carpenter's Introduction,' are likely to be mistaken for each other; because, in point of fact, an author's name is, after all, the most distinguishing feature in a title-page, and because a single volume cannot be mistaken for a work in four volumes. That Mr. Horne's book has been freely made use of, is not concealed, because the distinct references to it, at the bottom of Mr. Carpenter's pages, are very numerous. Whether Mr. Carpenter has acknowledged in this manner the full extent of his obligations to Mr. Horne, we cannot pretend to say. In two independent compilations, there will necessarily be, if both are alike correct, a verbatim agreement in their citations. We cannot be supposed to have undertaken the drudgery of a close verbal comparison; but we are led to believe that Mr. Horne may, in the warmth of his feelings, under the first alarm, have considerably over-rated the coincidences between his work and Mr. Carpenter's. On glancing through the latter publication, we have certainly perceived references to a variety of works which Mr. Horne has not made use of, some of them having been published since the appearance of his work. Some subjects are also treated by Mr. Carpenter at much greater length. For instance; he has been charged with an artful piece of plagiarism in taking Mr. Horne's Observations on the Moral Qualifications for studying the Scriptures. To this