ng first in
England. Four maintained the contrary. The views of the minority were
affirmed by the House of Lords (Lord Chancellor Cranworth and Lords
Brougham and St Leonards). The lord chancellor's opinion was founded
upon "the general doctrine that a British senate would legislate for
British subjects properly so called, or for such persons who might
obtain that character for a time by being resident in this country, and
therefore under allegiance to the crown, and under the protection of the
laws of England." Lord Brougham said that

"The statute of Anne had been passed for the purpose of encouraging
learned men, and with that view that act had given them the exclusive
right in their publications for twenty-one years. This, however, was
clear, they had no copyright at common law, for if they had there
would have been no necessity for the passing of that statute. It could
scarcely be said that the legislature had decided a century and a half
since that act was to be passed to create a monopoly in literary works
solely for the benefit of foreigners. In the present case he was
clearly of opinion that the copyright did not exist, and therefore
that foreign law should not prevail over British law where there was
such diversity between the two."

Against the authority of this case, however, must be set the opinion of
two great lord chancellors--Lord Cairns and Lord Westbury. In the case
of _Routledge_ v. _Low_, L.R. 3 H. L. 100, 1868, Lord Cairns said,

"The aim of the legislature is to increase the common stock of the
literature of the country; and if that stock can be increased by the
publication for the first time here of a new and valuable work
composed by an alien who has never been in the country, I see nothing
in the wording of the act which prevents, nothing in the policy of the
act which should prevent, and everything in the professed object of
the act and in its wide and general provisions which should entitle
such a person to the protection of the act, in return and compensation
for the addition he has made to the literature of the country."

And Lord Westbury said, in the same case,

"The case of _Jeffreys_ v. _Boosey_ is a decision which is attached to
and depends on the particular statute of which it was the exponent,
and as that statute had been repealed and is now replaced by another
act, with different enactments expressed in different language, the
ca