1
Belford Brothers of Toronto had recently issued
Old Times on the Mississippi, a republication of Clemens’s articles in the
Atlantic Monthly (
SLC 1875d), which had no copyright in Canada. The Imperial copyright on
Tom Sawyer, however, was supposed to protect it from unauthorized reprinting in all the British
dominions, including Canada. But the recently implemented Canadian Copyright Act of
1875 introduced an ambiguity in the law. It allowed any author (or his representative)
to obtain a separate copyright in that country, so long as he was resident in Canada
(or in any part of the “British Possessions”) and the work was printed, published,
and registered there (“Act of April 8, 1875,”
Solberg 1903, 76). But the Belfords claimed that under the new law, an Imperial copyright was
no longer valid in Canada, and that to be protected a work now required a Canadian
copyright. On 29 June 1876 they issued a reprinting of the English
Tom Sawyer, offering their first edition at $2.25 and following that with a $1.00 hardback and
a $.75 paperback. Their interpretation of the Canadian Copyright Act was soon challenged,
however, by Scottish reformer Samuel Smiles (1812–1904), in
Smiles v. Belford, for their unauthorized edition of
Thrift, one of his popular self-help manuals (originally published in 1875 by John Murray
in London). In September 1876 the Court of Chancery in Toronto ruled in Smiles’s favor,
and the judgment was upheld upon appeal in March 1877. The decision did not, however,
resolve the vexed issue of Canadian copyright. In 1880 Belford, Clarke and Company
(the successor to Belford Brothers) published a collection of Mark Twain’s sketches
which was very similar in appearance and content to
Sketches, New and Old. Clemens brought a lawsuit against the firm, which he lost in 1883 (
Roper 1966, esp. 31–49;
Tupper 1878;
Dawson 1882, 17–27;
TS 1980, 20–21; see 29 Aug 1877 to Howells, n. 5;
Schmidt 2020).
On or shortly before 29 July 1876, Belford Brothers of Toronto had issued a pirated
edition of the English edition of Tom Sawyer, which had been
published on 9 June. The Belfords first priced their edition at
$2.25 and then offered a $1.00 hardback and a $.75 paperback (Roper 1966, 31, 47;
TS 1980, 20–21).
2
The Imperial copyright on Tom Sawyer had been registered to Conway, who resided in London, to ensure its validity. In
response to this request, he arranged for the transfer of the copyright to Clemens.
He assumed that it would be valid not only in Britain but in Canada as well. Clemens’s
telegram to Chatto and Windus has not been found, but Conway responded for Andrew Chatto (CU-MARK):
Hamlet House, Hammersmith London Nov 4. You will, dear Clemens, receive by this mail
my assignment of that copyright
of Tom S which you asked for—both in this country & Canada. It went to my heart to
part with copyright in Tom.
There seemed to me millions in it. Much goods laid up for many years. Alas—Richness
hath wings—Tempus
fugit—i.e. Tom flies. I am happy to say that our edition of 2000 has nearly gone
& I shall be able to send the wife & bairns a snug Xmas turkey! For a 7s6d edition this is not
bad—our illustrated book has yet to come—and in the far distance shoals of railway
Toms. Goodbye, Mark. Be happy
and you will be virtuous (not however by too much intimacy with Ben Butler)
In the assignment fill up the L in your name—which I ridiculously forgot—if I ever
knew
For the illustrated English editions of Tom
Sawyer, see 4 July 1876 to Conway, n. 2.
Conway’s reference to Benjamin F. Butler, the controversial former Union general
and Republican congressman, has not been explained.
3
In his reply (CU-MARK), Conway alluded first to Clemens’s 28 October
letter to Ellen Conway:
Hamlet House
Hammersmith
Nov. 16 1876
My dear Clemens,
Immediately after your cheery letter to Mrs. Conway who found it like a refreshing
breeze in her
convalescence—she has been quite ill,—came your distressful note of Nov. 2 telling
us of Belford’s
proceedings. I immediately held a council of war with Chatto, and by the
first mail thereafter I send you the result of our cogitations.
Chatto & Windus have had no correspondence or negotiations, verbal or of any sort
whatsoever, with
Belford or any other publisher. Their proceedings are entirely spontaneous & highhanded.
We considered it best to telegraph Belford yesterday these words:—“Tom Sawyer is English copyright. Chatto.”
You will have probably seen the decision against Belford summarised in the American
paper which I enclose to
you.—Your lawyer will perhaps know all about the matter, but it seems to me that the
only difference in our case, compared with Smiles’, is that I am not a British subject
(as Smiles pleaded for himself.) If
it were found best to fight Belford from England—seize his printing accounts and make
him pay royalty on every copy manufactured and not in stock (which wd include both Canadian
& American sales)—your lawyer would have to consider whether it would be too late
to vest the copyright in Chatto
& fight through him. He is not only a British subject but is already damaged by having
his Canadian rights stolen (like
Smiles’) Or if this would seem retrospective, or ex post facto, it should be considered
whether you ought to
re-transfer the copyright to me (through enclosed form) and fight through me as the
original owner of the English copyright against
whom Belfords’ offense was committed. This would require knowledge whether the British
subject point is of any importance, I
not being such. [(]I don’t conceive it could be important: I pay taxes to England and have the right
to have my
property protected.)
I send you a note I have just received from Chatto, who feels strongly on the matter
and I am sure may be
depended on.
Of course if your lawyer thinks a transfer of copyright would have to be made to Chatto
(and a Canadian opinion
might be taken beforehand) we should transfer for ‘a consideration’ (which we would
somehow make nominal though it ought to be large.[)]
This would require a preliminary negotiation.
The form of transfer I send you is simply to have a hand for any emergency.
If I can think of anything else which ought to be said I will write again on Saturday.
I fear Belford would have been sharp enough to take care that all the copies sent
across the
[f]rontier to the United States were sold across his counter to parties for whose smuggling he
may not be
legally liable—even if you can punish an Englishman on his own soil for offences against
foreign revenue laws. I fear
customs rights depend on the power of the other nation to enforce them.
The case if you prosecute it will be a crucial one, and I hope no misstep will be
taken.
We are glad to see a rainbow over the cloud—i.e. your coming visit to England. As
I am out of your
pistol-range I will send love to Mrs. Clemens.
I really wish you would try & write an article for Chatto’s excellent
magazine—‘Belgravia.’ He will print it any month, dictated in time.
enclosure:
office of “belgravia”
chatto & windus publishers 74 & 75, Piccadilly,
London. W. Nov 15 1876
Dear Sir
I observed the point in Mr. Smiles’ case with Belfords respecting his rights as a
British Subject.
I think the point is almost too fine for an English counsell to give an opinion upon
with so meagre a report to
guide him of what really took place at the Toronto court of Chancery. Mark Twains
Lawyers must be more au fait
than we can be knowing so little as to what has really been done. The Telegram to
Belford Bros. that Tom Sawyer is English copyright
must strengthen Mark Twains hands—
Had we not made the entries at Stationers Hall for Mark Twain, I think that there
could have been no doubt about
our right of action against Belfords for selling copies in Canada as an injuring
of the us by supplying a market which we had bought of you— It is most seems to be reasonable even now
that upon these grounds we could take proceedings*— But I imagine the serious injury
to Twain is their flooding the American
ma[r]ket with copies—against this no one can stand so well as Mark Twain himself.
*which we would do should Twain or yourself desire it
Yours faithfully
Andrew Chatto.
Conway’s other two enclosures do not survive. Chatto felt that by
making “entries at Stationers Hall for Mark Twain” (between 1554 and 1924 British
copyright was secured by
registration with the Stationers’ Company in London), rather than for Chatto and Windus,
he had potentially weakened
his ability to litigate for copyright infringement. Conway soon reported the reply
to Chatto’s 15 November telegram
(CU-MARK):
2 pembroke gardens,kensington. w.
Hamlet House
Hammersmith
Dec. 9 ’76
My dear Clemens,
Chatto & Windus have received a letter from Belford of Toronto in which replying to
our telegram to
them (“Tom Sawyer is English copyright”) he (Belford) says:—“We today recd your telegram in reference to Tom Sawyer. We should be very sorry to conflict with
your interest in any way
in Canada. We know Americans are in the habit of taking out copyright in England,
but we doubt if it would hold there: we are well
advised that it gives no right in Canada. We shall be glad, however, to hear further
from you on the subject.”
—In reply to this Chatto wrote that “hearing they were issuing an edition of that
work
they considered it was only right to inform them that the book was English copyright,
and added that all the necessary steps
had been taken in the country for the securing of the same.”
—Belfords have been in the habit of publishing Chatto & Windus works by agreements.
Dont forget our anxiety to hear about this matter
MS, correspondence card, Conway Papers, NNC.
MTLP , 105–6.
The Conway Papers were acquired by NNC sometime after Conway’s death in 1907.
More information on provenance may be found in Description of Provenanceclick to open link.