that he thought my letter obtrusive, at the moment he made the entry in his diary. Of that letter I possess no copy. It was written, to the best of my recollection, plainly, simply, and with the feelings I then possessed; and I would cheerfully publish it, were it in my power. I purposely abstained from calling in person, in order that Sir Walter Scott, if he saw fit, might refer me to the publisher of the novels, or in any other manner evade the necessity of betraying himself. I confess I did not expect he would take any such course, the failure of Constable having rendered farther concealment next to impossible; nor was I disappointed. Sir Walter Scott visited me, opened the subject of the letter naturally, spoke of his works freely, and otherwise manifested any feeling but that of dissatisfaction at the liberty I had taken. The day but one after this visit, I breakfasted with him, on his own invitation, with a view to arrange our plan of operations; the day succeeding that, he was with me again, for an hour, when he handed me the letter which accompanies this statement, and we parted as friends. That evening I saw him for the last time in Paris, at the Princess Galitzin's, as mentioned in the diary. Sir Walter Scott did not accept my proposition, but substituted a plan of his own. By this plan, he was to address a letter to me, in the character of the Author of Waverly, which was to contain an appeal to the American nation. For the authenticity of this appeal, I was to vouch, and I was to support it in the best manner I could. In order that the reader may better understand the whole matter, however, I give publicity to the following letters.

GENTLEMEN :

Mansion House, Philadelphia, March 9th, 1838.

SOME time in November, 1826, I wrote a letter to you, from Paris, enclosing one signed 'The Author of Waverly,' on the subject of the publication of his works in America. Doubtless you will recollect the circumstance, and most probably you retain the letters. You will much oblige me, by furnishing me with copies of both, and by relating the leading circumstances connected with their receipt, etc.

MESSES. CAREY, Lea and Co.

Very truly, yours, (Signed,)

J. FENIMORE Cooper.

DEAR SIR:

Philadelphia, March 14th, 1838.

In answer to your letter of the ninth instant, we have the pleasure to enclose you a copy of your letter, addressed to our late firm, dated Paris, November 9, 1826, and which, as appears by the date of our answer, must have been received about the last of Deceinber, of that year. You have also a copy of the letter from the Author of Waverly, enclosed at that time in yours, the original of which is in the hands of a friend, who has made the transcript.

We are, very respectfully,

I SEND you an exact copy of SIR WALTER SCOTT's letter, verbatim, literatim, et punctuatim, I was about to say, but that cannot with any propriety be said of a letter which is without any other points than periods.

There is no year, but it was written in 1826, and the words 'Rue Rivoli' have been brushed over with the finger of the writer, but are quite legible in the original. The babit of signing his name, caused him to write his Christian name at the end of the letter; but a moment's reflection caused him to endeavor to obliterate it; it is still legible, however. I have copied the address to Mr. CooPER exactly. Very truly, yours,

EDWARD D. INGRAHAM.

ISAAC LEA, Esq.

GENTLEMEN :

Paris, November 9th, 1826.

THE enclosed is a letter from the Author of Waverly, containing his decision on a subject which has been agitated between us, with much interest on my part. I was of opinion, that by proper assignments, and with sufficient care in publishing, copyrights might be obtained by an English subject, for the same work, both in England and in the United States. I fell into the error, by my recollections of an examination which I had once made, with a view to ascertain what privileges an American might enjoy, in a similar situation. I still think that he is permitted to control the sale of his works in the two countries, but I regret to see that a narrow, and as I conceive an impolitic, jealousy, has confined the right to works which are written by citizens, in our statute on the subject.

Cannot the force of public opinion be made to act in this case? You have the reasons of the Author of Waverly, and may add his feelings, as written by himself, in the enclosure. What would be the result, if you were to come before the public, with this communication to support you, making a pledge, on your parts, to account to a competent agent for a moiety of the profits of the work in question, and calling on other publishers to respect a right, which ought to be far more sacred than it could be made by any legislative enactments? It is needless that I should say any thing in favor of a man who has so long nobly neglected his interests, in this particular, and who now only consents to listen to my proposal to give them this tardy attention, under the pressure of circumstances, which may not be named, though they render his motives so highly honorable to his character and his principles. I know that the struggle with himself has been severe and painful; and that when he did determine to act in the matter, he manfully rejected all covert means to effect the desired object, but has come out with the dignity and frankness that became him.

If you think the appeal would be likely to be successful, permit me to name Mr. CHARLES WILKES, of New-York, as a gentleman whose character would serve the object of the plan, for a suitable person to receive the emolument of the author's moïety, and, should such a step be necessary to satisfy the captious, to examine the account of sales. The well-known and merited reputation of this gentleman, will serve to silence the pretended doubts of those who may be interested in raising them; and as as he is personally known to the author, his correspondence with the latter can be direct and confidential. In order still farther to quell suspicion, I have affixed a certificate to the letter of the author, to show that the document is genuine. My signature is well known at home, and may be easily verified. It is proper that I should here add, that my communications with the author of Waverly on this subject have been of the most unreserved character. I pledge myself to the truth of the letter, and to the identity of the individual.

I could wish that this striking, and, as I conceive, touching appeal, to the justice of our nation, would open the eyes of her legislators to the defects in the law of copy-right, as it now stands. No two nations ever before existed, in circumstances like England and the United States. The former possessed all the literature, while the latter stood ready, full grown and matured, to receive any and every impression which the writers of her rejected mistress might choose to convey. Is it at all surprising, that England should have exercised her moral dominion over us, so long after her political sovereignty had ceased? Perhaps the evil was, from the nature of circumstances, in some degree unavoidable; but I conceive that no measure taken by our government, could have so well assisted them in retaining this power, as that provision of the law of copy-right, which says that the works of none but citizens shall be protected. The whole range of English literature is thrown open to the American publisher. He chooses his book, after it has gone through the ordeal of a nation of readers, and he offers it to his countrymen, supported by the testimony and praise of reviews, that in their turn have come before the American public with a similar flourish of trumpets, to announce their cleverness and spirit. Against this formidable array of names, and of forestalled opinion, the native writer has to make head, or to fail. But, as if not satisfied with this advantage, the law throws the resistless power of money into the foreign side of the scale. What publisher will pay a native writer for ideas that he may import for nothing? Now I conceive that if the law were so far changed, as to permit the authors, if proprietors, of any book, etc., which had not been before published in the States, to take out copyrights, it would in a great degree remove the evil. The measure would be liberal, at the same time that it would be just to ourselves.

I very well know that it may be said such a provision would raise the price of books, and that it would be creating a monopoly in favor of the large dealers. Monopoly' is always a safe cry in a popular government. But are not all laws of copy-right monopolies? They raise the price of books for a time, with a view to multiply them, and of course to extend knowledge. I readily grant, that so long as we can be content to import our ideas, we may receive them at a cheaper rate, under the present law; but then is it not wise to inquire into the prudence of giving such a large portion of the press into foreign hands, especially in a government that receives not only all its power, but its daily impulses, from popular will, and consequently from popular opinion?

Knowledge is progressive, and so must all improvements be, until they have reached the confines of human attainment. Hundreds of clever writers are thrown on the shelf, with us, merely because they cannot at once step into the foremost ranks of the authors of the day, and cannot receive money enough to put bread into their mouths, while they have time to improve. The instant a writer could enter into a treaty with a bookseller, without being shown something quite as good as his own, which the dealer has got for nothing, there would be an end of such glaring injustice.

If thoughts were like buttons, to be made of any given quantity of metal and gilding, it might be well to wait the march of time, until they are squeezed from us, will ye nill ye,' by the pressure of an overgrown population; but, unfortunately for the theories of political economists, ideas are not always to be had at command. It is therefore wise, to open every avenue by which they may be invited to communicate with the world.

At the time the law of copy-right was made, it would not have done, perhaps, to have said, that any book not before published in the States, should be protected, on the declaration of the author or proprietor, for the plain reason, that it would be depriving ourselves, without a sufficient motive, of the works already received into the language as classical. Perhaps the provision which confines the privilege to the citizen, was introduced partly with such a view of the subject. But the case is now changed. There is hardly a book worth having, which is not a reprint in America; and if it should be found that certain heavy scientific works are exceptions, it will be easy to say all future books.

I do really wish you would put these facts, with force, before the committee, if any thing is to be done with the law this winter. And I also invite your earliest attention to the contents of the enclosed letter. Every honorable man in the nation will be with you, in such an undertaking; and I sincerely hope that there will not be found a single individual so greedy or so base, as to give reason to an American to blush when he calls him countryman. You are at perfect liberty to make use of both these letters, as you may deem necessary to attain the object, which I confess to be one that lies as near to my wishes as any success of my own. Let me know the result, by an early reply.

I remain,

MESSRS, CAREY AND LEA.

Gentlemen,

(Signed,)

J. FENIMORE COOPER.

I CERTIFY that the accompanying letter was put into my hands by the Author of Waverly, in his own person.

MY DEAR SIR:

J. FENIMORE Cooper.

I HAVE Considered in all its bearings the matter which your kindness has suggested. Upon many former occasions, I have been urged by my friends in America to turn to some advantage the sale of my writings in your country, and render that of pecuniary avail, as an individual, which I feel as the highest compliment as an author. I declined all these proposals, because the sale of this country produced me as much profit as I desired, and more - far more than I deserved. But my late heavy losses have made my situation somewhat different, and have rendered it a point of necessity, and even duty, to neglect no means of making the sale of my works effectual to the extrication of my affairs, which can be honorably and honestly resorted to. If, therefore, Mr. Carey, or any other publishing gentleman, of credit and character, should think it worth while to accept such an offer, I am willing to convey to him the exclusive right of publishing the Life of Napoleon, and my future works in America, making it always a condition, which indeed will be dictated by the publisher's own interest, that this monopoly shall not be used for the purpose of raising the price of the work to my American readers, but only for that of supplying the public at the usual terms.

The terms which I should think proper, would be those usual betwixt the authors and booksellers, viz: half to the former of the clear profits, and if Mr. Carey should be the contracting party, I should think him entitled in equity to retain out of the author's share any sum which he may have paid to the British publishers for an early transmission of proof-sheets now in progress. I would also be desirous to give full time— ay weeks to publish the work in America, before it was published here.

say

make this proposal the more readily, because I believe that a distinguished American author, for whom, both in his literary and private character, I have the highest respect, has in similar circumstances received the protection of British law, and because the literature of both countries must always remain a common property to both; nor can any thing tend better to support the mutual good understanding betwixt the kindred nations, than the assimilation of their laws concerning literary property.

At any rate, if what I propose should not be found of force to prevent piracy, I cannot

but think, from the generosity and justice of American feeling, that a considerable preference would be given in the market to the editions emanating directly from the publisher selected by the author, and in the sale of which the author had some interest.

If the scheme shall altogether fail, it at least infers no loss, and therefore is, I think, worth the experiment. It is a fair and open appeal to the liberality, perhaps in some sort to the justice, of a great people; and I think I ought not, in the circumstances, to decline venturing upon it. I have done so manfully and openly, though not perhaps without some painful feelings, which, however, are more than compensated by the interest you have taken in this unimportant matter, of which I will not soon lose the recollection.

Addressed to Mr. CowPER, Author of 'The Pioneers,' etc., etc., etc.'

The original letter of Sir Walter Scott, signed 'The Author of Waverly,' and written in his own hand, was given to Mr. Ingraham, as a literary curiosity, by Mr. Henry Carey, and is now in the possession of the former gentleman. The few words of mine, which precede it, were written to establish its authenticity.

Of the result of the plan that is here published, it is unnecessary to say more, than that it failed entirely. But a few explanations seem proper, on account of some confusion in the dates. The letter of Sir Walter Scott is dated Paris, November 26th, the year being omitted. On the 26th November, 1826, agreeably to the diary, he was at Abbotsford. The letter was handed to me, after being signed in my presence, on the sixth of November, 1826, and was forwarded by me to Carey and Lea, on the ninth of the same month. In this letter I am called, Mr. Couper, author of the Pioneers, etc. etc.' although my name in the diary is correctly spelled, as it was also in sundry notes and letters received from Sir Walter Scott. The error in the date may be attributed to an ill-digested attempt to preserve his incognito, or it may have been accidental. The writer of a diary, in the circumstances of Sir Walter Scott, if he do not destroy it while living, is virtually the publisher of that diary. I now appeal to every fair-minded man, let him belong to what country he may, whether Sir Walter Scott might not have omitted some of the gentle ravishing,' and the 'explosions' of French compliments, to give place to a few words in his diary, on the subject of this appeal to a 'great people.'

It has been suggested to me, by almost every friend to whom I have mentioned this affair, that it is probable Mr. Lockhart has mutilated the diary of Sir Walter Scott, in the spirit in which he is thought to have reviewed a late work of mine on England. This I do not believe. The diary is incorrect, to my certain knowledge, in a variety of other things, as well as in its dates. I did not breakfast with Sir Walter Scott on the day that I met him at the soirée of the Princess Galitzin, for instance, but the day before; nor do I believe that Mr. Lockhart wrote the review in question. Indeed, I cannot believe the latter, without entertaining the worst possible opinion of his veracity, on more accounts than one. The reviewer goes out of his way to say he did not know of my being in England, etc., while I have given an account of my being at two dinners with Mr. Lockhart, as well as of his introducing me to Mrs. Lockhart. I have understood this supererogatory statement to be an avowal of the editor of the review, that he had no connexion with that particular article; a connexion, by the way, of which every man who is at all scrupulous on the points of truth and decency, would naturally be very anxious of clearing himself.

Enough has probably been said, to show that Mr. Lockhart could not have written

the review, and that he does not wish to be considered its author; but so fair an opportunity offers to rebuke the provincial credulity of a very presuming, and yet a very ignorant, portion of the American reading public, that I cannot refrain from presenting another circumstance, which goes to confirm this impression. With a view to throw discredit on me, and in that strain of audacious falsehood which distinguishes his whole article, the reviewer asserts that a breakfast in London is considered but an equivocal compliment, and is only given to those of whose characters, manners, or social condition, there is some doubt. The review and the diary were in press simultaneously, and their respective proof-sheets must have been under examination at the same time. Now it appears by the latter, that Sir Walter Scott either had company to breakfast himself, when in London, in 1826, or breakfasted out, nearly every day of his two visits, in going to, or returning from, Paris. What is more, he breakfasted at some of the very houses where I breakfasted, and with some of the very same companions. Mr. Lockhart is not so dull a man as to make a blunder so egregious as that connected with these facts. Again: the reviewer ridicules my observations concerning the inaccuracy of the celebrated description of the cliffs of Dover, by Shakspeare, even perverting my meaning, and my language, in order to do so. It appears, oddly enough, that Sir Walter Scott, in his diary, (November ninth,) has the following words: The cliff to which Shakspeare gave his immortal name, is, as the world knows, a great deal lower than his description implied. Our Dover friends, justly jealous of the reputation of their cliff, impute this diminution of its consequence to its having fallen in repeatedly since the poet's time. I think it more likely that the imagination of Shakspeare, writing, perhaps, at a period long after he may have seen the rock, had described it such as he conceived it to have been. Beside, Shakspeare was born in a flat country, and Dover cliff is at least lofty enough to have suggested the exaggerated features to his fancy.' No one can read this, the observations I have made in the book on England, and the reviewer's comments, and then suppose Mr. Lockhart to have had any thing to do with the review.*

I believe this part of Sir Walter Scott's diary to be strictly his own, and I know it to be incorrect, in several particulars, that do not affect myself. One important omission has been exposed, and, I think, proved. As to the opinions, the following fact may establish still more. Sir Walter Scott speaks of the extraordinary acquirements of Madame de Boufflers. This may be true enough; but all that he could know personally on that point, was obtained in an interview of a very few minutes, in a crowded room, and through the medium of a language that he scarcely spoke at all, or understood when spoken !

There is one other indirect allusion to myself in this diary, as the author of the Pilot. 'October 21.-Hurried away to see honest Dan Terry's theatre, called the Adelphi,

*THIS review is said to have been written by one formerly connected with the marine affairs of Great Britain. In a note, speaking of my having objected to Shakspeare's making the gradation of comparison from the ship to the boat, and from the boat to the buoy, in connexion with this very subject, this person says: We have taken the trouble of inquiring how the proportion really is, and we are informed, that of a sloop of war, the jolly-boat is, in round numbers, about one sixth of the length of the hull, and the buoy one sixth of the jolly-boat; so that, even in this miserable detail, our nautical critic is absolutely wrong.' By length, this person must mean dimensions, or he means a quibble. The point in discussion was size, as seen from a height, and a rope-yarn a mile long would not be visible at a hundred yards. If this proposition be true, the jolly-boat of a ship of six hundred tons burthen, must itself be of one hundred tons burthen! It is said to be a poor rule that will not work both ways; so we will put this to another test. The dimensions of the jolly-boat of a ship of six hundred tons, are actually about equal to one ton in measurement; and it follows, necessarily, from the reviewer's proposition, that it would hold six hundred buoys! It is scarcely required to tell any man, of two sound ideas, that the distance which would diminish a ship to the apparent size of her boat, would swallow up the latter entirely; but this fact was much too profound for the sagacity of the contributor of the Quarterly. But the article is unworthy of notice, except as it is connected with the other matters laid before the reader.