No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Charles Rennett and the London Music-Sellers in the 1780s: Testing the Ownership of Reversionary Copyrights
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2020
Abstract
As printed music became a valuable market commodity in late eighteenth-century England, it became a significant part of debates over the interpretation of the first copyright law (1710). In particular, compositions by Charles Dibdin and John Garth became the focus of several lawsuits filed by the attorney Charles Rennett challenging the traditional interpretation of the clause that granted composers a second 14 years of protection after the first had expired. These suits detail the status of music as intellectual property and offer new information about the businesses of major music-sellers like Longman & Broderip, the Thompsons and John Welcker.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Royal Musical Association, 2004
References
I am indebted to Robert D. Hume and Judith Milhous for providing useful comments on an early draft of this article.Google Scholar
1 For discussions of the growth of musical activity in the last part of the eighteenth century see, for example, Roger Fiske, English Theatre Music in the Eighteenth Century (2nd edn, Oxford, 1986), v, 2–3, 299–300; William Weber, The Rise of Musical Classics in Eighteenth-Century England (Oxford, 1992), 8–19; and Peter Holman, ‘Eighteenth-Century English Music: Past, Present, Future’, Music in Eighteenth-Century Britain, ed. David Wyn Jones (Aldershot, 2000), 3–13.Google Scholar
2 For accounts of the first copyright law and the efforts of book-sellers to extend their monopolies see especially John Feather, Publishing, Piracy, and Politics: An Historical Study of Copyright in Britain (London, 1994), 37–96; Lyman Ray Patterson, Copyright in Historical Perspective (Nashville, 1968), 143–79; and Mark Rose, Authors and Owners: The Invention of Copyright (Cambridge, 1993), 31–112.Google Scholar
3 Harry Ransom, The First Copyright Statute: An Essay on an Act for the Encouragement of Learning, 1710 (Austin, 1956), 117, 96–7.Google Scholar
4 One example of the way in which such court documents can provide a clearer picture of a composer's choices is Ann Van Allen-Russell's recent article ‘“For Instruments Not Intended”: The Second J. C. Bach Lawsuit’, Music and Letters, 83 (2002), 3–29, where she reveals how the suit provides valuable information about the original orchestration for three symphonies by J. C. Bach.Google Scholar
5 For a full account of many of these issues, see Feather, Publishing, Piracy, and Politics, 64–96; Patterson, Copyright, 151–79; and Rose, Authors and Owners, 49–112.Google Scholar
6 We have a number of sources for such assignments; one of the largest groups appears in London, British Library, Add. MS 63814, ‘Receipts of Preston and Co from 1780 through the 1800's’. None of the 103 assignments of music from composers mentions reversionary rights, and many note that the money paid is for all their right and interest in their work. For similar assignments involving both literary works and music, see Library, British, Add. MSS 38728–31, ‘Original Assignments of Copyrights of Books and Other Literary Agreements Between Various Publishers, from 1703 to 1822 by William Upcott of the London Institution 1825‘.Google Scholar
7 For the ruling in Donaldson v. Becket see Feather, Publishing, Piracy, and Politics, 89–96, and Rose, Authors and Owners, 92–112. A brief account of book-sellers' efforts to pass new legislation extending their copyrights appears in Feather, Publishing, Piracy, and Politics, 92–4.Google Scholar
8 The bills of complaint and answers for the Chancery case of Bach v. Longman & Lukey are London, Public Record Office (PRO), C12/71/22. On 13 May 1776 the Court of Chancery referred the legal question of music's status under the Act of Anne to the Court of King's Bench, which ruled on 16 June 1777 that music was included in the types of writing covered under the act. See PRO, C33/445/683–4 and C38/668 for the relevant court orders and decrees. John Small has summarized the case in ‘J. C. Bach Goes to Law’, Musical Times, 126 (1985), 526–9.Google Scholar
9 These facts appear in PRO, E 112/1702, no. 3728 (Longman & Broderip v. Charles Rennett, 1784).Google Scholar
10 Rennett filed at least nine suits in the Court of Exchequer against other music-sellers for violating his copyrights. See, for example, PRO, E 112/1697, no. 3598 (Charles Rennett v. William Napier and Domenico Corri); E 112/1697, no. 3601 (Charles Rennett v. Thomas Haxby); and E 112/1697, no. 3590 (Charles Rennett v. James Freeman and James Cooper). All the suits had similar wording and generally included the same list of works.Google Scholar
11 Charles Dibdin, The Professional Life of Mr Dibdin, 4 vols. (London, 1803), i, 70.Google Scholar
12 For information about Dibdin's activities as a music-seller, see Charles Humphries and William C. Smith, Music Publishing in the British Isles from the Beginning until the Middle of the Nineteenth Century (2nd edn, Oxford, 1970), 132; Ian Maxted, The London Book Trades, 1775–1800: A Preliminary Checklist of Members (Folkestone, 1977), 65; Roger Fiske, ‘Dibdin, Charles’, The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (London, 1980), v, 424–7.Google Scholar
13 Stanley Sadie, ‘Garth, John’, The New Grove Dictionary, vii, 170–1.Google Scholar
14 The account of this transaction appears in the Thompsons' reply to the amended bill of complaint (February 1785) in PRO, E 112/1705, no. 3808.Google Scholar
15 These details appear in Rennett's answer to the bill of complaint filed against him by Longman & Broderip (PRO, E 112/1702, no. 3728) and in his amended and supplemental bills against Longman & Broderip (PRO, E 112/1758, nos. 5276–7).Google Scholar
16 The original bill of complaint is lost, but it can be reconstructed from Longman & Broderip's answer dated 17 May 1784 (PRO, E 112/1758, no. 5277). The works claimed by Rennett in this bill probably included J. C. Bach's opp. 16 and 18.Google Scholar
17 These facts appear in PRO, E 112/1758, no. 5277 (Longman & Broderip's answer to Rennett's amended bill, filed 22 September 1784). Several of Longman & Broderip's employees confirmed the amount of business between Rennett and the music-sellers in their depositions; see those of John Jeanes, Richard Bride and John Barrow (PRO, E 133/104/67).Google Scholar
18 Rennett noted Longman's testimony on his behalf in his amended supplemental bill against Longman & Broderip (PRO, E 112/1758, no. 5276). Welcker testified that he conducted the business of Longman & Broderip's Haymarket branch for about a year beginning in November or December 1782 (PRO, E 133/104/68).Google Scholar
19 The text of the letter is as follows: ‘Sir, I have been Insulted this Morning by some people from Clares[?]. the purport of this is to inform you that I insist on your not bringing any Actions in my name without my Consent. the Lasting profit that may arise from the sale of a few Guittars is by no means equal to the uneasyness I feel – I confess that I think it cruel and oppressive to Deprive a Man of the only means of support for supposing him not to be the inventor. you must allow he has more Merit than his Neighbours and was Mr Longman a Man of feeling, he would be shocked at the Reproaches that are continually thrown at him – The Greatest part of Mr. L.'s time is now taken up with bringing and Defending Actions, many of which are not founded on principles of Justice but Oppressions and Beneath the Dignity of this House. I am, Sir, your Obedient humble Servant – Francis Broderip – Cheapside Thursday Morning.’ Rennett quoted this letter in his answer to Longman & Broderip's countersuit (the bill is PRO, E 112/1718, no. 4165; the answer PRO, E 112/1702, no. 3728). I have silently expanded all abbreviations in quotations from original documents and have inserted punctuation where necessary for the sake of clarity.Google Scholar
20 See PRO, E 112/1758, no. 5277, and the deposition of William Hearne, attorney for Longman & Broderip (PRO, E 133/104/67).Google Scholar
21 Longman & Broderip gave this account in their answer to Rennett's supplemental bill (PRO, E 112/1758, no. 5276).Google Scholar
22 Charles Ambler was best known for his reports of Chancery cases from 1737 to 1783. See Wallace, John William, The Reporters Arranged and Characterized with Incidental Remarks (4th edn, Boston, MA, 1882), 513.Google Scholar
23 This account of the Ambler opinion was in Rennett's answer to Longman & Broderip's second bill of complaint against him (PRO, E 112/1702, no. 3728). The passage detailing the transfer of the copyright is as follows: ‘That in the year 1769 Dibdin composed Several Songs the particulars after mentioned – 23rd August 1769 Mr. Johnson purchased of Dibdin all his Right and Property in such Composition and took the following Receipt – “Received August 23rd 1769 from Mr. Johnson fifteen Guineas in full for my Property in the Music of the Songs of Sweet Willy O – The Mulbery Tree – The Roundelay – The Warwickshire Lad and Twelve Country Dances and Six Cotillions – also Queen Mab a Cantata all composed for the Jubilee at Stratford upon Avon – C. Dibdin – £15:15:0” – No Regular Assignment of such property was ever made from Dibdin to Johnston – Mr Johnson Published said Songs and Music several years till he sold same with other Musical property to Longman & Broderip and a Regular Assignment was Executed by him to them, and they have printed and Published same – By the House of Lords the sole Right of Printing Reverts to the Author in Fourteen Years – The above Works have been published Fourteen years and Dibdin has forbid Longman and Broderip from Publishing said Works – They Insist he sold Johnston his Right for Ever or they have a Right to call on Dibdin to pay back a proportionate share of the Purchase Money – Q. Has Mr Dibdin a Right to his Property the 14 Years being expired.’ Dibdin himself referred to this ruling in a letter where he said: ‘you are not entitled to a perpetual copy right in it merely because you suggested the plan. Indeed I don't think an author has a power to dispose of his productions for more than fourteen years; after which time it belongs to the public, unless he is alive, and then the copy right reverts to him for other fourteen years. This is law according to the opinion of the attorney general, which I have in my possession.’ The letter dates from 1803–4 (Harvard Theatre Collection, bMS Thr 198, f. 120). This passage is quoted by permission of the Harvard Theatre Collection, Houghton Library, Harvard University.Google Scholar
24 Rennett claimed that he gave this opinion only in passing and before he had seen Ambler's opinion; he noted that he did not charge Longman & Broderip for the advice. The music-sellers, however, argued that he deliberately misled them. See Longman & Broderip's bill of complaint against Rennett and Dibdin, and Rennett's answer (PRO, E 112/1718, no. 4165, and E 112/1702, no. 3728).Google Scholar
25 A part of the assignment, which was produced as Exhibit E in the suits and countersuits and was examined by John Bunn, Rennett's clerk, is in the Harvard Theatre Collection, Houghton Library (bMS Thr 198, f. 2).Google Scholar
26 Rennett recounted these details in his answer to Longman & Broderip's bill against him and Dibdin (PRO, E 112/1702, no. 3728). He discussed the contents of the indenture as well in his supplemental bill against Longman & Broderip (PRO, E 112/1758, no. 5277) and in his bill of complaint against the Thompsons (PRO, E 112/1705, no. 3808).Google Scholar
27 The letter is in the Harvard Theatre Collection, Houghton Library (bMS Thr 198, f. 57), but it is mislabelled ‘Dibdin to Charles Kennett’. It is quoted here by permission of the Harvard Theatre Collection, Houghton Library.Google Scholar
28 Most of these details appeared in Rennett's answer to Longman & Broderip's suit against him (PRO, E 112/1702, no. 3728). He also gave the details of the indenture in PRO, E 112/1758, no. 5277; E 112/1705, no. 3808; and E 112/1758, no. 5276. A fragment of this indenture is in the Harvard Theatre Collection, Houghton Library, incorrectly labelled ‘Assignment of the copyright of musical property to James Longman’ (bMS Thr 198, f. 3). As the label on the back of the document indicates, it was produced in Rennett's case against the Thompsons as Exhibit D and was shown to John Bunn when he deposed. Although the date given is 18 rather than 13 September, the fragment clearly suggests that this was the document to which Rennett referred in the court papers.Google Scholar
29 These details appeared in Rennett's amended bill of complaint against the Thompsons and their answer (PRO, E 112/1705, no. 3808). John Welcker confirmed the date of the original assignment to his father in his depositions (E 133/104/68 and E 133/104/70).Google Scholar
30 Both copies are in the British Library, London. The edition of The Padlock bears the shelfmark H.130 (4); although the British Library catalogue gives the date of publication as 1780, the evidence above demonstrates that this copy must have appeared in 1784 after Rennett purchased the copyright from Dibdin. Rennett's edition of Garth's op. 2, shelfmark h.2801.a (1), probably also appeared in 1784, even though the British Library catalogue gives the publication date as 1786.Google Scholar
31 Rennett mentioned these fees in his answer to Longman & Broderip's suit against him (PRO, E 112/1702, no. 3728).Google Scholar
32 The notation appears in London, British Library, Egerton MS 2380, f. 13. It reads as follows: ‘Mr. Rennett having given Mr. Forster a Notice in Writing that he Rennett had become the purchasor from Mr. Dibdin of Mr. Dibdins copyright for his second fourteen years of the Padlock, Recruiting Serjeant, Jubilee, School for Fathers and various other Works and demanding also as Mr. Dibdins Attorney an Account of all Sums which Mr. Forster had received on account of any Copies of the above Compositions attending on Mr. Forster in Conference thereon and on the Conduct proper for Mr. Forster to pursue and advising how far it was proper or not to take any Notice of Mr. Rennetts application and on the proper answer to be given on the Occasion.‘ For the consultation Mainstone charged Forster 6s. 8d.Google Scholar
33 Longman & Broderip noted these events in their answer to Rennett's supplemental bill of complaint (PRO, E 112/1758, no. 5276). William Lindeman testified on behalf of Rennett that he bought a copy of the Dutch edition at the Thompsons' shop on 23 October 1784 (see his deposition in PRO, E 133/104/70).Google Scholar
34 This information appears in their answer to Rennett's bill of complaint (PRO, E 112/1705, no. 3808, where they gave the date as 12 November) and in Lindeman's deposition (PRO, E 133/104/70, where he gave the date as 13 November).Google Scholar
35 By this point Rennett had already filed a bill of complaint, an amended bill and a second amended bill against Longman & Broderip in the Court of Exchequer, in which he claimed that Longman & Broderip had pirated a wide range of works owned by him. Longman & Broderip had responded by filing a countersuit in Exchequer, alleging other piracies (PRO, E 112/1702, no. 3728; filed in Trinity Term 1784). Ironically, some of the works Longman & Broderip mentioned were later purchased from Dibdin by Rennett.Google Scholar
36 The supplemental bill of complaint is PRO, E112/1758, no. 5277. Longman & Broderip obtained a court order on 29 November 1784 granting them a month to plead answer to the bill (PRO, E 127/47/Mich 1784/248), indicating that Rennett had filed his supplemental bill earlier in the month. His suit against the Thompsons is PRO, E 112/1705, no. 3808. Longman & Broderip's countersuit is PRO, E 112/1718, no. 4165. Their answer to the supplemental bill is in PRO, E 112/1758, no. 5276, and that of the Thompsons in PRO, E 112/1705, no. 3808. Rennett's amended supplemental bill against Longman & Broderip is in PRO, E 112/1758, no. 5276; that against the Thompsons is in PRO, E 112/1705, no. 3808. The answers are in PRO, E 112/1705, no. 3808 (Thompsons) and PRO, E 112/1758, no. 5276 (Longman & Broderip). Rennett's answer is in PRO, E 112/1702, no. 3728.Google Scholar
37 He makes these points in PRO, E 112/1758, no. 5277; E 112/1705, no. 3808; and E 112/1702, no. 3728.Google Scholar
38 This material appears in PRO, E 112/1718, no. 4165; E 112/1758, no. 5276; and E 112/1705, no. 3808.Google Scholar
39 They are not accurate in their claims either, since The Pigmy Revels was first performed on 26 December 1772 and The School for Fathers, an altered version of Lionel and Clarissa, on 8 February 1770. See The London Stage, Pt 4: 1747–1776, ed. George Winchester Stone (Carbondale, IL, 1972), iii, 1454, 1681–2. In later court documents, Rennett countered by offering dates of his own for other works in his answer to their bill. The works he mentioned were The Padlock, The Recruiting Serjeant and The Jubilee. He said that he had an affidavit from John Johnson and Longman that gave the date of The Padlock's composition as 1770, stating that Johnson bought the work from Bickerstaff in 1772. The document also stated that Dibdin composed The Recruiting Serjeant in 1769, selling it to Johnson in 1773 for £11, and The Jubilee in 1769, assigning it to Johnson for 17 guineas. However, he is not completely accurate, for The Padlock first appeared at Drury Lane on 3 October 1768, The Recruiting Serjeant at Ranelagh on 20 July 1770 and The Jubilee at Drury Lane on 14 October 1769. See The London Stage, Pt 4, iii, 1356, 1429–30, 1488. For Rennett's answer see PRO, E 112/1702, no. 3728.Google Scholar
40 This material appears in the answers of the music-sellers, PRO, E 112/1705, no. 3808, and E 112/1758, no. 5276.Google Scholar
41 These points appear in their answers, PRO, E 112/1705, no. 3808, and E 112/1758, no. 5276.Google Scholar
42 This material appears in PRO, E 112/1705, no. 3808, and E 112/1758, no. 5276.Google Scholar
43 These statements appear in the music-sellers' answers, PRO, E 112/1705, no. 3808, and E 112/1758, no. 5276.Google Scholar
44 The material appears in their bill against Rennett, PRO, E 112/1718, no. 4165.Google Scholar
45 This material appears in PRO, E 112/1705, no. 3808; E 112/1718, no. 4165; and E 112/1758, no. 5276.Google Scholar
46 This material appears in Rennett's answer to Longman & Broderip's bill of complaint against him, PRO, E 112/1702, no. 3728.Google Scholar
47 These depositions appear in PRO, E 133/104/67–8. John Barrow, who also testified on 27 May, gave the same version of the relationship between Longman & Broderip and Rennett.Google Scholar
48 On 24 February 1785, John Preston, James Longman and Samuel Babb gave depositions in Rennett's case against the Thompsons. Francis Fane Broderip deposed on 2 March. The depositions are PRO, E 133/104/70. Samuel Babb testified for Rennett in his action against Longman & Broderip on 27 April 1785. The deposition is PRO, E 133/104/68. Robert Birchall, Joseph Dale, John Fentum, Robert Bremner and Samuel and Peter Thompson testified on behalf of Longman & Broderip on 27 May 1785. The only record that remains of their testimony is the list of witnesses attached to the interrogatories in PRO, E 133/104/67.Google Scholar
49 Dibdin's deposition is in PRO, E 133/104/67. The relevant passage reads as follows: ‘he so sold & meant & intended to sell such Musical Works or Compositions not for 14 years only or for any other Term of years or Interest but did sell or dispose of all his right & Interest both present & future to the said John Johnson & Defendants & to all other persons with whom he dealt for his Musical Works or Compositions. Says he this Deponent did sell unto the said John Johnson & Defendants the Musical Works or Compositions mentioned in the pleadings of this Cause viz – The Jubilee, The Recruiting Serjeant, The Padlock, The Brick dustman, The Ephesian Matron, The Pigmy Revels, The School for Fathers, A collection of Ranelagh Songs, an additional Song in Cymon, A Sett of Lessons for the Harpsichord & the Installation of the Garter not for 14 years only but did actually sell or part with all his right & Interest therein both present & future. Says that he this Deponent did assign to Plaintiff his reversionary Right being applied to by him to purchase the same. Says that the consideration expressed in the assignment was mentioned to be as well for the above named Musical Works & Compositions as for some Songs sung at the Royal Circus but says that these Songs were of the full value of 28 Guineas mentioned in the assignment, so that in fact this Deponent received no consideration for the before mentioned Musical Works or Compositions but says that it was understood between this Deponent & the Complainant that the right (if any) was to be held for the benefit of this Deponent.‘Google Scholar
50 The decree is PRO, E 126/33/Trin 1785/26.Google Scholar
51 The decree is PRO, E 126/33/Mich 1785/6. A report of the hearing also appeared in The Times for 13 December 1785.Google Scholar
52 The last two orders in the case were on 8 May 1786 (PRO, E 127/48/Eas 1786/133), when Rennett's attorney asked the court to dismiss the case because the music-sellers had not prosecuted it since the end of 1785 (when the decision in Rennett's case was made). Even though their attorneys obtained an order on 16 May 1786 to renew the cause, promising to bring it to a hearing, they probably went no further, since no more orders appear (PRO, E 127/48/Eas 1786/256). Perhaps in preparation for his trial, Rennett registered Garth's op. 2 with the Stationers' Company on 7 January and Dibdin's The Padlock on 16 January 1786.Google Scholar
53 After his defeat in these cases Rennett refrained from litigation until his death in 1787. A list of the works owned by Rennett and a full chronology of the lawsuits can be found at <http://www.usna.edu/Users/english/mace/TablesRenn.pdf>..>Google Scholar