The National Register.
London, England, 1808-06-27 00:00:00

wEDNEsnA V, JUN!: tl2.

COPY
MR. W Y NNE urged the justice and propriety of postponing
this Bill till atwitter Session, and argued at length against the
Bill, on several distinct grounds. Ile denied that it would, in
ft et, he an encouragement of Authors, by augmenting the price
of their labours, in consideration that their Cepy -right was to
extend to a second period of fourteen year,: and the obligation
to deliver gratis to the Universities and public Libraries, eleven
copies of their publication, he considered as oppressive both
to authors and booksellers. In fact, the very men whom this
Bill proposed to encourage, would be the persons most injured
by its operation : namely. the authors and publishers of great
literary works, who would be obliged to pay largely fora very
remote advantage; while the publishers of fugitive and tempo-
rary publications would derive no benefit whatever from the en-
larged Cop v-right ; yet they must submit to a loss of eleven
copies,• which copies would, nevertheless, be of no use to the
thOversities or public Libraries. The lion. and Leorned Mem-
ber urged a variety of other arguments against the Bill, and said
it was not called for by any complaint of the Universities or
Public Libraries; and that there was a petition now rekil.,
signed by a number of the most eminent Booksellers in London
against the Bill, which he would have been prepared to present
to time House, but that he was not aware of the subject coming
forward for discussion so early in the day.
Sri? ricAnv Gains *110(1 ;ht. it would obviate some of the
principal oWeetions against Cie Bill to move for its recommittal,
with an instritetion to the Coironittee to divide it into two parts,
the first of which, relating to the claims of the Universitks and
Public Libraries to the delivery of copies of such publications,
might be passed this Session; and the other, which related to the
extension of Copy right to authors, to stand over for further de-
liberation. Ile observed, the author or publisher had no right
to complain of the cwidition imposed by the Art of Queen Anne,
for delivering a Copy of each work to the Universities and Pub-
lic Libraries, as it w as the very ground upon which they enjoyed
the exclusive protection of copy-right to such works fc-r four
teen years. The right of claim under Queen Anne's act, 011
the part of the Public Libraries, was never ouee qnestioned un-
til it was discovered, that by a mere "(awe iu the wording of the
Statute the claim could not bo longer enforced.
MR. TY rsN E read a list of the principal Booksellers who
signed a Petition against the Bill, and he •cmiclailed by musing
that further proceedings on it be postponed to this day three
moot Its.
Sin S. Rom, 'Ay thou,;ht the part of the Bill now proposed to
be passed, was that which ought to be deferred, n.s involviag
more material and complicated interests, mid requiring morc
mature deliberation,. Ile thought it a case of ioeat severity
'T9II the publishers of expensive wqrkst such, for instance, as
ileydell's Shakespeare, and other splendid politic:Like's, piloted
in the most costly style, and decorated with the most masterly
40 expensive plates by the first artists, to be o!diged to present
to the Universities qua certain Public Libraries, trievel copies of
such works, to the value of srlo guineas, and this, too, under the
Idea of protection for Copy-right, to liite alit worth a farthing :
for it Wits on the expeosiseness of the that the security

4.

1

s~~