The Sun.
London, England, 1838-04-26 00:00:00

GREAT YARMOUTH ELECTION.

Mr. W. W. WYNN begged the attention of the House to a Petition
of very great importance, which lied been intrusted to him. The
Petition was from Mr. Thomas Baker, the Agent for the Petition,
against the return for Great Yarmouth, and he stated, that on
the 17th day of the present month (April,) he went to the office of
the Mayor of Great Yarmouth, who was the returning officer for the
borough, in order to serve him with the Speaker's order for the produc-
tion of all the books connected with the late election. On inquiring
at that office he was told that Mr. William Barth, the Mayor, had
left Vermouth that morning at six o'clock, but would be back again
next day. Accordingly he called at the office again next day, and the
clerks then informed him that Mr. Barth had not returned, and that
they believed ho had gone to London. The petitioner then went
to his private house, where he saw Mrs. Barth, who said that
she did not know where her husband had gone to, but that he
would certainly be back in two or threa days, and in the meantime
referred him to her son. That gentleman said ha supposed his father
had gone to London ; that, if so, he would be found at his agents',
whose names were given him. The petitioner made further inquiry, cud
found that Mr. Barth had left for London at six o'clock in the morning. He
then came to London; he arrived on the Thursday, and made repeated
inquiries at the agents of Mr. Barth respecting him, but they said they had
not seers him, nor did they know that he was in town. The petitioner
had made repeated inquiries, but had not been able to gain any clue to
the discovery. of Mr. Barth. The petitioner went on to state
(and this was the most important part of his statement), that
in cmsequenee of private information, he went to the shop
of a Mr. Clarkson (we believe), and found that Mr. Barth had
been there frequently for several days past, but that it was
not known there where he resided. The petitioner submitted
the matter to the consideration of the House, praying them to take
it into their consideration, and give such directions as might seem
best to their wisdom, and for that purpose he prayed that the ballot
on this petition (which stands for to-morrow) might be postponed. The
!tight Hon. Gentleman proceeded to say that he did not think the mere
statement in the petition was of itself sufficient ground for postponing
the ballot. In conclusion he should propose that the petitioner should
be called to the bar, when he had no doubt a sull3lient case would be
made out for postponing the ballot.
The petition was then read at length by the clerk.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected to Mr. Baker being called
to the bar--even if all Mr. Baker had stated was true, the House ought
not to interfere; nobody would be disposed to say that Mr. Barth ought
not to be punished if he disobeyed the warrant of that House—if he
did so, let him be punished and be made an example of for what was
a contempt of the House ; but the present was not the proper mode
of proceeding. The ballot was fixed for to-morrow, and an attempt
Was now making to postpone it to an indefinite day, till Mr. Barth came
forward. Justice would not be in any way defeated by the ballot taking
Pace, because the Committee was the proper tribunal to take cogni-
zance of Mr. Barth's offence, if he had committed any. There was no
insinuation that the sitting Members had spirited him away, or been in
any manner privy to the matter ; and it would seriously prejudice them
to put them to an enormous expense, all their witnesses being in
town, if they now postponed the Committee. There was every reason
to believe, however, that when Mr. Barth was apprized of the Speaker's
warrant leaving been issued, he would come forward and produce the books.
As no inconvenience could arise from proceeding according to the esta-
blished rule, he should oppose the motion of the Right Hon. Gentleman,
and do all in his power to prevent such a precedent being set.
Mr. WYNN wished to state to the House that he did notsee in what
respect the sitting Members were prejudiced by the ballot being postponed,
any more than they would be by adopting the course pointed out by the
Honourable and Learned Attorney-General.—(Hear, hear, hear.)
There was every reason to believe the party had oil.
fully absconded. What he proposed was, that the ballot should
stand over till Tuesday ; and in the meanwhile he would have
art order made on Mr. Barth, which he would be bound
to take notice of, as every person is bound to take notice
of an order published in the Votes. The Attorney-General had asked for
precedents. He ( Mr. W.) readily acknowledged that ho did not know of any
instance in which a returning officer had been guilty of such misconduct.
Ten days were surely enough of notice to give to a returning officer, ant
it appeared that the agent had been incessant in his endeavours to find
him out ever since. He hoped the House would agree to postpone the bal.
lot until Tuesday, and in the meantime the individual would see
what. the! House had done, and would no doubt come forward when he
was aware that an order bad been made for his attendance.—(Loud
cries of " Divide, divide.")
_ _

ILI
_Si

!-0
190
114
304
48:1,
20

111 r. RUMBOLD could assure the House that he was i❑ no way a
party to the proceeding. He knew nothing of the absence of Mr. Barth,
and from the high character that gentleman bore, he zould not believe that
he would for a moment step out of the way to avoid the service of the
summons.

Strangers were ordered to withdraw, but no division took place.
On our re-entering the gallery, we found Sir T. FREMANTLB
supporting the proposition for calling the petitioner to the bar.
The House divided, and there appeared
For the motion 7B
Against it
100
Majority against it - qw
On our return to the gallery we found Lord MAHON en his legs,
giving notice for motion relative to Controverted Elections, the purport
of which did not reach the gallery.

COPYRIGHT BILL.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD rose and said--When I had
the honour last year to more the second reading of a Bill
essentially similar to the present, I found it unnecessary to
trouble the House with a single remark ; for scarcely a trace
then appeared of the opposition which has since gathered
around it. I do not, however, regret that the measure was
not carried through the Legislature by the current of feeling
which then prevailed in its favour; but that opportunity has
been afforded for the full discussion of the claims on which
it is founded, and of the consequences to individuals and to
the public that may be expected from its operation. Believ-
ing, as I do, that the interests of those who by intellectual
pOitet, laboriously and virtuously exerted, contribute to the
delight and instruction of mankind—of those engaged in the
mechanical processes by which those labours are made effec-
tual—and of the people who at once enjoy and reward them,
are essentially otte ; believing that it is impossible at the same
time to enhance the reward of authors, and to Injure those
who derive their means of subsistence from them ; and de-
siring only that this Dill should succeed if it it shall be found,
on the fullest discussion, that it will serve the cause of intel-
lect in its noblest and most expanded sense, I rejoice that
all classes who are interested in reality or in belief in the
proposed changes have had the means of presenting their
statements and their reasonings to the consideration of Par-
liament, and of urging them with all the zeal which an appre-
hension of pecuniary loss can inspire. I do not, indeed, dis-
guise that the main and direct object of the Bill is to ensure
to authors of the highest and most enduring merit a larger
share in the fruits of their own industry and genius than our
law now accords to them ; and whatever fate may attend the
endeavour, I feel with satisfaction that it is the first which
has been made substantially for the benefit of authors, and sus-
tained by no interest except that which the appeal on their
behalf to the gratitude of those whose minds they have en-
riched and whose J,ives they have gladdened, has enkindled.

The statutes of Anne and of George 111., especially the last,
were measures suggested and sustained by publishers ; and
it must be consoling to the silent toilers after fame, who
in this country have no ascertained rank, no civil distinction,
in their hours of weariness and anxiety to feel that their
claim to consideration has been cheerfully recognised by
Parliament, and that their cause, however feebly presented,
has been regarded with respect and with sympathy.—( Hear. )
In order that I may trespass as briefly as I can on the indul-
gence with which this subject has been treated, I will at-
tempt to narrow the controversy of to-night by stating at
once what I regard to be the principle of this Bill, and call on
Hon. Members now to affirm, and what I regard as matters
of mere detail, which it is unnecessary at this moment to con.
sides. That principle is, that the present ter 11 of copyright
is much too short for the attainment of that justice which so-
ciety owes to authors, especially to those (few though they
be) whose reputation is of slow growth and of enduring charac-
ter, whether that term shall be extended from its present
length to 60 years, or to some intermediate period ; whether it
shall commence at the death of the author, or at the date of
first publication—in what manner it shall be reckoned in the
cases of works given to the world in portions—are questions of
detail, on which I do not think the House is to-night required
to decide. So the prohibition of extracts made merely for
the extractors' gain, which, however, is merely declaratory
of the present law—of unauthorised abridgements, which is
new.—and some provisions which were introduced merely from
an anxiety to protect subsisting interests obviously fall into
the same class. On the one hand, Ido not ask Honourable
Members to vote for the second reading merely because they
think there are some uncertainties in the law of copyright
which it is desirable to remove, or some minor defects which
they are prepared to remedy. On the other hand, I would en-
treat them not to reject this Bill on account of any objections
to its mere details, but as they may think the legalized pro-
perty of authors sufficiently prolonged and secured, or re-
quiring substantial extension, to oppose or to support it.
In maintaining the claim of authors to this extension I will
not intrude on the time of the House with any discussion of
the question of law, whether perpetual copyright had existed
by our common law, or of the philosophical question whether
the claim to this extent is founded in natural justice. On the
first point it is sufficient for me to repeat what cannot be con-
tradicted—that the existence of the legal right was recognised
by a large majority of the Judges, with Lord Mansfield at
their head, after solemn and repeated arguments ; and that
six to fire of the Judges only determined that the stringent
words "and no longer," in the statute of Anne, took that
right away. And even this Ido not call in aid so much
by way of legal authority as evidence of the feeling of those
men—mighty, though few—to whom our infant literature
was confided by Providence, and of those who were in early
time able to estimate the labour which we inherit. On the
second point I will say nothing, unable, indeed, to under-
stand why that which springs wholly within, and contracts no
other right by its usurpation, is to be regarded as baseless,
because by the condition of its very enjoyment it not only
enlarges the source of happiness to readers, but becomes the
means of mechanical employment to printers, and of specu-
lation to publishers. I am content to adopt the interme-
diate course, and to argue that question, whether a fair me-
dium between the two extremes has been chosen. What is to be
said in favour of the line now drawn, except that it exists, and
bears an antiquity commencing in 1814? Is there any magic
in the term of twenty-eight years. Is there any conceivable
principle of justice which bounds the right, if the author
survives that term by the limit of his natural life? As far as
expediency shall prevail, as far as the welfare of those for
whom it is the duty and the wish of the dying author to pro-
vide, may be regarded by Parliament, the period of his death
is precisely that when they will most need the worldly com-
forts which the property in his work would confer. And, as
far as analogy may govern, the very attribute which induces
us to regard with pride the works of intellect is, that they
survive the mortal course of those who framed them—that
they are akin to what is deathless. Why should that quality
render them worthless to those in whose affectionate remem-
brance their author still lives, while they attest a nobler im-
mortality ? Indeed, among the opponents of this measure it
is ground of cavil that it is proper to take the death of the
author as a starting point for the period it adds to its right.
It is urged as absurd that even the extent of this distant
period should be effected by the accident of death ; and yet
those who thus argue are content to support the system which
makes that accident the final boundary at which the living
efficacy of authorship for the advantages of its professors
ceases. I perfectly agree with the publishers in the evidence
given in 1818, and the statements which have been repeated
more recently—that the extension of time will be a benefit
only in one case in five hundred of works now issuing from
the press; and I agree with them that we are legislating for
that five •hundredth case. Why not? It is the great prize
which, out of the five hundred it risks, genius and goodness
win. It is the benefit that can only be achieved by that which
has stood the test of time ; of that which is essentially true
and pure ; of that which has survived spleen, criticism, envy,
and the changing fashions of the world. Granted that only
one author in five hundred attain this, does it not invite many
to attempt it, and impress on literature itself a visible mark of
permanency and of dignity ? The writers who attain it will
necessarily belong to two classes—one class consisting of
authors who have laboured to create the taste which should
appreciate and reward them, and only attain that reputation
which brings with it a pecuniary recompense just as the term
for which that reward is held out to them wanes. Is it unjust
in this case, which is that of Wordsworth, now in the evening
of life, and in the dawn of his fame, to allow the author to share
in the rcm4.4sis.ation aus.liety tardily avv ;Ards hint? The other ems!.
are those who, like Sir Walter Scott, have combined the art of
ministering to immediate delight with that of outlasting succes-
sive races of imitators and rivals, who do receive a large actual
amount of recompense, but whose accumulating compensation is
stopped when it most should increase. Now, surely, as to
them the question is not what remuneration is sufficient in
the judgment of the Legislature to repay for certain bene-
factions to society, but whether, having won the splendid re-
ward, our laws shall permit the winner to enjoy it? We can-
not decide the abstract question between genius and money,
because there exist no common properties by which they can
be tested. If we can dispense an arbitrary reward—but the
question how much the author ought to receive is easily
answered—so much as his readers are delighted to pay
him. When we say that he has obtained immense wealth
by his writings, what do we assert but that he has multiplied
the sources of enjoyment to countless readers, and lightened
thousands of else sad, or weary, or dissolute hours f The two
propositions are identical, the proof of the one at once esta-
blishing the other. Why, then, should we grudge it, any
more than we would reckon against the soldier, not the pen-
sion or the grant, but the very prize money which attests the
splendour of his victories, and in the amount of his gains
prove the extent of ours. Complaints have been made by
one in the foremost rank in the opposition to this Bill, the
pioneer of the noble army of publishers, booksellers,
printers, and bookbinders, who are arrayed against it—
that in selecting the case of Sir Walter Scott as an in-
stance in which the extension of copyright would be just I
had been singularly unfortunate, because that great writer
received during the period of subsisting copyright an un-
precedented revenue from the immediate use of his works.
But, Sir, the question is not one: of reward, it is one of
justice. How would this gentleman approve of the applica •
lion of a similar rule to his own honest gains? From small
beginnings this very publisher has, in the fair and honourable
course of trade, I doubt not, acquired a splendid fortune,
amassed by the sale of works the property of the public—of
works whose authors have gone to their repose, from the fevers,
the disappointments, and the jealousies which await a life of
literary toil. Who grudges it to him? Who doubts his title
to retain it? And yet this gentleman's fortune is all, every
farthing of it, so much taken from the public in the sense of
the publisher's argument. It is all profit on books bought by
that public, the accumulation of pence which, if he had sold
his books without profit, would have remained in the pockets
of the buyers. On what principle is Mr. Tegg to retain what
is denied to Sir Walter Scott ? Is it the claim of superior
merit ? Is it greater toil ? Is it larger public service ? His
course, I doubt not, has been that of an honest, laborious
tradesman ; but whet has been its anxieties compared to the
stupendous labour, the sharp agonies, of him whose deadly al-
liance with those very traders whose members oppose me now,
and whose noble resolution to combine the severest integrity
with the loftiest genius brought him to a premature grave—a
grave which by the operation of the law extends its chilli-
ness even to the results of those labours, and deprives them
of the living efficacy to assist those whom he has left to
mourn him ? Let any man contemplate that heroic struggle,
of which the affecting record has just been completed, and
turn from the sad spectacle of one who had once rejoiced in
the rapid creation of a thousand characters glowing from his
brain, and stamped with individuality for ever, straining the
fibres of the mind till the exercise which was delight became
torture—girding himself to the mighty task of achieving his
deliverance from the load which pressed upon him, and with
brave endeavour, but relaxing strength, returns to the toil
till his faculties gave way, the pen fell from his hand on the
unmarked paper, and the silent tears of half-conscious child-
hood fell upon it—and to some prosperous bookseller in his
country-house, calculating the approach of the time (too
swifty accelerated) when he should be able to publish, for
his own gain, these works, sold to who ? And then tell
me, if we are to apportion the reward to the effort, where is
the justice of the bookseller's claim ? Had Sir Walter
Scott been able to see in the distance an extension of his own
right in his production, his estate and his heart had been set
free, and the publishers and printers, who are our opponents
now, would have been grateful to him for a continuation
of labour and rewards which would have impelled and aug-
mented their own. These two classes comprise, of neces-
sity, all the instances in which the proposed change would
operate at all ; the first, that of those whose copyright only
becomes valuable just as it is about to expire ; the last, that
of those works, at once popular and lasting, have probably in
the season of their first success enriched the publisher far
more than the author. It will not be denied that it is desirable
to extend the benefit to both if it can be done without injury
to the public, or to subsisting individual interests. The sug-
gested injury to the public is that the price of books would be
greatly enhanced, and on this assumption the printers and
bookbinders have been induced to sustain the publishers in re-
sisting a change which is represented as tending to paralise
speculation ; to cause fewer books to be written, printed,
bound, and bought ; to deprive the honest workmen of their
subsistence, and the people of the opportunity of enjoying the
productions of genius. Even if such consequences were to
be dreaded, if justice required the sacrifice, it ought to be
made. The community have no right to lee enriched at the
expense of individuals, nor is the liberty of the press (ma-
gic words, which I have heard strangely blended in the din
of this controversy) the liberty to smuggle. and to steal.
Still,".if to thoselyespectable :petitioners—men:of intelligence
and refinement beyond their sphere,
which they have ac-
quired
front their mechanical association with litFrature_t
could think the measure fraught with such misclAet, I should

-- --___
, were
regard it with distrust and :alarm. But never, surely, ve
the apprehensions of intelligent men so utterly baseless.
,112,
the first place. I believe that the existence of the copyrie.l ul_
even of that five-hundredth case, would not enhance the prie
of the fortunate work ; for the author or the bookseller who
enjoys the monopoly, as it is called, i 3 enabled to supply the
article at a much cheaper rate when a single press is require d
to print all the copies offered for sale, instead of the presses
and establishments of competing publishers; and I believe
.a
comparison between the editions of standard works In
ehich there is copyright with those in which there is none
would confirm the truth of the inference. To cite as all
instance to the contrary Clarendon's " History of the Rebel
lion" is to confess that a fair test would disprove the objec-
tion; for what analogy is there between the motives and the
t
acts of a great body, having no personal stimulus or intent!
except to retain what is an ornament to their own power,
and those of a number of individual proprietors; or betweenni
a state of things in which the instance stands alone, !1•°•,
one in which all authors would be instigesed to publish
and all readers, the class for whom the works would be _e_
pub-
lished, or from whom they would be withheld ? But, after
all, it is only in the five-hundredth case—the "" be
prize in this huge lottery--that even this effect is to
dreaded. Now, that effect is the possible enhancing the prics
of the five hundredth or five thousandth book ; and this is airs"
tually supposed "to be a heavy blow and great discourage:
ment to literature," enough to paralyse the energies of pub
lishers, and to make Paternoster-row a desert. Let it only be
announced, say our opponents, that an author, whose works may
Y
outlast 28 years, shall bequeath to his children the right
which he enjoyed that possibly some sixpence a volute may be
f
,
added to its price in such an event, and all the machinery of
printing and publication will come to a pause. Why,
the same apprehension was entertained in 1813, when the pt,.
lishers sought to obtain the extension of copyright for theft _
own advantage to twenty-eight years. The printers tilte.!
dreaded the effect of the prolonged monopoly ; they 11:r
titioned against the Bill, and they succeeded in delaying it.et
a session. And surely they had then far greater plausibVe
in their terms ; for in proportion as the period at which the
contemplated exwnsion begins is distant its effect must ,be
indistinct and feeble. Fewer books, of coarse, will survive
48 years than 14. The Act of 1814 operated on the greater
number, if at all ; and has experience justified the fears which ,
the publishers then laughed to scorn ? Has the number 0'
books diminished since then ? Has the price of books beer;
enhanced? Has the demand for the labour of printers Or;
bookbinders slackened since then ? Have the profits of tb
bookseller failed ? I need no Committee of Inquiry to answe
these questions, and they are really decisive of the issue.-
We all know that books have multiplied ; that the quarter
in which the works of high pretension were first sustained
have vanished; and while the prices paid for copyright have
been far higher than in any former time, the proprietors 01
these copyrights have found it more profitable to publish in a,
cheap than in a costly form, Will authors or the children O 1
authors be more obstinate—less able to appreciate and to
meet the demands of the age—more apprehensive of too large
a circulation—when both will be impelled by other motives
than those of interest to seek the largest scale ; the first by the
impulse of blameless vanity or love of fame ; the last by the
affection and the pride with which they must regard the heir, ,
f
thoughts of a parent taken from this world finding their wa
through every variety of life, and cherished by unnumbere ,
minds which will bless his memory? If, Sir, I were callst
to state in a sentence the most powerful argument against the
part
he_
objection raised to the extension of copyright on the
the public I would answer, the opposition of the
ers. If they have ground to complain of loss the public la
have none. The objection supposes that the works rf'711,,,,
be sold at something more than the price of the materials, tuht,
workmanship, and a fair profit on the outlay, if the copyright
be continued to the author, and of course, also supposeaet'et
works of which the copyright have expired are sold witne;
profit beyond those charges—that, in fact, the author's super
-
added gain will be the measure of the public loss. Wheeral
then, does the publisher interfere ? Is the truth this---b",
the usage of the publishing trade at this moment indefinitell
prolongs the monopoly, by a mutual understanding of its rne_re:;
hers, and that besides the term of twenty-eight years whi'r
the publisher has bought and paid for, he has something snore 1
Is it a conventional copyright that is in danger ? Is the Oa_
question whether the author shall hereafter have the full ter''
to dispose of, or shall sell a smaller term, and really assign
greater ? Now, either the publishers have no interest in the
main question, or this is that interest. If this is that lea
terest, how will the public lose by paying• their extra size en ii
to the author who created the work, instead of the gentlerillit
publis n
who prints his name at the foot of the title-page, and who wstill take his 25 per cent. on the copies he may sell ? This a!
gument applies, and I apprehend conclusively, to the mrat_
question—the justice and expediency of extending the te 17.•
I am aware that there is another ground of complaint met'
plausible, which does not apply to the main question, het •
I
what is called the retrospective clause ; a complaint that,i f
cases where the extended term will revert to the fen' rie°d
the author, that instead of excludng, by virue of an
nrio
compact, all the rest of the world, they, liket all the rest f the
on this liberty in common with others when they made de,
world, will be excluded; that they had a right to caicultahtieo,l
bargain ; and that, therefore, it is a violation of faith to
prive them of their share of the common benefit. That thereis any violation of faith I utterly deny—they still have ,a 1
they have paid for ; and, when, indeed, they assert (which
they do when they argue that the measure will confer no be-
nefit on authors) that they would not give an author any nsc-e
for a copyright of 60 than of 28 years, they themselves refute,
the charge of breach of faith by showing that they do not
reckon such distant contingencies in the, price which they pay.
If any inconvenience should arise I should rejoice to consider
how it can be obviated; and with that view I introduced these
clauses, which have been the subject of much censure, era-
powering the assignee to dispose of all copies on hand at
the close of his term, and allowing the proprietors of stereo-
type plates still to use them. But supposing some incony c-i
nience to attend this act of justice to authors; which I sbotdo
greatly regret, still, are the publishers entirely witho...
consolation ? In the first place they would, as the 131111
now stands, gain all the benefit of the extension of futuro,)
o
copysights hereafter sold absolutely to them by the author;
and according to their own statement without any advance .I_,
price. If this benefit is small—is contingent—is nothing its
five hundred cases to one—so is the loss in those i,
in which the right will result to the author. But it shohl
further be recollected that every year, as copyrights e%Pltrhe;
they
adds to the store from which they may take freely. In
infancy of literature a publisher-'s stock is scanty unless he
aiteri
pays for original compositions ; but, as one generation '_.
another passes away, histories, novels, poems—all el',.
bodying interest and certain sale—fall in, and each:Jed
neration of booksellers become enriched by the 013°"' ite
time to which he has contributed nothing. Can the
be doubted that in any case where the properties of t
publisher and of the author's representatives are imperfe,ce
apart, either from additions to the original, or from the su'
their
cession of several works falli in at different times, nie,
common interest would unite them? One the argun'eie
used—whether on behalf of the trade or the public I scares, +a,
know—against the extension of the term is derived fre=t
supposed analogy between the works of a a author anueio
discoveries of an inventor, whence it is inferred 'long
the term which suffices for the protection of the one is lg.
enough for the compensation of the other. It remains to , .
proved that the protection granted to patentees is sufficient
but supposing it to be so, although there are points of sire' ba,.
rity between the cases, there are grounds of essential and on,
vious distinction. In cases of patent the merits of the ilvc,be
tiers are palpable, the demand is usually immediate, sad his
recompense of the inventor, in proportion to the utility n' ie
work, speedy and certain. In cases of patent the subject
bo
generally one to which many minds are at once applied ; t g
bqct heeu eri
discovered
aeifirstsirnes lo yvaoenpfrdrewedishfeti
present
ti le
were
1 übt
eseerexielntfg,nbosyotgoaii
nvnneeotrnthhi
oest
invention is often no more than a step in a series of processe";
if Sliakspeare had not written Lear, or Richardson Clarissa'
other poets or novellistswould b •
are invented them ? In P-8
r e-
ical science every
t discovery is a step to somethin more per-
fect
b
; and to give to the inventor of each a protracted Irennu°
poly would be to shut out all improvements others.
-11 t
rrhy;eleaat
re
buteb ,
wt
ohonoew, consequence some eSfViltlheasleffilL:
who can • nnprove the masterpieces of genius ? They stand r,
Per-
fect, apart from all things else, self-sustained, the models ,I 4).
imitation, the sources whence rules of art take their origale.
And if we apply the analogy of mechanical invention AI
literature, we shall find that in so far as it extends
there is really in the latter no monopoly at all, imwever
brief. For example, historical or critical research hes::
a close analogy to the process of mechanical discovery'
yi wouldl
i suggest pr o'
ta hi'
dat
and how does the law of copyright apply to the truth
stares it may reveal ? The fact discovered, the rid;
ascertained, becomes at once the property of nlaak'nes
to accept, to state, to reason on and all that ren,--e,
in the author is the style in which it is expressed. No °el -
ever dreamed that to assume a position which another bad -:
covered, to reject what another bad proved to be fallacious, .e,
stand on the table-land of recognised truth, and start frornbasi
anew, was an invasion of the author's right. Howearneslol
been the thought, how severe the intellectual toil, by 1",",8
the noblest speculations on the human mind and its destiny h,a•st
been conducted I They are the beatings of the soul egaal
the bars of its clay tenement, which, if ruffled in the collisine:
attest at once, by their strength and their failure, that it is de
of
tined to move in a wider sphere. And yet the products
divine philosophy melt away into the intellectual atmosPhses
which they enrich, and become the dreams arid the assurance
of of others 1 io that the law of literary property of nece be
accommodates itself to the nature of its subject-19'h" t.
'
work is properly a creation leaving it preserved in its entirety
,0
when it is mere discovery, rendering the essence of truth Y
mankind, and preserving nothing to its author but the form 13
which it is enshrined. It has, Sir, been asserted that authorse
themselves have little interest in this question, and that tliee's
True it ,
are, in fact, indifferent or hostile to the measure.
that the greatest living writers have not thought it befittine,
the dignity of their cause to appear as petitioners for it afsei
personal boon ; but I believe there are few who do nnt .tie
the honour of literature embarked its the cause, and earn
e",,-e't
desire its success. Mr. Wordsworth, emerging for a nom-.
from the seclusion he has courted, has publicly declared hi!
conviction of its justice. Mr. Lockhart has stated his sPirseir
hension that the complete emancipation of the estate 0, e ;
Walter Scott from its incumbrances depends on the issue;
and, although I agree that we ought not to legislate for
..tstbeir
cases, I contend that we ought to legislate by the light n 1 t
tions
examples. The instances pass away, successive genera it
True
do successive injustice, but the principle is eternal.
is that in many instances if the boon be granted the
it vain--
and frailties which often attend genius and render
•
true it is that in multitudes of cases it will not operate—but
we shall have given to authors and to readers a great lessonll,s
of justice ; we shall have shown that where virtue and ge'l_A,
combine we are ready to protect their noble offspring, ,1!
that we do not desire a miserable advantage at the cost of tne
Terrors ors