The Sun.
London, England, 1838-05-12 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

We understand that Mveral of the Peers who are large landed pro_
'rietora In Ireland threaten to take upon themselves the responsibility
of endeavouring to prevail on the House of Lords to strike out from the
Irish Poor-law Bill the provisions for the relief of able-bodied labourers.
'4Nere these landowners to succeed, they would succeed in striking out
these provisions which will in fact confer upon them the free powers of
Wing their own lands, of improving their value, and of obtaining real
Wits from prosperous cultivators, instead of large nominal rents from
et"balers whose condition is unchangeable by any other means than the se-
rities against absolute destitution given by the new law. We must,
however, wait until we see what sort of arguments are adduced by these
landlords on the second reading of the Bill. In the meatime we
strongly recommend to their notice a very able pamphlet by Mr. Lynch,
In the form of an address to his constituents of Galway, just published
by Knight. This pamphlet gives a clear account of the state in which
the measure Is presented to the Lords, after the alterations it has under-
gone in the Commons. The petitions from the Irish grand juries are
are petitions from jobbing bodies, and they augur well for the Bill, as
marking the apprehension that they will be, as they ought to be, preju.
diced by the introducion of controlled and systematized administrative
bodies into Ireland.--Morning Chronicle..
There Is something amusingly profligate in the argument employed
by Mr. Wakley and the logicians of his kidney in favour of the plunder
of authors for the benefit of the public. It reminds vs of some of the
Ingenious schemes of government adopted in Laputa —where, indeed,
the sagacious legislators who managed the public affairs had a pet pro.
feet for training up an especial class to be vicariously punished for the
°Melees of other daises. It is somewhat like an expedient adopted by
Gil Blas' schoolmaster, who, having a number of patrician pupils in his
SOMA made a point of calling out a certain select number of the ple-
beian class to be flogged vicariously whenever the young sprigs of the
nobility committed an offence against Priscian, or roused theven-
g nse of the pedagogue. The treatment of authors by Mr.
Wakley and his party is precisely conducted on the same
principle. They are to be robbed and flogged for the bene-
fit of others. The Honourable Member for Finsbury very
justly says, " Before the year 1709, Copyright was deemed per-
petual, and subsequent decisions of the Judges confirmed that right."
Nothing can be more correct te ae these premises with which the Hon.
Member sets out. The right is unalienable, undefeasible, and founded
in the eternal principles of common sense, of common equity, and
cowmen law. It is true that after 1709, a set of ignorant legislators,
who certainty have no title to dictate to legislation a hundred years ,
after, a set of men evidently by their acts ignorant of the inordinate la-
hour of mental workmanship—or envious of it as of an instrument
beyond their grasp, superior to their capacity—or incompetent to judge ,
of the substantiality of the capital, and the profits which it Is capable,
when unfettered, of realising and stem mulating—chese to decide, that
the literary workmen should not enjoy that capital and those profits be-
yond 14 years. A more audacious act of confiscatory spoliation was never
announced. The triumvirs never resorted to a more profligate act of
oppression, in the full sweep of their proscriptions and their confisca-
tions. The legislator of 1709 certainly did this, and the quicker the
legislation of 1838 backs out of, and washes its hands of this scandalous
outrage upon property, the better, unless they please to set up a standing
example to justify the future spoLatioe of other property, none of
which is so well titled. We will suppose these legislators of 1709 and
Mr. Wakley to be contemporaries. We will farther suppose a body of
them walking into his laboratory, and telling him that they would not
allow him to dispense medicine and to charge 200 per cent. on the con-
coction of black draughts beyond fourteen years. Otte may conceive
the surprise of the Honourable Practitioner at that announcement.
Suppose farther the said deputation were to say to him on the same
principle as he argues that the volumes of Bulwer, Lockhart,
Marryat, &c. &c., which those authors estimate to the public at
10a. Cele are net worth more than eight pence, your black draughts,
which you charge at 23. 6d. or its. Gd., are not worth to you
more in materials, as you well kr ow, than two-pence. Now this
is getting too moderate a profit for the benefit of society, and therefore
we shall take the liberty, in cur supreme wisdom, to limit the period
we erein you shall be allowed to got such moderate profits to fourteen
years, or twenty eight years. What, would the Honourable Member
Kay? What would he do? Why.probably he would kick the learned and
legislative deputation out of his shop, just as the literary and acientific
classes ought ere now to have kicked out a system of legislation which
Impudently pteke their pockets, and which with curious felicity unites
all that is ludicrous in absurdity, with all that is monstrous in injustice.
Starting with these premises, in which we concur—namely. the perpe-
tuity of literary property up to 1709 ; and its disgraceful confiscation at
teat time, under the " holiday phrase" of limitation, the Honourable
lidember ior Finsbury proceLds to draw his inferences, and sorry are we
to say being a medical man), that his first inference is precisely
one of those which go (according to medical men) to the indicatiau
and definition of madness. It is a false inference from a correct datum.
What were the effects of perpetual copyright up to 1709 ? They
were seen in the limited sale of the works up to that period." They
were seen in no such thing. If the Hon. 31ember had gone back
smother hundred years, he would have found that the sale was still
more limited, though copyright was still perpetual. lie might just as
well have argued that the still mere limited sale in the time of
Wyncken de Wercle and of Faust, was caused by the perpetuity of co-
pyright. This is precisely the argument of the celebrated logician who
etfirmwl that Tenterdeu steeple was the cause of the Goodwin Sarids.
Works were limited at that time, because knowledge was diffbatel
among a limited number of readers. We aver that the limita-
tion of copyright in 1709, by discouraging authors, checked the
diffusion of knowledge, and limited the number of reaeers, which
would otherwise have increased in a much larger ratio than they did, as
information and civilization advanced. Both argument and tact are in
cue favour. When, in 1814, copyright was extended from 14 to 28
years, books became cheerier than ever they were before, readers in_
creased, and publications augmented. Apply the logic of the common
rule of thee° to that example. If '2B years would yield so much in-
crease, what would 60 years yield ? What would perpetuity yield
The last would do all that was possible for the benefit of authors, and
for the benefit of society. Authors being more encouraged would pot
forth more talent. Their works ;being in point of property restored
and secured) would be better cultivated and more highly improved.
If the bookseller thought a usufruct of 14 or 29 years sufficient,
he might farm or lease the property of the owner for
the term desired, in ae^ordanee with the correct analogy of
/widest property. If, aal n . an author chose to sell it out.
a landed estate ;and its not being worth more in
consequence of its perpetuity, renders the sale of course more easy to
both parties,) he is fully entitled to dti what " he pleases with his own ;"
and society would not suffer by the sale, inasmuch as the bookseller, or
perhaps his literary heir, stepping into the original proprietor's shoes—
would find it to his interest to cultisate the literary estate to the utmost;
ens,' to cheapen it to the utmost, in order that he might derive the entire
advaetage of its popular diffusion and augmented circulation. True
legislation is the most plain and uncomplicated thing in the world. False
legislation, like lying, requires a whole progeny of fallacies to support
the parent falsehood. Declare copyright perpetual; and you may get
rid, at once, of all the special pleadings and clauses and conditions and
restrictions with which the question is at present complicated, im-
peded, and infested. All that will be requisite whets this is done
Will be toiextend the same protection to the literary trade and to literary
property as to every other trade, and to every other property. The right
being clear—the law, under such circumstances, will always be strong
enough to baffle fraud, and to defeat plunder. In this nutshell lies the
whole matter. Nothing can be more easy—nothing more manageable
—nothing more Irresistible than truth. Mr. Ward, R. A., has a paint-
ing in the present exhibition of Envy, Jealousy, Malice, and Calumny
trying to bear down Truth. It applies extremely well to the position of
her plundered and calumniated lit :—ary champions. But Truth, uncle,-
composed, and confident of eventual triumph, may, as in Mr. Ward's
picture, smile at the grovelling efforts of the puny, the ignoble, the sor.
did, and the base, "Magna est reritas, et pranyalebii."--Itorning
Advertiser.

It will be seen, that at the meeting held yesterday, at the Freemason's
Tavern, on the subject of the arrangements fer the coronation, an at-.
tempt—instigated, no doubt, by the Whigs, or by some of their thick
and thin supporters—was made to carry an amendment, the object of
which was to secure the whig.coronation scheme from disturbance. The
amendment in question was moved by a person named Vincent, and was
to the following effect :—" That the Government was fully justified,
In conducting the coronation at the smallest possible expense, and on
the day first named, in consequence of the distrarsed condition of a
great portion of the working classes; secondly, because of the depressed
state of the revenue; and, thirdly, because coronations are useless and
expensive." To persons of ordinary understanding, it does appear, that
If the labouring poor are distressed (as, unfortunately, too many of them
are) few greater benefits could be devised for them, than a supply of well_
paid work, such as a gorgeous Coronation might furnish—more espe-
cosily, when it is borne in mind, that of the money proposed to be
directly saved by the Government, not one farthing will find its way
into the pockets of the industrious poor—whilst, of the money, which
the Government will prevent the wealthy from expending, every
fittrtbing would have famished employment to humble industry. If, in
the second place, the revenue be depressed, a lavish expenditure on ex
ciseable article by wealthy families, foreign and British, does appear to
be a natural mode of increasing it. As to the statement, that " Co-
ronations are useless and expensive," it may be sufficient to observe,
that, tried by Mr. Vincent's tests, even processions to White Conduit
House of Dorchester labourers, in barouches drawn by four horses, may,
by many, be deemed somewhat " expensive," and not of much, nor of
very obvious " istility."—lforning Herald.