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

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS

Mr. Sergeant Talfourd moved, last night, the second
reading of the Copyright Bill ; and we rejoice to state,
that his motion was successful. Of the Learned Ser-
geant's speech, it would be difficult to speak in terms too
laudatory. His address was, in the highest degree, elo-
quent. It abounded in fine and touching truths, and was
delivered with a fervour worthy of the great principles of
which it was an exposition. The debate, in point of fact,
was interesting in no common degree. In support of Mr.
Talfourd's motion, Sir Robert Harry Inglis, Mr. D'ls-
raeli, Mr. Jephson, Mr. Spring Rice, Mr. C. Wynn, and
Lord Mahon presented themselves in the course of the
evening. On the other side, appeared Mr. Hume, the Soli-
citor-General, Mr. Pryme, Mr. Ward, Mr. Grote, Sir
John Campbell, Mr. Jervis, Sir E. Sugden, and Mr. War-
burton. Mr. Sergeant Talfourd addressed himself with
great felicity to a consideration of the arguments which
have been urged, with most pertinacity, against
his measure. It had been contended, he observed,
by publishers, and printers, and bookbinders, that their
particular trades would sustain deep injury by the pro-
posed Bill, should it pass into law ; whilst the injury to the
public in the enhanced price of books would be found to be
of the most serious description. It was remarkable, how-
ever, the Learned Sergeant observed, that the same classes
who now moved with so much energy, in opposition to the
project of extending the author's interest in the creations
of his genius to a period of 60 years after his death, moved
with equal energy in 1813, against the extension of the
duration of copyright from 14 to 28 years. Yet the exist-
ing law, which, before it became law, they opposed with ex-
ceeding bitterness, they now represent as the most perfect
of all possible enactments on the subject. In 1813, as now,
the publishers declared that the extension of the term of
copyright, would render books dear, and, in that way, check
the diffusion of literary knowledge. Yet, how stood the
fact ? Had knowledge been diffused at a less rapid rate
since 1814, than before ? And bad books risen in price
since that period ? Undoubtedly not. Books had fallen
incalculably, since the existing law came into operation—
and literary tastes had been created in quarters, where,
previously, there had existed not the slightest sympathy
for refined or intellectual pursuits. It had been objected,
the Learned Sergeant observed, that his Bill was calcu-
lated to benefit only one author out of, perhaps, five hun-
dred ! He admitted the truth of the assertion ; but in
making that admission, he at the same time destroyed the
whole fabric of the reasoning which had been directed
against his measure. It was undeniable that the Bill before
the House would benefit only a few of those men of rare
genius whom Nature had endowed with the power of pro-
ducing works destined to attain immortality ; but in such
cases would it be denied that the protection contended for
ought to be conceded ? If such cases did not amount to "
the proportion of one in five hundred, why then it followed,
that not in more than one case out of five hundred,
would the price of books be increased to the public !
The Learned Sergeant entered, moreover, with great elo-
quence and acuteness, upon the points of distinction
which obtain between patents for mechanical inven-
tions, and copyright. Nothing, in short, could be more
triumphant than the whole course of his reasonings. Jo-
seph Hume—liberal, enlightened, intellectual, imaginative
Joseph Hume—opposed the second reading of the Bill.
He thought monopolies bad things. He thought that the
interest of the public ought to predominate over that of
private individuals—and he thought men of literary genius
sufficiently rewarded at present ! The Solicitor-General
quite agreed in sentiment with Joseph Hume. He thought
copyright a tax upon the public ; and he thought that no-
thing more ought to be bestowed upon authors, than would
suffice to secure the talents for the service of the com-
munity ! The present system had had that effect—and,
therefore, he opposed the motion before the House.
Sir Robert Harry Inglis, in a speech worthy of his noble
character—in a speech which reflected honour on the
great University which he represents—supported Sergeant
Talfourd's Bill. Mr. Pryme spoke, in support of Joseph
Hume's amendment in a spirit worthy of Joseph Hume
himself. Mr. D'lsraeli followed, and nobly supported his
well-earned literary reputation. He recalled the attention
of the House to the fact, that when Members spoke of
copyright as a " monopoly," they forgot that authors
created a property by their genius, and that copyright—
which, he contended, ought to exist in perpetuity—was
only the guarantee which the law ought to bestow on lite-
rary men, in the enjoyment of that hard-earned result of
their labour ! The speech of Mr. D'lsraeli was charac-
terised by much eloquence and logical power, and abounded
at the same time in facts, which made a deep impression on
the House. Mr. 'Ward talked some " liberalism," the ob-
ject of which was to show that the public had a right to
plunder men of genius. Mr. Jephson replied to Mr. Ward,
and was followed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
who, in a speech which did him infinite honour, re-
buked the grovelling spirit of the Solicitor-General's
remarks. Mr. Grote, like a good " Liberal," of course,
objected to the " tax" involved in copyright. Sir
John Campbell suggested to Mr. Talfourd the expe-
diency of withdrawing his Bill, and introducing a mea-
sure, the object of which should be the reference to the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, of the claims to
extended copyright, of the few men of rare genius whom
the existing law did not sufficiently protect ! Mr. C.
Wynn, and Lord Mahon, in a spirit of noble enthusiasm,
supported the Bill. Sir Edward Sugden, we are sorry to
state, opposed it. Mr. Jervis repeated the arguments of
Mr. Pryme and Mr. Grote in opposition to the measure ;
whilst Mr. Warburton concluded, on that side, with a
speech impregnated with the essential principles of the
money-grubbing philosophy, of which Mr. Warburton is so
eminent an apostle, Mr. Talfourd's reply was no less
brilliant arid happy than his opening address. The numbers
were—for the measure 39—against it 34. The country
owes Mr. Talfourd thanks for his noble efforts on behalf of
the country's highest interests. On the men of literary
genius—on his own order—Mr. Talfourd has conferred an
enduring obligation.—Morning Herald.
Mr. Sergeant Talfourd's Copyright Bill was read a
second time last night, the motion having been carried by
only five votes in a House of 74 Members. A subsequent
proposition by Mr. P. Howard, to refer the measure to a
Select Committee instead of a Committee of the whole
House, was negatived by a majority of seven, the numbers
being 38 to Sl. A point not adverted to in the discussion
last night seems to deserve attention—viz., that some of
the noblest works in our language, especially productions of
the imagination, were written and published at a period
when no protection of any kind was afforded to authors.
Of course we do not mean to go back to the time when
printing was in its infancy, and when that very circumstance
was an effectual security against piracy ; but in the latter
end of the reign of Elizabeth presses were se nume-
rous in London that it was thought necessary by the
public authorities to take some steps to limit them. Ac-
cordingly the Queen, by appointment under the privy seal,
authorized certain stationers (who were then usually
printers and booksellers) to publish books in particular
departments. If any invasion of the right thus conferred
took place, the usual remedy was by appeal to the Privy
Council, though now and then the interposition of the
Stationers' Company was found sufficient. Bibles, prayer-
books, statutes and law-books, proclamations and public
orders, were the chief classes thus far protected ; but, as
we have said, there was no protection whatever for works
of invention. 'lle only question with rival booksellers
then was, whether it was worth while, as a matter
of profit, to re-print any play, poem, romance, of
tale. Hence the several editions in the same year of
some of Shakspeare's dramas, and hence in some degree
arose that extreme carelessness about the printing of his
works which has puzzled some of the moderns. Care was
useless, because no care could avail. When in the middle
of the reign of James I. Ben Jenson collected and published
his scattered pieces, his security was the size of the vo-
lume ; but by this date the King had taken upon him-
self to grant to particular authors the sole right of
publishing particular works, and Daniel's " History of
England" was printed by the author as a private spe-
culation under this sanction. It is indisputable, how-
ever, that all the most popular productions in our
language, including the best poetry of any age or
country, were issued under the peril of piracy, if pi-
racy it could properly be called. Spenser's " Fairy
Queen," Shakspeare's minor poems (besides his own
and all other dramatic productions), Greene's novels,
Nash's tracts, and in fact the whole of the en-
tertaining literature prior to about the year 1620, and, in-
deed, long afterwards, excepting in a very few special
instances, were unsheltered by the law or by the interpo-
sition of the Government of the day. We mention this
circumstance for the purpose of showing that there is in
fact less connection than some imagine between authorship
and protection, and that works of the highest value, whe-
ther as efforts of genius or results of labour and learning,
will make their appearance in spite of any danger of inva-
sion to which they may be exposed. Lord Mahon last
night said, as a reason for passing Mr. Sergeant Talfourd's
Bill, that he wished to see literary men placed in circum-
stances of ease and independence ; and no doubt the hope

of honest independence as well as fame must be a power-
ful incentive, however true it may be that many of those
productions of which nations have good reason to be proud;
were produced by writers who never dreamt of ease and.
indepedence as the result of their labours. Milton, in a.
well-known passage, tells us that
" Fame is the spur which the clear spirit cloth raise," &c.
And it is well known that Shaltspeare and his fellow-dra-
matists, in every play they penned, regarded only the money
the theatre would produce to them. But granting all this
to Lord Mahon, we are at a loss to see how the Bri.; of Ser-
geant Talfourd can at all add to the reward of authors. A
bookseller will not give more for a copyright of 60 years
than for a copyright of 28 years. One in five hunalred
works may be worth re-publication after 28 years ; but
immediate value of such a probability is not calculable. A
good deal was said last night by nearly all the lawyers who
spoke upon the question reonecting the right of authors at.
common law, and it was generally admitted by Mr.
Sergeant Talfourd, the Attorney. General, Mr. Jervis, and Sir
E. Sugden, that the Statute ofAnt?el3ad abridged therights
ofauthors ; and it wasurged bythe frt.:lat.:sof the Bill that the
object of it was to steer a middle course bet.ween unconfined
latitude allowed by the common law, and kbe restrictive
clauses of the Acts of Anne and George 111. Sir Robert
Inglis, however, insisted that it did not go far emlugh, far
although he was decidedly in its favour, he saw no su.fileien
reason for limiting to any period of years the right of au-
thors to a property in their works, but would have it as
extensive as the claim to any other species of property it;
perpetuity. The main argument against the proposed
diange in the law was very clearly stated by Mr. Grote,
viz., that it would diminish the resources of the reading
public. If the copyright of a valuable work expired
in twenty-eight years, at the end of that time it might
be published in a cheap form, the only expense
being printing and paper ; whereas if the auihor's copy-
right were to be taken into the account the book. must be
sold so much the dearer, and the benefit to the• reading.
public would of course be so much the less. Mr. Wynn,
who advocated the measure, owned that this point VV.NS in-
disputable ; but his answer was, that if authors were not
duly encouraged by a prospect of reward, they would ito:
be disposed to produce books which at the end of twenty-
eight years would be worth re-publishing. The At'or--
ney-General contended with much force that the present.
state of the law required no alteration ; that it worked
well for authors, booksellers, and the public ; and that to
make the intended change would paralyse industry, while
it did little to benefit authors. He suggested to the
promoters of the Bill, that a- middle course might be ad-
vantageously pursued. With respect to mechanical inven-
tions a power was given by statute four years ago to the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to extend the
term of the patent if it saw reason, and he thought
that the same method 'night be adopted with regard to
books : if the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
found that the writer of a valuable work had not been ado-
quately remunerated, an additional term of copyright might
be granted to him. This recommendation was subse-
quently repeated by Mr. Jervis, but it was resisted by Mr.
Warburton, on the ground that the Privy Council in such
cases might be actuated by political motives, and Mr. Ser-
geant Talfourd was unwilling to abandon his Bill upon any
such speculation ; though, if the Bill were lost, the point
might be worth attention. The Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer very heartily supported the second reading, and
with acuteness exposed the false analogy attempted to be
drawn by some members between works of genius and learn-
ing and mere mechanical inventions. He also congratu-
lated the literary world that this difficult subject had been
taken up not only by en eminent lawyer, but by one of the
brightest ornaments or our living literature. The debate
was conducted in the most liberal spirit on both sides, and
no doubt the House will ga into Committee on the Bill on
a future day with a sincere determination to correct its
defective details. It will then be seen whether in its al-
tered shape it ought to pass the third reading.—Morning
Chronicle.