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

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, APRIL 26, 1838.

•
!moments and benefactors of the world. I call on each party
in this House to unite in rendering this tribute to the minds
by which even party associations are dignified; on those who
antlerpate successive changes in society to acknowledge their
it
to those who expand the vista of the future, and people
It with goodly visions; on those who fondly linger on the
past, and repose on time-hallowed institutions, to consider how
Much that is ennobling in their creed has been drawn from
minds which have clothed the usages and forms, by reverse,
With the symbols of venerableness and beauty ; on all, if they
cannot find some common ground on which they may unite
!Ist drawing assurance of progressive good for the future from
the glories of the past, to recognise their obligation to those
the products of whose intellect shall grace, and soften, and
aignif Ythe strugwle. Wi
cull be now mad a setondl:limteh.ese feelings'
I move that this
observed that in his opinion the simple ques-
tiol,:initrf'oritilt4t'ge
House to consider was, whether a copyright of
du, I-eight years' duration was a sufficient privilege to in-
'e an author to devote his talents to the instruction or amuse-
ment of the public. No man could he more willing than he
rag that an author of ability should derive all the ad vantage
tr°rn the exercise of that ability which he ought to derive,
11 he (Mr. Hume) was. Every man of talent ought to de-
that advantage ; the inventor of a mechanical machine,
Svvell as the author of a poem or a history. All deserved to
Sewell
equally protected. If, therefore, the present proposition
vfere to be agreed to, the House would be called upon to con-
sider what additional privileges ought to be conferred on those
Who
talents were exercised in a different direction. Men
40, devoted their talents to the improvement of the steam
g,111; or to other similar objects, ought to be put on the same
leo _
ang as those whose interests it was the object of the Bill
4nder the consideration of the House to protect. Now, it
Would certainly be highly injurious to the public if that
IXe, done. The question, therefore, arose with double force
s..2.tner the privilege at present enjoyed by authors was not
umeient to induce them to employ their talents. He did
not think that the Hon. and Learned Member had suc-
ceeded in establishing the position that it was not sufficient
to
the that ground, principally, he (Mr, Hume) was opposed
he had that If the principles contained in the petition which
night presented against the Bill were correct, it
be for the House to consider 'whether the present limit
tion
,a of
ps .---Orignt to twenty-eight years was insufficient ; and
etner it would be wise or expedient to extend the duration
2to the copyright to fifty years, or more. He differed entirely
;41 the
honourable and learned gentleman on that point,
13 was not prepared to extend the privilege of copyright
be the existing period of twenty-eight years ; and
"sPecially because, he repeated, that if that extension of pro-
znieection were granted to authors, it must be granted to other
nof talent, the authors of ingenious inventions. Was the
their
prepared to admit to the latter class of individuals that
-en• existing protection was not sufficient ? Yet that they
inovue
,st admit, if they admitted that the existing protection en-
by literary men was not sufficient. It !would be most
ncl partial. legislation to extend the protection to the one class,
of to refuse to extend it to the other. Many persons were
°Pinion that the inventions of the one class were quite as
dueir
effu.: c to the comfort and happiness of the world as
laena.rt;led°" of literary genius, to which the honourable and
gentleman had exclusively adverted. Nor was_ that.
rn He objected to the limitation of the intellectual enjo)-
itentt °f t.h,e public at large, which the extension of the pre-
tee?-
in of copyright was calculated to produce.
.He
th,di his hand a statement by which it appeared that during
s 'ast Year of the existence of the copyright of Sir Walter
etic.ott's
,„ " Lay of th• last Minstrel" that work was sold at two
; but that in the year after the expiration of the copy-
year'-t
it 'vas published at five shillings; and in the subsequent
t<< at eighteenpence I The same was the case with respect
`darmion " It was originally published at a guinea and a
;_'• After ;hand expiration of the copyright it was published at
diminution
cishillings more recently at tenpence ! Was not that
_ nution of price a great advantage to the public—an ad-
-BTnantap which ought not to be relinquished, unless on very
fluor:L._ pounds? He therefore said once more that all the
th_ ...cad to consider was whether, up to the. present time,
311:-, privilege enjoyed by authors had beon a fair, a proper, a
Rulcient privilege. It was just also to ask who and where
ere the parties complaining of the existing state of the law, and
tequiring an alteration ? He had made diligent inquiry, and he did
cot understand that there was a single petition to the House.in
favour of the Honourable and Learned Gentleman's Bill.
WhY, then, alter what had gone on so long without complaint,
aZd against which no comlaint was at present preferred ?
TihY, without being desired to do so, agree to a measure
calculated to produce a great evil—that of increasing the
price of books? The question lay within a very narrow corn-
PLs, Ls,; and he had stated the view he took of it. While he
Ilea desirous that every author, and every other man of
genius and talents, should enjoy the benefit to which he
-was entitled, he was not prepared to make the provision com-
prehended in the Bill of the Honourable and Learned Mem-
ber for Reading a general one ; and if not a general one; great
injustice would be inflicted on those who employed their talents
in a way calculated to promote the great branches of our ma-
viufactures and industry. For these reasons he should move,
as an amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day
six months,

Mr. WA R.BURTON seconded the amendment.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL expressed his anxiety to
say a very few words, for the purpose of explaining the
sons which compelled him to support the amendment of the
„"°n• Member for Kilkenny, and to oppose the motion of his
'lOll. and Learned Friend. He took this course with great
l'eluctance, because he could not but feel that it was a subject
with which his Hon. and Learned Friend had taken great
Fl°s; and that it was a subject which his Hon. and Learned
r
lend was peculiarly well adapted to deal with. He would,
b° end
very shortly state to the House his reasons for op-
Posing the measure. In the first place he disputed the prin-
ezPie which his Hon. and Learned Friend had so eloquently
endeavoured to enforce. He could not but think that his Hon.
and Learned Friend was asking the Legislature, by acting on
a sort of sentimental feeling, to take a course which, in his
(the Solicitor-General's) opinion, they would fail in their
Y if they were really to take. There was only one
tapiestion to be asked. Was the present term of copyright
_lliTcient effectually to secure to an author himself the benefit
:tow
itch he ought to derive from the exercise of his talents? If
e then why extend it? It might be a pleasing thing. to
atnntemPlate the extension of the benefit to the posterity. of
an author. But it was impossible so to extend it with-
lie t• ieing a great and manifest injustice to the public.
bareW quite ready to admit that authors of genius shou d
all that they Were entitled to ask. But if they already
tot enou
Public gh to secure the devotion of their powers to the
vreovi:lwlyhY
Iriater! be so
adopt a measure by which the public must
injured? All unnecessary taxation was to be de.
• ta,,' 'I; and what tax could possibly be more injurious thanto
difka,eon that knowledge which they were all so desirous
vas, if hear.) He repeated that the only questionh
,10fiellaithe present term of copyright was sufficient for all -
had a ePnrP°ses? If his Honourable and Learned Friend
had arguedr'll the subject in the Court of King's Bench as
.he
that 1,1,., it in that House, it would have been said of him
and committed a logical felo de se. His Honourable
Worth, ;...11(1 Friend had shown that the illustrious Words-
carelessee obscurity in which he voluntarily remained, was
biro °f present benefit, satisfied that posterity would do
Protecct.ce* Why, that showed, not only that the existing
tectio I°ll was
sufficient, but that it did not require any pro-
thehatever to induce great writers to instruct and amuse
ti...1,),11b1ic with their lucubrations. Such being the case, was
i
his Ho
Uouse prepared to tax the public in the manner in which
it? enourable and Learned Friend's Bill would certainly tax
Priem e thought not, even on his Honourable and Learned
atatie. showing. But, independently of that circumi -
Reuss"' he maintained that, on the general principle, t
had ho right to tax the public to a greater extent thanse7l•
.aufficient to induce an author to devote his labours to their
11,(1r. He should therefore vote for the amendment which
SireW Roved by the Hon. Member for Kilkenny.
andL °IERT INGLIS supported the Bill. The Hon.
that licarned Gentleman ought to have shown, if he could,
common terary property was not just as much protected by the
question law as any other description of property. The
—O, indeed, in his ( Sir R. Inglis's) opinion was, if literary
perty had not been injured by the Act which was called an
t t for its protection ; and whether we ought not to revert
O that which was originally the case, and give to an author
that property in his literary productions which was enjoyed by
very other erson •
least the honouprable n possession that he enjoyed. At
lan
hown why and learnedy
twenty- gentleman ought to have
Yond which the
eight years
was the limit of protection be-
?t books Legislature ought not to go. As to the price
a, it should be recollected that the purchase of books a voluntary act ; and that no author would ever ch:sarogseea,
ureldrir price for his books thaa he found the public.
ee;„Yi_t.e pay. Could it be conceived that any author would
forth hi works in his own possession rather than let them g
to the public at a reasonable rate ? Would any of the
great writers of the last century, or would any of their dae-
renint!ants, if the property in the works of their progenitors h
of
the de-
remained in them, have so acted? What was the object
In
( proposed by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
heswarlLlnglis's) opinion that Bill did not go far enough, for
Possessey;rous that the original right which literary property
and th L° common with all property sh.ould. be restored,
Ile
sit an author should bold his copyright in perpetuity.
he c"i'ad understand wh no copyright should be created, but
eightoue—i a°t understand why it should be limited to twenty-
thisd 1317144, or to any other definite period. He supported
law,
n", therefore, as a great improvement in the existing
ot as effecting all the good which he thought desirable.
tlanYbWere great writers to be laced in the more than Egyp-
Meet °lldage of receivin only just as much as would induce
,hichto continue their lgaboursj? Was that the manner
min
rnoetieacil men as the author of " Comus" and of other i
arksPerinitt ought to be treated? Why should they not be
dao, to bequeath their literary property to their desce
the lisit? The Honourable Member for Kilkenny had talked of
venters of mechanical improvements. He ( Sir R. In-
io rs much rather extend the privileges which those
tot at present enjoyed, than curtail them ; but that was
Lod thennco the question ; the question related to literature only ;
0
ofzylirabipra
litery
bonss marixon could justly be made between the produc-
genius, 29 permanent as they were ad-
sp d. and works of mechanical ingenuity, which might
eo ilv
or for-t superseded by the inventions of more skilful,
of unate persons.—( Hear, hear, hear.) A good deal
fie'_'!apprebensi existed on this subject. For instance,
n'ol been stated that, by the maintenance of their
so B,°PelY the Uaiversity of Oxford had made some works
reudoaoree as to run them up to a large price ; and that Cla-
's History of the Rebellion was sold, a large paper
ek°l,Y for eighteen guineas, a small paper copy for Seven.
been the fact was, that in 1807 an edition of that work had
flueln published at three guineas. Was it just that the fa-
ridge,r °f such men as Wordsworth, and Scott, and Cole-
tited) and Southey were to be deprived of the property cre-
enri y the minds of their illustrious progenitors, in order to
eh the families of John Murray and Thomas Longman?

Notwithstanding all that had been said by the Hon. and
Learned Solicitor-General, the question was not one be-
tween the author and the public, but a question between the
overgrown publishers of London and some one or two other
cities on the one hand, and the literary men of England on
the other. Many instances might be mentioned to show
how imperatively justice demanded the passing of some mea-
sure of this description. He would mention only one : a
distinguished individual, whom he had the honour of know-
ing, having employed great labour and consumed much time
in the preparation of a very important and very valuable
work, had the mortification to find that his book was pirated.
almost immediately after its publication, by a Society of
which many of the Honourable Gentlemen opposite were
members. It was not just to raise the expectations of literary
men and men of science in such a manner as to induce them to
engage in works from which the public were the greatest be-
nefitters, and then to deprive their children or their inheritors
, from those advantages which if they had employed their ta-
lents in any secular pursuit would certainly be secured to them
—( Hear, hear.) The literary men of England were not to be
laughed out of court by the sneers of the Solicitor-General.—
(Hear, hear.) Would any man deny that England derived
oval benefit and honour from the labours of those of her sons
who were engaged in the pursuit of literature? And was it
fair, when millions had been deriving pleasure and instruc-
tion from the works of Scott, Southey, and Wordsworth,
that the Legislature should now turn round upon them
and say, " You lived and wrote under a different state of
the law; therefore, you ought to be content with what the
law then gave you." After some further remarks which
were not distinctly audible, the Honourable Baronet concluded
by observing that he entirely concurred in the motion of his
Honourable and Learned Friend (Mr. Seargeant Talfourd)
and sincerely hoped the the House would allow the Bill to
be read a second time.
Mr. PR YME was opposed to the Bill. The question was
not whether the author received an adequate protection, which
he (Mr. Pryme) maintained he did, under the old common or
statute law, but whether the period during which the copy-
right of works of literature was to endure should be extended
from twenty-eight to sixty years ; and:then followed the ques-
tion, whether the law as it at present stood did not afford a
sufficient remuneration, or at least a sufficient protection to
the author. The Honourable and Learned Member for Read-
ing (Mr. Sergeant Talfourd) maintained that the price of
books had declined and the sale increased since the period had
been extended from fourteen to twenty-eight years, and thence
he concluded that the author and the public had been mutually
bcnefitted. But was not the true cause of the diminution of
price to be found in the improvements which of late years had
taken place in the manufacture of paper and the facility of
printing ? The Honourable Gentleman then adverted to the
works of Adam Smith and of Gibbon, of which new editions,
with very valuable emendations, had been published within a
period very much short of sixty years from the death of either
of those authors. Had such a law as that proposed by the
Learned Seargeant obtained, these editions could not have
appeared, and the public thereby would have been deprived of
much valuable and useful information. Under these circum-
stances he should decidedly oppose the motion for the second
reading of this Bill.
_ _

Mr.- D'ISR AE L I, after some preliminary remarks, ob-
served that the question was this : whether the law would re-
cognise any property in literature ; and if so, what degree of
property it would recognise ? For his own part, he confessed
he could not understand what accident or quality there was in
property which was not to be found in works of literature.
They required great industry, great care, great skill, and
oftentimes much capital in the production ; they assumed a
visible, palpable, and tangible form ; wareouses might be
filled with them ; ships might be freighted with them ; and
the tenure by which they were held was in his opinion superior
to that of all other property, for it was original.—( Hear.) It
was tenure which did not exist in a doubtful title, which did
not spring from any adventitious circumstance—it was not
found—it was not purchased—it was not prescriptive ; it was
primitive—it was original ; it was the most natural of all
titles, because it was the most simple and least artificial.
It was paramount and sovereign, because it was a tenure
by creation.--( Loud cheers.) The fault therefore that he
found, not with the object of the Bill, but with the Bill
itself, was that the title held by such a paramount tenure
should for a moment be compromised.—( Hear.) If it
were admitted that the tenure was original, and was held
by creation, he could not see what right the Legislature
or the public had to interfere with it. The question now
raised could not be met by a panegyric upon the ex-
isting statute law ; it could be met only by a fair dis-
cussion of the principles to which the Honourable and
Learned Sergeant's proposal tended. If the Bill were
read a second time, as he hoped and believed it would,
the points raised by the Honourable and Learned Solici-
tor-General, with respect to abridgments and compendiums,
might be discussed at the proper time, namely, in Com-
mittee. He (Mr. D'lsraeli) intended to confine himself
merely to those points which trenched upon the principle of
the Bill. It had been brought forward as an objection to the
Bill (and this point was particularly urged in the petitions
which had been presented upon the subject) that the effect
of such a measure would be to prevent the republication of
many valuable works. Now the Legislature must, at all
times, deal with general principles. A man possessed of
property would, of course, wish to enjoy it. But if he
(Mr. D'lsraeli) possessed a freehold estate, and did not
choose to cultivate it, he presumed that no Gentleman
would come down to the House and propose to re-
peal the law of trespass, to enable some other person to
step in, and to cultivate a property to which he had no title,
for his own personal benefit.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.") It
was not to be forgotten that in literary property there was a
double stimulus to production—there was not merely for-
tune, but fame—not merely riches, but glory. It was said
that a Bill like that proposed by the Hon. and Learned Ser-
geant, would increase the price of books. That was a clues.
tion which he left to be decided by an appeal to facts. Take
the classical and standard works of half-a-dozen authors of
the present century—authors, the copyright of whose works
remained either with themselves or with their families, and
compare the price at which they were now published with
the price at which other works were published, where the
copyright existed with the booksellers. It would be found
that where the copyright remained with the author, or with
Iris family, the price was a hundred per cent. less than it was
during any period of the last generation. If the works of
Scott, Byron, Southey, Wordsworth, and even of a relative of
his own, were compared with the editions, now published by
what was called " the trade," of Hume, Gibbon, Robertson,
Blackstone, Burke, and others, it would be found that the
works of the former, possessing all the advantages of the most
exquisite mechanical skill, were delivered to the public at half
the price at which they could formerly be obtained. There
was no ground, therefore, for that objection to the Bill. But
there was in fact a literary monopoly in existence—a mo-
nopoly, not in favour of authors, but of booksellers. The
object of the present Bill was to remove that monopoly,
to protect the author, and to benefit the public. The Hon.
Member ( Mr. Pryme) who spoke last had alluded to the
works of Gibbon as affording an instance of the beneficial
working of the law as it now stood. He (Mr. D'lsraeli)
thought if the Hon. Gentleman had taxed his ingenuity he
could hardly have hit upon a case which went more against
his judgment. Here was a man who absolutely devoted up-
wards of twenty years of his life to a work which was one
of the greatest monuments of our literature—a man who at
the time his work appeared was considered a very successful
author. He (Mr. D'lsraeli) remembered a passage, familiar
no doubt to every Hon. Gentleman whom he addressed, in
which the great author told the world with pride and exulta-
tion that he had actually received 6,000/. from the booksellers,
adding that that sum exactly amounted to the money he had
been obliged to lay out in the purchase of the books of refer-
ence which were necessary to enable him to complete his work.
--(Hear, hear.) But supposing that that had not been the
case, what, in point of fact, did the remuneration amount to?
Divide the 6,0001. by the twenty years employed in the pro-
duction of the work, and it would be found that the reward to
the illustrious Gibbon for all his labour amounted only to 300/.
a yeas.—( Hear.) The work of Gibbon was one of the great
standard works in our literature ; Gibbon had long been dead
—the copyright had long remained in the hands of the book-
sellers. Had the public derived any advantage from these cir-
cumstances ?—( Hear.) Far from it. Until the present moment
no cheap edition had appeared. Upwards of fifty years had
elapsed since one adventurous bookseller had dared to break
through the monopoly of his brethren, and to give a new and
cheap edition of Gibbon, with the emendations of a scholar.--
( Hear.) The remuneration to Gibbon for all his labour
amounted, in point of fact, to nothing, because, as he had be-
fore stated, the 6,000/. paid for the copyriget only just covered
the sums he had expended in the purchase of books of refe-
rence. It was plain, therefore, that if Gibbon had been a
poor man, or if he had been a man with a large family, the lite-
rature of England could never have been enriched by his im-
mortal work. Compare with the case of Gibbon that of a man
of the present day, of learning not less distinguished, and as
a master of composition unrivalled amongst English writers
—Dr. Southey. He (Mr. D'lsraeli) knew that more than
a quarter of a century ago, Dr. Southey wished to de-
vote his life to a work more comprehensive than that of
Gibbon, and for learning more remarkable, perhaps, than
any that would ever adorn the language—a history of the
monastic orders; but, as it was probable that such a work
would occupy more than a quarter of a century in the exe-
cution, Dr. Southey was obliged to give up the idea in
consequence of the state of the law with respect to literary
property.—( Hear, hear.) Ha (Mr. D'lsraeli) hoped that
the House would allow the Bill to be read a second time.
He called upon the House to support it, not only because it
would be just and generous to do so, but because it would be
politic. It was to be remembered that literary men exer-
cised a power, oftentimes an irresistible power, over the inha-
bitants of every State. Was it politic then to debar from the
rights of property those who were the creators of opinion?
Mr. WARD, notwithstanding all that had been so ably
and so ingeniously advanced by the Honourable Gentleman
who had just sat down, as well as by the Honourable and
Learned Sergeant by whom this measure was introduced, felt
that he could not support the Bill. He could not perceive
why any distinction should be made between the fruits of
mind and of intellect, and the fruits of ingenuity and mechani-
cal skill. Ho thought that the protection afforded to authors
under the existing law was amply sufficient. He should,
there, oppose the second reading.
Mr. MILNE S supported the Bill. The honourable mem-
ber for Sheffield had said that he considered all property in
literary works to be entirely factitious. Upon this point he
(Mr. Milnes) only would make one remark, with a view to
show that in certain periods of history, when property of
every description was most insecure, and when principle was
least acknowledged, even then the principle of copyright
stood the test of public opinion. In the Constituent Assembly
of France in 1723, and at a time when the most unjust laws
were passing every day through that assembly, copyright
was acknowledged for the whole term of the life of the

author, and ten years after. This he thought would prove
that there was some principle inherent in this species of
property which was not likely to be put aside by the argu-
ments of honourable gentlemen who were opposed to the pre-
sent measure as they appeared to imagine.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was ♦ery
reluctant to give a silent vote in support of the Bill of his
Honourable and Learned Friend, in consequence of so much

opposition to it having come from gentlemen in whose opinions
he generally concurred. The debate had been opened to a con-
siderable extent by his Hon. and Learned Friend the Solicit
tor-General, in whose judgment he (the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer) generally placed great reliance. If he could adopt
the views of his Honourable and Learned Friend, and the ob-
servations which had fallen from other Honourable Gentle-
men, he should certainly be prepared to go much farther than
they appeared willing to do. For if their arguments were
correct they ought to follow them up by a repeal of the exist..
ing law of copyright altogether.—( Hear, hear.) His Hon.
Friend the Member for Sheffield contended that there was no
property-in literature ;if not, how could he, or those who
agreed with him in opinion, defend the law now on the sta-
tute book ? The argument of his Hon. Friend was, there
was no property in the literary productions of the mind beyond
what was the creation of the law. Why, all property was the
creation of the law.—( Hear, hear.) The principle of all pro-
eenreeartatlunusueffutlreaslatl,e:
tseedfuvtlniethsst.helfr,eetuhgenmitituhneruef
thiswa
f
spneertteytyr.esolpvreuripietrsteylfuifnetvoearypkritnnediptyleasolheg
particular species of property, it became as much entitled to
justified
n e rbayl
the protection of the State as any other description of pro.
theuse fpu rl innecs
sp
lceononfecu
perty ; and as to the question whether it was literary property
or not, that became wholly immaterial, and the argument
founded upon such a distinction entirely fell to the ground.
The Solicitor-General seemed to put the question altogether
upon this principle, that under the existing state of things
there was extracted from the genius of authors as much as
it was possible to obtain from them ; and that having obtained
this maximum of good, the present question was a totally
immaterial one, and was not necessary to be entertained by
the House. But that was not a just way of dealing with a
subject of this description. Between the case of a patent in-
vention and the present subject an analogy had been drawn,
the fallacy of which he would presently endeavour to point
out ; but supposing, on an application for a patent to protect
some mechanical invention, it could be shown that as much
benefit could be produced to the community and the same
amount of ingenious mechanism be obtained without granting
e patent right, still that would not satisfy the fair expectations of
the party, nor ought it to satisfy society at large, because the
public interest would certainly be ultimately injured if those
who were great public benefactors were not enabled to obtain
for their labours an adequate reward. An adequate reward was
one of the elements they were bound to take into consideration
when discussing the present question. He was anxious to hare
that principle first discussed ; they might afterwards discuss
whether by making the reward more adequate to authors they
would or not be conferring a greater benefit on the public.
The case of Mr. Southey, which had been mentioned by the
Honourable Member for Maidstone (Mr. D'lsraeli), was one
showing that a work had not been produced in consequence of
the inadequacy of the reward ; and how many more of such
cases were there, he might ask 2—( Hear, hear.) But it was
objected that we ought to bring forward these illustrious
names. If we argued the question of inadequacy of reward
generally, we were called upon to produce our cases ; and
then, when we did so, we were told, because these were great
and glorious names, that we had no right to reason in reference
to those particular cases, and that we were leading the House
astray by our sentiment. He confessed he should be sorry to
approach this subject, or discuss it, without sentiment; and
was it much to discuss the genius of the great among mankind
with that feeling which others might call sentiment, but which
he would call well-directed enthusiasm ?—( Cheers.) Then
let them take the case of Mr. Wordsworth. Was there a
single person competent to form an opinion upon the subject
who would contend that it was just that whilst that illustrious
man was conferring a boon upon his country and the world,
the law should at his death deprive his family of that property
which was the creation of his own genius ? The way in which
those were dealt with who supported this Bill was most hard.
' When they argued upon the general question they were told
to bring forward their examples ; and when they did bring
forward particular examples, they were taxed with reasoning
from sentiment and enthusiasm, which the great names they
produced naturally gave rise to. With respect to the analogy
between invention in machinery and literary production at-
tempted to be set up, he should like to know in what that
analogy consisted. If you were to confer upon any patentee
an immortality of his patent, it would be of no use whatsoever
to him. An invention which was of importance in 1830 would
become superseded by another invention in 1837 ; a patent
right, therefore, if granted in perpetuity, would, in nine cases
out of ten, not benefit the inventor, whereas a copyright gave
an enduring benefit to the author. Where, then, was the ana-
logy between the two cases ? Would those who urged this
argument give him the benefit of their own analogy? Accord-
ing to the present law of patents, if a patentee could make out
a case before the Privy Council, he could obtain a prolongation
of his patent.—(A Member—For a certain time.) Yes, for a
certain time; but that was the principle of this Bill. If they
permitted an extension of the period for the benefit of pa-
tentees when eases were made out, why should they not
with respect to literature permit a like extension, on cases
being made out, for the benefit of authors ? He only asked
for the exertions of the highest range of intellect the same
degree of reward that was bestowed upon the lower and se-
condary powers of the mind. However much disposed the
Hon. Member for Kilkenny might be to raise the pretensions
of genius in its application to mere mechanical inventions over
the powers of intellect as applied to literature, he (the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer) would ask, whence mechanical
inventions themselves proceed if it were not from the impulse
given to the general mind by the works of those of loftier
genius and of a more comprehensive range of intellect
( Hear, hear.) But he wished it not to be supposed that he
undervalued the claims of printers, and publishers, and all the
other parties engaged in the mechanical process of getting
up the works of authors. On the contrary, he was ready
to extend the fullest consideration to those claims, and he,
for one, was far from thinking that they preyed upon the
brains of nen of genius. He trusted, however, that
the House would not, after the cases of inadequacy of
reward in the instances of some of the greatest names that
shed a lustre on British literature that had come before
them, reject this Bill upon its second reading without even
taking into consideration any one of its propositions. Gen-
tlemen had objected to some of those propositions, and espe-
cially to the term of sixty years, but these were points
open to discussion in Committee. The supporters of the Bill
did not feel themselves pledged to all its clauses. He could
not sit down without repeating the sentiment which he had
on a former occasion expressed, and in which he wag sure
all present participated, even those most strongly opposed
to the measure—the sentiment of delight with which he had
heard his Honourable and Learned Friend, and his opinion of
the peculiar appropriateness with which this motion had been
placed in the hands of one of the greatest ornaments of our
living literature, who, with a manliness and spirit that did him
the highest credit, had come forward, not upon an exciting po-
Ftical subject, nor upon one which seemed to be very attractive
to the House at large, but to discharge his duty to that body of
literary men to which he himself belonged.
Mr. GROTE felt it his duty to oppose the second read-
ing of this Bill, and he would shortly state the grounds
upon which he did so, and with a view to what interest it
was that his object was confined. There had been a good
deal of argument upon the fact that the principal petitions
against the Bill had been presented from publishers,
printers, and booksellers. He wished to state distinctly that
his opposition was not founded upon any peculiar sympathy
for either of those three classes ; but most distinctly and
exclusively upon the feeling be had that this Bill would have
the effect—if it had any effect at all—of narrowing the circle
of the public amongst whom literature would circulate. It
was upon that view solely that he opposed the Bill. If gen-
tlemen who supported the measure would show him that he
was in error—if they would show him that printing under
a copyright would be cheaper than printing without a ,copy-
right, his opposition to the Bill would be withdrawn:, But,
he must say, if that had been the fact, it was his firm belief
that the House would have heard nothing whatever of this.
Bill.—( Hear, hear.) He would put it to the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman, what would be the case in the event of
this Bill passing? Would not the representatives of the au-
thors dispose of all their interest in the sixty years' copyright
for a sum in hand; and should we not be still liable to the painful
spectacle of some son or grandson of some eminent historian—
if of an indiscreet character—suffering under poverty and dis-
tress ? He would venture to say that neither this Bill
nor any other that might be devised, could rescue the
son or grandson of a literary man from the consequences
of improvidence and indiscretion. Much as they might all
lament this, and much as their sympathies might be touched
by it, yet it was quite impossible to prevent them from suf-
fering the consequences of their own imprudence. A good
deal had been said during the present discussion as if this
were a question between authors and publishers, and not
between authors and the public. Now he would apply to
any gentleman whether there was any one department of
commercial enterprise in which competition was more in-
tense and more active than in the publishing trade. It was
impossible to suppose that publishers in the present day could
derive more than an ordinary remuneration for capital and
trouble employed in trade. Therefore, if by any alteration of
the law of copyright they were to impart to the author a
greater profit than he now received from his works, that bene-
fit would be obtained at the expense of the reading public who
purchased them. But in his opinion, whenever a question
arose between the interest of any one class of persons and the
interest of the public, it was the duty of this House to give it'
decision in favour of the latter. The Hon. Gentleman con-
cluded by expressing his belief that the Bill was replete with
mischief to the public, doubtful in its pecuniary results as to
the authors themselves, and calculated to rob those authors of
that which he was persuaded they set a greater value upon
than any pecuniary gain—a wide and enduring circle of lite-
rary and intrinsic admiration.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that he felt bound
to offer some observations en the Bill of the Honourable and
Learned Member, to which he must give his opposition. lii
one of the petitions which he had had the honour to present
from the city of Edinburgh, it was stated that when the sta-
tute of the Bth of Anne passed into a law, there were only
two printing presses engaged in that city, while there were
now sixty, at which no less than 8,000 men were employed ;
and notwithstanding these facts being represented, yet the
system as it at present existed was objected to, although it
had produced the beneficial effects which were pointed out.
He was prepared to admit that there were instances in which
it was necessary to extend some additional reward to literary
men ; but he would ask whether the House would content
itself with legislating for these rare and uncommon instances
by altering the whole existing system ? He would point

out the plan which suggested itself to his mind as being a
just and proper one. In the case of the Patent Act since the
law had been passed four years ago he had been called upon,
in his office of Attorney-General, by the Privy Council, to
investigate cases in which it should be proper that an exten-
sion of patents should be granted, and, in the course of that
inquiry, it was found that there were cases in which the ex-
tension he referred to might with justice be granted, the
patents being of so valuable a character as to entitle the par-
ties to such a step being adopted. Might not the same course
be adopted in the present case, and would not Mr. Wordsworth
then be fully rewarded for the labours which he had under-
gone ; and might not the heirs of Sir Walter Scott be placed
in a situation in which they might enjoy the benefit of his
works ; and might not Abbotsford then still remain in them as
their property ? He saw no objection at all to such a course
being adopted, and he should try to recommend some such
plan to the consideration of the Hon. and Learned Member
for Reading, whose Bill it was his painful duty to oppose.
The Hon. Member for London had already referred to the
eril effects which might be produced by the measure ;
but he bad not mentioned one which he was confident
would ensue. He was of opinion that it would paralyse in-
dustry, and that it would do little for the great mass of
authors. The provisions of the Bill were that the author or
the owner of the copyright should have the benefit of it until
the death of the former, and that it should be enjoyed by the
representatives of the author for sixty years afterwards.
But that would confer no benefit on the author, and it would,
besides, be injurious to the public, because the consequence
would be that no petty author would avail himself of the
provisions of the measure, and would not reprint his work ;
while, if it were reprinted by any one else, actions would be
brought, and it would give rise to a great deal of pettifog-
ging legal proceedings. This objection, however, would be
entirely removed by his proposition ; and by that, too, he
thought that the object which they all had in view, namely,
the proper reward of authors, would be secured. He should
feel it his duty to vote for the ameadment which had been
proposed, that the Bill should be read a second time that day
six months.

Mr. C. W. WYNN said, that he always entertained the
greatest respect for the legal opinions of the Hon. and
Learned Attorney-General, but he must differ from what he
understood him to hare said, that the law as it now stood had
existed since the statute of the Bth of Anne. —(No, no.) It
appeared to him that that was the effect of the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman's observations; but every literary man
who was acquainted with the history of the country knew that
copyright was enjoyed in perpetuity after that, and that it was
not limited by the Act of Anne until a decision which subse-
quently took place. If it were right that authors should have
an increased compensation, he had no hesitation in saying that
the adoption of that course would increase the price of the
book. The system proposed would apply to all classes of
books, as well to those of a superior quality as to books which
were of a description calculated to minister to the bad taste
and bad feelings of the people.--(Hear, hear.) The copy-
right in bee'ss of such a class was of no value, but the
reason for which he was willing to extend the law was for
the protection of those works which always mot with the
public approbation, and to which, although they might not
suit the taste of the public at the time of their being pub-
lished, future ages might look with respect and admiration.
All property of whatever character rested on law ; but on
what did law itself stand but on right reason and good sense?
He would ask the House, therefore, if they desired at all to
hold out an inducement to a person to devote long laborious
years to the benefit of society?—and if so, he would say that
they must adopt some such course as that suggested. There
were many instances within his own knowledge where some
such interference in favour of authors was necessary, and
he might first mention that of his excellent and respected
friend, Mr. Southey, whom he bad had the honour to call his
friend for the last fifty years. He knew how small the re-
muneration was which he had received for many of the works
which he had produced by the most laborious efforts, and
he knew also that he had received even more for
those of his ephemeral works, as he might call them,
which had appeared in the reviews and other periodicals.
He might mention the case of Mr. Hallam also, who had
certainly contributed much to the good of the public, and
yet he had only been able to produce his work upon the His-
tory of the Middle Ages a volume at a time, there being no
call for them, and the means not being afforded him of pro-
ducing them all at once. He might adduce another case, that
of Johnson's Dictionary. It was a work of the greatest use,
and it was when first produced a compilation of former works,
and yet in forty years a new edition was required and was pub-
lished, containing many new words; but yet the booksellers
said, " We do not care for your new edition, we will not deal
with you, we will stick to our old copyright of the standard
work, and you may publish your new edition." But if this
should continue, would not the public be deprived of the im-
proved editions of works, for the same state of things would
apply to other works? The Right Honourable Gentleman
concluded by expressing his intention to support the principle
of the Hon. and Learned Member's Bill, and to vote that it
should be read a second time.
Mr. J. JERVIS said that he should recommend his lion.
and Learned Friend the Member for Reading, before he per-
sisted in pressing forward his measure, to consider well the
suggestion thrown out by the Learned Attorney-General;
and he should feel bound, if he did not do so, with great
reluctance to vote against the second reading of the Bill.
The House, in considering any measure which was proposed
to be adopted, ought not to reason by what had already
taken place for what might occur in future, and should not
draw inferences that similar events would occur at a future
time. It was admitted that, before the case of " Miller v.
Taylor," the copyright was perpetual, and yet many cases
might be brought forward in which, although this perpetuity
existed, authors were in the greatest distress and want. If
the House were to believe the evidence given by Mr. Hansard
in 1834, that he would not exchange the eleven copies of
all works which were required to be given to public bodies
for the extension, they might readily imagine that the
authors would get nothing by the present measure. The House
would not sanction a law to be adopted with regard to literary
property which was different from the law relating to any
other property, and he could not but express his opinion that
the introduction of the law proposed would have no effect, for
if the bookseller were to be deprived of his property in the
copyright on the death of the author, would not the price first
given for the work be materially decreased ? The case of
Mr. Hallam was directly in point on the subject, and the
reason which prevented booksellers from publishing standard
works of sterling merit was the uncertainty of getting a re-
turn for the necessarily large outlay which they made. The
question was, not whether the author or publisher should have
a remuneration, but whether the author was to receive more,
or the public to be deprived of the benefit of his works.
But if an increased length of time were to be given for
copyrights to rue, the public would gain nothing, and the only
effect would be that the value of the work would be in-
creased, and that money would be put into the pockets of the
publisher.
E.
Sir B. SUGD EN would say a few words on the ground
on which he intended to oppose the Bill. He could not agree
with the Learned Attorney-General in the opiuion which he
had expressed, and the plan which he had proposed—( Hear,
litar)—for he thought that however advantageous the prin-
ciplehpeose thinking
this Bill.
that If
th he e
right were
might be to the great mass of individuals, it would be
impossible to carry it r
ei into effect
sthmepublic,ll.
as witt hhe were,
and
adude considerationth he
ethat
wo
ualsd per-
lisps
n I
ot
the rights of all parties. He regretted, however, that it was
on strong groun
ceould musntot 1p Op
oc ookp)troi
support
it
to ; d
of
tifieh'itspu°bvilnis
butc belongedin hthteat they
ey obtained
tamed any value. This quegy
through
_
flee, however, did not depend on abstract right, but on statute
that
het h
he existenced
of the law, and it was therefore a question of profit and loss as it
stood on the statuetec.hreHhey
mfeletanesqoufalltyheasßidlelsniroowushethfoereHtohne.
and Learned Member for Reading to effect the object which
he proposed to s
objected to the extent of time
onnwihhichthtehereraigl hptroopfetrhtye
copy-
right. In twenty years even the identity. of the representa-
tives be lost, and if the
os es
ed d that
to he
carry
yo b
of an author might House should go
length of time would be introduced which
beyond that,
tHoowuisseic,hbuitt
was
would be lost. The principle which he proposed to
public eascopnrfoeps
advocate bad already be
law ; and he repeated that if a long term were determined on,
of tracing the representatives of an author would be
the means
would be most inconveer:enactiedandupi
lost. He would ask the Hon. and Learned Member himself,
whose works were much and most deservedly admired, if at
the time of his writing the extent of time for which the copy-
right should last ever entered his imaginatihn ? And he
would say that he was quite confident that no such thought
ever entered on the mind of any of the celebrated writers of the
day. Therefore, as he objected to the length of time for
which the proposed right should exist, he contended that its
duration should not extend beyond more than fire or seven
years, which would be unreasonable, and would afford the
author's representatives the means of providing for his family,
or of paying his debts; but he could not help saying that
sixty years was as much as a perpetuity, and it was quite use-
less, for at the end of that time the books would be unsaleable.
To the smaller extent he thought it might go, but he thought
so only because it would otherwise lead to no benefit with re-
gard to the reversioner, the public, to whom all should go. It
was on these grounds that he desired to oppose the Bill of the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman.
Lord MAHON then addressed the House, but in such a
low tone of voice that most of his observations were inaudible
in the gallery. We understood him to say that he should
consider it a most deplorable circumstance that literary men
should sacrifice their independence for temporary purposes.
Several allusions had made to the case of Mr. Words-
worth, who from some peculiar circumstances had not until
lately attained that general popularity which his distinguished
merits and attainments entitled him to, and who only re-
cently received a comparatively large sum for the sale of the
copyright of an edition of his works. Now, would it not
have been this Gentleman
a disgrace to the country that
should lose this reward of his literary labours just at the
moment the public were beginning to appreciate his at-
tainments? The rejection of this measure would be an
inducement to an author to sacrifice his own aspirations
to temporary popularity. On this ground alone he con-
tended that the people were deeply interested in the suc-
cess of this Bill. For the sake of the public, and for the im-
provement
of popular taste, he contended it was the duty
of the Legislature to support a measure like the present, the
object of which was the securing the independence of literary
men. On every principle of expediency and justice lie felt
bound to respect
support a measure like the present.
to the objections to this Bill, he felt satisfied that those that
had that night been urged rather applied to its details than
than to the principle of it. Several of the objections
that had been urged were against all copyright at all. In-
deed in the petition that had been so much alluded to in the
course of the discussion, it was stated that all copyright was ;
a monopoly, and, therefore, was illegal. If this argument '

as
were admitted a copyright for twenty-eight years wasFtiust
much a monopoly and illegal as for a longer period. or his
own part he did not think that the arguments !hat had been
urged were entitled to much weight. He admitted that great
benefits had been conferred on literature by printers and pub-
lishers, but he thought that in the present instance those
parties had mistaken their own interests.
Mr. WARBURTON thought that the interests of the
public had been altogether passed over in the consideration
of the present subject. As for the assertion that the opposi-
tion to the Bill had been got up by those who were interestea
in the matter, he would beg the House to recollect that this
was generally the case, and that in most questions the parties
in
stance
to directed public attention in the first
to the merits of the particular case. In the present case
he thought that the public were deeply indebted to the par-
ties who were said to be peculiarly interested for having
called public attention to this, in his opinion, most per-
nicious Bill. He was convinced that it would do more
injury to literature and to literary men than publishers
et- printers ever could do, as it would tend to check the
spread of literary productions among the people. It had
been said, that authors would willingly forego a temporary
popularity and large sums for a work if they could be insured
a sure and certain return, but he was satisfied this was
a fallacious notion. He was convinced that publishers
would not give one farthing more for the copyright of a
work if it were secured to them for the long period pro-
posed in this Bill, than they would under existing circum-
stances. The truth was, that publishers were like other men
engaged in mercantile pursuits, and their object was to get a
rapid sale, and to obtain a return of their capital in as short a
period as possible, and they were not likely to look to a long
duration of copyright as a matter of consequence. It had
been said that this measure would protect poorer authors.
He did not agree in this opinion, for poorer authors would be
just as much disposed as ever to sell their copyrights. He also
objected most strongly to the suggestion of the Attorney-
General that it should be left to the Privy Council to deter-
mine whether there should or should not be an extension of
the period of copyright in any particular case. Suppose the
Privy Council was composed of Tories, was it likely such a
body would extend the period of the copyright of a work in
defence of popular rights? The author of such a production
would not have the slightest chance before such a tribunal.
Again, the author of a Tory work would have no chance of
obtaining a prolongation of the period of his copyright before
a Whig Privy Council.—(Laughter.) He trusted that the
printers and publishers would succeed in defeating this Bill,
as he was convinced that if it succeeded it would prove most
detrimental to literature.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that he only in-
tended that the question of the renewal of copyright should
be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council,
which was composed of certain of the Judges and other
Learned persons, and where there was no political feeling.
To this tribunal the question of the renewal of patents was
referred.

Mr. Sergeant TAL FOURD shortly replied. He did not
think that he was called upon to abandon the Bill in conse-
quence of the suggestion of his Honourable and Learned
Friend the Attorney-General to refer the question of copy-
right to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ; for his
own part, he doubted whether the previous studies of a law-
yer's life peculiarly fitted him for the consideration of literary
works. Many Members seemed to labour under the impres-
sion that it was the custom for authors to sell their copyrights
is full, but it so happened that they seldom sold more than the
copyright of a single edition of a limited number of impres-
sioas. This was the case with Sir Walter Scott's works, in
whose family the property of the copyright of that distin-
guished man's literary works was still vested. This was also
the case with Southey, Wordsworth, and other eminent lite-
rary men.

The House then divided—
For the seeond reading 39
Against it
Majority
The Bill was then read a second time. On the motion that
the Bill be committed,
Mr. P. H. HOWARD moved as an amendment, that it
be referred to a Select Committee up stairs.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD opposed the motion, on the
ground that it would be more fully and fairly discussed in the
Committee of the whole House.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought that it would
be fairer to have the discussion on the details of the Bill in
the House.

Mr. J. JERVIS said thatit would be almost impossible to
- proceed with the Bill before a Select Committee, and satis-
factorily examine the legal bearing of the different clauses.
Mr. HUME was of opinion that the parties who had peti-
tioned the House on the subject were entitled to be heard at
the Bar, and when this had been done it might be expedient
to refer the matter to a Select Committee.
Sir E. B. SUGDEN was satisfied that there was ample
evidence before the House to enable it to come to a satisfac-
tory decision. The House was perfectly competent to declare
its opinion on the question without further inquiry; it would,
therefore, be useless labour to send the Bill to a Select
Committee.

Mr. WARBURTON was favourable to having the matter
discussed in a Committee of the whole House, as he thought
that it could be more effectually opposed there than in a Com.
mittee up stairs.
Mr. P. H. HOWARD said that he voted for the second
reading of the Bill ; and all that he was anxious for in moving
his amendment was that the interests of all parties should be
regarded.
The House then divided—
For the amendment 3l
Against it
Majority —7

The Bill was then ordered to be committed on Wednesday
next.

The other Orders of the Day wore then disposed of, and
,he House adjourned at half-past ten o'clock.

PARLIAMENTARY DI VISION S.

COPYRIGHT BILL.

(From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons.)

WEDNESDAT; AYRII. 25.
Order for Second Reading read; Motion made, and Question
proposed, " That the Bill be now read a second time :"—Amend-
ment proposed, to leave out the word " now," and at the end of
the Question to add the words upon this day six months :"
Question put, " That the word now' stand part of the Question :"
—The House divided :

MAJORITY-AYES, 39.
Arland, T. D.—West Somerset Ingham, R. -South Shields
Ad ire, Lord—Glamorganshire Law, Hon C. E.—Cambridge Univ.
Atwood, W.—Greenwich Liddell, Hon. H.—North Durham
Attwood, M.—Whitehaveli Mackenzie, Thomas—Ross-shire
Barnard, E. G.—Greenwich M.l.eod, R.—lnverness
Barrington, Lord—Berksh.re Mahon, Viscount— Hertford
Blakcmore, Richard—Wells Maule, W. H.—Carlow
Brocklehurst, J.— Alacclesfield Milnes, R M.—Pontefract
Browne, R. D.—Mayo Morpeth, Lord—Yorkshire
Burrell, Sir C.—Shoreham Morris, I).—Carmarthen
Cavendish, Hon. G. H.—N. Derby Praed, W. M —Aylesbury
Chichester, J. P. B.—Barnstaple Pringle, Alexander—Selkirkshire
Dalrymple, Sir A.—Brighton Rice, Right Hon. T. S.—Cambridge
i !arby, George—East Sussex Seymour, Lord—Totness
.D'lsraeli, B.—Maidstone 'Ferment, J. E.—Belfast
Ellis, John—Newry Vigors, N. A.—Carlow Co ----)1
Freshfield, J. W.—Penrvn Wynn, Right Hon. C. W.—Mont-
Gladstone, W.E.—Newark-on-Trent gomcryshire
Gordon, Robert—Windsor
Graham, Sir James—Pembroke
Grattan, James—Wicklow C..
Howard, P. H.—Carlisle

TELLERS.
Talfourd, Mr. Serjeant —Reading
Inglis, Sir It. H.—Oxford University

MINORITY-
Briscoe, J. L—Westbury
Broad ley, Henry—East Yorkshire
mrotherton' J.—Salford
Buller, Sir J. Yarde—Devonshire
Campbell, Sir John—Edinburgh
Collins, W.—Warwick
Courtenay, P.—Bridgewater
Denistoun, J.—Glasgow
Duckworth, Samuel—Leicester
Finch, F.—Walsall
;rote, George—London
Hawes, Benjamin—Lambeth
Hayter' W. G.—Wells
Jervis, J.—Chester
Jervis, S.—Bridport
Langdale, Hon .C.—Kearesborough
Lefevre,-C. Shaw—North Hants
Lynch, A. H.—Galway
Muskett, George A.—St. Alban's
-

-NOES, 34.
O'Brien, W. S.—Limerick Co.
O'Brien, Cornelius—Clare
lOssulston, Lord—N., Northumber-

land:
Pryme, George—Cambridge
Richards, Richard—Merionethshire
Rolfe, Sir R. M.—Penrhyn
Strutt, Edward —Derby
Sugden, Sir E.—Ripon
Tancred, H. W.—Banbury
Thornely, Thos.—Wolverhampton
Villiers, C. P.—Wolverhampton
Wakley, Thomas- Finsbury
Ward, H. G.—Shetlield
Williams, William—Coventry
Yates, J. Ashton -Carlow

TILLLERS.
Hume, Joseph—.KilLenny
Warburton, H.—Bridport

,lotion made, and Question proposed,—'• That the Billbc com-
mitted to a Committee of the whole House : "—Amendment pro-
posed, to leave out from the words " Committee of the whole
House," in order to add the words " Select Committee," instead
thereof :—Question put, " That the words ' Committee of the
whole House' stand part of the Question :"—The House divided :
MAJORITY—AYES, 38.
D'lsr4eli, Benjamin Milnes, Richard
Freshfield, J. W Morpeth, Viscount
Gladstone, W. E. ltiuskett, George A.
Gordon, Robert Praed, W. M.
Graham, Sir J. Pringle, A.
Grattan, J. - Rice, T. S.
Ingham, Itaert Richards, R.
Law, Hon. C. E. Rolfe, Sir R. M.
Leferre, C. Shaw Sugden, Sir Edward
Liddell, H. T. Tancred, H. W.
Mackenzie, Thomas TELLERS.
M.1.,e0d, R. Dillon, W. D.
Mahon, Lerd Talfoursl,:T. N.
Maule, W. H. Inglis, Sir R. H.

Acland, T. D.
Adare, Lord
Attwood,
Attwood, M.
Barrington, Viscount
Illakernore, B.
Broadley, Henry
13rocklehurst, J.
Browne, R. 1).
Buller, Sir J.
Lurrell, Sir C. M.
Cavendish, Hon. G.
Chichester, J. P. *
Darby, George

Barnard, E. G.
Briscoe, J.
Br.therton, J.
Chalmers, Patrick
Collins, W.
Courtenay, T. P.
Dennistoun, J.
Duckworth, S.
Finch, Francis
Grote, G.
Hawes, B.
Hayter, W. G.

:NORITY-NOES,
Jervis, J.
Jervis, S.
Langdale, Hon. C.
Lynch, A. H.
Morris, David
O'Brien, Cornelius
O'Brien, W. S.
Ossulston, Lord
Pryine, G.
Strutt, Edward
Tennent, J. B.

Thornely, Thomas
Vizors, N.
Villiers, Charles P.
Wakley, Thomas
Warburton, H.
Ward, H. G.
Williams, W.
Yates, J. A.

TELLERS.
H.ward, P. 11. •
Hume, Joseph

A Goon EXAMPLE.—A Canadian journalist
lately announced the decease of ono of his patrons in the fol-
lowing terms :—" In him society has lost one of its choicest
ornaments; the Church has been deprived of a true believer;
his wife of a loving husband, and his children of an affection-
ate parent ; while we hare lost a subscriber always punctual
and regular in his payments I"
It is with regret we state that the accident which
happened to William Jesse Coope, Esq., of Summerlands,
near this town, by his horse running away on Good Friday,
proved fatal to that gentleman, who expired on Sunday morn-
ing, in the 73d year of his ago. During the short period of
his residence in this town, Mr. Coope had endeared himself
to a large circle of friends.—Falmouth Packet.
We learn that the London Working Men's Asso-
ciation will shortly submit to the country the promised Bill for
radically reforming the House of Commons to be called the
" People's Charter." ,

The Reformers of Newcastle-upon-Tyne have sent
to town a subscription towards defraying the expenses of the
Hull inquiry. If this were more generally done by the Re-
formers of the north, it would act as an incentive to Liberal
candidates in other places.