The Sun.
London, England, 1838-05-10 00:00:00

CORN LAWS.

The Marquis of CHANDOS presented several petitions from Buck.
inghamshire, against the Foreign Corn Bonding Bill.
Sir C. B. VERE also presented several petitions from Suffolk, to the
acne effect.
Mr. DENNISON presented a petition in favour of the Bill.
IRISH NATIONAL EDUCATION.

Sir It. BATESON presented petitions from Ireland against the system
of Irish National Education.

COPYRIGHT BILL.
Mr. HUME presented several petitions against the Bill—one from
Dr. Birkbeck, chairman of the meeting at the Freemasons'-hall, yester-
day (Tuesday evening), in opposition to the Bill.
ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS (IRELAND) BILL.
GOULBURN presented petitions against the Ecclesiastical
Courts Bill.

FOREIGN CORN BONDING BILL.
Colonel SEALE moved that the Bill be read a second time.
The Marquis of CH A NDOS opposed the Bill, as likely to be highly
injurious to the agricultural interest, and moved that it be read a second
time that day six months.
Mr. WARBURTON contended that the effect of the Bill would be
rather beneficial than otherwise to the agricultui al interest.
Mr. HEATHCOTE saidlthe agriculturists, whether right or wrong,
felt strongly against the 13,11—(Cheers from the Liberal Members)
and perhaps they were as good judges of their own interests as others.
The measure was brought forward to legalise a fraud. It was well
known that the bonded system was fraud from nearly beginning to end.
The shipping interest had a monopoly of the.coasting and colonial trade.
Then what right had they to the boon to be granted to them
which the Bill would do at the expence of the farmer.—(Hear, hear.)
The feeling of the agricultural interest was that they should be left
alone, and he trusted the House would throw out the Bill, for it was an
attempt to get rid of the corn laws by a side wind.
Lord WORSLEY said he was perfectly aware that the feeling of his
constituents was against the Bill, but he could not honestly oppose it.—
(Loud cheers.) He was afraid that the farmers were taking
a very wrong course in opposing the Bill, and though he was
sorry to go against their wishes, still, as he believed that they were de-
ceived upon the question, and as he thought the Bill would not do them
any harm, he would support it. If any part of the foreign corn was to
be permitted to be used in the country, he would have opposed it, but
he supported the Bill from the conscientious belief that he was doing the
best for the farmers' own interest.
Sir J. TYRRELL defended the agricultural interest from the charge
brought against them of selfishness upon this question. The Bill would
be a benefit only to the great millers, and that at the expense of the
Agriculturalists. He most cordially concurred in the opposition to the
Bill, and trusted it would be thrown out.
Mr. BROTHERTON believed that the Bill would do good not only
to the commercial but to the agricultural interests, but he was glad to
see the stand made by the landed gentry against this Bill, for if they
threw it out it would do much goc.d and would advance the good object,
the repeal of the most cruel and oppressive laws which were to be found
in the statute book.—(Loud cheers.)
Mr. P. THOMSON said, considering the situation in which he stood,
the House would expect a few observations from him. He could
not agree with the observations that had been made by the Noble Lord
opposite. He could not believe that the agricultural gentleman of Eng-
land would reject a measure of the kind, especially as it would benefit
a large class of the community, without injuring the agriculturist,
or depreciating the value of land. If fears were entertained with
respect to the measure, in the Committee was the proper pace to make
objections, and not at the present stage. He hoped the Hon. Member
who introduced the measure would receive the support of the Hon. Mem-
ber for Tamworth. He thought the Bill should be read a second
time, and any alterations might be made in Committee to secure the
landholder,
Sir EDWARD KNATCHBULL said he would support the motion
of his Noble Friend for the rejection of the Bjll.—(Hear, hear, hear.)
The Right Hon. Gentleman opposite had said that, in Committee, clauses
might be introduced to protect the landowner. He would fearlessly
assert it was impossible for him to do so.
Sir R. PEEL considered it very strange that Hon. Gentlemen opposite
should expect him to vote in favour of this Bill, atter that which had
been brought in by his own friends had been found to be a failure with
respect to the very points which, it was urged, were the chief objections
to the measure before the House.—(Hear, hear.) He confessed he had
no very strong feeling on the subject, either the one way or the other ;
at the same time, although he did not think that the measure would be
to any considerable extent injurious or beneficial, either to the commer-
cial or the manufacturing interests, yet, coupling the consideration that
it was very probable it would create much dissatisfaction in the minds of
a great portion of the community, with the fear on the part of the agri.
cultural interest that it would be prejudicial to them, he must give his
vote in favour of the amendment of his Noble Friend.—(Cheers, and
eries of " Divide.")
Mr. D. ROCHE supported the Bill.
The Earl of DARLINGTON said that great disadvantages would at.
tacit to the passing of a Bill like this.
The LORD ADVOCATE thought the Bill ought at all events to be
allowed to be read a second time, and if there was any ground for fraud
in its present form a guard against that might be added to it in the
Comm ittee.— (Hear.)
Sir J. GRAHAM supported the amendment.
Mr. MARK PHILIPS supported the Bill.
Colonel SEALE briefly replied, and the House divided, when the
numbers were,
For the second reading
For the amendment ....... ............... 220
Majority against the second reading —7O
PRISONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
On the motion of Mr. F. MAULE, this Bill passed through a Corn-
mittee proforma, and was ordered, with the amendments, to be printed,
and recommitted on Monday next.
ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. BARRON moved the second reading of the Ecclesiastical Courts
(Ireland) Bill. This Bill was founded on both the reports which had been
the result of the inquiries which had taken' place into the constitution
and practice of those Courts, and some suggestions which had occurred
to himself in the framing of it. The Judge who presided over those Courts
had declared that some alteration was called for; and among other
changes which the measure proposed effecting were, trial by jury
in certain cases, and vise voce evidence instead of the present
practice of examining witnesses by written interrogatories. At present
the Judge had no power to make rules fur regulating either the practice
or the fees payable to the Proctors and other officers of those Courts,
but by this Bill such a power would be given. In short, the Judge of the
Ecclesiastical Courts was to be placed in the same situation precisely
in these respects as the Judges of the Courts of equity and common law.
This was absolutely necessary, as no one who knew anything about the
Ecclesiastical Courts could deny that proceedings in them were ruinous
to the suitors and profitable only to the practitioners. It was not a
little singular that the Crown had no power to grant a retiring pension
to the Judge of these Courts, even though he might have filled the
situation for sixteen or seventeen years, and be weighed down with age
'and infirmities : but the fact was so. For this hardship he proposed a
iremedy, and, consequently, the Bill empowered the Crown to grant a
'retiring pension when such a provision ought to be given. He had
named 2,500/. as the sum that ought to be allowed, but as he had no
wish that the House should adopt his view on the subject he would
leave it to them to fix whatever sum they pleased. The Hon. Member
concluded by moving that the Bill be now read a second time.
The SPEAKER having put the question,
Mr. GOULBURN felt, in common with many others, the strongest
objection to the principle of the Bill which proposed to abolish the pre-
sent Ecclesiastical Courts, and to establish entirely new Courts in their
stead. There was another objection to this Bill. Government had pro.
mised to bring in a Bill for the regulation of Ecclesiastical Courts in
'England, and he thought they ought to wait until they had the experi-
ence of that Bill. After stating some objections to the details of the
Bill, the Right Hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that it should be
read a second time that day six months.
The amendment having been put,
Mr HUME considered the Bill very important, and one which the
Government ought to have brought in; but if they did not do so he did
not think that a reason why any Member of the House should be pre.
eluded from introducing a Bill to effect an useful object.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER regretted the absence
of his Right Hon. Friend the Attorney-General for Ireland, and would
recommend his Hon. Friend the Member for Waterford not to press the
second reading now, but postpone it to some future day when the Attor.
ney-General for Ireland would be present, and when the House would
have the opinion of the law officers of the Crown and of those who were
the most competent judges of a question of this kind.
Mr. BARRON would acquiesce in the suggestion, and postpone the
second reading of the Bill to that clay fortnight.
The amendment having been withdrawn in consequence of the Hon.
Member's postponing the Bill, the second reading, after a short con.
versation, was postponed to that day fortnight.
CUSTODY OF INFANTS BILL.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD brought up the report of this Bill, and
moved that the Bill be engrosses!.
On the question being put,
Sir E. SUGDEN felt it to be his duty not to allow this Bill to proceed
without opposing it in every stage. The question was one which con_
cerned the benefit of society, and was, whether women, no matter what
their characters might be, were to have the custody of their own
children ? He thought it would be an evil, even for the sake of women
themselves; for if they thought that they could demand their children,
the knowledge that the law gave them this power might in many in. ,
stances lead to separations which otherwise would never take place. It
might be said that the Bill did not give the absolute right. True, but it
slid worse. It gave them a right to show cause why they should not be
given the custody of their children. The whole of a man's life would
thus be brought forward in affidavits.
Mr. PRAED would give his cordial support to this measure. His
Bight Hon. and Learned Friend stated as a reason for opposing the Bill
that the object of it was to give to a mother, no matter how depraved
her conduct might ha' • been, the custody of her children. The Bill
contained nothing of the sort. —(llear, hear.) It merely went to give
her access to them.—(Hear, hear.) His Right Hon. and Learned
Friend stated also that it would give rise to interminable disputes as to
the custody of the children. The Right Hon. Gentleman had urged
that argument before; but he (Mr. Freed) did not think it was at
all likely to produce that effect. In his opinion the effect of the
Bill would be to keep all minor cases of disagreement out of Court,
as it would give to the wife that access to her children to pro-
cure which she was now so often driven into open rebellion. His
Right Honourable and Learned Friend also said that the Bill
would drive the husharrd to rebel ; but what was the case
now ? The wife was driven to rebel—the injured instead of the oppres-
sor.—(lleer, hear ) The Bill would not, in his opinion, lead to sepa-
ration. The present system precluded the chance of reconciliation;
but if, as was the intention of the Bill, the wife was allowed to have
daily intercourse with her children, it was impossible to conceive A

a means more likely to restore harmony and affection. His Right Hon.
and Learned Friend also complained that the Bill legislated only for
particular cases ; but cases of separation were only individual cases, and
he (Mr. Praecl) hoped they v•ould long continue so.—(Hesr, hear.) tlow
did the present system operate in the case of the illegitimate child ? In
that case the father was, generally speaking, the better guardian; but
still the mother—a person who had forfeited her character—was the per-
son who had authority over the child. Could anything be worse ?
Mr. SHAW agreed with his Right Hon. Friend in his opposition to
the Bill.

Sergeant TALFOURD was not at all unprepared to answer the ob-
jections which had been started, having given the subject the fullest con-
sideration. The Right Hon. and Learned Member for Rippon, when
the question was last before the House, observed that he (Sergeant Tal-
fourd) had selected the cases of greatest hardship. His answer was
then, that he had brought all the cases before the House.—(Cries of
" Hear, hear.") The cases were few, in consequence of the strong dis-
inclination of English ladies to bring their wrongs before the public—
a disinclination which nothing but their affection for their children
could overcome. That was the only motive that could induce them to
appeal to a Court of Law, and for that reason were the cases so few with
which he enforced the necessity for this Bill. His Right Hon. Friend
objected that:this small instalment of justice would tend to tempt women
to separate from their husbands. He (Sergeant Talfourd) thought that
this was a strong reason for supporting the Bill. If, under the present
law the wife, from her deep affection for her children, was induced and
forced to remain dishonoured under her husband's roof, was that a
reason why her feelings should still be outraged ?—(Hear, hear.) With
respect to the Right Hon. Gentleman's objection, that the Bill would
have a tendeney to bring cases of great scandal before the public, he
would say that so far from that being his object the tendency of the Bill
was to prevent it, as the husband would not, under it, be obliged to issue
out a writ of attachment, as in the case of Mr. Greenhill, nor the wife
to outrage the laws of her country for the sake of complying with the
higher laws of nature and of God.—(Hear, hear.) With respect to
the mother obtaining undue influence, his Right Hon. and Learned
Friend would recollect that making the children wards in Chancery, as
in Wellesley's case, would prevent that. He asked then for a vote
on the simple ground that it was but common justice that the mo-
ther should have access to her children. He knew a case, that
of Mr. Greenhill, in which he was Counsel for the husband. In that case
three little children were brought up on a writ of habeas corpus, and the
Judge before whom they were brought begged to be allowed to arbitrate
as to their disposal. The wife assented to this, but Mr. Greenhill re-
fused ; and the consequence was that the wife was now an exile from her
country, and her husband was left to learn that there was a power
mightier than the law—mightier than the Judges—the deep affection
of the human heart.—(Cheers.) He wished to give the Judge the power
to say whether the mother might or might not be permitted to see her
children.
Mr. GOULBURN was of opinion that this Bill would only apply to a
few unimportant cases. The Bill would give power to divorced women
to see their children, and have centroul over them. He could not con-
ceive a more impolitic provision. If the father wished to preserve his
children from contamination, he should keep them separated from such
a woman.
Mr. FRESHFIELD was of opinion that the Judges should be given a
discretionary power to allow mothers access to their children. He be-
lieved that bad wives were not a bit more plentiful than bad husbands.—
(Hear.) On these grounds he would not have the slightest hesitation in
voting for this Bill.
Lord MAHON thought that when criminal conduct was proved
against the mother, she ought not to be permitted to see the children.
If some provision of this sort was introduced into the Bill, it would tend
greatly to obviate the objections against it. Unless that were done, he
should be under the painful necessity of voting against the Bill.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD, if he found the feeling of the House in
favour of such a clause, would have no objection to introduce such a
clause at the third reading, and leave the House to deal with it.
After a few words of explanation from Sir E. SUDDEN and Mr. Ser-
geant TALFOURD,
The House divided, when there appeared—
For the motion 9l
Against it

Majority
COPYRIGHT.

Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD then moved the Order of the Day
for going into Committee on the Copyright Bill.
Mr. WAKLEY moved, as an amendment, that the House go into
Committee on the Bill that day six months. When this Bill was for-
merly discussed there were but seventy-five Members in the House, and
the second reading was carried only by a majority of five. It could not,
therefore, be said that the sense of the House had been expressed upon
the subject, and he should now endeavour to ascertain that sense by
pressing his amendment to a division. Indeed, when the question
had been previously discussed not one argument was urged
nor one fact adduced calculated to support the measure. The
Honourable and Learned Gentleman by whom it had been intro-
duced admitted that he was not about to legislate for the com-
munity, but for one in five hundred. Now the House should
not look to the interests of individuals, but that of society at large. It
was not right to tamper with the vast interests which were likely to be
affected by such a measure. Before the Act of Anne, as had been ad-
mitted on high legal authority, the copyright was in perpetuity; and
what was the effect upon the interests of authors. Allusion had been
made to the descendants of Milton ; but Honourable Gentlemen seemed
to have forgotten that Milton wrote at a period when the copyright was
perpetual, yet with all this protection, he was only able to procure Si.
or 10/. for his " Paradise Lost."—(Hear, hear.) The Honourable
and Learned Gentleman had said that the Bill was necessary to secure
literature from the freezing effects which science was likely to produce
upon the spirit of the age. The " freezing effects of science," indeed!
Because of the freezing effects of science they were to legislate in favour
of literature alone, and disregard all other valuable discoveries.—(Hear,
hear.) It should be remembered that science, notwithstanding its
" freezing influence," had done much for authors. The efforts of capital,
of industry, and of skill had produced a reading public, and created an
almost undue appetite for certain classes of literature. Those who wrote
for reward were at no time better paid than at the present, and as to those
who wrote for posterity, why, let posterity reward them.—(Laughter.)
With respect to this Bill, he feared that there were some authors at the
bottom of it, who imagined that, at present, they did not receive the
fame and profit to which their great labours entitled them in their own
opinions.—(Laughter.) The Hon. Member for Maidstone had said
that Mr. Southey intended at one period to write a history of the monas-
tic orders, which would procure a fame equal to that of Gibbon. With
respect to the fame he (Mr. Wakley) must be permitted to express his
doubts. Mr. Southey, it appeared, had been deterred from undertaking
the work because he could only enjoy the copyright during his life. It
was much to be doubted whether Mr. Southey would have ever carried
carried his intention into effect. If the authority of the Right llon.
Baronet the Member for Pembroke were to be relied upon with re-
spect to Mr. Southey it was very improbable that lie would have prosecu-
ted the work. The Right Hon. Baronet on one occasion gave it as his
opinion of Mr. Southey that that Gentleman had so often changed sides
it would be impossible to say what his opinion would be upon any
subject at any given time. The Right Honourable Baronet's opinion
upon such a subject was entitled to some weight, as he had "him-
self changed sides.—(" Hear, hear," and laughter.) Indeed
literary men were peculiarly fickle, as much so as young girls.--
(Laughter.) The real question for the House to consider was whe-
ther authors were at present sufficiently remunerated—whether suffi-
cient inducements were held out to make them exert themselves—and
whether the public at large were benefitted by the present law. . Now
with respect to science, he would ask where would authors have been
but for the discovery of printing? In one thousand years previous to
the sixteenth century there were but three hundred books brought
out in this country. What was the produce since? Six hundred
had been published in one year.—(Hear, hear.) He denied that there
was any real distinction between the production of a book and any other
invention. They were all the production of mind, whether impressed
upon paper, upon metal, or upon glass.—(Hear, hear.) The proper
question was which production would be likely to prove most
useful to the public ? In the medical profession the man would be
despised and set down as a quack who attempted to keep secret any
valuable discovery which he might happen to make.—(Hear, hear.)
The Hon. and Learned Sergeant appeared to have particularly in view
an author who was of opinion that he was not sufficiently appreciated
by the public. That author had written certain works which the public
would not read, and in his (Mr. Wakley's) opinion the public were in
the right.—(Laughter.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman seemed to
think that authors were entitled to a perpetuity in their copyright, but
as he could not procure that for them he was satisfied to take it for their
lives, with an addition of sixty years. The Hon. and Learned Member
for Ripon, who was a good authority in such cases, had informed them
that such a right was a right in perpetuity, and that no person would
give a farthing for its reversion. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman
who brought forward this measure wanted no Committee. He did not
seek for any inquiry, because he was afraid of the facts which would
come out. There were Committees on this subject in 1814 and 1818,
and the result of their inquiry was, that the protection should not ex-
tend beyond 28 years.
An Hose. MEMBER—Fourteen years.
Mr. WAKLEY--One Committee was for 14, the other for 28 years,
but he would take the larger extension. In 1814 a Bill was brought
in by a Mr. Giddy, and a very giddy person he appeared to be.—
(Laughter.) So dissatisfied was that Hon. Gentleman with his own
Bill, that he moved the report should be taken into consideration in the
following session, but the authors then in the House thought it best to
accept it even as it was. Was there really any ground of complaint on
the part of authors? Look at Sir Walter Scott, who had realised
260,0001. by his works. He (Mr. Wakley) did not envy him. He
thought him well entitled to it. He would call upon the House to ob-
serve how strenuously the proposition was supported by Hon. Gen.
tlemen on the opposite side.

Sergeant TALFOURD (looking at Mr. Spring Rice)— And on this.
Mr. WAKLEY—The Hon. and Learned Gentleman appeals to the
Chancellor of the Exchequer. I admit that he is the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, but he is not this side of the House.—(Loud laughter.) He
(Mr. Wakley) was glad that the works of Scott had been appreciated,
but if it were said that Sir Walter Scott's family were not in affluence,
he would ask, where was the fault ? Was it the fault of the public ?
(Hear.) Was it the fault of the publisher ?—(Hear.) No such thing.
The fault lay with Sir Walter Scott himself. If that gentleman had
been content with his legitimate profits as an author, he would not have
fallen into the difficulties by which he had suffered. He wished to join
the profits of trade to the profits of literature, and thence came the
crash.—(Hear, hear.) He found that the difficulties under which Sir
Walter Scott laboured were the consequences of—he did not wish to
use the harsh term of avarice, but—his too great love of gain•.. He would
refer them to scenes which were now passing before them ; he would ask
them how the present system of copyright worked with regard to authors
and the public, and he would show that it was quite sufficient for all
legitimate purposes of the writers of works, and the public. The pub•
lishers were thebest judges of the real value which should be attached
to the works of authors; and, notwithstanding literary gentlemen might
imagine them destitute of taste, the profit they would produce was de-
cidedly the best test of their value. This was a Bill which was
not a question of party.—( Hear, hear.) All classes and all parties were
equally concerned ; the rights of the public were deeply interested, and
he trusted they would not be neglected to grant an undue privilege to
authors, however deserving those gentlemen inside and outside the
House might feel themselves of an especial protection for their works.
Let the House investigate all the circumstances connected with this Bill ;
let them not be led away to a decision by an eloquent speech ; let them
appoint a special Committee to inquire into them; and before that Com-
mittee he pledged himself some facts would be elicited calculated corn.
pletely to defeat it. Upon such a subject it would be far better to have
some positive arid undeniable evidence than the speeches or opinions of
authors whomight entertain a very different opinion of their own works
from that entertained by publishers or the public. He would quote a
few instances for them which, in all probability, would create suf-
ficient astonishment amongst some of the warmest supporters of
the Bill. There was one gentleman, well known to Hon. Members,
who was the editor of the Quarterly Review, and had published some
admirable works. He alluded to Mr. Lockhart, who was, he believed,
a friend to the Bill. He had sometime since published a work at
10s. 6d., which had afterwards been bought in cart loads by Mr. Tegg,
the bookseller, in Cheapside, at 9d. a volume.—(Laughter.) Would
the Copyright Bill enable him to get 91d. ?—(Laughter.) At the end of
28 years would those books be snore valuable than they were when the
bookseller purchased them ? Would any author come forward, after
the expiration of that period to claim his share in the superabundant
profit arising from the 9d. a volume ? He (Mr. Wakley) would bring
forward another instance, namely, Mr. Lytton Bulwer, who had bee❑
very successful as an author, and whose works lie (Mr. Wakicy) had
always read with that delight which they could not fail to produce.
That Gentleman had not long ago published a work " England and the
English ;" it was a work published at 1/. lls. 6d., in dire.: volumes.
Mr. BULWER—No, two volumes. at 1/.
Mr. WAKLEY—WeII, he was obliged for the correction, but it did
not materially affect his argument. What had that work been purchased
for by Mr. Tegg, who was a most respectable Conservative gentleman,
and had lately been a candidate for the office of t Lerman of the city of
London? There was no gentleman a better judge of the proper value

which attached to a publication, and he had purchased hfr. power' .
" England and the English" for one shilling a volume—the workl,e,.ll
r
which Mr. Bulwer had so high a respect, as to publish at one Pon
light upon the merits of author:, in their own estimation, as comparedid
(Loud laughter.) Those were the facts that were calculated to th
with that esteem in which they were held by the publishers.
not mean to say that those authors were not deserving of high
remu-
neration. He trusted they had received it, and he would
say that, so far from the prices of Mr. Tegg discouraging M
numerous
wer, that Honourable Gentleman would yet bring forth e
works as clever, and deserving of support, as those which had gone
navt
before. There was another Honourable Gentleman, who
under the
the opposite side of the House, and who had Also gone unee
bands of Mr, Tegg. The talented author of " Vivian Grey," and
several other works, had suffered from the depreciation of price. Itrusted that no word he uttered with reference to those talented
Other
Gen-
tlemen would be taken as conveying any disrespect or any feeling
than that of admiration for their abilities ; but he instanced
authors
cases because, from the high character of those gentlemen as
b
ventrurneut.c:
se
their names would convey greater weight. " Vivian Grey" had
originally published at 11. I Is. Gd., and it had been afterwards boughtt.ein
by Mr. Teg; for Bd. per volume. Was it for the purpose of selling
at a high price in 60 or even in 30 years, when perhaps be might
in his grave, that Mr. Tegg bought then ? No; that gentleman '°
sufficiently wary in his money calculations, and it was with a 11°P0 ()f
a speedy sale he purchased them, for he knew well, as a mercantile
that money should have a quick return in order to insure profit, flea
knew that so far from having a view to selling them at a remote pe ri
they should go on the butterman's counter if they were not sold quickly
He would now call their attention to another gentleman, who, although
not in that house, was sufficiently well known to them all by his
literary character, Hook, editor of the New Monthly gaga_x,,,,,,
and he believed also of the John Bull—at least so his mernoranuoe.....
stated. One of that gentleman's last works had gone to Tegg, too.
(Laughter.) It had been published by him at 1/. lls. 6d., and M •e`no,e
had purchased it for Bd. a volume. He (Mr. Wakley) did not 'there
why the publisher had given Mr. Hook but Bd. while he gave 'l, tae
more—(Laughter)—but such was the face The next on his 11.`
and
Captain Marryat. He had also gone to Mr. Tegg—
one of his works which he had published at 1/. e Is. Gd. pnrchnis
by Mr. Tegg for 9d. per volume. These were facts which Mr. er''
would have no objection to communicate to the House or anY Hon.
Member who wished to interest himself upon the subject so far as Poe
sonally to inquire; they were the result of his deliberate judgment.
had a large stake in such proceedings, and was, of course, actuatene,
the honest principle of giving for them what they were worth toTilliu;
The stock in books of that gentleman was valued at 170,0001 pO-
- another instance which should he the last ; it was the case 0f a ,
bed a
litical writer—Mr. Fonblanque, of the Examiner—who had Puhlls
work with a most attractive title, that could scarcely have failed
sure a sale. The work was named " England under seven Adreitsinhlee
trations ;" that had also gone to Tegg —(Laughter.) It was Pub ene
in two volumes at twelve shillings per volume, and purchased bYt'itat
Tegg at one shilling a volume. A person would be led to imagine „la
(Laughter)
astea
Mr. Tegg's arm•should become paralyzed by such daring. But„Wre so,
those gentlemen cease to favour the world with their works ? 'their
they would publish on as before, depending upon the ability of
crest
writings to procure a sale. This Bill sought to give authors a PerP Bill
copyright, a most unwise and injudicious proceeding. It ‘vas
founded upon sympathy, no very good ground for an Act of Berea,. Act
Let the House look to the Act of the eighth of Anne, and to a; dee
of 1814, and learn experience by them. They were called tiPlin oleos
stroy great interests for the benefit of a few, upon the most fr bet.
grounds; but he trusted they would not do so. There should be 'iroie
ter cause for passing so important a measure than the able an
eloquent eloquent speech of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who introbeeoe,
the Bill. They had heard no grounds adduced to support it. 'rehiect.
vocates of that Bill were opposed to all further inquiry upon the sn'ee
They objected to a special Committee to investigate it thoroughly'
receive evidence upon it. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman Who e
been
introduced it had not alluded to the princely fortunes which In'ityself
amassed by authors under the present system, but had confined he (eV.
to some cases of suffering which do doubt existed, but which in in'ifee.
Wakley's) mind were not referable to the present system. The, into
Gentleman concluded by moving his amendment, that the House g°
Committee on the Bill that day aix months.
Mr. JERVIS seconded the amendment.
lOW Mr. MILNES said that when the Hon. Member for Finsburlsmrat
his wish for a renewed consideration of that Bill he must have considered
that there was a great dearth of business before the House. In '‘,llllf
collection he did not remember any subject which had been tner„eirr;
and completely discussed than it had been on the last evening (01l
which it was discussed, He never took part in a debate
every bearing of a question was more fully gone into, or comPletelfele-s
tertained than that he had the honour to join the other even•F" else
(Hear, hear.) In his opinion the speech of the Hon. Member for cot!'
bury, though sufficiently amusing, was certainly not remarkable ford
taming anything like a sound argument against the Bill. Het see
duced some very spiteful and ingenious quotations, but he had wor'-ees-
coinpanied them with very false analogies. He (Mr. Milnes)vvas
pleased at the speech of the Honourable Gentleman. There
scooes
good deal of drastic humour which was a great treat to the d
and as such he had no objection to hear it ; tiler speech
elTegaee
merit-it had an appearance of being the speech More of a deatie"
from Mr. Tegg than of one engaged in an important e
esoe
sion of the merits of the very valuable and iinisar'ro,
Bill before them. He had instanced the case of his own Peva
fession, why any new or important discovery was made. Vis.s4 tllO
anything less in point than such a case ? Why, there did not eX,' If a.
during weeery
slightest—the most remote—analogy between the two cases' else
gentleman belonging to the medical profession made any importanthie
covery in it, the very fact of his having done so was the herald to
fortune ; his fame was immediately spread abroad—his eminence
sde,
established—and the consequent tangible benefits followed. 1)3Il I to'
vantage arose to him. But, he would ask, had this any analogy tP,„O
case of a man who sacrificed his life, and his talents, and all his exeet7i
I frequently to the advantage of other generations ? In every otherc,
the speech of the Hon. Gentleman was totally incoherent, and hen,noe
cited that as an instance; indeed, perhaps, he
should have said oire
correctly, that if that speech had any weight at all, it was at his
Milne's) side. If it proved anything, it proved that works were to
dr
had as cheaply now as they could be had at any future Per
even allowing that the Bill had been passed ; and as cheaply tette
' greatest lover of literature could wish. Did the Honourable 10''-
blame the booksellers for giving so low a price to the authorl whose names he had instanced? Did he object to the Bd. or
a volume which had been given for those works ? Was that the Men
ing of his having brought them before the House ? And if such '7
not been his motive for having introduced those cases, where was hrA
motive ? Surely if literary works of established merit, and by the DC'ie
authors, men whose fame was generally recognised, if those works CO
be purchased by the booksellers for so small a sum, it did not argv,eth'e
the public were not now as generally supplied with literature as
could be under any new arrangement. A good system of SeopYrigfic;
would, he had no limitation in saying, so far front raising undulY *
price of literature, have rather a contrary effect. Look to GerManl,-)
'0
country which had benefitted more by literature than any other natal ee
in Europe, and she had achieved all those incalculable advantages 0,%c1e
the operation of a national Copyright Bill. Here was an instance sr-
oe'
at once answered all the objections of those opposed to the Inea eet
which he had such pleasure in supporting. In France at this incajlee.
the printers and publishers were seeking for a national Copyright
of,'
to protect them from the mad competition which the Present else'
tern produced. In America the case was similar. There
0ce.,0
the very men whom the Honourable Gentleman assumed to advme
were calling for a Copyright Bill as a means of protection for then'se
He (Mr. Mines) believed that a just se,tem would benefit the P 10
generally, and the authors in particular, by affording them a Pret'eesct°
which at present they did not enjoy. It was said the Legislattfeeped
called upon to act for the benefit of a few;,
perhaps there Was. ahe its
deal of truth in that, but if one person in 500 should be benefited
the remaining 499 would not be injured.—(Hear.) And if thcese fey' tee
sons had sufficient claims to protection, it might be granted rather t° Ii
general advantage, as every just system would always necessarily he' or'
was rather singular that this Bill received so much opposition.' front
Oht
lion. Gentleman who belonged to a party that were aliVa•yS oCei
the great advantages the people were daily receiving from the ay.svcre
ment of intellectual improvement. If this advaricenlen' ostirs
proved to be so great, was not the natural inference an Al'. the
for good works, which could act with sufficiznt power-00.01.5
national advantage under a just Copyright Bill ? And tide
they, the advocates of intellectual advancement and of se e.stee
improvement, deny to the rising generation the advantages that ieces"
necessarily arise from works published with a higher design tlit.l 111 to,
ing the passing taste of the day—works written without a
servile patronage, or any of those unhealthy means of success th-
at present had too much weight ? Why should net author' -1,, eV
same advantages that all other men had ? Why, he would °ewer,:
the great names which adorn our literature deprived of that ence-lisin".
meet and protection welch had been freely afforded to the Ar o 0:
and the numerous similar names which were an honour to this of
try? The Hon. Member for Finsbury had said that this Was' coeisl"
party question. He was happy to think that all parties fe_(olear.;
interested. The Whig was as warm an advocate as the Tors* ea;
!.;
hear.) He would not occupy the time of the Hon. House Vtoteu'
was a measure which had been fully discussed, and would, be " •
be soon passed into a law.
trtnieje
Mr. WOLVERLEY ATTWOOD said he would not 'Pa" e
himself upon the House, if it did not appear to him that the 'reioctiss", the Hon. Member for Finsbury was totally a failure in its ob:le;ere itiop t";
the Bill. The Honourable Gentleman had spoken ees if it quired to give authors an exclusive privilege in their -lies it avers
the public, or an unfair advantage over other profesnions • Itrosincu
sought by the Honourable and Learned Gentleman...Aro had in-ree er;
that Bill to enable authors to avail themselves of prat 1.'1)11: erff_;a bouts of others. That was not the fact. Nothlng could be fair-rilegsr"tei iis import. The object of the Bill was to place authors, Witea,aerl.„s4,
their mental labour, on an equality with every other class of
was only required to give them that protection which via' te-nesed--.,ni
right. It was not a perpetual copyright system that was Pr°r" e•ots•ee
was a Bill merely to secure to authors a fair interest in theifind
to orlert
which the present system denied to them. He was glad
Honourable Gentleman opposite was unable to produce ai.socePit:
argument against protecting the author than the want ,fe-t ,
quently their health, as much their own as
risked in their works. Were not their time, their ta'-- Pelle be
any ri,pertY e 0311,1
defined to be, and was not this, in the eyes of every sensipbrty an
,
on investment of capital? These were the author s PrOcreofig,,
merited at their hands protection. The author bad ',ocie'n'i
claim for the protection of his rights as any man in oientv"e
and yet he was the only person left now unprotected. The air, in
the Honourable Member for Finsbury, with regard to one Pell-; it Were
hundred, had decidedly the effect of supporting the Bill, for 'to it
acknowledged that literary men had so small a portion Wee'''. neithe-rt
clear the present system worked badly for the antimrs. 'vase( Plea-
supposed, nor even asserted, that there was any inadequacy vv e'4,--;
amongst the catalogue of our literary characters ; and yet eurn';e,
mitted by the Honourable Member for Finsbury that so smah -..teees •
as one in five hundred were successful in obtaining the asly:: goose:,
which they were proposed to be entitled by the Bill before tl„erllsl'e'
Why, then, should those men, the class of the community wituarctioos
the largest claims, be deprived of a right in their own rodor for?
There had not been a solitary well-founded or solid reason beet"ice,' -0
ward by the Honourable Member for Finsbury in favour of h:iet,
the subject. Nothing could,
upon literature, and, as a necessary consequence, injurious to fibspy'' righ(
thuscalculateddepriving solely
posterity
tvith aor vailelwthet o
however, be more injurious in
generally, than a system allowing a twenty-eight years c,,,,ip11
The direct tendency of this would be to produce. 3 been eri
whi'A et:
twaostrel";
arise from works calculated te last a longer period. thoy ltd
eione'
afford protection to durable works, and stgich as were not verirte sould
with a view to present taste, it was idle to suppose that autliletood'e
produce thee). The supply would only be produced by the •
tli and no work of a lasting nature could be looked for, ca least w-iia rot
exceptions. The Hon. Member had said that an author, if he (ehlie of
receive a promise of sufficient remuneration, mient deprive the,Pe°
cored
acile)!aciatts:gete" er
his work, and act the part of the dog in the monger. Notli".gho Bill
to
show more clearly the want of sufficient grounds of objection
than such an argument. If an author hail acted as had been - - ver:L-
ir lie bad refused to publish his work without receiving the renier telt
Con he thought it deserving of, who had a right to deprive
airsst
control over his own production ? Why call on biro to publish I.'t d 3
whet!
his Wilt ? Where does the right of the public commence? Is
an ",:t re ,e
the work is published, or while it is in manuscript ? This right
nee
fusel to publish without proper remuneration was clearly
privilege and could not be too well protected. Every case qnotedor:
,rxe
in favour of the Bill. The case of Dr. Southey was a strong , g
whore the present law of copyright was insufficient to enuree
proper remuneration for his works; totally insufficient with reg :he
, gr
at
the period of their duration. It was ono of those eases which .-
went to prove what the advocates of the Bill contended for—ti ee „sea
inefficiency of the present unjust system. Upon the last CVO, jllKs.'_Pber
this Bill was before the House, it •hiul been stated by the Ho Me re.
for Bridport that authors were stimulated by sentiment, or lire of 3.4'

some such motive, and that such motives were in their idea sufficient
reward. It was well known that authors, generally speaking, were ac-
tuated by very different feelings The Hon. Member for Bridport, when
he paid that hollow anempty compliment to authors, must have been
aware that as a class they depended for their subsistence upon their
works. The greatest authors who ever wrote depended upon their writ-
ings for their daily bread.—(Hear.) This fact was undoubted—it was
Rot for fame—it was not for plaudits that those works were produced
which did honour to this country, and from which we have derived such
inestimable benefits, daily subsistence being the stimulating prin-
ciple in most cases of a similar description. The assertion that public
competition was the best criterion of merit in an author, and would secure
him a price for his works in case they were worthy of purchase, was a
Most futile one. As he said before, it was true public competition
Might, to a certain extent, ensure a sale to light or volatile works ;
but this very fact would have the direct tendency of inflicting a grievous
injury upon the literature of the country, by producing a supply of such
works as would accord with the prevailing taste of the day. Were they
then to protect that description of writing and give no protection to
that of a more durable kind, often, let it be remarked, most calculated
to confer a lasting benefit upon the nation ? Authors did not claim any
exclusive privilege over the community ; they did not demand a right
to tax the public. They demanded the same rights that protected the
abours of every other class in the community. It was said that this Bill
Would injure the rights of publishers, printers, and others. As well
Might bricklayers object to the rights of property because such a right
had a tendency to prevent building houses. There was no right in
anY class to object to the measure proposed. It was brought for-
ward for
the purpose of protecting the rights of a respectable and
deserving class,
and the public would be equally benefitted. He
therefore trusted, for the public good, that the unprecedented opposition
which this Bill had received would be found totally unsuccessful.
Mr. WARBURTON justified the double debate which had taken
Place on the principle of the Bill, inasmuch as on the former the question
had been debated as between authors and publishers, whereas in the pre-
sent it was as between authors and the public. In his opinion, a suffi-
cient inducement was givers to authors by the present law to write the
best description of works and he thought that when ample remunera-
tion had been afforded the author the public had a right to the rever-
sion of the work. Prices of the most liberal description were now paid
' by Publishers. What advantage, then could authors reasonably expect
beside ? Was the public to have nothing ? He (Mr . Warburton) de-
nied that the existing law of copyright had the effect of promoting the
production of works which would go down to the latest posterity ; and in
Proof of his denial he instanced the histories of Hallam, the dictionaries
biographical and statistical of Watkins and M`Culloch. There were
others also which he could refer to, but that he did not desire to trouble
the House. If the Bill before the House became the law authors would
not be able to sell their copyrights at an advanced price._
(near. bear, hear.) It was complained that by the pre-
sent law works unappreciated by one age, and appreciated by
another, would bring the author or his family an advantage ; but he
(Mr. Warburton) did not see that there was any ground for supposing
such a case in the present day. The analogy between inventors in the
arts and the works or authors was insisted on, but he (Mr. Warburton)
aaw none. The Bill, if carried into effect, would deprive the public of
the advantage of all progressive improvement in literary works. It
would raise the price of books far beyond what they were at present, and
it tould completely put an end to the diffusion of useful knowledge.
i‘v
petuferi.
cPeßpyAriEghDt f
seaied that in respect to the question of an abstract per_
book being the property of an author, a Commission
and
of the French Chambers, composed of men the most eminent in science
evelearning, had approved of that proposition. The question, how-
ever, before the House was, whether the period of copyright should be
extended over a greater space of time than it was at present ? He did
not hesitate a moment to say it should; and lie did not hear a single ar-
gument adduced against the Bill, which had not a tendency of confirm.
ing him in that belief. He should, therefore, give the measure his most
cordial support,
Mr. STRUTT would vote against the Bill. He denied the abstract
right of authors to a perpetual property in the copyright of their works;
and he also denied the analogy which had been drawn between that
!ipecies of
property and property in lands or labour. While an author's
ideas were in manuscript he certainly had the sole right to them; bust
once he published them, that right, in his opinion, altogether ceased
to exist. At all events, he believed the rights now enjoyed by authors
Were sufficiently extensive for all just purposes; and he should therefore
oPpose any further extension of them.
!MitSir R. It INGLIS said that the arguments of the Hon. Member were
e inconsistent with his conclusions. The Hon. Member for Finsbury
had endeavoured to render the question a party question ; but a glance
at the former division on the Bill would put an end to that attempt, and
prove that it was altogether the contrary. It seemed to be the
°Pinion of the Honourable Member for Derby, that the whole busi-
ness of the world was to get as much from authors as possible—to
treat them as horses—work them to the last, and then cast them off.
The great practical evil of the present law was the effectual bar it placed
against improvement and emendation by authors in their own works.
An author at present might bestow a number of the most important cor-
rections on a work, and yet if his copyright expired at the same time
he Might be debarred of all advantage from them by an unscrupulous
Publisher giving an early edition, without the corrections, in a cheap
forrn to the public. A bad author could derive no benefit from the Bill,
though he would derive no injury either; while a good author, whom it
Was the duty of the country to encourage, would receive by its means the
Protection he merited. As far as regarded the main question, lie (Sir
Robert Inglis) felt beund to say for himself that he should in his own per-
son desire nothing more for the literature of England than to see it de.
fended by the Hon. and Learned Member for Reading, and attacked by
the Hon. Member for Finsbury.—(Hear.)
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD, who was loudly called for from all parts
of the House, then rose and said—lf he had advanced no arguments in
favour of the measure on a former occasion, he regretted it so much
the less as he found few to answer now.—(Hear.) He could find nothing
111 what had been urged by the Honourable Member for Finsbury
which did not go to support rattier than impugn the Bill before the
House ; for when he heard that Honourable Member that Milton only
Rot 101. for the copyright of his " Paradise Lost," while Mr. Tegg, the
leader of the present opposition to the measure, had a stock worth
I 7 0,000/., derived chiefly from the republication of works of merit, the
copyright of which bad expired, he could not help thinking that the de.
duction and argument were in his favour. He (Sergeant T.) had heard
With surpriee a repetition of the arguments of the Solicitor-General that
night. Holey were correct then there was no longer any such words as
gratitude and justice in our vocabulary, and the best feelings of human
nature were sacrificed to the heirs and successor' of Mr. Tegg, or reduced
House was
to the cold, dead level of the utilitarian philosophy. The
legislating now for the species, and not for the individual, as had been
asserted in the course of that debate; for was it not legislating for the
species to legislate for those who informed them—their teachers ? If
they could have selected the "mute inglorious Milton" what honours,
What rewards, would they have though too mighty to be conferred on
Lim in Isis own era ? And now, when the fullness of time had conferred
inarnortality on the sons of genius, would they strip him of Iris just
those
trees-e
suuneration ? The Hon. Member for Finsbury hadhe
would
Who write for posterity be rewarded by posterity;"
Flow much more
instead "
but
said
now e
not allow posterity to reward them.—them.—(Hear,ear,
consistent and equitable it would be, of tardily appropriating a
Public grant of money, to simply allow the fitting reward to find its way
in the fair mercantile channels through which authors and their heirs
would certainly receive it if the Legislature permitted them.—(Hear.)
His opponents asserted that they sympathised with what was good, and
great, and lasting in the literature of their country. He entreated
them to prove it, and thereby establish also their sympathy in the cause
of justice and of right.
A division then took place, when there appeared—
For the motion.
Against it

Majority
The House went through the Bill in Committee pro forma, and it
Was ordered to be further committed on Wednesday next.
SALMON FISHERIES (IRELAND).
it Colonel CONOLLY moved the second reading of this Bill, in which
was advisable to adopt some modification, and hoped it would be allowed
to go to a Select Committee when this might be effected.
no W. S. O'BRIEN moved as an amendment, that the Bill be read a
nd time that day six months.
I;iir• W. ROCHE supported the amendment.
Rtth WARBURTON thought it quite useless to trouble a Committee
this Bill, when the mover had abandoned the principal clause.
° rnoct `Muneifyl CONOLLY—I did not abandon the clause; I only consented
.
b n• ROCHE (starting up)—Just so, Mr. Speaker—(Laughter)—
uti,the modification would be worse than the original.—(Laughter.)
1,7,11.• JARVIS stated that in Wales experience had proved that the
salmon were caught in the sea.
Lord AT
sented to-i°ivitePETH said that after the Gallant Colonel had con_
up the principal clause, he did not think thcre was
sufficient substance in the remainder to make it worth their while to
appoint a Committee.
• JEPHSON brgged to ask if the Noble Secretary for Ireland
himself intend
on Irisfound any ed to motion on the Report of the Committee
h fisheries ?
Lore MO
the Matter. RPETH was not prepared to say what he should do in
HoColonel CONOLLY expressed his determination to divide the
Use on the Bill.
the Tho gallery was then cleared for a division, but none took place,
l;
ca
having been withdrawn (as we understood) at the request of
'lulls Hon. Members.
I,‘, SALMON FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
W.i; F. CAMPBELL moved the second reading of this Bill,
nuaid that he had sat on three Committees on this subject, and was
convinced of the justice of the Bill. He was open to any suggestions
that might be made in Committee.
oAitord. BROTHERTON said, that, as this was an opposed Bill, he
move the adjournment of the House, as it was too late to go on
With it.
After some little discussion, the House divided, when the numbers
Were

For the Adjournment
Against it
Majority
~,,,,11%411-; WALLACE, on our return to the Gallery, was on his legs, and
v understood him to move that the Bill be read a second time that day
''' nionths.
an
lir ci,
4fp. . tALMERS seconded the amendment, and concluded by moving
rornent of the Douse.
Campbeller a few words from Sir G. Sinclair, Lord Morpeth, Mr. W. F.
oileti, 11Ir. Chalmers, Mr. 11. Hinds, Captain Gordon, and Mr.
liiB/10P' MAITLE denied that there was any intention on the part of
in Z,_
e. Friend to get rid (
then te Bill by a trick.
ira.e Warm conversation ensued as to the course of proceeding,
that Loi h several Hon. Gentlemen took part, the result of which
,r the (I William Bentinck renewed the motion for the adjournment
Theli,s"; but finally consented to withdraw it, when
The 'irrEAl{Elt put the question that the Bill be read a second time.
°use then divided, when the numbers were—
For the second reading
Against it
_l3
The Tr Majority for the second reading 32
lA, ill was then read a second time, and was ordered to be coin.
Ntiedit :bl5 day fortnight, on the understanding that any discussion that
_ e wished might then take place.
other Orders of the Day were then disposed of and the House
4,Uourned at a Quarter to Two o'Clock.