The Sun.
London, England, 1841-01-30 00:00:00

COPYRIGHT BILL.

On the motion of Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD, the
Order of the Day for the adjourned debate on the
Copyright Bill having been read,

Mr.-WARBURTON wished that the Hon. and
Learned Member would offer some observations to the
House, explaining the nature of the Bill, which he pro-
posed to introduce. lie was sure the House would
gladly listen to him on the subject.
Sergeant TALFOURD would, with permission of
the House, detain them for a few minutes on the
question. lie thanked the Hon. Member for the
opportunity he bad given him of offering some expla-
nations to the House, though he should not enter
into the discussion of the merits of the case. lie would
simply call to the recollection of the House an outline of
the history of the Bill. He had, on five different occa-
sions, moved for leave to bring in that Bill, and it had
been so frequently opposed, that it must have received
ample attention from the House. It had received the
sanction of considerable majorities. Oa one occasion
more than three hundred Members had recorded
their votes on the subject, and he found that
there had then been a majority of nearly
two to one in favour of the principle of the mea-
sure.—(Hear.) Under those circumstances he would
appeal to the House whether he was not justified in
abstaining at that stage of the question from entering
into any discussion of the merits ; and whether he had
not a fair, a just, and a Parliamentary claim to move
that the Bill should be introduced for the purpose of re-
ceiving their consideration. The Bill had also been the sub-
ject of numerous petitions from both sides of the House
and he might say from almost all the great or-
naments of our literature. When he coupled with the
presentation of those petitions the support which the
measure had received by the votes of the House, he
could not help thinking there was sufficient reason why
the motion he was making should be granted, and why it
should be followed by the introduction of the Bill into
the House. It was rather remarkable that notwithstand-
ing the zeal—and, he was sure, the honest zeal—with
which his Hon. Friend hail oppoSed the Bill, he had never
consented fairly to take the sense of the House on the
subject, on its first introduction. Oa the contrary, his
Honourable Friend had been present on two former
occasions, when be had brought in the measure,
though he had not sought to prevent its being
laid before the House. He thought he would be doing
injustice to those whose interests he advocated, if be
consented to have the measure discussed at that early
stage. lle would !imply call on the House to allow him
to bring in his Bill as a matter of justice which he
could hilly claim, awl lie trusted the House would
iceognize that claim, :Ind that the motion for leave to
bring in the Bill, if opposed by his lion.Fricnd, would
be carried by a large majority.—(hear, hear.)
Mr. \VARBURTON wished that the lion. 'Mem-
ber would inform the House whether the Bill he pro-
posed to introduce contained the same provisions as
his former Bills.
statedlue Ar
lßr Shi
sae ti
be had
:ndtTa Ai
introducedneldt°helj si taonD had
al e
the provisionsalreadysubject.
distinctly
as the
Mr. \VARBURTON had expected that the Hon.
1 and Learned Gentleman would have stated whether the

PRICE sd.

Bill which he now wished to introduce was of the same
character, and contained the sama provisions, as tip;
Bills which he had introduced on this subject in former
Sessions.

Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD bad, he thought, ex-
, plainer' the other evening that the Bill was in all respects
similar to that of last Session.
Mr. WARBURTON was then to understand that
the Bill was of a precisely similar character. The Hon.
and Learned Member had alluded to the support which
that Bill had already received, and the majo-
rities by which it bad been carried on the se-
cond reading. 'What he (Mr. \V.) complained of,
as he had stated the other night, and which he was
happy again to state in the presence of more than one
Cabinet Minister, was that when the measure had
been before introduced, either on its introduction or on its
second reading, Cabinet Ministers or the Attorney-Gen-
eral or Solicitor-General had said that they were entirely
opposed both to the principle and the details of the
Bill, hut that they thought it uncivil to the lion. and
Learned Member not 'to allow him to introduce his
Bill, and that therefore they should vote for the second
reading, in ardor to allow the Hen. and Learned
Gentleman to get his Bill into Committee, it:
order that the details of it might be considered ;
and on that principle, not on the merits of the Bill itself,
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had obtained the
great majorities to which he had alluded. Now he
(Mr. Warburton) had certainly expected the presence
of those Right Honourable and Honourable Gentle-
men when the Bill was in Committee, but so far from
that, when the Bill had come into Committee he
had been left to fight the battle single-handed.
But Ile believed that on any occasion when the Bill
came to be. fully considered the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman would fiad that the great majority in that
House was against him ; therefore he contended that he
(Mr. Warburton) had been unfairly treated—( Hear,
hear)—and therefore he hoped that or bat had occurred
in former years would not be likely to happen again.
The Honourable and Learned Gentleman had
stated that he considered himself unfairly treated '
by his (Mr. Warburton's) opposing the Bill at the pre-
sent stage ; but he begged to remind the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman that, except on the last occa-
sion, a discussion had always taken place on
his moving for leave to bring in his Bill. There
was no division upon his moving for leave to bring
in that Bill, but there was a discussion upon it ; be
( Mr. W.) recollected the attendance of Members that
took place upon the nights which the Hon. Member
had chosen for going on with the Bill ; they were either
just after Easter, or upon the Derby Day, when it was
certain there would be few, if any, Members present.
Now, he (Mr. Warburton) had chosen a night for his
opposition to the measure when it was almost certain
there would be a full attendance, and therefore he
thought the lion. and Learned Member had no right
to complain of the course he harl adopted. At the
outset of the present question the Hon. and Learned
Member and himself were completely at issue. The Hon.
Member stated that the following was the principle
upon which he founded his defence to the Bill, namely,
that it was an unwarrantable encroachment on the
natural rights of property which every man had in the
productions of his own mind ; and that when it was
considered that all other property was placed under
the safeguard of the law, the same protection should be
extended to those works of genius which enlightened the
community, exalted the national character, and added
to the powers and resources of the country. The prin-
ciple the Hon. and Learned Member set up was the in-
herent right in every man to his mental labour, that
he thought antecedent to all other considerations, so
that in short the principle was, that whatever a
man produced by his own hands and his
own mind was his, and his only.—(Hear.)
He did not acknowledge such a thing es natural rights.
He only acknowledged rights growing out of conve-
nience and general expediency. He did not confine
himself to simply denying the existence of these rights
as a proposition ; but he would say that he could not
acknowledge this Wat Tyler doctrine, that whatever a
man produced by his own hands was his, and his alone.
Suppose ho applied that doctrine to the general produc-
tion of men's labour, what would be the consequence ?
Why there would be no such thing as taxes—no such
thing as rent. Men who cultivated the fields did not
receive the profits of their own labour. In short the
matter did not admit of a moment's consideration. All the
profits of labour were to be considered in the light °fa ques-
tion of expediency.j? In every case it was expediency that
governed the disposal of those profits. Take the
French law of inneritance. In that country a man,
even at his death, could not dispose of property solely
as lie desired. In other countries the laws interfered
more directly, especially in the disposal of literary pro-
perty. There they were entitled to interfere
with the authol's right, even before the first
publication, and that arose from a far different
view of the question being taken than was now
sought to be established. The doctrine of giving a'l
the profits of their mental labour to authors could not,
he insisted, be admitted for a moment. It was that po-
sition of antecedent natural right which authors had to
the production of their own labour, that was the foun-
dation of the opinions laid down by the Judges before
the House of Lords upon the question of copyright.
It was also the foundation of the opinions of the
Judges in the cases reported in Fuller's Report.
Not once had the Judges who said there was a Com-
mon Law right to literary property antecedent to the
statute of Anne, prctcnded to say they could found that
position on any previous decision which had taken place
in the Courts of Justice. Mr. Justice Gascoigne said
" Our Common Law has its foundation in private jus-
tice, moral fitness, and public convenience," and it
was on that doctrine and not on precedent
that the Judges laid down the Common Law on the sub-
ject. The Judges and the Hon. and Learned Member
were therefore at issue, their determination of the Coffi-
n-lon Law right being founded solely on expediency.
Therefore it was on the ground of expediency alone the
subject ought to be considered. The question
had been brought before the French Chamber
of Peers, and two reports bad been made on
the subject, and this antecedent natural right
which the Hon. and Learned Member advocated had
been set up, but he (Mr. Warburton) was glad to find
that the Minister of Public Instruction had abandoned
this ground, and founded his plan solely on the question
of expediency. This being the case, it was on the ques-
tion of expediency this question must be argued, and in
considering the question of expediency, they must con-
sider the interest of authors, the interest of publishers,
and the interest of the public. In considering the in-
terest of authors, they were bound to consider what was
their interest under the present law. The present law
gave authors a copyright in their works cf 28 years cer-
tain from the time of publication, and if an author live
longer than 98 years he had a copyright during the re-
mainder of his life. 'lois the Hon. Gentleman did not
think suflicent. He would not, likebim (Mr. W.)considir
then their interests collectively, but those of authors
alone. He (Mr. Warburton) was ready to admit
there might be inconvenience in certain cases under
the present lan and in case of an author having
prepared a new edition of his work with
improvements, and dying before publication, he •
would in such cases give a further term of copyright
for five years, to give the improved edition priority
of publication to reprints of the old edition ,of the
work by publishers generally, but this also would not
satisfy the Hon. and L:arned Gentleman. Authors
were not contented with five years, or with
thirty years, as. was the case in Prussia, and in the
proposed new law of Copyright in France, but the
Hon. and Learned Member said that they must have
sixty years after the author's death, and nothing lass
would satisfy them. Various other amendments had
been proposed in Committee, but nothing less than sixty
years would satisfy the Hon. and Learned Gentleman.
The present copyright lasted for 28 years at least ; at
what were they to estimate the additional term of the
author's life end the 60 years which were proposed now
to be given ? Why, at the most moderate estimate,
from SO to 90 years at least must elapse before the
copyright would revert to the public. It would be :30
or 90 years at least before they would give to:
the public the inestimable advantage which must
be derived from the free publication of ws?.'"vii,lst.
When the question had been last discussed the
_E
very
properly and Learned Member for Ripon
bveproperly characterized the Hon. and Learnedo
Gen-
tleman's 13111 as tantamount to a perpetual. copyright,
and and how could be considered oth_erlwv.oisrek,s
would bey
recollected what a small numbefr f
o tv tears? But su
I worth republication after alap
pose they conceded to the liOnse.aondnirea'r)nedNsGroeunitdletmhaapn:
and his supporters the present measure_ ?
satisfy them ? In accepting 60 years they say that they
are still subjecting the author to injustice by depriving
him of a perpetual copyright ; but that was not all,
for he found from the work of the American author to
which he had before alluded, that it was not a mere copy-
, right that would satisfy them. lie claimed, besides the
exclusive right of multiplying copies, the exclusive right
of reading works. That author said that it might be-
' come an important question, whether the purchaser of
a book had a right to assemble multitudes together to
read to them the contents of a work unaccompanied by
protection to the copyright. Therefore if they
once opened the door to this claim of copy-
right there was no knowing to what extent
its supporters might carry their fantastic notions of ex-
•elusive right as well to reading as to multiplying copies
of a work. He would next come to the effects which the
proposed law would have on the interests of authors them-
selves. He found I passage in a report of Minister