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

MORNING ELATION.

of Public Instruction in France, to the Chamber of
Deputies, in which he very properly stated the exten-
sion of copyright beyond a moderate term of years
would be attended with effects injurious to authors them-
selves in the highest and most elevated view that could
be taken of the subject. It would injure them in
this particular, that it would afford great facilities
towards the suppression and mutilation of their works.
That was not an imaginary evil—it was one which had
recently occurred in an edition of the works of one who,
like the mover of the Bill, was himself a distinguished poet
(Shelley, we believe). A similar event had taken place in
the case of the poem of Joan of Arc, which, in the recent
edition published by the author, was given to the public
with many suppressions. And yet by the proposed
Bill all the passages of that work could not appear for
a period perhaps of ninety years in the form which
would be most acceptable to the friends of liberty.
—(Hear.) The Bill would therefore enable the
descendants of authors to prevent the public from
profiting by their reading works of genius.
An lion. and Learned person—Sir James Dalrymple,
who was counsel for the defendants in the Scotch case
before the House of Lords—had characterised the
Licensing Act as " a base compromise between pub-
lishers having regard to their interests, and the Court
having a view to politics." Did they never know
suppression take place from political motives ?
( Hear.) Let Hon. Members that did not, look to the
correspondence of Pepys, and there they would see the
reason for the suppression of some of the works of Mil-
ton. It was, therefore, not only authors and relatives of
authors but ministers and crowned heads that bad an
interest in suppressing works, from private and political
motives. Various arguments had been adduced on
former occcasions by the Hon. and Learned Member
to show that the Bill introduced would not only be
favourable to authors but to their descendants, so that
if his Copyright Bill had existed years before, they
should have Milton's works in the hands of his de-
scendants, and Shakspcare's works in the hands of his.
He (Mr. Warburton) had endeavoured to show that
the greater part of authors were either necessitous or
were not acquainted with the value of their works. But
he believed the generality of literary works were disposed
of with considerable advantage to authors themselves.
'file term of years during which copyright, under the
existing law, existed, was twenty.eight years. During
that period the author might improve the first edition,
and suppose at the expiration of that time, namely,
the first twenty-eight years the author would have an
exclusive right to the work, the term would be ex-
tended to fifty-six years. Now, suppose thirty years
were allowed fOr the life of an author, and the above
period of fifty six years were added to that time, the
right would be extended to eighty years. Now the works
of the present day were of the most flimsy character,
generally speaking, and few were of such a character
that, after the expiration of fourteen years, would fetch
anything like a good price in the market. Authors
did not now-a-days labour as of old to compose works
that would be handed down to posterity. They seldom
produced works that would merit a reward being given
to them at the age of eighty-five years, and unless
they did, the question of copy right should be adjust, d
in a far different way than was now sought to he
done. They bad the reports of former years, in which
publishers informed Committees of the House that
works, as they were generally penned, were not in ci:-
culation for more than from fourteen to twenty years.
Having sad thus much he would only say a few words on
the interest of the public. This was an interest the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman entirely repudiated and dis-
c'aimed, at least so he ( Mr.W.) was given to understand.
But as an illustration on this point he would refer to
the monopoly of printing the Bible. if ever there was
a work of which the sale ought to be extensive—if ever
there was a work which ought to be afforded to the
public at the cheapest poisible rate, with the least
portion of profit, it ought to be so in the case
of the Bible, the monopoly of which was in
the hands of the Queen's Printer and the Universities.
lie had read the statements of those gentlemen who had
advocated the doing away with the monopoly as well in
England as in Scotland ; and from rhos© statements he
found that they would reduce the present cost of
publication by a very large per centaga ; and he
took that as a conclusive example that the granting the
monopoly of publication was not likely to cheapen the
pries of works. Teerefore, as as a friend to the public,
wishing that after a fair remuneration bad been
given to the author, which was secured to him
by the present law, these works should be given
to the public at those moderate prices which
free competition ensured, he opposed this measure
of the Honourable and Learned Gentleman as unjust
and injurious. He implored the House to consider that
if they suffered this Bill to pass vested interests would
arise under it, which would render it impossible for
them to ret-ace their steps, unless they went to the
enormous expense of buying up all existinss copyrights,
as, if it were law for only a single Session, legal
settlements would take place on copyrights, in
the same manner as on land or any other
description of property, which would render it impossi-
ble for them ever again to stand on the ground which
they now occupied.—( Hear.) For these reasons ho
should oppose the motion.
Mr. HUME wi,lied to say that he considered he was
doing an Act for the benefit of the public at large in
opposing tic introduction of the Bill. He argued
with his Hon. Friend that the period to which the pri-
vilege of copyright should he extended, was a matter
for the most serious consideration. But when ho looked
to the profits which authors had heretofore derived from
their labours, he considered the monopoly they at present
enjoyed es amply remunerating. The proposed Bill would
increase the difficulties of acquiring knowledge, and thus
seriously injure the community. When the pub-
lication of Bibles was confined in Scotland to
certain printers they were forty per cent.
dearer than they were now that the monopoly
had been abolished. For these reasons be hoped that
the House would not countenance the introduction of
the measure.

The gallery was then cleared, and the House divided,
whm there appeared,
For leave to bring in the Bill 142
Against it 3O
Majority
Leave was then given to bring in the Bill.
P 0 R-L WS.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL then moved for leave to
bring in a Bill to continue the Poor-law Commission
for a time to be limited, and far the further amendment
of the laws relating to the poor in England. The
Noble Lord stated that he proposed by the Bill to
extend the authority of the Commissioners for ten

years.
Mr. GRIMSDITCH rose, and said that he should
feel it is duty to oppose the motion. When the
Noble Lord introduced the Bill before, he
gate a pledge that he would never again attempt
to renew the authority cf the Commissioners,
and under those circumstances he (Mr. Grimsditeh)
was rather surprised at the present motion. He
thought the conduct of the Commissioners had been
such as to bring confusion into almost every part of
the kingdom. It had certainly been so in the North,
with which he (Mr. Grimsditch) was most intimately
acquainted. He could point out many instances in which
this law had worked injuriously, creating great discon-
tent, adding to rather than lessening the burden upon
the public, and making the condition of the poor worse
then it was before. The results of the inquiries which
had been made throughout the country, had been to
convict the masters of workhouses of gross oppression.
The Honourable Member then proceeded to state that
many inconveniences had arisen from the districts being
too large to admit of proper management. He was
acquainted with Unions which extended ovtr a district
of ten miles. It was impossible that a Union of such
extent should be properly governed. Ile also com-
plained that the number of Assistant-Commissioners
was nearly double what were originally proposed to be
appointed.
Mr. WAKLEY said that there could be no doubt
that the present law would admit of an amendment
being introduced into it, but if the Noble Lord wished
to teke the sense of the Neese on the present motion,
he should divide it into two parts. The two legitimate
parts representing the subject to be considered were
one to amend nod the other to extend the commission,
Ha did expect that the Noble Lord would state, as
far as be could learn it from the Commissioners, the
full development of the effects which the existing law
produced on the interests of the people. He expected
that the Noble Lord would satisfy the 'louse of the
necessity of the changes proposed, but he left them in
utter ignorance of the necessity of those changes. Ile
had expressed a hope that the Noble Lord would not
object to put the proposition in two parts—one re-
specting the continuance of the Poor-law Commis-
sioners, and the other relative to the amendment of
the existing law ; by his so doing the House would
know how to vote, but if the Noble Lord declined to
adopt the course which he (Mr. Wakley) suggested,
lie in consenting to the introduction of a Bill for pro-
perly amending the existing law, begged to state, that
when other proposals were made with reference to tho
other Bill he would oppose it in all its stages. The
Commissioners had failed in giving satisfaction to the
country. The institution must be considered a useless
and most expensive one ; the people would not grudge
expense if they felt that the law was satisfactory to the
I nor, but the late was regarded as a harsh and in-
human lase. It was considered to be a law unsuited to
the charitable and kindly disposition of the people of
this country. lie was amazed that a Ministey calling
itself a Reformed Ministry, and relying for support on
the good wishes -of the people, would propose a Poor-
law of that nature, and would propose its continuance,
alter the experience of its pernicious, and, in his opi-
nion, cruel working. The present law took from the
people the administration of their own affairs in the
matter that concerned their own interest in an especial
manner, and deprived them of the means of applying
their own money in charities to the objects that cause
under their observation in the different localities 'of the
places which they frequented. Was the Noble Lord
prepared, he would ask, to show the necessity of con-
tinuing the Commission ? Vzia the law to be in the