The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-10 00:00:00

troduetion of the question of copyright into the debate
led liirh to believe that those who had done so
bad -not given the question. mature considera-
tion. —(Hear, hoar.) lie should like to know
what' arguments could be adduced in favour of the
continuance of this duty? ' The abolition of it did not
involve UR interferenCe with any branch of native in-
dustry,-and therefore he would 'look upon any argument
in fav ur of it as really a curiosity of literature.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was
very happy to hear that the Honourable Member who
had just sat down, had in this instance not adhered to
his support of reciprocity treaties.
Mr. DISRAELI said he was always ready to defend
the principle of reciprocity, but again he would repeat
that he could not see why the question of international
copywright should have been introduced into this dis-
cussion.

Mr. BORTHWICK understood that the revenue to
be derived from the duty, would not exceed 10,000/. a-
year. Now, he wished to know if it was fair to tax the
addition of knowledge, because contributed by wher
countries?— (Hear, hear.) Could the addition of 10,000/.
a-year to the Exchequer be put in comparison with the
amount of ben3fit likely to be conferred on the public by
:he fair and free admission of foreign literature?—(Hear,
hear.) It appeared to him (Mr. Borthwick) that the
question was distinct from copyright, and that it was
simply this—whether, for the sake of 10.0001 a-5 ear they
would admit or refuse that amount of knowledge which
ertainly should be derived from the free admission of fo-
reign literature.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir G. CLERKE said it was desirable for the cause of
literature that this country should secure for its authors
the copyright of their works.—(llear.) In this conn-
,:ry it was not the custom to publish piratical editions of
.he works of any author, and if such a principle
were adopted generally, he thought it would be much
to the good of the authors of Prussia and Germany.
Mr. HOSE said that nothing could b 3 more fair or
lust than the observations made by the Right Hon.
;entleman, and no Gentleman in the House had a
!Teeter wish to see piratical publications put an end to
than he had ; nevertheless he should support, on a divi-
sion, the motion of the Hon. Gentleman.
Mr. HAWES made a few observations, which did
,tot reach the gallery.
Mr. CARDWELL was of opinion that it was per-
• 7ectly true that the duty on books and the question of
copyright were separate and distinct ones. Yet, owing
-o the number of English travellers in foreign countries,
he thought it only right that there should be a fair ex-
'hange of literature.
Mr. AGLIONBY had come to the conclusion, that
t was right and desireable for what he called the
!onsumer, who wished fur foreign literature, that he
;timid have the opportunity of indulging his taste ; and
.hould the question go to a division, he decidedly
,hould vote with the Hon, Member for Dumfries.
Mr. DISRAELI thought that nothing could be
nore just than that the English author should have a
egitimate protection in his own country for the produc-
ion of his own mind, the same as Hon. gentlemen en
;dyed in the case of their own estates.—(Hear, hear.)
igow, in his opinion, the author was entitled to the en-
;oyment of such as fairly as the man who built a house
tr planted a wood. All the English author required
vas a fair protection ; and for the remainder, he relied
to the good taste and sympathy of his fellow-country-
nen. Now he looked on it that the great question was
;his—should the great body of the English nation be
revented from receiving at a moderate rate the works
)f foreign authors ?—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Disraeli)
lid not think the question of copyright could be mixed
with the matter at all.—(Hear, hear.) The question
vas this, were the people of England to be allowed to
receive the works of foreign authors duty free, or were
:hey not ?—(Hear, hear.) To meet that question, there
tad been a rigmarole Act of l'arliament brought for-
ward—an Act repugnant to common sense and justice.
—([fear, hear)—and he should say that he would feel
iimself bound, as he doubted not every Hon. Gentleman
vho had the welfare of literature at heart would, in
giving his opposition to the Ministerial Gentlemen.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said

',hat it might be remarked, with respect to the duty OR
brefgn books, that it only produced 10,0001. per annum,
)ut if the 'louse would consider the amount of duty
levied, it would see that it had been brought to the
owest possible point to which it was possible to carry it.
Dr. BOWRING said that it would be better for the
..,,nglish nation to attend to their own interest than to
that of foreign countries. It was certainly desirable
hat we should get our foreign books in the cheapest
Lnd best forms.

Mr. WODEHOUSE said that he would advise his
'Hood not to divide upon this question. He admitted

;he principle upon whiCh the motion was founded, but he
lid not think that a very small duty would give any
very great discouragement to the introduction of foreign
looks into this country, as it was almost exclusively the
richest class of persons that purchased them.
Mr. CURTIS said that he entirely concurred in the
pinion given by the Hon. Member who had just sat
town. If he were in the place of the Right Hon. Baronet
tnd failed in thin question, he would throw up the whole
;oncern sooner than bo hsrrassed by such ♦exatious di-
visions as had been proposed.
Sir R. PEEL said that there were certainly many
lifficulties in the introduction of such a measure as he
lad introduced. but he could not throw it up so easily.
Che Ron. Member might depend on it that he would be
very little influenced by this decision. It was no small
liffieulty that could induce him to relax his exertions
bring this question to an issue, as that was the
nain object at present. At the same time, be did
lope that no gentleman who concurred in the general
minciple of the policy pursued by the Government,
vould wish to see this measure carried. Amongst 300
irticles mentioned in the tariff, many persons would be

if opinion that in one ewe too much was done, and that
n another case too little had been done ; but if they ap-
proved of the whole comprehensively, be did hope that
arguments adduced in favor of one particular article
imongst the 300, would not be attended to so much al
the measure on the whole. The consideration of revenue
was important, but at the same time the measures he
would propose in the course of the present Session would
roost materially reduce the revenue. The duty on butter
tnd cheese alone produced 300,0001. per year, and in
mch cases as that it was impossible to avoid all conside-
rationsof revenue before any interference was made with
the duty, and the statement that the duty on the article
ally yielded 10,000/. per year, was no reason why that
should be remitted. With regard to literature, the case
was different, but he was at present unable to entertain
my proposition, as there were treaties pending with
France on this subject, but there was no inclination to
make any concession with regard to our works. He
did not wish the concession to be all on one side, but he
had not as yet been enabled to gain the double advantage
.)f reciprocal concession. The Hon. Gentleman who ob-
jected to the proposal did not surely wish the duty on
books should cease, for if a German grammar were
printed in England, the English production would be
:fable to an excise duty of 155., while the foreigner could
bring in his work without paying anything.
Mr. EWART said they could not come in com-
etition.
Sir R. PEEL said that in England, if a man were to
publish a work he would be liable to the excise duty,
while-the foreigner could produce the same work without
any such burden. If an Englishman published a work
in a foreign language in this country, he would be
liable to the excise duty ; but under the measure pro-
posed by the Hon. Gentleman, the foreigner would be
able to compete with him. He had, however, the proba-
bility of effecting a reduction of the kind proposed on a
more beneficial scale, and he did hope the House would
take that into consideration, and not give any opinion
on this measure.

Mr. GISBORNE said that his lion. Friend, de-
served great credit for the way in which he had brought
forward this question. He had brought the matter under
the attention of the House, and he should he satisfied
with th© great success which he had obtained without
pressing for a division.
Mr. WYSE said he could not agree with the Right.
Hon. Baronet on this question, as the case before the
House was a very peculiar one. So far from allowing a
tax on foreign works, he thought it was the duty of the
House to give every inducement for their introduction
into this country. He was sure, however, that sufficient
had already been done to bring this measure under the
attention of the Government. He therefore hoped that
his Hon. Friend would withdraw his motion.
Mr. EWART said that he had not been fairly dealt
with on this subject. If the Right Hon. Baronet said
he would at once take the subject into his consideration,
and look to the reduction of this duty, instead of making
himself dependent on treaties, he (Mr. Ewart) would
feel satisfied that the Right Hon. Baronet had said that
the whole subject should be taken into consideration.
He had taken the whole subject into consideration, and
the result of the investigation was, that he felt it his
duty to bring forward this motion. Now, however, that
this question must come under the consideration of the
Government. he would consent to postpone his measure.
Mr. DISRAELI said that her Majesty's Government
were aware that they would have never been in a mino-
rity until the great and comprehensive question was
tried. This was more the question of private discussion
than national interest, therefore this sort of guerilla
practice could have little effect on the ultimate settle-
ment of the question,
After a few words from Colonel SIBTHORP the
amendment was withdrawn, and the resolution agreed to.
That portion of the schedule respecting foreign butter
and cheese, after a few remarks from Messrs. EWART
and Hume, complaining of the present mode of landing,
and suggesting the consideration of some improvement
in this respect, was also agreed to.
On that portion of the tariff respecting the duty to be
imposed on copper ore being read from the Chair,
Mr. TRELAWNEY remarked that the duty now
proposed on this article would operate injuriously to
those engaged in this branch of mining.
Sir ROBERT PEEL replied that the proposition on
this subject now submitted had been under consideration
since 1842, and was made without any reference to
individual interests.
Mr. PARKER thought that, as the revenue raised
from this article was very trifling, it ought to be aban-
doned. He hoped that at some future period it would
come under the general principle, which the Government
was making with respect to other foreign articles.
Mr. SPOONER said he presented a petition the other
evening on this subject, from parties engaged in several
branches of trade in Birmingham. They considered
they would be most seriously affected if the present reso-
lution was carried into effect.
This and the other articles in the schedule, up to that
of foreign fruit, were then agreed to.
On the latter article being read,
Mr. COLLETT asked why the Right lion. Baronet
had excluded salmon from the present tariff? The pre-
sent rata of 10s. was very high.
Sir R. PEEL said, that a considerable reduction was
made in this article in 1842 ; the proposing of which
had occasioned great alarm in the Highlands of Scot-
land. Though on this, as on other alterations then
made, the fears had turned out to have been groundless;