The Sun.
London, England, 1842-05-27 00:00:00

presented petitions from some of the most e mine
literary men, publishers of the metropolis, and from some
of the first stationers, all praying the House to pass this
Bill. He thought, therefore, he was confirmed in the
opinion he 'had formed, but he confessed he had greatly
been disappointed, for he, found that it was to be op-
posed from a quarter he did not anticipate. He passed
to the Act of 1709, when the Copyright Bill was passed,
upon which this question mainly rested. The object of
that Bill was to promote literature, but unfortunately
some expressions were allowed to remain in the Bill which
caused it to be construed otherwise. In thirty years after the
passing of this Bill the question came under the consideration
of the Courts. A person of the name of Millar, purchased
the copyright of " Thompson's Seasons." Subsequently a
person of the name of Taylor, published an edition of
the work, and Millar brought an action against him. The
question was most elaborately argued in the Court of Queen's
Bench, and the Judges, with Lor Mansfield at their head, de-
livered their judgment, that by the law of the land an author
had a perpetual interest in his copyright. (Hear. )
He found then, by the judgment of the Court of Queen's
Bench, that copyright was a common law right, or in other
words that an author bad a perpetual right in his copy. An
action was subsequently brought by Beckett against Donaldson,
which came before their Lordships' House. Eleven Judges
from the Court of Queen's Bench were summoned—Lord
Mansfield was not summoned, as it came before their Lordships
in consequence of a writ of error from his judgment. They
were asked whether there was a common law right vested
in the author ? that was answered in the affirmative by a
majority of eight to three ; the other question put to them
was, whether the statute of Anne took away the common law
right, or merely added additional benefits ; the Judges, by a
majority of six to five, decided that it did take away the common
law right. The law of the country was then, that the copy
was the .property of the author for perpetuity, but that the
right was abridged by an Act of Parliament—which was in-
tended for a very different purpose,—to a period of 14 years.
Sir S. Romilly said that the Bill was not one calculated to
encourage literature, but that it tended rather to protect the
crude productions of youth than the more mature productions
of age and experience. The 54th Geo. 111. extended the
copyright to the life of the author. The Bill for which they
asked now was not to restore the common law right, but only
to extend the period for seven years more. He appealed now
to the justice of their Lordships ; on that broad footing he
placed it; he did not appeal to their sympathies on behalf of
men who had exerted their talents in their behalf, but on their
justice only he relied. Seven years was all they asked. Were
they to be outdone in liberality by other countries? The law
of France gave the copyright to the author durin„o life, and al-
lowed it to the widow for twenty years afterwards. Another
country, distinguished in many respects for its literary pro-
ductions—he meant Prussia—was still more liberal in its law ;
it gave thirty years after the death of the author. Russia
gave twenty-five years after the death of the author, and ten
years more under particular circumstances. The only country
in which the law was the same as in England was Austria, and
that country—it was a strange fact—had produced fewer works
of genius and literary merit, compared with its size and popu-
lation, than any other civilised country in the world. If they
went to Spain, where the literature was se charming, they
would find that the copyright was perpetual ; so it was in Den-
mark, in Norway, and in Sweden. The more encouragement
they gave to the productions of genius, the more likely
they were to have them increased. But they were
met with the argument, " Would you encourage me-
nopoly ?He did not understand such monopoly as this. If
a man possessed a house it was a monopoly, and that was the
kind of monopoly that an author's right in his book constituted.
If it were monopoly it would have all its advantages, but none
of its evils. The law at present was precisely the same thing
as a law would be which gave to a rabble the power of rushing
into a house directly the owner died, destroying his property,
and turning out his wife and family ; and who would say that
it would be unjust to repeal such a law as that? Another ob-
jection which had been raised to this proposed alteration in the
law was, that it would raise the price of books ; he (the Lord
Chancellor) did not believe that such would be the case ; he
did not think it would have any effect of the kind, but that it
would rather tend to low er the price of books. Nothing was a
greater monopoly than the Bible, and yet how cheap were
copies of the bible. lie had said before he did not like to
anticipate arguments. He had touched upon these lightly,
and there were many others that he might go into. He thought
this was a measure of justice.—( Hear, hear.) He had
attempted to present to their Lordships tip correct view of
the subject, and of the law on the subject.
Lord BROUGHAM had not been changed in the opinion
he had formed on this subject by what had fallen from the
Noble and Learned Lord. He went to the full length of all
the sentiments of veneration and respect to the authors of this
country as the Noble and Learned Lord did himself. What
increased his anxiety was the latter part of his Noble and
Learned Friend's observation, for he found that they were
called upon to give their consent to a measure which prospec-
tively would alter the law on this subject, but which %N ouldretro-
speetively alter the law of their rights, andmany other rights.
If they rejected or altered this Bill, and the result of that alte-
ration was its rejection elsewhere, then let them introduce a
measure to satisfy both. To those parts of the Bill which con-
sulted the interests of literary men he had no objection what-
ever, on the, contrary, he thought they were most salutary.
That it was the opinion of the Queen's Bench, that at
common law of this country there existed a law of copy-
right, he had no doubt. A question was brought
before the House,_ and the majority were of opi-
nion that copyright at common law had ceased to
exist. That was the law of the land as declared by
the highest authority. If seventy years and a majority of the
Judges were not sufficient to settle a dry point of law, then it
was in vain to talk of rights and privileges at all, because, upon
higher ground none could rest, or show a more unimpeachable
title. His Noble Friend then referred to the Act of the 54th
George 111., which he thought was introduced in favour of
authors; and he stated the opinion of Sir Samuel Romilly on
that Act; that Act, arose, however, out of a complaint made
by the University of Oxford, that copies of the works published
were not sent to them, and that the Act of Aune was not suffi-
ciently stringent to make publishers deliver the copies of their
work's to the Universities ; an Act to enforce this was passed,
and as a kind of compensation to the publishers the Act of 54
Geo. 111. was passed. At that time, however, great com-
plaints were made that they were compelled to send eleven
copies of their works to the libraries, and they stated that the
Act of George 111. did not nearly compensate them for the
burden thus imposed upon them. It was, generally speaking,
quite unimportant what became of the copyright after four or
five years, and certainly one never looked beyond fourteen years.
But, they might ask, " Would you not, as a publisher, give
an author more for a valuable work, if the copyright
which would be vested in you were perpetual, instead of only
of fourteen years duration ?" The answer they would receive
would be universally, " No, we would give no more for it."
Of that part of the Act which related to protection from pi-
racy, he highly approved. The great evils under which the
Publisher and the author now laboured, were-Ist, The great
defect of the law with regard to valuable works ; and, 2d, The
piracies which were made, both by printers at home and abroad.
By way of example of the present state of the law, look at a
most useful work, which had been publishing during the last
twenty-five years, " The Encyclopaedia Edinensis,' edited by
Sir David Brewster, than which no work ever presented a com-
pilation of what was more useful, or exhibited more genius.
If ever there were a book which ought to be encouraged, it
was this. But such was the state of the law, that neither the
authors themselves had any right in their copy, nor had the
owners and publishers any legal redress against a pirate. Of
course, the size of the work protected itself; no one would
think of publishing twenty-five quarto volumes in a piratical
way. But any single treatise—the valuable treatises of Pro-
fessor Stewart, of Professor Playfair, the papers of M. Arago,
&c.—might be dishonestly pirated, without any redress being
allowed to the publisher. It would be most desirable that such a
state of things should be put a stop to. He now came to the
other part of the measure, which extended the copyright from
twenty-eight to forty-two years. Suppose an author took his
manuscript to the publisher, and wished to part with it,
the question would be on what terms he could dis-
pose of it; and the question would be between the
present value of twenty-eight and forty-two years.
Suppose it would bring in a clear yearly gain of
100/., after paying every expense for the term of forty-two
years—it was very unlikely, unhappily, that any work ever
could produce such an annual income, but he would suppose
it, for the purpose of stating the argument as strongly as
possible against himself. Suppose, also, that the bookseller
knew this—that the work was to succeed, how much more
would the publisher give for forty-two years instead of
twenty-eight? for that was the question. He had taken the
trouble to calculate this. The difference was 511. at ten per
cent., which was a low profit, indeed; and if they took fifteen
per cent., it was something life 151. Therefore, the pub-
lisher gave little more, if any, for forty-two years than twenty-
eight years. It was said they bad evidence enough without
witnesses being examined ; but that was not the case in 1814„
nne d ir
et
t;
em;nadndhatdhpeyrestehnetnedsa,idhadt h
agiven e eavdi
dd
ietni
ocne
for a Committee of Inquirylraona waswh na
hpapdoinatiegdn,edantdhowpitenteitiisoens
h ex-
a his
Nme
oibnrl eee d at. hatnd Why,L ao t
C
of fourteen years could not operate to the encouragement of
literary men. Two of these individuals were Mr. Long-
man and Mr. Murray, and yet now they presented a
petition in favour of this Bill. His Noble Friend had
argued this question as though it stood as it was left
in 1814. But this was not the case, for great altera-
tions had been made since. At that time authors were
subject to Irish piracies, but an Act had been since passed to
extend the copyright law all over the United Kingdom. It
was, therefore, not correct to say that things remained in the
same state as in the Act of 54 George 111. He should have
less objection to extending the interest to seven years after
the death of the author, than to extend the period fourteen
years. The great proportion of works that were published
were net interested in this question, because few works sur-
vived beyond the year of publication. He could not agree
with his Noble and Learned Friend, that books would be
cheaper than at present under the system of what he called
monopoly. That was one of the most extraordinary proposi-
tions which he ever heard. His Noble Friend referred to the
Bible in proof of his asseriion. That was an exception ; but
the reason was, that there was no desire for profit in the sale
of the Bible; on the contrary, there were great bodies of the
community who were interested in the circulation and disiemi-
nation of the Bible. 'Works like the Bible and others, which
were very popular and had a great run, would, no doubt,
under any system, be published at a cheap rate. But they
might depend upon it that the extension of the period of copy-
right from twenty-eight to forty-two years, would have the
effect of preventing a great many valuable works from being
published at a low rate. Now, upon the last point to which
his Noble and Learned Friend adverted, he thought that there
could be no doubt—he meant the retrospective effect which
the law would haie. The retrospective effect, he believed,
would be to • prevent men, who had been waiting
for the last two or three years, to bring out cheap editions
of works in which the copyright was abcut to expire, from
bringing out those editions at all. He knew instances in
which men had made preparations to bring out certain works
on a certain day, and had expended large sums of money to that
effect, and if they were to be prevented from doing that, ruin
to them might ensue. Was such a law as this ever heard of,
stepping in between a man's expended capital, which he had ex-
pended under the law, and the authors, and saying to them,
" Be ruined, because you have acted without your
host in this House." There were poets of great transcendent
talent, whose productions almost dazzled the imagination of
common men, and to them this Bill might be of service ; and
sorry was he to say anything which should tend to deprive them
of any protection which they ought or could have ; he looked
upon them as the conservators of public virtue ; he would go as
far as any man in their praise; he would laud them, nay, he
could'almost venerate them, and them he would be proud to
protect; but he would turn for a moment from these men, to
him and men like him, who, by their inventions, had added
more to our strength than if he had added cubits to our stature,
who had taught us to stem the waves, almost to chair the
winds, making what was formerly but a saying to become a
hterdfact, that not an axe fell to break the silence of an Indian
forest, that was not echoed by the anvils which had assisted to
forge the shuttles of Lancashire and Warwick—he alluded to
the Woreesters, the Newcombes, and last of all, greatest
of all, Watt—what reward had they ? No one thought
to alter the law which concerned them ; but they had
greater honours than any Courts could confer—imperish-
able renown. To Watt, a monument had been erected
in memory of his genius and his= talents, and proud was
he (Lord Brougham) to have assisted in its erection. What
other honours had they ? Their dust was allowed to mingle with
the ashes of the great, but the great less illustrious than them-
selves. But, he asked, what good had been done for them du-