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

ring their lifetime? It was asked now to give more pecu-
niary profits to the author; and could he then shut his
eyes to the state of the inventor, to whom the law said " Four-
teen years and no longer shall you derive any benefit from
%our great and important discoveries." To the inventor of
the steam-engine, and to the inventor of printing, if they were
now alive, no more than fourteen years would be allowed to
compensate for the expenses which they had incurred and the
time which they had employed in producing such magnificent
results. Some time• ago he (Lord Brougham) wished to im-
press upon their Lordships the necessity of allowing to inventors
an extension of seven years to the right they then possessed, but
that was not allowed. Let there be some equality in the
treatment of these great men, and let them not be too hasty in
passing this measure on a mere statement, without comparing
their position with that of other classes of the community.
He ventured to say that no man would attempt. to propose an
extension of the term of patented rights. He apologised for having
so long trespassed upon their Lordships' time. Doubtless, he
had expressed that which would run counter to the feelings of
many in that House, but he felt it to be his duty to go into the
subject as he had done.

Lord LYTTELTON would have preferred a Bill founded on
the basis of the present one, as first proposed to the House of
Commons. The principle upon which he supported this sill
was, that it was a compromise between the author and the
public, and this he thought was the opinion of Mr. Sergeant
Talfourd and Mr. Christie, and their supporters, amongst
whom, he thought, he might rank the Noble and Learned Lord
on the Woolsack. He agreed with the Noble and Learned
Lord (Brougham), when be said he did not see any difference
in time, between patents and copyrights, but he thought the
time given to each was not long enough. He did not think an
extension of copyright would enhance the price of books, nor
did he think perpetual copyright would have that effect : on these
grounds he would support the Bill.
The Bishop of LONDON said, for some time he was
staggered by the argument of the Noble and Learned Lord
( Brougham) with respect to the analogy of copyright of in-
ventions and the copyright of literary works, but he considered
this argument a fallacy, for the invention was that which was
of general and household use, and therefore the invention was
amply remunerated in fourteen years. But a quarter of a
century might elapse before the works of a literary man be-
came known and appreciated by the public. With regard to
the argument of the Noble Lord, with respect to copyright
about to expire, and in which the publishers might have ex-
pended two or three thousand pounds on the work, this fact
was a reason why the author should be further protected.
This was one of the best reasons for an extension of the copy-
right, for by this outlay it proved that the work was just be-
coming valuable. It was a just remuneration to the man who
had devoted the whole of his life to the benefit of his
species. It was, as the Noble Lord had said, for the great
authors that tins measure was sought.
Lord COTTEN HAM thought this question, like all others,
should be discussed, not with respect to private or individual
interests, but the interests of the public. In what way would
the benefit of authors be best consulted ? He thought it was
the general opinion that the addition of 14 years to the ex-
sting period of protection, would be of service to the authors,
and as he thought the interests of the public were so mixed up
with the interests of the author, that what was good for one must
be good for the other, he certainly should not oppose it ; he was
not prepared to say that the extension of the period to 42 years
would have the desired effect ; but as he did not see that it
would effect the public interests, he should not offer any oppo-
sition. The Noble and Learned Lord then commented upon
the various clauses of the Bill, and the 4th, 18th, and 25th,
were clauses which he thought ought not to remain part of the
Bill ; if they were struck out, he should be quite prepared to
give it his support.
Lord CAMPBELL would give this Bill his most cordial support;
and hemustsay, notwithstanding the ingenious arguments of the
Noble Lord who sat beside him (Lord Brougham), he did net
think that the arguments made use of by his Noble and Learned
Friend on the Woolsack had been answered. The principle
feature of the Bill was to allow an extension of the period of
protection to authors, and that he thought was a most desir-
able object. We had obtained considerable eminence in the
paths of literature, but we could not claim any particular pre-
eminence over the French, nor was our judgment superior to
theirs, in the amount of protection which authors should receive.
He approved entirely of the principle of granting the extended
copyright to those authors whose works were already published.
He did not see why such men as Mr. Wordsworth or Mr.
Campbell, for instance, should not be entitled to participate in
its benefits. He did not see why the advantages of the pro-
longed term should not he extended to the works of the author
of " Waverley." On the whole, he approved of the Bill, and
hp trusted that in all its main provisions it would receive the
sanction of their Lordships.
The Bill then went through Committee, with the under-
standing that the discussion on the clauses objected to should
be taken on the bringing up of the Report.
The House then resumed, and the Report was ordered to be
brought up on Thursday next.
The Turnpike Trusts ( Ireland) Bill went through Committee.
'f heir Lordships then Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 26.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour.

TYNE FISHERIES BILL. --
The Tyne Fisheries Bill was read a third time, and
passed.

HOLYWELL ROAD BILL.
The Holy well Road Bill was read a third time, and
passed.

LEEDS IMPROVEMENT BILL

Mr. BECKETT presented a petition from Leeds,
against the Leeds Improvement Bill.
FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. SHAW presented a petition from the millers of
Cork against certain clauses in the Fisheries (Ireland)
Bill.