The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-07 00:00:00

After death they had often to follow their patient.
to the charnel house, to make farther and mo.
dangerous observations to complete the skill and firmness
that enabled b"n to relieve °tier sufferers. Did tiro.
men petition the House for protection ? No ; the.
were glad to be able to conti:bute infoi.avation for ae
benefit of the.-- fellow creatures. Sometimes sOrdit:
wretches did arise ;ri the profession, pretendini tha
dhey had a remedy, but would keep it• a secret. Btu
those mita were snuroed and scorned by the com-
munity-of medical men, as unworthy to belong to
their profession. They were set down as paltry
quacks. But what was the House asked to do
with the poet who had but one ilea, which ..h•
worked over 500 pages ?—.(Hear and laughter.) Ver:
often he (Mr. Walcley) had read poetry without findi ;
even one. idea.—(Laughter.) The poet says " I have
written a beautiful poem; it is heautifu"y printed an
bound, and all the world ought to give me a gi'ne
each for it ; if they don't I'll go to my friend Mr. Ser.
geant Talfourd, and tell him that I am a very ill-use.
man, and beg of him to get me protection :on
the State."—(oll, oh.) This was the truth, and he cook
prove it before a Committee of the House. New, .h
had a specimen of some of this poetry in his hand
The poets asked for protection. He should like to set
how much woirld satisfy them, for their roe of appro:
bation was uncommonly strong and uncommoely deve-
loped, and generally they had very large organs of self
esteem.---(Laughter.) lie was unwilling to read
poetry to thi House, but he must give them a
specimen of the kind for which protection was asked.
That which lie was about to read was exquisite poetry,;
It was from a book entitled " Beauties of the Poets.
The book contained 1,000 pages, and consisted of selec-
tions from the most illustrious and celebrated living
poets—the obscene ones were left unnoticed. It was a
etii:ous fact that the present law was most stringent in
its protection of authors. In this very work there were
28 pages extracted -:'..om the works of a living author,
and that author had on that account applied to the Coin.
of Chancery for an injunction to restrain the sale ofthese
two large 'volumes, and he had made a solemn affidavit
that he believed that the sale of those 28 p iges would
injure the sale of his on a works. Why, it was uttz.rly
incredible, if the poetry were good, to imagine that the
sale of those 28 pages would injure the sale of his works:
on the contrery, one would imagine that the reading that
small portion would make persons more anxious to pos-
sess the remainder. He, was now about to read to the
House a sample of those works which they were called
upon to protect—he was about to read some of Mr.
Wordsworth's poetry. He had not done this on any
previous occasion, but he felt now that he was forced to
do it.—(Cheers and laughter.) Surely, if they a ere so
anxious to extend protection to authors; it was but fi,ir
that they should know what it was they were about to
protect. He would now give the House one sample, of
this exquisite poetry. It was entitled to " Louisa," and
was as,follows :
" Though, by a sickly taste betrayed,
Some will dispraise the lovely maid,
With fearless pride I say
That she is healthful, fleet, and strong,
And down the rocks can leap along
Like rivulets in May.
" And she bath smiles to earth unknown; - •
Smiles, that with motion of their own,
Do spread, and sink, and rise ;
That come and go with endless play,
And ever, as they pass away, . .
Are hidden in her eyes. •
" She loves her fire, her cottage home,
Yet o'er the moorland will she roam .
In weather rough and bleak;
And when against the.wind she strains,
Oh ! might I kiss the mountain rains
. That sparkle on her cheek..
" Take all that's mine ' beneath the moon,'
If I with her but half a noon
May sit beneath the walls ' : i. , .
Of some old cave, or mossy nook, - A . -
When up she winds along the .bmook; ' 1
To hunt the waterfalls." .., , .
In reading the second stanza the Iloti;'NemEer 'Was*-
, . ..
culiarly felicitous :-- • -- • .
• " And she'had smiles to eartlt unkno vn "' '-
" I wonder, what sort of smiles those are4T -said,. de
Hon.:Gentleman, amidst .shouts oFlarightea,lwhich con-
tinued during die whole time the, Hon. Winker was
reading..: At the conclusion, howevcir, sonie,4l3,a, -Men',
ber exclaimed-. `"Olt, oh.'") - No. peVseitt. -illegiliiita bra
any right to be a ligeted arti/iiireit.tli. talls_ll 1 '',:l-.0
had not done so from anylitiVid;Ong' ti k!" klitieel;4#
14
03 • ,Iralo ilwaii
could -en terfain a highur4.4k4ofilup riaf.tgr,
Wordsworth thank he did,' bil'ilAyargtiett t:1-444;44ic,p;ge
called upon to give proteCtaen,tetimulnon„ the:, Men
of science who 11.:Id confer kl, airegogssupoislianianity
had much higher claims upon4lacbkitalistiatisre,::anidahey
Mould not. be doing their ainty..iftheasayasv protoction to
the. authors of suck poems: fis,tkeiellinee to. &mkt," and
suffered scientifio, men - to,tgo.AuinkliarticaPsielicers:;
lle would now road " Littes•tensPfliettatfrat''"' '''- _ ".
"I've watched. you MAY it all rl9-4101kCr alai::
Self-poised upon thatytilifiti oito- ..4 Id zo ch ;,J
And, little bAtte;fly, ins . I',.""' 1 -
tor
I know not if you As' p. sir fe4 '7"' - -, . ,
How motionless! Not froczeihrititir' -''' •I
More
.mot 'unless ; andiheri,, ,
Wha• joy awaits kini al4l-1 tristleire)-1,41.:1.
Ilath found you out among:4oms,
And calls you forth aasin !
This plot of orchard-ground is ours, .
My trees they are, my sker's;floviera..,
Here rest your wings wheialoti arr 4 vary, •
Here lodge as in a sanctuary:, ,
.„....
Come often to as, fear rio Wrong, e _
Sit near us on the bough ; • ,",,,,
We'll talk of sunshine and of. 50ng.,,.: .
And summer days, when,we were young— . .
Sweet childish days, that were as long
As twenty days are pow.",
Give a poet dew, and a rivulet and rugarden, and straight-
way there was a poem. That was. all very pretty, but
could not everybody do the same. :
Mr. M. MILNES—Try it.—(Cheers.)
Mr. IVAKLEY—The • llon. 'Member for Pontefract
had tried it; he had succeeded vile wasitrieet; he had pro-
duced excellent poems, and lie,(Mr.,Wrikley) only wished
the Hon. Member had produced something more usefel
to society.—(Cheers mid laughter.)
Why. a man
might go on writing such poetra, asaliat he had quoted
for hours together; he might spin such lines by the mile.
His " Lines to the Stock Dove" were similar.• Wen authors
such as these came to that Honse and liked for an extension
of the copyright, he (Mr. Wakley) would ask the House in re-
yevceodutldhadtoatmY Act of Parliament they could
pass would ever give to such authors pay peculiar advantage ?
tiu3urtn
siufptphoesey
believed
such a thing, ought they not also to
recollect that there was a public—a people whom they were
called on to instruct ? and would they give to authors the right
of shutting up their ideas, and making them sealed works to the
public fur forty or-fifty years ? What' said common sense ?
Why, common sense sOd that as soon as a good thing was dis-
covered, it ought to be given to the public as soon as possible
without injuring the inventor. That ought to be the principle
on which they should act. Was that the principle which guided
them? In the case of inventions a man takes out a patent for
fourteen years ; then, if Ws invention were one of
a very superior character—if he had not made a
great profit by it, or if he were dissatisfied, he hail
the power of going before a Julicial Committee of the
Privy Council, and asking for an Wdditiorial term, and they
would give him seven years more. Why was not that applied to
the writing of books ? If a timing be superior, what matters it
whether a man has impressed his mind upon paper, or upon
copper, on iron, steel, brass, or the finest India paper? It
mattered not ; in each case there was the same amount of
labour; nay, in the sciences there was much more labour re-
quired thao in the production of such poetry as he had referred
to, fur in them there were no poetical licenses allowed—all must
be reduced to perfection with the greatest Licety. But the
greatest men were not those that came bete to ask for an ex-
tension of the copyright ; aid had the, Noble Lord had any
communication with Herschel upon the subject? That was a
name not of inferior importance—that was a national name.
Tske his work on Astronomy; Why it was worth more than the
whole lot of poetry books put together. Did he come there to
ask for protection? Did he say that literary men were
not protected ? fie (Mr. Wakley) was sorry to see the bent
which the House seemed to be taking on this question. The
country required amusement and instruction ; the gaols were
full of people who could not read or write. Was it the way to
improve the condition of the people, by giving to authors the
exclusive right of publishing their works, and at their own
price?—and every one knew that authors did not place a small
value on their own work. He held in his hand a list of the
prices paid for various works, under copyright and out of copy-
right, which he would read to -the' House:—Sinollet's ‘• His-

..,-
toiy of England," at the cheapest copyright price, was 3/. lOs ,
1 the cheapest non-copyright price was 11. ss. ; Robertson's
~ Works" fell from 31. 4s. to 1/. 4s. ; Tytler's " Elements of
History" from 11. Is. to 4s; Scott's "Last Minstrel" from 2/. 2s.
to Is. 6d. ; " Marmion" from 1/. 11s. 6d. to 10d. ; Gibbon's
" Rome " from 61. 6s. to 18s. ; Paley's " Works " from 6/.
to 7s. 6d. ; Pope's " Works" from 81. 14s. to 9s. ;
The " Spectator," from 3/. 4s. to lOs 10d. ; " Johnson's
Dictionary." from 31. 3s. to 2s. W. Every one must be de
lighted with such falls as these. Now, allusion had been made
to the distress of Dr. Johnson ; there was no doubt but that
he was in great difficulties, but he laboured with great zeal and
overcame them. But what was his opinion ? He said that
were an author's right in his book to be perpetuity, no book,
however useful, would be circulated amottgst•mankind, should
an author take it into his head to restrain its circulation. The
moment a book was written it should become the property of
the public, for which the author should receive some return,
and
years. No doubt to thisensitheoeuopyt riht should be secured to him for
some that
was correct. He had now a
copyright for 28 years, and he (Mr. Wakle)
Y. must say that he
thought those who called fur a change in the law should make
out some ease for that change.-( Hear.) They said authors
had not sufficient encouragement ; he (Mr. Waldey) thought
they had too much. He had already said that Scott received
upwards of 250,0001. for his writings. No one could have
grudged it, anti if it had been ten times as much he
(Mr. Wakley) should have been glad ; and he was very sorry
seemedthat
thateverheshouitldwasa
loveh o
e
difficulty. Had he not turned bookseller, those difficulties pro-
bably would never have come upon him. Then, again, Pore,
for his translation of the i"llisd' received 5,320/.; Lord Byron,
though he died young, received 23,0,,0/. for his wot k 4 ; Sit- J.
Mackintosh 5,000/ for his; Dr. Lingard 4,00(1/.
ffelt gain pecuniary
which
difficulties ; but it
i brought him to that
for his ; Wil-
berforce received 4,0001 for the Life of his father ; Moore re-
ceived 3,0001. for " Lalla Rookh," and Southey I,C )0/. fir his
" Life of Cowper." He knew that in many respects the
world was slow to appreciate merit. He had been an author
himself in an humble way, and he never complained of the
treatment he received, and yet I.e looked to the present time,
and left posterity, to look after itself.-(Hear and laughter.)
He did entreat the Noble Lord even now to relinquish this ob-
noxious measure; he asked it not as a priva.e ind,vidual, but
because he thought it would act against the public,and beof not the
slightest benefit to authors. if the House passed a law for the
protection of literature, they must expect that 111011 of science
would come there too-they were, in fact, entreating of them
to do so-and ask for protection. Did they believe that, under
such a state of things in that House, they could benefit the
community ? He put that question to the lions ~ and, he
would ask, did they believe that men of science, who often
perilled their lives in the cause of science, would see them do
this, anti not give them protection? He could assure Hon.
Members that he h.ol not quoted those fragments of u p__,,
try at ,
all in an invidious sense ; nothing was farther from his desire
than to inflict pain on any party, and he would be the first to '
bestow on that author a grant of. the public funds if he could
meat with a deserving case. But he did say that if protection
were given to such a class of works, it would inflict a
great injury on the people, and would confer no be- 1
nefit on authors. He should support the proposition
of his lilnourable and Learned Friend, who had
favoured them with such an excellent and argumentative speech

an the subject, because he beli. LA it to be the best of two
vile. He believed twenty-eight years quite lw g enough, and
le thought that arty change mu t operate n ost disativan-
geousiy, and in no way. wh: teve could it operate to the
advantage of the public.—( Hear. )
air. oi I I,N Es said, he slit uld only detain the 1-1, use with.
ew observations, but ho thought that no man who had heard
:he speech of the Hon. Member who had just sat down, could
‘ave f It it possible to rest ra'n from answering soma parts of
his address. He regretted that the Hon. Member had been
ed to make certain remarks, which he had made in so light
and flippant a manner; and he did think that a decided
•ritimation should be made of the fes ling entertained by that
House of the improper manner in which the works of a most
lelightful poet, had been brought before that House in a men-
ace quite in opposition to the forms of that House, and he was
Awe in such a manner as could not but hurt the feelings of the
eloquent and exquisite poet whose works had been thus win-
iassed. Besides, those rules were not at e't applicable to the
present occasion ; he might as well have read poetry that he
was more acquainted with and more accustomed to read—su
ii the song of " Billy Taylor," or the " Cat's m-at Man,"
they would have been just as applicable. The works of M .
Wordsworth were brought forward with no other object than to
~ast a slur on the poetical genius of that great man. It would
be impossible to follow the Hon. Member through so very (lc-
eltory and unargumentative a speech, and he believed the
Reuse must consider that the question laid between the Right
Hon. Member for Edinburgh and the Noble Lord who brought
forward the motion. The Hon. Member who had just sat
town had talked of the question being argued in such a way
that no attention was paid to the public; yet the lion. Gentle-
man brought forward no argument to show that the public
sould be injured by this measure, he did not e%en attempt to
trove that books world be made dearer. There could not, in
fact, be any greater absurdity than to suppose it would in any
palpable degree be increased in price by the copyright being ex.
:ended. He b lieved that books published under the copyright
were cheap. The books published by Whittaker—the trans-
lations of foreign histories, were the cheapest books in the
market ; the Waverley novels were as cheap as could be. Both
publishers and authors had found out that the cheaper they
mold their books, the more profit they would make. Competi-
tion in publishing was one of the principle things which raised
the price of the books, and where there was no competition
books were dear and scarce. The works of the Elizabe:han
dramatists, for example, because they had no publisher-, were
difficult to be obtained; the works of Bacon, Fox, and many lathe:
were the same ; but the best works generally fell in price after
the lapse of some little time. The works of Sir James Macin-
tosh, published at 355., were sold for ss. a copy. The ques-
Foe of comparative cheapness had, he thought, been completely
answered; and, if any doubt yet remained, he would refer Hon.
Members to a little pamphlet, written by his Hon. Friend the
Member for Weymouth, called " A Plea for Perpetual Copy-
right." He was sorry that the Hon. Member, who had just
sat down, was not ass in his place, because, when he (Lew that
distinction which he did between men of seien. e and literature,
be (Mr. Milnes) would tell him that there were men of science
as well as those to whom the Hon. Member had referred,
who had thought of this matter. Sir David Brewster had
written on the same subject, and his opinion was directly oppo-
site to those of the men of science which the Hon. Member
hail quoted. Those were the words of a man of real and pro-
found science. The Hon. Gentleman applied to the persons
who came to that House to ark for protection the names of li-
terary quacks. He had spoken in this way of Campbell, Miss
Martineau, Fonblanque, Fox, Leigh Hunt, Carlyle, Dickens,
James, Rogers, and Johanna Baillle. These were persons who
yielded them pleasure, and who had exalted the country. These
persons the Hon. Gentleman designated quacks, whin at this
very moment one of them, Mr. Dickens, was receiving
from the whole American nation the tribute of all the assem-
blies in that nation. The Hon. Member for Finsbury, pro-
fessing as he did democratic principles and admiration of
America, came there to insult that very class of men whom
America delighted to honour. He (Mr. Mines) must tell
him that there were other professional men quite as distin-
guished as the Hon. Member who took a different view of this
matter. He found in that petition the names of Hope, Pro-
fessor of Chemistry, a name well known, Abercromby, of
Edinburgh, of the Institution of Medicine, Bird, Professor of
'tirgery, and a great number of others, all of whom enter-
tained a different opinion on the subject to the Hon. Member
for Finsbury. But he must really apologise to the House for
detaining them. for he must say that the sentiments of the Hon.
Member for Finsbury were scarcely worthy of serious con-
sideration. One remark in answer to what the Hon. Mem-
ber had said about the high remuneration of many literary
men. He had spoken as if a literary cr-eer was always one
of prosperity and enjoyment, as if a man who worked with his
head had not just as many difficulties as the RIM who worked
with his hands. When he taHied of the rewa-ds of Scott and
Byron, he (Mr...Milnes) would ask him whether he forgot the
enormous incomes paid to professional gentlemen ? Show him
the literary man whose income was equal to Sir Astley Coo-
pers, or 'Sir. Benjamin Broeie, and the leading professional
men in the metropolis. It was perfectly absurd to single out
a few cases where authors were largely paid, and he did not
think in any deheee overpaid, and say that therefore litera-
ture was a good profession, and did not require protection. In
'questions of this kind it was impossible that the House could
keep up along debate, and he would therefor confine 'himself to
a few remarks upon the proposition of the Right Hon, Member for
g4burgh. 'I he proposition of the Right Hon. Gentleman
VMS one which was an .mprovement in the existing law, but he
did not think the proposition so good as that of the Noble Lord.
Under the proposition of the Right Hon. Gentleman, if the
author wished to sell his copyright he would not get one shil-
ling more for it. Therefore, as far as regarded immediate advantage
to the author, he would derive no benefit whatever. The great
evil he (Mr. Manes) wished to remedy was that of authors of
great distinction and eminence, leaving their families almost
totally unprovided for. It was a question interesting the
families of authors more than the authors themselves. The
speech of the Right Hon. Member for Edinburgh was a very
strong premium for ;literary celibacy. The Hon. Gentleman
who had spoken last aecu.ed the Noble Lord (Mahon) with
being led away by sentimental tales. The Honourable Mem-
ber should have known that there was a tale of a certain
eminent literary man, an historical writer, who had
received from the country great literary honours, who was at
the close of his life deprived by Providence of the great powers
of his mind, and his family was almost entirely dependent upon
him for support. When he mentioned the names of Ward end
Smith, these were signal instances of the defect of the oresent'
system. He slid not know that there was anything else, ex-
cept to coup atulate them on the tone of that debate, with the
exception of the speech of the Hon. Member for Finsbury. lie
thought such a tone would act most beneficially on the country
—it would dispel the notion which had 'gone abroad, that lite-
rature was treated with very little respect in that House. There
was a certain sum of money appropriated yearly for the purpose
of assisting indigent literary men, but that sum was not more
than. would keep a pack of hounds, and that was the only
public fund in this country. In France the cae was dlfferent.
f he present French law was that which they wished to make
the law of England. But the French Government was not
content with that state of things, and made an attempt to alter
the period from 25 years to 50 years. A Bill to that effect
passed one of the Chambers, and was rejected by the :other by
a small majority ; but there was no doubt that the Bill would
be renewed, and there was every probability of its being carried.
The effect of this law in France was to produce an he-monious
action between literary pursuits and political. The historian
of the civilization of Europe was the Prime Minister, and the
historian of the revolution was the Leader of the Opposition,
and it was with the hope of connecting these two pursuits that
the alteration was proposed. He should therefore vote
for the proposition of the Noble Lord, egainst the amendment
of the Right Honourable Member for Edinburgh, but
he would see that it was a friendly litigation between
them, for he (Mr; Manes) had no doubt that either proposition
would confer benefit on the country.
The clause was then put and agreed to, as was &so clause 2.
On clause 3 being proposed,
Mr. MACAULAY said it was here that he wished to pro-
pose that the words, " from the time of the death of the author"
be omitted, and that the term of 42 year, or for life be inserted in
its stead. He need hardly tell the House that be did not in
any manner concur with the Hon. Member for Finsbury. He
should not detain the House with any further exeression of
opinion on this subject, hav:ng already addressed tde House,
but he must say, that having listened to what had fallen from
Hon Members, he had not heard any refuta.i n of his argu-
ment. lie believed that his proposition world confer greater
protection to the author than that of the Noble Lord. He,
therefore, moved the omission of the words and the substitution
of those he proposed.
Lord MAHON said he could not think that the plan of the
Right Hon. Gentleman wor'd confer greater benefit the -1 his
(Lord Mahon's).
Sir R. PEEL said he did not wish to give a vote without
stating the general conclusion he had come to, from the r •gu-
ments-he had heard on the subject. He had alwas felt great
doubts on the subject. He had not hitherto given a vote upon
the subject, but he was resolved, :.-em the impartial arguments
he had heard, to form a right conclusion upon them. His im-
pression hitherto had been, that no further pro'ection was re-
quired (as was understood). He thought that if additional
protection was given, a discretionary power should be given to
some public authority to extend the term of copyright. How-
ever, as it appeared to be the general opinion that some a'tera •
tion should be made, he should not press his own views.
Having heard the speech of the Noble Lord and the Right
Hon. Gentleman opposite, he thought that the argument of the
Right Honourable Gentleman, with respect to the period
of forty-two .years, or for life, carried conviction with , it.
He had, he thought,
.proved that the later works of an author
would be superior to his earlier ones, and the e•melu‘ions he drew
from his argument aibitiori, were borne out by facts, The Right
lion. Gentleman had referred to the best authorities, rid had
proved that, speaking generally, the works produced in the
later years of authors were better entitled to protection as far
as the interests of the public were concerned, than those pro-
duced at an earlier period. At the same time he thought
there was groat force in the argument drawn from
the position of the family of rn author, immediately
after his death. He thought that, in some cases, an
additional period of seven years might be combined with the
proposition of the Right Hon. Gentleman. If he had to
decide simply between the proposal of the Noble Lord anti the
proposition of the Right Hon. Gentleman, deciding from the
arguments alone, he thought he should give his vote for the
proposal of the Right Hon. Gentleman.
Mr. MACAULAY said he could not adopt the suggestion
of the Right Hon. Baronet for as additional seven years. He
thought the arguments he had urged all bare in some small
degree on the contingency of the time of life. As to the
argument of an author dying anti leaving nothing for his
family to depend upon, if it took place early in the term of
forty-two years, they had the remaider of the term.
A book to be a valuable copyright after that term,
must be a classic, and became a standeard in the
language ; if it did remain valuable after that time, he could
not see why the author, who had enjoyed the copyright for
forty-two years, should not, like other professional men, have
effected some provision for his family by saving out of it. lie
could not, with any satisfaction, make any farther concession.
Mr. WYNN thought it was not worth while to give pro-
tection to works of an inferior description. The copyright of a
book that was of no intrinsic value, after the death of the author
could be of no importance whatever. He should not enter into
ar.y controversy as- to the case of a venerated living poet. He
would allow the lines the Honourable Member quoted to
be as bad as he described ; and if so, the passing the
Act with respect to them was neither good nor bad.
It is argued, are authors such slaves to pelf as to look to money
only and not to fame ? Why, in the case of Dr. Johnson, did
he undertake the " Lives of the Poets" merely for his own gra-
tification ? He undertook them for the booksellers in his
declining years. He would recommend to his Noble
Friend the propriety of combining the two proposi-
tions. With respect to ephemeral publications, they
have lost their value the week after they are pub.
lished—legislation was useless. With respect to the works
alluded to by the Hon. Gentleman, it was of very little conse-
quence whether their copyrights had expired at the time of
the author's death, as they were, some of them, called into notice
at a subsequent period. Instead of a period of 25 years after
the author's death, he thought it better to give an additional
period of seven years after his death, or an absolute term of
forty
.years. Alluding to cases of scientific discovery, he was
surprised to hear it stated that, in the case of Dr. Jenner, no
reward was obtained. He had a Parliamentary grant of money,
and he hoped future Parliaments would follow the example in
similar cases.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he wished to explain, in a few
words, the vote he intended to give, if the House should be
called on to divide on the amendment. With regard to the
principle involved, with the exception of the Hon. Member for
Finsbury, no one had spoke against it; and, therefore, it was
unnecessary he should enter into that argument. With regard
to the propositions of the Noble Lord and the Right Hon.