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

, enabled to obtain the support of all the leading
men of the four classes ; and that was proved by
the fact, that they had presented, on a former evening,
four separate petitions in favour of the Bill. Under these
circumstance, he would leave the case in the hands of the
House. He would recommend the measure to them,
with the conviction that, by encouraging literature, and
by providing for its protection, they would not merely
confer upon those who cultivated letters a personal boon,
but they would extend to the nation at large a public
blessing.(Hear, hear.)
Mr. MACAULAY then rose and said, that although
he was seldom so fortunate as to agree with his Noble
Friend in that House, he had always had occasion to
acknowledge the great kindness with which his Noble
Friend spoke of himself personally ; and upon that occa-
sioa, he had to thank him fora very rare, as well as a
very high compliment ; for he believed that that was the
first occasion on which a speech, made in our Parlia-
ment, had been answered in detail in another. It would
be difficult for him (if he thought it advisable to do so)
to go at that moment through the topics to which his
Noble Friend had adverted, and to repeat the argu-
ments and the observations which he had last year
br mght forward ; but he thought it utterly unne-
cessary to wander to those topics by following the
Noble Lord in the details into which he had entered,
for whatever might be the objections of his Noble
Friend to the speech which he (Mr. Macaulay) had
made last year, his measure was all drawn up in con-
formity with that speech. He had objected to a copy-
right of sixty years as inordinately long; and his Noble
Friend had cut down the term to twenty-five years. He
had said that there was danger lest books might be sup-
pressed if the copyright were so much extended ; and
his Noble Vriend had come forward with a clause
framed expressly for the purpose of meeting that evil.
It seemed to him, therefore, that if he were to employ
himself in answering the speech of his Noble Friend in
not, defending his own Bill, but the Bill brought for-
ward by. Mr. Sergeaut Talfourd last year—if he were to
employ himself in arguing in defence of principles which
really were not then in question at all between himself
and his Noble Friend—he should be throwing away the
third of the Committee. He proposed, therefore, to con-
-6* le himself strictly to the matter then under
their consideration—to what he had never op-
posed—namely, to the protection to be given to
men of letters. When Mr. Sergeant Talfourd had
brought in his Bill last year he did not oppose its
introduction, and he had never countenanced any vexa-
tious opposition to the measure. He could even assure
his Noble Friend that he had intended upon that occa-
sion to vote for the second reading of the Bill, and to
reserve what he had to say until the House might have
gone into Committee. But Mr. Sergeant Talfourd had
said at the conclusion of his speech, that he desired that
no person should vote with him who was inclined to cut
away any large portion of the 60 years. He had said
to Hon. Members who might be disposed to shorten the
period, or to diminish the protection, that he did not
wish that they should give him their support—that he
despised their support ; and that it was impossible for
such Hon. Members, under the circumstances of the
case, to vote for the second reading while it would be
disagreeable to him to receive their co-operation. But
they had come to the present discussion under different
circumstances. He (Mr. Macaulay) was not indisposed
to extend the protection given to men of letters ; he was
quite as ready, or even much more ready, than his
Noble Friend, to enlarge that protection ; but he
thought the mode in which his Noble Friend pro-
posed to effect that which was a common object to
them both, was a bad mode, and he thought the mode
he was about to suggest would be a better one. His
Noble Friend proposed that the copyright should be for
life with an addition of 25 years. He (Mr. Macaulay)
proposed that the copyright should be for life, or for a
term of 42 years, whichever would be the longer. He
proposed to add a term of 14 years to the term of 28
years ; and, if the Committee would bear with him, he
would demonstrate, as far as matters of that kind were
susceptible of demonstration, that what he proposed was
more just, more reasonable, a greater boon to men of
letters, and a much greater advantage to the public, than
that which hie Noble Friend asked the House to adopt.
It was evident, that, with respect to rewards for literary
works, it was of the greatest importance that they
should - be equally distributed, that those which
were pernicious should receive the least encourage-
ment, and those of a contrary tendency should receive
the greatest. Bearing this in mind, he thought he would
be able to show that what he proposed was decidedly
preferable to what was proposed by his Noble Friend.
Perfect equality he admitted they could not have, be-
cause; life would be a part of the term, and life was sub-
ject to casualties, and of uncertain length ; but if they
could not positively prevent inequality, they might do
much to diminish it by good legislation. It was impos-
sible to fail to perceive how great was the inequality under
the present system. Take the instances of two contempo-
raries of their own —two ladies who were eminetly dis-
tinguished in the lighter works of fiction. He referred
to Madame D'Arblay and Miss Austin. Miss Austin
died shortly after the publication of her well known
novel. Madame D'Arblay, the authoress of " Evelina,"
had enjoyed the copyright of her work for sixty years.
His Noble Friend estimated the difference between the
two to sixty years ; he (Mr. Macaulay) diminished the
difference to eighteen years. If they examined the lite-
rary history of this country, and took the works
of eminent men for the two last centuries, they
would hardly find a single case in which his own prin-
ciple would not be preferable to that of his Noble
Friend.—(Hear, hear.) Take, for example, Milton.
To the copyright of all excellent works, the Bill of his
Noble Friend would give a much less period—the advan-
tage of an extended period would be given only to his
' inferior works. Milton published his " Comus" in 1636.
To " Comus" his Noble Friend would give a copyright
of sixty-five years ; but to "Paradise Lost" he would
extend but thirty-one years. To "Paradise Regained,"
and " Sampson Agonistes," he would give but twenty-
eight years. Now, see how his (Mr. Macaulay's) mea-
sure would apply in these cases. If the House would
legislate for Milton only, surely it would be more fair,
more gratifying to their minds, and more honourable to
the name of the illustrious individual, and also more
beneficial to his descendants, that all these works should
have a copyright of forty-two years. " Comus" would
not receive the immense protection proposed by the Bill
of his Noble Friend ; but " Paradise Lost" would be pro-
tected more in a ratio according to its merits. Then take
Dryden. The Bill of the Noble Lord would protect the
bad verses the poet composed on Oliver Cromwell, pub-
lished in 1658, and also the bad plays written by the
poet in his youth. His Noble Friend would make the
copyrights of the verses on Oliver Cromwell last till
1726, making a period of sixty-eight years. But when
we came to the " Fables," and the " ode on St. Cecilia's
Day"— the noblest of Dryden's productions—the term
of copyright was cut down to twenty-eight years.
This was the difference under the Bill of his Noble
Friend. The bad verses and the indifferent plays of
Dryden would have a copyright of 65 years, while the
" Fables " and the " Ode on St. Cecilia a Day," the lat-
ter published in the last years of his life, would have
only 28 years. Then take Pope. The Bill of the Noble
Lord would give Pope's " Pastoral Pieces," which were
published when he was only 16 years old, and were only
remarkable for the talent displayed at so early an age,
a copyright of 60 years. But when we come to Pope's
most finished production, the " Dunciad," for instance,
the Bill would give only 30 years. Now every one of
those works would be guaranteed a copyright of 42
years under the Bill he (Mr. Macaulay) proposed. He
would give all the works of Milton, Dryden, and
Pope, a copyright of 42 years each. Again, let them
revert to the first work of Dr. Johnson. It
was a translation of a book called " Travels in Abys-
sinia," a work of no value, published in 1735. Indeed,
the merit of the book was so poor, that Johnson did not
wish to allude to it in his latter days, and when his friend
Boswell told him he had picked it up, the Doctor begged
him not to notice it. Yet, to this work, the Bill of his
Noble Friend would give a copyright of 75 years. But
what period would he give to the " Lives of the Poets?"
Thirty years. What to the " Tour of the Hebrides?"
Thirty-six years. So here, in the works of one man,
was this enormous range, from 75 years to the first, to
36 to the last. Now, was it not better that he (Mr. Ma-
caulay) should interfere, by merely coming in with the
addition of 14, thus making the whole difference of copy-
right to Johnson's works range between 42 and 49 years.
'Take Fielden. The first of his works was one that no
one would read before he had read "Tom Jones." When
Fielden wrote the " Temple Beau," he had not exceeded the
age of 21 or 22 years. Yet to the " Temple Beau," and
all the other bad plays written in Fielden's youth, the
Bill of the Noble Lord would give a copyright of from
42 or 52 years; but to" Tom Jones," for the sake of which
the others would be read, the Bill of his Noble Friend
would not give a protection of more than 30 years.
And the same would be the case under his Noble Friend's
principle with every eminent writer. John Burke, for ex-
ample. His first little tract, which was an imitation of
Lord Bolinbroke,would no v scarcely be read,was published
in 1756. and to that his Noble Friend would give a pro-
tection of 65 years, whilst he would give 30 years only
to "The French Revolution" and " The Regicide Peace."
He (Mr. Macaulay) would give eleven years more to
" The French Revolution," and 14 more to " The
Regicide Peace." There was no doubt that those later
tworl.ts were those to which they should give long pro-
;T,cotoen. He had shown that the protection given by his
Friend • varied between enormous limits ; he
could conceive no reason in justification of this,
excepting that those which had long protection
should be the best works, and that those which
received short protection't
beshould be the worst
works ; but such wouldn
turn and twist this question all the the case. Yolk might
world over, but still
would find the same thing to be the case. Go to Greece
and Rome, you would fifid it the same. In Greece, to
the worst works of Sophocles would be given the longest
prateetion, whilst to (Edipus the protection
lne would be
short. The worst work of Demosthenes
which was
the " Oration against his Guardian," aneds*n
hich would
not be read had his name not been to it,
would
a long protection, whilst his work "On the Crown receive,
would receive a much shorter protection. In Rome
the
first work of Cicero, "De Inventions," would receivtcae
long protection, whilst his eloquent speeches would
have but a short protection. In Spain, the worst cop\
right, but the best work of Cervantes, was Dun
Q tixote." In France, again, the "Plaidoyeurs" of Racine
would receive a long protection, whilst the beautiful work
" Athele" would receive little protection ; and in Ger-
many the worst work of Schiller, which was his " Rob
hers," would receive a much better protection than his
" Wallenstein." He feared ho wearied the House.
It was not a matter of chance that operated in
this manner. If the Noble Lord would sit down
with him and draw up a list of the books which,
bo?' his plan, would have a copyright of sixty years, and
those that would have a term of forty years, he would
find that this last
t class included far better works than
i
the former. was a plain case; for the plan of his
Noble Friend gave the longest copyright to the books
earliest
written at the
_periodof men's lives, for if a man
published a book, as Pope did his " Pastorals," at six-

teen, he would of course have the largest term of copy-
right. Now, they knew this, that although it] was per-
fectly true that young men often displayed extra-
ordinary powers of genius, yet the juvenile works
of great men were not generally the'r best.
It was very far, indeed, from being the case even
with regard to works of imagination, in which young
men were nearly on a par with old men, for it was not
the fact that the greatest works of imagination were
written by men under thirty—they were the works
of men under thirty-five. With regard to works of
imagination of the highest class, they could be assigned
to men under forty, for whatever powers a man might
possess, still, as Marmontel observes, no man could paint
portraits till he had seen faces—no man, till he had seen
life and society could become a great painter, eithar of
life or of society. In the use of language, too, as with
all other instruments, practice gave skill, and there
was also the freedom from thos dulcia vitire
which a man gradually threw away during
his life. Even with works of imagination in that class
of books, those his Noble Friend particularly favoured
were not likely to prove the best, while those he particu-
larly discountenanced were likely to be so, for he gave
this enormous addition to books published at an early
part of his life, and does nothing for those published
within three years previous to an author's death.
To books published in the last three years of life
he gave nothing, and to those published in the last
seventeen years of life, he gave less than he (Mr.
Macaulay) proposed to give. To works published during
the last seventeen years of life, he (Mr. Macaulay) gave
a much longer term of protection. No person acquainted
with literary history, could take all the works written in
the last 17 years of the life of literary men, without
being struck with the contrast these works presented to
those put forward at an earlier period, and which were
the objects of the Noble Lord's protection. This one
argument seemed to him to decide the question com-
pletely, and he would now shortly and rapidly run over
a few, and but a few, names of English works published
within 250 years, and to which his proposal would give
the longest term of copyright, and his Noble Friend
would find that it included, with scarcely an exception,
every great work, every work that constituted the lite-
rary glory of the nation in the eyes of the world. He
certainly did not give so long a term as his Noble
Friend to " Love's Labour Lost," but to the other
plays of Shakspeare, the noble dramas of "Lear,"
" Macbeth," " Othello," the " Tempest," to all these
he gave a longer term than his Noble Friend. The
list included Spenser's " Faerie Queene," the " Novum
Organon," and the "De Augmentis," " Clarendon's
History," " Paradise Lost," the " Fables " of Dryden,
and his " Ode to St. Cecilia," the " Spectator" and
" Tattler " of Addison, the works of Goldsmith, the His-
tories of Hume and Gibbon, Smith's " Wealth of Na-
tious," the poetry of Burns and Byron, and, he
believed, with the single exception of " Wa-
verly," all the novels of Sir Walter Scott.
He thought he might venture to defy his Noble Friend
to match that list which he had just enumerated, to
which his (Mr. Macaulay's) proposition would give a
linger term of copyright than the Noble Lord's would.
In the case of Spenser's " Faerie Queene" and "Paradise
Lost," the addition would be 12 and 14 years. He thought
now, if he had shown that, on the one hand, his Noble
Friend distributed protection unequally, whilst he (Mr.
M.) distributed it equally ; and, on the other hand, that
his Noble Friend's inequality of protection operated
against the best master-pieces, and in favour of the worst
productions of authors, that he had established a case
for the amendment which he meant to propose. He
thought that other advantages also would arise from his
amendment. One of them was, that it would be unne-
cessary for them to have a clause like the sth of his
Noble Friend's Bill. He (Mr. Macaulay) was willing,
if the House consented, to add 14 years to the 28 already
given. That would form real protection. He was wil-
ling to take the risk which might arise from the opera-
tion of his proposition in the case of any extraordinary
whim which might seize any person who might become
possessed of that term. It was a great advantage to every
trade that it should not become a lottery. They should
always aim, in legislating upon trade, to put trade in such
a situation that every person engaged in it should make
10 per cent., rather than that one of the parties engaged
in it should make 20 per cent. and another nothing at
all. He conceived, upon all the principles of trade, and
of the patronage which ought to be given to literature,
his proposition was a very advisable one, and preferable
to that of his Noble Friend. When they came to the 3d
clause, he meant to move to leave out the words " and
for a further term of 25 years, commencing at the time
of this claim :" and when they came to the words 28
years," he proposed to substitute for the words " twenty-
eight" the words " forty-two." He conceived that if
they adopted his proposition, they would give a great
boon to literature at the smallest possible inconvenience
to the public.
Sir ROBERT INGLIS was fully aware of the disad-
vantage under which he laboured in rising to address the
Committee upon this subject immediately after his Right
Hon. Friend. Among those of late years who had
spoken in that House, be knew but of one who could on
such a subject have ventured to enter the lists with his
Right Hon. Friend, and that was one whose memory
both himself and his Right Hon. Friend regarded with
feelings of the deepest affection—he meant the late Sir
James Mackintosh.—(Cheers.) He (Sir Robert Inglis)
could not follow the Right Hon. Gentleman through the
great and illustrious of literary men, whose names were
an honour to their country ; neither did he feel it neces-
sary to do so. It was sufficient for him that his Right
Hon. Friend had omitted to make any allusion to one
most important point in the consideration of this subject,
namely, to what would be the feelings of the dying au •
thor with regard to his proposition. At that moment,
when he most required consolation, he might, under the
proposition of his Right Hon. Friend, be left to suffer
from the agonising feelings that he was leaving his fa-
mily destitute—that the reward of his labours would die
with him. Take the case of an author who had survived
his great work for forty-two years. His family at his
death would be left to the mercy of the world, while
under the proposition of his Noble Friend, an
author thus situated would have the certainty of
leaving behind him a property by which his family
might be maintained through the exertion of his mind in
the same manner as if he had applied his abilities to
the improvement of any mechanical art. llis Right
Hon, Friend had not made any allusion to that argu-
ment, that in every nation of Christendom, with the
single exception of Austria, the right of an author to a
property in his works after his death was distinctly re-
cognised. With the single exception of Austria, there
was not a State in Europe which did not give this pos-
thumous interest in his works to an author, so that the
proposition of his Noble Friend was not so unprece-
dented as his Right Hon. Friend had assumed it to be.
The question of the comparative merits of the two
propositions could not be determined merely by the
statement of his Right Hon. Friend. His Right Hon.
Friend had indeed gone through a long and brilliant
catalogue of authors who would have been benefited
by the extension of the copyright to forty-
two years, but with the single exception of Sir
Walter Scott, he had omitted all allusion to the authors
of the present generation.
Mr. MACAULAY—Lord Byron.
Sir ROBERT H. INGLIS begged his Right Hon.
Friend's pardon. With the exception, however, of these
two great names, no allusion whatever had been made
to any authors of the present generation. He believed
that of all the illustrious authors now living, one only
had ever sold the copyright of his works, and in his
case his first endeavour had been to recover that copy-
right. He would not attempt, for he knew that in his
case it would be fruitless, to follow his Right Hon.
Friend in the wide range of literature which he tra-
versed ; but in the case of the authors of the present
century, it was clear that Mr. Southey, and Mr. Words-
worth, and Mr. Campbell, would, by the Bill of his
Noble Friend, derive that benefit with respect to their
literary works which it was the object of all they should.
He trusted they would not hear, certainly they had not
heard from his Right Hon. Friend, any of those political
economy objections to that protection which literature
had a right to claim. Taking therefore his illustrations
from the living literature of England, and from that
which had recently adorned it, the proposal of his Noble
Friend would afford more protection to that litera-
ture than would be given by his Right Honour-
able Friend. Take, for example, the three greatest
poems of Mr. Southey, the greatest poems of Mr. Words-
worth, the greatest works of Mr. Campbell and Mr.
Rogers, and the proposition of his Noble Friend would
give that protection to those authors which would not
be given by his Right Hon. Friend. He believed the
"Pleasures of Memory " was published in 1796, but by
the proposition of his Right Hon. Friend, the copyright
would cease the moment they had the misfortune to
lose Mr. Rogers. In the case of all Sir Walter Scott's
poems the copyright, supposing him to be still alive,
and that he were to die in the present year, would be
in the possession of his family for an entire generation.
It was a presumption, also, in favour of his Noble Friend's
proposition, that it was adopted in effect by every country
of Europe, except Austria. In France the copy-
right was extended to twenty years, and such was the
progress of public opinion in that country, that a pro-
, positicn to extend the term to thirty years was carried
in one House of the French Legislature, and another
proposition still more extensive was in contemplation;
and here he should unite his voice in the expression of
that opinion of respect and gratitude which, in the
course of his most able and elaborate speech, the Noble
Lord had elicited, and which showed him a worthy suc-
cessor to his predecessor in the cause.—(Hear, hear.)
In France the copyright was thirty years, in Belgium it
was twenty, and if the copyright had been perpetual in
Spain, the posterity of Cervantes would have been
enriched by the profits of " Don Quixotte," a work
which was produced under the greatest difficulties.
In Russia the copyright was far more extensive than in
any other country—a fact which certainly afforded a
lesson to England, considering the superior enlighten-
ment of England. Under these circumstances he felt
himself called upon to support the Bill of his Noble
Friend, and lie trusted that it would receive the appro-
bation of the House. For the good, the proposition
was valuable ; for the bad, it was inefficacious ; and
whilst all must rejoice in the latter effect, he was sure
that every right- thinking man would rejoice in the former.
Mr. WAKLEY said the Noble Lord had, in his
opinion, entirely failed to show any necessity for an
alteration in the existing law. He had indeed stated
that authors had petitioned the House for an alteration,
but he would ask what right had they to complain ? He
lyas prepared to show before a Committee of that House
t ahaluoadn r
teNevciitlelain the last 40 years the authors of this country
adivedrefeoerivtehdeirthleaboeunrosr a sun' altogether
.unex-
ampled
in the history of literature. Sir Walt2esrtoimSoecosoot‘
Where was there anything equamlotnosit sinnmancoifent --(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord altogether confined
his sympathy to literary men. Why
not be equallycon-
siderate to the authors of mechanical inventions, which
often displayed powers of mind superior to those of mere
literary men ? The whole question was argued here as
a question qua authors ; the public were entirely for-