Star.
London, England, 1817-06-20 00:00:00

-c';7 c!
~ • j
* " • ,'
44 • .<1
ty,:irt;"
r f
go •
•
I.t* 1:4)S •
S
- f • ‘t.,
.
, 0
113,7.
1
1
1
t •
!i

Sic S: ROMILLY contended, that although it
was priper that public bodies should be furnished
with copies of new works, it should not be at the ex-
pense of their authors or publishers, but at that of
the public. He thought the tax thus imposed upon
authors most barbarous and disgraceful.
Lord PALMERSTON said, that the question
was nut to bring in a bill to modily the Act of 1814,
but to repeal it enure!). He contended, that it that
Act imposed a tax upon Authors, it also gave them
great advantages in copyright
Sir FRANCIS BURDETT thought the subject
ease lesporitrof to be gni ride ef without pore sane:-
cser4tion. Why should eleven copies of works be
liven gratis to Bodies who were fully able to pur-
chase them luar.)
Mr. SMYTHE maintained, that the Act of 1814
had been passed in consequence of repeated petitions
from Booksellers and Publishers, coMplaining of the
unsettled nature of the laws respecting copyright. It
was a question settled and decided to the satisfaction
of all. Why should the Host. Baronet wish to rake
up old embers?
Mr. I'ONSONBY was not present when the ques-
tion had been discussed-in 1814. But he knew that
the Act compelled authors to give eleven capita of
their works, and that for the encouragement of lite-
rature! This was the first time that it was thought
that forcing writers to give their works gratis, was
encouraging their labours I—(liear.) But it always
was in the IlittUfe of bodies corporate to receive every
thing they could, and to give nothing in return.
Mr. CROKER said, that the Act of Queen Anne,
which gave the Copyright, was called an Act for the
encouragement of Learning. It was not, therefore,
the first time, that encouragement had been taken in
that point of view. The Act of 1814, however, gave
other encouragement to authors, as it extended the
copyright to 28 years.
Mr. BROUGHAM did not deny that the Act of
Queen Anne was, to a certain degree, one to encou-
rage learning, but not on account of the number of
copies given, but because it conferred a copyright.
That Act, hot:ever, left it optional for authors to
avail themselves of its advantages, or not—but that
of 1814 compelled them to pay the eleven copies
whether thee would or not. He wished the Univer-
sities to have good libraries, but let it be at their own
expense, and not at that of the poorer party—let it
be made a public burden, if thought necessary, and
let the tax be paid by those who read, and not those
who write books.—(Hear, luar.)
Mr. FINLAY sepported the claims of the Uni.
versities. The tax was not so heavy as it was sup-
posed—it amounted only to the price of pea and paper.
Mr. C. W. WYNNE thought it necessary that the
Act of 1814. should be revised, in consequence of the
manner in which its provisions had been fulfilled.—
Universities should not have the power a sending
valuable works into the market at a lower price than
the regular copies, and thus lower the sale of the
works themselves.

General THORNTON seemed to object to the
estreeptiwaixiss of oaths 40 au- s-v,ln- -
Sir JOHN COX HIPPISLEY, in reply, said that
.he agreed with the Honourable General in thinking
that the unnecessary multiplication of oaths was an
evils but he would ask, was not. the abuse now sought
to be remedied, a greater evil ? And WAS not a licen-
sed clerk of a parish 'as competent to be invested with
such an authority in merely verifying a notice, as a
comtvon excise officer in granting; a p:rmit to devour
a few dozens ot wine? but in a Committee it would
be best discussed, whether the parish clerk, in the
first instance, er the Minister • in the might be
roost advantageously infested with this authority.
The attempt to remedy these serious evils ought at
any rate to be tried, and he hoped and trusted it would
find support in the wisdom of Parliament.
The Bill was read a first and second time, and or-
dered to be printed.

The House divided—For the motion Si A gain s t
it 58—Majority against bringing in the BO 1.

CLANDESTINE MARRIAGES.
Sir JOHN COX HIPPISLEV, on presenting a
Bill for the further regulation of marriages to be so-
lemnized after publication of banns, observed, that
this Bill was founded on a Petition to Parliament,
which he had presented in the course of the last Sin-
aloa, from a very numerous and respectable body of
the Clergy of the Establishment iu the vicinity of
Bath and Bristol, who complained of the ir.creasing
'prevalence of evasions of the Law as it now stands,
and therefore cm-neatly prayed for the intervention
of the Legislature. It was in the vicinity of great and
populous towns where this evil was most prevalent,
as they offered ;lie greatest facilities to evade the
provisions of the &awe. Although the first section

A