The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-04-08 00:00:00

kinprrtal parliamnit.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.--MONDAY.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE gave notice that he would, on Thurs-
day, move for the rescinding of the rule of the house which
prohibited the presentation of petitions against any tax
under the consideration of parliament.

In answer to a question from Mr. CURRIE,
Sir R. PEEL, said the honourable gentleman had correctly
stated what fell from him the other evening. (Hear, hear.)
He considered that he had proposed such an important
affair of finance—one so necessary to meet the exigencies
of the country, that if defeated on the question of an income
tax her Majesty's government (if, as he before said, they
were defeated on such an important measure) would have
no option. (Hear, hear.) It would decide the existence of
the present administration. (Hear, hear.) The adoption of
an income tax was necessary to carry into effect the other
resolutions relating to alterations in the tariff. (Hear, hear.)
With respect to the general alterations of the duties, he
should at present reserve himself, merely observing that
it was his anxious wish and desire to do justice,—
equal justice to all classes, commercial as well as agricul-
tural. (Hear.) In answer to the hon. gentleman he had to
say, that it was his firm intention to uphold and carry out
the general principles of the tariff which he bad proposed to
the house. (Hear.) In the course of the discussion it was
probable slight modifications might be made in some articles
of duty, but he intended to abide by the general principle of
the proposals he had laid before the house. (Hear.)
The Exchequer Bills Bill was proceeded with in commit-

tee, and
Sir T. WILDE moved that the holders of forged exchequer
bills should be entitled to be heard by themselves, their at-
torneys and counsel, before the commissioners, and to pro-
duce such evidence as they might deem material to have
placed before the said commissioners. It would, he con-
tended, be most unjust to refuse to hear them by counsel
when they had such large interests at stake. He had confi-
dence in the commissioners, and so he had in the judges ; but
he should be very sorry to see judges left to decide upon cases
in the absence of counsel. Surely no one could be so good a
judge of the evidence which ought to be placed before the
commissioners as the individual who held the bills, and knew
best how he had received them.
Sir WM. FOLLETT said the question was not whether the
bill-holders were to be entitled to have counsel and witnesses
heard before the commissioners, for there could be no doubt
but they were so entitled ; but he question was whether, by
a motion like this, the house was to take out of the hands of
the commissioners the power of conducting the investigation
in the most eligible way they might decide upon, and deprive
them of all discretion in the matter.
Sir R. INGLIS said that the claimants were requiring a pri-
vilege netasked by the government, for the latter had made
no claim to be heard by counsel.
After some observations from Lord J. RUSSELL, Mr.
W AWLEY, and Mr. C. BuLusit,
Sir R. PEEL said be thought it better to leave the manage-
ment of the investigation to the discretion of the commis-
sioners, who would, no doubt, hear' counsel in every case
which appeared to them to require it, in order to enable them
to make a just and proper report to the house, which would
ultimately have to decide upon that report.
After several gentlemen had expressed their sentiments,
the committee divided, and the numbers were—for Sir T.
Wilde's amendment 64, against it 77.
The hill then went through committee, after which
Sir R. PEEL moved that the house should resolve itself
into a committee of ways and means.
On the proposition of the first resolution,
Mr. M. GIBSON said that the actual state of feeling
throughout the country on the subject of the income tax was
very different from what was supposed by the right hon.
baronet (Sir R. Peel.) It was certainly true that the tariff
was viewed most favourably by the commercial classes, by
whom it was conceived to be one step taken in a right direc-
tion. The income tax was, however, most obnoxious, be-
cause it must lead to an abhorrent system of espionage if it
a
v
to be made at all productive.
A. my animated discussion arose from the circumstance
that the first resolution was put by Mr. Greene, and passed,
before
manymmbers on the opposition side of the house
it. At length a calm was produced by
w
Sir R. PEEL,
ho
were aware
of the fact, it being their intention to divide upon
said,
opposition. that under the circumstances it
would be unfair to have it assumed that the resolution had
passed without
precedent to retrace
,It would, however, be a dan-
gerouss their steps by resuming the dis-
cussion
as the t resolution.hey w o
u would
have e
This was, however, of little con-
sequence,veral apportunities hereafter
of dividing the house upon the same
lTolution.
an assertion
he wouldsertionby
Peel mr
admit of GIBSON, that Sir R.
rhadeply to
stated that
income tax, or tnat if any such were canrorilendodification of the
Sir R. PEEL said he had not said anythingie would resign.
a
dis-
respectful to the House of Commons. He
our very
do all he could to carry the income tax as he bad certainly
it; but if the House of Commons should think any alteration
in the details of the measure necessary, he should note
be
elosno
disrespectful to the house as to say that upon that account
he would resign.
WAKLEY wished to know why farmers only were to
be exempted (by a special exemption) from all that scrutiny
into their circumstances to which tradesmen and professional
men were to be subjected. His constituents were enquiring
why one rule was applied to one class of the community
which was not applied to another ; but he could give them no
answer. With respect to the tariff he must say that the re-
duction of duties upon various articles was so great that it
was a matter of serious complaint on the part of those who
were affected by those alterations, that the reduction in the,

pips of COM bor. na liroyortion whatever to thcio in the

ha.
Mr, 8, Wor.rotY laid that they bad a certain test by which
to eatimate the profits of a farmer, and to that test they ac-
cordingly resorted. This was not the case with tradesmen,
and they were compelled to adopt a different rule with respect
to them.
After a few words from Mr. H. JOHNSTON,
Sir R. Peel said he had a representation made to him by
some farmers in Scotland, objecting to having their incomes
judged of by an arbitrary rule, instead of being taken in the
same way as those of the other classes of the community.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the rule for assessing farmers
to the income tax might be productive of mischievous results
by holding out inducements to sub-divide land into farms ra-
ther smaller than would be otherwise desirable. He should,
on bringing up the report, propose a resolution on the sub-
ject of the income tax, and take the sense of the house upon
the necessity of such an impost.

Mr. GREENE, before putting the question, stated his con-
viction that in the early part of the evening he had put the
question most distinctly.
The remaining resolutions were then agreed to, the house
resumed, and the report was ordered to be received on
Thursday. _ _

The other orders of the day were the disposed of, and the
house adjourned.

'HOUSE OF COMMONS.—TuEspAy

Mr. MANNERS SUTTON obtained leave to bring in a bill
for the better regulation of turnpike trusts.
Leave was also given Lord ELIOT to bring in a bill to re-
gulate Irish fisheries, and to Sir Valentine Blake to bring in
a bill to alter the law relating to the admission of barristers
in Ireland.

_
On the motion of Lord Ingestre, some documents con-
nected with the construction of the Plymouth breakwater
were ordered to be placed before the house.
The house then resolved itself into a committee of the
whole house on the corn importation bill.
An amendment, moved by Mr. CHILDERs, respecting the
towns to be added to those from whose returns the averages
were now struck, led to an extended discussion. It was con-
tended by the government that the additional towns would
prevent the frauds hitherto practised in striking the averages,
while, on the other hand, it was asserted that the towns so
selected as to increase indirectly the protection to the landed
interest, by lowering the averages. The amendment was ul-
timately withdrawn; but Mr. Childers gave notice that he
would move an amendment to the same effect on the 29th
clause.
Mr. WAKLEY suggested that the sale of wheat unfit for
human food should be exempted from the averages.
Mr. GLADSTONE said that the difficulty of carrying such
an exemption into operation would be very great, and it was
not probable that the averages would be materially affected
by any sales of the kind.
The average clause was then agreed to, as were the subse-
quent clauses to the 22d inclusive.
On the 23d clause being proposed, Lord WORSLEY rose to
move the introduction of a clause, the eff,ct of which would
be to have the returns made by the seller instead of by the
buyer. It was suggested by the chairman, that the noble
lord had better move his clause as an additional one after
those in the printed bill should have been disposed of, in
which suggestion Lord Worsley acquiesced.
On the 27th clause, Lord WoRsLEY moved that the period
for striking the averages should be extended from six weeks
to ten.
Mr. GLADSTONE entered into some calculations, in order
to show that the averages proposed by the bill was more ad-
vantageous than any other. The most convenient periods
would be every 13 weeks ; but, after much consideration, the
periods proposed in the bill were deemed to be the fairest to
be taken.
After some discussion, in which several members took part,

Sir R. PEEL said that an extended average, such as that
proposed, would at one time operate injuriously to the con-
sumer, and at another equally so to the agriculturist. It
was, therefore, determined to adhere to the present period,
after giving much attention to the subject.
On a division, the proposition of Lord Worsley was nega-
tived by a majority of 242 to 37.
Mr. CHILDERS then moved a clause (as a substitute for
the 29th), to the effect that, from the passing of the bill up
to the Ist of May, 1843, the averages should be taken from
those towns which had hitherto made returns, but that from
May, 1813, the duty should be regulated by the averages of
all the towns named in the schedule attached to the bill, un-
less parliament should, in the meantime, otherwise direct.
On a division the motion was negatived by a majority of
202 to 69, and the 29th clause was agreed to.
The remaining clauses having been agreed to,
Lord WORSLEY moved his clause, to the effect that the
returns of the sales of corn should be made by the seller, and
not by the buyer, and that the seller should also state the
year in which the corn was grown.
Sir R. PEEL said that the proposition could never be car-
ried out so as to render it effectual for the noble lord's pur-
pose' It had been considered by the government, but was
so full of difficulties that it was not deemed advisable to
adopt it.
The resolution was then withdrawn. _ _ _

Colonel-S-18-T-H-OR-P- then moved, " That all duties in future

payable upon the importation of corn, meal, or flour from
any foreign country into the United Kingdom, shall, after
the passing of the act of parliament relative to the importa-
tion of such articles, be levied or paid at the period of im-
portation instead of at the period when taken out of bond as
heretofore."
Sir R. PEEL said that the adoption of the clause would be
utterly at variance with the whole principle of the bill, and
he could not, therefore, assent to it.
The motion was negatived without a division.
The house then resumed, the report was brought up, and
ordered to be received this day.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and
the house adjourned.

-.Di--
HOUSE OF COMMONS.-WEDNESDAY

The house went into committee on the Copyright Bill, the
third section whereof proposed that the copyright of literary
works should in future continue for the author's life, and 25
years further. Lord NIA HON, the originator of the bill,
began the discussion by explaining the general scope of the
measure, of which this enactment is the leading feature. He
remarked upon the change in the position of literary men
produced by the cessation of that patronage which they were
wont to receive from the great until the time of Sir Robert
Walpole ; and sketched the progress of our legislation on this
subject from the reign of Anne to the present time. The
proposed enactment might, to a certain extent, keep up the
price of books, but the additional 6d. would be not unwil-
lingly paid by the reader of an admired work, who would
always have some .sympathy with his author, and the author
himself would be induced, by the extension of his term, to
look less to present and ephemeral fame; and more to the
Permanent taste and judgment of his country. It was for
the national honour and interest to evince a sympathy with
literature. Not only authors, but the three classes connected
with them—the publishers, the printers, and the stationers—.
were all favourable to the present bill.
Mr. MACAULAY, concurring in the objects of Lord Ma-
hon, yet thought they would be better accomplished by pro-
tecting each copyright for the term of life or of 42 years,
whichsoever of those terms should have the longest duration.
This extension, which gave 14 years in addition to the present
neriod of 28, would best guard against the uncertainty of
human life, and most nearly equalize the protection to the
earlier and to the later productions of the same writer. He
illustrated this view by a multitude of striking examples, by
which he. showed that Lord Mahon's measure gave the
longest copyright to the crude productions of youth, and the
shortest to the matured works of middle and later life.

Sir R. INGLIS urged, against Macaulay's plan, that it
would take away from an aged author, dying 42 years after
bis publication of some valuable work, the consolation of
being able to provide for his family by a posthumous copy-
right. He was glad, however, to have heard no more of the
old objections on the score of political economy. He
mentioned various instances in which eminent works of our
own contemporaries would have derived less protection from
Mr. Macaulay's term than from Lord Mabon's.
Mr. WAKLEY saw no occasion to make any change at all
in the existing law. Authors, for the last forty years, had
been paid quite enough. They owed a great portion of that
reward to the unsurpassable invention of printing ; without
this, what could the authors have done ? The house should
not interfere against the cheapness of books which was indis-
spensable to the improvement of the people's minds, The
old system had produced works which would never be ex-
ceeded under any new one ; but then, formerly, authors were
not, as now, worshippers of the golden calf. The urgency of
the literary men of the present day for a measure like this
was a degradation to literature itself. Why should poets be
protected so much more than other inventors f No poet's
invention had done for the public what bad been done by
Jenner's discovery of vaccination, or Harvey's of the circu-
lation of the blood. Nor did the medical discoverer acquire
his skill, like the poet, by a pleasant exercise ; but through
sickness, and sorrow, and infection. Yet, in the medical
profession, a man who sought exclusive profit by a secret he
kept to himself was scouted as a quack, not protected as an
inventor. He then quoted some lines from an eminent living
poet, for the purpose of exhibiting what he considered as the
inferiority of poetical to scientific talent. In the case of a
patent, only 14 years were allowed, unless on application to
the Privy Council, who, under special circumstances, might,
at the expiration of that term, add seven years more. Why
should a larger term be allowed to literature '? He compared
the high prices at which many greatworkshadbeen sold pend-
ing the copyright in them with the low prices at which the
public had obtained them when the copyright was expired;
and enumerated many cases of large sums received by mo-
dern authors. _ _ . . . . _ _ _

Mr. MILNES reprobated the spirit in which Mr. Wakley
had given his quotations. He denied that prices are mate-
rially augmented by copyright, and instanced high prices of
various books in which no copyright subsists. He vindicated
the characters of :the writers who had concurred in the pre-
sent application to the legislature. Great sums had, indeed,
been received by a few among authors; but no literary in-
comes could be compared with the gains of the leading men
in that medical profession which had been brought into so
invidious a parallel with literature. He preferred Lord Ma-
hon's proposal to that of Mr. Macaulay, but was glad to have
so fair an alternative.

The first and second sections having been passed,
Mr. MACAULAY, on the third, proposed the amendment
already explained by him. _

Lord MAHON ex-pressed his adherence to his own plan.
Sir R. PEEL said he had been at first inclined to think that
the power of extension in each case ought to rest, as in the
case of a patent, with some authorized body ; but seeing that
the house was inclined to deal with the subject by general
legislation, he would not persist in his original view. He•
should prefer Mr. Macaulay's plan to Lord Mahon's, if
seven years were added after death where the 42 years had
expired. _

Mr. MACAULAY was not d
ept
oodsbeesedi adoptrsteood—n am e this
gestion.
e ffiAelarc.i
oWu
sy
only
yo
wb sheer
rvee d
it thatought t
protectionsw
newchoe tir
el dstuhbgee-
work protected was of value; where it was worthless the law
would have no operation. He preferred the combination
suggested by Sir Robert Peel to either of the other plans.
He reminded the house that in the instance which had been
mentioned of Dr. Jenner, a reward had been given by par..
liament ; and he hoped that in other cases of high desert this
precedent would be followed,'
Lord Jour/ RUSSELL was glad to see that, except Mr.
Wakley, all seemed to concur in the principle of the clause.
He thought the best course was that of Lord Mahon, to give
the copyright for life, and during a certain term afterwards ;
but for the sake of settling the question, he wished Mr.
Macaulay to acquiesce in Sir Robert Peel's intermediate re-
commendation.
Some conversation took place, with a view to an arrange-
ment ; but no party seemed inclined to give way ; and Mr.
AGLIONBY said, that some members, of whom he was one,
were opposed to all extension whatever, on the principle of
protection to the reading public.
The now
and
thedivided
resultsuccessively
was
thatonß
plansomE Rolf
the,
PEEL'S combination was adopted, giving 42 years at all
varcioounritt parties,ee
events, and seven more from the author's death, when the 42
years shall have expired in his lifetime.
When the clause had got into that state, Mr. WAKLEY,
on the usual question, " that the clause so amended stand
part of the bill," divided the house again; but the clause was
sustained as amended.
The 4th clause proposed to give a similar benefit to the
authors of books already published. Mr. WAKLEY con-
tended that this benefit ought to go to the publisher rather
than the author ; and Mr. AGLIONBY, that no such benefit
ought to be given to either, but that the work ought to be
thrown open to the publicwould
who otherwise be damaged
by an ex post facto legislation in this particular.
Mr. HARDY remarked, that h* this
se
ause could give no en-
couragement to the production of valuable works, because

the works it anted lens produced already. As between
author and publisher, he was for the author.
Mr. Mn. defended the clause, the object of which,
he said, was not so much to encourage literature in general
as to benefit existing authors and their families.
Mr. GILL was adverse to the clause.

The committee, dividing, affirmed it.
These repeated divisions decided the principle of the
measure. The committee then proceeded with several sec-
tions of regulation and detail.
After which the house adjourned.