ment for the crimes of burglary, rape, attempt to murder, arson and piracy, in aggravated cases, yet, nevertheless, when public opinion is divided so equally on the subject, the punishment remains on the statute book, but is really never inflicted under any circumstances. In the first place, there is a disposition on the part of the persons injured, not to prosecute offenders who are liable on conviction to be made so severely accountable, and there is also on the part of the witnesses a proneness to withhold their testimony, or at least to weaken its effect on the part of the jury likewise a tendency not to convict and on the part of the judges an indisposition to inflict the punishment which the statute imposes. In short, there is a sort of conspiracy among all parties concerned to evade the complete execution of the law, by availing themselves of any merciful prevarication in favour of the accused, or any trifling pretexts that may seem to justify a more lenient course. There can be no doubt that such a state of things must have a tendency to render the administration of the laws uncertain, and, consequently, to diminish their efficacy, and deprive them of popular sympathy and respect.

Mr. Sergeant Talfourd rose on the 4th of February to move for leave to bring in a bill to amend the present law of copy-right, but did not think it necessary to occupy the house with any observations in favour of the measure, as it had already been three times before it and had been as often sanctioned by its approval.

Mr. Wakley contended, that the hon. and learned sergeant had failed to show, that the effect of the present law had been to prevent the production of standard

or excellent works. What had been the practice when copyright had been really of less value than it was now? What had Roger Bacon or Shakspeare got for their works?

There were other incentives to authors besides the mere remuneration they received. The greatest works that had ever appeared in this country had been produced at a time when copyright had been of infinitely less value than it was now? What had Milton received for his "Paradise lost"? Milton might not have been so great a poet as others of modern date, but, without wishing to depreciate the talents or the labours of others, he would say, that if a law should be passed to diminish the present diffusion of publications, it would inflict the greatest possible evil on the cause of literature.

Mr. Sergeant Talfourd said, the question was, whether an author having committed to paper the thoughts he had conceived and cherished in solitude, should have any property in them, or whether they should become that of the public, whether an author communicating his inspirations to the world should only demand of the public the produce of their immediate sale, or look at large unto posterity for the reward of works which might not obtain immediate attention from the public? Those were the principles on which they had to legislate, and on which every scholar and thinker had equal power of forming his judg

ment.

Mr. Warburton disputed the proposition, that an invasion of copyright in perpetuity was an invasion of private property. Literary property was private property only so long as the manu

script remained in the private possession of the author, but when it was published it became to a certain extent public property. It was no injustice to deprive the author of perpetual copyright in his works. The state gave to authors a certain protection for their works, and they were bound, on the other hand, to see that the public had the advantage of having the work published at a reasonable

rate.

On a division there appeared a majority of 22 in support of sergeant Talfourd's motion for leave to bring in the bill, and on the 19th the second reading took place, when Mr. Warburton again opposed the measure, and moved, that the bill be read that day six months. He felt justified, he said, in applying to the present bill the same character which he applied to the bill brought in the last session and to the previous bill introduced by the hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. sergeant Talfourd) who consulted the interests of authors and publishers, but who threw out of his consideration the interests of the public.

It

In the arguments employed by the learned sergeant and by others, a comparison had been drawn between the protection given to patent rights and copyrights. was said, that the inventors of a mechanical machine did not obtain equal protection as an authorthat the patent was considered a stop to the success of the improvement of the thing invented.

As Mr. Talfourd acquiesced in the objection to the continuance of the patent in the case of mechanical inventions, he deserted the very principle of his own bill. His principle was that the author was an inventor-that he had an

indispensable right to his invention from the time of its being invented to a future time, and that to curtail his dominion over his invention would be contrary to justice and to right. If the literary man was an inventor, was not the mechanic an inventor also? Were not the inventions of Harrison, who made timekeepers what they were, and of Watt, the great parent of the steam-engine, equally the productions of their minds as the works of authors? If a qualification was necessary in the case of a mechanical invention, for the interest of the public, why not apply a similar qualification to an author's invention. The whigs of former times did not recognise the principle of such a bill as that before the house. In 1774, when in the famous case of Donaldson, the house of lords decided, that not any perpetual copyright at common law rested in booksellers and publishers, those bodies petitioned the house of commons to give them a perpetual copyright. A bill was in consequence introduced, and many members of high character took part in the debate. Mr. Fox on that occesion declared, "he would not permit so pernicious and flagrant a bill to pass through any stage without giving it his decided opposition."

The house, said Mr. Warburton, by passing the bill, would virtually encourage dear editions of books, and would inflict an irremediable injury upon authors and publishers. The whole literature of the country would be thrown into chancery, or into the courts of law, and actions would be every day occurring, and complaints made that copyrights had been infringed, authors would be claiming a right to works which

had long been out of their hands, and which had been repeatedly published since they had parted with them. Even, therefore, for the interests of authors, he thought the bill should not be allowed to become law.

Lord Mahon said, that for his part, he was not ashamed of the interest which he took in the measure. He found himself born to an inheritance of wealth, and he found with pain, that others, who were far superior to him in merit, industry and reputation, were far below him in the accidental gifts of fortune-be found men who were an honour to their country subject to wants and privations which such men ought never to have known. The object of the bill was to give those eminent men full scope for their talents, and to enable them to obtain, by their own exertions, that competency which he and others possessed, without any merit of their own.

There were many booksellers who sympathised deeply with authors upon this question; and as one instance, he would allege a petition from Mr. John Smith, a booksellor of Glasgow. The petition stated, "that your petitioner has for upwards of thirty years exercised the profession of publisher and bookseller in the city of Glasgow. That your petitioner has obtained estate and competence by the sale of books, published or sold by him, which property he has a right to eutail or give in legacy for the benefit of his heirs, while the authors who produced the works which have enriched him have no interest for their heirs by the present law of copyright in the property which they have solely constituted. That your petitioner is decidedly of opinion, that the

cultivation of the national literature would be cherished and strengthened by the proposed extension of the term of copyright."

Looking (proceeded lord Mahon) to past ages as a guide to the future, was it not evident that the literary genius of the country required some fostering aid? How many great works must have been lost to the nation through the Res angusta domi, which fettered the energies of those who otherwise would have transmitted greater and more enduring memorials of their genius to mankind? Dryden himself had left on record, in a letter to the earl of Dorset, that the necessity of writing for his daily bread prevented him from undertaking a great national poem on the exploits ef king Arthur and his knights. Milton was another instance. Did not every Englishman feel prouder of the name from being the countryman of him who wrote Paradise lost? Yet how had the illustrious poet been rewarded by his admiring country? He would relate the account of Milton's grand-daughter, his last female descendant, as given by Dr. Johnson:-"She kept a petty grocer's or chandler's shop near Shoreditch. In 1750, Comus was played for her benefit. She had so little acquaintance with diversion or gaiety, that she did not know what was intended, when a benefit was offered her. The profits of the night were only 1301. She and her husband then augmented their little stock of grocery, with which they removed to Islington; and this was the greatest benefaction that Paradise Lost ever procured the author's descendants."

It had been argued (continued lord Mahon), that the love of fame

was a sufficient motive for authorship, and that the attainment of fame was a sufficient reward. But did that rule apply in other cases? Was Arkwright told when his genius invented a machine that should give bread and employment to tens of thousands, that his fame should suffice for his reward, or was he enabled to bequeath a princely fortune to his heirs? Was Marlborough told when returning from the victorious field of Blenheim, that he had no further claim upon his county? No, a palace arose, commemorating in its splendour and its name, a hero's merit, and a nation's gratitude. Was Canning told when his health was failing under the labours and anxieties of the public service, that his fame was all that his family should inherit? No, the crown bestowed a peerage on his widow, and the house of commons voted a pension to his son. Why then should literary men only be confined to the empty honours of celebrity?

Mr. C. Buller said, he should vote for the second reading of the bill, on the simple ground that, balanced as his own opinions were, and requiring information on the

subject, he would rather the mea, sure should undergo the fullest possible discussion. He held it to be wholly inconsistent with the enlightenment of the present age, that the labours of literary men should be those only which were not effectually protected by copyright.

Mr. Jervis and Mr. Hume opposed the bill as prejudicial in many respects to the interest of the public, and in his reply sergeant Talfourd strongly deprecated any introduction of party feeling into a measure which Mr. Hume and Mr. Wakley opposed, but for which Thomas Campbell, Leigh Hunt, Thomas Moore, and Harriet Martineau, had all petitioned. A division then took place, and the motion was carried in a very thin house by a majority of 30, there being in favour of it 59, and against it 29. At a subsequent period of the session, Mr. Sergeant Talfourd thinking, that from the position of the bill, he had little chance of getting it passed during the session, moved the order of the day for going into committe on it, for the purpose of having it discharged.