THE COPYRIGHT QUESTION.

THR second reading of Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD'S Copyright Bill was carried on Wednesday, in a thin House, by a majority of 5. considering that souse supporters of what they call the principle object to the details,—and looking at the lateness of the session, the prospect of au early prorogation, and the proverbial " nolumus mini" of the Lords,—this slender majority does not promise an eventual triumph. Yet even this second reading has only been obtained by an abaildonment, in terms, of the principle of the bill. The learned Sergeant quitted his lofty positiun of the inherent and perpetual right of authors to a monopoly-property in their pro- ductions, and called for support on a very different case— "I will attempt to narrow the controversy of to-night by stating at once What I regard to be the principle of this bill, and call on honourable Members now to °Arm, and what I rept d as matters of mere detail, which it is unnecessary It this moment to consider. That principle is, that the present. term of copy- right is much too short for the attainment of that justice which satiety owes to es. outhoes, especially to those, few thouch they be, whose reputation is of slow growth and of enduring character. Whether that term shall be extended _front its-presek! length to sixty years, or to some intermediate period—whether it shall commmice at the death of the author or at the date or first publication-- in what mat..ner it shall be reckoned in the cases of work's given to the world in portions—aYe questions of detail, on which I do not think the House is to- night required to decide."

So far as futore publications are concerned, this new principle of copyright wil; give to no author a farthieg more of money. These words do slot, however, define with rigorous exactness the principle of On bill as it is now put by Mr. TALFOURD. Hitherto legislation ;las only directly regarded the interests of authors ; giving them ospyright for life, and for such a term of years certain as enables them to obtain the highest price the market can yield if they dispose of their cops right. Should the bill be passed in its present share, the principle of a monopoly right to others than the writer will be atfirined,—of a monopoly, not only to his descendants, (which feelive and sentiment might be inclined to yield,) but to his assigns—booksellers; to his heirs at law— very remote kindred, whom he neither knows nor cares for, per- haps dislikes; or to legatee strangetw in blood. And the question now is, whether a bill of possible mischief in the worst mode of operation—upon the mind of the country—shall hastily pass; . when, according to the admission of its author, not I in 500 he might have said in 50,000) of the class for whose interests he pro- fesses to legislate can ever be in a condition to benefit by it; and when, from various causes, of the score of men whose genius may confer long life upon their works, the copyright may not in any,* probably will not. in half-a-dozen, remain with the author, but go to enrich some lucky bookseller (foresight being impossible) and his descendants.

This change of the basis on which the bill was brought for- ward, took the House so far by an unconscious surprise, that it went on debating the old principle, and not the new. The debate, however, had more interest than almost any one of the session : simply because the speakers were earnest, and honest, according to their characters and capacities—they spoke from con- viction on a question of real business. Amongst them, Mr. TAL- FOURD'S speech, as a piece of composition, was unquestionably the best ; and it excelled his first speech from being less inflated and less sentimental. As a chain of reasoning it was deficient,— neither perceiving the drifts of the starting proposition, nor grap- pling with the essential principle of copyrights in any way, nor adducing any new arguments upon its secondary properties, (for the difference between a literary work and a scientific invention had been stated before); whilst he allowed the object of the bill to peep out,—which seems to be, as SUODEN plainly told him, in a hard-headed speech, to benefit certain private interests under the plea of advancing a public principle—the parties being WORDS- WORTH, SOUTH/SY, and the family of SCOTT.

In the rhetorical way, Mr. SPRING Ibex and Mr. DIsitARLI came next to the mover. The chief argument of the Chancellor

of the Exchequer, so far as the principle of the case went, was,

that all property is the creation of the law,—meaning, that the legal title is established by law ; for he might as well affirm that land and houses, or, as a writer in the Globe bad affirmed, "the fish in a trout stream," are created by law. But if their assertion be true, there is at once an end of the rights of the case; and public expediency is the only rule, for the creator has abso- lute power over his creatures. The rhetorical garnish of Mr. DISRAELI had a substratum of fallacy in argument, and falsehood in fact. After confounding

the metaphysical or intellectual property in the sentiments and language of a work, with the material property in the printing, paper, and binding ; and asserting that

"The tenure, too, of literary property was Puperior to that of any other species of property—it was original : it was a tenure with respect to which there could not exist a Iloubt as to the title, for it required nothing like occu- pancy to establish it, but was primitive, itiesistilde, and most natural in itself— it was a permanent and a sovereign tenure, in short, by creation ;"

—he went on to what he called facts. He said that the prices

of standard authors under cops right were cheaper than those whose copyrights had expired ; and he compared the " works of SCOTT, BYRON, SOUTHEY, and WORDSWORTH, With the trade editions of Hum, Glimosr, JOHNSON, ROBERTSON, and others ;" declaring that the last class were as dear as the others. Pass- ing over the fact, that the cheap editions of SCOTT and BYROM were not spontaneous, but forced out meter peculiar circum- stances, there are essential differences in the cases. Amusement is the first object of novelists and poets—i hey may instruct, but they " instruct by pleasing ;" whereas instruction is the first business of the historian. The proper comparison is HALLAM ; and we see that one of his histories costs from thirty to six-and- thirty shillings ; one of ROBERTSON'S jive shillings. However, the fact is false. Mr. MURRAY'S single-volume edition of BYROM contains 828 pages, and sells for one pound. Mr. CADRLL S single-volume edition of GIBBON contains 1,256 pages, price one pound, OT fifty per cent. less; and there is a still cheaper edition. He is also reported to have pitted BLAcirsrowz against as if there could be any comparison between a professional and a poetical writer : though even here he is in error on the fact, for the cost of the Commentai les is kept up by the copyright of the annotations, pointing out the changes in the law, and • SCOTT, one of the most attentive of human beings to his own pecuniary interests, and of the success of whom books thus was no doubt, sold his copy. rights. correcting the text. He moreover asserted that Sous:ray was prevented by the law from engaging in a History of the Mo- nastic Orders; at which the House, to show itscriti:cal capabi- lities, cheered. We should like some better evidealce as to the fact than a loose assertion of this kind. For %WA experienced writer, aiming at a large circulation, would ever expect it from such a work ; or if he did, be deterred by the ihn'ttation of twenty- e'g ht Years ? Where are the great and stirring events—the varied fortunes—the enterprise of artion—tl.te human sympathy —to sustain an interest in such a history ? 'Treated, indeed, with the broad and biting ridicule of VOLTAIRF.i, the gracefully playfUl irony of HUME, or the grave anti conet'atled sarcasm of Ginters, such a work might sell, but it would sell at once. Handled' in a brief and comprehensive way, and animated by a philosophical spirit, such a werk would soon acw.iire a high reputation ; but it may be questioned whether its sa'at would ever answer the pur- poses of a man whose inspirer w as Pilaus. Except in a good point of al.r, pnvmies, subsequently enforced by Mr. Wstsea, that a very lumg copyright after an author's death would prevent all improvenr.ent on wanks by means of annotations and so forth,—and which b rings all literary productions, except the imaginative, closer to the ease of a patent,—the arguments and the spirit of the arguers a gainst the measure were none of the best. They had all the narrow and sordid views of the other side, with- out their semblance of the generous feelings. The mere econo- mists were evidenaly only weighing the additional sixpence or shilling on the pri.ce of a volume--not the effects upon the public mind ; and those who took the higher ground took it in too much of a screwing UtiTharian spirit, lookiug only to the public gain, and shutting out e.11 regard tojustice. To this we cannot agree. Once prove that mental creations—capable of distribution without tangible ir.jury to any one, more than "lighting one torch at another "—whose primary object is permanent endurance—whose reward is fame, the consciousness of power, and of influencing future ages,—prove that these have a natural inherent right of property similar to that in sordid and material things, and we say, "Do justice, and let consequences take care of themselves." So much for the debate. Amongst the various pamphlets, letters, and " leaders" which this subject has called forth during the week, the best are "A Petition against the Bill," and a paper in Tait's Magazine for May. Both, indeed, are dashed with a trading spirit in several places ; but they have some curious facts, and some shrewd arguments.

APPLYING THE STRAIN.

" On the part of the authors, a claim is set up of absolute property in their works, of the same nature, and equally sacred, as property in lands or houses. On the decision of this question of absolute property in the production* of mind, hangs the whole matter at issue. For, if it be decided in favour of the authors, they and their assignees are entitled to protection for not merely the long period proposed by Sergeant Talfourd's Bill, hot to the end of time. If copyright be really a species of natural property, it undoubtedly ought to be regarded as sacred. To violate such property, on account of public utility, is no more to be thought of than taking a man's estate from him, and dividing it among his destitute neighbours. Nay, more ; if our British authors have a sacred property' in their works, they are entitled to protection, not only from all invasion of that property at home, but abroad also. Our Government is bound to afford British authors the same protection from foreign depredation which our merchants enjoy. Grant that the author's right of property in his composition is as clear and sacred as the merchant's in his goods, and the con- sequence is undeniable."— Tait.

PRACTICAL WORKING OF COPYRIGHTS.

" It is well known, almost every copyright that is wotth purchasing speedily becomes the property of publisher From whatever cause it may arise, the fact is certain, that authors very rately retain a copyright for which they can obtain money. It becomes, therefore, an important question, what number of years' sale do publishers generally contemplate, when making an author an offer for his copyright? Mr. Murray, the great London publisher, on his exa- mination before a Committee of the House of Commons, declared that he would not give more for a copyright, after the extension of the protection from four- teen to twenty-eight years, than before. Those who know any thing of the publishing business, will agree with us, that even fourteen years is a much longer period than is embraced in the calculations of the purchasers of copy- rights. Very seldom do such calculators take in more than front five to seven years' sale. If the book should sell for a longer time, the publisher considers that be has, by that time, paid enough to the author ; that paper, print, and advertising, will be enough for him to encounter afterwards, from the dimi- nished sale to be expected, the competition with other works, and the probable necessity of reducing the selling price. When copyrights are sold by the Lon- don booksellers to each other, they usually calculate the value of the copyright to be equivalent to the profit of three or four year.' 841e of the book ; and this in relation to books which can be reckoned upon with great precision. The copyrights of Scott's novels, after every means of enhancing their value had been used, were bought back from Constable's creditors for 8,500L, including the whole, Hotta ' Waverley ' to ' Quentin Durward ;" while 8,000/. had shortly before been given for • Woodstock' alone. If, then, our two positions be well-founded—that authors seldom retain a saleable copyright, and that pub- lishers seldom reckon on more than front five to seven years' sale in calculating the value of the copyright, rarely indeed look to fourteen years, and scarcely ha any instance to twenty-eight, it follows that the proposed extension of the monopoly to sixty yens, after the death of the author, may benefit pub. ushers occasionally, but scarcely ever will be vf the smallest advantage to authors."—Ta it.

" It is a fallacy to believe, that because cert tin works in which there is no copyright have a large sale, the demand would be the sante if a copyright existed : and this is the more important, because the supposed pecuniary advan- tages to the deseendants of authors, upon which the bill is founded, have been calculated, not by what would proliably be the sided there had been a perpetual copyright in their works, but by the number of iu consequence of their being no copyright or other testi iction wit iteoever." • * • " Besides other objections to a long duration of copyright, your petitioners beg leave to impress upon your honourable House, that it prevents the pith. lication of complete editions of woiks of permanent value, and renders it im- possible to illustrate them by such notes as the progress of science, geographical discoveries, and the alteration of the laws render indispensable. Even at this moment, though above forty years have: elapsed since the death of the poet Cowper, a right exists in some of his Poems and Letters, which, though of little or no value to the proprietor, prevents their being incorporated in ioe- edition ; and it would be impossible, for this reason, to print is complete editi: of the works of many of the most distinguished of living authors. With i.e.- epect to standard law-hooks, and treatises on different branches of science sad art, which require new notes from time to time, a long copyright would often prevent their being illustrated by the remarks of preceding eilitote. Rad there lumen a copyright in Littleton's 'tenures, for ex imple, Lord Coke's Commentary must have been detached from the text ; and as that Commentary would alio, have been protected, the Notes of Butler, Hargrave, and ()the' learned perms must have appeared as separate publications. And the same rein irk applies t'c editions of the Classics, as well as to other works, many of which are almost as valuable from the notes as from the text itself."—Petition.

LAW or THE CASE, AND PROVISION OF "OUR ANCESTORS" AGAINST

THE EFFECTS OF MONOPOLY.

" Your petitioners beg leave to deny the assertion, that by the common has an author hall a perpetnol right in his works. The right of an author (at dis. tinguishell flom that of hie publisher or assignee) was never recomized by the Legislature until the statute of the 10th Anne; and they find that when Pat. liatnent first interfered on the subject, namely, in the 25th Henry VIII., the intention WAS merely to prohibit the importation of books, and their sale by foreigners, and to prevent their being sobl at exorbitant prices. With ti latter object in view, power was given to the Lord Chancellor, buil Treasurer, and two Chief Justiees, On complaint of the dearness of any book, to inquire into the matter by a Jury or otherwise; and if the charge was well.founded, to limit the pricem is we'll of the book as of the binding ;' which statute ir noticed by Lord Coke in his Second Institute, ' to the end did nit only this Second Part of the Institutes, hut all other books of what argument saver, may be sold at reasonalde prices, and that the subjects of this realm, being printers and birclers of books, may be set on work,' amid that 'if any euliqui„. rag or increasing of prices be either if the books, or the binding tif them, it may be known who may and ought to redress the same.' They also hind the the Stivute 21 Jac. I. for abolishing 'Monopolies, so fitr from recognizing the rights of authors in their works, merely protected the interests of inventors who might thereafter procure letters patent for the term of fourteen years or under, of the sole woo king or making of any manner of new manufactures; and of persons who ntight 'obtain letters patent or grants of privilege of, for, or concerning printing, making saltpetre, or gonpowder, or ordnance, or shot.' They submit that these facts are wholly inconsistent with the principle of atm lute and perpetual copyright ; and although the great increase of the priutiog business afterwards cleated extensive competition, which is the nuist edictal restraint upon high prices, and rendered the remedy given by the.StatuteZ Hen. VIII. unnecessary, the House of Commons nevertheless Insisted upoa retaining it in the Statiite of the 10th Anne, against the declared wish of the House of Lords."—Petition.

FACTS ON TIIICES, Cheapest Competition

Published at Copyright Price. Price. Lid. Scott's Lay of the Last Minstrel. 2 2 0 ... 0: 58. dO ::: 004 01L Ili Scott's Marniion I 11 6 ••• 0 5 0

Johnson's English Dictionary 5 5 0 ... 3 9 0 ... 1 8 0

Walker's English Dictionary 1 8 0 ... 0 14 0 n .... 00 125 00 Cruden's Concordance — .. Gibbo's Rome 2 2 0 ... - 6 6 0 ••• 2 8 0 ... 0180

Robertson's Historical Works 5 5 0 ... 3 4 0 ... 0 18 0 Baker's lavy 3 3 0 ... 2 2 0 ... 0120 Blair's, Sermons 3 0 0 ... I 2 6 ... 0 6 0 British Essayists, 45 vols. 10 10 0 ... 8 8 0 ... 2 12 6

lloswell's Johnonn 2 2 0 ... 1 16 0 .. 0 8 0 Gilliea's History of Greece 3 18 0 ... 1 16 0 ... 0 7 6 Johnson's Works 7 4 0 ... 2 8 0 •.• 1 1 0 Josephus, by Whistin - - - ••• 1 16 0 ••• 0 8 0

Milner's Church History - - -0 ••• 0 8 0

Mitford's History of Greece 9 6 0 .... 3 0 4 4 0 .. 16 0 Murphy's Tacitus 6 0 0 ... 4 4 0 ... 0 110 6 Paley's Works 6 0 0 ... 214 0 ... 0 7 6 Pope's Works and Homer 8 14 0 ... 2 0 0 ... 0 9 0

Rollin'e Ancient History 3 12 0 ••• 2 2 0 ••• 1 5 0

Roscoe's Lorenzo III Medici 2 2 0 ... I 4 0 ... 0 8 0

Russell's Modern Europe

Smith's Wealth of Nations - - - ... 3 3 0 ... 1 1 0

Spectator 0 4 0 ... I 7 0 ... 0 5 0 1 15 0 •• 0 10 6 Tytler's Elements of General His • tory ... 1 1 0 ... 0 4 0 White's History of Selborne I I 0 ... 0 16 0 ... 0 3 6

. Let it not be supposed, because we point out difficulties on our side, or falsehoods and fallacies wherever we meet them, that we are hostile to any measure which should secure to an author's family any remuneration springing from his exertions, without causing for a doubtful and peculiar good a public evil of enormous extent. But even in effecting this, we must not shut our eyes to truth and reason; and perhaps the immediate descendants of the writer are all the persons that can fairly claim any benefit from exertions in a pursuit whose rewards he knows before he embarks in it. Extend the monopoly from the day of the author's death, or the termination of the present twenty-eight years, to Nide! a or twenty-one years, which will be suflicient to enable his family, as the phrase is, to "look about them," and certainly to take the "cream " of the most prospective work that ever was or evercan be written. But if the Legislature wills an end, let it imitate Providence and will the means. Should it decide upon benefiting the families of authors, it must prevent the sale of a copyright beyond the writer's life or the fixed term of twenty-eight years.