iDebated anti flractaingt in Vadtifinent. THE COPYRIGHT MIX.

At the meeting of the House of Commons, on Wednesday a bet of petitions, some for, and others against the Copyright Bill, presented' presented; after which, Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD moved the ee° welni

reading of the bill. He began by observing, that on a similar

sion last year, he found it unnecessary to offer a single remark foe scarcely a trace then appeared of the opposition to the measure wl'ef, has great gathered around it. He did not, however, regret the full disci which has of which there was now the prospect; and be desired the successull. of the bill only if it should be found, on the fullest discussion, that will serve the cause of intellect in its noblest and most expanded sense; He would narrow the controversy of the evening, by stating at osee what he regarded as the principle of the bill, contradistinguisbed fora matters of mere detail- sion last year, he found it unnecessary to offer a single remark foe scarcely a trace then appeared of the opposition to the measure wl'ef, has great gathered around it. He did not, however, regret the full disci which has of which there was now the prospect; and be desired the successull. of the bill only if it should be found, on the fullest discussion, that will serve the cause of intellect in its noblest and most expanded sense; He would narrow the controversy of the evening, by stating at osee what he regarded as the principle of the bill, contradistinguisbed fora matters of mere detail- " That principle is, that the present term of copyright is much to shore for the attainment of that justice which society owes to authors, especially theme, few though they be, whose reputation is of slow growth and of du;ioi. character. Whether that term shall be extended from its present length trs sixty years, or to some intermediate period—whether it shall commence at tis death of the author, or at the date of the first publication—in what manner it shall be reckoned in the cases of works given to the world in portion questions of detail on which I do not think the House are tonight required to decide. So, the prohibition of extracts made merely for the extractor's gas, which, however, is merely declaratory of the present law—of unauthorind abridgments, which is new—and some provisions which were introduced merely from an anxiety to protect subsisting interests—obviously fall into the same class. On the one hand, I do not ask honourable Members to vote hs the second reading merely because they think there are some uncertainties le the law of copyright which it is desirable to remove, or some cainortiesab which they are prepared to remedy. On the other hand, Iwould entreat them not to reject this bill on account of any objections to its mere details, but as they may think the legalized property of autkoza.eufficiently prolonged arld secured, or requiting a substantial extension, to oppose or to support it."

It was decided by Lord Mansfield and a large majority of the Judges, that the right of authors to perpetual copyright was sanctioned by the common law, and only taken away by the statute of Anne, whielt limited it to a certain number of years. He would not, however, in. gist upon that legal point ; neither would he enter into controveny with those who regarded the claim of authors as baseless, because he property they created, wholly from within, became the means of mean- nical enjoyment to printers and of speculation to publishers. He would adopt an intermediate course, and inquire whether a fair medium between the two extremes had not been chosen— " What is to be said in favour of the line now drawn, except that it exits and bears an antiquity commencing in 1814? Is there any magic in the tern of twenty-eight years ? Is there any conceivable principle of justice which bounds the right, if the author survives that term, by the limit of his aatunl life? As far as expediency shall prevail, as far as the welfare of thosefor whom It is the duty and the wish of the dying author to provide, may be regarded by Parliament ; the period of his death is precisely that when they will most need the worldly comforts which the property in his work would confer. And, as far as analogy may govern, the very attribute which induces us to regard with pride the works of intellect is, that they survive the mortal course of those who framed theta—that they are akin to what is deathless. Why should that quality render them worthless to those in whose affectionate remembrance their author still lives, while they attest a nobler immortality ? Indeed, among the oppw. nents of this measure, it is ground of cavil that it is proper to take the death of the author as a starting point for the period it adds to its right. It is urged la absurd, that even the extent of this distant period should be affected by the accident of death; and yet those who thus argue are content to support the system which makes that accident the final boundary at which the living efficacy of authorship for the advantage of its professors ceases."

He agreed that the extension of time would benefit but one author out of live hundred ; he admitted that he was legislating for the five hundredth case ? Why not ?— " It is the great prize which out of the five hundred risks genius and goodras win. It is the benefit that can only be achieved by that which has stood the test of time ; of that which is essentially true and pure ; of that which has survived spleen, criticism, envy, and the changing fashions of the world. Gratited that only one author in five hundred attain this end, does it not invite many to attempt it, and impress on literature itself a visible mark of permit. pence and of dignity ? The writers who attain it, will necessarily belong to two classes,—one class consisting of authors who have laboured to create the taste which should appreciate and reward them ; and only attain that reputa- tion which brings with it a pecuniary recompense, just as the term for which that reward is held out to them wanes. Is it unjust in this case, which is that of Wordsworth, now in the evening of life and in the dawn of his fame, to allow the author to share in the remuneration society tardily awards him? The tither class are those who, like Sir Walter Scott, have cc nitrified the art of minister- log to immediate delight with that of outlasting successive races of imitators and rivals, who do receive a large actual amount of recompense, but whore lc. cumulating compensation is stopped when it most should increase. .Now, surely, as to them the question is not what remuneration is soffit:mat in the judgment of the Legislature to repay for certain benefactions to society; but whether, having won the splendid reward, our laws shall permit the wiener to enjoy it ?" It had been said by a great publisher, "the pioneer of the noble array of publishers, booksellers, printers, and bookbinders who are arrayed against the hill," that the case of Sir Walter Scutt was an unhapayse- lection, for that he had during his life derived art ample revenue !rem his writings. But the question was not one of reward, but of justice- " How would this gentleman approve of the application of a similar rule.to his own honest gains ? FI om small beginnings this very publisher .ba% int'e fair and honourable course of trade, I doubt rut, argon-ea a splendid fortune, amassed by the sale of works the property of the public—of works w.hose. authors have gone to their repose, from the fevers, the disappointments, and tne-0 jealousies which await a hie of literary toil. Woo grudges at to him ? tah doubts his title to retain it? And yet this gentleurates toi tune is all -.ebvery farthing of it—so much taken from the public it, the .sense of the nubile er's_ argument ; it is all profit on books bought by that public, the accumulation pence, which, if he had sold his books without prefit, would have remainedt b , the pockets of the uyers. On what principle is Alt. Tegg to. retain what denied to Sir Walter ? Is it the claim ol is it larger public service ? His course, I doubt I I I stirri.a merit ? is it greater toilt,e laborious tradesman ; hut what ['evil its ali.X::•"111.:".ic'•i:■11:;:,:rietd1(tlutthae0s1;°:Pe7nr. duos labour, the sharp agonies of hint whose deadly al.lailve with Owe va trailers whose ineniheis oppose me now, and whose otohie le.olutIon to con! the severest integrity with the loftiest genius brought him to a premature ....a. a grave which, by the operation of the law, extends we chilliness even 11.-aresults of those labours, and deprives them of the living efficacy to assist whom he has left to mourn for him. Let any man conttmplate that 11";ie 'woggle of which the affecting record ha just been complett d, and turn rooasa f ,be sad spectacle of one who had once rejoiced in the rapid ovation of a

bsnd characters glowing from hi s brain, and stamped with indin iduality for

_„„ "lining the fibres of the mind till the exercise which was delight be- um—girding himself to the mighty teak of achieving his deliverance be 'be load which pressed upon him, and with brave endeavour I ut relaxing orosgth return to the toil till his faculties gave way, the pen fell no in his hand

• the unmarked paper, and the iolent tears of half.conscious childhood fell

opom it i

—to some prosperous bookseller n his country.house, cal, ulating the pproscb of the time (too swiftly accelerated) when he should be able to pub. M for his own gain those works, fatal to life, and then tell roe if we are to

="ion the reward to the effort, where is the justice of the bookseller'a 7 He did not believe that the extension of the copyright term would acme fewer books to be printed, or oppose the diffusion of know- ledge— I believe that the existence of the copyright, even of that five hundredth ØN, would not enhance the price of the fortunate work ; for the author or the

bookseller who enjoys the monopoly, as it is called, is enabled to supply the article

et a much cheaper rate when a tangle press is required to print all the copies eked for sale, instead of the presses and establishments of competing publish- ; and I believe a comparison between the editionsof standard works in which Isere is copyright, with those in which there is none, would confirm the truth

of the inference." It was not fair to quote the case of Clarendon's History against him ; for where was the analogy between the motives and acts of a great

body, having no personal stimulus or interest except to retain what is

as ornament to their own power, and those of a number of individual praprktors? The effect of enhancing the price of the five hundredth

relive thousandth book, would actually, it seemed, be " a heavy blow and great diseoifiagement " to literature, paralyze the energies of pub- lishers, and make Paternoster Row a desert-

ulehy, Sir, the same apprehension was entertained in 1813, when the pub- token sought to obtain the extension of copyright, for their own advantage

logyeons The printers then dreaded the effect of the prolonged mono- poly: they petitioned against the bill, and they succeeded in delaying it for session. And surely they had then far greater plausibility in their terrors, twin proportion as the period at wi,ith the contemplated extension begins is distant, its effects must be indistinct and feeble. Fewer books, of course, will nrvive 28 years than 14; the act of 1814 operated on the greater number, if at all; and has experience justified the fears which the publishers then laughed to scorn? has the number of books diminished since then? has the price of boob been enhanced ? has the (lenientl for the labour of printers or book.

'binders slackened since then have the profits of the bookseller failed ? I Nod no Committee of inquiry to answer these questions, and they are really

dedire of the issue. We all know that books have multiplied ; that the gums in which the works of high pretension were first enshrined have meshed; and while the prices paid for copyright have been far higher than in any former time, the proprietors of these copyrights have found it more profit- able to publish in a cheap than in a costly firm. Will authors, or the children of authors, be more obstinate—less able to appreciate and to meet the demands of the age—more apprehensive of too large a circulation, when both will be im- pelled by other motives than those of interest to seek the largest scale; the first by the impulse of blameless vanity or love of fame, the last by the affection and the pride with which they must regard the living thoughts of a parent taken from this world, finding their way through every variety of life, and cherished by unnumbered minds, which will bless his memory? " The opposition of the publishers he held to be the most powerful argument on the part of the public in favour of the extension of copy- nght. If publishers had ground to complain, the public could have none— "The objection supposes that the works would be sold at something more than the price of the materials, the workmanship, and a fair profit on the out- lay, if the copyright be continued to the author, and, of course, also supposes that works of which the copyright has expired are sold without profit beyond those charges—that, in fact, the author's superadded gain will be the measure of the public loss. Where then does the publisher interfere ? Is the truth this, that the usage of the publishing trade at this moment indefinitely prolongs the monopoly by a mutual understanding of its members, and that besides the km of 28 years, which the publisher has bought end paid for, he has some- thing more? is it a conventional copyright that is in danger ? is the real question, whether the author shall hereafter have the full term to dispose of, or 6411 sell a smaller term, and really assign a greater ? Now, either the pub. gibers have no interest in the main question, or this is that interest. If this is that interest, how will the public lose by paying their extra sixpence to the Mime who created the work, instead of the gentleman who prints his name at the foot of the titlepage, and who will stake his twenty-five per cent, on the copies be may sell ? This argument applies, and, I apprehend, conclusively, to tire in question—the justice and expediency of extending the term." He denied that there was any violation of faith in the retrospective dame, by which, at the expiry of the present term, the ownership reverted to the author; for the publishers were secured all they bar- gained for. Some inconvenience might occur (he should be glad to obviate it) where it was difficult to distinguish between the work of the author, and what the publisher had added. But supposing the in- convenience to remain, had the publishers no consolation'?— "lathe first place, they would, as the bill now stands, gain all the benefit Of the extension of future copyrights hereafter sold absolutely to them by the new, and, according to their own statement, without any advance of price. If this benefit is small—is contingent—is nothing in five.hundred cases to one— Soil the loss in those cases in which the right will result to the author. But it should further be recollected, that every year, as copyrights expire, adds to the store from which they may take fieely. In the Infancy of literature, a polisher's stock is scanty unless be pays for original composition ; but as one poeratioo after another passes away, histories, novels, poems—alt of undying isfiriat and certain sale—fall in ; and each generation of booksellers heroines "jelled by the spoils of time to which he has contributed nothing. If then, me measure which restores to the author what the bookseller has conventionally received some inconvenience beyond the just loss of what he was never entitled to obtain be incurred, is not the balance greatly in his favour ? Anti can it be doubted that in any case where the properties of the publisher and of the Ill!bor's representatives are impei feet apart, either from additimia to the origi. an, or from the successsiun of several works falling in at different times, their common interest would unite them ?"

An analogy had been attempted between the works of ail author

andz m _the discoveries of an inventor, tor for the purpose of sho] ng that b e patent which recompensed one otok,ht to satisfy the other.

No doubt, there was sonic sirrilearitv in' the supposed testes, but grounds of essential and obvious distinction-

" In cases of patent, the merits of the invention are palpable, the demand is usually immediate, and the recompense of the inventor, in proportion to the utility of his work, speedy and certain. In cases of patent, the subject is gene- rally one to which many minds are at once applied ; the invention is often no morethan a step in a !aeries of processes, the first of which being given, the consequence will almost certainly present itself sooner or later to some of these inquirers; and if it were not discovered this year by one, would probably be discovered the next by another. But who would suggest that if Shakspeare had not written Leal , or Richardson Clarissa, other poets or novellists would have invented them? In practical science every discovery is a step to some- thing inure perfect ; and to give to the inventor of each a protracted monopoly would be to shut out all improvement by others. But who can improve the masterpieces of genius? They stand perfect, apart from all things else, self- sustained, the models for imitation, the sources whence rules of art take their origin. And if we apply the analogy of mechanical invention to literature, we shall find that in so far as it extends there is really in the latter no monopoly at all, however brief. For example, historical or critical research bears a strong analogy to the process of mechanical discovery, and how does the law of copy- right apply to the treasures it may reveal ? The fact discovered, the truth ascer- tained becomes at once the property of mankind—to accept, to state, to reason on ; and all that remains in the author is the style in which it is expressed. No one ever dreamed that to assume a position which another had discovered, to reject what another had proved to be fallacious, to stand on the tableland of recognized truth, and start from it anew, was an invasion of the author's right. How earnest has been the thought, how severe the intellectual toil, by which the noblest speculations in the human mind and its destiny have been con- ducted ! They are the beatings of the soul against the bars of' its clay tene- ment, which, if ruffled in the collision, attest at once, by their strength and their failure, that it is destined to move in a wider sphere. And yet the pro- ducts of divine philosophy melt away into the intellectual atmosphere which they enrich, and become the dreams and the assurances of others ! So that the law of literary property of necessity accommodates itself to the nature of its subject, when the work is properly a creation, leaving it preserved in its en- tirety ; when it is mere discovery, rendering the essence of truth to mankind, and preserving nothing to its author but the form in which it is enshrined."

It had been said that authors themselves bad no direct interest in this measure, and the greatest living writers had not thought it befitting the dignity of their cause to appear as petitioners for the boon. But Mr. Wordsworth had publicly declared his conviction of its justice ; and Mr. Lockhart had stated his apprehension that the emancipation of Sir Walter Scott's estate depended on the issue. Now he would

not legislate for those cases, but by the light of their examples. The instances pass away ; successive generations do successive injustice, but the principle of justice is eternal- " True it is that, in many instances, if the boon be granted, the errors and frailties which often attend genius may render it vain; true it is that in multi- tudea of cases it will not operate ; but we shall have given to authors and to

readers a great lesson of justice; we shall have shown that where virtue and genius combine, we are ready to protect their noble offspring, and that we do not

desire a miserable advantage at the cost of the ornaments and benefactors of the world. I call on each party in this House to unite in rendering this tribute to the minds by which even party associations are dignified—on those who antici- pate successive changes in society, to acknowledge their debt to those who ex- pand the vista of the future, and people it with goodly visions—on those who fondly linger on the past, and repose on time- hallowed institutions, to consider how much that is ennobling in their creed has been drawn from minds which have clothed the usages and forms they revere with the symbols of venerable- ness and beauty—on all, if they cannot find some common ground on which

they may unite in drawing assurance of progressive good for the future from the glories of the past, to recognize their obligation to those the products of' whose intellect shall grace, and soften, and dignify the struggle." Mr. flUMF. said, that nobody was more willing than himself that an author of ability should derive a fair advantage from the exercise of his ability ; but the question for the House was, whether a copyright of twenty-eight years was not suffieient to induce authors to devote their talents to the instruction and amueement of the public? He did not think that Mr. Talfourd had proved that the term was insufficient. If it was, further extension must he given to patentees of inventions, and to those who benefited the public in other ways. Many people thought that mechanical inventions were quite as conducive to comfort and happiness as literary productions ; and he objected to the limita- tion of the increased recompense to the producers of intellectual en- joyment. It was certain that the public gained by the expiry of the copyright. Scott's Lay if the Last Minstrel was published at two gui- neas; but two years after the expiry of the copyright, it was sold for eighteenpence : was that no gain to the public? He moved the post- ponement et' the second reading of the bill for six months.

Mr. WARBURTON seconded the amendment.

Sir ROBERT ROLFE (Solicitor-General) opposed the bill, on the ground that the extension of the copyright would be an injury to the public.

Sir ROBERT INGLIS wished that the original tight, which literary property possessed in common with all property, should be restored, and that an author should hold his copyright in perpetuity: the bill therefore, he thought, did not go far enough. Mr. PRYME opposed the bill. It was not made out that the exten- sion of the copyright from fourteen to twenty-eight years had benefited both authors and the public; for the decrease in the price and increase in the quantity of books was caused by improvement in paper-making and printing. Mr. DISRAELI could not understand what accident or quality there was in material property which was not to be found in works of lite- rature— They required great industry, great care, great skill, and oftentimes much capital in the production 7 they assumed a visible, palpable, and tangible form; warehouses 'night be filled with them ; ships might be freighted with them; and the tenure fly which they were held was, in his opinion, superior to that of all other property, for it was original. (Cheers.) It was tenure which did not exi-t in a doubtful title, which did not spring from any adventitious circumstatice—it was rot f,irnut — it was lit purchased —it was net prescrip- tive ; it was primitive—it was siginal; it WAX the most natural of all titles, because it my,. tile 111,4 iii rim' J1111 le tst artitiviAL It was paramount and sove- reign, hee,tri.v it %%a: a ten Ill.:Moo, (Chet rs.) The fault therefore that he'loutirL I 1,10 the "16,41 the bill, but with the bill itself, %ea.( that the title held by sudi aparainaunt triune should far a moment he compeotnised. If it were ad hated twit the tenure as original and was held by creation, ho could not see what right the legislature or the public hail to interfere with .it. The question now raised could not be met by a panegyric upon the exist■ng statute law ; it could be met only by it fair discussion of the pnociples to which the honourable and learned sergeant's proposal tended. It was said that to prolong copyright would increase the price of books : that question must be decided by facts—

Take the classical and standard works of halfetalosen authors of the present century—authors the copyright of whose works remained either with them- selves or with their families, and compare the price at which they were now published with the price at which other work.; were published where the copy- right existed with the booksellers. It would be found that where the copyright remeined with the author or with his family, the price was a hundred per cent. lees than it was during any period of the last generation. If the works of Scott, Byron, Southey, Wordsworth, and even of a relative of his own, were compared with the editions now published by what was called " the trade," of Hume, Gibbon, Robertson, Blacketone, Burke, and °theta, it would be found that the works of the former, possessing all the advautages of the most ex- quisite mechanical skill, were delivered to the public at half the price at which they could formerly be obtained. There was no ground, therefore, for that objection to the bill. But there vvas in fact a literary monopoly in existence—. • monopoly, not in favour of authors, but of booksellers. The object of the peewit' bill was to remove that monopoly, to protect the author, and to benefit the public.

Allusion had been made (by Mr. Pryme) to Gibbon as affording an illustration of the beneficial working of the present law— The work of Gibbon was one of the great standard works in our literature: Gibbon had long been dead—the copyright had long remained in the hands of the booksellers. Had the public derived any advantage front these circum- stances? Far from it. Until the present moment, no cheap edition had appealed. Upwards of fifty years had elapsed since one adventurous bookseller had dared to break through the monopoly of his brethren, and to give a new and cheap edition of Gibbon, with the emendations of a scholar. The remune- ration to Gibbon for all his labour amounted, in point of fact, to nothing, be- cause, as he had before stated, the 6,0001. paid for the copyright only just covered the sums he had expended in the purchase of books of reference. It was plain, therefore, that if Gibbon had been a pour man, or if he had been a man with a large family, the literature of England could never have been en- riched by his immortal work. Compare with the case of Gibbon that of a man of the present day, of learning not less distinguished, and as a master of composition unrivalled amongst English writers—Dr. Southey. He knew that more than a quarter of a century ago Dr. Southey wished to devote his life to a work more comprehensive than that of Gibbon, and for learning more remarkable, perhaps, than any that would ever adorn the language—a History of the Monastic Orders ; but, as it was probable that such a work would occupy more than a quarter of a century in the execution, Dr. Southey was obliged to give up the idea in consequence of the state of the law with respect to literary property.

Mr. WARD opposed the second reading. He could not admit the inherent right claimed for this species of property, which was of a fac- titious creation. He could not see why a distinction should be made between the fruits of mind and intellect and the fruits of mechanical or scientific skill.

MT. MILNES supported the bill.

Mr. SPRING RICE contended that literary property had a right to protection from the law, on the principle that what was beneficial to society should be protected. It could be proved that works highly useful to the public were not undertaken, from want of sufficient pro- tection to literary property. On that ground, the law required altera- tion. A patentee could obtain a prolongation of his patent for a cer- tain time from the Privy Council, and that was the principle of this bill. By supporting the second reading, Members would not be pledged to all the details of the measure. Mr. Rice concluded with paying a compliment to the -genius and eloquence of Mr. Talfourd- " one of the greatest ornaments of living literature."

Mr. GROTE opposed the bill ; not from any especial sympathy with publishers, printers, or booksellers, but because it would narrow the circle of the reading public.

If gentlemen who supported the measure would show him that he was in err or—if they would show him that printing under a copyright would be cheaper than 'stinting without a copyright—his opposition to the bill would be withdrawn. But he must say, if that hail been the fact, it was his firm belief that the House would have heard nothing whatever of this bill. He would put it to the honourable and learned gentleman, what would be the case in the event of this bill passing ? Would not the representatives of the authors dispose of all their interest in the sixty years' copyright for a sum in hand; and airmail we not be still liable to the painful spectacle of sonic son or grandson of some eminent historian—if of an undiscreet character—suffering under povcity and distress? Ile would venture to say, that neither this bill nor any other that might be devised, could rescue the son or grandson of a literary man from the consequences of improvidence and indiscretion. Much as they might all lament this, and much as their sympathies might be touched by it, yet it was quite impossible to prevent them from suffering the consequences of their own imprudence. A good deal had been said during the present discus- sion as if this were a question between authors and publishers, and not between authors and the public. Now he would apply to any gentleman, whether there was any one department of commercial enter prize in which competition was more intense and more active than in the publishing-trade. It was impossible to suppose that publishers in the present day could derive more than an ordi- nary remuneration for capital and trouble employed in trade: therefore, if by soy alteration of the law of copyright they were to impart to the author a greater profit than he now received from his works, that benefit would be oh- Weed at the expense of the reading public who purchased thetn. But in his opinion, whenever a question arose between the interest of any one Class of per- sons and the interest of the public, it was the duty of this House to give its de- cision in favour of the latter.

Sir JOHN CAMPBELL suggested, that in certain cases—that, for in- stance, of Sir Walter Scott's copyrights—a prolongation of the term might be made. That course bud been taken in regard to patents. It would be his painful duty to oppose Mr. Talfourd's bill, as injurious to the public and not beneficial to authors.

Mr. WYNN spoke in favour of the principle of the bill ; and main- trailed that the right to perpetual eopyright existed for some years after the Act of Anne, when it was only taken away by the decision of a bare majority of the Judges.

.filr. J. JERVIS thought the measure would not benefit authors in the way anticipated; but if it did, he should be averse to conferring any peculiar advantage on literary property.

Sir EDWARD SUGDEN opposed the bill, 011 strong grounds—. He could not help feeling that copyright, however valuable partook in its nature of a public right: it became valuable only tbroit: medium of the public ; and therefore, at some time or other, the publi ths to reap their share of the benefits conferred by it. In fact, the q,,,„L"1141 only one of degree. It had been treated as a (lumina of abstract right,

if it were soltl'to;

he might venture should not be forgotten that at present copyright dependredighutr hat :toe smart: law. If the statute law had created a perpetuity for copyright, for reducing it to a shorter term, because such a law would not be IlforYtt; benefit of the public ; and at the same time, he thou say that it would not be of any additional advantage to the author, as he not get five shillings more for his work than he would now,

publisher before publication.

Lord MAHON contended that the public had a deep intereit in the independence of literary men— It was earnestly to be desired that authors should have a stronger induemen, to follow where their own genius led them, and that they should net palled to consult the reigning taste of the day. It would be a source of !wise regret to the literature of the country that Dryden was not enabled to complai the great epic poem which he had projected, and that he was compelled plays for his bread. The operation of the law of copyright, as it now 61 unfortunately induced men to snatch at present renown. If they del nit, sa there any thing in the fate of Wordsworth to invite them to fellow the mei bent of their.genius ? That great poet, many years ago, wrote what wool consonant with the taste of the time, hut, as he foresaw, those sery works het now earned for him an undying reputation. Was it not then most uefoituora that his copyright should be about to expire just at the time when they [hue* profitable?

Mr. WARBURTON did not believe that the bill would produce more elaborate and carefully written works than were written under the pre, sent inducements. Authors would continue to be actuated by the ell principle, " volitat per ora vitam "— He did not believe that publishers would give one farthing more for con. right with the additional protection that this bill afforded than without a Publishers acted, in these matters like men of business—their object Wit II secure a return of the capital expended by them in the shortest possible rot The period of fourteen years did not enter into the calculation of the man aloe ness, and he could, not afford to give more for a copyright privilege eine, years than fourteen.,. In fact, the main object with the publisher was to Rim rapid sale. He believed that authors, after the carrying of this nib,e,atiolle: before, would find it to be to their interest to dispose of their eop)riglr atss lutely. It was said that this bill would be • protection to the poorer i d authors ; but the poorer they were the more disposed they would this immediate sale. With regard to the suggestion which hail fallen lion th, learned Attorney-General, he thought it a most dangerous power to place ii hands of the Privy Council. If the Privy Council were composed of lois. rity of Tories, and a great work advocating popular principles were in questa, they would very probably decide that the copyright ought not to he mined; and vice versa in the case of a Pi ivy Council composed of individuals the on jority of whom advocated Liberal principles, where there might be queuing a work advocating Tory views. He trusted that all the publishers sod put oil throughout the kingdom would redouble their exertions until they riot airli that entire success which he wished them in opposing a measure that into fered with the best prospects of literature and literary men.

Mr. TAISOURD briefly replied; and The House divided—

For the second reading 39 Against it St

Majority 5 On the motion that the bill be committed, Mr. P llowano morel that it be referred to a Select Committee, instead of the allele House—

For the motion 31 Against it Majority 7

The bill was then ordered to be committed on Wednesday next. Os Thursday,•Mr. WAKLEY gave notice that be should move to put of the Committee for six months.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

On Thursday, Mr. PACKINGTON inquired when Lord John &sell intended to proceed with his County Courts Bill, about which goat anxiety existed in the country? Lord Joule's reply was newly us audible, but he was understood to say that be should not proceed with the measure on so early a day as the Vote-paper indicated. At the request of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, Mr. O'CONNELL podb poned for a fortnight his motion on the subject of Female Negro tlp. prentices, in consequence of the absence of Sir George Grey, ,V1,0 was detained from the House by a domestic calamity. Lord Jonst RUSSELL then moved, that after the 14th of May fat one month, an additional day in each week should be 81)pr/quieted to orders of the day—. It was a matter of considerable consequence that both Houses of Palliest should have full time to consider the various measures that wei e biouglit fore them ; and it was very desirable that when measures of great iiiipoitints were under discussion, a full attendance of the Members of either House 811004 be insured. This very desirable object had been defeated to some extent lOr several years past, owing to the lateness of the period at which tileasuiesof Ort very greatest importance had been sent up to the other House.

He briefly referred to the important measures introduced, and the time it would take to complete them.

Mr. WILLIAM WILLIAMS said, the proposed arrangement would In- terfere with a motion of great importance which he had put °A the paper. Mr. Goucncart remarked, that Lord John Russell r. (paired a target proportion of the time of the House than any precedrog Minister. His proposal would prevent the discussion of many interesting siiit. jeets, which ought not to be put off till the fag•end of the ses&iiin. There was a great deal of unfinished Government business before Pao Bement, but whose fault was that ? They had been sitting since Ns vember : if Ministers had used due diligence, there would have beet no occasion for the present motion. They were at the beginuing May, and no financial statement had been made, and but few of dal Estimates had been passed ; and now the House was called upon to give up part of its open days, that Ministers might work up the lit glects ot the past. He called upon Members, without distinction ol party, to resist the proposition. Sir JAMES GRAHAM objected to the motion. He wished to bring imw rd one of which be had given notice respecting the proceedings the Roxburghsbire election. Colonel DAVIES said, that unless the motion were agreed to, the souse would have to sit till August or September. Lord Jour+ RUSSELL could only repeat the arguments he had before weed. He wished the Government measures to be sent up to the ii-gde in time for full consideration ; so that there might be no excuse for rejecting them, such as had been urged in former sessions. Owing ta the demise of the Crown, the present session began with a large ear of public business— 'Flo Within to this arrear, they hail to make a settlement of the Civil List, to consider the very important affols relating to the insurrection in Canada, and ele fe pass a bill for the better regulation of the Abolition of Slavery Act. b

efe;hiiiiness related solely to the necessities which had arisen during the pre-

„own; but the Irish Poor-law Bill, which had :treacly occupied five gjt tnd had been most impartially discussed, the questions of Tithes in ire. had, of the Irish Municipal Corporation Reform, of Pluralitiea and Residence .1 the elegy, of Benefices and Cathedrals, and also measures relating to the Administration of Justice, and several others of considerable importance which formed pant of the arrears of limner sessions, either had been or would be again intraluced. He thought, therefore, that the Government could not be charged !to, negligence in not having devoted their time on the Order-days, or with set being shown attention to measures of importance. lie trusted that he should be allowed to proceed with these measures, and that they would be sent to the House of birds in time to obtain their full consideration ; hut if this were not allowed, it could not be charged as a fault on the Government that the measures were not then proceeded with.

Mr. HOME said, that though Ministers bad given notices of many motions, they would probably tiring on nothing. If Lord John Run- sell would pledge himself to bring on certain measures on particular (kr, be would agree to his proposition. Mr. SHEIL xid, that as the Lords had refused to consider the Irish Cmpotation Bill until they had the Tithe and Poor Bills before them, it erase matter of urgency to forward the Irish Government mea-

sures.

Sir ROBERT PEEL could not submit to be curtailed of all but one Say in the week on which motions affecting the general policy of the Government could be, brought forward— lie thought that there w it a growing tendency in the lionse to tli.counte- Dance the bringing fot ward of motions ; and it was actually considered an iatnision to have bought a motion relative to the foreign policy of the Govern- re ma under the attention of the A day's discussion on a question of de greatest importanee to the lobo ests of the countty was considered an sprohinv and cow:Hering the facility which was already given to the Go- Rumen; for ptoceeiling with their measures, he must protest against arts' fur ese lestactioe on 31i misers to prevent them from freely discussing the policy of the Guvernment. If there were force iu the argument that it was necessary that las should he earlier sent op to the other House, there WAS still greater krep in it at the beginning of the session ; awl why were they but sooner in- treatwed1 If the Loamiralolo and ii ii iii Commissioner—(Latodhrer)—the mcmher fur tiit! county of Tipperti y. 1!■.,ght that it was important that the thrre is iii %Olio!) he lhad i ii, el add be considered at the same time, be ww,:.1 he,- of hi it to ;IA Ow nohle I u !, it WAS that the 1.1t11 of May was thtoadiest day which was tisool for th,. coosiderntion of the Tithe Bill, and why an ember day was not named ? lc had been postponed from the 00th April to de 14th May, and for whit emse was it ?

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that the 30th of April was the earliest on which it would be convenient for the Irish Members to attend, and tbat dy bad been fixed for the third reading of the Poor Bill : the papottement of the Tithe Bill was a necessary consequence. Find- mg that his motion did not meet with the general approval of the Hotne, he should not press it ; but it must happen that importnnt mea- sures would not pass that House till the middle of' July ; they would at once he n-jeered by the other House, and then it would be a tri- smphant boast that Ministers had not been able to effect any thing.

Motion withdrawn, amidst loud Opposition cheers.

PSISONS.

In a very thin House, on Thursday, Lord JOHN RUSSELT. moved for leave to bring in "a Bill for the better ordering of Prisons "- The general object of the proposition was to give to the Councils of cities and boroughs the right to inspect prisons and gaols, and make regulations for the chavitication and separation of the prisonets, which was now exercised by the Justices at Qoarterssessions. The necessity of some better classification of Owners than that at present in -existence, especially with the view of sepa- rating pevons accused of misdemeanours from those committed for felonies, was fie UM apparent, and too generally admitted, to require that he should dwell upon it. Another provision of the Idll was levelled against the et:icing

practice of employing prisoners as officers of the prison in which they were eoutined.

As ample opportunity would be afforded for discussing the details of the mesoure, he would not then enter into them. Mr. Hawes regretted that the Minister proposed to do so little. He had adopted only a few of the suggestions of the Select Committee on the separate confinement of prisoners. Mr. Hawes thought that Parliament should pass a goodg eneral Ptison bill, and leave to the Councils of cities and boroughs the duty of ca. rry-ing it into operation. Captain BOLDE110 bad recently visited several prisons, where soldiers were confined for military offences; and he found, that owing to a want eLf intfilurrn_oity the system, sentences were very unequally carried into

effee d prisouers were subjected to very severe

labour • t also Penitentiary, there was very little labour. Captain Bolder'o Hal thought that the punishment of the tread- mill must be in- jurious to the constitution, especially of women. He suggested that,

as in America, the labour of the prisoners should be made to defray the cost of the gaols.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that in America prisoners were subjected 10 my heavy labour, Ile should be glad to adopt the suggestion of the Committee respecting separate confinement; but he could not call vpoif the country to defray the cost of a separate prison to be erected In the Metropoi , neither could it be expected that the City of London Would take that expense upon itself.

Leave given to bring in the bill.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL then moved for leave to introduce a bill for establishing a separate l'rison for Young Offenders in the Isle of Wight.

Sir EARDLEY WILMOT WU very desirous that a system of summary punishment for young offenders should be framed. He dwelt on the contamination of prisons, and the difficulty of reforming offenders after imprisonment. In Warwickshire, young culprits were sent to an asylum, with the view of attempting their reformation ; and the plan had been generally successful.

Mr. Glows; recommended facilities for the voluntary emigration of discharged prisoners.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL feared that the inhabitants of the non-penal colonies would object to receiving that description of emigrants : they would say that Government converted their country into a penal colony. He conceived that extreme difficulty would be found in framing a law for the summary punishment of offenders.

Sir RoneaT PE1:L approved of the proposition to build a separate prison in a healthy part of the country for young offenders. He also saw much difficulty in the system of summary punishment. Young persons committed serious crimes. Some, who were called juvenile, were among the most formidable villains in society. It would open the door to many evils to lay down the broad principle that all young offenders should be deprived of trial by jury.

Mr. 11051E said, that if a portion of the money devoted to the punish- ment of criminals were applied to educating the people, crime would be sensibly diminished.

Mr. Hawes said, the bill was good, but did not go far enough.

Mr. YATES bore testimony to the general good conduct of juvenile emigrants who had been punished as criminals in this country, at the Cape of Good Hope and in Canada.

Leave given to bring in the bill.

ELECTION PETITIONS.

Sir RonEter PEEL moved for a Select Committee to "consider the law and practice relating to entering into recognizances and the pay- ment of costs in the mutter of election petitions.” He explained that his Committee would not interfere with other measures for improving the tribunal ; but would remove several doubts and difficulties which occasioned expense and uncertainty, and discussions, which had better be avoided, its the house of Commons.

Motion agreed to. Miscet.easeoes.

STANDING ORDERS. On the motion of Mr. SHAW LEEEVRE, a Committee war, appointed to assimilate as much as possible the Stand- ing Orders of the two Houses of Parliatneitt.

JOINT STOCK BANKS. The reappointment of the Committee on Joint Stock Banks was ogreed to, on the motion of Mr. SPRING thee. Mr. Bice said, that the attention of the Committee would be eve- chilly directed to Joint Stock Banks in Ireland, and to the relations exisiting between the Bank of Ireland and the public,—a subject which would be brought before the House during the present seseion.

METROPOLITAN SEWERS. Mr. WARD Obtained leave to bring in a bill for the better regulation of the Metropolitan Sewers.

Titu CLERGY RESIDENCE Btu was read a third time, and passed.

TI1E LONDON AND GRAND JUNC CION RAILWAY BILL was read a second time, by a majority of 93 to 84.

ELECTION COMMITTEES.

The Committee on the Stirlingshire Election petition was chosen.

Liberals-9 ; Tories-2; Mr. It. II. Weeteura, Colonel Willie, Mr. Rundle, Mr. Chapman.

Mr. Pinney, '.Jr. Ward, General Sharpe, Mr. Mark Phillips, Mr. George Wilbraham, Mr. Yates, Captain Chetwynd.

The petitioner is the Honourable George Abercromby, against the

return of Mr. William Forbes, the Tory sitting Member, who Was elected by a majority of one over Mr. Abcreromby. The Yarmouth Committee was also chosen.

Liberals-4; Tories-7; Mr. Brodie, Mr. A'Court Hokum',

Lord Marcus Hill, Ale J. Bailey, Mr. Byng, Mr. Grinuston.

Mr. Hurst. Mr. Rushout, Mr. Baker,

Colonel Thomas,

Mr. Ennis Vivian.

The petitioners are Tory electors against the Liberal sitting Mem- bers.