H́nh ảnh trang
PDF
ePub

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.

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. It 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-he 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 entail 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 130. 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 measure 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.

CHAPTER VIII.

Union of the Canadas-Lord John Russell's Motion-House of Assembly-Clergy Reserves Bill--Mr. Hume-Sir Robert PeelMr. Gladstone-Mr. Charles Buller-Canada Bill passed without much opposition in the House of Commons-Amendments of Sir R. Peel and Mr. Ellice are adopted by the Government-House of Lords-Duke of Wellington-Lord Ellenborough-Lord Brougham -Lord Hardwicke's Amendment-Sale of Canada Clergy ReservesEcclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill supported by the Government and Sir R. Peel-Opposed in the House of Lords by several of the Bishops-Speeches of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Duke of Wellington, and Bishop of London-Regency Bill passed without opposition-End of the Session and Prorogation of Parliament.

ER majesty's speech at the sion recommended the attention of the parliament to two other subjects of considerable importance; the subject of an union between the Canadas and the report of the ecclesiastical commissioners with reference to the established church. The proposition of re-uniting the provinces of Upper and Lower Canadas our readers will recollect, had been strongly urged upon the government by lord Durham in the report which he made after his return from those provinces, the chief object being to provide for the constitutional government of Canada, so as to insure its permanent tranquility, and by removing all obstacles to the full developement of its resources, to lay the foundation for its future prospeVOL. LXXXII.

rity, and render it a source of

pain and anxiety to the mother country. In moving for leave to bring in a bill for this purpose, on the 23rd of March, lord John Russell said, that he had allowed no time to elapse since the arrival of the propositions from the governorgeneral of Canada, who had taken the greatest pains to ascertain the sentiments of the people in that colony upon the measure he was about to introduce. And in the opinion of lord John Russell, an union would not have been expedient, had it been repugnant to the feelings of the Canadians. themselves. But, said his lordship, the council of Lower Canada had been called together, and had passed resolutions agreeing to the principle of an union, but leaving [L]

the details to the imperial parliament. In Upper Canada, the measure had been much discussed, both in the assembly and the legislative council; and after a full consideration of the whole question, a resolution in favour of the union was passed unfettered by any restrictions or conditions. Lord John Russell next adverted to the evils which he thought the contemplated union would be peculiarly calculated to remedy. It had been, he said, stated by Mr. Huskisson in 1828, that great evils arose from the nature of the feudal law in Lower Canada, from the extreme complexity and intricacy of the tenures of land, and from the state of the representation which gave such a preponderance to the French race, that the British were aggrieved and oppressed by the superiority.

The earl of Durham had clearly shown how very little the conduct of the assembly of Lower Canada ought to be confounded with the views of the advocates of constitutional freedom. That assembly, whilst they advanced the most specious arguments in favour of freedom, were, in fact, endeavour ing to establish a gross monopoly in the hands of their own race, to the exclusion of the general body of the British inhabitants. these evils there seemed no better remedy than to admit the inhabitants of both countries to send members to the legislature.

For

The noble lord thought there were urgent reasons why the declaration of an union should not be long delayed; and he was of opinion, that the proclamation should be made within six months after the passing of the bill.

With regard to the legislative council and assembly, it was pro

posed, that together with the governor, they should form the legislature, and that the crown, or the governor acting on the part of the crown, should appoint the legislative councillors. The report of the governor-general stated, that after consulting persons of all parties, they all agreed, that if there were not an elective council, the best plan would be to leave the nomination as had been directed by the constitution of 1791. It was further proposed, that the nomination of the council should be for life, the only disqualifications being bankruptcy or crime, that a power of resignation should be given; and that the number of councillors should not be less than twenty. The next question related to the future constitution of the house of assembly. A propo sition had been made by the governor-general, which seemed to meet the assent of both provinces, that the number of representatives sent by Upper and by Lower Canada should be equal, with the power of adding members as the population increased. Thirty-nine members were to be allowed to each province, and distributed without any great alteration of the existing boundaries. It was intended, that in Upper Canada, the towns of Kingston, Hamilton, Brockville, London, Niagara and Cornwall, and in Lower Canada, those of Montreal, Quebec, and the Three Rivers, should each send one member. The rest of the members for each province were to be returned by districts which were to be called counties. In no case had counties been placed together which were separate before the act of 1829; but in nine instances counties had been combined which were divided by the act of

« TrướcTiếp tục »