COPYRIGHT AMENDMENT BILL. (Hansard, 30 April 1852)

§ LORD BEAUMONT
said, he could not help thinking that several clauses of this Bill relating to translations would be very injurious to literature and to the progress of science. The clause relating to dramatic pieces would, he conceived, have the effect of giving to foreign authors a monopoly in the representation of their plays in this country. It appeared, too, that newspapers were to be prevented from copying anything from the foreign newspapers, unless the name of the paper from which the extract was taken should be mentioned. Such a rule would interfere with the ordinary custom, and would be quite unnecessary. He fully acknowledged the advantages of an international copyright, but he could not help thinking that they were pushed too far in the present Bill.

The MARQUESS of NORMANBY
explained the reasons why a Bill of this nature was required. It was necessary in France that French authors should be protected from unauthorised translations, and our object was to prevent the piracy practised on British authors in France. M. Galignani, who was no bad judge on such a subject, thought that this Bill was an excellent Bill. The French Government had desired a much longer time for the protection of French authors from unauthorised translators, and, under the instructions of Lord Palmerston, he had obtained a considerable diminution of the period which the French Government originally proposed. The convention which protected copyright in the two countries reciprocally had met with general assent when it was first published in this country, and this Bill carried out that convention. He was convinced that it would prove a very beneficial measure.

§ LORD CRANWORTH
said, that we should gain something, and should also lose something by this measure; but he was not prepared to say whether the advantages would preponderate over the disadvantages. However, he should not offer the Bill any opposition.