§ Sir Egerton Brydges, in rising, pursuant to his notice, to move for leave to bring in a bill to amend the Copy Right Act passed in the filth George 3rd, said, that he was aware that in this attempt he had a powerful and 1064 widely extended body to contend with. He should give as brief as possible a history of the origin and progress of the copy right acts. The stationers company who were incorporated by charter in 1556, bad from that date kept books, in which the publisher entered the copy of which he had embarked in the publication, for the mutual convenience of establishing among themselves evidence of title, either by purchase or pre-occupancy. In addition to this protection, booksellers and authors often sought the authority of the royal privilege; which last, for fear of infringing on the statute against monopolies was not accustomed to extend beyond 14 years. The first legislative protection was a parliamentary ordinance of 1643 by which all persons were strictly forbid, under certain penalties, to interfere with the copy rights of others, when an entry had been made of the title of the prior claimant in the stationer's book. For this protection, it is material to observe, no price or condition was required. No copies of books, so protected, were required to be delivered to any bodies; but the unquestioned property of an author in his works; or of a publisher who had been the first occupant in such copies as no author had a claim to, was recognized as the admitted law; and as such, better secured by this parliamentary measure.—In this state things remained till after the Restoration. In 1662 was passed the Licensing act, with a view to suppress seditious writings, and indeed to destroy the liberty of the press. That act contained numerous clauses, and prohibited any publication without a licence first obtained either from the ministers of state, or the vice-chancellors of the universities of Oxford and Cambridge. Another clause orders three copies of every publication to be delivered, one to the king's library, and two to Oxford and Cambridge, apparently to furnish a certain access to those books by those by whom the licences had been granted; so that any deviation from the licence might come within their immediate cognizance. This act, by way, I presume, of rendering it somewhat less unpalatable to authors, contained a clause to protect copy right, borrowed from the parliamentary ordinance of 1643. It was renewed three or four times, but was suffered to expire about 1692. From that time publishers had no legal penalties to protect them from piracies; which thence 1065 became so frequent as to endanger their best property. They accordingly petitioned for and obtained the celebrated copy right act of queen Anne in 1710. The terms of that act, as understood by the parties, and as always construed till the decision of the King's-bench in 1812, were, that they who chose to obtain the protection given to copy-right by its provisions, must enter the title of their work in the stationers books; and at the time of such, and before publication, deliver to Stationers'-hall nine copies to be distributed to the King's library, Oxford and Cambridge, Sion college, the four Scotch universities, and the Advocates university at Edinburgh. As the bill had been originally brought into the House of Commons, three copies only to the same bodies as were entitled to them under the licensing act of Charles 2nd were required to be delivered. The protecting clause had been copied nearly from that act; and this last clause was apparently derived from the same model. But see the danger of whetting the appetites of these public establishments! In the passage of the bill through the Commons, two more copies were added to the Edinburgh university and Sion college. The Scotch peers were not unwilling to improve upon this spoil. In the Lords, four more copies were added for Scotland, making the total nine copies. Since the Union with Ireland, two more have been added for that kingdom! It was soon found, that notwithstanding this price to be paid, the security afforded by the act was very imperfect. In 1735 a bill to render it more effectual was carried through the Commons, but lost in the Lords. Publishers then gradually withdrew from the custom of making entries of their books at Stationers'-hall. The universities, disappointed of their prey, grumbled and grew savage, and made several ingenious efforts to secure their spoils. At length, in 1811, Mr. Professor Christian persuaded the university of Cambridge that the true construction of the act required a delivery of the eleven copies, whether the entry was made or not, and the court of King's-bench confirmed this construction. The booksellers now appealed to the legislature to amend an act so imperfectly drawn; and which would henceforth operate as such an alarming burthen on them. In the progress of the bill brought in on this occasion in 1814, the universities exerted all their powerful and widely ramified in- 1066 terest to rivet, not to loosen, the chains: to add to their new got spoils, farther acquisitions never pretended even by them to be within the contemplation of the act —and to give nothing but that which was to come from others, and not from them. They were too successful. The amended act is an highly aggravated grievance—and sir Egerton said, he felt it his duty, notwithstanding his strong sense of the power of the bodies with whom he had to contend, to attempt to alleviate this great injustice. It had been contended, that the payment of these eleven copies was no burthen. Why* in 22 months, they amounted to 2,100 articles, and the prices of those only where prices could be ascertained, came to upwards of 8662l. Nearly one* third of this sum came from books of prices above 20s. consisting of only 163 articles, of which books the average impression could not reach 250 copies. Taking this at 4¾ per cent., will it be argued that this burthen is light? Will it be doubted that it is a tax equal to half the profits, taking the whole profits at 9½ per cent.—It had been said, that it was-no more than the paper; but will the pressman work for nothing? Is there no wear of type—no waste of ink, & c.? Then if the cost is admitted, it is pleaded, that these eleven copies would scarcely be sold: and why not as well remain in public libraries, as in booksellers warehouses? But it is in this accumulation of his warehouse, that a bookseller's capital is saved. At due intervals, he turns out these heaps at a trade price, at least far above the price of waste paper! Yet even the waste paper value of these eleven copies in a course of years would amount to most serious sums. But this is far from being the greatest part of the grievance. The placing eleven copies in these libraries takes out of the market a proportionate number of purchasers for the stock that remains. It would not be too much to assert, that every one of the eleven copies so deposited takes out at least nine purchasers, so that at least 100 purchasers are thus withdrawn for every expensive work. In this way sir Egerton contended, that the act of 1S14 operated as an extinguisher upon the publication of some of the most valuable. He instanced in a proposed work of Nondescript Plants of South America, by baron Humboldt, which had been thus crushed. He also complained that the late act subjected publishers to a claim for copies of reprints of old books of a date prior to the 1067 act of queen Anne, which he complained to have been so worded, as if almost to catch them by stealth; and never to have been within the contemplation or even suspicion of the original framers of the act. He then asked, upon what principle those demands of the public bodies for the payment to them of so grievous impost stood? Had authors and publishers, or had they not, a title to this property? If they had, the state were bound to protect that right, as far as any provisions could be devised to protect it. They were bound to do it without conditions—without a tax, except such as all other property was liable to. What! to put an income tax on them—and for the benefit of the partial interests of a few public libraries, when an income tax, even for the most urgent public interests, was taken off from the rest of the nation. Sir Egerton mentioned many other details, and used many other arguments. For these he apologised to the House, as not likely to be other than fatiguing. "Tedious as they may appear," said he, "they are not a twentieth part of what I could have said; on the subject. But I forbear. If the House grows impatient of these minutiæ, I am not insensible of the heaviness of my task. But the cause of literature is sacred, I know its value: I am sure that truth and justice are on my side; and I will not abandon it." He then moved, "That leave be given to bring in a bill to alter and amend an act passed in the 54th of his present majesty, so far as regards books published before the act of queen Anne, respecting the claims to eleven, copies of the said books, and also to very limited editions of books."
Mr. Bankessaid, he should take the Sense of the House on the question, as he dissented from it in every possible point of view.
§ Sir S. Romillysaid, it was no doubt desirous that public institutions should be furnished with books, but it ought to be done at the public expense, and not at that of the poor author. The tax thus imposed on authors was founded on a barbarous principle, and deserved the reprobation of the House.
§ Lord Palmerstonsaid, the real question before the House was, whether they would consent to a repeal of the law passed in 1814. He could never allow it to be said, that an act like the present, which went to promote the interests of learning, was founded on a barbarous principle.
Sir F. Burdetthad heard nothing to justify any opposition to the present motion, which, as he conceived, was founded on the strictest justice. The question at issue was simply this: whether a man shall derive the fruits of his labour, and enjoy them to the advantage of himself and family or be compelled to give them away to others? When the House considered the character, situation, and rank of those public bodies who claimed these publications, and how able they were to pay for them, he was persuaded they ought to hesitate before they rejected the motion.
Mr. J. Smithopposed the motion, because he saw no grounds whatever which could be brought forward in its support.
Mr. Ponsonbyhad, for the first time, heard that literature was promoted by authors being compelled to give their publications to the universities. For these learned bodies he felt a sincere respect, but he could not help saying they were always disposed to take a great deal, while they gave but little. If the universities required these books, they should either pay for them or the public should. He did not see why these public bodies should not purchase their books as well as individuals. It was truly absurd to say that literature was promoted by their receiving these copies from poor authors.
§ Mr. Crokerthought the right hon. gentleman had not read the act of queen Anne, which expressly states that the provisions of that act were for the encouragement of literature. Besides, he had not recollected the advantages which authors obtained by this act in the extension of their copyrights. It was not fair, as he presumed, to call this a tax on authors.
§ Mr. Broughamconsidered, that his right hon. friend had as much knowledge of the act of queen Anne, as the hon. gentleman, but certainly the provisions of the last bill rendered it necessary to be amended, as it imposed a greater burthen on authors, than they ought to bear. It certainly was not any encouragement to learning, to impose on poor men the task of supplying the universities with books, and thereby unnecessarily sparing the funds of those rich and well endowed bodies.
§ Mr. Finlayopposed the motion, observing, that the contribution of eleven copies was not so heavy a tax as by some it was supposed to be, as, in most cases, it was little more than the expense of paper and printing.
Mr. Wynnconceived that it was absolutely necessary to revise the act, in consequence of the manner in which its provisions had been executed. It was rather an extraordinary circumstance, that, with the exception of two of the universities, who refused novels and music, the learned bodies, to whom the law gave these copies, took them of every description of work that was published. It was not just, that by this means a power should be given to send expensive publications into the market in competition with the publisher. It would be much better to adjudge to the universities a pecuniary compensation which might be used for the advancement of learning.
§ The House then divided: For the motion, 57; Against it, 58: Majority 1.