cold, and said, no person had a juster right | to be against the Bill than himself, for it had hurt him much in his professional capacity; for, since the Act had been put in execution, not one trial had come into Westminster-hall; and he was confident, was the Act made perpetual, there never would be one; yet he would always sacrifice private emolument to public good: he expatiated much on the merits of the Act, and would venture to say, at a general election, it would be found (even with all its defects as had been stated) a glorious Act.

Sir Gilbert Elliot made a long speech respecting the privileges of parliament in the reign of Elizabeth, but mentioned not a word of the merits or demerits of the Bill, only said, he should oppose it now.

Mr. Edmund Burke was at once satirical, masterly, and eloquent. He attacked the minister in the most pointed terms; called upon his boasted honesty to support the perpetuity of the Bill; he said, though the noble lord was daily deserted by numbers, he would still be deserted by more, for there were men in that House, not like the minister, tired of being honest. In addressing the House, he said, we have the noble lord now, let him not slip through our fingers; trust not to his specious promises a single hour; his smooth-tongued plausibility is calculated only to deceive; us at once finish the business by making the Bill perpetual; and if it stands in need of amendments, they can be considered afterwards, but let us have no shuffling off-no delay-no previous question.

let

The Solicitor General, in a long and masterly speech, expatiated on the foundation of the Bill. He was very severe on Mr. Charles Fox, who, he said, had dreadful apprehensions of losing his privileges; but did he think, if an old woman were to petition the House, her petition would be referred to a committee; and if it was, could he have any apprehensions from the decisions of the committee? No. But if the young gentleman was not of such an obstinate disposition, he would endeavour to convince him of his error. He spoke much in favour of the decision of elections that had been tried by this Act, and concluded with giving his consent to its being perpetual.

The Attorney General spoke against the Bill being made perpetual; he attempted to ridicule the methods prescribed by it; he said, what was the word nominee,' but manager; and contended that a person

stood no better chance of having a fair decision from the present method than he had from the former.

Lord George Cavendish answered the whole of his objections in a spirited manner, and reminded him that both the judges and evidences were on oath by the present method, which they were not in the former.

Mr. Stanley made nearly the same ob jections to the Bill as lord North.

Sir George Savile, in an animated speech, went through the whole of the objections to the Bill, which, he said, amounted to nothing; he afterwards expatiated much on its merits, and was for its being made perpetual.

Sir W. Meredith spoke much in favour of the Bill, but was averse to any reflec tions being thrown on the noble lord.

Mr. Dowdeswell spoke in favour of the Bili, and mentioned the decision of the Worcester election.

Mr. Rigby was greatly against the Bill. and contended that treats ought to be given at elections; he said, the Act would suit the elected, but not the electors: he was much against the decisions that had been given by the different committees that had sat; he said they had disfran chised Shoreham and not Worcester, which was much more corrupt than the former: and mentioned another instance which happened at New Windsor; he said none of those practices were so infamous as those practised by people who had bur gane tenures.

Serjeant Glynn answered him very smartly, and was much in favour of the Bill being made perpetual.

Governor Johnstone said:-Mr. Speaker, I should not rise at this late hour of the night, if I did not think I had something new to say on the subject, notwithstanding it has been so much exhausted. I there fore beg the House will indulge me, by hearing a few words as the reasons for my vote. I conceive the Bill, as it now stands, to be a most beneficial Bill; so far from altering the constitution, I think it is only recurring to the first principles of our government, trial by jury. Nevertheless, I should deem it arrogance to pronounce decisively upon any regulation of govern ment, however flattering, on general principles, without a sufficient experience, various are the springs of human action. If this question, therefore, could be discussed and determined with equal fairness, at the expiration of the term limited by the Bill,

SO

I should certainly wish to give it the trial originally proposed; but, since that is impossible, as I apprehend, I shall now vote for making the Bill perpetual.

My reasons for believing it hardly possible the Bill shall receive a fair decision on its merits and experience three years hence, are these: it is clear this Bill diminishes the power of the minister in all controverted elections; at a general election, it may be calculated at not less than thirty members. Unless, therefore, we can suppose he shall prefer the public good to his own interest (which I will never suppose of any minister), he will endeavour to get rid of the Bill by every insidious art. We must all be sensible of his power and opportunities, and therefore we should embrace this happy moment of rendering the task more difficult, especially as it always remains in the breast of the House to make such alterations as may be necessary, and even to annihilate the Bill, if it should (contrary to the experience we have already had, and to all human foresight) prove pernicious.

I here lay down my axiom-" This Bill is contrary to the interest of the crown

| (Mr. Rigby); this puts me in mind of another argument; he has boldly declared his objections to the principles of the Bill. It is probable he may become minister of this country. I am sure he has my good wishes; but that I may wish it with all my heart, I desire this Bill may be perpetual, that I may have no reserve in the good-will I bear him. For these, and many other arguments which have been already used, I heartily concur in the mo

tion.

not have proposed it; nay, I believe that he would not have permitted it to pass. A happy coincidence of circumstances forced it on the House. A strange coalition of parties now favours its final confirmation, before men dare forget their former declarations, and before the golden bridge is completely formed to pass them through the ivory gate.

Another reason strikes me stronger. If the Bill is permitted to run to the last stage, notwithstanding this House may then pass it unanimously, the House of Lords may reject it. Every man must feel the difference between reviving a Bill when expired, or keeping it alive when yet existing. In the same manner we must see the difficulties between destroying a Bill, and permitting it to fall in the prescribed course. It is like murder and a natural death. I think, therefore, we should look to the preservation of this Bill in due time, that in case the Lords should prove refractory, or ministerial arts should be practised upon them, we may have time to enforce our wishes respecting this Bill by the means the constitution has put in our hands.

I see a right hon. gentleman laugh [VOL. XVII.]

petuating the Grenville Act.

Allanson, Charles
Allen, Benj.
Ambler, Charles
Acourt, It. gen.
Astley, sir Edw.
Aubrey, J.
Bacon, Edw.
Baker, Wm.

Barré, Is.

Barnes, Miles Bailey, Nat. Bennet, R. H. A. Benyon, Rich. Bertie, lord B. Blacket, sir W. Bond, J. Bootle, R. W. Brett, Charles Boscawen, E. H. Brickdale, M. Bridgeman, sir H. Bridges, sir B. Buller, J. jun. Burgoyne, maj. gen. Burke, E. Burke, W. Bull, Fred. Calvert, N. Carnac, J. Cater, J. Cavendish, lord G. Cavendish, lord F. Cavendish, lord J. [32]

Cavendish, H.
Cholmondeley, Nat.
Clarke, G. B.
Clavering, sir T.
Clayton, sir Rob.
Clayton, Wm.
Clive, George
Codrington, sir W.
Coke, W.

Cornewall, C. W.
Coventry, Tho.
Cocks, sir C.
Cotton, sir J. H.
Cox, Rd. H.
Crosby, Brass

Creswell, T. E. jun.
Curwen, Hen.
Cust, sir B.

Damer, hon. J.

Damer, hon. G.

Rumbold, Thomas Rigby, R. Robinson, John

St. Johu, h. It. col. St. John, hon. J.

Whitworth, sir C. Wynn, sir T. Wynn, Glynne, TELLERS. Onslow, rt. hon. G. Fox, hon. C. J.

Proceedings in the Commons on the Booksellers' Copy-Right Bill.] Feb. 28. Mr. Alderman Harley presented a Petitition from the booksellers of London and Westminster, on behalf of themselves and others, holders of Copy-Right, setting forth,

"That, by an Act passed in the 8th of queen Anne, for the encouragement of learning, by vesting the copies of printed books in the authors and purchasers of such copies, during the times therein mentioned, the authors or proprietors of such books as had been then printed, were to have the sole liberty of re-printing and Gpublishing the same, for the term thereinmentioned; and that the petitioners have constantly apprehended, that the said Act did not interfere with any copy-right that might be invested in the petitioners by the common law; and have therefore, for many years past, continued to purchase and sell such copy-rights, in the same manner as if such Act had never been made; and that the petitioners were confirmed in such their apprehensions, in regard that no determination was had, during the period limited by the said Act, in prejudice of such common law right; and the same was recognized by a judgment in the court of King's-bench, in Easter term, 1769; and that, in consequence thereof, many thousand pounds have been, at different times, invested in the purchase of ancient copy-rights, not protected by the statute of queen Anne, so that the

Mr. Harley moved, that it be referred to a committee.

Mr. Sawbridge seconded the motion, saying, that by a decision in the year 1769, in favour of copy-right, many of the booksellers had laid out their whole fortunes in that article, which right had now been taken from them by a late determination; and if some redress was not given them, many families would be totally ruined.

A committee was appointed accordingly.

March 24. Mr. Feilde reported from the Committee, to whom the Petition of the booksellers of London and Westminster, on behalf of themselves and others, holders of copy-right; and also the Petition of John Christian Bach and Charles Frederick Abel, on behalf of themselves and several other composers and proprietors of books, works, and compositions in music, were severally referred; that the Committee had examined the matter of fact contained in the first-mentioned Petition; and had also examined the matter of the second-mentioned Petition; and that the Committee had directed him to. report a state of the facts contained in the first-mentioned Petition, and also the matter of the second-mentioned Petition, as it appeared to them, to the House; and he read the Report in his place.

A State of the Matter of Fact contained in the first-mentioned Petition, is as follows; viz.

It appeared, that by an Act of parliament, passed in the 8th of queen Anne, intituled, An Act for the encouragement of learning, by vesting the copies of printed books in the authors and purchasers of such copies, during the times therein mentioned,' it was, amongst other things, enacted, That, from and after the 10th day of April, 1710, the authors or

proprietors of such books as had been already printed, should have the sole liberty of re-printing and publishing the same for 21 years, and no longer: then your Committee proceeded to examine

Mr. William Johnston, who had formerly been a bookseller, but had left off business; who said, he entered into business in 1748, and left it off in June last; during which time, he attended all the capital sales of copy-rights: that, on his first entering into trade, he purchased the whole stock of books and copy-right of Mr. John Clarke, for which he paid near 3,000l.; above one half of which sum was for copy-right: that the sales are open to the whole trade; but he never knew any but booksellers apply to be admitted; that, from that time, he continued to purchase copy-right to the amount of near 10,000l. more; and believed three-fourths of the books in trade had his name, as part proprietor, especially the old copies; the rights to which are expired, according to the Act of queen Anne: that many of them had been printed above 28 years; and that he never imagined the Act of queen Anne interfered with the common law right; and it was most undoubtedly the general idea of the trade, before the late judgment in the House of Peers, that the booksellers had a perpetual right in the copies they had purchased of authors, and their assigns, by the common law; and, if any doubts had been entertained before the late determination of the court of King's-bench, that judgment would certainly have removed them.

Being asked, Whether he did not claim a copy right in some of the editions of the classics, in usum Delphini? he said, No such right was ever claimed, so as to exclude any other person who chose to print them that he had purchased the right of printing in part some of those classics; but never supposed that right protected by any law, nor considered it in any other manner than as the purchase of an honorary right; which he explained to be a maxim held by the trade, not to re-print upon the first proprietor: that, in the sum of 12,000l. mentioned to be paid by him for copy-rights, some shares in the classics in usum Delphini are included; but to the best of his recollection such shares do not amount in the whole to 100%.

Being examined as to the book called The Tatler, he produced sir Richard Steele's assignment of the copy-right; and said, He had heard that the Tatlers

were originally published in numbers as news-papers.

Being examined as to his title to a share in Cambden's Britannia ; he said, He never heard of, or saw, any assignment from Cambden; that it was bishop Gibson's edition of Cambden, of which he purchased the share; that he knows not what bookseller first printed Gibson's Cambden; and has bought many shares in books without looking into the title.

That the purchase deed does not spe cify any assignment from Cambden, nor was it requisite; that Cambden's original work was in Latin, and translated by Dr. Gibson, afterwards bishop of London; that he believes there were two or three editions printed of that translation, and one particularly within these four years, from a corrected copy of the late bishop, which edition cost the booksellers 800%. and the edition before that, was 18 years in selling off; that the consideration given to Mr. Scott, for the copy with the said corrections, was only a few copies of the book, for presents to his friends; that he never heard there was any assignment from Cambden, but has always understood that the translator of any work, is protected in the right to his translation by the common law.

That had he imagined a common law right not to exist, he should not have laid out so large a sum on a precarious title; nor did he recollect ever to have heard the common law right talked of, till agitated in the court of King's-bench; that they always took assignments from those of whom they purchased, which they sup posed to be assignments of the common law right; and he produced an assignment of the Guardians, from sir Richard Steele.

That he never heard of either common law or statute right being inserted in an assignment, but supposes and always un derstood, that when a man sells all bis right and title for ever, it means a common law right, independent of any sta tute; and that is the idea on which the trade have always acted in purchasing shares of copy-rights; and that he never saw a term of years mentioned in an assignment: that he purchased his share in the Guardians, at Tonson's sale, the 18th of August, 1767 and sir Richard Steele's assignment in 1713, and that he had never met with any interruption in that right, since he purchased it.

That he never saw or heard of any assignment, where the second term of 14 years,