said, that the House would, perhaps, permit him to call the attention of the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, to certain misrepresentations which had been made relative to the recent unfortunate and melancholy proceedings near Canterbury. He felt it his duty to move for the production of certain papers, having reference to the late fatal proceedings in a part of a county which had done him the honour of electing him for its Representative in that House. It was impossible for him to refer to those proceedings, without expressing feelings of the deepest sorrow at the lamentable loss of life which had been caused. When the reports of those proceedings first reached the House, his hon. Colleague had felt it his duty to ask the noble Lord opposite for some explanation, and the reply of the noble Lord, which was frank and fair, had, he thought, been greatly misrepresented, and had been much misunderstood. The hon. Baronet quoted a passage from The Morning Chronicle newspaper, reflecting on the Kent magistrates for allowing Thom to be taken away by a stranger. Now, the House, the right hon. Baronet said, would see that the passage he had quoted conveyed a strong charge against the visiting magistrates, as well as the superintendent of the lunatic asylum, and he was sure the noble Lord would feel it his duty to set the matter right. The only way this could be done was by the production of the documents relating to the liberation of John Nicholls Thom. If the noble Lord had no objection, therefore, he would move for a copy of the order for the commitment of John N. Thom, and for copies of any correspondence with the Home-office in reference to the discharge of that individual, and of the order from the Home-office authorizing his discharge from the lunatic asylum. Painful as the duty was to all parties concerned in the lamentable proceedings to which he had alluded, both magistrates and officers had done their duty in a way the most creditable to themselves, and he did not think that there was any feeling to the contrary in the district where the riots had taken place.

I can only express, as the right hon. Baronet opposite has done, my very deep regret for the occurrence which has taken place. The right hon. Baronet is, I think, quite jus- titled in asking for an explanation, in consequence of the statements which have been made, grounded on inferences which have been drawn from what I said in reference to this person, John Nicholls Thom. I am ready to say, that I did not state anything in this House which was intended to convey, or which would convey, any charge against the visiting magistrates, or against the directors of the lunatic asylum, because the fact is, that in consequence of the statements which I received, I thought it right to recommend, that a pardon should be granted in the case of the prisoner; and, that being the case, it was not in the power of the visiting magistrates, or of the directors of the lunatic asylum, to require that any terms besides those attached to the petition addressed to me, should be complied with. The first representation which was made to me on the subject was made by the father of Thom, who came to me with his wife, for they described themselves as the father and mother of the prisoner, and who were recommended to me by two hon. Members of this House, one of whom spoke on this subject the other night in the course of the debate—the Master-General of the Ordnance—and who vouched for their respectability. The father made various statements to me with respect to the actual state of his son, and said, that he was perfectly well assured, that if he were permitted to take care of him, instead of his being kept any longer in confinement, he should be able to prevent any further mischief being done by him. I stated to him, that it was not because his son might be perfectly harmless then, and that there were then no symptoms of violence in his demeanour and conduct, that there might not be a paroxysm which might render him dangerous to others, and, therefore, I could not agree to the proposal unless he would engage that there was a proper person who should be near him, so as to be able to prevent any violence being committed by him. He gave me that assurance, and afterwards he made a statement in writing, to the effect which I have stated. I think it right to lay these circumstances before the House, because they occurred in a private conversation which I had with the individual to whom I have referred, and because, therefore, they would not be embodied in the papers for which the right hon. Baronet has moved. Now, I will beg leave to refer to a statement alleged to have been made by a noble Lord connected with the county of Kent, that certain magistrates of the county had made representations to me against the liberation of John Nicholls Thom. Now, if such had been made, I must declare my ignorance of the fact, that any representations were addressed to me, or that even any opinion of the kind suggested was entertained; and, on the contrary, I should rather infer, from their not making any statements to me while this matter was under consideration, that there was not any immediate apprehension with respect to the condition of the prisoner. However, there can be no fault attached to the visiting magistrates, or to the directors of the lunatic asylum, for they had no discretion in the matter, because it rested on me, and not on them. From all the statements which I have heard, I doubt not, however, that they acted as soon as possible for men in their situation. I received this morning some letters from Dr. Poore, containing a relation of all the occurrences that took place, and it appears, that he only heard of it on Tuesday, the 29th of May, and his conduct has been regulated by a wish to prevent any mischief, and has been characterised by the greatest promptness and decision. I will only move now that these letters may be laid on the table of the House, in addition to the papers to which the motion of the right hon. Baronet has reference.

could not but express extreme surprise at the ignorance which existed in a portion of this United Kingdom. Had he been told, that such a state of things existed in Kilkenny, or any other part of Ireland, he should have supposed that such an allegation might be likely to be true; but he had reason to believe, that ignorance did not exist in that country to the extent described in the accounts which had been received from Canterbury, within fifty miles of this great metropolis, and where the people were surrounded by country gentlemen of importance and of great wealth, and where there was a large body of clergy. He would ask the noble Lord, therefore, whether this occurrence did not prove, that although there was a church called the people's church, it was a church paid little attention to by the people. ["Question!"] This was the question.

, interrupting the hon, Member, said, he was sure that the hon. Member would see the effect of such expressions. He was aware of the strong feeling which must necessarily exist at the present moment in the county of Kent, and he must be aware, therefore, of the danger of using such arguments. There was a question still in suspense in reference to the liberty of some of the men connected with this unfortunate transaction, and he put it to the hon. Member, therefore, whether it would not be better to postpone, at least, any observations which he might desire to make.

did not wish to mention the name of any individual. It was to the general system which existed to which he desired to refer, and it was only when an occurrence of this kind took place that it was possible to attract the attention of this House to the most important subject. He, therefore, alluded to the subject, because be thought that it was only on such an occasion as this, lamentable as it was, that sufficient attention could be aroused to the absolute necessity of a comprehensive system of education for the people; for he attributed the whole of what had taken place to the state of brutal ignorance in which they were left. He must say, that he regretted to see a clergyman of the Church of England taking the field; and he thought it would be better for the tranquillity of the country if the names of clergymen were entirely left out of the commission of the peace. He asked the noble Lord, therefore, whether he did not think the facts elicited here, did not press upon him, and upon the House, the necessity of adopting some measure for the purpose of securing the education of the people. There was great readiness exhibited by hon. Gentlemen opposite to put down all observations upon the conduct of clergymen. Clergymen were public servants, and were paid by the public, and their conduct was fairly open to observation.

felt it to be excessively improper to drag in on a discussion of this sort, an irrelevant allusion to the clergymen of the Church of England, who, he must say, as a body, had the highest claims on the respect of every man in that House and of the country. The hon. Member said, that these melancholy occurrences were to be attributed to their neglect, and to the want of education of the people by them, and he should be sorry to advance any argument in favour of the course taken by the infatuated rioters; but he must say, that the same infatuation existed in the cases of Richard Brothers and Johanna Southcote, and that that infatuation did not exist among the lower orders of persons, but among those of the highest attainments and of excellent education. The best education was no safeguard against the delusive influence of fanaticism.

Motion agreed to.

moved the second reading of the County-rates Bill. According to the present system, those who regulated the rates were appointed by those unconnected with the property which was rated, while those who paid, had no check on the administration of the funds. It was time to put an end to this system. It was his opinion, that the county boards ought to be appointed by the rate-payers. Great abuses had taken place in the administration of county-funds, and those abuses the House ought to correct. An irresponsible body taxed 11,000,000 of people to the amount of 700,0001, or 800,0001, a-year. The principle established by the bill was, that representation should be connected with taxation. The hon. Member concluded by moving the second reading of the bill.

moved the second reading of the bill that day six months.

felt bound to oppose the second reading of this bill, which would take away from the county magistracy all control over the county-rates. The magistrates, through themselves or their tenants, paid a very large portion of the county-rates, and where, he should like to know, could they find a body of men who, on the score of interest, would pay a greater attention to the expenditure of the county-rates than the magistrates, by whom the principal portion was contributed? He must also add that he had heard no general complaint on the part of the rate-payers against the present system; and from the county with which he was more particularly connected (Berkshire) there had been no complaint whatever.

did not consider that there was any evil whatsoever in the present system to justify the alteration proposed. Only one petition had been presented this year in favour of this bill, and as it had been now two years before Parliament, if the evils described by the hon. Member for Kilkenny really existed, there would have been a great, if not a general feeling throughout the country on the subject.

, supported the bill, because he was anxious to see representation go hand in hand with taxation. The magistrates were eligible under the present bill, and if they discharged their duty to the satisfaction of the rate-payers there was no doubt but they would be again elected, and would preserve the influence which they now possessed? There was a general feeling throughout the country that whenever there was an appointment to be made or an office to be disposed of, the county magistrates attended in great numbers, but they left the management of the county-rates in the hands of a select few.

concurred in the concluding observation of the hon. Member for Salford, and could state on the authority of the chairman of the Quarter Sessions of Warwick, after an experience of seventeen years, that this was the invariable practice pursued of the other magistrates. In his opinion, the present measure would be extremely useful, inasmuch as it imposed a responsibility on those who were to have the control of the county-rates. At present the magistrates were wholly irresponsible. There was even no means of testing the fitness of the magistracy to discharge their duties. The only qualification required for the appointment was 1001, a-year in land and the friendship of the Lord-Lieutenant. It was not necessary that a magistrate should have ever looked into a law-book, or have heard a case tried; no proof of his fitness to the office was required, and yet this was a class of men to whom was intrusted the whole control and direction of the county-rates.

concurred with the hon. Member for Kilkenny, that it would be extremely desirable that there should be some sort of check imposed, more effectual than the present one, upon the expenditure of the county-rates, because he thought it would afford greater satisfaction to the people. But though he felt this, he felt, at the same time, bound to oppose this bill, because, looking at the bill as a practical man, he saw that the machinery of it created eleven thousand parochial officers and eleven hundred other officers. He must also say, that the additional responsibility which this bill imposed, would not be compensated by the increased expense. Another reason for not supporting this bill was this, that the magistrates at present had not the power ad libitum of assessing the ratepayers. The Legislature had provided, that for certain purposes a rate should be made, and to those purposes the magistrates must apply the rate, so that there was a very strict limit upon abuses. On these grounds he felt bound to oppose the bill.

said, that magistrates were already responsible to public opinion, and under public control. Their object was, to keep down the county-rates, and they were more generally complained of for parsimony than lavish expenditure. He supported the amendment.

said, that magistrates were virtually responsible, because their property was directly involved. Whilst he admitted the principle that taxation and representation should go together, he was not prepared to carry it out in the cumbrous manner proposed by the present bill.

replied.

begged to state, that in voting, as he should do, against the second reading of this bill, he did not intend to vote against the principle that some alteration should be made in the present system. He thought, that in a matter involving the expenditure of so much money, there should be some more appropriate and, he must say, some more popular mode of administration.

The House divided on the original motion:—Ayes 37; Noes 105: Majority 68

Bill put off for six months.

moved, that the Chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again.

contended, that they should consider the bill in order to remedy any defects it might present. It would be unfair to reject the bill because hon. Members objected to some parts of it. If the House was averse to throw on the counties and boroughs any of the expenses, they might alter the clauses, and let the burden still remain on the candidates, but they need not throw out the bill and prevent the carrying out of the other provision.

The House divided, on the question to report progress:—Ayes 71; Noes 43: Majority 28.

House resumed.

moved, that the House should resolve itself into Committee.

believed, that the hon. and learned mover of the bill had some alterations to propose, and he would therefore ask him whether he had any objection to go into Committee pro formâ, that the alterations might be printed, and that the House might have a better opportunity of considering them?

cordially joined in the recommendation of his hon. Friend the Member for Bridport. As the bill stood, there were many difficulties, especially with regard to encyclopædias. Mr. Black, an eminent bookseller of Edinburgh, well known to the Speaker, informed him that as one of the clauses was worded, he would suffer much pecuniary damage. Many of the articles were entirely new, and if at the expiration of the twenty years, those articles might be claimed by the authors or their heirs, the whole Encyclopædia would fall to pieces. His hon. and learned Friend was willing to alter the bill so as to remove this objection; but there were other clauses which also required correction, and he hoped, that his learned Friend would agree to the proposal which had been made, and which would promote the ultimate success of the bill.

was not opposed to take the course which seemed to meet the wishes of the House; but he thought, that it would be most convenient for him then to state the chief alterations which he would make, because he believed, that they were simple, and they would serve to tranquillize the apprehensions of some respectable persons as to the bill. The chief objection of the publishers was, to the clause improperly termed the retrospective clause. He had never consented to that term, nor was it correct, because the bill sought only to secure to authors of the highest merit the advantage of their own labours, and that those copyrights which were now existing, should not, be subject to the injustice of the present system. He had, therefore, proposed that the existing term of copyright should be extended, and that the authors should retain that additional copyright in their works, and that when the present copyright had been assigned, the publishers should be content with that interest for which they had bargained and paid, for it was not the publisher, but the author, to whom the extended term ought to be given. To the justice of that principle he still adhered, but he had received from most respectable parties and eminent publishers so many complaints of practical inconveniences resulting from granting an extended term to authors who had assigned their whole interest, that, after considering many expedients, and having tried in vain to and a provision by which justice might be done to these gentlemen, he had determined to propose, that the clause should take effect only where the author had reserved the whole or part of the interest in the copyright, and that where the author had absolutely parted with his interest the term should cease. He had reason to believe, that this alteration would be perfectly satisfactory to the gentlemen to whom he had referred, and that in accepting this concession they had gained nothing for themselves—that they wished for no boon: and he was bound to say, that during the opposition which they had given to the bill he had personally received the greatest courtesy, and that they had exhibited the most enlarged views of the interests of literature and of authors. He was quite willing to defer to the sense of the House.

consented that the alterations should be made,, and that the bill with its amendments should be printed; but he would vote against the bill in every stage, for whilst it would only do good to one in 500, it would do great injustice to the other 499.

would not stop the arrangement, but the hon. Member for Kilkenny was not more opposed to the principle of the bill, than he (Sir Edward Sugden) was, and he intended to resist its progress in every future stage. He was one of those who thought that there was no common-law-copyright in the author beyond the manuscript when it was written, or whilst it remained in his own possession. He had come to this determination after much consideration, and he thought that the case was clearly distinguishable from a patent right. He would oppose the bill as long as he could, because he believed that it ought not to be passed; but, if it were passed, he would, as he had ever done, bow with respect to the opinion of the majority, and endeavour to make the bill as serviceable as possible to the public. If the bill should meet with the support of a majority of the House, he would then propose his amendments, one of which was to cut down the term of sixty years to a term of forty years, not, however, that he at all approved of as long a term as forty years, for he would only give a term of seven years beyond the death of the author; he would allow an original term of twenty-eight years, as the author now had; and if he should survive, then an extended term for his whole life. There was, however, this difficulty: if the author should live long, and his books should be in demand, he might provide for his family; but in case he should die early, this might be frustrated. He would, therefore, give an absolute term of seven years after the author's death, which would be sufficient to enable the family to send forth a perfect edition of his works, and thus to make a provision for them. He did not quite understand whether his learned Friend meant that the extended term should, under all circumstances, revert to the representatives of the author, and that he should not have power to dispose of it. He agreed that the publishers ought not to complain if they obtained all that they purchased; but why should not the same terms be extended to poor authors, to whom it would be of greater benefit, as were given to those who were rich enough to retain their copyright in their own hands. He represented neither authors, nor printers, nor publishers; he stood there to do his duty only as a Member of Parliament, and he trusted that he should on some future occasion be able to state grounds which would satisfy the House that the bill ought not to be allowed to proceed.

complained of his learned Friend for tempting the House into a general discussion upon this bill; and as his learned Friend had stated his unqualified opposition to the bill, so he would say that he had been and still was its un-qualified supporter.

had no objection to the course suggested by his learned Friend, but he confessed that he viewed with no small degree of apprehension any legislation upon this subject. It was not, however, on account of the publishers that he entertained any apprehension. He had seen some persons concerned in the most eminent publishing houses, and he thought that what had been stated by them with respect to the bill was only just and reasonable, and the hon. and learned Gentleman would adopt what was just and reasonable. He did feel apprehensive, however, that when the expectations of the authors and of the publishers were satisfied, there would be no small neglect of the interests of the public. With regard to the interests of authors, the learned Gentleman was ready to concede that those who had bought the general interest of the author in the copyright, ought to enjoy the whole right, and he knew one author of no inconsiderable merit, who, having parted with the whole of his copyright, thought that he had no right by act of Parliament to resume what he had sold. Then again with regard to the interests of the publishers, the learned Gentleman would doubtless take care there should be a distinction between future works and those in which the publishers had already acquired an interest. Still he saw great danger in interfering with a law by which, though incomplete, the interests of authors, of publishers, and of the public, had been adjusted. There did seem to him some danger, that the new law might make provisions by which, in the end, the public, who were not sharp-sighted in such matters, might find that great damage was done not only to their own interests, but to the general interests of literature, and the progress of information and knowledge. It was proposed to give an author a property in his work for a longer time, and then to leave it for a certain time to his heirs and executors. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had pointed out several objections to that; but there was one which had not been as yet mentioned. It was to be considered, that the question of copyright was not a mere question of property, but one in which opinions might be concerned. The heirs of an author might entertain opinions, political or religious, opposed to those maintained in his work, and might, in consequence, think it advisable that the work should be suppressed, and in the result, the public would be deprived of the work altogether. He would suppose the case of the prose works of Milton coming into the hands of a person who differed with the writer's opinions respecting the royal cause during the civil war. Would any man contend, that the public would not have had great and just cause for complaint, had they been suppressed in consequence of such a circumstance? There were other difficulties in the way; and he must confess, that he felt considerable alarm on this subject when the hon. Member for the University of Oxford expressed his hope that the bill would be passed into a law in the course of a fortnight. He, on the contrary, said, that this was one of the most important bills which had of late been introduced into Parliament, and that it was a measure demanding the most ample and mature deliberation. He felt, that while those who took one side of the question, espoused the cause of the authors, and those on the other side, took the part of the publishers, that they might produce a measure tending to injure the progress of knowledge; and, therefore, that although it might be beneficial to some authors, it might be injurious to the public and to literature. He certainly thought, looking at the present state of the law, although it might not be difficult to point out cases in which authors of the greatest ability and genius had not been remunerated, that, upon the whole, the interests of the publishers, and of the public, as well as the interests of authors generally, had been fairly attended to. One of the greatest hardships of the present state of things was, that when the author was poor and obliged to sell the copyright of his works for a small sum, it might happen, that while he disposed of his works for 51, or 101,, his bookseller might be gaining thousands, for years in succession. That was a state of things unfair alike to the author and to the public, and it had always appeared to him that such cases were those of the greatest hardship. He did not know, whether some provision might not be introduced into the bill applicable to such cases, and he had only alluded to those cases for the purpose of drawing the attention of the hon. and learned Member to the subject, and with a, view of impressing on the learned Gentleman the importance of not proceeding to legislate in haste in regard to copyright.

said, it must occur to the House as rather unfortunate, that although there had been two long discussions on this bill, the noble Lord had not before taken an opportunity to express his sentiments on the subject, and that he should now declare himself hostile even to the principle of the measure. The noble Lord argued, that the representatives of an author might entertain different opinions from the author, and refuse, after his death, to reprint his works; and he contended, that the public would suffer in consequence. That was, however, a wide-drawn assumption, and the case which the noble Lord had supposed was not likely ever actually to occur. He would take the case of Milton, which the noble Lord had mentioned, and he would ask whether it would have been possible for the representatives of Milton, his works having once been published, to resist the demands of the public? The thing was impossible. But it was possible that the works of an author might be of a mischievous tendency, and that the copyright might fall into the hands of a man anxious to prevent the corruption of the public morals, and who consequently declined their republication. In this case, a positive benefit would result to the public, so that the evil which the noble Lord feared would be counterbalanced by the advantage which would result from the provisions of the bill. If the noble Lord looked at the bill, however, be would find a provision for the case to which he had alluded, and by which books in the hands of the representatives of authors, would be forced into circulation.

quite agreed with the noble Lord in thinking, that in the drawing up of the bill, sufficient attention had not been paid to the interests of the public. For his part, be was perfectly convinced that there never was a bill introduced into Parliament so fraught with mischief to the public interest, as the bill now before the House. He had property in the nature of copyright, and he had some expe- rience in that description of property; and if he were to consult but his own interests, he should be favourable to the bill. He, however, so strongly felt the objections which might be urged against it, in regard to its effect upon the interests of the public, that he felt it to be his duty to give it every opposition in his power.

thought great praise was due to the learned Sergeant for his efforts to throw some light upon the subject of copyright, and sincerely hoped those efforts might be crowned with success.

confessed he had not expected that the noble Lord, after allowing the principle of the measure to be discussed two Sessions, should only then, at the eleventh hour, awake from his apathy to object to its propositions. He should not then attempt to answer the noble Lord's observations, but on that day fortnight he should hope to proceed with the Committee, and then he should certainly endeavour to reply to them.

Bill committed pro fomrâ. Committee to sit again.

moved the second reading of the Married Women's Bill.

moved, that it be read a second time that day three months.

The House divided on the original motion:—Ayes 21; Noes 56: Majority 35.

Bill put off for three months.

moved the second reading of the High Sheriffs' Bill.

rose to move an Amendment. One of the clauses forbad the sheriff to go out to meet the judges, and prescribed that he should meet them at their lodgings. Now, he was attached to the present escort, inasmuch as it was an old custom, and one which was at least harmless; and was, in the opinion of Mr. Justice Blackstone, calculated to inspire a due respect towards the representative of her Majesty. He felt bound, therefore, not seeing the utility of the measure, to move that the bill should be read a second time that day three months.

, feeling the sense of the House to be against him, would not press the measure.

Amendment agreed to.