The principle of copyright is this. It is a tax on readers for
the purpose of giving a bounty to writers. The tax is an
exceedingly bad one; it is a tax on one of the most innocent and
most salutary of human pleasures; and never let us forget, that a
tax on innocent pleasures is a premium on vicious pleasures. I
admit, however, the necessity of giving a bounty to genius and
learning. In order to give such a bounty, I willingly submit
even to this severe and burdensome tax. Nay, I am ready to
increase the tax, if it can be shown that by so doing I should
proportionally increase the bounty. My complaint is, that my
honourable and learned friend doubles, triples, quadruples, the
tax, and makes scarcely any perceptible addition to the bounty.
Why, Sir, what is the additional amount of taxation which would
have been levied on the public for Dr Johnson's works alone, if
my honourable and learned friend's bill had been the law of the
land? I have not data sufficient to form an opinion. But I am
confident that the taxation on his Dictionary alone would have
amounted to many thousands of pounds. In reckoning the whole
additional sum which the holders of his copyrights would have
taken out of the pockets of the public during the last half
century at twenty thousand pounds, I feel satisfied that I very
greatly underrate it. Now, I again say that I think it but fair
that we should pay twenty thousand pounds in consideration of
twenty thousand pounds' worth of pleasure and encouragement
received by Dr Johnson. But I think it very hard that we should
pay twenty thousand pounds for what he would not have valued at
five shillings.

My honourable and learned friend dwells on the claims of the
posterity of great writers. Undoubtedly, Sir, it would be very