I prevailed on the last House of Commons to reject the bill
introduced by a very able and accomplished man, Mr Serjeant
Talfourd. My noble friend has done me a high and rare honour.
For this is, I believe, the first occasion on which a speech made
in one Parliament has been answered in another. I should not
find it difficult to vindicate the soundness of the reasons which
I formerly urged, to set them in a clearer light, and to fortify
them by additional facts. But it seems to me that we had better
discuss the bill which is now on our table than the bill which
was there fourteen months ago. Glad I am to find that there is a
very wide difference between the two bills, and that my noble
friend, though he has tried to refute my arguments, has acted as
if he had been convinced by them. I objected to the term of
sixty years as far too long. My noble friend has cut that term
down to twenty-five years. I warned the House that, under the
provisions of Mr Serjeant Talfourd's bill, valuable works might
not improbably be suppressed by the representatives of authors.
My noble friend has prepared a clause which, as he thinks, will
guard against that danger. I will not, therefore, waste the time
of the Committee by debating points which he has conceded, but
will proceed at once to the proper business of this evening.

Sir, I have no objection to the principle of my noble friend's
bill. Indeed, I had no objection to the principle of the bill of
last year. I have long thought that the term of copyright ought
to be extended. When Mr Serjeant Talfourd moved for leave to
bring in his bill, I did not oppose the motion. Indeed I meant
to vote for the second reading, and to reserve what I had to say
for the Committee. But the learned Serjeant left me no choice.
He, in strong language, begged that nobody who was disposed to