"That although great changes have taken place in the literary systems of this country, since the first of the laws referred to them was enacted, on which the others depend; yet they conceive that the substance of those laws is proper to be retained; and in particular that, continuing the delivery of all new works, and in certain cases of subsequent editions, to the libraries now entitled to receive them, will tend to the advancement of learning, and to the diffusion of knowledge, without imposing any considerable burden on the authors, printers, or publishers of such works. But that it will be expedient to modify some of the existing provisions, As to the quality of the paper, which may fairly be reduced from the finest sort and largest size, to that used in the greater part of an edition ;-by substituting a delivery on demand, after due and proper notice has been given of the publication, to a distribution in the first instance :-and by affording an alternative with respect to subsequent editions in certain cases.

"Your Committee would however suggest one exception to these rules, in favor of the British Museum; this national establishment, augmenting every day in utility and importance, ought, in the opinion of your Committee, to be furnished with every publication that issues from the press, in its most splendid form.

"Having presumed to advise certain regulations with the view of lightening as much as possible the pressure, whatever may be its amount, on all those connected with the publication of books, your Committee would be wanting in the discharge of their duty, were they not to recommend a strict enforcement of such obligations, as for useful purposes remains to be discharged: by annexing suitable penalties to the neglect of performing them; and perhaps in some cases by adding the forfeiture of copyright.

"The attention of your Committee has naturally been directed to the late decision in the court of King's-bench, ascertaining the true interpretation of the statute of queen Anne; and they find, that, previously to that decision, an universal misapprehension existed as to the real state of the law; and that works were undertaken, and contracts made on the faith of long established usage. Your Committee are fully aware, that in expounding the law, no attention can be paid by courts of justice to the hardships that may incidentally be produced; but it will deserve the

serious deliberation of parliament, whether all retrospective effect should not be taken away from a construction, which might be thought to bear hardly on those who have acted on a different understanding of the law.

"Lastly; your Committee have taken into their consideration, the subject of Copy Right; which extends at present to fourteen years certain, and then to a second period of equal duration, provided the author happens to survive the first. They are inclined to think, that no adequate reason can be given for this contingent reversion, and that a fixed term should be assigned beyond the existing period of fourteen years."

Ordered to lie on the table.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Friday, June 18.

EAST INDIA COMPANY'S AFFAIRS.] The Earl of Buckinghamshire stated that the Resolutions received from the Commons being now on the table, it was his intention to move on Monday for the House to go into a committee upon them on that day.

The Earl of Lauderdale deprecated proceeding upon this most important question, without the requisite information being before the House. He had moved for papers several days ago, the production of which was essential to the right conside. ration of the question, because their ob ject was to show how far it was practicable for the East India Company to go on by means of the remittances from India without applying to parliament for aid. He trusted, therefore, a delay of a few days would be allowed.

The Earl of Buckinghamshire admitted that the papers moved for by the noble earl were of importance, but it was essential that no time should be lost in going into the consideration of this question. He had heard nothing of any intention on the part of the Company to apply to parliament for aid.

Earl Grey urged the impropriety of going into the discussion of this question at so late a period of the session, without the requisite information before them, and without the possibility of giving it that due consideration which its great importance demanded. Was this the manner in which a question of such vast importance, involving the commercial interests of the country, the welfare of our posses

sions in India, and the happiness of sixty millions of subjects attached to the British empire, ought to be treated? Were his noble friend, instead of asking the delay of a few days, to desire the postponement of the question altogether till next session, such a motion should have his decided support, conceiving that it could not at this period of the year meet with adequate deliberation or due consideration.

The Earl of Liverpool maintained that the interests of the country, and the welfare of our possessions in India, demanded that there should be as little delay as possible in coming to a decision upon this question. Had it been altogether a new question, there might have been some ground for urging delay, but the fact was, that it had already, for a considerable period, been under the consideration of the House. The Resolutions (not now altered in any material point) had been communicated to the House, they had undergone much discussion, and a committee had sat for a considerable period, examining evidence upon the subject. There was, therefore, he contended, no reason that the question should be any longer delayed.

Lord Grenville was unwilling to prolong a conversation that might interrupt the important business fixed for that evening; but it having been thus announced by ministers, that it was their design to press through both Houses a Bill for establishing a system of commerce and government for India, he could not help noticing that intention. He had of late years seen and lamented many gross violations of public decency in the conduct of ministers towards parliament: but if parliament were prepared, in compliance with the wish of ministers, thus to hurry through a measure of such vast importance, they would fix an eternal stigma upon their character in the eyes of all nations. Was there one man in the House who could honestly say, that a Bill so important as this, brought in in July, could receive that attention which was due to it? Not one of his Majesty's ministers had hitherto, condescended to explain his views of the question in all its bearings. Was it to be endured, that in the month of July a Bill was, for the first time, to enter their lordships' House, which fixed a system of government for sixty millions of people? If this were tolerated, then it must be said that no other function remained to their lordships' House, but that of tamely registering the mea

sures of government. What he mainly complained of was, that the authors of this measure unnecessarily procrastinated its discussion. He would not, however, make himself a party to that mockery of public duty which it was now proposed to exhibit. He had deeply studied the question in all its bearings, convinced that it was one inti. mately connected with the interests of this country, and in which the happiness of a greater portion of his fellow-creatures was concerned, than in any to which he could direct his attention. Had he seen a disposition in ministers to discuss it gravely and deliberately, he should have lent all the attention and assistance which he could supply, without any view whatever to considerations of domestic party or politics; but he knew well at this period of the session there could be no adequate. investigation; and he would not lend himself to the hypocritical and base pre tence of discussion when none could take place.

The Earl of Buckinghamshire professed his astonishment at the language of the noble lord. He had insinuated, that the examination which the subject had undergone was hypocritical and base. Those of the noble lords who had attended to it in the committee, were incapable of such conduct, and deserved no such epithet. But why did the noble lord, who was so ready to charge others, neglect his own duty by not attending that Committee? The noble lord might think as highly of himself as he pleased; but those of their lordships who had attended to this ques tion, were as incapable as himself of the base dereliction of duty which he had de scribed. In the year 1793, when the charter was renewed, the noble lord had the management of it in that House: there was very little difference as to the season at which it was introduced, and there was then neither a committee appointed, nor a resolution proposed and now, after 20 years' experience since that period, and the information accumulated this session, it was too much for the noble lord to talk of the disgrace which would be entailed on parliament by proceeding further this session. Much as he respected the noble lord, he respected the authority of the House still more, and if he should have the good fortune to obtain the sanction of their approbation, he should not much repine at any different sentiments, which the noble lord might entertain,

The Earl of Lauderdale was, anxious to

know whether it was really the intention of ministers to press this subject on Monday, before the papers which he had moved for were laid upon the table?

The House being about to proceed to other business,

Lord Grenville asked, whether it was to be endured that the King's ministers should refuse an answer to such a question? The Earl of Lauderdale said, if it was intended, under the circumstances he had stated, to press the discussion on Monday, he should certainly move its postponement. He now moved, that the papers moved for should be presented forthwith. The Earl of Buckinghamshire urged the importance of proceeding without delay to the discussion of the question. As to the papers, he had every reason to believe they would be laid on the table on Monday, but they could, at all events, make some progress in the Resolutions.

The Earl of Lauderdale said, the papers he had moved for were connected with the very first Resolution, because they referred to the point, whether the East India Company could go on without applying to parliament for aid, and if the returns should be such as he suspected, he should be prepared to argue against granting a monopoly of the China trade, and the rights in India to the Company for 20 years, upon the ground that the Company could not exist without coming to parliament every year for aid, but without these papers he could not make up his mind upon the subject. The Papers were ordered to be presented forthwith.

was his intention, therefore, to move for the instructions given to sir James Yeo on his leaving this country to proceed to the lakes to establish a naval force there.

Earl Bathurst said he had no reason to believe that the Americans had a superior naval force upon the lakes. With respect to sir James Yeo, sir George Prevost had stated an additional number of sailors to be requisite to man the naval establishment upon the lakes, and sir James Yeo and the seamen were immediately sent. They arrived at the mouth of the river St. Lawrence, before the ice would allow of a passage, and proceeded up the river on the 25th of April, as soon as it was open.

Earl Grey contended, that what the noble earl had stated, decidedly proved the neglect of ministers. It was thus delaying until they heard from sir George Prevost, to send a force to the lakes, where they must have previously known that a naval superiority on our part was absolutely necessary, that formed his charge against them. It was a poor return for the loyalty and zeal evinced by the inhabitants of Canada, to subject them to invasion merely from the want of that naval superiority which the foresight of ministers ought to have provided. The noble earl had denied that the Americans had a naval superiority upon the lakes; but according to the accounts which he (earl Grey) had received, they had destroyed a great part of our vessels at York, and were proceeding to Kingston to de stroy the remainder.

Earl Grey adverted to what he had said upon a former occasion respecting the neglect of ministers, in not providing adequately for the exigencies of the American war, and particularly in not taking care to ensure a superiority of naval force upon the lakes. What had now happened proved the truth of what he had then stated, as it appeared, that owing to the neglect of ministers, the Americans had a superior naval force upon the lakes. It

The Marquis of Buckingham trusted that the attention of the House would be called to this subject, and that information would be required of the measures adopted by ministers for the defence of Canada.

The Earl of Darnley said, that ministers ought to have foreseen the necessity of hav inga maritime force on the lakes as well as on the ocean. It was his design to have called the attention of parliament to the general mal-administration of our naval affairs in the course of the present session, and to have moved for certain documents on which he might have grounded some specific proposition; the late period, however, which

the session had reached before he had an opportunity of accomplishing his purpose, induced him for the present to abandon it; but he hoped to bring the subject forward early in the next session, unless indeed his noble friend who was so much more competent to the task, should take it out of his hands, if affairs should remain in the same unfortunate situation as at present.

TREATY WITH SWEDEN.] Earl Grey observed, that the substance of the engagement between Russia and Sweden, which had been laid upon the table, was not that document which the House had a right to look for. The treaty between Russia and Sweden having been communicated to this government, he saw no reason why the terms of the articles to which our treaty with Sweden referred, should not have been laid before the House, nor could he consent that foreign governments should be taught that parliament would not call for engagements to which the British government acceded, it being so well known that the forms and practice of our constitution required treaties in which subsidiary engagements were entered into to be ratified by the sanction of parliament. He did not mean to insinuate that ministers would intentionally mislead the House, but persons might differ in opinion upon the meaning of terms which were actually before them, and the same idea might not be conveyed in what was called the substance of the engagement which would arise from the actual terms of the articles. He would not, however, insist, in this instance, upon moving for the terms of the engagement, as ministers, by producing its substance, had rendered their treaty utterly indefensible. They could not possibly have made their case worse, and therefore he would take it upon their own shewing. With respect to the correspondence between this country and Denmark, he felt it of great importance to the due consideration of this treaty, that it should be produced.

Supposing that the cause of war between Great Britain and Denmark were originally just, if the latter should make a proposal for peace, it formed a new æra, and if the proposal were rejected, it was incumbent upon ministers to shew that what this country had a right to demand had not been offered by her antagonist. It was the practice of most nations, but more particularly of this, when a negociation for a cessation of war had been

broken off, that the causes of the rupture should be publicly and distinctly stated. In Great Britain, indeed, the documents, together with the official declaration, were invariably communicated to parliament; that in the eyes of Europe and of the world, her conduct might appear justifiable. How much more necessary was it then in the present instance, where hostilities were not only continued after an offer of peace, but a treaty had been entered into with another power for the spoliation of the dominions of Denmark. It was doubly necessary, that it should now be proved that Denmark had refused that justice which Great Britain had a right to demand. Ministers must state their reasons for rejecting the propositions made to them, because it was not sufficient to assert that the treaty with Sweden was signed before any offer had been made by Denmark. The motion with which he should conclude, would require all documents that had passed between the two governments within the last year, for the sake of having every part of the transaction under the view of the House. The fact was, that the treaty was not signed till the 3d of March, and the ports of Denmark had been closed against the privateers of France, and every facility was given to our commerce as early as the 10th or 12th February. Soon afterwards an official agent arrived from Copenhagen, and he was succeeded by count Bernstorf, the accredited minister. Thus it appeared, that long before the treaty was concluded Denmark had not only proposed pacific arrangements, but had done certain incontrovertible overt acts prove incontestibly her friendly disposition towards this country. Let the fact be as it might, the House had a right to have it completely ascertained, before it gave its sanction to any treaty, the object of which was to invade the territories of a power which had so recently shewn a disposition to restore tranquillity, and to join the allies against the common enemy. His lordship was at a loss to anticipate any substantial objection to his motion, because, in his opinion, acquiescence in it could produce no injury, and might be of most material benefit. It could not injure Denmark with respect to France, because, if our cause were just, she was our enemy: if indeed she made a fair and honest offer of co-operation, what became of the justice of the cause of Great Britain in continuing to wage war against her? She had

to