Sir R. Inglis said, perhaps he ought to apologise for not having prefaced his motion with any observation, but the fact was, that it had been usual to concur in that motion at the commencement of the Session without any discussion. It now, however, became his duty to offer a statement to the House. The observations of the hon. Member, however, applied more to

of the more importance, in order to insure a due attention. The practice of nominating the same hon. Members on several committees, went very much against the attainment of this object. In the United States, a different course was pursued. In the House of Representatives ten committees, for so many different subjects, were appointed every Session, and to them every question requiring investigation was the committees on petitions and on printreferred. Those committees were coming than to that which formed the subject posed of indifferent persons taken gene- of the present motion-indeed, with the rally from the House, and in no instance exception of what the hon. Member had was any one Member nominated on two said on the subject of his (Sir R. Inglis's) committees. The consequence was, that name being on all of them, the whole of they were enabled to devote their entire his observations had that application. But time to the subjects placed before them. he hoped the House would excuse him if, But the practice of this House was very instead of waiting till those other comdifferent. If a committee was moved for mittees were moved in order to make his by a member of the Government, it was remarks, he at once proceeded to reply to usual for him to nominate Members of the the hon. Member. He would beg to reGovernment upon it, or their immediate mind the hon. Gentleman that the practice supporters, and a corresponding number of he complained of no longer existed. Twelve Members of similar standing on the other or fourteen years ago, it was the case; the side of the House, so that a great many names of certain Members appeared on of the most important committees were almost every committee. The services of confined to a comparatively few Members his right hon. Friend, at the head of the selected from both sides of the House. In Treasury, in particular were deemed of the case of committees moved for by the in- such value, even for half an hour, that dividual Members, it was the practice for there was scarcely a committee, fifteen the mover to secure a majority of persons There were also some other names not so years ago, to which he was not nominated. favourable to his views, and to select well entitled to the distinctions which Members of the greatest ability to carry almost always appeared on those comthem out, the committees being completed mittees, which were frequently composed with those on the other side also, who of as many members as forty-two or fortywere most distinguished. The conse- five. He had not individually objected to quence of this was, that there was gene- the practice; on the contrary, he felt that rally the least possible attention on the there were several advantages in having the part of the Members of ch committees. larger number; but on the attention of the When they made reports, they had no House being called to it by the hon. Memweight with the House, and they had not ber for Dumfries, then the Member for the influence they ought to have, either in Liverpool (Mr. Ewart), it was ordered that the House or in the country. Many such no committee should be composed of more motions were merely idle, to gratify some than fifteen members, and that no member crotchet on the part of the mover, and not should be nominated until he had indiwith any sound object to justify them. He vidually given his assent; and that practice had seen great unfairness practised on had been adopted since: though, with recommittees thus constituted, with a ma-spect to the Library Committee, the number jority of Members favourable to the purpose for which the committee had been appointed. When questions were put that might elicit answers unfavourable to that purpose, he had known the questions over-ruled by the majority. In all such cases, the mover having the majority on his side, was able to carry everything. Surely, if some other system than this were adopted, it would be more advantageous to the character of the House.

had always been sixteen. With regard to this Library Committee, its functions were extremely limited. Want of room prevented their buying more books, and there was consequently little or no duty to be done. He had, however, thought it his duty to submit the motion, as being one of the usual Sessional orders. With regard to the Committee on Public Petitions, he had undertaken to move for its re-appointment in the absence of the hon. Member for

the same subject, and in the same form, such as sugar, slavery, or other subjects of that sort, he considered it necessary to read every one, but he read every one which was distinct and original.

Dr. Bowring did not mean to cast any personal reflection on the hon. Baronet, but he was sure he would not deny that the attendance had been very limited.

Kendal, who was the chairman of that
committee. He could only assure the hon.
Member that he would be quite contented
to withdraw from that committee, and to
move that the name of the hon. Member be
substituted. He had little inclination for
so laborious and uninviting a duty; but as
he had served some years upon it, his name
had again been included. The third notice
on the paper-that for the appointment of
the committee on Printing-he moved for
his hon. Friend, the Secretary to the Trea-subject.
sury, who could best explain why the
committee was so constituted. He be
lieved that it was, unless perhaps with one
exception, exactly the same as last Ses-
sion. From that committee, also, he could
assure the hon. Member, he would be quite
willing to withdraw.

Dr. Bowring could not but attach very considerable importance to what had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for Coventry. He was himself on the Public Petitions Committee for some time, and during that time scarcely more than two members ever attended upon it. The importance of this fact appeared to him to be much increased since they had been told, in the discussion which had just closed, that the petitions of the people received great attention from a committee specially appointed to take charge of them. Now, it had happened to him, time after time, to be the only member of that committee who had attended, and of so little importance did the business appear to be to others, that scarcely any member thought it worth his while to attend while the report was prepared, which was periodically laid before the House. The attendance on the Printing Committee, however, was much more regular, and scarcely any of the members were ever absent. He certainly thought that when committees of this kind were appointed, some pledges ought to be given by members that they would attend and discharge their duties.

Sir R. Inglis, in reference to the statement of the hon. Member, that the Public Petitions Committee was ill-attended, hoped he would not be misunderstood when he said that when he was chairman of that committee he certainly did not omit to read any petition that was referred to the committee. That was a most laborious undertaking, and one which he would not go through again. He had now ceased to do so for some time. He did not mean to say that where, perhaps, there were thirty or forty similar petitions on

Mr. Ewart concurred in the views of the hon. Member for Coventry on this There were two questions involved; first, whether it would not be better that these committees should be nominated by the Speaker or some other competent person having a full knowledge of who were the most proper Members to be selected, instead of continuing the present practice of allowing the com mittees to be nominated by the Member who would afterwards be chairman; and secondly, what should be the number of the Members composing them. He believed that the reduction from forty to fifteen, to which the hon. Baronet had, referred, had been found to work well and for his own part he was the advocate of the principle of still further diminution, conceiving that as you diminished the number you increased the utility and the individual responsibility. If the number were reduced to seven it would, in his opinion, be still better; and he wished the same principle were applied to committees on private bills.

Motion agreed to, and Committee appointed, consisting of the following hon. Members;-Sir R. H. Inglis, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir R. Peel, Lord J, Russell, Mr. Baring, Mr. W. Wynn, Mr. Rutherfurd, Mr. Shaw, Viscount Palmerston, Mr. Gladstone, Dr. Stock, Mr. Acland, Colonel Fox, Mr. G. Knight, Viscount Mahon, and Mr. Pendarves.

COMMITTEE ON PETITIONS.] Sir R. H. Inglis moved, the re-appointment of the Select Committee on public petitions consisting of the following Members :Mr. G. W., Wood, Sir E. Knatchbull, Mr. Greene, Mr. E. Buller, Mr. Brotherton, Mr. O. Stanley, Mr. Pusey, Mr. C. Howard, Mr. V. Stuart, Captain Jones, Lord Viscount Duncan, Sir C. Douglas, Lord Fitzalan, and Mr. Buckley. The hon. Gentleman added that he would however beg to withdraw his, name, which had formerly been on the list, and to substitute that of Mr. Williams.

2

Mr. Williams assured the hon. Baronet | occur on a motion being made that the that his remarks were not intended to petition do lie on the Table. Any Member apply to him personally. He (Mr. Wil- might avail himself of his privilege in that liams) entertained a high respect for the respect. He could state that the practice hon. Gentleman individually; but he con- of Parliament thirty years ago was not to ceived it his duty to maintain the principle debate upon petitions; and it would be for which he had contended. He sug- found from the records of the proceedings gested that the hon. Baronet should per- of the House that fifty years since there mit his name to continue on the list of were few debates upon the presentation of the committee. petitions to Parliament.

Mr. Wakley hoped that the name of Mr. Williams would be retained on the committee, for he believed that hon. Gentleman would look after the Radical petitions. He had observed with deep regret that those petitions had not received that kind and generous treatment which had been exhibited towards other petitions. Upon looking over the names of the committee now proposed he thought the petitions to which he alluded were not likely to receive very favourable treatment.

Mr. Roebuck wished to say a word in explanation of his previous observations, lest it might be supposed he had advanced any incorrect statements when he asked the hon. Member for the University of Oxford, to act on Conservative principles. According to the rules respecting public petitions there were four separate stages in which they might be discussed; but when the Reformed Parliament met, those opportunities of discussion were rendered less available, particularly by the order of the 3rd of February, 1833, which directed, that petitions should be discussed only between the hours of 12 and 3 o'clock in the day. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, was therefore in error, when he said, that it had anciently been the practice of the House not to allow discussion upon petitions. The hon. Baronet was, he believed, in Parliament when the celebrated question of the orders in Council was brought before the House, which was debated for six nights upon petition. He would assert-and he could appeal to the personal knowledge of many hon. Members to verify the fact-that fifty years back no question was proposed to the House, except that of adjournment, without debate; and certainly, for the last century or two, no less than four questions might be proposed to the House upon petitions on which they might be discussed. Sir R. Peel said, the question was as to practice, not as to form. He had not spoken of the forms of the House; because, according to those forms, a debate might

Mr. Williams hoped that his name would be withdrawn from the committee, and replaced by that of the hon. Baronet (Sir R. Inglis),

Sir R. Inglis expressed his willingness to accede to the wish of the hon. Gentleman, and to allow his name to remain on the committee.

Motion agreed to. The names of Sir George Clerk, and Mr. Williams having been added.

PRINTING COMMITTEE.] Sir G. Clerk said, that great expense had formerly been incurred in printing documents which were laid before the House, and, in order to avoid any unnecessary expenditure in this respect, a committee had been appointed in whom was vested a discretionary power as to the printing of documents. The operation of that committee had been found most beneficial, and he begged to move its re-appointment.

The motion was agreed to, and the committee was appointed, to consist of the following Members:-Sir G. Clerk, Sir R. H. Inglis, Mr. Pusey, Mr. V. Smith, Mr. Strutt, Lord Mahon, Mr. Tufnell, and Mr. P. Stewart.

COPYRIGHT OF DESIGNS.] Mr. Emerson Tennent moved that the House do resolve itself into a committee of the whole House to take into consideration the laws affecting the Copyright of Designs for the ornament of articles of manufacture.

On the motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair.

Mr. W. Williams said, that having in the last Parliament opposed any alteration of the present law on this subject, he could not allow the bill to pass through its first stage without stating that he entertained as strong, if not stronger, objections to the proposed change in the law as he did when the question was formerly mooted. He believed if the hon. Mover had been throughly acquainted with the nature of the trade to which his bill referred, he

would not have contemplated any alteration in the present law. Some of the leading persons connected with that trade had been Members of this House, but for a period of forty years no change had been made in the regulations affecting it. It was a remarkable circumstance that during the recent depression of almost every branch of trade in the country, this branch had been almost the only one in which the amount of trade during the past year had exceeded that of any preceding year, and yet the hon. Gentleman brought forward a proposition which struck at the very root of that trade. He was convinced that the result of the measure proposed by the hon. Gentleman-if it was carried out on the same principles on which his

bill of last Session was founded-would be entirely to ruin this branch of manufacture as regarded the foreign trade.

House in Committee.

for the protection of patterns in design. If that protection were desirable for the interest of manufactures and of commerce, the means of establishing the copyright should be easy, and of obtaining redress economical in cases of invasion. But there was no such machinery in this country for providing such facilities. One central office of registration was incompetent; it was inaccessible to the greatest portion of those who wanted its aid—and then if a pattern were printed, there was no redress but at an expense not worth the sacrifice. In France the prud'hommes, which existed in all the great manufacturing districts, had undertaken the business of registration, which they could accomplish at an exceedingly small cost, so that the groundwork of protection was there easily provided. France, also, they had a great advantage, which was not possessed in this country, in being able to give effect to their legislation by a simple and appropriate tribunal, for the same body which recorded the primary claims of the inventor, ministered justice when the pattern was invaded, and the right of the manufacturer attacked. In this country the cost of obtaining redress was so great, that in ninety-nine cases out of 100, it was unavailable; for, where the property was small, the means of redress, to be beneficial, ought to be economical. There appeared to him, then, to be great difficulties in considering this question-first, in providing a means of general

In

Mr. Emerson Tennent said, that the bill he now proposed was nearly similar to that which he submitted to the House during the last Session. He had, however, introduced one alteration. By the present measure he proposed to extend the right of copyright for a period of nine months, instead of twelve months -the term he formerly contemplated. The hon. Member observed, that as the discussion would be taken in a subsequent stage of the bill, he would now .simply move that the chairman be in-registration, which should be accessible to structed to move for leave to bring in a bill to amend the laws relating to the copyright of designs for the ornament of articles of manufacture.

all who needed it; and, secondly, in providing an economical and prompt means of redress, in cases where an invention was invaded, it proved that none of our existing institutions were competent to effect the object desired-and there might be some doubt if the object itself was worthy of legislation.

An hon. Member asked whether any change had been made in those provisions of the bill which affected the registration of designs, with a view to protect manufacturers residing in distant parts of the Mr. M. Philips said, he had felt it his country from those difficulties which would duty on a former occasion to offer an unhave attended the operation of the measure compromising opposition to the measure proposed last Session by the hon. Member proposed by the hon. Member for Belfast; for Belfast? If he rightly understood the and time and reflection had convinced him former bill, there was to be only one office of the policy of the course which he then for registration in the United Kingdom. pursued. He would not oppose the introThose manufacturers, therefore, who re-duction of the present bill, because an sided near the office, would have the opportunity of making themselves acquainted with the patterns registered, an advantage which distant manufacturers could not possess without great difficulty and expense.

Dr. Bowring said, there were great imperfections in the legislation of this country VOL. LX. Series}

Third 2

opportunity would be afforded of dicussing it on the second reading. He was, however, most anxious that the subject should be fairly and fully brought before the House.

Mr. Tennent was understood to say, that he did not conceive any inconvenience would arise from there being but one re

F

gistrar of designs for the United Kingdom, | persons who attended varied from 1,400 to and that he did not think any alteration in the bill in that respect was necessary. By the present bill, he proposed that in case of the invasion of a copyright of design, a remedy should be afforded by proceedings before two magistrates, which would render the expense comparatively trifling. Resolution agreed to.