The Press. — London, England, 1857-05-16 00:00:00

470 ...1. 7" rr.. ings of public meetings of nearly every kind, and it is a matter of obvious importance that such reports should be given with fairness and accuracy. The meetings of municipal bodies, of counties, of railway shareholders,. and of other public companies, are all items of intelligence which interest different classes of readers, yet the proprietor of a journal can only insert them at his peril. If they happen to contain any libellous matter, it is he who must bear the brunt of an action at law, or of a criminal information. It is no defence to any such proceeding to show that the matter in question was a true and impartial state ment of what passed at the meeting, and that it was inserted without malice. That would be a perfectly good defence in the case of the report of a trial or other proceedings in a court of justice. for the law draws a clear line of distinction between reports of this kind and those of public meetings in general. Why this distinction should exist is a question which at first sight appears to be somewhat difficult to answer, and the more violent oppo nents of the present law would not hesitate to abolish it altogether. Let the reports of public meetings, they say, no matter of what kind, be privileged in the same manner as the reports of the proceedings in our tourts of justice. Let it be a sufficient defence for a journalist in any case to prove that he has reported fairly what took place, " nor set " :town aught in malice," and both the press and the public wilt be gainers by the change. But there is a fallacy in these arguments which it is easy to detect. It is of the utmost importance, nay it is essential to the pure administration of justice, that the proceedings in our courts of law should be conducted with the greatest possible publicity. We must also bear in mind that judicial inquiries of every kind are carried on according to certain pre scribed forms which are calculated to cheek all personal altercation, and which afford comparatively little scope for the display of angry or vindictive feelings. There is but a faint analogy between the grave and formal proceedings of a court of justice and those of a stormy public meeting, where, in the heat of prejudice and passion, the most unfounded charges may be made against an individual, which, being merely spoken, might fall harm less to the ground, but which, being printed and circulated among strangers, might inflict upon him an incalculable amount of injury. It is not without reason, then, that the distinction in question has been drawn, although its operation in certain cases may prove arbitrary and oppressive. To amend the law, therefore, so as to protect the privi leges of the press, but without prejudice to the interests of individuals, is the problem to be solved ; and that will be found no easy task. Under these circumstances we think that Lord CAMPBELL has taken the wisest course in moving for a committee to inquire into the subject. The fact by itself that so ex perienced a legislator should proceed thus cautiously is proof sufficient that a remedy is not so easily to be found as some of our contemporaries imagine. That the law requires attention is universally admitted ; but the main difficulty, we apprehend, will be experienced in attempting to define what is a public meeting. If we concede the privilege of reporting all that passes at every open assemblage of the people, and if all attacks there made upon private character are to pass with impunity, provided only they are fairly reported, we very much fear that the remedy wont." be found much more intolerable than the grievance which we seek to remove. Lord CAMPBELL has perceived this difficulty, and he suggests that it may be found advisable to extend the privilege only to the reports of meetings which are convened by virtue of an Act of Parliament. It would be premature, however, to pronounce any definite opinion upon *is point. Meanwhile, it is satisfactory : 1 4..lcuowthat the subject h as f a ll en i nto com- Went hands. Politically o pp ose d th oug h we / are ts tiktAhief Jestice, we cann o t b u t a d m i t atOi s. t u nlihe his Whig coadjut ors i n genera l , ?, . Leilehip has shown himself t o b e on vsripus oesabions au able and successful law • liptr. THE PRESS. INDIA AND HER COTTON SUPPLY. THERE was a meeting of the Society of Arts held at their monis on Wednesday evening, at which an excellent lecture on the supply of . the raw material for our cotton manufacturers was read by the Member for Stockport, Mr. J. B. SMITH. He showed that the question was one of no secondary nature, for in it was our very existence as a nation bound up. A third of our exports to foreign nations con sisted of cotton goods, and any falling off in these would necessarily occasion a correspond ing decrease in the amount of articles received by us in return. The revenue of the country was thus dependent on this manufacture to a far greater extent than superficial observers might suppose, and with the revenue our means of adhering to the pecuniary engage ments which we had incurred. At the same time there was a vast population engaged in the manufacture, the mere chance of whose being thrown out of employment could not be viewed with other than the deepest concern. Ner were the comforts of the remainder of the people less matters of consideration; and these consisted largely of clothing and other articles of domestic use which the cotton manufacturers supplied. While, therefore, this manufacture had become one of such vital importance to us, no matter under what aspect the question might be viewed, we were dependent for the supply of no less than seven ninths of the whole of the raw material im ported into England to ono single source, the United States. A s long as this state of things continued we were liable to be involved at a moment's notice in the must frightful of all calamities, the destruction of our commerce, and national bankruptcy, if, by a rising of the slaves, internal or external war in America, or any other cause over which we could have no control, the supply of cotton fi orn America should be either abridged or cut off. This risk the lecturer for one was not disposed any longer to incur, and it was to try and devise the means of obviating it that the meeting had been held. It was clearly shown that in this state of things it was to India that we must chiefly look. Dr. LIVINGSTON, the African traveller, explained that cuttou of good quality was grown in Africa; but he admitted that years must elapse before, under the most favourable circumstances, any considerable supply could he hoped for from that quarter. In India, ou the other hand, it was shown by speakers familiar with that country that soil and climate were alike favourable to the plant, and that nothing but good government was necesary to obtain from it as much cotton as our manufacturers could possibly consume. But though there cotton was a plant of indige nous growth, yet it could only be brought to the state of requisite perfection, and sold at the requisite price, under conditions which the Government of the East India Company had always neglected to perform. These were the construction of roads for the transport of the produce, the formation of canals for irrigation and transit, and the extension to the landholder of that security of tenure without which it was absurd to suppose that any man in his senses would be prepared to investihis capital in the improvement of the soil. Ruckrent tenures and virtual serfdom among the cultivators were incompatible with agricultural progress, whether in the East or in the West. The incompetence of the Company's courts, and the insecurity for pro perty thus occasioned, were also dwelt on as prominent obstacles to the success of cotton cultivation in India. To our minds—and we speak not without a long and very intimate acquaintance with the subject—the latter points, in fact, embrace the whole pith of the question. With freehold land tenures, and with courts that would afford adequate protection to the rights and property so acquired, there could be no earthly difficulty whatever in procuring an unlimited supply of cotton from India. An enactment consisting of a dozen lines and of three very simple clauses would lay the foundation for all that is desired. The first clause should SATURDAY, abolish the restriction which prevents British subjects from going without the Company's permission to settle in any part of the Mo fussil The second Ehould enable any tenant holding direct from the Company to convert his tenure into a freehold on paying twenty years' purchase for it, and thereafter to dispose of it at his pleasure to any one at any price ho could obtain for it, as is done with freeholds here. The third and last section should declare that any future questions of title arising in respect to such freeholds should be tried by the Queen's Judges in the Supreme Courts, and not by the Company's Mofussil Judges, if either party to the suit should at the commencement of it serve notice of his intention to move to that effect. Let this be done, and there will soon be as much capital invested in cotton-growing in India as there is invested in cotton-growing in the United States, and the finer kinds will equally be cultivated there, and with a similar success. But cotton-growing requires capital, and con siderable capital too, if the cultivator of it hopes to obtain a profit corresponding to the risk ; and the above are the only terms on which capitalists of sense will invest their money in agriculture in India. Poor cultiva tors there will always confine themselves to a crop that they can eat, just as the pauper pea santry confined themselves to growing pota toes and oats in Ireland. There was ono feature in the meeting re ferred to in this article which we viewed, we confess, with the greatest pleasure, as proving of good augury for the future of India. This was the presence of Lord STANLEY and Sir JOHN PAKINOTON, who both spoke briefly, but excellently well, and who both entered heartily into the spirit of the proceedings that took place. Both were very loudly cheered, and, indeed, we thought that the applause would never cease which greeted Sir JOHN PAKINOTON'S expression of his opinion that the question was one that must undergo discussion in Par liament. A meeting presided over by such a man as Mr. BAZELY, and addressed by gentlemen so well known as the Member for Stockport, Six ERSKINE PERRY, Mr. WATKIN, Mr. MONTGOMERY MARTIN, and Dr. LIVINGSTON, was not one that in any case was likely to be without some considerable result; and, in deed, it was understood to be merely pre liminary to the establishment of an associa tion, which, we doubt not, will be distinguished by all the practical ability shown in matters of commerce by Manchester men. Still, to our eyes, the crowning triumph of the evening was the appearance at the meeting of the eminent Conservative statesmen we have named. It showed that, however it may suit the adver saries of the party to, say so, Conservatives are not disposed to hold themselves aloof from their fellow men on great practical and social questions. It proved, on the contrary, that on questions of real utility they are ready, not only to give their aid, but to take a foremost place ; that their professions of liberality are not mere hustings' pledges, but that they are prepared to lead the country as they led it of old, in the advocacy of everything calcu lated to further national honour, national enterprise, and national greatness and wealth. CIVIL SERVICE SUPERANNUATION. IT is a recognised axiom—whether ,justified by fact or not is a matter of opinion—that every class or body of Englishmen must have a " grievance "—something over which they may grumble and growl. If this axiom have not a universal, it cannot ba denied but that it has a partial application. Undoubtedly there exists many "grievances" —some merely imaginary, others, unhappily, but too real. The Civil servants of the Crown have a " grievance " of the latter description. They have a real and substantial " grievance" in the shape of an iniquitous superannuation tax. We have more than once expressed our opinion against this impost. Strong reasons can be adduced to show that it is unjust and unnecessary. Mr. DISRAELI correctly stigma• tised it as an act of " spoliation "; whilst a