The Press. — London, England, 1855-02-03 00:00:00

124 affected. They will lose little, if anything, in money, and gain much in power. Their opposition, therefore, to the abolition of the stamp, and thus to the calling into existence of a cheap press, seems as contrary to their own interests as to those of the public. But here a fresh objection is taken. We are met by a cry of piracy, and a demand for copyright in news. I admit that in this question there are dila culties enough to furnish material for a debate and to perplex a parliament. It is hard enough to define copyright in books, to say what is original and what borrowed, to fix the limit where the mere literary offence of plagiarism ends, and the legal crime of copyright-breach begins. No doubt the intricacy of the problem is increased when dealing with matter of such ephemeral interest as news. The principle, however, that he who has gone to expense in obtaining information from au exclusive source should have an exclusive benefit in its sale, is too manifestly just to admit of dispute ; and its legal assertion is expedient also, because without such protection it may be doubted whether the same efforts will continue to be made, as at present, to obtain priority of intelligence. • I readily concede that to define piracy in the case of newspapers will be no easy matter. Probably, let Parliament do the best it can, any act likely to pass will leave large room for legal sophistries and conflicting judgments. But the difficulty, be it great or small, is none of our making. It exists already. If it be contended that the necessity for a copyright law will become more pressing as the number of cheap newspapers in creases, in consequence of the repeal stamp law, I answer, the same result will follow when the num ber of newspapers increases, from whatever cause. In fact, the question must be settled, the difficulty THE PRESS. faced, before long. At the worst, all that the repeal of the stamp duty can do in regard of it is a little to hasten the time of parliamentary interference. Ido not see in what way this result can be regarded as a formidable evil. One more argument remains to be dealt with. It is contended by the advccates of the present system that the privilege of retransmission (i. e., of sending the same newspaper backwards and forwards through the Post-office during seven days) is inseparably con nected with that part of the law which requires every newspaper to be stamped. The connection, however, is not obvious, except so far as that the boon ac corded to the public on the one hand is pleaded as a set-off for the injustice done to a section of the public on the other. As a matter of justice, I per ceive no claim that newsvenders can set up to send their, comparatively bulky, packets seven times through the post at the cost of a penny each, while a letter, for the same sum, travels but once. But if, as a matter of convenience, the public desires to have it so, no grave objection can exist, seeing that the tax-paying community and the newspaper reading community are now pretty nearly, and will, in time, become still more nearly, coextensive. They are only paying out of one pocket instead of the other; the result is the same. But there is no reason why the gratuitous retransmission of newspapers should he stopped when the stamp is made optional instead of compulsory. The two regulations no way interfere with one another. It is true that, as the local journals (which would probably borrow much of their political matter from the metropolitan journals of the day before) increased in number, the demand for retransmission of these latter would most likely diminish.« But this is a remote and doubtful con- [SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1855. tingency (for the prestige of the metropolitan press is great, and would remain), and, in any case, a sim ple result of free competition with which the law has no right to interfere. To the vague and angry declamation of those who cry, " You want to pull down English journalism and " substitute an American press in its place," I scarcely hold it worth while to reply. The plain answer is-- like people like press. The American press (which, by the way, does not by any means universally de- serve the bad character given to it in this country) reflects, faithfully enough, the prevailing sentiment of American citizens. It is democratic—so are they, If it is often vulgar, violent, abusive, addicted to braggadocio, and credulous of marvels—these are exactly the faults, a little exaggerated in the copy, ing, of a young and growing nation, in which mate. rial prosperity has advanced faster than the arts and refinements of life. If in the English mind there be a corresponding state of feeling, by all means let it be exposed rather than concealed. An evil fully brought to light is half remedied. But, in truth, the English character differs widely from the American ; and a popular press, though ultimately it may help in forming, must follow, and be suited to, the bias of the popular mind. But (I repeat it once again) all these considerations of the result of enfranchising the press are apart from the main point in dispute. The real questions on which the support or rejection of the stamp law must turn are twofold. First, is the law just from a fiscal point of view ? Secondly (if that query be an swered in the negative), admitting it to be unjust, are you prepared to maintain this injustice for the sake of a political result—in other words, to affirm the principle of a censorship ? * Electric telegraphs have, however, done much to equalise the advantages of London and the provinces in this respect. Probably if a law of limited copyright in news were passed, the leading journals would agree to au exchange of Intelligence by mutual cousent, and thus accommodate the public while pro tecting themselves against unauthorised copyists. • It la not an unnatural feeling that leads most people, even of the poorest, to prefer food purchased and prepared for them selves, rather than the broken scraps and leavings of the most luxurious feast. It is ►quite possible that many would prefer a purchased cheap newspaper to an eleemosynary dear one. Loudon: Printed and Published at the Office, 110. Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the County of Middlesex. by RI PAID TYR, of 17, Bedford•street, Covent•garden, cal SATURDAY, the 3rd day of February, I b 55. %ea.> . . ~ . -: .. , -,,,,.... .. ~. .. .. . . • , ...,,,,•. ... .., , ./ `-• - , .;.' ".' , . _ ..1, .;,, •9 l • •• I remain, your obedient servant, STANLEY.