The Sun. — London, England, 1855-05-01 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. ~ ~ __._ HOUSE OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY.) The LORD. CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack at five o'clock. Lord LYNDHURST presented a petition from Shef field, praying for a vigorous prosecution of the war. The Ossett Gas Bill was read a second time. Hill's Estate Bill was read a third time and pasSed. THE SARDINIAN CONTINGENT. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH, seeing the noble earl the Minister for; War in his place, wished to call his attention to a eirciiiiistkice.„that had appeared in the papers of Saturday. A letter appeared, dated the 22d from Genoa, bi which it appeared th at, in reference to the Sardinian troops that had sailed for the East, the Commissary-General in the Crimea bad declared himself unable to supply those troops with previsidias. Unless there was a secret mili tary convention fti*l into between ns and the Sardi nian Governme id not think that this G overnment bound itself to ' , 71 the Sardinian contingent with commissariat stores: - If the British Commissariat had bound itself to supply provisions to the Sardinian troops as well as the Turkish troops, it must be prepared at least to meet a demand of at least 70,000 rations a day. He begged to ask the noble earl the Minister of War for information on the subject. Lord PANMURE had heard with some surprise that the necessary supplies for the provisioning of the Sar dinian army had not been sent out with the troops to the Crimea. In the first instance, it was understood that the Sardinian Government was to send a transport withone month's provisions beforethe sailing of the troops. There was no second convention entered into with the Sardinian Government, but Commissary-General Filder had received instructions to supply those troops upon the usual regulation prices, and he had no doubt that that officer would find any difficulty in doing so. By the last mail a letter was received from Sit M`Neil, who had been sent out by the Government to make special inquiries into the state of the commissariat, and that letter of the gallant officer stated that there was an ample supply of meat and grain to be found in the Crimea to meet the demands of the army, and, therefore, no apprehension need be entertained as to the falling off or scarcity of provisions. MILITIA (IRELAND) BILL. Lord PANMURE moved the third reading or this bill. The Earl of WICKLOW complained of the manner in which this bill was being hurried forward. The noble earl also objected to the manner in which the bill was drawn up, as he thought it most unfair to demand a higher qualification from Irish officers in the militia than were required by the English militia. He concluded by mov ing the addition of a provision to one of the clauses, rendering such officers eligible upon the qualification which they possessed at the time the commissions issued, or which they possessed at the present time. • Lord PAIsTIVIURE had no objection to the alteration proposed by the noble and learned lord. After a few words from the Earl of DERBY the amendment was,agreed to. Lord PANMLYRE proposed another amendment, which was also agreed to. The bill was re - ad a third time and passed. TROOPS ON BOARD THE ALMA. The Marquis of SALISBURY put a question to the Secretary for War, relative to"the embarkation of troops on board the Alma. The troops were embarked in their old clothing, without any sufficient provision for the summer months, and without the new clothing which at this season should be supplied to them. They were also sent with their old arms, and without that invaluable and indispensable arm, the Minie rifle. Lord PANMURE said, with respect to the arms, he could not believe it possible that the report to which the noble marquis referred bad any foundation, or that any of her Majesty's troops had left this country for the Crimea armed with the old musket. The noble marquis should know that every regiment in the service now in the Crimea bad the rifle. He should, however, make strict inquiry, and he would admit the whole ground of complaint if it should turn out to be true that the troops had left with the old arms. With respect to the sum mer clothing, the Guards always embarked with a suit of clothes partly wcrn, and not with their new suit ; but the new was sent after them. THE VIENNA NEGOTIATIONS. The Earl of DERBY rose and said— If I knew what member of her Majesty's Government I could address myself to, I would put a question of considerable im portance, inasmuch as wo have arrived at a period in the great struggle in which we are engaged when it is essential for the Government to lay before Parliament the fullest information in their power to afford. We have forborne putting questions which might embarrass her Majesty's Ministers during the progress of the nego tiations which have been going on, but as we have been given to understand that these negotiations have alto gether terminated, that all hopes of peace are at an end, and that her Majesty's plenipotentiary has returned and is in this country, I have been in expectation that her Majesty's Government would have felt it to be their duty to make, without any question being asked, a state ment to both houses of Parliament, describing the actual condition of affairs, and informing them of the nature of the propositions made by her Majesty's Government and her allies and the result of those prop o siti on F . (Hear, hear.) Ido not see the noble earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his place. [A. Noble Lord—He was here a short time ago. He was sum moned by her Majesty.] Perhaps some member of her Majesty's Government will he good enough to acquaint the house whether a statement will be made on the pre sent position of affairs, and detailing what has taken place at Vienna both by the Allied Powers and by Aus tria, and what was the character of the answer given by Russia to the propositions made to her ; likewise, ivbe ther it is the intention of the Government to lay before Parliament the nature of those propositions, and a state ment of their views as to the actual position of the pre sent critical state and threatening aspect of foreign affairs. (Hear, hear.) The Marquis of LANSDOWNE replied—My noble friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has been in the house till the last ten minutes, when, I have reason to know, be was sent for by her Majesty. Had he been here he would, I am sure, have given an answer to my noble friend. lam confident that it is the inten tion of her Majesty's Government at the earliest period, on a very speedy occasion, to lay before Parliament what has taken place, and I have no doubt that my noble friend will make such a statement, though I am not prepared to name a day. I will, however, consult with my noble friend, and he will be able to state to-morrow or the day after when he will lay whatever information he can communicate before the house. FLOATING BATTERIES. Earl TALBOT wished to ask a question respecting the floating batteries. He desired to know who was the designer of these batteries, which he thought would hardly answer the purpose for which they were intended, and what was the contract price for constructing them ? Lord PANMURE said he would answer these ques tions on a future day. Their lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS--YESTERDAY. The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock. LORD JOHN RUSSELL. The noble lord the member for the City of London was led to the table amidst cheers by Sir G. Grey and Mr. Masterman, and took the oaths and his seat on his re-election after having accepted the office of Secretary of State for the Colonies. THIRD READINGS. The following bills were read a third time and passed: —Bristol and Exeter Railway ; Newport Corporation ; Stourbridge Gas ; Surbiton Improvement ; East Indian Railway ; Madras Railway. The following bills were ordered to be- considered : Dundee and Perth and Aberdeen Railway ; Maryport and Carlisle Railway; Oldham Gas and Water; Regent's Canal (Hertford Union Canal). The Edinburgh Lands Bill was read a second time. COMMUNICATION BETWEEN ENGLAND AND IRELAND. Sir W. HEATHCOTE moved that the third report of the Select Committee on Railways (19th April, 1848), and the report of the select committee on the Chester and Holyhead Railway Bill (11th May, 1848), be re ferred to the committee on the bill for Improved Com munication between England and Ireland. The motion was agreed to without discussion. PETITIONS. Petitions were presented—by Mr. H. W. Wickham, from the inhabitants of Hartshead-cum-Clifton, in the county of York, against the Maynooth Endowment ; also from the board of guardians, Bradford union, York county, praying that provision may be made by Govern ment for the support of the wives and families of mili tiamen when on duty with their regiments ; also from the licensed victuallers in the borough and parish of Bradford, Yorkshire, to the number of 206, praying for the repeal of the act passed last session in titnled an Act for further regulating the Sale of Beer Dad other Liquors on the Lord's-day ;by Mr. Pellatt, fr om Southwark, for improvements in the Management et the Metropolis Bill, and from a place in Sent, for the abolition •of church rat es ; by Mr. Spooner, from St. against ti . a _nd St. Thomas's parishes, Birmingham, va r i ous ..i. Maynooth grant, and petitions from grant Ina P a na, of the kingdom praying that tbe the m au l, b e withdrawn • b Mr Hadfield, from bodie s i n r i ft.. Law Association and other similar from s- - -a r ee r il e e l i th . e Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill church n.j. ; ily 3tort.Brighton, for the abolition of from th rateB israeli a num ber of petitions - e notth of I • by Mr. Cowan, nitetadir:graaivnasrtitoheMaynooth grant ; various places in Scotland in favour of the r against the May oath A- gr d a v n Q t ea , te'S E ducation Bill , and BANK OFwEitirwG,,,,,fLeAreNtieDe THE . to the l etter Mr. HILDYARD asked, from the Governor and DeputT ikequer, dated the of England to the•Chancell ur of th e of the n 14th day of March, 1855, lately laid o lette r house, the Chancellor of the Exchequel: the table of th C. , any objection to lay on the table of the hous e he had from the Governor and Deputy-Governor of .tehtehe the 12th Oct., 1354, therein refemred t o , and a nk of also the opinions of the standing counsel of the Bank, an d of Bar. Roundel' Palmer,also therein referred to ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said no COPY of any such letter bad come into his possession, and it was RE im possible for him to produce it. PORTED RAISING OF THE SIEGE..OF . SEBASTOPOL. In reply to I\lr. WARNER, l ete fro Sir C ' WO OD said the telegraphic line was now com p m the Turkish coast, but they were not aware Whether it was complete across the Danube, With rer gard to the reported raising of the siege of 'Sebastopol, a despatch had been received that day from Lord Raglan, and he made no mention of any such intention. (Cheers.) In reply to Ilr. GROGAN, Sir C. WOOD said he had no objection to state the whole contents of that despatch. It was simply that Lord Raglan wished to know when the Sardinian con tingent was to sail. (Cheers and laughter.) INCOME TAX-CIVIL SERVICE. Mr. MACARTNEY asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it was his intention to make any exception with respect to the income tax chargeable upon the salaries of the civil servants, who were subjected to a charge of five per cent. in addition to the present income tax (nearly 6 per cent.), making together about 11 por centum levied on their limited incomes ; also, whether he was prepared to stat e on w h a t d ay h e wou ld lay on the table of the house the proposed bill for altering and amending the law respecting the Civil Service Super annuation Fund ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the Income-tax Bill affected all public officers, with certain exceptions. Government were, not prepared to make the exception indicated in the question of the hon. mem ber, as that could not be done to one part of the public service, and not to others. SALARIES OF COUNTY 'COURT JUDGES. In reply to Mr. LowE , Mr. WILSON said the Government, in respect of the great duties some of the County Court judges had to discharge, had decided on raising the salaries of some of them to the maximum rate of 1,5001. a year. THE VIENNA CONFERENCES. Mr. DISRAELI—Seeiug the noble !ord the Secretary for the Colonial Department once more among us— (laughter)—l take the liberty of inquiring whether it is the intention of the noble lord to lay any papers upon the table with respect to his late mission, or -to make any statement to the house with regard to it, and, if so, when ? And whether it is his intention, by any other means, to afford the house any information as to the proceedings of the last two months at Vienna? (Hear, hear.) I should be glad to hear from the Government what their intentions are on this subject. Lord PALMERSTON--Before my noble friend re• plies to the question, I wish to correct an answer I gave to the hon. member for Manchester the other evening in reply to his question whether the Russian Plenipoten tiaries had made any counter-proposals to the Conference after the rejection of the proposals made by the English and French Plenipotentiaries.' I then answered from a telegraphic message, and such messages are generally rather short—(a laugh)—but from despatches subse. quently received it appears that cTinter-proposals were made by the Russian Plenipotentiaries, those counter proposals, however, not being deemed - either by the British, the Fren,ch, the Austrian, or the Turkish Pleni potentiaries as calculated to produce a satisfactory con clusion. Lord J. RUSSELL then rose, and was received with some cheering. The noble lord said—ln reply to the questions which have been put to me by the right hon. gentleman, I have to state, in the first place, that I do not think it is for me to decide what papers shall be laid upon the table of the house. I may say, however, that I believe her Majesty's Government intend very shortly to lay upon the table the pro tocols of the Conferences which have taken place at Vienna. Those protocols will convey to the house in formation of the substance of the negotiations that have taken place. Perhaps I may say a few words more, without intending to go into any detail as to the nego tiations. The first meeting of the conference was on the 15th of March. The negotiations with respect t 6 the first two of the four points with which the house is acquainted lasted until the 26th of March. On the 26th of March the third point came under consideration. It was suggested by the plenipotentiaries of Austria that the plenipotentiaries of Russia should themselves make a proposal calculated to satisfy the exigencies of the case. The plenipotentiaries of Russia replied that they had no instructions to do so, but they asked for time to refer to their Government. The consequence was that the conference was then adjourned, and that no meeting for the transaction of business took place until the an swer was received from St. Petersburg. On the 17th of April another conference was held, when the pleni potentiaries of Russia informed the conference that they had received instructions from their Go vernment not to take the initiative of any proposi tions, but that they were ready to hear and discuss any proposal which might be submitted to the confer ence. The representatives of the allied Powers then re quested 48 hours to consider the farm in which they should make their proposal, and on the 19th of April the plenipotentiaries of France and of Great Britain, sup ported by the plenipotentiaries of Austria, laid their proposition before the conference. The Russian pleni potentiaries, on their side, asked for 48 hours in order to prepare their answer to this proposition. Accordingly, on the 21st they gave their answer totally rejecting the propositions which had been made to the conference. They stated to us, however, that they had propositions to make on the part of their Government which they conceived would be in accordance with the demand that Turkey should he united more closely with the mainte nance of the balance of power in Europe, and that some restriction should be placed upon the preponderance of Russia in the Black Sea. The plenipotentiaries of Aus tria, France, and Great Britain found those proposals of Russia entirely unacceptable, and refused to consider them in detail. The plenipotentiary of Austria then said, although these propositions had been rejected, he trusted that all the means of reconciling the belli gerent parties by peace were not yet exhausted. To this the plenipotentiaries of France and of Great Britain replied that their instructions were exhausted, and that they had no powers to consider any further propositions. , I then considered that the best way of performing my duty would be to 're pair to my own Government, and to lay before them the whole state of the case with respect to the negotia tions at Vienna, and the manner in which the confer ences had been suspended. Two or three days after wards the Minister of Foreign Affairs of France, having requested the orders of the Emperor, came to a similar determination. I believe he was expected to arrive in Paris last night, and I have no doubt he will lay before his Government hie account of the occurrences that have taken place in the course of those negotiations. Mr. DISRAELI—I wish to inquire whether, before the protocols of the conference are laid upon the table— and I trust they will be produced with all possible de spatch—her Majesty's Government have any objection to give us some preliminary papers—for instance, de spatches of our ambassador or plenipotentiary at Vienna, which will afford us an authentic and official description of what the four points are ? The noble lord will per haps recollect that at the present moment we have not the four points on the table of the house in au official form. I think, therefore, it would be very much for the convenience of the house if, without loss of time, we were put in possession of these preliminary papers, so that, before the protocols of the conferences are in our hands, we may understand what were the data and the bases upon which those conferences took place, and why they were brought to an end. Lord PALMIRSTON—I think the protocols them selves will pretty clearly explain what the four points were, but if the protdcols do not afford sufficient infor mation there can be no objection to laying some paper on the table that will give the requisite explanation. With regard to papers belonging to the 14ng course of negotiation that preceded the conferences, I think there might be great objection to their production ; but I will take care that the house shall be in full possession of a knowledge of the four points that were brought under the consideration of the conferences. Mr. DISRAELI—Perhaps I did not make my ques tion sufficiently clear to the noble lord. I have no doubt that when the protocols are in our possession we shall clearly understand the nature of the four points— (► laugh)—but, as the Government have only given a vague promise to produce the protocols, and have not fixed any time when they will be placed on the table, what I wished to know was, whether the noble lord would have any objection to afford the house at once some authentic knowledge of what the four points of which we have heard so much consist ? I should not, of course, press the Government for any private des patches ; but if they would lay upon the table the single despatch in which the nature of the four points was communicated to her Majesty's Government, so that the house may at once be placed in possession of t►,at information, I think such a course would be highly satisfactory to hon. members generally, and could not be attended with any inconvenience. Lord PALMERSTON— Whatever papers can be produced will be laid before the house as soon as pos sible, and I do not think their production will be de layed so long as the right hon. gentleman supposes. (Laughter.) Mr. DISRA.ELI—I wish only for complete and sa tisfactory information. The noble lord repeats that he will lay before the house as soon as possible the protocols of the conferences, but does he mean at the same time to produce the correspondence which took place between our plenipotentiaries at Vienna and her Majesty's Go vernment in pursuance of the treaty of December 2 ? That is the information the home would be desirous of having. Lord PALMERSTON—I cannot at present say what papers beyond the protocols will be laid upon the table, but the Government will consider the subject. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE understood news had been re ceived from Vienna that negotiations bad been opened between Russia and some of the gentlemen who had been left' behind by the :plenipotentiaries. (A. laugh.) He wished to ask whether any negotiations of any sort or kind had been resumed at Vienna since the departure of the noble lord opposite ? Lord PALMERSTON said that since his noble friend left Vienna some proposal had been made by Russia, which was not deemed likely by any of the re presentatives of the other Powers to lead to satisfactory results. Mr. BASS inquired what part Turkey had taken in the confer epees ? (A laugh.) Lord J. RUSSELL—I cannot go into details, but the Turki s h. pl en ip o t en tiaries were of the same mind as the plenipotentiaries of Great Britain, France, and Austria. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) LOAN BILL. O n the of der of the day for the Loan Bill, as amended, to be conait ?erect, Sir P. I i:ELLY rose to move that clause 22 be ~__ 1 -m " t ed- ln d o i ng so, he alluded to the anomalous and impolit:c cuorso which it involved in pledging future Pai:liainen tr to adopt a articular course of commercial policy• ( aear, hear,) P The Cl IANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, after explaining briefly the gronntis which had led him to in fairuce this, clause into the bill, said that it afforded a prospeci '-, of diminishing the capital of the debt re cently treat. cl. Mr. GLA SNE said that if the question went to a division b .Dhowd feel it a uty incumbent upon him THE Sti LONDON, TUESDAY EVENIAIG; MA Y 1, 1855, to vote with his honourable and learned friend op posite (SirF.Thesiger) in accordance with the opinion he had previously expressed relative to the clause now under consideration. (Hear.) He objected to the Par liament of the year 1855, undertaking'to determine by adopting a particular line of fiscal and commercial policy, the financial policy of Parliament to 10 or 15 years hence. (Cheers.) He contended that Parliament was going entirely out of its province by so doing. His right hon. friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) bad expressed, as one of the reasons for the adoption of the clause, that it afforded a fair and rea sonable prospect of diminishing the capital of the debt progressively. Now, it appeared to him that, under the present circumstances of the law, this reason would prove fallacious, and the clause itself would turn out to be quite inoperative. Suppose, , foi instance, that peace were proclaimed, and twelve months had elapsed, ac cording to the provisions of the clause, the next year there might be a surplus or there might not. But it there were a surplus of a million the clause would be inoperative, if the law was in force, as was proposed, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be bound to apply it to the extinction of the debt just incurred,, instead of applying it, as would be done under the present financial law of the country, to the reduction of the pub lic debt in the most advisable and expedient manner according to the circumstances of the times. , (Hear, hear, and cheers.) Thus the clause would not only prove innopetative but a positive mischief. He therefaire hoped that the opinion which had been so strongly ex pressed by the house against the clause would in duce his right honourable friend to withdraw ft from the bill without the alternative of taking the sense of the house more emphatically on the point by going to a division. (Hear, hear.) Mr. HENLEY also said a few words against the im policy and injustice of the clause. Mr. LABOI7CHERE remarked that if this measure went to a division he should feel himself obliged to vote with the honourable and learned gentleman oppo site. At the same time, he was bound to say that he approved most highly of the finan cial scheme which his right hon. friend had brought for ward with the exception onls of the clause now before the house ; and he, therefore, trusted that the right hon. gentleman would take into consideration whether it was worth his while to press the clause to a divi sion after the very forcible opinions uttered by different hon. gentlemen in that house. It was his own firm conviction that it was not expedient to vote a million per annum for the purpose implied by the clause ; and he moreover feared that a question might be raised as to whether the Government could pledge succeeding Par liaments to adopt the course it involved. (Hear.) The question generally had been so well argued by the hon. member for the University of Oxford, that he should only he wasting the time of the house if he went over the same ground ; and he would only express a hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not press the house to a division on the subject. (Hear, hear.) Mr. T. BARING rose to express a contrary hope to that of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Labouchere). He hoped that when a clause had been proposed, which bore upon it - the stamp of honesty, the Government which was bold enough to bring it forward would be equally bold in supporting it. (Hear, hear.) To reject the clause would be tantamount to saying " we do not wish or expect you to ever reduce the debt." Mr. RICARDO hoped the clause would not be pressed, especially as he understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say, the other day, that if the feeling of the house were against it, he did not intend to press it. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was under stood to dissent from this. Mr. RICARDO begged the right hon. gentleman's par don if he had misunderstood him. Mr. J. WILSON said, if one opinion had been more generally expressed than another with regard to the prin ciple on which loans should be created it was, that loans should be of a terminable nature. The form of loan which had been most favourably received' on all sides of the house was that of terminable annuities ; and the prin ciple of such annuities was involved in the clause under discussion. 'Mr. DISRAELI said the hon. gentleman had argued on the assumption that the house had sanctioned the principle of borrowing on terminable annuities, whereas there had been no vote on the subject. He regarded terminable an nuities as a very questionable means of raising money. The idea might be popular in that house, but if they went into the City and consulted men of business on the subj act, they would be told in what the fallacy of terminable annul ties consisted—that it was, in fact, borrowing money to create a sinking fund. The 22d clause was neither more nor less than a recurrence to the system of creating an artificial fluid, and to his mind nothing could be more ob jectionable than that. He though this clause would inter fere with the action of the present law with regard to the sinking fund, to the principles of which he firmly adhered, believing that it had worked advantageously for the coun try. At a time when they were borrowing money, it ap peared to him very undesirable to infuse into the public mind the notion that it was very easy to get rid of national incumbrances. He hoped the clause would not be pressed. Mr. GLYN, while he congratulated the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the course which he had pursued, re gretted that he had not taken advantage of the recent opportunity to raise a loan of 20,000,0001. Such a course would have prevented the great increase which had taken placed in the unfunded debt, an evil always to be avoided. With regard to the matter immediately under considera tion, ho considered that the reasons given by the right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks (Mr. Disraeli) were such as ought to lead the house to vote for, rather than against this clause. Mr. JOHN MA.CGREGOR agreed with the hon. gentle' man who last sabiressed the house, that it would have been better for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have gone intn the market for a larger loan than the present. Had he done so, he would have been able to make better terms, and to avoid the complicated system of terminable an nuities in which ho had involved himself. He (Mr. Mac gregor) saw no use whatever in the clause under consider. ation, believing, as he did, that the ilea of a sinking fund was an exploded übsurdity. In fact, he should describe the whole off-dr as a fiscal view of a promised laud. Mr. CARDWELL said he should he obliged—if the clause were pressed to a division—to vote against it. Lord PALHERSTON—I certainly concur in the wish which has been expressed by hon. members, that this bill should pass without any division of the house, but at the same time I think the principle involved in this clause so important that the Government ought to take the sense of the house upon it. I take the question to be this. When Parliament and the country find themselves pledged to a specific debt, ought we or ought we not to make an effort to reduce in future years that debt ? It is obvious that no country can face a great emergency arising from a war in which great efforts are to'be made without providing means over and above the ordinary revenues of the country. In fact, no war of magnitude can be undertaken by any country whatever without a loan upon honest principles or without forced contributions. Now, according to the ar guments of the right hon. member for Bucks (Mr. Disraeli) or at least, according to some part of those arguments, a country ought never to make an attempt to redeem any por tion of its debt. At the same time, in another part of his speech, the right hon. gentleman praised that system by which the surplus income of the country is applied to the re• demption of its debt. But how does that surplus income arise ? Did it not consist of the surplus of the proceeds of taxation over the expenditure of the year? (Hear, hear.) I think it desirable that this country should lay down, as a principle, that which has already been established to some extent in practice, viz„ that there should be in every year a surplus income applicable to the reduction, of the national debt. Much had been said as to the policy of raising money by means of terminable annuities, and undoubtedly had that sysit,em been followed in the last war much of the burden weighing upon this country would have ceased to exist. But there are great difficulties in contracting a loan of any amount upon the principle of terminable annuities, and I admit the statement of the right hon. gentleman opposite (Hr. Disraeli) that it may be doubted whether it is an economical method of providing for the reduction of debt. No doubt the most economical mode is to raise a loan in that kind of stock which will yield the largest amount of money in return, and then to apply the surplus revenue to its reduction. That is the principle of the pro positiou of my right hon. friend. He has negotiated a loan upon the most advantageous terms, and he now proposed by this clause to provide for its gradual reduction. The argu ments by which this clause has been met have been directly contradictory. Some hon. members have objected because it was a mere nullity; but, on the other hand, it has been objected to because, it was said, some years hence a Chan cellor of the Exchequer will find self embarrassed with a pledge from which he will find it impossible to free him self. My opinion is that the act will be, like all other acts of Parliament binding upon Parliament until it is repealed. Hence, so long as it remains nnrepealed, it will be the duty of every Chancellor of the Exchequer to frame his esti mates in accordance with its provisions. If unfortunately circumstances should arise which would make it impossible to continue the annual payment in reduction of the debt, it will be for Parliament in its wisdom, to consider the question. (Hear.) I cannot, therefore, admit, either that this is a valueless provision, or that it will be considered as an obligation which ought not to be fulfilled. It is but just in principle, that while on the one hand we are adding 16,00'1.000/. to the debt, on the other we are providing a bona fide surplus, for the purpose of meeting it-(Hear.) The house then divided— For the clause 2lO Against ,111 Majority ---.99 The bill was ordered to be read a third time to-morrow INCOME-TAX' BILL. Mr.HILDYARD moved, after the word "respectively," in the first clause ' to insert "if such annual value or amount shall reach or exceed 1501., and an additional rate and duty of 14d, for every 20s. of the annual value or .mount of all such property, profits, and gains respec tively, if such an anneal value or amount shall reach or exceed 1001. and not reach 1001. This would limit the in crease of taxation upon incomes under 1501. to lid. in the pound. The sum which the Chancellor of t e Exchequer would lose by this would be but small, and in a case like the present he thought the right hon. gentleman would not rely upon that argument as an answer to this motion. Colonel SI STHORP supported the amendment. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it was true the exemption proposed by the hon. and learned member would make very little difference to the Crown; . but it would also make very little difference to the tax payer, not more than six shillings a year. He did not wish, bower, er, in any way to pledge himself against the principle of . a discriminating duty respecting incomes of different amount ; and as the hon. and learned member stated that the amendment substantially interested of li mited income. , he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) should not think it his duty to oppose it. (Rear, hear.) The amend' nent was agreed to. The remaini u g clauses and the preamble were agreed to, and the house resumed. NEWS PAPER STAMP DUTIES BILL. The house t i .en went into committee on this bill. The CiTANCELLOA of the EXCHEQUER' said—The committee will retnember that when this bill was last be foie us a o:testion was raised on clauses 4,5, 6, and 7, relative to re gistration and securities. A discussion took place on the structure of those clauses, and it was pointed out that cart ain inconveniences would arise under their operation ; i hat, in certain cases, a sort of publication not c3ming withjzt the range of the original acts would be in chided, and. ti tat, in. certain other cases, particular publi cations tha.t d id come within the operation of the original acts would 1313 excluded. I felt that these remarks had in them some- loundation ; and, though the clauses referred to were frame , I on the principle of removing penalties and securing t he obligation of registration and securities merely by the operation of seeking stamps, I thought it was better to reconsider the matter, and accordingly asked the committee to postpone the clauses and report progress. I have since reconsidered the matter, and, after the best consideration bean give on the subj -.let, I have come to the conclusion that, on the whole, it will be the safer course for me not to interfere with the existing law, but simply to leave it as it now stands with respect both to registration and securities. These will be applicable to all newspapers, according to the terms of the act ; and, though we shall certainly leave in operation the difficulty which the Board of Inland Revenue has found as to the interpre tation of the word " newspaper," that difficulty will be considerably diminished when the operation of the com pulsory stamp is removed. Ido not think the state of the law will be altogether satisfactory ; but, on the whole, I am disposed to stand on the existing law, and allow it to be enforced by penalties. I therefore propose to omit clauses 4,5, and 7, and, with regard to clause 6, which shall remain, I shall propose some verbal alterations re quired by the omissions that are to take place. On the question that the 4th clause be omitted, Mr. G. BUTT said, ho understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to mean that he intended the lay: as to regis tration and giving security to remain applicable to all newspapers. By the bill as it stood before the Govern ment intended to confine the obligation of registering and giving security to those particular publications that chose to avail themselves of the postal advantages proposed to be given ; lint the effect of the omission of this clause, as he understood it, would be to relieve particular publications from that obligation. - The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—AII par ticular publications that are not newspapers. The clause was then ordered to be struck out of the bill ; as was also clause 5. Clause 6 was agreed to, with certain verbal alterations. Clause 7 was struck out of the bill. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, he had now to propose the clause of which he had given notice, limiting the retransmission by post of periodical pub lications. He proposed this clause as being a reasonable limitation in the right of retransmission. In practice it was found that persons iu possession of newspapers, and wishing to send them to a distance, transmitted them by post merely to be used as waste paper, and without any view of their being read. The privilege of unlimited trans mission led to large quantities of waste paper being' thus sent by post ; the right of transmission was abused, and additional cost was thrown upon the conveyance of papers. He therefore proposed the reasonable limit of 15 days. Mr. G. BUTT directed attention to some confusion which be feared would arise• under the act as it was now proposed to stand, owing to the adoption in different clauses of the terms " periodical publication" and " news paper," when the same thing was meant. He did not oppose the clause, but ho thought that it would be neces sary slightly to alter the language, in order to make the different parts of the bill harmonise. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that it would no doubt be necessary carefully to examine and compare all the clauses of the bill. He did not think that there was any error in the present clause, but he was much obliged to the hon. and learned gentleman for drawing his attention to the subject. Mr. SPOONER, inquired whether it was intended to give the right of transmission and retransmission through the post as frequently as one chose within the 15 (lays ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied that it was; but beyond. 15 days from the date of publication no newspaper would be entitled to the privilege of trans mission through the post. If the period of 15 days were thought too limited it might be extended. The clause was then read a second time, and was or dered to be added to the bill. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER next pro posed clause B, for determining how questions as to pe riodical publications should be decided. It provided that, so far as referred to their transmission through the post, the question should be referred to the determination of the Postmaster-General, whose decision, with the consent of the Treasury, should be final. The clause was agreed to. Clause C, relating to the manner in which warrants and consents of Treasury were to be given, was abandoned. Upon clause D, which provided that actions or suits might be carried on in the name of the registered pro prietors of newspapers on behalf of themselves and co proprietors, Mr. G. BUTT said he thought, if the right hon. gentle man the Chancellor of the Exchequer would considr the laws which were applicable to this class of subjects generally, that ho would come to the conclusion that this was a clause which ought not to be adopted. It contained a provision which was perfectly new to the law of the country, and if it were adopted it would apply to no other publication except a newspaper, because no other publication was required to be registered. The effect of the clause was to enable the registered pro prietors of newspapers to sue in their own names, with out joining all the parties in the concern as plaintiffs in the action. But upon what principle was this to be done? If there were a firm of booksellers they must all be joined, and what reason was there for taking the proprietors of newspapers out of the operation of the law aS it stood ? The proposition which was now before the committee was not properly analogous to that contained in the Joint Stock Act, which enabled proprietors in com panies where there were many partners, upon registering themselves and continuing to register any alteration in the firm as it arose, to sue in the name of the registered officer. That act also provided, if the registered officer failed in his suit and judgment went against him, that it would be a judgment against all the partners in the concern ; so that if the registered officer were a pauper all the partners would be, as they ought to be, amenable for the judgment obtained against them in the name of their registered officer. In the present case, however, there was no such provision, and the clause standing therefore in the isolated position in which it did was clearly contrary to every principle of existing law, and to every act of Parliament which had ever been passed for giving facilities to parties for sueing and being sued. Suppose that a newspaper were the property of six proprietors, whatreason could there be for exempting them from the responsibility of their ownership? Of course lie spoke not of the respectable newspapers in the metropolis and throughout the country, the registered proprietors of which would, no doubt, be answerable for any judgment whiclh might go against them ' • but he would take the case of smaller publications, in which it might be convenient to register as the proprietors persons who' had no funds whatever, while there were other partners in the concern who might be capable of answering any judgment which might be obtained against them ; and he said ',hat, under the clause as it was proposed, there were no meansof meet ing such a case. The General Joint Stock Act, 7th and Bth of Victoria, chap. 110, contained proper provisions for doing justice, and rendered it necessary for every change in the firm, the addition of every new partner, and the ceasing of a man to be a partner to be registered ; and the public officer was obliged once a-year to make a return of every and all such alterations. Ho must give in a list of the whole of the proprietors, and should any alteration be made in the period which elapsed between the times of making the general returns it was duly noted. It was provided, too, by the Joint Stock Act that a suit should not abate by reason of the death of the plaintiff, for the reason that he was merely-the nominal plaintiff, and a judgment was in effect a judgment against the whole of the patties concerned, so that a sufficient re medy was given. But here there was a palpable omission. The right hon. gentleman could not have known the state of the law ; for if he had intended to adopt the law to be found in the Bank Act, or the Joint stock Act, he had so worded the clause as to render it entirely ineffective, and would enable a paper which was started for the purposes of piracy, or as a vehicle for slander, to register a nominal man, who would sue and be sued, and the consequence would be that the defendant would be without remedy. There was no principle of law which, if a debt were due, for instance, on a bill of exchange to newspaper proprie tors, would enable one party _to sue,, when if a respect able firm, composed of six persons, had a debt due from a newspaper proprietary, they would all be obliged to join in the suit. The clause was not so' worded as to do justice between parties who might be plaintiffs and de fendants in a suit, and any hon. gentleman conversant with the law would tell the right hon. gentleman that such a principle was totally unknown to it, and was now for the first time imported into the house. At present proprietors of newspapers were registered for the purpose of giving facilities to the pursuer in fixing the parties in cases of libel; but the registration of a portion of them did not hinder him from joining the whole of the proprietors in the suit if he pleased. On these grounds he submitted that, the clause was not a proper one, and moved its rejection. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that at present the registered proprietors were subject to legal pro ceedings, and might be made defendants to any civil action. Mr. G. BUTT.—Not to civil actions. It relates to actions for libel, and not for debt. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.—At all events they were subject to criminal proceedings, and it had been represented to him as a hardship that, while they were thus subject, individually, to be made defendants, no relative right was given them of sueing. Any two regis tered proprietors were subject to a judgment in an action. He apprehended that the principal persons registered would be the printer and publisher, and no doubt they would have sufficient funds to give security for costs. The object of this clause was to place them in the same position with regard to sueing as that in which they were when they were being sued. Mr. G. BUTT again explained that the provision of re gistration did not limit the right of parties to sue the re gistered proprietors only, in cases of contract. They might if they pleased, sue all the proprietors. It was, therefore, impossible that this clause could be supported on any prin ciple of law, and he trusted that the right hon. gentleman would not press it. • The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that it was a clause in which the Government had no interest what ever, but it had been suggested with a view of doing away with a hardship existing under the present law. He had no objection to postpone its further consideration till the third reading. The clause was then postponed. Mr. WHITESIDE inquired whether any determination had been come to with respect to the registration ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Those clauses have been withdrawn for the present. I now beg to move the clause Which proposes to give the protection of a copyright of 24 hours on certain articles in newspapers. The present copyright in its interpretation clause includes newspapers, and it certainly appears to have been the in tention of the Legislature in passing that act to give the full benefit of copyright to newspapers as well as to all other classes of printed publications. But the clauses introduced into that act seem to have been formed principally with re ference to encyclopmedias, reviews, magazines, periodicals, and works of larger bulk and lass frequent publication than daily or weekly newspapers, and imposed certain conditions with respect to copyright which cculd scarcely have been ful filled in the case of newspapers, and therefore practically nullified the benefits which the act appeared to concede to them. luasmuch, however, as it has been imputed to the Government that in introducing this measure,which affects large daily newspapers, conferring upon the public great good by collecting and diffusing intelligence at great ex pense through all parts of the world, it gives facilities for pirating the inform a tion they contained, and disseminating it without any cost—inasmuch as it has been charged upon the Government that they wished to encourage a dishonest course of that sort, and having had no such intention,they feel it, incumbent to lay before the house a clause like the present, in whi c h a co py r ight is given to the articles i n news papers,and a remedy for the infringement of that copy r i g ht. a i s n re th ce e i received T witcweoh h iaeni t e cesihs kie m colnl ygaot respectucuhn alseeielet of Parliament. I am free to admit th a t if ht, this 4 o srhe f topioopatu reto ecabec,hneonae copyright exercised gi e s ylhp m y tateophoilrefeyr by yeeo, alreadyxsititihanhgtteneirights hnl vexatiously London nwnh s t f he hs o vi r c c eh e n t ih l n, b lav y ea t tib h yL e i d the sanctio n newspapers, would be materially abridged. It is undoubtedly true that the intelligence, the reports of the debates in this and the other House of Parliament, the reports of proceedings in courts of justice, the reports of the transactions at public meetings and on other public occasions, which are obtained at a considerable cost by the proprietors of the leading metropolitan journals, are transcribed into other papers simply by the mere process ,of copying, and without any expenditure of money. That practice has grown up and has been acquiesced in by the principal newspapers for a long series of years • , and it certainly would be a consider able detriment to the public at large if any attempt shOuld now be made to abridge the rights thus conceded by prac tice ; but it is not my belief that the leading London news papers would seek to exercise the powers which this clause would confer in any harsh and oppressive manner. (Bear.) The proprietors of newspapers, like other persons in this country, live under the influence of public opinion. Though newspapers, to a great extent, act as the guides of public opinion, they are also themselves in return peculiarly amenable to the influence of public opinion, and it is not my belief, looking to the manner in which' the principal metropolitan newspapers are conducted, that their pro prietors would seek by a harsh, novel, or oppressive use of the powers of this clause to prevent that transcription of intelligence from their columns which practice has hitherto sanctioned. My belief is that this clause would merely be brought into use in cases where a newspaper might be set up with the deliberate intention of pirating the principal newspapers, and of transferring into its columns intelli gence, articles of original composition, and other com munications, animo furandi —with the deliberate inten tion of making the profits of the newspaper depend on such ill-gotten gains. Under these circumstances it was desir abl that a cheap, quick, and certain remedy should be afforded to those newspaper proprietors whose intelligence was so taken from them. The right hon. gentleman con cluded by moving that the following clause be inserted in the bill:— " The proprietors of every newspaper shall, for the purpose of protection against piracy, be entitled to a copyright iii every original article, letter, paragraph, communication, and composition which shall be for the first time published in such newspaper iu this country ; and if any person shad; within 24 hours after the first publication of any original article; letter, paragraph, communication, or composition in any such newspaper, print and publish any copy of such origi nal article, letter, paragraph, communication, or composition, or of any material part thereof, or any colourable abridgment or alteration of the same, such person shall for every such offence forfeit a sum of not leis than 51., nor exceeding 3.:/., to the proprietors of the newspaper against whom such offence has been committed ; and it shall be lawful for the printer or publisher of such last-mentioned newspaper, on behalf of the proprietors thereof, to recover such penalty by a summary pro— ceeding before a stipendiary magistrate who has, or two justic.; s who have, jurisdiction where the party offending resides, who shall issue a summons requiring such party to appear on a day and at a time and place to be named in such summons (such time not being less than two days from the date thereof); and every such summons stall be served on the party offend ing, either in person or at his usual place of abo le; and, either upon the appearance or the default to appear of the party offending, such magistrate or justices may proceed to hear the complaint ; and upon proof of the offence, by con fession, or upon the oath of one or more credible witnesses (which oath such magistrate and justices '.are respectively hereby auilorised to administer), may convict the offender in a penalty of not less than 51. or more than 301., as to such magistrate or justices may soem fit ; and if the amount of such penalty and the cost of the proceeding, which shall be assessed by such maiist• ate or justices, shall not be forthwith paid, the same shall be levied by distress and sale of the goods and chattels of the offender, and such magistrate or justices shall grant warrants accordingly." Mr. WHITESIDE was of opinion that the proposed clause would not accomplish the object which the right hon. gentleman had so clearly explained—namely, to protect the rights of the proprietors of the principal newspapers. In that object he (Mr. Whiteside) entirely concurred, but it was to the clause to be moved by the hon. member for Pontefract that he should give his support, being of opinion that it was unjust to visit with restriction any journal—he did not care what journal it might be—on account of its success. He regarded, therefore, the clause of the hon. member for Pontefract more as a matter of benefit to the community than to any particular paper. But he confessed that it appeared to him that the house was now called on by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do what was never done before—to limit the blessings of printing, and stifle the electric telegraph as far as possible. (Hear, hear.) Of this he was satisfied, however, that. the clause was wholly impracticable. Ile agreed in the argument used by the right hon. gentleman, and which had been used elsewhere, that a newspaper, though it did not invent news,yet some; times he should say otherwise—(a laugh)—though it did not invent the facts welch occurred at Vienna, if any facts did occur there—(laughter) —still it carried the intelligence with great speed and industry, and with his consent it should be paid, if that were possible, for its extraordinary diligence and speed in carrying facts. But, what was the meaning of a copyright in news he could not imagine: News must exist, and halt-a-dozen men migh - carry news from Vienna, but one might carry it more rapidly than another, and the prop:. seaion should be to pey the parti cular journal which, by zeal and activity, got the news the soonest into this reetrorods. He a twitted that origi nal articles of great ability appeared in the principal news papers, but it was a complement to quote them—(a laugh) —and a testimony to the talent and ability with which they were written. But it might be said that original articles were not so much the matter of transcriptions as the striking descriptions of the Battle of Inkerman and other battles inserted in two of the metropolitan journals, written, he was happy to say, by two of his countrymen, and which were pirated ; and in Dublin the dabs received telegraphic despatches conveying the substance of any article of interest in an hour or an hoar and a half after it was written. But how was that to be stopped ? Of all the extraordinary devices which ever entered the head of a financier for effecting that object this clause certainly was the most extraordinary. Whether one man had stolen the ideas of another was often a difficult question to determine with respect to a literary work; but when several men had obtaiited any particular fact at Vienna, and the editors of newspapers hat commented on that fact, then the question would arise whether one had stolen it from the. other ; and according to this clause the editors of the Exa miner, the Spectator;and the Press—all men of great talent —might be pulled up by the neck before a magistrate to find out whether they had stolen their ideas from the 04- tor of the Times or the editor of the Morning Chronicle. Then, to try the question, there had been selected through out the country curious literary tribunals, and he must cx ess his desire that Ireland should be exempted from the bill, for much as he respected the stipendiary magistrates, he should be indisposed to - place at their control the press of this country. (Hear, hear.) It was impossible to find men so unfit for the duty proposed to be imposed on them. He was not speaking disrespectfully of them—(a laugh)— for they were never intended to decide questions of copy right. It appeared to him that emu 'provincial edithr, unless that merciful and charitable feeling adverted to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer 'should enter into the minds of, the London editors, might find himself taken before a magistrate, who might easily be satisfies{ of the violation of copyright, and flue him from 5/. to 301., and thus the provincial press might easily be suppressed The copyright of designs had been adverted to, but he was not aware himself of any analogous provision to the one proposed, and the propositions to give up men's minds and ideas to the judgment of police magis trates was intolerable. , If this clause were to be enforced, let it be enforced by a more competent tribunal ; there might not be much objection to the tribunal which was now the greatest in the laud, he meant a county court.. Ques tions of copyright might then be submitted to j ies, which were generally disposed to take - a lenient view in such cases, but it would be out of the question that two stipendiary magistrates in Ireland, or two county justices in Feiglend should be allowed to decide whether a local journal, to the politics of which they might be opposed, had invaded the copyright of a London journal. The right hon. gentleman would not be able, and he ought not, to carry a clause to that effect. Did the right hon. gentleman intend to include the press of Ireland ? That was a question which he might call a puzzler. (Al laugh.) Would it not be hard that a London newspaper should not be looked into for 10 or 12 hours after its arrival in Dublin, for fear any one might extract the intelligence it contained ? Even if the Dublin newspapers published intelligence of their own in the morning, a question would arise whether it had not been stolen from a London morning paper, and would have to be determined by a police magistrate. His view was that it would be right for them to protect good news and valuable commentary if they could do so— (hear)—but they could not, and it was useless to. make the attempt. (Hear.) If this section passed, one body of men, the le w yore, and the country attorneys especially, ought to return thanks to the honse, for every newspaper in the empire would be brought into a police-office. He submitted that if the right hon. gentleman would remove the objection as to weight which affected a particular journal, ho would do well to take the advice given him a few hours ago, and to leave the question of copyright as it was. The great journals here did not stiffer so much as they supposed from the grievance which it was now sought .to redress, and the effect of the right hon. gentleman's pro posal would be, that all the respectable provincial journals would perpetually be fined, and the London journals would be worrie.t by a law which they did not desire. He should, upon these grounds, oppose the clause. (Hear, hear.) Mr. PHINN said, the fist question to be desisted was, whether it was desirable thatthere should be a copyright in news, when newspapers had gone to great expense and made great exertions to obtain it? If they thought it was desir able they then came to the second question—whether the means proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for that purpose ought to he adopted ? The hon. andlearned gentleman (Mr.Whiteside had put extreme cases; he would put a case the other way. The morning papers went to more expense and made greater exertions in order to collect intelligence than any other newspapers in the world ; they had agents and correspondents all Over the globe, in every great capital, and in many of the secondary towns, and the English public were supplied with news vary often long before her Majesty's Government were prepared to com municate it to the house. The Times, or the Morning Chronicle, or the Morning Herald, might be obtained at 6 in the morning, and by half-past 8 or 9 a newspaper might be circulated through London, containing all the leading articles, and the chief intelligence, political, Eta: nary, and legal, published in those journals, at about one third of their cost. Was not this a great wrong, and ought it not to be redressed ? (Elem..) Would not the hon. mem ber for Manchester exclaim against spring patterns in cot ton being pirated, and offered to the London houses at half their proper price? He admitted that the morning papers might exaggei ate the grievances under which they suffered, but the effect of a system of piracy such as he had described would ba to diminish their circulation, to lessen the object for which they incurred expense and made exertions, and so to diminish the value of the article which they supplied to 'the public ; he was now, therefore, pleading for the public rather thawfor the proprietorssof newspapers. All public men sometimes fell under the lash of the press, but he believed our newspapers. wore, on the whole, the best conducted in the world.. God forbid that they should ever resemble the newspapers of America. He agreed with the hon. and learned gentleman that the remedy proposed by the right hon. gentleman was not a good one. He thought 21 hours was too long a period for copyright in news to continue, as six or eight hours would produce the same practical effect. Distauce - as well as time was an element in the question. The London newspapers would have reason to complain if a newspaper pirated from themselves were circulated in London, but if the news contained in them were telegraphed to the Dublin or Edinburgh news papers there was ner competition, and they would not el a copy the less is those places. Ile thought some means ought to be adopted to repress the piracy wbch he knew would be committed upon the morning journals. The Loa. member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) might shake his head, but he (Mr, Phinu) knew that preparations were at that moment be , ng made in London to publish the principal leading articles and the most important intelligence con tained in the morning papers by 10 o'clock. With regard to the means by which this grievance ought to be redressed, he admitted that be was not willing to devolve upon police magistrates a new and arduous duty for which they wore most inadequately paid. The Legislature was every day heaping- upon public functionaries new and unpopular duties which they had never contemplated when they had accepted their appointments. ThtsChancellor of the Ex chequer FRS right in saying that they must trust to the forbearance, moderation, and discretion o the newspaper proprietors—(cries of " Oh ! oh !")—for the efficient work ing of the clauses. He believed that they would not think it worth while to institute proceedings except in cases of systematic piracy, continued week after week. There. was considerable difficulty in the choice of a proper tribunal for the tii .1 of questions of this kiwi. If I there wer e a summary j arisdiction there must also be a power of appeal; but he supposed no one would wish an appeal to be given to the Quarter Sessions. He was not sure that the county courts would not be the best tribunals for the purpose, as there would bean appeal from them to the superior courts, and by that) courts the principles upon which the law was to be administered would be settled. He regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer hail not proposed a 'newspaper code ; but as the house would by this act give great opportunity for the commission of piracy, he hoped, however impracticable they might think this clause, that they would not reject the principle upon which it was founded, namely, that some protection ought to be given to newspaper proprietors, who expended much money and much trouble for the service of the public. Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE agreed with the hon. and learned member for Enniskillen in thinking that it was impracticable to establish a copyright in news. One argil , ment advanced by the hen. and learned member for Bath in favour of the present clause had certainly astonished him—namely, that they might trust to the moderation of the proprietors of newspapers that they would not exercise the right they might acquire by this bill in a rigorous spirit. He knew it was the fashion to praise the press, but he very much doubted whether, in the exercise of power, the pro prietors of •newspapers displayed a spirit which showed them to be exceptional to their species. But, in addition to the objection to the clause on principle, the house must see that it was totally objectionable in respect to its,prac tical operation. It not only provided against the pirating, a whole article, but also against "any colourable abridg ment of the same." Now, it would require the most cri tical mind to describe what a-colourable abridgment of a newspaper article was. What was Is newspaper ? An ephe meris, an insect of the clay, which, having performed all its functions, in a few hours disappeared. It could not for a moment be put on the footing of great works—such as those of poets, orators, and historians. To place on the same level with the writings of the hon. member for Edin burgh the correspondence of a newspaper from Vienna and Berlin would be most preposterous. Mr. BENTINCK entirely agreed with the hon. and learned gentleman who had just spoken as to the want of force in the argument advanced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—namely, that ho was prepared to trust to the good feeling of the editors of newspapers in carrying out this clause. Withoutereverting to the able remarks of the hon. and learned member forEnniskillenewho, he believed, had shown that the clause could never be practically car ried into effect, he thought there was another ground of objection to the clause. He could not understand on what ground any man was to claim a copyright in an anonymous article in,a newspaper. The law of copyright applied- to works of-durable interest, or, at least, to works on some independent mad continuous subject, the authors of which wore known; and he thought it impossible to legislate on the same principle with respect to such works and to ephemeral and anonymous articles in newspapers. It was absurd to say that there was any copyright possessed by pro prietors of newspapers in articles appearing in their journals when they all knew that in nine cases out of ten they were not written by the proprietors. But while he considered it objectionable to attempt to ,enforce a copyright in the case of newspapers, when they had no possible means of ascertaining in whom such. a right existed, he still re tained a strong opinion against the . whole measure. He believed the inevitable result of it would be to produce such a revolution in the newspaper press that for the - sake of the public and for the sake of the respectable portion of the newspapers themselves, it wouldbe absolutely necessary to make new laws altogether on the subject of the. press. If this bill liaised into a law they ought to require a signa ture to every article in order to determine who were the responsible persons, and thereby mailitain the stability of the respectable portion of the press, and counteract the in undation of mischievous papers which must inevitably follow such a law. He believed, from all the information he had been able to acquire, that the effect of this law would be to ruin the whole of the respectable portion of the country press. Without referring to the discreet or indiscreet use required from the proprietors of London papersof the power that would be vested in them, he believed that the respedl able portion of the country press would cease to exist— a press which in some places, in point of talent and circu lation, equalled the press of London, and that in their stead they would have an inundation of small publications which would beecorue the curse of the country. Mr. GIBSON did not think that the hon. and learned member for Bath had advanced any great argument in fa vour of the clause new before the committee. Ho remem bered the right hon. gentleman the member for Bucking hamshire once made an observation to the hon. and learned member that he liked his principles and admired his speech, but he could not vote for his resolution. So the hon. and learned gentleman now said he liked copyright in newspapers, and approved the policy of the Chancellor cf the Exchequer, but that he did not like his plan. But that was the very question the committee had to consider. The question before the committee was not a mere ques tion of abstract justice, but of practical policy. A gen tleman. was •examined before the committee who, he be lieved, was at that time editor of the Daiy News. He stated that the proprietors of that journal had reason to complaiu that, after they had been at great expense for the transmission of Indian news, the country papers had taken it from them without any acknowledgment, and he thought that a short copyright would put an end to such practices ; or that, at any rate, their permission should be obtained. He (Mr. Gibson) recognised a sort of abstract justice in this claim, but he was perplexed as to how they were to act upon it. Before Parliament made a law to meet an evil, it ought to be satisfied that the evil was of i sufficient magnitude to, make a remedy necessary. The electric telegraph of which the hon. member for Stoke-upons Trent was chairman, was charged that very day in the Times with acts of a piratical character, by sending news extracted from the Times to the local papers in the provinces. He would leave it to his hon. friend to explain to the house the proceedings that had taken place under his presidency. But it appeared to him strange that if this operation was of so oppressive a nature , the London morning papers should now come forward for the first time to ask for a remedy. He should like to know whether the house would have heard anything about it if it had not 13 ,en for the Newspaper Stamp Bill ? If a copyright was proper tot be had the proprietors of newspapers ought to have it whether there was a stamp duty or not. The provincial papers took as much now from the London papers as they were ever likely to take; and if it wore necessary that they should be punished for that offence after this bill should he passed, it was equally necessary that they should be pun ished now. But this clause was in reference to the pirates who were to come. They were looming in the distance. Let us wait and see whether they came or not. He was one of those who did not believe that there was this great army of pirates approaching against the London press. He was therefore prepared to abide his time, and see whether the emergency was .so imminent as to necessitate this great change in their legislation. He doubted whether, practically, it would be possible to accomplish the pro tection proposed for a narration ,of facts. (Hear, hear.) It appeared to him from the article in the Times news paper of that morning that they had great doubts themselves whether the bill would be of any practical be nefit to them. If it would be of no benefit to them—they being the parties who made the largest expenditure for news—it was clear that neither they nor any other London proprietors cared much about it. Indeed, they as Much as said that if the halfpenny tax were only removed from their second supplements the other newspapers might plunder them as much as they pleased. Thus by the by the Morning Chronicle, the Daily News, and all the other morning con tent') ,raries, it appeared, might be plundered as well as themselves, if the cheap postage of ld. for anysize or weight were granted to 'the Times. Only concede this boon, and they would bid defiance to piracy. This apprehension of piracy, therefore, &mild not be very well founded. The edi tor of the Daily News, in his evidence, stated that nobody could complain if a provincial paper announced, as a fact, that a Loudon journal said so and so. Now, here was 'a copy of the "morning express," which was sent down to Manchester that day by the hoe member for Stoke upon-Trent's (Mr. Ricardo's) company. and which was described as piratical :—"9a.M., April 30.- The Post believes that despatches were received on Friday from Ge neral Canrobert, and on Saturday from Loxd Raglan throughthe new submarine telegraph, stating that the bom bardment of Sebastopol bytheadies had not been attended with such success as to justify an assault." Was the state ment that the Post thought or believed that such a des patch had been received to b 3 considered as piracy ? W ell, this was the form of the announcement generally made by the electric telegraph. They ran thus :—" The Times says so and so—that Sebastopol had been taken," for instance. (A. laugh.) These were matters, the circulation of which it would be impossible to stop. The London correspon dent of a country newspaper searched the contents of all the journals and telegraphed down to the provincial edi tor such portions of the news published in the metropolis that morning as he thought fit. The provincial 'editor received his intelligence from his correspondent, but he did not know whence the latter had obtained it. The correspondent was .a collector of the news brought to London by the Times from Vienna or elsewhere ; he telegraphed what he read and heard ; and, therefore, to make a provincial editor penally responsible, merely be cause he inserted a paragraph communicated by an inde pendent source, and which might have kppeared in some London morning journal, would be perfectly mon strous. Again, the power of evasion would be so great that it would be impossible to enforce the law without creating all sorts of vexatious litigation—a consideration surely-forming a valid argument against any new legisla • tion. Literary newspapers were, no doubt, entitled to a copyright, if they contained a series of letters—" Mrs Cau dies\ Curtain Lectures," for instance—(laughter)—or any other, provided the proprietors registered those particular compositions, which, being produced from the mind of some individual, were entitled to the same protection as books. The right, however, to narrate a fact, when that fact had been previously narrated by somebody else, was a totally different thing. It was to• be Imped e there fore, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, seeing the difficulties incident to the subject which had occurred to the house, and considering that the danger sought to be guarded Against was altogether prospective, would consent to postpone,•for the present at least, the extension of a copyright to newspapers. ' Lord LOVAINB sail that this was the fi rs t ti me i n the i ; history of this country when a copyright was asked for articles of the most ephemeral description, which were written one day and forgotten the next ; and certainly 'if • the press of our day needed this protection it must have become weaker than it used to be. Recollecting what the daily newspapers assumed to be their functions, how they controlled, or attempted to control, Ministers of State, nd interfered even in the operations of the army, affording in formation to the enemy on points which it was of the high est importance should be concealed from him —iu which reprehensible practice, accerding to the statement of a late Cabinet Minister, they could not be restrained—it was rather curious that they should come before the house at that particular moment in the attitude of suitors seeking a ' copyright as a protection. It was a question whether, according to the law of England, any man had a right in another's wrong ; for it was notorious that the press circl. late), calumnious accifsations and vituperative charges against individuals, who had no means of clearing themselves in the eyes of the public. Those charges were reiterat d from day to day—sum's of them had even been repeated in that house in the face of the most solemn denial ; and was it fitting thet a right of property in articlesof that eharec ter should be created or protected? Again, magistrates by the law of this country were not allowed to settle the com monest question of right—such matters must be referred to a J •LI • and yet in a case of this importance, where the news • papers exercised enormous and irresponsible powers, it was proposed that they should be permitted to go before such a summary tribunal to enforce their alleged rights. Why should not the persons whose characters were assailed and aspersed by the press have an equal right to go before a stipendiary magistrate, and obtain damages against the • proprietor of the journal that had injured him ? But; further, it was the printer or publisher of a newspa per who was to sue for the penalty provided by this clause. Why should it not rather be the editor, the person who could prove by whom the articles the right involved in which was asserted were originally furnished? Thie bill also proposed to relax the existing law for protecting pri vate character from the us nonymolibeller. Journalism in this country required the exorcise of as niuch talent and ability as any %her profession, and why, therefore, should .....--- -- 0 ---..............._---... not those who pursued it bona flue as an avecatl'bi'?oded° t o boldly and- openly before the world, olgioing, ~ &DO' and reputation due to them for the articles L..' slielt° of butedi, i ns tead of meanly ekulking belliii‘l t he e . , _, „ro. anonymous writing ? The noble lord concled cdoluoYarfible posing the insertion after the weds, " anY the °era. a bridgment of the sante," of i limitilig ,i,eesi' tion n t• the clause to such is°tigh at tides, parrgrd "sr munications, & .., as were signed by end P ub % of ir' i. the The elau e s t-l e A si I lo ß u M ld the true names of the writers, with the except' n, iell y to t c h le e s p f u ri b or ic lO p r o e li ig oy n ocOfuantitcrhieceuruetllittrtiienag. _wholly or po' move his proviso until the committee had t Aol ibl, A b N e re s a a t i l d s t e h e a c t ond thenti in o e b . D o s s . The SOLICITOR-GENERAL- There are , of s ae' considerable difficulties involved in the questler) ~.v a hen , paper copyright ; but, at the same time, it w ould r Pl c isf I , very improper if my right hon.' friend, in int ° . ,u ee i o tli, measure like the present, had not attempted to 4 . ' it ,re s l merits, and stripped of all that species of inisrePrfigbte ~ it. Th e subject is one which should be discussed leotiere) in whic4 hon. gentlemen delight ton dule. (."' sn d lII` There is nothing at all about news i the el 3 o KO; these humorous statements which have been n'„ oe n bjecl sent that the clause is directed entirely te one mire; whereas it is directed to another. If any ne r w , e re cd °, to put his finger upon that portion of the lite . % o its ro , V present day iu which, as a matter of co lllr', l _ l , j 3 t . s lieJ ° : le ileocritalaroalildetsboerf take a just pride', he might point to that which td it e et t ephemeral literature of the day—as if bn that l l i iinj teat less deserving of encouragement —an be s y o nli-l e _ a „loyee, the greatest labour, eipsnse, and anxiety ar io 'Li e ' ti oe o upon these sources of information. I desire ben' reps red t i , to ask thethaelves this question —is any one P ois b ill f deny that, as soon as the change proposed by ti e ol e o effected, he does not expect that, day IV ( 13 %; D o e t ,. publications will issue forth u ustamP ed • P aY . e seet e 'ribo whatever, and feeding entirely upon the I" f f iellu i , o t lished newspapers? I will ask my right h°%,,ect !'y member for Manchester whether he does 'lot,' ;Ol t ! there will be established newspapers epP,01,9,7, voll.: few hours—probably within one or two-after r 0 str,; tion of the- London newspapers, containing 1 . % 1,0 0 !,! portant articles and communications whiclict open, press has gathered with infinite labour and ,'', o t his O at (Hear. hear:) My attention has been directen ii To w ject from the personal experience I have b 3l ; s ileil s t three years ago there was started a P4O. r ri dal , di fhoarlft-phaestbrneainkefasto'ctlaoble, inmatthe Politician, which appeared regularly e ve ' s od r es s ll l i i m sh p e o ti rta w n i t t a h r i t h icl fi e v s e , o pe f rth, s p_ l e: ` ,st r j i titii ti o the leading articles in the niorn:nnienPi'ecitbe°llibb; newspapers combined in a body to put downI:000i 0. aannddstasetvemenennt'scPl"k' ands 61'er5. -1' but from the state of the law there was great, hat diy ° r ight effecting that object, and I think it conlu t . DI "iglit complished. Now, what is the propositionret 00 1 , i hon. friend ? It is divided into two parts" -u ily t b 'ber of coypright which it gives'. and then tbe rya the ts ele rea t afoprplillieastic.hesatgerreewiwthithresguayrtrligthot.thheoor'etjeednld th i e t D i ' s t g 0° deal may be said in opposition to it. (Ong e , r 4 g l : e 's te Ale; same may be said of every proposal whicb‘de': t he s' c i iisl plish that which cannot be attained w itho ut th e t ot 4e o or o m f ic m al uc r h em t e h d a y t wisethieasvireedb,een in the habit tc),' slid eile'il° as necessary to justice. A worapt, 51 30° ` .7 ' s w e 0 1) 0 this we must give up , much of the e,. t b tbe a tu ) we have teen accustomed to connect 0 1, 0 c loe'oo , ministration of justice. It is said in rcler'ojell there shall be a property in every origiO' ,ition e r il Solicitor-General, Ti J. . d i. STANLEY TAi viaNs paragraph, communication, and conooloP shall,be for the first time published in everYseiecti%fill° offence:—" If and in propodritoievilty n,110,,,31. this country. This plause is distorted by reliteriefeor it first publication an o y f it introduces the word "news." This is` heiciers orb, paenrysoonrisghinalallwaritthiclino:lotFci;r orelretert: communication, or composition in anY 1, ar tiel ° ' s i O r print and publish any copy of such orig.i.o T ., or ° s lte r ,,f paragraph, communication, or c onapesi L i;',aen t ° i e ile) terial part thereof, or any colourable abrit e, _ ~iro, ,0 tion of the same." Now, the identity of tni e ' le i vn . ,llf with the original is to be ascertained in the!itore..:oll is now ascertaiDed with regard to larger .%'`thels7,so` publications—namel by the identitY si r ,,' t ,l e lsa a a el f in which the communication is made. 1L,,,, p irso ,0 4 the original communication and that of '_ e w se etbi l ;l; are so- plainly identical and so nearlY that' st ill b il ' 3 o •oo tll other that it is inapossit4le to mistalie, as is the I , mon-sense case criterion in the one ens:loitte 00,:r as to the fact of piracy having been c • ee d th e ce'pl surprised to find Inv hon. and learned ill o , or as i fti odicif is l c . o L wn e ov i e m cri ss i a n wi s i tti which hi p t u he t o : . t i l ❑ ie n er g li an his wt°, fi eb n ve. g e erwry::::310:110./(i lose 0 :0 able abridgment," because, if inY 1 1 ° 11 ' a ~, tbat , 4 1 04 i e t wa (Hear,t tee yera it now stands on this subject. The rtreedYte het ° , DP,,, Chester Protectionist—(a laugh) —1 refer f J0 4011 1 ,0 3 ' 0 0 . right hon. friend (Mr. M. Gibson) o uglit ~oieei hi t o ff ~) object to, since it is taken from an ne t f t % tbd" c (P,if 1 j_a e ment brought in to protect copYri„ ° / to 119 0ci11 t , 4 ,,/ Il i what every m Y a t 7ou have no difficulty in comlnrleThre ilibiscleclia „ of a . parcaogpryariexpressteno oite t lot wo, tion gist f rate or two justices of the Pest ho e e (.. i ist, o 4 towing them be co o l ' eo t i t leo lfl , i, 9 man ghht of of co In m design,ons esiavheicl e o uyidnp_.7 itn t t i y: t h b e e f or l i $ 1 0 : trusting these justices with the opP°l'wtotitlit, 51),`,0 thhrt:i p s,htdayt:: ntejsm o haeu r oeiysfsnt a i tiitr i chso t ehe i rt e ;loc l ia e : ifovwle it eptorm l brut t ooe o rteaph v in'pepbetioscc,t (lann3oo:l,iic i o ; :leirsditii r 0:, noto, , 0:1i6viciat:0100:0.:10::i;otoi il i f ttoei think .p,trre t os h de a nu t tlc e a s tm o pih l ui • oert w raylet: h ic e a t :i h id e: the language of the one ( I° :b e s aid t b i 7otl' er to preach to that of the other that it 'Dig!' t on f. t c hsrg e ol proceed forth: suggested or the improvement, than his duty. If, however, do pOt I° ", s itil ''.:i lr rally think that the public into on tent pry ill o letter-Gene:l h , 1., E e m i twywillo right unlo,i a:1o: o . i. n i bt r t . , 00: e . i t rt u e e r. , i i re 1, 4 i ii . 0 ! tiling d istinc thetdistinction n d discussion. The real P:' • c , i. fortio r i yid . Y said had admitted subject,m aking. . anonymously.iland,newighhttaahnian't: 1°.)10:10:1i110505511:::111:1,01k_eb:1:rdvive5,-0,.13::::t5lebt:1::90:111,i; . there might be a piracy e r. " • • 1 lO W ' . o ° 4 l I fr ' t l, of origin: , , e re 5 ,,, c e -!.1 ) e ) o p f n c , o i p c yr o ig f h t t h . at T w he hi s c u lt jhecatd, tville,r,fivfnpretlo"fjireslol7lool, by a leg. slati ve enactment they could n'': th einli po le V between the statement and e cou)10-ge ' ll° .,,l i i s 4 - ie. 4 ,1 1 t he fact upon which it was founded' -iieliev-efill' absolutelycould be insoluble. It was adrnitfe o tnn o is of' j be given where the origirol ° F on' I 's' 40 copied word for word. Here there WO - sadarg- s i'• if 1 0 1 11_ 1 f e te n eyn t ittl mightthe happened e p i ei t ) ,: je t e l ed doingt o h f a upon, but if they trusted to sivoilaritY ° '' ' o , l ', identity of ideas upon ..public qua O e d P e llo v i general interest which were emplosing,,,„o.l,o'' as the •experience of that house or e l uet , a sy o s t out the same lips of argument and w e i` V. b' bo a., Of D IG i ll much in the same words? (Ilear, , fac tor ,o' 0 .4 t h upgnerrielsraoetndssi Di nittu:sei itri?nib,..olbes-to(tc00::;:c;00,r,e‘00:;rii could be devised of distinguishing sstl' a tter i i i lg,ii!: what was and what was not original , f, 0 ,, ,, ,, ,,. the clause would be perfectly present have appeared to him impossib e-----d'a.olfsl' f ie" , supported the clause. As it 5 100 b ie if ' f l'', '' ' r° 0 ilnpractio ~ip 1 1 , ~, law. clon e :, tliV, Mr. MILNES hoped that' before the id Of v o : e o ,, Exchequer. withdrew, the clause he Nv°tlbest e e d iof4 an assurance that he would devote h', lle ren t s oli ? to devising some mode of reconciling' iii,,, dia 0 10 i this point. There were few persons yr Pr svi Pe f t e i l l / their hearts that 'some alteration of tP needed. - e i r en cle "4 to be 5 1 )13r the b ilili l' : - ... ,{a s, ~ , f , existing newspapers , said, the great evil , - - la ---. • I' , V 0; omission of some such clause as this fre jo tte . :. 01 pio l l thelestabliaiment of a cheap pre.ss, living E er ot e iti ot, fo, f o newspapers, would lowanesr:e:oriroreit:io:l:::: journals, and would destroy their ouP e o ie 0 0 41 eoxuttelnasii.6v,ee sumsa accurate information, a,b,.; P ll rP e riojtti (tHaleeanrt.)ofltthceouhliaghneosttpodsessicbriiyption fer ' tt eelce P lib p! 1 geuce from a coonfsimdeZYleindi:btatnaicneinl.l,;° Cir:f;Ali;fttlill to become the property of the Obi'''. 40 0P, 0 t "4 7 / interposiug between the public and theeeJipl i l' eo rr o rl i ,# publishin. it. The provincial 19sP ers Lo ll 0 '490' riorated by e ' the passing of this clause! '''. 3 1 0 t be e l ,,f 'for of course all the respectable provlure 0 0 ) 0 1 0 J oy prietors a ould make their arrangeoloioiaoAli/ papers, who went to the expense of °. " o l i aO t i l oo l „00,Y tplligence. They would pay their fair ost o por,11 0 ,? so incurred, and it would be onlY untilfeiritlfleole° otii, not pay should go withoutthe news , i t y . );it, of i( known to the inhabitants of the loee' e i 0° 01 1 /0 0 'it 4 obtaining intelligence was enorinollsp'aPe,sso6°.l,ll original compositions for our best De 1 o rolD• t ioe' o a, considerable amount ; but what jouro 3 00! Ole 07 cur these heavy expenses if their best c° , o bll e tio P oo i/1 immediately pirated by a swarm of ebeg e s ~,,,, ,1 0 i0 h ,,, time ago there was a weekly paper w jes ° :ce r ta 'it large circulation by getting early °°P AO ° r ee..tr e l Weekly . papers, and transferring their ; be e %l ith o f ro e 'W pages. This no doubt would bathethe C, ti ti °, s iti?,,p s 4 0 {, greataers if the stamp were t 01, d disr‘Ji ff, be a falling off in that liberality oi' d col a: 3)1 ,18 . 1 ' p "/ l ot, expense for intelligence or for talent:oo e c btrso l , o ; now characterised our press. This ' revs elig t he 5 o di balance every advantage which the P ros eato Do ; r t 4 the repeal of the stamp datY. . At 19- sh °ll. o l9i Vef l •l i did render it necessary that ther e oi .tlic e gre r i to' s , ainount of capital and intelligen°oooo,io ,Ire of 1 ,11 establishment of a newspaper 9 ,13 d 9 C•t1100 °,09f./6 displayed in its management, but, v 7 10 03 133 t De be ir i pl, this, all would be pulled down to ou e i ; h e to t. o ; 0 , 4 hail been said of the American jourolitscloelivit..lll 44,1 very sorry to see our journals broth:. or ill 9 rri of , i either in news, original composition. f i t i e, P g, i ii 09 conduced to the value and digui t Y„ ° w 'ilo , I , tlt. hear.) With regard to anonylD-rt of " 01'40 generally from any desire on the Pe if toe t i,i such a system was adopted, but eir a v l i ' l hich 0r p 06 :4 4 Dien - 0e of those arrangements hi„ o ve Poo lei t h were made to co-operate together Ori r d_ ro 0 0 0 e r ti 0 tor or proprietor being put fors ° the!, ft °IVA) person. It must not be forgottm°,oo; 1,011c00'fb) "Junius" were anonymous contriDu''l , I#ii #' l l as were the litters of "RunnyiDeqe.,ol e . ff e t i l e r ip io,) had also produced considerable pohttl.cies le b lic i d Jo rj rmihnnenaocpiraheefivecrett.ec: first iro e nci n ugit t el:aa t ,e i t iecridtemsta,hulvteatismio ftptiiii,istivilioatier rioli why b ee si o l l ; e t : Li cj , 1 i iic r: 0 1 01 04 01 . /, compelled that inquiry now in Prtve ' r i; ",1 1 7 been for the press, should we e ver bie b 0 1 1 0 l i p e o W eqtantry Was a ll u y tac i ; el f rtbhegeernec:btiri o s o e ti s bgi t i gYtltao.Nvi , ;s o : I) to I ' : l: ge e ! rifoss , thi 1 p i oi l press, and its progress was an oh.leqo e row t „0 11 0 11 0 1 / , man ought; to prize and endeavour s od ii iig AC l t i o ' gard to the difficulties which it 0 0 theso o,,ttrice,, of enforcing the law of copYright,' we d it s ,' ji , i rt e ti ,l l The legal opponent of the el , ;5' a1.,0,_,„.„ et ~„ a. .,, ,,,,,,, though why it should be called e, ° e ' ke ts ' e Dol' 6?) not see, since it affected the P c) oi o ) ve„,/ a largo body of respectable person es i , Do p., to, " Electric Tele. h I C 1 ,auy (Mr' the t e ,4 1/ e o' „rap ou r ~,,,5 , ..0 e 1 was about to follow' him, and Pe r ' ~,,pol oel!,i ill, p,,r would tell them how his couipavY N iro It rand !,14',,t,,/, it itisemitiated over the countrY:„.. fro,evo,,PP IPAILto who collected news for theinLat v " o p? ~i i 0„ , 4 corn mu ideate it to the leading, Pu1..)3,1 1 , ',A00 ..16, 1 1 ho did not see what greater right, t ro ,t o'v vi royiliij fit of this news than v, clerk in th e t o f A l e t o e i t ) i'',6 to take advantage of the coatwl I f it are te .t io jet, which came under his notice; but 1 ~leo:,, f pr j t ° o o, P ,L scribed it, he could not sufficieubl I , sie s ,o o . 0 i l ,lr of the company who spread so Tll:Ciodebero4;ol PI 1 out the country. lie loPed scniolit, °t •ell %V° o o I 4' l / of establishing newspapertob°ollp,,rree'sscovlobfidifell totii/1:51 would indict an injtuy on iv I , jil e 0 destroy the benefit intended to e ply he ; abolition of the stamp. vi th e o °e O r V 110 i e JJ Mr. RICARDO could not a . " b o n. ° The 1 tamed in the latter part of the ov a. . I ) 4 rasa without an immediate AD whO +. 6 100 gowned to think that the desPa