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

LIBELLOUS JOURNALISM.

" Liberty of criticism must be allowed, or we
" should neither have purity of taste nor of
" morals. Fair discussion is essentially ne-
" cessary to the truth of history and the ad-
" vancement of science. That publication,
" therefore, I shall never consider as a libel
" which has for its object not to injure the
" reputation of any individual, but to correct
" misrepresentations of fact, to refute sophis-
" tical reasoning, to expose a vicious taste in.
" literature, •n• to censure what is hostile to
" morality." Such, in a leading case, were the
remarks of a Judge distinguished no less for
the vigour of his intellect than for his legal
attainments; and subsequent experience has
fully justified the practical wisdom of the rules
thus laid down by Lord ELLENROROUOII. And
what gives additional weight to this masterly
opinion is, that Lord ELLENBOROUGH was a
great magistrate, sternly opposed to all
anarchic licentiousness aping the spirit
of true liberty.
But although the right of fair and free dis-
cussion is now clearly established, as well in
questions of literature and taste as in politics,
the law of libel is still, in one point of view,
notoriously defective. We allude to the rule as
exemplified in a case recently tried before the
Court of Queen's Bench, .rhii
journalist from reporting
-what occurred at a public •
that meeting may have
virtue of an Act of Pail

BELL has very properly
the Legislature to this

things, and a committee
has been appointed with
a remedy. We believe '

inquiries must lead to a,
upon the point in questi,
In fact, it. is now one of the recognised
tione of the public press to report the -

171

h'7
a~

ch, which prohibits a
to
"iVaIyAN
ng, except at L;1.0 :
rneeting,e • 0-pa.LIT-1,
e been su • c4rl"*l'.' - -(40
,rliament. :120341.‘,.:-7
called the; 111 .1!"---':: ilk
3 anomalo. .....r-ireif,
ee of the • • 7:i•%. 41":fq 7i,
h the vier ;r -4'll'‘"-'
Ins -40 i 44.)6‘...,40
that there.. - ~‘__., ._,.--- '
all alterati • .16-a'''"•w:
Lion.

sed hum.
proceed,

470

...1.
7"
rr..

ings of public meetings of nearly every kind,
and it is a matter of obvious importance that
such reports should be given with fairness
and accuracy. The meetings of municipal
bodies, of counties, of railway shareholders,.
and of other public companies, are all items
of intelligence which interest different classes
of readers, yet the proprietor of a journal can
only insert them at his peril. If they happen
to contain any libellous matter, it is he who
must bear the brunt of an action at law, or of
a criminal information. It is no defence to
any such proceeding to show that the matter
in question was a true and impartial state-
ment of what passed at the meeting, and that
it was inserted without malice. That would
be a perfectly good defence in the case of the
report of a trial or other proceedings in a
court of justice. for the law draws a clear line
of distinction between reports of this kind
and those of public meetings in general. Why
this distinction should exist is a question
which at first sight appears to be somewhat
difficult to answer, and the more violent oppo
nents of the present law would not hesitate to
abolish it altogether. Let the reports of
public meetings, they say, no matter of what
kind, be privileged in the same manner as the
reports of the proceedings in our tourts of
justice. Let it be a sufficient defence for a
journalist in any case to prove that he has
reported fairly what took place, " nor set
" :town aught in malice," and both the press
and the public wilt be gainers by the change.
But there is a fallacy in these arguments
which it is easy to detect. It is of the utmost
importance, nay it is essential to the pure
administration of justice, that the proceedings
in our courts of law should be conducted with
the greatest possible publicity. We must also
bear in mind that judicial inquiries of every
kind are carried on according to certain pre-
scribed forms which are calculated to cheek
all personal altercation, and which afford
comparatively little scope for the display of
angry or vindictive feelings. There is but a
faint analogy between the grave and formal
proceedings of a court of justice and those of
a stormy public meeting, where, in the heat
of prejudice and passion, the most unfounded
charges may be made against an individual,
which, being merely spoken, might fall harm-
less to the ground, but which, being printed
and circulated among strangers, might inflict
upon him an incalculable amount of injury.
It is not without reason, then, that the
distinction in question has been drawn,
although its operation in certain cases may
prove arbitrary and oppressive. To amend
the law, therefore, so as to protect the privi-
leges of the press, but without prejudice to
the interests of individuals, is the problem to
be solved ; and that will be found no easy
task. Under these circumstances we think
that Lord CAMPBELL has taken the wisest
course in moving for a committee to inquire
into the subject. The fact by itself that so ex-
perienced a legislator should proceed thus
cautiously is proof sufficient that a remedy
is not so easily to be found as some of
our contemporaries imagine. That the law
requires attention is universally admitted ; but
the main difficulty, we apprehend, will be
experienced in attempting to define what is a
public meeting. If we concede the privilege
of reporting all that passes at every open
assemblage of the people, and if all attacks
there made upon private character are to pass
with impunity, provided only they are fairly
reported, we very much fear that the remedy
wont." be found much more intolerable than
the grievance which we seek to remove. Lord
CAMPBELL has perceived this difficulty, and he
suggests that it may be found advisable to
extend the privilege only to the reports of
meetings which are convened by virtue of an
Act of Parliament. It would be premature,
however, to pronounce any definite opinion
upon *is point. Meanwhile, it is satisfactory
: 1 4..lcuowthat the subject has fallen into com-
Went hands. Politically opposed though we
/ are ts tiktAhief Jestice, we cannot but admit
atOi
s. tunlihe his Whig coadjutors in general,
?,
. Leilehip has shown himself to be on
vsripus oesabions au able and successful law
• liptr.

THE PRESS.

INDIA AND HER COTTON SUPPLY.
THERE was a meeting of the Society of Arts
held at their monis on Wednesday evening, at
which an excellent lecture on the supply of.
the raw material for our cotton manufacturers
was read by the Member for Stockport, Mr.
J. B. SMITH. He showed that the question
was one of no secondary nature, for in it
was our very existence as a nation bound up.
A third of our exports to foreign nations con-
sisted of cotton goods, and any falling off in
these would necessarily occasion a correspond-
ing decrease in the amount of articles received
by us in return. The revenue of the country
was thus dependent on this manufacture to a
far greater extent than superficial observers
might suppose, and with the revenue our
means of adhering to the pecuniary engage-
ments which we had incurred. At the same
time there was a vast population engaged in
the manufacture, the mere chance of whose
being thrown out of employment could not be
viewed with other than the deepest concern.
Ner were the comforts of the remainder of the
people less matters of consideration; and
these consisted largely of clothing and other
articles of domestic use which the cotton
manufacturers supplied. While, therefore,
this manufacture had become one of such vital
importance to us, no matter under what
aspect the question might be viewed, we were
dependent for the supply of no less than seven-
ninths of the whole of the raw material im-
ported into England to ono single source, the
United States. A s long as this state of things
continued we were liable to be involved at a
moment's notice in the must frightful of all
calamities, the destruction of our commerce,
and national bankruptcy, if, by a rising of the
slaves, internal or external war in America, or
any other cause over which we could have no
control, the supply of cotton fi orn America
should be either abridged or cut off. This
risk the lecturer for one was not disposed any
longer to incur, and it was to try and devise
the means of obviating it that the meeting had
been held.

It was clearly shown that in this state of
things it was to India that we must chiefly
look. Dr. LIVINGSTON, the African traveller,
explained that cuttou of good quality was
grown in Africa; but he admitted that years
must elapse before, under the most favourable
circumstances, any considerable supply
could he hoped for from that quarter. In
India, ou the other hand, it was shown by
speakers familiar with that country that soil
and climate were alike favourable to the
plant, and that nothing but good government
was necesary to obtain from it as much cotton
as our manufacturers could possibly consume.
But though there cotton was a plant of indige-
nous growth, yet it could only be brought
to the state of requisite perfection, and sold at
the requisite price, under conditions which
the Government of the East India Company
had always neglected to perform. These were
the construction of roads for the transport
of the produce, the formation of canals for
irrigation and transit, and the extension
to the landholder of that security of
tenure without which it was absurd to suppose
that any man in his senses would be prepared
to investihis capital in the improvement of the
soil. Ruckrent tenures and virtual serfdom
among the cultivators were incompatible with
agricultural progress, whether in the East or
in the West. The incompetence of the
Company's courts, and the insecurity for pro-
perty thus occasioned, were also dwelt on as
prominent obstacles to the success of cotton
cultivation in India.

To our minds—and we speak not without a
long and very intimate acquaintance with the
subject—the latter points, in fact, embrace the
whole pith of the question. With freehold
land tenures, and with courts that would
afford adequate protection to the rights and
property so acquired, there could be no earthly
difficulty whatever in procuring an unlimited
supply of cotton from India. An enactment
consisting of a dozen lines and of three very
simple clauses would lay the foundation for
all that is desired. The first clause should

SATURDAY,

abolish the restriction which prevents British
subjects from going without the Company's
permission to settle in any part of the Mo-
fussil The second Ehould enable any tenant
holding direct from the Company to convert
his tenure into a freehold on paying twenty
years' purchase for it, and thereafter to dispose
of it at his pleasure to any one at any price ho
could obtain for it, as is done with freeholds
here. The third and last section should
declare that any future questions of title
arising in respect to such freeholds should be
tried by the Queen's Judges in the Supreme
Courts, and not by the Company's Mofussil
Judges, if either party to the suit should at
the commencement of it serve notice of his
intention to move to that effect. Let this be
done, and there will soon be as much capital
invested in cotton-growing in India as there
is invested in cotton-growing in the United
States, and the finer kinds will equally be
cultivated there, and with a similar success.
But cotton-growing requires capital, and con-
siderable capital too, if the cultivator of it
hopes to obtain a profit corresponding
to the risk ; and the above are the only terms
on which capitalists of sense will invest their
money in agriculture in India. Poor cultiva-
tors there will always confine themselves to a
crop that they can eat, just as the pauper pea-
santry confined themselves to growing pota-
toes and oats in Ireland.

There was ono feature in the meeting re-
ferred to in this article which we viewed, we
confess, with the greatest pleasure, as proving
of good augury for the future of India. This
was the presence of Lord STANLEY and Sir
JOHN PAKINOTON, who both spoke briefly, but
excellently well, and who both entered heartily
into the spirit of the proceedings that took
place. Both were very loudly cheered, and,
indeed, we thought that the applause would
never cease which greeted Sir JOHN PAKINOTON'S
expression of his opinion that the question
was one that must undergo discussion in Par-
liament. A meeting presided over by such a
man as Mr. BAZELY, and addressed by
gentlemen so well known as the Member for
Stockport, Six ERSKINE PERRY, Mr. WATKIN,
Mr. MONTGOMERY MARTIN, and Dr. LIVINGSTON,
was not one that in any case was likely to be
without some considerable result; and, in-
deed, it was understood to be merely pre-
liminary to the establishment of an associa-
tion, which, we doubt not, will be distinguished
by all the practical ability shown in matters of
commerce by Manchester men. Still, to our
eyes, the crowning triumph of the evening was
the appearance at the meeting of the eminent
Conservative statesmen we have named. It
showed that, however it may suit the adver-
saries of the party to, say so, Conservatives
are not disposed to hold themselves aloof from
their fellow men on great practical and social
questions. It proved, on the contrary, that
on questions of real utility they are ready, not
only to give their aid, but to take a foremost
place ; that their professions of liberality are
not mere hustings' pledges, but that they
are prepared to lead the country as they led it
of old, in the advocacy of everything calcu-
lated to further national honour, national
enterprise, and national greatness and wealth.

CIVIL SERVICE SUPERANNUATION.
IT is a recognised axiom—whether
,justified
by fact or not is a matter of opinion—that
every class or body of Englishmen must have
a " grievance "—something over which they
may grumble and growl. If this axiom have
not a universal, it cannot ba denied but that
it has a partial application. Undoubtedly
there exists many "grievances"—some merely
imaginary, others, unhappily, but too real.
The Civil servants of the Crown have a
" grievance " of the latter description. They
have a real and substantial " grievance" in
the shape of an iniquitous superannuation
tax. We have more than once expressed our
opinion against this impost. Strong reasons
can be adduced to show that it is unjust and
unnecessary. Mr. DISRAELI correctly stigma•
tised it as an act of " spoliation "; whilst a

MAY 16, 1857.

morning contemporary has not hesitated to
denounce it as a " swindle." When such
terms as these are applied to a deliberate
measure of the Legislature it becomes neces-
sary to inquire closely into the facts of the
ease, and to see how far such strong denuncia-
tion can be justified. The task is compara-
tively easy. The superannuation impost is
exceedingly simple in form. Its defects
stand out in bold relief. Its anomalies are
revealed with unblushing effrontery.
Before the year 1834 pensions were granted by
the State without subtracting any contribution
from the salaries of the Civil servants. But in
that year a measure was introduced into
Parliament under which those Civil ser-
vants appointed subsequently to 1829
were subjected to an annual deduction from
their salaries of two and a half per cent. if
below 1001., and five per cent. if 1001. or up-
wards. These deductions were intended to
form a fund, out of which should be defrayed
the whole cost of superannuations. This
measure, although partially, was not entirely
retrospective in its application. It in no wise
affected the position of those officers who had
entered the service previously to 1829. They
were still subject to the old regime ; they were
allowed the same liberal pensions, and not
liable to the new illiberal tax. On the
junior branch of the service—that is to say,
the class appointed subsequent to 1829—the
deductions have been made without interrup-
tion. Had the original intention, as announced
in Parliament, been carried out, a very large
sum would by this time have been amassed;
the interest upon which alone would have
almost, if not entirely, sufficed to liquidate all
superannuation claims. No such fund, how-
ever, has ever existed, and the question is
naturally asked, what has become of the accu-
mulations? To this question there has never
been given a satisfactory answer. The sub-
ject, however, is one which is beginning to
excite considerable attention, and numerous
petitions are daily being presented to both
Houses of the Legislature from the several
departments of the State, praying for an aboli-
tion or amendment of the impost. Lord
ALBEMARLE, in his place in the House of Lords
on Monday last,presented one of these petitions,
and, in doing so, took the opportunity of
making the following observations, which aro
so practical and clear, and illustrate the
anomalies of the tax so forcibly, that we need
offer no apology for introducing them. The
Noble Earl said :--

In 18`•34 was passed the act of which the Civil servants
now with so much justice complained. One of the chief
objections to it was that it was partial and unequal in its
operation. For example, some of the persons connected
with the Treasury were compelled to pay the tax, while
others were entirely exempt. The high political, diplo-
matic, and judicial functionaries did not contribute a single
farthing to the fund The annual tax
amounted to 66,0001. The sum paid out was 11,00:11., no
portion of the remainder going into the pockets of the
Civil servants. Since the tax had been levied the total
contributions amounted to 900,0001. Of that sum the
Government had paid away 82,0001., leaving a balance due
to the Civil servants of 818,0001. Only one sixth part of
the Civil servants derived any benefit from the fund, and
many cases might be stated showing the injustice of
the tax.

The Noble Earl then gave the following case
as illustrating the injustice and unfairness of
the tax :

Some time ago a landing-waiter died at Southampton
before he had attained the age of sixty. His contributions
to the fund amounted to 2001., and yet neither his widow
nor any other member of his family received one sixpence.
According to the statement of an experienced actuary, if
the deceased had laid out the same money on a policy he
would have left 3501. fur his family.

We have cited at length these remarks of
Lord ALBEMARLE as demonstrating the injus-
tice of the impost. It is the duty of the
State to treat its servants liberally and
honestly. It is manifestly unjust that an
officer of the Civil Service should be subjected
to annual deductions from his salary, which,
should he die in harness, would be permanently
confiscated. The policy of the State should
be liberal pensions and no deductions. The
service of the Crown monopolises the time and
labour of its officers for the greater portion of
their lives. It must be acknowledged that
the Civil servants perform their functions with
alacrity and zeal. Taken as a class, we do not
think there is any body of men from whom
more is required, and whose services are