The Express.
London, England, 1855-03-17 00:00:00

SATURDAY EVENING, MARCH 17, 1855.

du Bill which has been just withdrawn from the
tttw el the Home in the eases way sus the first ad-
allithelUent eesdations by the same author were
Middrawn. His enteenor is not committed to his
Opiaisasiand may take a mon intelligent view. It la
to be hoped that he will; for, independently of the
question of copyright, the abseoce of all protectioa te
the public in the case of libel would have caused the
olisetimielthe recent Bill as framed to be a public oda-
Brines. But the failure of the Bill leaves us freesia
die mission to address ourselves especially to mom
debt. In reference to this it was shown to the News-
pp* Stamp Committee in 1861 that nearly the whole
01 the early foreign and Indian news was pneured at
the cost of some of the six daily London morning
ppm. This news is now largely made use of by
coatemporaries; but the field is at present limited.
It was admitted before the same committee, by wit
Isms mat favourable to the abolition of the stamp,
Oat a short copyright would be essential. Mr.
RIMY Cola, a warm supporter of the abolition of
the stamp, says: " I think it would deteriorate the
character of the Press if you allowed everybody to
plagiarise instantly those who had obtained informa-
tion at any great cost." Every philosophical
objector to the newspaper stamp in the same way
made the grant of copyright a condition precedent to
its removal. There is scarcely a witness of any value
who doss not condemn the abolition of the stamp,
unless it be accompanied with protection against
piracy. It seems to be impossible for Parliament to
unction any measure which does not provide that
protection which, for the public good as much as
for justice to the leading newspaper., was held
to be necessary before the Committee on whose
recommendation the Government profess to act.
It cannot be argued, because the morning papers
have not adopted any energetic means to prevent
the use which has been made by the evening papers
of their columns, that therefore they are to be ex-
cluded from soy remedy ; and that a premium is to be
held out to the establishment of dishonest publications,
whose sole contents may be pirated from the morning
papers, published perhaps only two hours earlier. Such
an argument could not be maintained by an English
Minister, especially by one not ignorant of the claims
of literature, and if put forward would be rejected
with contempt by the House. It. is an argument
which would confound right with wrong, and be a
refusal to prevent burglary because a petty larceny
had not been previously prosecuted. The only
other reason which can be urged against the
express grant of copyright would be the difficulty of
enforcing it. Into this it is not necessary that we
should enter, further than to say that a remedy can
be easily framed, if Parliament will suction it. It is
obvious that on the most important item of news—
telegraphic despatches—no difficulty of proof can
exist, as the message could come by but one channel,
and the company could at once prove whether a mes-
sage had been delivered to the pirating paper or not.
Where there is a will there is a way; and in de-
manding a strict copyright, even one not exceeding
twelve hours, we only ask from the Legislature jus-
tice. We ask it in the name not only of our-
selves, but of that public who are so greatly
interested in the continued maintenance of that early
and authentic intelligence which has so distinguished
the English Press. We are convinced that the appeal
will not be made in vain, for if it were otherwise the
Press would be exposed to an unlimited piracy, not in
spite of the law, but by virtue of an express enact-
ment, made with full knowledge of the danger which
it created. The Commons of England would be
accessories before the fact to a legalised robbery, and
I the liberty of the Press would be insidiously attacked
by a blow struck at its respectability.—Doily Nem.