The Express.
London, England, 1847-07-14 00:00:00

ittropecl rai--------nonn ea, became they would have the
meet of rendering war as impoosible as it was
horrible. After some observations from Lord
Buironsir, expressive of his reliance on the re-
sources of the country. in consequence of the union of
*sling with which all parties would enter into the
woggle should one arise, the bill was read a third
tar, aid passed.—On the question of the committal
of ;he Poor Relief Suspension (Ireland) Bill, the
sari of Sr. GERMANS moved that it be committed
that day three months, when, after a short disco don,
;he amendment was negatived without a division,
sad the bill passed through committee.
In Rouse of Commons, which met at 12 o'clock,
Lord I. BVSSELL moved the second reading of the
Bishopric of Manchester, &c., Bill, intimating, in the
course of his speech, that it was the intention of the
lorernment hereafter to propose, on the authority of
tae Bishoprics Commission, that a Bishopric of St.
Alban's should be established in relief of that of Lon-
don; one for Southwell, in relief of that of the Arch-
bishopric of York and Bishopric of Lincoln; and a
bishopric for Bodmin in Cornwall, in relief of the
diocese of Exeter ; but each of which pro-
positions would require the sanction of a
separate act of parliament.—Mr. HORSIIAN, in a
speech of details relative to ecclesiastical superinten-
desoe,moved a declaratory resolution affirmative ofthe
wiseipole that the bill could not be fitly entertained
s=elhe present ;session, the amendment being
by Mr. J. CotkErr. After a protracted
&maim, Mr. Hume moved, as an amendment upon
that of Mr. HORSMAN, that the bill be read a second
time that day three months; Mr. WARLEY seconded
this amendment, the house dividing, when the ori-
ginal motion was carried by 124 to 13, the bill being
rhea read a second time.—Mr. WARD announced, in
consequence of the opposition threatened in the Lords,
that the government had resolved to withdraw the
Thames Conservancy Bill for the present session.—
The Sunderland Improvement Bill, after a short con-
versation, was withdrawn.—Mr. Escort brought the
rue of Mr. Langslow, recently a judge in Ceylon,
under the notice of the house, with a view of obtain-
ing him redress.—Mr. HAW err, having replied to the
statement of the hon. member, concluded by moving
the preview question. After some discussion the
motion was withdrawn.—Mr. BODKIN'S Poor Re-
moval Bill was rejected by a majority of 44 to &
The Poor Removal Act Amendment Bill (No. 2),
alter a short discussion, was read a third time and
Pawl

WE have given oar readers some days to digest the
purport and consequences of a trial at law, in which
a verdict—carrying 500/. for damages, and probably
as mach more for costs—was recovered against the
proprietors of this paper in the Court of Common
Pleas on Thursday last :--and we rejoice to believe, so
fu as may be inferred from what we hear on every
side, that the cause of principle is not so hopeless
among the classes which furnish juries as the verdict
itself would seem to indicate. The amount of
money awarded is to ourselves as nothing,
tempered with the doctrine established by that ver-
dict ; and the ultimate interests involved are so en-
tirely the public's own, that we must have felt power-
leas in their cause bad the general voice, confirming
the legal decision, proved how ill those interests were
understood where most they concerned. Since, how-
ever, all opinions that have reached us set aside the
verdict of the jury as contrary at once to the evidence
and to principle, our object has been gained in that
verdict's despite. It may even be that from that de-
cision against us we acquire increase of power to
serve the public—since we add the authority of
km incurred for the cause to our advocacy of the
muse itself. We have, at great cost, put on formal re-
cord our protest against the abuse by the plaintiff of
an influence which, derived from the public, it is a
grievous wrong to convert to a private end. We have
done what in us lay to uphold the integrity of the
press :—and we pay the penalty which the moral
Ignorance of this particular jury has prescribed for
the service of that more enlightened public opinion
whose echoes we are sufficiently consoled by hearing
everywhere around us.
In the face of such testimonials, we will not hold
the general public responsible for the moral
shortsightedness of these twelve "good men and
true,"—as we in no respect doubt them to be. It is
probable that it would be difficult to impanel another
jury which could be persuaded to give its assent to a
doctrine so suicidal as the verdict of Thurs-
day affirms ; and accordingly, counsel, solicitors,
and all whose opinion has weight in such
matters have been unanimous in the recommenda-
tion that we should seek a new trial. In their
strong sense of the mistake which has been com-
mitted—their assurance that it is against evidence—
and their feeling of the dangerous impediment nlich
it throws in the way of their efforts to keep the
press pure—the proprietors themselves feel at the
moment inclined to such a course. They can scarcely
satisfy themselves that they have done all they should
without affording an opportunity for a solution of
this question more in accordance with the
obvious interpretation of the judge. The point is,
however, open for consideration. The proprietors are
convinced that, even now, they have discharged their
own responsibility in the matter, and flung it on those
whom the jury, however badly, represents. They
have no personal feeling against the plaintiff;
and would far rather that the damages
should go into his pocket than be squan-
dered in litigation. They have been actuated
by no other motives than those of maintaining the
principles which they had asserted to be the rule of
their undertaking, and justifying themselves with
their constituents where they felt those principles
hin
theirbeen
servicevi
a.
gentleman
ave
who retained voluntarily
l vaoplurliiten
public influence for a private purpose would have
hem a distinct acceptance on their part of newspaper
corruption, as they have interpreted it,—and as they
believe the public will. To be compelled under penal-
ties to retain the services of one who dealt waste-
fully with the most important part of their
capital—who had tampered with the parity of
an influence which is strong only so long
as men beliere it to be pure—is en imposition op-
peed to all notions of property, and which should
have been especially repugnant to the understandings
of men of business in a great commercial city like
London.--Let the jury who rendered this verdict look
from the consequences, as regards' the proprietors, to
spree of the consequences as regards the public.
There has been at all times more or less of an outcry
Sliest the press—and that outcry has been too often
;wined by want of integrity in the administration of
a great moral power. If the public, who raise the
outmy, when appealed to in the courts where they are
formally judges of its subject-matter, decide that the
honesty of the press shall be taxed for the benefit of
those who abuse it, they have at least no right to
their outcry. There is intolerable tyranny in their
denunciation of the sin which they subsidise. Those
',Ty papers which exist only to make their prey of
private character have a direct encouragement
fa the verdict of this jury—and an answer
oat of its own text-book to any complaint.
Let us hear no more abuse of the foul-
°ea of the press from those who refuse the
solemn and reasonable demand for their aid in the
tart to keep it pure. If, hereafter, each and every
Instithem in his tarn who may hance to have a
tome' with an editor, subeditor, assistant to a sub-
editor, or any one else connected with a newspaper
down to the printer's devil, shall find himself and his
Private affairs—his sorrows or his misfortunes—bla-
need in the broad sheet of the day, let us have no
Innoostrance. The proprietors,.by his own ordination,
C°set
!protect him ander a penalty of a thousand
Puede

AsWe bare said, the press has been the subject of
1441,, tad not all unmented, reproach : and they who
mye most desired to raise its character were very
suable of the difficulties against which they had to
64411 d. No one not intimately acquainted with its
lidatlel7—the numbers numberless that in one way
*mother contribute to fill the columns of a daily
APer —can form an estimate of those difficulties;—of
the tare needed to keep it clean in all its minute work-
L Where each individual piece of that complicated
tsdline, ry is a human heart—having passions, Preiu-
-414 and interests of its own to serve, and by the
tO7 of an honest paper to be guarded
any of against—
task is one next to impossible if the need-
tiPimultees be for a moment relaxed. The este-
nt of the Daily Nora seemed to afford facili-
.., .14. this respect, of which the proprietors deter-
, 'IN to take advantage. As on the new principle
"hith the paper was to be conducted an
large sub-editorial staff was required—that
Ptragrapli and line of a paragraph might be not
444 bat carefully coadevatodoii4 frequently; I**

written,—it followed that in each revision evidence of
personal feeling' accidental or deliberate proof of
prejudice (often shown in the use of a single word),
in the reports supplied, might generally with great
sub-editorial care be got rid of.—Before we proceed
with our argument, let sae remark, without any
assumption of a moral superiority over our rivals
generally, that this elaborate system of checks ren-
dered any published delinquency of the kind
more conspicuous and less excusable in our
paper than in another. The larger and more per-
fect the organisation of the detective force by us esta-
blished, the stronger would be the inference of intention
where passion or prejudice should be left to its action.
In journals that give more paper and less editorship
than we do—that accept their unsystematised mate-
rials with fewer of the formal characters of responsi-
bility than our particular plan impresses on
our own—an error of the kind, though always
to be lamented, might yet be explained and
repaired by many arguments of which we
have voluntarily and by anticipation deprived our-
selves. From the responsibilities of such a system of
sifting as ours there is no escape. Our character is
formally staked upon narrower issues than those of
more talkativejournals ; and, more than to any other,
it was essential to the reputation of ours that no sug-
gestion of a personality should escape into its columns.
Our very scones as a commercial speculation—to say
nothing of all the moral good which we hoped,
and hope, to do—rested on the clearness of an
integrity which we had ourselves stripped of all pos-
sible evasions. To return, then :—As we have said, by
this system of checks the passions of one man were
necessarily subjected to tho supervision and revision
of another—so far as concerned all below the sub-edi-
torial rank. Against the passion, prejudices, and
interests of the sub-editors themselves, however, we
had not, and could not have, any protection of
the kind. Such feelings could not properly
be assumed as possible influences in their case :
but just that this high presumption might
be maintained and justified, it was resolved
that any manifestations contradicting it should never
be overlooked when proved. On this principle the
proprietors of the Daily News acted in the case of
Mr. POWELL. But the verdict of the jury, which
forbids them to dismiss their servants for misconduct
of the kind, robs them of the last protection possible
'in the nature of the case. If the proprietors may
not get rid of the man who has converted the power
of their paper to a personal and partial use, that
amounts to saying that the paper must be conducted: in
a personal and partial sense in spite of them. If the
special plea which the defendants put on the record in
this action be not good to justify the termination of a
sub-editor's engagement, then the proprietors are
absolutely at the mercy of sub-editors for property
and character; and the jury who administered this
rebuke to the desire for maintaining the integrity of
the press have done what their office enabled them
—unwittingly, we are sure—to make it corrupt.
Never has there yet arisen in the heart of society
an influence so great—so rapid, subtle, and far-
searching in its action—as TAE PERIODICAL PRESS.
Every day has given proofs of its abundant power for
good—and deepened, at the same time, in all earnest
minds, the sense of its responsibility. Far more
important than in the case of CAESAR'S wife it was to
C.ESAR, is it to the public that the virtue of the press
should he of that kind which escapes suspicion. They
who strive to keep it such should have all the sanc-
tions and all the helps which those for whom they
so strive have the opportunity of affording. The
loss of the good that might be done by an up-
right and high-minded press is not a tithe of the evil
which must result from a corrupt one. Such an in-
fluence as we have described, wielded for objects of in-
justice er oppression, is the worst calamity and curse
to which society in our day can be exposes.
The particulars of the case to which these prin-
ciples apply in the present instance are fully given
iu the statement of the ATTORNEY-GENERAL and
the clear summing up of Chief Justice WILDS, as
reported in our
.paper of Friday last. But the matter
is of so much importance that we shall return to
make a more direct and minute analysis and
application. Meantime, we will express our surprise
that our brethren of the daily journals have not, for
the honour of the Press, declared themselves in this
matter. No principle which involves a question be-
tween them and us is in inane here. There are no
party aspects to such a case. The summons is of
that essential kind which rallies all private differ-
ences. There is not one amongst them all, we are
convinced, who would disavow the principle for
which we here suffer; or would not, in the same cir-
cumstances, do just that which we have done—rec-
koning, as we reckoned, on the certain support of a
British jury.

MR. ROEBUCK is about the last man to whose
opinions or temper we should pin our faith. And yet
it must be admitted that the House of Commons has
not a more useful or more fearless member. Who can
be said to have performed his parliamentary duties
with more effect? Who is more ready to denounce an
abuse—to step forward as the powerful mouthpiece of
public opinion—or who more ready to brave it, when
he considers it to err on the side of bigotry or
pre) ndice ?
We can see many reasons why a constituency
should object to elect Mr. ROEBUCK for the first time
as its representative. We cannot conceive a reason
why an independent constituency, which he has long
represented, should discard him. rlbi lapeus,—in what
has he erred? His oddities and extravagancies, his
horror of whirs and of Irishmen, his coquetting with
PEEL, and political adultery with BROUGHAM, are old
and known. And though none of these characteristics
may be to our taste, the boldness with wkich they
are put forth, the frankness with which they are
avowed, attracts our respect.
Lord ASHLEY is U useful a member of parliament
as Mr. ROEBUCK. He, too, is unbound by the tram-
mels of party, and can pursue an independent or
philanthropic idea, for itself, caring little whom it
favours, or whom it thwarts. A man of great dili-
gence, splendid talents, high purposes—who would not
wish to see Lord ASHLEY with a seat in the
House of Commons? But why should two such men
exclude each other?' What unfair, and envious, or
preposterous desire can have impelled Lord ASHLEY
to invade a position so ably filled and so deservedly
held? le not England wide? Are there no consti-
tuencies filled by members of no ideas, which Lord
ASHLEY might in all fairness address, instead of going
out of his way to push from his stool a candidate in
wham popular rights would lose a firm champion and
an elogyent expounder ?
Mr. ROEBUCK and Lord ASHLEY, knights-errant
in politics—both chivalrous, both contentions, both
pertinacious—put us strongly in mind of their proto-
typft in fable, who fought on perceiving a shield on
the highway, which each beheld to be of a different
colour. The popular cause and popular weal form
the shield which they both contemplate, and each makes
a diametrically different estimate. But both are so
able, that we should prefer seeing them fight out their
quarrel in parliament than upon hustings, where one
must bite the dust.
If, however, the duello must be fought out, we
trust that it will be conducted upon fair and chivalrous
principles. It would be very unworthy of Mr. ROE-
BUCK to denounce Lord ASHLEY to the dissenters as
the agent who won over the Wesleyan, and
enabled the government to carry their education
scheme. Far more unworthy is it on the part of
Lord ASHLEY'S friends to go about representing Mr.
ROEBUCK as an enemy of all religion—an accusation
so easily made against men of letters and learning,
whose religion is of the unobtrusive and con-
templative kind. There should be observances of
honour between such men. The meaner devioes of
party should be left to the unlettered and =licked
fanatic.
The contest, be it ever so fairly carried on, is not
one that we regard with pleasure. Mr. ROEBUCK'S
success we should of course prefer. But even if
gratified in this, we entertain the hope that MINERVA
will interfere, as in the "Iliad," for one of her chosen
and discomfited champions, and waft him off in a
cloud to some quieter Olympian constituency.

THE papers relative to the notice given by Prussia
of the termination of the treaty of 1841 were delivered
yesterday with the votes. We have on former occa-
sions critically examined the ground taken up by
Prussia and the Zollverein with regard to this treaty,
and do not find it necessary to go over the ground
again. But there is one passage in M. BUNSEN'S
notification that cannot be too soon and tao generally
known. He states that his government, anxious to ex-
tend the commercial relations of the two countries and
"to avoid everything which could, even for a brief
apace of time, retard a development eo much to be