The Express.
London, England, 1857-05-09 00:00:00

SOSSIST.
000 m Wong% PFSASSO. Noon Cowl,* 50i1..=.1-7.1
D ML 110THINCI. Sr. Wiellowsb; Mo.
■ DAN:IO . Kr. Illosogs. Miss

ETON WATIN AT LONDON BRIDOI.
ram 11.v—Ilsesig. Maw, U. Ms.
Illmonamr—aertag. i 41e. ---. Mena" la. ft.

LONDON. 84TURDAY. NAY 9.

Ws are told that the peanut Government is a
practical Ciovaisment. The teeth of this protean=
will ems be pat to the test, ter there are two or
duce meeserm el argent practical importance on
which they will ere keg be expected to take a de-
cided part. Ames the trimmest of these is the
Equeliestien se the Peer-rates. Whether this systems
aught to prevail throughout the errantry we decline
to deem at preenst. We prefer to iistriet the
diessedes le ths lleteepdy Though the peeper&
strew has bess keg urged sad &mistime have been
fermsd Orr the purism ef promoting it, there can be
no desk thst of late the merest he. essipired
stresith. Oar own column mg those of
air contemporaries en fall of lettere es the sullied.
bisstrage are sesehmtly held to raider the matter,
awl te popsy petitions to Parlisment la our yester-
day's kapreadas we reported the precesdinge of so
ism than two of these meetings. The ratepayers of
the City of Lades met at the Leedom Oplite-homes
to cessider the preprkty of pendia,. Perlisment
kr as equalisatio• of the rate; and • depatatien
Nos the Clergy of the East end of Lesion had an
interview with the Poor-law Bond to prassete the
same object. Nor is it asimpertant to obaseve that
Lad ROIIIIT 0 atervason, in the very teat might
of Parlimmestary disseedas, introduced the 'abject
to the Hems of Commas A matter which excite,
weds sonstaat sad wide-spew& intend mud surely
bed vital importance.
We have so often dimmed this question of late
that we seed hardly reiterate our view. The
whole argument is contained in a nutshell. The
poor of the ssetrepolis mist be supported by a pat)-
* rats Who ought to pay that fate? How ought
that nee to be imposed? Equitably ell the., who
make the presence of a certain asses of lemmas beings
useamary ought to pay in properties to their means.
The employers ought to pay for the employed s
the masters ought to pay for the servants ; the
rich ought to pay for the poor. But instead of this
the very reverse is the fact. The employed pay for
the employed--the servants for the servants—the

pest It the poor. How come this ? By rea-
son of ear lesidation ; by the node in which the
poenrate is levied. The parish where a man lives,
not the parish when he works, is taxed. The place
when the wealth is greeted or spent—the rich
perish—i• relieved from poor-rate ; the place where
the hard-esimed wags of toil are spent—the poor

perisb--is burdened with poor-rate. Hence a &a-
mid evils :--bovele and garrets let at extravagant
nate to the poorest and most miserable of oar fellow-
matures ; the necessity of the poor living at a vast
distance from their work ; men, women, and
children huddled together like swine to the certain
dasizuction of comfort and morality—nay, of life
itself; and, above all, the alienation of class from

• -
elm, and the engendering in the poor that rooted
jealousy and diens of the rich which, when axe
engendered, is so difficult to eradicate. There is
esarcely a single motive fitted to influence human
eendest which does not prompt a change of such a
system 'entice, morality, sad expediency, all eon-
epbe to the same end.
Ws sok, will anything be done to arrest or to

ceatrol tines gigLatie Ind daily incensing crib;
whit* we bare jut dowsited l' After the speech of
Yr. Bottum; the President of the Poor-law Board,
to the depatation from the Clara of the East end of
Unica, we corn place no gnat reliance upon the
Oo►enseat. Mr. Bouurnax, hie all well-educated
ted-tapists, am difloaltise huaumerable. To us
the proposed change does not appear so im-
practicable. Became the arse of taxation is to
Ds ortaindsd, it dote not therefore follow that all
Motive to keep the expladitare down should cease.

Surely some ;NMI Mile be fond for isdiseing the
repossotatives of the Metropelitestrotepayas to be
as essoessical se the representatives of the perish
mower& And if this sea be dose, there Nine SO
good roma why the proposed system should sot be
pwried into s&ct t for the possible extravegssoe of
the new plea le the oily ma oldeetice to it. As to
Mr. Bouvons's cosetica, whether it wield be
right to go to St. Osoeps's, Haaaverespers,
sad ash the ratepayers thin to esatribeit lowside
the d the pm la Stall ail d Lae" f

Mulallbosd
,fide public meetings—meetings called,
net oely oolourably but really, for the discus-
sion d subjects perceiving other than a mere per-
sonal interest. In feet, so utterly does all valid
grout d of distinction fail in favour of conferring the
privilege exclusively on the law courts, that we are
driven upon the conclusion that the judges of the
superior courts, by whom this portion of our libel
law was in fact made, established the rule without any
sefereuce to principle at all, solely for the protection
of the tribunals in which they themselves presided.
Lord CAMPBELL suggests that there may be a
difficulty in defining the kind of public meet-
ings to which the privilege should be extended.
But surely the difficulty would not be insurmount-
able. A fair and truthful report of any public
meeting, bowl fa* called for the purpose of discuss-
ing matters of other than mere personal interest,
ought certainly to be protected from the penalties of
the libel law. There is no malice in the reporter, if
the report be correct and truthful. If there be
malice in the speaker, the remedy ought to be against
him ; and as to the supposed detriment to the indi-
vidual, in so far as it arises from the report, the
Journal in which the report has appeared is equally
open, audio the present state of the law is bound to
glve odmirion, to the contradiction.
Thus wee one matter thrown out for eenfilen,
tisa by Lord CAMPBELL which is demobs we
t►ink, of very great attention. Ills lodides
suggestion was, that wherever in an action for libel
signinst a journal in consequence of a report of a
proeeeding at a public meeting, it could be made out
that the report was a fair one, and that no seal
damage had been sustained by the plaintiff, theilry
might be entitled to give a verdict for the defen-
dant. This would, no doubt, be a very sound rule
to establish ; it is, in fact, merely the application
of the same principles to newspaper reports of the
proceedings of public meetings which we have al-
ready stated to be applicable to all eases of oral or
written slander in the case of private individuals.
If the report is a fair one, there is no =be
in the journalist; if the character of the plaintiff
has not been injured by the report, there is no
damage. The two elements necessary for giving a
claim of redress on the ground of defamation when
a private individual is the defamer are both wanting
in such a case i and there is really no reason why
there should be one law for the journalist, especially
when he merely acts as a reporter, and another law
for every other clam of the community. We trust
that the Committee to be appointed on Lord CAM,
nxtes motion may speedily prepare the way for a
thorough amendment and reconstruction of the Law
of Libel as it affects the reports of proceedings in
'aliment and public meetings.

~..... ~.,A.,..-.....,
I the new plan is the only teal ablation to it: de to nothi4 ? Or was he charged with pies;e lays- that thi;state—ef— things-II; weminen—'-tly absurd and un- im
Mr. Botraines cumuli" whistles it would be teriour °pastime in tot wonderful laboratory in raiahrtory. On prineiple,there is no resew whatever. w
right to go to St Goorgee, Hanover-epera, Capel-coart, where they my premiums are man: he extending the privileges of immunity to the
and eh the ratepayers thin to matributo lova* hetarad P The total amount of share, in the Western reports of the law emu which ape net equauy ,
the mug et the gem lifted al d Leah Bakst LW" i oak 4sooo I sO OM if ho soil apply to the reprb d Flosabir ja pumragat a