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

proper tribunal for the trial of questions of this kind. If
there were a summary jurisdiction 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 be an appeal from them to
the superior courts, and by those courts the principles upon
which the law was to be administered would be settled. He
regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had 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 newss One argu-
ment advanced by the hon. 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 a newspaper ? Au ephe-
meris, an insect of the day, 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 he was prepared to trust to the
good feeling of the editors of newspapers in carrying out
this clause. Without reverting to the able remarks of the
hon. and learned member for Enniskillen, who, 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 awl continuous subject, the authors of which
were known ; and he thought it impossible to legislate ou
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 copse ig,ht 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 passed into a law they ought to require a signa-
ture to every article in order to determine who were the
responsible persons, and thereby maintain 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 papers of the power
that would be vested in them, he believed that the respect-
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 beecome 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 now before the committee. He 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 hie 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, be be-
lieved, was at that time editor of the Daily News. He
stated that the proprietors of that journal had reason to
complain 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
wore to act upon it. Before Parliament made a law to
meet an evil, it ought to be satisfied that the evil was of
sufficient magnitude to make a remedy necessary. The
electric telegraph of which the hon. member for Stoke-upon-
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
tho 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 been for
the Newspaper Stamp Bill ? If a copyright was proper to
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 likelyto take; and if it were necessary that they
should be punished for that offence after this bill should be
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 hill would be of any practical be-
nelit 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-
temporaries, it appeared, might be plundered as well as
themselves, if the cheap postageOf ld. for any size or weight
were granted to the Times. Only Concede this boon, and
they would bid defiance to piracy. This apprehension of
piracy, therefore, could 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 London journal said so and so. Now, here was a
copy of the " morning express," which was sent down to
Manchester that day' by the hon member for Stoke-
upon-Trent's (Mr. Ricardo's) company, and which
was described aspiratical :—"9a.m., April,3o. The Post
believes that despatches were received on Friday from Ge-
neral Canrobert, and on Saturday from Lord Raglan
throughthe new submarine telegraph, stating that the bom-
bardment of Sebastopol bytheallies 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 be considered as piracy ? Well,
-this was the form of the announcement generally made by
the electric telegraph. They ran thus 1—" The Times says
so and so—that Sebastopol had been taken" for instance.
(A laughs) 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 appeared 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-
dle s 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 hoped, 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 LOVAINE said that this was the first time in the
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 Tress of our day needled 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, and
interfered even in the operations of army, affording in-
formation to the enemy on points which it was of the high-
est importance should be concealed from him—in which
reprehensible practice, according 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 circus
lated calumnious accusations and vituperative charges
against individuals, who had no means of clearing themselves
in the eyes of the public. Those charges were reiterated
from day to day—some of them had even been repeated in
that house in the face of the most solemn denial; and was
it fitting that a right of property in articles of that charac-
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 jury ; and yetin 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? This bill
also proposed to relax the existing law for protecting pri-
vate character from the anonymous libeller. Journalism
in this country required the exercise of as much talent and
ability as any other profession, and why, therefore, should