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

THE Sti LONDON, TUESDAY EVENIAIG; MA Y 1, 1855,

to vote with his honourable and learned friend op-
posite (SirF.Thesiger) in accordance with the opinion he
had previously expressed relative to the clause now
under consideration. (Hear.) He objected to the Par-
liament of the year 1855, undertaking'to determine by
adopting a particular line of fiscal and commercial
policy, the financial policy of Parliament to 10 or 15
years hence. (Cheers.) He contended that Parliament
was going entirely out of its province by so
doing. His right hon. friend (the Chancellor of the
Exchequer) bad expressed, as one of the reasons for the
adoption of the clause, that it afforded a fair and rea-
sonable prospect of diminishing the capital of the debt
progressively. Now, it appeared to him that, under the
present circumstances of the law, this reason would prove
fallacious, and the clause itself would turn out to be
quite inoperative. Suppose, , foi instance, that peace
were proclaimed, and twelve months had elapsed, ac-
cording to the provisions of the clause, the next year
there might be a surplus or there might not. But it
there were a surplus of a million the clause would be
inoperative, if the law was in force, as was proposed,
because the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be bound
to apply it to the extinction of the debt just incurred,,
instead of applying it, as would be done under the present
financial law of the country, to the reduction of the pub-
lic debt in the most advisable and expedient manner
according to the circumstances of the times. , (Hear,
hear, and cheers.) Thus the clause would not only
prove innopetative but a positive mischief. He therefaire
hoped that the opinion which had been so strongly ex-
pressed by the house against the clause would in-
duce his right honourable friend to withdraw ft from
the bill without the alternative of taking the sense of
the house more emphatically on the point by going to a
division. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. HENLEY also said a few words against the im-
policy and injustice of the clause.
Mr. LABOI7CHERE remarked that if this measure
went to a division he should feel himself obliged to vote
with the honourable and learned gentleman oppo
site. At the same time, he was bound to say
that he approved most highly of the finan-
cial scheme which his right hon. friend had brought for-
ward with the exception onls of the clause now before
the house ; and he, therefore, trusted that the right
hon. gentleman would take into consideration whether
it was worth his while to press the clause to a divi-
sion after the very forcible opinions uttered by different
hon. gentlemen in that house. It was his own firm
conviction that it was not expedient to vote a million
per annum for the purpose implied by the clause ; and
he moreover feared that a question might be raised as to
whether the Government could pledge succeeding Par-
liaments to adopt the course it involved. (Hear.) The
question generally had been so well argued by the hon.
member for the University of Oxford, that he should only
he wasting the time of the house if he went over the
same ground ; and he would only express a hope that
the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not press the
house to a division on the subject. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. T. BARING rose to express a contrary hope to
that of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Labouchere). He
hoped that when a clause had been proposed, which bore
upon it-the stamp of honesty, the Government which was
bold enough to bring it forward would be equally bold in
supporting it. (Hear, hear.) To reject the clause would
be tantamount to saying " we do not wish or expect you
to ever reduce the debt."

Mr. RICARDO hoped the clause would not be pressed,
especially as he understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer
to say, the other day, that if the feeling of the house were
against it, he did not intend to press it.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was under-
stood to dissent from this.

Mr. RICARDO begged the right hon. gentleman's par-
don if he had misunderstood him.

Mr. J. WILSON said, if one opinion had been more
generally expressed than another with regard to the prin-
ciple on which loans should be created it was, that loans
should be of a terminable nature. The form of loan
which had been most favourably received' on all sides of
the house was that of terminable annuities ; and the prin-
ciple of such annuities was involved in the clause under
discussion.

'Mr. DISRAELI said the hon. gentleman had argued on
the assumption that the house had sanctioned the principle
of borrowing on terminable annuities, whereas there had
been no vote on the subject. He regarded terminable an-
nuities as a very questionable means of raising money.
The idea might be popular in that house, but if they went
into the City and consulted men of business on the subj act,
they would be told in what the fallacy of terminable annul-
ties consisted—that it was, in fact, borrowing money to
create a sinking fund. The 22d clause was neither more
nor less than a recurrence to the system of creating an
artificial fluid, and to his mind nothing could be more ob-
jectionable than that. He though this clause would inter-
fere with the action of the present law with regard to the
sinking fund, to the principles of which he firmly adhered,
believing that it had worked advantageously for the coun-
try. At a time when they were borrowing money, it ap-
peared to him very undesirable to infuse into the public
mind the notion that it was very easy to get rid of national
incumbrances. He hoped the clause would not be pressed.
Mr. GLYN, while he congratulated the Chancellor of
the Exchequer upon the course which he had pursued, re-
gretted that he had not taken advantage of the recent
opportunity to raise a loan of 20,000,0001. Such a course
would have prevented the great increase which had taken
placed in the unfunded debt, an evil always to be avoided.
With regard to the matter immediately under considera-
tion, ho considered that the reasons given by the right hon.
gentleman the member for Bucks (Mr. Disraeli) were such
as ought to lead the house to vote for, rather than against
this clause.

Mr. JOHN MA.CGREGOR agreed with the hon. gentle'
man who last sabiressed the house, that it would have been
better for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have gone intn
the market for a larger loan than the present. Had he
done so, he would have been able to make better terms,
and to avoid the complicated system of terminable an-
nuities in which ho had involved himself. He (Mr. Mac-
gregor) saw no use whatever in the clause under consider.
ation, believing, as he did, that the ilea of a sinking fund
was an exploded übsurdity. In fact, he should describe
the whole off-dr as a fiscal view of a promised laud.
Mr. CARDWELL said he should he obliged—if the
clause were pressed to a division—to vote against it.
Lord PALHERSTON—I certainly concur in the wish
which has been expressed by hon. members, that this bill
should pass without any division of the house, but at the
same time I think the principle involved in this clause so
important that the Government ought to take the sense of
the house upon it. I take the question to be this. When
Parliament and the country find themselves pledged to a
specific debt, ought we or ought we not to make an effort
to reduce in future years that debt ? It is obvious that no
country can face a great emergency arising from a war in
which great efforts are to'be made without providing means
over and above the ordinary revenues of the country. In
fact, no war of magnitude can be undertaken by any
country whatever without a loan upon honest principles or
without forced contributions. Now, according to the ar-
guments of the right hon. member for Bucks (Mr. Disraeli)
or at least, according to some part of those arguments, a
country ought never to make an attempt to redeem any por-
tion of its debt. At the same time, in another part of his
speech, the right hon. gentleman praised that system by
which the surplus income of the country is applied to the re•
demption of its debt. But how does that surplus income
arise ? Did it not consist of the surplus of the proceeds of
taxation over the expenditure of the year? (Hear, hear.)
I think it desirable that this country should lay down, as a
principle, that which has already been established to some
extent in practice, viz„ that there should be in every year a
surplus income applicable to the reduction, of the national
debt. Much had been said as to the policy of raising
money by means of terminable annuities, and undoubtedly
had that sysit,em been followed in the last war much of the
burden weighing upon this country would have ceased to
exist. But there are great difficulties in contracting a loan
of any amount upon the principle of terminable annuities,
and I admit the statement of the right hon. gentleman
opposite (Hr. Disraeli) that it may be doubted whether it
is an economical method of providing for the reduction of
debt. No doubt the most economical mode is to raise a
loan in that kind of stock which will yield the largest
amount of money in return, and then to apply the surplus
revenue to its reduction. That is the principle of the pro-
positiou of my right hon. friend. He has negotiated a loan
upon the most advantageous terms, and he now proposed by
this clause to provide for its gradual reduction. The argu-
ments by which this clause has been met have been directly
contradictory. Some hon. members have objected because
it was a mere nullity; but, on the other hand, it has been
objected to because, it was said, some years hence a Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer will find self embarrassed with
a pledge from which he will find it impossible to free him-
self. My opinion is that the act will be, like all other acts
of Parliament binding upon Parliament until it is repealed.
Hence, so long as it remains nnrepealed, it will be the duty
of every Chancellor of the Exchequer to frame his esti-
mates in accordance with its provisions. If unfortunately
circumstances should arise which would make it impossible
to continue the annual payment in reduction of the debt,
it will be for Parliament in its wisdom, to consider the
question. (Hear.) I cannot, therefore, admit, either that
this is a valueless provision, or that it will be considered as
an
obligation which ought not to be fulfilled. It is but
just in principle, that while on the one hand we are adding
16,00'1.000/. to the debt, on the other we are providing a
bona fide surplus, for the purpose of meeting it-(Hear.)
The house then divided—
For the clause 2lO
Against
,111
Majority ---.99
The bill was ordered to be read a third time to-morrow
INCOME-TAX' BILL.

Mr.HILDYARD moved, after the word "respectively,"
in the first clause' to insert "if such annual value or
amount shall reach or exceed 1501., and an additional rate
and duty of 14d, for every 20s. of the annual value or
.mount of all such property, profits, and gains respec-
tively, if such an anneal value or amount shall reach or
exceed 1001. and not reach 1001. This would limit the in-
crease of taxation upon incomes under 1501. to lid. in the
pound. The sum which the Chancellor of t e Exchequer
would lose by this would be but small, and in a case like
the present he thought the right hon. gentleman would
not rely upon that argument as an answer to this motion.
Colonel SI STHORP supported the amendment.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it was
true the exemption proposed by the hon. and learned
member would make very little difference to the Crown;.
but it would also make very little difference to the tax-
payer, not more than six shillings a year. He did not
wish, bower, er, in any way to pledge himself against the
principle of . a discriminating duty respecting incomes of
different amount ; and as the hon. and learned member
stated that the amendment substantially interested of li-
mited income. , he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) should
not think it his duty to oppose it. (Rear, hear.)
The amend' nent was agreed to.
The remaini u g clauses and the preamble were agreed to,
and the house resumed.
NEWS PAPER STAMP DUTIES BILL.

The house t i .en went into committee on this bill.

The CiTANCELLOA of the EXCHEQUER' said—The
committee will retnember that when this bill was last be-
foie us a o:testion was raised on clauses 4,5, 6, and 7,
relative to re gistration and securities. A discussion took
place on the structure of those clauses, and it was pointed
out that cart ain inconveniences would arise under their
operation ; i hat, in certain cases, a sort of publication not
c3ming withjzt the range of the original acts would be in-
chided, and. ti tat, in. certain other cases, particular publi-
cations tha.t d id come within the operation of the original
acts would 1313 excluded. I felt that these remarks had in
them some- loundation ; and, though the clauses referred to
were frame, I on the principle of removing penalties and
securing t he obligation of registration and securities

merely by the operation of seeking stamps, I thought
it was better to reconsider the matter, and accordingly
asked the committee to postpone the clauses and report
progress. I have since reconsidered the matter, and, after
the best consideration bean give on the subj -.let, I have come
to the conclusion that, on the whole, it will be the safer
course for me not to interfere with the existing law, but
simply to leave it as it now stands with respect both to
registration and securities. These will be applicable to all
newspapers, according to the terms of the act ; and, though
we shall certainly leave in operation the difficulty which
the Board of Inland Revenue has found as to the interpre-
tation of the word " newspaper," that difficulty will be
considerably diminished when the operation of the com-
pulsory stamp is removed. Ido not think the state of the
law will be altogether satisfactory ; but, on the whole, I
am disposed to stand on the existing law, and allow it to
be enforced by penalties. I therefore propose to omit
clauses 4,5, and 7, and, with regard to clause 6, which
shall remain, I shall propose some verbal alterations re-
quired by the omissions that are to take place.
On the question that the 4th clause be omitted,
Mr. G. BUTT said, ho understood the Chancellor of the
Exchequer to mean that he intended the lay: as to regis-
tration and giving security to remain applicable to all
newspapers. By the bill as it stood before the Govern-
ment intended to confine the obligation of registering and
giving security to those particular publications that chose
to avail themselves of the postal advantages proposed to be
given ; lint the effect of the omission of this clause, as he
understood it, would be to relieve particular publications
from that obligation. -

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—AII par-
ticular publications that are not newspapers.
The clause was then ordered to be struck out of the bill ;
as was also clause 5.
Clause 6 was agreed to, with certain verbal alterations.
Clause 7 was struck out of the bill.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, he had
now to propose the clause of which he had given notice,
limiting the retransmission by post of periodical pub-
lications. He proposed this clause as being a reasonable
limitation in the right of retransmission. In practice it
was found that persons iu possession of newspapers, and
wishing to send them to a distance, transmitted them by
post merely to be used as waste paper, and without any
view of their being read. The privilege of unlimited trans-
mission led to large quantities of waste paper being' thus
sent by post ; the right of transmission was abused, and
additional cost was thrown upon the conveyance of papers.
He therefore proposed the reasonable limit of 15 days.
Mr. G. BUTT directed attention to some confusion
which be feared would arise• under the act as it was now
proposed to stand, owing to the adoption in different
clauses of the terms " periodical publication" and " news-
paper," when the same thing was meant. He did not
oppose the clause, but ho thought that it would be neces-
sary slightly to alter the language, in order to make the
different parts of the bill harmonise.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that it
would no doubt be necessary carefully to examine and
compare all the clauses of the bill. He did not think that
there was any error in the present clause, but he was much
obliged to the hon. and learned gentleman for drawing his
attention to the subject.
Mr. SPOONER, inquired whether it was intended to
give the right of transmission and retransmission through
the post as frequently as one chose within the 15 (lays ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied that
it was; but beyond. 15 days from the date of publication
no newspaper would be entitled to the privilege of trans-
mission through the post. If the period of 15 days were
thought too limited it might be extended.
The clause was then read a second time, and was or-
dered to be added to the bill.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER next pro-
posed clause B, for determining how questions as to pe-
riodical publications should be decided. It provided that,
so far as referred to their transmission through the post,
the question should be referred to the determination of
the Postmaster-General, whose decision, with the consent
of the Treasury, should be final.
The clause was agreed to.
Clause C, relating to the manner in which warrants and
consents of Treasury were to be given, was abandoned.
Upon clause D, which provided that actions or suits
might be carried on in the name of the registered pro-
prietors of newspapers on behalf of themselves and co-
proprietors,
Mr. G. BUTT said he thought, if the right hon. gentle-
man the Chancellor of the Exchequer would considr the
laws which were applicable to this class of subjects
generally, that ho would come to the conclusion that
this was a clause which ought not to be adopted. It
contained a provision which was perfectly new to the
law of the country, and if it were adopted it would
apply to no other publication except a newspaper, because
no other publication was required to be registered. The
effect of the clause was to enable the registered pro-
prietors of newspapers to sue in their own names, with-
out joining all the parties in the concern as plaintiffs
in the action. But upon what principle was this to be
done? If there were a firm of booksellers they must
all be joined, and what reason was there for taking
the proprietors of newspapers out of the operation of the
law aS it stood ? The proposition which was now before the
committee was not properly analogous to that contained in
the Joint Stock Act, which enabled proprietors in com-
panies where there were many partners, upon registering
themselves and continuing to register any alteration in the
firm as it arose, to sue in the name of the registered officer.
That act also provided, if the registered officer failed in his
suit and judgment went against him, that it would be a
judgment against all the partners in the concern ; so that
if the registered officer were a pauper all the partners would
be, as they ought to be, amenable for the judgment obtained
against them in the name of their registered officer. In the
present case, however, there was no such provision, and the
clause standing therefore in the isolated position in which
it did was clearly contrary to every principle of existing
law, and to every act of Parliament which had ever been
passed for giving facilities to parties for sueing and being
sued. Suppose that a newspaper were the property of six
proprietors, whatreason could there be for exempting them
from the responsibility of their ownership? Of course lie
spoke not of the respectable newspapers in the metropolis
and throughout the country, the registered proprietors of
which would, no doubt, be answerable for any judgment
whiclh might go against them ' • but he would take the case
of smaller publications, in which it might be convenient
to register as the proprietors persons who' had no funds
whatever, while there were other partners in the concern
who might be capable of answering any judgment which
might be obtained against them ; and he said ',hat, under
the clause as it was proposed, there were no meansof meet-
ing such a case. The General Joint Stock Act, 7th and
Bth of Victoria, chap. 110, contained proper provisions for
doing justice, and rendered it necessary for every change
in the firm, the addition of every new partner, and
the ceasing of a man to be a partner to be registered ;
and the public officer was obliged once a-year to make
a return of every and all such alterations. Ho must
give in a list of the whole of the proprietors, and should
any alteration be made in the period which elapsed
between the times of making the general returns it was
duly noted. It was provided, too, by the Joint Stock
Act that a suit should not abate by reason of the death of
the plaintiff, for the reason that he was merely-the nominal
plaintiff, and a judgment was in effect a judgment against
the whole of the patties concerned, so that a sufficient re-
medy was given. But here there was a palpable omission.
The right hon. gentleman could not have known the state
of the law ; for if he had intended to adopt the law to be
found in the Bank Act, or the Joint stock Act, he had so
worded the clause as to render it entirely ineffective, and
would enable a paper which was started for the purposes of
piracy, or as a vehicle for slander, to register a nominal
man, who would sue and be sued, and the consequence
would be that the defendant would be without remedy.
There was no principle of law which, if a debt were due,
for instance, on a bill of exchange to newspaper proprie-
tors, would enable one party _to sue,, when if a respect-
able firm, composed of six persons, had a debt due from
a newspaper proprietary, they would all be obliged to
join in the suit. The clause was not so' worded as to do
justice between parties who might be plaintiffs and de-
fendants in a suit, and any hon. gentleman conversant
with the law would tell the right hon. gentleman that such
a principle was totally unknown to it, and was now for the
first time imported into the house. At present proprietors
of newspapers were registered for the purpose of giving
facilities to the pursuer in fixing the parties in cases of
libel; but the registration of a portion of them did not
hinder him from joining the whole of the proprietors in the
suit if he pleased. On these grounds he submitted that,
the clause was not a proper one, and moved its rejection.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that at
present the registered proprietors were subject to legal pro-
ceedings, and might be made defendants to any civil action.
Mr. G. BUTT.—Not to civil actions. It relates to
actions for libel, and not for debt.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.—At all
events they were subject to criminal proceedings, and it
had been represented to him as a hardship that, while they
were thus subject, individually, to be made defendants, no
relative right was given them of sueing. Any two regis-
tered proprietors were subject to a judgment in an action.
He apprehended that the principal persons registered
would be the printer and publisher, and no doubt they
would have sufficient funds to give security for costs. The
object of this clause was to place them in the same position
with regard to sueing as that in which they were when
they were being sued.
Mr. G. BUTT again explained that the provision of re-
gistration did not limit the right of parties to sue the re-
gistered proprietors only, in cases of contract. They might
if they pleased, sue all the proprietors. It was, therefore,
impossible that this clause could be supported on any prin-
ciple of law, and he trusted that the right hon. gentleman
would not press it. •
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that it
was a clause in which the Government had no interest what-
ever, but it had been suggested with a view of doing away
with a hardship existing under the present law. He had
no objection to postpone its further consideration till the
third reading.
The clause was then postponed.
Mr. WHITESIDE inquired whether any determination
had been come to with respect to the registration ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Those
clauses have been withdrawn for the present. I now beg
to move the clause Which proposes to give the protection of
a copyright of 24 hours on certain articles in newspapers.
The present copyright in its interpretation clause includes
newspapers, and it certainly appears to have been the in-
tention of the Legislature in passing that act to give the full
benefit of copyright to newspapers as well as to all other
classes of printed publications. But the clauses introduced
into that act seem to have been formed principally with re-
ference to encyclopmedias, reviews, magazines, periodicals,
and works of larger bulk and lass frequent publication than
daily or weekly newspapers, and imposed certain conditions
with respect to copyright which cculd scarcely have been ful-
filled in the case of newspapers, and therefore practically
nullified the benefits which the act appeared to concede to
them. luasmuch, however, as it has been imputed to the
Government that in introducing this measure,which affects
large daily newspapers, conferring upon the public great
good by collecting and diffusing intelligence at great ex-
pense through all parts of the world, it gives facilities for
pirating the information they contained, and disseminating
it without any cost—inasmuch as it has been charged upon
the Government that they wished to encourage a dishonest
course of that sort, and having had no such intention,they
feel it, incumbent to lay before the house a clause like the
present, in which a copyright is given to the articles in news-
papers,and a remedy for the infringement of that copyright.
aisnrethceei received
Twitcweohhiaeni
tecesihs
kiemcolnl
ygaot
respectucuhn
alseeielet of Parliament. I am free to admit that if
ht, this4osrheftopioopatu
reto ecabec,hneonae
copyright
exercisedgies
ylhpmy tateophoilrefeyr
by
yeeo, alreadyxsititihanhgtteneirights
hnl
vexatiously
London
nwnhs tf
hehsovirccehentihln,blavyeattibhyLei
d
the sanction
newspapers, would
be materially abridged. It is undoubtedly true that the
intelligence, the reports of the debates in this and the
other House of Parliament, the reports of proceedings in
courts of justice, the reports of the transactions at public
meetings and on other public occasions, which are obtained
at a considerable cost by the proprietors of the leading
metropolitan journals, are transcribed into other papers
simply by the mere process ,of copying, and without any

expenditure of money. That practice has grown up and
has been acquiesced in by the principal newspapers for a
long series of years • ,and it certainly would be a consider-
able detriment to the public at large if any attempt shOuld
now be made to abridge the rights thus conceded by prac-
tice ; but it is not my belief that the leading London news-
papers would seek to exercise the powers which this clause
would confer in any harsh and oppressive manner. (Bear.)
The proprietors of newspapers, like other persons in this
country, live under the influence of public opinion. Though
newspapers, to a great extent, act as the guides of public
opinion, they are also themselves in return peculiarly
amenable to the influence of public opinion, and it is not
my belief, looking to the manner in which' the principal
metropolitan newspapers are conducted, that their pro-
prietors would seek by a harsh, novel, or oppressive use of
the powers of this clause to prevent that transcription of
intelligence from their columns which practice has hitherto
sanctioned. My belief is that this clause would merely be
brought into use in cases where a newspaper might be set
up with the deliberate intention of pirating the principal
newspapers, and of transferring into its columns intelli-
gence, articles of original composition, and other com-
munications, animo furandi —with the deliberate inten-
tion of making the profits of the newspaper depend on such
ill-gotten gains. Under these circumstances it was desir-
abl that a cheap, quick, and certain remedy should be
afforded to those newspaper proprietors whose intelligence
was so taken from them. The right hon. gentleman con-
cluded by moving that the following clause be inserted in
the bill:—

" The proprietors of every newspaper shall, for the purpose
of protection against piracy, be entitled to a copyright iii
every original article, letter, paragraph, communication, and
composition which shall be for the first time published in
such newspaper iu this country ; and if any person shad;
within 24 hours after the first publication of any original
article; letter, paragraph, communication, or composition in
any such newspaper, print and publish any copy of such origi-
nal article, letter, paragraph, communication, or composition,
or of any material part thereof, or any colourable abridgment
or alteration of the same, such person shall for every such
offence forfeit a sum of not leis than 51., nor exceeding 3.:/.,
to the proprietors of the newspaper against whom such offence
has been committed ; and it shall be lawful for the printer or
publisher of such last-mentioned newspaper, on behalf of the
proprietors thereof, to recover such penalty by a summary pro—
ceeding before a stipendiary magistrate who has, or two justic.; s
who have, jurisdiction where the party offending resides, who
shall issue a summons requiring such party to appear on a
day and at a time and place to be named in such summons
(such time not being less than two days from the date thereof);
and every such summons stall be served on the party offend-
ing, either in person or at his usual place of abo le; and,
either upon the appearance or the default to appear of the
party offending, such magistrate or justices may proceed to
hear the complaint ; and upon proof of the offence, by con-
fession, or upon the oath of one or more credible witnesses
(which oath such magistrate and justices '.are respectively
hereby auilorised to administer), may convict the offender
in a penalty of not less than 51. or more than 301., as to such
magistrate or justices may soem fit ; and if the amount of
such penalty and the cost of the proceeding, which shall be
assessed by such maiist• ate or justices, shall not be forthwith
paid, the same shall be levied by distress and sale of the goods
and chattels of the offender, and such magistrate or justices
shall grant warrants accordingly."

Mr. WHITESIDE was of opinion that the proposed
clause would not accomplish the object which the right hon.
gentleman had so clearly explained—namely, to protect
the rights of the proprietors of the principal newspapers.
In that object he (Mr. Whiteside) entirely concurred, but
it was to the clause to be moved by the hon. member for
Pontefract that he should give his support, being of opinion
that it was unjust to visit with restriction any journal—he
did not care what journal it might be—on account of its
success. He regarded, therefore, the clause of the hon.
member for Pontefract more as a matter of benefit to the
community than to any particular paper. But he confessed
that it appeared to him that the house was now called on by
the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do what was never
done before—to limit the blessings of printing, and stifle
the electric telegraph as far as possible. (Hear, hear.) Of
this he was satisfied, however, that. the clause was wholly
impracticable. Ile agreed in the argument used by the
right hon. gentleman, and which had been used elsewhere,
that a newspaper, though it did not invent news,yet some;
times he should say otherwise—(a laugh)—though it did not
invent the facts welch occurred at Vienna, if any facts did
occur there—(laughter) —still it carried the intelligence
with great speed and industry, and with his consent it
should be paid, if that were possible, for its extraordinary
diligence and speed in carrying facts. But, what was the
meaning of a copyright in news he could not imagine:
News must exist, and halt-a-dozen men migh - carry news
from Vienna, but one might carry it more rapidly than
another, and the prop:. seaion should be to pey the parti-
cular journal which, by zeal and activity, got the news
the soonest into this reetrorods. He a twitted that origi-
nal articles of great ability appeared in the principal news-
papers, but it was a complement to quote them—(a laugh)
—and a testimony to the talent and ability with which
they were written. But it might be said that original
articles were not so much the matter of transcriptions as
the striking descriptions of the Battle of Inkerman and
other battles inserted in two of the metropolitan journals,
written, he was happy to say, by two of his countrymen,
and which were pirated ; and in Dublin the dabs received
telegraphic despatches conveying the substance of any
article of interest in an hour or an hoar and a half after it
was written. But how was that to be stopped ? Of all the
extraordinary devices which ever entered the head of a
financier for effecting that object this clause certainly was
the most extraordinary. Whether one man had stolen the
ideas of another was often a difficult question to determine
with respect to a literary work; but when several men had
obtaiited any particular fact at Vienna, and the editors
of newspapers hat commented on that fact, then the
question would arise whether one had stolen it from the.
other ; and according to this clause the editors of the Exa-
miner, the Spectator;and the Press—all men of great talent
—might be pulled up by the neck before a magistrate to
find out whether they had stolen their ideas from the 04-
tor of the Times or the editor of the Morning Chronicle.
Then, to try the question, there had been selected through-
out the country curious literary tribunals, and he must cx-
ess his desire that Ireland should be exempted from the
bill, for much as he respected the stipendiary magistrates,
he should be indisposed to-place at their control the press
of this country. (Hear, hear.) It was impossible to find
men so unfit for the duty proposed to be imposed on them.
He was not speaking disrespectfully of them—(a laugh)—
for they were never intended to decide questions of copy-
right. It appeared to him that emu 'provincial edithr,
unless that merciful and charitable feeling adverted to
by the Chancellor of the Exchequer 'should enter
into the minds of, the London editors, might
find himself taken before a magistrate, who might
easily be satisfies{ of the violation of copyright, and flue
him from 5/. to 301., and thus the provincial press might
easily be suppressed The copyright of designs had been
adverted to, but he was not aware himself of any analogous
provision to the one proposed, and the propositions to give
up men's minds and ideas to the judgment of police magis-
trates was intolerable. , If this clause were to be enforced,
let it be enforced by a more competent tribunal ; there
might not be much objection to the tribunal which was now
the greatest in the laud, he meant a county court.. Ques-
tions of copyright might then be submitted to j ies, which
were generally disposed to take-a lenient view in such cases,
but it would be out of the question that two stipendiary
magistrates in Ireland, or two county justices in Feiglend
should be allowed to decide whether a local journal, to the
politics of which they might be opposed, had invaded the
copyright of a London journal. The right hon. gentleman
would not be able, and he ought not, to carry a clause
to that effect. Did the right hon. gentleman intend to
include the press of Ireland ? That was a question which
he might call a puzzler. (Al laugh.) Would it not be
hard that a London newspaper should not be looked into
for 10 or 12 hours after its arrival in Dublin, for fear any
one might extract the intelligence it contained ? Even if
the Dublin newspapers published intelligence of their own
in the morning, a question would arise whether it had not
been stolen from a London morning paper, and would
have to be determined by a police magistrate. His view
was that it would be right for them to protect good news
and valuable commentary if they could do so— (hear)—but
they could not, and it was useless to. make the attempt.
(Hear.) If this section passed, one body of men, the le w-
yore, and the country attorneys especially, ought to return
thanks to the honse, for every newspaper in the empire
would be brought into a police-office. He submitted that
if the right hon. gentleman would remove the objection
as to weight which affected a particular journal, ho
would do well to take the advice given him a few hours
ago, and to leave the question of copyright as it was.
The great journals here did not stiffer so much as they
supposed from the grievance which it was now sought .to
redress, and the effect of the right hon. gentleman's pro-
posal would be, that all the respectable provincial journals
would perpetually be fined, and the London journals would
be worrie.t by a law which they did not desire. He should,
upon these grounds, oppose the clause. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. PHINN said, the fist question to be desisted was,
whether it was desirable thatthere should be a copyright in
news, when newspapers had gone to great expense and made
great exertions to obtain it? If they thought it was desir-
able they then came to the second question—whether the
means proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for
that purpose ought to he adopted ? The hon. andlearned
gentleman (Mr.Whiteside had put extreme cases; he would
put a case the other way. The morning papers went to
more expense and made greater exertions in order to collect
intelligence than any other newspapers in the world ; they
had agents and correspondents all Over the globe, in every
great capital, and in many of the secondary towns, and the
English public were supplied with news vary often long
before her Majesty's Government were prepared to com-
municate it to the house. The Times, or the Morning
Chronicle, or the Morning Herald, might be obtained at
6 in the morning, and by half-past 8 or 9 a newspaper
might be circulated through London, containing all the
leading articles, and the chief intelligence, political, Eta:
nary, and legal, published in those journals, at about one-
third of their cost. Was not this a great wrong, and ought
it not to be redressed ? (Elem..) Would not the hon. mem-
ber for Manchester exclaim against spring patterns in cot-
ton being pirated, and offered to the London houses at half
their proper price? He admitted that the morning papers
might exaggei ate the grievances under which they suffered,
but the effect of a system of piracy such as he had described
would ba to diminish their circulation, to lessen the object
for which they incurred expense and made exertions, and
so to diminish the value of the article which they supplied
to 'the public ; he was now, therefore, pleading for
the public rather thawfor the proprietorssof newspapers.
All public men sometimes fell under the lash of the press,
but he believed our newspapers. wore, on the whole, the
best conducted in the world.. God forbid that they should
ever resemble the newspapers of America. He agreed with
the hon. and learned gentleman that the remedy proposed
by the right hon. gentleman was not a good one.
He
thought 21 hours was too long a period for copyright in
news to continue, as six or eight hours would produce the
same practical effect. Distauce-as well as time was an
element in the question. The London newspapers would have
reason to complain if a newspaper pirated from themselves
were circulated in London, but if the news contained in
them were telegraphed to the Dublin or Edinburgh news-
papers there was ner competition, and they would not el a
copy the less is those places. Ile thought some means
ought to be adopted to repress the piracy wbch he knew
would be committed upon the morning journals. The Loa.
member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) might shake his head,
but he (Mr, Phinu) knew that preparations were at that
moment be,ng made in London to publish the principal
leading articles and the most important intelligence con-
tained in the morning papers by 10 o'clock. With regard
to the means by which this grievance ought to be redressed,
he admitted that be was not willing to devolve upon police
magistrates a new and arduous duty for which they wore
most inadequately paid. The Legislature was every day
heaping- upon public functionaries new and unpopular
duties which they had never contemplated when they had
accepted their appointments. ThtsChancellor of the Ex-
chequer FRS right in saying that they must trust to the
forbearance, moderation, and discretion o the newspaper
proprietors—(cries of " Oh ! oh !")—for the efficient work-
ing of the clauses. He believed that they would not
think it worth while to institute proceedings except in
cases of systematic piracy, continued week after week.
There. was considerable difficulty in the choice of a

proper tribunal for the tii .1 of questions of this kiwi. If I
there wer e a summary j arisdiction 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 bean appeal from them to
the superior courts, and by that) courts the principles upon
which the law was to be administered would be settled. He
regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer hail 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 news. One argil-
, ment advanced by the hen. 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 Is newspaper ? An ephe-
meris, an insect of the clay, 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 ho was prepared to trust to the
good feeling of the editors of newspapers in carrying out
this clause. Withoutereverting to the able remarks of the
hon. and learned member forEnniskillenewho, 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 mad continuous subject, the authors of which
wore known; and he thought it impossible to legislate on
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 copyright 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 liaised into a law they ought to require a signa-
ture to every article in order to determine who were the
responsible persons, and thereby mailitain 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 papersof the power
that would be vested in them, he believed that the respedl-
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 beecorue 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 new before the committee. Ho 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 his 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, he be-
lieved, was at that time editor of the Daiy News. He
stated that the proprietors of that journal had reason to
complaiu 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
were to act upon it. Before Parliament made a law to
meet an evil, it ought to be satisfied that the evil was of i
sufficient magnitude to, make a remedy necessary. The
electric telegraph of which the hon. member for Stoke-upons
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
the 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 13 ,en for
the Newspaper Stamp Bill ? If a copyright was proper tot
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 likely to take; and if it wore necessary that they
should be punished for that offence after this bill should he
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 bill would be of any practical be-
nefit 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-
tent') ,raries, it appeared, might be plundered as well as
themselves, if the cheap postage of ld. for anysize or weight
were granted to 'the Times. Only concede this boon, and
they would bid defiance to piracy. This apprehension of
piracy, therefore, &mild 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 Loudon journal said so and so. Now, here was 'a
copy of the "morning express," which was sent down to
Manchester that day by the hoe member for Stoke-
upon-Trent's (Mr. Ricardo's) company. and which
was described as piratical :—"9a.M., April 30.- The Post
believes that despatches were received on Friday from Ge-
neral Canrobert, and on Saturday from Loxd Raglan
throughthe new submarine telegraph, stating that the bom-
bardment of Sebastopol bytheadies 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 b 3 considered as piracy ? W ell,
this was the form of the announcement generally made by
the electric telegraph. They ran thus :—" The Times says
so and so—that Sebastopol had been taken," for instance.
(A. laugh.) 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 kppeared 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-
dies\ 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 Impede 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 LOVAINB sail that this was the first time in the
i
; 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 press of our day needed 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, nd
interfered even in the operations of the army, affording in-
formation to the enemy on points which it was of the high-
est importance should be concealed from him —iu which
reprehensible practice, accerding 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 circl.
late), calumnious accifsations and vituperative charges
against individuals, who had no means of clearing themselves
in the eyes of the public. Those charges were reiterat d
from day to day—sum's of them had even been repeated in
that house in the face of the most solemn denial ; and was
it fitting thet a right of property in articlesof that eharec-
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 J
•LI • and yet in 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? Thie bill
also proposed to relax the existing law for protecting pri-
vate character from the us
nonymolibeller. Journalism
in this country required the exorcise of as niuch talent and
ability as any %her profession, and why, therefore, should