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

THE VIENNA NEGOTIATIONS.

The Earl of DERBY rose and said— If I knew what
member of her Majesty's Government I could address
myself to, I would put a question of considerable im-
portance, inasmuch as we have arrived at a period in
the great struggle in which we are engaged when it is
essential for the Government to lay before Parliament
the fullest information in their power to afford. We
have forborne putting questions which might embarrass
her Majesty's Ministers during the progress of the nego-
tiations which have been going on, but as we have been
given to understand that these negotiations have alto-
gether terminated, that all hopes of peace are at as end,
and that her Majesty's plenipotentiary has returned and
is in this country, I have been in expectation that her
Majesty's Government would have felt it to be their duty
to make, without any question being asked, a state.
ment to both houses of Parliament, describing the actual
condition of affairs, and informing them of the nature
of the propositions made by her Majesty's Government
and her allies and the result of those propositions.
(Hear, hear.) I do not see the noble earl the Secretary
of State for Foreign Affairs in his place. A. Noble
Lord—He was here a short time ago. He was sum-
moned by her Majesty.] Perhaps some member of her
Majesty's Government will be good enough to acquaint
the house whether a statement will be made on the pre-
sent position of affairs, and detailing what has taken
place at Vienna both by the Allied Powers and by Arm-
tria, and what was the character of the answer given by
Russia to the propositions made to her ; likewise, whe-
ther it is the intention of the Government to lay before
Parliament the nature of those propositions, and a state-
ment of their views as to the actual position of the pre-
sent critical state and threatening aspect of foreign
affairs. (Rear, hear.) •
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE replied—My noble
friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs hai,
been in the house till the last ten minutes, when, I have
reason to know, he was sent for by her Majesty. Had
he been here he would, I am sure, have given an answer
to my noble friend. lam confident that it is the inten-
tion of her Majesty's Government at the earliest period,
on a very speedy occasion, to lay before Parliament
what has taken place, and I have no doubt that my
noble friend will make such a statement, though I am not
prepared to name a day. I will, however, consult with
my noble friend, and he will be able to state to-morrow
or the day after when he will lay whatever information
he can communicate before the house.
FLOATING BATTERIES.

Earl TALBOT wished to ask a question respecting
the floating batteries. Re desired to know who wag
the designer of these batteries, which he thought would
hardly answer the purpose for which they were intended,
and what was the contract price for constructing thorn
Lord PANMURE said he would answer these ques-
tions on a future day.
Their lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—YESTERDAY.
The SPEAKER took the chair at fOur o'clock.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL.
The noble lord the member for the City of Lender:,
was led to the table amidst cheers by Sir G. Grey aura
Mr. Masterman, and took the oaths and his seat on his
re-election after having accepted the office of Secretary
of State for the Colonies.
THIRD READINGS.
The following bills were read a third time and passed:
—l3ristol and Exeter Railway ; Newport Corporation
Sturbridge Gas ; Surbiton Improvement ; East India?.
Railway ; Madras Railway.
The following bills were ordered to be considered:—
Dundee and Perth and Aberdeen Railway ; Maryport.
and Carlisle Railway ; Oldham Gas and ,Pater; Regent'.'
Canal (Hertford Union Canal).
The Edinburgh Lands Bill was read a second time.
COMMUNICATION BETWEEN ENGLAND AND
IRELAND,
Sir W. lIEATHCOTE moved that the third report-.
of the Select Committee on Railways (19th April, 1848),
and the report of the select committee on the Chest,r
and Holyhead Railway (11th May, 1843), be rt-
ferred ta the committee on the bill for Improved Com-
munication between England and Ireland.
The motion was agreed to without discussion.
PETITIONS.
Petitions were presented—by Mr. H. W. Wickham,
from the inhabitants of Hartehead-cum-Clifton, in the
county of York, against the Maynooth Endowment ;
also from the board of guardians, Bradford union, York
coulit', preying that provision may be made by Govern-
ment for the support of the wives and families of mili-
tiamen when on duty with their regiments ;
also from* the licensed vicValler3 in the borough
2aona
parish of'Bradforcl, Yorkshire, to the number of ,
Praying for the repeal of the act passed last session
gin.
tituled an Act for further regulating the Sale of Beer
and other Liquors on the Lord's-day ;by Mr. Pellatt,
from Sqntilwark, for improvements in the Management
of the Metropolis Bill, and from a place in Kent, for thr,
abolition
Martin's Spooner, from St.
oafudehusrtch rates ; by 3 r.
against theThomas's parishes, Thrmingham,
various par,_ Maynooth grant, and petitions from
grant
may a of the kingdom praying that the
the Manches withdrawn ; by Mr. Hadfield, from
bodies in favourter of ttalw Association and other similar
from Sir 3. pechea e Testamentary Jurisdiction Bili ;
drolitrighton, fo: the abolition of
churchaates ; by
from the north of Ireland, .aerl, a number of petitions
cttiinst the Maynooth grant ;
by Mr. Cowan. petitione tr.to
in favour of the Lord Advocate's places in Scotland
koinsl; the Maynooth grant. a Education Bill, and

reference to the letter
THE BANK OF ENGLA.N.,. f results.
Mr. HILD YARD asked, with --.l).Mr. BASS inquired what part Turkey had taken in
fr.)m the Governor and Deputy-G
tlated the
i the conferences? (A laugh.)
overnor of
of England to the Chancellor of the Excheque the Bank \ the Lord J. RUSSELL—I cannot go into details, but
14th day of March, 1855, lately laid on the tabler, Turkish plenipotentiaries were of the same mind as
house, the Chancellor of the Exchequer whethe)f the thei Plenipotentiaries ..of Great Britain, France, and
any objection to lay on the table of the house the helethtad stria. '(Hear, hear, and laughter.)
from the Governor and Deputy-Governor of the Lankeorr , LOAN BILL.
the 12th 854 therein referred to, and also th.E., "n the
orde f
Oct.,' P to b. considered r the day for the Loan Bill, as amended,
Opinions of the standing counsel of the Bank, and of Mr. 1 Sir,
Itoundell Palmer, also therein referred to ? ! F. KELLY
, omitted. I rose to move that clause 22 be
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said no 1 impolitlc n doing so, he alluded to theanomalous and
eolly of any such letter bad come into his possession, 1 Parliarneeonrse :bieh it involved in '
aud it was impossible et to a 0
fl A pledging future
„, _ impossible for him to produce it. ! policy. (Hear ~‘-' Pt a particular course of commercial
Ittrmy
--TED RAISING OF THE SIEGE OF i The CHA.N, ,hear,)
.1. CELLop
, SEBASTOPOL. ' explaining briefly 41., 'of
...e gro the EXCHEQUER, after
In r.,ply to Mr;IV traduce • this clause iat thedS which had led him to in-
Sir C.- WOOLP-iiaI44RNERY fair prospect of diminioel --e
bill, said
the telegraphic line was now corn- cently created.that it afforded
ung the
capital it a
plete from the tor% of the debt re-
sh Coast but -
, they were not . .
...
aware Mr GLADSTONE •
w hethtr it was_complete ' said that if th
- ' Ari - 2),' across the Danube. With re- i 4.4. 'vision he should feel it % (Int incur, eeittion went to
-i ,- y
33ent upon him

The house then went into committee on this bill.

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-
. . .

li.tment of the year 1855, undertaking to determine by
adopting a particular • line of fiscal and commercial
policy, the financial policy of Par:lament to 10 or 15
years hence. (Cheers.) He contended that Parliament
was going entirely out of its province by so
(king. His right hon. friend (the Chancellor of the
Exchequer) had 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
proeressively. 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, for 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 innoperative but a positive mischief. He therefore
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, bear.)
Mr. HENLEY also said a few words against the im-
policy and injustice of the clause. _ _ _

M. LABOUCHERE 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 only 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, be did not intend to press it.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was under-
stood to dissent from this.

Mr. RICA.RDO begged tho 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 bad 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 ar-
'unities 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 subject,
they would be told in what the fallacy of terminableannni-
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 fund, and to 4is 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 ho firmly adhered,
believing that it bad worked advantageously for the coun-
try. At a time when they wero 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 20,000,003/. 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, he 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.

merely by the operation of seeking stamps-, I thought
it was better to reconsider the (tatter, and accordingly
asked the committee to postpotie the clauses and report
progress. I have since reconsidered the matter, and, after
the best consideration I can give on the subject, 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, accoeding 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 bo
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, he understood the Chancellor of the
Exchequer to mean that he intended the law- 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 ; but 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.

Mr. JOHN MACGREGOR agreed with the hon. gentle-
man who last addressed the house, that it would have been
better for tbe Chancellor of the Exchequer to have gone into
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 he had involved himself. He (Mr. Mac-
gregor) saw no use whatever in the clause under consider-
ation, believing, as he did, that the idea of a sinking fund
was an exploded absurdity. In fact, he should describe
the whole affair as a fiscal view of a promised land.
Mr. CARDWELL said he should be obliged—if the
clause were pressed to a division—to vote against it.
Lord PALMERSTON—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 pled-ged 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 syeem 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-
position 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 himself embarrassed with
a pledge from which he will find it impossible to free him-
self. My opinion is that the not will be, like all other acts
of Parliament binding upon Parliament until it is repealed.
Hence, so long as it remains unropealed, it will be the duty
of every Chancellor of the Exchequer to frame his esti-
mates in accordance with its provisions. If unfortunately
circum,tances 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 pringiplq, that while on the one hand wo are adding
16,001.000/. 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 lll
Majority —99
The bill was ordered to be read a third time to-morrow
INCOME-TAX BILL.

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 in 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, aryl
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 a the terms " periodical publication" and " news-
paper," when the same thing was meant. He did not
oppose the clause, but he thought that it would be neces-
sary slightly to alter the language, in order to make the
different parts of the bill harmonise.
The CHANCELLOI? 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 days ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied that
it was; but beyond 15 days from the date of publicatiog
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-
propriet ors,

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 ltd, for every 20s. of the annual value or
L.rnount of all such property, profits, and gains respec-
tively, if such an annual value or amount shall reach- or
exceed 1001. and not, reach 100/. This would limit the in-
crease of taxation upon incomes under 1501. tb 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 SIRTHORY supported the amendment.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it was
title 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, however, 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
Mated that the amendment substantially interested of li-
!Lilted income, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) should
not think it his duty to oppose it. (Hear, hear.)
The amendment was agreed to.
The remaining clauses and the preamble were agreed to,
aid the house resumed.
NEWSPAPER STAMP DITTIES BILL.

Mr. G. BUTT said ho thought, if the right hon. gentle-
man-the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider 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 11311103, with-
out joining all the parties in the concern as plaintiffs
in the action. Bet 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 prbprietors 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 theyought tobe, amenable for the judgment obtained
against them iu 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 (lid was clearly contrary to every principle of existing
law, and to every act of Parliament which had ever been
passed for giving facilities to partids for seeing and being
sued. Suppose that a newspaper were the property of six
proprietors, what reason could there be for exempting them
from the responsibility of their ownership? Of course he
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
which 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 that, under
the clause as it was proposed, there were no means of 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. He must
give in a list of the whole of the prop:ietors, 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 parties concerned, so that a sufficient re-
medy was given. But here them 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, be 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 b 3 without remedy.
There was no principle of law which, if a debt were due,
for instance, ou 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 bon. gentleman conversant
with the law would tell the right hon. gentleman that such
a principle was totally unknown to it, and was no* for the
first time imported into the house. At present proprietors
of newspapers wore 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 theEXCHEQUER said that at
present the registered proprietors were subject to legal pro-
ceedings, and might be made defendants to any civil nation.
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 thin 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 tho 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 ho 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-
over, but it had been suggested with a view of doing away
with a hardship existing under the present law. Ho 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 encyclopaedias, reviews, magazines, periodicals,
and works of larger bulk and less frequent publication than
daily or weekly newspapers, and imposed certain conditions
with respect to copyright which could scarcely have been ful-
filled in the case of newspapers,_ and therefore practically
nullified the benefits which the act appeared to concede to
them. Inasmuch, 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 Govern went 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.
The mhdel of this cheap remedy already exists in the act
with respect to the copyright of designs, which has received
the sad ction of Parliament. I• am free to admit that if
this clause should be rigidly or vexatiously enforced by the
]eadiu* metropolitan newspapers, the rights which have by
consent, hitherto been exercised by the London evening ate I
weeklY newspapers, and by the country newspapers, would
be materially abridged. It is undoubtedly true that the
it e
other
n l i
Leong; tehfe
praerpl
ioartet se
no:,f tthhee
rdeebpearttees iofn
pthise e
da an
edgsthine
courts; of justice, the reports of the transactions at public
meetiags,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

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said—The
committee will remember that when this bill was last be-
fore us a question was raised on clauses 4,5, 6, and 'i,
relative to registration and securities. A discussion took
place on the structure of those clauses, and it was pointed
out that certain inconveniences would arise under their
operation ; that, in certain cases, a sort of publication not
e)ming within the range of the original acts would be in-
cluded, and that, in certain other cases, particular publi-
catiOns that did coma within the operation of the original
acts would be excluded. I felt that these remarks had in
them some foundation ; and, though the clauses referred to
were framed on the principle of removing penalties and
securing the obligation of registration And securities

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, EVENING-, MAC' 1, 1855.

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 th 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 anyharsh and oppressive manner. (Hear.)
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-
able 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 in
every original article, letter, paragraph, communication, and
composition which shall be for the first time published in
such newspaper in this country ; and if any person shall,
within 24 hburs 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 less than 51., nor exceeding 301.,
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 justice 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 shall be served on the party offend-
ing, either in person or •at his usual place of abode ; and,
either upon the appearance or the default to appear of tho
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 authorised 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 seem fit ; and if the amount of
such penalty and the cost of the proceeding, which shall be,
assessed by such magistrate 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.
Igentleman had so clearly explaiued—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 priuting, and stifle
the electric telegraph as far as possible. {Haar, hear.) Of
thiS ho was satisfied, however, that the clause was wholly
impracticable. He agreed in the argument used by tho
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)—hough it did not
invent the facts which 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 iu carrying facts. But, what was the
meaning of a copyright in news he could not imagine.
News must exist, and halt-a-dozen men 'nigh., carry news
from Vienna, but one, might carry it more rapidly than
another, and the propcstion should be to pay the parti-
cular journal which, by zeal and activity, got the news
the soonest into this metropeis. He admittcd that origi-
nal articles of great ability appeared in tho 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 clubs received
holographic 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
obtained any particular fact at Vienna, and the editors
of newspapers had 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 ,Exct-
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 edi-
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 ex-
press 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 every provincial editor,
unless that merciful and charitable feelins, 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 satisfied of the violation of copyright, and fine
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 land, he meant a county court. Ques-
tions of copyright might then be submitted to j uries, which
were generally disposed to take a lenient view in such eases,
but it would be out of the question that two stipendiary
magistrates in Ireland, or two county justices in England
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. Pid the right hon. gentleman intend to
include the press of Ireland ? That was a question which
he might call a puzzler. (A 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 ? Eien 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 'lance 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 law-
yers, and the country attorneys especially, ought to return
thanks to the house, 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, he
would do well to take the advice given him a few hours
ago, and to leave the , question of copyright as it was.
Tho great journals here did not suffer 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 worried by a law which they did not desire. He should,
upon these grounds, (Troia the clause. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. PHINN said, the that question to be decided was,
whether it was desirable that there 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 their came to the second question—whether the
means proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for
that purpose ought to be 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 oyes the globe, in every
great capital, and in many of the secondary to wns, mind 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, I:te-
racy, and legal, published in those journals, at about oue-
third of their cost. Was not this a great wrong, and ought
it not to be redressed ? (Hear.) 'Would not the hon. mem-
ber for Manchester exclaim against spring patterns in cot-
ton being pirated, and effereeto the London houses at half
their proper price ? He admitted that the morning papers
might exaggerate the grievances under which they suffered,
but the effect of a system of piracy such as he had described
would be 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 than for the proprietors of newspapers.
All public men sometimes fell under the lash of the press, 1
' but he believed our newspapers were, on the whole, the
best conducted in the world. God forbid that they should
over 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 24 hours was too long a period for copyright in
news to continue, as six or eight hours would produce the
same practical effect. Distance as well its time was an
element in the question. The London newspapers would have
reason to complain if a newspaper pirated from themselves
wore circulated in London, but if the news contained in
them were telegraphed to the Dublin or Edinburgh news-
papers there was no competition, and they would not el a
copy tho less in those places. He thought some means
ought to be adopted to repress the piracy whom he knew
would be committed upon the morning journals. Tho hon.
member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) might shake his head,
but he (Mr. Phinn) know that preparations were at that
moment being made in London to publish the principal
leading articles and the most important intelligence con-
tained in the mornin,; 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 were
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. Tho Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer was 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