The Sun.
London, England, 1851-05-10 00:00:00

li• ',,,t4--a.;.,,, t ..:;.,,,J, -
. ''-'. .p,,,,0,0- •= ..- ' 4-4
eecheirtEe ofigittil roitislosa of the Mt err tAdVitor u
, ~...., - --A
tt routti,
the new cla?. the tradesmen will:harallV tret4eao, ' r., 1
the tenant-farmer, who is only another soelfr '.O ,
shall have the advantage over hitn. ThCfarmer 4taairiog . ..., ,
t
succeeded in removing his grievance, anothe cite-A of beef- ''
ferers will soon make itself heard. There is an inequality :,,,,-;:=
far greater than that of the tenant-farmer or the tradesman,'
who paid the same whether he had lost or gainei. It is
that of the man who only enjoys his income for life, or as .
long as he is willing and able to work for it. 11 e shall have
all these pressing in at the tail of the tenant-farmer, to whom
Sir Charles has shown the single piece of generosity to be
found in the history of the income-tax. How long the tax
will stand the universal outcry for amendment is more than
we can say ; but, that outcry once raised, it is not likely
to abate until the tax itself is abandoned. There is some-
thing ominous in the very first innovation on the Income-tax
Act, always supposed tool fragile for the touch of the im-
prover. We have now had it three times three years, and.
with the present year, one year more. flow much longer will
the grateful contributors to the tax continue their acquies-
cence ? It is said that a large body of the local commis-
sioners under the Act are so painfully conscious of the con-
cealments and evasions practised by persons liable under
. chedule I), that they have only conn.'ved under
the ide i that a temporary tax did not call for a vary rigorone
discharge of their duties. Eut should the tax be,tome per.
eminent, or threaten a much longer duration, they are re-
ported to have made up their minds to call for books and
papers, and institute a much closer scrutiny. 'fill such a
course is adopted we have no doubt whatever that the pre-
sent - ax is quite as much a tax upon conscience as it is zepon
profits; and that many now return the whole or the halt' of
their income quite at discretion. Should such a scrutiny,
however, be instituted, a rather dangerous am,:unt Of disile
fection would be generated. 'I he extent to which the screw
is to be applied fur the future is one of the questions reserved
for next year, which may be &defy predicted to be a crisis
in British finance. The year itss2 w
promises to be a still
more important epoch than 1844 no celebrated for the
rade commencement of the free. Policy, to which the income-
' tax, first laid on in that year, served as a temporary scaf-
folding. Ten years have elapsed. The edifice of free trade
has been completed; and it certainly does present itself as a
noei,.°Timndetedie, prepared at thatat pro-
sent very reasonable question how•far.the scaffolding is to stand,
an i to a considerable
We are
sgertoetwtno usp..c‘ritiiteleilamoitre than five millions, but we are prepared
to decide whether the tax shall be temporary in its present
form, or permanent and equitable.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COUNT OF (PIEEN'S BENCH, May 9.
(Sitting in Banco before Lord CAMIBELL, and Justice
PATTKSON, WIGIITMAN, and E.RLE
REGINA V. THE PIAILISHER AND PROMIETOR Or THE
" MORNING lIEXALD.
In this case the Court had granted a" tale, calling on the
publisher and proprietor of the Morning Herald to show
cause why a criminal information should not be filed
against them for a libel published in that journal respecting
Don Pacifico.
Sir F. THESIGER said he now appeared on the part of the
dela Allots, and wished to inform-lbe Court that the article
in question, which was a letter from the correspondent of
the Morning Herald in Greece, had been received on the eve
of the publication of the second edition of the paper, and had
been inserted without due consideration. He also wished to
state that every facility bad been given by Don Pacifico for
the fullest investigation into the matters referred to in the
lette., and that the parties were now satisfied that, as to a
considerable portion of the article, there was no foundation
for the imputations which it conveyed against Don Pa-
cifico. They were, therefore, anxious to express their dis-
approbation of them and their regret that they sbould have
inserted anything which occasioned him pain. They trusted
that, baying made this acknowledgment, the Learned At-
torney-Ganeral would be willing to consent that the rule
should be discharged on the payment of the costs by the
defendants.
The ATTORNIT-GZNEIZAT, said, the only point in the
Learned Counsel's statement which he felt it necessary to
remark upon was, that be seemed to limit his ackowledg-
ment to a considerable portion only of tne article. He knew
that the article contained a good deal of comment on the
political conduct of the prosecutor, of which, of course, he
could not complain.
Sir F. TIMMER said, what be meant was to withdraw all
which affected Don Pacifico's'perstmal character, and toosay
that he was satisfied that the imputations were without
foundation ; but he certaiuly meant to exclude the political
matters.

The ArronsEy-GENERAL said, he was quite satisfied with
the explanation. Don Pacifico's object iu appealing to this
Court was to clear his character, and he (the Attorney-
General) unlerstood that aft(-.r this investigation the de-
fendants were perfectly satisfied. He also added that the
defendants had acted with perfect propriety in the matter.
Lord CAMPBELL said, the course adopted WaS honourable
to both the parties. The rule would be discharged on the
payment of the costs by the defendants.

must KAY v. Rolls.
Th's case came before the Court upon a demurrer. The
parties are well-known publishers, and the action was
brought by the plaintiff against the defendant to recover
damages for the infringement of the plaintiffs copyright is
certain works of Washington Irving, the well-known Ameri-
can writer. It appeared on the record that these works were
originally published in England by the plaintiff, who had
purchased the copyright of the author; and the substantial
ques: ion now raised was, whether an English publisher, who
purchased the copyright of a work of a foreign author, and
published the work in this country, could maintain an ac-
tion for an infringement of his copyright ; or, in other words,
whether he had any copyright. In the case of "Cocks v.
Purday" the Court of Common Pleas had decided in ac-
cordance with the plaintiff's claim ; and this Court, in the
case of" Boosey r. Davidson," had at about the same time
come to a similar conclusion; but both these decisions had
since been overruled by the Court of Exchequer, in the case
of " Boosey v. Purday."
Sir F. KELLY, in support of the demurrer, after reviewing
the history of the law of copyright and the decided cases,
said, that as the law of England aforded protection to the
lives, liberties, property, and even character of foreigners, he
was utterly unable to comprehend upon what principle it
was that they were net to be protected in the property
which they had in these fruits of their intellect. It was
said by the Court of Exchequer that it must be presumed
that the Legislature intended to protect the property of Bri-
tish authors only in their writings, but there was nothing in
any of the statutes which tended to support that presump-
tion. On the contrary, the.otiject of those statutes was de-
clared to be the encouragement of learning, which would be
prom,:ted as much by the protection of the works of
foreigners published in this country as by the protection of
the works of British subjects. He admitted that if the works
had been first published abroad they would not be entitled
to protection here.
Mr. WILLES, who appeared in support of the defendant's
plea, said he understood that the fact was that several, if not
all of the works now in question, had been published in the
first in,tanee in America. Ile wished, therefore, to be allowed
to mend his plea, in order that the defendant's case might be
placed on the record.
Sir F. KELLY said, of course he could not make any op-
position to that application.
Lord CAMPBELL said, if the Learned Counsel applied for
leave to amend, he could do so on the usual terms (payment
of costs).
Mr. WILLES said he would amend accordingly.