The Sun.
London, England, 1859-02-18 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY. )
NEWSPAPERS.
Mr. AYRTON moved for leave to bring in a bill to repeal
certain acts and parts of acts relating to newspapers,
pamphlets, and other publications, and to printers, type-
founders, and reading-rooms. Although there was no op-
position to the .bill, yet he wished to make a few remarks,
as it was the wish of the right hon. gentleman opposite that
the objects of the bill might be made known. The subject
carried him back many years in the annals of legislation,
foe the statutes which he wished to repeal were th growth
of evil times, and it was necessary to discover how such
laws were placed on the statute-book. As early as the
reign of Queen Anne, the Ministry imagined that the pe-
riodical press was injurious to the interests of the State—
that publicity was given to documents which they thought
seditious, and it was deemed necessary that the House of
Commons should take steps to redress what was imagined
to be a great public grievance. He said he saw, as he
looked into the press of that day, and found that
whatever was written, however temperate and learned it
might be, if it was adverse to the Opinion of the Govern-
ment and the House of Commons, was regarded as a wicked
and seditious libel, and anything which touched on reli-
gion or the Established Church was an impious and blas-
phemous publication. Such was the opinion entertained
of publications which now would be thought as innocent
and perhaps as dull as anything that could be read. The
House of Commons was agitated to an immense degree be-
cause a publication contained a translation of a State paper
of the States- General ; it was said to be wicked and sedi-
tious, and a committee was appointed to inquire into the
matter, and a bill was passed placing heavy duties on paper,
on newspapers, on pamphlets, and it provided that every
publication should be registered in an office of the Govern-
ment ; and that was the origin of the system of registration
which was kept up to this day. Attempts were made to
enforce the principle on authors, but as the Government
could not make up its mind whether it was better that the
names of authors should be made known or not, that was
not done, and the law remained in the state he had described
until the close of the last century. At that time this
Country was threatened with an invasion, a hostile cape •
dition had landed in Ireland, and England was said to be
full of Sedition, and the Ministry assented to another law,
in which registration was carried on in the minutest form ;
the owners of every newspaper were to declare whether
any fOreigners were interested in those papers, so that
they might be prevented frOm making them the instru-
ments of hostility to the country. An act was passed
which, though repealed, contained provisions which now
formed part of ,the present law. In 1799, the Govern-
ment brought in a bill which, in an apologetic tone, spoke
of conspiracies at home and abroad to subvert the Govern-
ment ; stated that further powers were required by
the executive 'to prevent men from reading the public
journals, unless with a license from justices of the
peace. There was one exception, for alehouses were pri-
vileged places for the reading of public journals. That
was a moral restriction ; it was productive of much evil, by
associating literature with drunkenness, and the tapster was
made the guardian of literature, and it became a practice to
resort to the public-house for the purpose of reading the
public journals. Even type-founders, and all persons re-
motely connected with printing, were brought under the
grasp of the Government, and required to have licenses in
order to carry on their callings. One would have imagined
that such enactments would has e died out in time, but they
remained in existence, and the only difference now was that
the law put the power of moving in the crown instead of in
the hands of the common informer. Such laws ought not
to be left dormant on the statute-book, leaving itinthe power
of the executive to revive them whenever they chose. One
would have imagined that the constitution of the country
was sufficiently protected against its supposed enemy; the
press, but when the war was ended, and men's minds were
capable of examining into the evil results which had been
produced by that war' and they began to discuss whether
it was not necessary to have reform in Parliament, the Go-
vernment of 1819 took the alarm, and considered whether it
would not be necessary to enact new laws, and put further
restrictions on the press. At that time there may have been,
and he believed there were, many publications so extrava-
gant, that it might have been right to have repressed them
by the arm of the law ; but instead of the Government pro-
secuting journals and pamphlets injurious to the state, they
endeavoured generally to lay greater restrictions on the
liberty of the preks. Carrying out this design, they intro-
duced another measure,. requiring that any person publish-
ing any newspaper or pamphlet should give security on
their recognisances and two sureties for the printer and
publisher, who were amenable to the amount of £3OO in Lon-
don and £9OO in the country, if the work contained any
seditious or blasphemous libel. Two years after measures
were taken in mercy to mitigate the penalty on conviction,
but the pressure on publications was increased by making
the security, which was £3OO in town, £4OO, and that
which was £2OO in the country, £3OO, and the security was
extended not only to seditious and blasphemous libels, but
to what was considered in a court of law private libels, and
this enactment was to be used as a protection not only to
the state, but to private individuals who thought themselves
aggrieved. This was the extreme measure, but the trade
of printers and publishers was put on a different footing to
others, and you could only justify such a course by the
exigency of the times, or else to say that every person em-
ployed in literature was a public delinquent, a common
" barrator," who ought to be restrained in the exercise of
his calling. Some time after this, when Parliament had
been reformed, an agitation was raised to relieve current
literature from the difficulties imposed on it, in consequence
of the enormous taxes to which it was subject, and the re-
strictions from which it suffered. After a struggle of many
years the taxes in question were diminished, direct taxes
were repealed, and at last a measure was introduced by the
right lion. gentleman the member for the University of
Oxford, by which he proposed to repeal all the provisions
of the law which had been passed in connexion with or in
relation to the collection of the duties, and especially that
enactment which comprised all the restrictions in the shape
of registration and the requiring of declarations to be filed
in a government office with regard to the ownership of
public journals and pamphlets. But when the measure
was discussed, objections were raised as to the expediency
of remitting what was called the protection against the
abuses of the press: The then Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, finding that he would only have a fiscal measure im-
peded by questions of a political character which would
lead to discussion and debate, consented to withdraw
the provisions repealing the existing law, and confined
his bill to the revision of taxes, and left the provi-
sions in question on the statute book. The object
of his (Mr. Ayrton's) motion was to sweep away all
those statutes, and to submit newspapers and pamphlets to
.the, general law which affected all other publications. There
was no principle on which one publication which was longer
or shorter than another, which cost 3d. or 6d. as the case
might be, should be made the subject of exceptional legisla-
tion. He found in the statute book, without these special
enactments,.ample protection for all kinds of publications.
The law of copyright required that every publication, long
or short, even if it were limited to a single sheet, should be
delivered, within a definite time, to the trustees of the British
Museum, or the publisher would be fined. It was also re-
quired that the owner of any publication, for which it was
desired to obtain the benefit of copright, should register it
at Stationers'-hall. These laws afforded sufficient means of
ascertaining who the proprietor of a publication was; and
there were various enactments directed expressly against
criminal publications. There was one statute by which the
authorities were enabled, whenever any publication was ad-
judged to be a libel, to have all the impressions of it seized,
so that it could
.no longer be circulated, to the injury of
society. There was another statute for the suppression of
obscene and improper books, passed two sessions ago.
These laws were sufficient to reach the case of criminal pub •
lications. But the statutes to which his motion referred,
whilst they were most' inconvenient and injurious to pub-
lishers, failed to accomplish the object for which they were
passed. They were onl/ a restraint upon honest men.
They were passed to enalsfs the revenue to be collected, and
when the duties were taken off, the statutes should have
been allowed to fall into abeyance. The Commissioners of
Stamps and, their officers should have no more to do with
them. But in 1856, a member of that house, the late hon.
member for Tewkesbury, moved by a high sense of morality,
and, in fact, taking upon himself to be the guardian of the
public morality, addressed a remonstrance to the Commis-
sioners of Stamps, pointing out that in the borough he re-
presented publications were issued which he thought cal-
culated to demoralise the people, and against which he re-
quired the commissioners to enforce the law. Upon this
the Commissioners of Stamps submitted the question to the
law officers of the crown. He (Mr. Ayrton) invited the
Government, in a former session, to lay on the table of the
house the case submitted and opinion given by the law
officers of the crown, but the late Government mot him with
an official stereotyped answer, that it would be contrary to
usage to disclose such matters. But the Commissioners of
Stamps themselves afterwards printed a circular, stating
they had been advised by the Attorney-General that it was
their duty to enforce the law. The consequence was that
many persons in the country were obliged to take great
trouble and seek out their friends to become security for
them ; some had to travel a hundred miles to find the proper
person ,before whom they were to appear ; and the greatest
vexation and annoyance was inflicted on the printers of pro •
vincial journals, whilst in London there were others who
understood the rue position of the case,' and took no notice
of the circular they received. One person, in order to put
the decision •of the commissioners to the test, published
what was called the Free Press, which was purposely thrust
on the commissioners' notice ; they were reminded that ac-
cording to law it was a newspaper, and asked why they did
not prosecute it. There was some mystery about the Free
Press ; it was inspired by persons of very curious tempera-
ment : in fact, it was a kind of hornets' nest, and the com-
missioners answered in a very dignified manner that they
would deal with the _Free Press as seemed to them meet.
But the law made pamphlets as well as newspapers sub-
ject to registration, and obliged them to give security to the
crown. Some one sent a pamphlet to the commissioners, and
asked why they did not compel the publisher to register
that ? The commissioners endeavoured to avoid these in-
convenient questions; but when they let slip the fatal remark
that they could not say whether pamphlets should be re-
gistered until they had perused them, a host of pamphlets
were sent up for their perusal. The controversy came to an
end by the commissioners declining to answer the last letter.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL' said the hon. member
had referred to sonic statutes which were perhaps not to be
called obsolete, as they were still amongst the modern enact-
ments of the realm, but which were intended for a state of
things which no longer existed. No doubt many members
of that house entertained a different opinion from that of
the hon. member as to the necessity for them at the time
they were first enacted, but many would be of one opinion
with him as to the utter want of necessity for continuing
them at the present day. (Hear, hear.) He did not com-
mit himself to the abolition of all the enactments of those
statutes ; but there were a great ninny enactments such as
no officer of the crown could be willing, or even, he might
say, ever would be willing, to put in force; there remained
On the statute book threats of penalties and imprisonment
against those who should disregard those enactments, whilst
practically they were disregarded every day, and yet never
were any of thriso threats put in execution. Now, lie took it
to be a sound principle thatt-whenever a statute contained
penalties that never would be enforced, it would be well to
repeal that statute. lie did not, therefore, offer any oppo-
sition to the introduction of the hon. gentleman s bill.
When it was introduced they would see the enactments to
which it was intended to apply. _Several of those to which
the lion. member had referred, he agreed with him that it
would be desirable either to repeal or greatly to modify, but
there might be some which were still useful, and which
it was desirable to retain ; this might be considered when
fhe bill was laid on the table.
THE EDUCATION GRANT TN SCOTLAND,
Lord MELGUND moved that the annual vote of money
for education in Great Britain should henceforth be divided
into two votes, one vote to be taken for England, and ano-
ther for Scotland. ' lie urged that the condition and circum-
stances of the two countries with regard to popular educa-
tion were so dissimilar, and the distribution of the grant in
Scotland itself was so far from being uniform, comparing the
districts of sparse population with the great towns of Edin-
burgh
i rfel andm emhGlgers e n o
ow,pthpaotttnitniNtvya2seeepxnpreadtceenfrt
otmo
tahffeordvotitnhge
of the general grant, of discussing the application of that
portion of the mut which was allotted to Scotland, One

of the peoulimities of the case was that in Scotland there
was a system of local taxation for the support of schools.
Mr. A. SMITH (Truro) expressed a hope that the esti-
mates would be furnished separately, not only. for Scotland,
but for each of the different religious denominations, so as
to show what portion went to the Established Church, how
much to the Free Church, and how much to the other
churches or religious bodies in either country.
Mr. ADDERLEY said the hon. member who had last
spoken would be as much entitled to plead for a separate
vote for the Scilly Isles as the noble lord for a separate vote
for Scotland ; indeed, the Isle of Man, which had a separate
legislature, and where that legislature had, much to its
honour, imposed a tax on the inhabitants to provide for edu-
cation, and imposed a fine on every parent who would not
send his child to school, had much ,more reason to ask for
a separate vote. There would be no difficulty in doing
what the noble lord asked, so far as the office of the Com-
mittee of Council on Education was concerned, but the
noble lord's object might be more easily attained, if he
wished to get information about the distribution of the
Parliamenttry. grant, or to give Scotch members an oppor-
tunity of bringing the state of education in Scotland
under the attention of the house. The noble lord him-
self, or other representative of Scotland, could give no-
tice of a discussion on the subject whenever they thought
proper ; and any resolution or bill they might propose would
be duly considered. But the tendency of a separate vote
would be to introduce a diversity of system between Scot-
land and England, which was very undesirable. The heri-
tors' tax in Scotland, by which all landowners of £lOO a
year were obliged to pay towards the support of parochial
schools, being very inadequate for present requirements,
was rather to be considered as an endowment, and the
school system in Scotland, as in England, mainly rested on
voluntary contributions, aided by the parliamentary grant.
If the noble lord had any plan is view, it would probably
be as suitable for England as for Scotland. Some of the
other distinctions made between the educational system in
the two' countries were equally fallacious, as there were
many rural districts of England, also, which received very
little of the grant. He apprehended, also, that if the vote
for Scotland were taken separately, it would create an
erroneous impression that Scotland was unfairly dealt with,
since the general expenses of the central office in London
would be charged in the English vote, and if another cen-
tral office in Edinburgh were to be established, it would be
a great waste of the-public money.
Mr. BUCHANAN said he understood the right hon. gen-
tleman to say that there would bo no practical difficulty in
separating the Scotch from the English vote. He thought
it would have been much bettar if the right hon. gentleman
had conceded the request. He wished those grants to be
done away with for two reasons—first, because the system
was exceedingly expensive, and based upon unsuitable ma-
chinery; and secondly, because the schools were essentially
denominational. It was most desirable to ascertain the
working of the system year by year, and lie believed the
fullest information on the subject would be attended with
the most beneficial results.
Mr. BLACKBURN was of opinion that the same prin-
ciple ought to be applicable to both countries, and hoped
the Government would maintain the rule which had hither-
to been acted upon.
Mr. BLACK trusted the house would consent to give the
information sought for. He believed the people of Scotland
were desirous of educating their own children, and hoped
that eleemosynary grants would be altogether given up.
Lord DUNCAN suggested the propriety of distinguish-
ing the amounts appropriated to England and Scotland re-
spectively. He understood the information could easily be
obtained, and if his suggestion were acted upon the difficulty
which now existed would be put an end to.
Mr. DUNLOP thought it would be most injurious to
separate the two grants, and could not consent to give up
the assistance now afforded until a national system of edu •
cation should be established. _ _

Mr. W. WILLIAMS said Scotland had no ground of
complaint, as she had a fair share of the educational grant.
If a separate vote should be taken there would be a contest
year after year for a larger amount.
The LORD ADVOCATE said that in the civil service
estimates, under the head " Education," an explanatory
statement was given, containing the precise sums applicable
to the grants both in Scotland and England.
Lord MELGUND havinz replied, the motion was put
and negatived.
JURIES (IRELAND) BILL
Mr. J. FITZGERALD obtained leave to bring in a bill

to consolidate and amend the laws relating to juries in Ire-
land.
ANNUITY TAX (EDINBURGH, &c.) BILL.
Mr. BLACK moved for leave to bring in a bill to abolish
the ministers' money or annuity tax levied within the city
of Edinburgh, the parish of Canongate, and the borough of
Montrose. The odious impost was the cause of so much
acrimonious dispute that he trusted Parliament would
agree to its abolition.
The LORD ADVOCATE did not object to the motion,
but intimated his intention of opposing the bill at a future
stage.
The motion was then agreed to.
REGISTRATION OF COUNTY VOTERS (SCOT-
LAND) BILL.
Sir E. COLEBROOKE, in moving for leave to bring in
a bill for the amendment of the law for the registration of
county voters in Scotland, observed that the bill was sub-
stantially the same as that the principle of which had re-
ceived the sanction of the house last year. He had, how-
ever, endeavoured as far as possible to meet the objections
entertained by some hon. members opposite relative to
points of detail.
Mr. BLACKBURN thought it most extraordinary to
provide a mode of registration before, under the new Re-
form Bill, they knetv the parties who would be entitled to
registration.
Tho motion was then agreed to.
NAVY.—SEA SERVICE. _

On the motion of Sir F. BARING, a return was ordered
of the number of men voted for the sea service in each year,
from the year 1815 to 1858.59 inclusive, distinguishing
boys, marines, and coast-guards.
ENDOWED SCHOOLS BILL.
On the motion of Mr. DILLWYN, the order for the se-
cond reading of the bill was discharged.
MARRIAGE LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

On the motion that the Speaker leave the chair, for the
house going into committee on this bill,
Mr. HOPE said as it was quite clear the bill would be
carried through the house, he should not oppose the motion.
Clauses 1 to 4, inclusive, were agreed to.
On clause 5,
Mr. PULLER said the effect of the clause would be, in
certain cases, to make bigamy the law. If a man married
his deceased wife's sister in England, he might go to Ire-
land and marry another woman, for the present bill did not
apply to that country.
The clause was then agreed to, and the bill was ordered
to be reported.
Mr. Locke King, Mr. Ayrton, Mr. J: Fitzgerald, Mr.
Black, and Sir E. Colebrooke brought in their respective
bills, which were read a first time.
The house then adjourned at ten minutes past seven.

LA TV INTELLIGENCE.—Feb. 17.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius at Guildhall, before Lord

Campbell and Special Juries.)

Lord Campbell, on taking his seat on the bench
this morning, announced that Mr. Unthank, of the
northern circuit, had been appointed Master of the
Court of Queen's Bench, in the room of the late Mr.
Bunce.

lIODGSON V. NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY,

This was an action to recover damages for injuries
`sustained through the alleged negligence of the
defendants' servants.

The defendants pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Phinn, Q.C., was for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Temple for the defendants.
The plaintiff was a bricklayer apd plasterer, in
the employ of the Hull Dock Company, and it ap-
peared that while he was engaged in pointing an
arch over the defendants' railway at Hull, some
trucks came along, and broke down the scaffolding
on which he and several other workmen were
standing. The plaintiff was precipitated to the
ground with great violence, and his kneecap frac-
tured in three places ; the result being that he would
probably have a stiff leg for lifs, and be unable to
pursue his ordinary calling.
The defence was that there had been no negli-
gence on the part of the defendants.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—
damages £B5, in addition to the £l5 which he had
received from the defendants.

SECOND COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Erle and a Common Jury

FARRELL V. CHILVER.

This was an action for false imprisonment.
Mr. Edwin James, Q.C.,and Mr. Powell, ap-
peared for the plaintiff; r. Sergeant Ballantine
and Mr. Simon for the defendant.

The plaintiff, who now resides in Northampton-
street. Islington, had been for 23 years in the Irish
revenue police, but having attained the rank of sur-
veyor or gauger in the force, he was compelled to
leave it in August, 1857, on account of bad health,
brought about through an accident sustained in the
service. _ .

The plaintiff then appears to have placed himself
under the care of Dr. O'Reilly, the surgeon of
Jervis-street Hospital, Dublin, as also under the
surgeon of the Hardwick Hospital, in the same
city ; but in both instances Farrell's condition—
that of a morbid state of the nervous centres—
was declared incurable. Thereupon plaintiff came
over to England, and remained for sonic time at
Liverpool, seeking in vain for beneficial advice.
Failing to obtain that he left. for London, and vas
for sonic time under treatment by Dr. Grady, of the
West London Institution. That gentleman found
him afflicted with a softening of the anterior
lobes of the brain, and discharged him with a cer-
tificate as incurable. Subsequently to this the
plaintiff appears to have sought the advice of the
defendant, the well-known surgeon of Burlington-
street, Piccadilly, partly. with a view of obtaining
an eminent medical opinion, and partly because,
having ascertained, through the porter at Suther•
land House, that Dr. Chilver was the medical atten-
dant of Lord Derby, he was most anxious to obtain
the certificate of a gentleman in such a position
preparatory to the plaintiff's presenting a petition
to the 'Treasury for a pension. Accordingly,
the 21st of October last, the plaintiff called upon
the defendant, and having obtained an interview
with him, the plaintiff proceeded to describe his
condition,. at the same handing to the defendant the
certificates of Dr. Banks, of Merrion-square, the
physic= to the Irish Inland Revenue Department,
of Dr, O'Reilly, and of the other medical gentlemen
who had attended him, as well as his testimonials
on leaving the Irish police:- The defendant, how-
ever, seems to have been at once seized with the
notion that his visitor was nothing better than an
impostor. He asked the plaintiff where he lived,
altd where he came from. The plaintiff told him,
mentioning, amongst other residences,-that he had
lodged for a short time in a public-house at West-
minster. Then, " Oh, oh !" said the defendant, " I
know all about you. You are an impostor, and

have come here to obtain money on false pretences."
The poor plaintiff only answered to this by calling
attention to his certificates, and requesting the doc-
tor to read them. An inspection of them, however,
only served to strengthen the conviction of the de-
fendant, for it turned out that in one or two of
them which had been copied out by third parties,
there were several false spellings—in fact, on the face
of them there was evidence that they did not proceed
from the parties purporting to have signed them.
That, however, was only true of one or two of the
certificates,, The defendant, then, having before
his eyes the frequent narratives published in the
newspapers of parties obtaining relief by false cer-
tificates, and probably also influenced by the nervous
manner of the plaintiff, called in a policeman, and
communicated his suspicions regarding the plaintiff
to that functionary. He then invited the police-
man to take the plaintiff to the station, and make
inquiries respecting. his antecedents. This the
policeman refused to do, on the ground that the
defendant did not seem to be able to show that the
plaintiff had done anything. On that the defen-
dant resolved to give the plaintiff in charge, and
he was accordingly taken to the Vine-street sta-
tion. After a while he was followed there by the
defendant, who, after some conversation with the
inspector, charged the plaintiff with having gone to
him (Dr. Chilver) " upon some supposed unlawful
purpose." The plaintiff then gave his testimonials
and certificates to the inspector, and subsequently,
after about half-an-hour's detention, he was al-
lowed to go forth. The plaintiff called upon the
defendant the following morning by appointment ;
but defendant refused to see him, saying that he (Dr.
Chilver) continued of the same opinion with respect
to him as on the previous day. In order to meet
the allegation that he had gone to Dr. Chilver
solely for the purpose of obtaining that gentleman's
certificate, with a view to influencing the Treasury,
and that there was no intention on the part of the
plaintiff of taking advice as to his possible recovery,
it was shown that the plaintiff, on the occasion of
his interview with the defendant, had in his pocket
half notes for £3O, besides £4 in sovereigns. He
was therefore in ample funds to pay any fees that
the defendant might be entitled to.
The defence on the record was that the defendant
did not give the plaintiff in charge at all. All that
had been done was, in the exercise of a proper
caution, to request a policeman to take the plaintiff,
as a suspected character, to the station, and make
inquiries as to his antecedents. This part of the
defendant's case, however, completely broke down,
on the testimony of the policeman who had taken
the plaintiff into custody.. It only remained, there-
fore, to address the jury in mitigation of damages,
on the supposition that the plaintiff had visited the
defendant solely for the purpose of procuring his
certificate gratuitously ; secondly, on the ground
of the false spellings in the certificates held by the
plaintiff; and thirdly, on the circumstance that the
plaintiff had suffered little or no inconvenience from
his detention.
The jury found for the plaintiff—damages, £5O.