If the public desire a really free press, they must not look to it as a source of taxation; and if they are anxious for truth, for elevated and elevating sentiments, for ideas matured by study and reflection, and an honest exposition of grievances, they must recognise original articles as property, and secure them against a plundering appropriation by a copyright.

The advantages of a copyright in original articles in newspapers are so numerous, and will produce such a variety of political and social benefits, that we shall take an early opportunity of enlarging upon it. At present we shall merely point to the injustice to the author of essays such as those of Junius,' or of papers such as those of Mrs. Caudle,' being retailed to the advantage of any one but the original author or his nominee. A pretence is made that such wholesale pilfering is of advan tage as a kind of advertisement, but stealing teapots or candlesticks under the plea of displaying them as samples has never yet been acknowledged as advantageous by any trader, however free in his notions.

The entire removal of the stamp, advertisement, and paper duties has been opposed on the ground that it would lower the tone of the press and throw into the market a catchpenny article got up merely to suit the worser tastes; and (to be promptly maintained) a copyright could alone effectually meet this objection, as it would be the means of drawing the very highest class of writing into the service of the press. Could proprietors be assured they could confine to their own columns the original essays and articles inserted, they could afford to the Macaulays and the Dickenses prices as great as those of the most eminent publishers. The competition, then, would not rest on the lowness of price, but on the excellence of the article.

LIBERAL LEADERS.

'How many English hearts sympathised with Hungarian freedom! How deeply were we interested in the struggle of the gallant Romans against priestly misrule! How deep and just was our commiseration for the Sicilians, standing out for the old constitution, which England itself had restored and guaranteed. And yet we saw the walls of Rome battered down, and a triumvirate of Cardinals restored by the puissance of French bayonets. The Messinese we saw given up to sack and massacre by the mercenary Swiss. The Palermitans implored our support in vain. The Hungarian patriots, as they sank, held forth their hands to us for safety. Yet England has looked on with mute agony and made no sign.' -Express of Sept. 21.

Excellently expressed! How many English hearts sympathised with Hungarian freedom! How the Hungarians sank holding out their hands to us for safety! Yet England looked on with mute agony and made no sign!-How deeply were we interested in the struggle of the gallant Romans! And yet we saw the walls of Rome battered down, and-made no sign!-How deep and just was our commiseration for the Messinese given up to sack and massacre, while we looked on and made no sign!-Valuable sympathy and commiseration! And O the mute agony' of those who present Lord Palmerston with his own portrait, in

of us.

thanksgiving for that he has in England's name assisted at the bombardment of Rome, at the massacre of the Messinese, at the ruin of Hungary. Did we sympathise with Rome, with Sicily, with Hungary? Some The mechanics of England gave their little money, more than they could well spare, and, powerless to help otherwise, looked on in agony, not altogether mute, at the bombardments, the massacres, the ruin, which the English government connived at, aided, and abetted. The mechanics, the poor, the slave-people of England did sympathise. So also did many a generous English heart beside. And yet- England made no sign.'

Why not? Because those who rule England never interfere except to crush the hopes of Liberty. They are in accord with French bombarders; they are allies of Austria; they (not England) have treaties with the Czar. Lords Palmerston and Russell and their infamous clique are as guilty of the blood of Italy and Hungary, as the accomplice is guilty of blood who holds the door, and watches, and winks at the murderer passing by him to his villainy.

'England looked on with mute agony and made no sign,' because her rulers are the underhand abettors of tyranny throughout the world (ask any people in the world if it is not so); and because the liberal party in England would not hinder that abetting.

Would not. They could have hindered it, and yet they would not. So easy was it to force a nobler policy upon our Foreign Office-so costlessly, as well as bloodlessly, that nobler policy might have been carried out, that even the Peace party might have consented to it. Have we not in the Mediterranean a fleet, and unemployed? Would French or Spanish ships have attempted to force their way through a blockading squadron, had England refused to allow the passage of French or Spanish troops to Italy? Would they have fired one shot? Would Russia have ventured across the Carpathians had England dared to say-'We recognise the Hungarian Republic, we are ready to defend it?' But our 'liberals' have been content with a few useless questions, with some kindly, or it may be compunctious, almsgiving to the victims of their indifference or imbecility. A few only of the 'liberal leaders' whose names are at the head of Committees of relief, or a few of the men for whom the Express is written, had they cared one title as much for Rome and Hungary as they do for Muscovado sugar, could have led a party and a power which should have compelled even the shuffling Whigs to maintain the honour of England, and with it the cause of European liberty against the foulest conspiracy of recorded time.

I would be clearly understood in this matter. On the lists of Committees are the names of some whose sole power of aiding lay in that direction, of others who elsewhere nobly sustained the cause of the martyrs. All honour be to both! But no honour to the men of political standing and influence, who could have prevented the wrong, but who contented themselves with relieving' the victims. And I say the men for whom the Express is written, because it is well known that the Express is the organ and echo of a party which have proved themselves strong enough to carry any question in which they are interested.

But our liberals' prefer to compliment the Minister whose conduct

has covered the nation with infamy, whose complicity with despotism has degraded the English name in the eyes of Europe even more than it was degraded by the old Tory rascalities. Having betrayed their duty to their country, having meanly deserted humanity and justice, this is the plea set up for them at the bar of public opinion.

"The days of Quixotism are in fact over. We can no longer feed armies or spend millions for the sake of either European liberty or independence. It is consoling and honourable to think that England has done something for these great causes when in their feeble infancy. But the population of the Continent are no longer minors. They know their own affairs and interests. They have heads, arms, rights, and the consciousness of them; they have weapons, and have of late learned to use them. So that we may safely leave European liberty to take care of itself. Nor is there one of us, not even the most impatient liberal, who would not go to sleep for a hundred years, confident that at his waking he would find Europe advanced, if not perfected, in freedom and selfgovernment.

'Insurmountable obstructions have been raised to our philanthropy. Providence had its own reasons for not allowing us to better the world.

'It is a glorious English characteristic to be impatient of ill. But we cannot remedy all ill. We cannot prevent the Austrians from bastinadoing Italian women on the stomach till they die.

Our minds are pretty well made up with respect to European politics, that we cannot go to war from motives of either sentiment or humanity.' Express of Sept. 21.

or

"The defence is note-worthy, as the programme of the policy of a party which is bidding for rule in England-a 'liberal' and 'popular' party. Look into it. The days of Quixotism are over: that is to say, the days when the sentiment of humanity was considered at least as cogent a reason for war as smuggling poison into China. Humanity is Quixotism in the new liberal creed. We can no longer feed armies or spend | millions for the sake of either European liberty or independence.' No longer! When was it ever done? Ask Spain, or France, or Italy, Poland, or the betrayed in any part of Europe, what they think of English expenditure for the sake of European liberty.' And why cannot you? you who feed armies and spend millions in wars of aggression and aggrandisement in India. But it is consoling and honourable to think that England has done something for these great causes in their feeble infancy. What honour to you that your forefathers upheld (if, indeed, they had) the great causes which you shamefully desert? It is consoling,' says the man who looks on while his fellow commits a murder, it is consoling and honourable to think that my grandfather helped this victim in his feeble infancy. He is now no longer a minor. He knows his own interests, &c. He has a weapon (to be sure my foot is upon it), and has learned how to use it. I may safely leave him to take care of himself, now he is down. It is consoling to know how honourable my grandfather was, and that I am not exactly a murderer, but only a non-intervening looker on.' O, no doubt of the readiness of our 'most impatient' liberals to sleep for a hundred years' rather than honestly help the advance of European freedom. And well were it for European

freedom if English 'liberal' statesmen were sleeping now, instead of conspiring with diplomatists to uphold the accursed of Europe.

The insurmountable obstructions raised by Providence' have been the treachery and baseness of English ministers and the non-intervening apathy of English 'liberals.'

Trulywe cannot remedy all ill.' Non-interveners cannot remedy any. But to say we cannot prevent the Austrians from bastinadoing Italian women, or that we could not have prevented the bombardment of Rome, the massacre of the Messinese, or the fall of Venice and Hungary, is simply FALSE. Our government, or the liberal opposition that supports it, could have prevented these evils, if either had cared to prevent them. They can now prevent the bastinadoing of Italian women, if they care to prevent it. What if Radetzky should take it into his brutal head to bastinado English women in Italy? Would not More O'Ferral's worthy master put a stop to that? Who knows? for now a days a Russell is vile enough for anything. But if he would, or if England would, then England can put a stop to the other,—if in earnest. the days of Quixotism are over. Our minds are pretty well made up with respect to European politics, that we cannot go to war from motives of either sentiment or humanity.'

But

Let any noble-hearted, any true-souled man who may yet exist in England ponder well the meaning of this execrable avowal-that we, who can go to war to revenge a petty insult, for the lust of unholy gain, or to help the worst of despots, cannot go to war from motives of either sentiment or humanity.' Let any honest, generous men who may be in this England, think who the men are in whose name a journalist dares make this avowal, and in what sink of infamy they would bury us if they could become the masters of England's destinies.

If this home policy may be consistent with their foreign (and that it would be some voices from mines and factories may inform us), how happily they will rule the land, they who recognise* no motives of either sentiment or humanity.

W. J. LINTON.

CLAIMANTS OF HARMONY.

SIR, For the information of your readers, I wish to state that a copy of the Reasoner containing my letter to Mr. Finch was duly posted to him, but that no notice has been taken of it.

The following letter has been sent to me. Its publication may recall some parties to their duty. It is only one case out of a many that have come to my knowledge, and how men can lie under such imputations is a matter of astonishment to me.

Sheffield, October 8th, 1849.

Yours faithfully,
ISAAC IRONside.

'SIR,-Having seen a letter in the Reasoner from you, concerning the settlement of the Harmony affair, and I being an outside creditor, hold

* As a cause of war.-ED.

ing scrip for sixty-seven pounds, I thought I would write to you. Your letter stated that from facts that had come to your knowledge, Mr. Finch himself thought he had not taken the wisest course in acting as he had done. Now I have written a letter to Mr. Finch, but I never received any answer to it. I went to Liverpool two years since, and I saw Mr. Edward Finch; I asked him for my money; he said he could not give me any, nor could he tell the time when I must have any. I told him it was a very hard case. He said I should have invested my money some way else. That was all I could get out of him. I should like the affair settled without going to law, and I want to know if you have any knowledge how Mr. Finch is for settling this affair. I have never received any interest. I told Mr. Finch it was very hard that I should have my money kept back that way, for there was not one penny of it but what I had earned in a factory, in a room heated to 90 and 100 degrees of heat, and ruined my constitution to get. A few days after I had lent my money I met with one of Josiah Meadowcroft's brothers, and he told me I need not make myself uneasy about the safety of my money, for that Mr. Bate had lent £13,000, and he would lose it all before any one that lent them money should lose one penny. I had very great faith in the society myself, for I believe if they had asked me to lend them money without any scrip I should have done so. And look what promises Messrs. Finch, Galpin, and others made to keep faith with the creditors in the Congress of 1845. For my part, I have not been able to unriddle the conduct of Mr. Finch-and that is one of the reasons I write this letter to you, to see if you could enlighten me about the affair. You must excuse any grammatical errors and bungling composi tion, for I scarcely write a letter once in a twelvemonth; so I think it is time to come to an end.'

'October 7th, 1849.

'ALFRED CHADWICK.'

THOMAS COOPER'S ORATIONS.

MY DEAR SIR,-I chose 'The Doctrines in Mr. Owen's new work' for my subject, at John Street, last night. The discourse gave rise to some little controversy-exception being taken by three friends present to my statement, that I differed with Mr. O. in his denial that the actions of Man deserve praise or blame. I find that there is a desire to debate the matter more fully than the time at the close of a discourse allows.

I therefore crave space for a report of my oration in your next number, that all who wish to controvert my position may have a fair opportunity of so doing. I will send you the report in as complete a form as memory, and the few notes I have by me, enable me to write it out. You know well that I seldom make more than a very few written notes beforehand, and sometimes none. But it so happens that I made larger preparatory notes than usual, for this discourse; and I am glad that I did so, since the wish for controversy has arisen.

I am, dear sir, yours truly,

Monday morning, Oct. 22, 1849.

THOMAS COOPER.