The Press. — London, England, 1854-06-03 00:00:00

the titre acci the ocietit eed the avolYed JUNE 3, 1854. in this question more serious even than the interest of the consumer ; and that is, how far our treatment of the planters of Ceylon accords with our present commercial system of perfect equality and unre stricted competition. Do the planters of Ceylon compete on equal terms with the growers of chicory ? Is it just to tax coffee and leave chicory• untaxed, when the latter is sold as an avowed substitute for the former ? Whatever answer the economists of the Treasury bench may be able to give to these ques tions, we think Lord ToanzsoroN will echo the pub lic voice when he asks why the system which pre vailed under Lord DERBY'S Government has been abrogated and another introduced which facilitates the fraudulent substitution of chicory for coffee, and, whilst it injures both the planter of Ceylon and the home consumer, diminishes the revenue and is profitable only to the dishonest tradesman and the grower of chicory ? ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL LAW. THE principle of the Habeas Corpus Act is that no one shall be imprisoned without just cause, and, what is the same thing, that the trial of a prisoner lawfully committed shall not be delayed longer than is absolutely necessary. 'When that act was passed, judges of assize, the bar, the attorneys, and their clerks rode circuit in a body, with clanking swords by their sides and pistols in their holsters to ensure their personal safety. In those days there was good reason why assizes should be rarely held ; but is there any reason why we should adhere to ancient usages now, when, instead of slowly riding through an agricultural population, thinly sprinkled over a country only par tially reclaimed from the forest or the waste, we are whirled rapidly through a " million-peopled " land ? Yet so it is that our mode of " delivering the gaols " remains in the reign of Queen VICTORIA substantially the same as it was in the days of CHARLES 11. Mr. LATHOII BROWNE, a barrister, has addressed a letter on this subject to the Lunn CHANCELLOR, con taining several suggestions which are welt deserving of consideration. Mr. BROWNE states emphatically, " If we would do justice truly, our anise and set " sions courts must be held more frequently. But " before we arrive at this step can we not do some " thing to mitigate the present difficulties?" Mr. BROWNE does not propose violently to revolutionise our system of administering criminal justice, or even to introduce new judicial machinery, but he simply suggests that we should more fully avail ourselves of the means at our disposal. About a third of the pri soners who are committed for trial plead guilty at the sessions and the assizes, and often receive merely a nominal punishment, because, in the opinion of the judge, the imprisonment they have already under gone meets the requisitions of public justice. When the formal punishment thus follows the offence at a long interval the connection between cause and effect is lost, and the judge, instead of being regarded with awe and terror, is hailed by the criminal as a wished-for friend, releasing a wronged and injured man from unjust imprison ment. And he may be correct in his view ; the imprisonment may have been substantially unjust. To remedy this Mr. BROWNE proposes to allow prisoners to plead guilty before magistrates ; then to remit the depositions to the chairman of quarter sessions, or, in assize cases, to the judge who last acted in the county, who may pronounce a sentence, the operation of which will at once commence. With some qualification, we do not. see any prinwl facie objection to this plan, but we would scarcely allow a plea of guilty to be taken unless the prisoner had previously enjoyed the benefit of legal advice. No warrant of attorney is valid unless before its execu tion it has been read over and explained to the person whom it will affect by an attorney acting on his be half, and in criminal cases a similar precaution should be taken. It is quite possible that a man charged with an offence may think himself guilty when he really is not. Thus there are many cases in which it would not be easy to distinguish between burglary and robbery, stealing and embezzling, justifiable homi cide, manslaughter, and murder. Nay, more, a man may plead guilty and yet utter a wilful falsehood. On the northern circuit a prisoner was arraigned on a charge of murder, and he pleaded guilty. Not withstanding his plea the prisoner was tried. There was nothing improbable in the hypothesis of his guilt. It was proved that he was near the place where the body was found about the time when death occurred, and his confession was coherent in all Particulars ; yet the jury, with the approbation of the judge, acquitted the prisoner, on the express ground that they did not believe him. The man was probably insane, but, if he was, his insanity was not apparent on a cursory examination. But, although he does not say so, Mr. BROWNE probably means to exclude from his proposal all cases where the law may be difficult or the punishment grave. Again, THE PRESS. further to facilitate the administration of justice, Mr. BROWNE suggests that the office of recorder should be made useful instead of being, as it now is, in a vast majority of instances, a mere honorary sinecure. There are more than a hundred boroughs in England boasting a recorder. In seventeen of these in the year 1852 the average number of prisoners was twenty-three, but in many of them the criminal population is represented by numbers varying from one to ten. For example : one recorder tries, on an average, a prisoner and a half at each session. Yet a grand jury and petty jury are summoned and sworn on each occasion. "Well, gentlemen, here we " are—twenty-four of us to one poor duck," were the words with which a learned judge, who has a keen eye for the ridiculous, commenced his charge to the grand jury at an assize town in Wales when there was only one prisoner for trial. Mr. BROWNE pro poses, regardless of ancient boundaries, to increase the area over which the jurisdiction of the recorders' courts extends. Certainly precedents for this exist both in the constitution of the Central Criminal Court, and also, if we mistake not, in the case of the municipal authorities of Liverpool, who possess an authority over the opposite coast of Cheshire co ordinate with that of the magistrates of Cheshire. But a general measure of this kind would require the most careful deliberation. The subject has, we believe, already attracted the attention of Parliament ; and to us it appears to be an instance in which an ancient system will be really conserved, and virtually restored to its pristine state, by adapting machinery designed in a remote age to the altered circumstances of the present period. THE NEWSPAPER STAMP. (From a Correspondent.) IT is impossible to deny that the question of cheap journalism has made progress in public opinion. The virtual defeat of Ministers on Mr. Milner Gib• son's motion, the fact that in that debate no single voice was raised to defend the existing law, and the subsequent letter of Lord Stanley, indicating the feelings of a portion, at least, of the Conservative party, are all significant of the actual state of popular sentiment. It seems, therefore, expedient to con sider, without prejudice, how far tht, interests of Conservatism are bound up in the maintenance or repeal of the stamp duties in their present form. That these duties are fiscally important the Chan cellor of the Exchequer himself has denied. In fact, rightly regarded, they are not a tax. They are a postal charge, which is quite a different thing. In the former case the profit accruing to Government is the first, generally Or) sole, consideration. Other results are insignificant in comparison ; and the practice of late years affirms a principle, perhaps too broadly laid down, that in matters of taxation no circumstance shall be taken into account except the justice of the proposed impost, and the economy and ease with which it may be collected. But where postal service is concerned the case appears to be exactly reversed. Here the main object is to take in hand and perform certain duties which are beyond the reach of individual contractors; the fair profits of the transaction remaining in the hands of Govern ment, but those profits being reduced to the lowest amount compatible with the self-support of the en terprise undertaken. This rule, since Mr. Rowland Hill's reforms, has been strictly adhered to. Large as is the surplus revenue of the Post-office, it cannot be reduced without actual loss being incurred by the concern. For a three-farthing stamp on letters would cause more inconvenience than it saved ex pense ; and the positive cost of sorting and convey ance exceeds one halfpenny. The rate in force, therefore, though incidentally profitable, is the lowest that can be imposed without admitting the principle of a gratuitous or partly gratuitous transmission of letters—a principle obviously objectionable. It fol lows that, in the words of our definition, the stamp on letters is not a tax but merely a postal charge, or equivalent for service actually rendered. The news paper-stamp ought in justice to be, and indeed pro fessedly is, the same. If we mistake not, it is defended on this ground, and on this ground only, by a writer in the Edinburgh Review. Let us there fore see, in the first place, whether the claim thus set up is well founded or no; whether those who pay the tax, or duty, do really receive anything in return for their payment. If not, the defence falls to the ground. This query is not to be answered by a mere com parison between the supposed expense incurred by the State in transmitting newspapers gratuitously and the annual receipts derived fiorn the tax. It is not enough to show that the two sums are equal, or nearly equal, in amount: it must also be proved that the one is paid by the same persons who profit by the other. Here, as we shall show, the proof fails. There is a large class of persons who, under the law as it stands, pay without receiving, and another class ... 507 who receive without paying. Take an illustration of each. A, living in the country, wants to refer to a file of the Times of the week, of which he has no copy in his house. He accordingly writes to his friend B, living in town, who happens to possess such a copy, to send it him down. The numbers are rolled up, put into the post (where they fill a large space), and transmitted without charge of any kind. The Post office, with the same liberality, takes charge of them on ieir way back, and this as often as the two correspondents choose during the seven days in which newspapers are allowed to pass free. They may use the post to a considerable extent, paying nothing. We have certainly selected an unusual case, hut it is a possible one, and, on a smaller scale, the thing is done every day. Secondhand copies of London journals are sent on from reader to reader, to the con venience, no doubt, of those who thus take them in. But this ceases to be a desirable object if it is only attain able at the cost of unfair burdens on other parties. So much for those who belong to the more favoured class—who profit by the stamp duty without contri buting to it. Now for the other side of the question. A local jownalist circulates probably four .fifths of his copies within the borough in which his office is situated. These are, of course, distributed by hand. He does not want the Post-office, or wants it only for the com paratively small fraction of his impression which is sent to a distance. On this it is fair and right that he should pay postage. But the Board of Inland Revenue steps in, backed by the law. " No," say they ; "we find it more convenient to levy our postal charges in the form of a stamp duty ; and therefore, though you only post two hundred copies of your journal, you shall pay postage on the whole thousand." It is useless to remonstrate—such is the rule, sanc tioned by parliamentary wisdom. If he complains, he is politely told that the Post-office is there if he requires its services; that if he does not require them, others do; and that the interest of individuals must give way to general convenience. It is of no avail that he pleads the hardship of the fine thus arbitra rily levied upon him. They reply that the abuse, if it be one, has been sanctioned by all Governments, Whig and Tory; that the House of Commons has repeatedly decided in its favour; and that he knew the state of the law when he set up his journal. Perhaps they go farther, and remind him that his subscribers may forward their copies gratis to any one whom they please thus to favour. It is true they never do so, but the option is theirs nevertheless ; and it is equally a boon to the newspaper interest whether the metropolitan journal profits at his ex pense or no. We confess that the ingratitude of provincial editors astonishes us. So far from appre ciating the benefit they derive from this arrangement, they treat it as an aggravation of their wrong, and as a designed impediment thrown in the way of their competition. Pity that no argument yet discovered by the supporters of the law should have sufficed to dispel this illusion. Let us now look at the question in another light. It is quite clear that, if the tax be regarded as com pensation for postal service performed, it is wanting in the first requisite of justice. Who ever proposed to charge all letters alike, whether they weighed eight ounces or half an ounce ? The proposition would be denounced as unfair on the face of it, as a plan to enable one class of correspondents to profit at the expense of another. Yet this is habitually done in the case of newspapers. A copy of the Times weighs eight or ten times as much as, and occupies a proportionably larger space in the mail bags than, a number of one of the small provincial advertising journals. The same uniform rate is charged on each. It may be said that thin is neces sary, or at least convenient, as saving trouble to the post office clerks Then why is it not done also in the case of private letters? The same plea holds good in each instance. We have always remarked that, when this argument is pressed, the defenders of the law abandon the ground of " remuneration for postal service," and fall back on the assertion that the stamp duty is a tax. Be it so, then. We do not care to dispute the matter. Assume the stamp duty to be a tax imposed for the sake of revenue. Facts prove the contrary ; but, for argument's sake, admit it. Is the injustice lessened? What financial minister would propose a poll tax' But if the stamp duty be a tax at all, it is a poll tax on newspapers. On the journal published at ninepence it is a tax ad valorem of 12} per cent. On one published at six pence it amounts to a duty of 20 per cent. On the threepenny journal it lays a charge of 5(1 per cent., and below this price scarcely any stamped newspaper can be published, inasmuch as an impost of 100 per cent. becomes absolutely prohibitory. We are left, then, to this alternative—if the duty be continued for financial purposes, it is even in that point of view inexpedient, since its diminution to one-half the pre sent amount would largely increase the receipts, by allowing a new class of journals to spring into exist ence. If, on the other hand, it be sanctioned for objects not financial, but of a political nature (though