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

508 ~', these are invariably, and with a suspicious earnest ness, disavowed), then the meaning of the law should be clearly understood. It is an express parlia mentary prohibition of all journals published below a certain price, and a discouragement of all published below the highest price usually charged. For, the ad valorem duty decreasing as the cost of the journal increases, the large and high priced paper is thereby spared, while that of smaller dimensions is either crushed or checked. If such be the object of the law, why not say so openly 9 If not, why re tain it? We purpose in another number to consider this question more at large, and especially in its relations to the Conservative interest. LORD STANLEY ON THE NEWSPAPER STAMP. THE followiug letter has been addressed by the noble member for King's Lynn to the Secretary of the Society for the Repeal of Taxes upon Knowledge. The heavy pressure on our space prevented its in sertion in last week's PRESS : Albany, May 24, 1864. ffir,—No division having been taken on Mr. Milner Gibson's Motion, and the motion itself not going the length of a repeal of the stamp-duty, I wish te give in my adhesion to the movement which you are promoting, so far as the abolition of that duty is concerned. The paper-duty, as a financial measure, stands on a different footing. But the stamp-duty in professedly imposed as a postal charge only, and not for purposes of revenue. It may, therefore, be dealt with quite apart from any considerations arising out of the war. I only know three reasons which really influence men's minds against its removal. Some persons fear the political or social results of a large increase of cheap periodicals. This objection is removed by the existence, uncontrolled by law, of a cheap un stamped press, dealing with every subject except the news of the day, and eveu dealing with that in the way of comment. The danger which they fear already exists: the proposed change of law will diminish instead of aggravating it, by giving to the cheap press a character of greater respectability. Others conceive that what is demanded amounts to this : that newspapers should be posted gratuitously. It would be well to have this delusion thoroughly removed. Newspapers cannot claim gratuitous tromtnission any more than letters: all that you ask is, that only those which require postal accommodation shall pay for it; and that the small provincial journal, which does not use the post-office, being distributed entirely by hand, shall not be taxed 50 or 100 per cent. upon its value, in order that a copy of the Thies may pass four or times through the post, at the coat of a single transmission. You cannot put it forward too clearly, that it is not the removal of the postal charge, but its equalisation, that you desire. The present law is as though a penny stamp were put on every sheet of paper, so that a note sent by hand, or a written memorandum kept for private use, should pq postage as well as a letter transmitted in the usual manner. Its anomaly and injustice could not have been tolerated until now, were it not that proprietors and editors of established journals, circu lating largely, have, or couceive themselves to have, a direct In terest in maintaining a system which checks competition, and fa vours large capitalists. I believe the fallacy here mentioned, " that what reformers ask is a gratuitous transmission of newspapers by post," has done more mischief than, froni its absurdity, would be supposed. The third objection taken—a fear lest the Post-office revenues should fall off--seems wholly grounoless. Any one who looks at the returns of thattleparttneut will see an enormous increase of late years in the amount of work which it has to do, and conse quently also in its receipts. I believe that a diminution in the number of newspapers conveyed by post would more than com pensate. In convenience, for the pecuniary loss which it might cause. But it must also be remembered that a large increase in the number of newspapers would render the paper-duty (while that tax lasts) more remunerative; and, as was urged in the debate, that, if many more newsps pens are published than at present, it is probable that at least an equal number will still pass through the post. Justice has scarcely been done to the claim of the provincial press. Take such a case as this; and it is not an imaginary one. A local journal, published in a small borough, has 1,000 sub scribers ; of these, 900 live within the borough ; their copies art consequently transmitted to them by hand ; only the remaining 100 copies are sent by post; the charge for which, at Id. each, would be Be. 4d. But the law Imposes, under the name of a pos tal charge, this penny tax on the whole 1,000 copies—amounting In all to 41. Ss. 4d. on each impression —or, in other words, taxes the journal in question at the rate of 10d. for each copy which penises through the post-office. Can it be imagined that this in justice should be defended, as I have seen it defended, on the ground that what is thus taken from the small journalist is put lute the pockets of his metropolitan rival ? To those who apprehend that the character of journalism will suffer by an increase of cheap local papers, though holding their anticipations to be erroneous, I should reply simply by a refusal to discuss that question. We contend that as a matter, not of policy but of simple justice, postal charges should fall on those who benefit by the services of the post-office. Whatever may have been the private opinions of public men, no minister of late years has dared to avow that the stamp-duty is imposed purposely as a check on low-priced periodical writing. To admit this is to assert the principle of a censorship; for the existing duty, amounting to a tax of 100 per cent. on a penny journal, amounts in feet to a prohibition of all such journals. But, if this prohi bition is designed, it ought to be put in express words. What the Legislature does should be done openly. The question, there fore, is reduced to this—whether I'arlisment will continue to limit the right of publication tejournals sold at and above a eer. lain price? That this is the effect of the law is clear; that it is also the object of the law, though that object is not acknow ledged, seems impossible to doubt. Formerly the stamp-duty was defended on financial grounds alone, now we are told that the fiscal question is unimportant: the excuse varies from year to year, the policy is still obstinately clung to. Two or three years must probably still pass before yon suc ceed, but the ultimate result is certain. Meantime, I shall gladly join in attempting to remedy that which is at once a great im policy and grievous injustice.—l am, your obedient servant, STANLEY. SITTINO AT TABLE TO DRINK after dlinner was over was introduced by Margaret Atheling, the Saxon Queen of Scotland. She was shocked to see the Scottish gentlemen rise from table before grace could be said by her chaplain, Turgot ; and she offered a cup of choice wine to all who would remain. Thence the fashion of hard drinking followed the thanksgiving.—Table Traits. THE PRESS. rotteVings z arlinunt. MINISTERIAL NONI3ERFORMANCES. A series of five bills, disfranchising certain electors of the boroughs of Canterbury, Cambridge, Kingston upon-Hull, Maldon, and Barnstaple,respectively, stood for second reading on Monday. Those electors in tended to be disfranchised had been pointed out in the reports of committees who had inquired into recent election proceedings in the several boroughs as having been guilty of bribery or corruption, and their names 'were set forth at full length in the schedule annexed to the bills. When the measures were first introduced by the Attorney General con siderable objections were raised by Sir F. Thesiger and other members, who dwelt especially upon the unfairness of entrapping persons into a confession of their proceedings by a promise of complete impunity, as had been the case with the electors in question, e.nd then visiting them with the penalty of disfran chisement. Upon the motion for the second reading of the bills Sir F. Thesiger had given notice of an amendment "that the bills be read * second time that day six months." When the order was called on upon Monday evening, however, Sir A. Cockburn announced his intention to save further trouble by withdrawing the whole series. He acknowledged the force of the argument touching the injustice he was committing sufficiently to abstain from perpe • trating it, and acknowledged besides that some practical difficulties stood in the way of carrying the bills, seeing that the schedules in which the guilty persons were named had been found to be full of errors. Sir F. Thesiger agreed entirely in the pro priety of withdrawing the bills, remarking that the conduct of the Government had fully justified the course be had himself pursued with regard to them. A brief debate followed, in the course of which a query, urged by Mr. V. Smith, elicited from Lord John Russell the information that he should not pro • pose to issue the writs, so long suspended, for the five boroughs under discussion until the report from the select committee on the Bribery Bills had been presented and discussed. Mr. DISRAEII thought that the opportunity should not pass without requiring from the Government some explanation of their views respecting the pro bable progress of public business and the measures which they expected to be able to pass during the session. Seven measures of the highest importance had been announced from the throne at the begin• ning of the session, and been introduced by Minis ters ; three of which—those on the Law of Settle ment, Scottish Education, and Parliamentary Oaths —had been defeated ; three more—the Boroughs Disfranchisement Bill (that before them at the moment), the Civil Service Bill, and tho Reform Bill—had been withdrawn or not brought forward; while one only—the Oxford University Bill—re mained, but considerably changed in the course of discussion, during which the Government had sus tained several ignominious defeatF. It was remark able that all these measures resembled one another in this—that they assailed either the rights of the subject or the institutions of the country : " It is (continued Mr. Disraeli) of greater importance to press these matters on the attention of the house, because we enjoy the inestimable happiness of having our affairs administered by men remarkably distinguished for ability— (laughter)—men who have made enormous sacrifices for their country—and for themselves. (Great laughter, and much cheering.) No man has made greater sacrifices than the noble lord. (Laughter.) He has thrown overboard all his old Mends and colleagues, and has connected him self with a coterie of public men who have passed a great part of their lives in deprecating the abilities of the noble lord, and running down his eminent career. (Loud laughter, end .ronical cheers.) If the noble lord had suc ceeded in the object for which he doubtless made such sacrifices, we should understand his position more clearly than we do. But when we fiud that, out of seven most im portant measures he has proposed to us, three have been defeated, and three have been withdrawn, I cannot help considering that the time is come when we can hardly but consider that we have not received such ample compensa• tion as was held out to us for the breaking up of parties, and for departing from the spirit and genius of our parliamentary constitution. (Cheers.) We have not received, I repeat, such full compensation or well-digested and statesmanlike measures as we were led to anticipate — (laughter, and cheers)—aud that when we were told that, though it was true that the Government had no principles, they had ' all the talents '—(great laughter, and cheers)—we had a right to expect that the noble lord, who doubtless desires always to deal handsomely with the house — (laughter)—would at least have given us something— would have done something—as a compensation for so remarkable a state of atfairs—(laughter)—which has banished all his natural colleagues to invisible corners— (loud laughter)—and has placed him on that bench— surrounded by men who have been decrying his career for the last quarter of a century. (Great laughter, and ironical cheering.) I have thought it necessary to offer these ' passing observations'—(laughter)—for really this is such a busy country—and we have so much to do—that rarely have we time to take an account of what we are doing. And it is important that we should understand that now— , at the end of the month of May—the Government have SATURDAY, introduced six measures of importance, which are defeated or withdrawn, and that on a seventh, which still remains, they have received already two considerable defe a t s , an d are destined, I trust, to be more signally discomfited. (Loud cheers.)" The forms of the house admit, generally speaking, of but one address from any member in the course of one debate. On the present occasion, however, there was a series of bills, each of which had to be successively presented, and thus afforded oppor tunities for replies and rejoinders on either side. Availing himself of this chance, when the next bill (fur Cambridge borough) was brought forward, Lord J. RUSSELL replied to Mr. Disraeli. He observed, preliminarily, that Governments were now very differently situated with regard to the Legislature than they were in the ante-reform days, when a minister could always reckon on the support of obedient majorities whom he had himself in great measure returned to the house. lie then confessed to having sustained many defeats, and suffered much disappointment from the failure of his mea sures since the session opened ; but pleaded, on the other side, that the house had supported him in other matters of far greater consequence—namely, the negotiaticns that preceded the war, the preparsa. Lions for carrying it on, and the finance propositions for raising ways and means. On these points the Opposition had either abstained from challenging a vote or been largely outnumbered upon a division. He alluded to Mr. Disraeli's "disappointments " when in office, and to his conduct with regard to the ques tion of Jewish emancipation : " The right hon. gentleman has more than once, and no doubt with great sincerity, declared his wish that the Jews should be in possession of those privileges which us enjoyed by all the subjects of her Majesty. He thinks they are peculiarly worthy of them ; but still I cannot under. stand his great anxiety to see the Jews in possession of these privileges, for sometimes he does not vote at all, and sometimes be votes against them, and the political con venience of the hour seems to have overcome his attachment to the Jews. Such is the position of the Government and of the right hon. gentleman. I regret that these great measures have been defeated; but, with regard to the much greater question than all, I must repeat that the house has not shown confidence in the right hon. gentleman, but that it has, both in discussion and on divisions, shown that it has confidence in the Government. (Ministerial cheers.)" Mr. DISRAELI rejoined, observing that his own Ministerial disappointment had been followed by resignation, while the noble lord endured repeated defeats of most disgraceful character without think. ing such a course necessary. Questions belonging to the late Government having been raised, he fol. lowed them up by showing what had been Lord John Russell's conduct when in opposition, and while aiding in the construction of the Aberdeen Ministry : " Whatever may have been his inducement, from the first moment that Lord Derby's Government was formed, they did not find in the noble lord a fair opponent. The Government had scarcely retired from office, from which they were not driven, when a Government to which the noble lord now belongs was formed—a Government in which the noble lord had for a colleague that very one by whose motion on the Militia Bill, on the establishment of a militia on the voluntary principle, the Government of the noble lord was forced to resign. (Cheers.) The noble lord vehemently opposed that measure when it was brought forward by my right hon. friend the member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole). He exhausted every combina tion of faction, and at length exhausted the patience of his own friends—(cheers )—in attempting to defeat that measure. And now let me appeal to the house, and the people of this country, if this very measure has not been one of the most successful that ever was passed—if that force is not at this very moment the safeguard and pro tection of the nation? (Cheers.) But is that all? I remember another measure of the Government of Lord Derby. We wanted to bring forward a bill for the reform of the Court of Chancery. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord and his friends opposed us with derision, and asked us, ' Are you going to put Parliament into Chancery? This will never do ; and it was only the good feeling and the high spirit of the house which enabled us to carry these important measures, introduced in another place by Lord St. Leonard's. (Loud cries of `Hear, hear!') Suppose that important measure for the reform of the Court of Chancery had not been brought in by the Government of Lord Derby. Would you by this time have obtained it from 'All the Talents " ?—(cheers)—from this Govern• ment, who brings forward such magnificent proposals, but which accomplishes such slight results—( renewed cheers) — some of whom supported and some opposed the voluntary establishment of the militia? There was another measure proposed by Lord Derby's Government which they did nos succeed in carrying, and which forms a very appropriate subject for discussion this evening. Year after year. baling disfranchised petty boroughs, there were vacant seats to be filled. The Government of Lord Derby came forward and laid before the house a large, enlightened, and liberal prte position. (Cheers, and counter cheers.) They laid down the principle which the noble lard has adopted in his own Reform Bill since. (Cheers.) They said you should give those forfeited seats to those counties with Large consti• tuencies—the west riding of Yorkshire and Laitir!... How were we opposed? Why, we were opposed With . h all . the sanctimonious rhetoric of the Chancellor of the Ex , o c e_ quer. (Great cheering.) The hon. gentleman said, o t d o forbid you should permit a Government ou sufferance