The Press. — London, England, 1855-02-03 00:00:00

FILISUARY 3, 1855. questionable whether they contain " news " in the legal sense of the term, should be partially relieved from the stamp. What possible difference can it make to Government in its capacity of a public carrier—and it is only in this capacity that Govern ment can deal with the question of postal con veyance--whether the printed contents of the sheet which it forwards be politics, literature, local news, or advertisements ° lam not aware that any one of these, in a physilal sense, is a weightier article than any other. In truth, the question of exemptions lately raised shows in a stronger light than anything else the perfectly illogical and arbitrary theory of the law as it stands. But these exemptions are, in truth, mere attempts to prevent the law from breaking down, by relaxing it whenever the opposition pro voked threatens to become formidable. The third cause of complaint—namely, the prohi bition of any unstamped journal whatever—is one with which you do not deal, or rather which you do not allow to be in any way a grievance. This fact, how ever, I assume as previously proved ; and the remedy being obvious, viz., to allow the existence of un stamped journals without postal privileges, it remains only to consider what obstacles can be pleaded against the establishment of such a system. It is argued, first, that it will render necessary a large increase in the staff of the Post-office, with a view to prevent the fraudulent transmission of un stamped journals. This inconvenience seems to me much exaggerated ; for those who urge it assume that no paper needs to be examined at the Post-office under the present system, all being alike entitled to the privilege of transmission. But is this the fact ? So far from it, two classes of fraud at once present themselves, against which the vigilance of the postal authorities is required to guard. First, the privilege of the stamp expires after seven days; so that not merely must the easily-ascertained fact of the stamp being duly affixed be attested by official inspection, but the date of that stamp must also be examined, a process requiring much minuter examination. But next, it is no uncommon trick for persons of an economical and not over-scrupulous disposition, to correspond by means of old newspapers, writing within the cover or on the margins, whereby the postal penny is evaded. Either these two frauds are guarded against or they are not. If they are, every newspaper posted must now undergo inspection, in which case the change suggested imposes no addi tional labour on anyone. If they are not, the liabi lity of the Post-office to suffer from fraud exists already, and will not be materially increased. Taking either alternative, the objection fails equally. But secondly (and this is by far the graver objec tion), it is contended that an unstamped press is in itself an evil. "You will assimilate the journalism " of England to that of the United States," cry out alarmists, thereby ascribing all the merits of that press which they extol as incomparable to the existence of a penny-stamp duty. "You will make " journalism local, petty, parochial ; you will deprive " it of its present weight and influence in the State." Yet what is it proposed to do? To limit the right of publication? to interfere with the organisation of the great metropolitan journals? No; but simply to allow that which the existing law virtually prohibits— the appearance of cheap local prints. Am I exagge rating when I say that these are prohibited ? What is the rate at which they are charged for the postal privilege : A ftd.• paper pays, ad raiorem, NI per cent. 4d. :id. :34 50 „ 2d. 100 which last is manifestly a prohibitory duty; and, accordingly, we find that threepence is the lowest price at which a newspaper can be published with any chance of repayment. Here, then, we come to a dilemma. The Legislature, by no indirect result of •its measures, but by the simple process of a crushing impost, forbids any man to publish a newspaper below a certain size and value. This prohibition the advocates of free discussion, the unsparing critics of • The Ploy fotor, and I 'bellete one cr two other weekly papers appear at this price. THE PRESS. public men and measures, the members of the " fourth estate," desire to maintain, on ethical and social grounds; asserting that, though the most un limited liberty of the press is good down to a certain point, yet that for a small capitalist to get up a journal, and for labouring men to take it in, is dan gerous to the public morality. Is it uncharitable to assuraa that fear of competition, threatened inter ference with their existing monopoly, and some lin gering love of " protection" in their own business, may have somewhat clouded their perceptions of right? In truth, the arguments by which you sup. port the present law are in direct contradiction to one another. For you affirm, first, " that the press does " not possess any legislative favour, protection, or " monopoly whatever ;" and, next," that the withdrawal " of the stamp duty will supersede it by substituting " a totally different and inferior class of papers.' Therefore (according to you) English journalism is to be ruined by the withdrawal of privileges which (also according to you) English journalism does not enjoy. To reconcile these discrepancies is no affair of mine. At this point I may fitly consider a rather startling assertion which appears prominently in your pamphlet. You say "the penny stamp on " newspapers, entitling to transmission and retrans " mission by post, does not comprise in its nature " the slightest infusion of the principle of protection;" a proposition which you explain thus ;—" Protection " is giving one class of producers or dealers an ad o vantage over any other class producing or dealing "in the same commodity." Therefore, if your view is to be accepted as correct, a postal charge so arranged as absolutely to prevent any one from producing a newspaper at less than a certain price, does not give eny advantage to the larger and wealthier establishments producing the same article. I do not, I confess, see how such an assertion is capable of proof. Suppose the principle of the stamp law applied to any other branch of trade. Suppose, for instance, that Government, impressed with an idea that small retail shops supplied inferior articles at exorbitant prices, and that it was the duty of the State to check this evil by putting them down, were to lay on every shop of whatever size an annual tax of equal amount, such amount being not less than 100 per cent. on the gross receipts of the smallest establish ments; and, to make the parallel complete, suppose that in return for this charge it undertook to trans. port gratuitously all goods bought and sold by the taxpayers ;—what would be the effect? Of course, to throw all business into the hands of large dealers, and to increase the profits of trade in proportion as it was conducted on a larger scale. Small traders would disappear altogether. The whole supply of the market would be vested in a limited number of great capitalists, residing pro bably in the metropolis, and carrying on their busi ness by agents in all the smaller towns. And when men had become used to the system, and vested inter ests had grown up under it, I do not doubt but that some one of these capitalists would be found—not merely to declaim against the immorality of small traders, which would become the habitual language of the protected class—but to affirm, as gravely, as con scientiously, and as mistakenly as you do now, that in the law as it stood there was not " the slight est infusion of the principle of protection." It is, I apprehend, wholly indisputable that the effect of the stamp duty is to establish a financial censorship—one conducted on truly British princi ples. In foreign and despotic countries a journalist becomes suspected by reason of his opinions; in constitutional England he is restrained from periodical publication on the ground of poverty. The law is at least impartial. The most anarchical and the most conservative of journals are treated alike, if they fall below a certain price. They are written for labour ing men—they are circulated within a small area— their intelligence is defective and tardy—therefore, says the British Government, they shall not appear. Is this an English or a Russian policy But, after all, is there so much danger of our press becoming " parochial "—or, what is meant by this vague threat? As matters stand, the existence 123 of local journalism in small communities is the ex ception, rather than the rule. It is only the largo town, or the populous district, which can support a high-priced stamped journal. Local affairs (call them " parochial " if you will) receive comparatively little notice from the public prints. Ido not see why this is to be considered an advantage. If it is meant that a press dealing exclusively with such small matters will, by the operation of the proposed change, be substituted for one which, as at present, dismisses imperial questions, I deny the probability —indeed the possibility —of any such result. In journalism, as elsewhere, the demand creates the supply. There is in England a large number of educated and intelligent persons who take an interest in the political affairs of their own and other corn tries. Of such persons it has not been shown that the number is likely to diminish, or the taste to alter. The alternative, then, is apparent. Either (which is most unlikely) the unstamped press will rival the stamped in the value of its information and the merit of its writing—and in that ease it matters not whe ther one or the other is most extensively patronised; or it will not—the high-priced journal will still main tain its superiority—and the cheap local prints will not drive it out of the market, but attract another class of customers, those who at the present moment neither purchase nor read any paper, and thus flourish by its side without doing it injury. Take an illustration of the state of the case. Suppose the same legislative sagacity which dictates the retention of the stamp duty to have prevented all cheap tra velling on railways—to have prohibited the railroad companies from taking second or third class passen gers—is it likely that the number of first class tra vellers would have been increased by the number of those who now travel in the lower-priced carriages ? Is it not clear that on the restriction being removed a vast multitude of persons would begin for the first time to use the railways who never used them before" So will it be with the press. Those who new take in the Times, Daily News, Herald, or Advertise•, are not likely to substitute for these first-class jour nals, with their early intelligence and superior writing, the cheap penny print which will circulate among mechanics and labourers. I have no doubt that a dinner may be had in various London taverns at a very much lower rate than is charged by the clubs ; yet the clubs are not deserted in consequence ! No ; as in all other branches of business, so in jour nalism, the customer who is willing to pay the highest price can always command the best article. I do not quarrel with his taste, nor seek to limit its indulgence ; quite the contrary. But I protest against his measuring other men's purses and in clinations by his own. I do not see that being wealthy and of refined ideas, he is on that account entitled to say to his poorer neighbour, " If you can " not afford a newspaper at sixpence you shall buy " none, for cheap newspapers are worthless." The apprehension, then, that journals of the most expensive class will not be able to hold their own seems wholly groundless. Each rank of society will find its own organ, the exponent of its opinions and ideas : and this is desirable. But early intelligence— familiarity with the political questions of the day— eloquence and argumentative power—are not to be had without paying for them ; and in these, though stripped of the artificial and unfair privilege which they now enjoy, the superiority of the large and long established journals will continue to consist. Nay, as it seems to me, the power and influence of such journals over the public mind will be not diminished, but augmented ; for though there is no political ques tion on which an immeasurable amount of non sense and verbiage may not be poured forth, yet the real arguments on which all such questions turn are comparatively few. A single night's debate in Par liament suffices to exhaust them ; at the utmost, three or four nights do so. These arguments will in all probability be most pointedly stated and most thoroughly investigated in the metropolitan press. Their articles—their comments—are now very gene. rally copied by that of the provinces. They will be so still. The indirect circulation of the leading DP don journals will beeome enormously multiplied, while the direct circulation is only in a slight degree I I I