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

SUPPLEMENT TO t tt6l No. 92. , V0L. 111. LONDON, SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1855. GRATIS. A LETTER ON THE NEWSPAPER POSTAL STAMP, BY LORD STANLEY, M.P. The subjoined Letter was written by me in reply to a pamphlet, entitled ‘. The Newspaper Postal Stamp," to which my attention was called by its author. The question therein discussed being now again brought before the House of Commons, I avail myself of this opportunity to make it public.—S.] 4 London, January, 1855. Sir,—The subject on which you have addressed me may be looked at in two lights—first, as regards the financial justice of the change proposed, or rather the financial injustice of the law as itstands ; secondly, in relation to the effect which will probably ensue from that change—l say " probably," for on this point we can arrive at no certain conclusion—on the general nature and character of the British press. Of these two questions, the first appears to me by far the most important. I might go farther, and say it is the only one which in strict justice ought to be considered; for, whether it be or be not true that the newspapers of this country are, as you affirm, " incom " parably the best in the world," it is certain that a financial measure having for its object either to give to the proprietors of those newspapers a special and exceptional privilege, or to take from them one which they share with other members of the community similarly circumstanced, would outstep the limits of equity. The Minister who lays on an income tax does not relieve one class of men from their share of that impost because, as a class, they are in the habit of spending their incomes judiciously, nor does he tax another class doubly because they are habitually wasteful or imprudent. Finance arbitrarily exer cised becomes mere confiscation by a legal process, and to turn it to a political use, for the artificial enrichment of one set of men and impoverish ment of another, is tyranny in its most naked form. For instance, if a tax were laid on in comes, according to an ascending scale of ten, twenty, thirty, forty per cent., so that no income of more than if,' nity require, or can in any case sanction, the denial of right to the individual. I assert, therefore, that the second question raised by you, that of the effect upon the press of the pro posed repeal of the stamp duty, is one really beside the matter in hand. Either the duty as now levied is fair, or it is unfair. If fair, cadit quastio, the case for the prosecution breaks down, and further defence becomes superfluous. If unfair, the law stands already condemned ; and arguments drawn from the alleged success of its working can be pleaded only in palliation of its past, not in defence of its continued existence. Into that second topic, therefore, I shall only go so far as is needful to dispel some prejudices and exaggerated apprehen sions. The real battle must be fought on other ground—viz., on the two questions—(l.) Is the stamp law just? (2.) If not, can it be replaced by one that shall be so? To the consideration of these moot points I proceed. The existing duty, as everyone knows, consists of a uniform charge of one penny, levied on all publica tions containing " news," and appearing oftener than once in twenty-six days. This duty, as I believe all persons will allow, is not, in the strict sense of the word, a tax. In that respect, I admit, the name popularly given to it involves an erroneous idea. For a tax, being defined, signifies a charge imposed on persons or property for the purposes of adminis tration generally—excluding thus the idea of any special service, save and except that general one of government, being performed in return. Now, in the case of the stamp duty, there is a specific and definite equivalent—namely, the transmission of the Government should be doubly cautious that all the conditions of equity are fulfilled. It is bound, and its defenders are bound, to show that, bating snub trivial irregularities as no nicety of human law can wholly remedy, the price paid is in each case pro portionate to the value of the service rendered; the service being, moreover, efficient and the price mode rate. Here, then, the issue narrows to one of fact. 1 do not apprehend that any previous step of my reasoning will be objected to. It will be allowed (1) that the justice of the law is the one thing mate rial to be proved or disproved ; (2) that the news paper stamp is a postal charge; (3) that a postal charge ought to be regulated according to the definition just laid down. Does the uniform penny stamp comply with the three conditions therein stated? (1.) Is tiff. postal service, as regards newspaper transmission, effi cient? (2.) Is it cheap? (3.) Is "the price paid " in each case proportionate to the value of the " service rendered "? On the first and second of these queries I raise no cavil. I have never heard a complaint that newspapers are not safely and speedily delivered; and, as regards the other n+• quisite, I do not dispute your statement that the Post-office loses rather than gains by undertaking their carriage. As between the Post office and the press, so far is the latter interest from having any thing to complain of, that it receives some advantage by the transmission of its publications under the cost price of such transmission. The inequality, the wrong, which I complain of, lies elsewhere. It con sists in an unfair advantage given to one class of journals over another by the Post-office arrange ments. It falls under the third head of inquiry— ~, , thirty, forty per cent., so that no income of more than definite equivalent—namely, the transmission of the journals over another by the Post-office arrange- -1,0001. a year could exist—or contrarywise, if, as in stamped journal through the Post-office without menus. It falls under the third head of inquiry— France before the revolution, the estates of the nobi- farther charge. The impost is, in fact (though the price in each case is not proportionate to the bility were exempted from all taxation, with a view originally devised with a very different intention), a service given in return; therefore, the enforced to the permanence and power of their order—every postal charge, and is usually spoken of and defended bargain is unfair. There are several modes of meet- rational man would say, "Here is an abuse of the as such. ing a charge of this kind. It may be denied, if that " fiscal power—a violation of the elementary laws by This fact, 1 think, materially simplifies the ques- be possible; the fact may be defended, or rather ex. " which financial operations are guided." You pro- tion at issue. It is not easy—some hold that it is cubed, as involving only a slight wrong, which is bably admit as much. If so, I say act upon your own not possible—to adjust with mathematical accuracy compensated by manifest expediency ;or it may be rule. Strike out as surplusage all these declamations the incidence of taxation, so that each man shall regretted, but represented as inevitable. Let U 9 about the impending ruin of respectable journals , contribute to the State-chest just as much relatively examine these defences one by one. and the establishment in their place of an inferior to his means as his neighbour, neither More nor Denial of the fact will, I presume, not be at- tempted. I have by me a small advertising sheet and dangerous class of literature. Argue this ques- loss. But about the rules which should govern the which appears in a neighbouring town (to save the tion fairly. Consider, not whether the present law imposition of a postal charge there can be no two law) monthly ; and which, but for the operation of is necessary to the support of existing journals, but opinions. Government undertakes to do that which the law, would probably appear fortnightly, if not whether it is strictly and abstractly equitable. If would otherwise be done by private enterprise; for w ee kly. Its weight, to judge by the quantity of you are compelled to concede this point—if you allow the general convenience, it claims and asserts a paper which it contains, does not exceed one. that there is a real inequality, a real injustice, and monopoly; the public, in return, demands that its twentieth that of the Times when the latter appe ars yet contend that to avoid certain political results it service be efficient, its charges moderate and equal. with its full sixteen pages of print.. But it needs no must be maintained on its present footing—we shall It is a bargain—an exchange—between the State on reference to special instances to prove that a journal at least know on what ground we stand. A fallacy the one side and individual citizens on the other; it which is the organ of a small community, whether plainly stated is half refuted ; and, in tke opinion of is, moreover, a bargain in which, by the authority of rural or urban, will be very unequal in bulk to the all thinking men, it is a fallacy, and a grave one, to one of the contracting parties, the other is forbidden great metropolitan journals which circulate theassh• affirm that what is financially inequitable can be po- to go into the open market and accept any offer from out England. Yet the two are charged equally for is litically 14 ( 1 1 1,01 e, that the exigencies of the commu- other parties. In making such a compact, therefore, conveyance, though twenty numbors of the one only -..-- 0014, , . . '•—. - _ . . . . -....----. . ‘<