The Sun. — London, England, 1853-04-15 00:00:00

I I m a i eat; la 4 5 and , efitY.6o°' he elt; with een Air of IP' 'os of and chie more!, ag ftei' r ich lope Ley " L ! Le, fo ol , ;, 11 9., ts.' aO,lO _ ttt np ig • obs A tbe_ d ir von, cow pr PI cone time 220 , 0 00, enabled us to sell so costly a work very eale. I am now r e f err i ng t o w h at would be more cheap l y P r oduced and have a much m ore limited circulation ; hut it c ould only be done where teere is no stamp, Taat makes it quite impossible; and all our lans so far failed that we could hot diffuse the knowledge where it was most wanted. Our books were read, and they did great service, and still do, be aides having brought down the price of all books. But, like mechanics' institutions, we have not yet got low enough in B° cietY ; and th a t we owe to the stamp, because we found that mere cheapness did not make the most ignorant classes readers; another stimulus was wanted—news. Of course, my remarks ap p l y also to people in the towns; but they haveh bot more helps and, from their social habits, more excite int than`the p eop l e in the country. The lowering of the Statilp from 4d. t o id. I rea ll y can h ar dl y regar d as a b enefit at all, if it was a sacrifirm of revenue, for it only relieved two classes who required no relief—it put considerable sums into the Pockets of newspaper proprietors, and saved you and me R ecee pounds a-year, t o w h om thi s was b u t o f littl e import ance. It did not enable us to help general education at all.' Ikrow what, he asked, had been the consequ ence o f th e re . ducti on - of the stamp duty? Had our press been deterio ated -by i t? Mr. Walter, the father of the present member for IC° ttinghein, had made a speech in that house upon the s uject, i n w h ich there was a vast deal of valuable matter, hut be said he feared the reduction of the stamp dui .y to 8° I "W a late as a penny. Well, but had not the Times Iw9tressed under the reduction' Had the Times been „ Wined by the increased rivalry that it was then predicted would arise? Nothing -of the kind? The Times, with re ference to th e rest of the press: bore a mueli larger proper -4; "ell of circulation than it did in those days, and afforded an illustration of what folly it was to attribute the success duty net to.the operation of any particular tax or •,,!. It was not protection that had improved the Times. w hat had aised it to -its present high position was the great eu capital, th e great sk i ll, and the,great enterprise which Thu be . en thate in tbe conduct of that great oran. wellS it wa t had attained the confidence of the public slid its Present large and extended circulation. (Hear.) It a d s not the protection afforded by the high rate of the 8 1 , ba ,rn. P duties of former times that had done it, nor did he "'neve that the removal of that stamp duty would have V' other effect than to allow cheap papers to circulate in 4 e . ld s i nto which at this moment no newspapers entered, ' e n. thout in the slightest degree injuring the portion of those - riblip apers which had already established theirhold upon the tllrwe confidence. It was supposed that the stamp left upon :PaPers was an equivalent forthe postal privileges which th e " en joyed; but remember that the tax was not upon Publication, but upon a , certain . indefinable thing sew e d tie news and intelligence. ' but if the stamp upon make were said to be an equivalent for the post, he would pap ers this Propositbm :—Let the existing established news e,7reremain as they were, and, if they would stamp ever' , ]iris f their impression, let them retain the postal pnvi tr,,,'jlich they now possessed with the power of repeated tatty n- through the post. If it were true that the sito e S ee wa s ale advantage, they would retain the equivalent ho l o 7„7 by the Post-office, and if they did there would be woleq„, w e a ttever to the revenue. 'The penny publications Z o teel nt - e :ie t : t u to e Prevented coMmunicating news, and if the be c use the post they must pay for it. They would , take p it upon those terms. They said, Ar gee3;„`;nr estabr hed pr as you please ; but do not e nPP° n B- - ' Bll Perabi is obstacles to the insertion of news in a 4cY Publication:' 'Of' what did that news consist ? th r e ruings in the courts of justice, in the police courts,. in Wien what of Parliament, or in the sanitary world, showing th e . - WaR itecessary , to be done in order to preserve pure t o ok health and Promote theirphysical - tomforts. (Hear.) tre e possible that laws conld be obeyed if the Legisla fome steps to prevent their being known. If this in publiatiml were not permitted to be circulated in penny whom ea , t , i mls, it was impossible it could reach those classes be k l. ) ,_ . " was most; desirable that it should reach. Work- Ifi r ,7,ritrers did not read the Times, or the Morning aeg ,eee, or the Morning Post; but because those news not suit that class, that was no reason why he C . 3" are should step in and prevent them having their e s at all. He gave the established press, therefore, the ex ceed at of th position. They would in no way be they adopted the option which was offered to tao e na'; but if they refused that option, what was th ere ws:e si mple than for this- country to take the course which ec—„,eadopted cede r in certai the United States, roand permit printed - w•er up to a n weight to go though the Post-office a certain stamp ? Let those who used the Post-office t for it, but let them not connect the Post-office with totr ne P ri nting of n ews , b ecause th ere was not the slightest ction between the two things. The Times went free Post up to 4oz. ; but the penny publication unstamped et•i;.", Permitted to go by post 'if it paid according to its ht, and was precisely upon the same footing as a lett er. At present, if a Times newspaper under 4oz. in ntglet were sent to Liverpool, it went free ; but if he sent Warraly Herald hich weighed 20z., it was chae 4d. ; I : Was said, "You can stamp it." That was trued but euat involved. the stamping of 200,000 copies, and the e nterina in ri scuts to e extent o 1600., which able . 111 ? Pulli - s - h th ers e )f . small publication f might not be to accomplish. aie th Under the treaty with the United States a penny publication might be sent to thatcou a n w try ay , and m i g ht go to th e remo t es t p ar t o f it, 3,000 miles from New York for ld. • lint if it were posted in L on d on to to Greenwi 'ch it would be charged 4d. And this was hat was called the postal privilege for the diffusion 'of l ootowledge ! (Hear, hear.) He contended that it was no vileg e at all. It was true that, by a Treasury minute, ' t was declared that if a person registered a publication an d called it a newspaper, and so on, it might have all r. these postal privileges, just as if it were a newspaper. PThis was a very improper TreaSury minute to come from ersons professi ng to be guardians of the public revenue, the fact was that it eiposed the revenue to extensive 11 ' 4 ' 14 . He would give the house an instance of how. it °P e rated. A Mr. Savory printed a trade circular which V:ained a number of drawings of candlesticks, snuffer tjlP, candelabra &c„ with the view of circulating them ge Cl n gh th e country as advertisements ; and, in order to the benefit of the post, what did he do ? He wont to ?" 4 1 of walend Revenue, and made a declaration that , ereniar aear- and, a newspaper, which . it was not—(hear, Worth 4 001. having made that declaration, he swore he evis delete. n e over and above the sum necessary to pay his ea ch, bindi fe ltind two securities to the extent of 403/. Penalpzettlaaulotaiezbn: enernselves to be forthcoming to pay ally ties 'me Al,ight incur if ill his circular of . snuffer-trays a lit should be guilty of publishing any 118 or sedt• • pane all thi lous libel. (Laughter.) And, having 1)61 ', a n d 8 ' Mr. Savory was entitled to some stamped i Net ; b e , to have his stamped circulars carried free )3, t any at%4,4tt, unfortunately as the stamp was inside, and not hadPartek; Post -office* ' authorities never knew whether e l ay tulet time r Paper Paper had got a stamp or not, because they t ea ue O th er t'a open them. If they did, they would I 'd of %ails • consequently, if a man wei!t• to the re e o W , B •PaPer IL , a ,nd Revenue and stated that something wa._ e not"red 2‘ , 1 , 1, ?ugh it was not— . and entered into positioneuisaa cee and sureties, he would put himself e ve Bay that defraud the revenue—he . (Mr. Gibson) did te nt s he he would do so intentionally—but iee a t t io a n l e l rough ti• W olild be entitled to send oats _caels e h e `, l ° Post without r • he 'Light • d id not need to take much stamped pape paying any pg t p e u at all, be he Print ne 48 Many as he chose on unstamped . paper, s and ,ussible go just as freely as the other, it being im eWhethe„ot e xamine the different printed papers to see q t r i d , e ' s uey were stamped or not. (Herr, hear.) He e beli e gte att to say that these frauds were extensive. 1. -ve d that there was so mach honest feeling among fratirls'nlell generally, that they would not willingly thi s nP he allY branch of th puler revenue. (Laughter.) But as e ti ‘:'ould say, that it became ie those who set themselves f e e r s e a edil e guardians of the public revenue, and who such.pro ee extreme care that the position of the national to th e ' s hould not be affected that they would never agree llest reduction proposed Itt e:eke - e independent c in h e lee tn a ber % rn t behoved them, he said, to devise some less hear.) Y 11 4eaUs for the protection of the . revenue. (Hear, c oPies of was shown before the committee ,that .all thearei nea _fe particular publication were on one occasion ex copies"' the Post-office, and that no fewer than 5,000 dr egs fee without a stamp. But there was no re was o. : t r , i t n his ; beCause, having no news, the publication point of law,liable to the stamp, and nothing ef ar l. he done but to throw them all aside without for adeng them, because the parties to whom they were rouneissed would of course refuse to receive them when they who rK)stage charged upon them, and nobody could tell p e i t i e; (l . Put them into the post ; Penh, was allowed to be waa no(ithwitntghout a stamp, as -well as with one, and there to prevent an ' unstamped copfof Punch being ant by the post free of charge, for there was nobody to exalnine it, and it would go just the same as a stamped of Publication This mixing up of stamped and unstamped copies a.‘l,3lll.3lications, therefore, was a most clumsy expedient, sod ought not to be allowed to continue. • (Hear, hear.) v.e wo uld recommend a p l a i ner system, viz., that which " suggested by Mr. Walter, when the q ues ti on was dis h that h ouse some years' ago. Mr. Walter said : te " P lf you want t o l evy a postage on newspapers, do it at • eue ost-office, and th en you will not be involved in all the " i fllcultie s and litigations to which you are now subject in order to ascertain what is a newspaper, and what publica tions are liable to the stamp and what are not." Ile (Mr. Gibson) called upon the house to vote for his re solution, not pledging them at all to any particular plan of postal regulation, but merely with the view of pointing out the necessity of some changes in the present system. lie believed if they were to abolish the present stamp duty and impose a small postage charge upon all printed papers that went through the Post -office they would more than replace the revenue that would thereby be sacrificed, because many of the numberless penny publications that were sent at present by railway and otherwise, in large packages, would then - be sent by the post, and there by add to the revenue. It would be a great convenience to all parties in the country, and he was sure would be highly appreciated by the labouring population. But what w the s t a t e o f the law? Was it credit a bl e t o the house to have a statute which they could not enforce? Olear He maintained that there was a perfect knowled ge on the' Part of the authorities that they coul not enforce the law in its integrity. If they carried out the strict me an i ng of the words of that act, t that w as no t li a bl e t o h duty.e here ewae hardly any publi ca ti on the What were the wo r d s o f the act w ith respec t to securities, for instance?— rin af t te o after 3 O publish d a ys " And b e it f ur th er en acted, that frm after the passi n g of this act, no perso n e sha a ll n p d for sale any nawspaper, pamphlet, or other paper containing Public news, intelligence, or occurrences , or remarks, or ob servations thereon, or upon any matters of Church or State, w here the same shall not exceed two sheets, and be published iron for less th an 6d ., un til h e s h a ll h ave a pp eare d before a of the Exchequer, or one of 'his Majesty's justices of the peace, and enter into recognisanees, himself in 4001., and two other Persons in 4001. eac h, bi n ding themselves to pay such fines a nd Penalties as ma y b e i m p ose d upon convict ion for printing any blasphemous or seditious libel." T he penalty for a breach of the law was 201. Now, was it possible to enforce such a law ? and did they enforce it? Ile would ask the law officers both of the present and late Go vernment whether it was meant to enforce such a law ? a nd, if not, why not ? If it could not be enforced, let them repeal it. (Hear.) But don't let them go on in the P r esent absurd way, ca lli ng upon M r. S avor y t o enter in securities not to p u bli s h, any bl asp h emo us or seditious libels in his trade circular, and not enforcing the securities a g a inst w or k s of an obvious political character. The e xisting p rac ti ce of the authorities was not to enforce the recognisances unless in the case of papers containing news, °l * where, as in th e case of Mr. Savory, a person d ec l are d that his p u bli cation was a newspaper, the consequence of Which was, that a person might publish a paper for the !Lvowed purpose of libelling piivate character, of question !lig the truths of Christianity, or bringing discredit upon 910 Sovereign or the throne, without being asked to outer 'lite any s ecurities whatev er —f or, as h a d b een sa id , no one Was ever asked to do so unless he gave news which, it was e "Y to avoid doing, according to the interpretation put V the word by th e authorities, or unless he declared do 4 t hiB publication was a newspaper, which he need not Novelleunlegs he found it convenient for that purpose. Mr. of the Musical Times, might sell that publication 'i‘.tl2lotit a stamp. He (Mr. Gibson) was a member of the i , ety o f Arts, of which Prince Albert was president, and voate3ociety was allowed to publish an unstamped journal, though it gave what people called id not 1 6 _,_what the Board of Inland Revenue considered to be ° we." The society abstained from commenting on any matters of church or State ; and yet, in order to secure the postal privilege for their stamped copies, they were required to enter into securities that they would be responsible for any penalties that might be incurred for blasphemous or seditious libels. Was it not trifling to go on in this way when they found some of the most offensive publications, such as Sam ,Sly, brought out for the express purpose, and no other, of libelling private character? A clergyman who was libelled in that disgraceful publication having heard that there were laws which made persons responsible for the publication of libels, resolved to bring an action against the libeller; b u t h e found that, because the publi cation did not contain what the Board of Inland Revenue chose to call " news," the proprietors had never been re quired to enter into any securities, and that it was of very little use to bring an action on the case, because the pub lishers were men of straw. (Hear.) His (Mr. Gibson's) resolution merely asked the house to declare that the law was in an unsatisfactory state, and demanded the attention of Parliament. The acts of the Government proved that the law required the attention of Parliament. They com menced a prosecution for penalties in the Court of Exche quer against the publishers of one of the most eminent and useful public writers of the day—he alluded to Mr. C. Dickens—(hear, hear)—on the ground that Mr. Dickens had inserted news in a- monthly periodical. Now, suppos ing that the Govern nent had succeeded in their efforts to put down Mr. Dicken's monthly periodical, what benefit would the country have derived from the result? (Hear.) Would the revenue have been benefitted ? No, b?cause if the Government had succeeded in their action, the publi cation must have been discontinued, as it would have been impossible to sell it at an increased price. The prosecu tion, it was said, was commenced to test the law, and to put down that class of monthlies. A pretty policy in these days, when they talked of educating the people, to attempt to prevent a man with a mind and intellect like Mr. Dickens, from addressing the greatest possible number of his fellow-countrymen by stupid laws, which were a dis grace to the Legislature ! (Hear.) He used advisedly the word " disgrace," because if they put down 3tir, Dickens's publication they would not confer a particle 'of benefit on the country. They would neither benefit the revenue nor would they consult the interest of any established paper ; becanse no one could believe that such a publication would ever: come into competition with The Times, or that one copy less of the Times would be sold if Mr. Dickens were let alone. (Hear.) If any doubt had existed whether that publication came within the Stamp Act, the Government, •instead of prosecuting the publishers and putting them to the expense of defending themselves in a court of justice, ought to have brought in a bill at once, if they ever in tended to do so, to exempt it from the law. But, instead of doing that, they went to the Court of Exchequer and tried to enforce the penalties. The judges, however, over ruled them. And did the Government stop there? No. They said that the judges had given bad law—that Mr. Timm', of the Board of Inland Revenue, knew the law better than the judges, and that an attempt ought to be made to set aside - the decision in. favour of Mr. Dickens. The publishers were therefore once more put upon their de fence. After incurring further .expense, in came Lord Derby's Government. The law officers of that Government considered that the persecution—for it was'a persecution— had gone far enough, and they tried to bring in a bill to stop further litigation, to exempt the PUblication from the stamp duty, and attempt to define what was a newspaper. That bill, however, had since disappeared ;' he did not know what had become of it. It was true that he had ob jected to its being introduced in violation of the forms of the house ; but it would have been very easy to re-intro duce it, if necessary; but not one step hd.Since been taken in the matter,. and, for aught he knew, another prosecution might be commenced to-morrow against the publication of a monthly paper containing news. The. Board of Inland Revenue had fancied that they had..put , down a great many of these publications. There vms one, entitled Burniston's Northern Luminary, respecthig which the pub lisher received the following .letter.:—, " Inland Revenue-office, Somerset house, London, • March 12, 1849. " Burniston's Northern Luminary. " Sir,—This publication having been brought under my notice, I have to inform you that it is a newspaper, and that, by publishing it as such, you are incurring heavy penalties. I beg, therefore, to suggest the propriety of your immediately registering it as a newspaper or discontinuing to publish it. If you adopt the former course, you must give the necessary instructions for the documents at the Stamp-office at York, without delay.—l am, &c., " J. TIMM, " Solicitor of Inland Revenue. " Mr. J. Burniston, printer, &c., Knaresborough." A note was added, stating that the paper had been discon tinued, Mr. Timm having imagined that he had frightened it out of existence ; but he (Mr. Gibson) could show the house that Mr. Timm was mistaken, and that the Northern, Luminary had set only for a short period, and had risen again since the decision of the Court of Exchequer, and was now being published, notwithstanding Mr. Timm's letter, with perfect freedom. But Mr. Timm sometimes told them that frequency of publication had nothing at all to , do with constituting a newspaper, and that if a person printed a Queen's speech once, or even an account of an execution, he would expose himself to a notice from Somerset-house. The following letter was sent by Mr. Timm to the printers of a paper entitled " Execution of Sarah - Ann Thomas":- - - " Inland Revenue-office, Somerset-house, London, April 26, 1849. " Gentlemen,—A printed paper, entitled " Execution of Sarah Ann Thomas," printed and published by you, has been brought to the notice of this board. I have, therefore to inti mate to you that, by publishing such paper, which is a news paper, on unstamped paper, and without, in other respects, complying with the requisites of the law, you have incurred serious penalties. The commissioners are ready, however, to attend to any explanation you may think proper to give as to the irregularity, and any statement you may send to me upon the subject shall be submitted to them.—l am, &c., " J. Timm, " Solicitor of Inland Revenue. " Messrs. Mathews, printers, 44, Broad-street, Bristol." The following was the reply of the Messrs. Mathews : " 44, Broad-quay, Bristol, April 25, 1849. " Sir,—ln reply to yours of yesterday, we beg to say that we must plead entire ignorance .of the existence of any law which we have infringed in iss"'ng the tract referred to. We have nothing in " Hansard's ...!,truction to Printers " which at all deals with the question. We have also inquired at the Stamp-office to-day, and can get no information on the subject. We most certainly would not knowingly lay ourselves open to the penalties of infringement. You would, therefore,-greatly obligo by stating where the information can be obtiined. • We have for many years (in' common with our brethren of the profession) printed report's and tracts onpassing subjects, and cannot therefore perceive • wherein we have offended.—We are, &c., 44 MArrusws, BROTHERS. " J. Timm, Esq." Mr. Timm replied as follows : " Inland Revenue-office, Somerset-house, London, April 26, 1849. _ . " Gentlemen,—l have received your letter of the 25th instant, in explanation of the publishing by you of the tract, as you term it, entitled Execution of S. A. Thomas,' and, in reply, beg to furnish you with the necessary information for your future guidance. A newspaper is defined to be any paper containing public news, intelligence, or occurrences ; printed in any part of the United Kingdom, to be dispeised and made public.' The paper in question, with the excep• tion, perhaps, of that which relates to the history of the criminal, is, from beginning to end, within this description of matter. This board is not disposed, I apprehend, to treat the present case as a wilful infringement of the law, and the notice thus taken will probably be deemed sufficient.—l am, _ _ " J. TIMM, U " Solicitor of Inland Revenue: "Messrs. Mathews, printers, 44, Broad-quay, Bristal. So that the board did not attempt to enforce the penalties which they had threatened. But what were people to think of such notices? The penalties were very serious, and it behoved the Government to be able to tell distinctly what a newspaper was, and what it was not, in order that people might know precisely how to act. It was sometimes said that if a publication confined itself to one class of sub jects it was not a newspaper. Mr. Keogh, for instance, stated to the committee that the Legal Observer m i g ht. with propriety, give any information relative to Papal , agression, provided it merely gave what lawyers thought of it, because that kind of news would be interesting to a class—viz., lawyers. Mr. Keogh also stated that a report of a meeting of lawyers on Papal aggression in the Legal Observer would not be news ;. but that, if it contained a report of a meeting of clergymen, he had not the slightest doubt that penalties would be incurred. (Laughter.) This was a refinement which he hoped his hon. and learned friend the Attorney-General would make clear to the house. (Hear. hear.) There was, therefore, what was called the one subject principle. If persons stuck to one subject they were safe ; but not if they meddled with miscellaneous sub jects. He begged to remind the house, however, that there was not such a word as "miscellaneous" inthe act. (Hear.) But even ' one subject" was not always allowed to escape ; for what was the account of the execution of Sarah Ann Thomas but " one subject ?" (Hear.) And it ap peared that a publication entitled the Bedford Charity Record, which related to one subject, had also been threat with penalties. He thought, therefore, he had succeeded in making out an indisputable case with respect to the un satisfactory state of the law, and to show that it was the duty of the Government to delay no longer in settling the matter ; for it was infamous, to say the least of it, to have the Boa r d o f Inland Revenue frightening small useful pub lications out of existence without anybody being able to say whether they were legal or not. These were the leading features of the vase he had to submit to the house. He would now place his resolutions in the hands of the Speaker, in the confident hope that the house would give them its favourable consideration. He assured hon. gentle men on both sides that he brought forward the resolutions without any party feeling, and without hostility to any set of politici ans i n t h e country, b ut s i mp l y f rom an earnes t de sire for the promotion of education and the diffusion of knowledge, and from a wish to put an end to an anomalous that, therefore, state of press laws,which he was sure no one could witness might votewfeouri without regret, e must remind hon. gentlemen that sepa ratedivisions would be taken upon each resolution, and give them those who could not support them all, thought their the house one or more of them. He only asked that that not reject all three resolutions, but would timed r cheers,) 1 i e e )irnportance entitled them. (Loud and con favourable consideration to which he messengerrs: from the House of Lords appeared at the wit table to request that their lord s hi ps m i g h t b e furn i s h e d h a copy of the evidence taken before the Clitheroe elec eir lord s hi ps. ] dtieonneecobme menimttmeet,inaineadteitdwtael s u i l )rder e d th at a copy of the evi- Mr. EW in ART said that, qt be the motion of his vain en necessary that he should rightfriend, it would tes upon the attention of had speech. trespass for more than a few completely the house, for his right hon. fri e iv b e a r te ti semen t duty, hausted the subject in his most adenall must be e t a h r e ex hear.) He thought the result of th r e a I d ) because d be final, if not the speedy, repeal of th n e consi dered eventually of the stamp dut on ported the motion of his right on. friend mainly He sup he believed that the abolition of these dutiesa.wiaoli fa vourable to the cause of knowledge and order, dered that it would be vain to found schools, to establish libraries, or to take other means for extending informationash to the people, if they did not encourage among them a know ledge ledge of the current literature of the day, and these taxes were not taxes upon the accumulated stores of knowledge, but upon what might be called the current coin and cirert latine. medium of instruction. This was the very kind of knowledge which it should be the anxious duty of a Legis lature to circulate thoroughly among the masses of the people. He was desirous that the people should be invited, if possible, to educate themselves. (Hear. hear.) It might be remembered that Gibbon said that men received two kinds of education —one given them by others, and another given them by themselves. Now, he would ask, how they could better extend this species of self-education than by encouraging the free circulation of local newspapers? He believed the effect of the repeal of the stamp and adver tisement duties would be to give such an inapAlse to the circulation of newspapers as was witnessed in - the United States. He was aware some persons imagined that the consequences of the abolition of these duties would be the prevalence of bad publications, but unquestionable testi mony had been adduced before the committee on the stamp duties on newspapers that, in large towns like Manchester, the good publications eventually triumphed over the bad. He also supported the motion of his right hon. friend be cause he believed it was favourable to the cause of order. They would find that those countries which, during the recent revolution that had taken place in Europe, had re mained most unshaken, were those in which the press was most free. Austria, France, Prussia, and the countries where the press was - most shackled, had been shaken to their foundations -and almost overturned in the political earthquake which had agitated Europe ; while, on the other hand, Sweden, Belgium, Switzerland, and England had remained firm and unshaken. The United States pre sented a most remarkable example of a firmly-seated Go vernment, less agitated by the shocks of internal commo tion than any other country in the world, and he main tained that this was to be traced, to a great extent at least, to the freedom which the press enjoyed. One of the most admirable distinctions which existed between ancient and modern times was, in his opinion, that whereas in ancient times the people were appealed to by their orators, they were now appealed to by the press, and while formerly they were appealed to by interest and passion, they were now appealed to by calm deliberation and argumentative reasoning. He held that the leading arti c l e s of newspapers were far better guides than the speeches of ancient orators, and he contended that they ought to avail themselves of this power to the utmost extent of which it was susceptible, and not to retain any longer impediments to its unre stricted use. These shackles were an excrescence and a deformity on our constitution ; their origin dated some 140 years back; they were introduced in the reign of Queen Anne for a bad reason, many of them on at,count of the continuance of a war; and, as he believed, there was an express understanding with regard to the paper duty that it should cease when the war was concluded. He thought it was the duty of the Legislature to swef..7 away these ex crescences on our constitution. He was rejoiced to find that this great cause had so able an advocate as his right hon. friend. He believed it would gain ground from day to, day, and from session to session, and that the Govern ment would eventually be obliged to concede the principle for which his right honourable friend was contending. (Hear, hear) The SPEAKER then put the question on the first reso. lution, "That the advertisement duty o ught to b e re . pealed." The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, he had listened with very great interest both to the able and comprehensive speech of the right hon. gentleman who moved these resolutions, and also to the very tempe rate and intelligent statement of the hon. member for Dumfries. He freely owned that in those speeches there was much matter that deserved the attention of the house, but they related partly to subjects of policy and partly to subjeote of revenue, and those • subjects it would be his duty, as far as he was able to disentangle from one another. Although he did not, in the least degree, wish to qualify his description of the speeches which had been made on this subject, he would endeavour to show the house that it would not be wise to adopt the resolutions which had been proposed. With regard to questions of policy, those were, of course, matters upon which the office he had the honour to hold gave him no special authority to speak. The com paratively limited question on which the right hon. gentleman had bestowed considerable notice—namely, that which grew out of the prosecution in the case of Bradbury and Evans—was one to which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) ought, perhaps, in the first instance, to advert. He fully acceded. with respect to that question, to the opinion expressed in one of the resolutions before the house —" That the law reative to taxes on newspapers, and other regulations affeaing public .prints, is in an unsatisfactory state, and demands the attention of Parliament." (Hear, hear.) It was the intention of the Government to propose —and he hoped they would be able to do so within a very short period—a bill for the purpose of clearing up the state of the law. (Some cries of "Oh," from the Minis terial side.) Well, if clearing up the state of the law on this subject was not considered desirable by some hon. gentlemen, he was sorry to differ from those who enter tained that opinion ; but it was the intention of the Government to bring in a bill for the purpose of clear ing up the state of the law with respect to newspapers, and of preventing any harsh or severe interpretation of that law, quite irrespectively of the further ques tion, which, he fully granted, still remained for consi deration. It appeared to him that there was a clear dis tinction between these two subjects. The question of the stamp duty upon newspapers, which involved a large sum of money, was a material question of revenue. The ques tion that had arisen with respect to the liability of certain publications to be classed as newspapers was one with re gard to which persons would have a fair right to complain if any considerable or unnecessary delay took place in call ing the attention of Parliament to the subject. Now, with reference to the general principle upon which these resolu tions rested, the 2d resolution declared—" That the policy of restraining the cheap periodical press from narrating , current events, by rendering it liable to stamp duties and other restrictions, if ' any public news, intelligence, or oc currences, or any remarks or observations thereon,' be con tained therein, is inexpedient." They had been told that it was not as a matter of revenue that these restrictions were imposed, but that it was the policy of those who placed the acts upon the statute-book to restrain the circulation of intelligence of the kind referred to. He would not enter into the historical question as to whether that bad been the policy of a former Government or not, but he thought that so ninny members of her Majesty'spresent Government had given their voices in favour of the free circulation of intel ligence, that the house must feel assured that the policy of a former period was not likely to be the policy of the pre sent Government. He cordially concurred in the opinion expressed by his hon friend (Mr. E wart), that perfectly free discussion was not only not to be regarded as an evil or to be subjected to repressive legislation, but was a system which, if it were fairly and manfully encouraged, was likely to contribute to the stability of the institutions of the country—(hear, Bear)—and he was quite certain that nothing would either be said or done on the part of the Government to lead to a contrary result. Ho must now request the house to look at the question involved in the motion of his right hon. friend, who proposed, by his first resolution, that they should condemn the advertisement duties, by the second the stamp duties, and, by the third, the paper duties. This was the part of the subject upon which it was his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) more especial office to speak, and it would be a breach of duty .on his part if he were to encourage or to advise the e' house to pass thesresolutions. He had protested before— and he must now repeat the protest—against condemning taxes which the house was not prepared the instant to repeal. (Hear hear.) He trusted the house would never lower its character by sliding into a practice which, un doubtedly, had many recommendations—recommendations, he meant, addressed to . feeling and convenience—of dealing in expressions and promises which might produce a popu lar impression, but which created and raised expectations that Parliament was not prepared to fulfil. The hon. member for Dumfries had himself given an illustration of the vanity and futility of understandings with respect to the repeal of taxes ; for, in referring to the origin of the newspaper stamp duties and of the paper duties, he had said they were imposed with a clear understanding that they should be repealed at an early period. Now, did not this show the worthlessness of such understandings as to the repeal of the taxes ? (Hear.) Did it not show the deceptive and delusive character of mere expressions of opinion about taxes, as distinct from the practical measures which it was the duty of that house to take ? With respect to the taxes under discussion, the right honourable gentleman who brought forward the motion had. said that there was a great and culpable indifference on the part of Chancellors of the Exchequer as to the mode in which the revenue of the country was to be raised. The right hon. gentleman accused' Chancellors of the Exchequer of a great want of discrimination between the different modes of raising the revenue. If that, then, was the habitual and established fault of Chancellors of the Exchequer, surely the right hon. gentleman was prepared to show that he proceeded upon a different principle, and discriminated between the wise and unwise modes of raising the revenue of the country. The right hon. gentleman now invited the house to come to a vote by which they were to con demn nearly a million and a half of that revenue. The right hon. gentleman said the house need not adopt all his resolutions, but, as they were proposed all together, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought he was justified in concluding that the right hon. gentleman wished the house to adopt them all. ZYell , did the right honourable gentleman, who condemned Chancellor's of the Exchequer for not discriminating between wise and unwise modes of raising public money, make such discrimination himself ? The right hon. gentleman had condemned the unwise modes of raising the revenue ; had he pointed out a wise mode ? (Hear, hear.) [Mr. Gibson observed that he had men tioned postage. j Yes, certainly the right honourable gentleman had pointed out that a charge might be laid upon newspapers sent by post, but was that to produce a million and a half of money ? It would do no such thing. The right hon. gentleman, then, had not pointed out any substitute for the revenue he proposed to condemn, and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) trusted the house was not disposed to fall into the practice of condemning taxes until it was either prepared to dispense with them or to provide substitutes for them. With regard to the ad vertisement duty, he was sorry that he differed from his right hon. friend upon a question of arithmetic. The right hon. gentleman had said they might assume that for each additional advertisement eight additional letters would pass throagh the Post-office, and he computed that if 5,000,000 additional advertisements were gained by aban doning the duty, an additional 40,000,000 of letters would pass through the post, which would yield a revenue of 166,0001. The right hon. gentleman told them that the advertisement duty only yielded about the same amount, 170,000/. or 180,0001., and that therefore the loss of revenue would at most be very trifling. Now, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) wanted to know whether 166,0001. de rived from the postage of letters would really be a substitute for 166,000/. derived from a duty on advertisements ? Unless he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had greatly mistaken the accounts of the Post-office revenue, for every 31. returned in that department about 21. was absorbed in the expense of collection—(hear, hear)—and therefore th e substitute proposed by the right hon. gentleman, instead of yielding 166,0001., would only produce about 55,0001. The right hon. gentleman proposed that the house should con sent to abandon a revenue amounting to 1,400,0001. a-year. If he proposed to abandon it, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) should say, we had not the means of doing it ; as it was not proposed to abandon it, but only to condemn it, he would venture most respectfully, but most earnestly, to express a hope that the house would not consent to a vote of that kind, but join with him in the vote which he should propose, called " the previous question." (Hear, 'hear.) For he did not wish to imply a hostility to the object which the right hon. gentleman had in view. (Hear.) ec ' , reaso ns to mak e us w i s h t o ge t With respect t o th e paper d u t y, h e woa ld f u ll y grant, t h at larg e us was the ee r r e t v a e i n u u ly e it de w r a iv e e a cl d f u ro ty m that source, he abund ant should be delighted t o see th e d ay w h en we cou ld di spense w" a duty laid merely it. (Hear.) Th e rig ht hon. gentleman must recol lt that oferior upon th e p aper used rifodr whichof literaryt ht wasre w pn e r o r: t pro ductions, b ut a d pressing upon the coarser description of paper us e d f or he should b e as happy purposes ; but no doubt the paper duty had th e effect ely mental most objectionable tax upon liter ature and up on effort and productions, and there foreas duty,t ri e g h wouldt ho n fullygrant gentleman when the day Caine that at we cou ld fi nd a substitute f or i t or dispense with it. (H ear, hear.) In the same way with that at present the ch arge imposed by bit was a very heavy and onerous charge—(h ear )—b ut the right hon. gentleman respect to the adv er ti sement . would recollect that after all we mut be content i n these THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, APRIL 15, 1853, matters with something like gradual progress. Had no progress been made in this matter since the •times to which the right hen. gentleman referred, when Lord Castlereagh's acts were passed ? The stamp duty upon newspapers was then 4d. ; it was now id. ; it sounded like one-fourth—practically it was rather less than one-third. That, at all events, looked something like progress. (Hear, hear,) With respect to the advertisement duty, it had been reduced from 3s. 6d. to is. 6d. ; surely there again was something like progress. (Hoar.), Not that was a reason for stopping—it was a reason for going onward—(hear, hear)—but, for goodness' sake, before we went onward let us consider our general principles. (Hear.) He was quite sure he might appeal to a gentleman of the acuteness and good sense of the right hon. member to consider what a mischievous precedent he was setting by inviting gentlemen to give votes upon a series of resolutions, all of them to be given upon isolated grounds, without any general or comprehensive view of the state of the revenue. (Hear, hear.) Did the right hon. gentleman think, that if the house were to encourage this Practice of condemning particular taxes by one vote and another, it was likely to be for the benefit of the commu nity? Did he think it likely that the expenditure of the country would be balanced by its income; that the credit of the country would be maintained ; that in the end the burden upon the public would be lightened ? (Hear, hear, hear.) With the very slight experience which he had had in the office which he had now the honour to hold, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did nor feel any hesitation in calling upon the house not to force a decision upon a subject which there had not yet been the opporitunity of fully and fairly considering. (Hear, hear.) He felt it his duty to represent to the house the danger which menaced that great assembly of sliding unawares into a practice perilous to the public inte rests and the public credit and the character of the house. (Hear, hear.) What had been the propositions made to that house during about eight weeks that he had sat in it a th s e C Ni h r a e n st ce ß llo kg r un of the Exch equer ? Th e h on . member for said a few nights ago that the house had been voting away money at the rate of 1,000,000/. an hour ; well, the house was most liberal in voting the public money —(hear, hear) ; but, if it chose to do so, it must exercise some self-command in refusing to shut up the resources from which the public money was derived. It was im possible to combine the two things ; you could not play with this system of condemning and vituperating taxes unless you were prepared to give them up, and you could not give them up unless you were prepared to adopt mea sures to which the house —the great body of the house — did not see its way as to a total change and great contrac tion of the public expenditure. (Hear, hear.) What had been the demand made upon the house ? The house had met but a few days when an honourable member opposite moved the remission of the hop duty ; that, he said, it was impossible any Chancellor of the Exchequer could care about, for it was a mere nothing —only about 380,000/. (a laugh), and he was supported by a considerable number of gentlemen in a vote to strike off that duty without any consideration of balancing the> income and expendi ture of the country. (Hear, hear.) It was, however, a moderate demand compared with some others. The hon. member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), who came next, raised his terms very much, for he moved for the repeal of Cus toms' Duties to the amount of no less than 1,350,0001.; the hon. member did not indeed wish to press his motion to a division, but a division was called for, and into the lobby a number of gentlemen went in support of that proposition. That was on the 3d of March. On the 10th the noble lord (Lord R. Grosvenor), one of the most formidable an tagonists any Chancellor of the Exchequer ever had—(a laugh)—descended from the hills with his motion against the duty on attorneys' certificates. His demand again was moderate—no more than 120,0001. That demand he pressed to a division, and the house was pleased to affirm his pro posal, in defiance of 'such opposition as the Government could offer. (Hear.) , The house met on the 4th of April, after the Easter recess. On the sth, an hon. member (Mr. Oliveira) made a motion with regard to the wine duties, affecting revenue amounting to 1,700,0001. He, however, only proposed to take away about two-thirds of the amount in the firstinstance, and with great kindness and considera teness he was content withthe discussion he had raised and the opinions he had elicited, and did not press his motion to a division. That was on the Tuesday. On the Thurs day—for there were two days in the week for these attacks upon the Exchequer—a motion was made with respect to the Irish Consolidated Annuities ; and that demand, sup ported by a considerable number of members, involved 2,003,0001. and upwards of revenue. (Hear.) On the next Tuesday—they kept their times regularly—(a laugh)— Tuesday and Thursday—(a laugh)—the hon. member for Westminster (Sir D. L. Evans) made a motion to reduce the duty on carriages, but the amount he affected again sank miserably from the standard of the week before ; it a e s x s p o r k es in si d en as ef no a t n to an di st vi ra d e e t the se house, and l a 3 n , d ooo ne / t .. teanedalhe call for opinion. We had now arrived at the 14 th, and there was a most formidable ascent again in the figures, for the right hen. the house, not by a distinct plain to condemn revenue amount teethwe gentleman vote tto part was a with, irtehr butr ing amount ing to 1,400,0001. Such was the rate at which demands had been made upon the Exchequer during this short time —amounting within these eight weeks to 7,800,000/. — (hear, hear)—so that while the hon. member said the house voted away public money at the rate of 1,000,0001. an hour, large portions of the house had shown a vele , strong reduction,asfirsei p n tlahnlaep c aact l i irtnetdgh n coete a eo sof t sn i cwtte o hoh, n efaoienrunfr a t etoge o lhtt 0:s : v sotfa o ha °hoc oa t reen e g, ntuo oted a hnnh w eeaoteeti a clrhy, c y ahoaffi aduw t ewdesn h ceanee e onsttetnso no more u em t myhe n ( a aoyn H d t n trish sy i e edd a tts rb ee r hoe a rt y . l economy —the rate, raurrth w m,yeffh h ,citanaea i tett c sel hxshtdwiechavetabehwephsootthealvuoii to ste p eoitehor u anss b whu l aalgoi serioustolerably disposed to think that the best mode of managing the the instance of individual members, regulated by mo tion should come first—(hear)—if they thought it a safe course to encourage these motions and divisions with re spect a public economy which might be highly acceptable to many—(hear, hear, from Mr. W. William )particular Williams )—a the office he had the honour to hold. (Hear, hear.) He knew no conceivable re ason w h y a gentlemani should be appointed at a considerable salary, and decorated with a certain title, as steward of the public revenue and guardian of the public credit, and responsible for presentinc , to the house, in some tolerable s h a p e , a b a l ance between ex pendittu-e and the income of the year, if the house, which was supreme in all these matters, was deliberately of opi nion that the best node of dealing with them was by con demning on successive motion-days ono sum after another, the lowest being the insignificant amount of 120,0001., the highest rising to the dignity of 2,000,0001. (Hear, hear.) That was matter for the consideration of the house. It was impossible for him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), upon the present occasion, to say more, he thought, w ith regard to the fiscal question than ho ad already stated. With regard to the question of policy, he had stated in the most distinct terms that the Government had no wish to retain, and would not retain, any restraint whatever upon the press for the sake of restraint ; that for them the question would be a purely fiscal question ; and that the claims of newspapers for relief from taxation, if it could be shown (which probably it might be) that they paid more than an equivalent for the service they received, should meet with fair consideration, and he meant by fair consi deration a just and impartial comparison between those claims for relief and the claims of the other great interests concerned in the reduction of taxation. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman could not ask him for more ; if he stood where he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was standing, he was quite certain he would not give more— he would not consent to these affirmations. If the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Gibson) were finance minister, he would not consent to adopt a policy of promises instead of performances. (Hear, hear.) There was a time, once a year, when the minister was brought to book, and when it was his duty to show what he meant to do; let him be held there. If his proposals were good, let them be taken ; if bad, let them be rejected. But let not the house deal with the country in words and phrases. (Hear, hear.) He had no doubt of the right hon. gentleman's sincerity ; but he would say it was a dangerous practice to adopt re solutions expressive of general intentions, which he would not say flattered passions, but raised reasonable expec tations—expectations which yet hon. gentlemen were nut prepared to fulfil. (Hear, hear.) Were they, or were they not, prepared to fulfil expectation in this instance? Was the right hon. gentleman prepared to throw over every other claim ? Would he cut off revenue to part with these taxes ? It was fair enough in the right hon. gentle man (Mr. Gibson), as in the hon. member for Westinin ster, to raise discussion as the means of impressing upon the public mind what was just, and upon the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if it were thought that let ters, and newspapers, an d i n t erv i ews were not sufficient ; but not the house be led into the practice of dealing so lightly with questions of public revenue, as they would un awares slide into, if they accustomed themselves to a course of condemning one thing and another, and dissociating the opinions they expressed from a carefully and well-weighed estimate of their means of giving practice • I effect to their resolutions. (Hear, hear.) These sentiments he had thought it right to express. They were not in collision with the doctrine of the right hon. gentleman as to the freedom of the press, which was not merely . to be permitted and tolerated, but highly estimated and prized, for it tend ed to bind closer together all the national interests, and to preserve the institutions of the country. (Hear.) He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not wish to convey an approval of the taxes with respect to which the motion was made. (Hear, hear.) He had stated frank l y as re g ard ed the advertisement duty, he had stated as regarded the paper duty, ho had stated without entering into detail upon the amount of advantage derived by newspapers from the post, as compared with the payment, that he should be delighted to see the day when the burden upon newspapers might be removed—(hear, hear)—and he hoped the right hon. gentleman would not be surprised, considering the number of departmental and financial questions which had been pressed upon him during these three months, if he was not prepared to enter wi th the right hon. gen tl eman into the whole details of the statement with regard to the proposal, for which no doubt there was much to be said, of charging newsP s pore for Post -office se r vi ce s. (Hear.) But he must own he d id not q uite understand the system which the right hon. gentleman intended to pro pose. He said he • would leave the established newspapers as at present, but let the penny prints contain news and go free. [Mr. Gibson—" I said, let the established papers have the option of remaining as of they are, paying the for freedom transmission •if stamp as an equivalent , they do, there will be no loss of revenue, and all ow a penny paper to contain news."] But, the established p a p ers were seal, not a corporation acting under to say as a body whether they would remain as at present or not. (Oh !) With respect to fiscal burdens, he (the Chancellor of th e Exchequer) entirely agreed that, if there was t o b e a fi scal was to burden affecting the press, it affect the press in comon with so many oth bl er vlu e essentia thingsand because of the necessity of raisian°e a publ' revenue,l and be , cause we were obliged often to be satisfied w ith w h a t we had got, even when wo would have it otherwise if we could. These necessities of revenue, however, might, at some future period, admit of being modified. Whether trusted the house would notpro ceedthoy did so or not, he they .were prepared to give to condemn taxes until effect to their resolution.(Hear.) With regar d t o th e second resolution, his objection again to the affi rma ti on o f was extremely strong. He abstract principles of policy not to seek tothe en tirely agreed that we ought restrain cheap periodical press f r om narrating current event by re es,_under any notion th a t th e c h ea p strictions and dut i • dice] press ought to be regarded as otherwise than Pen° • e s a great engine of public instruction capable of being ma and public utility. (goe • r, hear.) He agreed also that newspaperspublic the law relative to taxes onand u pr in ts deserved the attention of world Parliament.act upon the t' e hoped the right hon. gentleman for carrying on e tt l e n p lei tll n c affairs he would act if re sponsible ch bett t public 1' t a d of the country—that it was v_ery er o t iges an mature plans of legislative refoniaat on which they thought cou ld be than to deal in promises w hich were of no value whatever, attended by promises, and which, in except as they were was apt to lag very woefully be hind,asmuch performance would become instruments of popular delusion and, won. though well intended by those who made them, the foun dation of a practice highly derogatory to the public in terests, and the dignity and honour of Parliament, and tend greatly to weaken the confidence dof the people in bli those whom they had entrusted with the charge of pu o affairs. (Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") He begged to move the previous question. Mr. BRIGHT thought that every gentleman who had heard the debate must have come to the conclusion that, at least, " the brains were out," whether the evil com plained of would die or not. (Hear, hear.) The speech of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Gibson) had not had any thing like an answer from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, from the motion with which he had just concluded, it might be presumed that he did not intend, to any se rious extent, to controvert the positions laid down by the right hon. gentleman whose speech was so comprehensive and so logical, and so full of facts that might well carry conviction to every mind, that probably in the whole of our fiscal arrangements there was nothing more stupid— (hear)—whether it was a question of finance or of educa tion, than the whole of this body of legislation which had come to be known as the " taxes on knowledge." (Hear, hear.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer began by admitting that the law as to the stamp duty was very un satisfactory, and he said that, with regard to the case of Bradbury and Evans, the Government would undertake a new bill to define the law more clearly. He appeared a little annoyed at an exclamation which came from that (Mr. Bright's) part of the house, and perhaps it was not quite so courteous as it might have been—(hear)—but the fact was that it was caused by a feeling of amazement that the right honourable gentleman should have got no further than this—(hear, hear)—that with this Government, con- taining men who ought to understand the question thoroughly, he was about to propose a new law to re enact restrictions which would have the same effect upon the general question of the public press as the restrictions now in force. The exclamation was one of amaze ment that he should have proposed to do no more. Yet, towards the end of his speech, he held out, half coaxingly, the hope that the Government would con sider the question of reduetion. But, while ho concluded with that delusive expectation, he commenced with that " fullness of the heart " out of which " the mouth speaketh," by proposing to bring in a bill which should define the law more clearly and exclude Mr. Dickens, care being taken that there should not be an untaxed press throughout the united kingdom. [The Chancellor of the Exchequer was understood to express dissent.] He (Mr. Bright) wished the right hon. gentleman had said that the proposed bill would sweep away those obnoxious laws. With respect to arithmetical calculations, the right hon. gentleman had made as great a blunder as that which he charged against the mover. The Chancellor of the Ex chequer argued as if, of the 166,0001., not more than one third would be received into the Exchequer. But when you had got an establishment with servants engaged and salaries in course of payment; and when you came in the end to a large amount of business, every charge having already been made on the amount of receipts, those receipts were then, for the most part, profit, and increasing profit, to the establishment. His right hon. colleague was there fore fairly entitled to believe that of the 166,0001. at least two-thirds, if not three-fourths, would be profit to the Post-office. (Hear, hear.) The loss to the revenue, then, became insignificant, if not obliterated, when the enormous facility was considered which would be given to business by the proposed alteration. But the Chancellor of the Ex chequer was a Minister of progress. He (Mr. Bright) believed so ; he had no expectation of having any Govern ment in this country again which was not formed of a Ministry of progress. Those who had most pretended otherwise within the last few years were just as fond as others of progress when they found themselves on the Trea sury bench. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was more ingenious than he was likely to prove successful when he attempted to persuade the house that, because the stamp and advertisement duties were reduced some years ago, there was no reason why they should hurry forward—admit ting, however, that the reduction was no reason why they should stay where they were. The right hon. gentleman said the demands for reductions were likely to abolish his office ; but on the wine and the carriage duties the expectation of making up the revenue was stated. It was not till the division become close that the window-tax was abolished. The argument on the taxes to which the resolutions related, as compared with others, was used by all Chancellors of the Exchequer, but this proposition was not brought forward as a question with respect to the existing press, but because those taxes were the instrument by which a much larger amount of press, so to speak, than that which actually did exist, was suppressed and extin guished. Many of the most notorious journals did not wish the house to interfere with the penny stamp duty. One unfortunate result of a tax of the kind was, that it narrowed industry till it became a monopoly in the hands of old-establish.d firms and persons of large capital. He (Mr. Bright) hid that day read a pamphlet, published by the editor of a newspaper, against the motion, but one could not peruse a passage without seeing that the author was looking to his own journal, his own advertisements, his own receipts, the absence of rivalry and competition, and that his own interest had blinded his eyes on the ques tion. The extract of a letter from Lord Brougham to the hon. member for the West Riding, which had been read by his right hon. friend, deserved serious consideration. For those classes of which the agricultural labourers might be taken as constituting the chief portion, a London news paper was too large, too extensive, treating of matters which, to their limited information, were entirely foreign, and which were beyond their understanding. A London newspaper gave them more news than a man such as that had heart or power to read ; he had not broad enough knowledge of history, of geography, of the world, to relish the mass of information to be found in a London newspaper. He wanted something more applicable to his own condition—something more lo cal. Nothing was more true than_ the remark that what a man did know must be made the medium of corn municating information to him ; and when you interested his faculties in a variety of subjects, and enlarged his circle of information, you might at last have an educated people. It was the small news of his own neighbourhood that interested the agricultural labourer ; and that which might be called of inferior quality might be made the vehicle for conveying to him the knowledge of that which was of superior quality. He (Mr. Bright) was glad the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not committed himself to the view taken in the time of Lord Melbourne's Govern ment. So he should have expected from the general libe rality of the right hon. gentleman's ideas, and ho believed the noble lord the member for London took the same view —that it would be unworthy of the present ago to main tain those taxes except on the principle of revenue. There were persons who said, if papers were allowed to circulate as freely as men to get on the top of a barrel and address a crowd, the country would be flooded with pestilent pub licaUons. One met men who used oaths and obscene remarks in their conversation, and desired to avoid them. Would the public prefer what was nauseous and foul to more wholesome mental aliment ? But the latter was denied to them, the former freely allowed. Penny pub lications were permitted to issue with exciting and horrific accounts . of matters, such as stimulated the pas sions, inflamed the imagination, and produced the most evil effects, especially on younger readers. He held in his hand a circular which contemplated this alarming state of things and proposed a remedy. It was issued by the editor of a paper called the True Briton ' who, after acknowledg ing the generous support given to his views by Lord Shaf tesbury and others who were distinguished Christian phil anthropists, proceeded to urge the necessity of having " papers of sound opinion, manly sentiment, and honour able tone, teaching what was right between man and man!" Eut it was explained in other passages which the hon. member quoted, that it was impossible to obtain a circula tion sufficiently extensive, unless clergymen and others pro moted such circulation in their parishes, the reason why the paper did not compete with papers of another class being, that those amazing accounts and exciting topics in which the latter could not be furnished. If to the moral essays were added an account of facts passing in this and other countries, those facts would give a medium through which these good things desired to be taught would be con veyed • and Mr. Abel Heywood, a respectable book se ll er i n Manchester, and a large vendor of cheap publications, said that the good infalliby, in the long run, and, even in a short time, drove out the bad. That circular, dated April 29, 1852, was followed by another on May 6, 1852, which spoke of the desire among the population for whom the paper was intended to have " something that should be fresh every week." Men now resorted to public-houses to get a sight of a newspaper. But every man would have his cheap newspaper on his table every morning, and not only would it be an invitation to him to read, but an invi tation to his wife and children. The art and power of reading would be as entirely possessed by every member of the family as the facility of hearing or of speaking. (Hear, hear.) The publication referred to was described as having a considerable but not a paying sale. The stamp strangled that and many other publica tions equally meritorious, yet it was not suffici en t t o pu t down publications containing the most filthy and abomin able things ever printed, whether as regarded morals, government, or religion. Let them make the press the corrector of the press. An extension of political power could not be prevented, and this of all times was the time when a Government professing a great regard for education should make a bold attempt to settle this question. It was not a question of revenue. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was only half the Minister who ought to have answered. It was a question of education. If the stamp were abolished the circulation of newspapers would in crease probably five times; but, supposing ld. or id. im posed on newspapers entering the Post-office, the amount now levied for stamps would be made up, and probably exceeded. With respect to the paper duty, he did not ask on this occasion that it should be abolished, and thought a Chancellor of the Exchequer might prefer dealing with the soap-tax. The choice might be puzzling ; but the stamp and advertisement duties raised a question which did not materially belong to the office of Chancellor of the Ex chequer. Their removal would be in accordance with the policy on which the noble lord the member for London had set his heart. With the general agreement which existed in the opinion that the people should have no restriction placed on their education, that free discussion was the law of the constitution, and the law of the prevalent religion of this country, he (Mr. Bright) could not believe, after the speech of his right hon. colleague, that the house would permit any Chancellor of the Exche quer for any long period—not, it was to be hoped, beyond this session—to maintain the stamp duty on newspapers and the duty on advertisements. (Hear, hear.) Mr. W. WILLIAMS observed, that the only objection which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had urged against the adoption of these resolutions was, that he could not afford to lose a revenue to the amount of 1,400,0001. The right hon. gentleman calculated that the falling off of the revenue would be equal to the diminution of taxation ; but that was evidently is great error. It had been found by experience that the reduction of a tax diminished the re venue in the proportion only of one-third of the amount of that reduction ; and he would venture to say that if the 1,400,0001. were taken off the fall of revenue would not ex ceed 500,0001. He had shown tho right hon. gentleman how he might greatly increase the revenue by equalising the probate and legacy duties. (A lau.) He wished to make the hon. gentleman who laughed pay as much on his succession to his estate as the poor labourer paid on coming to a legacy. If tho Chancellor of the Exchequer would adopt the plan he (Mr. Williams) had suggested, he might be able to repeal the whole of the 7,000,0001. of taxes which the right hon. gentleman said he had been called upon within the last eight weeks to remit. (" Divide ! divide !") Mr. DANBY SEYMOUR would not detain the house many minutes, but this was a question in which his con stituents took a very deep interest. He rose to express his approval of the resolutions, and hoped the right hon. gentleman who had introduced them would not be deterred from pressing them to a division. Judging from the man ner in which ho had been met, the right hon. gentleman had no reason to fear that his argument wouldwhbiechweha ened in the judgment of the hous e b y the cave been urged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Th a t right hon. gentleman had st a t e d that several had been m present to him during th e t • aPPlicati m 3 maim for a re peal of different descriptions of taxes. The proper answer to give to that argument was, that inasmuch as not one of those applications had been granted, there was the greater reason why the right hon. gentleman the member for Man chester should felicitate himself in the belief that he had made out a stronger case for pressing upon the Government his claim, and for calling upon them to make an exception in his favour. It was not fair to put this question in the same category with the hop duty or the wine duty. It was not a question simply affecting the perishing wants and necessities of the people, but it was one which concerned the education an d th e • intellectual cravings and tastes of the great body of the poorer classes of the community. When, therefore, the right hon. gentleman asked the house to accede to his resolutions, he was making an ap peal to them on higher grounds than those on which any of the other appeals mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer were based. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed very much to disapprove of abstract resolutions. Now, he could not forget the memorable night, soon after he took his seat in that house, when an abstract resolution was mos t a bl y and fully discusscd—whether the free-trade policy was "wise, just, and beneficial"— (hear, hear)—and it appeared to him that the resolutions now before them were equally worthy the attenti on o f th e house. (H ear. ) And what, after all, was it that was now asked ? Not that the house should give a distinct pledge to repeal the whole of the duties mentioned in the resolu tions, for the right lion. gentleman confined himself at pre sent to a sum of 170.0001. only ; but what he asked the house to do was to affirm the principle of the resolutions. No one could deny that the advertisement duty was unjust in its incidence. The rich man who announced a sale, in order to put money into his pocket, could aCord the tax ; but the poor man who wanted employment could not make his wants knowwnithwirtehgoatrl to beingtie stamp i equally a n lly d t u a t a y e o d n . ne l N 7 vs a p s a t p h e a rs t it had been said that som a ec o o t tn ve i d 3en to sa p ti aosns t w h a r s o just ? Then, ugivenh t the rPtohsatt duty by the paper being ll office ; but that compensation was absurdly partial, for, while you might send a paper backwards and forwa.rdsfrom one end of the kingdom to the other by virtue of the penny stamp duty, you could not circulate the same stamped paper within the three miles' district of L on d on without paying postage, in addition to the stamp duty on the paper itself. But it might be said that it was a question affect ing the improved character of the press, and it had been observed that " cheap and nasty" were terms applicable to literature as well as to other things. But experience vin dicated the argument of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Gibson), as the Penny Cyclopedia. Chambers's Journal, and the works of other enterprising publishers throughout the country fully proved. Upon all these grounds he should give his cordial support to the resolutions. (Cries of " Divide !") Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE said he was not disposed to mew) the repeal of the tax on paper for the present, but with regard to the other two duties, he thought that the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had used the most sophistical arguments in answer to the clear , compre hensive, and most conclusive speech of the right hon. mem ber for Manchester. There could be no doubt that at pre sent the country was inundated with a flood of mischievous and pestilential publications, which stimulated the worst passions of the vulgar, and which the house was unable to encounter, because it would not allow salutary publications to be issued on the same terms. Even if such an object as this could be purchased with the sacrifice of a considerable amount of revenue, he would say it was worth the sacri fice ; but when it was proved that this sacrifice would be little, if anything, he was at a loss to conceive how any person holding the character of a statesman, should hesitate to repeal a tax that was so obnoxious and so mischievous. He would not go into the origin of these taxes, but he ap prehended it was admitted on all hands that the intention, when they were first imposed, was to restrain the diffusion of information. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had re pudiated any such intention ; why, then, did he retain the tax ? (Hear.) He thought the right hon. gentleman had urged the objection drawn from the other motions that had been made for a reduction of taxation as lif all these mo 7 tions had been successful. But the facts were not so. He had himself voted with the right hon. gentleman against the other demands that were made upon the Treasury; but here the evil was so great, the sacrifice so small, that he felt it was the duty of every man to record his vote along with the right hon. member for Manchester. He asked no man to vote with the right hon. member who believed that the sacrifice was great, or that the object to be attained was small ; but he had a right to ask those gentleman who thought the sacrifice was little, and that the education of the people was important—he asked, and he had a right to ask them, to convert what was an object of alarm into an instrument of good—he asked those who had made bread cheap to minister to the wants and cravings of our intel lectual nature. (Cheers.) Mr. J. L. RICARDO said the question immediately be fore the house was the repeal of the advertisement duty, and to that proposition the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given no satisfactory answer. Before going to a divi sion, the house was entitled to expect a declaration of the opinion of the Government with respect to the policy of the whole subject. In 1836, Lord Melbourne said he would never consent to decide the question by paltry considera tions of revenue, but would treat it as a great social ques tion. The noble lord the member for London held office under Lord Melbourne at that time, and it would become him to speak out now on that part of the present Govern. ment. The hon. member then expressed his disapproval of Mr. Timm, the solicitor of the Inland Revenue Depart ment, in summoning the vendors of unstamped newspapers instead of their publishers, before police magistrates for infracting the law ; and, in conclusion, he called on the Attorney-General to explain the provisions of the measure which the Government was about to introduce relative to the stamp duty on newspapers. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the publication . against which Mr. Timm had proceeded—and which was issued in the district with which the hon. member who spoke last was connected—was as much a newspaper as the Times, herald, or Chronicle, and it was only fair that it should be subjected to the same stamp duty as was imposed upon these journals. The object of the mea sure which the Government was about to introduce was to remedy certain defects in the stamp law, and to remove the doubt and uncertainty which had been caused by the decision in the Court of Exchequer in the case of a publi cation called the Narrative of Current Events. The bill would insure the payment of the stamp duty by all publi cations which were really newspapers, while it would exempt from it publications like the Narrative of Current Events, which were published at intervals exceeding 26 days. After a few words from Mr. WILKINSON in support of the 'notion, Lord J. RUSSELL reminded the house that the Chan cellor of the Exchequer had shown that he had been called upon to repeal taxes to the amount of 7,009,009/. before ho had had an opportunity of making his financial statement. It was said, on the other hand, that the house had not sanctioned any of the proposals which had been made for the remission of taxation. Very true ; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked the house to pursue the same course on the present occasion—(" Hear" and laughter)— and to leave him at liberty to explain on Monday next the manner in which he thought it desirable to proceed rela tive to the remission of taxes. This seemed to be a rea sonable request, and one which the house ought to accede to. On the other hand, it could not be a matter of sur prise that the right hon. member for Manchester, being strongly impressed with the idea that the taxes under con sideration were injurious to the country, should bring the subject under the consideration of the house and enforce his views with the ability which belonged to him. The right hon. gentleman brought his three propositions under the consideration of the house last year, and the house then rejected them by a considerable majority. Tho propositions must be considered separately, for they stood on different ground, and the general term " taxes on knowledge" was not one which, by any latitude of construction, could be properly applied to the duties referred to in the resolutions. Hear, hear.) As to the duty on advertisements, the right hon. member had very truly stated that it interfered with the general business of the country—with the requirements of those who wished to obtain situations, to dispose of pro perty—in short, with all transactions connected with buy ing and selling. (Hear, hear.) It might be said that the tax was not of large amount, but it interfered with the business of the country. Besides it was a third tax ; first, there was the tax on paper, then the stamp duty on the newspaper, and, thirdly, the d u t y on a d vertisements. The right hon. gentleman's other propositions stand on different ground. It was said that the tax on news papers was intended as a restraint on the diffusion of useful information. If that were really the object of the tax, it would be inconsistent with the policy of the country. (Hear.) Let information he diffused as widely as possible, and let people form their opinion according to all the lights they could obtain. For his part, he looked upon the stamp duty as a tax imposed for the purpose of revenue, rather than of restraint. The argument on the other side was pushed too far, and the benefit which might be expected from the repeal of the duty was exceedingly exaggerated. (Hear.) Could it be seriously maintained that the removal of the duty would encourage moral and religious publications, and yet afford no advantage and facility to persons who wished to issue publications of an opposite character? It, unfortunately, could not be denied that there was a portion of the community to whom publications intended to appeal to the imagination and excite the passions were more attractive than publications of a moral and religious nature. (Hear.) He confessed he could not see that any great advantage would be gained by the repeal of the news paper duty, and he believed that Lord Brougham's idea of newspapers being circulated throughthecountry by hawkers would not, under those circumstances, be realised. As to the papers which were sold at 5d., and of which the stamp formed one-fifth of the cost, it was that price which ena bled the proprietors to obtain, at great expense, authentic information of what was going on in the world ; and, if that information was to be obtained, it was not likely that the price would be much reduced. As to the third ques tion, respecting the Excise duties, an hon. gentleman had stated that he was not sure, in the event of a proposal being made for the repeal of the duties on soap and the duties on paper, which of the two he would ho choose. gentleman was in this state of doubt , was If unable ihe h ° IC; r u e n s d ol e u ra t t io an n d . how he pea c r o e i d ild be ready to vote for sstble th th a e t t g hd e ir n. n tl p em th en eir sho m u i l n d d v s ot n e p a e g n ai t n h s e t a su t b a r ee N t v . hen ßu t t he w y h h a a t d h n e o w t made thechiefly EExchequer o c h e p ci u n t e to wouldt hehouse a was,ke his that fi.n s a n s n itahle statement Chancellor on f e a e ir ns ti3 d w era ard tt s en hi o m f , a o n n t (Hear, hear.) part Monday o f the ne x L i s t e, w t o o ul e d n t h e a r r u d p l that the i Government, and yonbe t a h t time . im portanton He t asked,heta part x t therefore. withinetfho the e p fi . e vo r en s o d n tahy h es ol Po d af i rt ng o the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, that in these circumstances the house should not without any necessity decide upon any question a ffecting the taxation of the country. (Hear, hear.) ISRAELI said, the noble lord h av i ng referred to the discussion of last o s ti c o x n eu n s e e a h rl i y m si f m or il m ar ak t o. 3 - 77-. D th e present, the house would perhaps motion ing one or two observations on th e subject. He could qu i te understand and sympathise with the feelings expressed by her Majesty's Ministers generally on 'notions of this kind. Ho and his colleagues had, when in of f ice, to consider a si milar proposition to the present with the same responsibi lity. They had to consider, with regard to the three taxes which the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Gibson), in a speech of signal ability, h a d that evening brought befor e th e h ouse, consider thi s what cour se th ey ought to pursue, and th ey h ad aLso to question before the announcement of the budget. He consulted Lord Derby and th e res t of his col ject, and he endeavoured to conveyto the house the impressions and conclusions at which they had arrived, and the principles which guided Lord Derby and his colleagues in the conclusions to which they came. Objectionable as the tax on paper, in their opinion, was, they did not think that, on the whole, in the present state of our financial system or of the Excise duties, it would kayo Dem; prudent, On that and other ooheideratione, at. all to approach the subject of the duties on paper with a view to a repeal. That was the conclusion which he conveyel to the house ; but he said then, as he would now say, that they opposed the two other taxes with very different feel ings—that they recognised a great difference between the duty on advertisements, and the stamp on newspapers, and. the Excise duties on paper. (Hear, hear.) They also were of opinion that there was a great difference between th duty on advertisements and the stamp on newspapers. fi t , said, then, that they acknowledged, especially with respect to the duty on advertisements, that it was one of so grave a character that it must receive the attention of the house. (Hear, hear.) He asked the house, however, to postpone their decision on the subject ; and fortunate was the Chan cellor of the Exchequer who could induce a majority of that house to support him in postponing the declaration of their opinion till after the declaration of his—(hear, hear)—bu.: ho must remind the house that he confessed frankly that he considered it a great emergency, and that he informed them they were not to suppose that he thought no person was to propose a measure for the remission of taxes but the Chancellor of the Exchequer. (Hear.) That would be an extremely dangerous doctrine, sad one that he hoped all sides would be careful not to admit. (Hear.) Acting upon the opinion which, on the part of the Government of Lord Derby, he was the organ of communicating to the house, he had to consider the question, especially of the duty on advertisements ; and it was the opinion of himself and his colleagues that no time should be lost in proposing the repeal of that duty to the House of Commons. (Hear, hear.) At a subsequent period, however, circumstances over which they had no control led to an increase of the estimates, and made it necessary for hint to ask a supple mentary estimate, so that it was necessary to revoke that immediate decision. (Hear, from Lord J. Russell.) If the noble lord supposed that he was making a declaration in that house that was not maintained by facts, he could only say he would not have presumed to refer to anything that occurred in council, or in private conversation ' • but it would be recollected that a d e p u t a ti on wa it e d on Lord Derby, and that all that was said by him was said by Lord Derby on that occasion. (Cheers.) That being the case, and having shown to the house by a reference to this cir cumstance that there was a sincere determination on the part of the late Government to teminate the duty on all advertisements, he was now called on to look to the cir cumstances of the existing Government as to their ability to meet a demand of that kind. (Hear, hear.) The house would recoll ec t th at the duty on advertisements did not come up to the sum of 180,00/. a-year. Now, the knew from the published revenue accounts on the table that the surplus now at the command of the Minister was more than that which he had, he must be allowed to say, pru dently estimated. He hoped it would not be considered a flagrant estimation on his part that he had gone upon that calculation of a less revenue than it would appear had. been 'actually realised. (Hear, hear.) He must, there fore, impress on this house these facts—that the surplus was greater than last year, and that the amount of adver tisement duty they had to deal with was unquestionably less than 180,0001. Were they justified, then, in dealing with the first resolution of the right honourable gen tl eman ? His opinion was that they were not justified in dealing with the third resolution. Totally omitting from hi s consideration all those political and moral questions which the right hon. gentleman had brought before them, and looking at the subject merely in a financial point of view, he did not think they were justified in dealing with the third resolution, which involved a question of so much re. venue. In the first place, he must repeat the opinioe w wi et h to h b e e ecxonpresidsseereddlaasstfisyceaalra u t t h i a e t s a a n ll d th n e o s t e hing three sis d e, u a ti n es o t that, o l n oo si k d i e n r g at a i t on th o e f q a u n es a t in io o n u as nt o o n f e n o o f t tr s a t. T a n n , it involved with( ea r t , he hear.) first e resolution,proposed advertisements, and which involved a sum of less than wh which was he present to rep eal n t a thenc ins t ance to y de a l o on 180,0001. (Cheers.) Now, what was the principal argu ment that had been brought forward by the noble lord on this subject? If there was an inference that could be com pletely drawn from it it was this, that no proposition for the repeal of a tax should be made before the budget, an what chance a proposition of this kind would have after the budget he left the house to decide. (Cheers.) If they sanctioned the proposition of the noble lord, that the Ad ministration of the day should possess the privilege and monopoly of proposing the remission of all taxes, he asked the house to consider well what would be the effect of such a principle. (Hear.) Let them take any taxes the remis sion of which were acknowledged generally to have pro duced benefit to the community, and he asked if their repeal had been proposed by the Ministers or by pri vate members of the house? (Hear, hear.) Why, it. it was only after repeated discussions, and after public opinion had decided in f avour o f their repeal, that it. became the policy of the Minister. (Hear, hear.) It was so with the motions introduced by Lord Althorn and other gentlemen after the peace. (Hear.) Look at the repeal of. the taxes on leather and other articles. The motions for carrying out these objects were not made first by the Go vernment, but by country gentlemen ; and it was only after a course of long-sustained argument that these remis sions were adopted. He need not refer to still more for cible instances in modern times—in times in which they themselves lived, and in the house in which they them• selves sat. Were those taxes repealed in accordance with steps first taken by the Government ? Was the repeal not, on the contrary, adopted by Ministers frequently against their convictions, or after conversions as singular as they were sudden? (Hear.) He thought, then, that the proposition which the noble lord had so strongly im pressed upon them that night was one of a most dangerous character, and one against which the house ought most carefully to guard, if it regarded itself as being something more than an assembly that had only to register the de crees of the Minister, and he didnot think that was a posi tion which any gentleman there would be willing to take. (Hear.) He would recommend the house, then, to deal. with the opportunity before them with great moderation an great temper. He did not ask them to come to any extra vagant vote that he would not sanction himself, but ha asked them to support the repeal of the advertisement duty. That might not satisfy the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his friends, but his business was not to satisfy the right hon. gentleman and his friends—(hear)—but to do that which in all the circumstances was most prudent and politic—to take that course which was most beneficial to the country. (Hear, hear.) He was not of the opinion that the press of country could be too free. (Cheers.) He knew that, is the press was now constituted, it was considered that its agency and its efforts were not favourable to the opinions he and his friends held or the views they advocated. It was more probable that a press eminently utilitarian, and which appealed only to reason, would exercise its influence against them, but a Conservative press was not only a. press that appealed to reason, or ought to do so, but was one that appealed to the feelings ; therefore if its power were greater, its influence more extensive, and its agen 'y more diffused, it would be in proportion more valuable and more influential. (Hear.) But he was now speaking on the general theme. He looked at the first resolution of the right hon. gentleman, and he saw thatii recommended a policy which he believed to be sound and beneficial, an.i which, both when he was in opposition, and when i more responsible position, he advocated and uphold. (Hear.) He did not think they ever could advance wits the general question that had been opened to their con sideration that night if they missed the present opportu • nity, and therefore he recommended the house to support the rsght hon. gentleman in his first resolution, and settle for ever the repeal of the duties on advertisements. (Hear, hear.) Mr: S. HERBERT should be sorry if the house were t , l divide under the impression of the statement made by the right hon. gentleman who had just sat down. (Hear, hear.) In consequence of a cheer which came, from his noble friend near him, the right hon. gentleman, in a tone of some indignation, asserted what no one denied, that to a deputation which waited on Lord Derby and himself last year, they expressed their abstract opinion in favour of th o repeal of th e a d ver ti sement duty. (Hear.) But abstract opinion unfortunately was sometimes overruled by great financial necessities—(cheers)—and the right hon. gentle man, holding this abstract opinion, did not think it neces sary when he prop ose d his budget—(cheers)— did not think it necessary to repeal that duty, or, even when the repeal of this tax was proposed, to express any very strong opinion in favour of a modification—(hear)—but to every one of the propositions for repealing these taxes he and the gen tlemen acting with him were opposed. (Hear, hear.) Is his budget there was no proposal for a repeal of this tax but was that all that took place? That budget dived som :. nir : ,t 1 hsryaistnnnt distance into futurity, but the "abstract opinion" wa-. not brought to bear upon any part of the right hon. gentleman's future financial policy. (Hear, hear.) And what did he ask the house to do now ? The financial state• ment was coming on next Monday, and he told them not to imagine that the surplus of the current year was to be judged of by the past, but that there was to be a larger surplus, and therefore the proposition of the right hon. member for Manchester should be acceded to. (Hear.) Now he would not anticipate the statement of the Chanoellor of the Exchequer, but no one would imagine that ho would have a surplus as large as that of the right hon. gentlemen last year. It was the height of ingenuity and unfairness to say that, though ho and his friends, when in office, hwi a larger surplus to deal with than now existed, and refused to adopt any proposal for the repeal of this tax, yet the present Government, though their surplus was smaller, were bound to repeal the tax. (Hear.) Ho hoped the house would not be led away by the mis-statement that had been made. They had heard the explanation of his s i partyte, t'e who a hopedr ight hon. they sufficientfn . 0, n. gentleman confidenceo f t he tos E a c h m.t ei. wgnq appe are der carried: ah , ht a it ohe n s hot a ct u a htlhie(a Have went not to embarrass the financial exposition w had to make by a previous vote for the repeal of any par ticular tax. (Hear, hear.) iphbyeatwhmyoeulmmd,bitehbrsetohnpeopoobjects for h d e r w et h u te r h n of thei r would give hadvo e r i . v no 'l b i . e BALL cordial A would Lr o d r re s l i a n j r c o e c i t their friends to power. ea re u a s s e on th f e o r r e t w he as ch a an ch g a e n o e f e o o p f ini i arrived. He would not support the resolution. before the merely Mr. which c ttleitir vote ta N er ofe said, w ` ha se Divide u h If the hon. gentlemuna d on which the right bon. member for Manchester could ever hope to get his sn (A. laugh. n was always to act on that principle,then the only gro would be by his l h a a o s u g t s r e a . , n :b e e &jig aßlarantee that he would accept the offers of assista minority. The question was, would they advertisement duty be PPo in r: tance with all his y heart. 9 carr y the first propositions as to the too true that when hon. gen(Chtlemeeeran. side of the house tonee from gentlemen on the other must say he accepted their assis )wenltt was, s u nhappily, eoo and took up their seatson the left of the Speaker's chair, they became more p rolific in promises and more liberal in their professions an when they were on the other side of the house ; and this rule applied equally to gentlemen now on the Treasury benches. But the experience of 12 or 33 years in that house had convinced him that if anything were to be done for the country, there was but one waylof getting it, and that was for the party who took up a ques tion to avail themselves of any party in that house who would help them. (Hear, hear.) They had been talking as if the repeal of the penny stamp were about to pro duce a great number of penny publications ; but the fact was, that the penny weekly and monthly periodicals al ready exceeded in numbers all the others put together. The character of these cheap publications was not the moat desirable for the instruction of their readers, for it was al, most wholly imaginative, in the absence of all allusion k the current events of the day. Mr. Heywood, of Man • chester, one of the largest vendors of cheap literature in the kingdom, stated before the select committee that he sold 100 per week of the Black Monk, 100 of the Blighted Heart (a laugh), 100 of the Bridal Ring, 550 of iie_f;: t, .Duval, 50 of the Hangman's Daughter (a laulj.,) o , Bo " we it,7 a lt numbers of other works of the same class Th ese kind of literature Parliament forcingwasn ' a n upo d drat 3 theat was t p h l es e novels, issued weekly at the price of lel : ; to insert in their columns Xaatt Q (hear, hear), because they would not oftfaaclitowmithetheeicourzurnals