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

THE PRESS.

faced, before long. At the worst, all that the repeal
of the stamp duty can do in regard of it is a little to
hasten the time of parliamentary interference. Ido
not see in what way this result can be regarded as
a formidable evil.

One more argument remains to be dealt with. It
is contended by the advccates of the present system

that the privilege of retransmission (i. e., of sending
the same newspaper backwards and forwards through
the Post-office during seven days) is inseparably con-
nected with that part of the law which requires every
newspaper to be stamped. The connection, however,
is not obvious, except so far as that the boon ac-
corded to the public on the one hand is pleaded as a
set-off for the injustice done to a section of the
public on the other. As a matter of justice, I per-
ceive no claim that newsvenders can set up to send
their, comparatively bulky, packets seven times
through the post at the cost of a penny each, while
a letter, for the same sum, travels but once.
But if, as a matter of convenience, the public desires
to have it so, no grave objection can exist, seeing
that the tax-paying community and the newspaper-
reading community are now pretty nearly, and will, in
time, become still more nearly, coextensive. They
are only paying out of one pocket instead of the other;
the result is the same. But there is no reason why
the gratuitous retransmission of newspapers should
he stopped when the stamp is made optional
instead of compulsory. The two regulations no way
interfere with one another. It is true that, as the
local journals (which would probably borrow much of
their political matter from the metropolitan journals
of the day before) increased in number, the demand
for retransmission of these latter would most likely
diminish.« But this is a remote and doubtful con-

[SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1855.

tingency (for the prestige of the metropolitan press
is great, and would remain), and, in any case, a sim-
ple result of free competition with which the law has
no right to interfere.
To the vague and angry declamation of those who
cry, " You want to pull down English journalism and
" substitute an American press in its place," I scarcely
hold it worth while to reply. The plain answer is--
like people like press. The American press (which,
by the way, does not by any means universally de-
serve the bad character given to it in this country)
reflects, faithfully enough, the prevailing sentiment
of American citizens. It is democratic—so are they,
If it is often vulgar, violent, abusive, addicted to
braggadocio, and credulous of marvels—these are
exactly the faults, a little exaggerated in the copy,
ing, of a young and growing nation, in which mate.
rial prosperity has advanced faster than the arts and
refinements of life. If in the English mind there
be a corresponding state of feeling, by all means let
it be exposed rather than concealed. An evil fully
brought to light is half remedied. But, in truth, the
English character differs widely from the American ;
and a popular press, though ultimately it may help in
forming, must follow, and be suited to, the bias of
the popular mind.
But (I repeat it once again) all these considerations
of the result of enfranchising the press are apart
from the main point in dispute. The real questions
on which the support or rejection of the stamp law
must turn are twofold. First, is the law just from a
fiscal point of view ? Secondly (if that query be an-
swered in the negative), admitting it to be unjust,
are you prepared to maintain this injustice for the
sake of a political result—in other words, to affirm
the principle of a censorship ?