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

London, January, 1855.

Sir,—The subject on which you have addressed
me may be looked at in two lights—first, as regards
the financial justice of the change proposed, or rather
the financial injustice of the law as itstands ; secondly,
in relation to the effect which will probably ensue
from that change—l say " probably," for on this
point we can arrive at no certain conclusion—on the
general nature and character of the British press.
Of these two questions, the first appears to me by
far the most important. I might go farther, and say
it is the only one which in strict justice ought to be
considered; for, whether it be or be not true that the
newspapers of this country are, as you affirm, " incom-
" parably the best in the world," it is certain that a
financial measure having for its object either to give
to the proprietors of those newspapers a special and
exceptional privilege, or to take from them one which
they share with other members of the community
similarly circumstanced, would outstep the limits of
equity. The Minister who lays on an income tax
does not relieve one class of men from their share of
that impost because, as a class, they are in the habit
of spending their incomes judiciously, nor does he
tax another class doubly because they are habitually
wasteful or imprudent. Finance arbitrarily exer-
cised becomes mere confiscation by a legal process,
and to turn it to a political use, for the artificial
enrichment of one set of men and impoverish-
ment of another, is tyranny in its most naked
form. For instance, if a tax were laid on in-
comes, according to an ascending scale of ten, twenty,
thirty, forty per cent., so that no income of more than
if,'

nity require, or can in any case sanction, the denial
of right to the individual.
I assert, therefore, that the second question raised
by you, that of the effect upon the press of the pro-
posed repeal of the stamp duty, is one really beside
the matter in hand. Either the duty as now levied
is fair, or it is unfair. If fair, cadit quastio, the
case for the prosecution breaks down, and further
defence becomes superfluous. If unfair, the law
stands already condemned ; and arguments drawn
from the alleged success of its working can be
pleaded only in palliation of its past, not in defence
of its continued existence. Into that second topic,
therefore, I shall only go so far as is needful to
dispel some prejudices and exaggerated apprehen-
sions. The real battle must be fought on other
ground—viz., on the two questions—(l.) Is the
stamp law just? (2.) If not, can it be replaced by
one that shall be so? To the consideration of these

moot points I proceed.
The existing duty, as everyone knows, consists of
a uniform charge of one penny, levied on all publica-
tions containing " news," and appearing oftener than
once in twenty-six days. This duty, as I believe all
persons will allow, is not, in the strict sense of the
word, a tax. In that respect, I admit, the name
popularly given to it involves an erroneous idea.
For a tax, being defined, signifies a charge imposed
on persons or property for the purposes of adminis-
tration generally—excluding thus the idea of any
special service, save and except that general one of
government, being performed in return. Now, in
the case of the stamp duty, there is a specific and
definite equivalent—namely, the transmission of the

Government should be doubly cautious that all the
conditions of equity are fulfilled. It is bound, and
its defenders are bound, to show that, bating snub
trivial irregularities as no nicety of human law can
wholly remedy, the price paid is in each case pro-
portionate to the value of the service rendered; the
service being, moreover, efficient and the price mode-
rate. Here, then, the issue narrows to one of fact.
1 do not apprehend that any previous step of my
reasoning will be objected to. It will be allowed
(1) that the justice of the law is the one thing mate-
rial to be proved or disproved ; (2) that the news-
paper stamp is a postal charge; (3) that a postal
charge ought to be regulated according to the
definition just laid down.

Does the uniform penny stamp comply with the
three conditions therein stated? (1.) Is tiff. postal
service, as regards newspaper transmission, effi-
cient? (2.) Is it cheap? (3.) Is "the price paid
" in each case proportionate to the value of the
" service rendered "? On the first and second of
these queries I raise no cavil. I have never heard a
complaint that newspapers are not safely and
speedily delivered; and, as regards the other n+•
quisite, I do not dispute your statement that the
Post-office loses rather than gains by undertaking
their carriage. As between the Post office and the
press, so far is the latter interest from having any-
thing to complain of, that it receives some advantage
by the transmission of its publications under the
cost price of such transmission. The inequality, the
wrong, which I complain of, lies elsewhere. It con-
sists in an unfair advantage given to one class of
journals over another by the Post-office arrange-
ments. It falls under the third head of inquiry—

~,
,
thirty, forty per cent., so that no income of more than definite equivalent—namely, the transmission of the journals over another by the Post-office arrange-
-1,0001. a year could exist—or contrarywise, if, as in stamped journal through the Post-office without menus. It falls under the third head of inquiry—
France before the revolution, the estates of the nobi- farther charge. The impost is, in fact (though the price in each case is not proportionate to the
bility were exempted from all taxation, with a view originally devised with a very different intention), a service given in return; therefore, the enforced
to the permanence and power of their order—every postal charge, and is usually spoken of and defended bargain is unfair. There are several modes of meet-
rational man would say, "Here is an abuse of the as such. ing a charge of this kind. It may be denied, if that
" fiscal power—a violation of the elementary laws by This fact, 1 think, materially simplifies the ques- be possible; the fact may be defended, or rather ex.
" which financial operations are guided." You pro- tion at issue. It is not easy—some hold that it is cubed, as involving only a slight wrong, which is
bably admit as much. If so, I say act upon your own not possible—to adjust with mathematical accuracy compensated by manifest expediency ;or it may be
rule. Strike out as surplusage all these declamations the incidence of taxation, so that each man shall regretted, but represented as inevitable. Let U 9
about the impending ruin of respectable journals, contribute to the State-chest just as much relatively examine these defences one by one.
and the establishment in their place of an inferior to his means as his neighbour, neither More nor Denial of the fact will, I presume, not be at-
tempted. I have by me a small advertising sheet
and dangerous class of literature. Argue this ques- loss. But about the rules which should govern the
which appears in a neighbouring town (to save the
tion fairly. Consider, not whether the present law imposition of a postal charge there can be no two
law) monthly ; and which, but for the operation of
is necessary to the support of existing journals, but opinions. Government undertakes to do that which the law, would probably appear fortnightly, if not
whether it is strictly and abstractly equitable. If would otherwise be done by private enterprise; for weekly.
Its weight, to judge by the quantity of
you are compelled to concede this point—if you allow the general convenience, it claims and asserts a paper which it contains, does not exceed one.
that there is a real inequality, a real injustice, and monopoly; the public, in return, demands that its twentieth that of the Times when the latter appears
yet contend that to avoid certain political results it service be efficient, its charges moderate and equal. with its full sixteen pages of print.. But it needs no
must be maintained on its present footing—we shall It is a bargain—an exchange—between the State on reference to special instances to prove that a journal
at least know on what ground we stand. A fallacy the one side and individual citizens on the other; it which is the organ of a small community, whether
plainly stated is half refuted ; and, in tke opinion of is, moreover, a bargain in which, by the authority of rural or urban, will be very unequal in bulk to the
all thinking men, it is a fallacy, and a grave one, to one of the contracting parties, the other is forbidden great metropolitan journals which circulate theassh•
affirm that what is financially inequitable can be po- to go into the open market and accept any offer from out England. Yet the two are charged equally for is
litically 14(111,01e, that the exigencies of the commu- other parties. In making such a compact, therefore, conveyance, though twenty numbors of the one only -..--
0014,
,
. .
'•—. - _ . .
.
. -....----. .