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

SATURDAY,

newspaper press of England cannot make live and
live anything else than ten, nor falsify a problem in
Euclid. But it is not necessary, in order to reply to

you, to censure Mr. Gladstone. A tax, as I before

_
said, is one thing ; a postal charge another. A tax,
taken by itself, *►ay be inequitable in the highest
degree; yet, as founing part of a general system of
taxation, it may be perfeetly fair. Its injurious inci-
dence on one class may be balanced by a correspond-

ing exemption of that class in some other respect ;

and thus the general account, as between tax-payer
and tax-gatherer, be squared. But in the case of a
postal charge, no suoh compensation exists ; and the
case which you defend is that of an unequal postal
charge. Can you show that the small journals,

crushed under tenfold weight of taxation, receive

any compensating advantage from other sources ?

If not, what is your parallel worth ?
I affirm, therefore, with a confidence unshaken,
and unshakeable by any plea to the contrary which
I have either heard or read, (1) that for equal ser-
vice rendered by the Post-office in different cases,
unequal sums are charged, while the injured party,
being restrained by the postal monopoly, is forbidden

to make a better bargain elsewhere; (2) that in

point of justice no defence of this enormous in-
equality can be set up ; (3) that this question, like
every other in which financial interests are involved,

is to be decided on equitable grounds alone, without

reference to possible political results. " Truth has
"nothing to do with consequences," was the noble
reply of a philosopher when warned that an opinion
which he had logically worked out might be held to
endanger orthodox faith; "justice has nothing to do
" with consequences," should be the rule of a
financier, who, unless he acts on some such rule,
becomes merely a licensed plunderer of the public.
But, having first entered the above protest, I
am willing to consider dispassionately the probable
results of a modification of the law. And here, as
is natural, I find the greatest amount of opposition
on the part of those averse to a change—it being
easier to speculate on prospective and uncertain
effects than to vindicate a system such as that which
we have been considering. The first objection
raised is reasonable enough. It takes the form of
a question. " You complain of the stamp law as
" unjust—how do you propose to mend it? You have
" exposed the unfairness of the existing postal
" scheme—now substitute one of you own." This,
no doubt, it is incumbent on a would-be reformer to
attempt. He who pulls down, is pledged to build
up again ; though, be it said in passing, that if the
working of a law be manifestly and indisputably
unjust, any citizen living under it has a right to
expose that injustice, without being necessarily
bound by such protest to suggest the fitting
remedy. Otherwise would all men's tongues be
tied on the subject of their grievances, save only
those of professional statesmen. Yet, as mere com-
plaint is always easy, remedial legislation often
difficult, I allow that the former without the latter
becomes of little value ; and I readily accept the
challenge thrown out by adopting in part the pro-
position of the Committee of 1851, in part that
which you yourself suggest.
The evils demonstrated to exist are mainly
three :-
1. Undue favoritism towards the large or metro-
politan journals by the privilege of gratuitous retrans-

mission.
2. Undue favoritism towards the large journals by
the uniform charge for all weights.
3. Injury to the local journalist by compelling him
to pay for the post-office which he does not use.
Of these grievances you propose to remove, or at
least greatly to alleviate, the second by the simple
plan of increasing the charge for heavier and re-
ducing it for lighter weights. Here we entirely con-
cur. Some additional labour would no doubt be im-
posed on the Post-office, and possibly some opportu-
nities of fraud afforded. Bnt your proposal is merely
a carrying out of the principle already adopted in the
case of letters, and its obvious fairness entitles it to
adoption. It involves no insuperable, nor, indeed,
' any considerable, mechanical difficulty. I cannot,
however, acquiesce in the farther suggestion that
papers like the Athenaum, concerning which it is