The Press.
London, England, 1854-06-03 00:00:00

JUNE 3, 1854.

in this question more serious even than the interest
of the consumer ; and that is, how far our treatment
of the planters of Ceylon accords with our present
commercial system of perfect equality and unre-
stricted competition. Do the planters of Ceylon
compete on equal terms with the growers of chicory ?
Is it just to tax coffee and leave chicory• untaxed,
when the latter is sold as an avowed substitute for
the former ? Whatever answer the economists of the
Treasury bench may be able to give to these ques-
tions, we think Lord ToanzsoroN will echo the pub-
lic voice when he asks why the system which pre-
vailed under Lord DERBY'S Government has been
abrogated and another introduced which facilitates
the fraudulent substitution of chicory for coffee,
and, whilst it injures both the planter of Ceylon and
the home consumer, diminishes the revenue and is
profitable only to the dishonest tradesman and the
grower of chicory ?

ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL LAW.
THE principle of the Habeas Corpus Act is that no
one shall be imprisoned without just cause, and,
what is the same thing, that the trial of a prisoner
lawfully committed shall not be delayed longer than
is absolutely necessary. 'When that act was passed,
judges of assize, the bar, the attorneys, and their
clerks rode circuit in a body, with clanking swords by
their sides and pistols in their holsters to ensure their
personal safety. In those days there was good reason
why assizes should be rarely held ; but is there any
reason why we should adhere to ancient usages now,
when, instead of slowly riding through an agricultural
population, thinly sprinkled over a country only par-
tially reclaimed from the forest or the waste, we are
whirled rapidly through a " million-peopled " land ?
Yet so it is that our mode of " delivering the gaols "
remains in the reign of Queen VICTORIA substantially
the same as it was in the days of CHARLES 11. Mr.
LATHOII BROWNE, a barrister, has addressed a
letter on this subject to the Lunn CHANCELLOR, con-
taining several suggestions which are welt deserving
of consideration. Mr. BROWNE states emphatically,
" If we would do justice truly, our anise and set
" sions courts must be held more frequently. But
" before we arrive at this step can we not do some-
" thing to mitigate the present difficulties?" Mr.
BROWNE does not propose violently to revolutionise
our system of administering criminal justice, or even
to introduce new judicial machinery, but he simply
suggests that we should more fully avail ourselves of
the means at our disposal. About a third of the pri-
soners who are committed for trial plead guilty at the
sessions and the assizes, and often receive merely a
nominal punishment, because, in the opinion of the
judge, the imprisonment they have already under-
gone meets the requisitions of public justice. When
the formal punishment thus follows the offence
at a long interval the connection between cause
and effect is lost, and the judge, instead of being
regarded with awe and terror, is hailed by
the criminal as a wished-for friend, releasing a
wronged and injured man from unjust imprison-
ment. And he may be correct in his view ;
the imprisonment may have been substantially
unjust. To remedy this Mr. BROWNE proposes to allow
prisoners to plead guilty before magistrates ; then to
remit the depositions to the chairman of quarter
sessions, or, in assize cases, to the judge who last
acted in the county, who may pronounce a sentence,
the operation of which will at once commence. With
some qualification, we do not. see any prinwl facie
objection to this plan, but we would scarcely allow a
plea of guilty to be taken unless the prisoner had
previously enjoyed the benefit of legal advice. No
warrant of attorney is valid unless before its execu-
tion it has been read over and explained to the person
whom it will affect by an attorney acting on his be-
half, and in criminal cases a similar precaution
should be taken.
It is quite possible that a man charged with an
offence may think himself guilty when he really is
not. Thus there are many cases in which it would
not be easy to distinguish between burglary and
robbery, stealing and embezzling, justifiable homi-
cide, manslaughter, and murder. Nay, more, a man
may plead guilty and yet utter a wilful falsehood.
On the northern circuit a prisoner was arraigned on
a charge of murder, and he pleaded guilty. Not-
withstanding his plea the prisoner was tried. There
was nothing improbable in the hypothesis of his
guilt. It was proved that he was near the place
where the body was found about the time when death
occurred, and his confession was coherent in all
Particulars ; yet the jury, with the approbation of
the judge, acquitted the prisoner, on the express
ground that they did not believe him. The man was
probably insane, but, if he was, his insanity was not
apparent on a cursory examination. But, although
he does not say so, Mr. BROWNE probably means to
exclude from his proposal all cases where the law
may be difficult or the punishment grave. Again,

THE PRESS.

further to facilitate the administration of justice, Mr.
BROWNE suggests that the office of recorder should
be made useful instead of being, as it now is, in a
vast majority of instances, a mere honorary sinecure.
There are more than a hundred boroughs in England
boasting a recorder. In seventeen of these in the
year 1852 the average number of prisoners was
twenty-three, but in many of them the criminal
population is represented by numbers varying from
one to ten. For example : one recorder tries, on an
average, a prisoner and a half at each session. Yet a
grand jury and petty jury are summoned and
sworn on each occasion. "Well, gentlemen, here we
" are—twenty-four of us to one poor duck," were the
words with which a learned judge, who has a keen
eye for the ridiculous, commenced his charge to the
grand jury at an assize town in Wales when there
was only one prisoner for trial. Mr. BROWNE pro-
poses, regardless of ancient boundaries, to increase
the area over which the jurisdiction of the recorders'
courts extends. Certainly precedents for this exist
both in the constitution of the Central Criminal
Court, and also, if we mistake not, in the case of the
municipal authorities of Liverpool, who possess an
authority over the opposite coast of Cheshire co-
ordinate with that of the magistrates of Cheshire.
But a general measure of this kind would require
the most careful deliberation.
The subject has, we believe, already attracted
the attention of Parliament ; and to us it appears
to be an instance in which an ancient system
will be really conserved, and virtually restored to
its pristine state, by adapting machinery designed in
a remote age to the altered circumstances of the
present period.

THE NEWSPAPER STAMP.
(From a Correspondent.)
IT is impossible to deny that the question of cheap
journalism has made progress in public opinion.
The virtual defeat of Ministers on Mr. Milner Gib•
son's motion, the fact that in that debate no single
voice was raised to defend the existing law, and the
subsequent letter of Lord Stanley, indicating the
feelings of a portion, at least, of the Conservative
party, are all significant of the actual state of popular
sentiment. It seems, therefore, expedient to con-
sider, without prejudice, how far tht, interests of
Conservatism are bound up in the maintenance or
repeal of the stamp duties in their present form.
That these duties are fiscally important the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer himself has denied. In fact,
rightly regarded, they are not a tax. They are a
postal charge, which is quite a different thing. In
the former case the profit accruing to Government is
the first, generally Or) sole, consideration. Other
results are insignificant in comparison ; and the
practice of late years affirms a principle, perhaps too
broadly laid down, that in matters of taxation no
circumstance shall be taken into account except the
justice of the proposed impost, and the economy and
ease with which it may be collected. But where
postal service is concerned the case appears to be
exactly reversed. Here the main object is to take in
hand and perform certain duties which are beyond
the reach of individual contractors; the fair profits
of the transaction remaining in the hands of Govern-
ment, but those profits being reduced to the lowest
amount compatible with the self-support of the en-
terprise undertaken. This rule, since Mr. Rowland
Hill's reforms, has been strictly adhered to. Large
as is the surplus revenue of the Post-office, it cannot
be reduced without actual loss being incurred by the
concern. For a three-farthing stamp on letters
would cause more inconvenience than it saved ex-
pense ; and the positive cost of sorting and convey-
ance exceeds one halfpenny. The rate in force,
therefore, though incidentally profitable, is the lowest
that can be imposed without admitting the principle
of a gratuitous or partly gratuitous transmission of
letters—a principle obviously objectionable. It fol-
lows that, in the words of our definition, the stamp on
letters is not a tax but merely a postal charge, or
equivalent for service actually rendered. The news-
paper-stamp ought in justice to be, and indeed pro-
fessedly is, the same. If we mistake not, it is
defended on this ground, and on this ground only,
by a writer in the Edinburgh Review. Let us there-
fore see, in the first place, whether the claim thus
set up is well founded or no; whether those who pay
the tax, or duty, do really receive anything in return
for their payment. If not, the defence falls to the
ground.
This query is not to be answered by a mere com-
parison between the supposed expense incurred by
the State in transmitting newspapers gratuitously
and the annual receipts derived fiorn the tax. It is
not enough to show that the two sums are equal, or
nearly equal, in amount: it must also be proved that
the one is paid by the same persons who profit by
the other. Here, as we shall show, the proof fails.
There is a large class of persons who, under the law
as it stands, pay without receiving, and another class

...

507

who receive without paying. Take an illustration of
each.

A, living in the country, wants to refer to a file of
the Times of the week, of which he has no copy in
his house. He accordingly writes to his friend B,
living in town, who happens to possess such a copy,
to send it him down. The numbers are rolled up,
put into the post (where they fill a large space),
and transmitted without charge of any kind. The
Post office, with the same liberality, takes charge of
them on ieir way back, and this as often as the two
correspondents choose during the seven days in
which newspapers are allowed to pass free. They
may use the post to a considerable extent, paying
nothing. We have certainly selected an unusual case,
hut it is a possible one, and, on a smaller scale, the
thing is done every day. Secondhand copies of London
journals are sent on from reader to reader, to the con-
venience, no doubt, of those who thus take them in. But
this ceases to be a desirable object if it is only attain-
able at the cost of unfair burdens on other parties.
So much for those who belong to the more favoured
class—who profit by the stamp duty without contri-
buting to it.
Now for the other side of the question. A local
jownalist circulates probably four .fifths of his copies
within the borough in which his office is situated.
These are, of course, distributed by hand. He does
not want the Post-office, or wants it only for the com-
paratively small fraction of his impression which is
sent to a distance. On this it is fair and right that
he should pay postage. But the Board of Inland
Revenue steps in, backed by the law. " No," say
they ; "we find it more convenient to levy our postal
charges in the form of a stamp duty ; and therefore,
though you only post two hundred copies of your
journal, you shall pay postage on the whole thousand."
It is useless to remonstrate—such is the rule, sanc-
tioned by parliamentary wisdom. If he complains,
he is politely told that the Post-office is there if he
requires its services; that if he does not require
them, others do; and that the interest of individuals
must give way to general convenience. It is of no avail
that he pleads the hardship of the fine thus arbitra-
rily levied upon him. They reply that the abuse, if
it be one, has been sanctioned by all Governments,
Whig and Tory; that the House of Commons has
repeatedly decided in its favour; and that he knew
the state of the law when he set up his journal.
Perhaps they go farther, and remind him that his
subscribers may forward their copies gratis to any
one whom they please thus to favour. It is true they
never do so, but the option is theirs nevertheless ;
and it is equally a boon to the newspaper interest
whether the metropolitan journal profits at his ex-
pense or no. We confess that the ingratitude of
provincial editors astonishes us. So far from appre-
ciating the benefit they derive from this arrangement,
they treat it as an aggravation of their wrong, and
as a designed impediment thrown in the way of their
competition. Pity that no argument yet discovered
by the supporters of the law should have sufficed to
dispel this illusion.
Let us now look at the question in another light.
It is quite clear that, if the tax be regarded as com-
pensation for postal service performed, it is wanting
in the first requisite of justice. Who ever proposed
to charge all letters alike, whether they weighed
eight ounces or half an ounce ? The proposition
would be denounced as unfair on the face of it, as a
plan to enable one class of correspondents to profit
at the expense of another. Yet this is habitually
done in the case of newspapers. A copy of the
Times weighs eight or ten times as much as, and
occupies a proportionably larger space in the mail-
bags than, a number of one of the small provincial
advertising journals. The same uniform rate is
charged on each. It may be said that thin is neces-
sary, or at least convenient, as saving trouble to the
post office clerks Then why is it not done also in
the case of private letters? The same plea holds
good in each instance. We have always remarked
that, when this argument is pressed, the defenders of
the law abandon the ground of " remuneration for
postal service," and fall back on the assertion that
the stamp duty is a tax. Be it so, then. We do not
care to dispute the matter. Assume the stamp duty
to be a tax imposed for the sake of revenue. Facts
prove the contrary ; but, for argument's sake, admit
it. Is the injustice lessened? What financial
minister would propose a poll tax' But if the stamp
duty be a tax at all, it is a poll tax on newspapers.
On the journal published at ninepence it is a tax ad
valorem of 12} per cent. On one published at six-
pence it amounts to a duty of 20 per cent. On the
threepenny journal it lays a charge of 5(1 per cent.,
and below this price scarcely any stamped newspaper
can be published, inasmuch as an impost of 100 per
cent. becomes absolutely prohibitory. We are left,
then, to this alternative—if the duty be continued
for financial purposes, it is even in that point of view
inexpedient, since its diminution to one-half the pre-
sent amount would largely increase the receipts, by
allowing a new class of journals to spring into exist-
ence. If, on the other hand, it be sanctioned for
objects not financial, but of a political nature (though

508

~',

these are invariably, and with a suspicious earnest-
ness, disavowed), then the meaning of the law should
be clearly understood. It is an express parlia-
mentary prohibition of all journals published
below a certain price, and a discouragement of all
published below the highest price usually charged.
For, the ad valorem duty decreasing as the cost of
the journal increases, the large and high priced paper
is thereby spared, while that of smaller dimensions
is either crushed or checked. If such be the object
of the law, why not say so openly 9 If not, why re-
tain it? We purpose in another number to consider
this question more at large, and especially in its
relations to the Conservative interest.

LORD STANLEY ON THE NEWSPAPER
STAMP.
THE followiug letter has been addressed by the noble
member for King's Lynn to the Secretary of the
Society for the Repeal of Taxes upon Knowledge.
The heavy pressure on our space prevented its in-
sertion in last week's PRESS :
Albany, May 24, 1864.
ffir,—No division having been taken on Mr. Milner Gibson's
Motion, and the motion itself not going the length of a repeal of
the stamp-duty, I wish te give in my adhesion to the movement
which you are promoting, so far as the abolition of that duty is
concerned. The paper-duty, as a financial measure, stands on a
different footing. But the stamp-duty in professedly imposed as
a postal charge only, and not for purposes of revenue. It may,
therefore, be dealt with quite apart from any considerations
arising out of the war.
I only know three reasons which really influence men's minds
against its removal. Some persons fear the political or social
results of a large increase of cheap periodicals. This objection
is removed by the existence, uncontrolled by law, of a cheap un-
stamped press, dealing with every subject except the news of the
day, and eveu dealing with that in the way of comment. The
danger which they fear already exists: the proposed change of
law will diminish instead of aggravating it, by giving to the cheap
press a character of greater respectability.
Others conceive that what is demanded amounts to this : that
newspapers should be posted gratuitously. It would be well to
have this delusion thoroughly removed. Newspapers cannot
claim gratuitous tromtnission any more than letters: all that
you ask is, that only those which require postal accommodation
shall pay for it; and that the small provincial journal, which
does not use the post-office, being distributed entirely by hand,
shall not be taxed 50 or 100 per cent. upon its value, in order
that a copy of the Thies may pass four or times through the post,
at the coat of a single transmission. You cannot put it forward
too clearly, that it is not the removal of the postal charge, but its
equalisation, that you desire. The present law is as though a penny
stamp were put on every sheet of paper, so that a note sent by
hand, or a written memorandum kept for private use, should pq
postage as well as a letter transmitted in the usual manner. Its
anomaly and injustice could not have been tolerated until now, were
it not that proprietors and editors of established journals, circu-
lating largely, have, or couceive themselves to have, a direct In-
terest in maintaining a system which checks competition, and fa-
vours large capitalists.
I believe the fallacy here mentioned, " that what reformers ask
is a gratuitous transmission of newspapers by post," has done more
mischief than, froni its absurdity, would be supposed.
The third objection taken—a fear lest the Post-office revenues
should fall off--seems wholly grounoless. Any one who looks at
the returns of thattleparttneut will see an enormous increase of
late years in the amount of work which it has to do, and conse-
quently also in its receipts. I believe that a diminution in the
number of newspapers conveyed by post would more than com-
pensate. In convenience, for the pecuniary loss which it might
cause. But it must also be remembered that a large increase in
the number of newspapers would render the paper-duty (while that
tax lasts) more remunerative; and, as was urged in the debate,
that, if many more newsps pens are published than at present, it is
probable that at least an equal number will still pass through the
post.
Justice has scarcely been done to the claim of the provincial
press. Take such a case as this; and it is not an imaginary one.
A local journal, published in a small borough, has 1,000 sub-
scribers ; of these, 900 live within the borough ; their copies art
consequently transmitted to them by hand ; only the remaining
100 copies are sent by post; the charge for which, at Id. each,
would be Be. 4d. But the law Imposes, under the name of a pos-
tal charge, this penny tax on the whole 1,000 copies—amounting
In all to 41. Ss. 4d. on each impression—or, in other words, taxes
the journal in question at the rate of 10d. for each copy which
penises through the post-office. Can it be imagined that this in-
justice should be defended, as I have seen it defended, on the
ground that what is thus taken from the small journalist is put
lute the pockets of his metropolitan rival ?
To those who apprehend that the character of journalism will
suffer by an increase of cheap local papers, though holding their
anticipations to be erroneous, I should reply simply by a refusal
to discuss that question. We contend that as a matter, not of
policy but of simple justice, postal charges should fall on those
who benefit by the services of the post-office. Whatever may
have been the private opinions of public men, no minister of late
years has dared to avow that the stamp-duty is imposed purposely
as a check on low-priced periodical writing. To admit this is to
assert the principle of a censorship; for the existing duty,
amounting to a tax of 100 per cent. on a penny journal, amounts
in feet to a prohibition of all such journals. But, if this prohi-
bition is designed, it ought to be put in express words. What the
Legislature does should be done openly. The question, there-
fore, is reduced to this—whether I'arlisment will continue to
limit the right of publication tejournals sold at and above a eer.
lain price? That this is the effect of the law is clear; that it is
also the object of the law, though that object is not acknow-
ledged, seems impossible to doubt. Formerly the stamp-duty
was defended on financial grounds alone, now we are told that
the fiscal question is unimportant: the excuse varies from year
to year, the policy is still obstinately clung to.
Two or three years must probably still pass before yon suc-
ceed, but the ultimate result is certain. Meantime, I shall gladly
join in attempting to remedy that which is at once a great im-
policy and grievous injustice.—l am, your obedient servant,
STANLEY.

SITTINO AT TABLE TO DRINK after dlinner was over
was introduced by Margaret Atheling, the Saxon
Queen of Scotland. She was shocked to see the
Scottish gentlemen rise from table before grace
could be said by her chaplain, Turgot ; and she
offered a cup of choice wine to all who would remain.
Thence the fashion of hard drinking followed the
thanksgiving.—Table Traits.