The Express.
London, England, 1853-03-12 00:00:00

47:41,11te05.

10C r.nE:l`uti

•ece stl Edition 4" The Esieres ' eirootaissag the same evesirge
" is l dr:ished every lte.d.y v.l reida7 sight, in lime
lor ;:oet.
A. "et i:Yel este itette.4.l " The Ex .Yeea," Loa kr. Even'yeg
enn.,t be et the 'Mire, Boaserit —treat, yy Two as the
tay of pt.i.atistiou.

RIGH 'WATER AT LON110:7 BRIDOS.
:3!• 1147—Ni.vrrant. 14. 47 r in. 344.
fr..34outow—Y:7r.isar. 4 . 13.. s iftrennou. lc. i 4

L9NDON, SATURDAY, MARCH 12.

TuE CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER proposes to
receive a di putat ion on the subject of the adv, rtiae-
meat duty. The time is favourable. The failure of
the proceedings against The Narrative (T Current
Events has cconpclie.s! the last and present govern-
molt to consider the newspaper law, and a decision
in respect to it is only pustponed by the excuse ot
waiting for the report of their law officers. Visionary
is the utility of any such report. The Jadges have
effected theonly amendment of which the present
newspaper law is susceptible. Under the j ant
auspic a of intelligent effic:als and crown lawyers
a newspaper was described by Act of Parliament
in language so ecnfosed as to warrant the stamp
authorities in claiming as such any publica-
tion at whatever distant intervals it might
be published. Oa the same grounds on which
it was attempted to charge with stamp, and
to render liable to the responsibiiities of a
newspaper, a paper containing news or intel-
ligence published at monthly intervals, any periodi-
cal publi-hed at longer intervals, as, for instance, the
Annual negis!er, would have been equally liable.
The judgment of the Court of Exchequer has intro-
duced something like system into the construction of
this act. It has, in fact, limited the responsibilities
of tho newspaper law to periodicals issuing at
intervals not exceeding 26 days. It gives to the go-
vernment a control over all papers which appear at
shorter intervals--daily, ueekly, hi-monthly, and the
like, but declares that intelligence printed in monthly
periodicals partakes rather of the character of
review than of current news. It might have
been supposed that a decision which laid down
a rule so simple and so clear, and extricated the crown
from the invidious necessity of putting in force an
enactment which at best was doubtful, and certainly
was oppressive, would have been received with plea-
sure, and regarded as the satisfactory solution of a'
difficulty.
Not so. This is the third government which is still
unable to say whether the decision of the Court of
Exchequer is to be acquiesced in until the report of
their law officers be received—and this is the second
government which is on the brink of danger and un-
popularity by attempting to introduce an act to ex-
plain the meaning of a law which has already
received a judicial interpretation. It is at this
moment that the attention of the CHANCELLOR
of the Excittxwita is solicited to a newspaper
grievance and to a public injury. It is not
likely that his acute mind will consider the
advertisement duty by itself, but will regard
it also in connexion with the general news-
paper question. He will then find that, consistently
with the judgment of the Court of Exchequer, the
law is so ample as to leave it very greatly in the dis-
cretion of the stamp-office to define what publication
Is or is not a newspaper, provided it be published at
intervals nut exceeding twenty-six days. He will see
that such papers,con tributing to the revert uo I d. on each
number must, from their price, depend very greatly
on the number of their advertisements for existence ;
that every hindrance on advertisements tends, there-
fore, to lessen the number of papers, and thus injures
the revenue arising from newspaper stamps—that,
on the other hand, owing to the limitation of the
size of the newspaper sheet, an important increase of
advertisements would, by necessitating the use of
additional sheets as supplements, add to the revenue
by the stamps and paper-duty payable in respect of
such supplements, and to the commerce of the country
by the increased consumption of paper. From such
considerations the Cu %NCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
cannot fail to perceive that the total abolition of the
impost would not be an entire sacrifice of revenue,
but would bo attended with compensating results,
and that, if he did not like to give up the
whole income, there is little if any doubt that an
experiment of the effect of lowering duties by a
reduction of the tax to 6tl. would secure to
the government, directly and indirectly, a larger
income from newspapers than is now received. But
there are other reasons to bo urged in reference to
this question, of a higher character than the interests
of newspaper proprietors, or the results upon the
public purse of a remission of this duty. It is a tax
which presses harshly upon industry, and with most
severity on those who can least afford it. It acts un-
equally on the rich and poor. The cost of advertising an
r estate or large property forms but a small percentage
onitsvalue,—and the richcompany or sanguinespecu-
' later, who finds an advantage or necessity in claiming
pablic attention by lengthy advertisements, are not
sensible of hardship in the small addition of is. 6d. to
' the expense of the announcement. But to the man
who really needs publicity, and whose bread depends
; on it,—the tradesman who wishes to lift himself out
of the obscure crowd who throng this vast ci?y, and
to make known his wares through the most extensive
channels,—the artizan or servant seeking for em-
ployment—the many parties dependent upon the
; letting of apartments i—these and such as these,
who can tell in an announcement of a few

lines their humbler wants, are now subjected
to an extra charge of full 100 per cent. by
the manner in which the present duty tends neces-
sarily to increase the price of short advertisements.
We need not argue. that this heavy taxation
checks advertising—it is as admitted principle that
an increased consumption ensues on the lowering of
duties. In the present case our rulers have direct
proof of these arguments placed before them at their
breakfast-tables each morning. By their daily papers
they may see that the very great proportion of long
advertisements, either for companies or charities,
appear in several papers, while of short advertisements,
—meaning such as do not exceed ten lines,—a
very small proportion appear in more than
one paper. The want of an individual needs
publicity as much as the want of a charity, and the
unfrequency of advertising is explicable only. by the
fact that the cost to the individual is proportionably
much heavier. While such are some of its objec-
tionable characteristics the advertisement; tax is

also indefensible on principle. It interferes
arbitrarily with the prosecution of business in one
particular mode. The law allows men to publish
their business or their wants by the town crier, or
on the walls—in railway-carriages, or steam-boats—
on huge placards, or on unsightly vane; but if they
set* publicity in the stamped newspaper or the un-
stumped periodical, then a fee of Is. ad for each ad-
vertisement is demanded by the government. The
most natural and inoffensive mode of advertising is
taxed, while modes which are inconvenient and dan-
gerous to the public are free. To subject notices and
advertising vans to payment of a duty would be felt
to be absurd and arbitrary ; but an exaction still more
unjust and arbitrary, because exceptional, is allowed
to continue.

That this impost cannot long continue is certain,
though it may be uncertain to whom the honour of
its removal may be due. By the last government
the force of public opinion was admitted, and a sense
of justice was expressed. This tax was ad-
mitted by Lord DERRY to deserve attention—and
was stated by him to have been under consi-
deration with a view to its repeal. As the
press was " his only scutcheon" the then CHANCELLOR
of the ExcuEut•Eat may have been restrained by
delicacy from dealing with this Tax in his first
budget, lest it might have been insinuated that
he was led away unduly by early associations.
Against the present CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
no such soft impeachment can be made, and, with
a MI conviction of the ut.fairness and isjuriousness
of this tax, we would say to him "Be just and
fear not."