The Sun.
London, England, 1855-03-26 00:00:00

acts of Parliament, which, by their blundering, had un-
settled some portions of the press. But this would not
satisfy Mr. Bright. His support was to be obtained by no-
thing short of tumbling over the whole existing system.
Newspaper proprietors were to be involved in all kinds
of confusion and difficulty, they were to have acts of
Parliament arranging the matter even more intricate
than those complained of, and nothing was to be done
that was not done in such a way as to reduce the dß_
ciency, if not the profits, of the leading established news_
paper'. This was the price of Mr. Bright's support,
and it is to be paid accordingly. It must surely be re_
gardod us a public benefit, when it is thus at any cost to
be secured.

But, by way of re-assurance against being thus flung
as sops into the jaws of any Cerberus, any Vireo gentle-
men of Maiichestr representing the people of England,
we are told that other advantages are in preparation for
us ; we are to be made sound and whole ; ve are to be
saved from a great many matters of complaint. "I for
one," says Mr. Gladstone, "a n determined to do all
in my power completely to set free thq press." The
" burdens on the press" are to be removed by the
State doctors. The press all the while is in the posi-
tion of M. Pourceaugnac, who stoutly declares to the
whole army of phySicians that he wants no physic.
" What do you want of me ?" he asks—"To cure you,"
answer his kind friends ; " to cure you, according to the
order that has beengiven us."—" Cure me ! but, gentle-
men, I am not ailing."—" Bad sign," say his tormen-
tors, " when a patient see sent pas son snal."—" I tell
you," cries the victim, " that I am in most excellent
condition."—" We know better than you what your
condition is," say these inexorable:sons of Galen. "We
are physicians, who can see down to the bottom of your
constitution."

One is obliged to have recourse to the most extrava-
gant absurdities of MoHere fora parallel to the pro-
posed interference with the constitution of the news-
paper press. Morally, the only "revolution" possible
—if we look at the argument of the revolutionists—is
the creation of a mass of indifferent literature at the
expense of that which is good ; the establishment of
petty local newspapers ; and an obstruction to the
working of the most essential element in the useful-
ness of the existing system, a wide diffusion and free
interchange of opinion between town and town, pro-
vince and province. Commercially the only revolution
possible will be the mulcting in some sense of every
prosperous newspaper establishment, which now sup-
ports what with truth is called " law and order," for
the sake of justice—in order to beget a large swarm of
unprosperous establishments set on foot by the lowest
class of speculators, who will be willing to support what
any Minister for the time being may call " law and
order," for the sake of hire. We may, or may not be-
lieve in the possibility of such a result following the pro-
posed changes, but if, as their warmest supporters say,
there are indeed to be " vast results," this will be their
character.

The whole measure, in short, is full of injustice and
confusion. The only decent thing to b• said of it is that
there are tot komines tot sententice as to the effect it will
have. The press, it is said, does not know its own busi-
ness, and has unnecessary fears; yet, among those
who affect to understand the management of its
business, 'there is not the least particle of agree-
ment. One promoter of the new act looks for a
revolution, and another for no consequence whatever,
from the measure which they equally support. None
of the doctors can foretel what result will be obtained
by the remedies they are going to administer. The pub-
lic is to be amused with a case of legislation in the dark,
of which it can only be affirmed that when we open our
eyes we shall see what we shall see. And all this for
nothing more imperative than the removal of a technical
difficulty which had annoyed the lawyers of the Crown.
The bear strikes to remove the fly, and the skull is broken
on which the fly had settled.

THE NEWSPAPER STAMP.
(Frain the Daily News of this day.)
One would suppose, from the language of our contem-
poraries of the London daily press, that a fierce perse-
cution was about to be directed against them. All,
without exception, Free Traders and Anti-Free Traders,
concur in opposing the Newspaper Stamp Bill ; and yet
if this bill becomes law, its immediate effect upon all
existing newspapers cannot be otherwise than highly
beneficial. Its secondary effect, by facilitating the pub-
lication of cheap newspapers, and thus calling into
existence commercial rivals, is little to be dreaded.
Should, however, their cheaper rivals have any
deteriorating influence en the commercial prospects of
existing newspapers, no free-trader has any right to ob-
ject to the bill on that ground. The principle upon
which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has acted in
framing the bill is precisely that which ought to he
adopted, viz. :—That news is not in itself a proper sub-
jeot for taxation ; but that there is no reason for di-
turbing the present pTstal scale for the conveyance of
newspap,-rs. Stamping, therefore, is to bo no longer
compulsory. Any one is to be at liberty to publish a
newspaper untaxed, unregistered, and altogether un-
fettered. If, however, the present po:ital facilities are
desired, they may be obtained on the same conditions as
at present, viz., registration, and the giving of securi-
tis, &c.—and to any extent demanded. In short, the
whole or part of any issue may pass through the post on
the same terms as at present.. Unstamped copies (by
sec. xi ) are to be charged letter rates of postage. This
charge, we think, must have been accidentally imposed,
and we hope the section will be amended. Unstamped
Periodicals ought to pass at book-postage rates. The bill
proposes no other alterations in the law than the above.
Can the existing newspapers complain of the immediate
effect of these enactments ? In no wise. But they may
complain, and the Times does so, of omissions. That
journal says that whereas it has frequently to pay three-
halfpence per copy, it ought only to pay one penny, as
there should be no restriction on the size ofa newspaper.
It complains that other newspapers being smaller go
through the post for one penny ; that, therefore, the law is
to remain unchanged in this respect simply for the purpose
of injuring the Times, and that the reason why the Yates
is so chosen for extra taxation is because it administers

to the public good. " Why," says the big journal, "why,
in the name of justice, should we be visited with a
penalty for administering to the public good without in-
jury to any one, though at some cost to ourselves ?" Now
it strikes us that the reason why the Times ought to pay
more for being carried through the post is because it is
heavier and larger. As it is, the Post-office gains little
by newspapers ; and were its charges diminished, it
would positively lose. With much more justice might we
say, " Why should our little evenkg edition, the Ex-
iwess, pay as much for postage as the big papers ?" The
Times, out of pure benevolence, sometimes gives the
public eight additional pages. Unfortunately, in this
heavily-taxed country, the benevolent man who spends
2001. in goods for the poor pays twice as much to the
Government as he whe only gives away 1001.'8 worth.
It is the penalty of greatness. Our contemporary must
pay it as such. By the bye, in the Times of Thursday
we find the following :—" What compels us to require
more than a certain number of inches ? The pressure of
intelligence and the number of our advertisements, the
former cause being the principal." On the same day
the Times consisted of 72 columns, of which 26 contained
news and comments on it, while 46 were made up of
advertisement. Each of the other papers, the Dail?)
News among them, had 36 columns of news and com-
ments. The arguments of the Times are simply and
ludicrously absurd, and the tone of its articles on this
subject is childish. With regard to the 1001. which the
Times occasionally loses on its daily issue, we would
remark that the proprietors are very foolish to incur
such a loss, unless they find that the loss of 1001. twice
a week may he regarded as an outlay by which they
insure a proportionate gain on each of the four other
days. Professor Holloway says that he finds his
profits always increase in a greater proportion than
the sums he lays out in advertising. So much for
the immediate effect of the bill on the existing news-
papers.

As to its remote effect in calling into existence cheap
rivals ; to that, whether injurious or not, we will submit
we hope with a good grace. • Profoundly convinced as
we are of the soundness of the free-trade doctrines, we
dare not, whatever course self-interest may suggest, op.
pose any measure which removes artificial causes of
monopoly. Superiority may and must cause monopoly •
monopoly never creates superiority. In the cheap
dif-
fusion of news and information the public are concerned

more than ourselves. They have decided that it will be
for their benefit ; we agree with them in this opinion.
It is unfortunate that the chief organs through which
their wishes. can become known are precisely those to
which this public benefit may be supposed to be injuri-
ous—viz., the existing newspapers. We hope, and we
think, that we should support, as we always have done,

the removal of the newspaper stamp, even if we felt that
it would work some injury to ourselves. But we do not
feel so. We have not space at present to give our rea-
sons ; but, as the Daily News has been a cheap daily
stamped London newspaper, and as it is but a young
and very successful paper established at. considerable
cost, and as we have at present a cheap evening edition,
it is, perhaps, not going too far to say that our infor-
mation must be considerable on this subject, and to claim
the merit of disinterestedness. Whatever experience any
stamped newspaper-Lcheap, dear, big, or little—has,
that also have we : whatever any stamped newspaper
will suffer from the passing of this bill into law, that
also shall we suffer. To establish a journal like the Lon-
don morning newspapers requires many things besides
capital sufficient fur the Stampoaffice and securities
for good conduct ; such papers must always be few.
Smaller, cheaper, or merely local papers can never be-
come the rivals of our London contemporsries. Nor
can we see how the non-necessity of stamping such news-.
papers as do not pass through the post, :led the conse-
quent creation of cheap local newspapers, will lower the
tone of the press generally. Such papers can only hope
to drive the London papers cut of their locality by being
themselves as good as possible ; and the present illegal
unstamped press can only hope to prevent the' establish-
ment of new cheap papers by the same means.
Before concluding these remarks, we must say one
word as to the only ground upon which the present bill
may ,with some apparent justice, and on which it pro-
bably will, be opposed. We refer to its fiscal bearings.
It is said that of the 400,0001. now arising from news-
paper stamps, only 150,000/. will be received, and that
the revenue, now so little able to bear any diminution,
will 'Ada a loss of 50,0001. We believe this fear to be