The Sun.
London, England, 1855-05-12 00:00:00

NEWSPAPER STAMP BILL.

The adjourned debate on the third reading of this bill was
resumed.

Mr. PACKE said he would not allow the bill to go through
its last stage without entering his protest against it, as being
a most unjust and unfair measure of taxation. It was sought
by tnis bill to give the metropolis and large towns newspapers
free of the expense of conveyance ; but with regard to the
rura_ and agricultural districts they would be taxed for the
conveyance. There was a loss of revenue by this measure,
which was to be supplied by a tax on sugar, tea, and coffee ;
and in returrifor those taxes tha towns had an equivalent in
the free transmission of their newspapers; but that was not
the case with the rural districts, which had no such equiva-
lent,
_lle thought the bill unjust, and he should vote against
the third reading.
Mr. MAGUIRE said the question before the house was the
amendment of the hon. and learned member for Enniskillen.
(go, no ; it is the third reading. The amendment will come
after that.) If that was so, he supposed he might still offer
some observations on that subject, being desirous to point out
to the Chancellor of the Exchequer some impediments to the
success of his measure. The principle of the bill was to give
the public the largest amount of political information, but
without any especial benefit to any particular newspaper.
That was a fair and intelligible principle ; but he would not
have been prepared to support the copyright clause, which
was withdrawn in deference to the sense of the house, believ-
ing that it would have injured the London, and ruined the
provincial press. He knew the value of the London journals
to the provincial press] and especially the importance of the
forniost journal of the clay. He couttuded that in many

respects great injury would be done by this bill. It would
enable low and disreputable journals to pirate articles of in-
telligence with impunity, and actually to live and prosper
upon the daily papers. In reference to the advertisement
duty, he contended that it was abolished, not for the advan-
tage of newspaper proprietors, but for the benefit of the pub-
lic. The same principle should apply to the limitation of
weight to be carried by the post. A letter for a mere private
individual was a matter that would benefit at the most two
persons, but the transmission of a newspaper was a subject of
national importance. He appealed to the Government to
extend the time for transmission. A rich man might read a
newspaper, in a few moments (laughter)—but a poor man,
having little time at his disposal, might take a week or two
to wade through the same matter. Having road his paper,
he would be virtually prevented from transmitting it through
the post by the measure now under consideration. (Hear.)
Sir. J. WALMSLEY said he agreed with much that had
fallen from the hon. gentleman who had spoken in opposition
to the bill, but he objected to making it a personal question.
As a member of the committee appointed to censider the
removal of the stamp and advertisement duty, he agreed with
those who held that great advantage would arise to the com-
munity from the freest possible communication between the
press and-the public. Still he could not consider that it was
necessary to give to the newspaper press any particular mono-
poly. -He would carry out the principle of free trade in news-
papers as in everything else, for it did not appear to him that
newspaper proprietors required such a• onopoly. Ho thought
he was well advised when he said that a newspaper would cost
three times as much as a letter in its carriage. A newspaper
weighed four ounces at least, while an ordinary letter weighed
only half an ounce, and the house was now called upon to
allow four ounces to pass through the post eight or ten times
while an ordinary half-ounce letter could pass only once. He
did not for a moment believe that the press wonld call upon
the house to do such an act of injustice, inasmuch as newspa-
per proprietors had the privilege of one transmission for a
penny, which was quite as much as they required. He must
protest against the statement that newspaper proprietors re-
quired any such privilege.
Mr. BARROW said that the measure was so great an iuj us-
tiee to the producer as well as the consumer of country news-
pipers that he should vote against it.
Mr. M. CHAMBERS objected to a discussion on the merits
of the bill on a third reading, on the ground that it was an
unusual' course of proceeding. He had listened with a great
deal of anxiety to the statements that ha I been made, and
was obliged to confess that he had not heard a single argu-
ment in favour of an opposition to the bill.
Mr. BENTINCK believed •that the consent of the house to
the bill—for consent there would no doubt be—would not be
a spontaneous act. If the real sentiments of the house could
be obtained, the bill, he had little doubt, would be rejected.
It had originated, not exactly from a pressure from without,
but from the screw having been effectually applied by the
right hon. gentleman the member for Manchester on the late
Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. baronet who
had succeeded to the office had submitted to the same in-
fluence. Enlightened and energetic as the daily press of this
country was, he did not believe that it would require or ask
for any such measure as that before the house ; a measure
whieh while it would interfere with the liberty would not
control the license of the press.
The house then divided—
For the third reading
Against it
On the question that the bill do pass,

. 138
. 60-78

- - .
Mr. NAPIER (in the absence of Mr. Whiteside) moved to
insert the following clause—" That every periodical publica-
tion that shall be printed and published at intervals not
exceeding seven days between the two consecutive parts or
numbers of such publication, and the weight of which shall
not on the whole exceed six ounces, shall be entitled to the
*aid privileges of transmission and re-transmission by the
post, if duly stamped with the appropriate die of one penny."
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said this clause
was substantially the same clause that was moved by his
hon. friend the member for Pontefract, which was fully
considered by the house and was negatived by a large
majority. An alteration, however, had been made by the
hon. and learned member, the effect of which was to render
it much more Lcotaplex and difficult to work ; for, as pro-
posed by his hon. friend in committee, he took the limit le
superficial inches, as in the existing law, whereas in the
clause now proposed the limit of weight' was substituted.
-The effect of that would be, that_the postage would be deter-
mined by weight beyond the six ounces. They must resort to
the measure of superficial inches with regard to all periodicals
published at intervals of less than seven days. Then with re-
gard to periodicals published at greater intervals than seven
days, the existing law would apply to periodicals both of
greater and less weight than six ounces. He thought the
house would hardly expect that he should again travel over
the ground which had been so thoroughly traversed in pre-
vious debates. (Hear.) He would only state that the pro-
posal that he made in the present bill was to leave the exist-
ing law unchanged, with the simple exception that he made
the stamp on newspapers optional instead of compulsory. The
effect of this change in the law would be in favour of news-
papers publishing supplements and not against them. One of
the principal arguments in favour of au increase of the limit
of weight was that a hardship was inflicted upon newspapers
publishing supplements, inasmuch as they did not make an
additional charge to their customers, whereas they had a
stamp upon the whole of their supplement. Now, when this
bill became law, a newspaper would pay only for that portion
of the impression which was circulated through the post.
With regard to that portion that was distributed in the place
of publication, there would be no compulsory stamp. There-
fore, so far as regarded newspapers publishing supplements,
the alteration would be in their favour, and not against them.
In other respects the bill left the law unchanged, and it
would be in the power of Parliament at a future time, if
they should think that newspapers did not enjoy sufficient
privileges, to increase those privileges ; but it should not
escape the attention of the house that at present, as com-
pared with letters and all other printed matter, the extent
of these privileges was large and almost beyond what might
reasonably have been expected.

Mr. MALINS asked if the bill would prevent a person
sending a newspaper by post which weighed more than four
ounces ?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was understood
to reply that the bill made no alteration with regard to a
newspaper sent by post.
Mr. MALINS said the answer was not quite clear to him.
Would they be able after this bill to send the Times by post
as now ?

• The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Yep,
Mr. MALINS said this was not a question as to a parti
titular newspaper, but a question as to the public couve
nien co.

Mr. MAGUIRE said the power of re-transmission was not
what the proprietors of newspapers wanted, but it was of
importance to the public.
Mr. NAPIER said he thought it was not fair to put an ad-
ditional tax on the circulation of advertisements. As, how-
ever, thefeeling of the.housg was against him, he would not
press the clause.

- The clause was then negatived without a division, and
some verbal amendments having been made,
➢ir. NAPIER was about to make some observations rela-
tive to the fourth clause, but
The SPEAKER informed him that he was too late.
The bill was then passed.

SPIRIT DUTIES (SCOTLAND AND IRELAND) BILL.
On the order of the day, that the house go into committee
on this bill,

Mr. GROGAN said he had given notice of some amend-
ments, but he understood some propositions had been made
to the Chancellor of the Exchequer by the distillers with re-
gard to the making of whisky from malt, and that a bill was
to bo brought in which was to come into operation on the Ist
October next. Ho wished to know when the bill would be
brought in ?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the bill was
in preparation, and he hoped that it would be brought in at
no distant date. •

Mr. GROGAN—And it will come into operation on the ls
of October.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I cannot say
exactly.

Mr. VANCE said it would be a great 'convenience to the
trade if the right hon. gentleman would state the day on which
the bill would come into operation. He believed it was 'part of
the agreement on which the distillers had withdrawn their
opposition to the bill now before the house, that the new re-
gulations were to come into operation at the commencement
of the distilling season.
The house then went into committee.
Mr. GROGAN said he had given notice of some amend-
ments, but after the understanding which the right hon. gen-
tleman had come to with the distillers of the three kingdoms,
he should not press them, but it would be very inconvenient
to the trade if they did not know when the new regulations
would come into operation.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, on the
whole, he thought it was not desirable that he Should pledge
himself to any of the details of the intended bill.
The several clauses and schedules of the bill, with some
verbal amendments, wore then agreed to, and a number of
clouses added on the motion of the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer.