The Sun.
London, England, 1855-02-05 00:00:00

)

. . ////
.„--......i................ i 1 .
,:k• Ai','4"—i4 ~,,, ~..,, , • -:
11011114,' 7 • ~',.s. '. ~ . oa
•
- •
. ~
l' '.
‘311,11' , '4lll N' •111:1 ‘l:4t" ''''', 4---474'
tv , I, tr'n. • . lift
l,ik i ~ cie
(:,...
/,',4i
~ ' • ' '' *4 .- ~F ...t.A. fr*,,---,,:,elit 1#
. .
...4,... - •..
tA` ' t
,„...,,,,„„„,,, .
_,..,..........,
t. 4„
~ , t , ..,".
----it.,%,..tu --0, -- -- - It, ,-_,
~,444, 4 i: 0
~.N -.''''e,",,,?,.:',XV".;;--7.: )'..
*--._ 7' -,A ,T,. , -"Na '
j...‘ • f 4 , • , i
.... i..-' , vv. 1
4!.. , . .
~ . W"."'".:„, , ..
~,,. _
.: 4 /...
/1.,.... - ', ~ •.. :••• - • 4?...: - 4',. _ ~,,..,---
N_l 7' <iv_ ,43„,./435(.1,,.. i j `-'...k.„
..,..,- T
•z• 7,6,4- vi i'l - . ,•`....1 \ .I,i 'ol.,—'''' .:'''..:. ~• _ +,. ,•,--,. -
, ,#._
- .) —,I It v 417,44 ~i4...,' 'l,' '%. 4 r.'' ' ''"'" A ' '' $ Rola '.4,,' ,' - '''''
" - ' ; -I\'' - ,' ,/'-''.•4 .11t 4 .

LONDON, MONDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 5, 1855.

A LETTER ON THE NETVSPAPER
POSTAL STAMP.

while I remain poor, you will impoverish me yet
further."

newspaper below a certain size and value. This prohibition
the advocates of free discussion, the unsparing critics of
public men and measures, the members of the "fourth
estate," desire to maintain, on ethical and social grounds ;
asserting that though the most unlimited liberty of the
press is good down to a certain point, yet that for a small
capitalist to get up a journal, and for labouring men to
take it in, is dangerous to the public morality. It is un-
charitable to assume that fear of competition, threatened
interference with their existing monopoly, and some
lingering love of " protection," in their own busi-
ness, may have somewhat clouded their perceptions
of right ? In truth, the arguments by which you sup-
port tie present law are in direct contradiction to one
another. For you affirm, first, "that the press does not
possess any legislative favour, protection, or monopoly
whatever ; ' and, next, "that the witidrawal of the stamp
duty- will supersede it by substituting a totally different
and inferior class of papers." Therefore (according to you)
English journalism is to be ruined by the withdrawal of
privileges which (also according to you) English journalism
does not enjoy. To reconcile these discrepancies is no
affair of mine.

Secondly, you rely on the parallel case of the letter
postage, where one uniform rate of charge is imposed
for
all distances. In this presumed analogy, as is natural, you
triumph greatly. You say, " the uniform penny postage
on letters imposes the same postage on a letter going across
the street as on one going across the kingdom, rendering
all Ireland and the Highlans of Scotland a great loss to the
Post-office, while the populous districts of the country re-
turn a groat profit ; yet nobody thinks of denouncing this
system as unequal or oppressive."
Perhaps not ; for there is no class of persons whom these
regulations absolutely cut off from a profitable and credit-
able employment as the writers and proprietors of low-
priced journals are cut off by the stamp duty. There may
be inequality—there is not injustice—at least, in any prac-
tical and palpable form. I will giant you that the estab-
lishment of a post-effico in some small and remote High-
land village, where the service must be carried on at a loss,
is an undue favour thus accommodated—a sacrifice made
partly to practical convenience, partly to unity of system.
But the penny-post system was established en a principle
of which, while citing its practical application, you do not
seem aware—one which may be shortly embodied in the
following proposition :
"That in countries where the average density of popu-
lation exceeds a certain limit the cost of transmitting let-
ters is affected only in an infinitesimally small degree by
the distance to which they are transmitted."
Or, in more popular, though in less precise terms, the
chieeexpense of the Post-office, when dealing with great
masses of letters, consists in sorting and arranging them—
not in the actual conveyance of them by railroad, coach,
or mail-coach, insomuch that where the letter-writing
population is very dense, and the amount of correspon-
dence to be dealt with consequently very considerable, the
latter item of expense (the cost of conveyance), when com-
pared with the former (the cost of arranging and sorting),
becomes indefinitely small, and, as betng inappreciable,
may be struck out of the calculation. It is thus approxi-
mately, though not perfectly, true that thef expense to
Government of sending a letter across the street is the same
as that of sending it across the country; and the precedent
or parallel, which you attempt to find for the unequal in-
cidence of the newspaper stamp charge, disappears ac-
cordingly.

BY LORD STANLEY.

[The subjoined letter was written by me in reply to a
pamphlet, entitled " The Newspaper Postal Stamp," to
which my attention was called by its author. The ques-
tion therein discussed being now again brought before
the House of Commons, I avail myself of this opportunity
to make it public.—S.]
London, January, 1855.
Sir,—The subject on which you have addressed me may
be looked at in two lights—first, as regards the financial
justice of the change proposed, or rather the financial in-
justice of the law as it stands; secondly, in relation to
the effect which will probably ensue from that change--I
say " probably," for on this point we can arrive at 110
certain conclusion—on the general nature and character of
the British press.
Of these two questions, the first appeerslto me by far
the most important. I might go farther, and say it is
the only one which in strict justice ought to be con-
sidered ; for, whether it be or be not true that the news-
papers of this country are, as you affirm', " incomparably
the best in the world," it is certain that a financial measure
having for its object either to give to the proprietors of those
newspapers a special and exeeptional privilege, or to take
from them one which they share with other members of the
community similarly circumstanced, would cutstep the
limits of equity. The Minister who lays on an income tax
does not relieve one class of men from their share of that
impost because, as a class, they arena the habit of spending
their incomes judiciously, nor does he tax another class
doubly because they are habitually wasteful or imprudent.
Finance arbitrarily exercised becomes mere confiscation by
a legal process, and to turn it to a political use, for the ar-
tificial enrichment of one set of men and impoverishment
of another, is tyranny in its most naked form. For instance,
if a tax were laid on incomes, according to an ascending
scale of ten, twenty, thirty, forty per cent., so that no in.
come of more than 1,0001. a-year Gould exist, or contrary.
wise, if, as in France before the revolution, the estates of
the nobility were exempted from all taxation, with a view
to the permanence and power of their order every
rational man would say, Here is an *brae of the fiscal
power—a violation of the elementary laws by which finan-
cial operations are guided." You probably admit as much.
If so, I say act upon your own rule. Strike out as surplu-
sage all these declamations about the impending ruin of
respectable journals, and the establishment in their place
of an inferior and dangerous class of literature. Argue
this question fairly. Consider not whether the present
law is necessary to the support of existing journals, but
whether it is strictly and abstractly equitable. If you
are compelled to concede this point—if you allow that
there is a real inequality, a real injustice, and yet contend
that to avoid certain political results it must be maintained
on its present footing—we shall at least know on what
ground we stand. A fallacy plainly stated is half refuted ;
and, in the opinion of all thinking men, it is a fallacy, and
a grave one, to affirm that what is financially inequitable
can be politically advisable, that the exigencies of the com-
munity require, or can in any case sanction, the denial of
right to the individual.
I assert, therefore, that the second question raised by
you, that of the effect upon the press of the proposed re-
peal of the stamp duty, is one really beside the matter in.
haled. Either the duty as now levied is fair, or it is un-
fair. Iff air, cadit quastio, the case for the prosecution
breaks down, and further defence becomes superfluous.
If unfair, the law stands already condemned ; and argu-
ments drawn from the alleged success of its working can
be pleaded only in palliation of its past, not in defence of
its continued existence. Into that second topic, therefore,
I shall only go so far as is needful to dispel some prejudices
and exaggerated apprehensions. The real battle must be
fought on other ground—viz., en the two questions—(l.)
Is the stamp law just? (2.) If not, can it be replaced
by one that shall be so ? To the consideration of these
moot points I proceed.
The existing duty, as everyone knows, consists of a uni-
form charge of one penny, levied on all publications con.
tainiug "news," and appearing oftener than once in 26
days. This duty, as I believe all persons will allow, is not,
in the strict sense of the word, a tax. In that respect, I
admit, the name popularly given to it involves an erro-
neous idea. For a tax, being defined, signifies a charge
imposed on persons or property for the purposes of admin-
istration generally—excluding thus the idea of any special
service, save and except that general one of Government,
being performed in return. Now, in the case of the stamp
duty, there is a specific and definite equivalent—vie., the
transmission of the stamped journal through the post-
office without further charge. The impost, is, in fact
(though originally devised with a very different intention),
a postal charge, and is usually spoken of and defended as
such.
This fact, I think, materially simplifies the question at
issue. It is not easy—some hold that it is not possible—
to adjust with mathematical accuracy the incidence of
taxation, so that each man shall contribute to the hitate-
chest just as much relatively to his means as his neigh-
bour, neither snore nor less. But about .the rules which
should govern the imposition of a postal charge there
can be no twe opinions. Government undertakes to do that
which would otherwise be done by private enterprise ; for
the general convenience, it claims and asserts a monopoly;
the public, in return, demands that its service should be
efficient, its charges moderate and equal. It is a bargain—
an exchange- between the State on ono side and individual
citizens on the other; it is, moreover, a bargain in which,
by the authority of one of the contracting parties, the ether
is forbidden to go into the open market and accept auy offer
from other parties. In making such a compact, therefore,
Government should be doubly cautious that all the eezd.i-
tions of equity are fal fille d . It is bound, alai its defenders
are bound to show that, bating such trivial irrnularities
as ne nicety of human law' oan wholly remedy, the price
paid is is each else proportionate to the value of the service
rendered ; the service being, moreover, efficient and the
price moderate. Here, then, the issue narrows to one of
fact. I do not apprehend that any previous step of my
reasoning will be objected to. It will be allowed (1) tha t
the justice of the law is the ono thing material to b e
proved or disproved ; (2) that the newspaper stamp is a
postal charge ; (3) that a postal charge ought to be regu-
lated according to the definition just laid down.
Does the uniform penny stamp comply with the three
conditions therein stated? (1.) Is the postal service, as
regards newspaper transmission, efficient ? (2.) IsitcheaP ?
(3.) Is " the price paid in each case proportionate to the
value of the service rendered ?" On the first and second of
these queries I raise no cavil. I have heard a complaint that
newspapers are not safely and speedily delivered ; and, as
regards the other requisite, I do not dispute your statement
that the Pest-office loses rather than gains by undertaking
their carriage. As between the Post-office and the press,
so far is the latter interest frern having any-
thing to complain of, that it receives some advantage by
the transmission of its publications under the cost price of
such transmission. The inequality, the wrong, which I
complain of, lies elsewhere. It consists in an unfair ad-
vantage given to one class of journals over another by the
Post-otlice arrangements. It falls under the third head of
inquiry—the price in each case is not proportionate to the
service given in return ; therefore, the enforced bargain is
vo
n charge of
unfair. There are several modes of meetingslv g only a
ia
this kind. It may be denied, if that bo possible ; the fact
may be defended, or rather excused, as
slight wrong, which is compensated by manifest expe-
diency ; or it may be regretted, but represented as inevit-
able. Let us examine these defences one by one.
Denial of the fact will, I presume, not bo attempted. I
have by me a smell advertising sheet which appears in a
neighbouring town (to save the law) monthly ; and which,
but for the operation of the law, would probably appear
fortnightly, if not weekly. Its weight, to judge by the
quantity of paper which it contains, does not exceed one-
twentieth that of the Times when the latter appears with
its full sixteen pages of print. But it needs no reference to
special instances to prove that a journal which is the organ of
a small community, whether rural or urban, will bo very un-
equal in bulk to the great metropolitan journals which circu-
late throughout England. Yet the two are charged equally
for conveyance, though twenty numbers of the one only
occupy in the mail-bag tho space of ono number of the
other.

At this point I may fitly consider a rather startling as-
sertion which appears prominently iu your pamphlet.
You say "the penny stamp on newspapers, entitling to
transmission and retransmission by post, does not com-
prise in its nature the slightest infusion of the principle
of protection ;" a proposition which you explain thus :
" Protection is giving one class of producers or dealers an
advantage over any other class producing or dealing in the
same commodity." Therefore, if your view is to be ac-
cepted as correct, a postal charge se arranged as absolutely
to prevent any one from producing a newspaper at less
than a certain price, does not give any advantage to the
larger and wealthier establishments producing the same
article. I do not, I confess, see how such an assertion is
capable of proof.
Suppose the principle of the stamp law applied to any
other branch of trade. Suppose, for instance, that Govern-
ment, impressed with an idea that small retail shops sup-
plied inferior articles at exorbitant prices, and that it was
the duty of the State to check this evil by putting them
down, were to lay on every shop of whatever size an an-
nual tax of equal amount, such amount being not less than
100 per cent. on the gross receipts of the smallest establish-
ments ; and, to make the parallel complete, suppose that
in return for this charge it undertook to transport gratui-
tonsly all goads bought and sold by the taxpayers ;—what
would be the effect ? Of course, to throw all business into
the hands of large dealers, and to increase the profits of
trade in proportion as it was conducted on a larger scale.
Small traders would disappear altogether.
Illke whole supply of the market would be vested in a
limited number of great capitalists, residing probably .in
the metropolis, and carrying on their business by agents in
all the smaller towns. And when men had become used to
the system, and vested interests had grown up under it, I
do not doubt but that some one of these capitalists would
be found—not merely to declaim against the immorality of
small traders, which would become the habitual language
of the protected class—but to affirm, as gravely, as con-
scientiously, and as mistakenly as you do now, that in the
law as it stood there was not the slightestinfusion of the
principle of protection."
It is, I apprehend, wholly indisputable that the effect
of the stamp duty is to establish a financial censorship—
one conducted on truly British principles. In foreign and
despotic countries a journalist becomes suspected by rea-
son of his opinions ; in constitutional England he is re-
strained from periodical publication on the ground of po-
verty. The law is at least impartial. The most anarchical
and the most conservative of journals are treated alike, if
they fall below a certain price. They are written for
labouring men—they are circulated within a small area—
their intelligence is defective and tardy—therefore, says
the British Government, they shall not appear. Is this an
English or a Russian policy ?
But, after all, is there so much danger of our press
becoming " parochial"—or, what is meant by this
vague throat ? As matters stand, the existence of local
journalism in small communities is the exception rather
than the rule. It is only the large town, or the populous
district, which can support a high-priced stamped journal.
Local affairs (call them " parochial " if you will) receive
comparatively little notice from the public prints. I do
not see why this is to be considered an advantage. If it
is meant that a press dealing exclusively with such small
matters will, by the operation of the proposed change, be
substituted for one which, as at present, discusses imperial
questions, I deny the probability—indeed the possibility
—of any such result. In journalism, as elsewhere, the
demand creates the supply. There is in England a large
number of educated and intelligent persons who take
an interest in the political affairs of their own and
other countries. Of such persons it has not been shown
that the number is likely to diminish, or the taste to
alter. The alternative, then, is apparent. Either (which
is most unlikely) the unstamped press will rival the
stamped in the value of its information and the merit of
its writing—and in that ease it matters not whether one
or the other is most extensively patronised ; or it -will not
—the high-priced journal will still maintain its superiority
—and the cheap local prints will net drive it out of the
market, but attract another class of customers, those who at
the present moment neither purchased nor read any paper,
and thus flourish by its side without doing it injury. Take
an illustration of the state of the case. Suppose the same
legislative sagacity which dictates the retention of the
stamp duty to have prevented all cheap travelling on rail-
, ways—to have prohibited the railroad companies from
taking second or third class passengers—is it likely that
the number of first class travellers would have been in-
creased by the number of those who now travel in the lower
priced carriages ? Is it not clear that on the restriction
being removed a vast multitude of persons would begin for
the first time to use the railways who never used them
in the So will ii he with the press. Those who now take
Tcntee A-ews, Herald, or Advertiser, are net
likely to substitute for thee. SI-et-chum journals, With their
early intelligence and superior writing, the cheap penny
print which will circulate among ineehanics and labourers.
I have no doubt that a dinner may be had in various Lon-
don Taverns at a very much lower rate than is charged by
the clubs; yet the clubs are not deserted in consequence ?
No ; as in all other branches of business, so in journalism,
the customer who is willing to pay the highest price can
always command the best article. Ido not quarrel with
his taste, nor seek to limit its indulgence ; quite the con-
trary. But I protest against his measuring other inea's
purses and inclinations by his own. Ido not see that be-
ing wealthy and of refined ideas, he is on that account en-
titled to say to his poorer neighbour, " If you cannot afford
a newspaper at sixpence you shall buy none, for cheap
newspapers are worthless."

But—siain—your analogy, even were it accepted as good
up to this point, breaks down where you need it most.
Yon justify the unjust stamp duty by what you (I think
mistakenly) assume to be the not less unjust letter duty.
But remember that the very point for which wo are con-
tending is, and always has been, concedes' in the case of
letters. Ne person, so far as I know, has ever proposed a
uniform letter stamp for all weights as well as all distances.
Yet this is the boasted uniformity of the newspaper-stamp
system. When a half-ounce letter and an eight-ounce
parcel shall be charged alike, then, and not till then, may
the one abuse be pleaded as excusing the other. But is
this likely to happen ?
Nay, even the absurdity which I have here called into
iwmhaithniasrytheexcisatuesneceoffu/Tyi selivreig. s
tinenly half a parallel to that
For even thus, a per-
son who did not send any letter by post, but communi-
cated with his friend solely through notes sent by private
hand, might escape untaxed. But the stamp law, while
charging one newspaper proprietor ten times as highly as
another in proportion to the amount of postal service re-
quired by each, forbids any to escape from the burden,
however willing such person might be to forego the advan-
tages of the post office on condition of being released from
its charges.
Thirdly, you appeal to the precedent of the stamp on
receipts imposed last year. A plea which, as addressed to
Mrs Gladstone may be a powerful arguntenturn ad hantinem,
hat with me, on that score, little weight. If the law,
which you are calling on the Chancellor of the Exchequer
to maintain be contrary to right, as between man and man,
it is no vindication that the Minister to whom you appeal
has perpetrated another wrong of the eernekind. Where a
demonstrable certainty exists, no authority, no precedent,
no force of public opinion, avail to make it untrue. The
united voice of the whole newspaper press of England can-
not make five and fire anything else than ten, nor falsify a
problem in Euclid. Bat it is not necessary, in order to
reply to you, to censure Mr. Gladstone. A tax, as I before
said, is ono thing ; a postal charge another. A tax, taken
by itself, may be inequitable in the loghest degree ; yet, as
forming a part of a general system of taxation, it may be
perfectly fair. Its injurious incidence on one class may be
balanced by a corresponding exemption of that class in
some other respect ; and thus the general account, as be- ,
tween tax-pay er and tax-gatherer, be squared. But in the
case of a postal charge no such oompensation exists ; and '
the case whicle you defend is that cf an etnequal postal
u
charge. Can you show that the small journals, crushed
tenfold weight of taxation, receive any compeue
sating advantages from other sources? If not, what is
your parallel worth ?
I affirm, therefore, with a confidence unshaken, and un-
shakeable by any plea to the contrary which I have either
heard or read, (1) that ler equal service 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 else-
where; (2) that in point of justice no defence of this enor-
mous inequality can lie set up; (3) that this question, like
every other in which financial interests are involved, is to
be decided on equitelelo 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
rtuhleerubleecoineofas merely
financier
a licensederwh
unlepsslutdreeeacr of the public.tsonsomesuch
But, having first watered the above protest, I am willing
to consider dispassion ately the probable results of a modi-
fication of the law. And here, as is natural, I find the
greatest amount of opposition on the part of those averse
to a change—i% 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 ques-
tion. " You complain. of the stamp law as unjust—how
do you propose to mend it ? You have exposed the unfair-
ness of the existing postal scheme—now substitute one of
your 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 un-
just, any citizen living under it has a right to expose that
injustice, withoutlieing 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 more com-
plaint is always easy, remedial legislation often diffioult, I
allow that the former without the latter becomes of little
value; and I readily accept the challenge thrown out by
adopting iu part the proposition of the Committee of 1851,
in part that which yem yourself suggest.
The evils demonst rated to exist are mainly three :
1. Undue favouritism towards the large or metropolitan
journals by the priviledge of gratuitous retransmission.
2. Undue favouritism towards the large journals by the
uniform charge for all weights.
3. Injury to the local journalist, by compelling him to
pay for the past-Offie 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 in-
creasingit for lighter
weights. Hero we entirely concur. Some additional la-
the charge for heavier, and reducing
poofseaon the Post-office and
fraud afforded. But your
,
pboosusribwlyousohiluneooldo)ontunbi?jen:
proposal is merely 35 carrying out of the principle already
partiallyio" rrneliinegve hfriocinii
adopted' in the case of letters, and its obvious fairness en-
e
titles it to adoption. It involves no insuperable, nor in-
deed any oonsidereble mechanical difficulty. I cannot,
however, acquiesce in the farther snegestion that papers
whether they contaun "news"
in the legal souse of the
questionable
possible difference can it make to Government in its capa-
city of a public carrier—and it is only in this capacity that
Government can deal with the titheisstamp. What
question of postal conveyance
—whether the printed contents of the sheet which it for-
he
wards be politics, literature, local now; or advertisements?
term,lik like
shouldl tt''e)byff
I am not aware that any one of these, in a physical sense, is n
weightier aitiele than any other. In truth, the question
of exemptions lately raised shows iu a stronger light than
anything else the perfectly illogical and arbitrary theory
of the law as it stands.;But therm exemptions are, in truth,
mere attempts to prevent the law from breaking down, by
relaxing it whenever the opposition
provoked threatens
-to bmoruno formidable.
The third cause of complaint—namely, the prohibition
of any unstampod journal whatever—is one with which
you do not deal, or rather which you do not allow to be in
grievance. This fact, however, I -
any way a wooer, assume as pie
the remedy viously proved ; and being obvious, viz., to
allow the existence of unstamped journals without postal
privileges, it remaius only to consider what obstacles can
be pleaded against the eetablishineet of such a system.
It is argues!, first, that it will render necessary a large
increase in the staff of the Post-office, with a view to pre-
vent the fraudulent transmission of unstamped journals.
This inconvenience seems to ine much exaggerated ; for
those who urge it assume that no paper needs to be exa-
mined at the Post-office under the present system, all
being alike entitled to the privilege of transmission. But
is this the fact? So far from it, two classes of fraud at
once present themselves, against which the vigilance of the
postal authorities is required to guard. First, the privi-
lege of the stamp expires after seven days ; so that not
merely must the easily-ascertained fact of the stamp being
duly affixed be attested by official inspection,
but the date
of that stamp must also be examined, a process requiring
much miauter examination. But next, it is no uncommon
trick for persons of an economical and not over-scrupulous
dispositiou, to correspond by means of old newspapers,
writing within the cover or on the margins, 'whereby the
postal penny is evaded. Either these two frauds are
gunrded against or they are not. It they are, every news-
paper posted must now undergo inspection, in whi •
sh case
the change suggested imposes npa(ldition al labour on any
one. If they are not, the liability of the Post-office to
suffer from fraud exists already, and will not be materi-
ally increased. Taking either alternative, the objection
fails equally.
But secondly (and this is by far the graver objection), it
is contended that an unstamped press is in itself an evil
"You will assimilate the journalism of England to that o
the
th-United States," cry out alarmist; thereby ascribing
all e merits of that press which they extol as incompar-
able to the existence of a penny-stamp duty. " You will
make journalism local, petty, parochial ; you will deprive
it of its present weight and influence in the State." Yet
what is it proposed to do? To limit the right of publioa-
lion ? To interfere with the organisation of the great me-
tropolitan journals ? No ; but simply to allow that which
the existing law virtually prohibits—the appearance of
cheap local prints. Am I exaggerating when I say that
these are prohibited? What is the rate at which they are
charged for the postal privilege :
A 9,1." paper pays, ad valorem, 124 per cent.
6d- PP PP " 20
4d. „ 334 „
3d. „ ''
2cl. „ 100
which is manifestly a prohibitory deity ; and, accordingly,
we find that threepence is the lowest price at which a
newspaper can be published with any chance of repayment.
Here, then, wo come to a dilemma. The Legislature, by
no indirect result of its measures, but by the simple pro-
ceas ui crushing imposi! forbids any luau to publish a

The apprehension, then, that journals of the most expen-
sive class will not be able, to held their own seems wholly
groundless. Each rank of society will find its own organ,
the exponent of its opinions and ideas ; and this is desirable.
But early intelligence—familiarity with the political ques-
tions of the day—eloquence and argumentative power—
are not to be had without paying for them ; and in these,
though stripped of the artificial and unfair privileges which
they now enjoy, the superiority of the large and lone-esta-
blished journals will continue to consist. Nay, as it seems
to me, the power and influence of such journals over the
public mind will be not diminished, but augmented ; for
though there is no political question on which an immea-
surable amount of nonsense and verbiage may not be
poured forth, yet the real arguments on which all such
questions turn are comparatively feW. A single night's de-
bate in Parliament suffices to exhaust them; at the utmost
three or four nights do so. These arguments will in all
probability be most pointedly stated and most thoroughly
investigated in the metropolitan press. Their articles—
their comments—are now very generally copied by that of
the provinces. They will be so still. Thoindirect circulation
of the leading London journals will become enormously mul-
tiplied, while the direct circulation is only in a slight degree
affected. They will lose little, if anything, in money, and
gain much in power. Their opposition, therefore, to the
abolitioc of the stamp, and thus to the calling into exist-
ence of a cheap press, seems as ;contrary to their own in-
terests as to those of the public.
But here a fresh objection is taken. We are met by a
cry of piracy, and a demand for copyright in news. I
admit that in this question there are difficulties enough to
furnish material for a debate and to perplex a Parliament.
It is hard enough to define copyright iu becks, to say what
ie original and what borrowed, to fix the limit where the
mere literary offence of plagiaris it ends, and the legal
crime of copyright-breach begins. No doubt the intricacy
of the problem is increased when dealing with matter of
such ephemeral interest as news. The principle, however,
that he who has gene to expense In oniaining information
from air exclusive source snoaid have an exclusive benefit
in its sale, is too manifestly just to admit of dispute ; and
its legal assertion is expedient also, because without such
protection it may be doubted whether the same efforts will
continuo to be made, as at present, to obtain priority of in-
telligence.* I readily concede that to deduo piracy in the
case of newspapers will be no easy matter. Probably, lot
Parliament do the best it can, any act likely to pass will
leave large room for legal sophisti ins anti conflictingjudg-
mute. But the difficulty, be it groat or small, is none of
our making. It exists already. If it be contended that
the necessity for a copyright law will become more pressing
as the number of cheap newspapers increases, in conse-
quence of the repeal stamp law, I answer, the same result
will follow when the number of newspapers increases,
from whatever cause. In fact, the question must be
settled, the difficulty faced, before long. At the worst,
all that the repeal of the stamp duty can do in regard of
it is a little to hasten the time of Parliamentary inter-
ference. Ido not sot see in what way this result can be
regarded as a formidable evil.
One more argument remains to be dealt with. It is
contended by the advocates of the present system
that the privilege of retransmission e., of sending
the same newspapers backwards and forwards through
the Post-office during seven days) is inseparably con-
,neeted with that part of the law which requires every
newspaper to be stamped. The connection, however,
is not obvious, except so far as that the boon ac-
corded to the public on the one hand is pleaded as a set-off
for the injustice done to a section of the public on the
other. As a matter of justice, I perceive no claim that
nowevenders can set up to send comparatively bulky,
packets seven times through the post at the cost of a penny
each, while a letter, for the same sum, travels but once.
But if, as a matter of convenience, the public desirest too
have it so, no grave objection can exist, seeing
tax-paying community and the newspaper-reading
com-
munity are now pretty nearly, and will, in
ing out
still more nearly, co-extensive. They are oihyispty.
same.
of one pocket instead of the other; theresuretransinission
But there is no reason why the gratuitousnthe
is made
of newspapers should be stopped 'The two regulations no
optional instead of compulsory.
It is true that, as the
way interfere with one another.
would probably borrow much of
local journals (which n the metropolitan journals
their political matter.
latteri n
number,woulthath
for retransmission of
diminish.t But this is a remote and doubtful con-
h e
most demand
likely
of the day before) inetrrhoesasseed

But this is not the whole case ; nor yet the wort part of
it. This little local journal to which I have referred does
not want the Post-office at all. If, living in a town, I wish
to send out 1,000 copies of a circular, I should certainly
find it cheaper and more convenient to hire a messenger to
distribute them than to pay Si. 32.4 d. for their circulation
by the local post-oince. In this case Government anew,
me the option. But if I issue a weekly or fortnightly cir-
cular, in the shape of a newspaper, I have no similar free-
dom of choice. Whether I use the postal arrangements
which Government has provided, or dispense with them,
is immaterial to the State ; but in either case I must pay
equally. As a fact, I believe they are comparatively little
used, copies of newspapers taken in in the town where they
are published passing almost exclusively through private
hands. But to sum up the statement of fact ; we have
here two manifest breaches of the rule laid down. In the
first place, equal charges are imposed for unequal service ;
in the second, these charges are enforced even where no
corresponding service is performed.
New, how are those provisions of the law defended ? I
have read with care your two pamphlets, and also, I be-
lieve, most of the speeches and writings that have appeared
on this subject. Apart from the question of political results
on which the greatest stress is laid, the main arguments
relied on seem to be the following :
First, that the power of repeated transmission, without
extra charge, compensates for the overcharge in some in-
stances; and that, on the whole, Government loses instead
of gaining on the transaction.
This plea seems easily to be disposed of. No doubt, if
every newspaper proprietor were in partnership with every
other—if the whole fraternity of journalism had but one
common purse—it might be fair enough for the Chancellor
of the Exchequer to say, "You publish collectively so
many copies of newspapers—of this total number a certain
fixed proportion may be assumed as likely to pass through
the post—l assess you, therefore, at such and such a sum ;
and you must settle it among yourselves in what propor-
tion you shall pay." But the injustice complained of is
not between Government and lthe newspaper press as a
body ; it lies between various conflicting interests in that
body, some of which are nudely fostered by the operation
of the law, others as unduly depressed. Refer once more
to the case of the small local journal I have mentioned. One
half of its impression, to take the moderate estimate, never
goes near the post-office. On the other half therefore which
does go by post its proprietor may be said to pay twice over.
Further, on that half, weight for weight, he pays eight or
ten times as much (I am again understating the possible
case) as the proprietor of the Times. " Twentyfold my
share of the postal charge !" he exclaims. " What then?'
answers the Government—" you have your compensation ;
you may send every copy of your journal, if you like, four,
five, six times through our Post-office, up to the ex-
piration of the assigned seven days; it is true that
you don't want this privilege—that, so far as you
are concerned, it is a dead letter—that no one
reads, or is ever likely to read, your publication in
any place except the town whose local affairs it
discusses—but that is no business of ours. You
should deal less in local news ; you should get the foreign
correspondence; compete with the London journals • and
then you would find the advantage of our regulations. 'Why,
we actually lose by every copy of the large metropolifya
journals which we transmit." " Thank you," rePil:es -the
now enlightened complainant; " the coreforl;,
comes to this— that if I can succeed you give me
.
sing my fortune,
your system of charges Will 1;4 me to enlarge it ; but

Electric telegraphs have, however, done much to equalise
the advantages of London and the provinces in this ropect.
Probably if a law of limited copyright in news were passed,
the leading journals would agree to an exchange of intelli-
gence by mutual consent, and thus accommodate the public
while protecting themselves against unauthorised copyists.
It is not an unnatural feeling that leads most people, even
of the poorest, to prefer food purchased and prepared for
themselves, rather than the broken scraps and leavings of the
most luxurious feast. It is quite possible that many would
prefer purchased cheap newspaper to an eleemosynary dear
one.

* The Spectator, and I belie:`: ogle or two other weekly
papers, appear at this price. s

•
e

-

~.
~~~~~