The Sun.
London, England, 1855-03-27 00:00:00

Sir E. B. LYTTON differed from his hon. friend and
from other hon. friends on this subject with great concern.
He was glad, however, to see that his hon. friend had not
narrowed the debate so as to reduce to a question of
pounds, shillings, and pence as important a principle as
any that the House of Commons could entertain. (Hear.)
He (Sir E. B. Lytton) was one of the first to introduce the
principle to that house in a motion for the repeal of the
taxes on knowledge ; and when his hon. and learned friend
said that the question was not long enough before Parlia-
ment, he bogged to inform his hon. friend that it was
brought forward by him (Sir E. B. Lytton) twenty years
ago. He was then a young man, but the opinions he enter-
tained on the question at that period he entertained at the
present moment, and had seen no reason whatever to alter
them since. A great advance had, undoubtedly, been
made in the general intelligence of the country since that
time, and the dangers which then threatened had, it was
admitted, decreased. But why? It was because during
the last twenty years cheap publications had abounded,
and because the public had had the wisdom to choose
the best of these publications and reject the worst.
rre (ir E. B. Lytton) had heard the arguments now
employed by his hon. and learned friend, in respect to
newspapers, not unfrequently urged on former occasions
against all cheap publications whatsoever, as if to adapt
the book market to the poor man's pocket was to corrupt
the public taste. But what was the fact? Why there
was such a profusion of good books published that the bad
' books totally disappeared. (Hoar.) At the present moment
the books to be found in the hands of the artisan were
either elementary scientific works, or works of entertain-
ment of a superior character. And now, when the danger
had disappeared, he would ask, had they a right to listen
to what newspaper proprietors would have them put faith
in, that any publication cheaper than their own was an
appeal to the passions of the public. Was it the cheapness
of the newspaper that was to corrupt the artisan, or the
vileness of the artisan that was to corrupt the newspaper ?
.All those suppositions, however, were refuted by the evi-
dence of facts. Thousands of cheap publications had
brought to the cottage of the labourer, not the degrading
literature that was anticipated, but the most elevating de-
scription of knowledge. He (Sir E. Bulwer-Lytton) there-
fore entreated the house not to separate this important prin-
ciple from its consideration of the bill. He agreed that the
details required attention, and he thought it was not only
absolute justice, but sound policy, to give an effective and
simple copyright law to newspapers, something similar
to Sir J. Emerson-Tennent's act for the protection of
designs and manufactures, which he believed would not
be difficult. As far as regarded the weight and size of
newspapers be thought the paper of the largest circulation
should be taken—the one in which the public felt the deep-
est interest. Ho was given to understand that the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer meant to return to the principle of
weight. It did seem to him, however, that this would be
unfair, as it would separate a paper from its supplement.
Far from having any grudge against the existing news-
papers, be (Sir E. Bulwer-Lytton) agreed that the press
was au honour to this country, for ability in its composi-
tion, for the integrity of the men in whom its duties were
vested, and, always making an allowance for anonymous
power, fur its freedom from calumny. (Hear, bear.) And
if he were called upon fur a monument of our civilisation
he should point, not to our docks, nor to our public build-
ings, but to a file of our newspapers. He could find nothing
to cling to except an Attorney-General who had not the
courage to prosecute, and a jury who wou'd refine) to con-
vict. His hon. friend spoke in commendation of the tone
of the existing press ; but he would remind his hon. friend
that it was not the newspapers that formed the tone of the
public mind, but the public who gave the tone to news-
papers. And if the press was an honour to the country, it
must be recollected that it was because it reflected the
masculine honesty, the vigorous good sense, and the civil-
ised humanity of the popular mind. They had been told
that this proposed change would have a tendency to degrade
the press to the level of the American press. They had
been told that the American press was in the hands of
penniless, illiterate adventurers, and that to this was to
be attributed its alleged low tone. Whereas the real fact
was, the American press abounded with the highest intel-
lectual characters of the country. There was scarcely an
author of eminence, or a statesman of fame, or a man of
liberal opinions and sufficient merit, who was not a con-
tributor to the American press. They found the whole of
tie literary talent and character engaged on the American
press, and therefore, if the press was inferior, it must be
owing to the less civilised character of the country (we
understood). It showed that the good or bad character of
the press did not depend on fiscal arrangements, but on the
standard of civilisation of a nation. He would now come
to the main principle of the bill, and he would venture to
piece, that erode prinriplo on a higher and broader ground
than that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That right
hon. gentleman seemed to regard the bill rather with the
toleration of a step-father than with the glowing love of a
parent. He took the principle to be this, that in a free
country they ought not to lay a tax en the expression of
public opinion, or tax the diffusion of information on pub-
lic affairs--that information, according to the constitution
being the common interest and concern of every subject of
the state. Still loss, they ought not, by means of a tax, to
create artificially by capital a virtual monopoly of the right
to publish information on questions in which the whole
public had an equal and a commorr interest. That was the
principle of the bill and was the question before the house ;
and they could not get rid of the fact that no man, what-
ever might be his talents, whatever his honesty and know-
ledge, however sound his opinions, could publish his
opinions on the events and affairs of the day in a daily
journal without an enormous capital, or in a weekly
journal without several thousand pounds ; and that this
narrowed the liberty of publishing quite as much as if the
state sold for a sum of money the right to a monopoly of
the market for public information. (Cheers.) One result
was, to narrow the represenation of public opinion. There
was either a large section of public opinion not represented
or repro' m ted inadequately. He very much doubted
whether there were ten thoughtful men on either side of
the home who, on great and important questions, could
find a single paper with which they could cordially agree
in opinion. Now, if they took the great Conservative
party, it would be found in the counties that the party
had a large majority, and in the towns they had a large
and influential minority. With respect to its comparative
strength, not its numbers, but its wealth and intelligence
must be regarded. Let the house consider how large a
share it had of the cultivated classes, the learned profess
sions, the clergy, and the gentry. Well, if they turned to
the metropolitan press, would they tell him that the Con-
servative papers' circulation was in proportion to the nuua-
hers and weight of the party, or adequately represented its
intellectual eminence and wealth ? (we understood.) There
were two ways of representing public opinion—one
through Parliament, the other through the press. His
hon. friend below him (Mr. Deedes) would tell him that
the Conservative party was the largest integral body in
Parliament, and yet in the press there was no sub-division
of opinion so sparingly represented. If they looked to
the press generally and the number of copies circulated by
the various journals, they would be startled at the dis-
parity which existed between the influence in the
country of the Conservative party and their represen-
tatives in the press. (Hear, hear.) If the stamp duty
were removed, and if able men among the party pos-
sessed the power to defend their cause, could any
one doubt that all that talent, and knowledge, and
intellect could do would find its channel of repre,enta-
tion ? No doubt that paper was the best which had the
largest command of capital, but then it was not always the
best a wspaper that presented the best opinions. Some
took cue course, some another ; ono paper was supported
on account of the variety of its news, another because of
its political opinions. Twenty years ago he had convinced
himself that with respect to the Liberal press, there were
many safe and sound thinkers who would hold it to be
their duty to come to resist and counteract any revolu-
tionary or socialist doctrines ; and on the Conservative
side were they so indifferent as to be unable to defend, or
indifferent to the increase of their opinions ? He was per-
suaded if the duty was taken off, that many able writers—
gentlemen and scholars on their side—would came forward
to remove prejudices, and to enlighten the public mind as
to Conservative opinions and views, about which they were
just now very much left in the dark. He was convinced
if the duty were removed, that many eminent public men
—many eminent men of letters would come forward and
publish cheap journals—not, however, vereiug with the
Times, but works which would convey opinions stamped
with the responsibility of the authors' avowed name. He
was convinced that this cheap competition would not
lower, but would rather elevate the moral character of the
newspaperpress
and the I social position
; for if anything could exalt that
social position
with the anony-
mous character of public writers (we understood). lie
s,c it ial
would. b e of
doing .!o gentlemen
ing
away connected with
willingly admitted that no more able and accomplished
gentlemen could be found than those who contributed to the
political department of the leading journals ; but, then, it
was in vain to deny that most persons felt an uneasiness at
their presence, and in holding social intercourse with men
who, in the exercise of their talents, must make secrecy a
necessary law. One naturally feared' that the newspaper
contributor with whom he associated to-day might, in the
discharge of his professional duty, sting him darkly and
to the quick to-morrow. Mr. Fox told an anecdote of a
man who was eiving evidence in a court of law, who said
he got his information from a ghost. "Well," said the
judge, " I know of no objection against taking the evidence
of a ghost; let him bo brought into court." (Laughter.)
Anonymous newspapers were a kind of ghosts—he had no
objection to their evidence, but at the same time he should
like to have them brought into court. (Laughter.) The
hon. gentleman (Mr. Deedes) appeared to argue the case
too much as if it was a question between the press and the
tax collector. Ho could not help smiling to hear the hon.
gentleman say that the proprietors of newspapers did not
complain of the tax, and why then should it be altered?
But what corporate body ever did complain of a tax which
restricted competition in their department, and secured
monopoly to it? Helwas amused to see journals which
formerly wore warmest in their advocacy (of free trade
doctrines, now arming themselves with all the most anti-
quated arguments in favour of protective duties amounting
to absolute prohibition, which had been used so success-
fully dining the last 10 years of the corn laws—arguments
snotand now lauifiligthert.
which even the farmers would not have been beguiled by.
(Hear,
time to enforceue ion was this—whether it
The
st
the good principle of
the constitution, a principle consonant to liberty and com-
mon sense—that opinion should be free, and should not be
suppressed or fettered by fiscal arrangements, through
which liberty was filched and stolen away, but that it
should only be subject to the laws of the country directed
against treason, blasphemy, and slander? Here he would
say one word on behalf of a class who were the chief sup-
porters of cheap publications—it was, that no class in the