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

80.DATII.

,ti ,

~.

I 4 I .1.
' ;-;

^~ I 4

-.!--
8% -
2 I-

Station

11T
)n, Lit Mt.we
—" A,
`.45 Ft, of
4chUreh-:

Pen.
aura
Street

Cg

n to all parts of London

ni the Arrival of the fo
-street Station.

--:-.
II
4%

'DAYS.

rtit
I"4l:4hceff,,t'peii ----2-------I__________
.11' A ~..__ 411(14P,4ii Lo Fore Fore Cabin. 8,
t 4 T Ana 4 '4ekvvail "n •• • • ...... 10d. .. Is.
'44,-ti's " Inte or Woolwich ad. •• Os,
NO 4 , 2/: .....r.ve, r!,,"Aii ate piers., 6d. .. Os,
.Vior kr 03. ; to 7 Ntonths Months,
44, 4oek, errifid of? the
C.ollectors on boi ace rse.

31. Os. ;
gird the

4Zllited! 41Plitxh,
114 23. OP YOUTH AND MATIJRIT Y.
illustr +
ktst 0 tr staarn'edpZith cases; free by post for 30
Rripto, DEBILITY;
ty1„.11 ,futieV,„,_ana Care.—An Essay on SPer-
),,,le„''M tret,. '''Bervations on a safer and more
h3' the 414 of the diseases
in detecting and
tf "eltbr„"lliDiain-r-"ination, the reac cause and effect of
b,?lsil'reb,,,,;:, Whether arising from solitary habits,
ate, followed by practical remarks, founded
vi,,,%4 la the treatment of Impuissance,
ey on-,Znegs. Spertnatorrhma, &c. To which
hlsggern„Loa PhYSlology of Marriage, with pre-
-414 rerno.7 curt tang from empirical practice,
r'lers. ""ts advocated by various writers on
it Ft 'kek
tuna one, „ SUE T
b -411RRT, M.D.
tr AR E, LONDON,
,t1.41,,D0t, I,,,`'Ther oft, Afcmber of the University of Min-
11.0114,_"'Jetir-lrias, ,;"° 1". on,lon Hospital Medical Society,
t14pr„,..8 °t. this "414 London 81,e , &e.
"Nbs,t 4c,ire t!eatise is to po' int.out the fearful lot ettir,
~Triore`ain habits, irregularities, and excesses,
16,i> rt4q4a, ikooxy. misery in Youth, degradation in Man-
'aa of Life, than, perhaps, any
"tioNt,liti,„,'M to- taodern pathologists. Its perusal is
Etr,d
oho
entertaining secret doubts of
pr are conscious of having hazarded
RrieeN4N, egea to which every human being is
43' °''‘ 4lt't'r/' that n
,krvkltlit:,ln%',l444ere men should know, that there are
the 44, 1,414 e N, whlch cannot be violated without
yrs oo? tat
in" When 'Wisdom and regre. succeed
I.thlerit,_44e7lllt4,„ltitie7,ll.-`ndulgenee, how these penalties
Nor has lecit 'f their bitterness may be removed,
le *74 top, q tho.(l,4:enc es may be avoided, and above all,
'4l,kter'tiltlef',,q physical infirmity or functional
t;a, *),3' t,,s'Atttleh:eB of aid of science ealmot apply a cure.
1k;‘,1•4.',,, 14;1 too'' Of th Years been engaged in an extensive
s,'OtfOrtL'el qr„gtrler:,, a delicate complaints which have
bgito,;at confided to the car.; of ignorant
If' '9. t," 'kr -4' on those who arc in used to place
11t4,1 tj, 23 rri
eillk Pi t!:eet.'Nter 3' be
ititY' 'll,ar 4°,ter had, price 2v, of Messrs. Piper,
10 top Nian,:roW ; Ilannay, 63, Oxford-street;
ttrle„,, '"i fro,,,"' _39. Cornbill; or free by post for
"` 'no Author's residence, 37, Bed-
4,tu
them Eleven till Two, and from

JCL,Eit,
%14.,, 'lrtl.
...I.T A.
4 bert Ilkit,„101.0178NE88, DEBILITY, AND
rt tgeiet',*ESTlOli.
IltstN . 1.3 441 :r Constipation, and Ilminorrhoids, li.
1/4,
,4t 4,i, 3%.,p05t ls. 6d.
8 kt• )1110% 'tllti , -uItIIK, AND AVOID.
, 'l4:, norltio. i ulnitt
k tti -of the cUrantur morbi."
114,.4 prPtelii,.boVi h PrinciPal causes (over and careless
k ,%.;,,•114 ihenl-‘11.4, a„ arassing and distressing complaints,
‘c,' 04;41 in; to wi;l,,bcPular exposition of how we should
' at 4itr_ tteiloile;,,is added, diet tables for every meal
ti(l,, •tw 'or the regimen and observance of
4,11 l elltY•four. Illustrated by numerous
11,1•111, 4ktt,
1./41 (tkNa htila STII)Pt.
n't ,h % /Nit hath „ 4 Or MARRTED LIFE.
1LA,1i,„411 ~,,i all deal' 'Mr, I hold him lost,
epkilo\k: -"14.,::' Wind, °44. Re that hath no child,
klpitti„,ita ,a 1;„ haueer.
N.,.'ibt),4 14,14Itte'ilc:Linplis and Neeessitiea—Development
,1114, e,,,11(1 i'X'gruitle,.._ reel itt, impelled, and retardedl liiitqtist siegi bafellititual llnsuitableness—clilenuta_
, 4444.14,1,_ae,.ta,ti0.i:--vonreecer:(1811:::::-c-AtIVatlt:::$ IC,detenri
tti, Law 4911 Jufelleitouasr,YlßnfeesretiTe, and all Unas-
h ' r liltt, ,3 •
(1:1',44tt Da, A z,, .=.B INFRINGEMENTS.
tir:, it:,s hill:las° -Young Men.
1i',4,1/44,_, elm .etke,,
_8 .ne h..,
-S--what improve,
ciN.. ti!Rritri„',.. Athens ever heard:'
''''44,l4 d',:•ltit),•s;ll.roul infancy to old ego. The advent
its infringetneet. 'the casualties of
r(?) p °'
4,11134g01il
,t,.. oeae,
otylih ilitisiratl,ms, vraphic, narrative,
',);4..p.ae of marriages, &c.
11 bil'.°ok43' their 4c.. l4'N'l'(ll'443, ,i-A com `eelt-rnanagement and Cure.
,s4r4, 1,. ,, iser„,,,____ls:, -iensive and poaular exposition
;412nary-4,•,4 ti.eir nature an 1 treatment, coin-
lii Ntl ' alt and
secondary symptoms, all forms ot
t ~.,b, inicna 0 and spermatorrhcea ; with 250 en-
-34%
8 l3 AtTnit at'
84,!. g . , eo„,, . , awl ItECTUN.—Comprising
•01.,%_1(1 '7, ,47nt'll'atinn, and ILtinorrholds
, , otir,x.r
or b.antons to the meeeding..
"t'w tr. " ,7,,,a-41 X. I3OW TO ItE HAPPY.
. ' 23, t, &tell to f ude Vivere."
1 4.,lhp\bl, 41%.00atzr..,1„fait10—Shakespere.
)4,°lti'i'r:ti'oArelTAßl277U; Ill.iN,'F.nitn,W39l,;LCT:rnhM ; or
of
lk Virj ',to."' Tweet
thi NIO, AYCensulting'Colleague of the
IVelkil,l,...th en th:l3bll-12aee, Regent-atreet, London.
65,N,,, ti BP matters daily, from Ten till
-4 'oYeli till Nie.

OALCULA.TIONS ON THE MINISTRY.
‘_) :What:statesman can best guide the affairs of the nation, and
minister to the exigencies of the times, is a question very justly can-
vassed. Comfort is ministered to everybody by the seasonable
clothing manufactured by E. IfosEr and SON,

That every one in the City, In the country, and in all parts of the
world may have the ministry of the newest and most appropriate
articles of dress, E. Mons and SON have recently improved the
styles and quality, and reduced the pried of all goods they submit to
the inspection of the public.
At E. MosEs and SoN's the most commodious Clothing Hat,
Hosiery,' and Root and Shoe departments, are connected with the
most comprehensive Wholesale business in the world. This offers
better investments for Merchants, Cap.alns, and Emigrants than any
other merchandise can secure.

SPECIAL NOTICE.—UntiI March 1,11155, E. MOSES and SON'S
ESTABLISHMENTS will be CLOSED at EIGIIT O'CLOCK EVERY
EVENING, except Saturday, when they will be open till 11 o'clock.
C&UTION.—E. MOSES and SON regret having to guard ;.he
public against imposition, having learned tlrat the untradesman-like
falsehOod of " Being cernected w►th their Establishment," or " It's
the same concern," has been resorted to in many instances, and fer
obvious reasons, they beg to state that they have
No CONNEXION WITH ANY OTHER HOV3Z IN OR OUT OF LONDON,
except their own Establishments, as follows :
London City Establishment, 154, 155. 156, and 157, Minories, 84,
85, and 86, Aldgate, opposite the Church. all communicating.
London West-end Branch, 606, 507, 508, New Oxford-street, 1,2,
and 3, Hart-street, all conamrnloatirT.
Bradtord (Yorkshire) Branch, 19 and 23, Bridge-street.
Sheffield Branch, 36, Fargate. _

Colonial Wholesale Branch, Melbourne, Am.tralia.
Merchant Tailor, Clothiers, Hatters, Hosiers, Furriers, Boot an
Shoo Makerg. and General Gottliters for Ladies and Gentlemen.
IMPORTANT.—ShouId any article not give satisfaction, it will be
exchanged if desired, or, if preferred, the money will be returned
without hesitation. A'l goods are marked in plain figures, the lowest
price, trom which no abatement can bo made.
The Establishments are closed from sunset on Fridays to sunset
en Saturdays, when business is resumed till 11 o'clock.
♦ now Book for Autumn and Winter. " The Commercial Cornu-
copia," containing fall lists of prices, our system et sell-measure-
ment, &c., may be had on application, or post-free.

lei ron pule Francais.
Hier unriebt man 'Dantean

. .
Qal si paria Italian°.
Aqua sa habla Espano.

An Illustrated Almanac for 1855 grAtisoli application ,or Dost free.

So many erroneous statements regarding th'e augmen-
tation of the cAvalry have appeared that it may be well
to mention the arrangements made. The Ist, 2d, 3d,
4th, Sib, 6th, and 7th Dragoon Guard, the let Royal
Dragoons, Scots Greys, 3d and 4th Light Dragoons, 6th
(grmiskillea) Dragoons, 7th, Bth, and 11th 1-Itissars,
13th Light Dragoons, 15th Hussars, and IGth and 17th
Lancers, will be each angtnented to eight troops of 75
rank and file each, or, including staff; 640 per regiment.
Six of diese troops will be despatched fur m.rvice in the
Crimea, while the remaining two will constitute a depot
to train recruits and horses, so as to keep up the strength
of the six troops on active service.
[ADVEATISEMENT.]—HoIIoway's Pills for the Cure of
Indigestion and General Debility.—Copy of a letter from
Miss Lab: Ila 13,)wse, of King Edward-street, Grimsby,
dated July 27, 1954. To Professor Holloway. Sir,
With gratithde I am enabled to testify to the wonderful
virtues your pills possess, having derived considerable
benefit from using them. For twelve months I was a
severe sufferer from general debility, indigestion, loss of
appetite, and altogether a very deranged system. I re-
sorted to various medicines without deriving any benefit:
At last I was recommended to try your pills, and after
taking thorn for a short
period I was perfectly cured:
(Signed) Isabella Bowse.--Sold by all Vendors. ofMedi-
eine, and at Professor Holloway's Establishments, 244,
Strand, London, and 80, Maiden-lane, New York,

[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 IlouKi of Commons, I area 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, us replete 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—l
say " probably," for on this point we can arrive at no
certain conclusion—on the general nature and eharacter of
the British press.
Of these two questions, the first appearieto 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 he 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 exceptional privilege, or to take
from them one which they share with other members of the
community similarly circumstanced, would outstep 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 areinthe habit of spending
their incomes judiciously, nor does he tax another class
doubly because they aro habitually wasteful or imprudent.
Finance arbitrarily exercised becomes mere confiscation by
a legal process, and to tune 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 I,ooot, a-year could exist, or contrary-
wise, if, as in France before the revolution, the estates of
the nobility wore exempted from all taxation, Withei view
to the permanence and power of their order every,
rational men would say, " Here is an abuse 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 establiskment in their place
of an inferior and dangerous class or 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 allotv 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 refitted ;
and, in the opinion of all thinking 'nen, 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 assort, 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
hand. Either the duty as now levied is fair, or it is un-
fair. Iff air, milt 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 shell only go so far as is needful to dispel some prejudices
and exaggerated apprehensions. The real battle must be
fought on other ground—viz., on the two questions—(l.)
Is the stamp law just? (2.) If not, can it be replaced
by one that shall 'be so ? Te the consideration of these
moot points I proceed.
The existing dnty, as everyone knows, consists of a uni-
form charge of one penny, levied on all publications con-
taining "neaps," 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 erre-
neoes idea. For a tax, being defined, signifies a charge
imposed on persona 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 roturn. 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 State-
chest just as much relatively to his means as his neigh-
bour, neither more nor less. But about the rules which
should govern- the imposition of a postal charge there
can be nu two opinions. Government undertakes to do that
which would otherwise be done by private enterprise ; for
the general convenience, it claims and assorts 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 iudividusl
citizens on the other; it Is, moreover, a barguin-in which,
by the authority of ono of the contracting parties, the other
is fill b'dden to go into the open market and accept auy offer
from other parties. In making suck a compact, therefore,
Government should be doubly cautious that all the condi-
tions of equity aro fulfilled. It is hound, and its defenders
are bound to show that, bating such trivial irregularities
as no nicety of human law can wholly remedy, the price
paid is in each e:-se proportionate to the value of the service
rendered ; the service being, moreover, efliclent 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 the one thing material to be
proved or disprihed ; (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 queiies 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 Post-office loses rather than gains by undertaking
their carriage. As between the Post-office and the press,
so far is the latter interest from 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-ofice 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
unfair. There are several modes of meeting a charge of
this kind. It may bo denied, if that be possible ; the fact
may be defended, or rather excused, as involving only a
'slight wrong, which is compensated by manifest expe-
diency ; or it may be regretted, but represented as inevit-
able. Let us examine tese defences one by ono.
Denial of the fact will, I presume, not be attempted. I
have.by me a small 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 be 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 the space of one number of the
other. •

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 tows, 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 St. 3s. 4d. for their circulation
by the local post-office. In this case Government allows
me the option. But if I issue a weekly or fortnightly cir-
cular, in the shape of a newspiper, I have no similar free-
dom
w, how are tapierte
dein of choice. Whether I me the postal arrangements
which Government has provided,- or.dispense with there,
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 oven where no
seteoysefti:po
oeusr 1
ntosrravettinsi
ishdsi
aooiliscivi sruliaoetifsi
dntt,igho,
corresponding service is performed;
irhsmei aseoudhs
it
jwtoehieft hett. hAge: s
.thene
tpamphlets,olhafa
main
) aid
t;
political
defended
opue:p
appeared
Is?aet
results
ids:
hloo i
nnae be-
lieve, ~
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 'the newspaper press as a
body ; it lies between various conflicting interests in that
body, some of which are unduly 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. Ono
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 bo said to pay twice over.
rurthor, on that half, weight for weight, he peys 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 r
answers the Government—" you have your compensation ;
you may send every copy of your journal, if you liked four,
five, six times through our Yost-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 road, your publication in
any place except the town whose local affairs it
discusses—but that is no business of ours. You
should deal loss in local flows ; you should get the foreign
correspondence ; compete with the London journals ; and
then you would find the advantage of our regulations. Why,
wo actually lose by every copy of the large metropolitan
journals which wo transmit," " Thank you, replies the
now enlightened complainant; "the comfort you give tne
comes to this that if I can succeed in making my fortune,
Your system of charges will help me to enlarge it; but

"That fe. countries where the average density popu-
lationowtfhecrsoeiprtioen—hng,.
theo rd: exceedsdistance
morecertaintoia)wophui
apopular,
:thlei
they
thoughai tr
ot
transmittedhe
~, transmitting let-
ters is affected only in an infinitesietelly small degree by
that
if nw tii leeeramsens
dbitytahrree railroad,
rcai
Ins terms, the
chieforofr n
i expenseenasitio-hcfeoletters,
atch actual
ou thefa
insomuchcocconveyance
nit
ivi Post-office,
yts
sta-
ini oa
tcf fihe
Beefingac e , when dealing with groat
population is very dense, and the amount ogfiitcnerogrr-
deuce to lee dealt with consequently
Very considerable,tho
latter itetsa of expense (the cost of conveyance), when com-
pared with the former (the cost of arranging and sorting),
becomes indefinitely email, and, as being inappreciable,
may be struck out of the calculation. It is thus approxi-
mately, though not perfectly, true that the/ expense to
,40Getvheartremofesentnodfineegnidti
anegroaslsetthteercrurnotasrytlatietehteis:rhectiemid stet
or parallel, which you attempt to find for the unequal in-
cidence of the newspaper stamp charge, disappears ac-
cordingly.
But again—your analogy, even were it excepted as good
up to this point, breaks down where you need it most.
Yon justify the unjust stemp,duty by what you- (I thifik
mistakenly) assume to be the not less unjust letter duty.
But remember that the very point for which we are can-
tending is, and always has been, conceded in the caso of
letters. No person, eo 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 ofthe 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 bo pleaded as excusing the other. But is
this likely to happen ?
Nay, even the absurdity which I have here called into
imaginary existence furnishes only half a parallel to that
which *the cause of my writing. 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
Mr. Gladstone may be a powerful argunsentunt ad nomencm,
has 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 inan
it is no vindication that the Minister to Whom yon a peal
has porpetrated another wrong of the samekind. Were 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 five anythineelso than ten, nor falsify a
problem in Euclid. But it is not necessary, in order to
reply to you, to censure Mr. Gladstone. 1 tax, as I lesfore
sail, is one thing ; a postal charge another. A tax, taken
by itself, may be. inequitable in the highest 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.
tweeu tax-payer and tax-gatherer, bo squared. But in the
, case of a postal charge no such compensation existe; and
I the case which you defend is that of an mnequal postal
charge. Can you show that the small journals, crushed
under tenfold weight of taxation, receive any compon-
'
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
heart) or read, (1) that for equal service rendered by the
Post-office in different cases, unequal sums are charged,
while the injured patty, 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 be set up ; (3) that this question, like
every other in which financial interests are involved, is to
be decided on equitable grounds, alone, without reference
to possible polit cal results. " Truth has nothing to do
with consequences," was tho noble reply of a philosopher
when. rerneclthat au opiaiou, which- he had logically
l worke out might be held to endsuiger oithoriox faith ;
"justice hal nothing to do with cousequenues," should he
the rule of a Linaneier who, unless ho acts on some such
rule, becomes merely a licensed plunderer of the public.
But, having first entered the above rirotest, I am willing
to consider dispassionately the probable results of a modi-
fication of the law. And here, as is natural, I find the
greatest ailment of opposition on the part of those averse
to a change—ii being easier to epeculate 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.
nose of tho existing postal scheme—now substitute one of
your own." This, no doubt, it is incumbent on a would-
bedown is pledged
to build. passing, that if
the working of a law be manifestly
attempt. Hi
and indisputably un-
reforiunperastoa;ant;terh
just, any citizen living under it has a right to expose that
injustice, without being necessarily bound by such protest
to suggest the fitting remedy. Otherwise would all man's
tongues be tied on the subject of their grievances, save
only those of professional statesmen. Yet, as mere corn-
pleint is always easy, remedial legislation often difficult, I
allow that the former without the latter becomes of little
value;- and I readily accept the challenge thrown out by
adopting in part the proposition of the Committee of 1851,
in part that which you yourself Suggest.
The evils demonstrated to exist aro mainly three :-
1. Undue favouritism towards the large or metropolitan
journals by the priviledge of gratuitous retransmission.
2. Uudne 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 port-office 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-
creasing the charge for heavier, and reducing it for lighter
weights. Here we entirely concur, Some additional la-
bour would no doubt be imposed on the Post-office, and
possibly some opportunities of fraud afforded. But your
proposal is merely a carrying out of the principle already
adopted in the case of letters, and its obvious fairness en-
titles it to adoption. It involves no insuperable, nor in-
deed any considerable mechanical difficulty. I cannot,
however, acquiesce in the farther snegestion that papers
like the Atheneum, doncerning which it is questionable
whether they contain " news" in the legal sense of the
term, should be partially relieved from the stamp. What
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 question of postal conveyance
—whether the printed contents of the sheet which it for-
wards be politics, literature, local news, or advertisements?
I am not aware that any one of those, in a physical sense, is
- weightierarticle than any other. In truth, the question
•of exemptions lately raised shows in a stronger light than
anything ' • else the perfectly illogical and arbitrary theory
sie
of the law as it stands., ut those exemptions are, in truth,
mere attempts to prevent the law from breaking down, by
relaxing it whenever the opposition provoked threatens
to become formidable.
The third cause of complaint—namel7, the prohibition
of any unstemped journal whatever—se one
with which
you do not deal, or rather which you do not allow to-be in
any way a grievance. This fact, however, I assume as pre-
viously proved ; and the remedy. being obvious, via., to
allow the existence of unstampod journals without postal
privileges, it remains only to consider what obstacles can
be pleaded against the establishment of such a system.
It is argued, first, that it will render necessary e 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 me much exaggerated ; for
those who urge it assume that no paper needs to be exa-
mined at the Post-office under the present xylem,
all
being alike entitled to the privilege of
is this the fact? So far from it, two classes of fraud at
once present themselves, against which the vigilance of the
postal authorities it required to guard. First, the ptivi-
loge of the stamp expires after seven daysss so that not
merely must the easily-ascertained fact oft the stamp being
duly affixed be attested by official inspection, but the date
of that stamp must also be examined, a pre.oss requiring
much minuter examination. But next, it is no uncommon
-trick for persons of an economical and not over-scrupulous
disposition, 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
gnnrded against or they are not. If they are, every news.
paper posted must now undergo inspection, in which 'case
the change suggested imposes no additional labour on any
one. If the Post-office are not, the liability of
suffer from, 'fraud exists already, and will not be materi-
ally increased. Taking either alternative, the objection
fails equally.
But secondly (and thisis by
the graver ob
far jection), it
is contended that an unstausped press is in itself an evil
"You will assimilate the journalism of England to that o
the United States,". cry out alarmists, thereby ascribing
all the merits of that pries which they extol as incompar-
able to the existence of a penny-steme duty. " You will
make journalism local, potty, naish'l'll ; 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 publice-
tion ? To interfere with the organisation of the great me-
tropolitan journals ? No ; lut simply
to allow that which
the existing law virtually prohibits—the appearance of
cheap local prints. Am I exaggerating whenl say that
these aro prohibited? What is the rate at which they are
charged for the postal privilege :
A 9d.* paper pays, ad valorem,
(hi. ~
4d. „ ,I
~
3d• ~ 9,
2d. , . -
which is manifestly a prohibitory datyl24 per cont.
20 • ~
' 331 ~
r‘Oe , ~
103 ~
; and, accordingly,
we find that threepence is the lowest price at which a
newspaper can be published with any cbanee ofrepayment.
Here, then, we come to a dilemma. Tho Legislature, by
no indirect result of its measures, but by the simple pro-
cess of crushing , forbids any impost,
man to publish a

* The Speetator,• and I believe oue or two other weekly
papers, apPOar At this "dee.

At this point I may fitly consider a rather startling as-
sertion which appears prominently in 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 so arranged as absolutely
to prevent any ono from producing a newepaper at lees
than a certain price, does not give auy 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,fts
-the—ditty 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 receiptsof the smallest establish-
ments ; and, to make the parallel complete, suppose that
in return for this charge it undertook to transport gratni-
tonsly all goods bought and sold by the taxpayers ;—what
would be the effect ? Of course, to throw all business into
the hands of largo dealers, and to increase the profits of
trade in proportion as it was conducted on a larger scale.
Small traders would disappear altogether.
The 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 a 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 nnarchical
and the most conservative of journals aro 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. Ia this an
English or a Russian policy?
But, after all, is there ao much danger of our press
becoming ." parochial"—or, what is meant by this
vague threat ? 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 ono which, as at present, discusser. imperial
queetions, 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 largo
number of educated and intelligent persons who take
an interest in the political affairs of their own and
other countries. Of such parsons 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 unstlmped press will rival the
stamped in the eralue of its information and the merit of
its writing—and in that case 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
the cheap local prints will not drive it out of the
market, but attract another class of ettatomers, 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 ease. Suppose the same
legislative sagacity which dictates the retention of the
stamp duty to have prevented all cheap travelling on rail-
ways—to leave 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 ill the lower
priced curriagea Is it not clear that on the 2 estzietion
being removed a vast at ul tittute of poreous would begin for
the brat time to use the railways who never used them
before ? So will it he with the press. Those who now take
in the Times Daily News, Herald, or Adrertizcr, are not
likely to substitute for these first-class journals, with their
early intelligence and superior writing, the cheap penny
print which will circulate among mechanics and labourers.
I have uo doubt that a (limier may be had in various Lon-
don Taverns at a very much lower rate than is charge,t 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 bast article. I do'not quarrel with
his taste, nor seek to limit its' indulgence; quite the con-
trary. But I protest against his measuring other teen's
purses and ipclinations 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." _ ,

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 argumeutative 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 long-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
thouglithere 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 iu the metropolitan press. Their articles—
their comments—are now very generally copied by that of
the provinces. They will beso still. The indirect circulation
of the leading London journals will become enormously mul-
tiplied, while the direct circulation is only in a slight degree
affected.. They will leap little, if anything, in money, and
gain much in power. Their opposition, therefore, to the
abolition of the stamp, and thus to thp calling into exist-
ence of a cheap press, seems as ;contrary to their own in-
terests as to those of the public.
But hero 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 anal to perplex a Parliament.
It is hard enough to define copyright iu bodes, to say what
is original and what borrowed, to fix the limit where the
mere literary offence of plagiarisn 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 gone to expense in obtaining information
from an exclusive source should have an exclusive benefit
in its sale, is toe manifestly just to admit of dispute • and
its legal assertion is expedient also, because without
protection it may be doubted whether the same efforts will
continue to be made, as at present, to obtain priority of in-
telligence.* I readily concede that to define piracy in the
case of newspapers will be no easy matter. Probably, let
Parliament do the best it can,'any act likely to pass will
leave large room for legal sophistries and couffictingjudg-
ments. But the difficulty, be it great or small, is none of
our making. It exists already. if it bo 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 atiswor, 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 not see in what way this result can be
regarded as a formidable evil.
One more argument remains to he dealt with. It is
contended by the advocates of the present system
that the privilege of retransmission (i. e., of sending
the same newspapers backwards and forwards through.
the Post-office during seven days) is inseparably con-
nected 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
newsvenders can set up to send their, comparatively bulky,
packets seven times through the post at the cost of a penny
each, while
if,w hails ea amlaetttteerr,
efforeetuhreeessieurneees, utrhue, tpreabvriles but once.to
(rdetttrir the
have it ro, no grave objection can exist, setrailw,
cow-
tax-paying community and the newspia
trine, become
smtiullaintyoraerentsnaorry, out
eit'aemit isi same.
But of one poJkat instead of the other; the • ,
the gratuttoui retransmission
But there is no reason why
of newspapers should be stopped when the stamp made
tatxyteesi nearly,
e. and
ywi.1,1%01;I:
t two
oruree regulations,
onus s theno
iswiail'in()6l.ll7°.pr.roblathledy borrow much of
lowopactyai
lo njalui
journals
ns
interfere
at
se instead
withw ohf,
‘co. ohni no
their political matter from the metropolitan journals
of the day before) increased in nnniber, the demand
for retransmis4m of these latter would most likely
diminish.f But this is a remote and doubtful' COM-

Electric telegraphs 1e however, done much to equalise
the advantages of London and the provinces in this repeet.
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.
t 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 a purchased cheap newspaper to AR eleemosynary dear
one,