The Sun.
London, England, 1852-04-23 00:00:00

2'

APRIL 23) 1852,

" their honours" of the Stamp-effice aclinewleOge, it a_
priar2, no such la re. Not litieg, seine their inewheplece,
the Attorney-Genera!, satisfied "- with the decitioo,
they intend to prosecute Mr. Dickens further, by coin-
' reencing the tit Against that gentlemen de novo, nud
everstuelly, hunting hinginto a Court of 'Error. That is
to sly, the Board of Inland Rsvenue really—hut nand-
ually its creature and catspaw the Goveanentct—hefing
solemnly agreed to be !salad by the judgment of a mi-
jority of arbitrators of their own cheesing, break their
eneriptement, upon the childish plea that they are "nut
satisfied." In the long and dismal annals oflitigaticn, it
has, we believe, never occurred that a' worsted
party ever was or ever could be satisfied with heing
pronounced in , the wrong. Indeed, from a• decision
'so given there is no appeal; but, in order to create
an appeal, Mr. -Dicitees must be stretched once more
upon the rack—must endure peine forte et dure of the
taw. The Attorney-General professes•that such a gross'
breach of faith is necessary to set the"stamp question at
rest; but what warrant is there that the- question will
be indulged with any rest until it is settled in fivour of
the plaintiffs? If there be any meriaina in words, or
force in agreements, the question is settled; end settled
in-favour of -Mr:Dickens so thoroughly, thadthe law al-
lows of no appeal retire a decision given upon such pro-
ceedings as those ineffectually taken against the House •
hold Narrative; Before Mr. Dickens can be dragged
into a Court of- Error a new set of proceedings,' end a
acootttl decision against-the Crown must be taken; and
what is to prevent the case, should the Court of Error not
give satisfaction" to the Beard of Inland Revenue,
from being referred to the House of Loris, end dragged
through an endless trail of litigation, of which many
yeurgser man than MroChariee Dickens will not live to
s4e the end ? Throngh such a frightful vista or legal
torture the defendant is supported by the comfortable
experience that the Crown pays no costs. His great
misfertune has been success in the first instance. To
have been proved in the right is to be ruintil—Blunders
like lies beget one another in geometrical progression.
, The first blunder of the Commissioners of Inland
Revenue was the parent of all the others.
llf they had not put down the Norwich Re-
former upon what we, in common with three of
!ear judges of the Court of Exchequer, believe to
be au erroneous construction of the law, they would
have had no occasion to attack the household Narrative.
Nor, having been foiled in that attack, would they
attempt to renew it by a disgraceful breach of faith,
prompted by a blind obstinacy in wrong. The point at
issue is, comprehensively, of no manner of consequence.
There are not, and perhaps never will be, twenty publi-
cations similar to that of Mr. Dickens in the three king-
doms. Whether they be statutable newspapers or not,
makes nothing for or against the stamp abolition clues_
tion, The whole affair, therefore, assumes the bad as-
pect of a petty official rancour. If the law be olicul-e and
confused, if it be doubtful whether that which is twenty-
six days old is news (although printed with what hap-
pened yesterday), and if such a doubt snit exists
in spite of the clear reading of the law by three Ex-
chequer judges, the honest course to adopt is to have
the law made clear and indisputable, either by an en-
tirely new Act or by an explanatory Act; not to break
a solemn bond upon the puerile and dishonourable
plea that the decision made in respect of it is not
" satisfactory" to the vanquished party. If the deci-
sioni of three out of four judges be not final (as t
was agreed between the parties it should be), no legal
power on earth can settle the dispute. This case is
not to be narrowed to the bounds of the household
Narrative. If a single newspaper proprietor is to be
served as Mr. -Charles Dickens is dealt with, whose
turn will come next? We must look. to our-
selves. The French and Austrian press is used
not less harshly, but much more openly; it
has its brains blown cut in the good old highway-,
man fashion. Our press is, it seems, to be gradually
Suppressed by the slow poison of protracted law. Let
us hope that something will come of Mr. Milnet Gib-
son's onslaught on the whole system of taxation on
literature, of which the Board of Inland Rsvenue are
the administrators. The Chancellor of the Exchequer
almost seemed to intimate that relief is contemplates
from the advertisement duty, which yields so small an
amount to the revenue and is so inconsistent and absurd
in its operation. After such an avowal, Mr. Gibson
could not very gracefully have pressed his motion to a
division last night; and he acted prudentiy, in submit-
ting to an adjournment until Wednesday, the 12th of
May, when the whole question must come befere the
House, which, by that time, 'will be in possession of the
financial plans of our literary Chancellor. of the Ex•
chequer.
CHRONICLE.—The debate of lest night on Mr.
Milner Gibson's motion led, from the nature of the case,
to no practical result. It is evidently impossible to an-
ticipate the Budget by taking the initiative of fiscal
propositions out of the hands of the Government. Im-
prudent politicians who favoured the accession of their
opponents to office may take warning from the COTIEO-
- of Lord Derby's appointment. The official
right of bringing forward the Budget is in itself a power
worth contending for. Mr. Disraeli can, to a certain
extent, determine the financial policy of 'the country,
and he bas at least a monopoly of all possible improve-
ments during the present year. It is not very probable
that ho will abolish the excise on paper, end it may be
still more unlikely that he will remove the stamp from
newspapers; but perhaps he will not reject the. oppor-
tunity of purchasing support by some popular or plausi-
ble remission of burdens. It was easy for the Chancellor
of the Exchequer to show the inutility of Mr. Gibson's
motion, but we can by no means admit that the principles
of treeation aro so unsettled as he wishes to represent
them. It is true that a Committee is sitting, not, indeed,
OA the general question of direct taxation, but on the ex-
pediency of an income-tax; and it cannot be denied that
almost every indirect burden is put forward in turn, as
requiring reduction or abolition. Nevertheless, all com-
petent reasoners are satisfied that the existing taxes on
consumption bear a sufficiently large proportion to the
general revenue of the country, and that at present they
exceed, with few exceptions, the revenue standard, that
is, the most profitable rate of assessment. The injustice
and inexpediency which are common to nearly all these im-
posts sufficiently explain the zealous demands of the
respective whom:tea of various fiscal redactions.
Whether we look to tea, to beer, to wine, or to paper,
we find an excessive and impolitic tax; and all that can
be alleged in defence of the best of these duties is, that
others stand more urgently in need of revision. With-
out pledging ourselves to the opinion that Mr. Milner
Gibson's clients are entitled to preference, we admit that
their case is a strong one. Although the description of
certain stamp and excise duties as "taxes on knowledge"
is unobjectionable as a rhetorical figure, the mere
political economist will find it more convenient to re-
gard thein as burdens on certain kinds of production
and consumption. Knowledge is a good thing; but, so
long as indirect taxes are imposed, they ranst be levied
on good thingt-aor, in other words, on articles which
conduce to the enjoyment or benefit of the community.
Clow reading is not a more sacred object them cheap
eating or drinking. It is desirable that fiscal re gulations
should impose as slight a check as possible on any of
these blameless occupations; but if the Excise and Customs
are to be maintained, financiers can only select the less
productive and more oppressive duties for removal. It
must be admitted that much may be said in -f twills of
choosing the Excise on paper for early abolition. In
that case, however, the protective Customs duty on
foreign paper ought certainly to be removed at the same
time; for it would be every way unreasonable to give
the papermakers of this country a monopoly at the
very moment when the demand far their products
would be greatly increased. There aro many purposes
of utility and luxury to which paper might be applied it
it were sufficiently cheap; and there can be no doubt
that, as in the case of glass, the removal of the duty
would multiply the uses to which the commodity is put.
There are, however, peculiar considerations ekeluA-vely
concerning those kinds of paper which are spoken of as
the instruments of knowledge. In one sense, paper is a
finished manufacture; bat as regards books, it is a raw
material. The duty on paper must be paid before it
reaches the printer, who is himself rather a producer
than -a consumer. The consequence is, that books
which are never required by the general purchaser
are taxed, in their material, through the manufacturer
of paper. The publisher who sells only 100 copies
of a work out of 1,000 must, in the first instance, have
paid the duty on the whole number printed—of course
at the expense of the purchaser, who is thus taxed
those copies which he nos not bought, as well as for
the
(me which he possesses. This hardship arises .rottiootho!
speculative nature of the book trade, and from theto
con_
sequent impossibility of adjusting production
sutuptien. A brewer pays the malt tax hfod he sells
his beer; but he knows exactly the quantitywhwicilhwoinl.l
be required. No amount of sagacity,
parch of
able Messrs. Longman or Mr. MurraynhottEfloretee;nhe-
ther the tax which they have
their paper will ever be replaces 3; and
as an 41suratace
paid, -ii. necessary,
therefore, to raise the price of books,
marmot the
duty
against this contingent loss.
becemes,a compound, and therefore
suggetted that the
knowledge. It has somitimes been inte an übjtist tax upon
"'paper used for
publications
evil might be remedied if thiets
printing were levied on
y.
before they left the-publisheivr.
the
's wareli°oettriseer. It is, how-
hope at no distant
ever, scarcely probable than an
time of abolishing the duty, the trade would. consent to
would involve the unwelooine pre-
an innovation which
their premise. 13.3 this as it
seine° of the exciseman hni_
well
to
consider how
tar
financial grievances is btrne , may, Mr. Disrahli woulci
attending the tax on
I his gesseral scepttcisth as to:
out by the peculiar ctrcent;tances
raper. 'the advertisem it, operation. Trio Chan-
.neninduty is trifling in atr.ou:lt,
refight purchase a certain tn
and peculiarly opprestit
cellor of the Exchequer
by consenting to relinquish it
tity of popularity ceeir
tuYrned into an ad v-‘lore,- duat•
at once. It cennot be
par,
o°ll i!
and the Peer who hag a past andwhich
is
l
stiff 11.1V3 LI/ pay the seM9 aw charged to the
maid-of-ell-work in want ofi ap lt hoppers, more-
inwat fact,thation especial tax upon
ever, that this
knowledge. Books, u any other com-
modities,admvertising; and the cense-
require
fortes ti heavy item in the, de-
quent cexnPeupsgennshere and authors. It has been
mends e few thousands
suggested that the year which acegue
to the Exchequer iron "rary advertisements m:ght
be separately relincphthed ; nut we
adhere to the
opinion that it Would be wiser and jester to abolish the
a'
_
tax altogether. As It happens such a measure would