The Sun.
London, England, 1853-07-02 00:00:00

ADVERTISEMENT DUTY.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—With re-
gard to the next resolution, I shall not at this moment
make any statement respecting it, because I have already
made a statement of the general principles upon which itis
founded at an earlier period, except to explain to the house,
1 hope clearly and distinctly, two alterations that have been
made in the proposition of the Government. When the
plan was originally proposed in the financial statement, it
was combined with a proposition with regard to supple-
ments to newspapers which has since undergone material
modifications in two particulars, which I will now state.
In the first place I have, I must frankly confess, through an
inadvertance which I hope the house will excuse on ac-
count of the multitude of important subjects which more
immediately pressed upon my mind, proposed that the pri-
vilege of freedom from stamp duty upon supplements
should be confined to such supplements as were filled with
advertisements only. But a very brief consideration of the
question makes it quite obvious that the effect of that pro-
position would have been to neutralise almost tho whole of
the beneficial consequences of the boon ' • and to do more
than to neutralise it in some respects, because it would
have given to the subject a very invidious direction, except
in a very limited number of cases, with regard to which it
would assume, therefore, the character of legislation in the
spirit of favouritism. A change, therefore, was made ; and
the proposal which is made is that which is printed in the
Stamp Duties Bill, with regard to supplements. It is a pro-
posal that is entirely irrespective of the question whether
the contents of supplements may be news or advertise-
ments, or a mixture of both. The other point in which
the proposition has been materially changed is that instead
of a general removal of the stamp duty upon newspaper
supplements, the removal or freedom from stamps is con-
fined to what is commonly known as the single supplement.
I mention this because the technical language in which the
enactment is necessarily conveyed may not carry to the
minds of those not familiar with the language of the pre-
sent Newspaper Stamp Act a correct idea of what the in-
tention is. In point of fact the most correct description of
what is intended is this—it is not so much the removal of
the stamp dutyupon supplements as the simple enlargement
of the newspaper space. By the present law the stamp of
a single penny will only cover a newspaper—that is the
printed superficies upon one side of the paper—not exceed-
ing 1,530 inches. I propose to enlarge this space by 50 per
cent.—that is, to raise it to 2,295 inches, but leaving it to
parties either to enlarge the sheet, or to alter the folding of
it as they please ; or, if they choose, to obtain the maxi-
mum size of the sheet, and print it as a supplement. In
fact, I impose upon them no limitation whatever with re-
gard to the employment of the space of 2,295 inches, except
the single limitation that they must not distribute it into
more than two sheets of paper, which of course has refer-
ence to the possibility of evasion by parties who might
wish to make use of it for the purpose for which it was not
intended. These, then, are the changes we have made—an
enlargement of 50 per cent. is mash) to newspaper space,
and we remove the stamp duty upon supplements. The
effect of that enlargement will be to allow of the publica-
tion of a single supplement without the stamp duty • but
when they pass beyond the limit of 2,295 inches, a further'
stamp duty will be payable at the rate of id. for each
2,295 inches, or Ad. for each moiety of 2,295 inches.
Mr. BRIGHT7—I beg the right hon. gentleman's pardon ;
but I thought the subject of the resolution we were about
to discuss was the advertisement duty, and not the duty ou
supplements. (Hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—The hon.
gentleman is quite right ; and I do not wonder at the re-
mark of the hon. member at all. The question before us is
strictly and exclusively the advertisement duty; but, partly
for the reason that nothing is printed in this resolution
with regard to the stamp, nor with regard to the enlarge-
ment of space, and partly because the connection between
the two subjects is so close, I have thought it desirable to
bring before the house the alterations that have been made.
in order that hon. members may clearly know what they
are. (Hear.)
The CHAIRMAN then read the following resolution,
which was moved by the CHANCELLOR of the EX-
CHEQUER:—

That from and after the sth day of July, 1853, in lieu of
the duties now payable on advertisements, shall be paid:—
For or in respect of any advertisement con-
tained in or published with any gazette or
other newspaper, or any other periodical
paper, or in or with any pamphlet or literary
work
Mr. GIBSON—I wish to move an amendment to that
resolution ; to leave out all the words after " that," in order
to insert these words—" all duties now chargeable on ad-
vertisements be repealed, in accordance with a resolution
of this house on the 14th day of April last." (Hear, hear.)
I shall not refer to the statement of the right hon. gentle-
man with regard to the stamps upon supplements, bemuse
the question is not before us. But I remarked that he was
candid enough to tell us that the remission, so far as the
stamp upon supplements was concerned, would have refer-
ence to one, or at least to but a limited number of news-
papers—
The CFIANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—No, no ;
nothing of the sort. That had reference to what passed
before. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. GIBSON—WeII, when we come to consider the
stamp upon supplements, we shall discuss that question. I
am sorry to be under the necessity of troubling the house
again upon the question of the advertisement duty ; and I
shall not presume to trespass long upon their time, or to go
again at any length into the objections to the advertisement
tax. But I did fancy, after the decided expression of the
opinion of the house, by a deliberate vote—(hear)—not
surprise, not an accident, but an expression of opinion as
fairly obtained as any in this house—that the advertise-
ment duty would be repealed—l did fancy that the right
hon. gentleman and the Government would have bowed to
that decision, and settled the question by simply repealing
the duty. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman un-
doubtely said that after the resolution of the house he would
reconsider his proposition. Now, when a Minister says he
will reconsider a proposition, and hear what is to bo said,
one is inclined to take rather a favourable view of the future;
and, during the interval of two months and a half that the
right hon. gentleman has boen reconsidering his original
proposition, I have been in a sort of fool's paradise, fancy-
ing he would agree to the decision of the house. But it
turns out that we have been, not to speak too strongly,
trifled with ; for the right honourable gentleman comes
down now, setting at defiance the previous vote of the
house, and proposes to enact a fresh duty upon advertise-
ments. (Hear.) Now, I simply ask the committee to
agree with the vote of the House of Commons, that the ad-
vertisement duty shall be totally repealed ; and I would
remind the committee that the principle upon which that
vote was come to was not the amount of the duty—nobody
talked of the eighteenpence. We did not ask that it
should be reduced to sixpence, but we said it was a tax
unequal, unjust, and impolitic, and that it ought not to
be made a source of public revenue. If you are of opinion
that this is a proper tax, I prefer the eighteenpence ; for,
if we are to have the expense of collection—if we are to
have the vexation of sending all these papers and publica-
tions to the Stamp-office to be examined—let us, at least,
have some revenue for it. But the decision was founded
upon the principle that advertisements were not fitted to
be a permanent source of public revenue ; and the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer was called upon to make such finan-
cial arrangements as would enable us to repeal this duty.
(Hear, hear.) The inequality of a small duty is just as
great as the inequality of a large duty. (Hear, hear.) I
am afraid that the right hon. gentleman, in coming to his
conclusion upon this question, has put himself into the
hands of certain large newspaper proprietors, who fancy
that, in this remnantthat, of the advertisement duty, they see
a small protection ; and that the large number of adver-
tisements which would undoubtedly rise up, especially in
the agricultural districts, would perhaps be the means of
feeding and supporting struggling papers that might come
into competition with the more successful papers at this
time. This, I admit, is somewhat of an assumption ;
but it is not without foundation, for I have heard the
name of a gentleman mentioned, as a high autho-
rity for it, from the county of Sussex upon that
question ; and I am quite sure that the ground he took,
among others, was that these duties were in the nature of
protection to established papers. (Hear, hear.) I should
like some of those established papers that have been such
violent freetraders as to the articles of corn and other com-
modities, to try the effect of free-trade in newspapers ; and
I am for repealing the advertisement duty for the very
purpose of enabling advertisements to be inserted in the
smaller and struggling papers, to be a source, and a legiti-
mate source, of support to those papers. The right hon.
gentleman, however, cannot pass the resolution in the form
he has submitted it to the house. I contend that the
wording of the resolution as it now stands is fatal to it.
He proposes to impose an advertisement duty upon every
advertisement, in any pamphlet or literary work; that is
to say, in any pamphlet or in any book. No doubt it is
just that, if an advertisement bo taxed when it is in a
newspaper, and when it is in a periodical, it is right it
should be taxed also when it is in a book or in a pamphlet ;
but let me ask the right hon, gentleman whether he means
to enforce that part of the resolution ? Let me ask him
whether it was not in point of fact a mere pretence to show
a sign of impartiality when there is no intention, and when
there exist no means whatever of collecting the duty upon
advertisements in books and pamphlets ? The right hon.
gentleman has no intention I suppose of bringing in a bill
to enable him to collect the duty upon advertisements in
pamphlets and books. (Hear, hear.) Let me ask the right
honourable gentleman to explain when and where, and to
whom, and under what circumstances the duty upon ad-
vertisements in pamphlets and books is to be paid? He
knows there are no provisions in any statute which will
enable him to collect that duty. I contend, therefore, that
it is an absurdity to impose a duty upon an article without
at the same time providing the means of its collection. It
is as if a man who built a house with several stories should
fancy he had made a complete structure when he had for-
gotton the staircase. But I complain of this, because there
is a show of impartiality and justice of levying the duty in
all cases, when in reality there is no intention of levying it
except upon advertisements in periodicals and newspapers,
thus placing the periodical and newspaper press at a disad-
vantage, and making it the interest of every man to find
out some other mode of advertising rather than in the le-
gitimate way—namely, in newspapers and periodicals. It
is an indirect and most effectual mode of crippling and
restraining the press, and of injuring its independence,
inasmuch as it deprives the press of this legitimate source
of support—namely, the fund that is derived from adver-
tisements. (Hear.) You will still continue to see, if you
enact this duty, the untaxed advertisements upon your
walls, in your books, in your pamphlets, in omnibuses, and
in every situation that can be found to direct the public,
because there is a direct premium on them there, instead
of going to the legitimate field of advertising, namely,
newspapers and periodicals. (Hear, hear.) Upon these
grounds, then, I ask the committee to support me in the
amendment I now move, which amendment I beg, with-
out further trespassing on the time of the committee, to
leave in the hands of the chairman. (Hear, hear.)
The question having been put,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said—l am
very reluctant to occupy the time of the committee upon
this subject, but at the same time it is my duty to state
distinctly to the committee the reasons why the Govern-
ment have not thought it compatible with their obligations
to acquiesce in the vote to which the House of Commons
came upon an earlier day. I think, however, it will be
felt that such a resolution upon the part of the Govern-
ment, is a resolution that requires explanation ; and I
shall not decline the duty of affording that explanation.
(Hear.) The right honourable gentleman has, however,
stated several things to which I must refer in the first in-
stance. He says in the first place that after the vote of
the House of Commons on this subject, I promised to re-