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

of Parliament that the attorneys' certificate duty ought to I must say I have seen with surprise, and something like
be abolished. Then you had a general election ; and did ! disgust, many newspapers which were for many years advo-
the case lose ground by it ? No; for on the 10th of March eating free trade in corn, and denouncing the landowners as a
the house resolved, by 219 to 167, a much larger majority set ofmonopolists,nowstrugglingbyevery directandindirect
than before, that the duty ought to be abolished. I say, means to kesp up a monopoly in their own hands, to prevent
then, if it was obligatory upon the Government to consent others entering the field against them, by retaining much
to repeal the duty in consequence of the votes of this house, as they can of these taxes on knowledge. A dit is
the case in favour of the last is six times as good as the from this source that the right hon. gentleman has got the
other. But by this means you take away 150,000/. from suggestion to keep on part of the duty. You will not find
the estimated surplus of this year. I say this further —before any paper of small circulation, and very few papers in the
the financial statement is made it may be very well that provinces, advocating this sixpenny duty. The only papers
there should be votes upon particular questions of finance, who do so are those who have acquired a certain position ;
or upon particular points in connection with the general and their interest is to prevent competition as much as
state of the country; but after the financial statement has possible. (Hear.) Again, the bookselling trade has peti-
been made, and the resources and requirements of the state tioned more strongly than any other for the repeal of the
have been placed in juxtaposition, then I say that a very advertisement duty, and why? Because when books are
different kind of responsibility is incurred by such motions advertised, they are generally short and small advertise-
as this. I will remind the committee how we stand in ments ; because the book trade depends probably more
this respect. In the financial statement I stated that we than any other on the publicity given in advertisements to
anticipated a surplus amounting to 807,0001. I stated at new publications; and therefore it is felt that the greatest
the same time that of the items of which that surplus obstacle to the book trade is the tax on advertisements.
was composed there were 200,0001. which must be re- (Hear.) But it is not merely in the book trade that I find
garded as at present uncertain. I shall not go into the advertisement duty recognised as a tax on knowledge.
details on this subject, but it is my duty to inform the I would call the attention of the noble lord the member for
committee that we shall lose the whole of that 200,0001. the city of London to the fact that all the educational
I made a proposal as to licence, from which I expected to societies in the country almost have petitioned for the re-
derive 110,0004, but I must say I think the opinion of the moval of the advertisement duty. I hold in my hand a
house and the country is adverse to that proposal. (Hear.) memorial representing 270 mechanics' and other institu-
On the whole, I think from the feeling of the house that tions, signed by 100 delegates, and under the auspices of
that proposal could not be maintained, and, as a cense- the Society of Arts—so it is no party or political move-
quence, the whole of that 110,0001. is gone. There is ment—and this body unanimously resolve to petition in
310,0001. of the surplus gone at once. I must state further favour of the removal of the advertisement duty, and I
that 215,0001. of the surplus consists of occasional pay- myself have presented numbers of petitions from similar
ments, which would be available for this year but would establishments in Lancashire and Yorkshire in favour of a
not return. These amount to 525,0001. out of the surplus removal of the duty. Members of athenaeums and me-
of 807,0001., reducing it to 282,0001. Then the right hon. chanics' institutions contend that the advertisement duty
gentleman proposes to take away the 6d. advertisement is an obstacle to the diffusion of knowledge, as it prevents
duty, to which I look for 80,0001. at least ; and, if the rea- the giving of publicity to the proceedings literary bodies
son he has assigned is to prevail, namely, the vote of the —and Ido call on the noble lord who has professed, and I
House of Commons, we shall have to give up 70,0001. for believe with great sincerity, a desire to promote the educa-
the attorneys' certificate duty, Now, I put it to the com- tion of the people—l call on him, now that he finds how
mitten whether it is a justifiable or a prudent course, when difficult it is by Government efforts to promote education
circumstances have already reduced your surplus to in the country—if he is consistent in this matter, I call on
282,0001., to give up the further sum of 150,0001., and thus, him, at all events, to aid those who wish to remove every
leave nothing that can be called a surplus—a mere nominal obstacle in the way of those voluntary efforts for education
balance, and this at a time when you are undertaking to which are now being made throughout the country, and
carry into effect great and extensive financial operations ? which I consider to be the peculiar glory and honour of
(Hear, hear.) These are my views. But I must say this our age. (Cheers.) I hope, on all these grounds, the house
further to the committee—l hope they will think upon will adhere to the resolution to whichthey have come. It
what we are doing with regard to direct and indirect is not a vote which involves direct or indirect taxation. It
taxation. It is very well to make fine speeches about is not a question mixed up with any other question, and
direct taxation, and the excellence of the substitution any attempt to travel into other fields only argues that this
of direct for indirect taxation ; but I believe it is a tax is indefensible, and that the only way to avoid letting
delusion. I do not believe you can with security ma- the house see that it is so by mystifying and bringing in
terially alter the balance of direct and indirect taxation. other questions quite irrelevant to the matter. (Cheers
Any step on this subject must be taken with caution and calls for a division.)
and circumspection. lam convinced that this vote will Mr. SPOONER said he voted against the motion of the
operate in the nature of a trap, though not so intended. hon. member for Manchester on the 14th of April, and he
What are we doing this year ? Is what we are doing this meant to vote for the proposition of the Chancellor of the
year enough, or not? We are going to repeal 5i millions Exchequer, merely to defeat the amendment now, and
of taxation - and of those 5i millions of taxation, if not the when that proposition came before the committee as an
whole, nearly the whole is indirect taxation. We are original question he should vote against that too, in order
going to impose 3 millions of new taxation, and of those that the duty on advertisements might remain at its pre-
-3 millions of new taxation, 2i millions are direct taxation, sent rate. (A laugh.) He thought the advertisement tax
(Hear, hear.) I put it, then, to the committee that, under was neither unjust nor oppressive, and that the country in
these circumstances, they ought not to give a vote which general did not cry out against it. He objected to the
virtually will lead them on to the surrender of a large amendment on another ground, which had been ably stated
further sum of money available from indirect taxation, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that it would involve
until they have well considered whether it is desirable to the increase of direct taxation, and he wished. that the
make a further great addition to direct taxation. Ido right hon. gentleman had taken the same view years ago;
not wish to bo responsible in any degree for bringing about the balance of direct and indirect taxation would then,
a state of circumstances which shall compel the house to perhaps, not have been so completely altered, and the clan-
do what would otherwise be unpalatable. I wish the house ger now dreaded would not have been so imminent. (Hear,
to exercise a free and independent judgment; and I wish bear.) That most odious tax, the succession tax, was the
taolake no circumstances out of which the necessity shall consequence of the very great advancement made in the
arise to act in a certain manner, but before the necessity has remission of indirect taxes, and he was quite sure every
arisen, to point out its probability, in order that while step in the same direction would increase the difficulty and
there is yet time the committee may hesitate before being danger which the right hon. gentleman apprehended.
entrapped into the consequences of any vote they may be Mr. JAMES MACGREGOR, amidst general calls for
induced to give. These are the general grounds on which a division, said the Chancellor of the Exchequer alleged as
I feel it my duty to leave to the right hon. gentleman the a reason why the income tax should be charged equally on
responsibility of the proposal which he thinks it his duty to the profits of trade and realised property that it was un-
make. The right hon. gentleman has made that proposal just to charge a higher sum upon the poor annuitant widow
with perfect fairness. H states that he is undoubtedly pre- than upon the professional man, and he put it to the right
pared to give up all the revenue from the advertisement hon. gentleman that the advertisement duty pressed peen-
duty, that he looks upon it as a bad revenue. I, on the liarly on persons in distress, who wanted to obtain employ.
contrary, venture to put it respectfully to the committee meat or dispose of goods at best price. He should vote
that it is not a bad revenue, but that, restrained with- with the right hon. member for Manchester, trusting that
in moderate limits, it is a fair, reasonable and just as most the Chancellor of the Exchequer's estimate of the large
other portions of our financial system. (Cheers.) At all sums from the new system of taxation would enable him
events I say do not give a precipitate vote (because men to lose this 80,0001. a-year. (Hear, hear.)
may act with precipitancy after even a lapse of time), if The bommittee then divided, and the numbers were—
that vote may lead to consequences which you have not For the amendment
fairly anticpated and dispassionately weighed ; do not al- Against lO9
low yourselves to be brought into a position in which you
must alter eventually the balance of taxation of the coun-
try, before you have well considered what will be the con-
sequences of that change, and whether the result will be a
fairer distribution of public burdens than the present divi-
sion of direct and indirect taxation appears to give. It is
upon that account I oppose the amendment of the right
hon. gentleman. (Cheers.)

Majority against the amendment lO
Mr. CRAITFURD expressed a hope that all advertise-
ments, whether in public conveyances or in the streets,
should pay the tax equally with advertisements in news-
papers.
Mr. HUME was very sorry the Government had not
found it in their power to take oil' this tax, which was one
of the greatest impediments to free trade that now existed.
He held in his hand an American paper which was sold for
a cent, and contained a thousand advertisements, making
known all the wants of the community, and such a paper
was published in every town of the United States. The new
system which would arise from the removal of the ad-
vertisement duty would be one of the greatest boons which
could be conferred. What his hon. friend the member for

Mr. COBDEN—I wish to recal the attention of the com-
mittee to the subject matter under consideration. It is a
very simple, and, so far as the amount is concerned, a very
small question. The right hon. gentleman (the Chancellor
of the Exchequer) has led the committee into the conside-
ration of all sorts of subjects except the one before us.
(Cheers.) And he has endeavoured to evade the responsi-
bility which I think rested upon him of paying some at-
tention to a vote of this house by an ex post facto argument
created by himself, which is utterly indefensible. (Hear.)
I would remind the right hon. gentleman that 60,000/. is
the amount, and not 80,0001., which he estimated from
advertisements.

the West Riding had said with regard to the voluntary
efforts for the promotion of education being checked by
this impost was most convincing, and, after so close a divi-
sion, he submitted whether the present Administration
would proceed in legislating contrary to the principles
which they professed. (Hear.)
Mr. M. GIBSON said the Chancellor of the Exchequer
had not answered his question, how the advertiBement duty
on pamphlets and books was to be collected? It was a
simple question, and he should imagine the Chancellor of
the Exchequer could tell him when the duty on advertise-
ments in books was to be charged, to whom it was to be
paid, and where.it was to be paid?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought
the simple question of the right hon. gentleman had re-
ceived as simple an answer, because he had said it was not
his intention to levy any duty on advertisements not at
present charged. The liability continued exactly as it was,
except as to the amount. The machinery was the same,
and the persons to whom the duty would be payable would
be the same. If the right hon. gentleman meant to sug-
gest that he ha,d better alter the language by which the
duty was levied, he could only say he had adopted the
language as he found it in the law. With respect to ad-
vertisements not inserted in newspapers, a most important
mode of advertising, not subject to the tax, would shortly
be in the hands of his right hon. friend the Secretary of
State—he meant the advertising vans, and they would
certainly expire amidst a universal jubilee. (A laugh.)
Another class of advertisements, what the French called
nonvnes aches, living placards that walked up and down

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I beg
your pardon. You are quite wrong. I stated 80,0001.
Mr. COBDEN—WeII, whether it be 60,0091., or whether
it be 80,0001., which tke right hon. gentleman stated in
his budget he expected to receive from the reduced adver-
tisement duty, is not material. But the right hon. gentle-
man now forgets in setting up the plea that he cannot
take off 80,0001. of taxation, that he himself has created
this SO,OCCL, after a vote of this house had sanctioned the
remission of taxation, and petitions had called for the re-
mission in this specific way. (Hear, hear.) The right
hon. gentleman haw` remitted three millions of taxation
according to his own statement. (Hear.) Since the votes
of the house on the advertisement duty, he has brought
forward hie budget, 'in which he proposes to remit three
millions of taxation ; and he says he has not the means to
rcmit 80,0001. a-year, which the vote of this house said
should be abolished. (Cheers.) Another thing I must
call at:-,ention to is, that he has mixed this matter up with
the question of supplements, which is totally distinct from
the question of advertisements. The right hon. gentleman
says that it is necessary to repeal the supplement tax in
order to give full effect to his plan of a reduced advertise-
ment duty. But this is his plan ; it is not our plan
(Cr ee! s.) Again, he is mystifying the matter. He re-
tains the sixpence, and then says it is necessary to take
off the supplement duty, otherwise there will be no means
of expanding the space of newspapers, and therefore we
shall be defeated in the amount of revenue by the want of
space. But abolish the advertisement duty, instead of
reducing it to 6d., and no such argument applies, because
whether he keeps on the supplement tax, or whether ho
repeals it, it will have no fiscal consequence whatever with
regard to this question. •1 beg to remind the right
honourable gentleman again that he has created this
difficulty. Who requested him to create the diffi-
culty ? Who petitioned him to repeal the supplement
tax ? (Cheers.) Were there any petitions presented to
this house?

the streets, were more' difficult to deal witli; and as to
advertisements in railways, he did not think they need
much begrudge the companies that casual advantage. To
revert to the point put by the right hon. gentleman. per-
haps he might amend the resolution verbally, and let it
read, " for or in respect of every advertisement contained
in or published with any gazette or other newspaper, or
any other periodical, paper, or literary work." He did not
know whether that would be an improvement, and perhaps
it would be better to take time to consider it, and make
the alteration in committee on the bill.
Mr. M. GIBSON said that if the wordinc, of the resolu-
tion were not yet settled, it was time it should be. They
were now imposing a tax upon certain things defined in the
resolution, and if he understood the right hon. gentleman
aright, he did not intend to do what the resolution ex-
pressed. The right hon. gentleman said he did not intend
to impose any duty on any pamphlet or literary work ; but
whatever the right hon. gentleman intended, the booksellers
were in a state of alarm, and therefore ho should like to see
the resolution in the shape in which it was intended to
have force. This was a tax ; they might be told it did not
mean what was said ; but if so, they must ask that it
should say what it meant. The wording of the old law
undoubtedly was that the advertisement duty should
apply to advertisements in books ; but the booksellers,
finding that most obnoxious, got that law repealed, which
sent books to be assessed. Imagine the case of a book
say a guinea ; the duty was &L ; was a bookseller to send
a book worth that, lest the Government should lose a sum
so contemptible in comparison ? It was not right then,
now that they were enacting this law, to repeat the words
literary works." He hoped the right hon. gentleman
would explain upon this point, and also define more clearly
what advertisements were—a question which now, day
by clay, it became more difficult to answer. The law
should be more explicit on these points. In conclusion, ho
moved the omission of the words " pamphlet, or literary
work."

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—the sup-
plement duty is 30,0001. a year.
Mr. COBDEN—Just so, and I will give the right hon.
gentleman credit for the difference between 30,0001. and
::O,OO'S/., but it only increases the difficulty he has created.
The right hon. gentleman introduced a great variety of
other subjects into this debate. He talked of other taxes
being equally as onerous as the advertisement tax. I join
issue upon that with the right hon. gentleman, and I un-
dertake to prove to the satisfaction of the right hon. gen-
tleman himself that the house did right to make this ex-
ception to ether indirect taxes, by totally abolishing it.
He has adduced examples to show that all rated taxes, as
ho calls them, must be unjust in their incidence, because
all rated taxes fall equally on articles of different value.
But in all indirect taxes you try to mitigate that inequality
by levying a different rate of duty upon a different class of
articles—as in the case of tobacco and cigars, and in that
of spirits, where you select certain proof of spirits for the
unit of taxation ; and the right hon. gentleman does not
pretend to say you do not try to mitigate inequality by
levying a different rate on different quantities. The paper
duty is a very indefensible duty • but you do not lay the
same duty on a sheet of paper and a quire of paper. I care
not where you go; in all cases you seek to mitigate unfair
pressure by making distinctions between the qualities
which you tax, and in all things except one, in the quan-
tity which you tax. But when you come to the adver-
tisement duty you depart from the principle, and levy the
same tax on every advertisement, of whatever value they
may be. (Hear, hear.) Every one knows if .1 go to insert
an advertisement in a newspaper having a circulation of
30,000 a day, I have to pay 10s. for the advertisement,
but if I go to a paper of small circulation they are glad to
insert it for half-a-crown. In both cases the right hon.
gentleman imposes a tax of 6d. In both cases the tax is
the same, though the value of the article is 10s. in the one
case, and 2s. 6d. in the other. (Hear, hear.) I have put
this in a very fair spirit. I may have taken a stronger case
still. Then as to quantity, if I insert an advertisement
covering a whole page, for which the charge is 1001., it pays
6d. If I insert an advertisement of two lines, wanted a
place for a house maid, it pays 6d. So I maintain there is
no tax whatever you can adduce so unfair in its incidence
as this tax on advertisements. (Cheers.) I say it is some-
thing more than the right hon. gentleman stated—a tax
on labour and industry—it is a tax on the intercommu-
nication of wants and wishes, which in a commercial com-
munity, strikes at the foundation of all transactions.
(Hear, hear.) What would be said if it were sought to
lay a tax on every bargain made or attempted to be made,
on the Exchange between merchants who meet there at
four o'clock, if the asking the rate of exchange between
London and Hamburg were •to render the broker seeking
the information liable to a tax ? Yet that is what you do
under the advertisement duty. A man advertises an
article'
for sale, but does not sell it • he makes known his
wants,he offers to sell, and you tax him for it. That, in a
every commercialatecountry, where the revenue is benefitted at
and strp in i business transactions, is suicidal in-character,
The right hon. he
root of all commercial progress. (Cheers.)
fire insurances, but talked of bills of exchange and
surances pay acecotraidone,not bills of exchange and fire in-
ment he attempted yes to amount? and the only argu-
use. The right honourable gentleman
most unfortunate he could
penny charge for letters—do you
said, " Look at the
50 or 500 miles ?" yea, you you not charge a penny for
an ounce, but you charge 21.'.1i'arge a penny if under half
charge a penny for every halfio an ounce, increasing the
whatever the weight
may be. (Cheers.) I do not are
gentleman domes that the question of
commercial or fiscal matter, ItakeuPon this wholly as a
leave to say, though
the right honourable
advertisements is a question affecting
atistermed taxes
upon know-
on knowledge, that it is a question of
ledge ; because if you want to have newspapers
to have
this country, they can only be supported by natc.wallfnirn-
nished. by advertisements ; if you think it desirable
competition in newspapers as well as other thin,:
is desirable no obstacle should be offered to the smaller, or
what the right honourable gentleman calls struggling news-
papers. papers. The effect of this tax is to prevent competition in
newspapers. We all know that, whether in the paper
trade, in the spirit trade, in the tobacco trade, or any
other trade, when fixed rates of duty are levied upon the
article produced, the parties engaged in the production of
those articles always become few in number, and there is a
tendency to create a monopoly in the hands of great capi-
talists. I say every argument used for emancipating trade
tic,c,zu oliglt to be lapplied to all taus on, newspapers; and

Mr. NEWDEGATE said it appeared to him that, as it
was intended to adhere strictly to the present construction
of the law, they would not improve the intelligibility of the
law by altering
the terms of the resolution. He felt most
strongly that indirect taxation was the kind of taxation
which the people most willingly paid ; he wished on that
account to relieve the Chancellor of the Exchequer even
from the inconvenience of a reduction of this tax ; and he
should therefore move that the old duty be retained. As
regarded the supplements, and the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer's proposition with regard to them, it seemed to be
a premium to powerful established newspapers, and a detri-
ment to those which had not yet attained such a position, '
and as the change with regard to them seemed to arise out
of the change with regard to the advertisement duty, he
should endeavour to obviate its necessity by an attempt to
remove its cause. He proposed on these grounds to keep
the existing duty as it was.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
what was intended was, that the actual working should
continue as at present ; and that he could not assent to the
words proposed by the right hon. gentleman (Mr. M. Gib-
son), though he was perfectly ready to adopt the language
which would best express what was the established law and
custom on the subject.
Mr. BRIGHT said the resolution imposed a tax which
though apparently levied, they had in fact no power to col-
lect. Perhaps the right hon. gentlemen would prefer that
the resolution should be postponed to another evening.
The house had, by a majority four times as large as that
that the right hon. gentleman had that night, abolished
the tax ; in fact, on that side of the house there were not
two opinions on the advertisement duty ; and it was only
because the right hon. gentleman had got about forty per-
sons to back him in whatever he proposed, ready to vete
for Is. 6d., ld., or nothing, as he asked them, that he ven-
tured to oppose the majority, whose free and unbiassed
opinion was in favour of the abolition of the tax. The
right hon. gentlemen was too acute to suppose that the
revenue would suffer, as he said it would, by the abolition
of the tax. A letter from a provincial editor, which he held
in his hand, instanced a case illustrative of the contrary.
A clerk recently advertising for a place, received 271 an-
swers to his advertisement, and those answers mainly by
post. The right hon. gentleman would get his miserable
6d. for the advertisement of this clerk ; but how much might
he not lose in postage receipts by the hindrance of more fre-
quent advertising ? How much increase to trade—to agri-
culture as well as other industries—might he not bo pre-
venting ? The right hon. gentleman was proceeding pre-
cisely in the teeth of what a Minister in o
to do. The tax which he was imposing isniti 990 n ought
cases
newspapers.isel the same thing ; it ap-
pliedout of 100, entirely, on With regard to the
newspaper stamp, it watshperrenc
wore news, occurrences, or
to all papers were
came almost entirely on
intelligence, with observations and remarks thereon, and
the stamp was so worked that it
chitectural purposes,
Athenaeum, or journals devoted to ar,
political newspaper, not upon literary journals, such as the
or even newspapers about racing. In point of fact, Mr.
Timms and his confederates at Somerset-house were a cen-
sorship
force over poll-
sorship of the press—a censorship only in
' tical newspapers. It was scandalous that such a state of
things should exist under any circumstances, and it was
disgraceful to a Government professedly in favour of edu-
\ cation. (Hear, hear.) He had a newspaper there (the New
York Tribune), which, he was bound to say,
was as good
any Published in England this week. It was printed
with a finer typo than any London daily paper. It was
exceedingly good as a journal, quite sufficient for all the
1;c7u1).9:7, te purposes newspaper. (Spreading it out before the
honourable gentleman detailed its contents,
commenting 'with Very numerous mivertae• meat%) It con.•