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

I must say I have seen with surprise, and something like
disgust, many newspapers which were for many years advo-
cating free trade in corn, and denouncing the landowners as a
set of monopolists, now Aruggling by every direct and i n direct
means to kesp up a monopoly in their own hands, to prevent
others entering the field against them, by retaining s much
as they can of these taxes on knowledge. And it is
from this source that the light hon. gentleman has got the
suggestion to keep on part of the duty. You will not find
any paper of small circulation, and very few papers in the
provinces, advocating this sixpenny duty. The only papers
who do so are those who have acquired a certain position;
and their interest is to prevent competition as much as
possible. (Hear.) Again, the bookselling trade has peti-
tioned more strongly than any other for the repeal of the
advertisement duty, and why ? Because when books are
advertised, they are generally short and small advertise-
ments ; because the book trade depends probably more
than any other on the publicity given in advertisements to
new publications ; and therefore it is felt that the greatest
obstacle to the book trade is the tax on advertisements.
(Hear.) But it is not merely in the book trade that 1 find
the advertisement duty recognised as a tax on knowledge.
I would call the attention of the noble lord the member for
the city of London to the fact that all the educational
societies in the country almost have petitioned for the re-
moval of the advertisement duty. I hold in my hand a
memorial representing 270 mechanics' and other institu-
tions, signed by 100 delegates, and under the auspices of
the Society of Arts—so it is no party or political move-
ment—and this body unanimously resolve to petition in
favour of the removal of the advertisement duty, and I
myself have presented numbers of petitions from similar
establishments in Lancashire and Yorkshire in favour of a
removal of the duty. Members of athenaeums and me-
chanics' institutions contend that the advertisement duty
is an obstacle to the diffusion of knowledge, as it prevents
the giving of publicity to the proceedings oiliterary bodies
—and I do call on the noble lord who has professed, and I
believe with great sincerity, a desire to promote the educa-
tion of the people—l call on him, now that he finds how
difficult it is by Government efforts to promote education
in the country—if he is consistent in this matter, I call on
him, at all events, to aid those who wish to remove every
obstacle in the way of those voluntary efforts for education
which aro now being made throughout the country, and
which I consider to be the peculiar glory and honour of
our age. (Cheers.) I hope, on all these grounds, the house
will adhere to the resolution to which they have come. It
is not a vote which involves direct or indirect taxation. It
is not a question mixed up with any other question, and
any attempt to travel into other fields only argues that this
tax is indefensible, and that the only way to avoid letting
the house see that it is so by mystifying and bringing in
other questions quite irrelevant to the matter. (Cheers
and calls for a division.)
Mr. SPOONER said he voted against the motion of the
hon. member for Manchester on the 14th of April, and he
meant to vote for the proposition of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, merely to defeat' the amendment now, and
when that proposition came before the committee as an
original question he should vote against that too, in order
that the duty on advertisements might remain at its pre-
sent rate. (A laugh.) He thought the advertisement tax
was neither unjust nor oppressive, and that the country in
general did not cry out against it. He objected to the
amendment on another ground, which had been ably stated
by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that it would involve
the increase of direct taxation, and he wished that the
right hon. gentleman had taken the same view years ago;
the balance of direct and indirect taxation would then,
perhaps, not have been so completely altered, and the dan-
ger now dreaded would not have been so imminent. (Hear,
hear.) That most odious tax, the succession tax, was the
consequence of the very great advancement made in the
remission of indirect taxes, and he was quite sure every
step in the same direction would increase the difficulty and
danger which the right hon. gentleman apprehended.
Mr. JAMES MACGREGOR, amidst general calls for
a division, said the Chancellor of the Exchequer alleged as
a reason why the income tax should be charged equally on
the profits of trade and realised property that it was un-
just to charge a higher sum upon the poor annuitant widow
than upon the professional man, and he put it to the right
hon. gentleman that the advertisement duty pressed pecu-
liarly on persons in distress, who wanted to obtain employ-
ment or dispose of goods at best price. He should vote
with the right hon. member for Manchester, trusting that
the Chancellor of the Exchequer's estimate of the large
sums from the new system of taxation would enable him
to lose this 80,0001. a-year. (Hear, hear.)
The committee then divided, and the numbers were—
For the amendment
Against lO9

Majority against the amendment lO
Mr. CRAUFURD expressed a hone 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 off 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
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 advertisement 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 had 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
nomme,s affithes, living placards that walked up and down
the streets, were more difficult to deal with ; 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 wording 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 he 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 6d. ; 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 thq right hon. gentleman
would explain upon this point, and also define more clearly
what advertisements were—a question which now, day
by day, it became more difficult to answer. The law
should be more explicit on these points. In conclusion, he
moved the omission of the words " pamphlet, or literary
work."

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. _ _

- -iiii7BRIGHT 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., id., 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
exl. 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 be pre-
venting ? The right hon. gentleman was proceeding pre-
cisely in the teeth of what a Minister in his position ought
to do. The tax which he was imposing fell, in 99 cases
out of 100, entirely on newspapers. With regard to the
it was precisely the same thing ; it ap-
pliedallnewsptaoperstamp,
papers were there were news, occurrences, or
intelligence, with observations and remarks thereon, and
entirelysueh aas the
on
n
pthoelitsitcaalm
nkoetdutphoantliittecraamrye j oaul mrnoaslts,
In point of fact, Mr.
or even newspapers about
stamp
newspaper, so wor
Athena-um, or Journals devoted to architectural purposes:
racing.
Timms and his confederates at Somerset-house were a cen-
sorship of the press—a censorship only in force over poli-
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
1 York Tribune), which, he was bound to say, was as good
as any published in England this week. It was printed
with a finer type than any London daily Japer.
It was
exceedingly good as a journal, quite sufficient for all the
purposes of a newspaper. (Spreading it out before the
ce"°ll9o, the honourable gentleman detailed its contents,
i raraencing with very numerous advertisements.) It con-