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

consider the proposition of the Government. The right ;
honourable gentleman is totally mistaken ; I never lucid
any such expression. I did use an expression upoi:q
subject ; but the expression I used was the direct re
of that which the right honourable gentleman has at •
buted to me. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. GIBSON—I can assure the right hon. gentleman
that, upon the question being put to him several times by N't.n
myself among others, he stated that he would be prepared
to state what the intentions of the Government were upon
the vote at a future day, and that the subject was under
consideration. The meaning of a subject being under con-
sideration is well known to the house. (Hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—The right
honourable gentleman there makes an explanation ex-
tremely different from his statement. My statement, as
the house well knows, conveyed a sense totally different.
I did say something was under consideration, and some-
thing was under consideration—namely, the plan of the
Government having reference to supplements. Nor did I
mean to deny that this was under consideration ; nor did
I moan to deny that the whole proposition, until it was put
to the house, was under consideration. But the right hon.
gentleman says I stated that I would reconsider it—which
is a totally different thing. (Hear, hear.) With regard
to the wording of this resolution I shall be very brief. 1
have moved it in precisely the terms of the present law.
The question whether there ie to be a duty on advertise-
ments in pamphlets and books is a question that may be
very fairly considered by the committee if you please ;
and if you wish to alter the phraseology of this law, it is
open to you to do so; but I have thought it right and
more convenient to adhere to it. At the same time, I ad-
here to it, because the object has no connection with the
main point at issue, which is whether advertisements
ought to be subject to one rate or description of duty or
not. The right honourable gentleman spoke of the ex-
pense of collection. Well, no tax is collected without
some expense. But if the right honourable gentleman
means to say that the expense of collection constitutes
an especial burden in the case of advertisements as com-
pared with any duty of similar extent, and that that is
one reason why the duty should be condemned, I differ
from him, for I say it constitutes no such burden whatever.
Then he says that a small duty is as unequal as a large
duty. No doubt every rateable duty is necessarily an un-
equal duty. The penny postage in one sense is an unequal
rate ; it is au unequal rate, if you look upon it in this way,
that you pay just the same for the conveyance of a letter
ten miles as you do for it being carried five hundred? Yet
that is a duty very satisfactory to the public, because,
though there is inequality in it when it comes to be criti-
cally and microscopically examined, yet it is moderate in
amount in relation to the service performed. (Hear, hear.)
The right honourable gentleman renews the objection that
this reduction is a boon to large newspapers ; not only
does he say that, bat be says it is a boon to one, or at
least to a very few, of the large newspapers. That it is a
boon to large newspapers, in one sense, I have not a doubt,
and in that sense only is it a boon to large newspapers—
that is to say, those papers which are successful in their
trade will derive much more advantage from your fiscal
revisions than newspapers which are unsuccessful. But,
if the right hon. gentleman means to say that this reduc-
tion is a boon only to one or to a few large newspapers,
from that doctrine I beg leave to dissent. He has himself
moved, or some other hon. member has moved, for a re-
turn connected with this matter, from with it appears that
out of the sum of 30,0001., now levied in stamp duties upon
supplements, 22,0001. are paid by a single newspaper—the
Times. I conclude, therefore, that the right hon. gentle-
man means it to be understood that this is a boon to the
Times, and to nobody else. (Hear, hear, and no, from Mr.
Gibson.) Well, he does not. I will not pretend to answer
him, then, as to that, but I will just point out how far it
is a reasonable assertion or otherwise that this reduction
.will be of benefit only to the great newspapers. No doubt
with the exception of the Illustrated London, News, and
certain papers in the provinces, the Times is the only news-
paper that can afford to give large supplements stamped.
The other newspapers are prevented in a great mea-
sure by the supplement stamp from giving supplements.
But what has been the case in other articles where the
duty has been reduced. Take the case of coffee. When
the duty upon coffee was 3s. Gd. per lb. it was consumed
only by the rich ; and it could only be obtained in small
quantities by the poor. Now the duty is 3d. per lb. or
thereabouts. Will the right hon. gentleman contend that
that reduction has been only a boon to the rich ? By re-
duction you let other consumers into the field ; and not
only that, you let in other competitors, and by this reduc-
tion of duty you give effect to the reduction of the adver-
tisement duty. What would have been the effect of a re-
duction of the advertisement duty without an alteration
in the newspaper space ? The small papers are anxious for
the reduction of the advertisement duty, but they are in.
different as to the increase of space. Let the committee
mark this. You allow the penny stamp to cover only a
certain space, and you charge advertisement duty. Well,
there are certain portions of the press who say, We are
indifferent about the enlargement of space, but we want
the advertisement duty off." What, I ask, would be the
effect to the public of a great increase in the number of ad-
vertisements without an increase of space? It would be
this, that a greatly increased number of advertisements
would compete for the possession of the same space, and
the numbers being increased, you know the consequence.
The object of the remission or reduction of the duty would
be lost to the public, but a large additional profit would
be obtained by the proprietors. This is the question as re-
gards the duty upon advertisements, but it is impossible
for the committee, if they are disposed to enter into this
question, to take se narrow a view of it. The total aboli-
tion of duties of this character is a very serious matter,
and tho committee ought to consider whither the principle
of such abolition would lead them, and where it is to stop.
Let us look at the case of the advertisement duty in con-
nection with the other taxes that are popularly, and by a
sort of cant phrase, called " taxes on knowledge." I do not
think the term " taxes on knowledge" is applicable to the
advertisement duty ; it appears to me that the advertise-
ment duty is rather a tax upon trade and labour—(hear,
hear)—principally upon trade, but partly upon labour.
That, I think, is a fair description of it. Now the taxes
that affect newspapers at present affect it in three ways—
by the paper duty, by the stamp duty, and by tho adver-
tisement duty. The stamp duty, whatever it may be in
its form, is in its substance neither inure nor less than a
charge fur service performed. ("No " from Mr. Gibson
and others.) What ? I hear some honourable gentlemen
say no. Are not newspapers carried free all over the
country, posted and re-posted as often as any person
pleases ? Is that 21 service performed, or is it not ?
Whether it is performed in consideration of the penny
stamp or not, it is a service performed. Now, Ido not
want to entrap any honourable gentleman into an admis-
sion whether this is a good mode of making the charge or
not, for this is not the question before us. Whether the
charge should be by a uniform stamp, vs it is now, or in
what manner newspapers should go through the post, is
not the question. But certainly in the intention of Par-
liament. and in point of fact, the stamp is a remimaration
for service performed. I have made it my business to
ascertain some facts on this subject ; and a calculation has
been made in the General Post-office, by persons of the
highest authority, from which it appears that the 400,0001.
received for the stamp on newspapers do not do more
than renmuerate the Post-office for the actual labour
performed in connection with them, and for the payments
they have to make on account of the mails. (Hear, bear.)
The second of these duties is the paper duty. What
view does the committee take of the paper duty ? There
again a very serious question will probably be raised
upon the earliest opportunity that the state of the re-
venue will admit. The paper duty I maintain ought,
when the state of the revenue will permit it, to be alto-
gether abolished. (Hear, hear.) It appears to me that the
paper duty is an inexpedient and an impolitic duty. Why ?
Because it imposes upon the trade of the country an amount
of burden totally disproportioned to the receipt of revenue;
it interferes with the diffusion of employment through the
country in the worst and most inconvenient form, because
the paper trade, if it were only free as a trade, would not.
be confined to the great centres of population, but it would
find its way, according to the conveniencies of locality,
throughout the country, and would diffuse and equalise
employment among different classes of the community.
Therefore I say the paper duty is a duty which is bad in
itself, and one which, as soon as the state of the Treasury
will allow, ought upon general principles, if the house take
that view, to be repealed. (Hear.) In the same way the
advertisement duty is bad in itself. Then the right hon.
gentleman raises this issue now—he says, "It is a bad
duty, and we are determined to get rid of it ;" and he pre-
fers the Is. Gd. duty, if we are to have any duty at all.
Well, if be prefers the is. Gd. duty, he may gain his object
by this motion ; because the effect of the motion is nothing
more than to leave the is. Gd. duty in force. (Hear, hear.)
He may, therefore, gain his purpose ; but I hope the com-
mittee will look closely at this question ; that they will
consider whether this source of revenue is a source that
ought or ought not to be got rid of. I venture to say this
that, if upon such arguments as have been made against
the advertisement duty, the committee is prepared to con-
sent to its abolition, the principle that will carry the abo-
lition of that duty will carry us a great deal further. The
advertisement duty is not a tax on knowledge ; it is a tax
upon trade and labour. Are you to strike off from your
statute book all taxes, I want to know, upon trade and
labour. Well, that is a very serious question, and there
are many other taxes you will have to consider upon the
same ground. With regard to the advertisement duty, I
hold it is undoubtedly a bad duty if it is extortionote in
its amount ; but it is not bad or unreasonable in its gene-
ral operation, provided the amount be moderate, while the
objection of inequality will apply to every rate of duty
whatever. Upon what principle, I will ask, do you tax
bills of exchange ? Are not the taxes upon them a distinct
impediment upon commerce ? Of course they are. There
is not a bill stamp in reference to which it may not be said,
so far as it goes, it is an impediment to commerce. But
would you part with the 614,0001. you derive from bills of
exchange? And what do you mean to do with the duty
upon insurances ? There is a tax upon trade, and it is
as distinctly a tax in the nature of a discouragement upon
prudence. The right hon. gentlemen wants to
got nd of
indirect taxation. But I want the committee to see
whither this will lead ; and if they do not take the conse-
quences into their view, I will take care it shall be from
no fault of mine. I say that if in this vote you aro carry-
ing out the principle of indirect taxation, of necessity you
must find a substitute elsewhere. I know pretty well
what " elsewhere" means. "Elsewhere" means the realised
property of the country. But it is desirable we should
consider well how far we are going on this road and where
we mean to stop. Ido not mean to lay down any extreme
opinions upon that subject, but I must call the attention
of the committee to what they are doing. I have just now
referred to about 2,000,0001. of indirect taxation, and we
have had a distinct intimation from the right hon. gentle-
man that he is quite prepared to follow up the principle
on which he acts, and to part with that 2,000,0001. of in-
direct taxation. But I beg the house to consider how we
stand in that view of the case. The right hon. genleman
says that this motion must be carried because the House
of Commons have voted it before. If that is a reason why
the motion should be carried, what answer am I to make
to my noble friend, the member for Middlesex when he
makes his motion for the repeal of the attorneys' cer-
tificate duty ? No doubt that in April last the division on
the advertisement duty was, ayes, 200 ; noes, 169. The
right hon. gentleman says that is a reason why we are pre-
cluded now. Well, I say if that is a good argument in the
case of the advertisement duty, it is a good argument in the
case
the
seof the attorneys' certificate duty. What is the opinion
colutnittee about that? It is true that by a single
vote the house of Commons declared it was expedient to
repeal the advertisement duty, but with regard to the at-
torneys' certificate duty what has been the case ? In 1850
you declared that that duty ought to be abolished by 155
to 136 ; in 1850 you again declared the same by 139 t 0122;
and a third time in 1850 you declared the same by 105 to
103. This was but a small majority; but in 1851 you im-
proved, for then you affirmed the same by 162 to 132.
Thus, there were four successive declarations by this house