The Sun.
London, England, 1853-04-26 00:00:00

time of the Great Exhibition frequently availed itself
of this facility for enlargement, not in consequence of
any pressure of advertisements, but because a single
paper did not afford space to allow it to describe the
wonders of the Exhibition to French and German visi-
tors, each in its own language, as well as to its English
public. The Times constantly avails itself of this facility
under the pressure of advertisements. If the opinion of
Mr. John Wood had been in operation at that time, the
expanding courtesy of the Chronicle in its polyglot pub-
lications would have been subjected to increased taxation
fromwhich the profitable Supplements of the Times would
have been free. These examples will illustrate the unfair,
and to the public the injurious, operation of such an ar-
rangement as was proposed by the Chancallor of the Ex-
chequer. The size of the newspaper—that is, of the space in
which public news, intelligence, and occurrences might
be narrated—would have been restricted, but the space
in which the proprietors of newspapers find commercial
advantage was to have been unliniited ; but it might be
said that this was, at all events, a partial relaxation of
the press law, and that it was, in fact, exempting adver-
tisements from charges and burdens which were intended
to apply simply to that which was properly news. Even
this explanation was impossible, for the law would still
have remained which declares all papers published
weekly or oftener, or at intervals not exceeding twenty-
six days, and which contain wholly or principally adver-
tisements, to be newspapers, and liable to be stamped
as such. The consequence would have been that a
paper which is wholly an advertising sheet, such as the
North British Advertiser, would have remained liable to
the same penny stamp as now, while the Times, or, in-
deed, any other newspaper, might have published its
advertising sheet free from duty. The argument which
was put forward with much adroitness by the manager
of the Times, before the Newspaper Stamp Committee,
and which has since been swallowed by many un-
reflecting people—namely, that the operation of the
supplement stamp compels the proprietors to check
a circulation which would otherwise be illimitable,
is simply absurd as a reason for special relief, for,
assuming the charge for the advertisement to remain
the same, a certain increase of circulation would produce
an equal cost of production. Or, in other words, it is
urged that the cost of paper and stamp on a certain
number of supplements (say 30,000) is equal to the cash
produce derived from the advertisements contained in
the. supplement, and therefore the circulation is kept
down to this number. The Government, therefore, are
expected to relieve the paper from the stamp, that there
may be not this hindrance on circulation. But as the
halfpenny stamp is not half the cost of the supplement,
an increased circulation of some two-thirds would pro-
duce again the same glut and loss. Would it be the
duty of some future Chancellor of the Exchequer, under
such circumstances, to propose that the paper used by
the Times, •r any other paper similarly circumstanced,
should be exempted from the payment of duty ? If not,
then a similar exceptional reason must fail to justify a
special exemption from a tax which would remain pay-
able on a supplement, if used for the more legitimate
purpose of news.

It is from no strong feeling of personal dislike to the
contemplated alteration that we make these remarks.
Any reduction of press taxation must be at least an in-
instalment of justice. And we repeat, we do not charge
Mr. Gladstone with any unworthy motive, but give en-
tire credence to the reasons assigned by him in his
speech. The alteration, as proposed by him, would
have been beneficial to our own private interest, but it
does not proceed upon a sound principle—it would
work unjustly. It is our duty and our wish to advo-
cate only such measures as are sound and just, and
hence our readiness to point out the error in Mr. Glad-
stone's Resolution on this subject, and to show the im-
possibility of its becoming law.
If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had proposed to
take off the duty from all supplements, or to remove the
present restrictions on the size of newspapers—other
questions connected with matters of detail would have
arisen for consideration, but into these it is not neces-
sary at present to enter. With reference to the resolu-
tion now upon the table of the house, it is fortunate that
'it is so framed as to necessitate its withdrawal. If re-
produced in another shape, it will be then time enough
to discuss it in the form which it may assume. If suf-
fered to drop sub siie;ztio, the financial resources of the
Government will be greatly enlarged, for fhe gain will
not only be the 40,0001. intended to have been aban-
boned, but also the additional supplement duty which
will inevitably became payable. To withdraw a resolu-
tion may be mortifying, but in this case it \Till inevi-'
tably save the Government from defeat, at d'it will
serve an useful purpose, if it induce in proper quarters a
doubt of the wisdom of the "intelligent officials" at the
Stamp-office who misled Sir C. Wood so discreditably,
and who have exposed the present Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer to danger and annoyance.

THE BUDGET—LICENSED VICTUALLERS.
'(Prom the Morning Advertiser.)

Seven years are a long time. Yet for that long period
the country is to be saddled with the income tax. Mr.
Gladstone has made the proposal, and the House of
Commons will not say "Nay." It was at one time
thought it would, because the majority in that assembly
had always, publicly and privately, expressed their de-
cided disapprobation of the unequal pressure of that most
unpopular of all imposts. They had also, in privatp
society, and publicly in the House, condemned the pro-
posal to renew the income tax for so long a period as
seven years. But they will not, when the question
comes to the vote, have the courage to act up to their
expressed convictions. No doubt their motives for
shrinking from the assertion of their professed principles
will be varied. Some will vote with Ministers from party
considerations. Others will abstain from giving hostile
votes, because they have felt indignant at the unnatural
combination into which their party had notoriously
entered with the ultra portion of the Irish Brigade.
And no inconsiderable number will abstain from voting,
or vote with Ministers, because they have the fear of a
dissolution before their eyes—an event which would
prove exceedingly inconvenient to many, and ruinous,
in a legislative sense, to not a few. Hon. gentlemen do
not relish appeals to the country at any time ; but they
have a special dislike to them when Parliaments, as in
the present case, are but in their infancy.
However, since it so happens, no matter from what
combination of causes, that the part of the budget which
refers to the income tax is to receive the sanction of the
Legislature, it only now remains that we endeavour to
prevail on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make
those amendments in other parts of his financial scheme
which are so greatly and glaringly defective.
We unhesitatingly say, that there is no part of the
budget which, if carried out, will prOve more unjust and
oppressive in its operation than that which relates to
licences. The pressure of the new principle on which
licenses are to be granted will fall with fearful effect on a
class of tradesmen who are already more heavily taxed
than any other class in the community. Even with
their present licences, the licensed victuallers can scarcely
be said to realise any profit from the tobacco or cigars
which they sell. With so vast an addition to the price
of their licences, they will be losers by all they vend;
and yet, to make their case all the harder, they will be
obliged to keep tobacco and cigars for the accommoda-
tion of their customers.

We have hitherto abstained from all reference in our
leading columns to the injustice which the budget con-
templates committing on this respectable class of trades-
men, in the hope, day after day, that we should see some
intimation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that
that part of his scheme was the result of ,inadvertence,
and would be amended. But as yet we have waited in
vain. The right hon. gentleman has hitherto made no
sign ; neither has either of his two morning organs
broken silence. It is high time, therefore, that we
should ourselves—as some of our correspondents already
have done—point out the contemplated injustice. It is
as flagrant a case as could be imagined. It needs but to
be named to insure, we should suppose, the immediate
attention and prompt redress of the right hon. gentle-
man. At present the body of tradesmen to whom we
refer have to pay 161. for their general licence, and now
it is proposed to subject them to an impost of 24 per
cent., where the rent paid exceeds 101., for permission
to sell tobacco. The result of such a law, if passed,
will be to press with a crushing effect on a large pro-
portion of the licensed victuallers. One correspondent
illustrates the operation of the tax in his own particular
case. He says that its effect would be to raise the
amount of his licence for the sale of tobacco, from ss. 3d.
to 81. ls. 3d-, while in the case of a friend, whom he
has in his eye, who pays a yearly rental of 1,0001., it
would raise the price of, his tobacco licence to 501. a
year.
From various other correspondents we have received
communications pointing out the injustice and oppres-
siveness of the proposed increase in the price of tobacco
licences ; but it is not necessary that we should quote
the particular illustrations which they, adduce of the way
in which this part of Mr. Gladstone 's Budget must ope-
rate. The two instances we have given are as good as a
thousand. The thing is, indeed, so glaring that we can-
not for a moment doubt that as soon as it is pointed out
to the right hon. gentleman, he will not lose a moment
in amending the part of his Budget in which it occurs.
It is right, however, that the parties more immediately
affected should themselves act with promptitude and
vigour, in a matter which is of such vital importance to
them. Time presses ; and unless they adopt the neces-
sary steps to bring this part of the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer's financial plans before him without delay, they
may be too late. The licensed victuallers of Bristol
have already met, spoken, and acted. Those of the me-
tropolis must not longer remain silent and inactive. They
also must be up and doing. They should not wait until
tlie trade in the provinces have set them the example.
The example on the contrary, should be set by them
to life country trade. If the trade, both in the metro-
polis and the provinces, could only act with promptitude,
unanimity, and energy, their success is certain. Even
if the Chancellor of the Exchequer should hesitate to
abandon the contemplated increase in their tobacco
licences, the members of the House of Commons will
bring to bear upon the right hon. gentleman a pressure
which he cannot resist. They have a good case. There
never was a .better. It will, when brought before the
house, should Mr. Gladstone not do justice before mat-
ters go that length, be irresistible. But we cannot doubt
that, on the circumstances being properly represented to
the right hon. gentleman, he will at once see that the
part of his budget which relates to the raising of the
price of tobacco licences, would be an act of great op-
pression and injustice to a large and respectable class of
her Majesty's subjects, and that he will in consequence
abandon it.
We must refer to our Parliamentary report for what
transpired in the debate last night. We do not remem-
ber a case in which the argument, the truth, and the
justice of the case were more manifestly with the oppo-
nents of Ministers ; but it is quite au understood thing
that if Ministers lack the arguments they will have the
votes. They are sure of a majority : so at least they
tell us ; anal a majority is with them the great thing
after all.