The Sun.
London, England, 1854-05-17 00:00:00

PERIODICAL PRESS AND NEWSPAPER

STAMP.

The House of Commons was last night employed in
discussing a resolution worded singularly in accordance
with the difficulty of the subject and the present state
of public affairs. If there is one thing harder than
another it is to decide what is news and what is not
news ; and, if there is one time more unfavourable than
another for a process which may probably end in sacri-
ficing an important item of revenue, it is a European
war. So the resolution proposed by Milner Gibson,
and adopted by the house, was, that in the opinion of
that house " the laws in reference to the periodical press
and newspaper stamp are ill-defined and unequally en-
forced, and that the subject demands the early conside-
ration of Parliament." A milder resolution it would
be impossible to devise. In the abstract it is unde-
niable ; for the smallest thought is sufficient to remind
one that the legal idea of a newspaper and the present
application of the stamp are so capricious as to escape
all ordinary powers of understanding. As to the " early
consideration" which it is said the subject demands,
that is a very small affair ; and when Lord Palmerston
professed himself ready to acquiesce in the resolution,
supposing it was understood to make no malicious
reflections, he doubtless thought the prospect
of a committee on the subject remote enough to
give him little concern. On the whole, we
cannot say we think the evening very profitably
employed. What is to come of the resolution ?
Wind fact is better known, what opinion is advanced,
by the revelations of the debate or the unanimity of its
conclusion ? The real difficulties of the question are in-
herent in the matter, for, practically, it would be impos-
sible to insist on the stamp in every case where a weekly
publication communicated a single incident of the pre-
vious week ; yet, the moment the rigour of the rule is
mitigated with mercy and common sense, the law be-
comes, in the words of Mr. Milner Gibson, "ill defined
and unequally enforced."
Mr. Milner Gibson, indeed, seems purposely to con-
tent himself with stating the imperfections of the law,
and urging consideration, just stopping short of any
practical result, or any intimation of the result which
he thought the proposed consideration should lead to.
That intimation, however, was more than supplied by
Mr. Bright, who took up the subject exactly where Mr.
Gibson had left it, and thus moulded a vague resolution
into a very distinct proposal. It would hardly be fair to
assume that Mr. Gibson and Mr. Bright were last night
hunting in couples, and that the former was only driving
the fish into the latter's net ; yet we cannot see what
consistent conclusion can be come to except that which
Mr. Bright has supplied. Take the periodicals in-
stanced in the course of the debate. Here are the
Household Narrative of Current Events, the Penny Com-
mercial Journal, the Musical Times, the Racing Times,
the Athenceum, the Literary Gazette, the Law Times.
the Medical Gazette, the Potteries Free Press, the
Political Examiner, and the English Republic. Of
some of these we cannot be expected to know more than
the titles ; bat, if their titles stand for anything, they
contain news as well as comments, for it is impossible
to comment upon events without stating them. But
when the reader has added to the list various periodicals
within his own knowledge, he will perceive that it is
impossible to draw the line between a periodical that
gives news and one that does not. It is true, we can
readily imagine a publication not giving news. A clergy-
man might publish his sermon every Monday morning
as preached the day before ; a moralist might publish a
paper such as those in the Spectator or the Rambler of
last century ; and in these cases there certainly need be
no news and no allusion to passing events ; but the pe-
riodicals under discussion are of a very different sort
They relate facts of some kind or other. This they do
on their own admission, for there is not one that we are
aware of that has not a stamped edition for the purpose
of passing through the post. Yet it would be little less
than ridiculous to pounce upon any one of them and
compel it to be stamped, simply because here and there
it told us news which was possibly old, possibly of no
general or considerable importance, but still news. Here,
then, is the difficulty. For the purposes of revenue we
are obliged to tax news, as a species of mental luxury.
In so doing Government has in its view the broad sheet
of the British newspaper, with its interminable columns
of Parliamentary, foreign, domestic, military, civil, scien-
tific, and legal intelligence. But, unfortunately, the de-
finition must embrace more than such cases, yet it can-
not, without a sort of reductio ad absurdum, embrace all.
As to the abstract propriety of removing the tax
there can be but one opinion, since news cannot be
classed with spirituous liquors or tobacco—luxuries
that do more harm than good, and which therefore it is
right to discourage. Just now it is not very likely that
the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give up a source
of revenue, There is, perhaps, some sort of fanciful
propriety in making those who were so anxious for the
war, and who are now still more anxious for tidings
from the seat of war, contribute to its expenses. Other-
wise, with all our talk about knowledge, about the
achievements of science, about education, schools,
churches, enlightenment, and Heaven knows what not,
there is something positively ridiculous in taxing that
intelligence which really constitutes the great medium
of a civilised country. We make a great stir about
teaching everybody to read, and the State, that is, the
nation, pays a quarter of a million a-year in teaching
children to do little more than read. Then we proceed
to tax the first thing that everybody reads. In this
way the newspapers pay for the education of the coun-
try, for they find their expenses aggravated and their
circulation restricted by an impost about equal to the
sum spent in educating the masses. But we have
several times enlarged on the absurdity of a tax
which, as it is a tax on news, is a tax on know-
ledge, and is thus a tax on light, a tax on educa-
tion, a tax on truth, a tax on public opinion, a
tax on good order and good government, a tax on society,
a tax on the progress of human affairs, and on the
working of human institutions. Mr. Milner Gibson,
however, left all this to Mr. Bright, and judiciously
stinted his expectations to some possible interpretation
or declaration of the existing law that should remove all
obscurities as to its sense, and all inequality of opera-
tion. For the reasons above stated we do not think he
will ever obtain these results. We cannot think he
seriously desires them. There is no such distinct line
between news and no news, so long as we permit any
allusion to passing events, unless it is of a purely moral
or religious nature. A sermon is not news, but almost
anything short of a sermon is news, and would come
within the range of a tax scientifically and unsparingly
levied. However, the House of Commons is only com-
mitted to an opinion on the subject, and may attach
what meaning it pleases to the " early consideration"
which it has unanimously declared the subject to re-
quire. It will be time to discuss the question more
closely when the Russians have left the Principalities
and our fleets the two seas ; or when the unquiet spirit
that now molests the peace of Europe shall have
descended to that grave whither myriads of his victims
have preceded him.—Times.