The Sun.
London, England, 1836-07-19 00:00:00

stock of stamps which that establishment might happen to
have would be lost, or the stamps must be changed. This
would, at all events, occasion great difficulty. The plan cer-
tainly would neither increase nor lessen the revenue ; upon
the question of revenue, therefore, he could have no objec-
tion to it ; but for the reasons he had stated, and as it would
operate severely upon some parties, he felt bound to oppose
the clause.
Mr. LEADER said that, according to the 'provision of the
Right Hon. Gentleman's Bill, it was made illegal to transfer
stamps from one paper to another. Now by the
.adoption of
this clause the Right Hon. Gentleman had the power entirely
in his own hands; for the very best possible means to prevent
stamps going from one person to another was by requiring the
use of a die by each Newspaper. It would not require many
days preparation.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER here in-
terposed, and as the Right Hon. Gentleman addressed himself
to Mr. Leader and not to the House, it. was impossible for the
reporters to catch the purport of his words.
Mr. LEADER continued—At any rate, he thought there
would be no difficulty in providing the stamps at the Stamp-
office. If there was, then the clause might be postponed for
six months before it came into operation. All the dies might
surely be prepared by that time. The Right Hon. Gentle-
man had said that the House of Commons had no right to
the returns of stamps consumed by the Newspapers.—( Hear,
hear.) But he (Mr. Leader) would maintain that the)
had a right to those returni. Newspapers were not merely
private propriety. The population were so much inter-
ested in their proceedings that they had a right to know the
extent of their operations. Indeed, they might almost look
Won newspapers as a species of public property. Besides,
how was that House, or how were the public to know, unless
the Stamp-office gave a true account 7of the number of stamp:
issued by them, that the sum received for the newspaper stamps
was not misappropriated or embezzled? He, therefore, could
not see on what ground these returns could be refused. He
was the person who moved for these returns, and he had since
received letters from every part of the country complaining of
the inaccuracy of the returns, and accusing him for having
moved for them. His answer to the parties was, that at was
their own fault—it was their fault for allowing agents in Lon-
don to take out stamps in other person's 'names for their use.
They could not blame the Stamp-office, but themselves, for
not taking out stamps according to law. If there was a dis-
tinctive die-it would be utterly impassible for any advantage
of an extensive circulation to be taken away from any news-
paper. The Right Hon. Gentleman had said that it was a
restriction upon newspapers ; but in his (Mr. Leader's) opi-
nion it was no restriction at all ; lie therefore hoped the com-
mittee would adopt the clause.
Dr. BO WRING thought that the adoption of a distinctive
die should be permissive. Those who used it would obtain
credit with the public for their plain-dealing, while 'those who
did not would always be under the opprobrium that there was
some motive which they dared not avow, which induced them
to conceal their circulation. The Right Hon. Gentleman
having allowed proprietors of newspapers to obtain that secu-
rity which the making known to the world the full extent of
their circulation by the use of a distinctive die would give
them, had done all he could. Were they to call upon every
Newspaper to adopt a die, they would be establishing a despo-
tism which was quite unnecessary. Those who used the die
would have all the benefit of a contradistinction from those
who did not use it. There would consequently be a motive
constantly operating to induce the person who had a great cir-
culation to obtain a distinctive die. Those who did not apply
for it would be under the disadvantage of being supposed to
shrink from that test as to the extent of their circulation, which
other persons were willing to appeal to.
Mr. G. R. ROBINSON observed that the Chancellor of
the Exchequer had looked at the question as it regarded the
revenue, and next as it affected the proprietors of news-
papers themselves; but ho begged to observe that there was
a third party who bad a great interest in this question, and
that was the public at large. It was well known that the
trading part of the community was enabled to give pub-
licity to the different branches of the public of the goods
they had to dispose of through the medium of advertise-
ments, and it was also known that the public decided from
the relative extent of the circulation of the papers as to
which paper they would advertise in. The only question,
then, that appeared to be in issue was, whether the
public had an interest in knowing what papers were bona
fide of great circulation; and if so, whether they were en-
titled to have returns from the Stamp-office to give them that
information. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said they
ought not. But he (Mr. Robinson) would maintain that the
public ought to have some tangible means of knowing what
paper was of the greatest circulation. The Chancellor of
the Exchequer said that he had gone as far as he could go,
by giving the parties the option of using a distinctive die if
they pleased. But that would not effect the object desired;
the proposition, therefore, was, that it should be obligatory.
To this he (Mr. Robinson) agreed. The only objection he
had heard was, that it would prevent the present Bill going
into operation so soon as it' was now proposed : but that might
be obviated by requiring the distinctive die to be adopted at a
later period. He did not think the other objection, that of
having a stock of stamps on hand, if the title of the paper
were changed, was of any weight. Such stamps might easily
be changed for others. On. the whole, he thought the plan
was a good one, and against which no newspaper had any
right to complain. The public would, at all events, receive
this advantage from it--they would obtain some tangible and
official evidence as to what papers enjoyed the highest
amount of circulation.
Sir ROBERT PE EL did not see the force of the objec-
tion made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the propo-
sition of the Hon. Member for the city of London. He did
not see.why, consistently with the alteration they were about
to make in the- law, they should not go one step further, and
impose on all newspapers the use of a distinctive die. There
might be an objection to this in point of time, but in point of
Principle, he thought there could not be any; because, by the
173 d clause it was made penal for any person to take out
stamps in the name of one paper to be used by another. It
was therefore required that the narty should take out stamps
for his own use only. It was also required that a return should
be made of the number of stamps so taken out, so that the
Stamp-office would always know what the extent of the circu•
lation of each newspaper was. The question whether the num-
ber of stamps issued to each newspaper should be published or
not, would remain precisely the same whether the clause pro-
posed were adopted or rejected. It did not follow as a neces.
sar consequence that if each newspaper were required to
u istinctjve die, therefore the public would know how
m stamps were taken out. The Right Honourable Gen-
tleman might still resist the publication of the number of
stamps issued upon the ground that the principle was not a
right principle. Whether the argument of the Right Hon.
Gentleman would be a valid argument or not, he (Sir Robert
Peel) would not stop to inquire. Be it as it might, the
adoption of the present clause would leave the principle the
same. The Right Hon. Gentlemen had said that under his
optional clause newspapers which were of extensive circula-
tion would take out the die, and those which did not would lie
under the opßrobrium of being of small circulation. But if,
in point of fact, you indirectly required them to take out a die,
or else subject them to be the objects of opprobrium, why will
you not go to the length of saying—that the law requires
you should should take out the die? It appeared to him to be
infinitely better to take one or the other of these courses.
Either to say, the newspaper proprietors should be at liberty to
transfer stamps from one to the other ; or to say, they should
take out the die. But to say that it should be altogether per-
missive, was altogether delusory. Unless effectual security
were taken, nothing could be accomplished. He was not aware
that any objection existed to the adoption of the die. The ex-
pense would be exceeding trifling.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—The
expense would be very trifling.
Sir R. PEEL—It would be so small, that it could be no
objection in itself. Then it could be no restriction.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Oh,
none.

Sir R. PEEL thought, therefore, that taking out a die
would, upon the whole, be perfectly fair. It would be the
most effectual security to all parties, as it would still remain
for the House at any time to determine whether or not returns
should be made to show the actual amount of circulation of
each Paper.—( Hear.) He, therefore, for, himself, not having
heard on the part of the Newspapers any objection to the taking
out of the die, was rather inclined to-Support the proposition;
of the Hon. Member for the City of London.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had already
stated that personally he had no objection to the proposition,
he only wished that it should he distinctly understood that
this was not a provision for the sake of the revenue. If the
proposition should be adopted, it would be proper to fh some
date when the die should begin to be used.
Mr. GROTE was understood to say that he had no objec-
tion to an interval of time being fixed when this particular
clause should come into operation.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—If there
be no objection to this proposition, and if my Hon. Friend will
reserve his clause until the bringing up the Report, I will con-
sider the question ; as I shall not myself have any objection to
the proposition.
.The clause was then postponed.
`Mr. CHARLES BULLER moved the insertion of a clause
which was agreed to; but both the Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman, and the Clerk at the table who read the clause, were
equally inaudible.
The schedules were then proposed.
Mr. GO ULBURN stated that they had now come to a part
of the Bill to which be wished to call the attention of the
House, because lie was satisfied that if the House considered
the subject they would agree with him in the amendment' that
he had to propose. The clause now under discussion pro-
posed that in future the liinited size of the Newspapers to be
printed upon, subjected to the penny duty, should be 1,530
superficial inches. As the law stood at present there was no
restriction whatever on the size of Newspapers. The removal
of any such restriction had been introduced into Parliament
in the year 1825, he believed, by the late Mr. Huskisson. Up
to theyear 1825, it was quite true there had been a restriction
upon the size of Newspapers. In 1825 the. subject under-
went discussion in Parliament, and on the representation that
it was injurious to trade, and caused a loss to the revenue,
Parliament thought it best to take off the restriction upon the
size of the newspapers.—(Hear, hear.) Up to the present
moment there was no restriction as to size, though there was
as to price. The present Bill proposed to introduce a new
restriction upon the press. When he had the honour, upon
a former occasion, of presenting a petition from the proprietors
of newspapers, he observed that the size which appeared to him
the most fitting was one which would subject to an increased
duty a considerable portion of the press, that morning and
evening papers to be affected by it. Experience too, he re-
marked, had proved that since 1825 the press and the
public alike had gained from leaving it to each proprietor of
a newspaper to adopt that size which he thought best. Now,
he considered that if Parliament thought it right to alter

TIM SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, JULY 19, 1836.

the law, this, at least, ought to be done—to leave all the pro-
prietors of newspapers upon an equal footing. It was not
just to select such a size for all newspapers as would give to
one particular newspaper the benefit of that which ought to
be a general enactment. When, too, they considered what
was likely to be the effect of the intended change, and what
were now the expectations of the Right Honourable the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, he really trusted and believed
that the House would have no reason to regret the amend-
ment which he meant to propose.—.(,Dear, hear.) Now
he could say that the real question between his Right Hon.
Friend and himself eras this—would, he allow the margin in
the superficial measurement of the newspaper? If his Right
Hon. Friend would not take off the margin, then there was
very good ground for complaint. He would note ask his Right
Hon. Friend to leave an unlimited discretion to proprietors of
newspapers for the future. But he did ask his Right Hon.
Friend not to interfere with the property and trade of those
already established. He assured the House that the ques-
tion of the margin of newspapers was now the whole question
before them. More than this he did not ask for. Upon every
just principle he considered it ought to he conceded. If it
were conceded, the interests of trade would not be interfered
with, and the public would be gratified. He had heard a great
deal upon former occasions as to the imposing of duties and in-
terfering with the conduct of men in the managemsnt of their
business. The reports upon the table from the Commissioners
of Excise pointed out the injury done to trade by restrictions
of this nature. He asked of his Right Hon. Friend to concede
on this point to what was the universal opinion of all those ex-
amined on the question of taxation, that duties ought not to
be imposed which interfered with the management of a trade
by those already embarked in it.--(Hear.) Such an incon-
venience, he conceived, would be the necessary result of his
Right Honourable Friend's proposing a high duty upon all
papers beyond a limited size. The tax, in the manner pro•
posed, it was almost impossible to collect with accuracy, for
it was allowed that there was the greatest difficulty in limiting
to the precise size the paper brougt in order to be stamped.
I'he reams of paper were sold by weight, and in opening
those reams the sheets differed from each other, so much so,
in the number of inches, that an honest proprietor, desiring
strictly to conform to the law and to have his paper within the
prescribed limits, might still, without any fault of his own,
have in some reams the paper exceeding in length what the
law required, and thus be subject to an additional duty, or to
heavy penalty if the duty was not paid. Was it just, then,
when a person was' unable to measure the individual sheets,
that heshould be subjected to a penalty?-(.Hear.) This was
certainly interfering with the private trader in a manner that
vas most injurious to the trader ; and it was doing so with-
eat conferring the least advantage upon the public. Now,
if they adopted the superficial matter printed—if
there were to be 1,530 inches of printing allowed, that
was what every man would be competent to regulate.—
( Hear, hear, hear.) Thus, they would have a test for
controlling`the size of the Newspapers, and one too with
which the individual would be able to comply. This would
be one which the individual could execute, and which, if he
transgressed, he would be justly liable to a penalty. As this
.vas a matter concerning trade, and considering the interests
already embarked in it, the capital laid out in machinery for
printing papers of a particular size, the injurious results that
might follow if some such proposition were not adopted, he
was sure that his Right Hon. Friend could not but be in-
duced to accede to the amendment which-he now proposed.—
( Hear, hear.) If the duty were to continue as it then was, it
would be found, he was sure, very inconvenient in principle
and as regarded a matter of finance. Such must be the case
.f his Right Hon. Friend persisted in making papers beyond a
particular size pay an additional half-penny duty. He could
say, as a measure of finance, his Right Hon. Friend would
find that if he thus checked the size of Newspapers, he would
lose more by it on account of the loss of duty from advertise-
ments than must be the consequence of such a plan. He
would lose more by advertisement duty than he could gain
from the additional stamp on the Newspapers. His
Right Honourable Friend might tell him that the addi-
tional duty was required as a postage upon the increased size
-if the newspapers. That might be a good argument as re-
larded the Post-office. That department might think it con-
venient to impose such an additional duty ; but that was not
a question for the Government. The Government was not
to look to the loss or gain of the Post-office, but to the gain
or loss of the revenue.—( Hear, hear.) If it appeared that the
duty upon advertisements would increase the revenue more
than the halfpenny upon Newspapers for additional postage,
then the Government would be wise not to bring any measure
Forward which would have the effect of imposing that addi-
tional duty.—(Hear, hear.) He was really at a loss to con-
ceive on what arguments were urged the expediency of the
proposed alteration. Was ho to be told that this was the
argument? That it was not proper that one Newspaper
Should have a monopoly of advertisements—that it had that
monopoly already, and that it would be better to distribute
those advertisements amongst a greater number of News-
papers ? He did not know whether that was or not an argu-
nent used upon the other side.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER denied
that it was.
Mr. GOULBURN continued hy rcemarking that his Right
lion. Friend declared that it was not, then he should not
tress it further. It had been urged that there was no neces-
;ity for imposing this restriction, which parties embarking
their capital in Newspapers had no right to anticipate. The
restriction proposed was one that intorrorod with tho progress
of trade, and which, if fit to be applied at all, should be only
applied to newspapers hereafter to be printed. The words
he should propose to be added were " exclusive of the margin."
He did think this was the best mode of effecting the object
lie had in view, that of giving the necessary protection to the
proprietors of Newspapers for any variance in the size of their
papers. He thought the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite
could not object to his proposition. If there were any objec-
tions to the particular form in which his amendment was sub-
mitted, he should he most willing to change it, so as that he
could effect the object he had in view.—( Hear. )
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was
rejoiced that this subject had been brought before the
House by his Right Hon. Friend. Hon. Gentlemen, he
trusted, would recollect the statements he had made when the
plan then under discussion was first submitted by him to the
House. He had anticipated that he could, upon every sheet
of Newspapers conveyed by the post, obtain a penny duty.
He found, however, that papers might, according to the mode
lately adopted, be extended to an unlimited size. He felt
that it was necessary, when lowering the duty, to restrict the
size of the newspapers. It appeared to him actually neces-
sary to do this as connected with the subject of their convey-
'ince by post.—( Hear, hear.) In order, then, to come to a con-
clusion upon this point, lie took the maximum of a single sheet
of the largest sized Newspaper published. But then comes
the case of a double sheet, or rather of two sheets made up
into one. Then it occurred to him as to the double sheet,
looking at the dimensions of a northern paper, if they allowed
the double sheet, then the sheet of 1,530 inches, the size of that
paper, might be doubled, and for all this to be carried for a
single penny he did not think was fair or reasonable.—
(Hear, hear, hear.) It was upon this ground that he
determined upon the restriction of the size.—( Hear, hear. )
The proposition of his Hon. Friend was, however, a
different one, and he thought it came recommended with
some considerations which entitled it to very great weight._
(Hear, hear.) It was true that the mere restriction of the size
of the newspaper might sometimes produce inconveniences,
because to produce all the sheets of the same size was not at all
times possible. Then came the proposition to limit that which
was competent to be done, to a defined quantity, the matter
used for the purposes of printing, merely varying the super-
ficial quantity of paper to the actual printed part of the sheet.
—( Hear, hear.) The result of this proposition would, he
thought, be to gain the object that he had in view, and it
would protect him from being called upon to convey by Rost
papers of an undefined size. Then, in that case, the propo-
sition appeared to him to be a reasonable one.—( Hear,
hear.) He was quite sure that his Right Hon. Friend was
aware that by establishing this restriction lie had no per-
sonal object in view—his only object was the protection.
With the understanding that the object he had in view could
not be interfered with by the proposition of his Hon. Friend, he
was willing to concede to it. Both desired to obtain the same
end, the restriction to a particular quantity of what was to be
published in a newspaper, so as to limit the size.
Mr. GOULBURN conceived that nothing could be fairer
or more satiafactory than the proposition of his Right Hon.
Friend.

M. HUME observed that as the limitation seemed to be
adopted for the purpose of postage, he wished to know why
country papers which only printed upon half the limited size,
should not be charged but a half-penny duty.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied
that they had discussed the whole of this case upon the basis
of a penny duty being charged. If they were now to enter
into the consideration of discussing the propriety of a half-
penny duty in certain cases, they would be abandoning the
principle upon which the measure was founded.
Sir R. PEEL considered there were still stronger reasons
to be offered in opposition to the proposed change. It was
to be observed, that when newspapers published a double
sheet, they did not do so without _giving an equivalent to
the public. A newspaper published a double sheet, not
because it had a double quantity of news ; but a double
quantity of advertisements, upon every one of which
there was a duty of ls. 6d. Though they allowed such papers
to publish with a penny duty, they would not be losers by
doing so. For instance, there was the Times newspaper
from which a sum of more than 10,0001. a year was received
by the public—a sum much more than sufficient to cover the
penny duty.—( Hear, hear.) It was infinitely better then not
to have the lintitation proposed. He was quite sure he would
be found, without that limitation that a newspaper would never
publish a double sheet without giving to the public a sum
equal in value to what at least could be received in postage.
Placing the restriction upon what was printed, was, he consi-
dered, infinitely better than placingjit upon the paper. If placed
upon the latter, it might so happen that in the same edition
the paper was so rapidly cut off by the steam-engine, that a
hundred papers would be subjected to the increased duty, and
another hundred free from the increased duty. He thought it
then perfectly fair, as the principle was to be acted on, that the
margin should not be included in the valuation, but only the
quantity which was under type.
The amendment was then agreed to.
Mr. HUME wished to know from the Right Hon. the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, what was to be the definition of
a Newspaper under this Act.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied
that they made nothing a newspaper which was not a news_
paper under the existing law. In the 60th George
these words were included, " Or upon any matter in Church
or State." Now, a history of the Reformation might he
considered a matter relating to the Church, and a history of
the reign of Queen Elizabeth a matter relating to the State.
lie intended ,to leave out these words.
sir R. PEEL hoped, as there was a change about to