The Sun.
London, England, 1835-08-11 00:00:00

II
poke in any way against the wishes of the Government—that
was a fact well known. He believed that the present Ministry
was in a position to do more good to the people of England
than any other class of persons existing. For this he supported
them, humble as that support might be, and anything. which
should diminish their power, would give him great pain, as it
would diminish their usefulness. He therefore pressed upon
their consideration not to throw away the support of the
people, by which alone they could carry their good intentions
into effect—by which alone they could withstand the immense
force brought against them—by which alone they could
stein the tide that was setting indirectly against their
very existence as Ministers--when they wanted popularity more
than ever—he implored them at this moment not to cast off the
body of the people and deny them justice. They might
great
and crippled from the belief that the Exchequer
would suffer; but he believed that if they did away with the
whole of the stamp duties the Exchequer would then be
quite as full as ever. He pressed this subject the more
upon their coonsideration when the people—he meant the
poorer part of the people—were deprived by the Corporation
Bill, which he hoped soon to see returned to that House
in the shape in which it had left, from mixing in the manage-
ment of Corporation property.—( Hear.) The people at
present were willing to support his Majesty's Govern-
ment, whilst their enemies were powerful, constant, and ever
arrayed against them. He again pressed upon them the evil of
grinding down those who supported them,
_ and by whom alone
they were able to maintain their places—he meant the people.
He implored them not to sever the ties that bound them to the
people, but to take their petitions and their wants into con-
sideration.
The petition was then brought up and read.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had no-
thing to complain of in the manner in which the Hon. Mem-
ber had introduced the petition ; he had spoken with calm-
ness and temper, and while be (the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer) explained the facts, and his view of them to the House,
earnestly and effectually, he would endeavour to follow the
example. He was not disposed to misrepresent or mis-state
the smallest part of the petition ; but he wished to distinguish
the point before the House from the general question of the
policy or impolicy of the stamp laws as applicable to news-
papers. That tax might be politic or impolitic, but it was
not now brought under the consideration of the House,
which was therefore not required to approve or to censure
it., The point to be discussed was whether Government
had acted rightly or wrongly in the course adopted in the
particular case; and it was not only unnecessary but inju-
rious, as regarded a cool and just decision, to introduce into
the debate extrinsic circumstances. He should not say a
word as to the character of unstamped publications ; but
would assume that they were not of a nature to make them the
object of vindictive proceedings : he wished to deal justly
and dispassionately, and for this purpose he would first look
at the state of the law with respeet to finance. He had dealt
with the whole subject as a matter of finance, and the law ap-
plicable to it was not a new one, but as old as the reign of
Queen Anne, when the first stamp-duty upon newspapers were
imposed. As a matter of revenue, it was his dnty to see that
this law, like any other of the same kind, was not evaded in
any way that he could prevent. He was bound to do so, not
only with a view to the interests of the revenue, but in jus-
tice to those who obeyed the law, and paid the stamp duty,
and who would be exposed to unfair competition, if such as did
not pay the duty were permitted to contend with them. The
fair trader had a right to claim and obtain from the Govern-
ment the best protection which the law could give.—( Hear,
hear.) He had then a double duty to perform in respect to
this matter; first, as regarded the public, in taking care that
no fraud was permitted npon the revenue ; and secondly, on
the point of principle and justice, in as far as he was hound to
see that the individuals who obeyed the laws should not he un-
dersold, and thereby defrauded by persons who broke the law,
The Hon. Member for Bath had stated that in this case the
Government had displayed an unwonted degree of activity—
that they had been active to a degree which they had never
before shown. The Honourable Member's accusation was
in some degree a compliment to the present Government ;
h?, however, disclaimed any such compliment, and utterly
denied that any greater activity had been displayed upon this
occasion than had been formerly displayed in simihr
cases. No instance had been brought under the no-
tice of the Treasury during the four years that he had the
bonour'of being connected with that department, in which the
utmost activity was not shewn on their part to vindicate the
law. This, however, was not simply a vindication of the law,
but it was an enforcement of the payment of the ordinary
rights of the Crown, and it was the duty of the Treasury to
recover the penalties from such persons as defranded the re-
venue by publishing unstamped newspapers, as it was their
duty to punish persons guilty of a breach of the excise or
custom-house laws. The Hon. Member had alluded to erne
of the acts which bore upon the question, and said that it had
been passed in unfortunate times and by an unfortunate Mi-
nister, and he therefore argued that it should be differently
construed from an Act passed under more favourable circum-
stances. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could not
admit the propriety of any such distinction.—( Hear, hear.)
How could those who had the administration of the law say
that such and such a law was passed in such and such times,
and under such and such a Minister, and should therefore be
differently interpreted from the same Act if passed by diffe-
rent persons ?—( Hear, hear.) It was enough for him that the.
law was the statute law of this conntry, and he was upon that
account bound to enforce it. It might be a wise or it might
he an-unwise law—that had nothing to do with the question;
but as long as it continued to be law, nothing could be more
impolitic or dangerous than that the Government should
be permitted to give it any interpretation different from its
plain meaning, or that they should not be bound to admi-
nister it as the statute law of the land.—( Hear, hear, hear. )
He now wished to refer to the particular circumstances of the
case at present under the consideration of the House. It was
doubtless known to the House, that for some years past there
had been a constant endeavour, on the part of certain indivi-
duals, to publish public newspapers and advertisements free
from duty. As often as cases of that kind were brought under
the notice of the Government, it had been the uniform object
and practice of the Government to endeavour to enforce the
alaw. They felt that it was their duty to prevent smuggling
in newspapers as much as it was their duty to prevent smug-
gling in any other department of the public revenue. He had
before him a paper, which showed that, since the year 1831,
many prosecutions had taken place, and among others the
individuals whose petition had been presented had beer, re-
peatedly prosecuted and committed. It was true that, by
changes in the mode of publishing, and other means taken to
evade the law, it had been found that the law was not always
so effectual in such cases as could be wished, still the parties
in question had been repeatedly convicted. The parties even
admitted that they acted in violation of the law ; and at the
place of publication they in one case actually stated that they
published in despite and violation of the law ; not only that,
but in one instance they even stated, " We will tell the Go-
vernment what the result of such a prosecution would he ;
in the first place, they will take such and such a step—then
they will take suck and such another step—then they will get
judgment and execution, and the defendant will decamp." As
to the particular occasion upon which the case at present un-
der consideration took place, it occurred in May, 1834, at
which time the parties were tried, and the Government ob-
tained the verdict of a jury. Upon that verdict judgment and
an execution-were obtained, but for some time there was a
difficulty found in ascertaining where there was any property
belonging to the defendants upon which the execution could
be levied. At length, however, information was received
that some property belonging to Cleave was situated in a cer-
tain place, and in the ordinary course of law, the officers were
directed to levy the execution upon it. The officers went to
Cleave's premises. Their object was not to seize the printing
presses or papers particularly—all that they wished for was
to seize goods of any kind, be they chairs, tables, or printing
presses, to cover the amount of the penalties. The proceed-
ings would have been the same whether the goods had been
printing presses, newspapers, or any other species of property,
for the whole object was the enforcement of the penalty. In
the case of Cleave the printing presses were found, and also
40,000 numbers of an unstamped newspaper, the one-half of
which was printed, and the other half of which remained
still to be printed. The seizure took place upon Thursday ;
the publication was not to take place till Saturday, which ac-
counted for only one side being printed. It was true, as had
been stated by the Hon. Member for Bath, that a man came
forward, who stated that the goods were not the property of
Cleave, but belonged to him. But did Cleave's conduct bear
out the truth of that statement ? What did he do? Cleave
came forward and paid the full amount of the penalty.—( Hear,
hear.) Was it to be believed that if the statement of the other
person had been true, that he would have paid the penalty ?
It was important to observe how the penalty was paid. On
paying the penalty Cleave paid the whole amount in gold, for
the evident and sole purpose of evading any possibility of
tracing the numbers of the notes, which might bring the tran-
saction home to any particular parties. Having paid the pe-
nalties, Cleave became entitled to the property seized. He
carried it off to another place, and on the Saturday following
he actually printed off the 40,000 copies of unstamped news-
papers, which had been seized and restored to him, by the
printing presses which had also been seized and restored, and
on the Saturday published the papers in defiance and in viola-
tion of the law, and thereby committed a fraud upon the pub-
lic revenue. In these circumstances it became necessary to
consider whether the presses belonged to himself. Now it is
provided by the law that every printing-press should be regis-
tered at the office of the Clerk of the Peace, and on inquiry
it was found that Cleave's printing-press was not registered,
and that it was therefore subject to seizure. Now, when it was
known that the parties to whom the press in question belonged
were actually committing fraud upon the revenue, he con-
tended that the Government would be utterly unworthy of
any share of the public confidence if they allowed such a
scandalous evasion of the law.—( Hear.) He now wished
to call attention to one part of the speech of the Hon. Member
for Bath, in which that Hon. Member stated that the Act of
Parliament under which that seizure was made was a dormant
Act, and that consequently the parties had been taken by sur-
prise. Now, so far was it from being the case that the parties
were taken by
surprise, that the fact was they at one time had
their presses registered—( Hear, hear)—so that up to a given
period they had complied with this law, which they now wished
to say they were ignorant of, and had only ceased to comply
with it when it became important that they should not be
known as the proprietors of the presses, in order that they
might avoid the penalties which they had incurred, by denying
the goods, and thereby depriving the Crown of the means of
enforcing its own revenue laws. He would ask the House how
he could have stood up in his place and defended himself, if
he had sanctioned such conduct in the department to which be
had the honour to belong ?—( Hear.) The Hon. Member for
.Bath had stated that in the present state of parties it behoved
the Government not to go against public opinion, or to cast
away popularity by enforcing a law which was so decidedly un-
popular al that affecting the press. No one was more sensible