§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERWith regard to the next Resolution, Sir, I shall not at this moment make any statement respecting it, because I have already made a statement of the general principles upon which it is founded at an earlier period, except to explain to the Committee, I hope clearly and distinctly, two alterations that have been made in the proposition of the Government as originally submitted to the House. When the plan was originally proposed by me as part of the financial statement, it was combined with a proposition with regard to supplements to newspapers, which has since undergone material modifications in two particulars, which I will now state to the Committee. In the first place, I had, I must frankly confess, through an inadvertence which I hope the Committee will ex- 1092 cuse, on account of the multitude of important subjects which more immediately pressed upon my mind, proposed that the privilege of freedom from stamp duty upon supplements should be confined to such supplements as were filled with advertisements only. But a very brief consideration of the question makes it quite obvious, that the effect of that proposition would have been to neutralise almost the whole of the beneficial consequences anticipated from the measure; and to do more than neutralise it in some respects, because it would have given to the subject a very invidious character, seeing that it would have been wholly inoperative except in respect of some one or very limited number of newspapers, with regard to which it would assume, therefore, the character of legislation in the spirit of favouritism. A change, therefore, was determined on; and the proposal which is now made is that which is printed in the Stamp Duties Bill, with regard to supplements. It is a proposal that is entirely irrespective of the question whether the contents of supplements may be news or advertisements, or a mixture of both. The other point in which the proposition has been materially changed is, that, instead of a general removal of the stamp duty upon newspaper supplements, the removal or freedom from stamps is confined to what is commonly known as single sheets. I mention this because the technical language in which the enactment is necessarily conveyed, may not carry to the minds of those not familiar with the language of the present Newspaper Stamp Act a correct idea of what the intention is. In point of fact the most correct description of what is intended is this—it is not so much the removal of the stamp duty upon supplements, as the simple enlargement of the newspaper space. By the present law the stamp of a single penny will only cover a newspaper—that is, the printed superficies upon one side of the paper—not exceeding 1,530 inches. I propose to enlarge this space by 50 per cent—that is, to raise it to 2,295 inches, but leaving to parties either to enlarge their ordinary sheets, or to alter the folding of them as they please; or, if they choose, to obtain the maximum size of the sheet, and print it as a supplement. In fact, the Committee will perceive that I impose no limitation whatever with regard to the employment of the space of 2,295 inches, except the single limitation that they must not distribute it into more than two sheets of 1093 paper, which of course has reference to the possibility of evasion by parties who might wish to make use of it for purposes for which it was not intended. These, then, are the changes we have made—an enlargement of 50 per cent is given to newspaper space, and we remove the stamp duty upon supplements. The effect of that enlargement will be to allow of the publication of a single supplement without the stamp duty; but when they pass beyond the limit of 2,295 inches, a further stamp duty will be payable at the rate of 1d. for each 2,295 inches, or 1d. for each moiety of 2,295 inches.
§ MR. BRIGHTI beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon; but I thought the subject of the Resolution we were about to discuss was the advertisement duty, and not the duty on supplements.
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERThe hon. Gentleman is quite right; and I do not wonder at the remark of the hon. Member at all. The question before us is strictly and exclusively the advertisement duty; but, partly for the reason that nothing is printed in this Resolution with regard to the stamp, nor with regard to the enlargement of space, and partly because the connexion between the two subjects is so close, I have thought it desirable to bring before the Committee the alterations that have been made, in order that hon. Members may clearly know what they are.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed—
That from and after the 5th day of July] 853, in lieu of the Duties now payable on Advertisements, there shall be paid:—
| s. | d. | |
| "For or in respect of any Advertisement contained in or published with any Gazette or other Newspaper, or any other periodical paper, or in or with any pamphlet or literary work. | 0 | 6" |
§ MR. MILNER GIBSONI wish, Sir, to move an Amendment to this Resolution; to leave out all the words after "that," in order to insert these words—"all duties now chargeable on advertisements be repealed in accordance with a Resolution of this House on the 14th day of April last." I shall not refer to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the stamps upon supplements, because that question is not before us. But I remarked that he was candid enough to tell us that the remission, so far as the stamp upon supplements was concerned, would have reference to one, or at least to but a limited number of newspapers—
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE- QUERNo, no; nothing of the sort, That had reference to my former plan.
§ MR. MILNER GIBSONWell, when we come to consider the stamp upon supplements, we shall discuss that question. I am sorry—having been favoured with the opportunity on a previous occasion of stating my general objections to a duty on advertisements—to be under the necessity of again troubling the Committee upon the question of the advertisement duty; and I shall not presume to trespass long upon their time, or to go again at any length into the objections to the advertisement tax. But I did fancy, after the decided expression of the opinion of this House, by a deliberate vote, not a surprise, not an accident, but an expression of opinion as fairly obtained as any in this House—that the advertisement duty would be repealed —I did fancy that the right hon. Gentleman and the Government would have bowed to that decision, and settled the question by simply proposing the repeal of the duty. The right hon. Gentleman undoubtedly said, that after the Resolution of the House he would reconsider his proposition. Now, when a Minister says he will reconsider a proposition, and hear what is to be said, one is inclined to take rather a favourable view of the future; and, during the interval of two months and a half that the right hon. Gentlemen has been reconsidering big original proposition, I have been in a sort of fool's paradise, fancying he would agree to the decision of the House. But it turns out that we have been, not to speak too strongly, trifled with; for the right hon. Gentleman comes down now, setting at defiance the previous vote of this House, and proposes to enact a fresh duty upon advertisements. Now, I simply ask the Committee to agree with the vote of the House of Commons, that the advertisement duty shall be totally repealed; and I would remind the Committee that the principle upon which that vote was come to was not the amount of the duty—nobody talked of the eighteenpence. We did not ask that it should be reduced to sixpence; but we said it was an unequal, unjust, and impolitic tax, and that it ought not to be made a source of public revenue. If you are of opinion that this is a proper tax, I prefer the eighteenpence; for if we are to have the expense of collection—if we are to have the vexation of sending all these papers and publications to the Stamp-office to be examined—let us, at least, have some revenue for it. But the decision was 1095 founded upon the principle that advertisements were not fitting to be a permanent source of public revenue; and the Chancellor of the Exchecquer was called upon to make such financial arrangements as would enable us to repeal this duty. The inequality of a small duty is just as great as the inequality of a large duty. I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman, in coming to his conclusion upon this question, has put himself into the hands of certain large newspaper proprietors, who fancy that, in this remnant of the advertisement duty, they see a small protection; and that the large number of advertisements which would undoubtly rise up, especially in the agricultural districts, would perhaps be the means of feeding and supporting struggling papers that might eventually come into competition with the more successful journals of the day. This, I admit, is somewhat of an assumption; but it is not, I apprehend, quite without foundation, for I have heard the name of a gentleman mentioned as a high authority for it, who is connected with a paper in the county of Sussex; and I am quite sure that the ground he took, among others, was, that these duties were in the nature of protection to established papers. I should like some of those established papers that have been such violent freetraders as to the article of corn and other commodities, to try the effect of free trade in newspapers; and I am for repealing the advertisement duty for the very purpose of enabling advertisements to be inserted in the smaller and struggling papers, to be a source, and a legitimate source, of support to those papers. The right hon. Gentleman, however, will find it impossible to pass the Resolution in the form he has submitted it to the Committee. I contend that the wording of the Resolution as it now stands is fatal to it. The right hon. Gentleman proposes to subject to a tax every advertisement, in any pamphlet, or literary work; that is to say, in any pamphlet or in any book. No doubt it is just that, if an advertisement be taxed when it is in a newspaper, and when it is in a periodical, it is right it should be taxed also when it is in a book or in a pamphlet; but let me ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he means to enforce that part of the Resolution? Let me ask him whether it is not in point of fact a mere pretence to show a sign of impartiality when there is no intention, and when there exist no means whatever of collecting the duty upon 1096 advertisements in books and pamphlets? The right hon. Gentleman has no intention, I suppose, of bringing in a Bill to enable him to collect the duty upon advertisements in pamphlets and books. Let me then ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain when, and where, and to whom, and under what circumstances, the duty upon advertisements in pamphlets and books is to be paid? He knows there are no provisions in any Statute which will enable him to collect that duty. I contend, therefore, that it is an absurdity to impose a duty upon an article without at the same time providing means for its collection. It is as if a man who built a house with several stories should fancy he had made a complete structure when he had forgotten the staircase. But I complain of this, because there is a show of impartiality and justice in levying the duty in all cases, when in reality there is no intention of levying it except upon advertisements in periodicals and newspapers—thus placing the periodical and newspaper press at a disadvantage, and making it the interest of every man to find out some other mode of advertising rather than in the legitimate way—namely, in newspapers and periodicals. It is, in short, an indirect and most effectual mode of crippling and restraining the press, and of injuring its independence, inasmuch as it deprives the press of this legitimate source of support—namely, the fund that is derived from advertisements. You will still continue to see, if you enact this duty, the untaxed advertisements upon your walls, in your books, in your pamphlets, in omnibuses, and in every situation that can be found to catch the public eye, because there is a direct premium on them there, instead of going to the legitimate field of advertising, namely, the newspapers and periodicals of the day. Upon these grounds, Sir, then, I ask the Committee to support me in the Amendment I now move, which Amendment I beg, without further trespassing on the time of the Committee, to place in the hands of the Chairman. Amendment proposed—
To leave out the words 'in lieu of the Duties now payable on Advertisements,' in order to insert the words' all Duties now chargeable on Advertisements he repealed, in accordance with a Resolution of this House of the 14th day of April last,' instead thereof.
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERSir, I am very reluctant to occupy the time of the Committee upon this subject; but, at the same time, it is my duty 1097 to state distinctly to the Committee the reasons why the Government have not thought it compatible with their obligations to acquiesce in the vote to which the House of Commons came upon an earlier day. I think, however, it will be felt that such a Resolution upon the part of the Government, is a Resolution that requires explanation; and I shall not be discharging my duty if I decline affording that explanation. The right hon. Gentleman has, however, stated several things to which I must refer in the first instance. He says, in the first place, that after the vote of the House of Commons on this subject, I promised to reconsider the proposition of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman is totally mistaken; I never used any such expression. I did use an expression upon the subject; but the expression I used was the direct reverse of that which the right hon. Gentleman has attributed to me.
§ MR. MILNER GIBSONI can assure the right hon. Gentleman, that, upon the question being put to him several times, by 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 consideration' is, I apprehend, well known to hon. Members.
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERThe right hon. Gentleman, I think, has made a marked grammatical difference between his present explanation and his former statement. The right hon. Gentleman, from his long Parliamentary experience, must know that it conveyed a very different meaning. My statement, as the Committee well knows, conveyed a sense totally different. I did say something was under consideration, and something 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 mean 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. With regard to the wording of this Resolution I shall be very brief. I have moved it in precisely the terms of the present law. The question whether there is to be a duty on advertisements in pamphlets and books, is a question that may be very fairly considered by the Committee if 1098 they please; and if they wish to alter the phraseology of this law, it is open to them to do so; but I have thought it right and more convenient to adhere to it. At the same time, I adhere to it because the objection has no connexion 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 hon. Gentleman spoke of the expense of collection. Well, no tax is collected without some expense. But, if the right hon. Gentleman means to say that the expense of collection constitutes an especial burden in the case of advertisements, as compared with any duty of similar extent, and that that is one reason why the duty should be condemned, I beg to say that I differ from him, for I consider that it constitutes no such burden whatever. Then he says that a small duty is as unequal as a large duty. No doubt every rate-able duty is necessarily an unequal duty. The penny postage in one sense is an unequal rate; it is an 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 its 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 critically and microscopically examined, yet it is a duty moderate in amount in relation to the service performed, and it works well for the public interest. The right hon. Gentleman also renews his objection, that this reduction is a boon to the large newspapers; not only does he say that, but he says it is a boon to one, or at least to a very few, of the large newspapers. That it is a boon to the 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 reduction is a boon only to one or to a few large newspapers, from that doctrine I beg leave totally and entirely to dissent. He has himself moved, or some other hon. Member has moved, for a return connected with this matter, from which it appears that out of the sum of 30,000l., now levied in stamp duties upon supplements, 22,000l. are paid by a single newspaper—theTimes. I conclude, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman means it to be understood that this is a boon to 1099 theTimes, and to nobody else. [Mr. M. GIBSON: No, no!] 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 theIllustrated London News, and certain papers in the provinces, theTimes is the only newspaper that can afford to give large supplements stamped. The other newspapers are prevented in a great measure 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 some twenty or thirty years ago. When the duty upon coffee was 3s. 6d. per lb. it was consumed only by the rich; and it could scarcely ever be obtained even in small quantities by the poor. Now the duty is3d. per lb. or thereabouts. Will the right hon. Gentleman contend that that reduction has been a boon only to the rich? By reduction you let other consumers into the field; and not only that, you let in other competitors, and by this reduction of duty on supplements, you give effect to the reduction of the advertisement duty. What would have been the effect of a reduction 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 perfectly indifferent 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 advertisements without an increase of space? It would be this, that a greatly increased number of advertisements would compote 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 regards the duty upon advertisements; but it is impossible for the Committee, if they are disposed to enter into this question, to take so narrow a view of it. The total abolition of duties of this character is a very serious matter, and the Committee 1100 will do well to consider whither the principle of such abolition will lead them, and where it is to stop. Let us look at the case of the advertisement duty in connexion 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 advertisement duty is rather a tax upon trade and labour, 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 the advertisement duty. The stamp duty, whatever it may be in its form, is in its substance neither more nor less than a charge for service performed. [Mr. M. GIBSON: NO, no!] What! I hear the right hon. Gentleman say No. Are not newspapers carried free all over the country, posted and reposted as often as any person pleases? Now, I want to know, is that a service performed, or is it not? Whether it is performed in consideration of the penny stamp or not, it is a service performed. Now, I do not want to entrap any hon. Gentleman into an admission 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, as it is now, or in what manner newspapers should go through the post, is not the question. But certainly in the intention of Parliament, and in point of fact, the stamp is a remuneration 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 Po3t-office, by persons of the highest authority, from which it appears that the 400,000l. received for the stamp on newspapers does not do more than remunerate the Post-office for the actual labour performed in connexion with them, and for the payments they have to make on account of the transmission of newspapers. So much for the stamp duty, leaving open the question of its form. 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 revenue will admit. The paper duty, I maintain, ought, when the state of the revenue will permit it, to be altogether abolished. It appears to me that the 1101 paper duty is an inexpedient and impolitic tax altogether. 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 he confined to the great centres of population, but it would find its way, according to the conveniences 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 of Commons take that view, to be repealed. In the same way it is equally true that 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 prefers the 1s. 6d. duty, if we are to have any duty at all. Well, if he prefers the 1s. 6d. duty, he may readily gain his object; because the effect of his proposition is nothing more than to leave the 1s. 6d. duty in force. He may, therefore, gain his purpose; but I hope the Committee will look calmly and dispassionately 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 consent to its abolition, the principle that will carry the abolition 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 extortionate in its amount; but it is not bad or unreasonable in its general operation, provided the amount be moderate, while the objection of inequality, if valid, 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 1102 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 614,000l. you derive from bills of exchange? And what do you mean to do with the duty upon insurances? That is surely a tax upon trade, and it is as distinctly a tax in the nature of a discouragement upon prudence. Now, I should like to argue this question of the insurance against the advertisement duty, taking the side of the insurance duty, and leave the Committee to decide which it would be most desirable to repeal. But were they prepared to give up the tax on insurances? [Mr. M. GIBSON: Yes.] The right hon. Gentleman says he is; and he is consistent, for the right hon. Gentleman wants to get rid of indirect taxation. But I want the Committee to see whether this will lead; and if they do not take the consequence into their view, I will take care it shall be from no fault of mine. I say that if in this vote you are carrying 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. I do 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 2,000,000l. of indirect taxation; and we have had a distinct intimation from the right hon. Gentleman that he is quite prepared to follow up the principle on which he acts, and to part with that 2,000,000l. of indirect taxation. But I beg the Committee to consider how we stand in that view of the ease. The right hon. Gentleman 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 (Lord R. Gros-venor), who has four or five times carried a Motion for the repeal of the attorneys' certificate duty? If it was incumbent on the Government to agree to the present proposal because it had once been carried in Parliament, it must be five times more incumbent on them to repeal the duty on attorneys' certificates. No doubt that in April last the division on the advertisement duty was, Ayes 200; Noes 169. The 1103 right hon. Gentleman says that is a reason why we are precluded now from opposing his Amendment. Well, I say if that is a good argument in the case of the advertisement duty, it is a good argument in the case of the attorneys' certificate duty. What is the opinion of the Committee 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 attorneys' 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 to 122; and a third time in 1850 you declared the same by 105 to 103. This was but a small majority; but in 1851 you improved, for then you affirmed the same by 162 to 132. Thus, there were four successive declarations by this House of Parliament that the attorneys' certificate duty ought to be abolished. Then you had a general election; and did the case lose ground by it? No, for on the 10th of March the House resolved, by 219 to 167 —a much larger majority than before— that the duty ought to be abolished. I say, then, if it was obligatory upon the Government to consent to repeal the duty in consequence of the votes of this House, the case in favour of the last is five times as good as the other. But by this means you take away 150,000l. from the estimated surplus of this year. I say this further—before the financial statement is made it may be very well that there should be votes upon particular questions of finance, or upon particular points in connection with the general state of the country; but after the financial statement has been made, and the resources and requirements of the State have been placed in juxtaposition, then I say that a very different kind of responsibility is incurred by such Motions as this. I will remind the Committee how we stand in this respect. In the financial statement I stated that we anticipated a surplus amounting to 807,000l. I stated at the same time that of the items of which that surplus was composed there were 200,000l. which must be regarded as at present totally uncertain. I shall not go into details on this subject, but it is my duty to inform the Committee that we shall lose the whole of that 200,000l. I made a proposal as to licences, from which I expected to derive 110,000l.; but I must say I think the opinion of the House of Commons and the country is adverse to that proposal. On 1104 the whole, I think, from the feeling of the House, that that proposal could not be maintained, and, as a consequence, the whole of that 110,000l. is gone. There is 310,000l. of the surplus gone at once. I must state further that 215,000l. of the surplus consists of occasional payments, which would be available for this year, but would not return. Theseamountto525,000l. out of the surplus of 807,000l., reducing it to 282,000l. Then the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take away the 6d. advertisement duty, to which I look for 80,000l. at least; and, if the reason he has assigned is to prevail—namely, the vote of the House of Commons—we shall have to give up as well 70,000l. for the attorneys' certificate duty. Now I put it to the Committee whether it is a justifiable or a prudent course, when circumstances have already reduced your surplus to 282,000l., to give up the further sum of 150,000l., and thus leave nothing that can be called a surplus—a mere nominal balance, and this at a time when you are undertaking to carry into effect great and extensive financial operations? These are my views. But I must say this further to the Committee —I hope they will think upon what we are doing with regard to direct and indirect taxation. It is very well to make fine speeches about direct taxation, and the excellence of the substitution of direct for indirect taxation; but I believe it is a delusion. I do not believe you can with security materially alter the balance of direct and indirect taxation. Any step on this subject must be taken with great caution and circumspection. I am convinced that this vote will operate in the nature of a trap, though I believe it is not so intended. It is my firm conviction that it will be unwise to surrender too many sources of indirect taxation in obedience to the principle on which that vote is founded. What are we doing this year? Is what we are doing this year enough or not? We propose to repeal 5,500,000l. of taxation; and of that 5,500,000l. of taxation, if not the whole, nearly the whole, is indirect taxation. We are going to impose 3,000,000l. of new taxation, and of that 3,000,000l. of new taxation 2,500,000l. are direct taxation. I put it, then, to the Committee, that, under these circumstances, they ought not to give a vote which virtually will lead them on to the surrender of a large further sum of money available from indirect taxation, until they have well considered whether it is desirable to make a further great 1105 addition to direct taxation. I do not wish to be responsible in any degree for bringing about a state of circumstances which shall compel this House to do what would otherwise be unpalatable. I wish the House to exercise a free and independent judgment; and I wish to make no circumstances out of which the necessity shall arise to act in a certain manner, but, before the necessity has arisen, to point out its probability, in order that while there is yet time the Committee may hesitate before being entrapped into the consequences of any vote they may be induced to give. These are the general grounds on which I feel it my duty to leave to the right hon. Gentleman the responsibility of the proposal which he thinks it his duty to make. The right hon. Gentleman has made that proposal with perfect fairness. He states that he is undoubtedly prepared to give up all the revenue from the advertisement duty—that he looks upon it as a had revenue. I, on the contrary, venture to put it respectfully to the Committee that it is not a bad revenue, but that, restrained within moderate limits, it is as fair, reasonable, and just as most other portions of our financial system. At all events, I say, do not give a precipitate vote (because men may act with precipitancy after even a lapse of time), if that vote may lead to consequences which you have not fairly anticipated and dispassionately weighed. Do not allow yourselves to he brought into a position in which you must alter eventually the balance of taxation of the country, before you have well considered what will be the consequences of that change, and whether the result will be a fairer distribution of public burdens than the present division of direct and indirect taxation appears to give. It is upon that account I feel myself called upon to oppose the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman.
§ MR. COBDENI wish, Sir, to call the attention of the Committee to the subject matter under consideration. It is a very simple, and, so far as the amount is concerned, a very small question. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has led the Committee into the consideration of all sorts of subjects except the one before us. And he has endeavoured to evade the responsibility which I think rested upon him, by paying some attention to a vote of this House, by anex post facto argument created by himself, which is utterly indefensible. In the first place, I would remind the right hon. Gen- 1106 tleman that 60,000l. is the amount, and not 80,000l., which he estimated from advertisements—
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERI beg your pardon. You are quite wrong. I stated 80,000l.
§ MR. COBDENWell, whether it be 60,000l. or whether it be 80,000l., which the right hon. Gentleman stated in his Budget he expected to receive from the reduced advertisement duty, is not material. But the right hon. Gentleman now forgets in setting up the plea that he cannot take off 80,000l. of taxation, that he himself has created this 80,000l., after a vote of this House had sanctioned the remission of taxation, and numerous petitions had called for the remission in this specific way. The right hon. Gentleman has remitted 3,000,000l. of taxation according to his own statement. Since the votes of the House on the advertisement duty, he has brought forward his Budget, in which he proposes to remit 3,000,000l. of taxation; and yet he says he has not the means to remit a tax of 80,000l. a year, which the vote of this House said should be abolished. Another thing I must call attention to is, that he has mixed this matter up with the question of supplements, which is totally distinct from the question of advertisements. The right hon. Gentleman says that it is necessary to repeal the supplement tax, in order to give full effect to his plan of a reduced advertisement duty. But that is his plan; it is not our plan. Again, he is mystifying the matter. He retains the sixpence, and then says it is necessary to take off the supplement duty, otherwise there will be no means of expanding the space of newspapers, and therefore we shall be defeated in the amount of revenue by the want of space. But abolish the advertisement duty, instead of reducing it to6d., and no such argument applies, because, whether he keeps on the supplement tax or whether he repeals it, it will have no fiscal consequence whatever with regard to this question. I beg to remind the right hon. Gentleman again, that he has created this difficulty. Who requested him to create the difficulty? Who petitioned him to repeal the supplement tax? Were there any petitions presented to this House on that particular subject?
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERThe supplement duty is 30,000l. a year.
§ MR. COBDENJust so, and I will give the right hon. Gentleman credit for the 1107 difference between 30,000l. and 80,000l., but it only increases the difficulty he has created. The right hon. Gentleman introduced a great variety of other subjects into this debate. He talked of other taxes being equally as onerous as the advertisement tax. I join issue upon that with the right hon. Gentleman, and I undertake to prove to the satisfaction of the right hon. Gentleman himself that the Committee did right to make this exception to other indirect taxes, by totally abolishing it. He has adduced examples to show that all rated taxes, as he calls them, must be unjust in their incidence, because all rated taxes fall equally on articles of different value. But in all indirect taxes you try to mitigate that inequality by levying a different rate of duty upon a different class of articles—as in the case of tobacco and cigars, and in that of spirits, where you select certain proof of spirits for the unit of taxation; and the right hon. Gentleman does not pretend to say you do not try to mitigate inequality by levying a different rate on different quantities. The paper duty is a very indefensible duty; but you do not lay the same duty on a sheet of paper and a quire of paper. I care not where you go; in all cases you seek to mitigate unfair pressure by making distinctions between the qualities which you tax, and in all things except one, in the quantity which you tax. But when you come to the advertisement duty, you depart from the principle altogether, and levy the same tax on every advertisement, of whatever value they may be. Every one knows, if I go to insert an advertisement in a newspaper having a circulation of 30,000 a day, I have to pay 10s. for the advertisement; but if I go to a paper of small circulation, they are glad to insert it for half-a crown. Yet in both cases the right hon. Gentleman proposes to impose a tax of 6d. In both cases the tax is the same, though the value of the article is 10s. in the one case, and in the other only 2s. 6d. I have put this in a very fair spirit. I might have taken a stronger case still. Then, as to quantity, if I insert an advertisement covering a whole page, for which the charge is 100l., it pays66. But if a housemaid wanting a place inserts an advertisement of only two lines, it pays 6d. So I maintain there is no tax, whatever yon can adduce, so unfair in its incidence as this tax on advertisements. I say it is something more than the right hon. Gentleman stated—a tax on labour and industry; it is a tax on 1108 the intercommunication of wants and wishes, which, in a commercial community, strikes at the foundation of all transactions. What would be said if it were sought to lay a tax on every bargain made, or attempted to be made, on the Exchange, between merchants who meet there at four o'clock, if the asking the rate of exchange between London and Hamburg were to render the broker seeking the information liable to a tax? Yet that is what you do under the advertisement duty. A man advertises an article for sale, but does not sell it; he makes known his wants, he offers to sell, and you tax him for it. That, in a commercial country, where the revenue is benefited at every step in business transactions, is suicidal in character, and strikes at the root of all commercial progress. The right hon. Gentleman, in illustration of his argument, had talked of bills of exchange, and fire insurances; but do not bills of exchange and fire insurances pay according to amount?—and the only argument he attempted was the most unfortunate he could use. The right hon. Gentleman also said, "Look at the penny stamp for letters—do you not charge a penny for 50 or 500 miles?" Yes, that is true; you charge a penny if under half an ounce, but you charge2d. if an ounce, increasing the charge a penny for every half ounce whatever the weight may be. I do not look upon this wholly as a commercial or fiscal matter. I take leave to say, though the right hon. Gentleman denies that the question of advertisements is a question affecting what is termed taxes on knowledge, that it is a question of a tax upon knowledge; because if you want to have newspapers at all in this country, they can only be supported by funds furnished by advertisements; if you think it desirable to have competition in newspapers as well as other things, then it is desirable no obstacle should be offered to the success of the smaller, or what the right hon. Gentleman calls struggling, newspapers. The effect of this tax is to prevent competition in newspapers. We all know, that, whether in the paper trade, in the spirit trade, in the tobacco trade, or any other trade, when fixed rates of duty are levied upon the article produced, the parties engaged in the production of those articles always become few in number, and there is a tendency to create a monopoly in the hands of great capitalists. I say every argument used for emancipating trade in corn ought to be applied to all taxes on newspapers; 1109 and I must say I have seen with surprise, and something like disgust, many newspapers which were for many years advocating free trade in corn, and denouncing the landowners as a set of monopolists, now struggling by every direct and indirect means to keep up a monopoly in their own hands, to prevent others entering the field against them, by retaining as much is they can of these taxes on knowledge. And it is from this source that the right hon. Gentleman has got the suggestion to keep on part of the duty. You will not find any paper of small circulation, and very few papers in the provinces, advocating this sixpenny duty. The only papers who do so are those who have acquired a certain position; and their interest of course is to prevent competition as much as possible. Again, the bookselling trade has petitioned more strongly than any other for the repeal of the advertisement duty—and why? Because when books are advertised, they are generally short and small advertisements; because the book trade depends probably more than any other on the publicity given in advertisements to new publications; and, therefore, it is felt that the greatest obstacle to the book trade is the tax on advertisements. But it is not merely in the book trade that I find the advertisement duty recognised as a tax on knowledge. I would call the attention of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London (Lord John Russell) to the fact that all the educational societies in the country have petitioned for the removal of the advertisement duty. I hold in my hand a memorial representing 270 mechanics and other institutions, signed by 100 delegates, and under the auspices of the Society of Arts—so it is no party or political movement — and this body unanimously resolve to petition in favour of the removal of the advertisement duty; and I myself have presented numbers of petitions from similar establishments in Lancashire and Yorkshire in favour of a removal of the duty. Members of athenaeums and mechanics' institutions contend that the advertisement duty is an obstacle to the diffusion of knowledge, as it prevents the giving of publicity to the proceedings of literary bodies; and I do call on the noble Lord, who has professed, and I believe with great sincerity, a desire to promote the education of the people—I call on him, now that he finds how difficult it is by Government efforts to promote education in the country—if he is consistent in this 1110 matter, I call on him, at all events, to aid those who wish to remove every obstacle in the way of those voluntary efforts for education which are now being made throughout the country, and which I consider to be the peculiar glory and honour of our age. I hope, on all these grounds, the Committee will adhere to the Resolution to which they have come. It is not a vote which involves direct or indirect taxation. It is not a question mixed up with any other question, and any attempt to travel into other fields only argues that this tax is indefensible, and that the only way to avoid letting the Committee see that it is so is by mystifying and bringing in other questions quite irrelevant to the matter.
§ MR. SPOONERsaid, he voted against the Motion of the right hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. M. Gibson) on the 14th of April, and he meant to vote for the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, merely to defeat the Amendment now; and when that proposition came before the Committee as an original question, he should vote against that too, in order that the duty on advertisements might remain at its present rate. He thought the advertisement tax was neither unjust nor oppressive, and that the country in general did not cry out against it. He objected to the Amendment on another ground, which had been ably stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that it would involve the increase of direct taxation; and he wished that the right hon. Gentleman had taken the same view years ago. The balance of direct and indirect taxation would then, perhaps, not have been so completely altered, and the danger now dreaded would not have been so imminent. That most odious tax, the succession tax, was the consequence of the very great advancement made in the remission of indirect taxes; and he was quite sure every step in the same direction would increase the difficulty and danger which the right hon. Gentleman apprehended.
§ MR. JAMES MACGREGORsaid, the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer alleged, as a reason why the income tax-should be charged equally on the profits of trade and realised property, that it was unjust to charge a higher sum upon the poor annuitant widow than upon the professional man; and he put it to the right hon. Gentleman that the advertisement duty pressed peculiarly on persons in distress, who wanted to obtain employment, or dis- 1111 pose of goods at the best price. He should vote with the right hon. Member for Manchester, trusting that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's estimate of the large sums from the new system of taxation would enable him to lose this 80,000l. a year.
§ Question put, "That the words 'in lieu of the duties now payable on advertisements' stand part of the proposed Resolution."
§ The Committeedivided;—Ayes 109; Noes 99: Majority 10.
§ MR. CRAUFURDsaid, that it was highly expedient that, as duties were to be imposed on advertisements in newspapers, those advertisements should be protected from the cheap competition of advertising vans, omnibus advertisements, and facilities of that nature.
MR. HUMEsaid, he was very sorry the Government had not found it in their power to take off this tax, which was one of the greatest impediments to free trade that now existed. He held in his hand an American paper which was sold for a cent, and contained a thousand advertisements, making known all the wants of the community; and a similar paper was published in every town of the United States. The new system which would arise from the removal of the advertisement duty would be one of the greatest boons which could be conferred. What his hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) had said with regard to the voluntary efforts for the promotion of education being cheeked by this impost, was most convincing, and, after so close a division, he trusted the present Administration would not proceed in legislating so contrary to the principles which they professed.
§ MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not answered his question, how the advertisement duty on pamphlets and books was to be collected? It was a simple question, and he should imagine the Chancellor of the Exchequer could tell him when the duty on advertisements in books was to be charged, to whom it was to be paid, and where it was to be paid?
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he thought the simple question of the right hon. Gentleman had received as simple an answer, because he had said, on a former occasion, it was not his intention to levy any duty on advertisements not at present charged. The liability continued exactly as it was, except as to the amount. The machinery was the 1112 same, and the persons to whom the duty would be payable would be the same. If the right hon. Gentleman meant to suggest that he had better alter the language by which the duty was levied, he could only say he had adopted the language as he found it in the existing law. With respect to advertisements not inserted in newspapers, a most important mode of advertising, not subject to the tax, would shortly be in the hands of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—he meant the advertising vans, and they would certainly expire amidst a universal jubilee. Another class of advertisements, what the French calledhommes-affiches —the animal sand-wiches, as we called them here—living placards that walked up and down the streets—were more difficult to deal with; and as to advertisements in railways, be did not think they need much begrudge the companies that casual advantage. To revert to the point put by the right hon. Gentleman, perhaps he might amend the Resolution verbally, and let it read, "for or in respect of every advertisement contained in or published with any gazette or other newspaper, or any other periodical paper literary work." He did not know whether that would be an improvement, and perhaps it would be better to take time to consider it, and make the alteration in Committee on the Bill.
§ MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he still wished to have more explicit information on this subject. He had that day presented a petition from the booksellers, who were in a state of great alarm as to the wording of the Resolution, and, therefore, he hoped that the Resolution would state explicitly what were the intentions of its framers. He had received a letter from a bookseller in Dublin, complaining that the Comptroller of Stamps had served him with notice to send in a copy of every sewed book or pamphlet, in order that the advertisements therein might be charged. The fact was, that the law was in a state of confusion on this subject. The law already applied to advertisements in books, but the booksellers found it so obnoxious, that they got a Bill repealing all the clauses which enabled the Government to collect the books, so that the tax was in reality a dead letter. Were it otherwise it would he a great hardship, as a bookseller might be compelled to send in a guinea book for the sake of an advertisement upon which the duty was sixpence. He hoped, therefore, that now there would be no con- 1113 fusion, but that the intention of the law would be stated clearly, and especially in the Resolution. He hoped, also, that the right hon. Gentleman would define what advertisements really were, as there was a growing feeling that a great inequality prevailed in the assessment. It was believed that there was an arbitrary selection of the announcements to be subjected to duty, and that much of the funds intended for charitable purposes were exhausted in advertisement tax. To make the wording of the Resolution clear as to an omission which already took place in practice, and to avoid all cause of future litigation, he should move the omission of the words "pamphlet or literary work," thus limiting the operation of the Resolution to "any gazette or other newspaper, or any other periodical paper."
§ Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "or in or with any pamphlet or literary work."
§ Question proposed, "That those words stand part of the proposed Resolution."
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, it appeared to him, that, as it was intended to adhere Strictly to the present construction of the law, they would not improve the intelligibility of the law by altering the terms of the Resolution. He felt most strongly that indirect taxation was the kind of taxation which the people most willingly paid; He wished on that account to relieve the Chancellor of the Exchequer even from the inconvenience of a reduction of this tax; and he should, therefore, move that the old duty be retained. As regarded the supplements, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposition with regard to them, it seemed to be a premium to powerful, established newspapers, and a detriment to those which had not yet attained such a position; and as the change with regard to them seemed to arise out of the change with regard to the advertisement duty, he should endeavour to obviate its necessity by an attempt to remove its cause. He proposed, on these grounds, to keep the existing duty as it was.
MR, HUMEsaid, he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman meant to enforce that law which had not yet been enforced?
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, with respect to the letter mentioned by the right hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. M. Gibson), the gentleman who had written it was in error, as it was intended to confine the tax to periodi- 1114 cal works. Either the writer was in error, or the Excise. As to the effect of the alteration of the law, there could be no doubt about the matter. The whole question turned upon the fact of a publication being periodical or not. If all literary works were to be kept out, the effect would be to exclude all periodical works. Those works largely advertised, and they would escape altogether, which would not be fair. He was willing to adopt any language that would define the established law more clearly; but he could not consent to adopt alterations that would not effect their object, and only lead to confusion.
§ MR. BRIGHTsaid, that the Resolution as it stood was manifestly absurd, because it proposed a tax for which there was no legal mode of collection. He would suggest the postponement of the clause. The whole proposition was untenable, seeing that the Committee had already by a much larger majority than the present, decided for the abolition of the tax. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer knew that three-fourth3 of those who had voted with him, entirely disagreed with him in opinion, and that but for the forty members connected with the Government, who would vote for 1s. 6d. or 6d., or, in short, anything they were asked, he would on the present occasion have been left in a minority. There could not be upon that side of the House two opinions with regard to the absurdity of retaining this tax. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman was far too acute to imagine that the revenue would suffer to anything like the extent that he had stated if the tax were abolished. For instance, here was a case which had been supplied to him:—A gentleman advertised for a clerk. There were 271 answers to that advertisement received through the post alone, and of course each of those paid the penny postage stamp. Why, if the advertisement duty were wholly repealed, there would be an enormous gain from the Post-office alone. He appealed to the Committee whether the course which the right hon. Gentleman was pursuing on this whole question was not diametrically in the teeth of everything which a Minister at this day ought to do. The law said that all advertisements should be taxed. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to enforce it only so far as they appeared in periodical papers: and in ninety-nine cases out of one hundred the tax would be found to press upon newspapers. With regard to the newspaper 1115 stamp, precisely the same course was taken. The stamp applied to all papers containing news, advertisements, occurrences, or intelligence, with observations or remarks thereon. Yet, that Stamp Act was allowed so to work that it fell almost exclusively upon political newspapers; for if a paper devoted itself to horse-races, or to architectural purposes, or to purely literary objects, like theAthenceum, the right hon. Gentleman imposed no stamp at all. The fact was, that, literally and virtually, Mr. Timms and his confederates at Somerset House were elevated into censors of the press, and worked it so as only to influence political newspapers. It was scandalous that, at this time of day, such a state of things should be allowed to exist; and it was discreditable to a Government that professed to be very much in favour of education, and who had said that, while their liberalism was to be conservative, at least their conservatism should be liberal. He held in his hand a newspaper which was the same size as the London daily newspapers without a supplement, and it was as good a newspaper, he undertook to say, as any published in London. It was printed with a finer type than any London daily paper. The paper, the material, was exceedingly good—quite sufficient for all the purposes of a newspaper. The printing could not be possibly surpassed, and it contained more matter for its size than any daily paper printed in London. The first, second, and third sides were composed of advertisements. There were, a long article upon the American Art Union investigation, a leading article giving a summary of all the latest news of Europe, a leading-article on the fisheries dispute, and a leading article, with which he entirely concurred, stating that public dinners were public nuisances. He had seen articles perhaps written with more style, but never any that had a better tone, or that were more likely to be useful. Then again, there were, "Three days later from Europe," "The arrival of theAsia," and a condensation of all the news from Europe. From Great Britain there was an elaborate disquisition upon the Budget of the right hon. Gentleman, which did him justice in some parts, but not in others, and which, so far as the Manchester school were concerned, certainly did them no justice whatever. Then, there were an account of Mrs. Beecher Stowe's visit to Edinburgh, a long article from the LondonTimes upon the wrongs of dressmakers, articles from Greece, Spain, 1116 and other continental countries, the Ath-lone Election, and the return of Her Majesty's Solicitor General by exactly 189 votes—which would very much surprise an American to read—several columns of ordinary news and paragraphs, and most elaborate mercantile and market tables. It wrote steadily in favour of temperance and of anti-slavery, and he ventured to say that there was not at this moment a better paper in London than that. The name of that paper was theNew York Tribune, and it was laid regularly every morning upon the table of every working man in that city who chose to buy it for the small charge of one penny. What he wanted to ask the Government was this:—How came it, and for what good end, and by what contrivance of fiscal oppression was it, that one of our workmen here should have to pay5d. for a London morning paper, while his direct competitor in New York could buy a paper for 1d.? We were running a race in the face of all the world with the United States. Were not the Collins and Cunard lines of steamers calculating their voyages to within fifteen minutes of time? But if our artisans were to be bound either to have no newspapers at all, or to pay5d. for it, or were to be driven to the public-house to read it, because they could not have it cheaply and innocently at their own houses, while the artisan in the United States could procure it for 1d., how was it possible that any fair rivalry could be maintained between the artisans of the two countries? As well say that a merchant in England, if he never saw a price-current, could carry on his business with the same facility as the merchant who had that advantage every day. He would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was a great friend of the liberation of industry, and who had some ambition, he believed, to follow in the steps of his former leader, was there ever industry so taxed as that which was represented in an English newspaper? The actual paper for a newspaper of the ordinary size cost 1d. The tax was, at least, ¼d.; and, if they took into consideration the annoyance to the paper manufacturer, by reason of the Excise, they would find that out of the whole 1d. at least ⅕d. was tax. The paper would, therefore, cost ⅝d. if there were no duty. With the duty it cost 1d. Then, it could not be damped for the press until it was sent to Somerset House, or a branch office, where it received a red stamp of a most ominous character, for which it had to pay 1117 another 1d., or 100 per cent upon the original cost of the paper and the paper duty, and about 140 per cent upon the original cost of the paper without the duty. That was not all. The paper slipped through the press, and came out with a number of advertisements, of two lines or upwards, from servant-girls wanting situations, or what not. Every one of those must pay to the Chancellor of the Exchequer at present 1s. 6d.; and after this "great" measure, which was before the Committee, should be passed, it would have to pay 6d. More than that. If a man wished to start a paper, he must swear himself worth 100l. after all his debts wore paid. He knew a literary gentleman who was not worth 100l, and therefore did not like to take the oath; but the officials told him it was merely a form. If it was merely a form, why not abolish it? But here was an accumulation of obstructions. First of all, a man must give security, then he would have to pay duty on his paper, afterwards he must get it stamped, and finally would have to pay the advertisement duty, and even besides that, he must find security to the extent of 1,800l. or 1,600l., according as the paper was published in London or beyond a certain circuit, that he would pay the newspaper stamp duty, that he would pay the advertisement duty, and that he would not be guilty of publishing any libel, or sedition, or blasphemy, in his paper. Now, He asked the hon. Member for North Warwickshire—the senior Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner)—for he hoped the day might come when he might be amenable to reason—he asked the hon. Gentleman whether there was anything in this country that was taxed to so scandalous an amount, as a mere matter of industry? He ventured to say that there was nothing like it in the whole world. But there was another view besides that of the mere question of industry. The newspaper was the very life and soul of the intelligence of the country. We could not enter the cottages and permeate the minds of the great hulk of the labouring class of the country unless we gave them a newspaper with something interesting to read in it. We might circulate pestilent publications, such as theNewgate Calendar and Jack Sheppard, and all sorts of horrors, which might most perniciously stimulate the appetite to read, but would at the same time stimulate it to all kinds of depravity and crime; but give them a newspaper, in which all the little details of their neighbourhood could be 1118 brought before them, mixed with matters of a more extended character, and the poor boy, when he left his school with his knowledge of reading most imperfect, would cultivate the taste, because his interest would be aroused and excited, and the most beneficial results would assuredly flow from it. He did not believe that there was a man in that House so impervious to reason, so absolutely stupid, as to say that he had not made out a case for the total abolition of all taxes upon the press. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer should oppose what he had stated, he should tell him at once, and without hesitation, that it was because he had a latent dread of the liberty of the press; and when the right hon. Gentleman spoke about fiscal difficulties, he said it was but a cloak to conceal his lurking horror lest the people should have a free press, and greater means of political information. It was the fear that the press should be free which made them keep the sixpenny advertisement duty as the buttress to the stamp. They kept the stamp, because they feared that what passed in that House and all political information should become free and cheap to the people; and, not wishing to avow that, and perhaps not wholly sensible themselves that they had that fear, they used the argument of fiscal difficulties in order to maintain a system which was perhaps the most disgraceful which in the year 1853 remained upon the Statute-book of this country. The county from which he came was densely populated—containing a population of about 2,000,000—consisting almost, in point of fact, of a congress of towns, of which Manchester was the centre. Questions were constantly arising there between capital and labour upon the subject of wages. It contained a population which might become the glory, or might prove greatly dangerous to the peace, of the country, and to the prosperity of its industry; and when it was considered how much the offence of intoxication was there common, how much men spent their earnings recklessly, and arrived ultimately at the workhouse, and how much our prisons were filled by the consequences of that recklessness, he asked, was it possible to submit a case to the House of Commons which so much called for sympathy and for speedy redress? When he rose, he had intended to say hut a very few words; but he had been impelled to say what he had by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, which had appeared to 1119 him to be so full of special pleading, so unworthy of his character, so unworthy of his ability, and so unworthy of his position as Chancellor of the Exchequer, and as one of the leading members of a Government which boasted that it had within it powers almost greater than all former Administrations. He had been disappointed by the right hon. Gentleman's speech to a degree that he was not able to express. He trusted that when the Report should be brought up, his right hon. Friend (Mr. M. Gibson) would again ask the House to abolish this duty. For himself, there was nothing that he would not do in the shape of opposition to these taxes, and to this 6d which the forms of the House allowed, or which was fair as between a private Member and the Government. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was not using his friends well in pertinaciously adhering to this 6d. in defiance of arguments which even the great subtlety and acuteness which he possessed were unable to destroy.
§ SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, that as the hon. Member for Manchester had made an appeal in favour of the large towns, he thought it right to say a word in favour of the agricultural districts. He put it to the country gentlemen in that House, and to the Members of the Government, several of whom were country gentlemen, if it was not the fact that in the agricultural districts, even more, perhaps, than in towns, the spread of knowledge was of the greatest consequence? In most agricultural districts there were one or two newspapers published; but, in general, they were not seen by the farmers or labourers unless they went on a Saturday night to a public-house for the purpose. And was it not perfectly true that if the agriculturists did not read the newspapers, it was impossible they could know what prices to ask for the produce of their land? He must confess that he had been grievously disappointed at the course which had been pursued by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this occasion. He was anxious to support the Government in all cases where it was possible; but he must say that on the present occasion they had done enough to shake the confidence of all those who looked to the real interests of the people.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he thought that the argument of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) defeated itself. He had complained that the stamp duty interfered with the spread of knowledge among the people; and yet he had ex- 1120 plained clear enough to the Committee that the tax did not apply to any information except that of a political character. [Mr. BRIGHT: Chiefly.] Well, chiefly of a political character. It was perhaps natural that the hon. Member should not like to see his speeches taxed; because he no doubt thought that they conveyed a valuable fund of political information; but he must admit, and indeed he had admitted, that the tax did not interfere with other kinds of information which he also thought was valuable. He regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had seen it to be his duty to yield in any degree to the demands on this subject. He had received no credit and no thanks for it.
§ Amendment, by leave,withdrawn.
§ Proposed Resolution amended by leaving out the words "in or with any pamphlet or," and inserting the word "periodical" instead thereof.
§ MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he could not allow this Resolution to pass without protesting against it. In the month of April last he voted in the same lobby with the Government against the Resolutions of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester (Mr. M. Gibson), not because he did not agree with them, but because he believed that the matter was then under the consideration of the Government, and that a vote of the House at that moment would only embarrass the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but, having since found that, notwithstanding the large majority obtained by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester on the occasion to which he had referred, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken no steps to carry out the object, he (Mr. Craufurd) had that night supported the views which he had always held, and voted with the minority in favour of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester. He regretted that the result of that division had been to stultify the previous vote of the whole House. If the forms of the House would allow him, he would move to substitute for the word "sixpence" the cipher 0.
MR. HUMEsaid, that no answer had been offered by the Government to the arguments of his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright). From the manner of the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), when the deputation on the subject of the taxes on newspapers waited upon him last year, they were led to be- 1121 lieve that an end would be put this Session to the agitation on this question by the remission of the duty altogether; but he was sorry to say they were disappointed. He could confirm the statement made by his hon. Friend (Mr. Bright}, as to the great advantage working men would derive from being kept informed by means of cheap newspapers upon all matters affecting their interests. But for the tax, he was informed that newspapers might be published at as low a price as a halfpenny, and every cottage in the kingdom might thus have its daily paper. There was no means of conveying information to the grown-up man equal to the newspaper, and it ought to be made so cheap that every man could have it in his own dwelling, without having to resort to the public-house to read it.
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he only wished to say, lest his silence after the speech of the hon. Member for Manchester should be misunderstood, that the reason for that silence was simply this—that, without denying the importance of the matter which had been urged by that hen. Member, or the effective manner in which it had been set out, he felt it was a matter which, strictly speaking, was not before the Committee. The question which was raised by the hon. Member was, the general question of a cheap press, which had a very slight connexion with the advertisement duty, in his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) opinion, though it had a very important connexion with the question of the stamp duty. He could not agree with the hon. Member in thinking that that was by any means so simple a question as he seemed to suppose. It appeared to him to involve a variety of considerations, to which the hon. Member had not even alluded. The fiscal aspect of the question was not, in his opinion, the only, nor even the most important point to be considered; and it was obvious that the question could not be disposed of without deliberate consideration. It certainly could not be disposed of in considering the question whether there should be a sixpenny advertisement duty or not.
MR. HUMEsaid, he would appeal to the noble Lord the Member for London, who admitted to the deputation who waited upon him last Session, that the fiscal object of the tax was its only object, and that if that were dispensed with, he was ready to give up all other considerations.
§ MR. LAINGsaid, that, as a warm admirer of the right hon. Gentleman (the 1122 Chancellor of the Exchequer), and as one who had hitherto supported him in almost every division, he strongly appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this question of the advertisement duty. If the sum involved had been a large one, and if its withdrawal were to have the effect of subverting his financial scheme as a whole, he (Mr. Laing) should have been disposed to waive his individual opinion on the point; but when the sum was so small as that the right hon. Gentleman himself had been obliged to admit that, in a fiscal point of view, it was not of vital importance, he did trust the right hon. Gentleman would yield to the wishes which had been expressed by some of his warmest supporters, and take the subject into his earliest consideration. His (Mr. Laing's) acquaintance with the working classes had led him to feel that there was no object of more importance—he did not mean in a fiscal, but in a far higher view—he meant with regard to the education of the working classes—than that they should have cheap newspapers. The hon. Member fur North Warwickshire (Mr. Newde-gate) had argued that because it was only political information that was taxed, there was therefore no hardship in the case; but if the hon. Member had been in his place at that moment he should have asked him whether he himself would be content to take theAtheoeum as a substitute for theTimes? The fact was, that there must be a certain amount of politics mixed up with other information, in order to induce the working classes to read it. He must repeat his belief that the Legislature could not confer a greater moral benefit on those classes than by giving them cheap newspapers; and it was evident that the advertisement duty lay at the root of the question, because, if cheap newspapers were to be supported at all, they could only be supported out of the revenue derived from advertisements. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman, who had done so much by his financial scheme to improve the condition of the working classes, would not leave this blemish on his great work.
§ MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he had been most anxious from the commencement of the discussion on this subject, to give his decided support to the financial scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, though he had been pressed by his constituents to oppose various portions of the Budget, be had always declined to do so, lest he should injure the scheme as a 1123 whole; but, with regard to the advertisement duty, the amount involved was so small that he did not think it would in the slightest degree affect the general result. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman, in deference to the universal opinion which had been expressed on that (the Ministerial) side of the House by his most constant supporters, would give way upon this point.
§ MR. MALINSsaid, he would also re-commend the abandonment of the tax altogether. It was a most inconvenient tax, and operated as a great impediment to trade, and what was to be retained would produce, according to the right hon. Gentleman's own estimate, a very trifling sum (80,000l) to the revenue.
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERI beg pardon, I said 80,000l. in the first place, with a rapid and constant increase.
§ MR. MALINSAdmitting it to be 80,000l, it-was a trifle as compared with the impediment the tax would interpose to the spread of cheap newspapers. But with regard to the amount, taking into account the loss upon the supplements, which was not asked for, and therefore need not be touched, it would not be more than 50,000l., and was it worth while for that to run counter to the feeling of that House, as expressed by a decided majority on the former occasion, and now all but by a majority, for the right hon. Gentleman had only escaped by ten votes? It appeared to him that when that House declared that a tax should be repealed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to take the subject into consideration when he framed his Budget; but according to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, when speaking of the attorneys' certificate duty, it would seem that he prided himself rather upon resisting the opinion of the House, than in endeavouring to conform to it. He knew the value of a newspaper on his breakfast table; and if the repeal of this remnant of the advertisement duty would so lower the price of newspapers, that hundreds and thousands of the people might have their twopenny or threepenny newspaper every day, he thought that was the strongest possible argument in favour of the remission. And if the inhabitants of New York could have a newspaper for a penny, there seemed no reason whatever why the people of London should not have one also, or at least for twopence. He must say he thought the Chancellor of the 1124 Exchequer was standing in his own light in persisting, for the sake of 50,000*. a year, in a measure which, to a certain extent, must interfere with the trade and prosperity, and consequently interfere with the revenue of the country.
§ MR. COBDENsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that the advertisement duty was not a question of such great importance as regarded the circulation of cheap newspapers as the stamp duty. He would, however, call his attention to the evidence given by Mr. Horace Greely, who was examined before the Committee which had sat on this subject in 1851. This gentleman was one of the Commissioners of the Great Exhibition, and he was the proprietor of that very newspaper from which his hon. Friend (Mr. Bright) had quoted that evening. Mr. Greely was examined as to what the effect of the advertisement duty would be in America; and his reply was that its operation would be to destroy their new papers by depriving them of that source of profit to which in the first instance they chiefly looked. The value of an advertisement was in proportion to the circulation of the newspaper in which it appeared, and those people who advertised in theSun, which had the largest circulation in New York, could afford to pay the price of the duty, and the charge for insertion; but in the papers which were but just started, and had a limited circulation, an advertisement would not be worth the price of the duty, and from those papers advertisements would therefore be utterly withheld. That was the evidence of Mr. Greely. In this country the duty had had the effect of preventing the existence of newspapers; and he must say, that unless this view of the question was met, the House had no other alternative than to conclude that the object of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to prevent the increase of newspapers. The right hon. Gentleman laboured under the disadvantage of having to come down here to propose a scheme in opposition to the vote of this House, and to the feelings of his political friends; and then he adhered pedantically to his sixpence, without using one argument to support his proposition. This was very much like snapping his fingers in the face of his friends, and saying, "I don't care sixpence for you."
§ MR. WARNERhoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would yield to the enormous preponderance of argument against this sixpence. Not a single reason had 1125 yet been given in support of it. Something had been said about the proceedings at Chobham. Perhaps hon. Members in this House might not be the best qualified judges on this point, and he was well content to leave it to the discretion of Her Majesty's Government; but he must say, that if the state of the Exchequer was the only obstacle to the total repeal of the advertisement duty, the money might be saved with great advantage out of the cost of the new education scheme which had been shadowed out by the noble Lord the leader of the House. Cheap newspapers would do far more for the education of the people of England, than any Government system could effect. Systems of public education might do very well for France, or for Prussia; but in this country the spirit of the people, and their habits of energy and independent thought, were opposed to them, and they never could succeed. He trusted that this paltry tax, this miserable sixpence, would not be suffered to disgrace the Statute-book.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to the state of the question as it now stood. The House was very full at the period when his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed, in conformity with his statement in bringing forward his Budget, to reduce the advertisement duty by two-thirds. The House, unfortunately, was far from crowded at the present hour. The duty on advertisements was a very considerable duty, a very heavy duty, and, no doubt, it was an impediment to trade, and an obstruction to the supply of those wants and that information which the people would desire to have. The proposition of his right hon. Friend was, as he had stated, in conformity with his general statement, for the reduction of two-thirds of the existing duty; and the Government had certainly not thought that that proposition would have been considered so unsatisfactory, and would have brought down upon them so much reproach as it had done. His right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester (Mr. M. Gibson) proposed to abolish the whole of the duty. Now, that was a very fair question to bring before the Committee, as to whether or not one proposition or the other should be accepted. The Committee had decided, in a House containing more than 200 Members, in favour of the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Since that time the House had quite thinned. Everybody had 1126 supposed that that question was decided— that, the alternative being proposed to the House, they had accepted the proposal for the reduction of the duty, and not that for its total abolition He must say that in a greatly thinned House to attempt to reverse that decision was hardly fair or consistent, and looked like reversing the decision of a full House by that of a thin House. Then it was said that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had proceeded against the vote of the House of Commons at a former period of the Session. [Mr. BRIGHT: In a much larger House than that of to-night.] No doubt. But the question really came to this, and it was a question of very considerable importance. One or two hon. Members seemed surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, seeing the House had decided to abolish the advertisement duty, had made any other proposition to the House. The question then came to be this, whether the repeal or reduction of a tax was to be carried by separate votes of the House on the Motion of individual Members, or whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to be listened to, and his proposition either accepted or rejected. Now, undoubtedly, the House could take the former of these two courses; but then, as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. M. Gibson) stated, the office of the Chancellor of the Exchequer could hardly be of much utility; but, however, the other course had been taken. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had laid before the House very fully his whole plan of finance for the year. He had laid down the propositions which he thought the House ought to adopt, and had stated the taxes which, in his opinion, they ought to continue, and those which they ought to repeal. The question now was, really, whether the propositions of his right hon. Friend, which had hitherto met with great favour—quite as much throughout the country at large as in that House—should be reversed—whether they should be accepted, or whether a great change should be made in them by the adoption of the preposal now submitted to the Committee. He submitted that the proposition before the Committee, not being one for the increase of the advertisement duty, but for a reduction of two-thirds of that duty, ought to be accepted. He would not now enter into the general questions raised as to the advertisement or the stamp duty upon newspapers, which were not before the Com- 1127 mittee. He had no doubt, as the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Warner) had just stated, that the preponderance of argument was in favour of the abolition of the tax. In his official capacity, however, he had been accustomed to receive many deputations, and when the thirty or forty Gentlemen of whom they were generally composed waited upon him their arguments against every tax were quite overwhelming. There was not a single tax upon which there came deputations to him which was not always proved to be harsh and oppressive in its operation, and injurious to the country; and he never got up on such occasions and said, in return to those Gentlemen when they came to him with regard to malt, and soap, and paper, that the taxes upon those articles were useful and advantageous, but what he had stated was that the duties in question must be considered with regard to the general finances of the country. They had been so considered, and hitherto the country had thought well of the propositions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He hoped that on this occasion the Committee would decide in favour of the particular proposal under discussion, and that hon. Gentlemen would attempt to gain no advantage by the absence of those who had been ready to listen to any argument which might have been produced, but which had not been produced when they were in the House. He ought to have mentioned, and intended to have mentioned, that, with regard to the subject now before the Committee, the question, as placed by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was for a reduction of the duty. If the Motion of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Craufurd) were earned, and the duties upon advertisements were madenil in the Resolution, it would be necessary to bring in a Bill for the purpose of repealing those duties. Such a Bill would be opposed to the views of the Government; and if it were not carried, the result must be that the tax would remain where it was, at eighteen-pence, instead of being redueed to sixpence.
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, a particular request had been made that what was done in this matter should be done upon full and clear notice. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. M. Gibson) had given notice accordingly of a Motion which raised with distinctness the question whether the proposition of the Government should be accepted, or the advertisement duty should be totally repealed. That 1128 question was met by him; he did not in any way avoid it; and a vote of the House was taken upon it. The hon. Gentleman had given him no notice that the vote was to be taken twice, for, if so, he should have made it known, and have taken his measures accordingly. He believed the right hon. Gentleman was not aware that the question was to be raised again; but he certainly thought it would be but fair play to him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) that the right hon. Gentleman should not take part in a proceeding for a second vote upon the same subject, on the same stage, and on the same night.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That 'sixpence' stand part of the proposed Resolution."
§ The Committeedivided; —Ayes 63; Noes 68: Majority 5.
§ Qustion, as amended, put—
| "That from and after the 5th day of July 1853 in lien of the Duties now payable on Advertise ments, there shall be paid:— | s. | d. |
| "For or in respect of any Advertisement contained in or publishedwith any Gazette or other Newspaper, or any other periodical paper, or periodical literary work. | 0 | 0" |
§ The Committeedivided: —Ayes 70; Noes 61; Majority 9.
§ House resumed; Committee report progress.
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he proposed that all the Resolutions should be reported, except the last, on Monday.
MR. HUMEbegged to ask whether the course that had been taken was quite correct? The House had come to a division, the nature of which had better be read to the House, and he wished to ask the opinion of Mr. Speaker whether it was competent to the House to divide on that occasion? The Motion was, to negative the proposition to reduce the advertisement duty to 6d., which was carried. A Motion was afterwards made to put in a "nought," and a division took place, in which one party voted for "nought" and the other against it, and the "noughts" carried it. He did not know whether this was regular, but he feared the result was likely to turn the proceedings of the House into contempt.
§ MR. BOUVERIEsaid, that perhaps the House would allow him to state what the question really was. On the 3rd Resolution, which provided— 1129
That from and after the 5th day of July, 1853, in lieu of the duties now payable on advertisements, there shall be paid—For or in respect of any advertisement contained in or published with any gazette or other newspaper, or any other periodical paper, or in or with any pamphlet or literary work,6d."An hon. Member moved that6"d." be omitted from the proposition, and "nought" inserted. He (the Chairman) put that question, and a division was taken upon the question that 6d. stand part of the Resolution. This was negatived, and 6"d." struck out. He then put the Resolution with the figure of "nought" at the end of the clause, and that Resolution, the Committee affirmed and ordered to be reported to the House.
§ MR. SPEAKERThere has been nothing informal in what has taken place. It was a perfectly proper question to propose a Motion whether"6d"should stand part of the Resolution or not. The next decision was upon the question whether the House would agree to the Resolution without the 6"d"being inserted. It seems to me to be perfectly regular.
§ Resolutions were then ordered to be reported onMonday next.