NEWSPAPERS AND PAMPHLETS— STAMP DUTIES ON. (Hansard, 13 December 1826)

§ Mr. Hume

said, that had there been a sufficient attendance, it was his intention to have called the attention of the House to some subjects of considerable importance connected with the revenue; such as the duty on newspapers, advertisements, pamphlets, insurances, &c. He considered the duty on newspapers, not only a great public injury, but a loss to the revenue. He was confident, that he should be able at a proper season to show, that great and most desirable advantages would arise from a reduction of those duties. He was satisfied that if government would take off twopence-halfpenny from the duty, the revenue would be benefitted by the increase, which would be thus occasioned in the circulation of newspapers. He was warranted in anticipating this effect by a reference to the duties levied on newspapers in other countries. In the United States of America, where there was no duty, or but a very small one, there were no less than five hundred and ninety-eight newspapers in constant circulation; while, according to the last returns, made in 1821, the whole number of newspapers in circulation 401 in England, Ireland, and Scotland, did not amount to more than two hundred and eighty-four. He trusted that these facts would be sufficient to show the expediency of adopting some modification of those duties; In 1797, and again in 1815, when a new rate was levied, the effects were found to be such as warranted the ground he was now taking. By the returns made for the periods antecedent and subsequent to those years, the expectations of a consequent improvement of the revenue were far from being realised. Indeed, in proportion to the relative state of the country at the different periods to which he had alluded, this branch of the national finances would be found to have retrograded. However, these were matters into which he should be prepared to go more fully at a proper season. He would, at present, move for a return of the amount of duty received for Stamps on Newspapers, in each year, for the last thirty years.

Mr. Brougham

seconded the motion, and hoped that his hon. friend would persevere in his praise-worthy exertions. The hon. member had with great constancy and assiduity devoted his time and energies to many subjects of importance and utility, but amongst all the measures on which he had exercised his zeal and his abilities, hardly any was, in his opinion, of greater interest, in all its bearings, and of more general advantage, than the present. The measure to which his lion, friend had called the attention of the House was one of importance, whether it was considered in reference to the advantageous effects which it was calculated to produce upon the revenue, or with relation to the still more enlarged benefit, of which it would be the source, by the diffusion of information amongst the people. He did not, however, mean, by what he now said, to commit himself as to the course which he should feel it his duty to adopt, when such an inquiry should be entered into. The subject was one which demanded much deliberate examination. From the impression which was at present predominant in his mind, he should feel disposed to draw a distinction between the daily and weekly newspapers. The revenue might afford to make an experiment in the one case, which it might not be able to do in the instance of the daily publications. The weekly newspapers might, he conceived, be rendered most valuable channels for the dissemination of science and intelligence 402 throughout society. When it was considered how much was to be found in weekly papers besides mere ordinary news, and when it was considered how much the quantity of such matter would be augmented, if the duty were taken off, the importance of these publications, for the purposes which he had pointed out, might be estimated. Amongst those who had turned their consideration to this subject, it was a prevailing opinion, that if in a weekly publication matters of news were made to form a secondary and subordinate part, and if the principle portion of the publication were devoted to science, the arts, and to objects connected with general useful knowledge, such a paper would be found the most useful and effectual organ of disseminating information among those classes to whom it was not at present accessible. The consideration of this subject led him to one, in some measure connected with it; but in the absence of the Attorney and Solicitor general, and considering the thin state of the House, and the advanced state of the session, he scarcely felt himself justified in alluding to the subject. He meant the law of libel at present. Some sessions ago he had brought forward a motion which had for its object the amendment of that law, and after some discussions on the subject he was allowed to bring in a bill, which was read a first time; but, in consequence of the late period of the session, and owing to the great opposition which the measure met with in certain quarters, it was dropped for that session, and he had never revived it, in consequence of the known hostility with which the measure was regarded by those whoso opposition was sure to loud to its defeat. The object of that measure was to counteract the effects resulting from the law of libel, as that law was at present administered. And, if instances were wanting to prove the necessity of altering the law by a legislative enactment, the cases which had lately occurred in Westminster-hall would furnish unanswerable arguments in favour of the interference of that House to effect the desired object. When he introduced the motion to parliament to which he alluded, he then stated what he since had occasion, in several instances, to observe and comment on— that it was one of the greatest instances of injustice and oppression that men were subject to a prosecution by indictment for merely publishing that which was well 403 known to be true. A prosecution by indictment bore doubly hard on the defendant, because it deprived him of the advantage of pleading the truth of the libel in justification thereof. In an action at common-law the truth of an alleged libel could be pleaded in justification of the libel itself; but in case of an indictment, the individual was deprived of the power of proving the truth of that for which he was indicted, and punishment followed his conviction, as if every word of the libel with which he was charged were as absolutely and substantially false as it could have been proved to be directly the reverse. Persons unacquainted with the law of libel as it was administered at present, could hardly bring themselves to believe, that if a man were to publish of another that he was convicted of felony, he was liable to be tried by indictment, and the jury must find him guilty, although he had in his pocket, at the trial, the copy of the record of the conviction, as he (Mr. Brougham) absolutely had in a late case, in which he was professionally engaged, and, in which his client was found guilty, notwithstanding that the document by which his justification could have been clearly made out was ready to be produced; but could not be used in evidence, according to the rules of law. As far, therefore, as the conviction went, the document was of no use to his client; and even some doubts were entertained, whether it should have any weight with regard to the punishment, which by the sentence of guilty, was awarded. There were doubts, legal and learned doubts, as to whether the punishment for the crime of which his client was found guilty, should be abated or not, notwithstanding that the justification which he was prepared to make, but could not make at the trial, was urged in mitigation of the alleged offence. The subject was of such deep importance that he could not resist the opportunity of broaching it once more, in the hope that it would be taken up by one whose exertions to purify and make simple sonic of the existing laws had done him infinite credit. If the consideration of the law of libel should come within the inquiry of that individual, he would find, by referring to the bill which he had, on a former occasion obtained leave to bring in, that the most accurate and useful information was embodied in the provisions of that bill, the leading principle of which was, to allow defendants in all cases, whether civil or 404 criminal, to give notice to the opposite side, of the line of defence meant to be adopted, and to give in evidence the truth, not that it might be pleaded in all cases as a justification, but that in all cases it might weigh with the jury, in order to show the motives by which defendants were actuated [hear, hear.]