HC Deb 11 July 1836 vol 35 cc110-32

The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the order of the day for the further consideration of the report on the Stamp Duties Bill.

Mr. Wakley

said, that the impression on the minds of several hon. Members was, that the clause relating to newspapers would not come on that night, and they had left the House in consequence. For himself he must say, that there was not a clause in reference to that subject, which was not a direct attack on the press, and which would not operate as a restriction on the liberty of the Press. There were now five other public Bills on the orders, which had not received discussion, and under these circumstances, and knowing full well that several of his hon. Friends had staid away under the impression that the subject would not be discussed that night, he trusted that the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give way for one day, and bring on the subject the first thing to-morrow. Upon the general principle, he felt that he should be obliged to take the sense of the House upon almost every clause in the Bill.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

felt called upon to state, after what had fallen from the hon. Member for Finsbury, that it was not intended in any one clause of the Bill, or could it be, in the slightest degree, to impose the smallest restrictions on the liberty of the Press. There was no one clause in the Bill when presented to the House that could by possibility produce such an effect. With respect to the delay asked for by the hon. Member in reference to the subject of the stamp duty on newspapers, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could not consent; he was ready to go into the Committee fully to discuss the clauses; and if the hon. Gentleman was disposed to object to them on the principle which he had raised, he would not hold himself responsible for delay. Every hour he was receiving complaints from the Press from every part of the country in consequence of this object having been postponed, and in consequence of hopes having been held out that the reduction would have taken place on the 5th of July, and calling upon him to proceed with the Bill. He said let the House proceed now with the measure, in order to have an opportunity of deciding upon it; and he must say that it was somewhat extraordinary that those very Gentlemen who last year professed themselves to be the friends of the diffusion of political knowledge, now raised objections on matters, to which if he were disposed to accede, nothing would be more discreditable to him. He had been asked repeatedly at what time he would bring on this question, and he had as repeatedly said that he would bring it on that night, and that he meant to limit the discussion in the first place to that part of the Bill which referred to stamps on newspapers—and that course he had determined to persevere in—a course which had been stated by his noble Friend, the Secretary for the Home Department, on Friday last. Therefore there was no reason for hon. Gentlemen saying that they had been taken by surprise in this proceeding, and he must do justice to the public. The hon. Member for Finsbury must excuse him if he refused to postpone the order of the day till to-morrow, unless such postponement were warranted by more cogent reasons than those which had been given by the hon. Gentleman. Let the division be taken on this point, and let it be seen that, whilst he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) held out to the public relief to the extent provided for by the Bill, the hon. Gentleman was the person to interpose between him and the public.

Mr. O'Connell

could not imagine that his hon. Friend, the Member for Finsbury, seriously meant to divide on the question of the House going into Committee; it was very desirable that they should proceed with this very important measure. It was essentially necessary that they should agree to a reduction of duty; the only question at issue was whether the scale of that reduction of duty should be lower. The question which remained behind was one of detail in Committee; and so also were the clauses which went to prevent any persons from printing a newspaper who did not contribute to the revenue. But then arose the doubt whether these clauses were not framed with unnecessary severity? He himself had a very strong opinion that, when they reduced the duty, they ought in the same proportion to reduce the severity of the enactments by which stamp duties were regulated. He thought with the hon. Member for Finsbury that these clauses were unnecessarily severe; and he hoped, therefore, that his hon. Friend would allow the House to go into Committee without dividing.

Mr. Hawes

had certainly heard the statement that it was the intention of the Government to proceed with the newspaper part of the Bill to-night, and he hoped, therefore, the hon. Member for Finsbury would not oppose the Bill's going into Committee.

Dr. Bowring

thought his hon. Friend could not complain that he had been taken by surprise, and he also begged he would allow the Bill to go into Committee.

Mr. Freshfield

had also understood that it was intended to proceed with this part of the Bill to-night.

Mr. Wakley

insisted that such an understanding had not been entered into by many hon. Members. Neither the hon. Member for Middlesex nor the hon. Mem- ber for Bath, who were not now in their places, were aware of it.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

denied that he had shown any want of courtesy to Members of that house. The hon. Member for Finsbury was the only person who had made an application to him for postponement, and if it could be shown that any other hon. Member had been taken by surprise, he would not press his motion; but as he felt that due notice had been given, it would be impossible to interrupt the public business. Before they went into Committee, however, he should move that it be an instruction to the Committee that it have power to divide the Bill into two or more Bills, an arrangement which would enable the House, if, circumstances should render it necessary, to proceed with that part of the Bill which related to newspapers as a separate measure. He allowed that this proposition was different from the one which he had formerly submitted to the House, but although he might be charged with inconsistency in pursuing a course which he had before declined to follow, he should never be ashamed of retracting an opinion if he found that it would benefit the public to do so.

Mr. Goulburn

had never imputed anything like inconsistency to his right hon. Friend for taking the course which he now seemed disposed to adopt, and which he thought it the most advisable to follow.

Mr. Robinson

inquired whether what had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to be considered as an intimation that this was the only part of the Bill with which it was intended to proceed this Session?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

would promise not to bring in any other part of the Bill without giving ample notice to those gentlemen who were interested, and if they should offer any opposition to its progress on account of the unreasonably late period of the Session, he would not, on the part of the Government, press the other parts of the Bill. Still he was very anxious that a measure of such extreme importance as the consolidation of this great branch of our law should, if possible, be passed this Session; and he did not yet abandon the hope that it might be carried into effect.

The instruction was agreed to, and the House resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved that the consideration of the clauses up to 162 inclusive be postponed.

Agreed to,

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said that they would then proceed to the clause embracing the actual proposition he intended to make, Clause 163; and in proposing this clause, he wished gentlemen to bear in mind, that the principles which he had avowed in proposing the reduction of the stamp-duty on newspapers were principles leading him to extend protection to those who contributed to the revenue as well as to collect it; and if gentlemen could show him any one clause in the Bill which was not necessary, and justified, as far as regarded these revenue purposes, he would strike it out. He only asked the House to give him the power of collecting the reduced revenue, and of being just to the parties who paid it. In consequence of the omission of the former clauses, it would be necessary to make a new preamble for the Bill, and to leave out schedule A.

Clause 163 having been proposed,

Mr. Wakley

complained that the new and cumbrous machinery created by this Bill would act as a heavy clog upon the liberty of the press. By this Bill, the 60th George 3rd, the Trash Act, as it was called, was rendered even yet more burdensome and oppressive than it was at present. By the law as it stood, a pamphlet, consisting of not less than two sheets and a quarter, and sold for no less than 6d., might be published as often as the parties pleased. But by the insertion of the words, "or pamphlet" in this clause, pamphlets, whatever number of sheets they might contain, and whatever might be their price, would be placed without exception upon the same footing as what were strictly called newspapers. He should, therefore, propose as an amendment, to strike out the words "or pamphlet" from this clause.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, the hon. Member for Finsbury seemed to anticipate that the present Bill would have the effect of imposing a duty upon a class of publications which were not entitled to pay a duty at present. When they came to the consideration of the schedules, in which the word "pamphlet" would be more particularly defined, he undertook to show most distinctly that such was not the intention. He hoped the hon Member for Finsbury would consent to defer his objection to the word "pamphlet" until they came to the schedules. If the word were to be omitted in the present clause, parties might be induced to attempt to publish a newspaper under the title of a "pamphlet," in order to avoid the duty. He repeated the declaration which he had already made—namely, that it was only his intention to charge the duty of 1d. upon such papers as, by the present law, were entitled to pay the stamp duty of 4d.

Mr. O'Connell

supported the clause as it stood. He should have voted with the hon. Member for Finsbury if he thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had fallen into the mistake attributed to him by the hon. Member for Finsbury. His impression was, that if they were to omit the word "pamphlet" in this clause before they had defined what a pamphlet was, parties might bring out a paper called The Morning Pamphlet instead of The Morning Chronicle, and The Evening Pamphlet instead of The Courier, with a view to evade the duty.

Mr. Goulburn

said, that an Act had till lately existed imposing a duty upon pamphlets, and in which, of course, was contained a clear definition of what a "pamphlet" was intended to be considered. That Act having expired, it became necessary, in his opinion, to come to a clear definition in respect to the present Bill as to what was a "newspaper."

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, that if eventually it should be considered that the word "pamphlet" would not comprehend a newspaper under another name, he should consent to its omission when the schedules were being considered. In the meantime he should press its being retained in the clause.

Mr. Wakley

, referring to the words of the clause, said that it clearly comprehended "pamphlets," as in addition to "newspapers." The words were "newspaper or pamphlet," &c. If the word "pamphlet," therefore, was permitted to remain in this clause, it appeared to him that all the subsequent provisions of the Bill, must necessarily apply to pamphlets as well as newspapers—not only as respected the payment of the penny duty, but also in all the onerous restrictions contemplated by the machinery of the Bill. He thought, before they went further, that they should define more precisely what a newspaper was, apart from any consideration of size or form.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

repeated that he should be quite ready to omit the word in the schedule if it were found to be unnecessary to the purposes contemplated by the Bill, and which he had already explained.

Colonel Thompson

said, if he had rightly understood the Attorney-General to say, that a pamphlet was only a "sewed paper" (pan filé), it did appear to be particularly superfluous that the Bill should go on reiterating the words "any paper, or sewed paper;" and if the government really meant to take nothing more by the introduction of the word "pamphlet," it would be better to omit it.

Mr. Wakley

must insist upon dividing upon his amendment.

The Committee divided on the question that the original words stand part of the clause: Ayes 69; Noes l—Majority 68.

On the question that the clause stand part of the Bill,

Mr. Wakley

declared that the Committee had declared that a pamphlet was a newspaper ["No,no!"] [Mr. O'Connell: "Quite the reverse"]. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said so at least, though he did not mean it.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, that it should be recollected that provision was to be made for the free transmission by post of newspapers and pamphlets, and for facilitating in many ways the means of communication. It would be very incorrect to say that a pamphlet per se, was to be charged with a duty; but at the same time it should be recollected, that if all pamphlets were to be excluded from the duty they would also be excluded from the benefits of the Act.

Mr. Wakley

hoped every hon. Member would recollect the interpretation which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had put upon this clause, as it might become highly important on some future occasion.

Mr. Jervis observed, that there was a manifest injustice, in his opinion, in the provisions of this clause; for they visited upon the printer of the supplement of a newspaper a penalty for a supposed fraud of which he was not, in all probability, cognisant.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

was glad to have the question which arose out of this clause brought under the attention of the Committee by his hon. Friend the Member for Chester. The fact was, that this clause was framed at the earnest suggestion of the newspaper proprietors. When this measure was first proposed, it was suggested to him by the parties to whom he had alluded, that there were often foreign expresses came in at a late hour, which contained matter of great interest, and there were often debates in Parliament which would require much more space than was afforded by the ordinary size of the paper. On these grounds, amongst others, it was urged that if a supplement of a sheet were allowed on the payment of a halfpenny duty, it would be a very great convenience and advantage to the conductors of newspapers, and would not occasion any loss to the revenue. So far he was perfectly willing to go; but if a general power was granted under the provisions of this Act to a paper, for instance, which was published once a week, of bringing out supplements on consecutive days from that on which it appeared, the effect would be to have a publication brought out and continued subject only to half the duty intended by the law. Now to guard against this obvious means of evading the imposition of the penny duty under the colour of halfpenny supplements, the present clause was drawn up, which directed that the supplement should be published of the same date and by the same parties as the newspaper itself. He begged to be allowed to say that he, in the first instance, proposed, and ultimately succeeded in effecting, the imposition of a penny duty, and he certainly was most desirous to protect it from all collusive practices. It was, at all events, a proposal which was introduced for the benefit of the publishers, and which was, in his opinion, well calculated to promote the good of the public.

Dr. Bowring

thought that the penalties imposed by this clause were very disproportioned; for the printer or publisher was only compelled to pay a fine of 20l. for a violation of its provisions, whilst any person who sold such a supplement as the Act forbade, and who might, in all probability, be a very innocent person, was liable to so severe a penalty as 50l.

Colonel Thompson

said, the direction that whenever a supplement to a newspaper was published, words indicating the publishing of the supplement should be printed upon the newspaper, was a superfluous infliction on the newspaper press. The fact was, that in the majority of cases, the newspaper editor did not think of publishing a supplement, till after his newspaper was in whole or in part worked off, which made it impossible to add the words required. The objects of the clause would be obtained just as well without it.

The Attorney-General

pointed out the fact that these penalties could only be put in force by the Attorney-General, and not on the information afforded by a common informer.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, that he did not hesitate to comply with the suggestion which had been thrown out by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock to reduce the second penalty provided by the clause from 50l. to 20l. He was satisfied that the enforcement of these penalties being left in the hands of the responsible law advisers of the Crown ensured their never being imposed without an admixture of clemency and a perfect absence of all unnecessary severity.

Mr. Wakley proposed

, that before the words "printer or publisher," in this clause, the word "proprietor" should be inserted. He did not see why the proprietor of a paper should be free from those liabilities to which the printer and publisher were subjected by this clause. He believed that it would be difficult, under this Bill, to get a printer or publisher to incur those responsibilities from which those who employed him were exempted. But the fact which accounted for the terms of the clause as it at present stood was this—that it was drawn up by the proprietors of the stamped press of the metropolis, and that the right hon. Gentleman knew nothing of it until it was put into his hands.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, that he was most anxious to apprise the hon. Member for Finsbury, as well as the House and the public, of the mistake into which the hon. Gentleman had fallen, when he expressed his belief that this measure was proposed by the proprietors of the stamped press, and that the Government knew nothing of it until it was placed in their hands by the parties to whom he had alluded. He was prepared to state, as a matter of fact, coming within his own knowledge, and as such entitled, he hoped, to credence, that there was no foundation whatever for such an assertion. Indeed, so far were the proprietors of the stamped press from being parties to such a measure, that they were the parties most strongly opposed to any alteration in the present system.

The clause, as amended, was agreed to.

The 164th Clause, who shall be deemed proprietors of a newspaper, was struck out.

On Clause 165, a return of all the proprietors of newspapers to be made to the stamp-office half-yearly,

Sir George Grey

was understood to say, that he had heard that his right hon. Friend intended, where the proprietors of a paper were numerous, they should be represented at the stamp-office by two of the body.

Mr. C. Buller

wished to know why the names of the proprietors should not be known? If they were, they would take care not to leave the business of their paper to the control and superintendence of worthless agents. Why should not, he repeated, the proprietors be known, in order that they should, if the manner in which the paper was conducted deserved it, be held up to public esteem; and if it did not deserve it, and that it was made subservient to malicious motives, or to the purposes of slander, that they should be held up to public infamy. He would go farther, and say that if the proprietors were not known they should not be entitled to recover for their property.

Dr. Bowring

suggested the impracticability of adopting such a suggestion as that which had been given. How could it be possibly acted upon in case the proprietors amounted to a thousand persons?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

was quite willing to acknowledge the justness of the arguments of the hon. Member for Liskeard in favour of every fair degree of notoriety being given to the proprietors of newspapers. But the difficulty which he felt upon this question was that which had been expressed by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock, namely, that which arose from a number of proprietors to one concern. He should, however, have no objection to have the names of the persons originally engaged in the proprietorship before the paper started inserted at the Stamp-office. But he feared, that if it were required upon all transfers of shares to have due notice given, such a provision would render the application of capital to the extension of newspapers almost wholly impracticable. He had it at one time in contemplation to propose that the persons who represented a certain amount of the property of the establishment should have their names inserted; but he was really deterred from doing so for fear he should be charged with imposing shackles on the press. He would now be willing to give such a proposition, if proposed by any hon. Member, a fair consideration.

Mr. Pryme

thought the proposition of the hon. Member for Liskeard would in practice amount to an additional restriction upon the press. By the clause as it stood the public had sufficient protection in the registration of the printer, publisher, and two proprietors. He had stated that the proposition amounted to restriction, because many persons would withhold taking shares in newspaper speculations, inasmuch as they would not wish to make themselves liable to actions for libel. It was sufficient for the public to have two sufficient persons registered.

Mr. Jervis

remarked, that in the case of joint-stock banks no difficulty arose as to registration, and contended that no person ought to be the proprietor of a newspaper, unless he was prepared to take his share of the responsibility for all that was published within its columns. Such a provision must, he submitted, tend to raise the character of a public journal.

Mr. Pryme

submitted, that the course suggested would tend materially to deteriorate from the character of the newspaper press. Such a provision would prevent many persons from becoming proprietors, because they would be unwilling to be held responsible for all or any part of the publication to which they might be attached, and thus the control and conduct of newspapers would be thrown into the hands of less respectable individuals.

Viscount Sandon

was of opinion, that it was contrary to the open character of all our customs and institutions that the proprietors of newspapers should not be known, and be made responsible for every act which they committed, to the same degree that they were in their individual capacity. It struck him that newspaper proprietors, in the same way as the Steam Companies and other companies, should be bound to register on every transfer of shares. He thought it not at all impracticable that the value of the property might be represented by a certain proportion of the proprietors.

Dr. Bowring

would be glad to know by what machinery a register to the extent desired by the right hon. Member for Liskeard could be procured. The case of joint-stock banks did not in his opinion apply to that of newspaper property.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, he was quite ready to assent to the principle of the proposition of the hon. Member for Liskeard, but as the question was one of some importance, he would suggest that the amendment should be deferred until a further stage, in order to allow time for the consideration of the best plan for obtaining the desired register. The only thing he should then stipulate for was, that in any arrangement to be hereafter agreed upon, no unnecessary checks should be imposed upon the transfer of the shares. It should not, for instance, be required that each transfer should be registered at the very time the change took place. His view was, and he only gave it as an impromptu, that there should be a quarterly or half-yearly register, and that it should not be requisite for a party transferring his shares to change such register until the arrival of the ensuing period. If they were to require each transfer to be placed upon the Stamp-office books on the day of its date, great inconvenience and expense would be imposed upon that department. The subject, however, was one for consideration at a future period, and he should reserve all further observations respecting it until it came more regularly under notice.

Mr. Charles Buller

was of opinion, that in the event of a general registry of proprietors, which it was now probable would take place, it would be very desirable to constitute the Stamp-office registry conclusive evidence of title in newspaper property. If this were done, the trouble and expense of transfer deeds would be saved. Although the right hon. Gentleman had been tolerably explicit as to his views, he hoped he should be pardoned in asking him if it might go forth to the public that his suggestion had been adopted by the Government?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, that he entirely assented to the principle of the suggestion, but reserved for further consideration the machinery by which it should be carried into effect. Had he not been afraid that by proposing such a measure, he should have laid himself open to the charge of imposing greater restrictions on the press than his duty as Finance Minister required, he should himself have made such a proposition to the House.

Mr. Warburton

fully concurred in the proposition of the hon. Member for Liskeard, which he was glad to see so readily taken up by the Government. With respect to the machinery by which it should be carried into effect, he would reserve his opinion until the proper occasion for its expression. He hoped, however, that in its framing, care would be taken to prevent a proprietor from registering his name on the first of January, and then on the 2nd putting down the name of an irresponsible person. He thought the principle should be, that the party receiving the profits of the newspapers, should be made liable for its laches.

Mr. Wakley

expressed his satisfaction at finding the Government favourable to the proposition of the hon. Member for Liskeard. He merely rose to suggest, that the Bill for the extension of the rights of copyright to newspaper publications would present a more fitting occasion for the introduction of the proposition than did the measure under consideration.

Mr. Buckingham

suggested, that it should be made compulsory on each newspaper establishment to publish the names of its proprietary at stated periods in each year. It was his great wish to see the newspaper press of England edited for the most part by the parties in whom the property was vested.

Sir Robert Inglis

said, that as newspaper copyright had been alluded to, he could not refrain from expressing his regret that the Bill under consideration did not contain provisions for securing it. It might have been, in his opinion, with great propriety introduced. If, however, that was deemed inexpedient, he trusted that no time would be lost in bringing forward a supplemental Bill. The subject of copyright was one of great importance to the newspaper interests, and should, if possible, be brought to an understanding during the present Session.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

observed, that the subject of newspaper copyright was under consideration, and that, though it was one of some difficulty, he had every reason to hope it might form the subject of legislation during the present Session, He thought, however, it was requisite to have it in a Bill distinct from the present. They were then considering a measure of revenue, into which it would be neither convenient or in accordance with precedent to introduce the matter alluded to. He would take that opportunity of alluding to another topic, on which several representations had been made to him. He alluded to the manner in which the stamps should in future be distributed to the several papers. He did not feel that he should be justified in requiring each paper to take out distinctive stamps, but as it appeared to be the wish of a great many newspaper proprietors that such a measure should be adopted, it was determined that by an arrangement in the Stamp-office, any person who should wish a distinct stamp for his paper should be enabled to procure it. He hoped, by this means, that all parties would be satisfied.

Mr. Leader

was understood to complain of the publication of the stamp return, so long as it was impossible, through the defective arrangements of the Stamp-office, to give a correct idea of the circulation of each paper. He hoped that until better means for arriving at a correct conclusion were devised, no member would think of calling for a newspaper stamp return.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

admitted, that under the present system of issuing stamps, the public had no means of forming a correct judgment as to the condition of each paper; but at the same time he doubted whether, as it was not necessary for the purposes of the revenue that it should be ascertained to what papers stamps were issued, it was in his power to propose a remedy for the evil. In a measure particularly relating to revenue he did not see the justice of imposing on parties against their will, any restriction to which they might object. He thought it was quite right to allow all parties who wished for distinctive stamps to have them; but he certainly should be going beyond his jurisdiction were he to make an attempt to compel those who were content with the present system to depart from it.

Viscount Sandon

disagreed with the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He contended, that a distinctive stamp, if made voluntary, would not be productive of any good. The paper that did not adopt it would have an unfair advantage, as far as public impression went, over that which did. It was his opinion it should be made compulsory, or not at all attempted. In the one case a great injury might be inflicted on private property; while in the other no danger of such a result was to be apprehended. He quite agreed that in the present state of the newspaper stamp arrangements, no returns should be called for, inasmuch as they were calculated totally to mislead the public.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

had always opposed the production of the Newspaper-Stamp Returns; in the first place, because he saw no Parliamentary grounds for calling for them; and secondly, from the knowledge that, under the present arrangement, they could not impart to the public any thing like a correct idea of the circulation of each newspaper. It was notorious that the present arrangement enabled one paper to take out stamps for several, and consequently to take credit to itself for a circulation considerably beyond its actual one. He hoped, however, that under the new arrangement this defect would be obviated. As regarded those papers which should adopt the distinctive stamp, it was evident the new system must prove effective; and as the Bill contained a clause prohibiting any editor or proprietor of a paper, under a heavy penalty, from procuring stamps except from the distributor of stamps at Somerset-house, he entertained great hopes that all future Returns would give very nearly, if not altogether, and for the first time, the correct circulation of each paper.

Mr. Pryme

thought there was a very strong objection to the clause prohibiting editors of newspapers from procuring stamps except from the proper distributor. It often occurred that in consequence of an accidental mistake or omission, a paper had not in its office a sufficient number of stamps for a pressing publication, and was obliged to borrow of another establishment. It was well known that papers of different politics often so accommodated each other. Now if this custom were restrained, great injury might be done to property. He should, therefore, when the clause in question came under consideration, move that its operation should not extend to parties borrowing stamps for temporary convenience.

Mr. Robinson

thought that the proposition of having all the names of proprietors and the transfer of shares registered was a very good one, but he considered that the cumbrous machinery for effecting this purpose was unnecessary, considering the extent of the public press, and the extent it was likely to be carried to. It would particularly operate—and he threw out this suggestion although he was favourable to the principle—disadvantageously to the country newspapers. It might be no great difficulty to the proprietors of the London newspapers to register their names at Somerset-house, but at Manchester, Liverpool, and other large provincial towns where there was a great number of newspapers, and where they would in all probability become more numerous, there would be found great difficulty in the proprietors constantly and periodically registering their names at Somerset-house. There would also be a very considerable expense, which must be paid by some person or other, and this was a point which he wished to draw under the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There would be a large expense, there must be additional clerks for this new registration, and a new office. ["No, no."] Well, he might have taken an exaggerated view of this part, but still it could not be denied that there would be great difficulty attending these alterations. He did not, as he said before, object to the principle. He believed that the adoption of the plan proposed by this Bill would very much operate against the establishment of joint-stock newspapers. He did not approve of the establishment of joint-stock banks, particularly for such small sums as 5l. per share, edited by persons very little more respectable than the proprietors themselves. He did not think that it would have the effect of improving the character of the public press or the morals of the country. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would understand that the impression of the House seemed to be, that all the proprietors should be registered, both original and new, and that the right hon. Gentleman would take the subject into consideration.

Clause 165 was agreed to, as were the Clauses to 171.

On Clause 172 being proposed, which enacts that a penalty of a hundred pounds shall be inflicted on any printer or publisher who does not print at the end of the newspaper his Christian and surname, and place of abode, with a true description of the house or building in which the paper is printed, or who prints any false name, description, &c.

Mr. Wakley

put it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether it was fair in this Bill, which purported to be a consolidation of old Acts, they should introduce provisions which were not to be found in any old Act—provisions more severe than had ever been proposed before. It was a most monstrous proposition that any person giving a description of his house, &c. which in any degree varied from the proper description, should be subjected to a penalty of 100l. He would move that the penalty be reduced to 10l.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, that if they had not an exact description of the party's residence they would have nothing. There would be nothing to prevent a person printing a newspaper, and giving the residence of the hon. Member for Finsbury. He certainly must adhere to the amount of the penalty imposed by the clause as it stood.

Clause agreed to.

On Clause 174 being proposed,

Mr. Wakley

objected to the penalties it imposed, as too severe.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, that it would be a delusion and a fraud on his part to ask the House to impose duties, if he did not also ask the House to give him power to collect those duties. It would be a fraud on his part if he did not by all means in his power endeavour to protect the fair trader, whilst at the same time he used every exertion to put down the unstamped press. The putting down of the unstamped press was the only condition on which he could call upon the proprietors of stamped newspapers to agree to this Bill; and for his own part he could not see any difference between the case of a man who sold smuggled whiskey, and the man who sold unstamped newspapers. They were both alike a fraud on the revenue and upon the fair trader. He did not think that the penalties were by any means too severe, as nothing but severity could put down this illegal traffic.

Mr. Wakley

was glad to hear that it was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to put down the unstamped press, but he thought that the existing law was quite strong enough for this purpose, if the right hon. Gentleman chose to carry it into effect. The Government was to blame for not enforcing the law when it was first violated, but the cause of their not doing so then was easily explained. Six years ago, agitation was very conve- nient and useful, but it was not equally convenient now to have a free press, and that the mass of the people should know what was going on in that House. If any right hon. Gentleman from the other side of the House had brought forward this Bill, the whole country would be in agitation. This Bill was the most severe against the press of this country that had ever been introduced into Parliament. He should be glad if the law were rendered satisfactory; but he contended and insisted, that the people of England had a right to enjoy a free press, and no Government would do its duty in allowing the enactment of such laws as these.

Dr. Bowring

wished to ask his Majesty's Government whether the struggle in which they were engaging with the unstamped press was worth their while? The clause was calculated to bring ruin upon hundreds of persons. He was happy to see that the revenue was at this moment in a very flourishing condition, and as they had been told that this was a fiscal question, and that in the then state of the revenue it was not possible for the Government to spare the whole of the duty upon newspapers, he thought that all they required was satisfactory evidence to show that the Government, from the improving state of the revenue, could grant this boon. He had never known a subject on which the feelings of the people were more excited. The people entreated that they might have free access to publications diffusing political knowledge; and he trusted the House would respond to the wish. As to the law, salus populi was the supreme law; and no sacrifice ought to be considered too great to secure it. If they threw any impediment in the way of the people's acquiring a thorough, knowledge of what was going on in the legislature, they would be like the tyrants of old, who wrote their laws in letters so small that nobody could read them. To throw any impediment in the way of the acquisition of knowledge by the people was to do the people great injustice. Whenever laws were passed which were in hostility to public opinion, public opinion would always be found too strong for them; and by such means the law itself was brought into contempt. The new powers given to collect a smaller revenue were a greater evil than was remedied by the reduction of the stamp duty to a penny.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, that the hon. Member who had just sat down had made use of an argument under circumstances in which he had never heard it used. He could understand the argument if it had been addressed to the question which had been proposed by the hon. Member for Finsbury, for the abolition of the duty. He differed from him on this point. He retained a duty of one penny, and he gave the press an equivalent in the free circulation of papers throughout the land. But the hon. Member, not à propos to the total repeal of the duty, but à propos to a reduction of the duty, objected to the clause containing a penalty for violating the law and selling papers without stamps. Let the hon. Member bring forward a motion for the repeal of the duty. He had said, that the prisons of the country were crowded with persons for offences against the existing law; he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) admitted it, and it was his anxious hope that this evil would be prevented. But in ninety-nine cases out of 100, these prosecutions were not instituted by the public, but vexatiously by common informers; and by this Bill prosecutions could be instituted only by officers of Government. It was odd that a contingency should happen, which, for the sake of the logic of the objectors, he hoped would not often be repeated, that whilst the object of the Bill was to relieve the press, he should be told that this was a measure to fetter and restrict the press. He had intended this as a measure of relief, and as an honest measure and an operative measure, and he knew that if the law remained in its present state, and the stamped press had a reduction of duty, the unstamped press would still go on. Gentlemen might think it very easy to abolish the whole duty, but did they think he could carry such a measure? Would they prefer an entirely free press, unaccompanied with a free circulation? Not a single individual conversant with the subject whom he had consulted had not said, that the press had a deep interest in a free circulation of newspapers throughout the empire—that this was a greater benefit than removing the penny stamp.

Mr. Wallace

was of opinion that it was much better to have a free circulation under a stamp. He was not prepared to say that we were in a condition to have a free postage and no stamp; when he saw we were in such a state, he should be pre- pared to support the repeal of the stamp; till then he should support the penny stamp. He did not think that those who disobeyed the present law would disobey the new one; but that many who evaded the fourpenny stamp would pay the penny.

Mr. Charles Buller

said, that though he was on principle an advocate for removing all taxes from newspapers, and did not concur in thinking with the right hon. Gentleman that the free postage was an equivalent for the penny stamp, (for he thought that a farthing stamp would cover postage,) yet he accepted the boon of the right hon. Gentleman. This clause only gave the power to retain the revenue, and if a tax was to be raised, it was essential to provide a sufficient power to secure the tax, but not beyond that. The part of the clause which he objected to was that which enacted, that "if any person shall have in his possession, and without a satisfactory excuse (the proof whereof shall lie on the party accused), any newspaper not duly stamped," he shall forfeit 201. for every newspaper; and that "any constable or other peace-officer" might seize and apprehend any such offender. This was monstrous; it gave a right of search, and the number of offenders against the clause would be so great, that it would bring the law into disrepute. It would be, moreover, impracticable. A keg of whiskey was not half so portable as a newspaper, and vet smuggling of spirits was carried on; and when the importation of bandana handkerchiefs was prohibited, Mr. Huskisson saw that every gentleman could produce one from his pocket. It was utterly unavailing to attempt to enforce a law against so many persons. He proposed as an amendment of the clause, to omit the words" or if any person shall have in his possession any newspaper not duly stamped."

Mr. Pryme

said, he had had sent him copies of unstamped newspapers, and under this clause he might be sent to hard labour for a month. Would it not be sufficient to impose a penalty on the sale or disposal or distribution of the papers?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, it would be impossible to collect any fiscal revenue if the Government had not the power of seizing the smuggled articles, whether in the possession of the smuggler or in the possession of any person to whom he might have transferred them. He begged to ask whether any hon. Gentleman believed the law could be enforced without the power to seize the article in possession?

Mr. Jervis

observed, that under the new law an alarming power was given to constables and peace-officers, too great a power than ought to be given for the mere collection of the revenue. It was taken from a law which was not a law of England, but an Irish Act.

Mr. O'Connell

said, this clause would give a greater power than was possessed for the collection of the revenue when the duty was four times as high as it was now. Every person ought to be supposed innocent till guilt was proved; but the effect of this clause would be to put the person accused to the proof of his innocence. It might be said that there were some instances of fiscal laws having a similar effect, but there was this distinction between the present case and those referred to—the illegal possession of spirits or tobacco was established by showing that the one was held without a licence, but what guilt could there be in merely having possession of a printed paper? Persons might have unstamped papers in their possession without a guilty knowledge. It was believed out of doors that this Bill was meant to be a gagging Bill; he did not believe that, but he trusted it would not be persevered in, so objectionable as it was felt to be. It was impossible for any one to vote for the clause without feeling that he was voting for that which would violate every principle of justice.

Mr. Villiers

urged on the right hon. Gentleman the consideration, that when laws ran counter to the public feeling they became a dead letter. The proposed law was opposed to the feeling of the country; it was considered that its object was rather to suppress intelligence than to facilitate the collection of the revenue. It would expose the poor man to great hazard, inasmuch as he might be violating the law without knowing that he was doing so. Any one might go and place in the poor man's cottage an unstamped paper, and thus render him liable to a heavy penalty. When a law was capable of so much mischief, the people would be very scrupulous in applying it.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, he had looked at the clause in the original Act now before him, which provided that a person having in his possession a newspaper not duly stamped was subject, as in this Bill, to a 20l. penalty. The difference between the two clauses was this. The words in the 38th of George 3rd, were having "knowingly and wilfully" an unstamped paper in his possession. At present the great distribution of unstamped papers did not take place under any act of sale; they were distributed at public houses If they allowed the possession of these papers to be free from penalty, there would be an end to the penalty in other cases because they would not be able to prove the fact of sale; that would be evaded, and thus the practice would continue unabated He had no objection to insert in this clause the very words he found in the other Act namely "knowingly and wilfully," because he believed that with this alteration the Act would afford the means of meeting the cases to which he had alluded.

Mr. Jervis

asked, whether the power was to be retained which the Bill gave to peace-officers?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, the proposed Bill was a limitation of the present Act in that respect. The five hundred cases of prosecution of which there was a return before the House, were not at the instance of the law-officers, but at the instance of common informers.

Mr. Robinson

said, that there were preparations already made for evading this law. He had seen the prospectus of an unstamped daily paper, to be conducted by a Member of that House. The same course, therefore, was to be pursued under the new system, and the Government were to be forced to abandon this duty as they had the former. He thought that Government should be exonerated from the charge of improper motive in this clause, which was necessary, in order to protect the revenue. It would have been better if they had gone to the fountain head, and not punished persons in humble life, who had no other way of gaining a living, and suffered persons in higher rank to pass with impunity.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, that the effect of the clause, as he proposed to alter it, would be, as far as regarded persons having unstamped papers in their possession, to leave the law as he found it. He proposed to take the words in the statute of 38th George 3rd; those words were "knowingly and wilfully;" and he proposed further to omit the words to which objection had been made. This would throw the onus of proving the offence on the party making the charge.

Colonel Thompson

said, there were provisions in a future clause (233) directly opposed to the amendments or explanations now offered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He noticed this now, that it might not be forgotten when the clause was come to.

Mr. Aglionhy

suggested the addition to the words "knowingly and wilfully, of the words," without sufficient excuse."

The Attorney-General

observed that "knowingly" was to be interpreted persons taking the paper knowing that it was not stamped, and "wilfully" with an intention to violate the law. The clause, as amended, was agreed to.

Clauses to 179 agreed to. The House resumed; Committee to sit again.