Mr. Goulburnheld in his hand a petition from certain individuals, the printers and publishers of those daily papers which had the largest circulation in the metropolis; and if any credit was due to the reports of what was represented to have taken place between his right hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) and those persons who had been allowed to have an interview with him on the subject of the Stamp Duties, this petition was worthy of the most serious attention of the House. It was reported that his right hon. Friend had declared, that his object in the proposed reduction of the Stamp Duties was to put down monopoly; but he (Mr. Goulburn) was sure that if any such expression fell from his right hon. Friend, he was not actuated by any partial feelings, or by a disposition to disregard the rights and property of any persons. If any one class of the community was less entitled to the appellation of monopolists than another, it was that which comprise those who were engaged in the conduct of the public daily press; for, whereas while the copyright of other authors was protected for a limited period by an express law, to the daily press no protection whatever was assigned, however great might be the expenditure of capital in the purchase of information: however extensive the literary labour employed, individuals situated as the petitioners were, enjoyed no protection from piracy, but were liable to have the fruits of their enterprise and talent pillaged from them the very next moment after publication. But if this argument was not sufficient to relieve them from the charge of being monopolists, he thought that he could prove that these individuals were no more liable to that charge than were those who, having employed their capital and talents in a particular branch of business, had succeeded, by their superiority and industry in surpassing all their competitors. The object of this petition was to represent to the House the injurious effects of a clause which the right hon. Gentleman opposite had proposed to introduce into his Bill for regulating the Stamp Duties. By that clause it was declared, that henceforth a fixed newspaper duty should attach to a sheet of a particular size, and if they exceeded that size they should be subject to a 518 double duty. Of that regulation the petitioners complained; and they complained of it, because, in their opinion, it would be partial in its operation; they complained of it because it would occasion a great loss of capital to them; they complained of it because it would be detrimental to them in a financial point of view, and injurious to the general interests of the revenue. It was necessary, in order to understand the prayer of the petition, that the House should know the state of the law on this particular subject. Many years ago it was the law that a newspaper should pay a duty according to the size of the paper; and by a statute passed, he thought in the year 1804, the size of a newspaper was limited to thirty-two inches by twenty-two; and that law continued for a certain time. But as the taste for information gained ground, and as the state of society gave persons an interest in a greater variety of subjects, it was found to be very difficult for editors and proprietors of newspapers to satisfy their customers by confining themselves within the limits which the law prescribed; and experiments were made, first by allowing a supplement to be published, at half the price and duty charged on the original paper. Afterwards Mr. Huskisson, in the year 1825, brought in his Bill, which met with the universal concurrence of the House, to take off all restrictions on the size of newspapers, and to leave it to the discretion of every individual to print his paper on what sized sheet he pleased. In consequence of that general arrangement, and in consequence of the increased demand for this kind of literary productions, proprietors of newspapers embarked their capital in the adaptation of machinery, each man according to his own particular fancy or the taste of his readers, for the purpose of publishing his paper in that size and form which he considered to be most desirable. It had happened that the Times, the Morning Herald, the Morning Post, the Standard, and perhaps some others, had adopted the plan of publishing a double-sheet newspaper, instead of a single sheet. The Morning Chronicle, however, took another line, and instead of adapting its machinery to the publication of a double-sheet of the then ordinarily sized paper, it extended the size of its original sheet. Now, it had so happened that in the clause which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to introduce into the Bill now lying on the Table of the House, he had calculated and proposed a size pre- 519 cisely suited to the dimensions of the Morning Chronicle. [Hear.] The House would not suppose that he meant to impute that his right hon. Friend opposite had any intention of favouring the paper which supported his own views to the prejudice of those who opposed his views. That was not the purpose which he had in view—that was not the purpose of the petitioners; but all he would say was, that by an accidental circumstance the right hon. Gentleman had framed the clause so as to suit the size of that paper—a paper belonging to a particular branch of the daily press, and not any of the others; and that gave to these petitioners a just and reasonable ground of complaint. They (the petitioners) stated that they could not conform to the altered size without making a change in their machinery, which would be attended with very considerable expense and loss. He believed that it had been stated since his right hon. Friend made his first proposition, that he had determined to alter the size of newspapers, and to estimate the size by its superficial contents in inches. It had been stated, that 1,530 superficial inches was to be the size in future. Now, it was possible that, by this arrangement, many of the parties who would have been aggrieved by the original proposition of the Bill might be relieved; but still this plan, pressing as it did against the individuals who now complained by their petition, it would be but justice for the house to take their case into consideration, and to afford them a remedy; for their case was not in any degree remedied, although the aggregate number of sufferers might be in some degree diminished. He should be prepared—[Cries of "Order," and "Chair."]
§ The Speakersuggested, that the right hon. Gentleman was going further than he ought. As long as the right hon. Gentleman confined himself to the statements of the petition, for the purpose of making the House acquainted with them, he was perfectly in order, but when he went beyond that into an argument upon the question, he was irregular.
§ The Chancellor of the Exchequertook the liberty most humbly to entreat the House, as this was a question which really more or less involved the character of a public officer of the Crown, to allow the right hon. Gentleman to have the fullest opportunity of explaining all the statements of the petition. But he should also claim the full power of not allowing those statements themselves, or the inferences drawn 520 from them, to remain uncontradicted, or without explanation. He knew he should be able to satisfy his right hon. Friend that those statements and inferences on this subject were entirely at variance with the whole of his conduct.
§ The Speakersaid, he had interrupted the right hon. Gentleman only with a view of calling his attention to the rule of the House; but that rule would not preclude him from making any explanation of portions of the petition which he might consider necessary.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, the only addition he had to make to the petition was, that the regulation complained of would be partial in its operation, and he was sure that his right hon. Friend would agree with him that it would press severely upon the parties who were in the habit of publishing double sheets. He would add further, that the restriction to a particular size was calculated to be injurious both to trade and to the revenue. It was hardly necessary for him on that occasion to offer any reasons why parties should not be as unrestricted as possible as to the mode in which they desired to carry on their business. He was sure the House would feel that the proposed regulation was one which must have the effect of interfering with the liberty of the subject with regard to the mode in which individuals chose to transact their business. He would further mention that the petitioners stated, if they should transgress the proposed law, they were to be subjected to a double duty, and that the additional duty would operate on them as a penalty, and perhaps effectually prevent the publication of double sheets. At present, the double sheet produced a revenue of a very large amount, and therefore this regulation in a fiscal point of view was one of the very worst that could be adopted. If the House thought that he ought not then to enlarge on the subject of the petition, he should desist; but he must say, that he felt sorry that he was not able to enter into it more fully, and that it was not fair to the petitioners themselves not to be allowed to state all their views. This, however, he would state, that the proposed Bill would materially affect their interests if it were carried in its present shape. Though he felt himself very inadequate to do justice to the claims of the petitioners, he hoped the House would not suppose that their case was not of a much stronger nature than he had been able or permitted to to make out.
§ The Chancellor of the Exchequerwould first take the liberty of calling the attention of the House to the facts, or rather the allegations of the petition, and to the inferences which had been drawn from them. He did not find any fault with his right hon. Friend for the course which he had pursued. He should abstain from discussing those parts of the petition which his right hon. Friend had been precluded from stating; but he would take upon himself to say, that if the House would do him the favour to accompany him through the few words he should have occasion to address to them, they would admit that there never were more grievous and base misrepresentations—never more scandalous imputations—calculated to injure and destroy the character of a public servant, uttered, than those which had been put forth on another occasion in connexion with the petition now before the House. He would not address himself to any of those Gentlemen who were connected with him in political sentiments, but he would place himself in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman himself, and he would be satisfied to abide by his judgment. The House would allow him to observe, in passing, that he by no means warranted any statements which had gone forth respecting interviews which had occurred between him and persons who had desired to see him on this subject. He did not complain of this practice which had grown up; Gentlemen might exercise their own discretion, but he would say that it was a practice most subversive of public convenience, and detrimental to the discharge of official duty, when hon. Gentlemen were received for the purpose of communicating with the Government, that unauthorized reports of what passed should go forth, capable as they were of being mistaken or misrepresented, not being reduced to writing, and not expected to be published by the parties who made them; but being in fact exparte statements, which could neither be contradicted nor explained in the quarters to which they were forwarded. He made no complaint on this subject; he admitted that every class of persons had a right to have access to the Government officers on fitting occasions; but he would say, if that conversational intercourse was to be carried on with freedom, without which it could not be carried on with effect, the confidence of those who made communications ought not to be abused. Let an 522 opinion be asked, and let it be abided by but let not unauthorized statements be made, and depended upon as correct. Disclaiming all participation in those reports, he admitted, for he wished to conceal nothing, that at one of those interviews he stated that he objected to the continuance of the system prayed for by the petitioners, because he thought it would be favouring a monopoly. He did not care where that monopoly existed, whether it was for or against him; he said, that in fixing this restriction his object was not to create a monopoly, and he imagined that in fixing an extra duty on enlarged newspapers, it was but as just and as fair that an additional charge should be made for the conveyance of a double sheet by post, as it was to make an extra charge for the transmission of a double letter.
Mr. Goulburnsubmitted, that the right hon. Gentleman was not pursuing a fair line of argument in making these remarks, unless he were permitted to reply to them, which he should be quite prepared to do.
§ The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, his right hon. Friend should have a full opportunity to reply to him. With regard to the charge made against him, whoever the parties might be who made the charge, he would say that there was no shadow of a pretence to justify them in imputing to him one of the basest acts that could be imputed to any public man—namely, that in framing a general measure he was so regardless of the public interests, and of the sacredness of the trust reposed in him, that he had made use of that general measure to subserve either his political views or party animosities, and to commit an act of injury towards persons who had embarked their capital in trade under the encouragement of the existing law; and at the same time, that, in so doing, he had sought to give advantages to others because they participated in his political feelings. Therefore he was bound to say, without arguing the general question, that he had adopted the principle of the double stamp because he thought it a fair and just one. It was stated, that he had drawn a line most ingeniously for the purpose of protecting the Morning Chronicle, and that he had thereby most ungenerously injured the interests of the other papers' to which his right hon. Friend had referred. Now, he would tell the House distinctly, and upon his honour, that which he really bad done. On fixing the prin- 523 ciple of a stamp duty on a single sheet, he told the officers of the Stamp-office to measure the largest newspaper sheet that was to be found in circulation in the metropolis, and he took the largest because that comprehended the less; at the time he gave that direction, he could assure his right hon. Friend that he did not know which paper that would affect, or which it would not. But he would go a step further, in order to show the principle upon which he had acted. The next communication he received came from the newspaper proprietors themselves; he had been in communication with those who represented these very individual petitioners, and he had also been in constant communication with their Committee, and therefore he never was so astonished in his life, all these arrangements having been made with their own privity, some at their suggestion, well knowing, as they did, every step that had been taken, that this petition, involving him in personal charges, should be presented from the very men who participated in all he did. It was next said to him— "If you fix the length and width of newspapers, you will create great inconvenience and expense, and entirely disarrange our machinery." He therefore proposed, instead of taking the length and breadth, to take the superficial contents in inches, and with that the parties appeared to be perfectly satisfied. It was done, in point of fact, at their suggestion; he consulted with them, and endeavoured to meet their own case, in order to prevent the disturbance of their capital; yet that had become the very ground of their animadversions. But that was not all. He was informed, that although the dimensions mentioned were those of the largest paper published in the metropolis, there were provincial papers of larger dimensions than that. He was told it was a York paper, and he directed it to be measured, and the measurement to be communicated to the individuals concerned in the business, and they should have the benefit of it. Up to that moment, so little did he know of the politics of the paper, that he did not even know the name of it; but he knew by the measurement made at the Stamp-office that it was the largest paper. His right hon. Friend might differ from him as to the question of finance; he might think the measure a bad one; but he was sure that when he appealed to him, he would, after this plain and simple statement, acquit him pf having acted with bad faith towards 524 any persons whatever on this subject. He must say one word more; this might be, as his right hon. Friend said, a bad financial measure; it might be a bad species of legislation; Mr. Huskisson deserted it in 1825, though it was introduced in 1804; but he had an authority to bring forward on the question to which he attached much importance. His right hon. Friend himself prepared a Stamp Bill in 1830, and though he presented this petition, his right hon. Friend then introduced this very clause—a clause which would have the effect of restricting double sheets. He held the clause in his hand, and his right hon. Friend should have an opportunity of reviewing it. The difference between that clause and the proposition which he had made was this—that while his right hon. Friend would have restricted the size of the sheet to 36 inches by 23, he proposed that the limits should be 43 inches by 34. The difference was, that the maximum of the right hon. Gentleman's clause was only 828 inches, while his maximum was 1,530 inches. The Times newspaper at that time supported the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was then a member; and he should be the last man to impute to his right hon. Friend a disposition to do anything to affect the interests of any paper; but his clause would have had that effect with regard to the Times, so nearly did his calculation approach its size. Without, however, dwelling on this topic, which would be more properly discussed hereafter, he would put it to the House whether he had not cleared himself from imputations which had been made against him where he had no opportunity of replying to them, but which, if true, if it could be proved that he had acted thus, would render him utterly unworthy, not only of the high station which he held, and of a seat in that House, but of all intercourse with Gentlemen. If he had been guilty of such a base act as to have framed a general measure for the purpose of destroying the property of newspaper proprietors adverse to the Government, and of affording undue encouragement to newspapers of an opposite character he should have been unfit to live in civilized society. He put it also to the House, whether he had not proved from the public records that the right hon. Gentleman had furnished a full justification of the principle he had adopted? It was of great importance that he should not be misunderstood on this subject, and therefore 525 he had trespassed longer on the House than he had intended. He had been put upon his trial, by the allegations of the petition and statements made elsewhere, and he had now only to ask the House whether he was guilty or not guilty?
Mr. Goulburnthought it but just to repeat, that he threw no imputation on his right hon. Friend for having made the selection of a particular paper as the model for the future size of newspapers. His argument went only to show that the restriction was unfair to others. He did not believe there was any ground for the charges which had been alleged against his right hon. Friend; he expressly stated, that in the course of his observations what he stated was, that it had happened, by some accidental circumstance, that a particular size had been fixed upon, and that the restriction to that size was injurious to the interests and property of the petitioners. With respect to what his right hon. Friend had said on the subject of the Act of 1830, this might not be the time to enter into an explanation of that question; but he would say, that he was not to be bound by every draught of a Bill which might have been found at the Treasury, as draughts were always subject to subsequent alteration. But he was bound by the schedule of duties which he had submitted to the House of Commons, and in that schedule he was confident there was no restriction as to the size of newspapers, and that there was an allowance for supplements at half the duty. The schedule therefore proved, that the paragraph in the draught which the right hon. Gentleman had quoted had been reconsidered and rejected.
§
The Petition was read as follows, and laid on the table:—
TO THE HON. THE COMMONS OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND IN PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLED.
The humble Petition of the undersigned showeth—
That your petitioners are printers or proprietors of daily newspapers in this metropolis, and have learnt that a measure is now in progress before your honourable House, by which, if completed, their interests will be materially injured—the information of the public derived from the daily press greatly impeded—and the revenue drawn from the several duties to which newspapers are liable, diminished.
In the Schedule of new duties on stamps, it is proposed that 'no newspaper shall be printed on any sheet or piece of paper exceed-
526
ing forty-one inches in length and twenty-six inches in breadth, unless the same shall bè stamped for denoting the payment of double the duty by this Schedule imposed on any newspaper.'
Now, your petitioners beg leave to state to your honourable House, that the effect of this clause will be to prevent absolutely the publication of what are called double papers, and thus to cramp the undersigned in the just and necessary exercise of their business. The partiality of the measure will be no less striking, when laid before your honourable House, than its general oppressive character; for the admeasurement recommended to be imposed by the new Act is exactly such as will spare a journal unaccustomed to publish double papers, which is peculiarly attached to the present Administration, and oppress and impoverish all the others which adopt a more independent and impartial line of policy.
That the law now existing with reference to the size of newspapers has been in operation ever since the year 1825, at which time the late Mr. Huskisson was so convinced of the impolicy and injustice of restrictions similar to those now proposed, that he introduced an Act leaving to printers the exercise of their own discretion with respect to the size of their journals, thus establishing the principles of free trade in this as in other commercial property.
That in consequence of this rational, as well as liberal view, the then Parliament repealed those restrictions upon the size and form of newspapers, which it is now attempted to reimpose; and so thoroughly convinced were your petitioners that it could never be attempted to bring so erroneous and even barbarous a principle into action again, that their machinery, and all their mechanical arrangements, have been formed and established in the confidence that they could not hereafter be so restricted and harassed in the fair operation of their business. The proposed law would also greatly inconvenience the paper-makers.
By the intended measure, therefore, the greatest risk to property, which is become valuable through an immense outlay of money and labour, will be incurred; the amount of which property is of itself a pledge to the stale of the good conduct and character of those who are embarked in the management of the daily journals. The diffusion of useful intelligence, also, being an object which it is desirable to promote, your petitioners beg to state that the limitation of the size of a paper is a more direct impediment to the spread of knowledge than a high price; because a combination of small subscriptions enables the poorest people to read the journals even at their present price, whilst a compulsory maximum of size will prevent a newspaper from publishing more than a fixed quantity of matter, except at the expense of an additional stamp.
The loss to the revenue, also, will be no
527
less obvious than the impediment to the obtaining information; inasmuch as the extra number of columns which go to the composition of what is called a 'double sheet,' are filled almost exclusively with advertisements—and thus the obstacle thrown in the way of publishing such advertisements, and of consuming a double quantity of paper, will operate in a two-fold manner against the derivation of any profit to the public from the additional stamp of one penny, which is levelled against journals of more than a given size.
Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that your honourable House will not sanction, in its existing form, a measure which bears with such peculiar and even personal hardship on certain individual newspapers, whilst it violates the plainest principles of free trade, and tends to defeat the productiveness of duties already established—viz. that on advertisements, and that on the manufacture of paper; contracting and diminishing the sum total of information circulated amongst the reading public, and not even providing an equitable copyright protection to the capital and literary labour profusely expended by the daily journalists, in the constant acquisition and preparation of new matter to meet the wants of the community.
And your petitioners, &c.
JOHN JOSEPH LAWSON.
E. R. HEARN.
CHARLES BALDWIN.
THOMAS PAYNE.