HC Deb 07 May 1850 vol 110 cc1237-44
MR. EWART

, having presented a great number of petitions, chiefly from newspaper proprietors, against the advertisement duty, proceeded, pursuant to notice, to bring forward his Motion for the repeal of the duty on advertisements. The petitions he had just presented, emanating from every class of newspaper property, would of themselves have warranted him in mooting this question; but he proposed the Motion still more emphatically on broad public grounds. He considered this tax one of the most objectionable taxes ever imposed on the country. It was a tax on the vehicles of information and commerce. It stood in the same predicament, though much more obnoxiously, with the tax on auctions, that was repealed by the right hon. Member for Tamworth. That tax was repealed because it was a tax on transactions; there could be no tax more objectionable in a social, political, or commercial point of view, than a tax on transactions; and he regarded the advertisement duty as coming emphatically within that category. He considered it, indeed, on general grounds, as even more objectionable than the duties which had recently been brought before the House by his right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester. He most fully participated with his right hon. Friend in his hostility to all taxes on knowledge; but this minor duty on advertisements extended still further, for it taxed knowledge—it taxed agriculture—it taxed literature—it taxed the wants of the community. No one could take up a commercial paper without observing how trade was fettered by this tax; no one interested in agricultural produce and interchange could be ignorant how heavily it pressed upon that interest; and he trusted that those who peculiarly represented agriculture in that House would support his Motion, as one closely connected with the objects of their advocacy. It was a tax which pressed upon literature to such a degree, that Mr. M'Culloch did not hesitate to characterise it as amongst the heaviest burdens in the way of taxation that impeded the production of literary works. It was a tax upon religious communications. Among the petitions he had just presented were several from the proprietors of religious newspapers, who stated that their circulation was materially checked by this prohibitory duty. It was a tax on art, for he found the proprietors of such publications as the Illustrated London News and the Art Journal stating that they suffered severely from the operation of the duty. It was a tax even on wit, for such publications as Punch complained that more or less they were affected by the impost. It was a tax on the poor, for the humble author on his sixpenny pamphlet, the distressed needlewoman on her appeal for employment, paid as heavy a tax as the wealthy capitalist upon the announcement of a vast estate for sale. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would probably complain that independent Members of the House were constantly interposing proposals to repeal taxes which the Government would find it difficult to repeal. He must nevertheless speak there for those who desired he should represent their interests, and for the interest, as he conceived, of the public at large. For the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not justly make it matter of complaint that a Member of the House should raise a question of this kind, unless the right hon. Gentleman could disprove the universal pressure of the tax in question. What tax pressed most generally on the community? and what tax could most easily be spared? These were the two points on which the question turned. It had well been said, on a recent occasion, that you might, on the principle of this tax, have imposed a tax upon the public cryer; he would add, that upon its principle you might just as well lay a tax upon the transactions of men with each other on the public exchange, or the corn merchant at the corn exchange, or the coal merchant at the coal exchange, before you allowed him to negotiate his commodities. The tax, further, was a tax of great inequality, for the advertisement duty was not levied on all advertisements alike, but only on advertisements that appeared in newspapers and periodicals, so that you might advertise as much as you liked in books without being taxed. One of the results of the system had been an evil which occurred to every one's eyes as be walked along the streets. The public, almost prohibited from advertising in the legitimate channels, placarded their announcements upon the perambulating van, which, with its unwieldy bulk, impeded and disfigured every thoroughfare—a strange herald of literature, which, drawn by its lame Pegasus, and advertising some modern poem or some modern drama, reminded him of the old Horatian lines— Ignotum tragicæ genus invenisse Camœnæ, Dicitur, et plaustris vexisse poemata Thespis. Another peripatetic advertisement created by this obnoxious duty assumed the shape of an unfortunate man, encumbering the streets, encased between two boards, before him and behind. These and similar objectionable expedients were the result of the system which he desired to remedy. He held in his hand papers showing the excessive severity with which the revenue department must necessarily press on the communication of human wants. No advertisements could by any classification escape the duty. Each individual article specified (however briefly, even in a single line) within a class, must pay the same amount of duty as if it stood singly, and filled a column. He had received a letter from a publisher in Scotland, stating that, having occasion to advertise a series of articles, each article in the series occupying one line of the advertisement, he had been charged duty for each line, as for a separate advertisement; while, had each article occupied a column and a half instead of a line, he would have been charged no more. Another distinction which the Revenue Department made, was that, though the subjects of charge related to the same thing, yet, if what was called a separate interest could be established between them, they were separately charged. Suppose a steamboat company or railway company desired to inform the public that its boats or its trains ran to a particular place, and that from that place passengers might be conveyed whither they wanted to go by a coach or other vehicle, this information, so essential to the public, could not be embodied in one advertisement, but must pay a separate tax for every separate announcement. Though he did not blame the revenue boards for doing what they might deem their duty, he maintained that such proceedings as those which he described were interferences with, and injuries to commerce. If we directed our eyes from this country to the United States, where no advertisement duty existed, how different was the scene! Any gentleman who had seen the newspapers of the United States would agree with him in thinking that the vast number of advertisements he found there must be a source of infinite commercial advantage to the whole community. Advertisements in the United States were the great vehicles of interchange. When Mr. Poulett Thompson brought forward the general subject of taxation he stated to the House, that whereas in the United States the advertisements, at that period, annually numbered 10,000,000, in England they only reached 1,000,000. In 1833 the advertisement duty was reduced from 3s. to 1s. 6d., and there was, in consequence, a great increase in the number of advertisements; but still, if we compared the number of papers circulating in this country with the number of those circulating in the United States, a comparison immediately connected with the advertisement duty, the result was altogether in favour of the United States. In 1847 there were published in England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, and the Channel Islands, 565 newspapers; in the United States, with a population one-third less, there were published in the same year 1,700 newspapers. He was satisfied that the numbers would be much more equally balanced if the injurious fetters imposed by this tax were once removed. And not only did England suffer in comparison with the United States, she suffered also in comparison with her own colonies. He would put it to the House, whether it was right that Englishmen at home should be worse off in this respect than Englishmen in the colonies? Yet colonial newspapers paid no tax on advertisements. Nothing could show more fully the tendency of advertisements to multiply than the great increase in their number since the reduction of the duty in 1833. Previous to the reduction of duty in 1833 the number of advertisements generally averaged 700,000 or 800,000 a year; but since the reduction the advertisements had gone on gradually increasing, till at the present time they numbered about 2,000,000 annually. This increase had taken place, undoubtedly, in consequence of the reduction of duty. He had the authority of Mr. M'Culloch in favour of the total repeal of this duty. That gentleman, while admitting the benefit derived from the reduction of the duty, said that it could not be imposed upon the ad valorem principle, which would be the only just principle by which it could be regulated, and that therefore the best course would be to repeal it altogether. He (Mr. Ewart) entirely concurred in that opinion. The amount at present raised by advertisement duty in England, Wales, Ireland, and Scotland, was about 157,000l. a year. Previously to the reduction of the duty the revenue derived from this source was about 170,000l. a year; so that, in consequence of the great increase in the number of advertisements, the produce of the tax was now approaching what it had been in 1833, when the duty was reduced by one-half. His inference was, that if they entirely repealed the duty, the number of advertisements would increase to a proportionate extent. He believed that the repeal of this tax would be of the greatest advantage to the wealthiest person in the community, who offered lands or goods for sale, as well as to the poorest needlewoman who was pining for employment; and, deeming it a duty more uncommercial in principle, and more general in pressure, than any other existing duty, while, at the same time, it could most easily be spared by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he did not hesitate to move, "That it is expedient that the Advertisement Duty be repealed."

MR. M. GIBSON

seconded the Motion.

MR. TRELAWNY

said, he had a Motion on the Votes for the application of two millions a year to the reduction of the National Debt, in time of peace; and, therefore, however much he might agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dumfries as to the evil results of this and other taxes, he could not consent to support the present Motion. He believed that great fallacies had been put forward on the subject of taxation; as, for instance, the other night, when they heard so much in favour of the remission of the duty paid by solicitors, though he, for one, considered that tax, like many others, was paid, not by the attorney, but by the consumer. He should censure hon. Gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side of the House for supporting all these reductions of taxation, because he thought they ought to regard the reduction of the debt as a matter of far more prominent importance. It was from this feeling that he felt bound, though with great reluctance, to oppose the Motion of the hon. Gentleman.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

thanked his hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock for the support he had given him in resisting this Motion. He hardly knew what more he could say on the subject, than he had already said on the three or four occasions when he had had to oppose propositions for reducing or repealing taxes. He had stated what sum he thought it necessary to maintain to meet contingencies, and how he proposed to apply the surplus that would be left, and the House had confirmed him in the course he then took; he could not, therefore, consent to any proposition which would interfere with that arrangement. He quite agreed that it would be impossible to have an ad valorem duty on advertisements. The duty had been reduced from 3s. to 1s. 6d., and the hon. Gentleman admitted that since the reduction the number of advertisements had almost doubled. This showed that considerable benefit had already been given in this item of taxation. He did not hold himself bound to prove that any tax was beneficial, or to show that it was not liable to objection; but the question was, whether, if the House were prepared to remit taxation, this precise tax upon advertisements ought to be first chosen. He thought the taxes which pressed on the articles of consumption, and on the lower classes of the people, were those which had the first claim on public attention. No doubt hopes were entertained by many, that every tax would be abolished; but as no Chancellor of the Exchequer could carry on the public service without money, it was utterly impossible to realise the happy days when all taxes would be done away with. There was no end to the Motions and suggestions which were made at present for the repeal of taxes. Some were for repealing the taxes on air and light, and others for repealing the taxes on knowledge and advertisements. He hoped the House would maintain the public service, and join with him in resisting this further attempt to reduce taxation, because it was utterly impossible that the financial credit of the country could be sustained if all the sources of public income were one after another frittered away. Under these circumstances, he hoped the House would concur with him in opposing the Motion.

MR. HUME

said, the address of the right hon. Baronet was an appeal to the House to this effect:—"I have made up my mind. I will not listen to any change of my plans, and therefore I will not enter into the particulars of this advertisement tax." He (Mr. Hume) objected to too great a deference being paid to the judgment of the right hon. Baronet in this matter. He knew that the Government of the country could not be carried on without money, but then it was the duty of a Chancellor of the Exchequer to obtain that money at the least possible inconvenience to the great mass of the community. The question was not whether the advertisement duty was new or old, but whether it bore on particular interests, and whether the amount it produced might not be obtained in a manner less burdensome to the people. The House ought to overrule the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the present occasion, the more particularly if they thought with him (Mr. Hume) that he had made an unwise distribution of the surplus. What did the advertisement duty do? It prevented the giving of publicity to the various articles required by the community. Every man who had anything to sell wished to sell it to the best advantage, and every man who desired to purchase wished to do so to the best advantage. Both could effect their objects by means of advertisements, if the duty were repealed. In the United States, it not unfrequently happened that a single newspaper contained 10,000 advertisements. The consequence was, that the public knew at once where to look for what was to be sold and bought; and this was an immense advantage in a trading and commercial point of view. The panics most anxious to advertise were the poor—the persons who wanted and were seeking for employment. He believed that half the profit realised from advertisements were obtained from servants who were out of place, and looking for situations. If no other class except these were to be benefited by the present Motion, the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to be told at once that the tax must be repealed. If, indeed, the House were to be told that they must not interfere in the matter of taxation after the Chancellor of the Exchequer had once issued his fiat, then they might as well shut up at once. It was because he wished to see knowledge prevail, and the springs of industry relieved, that he should most cordially support the Motion.

MR. EWART

, in reply, observed, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that objections might be taken to any tax; but when the House was in a position to remit taxation, the question was, what was the most objectionable tax; and he (Mr. Ewart) regarded this as one of the most objectionable duties now imposed. He hoped, therefore, that the House would as-seat to his proposition.

The House divided:—Ayes 39; Noes 208: Majority 169.

List of the AYES.
Adair, R. A. S. Ellis, J.
Berkeley, hon. G. F. Fitzroy, hon. H.
Blewitt, R. J. Greene, J.
Bouverie, hon. E. P. Heyworth, L.
Bright, J. Hodgson, W. N.
Broadwood, H. Hume, J.
Bulkeley, Sir R. B. W. Hutching, E. J.
Cobden, R. Keogh, W.
Corbally, M. E. Kershaw, J.
Cowan, C. Lushington, C.
Crawford, W. S. Meagher, T.
Duff, J. Mowatt, F.
Duncan, G. Mullings, J. R.
Nugent, Lord Thompson, Col.
O'Connor, F. Thompson, G.
Osborne, R. Wawn, J. T.
Pechell, Sir G. B. Williams, J.
Pigott, F. Wyld, J.
Pilkington, J. TELLERS.
Scholefield, W. Ewart, W.
Stanford, J. F. Gibson, T. M.