HC Deb 07 May 1855 vol 138 cc184-98

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a third time."

MR. HADFIELD

said, he did not mean to oppose the Motion for the third reading, but there were several Amendments which he hoped it was not too late to introduce into the Bill. One of the clauses fixed fifteen days as the period during which a newspaper could pass through the post. Now, if a newspaper was to be stamped at all, what possible objection could there be to its being sent through the post for a longer period than fifteen days? He hoped, therefore, that that clause would be omitted. Again, he thought a drawback should be allowed on account of stamps on newspapers not put in circulation.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the reason for the limit of fifteen days was, that abuses had occurred in sending old newspapers through the post for the purposes of sale, but if the House should think the limit too narrow, he had no objection to extend it to thirty days. As soon as the Bill became law, it was the intention of the Government to issue a lower scale of rates for printed matter not included within the definition of periodical publications, and if any old copies of a newspaper or other periodical publication should be in the possession of an editor or proprietor, it would be competent to him, after the expiration of the fifteen days, mentioned in the Bill, to affix an ordinary postage stamp, and send them through the post. He hoped that arrangement would be satisfactory to the hon. Gentleman.

MR. HADFIELD

Perfectly satisfactory; but what about the drawback?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he believed that at present no allowance was made for spoiled stamps; but he should inquire into the subject.

MR. BRIGHT

said, he was sorry to hear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to extend the time for the transmission of newspapers. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: No.] He had understood the right hon. Gentleman to say he was willing to extend it from fifteen to thirty days.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said his remark on the subject was that if the House should evince a strong wish to extend the period from fifteen to thirty days, he would not oppose it, but that his own opinion was that fifteen days was a reasonable period.

MR. BRIGHT

said, they all knew that when it was understood that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was willing to do something more than he thought reasonable there was generally a probability of a change. He (Mr. Bright) believed the system of re-transmission to be bad from beginning to end, and that the House and the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to contemplate its abolition at no distant period. This question of re-transmission had been urged by the newspapers as one of great advantage to them and to the public, but he did not believe it was of any advantage whatever. It was much better for newspaper proprietors that every person who read a paper should buy one for himself than that he should receive it at third or fourth hand. He would suggest also that the monopoly practically given to certain paper-makers by the system of having only four places where the compulsory stamp could be affixed should be abolished. A paper manufacturer in the neighbourhood of one of those places had a great advantage over those whose works were situated at a distance. A gentleman in Bristol had informed him that it was necessary to send paper to be stamped to London, and to take it back again at a great expense, in consequence of this arrangement. The only places where the stamps could be affixed were London, Manchester, Edinburgh, and Dublin, and he thought the sooner such a system was abolished the better. He should be ready to support the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a proposal that the re-transmission of newspapers should be abolished, and that every man on putting a newspaper in the post office should pay the postage in the same manner that every man paid it when he put a letter into it. The sooner they came to that simple system the better, he believed, would it be for the newspapers of the country.

MR. CAYLEY

said, he thought the hon. Member for Manchester should be the last man to talk of abolishing the system of retransmission. That hon. Member was in the habit of telling them that the agricultural districts were less enlightened than the towns; but how were they to be politically enlightened, except by the circulation among them of newspapers? By means of news-rooms one newspaper might be made to serve twenty or thirty people in a town; but it was very different in the country. A newspaper, after being read by one subscriber in the country, was sent perhaps three or four miles off to another, and so on for ten days or a fortnight before it had reached all the subscribers. These people had their friends and families in distant parts of the country, in many instances in poor circumstances, and it was only by retransmission that intelligence could he conveyed to them. He had voted against the second reading of the Bill because he thought it would operate with injustice to existing interests. He had not had the good fortune to hear the splendid speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire (Sir B. Lytton), but in conversation his hon. Friend told him that the Bill would communicate great blessings to the country, and his (Mr. Cayley's) reply was that he would not purchase them at the expense of justice, and he did not believe that this Bill was a just Bill by any means. He must say that he was astonished at what occurred in Committee on this Bill in reference to one point. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having adverted to the manner in which articles in some of the newspapers were transferred with impunity to others, said he was willing, in deference to a feeling of justice, to introduce into the measure a remedy for that injustice. There was not a single speaker but admitted the existing injustice, but the Committee seemed so much impressed with the impracticability of remedying it that the Chancellor of the Exchequer at last withdrew his proposition. Afterwards another proposition was brought before the House, which, it appeared, would have been accepted as a protection for existing interests in substitution for a copyright protection—namely, an extension of the size or weight of newspapers transmissible through the post; and yet, though nobody denied the practicability of that proposition, just in the same way as nobody had denied the justice of the other, it was not carried. Under these circumstances it was his intention, in the event of the rejection of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen (Mr. Whiteside), which was to the effect that newspapers should be transmissible through the post up to the weight of six ounces, to take the sense of the House on the question "that the Bill do pass." However great might be the advantages of this measure, of which, nevertheless, he was somewhat doubtful, or however anxious he might be to spread truth and good information through the country in every direction, he would not consent to purchase those advantages at the expense of justice and of existing interests. Still, he repeated that he was doubtful whether the measure would have the effect of spreading truth and good information through the country.

MR. W. EWART

said, he had understood that the object of this Bill was to bring newspapers into their normal state, and not to continue the retransmission of them. He had always thought that newspapers should be allowed to spring up wherever they were wanted—and if that view was sound, why should they endeavour to prop up existing newspapers by means of retransmission? In the Committee on Stamp Duties some proprietors of American newspapers were examined, and they all stated that their newspapers were sustained not by a system of retransmission but by cheapness of price. In America country people bought a newspaper for a cent; in England they would assuredly have newspapers at a penny, if not a halfpenny. It was cheapness that they should encourage, and not retransmission.

MR. DUFFY

said, he could not understand the argument of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright). It might be desirable to abolish the penny stamp, but so long as it continued, newspapers should have the same advantages which they had hitherto enjoyed. A great practical evil would arise from the abolition of the system of retransmission, and even from the limit of fifteen days defined in the Bill. At present there was only one mail in the month to Australia. If there were no power of retransmission, comparatively few papers could be sent to Australia and the other colonies; while, under the clause as it stands, there would be thirteen daily papers every month which could never be sent to Australia at all. Then, again, it would occasion much cost and loss of time at the Post Office to examine newspapers for the purpose of ascertaining whether they were posted after the allowed period. He therefore asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to extend the limit for posting newspapers to a month after the publication, or to leave the provision on this point altogether out of the Bill.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that the clause to which the hon. Member referred was not intended to apply to the postage of newspapers for the colonies; and, to make this clearer, he was ready to insert the words "places within the United Kingdom."

MR. VANSITTART

said, it was his intention to move that the Bill be read a third time that day six months. He considered that he was justified in making this Motion, notwithstanding the large majority in its favour on a former occasion, because since then the Chancellor of the Exchequer had brought forward his Budget, imposing a great amount of taxation on the people. Moreover, he could not find any one thoroughly pleased with the Bill. All agreed to dissent to it, except the hon. Members for Manchester, and, as far as he had an opportunity of ascertaining the feelings of people, the measure did not seem to be wished for at all. The chief reason which existed for the introduction of the present Bill was the difficulty which the law officers laboured under of defining what was a newspaper; but he did not see how that difficulty was to be got rid of, unless the system of taking securities was altogether abandoned. It was agreed on all hands that great injustice might arise from the measure, and that the character of our press ran some danger of being injured by it, because, if the profits of the newspapers were injured, the character of the newspapers must fall. Seeing, then, that great injustice might be effected by the Bill if it should pass, and that a great amount of revenue would be perilled by it, he felt he was justified in moving that the Bill be read a third time that day six months.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he voted against the original introduction of the Bill simply on the ground that it was very unadvisable that, when the financial state of the country was not before the House, they should determine to part with any portion of the revenue; but upon the merits of the Bill itself he was not disposed to reject it, and therefore he should vote against the Amendment. He must say one word in allusion to the remark of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright), that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should take the earliest opportunity of getting rid of the retransmission of newspapers altogether. He agreed with that hon. Gentleman, that they had a deep interest in the diffusion of political intelligence and useful information by means of newspapers, but they had an equal interest in taking care that newspapers should be of the highest possible class, and that they should be conducted by men of character and intelligence; and believing as he did that the power of retransmission was a premium on the highest class of newspapers, he should be sorry to see it abolished, and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would never consent to any such measure.

MR. WHITESIDE

Sir, from what has fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I fear I must assume that the right hon. Gentleman will not consent to the Amendments which I have put on the paper, and I have no alternative, therefore, but to oppose the further progress of this Bill. It is never too late to do justice, and, as I am of opinion that I have been instrumental in doing an act of injustice, it is my duty, so far as I can, to remedy it. I do not blame the Chancellor of the Exchequer for bringing forward this Bill, for I am not sure that it is his original measure. The House will do well to consider the extraordinary state in which this Bill now appears before it; various clauses have appeared, disappeared, and reappeared during its progress, and it is, Indeed, very difficult at this moment accurately to understand the precise position in which the Bill stands. I wish, for a moment, however, to direct the attention of the House to the effect of the clauses which the right hon. Gentleman has proposed and which have been rejected. Take, for instance, the clause which the right hon. Gentleman has proposed for the purpose of giving to the newspaper press a copyright in their productions. Now, why did the right hon. Gentleman propose that clause? I hope I am doing him no injustice in saying that I think he proposed it from a conscientious belief that this Bill would work a serious injustice on existing newspapers. I put it to the reasoning mind of the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not, by the fact of his having proposed such a clause, placed himself in the position of having admitted before Parliament and the country that he was about to inflict an injury on existing interests, and that he felt himself bound, therefore, to provide a remedy. The right hon. Gentleman attempted to apply a remedy, but upon discussion I was unfortunately compelled to move the rejection of his clause, because I felt the remedy he proposed to be perfectly impossible in practice. We have therefore now the admission of the Minister that he meant to do an injustice, and that it was his duty to remedy it, and we have also the fact that he did attempt a remedy, but failed in the attempt. A failure in an attempt to remedy an injustice to existing interests is a very serious thing for this House, which is the natural guardian of property, to admit, and I would respectfully ask those hon. Gentlemen opposite who support this Bill, on what principle they think themselves at liberty to injure property which is the result of a combination of skill, intellect, money, industry, and energy, producing a corresponding effect on the public mind. Now that is what this Bill does. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has failed in his attempt to remedy this injustice; but when was it ever before decided that a failure to furnish a remedy for injustice justified legislation of this kind? If this Bill passes without a clause protecting copyright, a certain class of newspapers, which will be called into existence by the change in the law, will appropriate the labour and industry of others to their own use and profit. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester (Mr. M. Gibson) opposed the clause relating to the superficial extent of newspapers, but on what argument? It only referred, he said, to one particular journal, and only to the particular portion of that journal which was called the supplement, and which the right hon. Gentleman further maintained was no portion of the newspaper. The sheet that contains advertisements no part of a newspaper! What a strange argument for the representative of a great commercial community to make use of! The 55 Geo. III.—a very sensible Act, by the way—which refers only to Ireland, expressly defines a newspaper to be a periodical which contains any number of advertisements exceeding two; therefore we have a Parliamentary declaration, that the very definition of a newspaper is, that it contains advertisements. The right hon. Gentleman must be well aware that there is no portion of the contents of a newspaper which is more beneficial to his constituents than that very portion which he would not permit to travel free by post. The papers which the right hon. Gentleman is so anxious to see spring up in all directions may contain much that may be injurious to public morals and manners; but there can be no doubt that the supplement contains a great deal that is useful to every interest in the State. No man is justified in giving a vote in reference to property either according to his feelings or his prejudice; his reason ought to be convinced, and I hope, therefore, that hon. Members will not decide on this question without considering it fairly and impartially. Now, what is it that renders these supplements necessary? It is not the excess of advertisements, but the excess of news; and the supplement therefore, I say, is undeniably part of the paper. Suppose 400 advertisements are brought to The Times newspaper for insertion in one day; if there are no Parliamentary debates, no speeches of the right hon. Gentleman, or the able men around him, to be reported; if there are no police reports, no important news from Sebastopol, no Vienna conferences to be communicated to the public, then there would be some corners to spare, and these advertisements would appear in the main body of that paper; but if there are Parliamentary debates, law reports, foreign intelligence, and such things to be inserted, they push these advertisements from the place where they would otherwise appear and it becomes necessary to supply that portion of the paper which is called the supplement, and which really ought to be part of the newspaper. But the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester is this; because you give so much news to the public, which fills the main part of your paper, and because you give a supplement containing advertisements useful to all classes, therefore, you shall not send your paper by post, for its weight exceeds 4oz. Now, a more unjust argument than that I cannot conceive. I am not aware, however, that the Post Office authorities have anywhere shown that they cannot carry 6 oz. as well as 4oz. The great authority, Mr. Rowland Hill, has stated that the carriage of newspapers, so far as their size is concerned, makes very little addition to the trouble of the Post Office. The injury to the revenue is not proved, and you propose, therefore, to do a positive injustice to an existing interest, for the sake of avoiding a problematical injury to the revenue. But I cannot conceive on what possible ground this arbitrary line has been drawn between 4oz. and 6oz. It is a Post Office regulation, it is said; but what is the necessity for it? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester professes to be desirous of seeing a number of new papers arise which will carry news through all parts of the country; but if a paper is superior in intellect and energy, and if it gives more news than others, he makes an endeavour to stop its circulation. But that is not the only absurdity. Why did you abolish the duty on advertisements? Simply because it was for the benefit of men of industry and enterprise—of men engaged in commerce and in manufactures—of employers and employed—that they should all be able to make their wants known as cheaply as possible. That was your object in taking off the duty on advertisements, but after doing that you perversely reimpose it, to a certain extent, by putting an additional tax on that particular journal which contains the greatest number of advertisements. Now, what says that great teacher of political economy, Mr. M'Culloch, on this question? I commend his words to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman who has taken so leading a part in regard to this measure, and with whom Mr. M'Culloch ought to be an authority. In his recent treatise on "the Principles and Influence of Taxation," that eminent writer says— The newspaper duties produce about 355,000l. a year, and, being as moderate as can well be desired, we see no reason why they should be either reduced or repealed. They can hardly, indeed, be properly called duties, but are rather to be regarded as a payment for the trouble and expense attending the conveyance and distribution of newspapers by post, for which no charge is made. But it is said that this charge should be exactly apportioned, or that it should be laid only on the newspapers which are actually put into the Post Office. And it has in this view been proposed to repeal the stamp duty on newspapers, and to impose in its stead a charge of 1d. on all newspapers sent by post; but we incline to think that a commutation of this sort would be not a little objectionable. Its obvious tendency would be to confine the circulation of newspapers to the districts within which they are published—a result which is not at all to be desired. At present The Times and other London journals, displaying the greatest talent, and embracing the most varied information, are distributed all over the country at about the same price as the local and inferior journals. But were the proposed plan adopted, the charge for postage being added to the price of the metropolitan journals would make them decidedly dearer than the local papers; and people in very many, or rather, perhaps, in the great majority of instances, would be disposed to prefer the cheaper, though inferior journal, published at their door, to the superior, but dearer journal of the capital. This would he a serious disadvantage, and by depreciating the quality of the journals circulating over the country, and fostering local prejudices, would far more than neutralise the advantages which it is said would result, under the proposed plan, from the establishment of cheap papers. These advantages are, indeed, of a very doubtful description. It is certainly true that many of the inferior papers now to be met with inculcate the most pernicious doctrines; but it is by no means clear that their influence would be in any degree lessened by exchanging a stamp for a postage duty. On the contrary, it would very probably be increased. The existing duty affects them to the same extent that it affects other descriptions of papers; and as they circulate at present, it appears reasonable to suppose that they would circulate still more extensively were they relieved from the tax. On the whole, therefore, we see no good ground for making the proposed change. It would be next to certain to lower the general character of the newspaper press and deteriorate the most important branch of the national literature. Mr. M'Culloch then discusses the question of the limitation of the size of newspaper supplements, and observes— The limitation of the size of supplements given away gratis might, however, be advantageously set aside. It indirectly lessens the advertisement duty, and is, in all respects, impolitic. These, then, are the wise and sensible opinions of this great political economist—opinions which, I think, this House on the third reading of this Bill would have done well to adopt. Now, why should not a man who buys an unstamped copy of a newspaper, and sees in it something which would interest his friends, be enabled to send it to them after he has read it himself for a penny stamp? What is the reason for this? If there be one, we ought to have it distinctly stated. But no reason has been assigned for what the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Drummond), with his usual frankness, termed a blow struck at a particular journal by this Bill. Now if this ground of objection to this anomalous, inconsistent, and absurd measure be good, I wish next to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he means to do with the second ground—namely, that unstamped newspapers should be subject to the same law as those which are stamped. Does he, or does he not, intend that unstamped newspapers shall be liable to registration and to the security system equally with the newspapers which now exist? If he does not, let us have the reason for that likewise. Why should you exact compliance with the law of security and registration from the respectable journals, while you leave every penny writer who may start up to demoralise the community or assail private character free from all wholesome restraint or check whatsoever? For these reasons, Sir, I submit that for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to press this Bill as it stands would be unjust and impolitic. The right hon. Gentleman's own reference to the law of copyright proves that his measure will damage existing interests; and there can be no legislation so exceptional and unjust as this, which for the sake of a general and problematical good, does a private and particular injury, I shall, therefore, Sir, oppose the third reading of this Bill, which I consider to be ill-conceived, badly drawn, and ill-advised.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

Sir, the hon. and learned Gentleman who has last addressed us has, to say the least, adopted an unusual course in respect to the Bill now before the House. In the Committee on the Bill I proposed a clause enforcing the present copyright of newspapers by a cheaper and speedier remedy; and the hon. and learned Gentleman opposed that clause upon grounds which he then stated to the House. Now, however, he opposes the Bill, on the ground that this copyright clause was not carried. Now, Sir, that clause did not form part of the original Bill; it was not proposed by me as a necessary portion of the original measure, but upon the special grounds which I submitted to the House in moving its separate adoption. On that occasion I stated that it was alleged by certain parties that the Government, indifferent to the character and interests of the existing newspapers, had proposed a measure that would prove most detrimental to those interests, by calling into being a large class of cheap newspapers, which would prey on the property of the established journals, pilfer their intelligence, and, in fact, live on the dishonest spoils that they thus obtained. I did not state that I believed—nor do I now believe—that such a practice will prevail to any considerable extent in consequence of the Bill now before the House, should it become law. At the same time I admitted that apprehensions such as I have described were entertained by many persons, and I also stated that the present law of copyright possessed by newspapers was ineffectual; that, though it recognised their right, still the remedy it afforded them was nugatory, and could not easily be enforced. Therefore I proposed to the Committee a clause providing a more efficient remedy; the proposition was discussed, but it met with but little support from either side of the House, and I did not feel justified in pressing it to a division, being satisfied that if I did so the clause would be rejected. Therefore, looking to the circumstances under which that clause was proposed and subsequently withdrawn, I cannot see that its rejection furnishes any sufficient reason for the House now dissenting from the third reading of the Bill. If the fears of those hon. Gentlemen who believe that the passing of this measure will call into existence a large class of piratical newspapers should be realised, it will still be open to the House when those fears are seen to have been well founded to apply a proper remedy to the evil, or increase the strength of the present law of copyright. A single short Act would be all that would be required, either identical with the enactment which I proposed or very similar to it. I will not trouble the House now with many remarks, but I merely wish to say a few words upon the proposition of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Whiteside) as it stands in the Votes—namely for an additional clause altering the law with respect to the supplements of newspapers. Now, what he proposes is that all periodical publications, appearing at intervals not exceeding seven days, and the weight of which shall not exceed 6 oz., shall be carried through the post at a penny stamp. Now, the effect of that proposition, as the Bill now stands, is this,—that with regard to all periodical publications which are issued at intervals of not more than seven days, they would, up to 6 oz., be entitled to transmission for a stamp of a penny. Beyond 6 oz., however, as I understand it, this clause would subject such newspapers to the rule as to superficial inches. So that newspapers which consisted of more than 6 oz. would be charged by the measure of superficial contents; while, on the other hand, those that were less than 6 oz. would be charged by the measure of weight. Now, this would be found in practice a very inconvenient regulation as far as the Post Office is concerned; and that I may not be thought to exaggerate the case, I will state to the House what was the weight of the last four numbers of The Illustrated London News. The number of that journal published on the 7th of April weighed 4¼ oz.; that of the 14th of April, 8¼ oz.; that of the 21st of April, 4½ oz.; and that of the 28th, 7¼ oz. Therefore, of the four last numbers of The Illustrated London News, two would exceed the limit of 6 oz. Now, by what measure would the hon. and learned Gentleman apportion the charges upon those numbers, as, according to his proposition, you must resort to the scale of superficial inches in combination with that of weight? Then with reference to periodical publications appearing at intervals of more than seven and less than thirty days, he would leave the existing law unaltered, and they would be charged by their superficial inches and measured according to that standard. Thus the hon. and learned Gentleman's clause would create additional confusion and inconsistency in the administration of a law which is already sufficiently anomalous, and I cannot, therefore, think that the House will for a moment be prepared to assent to its adoption. The hon. and learned Gentleman has put several questions to me, asking the reasons that can be assigned for different provisions of this Bill, and he says that he desires to elicit distinct answers from me. He wishes to know whether the Post Office cannot carry 6 oz. as easily as it can carry 4 oz; and, if it can, whether there is any reason for charging an additional halfpenny for conveying a news-paper which weighs 6 oz, while only a penny is charged for conveying one that weighs but 4 oz. I might ask the hon. and learned Member upon what reason he can justify the payment of 1d. on a letter weighing half an ounce, and 2d. on a letter weighing an ounce? If we have a graduated scale for letters, is it an absurdity, or rather is it not equally fair, to establish a graduated scale for newspapers? There is a great difference between the two cases, for, whereas a newspaper is allowed to transmit 4 oz. for 1d., a letter is charged 1d. for half an ounce. The average weight of all newspapers carried through the post is 3 1–10th ounces, and the average weight of the letters is less than a quarter of an ounce. This shows the great advantage which the newspapers derive under the present charges. The hon. and learned Gentleman also asks whether, under this Bill, as it now stands. unstamped papers will be subjected to the law of registration and securities? On moving for leave to bring in this Bill, I stated that I should withdraw the clauses on this subject, and proposed to leave the law as it at present stands; therefore, the present law will only apply to newspapers I that are registered as such. I understand; that the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to include under this law all periodicals, whether newspapers or not; but I cannot sec any benefit that would be derived from including halfpenny and penny publications, which do not contain news, and which are circulated by societies—for example, by many religious societies. Those publications are not at present subjected to registration, and I can see no sufficient ground for proposing a new enactment which will include them under the law of registration sureties.