NEWSPAPER STAMP DUTY. (Hansard, 25 April 1836)

§ Lord Lyndhurst
said, he rose to present a Petition from certain gentlemen, the printers or proprietors of the Times, the Morning Herald, the Morning Post, and the Standard-newspapers. The petitioners stated, that they had learned from authority, on which they could perfectly rely, that a measure was contemplated, which, if carried into effect, would prove extremely injurious to their interests, and would, be-sides, tend greatly to impede the information which the public derived through the medium of the daily press. The petitioners did not complain because Government had turned its attention to the subject of Newspaper Stamps, but they strongly objected to the manner in which it was proposed to carry the contemplated measure into effect, as being unjust and partial in its operation. They stated, that they were informed, and from the best authority, that it was intended to restrict the size of newspapers; that a tax of 1d. was to be imposed on papers of a certain size, and a larger tax, or 1d. additional, was to be levied on papers exceeding that size. They observed, that previous to 1825 a similar restriction existed, and was found to be extremely hard and injurious in many respects. In consequence of this, application was made to the Government of that time to remove the cause of complaint, through Mr. Huskisson, who represented the facts to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the correspondence which followed, the injustice and impolicy of the restriction were clearly admitted, and it was ultimately removed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In consequence of the removal of that restriction, as well as looking to the 199 grounds and principles on which that removal was founded, the newspaper proprietors had concluded that a similar restriction was never afterwards to be enforced. Acting under this impression, they had laid out considerable sums of money and expended much capital in enlarging their machinery, and making other improvements, both with respect to the printing and other departments of their different newspapers. They affirmed, that if the proposed restrictions were carried into effect, all the capital so employed by them would be entirely useless—it would, in fact, be wholly thrown away; and therefore, in that respect, the measure would work very injuriously with reference to their interests. This was one of the grounds stated in their petition. They farther stated, that this measure would be partial and unjust in its operation, on this ground, that there was no daily newspaper that exceeded the size of the other newspapers, except one, which was about one-eighth larger. That was sufficiently large for all its purposes—for its intelligence, advertisements, &c.— and therefore it never published what was called "a double sheet," which was an enlarged sheet, being twice the ordinary size. Now, it was singular that the size of this particular newspaper was selected as the standard. Any paper exceeding that size was to sustain an increased tax. All papers of that size, or below it, were to pay the reduced rate, but those which exceeded that size would be liable to an increased duty. But the petitioners said, that the size selected by that particular journal would not answer their purpose; and that the plan proposed would be oppressive, injurious, and partial, so far as their interests were concerned, seeing that it would confer a particular favour on one newspaper, at the expense of most of the others. The petitioners did not assert, that in the formation of the proposed measure any person was influenced by an unfair bias; but to this point he might call their Lordships' attention, and he believed the fact to be so, that the paper to which allusion had been made was the only Morning Journal that supported the policy and principles of his Majesty's present Government. He did not mean to say, that the journal in question supported that policy and those principles without any restriction, because it appeared to exercise a severe and vigilant control over his Majesty's Government; but the fact which he had stated, and which he had a right to state, had undoubtedly 200 excited considerable jealousy and apprehension amongst those whose interests were likely to be seriously affected. It was stated that the Stamp was not meant as a tax, but was intended to cover the expense of postage; and that, therefore, it was proper that the larger paper, should pay a higher rate than that which was of a more limited size. That, however, the petitioners argued, was a new principle, for they had never paid more for a double than a single sheet. Besides these points, the petitioners went into a consideration of the effect which the proposed alteration would have on the tax, that effect being to injure the revenue; and they reasoned the matter thus:—They said, if the measure became law, it would operate as a prohibition of double papers, which were charged to readers at the same price as single papers; because, if double the ordinary amount were called for, readers would not purchase, and, therefore, double papers would not be published. Now, if these double papers were discontinued, a great loss to the revenue would be the consequence, as the petitioners had fully, fairly, and distinctly shown. The double sheet was chiefly resorted to on account of the advertisements, the average number of which was 600, giving a duty of 45l.; and supposing the impression of the double sheet to be 10,000, it gave an additional paper duty of 11l., making a total of 56l. Here, then, it was evident that a loss would inevitably result from the prohibition of double papers, a loss more than equivalent to the additional penny. The effect of this tax would be an absolute prohibition of publishing these double sheets, and as the papers generally appeared in that form three or four times a-week, here was a certain loss on a sale amounting to 10,000, or perhaps more. The petitioners stated further, that the tax was opposed to the principle of the Bill itself, which professed to take off, as far as possible, every impost which impeded the increase of knowledge and intelligence, which, in fact, professed to remove the taxes on knowledge; but, instead of having that effect, its operation would be to diminish the diffusion of knowledge one-half. These were the statements in the petition, which appeared to him to be striking and forcible, well-worthy of the consideration of their Lordships, and particularly of his Majesty's Government, who, he hoped, would speedily turn their attention to them.

§ The Earl of Ripon
said, the clear and luminous statement of his noble and learned Friend had recalled to his mind the fact, that it had been his duty, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, to propose certain modifications of the duty on stamps, and he introduced at that time the removal of the restriction which, it appeared, was now about to be renewed. He very well recollected that, when he proposed to the House of Commons the modification which was now to be removed, it was received by the House as a very liberal concession. And it certainly would not be unreasonable, in support of his own consistency, to call upon Ministers to state the grounds on which they meant to alter the tax, and to do away with the restriction, if the Bill found its way into that House with the alterations to which his noble and learned Friend had alluded.

The Marquis of Lansdowne
said, this was a petition against a Bill that was not before their Lordships' House. When the measure was introduced he should be prepared to answer the allegations of the petitioners. Many of the topics referred to, he admitted, demanded inquiry, and Government was anxious to place every portion of the press on a footing of equality.

§ Lord Lyndhurst
said, the petition did not mention any specific Bill, but alluded merely to a measure that was generally talked of.

The Marquis of Lansdowne
did not conceive that that was the proper time for going into the matter which the noble and learned Lord had argued and discussed. Much confusion and dissatisfaction would arise from adopting so irregular a course.

§ Lord Lyndhurst
said, he had entered into no argument, but merely stated the facts contained in the petition.

The Marquis of Lansdowne
understood the noble and learned Lord to have said, that the argument and reasoning of the petition had forcibly struck his own mind, and were calculated to make an impression on their Lordships.