ARMY-INVALIDED OFFICERS QUESTION. COLONEL NORTH said, he begged to ask the hon. Under Secretary for War, if Her Majesty's Government would take into consideration the position of those officers who had returned to this country from the Crimea wounded, and who were now in London for the purpose of attending the medical board, or for military medical attendance; and, in the absence of an hospital for officers, hire furnished houses for their accommodation, and grant them those medical comforts which their cases required. MR. FREDERICK PEEL said, that the medical board, he believed, met twice a week, and if it were found necessary, they would hold more frequent meetings. The hon. and gallant Member seemed not to be aware, that under the existing regulations gratuities were allowed to officers to cover the expenses incurred during the time they were suffering from the effects of wounds. COLONEL NORTH said, this was not at all the answer he wished to have. The matter was of so much consequence to the officers of the army, and especially to those of the junior grades, that he would take an early opportunity of bringing the subject under the consideration of the House. THE INDIAN ARMY-QUESTION. SIR ERSKINE PERRY said, he wished to ask the right hon. President of the Board of Control whether, in Her Majesty's Commissions granting military rank to officers in the service of the East India Company, the words "in the East Indies only" were in future to be omitted; or, whether it was merely intended, under the order which appeared in The Gazette of Tuesday the 1st day of May, to grant social rank and precedence, and not general military rank. the world" should be inserted in all future Commissions. The intention of the memorandum published in The Gazette was, that wherever officers of the East India Company's service came in contact with those of Her Majesty's service, their respective rank should be settled, not by their belonging to the East India Company's service or to Her Majesty's service, but by the title and date of their Commissions; and he thought the effect would be to facilitate the employment of officers wherever their services were required, while it would by no means fetter the discretion of the Commander in Chief, under the guidance of the Government, with respect to the appointment to commands in all parts of the world of those officers who were considered most eligible, whether they belonged to Her Majesty's service or to the Company's service. ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM-QUESTION. MR. LAYARD: Sir, it will doubtless be in the recollection of hon. Members, that I gave notice of my intention to propose certain Resolutions to this House, and I wish, for the convenience of the House and of the Government, to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will give me any day for bringing forward my Resolutions. If the noble Lord does not give me a day, I must propose them on going into Committee of Supply. I also wish to know when the Returns for which I moved some time since will be laid upon the table. VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I really, Sir, cannot undertake to find the hon. Gentleman a day; he must find one for himself. MR. LAYARD: Then, I shall bring the Resolutions forward on an early day, on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply. MR. FREDERICK PEEL said, he begged to inform the hon. Gentleman that, as the Returns for which he had moved were very voluminous, their preparation would necessarily occupy a considerable time, but he would take care that they were produced without any unnecessary delay. MR. VERNON SMITH said, the hon. Gentleman had not quoted quite correctly, the words now used in the Royal Commissions given to officers in the service of the East India Company. The words were, not "in the East Indies only," but "in the East Indies," the word "only" having been omitted by the Duke of Wellington in 1842 for a special object, and in 1854, from the general brevet, by Lord Hardinge. Since the issue of the memorandum, Lord Motion made, and Question proposed, Hardinge had sent written instructions to" That the Bill be now read a third time.' Sir William Gomm, directing that the MR. HADFIELD said, he did not mean words "and honorary rank in all parts of to oppose the Motion for the third reading, NEWSPAPER STAMP DUTIES BILL. Order for Third Reading read. but there were several Amendments which | change. He (Mr. Bright) believed the he hoped it was not too late to introduce system of re-transmission to be bad from into the Bill. One of the clauses fixed beginning to end, and that the House and fifteen days as the period during which a the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to newspaper could pass through the post. contemplate its abolition at no distant Now, if a newspaper was to be stamped at period. This question of re-transmission all, what possible objection could there be had been urged by the newspapers as one to its being sent through the post for a of great advantage to them and to the longer period than fifteen days? He public, but he did not believe it was of hoped, therefore, that that clause would be any advantage whatever. It was much omitted. Again, he thought a drawback better for newspaper proprietors that every should be allowed on account of stamps on person who read a paper should buy one newspapers not put in circulation. 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. 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. He should be ready to support the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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 MR. BRIGHT said, they all knew that by one subscriber in the country, was sent when it was understood that the Chancel- perhaps three or four miles off to another, lor of the Exchequer was willing to do and so on for ten days or a fortnight besomething more than he thought reason-fore it had reached all the subscribers. able there was generally a probability of a These people had their friends and families 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. 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. in distant parts of the country, in many | he repeated that he was doubtful whether instances in poor circumstances, and it the measure would have the effect of was only by retransmission that intelli- spreading truth and good information gence could be conveyed to them. He through the country. 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, 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 prac tical 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 diffieulty 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 news> papers, 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 ence to property either according to his to do an injustice, and that it was his duty feelings or his prejudice; his reason ought to remedy it, and we have also the fact to be convinced, and I hope, therefore, that that he did attempt a remedy, but failed hon. Members will not decide on this quesin the attempt. A failure in an attempt tion without considering it fairly and imto remedy an injustice to existing interests partially. Now, what is it that renders is a very serious thing for this House, which these supplements necessary? It is not is the natural guardian of property, to ad- the excess of advertisements, but the exmit, and I would respectfully ask those cess of news; and the supplement therehon. Gentlemen opposite who support this fore, I say, is undeniably part of the paper. Bill, on what principle they think them- Suppose 400 advertisements are brought selves at liberty to injure property which to The Times newspaper for insertion in is the result of a combination of skill, in- one day; if there are no Parliamentary tellect, money, industry, and energy, pro- debates, no speeches of the right hon. Genducing a corresponding effect on the public tleman, or the able men around him, to be mind. Now that is what this Bill does. reported; if there are no police reports, no The Chancellor of the Exchequer has fail-important news from Sebastopol, no Viened in his attempt to remedy this injustice; na conferences to be communicated to the but when was it ever before decided that public, then there would be some corners a failure to furnish a remedy for injustice to spare, and these advertisements would justified legislation of this kind? If this appear in the main body of that paper; but Bill passes without a clause protecting if there are Parliamentary debates, law recopyright, a certain class of newspapers, ports, foreign intelligence, and such things which will be called into existence by the to be inserted, they push these advertisechange in the law, will appropriate the ments from the place where they would labour and industry of others to their own otherwise appear and it becomes necessary use and profit. The right hon. Gentleman to supply that portion of the paper which the Member for Manchester (Mr. M. Gib-is called the supplement, and which really son) opposed the clause relating to the su- ought to be part of the newspaper. But perficial extent of newspapers, but on what the argument of the right hon. Gentleman argument? It only referred, he said, to the Member for Manchester is this; because one particular journal, and only to the par- you give so much news to the public, which ticular portion of that journal which was fills the main part of your paper, and becalled the supplement, and which the right cause you give a supplement containing hon. Gentleman further maintained was no advertisements useful to all classes, thereportion of the newspaper. The sheet that fore, you shall not send your paper by contains advertisements no part of a news-post, for its weight exceeds 4 oz. Now, a paper! What a strange argument for the more unjust argument than that I cannot representative of a great commercial com- conceive. I am not aware, however, that munity to make use of! The 55 Geo. the Post Office authorities have anywhere III. a very sensible Act, by the way-shown that they cannot carry 6 oz. as well which refers only to Ireland, expressly de- as 4 oz. The great authority, Mr. Rowfines 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 refer land 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 |