influence would be in any degree lessened by excontrary, it would very probably be increased. changing a stamp for a postage duty. On the 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."

gives more news than others, he makes an | doctrines; but it is by no means clear that their 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-opinions which, I think, this House on 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 a year, and, being as moderate as can well be desired, we see no reason why they should be either reduced or repealed.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

pro

posed 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 rcsult which is not at all to be desired. At present The Times and other London journals, displaying the greatest talent, and embracing the most 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 be 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 VOL. CXXXVIII. [THIRD SERIES.]

varied information, are distributed all over the

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

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 groundnamely, 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 bo 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 mea

H

sure will damage existing interests; and | I cannot see that its rejection furnishes there can be no legislation so exceptional any sufficient reason for the House now and unjust as this, which for the sake of a dissenting from the third reading of the general and problematical good, does a Bill. If the fears of those hon. Gentleprivate and particular injury. I shall, men who believe that the passing of this therefore, Sir, oppose the third reading of measure will call into existence a large this Bill, which I consider to be ill-con- class of piratical newspapers should be ceived, badly drawn, and ill-advised. 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. yond 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 44 oz. ; that of the 14th of April, 84 oz.; that of the 21st of April, 4 oz.; and that of the 28th, 74 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?

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 be come 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,

Be

INDISPOSITION OF MR. SPEAKER. At this stage of the proceedings, VISCOUNT PALMERSTON rose and said: I am sure the House has already perceived how much Mr. Speaker is labouring under indisposition, and I would therefore submit whether, as the Motion which we have been discussing can practically remain till after the third reading, whether the House would not permit the Bill now to be read a third time, and be then postponed to a future day, by which means Mr. Speaker might leave the Chair. During the other business of the evening the House will be mostly in Committee, and if occasion should arise, we can avail ourselves of the means provided by the practice of the House for replacing Mr. Speaker during his absence. The House, I am sure, must feel how important it is that some such course as this should now be adopted.

Then with reference to periodical publica- | example, by many religious societies. tions appearing at intervals of more than Those publications are not at present subseven and less than thirty days, he would jected to registration, and I can see no leave the existing law unaltered, and they sufficient ground for proposing a new would be charged by their superficial enactment which will include them under inches and measured according to that the law of registration sureties. 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 newspaper 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 Id., 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 to 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? 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 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 see any benefit that would be derived from including halfpenny and penny publications, which do not contain news, and which are circulated by societies-for

On

MR. DISRAELI: There can be but one feeling in the House with reference to what has just fallen from the noble Lord, but I think the best course would be that the debate should be adjourned.

Debate adjourned till Friday.

SUPPLY-MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.
Order for Committee read.

House in Committee; Mr. FITZROY in the Chair.

The following Votes were then agreed

(1.) 35,9411., Law Charges, England. (2.) 250,000l., Prosecutions at Assizes, &c. (3.) 1,100., Crown Office, Chancery. (4.) 2,0501., Crown Office, Queen's Bench.

(5.) 15,900., Sheriffs' Expenses, &c. (6.) 6,000l., Registrar of Admiralty. (7.) 8,4151., Insolvent Debtors Court. (8.) 13,8501., Treasurers of County Courts.

(9.) 23,2547., Police Courts of Metropolis.

(10.) 101,2181., Metropolitan Police. (11.) 4,2261., Queen's Prison.

(12.) 3,3421., Lord Advocate and Solicitor General.

(13.) 7,7551., Expenses of Criminal

Prosecutions under authority of Lord Ad-about to be brought in, containing an

(22.) 51,7201., Criminal Prosecutions (Ireland). (23.) 1,2941., Court of Chancery (Ire-tickets of leave and letters of licence was land).

hill was not one of the institutions licensed vernment had now become so much conunder the Act of last year. He wished nected with that institution that he could also to know what Government proposed not think this was satisfactory, especially to do with respect to reformatory institu- as a difficulty was felt in the magistrates tions under the Act of last year. In many having often no place to commit the boys counties a move was being made to estab- to. He rose also to ask on what principle lish such institutions, and the promoters the boys were sent to Redhill, and to wished to know if they could hope that whom their selection was entrusted? He Government would take part in the ex-wished further to ask whether the rule of pense. It was provided by the Act that the parents of the children committed could be charged with a certain amount of the cost; but the law did not provide very satisfactory means for recovering the amount, or enforcing that provision of the Act. This uncertainty made those persons who were interested in the success of these institutions anxious to know if Government proposed to introduce a Bill during the present Session to remedy this defect.

the Philanthropic Institution to send all boys abroad at the termination of their sentence was concurred in by the Secretary of State? He had had the honour, a short time ago, of forwarding to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir G. Grey) a very strong opinion from the county with which he was connected (Worcestershire) pressing upon him that the public funds ought to furnish some aid, not only for the maintenance, but for the institution of such establishments. It was within his knowledge that several counties, sensible of the importance of the subject, were deterred by a just feeling that the estab

volence of private individuals. As it was a matter of public interest, he considered that they had a right, after the strong expression of public feeling upon the question last year, to expect that Government would take into consideration how this aid might be afforded.

SIR GEORGE GREY said, the children sent to Redhill were not sent under the Act of last Session. With regard to institutions under that Act, the Treasury would pay the whole cost of the mainte-lishments ought not to be left to the benenance of the inmates, as distinct from the expenses of the establishment, and 5s. a week per head was considered a fair sum. The principle of making parents, at whose instigation or from whose neglect children had fallen into criminal habits, defray the expense of their maintenance in reformatories, was just and expedient; but it was very difficult to enforce the obligation without increasing the number of prison inmates, by committing persons for the nonpayment of those charges, and as long as the Treasury paid the 5s. a week, there was little motive for any one to enforce payment from the parents. Where they were well known, it was a matter for the discretion of the magistrates whether they would compel the payment or not, but the greatest number of these criminal children came from the streets of large cities, and did not in many cases even know who their parents really were. He hoped to propose an amendment of the law, with the view to facilitate the recovery of the ex-in this country. He hoped that a number penses from the parents, but he did not expect that to any great extent the provision could be enforced.

SIR GEORGE GREY said, he must explain that the estimate of 2,000l. rested upon a calculation of the number of boys that would be committed to these reformatories at 5s. per week each, but if the number were exceeded, the estimate also would be exceeded, as it was not intended to limit the amount. With regard to the 5,000l. for the establishment at Red Hill, that included a provision for placing the boys in some way of gaining their liveli hood. He was not aware of any rigid rule requiring that those boys should be sent abroad, though he could easily understand that they would have a much better opportunity of advancing themselves abroad than

of reformatories would be established under the Act of Parliament; but, as some of the reformatories now in existence had not SIR JOHN PAKINGTON said, he was been for many months in operation, he struck with the disproportion of the amount thought it would be too much to expect granted for the establishment at Redhill the country to take the whole charge of and for the others. He could not help such establishments, and to withdraw them expressing his disapprobation that the altogether from local management. He Redhill establishment, which was the thought the proper course would be to see oldest and the best in the country, should what was the result of the experiment, not be open for the reception of juvenile before any interference was attempted with offenders under the Act of last year. Go-existing arrangements.