papers, but the papers in all parts of the at a charge of 1d., to the weight of four kingdom, for they would have been dwarfed ounces, was in direct violation of the very into mere insignificance, as they would only principle which they were endeavouring to have contained local news and the stalest carry out. Now, with respect to The foreign intelligence. One journal had been Times newspaper, against which this enactaimed at by this Bill-he was sorry to say ment was most unquestionably aimed, he this of any measure promoted by the right had no hesitation in saying that he enterhon. Member for Manchester-but it was tained a strong personal feeling against his belief that the Government had aimed that journal; nevertheless, he was in comat one journal. He was in the, perhaps, mon honesty bound to admit that The unenviable position of a provincial news Times gave the public a larger amount of paper proprietor, and he knew the value to intelligence than any other journal in the the provincial newspapers of the London world; that there was no journal so journals, especially of he did not wish to eagerly sought after, nor any that exersay it invidiously-the foremost journal of cised so influential a control over the pubthe day. The London newspapers fur- lic mind. In arguing this question as a nished the country papers with the most matter of policy he would submit to the important foreign intelligence which they House that the extra tax which would obtained at a great expense from all parts be imposed on The Times was calculated of the world. They derived from all to be ultimately highly detrimental to sources information which was valuable to the public interest, because The Times every class in society, and especially to the newspaper derived no profit upon the Government itself, whose despatches were supplement; it did not demand any often anticipated by the energy, vigour, additional price for that portion of the and enterprise of the London press. He paper. If an extra charge were made for would not stop to ask whether the denial the supplement, The Times would then of that protection which was originally proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself was a denial of justice; he certainly thought it went to the very verge of injustice. Still, so great, in his opinion, would have been the inconvenience to the public press and to the public generally, had a copyright been established, that he thought the House was wise in coming to the determination not to adopt the copyright clauses. No doubt, it was perfectly right to resist that proposition; but when the House refused to recognise a copyright to the journals, and particularly The Times, what by that very denial were they at the same time doing? They immediately offered up The Times as a prey to a set of adventurous speculators, by removing the barrier from their path, and enabling them to start cheap publications filled with news pirated from the columns of that journal, and circulated within a few hours after the issuing of that paper, by the plundering of which they would contrive to live and prosper. If it was right, as a matter of public benefit, and with a view to give a bonus, as it were, to the starting of cheap newspapers, to inflict this injury upon the morning journals, and especially upon The Times, still they ought not to do anything that would injure that journal which the paramount interest of the publie did not demand. But the limitation of a right of transmission by post,

have no peculiar claim upon the consideration of the House. But it was well known that the publication of a supplement was pecuniarily injurious to The Times, while it was highly beneficial to the public. By the publication of a supplement The Times was able to give to the public in the principal sheet itself a larger amount of general intelligence, of foreign news, of Parliamentary debate and of local information than it otherwise could do. But, supposing the advertisements were printed in the ordinary sheet, the important intelligence that would otherwise appear would be compressed and the paper itself, in proportion, deteriorated. It was a necessary consequence, therefore, that the public generally were immediately benefited by the publication of a supplement. But there were peculiar interests to which the publication of a supplement was of essential importance. The commercial public particularly required the intelligence which the supplement conveyed. This consideration reminded him of a point to which he begged to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A Bill was introduced into Parliament, with the universal sanction of the nation, to do away with the advertisement duty. Was that measure adopted for the benefit of newspaper proprietors? Certainly not. It was for the benefit of the commercial public. Why, then, if you would act on the same prin

hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not insist upon retaining it. Upon the other question he would only remark, in conclusion, that if it were intended to make the press free for the benefit of the public, they should give the public every possible advantage, and, conscious as he was of the value of that organ, of which the country had every reason to be proud, he did say it was not right to make the industry of that journal penal, and to mark it out for the vengeance of Ministers, who either were incapable or suspected themselves to be so.

just attack upon one particular journal; | subjected to a penalty in having to pay and he attributed that attack to the cir- another penny for postage. Such a provicumstance that that paper was considered sion was neither generous nor fair, and he dangerous. That it often exercised a power dangerous to the Government of the day could not be denied, but it was equally true that it at the same time did great good to the public. If The Times in years gone by had done wrong, it had since done one great and important service which would wipe out all its faults. The noble Lord at the head of the Government spoke of certain reforms having recently taken place in the army; but he (Mr. Maguire) would ask whether those reforms were owing to those hon. Members who were occupying the Treasury benches, or to the remonstrances of The Times? He SIR JOSHUA WALMSLEY said, he believed that The Times had done more agreed with much that had fallen from the towards the salvation of the British army hon. Gentleman who had spoken in oppoin the Crimea than any Government could sition to the Bill, but he objected to making have done. It had shown how much that it a personal question. As a Member of army had suffered, and how men filling the Committee appointed to consider the public offices were incompetent to discharge removal of the stamp and advertisement the duties required of them. It had done duty, he agreed with those who held that more-it had evoked the strongest mani- great advantage would arise to the comfestation of public sympathy for those men munity from the freest possible communiwho had shown themselves greater heroes cation between the press and the public. in the hour of suffering and of patient Still he could not consider that it was neendurance than in the hour of the bloodiest cessary to give to the newspaper press any conflict. If The Times had only done particular monopoly. He would carry out that, it ought to have been treated with the principle of free trade in newspapers as liberality, and in a spirit of generosity, in everything else, for it did not appear to rather than have been made an exception him that newspaper proprietors required in a fiscal arrangement by which it became such a monopoly. He thought he was subjected to an extra and unjust tax. As well advised, when he said that a newsto the limitation of the period of retransmis- paper would cost three times as much sion to a fortnight, in his opinion a month as a letter in its carriage. A newspaper should be the smallest limit. Very few news- weighed four ounces at least, while an paper proprietors had any personal interest ordinary letter weighed only half an ounce, in the question, though some postmasters and the House was now called upon to might take advantage of the provision to allow four ounces to pass through the post annoy them. But that was a very minor eight or ten times while an ordinary halfconsideration. It was the interest of the ounce letter could pass only once. He did poorer classes, which demanded an exten- not for a moment believe that the press sion of time. The hon. Member for Man- would call upon the House to do such an chester, who unfortunately for his own act of injustice, inasmuch as newspaper credit, was anxious for the limitation, proprietors had the privilege of one transmight glance over a newspaper and gather mission for a penny, which was quite as the contents of it in an hour. Some gen- much as they required. He must protest tlemen with more rapid eyes and more against the statement that newspaper procomprehensive research might do it in half prietors required any such privilege. an hour; but the poor man who purchased a newspaper might only be able to read a portion of it one night and another portion the next, and so on, till the whole limit of time was consumed; and because he had less capacity and less leisure without trenching on the important duties due to his employer and his family, he was to be

MR. BARROW contended that injustice was, by this measure, inflicted on provincial newspapers, because, while they were of less weight and passed through the Post Office less frequently than the London papers, they would have to pay the same for transmission. He believed the Post Office could carry all newspapers at a

profit for a halfpenny, and that if they | He did not believe that it was a spontadid not do so, private enterprise would neous act on the part of the Government, take the circulation of papers, especially for if it were possible to take the indivithose in the provinces, entirely out of dual opinion of a large number of the Memtheir hands. On behalf of the general bers of the Government, and of those hon. tax-payers of the country, he objected to Members who usually supported them, he any extraordinary privilege as to weight believed the Bill would be rejected by a being granted to any newspaper of any considerable majority of the House. The description, and, considering the measure measure originated not in the pressure as unfair and unjust, he should certainly from without, but in the pressure below vote against the third reading. the gangway. It originated It originated in the ability, eloquence, and perseverance of his right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester (Mr. Milner Gibson) who had applied the

chequer, and had compelled his successor, who was similarly circumstanced, to yield to the same powerful pressure. No advocate of the character of the press of this country could support this measure. He had never yet heard it argued that the press, able and enlightened as it was, was not in want of some check and safeguard against the ebullitions of party and personal feeling. Nothing could be more injurious to the character of the press, or of the public whom it served, than to take away the restrictions that had prevented not the liberty, but the licence of the press, and the want of which would cause the country to be inundated with publications that would not only lead to the destruction of the character of the press, but would be attended by the most mischievous results in all large and populous communities. Question put.

MR. MONTAGU CHAMBERS thought it a very unusual course for Gentlemen to object to the third reading of a Bill, every point of which had been thoroughly dis-screw" to the last Chancellor of the Excussed and investigated, and on the principle of which they themselves had voted. As he understood the objection, it was this -they objected to the third reading of this Bill, because they thought a particular newspaper was about to be injured by it. He liked that little persons should be considered by that House. He did not like that persons of great importance, weight, and authority, should alone be considered by them, and, as he understood it, this was a question (he would not shrink from saying it) between The Times newspaper and the House of Commons. He thought they were bound to meet this question. He understood that those who objected to the third reading of this Bill, did so, because they thought that there was to be an additional stamp to enable newspapers beyond a certain weight to pass through the Post Office. This, then, was a discussion between a particular newspaper and an important measure, and he should state why he would vote for the third reading of the Bill. He believed it was unusual to oppose a Bill on the third reading. [Cries of "No."] It was true that in late times such things had happened, but it was not very customary to oppose the third reading after there had been a full discussion on the previous stages. Ho Every periodical publication that shall be contended, the postal arrangement now printed and published at intervals not exceeding proposed was not unjust as far as the par- numbers of such publication, and the weight of seven days between the two consecutive parts or ticular newspaper was concerned when it which shall not on the whole exceed six ounces, published a supplement, because that sup- shall be entitled to the said privileges of transplement earned to the parties circulating mission and retransmission by the post, if duly it a considerable sum of money. If he stamped with the appropriate die of one penny." had stated correctly the ground on which Clause brought up and read 1o. the opposition to this Bill was based, he Motion made and Question proposed, could not encourage such a course of argu-"That the said Clause be now read a ment; and he should vote for the third second time." reading of the Bill.

MR. BENTINCK could not but regard, among the various objections to this Bill, the manner in which it had originated.

VOL. CXXXVIII. [THIRD SERIES.]

The House divided:-Ayes 138; Noes 60: Majority 78.

Main Question put and agreed to:-Bill read 3°.

MR. NAPIER, in the absence of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Enniskillen (Mr. Whiteside), then moved that the following clause be added to the Bill:

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, it was substantially identical with a clause which had been moved by his hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract

Q

crease their privileges and advantages. But he hoped it would not escape the attention of the House that at present the privileges enjoyed by newspapers were large, beyond what they could reasonably expect, compared with those of letters and other printed matter conveyed through the post.

Mr. MALINS said, the effect of the Bill, as he understood it, was to expose the public to the great inconvenience of not being able to send The Times in the way they had hitherto been accustomed to send it, by post. It had become so much the habit of the people of this country to take in The Times newspaper, and after they had read it, to send it to their friends in the country, that anything which would restrict their right to do so would be a serious interference with public convenience. He believed that the weight of The Times averaged 44 ounces, and he wished to know if he was right in supposing that after the passing of this Bill, he was not to have the privilege of sending it to a friend in the country without paying for an extra stamp.

(Mr. Milnes), and had been fully consider- | any future time, if they should think that ed by the House, and negatived by a large newspapers did not enjoy sufficient privimajority. One alteration, however, had leges and advantages by that law to inbeen made by the hon. and learned Gentleman who had framed the present clause, the effect of which was to render it more complex and more difficult to work. It was proposed by his hon. Friend in Committee that a limit of superficial inches should be taken according to the existing law, whereas it was now proposed to substitute the limit of weight for that of superficial inches. The effect of such a provision would be, that up to six ounces the Post Office would have to determine by weight, while beyond six ounces it would have to ascertain the measure of superficial inches with respect to all periodicals published at intervals of less than seven days. With regard to those published at greater intervals, the existing law as to superficial inches would apply both to periodicals of greater and of less weight than six ounces. Such was the state of the law which would be the result of this clause. The House would hardly expect him again to go over ground which had been so fully examined upon previous nights, and he would only state that his proposal, by the present Bill, was to leave the existing law unchanged with the single exception of making the stamp upon newspapers optional instead of compulsory. The only change which this measure would produce would be in favour of newspapers publishing a supplement. One of the principal arguments used in support of an increase in the limit of weight was that hardship was at present inflicted upon newspapers publishing a supplement, inasmuch as they did not make an additional charge to their customers, whereas they were obliged to pay a halfpenny stamp for it. When this Bill became law, a newspaper would pay the stamp upon its supplement only for that portion of the impression which was circulated through the post. The whole of that portion of its impression which was distributed in the place where it was published would be free from the stamp duty; there would be no compulsory stamp upon it, and, therefore, it would not be subject to that disadvantage which was at present found to constitute the chief element of its loss. Thus the operation of the measure would be favourable, not detrimental, to newspapers publishing a supplement. In other respects the present law was left wholly unchanged, and it would be in the power of parliament at

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, that the present Bill made on alteration with respect to the limit of superficial inches which had hitherto been permitted to be conveyed in the first instance for 1d., and afterwards for a halfpenny. It imposed no limit whatever as to weight.

MR. MALINS thought the explanation was not sufficiently distinct. The public knew nothing about superficial inches, what they knew was-The Times newspaper. There was now no such thing as a supplement, for the advertisement sheet, containing the births, deaths, and marriages, taken together with the other sheets, constituted one newspaper. He thought it important that the House should know whether, after the Bill passed, they would be able to send The Times newspaper by post with as much freedom as at present. ("Yes.") Then what was the limit as to weight? (" There is none.") If The Times would still go by post for a penny stamp, there could be no necessity for pressing this clause, because he understood the object of his hon. Friend to be to fix a limit of six ounces, in order that The Timeswhich after all, was the paper of the country-might go free without any further restriction than existed at present. If the Government gave their assurance that that