THE NEWSPAPER-TAX NOT, REPEALED.
THE years are not many since a very numerous and power- ful body of men in the country strenuously opposed all efforts to
spread education, even of the simplest and commonest kind, among the.people. The doctrines of the anti-educationists have, however, become unfashionable; and even in the House of Peers —the last refuge of antiquated bigotry—it is very unusual to hear such absurdities sported on the subject as formed the staple of the sermons of all High,Church divines and the speeches of High Tory orators within the memory of the present generation.
Now, almost every one pretends, at least, to think that instruc- tion is better than ignorance, if not in itself a spositive good.
It is therefore no longer necessary to repeat the reasons for .educating the people, which have done their work in vanquish- ing the most obstinate advocates of popular ignorance.
We believe that we may go a step further in the argument with the consent of, intelligent men of all parties, and say that it is
the duty of every government to encourage the spread of infor- mation among its subjects; and it seems to us that the descrip- tion of information which it is more especially the duty of a government to extend, is that which has reference to politics. We do not mean that the ruling powers should establish schools for inculcating partisan dogmas, but that every facility should be .given to political discussion, with a view to instruct all classes on the subjects which most nearly concern them, and on which ig- norance is likely to produce effects the most injurious on their own welfare, and on the spirit and conduct of the government under which they live. It would occupy more time and room than we can now devote to the subject, to enumerate the various modes in which ignorance of political economy, and of the principles of government, actdetrimentally on the happiness and comfort of in- dividuals and of the nation at large. But instances in illustra- tion of the fact occur every day, and no one can be at a loss to call them to mind.
In this country, however, the government, so far from aiding in the diffusion of information, has taken the most effectual means to circumscribe it, by imposing taxes directly and indirectly to the amount of 1,350,0001. per annum, on newspapers, paper, &c. The tax on newspapers was imposed with the avowed object of keeping the People ignorant on political subjects; and now that it is pro- posed to remove the tax, in order to facilitate the communica- tion of that knowledge which our present Ministers admit to be essential to the wellbeing of the community and the security of the State, we are told that it might occasion a deficit of 300,0001. a year in the revenue ; and that Ministers cannot afford to try experiments. We have a gross revenue of fifty millions, and yet for so great an object as the diffusion of political information is admitted to be, our rulers refuse to make such an alteration in the taxation of the country as would risk a sum certainly not exceed- ing 1-150th part of the whole revenue. No doubt, it is pretended, that to remove the Stamp-tax would flood the country with inflam- matory, seditious, and demoralizing newspapers ; but Mr. SPRING RICE scouts that notion, as absurd. He is aware that the Stamp- tax is impotent to check the circulation of such papers. In his speech on Mr. EDWARD BULWER'S motion last week, he said- " A smuggling press must be a licentious press. Unless the supporters of the press could show the contrary, or could prove that the facts which he had stated did cot exist, they had no ground to stand upon. The House would perceive, that he by no means approved of the principle of the duty. On the contrary, he broadly maintained, Mat on the highest moral rounds the existing Stamp. duty on newspapers could not be maintained or defended. It was, therefore, a question of revenue alone."
Is not this a curious specimen of a Finance Minister's reasoning ? He maintains that the existing Stamp-duty is injurious to the morality of a nation,and then says that the question of its removal is one of revenue alone! .Upon this principle, the tax on lotteries should have been retained. To license lotteries cannot be de- fendel "on the highest moral grounds," and therefore morality has nothing to do with the matter —it is one which concerns the revenue solely. Mr. SPRING Ries places the morality of the masses in one scale and 300,0001. in the other, and says that the latter weighs heztviest in his estimation. No Minister can value more highly the advantage of morality and knowledge—the great enemy of vice—among a people ; but he does not pretend to say that he would give 30000/. for this valuable commodity. On his own showing, Mr. SPRING. RICE is out of court; and we agree with Mr. GROTE, that he Cannot consistently defend the continu- ance of the impost for a single hour. We take precisely the'same ground that Mr. RICE takes; and on the principle that know- ledge is better than ignorance, and that the Newspaper-tax tends to discourage the spread of knowledge and to promote the growth
of immorality, we call for its repeal. And it is mortifying to know that at the time we write, the ex- tinction of this tax would have been decreed by the House of Commons, had Mr. EDWARD BULWER, who assumed the manages mem of the question, stood manfully to his guns, regardless of Ministerial blandishments. There was, it ,appears, a decided majority in favour of the repeal, ready and anxious to vote; when Mr. BULWER thought proper to throw his supporters and the question itself overboard, and withdraw his motion. His reasons, fur backing out of his position are thus given by himself-
" Mr. E. Bulwer would not divide the House; and he thought be was amply justified in that determination by the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which he considered to be a distinct pledge against the continuance of this tax. The tax must be repealed next session ; it became, therefore, merely a question of time. If he pressed the question to a division, he should carry it with three great disadvantages, which he was not disposed to incur. In the first place, he should weaken the Government, at a moment when they ought to be most strengthened ; in the next place; they should expose themselves to the charge of a collision existing amongst them, at a moment when they ought to be most united; and in the third place, they should be liable to the accusation (though a most unjust one) that they had not a regard for the national faith. Under all these circumstances, he thought his object would be best obtained—the Go- vernment having acknowledged the principle —by leaving the question of the time of bringing it forward to them."
Mr. RICE afterwards eiplained the real value of this "distinct plerltre :" he said that he would give up the tax whenever he could afford it. But when his surplus revenue is small, he will plead poverty ; and, referring to the debate of yesterday week, will say that the excuse which served him then must again be deemed sufficient. When the surplus is large, the advocates for the re- peal of the Stamp-tax will have to contend with powerful inte- rests, which will claim, and almost certainly obtain, the preference for a reduction of the taxes which molt immediately affect them. With a surplus of a million, for instance, it will be difficult to resist the landholder's call for a diminution of the Malt-tax : the inhabitants of towns will demand the removal of the Window- duty : in this way they who have laboured so hard for the repeal of the Knowledge-tax will be pushed to the wall. As to the other excuses put forward by Mr. BULWER, they should, they must have occurred to him before he made his motion, just as forcibly as after Mr. Ries had spoken : they afford no apology therefore for its withdrawal. But perhaps Mr. EDWARD BULWER'S purpose had been an- swered : he had made his annual speech—the session had not been permitted to close without a well-conned harangue from the author of Pelham. To be sure, the repeal of the Knowledge-tax is indefinitely postponed, but what of that? Mr. BuLvisa has obliged the Minister, and figured in the newspapers to the extent of a column or so. This is the result of his motion.
We had forgotten—Mr. HENRY Hinman reminds us that the principle of his brother's motion has been conceded by Mr. Ries, and that therefore there was no use in dividing the House. A very statesmanlike and practical observation, truly l Very fit men to be trusted with the conduct of affairs, these Messrs. BULwER! So that a principle is conceded, it matters little whether that prin- ciple is carried into operation or not. Not merely the principle of the repeal of the Taxes on Knowledge, but the repeal itself might have been carried, had not the former been deemed sufficient. We fear that the principles relied on are, as Butte& says, " barren ones, which generate no conclusion." Indeed it is only necessary to refer to the debates of last year and the year before, to show that nothing has been gained for the question. Lord ALTHORP last year distinctly admitted as much as Mr. Rica has now done,—namely, that the tax on newspapers could not be defended on principle, and that it was a mere ques- tion of revenue. Perhaps it would not be difficult to prove that the question has gone backwards ; for in 1832, Lord ALTHORP s approach to a pledge was much closer than that to which Mr. Rica has thought it safest to trust himself,—possibly from the recollection that Lord ALTHORPS backing out was considered a very awkward movement.
Previous page
