His first objection to the exclusion of all judicial officers
was, that it limited the choice of constituent bodies.
To increase these restrictions was, in fact, to proceed
against the people, and to say that they were
unfit to judge who were fit to represent them. In
the second place, it tended generally to degrade the
house by shutting out men of talents and learning, who
would impart a lustre to it, and uphold its dignity and
authority. That house was increasing in power and
influence; nobody sought to exclude judicial officers from
the House of Lords; and therefore, while the power and
authority and influence of one branch of the legislature
were on the increase, men of eminent talents were taken
into the other, the weight of which was becoming
relatively less. In legislating for law reforms, it would be
advantageous to have the aid of the Master of the Rolls
in that house, and it could not be assumed that, because
he was a member, he would neglect his judicial duties,
or because he sat in the court in the morning, he could
not attend the House of Commons in the afternoon. The
objection to his being thrown into the turmoil of a
contested election should be taken in conjunction with this
consideration,—that a person in such an office would
enjoy so much of the confidence of the constituency that
he would be easily elected.—Lord HOTHAM, in reply,
observed, that the chief objection urged against the bill
was that it did not go far enough, which implied that
the measure could not in itself be an objectionable one.
Lord J. Russell had argued that it was calculated to
restrict the choice of electors; but there were and must
be restrictions, and the question was whether there was
anything inexpedient in this restraint upon a choice
which might fall upon a candidate, if a judge, for a reason
which would render him unfit to sit in that house. Then
it had been said that it would degrade a house which had
been embellished by the splendid talents of Sir W. Grant
and Sir W. Scott. But the circumstances of parliament
had greatly changed since the time of close nomination
boroughs; its business, too, had altered in respect to its
nature and extent. In conclusion, Lord Hotham cited
strong opinions in favour of the exclusion of the Master
of the Rolls from the House of Commons expressed by
Lord Brougham and the late Lord Langdale.—The bill
was read a second time.

On Thursday, April 14, Mr. Milner GIBSON brought
forward the subject of Taxes on Knowledge. He moved
three resolutions, to the effect that the Advertisement
Duty ought to be repealed; that the policy of subjecting
the cheap periodical press to Stamp Duties and other
restrictions is inexpedient, and the law relative to taxes
on newspapers in an unsatisfactory state; and, lastly,
that the Excise Duty on Paper materially obstructs
good cheap literature, and that the maintenance of this
tax as a permanent source of revenue would be impolitic,
and would impede the progress of education. He had
thus framed his motion, he said, in consequence of
having observed that, although three taxes might appear
to many unconnected, they had been imposed at the same
time, and were part of a system of policy designed, to
a certain extent, to restrain the press. But the resolutions
would be submitted to the house separately, so that
the assent to one would not pledge to another. It might
be said that he should have waited until the appearance
of the budget; but if the Chancellor of the Exchequer
intended to deal with these taxes, a vote of the house
would strengthen his hands; if not, it might suggest to
him the propriety of falling in with its views. The last
resolution affected about £900,000 of the public revenue;
but it did not pledge the house to an immediate repeal
of the duty on paper, but only that as early an opportunity
as the state of the revenue would allow should be
taken to abolish this duty. Mr. Gibson urged the
oppressive nature of this charge upon the vehicle of
knowledge and the difficulties it cast in the way of literary
speculation, and the consequent check it gave to sound
education. He then dwelt upon the injustice, impolicy,
and inequality of the advertisement duty, a tax of small
amount, only £178,000 a year, which he denounced as a
barbarous toll, unworthy of a commercial country; and
he insisted upon the impossibility of protecting
newspapers, whose legitimate fund was their advertisments,
against untaxed compositions. The removal of the duty
would augment the number of advertisements, and
the consequent increase of postage would alone cover
the loss of revenue. In the last place Mr. Gibson
discussed the policy of restraining by stamp duties the cheap
periodical press from publishing news, contending that
this was a question of policy, not of revenue. The stamp
duty on newspapers originated in a desire to restrain
their issue, from a false theory which associated cheap
with mischievous publications; whereas cheap periodical
works, narrating the current events of life, supplied
antidotes to the poison of seditious and blasphemous
writings. When the amount of duty was reduced, the
restrictions were made more severe, on the ground of
"safely;" but at the present day no objection was
entertained to the diffusion of useful knowledge, or even
of political information. The power of the government
was now sustained upon the utility of its policy and its
desire to benefit all classes. If the stamp duty upon
news found an equivalent in the exemption for postage,
let the established papers remain as they were, and let
the unstamped papers pay for transmission through the
post; but postal revenue should not be connected with
a tax upon news, which was a clumsy and defective
scheme. A small postage upon the transmission of
newspapers would go far to replace the revenue lost by
the repeal of the stamp duty. Mr. Gibson dilated upon
the defects and inconsistencies of the law relative
to newspapers, the attempt to define which term he
showed to abound with perplexities, which, he said, it
behoved the government to remove without delay.—The
motion was seconded by Mr. EWART, who dwelt upon
the advantages that would accrue to morality and order
from the repeal of the stamp and advertisement duties.
—The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER observed, that
the resolutions related partly to subjects of policy and
partly to matters of revenue. On the question of
policy he had no special authority to speak; but he
believed that the law relating to taxes on newspapers was
in an unsatisfactory state, and it was the intention of the
government shortly to bring in a bill to clear up the state
of that law, and to prevent any harsh or severe
interpretation of it, irrespective of the question of the stamp
duty. As to the second resolution, it had been said that
the stamp duties had not been imposed for revenue, but
to restrain the press. This was not the policy of the
present government; they thought that perfectly free
discussion was not only not to be regarded as an evil,
but contributed to strengthen the institutions of the
country, and nothing would be done by the government
to afford ground for a contrary opinion. It would be a
breach of duty on his part to encourage or advise the
house to pass these resolutions. He had already protested
against the practice of condemning taxes which the house
was not prepared to repeal, thereby creating expectations
not to be fulfilled. Mr. Gibson had not proposed any
substitutes for these taxes, amounting to £1,400,000, and
the house should not condemn taxes unless prepared to
dispense with them or to provide substitutes. He should,
therefore, move the previous question. With respect to
the paper duty, he should be glad to dispense with it,
for, though a large part fell upon paper used for inferior
purposes, he agreed that it was a most objectionable tax
upon mental efforts. The advertisement duty he likewise
acknowledged was a very onerous charge. But he warned
the house of the mischievous precedent it would set by
condemning taxes on isolated grounds, without regard
to the expenditure of the country. In the eight weeks
he had been in office, propositions had been made in
that house for the repeal of duties to the amount of
£7,000,000. The claims on behalf of newspapers for
relief from taxation would have a fair consideration—
that is, a just and impartial comparison with claims for
relief by other great interests of the country. He
admitted that it was fair that these questions should be
raised, but he prayed the house not to slide into the bad
habit of dealing so lightly with these questions of
revenue without the means of giving practical effect to
their resolutions.—Mr. BRIGHT said the speech of Mr.
Gibson had not received anything like an answer.
These duties were not brought forward as unjust taxes,
but as instruments which restrained the press; and it
was time that a government professing a regard for
education should deal with these taxes. It was not a
question of revenue; it could be demonstrated that if