The Sun.
London, England, 1836-05-05 00:00:00

PRICE 7D.

business-like habits and plebeian vulgarity of the real
representatives of the people.=Morning Chronicle.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer hardly needed to
have taken so much pains on Tuesday night to repel
the accusation brought against him by the Times,
Herald, Post, and S'andard, that in limiting News-
papers to a single sheet of the dimensions of the
largest Morning 'Paper published in London, he was
actuated by a wish to favour the Morning Chronicle
at the experfse of its rivals. They must know little of
the public men of this country who could for a mo-
ment suppose that any Chancellor of the Exchequer,
putting honour and honesty out of the question, would
expose himself to odium and obloquy, not for the sake
of personal advantage, but merely to favour a News-
paper which, on principle, supports the policy of his
party. We certainly have never sought for any favour
from the Right Hon. Gentleman, and we ask no more
from him than the justice to which we ate entitled.
The Times, in reference to the statement of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, that he had been in commu-
nication with those who represented the petitioners,
and that the arrangements had beets made with
their privity, not only denies that it had ever been
in communication with the Right Hon. Gentle-
man, but conveys something like an insinuation
that we had influenced him in his arrangements.
The only canniumications which the proprietors of
this paper ever had with the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, and that only incidentally, were confined to sug-
gestions as to the justice of preserving the copyright
of aviginal articles and intellig=ence to those who pro-
cured the same at a considerable expense, against
those who were in the habit of pirating them ; and the
expediency of requiring newspapers to furnish each its
own (lie to the Stamp-office, in the same manner as is
done by the proprietors of patent medicines, so as to
prevent the fraud on advertisers that is said to be
committed by some papers, which, in order to attract
advertisements, by creating an impression that their
circulation is greater than it actually is, purchase more
stamps than are required for their own use, and re-sell
them to obscure journals. Our readers can scarcely
have forgotten that some of these petitioning papers
dared to insinuate, on the publication of the last return
of the Newspaper Stamps, that such a practice was im-
putable to the Morning Chronicle. This insinuation
at the time was indignantly repelled. Without any an-
ticipation of the discussion arising on this petition, we
had availed ourselves of the opportunity of suggest-
ing to the Chancellor of the Exchequer a regula-
tion, by means of which any such fraud would be
rendered impossible. This has been our course in the
affair. Let chose who oppose the regulation of each
paper having its own die state their reasons for so
doing, and let the people judge betwixt the parties, of
whom one points out the means to prevent the possibi-
lity of a particular fraud, and the other under the pre-
tence of preventing an inquisitorial inspection of the
trade of individuals, attempts, in fact, to leave an
opening for the practice of that very fraud. On Fri-
day a return was ordered of the stamps issued each
month, from the period of the former return to the
end of April last, to each of the London Newspapers,
which will show the increase in the circulation of the
Chronicle, and, as its proprietors know that they have
consumed all the stamps issued to them, they con-
ceive themselves entitled to that security against the
frauds of others which a separate die to each paper
can alone give. All the favour they desire from the
'Chancellor of the Exchequer is that he will not suffer
some of those who now hold their heads rather higher
than they ought, to prevail with him to refuse to them
the protection which they conceive themselves entitled to
demand. They cannot suppose the Chancellor of the
Exchequer will hesitate to do them this justice ; but if he
should be so ill advised as to leave the public and them-
selves without protection, they hope the House of
Commons will not sanction the injustice. Private in-
terest ought in all cases to give way to the public
good ; and the proprietors of the Chronicle have never
in one instance advanced any claim which was not
justifiable on public grounds. The proprietors of this
Journal have attended no meetings for arrangements
with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They received,
it is true, various communications, professing to come
from the proprietors of all the London Stamped
Press," inviting them to attend meetings on the sub-
ject of the proposed changes ; but they attended none.
They confined themselves to suggestions on the two
points of copyright and a separate stamp. With re-
spect to copyright, there can be no reason why the
proprietors of Newspapers should not receive protec-
tion for what has been created by the capital expended
by them. To use the words of .the petition of the
Times and other Morning Papers, Government ought
to provide " an equitable copyright protection to the
capital and literary labours profusely expended by the
daily Journalists in the constant acquisition and pre-
paration of new matter to meet the wants of the com-
munity." In the Morning Herald of yesterday we
find this subject handled with much ability and good
sense, in an article in which the same justice is not
done to us which we are happy to ha‘.e this opportu-
nity of doing to our Contemporary, by acknowledg-
ing our obligations to it for the following excellent
observations

" It was always understood, and more than once inti-
mated, in allusions to the subject in Parliament and else-
where, that if ever a reduction of Newspaper Stamps took
place, the copyright of original articles in Newspapers should
be secured by some precise and efficient legal protection.
We are aware that the words equitable copyright pro-
tection,' which nem in the passage that we have above
quoted, might be taken as implying that there is no copyright
in newspaper articles at Ares..—..t. Yet we hold that there
is a common law copyright in all literary compositions both
before and after publication, as was docisled by the Judges
in the case of Miller v. Taylor, which was an appeal to the
House of Lords, and confirmed by subsequent decisions.
In a technical sense this right may be called an 'equitable
copyright,' because courts of equity might enforce it by in-
junction even where the statutory conditions prescribed by
the Copyright Act are not complied with., Newspapers
are not, indeed, in the habit of availing themselves of such
copyright protection, either at law or 'in equity, against
those who pirate their original articles, because the re-
medy is both too slow and too expensive to answer any
practical purpose. What the petitioners pray for is, an
adequate protection against the piratical invasion of their
property by unprincipled adventurers, who, ualess some
more speedy and efficient remedy be given, may seize upon
all the original intelligence of respectable journals on the
moment of its first publication, and, being at no expense
in procuring it, may issue a cheap edition to the public
early enough to injure the sale of the rightful owners of
such literary property, who must, consequently, cease to
go to the expense which they now do to procure the public
early and important intelligence, especially from foreign
countries, or submit to publish at a loss, and to be plun-
dered with impunity."
" What, then, do the petitioners mean by asking an equi-
table copyright protection ? Simply that the copyright
which they now have, but which it would be worse than use-
less to attempt to defend by actions at law or by suits in
equity, may be secured by a stututory provision, capable of
being so speedily enforced as may make it adequate to the
exigency qf the case. For this purpose the remedy against
the piracy of the contents of a morning paper should be a
penalty, to be enforced by conviction before a ma-
gistrate, and should cover such a portion of the day as
would make it an efficient protection against all other jour-
nals published /Jr:Pre the usual time of the evening papers.
This is the protection which the petitioners pray for, and to
which, in reason and justice, they are entitled."

Again, we repeat, we claim only justice and no favour
from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But we trust
he will not abstain from doing us justice, lest inte-
rested persons should impute to him partiality to
those who support his political principles.—Morning
Chronicle.

The public is alreadyaware than an immense change
is contemplated in the Stamp Duties of the kingdom.
The word " change," as applied to a tax or impost by
the Finance Minister, we fear can only be considered
as synonymous with increase. The purpose, however,
of this separate article is not to touch upon the subject