The Sun.
London, England, 1834-10-07 00:00:00

( Abridged from the Birmingham Journal of Saturday.)
(Before R. SPOONER and F. LLOYD, Esqrs.
UNSTAMPED NEWSPAPERS.---Messrs. Guest, Jenkinson,
Watts, and Davis, newsvenders, who had been convicted
last month for selling the Weekly Police Gazett, The Man,
and other unstamped newspapers, were brought up for
judgment. They had been allowed time to pay the pe-
nalties, but they did not do so, and Mr. Spurrier, solicitor
for the prosecution, now applied for their committal.
The first of the defendants called upon was Mr. James
Guest ; and, the convictions having been read over,
Mr. SPOONER asked him if he was prepared to pay the
penalties ?to which he replied that he was not. He then
asked him if he wished to say anything as to why he should
not be committed for the offence.
Mr. Guest replied that he wished to say a few words,
and then spoke to the following effect :—He considered he
had committed no crime, and he deserved no punishment ;
neither was he prepared to say he would not continue to sell
the papers in question. When first brought before the ma-
gistrates he refused promising to discontinue the sale, because
he did not intend doing so, and had he promised to do so he
would only have been guilty of deception. Lord Brougham
was now going about the country telling the people that the
duty was to be taken off, and at the same time he (Mr. Guest)
was being prosecuted. The day, however, would come
when the people would have cheap knowledge ; and if they
thought that by carrying on such prosecutions, they could
stop the circulation of cheap papers, they would find them-
selves mistaken. The sale of these papers had already
risen one-third in Birmingham since these prosecutions were
commenced, and it would continue to increase, for it had
done so in every place where the vendors had been prose-
cuted. Several of the unstamped papers only sold at their
commencement 20,000 a week, but since the prosecutions
they increased to 80,000. Through the medium of Sun-
day and other schools, the people could now read, and they
must have reading, and cheap, for they could not buy
dear reading. As the informer against him had said that
he laid the information from pure principle, so he (Mr.
Guest) could say he sold the papers from the same prin-
ciple, and should continue to do so.
Mr. Spurrier said this was a curious mode of applying
to a court for mitigation of punishment. He sought to
have the least punishment which the Magistrates could
inflict, and at the same time said he was determined to
repeat the offence.
Mr. SPOONER said the duty of the Magistrates was only
to administer the laws, without objecting to the motives
which led to their enactment, neither could they decide
in anticipation of changes in them. In this case he con-
sidered the defendant had committed a crime ; and although
his conduct had not been such as to deserve a mitigation,
yet the Magistrates should not be influenced in their de-
cision by his indiscretion. The decision of the Court was
that he be imprisoned in the county gaol for six weeks for
the first offence, and one week for every other, making in
the whole ten weeks.
Mr. Jenkieson next appeared before the Magistrates and
said he had given up the trade altogether. It had been re-
ported that for so doing he had been paid by the Govern-
ment. He took that opportunity of saying it was untrue.
Mr. SPOONER said he did not believe it. It was not
true. He then asked him if he was prepared to pay the
money. Mr. Jenkinson replied that he was not. Mr.
SPOONER said he was sorry he could not pay it. His con-
duct had been different from others, and he did not wish if
possible to inflict a penalty. Mr. Jenkinson said he could
not pay, and he was ordered to be confined for one week.
Mr. Faulkner was then called upon. He said it should
be borne in mind that the parties who passed the Act were
the nominees of a Tory aristocracy, who had no feelings or
sympathy with the people—that it was enacted to hide
from public gaze their ruinous system of policy, the baneful
effects of which were now being felt by all classes. And
who, he would ask, had now instituted these prosecutions ?
Why the men who had made the noblest stand against
the passing of the law—men who declared that the li-
berty of England would be at an end the moment such a
law was put into operation. Amongst the foremost of
those was Lord Brougham. He it was who opposed it
before the aristocratic mantle in which he was now en-
veloped hed suppressed the ebullitions of a noble mind.
Lords Grey, Lansdown, Althorp, Denman, and Mr. Thomp-
son were also of the number who ..opposed the Act but
now enforced it. Now, as to its effects upon society, for
that after all was the great question, he would ask, was it
not education which had placed England one of the foremost
in the ranks of civilization ? Ignorance was the greatest
enemy to an enlightened government, for it was impossible
that any government could carry any measure of utility if
the people were ignorant ; for there was a party, a power-
ful party, who lived and moved and had their being on the
present state of things. The speeches of the Lord Chan-
cellor lately delivered in Scotland, and the articles in the
Penny Magazine, clearly proved that the repeal of those
taxes on knowledge was at hand. It was certain, unless
Lord Brougham intended to go down to posterity covered
with infamy and disgrace. If such was the case, why these
prosecutions ? Why should that be a crime to-day which
would be legal to-morrow? Even in Castlereagh's Go-
vernment, when Mr. Edmonds was fined 601. for making
an imitation of coffee, he had his money refunded to him
when the Act was repealed. In this case he appealed with
confidence to the decision of Mr. Spooner, who had always
been the professed advocate of liberal opinions, the patron
of Mechanics' Institutions, and the ardent friend of universal
education. It appeared from the return of the Stamp-office
that 100,000 unstamped papers have been issued in a month,
and those trials'would increase them 25,000, and whatever
may be the issue of this day's proceedings, I have no doubt
but that a discerning public will appreciate the motives
which have induced me to pursue this line of conduct.
The defendant was then sentenced to nine week's im-
prisonment, Mr. Spooner observing that the Magistrates
(lid not, by this lenity in these cases, bind themselves (in
case of an increase of the sale, and a determination to per-
sist in the trade) not to inflict the full penalty. If it turned
out as the defendant anticipated, the law must be fully en-
forced.
William Guest was then sentenced to six weeks, Watts
for seven weeks.
In the case of Davis, Mr. Spurrier said he would not call
upon the Magistrates to commit him, he having declined
the sale.
Mr. FRANCIS LLOYD said before the defendants left the
office to be removed to prison for the several terms of their
confinement, he wished to express his disapprobation upon
the defence that had been made. They had appealed to
his brother Magistrate and himself to adjudicate, not upon
the Act of Parliament, but upon the reported expressions
of a Member of the Cabinet respecting the policy of news-
paper stamp duties. To suppose that magistrates paid any
attention to such observations (supposing them to be made)
was the height of absurdity. The speeches of the Lord
Chancellor in Scotland, upon which the defendants laid so
much stress could not, nor should not, influence him. The
Minister of to-day might not be the Minister of the open-
ing of next session of Parliament ; a Minister's opinion,
therefore, went for nothing ; if it did, the agitation of a point
of law by any Member of Parliament might keep the laws
in abeyance, and consequently incapacitate Magistrates from
dispensing them. If such was to be the construction of the
laws, no men could be placed in a more painful position than
Magistrates. In the present prosecutions they had miti-
gated the penalties to the lowest amount, consistently with
their duty. It was a very painful duty, but they had but
one course open to them, the defendants were therefore
perfectly mistaken in supposing they could act differently.