The Sun.
London, England, 1832-07-25 00:00:00

UNSTAMPED PUBLICATIONS.

Mr. HUME, in December last, moved for a return,
stating the number of persons imprisoned for selling un-
stamped publications. From the return made to tha'
order of the Hquse, it appeared that no less than 77 per-
sons had been imprisoned for that offence, which was an
offence under one of the web-known Six Acts. In look-
ing at the sentences inflicted on many of those individual.,
one could not but be struck with the great inequality of tn..
punishments for the same offences. He spoke of the sen-
tences passed by the Magistrates at the Metropolitab
police offices. In one office the offence was visiteo
with an imprisonment of seven days; in another four-
teen days ; in another a month ; in another two month,
and se on in all gradations from seven days to t r.
months. Now such a law could not be a just law,
or properly executed. The law was originally directed

Mr. HUNT said that it would be impossible to put
down publications, by which so many poor persons ob-
tained bread for themselves and their families. Publica-
tions in different parts of the country were misv sup-
ported, not by men only, but by women also, who were
associated in different parts of the country for that pur-
pose. The Hon. Member contended, that the inequdity
of punishment under this law was absurd and utjii,t, and
proved the absurdity and injustice of the Juts- itself.

Lord ALTHORP said, it was a mis.ake that persons
impti:om d under this Act were fed on hreal and water.
No pers4ns imprisoned were placed on that diet, except
such as were coudemned for felonies.

Sir R. IL INGLIS protested against the principle of
making that House a sort of Court of Appeal, from the
decisions of the legally constituted Tribunals of the

country.

Mr. STANLEY said, that his Hon. Friend who last
addressed the House was mistaken in the object of the
motion. It did not go upon a denial of the legality of the
sentences, but called for returns, to see how the law
worked, and what was its practical effect, in the same way
as the returns moved for, some time ago, as to the opera-
tion of the Game Laws, in order to Fee how far they had
tended to correct the evil which they were intended to re-
medy.

Mr. C. FERGUSSON said, it might be a matter wor-
thy of consideration, to see bow far it was possible to
carry the Stamp Law into execution ;—and, if it could
not be executed, he thought that tt would be only justice
to the stamped publications to repeal the Stamp duty on
them altogether.
Mr. CRESSET PELHAM deprecated any measure
which would increase the number of cheap publications.
Mr. HUME, as a proof of the partiality exercised with
respect to unstamped publications, said that the Penny
Magazine, published by the Society for the Diffusion of
Useful Knowledge, had not been prosecuted, though it con-
tained the same kind of matter as some others which had
been made the subject of prosecution.
Lord ALTHORP suggested to his Hon. Friend the
Member for Middlesex, to omit that part of his motion
which called for the names of the magistrates by whom
the decisions were made. The publication of them could
not forward his Hon. Friend's object.
Mr. HUME did not see what objection there could be
to their publication, as they were given in the last returns,
to which no oppcmition bad been made.
Sir P.. INGLIS objected to the publication of the names.
Mr. RUTHVEN contended that they ought to be given.
A conversatio❑ then ensued as to the propriety of omit.
ting the names of the Magistrates, the result of which
was, that Mr. Hume consented to omit the names, pro-
vided the offices at which the decisions were given were
mentioned in the returns.

Lord ALTHORP said that that could apply only in
London. In the country it could not be given.
After some further conversation on this point,
The gallery was cleared for a division, 'out none took
place. The motion, we understood, was agreed to.