The National Register.
London, England, 1811-06-16 00:00:00

TIIE NATIONAL REGISTER.

PUNISHMENT OF LIBELS.
Lord FOLKESTONE called the attention of the House to the
eases of two men lately convicted by the Court of King's Bench
for libels. The first case he should mention was that of Mr.
Drakard, the proprietor of the Stamford. Nevi's, who had been
convicted of a libel for an article which was afterwards copied
by the Editor of the Examiner; who, upon being tried by cri-
minal information for publishing the same article, was acquitted
by a Westminster jury. The sentence pronounced was impri-
sonmeut for 18 months, a-line of 200/. and to find securities for
his good behaviour for three years. He did not think it lie;
cessary to state the article at present; but the way he wished to
put it to the House was this—whether it was not hard that such
a severe punishment should be inflicted on a man for that which
another jury conceived to be no crime. The other case which
he had to call their attention to, was that of John Cullyer, a dyer,
in Maochester. This man had been surcharged before the Com-
missioners of the Income 'lax. He appealed from this surcharge,
which rated his income at 13001. per annum, and swore that it
really amounted only to 1601. The Commissioners, however,
niely thought proper to diminish the surcharge to 250/. 'This cir-
cumstance injured Collyer in two ways Some of his neighhours
gave out that he was in declining circumstances; while oche rs
considered him a perlured man, as his oath had not been be-
lieved by the Commissioners. It, therefore, appeared necessary
to Collyer to clear his character; and for this purpose he called
upon the Editor of a Manchester paper, and stated what he wish-
ed to have represented, and said he would pay for it as an ad-
vertisement. As he was an illiterate man, he could not draw up
a statement himself; and when the Editor offered to do it, he
begged that he might take particular care not to put any thing
libellous, or that might offend the Commissioners, in it. It so
happened that this article was afterwards copied in a London
parer; and the Editor of it, Mr. Lovel, being convicted for that
libel, was sentenced to twelve months imprisonment for it. The
Manchester Editor was forgiven upon giving up the author ; and
this illiterate man, who had merely signed his name under the
eircumstanees stated, was prosecuted to conviction, brought up
for judgment, and sentenced to•twelve months imprisonment.
This did appear to hiM to be a most extreme measure of punish-
ment for such an offence. If this sentence was compared with
many convictions at the Old Bailey, it would be found that there
two or three months imprisonment was considered an adequate
punishment fur crimes of much greater enormity. His Lord-
ship here read the whole of the letter so pronounced a libel, of
which he conceived the only passage that could be considered
ata,roaching to a libel was, when talking of the hardship of the
- income tax itself, it added, C. How doubly oppressive must it be
in the hands of Commissioners who seem to take a pleasure in
taking from the burdened and almost broken-down manufac-
turer more than he could spare." This was the whole of what
could be stated to be a libel ; and the Commissioners of the in-
come tax did not themselves wish to prosecute him for it, but
informed him that they would very gladly get him out of the
scrape if they could, but that the business had got into the hands
of Government and the Attorney-General. Notwithstanding
all those circumstances, he was brought tip for judgment, and
sentenced to imprisonment fur twelve months. After sonic
farther observations, he concluded by moving " for Copies of
the Information in ie cases of Mr. John Drakard :and Mr. John
Collyer."
The AsraroßN ET-G ista Fit X L confessed his ignorance of the mo-
tion forwarded by the Noble Lord, but he would give him as
faithful a detail of his oainions concerning it from the evidence
of facts, as want of reference would allow him. The Noble
Lord seemed to insinuate that after the acquittal of the Hunts,
that Drakard might not have been prosecuted, or at must nut
punished. But did the Noble Lord reflect, that the article for
which the Hunts were prosecuted was a copy of that published
by Drakard, with many of the gros-ly offensive parts expunged.
The Noble Lord iusinuated too, that he (the Attorney-General)
bad a pleasure in the conviction of Dralcard. Had the Noble
Lord attended at the time when the supposed expression was
used, h: would have found he possesArd not that bitterness of
speech. He did not deem that Le would hate acted safely to
have dropped the prosecution against Drakard, nor could he be-
lieve that any charge could he sustained against the Court for
their sentence on the libel. On the case of Collyer there wera
libelled the Honourable Commissioners of his Majesty's Go-
vernment? and where would he found persons gratuitously to
act his Commissioners, unless they were suppoited by his Ma-
jesty's Government? He uever to.k such pains with any case
as he did of unraveilin t that of Collyer's,to find whether he had
any cause for complaint or not. One would deem from slight
examination that both the appeal and oath applied to the assess-
ruent. The appeal belonged to an assessment many years back,
and at that time there was no foundation for complaint. It was
entirely with the consent and under the approval of the Com-
missioners that he tiled the information. He cad not approve of
the manner in which the Commissioners had acted x i taiiing :he

responsibility of the libel from the heads of the :tinter and pub-
lisher on their unfolding the author. He totally di-uVeed with
that mode, and thought those who disseminated the offensive
paper to be more answerable than those who framed it. It was
then on the application of the Commissioners that Co;lyer was
prosecuted. "I he libel wa4 read to Collyer, signed by him, p.111)-
lislicd according to his wish, and in another paper he paid lirteen
shillings to have it mor: widely disseminated. These circum-
stances bore weight with the Court, and saved any obloquy from
being cast on the Commissioner,. The words of the libel were
so obviously offensive, that no Court of Law hesitate in
the dt:cision..
Al; er a debate, in which several N'Finbcrs joined, the Motion
was negutived without a division.—A..ijourntd.

THURSDAY, JUt:E 13.
COL Sr:IN LTY brought up the Rcputt of' the Committee on the
Petition of the Lancashire Manufacturers, in Nvilich the Com-
mittee declared their opinion, that no intcrfercnce of the Lcgk-
!attire, nor any grant of pecuniary aid, coul.i alleviate the dis-
tresses complained of. Ordered :ur consideration Wtdncs-
day next.