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 convic t ed f o r 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. LAWS OF TRINIDAD. Mr. MARA YATT rose to make his promised motion with re spect to the udininistrilti(ri of josiice in the Island of Traiittid. The Hon. Gel&em:in stated, skit in consequence of the Spanish and Briti h codes being pursued at the same time the grossest abuses prevailed, and the most inconsistent decrees were passed. By the Spanish law, no delinquent could Le punished unless he confessed his offence, and the justice of his se.• tense; whilst by the English system, the Judge had n power of enfoichig any such confession, and so it was :n vain to try wbtre it was impossible to punish. Mr. Marryatt then cited several acts of oppression arising from the impropriety of practising two sys.ems totaliy opposite to eacli other, and concluded by moving— '. That it 4 expedient for the interests of his Majesty's sub jects in Trinidad, that the Spanish laws should be discontinued, and the British laws established in their stead, in that col,ny." Mr. flat; uctiAm opposed the motion, and said the English laws were not at all adapted to the Island Trinidad. Mr. STEPHEN said the present motion originated in a conspi racy of the Whices on the island, who were only 500 in number, bat who wished to trample on the Black population of the island, and deprive them of those llbertio and advantages they now enjoyed. IVlr. Wtt.a Ear °RC?. and others also opposed the motion, whi, h was negatived without a division. EXCHANGE OF PRISONERS. Mr. BRAND moved for Copies of all Communications between the British and Fiench Governments, retative to the Exchange of Prisoners. Mr. YOKKE had no objection to the motion, and trusted it would appear that every thing had been fair and honourable on the part of the English Goveinnient. He believed, that at this moment there were 50,100 cench prisoners in this country ;the British prisoners in France were not more than 10,10; the Spanish prisoners there might be as many as the French prison ers twre : and there we:e also about ‘2,OtX) Port eguese pri,oc‘ris in France. The address was then agreed to.—Adjourned. FRIDAY, JUNE 14. Witnesses and Counsel were heard upon the Cloncurry Di vorce Bill. The Bid was read a second tithe, and ordered to be c' nimitted. The following Bills were read a third time, and passed, viz. the Soldiers' Families' Bill, the Iri •I'rea,itry 1:1, the Voi,e of Credit Bill, the Coniolidated Fund Bill, and 4 > ile American Trade Pill. Mr. VA:•iSITTART brought up the ]Report of thk..'ormitittee to which the Irish finance Accounts were refeireds;.• Ordered to lie on the Table, and be printrd. Mr. WILBERFORCF. noived fur an address to the Prince Re gent, praying that be would give directions for the -Alec of Lapt. Manby's Life. Preservation tiltaighout the Britistivoa , ts, add that the House would make good the eispences dieted. ' Mr. Rost seconded the imition, which atter boMeotservAions from Mr. Bastard and Sir T. Turton, was agreed r o. ME. Rost 'obtained leave to bring in a Bill to providt. better registeting of Burials, Christenings, and Marriage?. SPIRJT SI.IOI'ENSION On the motion of Mr. Perceval the House resumed the con sideration of the Spirit Suspension Bi'l. lie said that it was his intention to obviate borne t)i)jeCtiODS to the Biil, by iutrod .cing a clause on the r...i,ort to i,ut the Irish distillers in esportiug n the same footing as the English, and alto su niake other taunt s. Nir. W. SMITII was sorry diat this menti .n was not inti massickbeforvi and bespoke Ltie attention of ever, , i hoided ItMetA .'