The National Register.
London, England, 1813-05-09 00:00:00

Ao
1.1 4.0

On this indiettuent the defendant was found guilty, and this day
Mr. BROVOIIAM ru Ned the Court for a rule calling upon the prosecu-
tor to shew cause why there should not be a new trial for the defen-
dant. The principal grou.4 upon which he made the applcation was
that of the misdirection of tl►e Judge f,,Sir Simon Le Blanc) in charg-
ing the Jary.
The Learned Gentleman particularly adverted to that part of the
Learned Judge's summing up which assimilated the case of the present
defendant wiih that of the Earl of Abingdon. This, he contended,
Was nut the case, the latter having published that which was not
truly his speech in Parliament ; whereas the publication of the present
delendat►t was the true account of what he had spoken in his place as
a MeniOer of Pa;liaruent, and so tar Ills case was different from that
of 1.-,rd Abingdon's. Ile urged this doctrine at considerable length,
putting it to the Crow, that a Member of Parliament was only liable.
to the punishment or ctnstire of that part of the Legislative body to
sslncli he might happen to belong, for any thing he should say within
side of the Nails of that House, or for any thing which he should say
in promulgating what he had spoken in such House elsewhere, and
arguing that he was not liable to be prosecuted fur such promulgation
in any Court of Criminal Judicature in the realm.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH, after hearing all that had been advanced
in support of the motion, said, that it was quite a different thing fur
a Member of Parliament to exercise the right and freedom of
speech within the walls of Parliament (that was a privilege inherent
in the Constitution), and to abuse that privilege by a breach of the
peace without the walls of Parliament, and every libel was a breach
of the peace. The inty, by their verdict, had decided upon the
fact, declaring the publication to be a libel, and the defendant to
be guilty, and the Court had no donbt .whatsoever of the law of the
case. If any doubt hail remained on his mind as to the law, he
would cheerfully give the defendant the benefit of that doubt, and
let him have his rule, but no doubt existing, it became his duty to
refuse it.
Mr. Justice GROSE signified his entire agreement with the Lord
Chief Justice in those sentiments.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY, in delivering his opinion to the same effects
adverted to all the prominent points in Mr. Brougham's arguments,
and controverted them upon the plainest reasoning, skewing the
dangers that would attend individuals, and indeed Parliament it-
self, if doctrines such as were held to-day upon Parliamentary
privileges were to be tolerated.
Mr. Justice LE BLANC observed, that, as he had tried the cause,
be was desirous of attending to the opinions declared by the Lord
Chief Justice and the other Judges before he spoke his sentiments,
and having now heard what the Learned Gentleman (Mr. Brougham)
Lad submitted to the Court he would say that nothing appeared,
'which in any degree altered his mind on► the subject since the day
of the trial, and what lie had just heard from the other Judge,
tended to confirm him in that opinion, if possible, more, for those
reasons he could not consent to the Rule.
It was therefore reflised by the concurrent opinion of all the
Judges of the Court.
Upon this Mr. Creevey, who was accompanied by Mr. Western,
Immediately withdrew.