Star.
London, England, 1813-04-02 00:00:00

ASSIZES.

LANCASTER, MARCH 29.

THE KING UPON THIS PROSECUTION OF ROBERT MIK-

PATRICK, ESQ. AG A iNst"r. cnecv ay, ESQ, DI. P.

Mr. PARKE, the Aunt ney General for the county,
stated, that this waq a prosecution against Mr. CREE-
VEY, a Member of Parliament, for having published
in the Liverlioil Aiercury, a most scandalous and de-
famatory libel highly injurious to the character of a
Gentleman of the name of Kirkpatrick, filling the im-
portant office of Inspector General of Taxes. He did
not mean to deny the Hon. Member's right to state
what he pleased in the House of Commons ; the ex-
ercise of that privilege, however it might affect the
feelings of individuals, could not be called in ques-
tion, but he contended, that if a Member of the House
of Conimons afterwards sent to the Editor of a news-
paper his own report of his speech, be was answerable
if it contained libellous matter, just the same as for
the publication of a libel of any other description.—
The Learned Counsel then stated that the libel pur-
ported to be the report of the Honourable Member's
speech made upon the occasion of presenting a peti-
tion to the House of Commons against the East In-
dia Company's monopoly. He seemed to have gone
wholly out of his way in order to vilify the prosecu-
tor, for he represented the distresses of the people of
Liverpool as having been aggravated by his appoint-
ment to the office of Inspector General of Taxes.—
He designated the office of Mr. Kirkpatrick as that
of a common informer, and insinuated that he re-
ceived a large annuity for undertaking to screw up
assessments to the extent of his own Imagination.—
The Learned Counsel added, that the libel went on
to insult the memory of the late Mr. Perceval, by
asserting that he had given Mr. Kirkpatrick this ap-
pointment merely in consequence of his having been
his client. The Learned Counsel then referred to
the case of the King v. Lord Abingdon, to shew that
the publication of a libel against an individual was
not to be justified by the circumstance of its being a
report of a speech made in Parliament. He conclu-
ded by expressing his conviction that the verdict would
confirm the doctrine for which he contended.
The publication from Mr. Creevey's manuscript
having been clearly proved,
Mr. BROUGHAM first submitted to his Lordship,
upon the authority of the case of the King v. Wright,
that he was not called upon to address the Jery.—
He insisted generally that a Member of Parliament
could not be held accountable for publish;ng a true
report of what passed in Parliament.
Sir SIMON LE BLANC over.ruled this point.
Mr. BROUGHAM then addressed the Jury. He
said, that Mr. Creevey had been urged by many
Members of both Hotises, justly alarmed at this pro-
secution, to insist upon his privilege ; but the Lear-
ned Judge having decided against him, he should
now proceed to the other ground of his defence. He
then addressed the Jury, in a speech of nearly an hour
and a half. He stated, that it could never for a WO..
ment be fancied that there was Any malice in his
client towards the individual, of whom he knew
nothing but by his surcharges ; that if such procee-
dinns as these succeeded, there would be an end of
all publication of Parliamentary debates ; and then
Parliament would only be known by the taxes they
inflicted ; and that the system of closed doors and
increasing taxes could not long be proceeded in. Was
it to be endured that any portion of the public prints,
under the influence and in the actual pay, suppose of
the Government of the country, was wilfully to mis-
represent the speech of any Member of Parliament,
the substance of which was likely to be offensive or
injurious to the Government—was it to be endured
that such a Member, meaning only, as is proved in
the present case, to correct such misrepresentation,
was to publish such correction in his own defence,
without incurring the risk of fine or a gaol ? It aas
indeed essential to the liberties of all Members of
Parliament, to have this vital question rightly under-',
derstood, to have it proclaimed from the highest au-
thorities in the State, whether it be the law of the
land or the law of Parliament, that any Reporter may
print, as the speech of a Member of Parliament, that
which he did NOT speak, and that Members of Par-
liament alone are tube interdicted by the terrors of fine
and imprisonment nom publishing what they DID say.
He said such prosecutions as these had never, been
carried on before ; that all good Parliamentary men
would have been liable ; that Mr. Burke and Mr.

Windham, particularly the farmer, had published all
their speeches ; that Mr. Burke would have been pro.
aecuted for public libels over and over again, as well
as for private ones. He instanced many of Mr.
Burke's attacks on -individuals, amongst others, one
of a Mx gatherer, in his speech on Reform, and
which speech he published.
Sir SISIoN LE BLANC stated his clear opinion that
' it was no extenuation of a libel to say that it was the
t report of a speech in Parliament—the publication in
•question was one which tended to vilify the prosecu-
tor, who was in the execution of a public trust, and
lie was, therefore, bound to say, it was a libel answer-
' ins the description given of it in the indictment.
° The Jury were of the same opinion, and without a
moment's hesitation pronounced a verdict of Guilty.
Mr. BROUGHAM said he wished to tender a Bill of
Exceptions, but he was informed by the Learned
Judge he could not do so in a cri.ninal prosecution,
and, besides, that he should have tendered it before
he had taken the chance of the verdict being in
.his favour.
SLIFFOL/C.-BURY, MARCH 31.
i
t Wednesday afternoon Sir NASH Goose, Knt. and
Mr. Serjeant MARSHALL (as Assistant Judge, in the
absence of Sir J. MANSFIELD) arrived here, and opened
the Commission for holding these Assizes.
~eina Arnold was capitally convicted of the wilful
murder of her bastard child, a boy between four and
five years old, about the 10th of February last, by de-
liberately taking off his clothes, with the exception of
his shirt, and throwing him into a pond, covered with
rushes, in a field in the parish of Spexhall, whereby
---. body was not discovered till
;-ds, in a putrid state, and
marily providential manner,
in the same field, who ob-
looking stedraftly into the
Ise, which attracted him to
.hought he saw a dead lamb
iterwards be tried to get the
was then floating, when he
%Lich he wife utroithatiOa '