.568 



ANNUAL REGISTER, 1813. 



mere vicinity to Sweden does not 1 



■confer a territorial right which 

 other circumstances concur to de- 

 prive it of, any more than the 

 occupation of Gibraltar by the 

 British confers on it similar rights 

 with regard to the Spanish territory. 

 The learned judge was therefore 

 of opinion, that the claim failed 

 in both its essential points, and 

 condemned the vessels ; but with 

 respect to the private adventures 

 on board, he observed, it rested 

 entirely with the crown, as the 

 order in council imposing the 

 embargo limits the extent of each 

 adventure to 200/. This question, 

 therefore, stands over to the next 

 court-day. 



Lancaster Assizes. — Before sir 

 Simon le Blanc and a special jury. 

 — TlieKing, upon the p7-osecufion of 

 Robert Kirkpatrick, esq. against 

 Thomas Creevey, esq. M. P. — 

 Mr. Park, the attorney-general 

 for the county, stated, that this 

 was a prosecution against Mr. 

 Creevey, a member of parliament, 

 for liavinar oublished in the Liver- 

 pool Mercury a most scandalous 

 and defamatory libel, highly in- 

 jurious to the character of a gen- 

 tleman of the name of Kirkpatrick, 

 filling the important office of in- 

 spector general of taxes. He did 

 not mean to deny the hon. mem- 

 ber's right to state what he pleased 

 in the House of Commons — the 

 exercise of that privilege, however 

 it might affect the feelings of indi- 

 viduals, could not be called in 

 question — but he contended, that 

 if a member of the House of Com- 

 mons afterwards sent to the editor 

 of a newspaper his own report of 

 his speech, he was answerable if it 

 contained libellous matter just the 

 same as of the publication of a 



ibel of any otherdescription. The 

 learned counsel then stated, that 

 the libel purported to be the re- 

 port of the hon. member's speech, 

 made upon the occasion of present- 

 ing a petition to the House of 

 Commons against the East India 

 Company's monopoly. He seemed 

 to have gone wholly out of his 

 way, in order to vilify the prose- 

 cutor, for he represented the dis- 

 tresses of the people of Liverpool 

 as having been aggravated by his 

 appointment to the office of in- 

 spector-general of taxes. He de- 

 signated the office of Mr. Kirk- 

 patrick as that of a common in- 

 former, and insinuated, that he re- 

 ceived a large annuity for under- 

 taking to screw up persons' assess- 

 ments 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, b}' asserting that he had 

 given Mr. Kirkpatrick this ap- 

 pointment, merely in consequence 

 of having been his client. The 

 learned counsel then referred to 

 the case of the King v. lord 

 Abingdon, to shew that the pub- 

 lication of a libel against an indi- 

 vidual was not to be justified by 

 the circumstance of its being the 

 report of a speech made in parlia- 

 ment. He concluded by express- 

 ing his conviction that the verdict 

 would confirm the doctrine for 

 which he contended. 



The publication from Mr, Cree- 

 vey 's manuscript having been clear- 

 ly 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 ad- 

 dress the jury. He insisted, ge- 

 nerally, that a member of parlia- 

 ment could not be held account- 



