ed victory. Remember the Swiss and the Netherlands !

(Signed) FREDERICK WILLIAM. Breslau, March 17, 1813.

The Correspondent contains addresses from the Russian General Baron Tittenborn to the inhabitants of the left bank of the river Elbe, and to the inhabitants of the city of Lubeck, exhorting them to take up arms in this sacred war, telling them they know the fate of the Grand French Army, which has been entirely destroyed on the plains of Russia, and assuring them that powerful armies are hastening to their support. There is also a notification signed by the same Baron (Tittenborn), for the meeting of a volunteer corps in Hamburgh, which is to bear the name of the Hanseatic Legion, and forin a part of the Army of the North of Germany.

Berlin, March 18.-By his Majesty's special direction the undersigned Commission has published the following order of the day, relative to Gen. Von York:

Berlin, March 13.-The 11th of March was the day appointed for the public entry of his Excellency Count Wittgenstein. The procession began about ten in the morning. His Royal Highness Prince Henry of Prussia rode by the side of his Excellency the General of Cavalry, Count Wittgenstein, attended by a great number of Russian and Prussian guards, a regiment of dragoons, two regiments of infantry, and several batteries of artillery, of twelve pieces each: in the whole 48 pieces of artillery, with 96 powder waggons, martial music playing the whole time, and the spectators waving their hats and handkerchiefs, with a conti"After having been fully convinced of nual huzza! in honour of the Emperor the justification of Gen. Von York, relative Alexander, which was answered by the to the convention concluded with the RusRussians, with shouts of "Long live Fre- sian Gen. Debitsch, and by the judgment "derick William."In the afternoon of the Commission appointed to inquire Prince Henry of Prussia gave a dinner to into this transaction, consisting of Lieut. Prince Wittgenstein, Prince Repnin, Gene- Von Diezicke, and Major-Generals Von ral and Military Governor of this capital, Scholer and Von Sanitz, that General Von and a great number of other Russian guards York was entirely free from blame, with and officers. His Excellency afterwards respect to that convention, which was occawent to the Opera, and at night the whole sioned by the delayed march of the tenth city was voluntarily illuminated. The corps d'armee from its position before Riga, next day his Excellency caused the follow-by the total dispersion of that corps, and ing acknowledgment to be inserted in the public Gazettes of this city:

"By the enthusiasm with which the inhabitants of Berlin have received the Imperial Russian troops; by the affection and high respect which they have on this occasion expressed for his Majesty the Emperor my Master; by the esteem and gratitude with which they have treated the troops, whom they consider as their deliverers from an insupportable yoke, I feel myself required to express the warmest thankfulness in the name of my Sovereign, to the inhabitants of the capital of the Prussian Monarchy, for these sentiments; I shall not fail to state them to his Majesty the Emperor, and I doubt not that they will make the same impression upon him as they have made upon myself.

by the advantageous conditions offered him
by the Convention, I hereby make known
the same to the army, with the addition,
that I not only confirm General Von York
in the command of the corps intrusted to
him, but also in proof of my satisfaction
and perfect confidence in him, have given
to him the chief command of the troops
under Major Von Bulow.
Breslau, March 11.

FRED. WILLIAM. Berlin, March 16.-Royal High Commission of Government,

Gotz,
KIRCHEISEU, and
SHUEKMANN.

Proclamation of the Saxon Commissioners. The Commission of Government appoint"Count WITTGENSTEIN, General of ed by his Majesty the King of Saxony to re

Cavalry."

(To be continued.)

Published by R. BAGSHAW, Brydges-Street, Covent-Garden.
LONDON: Printed by J. M'Creery, Black Horse-Court, Fieet-street.

VOL. XXIII. No. 19.] LONDON, SATURDAY, MAY 8, 1813.

673]

[Price 1s.

[674

"a large annuity for undertaking to screw SUMMARY OF POLITICS. 66 up persons' assessments to the extent of MR. CREEVEY'S CASE.—This is a case his own imagination. The learned Counof considerable interest, and, indeed, of" sel added, that the libel went on to insult great public importance. The charge" the memory of the late Mr. Perceval, by against this gentleman was that of Libel on" asserting, that he had given Mr. Kirka Mr. KIRKPATRICK, an inspector of Taxes" patrick this appointment, merely in conat Liverpool, or in that neighbourhood." sequence of his having been his client. -This man prosecuted Mr. Creevey by "The learned Counsel then referred to the criminal process, and, by a Special Jury; case of the King against Lord Abingdon, the latter was found guilty at the last as- "to shew that the publication of a libel sizes at Lancaster.- I shall first insert" against an individual was not to be justithe report of the Trial, as I find it in the "fied by the circumstance of its being a news-papers; and, having done that, I" report of a speech made in Parliament. shall offer to my readers a few remarks on "He concluded by expressing his convicthe subject." Mr. PARK, the Attorney" tion, that the verdict would confirm the "General for the county, stated, that this "doctrine for which he contended.— "was a prosecution against Mr. Creevey," The publication from Mr. Creevey's "a Member of Parliament, for having" manuscript having been clearly proved, "published in the Liverpool Mercury, a "Mr. BROUGHAM first submitted to his "most scandalous and defamatory libel," Lordship, upon the authority of the case "highly injurious to the character of a "of the King v. Wright, that he was not "Gentleman of the name of Kirkpatrick," called upon to address the Jury. He in"filling the important office of Inspector "sisted generally that a Member of Parlia "General of Taxes. He did not mean to "ment could not be held accountable for "deny the Hon. Member's right to state "publishing a true report of what passed "what he pleased in the House of Com-" in Parliament.- The Judge over ruled "mons-the exercise of that privilege," this point, and the learned Gentleman "however it might affect the feelings of in- " then addressed the Jury. He said, that "dividuals, could not be called in question; "Mr. Creevey had been urged by many "but he contended, that if a Member of" Members of both Houses, justly alarm"the House of Commons afterwards sent "ed at this prosecution, to insist upon his "to the editor of a news-paper his own "privilege, but the learned Judge having report of his speech, he was answerable" decided against him, he should now pro"if it contained libellous matter just the "ceed to the other ground of his defence. "same as for the publication of a libel of" He then in a very eloquent and ingenious ་ any other description. The learned speech contended, that there was nothing "Counsel then stated, that the libel pur- "libellous in the publication-that matters 66 ported to be the report of the Honourable" reflecting in a much higher degree upon "Member's speech made upon the occasion" the characters of individuals, had been "of presenting a petition to the House of" published as the speeches of Mr. Burke, "Commons against the East India Com-" Mr. Pitt, Mr. Windham, and other emi"pany's monopoly. He seemed to have" nent parliamentary characters. He in66 gone wholly out of his way in order to "ferred the injurious operation of imposvilify the prosecutor, for he representeding any restrant upon the publication of "the distresses of the people of Liverpool" reports of what passed in Parliament, "as having been aggravated by his ap-" and on this ground priucipally trusted "pointment to the office of Inspector Ge-his client would be acquitted. SIR "neral of Taxes-he designated the office" SIMON LE BLANC stated is clear opinion "of Mr. Kirkpatrick as that of a common "that it was no extenuation of a libel to "informer, and insinuated that he received" say that it was the report of a speech in

66

Y

"Parliament. The publication in ques-cedent whereon to plead an exemption.
"tion was one which tended to vilify the
"prosecutor, who was in the execution of
a public trust; and he was therefore
"bound to say, it was a libel answering
"the description given of it in the indict-
"merit.The Jury were of the same
"opinion, and without a moment's hesita-
"tion, 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 criminal prosecution; and
besides that, he should have tendered it
before he had taken the chance of the
verdict being in his favour."Now,
whether there was any thing really libel-
dous in the publication, is a question which
I shall not undertake to determine. Indeed
I never read the Speech, that I know of, as
it stood in the parliamentary Report, and
certainly I never read the publication in
question. The point, therefore, whether
the publication was, or was not, libellous,
I shall leave wholly untouched; and shall
meddle only with the doctrine, which is set
up in this particular case,Mr. CREEVEY
having made a speech in parliament respect-
ing this Kirkpatrick, who, it seems, was
formerly an Attorney, and who was made
by Perceval an Inspector General of Taxes,
he afterwards caused that speech to be put
into print, and to be published in the Li-
verpool Mercury.Here, said Kirkpa-
trick, I have him! Here he is upon a
level with other writers and other publish-
ers; and, accordingly, he commenced that
criminal prosecution, the result of which
we have seen above.It is, we observe,
contended, that Mr. CREEVEY was exempt-
ed from the ordinary operation of the law,
his publication being no more than a cor-
rect account of what he said in the House of
Commons; and Mr. Brougham pleads the
privilege of his client, upon the ground of
the decision of the Court of King's Bench
in the case of Wright. But, with submis-
sion, this was not a case at all in point.
Wright was prosecuted for publishing a re-
port, not of a speech, but of a Committee.
It was an official document; it was a paper
put on record. It contained matter very
injurious to the character, and might tend
to endanger even the life of the party com-
plaining. It was a document which ought
not to have been published; and, in my
opinion, such publications may be amongst
the most cruel of libels. But, be this as it
may, the case was very different indeed
from the case before us, and afforded no pre-

In an article, which I have seen in the
Statesman, it is argued, that, according to
the Bill of Rights, no member is to be
called to account out of the House for what
he says in the House; and, it being admit-
ted, that Mr. Creevey published no more
than he said, the conclusion is, that the Bill
of Rights protects him in the publishing as
well as in the speaking.- -But, surely,
this cannot be seriously held! The Bill of
Rights refers only to what passes in the
House itself, and has by no means in con-
templation the publishing of what passes,
either by the members themselves, or by
any body else.Indeed, it is perfectly
notorious, that the publishing of the reports
of debates at all is in violation of the Orders
of the House. People do it; but they
may be punished for it; the act is a breach
of privilege; and, to suppose, that the
members can with impunity violate the pri-
vilege of their own House would be strange
indeed.If the editor of the Liverpool
Mercury, or I, or any other proprietor, or
editor, of a news-paper, had printed the
speech of Mr. Creevey, we, of course,
should have been punishable as libellers;
supposing the speech to be libellous; be-
cause, if we had said that it was not a thing
of our making, but a speech uttered in par-
liament, that would have been alleged as an
addition to our offence, seeing that to pub-
lish any such speech is what is called a
breach of privilege. And, why is a mem-
ber to be permitted to publish his own
speech? What reason is there for it? In
this particular case, indeed, it is said, that
Mr. Creevey published his real speech, in
order to correct the errors which had gone
forth in the report which others had pub-
lished of that speech. But, we must bear
in mind, that the doctrine applies to all
speeches made in parliament; and, if once
adopted, might be brought to hear upon
any occasion whatever. The truth is,
that what is here contended for is, a privi-
lege in a member of parliament to publish,
with impunity, just what he pleases against
any individual in the world; for, his privi-
lege, in the first place, protects him while
he is saying what he pleases, and then, at
any time afterwards, comes this new privi-
lege of publishing all that he has ever said
in the way of speech, though, at the time
of the publication, he may be, as Mr.
Creevey was, out of parliament.Can
the Bill of Rights have had such a terrible
privilege as this in contemplation? If so,
it was, indeed, most aptly denominated a

Bill of Wrongs.

A

seems to me to be quite untenable. member of parliament is, as far as relates to his speech in the House, protected by the Bill of Rights; but, if he steps out of it, and, in the character of author, printer, publisher, or proprietor, repeats what he has said in his speech, he puts himself upon a level, in the eye of the law, with all other persons in those capacities. If I, for instance, were a member of parliament (and the thing would be less wonderful than many that we see); if I were a member of parliament, would Mr. Brougham say, that I should have a right to publish in my Register of the Saturday any attacks upon the Judges, or upon any body else, that I might choose to make in speeches during the week? I could, I dare say, if I had my full swing, lay it on pretty thick; and will Mr. Brougham seriously contend, that my privilege as a member would protect me as author and proprietor of a newspaper? If so, what would there be to serve as a fence to that amiable conjunction called Church and State? All that Mr. PAINE has said in his Age of Reason; all that VOLTAIRE had said with more ability before him; all this might appear in print,

The reader will bear in mind, that we are speaking of the doctrine in its general operation, and not endeavouring to show the evil of having used the press upon this particular occasion.It has been thought, and often said, that the liberty which members of parliament have to say whatever they please, in their places, of any body, is only to be tolerated on account of the good which, in other respects, results from that liberty; for, it does seem somewhat hard, that a man should be attacked, that he should have all sorts of evil said of him, that he should be falsely accused of all sorts of crimes, that he should be wholly without any remedy, and that his assailant should have the power to punish him as a breaker of privilege, if he dares, in print, to attempt to repel the assault. Suppose, for instance, a member for some borough, seated in virtue of wellknown means, and having strong revenge to gratify against me, were to assert, in a speech in his place, that I was a thief; that he knew me to be a thief; that I stole from him a bag of money only six months ago. -I could not punish him for this; I could not call him to legal account for it; and, if I were even to publish a contradic-in defiance of the Attorney General, and tion of his assertion, he and the House might, if they chose, send me to jail for a breach of their privileges. Thus, I think, this privilege of a member has a pretty good latitude without stretching it any farther; but, if it be extended to the use of the press; if the man, who has falsely accused me of theft in his speech, had also the privilege, at any future time, and as often as he pleased, to write, and print, and publish the same falsehood, merely because it had once been uttered by him in the way of speech; if this extension were to take place, what a scourge must the Houses of Parliament soon become: There would be in the kingdom nearly a -If a member of parliament be not himthousand licensed libellers. Aye, several self the proprietor of a news-paper, it is thousands, for this doctrine would screen easy enough for him, if he be rich, to hire every one who had ever been a member, if columns for whatever he has a mind to say; he confined himself to the publication of and then, if Mr. Brougham's doctrine be what he had ever uttered in the House. sound, arises this curious absurdity, that, No man's, no woman's character would while the printer and proprietor of the be safe. A peer or a member of the other paper would be liable to punishment for House, in order to gratify his own hatred, giving currency to a member's libels, he or that of any relation, of a wife, or of a himself, as writer, would not be liable to mistress, might assail, in the most unequi- punishment.Then take this case and vocal terms, the character of any person, view it along with that before supposed, or any family, and that, too, through the and you see, that a man is liable to be puchannel of the press; a privilege too terri-nished for publishing a speech in one paper, ble to be thought of without horror.The objection, therefore, of Mr. Brougham,

our poor Old Mother, the Church, would be left to the arguments and proofs of the Clergy, wholly unassisted by the arm of the law; for, if I were so disposed, I could, and so could any man, contrive to work all the anti-christian notions, all the ridicule which has been thrown on the Christian faith; all this I could easily contrive to work into a couple or three speeches during the progress of the Curate's Bill, or, indeed, almost any other Bill, if I had not a mind to make a motion for the express purpose. And, is Mr. Brougham prepared to say, as a lawyer, that I should afterwards be protected in the publishing of such ridicule?

while he who published it in another paper would not be liable to be punished.A

"Revolution.

66

66

member might be printer as well as pro- French has discovered itself.At this prietor of a paper. There the publication Meeting the Duke of Sussex was, it seems, would not be punishable; while, in the in the Chair, and, before I make any repaper of his next door neighbour, it might marks on it, I shall insert the most mate send three or four people to perish in the rial part of the speech of His Royal High stench of a jail.- Besides, as if the ab-ness upon the occasion.-It was as follows: surdities of the doctrine were without end, "For eighteen years I have, with much who is to prove that the printed speech is" attention, marked the effects of the French the same as the speech uttered in parliaI have, reasoning from ment? The libellous quality of any pub-" analogy, anticipated still more fatal ef"fects than those which had already taken lication is generally to be found in certain particular expressions; and who, I say, is place, every day's experience shewing to prove upon oath, that the speech pub-" that my views were not fallacious; and lished is precisely the same as the speech" I have even maintained, that if the viospoken; and, without such proof, what" lent and wide spreading plague by which we were assailed were not resisted with would even the privilege contended for avail the defendant?But, I abhor the "proportionate violence, universal destrucidea of such a privilege, which, as I have," tion must be the inevitable result.— I think, clearly shown, would give to ma- "(Applause.)-We are not indeed met ny hundreds of persons the right of libel- to sit in judgment on past events, but a "reference to them does not seem out of ling whomsoever they pleased; the right of defaming; the right of blasting the re- place, as tending to draw the attention putation of; the right of totally ruining all to that great teacher, which may impel 66 us to counsels calculated to promote a those against whom they might entertain a spite. -No, Mr. Brougham, peers and "successful termination of that great con"test in which we have been so long enthe worthy gentlemen who represent boroughs have, in my humble idea of the "gaged, in which we are still unfortumatter, quite privileges enough already."nately engaged, but from which we have I do not wish to see those privileges ex-" now beller prospect than ever of extricattended. They can now speak what they" ing ourselves with advantage and honour. please of any body with impunity, and if “ —(Applauses.)-Perhaps nothing can they could also write and publish what they be more mortifying than a contrast of pleased with the like impunity, who but "what Germany was at the commencethemselves could bear to exist in the coun- "ment of the French Revolution, and try.- Before I conclude, I must again "what she has since been. At the former observe, that I meddle not with the merits" period mighty in arms, and elate in of this case; and, I cannot refrain from "hope, she menaced that power which has adding an expression of my firm belief, since overrun her soil, and enslaved her that Mr. CREEVEY is amongst the last of "sons-Austria and Prussia, and all her those, whom I should be afraid to trust "other powerful States, in combination with the privilege contended for by his for the avowed purpose of quelling the advocate; seeing that he is a man remark-" insolence of French democracy: nothing able for candour and manliness. But, he was contemplated but the complete discannot have the privilege without its being "memberment or annihilation of that possessed by others. It is a privilege"nation. Since then, but I forbear to which no man ought to possess. Indeed, the idea of such a privilege in any man is an insult to common sense.

enter minutely into the afflicting detail, "suffice it to say, that by a singular revo"lution of human affairs, Germany has "fallen beneath the yoke of that Power, "whose squadrons had passed her best "protected lines, at the approach of whose squadrons her capital had trembled; "since that calamitous period, no opportunity has been hitherto afforded her of shaking off the degrading yoke, and regaining that character of high renown, which I am proud to say, has always "been the attribute of the German nation. "At length the opportunity has occurred, "thanks to the exertions by which the

"GERMAN PATRIOTS.". These two words joined together naturally excite some degree of curiosity, and the proceedings" now on foot under this title are, in their way, the most curious of the kind.- -A Meeting has, it seems, taken place, in London, for the purpose of raising money" by subscription for the aid and support of" the "German Patriots;" that is to say, the people in those parts of Germany, where an inclination to resist and drive out the