Star. — London, England, 1822-07-10 00:00:00

~r sieges of this public invenehment are untreated for ward with equal earprestuess anl n zt r wy, I. must he allowed to doubt, wbetber the. hi Vilich the accusation has been ceinineneed, hit been regulated by a due regard to the ends of substantial jisitice.—/ Temain, Sir, your obedient servarst, Joint Max. Edinburgh, 77, Queta-street, July 1. left . Jam; PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS. HOUSE OP WEDS, JULY It Mr. Masbx, from the Directors of the Eat 114dia 0 3111111 , 1, presented an Account of the Salaries, Pensions, and Simacau.. motions ratted during the present months.—L a i4 on th e (able. Mr. Hue...ilium, and others brought up frotn'the Ctintenons the Cork and Skibbereeti Road Bill. which was readstro time. The Westmoreland County Rates Bill, and the Satin Notes En, were read a second time. The Five per Cent Contracts Bill wu read a third time and `pused.—Adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Th e Report of the Loan and Pension Bill wal brottglit up and leveed to, and the Bill oniered for a third reading to-Morrow. In answer to a question from Mr. Hoorn, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he did not e xpect *so sell any of the Annuities' Stock created by the Pension 13111 before January nest. The Report of the Five per Cents. Bill was brought up turd agr , :rl to, and ordered to be read a third time to-morrow. The Dually of Cornwall Bill went through a Committee. The Report was received forthwith, and ordered to be taken into further consideration on Monday. •The Irish Distress Bill was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time' to-morrow. The Excise Licehses Regulation Bill was read a third time, and passed. The scotch Spirits ExpOrtation Bill went through a Com mittee. The Chairman reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again on Friday. Mr. BENNET brought up the Report of the Committee for Members returned to that House holding places under Govern artent.—Ordered to be printed. RECEIVERS-GENERAL. The Receivers-General BID went through a Committee. Mr. HUME moved as amendments to certain clauses, that the Treasury be empowered and authorised to grant allowances to Receivers-General, at not less than £3lO, nor more than ' 4 600 .; that Receivers-General be restricted frbm acting by de puty except in cases of Illness, or other sufficient temporary causes, that the latter part of ie first clause be omitted, pro- . viding a fund for defraying the expense of the Receivers-Gene ral ; and that the collections be made in the same way as the" collections of the Excise. In his opinion, Receivers-General rni.;ht be dispensed with altogether in favour of Collectors simi lar to those of the Excise. Mr. LUSH I N6TON said, that the Hon. Gentleman would cc irztly think that Excise Collectors would answer all the pur-1 pose of Receivers-General, when he informed him that the dif ference of security which it was thought right to require from those two classes of officers, was between £300,000 and £16,000,000. If it was thought requisite to take £16,000,000 1 from the Receivers-General, it was obvious their responsibility must hr much greater than what could be handed over to the Excise Collectors. He had no objection to insert the clause dis abling litceiver—General to act by &piny, except in cases of and to vont that part of the first clause objected to by the lion. Gentleman, but he could not consent to his proposed diminution of salary. If such were to be attempted, he was sure they would lose their best Receivers-Genera/. The plan laid down in this Bill, he was thoroughly convinced, was the best and cheapest that could be adopted. Mr. Hosea and Mr. LOSHI.IIOTON mutually explained. Sir JOHN NEWPORT believed that within the last six months the Receivers-General in Ireland had been abolished,and the money paid on account of taxes remitted directly to the Bank of Ireland. If this mode had been adopted there, why could not the same course be taken in. this.country Mr. LUSHINGTON said, if - the Irish mode of collecting the Revenue here were adopted - itorrould occasion double—a Right H o n. Gentlerrian • near him, said four times-:.the expense. At all events it would be much more expedites than the present mode of collection. Mr. HOME was of opinion the Revenue might be collected and transmitted to the Treasury without one farthing expense. After a further conversatioo, in which Mr. Lessusorox, Sir C. Lotto, Mr. Alderman WOOD, Mr. Camsarr, the Cataecat- Loa of the EXCIIZQUZL, and Mr. Ussxx-r, participated, the CRAM ILAN reported progress, and obtained leave to 'koala that day. BREACH OF PRIVILEGE. Mr. W. COURTENAY rose, to bring before the llou.e certain publications which had been brought tinier his observation within the last fortnight, and winch contained matter, in his opinion, amounting to a breach of the privileges of that House. He hoped it would not be thought improper in him to direct their attention to that which, in his judgment, struck at a vi:al point of the privileges of Parliament. Some time ago, an action had been brought against an in dividual connected with the Public Press of Scotland. An Honourable and Learned Gentleman, a Member of that House, had thought it his duty to bring the circumstances connected with that proceeding before Parliament. Doing this, that Honourable and Learned Gentleman had necessarily, had unavoidably, been placed in the disagreeable situation of an accuser.— This situation, though it was one which was disagree able, wits one which was necessary to the exercise of Cie most important functions of that House. Any one, therefore, who interfered with the free, bold, and unembarrassed discharge of duty, was guilty of a breach of privilege ; and such breach of privilege, as it affected the dignity and importance of that House, demanded their most serious attention. In the course of the observations submitted to the House by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, he had had occasion to offer some remarks on the conduct of certain indivi duals connected with a public employment in Scot land, and the manner in which these remarks had been noticed by the individuals to whom they related, was that which he was now about to bring before the House. A letter had been published, in the form of a pam phlet, addressed to James Abercromby, Esq. and signed John Hope. Mr. Hope was connected with an office in Scotland, on which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had made some observations. The letter which he had written was of considerable length, and expressed opinions with respect to what the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had stated in the conscientious discharge of his duty within those walls, which, in his j idgment, amounted to a direct and dangerous breach of their privileges. Some of the passages were of a nature which seemed intended to provoke per sonal hostility. That this was the object of the letter he thought the House would admit, when he read part of the letter to them. He would not detain them by going over much of it, but he would read one or two passages which, it appeared,were of a most gross and improper character, and on these the House would decide whether or not their privileges had been violated. The first passage set out with speaking of the reports of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's speech. The writer then gave it as his opinion that those reports were correct, and proceeded to con :lcier a report which has appeared as being his (Mr. Aberciomby's) unquestioned speech—(Hear, hear). O.se part of the letter ran thus ;—" On the gross in- Justice to the defendants resulting from this Perver sion at the privileges of Parliamentary discasuen, in order to aid the private action d a political associate, served inviolate—(Haar, hear).—:The pamphlet went on to impute to his Hon. and Learned Friend having made an attack upoathe writer, knowing it to be to. tally unfounded. This, it must be admitted, was a di rect breach of the privileges of that House-44-inir,: l hear).--He was not fond of putting himself 'forward, or of obtruding unnecessarily, and was,oalysttapted, by a sense of public dgty in making the- motiob.— So long as they wished to• retain the , priorilege cf freedom of speech, they were bound to discountenance all such attacks as this—they were bound to mark their disapprooation of such language. How could they boast of the freedom of debate, if any act Of pub lic duty by any Member was to be followed up by such attacks and animadversions as those contained in this pamphlet?—(lfear, hear). -This was the case, so far as it regarded : Mr. Hope. He now .came . to some observauens which appeared is the; Costrite newspaper of yesterday evening, iu a lettet sigrise'digy Mr. Menaies—(Here the Hon. Member read the ob jectionable passage, as it was afterwards read, with the correspondence, by the clerk of the House).. This appeared to him to be pan of a system which the House of Commons was lmperiously called upon to put a stop to ; a system, if allowed to pro ceed, would be subversive c.f,the first privileges of the House. The Hon. Member said, he should first Iwo pose a Resolution declaring the passages to which he had alluded, to be a breach of the privileges of that House. He should follow the Resolution up by a Motion, the effect of which should be to bring the offending parties before the House. The Clerk was about to read the passages in Mr. Hope's letter complained of, when Lord BINNING wished to know; if it was Orderly to read the passages without comment? The SPEAKER said, he apprehended that it was strictly in order.—The passages were then read. The SPEAKER, in answer to an observation from Lord Londonderry, said, the only question was, whe- ' ther these comments applied to things spoken in that House? if it did, there was no question as to any comments being then a breach of privilege. Mr. W. WYNN thought the best way would be to adjourn the matter after this motion, in order that Members might put themselves in possession of the contents of the paper. He therefore moved, that the further proceedings in this complaint be adjourned till to-morrow. Mr. TIERNEY said, there was no doubt that this was a breach of privilege; but if there was anything in the rest of the letter which might mitigate the ani- ' madversions of the House, he could nit see any diffi culty in having it all read. The SPEAKER said, sometimes the House would call a person before it to explain his conduct, which might alter the steps to be taken against him, though no explanation could alter the nature of a breach of privilege. The House was daily in the habit of shut ting its eyes to breaches of privilege, from which they foresaw no public inconvenience. Yet it was proper that no abstinence of the House in visiting breaches of privilege with punishment should be con strued into a renouncing of its power in that respect. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said the House usually gave time for the consideration of a com plaint of this nature. At the same time, they owed it to themselves and their privileges, to investigate this case. He had seen the paper, but not looked at it so as to be able to say whether it was likely to pr. duce the results hinted at by the Hon. Mover. The SPEAKER thought that satisfactory steps could not be taken until the matter was declared a breach of privilege. Then the House might insist on its own Member taking no steps in consequence of this matter. • Mr. PEEL wished - to know, whether the House could not call for that assurance from the Honourable Member, without proceeding to vote this a breach of privilege ? Thii was done in disputes between Mem bers, without any breach of privilege having taken place. In. the ease of Mr. Hothouse, the House paused until the following day before it came to an opinion on his pamphlet. • Mr. TIERNEY said, the cases were totally distinct. Mr. Hobhouse's pamphlet had no reference to the conduct of any individual Member of that House.-- Here there was a gross !yea on a Member for a c onscientious discharge *Mk duty in that House.— The Hon. Member might not be to be found toqnor row ; and the Home would feel mach it it (by neglect ing to vote this a breach of privilege) should allow matters to proceed to a length that it was painful to contemplate. *Mr. W. WYNN said, he should move far the at teadanoe of the Hop. Member forthwith; but, in the __ corporate . individual Member, who should be singled out by a party with whom he might have come in contact in the discharge of his public duties. Mr. W. WYNN had only made his proposition in order to save time, and now he should withdraw it. Lord BINNING also withdrew what he had said 'against the first proposition. Air. W. COURTENAY shortly repli e d The House then voted the passages in Mr. Hope's latter to be a Breach of Privilege, nern. con. Mr. W. WYNN then said, that they should either *djourn the debate, or order the attendance of the printer, to obtain evidence as to who was the author of the letter. Mr. W. COURTENAY said, the printer of one of the letters resided in Edinburgh. Mr. TIERNEY said, that would require a delay .of twelve or fourteen days; and therefore he• would ,put ,it to the House and the Noble Lord (Binning) whether there • could be any doubt as to the letter being written by Mr. John Hope ? Lord' BINNING bad no hesitation to say, that every word - ot it was written by Mr. Hope, and he would avow it at the bar. Mr. W. VI I ;YtIN said, the way was, to order the at tendance of *Mr. Hope on as early a day as possible.] He then moved that Mr. Hope should attend the House to-morrow sthmight.--Ordered, item. cox. Mr. COURTENAY moved, that the comment attached to Mr. Menzies letter was. a breach of pri vilege also. Mr.HUSKISSON unaerstood this to be addressed to*the Editor of the Couriir, denying the truth of what he had reported. Mr. TIERNEY said, this was applied td Wilk Mr. Abercromby was reported to have said, because he would, neither acknowledge nor disavow it. If any one could shew a method more likely than that to in duce personal hostility, he would give up the point. This was worse than Mr. Hope's letter, for it did not charge Mr. Abercromby with a deliberate falsehood. No one could doubt the object of this. But there was a difficulty as to Mr. Menzies, as perhaps no Gentle. man was prepared to declare him the author of the comment; and then they must have the Printer be fere them, to know who was the author. Mr. HUSKISSON contended, that the comment applied to the report in the Courier. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY contended in the same way. Mr. TIERNEY still viewed the expressions as being applied to Mr. Abercromby. Mr. HUSKISSON had no doubt of the whole being a breach of privilege, but net that solitary,passage. Mr. W. COURTENAY then moved, that the letter of Mr. Menzies to Mr. Abercromby, and the com ment attached to it, was a Breach of Privilege ; and also, at the suggestion of the Marquis of LONDON.. DUEY, that Mr. Abercromby, for fear of loss of time, should be immediately ordered to attend in his place, which was also carried near. con. The Cerrespoadence was then read by the Clerk. It was as follows " 111, Geerge-street, Edinburgh, July 5, UM " Sts—ln conseeptesee of certain expressions which appeared in what you published as being a report of Mr. Aberdrownby'i speech on the conduct of the Lord Advocate, the following cor respondence has taken place, which I have no doubt you will do me the justice now,te insert in your paper. No. I.—vs TMt MN. JAN= AMMICROMPT, M. P. " 101, George•sueet, Edinburgh, June 2*, 1 tn. " Sta—l have observed in the reports of your speech on the Conduct of the Lord Advocate of Scotland, published in The ller4ing Chreisiele and &wrier Newspapers, that you are repre sented as having made use of the following expressions:—' Yet, notwithstanding this, up started at every moment a Barrister, stating that he, as Counsel for Mr. Alexander, must object tootle witnees being allowed to remain in Court, while the examination of the other was going on, as he intended to call all the wit noses on the following Moiiday upon the trial of Mr. Borthwick. The House must at once perceive the motive with whiclithis farce was kept up. But by wham was it so kept up? It was kept up by a Gentleman, who, as the Learned Lord very well knew, was frenuently if net always employed by him as an as sistant in the duties of his take. The Noble Lord knew this; he knew the feeling which had been endeavoured to be kept up, and yet within 4a hoyrs after the acquittal of blr. Stuart, Mr. Borthwkk was sent away without any trial.' " During the trial of Mr. Stuart, I,•as Counsel for Mr. Alex ander, moved the Court that all the witnesses who were to be ex a m aid is that OW* aesi whose names were included lb the li t et witnesses for the trial of Bortbwick, should be directed by the Court to withdraw'as soon as they had given their evidence, in artier that, as they were to be ranked u.poo the same facts is Do.thwick's trial, on the Monday following, they might not have an opportunity of hearing each other's testimony. My ino tion having been granted. I afterwards pointed out to the Court ' two witnesses who were in the situation now described. u By the expressions you are reported to have us. d, it is more than insinuated, that knowing that it was ant intended to bring Bortbwick to trial at all, I, under the direction of, or in concert 11th, the Lord Advocate, made the above motion for the pur lieu' of wrath's a prejudice against Mr. /futon unfavoiarable to his defence. As r . bellive that thew statements could only have been 0 1 040 by Twir ti somegielw lamtbists Ignorivg et OW Itti It is satisfactory to me to Add that as far as my memory serres me to recal what I did say, it it substantially coofirmc4 by the statement contained in yourletter. I have the honour to be, Sir, your most obedient servant, JAMES A BERCRONIIIY.' I feel no inclination to make any comments on the above correspondence. -“ I shall be contented with saying, that in what you put fortis as a fair report of Mr. Abercromby'a speech, improper motives were by very strong inuendo and implication attributed to me. Such imputations I regard with the most perfect scorn, and I have now sbewn that whoever was the real author of them, they were akogetber smsnarrantesi, groundless, and false. " I am, Sir; arc. ace. 11 W. MENZIES." Mr.W. COURTENAY repeated, that he te4.-that the whole of this correspondence was intended in an irritating and offensive way to the Hon. and Learned Gentleman. He dwelt too on the offensiveness of pub lishing a private-correspondence in a Newspaper. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY did not deny that this was a breach of privilege, and that they ought to order the parties to attend. The publication was then voted to be a Breach of Privilege, neat. cox. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY thought they algoulaorifer Mr. Menzies . to attend, without calling on:she - printer of the paper. s'ldr. Menzies was then ordered to attend the House on to-morrow se'rinight. 1 1 pl i ' I 1 ../ . •C ~ y . , . . . • •.•-. . . . , . .. • - , . • , •••• • . •• . . .. . . . . . .. . . , • • . , • . • „- " . • ' 1 , . . 'ea& to - • • Peat . .. ta tiliibktdid'ilwatile* li v id oisliik: ilsksildratibitimime*tartraya _matarrarikala g swage, faii•advemos i .roklieistiTisie • • 1 '"•" . . litf.t.V. I rginlfa.. Il igict :...t way 4l := 4 . 9 1 1! it -11 4/ 1 /1° 4 9 11 19 1 had of to " t leCteds it • OSA, . . 1111It iztre ' li 'L It i ing): Ow Wilgrfaddiv i a" lii abt Of •tlit trial of Mr..Bolki. MK Sod ot Como,* 1 . I it waavrell itOwti . trikite" . .r, r, .:prta sa y• )4 . -deg . ':.Tiem — e_yji that Ali eaii tool iridel ealliliwidi ti. 1.44.414°64. I P r Cg ar f- t ° h ' .. 8 " 1 " O we P re " • . 7 vistas to the trial of Mi. Smug" _I was retained hl' qui private • . . [ a polititla atio c t a tt'd t ; A; , •-i"- 4 - t Wa r d, m em . ; Train - that of Mr. Hobhiuse, inasmicii- as it was a s a nt et Mc, Alexander, u Counu# for him in emu 1 actions; . .. .. b - er,* but be ' felt it ..?':".11 •. to 41'4 4 NiliaMent ihould directr en epr_l t ) ojei reach v of m •t eve he r ioseve. ivilete of a Member, Apo, of W104,1i was die taitninakpresecutiou; at his instance, againit 13orthwick. The Lord Advocate neither advised no r was cop f • r defend fbeiir 00,1144," . p_"- t o t id t • Ha n ; 'to:A l b ers of Parfi s em nd from such attacks; *RNA the: dii t Cs....-ife 'Of heiri iii duty to the Public . '' 'Wit c h' to le ioleratadlhat a , I .4r..COIJR,TRWAY Navinhaving- again formally put his nctiffi.- 1 ! That the said passages cornmentog - :14 0 34“e'l wa• ' outtot knowa lw to to mi n o or dic tate stati roceedirgs ir d i e this action, in s o fu as is Ste rasa -of °ll myt a vn pr as ofe t i ) si t o h n e a r l e oTiTi al oo: f I P • i ! . Member of th at Hdoid Wilt' td •be sihns'pnbitcli nc- on the speech of an Hon. Member of this House,.is hi discharge of what I conceived to be my duty to my client, • . • eased of being acttrAtid by base unit tib,!c;#.liy ino- a breach of the Privileges. of thin House ;" and the 41111a1; Attl r s . • time I and! that mmlop, it t h e hb intentioa of does, while doing that Which he etiiieNvlcr it, his .9 u e s t i en havin , been put from the.Chaii t - ' , Alexander and his Counsel to proceed with e trial of Borth- if duty, as a Representative . of • the Penpfik'W - do?— . 1-orCI . BINNING ioqteogied thil'ihe.whOle of the 'wick, and it was not until efter Mr. Stuart's trial that this in- . .documents - , . 'Mere were other paSsages 'of a strOntt sev ettjection- • I able nature id the pamphlet, "but he e e 7 thatought is be re - a; before the. anus* came tendon was relinquished. In coming to this reiclutiom the to a decision upon the qUestion. lle thought that Coen* for Alexander were in no respect actuated by 'any ro. I. i ' which he had just' read was throtrtingest. "The Ho- the House ought not to come %Ot•gird to the wishes of the Lord Advocate, with whom they held . precipitate vote. no eonsagunieariciu on the subject. t aourable Member then read the following passare agaiait absent parties. By sael vete the House would act contrary to the pre' ens laid down in 4 ". I believe that when the Lord- Adveede left Edinbureb, he 1 from the pamphlet : , ..4 4 It is very' possible that the did not know that the intention of trying Borthwick had been wilful mitreptesentatiOn . oVothers may have induced Mr. Hobfiouse% case. He. saw nothing against 4;1'7• ibandoned; and even it be hid known it, he could not have you to think yourself soft ill the grounds of that attack. durin g the Hon. anti .I r ititined M emb e r to appear in his place forthwith. .: prevented the prosecution from being given up. , . " I certainly have reason to complain that my conduct should . . I But (whatever was-the nature of oar information), . have been thus publicly attacked, without any previous notice . . that the circumstances in question have been anal- Mr. BRQUGHAM co n s idered the breach of privi• ' having been given to me, or any i troper inquiry made as $o the f i ously, or at least h as tily, a nd t h ere f ore unwarranta bl y lege the main qUestion for their attention, and tonse- facto- And I trust you writ test hesitate to make the only re- . , • e -seized hold of i for the purpose of imputing my offs- quent upon that was the probability of le 'ding to- paration in your power for the injurious miuepreseutition Which i. a breach of the peace, and " a personal altercation be - - - - on have unintenuen' ally , I believe given of my conduct s bg cial conduct to flagitious' motives, Cannot be denied. tween the parties. H thought they ' yon to me the informatio; on which you prowedA t , 1 Whether you truly believed the statements which Ott ht first to and the source from which you obtained it ; and by taking the r. declare this a breach-or piiiilege, as hadlieen Stated, earliest opportunity of publishin g this statement of the *te a e you were so forward and ready to' make is a quee- . the case irs the same way in which you did the mistatement of e tion I cannot permit myself to• ask. The injustice, and as it most unquestionably was; *and • theri they - which I Dave so much reason to complain. ii ' ; ti illiberality, arid intemperance of the comments with should proceed to the preventive steps already recom- I am. Sir, your most obedient servant, . . 4 : , ° which these statements were accompanied, you can- mended' If they proceeded against his Hon. and (Signed) "W. MENZIES, Advocate. .i Learned Friend •before they -declared their opinion • m In answer to the ab0v.,.1 have just received the f o llowing , not now dispute." He was convinced that the Hon. canummication through the hands of Mn Henry Cockburn: . . ~ against the original wrong-doer, it would-be a great and Learned Member (Mr. Abercromby) himself was injustice to his Hon. and Rained Friend. • He. felt No. fir.TO W. WIPWI2S, 1:14. ADVOCATZ • ' 1 1 1 the only person in that House who would-oppose the I New -street, Spring-Gardens, .b I!. e course which he (Mr. Coartenay) was•now.pursuing. the extreme ulency of the ease, and he wished then' g 8 ,,,.. ! hive just had the , honour of • • receiving your letter. .1 I . - But much as he respected hi s Hot t . a n d Le ar n e d to come to an Instant re s ol u tio n to p u t down an at- Hav i ng no influence or controul over the statements contained in rtempt which would, in a-short time, triumph over Newspapers of what I may have said in Parliament, I owe it to ... : ti !': 1 , Friend, he did not feel that- Parliament ought to con- myself, end still more to other Members of Parliament and to that Rouse and the country, if not put down by a , salt his wishes upon such an occasion ; they were the /louse not to enter into an explanation with r espect to ex. Y!...i) bound to preserve . their character and dignity, and strong hand. There was no •• difference between an prniine, or ' sentiments imputed to me, on the authority of News- ,i - attack•on the House in its corporate capacity, or an p a pers a l ine . . to see that their most important privileges were pre- il ...., i t .......a :....:-t....- . ex..- r.___. on.._ _____i_s_. ______ individual Member. who should he ainoleti nor by a. ilt is satilfsetnrir en ivio eh 84.1 that sa far as tn.. ••••...1,..• AC.CITTIBEICOTTAGI TAX. Lord A. HAMILTON said the tax which he called upon the Right Hon. Gentleman to remit, amounted altogether - but - to 7,0001. and, considering the taxes that had been repealed in the Sister Kingdom, he hoped the Right Hon.- Gentleman. would not oppose the zepeal of a tax of so little account, but which was teverely felt by the poorer class in Scotland. The cottages of the poor were subject to a tax of 4s. 6d. each,which, though small; was yet felt so heavily by some as to oblige them to procure certifi-ates from five of the most opulent inhabitants, stating their in ability to pay. He hoped the Chancellor of tbe Ex. chequer Would not object to the repeal of the 4s. 6d. duty. He should, therefore move for leave to bring in a Bill to exempt houses in Scotland, under the rent of 51. from the duty or tax of 4s. 6d. levied under authority of 48d George _ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, he hardly knew anything more inconvenient, than the bringing before the House a detached part, of a system of taxation. He should be able to shew, that there was hardly any cottage in Scotland charged with the tax. The lowest rate of duty in England was 6s. 6d. and in Scotland 4s. 6d. which rate of duty ap plied to all houses having, not more than six windows, and of less than five pounds rent. On houses having not exceeding six windows, but exceeding five pounds rent, the duty was nine shillings in England, and six shillings in Scotland. If the increase of habitations in Scotland had borne a proportion to the increase of population, there were now about 400,000 habita tions in Scotland, of which only 112,600 were charged to the Windcw Tax in all its gradations, having about 290,000 altogether exempted from charge. Of these, more than 200 : 000 had been charged by the As sessors, but afterwards exempted on account of the poverty of the inhabitants. When it was seen that two-thirds of the houses that had been charged by the Assessors were exempted on the application of the inhabitants, it could not be said that the tax piessed with severity. Of the houses that paid the duty, only 32,000 paid the 4s. 6d. duty. If the lowest class were exempted, the burden would seem the more intolera ble to the class immediately above. Houses having seven windows, were charged with 18s. duty. In a country eminently industrious, and not vety poor, the tax of 4s. 6d. on an habitable house, could not press very heavily. PRIVILEGIL It haying been intimated that had been sent to Mr. Abercroml the SMILER interrupted the chequer, and asked whether the House that the Messeng Mr. John Spiller, the Nil and examined by the SPZAIL Did you carry the Order of the Ida. the MI Whom did.you see?—The footman. State to the House what paged—l wk. at home ? He said, no. I asked Mr. Abercromby was ?. He said that out of town to-day between tor' taken his butler with him ; they fdr ten days. • T asked where he that he did not know bat that he Barnet road.,...Mr. S pitler was order The Marquis of LON DONPIV Hon. Member had a°. been found, *et measures to insure obedience If swans were taken to sertotbs 111 1 i I that the Messenger who : 1 ~. , i Tomboy was in attendance, lie Chancellor of the Er- m • it was the pleasure of . ' i ;er should be called in? 1 ' . 0 ~,, 4essenger, was called in MI, KYR. House to Mr. Abercromby's? I 1 . tman. 11 tl—l asked whether his truster uked whether he knew where hat Mr. Abercrombl had gone elve and two o'clock, and had did not expect him to return . I e was gone ? The answer was, . I he •believed he had taken the - rdered to withdraw. liiiillY obtaaaads Shat as the I i 4, it would he necessary to talus 1 ice tie the Order of the House. f (kart on the lion. llegaber, • . . .., . .