The Sun.
London, England, 1822-07-10 00:00:00

.do nothing, while the other party would be at liberty to act as
They pleased Could any one doubt that Mr. John slope was
the author of the letter which had been published in his name?
If there was no doubt on the subject, perhaps the Noble Lord
opposite could vouch for the fact, and in that case it would
nut be improper to order at once Mr. John Hope to attend the
House.
Lord BINNING was obliged to the Right Hon. Gentleman
for pointing out a mode by which the course of proceeding
could be shortened.. He (Lord Binning) had certainly not the
smallest doubt that the letter in question had been written by
Mr. J. Hope. Though unauthorised to say so by that Gentle-
man, he was perfectly convinced that,he would avow the letter
at their har, and he hoped the House would be able to act on
this statement.
Mr. C. W. WYNN thought they had now only to make an
order for the parties to attend the House on the earliest day
that could be named.
Mr. TIERNEY thought it would be proper to order their
attendance on a day.to be fixed.
After a few observations across the table from Mr. Brougham,
Mr. Courtenay, Mr. Wynn, and Mr. Ellice, it was ordered
that Mr. Hope should attend at the Bar of the House to-mor-
row se'nnight.
The CLERK then proceeded to read Mr. Menzies' letter.
Mr. HUSKISSON said, that it appeared to him, if he un-
derstood the matter right, this letter only contained a complaint
to the Editor of a Newspaper, for an injury which the writer
considered himself to have experiened by the report of a speech
said to have been delivered in that House. He could not sec
how they were to prevent such complaints without leaving
private reputation and private character in a situation of
jeopardy, in which it was extremely desirable that it should
not be left.
Mr. TIERNEY thought it was impossible that any doubt
should be entertained as to the nature of the papers. Let
them see what was the state of the case. A speech had been
published by those who made up very accurate reports of
what passed in that House, upon which Mr. Menzies wrote
a letter to the Honourable Member, and received his answer ;
and then he proceeded to say, that those who reported the
words'of the speech had stated that which was false. Now,
he thought no man could contrive a mode which would be more
-certain of leading to much unpleasant consequences. If this
had not been the intention of the writer, why did he not at first
apply to the Editor for the author of the report ; and if he was
refused, then let him fall foul of the Editor, as much as he
pleased. But he chose first to write a letter to the Hon. Mem-
ber, and to receive his answer, and then he wrote to the Editor,
charging the au lor of the language contained in the Report, with
deliberate falsehood. He asked if any man would doubt the
intention in such a case ? There was a material diffbrence be-
twixt this and. Mr. Hope's letter. In Mr. Hope's, the object
was not clearly and openly avowed. There was also a difficulty
in this case which he did not see how they were to remedy.—
There was no Hon. Member, as he understood, who could an-
.-saver for Mr. Menzies being the writer of the letter, as the
Noble Lord had done in the case of Mr. Hope. The onl3
course which he could see was to have up the Editor of the
Courier in order to prove the author. He was surprised that
the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite should cavil at the forms
of the letter, when the application and meaning of its contents
were so clear.
Mr. lIUSKISSON disclaimed any intention to cavil at the
papers before the House. What he meant to say was, that
upon the letter to the Courier alone, he was not prepared to
admit a breach of privilege. If so, they would establish, that
no one could answer what was contained in the reports pub-
lished by Newspapers, without committing a breach of privi-
lege.
Mr. TIERNEY did not mean to charge the Right Hon.
Gentleman with any unworthy intention. He agreed with him
that upon the part to which he had alluded+, if taken alone,
they could not well proceed. But taken as a whole, the case
admitted of no sort of doubt.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said, it appeared to
him, that the letter could not be considered as reflecting upon
Mr. Abercromby, but that it applied to the report.
The Clerk here read the letter.
Mr. TIERNEY made some observation which we could not
hear.
Mr. HLTSKISSON was quite prepared to agree, that the
publication, as a whole, was a libel, and the sooner the House
proceeded with the inquiry the better; all he contended for was,
that they should proceed with a due regard to consistency and
to the maintenance of their dignity and character.
Mr. COURTENAY thought it not the fair way of judging
to take the letter alone, but to look at the whole of the corre-
spondence. He thought there could be then no doubt that 3lr:
Menzies intended that which it was a breach of the privileges
'of the House to do. He therefore moved, " That the publish-
ing of the letters with the comments thereon, is a breach of the
privileges of this House."
Mr. BANKES thought they had not the means of coming to
• a conclusion, without hearing the whole of the correspondence
read.—(Hear.)
The Clerk began to read the documents, but he was inter-
rupted by the Marquis of LONDONDERRY.
An inaudible conversation here took place between the Mar.
quis of LONDONDERRY and Mr. TIERNEY, after which,
Mr. C. WYNN moved " That the Hon. James Abercromby
be ordered forthwith to attend in his place in this House."—
Agreed to.
The CLERK then proceeded to read the documents as fol-
lower—

" 101, George-street, Edinburgh, July 5, 1822.

" SIR— in consequence of certain expressions which ap-
peared in what you published as being a report of Mr. Aber-
cromby's speech, on the conduct of the Lord Advocate, the fol-
lowing correspondence has taken place, which I have no doubt
-you will do me the justice now to insert in your Paper :

TO THE HOE. JAMES ABERCIIOMBY, M.P.
"401,George-street, Edinburgh, June 29, 1822.

SIIL=I have observedin the reports of your speech, on the
,conduct of the Lord Advocate of Scotland, published in the
-Warning Chronicle and Courier Newspapers, that you are re-
presented as having made use of the following expressions:—
Yet, notwithstanding this, up started at every moment a Bar-
rister, stating, that he, as Counsel for Mr. Alexander, must
object to one witness being allowed to remain in Court while
'the examination of the other was going on, as he intended to
call all the witnesses on the following Monday upon the trial of
Mr. Borthwick. The House must at once perceive the motive
with which this farce was kept up. But by whom was it so
'kept up ? It was kept up by a Gentleman, who, as the
Learned Lord very well knew, was frequently, if not always,
..employed by him as an assistant in the duties of his office.
The Noble Lord knew this ; he knew the feeling which had
been endeavoured to be kept up; and yet, within 48 hours
,after the acquittal of Mr. Stuart, Mr. Borthwick was sent
away without any trial.'
" During the trial of Mr. Stuart, I, as Counsel for Mr. Alex-
nder, moved the Court that all the witnesses who were to be
examined on that trial, and whose names were included in the
list of witnesses for the trial of Borthwick, should be directed
by the Court to withdraw as soon as they had given their evi-
dence, in order that, as they were to be examined upon the
same facts in Borthwick's trial on the Monday following, they
might not have an opportunity of hearing each other's testi-
mony. My motion having been granted, I afterwards pointed
out to the Court two witnesses who were in the situation now
described.

" By the expressions you are reported to have used, it is
•more than insinuated that, knowing that it was not intended to
bring Borthwick to trial at all, I, under the direction of, or in
concert with. the Lord Advocate, made the above motion for
the purpose of exciting a prejudice against Mr. Stuart, unfa-
vourable to his defence.

"As believe that these statements could only have been
made by you, in consequenee of your being ignorant of the real
facts of the case, and of your having received false information
on the subject, I deem it right to inform you, that I was in no
way employed on the trial of Mr. Stuart, and had no commu-
nication with the Lord Advocate in regard to it. Some time
previous to the trial of Mr. Stuart, I was retained by the pri-
vate agent of Mr. Alexander, as Counsel for him in certain
actions, one of which was the criminal prosecution at his in-
stance against Borthwick. The Lord Advocate neither advised
nor was consulted as to any of the proceedings in this action,
in so far as known to me ; and the motion I made as to the re-
moval of the witnesses was the result of my own professional
opinion, and in discharge of what I conceived to be my duty to
my client Alexander.
" At the time I made that motion it was the intention of
Alexander and his Counsel to proceed with the trial of Borth-
wick ; and it was not until after Mr. Stuart's trial that this in-
tention was relinquished. In coming to this resolution, the
Counsel for Alexander were in no respect actuated by any re-
gard to the wishes of the Lord Advocate, with whom they held
no communication on the subject.
"I believe, that when the Lord Advocate left Edinb&gli, he
'did not know that the intention of trying Borthwick had been
abandoned; and even if he had known it, lie could not have
prevented the prosecution being given up.
" I certainly have reason to complain that my conduct should
nave been thus publicly attacked, without any previous notice
having been given to me, or any proper inquiry made as to the
facts ; and I trust you will not hesitate to make the only
reparation in your power for the injurious misrepresentation
which you have, unintentionally I believe, given of my con-
duct, by communicating-to me the information on which
.you
proceeded, and the source from which you obtained it, anu by
Irking the earliest opportunity of publishing this statement of