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

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
conscientious 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 replied
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. VII;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
exam 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
01040 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 didsay, 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.

11
pl i ' I
1 ../ .
•C

~y

. ,
. . .
•
•.•-. . . . ,
. ..
• - , . • , •••• •
. •• . . .. .
. . . . ..
. . , • •
. ,
•
. • „- "
. •
' 1
, . . 'ea& to- • •
Peat . .. ta tiliibktdid'ilwatile* livid oisliik: ilsksildratibitimime*tartraya _matarrarikalagswage, faii•advemos
i .roklieistiTisie • • 1'"•" . . litf.t.V. I rginlfa.. Iligict :...tway4l:= 4.911! it-114/1/1°4911191 had of to "
t leCteds it • OSA, .
.1111Itiztre'li'LItiing): Ow Wilgrfaddivia"lii abt Of •tlit trial of Mr..Bolki. MK Sod ot Como,* 1 .
I it waavrell itOwti.trikite" ..r, r,
.:prtasay• )4. -deg . ':.Tiem—e_yji that Ali eaii tool iridel ealliliwidi ti. 1.44.414°64. IP rCgarf-t° h'.. 8"1" Owe Pre" •
. 7 vistas to the trial of Mi. Smug"
_I was retained hl' qui private • . .
[ a polititla atioctatt'd t;A; , •-i"- 4-t Ward, mem.; Train-that of Mr. Hobhiuse, inasmicii- as it was a sant et Mc, Alexander, u Counu# for him in emu 1 actions; .
..
..
b-er,* but be 'felt it ..?':".11 •. to
41'44 NiliaMent ihould directr
enepr_lt)ojeireachvofm•tevehe rioseve.ivilete of a Member, Apo, of W104,1i was die taitninakpresecutiou; at his instance, againit
13orthwick. The Lord Advocate neither advised nor was copf • r defend fbeiir 00,1144," . p_"-totidt• Han; 'to:Albers of Parfisemnd
from such attacks; *RNA the: diitCs....-ife 'Of heiri iii
duty to the Public.'' 'Witch' to le ioleratadlhat a, I.4r..COIJR,TRWAY Navinhaving- again formally put
his nctiffi.-1! That the said passages cornmentog-:14034“e'l wa•'
outtotknowalwtotominoor
dictate
statiroceedirgs irdiethis action, in so fu as is
Ste rasa -of°llmytavn prasofeti)sitohnearleoTiTialoo:f IP • i
! .
Member of that 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;Attlrs.• time I and! that mmlop, it thehb intentioa of
does, while doing that Which he etiiieNvlcr it, his .9uestien havin, been put from the.Chaiit - ' , 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 strOnttsevettjection- •
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 :,..44 It is very' possible that thedid 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. during the Hon. anti .Irititined Member 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 considered the breach of privi• ' having been given to me, or any itroper inquiry made as $o the
f
i ously, or at least hastily, and therefore unwarrantably 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 ofi 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 conducts 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 publishing 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 following
, 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 11
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 his Hott. and Learned to come to an Instant resolution to put down an at- Having 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 respect 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 papers aline. .
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,..•