firm of Alexander and Borthwick. It was not very clear how this connexion was first broken; but it had been stated on the part of Borthwick, that he was dissatisfied with the manner in which the paper was conducted, and was alarmed on account of the prosecutions instituted against it. This much at least was evident, that Borthwick being dissatisfied, proposed to dissolve the partnership. Accordingly, in the same month of November, 1821, Borthwick and Alexander entered into an agreement to that effect, accompanied by certain conditions. The conditions were, that Borthwick should receive 201. in money to be paid down, and 90%. in bills upon good security. These bills were to be paid on a day named, and to be delivered before the 8th of December. Alexander accordingly paid the 201., and gave one bill for a small amount; but on the 18th December Borthwick not having been able to obtain the fulfilment of the conditions, instituted a proceeding before the magistrates at Glasgow, with a view of having the contract performed and carried into execution; or, in case of not procuring the fulfilment of such contract, then that the magistrates would cause him to be re-instated in the possession of his property, which he had surrendered to Alexander on the faith of those conditions. Judgment was pronounced by the magistrates of Glasgow on the 14th of Feb. following; when they ordained, that Alexander, within six days from that date, should deliver to Borthwick the bills mentioned in the petition; or if he failed to do so, that Borthwick should be re-instated in his former property and interest in the paper in question. Borthwick did not take possession on Feb. 20, as he was entitled to do; but on the 1st of March following, armed with this judgment in his favour, entered on the premises where the business was carried on, and remained there for 10 hours. He carried with him his own key, opened with it the safe, of which he was thus the legal proprietor, and took those papers which he found, and which it seemed fitting to him, as the proprietor of the concern, to carry away. From the 20th of February to the 1st of March, Alexander took no steps. to impeach either the judgment of. the magistrates or the acts of Borthwick under its sanction, but on the 2nd of March procured Borthwick to be arrested for a pretended debt. Borthwick was imprisoned in the gaol of Glasgow, and liberated on the 10th of March. The first use that he made of bis recovered freedom, was to enter the premises of the partnership, and take away some papers belonging to it. Alexander then charged Borthwick with theft; but the magistrates of Glasgow dismissed the accusation. In the mean time, the documents, which Borthwick had removed, furnished proof that sir Alexander Boswell, a keen partisan of the ministry, was the author of certain libels against a Mr. Stuart, who was an equally keen adherent of opposition. duel between Mr. Stuart ånd sir Alexander ensued; in which the latter fell. Borthwick, it was alleged, now became an object of vengeance, to the party whose tool he had previously been; and Mr. John Hope, deputy advocate, issued, a warrant for his apprehension. Being arrested at Dundee, he was brought in irons to Edinburgh, indicted for a capital felony, and Α afterwards transferred to Glasgow. The lord advocate defended himself against this charge, on the ground that Mr. Hope had done only what his duty required; that there was no intention or wish to oppress Borthwick; and that, according to the statements made to the law officers, and supported by evidence, there at first appeared strong reason for sending that individual before a jury of his countrymen. it Mr. Peel justified the conduct of the lord advocate. Sir James Mackintosh pronounced a keen philippic against all ministerial satires and libels. The marquis of Londonderry admitted, that would have been more discreet in the learned lord to have abstained from all connexion with newspapers, and animadverted in a very sarcastic strain upon the vigilance and zeal, with which gentlemen in opposition could detect and prosecute the errors of the press, when employed against themselves; notwithstanding that upon all other occasions they professed themselves its devoted and enthusiastic champions.-The House then divided, when the numbers were-for the motion 95, against it 120. of Mr. Abercromby, in his speech on this occasion, used some strong language concerning Mr. Hope and Mr. Menzies; which produced two letters in reply, one from each of these gentlemen. Mr. Menzies letter was addressed to the editor of an evening paper, and contained a direct denial of the accuracy the statements in the report of Mr. Abercromby's speech. Mr. Hope's letter was very long, and was addressed to Mr. Abercromby himself. The language used in it was vehement; but it proved, satisfactorily, that many of Mr. Abercromby's assertions had been made without reason. On the 9th of July Mr. Courtenay called the attention of the House to these two letters. After some passages selected from Mr. Hope's letter had been read, Mr. Courtenay moved, that they were a gross breach of privilege. The Marquis of Londonderry suggested, that the selected passages might be explained by the context, and submitted that, in order to enable members to form a correct judgment upon the whole letter, it might be convenient to adjourn the farther consideration of the subject for 24 hours. Mr. Tierney thought, that the breach of privilege was clearly made out without farther inquiry; but with a view of measuring the degree of the offence committed, he had no objection to the letter being read instanter. Mr. W. Wynn hinted a doubt, whether any breach of privilege had been committed; and, upon the authority of Mr. Hobhouse's case, maintained the propriety of the proposed adjournment. The Speaker expressed an apprehension that an adjournment, after the passages had been read, might tend to create an opinion, that no breach of privilege had been committed. Upon a suggestion by the Marquis of Londonderry, that the let ter might lead to a breach of the peace, a messenger was dispatched to summon Mr. Abercromby to attend in his place. Mr. Brougham maintained that a gross breach of privilege had been committed, and declared that if individuals were thus to be attacked, it was impossible that they could do their duty freely and fearlessly. Lord Binning, in order to save the necessity of bringing the printer from Scotland, avowed Mr. Hope's letter on the part of that gentleman. It was then agreed, that Mr. Hope should be summoned to attend the House on the 17th of the month. Mr. Menzies' letter was next taken into consideration. Mr. Huskisson expressed some doubt, whether the hypothesis assumed in the letter, that the speech imputed to Mr. Abercromby was a fabrication, did not render it rather an offence against the newspaper editor to whom it was addressed, than a breach of the privileges of the House. Mr. Tierney seemed disposed to treat Mr. Huskisson's reasoning with little respect, and called it special pleading. He thought it the first duty of the House to protect a member, when, in the course of his duty as a public accuser, he states facts of which he has no doubt. Nearly the same ground was gone over, as in the discussion of Mr. Hope's letter; and Mr. Menzies, also, was ordered to attend on the 17th. At a later period of the evening, the messenger, who had been directed to summon Mr. Abercromby, stated that that gentleman had left town by the Barnet road. A messenger immediately afterwards set off in a post-chaise and four to overtake him, and execute the Speaker's warrant for his recall. Another messenger departed at the same time for Edinburgh, to compel the attendance of the two Scotch barristers. On the 12th of July, Mr. Abercromby appeared in his place, and received in silence an injunction from the Speaker not to prosecute farther any quarrel arising out of the letter of Mr. Hope or Mr. Menzies. Lord Althorp then stated, that he, as Mr. Abercromby's friend, had proceeded with that gentleman as far northward as Ferry bridge in Yorkshire; but, learning there, that the purpose of their journey had been defeated by the order to Mr. Menzies and Mr. Hope to attend at the bar, Mr. Abercromby had returned, in order to show the utmost submission to the commands of the House. On the 17th, Messrs. Hope and Menzies attended at the bar. Mr. Hope appeared first, and in a manly speech explained the motives of his letter to Mr. Abercromby. He expressed regret that he had infringed the privileges of the House, for which he professed to entertain the highest respect, but appealed to the feelings of every member, whether he had not been placed in circumstances, which rendered it impossible in him to act otherwise. Mr. Courtenay moved in form, that Mr. Hope, having acknowledged the letter to Mr. Abercromby, was guilty of a breach of privilege. Sir F. Burdett spoke with great animation against the assumption of arbitrary power in matters of privilege by the House of Commons, in derogation of the law of the land, and declared, that should any ulterior proceeding be proposed against Mr. Hope, he would divide the House upon it. A long debate followed, in which sir R. Wilson, Mr. Brougham, Mr. Tierney, and lord A. Hamilton, urged the necessity of the House vindicating its insulted privileges; lord. Binning and Mr. Canning maintained, that no ulterior proceedings were necessary. Finally, this latter course prevailed; and a resolution to that effect was agreed to. Mr. Hope was then called in, was informed of the resolution, and was dismissed. The case of Mr. Hope being thus disposed of, Mr. Menzies was called in, heard the resolution of the House with respect to his letter read, made his speech in explanation of his letter, and was discharged instantly and unhesitatingly, without receiving any reprimand or uttering any expression of regret. and It was the general opinion that the cases of these two gentlemen, were perfectly distinct; that their defence rested on different grounds; and that the circumstance which made the letter of Mr. Hope a breach of privilege, was totally wanting in the letter of Mr. Menzies; for Mr. Menzies, for instance, did not aver that what Mr. Abercromby uttered was false, but that, "in what appeared as a fair report of Mr. Abercromby's speech, improper motives were attributed to Mr. M.; and that whoever was the real author of these imputations, they were altogether unwarranted, groundless, false." Unless, therefore, reports of speeches, which in truth are themselves only connived-at breaches of privilege, be protected by the shield of privilege, as well as the speeches themselves, or the members who utter them, the strictures of Mr. Menzies, it was said, on the statement of a newspaper, purporting to be a report, could be no breach of parliamentary privilege. In this view of the matter, however, a very important circumstance is overlooked. Mr. Menzies' letter to the editor of the Courier, contained a copy of a letter written by that gentleman to Mr. Abercromby himself; and this last-mentioned letter contained a direct assertion that Mr. Abercromby had given injurious mis representations of the writer's fairly be held a breach of privilege. conduct such language might The concluding paragraph of Mr. Menzies letter to Mr. Abercromby, was in the following words: "I certainly have reason to complain that my conduct should have 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 conduct, by communicating to me the information on. which you proceeded, and the source from which you obtained it, and by taking the earliest opportunity of publishing this statement of the facts of the case, in the same way in which you did the mis-statement of which I have so much reason to complain." VOL. LXIV. [H] |