Sitting of 9 July 1822

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—COMPLAINT AGAINST MR. HOPE AND MR. MENZIES.
Mr. W. Courtenayrose, to bring under the notice of the House two recent publications, to which he considered it necessary to call their very serious attention. The House would recollect that some little time ago, an hon. member (Mr. Abercomby) called for a parliamentary inquiry into the conduct of the lord advocate of Scotland in relation to the public press of that country. In the course of the debate on that occasion, the hon. member was under the necessity of taking upon himself the disagreeable part of an accuser. Disagreeable as that office must have been to the feelings of the hon. member, it would not be doubted that he was then discharging one of the most important functions which a member of the House of Commons could exercise. Any thing, therefore, which interfered with the free exercise of such a function must be considered as a breach of the privileges of that House. In the course or the observations which the hon. and learned gentleman had made on the evening alluded to, he was called upon to make some remarks on the conduct of certain persons connected with public employments in Scotland. Those remarks appeared to have elicited the particular comments of which he (Mr. C.) was now speaking from the parties concerned; and to the publications in which they were contained, it was his wish to call the attention of the House. He held in his hand a pamphlet, entitled "A Letter to the hon. James Abercromby, by John Hope." Mr. Hope appeared to be one of the individuals on whose proceedings the hon. member had thought it requisite to make some reflections. Now, throughout the letter, that sort of spirit was visible, which, when applied to words spoken by an hon. member in the conscientious discharge of his duty within these walls, did appear a most open and daring viola-

1549
tion of the privileges of parliament. The passages were of a nature to provoke feelings of hostility, and to bring the writer into direct personal altercation and contact with the individual to whom they were addressed. That such was the manifest tendency of this publication, he thought the House would at once agree with him. He would read one or two passages only, which appeared to him to be couched in the most improper, and even gross, language. The letter of Mr. Hope began by describing the occasion out of which it had arisen; it spoke of the reports which had appeared of the hon. gentleman's speech, and then expressed the opinion of the writer that those reports were correct. The writer then addressed himself to the hon. member, assuming him to be the undoubted speaker of the speech so reported, and afterwards expressed himself thus: "On the gross injustice to the, defendants, resulting from this perversion of the privileges of parliamentary discussion, in order to aid the private action of a political associate, and to prepossess and prejudice the minds of the public, from whom the jury must afterwards be selected, it is needless to enlarge." With the hon. gentleman whose speech was thus attacked, he was in no way politically associated; but on whatever side of the House a man might happen to vote, if his speech was delivered as the conscientious expression of his sentiments, it was the bounden duty of that House to prohibit the application to it of language amounting to a charge of perverting the privileges of parliament to the most base and unworthy motives. There were other passages in the same letter of much the same character. One of these passages was to this effect: "Upon what grounds you and sir James Mackintosh have proceeded in the attack which you have severally made upon me, for supposed conduct, as a counsel in a private and depending action, I have no means of exactly ascertaining. It is very possible that the wilful misrepresentation of others may have induced you to think yourselves safe in the grounds of that attack. But (whatever was the nature of your information)—that the circumstances in question have been anxiously, Or at least hastily, and therefore unwarrantably, seized hold of, for the purpose of imputing my official conduct to flagitious motives, cannot be denied. Whether you truly believed the statements which you were so
1550
forward and ready to make, is a question I cannot permit myself to ask. The injustice, illiberality, and intemperance of the comments, with which these statements were accompanied, you cannot now dispute." He was convinced that the hon. and learned member himself was the only person in that House who would oppose the course which he (Mr. C.) was now pursuing. But, much as he respected his hon. and learned friend, he did not feel that parliament ought to consult his wishes upon such an occasion: they were bound to preserve their character and dignity, and to see that their most important privileges were preserved inviolate. The pamphlet went on to impute to his hon. and learned friend the having made an attack upon the writer, knowing it to be totally unfounded. How could they boast of the freedom of debate, if any by such attacks as those contained in this pamphlet. He had now state the case of Mr. Hope's letter: but there was another matter so connected with the letter, that he thought it necessary to bring it before the House. In the Courier newspaper of the preceding evening, there had appeared a letter from Mr. Menzies, an advocate, addressed to the same hon. member, and which letter would seem to have been sent with a comment to the editor of that print. The letter purported to come from Mr. Menzies; and the comment was in these words, "In what you put forth as a fair report of Mr. Abercromby's 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 shown that, whoever was the real author of them, they were altogether unwarranted, groundless, and false." He should wish the House well to consider the spirit and language of these two publications. To him it appeared that they formed a part of that fatal system which had of late been manifesting itself in this country, and which it was high time the House should effectually put down. He thought they would concur with him in thinking that the object of both these publications was, to make a personal quarrel grow out of the discharge of a most painful and unpleasant duty, which a member of that House had thought proper to undertake. He should first put in the papers, the most objectionable passages of which he had himself marked, and then move a re-

1551
solution, that the marked passages which the papers so put in contained, amounted to a breach of the privileges of that House.
The said printed Letter, and the said newspaper, were delivered in at the table; and certain passages in the said printed Letter were read. After which Mr. Courtenay moved, "That the said Printed Letter is in breach of the privileges of this House".
The Marquis of Londonderryobserved, that in some instances the House had at once voted the paper complained of to be a breach of privilege, but in other cases it had postponed coming to a decision till a future day.
The Speakerwas aware that both courses had frequently been taken; but he believed the course taken when it was a constructive breach of privilege, differed from that which had been pursued where the breach was positive and distinct. The question now was whether there had been a comment, and what were the terms in which that comment was couched. If there had been a comment at all, there was an end to the question about breach of privilege.
Mr. Wynnagreed that the contents of the paper, which had not been read, had no relation to the question then before the House; but as the passages which had been read might be mitigated or aggravated by the other parts of the documents, it was desirable that the House should be put in possession of the whole. In the case of Mr. Reeves the whole of a long pamphlet had been read at the table. This, however, was inconvenient, as the attention of the House could not be so fixed on the article while reading, as to make them fully acquainted with it, and therefore he thought the better course was, to postpone the further consideration of the subject till to-morrow.
Mr. Tierneywas decidedly of opinion that the extracts in question were a gross breach of privilege. If, however, any hon. member thought that reading the whole pamphlet might have the effect of mitigating the rigour of the House, he ought to have it read.
Mr. Wynnsaid, that in the case of Mr. Hobhouse, the consideration of the subject had been adjourned for a day. That course he thought it would be desirable to pursue now.
The Speakerwas aware that a great variety of precedents were to be found,
1552
and that two very different courses had frequently been pursued. One way was to decide that the writing charged was a breach of their privileges, and then call the party to the bar to admit or deny that he was the author: the other was, before deciding whether or not a breach of their privileges had been committed, to call on the author of a paper brought before them to defend or explain it, as in some cases it was thought this might influence their decision on the question, whether or not a breach of privilege had been committed. But in a case where their proceedings had been commented on, it mattered not what the terms were in which it had been so commented on. The interference with their deliberations was in itself a breach of privilege, and no explanation at the bar could alter the decision on that point, though it might materially affect the proceedings consequent upon it. Under these circumstances it was for them to consider whether they would suspend their decision in a case where there could be no doubt of a breach of privilege having been committed.
The Marquis of Londondcrrythought the House would come to a decision of the subject with more advantage after having considered the papers during an interval. But he thought it might in the meanwhile, be proper for the House to desire the hon. member to attend in his place forthwith, and to require of him a pledge that no personal consequences would ensue upon this matter.
Mr. Tierneyagreed with the noble lord, that the House ought to order the attendance of its member in his place, and that no time should be lost in doing so. He of course knew nothing of what was passing, but he owned he spoke with great anxiety of mind, from the feelings of friendship which he entertained for one of the parties. He implored the House therefore, unless they entertained some reasonable doubt as to the breach of privilege, not to hesitate in coming to a decision on that point; as they would thereby lead the way to that other step, which was so indispensably necessary, in order to prevent the occurrence of serious consequences.
Mr. Wynnsaid, he should move for the attendance of the hon. member forthwith; but, in the mean time, he thought the whole of the documents ought to be read.
Lord Binningcontended that the whole

1553
of the documents ought to be read before the House came to a decision. The House ought not to come to a precipitate vote against absent parties.
Mr. Broughamcould not avoid viewing these papers, in the first instance, as a breach of privilege. Incidental to the main question, another circumstance claimed their attention, the chance of immediate personal altercation. But the question before them was, whether or not a breach of their privileges had been committed? The circumstances to which he had alluded would only operate as a reason for proceeding with all possible dispatch. There was a material difference between this case and that of Mr. Hobhouse. The circumstances attending the latter case might have been indecorous, and might have been justly resented by that House; but it did not amount to that direct and immediate obstruction which an attack upon individual members of that House, particularly an attack upon a single member for discharging his parliamentary duty, was calculated to accomplish. All cases of libels upon that House Might be construed to amount to an obstruction; but there was a striking and manifest distinction between those general cases and cases like that under consideration, which was nothing more nor less than a direct personal attack upon a member of parliament for discharging his duty. The House would see the paramount necessity of proceeding with effect and without delay. The first step was to declare that the conduct of the individual amounted to a breach of privilege. The next duty was, to take immediate steps to bring the party before the House. The House was in the habit of calling upon members in cases of personal difference, and enforcing pledges that no farther steps should be taken by them; but in those cases the offence was committed in the presence of the House; the House was competent to form a judgment upon it, and to act upon that judgment. An hon. member had on one occasion overheard certain words that had passed between two members in the lobby; he informed the House of the circumstance, and both gentlemen were called before the House. But in these cases neither party had cause to complain of the decision—both were present, and justice was done between them. Now, he begged the House to see the situation in which his hon. and learned friend was placed. The motion really might be con-
1554
sidered a motion against his hon. and learned friend. He was a member of that House; and they were bound, whilst they vindicated their privileges, to deal as lightly as possible with him; yet, without coming to any vote as to the breach of privilege which had been committed, without stigmatizing the conduct of the person guilty of that breach of privilege, without doing any thing against the wrong doer, the House called upon the party who had not offended—upon their own member—to attend in his place, with a view of placing restrictions upon him, whilst the other party was suffered to go at large. In his opinion, that was a course of proceeding which ought not to be adopted, unless under apprehensions of immediate mischief; and not then, unless where both parties were called before them. The most regular, and the most parliamentary course was, to pronounce the publication a breach of privilege. Whatever step should be taken, he hoped would be unanimously adopted. The House was bonnd to do so, if it were only to express its determination to put down a system which had been acted on in some cases, and which threatened to tear up by the roots every vestige of parliamentary privilege. There was no shadow of comparison between any attack, however gross and indecent, upon that House in its corporate capacity, and an attack upon an individual member, singled out by a party for the performance of his public duty, that party countenanced and supported by another party, whom he (the member) felt it his duty, as it were, to put upon trial. Members of that House would be found ready to do their duty in spite of the general attacks which were, and which might be, made upon the House in its collective capacity; but, if an individual was to be singled out by a party, with whom, in the fair discharge of his duty, he came in contact, he did not see how gentlemen could be found fearlessly to discharge their public duty, more especially the most invidious part of it.
Mr. Wynnfully concurred in all that had fallen from the learned gentleman. Among the most sacred and important duties which the House owed not only to itself, but to the country, was that of preventing, by every means in its power, the practice of making members responsible for words spoken within its walls. That course, in a case like the present, was the best, which met with the most

1555
general concurrence. He would therefore withdraw his motion.
The question, "That the said printed Letter is in breach of the privileges of this House," was then agreed to, nem. con.
Mr. Wynnsaid, they must now adjourn the farther consideration of the subject, or make an order for the printers to attend, in order to get at the authors.
The Speakerthought it would be better to order the printers to attend, and then adjourns the further consideration of the subject till to-morrow.
Lord Binningsaid, that one of the printers lived in Edinburgh.
Mr. Tierneysaid, that seven or eight days must elapse before the printer could attend, and supposing the session to terminate before the author was brought up, Mr. Abercromby would be bound by the order of the House, while the other party would be at liberty to act as they pleased. Could any one doubt that Mr. John Hope was the author of the letter. If there was no doubt on the subject, perhaps the noble lord opposite could vouch for the fact, and in that case it would not be improper to order at once Mr. John Hope to attend the House.
Lord Binningsaid, he had certainly not the smallest doubt that the letter in question was written by Mr. Hope. He was perfectly convinced that Mr. Hope would avow the letter at their bar, and he hoped the House would act on this statement.
It was then ordered, "That John Hope esq. do attend this House on the 17th instant." Also "That the hon. James Abercromby do attend this House in his place forthwith." Then the letter addressed to the editor of "The Courier" newspaper was read, and, after a short conversation, it was resolved, nem. con. "That the said letter is in breach of the privileges of this House;" and William Menzies, esq. was ordered to attend the House on the 17th instant.—In the course of the evening, the serjeant at arms informed the House, that Samuel Spiller, the messenger who had been sent to serve the order of the House on Mr. Abercromby, was in attendance; Whereupon he was called in; and, being examined by Mr. Speaker, stated that he had carried the said order to Mr. Abercromby's house in New-street, Spring Gardens, where he was informed that Mr. Abercromby left home this afternoon at 2 o'clock for ten days, and that he was be-
1556
lieved to have taken the road for Scotland.