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.

the

At a later period of the evening, 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

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]

HE distresses of the agricultural interest continued to occupy the attention of parliament, and in a greater degree than in any preceding year. Scarcely had the session commenced, when, with a view to ascertain how far the country gentlemen were likely to abandon the government, Mr. Brougham moved, "that it is the bounden duty of this House, wellconsidering the pressure of public burthens upon all, but especially the agricultural classes, to obtain for the suffering people of these realms such a reduction of taxation, as may be suited to the change in the value of money, and may afford an immediate relief to the distresses of the country." The speech, with which he introduced this motion, was very long and very desultory. It contained little argument, and no sound general views. The two cardinal points, on which the mover rested his proposition, were, that taxes were the cause of the existing dis

tresses, and that the agricultural classes were loaded with more than their due share of taxation. Many of the doctrines advanced by Mr. Brougham on this occasion, were such as might have been expected from Mr. Curwen, or Mr. Western, or sir Thomas Lethbridge, or any other of the class of philosophers, the prime article in whose creed is, that government exists only to enable landlords to obtain the greatest possible rents; but in the views propounded in the speech, there was no trace of the clear and forcible understanding, which usually shines in Mr. Brougham's parliamentary exhibitions; and indeed had it not been for some strains of bitter sarcasm, one could scarcely have believed, that it was the member for Winchelsea, who was labouring with such parasitical zeal, to flatter all the prejudices of the country gentlemen, and who was even bold enough to hint, that, if the comfort of full purses could not be otherwise ob

tained for them, the true line of policy would be, to plunder the public creditor, that they might be enriched.

The marquis of Londonderry opposed the resolution, as containing no specific proposition of retrenchment, and as leading to no practical purpose. Its object was only to entrap the House into a censure of ministers, who were of themselves disposed to carry reduction to the utmost extent, compatible with the safety of the state. He added, that he had to propose a remedy of his own, from which he entertained considerable hopes of relief; and he called on the House to suspend their judgment, till ministers brought forward their intended measure. Mr. Brougham's motion was negatived by a majority of 212 to 108. None of the country gentlemen, who had hitherto been in the habit of supporting ministers, voted with Mr. Brougham. The learned gentleman's witcheries had been without effect.

On the 15th of February, lord Londonderry brought forward his promised remedies, which were, the repeal of the annual malt-tax, and a loan to the agricultural interest, by means of Exchequer bills. He calculated, that the combined effect of the improving state of the revenue, and of the retrenchments already effected by ministers (which last he rated at two millions), would leave a surplus revenue of five millions; and that the saving of interest, to be effected by the intended paying off of the five per cents., would give a further surplus of a million and a half-a sum which, in his opinion, allowed ministers to repeal the annual malt tax, without injustice to the public creditor. The noble marquis, having rated the farmers' taxes at

one-seventh, or, including the taxes which affected him as a consumer, at one-fifth of his rent, proceeded to reason from this datum, that the diminution of taxation to any practicable extent could afford no adequate relief; and he recommended a loan of four millions, to be advanced partly to the landholders on the security of their crops, to enable them to withhold them for a time from the market, and so effect an advance in the price of grain, and partly to parishes on the security of their rates. The resolutions, with which his lordship concluded his speech, relating merely to the production of some financial documents, were carried without a division, though not without considerable discussion.

On the 18th of February, lord Londonderry moved for the revival of the agricultural committee. His lordship deprecated any discussion of the general question at that moment, but with very little success; for a long debate followed, which, though it did not possess much of the unity of consecutive reasoning, gave to a number of members an opportunity of avowing their opinions upon various subjects immediately or remotely connected with the agricultural question; or of animadverting upon the topics, which had been touched upon in the speeches of Mr. Brougham and the marquis of Londonderry.

On the 21st of February, lord Althorp brought forward a motion avowedly in opposition to the plans, which had been mentioned by the marquis of Londonderry. His lordship's proposition, in terms, went no farther than a declaration that the reduction of taxation, proposed by the ministers, was not sufficient to satisfy the just expecta