PARLIAMEKTAHY DECISIONS. 



e?er felt an interest, lia& ho not been accustomed to 

 consider the acdamatimt of an ordinan/ grand jury, the 

 moat decisive acquittal tJaat could befall a cbaracter 

 assailed? How is it, then, that aspersions cast upon 

 Sir James Brooke ni 1850, and rejected by a majority of 

 169 m Parliament, and hy all England — for so it may be 

 said — out of Parliament, are reproduced by the man who 

 declares m the same breath, that "it will be a great 

 satisfaction to him if it should turn out tliat lie has taken 

 too strong a view— an erroneous view ?" Moved originally 

 by public considerations, might Eot patriotism be satisfied 

 when 169 independent gentlemen decide that he is in 

 error, Tivhlle only 29 can hesitate ? Yet Mr. Hume 

 denies himself the "great satisfaction*' of being thus 

 convinced; and imdcrtakcsj i[i 1851, to show the same 

 House of Commons that i/mrs arc the "erroneous views." 

 Again, %vith what result t Two hundred and tfurtt/ 

 mcmbei"^ now^ repudiate the vocation of " bhistiug 

 chai'actei-s/' while only nineieen are not jishamed. Yet 

 even now we are told tliat the question only sleeps ; 

 indeed it scarceli/ sleeps. Mr, Hume has very lately 

 reiterated Ids worst imputations, — not unwilling, appa- 

 rently, to continue the dupe of othei-s more obscure, 

 whose malignant misijiformation has deceived their 

 betters into an expenditure of tlieir o^vn and the puMic 

 time, which w-as worthy of a better cause, 



I was absent from England when those debates in 

 Parliament took place. Assailing more particularly the 



