The Sun.
London, England, 1837-02-17 00:00:00

MR. LECHMERE CHARLTON.

Mr. WYNN brought up the Report of the Committee
appointed to inquire into the case of Mr. Lechmere Charlton.
The Clerk then proceeded to read, in a very hurried and
almost inaudible voice, the Report. It stated that the peti-
tions presented to the House by the Hon. Member for Hud-
dersfield, and by the Hon. Member for Lambeth, from Lech-
mere Charlton, Esq., a Member of that House, had been re-
ferred to the Committee. The warrant for the commit-
ment of Mr. L. Charlton to the Fleet Prison, and the order
of Court, upon which it was founded, were produced, and it
appeared from them that lie had been committed for writing a
letter to W. Brougham; Esq. a Master of the High Court of

Chancery, for attempting improperly to influence that Court.
The report had been agreed to by a majority of 10 out of 15
who composed that Committee (as we understood)—
Mr. O'CONNELL—Speak up.
The Clerk proceeded—The Committee found that the
order of the Court did not set forth the letter in question upon
which the charge was grounded. The Committee directed
that letter to be produced, inasmuch as, although the Lord
Chancellor had the power of determining what he conceived
to be a contempt of Court, it was necessary that the
House .of Commons should be correctly informed upon
the subject, and to decide whether this letter was of such
a character. The Committee had also summoned Mr. Cheri
ton before them ; and they found upon exemination that the
letter was expressed in an improper and intemperate manner.
It was offensive to the Master, and thereby a contempt of the
authority of the Court under which he acted—having been
written with the intent to influence the conduct of the Master,
with a view to obtain a further hearing of a cause which, if it
had been applied for in a proper manner, Mr. Charl-
ton would have obtained.—( Hear, hear.) The report then
proceeded to detail the particulars of the letter written by Mr.
Charlton to the Master, and the cause to which it referred,
and then proceeded to point out what the law and usage of Par-
liament had been in such cases, commencing so far back as 16-11.
Under all the circumstances the Committee were of opinion
that Mr. Charlton's prayer for his discharge by reason of his
privilege of Parliament, ought not to be admitted. .
Mr. W. WYNN had been charged by the Committee to
lay before the House a paragraph which had appeared that
morning in one of the newspapers, which attributed the at-
tendance of Members solely to party feeling and party purposes.
He had seldom seen a fuller attendance of Members, and the
report which had just been read would show how the reflection
was met by the Committee—that the great majority of those
who usually agreed with Mr. Charlton in politics, had agreed
that he should not by his privilege of Parliament be entitled
to his discharge.—( Hear, hear.) There was no other op-
portunity of contradicting the calumny which had been thrown
upon the motives of those Hon. Members who had attended
the Committee, than by bringing it before the House. The
publication of the paragraph in question tended directly to
obstruct the course of justice. He would read it to the House :
" We directed attention, ten days ago, to the indecent con-
duct of the Tories on the question respecting the claim of pri-
vilege by Mr. E. Lechmere Charlton against the process of
the Lord Chancellor for a gross contempt of Court. This
conduct is repeated by the Tories, who are notoriously
whipping' the Committee of Privileges. That Committee,
being subgtaatially open to all Members of the House of
Commons, is, it would seem, to take the place of packed
special juries of former times ; and such is the rage of party
spirit that even a grave and responsible judicial inquiry is to
be turned into an arena of political faction. The Tory
whippers-in,' who are well known under that denomination,
daily display the utmost industry in the exercise of their
honourable vocation. It matters not whether the authority
of the Great Seal or a great constitutional question be at
issue, everything now is to be sacrificed to party feeling
and party objects. The simple matter of reference to
this Committee is, the consideration of all matters touching
privilege; and the consideration of the letters to the
Speaker from the Lord Chancellor and Mr. Charl.
ton. On this simple inquiry the Committee has
now sate • in secret and solemn conclave a full fortnight.
The Lord Chancellor either has or has not the
power of committing a Member of the House of Commons
for contempt. No man of common sense doubts that a vio-
lation of law, or a contempt of the Courts of Justice, is
aggravated in the case of a Member of the Legislature,
and not privileged. ' It requires little knowledge
of Parliamentary history and legal decisions to be able
to pronounce that, as in the case of Mr. Long Wel-
lesley, the Court of Chancery ought not to be over-ridden
by the House of Commons. With respect to the par-
ticular ' contempt' assigned by the Lord Chancellor against Mr.
Charlton, we apprehend that the Privilege Committee is no ap-
pellate jurisdiction. It is for the Judge to decide what is a con-
tempt' of his Court and authority. In the present instance the
perpetrator is, we understand, a petitioner and Counsel of
the Court. In such relations he is surely amenable to the
jurisdiction of the Court in which he petitions and prac-
tises. But the whippers-in' now inform us that this pecu-
liar Committee is not only to decide whether Mr. Charlton
is ' privileged,' but is also to determine whether
his offence is or is not a contempt' of the Court
of Chancery ; that is to say, they are to usurp the functions
of the Judge ! Mr. Charlton's letters to Mr. W. Brougham
and to the Lord Chancellor may be acceptable as a matter of
taste to the Tories, but the whippers-in' will find it hard to
persuade the country or the House of Commons collectively
that his epistles are not vulgar as well as subversive of the
course of justice. In charity to the Honourable Member,
they maardesir'e to use him for ulterior objects ; but, whatever
the report of a.' whipped' Committee, they will fail in per-
suading a Reformed House of Commons that the Lord
Chancellor of England, and the highest judicial offi -
cars of the realm, are to be insulted with impunity,
or that the municipal rights of a populous borough
are to be sacrificed to the old nuisance of borough-
mongering. If the ' whip ' is to decide this constitutional
and important reference, we hope it will be applied on both
sides of the House. Certainly it is the duty of every Liberal
to attend this day, in order that Parliament itself, as well as
the Lord Chancellor, may not be brought into contempt.' "
The Right Hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that John
Black, the proprietor of the Morning Chronicle newspaper, be
ordered to attend at the bar of the House to-morrow.—( Loud
cries of No I no I)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL—I really wish that the Right
Hon. Gentleman had taken some further time for considera-
tion before making this motion ; however, if the Right I-lon.
Gentleman is, as he appears to be, the organ of the Com-
mittee in this case, I must say That I think that their opinion
that he should press this case before the attention of the House,
is not a course which I think is warranted or expedient. Pub-
lic writers have been accustomed now for some years to indulge
in great latitude of observation upon the proceedings of that
House, and the custom which formerly prevailed of any per-
son or set of persons taking offence at any paragraph in the
newspapers has been abandoned.—(Great cheering.) I must
say that for the last two or three years, if that practice had
been persevered in, those who would have had most reason to
complain would have been the majority of this House. There
are no terms of abuse—( Cheers)—there are no terms by which
men could be vilified or lowered in the estimation of their
fellow-countrymen, which have not been applied to the majority
of this House, and to the conduct which they have pursued.
—( Renewed cheering.) To pass over all minor observations
of this description, a charge delivered by the Lord Bishop of
—(the name was losb amidst cheers on the Ministerial side)
—in which, as far as I remember, after representing the ma-
jority of this House in their proceedings, to be under the
guidance of a faction who wished to destroy property and
all the institutions of the country—( Hear, hear, hear)—he
proceeded to say, certain Members of this House sufficiently
designated—the Members who professed the Roman Ca-
tholic faith—were guilty of treachery and perjury. Sir, if
we are to take notice of breaches of privilege, I must say I think
we ought not to lose a moment in vindicating the honour of
the Members of this House, who, for giving their votes in
Parliament, and for nothing else, are declared by this Right
Rev. Prelate—whose source for making that declaration was
the public Press—he has declared them to be guilty of tree.-
chery and perjury. For my own part, when I read the pamphlet
I thought it as gross a breach as ever had been committed
on the privileges of this House ; but I was convinced that those
Members whom it attacked would do far better to treat it with
utter contempt--(Tremendous cheering,)—and not take any
notice of such proceedings, but act according to their own
sentiments of what their duty was.—( Cheers.) And are we
now to be told that we are to take up cases of this
kind, when a journalist chooses to say that some Member
of the Committee had been whipped up to attend'
it P—( Laughter.) Supposing that there was some founda-
tion for it, what does it amount to—nothing more than that
which has great prevalence in this House—party feeling. The
journalist tells you, that some Members attended, who thought
more of party-spirit than the question for their examination.
I shall not enter into the question now as to the manner in
which the Committee has done its duty. I think the COM_
mittee have their best vindication in the report which has been
presented to this House. They have given it as their opinion,
—an opinion from which I differed, while I attended the
sittings of the Committee—that they were bound to sift
the entire of the charges, and to examine the character
of the letters to the Lord Chancellor ; but I think that they
should be perfectly satisfied with having performed their duty
to the Members of this House in vindicating its privileges,
and I believe they have come to a just decision, that the pri-
vilege of Mr. Charlton ought not to protect him from the
commitment to which he has been subject; and having so acted,
I am of opinion that any proceeding against a newspaper on
account of a paragraph in its columns containing various state-
ments, would be beneath the dignity of this House.--4 Cheers.)
I am told there have appeared paragraphs on the opposite side
with respect to the divisions in the Committee, either attack-
ing or ridiculing the part taken by my Right Honourable
Friend the Attorney-General. If, therefore, this House
should resolve to bring up the writer of the paragraph
in the Morning Chronicle in order to be consistent we
should have also at our bar the proprietors or editors
of the Morning Post, of the John Bull, and of the other Lon-
don newspapers, and see what they have said on the conduct
of the Members of this House.--( Cheers.) I really hope
the Committee will not deem it necessary to push the matter
further. I am fully aware of the inconvenience of the system
some time since in operation, of summoning to the
bar every one who commented severely or 'otherwise
upon the conduct and character of Members of Parliament.
It has never produced any useful result, and I hope it will not
be now renewed. I trust therefore the case will not further
be proceeded with, and that it will not be necessary to take
the opinion of this House upon Hear, hear.)
Mr. PRA E D said the Noble Lord had attempted to draw an
analogy, which he thought it would be bad taste in him to
follow.—( Cries of " Oh, oh I") There was not the least
analogy between the libel brought to the notice of the
House by the Noble Lord, and that brought to the atten-
tion of the House by his Right Honourable Friend. That
was not the occasion on which to discuss a questionee ns
o opposite
p p,o Os i ofthe
great importance, which he thought the Noble Lord had very
mistakingly introduced.—( Laughter, and cries of " Hear,
hear.") He was extremely sorry thaotnoa. uqseuoe_esnti(tolcenmroif such great
importance should be received with such levity by lion. Gen-
tlemen
oh on
whateveroppositee
ffeside i v
eo f
tonetheH
n
might receive the remarks ho should make, they would not
disturb his self. possession.—( Loud cries of Hear,e hear, hear,
from the Ministerial benches, echoed back by th
benches.) Nor should he say one word offensive to Opposition.
indi-
vidual, or discourteous to the House at Withlarge.—(Hear.)l
great submission to the Noble Lord, he would suggest to h"
case a little more analogous to the case then under their
con-
sideration. An individual had written a private letter, offen- '

sive to a person exercising the functions of a Judge in a
.p!tr.
titular case, and calculated improperly to influence his dec►sion
in the matter pending before him. For writing that letter, the
Lord Chancellor committed that individual to an indefinite term
of imprisonment, and he now stood committed to the Fleet for
writing that private offensive letter, so calculated to influence
the Judge, until the Lord Chancellor should make a further
order. Here was a paragraph in a public newspaper grossly
offensive to a Committee exercising judicial functions, and cal-
culated improperly to influence them in the discharge of their
judicial duty.--( Cheers from the Opposition.) It did appear
to him that as the Committee was a strictly private one, and
debated with closed doors, an inquiry was more necessary in
this than in any other case ; because the writer of the para-
graph almost assumed that he had derived his information from
a Member of the House; and it appeared to him desirable
to notice it on another ground, viz., that they might have an
opportunity of pointing out the gross and scandalous false-
hoods throughout the whole of the paragraph. He believed
there was not the shadow of a foundation for one single inu-
enda contained in it.—( Cheers from the Opposition benches.)
Mr. WYNN—The present case appeared to him to differ
widely from any of those which had been cited, inasmuch as it
represented a Committee of the House of Commons sitting
upon a judicial question as a packed Special Jury.—(Hear.)
It was infinitely more offensive than any of the productions
that had been quoted ; but he rather wished that opportunity
would be given to Members of opposite political principles to
state, whether they saw anything of undue political bias in
that Committee. He (Mr. W.) sat in the chair, and he
could certainly state upon his honour as a gentleman, that ho
did not see anything of the kind.
The motion was then withdrawn.
PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE.

Lord J. RUSSELL rose to move fora Select Committee
on a subject certainly of very great importance, but upon
which, in that stage of the proceedings, it was not prudent
nor right in him to make many observations to the House.
It appeared to him that with regard to their privileges, they
had now come pretty much to hat he thought was the right
course upon subjects of that kind—namely, that they enjoyed
every privilege necessary for carrying on their proceedings
freely and undisturbed, without being anxious to push them
beyond that point.—( Cries of " Hear, hear, hear.") In
former times it might have been necessary to have proceeded
against a Judge, because then the prerogative of the Crown
had been used for the purpose of interrupting the proceedings
of that House, and of interfering with the freedom of debate.
These times have long since gone by, and it was only ne-
cessary for them now to take such proceedings upon
matters of privilege as would enable them to carry on their
discussions and debates, and the various functions they
enjoyed, undisturbed by any authority. The ques-
tion to which he wished immediately to call the
attention of the House were the proceedings that had
taken place in the Court of King's Bench with respect to the
publishing of papers ordered to be printed by that House.
It could not be denied that the House must have a certain la-
titude in that respect, and that it ought in a great degree to
prescribe for itself what that latitude ought to be.—(Cries
of " Hear, hear.") In any measure to be considered by
Parliament, it was hardly necessary to consider that the
power of printing and publishing papers should be confined to
Members of that House; because if they took such a limit
they would be unable to judge properly of many things
essentially due to legislation in that country with respect
to complaints made to that House. It was one of the most
important privileges of the subject that they should have
the right to make their complaints known to the House.
Then if they received all complaints, they must receive some
which reflected grossly upon the conduct of individuals, and
they might even be construed to be libellous. It was impossi-
ble for the House to lay dotvn the limit, the extent to which
such complaints might be made public, for then it would
be found impossible, if they did not know to some ex-
tent that the Legislature would not be able to apply
a remedy. The question then arose, whether, if the House
made these proceedings in any way public, were they to do
as in former times, publish them under the authority of
the Speaker of the House, or in what other way ?
Both methods were publications in law, and he (Lord J.
Russell) could not see the grounds upon which the publica-
tion by order of the Speaker should be a fair and a permitted
proceeding, and that the publication of them by means of sale,
and under the authority of the House, should bring their
printer into a Court of Law, and he made to suffer in
damages by action at law. With these views, he thought it
very essential that before the House came to any decision
upon the matter, they should appoint a Select Committee to
inquire into, and report to the House, all precedents upon the
point, as well as the law and practice of Parliament with re-
spect to publication. The point upon which this question had
arisen, was one which brought the matter in dispute peculiarly
under the notice of the House. It had arisen upon tne pub-
lication of a Report which he had presented to the House,
not by command of His Majesty, but by the express direc-
tions of an Act of Parliament, which directed that all
Reports of the Inspectors of Prisons should be laid before
the House, and if they were not printed, the Parliament
would be unable to apply any remedy to public grievances.
There was no stepping out of their way—there was no wish on
the part of the Inspectors, or on his part, to bring needless or
useless charges to injure any individual. He therefore
thought that if in such a case it was not allowable for
the House to publish their proceedings, and to obtain all the
information which they could obtain—if they were to admit their
power to be restrained to this effect—it would be setting
a precedent by which the utility of that House would bo
very much curtailed, and by which the power and usefulness of
the Members of this branch of the Legislature would be in a
great measure destroyed ; and any person acting under the
orders of this House might be subjected to penalties and forfeitures
of the Courts of Law. Ile would not detain the House by re-
ferring to any precedents; he wished that an inquiry should
take place before a Committee of the House, who would collect
all the precedents that bear on the subject. He would therefore
move " that a Select Committee be appointed to examine into
precedents respecting the circulation and publication of repor's
and papers printed by order of that House, in order to ascers.
tain what was the practice of Parliament prior to and since ass
order for the sale of such papers."
Mr. C. W. WYNN would not say that the particular circum-
stances of this case were stronger than any others, the attempts
of which had been to limit the privileges of that House; but at the
same time he would say that if there was one case in which he ap-
prehended there was so much justification of the course which.
the House had pursued, in printing the information which.
came before them, it was such as the present.—( Hear.)
In consequence of the numerous complaints of the hardship
endured by children in factories, a Bill was introduced, and af-
terwards passed through the Legislature, directing inspectors to
be appointed, who should make reports from time to time. The
reports thus made were directed by Act of Parliament to be laid.
before the House.—( Hear, hear.) In order that these re-
ports should be of service, it was essential that they should be
circulated throughout the country, and he might be allowed to
say further, that it was most essential to any individual who
might find himself injured in any respect by these reports,
that he should have an opportunity of petitioning that House
of making a counter-statement, and of vindicating himself.
The SPEAKER then put the motion, which was agreed to,
and the following Committee appointed :
Howick. Lord O'Connell, D. Strickland Sir G.
Campbell, Sir J. Peel, Sir R. Tancred, H. W.
Clerk, Sir G. Pollock, Sir F. Villiers, Charles
Follett, Sir W. W. Roebuck, J. A. Wilde, T. •
Inglis, Sir R. H. Stanley, Lord Wynn, C. W.
CHURCH BILL.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL postponed his motion for leave
to bring in a Bill for carrying into effect the Report of the
Ecclesiastical Commissioners till this day fortnight, the new
Report of the Commissioners not having yet been received.
PLURALITIES BILL.

The NOBLR LORD then proceeded to move for leave to
bring in a Bill to restrain and regulate pluralities, and to
enforce residence in certain cases. The Noble Lord said
that after the Bills which had been introduced last year, and
which, with very few alterations, had passed tho. House of Lords
with respect to pluralities ; and as the Bill which he was now
about to introduce was founded upon that, it would be un-
necetsary for him to go into its details—the better course in his
opinion being to discuss the merits of the Bill at a future
stage. The Noble Lord then moved for leave to bring in.
the Bill.

Mr. HUME concurred with tho Noble Lord that it would
be better to discuss the merits of the Bill at a later stage, but
he begged to enter his protest against the legalising of plu-
ralities. His object was to abolish them altogether, and upon
the next occasion it was his determination to take the sense of
the House upon that subject. Leave was then given to
bring in the