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

DUTY ON SOAP.

mittee, in all cases where it was required by five Mem,
In doing so, he wished to give the House every security
against any waste of time, and he considered that there was
a sufficient sccurit) against this in the fact that it must he
required by five Members of the House before it was adopted.
This would be a guarantee that no Hon. Member should
needlessly insist upon their going out of the ordinary mode.
lie considered it would be necessary to agree to his proposi-

tion, when it was considered that many of the most important
divisions took place in Committee ; and if his motion were
agreed to, Hon. Members would be spared the necessity
of correcting lists for their constituents ; and the House
would be relieved from the position of not having
such a record of its proceedings as consists of these votes.
—(Hear.) Many of the objections which might have
been made to his motion had subsided since the last
Session ; and in respect to loss of time, Honourable
Gentlemen seldom found divisions such as bad
occurred that night ; and it was alio found that the new
mode cf taking divisions did not occupy a longer time than
the old. He trusted, therefore, that the House would con-
sent to follow the present practice, and apply to committees
the same principle of publishing division lists as that whiCh
was now followed. He would conclude by moving, " that
the present mode of publishing division lists be extended to
divisions when the House is in Committee in all cases where
five Members shall require it."
Mr. WYNN begged to know whether the Hon.
Member meant that the numbers should be printed and
published? It would probably be inconvenient on all occa-
sions to take the names.
Mr. HARD bad referred the House to the system
which had been adopted during the last Session ; and he
presumed that they would not have recourse to any other
system on taking the numbers in Committee.

Dr. BOWRING presented a petition from Port Glas-
gow, praying for the repeal of the duty on soap ; and also
a petition from the Procurators of the Sheriffs' Court of
Dunbar, praying for the repeal of the ..A.ttornics' Tax, which
was singularly oppressive and unequal.
STRANGERS' GALLERY.

The SPEAKER having read the Sessional Order,
Mr. E WART rose to bring forward the motion of which
he had given notice, relative to the admission of strangers. The
only reason that he knew of, why a Member's order was requi-
site, for the admi,ision of persons into the Stranger's Gallery
was, that it was supposed to be some guarantee for the re-
spectability of the individuals admitted. Now he (Mr. E.)
believed that every:Member granted the order at the request
of any individual, especially if that individual was one of
his constituents. It was, therefore, in fact no guarantee
at all ; because the character or avocation of the individual
seeking the order for admission was never inquired into at all.
Another reason in justification of this impediment was said
to be, that on all important occasions the Gallery would
be inconveniently crowded. Now, he did not think that a
good argument, seeing that the same would apply to the
present system ; for there were six hundred and fifty-
eight Members of that House, and it was very well
known that the gallery could not contain more than 000
individuals ; besides, if it became crowded, the officers would
have directions to prevent the inconvenience, and Members
at present are as much besieged on their way to the House as
the doors of the gallery would then be. At present the mo-
dest and retiring man was sure to be excluded, while the
forward and presuming was certain to succeed. The best
proof of a person's anxiety to hear the debates was found
in the fact of his coming early, and, as he proposed,
he would gain admission. It was well known that
Members never refused a request made to them for
an order, particularly if the applicant happened to
be one of their constituents.—(Hear.) He thought the
present system a great injury to the unrepresented classes.
He would suppose the case of a man who had no Member
—(Loud laughter)—he would say, putting the case of this
dismembered individual, that he had no means of ob-
taining admission to the gallery of that House, for all the
reasons he had mentioned. On account of the impediments
to the public, and the inconvenience to Members, he should
propose that the public should be admitted to the strangers'
gallery of that House without a Member's order ; but °that
it shall continue to be cleared as at present on the motion
of a Member, and during divisions.
The SPEAKER having read the Sessional order, and
Mr. Ewart's amendment,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, nothwithstanding the
arguments of the Hon. Gentleman, he still doubted the
prudence of dispensing with a Member's order, which, in
his opinion, afforded some guarantee for the re-
spectability of the person admitted.—(Hear, hear.) There
were, in his opinion, great objections to the propo-
sition of the Hon. Member for Liverpool, as on all great
occasions the gallery would be crowded to excess,
not by respectable individuals, but pickpockets.--
( Loud cheering.) He had all along considered,
that admission by means of fees was objectionable ; and for
that reason he had enrolled himself among the names of
those who were in favour of its abolition. Until some better
ground than that stated by the Hon. Member for Liverpool
was brought forward, he thought things ought to remain as
they now were.

COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES.
Lord J. RUSSELL, before moving the Orders of the day,
would call the attention of the House to the question of ap-
pointing a Committee of Privileges. For the last two or three
years no Committee of Privileges had been appointed,
and he believed that was in consequence of the clerk
of that Committee being retained, and paid a regular
salary, without any necessity existing for it.—(Hear,
hear.) It certainly would not be necessary to appoint
any clerk, and specially for that purpose, as the clerk of
any other Committee could be called upon.—(Loud
cheers.) He thought the questions which had been brought
before Committees of Privilege had generally been dis-
cussed with great clearness and fairness, and no complaint
had been made of the constitution of these Committees. The
Noble Lord then moved that a CoMmittee of Priviliges be
appointed, to consist of Mr. Bernal, Lord John Russell,
`jr Robert Peel, Lord Palmerston, Knights of Shires, and
Gentlearn of the Long Robe.
Mr. HUME knew that the motion which had just been
made for the appointment of a Committee of Privileges was
in the usual course. That Committee had existed for
many years in that House, until it had been done away
with.—(Loud and continued laughter.) He wished to know
why a distinction had been drawn between gentlemen of the
Long Robe and Members for any other place ?—(Re-
, newed laughter.) Some of his short-coated friends near
him were as capable of being put upon that Committee as any
others, and he wished to know why they had been excluded?
He would rather submit that the Committee should be of
a limited number, as other Committees. HQ would submit
the propriety of having a Committee of a given number,
say 21, and leave out Knights of the Shire and gentlemen
of the Long Robe.—(A laugh.) He submitted to the No-
ble Lord (J. Russell) whether he had not better accom-
modate himself to this principle, as, unless the Noble
Lord could give some explanation, he (Mr. Hume) would
persevere in his objection.
Mr. C. WYNN apprehended that all former precedents
werein favour of the motion of the Noble Lord ; lie could him-
self state that he had never found any inconvenience to arise
from having too great a number of Gentlemen on the Com-
mittee. On the last Committee which sat similar to the
present, and which was appointed at the request of Mr.
Long Wellesley Pole, no inconvenience was found to an ise,
and he never remembered to have seen a Committee which
paid a more constant attention to the subject, or which
bad exhibited more ability.—( Hear.) There ought to be
some satisfactory reason for departing from precedents
which had been productive of such advantage.
Mr. HUME wished to say one word in explanation. It
was a common saying that what was everybody's busi-
ness was nobody's business, and it would equally apply to
a Committee of the whole House.—( Hear, hear, hear.)
He did think that he present system was not con-
sistent with convenience, and would not be found ad-
vantageous. He would, therefore, be glad to know why
they should not limit a Committee of Privileges to twenty-
one. Let them have some intelligible mode, by which the Com-
mittee should be constituted. He submitted that they ought
to follow the principle which had been agreed to, on mature
consideration two years ago, of limiting General Commit-
tees to 15. He saw no objection to this Committee being
limited to 21.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that the only objection
raised by the Hon. Member was the ground of' inconve-
nience, which there was no reason to suppose would
occur. He (Lord John Russell) did not think
that any material inconvenience would be found
to arise from having a great number of Members. As far
as he knew, he thought that a fairer Committee could not
be appointed ; and he, therefore, was not disposed to accede
to the proposition of the Hon. Member for 'Middlesex.
Sir ROBERT PEEL certainly could bear testimony
to the fact of the able manner in which the Committee
upon the subject of Mr. Long Wellesley was conducted.
It was a Committee of Privileges. The number that at-
tended upon that occasion was very great, but the Com-
mittee did not last long. Mr. Sergeant Wylde pressed
a very able argument for two or three days, which was
listened to with undivided attention : and he (the
Right Honourable Baronet), thought he had never seen a
Committee act more judiciously, or more disposed to
do justice ; but still, though that was a practical
trial (as we understood the Right Honourable Baronet)
it was not successful.
After an observation from Mr. WILKS,
Mr. HUME said he should press the question to a di-
vision. If the House would act without principle he could
not help it.—( Hear, hear, and much laughter.)
MR. LECHIMERE CHARLTON.

The Order of the Day for the taking into consideration
the letters addressed by the Lord Chancellor and Mr.
Leehmere Charlton to the Speaker having been read,
Lord J. RUSSELL rose, and said—Sir, I have very few
words to state to the House on this subject. I think it will
be necessary for the House to refer this question to a Com-
mittee of Privileges, in consequence of the statement which
has been made by a Member of this House. A Member,
of this House, Mr. Lechnsere Charlton, states to this
House, after stating that ho seeks not to withdraw himself
from the criminal jurisdiction of the realm, goes
on to say—" to be protected however from any violence of
the Crown or its Ministers, is, I apprehend, the established
and undoubted privilege of a Member of Parliament.—
To this hour I know not of what I am accused, except
from public report." This, Sir, is the statement which this
House has received through one of its Members, and it is
in contradiction of the statement which you have re-
ceived from the Lord Chancellor,;—(Hear, hear.)
The statement of the Lord Chancellor is—not that
it was exercising the authority of the Crown,
or as being one of the Ministers of the Crown that he issued
the warrant, but that he issued the warrant for the com-
mitment of E. Lechmere Charlton, Esq., one of the Mem-
bers for the borough of Ludlow, " for a contempt of the;high
Court of Chancery, in writing and sending a certain letter,
dated the 24th of October last, to Wm. Brougham, Esq.,
one of the Masters of the Court, followed by a certain other
letter dated the 9th of November last, addressed to my-
self." Now, Sir, I think it necessary that the House should
refer these two letters to a Committee of Privileges, to see
whether this breach of the privileges of this House,
which Mr. Charlton supposes has been committed,
has been committed by the Lord Chancellor in the
capacity of a Minister of the Crown, or as a Judge
of the Court of Chancery. I do not propose to
enter into the question of what should be considered a
contempt of the Court of Chancery. I will be
content with referring the consideration of its merits
to a Committee, as was done in the case of Mr.
Long Wellesley, where the matter having been fairly
and laboriously investigated, the result was commu-
nicated to this House, and this House was not advised to
interfere further in it. The order in Mr. Wellesley's case
was that the letters from the Chancellor, and from Mr.
Wellesley, and the subject matter thereof, should
be referred to a Committee of Privileges, which was
required to report their proceedings and opinion to the
House. I wish in the present instance to follow the same
course ; and I am anxious, in noticing the argument of the
Honourable Member for Bath, that because the Honour-
able Gentleman was not in custody, the case was not ripe
for consideration, to intimate my opinion, that, having
the letters before us, stating the apprehension of an arrest
being the cause of Mr. Charlton's absence, and intimating his
belief that a warrant was issued by the Lord Chancellor,
we have sufficient grounds to go upon, and we need not
wait until he should be taken into custody. I think that
we should proceed' in the same way as was had recourse
to in the case of Mr. Long Wellesley ; and I therefore
move that the letters of the Lord Chancellor and
of Mr. L. Charlton shall be referred to a Committee of
Privileges, to consider the matters therein stated, and to re-
port their proceedings and opinion to this House.
Mr. ROEBUCK wished to ask one question of the
Noble Lord before the subject dropped. Of course
Mr. Charlton would attend before the Committee, in
order to defend the course which he had adopted. Now
what he (Mr. Roebuck) wished to know was, whether it
was the intention of the Noble Lord, that the pro-

Mr. EWART wished to know how the Noble Lord, by
the present system, would prevent pickpockets from enter-
ing the gallery of the House. It was notorious that Mem-
bers gave their orders to any person that asked them, even
to some of the porters in the streets.
Mr. POTTER suggested that if the Gallery was not
filled at the Sitting of the House, then; that the public
should be at liberty to have admission.
The gallery was then cleared for a division.
The House divided, when there appeared—
For the Motion
Against it
Majority _l6l
DIVISIONS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. WARD said he rose to move that the mode of
publishing divisions when the Speaker was in the Chair
be extended to divisions when the House may be in Com-

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1837.

I tection of the H
House should be given to him in going
1:0ard)
opnincomingio, Mr.
Charltonfromthel Committee. In his ( Mr. Roe-
'k's) ought to be in the custody
ofthe Lord Chancellor while attending that Committee,
because it must be apparent to every one that he had done
all in his pow:r,!o violate the law. The House could not
protect an indivit!ual in a wrong act ; and the moment that
Mr. Chariton was 1s custody, and not till then, the ques-
tion of Privilege woulAl be raised.
Lord J. RUSSELL did not think the course pointed out
by the lion. Member for Bath necessary to be adopted.
lie saw no reason whatever fur any variation from the
course adopted in the case of Mr. Long W,llesley whenever
Mr. Lcannere Charlton was taken into custody. The
Committee was then appointed, and ordered to sit to-morrow.
LONDON UNIVERSITY.
Mr. TOOKE, pursuant to notice, moved for certain
papers relative to the University of London. Agreed to.
THE ADDRESS.
Mr. SANDFORD brought up the report on the Ad-
• dress, which vas read by the Clerk, and adopted.

terms and conditions on which the Parliamentary papers
could be obtained. He intended to follow up his motion
by asking that a return should be laid- upon the table, stat-
ing the prices of Parliamentary papers, where they could be
obtained, and that this should be circulated with the notifi-
cation of the meeting of privateCommittees.This course would
save Members considerable trouble, and would be of great
advantage to the public. He trusted that there would be
no objection to the measure, and, in conclusion, he begged
to express to Ministers that it would he a very great
advantage indeed, if they could make some arrangement
with the House of• Lords, in order that the public might
have the printed documents of that House, with the same
facility as they procured them from the House of Commons.
He threw this out under the hope that some arrangement
would be made on the subject.
Sir ROBERT PEEL thought it would be a great ad-
vantage if some alteration were made with respect to the
mode in which the examination of witnesses was taken be-
fore Commit tees. They were allowed in many instances to
correct the statements they had made. This, in his opinion,
tended to shake the confidence of the public in what had
been stated by those witnesses. As far as he was concerned,
he should have many times put different questions to a wit-
ness than he had done, if he had seen his corrected evidence.
The party examining the witness ought to have an opportu-
nity of seeing the alterations that were made, for the
answers that were sometimes inserted evidently 'suggested
other questions, and the examining party ought certainly to
have an opportunity of altering his question ; for it some-
times appeared absolute nonsense according to the answers
which appeared in the printed Reports. It was absolutely
necessary that there should be some distinct understanding
on this point.
The SPEAKER said that within the two years he had
had the honour of sitting in that chair, this matter
had been frequently called to his attention, not only
by the delay which was occasioned by the system
but by instances which had occurred of a most extra-
ordinary nature. It was not only true that• the evidence
Thad been not only altered, but he believed that there
were also instances where the witnesses had actually
inserted questions. The evidence was sent to the printer

SPAIN.
Mr. GROVE PRICE made some remarks respecting,
the conduct of the Government in the affairs of Spain,
which, from the loud conversational buzzing in the House,
was entirely inaudible.
Mr. Nl' LEAN rejoiced that an agreement had taken place
regarding the co-operating force which had been sent
to the Queen of Spain as guaranteed by the treaty ;
being of opinion that, when this question would
come before the House, it would be fully investi-
gated as it should be ; and the means by which that co-
operation, if such it could be called, and the intervention,
if such it had been, had been guaranteed by the treaty.
But the assistance which had been given to the Queen
of Spain would place this country in a dangerous position.
If however he could prove this by documents on the table
of the House, for which he would move, and which he
trusted would be produced—if he could prove from these that
the co-operation of this country was not that war-
ranted by the words of the Treaty—then he
thought he would be justified in calling on the
House to give a substantive opinion on the mode in which
our foreign affairs had been conducted. He did not rise for
the sake of promoting a discussion on the question ; but he
would say with his lion. Friend that he reserved to him-
self the right not only of discussing hereafter the question,
not only of the mode in which our foreign policy was con-
ducted, but also as to whether the co-operation of this
country was grounded on the terms of the treaty.—( Hear.)
Sir R. PEEL said he was sure that there was some
mistake as to the meaning of what had been said
by him, in giving a qualified consent to that part of
the Speech which referred to our foreign affairs ; and
this, perhaps, arose from his having expressed what his
meaning was twice over.—( Hear, hear, and laughter.)
He had expressed his consent to that paragraph in the
Speech conditionally, and the condition was that the aid
given by this country to Spain should be in conformity with
the treaty ; and he added that he considered the term co-
operating force unequivocal expression, and that that descrip-
tion be such as would place it under the conditions of the
treaty. That was the understanding upon which lie gave
a qualified consent to the portion of the Speech which re-
ferred to the subject, and lie had repeated this twice, hoping
there would have been no misconstruction of his meaning.
Mr. M'LEAN said he did not intend to miscon-
strue what had fallen from the Right Honourable Baronet,
he (-Mr. M'Lean) meant to say, that he reserved to him-
self the right of discussing the subject at a future period.
Lord PALMERSTON said that he could assure the
Right Hon. Bart. opposite that on that (the Ministerial) side
of the House, there was no misconstruction of his meaning.
Although it is unusual for an individual to express regret
that his opponent has not made a longer speech against him,
yet lie must say that he should be exceedingly happy when
ho was attacked, to have something more stated than what
had been said.

by the witness, and without ever being again brought
under the notice of the Committee. In the course
of the last session one witness was allowed to take
away his evidence and it was never returned. Great delay
took place, and the Report was obliged to be published with-
out that witnesses' evidence at all. He would propose that
that the Chairman of the Committee should exercise such
viligance over all the evidence, as to preclude the evils
complained of ; and that he should be responsible to the
House for any alteration which might take place.—( Hear.)
He should also suggest that every alteration should be
specially brought before the Chairman's notice. If it were
found that the Chairmen of Committees did not use the
proper vigilance, then it would become necessary to have
some resolution of the House on the subject ; but it was
not desirable to multiply resolutions, when the proper vigi-
lance of the Chairmen of Committees could effect the same
object.
Mr. EDWARD LYTTON BULWER wished to
suggest that great inconvenience was caused by the
delay which the corrections of evidence occasioned,
and that therefore the better plan would be to prevent
corrections of evidence altogether.—(Loud cries of " Hear,
hear," and cheers.) The only ground on which evi-
dence was allowed to be corrected at all was, that gentlemen
'who uttered in Committee sentences unguardedly might
have an opportunity of altering those sentences, but he
certainly considered the best way would be not to allow the
evidence to be corrected at all. Any other plan imposed a
great responsibility on the Chairman. In the course
of last Session, from allowing this correction of evidence,
he himself had been under the necessity of reading a
long report through, for the purpose of ascertaining whe-
ther the alterations which had been made by the
witness were important or not, which was not only a very
arduous task, but the eonsequence of which was, that al-
though the Committee rose in October, he was prevented
from laying before the House that report until the month
of August.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
bad to object to the proposition of the lion. and Learned Gen-
tleman, as he considered the course he proposed for adoption
would be attended with great inconvenience ; and he himself
had some years back occasion to report a case to the House, in
which a witness had changed an answer which had been
given affirmatively into a direct negative, and therefore he
thought it necessary to call the attention of the Chairman to
all the allegations. He was glad the matter had been brought
under the consideration of the House, and in reference to the
Committee, of which the Hon. Gentleman had been Chair-
man, evidence had been printed in parallel columns,
as it bad been first given, and as it afterwards
'stood ; and he considered that from the result of this, the
Hon. Gentleman had sufficient justification for the notice
he had given.

Mr. WYNN agreed entirely with what had just
fallen from the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite. At
the same time he did not see how it was possible to
remedy • the evil ; most important mistakes would be
made in transcribing the notes, for which the wit-
ness was in no degree responsible.—( Hear, hear.) The
sinking of his voice, or the omission of a word, would
make a very material difference in the evidence.—
(Hear, hear.) In election petitions, the evidence was
taken in short-hand, and no opportunity was granted
the witness of rectifying his , evidence ; but if the wit-
ness had stated that an important mistake had been made
in his evidence, he thought that the Committee should
have the power of altering it.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that one point was overlooked
still, and that was the extreme importance attached to evi-
dence when property or character was at stake. There
was now no remedy for a wilful falsehood of a witness before
a Committee of that House. The foulest calumny, the falsest
representation, respecting property, could meet with no
species of legal punisCment for this undoubted crime.
—( Hear.) In the- House of Lords the case was diffe-
rent. There they were authorised to administer an oath,
and a party might therefore be indicted for perjury. In the
one House there was an indictment of a most serious nature,
and in the other there was no remedy at all. You might
come and have a new investigation, but inquiry after in-
quiry would be no, remedy.—( Hear.) Why not make it
a - misdemeanor to wilfully and corruptly assert any thing
before that House ?—(Hear, hear, hear.) It would
be no exaggeration of the Criminal Law to make it a mis-
demeanour, and he saw nn other way they could have an
effectual remedy in cases in which injustice would be done'.
Mr. W YNN had no doubt that prevarication or false
testimony would and must be punished by that House.
Mr. O'CONNELL would put a case where witnesses
contradicted each other. Unless it was plain there was a
manifest prevarication, there- was no remedy. He would
certainly make the experiment, now that ho had
spoken upon it, and he would endeavour to frame
a Bill on the subject, making a man indictable as for a
misdemanour.
Sir R. PEEL said, that in a criminal ease, where the life
of a party was concerned, no person would attach much
weight to evidence that had been altered ; but he
thought the carelessness which arose at present in
the giving of testimony, was owing to the witness being
conscious that be would have an opportunity of revising and
correcting it afterwards.
Sir R. INGLIS was not very audible, but we under-
stood him to concur generally in the view taken by the
Hon. and Learned Member for Kilkenny.

•
Mr. HUME suggested that the evidence of witnesses
should be printed as it .was given, awl only grammatical
corrections allowed.
Mr. ENVA RT said that the present system of taking the
evidence was full of laxity. The Chairman of Committees
had the evidence under his inspection, and should give his
attention to the proceedings of the witnesses, who should be
more exact, and the Chairman more particular.
Dr. BOWRI NG alluded to the great mistakes that had
been committed upon Committees, and instanced one upon
the East India CoMmittee, when the word " bomby.r," a
species of worm, was translated into " bombast."
Mr. HUME—Every Member of the Committee should
get a copy of the evidence taken at night, and. every Mem-
ber should then make his objections in the morning, if any
material alteration had been made. Short-hand writers often
make egregious errors.
Aftsr some observations from Sir R. INGLIS and Mr.
H umE, the Committee was ordered to be re-appointed.
Mr. HUME. suggested in order to obviate the difficulty
that now existed with respect to Members knowing what
documents would be printed, that at the end of every day's
proceedings it should be mentioned what papers were in-
tended to be printed.

—Colonel SIBTHORP stated that he had not received
the returns he had moved for until November, and com-
plained of partiality, others having been published sooner.
Mr. HUME said, after an experience of three or four
years, felt bound to say that there was no partiality in the
Committee over which the Speaker presided.—Agreed to.
Mr. GILLON gave notice that on the 21st March he
should call the attention of the House to the internal com-
munications of the country, whether by rail-ways, roads, &c.
The House then adjourned.

DANGER OF INTRODUCING EUROPEAN RE-
FINEMENT.-" The sudden introduction of European refine-
ments, if it were possible to make them universal, would, at
this period, be the ruin of the American constitution. Without
the spirit of enterprise, and the taste for active labour, the im-
mense resources of the country, and the facility with which
riches arc acquired, would less become the means of individual
and national corruption, and the introduction of expensive ha.
bits, which would not only undermine the private morals of the
people, but eventually subvert the Republican government"—
_Grund's Americans, in their Social, Moral, and Political
Condition, •