The Sun.
London, England, 1833-07-19 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS, JULY 18.

The House resumed at a quarter past five o'clock.
A messenger brought up certain Bills agreed to by the
Lords (for which see the Lords).
Colonel EVANS moved for a return of the number of
stamps issued to the different London Papers for the years
1830, 31, and 32.
Mr. SHEIL presented a petition from the county of
Wexford for a Repeal of the Union.
Sir F. BURDETT presented a petition from the parish
of St. James, Westminster, begging to be relieved from
the house and window taxes.
Colonel EVANS moved for a return of the number of
persons confined in Newgate and the other gaols of the
metropolis, from 1823 to 1832, distinguishing the nature
of the crime of each individual so confined.
THE PRESS.

Colonel EVANS rose to complain of a paragraph which
bad appeared recently in one of the news;iapers ,
alleging that the p resent and the late representatives of
the city of Westminster (Sir F. Burdett, and Sir J. C.
Hobliouse) had obtained their return by means of bribery
and corruption. He was most anxious to deny the asser-
tion, although he felt that he owed no courtesy to the
Hon. Baronet, whom he bad succeeded in the representa-
tion of that city ; but still, in common fairness, he was
bound to declare his entire relief that neither bribery nor
corruption had ever existed in Westminster, and to assert
that both the Hon. Baronets had been returned to that
House as freely and as fairly as himself. The Hon. and
Gallant Officer then moved for a return, showing the
nature and character of the municipal government of the
city of Westminster, and the authority on which the
parochial and other officers of the different parishes and
districts within that city levied and expended the local
taxes.

HUME observed that if they were to notice the
observations made 1.4- newspapers on the conduct of the
Members of than House they would have very little time
for attenr!iog to the public business. It was true that a
Mr. De Vear had called on him by letter to explain why
he had libelled the electors of 'Westminster, as a news-
paper report had represented him to have done ; but
there being no foundation for the allegation, and not
knowing that Mr. De Vear could have any right to ques-
tion him, he had not considered it necessary to make any
reply to his letter. It was undoubtedly true that i❑ the
course of the observations which he had made (those to
which Mr. De Vear's letter referred) he alluded to the
bribery and corruption which had taken place in West-
mirster during former periods, but without any reference
►o the present time.

Sir F. BURDiJT T was perfectly convinced that the
paragraph in question was a misrepresentation, and for his
own part, he must say that he did nut believe a word
contained in it.

Mr. O'CONNELL said that it was a very general
complaint that the reports of the proceedings of that
House were made by ignorant and incompetent persons.
He. had himself been egregiously misrepresented in the
newspapers on many occasions ; but about that he was
perfectly indifferent, because he cared nothing for, and
was quite independent of, either newspapers or reporters.
kle bad, indeed, heard other Hon. Gentlemen in the course
of conversation make similar complaints; but, although
the evil was so generally felt, not one of the aggrieved
Members of that House had been bold enough to avow his
sentiments as he had now done. No doubt they had their
own reasons for abstaining from noticing the manner in
which their sentiments had been misrepresented, but the
laisr:iporting to which he alluded was attributable to the
monopoly that was allowed to exist in newspapers, and
the advantage which the newspaper proprietors derived
from having their business done by cheap reporters.
The reporters of the present day were a very different
class oh persons from the reporters of former times.
The former were
men of education, but the latter
were comparatively uninformed persons, and, on
that account, wholly incapable of properly discharg-
ing the duties in which they were engaged. This
difference had arisen, as be bad been told, from the
competition that existed among reporters, and which en-
abled a newspaper proprietor, instead of paying six gui-
neas a week to a qualified person, as formerly, to obtain
the services of an unqualified person for two guineas.

During the last fortnight they had been engaged in die.
cussions of the utmost importance to the country, but
hardly a syllable of what had passed in that House had
been sent forth by the newspapers to the public.—(Hear.
hear.) He begged to be understood as not noticing thi•
by way of complaint, but in order that the public should
see the necessity there was for providing themselveo with
better sources of information than they at present had.—
(Hear, hear.) At all events the pnbic should know that
the Members of that House were not to be bound by any
thing attributed to them in newspapers.—( Hear.)
Mr. BARING how: tbst tu
the Cmnissioners appointed
for the purpose of inquiry into the state of corporations
would especially investigate that of tile City of London as
well as the municipal government of the city of West-
minster and other places around the metropolis.
Mr. ABERCROMBY (as we understood) did not think
the Commissioners would have any power to extend that
Inquiries beyond corporations.
Mr. M. PHILLIPS was about to make some observa-
tions in defence of the reporters, but
The SPEAKER informed the Hon. Gentleman that it
would not be orderly to allude to a matter with which the
House could have nothing to do.
The motion was then agreed to.
NEWSPAPER DUTIES.

Mr. E. L. BUINVER, by desire of Lord ASHLEY, and
in order to enable the House to proceed with the Factories
Bill, postponed his resolution for a repeal of the stamp
duty o❑ newspapers and advertisements, and for a S2l,ct
Committee to inquire into the propriety of substituting a
cheap postage on newspapers and works under a certain
weight, until the Bth of August.