Sitting of 1 February 1837

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Mr. PEASE, Mr. M'TAGGART, Mr. Fox MAULE, Mr. WILKS, and Mr. HUME, from Stockton-upon-Tees; Edinburgh; Alcester; Modbury; Tarn worth; Congregation of Lady Huntingdon's Chapel, Bradford (Wilts); Independents of Bradford (Wilts); Holt; and Baptisms of Bradford for the Abolition of Church Rates.—By Mr. WAILACE, from Port Glasgow, for the Repeal of the Duty on Soap; and Mr. Fox MAULE, from Dumbartonshire, for the Repeal of Attornies' Tax.

ADMISSION OF STRANGERS.
The Sessional Order having been proposed,
Mr. Ewartrose 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 requisite, for the admission of persons into the strangers' gallery, was, that it was supposed to be some guarantee for the respectability of the individuals admitted. Now he (Mr. Ewart) believed that a Member granted an 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. 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 objection 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 would not contain more than two hundred individuals. Besides, if it became crowded, the officers would have directions to prevent the inconvenience, and Members at present were as much besieged on their way to the House as the doors of the gallery would then be. At present the

59
modest 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, on the system he proposed such a person 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. He thought the present system a great injury to the unrepresented classes. He would suppose the case of a man who had no Member to represent him; why, such a man had no means of obtaining 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 should continue to be cleared, as at present, on the motion of a Member, and during divisions.
Lord John Russellsaid, that notwithstanding 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 respectability of the person admitted. There were, in his opinion, great objections to the proposition of the hon. Member for Liverpool, as on all great occasions the gallery would be crowded to excess, and among the respectable individuals there might be many pickpockets. He had all along considered that admission by means of fees was objectionable, and for that reason he had enrolled himself among those who were in favour of its abolition. But, 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.
Mr. Ewartwished to know how the noble Lord, by the present system, would prevent pickpockets from entering the gallery of the House. It was notorious that Members gave their orders to any person that asked them, even to some of the porters in the streets.
Mr. Pottersuggested, that the gallery should be open until seven o'clock for the admission of persons having Members' orders, and that after that hour it should be open to the public in the way the hon. Member wished.
The House divided on Mr. Ewart's motion. Ayes 11; Noes 172: Majority 161.

List of the AYES.

Bowring, Dr.

Roebuck, J. A.

Brotherton, J.

Wason, R.

Gillon, W. D.

Wilks, John

Hindley, C.

Williams, W.

Lushington, Charles

TELLERS.

Pechell, Capt. R.

Ewart, W.

Potter, R.

Wakley, T.

List of the NOES.

Alsager, Captain

Gisborne, T.

Angerstein, John

Goodricke, Sir F,

Arbuthnot, hon. H.

Gordon, hon. W.

Archdall, M.

Goring, Harry Dent

Ashley, Lord

Goulburn, Sergeant

Baillie, H. D.

Graham, Sir J.

Baring, F.

Green, Thomas

Baring, W. B.

Grey, Sir G. Bart.

Barnard, E. G.

Halford, H.

Barry, G. S.

Halse, James

Belfast, Lord

Hanmer, Sir J., Bart.

Bell, Matthew

Hardy, J.

Beresford, Sir J.

Hawes, B.

Bish, T. P.

Hay, Sir A. L.

Blackstone, W. S.

Hector, C. J.

Bodkin, J.

Henniker, Lord

Bonham, R. Francis

Herbert, hon. Sidney

Borthwick, Peter

Hodgson, J.

Brabazon, Sir W.

Holland, Edward

Brady, Denis C.

Hoy, J. B.

Browne, R. D.

Ingham, R.

Bruen, F.

Inglis, Sir R. H., Bart.

Buller, Sir J. B. Yarde

Irton, Samuel

Butler, hon. Pierce

James, W.

Campbell, Sir H.

Jackson, Sergeant

Campbell, Sir. J.

Jephson, C. D. O.

Canning, hon. C.

Jervis, John

Chaplin, Colonel

Jones, Wilson

Chichester, J. P. B.

King, Edward B.

Clerk, Sir G.

Lefevre, Charles S.

Clive, Edward Bolton

Lennox, Lord G.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Lennox, Lord A.

Colborne, N. W. R.

Loch, James

Compton, H. C.

Long, Walter

Conolly, E. M.

Lushington, Dr.

Conyngham, Lord A.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Dalbiac, Sir C.

Maclean, D.

Dick, Quintin

Macleod, R.

Donkin, Sir R.

Macnamara, Major

Dugdale, W. S.

Mactaggart, J.

Duncombe, T.

Maher, John

Eastnor, Viscount

Mahon, Lord

Eaton, Richard J.

Mangles, J.

Egerton, Wm. Tatton

Marshall, William

Ellice, E.

Marsland, Thomas

Fancourt, Major

Maule, hon. F.

Fector, John Minet

Milton, Viscount

Fergusson, R. C.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Finn, Wm. Francis

Mordaunt, Sir J., Bart.

Fitzsimon, Chris.

Morpeth, Lord

Follett, Sir W. Webb

Murray, J. A.

Forbes, Wm.

Nicholl, Dr.

Forester, hon. G. C. W.

Norreys, Lord

Fremantle, Sir T. W.

North, Frederick

French, F.

O'Brien, W. S.

61

O'Connell, D.

Strutt, E.

O'Connell, J.

Stuart, V.

O'Connell, M. J.

Talfourd, Segeant

O'Conor Don

Tancred, H. W.

Ferrall, M.

Thompson, Paul B.

Oliphant, Lawrence

Tooke, W.

Palmer, Robert

Tracey, C. H.

Parker, John

Troubridge, Sir T.

Parrot, Jasper

Tulk, C. A.

Pease, J.

Twiss, H.

Peel, Sir R., Bart.

Tynte, C. J. Kemeys

Peel, Col. J.

Tyrrell, Sir J.

Peel, rt. hon. W. Y.

Vesey, hon. T.

Pigot, Robert

Villiers, C. P.

Pinney, W.

Vyvyan, Sir R. R.

Plumptre, J. P.

Walker, C. A.

Pollock, Sir Fred.

Walter, John

Poulter, J. S.

Warburton, H.

Powell, Colonel

Ward, H. G.

Power, J.

Weyland, Major

Price, S. G.

Whitmore, Thomas C.

Pringle, A.

Wilbraham, G.

Pryme, George

Wilmot, Sir J. E.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Wodehouse, E.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Wrightson, W.

Ross, Charles

Wrottesley, Sir J., Bart.

Russell, Lord John

Wyndham, Wadham

Sanford, E. A.

Wynn, rt. hon. C. W.

Scott, Sir E. D.

Young, G. F.

Scott, J. W.

Sibthorp, Colonel

TELLERS.

Stanley, Edward

Philips, G. R.

Stanley, Lord

Steuart, R,

DIVISIONS IN COMMITTEES.
Mr. Wardrose to move, that in every instance where five Members required it, the mode of taking divisions at present adopted in the House should be extended to divisions in Committee. At present the House possessed no records of the divisions that took place in Committee, yet they were often as important as those that took place in the House. It would, therefore, be highly desirable that they should be registered in the votes.
Motion agreed to.

PRIVILEGE.
Lord John Russell, previous to moving the Order of the Day for taking into consideration the letters received yesterday by the Speaker from the Lord Chancellor and Mr. Lechmere Charlton, begged to call the attention of the House to the propriety of appointing at the commencement of the Session a Committee of privileges in the same way as it used to do formerly. For the last two or three years no Committee of this kind had been appointed, in consequence, as he believed, of its having a clerk attached to it with a regular salary, which, in the absence of any immediate question for the consideration of such a Committee, ap-
62
peared to be a useless expense. In moving for the revival of the Committee of privileges on the present occasion, he should think it unnecessary to appoint a clerk specially to attend upon its proceedings, as there were many gentlemen connected with the House who would be fully competent to discharge all the duties required from such an officer. Fie thought generally with regard to the Committee of privileges that the questions brought before them had been discussed and considered with great attention and fairness, and he did not know that any occasion had occurred upon which the constitution of the Committee had been complained of. He should, therefore, move that such a Committee be appointed, to be constituted in the usual manner, namely, of a certain number of gentlemen named by the House, and of all knights of the shire and gentlemen of the long robe.
Appointment of Committee agreed to.
On the question that it do consist of all knights of the shire and gentlemen of the long robe,
Mr. Humewished to know why any distinction should be made between gentlemen of the long robe and any other members of the House? Upon the questions coming before a committee of the description these were, he thought many gentlemen in the House unconnected with the legal profession quite as competent to form a correct opinion as any who had arrived at the dignity of the wig and gown. Why, too, should an exception be made in favor of the knights of the shire? He thought that the Committee, instead of being composed of such a host of members, which could tend only to protract and confuse its proceedings, should consist of a certain given number, say twenty-one, whose qualification should not depend either upon their being knights of the shire or gentlemen of the long robe.
Mr. Williams Wynnsaw no reason to depart from the usual practice. The Committee had never been found inconveniently large, and its proceedings had always been conducted with the utmost propriety, attention, and despatch.
Lord John Russellwas not aware that any inconvenience had ever resulted from the manner in which the Committee was constituted.
Sir Robert Peelobserved, that in the case of Mr. Long Wellesley, although a great many of the Committee attended it

63
was not found that the number was inconveniently large. Great attention was paid by every member to all the circumstances of the case, which were entered into at great length, and the desire to do justice seemed to be common to all. If it should hereafter be found that any inconvenience arose from the number of the Committee, it would then be time to adopt the limitation proposed by the hon. Member for Middlesex.
Mr. Humewould not press his objection, as the general feeling of the House appeared to be against him; but he begged to observe that he was far from being convinced of the impropriety of his suggestion.
The motion agreed to.

MR. LECHMERE CHARLTON.
Lord John Russell Lord John Russell moved the order of the day for taking the letters of the Lord Chancellor and Mr. Lechmere Charlton into consideration. The noble Lord then said:— 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 Committee of Privileges, in consequence of the statement which has been made by a Member of this House. The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Lechmere Charlton) after stating that he 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 is the statement which the House has received through one of its members, and it is in contradiction of the statement which you have received from the Lord Chancellor. The statement of the Lord Chancellor is, that it is not as 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 commitment of E. Lechmere Charlton, Esq., one of the Members for the borough of Ludlow, "for a contempt of the high Court of Chancery, in writing and sending for a certain letter, dated the 24th of October last, to William Brougham, Esq., one of the masters of the court, followed by a certain other letter, dated the 19th of November last, addressed to myself." Now, I think it necessary that the House should refer
64
these two letters to a Committee of Privileges, to see whether this breach of the privileges of the House of which Mr. Charlton complains, 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 shall be content with referring 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 communicated 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 opinions to the House. I wish in the present instance, to follow the same course. Before I conclude, I wish to advert for a moment to the opinion given yesterday by the hon. and learned Member for Bath (Mr. Roebuck), namely, that as the hon. Member from whom the complaint was made was not yet in custody, he was not in a situation to claim the protection of the House. Now, I conceive that the letter received from the hon. Member himself stating that he believes a warrant has been issued for his apprehension, affords quite sufficient ground for the House to conclude that his absence from the sitting of this House has been occasioned by the apprehension of arrest under the warrant which the Lord Chancellor himself tells us has been issued for that purpose. It certainly appears to me that a sufficient case has been made out for the interference of the House, because though the hon. Member be not in custody it is clear that his absence from his duties here is occasioned by a step taken by the Lord Chancellor. Under these circumstances I think that we should proceed in the same way as in the case of Mr. Long Wellesley, and I therefore move that the letters of the Lord Chancellor and of Mr. Lechmere Charlton be referred to a Committee of Privileges, to consider the matters therein stated, and to report their proceedings and opinion to this House.
Mr. Roebuckwished to ask one question of the noble Lord before the subject dropped. When the Committee of Privileges was appointed, Mr. Charlton, of course, would wish to appear before it to

65
defend himself, and to explain the circumstances under which he was threatened with arrest by the Lord Chancellor. Now, what he wished to know was, whether it was the intention of the noble Lord that the protection of the House should be given to Mr. Charlton in going to and coming from the Committee? In his opinion Mr. Charlton ought to be distinctly in the custody of the Lord Chancellor whilst he was before the Committee; for he (Mr. Roebuck) believed that the hon. Member had endeavoured to evade the law; and, in his opinion, no man could claim the protection of that House against a warrant, or any other instrument by which he might be taken into custody, unless he had first yielded all obedience to the law.
Lord John Russelldid not understand that the order for the appointment of the Committee would give any protection to Mr. Charlton. If the House chose to interfere in favour of that Gentleman to prevent his being committed or arrested as he went to or came from the Committee, a subsequent and distinct order of the House would be necessary for that purpose. For his own part he did not see that it would be necessary to take such a step in the first instance. Mr. Charlton was not yet in custody. If, before the inquiry terminated, he should be arrested, it might then be necessary for the House to make some such order as was made in the case of Mr. Long Wellesley, by which he might be brought before the Committee, and enabled to make his defence.
Committee appointed.

THE ADDRESS.
Mr. A. Sanfordbrought up the Report on the Address.
On the question that it be agreed to,
Mr. Grove Price, in order to guard against a supposed acquiescence in that part of his Majesty's Speech which related to foreign affairs, wished to state that he continued to hold the same opinions as those he had declared in the last Session of Parliament with respect to the impolicy of the interference of this country in the domestic affairs of Spain. It was not his intention, however, to offer any opposition to the Address which had just been read, but he begged it to be distinctly understood that in yielding a tacit consent to the opinions therein staled, he reserved to himself a full right, when the question was brought forward in a more tangible
66
shape, of expressing what were his real and decided opinions upon the subject. Convinced as he was of the ultimate success of that cause for which he felt interested, and which he begged to observe had not been materially injured by the affair of Bilboa, he should feel it to be his duty as a Member of the British Parliament to exercise, when the proper opportunity presented itself, his independent voice in support of that cause.
Mr. Macleandid not intend at that moment to express any opinion as to the policy or impolicy of the treaty entered into with the Queen of Spain. Upon that subject he reserved to himself the right of expressing a full and candid opinion upon some subsequent occasion. His object in rising then was to prevent any misapprehension of what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) upon the subject last evening. He (Mr. Maclean) agreed with the right hon. Baronet that the co-operation of the British force could not be objected to if that co-operation were such as had been guaranteed by the treaty into which the Government of this country had entered with the Government of the Queen of Spain. He (Mr. Maclean), however, was of opinion that when the question came to be fully investigated, as it ought to be, it would be found that the co-operation, if such it could be called—or the intervention, if such it had been—or the trans-limitation, if that were to be taken as the proper term for it—had not been such as was guaranteed by the treaty, and that the aid afforded to the Queen of Spain was such as might place this country in a dangerous position. When the proper documents were laid upon the table he thought there would be no difficulty in proving that the co-operation alluded to in the Address, instead of being within the words or spirit of the treaty, was directly opposed to both.
Sir Robert Peelwas surprised that any misapprehension should have arisen as to the course which he yesterday stated his intention of pursuing. If such a misapprehension had arisen in the minds of any hon. Gentleman, he was quite sure it must have been occasioned by the circumstance of his having stated twice over what it was that he meant to do. What he stated was, that he was prepared to give his assent to that paragraph of his Majesty's speech which related to foreign policy,

67
provided the aid afforded to the cause of the Queen of Spain was in strict conformity to the engagements into which the Government of this country had entered with the Government of the Queen. But leaving that point open for discussion, he added, at the same time, that the term "co-operative force," used in the speech from the throne, was of an equivocal character; and inquired whether that force was such as would come within the conditions of the treaty. That was the understanding upon which he gave a qualified consent to the portion of the speech which referred to the subject; and he had repeated it twice, hoping there would have been no misconstruction of his meaning.
Mr. Macleanhad not mistaken the right hon. Baronet's meaning himself, but he believed others had done so, and he therefore took the opportunity of mentioning it, in order that the misapprehension might not extend further.
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, there certainly was no misunderstanding on his side of the House as to what fell from the right hon. Baronet on the previous evening. He perfectly understood the right hon. Baronet to say that which he had now stated. Undoubtedly hon. Members on the other side, by assenting to the Address as now proposed, did not pledge themselves in any way adverse to the opinions they had on former occasions expressed relative to any of the topics contained in it. He would only further say, although it was unusual for an individual to express regret that his opponent had not made a longer speech against him, yet he assured the hon. Member for Sandwich, that when a longer attack should be made on our foreign policy, he should be exceedingly happy to meet it.
Mr. Plumptrehoped he should not be deemed out of order in adverting to what he considered to be an omission in the King's speech, inasmuch as no allusion was made to the prevailing epidemic, nor any recognition of the Divine Providence. Since the House last met, the country had been visited with more than one extremely severe affliction, upon which the King's speech was totally silent. Surely some reference ought to have been made to this subject, and to the will of the great Disposer of all events, the great Dispenser of national prosperity. He believed that at no time, in no nation, though plunged in the deepest ignorance, had an occasion
68
like the present been allowed to pass by, without some recognition of God's dispensation; and he very deeply regretted that no mention had been made of these visitations in the King's Speech. Both individuals and the country had suffered much during the last six months. A great deal of property had been destroyed by severity of weather, and at this very moment there was scarcely a family in the country, (though they might not he in a very alarming state) who was not more or less in a state of affliction. He should have thought it would have been as well at such a time, to have recognised the great superintending Power, and wise Disposer of all events. He believed that the great truth of Holy Writ applied as well to nations as to individuals —"Them that honour me I will honour, but they who despise me, shall be lightly esteemed." It was on these grounds he protested against this important omission.
Sir George Clerkcould not avoid expressing his disapprobation, as a Scotch representative, that among the various topics mentioned in the King's speech, no allusion was made or information given upon a subject which had for some time past excited the deepest interest throughout Scotland: he referred to the result of the Commission appointed two years ago to inquire into the means of religious instruction in that country. As far as he knew from common rumour, the Commissioners had completed their labours; and, respecting a subject of such importance as that of ascertaining whether there was any deficiency in the means of religious instruction in so important a part of the empire as Scotland, he could have wished that some notice had been taken in his Majesty's speech. He thought the Ministers ought to have afforded information to Parliament as to whether they had received any Report from the Commissioners, and if so, whether it was their intention at an early period to call the attention of the House to it. This was no party question, but was interesting to every Member of that part of the empire to which the inquiry related. He therefore hoped the noble Lord would be able to give the House some satisfactory explanation on the subject.
Lord John Russell, with respect to the observation that had fallen from the hon. Member for East Kent (Mr. Plumptre) must say, that he so far differed from him,

69
that he (Lord John Russell) did not think it would be advisable to lay down, as a constant rule, which ought never to be departed from, that, in every speech from the Throne, Ministers ought to introduce the name of Divine Providence. He thought if that were to be laid down as a general rule, and it should be made a matter of attack upon the Ministers who did not observe it, it would become in time a mere matter of form, and the words would have very little effect. So far from promoting the object which the hon. Gentleman had in view, the using constantly, and trivially almost, in the speech from the Throne the name of Divine Providence would induce persons to pay less attention, and to be less solemn upon such an occasion, than they ought to be. He did not concur with the hon. Gentleman that there were any peculiar circumstances which, at the present time, made it necessary that they should have introduced such words into his Majesty's speech. It certainly had happened more than once. It happened no longer ago than in his Majesty's answer to the Address of the House last year, when his Majesty stated, that he would always study, under Divine Providence, to maintain the high character of this country, and promote the welfare of his people. That acknowledgment showed certainly that those who advised his Majesty to use those words, were not neglectful of that sentiment which it was his Majesty's disposition always to entertain—a sentiment which became the King of this Christian country. With respect to the observations made by the hon. Baronet (Sir G. Clerk), he trusted he could give what the hon. Baronet would deem a satisfactory answer. If the Report of the Commission on Religious Instruction in Scotland had been received, it would have been a proper subject for his Majesty to have mentioned in his speech; but, in fact, although he had been informed that the reports would be ready, yet he had received no Report until Monday night, after the speech had been approved by his Majesty, when it reached the Home-office. The Report received was one relating only to Edinburgh. It had since been sent to Lord Minto, one of the Commissioners, to receive his consideration, whether he should think proper, not having been able to attend the Commission throughout, to acquiesce in it; it being considered desirable that the Report should be signed by
70
all the Commissioners. He expected that the Report would have been by this time on the Table of the House; and he could assure the hon. Baronet, if it were not presented to-day, it should be to-morrow.
Mr. Twisscould not concur with the noble Lord in the opinion that such mention of the Deity would be inexpedient. The solemn nomination of Divine Providence in the initiative Act of so high a legislative body, while it would derive weight and dignity from the importance of the occasion, on the one hand, would, on the other, exhibit a remarkable fitness to the peculiar circumstances in which, by the interposition of Providence, the inhabitants of these countries were placed. There were some occasions upon which acts which might otherwise be deemed merely formal, were especially proper, and peculiarly becoming. National calamities, in the shape of epidemic disease, were undeniably of this description, and the solemn mention of the Divine name in a solemn Parliamentary document would, he repeated, be suitable to the principles pervading a Christian country, and befitting the national character. Another reason in support of his view, was the fact that a reform or measure of some description respecting the Established Church of this country was hinted at in the course of the Speech which had been read to them on the preceding day. Anxious to preserve that church unimpaired, he was equally anxious for the maintenance and diffusion of religious sentiments; and it certainly appeared to him not too much to expect that the expressions of loyalty and affection addressed to the Head of that Church should be coupled with the name of Divine Providence.
Report of the Address agreed to.

PRINTING PAPERS.—EVIDENCE BEFORE COMMITTEES.
Mr. Hume, in moving that a Select Committee be appointed for the purpose of selecting, arranging, and regulating the printing all Parliamentary documents, said, he was quite aware that a great many questions respecting the distribution of these papers to the public had been brought before the Committee of last Session. An arrangement had been, in consequence, effected, which had given much satisfaction to the public, and conduced to the general convenience of all the parties concerned. He had no hesitation in further observing, that

71
it would be difficult to discover a better mode than that which the Committee had adopted for giving facilities to the public in procuring important documents. His object in bringing forward his present motion, was to enable the Committee to be further prepared to yield the desired accommodation. Although a number of the Parliamentary papers of last Session had circulated widely, there still were many individuals who knew not how those documents were to be obtained. He would propose to follow up the motion which he would now lay on the Table with one for a return of the names and descriptions of all Parliamentary papers which it was proposed to supply, together with a list of the prices; the return to circulate with the "notices of motion," which issued each morning. He had stated what appeared to him (and he trusted hon. Members would give him a bearing) a most favourable opportunity for making generally known to the public the names and prices of all Parliamentary documents. The mode which he suggested, was to circulate such a return together with the printed list of "notices." Of these notices, there was printed and circulated daily a very considerable number; and he would suggest, that annexed to each printed notice should be the prices of the various Parliamentary documents, and the several places at which they were to be procured. A few extra lines would be sufficient for his purpose; and the desired information would be thus rendered accessible to the public in every Committee-room. He could assure hon. Members, that by consenting to the proposed arrangement, they would save themselves a vast deal of trouble. He had well considered the modes of affording facilities in this respect, and the plan which he suggested was the result of mature reflection. After formally moving the appointment of the Committee, the hon. Member expressed a hope that an arrangement would also be made, by which the public might be enabled to gain possession of all accessible documents relating to Select Committees, with the facility of procuring them as in the case of papers of the House of Commons, He described this arrangement as tending materially to promote the objects for which such Committees are appointed.
Sir Robert Peelcould not help thinking that great advantages would result from
72
the adoption of some general rule as to the discretion allowed to witnesses examined orally before Committees, in the subsequent alteration of their evidence. This was, he conceived, a point of the utmost importance. The witnesses were uniformly permitted to revise their evidence, and he knew, from what had occurred in his own case, with reference to the examination of a witness before a Committee, that the most improper liberties were sometimes taken with the shorthand-writer's copy of the evidence, under the pretext of legitimate correction. In reading over the printed evidence of the individual to whom he referred, he met with an answer, of the precise terms of which, as spoken by the witness, he retained a perfect recollection; but so completely altered by the witness was its meaning, that had the answer as he found it in the printed report been given before the Committee in seeking for a further explanation, he should have undoubtedly asked some, and probably several questions. Between the addition of valuable details, and the variation of an answer, by which its meaning and substance were altered, there was a clear distinction. If a witness should fall into an unintentional error, it was quite right that he should be afforded an opportunity of correcting it. To mere verbal alterations he had no objection, so long as the meaning remained the same. But it indisputably tended to shake the confidence of the public in the fidelity with which proceedings before Committees were publicly recorded, and, by a necessary inference, in the mode of conducting those proceedings, when witnesses were known to enjoy the privilege of altering' their testimony at pleasure, and when a private party attending at a Committee was deprived of the opportunity of asking questions, which in justice to himself or others he would have been compelled to ask, if the answer, as printed, had been delivered within his hearing before the Committee. If hon. Members would take the trouble of looking over the printed evidence in a limited number of instances, they would find that in many cases the answer did not correspond with the question, and that the person examining, if he were disposed to discharge his duty properly, would indisputably have sought further explanation, and asked additional questions. It appeared to him to be of the utmost importance that a distinct un-

73
derstanding should be arrived at with regard to the extent to which alteration of his evidence is permissible to a witness. The difference between a personal examination and prepared and written evidence was obvious to every understanding. The undoubted superiority of parol over written evidence in eliciting: the truth was destroyed by the system of deliberate alteration, and the spirit of a witness's verbal testimony, when thus retouched and reconcocted, could be traced no longer.
The Speaker: The subject to which the right hon. Baronet has now alluded, had engaged much of my attention; and, if he had not now brought it forward, I should have felt it to be my duty, on the first appointment of a Select Committee, to have stated to the House the evils arising from the indulgence given to witnesses in correcting their evidence. I have stated this, in order that the House may not suppose that I had been indifferent to so important a matter. The practice of allowing witnesses to revise their evidence leads to a great delay in printing, and, consequently, in the circulation of reports and evidence. This delay has led to many and just complaints, and during the two Sessions in which I have had the honour to sit in this chair, I have done all that was in my power, by communication with the Chairmen of Committees, to point out the necessity of reverting to a more correct practice. The extent to which witnesses have carried the alterations which they have made upon receiving their evidence, are such as appear to me to be quite indefensible. I shall refer to one case, in which a witness not only altered the answers he had given before the Committee, but he actually inserted questions to elicit answers illustrative of his own views. I have been assured that the statement which I now make is correct. In another case a witness lost the copy of his evidence, which had been sent to him for revision, and the report has now been printed, omitting altogether the evidence which he had given before the Committee. It must be obvious, that when alterations to so great and almost unlimited an extent are made in the evidence of witnesses, and without being brought under the consideration of the Committee, the opportunity of requiring and receiving explanations, by means of examination as to the new matter in-
74
troduced, is wholly taken away from the Committee. The remedy for the evil is probably to be found in a vigilant control exercised by the Chairmen of Committees. If only very slight, or perhaps only verbal, alterations were permitted to be made, then they might be submitted to the Chairman, who might decide whether they ought to be sanctioned, or whether they are to be rejected as varying the effect of the evidence given before the Committee. If this control is not effectually exercised by Chairmen of Committees, it will then be necessary that recourse should be had to some stronger measures; but it is not desirable to pass resolutions in the House, when the end can be otherwise obtained. It appears to be so essential to sustain the accuracy and authenticity of the evidence given before Committees of this House, that I hope I shall be excused for having said so much on the subject.
Mr. Charles Bullerstill retained the opinion which he had expressed during the last Session—that the most effectual plan for the abatement of this nuisance would be to prevent altogether the correction of evidence. The only ground, as he understood, upon which the practice of permitting witnesses to revise their testimony could be for a moment justified, was the propriety of affording to persons examined before Committees the opportunity of correcting sentences hastily and unguardedly uttered. The plan which he would propose was to withhold altogether from witnesses the opportunity of making these corrections; and whenever an unguarded word was let fall, allowance would be made for the imperfection of unstudied style. If a different rule were adopted from that which he had the honour to propose, the Chairmen of Committees would of necessity be placed in circumstances of great difficulty. During the past Session it was determined by a Committee, of which he was a member, that no witness should be permitted to revise his evidence before it had been printed. The evidence was accordingly printed and sent to the witnesses for the purpose of revision. One witness, in performing this task, so far from confining himself to matters of style, altered almost every sentence, a process by which the meaning was in many instances materially changed. He (Mr. Buller) was consequently obliged to read from beginning to end of the witness's testimony, for the purpose of ascer-

75
taining where the alterations might be suffered to continue. The task was sufficiently troublesome, for the evidence extended over 30 or 40 folio pages. The best mode, in his opinion, of remedying this abuse, would be found in withholding from witnesses the privilege of correcting their evidence at all; or, if at all, they should be made to perform the task in the Committee-room, on the day of their examination. If the witness should be subsequently desirous to give any additional testimony, he would have only to come before the Committee and give it. But the system at present pursued, with regard to the correction of evidence, was in every respect preposterous.
An hon. Member said, that a Committee, on which he had sat for a considerable portion of the last Session, did not send in their report, with the corrected evidence annexed, until the month of October, although the Committee had ceased to sit before the prorogation of Parliament in August.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerdeprecated the very improper use which had been repeatedly made by witnesses, of the privilege which was generally extended to them, of correcting their evidence. While, however, he fully concurred with the hon. Gentlemen who preceded him in reprobating these unjustifiable practices, he thought that the safest and most efficacious remedy would be found in the exercise of a vigilant control by the Chairmen of Committees. No hon. Gentleman could have had more numerous occasions of witnessing these improprieties than himself. Mistakes sometimes crept into the short-hand writer's notes; and in that case a correction was necessary; but this by no means implied the legitimacy of the extent to which witnesses frequently carried their alterations. The evil might be satisfactorily remedied by a little vigilance on the part of Chairmen. For his part, he had suffered from the inconvenience of evidence being thus altered at will; and had occasion, in one instance, to report to the House where the witness answered a question originally in the affirmative, and subsequently in the negative. Correction was in some instances undoubtedly necessary; but the Clerk of the Minutes, in submitting them to the consideration of the Chairman, should be bound to call the Chairman's attention to every correction introduced by the witness. The fact of the minutes
76
of evidence being taken home by the witness out of the jurisdiction of the House of Commons was the foundation of all that was erroneous in the system. If the witness were assured of the fact that he would be compelled to submit every alteration to the Chairman's judgment, the evil would soon find its remedy; and no change would be introduced but such as common sense and sound judgment sanctioned. He remembered a case which had called forth his marked animadversion at the period of its occurrence. He alluded to the report of a Committee of which his hon. Friend (the Attorney-General) had been Chairman, in which the evidence as originally given, and as afterwards altered by the witness, was printed in parallel columns. He would not say that his recollection of the circumstance was perfectly accurate; but, at all events, if the exposure was made in the mode which he had stated, the proceeding was quite justifiable.
Mr. Williams Wynnentirely concurred with hon. Members in reprobating the latitude in which witnesses sometimes indulged, under pretext of correcting their evidence. He did not see how it was possible to preserve the purity of evidence, so long as these sweeping alterations were permitted. At the same time, he contended that it would be quite unfair to deprive the witness of the opportunity of rectifying errors for which he was by no means himself accountable. The evidence was taken in short-hand, and afterwards transcribed. It was impossible that during this process errors should not creep in. Mistakes had been frequently made, and the witness of course misrepresented. For these the witness could not be held responsible, and an occasional sinking of the voice on his part would of necessity create ellipses in the shorthand-writer's notes. The privilege of correction should be therefore afforded to the witness; but in the exercise of that privilege he should be restricted by a salutary control. He would instance the case of an election petition, where the evidence is taken in shorthand, and no opening is afforded for correction. He had no doubt, however, that if a witness stated to the Committee that he feared the Clerk might have committed an error of importance in taking some portion of his evidence, the Committee would direct the minutes to be altered accordingly. A similar procedure might be adopted by every other species of Committee.
Mr. O'Connell remarked, that hon. Gentlemen seemed to have overlooked a very important view of the question. It was in evidence before several Committees of the House that property and character might be alike assailed, as in his own case, by witnesses examined before Committees, while, as it at present stood, the law afforded no remedy whatever to the injured party. The witness enjoyed the utmost impunity; and the vilest character might be imputed to a man, and the falsest representations of him made; yet there existed no legal punishment for what was an undoubted crime. The course pursued in Committees of the House of Lords was very different. There the depositions were taken on oath; and an obvious remedy was thus afforded, for which in that House there existed no remedy at all. A power should be granted to proceed in such cases for misdemeanour against the party who wilfully and corruptly mis-stated facts; and the remedy which the criminal law permits should not be excluded from proceedings before a Committee of the House of Commons.
Mr. Williams Wynnapprehended that any prevarication or false testimony might be punished satisfactorily by the House in the event of its being proved to have been committed by a witness. It would be the bounden duty of the House, in such an event, to visit the guilty party with condign punishment.
Mr. O'Connell.—You are provided with the means of contradicting what the witness states. But take the case where witnesses contradict each other, or have come from distant parts of the country, and returned to their respective homes. In such a case, what remedy do you possess? I shall make the experiment of attempting to discover one, now that I have spoken of the subject.
Sir Robert Peel.—A great deal might be urged in favour of the position of hon. Members, who hold that no alteration whatever should be suffered in the minutes. In a criminal case you would not attach so much weight to evidence altered subsequently to its delivery as to evidence remaining in its original state. The effect of such a system would be to make the witnesses much more clear and careful in the formation of their answers. Their grammar, I have no doubt, would be much better attended to, and much of the laxity which now prevails among witnesses in
78
giving their evidence, would possibly be removed for the future.
Sir Robert Inglisobserved, with reference to a previous remark of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he knew of only one case in which a witness had been permitted to carry the copy of his evidence home.
Mr. Humewas of opinion, that if the evidence were printed exactly in the form in which it was taken down, the Chairman of the Committee would be able to judge in a moment whether the alterations introduced by the witness were merely verbal. It had fallen to his lot to find question and answer both so altered, as to involve a complete change of meaning.
Mr. Ewartremarked, that no alteration was ever permitted to be introduced into the notes of evidence taken in the courts of law; and that, as Committees of the House exerted a similar capacity to that of the courts of law, they should follow in this respect the example of the latter.
Dr. Bowringinstanced a case of gross ignorance on the part of a shorthand-writer employed to take the evidence at a Committee upon East-India affairs. A witness speaking of the silk worm mentioned it by the scientific name "bombyx;" and when the evidence had been printed, the shorthand-writer was found to have described it as "all bombast." He thought that the witnesses should be allowed to read and correct their testimony under the surveillance of the Chairman.
Mr. Humewould propose, that every Member of the House of Commons should, on the next morning after the examination of a witness, receive a copy of the evidence, literally as it had been given. Each individual member would thus be a check on the Chairman, and this proposition (if acceded to) would have the effect of obviating the great mistakes which the shorthand-writers were in the habit of committing.
Sir Robert Inglisremarked, that if every member were thus furnished with an incorrect copy of the evidence, the errors which each copy contained would become immortalized.
The motion carried, and Committee appointed.