The motion for the Address was then agreed to, and a Committee appointed to prepare and draw up the same.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, Wednesday, February 1, 1837. MINUTES.] Petitions presented. By Mr.PEASE, Mr.M TAG

CART, Mr. Fox MAULE, Mr. WILKS, and Mr. HUME, from
Stockton-upon-Tees; Edinburgh; Alcester; Modbury;
Tamworth; 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. WALLACE, 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.]
Sessional Order having been proposed,

The

that while he professed not to object I did not interfere with the constitutional to the address, yet he did contrive inci- questions which divided the conflictdentally to convey to the House opinions ing parties in that country. I shall only somewhat stronger, and to a greater ex- say, therefore, that the right hon. Baronet tent than that which he announced it is perfectly warranted in concurring in to be his intention to express when he this address, notwithstanding the opinion began. I shall be prepared, however, which he entertains of the impolicy of the when the right hon. Baronet or any other quadruple treaty; and that it is perfectly hon. Member shall enter into this ques- open to him, after having so concurred in tion, to show that the co-operation which it, without an amendment, to impugr and has been afforded to the Queen of Spain dispute hereafter the policy of that treaty. is, as the right hon. Baronet has statedthough, judging from his manner, not as he implied-consistent and in strict conformity with the engagements of the quadruple treaty. The right hon. Baronet, with reference to the affairs of Portugal, said, that those events to which the speech alluded, as having recently taken place in that country, ought to be a warning to us not to interfere hastily with the internal affairs of other nations; for that whereas in 1834 we congratulated ourselves on the effectual stop we had put to the disputes then prevailing in Portugal, yet now, in 1837, other disputes have arisen, and three years after those congratulations we have been obliged to send Mr. Ewart rose to bring forward the moships to Lisbon in order to protect British tion of which he had given notice, relative subjects from any injury they may sustain to the Admission of Strangers. The only from popular resistance to the Govern- reason that he knew of, why a Member's ment of the Queen. Now, I cannot see Order was requisite, for the admission of any inconsistency between the result persons into the strangers' gallery, was, which was then alluded to, as having that it was supposed to be some guarantee taken place in Portugal, and what is now for the respectability of the individuals adstated in the address, because, when we mitted. Now he (Mr. Ewart) believed that stated that the effect of the treaty in 1834 a Member granted an order at the request had been at once to put an end to the civil of any individual, especially if that indiwar which was then raging in Portugal, vidual was one of his constituents. we did not take upon ourselves the re- was, therefore, in fact no guarantee at sponsibility of the Government of Portugal all; because the character or avocation of in all future times, or undertake to guaran- the individual seeking the order for adtee that Portugal should for ever after be mission was never inquired into. Another free from all liability to those disturbances reason in justification of this impediment which every country, whatever its govern- was said to be, that on all important ocment may be, must always be subject to. casions the gallery would be inconveniently But if we thought it was likely a disturb- crowded. Now, he did not think that ance would take place in Portugal, which a good argument, seeing that the same might be attended with popular commo- objection would apply to the present systion, I think it was right and proper, and tem; for there were six hundred and fiftyour bounden duty, having ships at our eight Members of that House, and it was disposal, to send them to the Tagus, in very well known that the gallery would order, to protect Our Own fellow-not contain more than two hundred indisubjects from suffering in conse-viduals. Besides, if it became crowded, quence of that disturbance. But I shall the officers would have directions to prebe prepared to show that that is true which is stated in the Speech, and that those ships were sent out for the purposes there stated, and that, being there, they

vent 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

It

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.

Alsager, Captain
Angerstein, John
Arbuthnot, hon. H.
Ashley, Lord
Archdall, M.
Baillie, H. D.
Baring, F.
Baring, W. B.
Barnard, E. G.
Barry, G. S.
Belfast, Lord
Bell, Matthew
Beresford, Sir J.

Roebuck, J. A. Wason, R. Wilks, John Williams, W.

TELLERS.

Ewart, W. Wakley, T. the NOES.

Gisborne, T. Goodricke, Sir F, Gordon, hon. W. Goring, Harry Dent Goulburn, Sergeant Graham, Sir J. Green, Thomas Grey, Sir G. Bart, Halford, H.

Halse, James

Hanmer, Sir J., Bart.

Hardy, J.

Hawes, B.

P.

Hay, SirA. L.

Bish, T.
Blackstone, W. S.
Bodkin, J.
Bonham, R. Francis
Borthwick, Peter

Lord John Russell said, that notwithstanding the arguments of the hon. Gen-Brabazon, Sir W. tleman, 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. Ewart wished 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. Potter suggested, 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.

Brady, Denis C.
Bruen, F.
Browne, R. D.
Buller, Sir J. B. Yarde
Butler, hon. Pierce
Campbell, Sir H.
Campbell, Sir. J.
Canning, hon. C.
Chichester, J. P. B.
Chaplin, Colonel
Clerk, Sir G.
Clive, Edward Bolton
Clive, hon. R. II.
Colborne, N. W. R.
Compton, H. C.
Conolly, E. M.
Dalbiac, Sir C.
Conyngham, Lord A.
Dick, Quintin
Donkin, Sir R.
Dugdale, W. S.
Duncombe, T.
Eastnor, Viscount
Eaton, Richard J.
Egerton, Wm. Tatton
Fancourt, Major
Ellice, E.
Fector, John Minet
Fergusson, K. C.
Finn, Wm. Francis
Fitzsimon, Chris.
Follett, SirW. Webb
Forester, hon. G.C.W.
Forbes, Wm.
Fremantle, Sir T. W.
French, F.

Hector, C. J.

Henniker, Lor d

Mactaggart, J.

Maher, John
Mahon, Lord
Mangles, J.
Marshall, William
Marsland, Thomas
Maule, hon. F.
Milton, Viscount
Molesworth, Sir W.
Mordaunt, SirJ., Bart.
Morpeth, Lord
Murray, J. A.
Nicholl, Dr.

Norreys, Lord
North, Frederick
O'Brien, W. S.

Vyvyan, Sir R. R.
Walker, C. A.
Walter, John
Warburton, H.
Ward, H. G.
Weyland, Major
Whitmore, Thomas C.
Wilbraham, G.
Wilmot, Sir J. E.
Wodehouse, E.
Wrightson, W.
Wrottesley, SirJ., Bart.
Wyndham, Wadham
Wynn, rt. hon. C. W.
Young, G. F.

TELLERS.

Philips, G. R.
Steuart, R.

Mr.

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. He 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. Hume wished 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 com

DIVISIONS IN COMMITTEES.] Ward rose 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 regis-posed of such a host of members, which tered in the votes.

Motion agreed to.

could tend only to protract and confuse its proceedings, should consist of a certain given number, say twenty-one, whose PRIVILEGE.] Lord John Russell, pre-qualification should not depend either vious to moving the Order of the Day for upon their being knights of the shire or taking into consideration the letters re- gentlemen of the long robe. ceived yesterday by the Speaker from the Mr. Williams Wynn saw no reason to Lord Chancellor and Mr. Lechmere Charl-depart from the usual practice. The Comton, begged to call the attention of the mittee had never been found inconveniently House to the propriety of appointing at large, and its proceedings had always been the commencement of the Session a Com-conducted with the utmost propriety, atmittee of privileges in the same way as it tention, and despatch. 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

Lord John Russell was not aware that any inconvenience had ever resulted from the manner in which the Committee was constituted.

Sir Robert Peel observed, that in the case of Mr. Long Wellesley, although a great many of the Committee attended it

Mr. Hume would 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.

was not found that the number was incon- I these two letters to a Committee of Pri-
veniently large. Great attention was paid vileges, to see whether this breach of the
by every member to all the circumstances privileges of the House of which Mr.
of the case, which were entered into at Charlton complains, has been committed,
great length, and the desire to do justice by the Lord Chancellor in the capacity
seemed to be common to all. If it should of a Minister of the Crown, or as a
hereafter be found that any inconvenience judge of the Court of Chancery, I shall
arose from the number of the Committee, be content with referring its merits to
it would then be time to adopt the limita- a Committee, as was done in the case
tion proposed by the hon. Member for of Mr. Long Wellesley, where the matter
Middlesex.
having been fairly and laboriously inves-
tigated, the result was communicated to
this House, and this House was not ad-
vised 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 Pri-
vileges, 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 con-

MR. LECHMERE CHARLTON.] 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. Lech-ceive that the letter received from the hon. mere 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

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. Roebuck wished 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 itto

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.

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. Maclean did 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 Lord John Russell did not understand any misapprehension of what had fallen that the order for the appointment of the from the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) Committee would give any protection to upon the subject last evening. He (Mr. Mr. Charlton. If the House chose to in- Maclean) agreed with the right hon. terfere in favour of that Gentleman to pre- Baronet that the co-operation of the vent his being committed or arrested as British force could not be objected to if he went to or came from the Committee, that co-operation were such as had been a subsequent and distinct order of the guaranteed by the treaty into which the House would be necessary for that pur- Government of this country had entered pose. For his own part he did not see with the Government of the Queen of that it would be necessary to take such a Spain. He (Mr. Maclean), however, was step in the first instance. Mr. Charlton of opinion that when the question came was not yet in custody. If, before the to be fully investigated, as it ought to be, inquiry terminated, he should be arrested, it would be found that the co-operation, it might then be necessary for the House if such it could be called-or the interto make some such order as was made invention, if such it had been--or the transthe 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. Sanford
brought 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 im-
policy 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 stated, he reserved
to himself a full right, when the question
was brought forward in a more tangible
VOL. XXXVI. {Third
Series}

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 Peel was 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,

D