The Sun. — London, England, 1844-07-03 00:00:00

itybirb 'Ebition SUN OFFICE, Seven o' Clock. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. (THIS DAY.) HOUSE OF COMMONS. THE RAILWAYS BILL. (Continued from our Afternoon Edition.) Mr. ENTWISLE said there was now sought in this Bill a power to regulate railway companies in their pro ceedings, even before coming to that House for their Act. This was a power which might be exercised in a very dangerous manner, and which, therefore, he should strongly warn the House to be careful of conceding. The Bill gave the power to receive the deposits of share holders—a thing unheard of before. Again, it was pro posed to invest in the Board of Trade a power to pur chase hereafter such railways as might now or at any future period be contemplated and formed. These things, he must really suggest, were eminently worthy of the reconsideration of the Right Hon. President of the Board of Trade. Mr. BROTHERTON said he really could not see why there should be so much hesitation in going into Committee on this Bill. For his own part, he thought there had been a good many railway schemes brought forward in connexion with which, there had been more fraud and felony than ever he had heard of before in connexion with public matters.—(Hear, hear.) Many persons were extremely anxious to have railway matters excluded from the operation of this Bill; but, though he was aware it was an unpopular opinion, he felt bound to say they ought not to be excluded.—(Hear, hear.) There were constantly bubble schemes going forward to derange the market, and injure the honest bona fide speculator, that, under the provisions of this Bill, would never see the light at all.—(Hear, hear.) Let them go into Committee, and then they might be able to correct the defects of the Bill, and send it ferth to the world a useful and valuable measure for the protection of the community. Sir J. GUEST explained. Mr. WALTER JAMES thought the Bill a most use ful measure, encouraging, as it did, the trade of the country on the one hand, and discouraging bubble com panies on the other. He approved of the preliminary investigation which had been objected to by the Member for Shefield. A preliminary investigation was insisted on in all cases in which companies came to Parliament for a Bill, and he thought such an investigation ought to take place in all cases. Mr. M. PHILLIPS had come down to the House entertaining considerable prejudice against the Bill, but the course which the debate had taken had convinced hint of the propriety of going into Committee. He cer tainly, with regard to railways, thought considerable caution ought to be exercised to prevent companies making an improper use of names. He himself had been asked some time ago by an Hon. Member to put his name on the back of the Carlisle and Glasgow Railway Bill, and, considering that a direct communication be tween Manchester and Glasgow would be advantageous, he had consented to do so. To his surprise, a few days afterwards he had seen his name in the newspapers as a member of a provisional committee of a railroad in embryo. He of course took measures immediately to rectify the mistake. Mr. J. S. WORTLEY hoped that, while excluding railroad companies from the operations of the Bill, they would exclude sham railroad companies. One of the grossest frauds ever perp.arated had been called a ' , Airmail company. He thought the clause making those who lent the guarantee of their names liable a most wholesome enactment. He had no pity for those persons who thus lent their names and induced others to risk their property in undertakings of this nature. He thought the word " promoter" ought to be more clearly defined. Ile had himself, before he had the honour of a seat in that House, been a promoter of a Railway Bill before a Committee. He thought the words of the clause ought to be so defined as not to in clude those who were professionally employed in promoting Bills before Committees.—(Hear, hear.) The lion. Member for Lambeth had agreed to the whole of the resolutions of the Committee on which the Bill was founded with one exception, a point on which he divided the Committee. If the resolutions were com pared with the Bill, they would be found closely to re semble each other. Mr. HA WES explained. He contended that the Bill went much further than the resolutions, conferring powers which the resolutions never conternpiated. Mr. ROEBUCK objected to part of the principle of the Bill, and stated also that within a very few hours a most important clause had been introduced into the Bill. He did not see any objection to including joint-stock companies and the for mation of railways in the Bill. If it was to prevent fraud, it was as proper to prevent frauds in railway companies as in any other. He com plained that the Solicitor-General was not present on lin occasion of discussing a Bill so important as the pre sent °lie, and objected to the power under the Act given to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which was no less than that of preventing parties from coming before Parliament for Bills. This was a distinct principle, and as it had not been discussed sufficiently, he hoped the Committee would not be pressed. Strangers .vere then ordered to withdraw, but Mr. HAWES having stated that after the discussion be would not divide the House, his amendment was wittan . . - awn, and the House went into Committee, ~..1-- )R INGLE in the Chair. Clause I was then agreed to. On clause 2 being proposed, Mr—HAWES asked how this Bill was to apply to incorporated companies? Mr. GLADSTONE said the Bill would certainly apply to future incorporated companies, as, in some points, it applied to those already formed. The Act did not apply either to Scotland or Ireland, but to England unly. Mr. HAWES said the Bill applied to all Scotch and Iris h companies having agencies in England. Unless it reaelied all companies, this would have an unjust and partial operation. Mr. GLADSTONE said he applied the Act to these companies- simply because they were not exclusively Scotch or Irish companies, but carried on their opera tions in England. After some discussion, the Right non. Gentleman suggested that the clause should be passed as it stood, reserving the point, whether it should extend to Scotland, for further consideration. . . Mr. HAWES said he thought the clause ought to be postponed. After a few words from Capt. LAYIRD and Mr. J. S. WORTLEY, r. GILL moved that the Chairman do report progeess. After some discussion the CHAIRMAN reported pro gress and obtained leave to sit again to-morrow. Mr. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from Bir mingham, praying for inquiry into railway charges for goods and passengers ; also, a petition, agreed to at a public meeting in Covent-garden, praying for the libera tion of Daniel O'Connell, Esq., M.P., and his fellow prisoners. Mr. WARD presented a petition from certain settlers la New Zealand, praying that the titles to their property might be established on a sure foundation. m i e,,BECKET presented a petition from Leeds against the Joint-Stock Companies Registration and Regulation Bill. Lord SA NDGN wished to ask the Right Hon. Gen tleman the President of the Board of Trade at what time there would be parties in Java and Manilla who would be authorised to issue certificates of origin of sugar, and also whether in cases where certificates could not be ob tamed sugar would he admitted without a certificate ? Mr. GLADSTON'E said that the advices which would •go out by the July mail from this country to Java and Manilla, would find persons there qualified to issue cer tificates as to the produce of those islands. In answer to the other part of the Noble Lord's question, he said that a discretionary power of course would be vested in the Board of Customs as to the admission of sugar with out certificate. In answer to a question from Mr. HAWES, Mr. GLADSTONE said, that as the matter was not .his department, he could not distinctly say what the Poi C-office arrangements were in respect to communica tion with the East India Islands. But he understood that Manilla was the port chosen for the Philippine Islands, and that the Dutch Government would not allow intercourxe with any,other than three ports in the island of Java ; those were Samarang, Batavia, and another place. SMOKE PREVENTION BILL. On the reading of the Order of the Day for the Com mittee on this Bill, Mr. MACKINNON wished to know from her Ma jesty's Government whether be should proceed with this 13i11 or not? Mr. MANNERS SUTTON said, that since the Bill wa.= introduced it had been his business to make some inquiries on the subject of the parties interested in the Bill, and the result was so very unsatisfactory that he felt the greatest difficulty in pronouncing any decided opinion upon it ; and as he did not think the House was then in a condition to come to a decision upon that im portant measure, - he hoped the further consideration of it would be adjourned. Mr. MACKINNON moved that the Speaker should leave the Chair. Mr. WARD moved as an amendment that the Speaker should leave the Chair that day three months. After a brief conversation, in which Mr. Brotherton, 'Lord F. Egerton, Mr. Hawes, Mr. Borthwick, M r . M. Philips, Mr. Parker, Mr. Ricardo, Sir John Easthope, Mr. Protheroe, Sir R. Peel, and Mr. Muntz took part, Mr. .Mackinnon withdrew his motion for going into Com mittee, and also withdrew his Bill, with the intention of bringing it forward again at an early period of the next session. The Courts of Common Law Process Bill, and the Customs Duties (Isle of Man) Bill severally went tiirough Committee, and were ordered to be reported to-inorro W. The Linen Manufacturers (Ireland) Bill was read a third time and passed. BRITISH CUSTOM-HOUSE IN CHINA. Dr. SOWRING, according to notice, begged to ask the Rig ht Hon. Gentleman at the bead of the Govern meat, w hether the Government had given its sanction to tbe introduction of oaths in Custom-house n atters in Ciiimi as directed by the British Consul at N ingpo. Sir R. PEEL said that the administration of oaths was -without th e sanc tion - of the Government, and he had taken rnettuires to introduce the English practice in China. Mr. Sergeant MURPHY moved that this House will, upon Tuesday next, resolve itself into a Committee, to, take into consideration the Act 17 and 'lB Cara 2, c. 7, intituled " An Act for provision of Ministers in Cities And corporate Towns, a n d ma ki ng th e Church of St, .Andrew's, in the suburbs of the City of Dublin, presen. Nave for ever," with view to the repeal of so much thereof as relates to the payment of Ministers in corpo rate towns in Ireland. He said that the Act was passed for the purpose of providing religious instruction for Pro testant immigrants from this country and the Continent into Ireland. It was no longer necessary; and although it produced no more than 15,000/. a year, it was at once oppressive and offensive to the Roman Catholic population. He knew many Protestant clergymen who derived a portion of their stipend from this peculiar source, who would feel grateful to the Government if it would devise means for relieving them from getting their revenues in such an unpleasant manner. He had read a statement from a Protestant clergyman in Cork on this subject. It was stated that the late Dr. Warren had distrained on a portion of his parishioners for ministers' money. A deputation waited on him and requested him to give back the goods which he had distrained. His reply was, that he wished to God some other mode of re munerating him could be devised by the Government, but that he owed it as a duty to his successor to maintain his rights, and he was justified in saying so. —(Hear, hear.) They had replied to him that he had many rich Protestants among his parishioners, and that he should look to them. He replied that those who made the observation knew little of Protestants, for they were the worst paymasters he had. He trusted the House would do him the justice to believe that he was actuated by no sectarian motives in bringing forward this subject, as all he wanted was to induce the Government to provide a revenue for the clergy, with. out having recourse to these charges. The Act had established a valuation of all existing house, but it had fixed certain limits, by enacting that no house should be valued as being worth more than 60/. a year. The con sequence was, that the houses of the rich, which were perhaps worth 200/., were assessed to the ministers' money only at 601. a year, while the houses of the poor were assessed at their lull rental, and if the assessmen was not paid the goods were at once distrained, and there was no appeal against the distraint. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman concluded by formally proposing his motion. Lord ELIOT had certainly promised last session to take the subject into consideration. The Attorney- General for Ireland had maturely considered the subject, but he regretted to state that the Government had been unable to devise any plan which would be satisfactory to the persons subject to the payment of the tax, without de priving the clergy of that to which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman himself admitted they were fairly entitled. Similar charges existed in the capitals of England and Scotland, and it should be remembered that at the time this Act passed Roman Catholics were incapacitated by law from holding houses ; therefore it was a tax im posed upon Protestant property exclusively, and Roman Catholics who had since become possessed of that pro perty, had acquired it subject to this tax, and, there fore, had purchased it for less than they would other wise have giren for it. He could not accede to the mo and he hoped the llon. and Learned Gentleman would not press it. Mr. BELLEW hoped that before another session the Government would prepare a measure to get rid of the grievance. - Lord STANLEY hoped, that before the end of the next session, something would be done upon this sub ject. Mr. JOHN O'BRIEN, in supporting the motion, re ferred to the anomalous position of the Established Church in Ireland, which he contended ought to be sup ported outief the general funds of the country, without pressing directly upon a dissentient and reluctant people. Strangers were suddenly ordered to withdraw, and the House was counted, but there being more than forty Members present, the gallery was again opened, and' Mr. O'BRIEN proceeded to argue in favour of the motion. He was desirous to incorporate Great Britain and Ireland most closely, but the Protestant Church— the greatest anarchy in the history of nationo, prevented the amalgamation. The Irish Pretestant Members were compelled, however painfully, to legislate against the temporalities of them. He wished to rescue the Protestants from their ascendancy, and the Catholics from their humiliation.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. CURTEIS complained of the want of courtesy shown by a supporter of the Government in counting out the Howse in the middle of the eloquent and im portant speech of the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, but the House did not divide, and tlie motion was agreed to with- out a division, but amidst great laughter and cheering. Mr. PUSEY then obtained leave to bring in a Bill to alter and amend an Act passed in the fourth year of her present Majesty, intituled "An Act to enable the owners of settled estates to defray the expense of draining the same by way of mortgage." The House then adjourned. STATE OF TRADE. (From the Manchester Guardian of this day.) There continues to be a good healthy demand for yarns for all numbers up to 40's, but more particularly for the low numbers, which obtain a trifling advance in price. For goods generally there is also a steady demand ; iths printing cloths commanding a little higher :prices. For 40-inch shirtings the market was heavy, and not much business done ; parties waiting the daily expected arrival of the Overland Mail. The ac count of its arrival in the London 7'imes reached here later in the day, and the commercial intelligence there contained was considered to be rather unfavourable as respects manufactured goods. FLANNEL MAUBET, Mcgnik..v, JULI: 1.- The demand for flannels continues brisk ; but there is no change in prices. The wool trade has undergone little variation since last Monday. There is a fair busi ness doing, and prices have advanced a shade. SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS. FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF THIS DAY. GLOBE.—The Ecclesiastical Courts Bill was among the measures which,:to lighten the Ministerial ship, were cast overboard on Monday night by Sir Robert Peel, in his state ment as to the course proposed to be taken by the Govern ment with reference to the pending business of the session. The history and fate of this unfortunate Bill is fraught with instruction. and warning to the present, and to all future Cabinets. It exhibits the folly and danger of sacrificing principle to expediency—of conunitting the preparation and conduct of a legislative measure to the individual whose per sonal and pecuniary interests are involved in the changes it proposes to effect, and who must be more or less than man if he do not avail himself of the opportunity to improve his own position, personal or relative, by its means. To this fatuity—for it is nothing less—do we attribute the successive defeats, involving diminished influence and damaged fame, the Government has sustained in connec tion with the Bill which they have now consigned to its fate ; and its equally bad precursor, which was withdrawn from the consideration of the House of Commons, by the consent of both sides of the House, in the course of the last session. The history of modern legislation affords no instance of the kind so disgraceful to a Ministry. The cumbrous and expensive proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Courts had been long and loudly complained of, as injurious to the suitors and disgraceful to the jurisprudence of the coun try. A Commission, issued by the Crown, had inquired into the state of these Courts ; and, in a clear and well-digested -report, had:recommended certain changes by which the ad ministration of the laws, with reference to the matters over which these Courts had jurisdiction, should be assimilated to the changed circumstances of society in this country. The ma terials for legislation were thus provided to their hands. An opportunity for effecting a valuable alteration in the law, by removing an acknowledged nuisance—and thus earning for themselves the gratitude of the public—was supplied. It was lost. The evil spirit of patronage—the desire to render the opportunity, thus offered, subservient to party objects, deprived the country of the advantages it would have derived from an honest government. The Bill introduced by Dr. Nicholl in the last session was " too bad" to be entertained by the House of Commons." However well. disposed a majority of that House was, at that time, to gratify the Government in anything reason able, that experiment upon its compliance with Ministerial' wishes was too bold to be admitted. Its manifest design to aggrandise one individual—and he the concoctor of the mea sure—at the expense of the public interests, was demon strated by the Opposition. After struggling hard to overcome the objections, Dr. Nicholl withdrew the Bill in its original shape, and introduced many alterations and modifications. It was changed, but not mended. The House still showed so determined a dislike to the measure, that it was with drawn. The Lord Chancellor introduced the Bill of the pre sent session. It was to have been expected that experience would have imparted wisdom. The new measure, it might be safely predicted, would be, if not perfect, at least free front great errors and defects. A third failure would, at any rate, be guarded against by a Ministry not wholly indifferent to cha racter, nor insensible to the necessity ofpreserving appearances, in order to maintain themselves in office. This, we say, was to be _expected; but this expectation was far from being rea lised. iven to tire rtouse or Lords, altlioUgn introduced by, the Lord Chancellor, the manifest errors and defects or the Bill were so forcibly exposed by Lord Cottenham, Lord Campbell, and other Noble and Learned Lords on the Oppo sition benches, that the Lord Chancellor, and the Peers who are his echoes in that House, were unable to screen it from merited reproach : they, merely apologised for its imperfec tions. The Bill came down to the House of Commons with a character by no means recommendatory; and the debate which arose, and the division on its second reading, followed by the Opposition in Committee to passing its first clause, in dicated too plainly to the Premier the hopelessness:of endea vouring to preserve it from the fate of its predecessor. The solemn asseveration of Sir Robert Peel, with reference to the former Bill, "So help me, God, I have no personal interest in the measure 1" was abortive for the purpose for which it was employed on the former occasion ; to have repeated the oath would have been an act of prodigality in swearing which would have looked like profligacy. There remained, then, no alternative but to throw the measure over board, And this has been . done ; and in a way signi ficant of the chagrin which Sir Robert Peel has expe rienced by the necessity laid upon him to free himself from the incumbrance. The history of this signal miscarriage in legislation is a sad comment on the promise of law reform with which the present Ministers entered upon office. What they would do in this respect was trumpeted forth in the speech from the throne ; and public trumpe t ed eh wereraised high as to the measures which were to follow the announce ment. What they have done has been seen. Their only matured measure is their Bankruptcy Act ; and of that, and their appointments under it, there are scarcely two'opinions. STANDARD.—The debates in the two houses of Parlia ment, last night, were long and interesting. In the House of Lords the Sugar Bill was discussed pretty fully. The argu ments upon this measure are already familiar, but the genius of Lord Brougham gave to the discussion an attraction of almost as much force as the charm of novelty. His Lordship disposed of the suggestion, that in Java, the Manillas, and Chi na , t h ere may linger a system of qualified slavery, greater or less, but in all of small amount, by making the broad distinction between these countries and countries like Cuba and the Brazils. In the former, if there is (which is doubtful) slavery, there Is certainly no slave trade; consequently the taking or refusing of their produce cannot go to augment or to diminish the amount of slavery, This distinc tion decisive. Slavery in substance exists every where—for everywhere the very poor are the slaves of the very rich, to say nothing of the slaves whom superstition en thrals, as in the more Ignorant popnhttbps domineered over by tug plumb of Rome. A. long as poverty and iginorance are inseparable frpp the condition of humanity, the sub. stance of slavery must .aftlipt JnOSt countries in one. shape or another ; but "w - ell-gowertwl - countries this s l a very, OA pain a constant course of diminution. In coun tries, nu the AP' 4.9444 in which a slave trade is practised, slavery must, from the nature of things, grow with their growth and strengthen with their strength ; and whoever adds to the resources of such countries, either by enlarging their commerce, or otherwise, is in effect as much a slave trailer as he who exchanges muskets and gunpowder for human beings on the African coast. There is one passage of Lord Brougham's speech reflecting honour upon his Lordship, because, it says, far better than we could say it, what we have a thousand times laboured to inculcate, not only with reference to the slave trade, but to the new poor law and the factory question, namely, that every system of political economy, which does not take for its basis the moral law and the spirit of Christianity, is unsound, and must lead to disappointment. THE OLD BAILEY BAR. (From the Sunday Times.) In the course of the allusions - which we made a short time since to the case of the wills forgeries we stated that our object was not so much to trace that case through its circumstances, which was the province of the jury, as to make it the foundation of a general call upon the public to consider, aud, if possible, tocorrect, through these representations, the evils which have grown out of the the license indulged in by counsel in the defence of guilty men. It would scarcely be possible to select a better case to illustrate these evils than that of Barber. defended as it was in the full tone of the Old Bailey ver nacular, b' Mr. Wilkins. His client was the most in jured man in the!world • nothing could surpass his wrongs evcept his virtues. The purity required by Caesar in his wife, was a moderate qualification compared with the purity ascribed by Mr. Wilkins to his client. Caesar, indeed, was guilty of a moral cowardice when he could think of repudiating his wife merely because she was slandered. But Mr. Wilkins betrayed no such pusil lanimity. On the contrary, he seemed to consider it a feather in his client's cap to be tried for fraud by the justice of his country. It was an honour to be employed by him—quite a moral distinction to touch a fee from such a hand. Neither the verdict of a jury nor the sen tence of the judge could disturb the implicit confidence of the advocate in the rectitude of his client's conduct. Juries were fallible, judges were fallible—in short, every thing on earth was fallible but Mr. Wilkins's pene tration and Mr. Barber's virtue. As for prosecutors and witnesses, they were not only fallible, but congregated and combined, like evil spirits in a league for the overthrow of innocence. But, to speak seriously upon a matter which is, after all, of very se rious importance, it is, as we have said, in vain to look to the judges for the protection of prosecutors or wit nesses ; they seldom or never interfere. They did not interfere with the case of which we have been speak ing, when Mr. Wilkins thought it not beneath him to attack the character of such a man as Mr. Fresh field, the Bank solicitor, in the hope that some ignorant person on the jury might be persuaded to consider his conduct oppressive and unjust. It is nut for Mr. Freshfield's sake that we regret the indiffer ence manifested by the judge on this occasion. His character stood 'too high to be affected by anything that Mr. Wilkins could say or do ; but if judges will not sympathise with such men as Mr. Freshfield, how can they be expected to sympathise in more doubtful cases with men who are not so well known, and consequently not so well protected from misrepresentation ? It is, therefore, a delusion not to suppose that prosecutor —or witnesses, and especially the latter—find pro tection from the judge, and, therefore, it is the more necessary that something should be done, now that the evil is on the increase, to protect the public by other means. The gentlemen of the bar call such a case as that of the will forgers, in the Old Bailey slang, " a good sporting case," that is, a case in which prosecutors and witnesses are to be run down and every thing, and, amongst the rest, that ill-fated personage Truth, sacrificed to the worthy character in the duck. According to this interpretation of the word sport, Mr. Wilkins is certainly a keen sportsman ; he cares no thing for himself, he rides, as beggars are said to ride, straight onward to a certain destination. There is no dif ficulty, however formidable, that can arrest his pro gress, or turn him from the one great object of sacrificing everything to the interest of his client. So confident were the conductors of the prosecution that brow-beating would be resorted to in the case of Barber, that they felt it necessary to subpoena the Lord Mayor, and Mr. Goodman, the chief clerk at the Mansion-house, and to keep them in attendance day after day, as a check upon the imaginative faculty of Mr. Wilkins. Even after all the precautions that could be adopted, the Bank, the Bank solicitor, the magistrate, the press, the wit nesses for the prosecution, nay, the very judge him self, were, all of them, in one shape or other, ex posed to the animadversions or insinuations of the prisoner's counsel. But this out-and-out mode of defence, although it is certainly calculated to attract the notice and admiration of the great mass of indivi duals charged with offences., has never failed to obtain for him who uses it the scorn of those who think that society is likely to be endangered by the escape of an ingenious villain, defended by a dextrous lawyer, whose sense of right and wrong, however perfect in itself, is never permitted to interfere with what he calls his duty to his client. One would think, from the exaggerated language of lawyers respecting this duty, that there was something in the connection of counsel and client which exempts parties from the ordinary obligations of truth and justice. No barrister will pretend that he would be justified in imputing falsehood directly or indirectly to a person who, he knew in his heart, had told the truth. No man of common honesty would dare to make such ari assertion. Wherein, then, consists the magic of that extraordinary and mysterious compact implied in the phrase " duty to his client," which justifies, or is sup posed to justify, him in Aoing for another what he dares not do for himself—to obtain the acquittal of a guilty person, and the ill-treatment of one or more innocent persons by the misrepresentation of their motives, their characters, and their conduct ? "What is there, then, we would ask, in the connexion between counsel and client —what is there in the sense of duty arising out of such a connexion, that should exonerate either of them from the universal obligations of morality, and the ordinary rules of right and wrong ? Is it in virtue of any mystic influence communicated from palm to palm by the transmission of a fee, that the lawyer becomes not merely invested with the privilege, but charged with the duty, of sacrificing every principle to the one paramount object of vindicating his client, pe fas aut nefas, at the expense of every consi deration, human and divine ? If so, we should like to hear some aciount of the process from those who are familiar with the operation. It was stated some time ago by the Attorney-General, in the House of Commons, on contending in favour of this extravagant privilege, that he supported it for the sake of the suitors themselves. Now, what we want to know is wherein the advantage to suitors consists? We think it will be readily granted that it is no advantage to prosecutors to be vilified and traduced,nor to witnesses to be treated in the same manner. The accused party, whether he be asa in dler, a robber, or a murderer, may certainly derive an ad vantage from the obloquy which he is permitted to cast, through his counsel, on those who are endeavouring to bring him to justice. In fact, the only person to whom this monstrous privilege can be of use is the guilty person, who can only be saved from merited punishment by the adoption of such execrable means. What then, let us ask is the real effect of this privilege, or license, or whatever it may be called, upon the administration of justice itself ? We will not mince matters. The effect is not to benefit suitors, but to drive them out of Court by the mere force of the Old Bailey philosophy. We would appeal to Mr. Clark, the clerk of the arraigns, and to Mr. Goodman, whose experience in the same office renders his testimony invaluable—we would appeal to these gentlemen, whose characters, as private indivi duals and as public officers, give the highest authority to their statements, whether it is not a common case to bear prosecutors express their regret at having prosecuted, and not only express their regret but declare that they would rather submit to the loss of their property, and allow the thief to escape, than expose themselves or any mem bers of their families to the observations with which they had been unjustly assailed by the prisoner's counsel. The effect of this privilege, therefore, is to obstruct the administration of justice in limine, by driving people away from the Court, and inducing them rather to submit to their losses than apply for redress, or even accept of redress, with its invariable accompaniment of abuse and detraction. Lord Brougham was as suredly carried away by professional enthusiasm, or by that love of wrangling which is, perhaps, in separable from a great advocate and debater, when he could think of referring to the progress of a trial as affording a favourable instance of the display of human talent. However interesting such proceedings as are daily exhibited in our courts may be to the Noble Lord, and to those who think with him, we can conceive nothing more re pulsive to a benevolent mind than that scene of noisy decla mation and gross humbug, and virulent invective and brutal demeanour, which combine to make up what is called an important trial, or a good sporting case, at the Old Bailey. His Lordship's own description of the process, though evidently coloured so as to favour his views, will scarcely inspire such a man as we have described with any violent inclination to be present at the performance. " The jury," observes his Lorship, " see the witness ; they have the opportunity of watching his demeanour while giving his evidence, and then they see him submitted to a cross-examination ; after which comes his counsel, comforting and restoring, as it were, the poor man, after the flagellation he has under gone, and setting up the broken credit of the witness, damaged by the cross examination. Af ter the cross-examination of the adverse counsel, which has impaired the credit of the witness for a mo ment, then comes the skilful counsel, who restores and comforts the poor man, and gives a better opportunity of explaining the case and setting himself right with the jury, until at last the conflict being over on both sides, the evidence of the witness is fairly before the Court." But how often does it happen that the evidence of the witness is never fairly before the Court ? Suppose the case of a poor nervous man, or of a delicate and timid woman, how difficult would it be to restore and coin fort either of them after flagellation, so as to enable them to become collected and appear in their proper characters of truth and honesty ! But let any one who suspects us of exaggeration go to the Old Bailey and judge for himself—let him observe the conduct of coun sel to female witnesses on the opposite side, and if he do not feel his heart throb with indignation and shame, we can only say that he is fit for the place to which we have sent him. But, as it is possible that we may revert to this subject again, we shall say no more for the pre sent than express an ardent hope that something will be done to correct an evil which, so far from showing any disposition to cure itself, is evidently on the increase, and the effect of which is most injurious to the ends of justice and the reputation of a great country. THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, r%TTTLY 3, 1844 reason to plume ourselves on our superiority in this re spect than we had fondly imagined. The recent trials in Ireland show that substantial justice may be made to yield to the necessities of a State prosecution ; and the public have just been made aware, through the medium of proceedings in the House of Commons, that the race of official spies is not yet extinct in England. There is nothing more abhorrent to the minds of oar countrymen than any invasion of the sacredness of private correspondence. The law punishes the opening of a letter as a gross misdemeanour, and the person who should be discovered taking advantage of the opportunity to read any private paper, inadvert ently left within his reach, would feel himself degraded, and would justly be regarded as a dishonourable, if not a:dishonest, man. The general prevalence of this feeling, and the stringency of the regulations that have been adopted in regard to the transmission of letters, have naturally led to an unbounded confidence in the honour and integrity of our Post-office department. No one has doubted that his communications, from the moment they were put into the Post-office slip till they were de livered at their destination, were as safe from the prying eyes of curiosity, as if they had been inclosed in a case which no one could open but the party to whom it was addressed. Such, however, is not the case. The whole na tion has been startled from its propriety by being told, what was formerly known only to a few, that Go vernment has the power of granting warrants for the opening of any letters passing through the Post-office, and that this power has recently been exercised to a considerable extent by that most honourable and con sistent of all Home Secretaries, Sir J. Graham. There is, it seems, a separate department at the General Post office for examining correspondence, furnished with all the necessary means and appliances for opening letters and closing them again in such a way that the gross breach of trust can, with difficulty, be discovered. Think of the confidential officers of the British Govern ment gravely employed in steaming wafers, procuring duplicates of stamps, and taking impressions of seals, in order to conceal a disgraceful attempt to get at the substance of letters passing through their hands 1 We are yet ignorant of all the purposes that Sir J. Graham has had in view in invading the fancied sacred ness of private correspondence ; for, when questioned on the point, he answers nothing, but falls back with silly iteration on his responsibility as a Minister. The cases that have been exposed, however, show that to the meanness of making himself a spy, he has added the degradation of tracing out secrets fur the use of foreign despots, at the expense of national honour and national hospitality. What a precious employment for a British Secretary of State ! The last debate on this snbject in the House of Com mons was one of the most damaging for Ministers that has occurred during the session ; and even the division must have taught Sir James Graham that his conduct is indefensible. The Times sarcastically wishes him joy of his majority of only 44. On the whole, we are pleased with the tone taken by the Whigs in the course of the debate ; but we should have liked that they had insisted a little more strenuously on the necessity of putting an end, at once and for ever, to the obnoxious powers by virtue of which Sir James Graham has acted. The plea of State necessity we hold to be utterly untenable ; for all the disadvantage of allowing the Post-office to be made the means of convey ing treasonable suggestions must be more than counter balanced by the feeling of security which the suppression of so disgraceful a system of inquisition would inspire. Moreover, of what avail are their powers likely to be now? So long as their existence was unknown, a Home Secretary might be able, justly or unjustly, to put him self in the possession of the secrcts of political opponents or traitors ; but now, who is there that has any design against the Government that would trust his communi cation to the Post-office ? The exposure of the spy system has fairly defeated its object, and the sooner it is abandoned with a good grace the better.—Aberdeen Herald. MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF DALMAS.—Yesterday afternoon Dr. Sutherland, accompanied by Dr. Munro, pro ceeded to the county gaol at Horsemonger-lane, by the au thority of the Home Secretary, to examine into the state of mind of the convict Dalmas, the friends of the convict having repeatedly urged upon the attention of Sir James Graham, that during the last two years Dalmas has been subject to fits of mental aberration, brought on by incessant and severe study, in conjunction with his chemical experiment.% The result, of course, is, as yet, unknown. LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OP QUEEN'S BENCH, July 2. (Sittings at Nisi Prins, at the Guildhall, before Lord PENMAN, and a London Special Jury.) CONSPIRACY.-THE QUEEN V. LORD ASHBURTON AND OTHERS. This was an indictment against Lord Ashburton, Mr. F. Baring, and Mr. Mildmay, members of the house of Baring and Co., for a conspiracy to ruin and destroy the credit and property of Mr. Kinder, by procuring an Act of the Legislature of Mexico to nullify a contract in which he was engaged. Mr. Erie and Mr. Bodkin conducted the ease for the prosecution; and Mr. Kelly and Mr. Clarkson appeared for the defendants. This case, which occupied the attention of the Court during the whole of yesterday, was resumed this morn ing, when the case for the prosecution closed. The fol lowing are the facts of the case, as we gathered them from the evidence of Mr. Kinder, and from the very vo luminous documentary evidence which was put in and read, consisting - of all the proceedings in a Chancery , suit instituted by Mr. Kinder against Baring and Co.:— In the year 1825 Mr. Francis Baring, who was at that time travelling in Mexico, agreed, in conjunction with the representative of the house of Mr. Kinder, in Mexico, to take a very large tract of land, extending from ocean to ocean in that country. Information was sent to the members of the house of Baring in London, and to Mr. Kinder, by their respective agents, and it appeared that both parties were dissatisfied at the purchase. At that time the house of Baring held dishonoured bills of Kinder's to a large amount, and granted him indulgence, to which Mr. Erie contended he was well entitled, inas much as his resources had been stopped by Mr. Francis Baring in Mexico. Mr. Kinder, it appeared, had sug gested to Lord Ashburton the propriety of transferring the purchase to a joint-stock company, but the firm of Baring, which had kept itself aloof from all joint-stock companies, refused to accede to such a proposition. Baring and Company sent out to their agents i n M ex i co, warning them as to Kinder's credit, and s t a ti ng th a t they held dishonoured bills of his to a large amount, and desiring their agents to adopt every means in their power to put an end to the contract. In accordance with these instructions, the agents exerted themselves to procure the passing of an Act through the Mexican Legislature to nullify the contract. Thi s A c t was passed on the ground that foreigners could not hold land in Mexico, and it a ppeared from certa i n letters from t h e Mexican agents of Baring and Co., t h at one o f t h em , a foreigner, named Noulti, had bribed certain mem bers of the Legislature to supp or t th e Bill.) These transactions took place i n 1 829. I n 1830 M r . Kinder went to Mexico. He ret urne d to Englan d a b out the year 1837, and in 1838 he filed a bill i n Chancery against Lord Ashburton and his . part ners . Th e y put in their answer, which gave Kinder access to all the papers. In 1840, and just as Lord Ashburton was on the point of sailing for Mexico, Mr. Kinder went before the grand jury at the Central Criminal C ou rt, and pre ferred this indictment, on which Lord A s hburton was arrested, and gave bail at the Judge's Chambers four days before he sailed to the United States on a diplo matic mission relative to the Boundary Question. Mr. KELLY, for the defence, commented on the con duct of Mr. Kinder, waiting sixteen y ears before he brought forward this indictment, and in bringing it for ward in the manner and at the time he did, just as Lord Ashburton was about to leave England as the represen tative of his Sovereign. With r egar d to the facts o f th e case, he contended that if the House of Baring had been desirous of ruining Mr. Kinder, they might have done so most effectually by securing him on his dishonoured bills, instead of holding them even as they had done. It appeared that at first Kinder had expressed himself dissatisfied with the purchase, and there was nothing to show that*, had even expressed his satisfaction at it, so that the house of Baring might well believe that he like themselves would require to get rid of it, their interests in the purchase being identical, and as they knew that Kinder was not possessed of funds sufficient to carry on the undertaking, it was not surprising that they should desire to get rid of the connexion with him. There was nothing illegal in supporting a Bill before the Mexican Legislature to nullify the contract ; but then it was said hat Mr. Notilti, the agent, had in 16. d. True, 1u his accounts there was a sum entered for bribes, but those bribes had b een pa id w i thout any com munication with the B ar i ng! , w h o knew no thi ng of Noulti's acts until afte r th e transact i on b a d b e en con cluded, and with regard to those bribes it should be re collected, that in many foreign countries it was ins possible to get any great public business, even of a judi cial character, transacted without giving what were called gratifications to ever officer, from the judge down to the crier. Now, a ll that h a d been done had been to allow these sums i n N oulti ' s account, an d no d ou bt, if they had not been so allowed, Mr. Kinder would have y called the attenti on of the Court to it, as a most unfair and most u njust transaction. Then , w it h regard to the communicati on to the agents on the subj ec t o f Kinder's solvency, th at was certa i n l y a co nfidential com munication. No act i on of slan d er wou ld lie on suc h a communication. If i t had b een brought. Messr s . Barings might h ave justified, and ha ve p ut in t h e dis honoured bills in evidence, and, there fore, this coul d not be given as evide nce of a crimi na l conspiracy to ruin the prosecutor. Lord DENMAN s ummed up. lie said that this indict ment charged th e d efendants, i n vent the prosecut or from h seven counts, with a conspiracy to brib e the l eg i s lature of Mexico to pre holding lands there ; in five other counts with it cons i rac y to turn him out . of pos session of lands w which they should put on those The case to be in two others to injure his credit' charge of conspiring to injure pre sented to the jurors would mainly depend on the letters with the strong observations which had been put in evidence, and on this meanin g which rightfullyi belonged to him ; and letters. This was a the conduct or men who though at the very the prosecutor ; and cer tainlyoutset of the case they must be struck w hich had been made on such a conspiracy, h a d for, ugh now charged with prosecutor to o*e them so many thousand pounds, and very . purpose which they w e're had forborne to put in force t ainst him the legal rights so many years allowed the which they possessed, a n d which they could not have enforced without instantly and by law, effecting the towards the prosecutor, had vouring to effect by con s piracy. now charged . with . endea- It certainly did seem strange that such a course s hould have been pursued existed in the way supposed. At the same time, it could the desire to injure him not but be regretted that there had not been from the first a more f ree and unreserved commun i cat i on b etween these parties. Th e defendant, M r . A. B ar i ng , wou ld certainly 'have avo i ded' all that suspicion which had since arisen If he had freely communicated with the THE ENGLISH SPY SYSTEM. The people of this country have been accustomed, for many years, to boast loudly of the open and straight forward character of all authoritative proceedings, and to look down with contempt on the continental nations, for their tame submission to the abominable system of espionage in which their governments so generally id dulge; It would appear, however, that we have less prosecutor with respect to this purchase. Both Mr. A. Baring and Mr. Kinder objected to the purchase when it was first made ; both at that moment desired to cancel it, and both might well have acted together in the pursuit of that object, and it really was impossible to under stand why it had been deemed desirable to keep the prosecutor in ignorance of what was going on in the mind of Mr. Baring, and what were his resolves on the subject. Yet the letters showed a feeling of that sort, and the desire expressed to the agent in one of them not to be restrained by over scrupulousness was cer tainly liable to an equivocal interpretation. Still that was not sufficient to justify a conviction. To justify that, the jurors must be satisfied that the defendants acted in a common scheme to get rid of the contract against the will of the prosecutor, either with the desire to injure him, or with the resolution so to act, though by so acting they knew that they must inevitably bring injury upon him. But suppose that they should think that the evidence made out a case against Mr. Alexander Baring, and showed that what he had done was to be attributed to the motives imputed in the indictment, still they could not find a verdict against all the defend ants on this charge of conspiracy, without thinking them all to have been actuated by the same motive, and to have concurred in one scheme to injure the prosecutor. Many strong observations had been made on the nature .sf this prosecution, and it was represented that the jurors must not form their opinions of the offence of bribery abroad upon the abhorrence in which it was said to be held in this country. But, happily for the jury, the question of the enormity of the offence of bribery was not one which was to occupy at tention to-day. The question now was, whether the defendants had conspired to adopt the means alleged, and fraudulently to deprive the prose cutor of his (property in Mexico, and to injure him in that country and in this. The transactions to which this prosecution related extended over many years, but it seemed that most of these depended on the terms of the letters which had been put in evidence. These letters had been obtained from the defendant's house by means of a bill in Chancery, and the fact that there were so many letters spreading over a great extent of time, ren dered it very difficult for the defendants to give a full explanation of everything. As to the charge itself, the jurors must be informed that it was not necessary to show in positive terms the existence of a malicious feel ing towards the prosecutor; it would be sufficient to support the indictment, if it was shown that the defen dants had taken their course wholly without regard to the question, whether what they did might not be inju rious to the prosecutor for ary such feeling or disregard to the interests of others, and still more the resolution to do that which was most likely to produce injury to an other, was that to which the law would give the name of malice. This brought them to the letters, and the question for the jury would be whether these letters showed the existence of malice in that qualified form, and whether there was evidence of these defendants conspiring together for the purpose of injuring the prosecutor, or of doing that which they must have known would inevitably produce injury to him. If the jurors should be of that opinion, they must find the defendants guilty ; if of a different opinion, they must acquit the defendants. His Lord ship here went at great length through all the letters, and then referred to the bill and answer in Chancery, remarking that in his mind the answer was not, as it ought to have been, a clear, distinct, and direct answer to the allegations in the bill. The question he must put to the jurors was this, whether, before the Act of the Legislature of Mexico was passed, and with the view of procuring it to be passed, the defendants had directed their agent to employ bribes. If their agent had, in employing these bribes, acted on Isis own suggestions, the mere adoption of his acts afterwards would not ren der the defendants liable upon this indictment. But suppose one of them to be guilty of that part of the charge (and the other parts of the charge ought, in his opinion, to be dismissed by the jury as wholly unsup ported by evidence), then the question arose, hew far these defendants were all guilty of a conspiracy, even as to the charge of trying, by any means and at any cost to themselves or others, to get rid of this contract. To make them guilty, a common purpose and a common mode of action, with regard to it must be proved —com munication must be shown to have existed between these parties. Now, what was the proof of concert or combination ? The letters appeared to have been written by Lord Ashburton himself, and the only proof against the other two defendants was, that each of them had copied some of these letters. That was the amount of the proof of combination. The jurors would consider these facts, and say .whether they were satisfied that there was a conspiracy to do this injury to the prosecutor, or whether, without any regard to his interests, the defendants had determined to pursue a course of their own, and to get rid of the contract in a way that must be, or that might be, injurious to him. If the jurors believed this to be the case, then, though no personal malice was proved, the verdict must he guilty. If the jurors were not satisfied of this, they must acquit the defendants. The jury retired at half-past six o'clock, and in an hour and twenty minutes, returned with a verdict of Not Guilty. TUB ORIENTAL AND PENINSULAR STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY V. HERAPATII. The jurors summoned in this case were sworn, and Mr. Boy'', stated that this was an action brought by the Directors of the Oriental Navigation Company, to recover damages for a series of libels inserted in Hera path's Railway Journal. These libels had been at first justified, but the defendant being now fully aware that he had been imposed upon by the persons who had fur nished him with the information on which these libels were founded, was desirous of making amends to the plaintiffs by submitting to a verdict. Mr. BODKIN said that he appeared on behalf of the defendant, who bad inserted in his paper statements which he then and afterwards believed to be truo, but which, on further inquiry, he discovered to be un founded. He was, therefore, willing to express his re gret that he had been so imposed on, and had been led in that manner to publish matters injurious to the plaintiffs. A verdict for the plaintiffs, damages 405., was then taken. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, July 2. The Duke of BEAUFORT presented petitions against any alteration in the corn-laws. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE gave notice that he should, on Thursday, put a question to the Govern ment on the subject of the removal of Mr. C. O'Brien from the magistracy of Ireland. Earl St. VINCENT presented several petitions from Bristol and other places against the Sugar Duties Bill. LIBEL BILL. Lord CAMPBELL postponed this Bill, in conse quence of the absence of Lord Denman. • t Lord BROUGHAM suggested that the Bill should be taken ou Thursday. Lord CAMPBELL said a very important notice was on the paper respecting the Post-office, which might occupy a considerable time. The LORD CHANCELLOR—WeII, I have a Bill on Friday, but, however, take it before my Marriage Bill on Friday.—(Laughter.) The Bill was then postponed till Friday. THE SUGAR DUTIES BILL. The Earl of DALHOUSIE rose to move the third reading of this Bill. He thought it was absolutely ne cessary that they should have an abundant supply of sugar at as cheap a rate as possible, seeing that this article had now become, not an article of luxury, but of necessity. It was to accomplish this object that the pre sent Bill had been introduced. The Noble Earl then read several statements to show that, of late years, the supply of sugar to this country had not been equal to the demand. He also read a comparative statement of prices within the last seven years. He then entered into an explanation of the general alterations which were in tended to be effected by the proposed measure, as they were lately explained in the debates on this Bill in the other House of Parliament. He contended that the coun tries producing sugar by means of slave-labour ought not to be placed on the same footing as those countries producing sugar in which slave-labour was not employed; and in support of this view he re ferred to the opinion of Mr. Deacon Hume, as given be fore the Import Duties Committee on this subject. To admit slave-grown sugar on the same footing as free labour sugar would be to offer a bribe for the Continua tion of slavery and the slave trade. He thought that the protection of 10s. per cwt., proposed by this Bill, in favour of the West India producers, was sufficient, and he, therefore, confidently recommended it to the adop tion of their Lordships. Lord MONTEAGLE deprecated the course of the Government in having left this question in a state of uncertainty. He thought this was unjust both to the consumer at home and to the producer in the West In dian colonies. He objected to this Bill because it would cause fluctuation in price, as it made the supply to this country dependent upon the laws of other countries. He had no hesitation in saying that he should vote against an equalisation of the duty be tween all foreign sugar and West India sugar, as he believed that an equalisation of the duty at present would bo an injustice to the West Indian produce. He ridiculed the system of certificates of origin, and contended that it would be useless. He also ridiculed the idea that this Bill would have the effect of curbing the slavery system, for he helieved that it would have just a contrary effect. In proportion as they consumed free-labour sugar in this country would a vacuum be created in foreign countries, and that vacuum would have to be filled up with a supply of slave-labour produce. This Bill would indirectly encourage the slave trade, and he could, therefore, but de signate the Bill as a hypocritical farce. The principle of this Bill, he contended, was bad, and the measure would, therefore, produce no beneficial results. Lord BROUGHAM differed entirely from his Noble Friend in supposing that this Bill would give encourage ment to slavery and the slave trade. He contended that such a measure as this was only carrying further into practice the principles upon which slavery and the slave trade were abolished. Ho did not deprecate the use of cotton on account of its being the produce of slaves, nor did he deprecate the use of coffee on the same ground; but the reason he deprecated the use of sugar, the pro duce of slave labour, was that the labour required for the production of sugar amounted to torment in the persons performing the labour. This, however, was not the case with respect to the production of cotton and coffee. He would always support any measure which would have the effect of checking the extension of the horrors of slavery as it existed in Cuba and Brazil, and he therefore gave this measure his fullest and most earnest support. Earl St. VINCENT complained of the West India planter having been placed in the position of being un able to command that labour which his trade and his wants required. This had placed the West Indies in a most disadvantageous situation. If they had had a full supply of labour the necessity for this Bill would never have existed. The Earl of RADNOR denied that the distress which existed amongst the West India interest had arisen out of the emancipation of the slaves. Equal distress to that which existed now had frequently occurred long prior to the time of emancipation. He said the distress which the West India interest suffered arose out of the monopoly which they possessed. He thought it was a great hard ship on the West India proprietors that they should not be allowed to refine their sugar before they sent it to this country. He would remind their Lordships that the West Indies could not supply sugar sufficient for the consumption of this country. In 1801 the importation of sugar was upwards of four millions of pounds, while in 1844 the amount was not larger. • Lord BROUGHAM—HaIf of that was for exporta tion in 1801. The Earl of RADNOR—No, it was for home con. sumption. The Earl of DALHOUSIE—In 1815 four millions of pounds were imported, and of that two millions were taken for exportation, and two millions of pounds more were consumed last year than in 1815. The Earl of RADNOR contined. He maintanied that the existence of the monopoly in favour of the West Indies had the effect of retarding cultivation and im provement. That monopoly took away the incentive to produce to the fullest extent, because in the years when the most was produced the value obtained for the sugar was the least, but in years when little was produced, a very large value was obtained. This, he contended, was the mischievous effect of monopoly. To the Bill before their Lordships he could have no objection, because it was a step taken in the right direction. It was a step towards the abolition of differential duties, which were most injurious in their effects. He had no objection to give the West India interest protection, provided they could prove that they were entitled to it ; but he would never give it them by means of differential duties. He would rather pay two millions annually than maintain differential duties in their favour—for differential duties were only taxes on the pockets of the consumers in this country. _ _ _ Earl ST. VINCENT explained. Lord ASHBURTON said the home consumption of sugar had doubled since the year 1801, and it was there fore necessary that such a Bill as this should pass, both to secure cheapness of price and a proper return to the revenue. The supply at present, though large, was not sufficient for the demand, and it was their duty there fore to adopt such measures as would increase the supply of sugar to the people of this country, to whom sugar had become an article of necessity. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE thought this mea sure partook of many good and sound principles, and he only regretted that it was not carried further. The prin ciple upon which the Bill proceeded was the interest of the consamer in this country—he whose interests had too long been neglected. He deprecated the system of certificates of origin, as he considered it to be useless. The most powerful Government in the world—that of Napoleon—had found it so. He calculated that it was impossible by such means as these to put down slavery, because those very countries possessing the greatest fa cilities for the production of sugar were the countries where slaves were employed. He hoped, therefore, that this Bill, was only a step towards further legislation on the subject. Lord BROUGHAM explained. The Earl of DALHOUSIE briefly replied. The Bill was then read a third time and passed. Lord REDESDALE presented a petition from Pais ley against the Dissenters' Chapels Bill. Their Lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 2. Upon our re-admission to the gallery after tho cliv sion, we found Sir R. PEEL upon his legs, suggesting that Hon. Members who had motions upon the paper for to-night, and who had precedence of the Hon. Member for Fins bury, should give way, in order to g i ve th a t H on . M em b er an opportunity of bringing forward his motion on the subject of the Post-office. Unless the Hon. Gentleman - w - ho had precedence gave way, it would be impossible for the Honourable Member to bring on his motion until a late hour, when it would be impossible to discuss it fully. Considering the notice which had been given, and the attention the subject had attracted, he considered it of great importance that it should be decided this evening, and he hoped that other Hon. Members who had notices on the paper would give way.. Mr. AACKINNON said, that after what had fallen from the Right Hon. Baronet he should have no objec .tion to comply with the wishes of her Majesty's Govern ment, and postpone his motion until another oppor tunity. Lord INGESTRE said he had a motion which stood next . on the paper, and he would follow the example of the Hon. Member for Lymington, on two conditions, one of which was, that other gentlemen who had mo tions on the paper should do the same, and the next, that there-should be an understanding that they were to have precedence on another day in the same order that they stood at present. Captain PECHELL hoped that the Noble Lord would not give up his motion. The claims of the Gallant Officer (Captain Dickenson) had been before the House for some years.—(Loud cries of" Order, order.") Mr. TRELAWNY had a motion on the paper on the civil disabilities of the Jews; he should consider himself quite in the hands of Hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House.—(Cries of " Go on, go on.") The SPEAKER said, if other Members who had motions on the paper did not give way, and it was determined that the orders should be proceeded with, . the Iron. Member for Lymington would, of course, have precedence.—(Cries of " Go on, go on.") Mr. WILLIAMS hoped that the Hon. Member would persist in his motion.—(Cries of " Order, order.") Mr. MACKINNON, after some hesitation, said he would withdraw his motion. Mr. MONKTON MILNES said he had a motion on the paper which he considered of great importance, with respect to the:trial of a Maltese at Tunis for murder, but lie had too much experience of that House not to know that it would be useless to press it against the general wish. Her Majesty's Government had also ex pressed a desire for the Hon. Member for Finsbury to proceed. He should not press his motion ; at the same time, he could not see why Government were so anxious for it to come on to-night; but, an anxiety to that effect having been expressed, he should, of course, give way. Sir C. NAPIER hoped the Noble Lord (Ingestre) would persist in the motion which ho had on the paper. "Lord INGESTRE was willing to give way, but hoped he would have some assurance as to the time when lictebuld bring his motion on again. 811.- - R. PEEL said he was sure Hon. Gentlemen would see the impossibility of his assigning a Govern • meat day for these motions. He begged to state that her Majesty's Government were most anxious to meet the motion of the Hon. Member for Finsbury, and he was surprised that impediments seemed to be thrown in the way by Hon. Gentlemen on the other side, who seemed to wish to force the other motions forward; but he hoped, without insisting on any conditions, the Hon. "Gentlemen would postpone them. He hoped that consi derations of justice—considerations of the nature of the imputation made against the Government, and the im pressions produced on the public mind, would induce Hon. Gentlemen, without making conditions, to allow the motion 'of the Hon. Member for Finsbury to be brought forward. Lord INGESTRE said the Right Hon. Baronet had somewhat misunderstood him. He did not wish to make any conditions with the Government—all he wanted was for 'these motions to be considered as dropped orders from to-night. Mr. TRELAWNY, after some short discussion, also postponed his motion with respect to the laws imposing civil disabilities on persons professing the Jewish religion. POST-OFFICE—OPENING LETTERS. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE then rose to bring forward the motion of which he had given notice, for a Select Committee to inquire into the Secret Department of the Post-office. In bringing the subject forward, he begged to thank the Hon. Members who had postponed their motions in order that he might bring his on.—(Hear, hear.) He begged leave, however, to ob serve, that when the House met at four o'clock, he was totally unable to discover any anxiety on the part of the Government, or its officials, to make a House in order to allow him to bring the question forward. At that hour there was not a single member of the Government in their places, and it was the Speaker alone that made the House.—(Hear, hear.) He was glad to learn that the Right Hon. Baronet was anxious upon this question, and he hoped that, being so, he would grant the inquiry which he asked. The Right Hon. Baronet had said that the public ought to be satisfied. If he was sincere in that, he(Mr.Duncombe) would tell him that the only way to satisfy it was to grant his motion. The matter had come on him rather by surprise; and many Members had left the House under the supposition th a t the motion would not coma on before ten o'clock. He (Mr. Duncombe) knew not how this question was to be treated, whether as a vote of confidence, or whether the representative system was to be set aside, and, instead of the question being treated on its merits, it was to be looked upon as a vote of confidence. Now, if it was to be looked at in the latter - point of view, he must confess that that was a most unconstitutional way of treating it. Gentlemen might vote for it as a vote of confidence, but if they did so, he had no hesitation in saying that many Members would vote a confidence they did not feel. Ile wished this question to be treated on its own merits. He did not know whether the parties who complained of the opening of their letters were to be told that they might go into a court of law. The answer that had been given by the Right Honourable Baronet on the subject had been considered most unworthy of a Minister of the Crown. How were the public to go to law, he would ask, with a Minister of the Crown ? It was not Mr. Mazzini's letters alone that had been opened. He could show that hundreds of letters had been so dealt with. Who, he would ask, were to be the wit nesses when the parties went to law? Not the Right Hon. Baronet, or the Postmaster -General, but their subordinates, and what chance he would ask was there for the public with such witnesses as those ?—(Bear.) He (Mr. Duncombe) appealed to the representatives of the people on this question.—(Hear, hear.) He was de termined that it should be tried at the bar of public opinion —(Hear, hear)—and not in a pettifogging lawyer's office.—(Great cheering.) A breach of confi dence had been perpetrated at the Post-office, under the authority of the Government. The inquiry he now asked was into the general system. They had already gone into the cases of Mr. Mazzini and Captain Stolz mann, and he wished now to inquire into the whole subject, and for that purpose he intended to move for a Select Committee, to inquire into a department of her Majesty's General Post-office, commonly called the Secret or Inner office, the duties and employment of the persons engaged therein, and the authority under which the functions of the said office are discharged. He meant to add these general words to the motion, and with which he had concluded a former motion on this subject—" that it be a diateetton to the Committee to report to the House, whether it is expedient to make any. alteration in the law by which the secret opening, detaining, and delaying 'of letters is conducted." .M though the motion was of a general nature, he was pre pared to substantiate it, and to make out the most com plete case for inquiry. He stated before that an infrac tion of the law had been committed—lie repeated that assertion—the privilege. of nhatever nature it might be, was vested in the Government. Ile would not Ex upoa the Home Secretary of State the whole odium of this proceeding • the Government must equally share . the blame and the responsibility—(Bear, hear, from Sif Peel and Lord Stanley)—he repeated what he bad already stated—he would not retract a single charge be had made. He fearlessly asserted, that for the last two years, a most unscrupulous use was made of the power which the Act of Parliament was said to vest in the Go vernment by opening the letters of different parties. He would state that it was done to a very great extent , aust he believed that if inquiry were instituted, so fill from its appearing that the Right Hon. Gentleman op' polite had done what every Secretary of Stet, e ,, had done since the time of Queen Anne, 0 would be proved to the satisfaction of every on e that more letters had been opened in this manner during the last two years than during the ten or twenty year s preceding, and that they had been opened, too, contrail' to law. In the first place, he wished to inquire into that office in the General Post-office commonly known t ° the subordinates of the establishment, as well as by the superiors of the establishment, as the secret or inner office. In this office those deeds of darkness took place' —(Laughter.) Here was the Post-office inquisition held.—(A laugh.) Sometimes the letters of individual s were carried there, and from there sent to the Home' office, where copies were taken of these letters accord,' ing to their contents. Sometimes, as he understooef whole bags of letters were taken down to this office' The messenger from the Home-office came in just when the mail arrived, and called for the bag from Cork, or the bag from Dublin. The letters were selected, and give ° to this individual, and having been examined, they Wer e ' distributed, re-sealed to the sorters • those men, °, course, did not know what had taken place in the secre t letter office, nor how many letters had been detaineo• Sometimes the letters were delayed an hour, and some' times an hour and a -half. He had not of course ob' tained a copy of the warrant, but he understood that a t this moment the letters of Foreign Ministers wer e opened and there examined and read. He believed th at ; the letters to foreign Ministers were at this memo" read and opened by the Right Hon. Baronet. Were foreign Ministers themselves aware of this ? He (1" Duncombe) must apologise for having spoken in the pre' vious discussion on this subject disrespectfully of Franc e ' He had said that this inquisitorial system might suit th e air of France or Austria, but it did not agree with th e li free air of Britain. The Hon. Member then read e, extract from Galignani's Messenger, in which his wor d ' were quoted, also the words of Monsieur Guizot in t"' French Chambers, in which that distinguished statesrl expressly denied that the secrecy of the Post-o ffi ce to_ been violated in France. He (Mr. Duncombe) therefo7 in an ample manner begged to apologise to the Frenef, people for the insult he had so unknowingly, but yet rg grievously, cast upon them.—(Hear, hear.) It wea l appear that this was a peculiarly English practice ; f o r in foreign countries, such as Austria or Italy, where tl o !, 1 opened a letter, they always re-sealed it with the 6e i vernment stamp, and there was no attempt whatever concealment ; it was reserved for an-English Post-O‘ ti to combine the baseness and meanness of treachery the meanness of violation of secrecy. This in t was peculiarly English, however un English it seem in principle. The Honourable Member T ot read the extracts from foreign newspapers, showing t when the Austrian Government had opened letters theji had boldly avowed it by affixing on them the sea! ba t authority" the double-headed eagle," and the words °' opened A authority" on them. 'The Right Hon. Baronet had admitted that he had directed Mazzini's letters to ,' t opened. He admitted that he had issued the wa rrant one of the three mentioned, but, with scrupulous calit!'„ refused to declare: which. However, the Right 11 0 : e : Baronet had said so much that he must needs say 1 11 °'.,1 The public would not be satisfied with his mere sr: f o p of responsibility. (The Hon. Gentleman then reau 4 extract from a letter of a correspondent of the Mot e Chronicle, and which appeared in this morning's irnr o f sion of that paper, stating, that although the Dill%,d Wellington had declared that the letters of Mazzini P o , not been opened at the instance o f th e S ar di n ian Gove r o ment, he would bring forward proofs to show t:', ll letters bad been detained, opened, and copied, and g' oo . to the Sardinian embassy, at the request of persons e n ,i netted with the Sardinian Government; and the sr t ,' correspondent asked if the British Government (11 0 4 for one Government why not do so for another , !g what signified whether it was one letter or one 11111 1 d t- 7i( He added that he had several letters opened, and thstio he had anything important to communicate he ° ll ,ll transmit his letters through other channels than thr o d s o the spy office. He (Mr. Duncombe) had stated, O bi s had been admitted, that one letter bad been openeekp e o he could prove that fifty or sixty letters had l' o e opened, and that this system had been going on for koo d years in the most unscrupulous manner. He undertu d is that during the disturbance in the manufacturing t y tricts in 1842, scouts had been dispatched from General Post-office by the Home Secretary to the 1: 5 , offices throughout those districts, who opened ail petted letters, and transmitted their contents 10 si bs Right Hon. Baronet.---(Hear, hear.) It was inilO s t iel that they could have a warrant for each opening ‘10 ) must have had a general order.—(Hear, of Ho believed there was a wholesale opening O ft letters on that occasion, and he would furnish P r is of it - He stated this broadly in his plee ° , o e Parliament. He had been further inf o rmed that so i) , times the messenger s f rom th e Post-o ffi ce demande d ` fo r letters of a particular street, or place—the AlbanY , De r instance; where the Right Hon. Gentleman the Me rn fot for Edinburgh and the Noble Lord the Mensbe r dif• Newark resided.—(Laughter.) He had found great 0 ficulty in obtaining any information on this sub)ee ri t' oo s it appeared that since lie had last addressed the 11 D si the messengers and officials about the Post-office t o been warned at their peril to keep their lips sealeyoe that they would not utter a word with reference to it. iy other charge was—that the letters of the foreign 11° d ters had been opened—that the letters of foreigners ,/ been opened at the instance of foreign Governniet u d to letters of Austrians, Poles, and Italians. He wan t° , 1 0 know what was the reason of this? What had i w at do with the unfortunate misunderstandings in ItsA n i io the present moment? How little was it known led foreign countries that such treachery had been res° ti et to in England ? Mr. Mazzini had received a le n ,er that day from one of his expatriated countqie the son of Admiral Bandieri. He supposed the P, t ,,p) Hon. Baronet had seen and read this letter.— (Lau gu tr y , The writer, in it, had congratulated his fellow eet l lo men on his residence in Great Britain, and added o ‘ unlike his own country, he might now rely on tad tegrity of the British post.—(Laughter.) Poor de col s man.—(Renewed laughter.) Mr. Mazzini had been is gratulated on his arrival in British soil by o'd dividual who had assisted his es c ap e , a nd al e : el' that individual might entertain no hostile jr ings towards the Austrian Government, pi' letters having been copied a n d t ransm i t t e d by the SO/ trian Ambassador to the Au s tri an G overnmen t, be be' be now thrown into a p r i son . H e (M r . D unco mbeV lieved that, at that momen t, th ere were fif t y or P lo s individuals immured in the Austrian prisons in CO) quence of the information communi c at e d t o the Ail s be .) Ambassador by the British Government. The be aOd corps's, it was known, did not exist in Austria , it hence those unfortunate creatures must rereal e ur e confinement, or, perhaps, be subjected to the tor t o ,i , in order to extract a confession from them. The tion in which the question now stood was neither t' factory to the public, creditable to the House, nor otr nourable to the Government.—(Hear, hear.) The, vernment, when they went so far as to say that tY rant had been issued, ought to have told the trut!';giii whole truth, and nothing but the truth ; and the d o' Honourable Gentleman should not have e ° oo voured to mystify the subject by saying tied he had issued a w arran t, b u t not s'%lo against whose letters the warrant had been issued:, re' warrant, it appeared, no l onger ex i ste d ; b ut ww,,,st gard to Mazzini, th ere appeare d to b e j ust as P-eve reason now for opening Mazzini's letters, as there 4 0; had been. lie did not beli eve th a t th e l e tt ers o f Did to these individu a ls h a d b een opene d , b ut he beiDei that there could be n o d ou bt t h at t h e l etters o f t h e se t b d persons to Mazzini, whose petitions he held, bad, bed opened. The letters of L ove tt t o M azz i n i ha d rto opened. He could prove that Mr. Lov e tt's lel te t th ß Maseini had been opened just as certainly as tu , °,,sls 'ye; Right Hon. Gentleman h a d hi s h a t on .—(A One of these letters contained a paragraph stating f lit the Emperor Nicholas was expected to arrive i! - i d poi country in a few days, an d th a t t h e wr i ter di think that the reception of this distinguishe d , l e! dividual could be very flattering. The very ept morning there appeared in the two GovereV prints a denial that the Emperor was ni c e st' mg here ; yet i n fi ve d ays after the anno uneesol( to the surprise of every one, the Emperor arrived• m iv he did not s a y th at t hi s was a conclusive Pr" es' (Laughter from the Opposition) —but yet it was e' j traordinary coincidence. H e k new the Right goo. o p ronet opened and read this letter, and although he,;,: ° s ll' not prove it in a court of law he would estau'bee' moral conviction on this point. The Right Hon th e - tleman could no longer shroud himself urnie,r ft" mere delaration of respons ibility.--(Hear, hear./ I . the the Minister of th e C rown, as the pa i d servan t ° f try'' public, as responsible to that House and to the cool,'" he was bound to g i ve f urther explanation. The t office enjoyed a monopo l y i n the transmission of le tte eit in fact, parties were punishable for transmitting tb ost . letters through an y ot h er channel ; and it was o n y„o o that the power whi c h i t was said the law conferred the Secretary of State to violate secrecy should n ° o s ' further acted u p on, unless it was absolutely 13 , 0 01 sary. If th e y intended to open letters, they 10 d 60' proclaim their i n t ent i on to the public, but he coil t he no part of th e A ct of Parliament which justifierttell fraud that h a d b een committed by re-sealing the J r with a counterfeit seal. The Right Hon. Barone t se' I attempted to shi e ld i i i mse l f behind the statute-boe'''ssli' he (Mr. D.) would that night hear from the "0 1 ' citor-General a full statement what the law o ° f or matter really was—what was the nature of these rants—to what extent the system could be ea r t r i l e what was lawful, and w h at was unlaw ful.-- - Vd po t He maintained th at t hi s was a question that e° ll ,", 10" rest where it was.—(Hear hear.) He hoped o u , made out a good p r i ma facie case for inquiry. It e° l " rwneooatuddl3d,otoitoto cd e ao i r i rt t o r y e b n the ch esmu t p h t e pho m rro s teu e g l d v i e ib s behind official silen e° ',K, a y n a a ra ct aj o o f ri t t h y is th ki at n a d n t P e oic; was most odious to the people.—(Loud cheers.) bse Mr. ROEBUCK rose to second the motion, h ut way to Sir James Graham, who rose also. The question was then put, when t sige ti Sir JAMES GRAHAM rose, and said he felt eu:,,a4 to the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath fo r Wee': way on this occasion; and he felt confident the OP would feel that he was, in justice, entitled to ib°