The Sun. — London, England, 1845-03-01 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMEN T. HOUSE OF LORDS, Feb. 28. The Lone CHANCELLOR. took his seat on the Woolsack at Five o'clock. A message from the Commons brought up several private kills. On the motion of Lord BROUGHAM, Britten's Divorce Bill was read a third time and passed. IRISH CONSTABULARY. The Earl of CLARE` DON, on behalf of the Marquis of iNormanby, gave notice of the intention of that Noble Marquis to bring the question of the Irish constabulary, of which he had given notice, before their Lordships on Tuesday next. SUGAR DUTIES. Lord MONTEAGLE then rose to move for certain papers relative to the sugar duties, to which he hoped there would be no objection. He wished, however, to make a few ob servations as to the grounds upon which he did it, because in a former discussion it seemed to be thought that he was premature in awaking observations on a measure that was likely to come before that House in the shape of a Bill. It was upon these grounds that he wished now to make a few observations. They were now informed, from the highest authority, that the resolution in another place would take effect at the time the resolution passed. Ile was not now dealing with foreign sugar merely, but with the equalisation taiehe sugar duties in ou r East and W e st ndia colonies : a 17,7 in the years 1841 and 1842, when the near duties were brought under discussion, he had brought the same thing under the notice of the Nouse. He thought it most necessary that this principle should be understood, be cause on a late evening, when he asked a question of the Noble Lord (Stanley), he had been told that the Minis terial proposition was not to be supposed a final measure, but was only intended to give, as it were, a notioe of its final legi lation propseed by the Government. They were told also by the Noble Lord, that the Government intended to adhere to the principle of equalisation on the sugars of both the East and West India colonies ; that they did not intend to observe a discriminating duty on the sugars of the East, greater than that exacted from those of the West. There was an artifice of this description once perpetrated by the Government of France, and he thought it was this. In reference to the duty upon iron, it was proposed by the French Government that there should be a higher duty upon all iron which was lorought by sea than that which was imposed on the same article into France by land. True, there was no mention made of either England or Belgium, but the effect was still the same, because English iron necessarily came by sea, while that of Belgium came by land. Since the former discussion oe this subject he had communieated with some influential parties con nected with the East Indies, and they appeared to entertain the same impression as he did; they agreed with him that the measure of the Government would operate most unjestly to the East Indies. This, lie thought, most strongly showed the general impression that prevailed throughout the whole commercial world on this subject. But there was a stronger evidence than this in the memorial addressed to the Govern ment by the East India and China Association. This Association comprehended all the eminent traders in that part of the world. Two highly respectable members objected to the terms of the memorial, but he believed the rest were unanimous in agree ing to it. They complained bitterly of the measure of the Government, and pretended that it would materially injure the trade of the East Indies, holding out, as it did, a premium for the introduction of the worst quality of sugar into this country. He wished to say one word more. He had a considerable objec tion to the plan which their Lordships would be called upon to approve. When it was endeavoured to impose equal duties on sugars of a different quality it had invariably proved an unequal duty. They wished to impose an ad valorem duty. That plan had been tried and had utterly failed. The Government with which he had been connected, though he was not at that time a member of it, had attempted a similar measure. They had classified teas, and attempted to impose an ad valorem duty on teas. The argu ments for it were certainly very plausible, but it had utterly failed in practice. The fact was that it was invariably found that the highest quality of a secondary kind was always more valuable than the lowest quality of the first kind, and the consequence was that the duty fell unequally on the lowest quality of the first-rated article. There was a great difficulty even among the merchants themselves to ascertain the peculiar value of each species of sugar, and this was the reason why the duty of 55., which had been imposed on East India Sugars, which were equal to clayed sugars, had been repealed. Ira 1823, in replying to Mr. Woolrich NVichmore, he had stated this as the reason why he repealed the duty of 55., which had been imposed on East India sugars. Ile was persuaded that it their Lordships or the other House of Parliament would only have a Committee for one week with ' respect to the question, that the evidence taken during that time would satisfy the Government that a measure of this kind would end in disappointment, as it would cause disputes between the officers of the Government and the ex porting merchant?. If there was any tax that ought not to, be discussed annually it was a tax of such mighty and distinct interests. The object was to ascertain the whole working of the discriminating duties of 18.31, the ground on which they were departed from, and the reasons for the present proposed duties. The Noble Lord concluded by moving fur the returns of which he had given notice. Lord STANLEY was aware that it was somewhat irregular to take up their Lordships' time with the discussion of a ques tion which was not regularly before the house. When the measures of her Majesty's Government came before the House lie should be prepared to defend them in every particular. He deprecated any construction of a Bill which had not gone through the other House of Par liament. He ventured to repeat the declaration he had made en a previous evening, that it was the intentior of Govern ment to eqealise the duties on the products of the East and West Indies, and only to add a higher duty to the superior qualities of sugar from the east in order to equal the duty on the same qualities of sugar from the west. The returns were then agreed to. BAIL IN ERROR. The LORD CHANCELLOR, in proposing the second reading of this Bill, said that it would not be necessary to do more than briefly advert to the principle of the measure. Perhaps an illustration would better explain the nature and object of the Bill. A party was charged with misdemeanour ; he was found guilty, and sentenced to imprisonment, say for three or six months, er a longer period. Ile was advised by his counsel that the judgment was erroneous, arid he ought therefore to apply for a writ of error. But immediately after the sentence was pro neunced it was executed, and he was thrown into confinement? A considerable time elapsed before the writ of error could be heard, and a decision pronounced by the court above ; still he was suffering the sentence of the law, and if the imprisonment was not of long duration it frequently expired before judgment was pronounced upon the writ of error. What was the case, however, in civil actions. A verdict was returned and judgment pronounced ; the defen dant brings a writ of error, and this susperds the execution of the judgment. At first, the writ of error was :ranted without bail or security being given ; but this being found inconvenient, the law was afterwards changed, and this person bringing tee writ of error had to enter into his own recognizanees, and to produce two responsible sureties that the debt and costs should be paid in the event of the judgment being confirmed. But if the debt and costs were paid immediately after the verdict was returned, the party, if he succeeded in his writ of error, could recover the amount by an action at law. This, however, did not apply to a case of a criminal nature. The party was punished notwith stonding that he brought a writ of error, and he had no possibility of being restored to his former position. If it was not open to the Court to suspend the decree, it yet was open to suspend the execution of the decree, and from the commonalty of civil proceedings he apprehended there would be no difficulty in the case. On these accounts he thought that this was a proper Bill, and ought to pass into law. It was singular that so many distinguished lawyers took the like view of this matter.—( hear, hear.) When things went on in their usual course, they were apt to forget their duty and to slumber on their post, and it was not until something unusual occurred to rouse them from their apathy, that they turned to the improvement of those defi eieneies which the lapse of time had occasioned. In the last se, slon his Noble Friend had brought in a Bill to remedy the evil, hut it was not in his (Lord Lyndhurst's) opinion free from defect s, and he had accordingly opposed the second reading. If on some future occasion he would brine in another Bill to avoid those defects, he would support it, but if he did not, he (Lord Lyndhurst) would introduce a Bill. There were measures in preparation, which he Loped shortly to introduce to their Lordships. Lord CAMPBELL said he rose to oppose the Bill. His Noble Friend seemed to have utterly forgotten the course he took last session. The Bill that had been brought in by his Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor was, ipsissirnus verbis, the Bill he had presented himself. His Noble Friend had made an admi rable speech upon a Bill which he had formerly reprobated. After humbly objecting to the period when the measure was introduced, his Noble and Learned Friend said " But what is this Bill? "—( Laughter.) " What a miserable specimen of legislation this Bill is," said the Lord Chancellor ; "it is a 11111 for the rich and not for the pour ;" and that was the very law which he (the Lord Chancellor) now proposed.— ( Great laughter.) The Noble and Learned Lord then re minded the House of the cobweb by which the small flies wore caught, and the large ones escaped, and speaking of the higher class of offenders, he said that whether the judgment were affirmed or reversed, he set the laws equally at defiance. And this, again, was the very measure introduced by the Noble and Learned Lord—( Great laughter)—and then the Noble and Learned Lord concluded by calling upon the House to throw out so miserable a measure.—(Continued laughter.) When they read the Bill of the Lord Chancellor, he trusted that they would not exactly take the word of the Noble and Learned Lord, that his measure was so very miserable as he had stated it was.—( Laughter, and hear, hear.) The LORD CHANCELLOR said his Noble and Learned Friend had evidently mistaken the character of the two mea sures.—(Laughter.) The reason why he opposed the Bill during the last session of Parliament was because he thought it was introduced to meet a certain political object. What his Noble and Learned Friend had just stated, convinced him he was not in error in that respect, because he had stated the name of the individual by whom the Bill was drawn up. He had also stated that a certain Member of the House of Commons, Mr. More O'Ferrall, was the indi vidual who canvassed Members of that House to introduce the measure. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE was surprised to hear the statement of the Noble Lord. A measure introduced to do an act of justice at a particular time did not admit of its being described as introduced with a political object. He saw nn reason whatever why, because a Bill should have the effect of doing an act of right to an individual, be that individual whom he may, it should be liable to be ca ll e d a Bill introduced with the view of securing a political object. He did not think that any Government was justified in such exclusion. He was glad to see that their Lordships were ready to assent to the principle of this Bill, and he believed that it did not require the eloquence of the Noble Lord to induce them to assent to that principle. He deemed it to be unjust to punish a man until it was ascert a i ne d that his sentence a just one. Ile shoul d ever esteem it one of the most fortunate was circumstances of the events which took pl ace l ast session, th attisßill placed on the Statute-book. H e was glad to see that the "s Bill was likely to pass, and he trusted it would pass their Lord ships' House unanimously. Lot d BROUGHAM said that Bill had been put into his hands by very respectable persons; but in consequence of being obliged to go abroad he had been unable to giv e the requisite a tt e ntion to it. On speaking to his Noble Friend on the wool sack, he had observed that this was a very awkward time for truth a Bill. He (Lord Brougham) did agree with his Noble Friend in the general observation, that the doing of nstice ought never to be loaded with the accusation of political ; but there was another general observation, that it was never doing justice to legislate upon a case whilst that case was pending. The LORD CHANCELLOR deprecated his Noble Friend's remarks. Lord BROUGHAM said he wished his Noble Friend would leave off reading his own speech, and attend to his (Lord Brougham's)—for that was not likely to lead him into diffi culty. The Bill certainly came from the prosecutor rather than from the defendant. He should call it a Smythe Bill rather than an O'Connell Bill.—( Laughter.) That was the conver sation that passed, and it comprised the great objection of his Learned Friend to the time rather than the measure. He recollected the speech his Learned Friend, had made ; he felt hat there were cases where the party ought not to be lowed to escape ; he could easily conceive that there were :- cases where such men would leave their bail, and the ends of justice would be defeated, and therefore there ought to be some law upon the subkiet. Bail in error could not be had, it was true, sinless a writ of error was brought. Therefore, if they followed the analogy of judiciary proceedings in the Court of Chancery, instead of vesting the discretion in the Attorney-General, they would vest it in the Court of Law. It was a subject of the greatest d fficulty. He knew that the judges were unwilling to exercise so invidious and onerous a duty, and he felt confident that one or two alterations in the Bill would be the result of their Lordships' attention. Lord DENMAN thought that the reason why this im portant subject had not before been brought under the notice of the House was, that errors in criminal cases were of very rare occurrence, and it was only when those errors increased to an inconvenient and serious evil that it was found necessary to make some inquiry, with a view to remedy them. He be lieved that those evils would, however, require a more perfect Itneasure than that now described to the House. He felt grateful to the Noble Lord for having introduced the measure, and he hoped that a measure somewhat similar to that which had been introduced some sessions ago, would soon be brought forward to limit the power of the ecretary of State in the opening of letters. The LORD CHANCELLOR explained. Lord BROUGHAM said his Noble and Learned Friend, who originally proposed this Bill, had allowed himself to fall into a trap set for him by his Noble and Learned Friend on the woolsack, and now he was shown up in it.—( Laughter. ) Lord CAMPBELL was rejoiced that so much sympathy subsisted between himself and the Noble Lord on the wool sack on the subject of the Bill. Indeed, he thought they were somewhat like the Siamese twins, when one suffered both suffered.—( Laughter.) The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be committed on the first convenient day. RAILWAYS. The Earl of DALHOUSIE laid on the table of the Houae the report of the railway department. of the Board of Trade, relating to the projected railways in Buckinrahamshire, Hamp shire, and Wiltshire. Their Lord!hipi then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Feo. 28. The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour. NEW MEMBERS. Mr. W. B. Baring took the oaths and his scat for the borough of Thetford, and Mr. C. Tower for the county of Berks. SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY. . . An HoN. ME3lcEn presented a petition complaining that the South-Eastern Railway Extension Company had not com plied with the standing orders. Petitions praying for leave to bring in Bills were presented from the London and Canterbury Railway Company, the Brighton, Lewes, and Hastings - Railway Company, and the :Manchester, Bury; and Rossendale Railway Company. DUBLIN CEMETERIES. Mr. COLLETT presented a petition in favour of the Dub lin Cemeteries Bill. SHIPLEY AND COLNE EXTENSION RAILWAY. Mr. FERRAND presented a petition against the Shipley and Coins Exteniiion"Railway SOUTHAMPTON DOCKS. Mr. AGLIONBY brought np the report on the Southamp ton Docks Bill, aid stated that the standing orders had been complied with, trOUTII-WESTERN EXTENSION RAILWAY. Captain MANGLES presented a petition in favour of the South. Western Railway Extension Bill. NATIONAL SOCIETY—IRELAND. Mr. SHAW presented a petition from Dublin, praying that the patronage of the Government might be equally ex tended to the several educational establishments in Ireland. lie stated that they had presented a petition previously to the House, in which they had prayed to be relieved from the injurious partiality which had heen shown to the Na tional Society of Ireland, and stating that a portion of the grant had been devoted to Protestant schools. They prayed to be relieved from the difference thus made in favour of the National Society. INCOME-TAX. Lord OSSULSTON presented a petition from Wooiler, in Northumberland, for a repeal of so much of the income-tax as was levied on trades and professions. CHARITABLE BEQUESTS ACT. . _ Mr. BLAKE presented a petition from Kilruean, in the county of Cork, very numerously and respectably signed, com plaining of the provisions of the late Charitable Bequests Act, particularly that part of it which proposed to abolish certain monastic institutions which had been found very useful. STOKE-UPON-TRENT. Mr. RICARDO presented a petition from the inhabitants of Stoke-upon-Trent, praying that a public market should be erected in that town. RAILWAYS. Mr. 0. GORE presented a petition from a place, the name of which we could not hear owing to the noise that prevailed, in favour of the Cheshire Junction Railway. HUNGERFORD SUSPENSION BRIDGE. Mr. H AWES presented a petition, praying for a further ex tension of powers to the Hungerford Suspension Bridge Company. POST-OFFICE INQUIRY. Mr. WAKLEV moved that the petition from certain electors and other inhabitants of the borough of Finsbury, re lating to the Post-office inquiry, which had been presented on the 27th inst., be printed with the Votes.—Agreed to. WINDOW-TAX. Lord DUNCAN gave notice that, instead of moving the resolution which he had put upon the paper, he should, on Monday, March 17, move for a Committee to inquire respect ing the window-tax. EAST INDIA COMPANY.—SUGAR DUTIES. Mr. ASTELL presented a petition from the lion. the Pro• prietws of East India Stock, agreed to that day, against the discriminating duty upon white sugars. On the motion of Mr. LABOUCHERE, the petition was read by the Clerk at the table. POST-OFFICE SPY SYSTEM. Captain PECHELL presented a petition complaining of the opening of Mr. Duneombe's letters, and praying for a Parlia mentary inquiry. FOREIGN ESPIONAGE. Mr. 'MILNER. GIBSON presented a petition from a foreign gentleman resident in this country, but whose name, from the noise in the Hou.e and in the gallery, it was impossible to hear, praying the House to interfere with the powers of the Executive Government when exercised in co-operation with foreign Governments in their endeavours to control the actions of foreigners resident in this country. lie stated, that if the proceedings of foreigners in this country were to be regulated by the rules adopted by the Austrian Government, it must put an end to all freeitom of discussion on political topics, and of that liberty which was the peculiar boast of England. That it would further the ends of foreign espionage, and would render nugatory all the efforts to promote freedom in the world, and would convert that which was merely intended for legitimate efforts for the improvement of a country into a colourable act of conspiracy and high treason. He, therefore, prayed the House to interfere, and in some way modify the use of the posers of the Executive Government in their control over foreigners, and collusion with foreign States. MARRIAGE (IRELAND) ACT. Sir T. FREMANTLE said, that with regard to the question which had been asked by the Hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Ross), as to whether the Government in tended to amend the Act with regard to mixed marriages, celebrated by Roman Catholic clergymen, ha begged to say that it was the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill to amend that Act ; but as the Bill had not yet come into operation, he thought it would be better to wait and see how it would work. MR. ROEBUCK AND THE ABSENT 'nisi' MEMBERS. Mr. E. B. ROCHE said that he had a question to ask of the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath, for the purpose of asking which he had come expressly from Ireland.—( Laughter.) As this was a question referring to a matter in which he felt that his character as a Member of that House, and as a gentle man, aas at stake, he trusted he was not asking too much of the House in begging to be allowed to make a few preliminary remarks by way of explanation of the grounds on which he asked it.--( Hear, hear.) A very s`mrt time since he saw with considerable sur prise a speech attributed to the Hon. Gentleman in the 'limes newspaper.—(Order, order. ) The SPEAKER said that the lion. Member was irregular in referring to a newspaper for what was said 'in that House in a previous debate. Mr. ROCHE—WeII, then, I heard of a speech which has been attributed to the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, in which I find that he used the following words, in alluding to a large body of the Irish Members :—" They have run away from their posts."—(Order, order.) The SPEAKER—It is quite evident the Hon. Gentle man is referring to a speech made by the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath during the present session, and it is quite irregular for any Hen. Gentleman to allude to a previous de bate dui ing the same session. Mr. RC/CUE—I may be permitted, at any rate, to ask this question. Certain observations I understand were made— supposing that they were made—(Cries of " Order, order.") The SPEAKER said he was sure the House would feel that it was quite impossible that the Hon. Member could be allowed to refer to any worth spoken in a previous debate. POST-OFFICE ESPIONAGE. On the reading of the order of the day for going into a Com mittee of Ways and Means, Mr. DUN COMBE rose to move, " That certain officers be longing to her Majesty's Post-office do attend this House at its next meeting, for the purpose of informing this House under what authority they had been parties to the detaining, delaying, or opening any post letters of Thomas Slingsbv Duncombe, Esquire, a Member of this House." The Honourable Member said he very much regretted that the little progress which had been made in public business on Tuesday evening last had prevented him from bringing for ward the motion of which he had given notice. In again calling, as lie felt himself compelled to do, the attention of the House to the very grave subject which bad already occupied too much of its time, he thought that he should be able to prove that no blame on account of that occu pation of time was attributable to himself. Not being able to bring the question forward the other evening, he had no alternative but to take the earliest opportunity of setting this question again fairly before the public. Now what occurred on a former occasion He was told, in the first place, that he bad no evidence at all of his letters having been intercepted at the Post-office; and, secondly, that even if he did possess information enabling him to prove that interception of his letters had taken place, that information could only have been obtained by corrupting the officers of that establishment. The Noble Lord the Mem ber for Newark (Lord J. Manners), for whom he entertained a deep respect, said that if what he had stated was true he was a degraded man ; while the Hon. Member for the Uni versity of Oxford said that no innocent man would complain of the opening of his letters. He need not state what was the inference to be drawn from the latter statement. If, however, the House would give him the opportunity—and even after the display of injustice which took place on the previous evening, he still hoped they would not refuse it—he would prove that he was innocent as regarded the imputation which hung over him on account of the opening of his letters. Now, he asked, what had occurred in reference to this subject? lie did the other evening, and he (lid new, altogether disclaim any personal hostility to any individual on the opposite benches. What he said then he would again state, that whatever responsi bility attached to the fact of having opened his letters, must be shared by all of her Majesty's Ministers, that they must all bear an equsl share of responsibility with respect to it.—( Hear, hear.) He was obliged to address himself to the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department, because if any person issued a warrant for that opening of his letters, he most have been the person who issued it. If that warrant were issued, he (Mr. Duncombe) would not believe it was done with the knowledge or sanction of the Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of her Majesty's Ministers. He would not now believe that the Rig ht lion. Gentleman, the Chancellor of th e E xc h equer, knew any thing at all about the matter; he did net believe that the Right Honourable Gentleman was ever consulted as to whether his letters should be opened or not ; he acquitted him entirely of . it, and he did t: " ; I lia not believe that if h e hail it, he would hP.ve permitted it. Wh a t ever offence observations gave to that bench, the w h o l e of the Ministry must share it among them.—( Hear, hear.) Now, what had oc curred in reference to this question? Whe n h e presentedt this House the petition of M. Mazzini, he certainly then knew nothing at all of his letters having been opened. As far as ho was concerned the House should now know all the truth. When he presented M. Mazzini's petition he knew nothing of the opening of his letters, he did not even suspect that the Government would have perpetrated so mean and base an act as that of opening his letters. That ► was on the 14th of June. He said this in answer to the Hon. Member for Pontefract, because that Hon. Gentleman said that he (Mr. Duncombc) must have known wheel he 'presented M. Mazzini's petition that his letters had been opened. He knew nothing of the sort. On the t4th of June se presented the petition of 111. Stolzman ; he knew nothing even then, and did not suspect that his letters had been stopped. On the 2d of July be received some informa tion from M. Mazzini in the interim, with respect to certain parties connected with the Post-office. He understood there was a general rumour, a common subject of conversation in the establishment, which was simply this,—that the clerks and sorters, and sub. sorters, were in the habit of saying, " What is the use of Mr. Dencombe's making a bother about the letters of foreigners, he had much better look after the villainy that is being perpetrated towards his own." And he should be able to prove that if they would allow him the opportunity of a Committee. On hearing this he certainly pricked up his ears—(Laughter)--he asked M. Mazzini if he could produce the persons who could prove these conversations. He said he could, but told him that, in the meantime, he (Mr. Duncombe) had better make a motion in the House for a Committee of inquiry into the working of the inner or secret office of the Post-office. lie therefore gave notice of a motion of that sort, and said that if he could only get a Committee of Inquiry, that ho would ascertain the names of parties, which were notorious in the Post-office, and that he would have the whole thing out. He gave notice of a motion of inquiry into the working of this inner office, and into the duties of the persons employed in it, with a view of ascertaining by what authority they acted. Well, how was that met? He had said, in introducing that motion, that the question was no longer between M. Mazzini and the Government—it was no longer between him and the Right Honourable: Baronet—but it was a question between the people of England and her Majesty's Ministers, and that the people wished to know whether their letters were the property of 1 the Secretary of State or not. The Right lion. Baronet then said that he agreed with him (Mr. Duncombe) that the question had gone so far that it, could not stop there—that it was a question between the Government and the people of England, and that it was quite right that the people of England should be satisfied on the point. How did he propose to satisfy them ? Instead of adopting the proposal made by him (Mr. Dun combe), heMoved an amendment that a Secret Commit tee should be appointed. The Right Hon. Gentleman named that Com mittee—he named his own jury—reserving to himself, at the same time, the right of appeal from the decision of that tri bunal, and of course he ( Mr. Duncombe) reserved to himself equally the right of appeal; and in exercise of that right he had called the attention of the House, as early as he could during the present session, the report being presented late in the last session, to what he considered the unsatisfactory and evasive character of that report. In doing so he had subjected him self to a number of insinuations, and he could get no satisfaction whatever on the subject Amongst those insinuations the Hon. Member for Pontefract had toad him (Mr. Duucombe) that his name had been associated with persons who had been under the sentence of the law. He asked the Hon. Member to name them, and he mentioned Mr. Lovett. Well, what was the case of Mr. Lovett? He (Mr. Duncombe) certainly had taken up his cause, and the consequence was, that during the incarceration of Messrs. Lovett and Collins at Warwick, their treatment was modified, and, instead of being treated as felons, they were treated as political prisoners ought to be treated. But would any one say that that was a jus'ification of the Government opening his letters? Be fore that time he had never }ward of Messrs. Lovett and Collins. Then the Hon. and Learned Member for Bute had stated that he (Mr. Duncombe) had been in correspon dence with certain persons who had threatened to burn the town of Sheffield. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman defended those individuals. He was their counsel, and he defended them with so much ability, that they got four years' incarceration in the House of Correction.—( Loud laughter.) Wes there any proof that he (Mr. Duncombe) was connected with tho, , e individuals? He had never heard their names, nor had he ever held the slightest correspondence with them. Was there in that, then, any ground for opening his letters? The first time he had ever been connected with the Chartist party was in 1841, just previous to the general election, when he presented a petition for them, praying for an amnesty to all political prisoners, and signed by 1,700,000 individuals. Those seilitical prisoners had been imprisoned for political offences committed during the period that his Noble Friend was in office. In the year 1841, in the month of June or July, he (Mr. Duncombe) moved an humble address to her Majesty, praying that her Majesty would be graciously pleased to order the ease of those prisoners should be taken into consideration with a view to their release. Well, what was the result? The House was equally divided tipon the motion, and upon the casting vote of the Speaker that address was rejected. Was that any reason why his letters should have been opened?—( Hear, and a laugh.) Then, again, in the year 1842, in the month of May, he pre sented a petition upon the condition of the nation, signed by 3,:300,000 members of the working-classes. There were great differences of opinion as to the truth of the allegations con tained in that petition ; many said that the expres sions contained in it were foolish and indiscreet, and that they could not be proved. Perhaps so ; but the petitioners prayed to be called to the bar of that House, but that prayer was rejected. Next, in the year 1842, an outbreak and strike took place in Staffordshire ; and the opinion expressed upon that occasion by the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department was, that he thought the whole thing had been very much exaggerated, and that there was nothing whatever political in it.—( Hear, hear.) Now, he (Mr. Duncombe) apprehended that his letters were opened upon political grounds, and in connexion with supposed political offenders—he assumed that such was the ease. Well, in 1842, the manufactu: ing districts were in a frightfully disturbed state ; but at that time the conduct of the working classes was extremely creditable to them. For three days it had been stated that Manchester was in possession of what was called the mob ; but notwithstanding that, such was the re spect and regard of the people for private property, that not even a pane of glass was broken. Therefore there could have been no reason for opening his letters then ; yet he was in a position to prove that at that very time his letters had been opened at the General Post-office. He had now with him in the House some letters he had received at that time; but there were no letters of a treasonable character amongst them, so that if zany such were sent to him at that time, the Right Honourable Baronet must have kept them himself.—( Great laughter. ) Amongst the letters of a " suspicious-looking character " that he then received—( A laugh)—he now held one in his hand, which certainly appeared as if, to use the technical phrase, it had been " operated upon"—( Loud laughter)—and if closely examined, he believed there could be no doubt that it had been " operated" upon.—( Laughter.) That letterhe would now read ; it was from Mr. Feargus O'Connor—( A laugh)— and was written during the Nottingham election, when Mr. Sturge was a candidate for that borough. The Honourable Member then read the letter, the substance of which was to this effect—" I snatch a moment from the excite ment of the day to send you a word or two upon what is doing here. There never was co much excitement—so much moral ex citement as is to be witnessed here.—( Laughter.) And but for it the Tories would be triumphant here.—( Laughter.) A num ber of men have come in here from Derbyshire, sent in by the Tories, to personate, not dead, but living voters.—( Loud laughter.; But they have been detected, though trying to represent the real Simon Pure.--( Laughter. ) I must now stop, in order to make all right here, and then be off to a village, 4 miles off, to make all right there." The writer then called attention to a placard he inclosed, and concluded by saying that, " if Hobhonse was the author of it. he should never again venture to show his nose in Nottingham."—( Laughter. ) That was the sort of correspondence which he had re ceived during the whole of that time. In the course of 1842 he had no communication whatever with Mr. Feargus O'Connor; and, therefore, he should be glad to know upon what grounds his letters were opened. —( Hear.) If lie could prove that they had been opened by the servants of the Post-office, let them shew their authority for opening his letters.— ( Hear, hear.) If they produced the authority, then it would be for them to justify it. Either the Government had issued warrants for the opening of his letters, or they had been opened without warrants.—( Hear, hear.) If they had been opened without a warrant, then, no doubt, a breach of privilege had been committed. Ile did not now, nor did he on the former occasion make this a question of privilege. That wry a question which the House would decide when it heard the evidence. They would then judge whether a breach of privi lege had been committed or not.—( Hear.) But it was his firm conviction that if his letters, or the letters of any other Member of the House, had been opened at the Post-office, there could be no doubt that a breach of privilege had been committed in his person. That was the actual state of the question.—( Hear, hear. ) He was surprised that the Com mittee, which gave itself so much trouble to enter into matters of deep and antiquarian research, had overlooked the case which came under the cognisance of the House in 1689. He was surprised they had not discovered that remarkable case, as it bore pointedly upon that which he was now forcing their at tention, to.—( Hear, hear.) A complaint was made to the House that the letters of a Member named Thompson were opened at Hull by the order of a military Colonel. The allegations of Thompson's petition were inquired into, and the House came to the resolution, on the 14th of August, 1689, that the seizing. detaining, and opening of the letters written by, or addressed to, a Member of Parliament, was a breach of privilege and a gross misdemeanor on the part of any officer, military or civil, in the service of the Crown-4 Cheers.) In 1735 this House came to a resolution almost unanimous, that it was a breach of the privileges of Parliament to inspect or look into the letters of any Member of the House of Commons, whether written by him or addressed to him.—(Cheers.) Now, in the year 1622 a question of a similar kind was brought before the House by his Hon. Friend the Member for Cumberland. lie did not at the time agree with his lion. Friend, for he did not. think that a breach of privilege had been committed. The case was this, the Hon. Member for Cumberland directed a letter to a prisoner in Manchester gaol, and that letter was opened by the gaoler. His Hon. Friend brought the matter before the House as a breach of privihge. But on looking over the de bates he (Mr. Duncombe) could not say that in that case any breach of privilege had been committed, because it was quite clear, according to the law, that letters addressed to a prisoner in a gaol might be opened by a gaoler. An Act of Parliament gave power to the visiting magistrates to make rules for the regulation of the gaols, such rules to have the f o r ce o f l aw when approved of by the judges of assize. One of the orders of the visiting magistrates of the gaol of Manchester was , th a t no letter should be delivered to any prisoner without being read by the gaoler.—( Hear, hear.) However, this was quite clea r , that in the debates on the case of his Hon. Friend the Member fur Cumberland, the Right Honourable Gen tleman at the head of the Government, the Attor ney-General of the day, and all who spoke upon the question—one and all—admitted that, if the violation of his lion. Friend's correspondence had taken place in the Post office, it would have been a gross violation of the privileges of the House.—(llear, hear.) He would not trouble the House with long quotations from " liansard."—( A laugh.) He would only ask them to consider what was his case. Ile was ready to prove to the House that the authorities of the Post office had intercepted his correspondence at the command of their superior officer.—(llcar, hear.) He proposed to bring those persons to the bar of the House.—( Hear, hear.) He would then bring their superior officers to the bar—(Cheers and a laugh)—and he thought that no one could refuse to allow him the right of bringing afterwards those who gave the orders. —( Great cheering and laughter.) Now he would ask the House of Commons, " Are you going to shrink from this investiga tion ?"—( Cheers. ) A Right Hon. Gentleman opposite had said that the opening of letters was the usage of our ancestors. —( Hear, hear.) Oh ! very well ; let them stand by the usage of their ancestors—( Cries of " Hear, hear")---let them do what the House of Commons did in 1689—let them pronounce this scandalous outrage a gross violation of the pri vilege of the Commons of England.—( Loud cheering. ) He could not yet reconcile himself to the belief' that the House of Commons would refuse him the opportunity of having this case investigated. He would hear at the bar the parties who would substantiate his case, and they would satisfy the House that he had used no corrupt means to acquire his information. Ile would prove to the House that he had not availed himself of any secret betrayed by a discarded servant.—( Loud cheers. ) If a man picked his pocket, and another man came to him, and said, " I will tell you who it was that picked your pocket ; I knew him ;" he would turn such a man out of his house, be cause he would be betraying him.—( Hear, and laughter.) But nothing of the sort had occurred in the present instance.— ( Cheers.) M. Mazzini had produced evidence which had satisfied him that he had spoken truth. He stated that there ge w ts a e t ta r oeb what arnt severaletnhthen whopersons were pecrofent,ntelyctreedadywtoithcorntehfeorriPaordst-aonffid knew..-they were perfectly ready to tell th e ice Government that they were disgusted with what had taken place, anti that they felt themselves degraded by being com pelled by the Government to take the part in these proceed ings which they had been forced to take.—(Cheers.) He well knew the great power of his opponents. He well knew the odds against which he should have to contend. (Hear, hear.) He well knew that he was standing in the face of a tyrant majority—a majority which was ready at any time to do the bidding of the Right Hon. Gentleman— (Loud cheers) — an individual who was so persecuted that he could at any time command 300 individuals who would come down to that House and stultify themselves to support the Government.--( Loud cheers.) They heard a great deal said about the independence of the country gentlemen.—( Hear, hear.) They were for ever boasting of their independence at their agricultural dinners in their village pot-houses.—( Hear, hear, and laughter.) While at the same time their clubs in London were absolutely ringing with the most unjust, unfounded, unmerited, personal abuse of the Right Hon. Gentleman. They heard this unbounded abuse one day, and yet they saw on the following day the same individuals who uttered it receiving emolument and place from the hands of the very man they had abused.—( Loud cheers.) He, as an humble, but an independent Member of that House. if they had anything like independence, called upon them as gentlemen and as men of honour to support him. —( Cheers. ) It was his case to-day, it might be theirs te-morrow. He called upon them, therefore, to support him. If they refused to do him justice, let not the Hon. Secretary of Wets say, as he said the other night, that he (Mr. Duricombe) was afraid to have the subject elucidated, and that he shrank from stating the sources from which he derived his information. He had been guilty of no underhand conduct—he had had recourse to no disreputable means for obtaining that information—(Loud cheers.) The persons who possessed that information he pro posed to call to the bar of that House ; and they might be examined as severely as they liked.—( Hear, hear.) He shrunk not from investigation, and let all the odium, and all the cowardice, or shrinking from investigation, fall upon those who opposed it.—(l mmense cheering.) He should have to move for the attendance of various persons at the bar of the House, but he woald, in the first place. move that Lieut.-Col. W. L. Maberley, the secretary to the General Post-office do attend at the bar of the House, and bring with him a certain book, called the " President's Order Book," and a certain other book called the "Inspector's Order Book." ( The Hon. Gentleman then sat down amidst loud cheering, during the continuance of which messengers from the Lords brought down certain papers which were handed to the Speaker.) Mr. D'ISRAELI said that. the Hon. Gentleman the Mem ber for Finsbury. in la3ing before the House the statement he had just made, had distinctly alleged that in making that statement he had no intention of making a personal attack on any individual. He should have hardly thought it was necessary to make such a declaration, had it not been for the situation in which he was placed, connected with the motion which perhaps originated from a debate to which he meant not to refer. If the case of the last general warrant that was issued by a Secretary of State was compared with the last Post-office warrant that was issued by the Secre ary of State, he thought they might discover from that com parison that no personal imputation need be applied to vindi cate a public right.—( Hear, hear.) There was not the slightest doubt that the last general warrant is sued by a Secretary of State was an act of tyranny— an act of oppression and an iniquitous act., but no person would pretend that the Secretary of State who issued it was a tyrant, an oppressor, or an essentially unjust man. On the contrary, he thought Lord Halifax was a good-natured and a well-meaning man. Custom freed the Minister from any moral imputation; but when a point was called into public dis cussion, he would not admit that custom said habit, though it freed the Minister from moral imputati in, freed him also in a legal point of view.—( Hear, hear. ) What were the circum stances under which the Hon. Gentleman brought the case be fore the House? It wets a question which now not, only en gages! the attention of the House, hut interested also those of the nation—( Hear, hear)—and he gave the lion. Gentleman who brought it forward credit for the same purity of feeling as the Minister immediately alluded to; and he was surprises! that any Minister of the Crown should have ever risen in that House, and say that such a question was prompted by personal motives.—( Hear, hear.) It was only in answer to such an im putation that he, for himself, expressed his feelings that no personality in that respect influenced him in making a declara tion that applied not to the House merely, hut to a particular individual. Whatever might be the ebullition of feeling in other quarters, he was of opinion that the individual to whom he addressed himself had done him justice. The Honourable Gentleman had placed the question neatly and completely before the House.—(llear, hear.) All he said was—" If my letters have been opened, the officers of the Post-office have committed a breach of privilege, unless indeed they have done so under the warrant of the Secretary of State. If they have done that, produce the warrant and I will appeal to the courts of justice to decide whether that war rant is a legal instrument er not." He was at a loss to under stand what answer could be given to that direct appeal. Now that was the view which was naturally taken by the Hen. Gentleman in his individual case. Ile believed that the country wished that the warrant should he introduced, not merely to vindicate the honour of the Hon. Gentleman, or the reverse, but that an opportunity might be afforded to the sub jects of the Queen to try whether that instrument was a legal one. The situation of the Hon. Gentleman might be the situation of any Member of that House, or of any subject of the Queen to-morrow; and the question which he asked was, whether, when he had been subjected to a wrong, he should not be allowed a remedy? He knew that some Hon. Gentlemen might say that this was a power which should always be at the disposal of the Government; others might say that it was a disgrace to this country for foreign nations to know that they exercised it and others again might u-ge that this could scarcely be the case, when every foreign nation itself exercised the power. There was this distinction always to be remembered, though foreign nations might have exer cised this power, foreign nations had never believed that Eng land exercised it. The question, as one of policy, was a very simple one. The question was, were they to be ruled by a popular Government, or did they wish to be ruled by a Go vernment of police?—( Hear, hear.) No doubt a popular Go vernment might have many inconveniences. No doubt it would he much better, for instance, that the question'of the sugar duties should be settled without any loss of time ; and it was a great inconvenience, as the Right lion. Gentleman had often told them, that the discus• sien of the subject took up so much of their time. For his own part, he did not doubt that the question might be settled by the Right Hon. Gentleman himself in his tie 3; they Government. migh t h B have e not Bristol psrtyoiln burnt, intornt, they Cabinet as well as, and perhaps better, than th roug h th e i r in terference.—(Laughter.) But that was o ne o f t h e inconve niences cor respondence of individuals, they might su bj ect themselves to verygreaotf popul arealam hail had it burnt; they mi g ht have Birmingham assailed, as they had had it assailed.—( Hear, hear.) But the country struck the balance.—( Hear, hear.) It agre e d to suffer certain incon• veniences for the sake of a popular Government ; and the country, after all, must decide this question. Now, he be lieved that that was an impartial view as regarded the general question. He had said at first, what he felt now, that those who, by a perversion of feeling which he could not compre hend, had thought it expedient to turn this question into an assault upon the Government or any particular Minister, were not in any way justified by the facts of the case.—( Hear. ) these th at With regard to the country, though it sympat hi se d w i t h t h e Member for Finsbury on this questio n , yet i t cons id ere d i t Stat of e were legal warrants or The de deciding public whether wished of an importance still further than as it a ff ecte d t h e H on. Gentleman's individual interest. there warrantso shouldf thebe an Secretaryopportunity o f not. They wished the question to be decided as the question of general warrants was decided, and if it could be shown that these warrants were legal, then it became a question open to the discussion of that House, whether the power of issuing them was such a power as, in a free country ought to exist.—( Hear.) The Hon. Gentleman who had introduced this subject seemed, by some observations which he (Mr. D'lsraeli) almost regretted that he had made, to think that an impartial decision of this question in that House was im possible. Certainly, when he recollected the last debate, to which he would not now refer, he was not surprised, after all the misconceptions and elaborate misrepresentations that had been mado—he was not surprised that the Hen. Member should think the decision would not be a -fair one. He (Mr. Disraeli) could not believe, though the Honourable Member seemed to suppose it, :that any intimidation was purposely or aforethought enacted in that House. But there was not the slightest doubt that both on this question before them, anti on others that had been before them within the last two or three years, there hail been misun derstandings that could only have been the result of misconcep tions—perhaps mutual misconceptions —as to the relationship between the leaders of a party in that House, and the sup porters of that party. He alluded to these circumstances, be cause the Honourable Gentleman seemed to think that, on this occasion, a free and impartial consideration of the question was not to be secured, and because, unless there was a correct understanding on this head, he almost despaired of the Hon. Gentleman's receiving that fair decision. When, after the last election, the common and baneful differences of party had been destroyed, and when every one knew that the constituent elements of party in that House were changed, the old state of parties ceased, and the old notions of party almost evaporated. Under those circumstances, in a popular assembly of more than six hundred persons, it was inevitable that there must arise dis cussions, in which, though Gentlemen sat on different sides of the House, vet on questions in which the elementary principles of their political opinions were concerned, they would divide in the same lobby, and take the same side. This had often hap pened ; the lion. Gentleman opposite proposed a motion which did not seem to affect the principles of either party, and some Gentlemen on this side of the House supported it. Cir cumstances occurred which showed that a division which might, if not embarrassing, still be unpleasant to the Government, and then a system commenced which seemed to justify the lion. Gentleman in thinking that he could not get a fair decision. It appeared to him that statesmen adopted two principles— that of praise, and innuendo and imputation—the insinuations of base motives and the allegations of fractious conduct. It generally, continued the Hon. Gentleman, develops itself in foreign matters. There is a little irritability on the Treasury bench.—(Laughter.) That is almost immediately followed by some impatience among the immediate friends of the Go vernment; and then, if it is observed that some gentlemen get up, there is an imputation of mean and of personal mo tives—l might say corrupt :motives —against every gentleman who is perhaps speaking or about to vote on the propositions, although the question may not involve any party principle or any political principle, but is devoted merely to a matter of practice. Now in this state of affairs, probably at the end of two or three nights' debate, when the course which has been taken has natu rally produced an acerbity in many quarters, and perhaps the expression of a bitternes the sincerity of which cannot be doubted.—(Loud laughter)—at the right moment the Right lion. Baronet rises to cap the climax, and probably having been just assured by one of his aide-de-camps that he is likely to have a larger majority than ever, he makes a passionate appeal to his supporters, as if the strong Government were in the throes of dissolution—( Loud laughter)—and those Gentlemen who rise on this side the House after that are charged with a desire to embarrass the Government by distinct political collu sion, or of Parliamentary intrigue. Now, I protest against this. The system is not founded on justice or fair play. It is not founded on the real understanding on which principles exist. It is, in fact, though unintentional, tyranny—(Cheers) —and is, to my mind, as degrading to those who exercise as those who endure it.—(Loud cheers.) No, I take a recent case, because it is fresh in my me mory—l mean when the Honourable Gentleman, the other night, called our attention to this particular instance of grievance. lie brought forward a motion which at the first blush every one might see would be opposed by the Government in existence, and by the Government who preceded them. That at once takes from it the appearance of a party q uestion. There dealsblea general impression in this House, that it is extrem el y that the decisions of Committees should always be respected, and never disturbed. I believe that impression is not peculiar to either side of the House. The Hon. Member for Hull, from whose character it would certainly be impossible to say that he was capable of anything like political collusion, forming hi s opinion from the statement of the Hon. Member for Finsbury himself, said he was inclined to support the opinion of the Com mittee, but it was impossible that the individual instance of the lion. Member for Finsbury could be passed over. It so hap pened that certain circumstances were brought forward, as will always happen in a popular assembly of this kind—circum stances which might indicate that a division was about to take place, not embarrassing, but probably more disagreeable than the Government ever anticipated, if they had condescended even to think of the division in the first instance. Well, then, immediately the svtsem, and all the powers of the system, are put into action.—(Cheers and laughter.) The Right Houe THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, MARCH 1, 1845. Gentleman even brought forward the sanction of his great example—•a division was called for, gentlemen were sent for from the country to support the Government in danger, that never was in peril—(Laughter)—for there needs must be a great party triumph when not a single party principle was at stake, or a single party principle in danger.—(Cheers and laughter. ) Now, I really think that more liberal constructions might come from the Treasury Bench at this moment. I think the Right Hon. Baronet is the last Minister that ought to be a political martinet. I conceive that he is cot a Minister in a position reqeiring the devotion of his party. I can sup pose a Minister with a very small majority, holding office merely in deference to his party. He would have a right to say. when a party fight or difficulty came, " I expect your de votion—you must be ready under all circumstances to support me.—( Hear, hear. ) That is not the position of the Right Honourable Gentleman. It is quite the reverse. He has got a very large party to support him, and although the Opposition before him it dis• tinguished, doubtless, for eminent talent, and which numeri• cally is not very contemptible, yet it is not in the poOion of being celebrated for the power of cohesion.—( Laughter.) The Right Hon. Baronet, therefore, is in a position which really should allow him to be indulgent.—( Laughter.) It is very easy for him to turn round and say " I am quite fresh for the attack, I am prepared to meet the foe—no one ever saw me quail."—( Laughter.) But the Right lion. Gentle man forgets that the foe before him does not wish to tight him.—( Great laughter.) The Right lion. Gentleman for gets that the victory is very easy when there is nobody to oppose him. Another reason why I think the Right Honourable Gentleman should not adopt that tone, is this : the Right Hon. Gentleman should not forget that, after all, a great many of his supporters were elected under different cir eumstances.—( The remainder of th e sen t ence was lost in th e immense cheering which followed. ) 1 think a little philoso phical consideration would show him, as a great statesman, un der these circumstances, that what I have stated is the least we could expect from him. I admit that for one, was sent here by my constituents to sit on this side, and the Bight Hon. Gentleman may object to me, though not on great occasions, if I have been sometimes in a different lobby to himself. But I was sent here by my constituents to swell a Tory majority, end to support a Tory Ministry. Whether a Tory Mirtistry exist or not, is a question I will not enter into—(Laughter)—but 1 am bound to believe that a Tory majority still remains, and there fore, if any cross over to the other side of the House, I do not think it will be the majority. Now, 1 hope the Right Hon. Gentleman will, therefore, on refection, take a more con descending and charitable view of our motives than he has hitherto been pleased to do. I am sure that, for myself, I can say I never for a moment misinterpreted the conduct of the Right Hon. Baronet. I know that some would think that he is shunning his own party and looking to new allies.--( Laugh ter. ) I never for a moment believed anything of the kind. The position of the Right Hon. Baronet is so clear and pre cise, that I cannot for a moment suppose he would ever leave it. I never believed that he was looking to a coalition, though some of my constituents do. The Hon. Gentleman knows that it is best to remain where he is. The Bight Hon. Ba ronet caught the Whigs bathing, and walked away with their clothes.—( This felicitous expression was caught up by the House at once, and roars on roars of ktughter followed.) He has left them in the lull enjoyment of their liberal position, and he is strictly conservative of their garments.—( Great laughter.) I cannot conceive why the Right lion. Baronet should desert his party, they seem to me never to desert him. Never was there a case yet when he hail less need to find new friends. I therefore hope that Ire will he on reflection more indulgent. I look upon the Right Hon. Baronet as having obtained the shrew of liberalism—die is the political Petruchio —he has outbid you all.—( Great laughter.) Ah, Sir, if we could only induce the Right Honourable Baronet to take a larger and more liberal view of his Parliamentary position than he seems in moments too testy for so great a man to indulge in, we might be spared, Sir, some of the imputations which, from a man like him, are really painful. The Right Hon. Baronet may find it sometimes convenient to reprove the party on his right flank. Perhaps we deserve it. I for one am prepared to bow to the rod, but really if the Right Hon. Baronet, instead of having recourse to himself, would only stick to quotation, he might rely on it that he would have a more severe weapon. When he does appeal to authority, in prose or verse, I see he is more successful, partly because 1 observe the Right Hon. Baronet never refers to any passage which has not previously received the nicer! of Parliamentary approbation—( Lour' laughter)— and, partly and principally, because his quotations are so happy. The Right Hon. Gentleman, when he intro duces a great name into the debate, knows how important is the effect, and occasionally how electrifying. He never refers to any author who is not great, and sometimes who is not learned. Mr. Canning, for example. that•name never to be mentioned in the House of Commons without emotion. We all admire his genius —we all, at least most of us, must deplore his un timely end, and we all sympathise in his fierce struggle with supreme dulness and sublime mediocrity, with the inveterate foe and the candid friend.—( Great cheering.) The Right Hon. Baronet must be aware that quotations from such an authority must always tell,—a passage would be sublime, for example, on friendship written by Canning, and quoted by the Right Hon. Gentleman.—(Great cheering.) The poem and the speaker would be a felicitous combination, its effect in de bate would be overwhelming ; and, I am sure, that all that would be remaining, would be for me thus publicly to con gratulate the Right Hon. Baronet, not only on his ready memory, but on his courageous conscience. (The Hon. Gentle man sat down amidst load and enthusiastic cheers. ) Sir JAMES GRAHAM who was so indistinct as to be scarcely heard in the Gallery said, he rose to give the House the reasons why he intended to oppose the motion of the Hon. Member for Finsbury. If there had been tyranny, as had been stated by the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, there wts now open and avowed rebellion to it, and not as hitherto covert mutiny. After what had been stated by the Hon. Member for Finsbury. he (Sir James Graham) would not treat the motion before the House as a question of privi lege. He thought that a'l the circumstances con nected with this question antecedent to the 4th of July, might with propriety be discarded. It was of the utmost importance that he should recal to the attention of the House what had occurred on the day when the Select Committee had been granted. The Noble Lord the Member for London had, on that day, distinctly stated that, while he had filled the office of Secretary of State, he had fol lowed the example of Sir R. Walpole, and had, in pursuance of his official duty, issued warrants upon his special responsibility. The Noble Lord had stated that he had come down to the House prepared to oppose the motion of the Hon. Gentleman. He said that if the Secretary of State were prepared to say, as Sir Robert Walpole had said, that he had exercised that right, not from motives of personal curiosity—not from vindic tive feelings—not from motives of self-interest—but solely be cause he considered that the exercise of it was necessary for the public good, he (Lord .1. Russell) should be prepared to oppose the motion. He (Sir J. Graham) at that time proposed an amendment to the House; he stated, on the whole, he con sidered that a Secret Committee would be preferable to a Select Committee. 'll - le:Noble Lord distinctly stated that he considered also that a Secret would be preferable to a Select Committee. It was best to be exact on such a point, and he would therefore quote the very words used by the Noble Lord, which were as follows r—" I entirely agree with the reasonings urg-d by the Right Hon. Gentleman (meaning himself, Sir J. Graham), for preferring a Secret Committee to a Select Committee. I think that the proposed inquiry will be gone into more fully, and that the investigation will be more strict, and that the Committee will be enabled to arrive at more correct conclu sions."—(Cheers.) He would now call the attention of the House to the proceedings which had taken place on this sub ject. In the month of June, a fortnight before this decision had been come to, the Hon. Gentleman had brought forward the question, and a division had taken place, in which the Go vernment had been run very close—he believed that the Go vernment majority amounted only to 26. When the Select Committee was appointed, five gentlemen had been appointed on it, who on that occasion had voted against her Ma jesty's Ministers. Only three members of that Com mittee had voted with her Majesty's Ministers and one had not voted at all. —( Hear, hear. ) The Noble Lord the Member for London had distinctly stated that, in his opinion, that Committee had been fairly constituted—that he preferred a Secret Committee to any other tribunal—and that it appeared that the composition of that Committee was satisfactory. That Committee, so constituted, had investigated the subject, and had arrived at a conclusion which appeared to be satisfactory to the House of Commons. It was of great im portance that the House should bear in mind what had been the allegations of the Hon. Member for Finsbury before the constitution of that Committee. He had, in the first place, stated that there existed an inner office in the post-office, in which letters were opened wholesale—that the Brighton bag was called for—that the Dublin bag was called for—and he stated it was his belief that everybody's letters were opened— that even his own letters were opened. He said that the Brighton bag and the Dublin bag were called for, and that the Albany letters were sent for—that the opening of letters went on wholesale—that, in fact, there was a roving com mission for opening letters wandering about the coun try. The Honourable Member for Finsbury distinctly stated on that occasion that he had no doubt but that his own letters had been opened. Such was the state of the case when the Secret Committee had been appointed. But that was not all. On the 16th of July the Hon. Gentleman had made a fresh appeal to the House. He was asked to repeat the charges he made to the House on that occasion. The Hon. Gentle man said he would prefer a Bill of indictment, and he again enumerated the charges he would prefer. He did not think it necessary to repeat those charges, but he said he would be ready to prove that the letters of foreign ministers had been opened, and that for two years the most unscrupulous use was made of the power of opening letters. He mentioned that the letters of many individuals were opened, and he said he believed then, and believed now, that his own letters were opened. Now, on the 22d of July, the lion. Gentleman stated in substance all the allegations he made on the 16th of July. He stated that he would prove those allegations before the Committee, and that the proof which he tendered broke down only in consequence of a condition which the Honourable Gentleman sought to impose on the Committee. The Ho nourable Member appealed, on the 16th of July, from the judgment of the Secret Committee to that House, and moved that it should be an instruction to that Committee that they should hear the evidence he had to lay before it. The Noble Lord, the Chairman of the Committee, said they were anxious to have his evidence, and that other evidence, the most ample, had been placed at their disposal, and that they had proceeded with their inquiry without any reference to party or personal considerations. lint the circumstances and conditions under which the lion. Member for Finsbury required to appear before the Committee, obliged them to refuse his request; and there fore they were either wrong in thus refusing him, or this House was wrong in refusing his motion as to the instruction to be given to the Committee. That motion was negatived by a large majority of the House, and in that majority appeared the Hon. Member for Portsmouth, and the Noble Lord the Member for Sunderland. Now he (Sir J. Graham) would contend for it that the Secret Committee was the best and safest tribunal before which such a question could be investigated, and he believed there could be no doubt of the fact that that Committee had i of e r a t hF r hear," motionn' s f s r ebw o cu m arresyt t , ph. Committee,uneto: at si s Ministerial fifeu dallyswbeei discussed, se c c h ttu e chs s eso . em ) rdem: oi ßut atrttte, the deo of again tgih H anei u n . the hy ..le carefully and deliberately made that examination.—( Hear, m b Committee, Member Hon. Tha t appealed again to this House, and asked it to appoint, in lieu o Member was defeated; but, not satisfied with that, the House now found him for the third time appealing to it, and calling upon it to do that w hi c h wou ld b e exactly the converse of its two former d • ec,stons. He ( Sir J. Cleaham) would not weary the House by rendin g p assages f rom th e repor t o f th e S ecre t Committee ; but, it did appear by that report that all the alle gations contained in the Hon. Member's original charge had been investigated. The existence of the "inner office" at the General Post-office had been inquired into, as well as the acts done there, and also the charges about the Brighton bags and the Dublin bags, and all the other items in the catalogue of the Hon. Member's charges, had been minutely inquired into. They further in quired into the power that had been exercised under those warrants, with a view to ascertain whether that power had been made subservient to private curiosity ; and the deliberate de cisiou of the Committee, solemnly come to, was, though they were not enanimous on the point, that each warrant had been issued wills discretion ; that in no case had any warrant been issued from private or personal motives.—( Hear, hear.) In the course of the observations made by the Hon. Member, he had made use of some strong language and equally strong as sertions ; and he (Sir James Graham), if he felt inclined to do so, would be entitled to use language just as strong ; but, with out appealing to such assistance, he would declare deliberately and solemnly that he never opened, or directed to be opened, without a written authority from the Home office, in confor mity with the long-continued practice of his predecessors, any letter from personal or vindictive feelings.— (Hear, hear.) He would go:further, and state in the presence of many Gen tlemen who had private knowledge of the fact, that there was a record kept in the Home-office, and another in the General Post-office, of every warrant issued by hint ; end that every %variant that bad been issued by bins had been produced by him before the Secret Committee.—( Hear, hear.) And not only that, but he went seriatim through all the facts and circum stances connected with each ; and without the least reservation or disguise, stated to that Committee all his reasons for having issued each warrant.---( Hear, hear.) If the House should en tertain any question as to his veracity en this point, then he could appeal to the officers in the Home-office and the General Post-office to bear him out. The Committee had had all those officers before them, and no doubt they checked his evidence by the ire. With regard to what had been said about the report of the Committee of the House of Lords, he begged to remind the Home that it was quite enough for him to confine himself to the (barges of the Hon. Member for Finsbury, and the Com mittee of this House. Notwithstanding that strong language had been used by him and other Honourable Members towards him in the course of this debate, he was willing to admit there was some excuse for it, seeing that this was a question which deeply affected the public, and which rendered an inquiry necessary ; but that inquiry had taken taken place, the fullest investigation had been made, and he had endeavoured to show that every act of his in reference to the question had also been investigated by the Committee, and that Committee had given a verdict in his :favour.—( Hear, hear ; from the Ministerial benches.) He felt that the time of the House was precious, and that he would not, therefore, be warranted in trespassing upon it at too great length ; but perhaps he might be pardoned for saying a word or two in reference to the manner in which his private feelings had been wounded by lion. Gentlemen oppo site.— (Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Finsbury had made allusion to the early intimacy that had existed between them. No doubt he was at one time upon terms of great and close intimacy with the lien. Member, an intimacy of no re cent date, but one that had been transmitted to them by their forefathers from an early period, and there fore it was with feelings of the greatest pain that he found himself compelled to come into collision with one in whose society be had passed many joyous and happy days, and many pleasant and convivial evenings—(Hear, hear, and laughter)—and he was happy to say that that intimacy was not the result of unison of political feeling.—( Hear, hear. ) The Hon. Member had stated that it was from no personal feel ings that he had brought on this question, but in the discharge of his public duty; and that it was because of his political opinions he had become the advocate, in that House, of those who demanded the fulfilment of the provisions of the Charter. It would ill become him (Sir James Graham) to comment upon the Hon. Member's line of public conduct ; it was before the public, and would be judged by the public ; but he was bound to say of the Hen. Member, that no circumstance had ever come to his knowledge, in the discharge of his public duty, that was inconsistent with the Hon. Member, either ari a loyal subject of the Queen, or with the dignity of a Member of that House.—(Loud cheers from all parts of the House.) But the Hon. Member for Liskeard had said that he (Sir J. Graham) was bound, in the discharge of his public duty, without acting injudiciously, to give a plain answer to a civil question. Mr. BULLER.—I said " a civil answer to a plain ques tion."—(Laughter.) Sir J. GRAHAM—WeII, a" civil" answer.—(Laughter. ) Now, he would say, that while he held the public office he did, he felt bound not only to answer to the best of his ability ques tions put to him, not only by Hon. Members of that House, but by the humblest member of the community ; but at the same time he should say, he conceived it to be incompatible with the free discharge of his duty, to answer questions of a particular nature.—(Hear.) In conclusion, he begged to as sure the Hen. Member that in nothing he (Sir J. Graham) had said or done in this matter, did he mean him the least personal disrespect.—( Hear, hear.) On the contrary, he could say with sincerity that his feelings towards him were of a de scription that nothing he could say should ever shake.— (Cheers)—and he would now sit down, again repeating that he knew nothing of him that reflected on his character, either as a loyal subject:of the Queen, or the dignity of a Member of that House.—(Cheers.) Lord HOWICK said he could wish that this subject had not been brought before the House again, but that from what had already transpired, her Majesty's Go vernment would have deemed it sufficient to have framed some Bill that would have guarded against those abuses in future.—( Hear, hear.) But as his Learned Friend had brought it on again before the House, he ( Lord Howick) would say the House were bound to consider the sub ject again, and renew the inquiry if necessary. The Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department had not, in the whole course of Isis explanation, said one word in denial of his Hon. Friend's statement. The Right lion. Baronet did not deny that it was in accordance with prece dent, that, when letters were opened, an inquiry was granted, with a view to ascertain that such a step had been taken by competent authority. The Hon. Member for Finsbury bad stated that he could prove that his letters had been opened—. that nothing in the course of this debate had been stated as a sufficient authority or reason for doing so, and therefore he was justified in pressing for an investigation. But the Right lion. Gentleman had resisted the demand of the lion. Member for Finsbury, by the assumption that the question had already been tried and disposed of by the Secret Committee. Now, what had the Committee done ? They had reported that M. Alaszini's letters had been opened, and stated the grounds for doing so, and that they did not con sider the Right Hon. Baronet blameable ; but, with regard to the Hon. Member for Finsbury, the Committee had not only giVen no judgment upon it at all, but they left it a matter of in ference or doubt as to whether his Hon. Friend's letters had been opened at all or not, or any warrant issued for the per pose.—( Hear, hear.) If the Committee had reported that a warrant had been issued far opening his Hon. Friend's letters, then the Hon. Baronet would have been justified in acting on that; but the Committee had done no such thing, nor had they stated whether any such warrant had been issued at all or not. Nay, more, the Committee did not even agree, they were not unanimous as to the fact that there had been a discreet exer cise of j udgment in the warrants that had been issued.—( Hear. ) It might be that a Minister might do a wrong act from a right motive ; but he (Lord Howick) would say that, let a Minister holding so high an office as that of Secretary for the Home De partment make a mistake from motives, no matter how good, it was right that it should be investigated.—(Hear, hear.) His Hon. Friends the Member for Liverpool, the Member for Derby, ar.sl the Member for Kendal, had expressed their opi nions that the Court of Inquiry had not had the good fortune of agreeing among themselves. Coupled with this fact, there was another remarkable circumstance. it was this—throughout the whole of its details there was not the slightest notice of the opening of thy letters of his lion. Friend the Member for Finsbury in the report. Taking these things together, the doubt still remained whether his Hon. Friend's letters had been opened or not. They could not agree then, whether his Hon. Friend's letters ought to have been opened or not. He need not recapitulate his opinion of what the facts had been, but there were the strongest circumstances to justify the opinion that they had been opened. It appeared to him that it was evident that they were divided in their opinion, and he did not believe, therefore, that he was precluded from this inquiry. He felt that it was an extraordinary power to put into into the hands of a Secret Committee—( Hear, hear) — and just in proportion to the extent of those powers he conceived it was necessary that the country and the House should be satisfied that they had been rightly used. This was a requirement which in all honour and justice they were bound to satisfy. He had always understood that the functions of a Committee were to consider the evidence laid before them, and that, having so considered it, they were to come to a deci sion, and then lay that decision before the House. The Com mittee were not the judges—they were only the purveyors of justice ; and it was the House whose business it was to decide, when the Committee had submitted their decision to its judg ment, whether they had rightly decided or not. The House was not bound by the decision of the Committee, for the House often overruled them, and not the House only, but the Go vernment also. During last session he had had the honour of being in the chair of a Committee which had to invcsti gate the rights of private parties, and he had found that the decision at which they arrived was materially affected by the subsequent conduct, not of the House, but of the Government. The Committee to which he alluded was the Committee en the affairs of the New Zealand Company. There was a disagreement in the Committee, but of course the decision to which they came was the decision of the majority. But what was the case? After the House had risen, the result of the agreement. of that majority had been en tirely frustrated. The Right lion. Baronet had stated that his opinion did not coincide with that of the majority ; that it was evident that there had been considerable difference in the Com mittee, and that, in his opinion, the minority were right, and he had acted upon that opinion. Such was the result of the review of a decision of a Committee. But in the case of a Secret Committee the business became much more involved and difficult ; and in the case before them it was peculiarly so. There was just reason to suppose that in the Committee which sat to investigate the proceedings of the Post-office, there was a very considerable difference of opinion. Indeed, it was very likely that, at the conclusion of the discussion, they had not came to any decision at all. They had been invested with powers of the very highest order. They had been engaged in an investigation which involved the privileges of the House itself. Yet notwithstanding all this, and in a matter which of all things the House ought to be made acquainted with, the Government refused to tell the House what were the arguments on which they acted, and he believed there was reason to think that the Committee had come to no decision whatever. The Government had asserted that the Committee had given a ver dict in their favour, and they left the House and the country to come to the conclusion, that the grounds of their acquittal were sufficient. But this, in his (Lord Howick's) opinion, was a very unsatisfactory mode of coming at a conclusion. A difficulty had consequently been created, which nothing but further investigation could remove ; but that, as his Hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard (Mr. C. Buller) had said, would remove the whole difficulty. Why, then, refuse what it was so easy to grant? The matter was now becoming abso lutely ridiculous.—( Hear.) Why did the Right Hon. Ba ronet refuse to say under what circumstances it was that he had issued his warrant? Would it not be better to say at once that he had issued the warrants? That he had issued them under such and such circumstances; that he had acted to the best of his judgment ; that he might possibly be wrong, but that he intended to do right, and that having thus dis charged his duty, the House might then do as they think proper. The Right Hon. Baronet said, that if he answered this question he would be placing himself in a situation which would oblige him to answer all the questions that might be put to him. That might apparently be a sufficient reply for the Right Hon. Baronet, but for his (Lord Howick's) part he must say that it weighed very little with him. Such a course was, indeed, practically making it impossible to ascertain whe ther any injustice at any time had ever been committed. If the Right Hon. Baronet kept these facts from the House, how could it be possible for them to ascertain whether there had been any improper abuse of the power which had been confided to him? Under all the circumstances, he thought that his Honourable Friend had a clear right to press for an elucidation. If that elucidation were obtained the House would be in a proper position to limit this power in future. If the Right Hon. Baronet persisted to refuse any ex planation of the reasons on which he had acted, he (Lord Howick) could not conceive that the refusal was tantamount to anything but an: acknowledgment that the letters of his Hon. Friend had been opened, and he consequently could take no other course than to go out with his Hon. Friends on this vote.—(Cheers and loud cries of " Divide, divide," from every part of the House.) Lord SANDON rose amid much confusion, and, after much interruption said that he wished but to say one word as to the conduct of the Committee of which he had been Chairman. This was necessary from the remarks of the Noble Lord oppo site. He th night that the Committee did not consider them selves invested with a discretion to investigate the right of the existence of the power of opening letters or not. They did not conceive that they had any right to investigate the difference between political warrants and criminal warrants, but they con ceived that they were called upon to express their opinion as to whether the power itself had been properly or improperly used— whether the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department had or had not misused the powers with which he was invested. They went into the investigation, and satisfied themselves that for the last twenty-four years every Government had exercised these powers, and the decision to which they had come had, in his opinion, pointed out the onl y way to escape from the difficulty—(Loud cries for division.) Mr. WARBURTON said that he did not altogether differ from the Noble Lord, but there was one point on which he did differ from him. The course pursued by the Committee was that which they conceived would answer the require ments of the constitution and the country. There was no point raised as to the intention of the Right Hon. Baronet, there had been no question put to the witnesses to elucidate that point. The only point raised was on the question whe ther the Right Hon. Baronet had the power or not to even letters. Lord SANDON sail that he must differ from the Hoer. Gentleman opposite, for he conceived that the Committee did nut try the issoe en the intention of parties, but whether their power had been rightly exercised. Mr. 'WARBURTON again objected to the observation of the Noble Lord, for he conceived that they were not lig' pinell, d to consider the honesty of the Minister. Lord J. RUSSELL said he had heard the statement of the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department. ghat Right lion. Gentl 'man said that he had exercised the powers with which he was invested as Secretary of State solely with a desire to preserve the public peace. An Hon. Member on his side of the House believed that his letters lad been opened, and he asked the Secretary whether stieh were the east or not. Now, he ( Lord J. Russell) could not help expressing himself as disiatisfied with the Government persisting in the course which they had taken—( Hear, hear)-- and he felt that an Hon. Member was degraded when the correspondence between himself and his constituents was violated. The Right lion. Baronet said that he acted solely with a regard to the public peace. They had not said that the Hon. Member had been engaged in any treasonable or improper correspondence, for if he had that would gi ve the act cf the Minister another feature. But the Right Hon. Gent le man would not give any answer, theugh he (Lord .1. Russell) thought that he might have done an. It therefore appearedte him that the letters of the Hon. Member had been opened. whether the officers of the Post-office were called t' the bar of the Hume or not, it was clear that if the letters had been opened they had violated the privileges of the Hove' The Right Hod. Baronet said nothing of this privilege , but he declared that notling had transpired to show that the Hoes Member for Finsbury had acted otherwise than as a loyal sub ject of her Majesty, and that nothing had come to his kola that affected his character as a Member cf that Hoye. This declaration he (Lord John Russell) thought very mat tonally altered the position of the question before them. ti• was ready to take the declaration thus made. Had it not been made, he might have felt that, considering the circumstance that a high privilege of that House had in his opinion beers violated, a further investigation was necessary. 1 30 he thought that that declaration made a material difference. ea he now conceived that that investigation was uncalled fof• The answer, it was tree, was unsatisfactory ; and, in his op_i , nion, to have given an answer, yes or no, would ha ve been far better than the course which the Right lion. Baronet had P r; sued. Yet, notwithstanding this, there was still a reserve point of which he ought to have the benefit. If a person his cused of a treasonable conspiracy were to ask him whether po_ letters had been opened or not, he would not be bound to gir . a direct answer to the question. After three nights' debate, nu, conceived that the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor 001 the Exchequer would not come to the discussion of his 0 44 ,, particular topic with any very pleasant feeling. The Rig''" Hon. Gentleman seemed to have established a different stair" dard of rebellion than that of '45. He feared no rebellion against the Crown or the Throne ; the rebellion of which 11_ seemed to be afraid was a rebellion of the ee& benches.—( Laughter and cheers.) Happily for hive: self, he (Lord John Russell) had no a pp rei gs sion of such a rebellion —it did not & , him.—( Laughter on the Ministerial side.) But there we' He other topic to which he must allude before he sat down. di d alluded to the opening of the letters of M. Mstazini. _ sa think that this was an act unworthy of the country , ands uc"."„ the most despotic Government of Europe would hardly dined to commit, and one which was altogether ineon4"l.6o with the freedom of the country. He did not believe the Government had any intention to betray a person reveal within the British dominions, and lie had entertained siouri, s hie that information had been furnished to foreign Powers W. t . might cruelly implicate persons who had been enjoying protection. He was happy to say that that impression D.. 110, been removed by the explanation which had been given toms other place. For these reasons he could not vote for the el tion of the Hon. Member, but should, on this occasion, cur port the Government.—( Loud cries of " Divide, divide. "),, t , Mr. M. MILNES rose amid such clamour, and with ° Lie culty obtained a hearing. He said he was anxious t op x why he was about to take the part of a rebel, and on this ° a, sion vote for the motion of the Hon. Member for His vote had nothing to do with his support of the Gl OO , ment, or with the character or feelings or honour of the 0 , 0 Member for Finsbury. But he believed a secret warrant t..,„, an anomaly, and of no avail tor any act which 'was toe bele& titled. because it was bad for an act not intended to be j s ,", e , and if Col. Maberly were to be brought to the bar of that 1 11 ? ° „ 8 , he could give no further information than he had already g' s l :_ a r He regarded his Right Hon. Friend es the head police ter of the kingdom.—(Great laughter.) As the first Mini s ro se Finsburiv the Home Department, his surveillance was extensive s hie powerful. He would net refuse to vote with the Honoerosii Member for Finsbury, because he thought by refusing , it w „dhy leave the question open whether or not they had been Or.- dill the Post-office underlings.—( Hear, hear.) Besides, he b tie not know but on some future occasion the power whie 410 Home Secretary possessed, but which he declined to eiP ice s the exercise of to the House, might be abused by isenr, hi. honourable or conscientious Minister. He belie ved oß er heart that the Right Hon. Baronet had not abused the P che f the law conferred upon him, but there was no guaranteeindie under other circumstances, and in the hands of o tber, co s viduals, it might not be abused. On these simple en i ° Gra et stitutional grounds he would support the motions -4 cheering from the Opposition.) Of Mr. WATSON, who rose amid loud and earnest eri e ' t he " divide," said he would not trespass on the House, b°.`ooo country called upon its representatives to record their °Non on this subject. He would vote for the motion of the c o Member for Finsbury.—(Cheers.) The question of erovi• Members' letters would ultimately become a questi on of i 0 ,b. lege ; but previously to that it was necessary to secertsl the facts of the case. That could be only done 12y call iP gJed Post-office officers to the Bar of the House. Whe n m ind,' question affecting the rights of Members was to be ass e r a rich' it should be considered whether it trenched upon thetr a r the leges. A most important admission had been made e air Noble Lord the Member for Liverpool, who said that to been cretion exercised by the Secretary of State had nev er t ee* considered by the Committee.—( Hear, hear.) Will" oel 4 was the meaning of the " verdict of the Committee. t o ot: the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, in the fervour of a r g u ce struck the hat of Mr. Hawes who sat beneath him, a nd lc before it off; roars of laughter followed, and it was some time the House regained its usual gravity.] The Committeenasot in point of fact, given no verdict in favour of the Goselvas it for they had never considered the question at all- t Hon* not then monstrous to tell the country that the Rigutf Lon' Baronet, or the Noble Lord the Member for the c it y 0 f we don, had been ac ,uitted, when the matter of which thel e of accused had never been investigated.—( Renewed it " Hear, hear.") Then, if it had not been investigated.,,s'y necessary to take the next step which the House c ould 10 tbs call the Post-office officers to the bar of the House., a wl discussions on this question they had heard great tetkiiaes• motives, but how could they talk about motives or I f ore the The Right Hon. Gentleman had been merely called be,Bitir Committee and asked how many warrants he had issue ate out inquiring into the circumstances. In the last de o u - s eliir took the liberty of addressing the House, and told the ;nee he now believed, that those general warrants were 4 e sPr s a He was told that there had been general warrants stn orals It was no such thing. Was the licensing o f thI L Charles the Second legal? Was it the sYste ln aa h °I present day ? Then the Secretary of State O r r warrant to seise upon certain papers, but the geoe' lls ees e rants had been deprecated by courts of law, and ° at ii r e . h te , they had been -brought under t'he notice of the judges T s of f ",j minster-hall, condemned as illegal. The w arrens it sv- - . licensing system were not general warrants. In 169 1 ,1 viler;, held that opening a Member's letters was a breach of P .. 0% e j in 1822, the House had to consider the question of oM c ber b y; tens going to the prisons at Manchester, from •pg t : , Parliament, and the House then declared that (O P ,: letters of the Members of that House was a breach of i ts P leges. If it were in that case a breach of privilege, hoiletabet a greater breach when the letters were addressed to i . 5 be by one of his constituents .—( Hear, hear.) ref Oa, dared, in the face of the country, his solem n ai d I v he believed general warrants to be illegal, a n 00 b 8 was the opinion of the best lawyers in Weetniins' of t o o (Hear, hear)—and he consequently considered the IC to tit of present and of former Home Secretaries, in re ference eret sti he warrants, to be illegal and unconstitutional. A Se_ aka State—nor several Secretaries of State—coul d eetsrbe eSot"o• law. Custom, and privilege, and prerogative, 0 % s jeci o , o t blished by usage, or by Acts of Parliament , or by tu ra i v oirf,'d of the courts of law.—(Hear, hear.) T his gene ivilege system appeared to be somewhat similar to that "P r „Dort robbing on Gad's-hill, which it was atsempted sisaae.—( The Hon. and Learned Member concludes' s • loa d, tog he would support the motion.) so „ r e Mr. HUME rose, when the cries of i 4 Divide " f! . if be ' I O to oert iv and the confusion so great, that the Hon. Member salt: 1108 010 in any manner interrupted, he would move al° 3 4 0 0 t?„„ ia t of the debate. He was determined to give exP re ono sentiments on this question, which was altogetheriscesi 01 t he one. It was a question in which the Committee .. . Poi hoe it b. more importance than the House. He did not ku an ieg ° l ee Plight Hon. Baronet could refuse inquiry. The aP', that, out a warrant was decidedly illegal, and he believ_en,kessise.to when a warrant existed, the practice was illegaolo' rag e ' l O O (Hear, hear . ) It was a great want of moral c t the w‘ koot' Right Hon. Baronet not to declare wheth er or n cl to the t bel had beets issued. He allowed the odium t o attach err' nt thei office authorities ; and if they had opened with st Tied' were not to blame, and if they had not been opele bees 014 e, else were equally innocent. But he believed they h!" 'e vil?: t he The Right Hon. Baronet had not denied that tneho. Hon. Member for Finsbury had been opened t1 . 1 ._ u ity; ° wee House did not stultify itself it most grant the !eq s , m ore ass , wise it would be lost in public favour. Notbn tooettne;,, required than that Colonel Maberly should bei,c, a e l sa lc her's le . Se and asked, first, if he had opened the Hon. ea , a 8 elott a fee and if so, by whose authority? If by that of 4 _" vic teil y' sa 's cretary he must exonerate himself, or stand con oen slef: or the country. He must say that the Right 1 1 ,13 e 000. f o t treatment of his Hon. Friend was very hard. ialenall'd in beg then read extracts from the speech of the IT• a „,, e iete_L f t Finsbury last session, before the Committee es to r e r r i saa which the Hon. Member asked the Co he eurth e r t of whether or not his letters had been ; an", the eon` Glared his i n tention of re-opening theinquiry,.lii"ttee the Committee was unsatisfactory. The I, ,° o ' fin ourl i s ib hie w - iic torY• reported in reference to the Hon. Memberactorrdacf.estist plaint ; and the Hon. Member had, in e d profession, asked for an inquiry, as the rep h i p ws i s l rflon•_;ing —( Hear, hear.) The insinuations respect' g as no that he had been in correspondence with per t ! e now 0, `,:t. night' the istote:s bt: for their crimes, must be most painful b to h e r i g rlt 1 1 . 10 Hon. Member, and surely into such a c ar,l3 r " b e er.) f t he in — an cb ri tu. e e : yh t r n ow : g i d t• o ° ofoo l :o l : o , quiry could not be justifiably denied .—( Right Hon. Gentleman tacitly admitted v it ; ed Hon. Member's letters, and he shouldsboi.ect manner of the Right Hon. Baronet s t e o lf ue t t o ts bcoco h oo arg or and man if o f h e spirith ad n o o r t , would b h o e no or wouldha ve baeueonw.pt rho himself if be were induct 04 with such conduct without denying sw i ng the ar' by pyieg The Hon. Meer concluded by he eerhdo hoped the John he Russelllio Hon . .for his Gentleman cl ec l ar at wouldi on e_ t • 5e 4 drop until he had obtained that red justice entitled.—( Cheers. ) be r e n s o s t t a 0 1 I owl Bich he Os in with the conduct of Ministers, nor Mr. AGLIONBY said the country wwiotbuldth7ressardloot,be;l considered at all in Committee. Ht' use 'aree Member of this had bo ar. the Committee, and neither a Committee, for, in point of fact, the re b el stsbjeet h& ne d OP ' 8 nt.--( gesc 'edi lb° forming a judgme c , ina ern a be lowed an opportunity of persons out of doors interested in the question , Finse had been don o wn e b public were not satisfied that justic trieve its As far as the Hon. Member for burye, c gs r Hear, bear' )a t oe ego 0 . os racter, by granting the inquiry.—a e e the " ° • a ht P ° l l o (Mr. Aglionby) implored the House to re Mr. JERVIS said that the decisten ui _ t _ a . r I thad tl bee *lraP °l. 1.11. the motion would not satisfy the countryhars`tateral plot Baronet opposite (Sir James Graham) the eh e " c a uffien ° F , n ro d m er! te! c•of _ t a h s e Hon*te _ r i :o f t flTreFinsbury, r o i s f b ur nothingy, whichin the c l d o t r o e o s ro p Hon. Gentleman.—( Hear, hear.) But o ,r_ ge ntlen s ilo: / Was it sufficient to sooth the feelings e ; g°u triet ° wed ed Member of the House of Commons tonsay (Laughter.) A Gentleman, a Memb er rs had been° We ' it I have opened your letters but I found d n o ith i t n h g st ln „slo e tir e d e ;a . si ,s a up in his place and said that his lette to a yes all that he asked of the o H p o e u n s e e d..... _ y rclheere' ) Of °I a a rra , '" he t° by what authority they toe w la ther e O s clear that they had been opened upon f it were c ' 3° 'lttit ° e warranta?—(Cheers.) f , on Secretary produ of State? If so, what objection coo g . a ded the Minister should have the power of a rani'