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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORD S, -Feb. 28. The Loan CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack at Five o'clock. A message from the Commons brought up several private tarns. On the motion of Lord BROUGHAM, Britten's Divorce Bill was read a third time and passed. IRISH CONSTABULARY. Thea,Earl of CLARENDON, on behalf of the Marquis of Norsiartb7, gave notice of the intention of that Noble Marquis to bring the question of the Irish constabulary, of which he had S given notice, before theUGARir LordshipsDUTlES on Tuesday next. 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 tliscussit.n it seemed to be thought that he was premature in making observations on a measure that was likely to come before that House in the shape o' a Bill. It was upon these grounds that he wished now to make a few observations. Thy were now informed, from the highest authority, that the resolution in another place would take effect at the time the resolution passed. He was not now dealing with foreign sugar merely, but with the equalisation of the sugar duties in our East and West ndia colonies : and in the years 1841 and 1842, when the ugar duties were brought under discussion, he had brought the same thing under the notice of the House. 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 bo supposed a final measure, but was only intended to give, as it were, a notice of its final legi.lation proposed 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 di:l 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 brought by sea than that which was imposed en the same article into France by land. True, there was no mention wade of either England or Belgium, but the effect was still the same, because English iron nece , sarily came by sea, while that of Belgium came by land. Since the former discussion oa this subject he had communicated with some influential parties can 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 unjustly to the East Indies. This, he 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 as.`Prove. When it was endeavoured to impose equal duties on su gars 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 ha was not at that time a member of it, hatl attempted a similar measure. They had classified tea', and attempted to impose an ad valorem duty on teas. The argu ments tor 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 vlfficulty even areong the merchants themselves to ascertain the peculiar value of each species of sugar, and this was the reason why the duty of 65., which had been imposed on East India Segal -4, which were equal to clayed sugars, had been repealed. In 1823, in replying to Mr. Woolrich Wichmore, he bad stated this es the reason why he repealed the duty of 53., which had been imposed on East India sugars. He was persuaded that if 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 merchants. 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 et the discriminating duties of 1831, the ground on which they were departed from, and the reasons for the present proposed duties. The Nc,ble Lord concluded by moving for 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 discu-si,n of a ques tion which was not regularly before the House. When the measures of her Majesty's Government came bef ire the House he should be prepared to defend them in every particular. He deprecated any construction of a Bill which had not gone throuz,h the other House of Par liament. He ventured to repeat the declaration he had made on a previous evening, that it was the intentior of Givern ment to equalise 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 CiIANCELLOR, in proposing the second reading of this 13111, 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 alliee.t of the Bill. A party was charged with misdemeanour ; say for three or six months, er a longer period. He was advised by his conn.el that the judgment was erroneous, and he ought therefore to apply for a writ of error. But immediately after the sentence was pro nounced 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 sf the law, and if the imprisonment was not of long duration it Lequently 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 granted without bail or security being gives ; but this being found inconvenient, the law was afterwards changed, and this person bringing the writ of error had to enter into his own recogniz Ince!, 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 standing 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 t e a 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 be 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 (fury 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 ciencies which do- lapse of time had occasioned. In the last seseon his Noble Friend had brought in a Bill to remedy the evil, but it was not in his ( Lord Lyndhurst's) opinion free from defects, and he had accordingly opposed the second reading. Ifon some future occasion he would bring in another Bill to avoid those defects, he would support it, but if he did not, he ( Lard Lyndhurst) would introduce a bill. There were mea3urcs in ptsparation, which he hoped shortly to introduce to their Lordships.. Lord CAMPBELL said he rose to oppose the Bill. His Noble Friend •earned to have utterly forgotten the course he took last session. The Bill that had been brought in by his Noble Friend the Lord Chancelor w is, ipigsinnts rerbis, the Bill he Lad 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 ashen 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 Hill for the rich and not for the pour ;" end 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 were caught, and elle 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 caning 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 stat.ed it was.—( Laughter, and hear, hear. ) - Tho LORD CHANCELLOR said his No1;10 and Learned Friend had evidently mistaken the character of the two mea sures.—( Laughter.) The reason why he opposed the Bill du: ing the last session of Parliament was because he thought it was introduced to meet a certain political object. What his Noble and Learned Friend trot 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. fte had also stated that a certain Member of the Howe of Commons, Mr. More O'Ferrall, was the indi vidual who canvassed Members of that Howe 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 deseribed as introduced with a political object. H e saw no reason whatever why. because a Bill should have the effect of doing an act of ri . ,4ht to an individual, be that individual whom he may, it should be liable to be called 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 ascertained that his sentence was a just one. He should ever esteem it one of the most fortunate circumstances of the events which took place last session, that this Bill was placed on the Statnte-book. He was glad to see that the Bill was I,kely 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 b een unable to theive requisite a tt en tion to it. On sueaking to his Noble Friend on the wool sack, h' had observed that this pas a very awkward time for uch a Bill. He (Lord Bririgh.rn) did agree with his V oble Friend in the general observation, thai the d ustice ought never to be loaded wi s h th e accusation of tiolitoLot. al iVe ; but there was another general observati on , that it NU 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. Ho 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 bat there were eases where the party Ought net to be kwid is eaeape; he could easily coueeive 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 subject. Bail in error could not be had, it was true, unless 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 ffieulty. 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 re tilt of the:: Lordships' attention. Lord DEN II AN thought that the reason why this im portant subject had not before bean 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 measure 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 Secretary 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 House the report of the railway department of the Board of Trade, relating to the projected railways in Buckinghamshire, Hamp shire, and Wiltshire. Their Lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Feo. 28. The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour. NEW MEMBERS. Mr. W. B. Raring took the oaths and his seat for the borough of Thetford, and Mr. C. Tower for the county of Berks. SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY. An HoN. MEMBER 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 Collie Eaten ion Itailw•ay Bill. ~'~~'' •: ~~.~ SOU l'H A VPTON DOCKS. Mr. AGLIONBY brought up the report on the Southamp ton Docks Bill, ar.d stated that the standing orders had been complied with. SOUTH-WESTERN EXTENSION RAILWAY. Captain MANGLES presented a petition in tavour of the South• Western Railway Extension Bill. NATIONAL SOCIETY-IRELAND. Government that they were disgusted with what had taken place, and that they telt 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 themselyee to support the Government.—( Loud cheers.) They beard 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 tittered 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 to-morrow. He called upon them, therefore, to support him. If they refused to do him justice, let not the Hon. Secretary of War say, as he said the other night, that he (Mr. Duneombe) was afraid 'o have the subject elucida'ed, 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 dirreputahle means for obtaining that information—(Loud cheers.) The persons who possessed that informati , nhe 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.—(lmmense 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 'hat 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. DISRAELI said that the Hon. Gentleman the Mem ber for Finsbury. in laying before the House the statement he hail 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 oppre'sion and an iniquitous act, but no person would pretsnd 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 int / public dis cussion, he would not admit that custom and habit, though it freed the Minister from moral insputati 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 vies a question which now not only en gaged the attention of the House, but interested also t! use of the nation—( Hear, hear)—and he gave the Hon. Gentleman who brought it forward credit for the same purity of feeling as the Minister immediately alluded to; and he was surprised 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 • pu'ation 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, but 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.—( Hear, hear.) All he said was—" If my letters have been opened, the officers of the Post-office hare committed a bre.-eh 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 or not." He was at a loss t o under stand w het answer could be given to that direct appeal. Now that was the view which was natu ally taken by the Hen. Gentleman in his individual case. He 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 tine. The situation of the Hon. Gentleman might he the situation of any Member of that House, or of any subject of the Qneen 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 Hen. 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 urge that this could scarcely be the ewe, 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 he 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 Hon. rifled bue.o ,gl a d u t it' en :a th St di M t ge time. For his own part, he did not doubt that the question might be settled by the Right Hon. Gentleman himself in his Cabinet as well as. and perhaps better, than through their in terference.— Laughter. ) But that was one of the inconve nieeces of popular Government. By not prying into the cor respondence of individuals, they might subject themselses to very great calamities; they might ha ve B r i sto l b urnt, as t h ey had had it burnt; they might have Bi rm i ng h am assa i led, as they had had it assailed.—( Hear, hear.) B ut t h e country struck thebala nce.— veniences for the sake of a popul ar G overnment ; and the country, after eamr,ubsteadr.e) It agreed t o su ff er certa i n i ncon • decide this question. Now, h e 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, hail thought it expedient to turn this question i n to an assault upon the Government or any particular Minister, were not in any way justified by the facts of the case.--( Hear. ) With regard to the country, though it sympathised with the Member for Finsbury on this question, yet it considered it of an importance still further than as it affected the Hon. Gentleman's individual interest. The public wished that there should be an opportunity of deciding whether these warrants of Cue Secretary of State were legal warrants or not. They wished the question to be decided as the question , f 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 lion. 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 made—he was not surprised that the Hen. Member should th nk the decision would not be a fair one. He (Mr. D'lsraeli) could not believe, though the Honourable Member seemed to suppose it, that any intimidation was pu , posely or aforethought enacted in that House. But there was not the slightest doubt that both on this question before them, and on others that had been before them within the last two or three years, there had been misun derstandings that could only have been the result of misconeep 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 seeined to think that, on this occasion, a free arid impartial consideration of the question was not to Le 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 mu , t arise dis cussions, in which, though Gentlemen sat on different sides ofthe 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 Hon. 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 Hon. Gentleman in thinking that he could not get it 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 tt 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, prebably at the end of two or three nights' debate, when the course which has been taken has nettle 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 Hon. 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, tie 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 Hose 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 oho endure it.—(Loud cheers.) No, I take a recent case, because it is fresh in my memory—l mean when the Honourable Gentleman, the other night, called our attention to this particular instance of grievance. He brought forward a motion which at the first blush every otte might see would be opposed by the Cievertittent in existence, and by the Government vvh t preceded them. That at once ' 1 takes from it the appearance of a party question. There is a general impression in this House, that it is extremely' desirelfle. that the decisions of Committees should elleayil 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 he impossible to say that he' was capable of anything kite political collusion, forming his 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 Hon. 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 sytsem, and all the powers of the system, are put into action.—(Cheer: and laughter.) no Right Hon, 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. He 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 been 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 Wooller, in Northumberland, for a t eyeal of so much of the income-tax as was levied on trades and professions. CHARITABLE BEQUESTS ACT. Mr. BLA KE prevented a petition from Kilmean, in the county of Cork, very numerously and respectably signed, com plaining of the proviAens 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 pet tion from the inhabitants of Stoke-upon-Trent, praying that a public market should be erected in that town. „_ RAILWAYS. '.llr. O. 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. HAWES presented a petition, praying for a further ex tension of powers to the Hungerford Suspension Bridge Company. POST-OFFICE INQUIRY. Mr. WAKLEY moved that the petition from certain electors and other inhabitants of the borough of Finsbury, re lating to the 1 2 ,st-office inquiry, which had been pt.< sented on the 27th inst., be printed with the Votes. —Agreed to. WINDO V-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. A STELI. presented a petition from the lion. the Pro prietois of East India Stock, agreed to that day, against the discriminating duty upon white sugars. On the motion of Mr. L ABOUCHERE, the petition was read by the Clerk at the table. POST-OFFICE SPY SYSTEM. Captain PECIIELL -:res:•nted a petition complaining of the opening of Mr. Duncombo'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 ro - near, praying' me tiouSe'to interteie %It'll the 'powera' or the Executive Government when exercised in c )-operatioa with foreign Governments in their endeavours to control the actions of foreigners resident in this country. Ile stated, that it 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 freedom of discussion on poli'ieal 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 w told convert that which was merely intended for legitimate efforts for the improvement of a country into a colourable act of cons. iracy and high treason. He, therefore, prayed the House to inter:ere, and in souse 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. FRENIANTLE said, that with regard to the question which had beets asked by the Hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Roe'), 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 )et come into operation, he thought it would be better to wait and see how it would work. 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 C;overnment in danger, that never was in l eril—(Laughter)—for there neeqs 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 Pench 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 rot a Minister in a position requiring the devotion of his party. I can sup pose a Minister with a very small majority, holding office merely in deference to hi: party. lie would have a right to say, when a party fight or difficulty came, " I expect your de votion—you must be ready limier all circumstances to support me.—( Hear, hear. ) That is not the position of the Right Honourable Gentleman. It is quite the reverse. lie has got a very large party to support him, and although the Opposition before him is dig. tinguished, doubtless, for eminent talent, and which numeri• call is not very contemptible, }et it is not in the position of being celebrated for the power of cohesion.—(Laughter.) Tie 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 fot—no one ever saw me quail."—(Laughter.) But the Right Hon. Gentle man forgets that the foe before him does not wish to fight him.—( Great laughter.) The Right Hon. 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 cumstances.—( The remainder of the sentence was lost in the immense cheering which followed.) I 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 I, for ,ne, was sent here by my constituents to sit on this side, and the Right 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, and to support a Tory Ministry. Whether a Tory Ministry exist or not, is a question I will not enter into—(Laughter)—but I 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, I hope the Right lion. Gentleman will, therefore, on reflection, take a more con descending and charitable view of our motives than he has hitherto been pleased to de. I a:n 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 fir 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 Right 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 laughter followed.) He has left them in the full enjoyment of their liberal position, . and he is strictly conservative cf their garments.—( Great laughter.) I cannot conceive why the Right. Hon. Parnnet should desert his party, they seem to me never to desert him. Never was there a case yet when he had less need to find new friends. I therefore hope that he will be on reflection more indulgent. I look upon the Right Hon. Baronet as having obtained the shrew of liberalism—he is the political Pefruchio —he has outbid )ou all.—( Great laughter.) Ah, Sir, if we could only indure the Right Honourable Baronet to take a larger and smore liberal view of his Parliamentary position than he seems in moments too testy for so great a man to indu'ge 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 I observe the Right Hon. Baronet never refers to any passage which has not previously received the meed of Parliamentary approbation—(Loud 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 is e all sympathise in his fierce struggle with supreme dulness and sublime mediocrity. with the inveterate fee and the candid friend.—( Great cheering.) The Right Hon. Baronet must be aware that quotations from such an authority most always tell,—a passage would he sublime, for example. on friendship written by Canning, and quoted by the Right lion. 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 rublicly to con gratulate the Right Hen. Baronet, not only on his ready memory, but on his courageous conscience. (The lion. Gentl eman sat down amidst loud 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 was now open and avowed rebellion to it, and not as hitherto covert mutiny. After what had been stated by the Hon. Member for Knabury. he (Sir James Graham) would not treat the motion before the House as a question of privi lege. He thought that a 1 the circumstances eon 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 teseset *Le sesess. e se et Sir R. Walpole. and had, in pursuance of eis emieet stes s , : .bunt warrants upon his special responsioiiily. The Noble Lord had stated that he had come down to the House prepared to oppose the motion of the lion. Gentleman. He said that if the Secretary of State were prepared to say, as Sir Robert Walpole bad sa'd, 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. '1 he: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 i—" 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 desisinn 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 je'ty'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 =atisfactory. That Committee, so constituted. had investigated the subject, and had arrived at a conclu•ion which appeared to be satisfactory to the House of Gimmons. It was of great im portance that the House should hear in mind what had been the allegations of the Hon. Member for Finsbury before the constitu ion 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, the e 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 aprinted. But that was not all. On the 16th of July the Hon. Gentleman had made a fresh appeal to the Howe. He was asked to repeat the charges he made to the House on that occasion. The Hon. Gentle man said he would prefer a 1311 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, end 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 Hon. 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 be tendered broke down only in conse pence of a condition which the Honourable Gentlemen 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 Elwell 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 moat ample, had been ti`ated at their digposel, and that they had proceeded with their inquiry without any reference to party or personal considerations. But the circumstances and conditions under which the Hon. 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. Nov he (sir J. flraham) would contend for it that the Secret Committee was the best end safest tribunal before which such a question could be investigated, and he believed there could be no doubt of the fatt, that that Committee had carefully and deliberately made that examination.—( Heat, hear," from the Ministerial benches.) But the Hon. Member for Finsbury, not satisfied with the report of the Committee, appealed again to this House, and asked it to appoint, in lieu of the Secret Committee, a Select Committee of inquiry. That motion was put, was f u lly di scus s e d , and again the Hon. Member was defeated ; but, not satisfied with that, the House now found him for the third time appeeling to it, and calling upon it to do that which would be exactly the conVertl of its two former decisions. He ( Sir J. Graham) would not weary the House by reading passages from the report of the Secret Committee ; but it did appear by that report that all the elle , satiotil Centaieett in the lign. Mettibers tingittal eherge had Peen investigated. The existence of the "inner office" at the General Post-office had been inquired into, as well as the tads done there, and also the charges al3olil the tirigiiion Inge tied 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 hod been exercised under those Warrants, with a view to aacertalii 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. unanimous on the point, that each warrant had been issued with 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 laity with the long-continued practice of his predecessors, any •letter from pirsonal or sin 'ictive f•elings.— ( Hear, hear.) He would go further, and state in the presence of many Gen tlemen who had private knowt'dge of the tact, that there o as a record lept in the Home-office, sn t , n7n.her in the General Post-office, of every warrant issued by him ; and that every wart ant that had been issued by him had been produced by him before the Secret Committee;—(Hear, brae. ) And not only that, but he went seriatim through all the facts and circum stances connected with each; and without the least reservation or dis4uise ' 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 in this point, then he could appeal to the officers in the Home-offi e and the General Post-office to bear him out. The Committee had had all these officers before them, and no doubt they checked his evidence by th ire. With regard to what had been said about the report. of the Ct•mmittee of the House of Lords, he begged to remind the Home that it was quite enough for him to confine himself to the charges 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 rudest 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, arid 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 . . - that paint. The only joint raised was on the que•tion "ra ther the Right Hon. Baronet had the power or not to or* letters. Lord SA NDi)N sail that he must differ from !he "1 Gentleman oproFito, for he conceived that the Committee did not try the issue on 'he intention of parties, but wh ether their power had been rightly, or-tasted. • of Mr. WARBURTON again objected to the obse rvation the Noble Lord, fer he conceived that they were not ito" panelled to consider the honesty of the Minister. Lord J. RUSSELL said he had heard the stateme nt of the Right lion. Baronet the Secretary of State for the ll°le e d Department. That Right Hon. Genii wan said that he ha exercis d the powers with which he was invested as Secretary of ~.tate •Art solely with a desire to preserve the public peace. Hon. Meinber on his side of the House believed that his letters ad been opened, and to asked the Secretary whether Suet were the case (Jr not. Now, he (Lord J. Russell) could 11131_ help expressing himself as dissatisfied with the G overnment persisting in the course which they had taken—( Hear, hear) .-e and lie felt that an Hon. Member was degraded when te_e, correspondence between himself and his constituents rir violated. The Right lion. Baronet said that he acted soil with a regard to the public peace. They had not said or the Hon. Member had been engaged in any treasonable o. improper correspondence, for if he had that would give the eo . t of the Minister another feature. But the Right Hon. Genitellea man would not give any answer, though he (Lord J. Rss , thought that he might have done so. It therefore appeareui. him that the letters of the Hon. Member had been opeoe'L Whether the officers of the Post-office were called the bar of the House or not, it was clear that if the letter. had been opened they had violated the privileges of the It'utthes The Right Hon. Baronet said nothing of this privilege, oefe declared that nothing had transpired to show t hat the N ub , Member for Finsbury had acted otherwise than as a loYal_ote, jest of her Majesty, and that nothing had come to his lin 6 ledge that affected his character as a Member of that Huy., This declaration he (Lord John Russell) thoug ht very nrio terially altered the position of the question before the m• . was ready to take the declaration thus made. Had it not ec o made, he might have felt that, considering the cireumst, that a high privilege of that House had in his o p inion : x i; violated, a further investigation was necessary. ne an d thought that that declaration made a material difference.. he now conceived that that investigation was unca lled The answer, it was tree, was unsatisfactory ; and, in his ° l; if nion, to have given an answer, yes or no, would have bees better than the course which the Right Hon. Baronet bad r e d sued. Yet, notwithstanding this, there was still a rev point of which he ought to have the benefit. I f a person his cused of a treasonable conspiracy were to ask him whether !"o letters had been opened or not, he would not be bounds IPlyo, a direct answer to the question. After three nights' r. of conceived that the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chance toy the Exchequer would not come to the discussion of hia nie ls P articular topic with any very pleasant feeling. The D.a, Hon. Gentleman seemed to have established a different st. hen° dard of rebellion than that of '45. He feared no re , b i t e against the Crown or the Throne ; the rebellion of the hire.` benches.—( Laughter anti cheers.) Happily far be e. self, he (Lord John Russell) had no aPPreaffeet eion of such a rebellion —it did net him.—( Laughter on the Ministerial side.) But ther e "- Ile other to; is to which he must allude before he sat dowc.,,e d id alluded to the opening of the letters of M. Mazsinis i atoll: that this was an act unworthy of the country. and Tejo' the most despotic Government of Europe would hardlY tioe t dined to commit, and one which was altogether ;no n t the with the freedom of the country. He did not believe tba_idirg Government had any intention to betray a personlool within the British dominions, and he had entertained ;hob that information had been furnished to foreign Power' ett eish might cruelly implicate persons who had been enjoying .0 bed protection. lie was happy to say that that imprel p so' been removed by the explanation which had been give or other place. Fear these reasons he could not. vote for th e s°' tion of the Hon. Member, but should, on this eteoa:n port the Government.—( Loud cries of Divide, dirt° e ah jits' Mr. M. MILNES rose amid such clamour, and 9;° ;oplsi ll culty obtained a hearing. He said he was anxious O bis 0 0' why he was about to take the part of a rebel, and en , t bog' sion vote for the motion of the lion. Member for r oe etii' His vote had nothing to do with his support of th e L e 11 0 ' ment, or with the character or feelings or h on our of t° Member for Finsbury. But he believed a secret war r t l ' o n b e r an anorrnly, and of no avail tor any act which Ovas •tooti tifii-d, because it was bad for an act not intended to be.l Hb and if Col. Maherly were to be brought to the bar of thl he could give no further information than he had sires rr o fjcer, He regarded his Right Hon. Friend es the head polie_isterot, of the kingdom. Great laughter. ) As the first All sea the Home Department, his sin yeillance was exterin,ororielea powerful. He would not refuse to vote with the o° l o o Member for Finsbury, because he thought by refus' 0114 leave the question open whether or not they had been open JO the Post. office underlings.--( Hear, hear.) Bea kje ''hich not know but on some future occasion the power 0 es plsi Home Secretary possessed, but which he declined l° ote le° the exercise of to the House, might he abused hY io honourable or conscientious Minister. He beliee,e pe ts I heart that the Right Hoe. Baronet had not a bused t o " teo th j l, the law conferred upon him, but there was no Paled le y under other circumstances. and in the hands d i ° „„aw a t viduals, it might not be abused. On these &Vi e f6t* - stitutional grounds he would support the motione--• cheering from the Opposition.) 5t of ibs Mr. WATSON, who rose amid loud and e arn- o.' o o " &vide," said he would not trespass on the Ho.,ereo. country called upon its representatives to record the on this subject. He would vote for the rnotionofctbeeisfljig. Member for Finsbury.—( Cheers.) The question ('„ Prlibs Members' letters would ultimately become a elorat i°- e tsill t ee lege ; but previously to that it was necessary to aleolintdra facts of the case. That could be only done la Post.office officers to the Bar of the House. " 1 . I forts i l f i• question affecting the rights of Members was to be ir Pr. 0 ,0 it should be considered whether it trenched upon o de or leges. A most important admission had been o tt iltsat Noble Lord the Member for Liverpool, who said Lueletles• cretion exercised by the Secretary of State bad4beteTte" considered by the Committee.—( Hear, hear.) 0 rot, was the meaning of the ts verdict of the Committee.,r 404 the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, in the fervour of d ies; o struck the hat of Mr. Hawes who sat beneath him, arose ; roars of laughter followed, and it was sotne . :4o o lt the House regained its usual gravity.] The Cor T i r ol orte e $ in point of fact, given no verdict in favour of the '' l w' o o for they had never considered the question at l' et " ; ',et L i ei r not then monstrous to tell the country that the " : ;ef 41 4 Baronet, or the Noble Lord the Member for the c aiei: don, had been ac ,&tted, when the matter of whiru d 001 accused had never been investigated.—( Ren ew° tetif e t it s " Hear, hear.") Then, if it had not been investigloo tbs necessary to take the next step which the House 1 . 101 call the Post-office officers to the bar of the 1 1 ° u t alk ! 0 0 1 discussions on this question they had heard greo t r a ct , ot motioes, but how could they talk about motives t ' d befor e ," The Right Hon. Gentleman had been merely es lle , r,l# Committee and asked how many warrants he hales„'eeDrit-elt out inquiring into the circumstance/. In the t eellikr e eel' took the liberty of addressing the House, and °l° 0 11 00 he now believed, that those general warrants w ere oee sf He was told that there had been general warrants petee It. was no such thing. Was the licensing of b 0 the Second legal? Was it the aY'teiotiator resent day ? Then the Secretary of State 040'011 warrant to seise upon certain papers, bat the „ge Wh e el' rants had been deprecated by courts of law, al es tt they had been brought under are notice of the inergriess hirer minster-hall, condemned as illegal. The e t ° 094, mei licensing system were not general warrants. et a eprir - le; held that opening a Member's letters was a brrae", °p etit a' in 1822, the House had to consider the question O' s 100 th r ters going to the prisons at Manchester, fro , ..oai"eifi' Parliament, and the House then declared that Tits P t hO. „ tole letters of the Members of that House was a brew' ea le leges. If it were in that case a breach of pri/i le gZbeW a greater breach when the letters were addressed to fp do t by one of his constituents.—( Hear, he ar ' )o belief Glared, in the face of the country, his s"l ein " 0 1 00' he believed general warrants to be illega7 ude r f tbs was the opinion of the best lawyers in West " ac ts 11 .0: 0 1 (Hear, hoar)—and he consequently considered I len e • present and of former Home Secretaries , in ref, Ste e ps l b warrants, to be illegal and unconstitutional. pot sr ~%eel State—nor several Secretaries of State— ce old tot tre g eel law. Custom, and privilege, and prerogative, 01 14 der i ti oe, Wished by use e, or by Arts of Parliament , or bY v i e ral i ell et' i r e of the courts of law.—( Hear, hear.) Thi s g e 1 system appeared to be somewhat similar to that ' 1) t° feP Y ' I°)# robbing on Gad's-hill, which it was atsemn'eecheeed usa a se.—( The Hon. and Learned Member eo ° lee §0 e ri ing he es ould support the motion.) 'de" f ler r be t' 0 Mr. HUME rose, when the cries of " Di" o i rf oo r o and the confusion so great, that the Hon. Member; ;eel 0 , lil t in any manner interrupted, he would move tO , eo ion .t ioot of the debate. He was determined to give eql,, fro! sentiments on this question, which was altoget_7pieceOse lb one. It was a question in which the Comind re kn oso oitp, more importance than the House. He did not o ,, en iog i Right Hon. Baronet could refuse inquiry. Th.eled t ea l ' 'be out a warrant was decidedly illeal, and he 1? l e le i ga l lik e e l e th el when a warrant existed, the practice wee ce erse e to rrA„ ( Hear, hear.) It was a great want of trwr a _ et the. _ re, Right Hon. Baronet not to declare whether or . to th, t hey . had been issued. He allowed the odium to aria s se is e ,, office authorities ; and if they had opened with n e e d ne ed were not to blame, and if they had not been l e ad beertr o f t e were equally innocent. But he believed they 1, the letteP i r " t# The Right Hon. Baronet had not denied that h on. ° the., Hon. Member for Finsbury had been o pencel e u4 4o 4 o l re sea; House did not stultify itself it must grant th Nothi ng ° the Vi e r , wise it would be lost in public favour. _ calibersdtt'letteste required than that Colonel Maberly should De loOl e and asked, fi rst, if he had opened the Hon t • th e. of d b e " , and if so, by whose a uthority? If by ha t d _ opo lote., o o o , or sty' (le" get° cretary he must exonerate himself, he Right .. - 11 l fi f e:berr e i r o the country. He must say that t e treatment of his Hon. Friend was very hare e o n e e bet then read extracts from the speech of tb Finsbury last session, before the Committe;" m ittee ' ri ot e l which the Hon. Member asked the Ce he fa _ n et , whether or not his letters had been opened ;, an if the 744 0 0 _: dared his intention of re-opening the !n e clT c r f ro ittee e of o r for rd i e " : l: ! u nt r ! I s f i ; P I! the Committee was unsatisfactory. eolTnben plaint reported ; a i o n d r t e b fe e r reference o A t i h e e m l b i report Ur'fforl•frlig profession asked for an inquirirna.shAtandi;srepce h i e ow sol fe r ri tto --(Hear, ' hear.) The insinuations re i p h e •, perOn - ror jir ftohratt,hheeirheadrimbeez minocsotrrbeesplootetneewi to the,:rogbt °'/Ote " ear ' ping do , quirt'Ho n. could o Member,ot abned surely justifiably i nt o admitted painful ch a ch art th g e 0 ";b:s , t o, Right Hon. Gentleman tacitly ld manfulle dope ea lion. Member's letters, and he shou s _ 0 he pi 1; fo manner of the Right Hon. Baronet h roud t° denl he 3 ri t ‘ rg o• himsel f t° . ion t ' id t if he lrer' ea pdo e oee a of m n a d o if of he sp h ir a i t t i n o o r t, bhoenwouourldwhooavide bi.Leiript with such conduct without denylngeenoring tbe a 110 , to The Hon. Member concluded he hoped the Hon. Gentleman redress to • s 6l Lord John Russell for his declarat b ion t otts b e svo u i d di n a o t t naiglit w tw :i t c lll3 b ern h esitittes: drop until he had obtained that not h• of t justice entitled.—( Cheers. )rep° w ith the!otd n ov o .; :0 Mr. AGLIONBY said the he real subiee' i t Committee, for, in point of fact, t it had beenovsoto'sr_r oor with the conduct of Ministers, nor considered at all in Committ_e:ero._er of this beeoes r the Committee, and neither a D n the question,,lgeo, / ( i i, t he persons out of doors interested udgtoent'lorceree C Od .untry would n „Do a e lowed an opportunity of formingr et e l nseure er as c done , s co , As far as the Hon. Member foo:4trieeo had b,"" d ot 0 public were not satisfied that j the House to reteriacev.o, e aiSsie` (Mr. Aglionby) implored (Heart r l OW flo e racter, by granting the inquiry. . The t I ,bet , the motion would not satisfy th_ i e ra e . o iamo he a W I ; t ee Mr. JERVIS said that the dem • Baronet oppesite (Sir , James U denee of the.ell_rooectee 0 .. got ? e knew of nothing in the correspon wise the t ' n d li s truf st 'lecl for Finsbury. which could compr3 Hut wa s %ley' s° iloi s Hwoans. it G hear. l.e el . a gen q-iu°ll:tri..)f. the Itlibt et be I,,.emberesn,u,tfffiettmbierainHit.o-t-oos(esitiotoeftahcr,otoh,erafoene.,:tu,:sday::::}:iniogy, t:trio:co:et:0,10 ( I La u have g ) A h toefir t.medyoGur..nlettipternrsanb,uat m e mber of ,t e h ee a ` e seeel l i e t ,loh t e t inup ti t s placebe aaskneddsaidof rra n" be t by what authority they had beep , op( the wa . the re, Ali t that his l e tters hawll e o l oi , th clear that they bad been opened i !! tion ocalid oce je o : o o p S r e o c d r u e c ta e r y t h o e f w S a t r a r t a e n ? t s ( so dhe vi e l r i s s" ) 0 0 1 ; c_ i ,,ti ; t ere er ee t o the Minister should have the povier b le- 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 Hon. 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 lion. Member, an intimsey 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 he had paused 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 en 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. Alember, that no circumstance had ever come to his knowledge,in the discharge of his public duty, that was inconsistent with the Hon. Member, either as 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. BULL ER.—I said " a civil answer to a plain ques tion."—(Laughter.) Sir J. CR AII AM—Well. a " civil" answer.—(Laughter. ) Now, he would say, that while he held the public office he did. tie felt bound not only to answer so the best Pt his ability ques tions put to him, not only b) 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 lion. Member that in nothing he (sir J. Graham) had said or done in this matter, did he mean him the least personsl disres ect.—( 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 sh old ever shake.— (Cheers)—and he would now sit clown, again repeating that he knew nothing of Wm that reflected on hi: 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 front what had already transpired, her Majesty's Go vernment would have deemed it sufficient to have framed some Bid that would hare guarded against those abuses in future.—( Hear, hear. ) But as his Learned Friend had brought it on again before tee 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 his explanation, said one word in denial of his Hon. Friend's statement. The Right Hon. 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 amhority. The Hos. Member for Finsbury hail stated that he could prove that his letters had been opened — that nothing in the course of this debate had been sated as a Puflicient authority or reason for doing so, and therefore he was justified in pressing for en investigation. But the Right Hon. Gentleman had resists(' 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, whst had the Commit tee done? They had reported that M. Mezziors letters had been opened, and stated the grounds for doing so, and that they did not con sider the Right Hon. Barenet 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 lion. Friend's letters had been opened at all or not, or any warrant issued for the par 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 judgment 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 Hossiek) would say that, let a Minister holding so high an office as that of Secrete( y for the Hume 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 eu.tt use zurimier 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 eircumslan. e. It was this—throughout the whole of its details there was not the slightest notice of the opening of the letters of his Hon. 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 eircusr.stances 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 jus. ice 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. 'I he 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 Con milre which had to investi 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 Cu•nmittee 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 ri.en, 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 nasj irity ; that it was evident that there had been considerable :fifference in the Com mittee, and that, in his opinion, the minority were right, and he hail acted upon that opinion. Such was the result cf the review of a decision of a Committee. But in the case of a Secret Committee the business becasoe much more involved and difficult ; and in the case before them it was peculiarly so. There was just reason to suppose that in the Com:nitiee a hi s h 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 diet in their favour, and they left the House and the country to come to the conclusion, that the grou ..ds 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 furtherinvestigation could remove ; but that, as his lion. 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 unckr what circumstances it was that he had issued his warrant ? Would it not be better to say at once that he bad 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 Bight lion. Baronet, hut 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 bad 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 hat the refusal was tantamount to anything but an . _ acknowledgment that the letters of his Hon. Friend had been opened, and he consequently could tile 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 aught 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 only way to escape from the difficulty.—(Loud cries fer division.) Mr. WARBURTON said that he did eos altogether differ from the Noble Lord, but there was one point on which . he did differ from him. The course pursued b y 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 to the witnesses 4lo t n o . e l tl ar e o id n e e t t e , there had boo no question put l MR. ROEBUCK AND THE ABSENT IRISH MEMBERS. Mr. E. 13. 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, was 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'airt time since he saw with considerable sur prise a spo , :ch attributed to the Hon. Gentleman it, the Times newspaper.—(Order, order. ) The SPE AK ER said that the Hon. 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 totributed 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, arid it is quite irregular for any H. n. Gentleman to allude to a previous de bate during the same session. Mr. ROCHE—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 COM BE rose to move, " That certain officers be longing to her Majesty's Post-office do attend this House at its neat meeting, for the purpose of informing this Howe under what authority they had been parties to the detaining, delaying, or opening any post letters of Thomas Slinf., , sby 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 had 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 whr.t ()enured on a former occasion ? He was told, in the first place, that he had 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 ufficers 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 alter the display of injustice which to:ik 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 o;!ening of his letters. Now, he asked, what had occurred in reference to this subject? Ile did the other evening, and he dial rissv, 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, most be sharezt by all of her Majesty's Ministers, that they must all bear an equal 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 must have been the person who issued it. If that warrant were issued, he ( Mr. lltincoinbe) would not believe it was done with the knowledge or sanction of the Right Hon. Gentlerl.an at the head of her 'slajesty's Ministers. He woukl n ,t now believe that the Right lion. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, knew , :nv thing at all about the matter; he did nst believe that the night Honourable Gentleman was ever consulted as to whether his letters should be opened or n,,t, ; he acquitted him entirely of it, anal he did not believe that if he hat known it, he would have permitted it. Whatever offence his observations gave to that bench, the whole of the Ministry must share it among them,—(Hear, hear.) Now, what had oc curred in reference to this question? When he presented to this House the petition of Al. Matzini, be certainly then knew nothing at all of his letters having been opened. As far as he was concerned the House should now know all the truth. Whdn he presented M. Mazzini's petition be knew nothing of the opening of his letters, he did not even sweet 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. Duncombe) must have known wheta he presented M. Mazzini's petition that his letters had been opened. He knew nothing of the sort. On the 24th of June le presented the retition of M. Stolzman ; he knew nothing even then, and did not suspect that his letters had been stopped. On the 2d of July he 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. Duncombe'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 errs—(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. He therefore gave notice of a motion of that sort, and said that if he could only get a Committee of Inquiry, that he would ascertaie the Names of parties, which were notorious in the Post-office, and that he would have the whole thing ont. 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 nu longer between 'M. Mazzini and the Government—it was no longer between him and the flight 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 . _ he'Secretary of State or not. The Right Hon. Baronet then said hat 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), he'moved an amendment that a Secret Committee 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 ne satisfaction whatever on the subject Amongst those insinuations the Hon. Member for Pontefract had told 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, arid he mentioned Mr. Lovett. Well, what was the case of Mr. Lovett? He (Mr. Duacombe) 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 justification of the Government opening his letters? Be fore that time he had never heard 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 burr 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.) Was there any proof that he (Mr. Duncombe) was connected with those individuals? He had never heard their names, nor had be 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 part) 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 1,700,0e0 individuals. Those political prisoners had been imprisoned for political offences committed during the period that his Noble Friend was in office. la 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 case of those prisoners should be taken into consideration with a view to their release. Well, what was the result? The House was equally divided upon 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 tamed 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 ;rayed to be called to the bar of that House, but that prayer was rejected. Next, in the year 1812, 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 case. Well, in 1842, the manufacttr 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 reople 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 let tore of a treasonable character tYtin — al 1112 r torlP, "tlie ;F stiglrle lialouralffe must have kept them himself.—( Great lauehter.) Amongst the letters of a " suspicious-looking character " that he then received—( A laugh)—he now held one its his ham!, which certainly appeared as if, to use the technical phrase, it had been " operated upon"—(Loud laughter)—and if closely examiued, 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. Sturee 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 so much excitement—so mach moral ex citement as is to be witnessed here.—( Laughter.) And but for it the Tories would he triumphant here.--( Laughter. ) A num ber of men hare 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 flobhouse 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 thin!. In the course of 184:1 he had no communication whatever w'th Mr. Feargus O'Connor; and, therefore, he should be glad to know upon what grounds his letters were opened. —( Hear.) If he could prove that they had been opened by the servants of the Post-office, let them show their authority for opening his letters.— ( Hear, hear.) If they produced the authority, then it would be for them to justify it. hit her the Government had issued warrants for the opening of his letters, or they had been opened without warrants.— ( Hear, hear.) If they bail been ripened without a warrant, then, no doubt, a breach of privilege had been committed. He did not now, nor did he on the former occasion make this a question of privilege. Thar was a question which the House would decide wh e n 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, lied 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 be was now forcing their at tention to.—( Hear, hear.) A cemplaint was made to the House that the letters of a Member named Thompson were opened at Hull by the order of a military Celonel. 'I he 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.—(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. He did not at the time agree with his Hon. 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 pried' ge. 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 force of law when approved of by the judges of assize. One of the orders of the visiting magistrates of the gaol of Manchester was, th it no letter should be delivered to any prisoner without being read by the gaoler.—( !rear, hear.) However, this was quite clear, that in the debates on the case of his Hon. Friend the Member for Cumberland, the Right Honourable Gen tleman at the heart 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 Hon. Friend's correspondence had taken place in the Post office, it would have been a gross violation of the privileges of the House.—( Hear, hear.) He would not trouble the House with long quotations from " Hansard."—( A laugh.) He would only ask them to consider what was his case. He 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.—( Hear, 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 cheeri ng ) He could not yet reconcile himself to the b e li e f t h at 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 infotmation. He would prove to the House that he had not availed 'himself of any secret betraye,Fl by a discarded servant.—(Loud cheers.) If a man picked his pocket, and another men came to Item, and said, " I will tell you who it was that picked your pocket ; I know him ;" he would turn such a man out of his house, be cause he would be betraying him.—( Hear, and laughter.) But noth.ng 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 stilted that there were several persons connected with the Post-office establishment, who were perfectly ready to come forward and to state what they knew they were perfectly ready to tell the ie •ir te to ((A !I t ut la] ett, . t ai 64t 0, ii,,, th o Of