The Sun. — London, England, 1845-02-19 00:00:00

a+ ____ -t once to the constitution of thlit Committee. He ob jected to the course which the Government took—to the kectiese winch the Right Hon. Baronet took—but his ob etions were over-ruled, and he was required to place before that Board all the charges which he had m a d e i n the H ouse of Commons. He 'did not attend, and the real reason he would tell them afterwards. There was not an individual on that Committee in whom he could trust —not one member in whom he had the smallest confidence.—(lliar, hear.) He objseted, lastly, that the report s of the Secret Committee could not be satisiee tory to the country, as the reports of Secret Committees never were; and if any man doubted the correctness of that, he wished him to examine into the subject. rl.it.a,heht Committee had instructions to furnish the House eith a report etatieg the origin of the tOnin law, and the expediency fer its con anre s ou the statute-book. The Right Hon. Baronet a'ing epointed and nominated his own jury—having, as he Waist himself, referred his honour to that Commit- Jie-seet reserved to himself the privilege of' addressing hiettls:ititsiel the event of the Committee's report being iimfavoerahle. Ile (Nlr. Duecombe) also reserved to pro v i ded eerivilege of . bringine up the question again, to re, a.. i the report of that Coi 6 nmit . tee were unsatisfac i4;iirll In fu filment he, that evening, rose for a fresh forth '' I f be made cut that in the statements put .n- stead ln that report there was gross incorrectness,. i h of eerteinty, misconstruction instead of steeple and °nest truth , reservation where frankness was re rired, if ~.e be proved that the honour of En:land, the that cr the Gevernment ought to have commanded sh simple truths should have been given, and if he t h e (v p .'d that suehha . cl not been the case, then he thought "Ile would grant that a searching inquiry was ab- Bsolutely necessary into one and every of his charges e at,: e t t. t _ ll e u ? € , s ' , v r. e ) rn ment and against the Right Hon. He was before that Committee red to prove the charges mede against the Right Hon. ' fa '4r t e n t e e t la his place in Parliament,' and he would read c ° , -- 'lie paper what he said at the time, before . that th ° et l a ` t tee• Ile stated first, that in the preF , i l nc t t e s_ of that , ecret-effice private correspondence was vli!ia thenal fe n . I n that place letters were opened, e4eipled to their destination, and the correspondence that te at sent to foreign and despotic Powers. lies‘ 1 1 4 ''"e Secretary of State for the Home Department cn. sft e e ,?' e eeded his powers, and had made a most unc, trie4nal and dishonourable use of the powers that en there ' t° birch —Meer, hear.) Ile had added,. htSiaderneeretairveyerQhttl more letters opened during the been in office, than in that of any who had preceded him. He stated that he tote,r'ecived letters from foreigners, complaining that nitality of England had been violated; that eir despots had been opened at the instigation of foreign ttll, and that their correspondence had been com beeilecated to those Powers, and that imprisonments,. quee ' e uale cte and deaths on the scaffold, were the conse tee e s of those communicotiona. He stated also that correspondence of the Foreign Ambassadors was i t Jested to the inspection of her Majesty's Ministers. he's(Nlr. buncombe's) letters also--the letters of a Mern jn,"_oof that House —his correspondence had been n v e io d - . , l e . ‘' a l t his let!ers had been detained and he bill of indictment he was called on t o o p p e ro t ve h :fore was t /e ) t h e Committee. How were these charges me ',' , w del they find them explained in the report of the eeeret Committee ? Let Hon. Members read it, and they tia'it'ent.ldi.find that not one of his charges had been contra: ; 'l It seemed as if the Right Hon. Baronet h . d liven ahem 1 1 ,,., . em their i nstructions in these words, had ti lling, mystify ev erything." —(Laughter.) They s ".Explain _t Met one of his allegations ; but if their instructron ~,'( r , e, Merely Considered, they had well done their duty. first°Ued laughter.) The Committee was, iu the pla ce • law, and also to , , to inquire into the state . of t executedlnquire into the mode in which it he had been el ent before that tune; and as if that we're . not the su o l i fi r_ - etn,,',3' expressive, they were to inquire i thae'La!lees under which any warrant was is n s t u e ed, so t_hat t the t ni'eht infer from those instructions at least . that jwas required to come out. But how did the lae,-7L,ttee begin their work ? They assumed that the 4 et; * e ' 844 was analogous to that of 1711, when the t estae, Q u een Acne was first passed, but they ought . to tentiecie.t that the circumstances which that law was in 184e h t ° Meet were somewhat peculiar. The law of the c o a l vi ng been assumed to be that of Queen Anne's, tar, but note, proposed to give the history of the mat atete ouf' one word more did they give . of the . inst ill ,tbe law. They thought they seconedtions h were obeying their -3 ' going back to the time ,of Edward the . t laati e ' a cd their report was full of very valuable . antee i Wile ant] research, for at least two thirds of it was fillet ivart,:equatian knowledge. They gave the number of karth e t s I ssued by the Duke of Newcastle, byLorci Car a eoPyll' of they others, but what the House wanted was ~'''',l4",.ohl warrants issued by Sir James Graham, -s clif tl ' -te r•) Not one of the warrants to the t e rlai t ol ta , r e i ng districts were given,—not one war rißive h"'i,e present century had they condescended t I ti °F t v -e ; tin itse• They went on telling them that the fa e etee instentis individuals proved that the practice had el'hie.,4 termer times because letters written to At statel‘ r e . "e , t b e Bishop of ' Rochester, and to other persons, er,e°4Uced upon their trials. But they had not tlthS..eereTnart.Dth.ose letters had been detained by virtue of e ) oe the or State's warrant—they only stated the fact "tear s „tee trials of the Bishop of Rochester, and of on tl;' then letters were produced. He found that t e e e trial : 13 , and t , of Bishop Atterbury, an objection . was Isl:e''. asked 'e",,e counsel in the case,. in examining a wit hiv)ra th e e 1 1 the letters were detained under . a warrant }Zs:wed to rotary of State. The question w f as th n es o e t , Pro ee n fle'wered by the bench. If any o inf o ee en v is - s e te.at a warrant from the . Secretary of State ow e ed th at 'tea at all, he thought it might equally be clerks e,„ resp on ~ , .ine one of the tterraet had stell or it might be that a regular search- f e-"n'a);_seeecib ' granted for the search of papers.. I la er ! ke e , v 4 w ,. Warrant to search for papers,a t l il l a in t dthiveiy d knew also . e oteZ tl titlee tuoat. they wanted, tl e4 it a fcr„ Issue such. But an . to reseal letters—to k h." lett er , berY, fort it was nothing less, s aonh,l it t o send e te ;'°st i n ,' to their original addresse T h °re ly i,Teitous and most unworthy , system—too wh at Comm teeny Minister of any count . ry.(Cheers t . o ) thi:t had i en e said in their rep . ort, in reference former times, that tfaethver seas done in this way in in the Post gt,- \vite n , not permitted to be used tlia"%th o ,," t he express authority of Government; but _ s n ' i Ye ar i'7ltY having been given in a certain portion t f Ilat 'l Y Pri e ,l 2, , certai n letters were then somewha d d in g mie,eicto." Now, he (Mr. Duncombe) would e ,"R th e i r ''euer the Committee of 1742 were properly th:tiaNkr.ilty or not, by those letters that hadn hi thi e ' rudely pried into ; " but this he would gay, la l ets was a had L ad tat eumpliment which the report now before he el en - „"n care not to pay those whose letters of late k o rta r ) svornewhat rudely pried into."—(Cheer and c oif the d,"ither would he say that it was the busi tieve'eaiseat nniittee to do so; hut, as they had not ~_ r of 0 ,, ' 9ely which this lailentreillag pried into" the manner in . ht letter s had been exercised by the Rig tee-ter). B y opposite, he would do it.—(Cheers and . te es repnrtel referring to the Appendix of the Commit . - l ke y ,ree„' the House would find that this extraordr thinY, te - a e , s s, bad been taken by that Committee, Apes Penis th ey did examine into the extent to which li the ) g of letters had been carried on, and that e'd to w bel e this ,Car, e 6 - the " extreme rudeness " which' they the ts mender to the public.—(Laughter.) Now, f rill 'to 4 ornmittee were to conceive it part of , 0 1. w a tl t' th re : s h to tell the House what the Government of et te at h eti undred years . ago thought proper to do, t iPte ta at e l haPPened in reference to the opening of le e eread i at diatant period of time, surely any person, 41:0,lw very t ha t report, would exclaim, " God bless N t , t . be, /.I,Linapertant and interesting must not this /Va g ' I Pla,” % ,"eil it comes somewhat nearer to our !leE,t,*lihnt,.---,kCheers and laughter.) Now, although he lae t ' e t 'ese a 7, e ` e n give the Committee every credit for the 4 % - t e ","'t th e - " theY displayed, yet he could not help say therethe a c result of that research afforded no evidence tie et •T is , tipetl-f'tbe wanted to come at ; but, on the con '°rti' had X s Point he should say the Committee's re (le: leo st ee evaporated, and they appeared to have be 1114:leaved enht'aceouetably and unintelligibly reserved.— ,lli a for e e e _ers and laughter.) Nay, more, he thought .4( 4i °lbl lliti' e at down h e could satisfy the House that „hei: r uPee t P h e e had , .not obes ed the resolutions of the, '''l4l plugs sue.lset.—(Hear.) The Committee, in. tli te en , state 1, that strict adherence was paid to the at Par s of ~, k n , h Part of it tee warrant, and yet, while they said in a sk , ,eee oh the land had been obeyed, it, in fact, had ke e a t ) sp en e r ; and this was one of his (Mr. Dun 'Nisiatl onee complaints against the present Govern tare, on which the public had a right to be t a f tt e---m ee Ile s , N on • h been l. - " ea r.) And why had not this t ° 4' w as . afforded by the report ? I , le , h lti e j e ttk e e t g o h e litLatnav' ou l d t was this—that if it were have compelled the Corn allth);eaed havec, entered the Secret Chamher—(Hear, bi ra „ at ere , ' fey did that, the should have betrayed 1/4a,:eereene's othat Chamber y And here let him say, o rs or th e to this Saeret Cha . mber, he had seen by the Pa p the 11 daY that that office had been abolished. 1 244 4 4 ) h, 9 0 % . ember read a Paragraph from some ( Ittle, Pl3os aet °‘e effect, and then continued. Well, he e4ti not b e t him that this secret office had been closed, or ta( et °t been 1 s aY, as the lawyers did, that the office , lei n u Alit e) ' c 'sed, they had only " changed the venue' i ar ie a, tn ,Wh at ss e a i nd be would ask what signified it to the eeree th e Viaee that secret department was held, so tzlet.titveititrolti,,sipii.erietaii.eGetirereaiteowntinued ' ?---i s Hear, hear.) It mat ae held in the Home-office or in Gels] by he sievedb o . lon g as it was held anywhere; . qc,thiti hnuthory it would be, because it was and to v'taut a 4 Act ofof an Act . of Parliament,. the he Cent re f that I arliament could deprive , the t 4 Y 11 4 ,1 }t tnhit tei , , P° "'er•—(lTear, hear.) In respect then :ortcr,erifilept,_e should say, his opinion was, that p od Umb er state of tike th intention of that House, either law upon this subject, or as to ,_eit, w rive ntie. , c, ,. letters that had been opened during the sh!ior ne L eht 1/ 0 ` 1 " (- And he would further say that e teo b s , ( 'Part ea n ' l t 3 te ar,onet, the hestSecretay of State kor the ( hi ed L tie se _ e had exceeded powers, had made lll a th e '4 upelous use p • rear nume nr , se 0, his power, and had not a gai n ' h c'ar of letters that had been opened.— th e rQf c ' an e he Member , I , 4 e? , see to ~, ers.) Here the Hon. . at t . exit ~.0 report, and having read a passaee, I kit ° I I to s iZttee ci s, a . ute nris i n aY , that it a. ppear . ed by it that 3 ' 72 s , Ilee , %le e ~_ the opening of letters, had been ‘.4t lv e nhi.i z r z teh ' re..4e ianeaei I,.tairsptoesoesntury ; of these, 300 were —that was to say, warrants Z e ts eti l a eh e i e erta l :) ,, P e e r n o i n e g e. of letters by reading iheconte . nts hi ~ 8t(. r eed in J ~ted murders, robberies, forgeries, iceim' 'wer e to :,c ... Ilans for defrauding the revenue, irretli‘eritwn,rer:litttes t.leted. But let the House bear ell e , etw ee there wea a great and marked differ illetil:iteinmeders Led those issued for the detection of eri lethilael tear end i c ' f , s ,e of a political character. The themlre t l e e t e y tn d tglit against s o call iiatiltl:arssia,iitnndst%e4jeicdhi, individualaffect affected only.an tenetllll,-,..° asc ertain were directed were opened,. nh' -,hide the n the name and address of an in- Ya ss a PPe a ' r actet. Political warrants were of a very dif "'' lee a € 'w, by the report of the Committee 4 a fro ' heine fe i n the year 1841 - to the end of the ° .. ee years that the Hon. Baronet was in office, the number of acre warrants issued by then exceeded al! precedent of former Governments. At lila' time, up to the year 184-1, when this report was made the present Govcrimicnt had issued as many L rants in thi'ec pi•ars.—(['ear, hr,ar.) Now, on 1001 , ing o- of the report, 1 c e vas 4 1 ar ever the wee— eould net find thee any thing at all like the number of 44 such warrants had been issued in any three years, notwithstanding the great research and labour displayed by-the Committee.— (Cheers and laughter.) It ppeared by the report that Lord Sidmontle in the year 1812—rather a remarkable period—issued twelve warrants, and that was considered an extremely large number ; yet the Hon. 13aroret (tin (Home Secretary), in wire recent and lass remarksble times, exceeded Lord Sielmouth by live.—(Frear, and laughter.) Again, he would say that the lion. Bet , ronet had made a most unscrupulous use of this power ; and that was most apparent in the use he had made of that power against the two foreigners, M. Mazzini and Capt. Stolttnen.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") He be lieved the country hail not on record any instance of si milar conduct to such an extent.—(Hear, hem) But the Hon. Baronet had said that her Meiesty's Government had so used this Fewer at the instigation of a foreign power, faun whom they had had communications that led to such a proceeding. Now, he would call upon the House to mark the error of the report in this respect. The warrant was issued on the 3d of March, and was cancelled on the 13th of June, and therefore M. Mazzini had no cause of complaint. But he (Mr. Dun combo) would contend for it that M. Mazzint's letters were opened on the 14th of -Tune, the very day before be (Mr. Duncombe) presented his petition.—(llear, hear.) Therefore it would appear that letters had been opened at times when there was no authority to do so ; and it was his firm belief that the warrant had been abrogated for the occasion —(hear, h ar)—and that the whole system on which this practice was founded, had been conducted, to say the least of it, in a most loose manner. But now mark the error of the report. The House of Lords, in their report upon this subject say, that " Letters had been opened for about four months." Now, he (Mr. Duncombe) contended that the warrant was in force from Christmas 1843 to June7lB44 ; and he would ask, was a month to be considered as nothing in a period during which a man's letters were to be opened ?—(Hear, bear.) Therefore he would say, that the Government were in this predi cament—that letters had•been opened from time to time, previous and subsequent to the times at which this report states that the warrant had been issued and cancelled, and, therefore, there was a gross error in this report.—(Hear, hear.) Ile did nut mean to attribute any intentional mistake to them, for he believed they had been imposed on. This, also, he believed, that those letters to which he had been calling attendee, had been opened at the instigation of a Foreign Power but the reason assigned by that Power for opening M. Mazaini's letters was that he had Leen secretly instigat ing an insurrection against that Power, and that the British Government - 4 herefore, had their authority for this proceeding from "High Sources." Now, what were those "high sources?" They were not stated in the report— the report did not state that M. Mazzini was cognizant of those • charges, or obnoxious to them; but if the • Committee had heard M. Mazzini himself, their report would then have had to give a very diff,:rent account of the transaction.—(llear, hear.) But' mark the next. contradiction in the n-port. It not only did not state • the "high source:," bat it distinctly said that the letters wore opened, "net" at the suggestion of any foreign Power.—(Hear, hear.) But, - eoteithstanding this, it appeared that " such information as had been elicited from those so-opened letters had been communi cated to those foreign Powers."—(Hear, hear.) In the House of Lords, th e Marquis of Normanby asked the Duke of Wellington was this the fact ? and the Noble Duke said he knew nothing about it--(Laeghter)—hut the Earl of Aberdeen, in reply to the same question, said he could assure the Noble Marquis that nothing of the sort had been communicated to any foreign Power. —(hear.) Well, then,.to what other conclusion was he at liberty to arrive upon this part of the subject than this, that there was gross falsehood somewhere between this House and the other House, but where, it was not for him to say —(Hear)—but this he would say, that some explanation was due not only to the British public, but to all foreign Powers and' foreign nations.--e (Cheers.) Well, then, the report went on to say that in the course adopted by the Government "nothing more waS done than to frustrate the attempt to create an insurrec tion." But he would ask, was that the proper course to adopt ? Was that a course worthy of Englishmen ? (Hear, hear.) Was that the course for the British Go vernment to adopt to frustrate an attempts in which was involved the lives, perhaps, of those unfortte; nate individuals?—(Hear, hear.) If 'be (Mr, Duncembe) had appeared before' the Committee, he would have shown that M.Afazzinili ad 'got a letter from some unhappy and misguided meta, to the „effect that thq intended to make a descent upon some of the Papal and- Neapolitan States ; that M. Mazzini . had done all he could to dis suade them from so rash an act athat they had fielded to his advice, but it was • then too late ; for the Austrian Government sent their agents to Corfu to en courage on these unfortunate men, and under a delusion induced them to retire from Corfu into Calabria, where they had ordered their ships. This was all done at - the instigation of the British Government ; these niuu unfortunate men, thus betrayed, were tried by a military commission, and very shortly after were executed.— (Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member then read a letter from two of those who had been executed—two sons of Admiral Bandieri—in which they expressed their con viction of the wrong course they had been-taking, de clared themselves satisfied to expiate their crime with their blood, and died crying out " Viva Itelits." Such was the - way m .which the British Government took measures for frustrating the attempts of individuals to disturb the peace of our allies.—(Cheers.) "Why, (said the Hon. Gentlemen with much vehemence) did;you not say to' theirs individuals openly and magnanimously, that their proceedings were known, that. their designs would be frustrated, that they could not be allowed to plot on, British ground ?—(Cheere.) Why did you not tell them that they were rushing into ruin, and that they must desist from their course ?—'Cheers.) - This you could have done—(Hear)—and they would have, listened to you.—(Hear.) No ; but instead of that, you handed them over to the foreign 'Government, and their blood is as much on the heads of her Majesty's present Minis ters—(CheerS)--e'aye, more, so than .on the heads of those individitals who were ordered to pull the tt igger. And if the monument, which I. hope to see, and which is intended, be ever erected to the memory of those men, it ought to be inscribed on their tombstone that they fell in the cause of their country and liberty, through the treachery of a British Government; and the inscription, I believe, would be but true."—(Great cheering.) The Hon. Gentleman proceeded to say that that was not the only ca n e.—(Hear, hear.) Cap tain Sto l .tman, an officer in the Polish army, discovered, like M. Mazzini, that his letters had been opened, and he asked for inquiry and redress. But he was not called before the Committee. No information had been given to the House as to the warrants in his case ; but although the consequences were not so fatal, in reference to the informa tion given to the foreign embassy, as they had been in the case of M. Mazzini, yet the proceedings were most disgraceful to the Government. The warrant was iss.ted on the 17th of April, and was withdrawn on the 20th of June. Now he did not complain -as to the date of the war rants. But all he had to say was, this gentleman's correspon dence with Mr. Galiski in Paris was opened, as was also the correspondence of Air. Wursell. Ne one ever heard of that gentleman's name , until he presented his petition praying for inquiry, ' that he might have the opportunity of wiping off a stain cast upon his character by an insinuation contained in the report of the Committee. Mr. Galiski was mentioned as residing in Paris at the time referred to, as well as another gentleman who was not named. Why was Mr. Galiski •to be held up to reproach, and the other gentleman not named? But the Committee stated that it was alleged against those two men that they had formed a de sign to assassinate a foreign Sovereign, who was on a vist to her Majesty. Now, why did not the Committee name the Sovereign. There were two here on, a visit to the Queen — the Emperor of Russia and the King of Saxony. Why did they not • say which of them it was designed to assassinate?— (" Hear;" and a laugh.) The Committee thought that the allegations against those gentlemen was sufficient to justify the opening of their• letters, at the same time the Committee thought that there was nothing to criminate those gentlemen, whom they had reluctantly named.—( The Hon. Member then read at length the extract to the above effect.) If the Com mittee were reluctant to name those gentlemen, and hold them to the foul imputation of murder, why did they do so?—(Hear.) Nobody asked them. —( Hear and a laugh.) At all events, when they did impute to those gentlemen the crime of murder, they ought to have given them the opportunity of vindi cating their character. Mr. .Wursall was a member of high Polish family, and a man of unblemished honour, utterly incapable of thinking of the crime of •assassination,—( Hear.) As the opportunity was not given to those gentlemen to de fend themselves before the •Committee • which published the charge, they ought to be- allowed to do so before another Committee, and that was what he now •called upon the House to grant. In such a Committee it would be proved that what he had stated was certainly true, that there were, at the time of the Emperor of Russia's visit to the Queen, Russian spies here. Those spies took advantage . of that visit which the Emperor made—at so great inconveni ence to himself, as they were told in her Majesty's Speech— ( A laugh)—to ingratiate themselves with the Russian Em bassy, and to obtain leave to return to their home and country For this purpose they invented the calumny upon those gentle men, and carried it to the Ambassador. Her Majesty's Go vernment acted upon the accusation, but without learning any thing to criminate the accused gentleman, and the spies got what they wanted, and returned to their native land. They obtained an amnesty immediately after the visit of the Emperor; whilst the injured gentlemen were left here, with the foul stain of murderers attempted to be thrown upon them by a Committee of the British House of commons .—( Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Duncombe) did not believe that the Go vernment were aware of what they were doing, sometimes, when they imparted the correspondence which passed between the Poles in their own country and the exiles here. When the Government was requested to open letters, they would sometimes have to say that they contained nothing hut matters of family concern. Was the Government aware of the result ? —( Hear, hear.) There were at present two ukases in force in Poland. One to prohibit any person in Poland from cor responding with an exile, no matter on what subject, under the penalty of imprisonment and flsgging.—(Hear, hear.) .nother decree forbade all correspondence with any person in England, under the same penalty. Under the authority of these decrees, the Countess Sovinski was imprisoned on the suspicion of having corresponded with her husband through the medium of foreign ladies,—•( Ilcar, hear.) The Countess Vurenski was also imprisoned for writing to an exile, and Madame Valdi for corresponding with her husband, was imprisoned and received fifty severe lashes—(Undescribable sensation) — All these had been done under the mandate of that Sovereign or whose visit the House had the other day congratulated her Majesty.—( Loud and repeated cries of " Hear, hear.") He was satisfied that the Government, in communicating such correspondence; were not aware that the effect of makingknown to the Emperor that a wife corresponded with her husband was to subject her to imprisonment, and the most brutal of all corporal punishments—the knout—( Hear, hear)—besides that, her children would be taken from her for ever.—( Hear, hear.) Ought not this Governnient,then, to be very cautious how they betrayed any correspondence to foreign Powers that passed between their subjects ?—(Hear, hear.) Another charge which he had made was that of the correspondence of foreign ambassadors. The House could imagine Lord Aberdeen receiving an ambassador, and asking him, with a gracious smile of good-natured curiosity, "-What news have you got from your country today?"—(A laugh)—and the Noble Earl - had - read all the letters the same morning.— (Renewed laughter.) When he '(Mr. Duneombe) made • ............e ....... ' . thovght tbor ,Ives it, was oble Lord stein of use tle very o( -) the N )bie ietimes led would be Noble Lot d 'Hear.) Gcntletnue Ird, allovo a Gentleman strenuous ded making E SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 19 1845. that charge, many people thought it was imaginary. But what did they find in the report? The Committee of the House of Commons stated that th'y believed formerly such a practice prevailed in the time of Mr. Charles James Fox and Lord Car marthen, hut the practice of opening diplomatic correspondence had for some time past been discontinued.—(The Hon. Gen tleman here read the extract at length, bet in a very rapid tone.) But from the Lords' report it appeared that this phrase of " discontinued for some time " meant only disconti nued since the preceding month of June. (He then read the paragraph from the Lords' report.) He asked the . . House to set the statements of the two Committees one against the other. The statement of the Commons was a most disingenuous quibble.—( Hear.) He would say that the prac tice was most disgraceful, and injurious to the reputation of :h.itain among other nations.—(Hear.) If Hon. Mem bers would take the trouble to read what t-ok place in respect to the Venetian Ambassador in the year 1641, they would see in what way the character of the country was damaged by such treachery. They would find it recorded in the Journals of the House of Lords.—[ The Hon. Gentleman then read a letter addressed in that year to the House of Lords, complaining that the writer's letters had been opened in the Foreign-office, and that when he remonstrated with the Foreign Secretary, the latter assured him that it had been done by mistake. He was sati3fied, trusting in the honour of the Court of England; but he found that the treachery was re peated, and he prayed the !louse, for the character of the Crown and people of England, to interpose and prevent the re petition of "so damnable and disgraceful a system." The House of Lords sent a deputation of Peers to apologise, and to as-tire the Ambassador that the practice should be discon tinued ; hut he retused to accept any amends until an Extraor dinary Ambassador should be sent to the States of Venice to apologise, and he himself should have received an order on the Postmaster-General to send his correspondence direct and unopened. At the recommendation of the House of Lerds these things were done, and the humiliating affair ter minated. ] He should not wonder if all the States with which this country had relations, should require a similar apology.— ( Hear, and a laugh.) He came now to the charge which he bad made respecting the opening of letters in the north of Eng land. The Committee denied that there had been a roving commission appointed to open letters in that part of the coun try, but what were their own statements? They said that they found that in 1842, when there was a violent outbreak in the north, a clerk from the Post-office was sent down on a war rant from the Secretary of State, with authority to open the let ters of six persons, and, at the same erne, another clerk was sent to open the letters of ten others, and afterwards, of one indivi dual, making in all seventeen. r ile read from the report.] He contended that there was no precedent for this conduct. It was absolutely illegal.—( Hear, hear.) Who could tell where this opening of letters ended ?---( Hear, hear.) The Commissioners were not to open any other letters than those described in the warrant—it was rather a vague order: They were to open the letters of six parties names! therein. Now did that mean the letters addressed to these individuals or letters written by them? He supposed it meant both. Now were they to ascertain that a particular letter was in the handwriting of a certain individual ? . There was a great simi larity in handwritings, and the superscriptions of letters might be attributed to persons who really did not write them. They might say " Mr. So and So wrote this letter," but how were they to prove it? They could not do it positively by the handwriting. Then he wished to know what directions were given to the Commissioners to enable them to conclude chat letters were written by either of these six individuals? But he wanted to know whether there was any precedent for this warrant ? He believed it was entirely invented by the Right Hon. Baronet. The same sort of thing appeared to have been issued in August, 1843, directing a commission to inspect the letters of one person, and this was the only precedent he ( Mr. Duncombe) could find. Besides, it was a most dangerous power to cntt ust to individuals ; and it was anything but proper for the Government to have sent them down in this way. They ought then to have some further explanation on the sub ject. In another part of the report the Committee appeared to deal with a statement that the entire mail-bags containing letters were sent to the Home-office f or examination. He never made such a statement—he never said the mail-bags had been opened at the Home-office ; but he did state, and he was prepared to prove, that certain mail-bags were opened for the purposes of the Post-office. It was suspected that some dis honesty was going on, and for the purpose of tracing it out those bags were opened. He never stated that mail-bags of letters had been sent to the Home-office for inspection ; and if the Committee had answered the charges he did make, it would have been much better than answering charges which had never been heard by any one. It would appear that if a letter bearing a particular post-mark, and written in a certain stele of writing, were dropped into the Post-office, it was imme diately dispatched to the Secretary of State for the Home De partment. Now, he wished to know how they were to ascer tain this fact ? Many letters bore the same post-mark, and to all appearances were directed by the same hand. Of course, placed in this difficulty, they often opened letters which they imagined had been written by one individual, and discovered —no doubt to their astonishment—(Laughter)—that it con tained a private 'communication from another.—(Laughter. ) And in this way they opened everybody's letters till they arrived at the one they wanted.—(Hear, hear.) Now, he wanted the Government to show him any precedent to justify this in all the annals of letter opening.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.) He said it was of the greatest importance that they shouldqueting what haveis thean DkexepleanaetfioNe explanation upon did nthis subject.one hundred years Insteadof ago, the Committee ought to have givers a copy of the war rants issued by the Right Hon. Baronet. He came now to the last charge upon this point. He thought he stated in the outset that his correspondence had been violated—that his letters had been opened. Now, upon this the Committee were perfectly decided. In his place in that House, he con fessed in the first instance that he had only been informed that his letters coming through the Admiralty had been opened. He admitted th at at the time he was inclined to dis. t l t t h h o e u l e g s h s p t r h e e v e C t o h m at m h i s t e e l e t h t e a r d s e we c r i e d decided t a u i Upon b t i n e t i l ds i in e es pe i co t c . utledd ß n u ea t vt degradedltioht Hon. ea r , hea r . " in Now, t hi s ea the Post-office, upon the authority of the L d e e u g d rad eh at e i e o r n ieo fo_r Bsaaryo,net.t—ha(tLouhdecriesfeoltf " he must to feel that he was a worthy obj ect of sus p ic ion — that he had anyrespect, :Member r e ef t t h h e o e ls e t s e e i f t Col'am was ons a —( •heen guilty of some offence which the Secretary of State thought entitled him to open his private correspondence. He could not conceive a greater personal insult than this. He could not conceive a greater insult to the constituency he represented. He was not the representative of merely a rotten borough—( Loud cheers)—but of a very large and numerous, as well as an intelligent constituency.—( Hear, bear.) He said, therefore, it was not merely an insult to him, but it was a gross insult to the constituency which he had the honour to represent in that House.—( Hear, hear.) He would go further. If his correspondence was not to be free, he was not a fit representative of them. —(Cheers. ) In the name, then, of his constituency he called upon the Right Honourable Baronet to justify, if he could do se, the opening of his letters. He knew not what story he might have trumped up in the Committee of the House of Commons or the Committee of the House of Lords, but he said the Right lion. Baronet owed it to him and to that House. — (Loud cheers.) He owed it to him and to hie s constituency to tell them and the House the justification for opening his letters.. He asked the Right Hon. Baronet, before he com plained of the fact, if the information he had received was true ? —( Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet replied that he (Mr. Duncombe) knew he was putting a question which he (the Right Hon. Baronet) could not answer._( Bear, hear.) Well, then, how stood the question between him and the Right Hon. Baronet? Why, it was this :—A Member of the Legislature had, in the exercise of his public duty, opened the letters of a Member of that House, and now they found that the Secretary of State, while he had the baseness to per petrate this act, hail not the moral courage to acknowledge it. —(Loud cheers.) lie maintained that this was a degrada tion reflecting not only upon himself, but upon the House.— (Cries of " Order, order, " Chair, chair," in the midst of which the Hon. Member resumed his seat.) The SPEAKER, informed the lion. Member that he had used an expression which reflected upon the individual charac ter of a Member of that House. I11;. - ININCOMBE said he applied the observation to the Right Hon. Baronet. in his Ministerial capacity, and to this ob servation he would adhere.—(Cheers.) Another complaint he had to make was, that the Committee had n' t referred to this subject in their report. He had made the same charge be fore them in the room up stairs, when he was called before them ; but still they were entirely silent upon this point. Now what was the inference to be drawn from this? The inference was that there was nothing in his correspondence to justify the course pursued by the Pest-office gentlemen. The same jus tice which had been rendered to the Right Hon. Baronet, had been refused to him. Nothing was mentioned in the report to vindicate him before the House of Commons, and hence a direct answer was placed in the hands of the Right Hon. Ba ronet. He was placed in this difficulty—he bed been sacri ficed for the purpose of screenin,•s the Right Hon. Baronet, and this was an additional reason why another inquiry should be instituted. He called for that inquiry in vindication of his own character. Well, then, the Committee ended their report in what he must call a sort of summing up ; but they altogether eva ded the question whether they would recommend that this power should be abolished at all. And if any gentleman had taken the trouble to read the concluding part of the report, and could make anything of it, he was sure it was more than the Committee could do themselves.—(Laughter.) Some allu sion, however, was made in the report to Ireland, but this was merely to implicate the predecessors of the present Govern. ment. But Lord Normanby, who had presided over that country for five years, stated in his place in the other House of Parliament, that never while he presided over the Home Department of this country, or held the Lord-Lieutenancy of Ireland, had he issued a single warrant for political purposes. He (Mr. Duncombe) had seldom an opportunity of agreeing with the organ of the Government, commonly called the Morning Ileraki. But he mast, in justice to the editor of that paper, read to the House what he (Mr. Duncombe) con sidered a most excellent article upon this subject. The article alluded to referred to a charge which had been made against Lord Melbourne, of opening the letters of Mr. O'Connell, and strongly demanded that an opportunity should be given to the Noble Lord to disprove the charge. The article went onto state that if the charge:were true, the then Government had been guilty of a direct violation of the constitution of the country. Now, his letters had been opened, and the Government were responsible to him for it. It was a breach of privilege to open the letters of any Hon. Member without an especial warrant from the (Alice of the Secretary of State ; and this justified him in do. manding an explanation from the Right. Hon. Baronet. If the Right Hon. Baronet had not issued the warrant, the indi viduals who opened his letters had infringed his privilege, and he should certainly summon them before the bar of the Ilwuse to disclose their authority. In the absence of any re commendation by the Secret Committee, it was left for Par liament to determine whether this power should be continued. For his part he was convinced it ought to be abo lished altogether—( Hear, hear)—and if the House agreed with him, there would be no necessity for further inquiry except upon one or two points. But still it was neces sary that they should have another inquiry, and a conclusive report on the subject, for the House would remember that the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord Haddington) stated, on the 29th of June, last year, that it was a power which had long existed, and must always exist in any country where there was any Government at all. The Noble Lord added, that there could he no Government unless they were entrusted Ivith this odious power, and maintained that the Government woeld be dissolved if this power did not exist. He said, no Go vernment —no honest Government—required this power. The safety of England needed no such protection as this; and he maintained that the honour of England and of Englishmen demanded a full and unequivocal repeal of this odious power. —( Hear, hear.) Entertaining these views, ho had been in duced to trespass longer upon the attention of the House than he had intended ; and he should conclude by moving, " That a Select Committee be appointed, to inquire into the mode in which letters have been detained, opened, and re-sealed at the General or at any Provincial post-office, and also into the circumstances under which every warrant for that purpose has been issued by any Secretary of State, from the Ist day of January, 1840, to the present time ; the said Committee to report their opinion thereon to the House, and also whether it is expedient that the practice should be continued : —That the report and evidence of the Secret Committee of last ses sion relative to the Post-office be referred to the said Com mittee." The question having been put by the SPEAKER, Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, when the matter was first mooted, be thought it was consistent with his public duty that he should abstain from discussing the manner in which he ex ercised the duties of his office. But he intimated at the same time that if it was the pleasure of that House to institute an. inquiry, and it was the pleasure of his Sovereign to release him from the office he then held, he should be quite willing to make ' a full disclosure of all the circumstances connected with the case which the Hon. Member had brought before the House. The House, however, after going minutely into the details, de termined that a Secret Committee was the proper tribunal for investigating a case of this description. The Hon. Gentle. man, in the course of his speech, had thought fit to scandalise the latter part of the report of the Secret Committee, and he thought, under these circumstances, it was necessary for him to call to the recollection of the House and the country, the way in which that Committee was first proposed ; and here he would take leave to remark, that it was impossible to find gen tlemen more entitled to the confidence of that House and of the country, than the nine Members who constituted that Com mittee. He had often feared that a very large share of per sonal aversion had entered into this discussion ; and yet, on the part of the Government and himself, he did nut hesitate for a moment to nominate upon the Committee a decided ma jority of his political opponents. The nine Members se lected by the House, on that occasion were Lord Sandon, Mr. Wilson Patten, M r. Thos., Baring. Sir Ileathcote, Sir C. Lemon, Mr. Warburton, Mr. Strutt, the O'Conor Don, and Mr. Hawes. Now, the Committee so constituted proceeded to investi ga t e t h e ent i re su bj ect matter now brought under discussion for the second time by the Hon. Gentleman. He had promised that if such a Committee were appointed the whole of the circumstances, so far as he was ac quainted with them, should be candidly laid before them He thought he saw in the House at th at moment at l east a ma jority of that Committee, and he would state upon his honour, in his place in Parliament, that every minute detail, without exception and without reservation, that was within his know ledge, was not extracted from him by cross-examination, but voluntarily tendered by him to the Committee.—( Cheers. ) He asserted that he had voluntarily tendered to the Committee, without reserve, all the information which he possessed on the subject. There was not a point now brought under discussion by the Hon. Gentleman which was not the subject matter of his (Sir James Graham's) evidence before that Com mittee.—(Hear, hear.) He had kept back nothing, he had concealed nothing. If his conduct was base and mean, that conduct had been brought und er t h e i r j udgment, and they had acquitted him of baseness and meanness. —( Cheers.) He had at least had the courage before the Committee to make a full disclosure of the whole of his conduct. Charges of want of credit were easily made; and if it was consistent with the dignity of that House to have such charges banded about, it was a matter of the greatest indifference to him, after his conduct had been submitted to the judgment of the nine gentlemen who composed the Committee. He was acquitted as a gentle men and a Minister, and he cared not a rush what might be the opinion of the Hon. Member for Finsbury.--(Cheers.) Now, the Hon. Gentleman said that the report of that Committee was unsatisfactory and evasive. It was not his duty, being the party accused, to enter into any defence of that report. There were, however, upon that Committee some of the most experi enced, the most learned, and the most honourable Members of that House. He was quite persuaded that it was not their inten tion to avoid any portion of the subject matter committed to them. They were incapable of wilfully deluding that House. He believed that House had investigated the matter with fidelity and care ; and he was satisfied, from his knowledge of their character, that they had conveyed to the House the exact impression produced on their minds by the evidence adduced. Now the Hon. Gentleman charged the Committee with dis obedience to the order of ;the House. He fancied, because a particular expression was used, that they did not trace each warrant from the period of its being issued to that of its being carried into effect ; and, therefore, he argued, they had dis obeyed the :order of the House on the subject. He (Sir J. Graham) was confident that everything which related to the office which he filled, in connexion with the issuing of the warrants, had been carefully investigated. The House must recollect that he was not the only witness who had been called before the Committee. Every statement made by himself was contrasted with those made by the officers of other depart ments, whose statements, if his were inaccurate, must have been at variance with it. The Postmaster-General, the Secretary of the Post-office, and all the officers connected with that de partment, were carefully examined as witnesses. So far from the orders of the House being di s obeyed, he was quite satisfied that with regard to the issuing of the warrant, and in every other respect, they had been carefully attended to and minutely observed. But the Hon. Gentleman said that in his case there had been unusual frequency in the exercise of the powers vested in the Secretary of State. He conceived that this portion of misconduct imputed to him was one of the . most import an t mat ters submitted to the judgment of the tribunal appointed to in vestigate the subject ; and he would read to the House the recorded judgment of that tribunal in reference to this very point of the undue and comparati ve f requency o f the exercise of authori t y. The opinion of the Committee was given at page 15. The Right Honourable Baronet then read an extract from the report, stating that the warrants had been issued with nearly equal frequency by the several Administra tions since 1799; though in certain years, in consequence of snternal commotions, it had appeared that the number of war rants issued by the Secretaries of State was unusually great, while in others, for a contrary reason, it was exceedingly small. Then, again, at page 19, it was stated with respect to wart ants, not of a criminal but of a political character, there had not, upon an average, been more than four yearly; while the greatest number ever issued in one year for such cases was 16. Now, he had hitherto referred only to the report of the Com mittee of that House; but the House must remember that a Committee had also been appointed by the House of Lords. In the House of Commons, so highly was the honour of its Mem bers estimated, that the declaration of a Member was held equivalent to his oath ; but in the other House of Parliament he had been examined upon oath, and there, also, witnesses were called who might have contradicted his statements. Fur ther, the Committee of the House of Lords, by the advice of the Government, contained a majority of their political oppo nents. It had been raid that there was no eminent lawyer, no person who was used to the examination of witnesses. Now, was that the fact? Were there no experienced and eminent lawyers on that Committee? Why, it so happened, that on that Committee sat two of the most distinguished lawyers now living in this country—( Hear, hear)—both of whom had held the Great Seal, and had been at the head of their profession. Upon this Committee were Lord Cottenham, Lord Brougham, Lord Auckland, Lord Colchester, the Bishop of London, Lord Somers, and Lord Colborne. The question, whether there had been an improper exercise of the authority, was brought before thatbody, and this was the judgment of the Lords' Committee:— " We are bound, in conclusion, to state that, having looked back to the proceedings of several Secretaries of State during successive administrations for more than twenty years, we have found the practice nearly uniform. The power has been very sparingly exercised, and_ never from personal or party motives." That was a negative to the charge of baseness and meanness which had been brought against him—(Cheers)—never from per sonal and party motives; "and that in every case it seems to have been directed by an earnest and faithful desire to adopt that course which appeared t o b e necessary, e i ther to promote the ends of justice or to prevent th e di s t ur b ance o f t h e pu bli c tranquillity, or otherwise to promote the best interests of the country." That was the recorded Tudgment of the House of Lords. Now, the Hon. Gentleman proceeded to advert to a paragraph which had recently appea re d i n th e newspapers , t h at the Secret-office, as it was termed, in the Post-office, had been suppressed by order of the . Home -office. Notwithstanding the intimate . knowledge which the H on. Gent l eman possessed of this subject, he seemed to have f a ll en i n to error in cont ra . distinguishing that office in connexi on w i t h th e Foreign-office, from a secret office in connexi on w i t h the secret o ffi ce o f t h e Post-office. With respect to that establishment, it would appear, from page 17, that it was conducted by officers ap pointed and paid by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, from whom the orders w ere received, and to whom a l one they were responsible. Such an office had existed in this country, in connexion with the F ore i gn D epar t men t, for more than a century. Its existenc e was no new intelligence; it ex isted in 1840; and no step had been taken which showed the disapprobation of P ar li ament. For a long time it had existed, not in immediate connexion with the Post-office, though under the roof of that establishment. He would now state that, not by an order from the Home-office, but by an order from the Foreign Department (as we understood the Right Hon. Baronet), it had been removed from the Po s t- o ff ice, an d no longer ex i sted. The Hon. Gentleman, had thought it consistent with his public duty to declare his belief that the warrant presented to the Committee of both Houses of Parliament for the opening of the letters of M. Rimini was fabricated by him for the occasion. No other ground for that harsh construction, which the Hon. Member was now disposed to put on every act of his (Sir J. Graham's) —( Hear, hear) —no other ground was adduced, except that certain general terms w ere used in the report of the House of Lords, which he thought were at variance with the date of the warrant. The words used were that the warrant was in force for about four months ; whilst the Committee of the House of Commons stated that the war rant was issued on the Ist of March, and revoked on the 3d of June. He solemnly declared that the warrant was issued by him on the Ist of March, and revoked on the 3d of June; the original warrant having, he believed, been issued for four months. He must beg to call the attention of the House to that portion of the report which set forth the important circum stance, that new checks had been introduced in modern times with respect to the issuing of the warrant. In the first place, since the year 1822, all the originalwarrants had been retarded in the Post. office. In 1806 regulations were made, imposing most essential and material checks upon the issue of these warrants. It was not possible now for the Secre tary of State, unknown to others, to issue a warrant of this description. Both the Under-Secretaries of State, and a confidential clerk at the Post-office, were cognisant of every reh for the i matter of this description.—( Hear, hear.) So uc fabrication of the warrant, and the assignmen t to t of . a false date ; and it was impossible that he could ha ve committed the base and mean act attributed to him by the Hon. Gentleman, without its being known to the two Under-Secretaries of State, and to a confidential clerk, who, although a clerk, was a gen tleman in every sense of the word, and as incapable of a base and false act of this description, as any of the Hon. Members to whom he was then speaking._( Hear, hear, and cheers.) He would now pass to another accusation, which had been pre. ferred by the Hon. Gentleman against a Noble colleague of his, upon whose honour and worth he had thought fit to cast imputations—he referred to the Earl of Aberdeen. Now, he was bound to state that the accus a ti on was made in round terms, and certainly in the most harsh and offensive manner, but when he came to hear the grounds of the assertion it appeared to be altogether vague. The assertion was that the declaration made by Lord Aberdeen, in his place in the House of Lords, was at variance with the report of the two Houses of Parliament upon a most important fact—viz., whe ther M. Mazzini's correspondence was intercepted, and was communicated to a foreign Minister. Lord Aberdeen, in his place in Parliament, gave the most solemn denial to that asser tion. Now, let the House hear what the Commo ns sa id on this point. The report said—" Suc hinformation deduced from those letters as appeared to t he British Minister calculated to involve dangerous consequences, was communicated to a Foreign Power; but the information so communicated was not of a nature to compromise, and did not compromise, the safety of any individual within the reach of that Foreign Power, nor was it made known to that Power by what means or from what source that information had been gained." That was the report of the Secret Committee. What was the statement of the House of Lords on this subject? It said, Certain parts of the information thus obtained were communicated to a Fo reign Government, in so far as su'h communication appeared to be warranted, and without names or details that might ex pose any individual then residing in a foreign country to dan ger." That was the opinion of Lord Cottenham, after all the transactions had been fully developed. (Mr. Duncembe here made some observations across the table, which we did not hear.) Did the Honourable Gentleman deny the accuracy of that report? He had himself quoted that report when he made the accusation, and was he (Sir J. Graham) to be prevented from quoting th e same re poi t, when the honour of a noble individual was assailed?— (Cheers.) He thought he certainly might refer to the de cisiona of that noble individual's .Peers, the majority o f w h om were his political opponents, in vindication of his honour.— (Cheers.) He could not suppose that the House would think that his Noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs would deliberately, in his place in Parliament, snake a declaration inconsistent with the truth, knowing as he did that the statement would be tested by an examination before Committees of. both H ouses o f Parlia ment.—( Hear, hear.) Now, he ( Sly James Graham) per haps might be permitted to state an opinion, which he strongly entertained, that with reference to this particular power—that odious, that invidious and obnoxious power vested in th e Se cretary of State, by warrant — he might be per m itt e d to state that for domestic p u rposes it was g enera ll y i noperat i ve, and the exercise of it on many accounts objecti ona bl e. Wi t h res et to our foreign relations this power stood on differentgrounds. The House must remember that in this country (he thought he said it advisedly, the only country in Europe, whatever might be the danger to public interest from the prere& of any foreigner)—the Executive Government had no power vested in them by law of averting that danger by removing a person found abusing our hospitality. In the case to which reference had been made, the facts were stated pretty fully in the report of the Commons, at page 14. From the correspondence which had been intercepted it appeared that it was intended that a descent should be made on the coast of Italy for the purpose of exciting internal disturbance in that country, Th: t there was danger was not imaginary, but real. It was formidable, for if it had been carried into successful execution, it was not to be dissembled the peace of Italy would certainly have been dis turbed, and he believed that the peace of Europe, under those circumstances, could not have been preserved; if an Euro pean war ensued, England could not have remained a mere spectator of the quarrel. It was said that a descent on the coast of Calabria was contemplated, and that an unfair use was made of the information gained in that instance, and that a trap was laid for the cor respondence of M. Mazzini. Now, he absolutely and entirely denied the facts upon which this assumption was grounded. The Hon. Gentleman, in the course of his speech, with great harshness said that the blood of the persons who were exe cuted on the melancholy occasion to which he referred must be on the heads of persons in this country. He (Sir James Graham) denied in the most solemn manner that any trap had been laid for the individuals in question. In the first place, no descent ou the coast of Calabria was expected. The con spirators abusing the hospitality of the British Government at Corfu, concocted their plans there. It was not true that the point of their destination was believed to be the coast of Ca labria. No information whatever had been given by the Bri tish Government to the Neapolitan Government on the sub ject. And so far from the Neapolitan Government having prepared trcops for the reception of those persons who had been led into a trap, as had been al leged, those persons landed without meeting any troops. They were arrested not by troops, but by a body similar to the posse cornitatus in this country. It was not until the lapse of a considerable time, during which the troops had to be sent from a distant point by a steam-boat, that the troops of the Nea politan Government came into contact with those persons. He understood that only:one of those persons was a Neapolitan, all the other parties came from the northern parts of Italy, and had no connexion whatever with the kingdom of Naples. He cer. tainly could state with confidence that what was stated in the report was true, that all information received through the Post-office was transmitted unread to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. It was the solemn assertion of the Secre tary of State for Foreign Affairs that he never transmitted to any foreign Government any document, but that he only "gave the substance of the information."—(lronical cheers.) He was now frankly avowing what had been done. His Noble Friend endeavoured by giving that information to check a dan gerous movement, but he had done nothing calculated to compromise the life of any individual.—( Hear, ,hear. ) The Hon. Gentleman had referred to a Pole of the name of Graliaki, and said that information had been given to a fo reign Power with reference to Polish movements—informa tion which might have compromised the safety of innocent per sons resident in Poland. Again.t this Graliski a warrant was issued, and certainly he (Sir James Graham) was bound to state, upon his own responsibility, that he issued that warrant under circumstances which, if presented again for his con sideration, would lead him to take the step which he had taken on that occasion. The Hon. Gentleman, referring to an expression in the report, intimated that he ( Sir J. Gra ham) had issued general warrants. Now, he could only say that he had never issued a warrant of that' description —a warrant without the name of the party being set forth. He could say confidently, that on no one occasion had he issued anything approaching to a general warrant. He thought he might now, with propriety, drop for the present this most painful subject. With respect to this power being vested in the Secretary of State, he did not believe that any further information could be obtained than that which was before the House. The real question was, were they prepared to revoke the power which by statute had been given to the Secretary of State ever since the reign of Queen Anne ? They could not require further information on the subject. Everything that inquiry could give was now before them. If it should be found necessary for the 'public safety to limit this power, the proper course would be to repeal the statute, to pass another, and im pose the necessary checks. But if it had to be exercised by the Secretary of State it was impossible for that individual faithfully, fearlessly, and honestly, for the public, to exercise the powers entrusted to him by his Sovereign, and not by the Sovereign without the confidence of that House, for without the confidence of that House no Sovereign could maintain a Minister for a single day. He said, that if it was for the good of the public that the Secretary of State was to be trusted with the exercise of those powers, it was incompatible with the honest, fearless, and advantageous exercise of those powers, that he should be called upon to declare publicly what were the reasons and what were the circumstances which bad led him to exercise them.—(Cheers.) Mr. SHEIL then rose and addressed the House as follows : —Sir, in what I have to address to the House I shall be very short, and I hope very temperate. The Right Hon. Gentle man has unequivocally admitted that the letters which were addressed to M. Mazzini were opened, and the substance of the information contained in those letters communicated to a foreign power. The report says so, and the evidence of the Right Hon. Gentleman is almost more than confirmatory of the report. The Right Hon. Gentleman justified that proceeding. This is not the time to consider whether that proceeding was right or not. That question was not raised. My Hon. Friend will have an opportunity of raising that question by bringing the subject before the House and the country upon another and more fitting occasion. But thus stands the broad fact—the let ters of M. Mazzini were opened, and those letters regularly conveyed to him after being opened, himself being unaware that the correspondence was disclosed. The Right Hon. Gentle man says no trap was laid. It would have been as well, then, to have informed M. Mazzini that his letters had been opened. The power was exercised by the Right Hon. Gentleman at the Post-office, and certainly the substance of the information thus obtained was communicated to a foreign power. The Committee state—" The facts of the case, as far as the Com mittee feel at liberty to disclose them, appear as follows." It appears, therefore, that there wore facts which the Committee did not think themselves at liberty to disclose. Ido not mean to say that a Committee of Secrecy, appointed under such pe culiar circumstances, was not justified in exercising this discre tion ; but it is clear that the whole is not known, there is no suppressio facti, but suppressio yeti is admitted. It is re markable that this passage ocsurs in the report of the Com mittee—" They think it most desirable to make known that the above three warrants are the only warrants to open letters which the present Government had issued." That question was not referred to them. The Committee gratuitously state that these three are the only instances in which the present Government have exercised this power. The powers exercised by other Governments had nothing to do with the question. Upon this part of the case—fulfilling the engagement—to be very brief, I may say, that it is still more objectionable. The Com mittee state the names of persons who are no longer living in reference to warrants of this kind which have been issued. They then proceed to state that they will not mention the names of any living individuals, with certain exceptions. The passage runs thus :—" Your Committee abstained from giving particular information concerning any warrant, and from naming a single individual whose letters were directed to be opened ; but they have been induced, with respect to tha mode of executing certain warrants, to mention the names of parties included i n th em , i nasmuc h as they are connected with the circumstances which mainly led to the inquiry your Committee were appointed to enter into." They accordingly proceed to mention the names of two Poles, and I think M. Mazzini. Now, I want to know why it is that nothing has been said about the letters of the Hon. Member for Finsbury—( Loud cheers)—it that Committee have adhered practically to the rules they themselves laid down ?—( Hear, hear.) The names of two Poles were mentioned, the name of M. Mazzini was mentioned. Were those the only names specifically men tioned in the House of Commons ?—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Finsbury, the representative of a great se c ti on o f this metropolis—(Hear, hear) — boldly stated in the House of Commons that his privileges as a Member of Parliament were violated—(Loud cheers)—and that his letters had been opened. n —(Loud cheers.) The statement was repeated before the ti . h t C y m h i e s a e d i r e t s . th ) with at T t r h h e e g e r a e i • Committeedwt a o s 11 a la s z t z a i s t n a e i i m d . e n n T o t t h h a e: n d g j a s o m t f i c l w r t l.ay specifiedspane mentioned. ombe a Committee. You excluded Mr. Duncombe who brought the charge.—(Loud cheers.) Mr. Duncombe offered to appear before the Committee to corroborate the charge, to prove the accusation—the Committee refused to allow him to conduct the case, or, I believe, to hear him.—( Hear, hear.) Under those circumstances it is a matter of legitimate curiosity to know what justification there is on the part of the Corn mittee for omitting all mention of the Hon. Member for Finsbury.—( Loud cheers.) How stands the fact ? When the Right Hon. Gentleman was first interrogated on the subject, he refused to give an answer—(Hear, hear)—he sheltered himself behind official prerogative.—( Cheers. ) When public clamour arose the Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of her Majesty's Government, who observed how uneasy was the beating of the public pulse, came down to the House and said that a Committee would be conceded—that which in the first instance was withheld.—(Hear, hear.) A Committee was granted—" a great fact "—but the fact, of all others the most important,—the opening of the letters of a Member of Parliament—was not mentioned.—( Hear, hear.) I now ask this question of you—(Cheers)—Tell me, you (turn ing to Sir J. Graham), who answer for Mazzini, who anwered for the two Poles,—tell me will you answer whether you opened the letters of Mr. Duncombe?—(Vehement cheering. ) Lord SANDON rose; but having remained silent for a short time, a cry of " Question, question !" was raised by the Oppo sition. He said he did not catch the question of the Right Hon. Gentleman, and begged he would repeat it. Mr. SHEIL—I did not ask any question of the Noble Lord (Loud Cheers.) It was of the Right Hon. Gentleman I asked the question—( Loud cheers)—l asked the question of Aim, and I now repeat the interrogatory—( Loud cheering. ) Lord SANDON said that, as the question of the Right Hon. Gentleman was not addressed to him, but to the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and as he did not think it consistent with his duty to give any answer—(lronical cheers)—he believed it was his duty, as Chairman of the Committee, to make a few observations.— ( Hear, hear.) He begged to remark, in the first place, that the members of the Committee laboured under a great disad vantage, because, from the circumstances under which the Committee was appointed— the House having thought fit to snake it a secret one, thereby signifying that there was some thing in the nature of the subject which should not be re vealed—they were precluded from replyine , to many questions that might be asked of them. It might be wrong to appoint a Secret Committee, but as long as the House was of opinion that it ought to be so, they could not go beyond what was stated in the report, without violating their duty to the House which appointed them. That report contained the answer to all that had been said by the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dun combe). It might be said that the report was evasive and un satisfactory, because it did not gratify the prurient curiosity of individuals—(Cheers)—but it contained a full and fair ac count of the entire transaction. He believed he spoke the opinions of the entire Committee, when he said that the in formation conveyed to them was full and complete, and as the Right Hon. Gentleman ( Sir J. Graham) had stated, it was not extracted by cross-examination, but was fully and freely laid before them, and they had the opportunity of testing the asser tions made by reference to the documents themselves. No doubt the public sympathy went in this case along with those persons who took refuge in this country, upon whose soil the slave became free the moment he touched it; but it should be recollected that they were engaged in transactions which might have compromised the peace of Europe.—(Hear, hear.) He would not give any opinion as to the propriety of the course adopted. The lion. Gentleman had exercised his powers of ridicule on the last page of the report, and he did not mean to say that it would bear the test of criticism. lie admitted it was a piece of Mosaic—a bit of white here and a bit of black there ; but the Committee were of opinion that it was better to state the arguments which might be used for and against the power of issuing warrants for opening letters, than that they should state any opinions or conclusions of their Pw He believed it was admitted that the issuing of the warrants had taken place only in the exercise of . a conscientious dutyo_e thethe part Government the G Government. nemx exercised e d He they had pursued. GRAHAM felt bound a the present moment gir JAMES House, as he should be ex to make a few observations to the had r a e d m d e e l Members who had put questions to courteously to those Hon. . that in the last session he him. The House would remember esobuenlidevdeidscrtehtaitOZinn theth whole, to the warrants that had been issued. At that with respect time, however, he stated that if the House thought fit to ap pointtroeshpae vcteftiiitlubp:mt fiserdmtlytohaenisnwteenrdaendytovaccsttdioins_s t' a tribunal to inquire into the matters he should at once bow to their decision and make any statements to them Yelinirdry, they might require.—( Hear, hear. ) It was the pleasure of the House to appoint that Committee —it was formed of his political opponents, and yet lie had given every information to them that he could. There was not one act of his for which he was responsible as a Minis ter of the Crown which he bail not stated to the Committee. Hear, hear.) Having done this, he could not, consistently , with his duty, answer any further interrogatories.--( Hear. ) He lied given all the information in his power in M. Mazzini's ca.e, and the other one that hail been referred to, and he could not go further ; and if any other warrant was brought before the House, he should be prepared to deal with it as he had done in ill, Mazzini'a case. Mr. HUME thought they had no right to blame the Right Hon. Baronet when he stated that he had given full informa tion before the Committee. What, then ' were they to do? Why, they sho u ld no t quest i on the Right Honourable Baronet's accuracy till they knew what the Right Honourable Baronet had stated. He wished to impress upon Hon. Mem bers last session that a Secret Committee would not satisfy the public, and he thought that in that opinion he had been borne nut. The House appointed a Select Committee, and that Committee was appointed at the suggestion of the Right Hon. Baronet. Ile had said on a former occasion that the character of the country was at stake, and that the only course to be pursued was to make the proceedings of the Committee open.—( Hear, hear.) The report that had been produced from the Committee was of such a character that no reason could form an opinion upon it. He be lieved that the proceedings that had taken place Weald never have been sanctioned, if it had been supposed that the Government would have pursued the course they hail done. He never could have believed, until the Hight Hon. Baronet admitted it, that he would have become the police-officer of the King of Naples. After the statements that had been made that, Members of that House had had their letters opened, and their affairs made public, was it. to be supposed the public would rest quiet, or that they would allow such things to con tinue ? It was true, the Right lien. Baronet had sufficient in numbers to stifle inquiry, but. after what had been stated, it was impossible Ministers could so far forego their characters as to permit the system so continue.—(Hear.) Why was the Committee appointed ? Why, for the purpose of considering whether it was fit that this power should exist in the Ministry or not. The present was no political matter, but one in which the whole country was interested. The duty of the House was to see what they could do to prevent the evil in future. lle trusted the dismission would end for the present by a declaration on the part of the Right Hon. Gentleman that the evidence should be printed, and then Members would be enabled to come to a sound and satisfactory conclusion. Sir J. HANAIF,II had on a previous occasion given his vote for inquiry. That inquiry took place, and it pleased the House of Commons to make it secret; he thought now that, it was proved they were to blame in that, as the report that had been produced was anything but satisfactory. What were the facts that had been stated that night? Whv, an lion. Member, the representative of one of the Metropolitan districts, had stated in his place in that House that his let ters had been opened and subject to inspection.--( Hear.) But it did concern every free man in England that the House of Commons should inquire into this charge—( Hear, hear)—it was bound to see wh e the r or no t any l etters of the Hon. Mem ber had been opened, and if so, whether they had been opened with sufficient reason—( Hear, hear)—for that would be no in considerable guide to them in that question sshich must in a short time be brought under consideration—what is intended to be done with this extraordinary power—a power, the existence of which, he declared, though he hoped he was not unacquainted with the history of his country, and though he had paid some attention to it, and though he had been some time in Parlia ment, came upon him with as much surprise as it might on a man at the Land's-end.—( Hear, hear.) He therefore thought there were strong grounds for an inquiry ; he thought the House ought to appoint a new committee or re-appoint the old one—(Loud cries of " No, no")—in order to conduct that inquiry; to that Committee he should give his complete support—( Hear, hear)—and he should give that support to a motion for it, without entering into any of the imputations that had been made against the Right Hon. Gentleman. He did not for a moment entertain them, for as a man he respected the Right lion. Baronet. He be lieved the Right Hon. Baronet was as honest as any man who had held his high situation ; but he did 'demand that this inquiry should be made when it was demanded by a Mem ber of that House itself. Mr. Sergeant MURPHY said it was not his intention to approach the consideration of this question in anything like an acrimonious cr party spirit, and before entering on the ques tion, he might state that he had had the opportunity of pe rusing attentively the report that had been made on the sub ject, and the result that had formed itself in his mind, and the conclusion he drew from the perusal of that report was, that this was a privilege en joyed by the Government which was useless for the well being of that Government, and which ought to be abandoned for the safety and honour of the country.—( Hear, hear.) That was the conclusion at which he had arrived ; perhaps he had formed a crude judgment on the point, but it was his intention calmly and dispassionately to lay before the House the reasons that had induced him to form that conclusion. Before he did so, he might, in the first instance, address himself to an obser vation made by the Noble Lord the Member for Liverpool. He must say it struck him that one observation he had made was not justly suited either to the dignity of that House or the dig nity of the subject. The Noble Lord used toward the Hon. Member for Finsbury the language that any person who made an inquiry into a matter so deeply involving his own personal interest, must be actuated by a prurient curiosity. But the im pression upon that House was, that the Hon. Member for Fins bury did not demand that inquiry in his place in Parliament on account of his own personal feelings, but as affecting a matter involving the individual privileges and feelings of every Member of the House of Commons.—( Hear, hear.) He would read an extract from the report, and he would then ask the (louse if it was possible to conceive terms more stringent, or language more forcible than that employed, to convey to that House, and through that House to the country, that it was the privilege of every representative of the people to have an unreserved communication with his consti tuents. In page Bof the report, it was stated, that "in 1739, the House resolved, inter alia, that it is a high infringement of the privileges of the knights, citizens, and burgesses, chosen to represent the Commons of England in Parliament, for any postmaster or his deputy to look into, or open, by any means whatever, any letter directed to or signed by the proper hand of any Member of the House, without an express warrant under the hand of the Secretary of State for every such opening ; nor shed such podmester or his deputy look into or delay, or detain, any letter addressed to, or signed by the hand of any Member, unless by an express warrant from the Secretary of State for every such detaining or delay." Now, he would ask, when any !Member of Parliament, like the lion. Member for Finsbury, relying on this forcible resolution of the House, came forward in his place and demanded an answer to his alle gations, he would repeat again, notwithstanding the reasons given by the Right lion. Baronet for not answering that de mand, that the impression that would he made on the country by that silence would be an unsatisfactory one. lie stated that, because he recollected that all the difficulties that had been created on this subject might have been avoided altogether, if the Right lion. Baronet would have pursued the same course in the case of the Hon. Member for Finsbury, as when the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath brought before the House strong and impressive charges against several individual Members of that House.—( Hear, hear.) Ile recollected perfectly well at that time, that an objection was made to placing the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath on the Committee of Inquiry, but he was afterwards selected as Chairman of it, and he (Mr. Sergeant Murphy) would challenge any person who was present at the investigation of what was called the Compromise Committee, or any one who sat on that Committee, to say whether the conduct of the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath, as its Chairman, did not raise him still higher than before in the estimation of the House, on account of the impartiality he had displayed.—( Hear, hear ) Ile brought his great natural sagacity, as well as his legal acumen to the investigation, and he asked if the lion. Member for Finsbury, whose privileges not merely as an individual, but which were in some respects the property of the country, had been violated, might not fairly and reasonably have been added to the Committee ? It was because he was not added to it, that the investigation had been so unsatisfactory.— ( Hear, hear.) T e Right Honourable Baronet had come forward to-night, and declared that he did not feel called on by his sense of public duty to make any decla ration to the Hun. Member. But he at the same time de clared, on his honour as a gentleman, that lie had made a free and unreserved communication to the Committees of this House and of the House of Lords; and he ( Mr. Sergeant Murphy) was bound to and did believe that he had done so. But when he said that, he was afterwards led to another ques tion, which arose from another statement that had fallen from the Right Hon. Baronet. He told them that no communica tiers of his had led in any degaee to any intervention between this country and foreign States, by which the latter were en abled to repress some attempts at invasion or insurrection. But he asked the Right Hon. Baronet whether he would go to the length of telling them that no other person connected with her Majesty's Government had not given such information ? ( Hear, hear.) He asked whether, even in the dim and shadowy manner in which that information might have been given, it was not sufficient to convey to those Governments who, it was well known, had secret anti very able diplomatic agents in this country, an intimation of who were the parties, just as clearly as if the names themselves had been given ? ( Hear, hear.) Did they not know that this country was swarming with the diplomatic agents of foreign countries, remarkable for the sagacity and skill with which they followed up such investigations ? Was it not known that Russia em ployed a great number of persons of this kind, whose busi ness it was to furnish such information to their Governments, and to denounce suspected persons? The Hon. Member far Finsbury, therefore, asked the question, and he (Sergeant Murphy) did not think it had b.en satisfactorily answered, unless an equally distinct assurance could be given by the Right Hon. Baronet, as that by which he had exonerated him self, that the Earl of Aberdeen, her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, stood equally absolved from making any such communication. Now, before he went into any other branch of the case, he might be allowed to state certain matters he believed had a useful bearing on the question. From the manner in which the report was drawn up, he thought these warrants might be done away with altogether. He might class the use of these warrants under three se parate heads ; the first was in matters purely criminal; the second in matters seditious and political ; the third involving us in relations with Foreign States. Now, with regard to the first. One of the grounds on which it was possible to be maintained, was that of antiquity, and the antiquity of these warrants first depended upon a warrant of Anne, based upon certain proclamations issued antecedent to that period, but he was certain if they went higher up in search of precedents for popular liberty, they would hardly adopt the reigns of Charles, or James, or the Commonwealth, for those precedents. In what way were the warrants used? With re gard to criminal matters, all his experience of criminal inves tigations proved th a t no l e tt er w a s ever produced which at all elucidated a n y p ar t of a cr i m i na l p roc eeding. He had never known an instance of it, and he was confirmed in the belief of Baronet ' its inutility by the statement of the Right him self, who told them to-night that, with reg ardand incon venient, toon. the domestic exercise of this privilege, it was both unsatisfactory the it and, he believed, he went tl t ie l th e e n ti gt o h us o e f s a a w yl a n r g e that of might be dispensed with. Was n o which existed in the public deep feelings against this mind, when the Hon. Member not privilegeoe fur el- Finsevispburyabixtroutghhrtoutlgiihsuizotttihone country, no forward last year? Di tevaetry n Did politics, denounce it ? (Hoar, hear.) matter of what not every society or club, which a man went to obtain political information from, ring with one universal o utcry against the Government ?—(" No," from the Mi n i s terial , ye ebench.)y,.T—he( Tremendous HoGent cries lenian of sa " id ' N ' No,on, but he said He did not mean to determine with what justice that opinion was e xpressed, and he did not believe that the present Secre tary of State was more answerable, for the exercise of such a privilege, than any who had preceded him, but it was certain that, as stated by the Hon. Baronet who spoke last (Sir J. Hammon) that it came upon the country as a startling no velty. Wherever he went at that time all parties, irrespective of creeds or politics, joined throughout the country in one uni versal feeling against Cries of " No, no.") Hon. Gentleman again said " No," but he appealed to those who saw the statements with which the public press teemed at that time. Was it useful for foreign purposes ? Would it not have been more useful to make a stringent Alien Act, which would give the power of removing persons plotting against foreign States, than for th e M em b ers of a Government to act as spies for foreign States ? It was alleged on the present occasion that no information had been given which could prove hurtful to in dividuals. He must say that he considered such information, so far from being useful, would be highly injurious from its vagueness, and that it was likely to involve innocent persons by reason of t‘,e suspicion which it would entail. For these reasons he wished that this country should get rid of a practice which, so far from being beneficial, was, he thought, on the whole, likely to prove hurtful, by making this country, instead of an asylum, as it had been for the exile, rather a trap for ensnaring them, and handing them over to foreign Govern ments.—( Hear. ) Sir ROBERT PEEL apprehended that the question to which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had adverted was not the question now under the consideration of the Howe. A great part of the speech of the Hon and Learned Gentleman was occupied in discussing whether it was desirable or not, that the power should be continued in the Secretary of State, at his discretion and on his own responsibility, to open letters. 'i' he discussion of that subject would come much better under the notice of the House in the shape of a distinct motion for altering the existing law end the existing usage, rather than upon the particular motion which the Hon. Member for Fins bury had introduced ; and if it were desirable that the course hitherto pursued in this respect by the Secretary of State should be altered, he thought the substitute which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had offered weuld be scarcely prefer able—a stringent Alien Act.—( Hear, hear.) He did not think the Hon. and Learned Gentleman could have been pre sent at the discussions which took place on a former occasion ; for if he had been pre cot lie would have seen that the Alien Act was repealed from the impression that the Alien Act might be made subservient, not to the interests of this country, but to the paornotion of the policy and interests of foreign countries. ( Hear, hear.) Did the Hon. and Learned Gentleman really believe that the alien was exposed, ander ordinary circum stances, to more inconvenience and danger than lie would be it there was an absolute discretion and power to remove the alien from the country altogether ? The alien might be ex posed to immediate danger from such a course. He hoped that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, who seemed to be the warmest advocate fur parting with this power, would see the injustice of his opinio.i. lie hoped the House would not allow the future consideration of that question to be prejudiced by the discussion which had taken place, nor by the suggestions which had been given. The Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Montrose, had male suggestions at variance with those of the lion. Gentleman, the Member for Finsbury. The motion of the latter was for a new Committee; but the Honourable Member far Montrose, instead of a new Committee', pre ferred publishing the evidence which had been taken before the former Committee. Why, what were the facts? This House, after a full consideration and dis cussion, determined to appoint a Select Committee, and they further determined that that Committee should be secret. The Con - mince was accordingly so appointed, and in order that a full and unreserved disclosure might be made before the members of that Committee, by those who had been Mi nisters of the Crown, the members of this at well as of the former Administration hail each solicited her' Majesty's per mission to make a full disclosure of every fact. They had received permission from her Majesty to make such disclosures, upon the statement that the Committee was to be a secret one, and therefore that they could, without prejudice to the public interest, make that frank and unreserved disclosure.— ( Hear, hear. ) The permission of her Majesty had been granted upon these term,. He believed the Noble Lord op posite (Lord John Russell) had been examined before that Committee.—(Lord John Russell nodded assent.) The late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had been examined—the present Secretary for Foreign Affairs had been examined, as well as the present Secretary of State. He ( Sir R. Peel) had been examined before that Committee, having received the permission of her Majesty to make a full and unreserved disclosure; theyhad withheld no fact—nothing even affecting the interests of indi viduals or the general interests of the country—in order that the Committee might form a judgment as to the exercise of the power vested in the Secretary of State. On these conditions, lie repeated, those persons had been examined, and now 'the Hon. Gentleman asked that all the evidence so given, in order that the elements of the judgment of the Committee might be perfect, should be published.—( Hear, hear.) The House would hardly sanction that proposal. —( Hear, hear.) As to the policy of such a power, he would reserve his opinion for a future oc casion. The question now was, how far the character and con duct of the present Government were affected. If the Go vernment had assumed to themselves a power not sanctioned by usage, or contrary to law, then their conduct might be justifi ably censured or condemned. But. with respect to the exercise of a power which had been vested in the Executive, it was the Parliament—it was you—the House of Commons—(said the Right Hon. Baronetemphatically)—which conferred this power —it was you who, with a full knowledge of its extent, have recognised its continuance. ( Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") It is you who have committed tollithis instrume n t for maintain.. ing and preserving the public peace.—( Hear, hear.) For 150 years that power had been possessed by the Executive Gover nment. Could they pretend ignorance—could they say that the whole subject had not been brought under their consideration at different periods ? In 1735 it had been brought under the notice of the House of Commons.—( Laughter from the Oppo sition.)_ Well, he would come down to later periods. Hon. Gentlemen opposite should not pretend ignorance of the his tory of their own country.—(Loud cheers from the Ministerial benches.) They might as well assail their predecessors, as charge the Executive Government of this day with exer cising this power.—(Hear, hear.) The power had not been vested in them without their knowledge and sanction. In 1735 they expressly by their own resolution admitted that there was no particular sanction that Members of the House of Commons should be exempted from the operation of this power ; for the resolution went on to say that the privilege on the part of the Postmaster- General to open letters did not extend to Members of that House, unless opened under a war rant.—( Hear, hear, from the Ministerialists.) That was their own resolution ; so that in 1735 this power had been, at all events, fully recognised by that House. This power had been exercised by Secretaries of State remarkable for their know ledge of constitutional privileges, and for their defence of civil liberty. But if Honourable Gentlemen thought that the present House of Commons was ignorant of the acts of their pi edecessors in 1735, why was not the act of the House of Commons rescinded in a more formal and deliberate manner in 1837 ? Why, Sir, in 1837 the House of Commons was party to an Act of Parliament which did expressly recognise the exist ence of this power on the part of the Secretary of State. The lion. Gentleman seemed to doubt that Parliament had giyen that power. He begged to refer him to the Act of Parliament passed in 1837, in which he would find it expressly stated, in reference to letters transmitted by post, that they Mould not he opened in Great Britain except in obedience to an express war rant in writing, under the hand and seal of one of her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State now in Ireland were under the warrant of the Lord-Lieutenant. Was not this a direct and express recognition ? If not, he must own he did not know what recognition meant. Well, then, the Go vernment had the power, under the sanction of this House. It had been held that the exercise of this power was necessary for the maintenance of stublic tranquillity, f r the preservation of external peace. This was one of the instruments which Parliament had committed to their hands for the maintenance of external tranquillity, and the preservation of internal peace, and if they had allowed either to have been dis turbed,' from failure in the exercise of this power, the Government would ustly have been blameable. Hon. Members on that side of the House would, in that case, have been the very first to call them into question for refusing to exercise the power entrusted to them for that purpose— ( Hear, hear.) It was very well at that time to condemn his Right Hon. Friend for issuing these warrants in the month of August, 1842, but he (Sir 11. Peel) wished it were possible to recal to the memory of Hon. Members the particulars of the debate that took place in the House in that very month of August, on the state of the country at the time. He recol lected, that in that debate the Hon. Member forWolverhantpton rose in his place, on the question that, owing to the state of the country, Parliament should not be prorogued. The danger of civil commotion was forcibly dwelt on by the Hon. Member, and he said it would be madness to permit Parlia ment to separate without taking some measures to call them to gether within a limited period. A motion was passed limiting the period of remission from their duties, and Parliament was again called together in a short time time after, because it was supposed that such a course was absolutely necessary on ac count of the troubled state of the country. The Hon. Member for Wolverhampton rose in the debate that took place in July, at a period when an unusual number of warrants were issued, and lie read three letters from the neighbourhood of the place lie represented—from the Potteries. He read the whole of the first letter dated July the 20th, and it described the state of the country as most alarming ; it stated tbat a general feeling o f discontent was engendered by designing men , that the col hers for ten miles around the town of Hanley, in bands of a thousand men, roamed about with bludgeons, exciting fear and terror among that portion of the people who were really disposed to work. They dared not do so, and the destitution of their poor families was in consequence more intolerable every hour. The first open exhibition of violence, the letter stated, had broken out ono day last week, and continued for the three following days. The colliers were obliging all individuals in that part of the country to drop work, and where resistance was attempted by the managers, they weft treated in the roughest manner. An other of the letters sent stated that ten thousand paupers of all trades were out in one week, and that the number would be increased to twenty thousand. It added that the country was com pletely armed, and the writer said that having twenty or thirty servants, he thought he should be able to prot ec t himself. These were evidences of the state of the country in 1842, and they were given to the House as warnings not to pro rogue Parliament at that period. The lion. Member for Manchester implored the Government to give their best consideration to the disturbed state of the manufacturing dis tricts, as the evils which were paramount there, unless checked in time, would involve the country in one common ruin. Then followed the Hon. Member for Stockport, who indignantly de nied that the language used by himself, or those with whom be acted, could be understood as giving rise to these disorders. He asked the House to consider the condition of the manufac turing districts, and to make some inquiries to mitigate the dis tresses which prevailed. That was the language used by Hon. Members in the month of August, 1842, and yet Mi nisters asked for no extraordinary powers to repress the spirit of disorder which prevailed over the country. Had they neg lected to maintain the public peace which the House of Com mons had intrusted to them ? Had they left the manufacturing interest to the mercy of the thousands and tens of thousands_ __ of f e s t s u nalitiltthuoesues districts? pero ns, who i f they y e had wandering in da the state ordinaryodle neglected on the otapo. powers which the law gave, then Hon. mower t morene m nkfirstioom not having hr t ,„. o t vhien b s l v a e m irn e y a p s fo it r e thl i s d i e rem w i o ss a n l e d is h , energetic for which they were now cpaalilieifdulinthqauhesttihoen.po!siees,(ioSnirof a power of this R. Peel) knew nothing natur f e, moe and with regard to the duties that de volved upon thenlor the maintenance in say thatin his experience of thepeeacepeorifenthcee country, he could only they were rnost painful duties.—(Hear, h ear.) If they had reason to believe, for instance, that in this free country persons were banded together, or connected with others to the injury of another country, then the painful consideration would weigh with them whether they ought to avail themselves of that power, and so give information of those machinations to that foreign country in which it wifsaotupgulrredib:naeanort general le l s siw e n aid a nri I b ti r hda e ou a nsa c del h sc: of faith to examine the correspoolnitpdyreoncoicufecdtei , f r o o r u es ld aw ha t v h e at a t t h e e nd p e ro n h c a y h t i f o countries tt this means they should repress disorders that were likely to involve the interests of two countries, then that original difficulty—the using of that power—would be greatly increased, and it might be a question how far they might be justified in availing them selves of that privilege. Was it to be expected that, in such a case, they should neglect to use the ordinary precautions which their predecessors had done ? Certainly not. And was it fair, was it just, that they should he the first Ministry to bear the brunt of popular indignation, of popu lar feeling ? A Committee had been appointed, and on that Committee there was a majority of their political opponents. Before it they had stated every fact with regard to the exercise of that power. Their predecessors in office had done the same. They had to choose between the opening the letters of individuals free from blame and the passing over matters that concerned the welfare of mighty countries. They had been informed last year that the life of the Emperor of Russia was in danger. Would Hon. Gentlemen have neg lected due precaution in such a case? They examined into the accuracy of that information, and if any of the Ho nourable Gentlemen who impugned the conduct of the Secretary of State in the exercise of this power had filled t h e same high office, would not he have done the sa me? Would not such a course have i been adopted by any Ministry ..? Th . e . Ministry were justified n neglecting no means which would country. had t ß e u n t d to it s h ec ai u l re h t e h e e n ex ternal s ai d that a ; n n and internal a Majes ty's t e y a , c s e of the Government or that some purposes o u hsersp of political expediency. Well suspicion existed of their hay ianlegu pervertedsed hii p o o i • e t to h d all the facts before it, as reported by the Committee , an ' n ow, the Housea and looking at the constitution of that Com r,the b ase