The Sun. — London, England, 1844-06-25 00:00:00

EXCg. Y. very nurnere jog Lig _taking w er y hoiverer 1 0 ng investraeo j t ImpQrtsn e ' b ta nierfor ) to de' :h a view veterins l l`7,, but wkether.,..... eetv. idence, a• -- opinionit L=taken cen t o r s--:take je—takell ken _ ;sr—tikes iken OrLind& for Derh.t7' OED). fti osi 1. each, , 'cond to rel y ind and • 2 } 2 $ 3 - 1 S del t° 10 ad ett and a'r, .1 s 1 at 51b 1 ....... . 2 ...... 3 op , ika S bs) I (5 w o' u Darling) a 9 ......... ........... s a t ....... 6dr .4 a pirs 0, The, Cure, ueed c, 10 Fitzjelv,e l Wefi They ' 4 %04 Sara, Billy, Re so tY Gill's, ed in colf lest for . j r Tv'sf xnd for r o Ftbe si)d fo!,' r g acm-.44 of Csl3ibrfr— tted direr b io Jan, bo ity jos • ihopstbotro, !allege; Re H. x. 7 , I of . $t- . tFie L le m tea too Esser v. E. G Col J ectory c n i Shields' aC r „0" s itc ;) , rhot p j B ev fro. !e; the b o. , coo r csffi , zilegj i : t beri ° fQf of fi c erl [.A. , Br ere Be 3idt'' "iPEkt tAL PA It LIAM EN T. ix.l3 tir ynarlo - 1 - 1 0 US E OF LORDS, June 24. heir Lord hip s assembled at Five o'clock. fELDUN esented a petition from favour protection fto wricultare. 14rqubi of SALISBURY presented a similar RAJA OF SATTARA. Lo r d Lt , • • - tert a i '"AUNIONT, in presenting a petition from justice East India Proprietors, complaining that in- N I had been done to the Raja of Sattara, and ting that justice may be done to him, said he t "o oz ed to ask the Noble Earl the Secretary of the t 4 of Co n t ro l , whether it was his intention further iti r tlvesti gate the c h arges w hi c h had been made I,ist the R a j a o f Sattara? i tte nP Earl o f RI PON said, it was certainly not his terntion to r ecommend the Court of Directors to en thea gain int o the investigation of this subject, for if b e 3 ' were to do so, he believed that its effects would kne°osiderablv to shake the authority of the Com te in the East. The case had already been gone iv 3 ' in t°, and th e d ec i s i on w hi c h h a d b een come t o t4r% t hat the d epos i t i on o f t h e R a j a o f Sa ha:it I 'm just, and ought not to be rescinded. He been gone carefury through the papers which had N e aici before P ar li amen t on thi s su bj ec t, a nd the i tt _'uslon to w hi c h h e ha d come was, t h at t h e sub uaght not to be again opened. Le, ,MANCHESTER BONDING BILL. k BilrQ S TRANGFORD rose to call the attention l House t o thi s Bill , w hi c h was, h e cons id ere d, c o °f great importance to the commerce of the ( Jae bi ll „ ~e ." 41.1 of MINTO rose to order. He thought thi "Per time t o ca ll th e i r L or d s hip s ' attention to L e ; subject would be when the Bill came properly setr t he . House, especially as. the Bill had been OW)) for a third reading that night. STRANGFORD thought the Bill ought to , " Earl printed. of DAT HOUSIE said this was not a b ut a rivare Bill. b e ,'„ e Earl o p f SHAFTESBURY said, the Bill had Printed by the parties who had 'introduced this Afterte r i ~ a few words from Lord MONTE*GLE and the or AriVrox, the subject dropped. 1 1 1 TBLIC 'NATIONAL GRANARIES. ? r i d : Earl s ot WINCHILSEA gate notice, that on Je tt at 3; heShould present some petitions on. the sub tolli the corn-l aws , a n d h e w o u ld take that oppor- of • ~.. the calling their Lordships' attention to thdrquestion of the expediency of establishing je o national granaries, a subject which he ,nl3 earnestly and deeply considered.—(Hear.) B ISHOPRICS OF ST. ASAPH. AND BANGOR BILL: I e ie N the motion for the House resolving itself into L t totittee on this Bill, th, ° , 1 ,;( 1 MONTEAGLE wished to know whether l e ''ehle Duke opposite - had the consent of her si :ty to th e pass i ng o f thi s Bill, as d ur i ng the last rsindn ed of Parliament the Noble Duke had recom -41 the N o ble Earl (Powis) to withdraw the t il i ne l ( t i ntil the consent of her ,Majesty had been ob tetThe, puke of WELLINGTON said that he had j r - t ee eired her Majesty's consent to the Bill. T h auswer to a question from Lord CAMPBELL, ea, c i Duke of WELLINGTON said he should I ti r tte S e e . the motion for the Bill to go through Com -1.(1 1, 4,1 kliipe ONTEAGLE then rose to Pall their L0rd ,,,,. attention to the principle upon -which this Bill 14 7 founded. He had been one of the 'lay coin -1,,4,.... . 4 1 °Tiers upon whose report the union of the Nor, St. Asaph and . Bangor had taken place. th e Commission, in their report,.. recommended a ki e stablishment of a bishopric of Manchester, the u , t heY also recommended the union of ite,,„ -- ..,_ei of St. Asaph and Bangor. Several other equally , P O P, recommendations were made and acted riq and he contended that this Bill, if passed, would ii, er - ineffectual the steps which had been taken k r i ;t 3 l i the recommendation of the Ecclesiastical Corn rlii". He thought it would be unjust to the paro lkii clergy of North Wales to pass this Bill, and , he Of e yed that if it should be sanctioned by their Lord thalPts it would create discontent and distress amongst p l ,,Portion of her Majesty's subjects. Mae Earl of POWIS contended that the advantages rei, had been anticipated in the Ecclesiastical Com- A s Toners' report from the union of the sees of St. th arid Bangor had not been realised. It *as sti t i - ',,,Pated in that report that the surplus revenues ta r — g from the union would be divided amongst the t t 4ehial clergy in the two dioceses. This he con- Ilki Z c l was not the case, and that no such application ' _Leh made. N Ti., 'e Bishop of BANGOR believed that the genral % o l eo both a m on gst the clergy , and laity of North h e e s, was that the Bishopric of St. Asaph ought to ,l'ostered. - t tile Bishop of SALISBURY expressed his regret 4 1 , 80 ^much delay had taken place in the establish- Itit;t or a Bishopric of Manchester, for such a step tl k greatly needed. At present there - were -no less Aric il three millions of souls in the diocese of Chester, t 4 I le thought that alone was a sufficient reason ;for li tv e lection of a Bishopric at Manchester. He be tiete' also that the time had. arrived when it Was pail to sub-divide other dioceses in the kingdom. alli, h e Bishop of NORWICH complained of the theOation of the tithes which have taken place from fat the clergy of North Wales, and he believed Ailthe opposition to the union of the sees of St. W it o and Bangor had arisen from that and that only. respect to the appointment of a Bishop of Men the ter, he could not help expressing his surprise that the tu arlY wealthy persons of Manchester had not, ' f ittt (11 : 10 1 ri ves co m e forward and provided the income 4 bi a ,,,hishop. He confessed that sooner than not have tk'uopric of Manchester, he would consent to the of one of the bishoprics of North Wale's, if it: e re necessary, for the establishment of a see in , l ehest er . ,41e Bill then passed through Comm i ttee, and was 4'4tiered to be read a third time on Monday. ' , 1 31toTHELs SUPPRESSION BILL. ti le "e Bishop of EXETER moved that the HouSe d o resolve itself into Committee on this Bill. % earl FITZHARDINGE said he had been one of fe ll e ,, l , e et Committee to which this Bill had been re s t ' - _,' 4 , and in that Committee he moved that it 'was '4 ) r: t alent to take evidence upon the subject. In' hat %tir r , -I . °tl he stood alone, but he still entertained the Lb' opinion with respect to the necessity of examm te, eVidence upon the matter. He thought they oug ht oh , are examined some of the leases of the prop ert y l l ''lleh brothels were situated, in order to ascer tain 14ther prohibitory clauses had been introduced. It b b ee u said that he had made a charge on the last on this Bill was before the House against the !h tirf ....and Chapter of Westminster. He had made no tc, - Ist whatever against those individuals ; but %1 1 ..°111(1 now make a direct charge against them: k it e l e, the last discussion on this subject, he had made riii n .7 l -es of the vestry-clerk of St. Margaret' s, W est- Ot „ - l e r, and he foUnd that at that instant th er e were te r - si 4 tence, on the property of the Dead and Chap c)t. Westminster, brothels of the very worst de -Ihe Wen. Now this must have been known to oav — ean and Chapter of Westmister, and they mu st ke sha re d i n t h e i r pr o fits.—(R o ars of laughter.) Nb.theught that while they Were legislating on this If trets they w o u ld not give satisfaction to the public tai 4 , did not subject the Dean and Chapter of West . am b ner to the operation of a Bill of Pains and Pe , theirs If they allowed these houses to continue on • l,, Property. . la4 - 7,e,Hishop of GLOUCESTER defended the Dean d C hapter from the imputation which had been at ted to be thrown upon them. The houses to held , the N o bl e E ar l had referred were at present sa e leases for 40 years, many of which had many kits : to run. It was, therefore, impossible to get rid the Qll houses from such property as that. Such was 144loxiety of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster te ve e a r r their property of these houses that they had in • th e , eases purchased the leases, and in many cases 10 1 l h ad had - th e houses pulled' down ; in others the lihi p rs were s h u t u p. He would remind their Lord *lli that property in the Almonry, in Weatminster, 'till ver y different to property - in Berkeley-square, home a landlord could choose his, own tenant. The I tietr s o in the Almonry, however, could not be let to I , o4 La yourable tenants.—(Laughter.) The Noble had evid en tl y gro u n ded his charge upon a state ht qtrio w t hich had a pp ea red in a newspaper called The tia 'he Earl FITZHARDINGE said he had 'made r e f n ar ge upon a newspaper statement ; this charge troe i t . ded upon a statement which he had received Aresti a : r. Rogers, the vestry-clerk of St. Margaret's, k triti M uster. With respect to the newspaper state- , 1 1 , 261 '. 1 e had originally seen it in the Examiner. The . 1 , 4 7 he had n ever seen hi s l i f e . viii s • Ihihoi of GLOUCESTER said the statement Req... ontradieted in the Morning _H e rald and the a t , d Z din January, 1842. -So far from the Dean li e „... !ipter of Westminster gaining by these houses, N,,':uuloi assure their Lordships that in many cases • ko .r were absolutely losers. On that very day they h t , 4 „ i - s . .'ven notices to many of the tenants of. these - ord zed — to ill be th r e e n p ...s e , • , The ° lo t •P l i!' CoVr2lt to through Committee, and was morrow (this day). th e toe II the table were - - 41vanced a stage, and ''' Lord,hi ps then adjourned. HO USE OF COMMONS, J une 24. Wel SPEAxEn t oo k t h e Cha i r shortly before Four Lek 0 It43CHDALE IMPROVEMENT BILL. It e l: the motion of Mr. BROTHERTON, the 44 , pdsle Improvement Bill was read a third time " sed . h„ f - r eport of the Kingston-upon-Hull Docks Bill arther considered, and the Bill was ordered to lutroaged. LONDON AND CROYDON RAILWAY. On the motion of Mr. KEMBLE, the London and Croydon Railway. Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed. CORN-LAWS. Mr. B. DENNISON presented petitions from parishes in Yorkshire against any alteration in the corn-law, --- 11TID - I)LE LEVEL DRAINAGE BILL. Mr. PUSEY then moved the taking into conside ration of the special report from the Committee on the Middle Level Drainage Bill respecting the votes of an Hon. Member (Mr. - Yorke), he being interested in the property that would be improved. Mr. YORKE thought the subject ought to be set tled, and he should move that the votes he had given were good votes. Mr. GREENE considered it was important that the House should make an express declaration on the subject. He would move certain resolutions on the subject. Mr. HAWES thought the best course would be to adjourn the debate. Mr. CHRISTOPHER trusted the House would not act so unjustly as to come to any decision at pre sent-oa the subject. Mr. ESTCOURT recommended his Hon. Friend (Mr. Yorke) not to press his motion to a division. He thought the best course to pursue would be to adjourn the debate to a future day, and he would move that the debate be adjourned. Mr. HAYTER supported the motion for adjourn ment. Mr. YORKE said he had no objection to withdraw his motion; but if he did so he should continue to vote in the Committee. Mr. WARBURTON thought it advisable. to post pone the consideration of the subject. After a few words from Mr. DEmsox and Mr. PUSEY, Mr. HAWES said he thought the general question should be con.idered by the House on a future day. The subject was one of importance and the House ought to have ample time to discuss it. Mr. DENISON said, the case at present was this, the law of Parliament declared that any gentleman having a direct private interest in a question, could not give a vote upon it in that House. But the ques tion here was, could a Member similarly situated, give a vote in a Committee ? It was important that the question should be decided as soon as possible, and in the meantime, be presumed the ordinary law of Parliament must prevail. The further discussion of the subject was then de ferred till Thursday _next. Mr. BAGGE said, that the Committee must be suspended during the same time, while the - question was pending. The SPEAKER, as we understood said, that the sittings of the Committee would be suspended by the decisioh of the House till the question was settled. Sir GEORGE STAUNTON presented a petition against the union of the sees of St. Asaph and Ban gor. Sir JOHN HANMER presented a petition from Hull; against the New Poor-law Bill. General LYGON presented a petition against the Bank Charter Bill. Viscount DUNCAN presented a petition , from Bath, in favour of art-unions. Mr. MASTERMAN presented petitions from London against the corn-laws. Mr. S. WORTLEY presented petitions from Yorkshire to the same effect. Mr. COBDEN presented a petition in favour of the Dissenters' Chapels Bill. Mr. XEMBLE presented thirteen petitions from the eastern division of Surrey against the corn-laws. OPENING OF LETTEttS IN THE POST- OFFICE. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from Capt. Charles Stolzberg, residing in Somers-town, formerly , a captain in the Polish service, and now an exile in Great Britain. The petitioner stated that he was devotedly attached to his native land, and would remain so until the day of his death, but he begged to assure the House that he had not interfered in the politics of this country. He stated that he had discovered, to his astoni,hment, that letters addressed to him had been detained in the Post-office, and that this system of espionage was carried on to such an, extent that he could no longer with safety or confi dence avail himself of the privileges of her Ma jesty's Post-office, being unwilling that the inter course with his family should be subjected to inspection.—(Hear, hear.) The petitioner stated that he was ready to , prove that there never did exist and never had existed the slightest pretence for this gross violation of private correspondence; and he therefore prayed the House to institute a rigid inquiry into the circumstances that led- to this breach of na tional hospitality; and to give petitioners such redress as, to the wisdom of Parliament, might seem meet for the personal wrong he had received.—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Duncombe) was satisfied that for this breach of confidence between man and man, of which the petitioner complained, .the House would not refuse immediate redress. When,. on a former occasion, he called the attention •of the House to the . subject, it appeared to the House that the grievance of Which the petitioner complained was supposed to be removed by the withdrawal of the warrant of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The Right on. Gentleman had not informed them against which of the four petitioners he had issued the Warrant, but he (Mr. Duncombe) stated he believed he could supply the omission, and that it was the corres pondence of Mr. Mazzini which was opened ; he stated that he was a respectable gentleman residing in this country, and that he was an Italian refugee; and he then asked the Right Hon. Gentleman whether he was aware that the correspondence of. Mr. Mazzini had been opened at the Post-office. The Right Honourable Gentleman stated that a war rant was issued against one of the- parties, but who the person was he (Mr. Duncombe) must find out. Here was the petition of only one individual, Captain Stolzberg, an officer of artillery in the Polish service, and he complained that his letters had been opened for no reason whatever, he never having meddled with the politics of the country. What would be the answer of the Right Honourable. Gentleman to the complaint of Captain Stolzberg—whether he would still continue to shield himself under of ficial silence he (Mr. Duneombe) did not know, but he trusted that the House was prepared to assert the power which it possessed, and to see if this great an d enormous power which had been vested in the Secretary of State had been abused or not. The Right Hon. Gentleman had been asked by the Hon. and Learned Member for Kinsale what construction the Government placed on the- law ' whether they considered it necessary- to issue only a general warrant fOr opening all letters belonging to one in • dividual, or whether they considered it necessary to issue a separate warrant for the opening of each letter. The Right Hon. Baronet firmly but respectfully declined to give any answer. Now if the Government and the Secretary of State were suffered to shelter themselves behind this official secrecy, *hat became of the respon sibility of which they heard so much, whenever any measure was before Parliament for giving new power to the Secretary of State ? Las* year, when in the debate on the Chelsea Pensioners' Bill, he had ob jected to giving the Secretary of State certain enor mous powers, he • had been told that the Secretary of State was responsible, and that he was always in his place to answer -any questions that might be put to him. He now called upon the Right Hon. Baronet to explain the manner in which he had exercised - these great and important powers.—(Cheers.) That power had been vested in the Secretary of •State, he admitted, but it was only t o be exercised in cases in which internal sedition, or domestic treason, was apprehended.—(Cheers.) There was no pretence of this sort for violating the corre spondence of Captain Stolzberg, or of Mr. Mazzini. On a former occasion he had stated that he did not think one individual in twenty was aware that the Government possessed this power, he believed that if he had stated that no person in the whole twenty were aware of its existence, he would have been right. He found, from what had passed in another place, that one of the greatest judicial authorities in the realm • was not aware of the exist ence of this power. But it had been stated by that high authority that the construction put upon the Act of Parliament by the Hon. Member for Kinsale was the correct one, and that it did require, according to theatrict letter of the law, that a separate and distinct warrant should be issued to authorise the opening of each letter. The question, therefore, pre sented itself to' • the - House and the public under two distinct points of view. First, had they adhered to the strict letter of the law in ordering the letters of Captain Stolzberg, Mr. Mazzini , and ot he r individuals to be opened ; and if they had not trans gressed the letter of the law, had they not abused the power vested in them in opening these letters at all ? The Government had done both; they had trans gressed the law - and bad abused the power which rested in them in opening those letters.—(Hear, hear.) It would not satisfy the public, for the in his place again but s m aY ust be it an i d gh- RBeasrpooneettf_utioly.:tand up firmly, I decline to answer the question.”—(Great eheenng.) - As to Mr. Mr. Mazzini, :his letter to tMainizziusinil.,wphuatnndnimd b th o at ?w ge oN n s t an le w m f;i a e n intd °fin observed, Or th ese two gentlemen t a h n a d t the Captain opening to I: f b et the same system. (Cheers.) He was part of the admit that the Oar, Duncombe) might g e letters f Ga vernment should have th e power of opening the f int ernal o( suspeeted persons in cases o sedi letters are of po mp wha had absconded from tion, or the leL,- Do yle ioeiged to those cases justice. But when -awes and benefits of they would think that the advap..._ abuses that power -were not counterbalanced by "" of it—(Much cheering)—and would sa y with him that it ought to be abolished.—(Hear , hear.) In the case ef,Mr. Mazzini, there was no ground of inter ference. raised. - He had nothing to do with Foreign THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY - MORNING, 26, °l' 4• Powers, or their squabbles with their subjects, as . long as those subjects conducted themselves peace- I ably and properly in this country. (The Honourable, I Gentleman then proceeded to read the letter of Mr. Mazzini, which was to the effect that the war rants had been in operation against him at least since the beginning of March, and that from sixty to seventy letters addressed to him, from twenty-five or thirty different persons, had been opened.)—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") The writer said that every care had been taken to avoid suspicion, and im pressions had been taken from the seals, and from these the opened letters were resealed, and the cut was made so clean that it required almost a microscope to discover it.—(Cheers and a laugh.) There were also double impressions made with the Post-office stamps, so that the date when the letters were re ceived at the Post-office might not appear.—(Oh, oh ! and laughter, with loud cries of " Hear, hear. ) The writer proceeded to say that the examination of his correspondence for so long a time must have con vinced the Government that it referred to nothing with respect to England or English policy. Mr. Mazzini referred to paragraphs which appeared in the Milan. Gazette and Suabian Mercury, to the effect that the Austrian Government had received as surance from the Government of her Majesty that agitation in the States of Austria would receive no countenance or assistance from this country, and that especially the proceedings of young Italy would be checked, at least in England.—(Hear, hear.) Her Majesty's Government would do all it could to re press agitation from the exterior, and give the Austrian Government an assurance that Mr. Mazzini would be prevented from assisting in the agitation. These paragraphs further stated that Mr. Mazzini had fled to Portsmouth, Mr. Mazzini in this letter stated that it was utterly untrue that he had fled to Portsmouth, and he denied that he had ever had any connection with any English political party, or with Eng• lish politics in any manner. If that was true, and he believed every word of it, he wanted to know what pretence or right they had to open the letters of Mr. Mazzini and Captain Stolz berg ? Not only had the Government done this with these gentlemen's letters, but he would undertake to prove that other persons' letters had been mostunscru pulously opened, not only in London, but in different parts of the country, within the last two years, and that must of course have been done under the orders of the present c i overnment.—(Hear, hear.) Did the Government think that the public would be satisfied under such circumstances with the flimsy pretexts the Government had adopted? Did they, when the Duke of Bordeaux was over here the other day, open his letters ?—(Hear, hear.) No doubt Louis Phillipe would have been glad to see them.—(Hear, hear.) Perhaps they did.—(Laughter.) What right had they to open Mr. Mazzini's for the sake of Austria, or any other individual's to please the Pope or any other power ?—(Hear, hear.) No doubt, it was agreeable to the Pope to curry , favour with this country, and perhaps they might do the same. for him. He trusted the Government would view this not as a party question. He had, in the course of another debate, heard it laid down that what was morally wrong could not be po litically right. He recollected that. the Right Hon. Baronet opposite disputed that proposition.--(Laugh ter.) He threw doubts upon that sentiment, for he asked who was to be the judge of what was morally wrong; but here there could be no question of the wrong. He would defy any man to have a doubt about it. What had been done ? Both fraud and forgery had been committed ; and unless fraud and forgery were morally right, he would claim the support of Hon. Gentlemen opposite on this occasion. What had they done ? They took men's letters, read and examined them, kept copies of them,"then re-sealed and re-enclosed the originals in such a manner, that the unfortunate individual was not aware that the Government was in possession of his family secrets. He believed that much odium might have been removed if individuals had been apprised of what had. , been done. If the letters had been stamped on the outside " Opened by Authority." He would ask the Hon. Baronet if he dare use information thus obtained in a court of justice in a trial for any political offence, as sedition—(An Hon. Member : "Or conspiracy.") Mr. Duncombe continued: Or conspiracy.—(Laugh ter.) If he did attempt to do so, he believed judge and jury, and every individual in the court, would unite in taking the Right Honourable Ba ronet by the head and shoulders, and turning him out of that court altogether. The question was, had not the Government exceeded and transgressed the letter of the law, and abused the power which the law invested in it ? He contended that they had done both these things ; he contended that they had abused that power—the almost sacred power vested in it by Parliament, of opening letters, of individuals. If they had not done so, they need not shrink from in quiry before a Committee. In 1735 a Com mittee was appointed to inquire into some abuses which had occurred in franking letters, and certain abuses of the Post-office department. The appointment led to the same sort of discussion which was now taking place. Several Members complained of their letters having been opened, the intention being to discover whether any treasonable corres pondence was being carried on against the Govern ment ; and it appeared that the practice of open ing letters was so well known, that no man would ever attempt to carry on such a correspondence in that manner. Sir Robert Wal pole at first opposed the appointment of the Commit tee, but afterwards granted it, on condition that they should not inquire into anything that would tend to discover the secrets of the Government. Now he (Mr. Duncombe) did not want to know the secrets of the Government—he doubted if they were worth knowing—but what he wished to inquire into was, whether the Government had abused the powers in trusted to it. He should therefore move that the petition of Captain Charles Stolzberg be referred to a Select Committee, in order to inquire what warrants had been issued by the Home-office for the opening of letters, and how these warrants had been obeyed. The Committee to make a report to the House, and also to state its opinion as to the expediency of alter ing the law relating to this subject. Dr. BOWRING rose to second the motion of his Hon. Friend. A grave responsibility weighed upon the Right Hon. Baronet if he did' not desire to be considered as an Italian sbirro, and if the Govern ment did not wish to submit to the imputation of being a Cabinet noir. Public opinion would not be satisfied by hearing that the warrant no longer existed. The Right Hon. Baronet, perhaps, did not know what misery he had caused, nor estimate how much the reputation of this country and this country's Government, would suffer by its becoming the willing tool of those Governments who were every where resisting the tide of human improvement. Sir JAMES GRAHAM assured the House that he by no means wished to under-rate the importance of the subject now brought under consideration. Though on a former occasion he had returned his thanks to the Hon. Member for Finsbury for the fairness of the course he then pursued, yet he was bound to say that he could not do so in the present case ; he had received from that lion. Gent. another petition on the subject of opening letters; he gave him no notice with respect to the nature of the de bate that was to be raised, of the form of the com plaint, of the words of the petition, and until the lion. Member rose to address the ouse, he had no knowledge of the petition, still less 'was he pre pared for a motion for a Committee. The Hon. Gentleman's motion assumed the fact that in this case a warrant had been issued. Now he begged the House not to draw any inference from the course he intended to pursue on this occasion. No public servant had a greater respect for public opinion than he had ; but though it was his sincere and ardent wish to stand well in the opinion of his fellow countrymen, yet holding a high and responsi ble office by the favour of his Sovereign, and being continued in' - the -discharge of his duties by the confidence of that • House, not for the sake of his private character, not for the sake of indulging his private feelings, should he be justified' in making any sacrifice of what he considered neces sary for the discharge of his public duty, and the preservation of the public ' security. Reflecting upon this he had come to the conclusion that, as the law hail vested in the Secretary of State the power of issuing warrants of this description ; 4t was not for the public good,. it was not con sistent with the public interest that he should answer in his place in the House of Commons interrogatories such as the Hon. Gentleman had thought fit to put to him.—(Hear, hear.) He had in a manner of which he hoped the House could not complain firmly re fused to answer in what cases those warrants had been issued. He might have given the Ho nourable Gentleman an evasive answer, but he spurned to take such a course. He thought it consistent with his duty to state that in one case a warrant had been issued, but he refused to go further, and he advised the House and - the country not to draw any inferences from this case. With regard to the presCrit case the assumption was that a warrant had - been issued, but he would not say aye or no whether it had been issued. This authority was vested in the Secretary of State by Act of Parlia mont.--(lronical cheers.) The assumption on the part of the Hon, Gentleman who brought forward this motion was, that he had transgressed the law, and had violated under the letter the spirit of the Act of Parliarnent.—(Hear, hear.) ThOHon. Gentleman said he could prove it.—(Hear, hear.) Now if the Hon. Gentleman could prove that letters h a d been opened or detained at the Gene ral Post-office, the Act of Parliament was express any Party so opening or detaining letters was Guilty Q# a misdemeanour, andW . .. 11$ liable to be in ha (Sir J, Graham), naa so violated the law. he was of a misdemeanour, and he Could be prosecntepi.sm(lronical cheers.) 'The legal tribu nals of tile POWItTv .would do )ustioc; between the humblest individual and the highest civil autltority. He was amenable to the civil tribunals of the country, and could be punished either by fine or imprisonment, if he had transgressed the law. But he demurred to any explanations then ; he demurred to a Committee of the House to in quire into it. Legal proceedings might be in• stituted against the individual who detained those letters, and, if he violated the laW, he was responsible to the injured laws of his country. The question was, had the law been violated or no ? He could state that the power as exercised by him had existed from the time of the Revolution, that when exercised by him it had been exercised in its accustomed form, and that he had in no degree de parted from the highest constitutional authorities among his predecessors. He distinctly denied that he had exceeded the authority reposed in him, or that he had departed in anything from the provisions of the Act of Parliament. He had obeyed the law, and not not only had he obeyed the law, but he had not de parted from the usages of his predecessors in similar cases. He was certain that this would not be re garded as a party question. He relied upon the practice of his office—his conscience was pure in this matter—he htiA discharged his duty, which was a solemn and an important one—he demurred to . any inquiry on the part of that House, and he should resist the motion for a Committee on the subject. Mr. MACAULAY could assure the Right Hon. Baronet that he had no wish to introduce into this discussion any matter of a personal or party charac ter. But the Right Hon. Baronet did not seem at all sensible of the peculiar position in which he stood. If they said that this power was a necessary power, still they must admit that it bordered so closely upon the odious, was a power so singularly abhorent to the genius .of the English character, that it was a power which, if necessary, the House was bound to watch with the most scrupulous jealousy. They ought to know precisely the nature of the warrants by which these letters were opened, and if, in a case like this, all a Minister said :—" I have power by law • I am responsible ; I w ill no t g i ve y ou an y further account of this matter, he must say it was a case likely to excite the suspicion that that power had been abused. He could not help saying, without wishing to cast the smallest imputation on the motives of the Right llon. Gentleman, that this was not one of those cases in which it was sufficient for a Minister to say, " You know my character; lam responsible; and I. ask you to have confid ence i n m y di scre ti on . One most important matter which it was proposed to submit to the .Committee was to consider the - propriety of altering the present state of the law. For that state of the law both parties were equally responsible. He did not attribute to any person on either side of the House any disposition to use dishonestly the powers by which they were invested by that law, but he must say that some attention had been called to those powers, that without great modification they could not be suffered longer to exist.—(Cheers.) He began by stating this, that he defied anybody to say why a letter in the post-office or the post-bag should be dealt with differently from a letter in his desk. Why was it put into the post-bag?—was it not for the purpose of transit, for which the public gave the Government a certain revenue ; but if this was to be turned - into a system of secret police, the sooner it was no longer the law of the land the better.—(Hear, hear.) Were there any reasons for examining a letter in the Post-office more than there was in the desk of a private individual ? Let them take the case of the most treasonable plot that could be thought of—the letter concocting, or written with respect to that plot, might have transit to the party concerned as easily in his (Mr. Ma caulay's) pocket as by means of the post-office. Let letters, if they were to be examined in transit, be ex amined as if they were found in his possession, by a court of law. Look to the case of Mr. Wilks ; he brought an action against the Secretary of State for the Home Department for, taking his letters impro perly, and the jury gave him damages to the amount of 1,0001. That was what he called ministerial re sponsibility.—(Cheers.) If the case was otherwise, hundreds of letters might be opened upon the most trivial grounds, and the parties, have no redress. If it were possible to show him that the examination of a letter bAfore it arrived was less injurious than the examination of it in the desk after it had arrived, then he would give up the argument..- 7 -(Hear, hear.) The whole of their arguments belonged to a class which had been repudiated by this country long ago. —(Cheers.) The question was not whether they should take advantage of the spy system, under some form or other, for that was a question which had been answered by our ancestors long ago.—(lmmense cheers.) What earthly difference could thAy make between the employment of a spy upon words spoken and words written? What difference was there whe ther they kept an agent to break the seal of a letter in the Post-office, or to listen at the keyhole of a door, or to note down the conversation of a drawing room ?—(Great cheers.) They would have the same plea for the employment of police or the spy upon speech, as for the spy upon letters. He would not deny that the spy system might prevent crimes or detect them when committed—so might—so did the . torture—(lronical cheers from the Tory benches)— but our Constitution forbade them both— (Cheers from the Opposition replied to by ironical cheers.) - Whit ? the Right Hon. Gentleman denies that torture pre vents crime? But could any man who looked to the history of nations and times, where and when, torture was a practice, doubt that, great as were its evils,: it sometimes prevented crimes, and sometimes discovered them? Why in the history of our own country, when the rack was shown to Guy Fawkes, he let out the whole story of the Gunpowder Plot. But that this chance of good counterbalanced. the evil of breaking up the constitution, trampling on its principles, and destroying the manly spirit upon which for more than upon any discoveries the police can make; must depend the freedom and happiness of nations.— (Great cheers.) He looked to these proceedings of the Government with great uneasiness as to our own country, but still more so as regarded those unfor tunate foreigners who took refuge amongst us.— (Hear, hear.) The greatness of the evil was in creased by the mystery with which it was conducted. —(Cheers.) The Right Hon. Baronet said that since he came into office the letters of twelve.persons had been opened. But the question did not depend on the number of the cases, but upon the reasons by which they were justified, of which the Right Hon. Baronet refused to give any explanation.—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Macaulay) gave the Right Hon. Baronet credit for an honourable character on Friday night, yet still he must say that if he could have denied that stamps were counterfeited, and seals imi tated, and letters re-sealed to evade the suspicion that they had been opened, he would have done so.— (Cheers.) But the House could not be satisfied with an explanation such as the Right Honourable Baronet had :given. —(Loud cheers.) To state a hypothetical case. Two years ago the country was in a state of great excitement—violence was used by great numbers to compel persons willing to work to abandon their labour, and join the wandering crowds. Much danger to the country was threatened by this violence. At that time all the organs of the Govern ment party were in the habit of asserting that this violence was the work of the Anti-Corn-law League. He was not the nominee of the League, nor would he hold a 'seat in Parliament as their nominee; but he wished to have some assurance as to whether it might' not, under the circumstances, have been found ne cessary by the Secretary of State to open the letters of twenty or thirty English gentlemen, those letters relating for the most part to private affairs, and to important trade concerns, in which the correspon dents alone were interested, or by the publication of which their commercial interests might be greatly affected. .But the case of the foreigner was still worse.—(Hear.) Whatever the letter of the English man might contain, you could not hang him or im prison him, or punish him in any way without a judge and jury; but a poor Italian coining here, having incurred some suspicion of his own Goiernment, but confiding in the security of English institutions, he corresponded with his friend in greater freedom than he would venture upon but for that confidence. —(Hear, hear.) The Austrian Government in forms the Foreign Secretary that the Italian is .a dangerous person—his letters are opened, and their contents are communicated to Austria, whilst he is unsuspicious that the sacredness of the English Post office has been violated—he goes back to his own country, then out pops the 'information, and he is at once, without the intervention of a judge, certainly without the protection of a jury, thrown into prison, from which there is little prospect he will ever come out.—(lmmense cheering.) For his part, although he (Mr. Macaulay) never encouraged a tax in that respect upon the governments of foreign countries, but thought something of diplomatic decency should be observed towards them by the Ministers of the Crown ; yet, he must say, that if they (the Ministers) were not appointed the judges of those Governments, they should never stoop to be their spies. —(Immense cheering.) He thought it would be better if the Se cretary for Foreign Affairs were enabl e d t o say th a t the laws of this country gave him no po we r t o com ply with the wishes of Foreign Powers in such matters, and he would willingly vote for a Bill to declare such to be the law. However, as the question stood, he would vote for the motion for a Committee of inquiry. [ —(The Right Hon. Gentleman sat down amidst - Ye• hement and repeated cheers. When the cheering. ; subsided there was a pause of several seconds, mani festly in expectation that some one on the' idiniste- , , rial benches would rise.) Captain 13ERNAL then said that, whilst Gentle men on the other side were satisfied to leave the House with the ghost of an answer, he could not be silent without expressing his surprise at the conduct of Alinisters, and his dissent from the monitroua ductrineP which they 144c1 laid down,--(Cheeri,) Ile bad thought it was the proudest boast of this country that we were free from petty annoyances of police, from the opening of letters, and from domicilliq visits.—(Hear; hear.) - •An Irish Member opposite expressed his abhorrence of the Pope ; hitt that must be only in his spiritual capacity, fur the same Member Supported the Goverment in giving effect to the Pontiff's despotism in his civil character by these unworthy means. He feared that the Secretary for the Colonies, who had declared that England, to be loved, must be feared, had inoculated the Government with his views --(Cheers) for he believed that Irish letters' had . frequently been opened in the Post-office.—(Cheers.) The Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department had stood up in the tattered garments of his . public credit, to defend the conduct of the Government towards a Polish gentleman, Count Ostrowski, whose deSk had been broken open by the police, and his.papers 'seized and handed over to the Russian Embassy. The Earl of SIIELBURNE wished to call the attention, of the House from what had fallen from the Right llon. Gentleman. He told the Hon. Member for Finsbury that, if he had grievances to complain of at the hands of the Post-office, he might institute proceedings at law—(Hear, hear)—and that there would be no difficulty on the part of the Post-office as to the production of the warrant. If that were so, he did not see what difficulty there could be in forwarding the letters opened—(Hear, hear)—informing the person that it was opened. Sir R. PEEL said that he wished, in the first place, to refer to a remark made by the Honourable _ Gentleman who spoke last but one, who attempted to introduce a ease which had no bearing upon the pre sent matter, but which was calculated to produce an undue prejudice against the Government. He referred to the case of the Polish nobleman, Count Ostrowski. He could state, on the authority of his Right Honourable Friend, that no autho rity was given by his Right Honourable Friend for the detention of any papers belonging to that nobleman. The most rigid inquiry had been made from the police, and there was every reason to believe that every paper found in the possession of that gentleman were delivered up to him, and no communications, with regard to any papers found on that gentleman, were made to any foreign diplomatic agent.—(Hear, hear.) With regard to any authority derived from the Government, he could speak on that point con clusively. With regard to the information which he received, on inquiries which he instituted, he believed that what he had stated to the House was perfectly correct. In the couse of the debate Hon. Gentlemen had dealt largely in assumptions with regard to the power exercised by his Right Hon. Friend; and seemed to think that his Right Hon. Friend had spoken of that power as if it were a light power, and one to he exercised without a serious and deep feeling of the responsibility which attached to the exercise of it. Nothing that had fallen from his Right Hon. Friend could - justify such an assumption. He stated that, as Secretary of State, he was in vested with the power by law which he was not only authorised, but which he was called on, if there was any consideration of public duty in ques tion to exercise. The Right Hon. Gentleman said that lie would assume that the power was universally exercised. Now, what were the grounds on which he founded that statement? On a former occasion, four persons presented a petition to the House of Commons, and that evening another petition had been presented, complaining that their letters had been opened. The Hon. Gentleman who brought forward the motion had not stated who those persons were, and had concluded his speech by a motion of which lie had not given the slightest notice. With regard to three out of the four who presented peti tions on a former occasion, they entertained' impres sions totally unfounded—at least his Right Hon. Friend stated, that with regard to three no warrant had been issued. His Right Hon. Friend might have stated in perfect conformity with the truth that the allegations in those petitions were unf oun d e d ; but he was araid if he said that it might be consi dered that he denied the statement with regard to all ; and he, therefore, stated that with regard to one a warrant had been issued. His Right Hon. Friend had declined to make any statements with regard to it, and all he asked of the House was to draw no conclusions from that.—(lronical cheers.) Now, how stood the ease ? This power of issuing a warrant had been committed to the Secretary of State since the time of Queen Anne. About eight years ago, when the Noble Lord opposite was the organ of the Government in that House, an alteration in the Post office Act took place, and this power, in his opinion, was most justly retained.—(Hear, hear.) In his opinion the Government was justified in re taining the power they had retained. They con sulted the law, the amended law of the late President of the Board of Trade, who he believed introduced the Act and was the author of it as it now stood, re taining the provision nearly in the same words as the Act of Queen Anne. He thought his Right Hon. Friend was justified in exercising the power he had ' done. If the House thought the power ought to be ' extinguished, let it be so, but let it be done in a proper and regular manner, by a motion for repealing ' the Act of which notice had been given. The Right lion. Gentleman opposite had said that the system might be carried on by the Government towards their political opponents ; he believed he might , safely say that had not been the case in late years. Ilk Right Hon. Friend had introduced no new prac tice as to opening letters ; he had not carried it beyond the practice of Mr Fox and Lord Grenville. He had not carried the powers of the law beyond the ' usages of those two persons. If the House pressed his Right Hon. Friend to specify the cases in which warrants had been issued, he thought it would com pel him to act unjustly to individuals. Lord J. RUSSELL regretted that his Hon. Friend had not given a definitive notice on the question, but with regard to the position of the House, he did not think it would make much, if any, difference. The Right Hoe. Baronet the Secretary of State on a former occasion had stated what his resolution was on the subject ; the question, therefore, now stool ex actly in the same situation as it did on the former occasion. With respect to notice as to the law of opening letters, the question now before the House was not only whether the Secretary of State had ex ceeded his power, but whether he had adopted a pro per interpretation of the law. In that respect the Right Hon. Baronet seemed to have followed his predecessors, and therefore, if the law had been impro perly interpreted, that must be corrected ; for his own part he thought in dangerous times the law would become useless if the interpretation some people put upon it was considered to be the right one. With respect to the law itself, it was stated by Sir Robert Walpole that it was a power to be used in times of public danger, and as a proof of that he referred to the case of the Bishop of Rochester, whose plot was carried on through the medium of the Post-office.—(Hear, hear.) He (Lord J. Russell) thought the Right Hon. Baronet should have taken the coarse pursued by Sir R. Walpole, and have stated the principles on which he proceeded. This power was to secure against public danger either at home or abroad, and was to be used either to put down insubordination at home or wars in other coun tries. In the performance of this difficult duty he admitted that the Secretary of State must be the judge if the public danger was so imminent as to jus tify his interference or not. But the Right Hon. Gentleman had taken no such ground. He had not enabled them to say that the power had not been ex ercised as had been stated by his Hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury for the purpose of assisting foreign Governments.—(Hear, hear.) If such were the case he (Lord J. Russell) must say that it was a most unjustifiable use of such power.—(Cheers.) If the Right Hon. Gentleman had stated the principles upon -which he had used that power. If the Right lion. Gentleman had stated the principles on which he had used the power—if the Right Honourable Gentleman had stated that he agreed in opinion with his Hon. Friend, that to use the power for the purpose of assisting foreign Governments was an un justifiable use of that power, and that he had not, and would not make use of the power for that purpose, he (Lord J. Russell) would have been satisfied, and would not have "voted for the Committee. But if the Right Hon. Gentleman would not make such a decla ration, it certainly would not be beneath him, nor un worthy of his position to consent to inquiry on this subject.L--(Cheers.) He recollected that during the time of the late Government a committee of inquiry , had been moved for at the time the Right Hon. Gentles man himself was a member of the Cabinet. It was a motion for inquiry into the conduct of Lord Mel bourne, who, as Secretary of State for the Home De partn ent, was accused of' having employed Popsy, a private.in the police, in endeavouring to excite insur rection. Mr. Cobbett had moved for a committee of inquiry into all the circumstances of the case, and the Member for Oxford had objected that a committee was not a proper tribunal for considering the circum stances of the case. Mr. Cobbett renewed his mo tion, confining it specifically to an inquiry as the em ployment of Popay. Lord Althorp, speaking during the debate, had stated that the idea of employing the police as spies had never been anticipated either by the Right Honourable Baronet who had first instituted the force, or by his successori in office. that no words could be too strong to stigmatise con duct such as that of which Popay had been accused but if he . had been guilty of such conduct he had greatly exceeded his instructiens—that Lord Mel bourne had never given him such instructions ; and Lord Althorp concluded by saying that he had no objection to the appointment of a Committee. — (Cheers.) The Committee was appointed, reported to the House, and the subject was subsequently dis cussed. Had that been any injury to the Govern ment ? Par from it. The Government at that time was strong enough to have secured a Ministerial Jorltv to quash inquiry. But they had pat clone so . —(Cheers.) It would have ;sen unwßrthy of them to have done cheers.) There could be, in fact, no real Ministerial responsibility unless thin House instituted thoseinviries.—(ClAeer9 present case, the Government did not deny the facts ; they would offer no explanation, and they would not state on what principles they had acted. They con tented themselves with saying—" We have such a majority as can stifle inquiry." Such being the case, no vete of censure could be moved against them.—(Hear.) It was quite out of the question to attempt it.—(Hear.) The House and the public were kept in equal ignorance of the facts of the case. He did not know that inquiry would cast any blame on the Right Hon. Gentleman. It might not cast more blame on him than it had on Lord Melbourne in the case of Popay ; but if that inquiry were refused, it would go hard to destroy the doctrine of Ministerial responsibility. With regard to any alte ration in the law, that was too grave a subject to be discussed incidentally. It was perfectly competent to any Hon. Gentleman to propose an alteration in the law. He had approved of the law in 1837. and he thought it was a power that ought to exist. If, how ever, upon discussion, it should appear that the exist ence of such a power produced more evil than good, he would be prepared to abolish it ; but the question now before the House was, whether, when a Minister totally refused any explanation of facts, and would not even say on what principles he had exercised his powers, the House would be satisfied with that re fusal, and not exercise its functions of inquiry. Mr. M. MILNES regretted that his Right lion. Friend had not thought it consistent with his duty to state one fact, and that was, that he had not com municated to foreign Governments the informa tion which he had thus acquired. If he had thought it consistent with his duty to make this statement, he believed that the public and the House would have been satisfied. Now, although the Right Hon. Baro net had not thought fit to do so, he (Mr. M.' Milnes) could not consent t o vo t e for he Hon. Member for Finsbury.—(lronical cheers and laughter from the Opposition benches.) He thought it most important that the knowledge of these matters should be confined to the secrecy of the Cabinet. The power should be used by the Minister solely for his own information, and the information so acquired should not be com municated to any other person. Now the Committee could not be conducted without the violation of this secresy, and without making public the contents of those letters. He believed that they would find that the agitation on this subject would lead to bringing a powers into odium which lie certainly admitted should not be exercised but on extraordinary occasions. Mr. SHEIL said as they were approaching the critical' moment of the evening, he thought it right to address a few observations to the House. The House should take care to distinguish between the case of the present Government and that of the last. His Noble Friend, the Member for London, when filling the post of Home Secretary, might have given a war rant of authority for opening letters; but no refusal had ever been made by his Noble Friend—no inves tigation had ever been denied—(Hear, hear)—no such case had ever been brought before a British House of Cornmons—(Hear, hear)--as that now under th e ir consideration, and which was certainly accompanied with circumstances of a most suspicious nature.— (Hear, hear.) A call had been made upon the Right Hon. Gentleman to state reasons for acting in so un common a manner ; but he answered them by saying he would meet the demand with his responsibility. The Right Hon. Gentleman said he was sensible of his responsibility. Why what was the meenleg of the term ? He said his conscience was pure, but who, besides himself and colleagues, 'bad an opportu nity of ascertaining the correctness of the statement ? —(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet asked what were the facts. He (Mr. S.) asked the same question. Had not enough come out, even by the ad mission of the fact itself, to justify investigation?— ' (Hear hear.) They said it was a r i ght—well he ad mitted the right, but did not the extreme assertion of a right often reach the propinquity of consummate wrong ?—(Hear, hear, and cheers.) He was aware that in the discipline of the army this assertion of au thority was often and perhaps necessarily carried out to a great extent—he could understand the Duke of Wellington as Commander-in-Chief, exclaiming at the Horse Guards, sic vo/o sic jubeo, fiat voluntas, but he thought such language hardly became a Home Secre tary.—(Hear.) Why should not the conduct of the Home Secretary be made the subject of inves tigation in that House ?—if that check were not held over the Minister his conduct might soon become authoritative, arbitrary, and capricious.—(H ear , hear, and great cheering.) The charge against the Home Secretary was, that he caused a warrant to be issued for the opening of a certain letter or letters, and that he had done so without reference to any plot or con spiracy in this country.—(Hear, hear.) It was not to discover any Chartist or Repeal organisation, but it was entirely connected with our foreign relations. Was not that so ? Had not the Hon. Gentleman read an extract from the Milan Gazette, published four months ago, in which it was boasted that the conduct of this Mazzini was under the surveillance of the Lon don police ? And much the same statement was made in the Aug,burgh Gazette. Was it proper treatment of an unfortunate refugee, who had sought an asylum in the hitherto esteemed sacred soil of Britain, whose misfortunes entitled him rather to sympathy than condemnation, that his most secret thoughts should be placed under the prying inquisition of a British Minister?—(Hear, hear, and great cheering.) He felt bound to say that the English Minister had acted a most un-English part.—(Loud and long-con tinued cheering.) The British Home Secretary ought not to degrade himself into the spy of a foreign Cabinet. He should not allow himself to be made instrumental in the procuration of evidence for a foreign Minister—evidence, too, which might in volve the sacrifice of the properties, nay, even of the lives of the suspected parties.—(Hear, hear, and re newed cheering.) Public opinion was against them. In every part of the country there was but one feel ing of dislike at this conduct. The people of Eng land felt indignant that a social inquisition of this sort should be established.—(Hear.) His Right Hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, who, though he repu diated the efficacy of torture, tried it with power, but tried it in vain, on the Home Secretary—(Hear, hear) the peine forte et dare proved useless.— (Laughter.) He would not detain the House further than by again protesting against the violation of that secresy which had been long held sacred. He did not think it was consistent with the principles of honour or of justice that that letter should be broken open in which the hopes, the fears, the joys, the afflictions, and the affections of our fellow man were contained. --- Mr. STUART WORTLEY said he thought that voting for the present motion would be sanctioning those unfounded imputations which had been cast on the Home Secretary. He thought the House was not sufficiently aware of the merits of the case.— (Hear, hear.) He would vote against the motion. Mr. WAKLEY said the Hon. Member who had just sat down would not vote for the present motion, although he considered the character of the Govern ment had been unworthily dealt with ; he believed the conduct of the Government so proper that he would refuse inquiring into it, although he acknow ledged he did not know anything at all of the merits of the case.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Pontefract expressed a wish to know what communi cation had taken place on this matter with foreign States, but would vote against all inquiry which might tend to elicit that information. He certainly thought that the two Right Hon. Baronets (Sir R. Peel and Sir J. Graham) were not very happy on this occa sion.—(Laughter.) He never was more surprised at anything since he came into that House than at the statement of the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and thespeech of the Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. The latter Right Hon. Gentleman had never on pre vious occasions been subjected to a more disagreeable occupation, in defending his colleague, than on this. The manner in which he attempted to defend his con duct showed how bad the case was.—(Hear, hear.) it would seem, from the spirit of the Home Secre tary, who complained that he had not had notice of the fifth case, that numerous letters had bee n o p ene d at the Post-office. He wanted to know how many really had bean opened. From the speech of the Right lion, Baronet, it would seem that it was a practice at the Post-office, and the House was justified in so inferring from his speech.—(Hear, hear.) Pub lic feeling—public indignation had been aroused against the practice ; and a man had rightly remarked to him (Mr. Wakley), a day or two ago, that a still worse practice than the employing of spies by the Government had been lately resorted to, for the Go vernment had become spies themselves.—Hear, and cheers,) He knew no prat-ice more odious, or more likely to bring a Government into odium, or to de grade the character o f th e country in which it was ' tolerated.—(Cheers.) This question might be said to be the touchstone of Ministerial responsi bility ; and if accountablility was not demanded in such a case as this, he knew not when it should be enforced.—(Hear, hear.) The control of the House of Commons over the Government became a mere mockery.—(Hear, hear.) He thought it was the bounden duty of that House to insist upon inquiry. He observed that the Hon. Member for Knaresborough (Mr. Ferrand) laughed —it reminded him that himself and the Right Hon. Bawnet though so much at variance in other respects seemed to agree i t , one point—both demurred to this House as a tri bunal—(Great cheers and a laugh)—they were now in the same boat, and he would have the Hon. Mern her for Knaresborough look out, as it was in a sinking state.—( Chee rs.) He thought that the party which supported thil Government had been lately placed in as low a position as they could bo, but if they per severed in adhering to an Administration which could be capable of such ac ts, it would only prove that though in the depths of the deep they would find a liawfir pg. ulf still.--(Cheers.) Lord HOWICK sunizoted the motion, if th e pre sent system wer 4 11 4 Wed to go on, it m i g ht a t l eng th b e carr i e d t 4 l such an extent, th a t th e Mi n i ster m i g h t I l i ni . i . e lf . b e justified in bre a ki ng open t h e letters of hi s ?elides' opponents. He agreed with his Right lion. 3 !-, . 7 ~.,,,- ---,, - (4 3 ,:' , Friend, the Member for Edinburgh, in think netiiiitlX.... s, : I ,\ if the practice were to become anything :likfits..cl .e ; 14,•!L- 4 :4 quent, it would be far better it were aboliskiett* s:y, , -:4 ,:sige ii gether. He wished to know if there were ar*th, in .X"--lE*- ..._,,..4 y in the Act of Parliament to sanction the reseal' it _- 4, t ). ) the letters with a counterfeit seal similar to thif Mk i c%' At:{ —"fl - ,NI which they had been sea l e d i n t h e fi rst i nstance ? 4e. would give his cordial support to the motion. Lord STANLEY defended the conduct of the Gd vernment. He would like to know how many letteils their predecessors in office had opened. The Homie would support any Minister in refusing to give that explanation. It was a power for the exercise of which, the only security must be the honour and conscience of the Minister of the Crown, who put it in force. He gave no opinion as to the policy of affording that power, but having bestowed it, it must be left to the responsibility of the Minister to exercise it. He de nied that opening letters was a thing of daily occur rence ; on the contrary it was but very rarely used. He admitted frankly and fully that it was only to - be used on great occasions, and then only used with caution ; but it must be used with secrecy and with out the Minister being called on to answer for the manner in which he had used it.—(Loud cries of " No, no.") He again contended that it must and ought to be left to the responsibility of the Minister of the Crown. Sir G. GREY said the Noble Lord, with his usual courage, had rushed to the rescue of his two Right Hon. Friends, and certainly not before his aid was wanted; but he had not adduced one single argu ment, or made one single assertion, that had mended the case. He had asserted, without the slightest foundation of reason, that the total silence of the Go vernment as to the circumstances of the case was jus tified by the duty that devolved upon a Minister of the Crown. He (Sir G. Grey) undertook to contro -1 Vert that assertion. His Hon. Friend (th.t . Member for Finsbury), with a moderation that did not always distinguish him, did not deny that the Government possessed the power of opening letters, but charged it with having exercised that power, given them for one purpose, for a purpose wholly distinct.—(Cheers.) His charge was not that they had used the power vested in them by law, but that they had, at the in stigation of some foreign C-rovernment—(Loud cheering) exercised that power, not to dis cover any plot against, their Sovereign Lady the Queen, not any plot against the Constitution of the realm, but in order to enable the agents of foreign Governments, or those Governments themselves, to ohtsin evidence ag a i ns t th e f r i ends of those who were here as exiles on political reasons, and whom it had always been the pride and honour of this country to receive with hospitality and sympathy.—(Cheers.) He believed that the reasons on which the Horne Secretary had acted might have been explained to the House, without any detriment to the public service. If he were to vote against the motion of his Hon. Friend, he should consider that he was sanctioning the right the Government claimed to exercise, to open letters at the Post-office, and make what use they pleased of the contents, not for any State purpose, but for some purpose unexplained, and an explanation of which might have been givenwith the greatest facility. He should cordially support the motion for a Com mittee. Lord SA ND ON rose, and attempted to address the House, but the cries of "Divide, divide," and the usual indications of extreme impatience, were so loud, that only a few broken sentences reached the gallery. He was understood to explain for his Hon. Friend near him (Mr. S. Wortley) something in 'that gen tleman's speech that had been misunderstood. He said he should oppose the motion on the ground that to affirm it would be to deprive the Executive Go vernment of that confidence which they were entitled to have from the House. Mr. W YSE rose, but was received with a perfect storm of " Divide" and " Oh, oh !" which was re newed every time the Hon. Gentleman attempted to utter a word. He stood for some time against it ; but even his assurance that he had but a very few words to say on the subject failed to propitiate the House. He was still attempting to proceed, when Captain BERNAL rose to order, and the con fusion was rather increased than diminished, loud cries of " Spoke, spike," being added to the others. He said he was in order in pointing out the Hon. Member for Nottinghamshire (Mr. Gaily Knight) as one who was active in interrupting his lion. Friend (Mr. Wyse) in his speech to the House. lie called on the Speaker to assert the right of Hon. Members to freedom of debate.—("Oh," and "Spoke.") Mr. WYSE at last proceeded to say that, some doubts having been thrown out as to whether these letters were opened or not, he ass ured . the House th a t he bad that day carefully exam ined the letters him self, and, in his mind, there could be no question that they had been opened at the Post-office. Two letters were addressed to Mr. Mazzini and Mr. Hamilton, which were placed in the post at the same time. One reached Mr. Hamilton at the proper hour, a little after ten ; the other letter did not reach Mr. Nlazzini till after twelve. On the latter, the post-mark had been altered by another stamp having been made upon the first one. There could be no doubt but the letters had been opened. He should vote for the Committee. Mr. DUNCOMBE then replied. He denied that he was liable to the charge of want of courtesy brought against him by the Right Hon. Secretary. He had given notice of the terms of the petition on the last occasion, and the Right Hon. Baronet then met him by stating that the warrant had been issued but had been withdrawn. In consequence of that statement he (Mr. Duncombe) did not take a division of the House on the question. But here he had another case, and he thought he had given the Right lion. Secretary quite sufficient notice respecting it. He could assure him the public would not be satisfied with the explanation that had been given ; and if the Committee should be refused, it would be a general opinion that the Government was using a tyrant ma jority in order to stifle inquiry. This was no longer a question of inquiry into the Post-office; it had become a question of confidence in Ministers. Had he made out a prima facie case of inquiry ? lie con tended that he had ; he had accused the Government of using its authority for the purpose of gratifying the feelings of foreign Powers, not for the purpose for which Sir R. Walpole said such an authority ought to be used—that of warding off any danger from the State. If they now refused an inquiry, they would be admitting their own criminality. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House divided—the numbers were : For the motion 162 Against it 206 Majority against the Committee SUGAR DUTIES. In answer to a 9uestion from Sir R. Peel Lord J. RUSSELL said he thought it would be more convenient to postpone the third reading of the Sugar Duties Bill till Thursday. Sir R. PEEL said that as ho wished the Bank Charter Bill to be taken in Committee that evening, he would not oppose the postponement of it. The third reading of this Bill was then deferred till Thursday. _ _ - 44 GREENWICH PARK. Mr. lIUME M begged the Hon. Secretary of the Admiralty to explain what he had stated the other evening as to the excavations in Greenwich Park, and the destruction of the ancient barrows, as his remarks had been misunderstood. Mr. S. HERBERT said that a public meeting had been called, protesting against the destruction of those barrows, and in consequence of remonstrances which had been made a stop had been put to their removal. As they had been opened before not much injury would be done to them, and whatever injury was done would be repaired. In answer to a question from Mr. HAWES, The Earl of LINCOLN said that an application had been made on the part of the Admiralty Board for park ground to build certain houses for some of the official re sidents, and desiring that some land might be attached for the sake of privacy. This proposition, on the part of the Admiralty, was objected to, but he proposed to o.vie them a different portion of the park, to which no objec. tion could be made. TURNPIKES. In answer to a question from Gen. JOHNSON on the subject of the Turnpike Bill, Sir J. GRATIAMtaid that her Majesty's Government intended shortly to introduce a measure on the subject of Turnpikes for Wales, the provisions' of which Bill would, by some small alterations, be rendered applicable to England. If the House consented to peas - the mea sure for South Wales, he intended, after some experi ence of its working, then to introduce a Bill for England and Wales. CLASSIFICATION OF THE POPULATION. Mr. RICARDO wished to know from the Right Hon. Gentleman when the classification of the population would be complete. Sir J. GRAHAM said it would be ready before the close of the present session. IRtSII AND SCOTCH PAUPERS. Sir D. NORREYS wished to know from the Right Hon. Gentleman whether he intended to bring in a Bill with regard to the transmission of Irish and Scotch paupers. Sir J. GRAHAM said it was his intention to intro duce a Bill to regulate the law of settlement, but it wiaa not his intention to pass it this session. BANK CHARTER. On the motion for the Order of the Day for going into Committee upon the Bank Charter Bill being put, Alderman THOMPSON said he entirely concurred in the principle of the Bill introduced by the Right Hon. Gentleman ; but the question was, whether the restric tions contained in this Bill were necessary to carry Out that principle. In his opinion they were not. For in stance, the Bank of England was restricted to fourteen millions in its issues, because it was supposed that was the capital of that establishment. But he could show that the real capital of the Bank was sixteen and a half millions, and they ought to bo allowed to issue to that amount. He thought it was a very hard thing if per sons who could give undoubted security on the loan of money, should be refused it if they wanted it to carry on their speculations, He had been led to believe that a discretionary power had been vested in the First Lord of the T re asury, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Master of the Mint, to meet emergencies. There wee no objection to the separation of the banking and issuing I 1 I!