The Sun. — London, England, 1845-02-21 00:00:00

1 .._ —........_______.--... n n g his l e tt ers. —(heir. hear.) A M enTher of Par- ti°s , who s t ee d s up here and puts so grove a fines , under so grave rut imputatien, has sn 1111(10,'StiOn kbr this iel*,+d to the privilege- eeinies elly elsjoyie by Members ee It is House, to r•eive an weaver to his questem. of the greatest importance to Nlernbeie of the House that their eorresporeleitco should be inviolate, arAl that 111 enmse.eunicatiens pas.- i;,g between them and their th tonstitu ents should h e o f the meet free and eenfieent,,i a racter,—(H ear, hear.) To Members of this House— int* thereat inquest of the nation—people are sometimes habit ernes stated of addressing letters, in which much is so we_ which should not be menti one d, muc h that ilaYs heap isepproved of, much that it would have be ci..t,,,r. to have suppreseed—but still, Sir, the dispo ,,i,lt-it;t3 le a, Member of Parliament to rece," °dm is a virtue and a merit, and he is char ges his duty by s s doing. (He itr, bea t r.) . • ew ' Sir, if such e.rrespondence is to be subject to _11 , i , . n__spection of our political oppenents, to of the strictest honour and inteerity, still they are our political party °PPonents have their minds heated by the 317:it.::;toottnntatl:icutosef.w:hniien:id n i w e: i h i e il n y take they placei m here, and are in . interpret sentid ,-,tlA, Perfectly harmless in themselves, into evil, and pun them which never was , intended ntered his b:adsvviter—(Hear, hear)—never once e open a And this power allows suchto secret, "'s e ettrr espondence, in its nature menm tho, e .'nu gives them an opportunity of prying in d to . Whe n .er Y Points upon which we are most oppose Pm, hen Member of the house of Commons offers tc, emite that hi s orseskthetr CrlieelarYed°aPinion, letters have been opened, and offers to g h i Proof that such has been the case, h_e . ha h s a a_ to substantiate and have . h P, fur, if such suspicion is justifiable, he r be er.) "t to continue a Member of that Ileuse.—( ea , Ititeol,, If on the other hand, he has been so treated t re - Allle; an y cau3e, ho has every right t.on o had i t f ho the Hon. Gentleman's itlhi , .'''' 4 wth calling for a Committee leel to in :htleretlitilci-1"e. to propriety legislate sidering ti l l % " ge l ? a re not now i n o a seriously Condition con sidering my 1 5 04 this subject, I would have for in quiry "" the motion. To a propcsal tee in t° the rlia hts Who complaints of a Member of Pa - Perlye,° complains that his letters have been inspr n o_ shle eir n ed, I do not think there could be any reaso .11titr, if'eetti°rle--(Cheers.) k"lion. 11°RTLEY would not support the motion ref ttes-V4eMber for Finsbnry and thought that the' rht h t t-Q Sec ret Committee fully • exculpated the Rig ,' th ' Seer .e,f 3 Lhe Hume Department. vis . 44t. ‘e.tary of otate dettlmpartitt,e,le,rnber for M " o h r ntrose with that justice ever been remarkable, vinis_rlated ti t,:) for which he ti) ,?oury h,r, tone in w iich aa the Hon. Member for lee 134 ''' Drought that matter forwar . d, and looking I NN 41.4 r from which it came, looking to the per; , t 4 44etwhith which the accusation_wasprt•srd w a a g s ai i n tn s_ retied ;eon. Ilaren it he (Mr. J. Wortley) "tight fortel‘.'t the foil conviction that the object essi„ ._ to the ' of i was to attach a stigma that It most lin bst " • 48 Ins t ne R. ht Honourable Ti l 4 3 ,n a . ro 3T e , t irib m: . h r ic in h g i ,o4se lle pet it to any . and lb, to suppo- e himself in the poeitien of the e - ''" th e -it ' 41 seun it h - eountry in a state of tumult, 70stillls-°ll;7lll3e" sh si i t t l i l l 7 d it , 3 : r t s : ( f i f P th r e es'r Bighte ieerns,rnd.er Baronet, altogether anti "d k 4°) Ron NI • . p p , tlowi li _ • ,; Crosse say . I similar cases by his that, possessieg that power, 407t1ee,5,4 xthoautbilt Was e i x io e t r i cis x e ! Se t :Its e etati as . any .. h H em o le n ber i3 , a i r 'n on su t? ch H a e c h as a e d , 1 4 ,..., 4 thi _ did the ltiv. t li ta s s po s i ti lt o Pewee in a grester deg . ree than had others i. of those in the te: t iene s : I ', and be excelled man; the exercise e rg sisegret;etit, p,unquality he exhibited in ith se e uity. He would not allow warrants to m , t c. f ,re: loi-te•e• than was abselutely necessary.. ,, "tine '" l t said e - . i z ` • ,.b. He n . Bacoa,t had ma -lc at eenstiter a l li P-'' '' '' ' - • but could any ;nen 4 0 _ eti t t, 1(M1.1. C...f. 01 . this I)(114,er, Ils" 1 ? Anp. PO,V,r itself ' Wag illess d al r er u e e t t i i: e in i si. ; i g i i t t i- t w ee t at elt remained yet 0' be prove . v. . Rh the°net had abused the exercise of the p07...r .; ' w hy h i , it „a s sa y that no letters should be ()pence . tlltt l i v s s tai t t t w ell known that letters containing ex : l k e any er had been sent through the post, and hat (4 'enee t;Lte had to say ; hat-those letters i sh h o t e l l a d u r h t , tr ek tete thi n (L aughter.) lion. Mem a b i c s •rs beer) said that 111 • tile eorr i g had been done. It lied . ksvBtrildtialatidt t s h p a o t ne t e h n i e s e ei o r f eo f in or s e t i a g n n ee m h i a n: i s.ers had been tlii ‘* slle k , \ °f England in the eyes (.dlfiseirancrei.dp„t.h_e tot oseeeli, But that power was not eerily exercised in the t t4 - o -t tli out in every nation of Europe. Were they N tt t l i s ktioe er e. important Committee on that subject? That was e ts lon, ee There was another and a more . si te i ee l ~,, ‘l)le,tte Q ? „ ( lot grounds werehose walls they to give that more honcur 41t1IPI th a ,'!.fi they within t e,ste n. tie tnuse who had formed that Committee? that they A e ll h tt , ` e nsher for Montrose sugz. sted . i l t: toe, e Public Committee, but if that Committee_ isf, th -routed vvould they get the Noble Lord . oppo heu.4l,.stiet,llight Hon. Baronet on that side to . give any P is ‘r t '" e P t l e i shi subject, when such information would et40,411114,re5, before the public. What ground then 11° * ". (1 4 eto ' b e llu r e g f ed for asking for this Committee ? The thr, t %11 % or Finsbury said, in the first place, that ke i btlse t ilt ' °Pon the Committee. If a Member of aSzuse, ai, r onght an accusation against another Hon. r S',l 4 ,tit e '„ tel Y it could not be thought that the accuser 1 44 1 11 e at - 4 .indge in his own case. lEsspuld it the i t t i on kitt,ntele te rt tega that the Hon. Member should . s Sti t- . t .s'e(i"? Had he no personal interest in this !II Cord s sth,,'t4r Had They had the Hon. Member's hit It t li o n introducing the subject, that . he . stood Mt.- 41 '41.. 4e as a double accuser, and was it right, or 4 01: 9I te t o, ei h n t a hle that he should be allowed, then, to t -est 'e-(est '8 CO MMittee ? The thing was prepos- Vo i his : s t r ,t hear.) He had had an opportunity of `,4s-,,tNe„..'tesses examined under the most favouirt 'NOY ?. gees," tan asses and he had not availed himself of d . t hs t "ee i, ould tell them why. He comp_aine s i t , t ses„ a -attend,d afore the Committee to make h hi d ;: ti t tl ,';! t ild e, e VI,e , a he told t d he C h o e m ar m h it i r ow th n a e t v h id e en a ce II ,the tlce s s i - 1 , they wished to l4 No, I won't tell te teso °II. Member then said, IttittliStliet;3.l4,llaut.sh:n svhich th l o ad ie v t a t n er e s e ; t l h w es on c ,t h g ar iv g e es y ; o.n l 0 1 °f th date of House naturally enough Muse L e Parties." The he,en Why he els se 1 .4 4 th, tha t of the evidence, and the reason g 11 "saw ...11 I to be %a t , th e ,-..preseirvtenatwtahse, ra h 11..,(g.._ Lion. Gentleman wished t l o r p t r h o e t s e e ct w h it is . ti the IN. `'oel:lc,rs and counter cheers.) Itit n stit e ts i e•st to be examined at quarter no se t s t s h io e n m s, o o s r t, I I 'el l * or e t the Old Bailey, b.l'i Pet app zi,l't t:kl;44;tlstillteveltstle.ningns'i—( 1 )': ‘ , (te te _, .o cell .. Lauter)—a mid loud mi 4 , 4 ei,,. . ht . k. ff galleries, then,) his witnesses. protecting , I te 4 t li 4 Pe si,)* ' li • of that. House, them 4r tl i.) 4,, bp vete ( oramittee with perfect safety.--(A t a , l l l li til ie t°i)()stlrrillvtheiltit principle, then, the, did_ the Hon. Member 4 % tie ts ' the exatnination of his witness ? hey '41144°14,4;115t when they wished to appeal totepas ti\htes" t tite, ° °rB, or in the jury -box, they made the not I;,, t hi a Nce e ss a a Pretext f.r such a ceurs _ , ('Clheers) leaches,. %l c , • • . I''e s ' ' l3 had the Hon Gentleman actedhis i p o e r rt. , „ ),) Thrle: (Continued cheering from the hise 44 bee n -e I I"n• Gentleman complained that h ll'll'iste. tirok , hope,, and he called this a breach hie „ t , t O ~ bren of privileve ! Why the act by Zsiei t lie s -,'I.Y eeee y 1 the warren+, granted .. , :itt, Alp. b7 . (1 . f..t ary -1- (t " .:ll. ,‘ (,r's and eiz t e s r- e c e •h r e t. : t e r u st 1 1 , i i . 1 ' t r st Itteee'lleemee heir its iained.) -1- " e - e , eo Otstr..gti;altt.h'et, warrants had hen granted be i - t , P or ,uzi ( 0P"%% el-. c\l ittem • 11 BE N name.—(Cheers from thc t r, ,), ~ —.l. ame, tittlre. Woll'eLss I tte' l uti(Cee t. ; —The Hon. M ti e le ml L te ih r' e s ra n i n s na id e e o is f % a kee e.) A 'nued cheering from 14r ant .Il ii ,, til I to understand that the Hon. Mem- N s ll ,. es 's that his letters were opened without to t ," th t B doeikt-T,position cheers.) The Honourable_ Ilee H o it answer. Has it been proved , lit mi. Hong Member's letters have been II Nies --(Tory cheers.) N l , O e a eo lty, *‘'Ll *" iII'L EY---The charge Fs .WO E —l have no doubt of it.—(Cheers.) te:t had „ was, that hislett ß e a rs_ ' '%ch - stil ls P e nd. If so, then the Right Hon. I , o 4 ,ht to v _i et) ed the trust reposed in him—(Tremen le, d id .. 44 p, , a 4 ncl tho Hon. Member for _Finsbury_ na e s ' ll 'teemot el' bins for the offence. The Hon. Me , tl lnef, he s l' e , And why ? Because, if he . ca t m h e Q:ltli h ?fhi ( ) ,,‘l'd be obliged to state. in detail e .. i° l Via,' it s i,... tt lge• He shrunk from that ordeal, yet l 'he rs i i %i se lt i t e tu raittee. It was reported that . Go is,- % ti t' , .4 to ,;(3,11a officers to the disturbed districts to te lsl hl " ofte-,r"lin Matters, and that letters were . in •tee th -Let i n • ' and Was it not t e 04 et go, quiry opened read. ~„, 0 1 1 1 . 4,,„`"? . of these might have been addressed 110 0 4 . " te, - ,'" e 'er foe F' h '? And were his letters t o - sie e ' er a tiSeqs bec ause lea th e e r3 Hon. Gentleman was a 4 k• el), falettt Rouse? He (Mr. Wortley) was in it re it - fi ele taf ieetri ees in 1842, and he was well aware li t tte r i,ill enZted feeling Prevailing among the classes, t s , tl .6 e it i dtistnte°ll with the country felt himself under ht t t hhh k e_qitlesa of gratitude and obligation to the Rig earl 1111 for the firmness he exhibited at that la it i sst °I. e _ th,la,, t !lld t he'et the Rouse contrast the measures of lltet, 4l e3t b a e a Present under similar circumstances. I.l ° ,'Kl, P ' 'Ad i 7 ,8* COnspiracy of the most dangerous 1) , 1, -11 .14,:tst-, eenettilpened to be in a court . of justice in Atttivulloree_ entail hartists, the persons with whom the . tie,tht tt, ", ince eh,'respondd, were tried for having in their te lt b e t ime er1.141 nes.—(Shouta of laughter.) e,` t te,,,: v saet e - ,,PY in the witness-box oonfessed to him i l ke , -" N/ - "IQ be Government from whom he had et bil 'vits ln 1 842" Ut ah %111 pre In , they had no spies employed, and . . N of death ed without bloodshed and without the Ati, at firs . b • de m o '44 t waMg once inflicted. A tumult, tldied a 8 Sc, general and so well organised, was Veit,:erte . i oe Sseost withent military assistance or any weer }„ th,, i'n...nut.Physical power. He felt that if they 44 11ti ih t 41 41r e llrY it would be censuring the Committee te tte th e 41 reported on the subject, and be se lekt. 4 b.Y th e ifes which had been so pertinaciously 4 t ver r , ' 1 ‘41,3 e . °rt. Mensber.—(Hear, hear.) e.,N, le tt ntee „ r n s or opinion that that House would not e t s ee , eit e „ tt tt ieh e r th e ss , V eel' h e had heard from the et f . i r f or pin , ... It l i alis t , N itliry h e a bury, in refusing him the . Co . rn- . , v ,. titi been co,. th called for, with a view to elucidating \i' ili4 c sa id etlit:llening of his letters.—(Hear, hear.) 14:1,N) w ? t , r esp ond 4t thoSe letters were opened because 1 te lt,it,r.ulti ask,ence kith Chartists ; but he (Mr /ttllclen k her s of were tall public men, and particu s (4_ ,ee a , Parh am inihi va, h 41. '811 a , eht, subject to such , corre tecetie 1 . tn s ) . the Ron. Member for hinsbury . ? * Peoeillthl ate be 11:4 every men holding a public ,qe er e 0 ? b ee "ronght into a corresp.ndence is ith itll,llll,,i,...":Siti,,,,,,,,,,,j,,,itri),upt.iotret.:,:theaht atrtsteerm;en had to diechs rge rot, perhaps, of a I::.‘kee, 1,1:! eie roat " ,, T as the llon. Gentlemen opposite, e : t r i e ii t 4stin a 84 ' 4 wills the conservathe, of the public h e y its ta e to ho sacral ' l ute' ; and, therefore., th(we men slat . peet tion e biters addressed to them from per t t cei h Al toitt• whit toigh.t create buspicion.--(Hear, °Nee J . th tr 'k all the k he h e is i rs te !, Hoe. Itt Painful facts that had been se a l sots sore h ;4,i'eaner opposite, as to the bloody t ' i lo e c,f, .eerresa" Wen discovered at York, yet why k 4 a 'i t hie, kittl'4enen be had with men in humble • sarllkke Iv te d e ,though enesihsed in those bad practices. 13°4 01.snstiets?.'selsetling theta - from those erroneous and the c i .: - \•tear, h e sterei tte ale) But to return to the e, he (Air. Ward) did slot mean 1 4 d. J WIIIIA[A a h,:u 11A t1)- hi k•N e ol corn- time, he Full ex- to th 4. dons that the Any dis• is vested vhoin nv ution of ugh ter. ) p r oved, rising it. night his e that of greater his duty, .nd wake , ( 11 y , had Wilbert; i n his degree , Flowerer, stified in had been Honour ery greet ,t power His ore' ver. Hie to thr,w y stigma upon the gentlemen who composed that body, either individually or as a body ; on the contrary, he would most readily place his own honour most unreservedly in their hands.—(Hear, hear.) lie voted for the exelitFlun from the Committee of the lion. Member for Finsbury, because he wished to have this questie,r; tried by an impartial jury. —(Hear.) But he would now say. fthere was any aathority by which he (Mr. i)ancombe) could show that the opening of his letters was unjustifiable. let him appeal to the law of the land, and he would be certain of redress from Lord Denman, or any of the other judges of the land When he heard the Hon. Member for Pontefract speak o the manner in which letters were dealt with under war rants for opening them, it put him (Mr. Ward) in mind of the time when he was engaged in the offices of diplo macy for three years, during which time he believed that correspondence of this sort was so Colls%Only opened, that, upon every day after its arrival, he b Armee' it could be read next day at Charing-cross.—(LaugAar.) In fact, if letters were written in cypher at that time, so continued was the habit, that in a vi ry short time those who opened the letters became familiar with the charac • tors.—(Hear, hear, and laughter) But he would ask what had they established what were called " mes sengers " for, but to guard correspondence against in fringement in foreign Post-offices. (Hear, hear.) Let him suppose that a committee sitting in Ireland, who wanted to divide the two countries, were to hold their consultations in France, were the Government of England to yield to their too Quixotic notions of what was right, by not seizing upon the letters of this com mittee, and thus risk a civil war by permitting this cor respondence to go on ?—(Hear, hear.) He would say that if this House were to grant an inquiry by which to secure all letters from being opened, no matter how strong the suspicion attached to them may be, they would be depriving themselves of the quickest, surest, safest, speediest, and most secret means of securing the peace of the country.—(Hear, hear.) He would, how ever, contend for it, that it was not from private or per sonal motives that this inquiry was instituted. He agreed that the object was a public and a good one ; but he dif fered from the Hon. Member for Montrose that the whole proceedings of the Committee should be made public,—(Hear, hear.) He admitted also that the most monstrous exaggerations had existed in the public mind as to the conduct of the Right Hon. Baronet the Secre tary for the Home Department.—(Hear.) However, he had silently borne the whole of the odium attached to this charge, even to the extent of the allegation that bags of letters had been taken from the Post-office to the Home-office.—(Hear.) Notwithstanding all this, he (Mr. Ward) looked upon this report of the Committee a: a verdict of not guilty upon the whole of the charge. —(Hear.) In the case of M. Mazzini, he had listened with great attention to the charges made against the British Government upon that point; but he could nit satisfy himself that the charge of bloodshed made against them had been made out ; and he should also say that it afforded him intense satisfaction to hear the lion. Baronet opposite declare last night that the Bln dieJa family had not been suspected. However, he should still adhere to the opinion that the Right Hon. Banaiet had tampered with dangerous ground when he interfered with such letters as those of the _ _ ....... Member for Finsbury,—(Hear, hear.) It had been admitted that 22 men had embarked in open boats from Corfu without arms or ammunition or any species of self protection. Mr. I)UNC()MBE—They had ammunition. Mr. WARD understood they had not. Sir R. PEEL—Yes, they had ammunition. Mr. WARD—WeII, however, those men were in open boats, and in that state they sailed from Corfu to Ca labria, and would it not be disgraceful to the Govern mom of this country not to grant a bill of indemnity, niel'oliy to dotend the Goveromfe4 of this country for th,,k, acts when the circumstances w,. re con,idered,— (Hear. hear.) As regards the report of the Committee he should say that they were bound to make that report without having recour,e to antiquarian inquiries.— (Hear, hear.) With regard to the charge of the Hon. Member for Finsbury that his letters had been opened, he (Mr. Ward) would say that that was not only a stigma upon the Government but upon the Honourable Member himself—(Hear, hear)—and if that Hon. Mem- Member had one spark of manly feeling he would never cette until he had obtained the inquiry he sought for.—(Hear, hear.) He would conclude by say ing, thlt he would support the motion of the Hon. Member for Finsbury, provided it was simply for an open Committee, for an inquiry into his own case ; but he was sorry he had involved it so much in one of a general character. If he separated the two, there was no motion that had ever come before that House that he (Mr. W.) would support with more pleasure. Lord JOHN MANNERS entirely concurred with the Hon. Member opposite, and he hoped the motion of the Hon. Member for Finsbury would be altered. He (Lord John Manners) would be content to give a silent vote upon this occasion; but he wished to explain his reasons for the course he should adopt on this subject. Had the motion of the Hon. Member for Finsbury been con fined to a mere inquiry into his own case, he (Lord John Manners) could understand it; but in its present state he humbly submitted it could not be looked upon as calling upon the House to pronounce a vote of a violation of confidence by her lajesty's Ministers.— (Hear, hear.) He could not see how the Hon Member for Finsbury could imagine he had been alluded to in the report of the Committee upon this subject; and, therefore, he (Lord J. Manners) should object to any Hon. Member imagining himself the touchstone by which to test the veracity of the report of a Committee of that House.—(Hear, hear.) What were the real facts of the case ? They were simply these. The Hon. Member complained that his letters had been opened ; and he (Lord J. Manners) would say, that if the Hon. Member's motion were confined to that, he could not help saying he agreed with the Hon. Member that he felt himself a degraded man, so long as any such suspicion attached to him as was apparent by this treatment of his letters.—(Hear, hear.) He (Lord J. Manners) fully . agreed with the Honourable Member, that no man ought to permit his letters to be opened, without instituting an inquiry, for his not doing so was an admission that he was a bad citizen, and an enemy to his country.--(Hear." On those grounds, he would say to her Majesty's Government they would do well to pause ere they refused the lion. Member's me don, for he (Lord John Manners) would say that it would be unendurable in any man to lie under any such stigma, and therefore the Hon. Member for Finsbury should find it equally unendurable; and the stigma cast upon him could not be removed unless the inquiry he sought for should he acceded by the House?—(Hear.) What as to hinder the Rigttt Hon. Baronet from say ing that which was notorious, that in 1842 the country was in a state of alarming dionrhance, and letters ad dressed from the disturbed districts to the Hon. Mem ber for Finsbury were opened by hi orders?—(Hear, hear.) Ile did not say that this was the course which ought to be followed, but he thought some course should be taken to satisfy the House and the country, for nothing could be more mischievous, if not danger ous, than to have the matter as it was.—(Hear, hear,) There was the Hon. Member for Finsbury—a gentleman of considerable flueney of tongue arid great powers of ,oettlar vituperation—having made there extraordinary tat-inents answer or explanation, sitting in his place in that )louse, and oppo.itt•• to the Right lion. Baronet against whom tilt se statements were directed, and whom he was assisting at the time in the legislation of the country.—(Chews.) What evil could arise to the public if the Right Hon. Gentleman took the course which he ventured to suggest?—(Hear, hear.) Would it interfere with that more private coarse which had been recommended by his Hon. Friend the Mem her for Pontefract?—(Hear, hear, and great laughter.) It would certairil• riot make that private practice more odious than it was. An explanation would render the system more tolerable to - the people of England, and more likely to he useful to the Scat, , , if necessary to re sort to it, which would. not be the case if after such statements there was to be neither denial nor explana tion. if the House was to be left to chance-fight, and medley disputation, their position would be deplorable. These considerations induced him—(wthough he would not vote with the Hon. Member for Finsbury's present motion) ; for, after the report of the Secret Committee and the explanation of the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Administration last night, he thought the House had nothing further to do with the case ; and the only case they had to deal with was, that of the Hon. Member himself. These considerations, he re peated, induced him to beseech the Hon. Member so :o word and alter his motion as to enable him—(Loud cheers)—to vote with him, without casting an imputation on the Committee of last year, or upon the Right lion. Baronet, upon whom so many cruel and un just aspersions had already been cast.—',Hear, hear.) He hoped these aspersions would be retracted before the debate closed, and that the motion would be so amended as to enable him to vote for it. Captain LAYARD thought that any one who denied the honour and integrity of the Committee of last year, must be deficient of either himself. He thought, how , ever, that they had decided as ithout sufficient evidence and that the course pursued by the Right Hon. Baronet rendered necessary another inquiry and an open Corn mittee.---(Cheers.) When he first heard of M. Mazzini's case, out of the House, he could not believe that a man of the Right Hon. Baronet's honour would be guilty of the conduct attributed to him. He was, there fore, astonished when M. Mazzini's F-tition was presented to the House—he was more astanished when he heard the Hon. Member for Finsbury say that he could prove the allegations—(Hear, hear)—and still more so when he heard the Right Hon. Baronet say in his place that no Committee should be appointed, but that he took whatever he had done upon his own respon sibility. What was that responsibility when there was no open inquiry ? When it went forth to the country that there was a Secret Committee, p eople were con vinced that his character would not be justifie s' , and that no searching inquiry would take place. It had been said that M. Mazzini had his remedy at law if anything illegal had been done ; but it would not have been wise for that Lentleman to have cone to law with a functionary of the Right Hon. Baronet's influence. But he took a wiser course, and pieced his case in the hands of a gen tleman whom he did not now see in his place. Mr. DUNCOMBE (who wits sitting immediately be hind the lion. and Gallant Member)—Oh ! yes ; I'm here.—(Great laughter.) Captain LAYARD regretted that the presence of the Hon. Gentleman would prevent hint from speaking alas (Mr. Vs.) merits as he was about to have spoken. But he would say that the Hon. Gentleman had talents enough for aoy cause which he might take into h:s hands, and industry and spirit enough to bring it to a conclusion.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear," from both sides of the House.) Referring to the report of the Committee, he found it admitted that the opening of foreign letters had been the practice, but that it was al most discontinued. He regretted that the Committee were not able to leave out the qualifying word " almost.' (Hear, hear.) The House was aware that the privilege of opening letters was not confined to the Secretary of State, but was exercised by the letter-car - riers themselves, as appeared. in the late well-knctwn THE SilN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 21, 1845. case of some sporting Lords.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) It was time, therefore, it should be known what was the law, and in whose hands the execution of it reposed.--(llear, hear.) He supported the motion. Sir R. INGLIS said that although the Speaker had. with his usual attention, endeavoured to call upon the Members of each side in a fair alternation, his quick and iimpartial eye had not been able to discover whether the gentleman who rose belonged to the Opposition or to the supporters of the Government. Ile had called upon the names of gentlemen sitting behind the Secretary of State, and he found that they supported the motion.— ( Laughter.) A Gentleman on the side of the Opposi tion ( aught the Speaker's eye, and the House was sur prised to find him an advocate of the Right Hon. Baronet. lie had heard the eloquent speech of his Hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract, and he could not help asking him (Mr. Milnes) whether he called that backing his friends ?—(Laughter.) (Mr. Milnes sat immediately at the back of Sir James Graham.) The best speech :in favour of the Ministry, and against the Hon. Member for Finsbury, was that of the Hon. Member for Sheffield, in whose speech, except the be ginning and the end, he entir. ly concurred.—(Great laughter.) He could agree with his Right Hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, that a Member of Parlia ment was in a position entitling him to exclusion from this privilege of the Secretary of State, which was not inertly a statutable right, but a common-law right, con firmed by statute; yet the letters that were opened were not those of the Right Hon. Gentleman himself, but letters addressed to him by others, for whose propriety and regard for the law the Hon. Member could not answer. Would any one contend that, with such an authority of statute laws as had been shown in this case, and the practice of 140 years, the law had been violated? He thought it would almost be absurd to retry the d.cison of the Committee by a public tribunal, after the House had deliberately determined that the Committee should be secret, and the Honourable Member for Finsbury, who did not snake any objection to the constitution of the former Committee, had no locus sfandi in asking fur another inquiry. If they wore to adopt the lion. Member's motion, it would amount to an impeachment of the late Secret Committee. It would at the same time involve the House in a perpetual reiteration of the same inquiry ; and as no doubt the same results would be produced, it would only tend to keep alive the public excitement on this case. There was no country in Europe where the sanctity of letters was so much studied as in England. In exemplification of this, an Hon. Member had given them several illustrations, occurring since the reign of Henry 11. He believed, however, that instances of a more recent date might be given, and in support of this state ment he would take leave to relate a story which would probably be familiar to many Hon. Members, and he should therefore content himself by only giving the out lines, which would bring it to the minds of those Hon. Members who had pre% iously heard it.—(Hear, hear.) A short time ago one of our Secretaries of State for Foreign Affairs desired a British Minister at a certain port to insist upon certain terms, but intimating that the Minister was not to press them at the risk of incurring a war between the two Powers. The Secretary of State . received an answer by ordinary post, in which the Mi nister stated that he had made the communication to the Foreign Power, intimating that, unless he received a favourable answer within four-and -twenty hours he would demand his passport. The British Minister knew that his letter would be opened at the foreign post office, and, in a subsequent communication, he intimated this to his Government. The result was that in less than six hours after the communication had been dispatched a messenger reached the British Minister consenting to the required concessions.—(Laughter.) He repeated, then, the sanctity of the Post office was no where so much observable as in England. He admitted that Eng land ouuht to be the refuge of foreigners ; but he main tained that they were only entitled to protection so long as they did not convert this oasis into a volcano upon other countries.—(Laughter.) Did any honest man complain that his letters had been opened ?—(Hear.) An HoN. MEMBER—Yes ; the Hon. Member for Finsbury. Sir R. H. INGLIS excepted the Hon. Member for Finsbury, because he did not admit that his let ters had been opened. At all events, if they had been opened there wag no evidence to prove it.—(Hear.) Letters addressed to him might have been opened, for which he was not responsible, but he did not believe that any letter written by the Hon. Member had been violated. It might be the misfortune of the Hon. Member, as was the case with others, to have some Con stituents in whom they themselves had no confidence. And some of these constituents might think proper to address him in a manner which all must deprecate.— (Hear, hear.) Any man who held the report of the Se lect Committee in his hand must be satisfied that it sufficiently exculpated the Government in respect to the use they had made of this power. The law and the constitution of the country permitted them to exercise the power in particular instances, and he thought there was sufficient justification for their doing so in the particular case of Mazzini. It was, therefore, not necessary for him to support the motion of the Hon. Member for Finsbury. Nor could he consent to the amendment of the Hon. Member for Sheffield, for p h r e iv c i o l u eg ld e a e g x r e e m e p w t i e t d h a th n e H p ( r m opo . si si e t m io b n e -t r ht a Parliamentary manyehargeef particular misconduct. He was therefore not prepared to vote either for the motion of the Hon. Member for Finsbury, or for the amendment which proposed to ex empt Members of Parliament, and particularly the Hon. Member for Finsbury, from the operation of the powerof opening letters now in the hands of the Government. Mr. BERNAL thought that the Parliamentary pri vilege possessed by the Hon. Member for Finsbury was violated. That privilege was based upon a resolution in 1745, and sanctioned by Sir H. Walpole and Mr. Pelham. That resolution decided that it was a breach of the pri vileges of Parliament if the letters of any Member of that House were detained or opened without the sanc tion of the Secretary of State. If, therefore, the warrant had not been signed by the Right Hon:Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, the question of privilege had nothing to do with the question before the House. The character and respectability of a Mem ber of that House was of great importance, not only to himself but the constituents he represented, and hence he thought it was necessary that an inquiry should be made to vindicate the Hon. Member for Finsbury in the eyes of the British public. His letters had been opened, and it was supposed that it was justified by the supposition that he was holding intercourse with persons not only suspected, but who were contaminated by their previous associations. This was the only justification for the opening of an Honourable Member's letters, and the con stituency of the Hon. Gentleman might take a technical objection to his sitting in that House. They might urge that a man that would lend himself to seditious and treasonable designs was not fit fer a seat in that House. No man, therefore, could be prepared to justify the course that had been pursued by the Government to wards the Hon. Gentleman, and he was, therefore, en titled to call for an inquiry. If the warrant for opening the Hoe. Member's letters had not been signed by the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home De partment, it would be competent for the Hon. Member for Finsbury to summon the Post-office authorities to the bar of the [louse, and, of course, be dealt with according to the nature and extent of the offence. As to the law of the case, they were not in a position to discuss that, hereafter a motion would be made upon that point. He did not know whether the Hou,e of Commons would sanction the statute of Anne, or whether they would consider the state of public opinion in 1845, as similar to that of 1745. It was a large question, and he hoped it would be fully discussed at a future period. He was not prepared to say that the Secret Committee had neglected to perform their duty. On the contrary, he felt disposed to think that they had fully achieved the object for which they were appointed. At the same time, however, he could not help thinking that they might have communicated to the House whe ther the Government had exercised due discretion in putting this power into force. The report did not prove whether the Ministers had exceeded the limits of their power or not. If, however, the Right lion. Baronet had been guilty of an illegal act, there was a sufficient re medy in a Court of common law ; and the House of Commons, therefore, was not the place to seek redress. lie hoped, therefore, that somebody would move an amendment to limit the inquiry to the case of the Hon. Member for Finsbury, and he believed the Hon. Mem ber had a . right to demand that inquiry. He did not mean to say that the Right Hon. Baronet the first Lord of the Treasury had accused the Hon. Member for Fins bury of being concerned in the treasonable proceedings of 1842 ; but certainly the language which he held last Tuesday, and the expressions which fell from the Hon. and Learned Member for Bate, were sufficient to justify his proposition, that the Hon. Member for Finsbury had a right to demand an inquiry. He regretted that the Hon. and Learned Member for Bute was not in his place, for he always objected to saying anything behind a man's back. But still he could not avoid remarking that, the Hon. and Learned Member had been very intemperate in the language used the previous evening. The Hon. and Learned Member referred to a time when conspiracy was rife, and schemes of murder being con cocted. He mixed the Hon. Member's name up with these statements, and th• only conclusion that could be come to, was, that the Secretary of State suspected that he Honourable Member for Finsbury was con cerned in these treasonable designs.—(Hear, hear.) For the sake of his own tranquillity and peace of mind, as a friend to the Right lion. Gentleman himself, he would recommend him not to stifle the investigation, or to smother the charge which had been again and again reiterated by the Hon. Member for Finsbury. If he did so, what would be the effect produced out of doors ? (Heer, hear.) The public mind must act upon that House,—the tome and character of the House must, in fact, depend on the respect paid to it out of doors. Were he a political supporter of the Right Hon. Gentleman, he should still say that the most insidious advice which could be poured into his ear, the most dangerous counsel which he could possibly follow, would be to refuse the investigation now sought by the lion. Member for Fins hear.) He would not, indeed, vote for the actual motion of that Hon. Member. In that respect the lion. Member for Finsbury and himself' had agreed to follow the same course. What they were pre pared to propose was a corn.:Jittee simply to inquire whether the correspondence of the llonour able Member had been detained and opened, and, if so, under e hat authority.—(llear, hear.) He would not enter into an examination of the composition of the Com mittee, nor would he enter into the question of national faith, or of the discretion which ought to be observed by the Government of a free, liberal, and enlightened country. His efforts would be limited to the obtaining full and sufficient justice for the lion. Member who al leged himself to be aggrieved. He called upon that Hon. Member himself not to relax in his efforts ; and if he were finally defeated in his attempts to secure inves tigation, he would recommend him to summon to the bar of that House those persons belonging to the Post-offir. , e who were charged with the offence of opening his let ters.—(Hear, hear.) Downiwicx paid the Hon. Member who had ; just sat down had made, as usual, a lucid and clear state ment of his argument, but confessed that he could not suppert the motion of the Hon. Member for Finsbury, and his able speech must in fact be considered as having be en defile red in some conjectural motion not yet in existence. In dealing with this question he (Mr. Borth wick) was not influenced by any Government connexion, as lie had never been encumbered by any Government hele.—( Laughter.) There were, he believed, faults on both sides. " Intra muros peccatur et extra." It appeared that the practice now complained of had ex isted in its present state from the earliest period. He was asked to give a vote which would have the effect, on the one hand, of fixing on the Committee a charge of evasiveness, and on the other of fixing upon the Right lion. Gentleman a charge which he thought even the Hon. Member for Finsbury must be sorry that he had made and unwilling to repeat. In his conscience he (Mr. Borthwick) believed that the Government had never opened the Hon. Member's letters; and if they had done so, it would be easy to bring the matter to an issue by calling before the House the officers of the Post office. Such being the views which he entertained on the subject, he must be excused from voting for the motion before the House. Mr. C. BULLER then rose and addressed the House as follows :—Mr. Speaker, Sir, I think the most superfluous sentence I ever heard in this House—and that is saying a great deal—(Laughter)—was the closing sentence of the speech of my lion. Friend the Member for Weymouth, which was a vehement exhortation to my Hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury not to relax in his efforts on this subject. Because I think we may gather from experience that he is not likely to relax when he has a particular object in view, such as that which my Hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury now entertains. I must confess that perhaps I may break in a little on the gravity of this debate, when I declare that after the fullest consideration I could give this sub ject, I can hardly look very gravely on the question which is now presented to the House. That there are grave questions connected with this matter there cannot be the slightest doubt. I think that the House has responded to the feeling of the country. That the existence of this power in the hands of the Minister is a matter of grave consideration, no man, I think, will deny. I will put by that subject for the present, as we are not met at all to discuss the policy of the law as it is said at present to exist. On that, Sir, no man entertains a stronger opinion than I do—that a power so worthless is inconsistent with the security of liberty—inconsistent with domestic comfort, and incon sistent with national morality.- - (Cheers.) I put by that great question now, as the only question before us is— whether her Majesty's Government have made out a case that they are not chargeable with the invention of a new power—that they have acted according to the pre cedent of their predecessors in etercising this power of opening letters. Admitting that the only , ques tion is whether it has been exercised in an honourable or discreditable manner, I must confess, Sir, that until yesterday I felt deeply and very painfully on this subject. I did feel that some in put ttion rested on the conduct of her Majesty's Govern ment with respect to the use made of the letters which had been opened, and of the consequences and results from this conduct of the Post-office ; and I must confess that the occasion of such conduct I never saw, and I de clare to you inperfe ct sincerity that I should have felt just as much horror at finding it proved against those Gentle men with whom I am in the habit of acting. I am glad, Sir, that the answer of the Right Honourable Ba ronet yesterday relieved us from the most pain ful part of the suspicion which was excited against a particular man. Now, the question re solved itself into one of opening the letters of my Honourable Friend the Member for Finsbury ; and I must say, Sir, that I think it is a question very well deserving the attention, both of the Hon. Gentleman who has had his letters opened, and of this House. Now the Noble Lord, the Chairman of the COmmittee, was pleased to say that it was a " prurient" curiosity that would lead one to do this. Now, I am not very curious—(Laughter)—but I declare that one of the most justifiable questions that one could ask in the world of any man suspected of opening one's letters, would be civilly to say, " Pray, Sir, did you open my letters or not?"—(Laughter.) I don't thine it an idle question.— (Continued laughter.) I think the man who wishes not to have his letters opened, has a right to have an explanation when he finds those letters have been opened. I think the public have a right to know—and I think the public are deeply interested in this matter. The secrecy of the correspon dence of Members of Parliament is of great importance —first, they are the representatives of the people (and as we represent the people, our correspondence may turn on matters highly important to the public, if you do not guard them, and especially guard their privileges ; there are persons whose confidence and correspondence might be violated by an unscrupulous Government.) As respects this House, this is a very important question. For myself, it does not concern me very much—although I cannot go so far as the Hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford, who said, that it did not matter if the Govern ment saw all the letters that he wrote, or that were written to him. I can only say that if my letters were opened by the Government, and they read them, they would be doing more !than those to whom they were addressed had ever been able to do —(Laughter.) I trust that the House will not look on this as a mis taken assumption on my part. At any rate, the question of opening letters of Members of Parliament is one well worthy of inquiry by this House. I say that when this simple question was raised—when the justifiable curiosity of tne public and the House was excited on this question —I do think everything would have gone right if the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of .state for the Home Department had been enabled to give a civil answer to a plain question.—(Laughter.) The question was asked whether he had opened the letters of my Honourable Friend or not ? but the Right Hon Baronet has really a most morbid passion for unpopularity, • which he takes the most unjustifiable means to gratify. I thought he had had enough of this—(Continued laughter)—without going out of his way, and that he would think that there was no necessity of courting an unnecessary unpopularity. But when that question was asked, instead of simply answering the question, he put himself into an attitude of offended dignity, and with an air like that of Socrates to his judges, assumed a tone of injured innocence, and declared that public duty would not allow him to reveal secrets which no force could extract from him. I don't think, Sir, that he is right there. I think we shall get at the secret, and I think my Hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury will get some explanation. The Right Hon. Baronet assumed precisely the same tone and the same dignity when lie declared his determination on the grounds of public duty not t o m ake any statement o r answer, and the consequ ence was , th a t my Hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury stuck to it, and we e.g. the Committee last session, and everything was explained. I must say that, taking the tone which is generally taken on this side of the House, that of a sincere friend to the Government,—(Laughter)—l do think the Right Hon. Baronet would have spared him seif deal of anxiety, and a great deal of trouble, w,ul t dhavesparedthis House a great deal of time and trouble, if he had done at first what I feel perfectly convin...eil he will be obliged to do in the end. Well, Lea ., I am surprised at the Hon. Member for Tamworth, b cause I thought he was more sensible in this matter. I thought he would have taken the matter in dudgeon, and would have come forward, and said to the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department — The gentleman has asked a civil question, why do you not give him an answer?"—(Great laughter.) But that was not done ; but, in fact, the Right Hon. Baronet had rather made the matter worse by his speech of Tuesday night, because he went into a long explanation as to the difficulty in which the Government were placed —of the heavy responsibility to which the Government is subjected—of the dreadful scenes which occurred in 1842, and of the great nee ssity for the Government using all the power with which they were invested in such emergencies ; and he read some dreadful p assa g es from speeches of the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton on that occasion. I happen to recollect that debate, but I do not recollect that to which the Right Honourable Baronet referred in 1735.—(Laughter.) I do not pro fess to do so.—(Renewed laughter.) I recollect, however, in 1842, when all these dreadful things occurred, that the Right lion. Baronet used to say—there is a great deal of exaggeration—there is not so much danger as might anticipated, and that we, Members of Pa rliament, go home to our grouse shooting, and our other p ublic duties—(Laughter)—with perfect safety . He now comes forward and tells us of these dread f u l machinations. But what necessity there is for referring to that, to account for the opening of my Hon. Friend's letters, I do not know. The Right Hon. Gentleman said there was one dreadful thing—that of little children running little pins into bits of work.—(Laughter.) That was one passage which the Right Hon. Baronet quoted. It was left to be inferred what all the other dreadful machina tions were. I cannot conceive what right he had for open ing the letters of my Hon. Friend the Member & rFinsbury in that emergency, unless he could be connected with the diabolical intention of the little children.—(Laughter.) Therefore the Right Hon. Baronet's speech really has made the charge worse, and I really do not thi n k w h en he comes soberly to reflect on the matter, that he can help thinking that he has not much assisted the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department in this matter, and that he has not said anything to justify his opening my Hon. Friend's letters. The Right Hon. Gentleman has stated a new difficulty. The Queen was called in. The evidence given before the Committee has been given by Privy Councillors who before they could give that evidence were obliged to go and ask her Majesty for, leave to give that evidence. The evidence could not be published without the Queen's leave. Well, now, what was the meaning of the Queen's leave ie the case? I take it that if her Majesty's leave were asked, she would consult her responsible edvisers, as to whether she might give her leave or not.—(Cheers.) I take it that when the Right Hon. Baronet went to her, she would ask his ad vice as to what course she should take ; therefore, if the Right Hon. Baronet's mouth is hermetically sealed, he would cause her Majesty's to be closed also. — (Laughter.) Her Majesty would feel that the Right Hon. Baronet's popularity was one of the great bulwarks of her throne—(Laughter) —and she would wish him to withhold env explanation on an act like this. I therefore think the difficulty about the Queen's name might be got over, if the Right Hon. Baronet wished it. I like to bring these things into a practical shape. What has the Right Hon. Baronet got by his silence on this question ? Did that clear the character of the Right Hon. Gentleman in the eyes of the country ? Does everybody say " Oh, from what has passed in the House of Commons, it is perfectly clear that Sir James Graham is not to blame?" Everybody , I think, says exactly the contrary. The Right Hon. Baronet might have stopped the whole of what has taken place by saying " I never did open the letters." I do not think that his being, night after night, thus attacked on this subject, can be exceedingly pleasant. He cer tainl y c omes off with the worst of it. I don't wish to h urt his feelin gs , but I gene • rally find that he comes off second beat when attacked my Hon. Friend. He generally brings the Right Hon. Baronet into the dirt.—(Laughter.) And dirt it is.— (Cheers.) Now really, as a practical man, I would suggest that the very best course would be to acknow ledge it at once. I must say, that I think some blame rests with the Committee in this matter. I think the Committee would have spared u* a good deal of trouble if they had satisfied our very just curiosity on this sub ject, and have given us more evidence. They ought to have told us less about Edward the Second and the Commonwealth, and a little more about opening the letters at the present time. I should be exceedingly glad, therefore, if this matter could be allowed to end in the suggestion of my Honourable Friend the Member for Montrose. I think the evidence ought to be laid before the House, but, as that has not been the case, I feel it to be my duty, if no other motion is proposed, to vote with my Hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury ; but if any amendment should be proposed, such as that which has been suggested, I shall be happy to support it.—(Cheers.) Mr. S. HERBERT said he did not think that the manner in which this subject had been brought forward, nor the tone which had accompanied it, nor the manner in which that tone had been received, was credit :ble to the feelings of that House. He was, however, much gra tified at the alteration which had taken place in the tone of the debate that evening. He alluded particularly to the speech of the Hon. Member for Sheffield, because that speech was not only the speech of an honourable man, but of a generous opponent.—(Cheers.) Although the length to which he went would not meet, perhaps, the support of the majority of that House, yet he thought the spirit in which the Hon. Gentleman had addressed the House, considering the position in which the Right Hon. Baronet was placed, was creditable to him as an opponent. The more they got into this debate the more did the motion appear unworthy. Every Hon. Gentle man disagreed with it, and suggested an alteration. But that which surprised him most was, that the proposed modification of the motion was even more objectionable than the motion as it originally stood. It would be re collected that the House had unanimously resolved that the Committee which was appointed last session should be a secret one. No objection could be taken to the composition of the Committee, as five out of the nine gentlemen composing it were political op ponents of the Right Honourable Baronet. Nine gentlemen of high honour were appointed to con duct the inquiry, whose verdict was certainly entitled to the respect of the House.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Dungarvon, and the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, said that there were no lawyers on the Committee—(feeling, he supposed, a little professional susceptibility on the subject)—(Laughter)— who might conduct a searching investigation, and extract information from the witnesses by the moral torture of cross-examination. Well, but there were lawyers on the Lords' Committee, and he did not hesitate to say, that the report of the Lords' Com mittee was a more full acquittal of the Right Hon. Gentleman than that of the Commons' Committee. — (Hear, hear.) But the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh said that lawyers were excluded by _ that House, and not by the other, and he said he could not conceive, but the whole object was to exclude the Honourable Member for Finsbury from the Committee. But in the other House the Noble Lord who brought forward the accusation there had the good taste and sense of decency not to ask to be an accuser and at the same time a judge.— (Cheers.) How did the Committee set forth their verdict? Having all the case before them, having the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), the Noble Lord, and other per sons who were Members of previous Governmeats be fore them, who held this office, on which the responsibi lity in these matters rested, who made full and unre served revelations to them, those being confirmed by the Right lion. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Horne Department, who stated that he laid before them every warrant he had ever signed—(Hear)—in eluding that (if such existed) of which he could have no knowledge—of which the House could have no knowledge—issued for the examination of the corre spondence of the Hon. Member for Finsbury, and for this they had only the bare assertion of the Hon. Mem ber himself, who came down to that House and asked for a Committee to prove it—the Committee having the facts stated by all those witnesses before them, came to their determination :—The lion. Gentleman had said that there was a warrant fabricated in the case of Mazzini. The Hon. Baronet stated, on his honour, that such was not the fact. Mr. DUNCOMBE—I never said that it was fabri cated. Mr. S. HERBERT would be sorry to attribute to the Hon. Member anything he did not say. He understood the Hon. Gentleman to say so, but perhaps he was mis taken. The Right Hon. Baronet had stated that every warrant he had signed had been submitted to the Com mittee—the reasons upon which each had been issued. The Committee, with those facts, told them—what? Why, that the power had never been exercised from per sonal or party motives—(Cheers)—and that in every case it was exercised with an earnest desire to maintain the tranquillity of the country and to promote the ends of justice. Mr. DUNCOMBE—Read the report of the Commons' Committee. Mr. S. HERBERT—The Commons' Committee re ported that there was a difference of opinion with regard to some cases.—(Opposition cheers.) It was easy to judge after the fact. The Committee went on to state that they had no reason to doubt that the Secretary of State was guided by no other motives than an anxious desire to preserve the public peace.—(Hear, hear.) After a full investigation before the Committee, and after their verdict was pronounced in favour of the Right Hon. Baronet, it was hard that their verdict was row sought to be impugned. He did not think the Hon. Gentleman was desirous of investigating the truth. —(" Oh, oh," and cheers.) The Hon. Gentleman seemed to be animated with a feeling of personal animosity, and appeared as if he sought condemnation at all hazards, and not the elucidation of the truth.—(Loud cheers.) He did not say he came forward as an advo cate of the public good, that the exercise of this power was dangerous—thatit wasincompatible with the liberty of the subject, and that no political expediency could counterbalance its disadvantages, and the evils at tending its exercise. No. He did not put question u e t o r him his motion on any such ground, but asked for a Com mittee to inquire into what there had been already an inquiry upon.—(Hear, hear.) What did they want to know ? Not that the correspondence of private families should not be revealed. There was no evidence wanted upon that. No, but an inquiry was asked as to the conduct of his Right Hon. Friend, who was standing at a disadvantage—who had his hands tied up, and ex posed to interrogatories, which he was bound not to answer.—(Cheers.) The Right Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Edidbuigh, and the Hon. Member for Liskeard, in particular said, that a civil question had b e en asked, and that the Right Hon. Baronet ought to reply to it. Why, it seemed to him , that baseness , me anness, and falseness were insinuated in such lan guage.—(Cheers.) If t he Ri g ht Honourable Baronet we re once to answer such a q uestion, where was it to stop?—(Hear, hear.) I f one was answered, nine others t m it i o g h sec e f t r e ° e t uyp thenand ask ?—(Hear,the sam h e e q a u r question, t o f n i , and,%_as considered where was that this power and the od ium which attached to it o ught to be done away with , t hat was a p lain and in telligible proposition which wa s easil y understood, and upon it he would give no opinio n . 'Most in g enious ar gtshadbeenused on both mightoth sides beused upon esof the question, and m thenfomargumentation which it seemed the poor personal inexhaustible. question, from f a r s o m a thedifferent poor personal case now before the House.—(Cheers.) With regard to what had fallen from the Noble Lord the Member for Newark (Lord J. Manners), it seemed to him (Mr. S. Herbert) that the Noble Lord had misun derstood the Right lion. Baronet at the head of the Government, in supposing that he made it a ques tion of confidence or no confidence.—(Hear, hear.) The Government had disposed of that, when they consented to send the matter to a Committee. The Government did not ask for confidence, all they wanted was fair play.—(Cheers.) After the question of guilty or not guilty had been put to the Committee, and after they gave their verdict of not guilty, it was unfair and ungenerous to rip up the subject anew—(Cheers)-- not for the purpose of bringing public opinion to bear on the question, as to whether this power should exist or not, but for the purpose of exciting public odium against the Right lion. Baronet—(Cheers)—not for the public advantage, but to gratify some personal spite. It was a safe opportunity to strike at a man who had his hands tied—it was a courageous and chivalrous pro ceeding!—(Loud cheers.) If they believed the gentle men who sat on the Committee—if they believed them honest men, and that they honestly discharged their duties, he asked them to stand by there.—(Hear, hear.) If they did not, then let them appoint another Committee. But there was no question raised as to the honesty of the Committee. The whole object was to expose the Right Hen. Baronet to unpopularity—to have public opinion inflamed—to ask questions which could not be answered —to excite public odium against a person who could not defend himself.—(Cheers.) He was confident the House would not be a party to such proceedings. — (Hear, hear.) The House would be ready to discuss the question as to the expediency or not of retaining or quashing this power ; but, after the Committee had given their verdict of not guilty on the question pro posed to them, that House, he was sure, would not lend itself to an invidious—cowardly he was going to say — but he would say, to an invidious and personal persecu tion.—(Loud cheers.) Lord IIOWICK said he acknowledged, with the House, that the speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, was an exceedingly powerful and able one, and proved that he would be a valuable access ion to the Parliament of which he lately became a Member. — (Hear.) But able as that speech was, he did not think it ought to irduce the House to pass by altigether, with out further inquiry, the subject submitted to their notice. His Right Hon. Friend the Member fir Edinburgh ex pressed his opinion that, though he objected to the mo tion as it stood, there was ample ground fur an in quiry, limited strictly to the opening of the letters of his Honourable Friend, the Member for Finsbury. Throughout the debate so much concurrence had been expressed on that opinion, not only on that, but on the other side of the House, that he thought it was expe dient that the question should be narrowed to that point; and therefore it was that he shared in the opinion of the Right lion. Gentleman, and he should take the liberty of submitting an amendment to the House, the object of which would be to narrow the inquiry to that point. He took this course very much on the grounds that had been put forward by his Right Hon. Friend. The motion of the lion. Member for Finsbury, though designedly or not, inflicted some degree of blame onithe Committee. Now, for his own part, he must f c o o r n t e h s a s l that ho found it difficult to find any blame. honourably tie Performed the sense of the word, done its duty, and with his task allotted to it by the House. He agreed Right Hon. 'Friend that there was no necessity to have and t st th a at the , Committee h. f irl— that it had, 'aritsiectestdrimctestt any further information upon this point. He joined in condemning the practice, as it had existed for the last two hundred years, of Secretaries of State opening let ters without sufficient cause being shown. lie agreed with those who asserted that the Secretary of State should have the power of opening letters where it was supposed that they related to the safety of the Stare, but he ob jected to the practice of resealing letters in order that the parties should be ignorant that their correspondence was kno vn to the Governm , nt.—(Hear, hear.) He thought such a system partook greatly of the character of treachery and deeeit.—(Hear, hear.) He did not im pute those qualities to any particular Government. He believed that latterly almost every Government had adopted such a cours.e But let them say what they would, they would never induce the moral sense of the country to permit the exercise of a power of so extensive a description. Whatever advantages might arise from it they could never compensate for the stain that was cast upon the country by the adop tion of such a course. lie was prepared to condemn the continuance of this practice, and he hoped that be fore the session was brought to a close his lion Friend the 'Member for Finsbury would follow out the work he had so well begun, and by resolutions of that House stigmatise and put an end to that which ought to be got rid of.—(Hear, hear.) No Act of Parliament was ne cessary on the subject. There was nothing in the sta tute that recognised the propriety of forging seals or al tering postmarks.—(Hear, hear.) There was nothing in the statute that approved of that, and if a resolution of that House was passed against it, there would be no danger of a repetition of that practice. There was a question, however, that had not been reported upon by the Committee of last year—a question of serious and vital importance, and one that required further inquiry. His Hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury distinctly stated that letters directed to him had been opened at the Post-office—(Hear, hear)—and his lion. Friend had also stated that he was prepared to make that assertion good if the House would only give him an opportunity cf doing so.—(Hear.) Upon that fact, whether it was true or not, the Committee of last year had not reported. Now, that surely was a point that required to be eluci dated, and one that ought not to be allowed to rest in mystery. If it was true that the letters that had been addressed to his Hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury had been opened, in his judgment there had been a great abuse of official power. and of the resolutions of the House. Nothing could justify the opening of letters addressed to his lion. Friend. It had been admitted by the Right lion. Gentleman opposite, that although they claimed the power, it was one that ought to be ex ercised with the greatest reserve and delicacy, and the use of which was only justified where the safety of the State was tit stake. Was there anything—was any lion. Member prepared to state that there was any thing—of so serious a nature in the correspondence of his lion. Friend? The proceedings in many respects of the Hon. Member for Finsbury, both in and out of that House, were very far from meeting with his approbation—(Hear, hear)—but he could never for one moment suppose that he was one who would countenance insurrection or violence.—(Hear, 'hear.) But then it was said that it was not letters written by the Hon. Member for Finsbury, but those that had been written to him that had been opened. That circum stance, in his opinion, made no difference in the circum stances of the case, because if those letters wore calcu lated to throw light upon treasonable views, her Majesty's Government must have supposed--knowing what they , did of the Hon. Member for Finsbury—that imme diately upon his receiving them he would have made them known to her Majesty's Government. If those letters had been opened the i'acts of that opening cast an imputation upon his lion. Friend the Member for Finsbury, which he had a right to have removed.—(Hear, hear.) The gravity of the case had been greatly enhanced by the facts that they were the letters of a Member of Parlia ment that had been opened. It was said that there was no breach of privilege in this case, because there was a warrant. Now, he (Lord Howick) fearlessly asserted that there was a breach of privilege, even if there was a warrant, unless the Secretary of State showed sufficient reason for the issuing of that warrant.—{Hear, hear.) If there was no necessity for such a warrant, then there was clearly a breach of privilege—(Hear, hear) — for in his opinion all parties ought to have the opportu nity of bringing their grievances before Members ce . Par liament,without subjecting them to the prying eye of the Secretary of' State.—(Hear, hear.) It was necessary that Members should have the opportunity of communicating with others their views of the state of public affairs with out control. This was in his opinion as necessary as the liberty of speech itself—(Hear, hear)—and it was in his opinion a dangerous doctrine to say that Ministers should have the power of looking into the letters with impunity of their political opponents. Were they to exercise this power in mystery and secrecy, and to be the judges of when thy were to be at liberty to look into the letters of their political oppo nents ?—(Hear, hear.) If he thought a Committee necessary, at the beginning of this debate, he thought so still more since he had heard the speech of the lion. Member for Bute. The House was not so full now as it was then, but he would appeal to the Hon. Gentlemen who heard that speech, whether that Hon. and Learned Gentleman did not lay down the doctrine, that it was ne cessary to look into the letters of Members of Parliament if they happened to have what was considered dangerous correspondence. He had laid down this doctrine in a manner which, if it received the consent of that House, would be liable to the gravest and most dangerous abuses. He trusted the House would not open the door to such great abuses. He thought it very possible, if this rule were adopted, that any gentleman who called for a reform of the public institutions, and who might attempt to excite public opinion against the Government of the day, might become the object of suspicion to that Government. He thought he remembered a time when the letters of the Right Hon. Baronet the Home Secretary himself, under such a system, might have been in considerable danger.—(Great cheering and laughter.) At least, he remembered, in those days when he (Lord Howick) was much younger than he was at present, and more eager in politics, that he thought the Right Hon. Baronet—as, for instance, in his famous speech about the " birds of prey"—did direct popular feeling, rather than public reason, against the Government of that day, more strongly than was either prudent or creditable. — (Loud cheering and laughter.) He was sure that the Right Hon. Baronet's present colleague, who was at that time Secretary of State, would not have exercised that power, bnt he thought had there been a Minister who would have done so, in 1830, when the country was getting in'o a serious state of disturbance, the correspondence of the Right Hon. Baronet would have been well worth an occasional inspection.— ( Hear, hear, and laughter.) He did not doubt that in former years, the supporters of Catholic emancipation and of reform were considered not less dangerous than those who now sup ported the People's Charter. No doubt the men who sup ported the measures that had since been adopted with such in finite advantage to the country, and now wet with such general assent—he had no doubt that had those principles then pre vailed, at the Post-office their letters would have been opened. Why this was actually the case at the time of the American war, when the correspondence of the leaders of the Opposition in that House was never safe. Let them look at the letters of Burke, recently published, and they would see frequent re ferences by the Marquis of Rockingham, Lord North, and others, to their having something of im portance to communicate, but that knowing the state of the Post-office they must defer it till they had a safer op portunity. And that which had existed might exist again. He objected to the principle that the letters of Members of Parliament might be inspected ; and so far from thinking that the letters of persons who had come under the censure of the law ought to be opened, he thought the letters of those persons ought particularly to be protected. He thought those unfor tunate persons, after they same out of prison, if they con sidered they had been unjustly treated, ought of all others to have the clearest right to have their letters respected. He thought her Majesty's Ministers might have been guilty of a grave error of judgment, and one calling for the serious notice and reprehension of the House ; but it did not follow, because he had confidence in them as men of honour, that all future :Mi nisters would be the same. It was a constitutional principle that Parliament ought not to place that extreme confidence in any men holding the reins of power—they ought not to give into any hands a power so liable to abuse. Even on the slightest suspicion of such abuse the interference of Par liament was absolutely necessary to the due exercise of a con trol over the Executive Government, and ought to be inquired into in a searching manner. Though he did not wish to make this subject a subject of attack on those now in office, yet he must say that it was a subject of inquiry that they ought not to pass by. They ought in this respect to act on the old and wise maxim, to take things in time, Red stop the beginnings of evil ; let them arrest the mischievous principle in the outset; let them mark their opinion of the subject by appointing a Committee to inquire into what the facts were. Let them by that step mark their opinion that the letters of Members of Parliament ought not thus to be opened. The amendment he was now about to place in the hands of the Speaker was this : —" That it having been alleged by an Hon. Member of that House, in his place, that letters addressed to him have been detained at the Post-office, and opened before they were de livered, a Select Committee be appointed to inquire if the alle gation is true, and if so, en what authority, or on what grounds such detention and such opening at the Post-office of such letters were sanctioned." The House would observe that in this amendment he did not assume the truth of the allegation, nor in any was censure the Committee of last year, and he hoped and trusted that this amendment would not be objected to by the House. Mr. J. WORTLEY explained. The SPEAKER having put the original question and the amendment, Lord SANnON and Mr. D'lsakELl rose together, but there was a general call from both sides of the House for Mr. Dlaraeli. Mr. D'ISRAELI said he rose to second the amendment of the Noble Lord opposite, because its intention was first shadowed forth by the Noble Lord below him, and received, he believed, the sympathy of the House. That amendment con siderably narrowed the question which they were now for the second night debating; but that question had before been nar rowed to limits much smaller by the Right Han. Gentleman who last addressed the House from the Treasury benches. That Right Hon. Gentleman had narrowed the question to a personal view between the lion. Member for Finsbury and the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State., for that, indeed, were the real state of the case , h ha.,..fore one, should regret ever having interfered with it e . v .. , he was ordy speaking the sentiments of the Hon.;ranstisinLgeatrhneesde Gentleman the Member for Hull when he was , p e as x lit e tle inclined feelings. But if this were true—and 1 to credit it as some other assertions sai• strous and equally current —it was hi7ahnw"aa.cle,rleitioenqa4laiilYlumst°rna-- tion of a great truth that manysehaisg(t)ornelaatnsphuabdii,celbeeberaetfietds, have from slight and personal caour great principles vindicated. sometimes been derived, for eheffield, who addressed The Honourable Mem er the House e ,rly .in the evening. had disclaimed all what he seemed to think ought intention of touching not to form any material part of this discussion. He kne w no t w hether the Hon. Gentleman was right in the position he had assumed, but what he could not for g et was, that her M ajesty's overnment had proved themselves to be of the contrary c omer' • . by the Right Hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister him self, in his complete and elaborate defence ;—complete, he mean t, so far as it touched upon each division of the subject ; both in its legal character and personal interest, he had par ticularly argued this question on both these grounds. The Right Honourable Baronet had indeed vindicated himself, because he had acted in pursuance of a statute. A fel the Prime Minister had upbraided the House with its inconsistencies, because it impugned the Government of the country when they were defended and vindicated by a statute they themselves had passed. He thought, therefore, that it was utterly out of the question for them to pass over the legal question. He had always had the utmost respect for Westminster Hall, and made one in the smallest minority in that House that ever divided in support of the supremacy of the Courts of Common-law. But he thought it was a Hovel and somewhat dangerous opinion which was broached by the Honourable Member for Sheffield, that a point of constitutional law was not a point of discussion in that House. How would the question of ge neral warrants ever have been decided, if a friend of the Go- vernment had then risen in his place and said that this was not a question with which the representatives of the people ought to interfere ? The only difference between this case and that of gen.ral warrants e as, that the exercise of a remarkable pewee by the Secretary of State rested on a positive statute. and the only fault found with the Minister was, that he continued to exercise that power when the statute was not only become obsolete but had altogether ceased.—(Hear, and aheers.) No person could contend that this power had been con ferred by the statute. The Right Hon. Gentleman said he acted in pursuance of the statute, but he did not put his finger on the statute ; and the Right Hon. Baronet the First Minister of the Crown had told the House that Parliament had created the power which the Government had exercised, but the Right Hon. Gentleman did not put his finger on the statute. The statute of Anne had been alluded to repeatedly, but no member of the Government had said where it bore upon the present case. The Secret Committee had evinced its anxiety to go into antiquarian research and historical dissertation ; had they consulted other information, which lay nearer their nose, instead of musty records in the Rolls-office, they might have settled the question for ever. The words in the statute were only an echo of the sentence to be found in the prelimi nary proclamations of the Crown. They never found any allu sion, until the reign of Anne, that any practice of the kind at present under discussion existed, or the means where by the right use of such a search was guaran teed. And for good reasons, no one versed in the common law would pretend that it had any foundation in common law—the interference of a Minister a f State, on such a subject, and under such circumstances, was fur too highly political, and could only he justified on great political grounds, which would amply justify it.--( Hear, hear. ) But in the Parliament of Anne, when the first Act was passed respect,ng the Post-office, how was the Parliament constituted? Not of men as innocent as the men constituting this Assembly—they were not men like his Hon. Friend the Member fur Hull, who, like himself (Mr. Disraeli) and many others, were ignorant of the practice pursued at the present day, until accidentally revealed ; but the men who formed the Parliament of that day were the descendants of Hanspden and of Elliott—they were the sons of men who, only fifty years before exercised the sovereign power in England—men versed in the traditions of the assembly in which they sat, made acquainted with all the secret practices of the Govern ment, and therefore an Act of Parliament was passed, pro viding that no letter passing through the Post-office should be tampered with, except by the Secretary of State. It was to prevent the interference of eonnexions with their correspondence. and to make one man of station alone responsible for such acts. But that did not make the Secretary of State sufficiently ans werable to the injured individual. The Secretary of State kept back the letters on his own responsibility. The colleague of the Hon. ,Member for Finsbury ( Mr. Wakley) asked what was meant by the responsibility of Ministers? He said it was a phantom and a shadow, which no one could understand. There certainly was some force in the remark of the Hon. Member. He thought the political responsibility of Mini s ters was a m e re farce. Ministerial responsibility to the majority of men—his own creation—offered no guarantee to society ; but the responsi bility of Ministers, under these circumstances, to this House is a precise, complete, and perfect responsibility which the laws of England recognise. In the case of general warrants the House of Commons supports the Minister in his issue of them. What occurs ? Under the Act for the regulation of the press in the reign of Charles IL, the Minister issued a general warrant, though that Act was unheard of before the time of Bolin2broke. In 1763, general warrants were issued. The House of Commons vindicated the Minister. The case was brought before the Courts of Westminster Hall (the case of Leach was familiar to every lawyer), a verdict was given for the plaintiff, and what did the House of Commons do? Why, they supported Ministers. But they met next day and unanimously voted that general warrants %re illegal. This case clearly showed the responsibility of Ministers, and the case was analogous to th e present. The action parallel in this case to that. The House of Commons now qualified its former opinion as regarded the legality as well as every other part of the question. He stopped one moment to consider what was the really interesting portion of the case as it had been put by the Right Honourable Secretary at War. Before he approached it he would clear the ground of all other questions into which the House had entered so largely He was not present, but he understood the Government had amply vindicated itself with regard to the Italian exiles. To him, he confessed, that was not surprising. He knew enough of the Noble Lord the Sec r etary for Foreign ' Affairs to know that, however active he might be in the duties of office, he was a nobleman of the most generous impulse, and he felt persuaded that if, under present circumstances, he had erred at all, he would have erred on the side of indul gence and lenity. If the Noble Lord hail exercised his discretion, if he had communicated the information which it was alleged had brought about this catastrophe—even if what occurred could be attributed to that information ; he would not have presnmed to scrutinise the conduct of Ministers in such a position, and under such circumstances with severity. The Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that great master of analytical narrative, who placed before the House with painful perspicuity what would have been the consequences if the letter to M. 111azzini had not been intercepted. Every event that might have occurred was mapped before them with a precision which was almost prophetic. How the letter was sent_ and received in the almost solitary island of the Mediterranean, the expedition of twenty unarmed men, the invasion of Ca labria, the insurrection of the North of Italy, the Austrians crossing the Appenines, the French crossing the Alps,—all these were detailed with surprising minuteness and accuracy. The danger of a general war was also insisted upon in forcible language. These things, he repeated, were related with painful accuracy. Therefore, he would disembarrass them finial the circumstances in which he believed the Government wet e really not to blame ; and which, even if the statement of the Hon. Member for Finsbury had been correct, they should tyd rashly give a decision on the merits ; and having fully considered the legal part of the question introduced by the Right Hen. Baro net the First Lord of the Treasury, he came now to the poli tical considerations which formed the second part of his speech. The Right Hon. Gentleman would pardon him for saying that on that occasion he displayed unusual warmth. He knew that under these circumstances it did not follow that. the Right Hon. Gentleman really felt—(Great laughter.) The Right Hon. Gentleman was a great man, and held a great position, and should not lose his temper; but in a popu lar assembly it was sometimes necessary to have the appear ance of acting the choleric gentleman.—( Hear.) He knew occasions when the Right _Honourable Gentleman struck the red box very emphatically, when his cause was not the bust.—( Renewed laughter.) He believed that some times the younger Members were frightened at the heat of the Minister, but he (Mr. D'lsraeli) had as often assured them that there was not the least need for alarm. It was not so serious a case—the Prime Minister was not going to eat them. ( Continued laughter.) He would cool presently ; they knew not what the Right Hon. Gentleman would do, bat it generally came to a call upon them to rescind their votes.—(Great laughter.) The Right Hon. Gentleman hav ing divided his defence of the Government under two heads— having argued with great detail upon the report, and having proved that they were wrong on this consideration, bat not trusting too mush to the position which he had (chosen to occupy, took refuge in the consideration of high political topies. It was but lately they had been somewhat surprised by the speech of an Honourable Member (Mr. J. S. Wortley). He would not say that the present debate would be brought to a close, but most certainly he doubted whether the amendment of the Noble Lord would have been produced but for that speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman—after he nad assured . them that in 11S4t? the country was in great danger, and that the responsibility devolved on Government of quelling that danger. After his quotation of that evidence, which at the' time was not received with all the credit which it had lately received. After the Right Hon Gentleman had, in fact, more than intimated that it was possibihie even for a Member of Parliament to be concerned in a conspiracy and in rebellion, it seemed to him impossible that the question could be left otherwise than as it was.—( Hear, hear.) His Hon. Friend the Member for Hull ( Sir J. lianmer) had spoken with candour, yet with a becoming deference to the character of the gentle men composing the Secret Committee, of the report furnished to the House on that subject. He (Mr. D'lsraeli) knew that his Hon. Friend and many other gentlemen had, before entering the House, entertained an intention, if not of supporting, certainly with a very great bias in favour of the Committee. But certainly after the distinct asser tion of the Honourable Member for Finsbtiry that this was not a question of private feeling or of personal vengeance —and the assertion had a sort of authenticity attached to it— he was justified in taunting a Minister of State, who opened his letters, with practices which he rightly described as dis graceful to himself and his constituents.—(Cheers.) He was animated' with the same feelings as other gentlemen, and he did own that, in this instance, he was not opposed to examina tion and inquiry.—(Hear, hear.) He himself could not be supposed to have any hostile feeling to the Right Hon. Baro net, whose honour he had found unquestioned, and from whom he had received nothing but courtesy—(lronical cheers, conti nued for some time, mingled with cries of " Na, no")—and whatever the imputation—( Cheers of derision Interrupted the sentence). He spoke the feeling of all gentlemen who had business transactions with him.--(Cries of " Oh, oh," and ironical cheers from all parts of the House.) He (Mr. D'lsraeli) was sorry that these expressions—expressions per fectly sincere—should create emotions in the House of such a character.—(Oh, oh.) It was quite impossible that under the circumstances, and with the novel features the accusation had assumed, it could be passed over in silence. The cir cumstances of that accusation were different from those under which the Honourable Member for Finsbury had first addressed the House and called for an inquiry. At that time the House entertained no idea, and lie believed that such did not exist in the Hon. Member's own breast, that his letters had been opened. The Hon. Member for Bute (Mr. J. Wortley) was mistaken in advancing the opinion he had that night. He had no means of appealing to the heart—if such existed—for some persons doubted whether Members of Par liament had hearts—(Laughter)—but when he laid down the principle that there was no difference betwen the representa tive and his constituency, such a position was neither. con stitutional nor legal. It was opposed to all practice, and o _t e e the spirit of the House, and most odious and &xious ! w th . feelings of the country.—(Great cheering.) Ho a.greed w a sthis one of the most delicate powers which could be exercisedby the Government. A Member of Parliament might be conidered • • upon any or every subject of complaint, shoul d that in format' , n as a sort of political father confessor ; and itsasniuch better , r than the trust preventionto the of t e h u a r t e e n i e l : lance of the e be conveyed city.—(Cheers.) They were going to give an independent t v .P o ' t s e t without heeding what side of the House they usually sup- S to c t r i e le ta r ry " o r f es S en ta ta te tivioe I That was no question of party. They could nut un derstand the feelings of the Members of the Secret Committee —they consisted of gentlemen whom all respected; but the instructions of the House did not animate them to do more than the report exhibited. Sk hat had in this ease happened to one Minister might happen t 3 another.— il a er N e Val7o e l r i e an A tli th e f ea ‘ l ' l H t s h sa e r, thi h rd ear s . e " a ) r of Y minion, it s i tra v' t i hat he (C r m ie i s ght o and was it to be said, that one of t h ercselves—a .Nlenaber of that House—should be made an example of? It seemed as if the Government had sa id, " Thi s is a happy take advantage of it." The lion. Gentleman had made a distinct accusation. He had asserted, and they must suppose the lion. Mrinber belie.:ed that his letters had been opened. He (Mr. )israeli) did not hesitate to say that they (the Go vernment) might open all his letters, provnied they in courtesy answered them.—(Laughter.) The amendment proposed by the Noble Lord, and which he intended to second, the Govern ment would allow, was not of the same character with the first motion of the Hon. Member on the same subjec'. He did not think that because one of the constituents of an Hon. Member should be suspected of sedition, that therefore the correspondence with his representative should be opened. —( Sir R. Peel, irenieally—" Hear, hear.") He did not understand the sarcasm intended by the Right Hon. Baronet; for he had heard it said that, notwithstanding a friend of the Right Hon. Baronet's was engaged in Despard's plot, hi communicated with him.—( Hear, hear, anti cheers.) He understood that friend held office in the Administration. — ( Great cheering.) He therefore thought that the Right Hon. Baronet might have reserved his sarcasm.—( Cheer o s ; ) And he would add that, when tau nted while speaking asht time ago, he hod no inten t ion of making an, unseen I