The Sun. — London, England, 1845-04-09 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY MORNING, APRIL 9, 1845. cestershire, complaining of agricultural distress, and pra)in g for relief. Mr. 1 ?- YORKE presented a petition from York against the grant to Maynooth- Lord COURTENAY present. d a petition from Totnes against the union of the sees of St. A:aph and Bangor. Mr. VILLIERS presented a petition against the grant Z( 7 ) bilaynooth. C ot 'ftel WOOD p res . nte d two etitions against the audit onal grant to Ma3nooth. Cawaiti PECHELL presented ft petition from a sur geon in Brighton, stained Piclo , rd i aglinst the Physic Itad S urgery Bill. Th e H on . an d t;a ll ant M em b er, at the same time, prey. rated p-titions signed by forty seven medical practiti , mers,a d agr. ed to at a p:lblic n , eti - ag of the profession, held in Brighton, a.;ainst the Ne':tical lief. rw 131 1. Mr GROGAN' pr sented s. - vsral petitions from the i nhabitant s of Dublin against the proposed increas;ed tr , nr t o the College of Maytio,th. their J. T YRRELL presented several petitions a z ainsc grant to the Colleg e Maynooth. BURIALS IN LARGE TOWNS. lord MAHON presented a petition from the parish of -Paddington against the interment within the precincts of large towns. SCOTCH BANKING SYSTEM. d rag C a ptain GORDON p resente d a pet i t i on f rom Aber -1:4 hto gt'Oy interference with the present system ki in o and. NOTICES OF MOTION. Mr. HUTT gave notice that, on Thursday nPxt, he 'would present a pAition of en extraordinary character from the LegAative Council of New South Wales, P r aYing to have conceded to that colony the right which tad been granted to Canad a o f i m p ort i ng corn into this country. ion th The HON. M EMBER was about to give another notice e same subj, ct, when - 'until The SP EAKER decid e d th a t h e cou ld not do so after the other notices had been gone through. THE CONDITION OF THE LABOURING Lord J. CLASSES. R USSELL gave notice that, on this day fort- Iti ghta he would bring forward a motion respecting the condition of the forward classes in England and Wales. A T i z I T I , NEW ZEALAND COMPANY. r- "LON By gave notice that, in the Committee Tapply' he would as k le a ve of the House to make an iapshelatriation respecting statemtnts which had been 'pub- Zeal and l eoni t4 his conduct i n connex i on w ith the New Captain Rotig Panv * 'tine that took that opport un ity of giving no 'wonld . when t h e question wa , . brought forward he "'ore a resolution to the effect that the conduct osed to the interests and ..(1)! the Directors of the New Zealand Company, was op- On the policy of this country. EXCISE DITTY ON SPIRITS. mutton of Sir R. FERGUSON the following act was was ordered :—Account a the, produce of the ,forcise duty reccived on spirits in Ireland, during each the number of the years ending the sth day of April, 1844 and 1845; gallons brought to charge, showing Ina increase or decrease in gallons and in duty. Ac count of th e number of gallons of spirits brought to charge in Irelandquarters endin , and th e d u ty paid thereon, in the 4 tg the sth d a y o f Ap r il, 1844 and 1845, 'the n umber the increase or decrease. Account ..f of gallons of proof spirits (dis 7, 42411 ''g the quantities produced from tat d 4 1 : a mixtur e of malt and unmalted gram) on in duty h t, Was paid for home consumption in Ireland, quarter of the years ending respectively the sth 41 Pril, 1844 and 1845, and in each of the years. An 13'tint of the number of detcetions and the number of :_r'"ria prosecuted for offences in Irelanti agai . ast the 'quws for the suppression of illicit diAillation, in each I:arter of the years ending respectively the sth day of -Al ) .( ril, 1844 and 1845, distinguishing those convicted. cr e , of the number of persons confined in each gaol press] for o ff ences aga i nst the laws for the sup s s'on of illicit distillation on the sth day of January, ILtr sth day of M arc h, and the 6t h day of April, 1845 iconti nuation of Parli amentar y P a p er N o . 411, o f "."481 On 1844). oi- OREGON er ( J OHN RUSSELL mov e d an humble address to M a . h a , Jesty for a copy of the dispatch of Lord Sydeit -1.41 to Lord John Russell of the 9th ot August, 1841, a n t, ?ting the territory in dispute between Great Britain ' l nerlea —Ordered. MR. MAZZ. -fr o Sir J AMES GRAHAM, in INI answer to a question I, e In uncombe, w hws not aibe, said that rif .n'Ets not ) able to lay before the Ho u se l any further i () motion, in reference to the statements made by him It tarding Mr. Mazzini. SCOTCH AND IRISH BANKS. Si r ROBERT PEEL announce d th a t h e wou ld t a k e at 11 3 early opportuni , y of stating to the House what the Iniltlsure was which the Government proposed to intr..- co relative to banking establishments in Scotland Ireland. The pressure of other iropor littit business was a t p resen t ver y grea t ; b ut 'le would in the course of a nrmith, and before the Period referred to by Hon. Gentlemen who had remarked b Pon this question on former evenings, state the nature "the measure to the House.—(Hear, hear.) se of f tr the purpose then rose, the inviola ...Mr. T. DUNCOMB E a Bill to secure e. THE POST-OFFICE. H i, ° ,ving for leave to bring in ` 4o ty of letters the system ofG overn _to fe lt that it was a reflection on reproach passing through the Pths"ffi. p e r under which we lived, as for 'our in stitutions of which we were wel a l h as p In submitting r a oud, that any Ilitember of that House should be obliged to seek . th, Inviolability of his correspondence. or of a 4'4 ‘ 4°ll oll to the House, he el te.si,.ble tr otn everything of individua l going to war would n a c b e' stain as it',. -- ,- • It was with the system he personal much a s of the other * 40 4 a system he felt it his duty t w o a a e n s n_deour to de totisV. e Co rainittees of this House d 6 Lied been appointed during t he . 4 , 1 that P(*.t What was the state of the 14w - on this subject. mmons had last session to re the . ° l 4 th e th eWase,ornmittee of the House of Co pxactly that the law in 1844 was but t h ey did !Mlle as hit was in the time of Queen Anne. . -slot toll them what that law was. had the , gone one step further, and had told them_ . _d was, o ttlY way the i t • be explained b . n entio n of the law could , TheH,use o t f ha L t ords of Parlia 9 the fact teat that nwer was fully recognised by Act ment, bee eh t, i hat e the power of detaining letters. Th e y to ;d their, _,wo it did not give the Secretary of e power appeared to have been exercised from the earlie s t t a; -e s. Period and that it heti h all co rseng to several' Acts of Parliament. That v - as that the House of Lords said in reference to the matter, ---( en' ex-rcised ac admitting that there bad been no law. He would that the practice bad obtained, from old usage, ; b ut and was recognised by those Acts of Parliament b grant 1 -, 1 , they rsferred to those cases in the Appendix of the I,teport of the Commons, they would find that there had been no such proof that letters had been stopped in the Post office. opened. and then sent foreard to the parties who ought to hay.- received them ; there was no evidence that such a system of fraud and forgeforger had ever been exercised; they were used in C oof law as &vidence against certain parties. The ts was so di ff erent on that point that they din not allow them to ask where was the warrant %hereby those letters were taken ; it seemed that they came into the hands of the Government some way or other, but they would not allow it to be asked who detained those letters. The first of Vic toria increased the power of the former Act of Par lament. He had the authority of the highest Itlen--the highest legal autheriies, for saying that there was no law for the exercise of that power now made use of. All that was den. by the Act was to re lieve • the servant of the Post -office freta a misdemeanor le,. deaining or opeeing any letters. It left the legality ro of Chet warrant totally and entirely untouched, just the same 5 a constable who produces his warrant is exonerated fr, e. , 1 „,-) .7, an responsibility as to the legality of that warrant. The same thieg giii, might be saii of' the orders that were thatoutir the If of strangers into the gallery of Dt,e7,"nse. If a stranger in that atir-a"nded, he would produce the order as his protec trl3Yet 4 gallery were to be .t was clear that the power of admi tting ath:ingera did not exist in that House. Bat adm itting n letter:ht% Corselet/tient possessed the power of openi n g advar,;a.e question the H. 'use had to dec ide . wan, ,r, , h 3 all kn ew th e t heY had obtained by its exercise. t•had be en Di dtfficultiesin which the present Govern which had been . cr a l e r d ,,,; Land tiles, all knew the ill feeling th er e ---' LI the expesures in that House. w Ic And . i e f e was eve r W ° o ld ask after whether, th e ,i ; ' any ratienel and sensihle man "Y benefit derived . from this subject, n E. , gad in a Mosures Which had been made, a man engaged or a tee;o s"a.ble correspondence would not be an id P ost- s en d that correspond, nee through the General 1 this whieh°'nce• He said, therefore, after the exposures pr,etichad taken Place, that the value or utilit y of of ~ ' had been destroyed If this system a as to be t Th(7.ll' value at all it must be practised t'Y the vf ' 1 $ n middle course. They must either s tand sho u l d - presen t s ystem, or abolish it altogether. k thi y s in secret. odie,, t heY not expunge from the statute-boo inxites4P.ower, if such power existed? Such . a power 11.1 j le no other country. One of the articles of e th o e . heAOl, ponstitutien T he the correspsindepc t ers t did not eiglan people. The power of opening le t . I t 64 exist in the United States, nor in Canada. l elere d Tc l exist in France. 44 W atlidin: his Place in the French Chamber, that in Monsieur Guizot had de- Pen in in fact the corresp ndence of the French str it ~ was inviolable. Honourable Gentlemen opposite eft PI , hut that hal been the declaration of the Minister till, e6ireign Affairs i n Prance. If correspondence in liob od 4 "" ry were violated. there was no rschees hem's*: nine:, fl that this di. e i a _Y was responsible for it. Sir Robert Walpole had Power ought only to be exercised in the Pre ' great internal danger. From that time down to llerisent day the P ower had be , n increasing. It had kiitil.'.a,ed, not o ly for criminal warrants, but also for . tair,,,''' PurPoses. If they confined the ay st.ae to e.nt ,, it: ZarrantN • he should not have so great an objection Ni ut: ,at , that was clearly imp tssibl-. O n a forme r oc 4i. °P it n har t be en stated that Lord Sidmouth had is-twd •i e (iii. —wiler of war Te its for open'n. 4 * lett• ri. Now hi l t; r• nUnconibe) had had lately a c.minunit..tion a hanker in the o f Lon don , and he had odd th at , . .city tac o, ir ty t . a el, rk in his service had been guilty of f0r +.41.,1 ort, hid absconded. Application W4B made to 1 •Ir tell o,o'reauth to intereept the letter s of the c.ei... i • G uth I • - • h ever E ane ct w s eclin,,d doing so, sayin g that e n Lilo, . a rrant s 0 .or opening letters except in cases ef lSid,,, treasen. An application was then made to L ,rd ""uth f the - - be rld s fir v .._ , Or partie s to allowed to Se e suss a res ,tri%,:tertetters, and Lord &dna uth sail be would s-ed an ~itete s ilt the ',ironing. He did so. and ir was to thi l tli,t, he ' That he eonsid. red the Peseedai ee so secred ti et ,,, , W ould not b e a p trty to allowing the sup, rserip tttlits s r 415 y letters te be see'," Two-thirds of the war e,41.1.41 sued within the last ferty years had been criminal let ate; end, i 0 point f f t h t*d itself 0 thi e 0 ac ,t e ques ton s o le %oi l should the Crown have the power of issu i ng 1, 4 Warrant j'ltti'd t , He thought that when the House tee n - " :h e extensien of the . noliee and other instru ts ef 11 t't ' • I', tie e , t . : e oeecuove. it wt ~tp that there was no A_ . 41 ty for this addition ! o f 0 • loiters. aa a II" 48 ,_ e , for . a. power. _ Peeing a d copiEs of the Warrants that had been issued. Now he wished at that moment to ask the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department whether the form, r warrants bad been adopted by him (Sir J. Graham) as the models of those which he him self had issued? Sir J. GR HAM—Not as to the form. Mr. T. DUNC() VIBE said, it would be very inter tatting to him and • t. er-. to have before them copies of those n.-vv rorms which had been used in their own ease=.-- (H. ar, and a laugh.) He believed it would be found that the practice had been of a most demoralising effect. To pr• ire this, he would r , ad the order of the po-tmaster general, dismissing servants of the post-oftii e tOr opening the letters of certain noblemen and yen tl,:m• n eonreet d with sporting affaits.—(The Hon. Gentleman re al the , rder.) Now the opening of letters by a postm n w s a transportable offence. But the pos!maate dared not prosecute those men, because they might ph,:d the example of their superiors as an au- . thority. If foniul them guilty, it would be with a recommendation to mercy on account of the example set them (Hear, hear.) The dismissal of those men was occasioned by the unwillingness of the Post-office and the Home Seemtary to go into a Court of Cri minal law, with an avowal of their own acts.--(Hear, hear.) There were Members of the Committee of In quiry now in Oe House, and he wi bed to take the op• portunuy of reminding them of their own re port ; in which they expressed some regret that they could not go into an explanation of • all the circumstances connected with those transactions. ' Now what did the Commito e mean by that ? Did they ' picture to themselves a Secretary of State for the Home Departmeht sitting in his office in a state of alarm (having read, perhaps, the Morning Herald. the Minis terial organ), with respect to some treasonable conspi racy, or some sedition, which he learned from a letter brought from some person in the Post-office, but which, after all, might turn out to be a conspiracy got up by some Conservative Operative Society, or a mere Chartist meeting. The Right Hon. Gentleman having found out the extent of the conspiracy might put his letter and the Morning thrall in the fire. Another reason given for maintainine this power was this—that if you abolish it, the Post-office, this great Government establishment. would be made the vehicle of treasonable or seditious practices. That was the only argument for retaining this power which had any plausibility ; but upon exa• mination he thought it would be found to possess more sentiment than common sense. If this argument were good as regarded the Post-office, it would be equally ap plicable to every railwar, omnibus - driver, or even cab-driver in the kingdom.—(Hear, hear.) Was it not better to use the power which the law at present gave of using a search wa-rant for the opening of letters in the Post-office, if they were supposed to contain treason-ble matter, than to open them privately? That would he a less dishonourable proceeding and less offensive to the individual. He did net see how the power which was lately exercised could be of any value after the exposures that were made. He did not think that there was much fear of treason new that they had policemen in every corner. They had their county rural police, their borough police. What could they want more. But they had more, if they knew how to use it properl'—a loyal and affectionate people, who, if they w ere well treated, would be the best safeguard of the Crown, and the tranquillity of the country. lie would ask the House to allow him to bring in a Bill, and let there be no mistake on the suteect. He te-ked for leave to bring in a Bill for the unconditional repeal of this power. He was satisfied that no middle course could be adopted. This system of opening tetters—this system of fraud and of forgery must either continue or cease. He ' , mild be no party to any other course—be would not be made a fool of by bringing in a Bill, supposing leave were granted him to do so, and then having that Bil' frittered away or strangled in some of the subseq tent stages. He would have a clear and decided vote of the House, whether the power was to continue or cease. He was not aware what was the in. tention of the Government en the subject. but he hoped he would h ar the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State tor the Home Department rise in his place and de clare t' at this was a p.i•ver riot enly odious for a Minis ter to exorcise, hut repugnan to the feelings of the people of this country—that he would take the matter out of hi- (Mr. aincornb.'s) hands. and endeavour to expunge it from the statute-b ielt, on the clear understanding that any ill-feeling which this -discussion had given rice to, and any suspicion which had he-n engendered, should he now and for ever buried in oblivion —(Hear, liter.) And this was not the only benefit that wi:ald arise from the abolition of titis odieus power. If any foreign Minister, or the spy of any foreign despot, came sneaking to their doors, a British Minister might tell them that this power no longer existed—that he was ready to give them any redre-s and protection which the British law enabled him to do ; but with respect to this species of treachery it was no longer in his power (and he might at the same time point to the Act) to open letters for the gratifica tion of any foreign power. With these views, he would ask for leave to bring in a Bill to secure the inviolability of letters passing through the Post-office.—(Cheers.) Dr. BOW RING, in seconding .the motion, said that he wished the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department to state whether or not he in tended to make the reparation he promised to Mr. Mazzini's character, in case he found he had unjustly aspersed it. He wished to know if the Right Hon: Gen tleman was able to produce anything in support of the criminatory charges he had alleged against Mr. Mazzini. He would also ask the Right Hon. Baronet if he were in possession of any ether documents relating to this matter other than those which he had laid before the House. It appeared that there had been a communica tion from Sir Augustus Foster, stating that the Austrian Minister had got hold of certain letters of Mazzini, who had been expelled from Genoa, showing that Mezzini was the head of the secret tribunal which had authorised the atrocious murder which had been committed at Rodez. Now, Sir Augustus Foster only stated that the Austrian Minister professed to have got hold of certain documents impli cating Mr. Mazzini, and he wished to ask the Right Hon. Baronet if he had taken any steps to get at the truth in relation to those documents; and he would also ask if there was anything against Mr. Mazzini be yond the insinuations which had been made on a former occasion, and if there was any further evidence to be brought forward in support of the accusation against this ill-treated,calumniated, and, as the Right Hon. Gentleman himself had characterised him, unprotected foreigner? Sir JAMES GRAHAM, in commencing the obser vations which he shoeld feel it to be his duty to addeess to the House on the present occasion, would commence by alluding to the questions which bac'. been put to him by the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. In the first place, he would repeat what he had stated to the House on a former occasion, that until he had been in formed of the circumstance in that House on Tuesday last, he believed he was not aware of the fact that in the Westminster Review there had appeared a de fence of the conduct of Mr. Mazzini. He had subsecinently stated that it would be his duty to make ittcynries into the facts of the case, and that if the result should leave any doubt upon his mind as to the accu racy of the statements he had made respecting the transaction to which he had alluded, he should be happy to state that fact to the t H o o t u a s k e e . th e lie fi h r a s i t c o e p rt p a o i r n t l u y n b it e y fore stated to the Hotta on the first occa-ion that he had endeavoured to inform himself from the best authority, if any prosecution had been instituted by Mr. Mazzini against the paper (the Monitm , ) e hich had first brought forward the accusa tion, and he had been inf. Tined that no prosecution had been instituted against that paper. But the same party from whom he had obtained that information, had taken no notice whatever to Mtn of the prosecution which. it was said, had bees instituted against another party — namely, Monsieur Gisluet, for a republication of the same statement. Under these circumstances, he . had thought it his duty to institute further inquiries. He bad done so, but he had only heard of these circumstan ces on ruesila) last for the first time, and he had as yet received no further information on the subject. As soon as he should have received further information, it would be his duty to state the same to the House — (Hear, hear)—and, at the same time, to state the impression left upon . his mind as the result of that inquiry.—(Cheers.) Painful as that discussion had been to him on former occasions, he was bound to say that the Hon. Member for Finsbury, in introducing a great question of that importance, bad done it in a manner the most dispassionate that it was possible for any Hon. Member to do. Si) far from contending ; against the po sition the Hon. Member had t a ken, he should say that he was ready to agree with it. He agreed with him in say ing that he did not believe it useful to continue this power unless secresy be ob-erved. That was the leading proposition in the speech of the Hon. Gentleman, and to that proposition he was willing to give his entire assent. tie should state to the House that the Hon. Gentleman had, in the way he re-presented it, almost seduced him from his duty, and he should admit that this power had been viewed with jealousy by the people of this country; but at the same time he did not think it consistent with his duty that he should assent to his motion. If he did not think so, nothing could give him more delight ; but he was first to consider this question with reference to the public interest, and to the public interest alone, and would very shortly venture to deal with what was the law of the case, and to differ with the view of the Hon. Gentleman. lie must say that the power was not first given by the statute of Anne. Opening a letter was a grt at moral offence on the part of him who was entrusted with it, but until this statute passed it was part of the royal prero. gative tog convey letters, and it was universally known that the Government, from time to time, whenever grave suspicion arose, did, without hesitation, open letters con fided to its trust, and so far from its being a legal offence, it was not only not a misdemeanour, but was not even a ground for a civil action. The statute created the mis demeanour, and also created an exception to the Crown. He perceived that the law was clear on this point. The effect of the repeal of this statute would be, that the opening of letters in the Yost-office would no longer be misdemeanour or an offence prosecuted by law. The effect of the restriction of the law in this way, giving an exception oely in favour of the Crown, was, that the se curity of correspondence was inviolable. The lion. Gentleman had stated, and stated very fairlT, what was the general purport of the report of the Secret Com mittee on this subject. The Hon. Member also stated that the p. opt, o' this country had an immense interest in the safety of correspondence sent by poet ; he con curred in that, and so did the Committee, who, for that reason, had stated in their report, that with the exception of such an net being committed by the Secre tary of State under warrant, the security of that cor respondence should he inviolable. Tee Committee fur ther stated in their report, the facts relative to the issuing of such warrants on former occasions, and the circumstances under which they had been issued. They stated the number of warrants that had been issued during the last twenty. two years, and that that number did not exceed an average of eight in the year. In fact the substance of the report. was that this pri vileg- hsd nev er h: en abused in warrants, and that not more than one warrant in a year during the same period had been issued for criminal purposes. But was that all ? No ; the report further stated that great alterations and improvements had been made in the law in this respect since the time of Lord Spencer, in 1806, and that all such warrants issued since then had been carefully preserved. Well, was there no other change ? He would show that there was, and it was to this effect, that now no Secretary of State could Issue a warrant without the presence of three witnesses —a confidential clerk and two others, and a copy of each such warrant to be left at the Post-office. In this respect he begged to assure the House that every warrant issued by him had been copied, and a copy sent to the Post office ; and not only that, but he produced before the Committee every warrant he had issued, and gave an account seriatim of each. In all that he had done in this respect he felt that he would be obliged to follow precedent, and he did so. In respect to political warrants, the Act required that the Secretary of State should give his reasons in writing for issuing them, and le a ve a copy of them at the Post-office, so that in fact. so far as regulations could go. he did not see how regula tions could be carried further.—(Hear, hear.) With respect to the question as to the expediency of this power. he would say that if it never had existed, per haps he would question the expediency of now giving it; but it having existed, and that, too, from a very early period, and having undergone many and various modifi cations and amendments, from the time of the R volution down to the present time, and by the highest authority in the country, he did not see why it should not be availed of when circumstances required. The House was now called upon to declare that the Government should not have the power of interfering with the cor respondence of any parties, either foreign or domestic, no matter how dangerous or treasonable. The Hon. Gentleman thoughtt, it was too much to leave to the responsible servants of the Crown to take measures to discover the designs of parties believed to be engaged in plots and intrigues dangerous to this country itself, or menacing to the peace and security of others. —(Hear.) Every country in Europe, except England, gave its government the power of preventing the settle ment of foreigners within its territory, or of effecting their expulsion. He (Sir James Graham) did not ask for the restoration of such favours to the English Go vernment. He had always been opposed to those powers whilst they existed. But he thought it was not too much to ask, in the absence of such powers, that there should be continued the means of checking correspon dence from this country, which was calculated to 'dis turb the peace and endanger the safety of other States, and to prevent this country being made the focus of conspiracies against its allies.—(Hear, hear.) He wished he could arrive at the conclusion at which the Hon. Gentleman had arrived, that the power so limited and restricted as it was, could be altogether abandoned with safety. He did not think so, and especially with reference to foreign correspondence, there being no power in the Government to check the arrival of fo reignersin this country or to effect their rejection. He believed that the Hon. Gentleman was correct in stating that any attempt to modify further the power of the Crown would prove nugatory, and he, therefore, pre ferred the course which the Hon. Gentleman had taken of bringing in a Bill to take away that power altogether. To that Bill OR the part of her Majesty's Ministers he would give a decided opposition.—(llear, hear.) Lord J. RUS ELL said he quite agreed with the Right Hon. Gentleman that nothing could have been more fairly stated than the case of his Hon. Friend. His Hon. Friend had brought forward the question as a constitutional one and he had placed his arguments fairly before the House. Now he (Lord J. :Wesel]) found himself in the situation of being neither able to agree with his Hon. Friend nor with the Right Hon. Gentleman. He thought there was great force in one of the observations made be , his Hon. Friend, namely, that this power having been much questioned, much discus sion having taken plice amongst the public as well as in that House, the power was no longer of the Fame utility that it had been at a former time, and that there was a sort of warning given to all persons inclined to use the post as a means of correspondence, not to attempt to carry on an illegal correspondence by such an agency. Let him, however, say that, with regard to the law of the question, his investigatioes, as far as they had proceeded, had led him to the same conclusion as that which the Right Hon. Gentleman had come to. It appeared that the Act of Anne was framed entirely with the view of inflicting punishment and penalties on clerks and persons engaged in the Post office, and not either to give a power or take away a power from the Crown which it formerly pos sessed. He had asked several gentlemen connected with the legal profession what sort of criminal proceeding could be taken against a person who had agreed to carry letters and had betrayed his trust, and he could not find an authority upon which a criminal indictment could be pref. rred. It seemed to him, then, that it was obvious that the purpose of the Act of Anne was to give the public security against their letters being opened by going through the Post-office ; and at the same time, while it gave that security, it reserved this power, which was then considered an established and re cognised power. Of course in that case it was not ne cessary to confer the power by Act of Parliament—it was en ly necessary to refer to it. It had been urged that this power should be used with more formality and precaution for the liberty of the subject than hitherto. His Noble Friend (Lord Radnor) was prepared to pro pose a measure providing that, in all cases of opening letters, information upon oath should be a necessary preliminary for the issuing of the warrant. He under stood that such was the opinion of a very high autho rity, Lord Denman, that there should be a control of this sort. Considerable discussion had taken place on the subject, and he was of opinion that some restriction of this sort should 'be imposed. But his Hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury went beyond this, and seemed to consider that letters in the Post-office were en titled to a peculiar inviolability, so that even , persons carrying on treason would have a sort of security, by the Bill he would in troduce. He could not, therefore, vote with the Hon. Member for the introduction of his Bill. But if a Bill came from the other House, or was proposed in this, having the restrictions mentioned, he would give it -his support. One effect which this Bill would have would be that of preventing the opening of letters at the in stance of any foreign Minister. A letter would not be opened, in case such a Bill passed, for the alleged pur pose of preventing or detecting an insurrection or con spiracy in a foreign country. The Bill would remove any such danger. He thought that was an unjustifiable use of this power.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gen tleman had, of course, acted from a sense of public duty. He did not believe he was swayed by party or corrupt motives. He did so because he considered it to be use ful to the public service ; but in his (Lord J. Russell's) opinion, the use of this power in order to further the views of a foreign Minister was unjust. For these reasons he did not wish to see that power exercised. He had expressed what his views were, and he could not give his vote in favour of his Hon. Friend, but he would be ready to impose such restrictions as be had stated. Mr. WARBURTON said, that he thought his Hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury had taken the only course which it was expedient to take on this question. It appeared to him that there was no middle course. Abrogate the practice, and do not attempt by new regu lations to set it upon its legs again. He must say he considered it highly creditable to the British Government in the abstract that their power or established practice of opening letters was exercised with so much forbear ance. lie did not mean to say that in certain particu lar cases there might not have been a want of discretion. On the contrary, his opinion was that there had been a want of discretion, but still it was greatly to the credit of the British Government that for twenty-two years they had only issued eight warrants a year on the average, and he thought that must be the opinion of foreigners themselves. As to the authority on which this practice rested, it must either depend en pre rogative or common-law, or on the statute of Anne. With regard to prerogative, only some persons versed in antiquarian lore gave evidence that such a power was exercised in the time of the Edwards •ind Henries, and that the power therefore rested on pre rogative. But from a certain return moved for by him (Mr. Warburton) it would appear that the warrants issued in those times were not the result of prerogative, but of requests made by the representatives of the people, requesting the Crown to interfere to prevent . the extortions of the representatives of the Court of Rome in this country. There were, indeed, two or three exceptions in the course of a century, where the war rants were of a political nature. Of this character were the warrants which immediately preceded the death of Edward IL, and the death of Richard 11., but with those exceptions no warrants de sentinis faciendo of a po litical nature were issued. It was the practice in former times for the Privy Council to torture prisoners confined for State offences, in order to extract from them evi dence with regard to the crime with which they stood charged. He believed that such was the custom so late as the reign of Charles the First. Even if they could show from historical evidence that the Crown exercised the power of opening letters, he would put it on the Fame footing as the power of torturing prisoners,, and he would ask them why they did not put the latter power into practice at the present day?—(Hear.) He believed that if this power existed at all it existed by statute. It was especially noticed in the works of Bishop Woodley, in some of his communications to the National Intelligencer, and it was on the occasion of a re ference to the proceedings of the Administration of Sir R. Walpole, and to justify the prosecution of Bishop Atterbury. In that communication he expressly speaks of those proceedings having been taken under the recent Act—the Act of Anne. He expressly said that this power was exercised under the Act recently passed. It was therefore clearly no prerogative of the Crown, and he believed thatif the House were to take the returns of the Committees they would find that there was no reason whatever for the retention of this power. Whether they looked upon the matter as related to the criminal or po litical bearing, they would find that no really valuable information had been obtained, or at least none com mensurate with the social evil and immorality which re sulted from the use of the power. Whether they acted on the information furnished by the returns of the Com mittee on the political or on the criminal warrants, they would find that the exercise of this power was alike use less and unnecessary. Lord HOWICK said that he wished, before voting for the motion of his Hon. Friend, to assign his reason for doing so.' He was not at all prepared to allow the practice of opening letters to remain in its present state. He believed that the present system of secresy was alto gether unnecessary.—(Hear, hear.) He was aware that there was some power requisite for the Secretary of State, but this practice of opening and resealing letters was one calculated to create a feeling in the country that nothing would be safe from the scrutiny of a Minister. Did the Right Flon. Baronet suppose that, after the nu merous discussions in that House, the Post-office would ever be made a !indium for traitorous or seditious com munications? He might be assured that it would not, and if a power was required, as he believed that to some extent it .W.IIA, • Mc): might take the 811 of hii Honourable 'fiend, and, if they pleased, introduce a clause into Committee which would have . - - the effect of giving a power to the Secretary of State on extraordinary occasions of opening letters, and of re seding them with the Post-office seal. But if this ques Lion was to be whether they were to give the power, without modification, or not .give it at all, certainly he should vote against its being given at all, for be must say, to slightly alter the words of the Hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. D'lsraeli), that this system of opening letters was nothing either more or less than legalised hypocrisy—(llear, and laughter)--a system of false hood, countenanced, recognised, and legalised by Go vernment. And if ho were to adopt any opinion on the subject, it would be the opinion expressed on another subject by the Hon. Member for Dorsetshire last session, that " what was morally wrong could never be politi cally right." The very same argument as was used for the employment of spies, might be used in defence of this system of opening letters. They might conceive themselves justified if they suspected any man of being dangerous to the Government—they might, he -aid, con ceive themselves justified in employing a person to be come the servant of that man, and thereby get at all the private sentiments and proceedings of that individual through the agency of one whose fidelity ought to be in corruptible, but who, in violation of every sense of duty and honour, should report the secret, and, as was sup posed, the unobserved proceedings of his master to the Government. He, therefore, thought that, under all these circumstances, he was bound to vote for the Bill of his Hon. Friend,and if they wished not to promulgate a great fallacy throughout the country, they should allow the Bill to be brought in to abrogate, the exercise of this power, and introduce aclause which should enable the Secretary of State, under certain cases, to exercise the power, not in a secret, but in an open manner. He had understood that the Austrian Government werein the habit of opening letters and of resealing them with the seal of the post-office. That was a manly and straightfor ward course, and he could not see why this country could not imitate so excellent an example. For these reasons he should vote for the motion of his Hon. Friend. Mr. HUME said, that the real question before the House was, whether the Government should be allowed to interfere with the proceedings of foreigners in this c. , untry. That it was in itself a most odious and ini quitous abuse,' and if the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department (Sir James Gra ham) knew how much his character, both political and moral, had been damaged throughout the country— (Cries of " No, no," from the Ministerial side of the House). Hon. Gentlemen might express their opinions as they thought proper, but according to his (Mr! Hume's) experience, such was the case ; and he be lieved that if the Right Hon. Baronet were aware of it, that he would be one of the first to consent to the remis sion of this most odious and unjust power and he could not help asking why he should object to the abrogation of a power, which, by his own account, had caused bim to be badgered, tormented, and abused, from one end of the country to another. He could tell the Right Honourable Baronet, that this torment and badgering was not without a ground, and the effect on his own reputation would, he (Mr. Hume) felt assured, be permanent as well as injurious. —(Hear, hear.) He saw no reason why, if this power were to be exercised in the supervision of foreigners resident in this country, and who were supposed to be engaged in some pro ceedings hostile to the Government of other nations, it should not also be exercised over Englishmen, who might be engaged in similar combinations. England had hitherto been the refuge of the world for men per secuted for their political opinions in other countries, and were they now to throw aside this, one of the greatest of the glories which the country possessed, simply for the sake of interfering with that with which we had nothing to do? He must say, that he could not envy the Minister who desired it, and the sooner the power of opening letters was totally abrogated the better.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. T. DUNCOMBE rose amid loud an d re p ea t e d cries of " Divide, divide," and said that he was sorry to hear the decision to which the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) had come. He had hoped that this question might have been amicably disposed of by ac ceding to his motion for the abrogation of the odious power which had now so frequently been reprobated in that House, of opening letters passing through the Post-office.—(Hear.) Under present circumstances, the letters of every man were precisely in the same position as the papers in a man's desk. If the owner of them were suspected of dangerous or seditious proceed ings, the issuing of a warrant would at once subject them to scrutiny. His Hon. Friend the Member for London (Lord John Russell) was the only person who has sat on the Secret Committee who had spoken on the subject, and he had expressed himself as quite opposed to the existence of this power. He (Mr. Duncombe) therefore felt entitled to consider the sentiments of that Hon. Member as the sentiments of the Committee.— (" No, no," from several Members.) Why, there was the Noble Chairman sitting there (Lord Sandon) and he said not a word in contradiction. But whether this were so or not, this practice of opening letters was abhorrent to the people of England—(Hear, hear)—and, he believed, contrary to the principles of the Constitution. Such, at least, had been the I opinion expressed by Lords Denman and Campbell in 1 the House of Lords ; and he might, it is true. be ' accused of possessing a " prurient" curiosity, but he was curious to know how far the sentiments of the Secret Committee coincided with the opinions of those Noble Lords. At any rate, he was determined to know whether the law would justify any man in the act, either by himself or his deputy, of opening the letters of another. He should certainly appeal to the Court of Queen's Bench, to ascertain whether the warrants issued by the Secretary of State were legal or not.—(Great clamour was here made to divide.) He (Mr. Duncombe) thought that Hon. Gentlemen were more anxious about their dinners, than about the business of the country— (Divide, divide)—but ho was determined to do his duty, note itbstanding the obstruction, the unfair obstruction which had been thrown in his way, and attempt with his utmost exertion to do away with this odious, villainous, and most iniquitous power. The House then divided, when there appeared— For the motion 7B Against it Majority against it HEALTH OF TOWNS. Mr. MACKINNON then rose to call the attention of the House to the report of the Committee and of the Commissioners on the Health of Towns, regarding in terments within the precincts of large towns. He thought he could not do better, in the few observations he was about to make, than state to the House the terms of a petition which he held in his hand, from the Mechanics' Institute of Manchester. The petition was worded in so singular - a manner, and so applicable to the su b ject he was about to prop ose to the House, that he should read the first part of it. The petitioners stated that they worked hard, that they lived hard, and that they died hard, and they deemed it doubly hard that, after their death, their families should be put to enormous expense in having them interred, and, after their being interred, their remains should be dese crated, as they constantly were, in the town of Man chester. He begged leave to present that p remembered, about three ears ag o, when he first etition. He brought this measur e un d e r t h e a ttention of the House , he was met with lau g ht er . and joking, an d observations i y I were made upon the absurdity of his proposition. What was the case three years afterwards? What was now the opinion of that House, end what were the sentiments of the country upon the subject? He had had petitions without number to present to that House. He had had applications without end on the subject, and the public prints were full of the nuisance of these interments. From one end of the kingdom to the other there had been a strong and violent feeling excited in favour of some alteration in the present system. He was perfectly satisfied this practice of interments ought in some mea sure to be discountenanced by the House, and whether he succeeded or not in getting a vote in his favour that evening, he would use his best endeavours at all times to get the House to come to a resolution that this nuisance ought to be abated. But it don't you bring in a Bill ?" His answer was . that a pri vatemight be asked, " Why possibility with the slightest Go vernment, could not by any because he w chance of of success bring in a Bill, ld cavil • differed with him wou with individual, like himself, unconnected with the vinced every one who the details of the Bill—it would be utterly impossible for him to succeed in it. It was therefore his inten tion to propose the following resolution—" That it is the opinion of this House that it is inexpedient that interments within the precincts of this metropolis and large towns should be continued, both as being injurious to the he would then pledge himself to Without oulddo health of the people, and as being contrary to public Bill, but it must be at the same time decency." If he succeeded in persuading the House to so going back to a b gr rin e g e distinctly understood,only as the f t o o r t w h ar is d re a so ß l the G pioneer of the dead, either in churches or of Constantine, our Saviour, or the time thatmenhz should inquire into the practice of interments in the time of within the precincts of large towns, he would objected to burying come at once to tbe recent reports upon this subject. The first notice taken of interment s w ithi n large towns was by the Ecclesiastical Commi ss i on , w hi c h s was issued by the order of Government. which made its report, and which re p ort was signed by certain indi viduals whose nam es be would mention. Previously, however, to doing so, he would read an extract from Ecclesiastical Commissioner • the report. The, E b reported that " the practi ce of burials in churches or chancels a ppears to us in man y respects injurious —in some cases offensive—in some instances to shut out the public from the church—and in others it has a tendency to affect the lives of the inhabitants. We are, therefore, of opinion that this practice s hould be discontinued, so far as the same can be effected without trenching on vested rights." Now by whom was this report signed? Why it was signed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of London, the Bishop of Durham, the Bishop of Lincoln, Lord Tenterden, Lord Welford, and Mr. Chief Justice Tindal. What was the use of issuing this Commission, if its report was not to be attended to? In 1842 the House did him the honour to grant him a Committee on the subject, of which be was chairman, and which consisted of Gentlemen who occupied sews on both sides of the House. Now what was the unanimous report of that Committee? It was, that the practice of interments within the precincts of large towns was injurious to the health of the inhabitan thereof, and frequently offensive to public decency: (se what . _ use now was that Committee, if, after invstigatingvidence, its report was to be treated dead letter? bir Benjamin Brodie and Dr. Chem as a hers were examined before that Committee, and what did these eminent practitioners say? Why, the first was asked, Do you consider the crowded state of the grave-yards in this metropolis is in any way the cause of fever or disease?" The answer was, "I have always considered it is on e cause." Then Dr. Ch am b ers b e i n g applti d to, as to whether the health of the community was or was not injured by interments in large towns, gave this statement:—" I have no doubt that the fever called typhus, even in the cleanly quarters of London, owe t heir origin to. putrid - miasma." He • would not trouble the House with any further evidence , that was taken before that committee. 141.0 w, after this report and the report of the Ec fclesiastical Commission were on the table of the llouse, what did his Right Hon. Friend the Home Secretary state ? Why, the Right Hon. Gentleman stated that he did net believe there was any injury done by interments in large towns. But the Right Hon. Baronet not being satisfied with the results of former inquiries, apppointed Mr. Chadwick, the secretary to the Poor law Commissioners, to investigate this subject. Mr. Chadwick was engaged from t h e middle of 184 ; 2 to the middle of 1843, in inquiring into the matter, and then his report was laid before Par liament. And what did they find in that report ? Why, that all interments in close towus contributed to produce atmospheric impurity, and yet the Right Hon. Baronet was not satisfied with this opinion. It seemed to him quite clear that his Right Hon. Friend having that report before him, .was afraid to give offence to certain parties. He reminded him of the Pope at Rome, who said that the acknowledgment of a certain fact represented to him would be inconvenient, and that, therefore, the only mine for him was to deny it. One objection to the measure was, that it would interfere with the vested rights of the established clergy. But the fact was, that a large majority of the members of the church were in favour of the measure ; and in support of that statement he relied upon the evidence of the Bishop of London and the Rector of Leeds (Dr. Hook). The great mass of the Dissenters were also in favour of it, and they were not at all adverse to a provision for preserving the vested rights of the clergy. Before he sat down, he would call the attention of the House to the Second Re port of the Committee on the Health of Towns. The Second Report stated, that the attention of the Commit• tee had been brought to the injurious effect of the crowded state of churchyards in large towns—(not re ferring to London)—especially in Shields, Chester, and other towns named. He would now come to another statement made to him by a gentleman, a principal member of one of the Inns of Ccurt, who wrote to • hint to communicate facts of the most startling character in support of the Bill. One of those statements referred to a place formerly called Enon chapel, in the immediate neighbourhood of Lincoln's Inn. That place was used in the morning as an infant school, and in the evening as a place for dancing. In the cellar were deposited the bodies of nearly 9,000 persons, from which an intolerable stench was emitted. In the summer a peculiar insect made its appearance, whilst infectious disease was spread through the neighbourhood. The police had been applied to ; but the authorities declared that they had no power to interfere to remove the charnel-house, or to prevent the saturnalia that were carried on within it. The letter was signed by Mr. G. Grace, the principal of Clement's Inn. The lion. Gentleman then referred to a work published by the amiable and,learned Evelyn, in the year 1729, in which that good man referred to the practice of the ancient Christians not to allow -the dead to be buried within the precincts of their towns ; much less (according to Evelyn) would they have allowed inter ment in their temples. The practice of interment within churches commenced in the reign of Charles IL, which was no high authority for the practice. The number interred in this metropolis amounted to 1,000 per week, making a total of upwards of 50,000 a-year. Look, then, to the enormous mass of human bodies accumulated in the grave-yards of the metropolis in the course of twenty years. He was assured, upon high medical authority, that if the practice were continued many years longer some dreadful epidemic would suddenly spread amongst the people. He put it to the Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir James Graham) to think of the responsibility which would fall upon him, if, by rejecting this measure, he was the means of bringing about any such plague. Was it not extraordinary and disgraceful, that in this great metropolis, the centre of the civilisation and the wealth of the world, such an evil was continued ? That we were so wedded to the abominable practice of interment in large towns that neither the Government nor the Le gislature would interfere to put an end to it ? He sup posed that his Right Hon. Friend would plead the diffi culties of the question. But surely those difficulties ought not to deter his Right Hon. Friend from the per formance of a great duty. What he propssed to make to the House was an abstra c t p ro p o sition condemnatory of the practice of burying in large towns as injurious to the public health and to public decency. In submitting that proposition to the House he was willing to leave the measure in the hands of the Government, if they would take it up. If they did not, he would proceed with his measure himself ; and he would renew it next year, and again and again, until he succeeded.—(Hear, hear.) He concluded by moving a resolution to the effect which ho had stated. Mr. HUME seconded the motion. He thought it highly discreditable to this country, that whilst Ger many, Spain, and even Sicily had taken measures to prevent pestilence to the living, from the indecrnt sepulture of the dead in crowded towns, the abomination was allowed to continue in this country.—(Hear, hear.) It was vain for us to exclaim against the barbarity of savage nations who destroyed one another, whilst our Legislature allowed pestilence to be engendered and pro pagated for the destruction of our own people.—(Hear, hear.) He could not believe that the Hon. Baronet would allow this state of things to exist longer. He had stated that there was a measure to that effect about to be introduced, hut it was his (Mr. Hume's) opinion it would be of no effect without comprehending interment. In stead of bothering themselves with curtailing the hours of labour of citizens in a healthy state, the Government ought to interfere to cheek this practice. They seemed, however, to be utterly apathetic as regarded this important matter. The Honourable Gentleman then proceeded to read extracts from the observations of Dr. Reid, and Mr. Brandt, respecting the dole teri3us qualities of the miasma, arising from churchyards, remarking that though it did cause material and sudden disease yet it frequently ge nerated it by slow degrees. What would be the state of those inhabitants in the neighbourhood of a churchyard ? If they had a regular plague in London how soon the Government would take measures to stop it ; but what was this but a plague in a lesser degree. Their infor mation was not founded on their owr. country ; Professor Brandt " states that in Paris the water generally eon• tained a quantity of organic matter, and that it received a colour from the soil, and that a great number of them were adjacent to churchyards." It was near 18 years ago since he moved for returns of the number of church yards, their extent, and the number of bodies interred in them during the year. The reports laid on the table of the House. Let any one take up the list and it was enough to disgust any individual Member of Parliament, and persons of high rank should recollect that they had duties to perform, and that they ought to consider the situation of helpless masses of the people, and ought to see that they were not hastening the death of their fellow-creatures in this manner, which was nothing less than savage. Dr. Reid gave instances where 20 coffins were interred in the space of one grave, and stated that they were 59 full of carbonic acid that the grave digger could not venture to go down. He hoped that the Hon. Member's motion would be supported, and that Hon. Gentlemen would lend their aid an removing this evil. Every passage of the book from which he quoted contained evidence so strong that any one who read it would be convinced of the great mischief result ing from the practice. When the returns were made, he was sure that Hon. Gentlemen, by paying attention to them, would see that tens of thousands of pounds which they were employing to improve different parts of the world, would be better made use of in assisting that un fortunate, hardworking, and valuable class, who became incapacitated, and were disabled by the bad atmosphere which they breathed. From the humane feelings of the House he knew that the Hon. Membtr's resolution would be carried triumphantly. If the Hon. Gentle man the Secretary of State for the Home Department prepared t Bill to aboli'h that nuisance, it would meet the same fate. He should like to see the man who would oppose it. The latter was the course which he would recommend, and he was of opinion that the Right Hon. Baronet would pursue it. Sir J. GRAHAM said that the Hon: Member for Montrose expressed a hope that he should hear some thing from bim on this subject which would be satisfac tory. But he was afraid, from the exaggerated view taken on this subject, that he should disappoint the Hon. Member. The Hon. Member for Lymington (Mr. Mackinnon) had stated, that when he first brought this matter forward two or three years ago, it was received with jeers and laughter. He (Sir J. Graham) must say, that the Hon. Gentleman's memory was deceptive on that occasion. He saw and heard many discussions with reference to the public health, and he was sure that a discussion respecting the health of so large a portion of the community was never discussed with the slightest violation of decorum. His Hon. Friend had referred to his responsibility in this matter—not in direct terms, but in terms not to be misunderstood. He called him timid, supine, and negligent, and said that he was courting spurious popularity, and went so far as to say, that persons in his position—Members of the House of Commons—from their station were disposed to neglect the lower orders. He (Sir J. Graham) was perfectly aware of his responsibility. He was guided by a sense of his duty in the matter. But looking to the importance of this matter, and seeing how much it was connected with the interests of the poorer classes, he should pause before he should give his assent to this resolution. He must be permitted to observe, that customs in foreign countries were quite inapplicable to the consideration of this question. In foreign countries they had no scruple in having recourse to quicklime and various other matters for the purpose of decomposing bodies, which would by no means be admitted here. With regard to the particular case, it was no such easy matter at once to declare by force of an Act of Parlia ment that relations should not be buried in places where their kindred had been buried. He would not believe it to be a matter of expense or outward decorum. There existed inward feelings—feelings which were entitled to the utmost respect, and which were not peremptorily to be violated by any one. His Hon. Friend said that, with respect to the practice that prevailed in this city regard ing the interment of the dead, there existed a strong feeling—that the practice was abhorrent to human na ture, disgusting, and classed them with barbarians. He was reminded of his duty with respect to public health ; he demurred to the opinion that public health was injured by interments in cities. Con sidering the amount of population, there was no metropolis in Europe where public health prevailed to the same extent. Then the Hon. Member said that this was a painful subject, and not suited for discussion in a public assembly like this. The Hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose referred to the fact, that health ‘‘es contiguous to the period were his wif e w as impaired by residing in the neighb our h oo d of churches. That he did not agree to. Th e Bi shop of London, for he did not see why lie should not g i ve hi s t ma t r h k e ed re t c h t a o t ry at n ' o authority, told him that, when he was th e rector of and family more healthy than when tho' residered there . With regard to the rectory of St. James's and St. G*l ' es s, he did not believe that these iesid enees were c ß h is u h rc ° h P , sg a a n t d e' he ti re unhealthy; nor did he believe that George-street, near St. Mar: garet's, was unhealthy, but he understood that it was one of the roost healthy places in the City. • He should wish to see the Hon. Member for Lyminiton bring in a.Bill. He had given his attention to this sub j 'et, and had been the chairmen of a Committee who in q tired into the matter, and ought to be able to give ' nem much information as to the mode of legislating . Having presided over a Committee, and knowing what the measure should be, he ought not to proceed by an abstract resolution of this kind. He thought it an impe diment to legislation. He would ask him as their pioneer not to press his resolution, but at once to produce his measure. He begged to be allowed to call the attention of the House to the importance of his resolu tion. He said that interment within the City wits a breach of public decorum—that it was in consistent with social feeling, and with public health.—(Hear, hear.) He (Sir James Graham) was not prepared to coincide with these statements. With regard to public decorum he could not understand how any further legislation' was necessary to check it. With reference to the case of the Spa-fields burying ground, he thought it his duty on the part of the Go vernment to institute prosecutions. The matter was now pending. At the instance, and by the in stigation of the Government, the parties had been prosecuted, and if the facts should be fully established, he thought the law was strong enough to grapple with the matter. Let them proceed to the Bill prohibiting interment in cities, adopting the suggestion given them by Mr. Chadwick, he was perfectly sure that public feeling would be excited to the strongest de gree; and if they did not take care it would be violated. As long as they confined themselves to abstract resolu tions, the public would not become very much interested. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners reported only against interment in chancels; and the report of the Sanatory Commission, which glanced on the subject incidentally, proposed nothing specific. He admitted that the health of the people in large towns was only to he dealt with by the Government in a comprehensive measure. The Bill was almost prepared, and it would be brought before the House by his Noble Friend the Earl of Lincoln this present session. Yet he thought that this sub ject was so marked and distinguished from all other causes of disease that it would be expedient to keep it out of the operation of this measure. Then, with respect to the terms of the report of Mr. Chadwick, his labours on this subject had been most extensive, but he thought there was something ex aggerated in his views, and his remedial measures had convinced him of the ill effect of legislating on the subject.. Now what was the proposition of Mr. Chad wick? Why that all the arrangements for interments, which had been hitherto conducted by private hands, should be carried out by the Government, and that those interments should take place at least four miles outside the walls of the metropolis. He thought that they ought to take care how they adopted such principles by premature enactment; he thought matters had much better be left to them selves, and by that means the community would be much more inclined to accede to the plan. He • believed that the adoption of the proposition of Mr. Chadwick, to take out of the hands of private parties, and place in the hands of the Government the conducting of inter ments, whatever sanction it might meet with within those walls, would out of doors be generally repudiated. He though the utmost caution ought to be observed in legislating on the subject. lie would willingly agree to any measure—indeed, bring it forward—if he et uld only meet one that was likely to turn out satisfactory; but, as at present advised, he had not as yet been able to pro cure or meet with a measure that was, in his opinion, worthy of adoption. It had been asserted in that House that he (Sir J. Graham) ought to bring forward some me asure on the subject, but the question was, what that measure should be, in order fully to grapple with the evils com plained of ? He must say, that on the part of' the Government, lie was not prepared to bring in any mea sure, and he thought, therefore, it would be most im proper to agree to the resolution of the Hon. Member for Lymington. His Hon. Friend had told the House that lie was prepared to bring in a Bill, hut it was ac companied with the condition of the House passing the resolution. He (Sir James Graham) could not see the necessity of carrying the resolution before bringing in a Bill. Why not, he would ask, let the Bill be brought in, and then let the House give its opinion upon it? With every disposition to give the most candid consideration to any measure brought forward by his lion. Friend the Member for Lymington, be felt bound to tell him that he was compelled to oppose the resolution. Mr. BERNAL thought there was great difficulty in the resolution proposed, and although he was prepared to go along with the Hon. Member for Ly m i ng t on , i n the principe of the resolution, he could not agree to all its dogmas. As to saying there were no dangers in in terments in large towns, he need only refer to some of the first authorities in medicine and science to contra dict that assertion. He believed there was a great deal of exaggeration on the subject of the number of burials that took place in the metropolis, because it must be ad mitted that the cemeteries of Kcnssl-green and other places drew a great number of interments from the centre or the metropolis. But still, however, it must be admitted that a great number of burials took place, especially in the neighbour hoods in • which the poor resided. In fact, the poor were the parties who • generally suffered, and as a • proof of that, he need only call upon lion. Members, if they disbelieved him, to go to such places as St. Cle ment's, Clare-market, and St. Anne's, Soho. If the Right Hon. Gentleman was prepared to say he would bring in some measure to relieve the poor of the neces sity of burying their dead in those places, he would say at once to the Hon. Gentleman the Memb e r f o r Lyming ton, abandon your resolution and leave the subject to the consideration of the Government. He thought it unfair to say that it was the ministers of the Established Church alone that offered the only difficulty to the re moval of these nuisances. He considered that his Honourable Friend the Member for Lymington • had not presented to the House such a resolution as he could agree to vote for, but, at the same time, he must say that the Right Hon. Baronet at the Heed of the Home Department would not do his duty either to the House or the country unless he did some thing on the subject, either in the course of the present, or the next session. Some endeavour should be made to elose those places of infection to which he had alluded— namely, the burying-grounds of St. C'ement's Clare market, and St. Anne's, Soho. He, for one, should be heartily glad to see them closed ; and it was his firm belief that some arrangemait might be made with the parish authorities to obtain so desirab'e an object as that of preserving the health of those who lived there. Dr. BOW RING was afraid that the speech of the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Home Depart ment gave no hope to his Hon. Friend, who had intro duced the subject, that it would receive the favourable consideration of the Government. Ile thought it a dis grace to a country like England, that the example of foreign states had not been followed by it. In France, Spain, Germany, Denmark, and in the Oriental world, the cemeteries were removed from the inhabitel places. Nothing could be more distressing than the manner in which the poor were interred in this great city. It was stated in the report of Mr. Chadwick that Mr. Wild had stated that in many instances no less than from ten to fif teen funerals were appointed to take place at the same time. That, of course,tthe funerals took place in a hur ried manner, and that the poor constantly complained of this, and asked him the reason. As far as re garded the middle and the higher classes, they were leaving the city and interring their departed friends in the •sme'eries surrounding London. He believed the receipt of the fees for burials was the great, if not the only cause for the objection that had been made to the removal of burial-grounds out of great cities.—(Hear.) He could not concur with his Hon. Friend (Mr. Bernal) that the resolution of the Hon. Member for Lymington was exaggerated, because it was his firm belief that in the vast number of burials which took placa in large towns,especially in London, the public health was sacri ficed and decorum violated. If the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Home Department would take in hand the fees, and tell the clergy that they would lose nothing, the whole difficulty would be removed. Let any person follow the poor man to his grave— (Hear, I hear)—and see the dreadful receptacle that was prepared for his body mingling with its parent earth, and he wouldat once exclaim that the proposition of the Hon. Member for Lymington ought to be carried out. Let that same individual go to Turkey and see the difference there. The interment of the most menial was respected, and his body left to moulder in a paradise rather than in a charnel house.—(Hear, hear.) Lord MAHON did not think the Right lion. Baronet had exaggerated the difficulties of the subject, but he certainly had underrated its importance.—(Hear, hear.) No question was more essential to the health and well being of large towns.—(llette, hear.) True, they had been told that the Government had measures in view for improving the health of large towns by draining, ventila tion,_ supplying them with water, and so on; but that was nothing compared with the importance of the present question.—(Hear, hear.) Of what use, he would ask, was ventilation, when it carried with it an atmosphere that contained pestilence and death? or what was the use of supplying those places with water, when that ele ment contained all that was rank and noxious, .and inimical to human life? He could not follow his R ight Hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home De partment in the manner in which he treated so lightly the course pursued by foreign nations.—(liear,hear.) lie believed that there was no country in Europe, with the exception of England, that permitted interments in the hearts of their capitals. On those grounds, then, he would say that there was no subject could conic before the Legislature that more emphatically demanded the attention of the Legislature and the public than this.—(Hear, hear.) But at the same time he should say that he had very little hope of any beneficial result following public legislation upon it, because there were so many private interests con nected with those burying grounds that would be sure to interfere. However, if there should be legislation upon the subject, he would be very happy to give any assistance in his power, for he did think the subject was one that demanded immediate attention ; but at the same time he should say h e could not agree in the terms of the resolution proposed by his Honour able Friend. When the Honourable Member for Lymington first mentioned this subject to him, he told him he would always vote for any resolution declaring that interment within large towns was not conducive to the health of the inhabitants of those towns, but at the same time he was of opinion, that any legislative measure that should be proposed on the sub ject should be confined to the metropolis ; and then, after a little time, Vended to the country towns. But he saw, by . the resolution of his Hon. Friend, that he did not even mention large towns, he merely said towns. Mr. MACKINNON here interrupted the Noble Lord, arid, as we understood, told him, that the resolution did contain the words " large towns." Lord MAHON—WeII, then, be had been mistaken in that particular ; but-still he could not concur in the -resolution in its present shape, 'while, 'at the same time, he would always be ready to urge upon the Govern ment the necessity for some useful and e ffi cient legisla tion upon the subject. Lord EBRINGTON said he believed that the princi ple advocated by the lion. Member opposite was one which that lion. Member believed would be one of public utili'y ; but he (Lard Ebringteen) had heard other speeches upon the proposition, which to him appeared to contain many Inman thy and noxious preju dices, and into which had been thrown a set of objec tions to public improvement that would itnpeee and delay measures necessary leer the better regulation of the morals and dee ney of the community. He did think, that the reasons assigned by the Right Hon. Baronet opp: site fur his opposition to the measure were I not borne out by the facts ; and even his facts had not been borne out by the statements of those who were better qualified from their information upon the sub ject, to speak upon it; and nothing but the speech he (Lord Ebrington) had heard from the Right Hon. Ba ronet would hate induced him to address the House on the proposition. When the Right lion Baronet had said, that the object of foreign countries in their inter ments was to accelerate decomposition by artificial means, he appeared to have forgotten or not to have read what had been written on the subject by men very con versant with it. lie (Lord Ebrington) held in his hand the report of Dr. Reid, in which it was stated that at Frankfort, and at Munich, and many other places on the Continent, not more than one body was permitted to be interred in one grave, in order that the process of de composition might go on regularly; but the passage did not contain one word about " artificial means," but quicklime had in some instances been used, though it . had not been practised generally. Another instance mentioned by the Right Hon. Baronet as the practice of bite: ments in foreign countries was rather unfortunate for him, namely, that those who lived in the vicinity of St. Margaret's Church had net found any noxious or offensive exhaleations coming from that churchyard. But what did Dr. Reid report? Why, that the air in the vicinity of St. Margaret's Church was very unwhole some and injurious, not only in the morning and the night time, but also during the day, and that offensive exhalations had been frequently observe 1 by many per sons. Surely, then, when such a statement as this comes from such an authority as Dr. Ileid, it was rather too. much for the Right Hon. Baronet to say that the vicinity of St. Margaret's was a healthy locality. And, again, as to the statement of the Right Hon. Baronet that those who resided in houses surrounding churchyards, in crowded and populous localities, were not injured by noxious exhalations, he was again contradicted by the same report ; but he would not trespass longer on the time of the House by reading further extracts from it. He (Lord Ebrington)_ was fully aware that the Right Hon. Baronet had very many, and perhaps much more, important mutters to attend to, and that he might not have given this question all the attention that others scented to think it demanded. Hite had he would have found that this was one of as great importance to the publ c as any now under his consideration, fur nothing could exceed the efficct upon the health of the people of interments in churchyards situated in populous localities and large cities. Those elf, cts were felt in a sanatory, in a moral, and in a religious point of view. And he had no doubt but that so long as such interments were continued the localitie s would not be freed from the dis tressing end disgusting exhibitions they had heard of.— (Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet had suggested a remedy, it was true, but he had forgotten that that applied only to rich people, and the poor could not avail themselves of it. On the whole, then, he should say he would be very ;lad if the Hon. Member opposite would modify his.motton, but even as it stood he would support it.—(tlear, hear.) Mr. HAWES said that he differed front his Noble. Friend, for it. did appear to him that great difficulty lay. in the way of legislating upon this subject ; and that fact had been proved when a Bill was introduced upon a former occasion, when the opposition to it was so great by those who possessed private property in the places proposed to be affected, that the Bill was abandoned. If the proposition of the lion. Member opposite was to be carried, the Dissenters would give it their most deter mined opposition, for that body had upon a former occasion recorded their opinions in reference to it in a resolution which he found in Chadwick's report. The Hon. Member had stated that he was willing to protect vested rights, but he (Mr. Hawes) would ask what means had the Hon. Member of ascertaining the extent of those rights ?—(Hear, hear.) Reference had been made by an Hon. Member near him to the practice of foreign . countries in this respect, but he would ask was the House prepared to adopt similar measures for this coun try. In those foreign countries the burial of the dead was a regulation of police which it would be impossible to bring into practice here, because it would involve the fermation of a peculiar tariff, a scale of charges, and the establishment of a staff of officers of various sorts, and all this would entail upon the country a vast increase of expense. The Honourable Member for Montrose, in his observations upon this question, had forgotten to say one word in regard to vested rights; but as he (Mr. Hawes) had already occupied the House longer than he intended, he would not take up its time further than to say that the difficulties in the way oflegislating upon this subject were so great and insuperable that he shoulde vote against the motion of the Hon. Member. Mr. BORTHWICK said that this was a question which required the most laborious attention; in fact, he conceived, that too much attention could not be paid to it. He did hope that his lion. Friend would modify his resolution, when he considered well the form in which he had placed it before the House. As to the practices in Oriental countries and the South of Europe, in regard to interment, he begged to remind the House that those differences arose, not only from the differences of cli mate, hut from the differences of the religious creeds of those countries. lie would recommend his Hon. Friend to modify his resolution in suoh a way as to induce the House to adopt it. The Earl of LINCOLN said the lion. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Hawes) had so candidly and so very ably. stated the difficulties which attached to any legislation upon this very important subject, that he would not have risen to address the House at that period of the debate if it had not been that the Noble Lord the Member for Plymouth (Lord Ebrington) had so strangely mis represented, and therefore misunderstood, the observa tions of' his Right Hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The Noble Lord had charged the Right Hon Baronet with endeavouring to revive and establish old, vulgar, and almost exploded prejudices on this subject, and of throwing his weight into the scale of private interest. His night lion. Friend, he was sure, in the statement which he had made, had done nothing more than endeavour to impress on the House the extreme importance of not exaggerating the evils which they were called upon to remedy, at the same time impressing on the House the difficulties which attached to a remedy for those, evils. He (Lord Lincoln) thought that was a sufficient answer on the part of his Right Hon. Friend, when he was charged with throwing his weight into the scale of private interests. His Right Hon. Friend had told the House that he had himself endeavoured to apply a re medy to some of the evils complained of. He stated that he had instituted proceedings against some of those parties who had private interests in burial-grounds, and his Right lion. Friend then stated that it would be diffi cult to introduce any logislative measure on the subject, such as would be likely to be adopted by Parliament. lie (Lord Lincoln) would wish to impress on the House that this was not a mere question of vested interests, but it was one especially involving the interests of those very parties for whom the lion. Member for IVeymouth and. the Hon. Member for Bolton in the course of their ad- - dresses had endeavoured to impress on the Ilouse.the propriety of agreeing to this measure—he meant the poor. He considered that the poor man was more mate. , rially interested its this matter than the rich, and it was on account of the interests of the poor that they ought to hesitate before they adopted a resolution such as that which his Hon. Friend had proposed for restraining for ever and entirely all interments in all the towns throughout the kingdom. Let the House consider how such legislation as this would affect the pecuniary interest of the poor. It might be of minor importance to the rich to be compelled to inter their relations at a distance from their residences, but it must entail on the poor an enormous additional expense. Look at this metropolis, where, as his Noble Friend (Lord Mahon) had truly said, the principal difficulties were to be found. Would they compel the poor inhabitant of St. Giles's to ac company the dead body of his relation to a cemetery beyond Hampstead, half-way to Harrow? Let the House consider not only the pecuniary expense of this, but almost impossi bility of its being effected. There would be a heavy charge for coach hire, which could not affect the rich, but which the poor could never bear. This difficulty was felt most strongly by the very individual who had made his report to the Home office, which had been so much dwelt upon that evening—be meant Mr. Chadwick. How did he pro. pose to remedy the evil complained of ? Why, i n the manner alluded to by the Iloneurable Member for Lambeth—namely, that the matter should be left to police regulations. This plan, therefore, would rest upon the poor rates, and every poor man or artisan who would not be will ing to lose a day's work, would look upon this mode of burying his relative as a relief from the poor-rate, whereby he would be placed in the position of a pauper. lie ( Lord Lincoln) thought that the feelings of the pour were ver\ materially con bceernbe,idogitite,tfhilsyintbuestthioonse. of Th f wi r s e h l t a , ( t l iv t e l s ia; a t i h i d e i r th b e o r n e e fe s re tshouldthey y would be averse to such a measure as this. He did not wish to deprecate legislation on this subject, he merely wished it, h im e p w re a s s s an e x e io t u b s e th il arth se e it i h o e u d s e i ffi s c h u o l u t i l e d s w no h t ic ad h a o t p t t en a de r d es i o t l ; ut a io n n d such as that proposed by his Hon. Friend, which would pre clude the consideration of the details of any future mea sure, and would irrevocably pledge - them to a principle from which they never afterwards could recede. He could not see why his Honourable Friend had departed from the usual practice of introducing a Bill upon this subject which would be discussed in one of its stages. The Hon. Gentleman who had lastto modify his resolution.adelressedtheHous He House had recommended his Hon. Friend (Lord Lincoln) hoped his Hon. Friend would do no such thing, but he hoped that he would withdraw the resolution, and move for leave to bring in a Bill upon this subject. Even if his resolution should be affirmed it would not advance any measure which he might introduce. and if it should he negatived it would considerably impede its progress. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said that in compliance with the wish of his Hoe. Friend, the Member for Lyiningtcm, be was about to propose an amendment, which he trusted would meet with the general consent of the House, at all events he hoped it would be supported by a majority of that House. The amendment which he had to propose, in compliance with the wish of his lion. Friend, was, that the practice of interments within the precincts of the metropolis - and large cities is injurious to the health of the population and demands the serious attention of Parliament. What were the objections with which the questien had been met? It had been said that his Hon. Friend should at once have brought in a Bill. Why, his Hon. Friend had already tried that course, without success, and he now proposed to try a resolution. hisHe Wo r n . (FDe Friend o co mbo the Health e) had d the of Townspleasure Committer,o serving with and never was there a stronger case made out for legisl ative inter ference than in that Committee. He represented that por und. The existed with respect to the Spa-fields burying.grti in the tion of the metropolis in which great excitement . at present Noble Lord had stated that to make any the alteration feelings of the law on this subject would be to strike their bones with t)sey complained of those of their ancestors. Why, what _ poor of this country, as they wished to ming l e The reason why an objection was, that they could not de this. was raised to any alteration of the law was, that certain parties were making large fortunes under the existing s; stem. Enor. mous fees were demanded for the removal of a corpse out of the I 0 114 rla° tl l6 ~b• th e ear Ali" tie el l ligh t i oh 0 ." of ;:in% r o r• 00 t to the the [re° the