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

El hen they thos )tton mills; t themselves ['he Noble et ese systen 3 , i n to ever) Nought the is sometireesyo obden, v 1 ° 111 1, 0 5 1(1 e the Noble a ar,) for.—(H Lion Geuueol • 2 11 ° )ble Lot 14 0 lion. Gent most 00 jnt once to the constitution of that Committee. He Obe in office, the number of those warrants issued by them loeetted to the course which the Government took—to the exceeded all precedent of former Governments. At that utriee which the Right H on. B aronet took—but his ob- time, up to the year 1844, when this report was made, e ens were over-ruled, and he was r e q u i re d t o p l ace t h e present Government had issued as many as 44 war efore that Board all the charges which he bad made i n ran t s i n th ree years. —(lf ear, h ear. ) N ow, on look the House of Com mons. He did not attend, end the ing over the whole of the report, he could not find that r eal n reason h e would tell them afterwards. There was anything at all like the number of 44 such warrants had an individ ua l on that Committee in whom he could been issued in any three years, notwithstanding the tits_ eports • not one member in whom he had the smallest greatresearch and labour displayed by the Committee.— confidence _(Bear, hear.) He objected, lastly, that the (Cheers an laughter.) It appeared by the report that of the Secret Committee could not be satisfite- Lord Sidmouth, in the year 1812—ratber a remarkable evetory to the coutitry, as the reports of Secret Cumraittees period—issued tWelve warrants, and that was considered r W ere; and if any man doubted the correctness of an - extremely large number ; yet the lion. Baronet (thyr rL at, he wish e d hi m to examine into the subject. (Home Secretary),- in more recent and less remarkable i" , e ns Committ ee h a d i nstructions to furnish the times, exceeded Lord Sidmouth by five.—(Hear, and r ' e with a report st a ting the origin of the laughter.) Again, he would say that the Hon. Bae It !ght in law, and the expediency for its con- ronet had mae almost most unscrupulous use of this power anu.ance on the statute-book. The Right Hon. Baronet and that was apparent in the use he had made of aso haring appointed and nominated his own jury—having, that power against the two foreigners, M. Mazzini and he said himself, referred his honour to that Commit- Capt. Stoltman.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") He be tee nnn et reserved to himself the privilege of addressing lieved the country had not on record any instance of li the House in the even: of the Committee's report being miler conduct to such an extent.—(Hear, hoer.) But the biesel unfa vourable. He (Mr. Duncombe) also reserved to Hon. Baronet had said that her Majesty's Government i n f the privilege of bringing up the question again, had so used this power at the instigation of a foreign provided tor. , the report of that Coiumittee were unsatisfac- power, from whom they had had communications that 1, and in fulfilment he, that evening, rose for a fresh led to such a proceeding. Now, he would call upon tb, inquiry,fox If he made cut that in the statements put t House to mark the error of the report in this respect. stead ne o in that report there was gross incorrectness, in- ' The warrant was issued on the 3d of March, and was b oes f certainty, misconstruction instead of simple and cancelled on the 13th of June, and therefore nl. g t re t truth, reservation where frankness was re- Mazzini had no cause of complaint. But he (Mr. Dun henoud' if he proved that the honour of England, the combo) would contend for it that M. Mazziui's letters th at the Government ought to have commanded were opened on the 14th of June, the very day before he shov e truths should have been given, and if he (Mr. Duncombe) presented his petition.—(Hear, hear.) . ' e - "y o d that such had not been the case, then he thought Therefore it would appear that letters had been opened IS o shoaluritellttse would grant that a searching inquiry was ab- at times when there was no authority to do so ; and it against necessary into one and every of his charges was his firm belief that the warrant had been abrogated Gevernment and against the Right Hon. for the occasion--(lTear, le ar)--and that the whole called e__(Hear.) He was before that Committee system on which this practice was founded, had as to prove the charges made against the Right Hon. been conducted, to say the least of it, in a fro lonet in his place in Parliement, and he would read most loose manner. But now mark the error of the COi ns the ~,, Paper what he said at the time, before that report. The House of Lords, in their report upon this that ti .He.stated first, that in the precincts of subject say, that " Letters had been opened for abou that e ecret-office private correspondence was violated— four months." Now, he (Mr. Duncombe) contende(' fore, in that place letters were opened, resealed, then that the warrant was in force from Christmas 1843 1( itself se to their destination, and the correspondence June'' 1844 ; and lie would ask, was a month to bf that th se nt to foreign and despotic Powers. He stated, consideied as nothing in a period during which a mann L ad .-"e Secretary of State for the Home Department letters were to be opened ?—(Hear, hear.) ThereforE stit e , e ; xce eded his powers, and had made a most uncon- he would say, that the Government were in this predi teesCennal and dishonourable use of the powers en- cement— that letters had been opened from time to time, th e t n e ` z to him.---(Hear, hear.) He had added, that previous and subsequent. to the times at which this tim e ' he more letters opened during the report states that the warrant had been issued and Se ere , n e had been in office, than in that of any cancelled, and, therefore, there was a gross error in thi , h ad e L . a e ry who had preceded him. He stated that he report.---(liear, hear.) He slid not mean to attribute th e e'`,.' s !hied letters from foreigners, complaining that any intentional mistake.eto them, for he believes' they l ette . .L_ s n pitality of England had been violated; that their had been imposed _on. This, also, he believed,. that si ese f „ bad been opened at the instigation of foreign those letters to which he had been calling , attention, had tej`"t i s, and that their correspondence had been com- been opened at the instigation of a I oreign power ; banishments to those Powers, and that imprisonments, but the reason assigned by that Power for opening . M. au ' il hnent s , an d death s on the scaffold, were the conse- Mazzini's letters was that he had been secretly instigat e epees of those communicotione. He stated also that ing an insurrecti,;n against that Power, and that thp tl e i . co rrespondence of the Foreign Ambassadors was British Governmenteherefore, had their authority for this lii, 7 \ et e d to the inspection of her Majesty's Ministers. proceeding from "High Sptirces." Now, What were those be ;rte. huncombe's) letters also —the letters of a Mein- "high sources?" They were not stated in the report— iabtca,dft;hatsie,at House —his c orrespondence had been vie - the report did not state that M. Mazzini was cognizant tchoe le h t i t l e l rs had b een hefore the detained and opened. of those charges, or obnoxious to himself, their if the t tiow did theymenidtottefheier.inidictment he was called on to prove Committee had heard M. Mazzini 'cc4crereenPtoof Secret Committee ? How were these charges met ? would then have had to give a very different a dieted. It explained in the report of the the transaction.—(Hear, hear.) But mark the next given them seemed would find thatcontradiction • they the It not only did not state Let Hon. Members read it, and not one of his charges had been contra- the "high sources," but it distinctly said that the as if the Right Hon. Baronet had letters were opened, " not at the suggestion of any nothi em their in tu t these words, " Explain foreign Power.—(Hear, hear.) But, notwithstauding net e n e gt mystify every thine "—(Laughter.) They had this, it appeared that "such information as had been eeer i e n one of his allegations ; but if their instructions elicited from those so-opened letters had been communi n--(Coraereq considered, they had well done their duty. cated to those foreign Powers."—(Hear, hear.) In the 1,5,. iltinued laughter.) The Committee was, in the House of Lords, the Marquis of Nornia,ntiy asked the also ya . ce, s„ inquire into the state of the law, and Duke of Wellington was this the fact ? and the Noble eleee t° Inquire into the mode in which it had been Duke said he knew nothing about it--(Laughtcr)—but ,e uted .. scut before that time; and as if that were not suffi- the Earl of Aberdeen, in reply to the same question, s t ,atnst Y an e e zPreast ve, they were to inquire into the cir- said he could assure the Noble Marquis that nothing of they ta rscs under which any warrant was issued, so that the sort had been communicated to any foreign Power. t he til l g°4 infer from those . instructions at least that —(Hear.) Well, then, to what Other conclusion was he (. 0111. .th was required to come out. But how did the at liberty to arrive upon this part of the subject n ttee b e • . 1 ; 1, w of 1 84 4 gin their work ? They assumed that the than this, that there was gross falsehood somewhere . -net of ee was analogous to that of 1711, when the between this House and tether House, but where, it tseen ee ?n,ecn Acne was first passed, but they ought to was not for him to say . —(Hear) —but this he would say, te rlde ,', that the circumstances which that law was in- that some explanation was due cot only to the British laat having meet were somewhat peculiar. The law of public, but to all foreign Powers and foreign nations. — the e o ,„, vl ng been assumed to be that of Queen Anne's, (Cheers.) Well, then, the report went on to say that in te r, ba:ennittee proposed to give the history of the mat- the course adopted by the Government "nothing more was sta te of ' ti llot , One word more did they give of the done than to frustrate the attempt to create an insurrec ierntreet. c lane They thought they were obeying their tion." But he would ask, was that the proper course to • i econo: °l.lB by going back to the time of Edward the adopt ? Was that' a • course worthy of Englishmen ? lus e i a and their report was full of very valuable anti- (Hear, hear.) Was that the course fur the British *Go- ? w t aria n resea r 1 u n anti en, for at least two-thirds of it was filled vernment to adopt to ' frustrate an attempta in was ratite !Pierian knowledge. They gave the number of which was involved the lives, perhaps, of those unfortu karthe:l6sued by the Duke of Newcastle, byLord Car nate individuals?—(liear, hear.),lf he (Mr. Duncombe) a eOp y fl (1 by others, but what the House wanted was had appeared before, the Committee, he would have *-- j.ae r , ( l ) , t he warrants issued by Si James Graham. shown that M.Mazzinihadgotaletter from some unhappy o pt o f t Not one of the warrants to the and misguided men, to the effect that they intended to t t arit efl'uting districts were given, --not one war- make a descent upon some of the Papal and Neapolitan t ()giv e tl the present century had they condescended States ; that M. Mazzini had done all he could to dis i'ial of ,le House. They went on telling them that the suede them from so rash an act ; that they hadyielded to t t , :ist ed Inarpus individuals proved that the practice had his advice, but it was then too late ; for the Austrian e t ,'_ b ary th e orr ner times, because letters written to At- Government sent • their agents . to Corfu to en s; re 1 , 1 , 04 , Bishop of Rochester, and to other persons, courage on those unfortunate men, and under .a . e 4te d th at nce d upon their trials. But they had not delusion induced them to retire from Corfu into Calabria, „Sse ret ,,_ those letters had been detained by virtue of where they hail ordered their ships. This was all done o `a,et 0, tar t'' °f State's warrant—they only stated the fact at the instigation of the, British Government ; these nine. ° t ilers , ti ' l n trials of the Bishop of Rochester, and of Unfortunate then, thus betrayed, were tried by a military, a the ° se letters were -produced. He found that commission, and .very shortly after were executed.-- tA 'e tri • e e a, and a ' of Bishop Atterbury, an objection was (Hear, hear.) The lion. Member then read a letter aeess the „ t .f, 9 ask o ~, .unsel in the case, in examining a wit- from . two of those who had been executed—two cliis of easeta th e s ' e _tt the letters were detained under a warrant Admiral Bandieri—in which they expressed their con k'en to ' b e e retary of State. The question was not viotion of the wrong course they' had' been . taking,. de lta' s s Prey ed ,answered by the bench. If any of these (dared themselves satisfied 'to expiate their crime with s i t , bee n iss _t e rat a warrant from the Secretary of State their blood, and died crying out " Viva Italia." —(Hq . ar.) were esPcnsibilimt t e 01l of e eri r t r ed t h a L t i x d o e.t all, he thought .it might equally be t S o u n e c h nie w a a: ttre ti s e rot e . e f a r e s i t t r i j e W tin li t e r h t - f t t f* tt 4 e4 " t s s h oi ° n v d e i r v?ra n ls t the clerks had done it search- on i I th ay 'rl , t h ad beo 3, or it might be that a h regular to disturb the peace- i ot Et our allies.—(Cheers.) (uheers.) "Why, the, issued _ n granted for the forpapers. papers, all in ue- not say to thPSe individuals openly and magnanimously, eo na ryti tie ," hat . they wanted, and knew also that they that their proceedings were known, that their designs th"bit a, f .." to issue such.' But to reseal letters—to would be' . frustrate,.that they could not be allowed to a e 'a 1 t (41. erY for! it was nothing less, and to send plot on British ground ?—(Cheers.) Why did you not IS - e , l( nti ti e i rs eto-ihei; original addresses, oh it was tell- them that-they were rushing into ruin, and that they Vern ty f niutous and most unworthy system—too must desist from . their 'course ~?—'Cheers.) This you have 'handed ' Ive:„Con ee; r , any Minister of any country.—(Cheers.) could have done--(llear)—and they would listened this"' had been said in their report, in reference to to you.---(Hear.) 'No ; . but; instead of that, you .hlt Ee, k2e l 3 ow, t , ` vir e ? a , ..done in this way in former times; that them over - to the foreign Government,. and their . o 9( that netbou, theot permitted to be used in the Post- is as much on .. the heads of her Majesty's present Minis the a uth ert ," , express authority of Government; but ters—(Cheers)aye, more so than t olln the e e t heads i of those trigger. And reeds' 17 g 11,aving been given in a certain portion of individuals who . were ordered eto o se p e u and which is intended, t 1 ,4 ') pri et r , ' certain letters were then somewhat if the monument, which I hop d, i say Wb ,_lnto." Nov he (Mr. Duncombe) would be ever erected to The memory of those , men, it ought to be `, j i g' their Ch er the Committee of 1742 were properly inscribed on their. tombstone that they fell in the cause of e, cle w ,. .uty or ea e t tb. t ett ru, , , not, by . those letters . that had been their country and liberty,. through . the treachery of a British hir e , is e ns 'el) , pried into;" but this he would say. Governmer.t; and the inscription, I believe, would be but true."—( * Great cheering.) The Hon. Gentleman proceeded }1 4 ,1: . 1 4d t ak __a• compliment which the report now before to say that that was not the only case.—( Hear, hear.) Cap• la a ner l :11 care not to pay those whose letters of late taro Stoltinan, an officer in the - Polish army, discovered, like ass ' t er.) V ll : t ewleat rudely pried into."—(Cheers and M. Mazzini, that his letters had been opened, and he asked .. some of t i le ~efeither would he say that it was the busi- for inquiry and redress. But he was not called before the Powho.,"°lntuittee to do so; but, as they had not Committee. No, information had been given to the House as 4 er of ' rudely I ot R Pried into " the manner in which this to the warrants in his case ; but although the consequences ning letters had been exercised by the Right were not so fatal, in reference to the informa -'ileh. - etl teeP"ter), 171aan opposite, he would do it.—(Cheers and tion - given to the foreign embassy, as they had ea.. k rsporenY referring to the Appendix of the Commit- been in the case of M. Mazzini, yet the proceedings ritt l-37 NI 1 ' th e House would find that this extraordi- were most disgraceful to the Government. The warrant was 41 41. eaess thi s 3, th at 4. ,_ had been taken by that Committee, June. New he i. not complain as . to d ., 1 . the date of the war , ep e _. tney did oc letters examine into the extent to which rants. But all he had to say was, this gentleman's correspon ad to " Wh o l e ' had been carried on, and that dence with Mr. Galiski in Paris was opened, as was also the tthi, cOrr iTnu of the " extreme rudeness " which they correspondence of Mr. Wursell. Na one ever heard of that t hen', weed4ncate to the public.—(Laughter.) Now, gentleman's name until he presented his petition praying for t ko o ttn s i 4s r Ol C ommittee were to conceive it part of inquiry, that he . might have the opportunity of wipingoffa Or wil l' thews t° tell the House what the Government of stain cast upon his character by an insinuation contained . in the , l'tter:it had r d red Years ago thought proper to do, report of the Committee. . Mr. Galiski was mentione l i l l a ss , ti er s 4 t th at l aPPc'ned in reference to the opening of residing in Paris at the time referred to, as we mr. another gentleman who was not named. Why les , s teadi ne ,tl.llstant period of time, surely any person, , Ilea 1 ,,_ gti at report, would exclaim • " God bless Galiski be held up to rept-each, and the was othe . r t . l' e 'ort b ry i t ,,,, c , interesting • , . gentleman not named? But the Committee stated that i ivr l t . e, w , e rtant and must not this 'wee 'ale e why it eon ,was alleged against those two men that they had formed a de o - ivep• ---(Ch ee ~ es somewhat nearer to our sign to assassinate a ,foreign Sovereign, who was on a vist to jase, re ing to i re and laughter.) Now, although he her Majesty. Now, why did not the Committee name the ug th -e hrei l t g- " the Committee every credit for the Sovereign: There were two here on . a visit to the Queen.- 7 4 . 4 to the th e r _ s eY displayed, yet he could not help say- the Emperor of Russia and the King of Saxony. Why did IN, 912 facts e Ult 8 , e lie of that research afforded no evidence they not say which of them it was designed to assassinate?— a4 ros , Pon t e e. Wanted to come at ; but, on the con- (" Hear," and a laugh.) The Committee . thought that the_ Pne e ,' had au n , Point he should say the Committee's re- allegations against those gentlemen was sufficient to justify the te t :r ) st n evaporated, and the - appeared to have be- opening of their letters, at the same time the Committee 4 1 11 :t tZ r e o d r,, e h ll , 4 , e r e s °l4. t ah 1 y and unintelligibly y reserved.— thought that there was nothing to criminate , those gentlemen, 1 and laughter.) Nay e t e etb e .te sat ~ more,thought readwhoin they had reluctantly named.—( Ihe Hon. Member then - at length the extract to the above effect.) If the Corn .,Citi.se upta,lttee the he . could satisfy the . Housethat 1 hold them to mittee were reluctant to name those gentlemen,. am ) ~ r e - 1 th e , not ones ed the resolutions of the inthe foul imputation of murder, why did they do so?—( Hear. Pet.—cliear.) The Committee, Nobody asked them.—(Hear ' and a laugh.) At all events, 41i t r i rt ' qate s d u rd i_ „ G at pa lls of tl , Mat strict adherence was paid to the when they did impute to those gentlemen the crime of murder, co t been ' if it the reir r ant, and yet, while they said in they ought to have given them the opportunity of vin.di cltiotia ols e . Itt law had been obeyed, , it, in fact, had eating their character. Mr. Wursall was a member of high tti tla 8 ) sp . 3 ed ; and this was one of his (Mr. Dun ,, t ecifi e Polish family, and a man of unblemished honour, utterly ,s ttiL , 2 a nd come , _. n t . _ incapable of thinking of the crime of assassination.—( Hear.) it en ed...... on, or, y;ai s against the present Govern- Isfe • -M e i _svnich the public had a right to be As the opportunity was not given to those gentlemen to de hes, one 41'' nea •) ha d this fend themselves before the Committee which published the vyr 11 be e r • And whynot 1 ,. b e Was , i l l i_afforded by the report ? The charge,mm Committee, ought to be allowed to 'do so before another and that . was what he now called upon the n e tts t i veri, 'i t a "! it was this—that if it were House to grant. In such a" - Committee it would be proved err) ° hay "old have compelled the Com- that what he had stated was certainly true, that there . . all tti -and ~ e entered the Secret Chamber—(Hear, e, at the time e . f the Emperor of Itussia's visit to i ti r . seer ~ they d i d A' s fere e ts of o w t hat, they should have betrayed we re Queen, Russian spies here. Those spies took . advantage pse's ~,,ce to ~, Chamber. And here let him say, of that visit which the Emperor made—at . to great incenveni re en th e ~Lii. l s Secret Chamber, he had seen by the (nee to himself, as they were told in her . Majesty's Speech— ap,_tne li o d ay that that office had been abolished. ( had t. to II n * Member A laugh —to ingratiate themselves with the Russian Ein ritt4supprise, ab ove 11 4 q Is, Ad that , .effect' and then continued. Well, he 4 et hi tnis secret office had . been closed or For this purpose they invented the calumny upon those gentle men, and carried it to the Ambassador.. Her Majesty's Go (I. (It b een ni sa Y , as the without learning an 2,.., vernment acted upon the accusation, but - pai li , 4 ll4h t clos e d t , , ie lawyers did, that the office thing to criminate the accused gentleman, and the spies got what f all le j a er)- and ', lls 3 , had only " changed the venue they wanted, and returned to their native land. They obtained tar 43 tt Vha t he would asls what sinified it to the an amnesty immediately after the visit of the Emperttr Se ed note Practice that secret d• psrtment was held, so whilst the injured gentlemen were left here , with the 41),krti_Vv,h,the're, cotitinuel ?—(Hear, hear.) It mat- foul stain of murderers attempted to be thrown upon them ., by 11,1 1 , 414 1 s-le.G r it was held in the Home-office or in a Committee of the British House of Commons.— t (H G ,ar, , h he b 3 . 41 d, so lon as • t were aware of what they were doing, sometimes, 11 ()th• Y a ei teve , . g it was held anywhere; hear.) He (Mr. Duncombe) did not believe that he . 0c.i4111;,,, c .i4 11 1; , , , b uth y u f it would be. because it was vernmen imparted the correspondence which passed between t ° ti l ll aile ilt " Aet ° an Act of Parliament, an d when they th ee t ntof t h °I Parliament could deprive the se s e t .„.• at n ow __ „ _ th e ii ti le ~tll.ultilled th 4 4 . 4 Chad • , Lltt us , 1 r er.— (Hear, hear.) Ili respectopen letters, they would the Poles intheir own country and the exiles here. When the Government was requested to t o ri ot ,le should sometimes have to say that the contained nothing but matters uld say, his opinion was, that family concern. Was the Government aware of the result ? • of ' of pert tir ri b e l ,e of thee intention that House, either —(Hear, th:l -41 r' °f 'sets law upon this subject, or as to i n Poland. One to prohit y person in Poland . from hear.) There were at. present two ukases in force It , ti gh l , l enti oned. rs that had been opened during the responding with an exile,no u n atter on what subject, under t he it4el) : 11°n • Bare And he would further say that the penalty of imprisonment and flogging..—( Hear, hear.) s tat e 44rtnient, hra.e..t, the Secretary of State for the Another decree forbade all correspondence wi a t n h th alpe o r f s t o h n es in e (li sa g the tt 'er anulo„ ci uesxceeded his powers, had made England, under the same malt .Under U . nde r r is t e l n ie ed on the y suspicion 4k ai _r, 1 1( _ teribe r of . of his power, and had not decrees, ,. , tl- e .e or G re o , un o t n e d ss ed So w i i t n h slit ie w r asi husband mP through the medium ts o ,.'l see or ° e , ti a nd ~ eeletters, that had been opened.— °1 . ,. hiln .b ladies.--(Hear, p hear.) The Countess Vurenski War We/q t. to tt, 11 rs.) Here the lion. Member °I forel g il .• • • issued k , au t b,,". ,say thst it appeared by it that 372 t on t , ‘ - report, and having read a passage, • was also imprisonedfor writing to an exile, and Madame . Valdi for corresponding with her husband, tk o cbiri i -ri stnir the ' and received fifty severe lashes—(Undescribable sensation) — hee l 4 f er e ) .g . the last °Pelting of letters, had been ' All these had been done under the mandate of that Sovereign :,.itii ii ,',r,laajn al _.,,L opening was imprisoned y ; of these, 300 were or whose visit the House had the other day congratulated her p,,,, , )ief i :_i the o,e,t_f_urPoesthat was to say, warrants Majesty.—(Loud and repeated cries of " Hear, hear.") He 'on jertai n r,,,, ,, g of letters by reading fhecontents was satisfied that the Government; in communicating such tit e r etce , w 'gag e d tn°Jeted murders, robberies, forgeries, correspondence; were not aware that the effect of makingknown tt,kittle to t o t y , r ci ) taus for defraudint, the revenue' to the Emperor that a wife corresponded with her husband ti ., ; Q b,t,,..‘nat th e ' etected. But let the H ` l, llti 0 'eon iv re was a e ouse bear ' was to subject her to imprisonment, and the most brutal of all eri Ten d arr ant . great and marked differ- corporal punishments—the knout—( Hear, hear)—besides that, i ntl . 41 4; 4 `v ets and lssued for the detection of . her children would be taken from her for ever.—(Hear; hear.) Letter iv ti a rn tho se of a ~ , cti- Ought not this Government,then, to be very cautious how they ~. al, a nd ' ll ts," if h e • Pol itical ch aracter. The 'ith " ag a i Wer e dir might so call them, affected an betrayed any correspondence to foreign Powers that passed intends View nst which between their subjects?—(Hear, hear.) Another charge ected against an individual only hh had maele was that of the correspondence of foreign te 4 .' 1, WI • - a scert • th ey were directed were opened, a w nab m assadors. The House could imagine Lord Aberdeen i t as til e the ain the name and address of an in- receiving an ambassador, and asking him, with a gracious a llese aP aet 6 Political Ye a ,, at ed tr. N ciw, , warrants were of a very dif- smile of good-natured curiosity, " What news have you got --. 184 4, , that f r 0 3" the report of the Committee from your country to-day?' —(A latigh)—and the . Nohle ueiz g . thr c' e ut the year 1841 to the end of th Earl had read all the letters the same morning.— ° Y e ars that the Hon, Baroiaet Wa.eS (Renewed laughter.) When he (Mr. Duneombe) made T-iIE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 19 1845. that charge, many people thought it was imaginary. But what did they find in the report? The Committee of the House of Commons stated that they believed formerly such a practice prevailed in the time of Mr. Charles James Fox and Lord Car marthen, but the practice of opening diplomatic correspondence had for some time past been discontinued.—(The Hon. Gen tleman here read the extract at length, bet in a very rapid tore.) But from the Lords' report it appeared that this phrase of " discontinued for some time " meant only disconti nued since the preceding month of June. (He then read the paragraph from the Lords' report.) He asked the House to set the statements of the two Committees one against the other. The statement of the Commons was a most disingenuous quibble.—( Hear.) He would say that the prac tice was most disgraceful, and injurious to the reputation of Britain among other nations.—( Hear.) If Hon. Mem bers would take the trouble to read what took place in respect to the Venetian Ambassador in the year 1641, they would see in what way the character of the country was damaged by such treachery. They would find it recorded in the Journals of the House of Lord..—(The Hon. Gentleman then reada letter addressed in that year to the House of Lords, complaining that the writer's letters had been opened in the Foreign-office, and that when he remonstrated with the Foreign Secretary, the latter assured him that it had been done by mistake. He was satisfied, trusting in the honour of the Court of England; but he found that the treachery was re peated, and he prayed the House, for the character of the Crown and people of England, to interpose and prevent the re petition of "so damnable and disgraceful a system." The House of Lords sent a deputation of Peers to apologise, and to assure the Ambassador that the practice should be discon tinued; but he retused to accept any amends until an Extraor dinary Ambassador should be sent to the States of Venice to apologise, and he himself should have received an order on the Postmaster-General to send his correspondence direct and unopened. At the recommendation of the House of Lords these things were done, and the humiliating affair ter minated:l He should not wonder if all the States with which this country had relations, should require a similar apology.— ( Hear, and a laugh.) Ile came now to the charge which he had made respecting the opening of letters in the north of Eng land. The Committee denied that there had been a roving commission appointed to open letters in that part of the coun try, but what were their own statements ? They said that they found that in 1842, when there was a violent outbreak in the north, a clerk from the Post-office was sent down on a war rant from the Secretary of State, with authority to open the let ters of six persons, and, at the same time, another clerk was sent to open the letters of ten othere, and afterwards, of one indivi dual, making in all seventeen. [He read from the report.] He contended that there was no precedent for this conduct. It was absolutely illegal.—( Hear, hear.) Who could tell where this opening of letters ended ?—( Hear, hear.) The Commissioners were not to open any other letters than those described in the warrant—it was rather a vague order: They were to open the letters of six parties named therein. Now did that mean the letters addressed to these individuals or letters written by them? He supposed it meant both. Now were they to ascertain that a particular letter was in the handwriting of a certain individual? There was a great simi larity in handwritings, end the superscriptions of letters might be attributed to persons who really did not write them. They might say Mr. So and So wrote this letter," but how were they to prove it ? They could not do it positively by the handwriting. Then he wished to know what directions were given to the Commissioners to enable them to conclude what letters were written by either of the , e six individuals? forTh power et yh ought to entr ust another no t hen to (11r.individualsfurtherthem anythingexplanationCommittee r onthis the way.todeal Gove rnmen t of some have d to have with a a letters were sent to the Horns -office foe examination. He never made such a statement—he never said the mail-bags had been opened at the Home-office ; but he did state, and he was prepared to prove, that certain mail-bags were opened for the purposes of the Post-office. It was suspected that some dis honesty was going on, and for the purpose of tracing it out those bags were opened. He never stated that mail-bags of letters had been sent to the Home-office for inspection ; and if the Committee had answered the charges he did make, it would have been much better than answering charges which had never been heard by any one. It would appear that if a letter bearing a particular post-mark, and written in a certain style of writing, were dropped into the Post-office, it was imme diately dispatched to the Secretary of State for the Home De partment. Now, he wished to know how they were to ascer tain this fact ? Many letters bore the same post-mark, and to all appearances were directed by the same hand. Of course, placed in this difficulty, they often opened letters which they imagined had been written by one individual, and discovered —no doubt to their astonishment—(Laughter)--that it con tained a private communication from another.—(Laughter.) And in this way they opened everybody's letters till they arrived at the one they wanted.—( Hear, hear.) Now, he wanted the Government to show him any precedent to justify this in all the annals of letter opening.—( Hear, hear, and cheers.) He said it was of the greatest importance that they should have an explanation upon this subject. Instead of quoting what the Duke of Newcastle did one hundred years ago, the Committee ought to have given a copy of the war rants issued by the Right Hon. Baronet. He came now to the last charge upon this point. He thought he stated in the .outset that his correspondence had been violated—that his letters had been opened. Now, upon this the Committee were perfectly decided. In his place in that House, he con fessed in the first instance that he had only been informed that his letters coming through the Admiralty had been opened. He admitted that at the time he was inclined to d i s . believe it. But altho u g h the Committee had decided u p on this, he could nevertheless p rove that his letters were det a in ed and inspected at the Post-office, upon the authority of the Birgit Hon. Baronet.—( Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") Now, he must say, that he felt degraded in this respect, he thought it. was a degradation fur any Member of the !louse of Commons--(Loud cheering) to feel that he was a worthy object of suspicion—that he had been guilty of some offence which the Secretary of State thought entitled him to open his private correspondence. He could not conceive a greater personal insult than this. He could not conceive a greater insult to the constituency he represented, He was not the representative of merely a rotten borough—Luud cheers)—but of a very large and numerous, as well as an intelligent constituency.—(Hear, hear.) He said, therefore, it was not merely an insult to him, but it was a gross insult to the constituency which lie had the honour to represent in that House.—( Hear, hear.) He would go further. If his correspondence was not to be free, he was not a fit representative of them. —( Cheers.) In the name, then, of his constituency he called upon the Right Honourable Baronet to justify, if he could do so, the opening of his letters. He knew not what story he might have trumped up in the Committee of the House of Commons or the Committee of the House of Lords, but be said the Right Hon. Baronet owed it to him and to that House.— (Loud cheers.) He owed it to him and to his constituency to tell them and the (louse the justification for opening his letters.. Ile asked the Right Hon. Baronet, before he com plained of the fact, if the information he had received was true ? —( Hear, hear. ) The Right lion. Baronet replied that he (Mr. Duncombe) knew he was putting a question which he (the Right lion. Baronet) could not answer.--( Hear, hear.) Well, then, how stood the question between him and the Right lion. Baronet? Why, it was this :—A Member of the Legislature had, in the exercise of his public duty, opened the letters of a Member of that House, and now they found that the Secretary of State, while he had the baseness to per petrate this act, had not the moral courage to acknowledge it. —(Loud cheers.) He maintained that this was a degrada tion reflecting not only upon himself, but upon the House.— ( Cries of " Order, order," " Chair, chair," in the midst of which the Hoe. Member resumed his seat.) The SPEAKER informed the Hon. Member that he had used an expression which reflected upon the individual charac ter of a Member of that House. Mr. DUNCOMBE said he applied the observation to the Right Hon. Baronet in his Ministerial capacity, and to this ob servation he would adhere.—(Cheers.) Another complaint he had to make was, that the Committee had nc t referred to this subject in their report. He bad made the same charge be fore them in the room up stairs, when he was called before theni ; but still they were entirely silent upon this point. Now what was the inference to be drawn from this ? The inference was that there was nothing in his correspondence to justify the course pursued by the Post-office gentlemen. The same jus tice which had been rendered to the Right lion. Baronet, had been refused to him. Nothing was mentioned in the report to vindicate him before the House of Commons, and hence a direct answer was placed in the hands of the Right Hon. Ba ronet. He was placed in this difficulty—he bed been sacri ficed for the purpose of screening the Right lion. Baronet, and this was an additional reason why another inquiry should be instituted. He called for that inquiry in vindication of his own character. Well, then, the Committee ended their report in what he must call a sort of summing up ; but they altogether eva ded the question whether they would recommend that this power should be abolished at all. And if any gentleman had taken the trouble to read the concluding part of the report, and could make anything of it, he was sure it was more than the Committee could do themseives.—( Laughter.) Some allu sion, however, was made in the report to Ireland, but this was merely to implicate the predecessors of the present Govern. went. But Lord Normanby, who had presided over that country for five years, stated in his place in the other House of Parliament, that never while he presided over the Home Department of this country, or held the Lord-Lieutenancy of Ireland, had he issued a single warrant for political purposes. Ile (i'slr. Duncombe) had seldom an opportunity of agreeing with the organ of the Government, commonly called the Morning Ilerald. But he must, in justice to the editor of that paper, read to the House what he (Mr. Duncombe) con sidered a most excellent article upon this subject. The article alluded to referred to a charge which bad been made against Lord Melbourne, of opening the letters of Mr. O'Connell, and strongly demanded that an opportunity should be given to the Noble Lord to disprove the charge. The article went on to state that if the charge:were true, the then Government had been guilty of a direct violation of the constitution of the country. Now, his letters had been opened, and the Government were responsible to him for it. It was a breach of privilege to open the letters of any Hon. Member without an especial warrant from the office of the Secretary of State ; and this justified him in de.. mantling an explanation from the Right. Hon. Baronet. If the Right lion. Baronet had not issued the warrant, the indi viduals who opened his letters had infringed his privilege, arid he should certainly summon them before the bar of the House to disclose their authority. In the absence of any re commendation by the Secret Committee, it was left for Par liament to determine whether this power should be continued. For his part he was convinced it ought to be abo lished altogether—( Hear, hear)—and if the House agreed with him, there would be no necessity for further inquiry except upon one or two points. But still it was neces sary that they should have another inquiry, and a conclusive report on the subject, for the House would remember that the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord Haddington) stated, on the 29th of June, last year, that it was a power which had long existed, and must always exist in any country where there was any Government at all. The Noble Lord added, that there could be no Government unless they were entrusted with this odious power, and maintained that the Government would be dissolved if this power did not exist. He said, no Go vernment—no honest Government—required this power. The safety of England needed no such protection as this; and he maintained that the honour of England and of Englishmen demanded a full and unequivocal repeal of this odious power. —( Hear, hear.) Entertaining these views, he had been in duced to trespass longer upon the attention of the House than he had intended ; and he should conclude by moving, " That a Select Committee be appointed, to inquire into the mode in which letters have been detained; opened, and re-scaled at the General or at any Provincial post-office, and also into the circumstances under which every warrant for that purpose has been issued by any Secretary of State, from the Ist day of January, 1840, to the present time ; the said Committee to report their opinion thereon to the House, and also whether it is expedient that the practice should be continued : —That the report and evidence of the Secret Committee of last ses sion relative to the Post-office be referred to the said Com mittee." The question having been put by the SPEAKER, Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, when th e ma tt er was fi rs t mooted, he thought it was consistent with his public duty that he should abstain from discussing the manner in which he ex ercised the duties of his office B e t h e i ntimated at the came time that if it was the pleasure of that House to institute an inquiry, and it was the pleasure of his Sovereign to release him ' from the office he then held, he should be quite willing to make a full disclosure of all the circumstances connected with the case which the Hon. Member had brought before the House. The House, however, after going minutely into the details, de termined that a Secret Committee was the proper tribunal for investigating a case of this description. The Hon. Gentle man, in the course of his speech, had thought fit to scandalise the latter part of the report of the Secret Committee, and he thought, under these circumstances, it was necessary for him to call to the recollection of the House and the country, the way in which that Committee was first pruposed ; and here he would take leave to remark, that it was impossible to find gen tlemen more entitled to the confidence of that House and of the country, than the nine Members who constituted that Com mittee. He had often feared that a very large share of per sonal aversion had entered into this discussion ; and yet, on the part of the Government and himself, he did not hesitate for a moment to nominate upon the Committee a decided ma jority of his political opponents. The nine Members se lected by the House, on that occasion, were Lord Sandon, Mr. Wilson Patten, Mr. Thus. Baring, Sir Wm. Heathcote, Sir C. L emon, Mr. Warburton, Mr. Strutt, the O'Conor Don, and Mr. Hawes. Now, the Committee so constituted proceeded to investigate the entire subject matter now brought under discussion for the second time by the Hon. Gentleman. He had promised that if such a Committee were appointed the whole of the circumstances, so far as he wee ac quainted with them, should be candidly laid before them He thought he saw in the House at that moment at least a ma jority of that Committee, anti he would state upon his honour, in his place in Parliament, that every minute detail, without exception and without reservation, that was within his know ledge, was not extracted from him by cross-examination, but voluntarily tendered by him to the Committee.—( Cheers. ) He asserted that he had voluntarily tendered to the Committee, without reserve, all the information which he possesse I on the subject. There was not a point now brought under discussion by the Hon. Gentleman which was not the subject matter of his (Sir James Graham's) evidence bef.tre that Com mittee.—( Hear, hear.) He had kept back nothing, he had concealed nothing. If his conduct was base and mean, that conduct had been brought under their judgment, and they had acquitted him of baseness and meanness.—( Cheers.) He had at least had the courage before the Committee to make a full disclosure of the whole of his conduct. Charges of want saf credit were easily made; and if it was consistent with the dignity of that House to have such charges banded about, it was a matter of the greatest indifference to him, after his conduct had been submitted to the judgment of the nine gentlemen who composed the Committee. He was acquitted as a gentle men and a Minister, and he cared not a rush what might be the opinion of the Hon. Member for Finsbury.—(Cheers.) Now, the Hon. Gentleman said that the report of that Committee was unsatisfactory and evasive. It was not his duty, being the party accused, to enter into any defence of that report. There were, however, upon that Committee some of the most experi enced, the most learned, and the most honourable Members of that House. He was quite persuaded that it was not their inten tion to avoid any portion of the subject matter committed to them. They were incapable of wilfully deluding that House. He believed that House had investigated the matter with fidelity and care ; and he was satisfied, from his knowledge of i their character, that they had conveyed to the House the exact mpression produced on their minds by the evidence adduced. Now the Hon. Gentleman charged the Committee with dis obedience to the order of :the House. He fancied, because a particular expression was used, that they did not trace each warrant from the period of its being issued to that of its being carried into effect ; and, therefore, he argued, they had dis obeyed the :order of the House on the subject. He (Sir J. Graham) was confident that everything which related to the office which he filled, in connexion with the issuing of the warrants, had been carefully investigated. The House must recollect that he was not the only witness who had been called before the Committee. Every statement made by himself was contrasted with those made by the officers of other depart ments, whose statements, if his were inaccurate, must have been at variance with it. The Postmaster-General, the Secretary of the Post-office, and all the officers connected with that de partment, were carefully examined as witnesses. So far from the orders of the House being disobeyed, he was quite satisfied that with regard to the issuing of the warrant, and in every other respect, they had been carefully attended to and minutely observed. But the Hon. Gentleman said that in his case there had been unusual frequency in the exercise of the powers vested in the Secretary of State. He conceived that this portion of misconduct imputed to him was one of the most important mat ters submitted to the judgment of the tribunal appointed to in vestigate the subject ; and he would read to the House the recorded judgment of that tribunal in reference to this very point of the undue and comparative frequency of the exercise of authority. The opinion of the Committee was given at page 15. The Right Honourable Baronet then read an extract from the report, stating that the warrants had been issued with nearly equal frequency by the several Administra tions since 1799 ; though in certain years, in consequence of internal commotions, it had appeared that the number of war rants issued by the Secretaries of State was unusually great, while in others, for a contrary reason, it was exceedingly small. The n , aga i n , a t page 19, it was st a t e d w i t h respect to warrants, not of a criminal but of a political character, there had not, upon an average, been more than four yearly; while the greatest number ever issued in one year for such cases was 16. Now, he had hitherto referred only to the report of the Com mittee of that House; but the House must remember that a Committee had also been appointed by the House of Lords. In the House of Commons, so highly was the honour of its Mem bers estimated, that the declaration of a Member was held equivalent to his oath ; but in the other House of Parliament he had been examined upon oath, and there, also, witnesses were called who might have contradicted his statements. Fur ther, the Committee of the House of Lords, by the advice of the Government, con t a i ne d a ma j or it y o f their political oppo nents. It had been said that there was no eminent lawyer, no person who was used to the examination of witnesses. Now, was that the fact ? Were there no experienced and eminent lawyers on that Committee? Why, it so happened, that or, that Committee sat two of the most distinguished lawyers now living in this country—( Hear, hear)—both of whom had held the Great Seal, and had been at the head of their profession. Upon this Committee were Lord Cottenham, Lord Brougham, Lord Auckland, Lord Colchester, the Bishop of London, Lord Somers, and Lord Colborne. The question, whether there had been an improper exercise of the authority, was brought before thatbody, and this was the judgment of the Lords' Committee:— " We are bound, in conclusion, to state that, having looked back to the proceedings of several Secretaries of St a t e d ur i ng success i ve administrations for more than twenty years, we have found the practice nearly uniform. The power has been very sparingly exercised, and never from personal or party motives." That was a negative to the charge of baseness and meanness which had been brought against him---(Cheers)—never from per sonal and party motives ; "and that in every case it seems to have been directed by an earnest and faithful desire to adopt that course which appeared to be necessary, either to promote the ends of justice or to prevent the disturbance of the public tranquillity, or otherwise to promote the best interests of the country." That was the recorded rudgment of the House of Lords. Now, the Hon. Gentleman proceeded to advert to a paragraph which had recently appeared in the newspapers, that the Secret-office, as it was termed, in the Post-office, had been suppressed by order of the Home-office. Notwithstanding the intimate knowledge which the Hon. Gentleman possessed of this subject, he seemed: to have fallen into error in contra distinguishing that office in connexion with the Foreign-office, from a secret office in connexion with the secret office of the Post-office. \Vith respect to that establishment, it would appear, from page 17, that it was conducted by officers ap pointed and paid by the Secretary of State fur Foreign Affairs, from whom the orders were received, and to whom alone they were responsible. S uc h an office had existed in this country, in connexion with the Foreign Department, for more than a century. Its existence was no new intelligence ; it ex isted in 1840; and no step had been taken which showed the disapprobation of Parliament. For a long time it had existed, not in immediate connexion with the Post-office, though under the roof of that establishment. He would now state that, not by an order from the Home-office, but by an order from the Foreign Department (as we understo o d the Right Hon. Baronet), it had been removed from the Post-office, and no longer existed. The Hon. Gentleman, in referring to the case of M. Mazzini, had thought it consistent with his public duty to declare his belief that the warrant presented to the Committee of both Houses of Parliament for the opening of the letters of M. Maezini was fabricated by him for the occasion. No other ground for that harsh construction, which the Hon. Member was now disposed to put on every act of his (Sir J. Graham's) —( Hear, hear)—no other ground was adduced, except that certain general terms were used in the report of the House of Lords, which he thought were at variance with the date of the warrant. The words used were that the as arrant was in force for about four months ; whilst the Committee of the Ilouse of Commons stated that the war rant was issued on the Ist of Nlarch, and revoked on the 3d of June. He solemnly declared that the warrant was issued by , him on the Ist of March, and revoked on the 3d of June; the original warrant having, he believed, been issued for four months. He must beg to call the attention of the House to that portion of the report which set forth the important circum stance, that new checks had been introduced in modern times with respect to the issuing of the warrant. In the first place, since the year 1822, all the originallwarrants had been recorded in the Post. office. In 1806 regulations were made, imposing most essential and material checks upon the issue of these warrants. It was not possible now for the Secre tary of State, unknown to others, to issue a sarrant of _v this description. Both the Under-Secretarie s of tate, and a confidential clerk at the Post-office, were cognisant of every matter of this description.—( Hear, hear.) So much for the fabrication of the warrant, and the assignment to it of a false date ; and it was impossible that he could have committed the base and mean act attributed to him by the Hon. Gentleman, without its being known to the two Under-Secretaries of State, and to a confidential clerk, who, although a clerk, was a gen tleman in every sense of the word, and as incapable of a base and false act of this description, as any of the Hon. Members to whom he was then speaking.__( Hear, hear, and cheers.) He would now pass to another accusation, which had been pre ferred by the Hon. Gentleman against a Noble colleague of his, upon whose honour and worth he had thought fit to cast imputations—he referred to the Earl of Aberdeen. Now, he was bound to state that the accusation wa s ma d e i n round terms, and certainly in the most harsh and offensive manner, but when he came to hear the grounds of the assertion it appeared to be altogether vague. The assertion was that the declaration made by Lord Aberdeen, in his place in the House of Lords, was at variance with the report of the two Houses of Parliament upon a most important fact—viz., whe ther M. Mazzini's correspondence was intercepted, and was communicated to a foreign Minister. Lord Aberdeen, in his place in Parliament, gave the most solemn denial to that asser tion. Now, let the House hear what the Commons said on this point. The report said—" Such information deduced from those letters as appeared to the British Minister calculated to involve dangerous consequences, was communicated to a Foreign Power; but the information so communicated was not of a nature to compromise, and did not compromise, the safety of any individual within the reach of that Foreign Power, nor was it made known to that Power by what means or from what source that information had been gained." That was the report of the Secret Committee. What was the statement of the House of Lords on this subject? It said, Certain parts of the information thus obtained were communicated to a Fo reign Government, in so far as su :h communication appeared to be warranted, and without names or details that might ex pose any individual then residing in a foreign country to dan ger." That was the opinion of Lord Cottenham, after all the transactions had been fully developed. (Mr. Duncembe here made some observations across the table, which we did not hear.) Did the Honourable Gentleman deny the accuracy of that report? He had himself quoted that report when he made the accusation, and was he (Sir J. Graham) to be prevented from quoting the same re port, when the honour of a noble individual was assailed ? (Cheers.) He thought be certainly might refer to the de cisionaof that noble individual's Peers, the majority of whom were his political opponents, in vindication of his honour.— (Cheers.) He could not suppose that the House would think that his Noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs would deliberately, in his place in Parliament, make a declaration inconsistent with the truth, knowing as he did that the statement would be tested by an examination before Committees of both Houses of Parlia ment.---( Hear, hear.) Now, he ( Sir James Graham) per haps might be permitted to state an opinion, which he strongly entertained, that with reference to this particular power—that odious, that invidious and obnoxious power vested in the Se cretary of State, by warrant —he might be permitted to state that for domestic purposes it was generally inoperative, and the exercise of it on many accounts objectionable. With res pect to our fareign relations this power stood on diffe, ent grounds. The House must remember that in this country (he thought he said it advisedly, the only country in Europe, whatever might be the danger to public interest from the prektlie of any foreigner)—the Executive Government had no power vested in them by law of averting that danger by removing a person found abusing our hospitality. In the case to which reference had been made, the facts were stated pretty fully in the report of the Commons, at page 14. From the correspondence which hail been intercepted it appeared that it was intended that a descent should be made on the coast of Italy for the purpose of excititag internal disturbance in that country. That there was danger was not imaginary, but real. It was formidable, for if it had been carried into successful execution, it was not to be dissembled the peace of Italy would certainly have been dis turbed, and he believed that the peace of Europe, under those circumstances, could not have been preserved; if an Euro pean war ensued, England could not have remained a mere spectator of the quarrel. It was said that a descent on the coast of Calabria was contemplated, and that an unfair use was made of the information gained in that instance, and that a trap was laid for the cor respondence of M. Maazini. Now, he absolutely and entirely denied the facts upon which this assumption was grounded. The Hon. Gentleman, in the course of his speech, with great harshness said that the blood of the persons who were exe cuted on the melancholy occasion to which he referred must be on the heads of persons in this country. He ( Sir James Graham) denied in the most solemn manner that any trap had been laid for the individuals in question. In the first place, no descent on the coast of Calabria was expected. The con spirators abusing the hospitality of the British Government at Corfu, concocted their plans there. It was not true that the point of their destination was believed to be the coast of Ca labria. No information whatever had been given by the Bri tish Government to the Neapolitan Government on the sub ject. And so far from the Neapolitan Government having prepared troops for the reception of those persons who had been led into a trap, as had been al leged, those persons landed without meeting any troops. They were arrested not by troops, but by a body similar to the posse COM itat us in this country. It was not until the lapse of a considerable time, during which the troops had to be sent from a distant point by a steam-boat, that the troops of the Nea politan Government came into contact with those persons. He understood that only:one of those persons was a Neapolitan, all the other parties came from the northern parts of Italy, and had no connexion whatever with the kingdom of Naples. He cer tainly could state with confidence that what 'was stated in the report was true, that all information received through the Post- offiee was transmitted unread to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. It was the solemn assertion of the Secre tary of State for Foreign Affairs that he never transmitted to any foreign Government any document, but that he only "gave the substance of the information."—(lronical cheers.) He was now frankly avowing what had been done. His Noble Friend endeavoured by giving that information to check a dan gerous movement, but he had done nothing calculated to compromise the life of any individual.—( Hear, .hear. ) The Hon. Gentleman had teferred to a Pole of the name of Graliski, and said that information had been given to a fo reign Power with reference to Polish movements—informa tion which might have compromised the safety of innocent per sons resident in Poland. Against this Graliski a warrant was issued, and certainly he (Sir James Graham) was hound to state, upon his own responsibility, that he issued that warrant under circumstances which, if presented again for his con sideration, would lead him to take the step which he had taken on that occasion. The Hon. Gentleman, referring to an expression in the report, intimated that he (Sir J. Gra ham) had issued general warrants. Now, he could only say that he had never issued a warrant of that, description —a warrant without the name of the party being set forth. He could say confidently, that on no one occasion had he issued anything approaching to a general warrant. He thought he might now, with propriety, drop for the present this most painful subject. With respect to this power being vested in the Secretary of State, he did not believe that any further information could be obtained than that which was before the House. The real question was, were they prepared to revoke the power which by statute had been given to the Secretary of State ever since the reign of Queen Anne ? They could not require further information on the subject. Everything that inquiry could give was now before them. If it should be found necessary for the 'public safety to limit this power, the proper course would be to repeal the statute, to pass another, and im pose the necessary checks. But if it had to be exercised by the Secretary of State it was impossible for that individual faithfully, fearlessly, and honestly, for the public, to exercise the powers entrusted to him by his Sovereign, and not by the Sovereign without the confidence of that House, for without the confidence of that House no Sovereign could maintain a Minister for a single day. He said, that if it was for the good of the public that the Secretary of State was to be trusted with the exercise of those powers, it was incompatible with the honest, fearless, and advantageous exercise of those powers, that he should be called upon to declare publicly what were the reasons and what were the circumstances which had led him to exercise them.—(Cheers.) Mr. SHEIL then rose and addressed the House as follows : —Sir, in what I have to address to the House I shall be very short, and I hope very temperate. The Right Hon. Gentle man has unequivocally admitted that the letters which were addressed to M. Mazzini were opened, and the substance of the information contained in those letters communicated to a foreign power. The report says so, and the evidence of the Right Hon. Gentleman is almost more than confirmatory of the report. The Right Hon. Gentleman justified that proceeding. This is not the time to consider whether that proceeding was right or not. That question was not raised. My Hon. Friend will have an opportunity of raising that question by bringing the subject before the House and the country upon another and more fitting occasion. But thus stands the broad fact—the let ters of M. Mazzini were opened, and those letters regularly conveyed to him after being opened, himself being unaware that the correspondence was disclosed. The Right Hon. Gentle man says no trap was laid. It would have been as well, then, to have informed M. Mazzini that his letters had been opened. The power was exercised by the Right Hon. Gentleman at the Post-office, and certainly the substance of the information thus obtained was communicated to a foreign power. The Committee state—" The facts of the case, as tar as the Com mittee feel at liberty to disclose them, appear as follows." It appears, therefore, that there were facts which the Committee did not think themselves at liberty to disclose. Ido not mean to say that a Committee of Secrecy, appointed under such pe culiar circumstances, was not justified in exercising this discre tion ; but it is clear that the whole is not known, there is no suppressio pea, but suppressio yeri is admitted. It is re markable that this passage occurs in the report of the Com mittee—" They think it most desirable to make known that the above three warrants are the only warrants to open letters which the present Government had issued." That question was not referred to them. The Committee gratuitously state that these three are the only instances in which the present Government have exercised this power. The powers exercised by other Governments had nothing to do with the question. Ipon this part of the case—fulfilling the engagement—to be very brief, I may say, that it is still more objectionable. The Com mittee state the names of persons who are no longer living in reference to warrants of this kind which have been issued. They then,„proceed to state that they will not mention the names of any living individuals, with certain exceptions. The passage runs thus :—" Your Committee abstained from giving particular information concerning any warrant, and from naming a single individual whose letters were directed to be opened ; but they have been induced, with respect to the mode of executing certain warrants, to mention the names of parties included in them, inasmuch as they are connected with the circumstances which mainly led to the inquiry your Committee were appointed to enter into." They accordingly proceed to mention the names of two Poles, and I think M. Mazzini. Now, I want to know why it is that nothing has been said about the letters of the Hon. Member for Finsbury—( Loud cheers)—if that Committee have adhered practically to the rules they themselves laid down ?—( Hear, hear.) The names of two Poles were mentioned, the name of M. Mazzini was mentioned. Were those the only names specifically men tioned in the House of Commons ?—( Hear, hear. ) The Hon. Member for Finsbury, the representative of a great section of this metropolis—( Hear, hear)—boldly stated in the House of a The s o name was_ specified mentioned. as that madeheer s. w Commons that his privileges as a Member of Parliament wer e violated—(Loud cheers)—and that his letters had been opened. Why is it f distinctly that the Committee said nothing Mr. Duncombe ? —( Loud cheers.) The statement was repeated before the Committee. You excluded Mr. Duncombe who brought the charge.—(Loud cheers.) Mr. Duncombe offered to appear —(C)ithT rhegeraerdwa to s Mazzini.a statement beforethe Committee to corroborate the charge, to prove the a c cusation—the Committee refused to allow him to cond uc t the case, or, I believe, to hear him.—( Hear, hear.) Under those circumstances it is a matter of legitimate curiosity to know what justification there is on the part of the Com mittee for omitting all mention of the Hon. Member for Finsbury.—(Loud cheers.) How stands the fact ? When the Right Hon. Gentleman was first interrogated on the subject, he refused to give an answer—( Hear, hear)—he sheltered himself behind official prerogative.—( Cheers. ) When public clamour arose the Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of her Majesty's Government, who observed how uneasy was the beating of the public pulse, came down to the House and said that a Committee would be conceded—that which in the first instance was withheld.—(Hear, hear.) A Committee was granted—" a great fact "—but the fact, of all others the most important,—the opening of the letters of a Member of Parliament—was not mentioned.—( Hear, hear.) I now ask this question of you—(Cheers)—Tell me, you (turn ing to Sir J. Graham), Rho answer for Mazzini, who aewered for the t wo P o l es,—tell me will you answer whether you opened the letters of Mr. Duncombe ?—( Vehement cheering. ) Lord SANDON rose; b ut h av i ng remained silent for a short time, a cry of " Question, question I" was raised by the Oppo sition. He said he did not catch the question of the Right Hon. Gentleman, and begged he would repeat it. Mr. SHEIL—I did not a,k any question of the Noble Lord (Loud Cheers.) It was of the Right Hon. Gentleman I asked the question—(Loud cheers)—l asked the question of him, and I now repeat the interrogatory—(Loud cheering. ) Lord SANDON said that, as the question of the Right Hon. Gentleman was not addressed to him, but to the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and as he did not think it consistent with his duty to give any answer—(lronical cheers)—he believed it was his duty, as Chairman of the Committee, to make a few observations.— , ( Hear, hear.) He begged to remark, in the first place, that the members of the Committee laboured under a great disad vantage, because, from the circumstances under which the Committee was appointed—the House having thought fit to make it a secret one, thereby signifying that there was some thing in the nature of the subject which should not be re vealed—they were precluded from replying to many questions that might be asked of them. It might be wrong to appoint a Secret Committee, but as long as the House was of opinion that it ought to be so, they could not go beyond what was stated in the report, without violating their duty to the House which appointed them. That report contained the answer to all that had been said by the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dun combe). It might be said that the report was evasive and un satisfactory, because it did not gratify the prurient curiosity of individuals—(Cheers)—but it contained a full and fair ac count of the entire transaction. He believed he spoke the opinions of the entire Committee, when he said that the in formation conveyed to them was full and complete, and as the Right Hon. Gentleman ( Sir J. Graham) had stated, it was not extracted by cross-examination, but was fully and freely laid before them, and they had the opportunity of testing the asser tions made by reference to the documents themselves. No doubt the public sympathy went in this case along with those persons who took refuge in this country, upon whose soil the slave became free the moment he touched it ; but it should be recollected that they were engaged in transactions which might have compromised the peace of Europe.—(Hear, hear.) He would not give any opinion as to the propriety of the course adopted. The Hon. Gentleman had exercised his powers of ridicule on the last page of the report, and he did not mean to say that it would bear the test of criticism. He admitted it was a piece of Mosaic—a bit of white here and a bit of black there ; but the Committee were of opinion that it was better to state the arguments which might be used for and against the power of issuing warrants for opening letters, than that they should state any opinions or conclusions of their own. He believed it was admitted that the issuing of the warrants had taken place only in the exercise of a conscientious duty on the part of the Government. He believed that, on the whole, the Government had exercised a sound discretion in the course they had pursued. gir JAMES GRAHAM felt beund at the present moment to make a few observations to the llouse, as he should be ex tremely sorry to have it supposed that lie intended to act dis courteously to those Hon. Members who had put questions to him. The House would remember that in the last session he had declined, respectfully hut firmly, to answer any questions with respect to the warrants that had been issued. At th at time, however, he stated that if the House thought fit to eetooanp point a tribunal to inquire into the matters he should a b o w to their decision and. make any stateme n t s to them they might require.—(Hear, hear.) It was the pleasure of the House to appoint that Committee —it was formed of his political opponents, and yet he had given every information to them that he could. There was not one act of his for which he was respon3ible as a Minis ter of the Crown which he had not stated to the Committee. —( Hear, hear.) Having done this, he could not, consistently with his duty, answer any further interrogatories.—( Hear. ) He had given all the information in his power in M. Mazzini's case, and the other one that had been referred to, and he could not go further; and if any other warrant was brought before the House, he should be prepared to deal with it ache had done in M. Alazzini's case. Mr. HUME thought they had no right to blame the Right Hon. Baronet when he stated that he had given full informa tion before the Committee. What, then, were they to do? Why, they should not question the Right Honourable Baronet's accuracy till they knew what the Right Honourable Baronet had stated. He wished to impress upon Hon. Mem bers last session that a Secret Committee would not satisfy the public, and he thought that in that opinion he had been borne out. The House appointed a Select Committee, and that Committee was appointed at the suggestion of the Right lion. Baronet. He had said on a former occasion that the character of the country was at stake, and that the only course to be pursued was to make the proceedings of the Committee open.—( Hear, hear.) The report that had been produced from the Committee was of such a character that no person could form an opinion upon it. He be lieved that the proceedings that had taken place would never have been sanctioned, if it had been supposed that the Government would have pursued the course they had done. He never could have believed, until the Right Hon. Baronet admitted it, that he would have become the police-officer of the King of Naples. After the statements that had been made that Members of that House had had their letters opened, and their affairs made public, was it to be supposed the public would rest quiet, or that they would allow such things to con tinue ? It was true, the Right Hon. Baronet had sufficient in numbers to stifle inquiry, hut, after what had been stated, it was impossible Ministers coul I so far forego their characters as to permit the system so continue.—( Hear. ) Why was the Committee appointed ? Why, for the purpose of considering whether it was fit that this power should exist in the Ministry or not. The present was no political matter, but one in which the whole country was interested. The duty of the House was to see what they could do to prevent the evil in future. He trusted the discussion would end for the present by a declaration on the part of the Right Hon. Gentleman that the evidence should be printed, and then Members would be enabled to come to a sound and satisfactory conclusion. Sir J. HANMER had on a previous occasion given his vote for inquiry. That inquiry took place, and it pleased the House of Commons to make it secret; he thought now that it was proved they were to blame in that, as the report that had been produced was anything but satisfactory. What were the facts that had been stated that night ? Why, an Hon. Member, the representative of one of the Metropolitan districts, had stated in his place in that House that his let ters had been opened and subject to inspection,—( Hear.) But it did concern every free man in England that the House of Commons should inquire into this charge—(Hear, hear)—it was bound to see whether or not any letters of the Hon. Mem ber had been opened, and if so, whether they had been opened csith sufficient reason—( Hear, hear)--for that would be no in considerable guide to them in that question which must in a short time be brought under consideration —wh a t is intended to be done with this extraordinary power —a power, the existence of which, he declared, though he hoped he was not unacquainted ith the history of his country, and though he had paid some attention to it, and though ho had been some time in Parlia ment, came upon him with as much surprise as it might on a man at the Land's-end.—( Hear, hear.) He therefore thought there were strong grounds for an inquiry ; he thought the House ought to appoint a new committee or re-appoint the old one—(Loud cries of " No, no")—in order to conduct that inquiry; to that Committee he should give his complete support—( Hear, hear)—and he should give that support to a motion for it, without entering into 'any of the imputations that had been made against the Right Hon. Gentleman. He did not for a moment entertain them, for as a man he respected the Right Hon. Baronet. He be lieved the Right Hon. Baronet was as honest as any man who had held his high situation ; but he did 'demand that this inquiry should be made when it was demanded by a Mem ber of that House itself. Mr. Sergeant MURPHY said it - was not his intention to approach the consideration of this question in anything like an acrimonious or party spirit, and before entering on the ques tion, he might state that he had had the opportunity of pe rusing attentively the report that had been made on the sub ject, and the result that had formed itself in his mind, and the conclusion he drew from the perusal of that report was, that this was a privilege en joyed by the Government which was useless for the well being of that Government, and which ought to be abandoned for the safety and honour of the country.—( Hear, hear.) That was the conclusion at which he had arrived ; perhaps he had formed a crude judgment on the point, but it was his intention calmly and dispassionately to lay before the House the reasons that had induced him to form that conclusion. Before he did so, he might, in the first instance, address himself to an obser vation made by the Noble Lord the Member for Liverpool. He must say it struck him that one observation he had made was not justly suited either to the dignity of that House or the dig nity of the subject. The Noble Lord used toward the Hon. Member for Finsbury the language that any person who made an inquiry into a matter so deeply involving his own personal interest, must be actuated by a prurient curiosity. But the im pression upon that House was, that the Hon. Member for Fins bury did not demand that inquiry in his place in Parliament on account of his own personal feelings, but as affecting a matter involving the individual privileges and feelings of every Member of the House of Commons.—( Hear, hear.) He would read an extract from the report, and he would then ask the House if it was possible to conceive terms more stringent, or language more forcible than that employed, to convey to that House, and through that House to the country, that it was the privilege of every representative of the people to have an unreserved communication with his consti tuents. In page Bof the report, it was stated, that "in 1739, the House resolved, inter alia, that it'is a high infringement of the privileges of the knights, citizens, and burgesses, chosen to represent the Commons of England in Parliament, for any postmaster or his deputy to look into, or open, by any means whatever, any letter directed to or signed by the proper hand of any Member of the House, without an express warrant under the hand of the Secretary of State for every such opening ; nor shall such postmaster or hia deputy look into or delay, or detain, any letter addressed to, or signed by the hand of any Member, unless by an express warrant from the Secretary of State for every such detaining or delay." Now, he would ask, when any Member of Parliament, like the Hon. Member for Finsbury, relying on this forcible resolution of the House, came forward in his place and demanded an answer to his alle gations, he would repeat again, notwithstanding the reasons given by the Right lion. Baronet for not answering that de mand, that the impression that would be made on the country by that silence would be an unsatisfactory one. He stated that, because he recollected that all the difficulties that, hail been created on this subject might have been avoided altogether, if the Right Hon. Baronet would have pursued the same course in the case of the Hon. Member for Finsbury, as when the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath brought before the House strong and impressive charges against several individual M em b ers o f that House.—( Hear, hear. ) He recollected perfectly well at that time, that an objection was made to placing the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath on the Committee of Inquiry, but he was afterwards selected as Chairman of it, and he (Mr. Sergeant Murphy) would challenge any person who was present at the investigation of what was called the Compromise Committee, or any one who sat on that Committee, to say whether the conduct of the Hon. arid Learned Member for Bath, as its Chairman, did not raise him still higher than before in the estimation of the House, on account of the impartiality he had displayed.—( Hear, hear ) He brought his great natural sagacity, as well as his legal acumen to the investigation, and lie asked if the Hon. Member for Finsbury, whose privileges not merely as an individual, but which were in some respects the property of the country, had been violated, might not fairly and reasonably have been added to the Committee ? It was because he was not added to it, that the investigation had been so unsatisfactory.-- ( Hear, hear.) 'l' e Right Honourable Baronet had come forward to-night, and declared that he did not feel called on by his sense of public duty to make any decla ration to the Hon. Member. But he at the same time de clared, on his honour as a gentleman, that he had made a free and unreserved communication to the Committees of this House and of the House of Lords ; and he (Mr. Sergeant Murphy) was bound to and did believe that he had done so. But when he said that, he was afterwards led to another ques tion, which arose from another statement that had fallen from the Right Hon. Baronet. He told them that no communica tion of his had led in any degree to any intervention between this country and foreign States, by which the latter were en abled to repress some attempts at invasion or insurrection. But he asked the Right Hon. Baronet whether he would go to the length of telling them that no other person connected with her Alajesty's Government had not given such information ? ( Hear, hear.) He asked whether, even in the dim and shadowy manner in which that information might have been given, it was not sufficient to convey to those Governments who, it was well known, had secret and very able diplomatic agents in this country, an intimation of who were the parties, just as clearly as if the names themselves had been given ? ( Hear, hear.) Did they not know that this country was swarming with the diplomatic agents of foreign countries, remarkable for the sagacity and skill with which they followed up such investigations ? Was it not known that Russia em ployed a great number of persons of this kind, whose busi ness it was to furnish such information to their Governments, and to denounce suspected persons? The Lion. Member fur Finsbury, therefore, asked the question, and he ( Sergeant Murphy) did not think it had been satisfactorily answered, unless an equally distinct assurance could be given by the Right Hon. Baronet, as that by which he had exonerated him self, that the Earl of Aberdeen, her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, stood equally absolved from making any such communication. Now, before he went into any other branch of the case, he might be allowed to state certain matters he believed had a useful bearing on the question. From the manner in which the report was drawn up, he thought these warrants might be done away with altogether. He might class the use of these warrants under three se parate heads ; the first was in matters purely criminal; the second in matters seditious and political ; the third involving us in relations with Foreign States. Now, with regard to the first. One of the grounds on which it was possible to be maintained, was that of antiquity, and the antiquity of these warrants first depended upon a warrant of Anne, based upon certain proclamations issued antecedent to that period, but he was certain if they went higher up in search of precedents for popular liberty, they would hardly adopt the reigns of Charles, or James, or the Commonwealth, for those precedents. In what way were the warrants used? With re gard to criminal matters, all his experience of criminal inves tigations all elucidated proved that no lette r was ever p ro du c ed which at elucidated any part of a criminal proceeding. H e had never known an insta nce o f it, an d h e was contirrned in the belief of Baronet its inutility by the statem en t of the Right H on. him self, who told them to- n i g ht that, with regardtotheanddoniestic exercise of this privilege, it was both unsatisfactory thofat the it V incon venient, and, he believed, he went tlie th le o n i g i t o h as o o f s a a N y y •i a n r g e might be dispensed with. a Was not which existed in the public deep feelings against this mind, when the Hon. Member priv i lege for Finsbury thismoti o nbron t gh r t ooghouttle , forward last year? Did matter ofnotwehvaetry politics, denounce throughout it ?-- ( Hear, bear.) country, no Did no t every society or club, whi c h a man went to obtain political information from, ring with one universal outcry against the Government ?—(" No,' from the Ministerial bench.) The Hon. Gentleman said " No, n o ,” but he said ,6 Yes, yes." — ( Tremendous cries . of " No, n 0 ., ,) He did not mean to determine with what justice that opinion was expressed, and he did not believe that the present Secre tary of State was more answerable, for the exercise of such a privilege, than any who had preceded hint, but it was certain that, as stated by the Hon. Ba ronet who spoke last (Sir J. Hammon) that it came upon the country as a startling no velty. Wherever he went at that time all parties, irrespective of creeds or politics, joined throughout the country in one uni versal feeling against it.—( Cries of " No, no.") lion. Gentleman again said " No," but he appealed to those who saw the statements with which the public press teemed at that time. Was it useful for foreign purposes? Would it not have been more useful to make a stringent Alien Act, which would give the power of removing persons plotting against foreign States, than for the Members of a Government to act as spies for foreign States ? It was alleged on the prevent occasion that no information had been given which could prove hurtful to in dividuals. He must say that he considered such information, so far from being useful, would be highly injurious from its vagueness, arid that it was likely to involve innocent persons S t e iN 7 11 , 24 ., :a.-i v t* -WA3: 2 _ s rf e alie ss tThskr n 411 s l e s by reason of the suspicion which it wool e f reasons he wished that this country should geetairafeer t praetitAler which, so far from being beneficial, was, hef/Teslikht °en the whole, likely to prove hurtful, by making this country, instead of an asylum, as it had been for the exile, rather a trap for ensnaring them, and handing them over to foreign Govern ments.—( Hear. ) Sir ROBERT PEEL apprehended that the question to which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had adverted was not the question now under the consideration of the House. A great part of the speech:of the Hon and Learned Gentleman was occupied in discussing whether it was desirable or not, that the power should be continued in the Secretary of State, at his discretion and on his own responsibility, to open letters. The discussion of that subject would come much better under the notice of the Mouse in the shape of a distinct motion for altering the existing law and the existing usage, rather than upon the particular motion which the Han. Member for Fins bury had introduced ; and if it were desirable that the course hitherto pursued in this respect by the Secretary of State should be altered, he thousht the substitute which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had offered would be scarcely prefer able—a stringent Alien Act.—( Hear, hear.) He did not think the Hon. and Learned Gentleman could have bean pre. sent at the discussions which took place on a former occasion; for if he had been present lie would have seen that the Alien Act was repealed from the impression that the Alien Act might be made subservient, not to the interests of this country, but to the paomotion of the policy and interests of foreign countries.— ( Hear, hear.) Did the Hon. and Learned Gentleman really believe that the alien was exposed, ender ordinary circum stances, to more inconvenience and danger than he would be if there was an absolute discretion and power to remove the alien from the country altogether ? The alien might be ex posed to immediate danger from such a course. He hoped that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, who seemed to be the warmest advocate for parting with this power, would see the injustice of his opinion. He hoped the House would not allow the future consideration of that question to be prej udiced by the discussion which had taken place, nor by the suggestions which had been given. The Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Montrose, had made suggestions at variance with those of the lion. Gentleman, the Member for Finsbury. The motion of the latter was for a new Committee; but the Honourable Member far Montrose, instead of a new Committee; pre ferred publishing the evidence which had been taken before the former Committee. Why, what were the facts? This House, after a full consideration and dis cussion, determined to appoint a Select Committee, and they further determined that that Committee should be secret. The Committee was accordingly so appointed, and in order that a full and unreserved disclosure might be made before the members of that Committee, by those who had been Mi nisters of the Crown, the members of this as well as of the former Administration had each solicited her Majesty's per mission to make a full disclosure of every fact. They had received permission from her Majesty to make such disclosures, upon the statement that the Committee was to be a secret one, and therefore that they could, without prejudice to the public interest, make that frank and unreserved disclosure.— ( Hear, hear.) The permission cf her Majesty had been granted upon these terms. He believed the Noble Lord op posite (Lord John Russell) had been examined before that Committee.—(Lord ;John Russell nodded assent.) The late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had been examined—the present Secretary for Foreign Affairs had been examined, as well as the present Secretary of State. He (Sir R. Peel) had been examined before that Committee, having received the permission of her Majesty to make a full and unreserved disclosure; theyhad withheld no fact—nothing even affecting the interests of indi viduals or the general interests of the country—in order that the Committee ought form a judgment as to the exercise of the power vested in the Secretary of State. On these conditions, he repeated, those persons had been examined, and now 'the Hon. Gentleman asked that all the evidence so given, in order that the elements of the judgment of the Committee might be perfect, should be published.—( Hear, hear.) The House would hardly sanction that proposal.—( Hear, hear.) As to the policy of such a power, he would reserve his opinion for a future oc casion. The question now was, how far the character and con duct of the present Government were affected. If the Go vernment had assumed to themselves a power not sanctioned by usage, or contrary to law, then their conduct might be justifi ably censured or condemned. But with respect to the exercise of a power which had been vested in the Executive, it was the Parliament—it was you—the House of Commons—(said the Right Hon. Baronet emphatically )—which conferred this power —it was you who, with a full knowledge of its extent, have recognised its continuance. —( Loud cries of "Hear, hear.") It is you who have committed to usthis instrument for maintain ing and preserving the public peace.—( Hear, hear.) For leso years that power had been possessed by the Executive Gover nment. Could they pretend ignorance —could they say that the whole subject had not been brought under their consideration. at different periods ? In 1735 it had been brought under the notice of the House of Commons.—(Laughter from the Oppo sition.) Well, he would come down to later periods. Hon. Gentlemen opposite should not pretend ignorance of the his tory of their own country.—(Loud cheers from the Ministerial benches.) They might as well assail their predecessors, as charge the Executive Government of this day with exer cising this power.--( Hear, hear.) The power had not been vested in them without their knowledge and sanction. In 1735 they expressly by their own resolution admitted that there was no particular sanction that Members of the House of Commons should be exempted from the operation of this power ; for the resolution went on to say that the privilege en the part of the Postmaster-General to open letters did not extend to Members of that House, unless opened under a war rant.—( Hear, hear, from the Ministerialists.) That was their own resolution ; so that in 1735 this power had been, at all events, fully recognised by that House. This power had been exercised by Secretaries of State remarkable for their know ledge of constitutional privileges, and for their defence of civil liberty. But if Honourable Gentlemen thought that the present House of Commons was ignorant of the acts of their predecessors in 1735, why was not the act of the House of Commons rescinded in a more formal and deliberate manner in 1537 ? Why, Sir, in 1e37 the House of Commons was party to an Act of Parliament which did expressly recognize the exist ence of this power on the part of the Secretary of State. The Hon. Gentleman seemed to doubt that Parliament had given that power. He begged to refer him to the Act of Parliament passed in 1837, in which he would find it expressly stated, in reference to letters transmitted by post, that they Mould not he opened in Great Britain except in obedience to an express war rant in writing, under the hand and seal of one of her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State now in Ireland were under the warrant of the Lord-Lieutenant. Was not this a direct and express recognition ? If not, he must own he did not know what recognition meant. Well, then, the Go vernment had the power, under the sanction of this House. It had been held that the exercise of this power was necessary for the maintenance of public tranquillity, fur the preservation of external peace. This was one of the instruments which Parliament had committed to their hands for the maintenance of external tranquillity, and the preservation of internal peace, and if they had allowed either to have been dis turbed,: from failure in the exercise of this power, the Government would ustly have been blameable. Hon. Members on that side of the House would, in that case, have been the very first to call them into question for refusing to exercise the power entrusted to them for that purpose.— ( Hear, hear.) It was very well at that time to condemn his Right Hon. Friend for issuing these warrants in the month of August, 1542, but he (Sir R. Peel) wished it were possible to recal to the memory of Hon. Members the particulars of the debate that took place in the House in that very month of August, on the state of the country at the time. He recol lected, that in that debate the Hon. Member forWolverhanapton rose in his place, on the question that, owing to the state of the country, Parliament should not be prorogued. The danger of civil commotion was forcibly dwelt on by the Hon. Member, and he said it would be madness to permit Perlin ment to separate without taking some measures to call them to gether within a limited period. A motion was passed limiting the period of remission from their duties, and Parliament was again called together in a short time time after, because it was supposed that such a course was absolutely necessary on ac count of the troubled state of the country. The Hon. Member for Wolverhampton rose in the debate that took place in July, at a period when an unusual number of warrants were issued, and he read three letters from the neighbourhood of the place he represented—from the Potteries. He read the whole of the first letter dated July the 20th, and it described the state of the country as most alarming ; it stated tbat a general feeling o f discontent was engendered by designing men , that the col liers for ten miles around the town of Hanky, in bands of a thousand men, roamed about with bludgeons, exciting fear and terror among that portion of the people who were really disposed to work. They dared not do so, and the destitution of their poor families was in consequence more intolerable every hour. The first open exhibition of violence, the letter stated, had broken out one day last week, and continued for the three following days. The colliers were obliging all individuals in that part of the country to drop work, and where resistance was attempted by the managers, they were treated in the roughest manner. An other of the letters sent stated that ten thousand paupers of all trades were out in one week, and that the number would be increased to twenty thousand. It added that the country was com pletely armed, and the writer said that having twenty or thirty servants, he thought he should be able to protect himself. These were evidences of the state of the country in 1842, and they were given to the House as warnings not to pro rogue Parliament at that period. The Hon. Member for Manchester implored the Government to give their best consideration to the disturbed state of the manufacturing dis tricts, as the evils which were paramount there, unless checked in time, would involve the country in one common ruin. Then followed the Hon. Member for Stockport, who indignantly de nied that the language used by himself, or those with whom he acted, could be understood as giving rise to these disorders. He asked the House to consider the condition of the manufac turing districts, and to make some inquiries to mitigate the dis tresses which prevailed. That was the language used by lion. Members in the month of August, 1842, and yet Mi nisters asked for no extraordinary powers to repress the spirit of disorder which prevailed over the country. Had they neg lected to maintain the public peace which the House of Com mons had intrusted to them ? Had they left the manufacturingous interest to the mercy of the thousands and tens state o of o f t of tumultuous persons, who were wandering in n powers idle ness i which n those the la districts?w gave, llf t thhe Hon. Members on the oppo.ey had neglecteda the ii ordinary in a more for this [remissness, and to fin . on. He (Sir R. site side would have been find fault . l very . r first zh,oo tuir t . o t vhienbgla very me poorer painful than the possession of a energeticfor which e e r x e e r n c o is w e d c a i i n l e such d in g al s t i Peel) knew nothing more d . Heer, in If power o that in this free for the maintenance of the peace of the of this nature, an with . regard to the duties that de volved upon them only had reason were,connected with others country, he could . say that in his experience fo d r ut in ie s s t . a — nc ( e, banded together, or they most t o believe, palnful to the injury of another country, then the painful consideration country y ntry would weigh with them whether they ought to avail themselves of that power, and so give information of those machinations to that foreign country in which it would not be a breach of faith to examine the correspondence of private individuals if the • foresaw that the probabilit y of disturbances in those ' countrie s y would have a tendency to produce a general war —and if by this means they should repress disorders the interests of two countries, then that original difficulty—the using of that power—would be greatly increased, and it might be a question how far they might be justified in availing them selves of that privilege. Was it to be expected that, in such , a case, they should neglect to use the ordinary precautions which their predecessors had done ? Certainly not. And was it fair, was it just, that they should he the first Ministry to bear the brunt of popular indignation, of popu lar feeling ? A Committee had been appointed, and on that Committee there was a majority of their political opponents. Before it they had stated every fact with regard to the exercise of that power. Their predecessors in office had done the same. They had to choose between the opening the letters of individuals free from blame and the passing over matters that concerned the welfare of mighty countries. They had been informed last year that the life of the Emperor of Russia was in danger. Would Hon. Gentlemen have neg lected due precaution in such a case? They examined into the accuracy of that information, and if any of the 1 1 9- nourable Gentlemen who impugned the conduct _of the Secretary of State in the exercise of this power hacl e? filie d lou ti l l: a same high office, would not he have done the no re s inis try ? The not such a course have been adopted by any Mi nis try which would e Ministry were justified in neglecting means s tend to secure the external and inrterpal p e ace of the country. But it had been said that h Majesty -'s Government had i . some suspicion existed of their hay- ' ing perverted it to the base m urp..e. of s s e o p political expedien c y. Well d all the facts before it, as report e d by the Committee, an d Well, no w, the House ha nglooki at the constitution of th a t Con.