The Sun. — London, England, 1845-02-22 00:00:00

• m ornentsh ;II v I as n uld ach is-irraots• procced. the pa nes avc the info!' .lity or impro: s in the ease of the Righ t , I r . 31acwilaY) Governmv.ot view to n. Gentleman ad made. Be the 'oble Lord t h e orig WO at e looked se Member for Hon. Baronet , he shou: d no% ss that looking, • that they heti ua sions, and ss they had e%' the sw ing front _ iern, the Hoosv 1. Tt.e Cute' Baronet f rom no.v narro ceu ... 7 insbury ioug ht that ‘.°, his 054 2 '1, d been oyene.nr. , d in the 01%0; e a of Stat e as his 00! fall on asY,,..`l he law e xi ; iced that pe: . !c1 he had don nd unjust grber louse ishouLuho, censure,, :ed he con' ll ' e t he It became us sch attacks. t he negative to t iol to t (en so me con 0 was i"e tto eoo , a ame eu tioll (0 coot°, isi t o t ry trinil#lol nselves be rrect as trust 1(1 , 4). I find tha,,, t all. I f w eb‘ r o 'etl that h it g o • haye. b e, ,p n. M h e ne a t t r ola hir , c"" r h The ti De t, o or es est Gve t „ t 0 ,, liaroow e a to s 011 nc ouragot conv er re ite. t its e Jte , ter. $O . his m a ' el° 4 ring th :t O r ' r ibi t retorl lot!. a W eec l ► A /o y. the ae t ,er od ba g ;one i nos , a , the ber orone" be sallot t t the .ht •,be he f t ' e l bs4 t t w itt t r. Bl e p a roo c , Fiou• 0 ,1 " F ie .r Ms?' t he. o 6l. ,bisk 's' f 'r° per t hole rtt o bjee 0 ienee b ° sr . tout • 4 rb gas o? ea if .reta r ' g al b House bet o p' P l' 0 1 ". Otioo 0 f .10;06 ordia l SU r to ervati;9-6t5 oh° 0 Elon._ ht 110 0 g Meltin 'pa. e bP . O O ' injOS tie os r ,ase m ore ad thi t id r• use , ' c cere,i ( br lad acted to 14 0} 4 .,1 he 91 1 a tte sFt ENO" 0 0 13 th % 11° w e ld ; h e ll° the , 0 0? befor e po l a . ez ti, sh ) e obi . 0 0• 4 1 the te ' a" in P" fle est o bi t h e r 3 tha, t , f bif, o f tw? oe n" - % teo'bor e f • the ro e e o ber t the dsY t be 0 0:5 ) 01 , 0 e, e!. e th e ; b an to gl' o al t i t iet tbst ait s6 o°d , ee si t r i l ob rd to ig or us: t io o4 , ',vett he tbe ri to` ;atea 11 04 A l e (i str bo 00' 0' 0 . ,11 r. yor bl• N o ble et to f ib' 4 , of re, r o ioll' o d tis° e " o p el' o l sc rim ° . .net , aga in w oe, out diFe o C _Abe he to ,61 bd 'ea —I pee' 0' r c o o re ,be t o,t begg e Alb ° ,l/0. ) cotti a ,i) nl e nce i ab xresP ° " % r edittothe aitl for He Afr efanla r r be e% ir° a eg t eth s g ht t b olt ~o to 1,0011, et the bef fort r Mel e 0 tut e n b$ t a nd C n te or stitu e° .idico lls' oblie • hire'/ ler eber .„bl O ,O l - • t to l' aw.d ye .to b a br: o s ,r via- it ba yl B et fa cr se r . viotirn, ° •,(orttio“ i t " "ver' o ttr I I ; gi g ' . bee ° • i g i el o h a vo it. to Y the 11° , ° 140 mg hter h • i d oel t ` tr e r s, but .' e , boo' f n o t ...be o r cu ll e e ,00* th ho t .e tho se mos t ia e n a b l e t be pir tO e b % , ' Oen ,- ro be - ig l; e.j to H• on: e si t ledll ne he 0 2 0 1 " 0 he C.: 03 :6 1 , 0; a ye 1 1. is ther to wl r; c etie id n ot — b l ' f the A ti _in4 a e e we k Ler o 00; tb , th e s tta' but r e ss arP col ie o i l i g ': a n c y ° f t :: the Y u partY , fet be' 4P ,arty jo y r`i ° 4064° ',Members, h e f t l t there were.warding upon it men who might to Fre b en on it, am ongst le i-- • the lion. r,lember for nsi irs, who had g i ven a l l the Morn:at:en, arid tr i nn whose motion the Committee had lesn er---• • I ( Hear,hear.) iu that ease the usage of th e I isoss e had l i e s I , (iciest( d ;soca, I's'. It was a'oq. a rule th at t h e a t ember who, obtained the appoint ment of a Ccminittee, should e t as the Chairman of that Com f.. °lltt ee•—( Hear, hear.) The Eight H ui .. B arone t tool; credit 1; not having put lawyers en the Committee. Now he Mr. _atann) was not much in favour of having lawyers on I,:rno.tirnl;,.onstitutional Co bras but here was an inquiry both into fact law, in which the presence of his Learned Friend the ember for Worcester, Sir Thomas placeiti,euellt sot to have been dispensed With, soil, on that , the Solicitor-Gt coral ought alto to Lave been -- (Hear, hear. ) When the question yi as first raised, where W atson) asked the Right Hon. Gentlemen opposite e they found the law which enabled them to open letters Passing through the Post-office. The Solicitor-General told , s re that it was by the statute of Anne, confirmed by the Act of t'hetoia, but the house had seen, from the Lori's' report, that It:e(tat.a.s,gett:of Anne gave no such authority.—(hear, hear. ) h at it t ee Act of Victoria made it a misdt meaner to Open tettt•Ts, 104 power to detain letters, on the warrant of the Se ;4 State ; so that, according to the Lords' rejo , it, the to cum to open Jetties depended on common law. Now, as Le e k s M ao law, what was the fact? He had examined all the lar c h l ed rep orts, and he could not find a single authority for claim ed Power,—( Hear, he. r. ) The Secretary of State , now i retu rn s l ue right to si ire, read, open, snake copies, reseal , a t m , B , elt the lette rs of any individual.—( Hear, ar. ). He, the ses z i nu ar Y of State, was not content to take the bold step of l ad IT Ltid m aking public use of letters fur 'midis. purposes : csi raised an done by his predecessors.—( Hear, hear.) Th is et Statea great constitutionsl question—" Has the Secretary b; .-„st.cm —; :i gnt to open private letters passing through the That • He (M r . W atson ) sa id t h ere was no suc h sight.i pace patea que s ti on which must now be determined. As to t qes " t° which that alleged right had been exercised, only the " lan e rp m , t add its subordinates knew.--( Cheri s. ) The th e . i. . l i ember f ur W eymouth said that the courts of l aw were newish, before whit h this question should be tried. But au g t ° were to be the %kiln •sses 7 The Secretary of State could v s ot be "attined in t court .. Of law upon the acts of his Go eerrne—seht', „The subordinates a of the Post-office sere sworn to sis,a;Y•-•-Stlear, hear.) But if the Government were ea se ts e Y the legality, let them acknowledge the fact—pro. es(chue warrants, and bring the whole questiun fairly to , trial. iialued!"•) General warrants to seize papers, such ae were . Loth 14 the time of W•lk were issued in the time of Eliza the Cr the. and the t l ' s s t , and 2d Chat lea. And yet, when to be yll carne before the courts of law, they were declared e ett -• t ,. s .gat• The eases were extremely analogous to the pre thes;i"° Particulars were very much in point. One was lion t he Editors of the IVorth Briton. The ques vela e'Raie st tried, and the jury gave large d . damages 14e e th° 'ewh ' d the warrants. The Lord Chiet Jus -44'14 that occasion, laid down, as it was well known . in law, d onee warrant could be issued except on sufficient e . v_ ;- Plaintif f , 'he jury were not to consider the. meanness of .he kistr ate condition, hut to bear in mind that they saw a nsa- Pos ter. ,, °ler all the King's subjects exercising arbitrary tliss e , ta --(Hear, hear. ) it seemed to him (Nil.. Watson) that kuld 1 . 8 Very little difference between seizing a man's papers ( f s . , etaitenc, li e s his letters.- - " e e reading, copying, and resealing h he 4%2; in I The next case was that of Ent inck, whic was h to the 19th volume of the State Trials. There t e i l eat a ) ; °' the Lord Chief Justice applied precisely to the pre be•-enstlent The Lord Chief Justice said that „ the warrant Tit a e( rd without information previously taken, and that tati, e re was without precedent, except in . the . case of la sh sacre g s a. ...... is t i et l , es let. 8 (Cheers.) " There was no law to justify if it could be' done, there would be no peace „ in (Ale me a man's papers were of. er, his dearest proper ty. L ell ' elt eg But if that were a right at common law, leree'ott7l4inis.try could adduce some instance in the books— Se le - r e ',9 ll , some dictum would appear in some part of the ' our re orts But that could not be law whic /lagesttetioned by authority whatever.—(Hear, , hear.) But RZerpleaded in favour of the right In Edward 11.'s ).4i4 all geewarrant. to detain and exa ae Kendal received a Cromwell orders tters from France. In the time of sue nne ;era t •,; were issued fur seizing papers. But those warrants ti▪ e tr •led in very ditlerent circumstances from the present.— aestitu.'h‘tear.) Still this furnished no man's for secretly At all il'ereil,‘teading, and copying a letters. 414 11 ' 'asp had it ever been said that there was any law e Pr atii 'nine letters. —(Hear, hear. ) But it was said was lhitae,rhad existed since the Revolution. Of what value h ° 0... 11 % J had only a series of illegal acts.—(Hear, hear. -edel s i ou e e Yates said, " If von show o , e an illegal act on the . o ir Ir , that does not make it law. —( Cheers.) Si) said k ssati on atson). If you show me this usage from the Zre 101 l do not make it one jot the less illegal." There ~larr:aktril.Qte.ta authorised by lair, but only when issued upon , ;lee and in these cases there . were none. In the T l hoesrte .iat ant ‘a there was no auth ,rity to open letters. ttlltiaialtaleeltatuesrea to exempt the Postmaster aster from penalties for d i . et ~._ upon the e hat was the state ;▪ hate o _ a ed he called upo f n he Sol d ic e i f t e o r r i - d G ed ene t r i a ie l 4 7 1 dtlet of ° what principles law t iit ate ase the Government. o . It had been stated as a, h e that discontent prevailed in certain districts. ah._ aid that citita a . was no justification whatever for issuing r taut , gainst any individual. The_ disturbed state of : o tted7 did not justify one tyrannical act, when . th f e m la a w . 1 % , Pre i t It no warrant should be issued unless on in or . 1 1.i kei g i PlY taken The Hon. Gentleman then read sesera , Ora the rep . oft of the Committee, to show that they • th - a "teiige of the grounds on which Sir James Graham a-bte,arrants, beyond his own word that he had done so k 111•4• 14 desire to preserve the public peace. it was of 17 , 6t4 ' k ow kittr,tl all remembered, e to he n re _, what the information was. In d warrants were sent down to othernennll rem m places, and it would be remembered d --lit h t afterwards convicted, they were convicted ' kid e eaid n'i'ce; instigated them—( Cheers) kt h lietj. new that *ll° k new c! ti t i l e ie s aV e si s ti w es ho did . not write the ee le h tt e e e r a s m t e o Hi e ea the which beia. P -t offi ? Hear ) vocals • ee d its confirmation • spened in the Post-office, of suspicion Member for Bute last night it . 1 74 t o v ." arned Friend th e G ot or 4 • .e circumstance of some i ble misdemeanor, 1, -, , tiyiduals who were tried larrtai ti i„ T ,heY were tried for a treasurable kd t at with the H o n . Member .4; s e e s , Y never corresponded istelid a, q_ But let them suppose for a momens th t talresier !Pas edshieuefere their trial, were correspunding . witu • „, alta• "thi e h 1. 4 1: and send.ne in their letters ioformatios wa .`"eir defence was to be founded, which would Vit '4414 l et° the heeds of the Government, who were to f1 i 44 1 t iltl t tattoolnr ° s r for the purpose of obtaining a conviction. 111,4aat heatse.. pe unjust the, hear. ) He Sheffield,aaa ed not agree with Hon. Member for ellp„searei n 'ed of the power possessed by foreign States to open ht;Zatil correspondence passing through the Post.office. At t l tt, t4 t l Ch a ' ilt ts i a lt e he lid not consider the practice creditable to any: na "Toning of letters in England was ancon r. illt hi t . 4 110,— „ i llegat.—( Hear, hear.) It was most impo i y 4t ett I . l 4 ., 4l erriber s t be of this opinion, inasmuch as tle t,Saa—ealeosji".T...,ot brought before a court of law, and the Ty ^La in the appointment of a Committee of that tk .kir kti' e ' :a t C ommittee should have authority to examine ta ißli k a • is to report to the House, so that a reso meta 1 /4 4 1 ,,, e come to as to the nature and character of gos:'''ae s re• This had been the case with regard to the "cU*ulet session, and the result had been, that the so.; Tier rttt Possession ' of veuable information on the tot beep e was no kind of arbitrary proceeding which 6 -4 ‘- % Il used at some time or other by the Government 4411 40 rY ; But he thought it was extremely wrong to lliet4Wret, !natter of this inquiry. He did think it was arid e . t° the case that the letters had been to ' the usage of the country. It was no Le' a l l or t b °l 'e,,t l letters and to turn round and say . 06 4- n k ,ht*:,Whiga had done the same. He repeated it l be t h, the charge for, he thought it discreditable Necael l r *tad Tories if ;hey had done so. It would have lke s ' aati founduettee f t the Government if, when they came . into 114 5 hav e that their predecessors had exercised this -di ai h at e abolished the practice altogether. Had such a t t i ek:e te r• and adopted, it would have reflected credit on the ii tts t ,''' the r ; insured him the confidence of the thinking por ••ltees•t4 hi s l, lll e As to the inquiry into the opening of the Ha th, e ,"ive s ou " Friend Friend the Member for Finsbury, he could th 6 , O w any human being could object to it. He did L'Alit'd'i...eeCenvernment had a right to open the letters of his Vkg at Zleg to ‘'e. was a Member of . Parliament, and had . 6 4 ,ry, tittseharge and to have his letters opened, was h c qlly to him , but to the constituency whom he I, r kt tlip t t v bs e r l° l. lll ; to represent.—( Hear t. hear.) Even L e ech Mtes ne e r of Charles the Second, and the `St p a llorace Walpole, it was considered a high IN:. et . k-ait'aelntary privilege to detain or examine the e ta to „ ' e mber of that House. It was not a breach of or , bu t itatnine the letters of any individual out of that kale s Pi t t. ° ° Pen, there was doubt, the letters of a Mena tb, the la reent • it ~%va,r ant °ma manifestly illegal,. except were clone s t 'alr e "ow, th e of her Majesty's principal Secretaries n of k i Nfor pi us ,Y had a right to inquire whether the on. Vett is end t s e urY s letters had been opened ender such a ho 'le af `le Bi t ,i'at was the Only course that could be pursued, k Ron, Baronet would lay the warrant on the 11 44 1 l el to r ile . He must have received information to i tt e Lae. ua l a t i rn s a s . w i e the warrant, for he could not have done so this lad lee ry motive—at all events, if the Right Hon. % % det' k 11, Pae_ ell information to justify his issuing the 'kert at t lat h art 'ileof privilege had been committed. In 1735, 1. 11 ..4:41:e r is e ti : aid down and he could not understand Plc k• Members ' opposed the motion for in . quiry. • 1 4 , 14country ealled loudly for it, and the inquiry them upon what foundation this power fr e•is *„ . 11 4 , (s e was based. It was time the country should lionig " overnment justified the possession of this lhlse et • aar,, ~. and Learned Friend the Alember for Bute tin 'no pc -r "'''') las Baronetas pleased to talk . of the _feel % li g "H di of on- He said the feelings of the Must have been hurt, but we:e the feel itZitt/-heZheiZetons burt by h' d b te—liad not an in ,this der ogeiV ePon an Hon Nit-Nacre o a f that House? Was hd i e_oue t „ Yto his honour ' to . know that the Government th te et? tqt'lett received some information to induce them l'i l k l,ebt l a t i lt errti a e tio h ad been guilty of som , impropriety ? What ts t : Ile ts l ied i t ? the Government had received—how h . ad !I t; f e h u t it were their informants worthy of credit ? right to demand answers to these interro .'s, cage h a d b: information was not just and fair, a breach llasetildbeen c ommitted by the issuing of the war tAe e by the resolution of that House agreed horny loo_citicen he called upon his Right lion. and . r.ibry the Howe that the !sower of detain hot The S(1 (Cheers lute. the was founded upon legal evidence and 4* Lie / rk• e 'er tl TOR rape, li t , 6.e hi s • -,"ERAL commenced by stating that e, t he t 1 hi, disareeable and painful . .debate which it had arti ' sell-tortur e . ktt t rukt. 4 th ou ~t'a listen to within the walls of that k ".th a • I t wo ..,nt lt had already been sufficiently pro as'ereh r efer s " 4, however, have been impossible for him, ,Y th , s e :'e, the , • I tainted reference which had been made ktlit: to eis ateoZoble Lord the Member for the City of London,Atr e li bstai a Zi...Leatrned Friend the Memb - er'for Bute, last 441771,441 twith,taw !tesi;laSsing upon the attention of the 11 1s 1 ,„,' l og t l e Whieh b a. ° Png, he felt most acutely some of the 4 tkit' h it(ll_Nrett "Lk " PlaCO 111 that House, and notwith moat deeply many of the expressions tc- s)h- tsp ` r acted • used, and the ene ne and temper of the ° Inuel ' th e o b g . rft 0 . ma t ~.et thi d servations wbirsh he should hay? to qoU se the t u b i m e u ‘. n . t the Whole consistently with the im lhe (H ear and the maintenance o f th e dignity of With ;ht. raordi,4_"tar• )It appeared to him that they were 5h.4110-`4lt.ttritihration r tkabury, wh o , a,,itherforrLposition with respect to the motion of it seemed, had prepared Vit,:asi tio _ ts_ and care the preposition which he had lcsetig fin t ° hconsideration of the . House. That .ttf tk by hin,"e been revised and afterwards it ta ' el tee"o l er '"' s • Whether it was by the ad th_eteraq.w"Y his own better judgment, be (the tie:4d be t tW oli ti on. NrcEntr prepared to say. True, bowev " , induced to omit froin motto was expressions which he the sd lt se eo at e d in nectionable and • r 1 the motion tast le sed t .. 4 night, alernodelled all Ing n uy - u Hon e form, en at a late period „Ise, after many arguments had been ;itth ti e r or t, 41 ' 11 4r . f or ..511111,ers who had preceded the Noble y Wh ich u ierland, to the particular tetras of r1a.,411 ce nta . ''''e Propositio a r4 t e e l. eaul m e d 1 , of the Hon. Member for * it nche e ell tlen ll , forward the Lord the Member for i t tra tL rit wa . • At _ 'Tn. an amendment. Another sr aa "er 1 14 7 .not nee to for Shrewsbury, said the ZDn eel 0i 4°t net spi s l t. PPorted him .(the So lLitor-Gerieral) was this : coal The Y the Hon alember hnnself in a Itgll eatses wll an INT "Ie Lord the Member fns th at he wuPaiien and avowed opponent. 30 ) and they looked for such an THE SUN, adversary ; they met him urn the footing of an adverse:l.y. It was compe•ent, and within the ccuree el fair Parliamentary warfare, for the Noble Lord the Member for Sunderlaird to propose that amendment tor the consideration of the House. The Noble Lard had felt. that the motion as pe•eoscri by the en. Gentleman the Member for Finsbury won d not be gc one.. rally entertained. It had teen condemned by sec( eal lion. Menaces ; it was subjected to the condemnation of the iloa. Member for Sheireld, who, in a most erimirable speech, which, from the general spirit in which it was breathed, it was refresh ing to hear in such a debate, bad stated that it was impossible Ur him to agree to the motion of the Hon. Gentleman the Mc mber for Finsbury. The Noble Lord the Member for Sun derland felt it was necessary to bring his straggling wily to gether. He felt it was necessary to raise a standard under which they might rally. Quite consistent with Pai liamentary tactics, the Noble Lord had framed an amendment, which, it appeared, was in consonance with the feelings of the Hon. Gentlemen who generally voted with him. It was probable that the fugitives would return to their standard, and, uniting with the Noble Lord, they would no doubt form themselves into another body. Rot the lion. Gentleman the Member for Shrewsbury it was not expected would give his support to the Noble Lord the Member for Sunderland. He (the Solicitor- General) said it was not expected, b cause it would he in the recollection of the House that when the honourable Gentleman and his reoble Friend the Member for Shrewsbury rose together, there was a general call from the other side of the House for the Hon. Member for Shrewsbury, to whom his Noble Friend the Member for Liverpoel was compelled to give way. Now, . although he admitted the talent and ingenuity of the lion. Gentleman the Member for Shrewsbury, yet, assuredly, he sus pected it was not entirely to enjoy the exhibition of such talent and ingenuity that induced Hon. Member! on the other side of the Howse to be so ready to receive him with open arms; and they were rot deceived in their expectations. The Honourable Member for Shrewsbury supported, with all his heat t, the amendment which was proposed by the Noble Lord ; but be declared that he supported the molien with no hostile feeling towards his Right Honourable Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. lie regretted to say, however, that the tone and manner of expression of that Honourable Gentleman strongly denied his decla ration.—(Cheers. ) lie had been at a loss to conceive what it was that actuated the Hon. Member for Shrewsbury. The Hon. Member, however, was kind enough to explain this. The Hon. Member for Shrewsbury had told them that his Right Hon. Friend had invariably treated him with courtesy. At first he was at a loss to account for the course pursued by the Hon. Member for Shrewsbury. but it now appeared to him that it was perfectly clear, and he could, therefore, understand how it was that Hon. Members on the other side of the House were so completely prepared for the exhibition of feeling on the part of the Hon. Member.—(Cheers.) Now the Hon. Member talked largely against one portion of the question, and he was followed by his Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for Bath. The Honourable and Learned Member for Bath was pleased to address him as the highest legal authority on common law, by which he presumed his lion. and Learned Friend meant the judge who presided in the highest court of common law in this kingdom, which was not exactly the same as his office. To-night the question of law had been revived partly by the Hon. and Learned Member fur Newport, who acted as a sort of pleader to his Noble and Learned Friend. The Member for Kinsale stood upon his own ground, but his Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for Kinsale had attached himself to the legal ground which constituted the principal part of his speech. But it occurred to him, wnen the observation was made, that the legal consideration of the matter had not the slightest bearing on the question, and h e co n fes e d he still entertained the same opinion. He was, however, placed in a situation of very great embarrassment and difficulty on this subject. He felt that he ' was entering upon irrelevant matter, which did not at all re late to the motion or the amendment which was be'ore the ' House; but for fear it should be supposed that he was agreeing to the law which had been laid down, he felt it to be his duty to attempt to answer some questions which had been raised during the debate, which were quite foreign to the question un der discussion. Now, at the same time, he must say, that there was nothing more unsatisfactory than the legal opinions which were expressed by gentlemen of his profession in the course of a debate in that House. However strongly he might be im pressed with the vi ew o f th e l aw b ear ing upon the question which they were considering, still it might be an impossibi lity to get rid of the feeling which must exist amongst some Hon. and Learned Members that he was speaking under a bias which warped his j dgment, and prevented his coming to a sound and honest conclusion.—(llear, hear.) But still lie must not shrink from the performance of a public duty which had been imposed on him ; and the House would permit him to say that he felt a very serious responsibility for every opinion, on a point of law, which he might be called upon to express. But, nevertheless, he would not shrink from the responsibility which devolved upon him. Now, in regard to the opinion ex pressed by the Noble Lord, he would, in the first place, beg leave to remark upon the statements—that the warrants were not sanctioned by law, that general warrants was the course which the law recognised. Now, in the House of Lords, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Brougham, and Lord Denman held a different opinion v but he must admit that Lord Campbell dif fered from the other Noble Lords. The three other Noble Lords have concurred in the opini on th a t a g eneral warrant might be issued to open the letters of a particular in dividual, within a certain period. Lord Campbell, however, was of opinion that it required a specific warrant of each particular case of opening letters. He ad mitted, also, that the Noble Lord who presided in the Court of Queen's Bench appeared afterwards to have changed his opinions, still the conclusion which the Noble Lord had come to was very vague and unsatisfactorily expressed. Now, his Noble and Learned Friend the Member for Kinsale was the only member of the legal profession who had argued the question of law, hut he was afraid he and his Hon. and Learned Friend were not likely to agree upon this subject, nor was he likely to make his lion. and Learned Friend a convert to his opinions. What said his Hon. and Learned Friend? He said he cared not for Usage. " Give me," said his Hon. and Learned Friend, " from the foundation of Rome to the present day, and I will not sanction such a practice as this." Well, his Hon. and Learned Friend forgot an expression which he used in the course of his argument. At the end of his speech the Hon. anti Learned Gentleman, adverting to the peculiar ques tion bearing upon the Hon. Member, expressed himself thus .‘ Why, what objection can there be toexhibiting these warrants? Let them only produce the legal warrant and it would be an answer to the question." His Hon. and Learned Friend was, however, mistaken in that; for they could draw no conclusion .0 that respect. His Hon. and Learned Friend had spoken of gene warrants. -el Now did his Hon. and Learned Friend . know the ~.story of general wanants? Now he would be aware that general was:-ants had existed since between 1694 and 1763 without an Act of _Parliament ; yet in the latter year it was decided that the Issue of general warrants was made legal by usage. A C2iniplaint had been made that there were no lawyers in the Cterfolllittee appointed to inquire into this subject. Now, in the c„nmittee of the House of Lords were there nut the two ex-Lord Chancellors—Cotten ham and Brougham ? It was said that the power was not.con ferred by any statute law. True, the report of the House of Lords said that the Act of Anne gave no power to the Secre tary of State to detain or op -n letters, but if his Hon, and Learned Friend had read two other lines in the report he would have found that the power was justified by the fact that up to that period the right had been fully recognised. His Hon. and Learned Friend had declared that he had not been able to find any authority to justify this power ; but as the power, when exercised, was !widow known to the world, it was not likely that many authorities would exist on the subject. It was important that they should have evidence of a clear and conclusive nature upon the subject , and with the permission of the House he would just refer for one moment to the statute of Anne. In the 40th section they would find it provided that no person should be allowed to detain or open letters entrusted to the care of the Post-office, unless authorised by a warrant under the hand of one of the principal Secretaries of State. Now in the present reign all the Acts relating to the Post-office were repealed, but they were afterwords conso lidated in another Act. This Act requited the postmaster to make a particular declaration, which the House would remem ber had received the especial sanction of Parliament. The de claration was in these terms—" I do hereby solemnly and sin cerely deelare that I will net wittingly or willingly open or delay contrary to my oath, any letter or anything sent by post which shall come to my hands by reason of my employment in the Pest-office, except by the consent of the person or persons to whom they are, or it is directed, or by the express warrant in writing under the hand of one of her Majesty's principal Secre taries of State." A subsequent Act, which cancelled all former Acts, contained the same expressions as to the detention or opening of letters in the absence of an express warrant of one of the principal Secretaries of State. Now he certainly did not understand what was meant by the Hon. and Learned Member for Shrew4eiry last night, when he said that no power of opening or detaining letters was con ferred by statute upon the Secretary of State. The Hon. Member said that the object of the Acts of Parliament was to prevent any clerk, sub-agent, or subordinate person in the Post-office from opening or detaining any letter; it was not intended to give any power to the Secretary of State to autho rise any such opening or detention.—(" Hear, hear," from Mr. Jervis.) Would his Hon. and Learned Friend who cheered this position be kind enough to state why the Secretary of State was referred to at all? If the sole object were to pre vent clerks from opening or detaining letters, why was it not stated ?—( Hear.) His Hon. and Learned Friend might dis cover a solution of the difficulty which did net occur to himself, but he could not understand, on the assumption to which he had referred, why the exception should have been introduced --(Hear, hear.) That exception appeared to him to show that the Secretary of State had a power, under certain cir cumstances, which would render legal the acts of the subor dinate agent.—( Hear, hear.) Well, then, what was the result of the whole of this question?' He (the Solicitor-General) ventured to give it as his deliberate opinion that, this being a power which was exercised at common law before any of the statutes existed, those statutes, though they did not confer the power, because it already existed, recognised and sanctioned its exercise by the Secretary of State.—( Hear, hear.) He would now proceed to consider for a moment how this matter affected the privileges of Members of Par liament. Now, he knew that this was a much more delicate question ; and knowing that upon this subject some Hon. Members were peculiarly sensitive, he was afraid that he should incur their censure when he ventured to say, that it was his firm conviction that Members of that House pos sessed no greater privilege, as regarded the power of the Secretary of State over their letters, than any other indivi dual in the country.—( Hear, hear, and cheers from the Ministerial benches.) He inferred this from the terms of the often-adverted-to resolution of 1735. Complaints having been made in that case, that certain letters had been opened and read by the clerks of the Post-effice, the House resolved that it was a high infringement of the privileges of Members, to open or look into arty letter without an express warrant in writing, under the hand of one of the principal So .retaries of State.—( Hear, hear.) Sunderland The Noble Lord the Member for contended that this power ought not to exist with regard to the letters of Members, because it might be perverted to political or party purposes. He (the Solicitor-General) did not reason from the possibility of abuse against the exercise of this power, but only that there ought to be great caution and care in its exer cise. if any Secretary of State were to pervert the power to political or party purposes, he would ju stl y incur the severest animadversion of the House. But then , it should be remem bered, that the Committee: of both Houses had reported that neither by the !tight Honourable Gentleman nor fo by r his predecessors had the power ever been Used any purpose whatever inconsistent with the welfare of the country.—(Hear, hear.) Now, with regard to the ex pediency of continuing this important and delicate power, though that was not a question which was necessarily in cluded in the one before the House, as far as he could gather the state of feeling on the subject, he thought there seemed to be a general feeling that the power ought to exist, though it should be guarded by certain restrictions and conditions. ( Hear, bear,) He was afraid that if that power were to be is the smallest degree peril), it was impossible to impose any c i a :eks upon its exerciie. There Wad, be believed, no alterna tive betweeti the utter abolition of the potter, a;-,d Iciying it to the discretion of the hig h authority ur whom it was vested by the Constitution.—(lltar, hear.) He now passed to that which was more immed iatel y the subject for the consideration of the House. In the course of the last session, the Hon. Member for Finsbury presented two petitions to the House from foreigners *AP OM plamed that their letters had been g p r e e e e particularly against opened ; and the core his Right lion. Friend the Secretary or 'Sate. Tlie state ment came upon the House with most startling effect.. /,,j a i l y Hon. Members were not previously aware of the existence of the power. His Right Hon. Friend was placed in a most diffi cult and embarrassing position. Ile felt himself bound by his official duty to reln4in perfectly silent under the LONDON, putatien. It had been said on the otle r si lc of the iiense that the Right Honourah'e Gentle r:lst: usi e ht have prevented all that c:i.tetissien by a sin is word. He nl ght. Why was not that word ut tered ? Because an imperative an overruling sense of c.irty yrevented its utterance.— ( Hear, hear. ) but there were Mem bers of th,t House who kt:ew the position in which his Right 1101 a. Friend was placed; they themselves had been entrusted with the same delicate (Trice ; yet they did not take any step to remove the odium which rested upon him. Had they been silent upon the subject, even that might have been some exte nuation ; but they hurl not exhibited their usual manliness and generosity hy eorniug forward to relieve tlie Right, lion. baronet from his position. A great envier excitement prevailed on the subject. He believed the Noble Lord and the Right lion. Baronet suspected that his Hight Hon. Friend's lips would be sealed; they were hardly prepared for his earning forward to court inquiry.—( Hear, hear.) Yet in a speech, the manly, calm, and distinguished composure of which was calculated to make the deepest impression on the House, his Right Hon. Friend declared that he thought the time had now arrived when the whole truth should be known ; that if the power were not to be regarded as utterly worthless, the whole of the circum stances connected with its exercise by himself must be dis closed. It was at length de, id.•(l that there should be a Select Committee to investigate the matter. There was a preponderance in the Committee of those who were opposed to his Right lion. Friend ; and if the Hon. Member for Finsbury were excluded from it as the accuser, lie stood in precisely the same position as other lion. Members of that House. His 11(.11. and Learned Friend the Member for Kinsale re gretted that the Committee had had no power to report con cerning the law on this subject. His Hon. and Learned Friend would forgive him for saying that lie would have done much better if he had read tire terms in which the Committee was appointed, instead of employing himselt by diving into his books tor authorities; because, if his Hon. and Learned Friend had re erred to the beginning of the report-, he would have found that such power had been given. This was also the opie ',ion of the Right Honourable Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, for he had said, " There can be no doubt • hat the intention is that this Secret Committee shall state to the house, net particular cases, but the general principles on which the Post-office and other authorities have acted." The authority, therefore, of the Committee was ample and comprehensive ; and how had they performed their du y? Why, they had called before them all the persons living who had held the office of Secretary of State, and they had also called two Noble Lords who had filled the office of Lord-Lieu tenants for Ireland. The Committee called before them every person who was calculated to afford them the slightest in formation on the subject, arid they came to the conclusion, which he would venture to say every generous and dispas sionate mind would also come to, that of a perfect and com plete acquittal of the Right lion. Baronet.—( Cheers. ) Indeed he (the Solicitor-General) believed that in some respects the Right Hon. Baronet had improved on the practice of his pre decessors. The lion. Member for Finsbury complained that witness. a which he himself produced were not examined by the Committee. Those witnesses were not examined, as the Hen. Member himself chose to impose conditions with respect to that examination which were quite inconsistent with the duty he had to perform. The witnesses who were examined before that Committee gave their evid( nee freely and openly, under the impression that the evidence taken by the Committee would be secret. Yet now the Hon. Member for Montrose proposed that the whole of the evidence should be published. He now came to the Hon. Member for Finsbury and the motion which he had presented to the House, and which was now under dis cussion, together with the amendment of the Noble Lord the Member for Sunderland. The motion of the lion. Member for Finsbury was very limited in its character, as it only extended to a period since 1840. It was obviously intended as a personal attack on the Right Hon. Baronet, and was made with a view to continue towards him that odium which must attach to the power, if it were to attach at all, of opening letters at the Post office. It was very hard to overcome a prejudice which had ob tained possession of the public mind. The Hon. Member for i Finsbury knew this, and it was to i ncrease t h at pre j u di ce t h a t the present motion hadleten brou e lm f orwar d. Did the amendment of the Noble Lord improve the matter? No. For if the motion was personal before, it would become ten times more so by the amendment of the Noble Lord. The Hon. Member for Finsbury had said that the Noble Lord had taken the matter out of his hands, and it had become, as the Bon. Gentleman said, a personal matter between the Government and himself. Why, it was from the first a personal attack, and it remained a personal attack. It would appear that the power of opening letters had been exercised by 1' (Ale Lords and Right Hon. Gentlemen opposite, and he (the Solicitor-General) would put it to them how they would have voted if they had b een called upon to answer for the exercise of that posser in some particular instance? He would call upon them, then, to sym pathise with his Right lion. Friend in the situation in which he was placed. He trusted that there were generous spirits in that House, who would feel that after the verdict had been pronounced in favour of the Right Hon. Baronet, he ought not to be called again to the bar of public opinion, and he called upon them to resist the amendment of the Noble Lord and the motion of the lion. Gentleman.—(Cheers. ) Lord JOHN iIUSSELL then rose and said—l feel, Sir, that I need make no apology to the House for addressing them on the present occasion. But the Noble Lord; the Mem ber for Tyrone, has thought proper to say, that I am to be blamed because I did not take an earlier of portunity of address ing the House on the motion of the lion. Member for Finsbury. Sir, I felt no such necessity. 'With respect to the question itself, there had been a Committee appointed last year, which had received evidence from various secretaries of State, and before which Committee the Right lion. Gentleman opposite produced the warrants of various Secretaries of State who had preceded him. I was examined before that Committee, and I gave as fully as my knowledge and recollection would serve me, an account of what I had done when Iliad the honour of filling the office of Secretary of State. Suc h being the case there could be no inference that I had not taken part in transactions similar to those of which the Right lion. Gentleman the Secre taryacted as my of State has been accused ; that I had signed warrants directing the opening of letters , and had predecessors and successors had done. But, Sir, I did rise last night in the course of the debate , and it w as onl y b y y our deci sion that my Noble Friend the Member for. Sunderland ad dressed the House.—(Cheers.) I feel no difficulty either in stating my views of what the practice is, which practice I have followed, and how far I think the conduct of the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite is to be justified, and how far there is still wanting an explanation with regard to a part of that conduct. With respect to the law of the case, I am not going to give any opinion further than this, that if the law does not intend that the Secretary of State should exercise this power, that then, to unlearned persona, the Act of Queen Anne, and the Act of Victoria, must be looked upon as only traps.—( Loud cheers.) When I see that by the Act ~f Anne and the Act of her present Majesty the clerks of the Post-office are not to open letters unless by an express warrant in writing, signed by one of the principal Secretaries of State, what must I, an unlearned person, conclude but, that without that warrant, such a pro ceeding would not take place. And if lam now told that there are persons of very highs authority who say that such a pro cettling is illegal altogether, I then say you should have made your law clear. Yon should have placed clearly on the statute book some law, which it was easy to do, prohibit ing all persons from opening letters of any party whatsoever; then no person filling that office could doubt what duty he had to do. But Sir, I wish those persons who tell us that the whole proceedings under these warrants are illegal, would explain exactly what was the purpose of that Act, and what was the exact position of those voluntary post-offices which the Queen's post-office at that time was intended to supersede? What would have been the case in law of a person in the City of London, who had engaged to send letters all over the country, and it was found that some of those letters bad been opened by him, and afterwards trans mitted? How far his conduct would. be punishable—whether he would be subject to a criminal proceeding, of which I cannot find any notice in the books on criminal law—to what civil proceedings he would be liable—what would be the nature of the civil action, and in what manner he would be punished? Upon that question I profess to give no opinion whatever. But if the whole proceeding under these warrants is illegal—if we live under a state of the law not ;hitherto understood, I wish that question were cleared up for the benefit of those who act upon what is pre sumed to be the law of the country. Then as to the practice. There is no doubt that when, last year, it was discovered, owing to the questions of the Hon. Gen- dermal the Member for Finsbury, letters had been opened in the Post-office, that great indignation was expressed, and that a most undue share of that public indignation was directed against the Right Hon. the Secretary of State for the Home Department.--(Hear, hear.) For my own part, I can only say, with my Hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield that, as far as I can see, the conduct of the Right Hon. Gentleman has been like that of his predesessors in office, and that the power was used generally for the purpose of defeating con spiracies and preserving the peace of the country.—( Hear. ) When my Hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield says that he counted the number of warrants issued for three years pre ceding the accession of the Right Hon. Gentleman to office, and that they amounted to forty, while for three tears that the Right lion. Gentleman was in office the nurrber was forty- ' four, he concluded, rationally and justly as I think, that such a difference showed no material alteration in his conduct as Se cretary of State, and was no such violent exercise of power as ' called for any censure on the Right Hon. Gentleman.—( Hear, hear, from the Ministerial benches.) But with regard to the ' power itself, when I heard person', moved by that indigna tion which affects the public, say that no letters ought to be opened which pass through the Post-office, I own I felt great doubt whether it would be safe and wise to act upon that view.—( Hear.) It may be that such power should be scarcely ever exercised—it may be, that those who preceded the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State, and the Right Hon. Gentleman himself, exercised it more frequently than was necessary, yid, in some instances erroneously, but, on the other hand, to declare by Act of Parliament or resolu tion that any person concerned in a conspiracy against the State, or in levying civil war against the Queen, should be entitled to the use of the public Post-office, that I contend would be a dangerous course fur the security of the public peace.—( Cheers.) And you would take away this power from the Secretary of State! I hope, before you do so, that you will well consider what means are left to the Secretary of State for the preservation of the public peace.—( Hear, hear.) We all know that not a great many years ago, when Lot d Sidmouth held the office of Secretary of State, he thought it a fair and legitimate means of preserving the public peace, to employ the instrumentality of spies. My belief is that those spies more readily cause than prevent those risings and tumults which they are employed to detect— ( Hear, hear)—and that persons have been convicted for con duct which they pursued in consequence of the instigations of those spies. I consider the employment of spies not only objectionable, but dangerous and contrary to the spirit of a free country.—( Loud cheers.) But when you say that you will enact that letters are not to be opened, will you also enact that there shall be no employment of spies ?—( Hear, hear.) At present that rests in the discretion of the Secretary of State. I take a view of this subject which induces me to think that spies ought not, in the most dangerous state of the country, to be engaged.—( Heer,hear.) And when a Chartist, who took a chief lead in the eournels of those who were called Physical Force Chartists, offered me his services to detect the designs of his fellow-Chartists, I refused his offer.—(Loud cheers.) I be lieve that the employment of spies does not at present exist, but you have no sanction by law from that service—you have no declaration on the part of the House—you have no enactment which secures you against the employment of spies, or that the secret service money at the disposal of the Secretary of State ;pay not be used in that way for the service of the State ; and if you enact that there shall be no opening of letters, can you be secure, can you be ceeta' s n, that the Secretary of State, anxious for the preservation of the 1)014.. peace, feeling him self re.ponsible for its maintenance, will not have recourse to those means, which I think far more objectionable than the opening of letters which may be sent through the Post-office. Hear, hear.) A spy is a man who goes amongst persons and instigates them to commit acts, which but for him they might not have committed. When you open a letter you find the designs of a man expressed by himself at all events,—( . Hear.) Such being th e genera l s t ate o f th e a f.'prw,4l4lnt Iva, inarle last year of the opening of a letter, which did not apper to be justifijd 4y the 0 0 . 4 -ppry of State upon any grounds, either of . a defence of t h e c ount r y from in corof f A ro f m : i% a fa fo z r z zgn il a case enemY: Hear, hear.) That was rii al the case referred to with some p l e asantry by the Noble Lord, the Member for Tyt one, but wh i c h see ms to me to be worthy of the gravest, if not the most t danger, melancholy re flection.—( Cheers.) As far as we can make cst Listory of this case, it is as follows ; —information was e'ver esilitheite a su e sgesitoie wEee psiesle, that Maezini was at the head of a party which sought to'oe'ertiirre the ee s isting Ge vernment of Italy, and especially the Govern men t o f th e P a p a l State. In consequence of this information the letters of Max. SATURDA‘v;V_ENING, Z.ni eTro oiTnat. , l at the Post-ca: 1 1 , :!i!.. The I.ll).A:ariee of the it.formation sc obtained was convey !At(' a foretn Government. There you] he little doubt that tl,a , wee the Au,triati Govern r..etit. Nt.w, without c / rta n of th fact, it net ins, be ', a t e have heard, that. the tv,t, .13ancli Th w eras, the 5,111 i A nr,trian Admiral, being n.l C, trfe, wrote to lJiCa in that thev-ha.i fortood a project for tae in 7.,-,iton of the Papal States. It would appear, as he inferred from a hat has been stated, that tin. Lames of those per,ens wire col rtniunlcated to the Aus trian Governtnent ; lair, observe, Et is carefully stated in the report of the Secret Committees of ti.st • Commons anti Lords that the rames if persons residing we hit the power of tiictie Governments were not not cutntnuns tted.—( Hear, hear. ) Those persons were residing at Corfu, • without the power of the Austrian Covet nrnent. The next tin'rig which we hear is, that there were persons who visited thc Bandieras at Corfu, and that in the expectation that they avosild be joined by a large portion of the people, they set otrt,twenty-two in num ber, armed or unarmed (for with regard to that there ap pears to be some differen ce of opinions), and landed on the coast of Calabria. Toe persons who excited them to this enterprise accompanied them, and, as soon as they landed, those persona went over to the authorities who procured the defeat of their attempt, and they were soon after executed. —(dear, hear. ) Such is this melancholy history.—( Cheers. ) Sir, I cannot think this a'atnels any favourable precedent fur opening letters at the suggestion of a foreign Power, for the purpose of preventing war.—(Hear, bear.) Ido not believe that is a legitimate purpose for which this power ought to be exercised. —( Licata, hear. ) I am far front say ing that a Minister of the Crown should not exerc.se that pots er with a view and intention to the public welfare—( (-fear, hear)—still less do I say that the Right Honourable Gentleman is peculiarly re sponsible for the exercise of that power.—( Hear.) On the contrary, I think the Foreign Secretary of State and the First Lord of the Treasury—in fact, the Cabinet and Government— quite as responsible for such an extraordinary exercise of power as the Right Hon. Gentleman—(Cheers)—and if any odium is peculiarly directed against him, I think that odium is unjust, and that whether blame is to he attributed to the act (and I con sider that great blame is to be attributed to it), it should be attributed to the Government collectively, and not to the in dividual Member of it who signed the warrant in par ticular case.—(Cheers, ) lle', Sir, the result is, that a foreign Government, by threatening that troops should be marched, by making a threat which would be executed—by holding out feats of an insurrection which was not likely to be of a per manent character, had influence sufficient to induce the Government of this country to inspect the cor respondence of a stranger resid.ng here, and who was residing here in the belief that if he obeyed the laws of this country—if he did everything that a loyal subject of the Queen w •uld have done—showing himself a faithful and loyal subject—he would not have been molested._—( hear, hear.) We have seen the consequences of this particular case; but if you enforce this as a precedent—if you allow the Emperor of ltussis—( Hear, hear)—with regard to the Poles— the Emperor of Austria with regard to the whole of the Ita lian States, and the Quteen of Spain with regard to the Spanish exiles—to put in force the power of exercising a statute given for other purposes—to act against the sxiles residing here, this country will no longer be that happy refuge which it was in tended to be—that common refuge fur mankind which it was designed it should be—( Hew, hear)—but exles will hardly come to your shores as likely to lead them into danger from which they might otherwise have escaped.—(Cheers.) There was in this part of the case no further inquiry required. I would not be disposed to vote for the motion on that ground, for I think the inquiry has been sufficient, and that the reports of the Secret Committees tell sufficiently the facts of the case; but I would be ready to agree to a resolution that the power was not rightly exercised this case, and that such an exer cise of it ought not to be drawn into a precedent.—(Hear, hear.) Sir, the other ease to which the Hon. Gentleman al ludes, is the ease connected with himoilf—and here we are called on to inquire what was the nature of the Committee ap pointed, and what has been the report. '1 he Honourable and Learned Cattleman (the Solicitor-General) has attributed great blame to me for my conduct last year. I will not detain the House with a defence of my conduct last year, as 1 fear I should never satisfy the Hon. and Learned Gentleman; for, while he blames me for being in opposition to the Government with regard to the inquiry into the case of Mazzini, he blames me likewise fur supporting the Go verntnent when they said the Committee should be a secret one; so that, whether 1 support the Government or whether I oppose them, I ant not likely to obtain the Learned Soli citor-General's approbation. (Laughter.) Sir, this Committee was appointed, as I think fairly appointed. I also think it eas quite right that the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Finsbury should not be on it, and that per sons of a fair and impartial temper should compose it—( Hear, hear)—but when I hear the Right Hon. Gentleman the Se cretary at War, who spoke last night, and the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who spoke this night, laying such stress on the fact that the majority of the Committee were opposed to them in politics, I own 1 do not think there was any fear of an adverse report from that particular circumstance.— ( Hear, hear.) I think men of calm and dispassionate minds would be as likely to do justice to those op posed to them, as if they sat on the same aide ; but if the Learned Solicitor-General thinks that the Right lion. Centleman the Secretary of State has been injured in this respect, let him have another Committee.—(Laughter.) And instead of the Hon. Member for Kendal, and the Hun. Member for Derby, let him have the Hon. Member fur Knaresborough, and the Hon. Member for Shrewsbury.— (Great laughter)—and he will then be satisfied, for he will ' have a majority of Members who perhaps will take a more favourable view of the Right Hon. Gentleman.--( Renewed laughter.) But, Sir, with regard to the report of the Com mittee, they went so far back into history, they showed so much "antiquarian research"—(Laughter)—that I wonder they did not adduce the case of " Hamlet," Prince of Denmark, who opened the letter of the King, and had' B. , )sencrantz Guildestcrn, the Ministers, executed in his stead.—( Laughter.) But when they had proceeded through their research, anti came to the present time, they gave no account of the conduct of the Secretary of State; they say, as the Lords' Committee said, that it was not required either with the present or the past Secretaries of State. They do not say that they believe the power was used for party objects, but the welfare of the country. But then they say there are some casts of which they must make particular mention. (The Noble Lord here read part of the report, and then proceeded.) They then refer to five different cases—the outbreak in 1842 ; that which took place in Wales in 1843; the case of Mazzini; the case of Stolzman ; and the case of Grodicke. When the Committee had gone into the particulars of these five cases, and when the Hon. Member for Finsbury complains of his letters being opened, I do not know why the Committee should stop short in giving information.—( Hear, hear.) Then it is said that Members of Parliament are nn better than ether persons. —(" Hear, hear," from Colonel Sibthorp.) Undoubtedly, if Members of this House were to be engaged in a treasonable correspondence or in promoting sedition, let the Secretary of State not hesitate to open their letters.—(Hear, hear.) That, however, is not the question now, the question is whether, it having been stated that his litters have been opened, he is not entitled to call for inquiry, and have it ascertained whether or not he was fit to represent a great portion of the people of this country, because, as Members of this House, we do not nnly represent our constituents, but we have to take their share in passing laws by which the property in the country is pre served ; and if such is the case, is it not fitting, when an Hon. Member states that his letters have been opened, that the House should give him an opportunity of showing that his letters ought not to have been opened, or whether he is a fit representative of the people of this country ? The Honourable Member for Bute referred to cases of sedition, and rather im plied that the Hon. Member for Finsbury was engaged with those who were seditiously inclined.—(No, no.) Perhaps, then, it was not his intention to do so, but be appeared to have that object in view.—(Hear.) Now I have heard a mostable speech from the Secretary at War—( Hear, hear)—a speech in which he has shown a power and eloquence that will make him an ornament to the House ; but that speech was little calculated to persuade the House to refuse the inquiry asked for by my Hon. and Noble Friend the Member for Sunderland.—( Hear, hear.) It has then been said that it was not the object of the lion. Member for Finsbury to elucidate the truth.— (11. ar. ) Now I have always thought that inquiry was the best calculated to obtain the truth ; and if inquiry is evaded it is clear that the parties did not wish the truth to come cut. Why, ask, should we not have a short inquiry into the particular case, and set right the cha racter of the Hon. Gentleman ?—( Hear, hear.) If the House allows such a case as the present to pass without inquiry, be cause it is inconvenient to the Government, that will very much strike at the character and reputation of the House, and it could not be otherwise than that the House will suffer in public estimation. An Hon. Gentleman who spoke yesterday. the Member for Bath, said that he believed that his letters had been also opened in 1837 and 1838.—(Hear, bear.) I know of no imputation on the character of that Gentleman. He was at that time the agent for Canada. He conducted his case, a case I did not admire, in a most able and admirable mariner; and if he asked for in quiry on the subject, the House, in his opinion, ought to en ter into it.—(Hear.) Such, Sir, are the results of my opinion upon the whole case. I think, as regards the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State fur the Home Department, the imputation upon him that he has been the first to go to ex tremes in this practice, is unjust.—( Hear, hear.) With regard to the case of M. Mazzini, blame was attributable to the Government. They have now taken an extraordinary course. There can be no doubt that it has led to melancholy results, arid ought not to be repeated ; and we wish to avoid anything that might be calculated to abase the character of the country. 1 think that the House cannot refuse the inquiry proposed by my Honourable and Noble Friend the Member for Sun derland, and 1 expect, as the result of that inquiry, that the character of the Right Honourable Baronet will come out clear. It will be supposed, if you grant this inquiry, that you have done it for the public good, but if you refuse arty further inquiry, and shut up the question, depend upon it the public mind will not be satisfied, and you will be obliged at last to surrender a necessary power, or to make further in quiry on the subject.—( Hear, hear.) Sir ROBERT PEEL then rose and addressed the House. He said, although, Sir, I am entitled to address the House a second time, in consequence of the amendment of the Noble Lord, as I have already expressed my opinion fully on the original motion, I shall not avail myself of the privilege which I possess to enter at any length in this discussion but there are one or two points to r fur r s Finsbury ie m Member ors which I feel it necessary to ca ll the attention of the House. It has been stated in the cour se of the deba te that I indi rectly charged the Hon. M b e connected with Chartists. a very fit A upon the subject after myself,the Co the e nr Honourable w Member for Finsbury, put a false on iei o being d spoke that I addressed to the Ilottse. That Hon et . i Member h with has said that I indirectly alluded to a connexion which existed between the Hon. Member for Finsbury and the Chartists. Now, in my opinion, the indirect allusion is worse than the direct one.-- ( Hear, hear.) Although public duty will not permit us to answer the questions which have been put with respect to the opening of lettlers, I consider that I should be taking an unjust advantage of the Honourable Member for Finsbury, if I said one word criminating his conduct, and I hope I may be permitted to advert to the last thirty years of my life, in order to refute the assertion that I have ever been guilty of bringing forward subj ects w i th unge nerous intentions. —( Hear, hear.) It never entered my mind, while speaking, that it was possible any one could suppose that I was countenancing the impression that the Hon. Gen tleman had done any act that would render him unworthy of a seat in this House. What was the course that was taken? The Hon. Gentleman made no personal moti on . I t was a h motion for inquiry extending from 1840 to t he present time. je proposed V 4 co m mitt e e should be appointed, who WeiT to inqgire Whether eny altpratioil had bee made i n t h e l aw . The Hon, Member says that Mi n i s t e r s w e r e more responsible for the blood of the Italian refugees which had been spilt than the soldiers who pulled the triggers of the muskets that shot them. He lastly said that the p rese nt Government had made use of more warrants for the searching of lett ers th an any preceding Government during the same period. It ma y be true that snore warrants have been issued for that pur pose, and I shall be able clearly to show the House that in iustiAe'd in ;11 th a t he hai sees necessary. l lly Isogl i t sl op e the state of the country it friend' ale" k.ie&eti,ry of StatC i'sas done. In 1842 the country was in the greatest danger, but no warrants had been issued for the f purpose of exaggerating that danger.._ (-ear, et —ear, hear.) Yes I we forget now that in on e town alo ne — and I am not speaking of that town as the one in which the gr ea t est appre hension of danger existed—we forget that ther e was one town alone in which, during the winter of that year, seventeen theroand persons arese each day vvithoet the means of employ. 'tient on which they COUld depend toe Subsistodce l—(Hear, hear.) I know well what was the state of this metropolis at 22 1845. FE BRUARY that period ; I lso what was the state of Manchester ; what seas the state of the menufacturints districts at that period ; red NV e are nets taunted with having disbelieved the alle,gations we head made in this House respecting the state of the coati! ry. Brtt I can nos see that it was a state of real and serious peril, and it did become our duty to exert every power see poiseszed for the purpose of protecting. the public peace.—( Cheers. ) And that was tine can-c of my reference to the state of the country in I stl ;2, and not, I assure the iron. Gentleman, with the in tention in the slightest degree of congesting him with the pro ceedings hich acre then endangering the kingdom. That, Sir, is one of the points on which f vssittl to offer some ex planation in the course of last night's debate. But the Hon. Member for Shrewsbury less declared his intention of support ing the motion of the Noble Lord the Member for Sunderland. In the course of the speech in which the lion. Gentleman avowed that intention, he observed that I had, with very T reat apparent w ar mth, a dd resae d t h e H ouse, an d t h at I had been very emphatic in my action—but he undertook to assure the House that my warmth, although I had heard the charges of the Bight Hon Gentleman the Member fur Finsbury, although be had charged us with being the cause of the slisilding of innocent blond, with having fabricated warrsies, with having abused and exceeded our pavers—was entirely simulated, and that notwithstanding my apparent vehemence and a :smith, I was acting the part, as I occasionally found it convenient, of the " choleric gentleman."—(Laughter.) Now, it is certainly very possible to manifest great vehemence in action, and yet at the same time not to be in a very great passion. On tl:c other hand, it is also possible to appear exceedingly indifferent and compdsed in your manlier, and yet exhibit very acrimonious feelings.—( Im mense cheering from both sides of the House.) Now 1 will not, notwithstanding the provocation of the Hon. Gentleman, I will not deal so harshly with him as he has dealt with me. lie undertook to assure the House that my vehemence was pre tended, and my warmth simulated; I: on the contrary, will do him the justice—the entire justice —of saying that Ido be lieve his bitterness was not simulated—( Tremendous cheering) —but that it was who'l3 and entirely sincere !-_(Renewed cheering, and laughter.) Now, the Hon. Gentleman has perfect right to support a hostile amendment ; it is perfectly open to the lion. Gentleman to It the debate proceed for two nights, and then find that the motion is not placed exactly in a convenient form, and to try to ascertain in what mode it would be most captivating and convenient. Toe Hon. Gentleman is at perfect liberty to give whatever support he pleases to that motion ; all I ask is, when he gives that support to a hostile amendment, that he does not say he gives it in a friendly spirit.—( Loud cheers. ) " Give me the avowed, the erect, the manly f e, Bold I can meet, perhaps can turn the blow, But of all plagues, good Heaven, thy wrath can send, Save ! save I oh, save me front the candid friend I" —( Immense cheers.) Here we are met in debato ; we, and our opponents opposite; we enter into conflict; we bear wounds and we return them, adverso ictu. But when engaged in that conflict, certainly it is not very convenient, though still unavoidable, to have a blow aimed at your right flank, on which you are not guarded.--( Cheers. ) Be it so ! it cannot be avoided ; but all I ask is, do not profess friendship when your purpose is enmity.—( Cheers.) In the course of the same speech the Hon. Gentleman made also this charge against me; the Hon. Gentleman said,—and as it appeared to me, it was quite an unnecessary allusion for the sake of his argument,—the lion. Gentleman said that it was notorious I was in constant correspondence and communica tion with a gentleman who had been engaged in Colonel Despard's plot ; that this gentleman was now a Member of the Government, and that, speaking of him, I had diaries ed he was a friend of mine, and that I was proud of his friendship ! Putting these observations together, at II considering that the gentleman alluded to is a mrniber of the Government, and that I have avowed a friendship for him, I cannot find any other person to whom these observations can apply, except a friend of mine who was the subject of some discussion here last year, when the absutd charge brought against him was literally laughed out of the House. I cannot doubt, therefore, that the observations of the Hon. Gentleman applied to Mr. Bonham, who now holds a civil situation in the Ordnance department.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The plot of Colonel Despard took place in the year 1802. Well, forty-three years have now elapsed since the year 1802. Now I do not know whether a charitable feeling—considering that my lion. Friend must have been a young man at the time—l do not know whether a charitable feeling would not induce me to maintain a friendship for a man after a lapse of forty-three years.—( Cheers.) Why, when we recollect what took place at that time, both in Ireland and in this country, I would not revive the recollections of such a period; but certainly, if a man showed a change of feeling, and an altered mode of life, I should rather be disposed to extend that oblivion which is most consistent with true charity, over the culpable proceedings of that man's early life.—(Cheers.) But at the same time, considering that Despard's plot was one of this nature—that one of the counts of the indictment against Despard and his associates extended to burning the Bank—that they intended a bloody slaughter of the peaceable inhabitants of this city—but above all, that they contemplated the murder of the Sovereign on his way to Par liament—l am not sure that the lapse of three-and-forty years would justify me in recommending a man for a high civil situation in the ordnance department. Now, observe, lam speaking on the assumption that this Hon. Friend of mine was really engaged in this plot. But what will the House think—w . hat will the Hon. Memberifor Shrewsbury think of himself--when I state that the charge is utterly without foundation—(Loud cheers)—that it is as really and utterly without foundation that my Hon. Friend was concerned in Despard's plot, as it would have been if the lion. Member for Shrewsbury had said he was himself concerned in the Gun powder Plot !—(Cheers and laughter.) I have received from my Hon. Friend a letter on this subject, with which, in jus tice to him, I must trouble the House. It is as follows :—" I have this moment read a speech of Mr. D'l,raeli's, which, though my name is not mentioned in it, it is im possible, from the reference to the situation I have the honour to hold, and the kindness with which you were pleased to speak of me in the debate of last year, for me to mis understand. He charges me with being concerned in Col. Despard's plot. I find, on referring to the State Trials, that the trial.of Col. Despard took place in 1803, the plot having occurred in the preceding year, 1802. 1 was at that time sixteen years of age, in attendance on my father, then suffering from an attack of paralysis, I being under the care of a private tutor at home. My age at the time will probably exempt me from any suspicion of having been concerned in that plot ; but if not, I state explicitly that I had no more concern, di rectly or indirectly, with Colonel Despard and his asso ciates, than yourself."—(Hear, hear, and cheers.) My Honourable Friend then goes on to allude to a more painful subject, he says—" But that I may not be charged with with holding from you anything that might have given rise to such a misrepresentation, I should state that my half-brother, who was fifteen years older than myself, who, along with Lord Cloncurry, was arrested under the suspension of the habeas corpus, and confined in 1799." Now Ido ask the Hon. Gen- tleman to have some sort cf founlationfor h s statements. 1 ap• prebend that he had opp or t un iti es of ascertaining at least Mr. 13onham's age, and I ask whether he thinks it fair to charge a gentleman with having participated in Colonel Despard's plot, ho being at the time of the age of sixteen, that being the readiest means of at once showing how totally the charge was without foundation. Whether or not the Hon. Gentleman had heard of the misfortune of my Hon. Friend's half-brother, several years older than himself, I will ask him whether or not it would not have been more just to have asr!ertatted the facts of the case before he undertook to charge my Hon. Friend with having been guilty of such a conspiracy a;,ainst the life of his Sovereign ? These are the two points on which I wished to enter. I have said before, that Ido not mean to take any share in that general discussion in:which I have before had an opportunity of joining. I spoke before under the same feelings which I speak now, and I tell you you are meditating an act of the greatest injustice towards her Ma jesty's Government. It was disclosed last year that letters were opened by my Right Hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It became necessary to submit the whole matter to a Com mittee of Inquiry. This House selected its own tribunal.— (Cries of " No, no," and " Hear, hear.") Why, by the un animous vote of the House, without a division, this Secret Committee was appointed. Let us see in what relation the House stands towards the Government. The House chose to have the inquiry conducted by a Secret Committee, and it en tirely approved of the gentlemen who composed it. I know not whether the approbation of that Committee was universal, but this I know, that the Noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell) delivered his opinion that the Committee ought to be secret, and that the constitution of the Committee was a perfectly fair one. A division was taken on the question whether the Hon. Gentleman ought to be a Member of the Committee or nut. He stated himself that he had no wish to be a Member of the Committee.—(Hear, hear, hear.) He begged of his frivnds not to divide the House on the motion. I assured him that no personal disrespect was intended towards him, and on the other hand the Noble Lord who moved for the appointment of the Committee was for the same reason excluded from it. I say, Sir,_ this House chose its own tribunal. We were invited before that Committee to disclose every fact, and we slid so. It is too late now to say that the constitu tion of the Committee of the House of Lords was different from the House of Commons. You were aware of the con.. stitution of that Committee three days after its appointment. The Committee of the House of Lords was appointed on the 4th of July. The only difference is, that Members of the late Government were placed upon it. It is true, you made an ob jection at the time, but you did not urge it as a fatal objection. The Mai. Gentleman at the time—l mean before the ap pointment of the Committee—declared that his letters had been opened, although you are now attempting to raise a question of privilege. I say, that before that Committee was appointed, the lion. Gentleman distinctly charged us with opening his letters. He said, on the 18th of July, referring to a former period, " I believed then, and I bel►eve now, I I am in a condition to prove that my own letters have been opened." What can be more emphatic ?—( Hear, hear.) Tho lion. Gentleman concluded his speech by putting to my Right lion. Friend the same question as he puts now—did you, or did you not, orn my letters ?—(" Hear, hear," from Mr. Duneombe.) [he Hon. Gentleman had as much cognisance of the fact then as now. He told you so. He said he was in a condition to prove it. The course you chose to take after this declaration, you took it unanimously, was to appoint a Secret Committee, in order that there might be no pretence for with holding any information. We gave that information without re serve. We gave every warrant, every reason upon which we acted to the Committee, because that Committee was secret and com- posed of honourable men. That Committee brought in a verdict of acquital, so far as intentions and honou ra bl e mo ti ve s ___ were concerned. We stand confidently upon that. We are prepared to stand the test of a division, although we have already submitted our conduct to examination, and appeared before a tribunal of your own selection.—(Cheers.) Irepeat, Sir, the inquiry was fully gone into. We gave our evidenee, we were cross-examined as to motives, yet that tribunal gave a verdict decidedly in our favour, and will you now reverse every prin ciple ofjustice?—(Lond cries of" Hear, hear," from the Minis terial benches.) You propose to submit us to another inquiry and another tribunal. Sir, lam well aware that different lines of conduct may be pursued by men when in office and when on the Opposition benches. lam aware of the reserve which belongs to a member of the Government ; but yet there are circumstances which should guide the conduct of those who have been in office, who cannot altogether divest tl:emselves of the responsibility and trust which formerly at tached to them. I was invited in the attack made by you— (pointing to some of the members of the late Administration) —with respect to the unfortunate results of your Indian policy, but I refused to be a party to any such attack. I was thev; office. I knew all the real facts of the case. We bad a pow erful support, but f said we will not concur in the motion made by the Hon. gentleman, tending to brand our political °pp. nNts with odium, not 1 know that the Hon. Gentleman thought that was a needless delicacy, But Ido not take credit to myself for this course—(again addressing the Members of the late Administration on the Opposition benches)—l knew well your position. I knew in what condition you were as well as you did yourselves. We have exercised no power, which you have not, I state this in the face of the ;,13;iiirry, that in no single instance have we c;erciaed power w hich n you would net Lave dolie under siniilar circumstances. I critical times r4e as you were, to commit mistakes.d Letters may' have been stopped and opened, without a i n e y se t_n : credit being implied on the party to whom they were a o d_d - H i ear d . ; but this was yourl You know You concurred in the appointment of that tribune that we did nothing which you had not yourselves position likowise.—(Loud cries . f envy you d no . t. done.— (Loud cheers and cries of It will be but a sorry triumph even if shouldyon succee in subjecting us to a second trial, and provoking .he that condemna tionactpd wrong wy a r n c' l w illi ng Noble Len! w .. Hear, hear .") I to admit that I think this power from which we had escaped._l •i , wt to Alaz.oni• wait' si7, with respect to forek.ners, ought tribe exercised wills a reserve almost greater than to . : i our own eae n t rymen . B ut, Sir , I cannot altogether accede to ' occasion had only s tat e d t h at h e d i d not kpcued.—(ll now Aat __me. his own eelp..4- the doctrin e o f th e N o bl e L o: d , t h at, under no conceivable letters might not have been oear. ) ' .. eireusastances. should a Gevernment lie permitted to exercise Mr. JARVIS wished to state the reasosSe m feirmoerinich bee. thi s pow er . I thi n k noshing would I; so uniwise as to Isy would supp , rt the amendment. He had fella.; ;Alin : error, and" tf down any general rule on the subject. When one he believed many of Cm Members of the II ;stied'lallt i -iv ssee sees, of the Bonaparte fien;ly organised en expeditien for an e^: or in consequence of the allegation _ Tfieg, .elglst s e4lt e s .s fer s. the' purpose of invading France, and atm:Time:l to the Hon :lien - Weer for Shrewsbury, respec _ '.4 (42i7dIte i! e lsot- e.. ; i I make the shores of this country subservient to his ; Right Hon Baronet's opposite—a gentle -s .' 'Aifiecteti• ' _2l'4_ rebellious scheme, I think it would have been perfectly juei- ' the Government. Ile cas glad that the ex all , bail" 7 ., ~., " fiat& to prevent this country from beieg made in any way in- ma le, which induced the Hon. Member fo '...'..." strumental in carrying on a civil war in Franco:. At a future ' make so complete and becoming an apolegytaftsda ee ) mete , time it (110 ) - be - ileairahle to enter into the question as to wit`- Let it be remeinered then that it had been alleged, it sueAN tiler or not it may be desirable to alter the pressnt law, but. we answer to the complaint of his Hon. Friend, who now de will not attempt to purchase your favour by any promised al c- manded an inquiry, that because a Member of this house had ration io the law, or by intimatiog any- readiness to accede to presented petitions, and advocated the came of persons who it. Condemn us if you will,- but we w ill not endeavour were supposed to be connected with the disturbance of the to cenciliate you by making any promise with country, he was himself a fit object for suspicion, and the respect to the sacrifice of this important power.— (Loud Secretary of State was justified in opening his letters.— cheers. ) Let it rest upon is own basis. Again, I ask you to (No, no, from the Ministerial benches.) As the Right lion. remetuber the position in which you were placed in Pe led and Baronet ( Sir Robert Peel) had thought it proper to snake an 1543. Remember the danger whi c h th e n existed. We en- explanation in the case of his private friend, and to accept the deavoured to tranquillise the country without making any apology, why should not an explanation be given in a similar demands for extraerdiriary powers. We coneueted the trials spirit to his lion. Friend the Member for Finsbury ?—( Hear, with a spirit of equity mei moderation whieli extorted ahnoat hear. ) They (the Mini -terial party) had charged the Hou. unanimous praise. —( Lend cheers.) We did that, and you Member fir Filo !Jury with being connected with persons who new enjoy tranquillity. —( Loud Ace, 5. ) Last y ear , were dangerous to filo poaee o f th e country. Why, then, did speaking of Great L i it a i n , we. never enjoyed more th e y r e f use t o de him the same justice a hieh they did to their of social contentment, or witnessed Ims disposition towards personal friends •'—( !fear, hear. ) Ile did not think that this insubordinatieri--I mean as it regards political ()fleeces—or dis- zimstion teas to be decided by acrimonious language on each tuibances of the public peace. I say, again, we have been side, but by both sides ,Rowing a willingness to do justice, and already tried. Remember this —expose us if you will to a a desire for nothing more.—( hear, hear.) The Committee second trial; avail yourselves of popular indignation, which, if might or might nut have investigated the case of the applicable at all, is applicable to the principle and not against Honourable Member for Finsbury ; but what was the the men ;pi oceed against us if you will—but I sa y I would cowry to infer from the silence of the Commit rather be its the position of men defeated by your itijuotme, tee on that nuts' ct ?—( Hear, hear. ) They had given than be one of the majority by whom that iteustice is ac- no verdict in the case ; and he had a right to inter a verdict of complished.—( The Right lion. Baronet sat down amidst acquittal of his lien. Friend, and the public would Certainly do loud and continued cheering.) se.—( Hear, hear.) If the Right Hon. Gentlemen opposite Mr. B. DISH A ELI then rose amid the most profound si- refused explanation and inquiry, he wculd say that, by their lance. lie said—l am a ware t h a t I canno t sp ea k twice upon own conduct, they were condemned.—( (Sheers. ) He (Mr. this subject, having seconded the amendment, but I may be Jervis) would rot advert to the law of the case, if he had riot permitted—and I en t rea t th e u t mos t i n d u l gence f ront the House been in some sort referred to by his Hn. and L-arned Friend —I may be permitted to explain the circumstance to whirls the Solicitor-General. lie admitted that this was not a tho ng the Right lion. Baronet ha s alluded. I will not stop to allude occasion to discuss the question, whether the law was in favour now to the reasons which induced me to make a statement of the Secretary of State, or whether, if it were so, it should be which has been proved to be utterly unfounded.—( Hear, hear, continued. But, as the Solicito•-General had chosen to reply and cheering.) The statement, I beg to assure the Right. lion. to, the statement of his Hon. and Learned Friend the Member Baronet and the House, that wa s mad e by me was wholly un- for Kinsale, he (Mr. Jervis) did not think it would be justice premeditated.—( Hear, hear.) I will at once acknowledge that to the profession if lie did riot give his opinion of the law to be I committed a great and grievous error, and lam not ashamed confirmatory of that of his Hon. and Learned Friend.-- to acknowledge it.—( Cheers.) lam glad that the House is so (Cheers.) It might be said that the right to issue warrants for full, and that I can offer to the gentleman whose conduct I the opening of letters in the Post-office was given by statute. have so inisiepresented, an ampl e , a hu m bl e , and a complete But the only exemption by statute was to the officers of the apology.—(Cheer.) I deeply regret that I have been Post-office from criminal proceedings for acting upon led to make such a statement, anti I can only the warrants of the Secretary of State. —( Hear, hear.) say that if there is any language at my command The simple question before the House was that of an Hon. that can better express the deep pain which I feel Member, standing in his place in Parliament, and making at having without cause and without premeditation hurt his a positive statement, that his letters had been opened. That feelings—(Cheers)—if it is possible to convoy to that gentle- was a breach of privilege. The Hon. Member for Fins man the expression of my regret—that language I will at once bury had a right to demand an explanation, and on this use. But Ido not think I can offer that apology in a manner ground he (Mr. Jervis) would support the amendment of the more satisfa _tory than in the place where the report was circa- Noble Lord. lated, and in a House so full as this is to-night.—( Cheers. ) Now, Mr. 111U/STTZ rose amid loud cries of " Divide, divide." Sir, I may be permitted to say, that it was a statement per- He said he would not detain the 'louse many minutes. fectly unpremeditated, I had been taunted by a cheer, which He wished to assure the Right Hon. Baronet that in giving called to my recollection a circumstance which, I confess, I his support to the Noble Lord, he did not wish to cast now regret having alluded to.—(Cheers.) lam not a person any reproach upon the Right Hon. Baronet. He thought apt to be irritable in debate, but, at half-past eleven at night, there had been a great deal more reproach thrown on the few of us rise superior to all angry feelings.—( Ole and cheers.) Government than they deserved. What had they done but I can say that the real state of the circumstances to which allu- follow the steps of their predecessors, and was it not natural sion has been made, has given me sincere pleasure.—( Oh, oh, that they should do so ?—( Hear, hear.) It was a distinet and Hear, hear.) I state again, most distinctly, that it hay- question, whether the practice was right or wrong, He m ad H e a r , represented to me, and at no seeond-hand, must confess that lie did not like the foreign part of this that the gentleman in question is perfectly free from blame, I question.—( Ilear, hear.) He had been extremely astonished will refer, and lie may refer with satisfaction, to this exculpa- at finding that the power of opening letters existed. The tion of his character.—( Cheers, laughter, awl cries of " Oh. public had been astonished. lie had not yet recovered the oh.") lam sure that it I have said anything to lead to these feeling which he had entertained when he first heard that murmurs, it has been far from my intention to do so. I cannot this power existed. When he first heard it he denied it. answer the Right Hon. Baronet on hisste other heads. He has He thought that such a practice ought to be confined to four-and-twenty hours to arrange impr o pt u reply--( Loud the Autocrat of Russia, or the Despot of Prussia. He had cries ot " Oh, oh")—and I must be silent. But I may be al- always thought that in England a man's letters were as safe et lowed to put the Right lion. Baronet right in a statement that his house. He thought the practice was a disgrace to any is perfectly incorrect. He has stated that I was the cause of Government.—(Cheers.) this areendnatnt being pressed.—(Cheers, laughter, and cries Mr. T. DUNCOMBE then rose to reply. He would not of " Oh, oh.") So far is that from being the case, I very detain the House many minutes after such a lengthened dee much opposed the amendment being br o u g ht f o rw ar d, for this bate. When the Right lion. Baronet said that he (Mr. Ilene reason—(Laughter)—because I k new i t wou ld gi v e to the combo) was meditating injustice to him he would ask whether Right Hon. Baronet an opportunity of speaking twice.— it would not be much truer for him to say that the Right Hon. (Laughter and cries of " Oh, oh," amid whi c h th e Hcn. Mem- Baronet was continuing injustice towards him (Mr. Dun. ber for Shrewsbu r y resume d hi s seat. ) combe), denying that which he thought, and which he believed Sir JOHN HANMER said the Right Hon. Baronet at a groat portion of the public thought, he had a right to de.. the head of the Government had made some observations with mand ? The Noble Lord the Member for Sunderland pre regard to the amendment pressed by the Noble Lord the Mem- posed by his amendment to supply an omission of the Corn. ber for Sunderland; and he (Sir John Hanmer) thought it mittee. The Right Honourable Baronet said he wouLl right to state, as soon as possible, what he knew about that resist that motion because it would reflect on the Govern amendment, because the Right Honourable Baronet in- ment. How could it do that, when ey dulged in some obs erva ti ons w hi c h appeare d to hi m c l early to that they had exercised the power of opening th stated letters so impugn the right of those Member s who satat on that side to leniently? Why if they had another Committee they would act in any manner their sense of justice diated. He was come out of it purer by the investigation. He had been accused not about to enter on the question that he haul formeriy by the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary-at-War with, urged with regard to the Hon. Gentleman the Member for having brought forward this motion solely on grounds of per- Finsbury. He had expre ss ed hi s o pi n i on on that subject sonal hostility to the Right Hons. Baronet the Secretary for the formerly', and the House would do him the justice to remember, Homo Department. With reference to the charge of having that whether that opinion was right or otherwise, whatever brought forward the motion from a feeling of personal hostility judgment might be formed of the discussion, he had confined to the Right Hon. Gentleman, he begged altogether to die. his observations to the case o f the Honourable claim any such motive. Ile had used strong express- Gentleman himself, putting aside altogether that o f M. Mazeini sinus in reference to the conduct of the Government. and other persons. If that joint case had been brought before But he wanted to know against whom he was to the House, it was his inte n ti on t o h ave vote d f or the Govern- direct his attack ?( Hear, hear. ) Was he to attack the ment.—( Partial cheers, and mar k s o f impatience.) lie was Lord Chancellor, or the Lord Chamberlain, or any other indie speaking to a question —a grave question—Which concerned the victual ? No, he must attack the individual filling the offieeef See independenc e of Parliament. lie (Sir J. Hanmer) spoke but cretary of State for the time being. If the late Government very seldom, and he w as anxi ous t o expl a i n th e case to Hon. had exorcised the power in the same manner, he - should have Gentlemen. When he came down to the House, he spoke to acted precisely as he hail done.--( Hear, hear.) The Right the Noble Lord the Member fur Newark ( Lord J. /Ilan- Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government said—" You, tiers), and expressed a grea t d es i re that the ques- have chosen your own tribunal, and the verdict is one of ae tion should be limited t o thi s single c ase , lie wrote quittal to us." Now, what was the fact with regard to the on a scrap of paper which he h a d in Isis pocket yet— choosing of this tribunal ? Was it not done in a monstrous (Laughter)—in language_ precisely t o th e effect of the a men d- hurry S Did they not omit the usual form, viz. that of placing ment s ub m itt e d b y the Noble Lord the Member for Sunderland, the names on the table on one day, and appointing the Come He was sitting in his place, when the Noble Lord canoe to mittee on the next?—( [leer, hear.) The names were takers him. He understood, for he had n o t bee n i n the House— as they came out of the Right ll.in. B aronet ' s pocket, ( Laughter)—th a t he (Sir John Hamer) had expressed one at a time, and if they had not taken them as they were, an opinion with regard to the Hon. Gentleman tint they could have had no Committee at all. Now, what was the Member for Finabury. He s t a t e d th a t h e had expressed result of the verdict of the Committee? The Right Honourable such an opinion, and that he was anxious to give a fair Baronet said, " Whatever von do, stand by a ommtee.' and independent vo t e upon t h e su bj ect, if the gate of the T he Committee were very much divided, and the C Noble Lord Hon. Member alone should come b, fore the Hou se . He thought who was the Chairman of it stated that there was a bit of black it not prudent to move such an amendment himself, as he was and a hit of white, and it was, altogether, neither black nor not a good speaker—( Laughter) —and loth to present himself white.—( Laughter.) Th a t was the report of the Committee to th e patience of the House. The Noble Lord had written itself. What did the lion. Member for Kendal say? Why. :mother amendment which he (Sir John Hanmer) found pre- that there were two parties on the Committee, who were very e i se ly s imil ar in its text to his own, and he said that the equally balanced, and that, consuently, the report could be Noble Lord's station, long experience, and positions in the nothing less than one of compromise; and if he were allowed House, entitled him to move the amendment to which he ( Sir to express his opinion in reference to that part of the John Hamner) w ou ld w ith pleasure give his support. S uc h report which related to Mazzini, and the exercise of the were the facts of the case, li e th oug h t that the Right Hon. power with regard to foreigners, the Honourable Gentleman Baronet wished to fetter the independence of lion. Members said he must state that, in his judgment, the Right lion. on that side of the House.—(Laughter and cheers.) It was Baronet had not exercised a sound discretion.—( Hear, hear. ) not the first time he had entertained that opinion. Ile Was that a verdict of acquittal ? In point of fact, it was no did give Government Isis general support, but he held himself verdict at all. Generally speaking, when a jury could not at liberty to vote as his conscience directed ; and as long as agree they were dismissed, and a new inquiry granted ; and he he had the honour to be a Member in that House lie should not ventur e d to say that if the Right lion. Baronet would put these be called in question by any man, not even by him holding the nine gentlemen into the box, and let him take his witnesses very highest position in that House.—(Laughter and cheers.) into an open room, they would come to a much more conclusive Sir GEORGE GREY was glad to observe that some Hon. repo r t th an th a t whi c h h a d been laid upon the table. Why, was Gentlemen opposite agreed with Members on that it to come to this, that they were never to canvass any report to (the Liberal) side upon this question. It was some be made by a Committee? Where would be the use of appoint satisfaction fur them to observe the symptoms of itag a Committee if such would be the course pursued ?He had mutiny and rebellion which existed against the shown that there were omissions in the report which had been impulsive principle of the Right lion. Baronet—(Loud made, and he thought there were sufficient grounds for inquiry. cheers)—which the 1-lon. Baronet the Member for Essex The opening of Mazzini's letters commenced immediately after (Sir John Tyrrell) had frankly and honestly declared was the Christmas, but no notice had been taken of this to the Corn principle on which a large number of the lion. Members on mittee. Mr. Wurzel! had never petitioned the Howe, having that side supported the vernment.—( Hear, hear.) It was no idea that his letter had been opened, yet his name had been not his intention to provoke a continuance of the debate, on mentioned in the report. But there was another foreigner a question which was now so much narrowed by the amend- whose name was not introduced, because he had an ment of the Noble Lord the Member for Sunderland. The intimate friend who was a member of the Committee. Now, Right lion. Baronet opposite had addressed the House at he contended that this was an act of great injustice to him. some length upon this question, and had fully and fairly stated Had the Right Hon. Baronet been candid, he might have his views ; but he availed himself of the privilege of his save d m uc h ill-blood and ill-feeling. If the Right Hon. office by speaking a second time, and in that speech he had Baronet had said at once, "We have opened your not confined himself to a mere explanation as he should letters, but from the citeumstances of the country have done. He did not say this because he undervalued we were justified in so doing, at the same the speech he had just heard, for he did hope that this lengthened time, hoe ever, we are bored to state that we found nothing discussion would lead to some satisfactory legislative enact- in them that in the slightest degree criminate you," though merit upon it ; but he did think that speech might have been he should still have contended that an act of great injustice made at an earlier period of this discussion, and thereby avoid had been committed, he should have forgiven what had been the protraction of it to three nights' debate.—(Hear, hear.) done, and should have forgotten it as quickly as he could. However, the House had now before it the reports of both But now how stood the question? It had been said that he Committees, and he hoped the result would be some legislative had produced no proof that his letters had been opened ; and enactment, so as to place the law on some certain footing, for some gentlemen uggested that he should call his at present it was in a most unsatisfactory state, and demanded proofs to the bar. lie begged to state that he that it should be either altogether abolished, or made plain and would submit a motion for that purpose—that be intelligible.—( Hear, hear.) In the matter now under discus- would bring Isis proofs to the bar.—( Loud cheers.) He would sion, he could not. avoid saying that the Government were ex- make a motion to call to the bar the officers of the Pest-office., recedes iegly bl ameable.—( Cri state es the"Oh,whichand uds on he thought had opened his letters w ith ou t a warrant. It had been so.—( Hear, hear.) Wh a t was grounds the question now before the asked why the letters of Members should be protected say House? It was not of crimination of the Hon. Member for more than those of other persons ? The only difference was, he Finsbury ; for after a full investigation—(The rest of the conceived, that in an ordinary case there was a misdemeanor, sentence was lost in the confusion that prevailed at the moment, whereas, in the other, there was a breach of privilege. The and cries of " Order, order.") lie did not think that after Right Honourable Baronet must not suppose that he begrudged the verdict of the Committee, as contained in their report, it him any information or amusement which could be derived would be fair to submit the Government to the ordeal of an- from his correspondence.—(Laughter.) lie was sure, that if other tribunal of inquiry.—( Hear, hear.) He would cordially Lord Sidmouth had done the Right Hon. Baronet the honour subscribe to that verdict, but at the same time he would ask had lopening his letters, he would have been equally entertained the Hon. Memb. r for Finsbury had a like verdict ? (Laughter)—and he would have been exceedingly surprised That Hon. Member had complain e d th a t hi s l e t ters h a d b een if he had been told that, at some future day, that Right Hon. opened, and he asked for redress for that outrage.--( Hear, Baronet would sit amongst those men whom he had de hear.) If his letters had been so opened (and ot that there nounced over and over again as men who had always sup could be no doubt), then was he not in the position of a man ported bad measures and resisted good. (Laughter.) who stood suspected by the Government ? He ( Sir George With regard to tke amendment now made, he begged to Grey) contended that he was, and that the report of the Corn- state that, as there appeared to be a strong dis mittee was, in fact, a verdict against him.—( Hear, hear.) If position not to assent to the motion, and as so, then he called upon the Government to boldly and fairly it appeared most prudent to take the best chance that existed deny the allegation, or to give him the means of a full and fair of obtaining justice, he should withdraw the motion in order investigation into the whole transaction, and enable him to that the sense of the House might be taken on the amendment. clear his character of that suspicion.—( Hear, hear.) What Sir R. PEEL said the usual course was to take the sense was the course of the Government towards the Hon. Member of the House on the original motion ; but as he had no for Finsbury? If on the first night of this discussion they objection to the sense of the House being taken so as to had the power to deny the allegation of the Hon. Member, combine the greatest mass of opinion, he should not object to why did they not do so , an d pu t an en d to t hi s di scuss i on ? — c ( Hear, hear.) If, on th e ot h er h an d , t h ey adopted this re- the putting of the amendment. port, why did they not once avow in an open and manly man- The motion was then withdrawn, and the amenddmtheent H pu o t. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, an ner the fact, that th e y h a d or d ere d t h e open i ng o f the Hon. Member's lett ers ?—( H ear , h ear .) B ut i nstea d of adopting use divided, when there appeared— -1450 For Lord Howiek's amendment dment ... this course, th e y c h ose ra th er t o a d opt t h e tortuous 240 Against it path they w ere now f o ll ow i ng , an d l eave t h e House Majority against the am to infer that th ey a d m i tte d t h e f act.— ( H ear, h ear.) The amendment was eonseq ueTtiy lost. If the C o m m itt ee h a d i nvest i gate d t h e case of the PROPERTY AX BILL, —O5 Hon. Member for Finsbury, they had made no report This Bill was brought in upon it. The G overnmen t did An not deny that the letters had STAMP DUTIES e been opened. Y e t th e C omm i ttee were s il ent on the po i nt, ad s r s e i a l ti n a L fir T t l t o im iN . BILL, e This Bill was also read a first time. and surely the inference of their abstai n i ng f rom any a ll us i on SUGAR DUTIES. to the circumstance proved that there was nothing in those Sir R. PEEL, in answer to a question from Mr. H awes, that the motion with respect to the sugar duties wo uld letters contained of a criminatery character.—( Hear, hear.) order in which it originally stood, an d t he Under these circumstances, he (Sir George Grey) would say the lion. Member for would precede that of n in the for Manchester mo ths lion. Member for Finsbury was perfectly warrantedhiscomest stated, e o d fo , following up the subject here, and in calling upon to assignedli thelion Noble Lord the Member for London. POST-OFFICE ESPIONAGE. ous in e to defend him.—(Hear, hear.) What was the re t a r so Mr. T. DUNCOMBE gave notice that, on "' by the Right Hon. Baronet, the Home Secretary, ex • should move that certain officers belong y , uesday next, he o n m o g u i t e o , t h o er in A fe l r a m j ea t t y h ': answering the question when first put to him , ? .n wt s ) uch t f h oar- q t : e - s o . t. Post-office do attend at the bar of the n trerne inconvenience would arise from ens House under what authority they had been parties to detain tions, but he (Sir Geo. Grey) would contend lsame question, they ins•, i del_aying, or opening his (Mr. Duncombe's) post letters answering g that if twenty Members stood up in the Ilouee to putt Such i an excuse was a should be aneseebed.—( Hear. hear. ) been made use of.—( Hear.) fle House then adjourned at One o'clock. flimsy peetext, and should no Did they believe that a Min t is h t a e v rial majority would settle the questionthey ?—Did believe thati a man who had publi c opinion, justice, pr e ce dent, and 'acv in his favour, would rest with the decision o fthat majority ?—(Cheers.) Did they think that their decision would prevent the renewal of the dis cussionto the obstruction of the public busi at another . time, 7—plinisterial cheers, and counter-decors from the Oppo sition.)ness.Much as he reg . ret,ed that interruption, he thought e justly. do.the Government c,uolit to give the satisfaction s rnani t, ; ,d, awl *reconsider their determination. In appointing die Committee of last year, the Ministers had ec,1,1,1 to public opinion. He hoped they oso el td •,-,, G, sae the expediency of adopting a simiAr e;utrae, and making a similar coucession,—( liessie hear,) He hoped they would give Isis uon, Friend the Member for Finsbury an opportunity of vin dicating his character—(Hear, hear)—and yield to the general opieioa of that (the Opposition) side of the House, of many of their own supporters, and of the public generally, out tef doors.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. STRUTT begged leave to explAl;, iinat he had not said in his speech what had bci;ln a‘trily, - ,ted to him, that his Hon. Friend ;‘,,i,s- Liettri:er for Finsbury had not, i n b r i ng i ng tee 4tfilee'si s befrire the House, mentioned his own case. 11 hat he had said was, that his Hon. Friend did not bring forward the charge of opening his letters, in the same distinct and direct manner in which he now did. His Honourable Friend oat that OPINIONS or THE DUKE or WELLINGTON.—We are requested to state that Mr. Colburn, of Great Marlborough-street, has this day published " The Maxims and Opinions of the Duke of Wellington," in 1 vol. Bvo., with Portrait, price 14s. bound, which can now be had of all booksellers. Mr. Culburn has also just published the German Prince's new work, " Egypt under Mehemet Ali," by Prince Puckler Muskau. Translated by 11. Evans Lloyd, Esq., complete in 2 vols., with Portrait, &c., price 16s. bound, comprising the three volumes of the German original. LYCEUM THEATRE.—DougIas Jerrold's Prisoner of War was produced for the first time at this theatre last evening, Mr. and Mrs. Keeley sustaining their original dm raottsTs. The performance of these artiste's it is idle to criticise—they acted :Is they always do,admirably—the other characters were well cast. Valentine and Orson concluded the evening's entertainment. This extravaganza still con tinues its brilliant career, and deserves to do so. The pretty female warriors were greatly applauded i n their evolutions The house was crowded. Mr, Wick ha m, Chairman of the Stamps a n d Taxes , and Mr. Dean, Chairman of the Customs, had interviews, yester day, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. 771! 1 ~,