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

°ler toomeut sll . rhich i e was 3'le would assirsilaft o such warran,4' urinary proceet sod the Re! have the Infrr_ cg ality or imPiar'_: r as in the V' • 7, ons of the R (Mr. Maca9laYi th e Governalf.v a view to 141' inn. Gentler?! had made. Noble Lord ti s l ed the He looked " 1 ,. the Member f; ht lion. Bare l : ot er , he shoul d Jess that ug that the) irsuasions, 1%, .t as they ha r o lrawing frontioto, them, the I °' ir ion. Th e C o i an. Baronet f ss now nar rovu . Finsbury sts i) ; th o ught tha t .d his coMPi si,;ll -lad been 01 , e 5 ",,s .ted in the rep. ries of State t: .r as hi' it Id fall on os i t ej the law eviter .cised that IV% ted he h uadust 4,0,°' .. n j and shoo House rho ,t censure', at he consle v lb• It became IH such attacks . : 10 , ne gative to " No ble theof bad le Le r 0 6 ittaottior,,,o. any , e for' ae ca., ouo g for t:oeY for Me nabe- eo tgi Lall y re v os , ,sed h J! 'lembers, h e f e l t there were wanting upon it men who ought to /lu e hav been on it, asiest whenon was the Hon. Member for Five been bur f, who had g i ven a ll the information, and upon whose Motion the Committee had been granted.—( Hear, hear.) In ; that case the usage of the House had been departed from, for Ta ' t w as almost a rule that the Member who obtained the appoint re—eant °f a Committee, should a t as the Chairman of that Corn f"tee---(llear, hear.) The Right Ilcn. Baronet took credit l a t r not ha.; , a , ,-•ng put lawyers on the Committee. Now he a Mr. nut t) was not much in favour of having lawyers on „elomittees, but h ere was an i nqu i ry b ot h i nto f ac t eonstitutional law, in which the presence of his Learned Friend the Member for Worcester, Sir Thomas Comm u e ought tot to have been dispensed with, and, on that placedittee, the Solicitor-General ought also to have been a s.;,*---(Hear, hear.) When the question was first raised, s a 4 r ". atson) asked the Right Hon. Gentlemen opposite ie I , h 'Y found the law which enabled them to open letters hira ll !' n t hrough the Post-office. The Solicitor- General told ,e thaneit was by th statute of nne confirmed by the Act of tilietsotria, but the House had front the Lords' 'report, that And these of Anne gave no such authority.—(Hear, hear. ) but i t „lot of Victoria made it a misdemeanor to open letters, eretaaele Per to detain letters, on the warrant uf the Se -11411141,n' State; so that, according to the Lords' repeet, the ia t 'ecte ia n °open letters depended on common law. Now, as ''' ° 4l 2 ,,i n l aw, what was the fact? He had examined all the 1 0eli r eports, :lid he could not find a single authority for claim ed l i , ° wer.—( Hear, hesr. ) The Secretary of State n a C: retur n n e right to seize, read, open, make copies, reseal, seetetatthe letter s of any individual.—( Hear, hear.) He, the "isl e Yof State, was not content to take the bold step of el hsd st a: etaae a u tr r.astdnaking p u bli c use o f l etters f or ',utilise PurP°s"e 2s rais e d ' u d one by his p re d ecessers .—( Hear, hear.) This , constitutional question—" Ilas the Secretary Paso rae right to op en p r i va t e l et t ers p as sing through the Th at - ts "' ce ?" He (Ir. Watson) said there was no such right. *m eat ," a questi on which must now be determined. As only the i Goo "" 5 Which t h at alleged right had been exercised, the hoe, ;r a nt and i ts su b or di nates k new .—( Ch eers .) The t he trib e mber for eymouth said that the courts of B law were she u W nals b e f ore which this question should be tried. l u. bet be to be th e witnesses? The Secretary of State could striate ar nined in a c our t o f l aw ca p o n the acts of hie Go ssea.,evut• The sub or di nates o f t h e P or t-office were sworn to lirou s Y "(liear, hea r .) B u t if th e G overnm ent were ie ske try the leg a lit y , let them acknowledge the fact—pro aa(chee " warrants and bring the whole question fairly to , trial. Ihaea i'e) Gener a l warran t s t o seize p a p ers , suc h as were ustla 6' l the time of Wilkes, were issued in the time of Eliza the e„:4°,mwell, and the Is; and "(I Chailes. And yet, when to came befo re th e cour t s of law, they were declared l etts...7 t 4 gal• The cases were extremely analogous to the pre ,th,st af w° , Particulars were very much in pc7int. One was "tet t4 e Editers of the North Briton. The Rasques -411,,, tried and the jury gave large d . amages , t n o te who ' issued the warrants. The Lord Chief Jus t,hati;," th at occasion, laid down, as it was well known . in law, N ee twarrant could be issued except on sufficientevi lAintit, The jury were not to consider the meanness of the Rinret con dition, but to bear in mind that they saw a ma -6,ser-i, e ver all t h e Ki ng ' s su bj ects exerc i s i ng arbitrary scow hear. ) It seemed to him (Nlr. 'Watson) that little . difference between seizing a man's papers Leatier,•)"aihereading, copying, and resealing his letters.— that of Entinck, which was to ° Pita b' , lnl a in the 19th c o a l " was of the State Trials. There the I„ 4 tle ° , - , ch the Lord C v hie u f m J e ustice applied precisely to the pre 'td hie -I Ihe Lord Chief Justice said that " the thatwarrant I n e 4 "sued without information previously t . aken, and , ste t eourse was without precedent, except in the casco a a k 'h :11",, e , r , u n5." 7 - (Cheers. ) " There would no law to justify (1 st n f ' If it could be done, there would be no peace ,in ‘,' 1 1 0n1; } : )r a nian's But were ofien his dearest propeity.' 11(151.1 thee-egi_ngs: ) if that were a right at common law, opi oion o , try co . uld ad uce some instance in s paree 4 raes o a u some dictum would appear in acme of the But that could not be law which Site n w eti°nedr by re n P o ur a t u s t ' hority whatever.—( Hear, hear.) But Wee pleaded in favour of the right. In Edward k i n' -Gger de Kendal received a warrant to detain and exa letter!, In the time of Cromwell orders eT tTheil fr o. W France. s e eizinss P-aliers• But those warrants 4 1 t :ar:l e e d a in very di;:erent circumstances from thepre s s e e c t. ti, Olin eg, 7.) Still this furnished no precedent for 1 0 ', n ts, „"ding, and copying a man's letters. At I, at s l ba l artii -° "se had it ever been said that there w . as any , 41e.iletters. —(Hear, hear. ) .But it was said that the t. .„‘t existed since the Revolution. Of what value was a a r • bed only a series of illegal actsear, he . ) 0401' 0 1 " Yates said, " If you show me an illegal act on the Od s %that d o ,, lati„'• 'vats() b .. re a h me this usage from the not make it law.'—( Cheers.) So said 'sr eon a n Y ou - ow l •11, a l " There i t a e w ex. not make it one jot theless g . . tenatio grants authorised by law, but only when issued upon t Aio nn ' and in these cases there were wane. In the I os - 1 4 „ (I N :'aly ere was no authority to open letters. There a 'alio "nse to exempt the Postmaster from penalties for t t h o ts e li of le g t r t e e l t t s as t a m on a t r h t e ane S e ecretary of State's warrant. It what was the state of eas a lt a:' an d he importance upon the Solicitor-General h tis "tint 1 1 what principles of law he defended d t e et eat ° ' the Government. ft had been . state as e t ‘ t he i e ! that discontent prevailed in certain districts. ti a rt ent s l l d that was no justification whatever for issuing r e '," SOtiet:gainst any individual. The disturbed state l of , ti sa l t ared shat id not justify one tyrannical act, when . the est - Previ a , warrant should be issued unless on informa hakt, f r u "l taken. The Hon. Gentleman then read several , a' 4 11, a tMl,the report of the Committee, to show that they th: wi Ne of the grounds on which Sir James Graham 41:4.04M2, beyond his own word that he had done so f I l s i t4i lest t • l°4, desire to preserve the public peace . . it was o k tt , 4 ti:olportance to know what the information was. In th st 'oeb,, e 9 all remembered, warrants were sent down to ar s ashen . "' and other places, and it would be remembered sole, eine • h , re convicted e n were afterwasds convicted, tey we th l "d "'den r a •who instigated them—( (Cheers) s e i toh a ate o. tee spies kt bets that those spies did not write the letters to 1•1 1 , !' "'S 4, 1 ' which being opened in the Post-office, became all°a c ause of suspicion and its confirmation 2—( Hear.) St v e tt t the Learned Friend the Member for Bute last night lat ;Mt ° . - "!„ ei renmstance of some individuals who were tried et aPtairo,'„_°eY were tried for a treasonable misdemeanor, isill o i, i n 'hu ta ' l ey never corresponded with the Hon. Mensber gl a real l ' la ,' But let them suppose for a moment that the r e !a s , adai'4"fore their trial, were corresponding . with their 1a ;el 'N t h ,1 , and sending in their lettersinformation . 't Rasa ash d e f ence was to b e foun d e d, which would - .1. 14 to the h an d s o f t h e G overnmen t, who were to t ta not Il)4Mrnation for the purpose of obtaining a conviction. Rt it t hat C a ` ll , a Passer unjust ?—( Hear, hear. ) He must con kill, he t c d t 'd not agree with the Hon. Member for Sheffield, Ill e ; l etei ti , e d of the power possessed by foreign States to open t kni e° ': r espondence passing through the Post -office. , 11 4' ) nd he not consider the practice creditable to any 4 4 .1411 1 s 'onica of letters in England was encon as4fat Rand illegal g Hear,hear.) It was most impor- Nely ti t i l t !eOi s l a • "% a l _e,na,b e eTs to ( bethis opinion, inasmuch as the tviest`me.tly inl9 throuh of before a court of law, and the i'le at Th at a ,!•' . he appointment . of a Committee of that e and ` . °Mrnittee should have authority to examine ea 4 ••• ts„to report to the House, so that a reso !kites t arr Come to as to the nature and character of os;'ews l ia• 4 This had been the case with regard to the tv was last session, and the result had been, that the „' t • I V in possession of valuable information on the a n f be aa ere was no kind of arbitrary proceeding which eta s - ne at used at some time or other by the Government ts iler try, es nut he c it ly to ate:ell,4°nal matte r ofthought was this inquiry. He extreme did think wron itwas b tp se - i ° ' ° the that the ).,tiers had been is nkie r Case the the country. It was no ; 11e 'tt a 1 ' th °P e e, r letters er and to turn round and say atilt 'tiss et . nig. had done the same. fl . e repeated it ''" 1 4.° 14 111 t ° the charge, for, he thought it discreditable Ne'aoh it'll(' Tories if they had done so. It would have r 'Sre: k ad f oun d of the Government if, when they came into t Z t lea; tn ha ve that their predecessors had exercised this N at been anolished the practice altogether. Had . such a j n atif sP ' and ! klu Pt''d, it would have reflected credit on the Sot, the insured him the confidence of the thinking por 4etat!ef 1 1 1)6 , u ,Ve. As to the inui into the opening of the ,atts; : ei L. dthe Member for Finsbury he could ptibliu~ria - tk "", any len kit luman .eing cou o jec • of petki kmernment had a right to open the letters ti ' , s t , u ttie s . , I le was a Member of Parliament, and had I '4 tt ery , si '0 discharge, and to have his letters opened, was th e 11: t d I' to him, but to the constituency whom he 171•1 1 „ 5 b a d" °ll r to represent.—( Hear, hear. ) Even Ott i ` ti taes r i ei gn of Charles the Second, and the I . l e , of e 2. Horace 'Walpole, it was considered a high ~4arnentary privilege to detain or examine the f te aas e Mber of that House. It was not a breach o per ru me the letters of any individual out of that 01% h vsre la. OPeri, there was no doubt, the letters of a Nlens 4"e, e v ata ra • Z e ut was manifestly illegal, except it were done aL r els et l :vv, a • V of her Alajesty's principal Secretaries of ta i w/ae t '°r p in had a right to inquire whether the Hon. 4'', l '4 l ond urrY's letters had Iseen opened under such a d e af t eei ght ' , aas the only course that could be pursued, n oose °n• Baronet would lay the warrant . on the 11 ' t et 'a to iss u e He must have received information to s 'hs t4t ere aim ee the warrant, for he could not have done so a i l 'Nrit h ad 61.4 r, motive —at all events, if the Right Hon. br awl such. information to justify his issuing the aaali st hi t a h °f Privilege had been committed. In 1 ',le, a s ge siPaNnio, Harr. laid down, and he could not understand ar t in b,'e of Thenasa. Members oppesed the motion for inquiry. tk tli ha . d s_c,?untry called loudly for it, and the . inquiry let te.. ,,'"'fY them upon what foundation this power 6 t 's t. t 'w th„ ~` was based. It was time the country should iti qp, 3. lii,iin‘-'orrnment justified the possession of this ~igaof a , and Learned Friend the Member for Bute tti: t t 'eY) last night was H pleased to talk of eel reel of n o• 113 st Hon. Baronet e said the feelings the of f the it‘ 4 it u Z'Oth, r ` ° flet must have been hurt, but were the feel e,,tPeursons hurt by this debate—had not , an to V e, s u gat ot „, ,l'°n an Hon. Member of that House! ‘Was t e ueli,'nts, s , 'a his honour to know that the Government tl th i j a l a d received some information to induce them I•'Y ' s i nfo had been • .h, rtn at i on „ guilty of some impropriety? What ha', "o at "ed it? Government had received—how had . ti, s, f fli e d Were their informants worthy of . credit ? ce4'ira, t ir if; i, e 9ght , to demand answers to these interro 5, a, ha.d information was not just and fair, a breach Lle iiiaavotadiren co mmitted by the issuing of the war iOQrged l? , I n : on se _ e ,n . by the resolution of that . House agreed c 't,'"on he called upon his Rightand `, l oisti t ,:aar e i ai ,',' Satisfy the House that the power of detain taa,ha a., - •••(c h ? lett!rs was founded upon legal evidence and t s'e t* a sa uLl ClTZ . ) a. ea , ale' been she most GENERAL commenced by stating that has _disagreeable and painful debate which it had to listen alre at t 's , ti ia %l d d . a o 't"stitoortune to listen to within the walls of that i l l ; the aet , I t u ught ady been sufficiently ro e, b scoops id, however have been impossible for him, sa g h 9. th, e, th e befit 'us Noble LorPdui reference which st ea ate aa'n'eta. and the Member, for the City of London, tO ot l !. Learned fe d friend the Memberfor Bute, last ~hlktss,ietließsutWith,aorlatresspassing upon the attention of the i ne h W hich u mg, he felt most acutely some of the ti h ad tak e ,L kt 4.4_ , gr, tted 11 place in that House, and netw.ith tea t-`9l, deed' inset deeply many of the expressions e, L e , 1 , llat,.tna the general tone and temper of the ta a t t ee e , a Totild Can ; the o bservations which he should have to tl et4 "" th e B,lbOact the whole consistently with the im the ba•ost;---(lle„,,lect h ear d an the maintenance of the dignity of sie tt. sZtr aard .--, ,a It appeared to I that they were Is i l t , ll )4ettberif.uariapo„tion „ith t n t m the motion of itt:ddeliberatiner Insbury, mho respect had prepared I% ' i hi tiO rk t 4 then and .care the ' propos ' ition ' which he had s ae ti ered eeast aeortsideration of the House. That t by h . u 55" been revised d afterwards it cit, s u ther s "11. Whether • an , Ov a , 'g eae ' or by L i _ it was by the ad tlatic th Jai) was na s , own better judgment, he (the t4lte te 'in. i e „,_" Prepared to say. True, however, te hi s aa 'a l ,9er was induced to omit from the Oi'saseertaander as o T?"ton some expressions which he ap- La tta ess, o 2at !t i in a lectionable, and accordingly the motion l'iNsea,"o reghte',rernodelled form, when at a late period _ o „ „s oehate, after • _L M ew " non, A LI many arguments had been oer f or nOers who had preceded the Noble ys op _ . ..n whieh underland, to the articular terms of lariOdeteatwa'al contained Proposition of the P Hon. Member for kr e :' f o he Nohle Lord the Alember for a tid e Intern the „ et , , • es t aieet an, th e nan :moment. Another %Viseh, a was „ ' em ber for Shrew - fury, said the a starp ris ."' \'-ttekived in what k 11 4 't to hirn , any servile spirit ; Vtlrf 2 • PPOr theelth Solicit sa serlarierit Tan by H n Memberthis:l were himself in a atl 4 , o „ en rd the Member is Ulm P and avowed opponent. WaS and they looked for ouch an THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, - FEBRUARY 224 1845. adversary ; they met him open the footing of an adversary. It was compe , ent, and within the course of fair Parliamentary warfare, for the Noble Lord the Member for Sunderland to propose that amendment for the consideration of the House. The Noble Lord had felt that the motion as proposed by the I on. Gentleman the Member for Finsbury you d not be gene rally entertained. It had been condemned by several Hen. Members; it was subjected to the condemnat:on of the Hon. Member for Sheff eld, who, in a meat admirable speech, which, from the general spirit in which it was breathed, it was refresh ing to hear in such a debate, had stated that it was impossible for him to agree to the motion of the lion. Gentleman the Memb. , r for Finsbury. The Noble Lord the Member for Sun derland felt it was necessary to bring his straggling party to gether. He felt it was necessary to raise a standard under which they might rally. Quite consistent with Parliamentary tactics, the Noble Lord bad framed an amendment, which, it appeared, was in consonance with the feelings of the Hon. Gentlemen who generally voted with him. It was probeble that the fugitives would return to their standard, and, uniting with the Noble Lord, they would no doubt form themselves into another body. Br.t the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Shrewsbury it was not expected would gave 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 .Soble 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 Liverpool was compelled to give way. Now, el hough he admitted the talent and ingenuity of the Hon. Gentleman the Member fur Shrewsbury, yet, assuredly, he sus pected it was not entirely to enjoy the exhibition of such talent and ingenuity that induced Hon. Members on the other side of the Howse to be so ready to receive him with open arms; and they were tot deceived in their expectations. The Honourable Member for Shrewsbury supported, with all his heart, the amendment which was proposed by the Noble Lord ; but he declared that he supported the motion with no hostile feeling towards his Right Honourable Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. He regretted to say, however, that the tone and manner of expression of that Honourable Gentleman strongly denied his decla ration.—(Cheers.)He 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 lion. 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 :timber for Bath was pleased to address him as the highest legal authority on common law, by which he presumed his Hon. and Learned Friend meant the judge who presided in the highest court of common law in this kingdom, which was nut exactly the same as his office. To-night the question of law hacl been revived partly by the Hon. and Learned Member for 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, when the observation was made, that the legal consideration of the matter had not the slightest bearing on the question, and he confes .ed 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 before the Ilouse ; 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 view of the law bearing 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 jAgment, and prevented his coming to a sound and honest conclusion. —( Hear, hear.) But still he 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, but he must admit that Lord Campbell dif fered from the other Noble Lords. The three other Noble Lords have concurred in the opinion that a general 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. lie 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 Hon. and Learned Friend a convert to his opinions. What said his Hon. and Learned Friend ? He said be 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. and Learned Gentleman, adverting to the peculiar ques tion bearing upon the Hon. Member, expressed himself thus : " Why, what objection can there be to exhibiting 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 in that respect. His Hon. and Learned Friend had spoken of general warrants. Now did his Hon. and Learned Friend know the history of generai warrants? Now he would be aware that general warrants 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 complaint had been made that there were no lawyers in the Committee appointed to inquire into this subject. Now, in the Committee of the House of Lords were there no , the two ex-Lord Chancellors—Cotten ham and Brougham ? It was said that the power was not con (erred 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 open 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 seldom 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 Aet required 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 Shrewsbury last night, when lie 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 lion. 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-office, the House resolved that it was a high infringement of the privileges of Members, to open or look into any letter without an express warrant in writing, under the hand of one of the principal Secretaries of State.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord the Member for Sunderland 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 justly incur the severest animadversion of the House. But then, it should be remem bered, that the Committees of both Houses had reported that neither by the Right Honourable Gentleman nor by his predecessors had the power ever been used for 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 ho 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, hear.) He was afraid that if that power were to be its the smallest degree useful, it was impossible to impose any checks upon its exerciie. There was, he believed, no alterna tive between the utter abolition of the power, and leaving it to the discretion of the high authority in whom it was vested by the Constitution.—(Hear, hear.) He now passed to that which was more immediately 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 who complained that their letters had been opened ; and the complaint was directed particularly against his Right Hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The state ment came upon the House with most startling effect. Many lion. mvibers were not previously aware of the existence of the power. His he,. Hon. Friend was placed in a most diffi '-e. lie felt himself bound by his cult and embarrassing posici,..... official duty to remain perfectly silent Crider WI.. putation. It had been said on the other side of the House that the Right Honourable Gentle man might have prevented all that discussion by a single word. He might. Why was not that word ut tered ? Because an imperative an overruling sense of duty prevented its utterance.--( Hear, hear.) But there were Mem bers of that House who knew the position in which his Right lion. Friend was placed ; they themselves had been entrusted with the same delicate office ; 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 had not exhibited their usual manliness and generosity by comieg forward to relieve the Right lion. Baronet from his position. A great popular exeitement prevailed on the subject. He believed the Noble Lord and the Right Hon. Baronet suspected that his Right Hon. Friend's lips would be sealed; they were hardly prepared for his coming forward to court inquiry.—( Hear, hear.) Yet in a speech, the manly, calm, and distinguished composure of which was calculated to make the deepest inspreseion on the House, his Right Hon. Friend declared that he thought the time had now arrived when the w hole truth should be known ; that if the power were not to be regarded as utterly worthless, the whole of the circum stances counected with its exercise by himself must be dis closed. It was at length decided 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 Hon. Friend ; and if the lion. Member for Finsbury were excluded from it as the accuser, he stood in precisely the same position as other Hon. Members of that House. His lion. 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 he would have done much better if he had read the terms in which the Committee was appoin'ed, instead of employing himself by diving into his books for authorities; because, if his Hon. and Learned Friend had referred to the beginning of the report, he would have found that such power had been given. This was also the opis nion 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, not 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, and 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 witnesses which he himself produced were not examined by the Committee. Those witnesses were not examined, as the Hon. 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 evidence 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 Hon. 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 trade 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 Finsbury knew this, and it was to increase that prejudice that the present motion had been brought forward. 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 Hon. 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\ oble Lords and Right Hon. Gentlemen opposite, and he (the Solicitor-General) would put it to them how they would have voted if they had been called upon to answer for the exercise of that power in some particular instance? He would call upon them, then, to sym pathise with his Right Hon. 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 Hon. Gentleman.—(Cheers. ) Lord JOHN RUSSELL then rose and said-1 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 oi portunity of address ing the House on the motion of the Pion. Member for Finsbury. Sir, I felt no such necessity. With respect to the question itself, there had been a Committee nvointed 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 I had the honour of filling the office of Secretary of State. Such being the case there could be no inference that I had not taken part in transactions similar to those of which the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secre tary of State has been accused ; that I had signed warrants directing the opening of letters, and had acted as my predecessors and successors had done. But, Sir, I did rise last r t i h e e o d d e b t a h t e e , A a i n e d m i b t e w r a s fo oy r n s o b n y d y e r o l u a r n d d e a c d i s n i i o g n ht th in at tl m se y c N ou o r b s l e e o F f 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 persons, 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 of 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 persons, conclude but, that without that warrant, such a pro ceeding would not take place. And if I am tow told that there are persons of very high authority who say that such a pro ceeding is . illegal altogether, I then say you should have made your law clear. You 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 had 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 tleman 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 predecessors 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 years that the Right lion. Gentleman was in office the number 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 persons, 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 lion. Gentleman, the Secretary of State, and the Right Hon. Gentleman himself, exercised it mere frequently than was necessary, and, 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 for 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 Loid 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.—(Bear, hear.) And when a Chartist, who took a chief lead in the counsels 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- I lieve that the employment of spies does not at present exist, but ' 1 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 ; may 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 certain, that the Secretary of State, anxious for the preservation of the public peace, feeling him self responsible 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 the general state of the case, a complaint was made last year of the opening of a letter, which did not appear to be justified by the Secretary of State upon any grounds, either of a defence of the country from in- IHear, hear.) That a en c e a m se y 7efeced to with some was terns] t danger,ie eas e or of from A fA a r a f o z pleasantry by the Noble Lord, the Member for Tyrone, but which seems to me to be worthy of the gravest ; if not the most melancholy reflection.—( Cheers.) As far as we can make out the history of this case, it is as follows :—lnformation was given, or, rather, a suggestion was made, that Mazzini was at the head of a party which sought to overturn the existing Go vernment of Italy, and especially the Government of the Papal State. In consequence of this inforrnatiou the letters of Max. zini were opened at the Post-office. The substance of the information so obtained was conveyed to a foreign Government. There can be little doubt that that was the Austrian Govern ment. Now, without being certain of the fact, it seems, by what we have heard, that the two 13andieras, the sons of the Austrian Admiral, being et Corfu, wrote to Mazzini that they had formed a project for the invasion of the Papal States. It would appear, as he inferred from what has been stated, that the names of those persons were communicated to the Aus trian Government ; for, observe, it is carefully stated in the report of the Secret Committees of the Commons and Lords that the names cf persons residing within the power of those Governments were not nut communicated.—( Hear, hear. ) Those persons were residing at Corfu, without the power of the Austrian Government. The next thing which we hear is, that there were persons who visited the Bandieras at Corfu, and that in the expectation that they would be joined by a large portion of the people, they set out, twenty-two in num ber, armed or unarmed (for with regard to that there ap pears to be some difference of opinion), and landed on the coast of Calabria. The persons who excited them to this enterprise accompanied them, and, as soon as they landed, those persons went over to the authorities who procured the defeat of their attempt, and they were soon after executed. —( Hear, hear.) Such is this melancholy history.—( Cheers.) Sir, I cannot think this affords any favourable precedent for opening letters at the suggestion of a foreign Power, for the purpose of preventing war.—( Hear, hear.) I do not believe that is a legitimate purpose for which this power ought to he exercised.—(Hear, hear.) I am far from saying that a Minister of the Crown should not exercise that peer with a view and intentiou to the public welfare—( Hear, 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 be 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 this par ticular case.—(Cheers.) But, 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 fears 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 residing 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 wisuld 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 Russia—( Hear, hear)—with regard to the Poles— the Emperor of Austria with regard to the whole of the Ita lian States, and the Queen 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 exiles residing here, this country will no longer be that happy refuge which it was in tended to be—that common refuge for mankind which it was designed it should be—( Hear, hear)—but exiles 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 in this case, and that such an exer cise of it ought not to be drawn into a precedent.—( Hear, hear.) Sir, the other case to which the Hon. Gentleman al ludes, is the case connected with himself—and here we are called on to inquire what was the nature of the Committee ap pointed, and what has been the report. The Honourable and Learned Gentleman (the Solicitor-General) has attributed great blame to roe for my conduct last year. I will not detain the House with a defence of my conduct last year, as I 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 for supporting the Go vernment when they said the Committee should be a secret one; so that, whether I support the Government or whether I oppose them, I am 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 was 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 1 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 I 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 side ; but if the Learned Solicitor-General thinks that the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State has been injured in this respect, let him have another Committee.—(Laughter.) Arid instead of the Hon. Member for Kendal, and the lion. Member for Derby, let him have the Hon. Member for 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 Rosencrantz Guildestern, the Ministers, executed in his stead.—( Laughter.) But when they had proceeded through their research, and 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 cases of which they must make particular mention. (The Noble Lord hero read part of the report, and then proceeded.) They then refer to five different cases—the outbreak in 1842; that which took place its Wales in 1843 ; the case of Martini ; the ease of Stolzman ; and the case of Grodicke. When the Committee had gone into the particulars of these five cases, and when the lion. 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 no better than other 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 Seeretary 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 letters 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 only 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 he appeared to have that object in view.—(Hear.) Now I have heard a most able 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 Hon. Member for Finsbury to elucidate the truth,— ( Hear.) 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 out. Why, I 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, hear.) 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 moot able and admirable manner; and if he asked for nay opinion in quiry on the subject, the House, in his opinion , ou g ht to en ter into it.—(Hear.) Such , Sir, are the results of 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 firs t to g o to ex tremes in this practice, is unjust.—( Hear , h ear.) 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 re p eated • and we wish to avoid anything that mi g ht be calculated to abase the character of the country. I 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 in q uir y , 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 any 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, 1 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 which I feel it necessary to call the attention of th e H ouse. It has been stated in the cour se of the debate that I indi rectly charged the Hon. Memb er for Finsb ury with being connected with Chartists. The very first Member wh o spo k e upon the subject after myself, th e Collea g ue of t he Honourable Member for Finsbury, pat a false construction on th e wor d s that I addressed to the House. That Hon. M ember has said that I indirectly alluded to a conn exion which e xisted between the lion. Member for Finsbury and the Charti s t s . N ow, i n my opinion, the indirect allusion is worse than the direct ones— ( 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 th e Honour able Member for Finsbury, if I said on e word crirninating his conduct, and I hope I may be per mitted to adv ert to the last thirty years of my life, in order t o refute the assertion that I have ever been guilty of bringing forward subje c t s w i t h unge nerous intentions. --( Hear, hear.) It never entered my mind, the impression that the lion. Gen while speaking, that it was poss ible an y one could suppose that I was countenancing tleman had done any act that wo uld render him unworthy of a seat in this House. What was the course th at was taken? The Hon. Gentleman made no p ersonal mo tion. It was a m de t p io r n op f o o s r e i d nq o u nt ir t y a e co xte m n rn di i n t g te Committee s more fromb 1840 to the present t i me. ould be appoint e d, w h o were to inquire whether any alteration had been m ade in the law. The i for the on b . lo l\ o l d em o b f e r t hi s s ay Ittahliaatn I .l r l e i n f u i s g t e e e r s s were h ic m h than the soldiers who pulled the baggers of theia been spilt ed responsible muskets that shot them. He lastly said that the ng of letters than any preceding Government during the same period. It may be true that more warrants have been issued for that pur pose, arid I shall be able clearly to show the House that in the state of the country it was necessary. My Right Hon. Friend the Secretary of State was justified in all that lie has done. In 1842 the country was in the greatest danger, but no warrants had been issued for the purpose of exaggerating that danger.—( Hear, hear.) Yes ! we forget now that in one town alone_and I am not speaking of that town as the one in which the greatest appree pension of danger existed—we forget that there was one town alone in which, during the winter of that year, seventeen thousand persons arose each day without the means of employ. merit on whirls they could depend for subsistence 1—( Hear, hear.) I know well what was the state of this raetrorlis at that period ; I know what was the state of Manchester ; what was the state of the manufacturing districts at that period; and we are now taunted with having disbelieved the allegations we heard made in this House respecting the state of the country. But I can now see that it was a state of real and serious peril, and it did become our duty to exert every power we possessed for the purpose of protecting the public peace.—( Cheers.) And that was the cause of my reference to the state of the country in 1842, and not, I assure the Hon. Gentleman, with the in tention in the slightest degree of connecting him with the pro ceedings which were then endangering the kingdom. That, Sir, is one of the points on which I wished to offer some ex planation in the course of last night's debate. But the Hon. Member for Shrewsbury has 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 Hon. Gentleman avowed that intention, he observed that I had, with very great apparent warmth, addressed the House, and that 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 Right Hon Gentleman the Member for Finsbury, although he had charged us with being the cause of the shedding of innocent blood, with having fabricated warrants, with having abused and exceeded our powers—was entirely simulated, and that notwithstanding my apparent vehemence and warmth, 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 the other hand, it is also possible to appear exceedingly indifferent and composed in your manner, and yet exhibit very ac r i mon i ous feelings.--( Im mense heering from both sides of the House.) Now I 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 hint the justice—the entire justice—of saying that I do be lieve his bitterness was not simulated—( Tremendous cheering) —but that it was wholly and entirely sincere 1—( Renewed cheering, and laughter.) Now, the Hon. Gentleman has a perfect right to support a hostile amendment ; it is perfectly open to the Hon. Gentleman to let 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 its what mode it would be most captivating and convenient. The 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 foe, 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 from the candid friend I" —(lmmense cheers.) Here we arc met in debate ; 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.) lie 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 Hon. 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 deelared he was a friend of mine, and that I was proud of his friendship ! Putting these observations together, and considering that the gentleman alluded to is a member 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 absurd 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 Hon. 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.) Bat 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—what 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 ray lion. Friend was concerned in Despard's plot, as it would have been if the Hon. Member for Shrewsbury had said lie 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'lsraeli'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 ISO 3, the plot having occurred in the preceding year, 1802. I 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 of foundation for his statements. 1 ap • prebend that he had opportunities of ascertaining at least Mr. Bonham's age, and I ask whether he thinks it fair to charge a gentleman with having participated in Colonel Dcspard's plot, he 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 ascertained the facts of the case before he undertook to charge my Hon. Friend with having been guilty of such a conspiracy against the life of his Sovereign ? These are the two points on which I wished to enter. I have said bef ore , th a t 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 lion. Gentleman ought to be a Member of the Committee or not. He stated himself that lie had no wish to be a Member of the Committee.—( Hear, hear, hear.) He begged of his friends 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 reasons excluded, from it. 1 say, Sir, this House chose its own tribunal. We were invited before that Committee to disclose every fact, and we did 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 Hon. 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 Hon. 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 believe now, I I am in a condition to prove that my own letters have been opened." What can be more emphatic ?—( Hear, hear.) Tho Hon. Gentleman concluded his speech by putting to my Right lion. Friend the same question as he puts now—did you, or did you not, open my letters ?_(" Hear, hear," from Mr. Duncombe. ) The 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. %Ve 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 honourable motives 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.—(Che ers .) I repeat, 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 ofjust ice?—( Loud cries of " 'leer, hear," from the Minis terial benches.) You propose to submit us to another inquiry and another tribunal. Sir, lam well aware that different line's 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 rho Government ; but yet there are circumstances which should guide the conduct of those who have been in office, who cannot altogether divest themselves 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 then 4n office. I knew all the real facts of the case. We had a pow erful support, but f said we will nut concur in the motion made by the Hon. Gentleman, tending to brand our political oppo nents with odium: But I 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 country, that in no single instance have we o;:ereised a power which you would not have done under similar circumstances. In critical times we are liable, as you were, to commit mistakes. Letters may have been stopped and opened, without any dis credit being implied on the party to whom they were addressed ; but this was your position liliewise.—( Loud cries of Hear,) You concurred in the appointment of that tribunal. You know Well, N o bl s e ir Lord vi r i d eu says lsp v % ec ia t. to foreigners, that we did nothing whi c h pan bad not }ourselves done.— (Loud cheers and cr i es o f `i Hear, hear.' ) I envy you not. it will be but a sorry triumph even if you should succeed in subjecting us to a second trial, and provo k ing that condemna- acted wrong w, tion from which we thres h p a e d et to c alfl am willing to adroit that I think thi s power ought to le tatorci4cd with a rvaerw almost ven eater tilit to escaped. z i n i , rhe our own countrymen. But, Sir, I cannot altogether accede to the doctrine of the Noble Lord, that, under no conceivable circumstances, should a Government be permitted to exercise this power. I think nothing would be so unwise as to lay down any general rule on the subject. When one of the Bonaparte family organised an expedition for the purpose of invading France, and attempted to make the shores of this country subservient to his rebellious scheme, I think it would have been perfectly justi fiable to prevent this country from being made in any way in strumental in carrying on a civil war in France. At a future time it may be desirable to enter into the question as to whe ther or not it may be desirable to alter the present law, but we will not attempt to purchase your favour by any promised alte ration in the law, or by intimating any readiness to accede to it. Condemn us if you will, but we will not endeavour to coneiliate you by making any promise with respect to the sacrifice of this important power.—(Loud cheers.) Let it rest upon its own basis. Again, I ask you to remember the position in which you were placed in 1842 and 1843. Remember the danger which then existed. We en deavoured to tranquillise the country without making any demands for extraordinary powers. We conducted the trials with a spirit of equity and moderation which extorted almost unanimous praise.—( Loud cheers.) We did that, and you now enjoy tranquillity.—( Loud cheers.) Last year, speaking of Great Britain, we never enjoyed more of social contentment, or witnessed less disposition towards insubordination—l mean as it regards political offences--or dis turbances of the public peace. I say, again, we have been already tried. Remember this—expose us if you will to a second trial; avail yourselves of popular indignation, which, if applicable at all, is applicable to the principle and not against the men ; proceed against us if you will—but I say I would rather be in the position of men defeated by your injustice, than be one of the majority by whom that injustice is ac complished.—(The Right Hon. Baronet sat down amidst loud and continued cheering. ) Mr. B. D'ISRAELI then rose amid the most profound si lence. He said—l am aware that I cannot speak twice upon this subject, having seconded the amendment, but I may be permitted—and I entreat the utmost indulgence from the House —1 may be permitted to explain the circumstance to which the Right Hon. Baronet has alluded. I will not stop to allude now to the reasons which induced me to make a statement which has been proved to be utterly unfounded.—( Hear, hear, and cheering.) The statement, I beg to assure the Right. Hon. Baronet and the House, that was mado by me was wholly un premeditated.—( Hear, hear.) I will at once acknowledge that I committed a great and grievous error, and I am not ashamed to acknowledge it.—( Cheers.) I am glad that the House is so full, and that I can offer to the gentleman whose conduct I have so misrepresented, an ample, a humble, and a complete rpology.—( Cheers. ) I deeply regret that I have been led to make such a statement, and I can only say that if there is any language at my command that can better express the deep pain which I feel at having without cause and without premeditation hurt his feelings—(Cheers)—if it is possible to convoy to that gentle man the expression of my regret—that language I will at once use. But I do not think I can offer that apology in a manner more satisfa_tory than in the place where the report was circu lated, and in a House so full as this is to-night.— ( Cheers. ) Now, Sir, I may be permitted to say, that it was a statement per fectly unpremeditated, I had been taunted by a cheer, which called to my recollection a circumstance which, I confess, I now regret having alluded to.—(Cheers.) I am not a person apt to be irritable in debate, but, at half-past eleven at night, few of us rise superior to all angry feelings.—(oh, and cheers.) I can say that the real state of the circumstances to which allu sion has been made, has given me sincere pleasure.—(Oh, oh, and Hear, hear.) I state again, most distinctly, that it hav ing been represented to me, and at no second-hand, that the gentleman in question is perfectly free from blame, I will refer, and he may refer with satisfaction, to this exculpa tion of his character.—(Cheers, laughter, and cries of " Oh, oh.") I am sure that if I have said anything to lead to these murmurs, it has been far from my intention to do so. I cannot answer the Right Hon. Baronet on the other heads. He has four-and-twenty hours to arrange his improptu reply—( Loud cries of " Oh, oh")—and I must be silent. But I may be al lowed to put the Right Hon. Baronet right in a statement that is perfectly incorrect. He has stated that I was the cause of this amendment being pressed.—(Cheers, laughter, and cries of " Oh, oh.") So far is that from being the case, I very much opposed the amendment being brought forward, for this reason—(Laughter)—because I knew it would give to the Right Hon. Baronet an opportunity of speaking twice.— (.Laughter and cries of " Oh, oh," amid which the Hon. Mem ber for Shrewsbury resumed his seat.) Sir JOHN HANDIER said the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government had made some observations with regard to the amendment pressed by the Noble Lord the Mem ber for Sunderland; and he (Sir 'John Hanmer) thought it right to state, as soon as possible, what he knew about that amendment, because the Right Honourable Baronet in dulged in some observations which appeared to him clearly to impugn the right of those Members who sat on that side to act in any manner their sense of justice dictated. He was not about to enter on the question that he had formeriy urged with regard to the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Finsbury. He had expressed his opinion on that subject formerly, and the House would do him the justice to remember, that whether that opinion was right or otherwise, whatever judgment might be formed of the discussion, he had confined his observations to the case o f the Honourable Gentleman himself, putting aside altogether that of M. Mazzini and other persons. If that joint case had been brought before the House, it was his intention to have voted for the Govern ment.—(Partial cheers, and marks of impatience.) He was speaking to a question—a grave question—which concerned the independence of Parliament. He (Sir J. Hanmer) spoke but very seldom, and he was anxious to explain the case to Hon. Gentlemen. When he came down to the House, he spoke to the Noble Lord the Member for Newark (Lord J. Man ners), and expressed a great desire that the ques tion should be limited to this single case. He wrote on a scrap of paper which he had in his pocket yet— (Laughter)—in language precisely to the effect of the amend ' ment submitted by the Noble Lord the Member for Sunderland. Ile was sitting in his place, when the Noble Lord came to him. He understood, for ho had not been in the House— (Laughter)—that he ( Sir John Hammer) had expressed an opinion with regard to the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Finabury. He stated that he had expressed such an opinion, and that lie was anxious to give a fair and independent vote upon the subject, if the case of the Hon. Member alone should come before the House. He thought it not prudent to move such an amendment himself, as he was not a good speaker—( Laughter)—and loth to present himself to the patience of the House. The Noble Lord had written another amendment which he ( Sir John Hanmer) found pre. cisely similar in its text to his own, and he said that the Noble Lord's station, long experience, and position in the House, entitled him to move the amendment to which he ( Sir John Hamner) would with pleasure give his support. Such were the facts of the case. He thought that the Right Hon. Baronet wished to fetter the independence of Hon. Members on that side of the House.—(Laughter and cheers.) It was not the first time he had entertained that opinion. He did give Government his general support, but he held himself at liberty to vote as his conscience directed ; and as long as he had the honour to be a Member in that House he should not be called in question by any man, not even by him holding the very highest position in that House.—( Laughter and cheers. ) Sir GEORGE GREY was glad to observe that some Hon. Gentlemen opposite agreed with Members on that (the Liberal) side upon this question. It was some satisfaction for them to observe the symptoms of mutiny and rebellion which existed against the impulsive principle of the Right lion. Baronet—(Loud cheers)—which the Hon. Baronet the Member for Essex (Sir John Tyrrell) had frankly and honestly declared was the principle on which a large number of the Hon. Members on that side supported the Government.—( Hear, hear.) It was not his intention to provoke a continuance of the debate, en a question which was now so much narrowed by the amend ment of the Noble Lord the Member for Sunderland. The Right Hon. Baronet opposite had addressed the House at some length upon this question, and had fully and fairly stated his views ; but he availed himself of the privilege of his office by speaking a second time, and in that speech he had not confined himself to a mere explanation as he should have done. lie did not say this because he undervalued the speech he had just heard, for he did hope that this lengthened discussion would lead to some satisfactory legislative enact ment upon it ; but he did think that speech might have been made at an earlier period of this discussion, and thereby avoid the protraction of it to three nights' debate.—(Hear, hear.) However, the House had now before it the reports of both Committees, and he hoped the result would be some legislative enactment, so as to place the law on some certain footing, for at present it was in a most unsatisfactory state, and demanded that it should be either altogether abolished, or made plain and intelligible.—( Hear, hear.) In the matter now under discus sion, he could not avoid saying that the Government were ex ceedingly blameable.—(Cries of " Oh, oh I") Yes, he would repeat it, and he would state the grounds on which he thought so.—(Hear, hear.) What was the question now before the House? It was not of crimination of the Hon. Member for Finsbury; for after a full investigation—(The rest of the sentence was lost in the confusion that prevailed at the moment, and cries of " Order, order.") He did not think that after the verdict of the Committee, as contained in their report, it would be fair to submit the Government to the ordeal of an other tribunal of inquiry..--( Hear, hear.) He would cordially subscribe to that verdict, but at the same time he would ask had the Hon. Memb r for Finsbury had a like verdict ? That Hon. Member had complained that his letters had been opened, and he asked for redress for that outrage.—( Hear, hear.) If his letters had been so opened (and of that there could be no doubt), then was lie not in the position of a man who stood suspected by the Government ? He ( Sir George Grey) contended that he was, and that the report of the Com mittee was, in fact, a verdict against him.—( Hea:, hear.) If so, then he called upon the Government to boldly and fairly deny the allegation, or to give him the means of a full and fair investigation into the whole transaction, and enable him to clear his character of that suspicion.--( Hear, hear.) What was the course of the Government towards the Hon. Member for Finsbury ? If on the first night of this discussion they had the power to deny the allegation of the Hon. Member, why did they not do so, and put an end to this discussion?— ( Hear, hear.) If, on the other hand, they adopted this re port, why did they not once avow in an open and manly man ner the fact, that they had ordered the opening of the Hon. Member's letters?—( Hear, hear.) But instead of adopting this course, they chose rather to adopt the tortuous path they were now following, and leave the House to infer that they admitted the fact.—(Hear, hear.) If the Ccmmittee had investigated the case of the Hon. Member for Finsbury, they had made no report upon it. The Government did not deny that the letters had been opened. Yet the Committee were silent on the point, and surely tine inference of their abstaining from any allusion to the circumstance proved that there was nothing in thr:,„ letters contained of a eriminatery character.—(Hear ~ i lear.) Under these circu ms t ances , h o (Si r George Gre';') the Hon. Member f or Fi ns b ury was per would say f following up the subj ec t h ere , an d in callin " . ...ctly warranted in to defend him.—(H ear , h ear .) assigned the Home Secretary, for not ; :on when first put to him ? Why, that ex • teems inconvenience would arise from answering such ques tions, but he ( Sir Geo. Grey) would contend that if twenty Aleeeers stood up in the House to put the same question , they should b e answered.—( Hear. hear.) Such an excuse was a gimsy pretext, and should not have been made use of.—( Hear.) Did they believe that a Ministerial majority would settle the question ?—Did they believe that a man_ who had public opinion, justice, precedent, and law in his favour, would rest with the decision of that majority. ?—(Cheers. ) Did they think that their decision would prevent the renewal of the dis cussion at another time, to the obstruction of the public busi ness?—,(Ministerial cheers, and counter-cheers from the Oppo sition. ) Much as he regretted that inter rupt i on, ht he thought the Government ought to give the satisfactio n se justly gde mended, and reconsider their determination. In appointing the Committee of last year, the Ministers had yielded to public opinion. He hoped they would now see the expediency of adopting a si m il ar course, and making a similar concession.—( Hear, hear.) He hoped they would give his Hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury an opportunity of vin dicating his ch aracter—(Hear, hear)—and yield to the general opinion of that (the Opposition) side of the House, of many dooof t rs heir own supporters, and of the public generally, out of .—( Hear, hear.) Mr. STRUT T begged leave to explain, that he had not said in his speech what had been attributed to him, that his Hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury had not, in bringing tha sohject before the House, mentioned his own case. NN " he had sa id was, t h at hi s H on. Friend did not lee; iagn e dozieci the charge of opening his l e tt ers , i n th e ease e distinct inanner in which he now did. ghlo honourable Friend on that occasion had only stated that he did not know that his own ' letters might not have been opened.--( Hear. ) Mr. JARVIS wished to state the reasons for which he would support the amendment. He had fallen into an error, and he believed many of the Members of the House had fallen into an error in consequence of the allegation made last night by the Hon Member for Shrewsbury, respecting a friend of the Right lion. Baronet's opposite—a gentleman connected with the Government. He was glad that the explanation had been made, which induced the lion. Member for Shrewsbury to make so complete and becoming an apology.—(Hear, hear. ) Let it be remembered then that it had been alleged, as an answer to the complaint of his Hon. Friend, who now de manded an inquiry, that because a Member of this House had presented petitions, and advocated the cause of persons who were supposed to be connected with the disturbance of the country, he was himself a fit object for suspicion, and the Secretary of State was justified in opening his letters.-- (No, no, from the Ministerial benches.) As the Right Hon. Baronet ( Sir Robert Peel) had thought it proper to make an explanation in the case of his private friend, and to accept the apology, why s h ou ld not an exp l anat i on be given in a similar spirit to his Hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury?—(Hear, hear.) They (the Ministerial party) had charged the Hon. Member fo r Fi ns b ury w i t h b e i ng connected with persons who were dangerous to the peace of the country. Why, then, did they refuse to do him the same justice which they did to their personal friends Hear, hear.) He did not think that this question was to be decided by acrimonious language on each side, but by both sides showing, a willingness to do justice, and a desire for nothing more.—( Hear, hear.) The Committee might or might not have investigated the case of the Honourable Member for Finsbury ; but what was the country to infer from the silence of the Commit tee on that subject?—( Hear, hear.) They h a d g i ven no verdict in the case ; and he had a right to inter a verdict of acquittal of his Hen. Friend, and the public would certainly d o so.—( Hear, hear.) If the Right lion. Gentlemen opposite refused explanation and inquiry, he wculd say that, by their own conduct, they were condemned.—(Cheers.) He (Mr. Jervis) would not advert to the law of the case, if he had not been in some sort referred to by his lion. and Learned Friend the Solicitor-General. He admitted that this was not a fitting occasion to discuss the question, whether the law was in favour of the Secretary of State, or whether, if it were so, it should be continued. But, as the Solicitor-General had chosen to reply to the statement of his Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for Kinsale, he (Mr. Jervis) did not think it would be justice to the profession if he did not give his opinion of the law to be confirmatory of that of his Hon. and Learned Friend. (Cheers.) It might be said that the right to issue warrants for the opening of letters in the Post-office was given by statute, But the only exemption by statute was to the officers of the Post-office from criminal proceedings for acting upon the warrants of the Secretary of State. —(Hear, hear.) The simple question before the House was that of an Hon. Member, standing in his place in Parliament, and making a positive statement, that his letters had been opened. That was a breach of privilege. The Hon. Member for Fins bury had a right to demand an explanation, and on this ground he (Mr. Jervis) would support the amendment of the Noble Lord. Mr. AIUNTZ rose amid loud cries of " Divide, divide." He said he would not detain the House many minutes. He wished to assure the Right Hon. Baronet that in giving his support to the Noble Lord, he did not wish to cast any reproach upon the Right Hon. Baronet. He thought there had been a great deal more reproach thrown on the Government than they deserved. What had they done but follow the steps of their predecessors, and was it not natural that they should do so ?—( Hear, hear.) It was a distinct question, whether the practice was right or wrong. He must confess that he did not like the foreign part of this question.—( Hear, hear.) He had been extremely astonished at finding that the power of opening letters existed. The public had been astonished. He bad not yet recovered the feeling which he had entertained when he first heard that this power existed. When he first heard it ho denied it. He thought that such a practice ought to be confined to the Autocrat of Russia, or the Despot of Prussia. He had always thought that in England a man's letters were as safe as his house. He thought the practice was a disgrace to any Government.—(Cheers.) Mr. T. DUNCOMBE then rose to reply. He would not detain the House many minutes after such a lengthened de bate. When the Right Hon. Baronet said that he (Mr. Dan combe) was meditating injustice to him he would ask whether it would not be much truer for him to say that the Right Hon. Baronet was continuing injustice towards him (Mr. Dun combe), denying that which he thought, and which he believed a great portion of the public thought, he had a right to de mand ? The Noble Lord the Member for Sunderland pro posed by his amendment to supply an omission of the Com mittee. The Right Honourable Baronet said he would resist that motion because it would reflect on the Govern ment. How could it do that, when they stated that they had exercised the power of opening letters so leniently ? Why if they had another Committee they would come out of it purer by the investigation. He had been accused by the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary-at-War with having brought forward this motion solely on grounds of per sonal hostility to the Right Hoe. Baronet the Secretary for the Homo Department. With reference to the charge of having brought forward the motion from a feeling of personal hostility to the Right Hon. Gentleman, he begged altogether to dis claim any such motive. He had used strong expres sions in reference to the conduct of the Government. But he wanted to know against whom he was to direct his attack ?—( Hear, hear.) Was he to attack the Lord Chancellor, or the Lord Chamberlain, or any other indi vidual ? No, he must attack the individual filling the office of Se. cretary of State for the time being. If the late Government had exercised the power in the same manner, he should have acted precisely as he had done.—( Hear, hear.) The Right_ Hon. Baronet at the h e ad o f th e G overnment said—" You have chosen your own tribunal, and the verdict is one of ac quittal to us." Now, what was the fact with regard to the choosing of this tribunal ? Was it not done in a monstrous hurry ? Did they not omit the usual form, viz. that of placing the names on the table on one day, and appointing the Com mittee on the next ?—( Hear, hear.) The names were taken as they came out of the Right Hon. Baronet's pocket, one at a time, and if they had not taken them as they were, they could have had no Committee at all. Now, what was the result of the verdict of the Committee? The Right Honourable Baronet said, " Whatever you do, stand by a Committee.' The Committee were very much divided, and the Noble Lord who was the Chairman of it stated that there was a bit of black and a bit of white, and it was, altogether, neither black nor white.—( Laughter.) That was the report of the Committee itself. What did the lion. Member for Kendal say ? Why, that there were two parties on the Committee, who were very equally balanced, and that, consequently, the report could be nothing less than one of compromise ; and if he were allowed to express his opinion in reference to that part of tt n a report which related to Mazzini, and the exercise sot the power with regard to foreigners, the Honourable esentleman said he must state that, in his judgment, thP 'Molt Hon. Baronet had not exercised a sound discriltio-,._( Hear hear.) Was that a verdict of acquittal ? In 7:"..ent of fact, it , was no verdict at all. Generally speakin,c--, when a jury c ou ld not agree they were dismissed, a new inquiry granted ; and he ventured to say that if Us" - Right Hon. Baronet would put those nine gentlemen into the box, anti let him take his witnesses into an open r 007,,, they would come to a much more conclusive report than triat which had been laidupon the table. Why, was it to come to this, that they were never to canvass any report to be made by a Committee? Where would be the use of appoint ing a Committee if such would be the course pursued He had shown that there were omissions in the report which bad been made, and he thought there were sufficient grounds for inquiry. The opening of Mazzini's letters commenced immediately after Christmas, but no notice had been taken of this to the Com mittee. Mr. Wur tell had never petitioned the House, having no idea that his letter had been opened, yet his name had been mentioned in the report. But there was another foreigner whose name was not introduced, because he had an intimate friend who was a member of the Committee. New, he contended that this was an act of great injustice to him. Had the Right Hon. Baronet been candid, he might have saved much ill-blood and ill-feeling. If the Right Hon. Baronet had said at once, "We have opened your letters, but from the circumstances of the country we were justified in so doing, at the same time, however, we are bound to s t a t e th a t we f oun d nothing in them that in the slightest degree criminated you," though he should still have contended that an act of great injustice had been committed, he should have forgiven what had been done, and should have forgotten it as quickly as he could. But now how stood the question? It had been said that he had produced no proof that his letters had been opened ; and some gentlemen suggested that he should call his proofs to the bar. He begged to state that he would submit a motion for that purpose—that the would bring his proofs to the bar.—(Loud chem.) He would make a motion to call to the bar the officers of the Post-office, who must have committed a breach of privilege, if they had opened his letters without a warrant. It had been asked why the letters of Members should be p ro t ecte d any more than those of other persons ? The only difference was, he conceived, that in an ordinary case there was a misdemeanor, whereas, in the other, there was a breach of privilege. The Right Honourable Baronet must not suppose that he begrudged him any information or amusement which could be derived , from his correspondewce.—(Laughter.) Ho was sure, th a t if Lord Sidmouth t a d d one t h e Right Hon. Baronet the honour opening Is:is letters, he would have been equally entertained (Laugls'ser)—and he would have been exceedingly surprised if lie had been told that, at some future day, that Right Hon. Baronet would sit amongst those men whom he had de. nounced over and over again as men who had always sup ported bad measures and resisted good. (Laughter,) With regard to the amendment now made, he bagged to state that, as there appeared to be a strong dis position not to assent to the m o ti on , and as it appeared most prudent to take the best chance that existed of obtaining justice, he should withdraw the motion in order that the sense of the House might be taken on the amendment. Sir B. PEEL said the usual course was to take the sense of the House on the original motion ; but as he had no objection to the sense of the House being taken sr, as to combine the greatest mass of opinion, he should not object to the putting of the amendment. The motion was then withdrawn, and the *amendment put. Strangers were then ordered to withtraw, and the House divided, when there appeared— For Lord Hosvisk's tunas &tent Against it ..... 'was consequently lost. The amendmAleanjtoriti' 'against the amendment ....---95 ' DUTIES ASSIMILATION BILL, STAMP This BiP was b P r n ou ° gh P t E in ß a T n Y d r T ea A d X a fi ß rri l t L t L. im e. This Bill was also SUGAR first DUTIES. Sir R. PEEL , in a nswer to a question from Mr. H awes, read a time. state d, that the motion with respect to the sugar duties would come on in the order in which it originally stood, and the mo tion of the Hon. Member for Manchester would precede that of the Noble Lord the Member for London. POST-OFFICE ESPIONAGE. Mr. T. DUNCOM BE gave notice that, on Tuesday next, he should move that certain officers belonging to her Majesty's Post-office do attend at th e b ar of the House, to inform the House under what authority they had been parties to detain. ing, delaying, or opening his (Mr. Duncombe's) post letters. The House then adjourned at One o'clock. OPINIONS OF TILE DUKE OF WELLINGTON.—WO 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. Colburn has also just published the German Prince's new work, " Egypt under Mehemet Ali," by Prince Puckler Muskau. Translated by D. 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 cha racters. The performance of these artistes It is idle to criticise—they acted as they always do,admirably—the other characters were well cast, Valentine and Orson concluded the evenings entLl'iainment. This extravaganza still con tinues it,f.Liiiliant career, and deserves to do so. The pretty fonr,,le warriors were greatly app lauded in their evolutions. The house was crowded. Mr. Wickham, Chairman of the Stamps and Taxes, and Mr. Dean, Chairman of the Customs, had interviews, yester day, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. U