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

Zen who oug :on. 31,mber. I_'s and upon rola -fear, hear') for parted from,, ai ..t, ne d the app o ' nan of that COU'iit 7onet too,k lir . Now ne t ying Lawl er both intol, bit presence le Th ° t er. tha th, and, 0 0 _ 0 so to bare !)_" as first rat !riflemen °PP °. 0 iette 1 , to open to!' Genera t ned by th e Oct orris' report, .) ,_(Hear, report, or Us ope n le Se' arra nt of the to Lords' rer.,,,c ut .; St On law• , exarnitien . 0 , for ngle authori „vote o f t‘tate tart' i n rese:s ie h ear.) of a the bold WI; 8 , ablie pure !ar, hear.) e „ff a s the Se er , the • g threng” ig ht, ara~ no such 1,;t110 ruained• As I the , :t ereised, on Ivo -( Cheers.) are ciurts of la! isot Id be trio'. ed ld te 8 try' o f ta Le acts to l e e w ere o cc ne. rnmen t wee' re e , g e the fac t-- tr isli iun fairly to, acre tors. such ; I VO' he time e V; And y e " Igo hey we re the P r the de e r loeious to 01 pottlt •In , e , on. g o Lordlartiuief Ja° ell known. on sufg 6 , en f t D° taeantt % e s a t they s a „ h itrsrl Jrcising )1 0 Or. \Va t 5° , 13 0re / ci a ' nan'- tt . e rs ' t o ling his 1? stst iek, wh i ,gere th e , 'r all t he t eciselY t ° 0 ° hat " th e : a d 11 ' $t i s ly taken' es te, ° ', i n the 10 0 law to l ee itt ald be n ° , e Ce t a tli t ' ' ',,, arest P rcir - 0 0 t at enin' n he eP' e ace inth e f 's rbe r y • 13 ! no Hear , b ea , , d • in Eiltrat el e s to detain il° rile > f C rouoeorrt But th°s „ e reo it ‘ti! the,ri s ee. - 01 ,edent f o r I , t is i let ters. ~of t there id tbslo past. s a val ue Of what be , be e - i e s a ct ° D il l co It Chee• rs.) fr0013:r: ail 04 1 dt , is e a u when I .4; U tile '- ere t one. ; l e tter e itie• It frotn,P e e r oef ' o f itate'S ,t,te the e ,Oe ° t ll O Solici t° jc led defel he I ts „jet. been. 40'0 „rtati of Latever t! 0 statelaA disturhe° et, 0.1 1 i° e< ol d t a ;r Ol readimless 90 0 jef in then tha t bi ro t „ GO, e' dame s d ° i t °I Sir that h e " -tt 4Ce' 0 1 " le f iat ,t r . r ‘.- ujwer 5 0 ' o , D ry , eo e ald coa h ' e rtf hey ` iere ( C erf t° e itbe n3 le tc c at og • the he 1 w rite fe e, a e at' it Pett' e m at!on e t rs' for 1311 it'e re gals jee ir tV r able is P o to the t ilerl iba t tb eir m omen t aitb ,undingieloP;oo) letters hi ?, ere 0 1 t r i .o l °' h lent , s' e ° o°' -' t L ining e 0 111 1 $1 1° s he oee tt .r. for t o 41 „ober, o e t o , • tV g ap p the r!i o le " co' c redo a s ,0r" d iralos 10 0 0 1 , alp was set tie ac t et of f rt of ' , t oe ° 0 3° Coro° at re f o l thornyY tba t : ct er 50 0 d c har d t° the re reg°lbst the Veit hee e o : o 0 , ° 1 0. 1 ; i n forr• e a did ro , o pro ce oer e re ng Dy t he e ll it i d s , x treo l th init, le a s },•tter 9 it tc`at Sj ni r r) ::° l23 e s e teoibl° 110 di r sere dt o o ' ht it i 0 0 1 'i io l . ° g i t s o r t o s°' t heY e o ed I t 0 het' % et° s ec be ha d e folit s,eat er. e rd• o g ,te the e ,i 4 lO 0 1 ' the l 'eoing O° O J the 0/ 1 et V ete di, , ejecte re r,er o d o r t, ll .l oot: e d, ht r e beo,o lcti er *' S i ht ,shitue-a 0 r.) O a he ;ecoo, ei cie reil l e r in t s": 1 c hat r ag vo, Li t gei ivic l 'e s ,:r:o f .,l;` l( l) l e let ,. it tie xc ept sec re b ta a 1-1 0 P e T • t ethe r de ti r ?tied dile Ili or 0 tbt: eeu l o rrio ) t io) , ,J e of° 40 a; o ot 7 i n z h,t ; if t he . if°'' '' l l3 ) his 10 ts o ' t " fc i t tedi der / '0" „ t m. t i, T o , ~,0 0 4,0 t x it, ° 1 .% dtct • t io in dati° nt ry „ „ e 011 a o 130 1: "),essn'.. for 101 p 3teotw heli f t h o e f t he to 7 ee litig ih e f e itt • the ere) v o but , 0 ,1 7 0 :e • 0 b a t fi°6o,eretbee't Lt th e i t idn ee ; 0 1° ,1 r ietr a t n eor eiii „ho e d i t r eeer r h e , or , c i fter r :; wort'' eg e b re o „ , to tu • a Iry d fa` e ' he e d an ef o se that • I I 1-I ,ll t sii l i sight' of de e o is I , " ) ,,l er fid er ' ce leg e t he sta ti' lt t col ohichef tb a iehat e ,al/ 0 n t he eieptil btu a°'hle r o e ad o imP ° " l „l be e° od etit t . 4 001 l,O os e he Cit f° r ° 0 0 0 7 th e , fl iber tt i o tt ie attetetne !ioitht utelY a ndlo'olol of tli tO °' as. Byer • i and old i ( he o ho tb, 0 , 0 10; n tiy c i:g d e , e t he ,„y • tha t "' o tii' ° .eil biro be o 3 e d I 1 0 t , ( 1 P r 14' ; med' h he ft ° % chi 00 t ion 'e a S the (O a itsm e at. be °c c( ' i tso Li'DTrue,,, ro to • toicin , wh °w it he ti p : e 0 0 , 10 ,1 : r ° dioglY ; a te P e i : e ta en a t a to bs ri ctit ;l e ,l til t . er° ; f ire t ; e pr obe r for lloo• po t`', nthe own, Sat oto, • 9 0" blj ,: r i; bd s ! l• o °' s le 0 C - i . 1 0 ,1) Gene woo s 01 , Fi ber a il 0)14 11 9' a e o t t" 1001; wa auversary ; th ey met him upon the footing of an adversary. It g competent, 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 loon. Ge nt h man the Member for Finsbury woo d riot be gene t' entertained. It had been condemned by several Hon. Aie ntl'ers; it was subjected to th e con d emna t ion o f t h e H on. Aleinber f or SheV'eld,who, in a mos t admirable speech, o hi e h, from the general spirit in whirls it was breathed, it was refresh ing to he ar i n such a debate, had stated that it was impo ssi bl e -1 1 , ‘ 'i „rlii.rit to agre e t o t h e mot i on of the Hon. Gentleman the anm r f or Finsbury. The Noble Lord the Member for Sun derland felt i t was necessary to brir.g his straggling p:irty to gether He felt it was necessary to raise a standard under w hieh they might rally. Quite cons i sten t w ith P ar li amen t ary a tactcs, th e N oble Lord had framed an amendment, which, it Ppeared, was in consonance with the feelings of the Hon. L C b ent iemen who generally voted with him. It was probable . at the fugitives would return to their standard, and, uroting with the Noble Lord, they would no doubt form themselves s - r another body. I3nt the Hon. Gentleman the Member for ir e wshury it was not expected would g:ye his part to . the c Ale Lord the Member for Sunciei land. He (the Solicitor /. ener al) said it was not expected, b -cause it would :.e in the -4°llection of the House that when the Honourable Gentleman 51}',4 his iNoble Friend the Member for Shrewsbury rose ti tog i, e: r h i e i r et Ho r_ . wis s a general call from the other side ot the t l n e I,l,!!.Alerriber fur Shrewsbury, to whom his o i e (' Friendth . e aith rtiber for Liverpool was compelled to give way. Now, G e "ugh he admitted the talent and ingenuity of the lion. p entleenan the Member for Shrevvsbury, yet, assuredly, he sus anete, it was not entirely to enjoy the exhibition of such talent the LTgenuity that induced Hun. 'Members on the other side of th e ;' ° '-ise to be . so ready to receive him . with open arms; and Al w ere rot deceived in their expectations. The Honourable a - rn e e Mbe r for Shrewsbury supported, with . all his heart, the decl are (lmeri t which was proposed by the Noble . Lord ; but he f e t. d that he supported the motion with no hostile „e, 'Tg towards his Right Honourable Friend the Secretary Say:"tate for the Home Department. He regretted .to f iLheweeer, that the tone and manner of expression o ti -"It ' H onourabl e Gentleman strongly denied his deela irtt w l n s • i(Cheers. ) He had been at a loss to conceive what R on tat actuated the Hon. Member for Shrew-bury.. The ti er : A,l,einbe, however was kind enough to explain this. Trre 4;* ",, J ember for Shrewsbury had told them that his Right first • C e ri erid had invariably treated him with courtesy. At lio n a , at a loss to account for the course pursued by the entber for Shrewsbury, but it now appeared to hint how ;,Was Perfectly clear and he could, therefore, understand wer e ''', that Hon. Members on the other side of the . House the fierye completely prepared for the exhibition , of ee on 1 11e4 of the lion. Member.—(Cheers.) Now the y . on. and h e r talked largely against one portion of the guestion, Aletebf‘as followed by his Hon. and Learned Friend the "Al entib e . L . - for Bath. The Honourable and Learned as th " for Bath was pleased to address him Pres th e highest legal authority on common law, by which he Presit'Ll—e,,M, his - Hun - . and Learned Friend meant the judge who whi c h ' in the highest court of common law in this kingdom, queßti w a , not exactly the same as his office. To-night the 141; n -e n d of law had been revived partly by the Hon. an t et his -e ' s ,„ Alerts be r for Newport, who acted as a sort of pleader s tood o '''Thle and Learned Friend. 'the Member for Kins l threoll_Nl;Plirlowbn,e,,hci.sfoorwn Kinsale had his Hon. and Learned Friend attached himself to the legal i go co _ , red teo°hr' . c at it ooeu " r ' It constituted the principal part of his speech. wren the observation was made, that the uo the dsidefation of the matter had not the slightest bearit..7 °iteontioestion, and he contes cd he . still t . •ntertaine f d . the same e t . 4 'har ra He was, however, placed in a s . ituation o lerygre h a e t r o ts eu te s r a i r n o ent and difficulty on this subject. He felt that , e toth g Upon irrelevant matter, which did not at all re t"oese . "e motion or the amendment which was he'ore the o th e ', hut a% for fea r i t s h ou ld be supposed that . he was agreeing 4t. ,.. ' which had been laid down, he felt it to he his d . uty ti ,ario: rn ,,Pt to answer some questions which had been . raised I t ier Co'ii"e.debate, which were quite foreign to the question t h u e n r e *as tio‘ h''" ) o• Now, at the same time, he must say,. * ere e , : ri g more unsatisfactory than the legal op t i h no c n o s u w ,, h e ic o b f t dth a , l essed by gentlemen of his profession in . ,Illeis'elleel ewinththtahle House. However strongly he inig L ht be im lit th e .. _ of the law bearing upon the question lip t o , i were considering, still it might be an impos. 't oo _ stet rid o f the f ee li ng which must exist amongst same hiel," Learned Members that he was speaking under a bias, teemt wa rPed his j dgment, and prevented his comingtoa ,t , an d honest conclusion.—( Hear, hear.) But still .he u't'ad ben ltrink from the ' performance of a public duty which nsay t . b - a l t m h Po'ed on him ; and the House would permit him il et, P°llit o i e i felt a very serious responsibility for every °pinto!), .awr which he might be called upon to express. ttshioindevertheless, he would not shrink from the respo n n i s o i n bi e li z iy ess e d j°lveki upon him. NOW, in regard to tlte op lace he ev e to y the Noble Lord he would, in the first p , , g (4 ss t , ,r;eroark upon the ' sta•ements—that the warrants were t '' bleb the reed b y la, that general warrants was the course .i er d CI, law recognised. Now, in the House of Lords, the titer, "tncellor Lord Brou ham and Lord Denman held .. a ' L a recl -z ' f , t °Pinion' but he us g t admit , that Lord Campbell dif 'erds -cir t l the 'ie N ni ble Lords. The three other Noble tbin.i h ave ..._ other . J .. n d; 9t b,, concurred in the opium that a general warrant Cicteel, issued to open the letters of a particular in -I„ewev ; within a certain period. Lord C.mpbell, ti . ,‘, 4 a r e- ' r waa of opinion that it required a specific fiutetedija°l;oea.o,h partianlar case of opening letters. He ad i e_ l l,i 3ei, , ,,i tnat the Noble Lord who presided in the Court of t at : e eorl " c e i to appeared afterwards to have changed his opinions, 1. ' and tivion which the Noble Lord had come to was very u kin e d b uns atisfactorily expressed. Now, his Noble and b . . the le",tend the Member fur Kinsale was the only member 11'4 like' 4 , 4 ; Profession who had argued the question nf law, but to - ' a id he and his Hon. and Learned Friend were W 11 ,14 his l fi t° agree upon this subject, nor was he likely to he t said L . 1 ,• and Learned Friend a convert to . s opinions. k i fo r is Hon. and Learned Friend? He said he cared t,Oldi is " Give me," said his Hon. and Learned .too will ' , PC"' the founthtion of Rome to the present day, 41 th e a nd Le t sanction such a practice as this." NI ell, leis lio" C our se ' ear ned Friend forgot an expression which he used o 4 hdy of his argument. At the end of his speech the ttqearit,'earted Gentleman, adverting to the peculiar que l l- Let Y o ,g upon the Hon. Member, expressed . himself thus t-- : k t ,, her,, -Lt objection can there be tocxhibitingthese warrants? ile ' ' a rt '4I Y Produ • the lee-al warrant and it would be an iii * .i'('; ' , „, t ke question," llt's Hon. and Learned Friend was, st eo 4 'at Le'l,taken in that • for they could draw no conclusion Ito o ,: 3 / 4 1 al e et. His Hon. ' and Learned Friend had spoken of tha t - t he Cants. Now did his Hon. and Learned Friend ttithßene L4 l t a turY of gent rat warrants? Now he wn , uld be d ar 7 a 6 r 3 e R h () tit 4.! warrants had existed since between 16.)4 an , it t ett! 4 eic. 4 l l , t 4 et of Parliament ; yet in the latter yea th. eI r , , e ‘' that il issue of general warrants was , i lit - 0 4 ,,, e s" r ' : bY Usage, e A complaint had . been made that herdst.•ei s iiri',O lawyers in the Committee appointed to inquire ' t e s •J e ct. Now in the Committee of the House of e t tll -ed r i ; (here not the two ex-Lord Chancellors—Lotten to;: by ar,,,eßharn ? It was said that the power was not con t,stiolft...aid-"thY..s,tat.tule law. True, the report of the House . of t•es t4 6ta t , '," he Act of Anne gave no power to the S.eere tiss, ed ri..l detain or op n letters, .b t if his Hon. and ttllii that f eliq' n d had read two other lines . in t u t ifi l7 d report he would by the fact t !tti k :l) to ~ the power was . ju t s !oat h 'sm . ~,ieat period the right had been fully ) ett e , e had i lz , HOll. and Learned Friend had declared 'tttl i ; ; bi at ti c't been able to find any authority to justify this '4l he e erld '-,' 'he ponce, when exercised, was seldom known a rs ' tabj e ',t was not likely that many authorities would . exlst . ls t ,, l els a ,. 4, 4 I t was important that they should have ev . idenec t tle tt s sto 4 et' conclusive nature upon the suhject, and with the t t esi d a tet e orthe !louse he would just refer for one moment to . i,tntet,d shat il otle. In the 40th section they would find it 1 k - Ntr no Person should be allowed to detain or open ':l til f. ,• L 't , a e r rai t 'l li e n d i to the - care of the Post-office, unless authorised ettoltt.nz.oewriieurtthhee hand of one of the principal Secre . tarre . . tiresent reign all the Acts relating .o t l ks 4 'a atio,}7ere repealed, but they w eie afterwords COllSi. r Patti.' er This Act required the postmaster to a ir k a •el reee!-°lsr declaration which the House would remcm ,4tsly, a a ! t ed the especial sanction of Parliament. The d.e -it?tttiaretlat„l these terms—" I do hereby solemnly and sin all to ' tu 4bai , I witl not wittingly or willingly open or delay RO t stfl , tom °a' h, ativ letter or anything sent by post . wh t wtt,',L'ee,,,,Y hands by reason of my eniploymeni in the ii ' It4I D :"Y - r ee i't hy the con-ent ou the person or persons to iles t ,', a nd e a , e ,' Or it is directed, or by the expre-s warrant in o 'els, t - ' Sta ti ; t ,fle hand of one of Majesty's prinerp 1 Scene s N i t, clr ttai t ,, „A subsequent Act, which cancelled all former h at rs4 of " i t ne same expressions ' as to the detention or hop he s e rf on e in the absence of .an express h e ". a t ,, t rtai ol e ,of the principal Secretaries of State. f, Ikiq ," Le ar Y did not understand what was meant by the I tt r ted t t j oat oi;t'ed Alembe r fur Shrew-bury last ntght, when p t ,' „ t all er Y st 4N i te ciwer of opening or detaining le:ters was con- P e; erl t s " that l'P° " th e s.eeretitry o S:ate. The Hon. ite„ t 'ot:eY e i i _ t he object of the Acts of Parliament ‘..ras to t ;dee fretoel/4, sub -agent, or subordinate person in the h 1; thy ' giv e ° ! e ntrig or detaining any letter ; it was not tli t ,„ .le,,,,,tieh o -4 . YPower to the Secretary of State to iitho tf ~ 1 ,( 11 1i! '• ) ~ 'ling or detention.— (" Hear, .hear." from tent 1 '1)0, 4 - ° uld his Hon. and Learned Friend who dated]sip'se r efe wr i be kind enough to state why the Secretary t tv ed f t , re red to at all ? If the sole object were to pre 'ti 't ;., 4' set ( Hea ' 6l / 2 P'ntog or detaining letters, why war it not aa t 'e r,tio:n.), the Hon. and Learned Friend might Nf l jefsr' ti 'd no t t "e thfficuity iN hid) did net occur to himself, 10 4 , red, w ' hroterstand;o the assumption to which he lip s 141$thPar.1)')'17,h, ex ception n should' ' have been . introdueect tlq, 'tat ) erg "at exception appeared to him to show 'As ees arY of hail certain cir itc a ßet. t, whi ch State . a power, under .. eht,. a wi,'•••••-(i. f _ 'Aotild render legal the acts of the subor it Pe,, e 're t t °4l ni th'sr, hear) Well, then, what was the rtsu °tai l r vil li e Rit e i,ts q uest ion ? He (the Solicitor-Getei al) ii),, lt ltt se ~ h ~... ' aa his deliberate opinion that, this being a it t t:r, bele'..sterCite:,e_rcised at common law before an! _of the It 4 'Ni,titOc e it 'e statutes, though they did not center tn r,, Icy ‘e b„ ai r , a dY existed, recognised and sanctnined histtOow -' the ,c . ,„. , ~, , ''' vi I ) He eeretary or St ate.-- k s.ear, lean ri! , Nrit, ' f4 t.: l ,. ° Ped to eonteder for a moment how this 11:eat e N ow " the Privilege s of Members of Par -1,, 1 ). A i 9u l °w, he knew that this ,vas a much more a : ll %l!t te • b ers 5 ,,. ; and knowing that upon ' ihis subject some 4 "ss,,,his t 'etir ti.r,e Peculiarly sensitive, Ire was afraid that t , tr t t r , 44 .., rr, cooevrir eensure when he ventured to Lay, that it Oki in b!eat et . et .wo that Alembers of that House pos all 'a e ' t Prte ilege • I d the rower of the th, 4 iate. t t he , a! e over their h t , oh e ' , 4l 10. ° tllitr,..._, a lett r er g s a , r ;h e an any ' other indivi %t'a n-scre e J Hear, hear, and cheers from the t?stt!itithade tled. to rrie inferred this from the terms of z' l loi l , c4 s titt in that e solution of 1735. Complaints having 4s illh th at by tk c ase, that certain letters had been N:rs, t it was 4 ` l , e. clerks of the Post-office, the House t.. t h % s I va ° op en on'gh hifringement of the privileges of t h '.4 ptit'atit in r . 1 , 0 ,0 k into any letter without an Li tt 0 1 31 e 1 1 al s hog, under the hand of one `ue t Ott et „ , erd tt. ,-e' retaries of State.—( Hear, hear.) t l' h il t t h ' t e e r as, , co e e u , , ,, ,,b t ti u o e t Atloernber for Sunderland contended that . us e it exist with regard to the letters of 'Ay nibipe ( t h Might be perverted to political or party c ; th ity e S i • dt', at th of ah reitor-General) did not reason from ierp I r er e USe 2 • , t kr ) o llCh t gainst the exercise of this power, but kki ekl y to b h t , a) 4l er P ar aretar , e great caution and care in its exer t t ed 4, sic, t y ,tir ? of s tate were to pervert the power ts., Cillle'rthat the of thelilaNs he would justly incur the severest 1 , 11 ' ,‘ 1)4,1_14 etioriln,iie_ci...llut then, it should be rem t em- t t 4 p tir e ee: sor ,e Ri„ h ,e's _t_ both Houses had reported that p Nt .tt l d'ose ' had 41;_ Honourable Gentleman nor by Icitl i , ly,....,7,har e y er 'n.e power ever been used for tlatißo thef "fear, hear, ineon.istent with tle welfare or thetatleti ,L en t.tin o i o .) Now, with regard to the et , . t d ii i was noy this important and delicate power, ,t t i h e% . On e b et ` a his which was necessarily in , 01 ate 4 'Nib ' Or e the Hous Hi otu ti nerc f R on the iii t 'r,h Le g q "'ing the subject,' he thought there seemec ell h es eat %) ard e d by 'at the power O ught to exist, thouAh b i e ek s h t ak4,, i tle \La • "tert:n restrictios and conditions. -- thet b tt s'Po u i t :•e4r ee us a ,..rali4 that if that lower were to be h ' ll aer We ari lc i e '''reir e ' elt ! l t it vras impossible to impose any 1,, . Q 6, Pt io , e fitter .: .f.here ;vas he believed, no alterna t+teh listi t '' of 0 ., r 4.aulition horn`' tl ' ° ftb k it °tie % "e Lig}, 8 , 1 , . le . power, and leaving it to A lt e t i , a l , .--(pi,,ar Bear a norrty to whom it was vested by t r roh t , r 'hs e e, irtrrteia't : i ) He now passed to that ti:" to t . ti for p i ") th e Cour L s Y the subject fur the consideration tlili‘t• fler s ll'bury present of the last session, the Hon. 1 11 ,_ igi i ,t'ud t ,who e„4,i,7nted two petitions to the House liee_t cat4 i lor,' e -enrapr' at i led that their letters had been p, , ,,,' At e , Up, n .hrtend th e 7as directed particularly against e,,, r, .i.lie,s_ t e, e li o ,._'_e Secretary of State. 'The state ‘e,,at,ii It!, I ,`! i re bat "e ith most startling effect. Many 4 154 , ero, 1 12 , t „ previously aware of the existence of the `4 duty 'ar s . itte n F ; o re I ! o %itl ori I sl ng _ . . r. cnd ~s Placed in a most difti -44,41 e• fie f e l t himself bound by his f eetlY silent under the im. _...-, MONEY and COMMERCIAL NEWS. CITY, FRIDAY EVENING. The English Securities rose % to a 4 per cent. again this afternoon, and it would appear that the Account to be adjusted on the 27th instant is likel ti f increase the demand for Stock. The latest barg • att 99% to ',' , ( 4 for Money and Time; Exchequer t _:: .0 Go t i t and 61s. premium. :0 4;: z -Z! >i le . ' , .-A:\ The Foreign investments have no 444,1 _ w movement, being heavy. Spanish . ,i 7? , Igetiii.o rc r o r . • 11 if.i. to IA ; and the Three per Cents., 10r; . , .tktigil.F. w verted receded to 59 1 ,( t ; Colombian,'_ '1 .. r . Brazilian, to 89%. Belgian Two-attii-jittris,,/ were 60 1 / 2 . e . -' .7- The additional transactions in Railwafrprtn t s. , t • —Birmingham and Gloucester were 30 to 25; 4 - 4 • i Ter 2 ; Clunmet Valley, 6to6N ; Dublin and Galway, h -n ; Eastern Union Extension, 14 ; Edinburgh and Glasgow, new Quarter, 2 ; Great Southern and Western (Ireland) 7 ; Ditto, Extension, •44, ; Great North of England, 88; Ditto, New, 38 1 / 2 ; Great - Western, Half, 49 1 / 2 ; Harwich, li 11:; Hull and Gainsborough, 7,/ 3 to 1;%, ; Lancaster and Carlisle, 151,; Birmingham, 130 to 132; South-Western, 37%; London and York, 4%_; Manchester and Birmingham, Quarter, 6 ; Midland, 27 1 A ; Newcastle and Darlington, 26; North British, 64 ; Northern and Eastern, 16•?.i to 17; Rugby a n d Tring, 2.74 ; South-Eastern, New, No. 3,6; South Wales, 2; Trent Valley, 17:3,i 1 / 1 • Boulogne and Amiens, 3 1 / ( z ; Great Northern of France, ' l l ,i !..., ; Orleans and Vierzon, Illi ; Orleans and Bordeaux, 4.,' i ; and Paris and Strasburg, 1/ premium ; Strasburg and Bale have been 1.1 discount ; National Provincial Bank of Ireland Shares were 1914 premium. The exchanges were higher to-day on Antwerp, Ham burg'', and Trieste, scaroely so high on Paris, and firm on the other cities. (From The Sun of Last Night.) There was rather a quiet market for Cotton at Liverpool yeAerday. Sales, 3,000 bales, without change in prices, though the market was not quite so firm. Speculators took about 1,000 bags.—There was less inquiry for Railway Shares. Caledonian, 7% 3 j t ; Chester and Holyhead, 8% ; Dublin and Belfast, 6 ; Glasgow and Dumfries, 17s. 6d. 18s.; Glasgow and Greenock, Preference, 425. ; Grand Junction, 226 ; Ditto, Halves, 113 ; Great Western, Fifths, 39% ; London and Birmingham, 32/. Shares, 43 ; Ditto, Quarters, 2976 ; London and Brighton, 5814 59 ; London and South- Western, New, 12% ; London and York, 6% ; Man chester and Leeds, Halves, 60 1 ,4 ; Midland Counties, 127 1 ,4 Newcastle and Berwick, 14 15 ; North B r iti s h, 13 ; Shrews bury and Grand Junction, 54; South-Eastern, 4 11% ; Ditto, No. 2, 1014 ; Trent Valley, 194 %. There have not been any arrivals from the British colo nies to-day. A remarkable degree of consternation has been produced in the wine trade by the failure of an old established firm— that of Reay, sen., and Co. It is feared, that under the pe culiar position in which the trade has for a long time been placed, as respects the negotiation for a more liberal tariff being concluded with Portugal, &c., that other stop pages may occur. With respect to the firm in question, it is not necessary, at the present moment, to notice the reports that are in circulation connected with this unfortunate subject. The determination of Mr. T. Duncombe to have a most rigid inquiry into the conduct of the Home Department in directing letters addressed to him to be opened, meets with very general concurrence in the City. Among many of our mer chants some apprehension is entertained that if the coarse pursued by Government is tolerated, the time may not be far distant when similar irruptions may be made into the private correspondence of commercial men. There has been searcely a shade of variation in the Consol market this morning. The price for the Account is at 99%, and for Money at 991% %; the New Three-and-a-Quarter per Cents. have advanced to 4 per cent. above par; Exche quer-bills, 575. 595. prem. ; and Bank Stock is very firm at 212 1 ,4. Russian Bonds have reached this morning 20 per cent.. above par; Four-and-a-Half are at 101 3 / 1 . The Dutch Four per Cents. are at 98% / ; the Portuguese Converted at 60, Brazilian at 904 ; andDlexican at:3sl. Not a single quo tation has been made for Spanish Stock to-day. There has been a re-action in the Railway Share Market. The principal alterations hare been in the Birmingham and Gloucester, in the Cambridge and Lincoln, in the Eastern Counties, Ike. The Great North of England have advanced. The British North American Bank Shares are at 4 1 4 dis. ONE CLOSING PRICES OF ERITIS/1 FUNDS. O'CLOCK. PRICES. Bank Stock 3 per Cent. Reduced ... 100% 1 4 . 106 1 4 31per Cent. Consols New 3 1 4 per Cents Long Annuities to expire Jan. 1860 121 a 1.-16 12 1-16 South Sea Stock Ditto New Annuities ............ 9814 Consols for Account.... ...... ....... 99:,!4 Exchequer Bills, 1,000/., 57 Ditto 5001. . Ditto Small . 98 1 ' 99A, pm. 60 pm. 60 pm. 61 CLOSING PRICES. :8934 ONE PRICES OF FOREIGN FUNDS. O'CLOCK. Brazilian Bonds Ditto, New, 1829 and 1839 BB Chilian Bonds 6 per Cent.... • Columbian Bonds, ex Venezuela l4 Danish Bonds, 1825, 3 per Cent 89 : 7 3i Blexican, 5 per Cent. 1837 — Ditto, Account 354 Portuguese Bonds, 5 per Cent Ditto, Converted Russian Bonds Spanish 5 per Cent. 1840. Ditto. Account ... .. ......... Ditto 1841 — Ditto, Deferred Ditto 3 per Cent. ..... ... Ditto Account Venezuela Bonds, 2 per Cent — Ditto, Deferred 2 O l /2 Belgian Bonds, 4 1 /, ! per Cent lOl% Dutch, 21! 2 per Cent . Ditto, 4 per Cent., Certitic 98%% Ditto, Account Ditto, 5 per Cent 99% 99 1 4 PRICES OF CLOSINCt , PAID. AT ONE O'CLOCK. RAILWAY SHARES rnicEs.• Birmin. and Gloucester. 100 - /2 Ditto 1() Shares Bristol and - Exeter Bristol and Gloucester... 30 .. 5B 57 Caledonian 2/87' .... 31 75/0/2 ,i 3 1 4 Cipnbridge and Lincoln 11 , 1 .'.,. Cliurnet Valley . Direct Northern Dublin and Galway 2C - Eastern Counties 141. 165....... 17%1/04% Eastern Union Ditto Extension Edinburgh and Glasgow 50 Ditto New 1 / Shares... 212 5 ••• 101 63 Great South.'and west. (Ireland) Ditto Extension GreatNorthd . England..loo lB7 192 Ditto New 5 Ditto New 2 Great Western BO ..... 175%14 Ditto % Shares 5O Ditto Fifths Ilarwich Hu 1 1 and Gainsborough 1% Lancaster and Carlisle... 15 London and Birminghm (5t0ck)...232 233 . Ditto New Thirds London and Blackwall.. 16% 7% London and Brighton... 50 Do. consolidated Bths.. 16 London and S. Western 41/63 10d 80 79%4 Ditto New 214 1 2 3 / 44 London and Croydon, 13/. 15s. 9d. 18 1 4% Ditto Guaranteed 5 per Cent. London and York . 2 1 Manchester and Leeds... 73 Ditto 1 4 Shares 4 Midland 100 12614 128 Ditto New 2 ••• •• 81 .4 Newcastle and Darling ton Junction .. 24 ...... 49% Newcastle and Berwick 1 1 / 2 ...... 14;;*i % 15 Newark and Sheffield ... 1 1 / 2 2 ...... ......... North British Ditto New 1 Northern and Eastern... 45 Richmond and West End Junction Rugby,Wor'ster,& Tring 1 Shrews., Wolverhamp., Dudley, and Birm 2% 5%% 4 1%... • South Eastern & Dover 33128 4d 4016 39 1 4 40 .. Ditto, .No. 1 Ditto, No.' ) • Ditto, No. 3 ... 2 1 South Wales .... 21/ 2 5 • Trent Valley 2 ... 19% . Waterford and Kilkenny 1 .. ... 3 York and North Midland 50 lO4 Ditto 1 /. Shares .. 25 Ditto Scarboro' Branch. 20 Ditto, Selby Ditto Extension ...... 114 1234 FRENCH RAILWAYS. Boulogne and Amiens... 2 Bordeaux and Toulouse 2 Great North. of France.. 4 Orleans and Vierzon ... 2 ...... 14 . Orleans and Bordeaux... 2 Paris and Orleans -20 Paris and Rouen ... Paris and Strasbourg ... 2 Strasbourg and Bale ... 14 JOINT STOCK BANKS. British North American 50 .. ••• 451 ,4 Provincial of Ireland 95 T 1114: SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY MORNING, FEBRUARY 22, 1815. potation. 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 to terance.—( Hear, hear.) But there were Mem bers of that House who knew the position in which his Right Hon. 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 beer, some exte nuation ; but they had not exhibited their usual manliness and generosity by comieg forward to relieve the Right Hon. Baronet from his position. A great popular excitement prevailed on the subject. He believed the Noble Lord and the Right lion. Baronet suspected that his Bight 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 impression on the House, his Right Hon. Friend declared that he thought the time had now arrived when the a 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 I-lon. Friend ; and if the lion. Member for Finsbury were excluded from it as the accuser, lie stood in precisely the same position as other Hon. Members of that House. His Hon. 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 lion. and Learned Friend would for g ive him ;or raying that he would have done much better if he had read the terms in which the Committee was appointed, 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 bad been given. This was also the opi 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 yrinciples 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 Hon. 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 Hen. Member for Finsbury complained that witnesses which he himself produced were not examined by the Committee. Those witnesses were not examined, as the Hen. Member himself chose to impose conditions with respect to that examination which were quite inconsistent with the duty he had to perform. The witnesses who were examined before that Committee gave their evidence freely and openly, under the impression that the evidence taken by the Committee would be secret. Yet now the lion. 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. anti which was now under dis cussion, together with the amendment of the Noble Lord the Member for Sunderland. The motion of the lion. Member for Finsbury was very limited in its character, as it only extended to a period since 1840. It was obviously intended as a personal attack on the Right lien. Baronet, and was made with a view to continue towards him that odium which must attach to the power, if it were to attach at all, of opening letters at the Post office. It was very hard to overcome a prejudice which had ob tained possession of the public mind. The Hon. Member for Finsbury knew this, and it was to increase that prejudice that the present motion had been broueht 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 saie. that the Noble Lord had taken the matter out of his hands, end it had become, as the lion Gentleman said, a personal matter bet ween the Government and himself. Why, it was from the best a personal attack, and it remained a personal attack. It would appear that the power of opening letters had been exercised by lsohle 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 lion. Friend in the situation in which he was placed. lie 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 be called upon them to resist the amerolment of the Noble Lord and this motion of the Hon. Gentleman.—(Cheers.) Lord JOHN RUSSELL then rose and said—l feel, Sir, that I need make no apology to the House for addressing them on the present occasion. But the Noble Lord, the Mem ber for Tyrone, has thought proper to say, that I am to be blamed because I did not take an earlier opportunity of address ing the House on the motion of the Hon. Member for Finsbury. Sir, I felt no such necessity. With respect to the question itself, there bad been a Committee appointed last year, which had received evidence from various Secretaries of State, and hefere which Committee the Right lion. Gentleman opposite produced the warrants of various Secretaries of State who had preceded him. I wa3 examined before that Committee, and I gave as fully as my knowledge and recollection would servo 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 lion. 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 night in the course of the debate, and it was only by your deci sion that my Nob!e Friend the Member for Sunderland ad dressed the llouse.—(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 opt Ilion 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 th e A c t • f 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 person, conclude but, that without that warrant, such a pro ceeding would not take place. And if lam now told that there are persons of very 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 be 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 ooffices which the Queen's post-office at that time was intended to supersede? What would have been the case in Live of a person in the City of London, who had engaged to send letters ell 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 proceeditee under these warrants is illegal—if we live under a state of law not ;hitherto understood, I wish that question were cleared up for the benefit of those who act upon what is pre eurxed to be the law ; f the country. Then as to the practice. There is no doubt that when, last year, it was disrovere.t. owing to the questions oi the Hon. Gen tleman the Member fur Finsbury, letters had been opened in the Post-office, that greet indignation was expressed, and that a moat undue share of tint public indignation was directed against the Right lion. the Secretary of State for the Home Department.—(Hear, hear.) For my own part, I can only say, with soy Hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield that, as far as I can see, the conduct of the Right Hon. Gentleman has been like that of his predesessors in office, and that the power I was used generally for the purpose of defeating Con ,Piracies and pres , rving 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, end that they amounted to forty, while for three Tears that the Right Hon. Gentleman was in office the number was forty four, he concluded, rationally and justly as I think, that such a difference showed et) 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 lion. Gentleman.—(Hear, hear, from the Ministerial benches.) But with regard to the power itself. when I heard persons, moved by that ind:gna tion which affect; the public, say that no letters ought to be opened which pass through the Post-office, I own 1 felt great doubt whether it would be safe and wise to act upon that view.—( Hear.) It may be that such power should be scarcely ever exercised—it may be, that those who preceded the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State, and the Right Hon. Gentleman himself, exercised it mere frequently than was necessary, aed, in some instances erroneously, but, on the other band, to declare by Act of Parliament or resolu tion that any person concerned in a conspiracy against the State, or in levying civil war atrainst 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 Lord 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. Aly 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 cf the instigations of those spies. I consider the employment of spies not only objectionable, but dangerous end 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 he 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.—( Ileer, hear. ) And when a Chartist, who took a chief lead in the counsels of those who were called Physical Force Chartists, offered me bis services to detect the designs of his fellow-Chartists, I refused his offer.—(Loud cheers.) I be lieve that the employment of spies does not at present exist, but you have no sanction by law from that service—you have no declaration on the part of the House—you have no enactment which secures you against the employment of spies, or that the secret service ineney 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 he sent through the Post-office. —( Hear, hear.) A spy is a man who goes amongst persons and instigates theta to commit acts, which but for him they rnight 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 la - A year of the ooening 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 ternal danger, or from a foreign enemy.—( Hear, hear.) That was the case of M. Mazzini—a case referred to with some 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 cf this case, it is as follows :—lnformation was given, or, rather, a suggestion was made, that Mazzini was at the head of a pity wt,ieh sought to overturn the existing Go vernment of Italy, and especially the Government et the Papal State. In consequence of this information the letters of Maz- 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 Bandieras, 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 of persons residing within the power of those Governments were not not 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 cf a foreign Power, for the purpose of preventing war.—(Hear, hear.) Id o no t believe that is a legitimate purpose for which this power ought to be exercised.—( Hear, hear.) I am far from saying that a Minister of the Crown should not exercise that power with a view and intention 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 lie 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 would have done—showing himself a faithful and loyal subject—he would net have beets 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 fur 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—( Hea-, 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 ease no further inquiry required. I would not be disposed to vote for the motion oft that ground, for I thiest 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, i s 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. "1 - he Honourable and Learned Gentleman (tho Solicitor-General) has attributed great blame to me for my conduct last year. I will not detain the House with a defence of my conduct last year, as 1 fear I should never satisfy the Hon. and Learned Gentleman ; for, while be blames me for being in opposition to the Government with regard t o t h e i nqu i ry into the case of Mazzini, he blames me likewis e f or supporting the Go vernment when they said the Committee should he a secret one; so that, whether 1 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 I hear the Right Hon. Gentl eman the Se cretary at War, who spoke last night, and th e H on. 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 ther e was any fear of an adverse report from that particular circumstance— ( Hear, hear.) I think men of calm and dispas s i onate minds would be as likely to do justice to those op posed to them, as if they sat on the sam e s id e ; 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. ) And instead of the Hon. Member for Kendal, and the Hon. 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. Gentlema n . —(R enewed laughter.) But, Sir, with regard to the report of th e Com mittee, ) Ince of Denmark, they show e d so 7 I wonder mmuc h itt e e he antiquarian yw a e d ri u t c e the a s o r e case rfsaerch o ~_ backr “ 1 into history, ulgeth,t, pr they did not d who opened the letter of the King, and had R osencrantz Guildestern, the Ministers, executed in his stead.--( L aug ht er .) But when they had proceeded through their research, and came to the present time, they gave no account of the conduct say, asthe the Lords' Committee s o a f ici th: th S a e t e i r t e w ta a r s y r o lo f t S r t e a q te ui ; re tey required either with the present or They du not say that they believe i past Secre taries of State. 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 here read part of the report, and then proceeded.) They then refer to five different cases—the outbreak in 1842 ; that which took place in Wales in 1843 ; the case of Mazzini; the case of Stolzman ; and the case of Grotlicke. When the Committee had gone into the particulars of these five cases, and when the Hon. Member for Finsbury complains of his letters being opened, I do not know why the Committee should stop short in giving information.—( Hear, hear.) Then it is said that Members of Parliament are no better than ether persons. —(. Hear, hear," from Colonel Sibthorp.) Undoubtedly, if Members of this House were to be engaged in a treasonable correspondence or in promoting sedition, let the Secretary of State not hesitate to open their letters.—(Hear, hear.) That, however, is not the question now, the question is whether, it having been stated that his 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 shai.e 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 a ere 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 ersuade 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 truths to come out. Why, I ask, should we not have a short inquiry into this particular case, and set right the cha racter of the Hon. Gentleman ?—(Hear, hear.) if the House allows such a ease 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 1835.—(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 most able and admirable mariner; and if he asked for in quiry on the subject, the House, in his opinion, ought to en ter into it.—(Hear.) Such, Sir, are the results of my opinion upon the whole case. I think, as regards the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the imputation upon him that he has been the first to go to ex tremes in this practice, is unjust.—( Hear, hear.) With regard to the case of M. Mazzini, blame was attributable to the Government. They have now taken an extraordinary course. There can be no doubt that it has led to melancholy results, and ought not to be repeated ; and we wish to avoid anything that might 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 inquiry, that the character of the Right Honourable Baronet will come out clear. It will be supposed, if you grant this inquiry, that you have done it for the public good, but if you refuse 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.—(Bear, 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, f 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 the House. It has been stated in the course of the debate that I indi rectly charged the lion. Member for Finsbury with being connected with Chartists. The very first Member who spoke upon the subject after myself, the Colleague of the Honourable Member for Finsbury, put a false construction on the words that I addressed to the House. That Hon. Member has said that I indirectly alluded to a connexion which existed between the Hon. Member for Finsbury and the Chartists. Now, in my opinion, the indirect allusion is worse than the direct one.— ( Hear, hear.) Although public duty will not permit us to answer the questions which have been put with respect to the opening of lettlers, I consider that I should be taking an unjust advantage of the Honourable Member for Finsbury, it I said one word crirninating his conduct, and I hope I may be permitted to advert to the last thirty years of my life, in order to refute the assertion that I have ever been guilty of bringing forward subjects with unge nerous intentions. —( Hear, hear.) It never entered my mind, while speaking, that it was possible any one could suppose that I was countenancing the impression that the Hon. Gen tleman had done any act that would render him unworthy of a seat in this House. What was the course that was taken? The Hon. Gentleman made no personal motion. It was a motion for inquiry emending from 1840 to the present time. lie proposed that a C omm i ttee s h ou ld b e appointed, who were toinquire whether any alteration had been made in the law. bsolokoidierosf"thhoe p l u t l a ie li d an the ref t u r g ig e g c e s rs wh o i f e t h he h m ad us b k e e e t n s spilt The lion. Member says t h at Mi n i sters were more responsible tt t hi hem. He lastly s aid th a t t h e present Government had made s hot f r than made use of more warrants for th e searc hi ng of letters than any preceding Government during the same period. It may bs true that more warrants have been issued for that pur pose, and I shall be able clearly to s h ow t h e H ouse that in the state of the country it was necessary. My Right Hon. Friend the Secretary of State was justified in all that he has done. In 1842 the country was in the greatest danger, but no warrants had been issued for the purpose of exaggerating that dan ger .—( H ear, h ear.) Yes ! we forget now that in one town alone—and I am not speaking of that town as the one in which the greatest appre hension 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. went on whleli they could depeed for subsistence !—(Hear, hear.) I know well what was the state of this metropolis at that period ; I knots 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 lion. 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 acrimonious feelings.—( Im mense cheering 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. He undertook to assure the House that my vehemence was pre tended, and my warmth simulated ; I, on the contrary, will do him the justice—the entire justice—of saying that relo be lieve his bitterness was not simulated-( Tremendous cheering) —but that it was wholly and entirely sincere !—(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 in 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 th' avowed, the erect, the manly f Bold, I can meet, perhaps can turn the blow, But of all plagues, good Heaven, thy wrath can send, Save me ! oh, save me from the candid friend !" —(lmmense cheers.) Here we are 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. ) Be it so ! it cannot be avoided ; but all I ask is, do not profess friendship when your purpose is enmity.—(Cheers.) In the course of the same speech the Hon. Gentleman made also this charge against me ; the Hon. Gentleman said,—and as it appeared to me, it was quite an unnecessary allusion for the sake of his argument,—the 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 declared 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 amen showed a change of feeling, and an altered mode of life, I should rat her be disposed to extend that oblivion which is most consistent with true charity, over the culpable proceedings of that man's early life.—( Cheers.) But at the same time, considering that Despard's plot was one of this nature—that one of the counts of the indictment against Despard and his associates extended to burning the Bank—that they intended a bloody slaughter of the peaceable inhabitants of this city—but above all, that they contemplated the murder of the Sovereign on his way to Par liament—l am not sure that the lapse of three-and-forty years would justify me in recommending a man for a high civil situation in the ordnance department. Now, observe, I am speakin g on t h e assumpt i on t h at th i s Hon. Friend of mine was really engaged in this plot. But what will the House think—w - hat will the Hon. Memberror Shrewsbury think of himself —when I state that the charge is utterly without foundation—(Loud cheers)—that it is as really and utterly without foundation that my Hon. Friend was concerned in Despard's plot, as it would have been if the Hon. Member for Shrewsbury had said he was himself concerned in the Gun powder Plot !—(Cheers and laughter.) I have received from my Hon. Friend a letter on this subject, with which, in jus tice to him, I must trouble the House. It is as follows :—" I have this moment read a speech of Mr. D'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 1603, the plot having occurred in the preceding year, 1802. 1 was at that time sixteen years of age, in attendance on my father, then suffering from an attack of paralysis, I being under the care of a private tutor at home. My age at the time will probably exempt me from any suspicion of having been concerned in that plot ; but if not, I state explicitly that I had no more concern, di rectly or indirectly, with Colonel Despard and his asso ciates, than yourself."—( Hear, hear, and cheers.) My Honourable Friend then goes on to allude to a more painful subject, he says--‘‘ But that I may not be charged with with holding from you anything that might have given rise to such a misrepresentation, I should state that my half-brother, who was fifteen years older than myself, who, along with Lord Cloncurry, was arrested under the suspension of the habeas corpus, and confined in 1799." Now Ido ask the Hon. Gen tleman to have some sort of foundation - for his statements. I ap prehend 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 Despard's plot, ho being at the time of the age of sixteen, that being the readiest means of at once showing how totally the charge was without foundation. Whether or not the Hon. Gentleman had heard of the misfortune of my Hon. Friend's half-brother, several years older than himself, I will ask him whether or not it would not have been more just to have 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 before, that Ido not meats to take any share in that general discussion injwhich I have before had an opportunity of joining. I spoke before under the same feelings which I speak now, and I tell you you are meditating an act of the greatest injustice towards her Ma jesty's Government. It was disclosed last year that letters were opened by my Right Hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It became necessary to submit the whole matter to a Com mittee of Inquiry. This House selected its own tribunal.— (Cries of " No, no," and Hear, hear.") Why, by the un animous vote of the House, without a division, this Secret Committee was appointed. Let us see in what relation the House stands towards the Government. The House chose to have the inquiry conducted by a Secret Committee, and it en tirely approved of the gentlemen who composed it. I know not whether the approbation of that Committee was universal, but this I know, that the Noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell) delivered his opinion that the Committee ought to be secret, and that the constitution of the Committee was a perfectly fair one. A division was taken on the question whether the Hon. Gentleman ought to be a Member of the Committee or not. He stated himself that he 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 reason excluded from it. I say, Sir, this House chose its own tribunal. We were invited before that Committee to disclose every fact, and we 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 es 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.) The Hon. Gentleman concluded his speech by putting to my Right Hon. 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 n Secret Committee, in order that there might be no pretence for with holding any information. We gave that information without re serve. We gave every warrant, every reason upon which we acted to the Committee, because that Committee was secret and corn. 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.—(Cheers.) I repeat, Sir, the inquiry was fully gone into. W e gave our evidence, 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 " Hear, hear," from the Minis terial benches.) You propose to submit us to another inquiry and another tribunal. Sir, lam well aware that different lines of conduct may be pursued by men when in office and when on the Opposition benches. lam aware of time reserve which belongs to a member of the Government ; but yet there are circumstances which should guide the conduct of those who have bee n i n o ffice, who can not 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 in 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 lion. 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)--I knew in what conditi on you were as well your position. I k new 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 exercised a power which you would not have done under similar circumstances. In critical times we are li a bl e , as you were, to com m i t m i stakes. Letters may have b een s t o pped and opened, w i t h out any dis credit being implied on th e p ar ty to whom they w ere addressed ; but this was your p os iti on likewiee--(Loud cri es of Hear.) You concurred in the appointment of that tribunal. You know that we did nothing which you had not yourselves d one. — ( Loud cheers a n d cr i es o f " Hear, hear.") I - envy you not. It will be but a sorr y t r i um ph even if you sh ou ld succeed in subjecting us to a second trial, and provoking that condemna tion from which we had escaped. The Noble Lord says we acted wrong with respect to Itlazzini. Well, Sir, with respect to foreigners, I am willing to admit that I think this power ought to be exercised with a reserve almost greater than to 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 maim 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 conciliate you by making any promise with respect to the sacrifice of this important power.—(Loud sheers.) Lot 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 demos-ids fur 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 he one of the majority by whom that injustice was 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 —I 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 made 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.) lam glad that the House is so full, and that I can offer to the gentleman wlsose conduct I have so misrepresented, an ample, a humble, and a complete apology.—( Cheers. ) I deeply regret that I have been led to make such a statement, and I can only say that if there is any languagee 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 convey to that gentle man the expression of my regret—that language I will at once use. But Ido not think I can offar that apology in a manner more satisfa itory 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 as 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.—(o l l, oh, and Hear, hear.) I state again, most distinctly, that it hay 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 " 00, oh.") lam 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 en 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 lion. 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 HANMER 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 of the Honourable Gentleman himself, putting aside altogether that of M. Mazrini and other persons. If that joint case had been brought before the House, it was his intention to have voted for the Govern ' went.—(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 lion. Gentlemen. When be 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. lie 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. He was sitting in his place, when the Noble Lord came to him. He understood, for he had not been in the House— ( Laughter)—that he (Sir John Hamner) had expressed an opinion with regrrd to the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Finabury. lie stated that he had expressed such an opinion, and that he was anxious to give a fair and independent vote upon the subject, if the case of the lion. 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 ho ( Sir John Hanmer) 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 lion. 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 be 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 Hon. Baronet—(Loud cheers)—which the lion. 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, 0.1 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. He did not say this because he unde rva l ue d 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 c.uld 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. Menai), 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 he 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.—( Hear, hear.) If so, then ho 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 nut 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 Committee 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 the inference of their abstaining from any allusion to the circumstance proved that there was nothing in those letters contained of a criminatery character.—( Hear, hear.) Under these circumstances, he (Sir George Grey) would say the Hon. Member for Finsbury was perfectly warranted in following up the subject here, and in calling upon this House to defend him.—(Hear, hear.) What was the reason assigned by the Right Hon. Baronet, the Home Secretary, for not ' answering the question when first put to him ? Why, that ex • treme inconvenience would arise from answering such ques tions, but he (Sir Geo. Grey) would contend that if twenty Members stood up in the House to put the same question, they should be answered.—( Hear. hear.) Such an excuse was a flimsy 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 interruption, he thought the Government ought to give the satisfaction se justly de manded, and reconsider their determination. In appointing the Committee of last year, the Ministers had yielded to public opinion. He hoped they would new see the expediency of ad o pti ng a s i m il ar course, an d ma ki ng a similar concession.—( Hear, hear.) H e h o p e d they would give his Hon. Friend the M em b er f or Fi ns b ury an o pportunity t 0 f vin dicating his characte r —( H ear , b ear )—and yieYl o the general opinion of that (th e Opp os i t i on ) side of the Mouse, 0 many ny of th _ their own Hear,hear. ) supporters, r and of the public generally, out of doors. Mr. STRUTT beggedbe gge d attributed wbe Hon. Friend the Me e H mbeL e foreFninttebttuted to him, th a t hi s nuerdy his ha vivodnot,cainse. vi bringing the subject before th he had said was, that his Hon' mentions . Friend did not bring forward the charge of opening his letters, in the same distinct arid direct manner In which he now did. His Honourable Friend on that 1 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 fur 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 Hon. Baronet's opposite—a gentleman connected with the Government. lie was glad that the explanation had been made, which induced the Hon. 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 should not an explanation be given in a similar spirit to his lion. Friend the Member for Finsbury ?—( Hear, hear.) They (the Ministerial party) had charged the lion. Member for Finsbury with being 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 subj , ct?—( Hear, hear.) They had given 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 do se.—( Hear, hear.) If the Right lion. Gentlemen opposite refused explanation and inquiry, he would say that, by their own conduct, they were condemned.—(Cheers.) He (Mr. Jervis) would net advert to the law of the case, if he bad not been in some sort referred to by his Hen. 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. Rut, as the Solicitor -Genet al 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 lion, 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 lion. 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. MUNTZ 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. 'fhe public had been astonished. He had not yet recovered the feeling which he had entertained when he first heard that this power existed. When he first heard it he 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. Dun combe) was meditating injustice to him lie 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 groat portion of the public thought, be had a right to de mand ? Tho 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 Host. Baronet the Secretary for the Home 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 head of the Government 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 ll.m. 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 Wine, 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 the report which related to Mazz:ni, al:d the exercise of the power with regard to foreigners, the Honourable Gentleman said he must state that, in his judgment, the Right Hon. Baronet had not exercised a sound discretion.—( Hear, hear. ) Was that a verdict of acquittal ? In point of fact, it was no verdict at all. Generally speaking, when a jury could not agree they were dismissed, and a new inquiry granted ; and he ventured to say that if the Right Hon. Baronet would put these nine gentlemen into the box, and let him take his witnesses into an open room, they would come to a much more conclusive report than that which had been laid upon 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 had been made, he thought there were sufficient grounds for further inquiry. The opening of Mazzini's letters commenced immediately after Christmas, but no notice had been taken of this to the Com mittee. Mr. Wurzell 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. Now, 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 lion. 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 state that we found nothing in them that in the slightest degree criminated you," though 1 ho 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 ,he would bring his proofs to the bar.—(Loud cheers.) He would make a motion to call to the bar the officers of the Pest-office, who must have committed a breach of privilege, if they had opened his letters without a warrant. If he had been asked why the letters of Members should be protected any more than those of other persons? The only difference was, he conceived, that in an ordinary case there was a misdemeanour, 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 cerrespondence.—(Laughter.) He was sure, that if Lord Sidmouth had done the Right Hon. Baronet the honour of opening his letters, be would have been equally entertained ( Laughter) —and he would have been exceedingly surprised if he had been told that, at some future day, that Right Non. 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 begged to state that, as there appeared to be a strolls , dis position not to assent to the motion, 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 R. PEEL said the usual course was to take the sense of the House on the original motion ; bn, as he had no objection to the sense of the House being so taken, so 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 withdraw, and the House divided, when there appeared— For Lord Howick's amendment Against it Majority against the amendment The amendment was consequently lost. SUGAR. DUTIES. Sir B. PEEL, in answer to a question from Mr. Hawes, stated, 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. DUNCOMBE gave notice, that en Tuesday next, he should move that certain officers belonging to her Majesty's Post-office do a tt en d a t t h e b ar o f the House, to i n f orm the House under what authority they had been parties to detain ing, delaying, o r opening his (Mr. Duncombe's) post letters. The House then adjourned at One o'clock. PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS. (From the Votes and Proceedlirgs of the House of Conanone.) THURSDAY', FEB. 20. POST-OFFICE. Motion made, and Question put, " That the debate be now ad. journed." The Rouse divided : MINORITY—AYES, 29. Blewitt, R. J. Duncombe, T. Pattison, James Bouverie, E. P. Evans , William Peehell, Capt4 n Bowring Dr. Ferrand, W. F. Ri cardo, J. L. Bright, John Gibson, T. M. Brocklehurst, J. Hastie, Archibald VYv3 an, Sir R. Byng, G. S. Heathcoat, John Holland, Robert \Watson, W. 11. Christie, W. I). Wawn, J. T. Curteis, 11. B. Martin, John 'Williams, Dawson, T. V. Morris, David Duncan, George Muntx, G. F Duncannon, Viscount Murray, Alepncer TELLEIS. Ilrotherton, J. Collett, John AJORITY-NOES, 269. BISHOP or Eur.--We are happy to learn that the accounts of our Right Rev. and respected Diocesan are such as to induce hopes that his recent severe attack may be subdued—Cain bridge A d-rei•tiser. EXPORTATION or HORSES.—The Antwerp steam ship Princess Victoria, Captain Jackson, on her departure on Sunday last, had her deck filled with horses. They were purchased here by Belgian horse-dealers fur use in their country, and many of them were very beautiful animals. The ship returned here on Thursday ramilau, after a splenalcl run of 19 hours only. 14 35 1 4 - 59!‘ 26k; 164 4074 " -f. 7%. 8 3 1 % 43 , 41,4 188 434' 9911 30 3 1 232 89 18% - 7% 10 1271,4 10,7 4 62 _ OW. 3:,,i B, l i 4 19 5 1 h 5 1 / 13:4 6% • 21i , .. 12A 44-; MANCHESTER STOCK EXCHANGE, FEB. 20.—The business of to-day has been moderate, and prices remain without much change :—Bristol and Gloucester, 58, e; London and Bir mingham, 321. Shares, 4314 ; London and Brighton, 59 ex new and ex div. ; Manchester and Birmingham, 624 • M an „ 73/ "il ' Giran'cialand ugby chester, Bury, and Rossemlale, 10:!4 ; Midland, 401. ' Shares, 896 9-16; Sheffield and Manchester, 105 1 , 104%; s out h. Eastern, 41%; Ditto, No. 3, 9 7 6 ; Birkenhead, Manchester, and Cheshire Junction, 7% • Blackburn, /114 urnelaeray,bria.:gdeAancnd: 53',. ; ;Blackburn , Darwen, and Boltorne,a4t _7 ;Bolton, Wigan, and Liverpgol, , 1 7 , 1 2 ; ; C L al i e v d e o r n p i o a o n l: 7 0 1 : in • sk. k cringt on, Oxford 71.5/ Worceste t r,: 4 'ill ; Lincoln, 31( IA ; Chuniet Valley, Pres ton,and Sheffield Junction, _,ondon and 2 3 15-16; London and York, 71/ ; 3 1 , • Scottish Central, 4 1 ' 4 g ]Manchester and Buxton, /s ; Shrewsbury, Wolverhampton. Dudley, &c., 614 ; Southport and Euxton, 3 ; T rent V a ll ey , 19 1 / I ni 2 ; Boulogne a A • Glass, 12 13. miens, (English), 5% ; U n i on Pl ate CO'- 'URSE OF EXCHANGE. -(YESTERDAY) Amsterdam ...... CF. 12 7L-' Gibra1tar.............. •• Ditto, at 5ight....,,.,, 12 5 Leghorn ...•—••• 31 . U. Rotterdam ..... 2 U 12 8 Genoa ..... ...... .. 26 10 Antwerp ............... 26 10 Milan .—, Etamburgh ...... M.B. .................. 13 15 Venice ..... —.. ...... 47 Alton& l3 15 Naples ....... ...... 391 Paris, 3 days' sight— 25 85 Palermo, pv oz ll Bk Ditto, 3 months 26 0 Lisbon ..• • Marseilles Bourdeaux 26 15 Rio Janeiro .... Frankfort on Maine.. 122 Bahia 24 Petersburgh, 3 Us... 37 Buenos Ayres ...— Berlin 7 NewYork.2? dyssight Vienna, effee. fl. 3 M 959 Philad?iphia — Trieste, ditto Madrid Cadiz 361 Portugal Gold Coin 317 5 'ilbao 36 New DouLoons..... 0 0 0 Barcelona 36 New Dollars 0 4 9a Silver in Pars 0 4 111 Sevilla — The Reverend Sidney Smith remains, we regret to learn, in a very weak state. Dr. Chambers and Dr. Holland are In daily attendance on the Rer. Gentleman, whose continued indisposi tion at his advanced age (nearly seventy-flair) is naturally a subject , of great anxiety to his family. The calls of the nobility and gentry at the Rev. Prekendary's resideue4 in Green-slreos are exceedingly riumeroua. _ ..ti 14,-, -.--,-, --- - " . , • _ . . . T' ^ ' I ~=