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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, Feb. 21. The LORD CMANCRI.LOR took his seat on the Woolsack shortly after Five o'clock. MEDICAL PROFESSION. Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from a medical gentleman named Burn, living at St. George's-in-the-East, praying an amendment in the laws regarding coroners. The petitioner stated that many inquisitions had been taken in cases where parties bad been dying for 13 or 14 days. Now this surely was unnecessary, and he wished to call the attention of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to it. Lord CAMPBELL would give notice of his intention on Monday to lay on the table of the House a Bill for abolishing deOdands. Lord STANLEY presented a petition from Ulverstone praying that the Apothecaries' Act be repealed. SUGAR DUTIES, Lord MONTEAGLE moved for an account of the equali sation of the duties on sugars in 1836, the produce of the East Indies. He thought the objects that had been produced by the equa lisation of the duties on sugar would be productiveof little good if an alteration was to be made in the sugar duties with respect to the nature of the quality of sugar produced. The subject did not rest on any opinion of his, because it had been referred to a Committee of the whole House, of which his Noble Friend opposite was the Chairman. The equalisation of the duty had pro duced an alteration of from twenty-one to twenty-four shillings. Since that alteration the increase in consumption bad more than repaid the reduction of duties. The consumption had in creased tenfold, and when he referred to the evidence given be• fore that Committee by a gentleman intimate with the subject, and of the highest respectability, and to whose opinion the House might attach the utmost importance, he found that he had laid down the principle that an equalisation of the duties from our colonial possessions was of paramount import ance to the best interests of the country, and in the report proposed by the Chairman of that Com mittee an equalisation of the duties on sugar was laid down as a part of the commercial policy of the country. After this de claration he was of opinion that any attempt to introduce a discriminating duty between sugars from our different colonies would be an unwise policy on the part of Government, and prove most injurious to our foreign possessions. He would, therefore, move for a return of the amount of sugar im ported from the East and West Indies within the last three years, as also for the duties paid on them within the same period. Lord STANLEY said that, so far as the mere papers called for by the Noble Lord were concerned, he had no hesi tation in promising that the fullest information would be given by her Majesty's Government. The Noble Lord seemed to him (Lord Stanley) to infer that her Majesty's Government intended to recede from the principle of perfect equality which had hitherto guided them. Now, he could assure the. Noble Lord that her Majesty's Government would adhere to the principle that there should be an entire equality between the productions of all parts of their foreign possessions. The Government in their scale of duties had endeavoured to encourage the sugar interest of the British possessions in con tradistinction to the produce of the slave-grown sugar countries. Her Majesty's Government did propose to make a large reduction in the duties of sugar from the East and West Indies. The higher duties would be charged on the finer kinds of sugar, and the greater reduction would be made in the coarser kinds, thus giving the lower class of consumers the benefit of the reduc tion. There was no intention of imposing any additional duty on sugar imported from the East Indies, but if the Noble Lord would postpone his inquiry until after the measures of her Majesty's Government were brought before the other House, all the information sought for would be fully given. He apologised for having troubled their Lord ship on this subject. Lord MONTEAGLE was obliged to the Noble Lord for the . trouble he had taken, and as far as the information of the principle on which her Majesty's Government intended to proceed—the equalization, he meant, of the sugar duties—it was quite satisfactory. ROMAN CATHOLIC STUDENTS IN TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN. Viscount STRANGFORD moved for a return of the Roman Catholic students who had been entered at Trinity College, Dublin, since the year 1839.—Agreed to. THE TRANSMISSION OF NEWSPAPERS THROUGH THE POST-OFFICE. Lord CAMPBELL was glad to see the Noble Lord the Postmaster-General in his place, and he would therefore move at once for the return of which he had given notice yester day. The subject was one on which there was great anxiety, and on which there had been many complaints. Indeed he had understood that the Prime Minister himself had com plained that his newspapers had not been regularly trans mitted to him. He knew that the transmission of news papers through the Post-office must occasion a great deal of inconvenience to the Postmaster-General, and that the Post-office derived no direct advantage from that transmission ; but still it must be recollected thet newspapers paid a stamp duty, which he believed was considered as an equivalent for the payment of postage. At all events, a re venue of two or three hundred thousand a-year was derived from it.—(Hear, hear.) He believed that his Noble Friend at the head of the Post-office was willing to afford every information in his power, and he should therefore move for a return of the number of complaints which had heen made at the Post-office of the non-transmission of . newspapers, within the last twelvemonths. The Earl of LONSDALE had no objection to make to the motion of his Noble and Learned Friend; but he thought it right to state that the Post-office authorities aught not to bear the blame of the whole of the complaints which had been made of the loss of newspapers at the Post office. He believed that there were no set of official men who exercised more vigilance, or endeavoured to do their duty more completely, than the authorities of the Post-office. And in justice to them he should wish to move an addition to the motion of his Noble and Learned Friend, for the purpose of bringing the whole subject clearly before the House. Very many of these newspapers came folded in envelopes in the most careless and slovenly manner. Several hundred bags of news papers were brought to the Post-office every evening, and al though each of these newspapers were inclosed in envelopes, yet when they were turned out of the bags many of them were separated from their envelopes. Of course, these envelopes could not be transmitted, and the Post-office bore the blame of the loss. Heshould therefore move, as an addition, for a re turn of the newspapers which had been returned to the dead letter office as having been found without directions. Their number would be found to be not much. less than 3,000 a-week. He should be most happy to see the Noble and Learned Lord any evening at the Post-office, at the time of the arrival of newspapers, and to afford him an oppor tunity of seeing the manner in which that branch of the Post office was conducted. The Noble . Earl concluded by moving his amendment. Lord CAMPBELL was glad the explanation was given, and so satisfactory was it to him that he would at once agree to the amendment. ---------------- The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH wished parties would put themselves in possession of proof that these newspapers were posted before they complained against the authorities. He was sure many who made these complaints had no evidence to show that those newspapers were put into the post-office at the time they alleged they were. The Earl of LONSDALE concurred in what had fallen from the Noble Lord who had just resumed his seat. He was aware of an instance where a complaint had been made of the non-delivery of a newspaper, and it was afterwards discovered that the paper was not posted till the day following the com plaint--( Hear, bear.) Lord CAMPBELL was of opinion that a prinia facie case had been made out of the detention, if not of the non-delivery, of newspapers. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH said parties were in the habit of writing to newspaper agents directing newspapers to be sent to them, and these agents were in many instances the parties who ought really to be blamed, far they never troubled themselves to see that the papers were properly directed. The amendment was then agreed to. NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT. Lord WHARNCLIFFE, in reply to a question which had been put to him yesterday evening, said there was every reason for believing that their Lordships would be able to get into the new Houses of Parliament next session. Their Lordship then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Feb. 21. The House met at Twelve o'clock, and at ten minutes past Twelve the SPEAKER took the Chair .11:1,E RAILWAY CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION BILL. said,-that 'btifore the Speaker left the chair he should wish to give notice to the Noble Lord, the Chancellorfor the Duchy of Lancaster, that in one of the dailies he should wish to have an alteration made, as re spected public footpaths. As the law at present stood, rail ways might intersect footpaths which had been enjoyed from time immemorial—which led to church or to village, or to Market—and they would not even be required to lay so much as a plank across, the only thing incumbent on them being a necessity of making some thoroughfare, however incon venient, as for instance, they might make a passage beneath the railway approached, on the one side by a descent of steps, and ascending on the other side in the same manner. He should wish the clause postponed, in order to place public footpaths on the same footing with public horseways or carriage ways. Lord G. SOMERSET said that he had no objection to introduce a clause which would effect the object desired by the Hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Aglionby), if he -would only point out a way in which it could be done with out interfering with the spirit of the other clauses of the Bill. He (Lord Granville Somerset) would suggest that the words " public footpaths" should be introduced in the clause which provided for the security of rights to highways after the word " highways." Mr. AGLIONBY said that he thought the Noble Lord's sugggestion would quite meet the object he had in view. The SPEAKER having left the chair, the House went into Committee on the Railway Clauses Consolidation Bill. Lord G. SOMERSET moved that the consideration of the preamble of the Bill be postponed. The Noble Lord then said that on the night when he had given notice of his in tention to introduce the Bills which were now to be consi dered,he had stated that the object of Government in the in troduction of these Bills was, to render all private Bills 'which might be hereafter introduced, for the formation and regulation of railways and companies, conformable to the regulations of the Bill now before the Committee ; of course, there was no intention to prevent the discussion being taken on any private Bills which might hereafter be introduced. --They might be considered in their several clauses in Com— mittee, and then other clauses introduced at that time to tender them conformable with the Bills which were before the Committee. The first clause having been read, several verbal amend- Iztents were agreed to. Mr. HAVES begged to inquire of the Noble Lord opposite whether, in the event of the introduction of a Bill into that House, for the formation of any Company whose interests were of such a character as to render the provision for them inconsistent with the provisions of the Bills before the Com mittee, how the mischief was to be obviated. There were certain things in the Bill before the House, which, when applied to many private Bills, would be inaccurate and uncalled for. Although it was of great importance to apply the provisions of the Bills before the Committee to private Bills, yet it must be remembered that these Bills were, when passed, to be public Acts, not private ones, and it was of great importance to keep them such. Should a Company, introducing a Bill, fi n d t h e provisions of the Bills before the Committee inconsistent with their schemes, he conceived that their objections might be stated to the House, so that such the Billsw Compould plachany mie them. gt be relievedfr om any difficulty in which - Lord G. SOMERSET said the observations of the Hon. Gentlemen opposite showed that it was necessary to make it 'incumbent on the Committee hereafter considering any pri vate Bill to conform to the provisions of these Acts. If a Company, introducing a private Bill, found the provisions inconsistent with their scheme, they might state their objec tions and those objections could be considered in C omm i ttee. The second and third clauses, with a few verbal amend pents, were agreed to. Mr. HENLEY wished to ask the Noble Lord, the n Chan cellor of the Duchy ofl after Lancaster, itehaalwdhehme passed the , r he h a d through ayagobhjteche t ion to reprint the B i ll Committee? The number of a lterations, verbal other wise, likely to be introduced into these Bills renderedd her te h re printing of them necessary. Lord G. SOMERSET said that in this m atter onlyobjection should b guided by the disposition of the House. His e to the reprinting the Bills was, that it might i tob possiblytenume delay ro Use Application of the provisions of t h e i Bills THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY MORNING, FEBRUARY 22, 1845. private Bills already before the House. This objection over ruled, he was quite disposed to reprint the Bills, as the Hon. Member had suggested. On the fourth clause being read, Lord G. SOMERSET said, that after the passing of this clause, it was his intention to move the introduction of an other clause, the object of which was still more effectively to confine the operation of the Act to other private Acts. Mr. HENLEY said, that he felt it was impossible to follow the Chairman in the rapidity with which he proceeded with the clauses. He had wished to make an observation with respect to the second clause, but he might now remark that the fourth clause was inconsistent with the second. That clause gave greatjurisdiction to magistrates, and itwas therefore absolutely necessary to define to whom the jurisdiction should be confided. The Land Clauses Bill stated that this jurisdic tion should be confided to " two justices." In the Bill now before the Committee it was confided to " two or more." In another place, it was stated that the reference was to be to "any two justices." If many justieeswere to be occupied in consequence of the provisions of the Act, their hands might be completely filled, and the business of the Petty Sessions would stand still. The number of magistrates to whom the jurisdiction was given ought to be stated, and he wouldleave it to the Noble Lord to say which was the proper course. Lord G. SOMERSET concurred with the Hon. Member, but if the words " two or more justices" were introduced, it would meet the difficulty. Mr. HAWES concurred with the Noble Lord. Mr. HENLEY—But the words " two or more" would scarce meet the difficulty; for supposing there were four or five justices holding a petty sessions, it was likely they should suspend the whole of the business of the sessions in order to attend to this, and the result might be a very serious incon venience to the public. Mr. DARBY—There appeared to him to be some contra dictions in the Bill on this point; for in one part of it it said " two justices," and in another " two or more., ' Lord G. SOMERSET believed that by leaving out the words " two or more" altogether, the difficulty would be met. Agreed to. Upon the next clause being read, Mr. HENLEY called attention to the word " directors ;" he wished to know whether that included " promoters ;" if it did not it would be found that there would be contradictions in the Bill, for in other parts of it these two words were con sidered synonymous. Lord G. SOMERSET would rather decline answering the question, until the other Bills were before the House. Mr. HENLEY said his reason for calling attention to the word was, that in the latter part of the Bill it was enacted that no director's goods could be seized, while in the Land Clauses Consolidation Bill there was a process of distress given against the goods of promoters. Lord G. SOMERSET considered that the clause as it now stood was quite clear.—The clause was then agreed to. Clauses 4 and 5 were next agreed to. In clause 6, Lord G. SOMERSET proposed a verbal alteration, as to the mode of paying for shares, which was agreed to. Mr. HAWES wished to know if building societies would be affected by this Bill ? Lord G. SOMERSET—AII the Bills would have a pro spective effect. Clause 8 was next agreed to. An Hose MEMBER, whose name we could not learn, sug gested that, in order the better to ascertain who the share holders were, their names should be placed in alphabetical order, as well as giving their addresses. Sir GEORGE CLERK conceived that the description con tained in the Bill was sufficient to identify the party ; how ever he had no objection to the proposed alteration. The alteration was then made, and the clause agreed to. On clause 10 being read, Mr. HAYTER observed that a charge of 2s. 6d. was made for each certificate. Now, if this charge were to be made for every certificate each time that a transfer were to be made, it would form a very heavy item. He conceived that the 2s. Gd. ought to be only a charge made for making out the certificate in the first instance. He had heard of a transfer of 12,000 shares last month, and if 2s. 6d. were to be charged upon them, it would be a very heavy addition. Lord G. SOMERSET—The clause stated that the charge should not exceed 2s. Gd. Mr. GLADSTONE conceived this to be a matter entirely for arrangement between the Company and the shareholders. The clause was then agreed to, without further discussion. Clauses 12 and 13 were agreed to. On clause 14, which regulates the fees payable on the transfer of shares, being put, Mr. HAYTER objected to it. It would appear from the wording of the clause that the secretary of a company would be compelled to enter a transfer in the books of the company, endorse the transfer, and give a certificate of the transfer, for which lie would be entitled to demand 2s. 6d. Now he (Mr. Hayter) would be glad to know if a secretary would be entitled to 2s. Gd. for only performing one of these acts, or whether he would not be entitled to this sum until he had performed the whole of them ? Lord G. SOMERSET apprehended the 2s. 6d. would be for performing all three of the acts. Mr. FOX MAULE reminded the Committee that it would be competent for the Shareholders to regulate this matter. The clause only provided that the fee should not exceed 2s. 6d. Mr. GLADSTONE suggested that the words, "together with such endorsement and certificate" should be added to the clause. The clause with this amendment was agreed to. On clause 15, which requires all calls to be paid up before the transfer is made, being put, Mr. WAWN protested that it was an exceedingly hard clause. If it passed the Committee a shareholder would be precluded from disposing of his shares until he had paid up the whole of his calls. Now a call might be made for a par ticular day, and in the interim no one could transfer his stock. This was extremely hard, and unless the' Government had some strong grounds to support it, he thought it ought to be either struck out or postponed. Mr. HAWES said the clause would put an end to a cer tain description of speculation, which it was desirable should be continued and encouraged. Lord G. SOMERSET said the clause had been sanctioned by the Government and the House generally, and it would be exceedingly injudicious on his part if he either consented to postpone or strike out the clause. Mr. GLADSTONE said the objection to the clause ap peared to be this. It would prevent the solvent shareholder from disposing of his shares until all the calls were paid up, and thus the insolvent holder would have the advantage, for, of course, it did not much matter to him whether he effected a transfer or not. Now to meet this objection he would suggest that the following words be inserted :—" After such call has been made and shall become due." Mr. F. MAULE proposed that the consideration of the clause should be delayed. Mr. HAYTER approved of the clause. It would put an end to an extremely bad practice which existed amongst railway share speculators. They entered into engagements without the least probability of their ever being able to meet them, and when they became deeply involved for calls they presumed their right to the shares by transferring them to men of straw. If they omitted the clause there would be no protection afforded to the honest and solvent speculator. The moment a call was made it became a debt, and he, for one, could see no objection why every call should not be satisfied before any transfer was allowed. At all events, if some such provision as this were not made, it would be hard upon those who had entered into engage ments, with every hope and intention of meeting them in due course, to allow dishonest speculators to creep out of their liabilities in the manner he had stated. He really could not conceive, therefore, on what ground the clause was proposed to be omitted. Mr. HENLEY denied that a call became a debt payable immediately on being made. He apprehended a call stood upon the same principle as rent, for which no distraint could be made until the expiration of the quarter. So of a call; it could not be legally demanded until the time allowed for payment had expired. Mr. HAWES said that lie agreed with the Hon. Gentle man opposite that there did appear some reason for altering the clause. But he would not take upon himself, at present, the responsibility of introducing the amendment suggested by the Hon. Gentleman opposite into every railway Bill. Lord G. SOMERSET was disposed to think that the clause might be improved, and at a future time he would be ready to consider the amendment proposed. But as the clause was introduced after much consideration and discussion, and as it had been introduced into every railway Bill for the last thirteen or fourteen years, he could not take upon himself the responsibility of altering it at present, or without much consideration. The clause was then agreed to, as were also clauses 16, 17, and 18. On the reading of clause 19, which determines the person to whom dividends are to be paid, Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET proposed the insertion of the words—" or to any of those whose names appear in the register." Mr. HAYTER did not see the reason why in these cases there should be any difference between the mode of paying dividends and that adopted at the Bank, and in all the other public companies. Lord G. SOMERSET said the object of the clause was to prevent frauo. Mr. HAYTER did not see how fraud could be more readily committed in respect to these than in respect to those of other companies. The clause, with the words proposed inserted, was then agreed to. On the reading of clause 20, respecting the payment of subscriptions when called for (that is by instalments), Colonel SIBTHORP objected to allow these companies to pay up their capital by instalments, or by " calls." He would have the whole subscription paid at once.—(Great laughter.) This system of calls enabled railway schemes to be taken up, as was truly said by an Hon. Member opposite (Mr. Hayter), by " men of straw." They got up those schemes without a shilling in the world, and then they went over the country under the pretence of making surveys. He himself could not endure to have his property entered upon and his trees cut down by these marauders.—(Great laughter) He would say that at least two-thirds of the capital ought to be subscribed at first.—(A laugh.) He knew how the schemes were got up. People who knew nothing about these things were humbugged—(A laugh)—yes, humbugged—that was the word—(A laugh)—by engineers and attorneys. Now he did not want to make a sweeping charge against all en gineers and attorneys ; for he knew that many of them were very respectable men in their way. If the public saw a sum of money, such as 20,0001., paid down at once in a new company they would, have some confidence.— (A laugh.) No one could be more inclined than himself to forward any project that would be useful to the country, but he never would encourage or have anything to do with these schemes, which he believed to be delusive land dangerous The clause was then agreed to. The other clauses up to 35 were then agreed to. On clause 35, relating to the liability of directors, being proposed, Mr. HENLEY wished to know whether this clause did not clash with clause 99, so as to involve a contradiction. Lord G. SOMERSET said his impression was that direc tors would not escape from their general liability as share holders. Mr. HAWES said they certainly ought not to be more re sponsible than shareholders. Mr. HENLEY had great deabts whether, under this clause a director would be exempted from that liability with respect to his own property from which shareholders were exempted. After some further conversation, the clause was ag,eed to. Clauses from 46 to 98 inclusive were then agreed to without discussion. Clauses 99 to 110 were then agreed to. On clause 111, empowering the company to imprison their servants for detaining their documents, being read, Mr. HAWES made some objections to the clause, on ac count of the nature of the remedy provided by it. Mr. GLADSTONE said the clause was the usual one, and the best defence of it was, that no complaints had ever arisen from its operation. The case of a company requiring its servants to deliver up books, papers, vouchers, and so on, which were its own property, was not at all analogous to the ee antecedently t ordinary c ase o f a di spute b etween two parties in a court of justice,the roh t p e r esunsp investigation.ion wa s eq ually el couldly in conceive of n o bothf ao justification for detaining the property of the company. :Ut i l e s Mr. SPOONER said , party was to be imprisoned, in the abse nce o f b a i l, facilities ought to be a ff or d ed toehilad made up his accounts im for thg es p a urp ne o w se. compa. wiloerts,a7S why Y arded their nie A s lr s . ho l t l tl E d N h L a V e a eo n u y ld po which the old companies did not Possess , The Right Hon. Gentleman said there could be no possible justification foran taining books and papers. Why it might be that that w:.; tle only way in which a clerk could prove that the Company were indebted to him. The observation of the Hon. Member for Birmingham was a very striking one. By this law they imprisoned a man because he did not give up books, and then they kept him in prison because he did not make up his accounts, although no facilities were provided for such a purpose. Mr. FOX MAULE did think that the clause should be mo dified, and that a power should be given to ascertain whether the offence was one for which they might take bail, as in ordinary cases. Lord G. SOMERSET quite concurred with the Hon. Member, that the clause admitted of modification. But with regard to the observations of the Hon. Member for Bir mingham, upon another part of it, it did appear to him (Lord G. Somerset) that a public audit of the accounts would not be necessary. However, he would suggest that the clause should be passed now, and when the Bill was brought up he would have a modified clause prepared ; but if he attempted to do so now he might do too much or too little.—(Hear.) Mr. H. DRUMMOND—The clause in question was the same as that which he was aware existed for the last twenty years on fifty different private Bills. Mr. HAWES concurred in the course suggested by the Noble Lord ; but he should object to local Bills of former times being taken as precedents. The clause was then agreed to. Upon clause 112 being read, Mr. HENLEY said he thought it would require some alteration. It was quite right that the Company should lay hold of any man in their employment whom they had reason to believe was about to abscond ; but provision should be made for bringing him at once before a magistrate; for if he were to wait for the petty sessions he should be held over for a fortnight, or let go. Lord G. SOMERSET concurred in the Hon. Member's observations, and would have the clause modified. Clauses 113 to 132 were next read, and agreed to without observation. Upon clause 123 being read, Mr. HENLEY begged to call attention to its formation, and compare it wit h clause 144. Each gave a power to make bye-laws, but care should be taken that those laws did not extend indiscriminately to all her Majesty's subjects; if so, a person charged with an offence under the bye-laws, if that were not an offence connected in some way with the Com pany, the magistrate inflicting a penalty for it might be liable to an action. There was great vagueness in the wording of the clause. Lord G. SOMERSET believed there could be no doubt that the clause applied only to the Company, and did not in any way interfere with the laws of the land. The object was to prevent smoking in the carriages, or the commission of any other nuisance or offence. Mr. HENLEY—IIIs only object in calling attention to it was, that it should be made clear and plain. Lord G. SOMERSET—Of course, care would be taken that the clause would not admit of any doubt. Clause 123 was agreed to. On clause 124, which provides that no Company shall re duce the capital stock, being put, Mr. HAWES wished to be informed how they were to determine what was or was not capital stock. What might have been the capital stock of a Company in 1835 might be very different to the capital stock of 1845. The capital stock of a Company was constantly varying. It might be reduced at one time, and added to at another, and he was inclined to think it was important that they should not in terfere with it. Sir GEORGE CLERK said the object of the clause was to prevent companies dividing large dividends out of the capital. The Committee was aware that there were bubble companies, who had paid dividends at the time when they were making no profit, and the consequence had been that the public was led to place confidence in the undertaking at a time when it was really in a state of insolvency. Mr. HAWES admitted the force of the Right Hon. Ba ronet's remark, but cautioned him against condemning a bona fide company for the acts of a bubble speculation. What was capital stock could not by any possibility be defined. Did they mean the paid-up capital, or the nominal capital, of a company? Now if they meant the first, he would remind the Committee that the paid-up capital often included profits as well as the reserved funds of a company. Then again they gave some companies power to convert surplus shares into capital stock, now how were they to divide one from the other? The fact was, the capital stock of a com pany was always fluctuating, and it would be highly inju dicious to disturb the present custom. Mr. HATTER admitted that interest and dividends were often paid out of the capital stock of a company, but it was a custom which had long exi: tad, and the question to be con sidered was, whether the practice was an evil or not? Cer tainly a similar clause had been introduced into some of the early railway Bills, but had the companies act e d u p t o it? If they bad, he could only say it must have been a great in convenience. The construction of a railway occupied a very considerable time, and towards the end of this period the shareholders naturally became anxious to see a dividend. In instances like this, portions of the surplus capital had been applied to a dividend, and, as this course was generally adopted, he hoped some modification would be introduced into the clause, so as to meet the case of a bubble company. Mr. GRAINGER said it would be extremely hard, if, after portions of the profits of one year had been added to the ca pital stock, the company were to be precluded from applying it to a dividend at some subsequent period. Mr. AGLIONBY would suppose a Company with a capital stock of 100,0001. to have purchased 100,000 acres of land at IL each, and afterwards to have disposed of a portion of it at a large premium. Now he wanted to know, why the company should be precluded from dividing the profit amongst the shareholders, and carrying the balance to the capital stock account. Wherever the capital stock would in any degree be reduced that would ba precluded. He entirely agreed with the Noble Lord as to the object of the clause, and he only wished to caution the Committee against giving greater power than they intended.—(Hear.) Mr. GLADSTONE did not see any difficulty in the case. He apprehended that if the Company possessed a quan tity of land of the value of 5,000 L, and that the Direc tors had an opportunity of selling it for 10,0001., there was nothing to preclude them from doing so, and (as we understood) a portion of the sum realised might be applicable to the payment of dividends upon calls, and se of other profits. The accounts of all railway companies were so arranged as to distinguish between the capital stock, re served fund, and profits, and no inconvenience had hitherto arisen from the practice sanctioned by the clause. Although there were prima facie objections to the practice, yet he did not think it was in itself illegitimate, and, instead of being inconvenient, it had been found very convenient to the Shareholders, so that it had been universal.—(Hear.) Mr. lIAYTER suggested that there should be a papviso to the effect that dividends should be made out of calls ex cept under certain circumstances. Lord G. SOMERSET said that between this time and the bringing up of the report he would look more accurately into the subject of the clause, and would consider attentively the various suggestions which had been made in the course of the conversation. After a few words from Mr. Godson, Mr. Granger, and Mr. Hawes, in which the last gentleman said that he did not see why a modification might not be applied to this Act as was usual with any private Act, so as to measure the restriction it provided, the clause was agreed to. Clauses 124 to 140, with numerous unimportant verbal amendments, were then severally passed. The 141st clause having been read, Mr. HAWES said that, by this clause, it was left to two justices to ascertain the amount to be assessed in case of wilful damage, and he conceived that some difficulty would arise from the decisions of such a jurisdiction. Mr. GODSON said that, from experience in such matters, he did not think that any unusual difficulty would ensue. The clause was then agreed to, as well as the 142 d, 143 d, and 144th clauses. On the 145th clause being read, Mr. HENLEY said that the inconsistency which he had previously pointed out was here evident. The interpretation of the clause was rendered obscure by the introduction of the word " any " before two justices. Some question mutt naturally arise as to how many or what parties this jurisdic tion should be given to. If the word " any" were struck out, and the clause left with the words " two justices," it would be definite and clear, and the difficulty, he apprehended, would be obviated Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET said that it certainly might tend to render all these Acts conformable with each other if the word " any" were struck out, and would save the difficulty which the Hon. Gentleman had pointed out. On the question being put by the Chairman, the word " any was struck out without a division. After a few words from Mr. GRANGER, suggesting that all informations for offences against the Act should be in writing, clauses 145 to 155 were agreed to. The remaining clauses of the Bill were then agreed to. Lord G. SOMERSET moved an additional clause for enabling companies more easily to recover calls from share- , holders residing in Scotland.—The clause was agreed to. The House resumed, and the Chairman reported progress. The report of the Bill, as amended, was received, and the Bill itself ordered to be printed. Lord G. SOMERSET would move the Orders of the Day for going into Committee on the other Bills of a similar na ture, for the purpose of postponing them till Tuesday next, when he proposed the House should again sit at twelve o'clock. After a short conversation as to the order in which those Bills should be taken, to suit the convenience of several Hon. Members, Tuesday next was appointed for the day sitting. The House then adjourned till Five o'clock. The House resumed at Five o'clock. Messengers from the Bank of England brought up certain accounts. LONDON AND YORK RAILWAY. Mr. B. DENISON brought in the London and York Railway Bill, which was read a first time. NORWICH AND BRANDON RAILWAY BILL. The Norwich and Brandon Railway Bill was brought in and read a first time. _ Mr. THORNELY presented a petition against the Nor wich and Brandon Railway Bill, from the Mayor and Corpora tion of Norwich. GLASGOW JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL. Mr. DUNCAN presented a petition against the Glasgow Junction Railway Bill. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL. Lord ASHLEY brought in the Great Northern Railway Bill. BIRMINGHAM AND SHEFFIELD RAILWAY BILL. Mr. SPOONER presented a petition against the Birming ham and Sheffield Railway Bill. OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH. Mr. LIDDELL presented a petition from Chester-le-street, praying the House would pass a law enacting that public houses should be closed on the Sabbath. reduction of the auction duty was before the House, it was his intention to take the sense of the House on that question. Mr. AGLIONBY gave notice, on behalf of the Noble Lord, the Member for Lincolnshire, that on the 6th of March, he would more for leave to bring in a Bill to facilitate the em ployment and improvement of common lands. Slr. MILES gave notice that in Committee on this Bill for the renewal of the property and income-tax, he would move a clause giving to persons assessed under schedule B, when their property was with►n the prescribed amount, a right of arpeal, subject to the rules and conditions under schedule D. Dr. BOWRING gave notice, that on .Monday be would ask the Secretary of State whether he was prepared to lay on the table of the house the correspondence of the Poor-law Commissioners on the subject of the sales of medical offices in the Dublin Union. Mr. MILES gave notice, that on the motion that the Speaker do leave the chair on the Customs' Act, he would move, " That is the opinion of this House that in any appli cation of surplus revenue towards the mitigation of taxation, due regard should be had to the necessity of affording relief to the agricultural interest." SHERIFFS' COURTS (SCOTLAND). Mr. WALLACE teoved for a return to show the number of appeals from the decisions of the Sheriff.' Courts of Scotland to the Circuit Court of Justiciary, and there reheard, during each of the last five years, ending with October, 1844, as follows : Ist. The name of the parties in each cause. 2d. The sum in dispute. 3d. The names of the Judges en Circuit, with the name or names of the Judge or Judges who decided each cause. 4th. The name of the town, the date of the trial, and whether tried in the Court-house, or in an apartment of an inn or hotel. sth. The result of the trial, with the amount of the costs in each case respectively. 6th. The amount paid as fees of Court in each case, and to whom paid, and the authority for levying the same ; the return to furnish the above particulars in so far as the means exist.—Ordered. NEW ZEALAND.—EAST INDIES. _ Mr. HUTT gave notice that, on Tuesday next, he would, on the part of another Hon. Member, move for returns relating to New Zealand. He gave notice also, that, en the same day, he would move fur copies of the correspondence which bad taken place between the Government and the Directors of the East India Company respecting the repeal or the reduc tion of the duties upon British Wheat and Flour imported into British India. AUCTION DUTIES—AGRICULTURAL RELIEF. Mr. STANLEY begged to ask the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Dorsetshire, whether in the event of his (Mr. Banks's) motion for continuing the auction duties being car ried, it was his intention to propose any reduction of other taxes to the same amount, and if so, what they would be ? whether of those affecting agriculture or other interests ? Mr. BA N KES said that if he should succeed in retaining the auction duties—(Laughter)—he should certainly wish to effect a commensurate reduction of the general taxation of the country.—(Hear, and a laugh. ) SUGAR DUTIES. Sir WILLIAM CLAY begged leave to put a question to the Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject of the sugar duties. He wished to know what was the intention of her Majesty's Government as to the time when the proposed alteration in the sugar duties should be carried into effect after the passing of the Bill ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that it was intended the reduction should take place immediately after the day on which the resolutions should have been agreed to in the Committee, without waiting for the 'sassing of the Bill. EXPORT DUTIES ON COAL. . _ Mr. HOD SON HINDS wished to put a question to the Right Hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), on the subject of the export duty on coals, very similar to that just put by the Hon. Member for Gateshead. Whilst it was probable that the duty would be taken off, persons who had coal to ship for abroad were unwilling to pay the duty. He wished to ask when it was intended the duty should be taken off, in the event of Parliament agreeing with the repeal? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER could only give the same answer as to the former question, that the duty would cease from the day when the resolution sh ould have been agreed to in Committee.—( Hear, hear.) CUSTOMS' DUTIES. . _ M. M. MILNES wished also to put a question to his Right Hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was aware of the wish of his Right Hon. Friend to act with every consi. deration towards vested capital ; and as there were several ar ticles included in the proposed Customs' reductions, which would seriously affect vested capital, he (Mr. Milnes) wished to ask whether Members would he at liberty to discuss the pro priety of the reduction in the case of each article by itself ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the question put by the Hon. Member could be as well answered by any other Hon. Gentleman as by himself. Each item would be put by the Chairman, and any Hon. Member who thought proper to object to any one in particular , might do so. In answer to a question from Mr. HAWES, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated that the remission of duty would take place from the date of the passing of the resolution except where a particular date was specified. avoided taking any part in it, because it was brought before the House so soon after he had had a contest with the Secretary of state for the Home Department, but he doubted whether he could give a proper vote with respect to it. He had heard the statements of the Hon. Member for Finsbury last year, when he distinctly stated that justice should be done to all parties. The Hon. Member had now come forward and asserted that justice had not been done to Itim. The Right Hon. Baronet alto at the head of the Home Department had stated, last session, that if he had not justice done to him he would bring the subject forward before the House. Now he (Mr. Ferrand) would like to know if lie was to have justice why the Hon. Member for Finsbury should not ?—( Hear. ) If the Right Hon. Baronet was satisfied with the report of that Committee, the lion. Member for Finsbury was not, and there fore he came to the House to ask for justice. He had last night heard a Noble Member of the Treasury bench taunt the Hon. Member for Finsbury with striking at the Right Honourable Baronet whilst his hands were tied behind his back. The Honourable Member for Finsbury said that he had received a personal injury, and by refusing him redress the Right Hon. Baronet tied his own bands, and committed suicide on his own political character. If the Right Hon. Baronet had acted impartially as Secretary of State in issuing the warrants, the Committee which was appointed to inquire into the circumstances was partially constructed. The Right Hon. Baronet must recollect that, during 1842, according to the inference to be drawn from the First Lord of the Trea sury, the Hon. Member for Finsbury was engaged in private correspondence with persons who were supposed to be plotting against the safety of the State. The Right Hon. Baronet quoted an extract from a speech of the lion. Member for Wolverhampton upon which he grounded this inference. In January, 1842. an article appeared in the Quarterly Review charging Members of that House with having instigated per sons in the manufacturing districts to break the peace. The House would recollect how excited was the public mind during the autumn of that year. They had not forgotten the trials of large numbers of the working classes of Lancashire, when one of the parties tried defended himself by quoting largely from speeches made by Members of that [louse. When the judge heard that question, he said that although that had nothing to do with the proceedings beim e the Court, yet: if the parties who had made use of that language had been indicted, they would be punished for it. On the 2d of December, 1842, a meeting was held in London, which it was stated was held for the purpose of following up the tactics of the Anti-Corn-law League in dividing the metropolis into sec tions and districts for the purpose of carrying on their agitation. This was reported in the newspapers of the next day, as the first great district meeting of section number one, held at the Mechanics' institution, Southampton-buildings. Eight hun dred persons were present, including one hundred females. Who did the House suppose presided over that meeting ? Why Mr. Warburton, ex-M.P. for Bridport. At that meeting strong and violent language was used within a short distance of the Home-office. The Chairman made a speech, and called upon Mr. Villiers to propose a resolution, which was seconded by Mr. Ricardo. Mr. Ewart next addressed the meeting, and said that when things had come to that pass, it would be better that every Englishman should leave his country or sacrifice his life in maintaining his liberty. On this declaration being made, a Mr. Blackburn said that that was out of order, and was an appeal to physical force. That was a specimen of the language used at the meeting. Now, he would ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in his opinion, the letters of the members of the Anti •Corn-law League, who had divided London into sections and districts, after the fashion of the revolutionists of Paris, ought not to have been opened? If those letters were not opened, then he told the Right Hon. Gentleman that he had acted partially in the case of the Hon. Member for Finsbury, and had not done justice to the office he held. The Hon. Member for Finsbury had made his charge in a bold and open manner, but the Secretary of State had not replied like a roan who felt that he had conscientiously dis charged his duty. He had spoken with " bated breath," and in a faltering voice —(Ironical cheers)—and if he had not ans wered boldly, how much more had the Hen. Member for Ken dal laboured in defending the Committee. If the Hon. Mem ber.for:Kendal had not had nis letters opened by the Right Hon. Baronet, then was the Hon. Member for Finsbury justified in saying that the Right Hon. Baronet had acted from personal feelings towards himself—that the Right Honourable Baronet had made an improper use of the office he held for the purpose of satisfying a " prurient curiosity" by peeping into his letters. Rut there was another question of more vital importance than the question between the Right Hon. Baronet and the Hon. Member for Finsbury. He believed those two gentlemen had been friends in their youth—( A laugh)—they had both served in the same gallant wars, and he was sorry to hear ex pressions used by them, which on cool refection he was sure they would both be sorry for.—( Hear, hear ) But that was not to divert the House from the consideration of this impor tant question.—( Hear, hear.) He wished attention to be di rected to the right which the Right Hon. Baronet claimed to issue warrants. The Right Hon. Baronet was a great friend to centralisation, and was now attempting to introduce the new poor-law into Rochdale and the surrounding districts. By his authority and under his sanction the Commissioners sent down an Assistant-Commissioner to form a union in Rochdale. The ratepayers elected a board of guardians, who refused to enforce the law.—(Cries of " Question.") They might cry question, but he was speaking on the question of opening letters in the Post-office. The Commissioners ob tained a mandamus in the Queen's Bench to compel the guar dians to enforce the law. Now the instruction of the guar dians to their solicitor for the defence passed through the Post office.—( Hear, hear.) He did not for a moment insinuate that the Right Hon. Baronet would open their letters, but he had the power to do so, and if he could do so in the case of the Honourable Member for Finsbury he could do so in others. The Right Hon. Baronet had issued 18 warrants in 1842. He believed that the letters of more Members of Parliament had been opened than those of the Hon. Member for Finsbury. —( Hear, hear.) If the Right Hon. Baronet was an unscru pulous Minister, he might have stopped the letters of those agents who were conducting the opposition to the proceedings of the Poor-law Commissioners, and thus become acquainted with their defence. He did not know whether that was the case, but this he knew, that the Poor-law Commissioners shrunk trom meeting the Board of Guardians in the Court of Queen's Bench. He believed they did so because if the merits of the case were heard, they knew that the mandamus would be quashed, and that evidence would be brought forward which would go far to annihilate the Commissioners. It was upon that ground more than any other, he was desirous of taking away, not only from the hands of the present Home Secretary, but from every other Minister of the Crown, the opportunity of using such power at his discretion. Mr. STRUTT said that, as a member of the Committee, he felt called upon to make a few observations on the present dis cussion, and he agreed with the Noble Lord the Chairman of the Comntittee, that the most ample statements had been volun tarily made by the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department and other members both of the present and of the late Government, and that if there was any want or fault in the report of the Committee, it was not in consequenee of any lack of evidence on the part of the wit nesses who were examined. The House should recollect the circumstances under which the Committee was appointed, when it was said that the report was defective, and that they had not communicated enough to the House. The Househad appointed a Secret Committee, and it was understood that the statements made by the witnesses were confided to the honour of the Members composing that Committee. If that were not so, perhaps the evidence would not have been given.—( Hear.) Now if any Member of the House repented of the decision to which the Committee had come, he was to blame himself for consenting that the Committee should be a secret one. If the House wished for a different decision ; if they wished to call for the evidence that had been taken before that Committee, it was in their discretion to act as they thought proper. But after the decision they had come to, he did not think it was reasonable to complain of the Committee for having adhered to the rule which the House itself had laid down ; and because it had refused to commit that which would have been a violation of all honour and confidence.—( Hear, hear.) The other charge was that of having opened the letters of the Hon. Mem ber for Finsbury. The Hon. and Learned Member for Lis keard had asserted that there were three distinct charges ; one of opening the letters of M. Mazsini ; a second, of opening the letters of two Polish gentlemen ; and the third, of opening the letters of the Hon. Member for Finsbury himself. The Hon. and Learned Member said, the Committee had reported on two of these questions, but had declined making any report at all on the third. Now he , vas n)t going into any statement of the reasons which influenced the decision of the Committee ; but there was a great difference between these eases. The first mention of the subject in Parliament was the presentation of the petition which M. Maizini addressed to the House, complaining of his letters having been opened. This was followed by the petitions of the two Polish gentlemen he had already alluded to. These petitions, and the allegations they contained, produced a great impression. The general feeling was that these foreigners had been inhospitably, harshly, and ungenerously treated. He be lieved that was the general feeling which prevailed in the House and in the country. and he confessed that be himself at first participated in it. The impression produced was so strong, that the Right Hon. Baronet the Home Secretary came down to the House and made a statement that he had issued a war rant for the opening of these letters, and consented to the ap pointment of a Committee of Inquiry. To that Committee were referred the petitions of these foreigners on this sulied. The remaining allegation was a very different one. In that case no admission was made by the Secretary of State that he had opened any letters whatever, and he declined to answer the question. Neither was it alleged last session by the Honour able Member fur Finsbury that his letters bad been opened, as at that time he probably did not know it as a fact. Now he did not wish it to be understood that he was giving the reasons which might have influenced the Committee in their decision in not reporting upon this allegation. He thought he had said eneugh to show the disconnection between the three cases, and the necessity of reporting upon one question, and the abstaining from the reporting on another. But then it had been said, that even supposing the. Committee were net able to give a decided opinion upon all these particular questions of fact, the substance of the evidence might have been given in a summary. It was said also, that the Committee might have reported more satisfactorily as to the degree of discretion under which this power had been used by the Right Hon. Baronet. Now he would only appeal to the House to consider what the constitution of that Committee was—it con- sisted of nine gentlemen holding very different political opinions, and when they recollected the difficult matters with which they had to deal, he did not think that it was at all surprising that they should come to different conelusions as to the particular discretion which might have been exercised in t a h n e y g l e ia n r e t r ic a ula l views caewsse. and m T o hey tives w w er h e i ev ch ho h w adin er ine a n ll agreed cedthe as tExecu tive in the exercise of this power. He had no intention of eulogising the Government, nor did he wish it to be under stood that he was whitewashing the Right lion. Baronet, when he declared his opinion that he had been most harshly and unfairly treated on this subject. However odious some Gentlemen might consider this power, and however disagree able its exercise might be, he did not believe the Right Hon. Baronet had done more than those who preceded him in office. In another particular, the report was said to be unsatisfactory. Some Hon. Members said they ought to have made a clear and satisfactory recommendation to Parliament as to the course which ought to be pursued for the future. He thought if anybody who had attended much to the general business of Committees—no matter whether of special or or dinary purposes —must have been struck by the different opinions entertained by the different Members of that Com mittee. It was scarcely possible for them to come to any clear decision, but in ordina-y cases nothing was more com mon than for the Committee to simply report the evidence which had come before them, and leave it to the House to draw what conclusions it might think proper; in their case, however, the Committee was secret, and of course they were precluded from reporting the evidence to the House. The Committee took the only course it was competent for them to take, and instead of pointing out the course which should be taken for the future, endeavoured to show the different lights in which the evidence might be viewed. If he were asked whether he had formed any opinion on the subject, he would say that, looking to the amount of advantage which was obtained from the exercise of this power, and at the same time looking at the effect which that exercise had on the public mind, he felt bound to give his opinion against that power remaining in its present state. The Right Hcn. Baronet at the head of the Government had pointed out in very forcible terms the position in which the Government was placed in 1842. Terror per. vaded the manufacturing districts, and a serious responsibility was thrown upon the Government, and the Right Hon. Bora. net truly observed that the Government would have left them selves open to great blame if, under such circumstances, the Governinent had not exercised the power which the I.4sla tore had plaeed in + -1, 2i , ) 14: attribute blame where it was not justly attributable, but he must say that a Minister might in such times, and under such apprehension, exercise the power which in cooler momen might consider as indefensible. The view which ~ e was in clined to take of the subject was this : —he would assimilate the proceodings under warrants of this nature to such warrants. lie would have them granted only upon a preliminary proceed • big, such as a written information upon oath, and the parties against whom the warrants were is,ued should have the infor mation confided to them, and in case of any illegality or impro priety, should have redress in the same manner as in the case of search warrants. He thought the observations of the Right. Hon. Gentleman the Memler for Edinburgh (Mr. Macaulay) were well entitled to attention, and he hoped the Government and the House would consider the subject with a view to legis lation. Its he Mr. COLQUEIOUN complimented the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down on the speech which he had made. Ile condemned the terms of the amendment of the Noble Lord the Member for Sunderland, anct vastly preferred the original motion of the Hon. Member for Finsbury. He looked with great anxiety for the opinion of the Noble Lord the Member for London, for he said last session that if the Right Hon. Baronet had exereised this power in a legitimate manner, he should not vote for this Committee at all. He must confess that looking to the constitution of those Committees—seeing that they had been composed of men of different political persuasions, and of great weight and respectability—he thought that as they had ex p: essed no opinion as to the prurience of withdrawing from the Government the powers at present possessed by them, the House should pay the gr satest deference to that opinion. The Com mittees had entirely exculpated the Right Hon. Baronet from any charge of impropriety, and the question was now narrowed to the complaint of the Hon. Member for Finsbury as to whether his letters had been opened. He thought that the Hon. Member should have brought forward his complaint immediately upon supposing that his letters had been opened. But with respect to the poe er itself, it was stated in the repcsrt that it had been exercised by several Secretaries of State for the last twenty-two years in the same manner as his Right Hon. Friend had exercised it. If blame should fall on any, it should fall on the Legislature, for as long as the law existed they should support the Minister while he exercised that power wisely and sparingly, as the Committee reported he had done. He wotid take no part in this ungenerous and unjust pro needing, and he thought the Members of that House should be the first to protect a public officer from unjust censure, who, in the discharge of a painful office, did what he considered would be most conducive to the public welfare. It became the House of Commons to shelter a Minister from such attacks. He could have no hesitation in giving a decided negative to the motion before the House. Mr. WILLIAMS said the Hon. Member who had just sat down would have held very different language if his letters had been treated in the same manner as those of his Hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury The Government had, from first to last, taken a very wrong course. When the question was first introduced the Government refused to give any informa • tion at all ; but when the people's minds became greatly ex cited, they agreed to a Committee of Inquiry. That Com mittee, it should be recollected, had been appointed by the Right Hon. Baronet, but it was very far from giving satisfac tion. When the Committee was about to be appointed he (Mr. Williams) divided the Howe upon the motion that Mr. Duncombe should be a Member of that Committee, but Le was excluded, contrary to the practice of the Htnase. The Hon Member for Finsbury went before the Committee. and they had shown no sympathy with him. Why did they not report on his case as on the case of foreigners? Had they stated that a warrant had been granted by the Right Hon. Baronet, and stated the reasons for so doing, then would the Hon. Mem ber fur Finsbury have been satisfied. The stigma which was at tempted to be cast upon his fair name would have been ex plained and removed. That such stigma had been attempted to be cast on his character was clear front the fact, that the Right Hon. Member for Bwe had connected his name with the riots which were attempted in the north in 1842 True, that Right Hon. Gentleman had afterwards tried to explain away this insinuation ; but where. he (Mr. Williams) asked, was the necessity fur mentioning these circumstances at all ? Notwithstanding the system of espionage in France, he con tended that there was more real liberty here—(lronical cheers) for where would they find a minister—ot police, he would say —who would be base enough to open, withow just. cause, the letters of a Member of Parliament ? It was high time that this power should be put an end to, or that such restrictions should be placed on it, as would destroy the dangerous conse quences to which a wanton use of that power would lead. They were aware that in the late disturbances in \Vales emis saries were sent into that country with warrants from the Se cretary of State in their pockets, and yet the Right Hon. Baronet was well aware that these disturbances were merely local, and created by the injurious conduct of the magistrates appointed by himself. He should support, with great plea sure, the original motion of the Hon. Member for Finsbury. Mr. B. COCHRANE did net think the opening of the letters of the Honourable Member east any stigma upon his character, as he could not be supposed to be aware of their contents, even if written by persons discontented with the Government. He could per'ectly un derstand why the Right Hon. Baronet refused to answer the Hon. Member's question. One Hon Member said that the question, as respected the Hon. Member for Finsbury, stood alone. He (Mr. B. Cochrane) did not think so. Why, all whose letters had been opened might call on the Right Hon. Baronet in the same manner, to explain his reasons for the ex ercise of that power. The Right Hon. Baronet, lie thought, would find it very inconvenient to do so. But how, he would ask, did the Hon. Member for Finsbury know that his letters had been opened at all ?—(Cheers and laughter. ) He that is robbed, not wanting what is stolen, Let - him not know it, he is not robbed at all." (Laughter.) And, therefore, he thought the House ought to know on what proof the Hon Member grounded his charge against the Right Honourable Baronet. The Hon. Member who had just sat down, had alluded to the French post-office. Why, it was a general practice in that country to open letters. An HoN. Al EMBER.— How do you know? Mr. B. COCHRANE—Why, he had been some time on the Continent, and he was aware that such was the constant practice. There was a great objection to the amendment on the original motion, because it would be constituting the House of Commons a house of appeal for every trifling matter in which Hon. Members would think themselves aggrieved. The House was certainly a legal body to correct abuses, but still it was absolutely necessary that some trust should be placed in the Executive, or the House would find that it could not get through the business of the country at all. If the Hon. Member could say, and say it sincerely, that his charac ter was injured, then indeed he would have some ground for demanding this Committee, hut the Hon. Member knew as well as he (Mr. B. Cochrane) did, that his character was not affected in any degree by this proceeding. The hardship in the case, he thought, (pressed upon the Government, be cause the accusation against the Right Hon. Baronet must be exceedingly painful to that Minister, as it encouraged a sus picion in the minds of those who were not conversant with this power, or the necessity there was for its exercise. Ile could not support the Hon. Member in this matter. Mr. BLEWITT said, that while admiring the eloquent speech of the Right Hon. Member the Secretary at War, he could not agree with him iii every part of that speech. 11 his letters had been opened, as had been those of the Hon. Mem ber for Finsbury, certain it was that he should have acted in preeiseiy the same manner. He thought it a most improper proceeding on the part of the Right Hon. Baronet, the Secre tary of State, and the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government. He was sorry that the Right Hon. llaronet was not in his place, because he ( Sir. li'mvitt) wished to refer to several cases in which the Right Hon. Baronet had sheltered himself behind the authority of her Majesty's name. With regard to the Post-office, be dial not think that the pur poses and institution of that office had been properly explained. The Post-office was never meant to be an object of tyranny. c..._ . _ He would ask a question of the Solicitor-General, whom he saw in his place, and he would wish to knew if the Acts of Anne did give any responsibility to open letters without a war rant having been previously granted by the Secretary of State? He felt he had trespassed too long upon the House already, though he could say much mere upon the subject ; but he would now conclude by saying that the motion of the Hon. Member for Finsbury should have his most cordial support. Lord C. HAMILTON had but a few observations to make, in consequence of what had fallen from the Hon. Membei who had just sat down. He should c infess he thought it rather a singular ground of complaint that the Hun. Member for Knaresborough had made out, namely, that injustice had been dents the lion. Member for Finsbury, because more warrants had not been issued.--( Laughter. ) Mr. FE RRAN D said the words he had used were that the Right Hon. Baronet, the Home Secretary, had acted with par. tiality. Lord C. HAMILTON—WeII, however, he should say, he had heard with great regret this rather un-English attempt to raise a cry against the present Government. Ha would admit that the practice was open to objection ; but he would say that the manner in which it had been brought before the House, afforded him just cause of complaint. He shiiuld also confess that some Hon. Members, in speaking on the subject, had used language that would not be tolerated in private society, which ought not to have been listened to in that House, and language similar to which had never yet come under his obser vation. But, now, let him ask, what was the extent of the mischief that had been done the Hon. Member for Finsbury ? —lt appeared to him—( Lord C. Hamilton)—that the mischief consisted not so much in what had been done, as the way in which it had been represented. He did not mean to g ive the prac tice his unqualified approbation, but he did think that means had been resorted to, to surround it with unnecessary difficulties. —( Hear, hear.) There was another point to which he would wish to call attention. It did strike him as remarkable, and it was a source of pain to him, to have observed the continued silence with which this subject had been treated by the Noble Lords opposite, who recently held office, and who during that period had exercised the very same power. He would say that, considering the high positi in of those Noble Lorsis. their talents, and their character, it was subject of regret to him to have observed them re.oain silent on this occasion, while the discussian was carried on with so much acrimony, and the whole current of public odium was poured out against the pre sent Government. But it was now too late—the discussion had gone forth, and the public mind was poisoned—the evil could not be remedied. Much as the Hon. Member conceived he had to complain of, he ( Lord C. Hamilton) begged to remind the House of the case of Mr. Feargus O'Connor, who had suffered as a common felon.—( Cries of " No, no.") Well, at least, he had been detected in correspondence with those who had been convicted of sedition ; and that never could have been known hut for• the exercise of this power.—( Hear, hear, and cheers. ) He did not wish that Members of Parliament should be exempted from this power of the State, becaute he thought that would be odious and invidious; but if the power was to be altogether done away with, how would the State get the information they required?—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Fins bury, it had been stated, had suffered insult and contumely by the opening of his letters, and that his constituents also had felt it as an insult to them ; but that was ridiculous.—( Hear, hear.) Who was it that made the affair public ? Who told it to his constituents? Why, the lion. Member himself— ( Laughter)—and too glad was he to have it to publish.— ( Laughter.) Very glad the lion. Member was to have been made a pseudo martyr of.—( Laughter.) But it had been said that the lion. Member had been the victim of a cuing insult. Now, in cases of libel, the amount of injury sus tained should be proved before a jury could give a verdict; but in the present ease, so far from injury having been sus tained, he (Lord C. Hamilton) believad the Hon. Member had never made such a hit in his life.—( Laughter.) He ( Lord C. Hamilton) did not wish to make charges, but he would just mention this•--He had heard reports, he knew not how true, to the effect that the means by which the Hon. Member for Finsbury had obtained his information were those in the em ployment of the Postmaster-General, and they must have committed a breach of confidence in order to enable the Hon. Member to put together the vast mass of evidence he had ob tained ; and that might account for the lion. Member de clining to bring forward his witnesses, who, he said, might lose their situations if he did so. The Hon. Gentleman could not say that the nine gentlemen who composed the Committee, and were sworn to secrecy, would have betrayed his witnesses. The anxiety which he showed to protect them was, therefore, very suspicious. He hoped the House would not accede to the motion or the amendment. Mr. WATSON would not follow the example of the Noble Lord in personalities. for he must say the Noblo Lord had shown more zeal than discretion, and that the attack o n the Hon. Member for Finsbury was nut only unnecessary, but un justifiable. But it was always the case when any one came for ward to make charges against the heads of a party for the young recruits to rush forward to the defence. Lord C. HAMILTON—I belong to no party. 11•• WATSON—As to the ,e,sv Finsbury, he thought the report unsatisfactory in many respects. When it was appointed, although it WU Vini)o3o4 of Hon. Members, he fit there were wanting upon it men who ou g lst° have b en on it, amongst whom was the Hon. 3 1 ere hair , t , Finsbury, who had given all the information, and upon fan, motion the Committee had been granted. —( Hear, h from, for that case the usage of the House had been departed t. it was almost a rule that the Member wh o obtained the arpr,, ment of a Committee, should at as the Chairman of that CO rnittee.—( Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. 13aronet took for not having put lawyers on the Committee. No w he le 0 0 Watson) was not much in favour of having lawle r 'i so t Committees, but here was an inquiry both into bia constitutional law, in which the pres ence of tos , Learned Friend the Member for Worcester. Sir Th e tha t Wilde ought s of to have been dispensed with, and, ° hoe s Committee, the Solicitor-General ought also to have . sc e placed.—( Hear, hear.) When the question aas first ratoitc he (Mr. Watson) asked the Right Hon. Gentlemen °PiPtte° where they found the law which enabled them to °Pen to ld in passing through the Post-office. The Solicitor-Genert ct o f him that it was by the statute of Anne, confirmed by the a' ~,a t Victoria, but the House had seen, from the Lords' report, the statute of Anne gave no such authority.—(Hear'rttert: And the Act of Victoria made it a misdemeanor to o p en , h e ; Se' but it gave power to detain letters, on the warran t of - the cretary of state; so that, according to the Lords' repot_to,o authority to open lette , s depended on common law. Nallthe common laie, what was the fac.? lie had examirteds.itt for books and reports, and he could not find a single authori .00 such a power.—( Hear. he: r. ) The Secretary of Statei,Dell claimed the right to seize, read, open, make copies, rese4e,,oe return the letters of any individual.—(Hear. hear.) r' t ~, of Secretary of State, was not . content to take the bold s seizing and making putslic use of letters for public purrse,leie had been done by his erectecessers.—( Hear, heart) e taff raised a great constitutional questton—•‘ Has the Seer, 0,6 of State a right to open private letters passing throuP..l,he Post- , dice ?" He (lir. Watson) said there was no sucks; °the The was a question which must now be detertnind• the extent to which that alleged right had been exercised , °D 'The Government and its subordinates knew.—( Cheers.) o.cte Hon. Member for Weymouth said that the courts of Is w jeit the tribunals before which this question should be tried. 01(1 who were to be the witnesses? The Secretary of Statt.e.:ex not be examined in a court of law upon the ac ts of 111 r e t° vernment. The subordinates of the Pceb-office were strf e secrecy.—( Hear, hear.) But if the Government roce sirous to try the legality, let them acknovtiledge the fa t ‘ tria b duce the warrants, and bring the whole questien fairlY w et —(Cheers.) General warrants to seize papers, such issued in the time of Wilkes, were issued in the time 'P t e lleo i beth, Cromwell, and the Ist and 2d Charles. An d Y e de ' o tare u the question came before the courts of law, they were the r e to be illegal. The cases were extremely analogous to e 0 One sent—two particulars were very much in po int. g ee that of the Editors of the North Briton. T b d ' oe sg e° tion was tried, and the jury gave large i f Js r against those who issued the warrants. The Lord Che ita late tice, on that occasion, laid down, as it was well know'''. that " no warrant could be issued except on suffi cle s - ef t b° dente. The jury were not to consider the mea nne.. e .a Ca plaintiff's condition, but to bear in mind that they sa r bitrO, gistrate over all the King's subjects exercising, lie' power."—(Hear, hear.) It seemed to him (tar. Wa , t'' s Par a ° there was very little difference between seistteg tn Ti e tter s. o and detaining, reading, copying, and resealing hi s , h (Cheers.) The next case was that of Ent inck, vahl•here be found in the 19th volume of the State Trials. the p t opinion of the Lord Chief Justice appl.ed precisely t e so stg l o sent question. 'the Lord Chiei Justice said that " t he g ad 11l f had been issued without it formation previously taken' • 0 such a course was without precedent, except in t to Justice Scroggs."—(Cheers.) " There was no law reaceol'„, such an act, If it could be done, there would be n° society, for a man's papers were ofiert his dearest 101;1• ', (Much cheering.) But if that were a right at 0 0 0 becl / y surely the Ministry could adduce some instance in t t of 4 1 0 some opinion, some die:um would appear in some tf A pe s volumes of our reports. But that could not be e was sanctioned by no authority whatever.—( flea n v h i : o rd i % y usage was pleaded in favour of the right. In sha t t er! reign Roger de Kendal received a warrant to detsttl„not mine all letters from France. In the time of CrornTorti, in council were issued for seizing papers. Bu t thos`reout't)/ were issued in very dieerent circumstances from tbe E P r see e ,!l ( Hear, hear.) Still this furnished no precedent le eit io detaining. reading, and copying a man's letter'; B o o l t y events, in no case had it ever been said that th ere o'o to examine letters. —(Hear, hear. ) But it was, s `t - eale g o) practice had existed since the Reve'eitien. Of 0 , 1 1! / I pa r, b e „ its that? They had only a se: ies of illegal acts. --- al ▪ op Mr. Justice Yates said, "If you show me an illega," oe foundation, that does not make it law.”—( Cheers . ) f r et:thee he (Mr. Watson). "If you show me this use " 1 .00 creation, you d:, not make it one jot the less illee; o ed l . ;: e e were warrants authorised by law, but only when 1 / s t , Ope l informations, and in these cases there were none' tors' e' fo office Acts there was no auth ,rity to open „, o slt l 1 4 , was only a clause to exempt the Postmaster from r ot' 0! detaining letters upon the Secretary of State's est e o il was of great importance what was the „Ge l ' t !ss the law, and be called upon the Soli A el t . ' er cle tl ec i to state on what principles of law he u „ e s j ta, t tr iet s ; conduct of the Government. It had beee o th% s ie j s an excuse, that discontent prevailed in ce tal fet But he said that was no justification whatever 4 ol e o warrants against any individual. The di s turh, e oo tha ne s the country did not justify one tymenical act, w n o , o' oo o l required that no warrant should be issued unless r - ea cl 9 i Of tion preqiously taken. The Hon. Gentleman theme tha 0 0 extracts from the report of the Committee, to I , e s had no knowledge of the grounds on whisk Sir issued the warrants, h. yond his owu word that he jt 1 0 from an anxious desire to preserve the rabbet peat ton + 4 ; rj :o the highest importance to know what the infortaa'etd t.01,,t,t1 1817, as they all remembered, warrants were repeOcic.fc Nottingham, and other places, and it would beere /itet:o that when men were after wasds convicted , th e y w y t e-( t ier t upon the evidence of the spies Rho instigated the col) —and who knew that those spies did not write_ o l 6 n cet, lreo.e)t re their victims, which being -opened in the po-"t eae t es at once the cause of suspicion and its eoefirrnat'o°;elo9 His Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for 1 311 fet e oor , r alluded to the circumstance of some individuals wilseeo,cebt at York. They were tried for a treasor.able,,Va. thet"t but certainly they never corresponded with the t -1° " - tha i , t tb for Finsbury. But let them suppose for a mom° 0 1 0 , 5 t,1 individuals, before their trial, were cerrespend itl ie, ty legal advisers, and sending in t heir lettersohicli ere upon which their defence was to be founded , be ° • c ti! 4 ' find its way into the hands of the Governmen t, W 00 coo. use that information for the purpose of obtaining'iletii,oseod; Was not such a power tinjust ?—( Hear, hear.) for ' 4 04 1 fess that he did not agree with the Hon. Membet,totts, when he talked of the power possessed by foreig n res eno and examine correspondence passing through the dita ble u se' r , practice all events, he did not consider the ,— cre d ire° nation, and the opening of letters in Ettgl a° n eett b sl j ls stitutionat and illegal.—( Hear, hear.) It W 2 ' 0 00 s ti tart for Hon. Members to be of this opinion , ' l 2 tsar ' o f t!' it e question could not be brought before a court ° 4 le ittee, s :o 4 ,, only remedy was in the appointment of a Cor . : l ty to , .sots,' House. That Committee should have a uthor' ' ct er o evidence and to report to the House, s ° cha r lution might be come to as to the nature ' t a t ' re get tbs t these warrants. This had been the case wi t ve te °. 0,,11 game-laws last session, and the result had rea ti, 44 , 0 1 , 0 t House was put in possession of va!uable inf c4r ce erl'l t ot t t o subject. There was no kind of arbitrirY pth ¢ o' l l r eitit i e had not been used at some time or other hY .reel'' it 40 of this country. But he thought it wa s extrr i,, t hin , 3 make a personal matter of this inquiry. lie ea' of nu answer to the case that the I tte It re i it opened under the usage of the countryo' tia e ne'a te b e excuse to open letters and to turn /le / r i r eal t :oe Mr. Fox or the Whigs had done the same• e , it des o ld „ l e was no answer to the charge, for , he thouet". ft $0: 50 5 1 0 0 both to Nk hags and Tories if they had el• ne so. th ey ' oe d been much better of the Government if. wb en e e eet c d oc t o office, and round that their predecessors had fls, it ela_ a • power, to have abolished the practice altogethee,tted course been adopted, it would have refi thva t o Minister, and insured him the confidence the , o pe° be jiti tion of the people. As to the inquiry into V i ' lls butit W ir e letters of his Hon. Friend the Member for r eg to ° ,el 3 not conceive how any human being could o bje the lett, 0e yes not think the Government had a resin too Pe t ! ri i a rite o , o etit s , Ham Friend. He Wa3 a Member o P l ' stte rs"l'ob'ste o public duties to discharge, and to have hisn titttenel) derogatory, not only to hum, but to the et , s hear. 00 c1 0 $ fleart, coe d, d oe, had the honour to represent.—( in the bad reign of Charles the et . o side r o i' c ii corrupt times of Horace Walpole, it was e. 5%_ to rl dal breach of Parliamentary privilege to del` as : t o.lo s , letters of a Member of that Huse. It w °lO ',o, privilege to examine the letters of any indhi:;etter,tlt°,l,,,teie,o! House ; but to open, there was no douhte t ese ept e l ,,, r ets f 00 1 ' her of Parliament was manifestly `,„ a i tbe, c h under the warrant of her Majesty's rine!Aetbet,„, State. Now, they had a right to inquire e ' ied ti e 0 _ t b , Member for Finsbury's letters had been that t ot ed .. V r e au t; t o warrant, and that was the only course t.l the wa"reistli, unless the Right Hon. Baronet would cla P eel oolv o tape of the House. lie must have re e! it i o ot P it i g h,L 4 induce him to issue the warrant, for he co, , t he w w, i >sl front a mere itnaginery naotive—at all event" ti fy hi! fit ` l ,lO Baronet had no such information to it" g uite° e▪ e de P t ed . warrant, a breach of privilege had been c e °: til d f u or ie .o 4 4 4 this dictum had been laid down, and h 4; the moo ° , t he, on what prim ip!e Hon. Members opposett,!__ it, on o t his S o t% The Soice of the country called louds I° ,l„ n eaft ou itY th o must he had to satisfy them upon whattnit° the c 90 o , 130 ) , of cpening letters was based. It was Q,set,,ler thefo know how the Government jit=tified !.11 _liv e d!! of f t.. e , power. His Hon. and Leaned F r ien . d ,, t e 7 l to t! e i e t c lin gt o.e (Mr. J. S. Wortley) last nieht was . tie; i i the oere it logs of the Right Hon. Baronet. rac rt. but d n et v a it, Right Hon. Baronet must have been ,, iebate --ha to we , : ei ee . P o ings of no other persons hurt by this o f tha t .; 60' th e ` dignity been cast upon an Hon. Mem n n u el s. that t , h o w oe, o' l ll o3 it not derogatory to his honour to l;_ at i u n _ r t e tr ei , of his country had received some infra , lire .01Yea„..b cretY to information that e had been guilty °. rece r ! he of „ter c o was the the G ov erret n ie_ o t; atits we t th ' eg e b res .r , they obtained it ? Were their ransviers t 0 fair' f a ir, o3 ', fl ee ' 3 The house hail a right to demand n ot ju' l :4 o f e 4( 01 3 gatories, for if the information was . is, a t 0 0 0 5 , of privilege had been committ 01 t e 5.... , b , 0_0, 0 1 11 1 , 3 rants, as would be seen by the `evolution,e, big I l T er to in 1735. In conclusion he callede that the Pi/ ol d Learned Friend to satisfy tl:e as H fo o u n n s d . e d upon legal .-e til . • ° J b 't ing and examining teams enced .tbs authority.—( Cheers. ) 'ER kla e cim°l debat e v ' i jis ° t er The SOLICITOR-GE:S ' Sinful he wa sl y , o ffir t for 0 9 ever been his ill-fortune to li d ste a lre3dY b ee i n m pos', ib e le c en w ithin t en by that was the most disagreeable and House, and he thought it ha l., have been h" L OS 1 0$ crastinated. It would, liovrevedt r after the reference, h t_e pOillte t enbe r f° , r j °: to him by the Noble Lord the , _ . d the • a tten e °, o *. anti by his Hon. and Learne I u pon tn ei ,. T r pts‘ o o night, to abstain from ttessli h 'a e sT e r t mo st a o u t „ ! 4. an e ti spr est i t,e House. Notwithstareli n gt la ce tha t o f the „ e r ', e t° cow ls e the o f 0 4 procoodings which had taken m any e • 11, 0 .. standing he regretted mest .Le il e : e ly era l tone s hoe t t" it the of which had been used, anti t" Nl:rnferbetr'eftetrwhhiee 0 4 . 1 ° gate; it,e h at o i l e e n a wbl tend , ' "-I desk( d m e a h k a e t , b l e i e s t h r o u u s l t d e d e ma ln r t e e d na t n o h e° ° Fi l e o°ts e l t e the portance of the s ubject a ) It aPli a ' ,et to fit pr e hP i that House.—( Hear, hear. ;.:en %%ti e r r esi se e env e, eh 13 l as , hi a most extraordinary p tti and re the pr 'P - the 0 0 .( t er 'oninduticl:nOthbeser; ury, who, esition tabue. o's°l, deliberation Sle ffibr for F.no'b-ea tion ° f and P th s 11 1 ' . t W h i e th li d o u n e . ns .dera submitted to the c`-' keen re , i se ; a9 by he most have , r it ha e proposition Whetne vice of others, or as Pa red oscine cunlea considered by him• . s ewe better t u . ° Tr° e 'f r otn e Solicitor-General) was not ie see Member teas o,,stoite ogle , o e it was the Hou•n som e est eeor elieg; j e to original terms of his ttretelotiona peered to consider as obj had been debated in a rernte, after nol d reec r te r f u obe of the second night's dele.a.,,_bees. 0.110 h „an e, addressed, by all Hon. 1 ,1 I ; u _ riail e, to e Ilion- ) j e tti oe tt lie Lord the Member for Stlo3:o,ition Le the . 3 t t the motion, in which p pe j ele el o t ne" t ,, • st‘ t i o bi, i an at n i csbo r ', b° Finsbury was rot f verd wi' h Sh/ e irit ' . 0 0 odellebdiefoarnmd,awahli jaittid,,eo3o ti h i r1 , 400 :, ,rf "" `m e mber ser vile ' ll r at) the lion.Sund e r 1 Gentleman,and a m e the S o liett .lem ber l i i,. e ,• of was rather surprising to the Von. ; 01V '- amendment was not conceived any it was not supported by . , i ee eL• " o vieci A for , 1 " ,-,,,e a nd a loolto . they Sunderland was an Tbe/ were aware that be w. bv A 1 -r' -' MEDICAL REFORM. Several petitions against the proposed plan of medical reform were presented, and ordered to lie on the table. INCOME-TAX. - - - - Sir J. EASTHOPE presented a petition from the inha. bitants of Leicester, against the income-tax. LOCAL COURTS BILL. A petition was presented in favour of this measure. SUGAR DUTIES. Mr. L A BOUCHEREPresented a petition from the grocers of Taunton, praying for a postponement of the modification of the sugar duties. VAN DIEMEN'S LAND. Mr. HUTT presented a petition from 400 or 500 agricul- turists in Van Diemen's Land, praying that the agricultural produce of that country might be put upon the same footing as that of Canada. The Hon. Member gave notice that he would, on a future occasion, introduce a Bill upon the subject. SUGAR DUTIES. Sir GEORGE GREY presented a petition from the inha bitants of Devonport, praying that Sir Robert Peel would delay his proposed measure affecting the duty on sugar until they should have got rid of the stock they had now on baud. OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH. Mr. BRIGHT presented a petition from a place in Gloucestershire, against permitting public-houses to be opened on the Sabbath. INCOME-TAX. Mr. PALMER presented a petition from the inhabitants of Perth against the income-tax. CORN LAWS. Mr. STAFFORD. O'BRIEN gave notice that, immediately after Easter, he would move for leave to bring in a Bill, authorising a drawback on that portion of foreign corn that had been used for feeding cattle. Mr, BANKES gave notice that, when the Subject of the LAW OF SETTLEMENT. In answer to a question by Mr. V. SMITH, Mr. M. SUTTON stated that, on Monday last, the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Depart ment had stated what the views of the Government were with respect to the law of settlement, so that the time at which it was to be decided was now in the hands of the House. Mr. V. SMITH said it was in the hands of the Home-office whether it would expedite the question or not.—(Hear.) POST-OFFICE ESPIONAGE. _ On the motion of the order of the day for renewing the ad journed debate on the opening of letters in the Post-office being read, Mr. J. COLLETT said that, before entering on the general question, he 'wished to say a few words with respect to the adjournment last night. No person could regret more than he did the inconveniences to which the Right Hon. Baronet had been put ; but in the first place, considering the impor tance of the subject, and that it involved considerations with respect to the liberty of the subject and the rights of Mem bers of Parliament, he considered he was justified in demanding an adjournment. In the second place, he thought that the state- of public feeling required it ; and in the next place, he thought it was due to the Speaker, who had sat for nine hours together, and who was to take the Chair again at twelve next day. In the fifth place—(Laughter)—in the fifth place—(Continued laughter)—he considered that this was due to the Members on his side of the House, and to Members on the other side, who were desirous of addressing the House on this subject, and for whom it was well known it was impossible to obtain a hearing at a late hour of the night.—(Laughter.) The Right Hon. Baronet and the Noble Lord the Member for the City of London could always secure a hearinebut the little men were always put down.— (Laughter.) If they wished a debate to be closed at a rea sonable time, the speeches of Memb ers mus t b e li m it e d . — (Laughter.) The _proposer o f a mot i on oug h t to b e allowed only a quarter of an h our each—( Great lau g hter) following for when speeches extended t o t wo h ours, and two hou rs an d a half, h h laughter. him ) With respect to the question b e f ore the House, he would say that the report of the Post-office Committee was to biro most unsatisfactory. Previous to the appointment of this Commit tee, the Hon. Baronet at the h ea d o f her Majesty ' s Govern ment said he was anxious for the f u ll est an d most comp l ete in and nothing but the truth. Th e H on. M em b er for F insbury tice of the Post-office; but th e C ommittee, being a Secret The Hon. Aletaber for Finsbury had not been made a member of this Committee, and therefore he was right in not giving a list of his witnesses when the Committee sent for them. On the whole, he should say, that not only the entire proceedings of the Committee, but their report was, ab initio, most unsa tisfactory. However, he was not disappointed in it, for he knew that people could not gather grapes from thistle s , o thorns.—(Laughter.) It was not by looking musty warrants of former parcel rn ki fi n g g s over from a th os. o days that this Committee should seek to make out a re port ; but by a bona fide honest inquiry, and by a recommen dation:to this House to get rid of this degrading, this un-Eng lish custom of breaking open people's letters-( Hear, hear)-- and that without referring to what warrants had been issued by this Minister or that as a justification for this abominable practice.—( Hear, hear.) He had recently read of a trial that was heard in one of their courts of law upon the identity of a horse—(Laughter) —large sums of money depended on the issue ; and the counsel fur the defence said in his speech—" if you want to convince the public, if you want to convince the judge, if you want to convince the jury, produce your horse." —( Loud laughter.) Show his age !—( Great laughter.) The whole question at issue rested upon that, and if the Right Hon. Baronet wished to secure a majority of that House— though he supposed he was pretty well satisfied about that—if he wished to influence the public opinion, he would give his Hon. Friend the M ember for Fi ns b ury t h e opportun i ty of having his charges investigated. About the charges the Hon. Member has made, there could be no mistake. He was ready to have his mouth looked into--(Great laughter) —as well as his face.—( Laughter.) The Hon. Member was not one of those who one year race under the name of Maccabeus, and the nest under that of Running Rein (—(Great laughter.) " Justurn et tenacem propositi virum," —he was always " honest Tom Duncombe!"—(lmmenae laughter.) With regard to the proposition of the Noble Lord the Member fur Sunderland, he had no objection to it, except that it did not go far enough. It did not touch the question whether it was expedient or not that this practice should be continued. The Right Hon. Baronet had last year an oppor tunity of doing justice to his Hon, Friend; he had now an other ; and he would say, " better late than never." He would therefore conclude by repeating that he hoped, for the sake of his Hon. Friend, and the sake of the country, he would agree to some examination into this matter. Sir R. COLBORNE said, as a Noble relative of his had taken considerable interest and a leading part in the Com• mittee of the other House, it was but natural that he should look with more than usual interest on the fate of this motion. The House of Lords thought fit to appoint his relative as chair man of the Committee, and he undertook the task with the greatest reluctance ' • and he found that the task would be a most difficult one, and that the report, from the secret nature of the Committee, must needs be unsatisfactory.. At all events it would have been impossible to have pleased all parties, espe cially those who sought for a vote of censure on the Govern ment.--( Hear, hear, from the Ministerial benches.) He could not vote for the motion of his Hon. Friend, because, in independent of its merits in other respects, it conveyed a vote of censure on the Committee, and consequently on his Noble relative, which he thought w holly undeserved. But it was not upon this consideration alone that he opposed it. The Committee was formed of a body of men chosen for their high honour, and who, there was every reason to believe, would act • independently There was a strong party bias on this t he could hardly think question—if there were rto that Honourable Members would inflict so cruel and unjust an insult as to cast aside the decision of the Committee with out hearing any of the evidence which induced them to arrive at it. These reasons satisfied him, though he felt convinced they would not satisfy the people of England. The Right Hon. Baronet chase to make it a Secret Committee—he meant to say it was the House that made it so ; but they all knew well that a suggestion of the Right Hun. Baronet was almost certain of being carried into effect.—( Hear, hear.) He was one of those who voted against the appointment of Mr. Dun combe as a rsember of that Committee. He must say that he now thought that he acted entirely wron g in so d o i ng ; for be believed that had the Hon. Member of Finsbury been a mem. ber of that Committee it would have saved them the time con sumed in three nights of debate, and thoequent post.. ponement of public business. Gr eat exci tement cons had been caused in the public mind by these proceedings; and that ex eitement had been increased by the contemptuous manner in which the Right Hon. Baronet trea ted the subject when first it was brought under the notice of the House ; but since then he had given the fullest explanation which it was possible for him to give ; and he certainly would not be a party to running down any Minister.—(Hear, from the Ministerial benches. ) With regard to the power, he differed from the Hon. Member for Cork in having it done away with, as he could imagine many - cases in which it would not be only useful but necessary. The only question was, the amount of confidence they would put in the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department. For hit own part, he was of opinion that, let what party would be in power, they would find such men to fill the office that their conduct would place them above suspicion. He utterly denied the statements of the Right Hon. Baronet that it would be a triumph of party if the amendment were carried. The only triumph would ba the triumph of jus tice —( Hear, hear. ) Mr. FERRAN D said that when this question was brought before the House, during the lad KISSiOI3) he had studious ~'