The Press.
London, England, 1853-05-28 00:00:00

70

CiUNCELLOR of the EUHEQUNR. We have yet
to hear what reason is offered by Lord JOHN
RUSSELL for bringing forward or abandoning
his Dockyard Disfranchisement Bill. All we
know at present is, that he has himself stated
he did not. originate it because of the Dock-
yard Appointments Committee, but because
of the Chatham Report, which declares that
a large number of the elect►►rs were employed
in her Majesty's dockyard and other public de-
partments at Chatham, and that they are under
the influence of the Government for the time
being. The fact that there is am instance ofa candi-
date elected for this borough who has not had
the support of the then Goveriunent, whatever
weight it may have with Lord JOHN in any
course he may propose, is sufficiently illustra
tive of the value of the present Committee's
Report, and, to all plain Englishmen who
know how it was constituted, will account for the
inquiries it has made and the inquiries it has
abstained from making. The Committee were
instructed by the House of Commons to in-
quire generally into the exercise of the in-
fluence and patronage of the Admiralty, and
they have done so in a sense more particularly
unjust than was even to be expected from
their party constitution. The motion of which
Mr. KEATINU gave notice last evening, if fairly
framed, may elicit more than the mover re-
quires, more than the Committee dared to in-
vestigate, and more than will be sufficient to
demonstrate to the public the party animus
and exparte proceedings which have degraded
a grave tribunal to the subsidiary functions
of a Hue and Cry, and converted a purely legis-
lative machinery to an instrument of petty
vengeance and a means of defiunation.
How gratefully we suspend our further re-
marks upon this subject to recal the noble
►ontrast of Sir CHARLES NAPIER, who at the
dinner of the Fishmongers Company on
Wednesday last, while confessing himself no
friend of the late Government, selected for his
honest praise—THElß NAVAL. ADMINISTRATION.

TO TUE EDITOR lit' " THE PRESS."
Sir,— Your correspondent " E. G." refers most
appropriately, in connection with the " Dockyard
inquiry," to Sir Robert Peel's denunciation of the
use made for party purposes of Mr. Saurin's confi-
dential letter to Lord Norbury. Permit me, however,
to remind you of a much more recent disquisition,
from the mouth of an eminent Whig, upon the pub-
lication
of confidential correspondence.
Earl Grey, in the House of Lords, says, in refer-
ence to the production, before the Ceylon committee,
of a private letter from Lord Torrington :
" Bow the gentleman to whom that. letter was addressed
could have disclosed it—still i tttttttt how the committee
00/1 not onlyhave allowed, but I may almost say requiresl,
Si publication of that letter • • •, I tint, for one, utterly at
a lON to understand.
" 1 can only say that those who did so MAI4I/4111 totally
different, notions from those 1 have been always taught to
hold with respect to the sacredness of private confidence,
and the minister in which the intercourse of private life he.
t
lit wits gentleman and another should be tarried on.
t tan this I will not say."Thrsvard, vol. I VI, sec. 11,
IL • F 9•
It is to be hoped that the noble earl will have
much " more " to " say " in the same strain, if the
far more flagrant violation of confidence which is
now exciting such general disgust should ever become
the subject of debate in the House of Lords.—l am,
sir, your obedient servant, t'•

EDIToIt OF " THE PREss."
correspondent E. 6." in your last
eloquently denounced the inquisitorial
dragging private letters before a public
' well recollect a near and valued relative
describing to me the lofty seorn with which
resisted the eonduet of Slr. Burke,
to prove the Rohilla charges against
by producing his private" papers.
to that debate, and I tind :1I r. Pitt

if used hi compel front an individual
against himself, would be as eensnrable.
to justice. as personal torture to tAtort
• • • • On the supposition of their
papers, it would be highly unconstitutional
irtt in any manner."
attempted to combat this iiew, but the
A England, though they were unfriendly to
decided in that question for Mr. Pitt's

values his only title to address you,
Your obedient servant,
AN ENOLLtili lisoutmaN.
May '_4th.

nur, yuus wary10b5......1
May 23, 18511.
TO THE
Sir,—Your col
number eloquei
tyranny of dram:,
tribunal. I well
of mine deseribn
Mr. Pitt in 1780
in endeavouring 1
Warren Hastings
1 have referred
saying :
i
Such modes,
written evidence i
and as repugnant
verbal eonfession 0
being private pape
to call for them in 1
Mr. Fox atten
gentlemen of Eni
Ha =tinge, decide
opinioD.
One who still
Hs/ley-street,
,: - i
k
N,
It \.
& „..•.
's. s,