The Sun.
London, England, 1856-01-14 00:00:00

THE SUN. LONDON; MONDAY EVENING, JANUARY 14, 1856

to good but ordinary vision. To us it seems in-
credible that there should not be in our navy
younger and unpromoted men who could teach
their official superiors a lesson—men who would
find the way up to St. Petersburg, and who with
the materiel ready for next spring would lay in
ruins every Russian fortification in the Baltic.

Profoundly interested as the public are in the
inquiry at Rugeley into the alleged " poisoning
cases," and deeply concerned in the exposure
and prevention of the foul practice of poison-
ing, there is another inquiry at Riigeley, aris-
ing out of the first, in which the public may
be expected to feel almost as profound an interest
—an inquirydirected to the exposure, and we trust
the prevention, of a practice, certainly less foul,
but which, if left unchecked, is likely to be at-
tended by consequences of a nature so mischievous
and injurious as to warrant the deepest anxiety
and concern on the part of the community.
The practice to which we refer is that of letter
opening, and the circumstances which have called
attention to it are as follows :—While the inquiry
into the " poisoning cases " was pending, Mr.
GARDENER, the solicitor to the prosecution,
wrote to Dr. TAYLOR, to whom the analysis
in the case of the unfortunate Mr. COOK
was entrusted, narrating certain discoveries calcu-
lated to further his undertaking, and requesting
him, in case he found decided traces of poison, to
inform him (Mr. GARDENER) at once of the fact,
as he feared every hour's delay in apprehending
the party suspected would be detrimental to the
ends of justice. With this request Dr. TAYLOR
very properly complied, and within two days
wrote a letter to Mr. GARDENER, stating that no
traces of strychnine, prussic acid, or opium, with
one or other of which drugs it was suspected Mr.
COOK was poisoned, had been detected, and also
offering sundry suggestions. This letter was
placed in an envelope, securely fastened, and posted
by Dr. TAYLOR himself, so that there can be no
question, we should imagine, of its having been
posted in a proper condition. The accused party
became acquainted with its contents about the
same time as the gentleman to whom it was di-
rected, as was proved by PALMER referring to them
in a letter to the Coroner. How came it to pass
that a confidential communication in the interest of
justice should have thus been perverted into an
instrument in the hands of the accused for the
defeat of justice ? Somebody must have played
the traitor. Who was it? Suspicion fastened
on Mr. CHESHIRE, the Postmaster-General at
Rugeley, and on Mr. GARDENER demanding to be
informed " how PALMER knew the contents of
his letter from Dr. TAYLOR ?" CHESHIRE, who,
it would appear, had been a sort ,of " chum" of
PALMER'S in racing matters, replied, "It (the letter)
was lying open upon the table. I looked at it
and saw there was no poison found. I was so
elated that I read that part of the letter, and told
it to Mr. PALMER"- - adding, "It is the only
thing that I have done that is wrong throughout
the whole business," and subsequently inquiring
" what could be done to him for what he had
done ?" The reader has now the gist of the affair
before him, and we should imagine will have
little difficulty in coming to the conclusion that
the envelope was broken open, designedly broken
open, at the Post-office.

What the precise culpability of CHESHIRE is we
do not undertake to say. He may have had no
desire to defeat the ends of justice, and, believ-
ing PALMER. an innocent man, may have only
felt a natural elation on discovering that
no criminating evidence had been elicited by the
analysis. Into this part of the affair we have no
intention just now to enter. This much seems
eertain : he violated his trust in a twofold man-
ner, by breaking open a letter—a most important
and confidential letter—and by communicating
its contents to another, and that other the very
'individual from whose knowledge it was desirable
they should be kept. Is this sort of thing of fre-
quent occurrence, and what sort of assurance can
be held out to the corresponding public that their
letters shall be held inviolate ? These are in-
quiries which everybody will feel disposed to
make, and which should have a prompt reply.
No Administration, it may be, can be so securely
guarded that knavery shall not find its way into
it ; but giving the Post-office the full benefit of
the admission, what care is taken that if
knavery enters the Post-office it shall not long
remain there undetected ? The public are deeply
concerned to know this, for the consequences of
a practice like CHESHIRE'S, extensively or fre-
quently followed, may be positively frightful.
Brave men have perished on the scaffold before
now by means of letter opening, and there is no
business in life that it may not be prejudicially
employed in. CHESHIRE was found out by sheer
accident ; the authorities of the Post-office can
take no credit for the discovery. Had PALMER
not betrayed his knowledge of the contents of the
letter in question, the Rugeley Postmaster
might, to all appearance, have gone on
opening other letters for his friends' use and other
uses, none of which it is likely would have been
good without much risk of detection. Mr. GAR-
DENER does Rot appear to have detected on the
envelope itself the least traces of its having been
tampered with. Is it impossible for the autho-
rities to do more than they have already done for
the protection of the public, and does all that re-
mains to be done rest with the latter ? Can the
Post-office authorities adopt no further measures
than to warn the public against the use of un-
sealed envelopes ? We are desirous rather of
satisfactory assurances at their hands for the
future than to convict them of negligence in the
past.

DEATH uP Trip. RIGHT Bo 4j. HELviiir
GOULBURN; M.P.

We regret to announce the demise of the Right Hon.
Henry Goulburn, M.P. for the University of Cam-
bridge. The right hon. gentleman expired at three
o'clock on Saturday morning, at Beechworth House,
near Dorking, Surrey, after a very short illness. The
deceased was eldest son of the late Mr. Man bee Goul.
burn and the Hon. Susan Chetwynd, daughter of Vis-
count Chetwynd. He was born in 1784, so that he
was in his 72d year. He was educated at Trinity Col.
lege, Cambridge, where he graduated M.A. in 1808,
having the year previous been returned to the House of
Commons for the borough of Horsham. In 1811, just
after his entrance upon official life, he married the Hon.
Jane Montagu, third daughter of Matthew, 4th Lord
Rokeby, and sister of the gallant peer now with the
army in the Crimea. The righthon. gentleman mas made
Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department in
Feb. 1810, under the Duke of Portland's Ministry, and
under the administration of his grace's successor,
the unfortunate Spencer Perceval. At the general elec-
tion in 1812 he was elected for St. Germains, and re-
presented that now disfranchised borough up to 1818,
having in 1812 been appointed by Lord Liverpool Under
Secretary of State for the Colonies, an office he held up
to 1821. In 1818 he was returned to the House of
Commons for West Looe, and sat for Armagh from
1826 to 1831. Mr. Goulburn accepted the post of Chief
Secretary for Ireland in December, 1821, and was then
made a privy councillor. He filled that office under the
several administrations of the Earl of Liverpool, Vis-
count Goderich, the Right Hon. George Canning, and
the Duke of Wellington, when, in March, 1828, the
illustrious Duke selected him to fill the important
office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he thus be-
came a member of the Cabinet, at the head of the
financial department of the state, until the Duke of
Wellington retired in January, 1830, to make way for
Earl Grey. At the general election, 1831, the mem-
bers of the University of Cambridge were discon-
tented with the Earl of Burlington (then Lord Caven-
dish) and Viscount Palmerston for their advocacy of
the Reform Bill, and Mr. Goulburn, who unsuccessfully
contested the University in 1826, and the Right Hon.
Wm. Yates Peel, started in opposition, and after a
severe contest ousted the former noble members. Since
then the right hon. gentleman has continued to repre-
sent that university in Parliament. On the formation
of Sir R. Peel's first ministry, in 1834, Mr. Goulburn
was appointed Secretary of State for the Home Depart.
ment, which he held till the Administration broke up in
April following. When Sir Robert was again called
upon in September, 1841, to take office, that astute
statesman selected Mr. Goulburn for his Chancellor of
the Exchequer. Since he retired with the late Sir R.
Peel, in the summer of 1846, the right hon. gentleman
has taken no very active part in politics, but has always
supported those measures he deemed necessary to fully
carry out the views of his distinguished friend on the
policy of free trade. The late Sir Robert Peel appointed
him one of his executors (Viscount Hardinge being
the other). The deceased gentleman, in 1839, was
"proposed for the office of Speaker of the House of
Commons, supported by the Conservative party, but Mr.
Shaw Lefevre, the present Speaker, gained the election,
there being for Mr. Goulburn 299 votes, and for Mr.
Lefevre 317. The deceased enjoyed the annual pension
of 2,0001. By his unexpected death a vacancy is caused
in the House of Commons for Cambridge University.

LATEST NE WS.