The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-25 00:00:00

LONDON AND CROYDON RAILWAY.
On the motion of Mr. KEMBLE, the London and
Croydon Railway Bill was read a second time, and
ordered to be committed.
CORN-LAWS.
Mr. B. DENNISON presented petitions from
parishes in Yorkshire against any alteration in the
corn-laws.
MIDDLE LEVEL DRAINAGE BILL.
Mr. PUSEY then moved the taking into conside-
ration of the special report from the Committee on
the Middle Level Drainage Bill respecting the votes
of an Hon. Member (Mr. Yorke), he being interested
in the property that would be improved.
Mr. YORKE thought the subject ought to be set-
tled, and he should move that the votes he had given
were good votes.
Mr. GREENE considered it was important that
the House should make an express declaration on the
subject. He would move certain resolutions on the
subject.

Mr. HAWES thought the best course would be to
adjourn the debate.
Mr. CHRISTOPHER trusted the House would
not act so unjustly as to come to any decision at pre-
sent on the subject.
Mr. ESTCOURT recommended his Hon. Friend
(Mr. Yorke) not to press his motion to a division.
He thought the best course to pursue would be to
adjourn the debate to a future day, and he would
move that the debate be adjourned.
Mr. HAYTER supported the motion for adjourn-
ment.
Mr. YORKE said he had no objection to withdraw
his motion; but if he did so he should continue to vote
in the Committee.
Mr. WARBURTON thought it advisable to post-
pone the consideration of the subject.
After a few words from Mr. DENISON and Mr.
PUSEY,
Mr. HAWES said he thought the general question
should be considered by the House on a future day.
The subject was one of importance and the House
ought to have ample time to discuss it.
Mr. DENISON said, the case at present was this,
the law of Parliament declared that any gentleman
having a direct private interest in a question, could
not give a vote upon it in that House. But the ques-
tion here was, could a Member similarly situated,
give a vote in a Committee ? It was important that
the question should be decided as soon as possible,
and in the meantime, he presumed the ordinary law
of Parliament must prevail.
The further discussion of the subject was then de-
ferred till Thursday next.
Mr. BAGGE said, that the Committee must be
suspended during the same time, while the question
was pending.
The SPEAKER, as we understood said, that the
sittings of the Committee would be suspended by the
decision of the House till the question was settled.
Sir GEORGE STAUNTON presented a petition
against the union of the sees of St. Asaph and Ban-
gor.

Sir JOHN HANMER presented a petition from
Hull, against the New Poor-law Bill.
General LYGON presented a petition against the
Bank Charter Bill.
Viscount DUNCAN presented a petition from
Bath, in favour of art-unions.
Mr. MASTERMAN presented petitions from
London against the corn-laws.
Mr. S. WORTLEY presented petitions from
Yorkshire to the same effect.
Mr. COBDEN presented a petition in favour of the
Dissenters' Chapels Bill.
Mr. KEMBLE presented thirteen petitions from
the eastern division of Surrey against the corn-laws.
OPENING OF LETTERS IN THE POST-
OFFICE.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from
Capt. Charles Stolzman, residing in Somers-town,
formerly a captain in the Polish service, and now
an exile in Great Britain. The petitioner stated that
he was devotedly attached to his native land, and
would remain so until the day of his death, but he
begged to assure the House that he had not interfered
in the politics of this country. He stated that he had
discovered, to his astonishment, that letters addressed
to him had been detained in the Post-office, and that
this system of espionage was carried on to such an
extent that he could no longer with safety or confi-
dence avail himself of the privileges of her Ma-
jesty's Post-office, being unwilling that the inter-
course with his family should be subjected
to inspection.—(Hear, hear.) The petitioner stated
that he was ready to prove that there never did exist
and never had existed the slightest pretence for this
gross violation of private correspondence; and he
therefore prayed the House to institute a rigid inquiry
into the circumstances that led to this breach of na-
tional hospitality; and to give petitioners such redress as,
to the wisdom of Parliament, might seem meet
for the personal wrong he had received.—(Hear,
hear.) He (Mr. Duncombe) was satisfied that for
this breach of confidence between man and man, of
which the petitioner complained, the House would
not refuse immediate redress. When, on a former
occasion, he called the attention of the House to the
subject, it appeared to the House that the grievance
of which the petitioner complained was supposed
to be removed by the withdrawal of the warrant of
the Secretary of State for the Home Department..
The Right Hon. Gentleman had not informed them
against which of the four petitioners he had issued the
warrant, but he (Mr. Duncombe) stated he believed he
could supply the omission, and that it was the corres-
pondence of Mr. Mazzini which was opened ; he
stated that he was a respectable gentleman residing
in this country, and that he was an Italian refugee ;
and he then asked the Right Hon. Gentleman whether
he was aware that the correspondence of Mr.
Mazzini had been opened at the Post-office. The
Right Honourable Gentleman stated that a war-
rant was issued against one of the parties, but who
the person was he (Mr. Duncombe) must find out.
Here was the petition of only one individual, Captain
Stolzman, an officer of artillery in the Polish service,
and he complained that his letters had been opened
for no reason whatever, he never having meddled
with the politics of the country. What would be the
answer of the Right Honourable Gentleman to
the complaint of Captain Stolzman—whether he
would still continue to shield himself under of-
ficial silence he (Mr. Duncombe) did not know,
but he trusted that the House was prepared to assert
the power which it possessed, and to see if this great
and enormous power which had been vested in the
Secretary of State had been abused or not. The
Right Hon. Gentleman had been asked by the Hon.
and Learned Member for Kinsale what construction
the Government placed on the law; whether they
considered it necessary to issue only a general
warrant for opening all letters belonging to one in-
dividual, or whether they considered it necessary to issue
a separate warrant for the opening of each letter. The
Right Hon. Baronet firmly but respectfully declined to
give any answer. Now if the Government and the
Secretary of State were suffered to shelter themselves
behind this official secresy, what became of the respon-
sibility of which they heard so much, whenever any
measure was before Parliament for giving new power
to the Secretary of State ? Last year, when in the
debate on the Chelsea Pensioners' Bill, he had ob-
jected to giving the Secretary of State certain enor-
mous powers, he had been told that the Secretary of
State was responsible, and that he was always in
his place to answer any questions that might
he put to him. He now called upon the
Right Hon. Baronet to explain the manner in
which he had exercised these great and important
powers.—(Cheers.) That power had been vested in
the Secretary of State, he admitted, but it was only
to be exercised in cases in which internal sedition, or
domestic treason, was apprehended.—(Cheers.) There
was no pretence of this sort for violating the corre-
spondence of Captain Stolzman, or of Mr. Mazzini.
On a former occasion he had stated that he did not
think one individual in twenty was aware that the
Government possessed this power, he believed
that if he had stated that no person in the whole
twenty were aware of its existence, he would have
been right. He found, from what had passed
in another place, that one of the greatest judicial
authorities in the realm was not aware of the exist-
ence of this power. But it had been stated by that
high authority that the construction put upon the Act
of Parliament by the Hon. Member for Kinsale was
the correct one, and that it did require, according to
the strict letter of the law, that a separate and distinct
warrant should be issued to authorise the opening
of each letter. The question, therefore, pre-
sented itself to the House and the public
under two distinct points of view. First, had they
adhered to the strict letter of the law in ordering the
letters of Captain Stolzman, Mr. Mazzini, and other
individuals to be opened ; and if they had not trans-
gressed the letter of the law, had they not abused the
power vested in them in opening these letters at all ?
The Government had done both ; they had trans-
gressed the law and had abused the power which
rested in them in opening those letters.—(Hear,
hear.) It would not satisfy the public, for the
Right Hon. Baronet to stand up in his place again
and say, " Respectfully, but firmly, I decline to
answer the question."—(Great cheering.) As to Mr.
Mazzini, what did that gentleman say in his letter to
him (Mr. Duncombe) ? Now, it must be observed,
that Captain Stolzman was a friend of Mr. Mazzini,
and the opening of the letters of these two gentlemen
was part of the same system.—(Cheers.) He
(Mr. Duncombe) might admit that the Go-
vernment should have the power of opening the
letters of suspected persons in cases of internal sedi-
tion, or the letters of persons who had absconded from
justice. But when the people looked to these cases
they would think that the advantages and benefits of
that power were not counterbalanced by the abuses
of it—(Much cheering)—and would say with him
that it ought to be abolished.—(Hear, hear.) In the
case of Mr. Mazzini, there was no ground of inter-
ference raised. He had nothing to do with Foreign

Powers, or their squabbles with their subjects, as
long as those subjects conducted themselves peace-
ably and properly in this country. (The Honourable
Gentleman then proceeded to read the letter of
Mr. Mazzini, which was to the effect that the war-
rants had been in operation against him at least since
the beginning of. March, and that from sixty to
seventy letters addressed to him, from twenty-five or
thirty different persons, had been opened.)--(Loud
cries of " Hear, hear.") The writer said that every
care had been taken to avoid suspicion, and im-
pressions had been taken from the seals, and from these
the opened letters were resealed, and the cut was
made so clean that it required almost a microscope to
discover it.--(Cheers and a laugh.) There were
also double impressions made with the Post-office
stamps, so that the date when the letters were re-
ceived at the Post-office might not appear.—(oh,
oh ! and laughter, with loud cries of " Hear, hear.")—
The writer proceeded to say that the examination of
his correspondence for so long a time must have con-
vinced the Government that it referred to nothing
with respect to England or English policy. Mr.
Mazzini referred to paragraphs which appeared in
the Milan Gazette and Suabian Mercury, to the
effect that the Austrian Government had received as-
surance from the Government of her Majesty that
agitation in the States of Austria would receive no
countenance or assistance from this country, and
that especially the proceedings of young Italy would
be checked, at least in England.—(Hear, hear.) Her
Majesty's Government would do all it could to re-
press agitation from the exterior, and give the Austrian
Government an assurance that Mr. Mazzini would be
prevented from assisting in the agitation. These
paragraphs further stated that Mr. Mazzini had fled
to Portsmouth, Mr. Mazzini in this letter stated that
it was utterly untrue that he had fled to Portsmouth,
and he denied that he had ever had any connection
with any English political party, or with Eng-
lish politics in any manner. If that was true,
and he believed every word of it, he wanted to
know what pretence or right they had to open
the letters of Mr. Mazzini and Captain Stolz-
man? Not only had the Government done this with
these gentlemen's letters, but he would undertake to
prove that other persons' letters had been mostunscru-
pulously opened, not only in London, but
in different parts of the country, within the last two
years, and that must of course have been done under
the orders of the present Government.—(Hear, hear.)
Did the Government think that the public would be
satisfied under such circumstances with the flimsy
pretexts the Government had adopted? Did they,
when the Duke of Bordeaux was over here
the other day, open his letters ?—(Hear, hear.)
No doubt Louis Phillipe would have been glad to see
them.—(Hear, hear.) Perhaps they did.—(Laughter.)
What right had they to open Mr. Mazzini's for the
sake of Austria, or any other individual's to please the
Pope or any other power ?—(Hear, hear.) No doubt,
it was agreeable to the Pope to curry favour with
this country, and perhaps they might do the
same for him. He trusted the Government
would view this not as a party question.
He had, in the course of another debate, heard it laid
down that what was morally wrong could not be po-
litically right. He recollected that the Right Hon.
Baronet opposite disputed that proposition.—(Laugh-
ter.) He threw doubts upon that sentiment, for he
asked who was to be the judge of what was morally
wrong; but here there could be no question of the
wrong. He would defy any man to have a
doubt about it. What had been done ?
Both fraud and forgery had been committed ;
and unless fraud and forgery were morally right, he
would claim the support of Hon. Gentlemen opposite
on this occasion. What had they done ? They took
men's letters, read and examined them, kept copies of
them, then re-sealed and re-enclosed the originals in
such a manner, that the unfortunate individual was
not aware that the Government was in possession of
his family secrets. He believed that much
odium might have been removed if individuals
had been apprised of what had been done.
If the letters had been stamped on the outside
" Opened by Authority." He would ask the Hon.
Baronet if he dare use information thus obtained in
a court of justice in a trial for any political offence,
as sedition—(An Hon. Member : "Or conspiracy.")
Mr. Duncombe continued: Or conspiracy.—(Laugh-
ter.) If he did attempt to do so, he believed judge
and jury, and every individual in the court,
would unite in taking the Right Honourable Ba-
ronet by the head and shoulders, and turning him out
of that court altogether. The question was, had
net the Government exceeded and transgressed the
letter of the law, and abused the power which the
law invested in it ? He contended that they had done
both these things ; he contended that they had abused
that power—the almost sacred power vested in it by
Parliament, of opening letters of individuals. If
they had not done so, they need not shrink from in-
quiry before a Committee. In 1735 a Com-
mittee was appointed to inquire into some abuses
which had occurred in franking letters, and
certain abuses of the Post-office department. The
appointment led to the same sort of discussion which
was now taking place. Several Members complained
of their letters having been opened, the intention
being to discover whether any treasonable corres-
pondence was being carried on against the Govern-
ment ; and it appeared that the practice of open-
ing letters was so well known, that no
man would ever .attempt to carry on such a
correspondence in that manner. Sir Robert Wal-
pole at first opposed the appointment of the Commit-
tee, but afterwards granted it, on condition that they
should not inquire into anything that would tend to
discover the secrets of the Government. Now he
(Mr. Duncombe) did not want to know the secrets
of the Government—he doubted if they were worth
knowing—but what he wished to inquire into was,
whether the Government had abused the powers in-
trusted to it. He should therefore move that the
petition of Captain Charles Stolzman be referred to a
Select Committee, in order to inquire what warrants
had been issued by the Home-office for the opening
of letters, and how these warrants had been obeyed.
The Committee to make a report to the House, and
also to state its opinion as to the expediency of alter-
ing the law relating to this sukect.
Dr. BOIVRING rose to second the motion of his
Hon. Friend. A grave responsibility weighed upon
the Right Hon. Baronet if he did not desire to be
considered as an Italian sbirro, and if the Govern-
ment did not wish to submit to the imputation of
being a Cabinet noir. Public opinion would not be
satisfied by hearing that the warrant no longer
existed. The Right Hon. Baronet, perhaps, did not
know what misery he had caused, nor estimate how
much the reputation of this country and this
country's Government, would suffer by its becoming
the willing tool of those Governments who were every
where resisting the tide of human improvement.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM assured the House that
he by no means wished to under-rate the importance
of the subject now brought under consideration.
Though on a former occasion he had returned his
thanks to the Hon. Member for Finsbury for the
fairness of the course he then pursued, yet he was
bound to say that he could not do so in the present
case ; he had received from that Hon. Gent. another
petition on the subject of opening letters; he gave
him no notice with respect to the nature of the de-
bate that was to be raised, of the form of the coin-
plaint, of the words of the petition, and until the
Hon. Member rose to address the House, he had no
knowledge of the petition, still less was he pre-
pared for a motion for a Committee. The
Hon. Gentleman's motion assumed the fact that in
this case a warrant had been issued. Now lie begged
the House not to draw any inference from the course
he intended to pursue on this occasion. No public
servant had a greater respect for public opinion than
he had; but though it was his sincere and ardent
wish to stand well in the opinion of his fellow-
countrymen, yet holding a high and responsi-
ble office by the favour of his Sovereign,
and being continued in the discharge of his
duties by the confidence of that House, not for
the sake of his private character, not for the sake of
indulging his private feelings, should he be justified in
making any sacrifice of what he considered neces-
sary for the discharge of his public duty, and
the preservation of the public security.
Reflecting upon this he had come to the conclusion
that, as the law had vested in the Secretary of State
the power of issuing warrants of this description;
it was not for the public good, it was not con-
sistent with the public interest that he should answer
in his place in the House of Commons interrogatories
such as the Hon. Gentleman had thought fit to put to
him.—(Hear, hear.) He had in a manner of which
lie hoped the House could not complain firmly re-
fused to answer in what cases those warrants
had been issued. He might have given the Ho-
nourable Gentleman an evasive answer, but
he spurned to take such a course. He thought it
consistent with his duty to state that in one case a
warrant had been issued, but he refused to go further,
and he advised the House and the country not to
draw any inferences from this case. With regard to
the present case the assumption was that a warrant
had been issued, but he would not say aye or no
whether it had been issued. This authority was
vested in the Secretary of State by Act of Parlia-
ment.—(lronical cheers.) The assumption on the
part of the Hon. Gentleman who brought forward
this motion was, that he had transgressed the
law, and had violated under the letter the spirit
of the Act of Parliament.—(Hear, hear.)
The lion. Gentleman said he could prove it.—(Hear,
hear.) Now, if the Hon. Gentleman could prove
that letters had been opened or detained at the Gene-
ral Post-office, the Act of Parliament was express
that any party so opening or detaining letters was
guilty of a misdemeanour, and was liable to be in-
dicted. If he (Sir J. Graham) had so violated the
law he was guilty of a misdemeanour, and he could
be prosecuted.—(lronical cheers.) The legal tribu-
nals of the country would do justice between the

humblest individual and the highcst civil authorill;
He was amenable to the civil tribunals of
or
country, and could be punished either by fine Labe
imprisonment, if he had transgressed the be
But he demurred to any explanations then;
demurred to a Committee of the House t° in.
quire into it. Legal proceedings mightdebetl:s
stituted against the individual who
those letters, and, if he violated the law, he trs,
responsible to the injured laws of his coalls?
The question was, had the law been violated or _
He could state that the power as exercised by rat
had existed from the time of the Revolutione_rti
when exercised by him it had been exercised lade,
accustomed form, and that he had in no degree 'e;
parted from the highest constitutional
among his predecessors. He distinctly denied °dot
had exceeded the authority reposed in him, °rf the
he had departed in anything from the provisions 0d ot
Act of Parliament. He had obeyed the law, ant de•
not only had he obeyed the law, but he had a° jet
parted from the usages of his predecessors in silo.
cases. He was certain that this Would not " the
garded as a party question. He relied this
practice of his office—his conscience was pure,l9„ns
matter—he had discharged his duty, whin" -aor
solemn and an important one—he demurred ti 4
inquiry on the part of that House, and 11°11°5
resist the motion for a Committee on the subjecti
ion
Mr. MACAULAY could assure the Right, this
autkort
be
Baronet that he had no wish to introduce itlaras,
discussion any matter of a personal or party chat all
ter. But the Right Hon. Baronet did not seenl,orat
sensible of the peculiar position in which he ',ses
If they said that this power was a necessary Pi"eself
still they must admit that it bordered so %rent
upon the odious, was a power so singularly ab" $
to the genius of the English character, thati t to
power which, if necessary, the House was b°lSei
watch with the most scrupulous jealousy. 1910
ought to know precisely the nature of the wa ose
by which these letters were opened, and if, in asr by
like this, all a Minister said :—" I have Pcia.`"
law; I am responsible; I will not give fuvos!
further account of this matter, he must say " bad
case likely to excite the suspicion that that POe.tbstit
been abused. lie could not help saying,
wishing to cast the smallest imputation on the ov°
of the Right lion. Gentleman, that this was nl,-.ter
of those cases in which it was sufficient for a
to say, " You know my character; lam resre-tists
and I ask you to have confidence in my discre
ej to
One most important matter which it was prorsristf
submit to the Committee was to consider the Pi,l.°P that
of altering the present state of the law. rOrsible.
state of the law both parties were equally rearn- r
sie
He did not attribute to any person on either the
theHoubsye awnlyiehdistphoesy wr,iitioeret te
oihuvessd
edishoneslises
powers
by tba 01101
but he must say that some attention had been thee
to those powers, that without great modificati,,es
"nes)
could not be suffered longer to exist.--(L'i› to
He began by stating this, that he defied allY st-b 4
say why a letter in the post-office or the P° Si bis
should be dealt with differently from a letter it not
desk. Why was it put into the post-bag?----1°.5 gao4
for the purpose of transit, for which the pubthis
the Government a certain revenue
ofbut I,esret
was to be turned into a system of the
police, the sooner it was no longer the la`'Y
land the better.—(llear, hear.) Were there more
reasons for examining a letter in the Post-ofti,ee.citol?
than there was in the desk of a private fir. hie plot
Let them take the case of the most treasonau;`,., or
that could be thought of—the letter concoetitlir;asit
written with respect to that plot, might We, IP
to the party concerned as easily in his (3ft Let
caulay's) pocket as by means of the post-offine'be
letters, if they were to be examined in transite., a
amined as if they were found in his possessiT(Tiot 11°
court of law. Look to the case of Mr. I%clote for
brought an action against the Secretary of irt,pro'
the Home Department for taking his letters,,raat
perly, and the jury gave him damages to the :0 re •
of 1,0001. That was what he called tninistet'erosse,
sponsibility.—(Cheers.) If the case was °t,." ,•
hundreds of letters might be opened upon tl'eedsess'
trivial grounds, and the parties have n° rinatio°
If it were possible to show him that the esal% than
of a letter before it arrived was less inillr'°"rrivus
the examination of it in the desk after it had a bear)
then he would give up the argument.—(Rent's ela-•6
The whole of their arguments belonged to ogo.
which had been repudiated by this country I°nrg thei
—(Cheers.) The question was not whetaier sole
should take advantage of the spy system, linued been-
form or other, for that was a question which halve
answered by our ancestors long arso.—.(rin aol's
cheers.) What earthly difference could theY.„,stel
between the employment of a spy upon words
e'roe'
and words written? What difference was ther letter
ther they kept an agent to break the seal of aie of
in the Post-office, or to listen at the keYl,l°,,assialr
u
door, or to note down the conversation of a " nsie6
room ?—(Great cheers.) They would have tile, upoa
plea for the employment of police or the 501,104
speech, as for the spy upon letters. lie w°llo,es
deny that the spy system might prevent 0106
detect them when committed—so might—s° he
torture—(lronical cheers from the Tory bell% frol
but our Constitution forbade them both— (Chelshat •
the Opposition replied to by ironical cheers.) pre'
the Right Hon. Gentleman denies that torte te the
vents crime? But could any man who lookedtstaf.e
history of nations and times, where and when sie t
was a practice, doubt that, great as were itsi :%oiettal
sometimes prevented crimes, and sometimes d s
them ? Why in the history of our own countrYo,tit
the
the rack was shown to Guy Fawkes, he let, tlas
whole story of the Gunpowder Plot. But, broil
chance of good counterbalanced the evil °I al:,
up the constitution, trampling on its princltr jao_t
destroying the manly spirit upon which
alio,
than upon any discoveries the pollee can 111 goes.
depend the freedom and happiness of nedings°
(Great cheers.) • He looked to these proce ,r olvn
to 0- _sr
the Government with great uneasiness as e '
country, but still more so as regarded thos tor'
ngs'
tunate foreigners who took refuge anw.l svas
(Hear, hear.) The greatness of the evil
creased by the mystery with which it was CO thto
—(Cheers.) The Right Hon. Baronet , 'art pers°„j
since he came into office the letters of tsve'rt
had been opened. But the question did 11° cons v;
see tea.' lent,
which the number of the cases, but upon i'ep;,•sit,
which they were justified, of which the
Baronet refused to give any explanation•--4
hear.) He (Mr. Macaulay) gave the Big: Dad
,Y 0
Baronet credit for an honourable character °old he'i,
night, yet still he must say that if be nseals las
denied that stamps were counterfeited, and icier t
tated, and letters re-sealed to evade the susrdnne s°;ta
they had heen opened, he would haveti„fied
(Cheers.) But the House could not be sationsura A
an explanation such as the Right 1,0 staticelo
Baronet had given.—(Loud cheers.) until
hypothetical case. Two years ago the en used is
in s
in a state of great excitement—violence Wto ssorl"3s,
great numbers to compel persons willing. cros:fits
n
abandon their labour, and join the wandered cas
Much danger to the country was threatelle Oevetitis
violence. At that time all the organs of .t" that ae.
meat party were in the habit of asserting Leage
violence was the work of the Anti-Corn.lnrwoold
He was not the nominee of the League, n°_.
hold a seat in Parliament as their n°lnincee; it nl;'
wished to have some assurance as to whet
been
found
not, under the circumstances, have been the letters
led cessary by the Secretary of State to oPe
these to
of twenty or thirty English gentlemen,,,,ir,, ar•
ens
relating for the most part to private %ll'icorse!oPlier
important trade concerns, in which t° shiicati ntlar
dents alone were interested, or by the pt. be gre,tia
which their commercial interests lnigner ss•as
affected. But the case of the foreign,he Vng oe'
worse.—(Hear.) Whatever the letter otribio, quags
man might contain, you could not harm out 3)014
prison him, or punish him in any war here, set,
and jury; but a poor Italian coming 6,00510t0,
incurred some suspicion of his own inseto dote
but confidingin the security of English ssee_ce.
he corresponded with his friend in grealt,o6dee,..,
than he would venture upon but for that rcn'inellt.e
—(Hear, hear.) The Austrian G°vei Italian 'sere
ta
forms the Foreign Secretary that the d, and le 1,4
dangerous person—his letters are ollt.'ne whilst post'
contents are communicated to Austria,..n.lish. 'ewe
unsuspicious that the sacredness of the
„-rio ns
office has been violated—he goes bael'..nti he 's 19
country, then out pops the informationad:e, oral
500,
once, without the intervention of a, jo;vho intoPreo,ao
without the protection of pr
ury, "'will ever 0,411
• from which there is little pspect he 4, aith „as
part, 1, ie.
out.—(lmmense cheering.) For his_ ea,
tax I
trim
he (Mr. Macaulay) never eneourag,,eod___ign sollatioae
respect upon the governments of re v
obbustetrhvoe udgthotwsaormd es tthhi
ening obfy thediplomatic
n is
Ministers
een s
yet, he must say, that if they (tilGe o ernnl ro
nisterss the
should
uappointed
ojudgesofbe t hose
their s
jeies (fellbtintelb:re:ie;:;
cheering.) He thought it would be
enabled
the for Foreign Affairs were enabl
er to co
.1!)
aw nidt
with
he
tewh •
exs v
wishesoo uf lt
dh i
willingly
i col of n,got
rryey
to be the law. However, as the
queisttee of inquire's
efoohlrNi,mearsßnoiililpl
totossiauovincebeisanietioutistoeber
vote al
t
would vote for the motion for a Conlin. ansidsuri4
—(The Right Hon. Gentleman sat, do I
subsided there was a pause of several s
the I'll°
hement and repeated cheers.
festly in expectation that some one on
rial benches would rise) bilst
Captain BERNAL then said that, w , leave ,be
House with the ghost of an answer, he °Z 00'40
men on the other side were satisfied rn..id not
silent without expressing his surprise at. us,onstrc.;/,
doctrines which they had laid clown.—(C his eeAsep
heneetohneoisc,herae.osteis
tto
of Ministers, and his dissent from tneeiers.)
had thought it was the proudest boast of t
0, „0.11
that we were free from petty annoyance! 2icroiri
from the opening of letters, and from cWw